déjà vu all over again
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
To those that read my "trip to hell" back in November where I spend 5
days in a hotel room in Georgia while they fixed my super duty Ford 350
.....

I just got back from my final trip to Florida - picked up the Scout
(another story) and started the trip back to MA. Got to Norfork and
visited Eisboch Jr. and his very pregnant wife, then headed north
towing the Scout. Got as far as Fredricksburg, VA and the new, heavy
duty diesel Ford 350 died again.

After all kinds of debates and decisions, I ended up hiring the tow
company to transport the dead Ford, with a 20' Scout in tow, all the
way from VA to MA.

We dropped off the boat in my driveway, then continued to Plymouth, MA
and dropped off the dead Ford in the dealer's lot. Gonna be a bit of
excitement down there on Monday when they open.

Eisboch (back from the last trip to hell)




FORD - Found On Road Dead

FORD = First On Race Day


It's silly to point to situations where cars are maintained by expert
mechanics and constantly tweaked.

Lyle's '68 Stang never lost in the local 1/4 mile on Route 1.

déjà vu all over again
 

Skipper wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reports is a joke. They just do cursory evaluations of the
vehicles.


They're even worse with their boat reports. Many of the reports stoop to
the misleading superficial levels of a Chucky boat review.

--
Skipper

Dave,

I can't remember a boar report in CR. When did you see the last one?

Dan

déjà vu all over again
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Oh, I like Ford trucks. I had a SplashTruck and an F150, and both gave
me top-notch service with no problems. But even at the top end, the fit
and finish is not top end, and for some reason, Ford uses the worst
paint available on the market in terms of durability and thinness of coat.

I just don't have a need now for a full-sized pickup.


What do you use to dunk the Parker?

Dan

déjà vu all over again
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:

Skipper wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reports is a joke. They just do cursory evaluations of the
vehicles.


They're even worse with their boat reports. Many of the reports stoop to
the misleading superficial levels of a Chucky boat review.

--
Skipper


Dave,

I can't remember a boar report in CR. When did you see the last one?

Dan



The last time he flicked off the mechanical safety on his S&W
double-action wheelgun.



Boar, boat. Quick typing, sorry!

Dan

déjà vu all over again
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Oh, I like Ford trucks. I had a SplashTruck and an F150, and both
gave me top-notch service with no problems. But even at the top end,
the fit and finish is not top end, and for some reason, Ford uses the
worst paint available on the market in terms of durability and
thinness of coat.

I just don't have a need now for a full-sized pickup.


What do you use to dunk the Parker?

Dan



Usually, a disreputable old pick-me-up truck, but sometimes an SUV.

If I keep the boat, next season I am thinking of putting her on a lift.
Maybe.


Didn't you post a picture of a Tundra a while back? I think it was a
dark green color. Not yours?

Which SUV do you have? I've had two Jeeps, an MDX made in ONTARIO
(another thread),and currently an X5 with the V8. I'm undecided about
the next one...Yukon Denali, another X5, Escalade, etc.

Dan

déjà vu all over again :Subaru
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On 12 Dec 2005 07:09:33 -0800, wrote:

My little V40 contiues to scoot along without a hitch or hiccup. I'm
not sure what we'll replace her Subaru with, but it would be a Volvo
XC70 if we found the right deal on the right car and it's unlikely to
be another Subaru unless they have done something about
front seat comfort in the last few years.

======================================

I've never owned a Volvo but have rented a few and always found the
front seats to be among the most comfortable I've ever seen.
Unfortunately their self perpetuated reputation for reliability
doesn't seem to stand up under scrutiny however.

With a Volvo, you put up with a lot of minor nuisances (many are
electrical in nature), but
with proper maintenance and a little luck it's possible to get huge
longevity from the basic power train.

The Japanese cars, in general, are a little more reliable than a Volvo-
but are less likely to
do 200-300k without an engine overhaul (as Volvos often do), and less
sturdy in a catastrophic accident.

déjà vu all over again
 

What kind of mileage did you get with that engine?

When it was running that is. :)


I've found that my mileage with both my '00 7.3 and my '05 remarkably
consistent. Which is to say a lot less than some of the amazing claims I've
read from others (including you). Which isn't to say that their claims are
in anyway inaccurate or not to be believed, but rather that driving style,
as with most vehicles has very much to do with the final results. In my
case, I've had an incurable affliction with my right foot, that first
manifested itself as a teenager and is with me to this day at 51 years of
age. I prefer to leave stop lights smartly and quickly put distance between
myself and the rest of traffic, assuming I've earned a position at the front
of the grid. On the highway, typical cruising speed is 75-80, and I don't
waste any time getting there. No one ever quotes the drag coefficient of
these trucks, but it must something akin to an old Norge. Which reminds me
that the air conditioning is on nearly year-round in my parts.

Given this, running empty at 7200 pounds a bad tank would yield mid 14's
(rare) and a good one would yield about 17 mpg (also rare). 15-16 is the
norm. Like I said, pretty much the same results with both trucks. I
absolutely believe the quality of the fuel varies from tank to tank and is
responsible for most of the fluctuation in mileage between tanks. With the
7.3 towing a 14k pound boat and trailer 65-70 mph I'd get about 8.5 mpg.
Haven't really towed the boat with the 6.0 yet. Sounds really crummy till
you realize that it's a 50% improvement over the 7.4 liter Suburban I
previously owned running empty or only towing a 10k pound boat and trailer.
No complaints from me.

déjà vu all over again :Subaru
 

On 12 Dec 2005 17:43:05 -0800, wrote:

The Japanese cars, in general, are a little more reliable than a Volvo-
but are less likely to
do 200-300k without an engine overhaul (as Volvos often do), and less
sturdy in a catastrophic accident.

================================================== =

I use something called the "WayneB Tow Truck Index". When ever I see
a car along side the road in the process of being hooked up to a tow
truck, I make a mental note about what kind it is. Volvo has not done
as well as I would have thought, and Mercedes Benz is right up there
also.

déjà vu all over again
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:26:49 -0700, "RG" wrote:


That's about right, but my overall average is 17 around town and when
I came back from Wisconsin hauling the Halman Nordic 20, I got around
16/17 highway where I normally get about 20/23. I'm not hauling 14K
pounds either. (are you sure it's 14,000 pounds - 7 tons?)



Actually 14,040 pounds weighed on a certified scale, including 720 pounds of
tongue weight. Boat and trailer, light on fuel. CGVW 21,240 pounds. I can
email you a picture of the rig if you give me an address. Tri-axle trailer
tracks true and tows like a dream. Gotta leave plenty of room to stop,
though, even with surge brakes on all three axels. I once developed a
hydraulic leak in one of the brake line fittings on the trailer and lost
most of the fluid out of the master cylinder. This on an urban freeway.
The only real white knuckle experience I've ever had while towing. To this
day I carry a full bottle of brake fluid behind the rear seat of the truck.
Never had to use it since then, which is just fine by me.




I agree with you on the fuel, but I normally tank up at a local truck
stop that has plenty of fresh fuel and if I stick with that fueling
station, my mileage seems to increase. I do use additives to help
with the C-tane rating and I can adjust the computer remotely if I
need the extra HP or not which also helps the gas mileage.

No mods of any kind on either of my trucks. Bone stock. Should have
mentioned auto trans as well. The 05 doesn't even have 10k on it, so its
mileage could still improve some, I suppose, but not counting on it. The
only thing I dislike about the 6.0 versus the 7.3 is a bit of turbo lag
right off the line that was never there in the 7.3. Other than that, I
couldn't be happier about the trade. But once the tach is north of 1200,
the 6.0 simply runs away from the 7.3, and in a much more civilized fashion.
My '00 only had 50k on it, and was in pristene condition, so I got treated
exceptionally well as a trade-in. Most five-year old diesel pickups are
usually work trucks that have been beaten up pretty badly and are typically
high mileage. Mine would have been a rare find for someone shopping for a
nice used one. If it wasn't for the section 179 write-off on the new one,
I'd probably still be driving the old one.





In this climate, fuel can contain as much as 25% kerosene in the
winter which can also affect hp and mileage. I do know that my
mileage decreases in the winter significantly - the around town
mileage averages around 13/14 during the coldest periods and the
highway drops to 17/19 depending.

I have just under 100K on the 7.3 liter engine and nary a problem or
burp.

I really can't complain - it's been a good, solid, efficient truck.

Mine was too, for the most part. I replaced a water pump, and that was it
for the engine. I did lose the torque converter though. Actually it was
just the device that controls the lockup of the converter. Damn thing
wouldn't unlock intermittently. The net effect was like having a manual
transmission without the benefit of a clutch. Which is real fun when
pulling up to a stop light. Especially when it did it the very first time.
Truly a WTF moment. Without benefit of a clutch, you either slip it into
neutral early or let it stall by standing on the brake. And the 7.3 isn't
exactly the easiest engine to stall. It really likes to keep running. And
there was no warning when it would not disengage. You wouldn't know until
the moment of truth when coming to a stop. I had to drive it like that for
several weeks until the problem got bad enough to where I could get it to
lock up reliably so I could demonstrate it to the dealer. The stupid
service writer damn near rear ended a Taurus in the service drive even after
I demonstrated the full nature of the problem and the extreme importance of
implementing one of the previously mentioned workarounds. Torque converter
replaced at 30k under warranty, which out of sheer luck was just the time I
would have otherwise had to pay to have the trans fluid replaced as normal
maintenance.

déjà vu all over again
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:24:47 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



What kind of mileage did you get with that engine?

When it was running that is. :)

I've never manually calculated mileage to date, but based on the truck
computer readings, mileage is roughly as follows:

Highway driving, up to 65 mph, unloaded and not towing: 18-19 mpg.
Highway driving 65-75 mph, unloaded and not towing: 17-18 mpg.

General around town driving: 16 mpg

Highway towing 5000 lbs: 15-15.5 mpg.
Highway towing - 12,500 lbs. (Fifth wheel) 10.8-11.3 mpg.

I don't have a heavy foot and rarely "tromp on it".

I've noticed that since winter arrived the mileage has dropped by 1 or 2
mpg. I understand that this is due to the winter blend of diesel fuel used
around here that contains anti-gelling additives and also lowers the amount
of btu's in the fuel.

The technicians that worked on the truck last month in Georgia told me that
the 6.0L can put out another 100 horsepower with a performance chip. I'll
never bother with it since when it runs it has all the power I need.

Eisboch