I live in the south and travel around Texas and Louisiana a lot so rust shouldn’t be an issue. I see what seems like about 5 times more 90s fords still on the road than chevys and dodges combined.

what killed the competition? I know the 700r4/4l60e has a bad rap but ford transmissions aren’t bulletproof. I’ve also heard OBS chevys and dodges had electrical issues.

All my trucks have been fords since that’s what I found cheap. No experience with the others.

Similar trends in other parts of the country?

 

fords were built better. plain and simple.

 

Assuming we're discussing pickups:

I suspect most of the Dodge pickups from the 1990s died of bad transmissions. They also started with small numbers. 1990-1993 were the old body style that hadn't been significantly updated since 1972. 1993 was the first year of the "power bulge". In 1992, the transmissions started having to put up with more power and torque from the new multiport versions of their engine lineup, and the transmissions weren't holding up well already. I've seen vans with the same drivelines in the salvage yards with 500,000+ on their odometers. Usually those were airport vans or phone company vans, where they could afford to rebuild the transmission then keep making money on them. One had over 800,000 showing. Joe Average with a bad transmission in a 10-15 year old pickup couldn't afford an overhaul so easily, especially during the 2007+ recession and especially with prices of everything going up thanks to Cash for Clunkers. I also suspect that the lack of a true crewcab played into their numbers. The 1990s was a period of time where demand for wagons and sedans was turning into demand for 4-door pickups and SUVs. In my opinion, Dodge missed a great opportunity by not having a real crewcab during that time.

I suspect most of the GM pickups from the 1990s died of intake manifold and transmission issues. The big blocks and the 4.3 V-6 held up fairly well, but the small blocks were plagued with intake manifold gasket failures that would put coolant in the crankcase. Many were repaired on warranty or not, but there's no escaping the damage done by coolant in the crankcase when the fix is to simply replace the intake manifold gaskets, get the chocolate shake out of the system and repair nothing else. The transmissions held up okay, but I suspect were beancountered into holding up less well than they could have. The 4L6x units could have been built better, and were in later years, so a lot of them ate themselves. I know of a fleet of phone company Express 2500 vans that had over 300,000 miles on each that had gone through several transmissions (each) at that point, and the company was happy to overhaul and put them back on the road. Poor things were loaded down with all kinds of stuff and powered by the little bitty 4.3 V-6. The 4L80s held up pretty well in heavy duty use, often to the point of not being worth repairing based on the condition and value of the vehicle they were in when they did start giving up. Again, Cash for Clunkers ate into this by increasing repair costs and making it more economical to trade up to something with an LS.

Ford wasn't without similar issues during this time as well, but did themselves a huge favor by having the Modular engines built so stout in the late 1990s while Chrysler and GM were still using updated versions of decades-old engines. Even better was that Ford heavily tested the 4.6 in sedans and Mustangs through much of the 1990s, allowing Ford to work bugs out of the engines and transmissions before installing in pickups/vans/etc. It probably also helped that these engines were not deep big low-RPM torque monsters like older engines had been. I always thought that was a good move for the heavy duty stuff as it related to transmission durability. That being said, we see a lot less 5.4s hanging around today than 4.6's and 6.8's . . . probably because of timing chain and cam phaser issue I'd guess. Ford has also been really good at sales, better than the other two in my opinion. I didn't care for their practices of praising their overhead cam designs as so much better simply because they were OHC than GM and Chrysler's OHV designs that have kept up just fine. I didn't care for it, but it sure sold cars!

I suspect all three brands are partially victims of how they handled the advances in technology and keeping up with one another in that era.

My $0.02

 

I've been wrenching professionally for over 40 years now and I can tell you one thing is certain, Ford has better designed/quality parts. When components are compared side by side with other brands it's evident. Thicker metal, heavier duty pins, hinges and such.

I've made a good living fixing Fords so don't get me wrong, they all break down eventually, with Fords that time span is a bit more drawn out as the parts simply last longer, some say overbuilt.

 

Interesting thread here.

My folks had a 1997 C1500 GMC with the 4.3. Great engine, towed a lot of stuff with that truck, as much as you could expect from any half ton. What eventually killed it was the rest of the truck just fell apart - door handles, linkages, etc. Transmission might have been the last straw, but at about 350,000 miles. Truck was really falling to pieces.

We have a 1999 and 2000 F150 now and neither has had any of the body/chassis problems that GMC had. I've noticed these poor quality body issues with newer Chevy/GMC trucks as well. By newer I mean early 2000's.

The Ford two valve 5.4 sure seems durable enough, but I would avoid the three valve due to well known cam phaser problems.

 

Have to admit I see a LOT of '88-'98 Chevys, and a lot of people are fixing them up now. See quite a few Fords, but not a lot of nice ones (did see a really nice '96 Bronco the other day). Forgot what the Dodges from those years looked like.....

 

same as now. rust buckets with parts fallen off, or ready to fall off.

 

Just my two cents but I think Ford just built they're trucks, (or at least the obs trucks) to be able to withstand way more wear and tear than anyone will put them under realistically. For the 7.3 Powerstroke, That's why you can modify them to put out over 800 HP. Because they're built to handle it.
after all, they are
BUILT TOUGH

BUT, I will say, if you go out to South West Iowa, all you'll see is 90's and early 2000's Dodge rams. Don't ask me why, but that's what you'll find. There was one guy with 11 parked in his yard. Chevys and Fords and few and far between. A lot of them are really rusted out, but that's just what they drive for some reason. I come from a little town in Wisconsin, and all you see round here is Ford's, but they're always rusted out bc of the salt. I actually came down to Texas for mine so I could get a clean truck, and saw a lot of them on the road so I know what you mean.

​​​​​

 

but how many of those 11 dodges run???
they are probably all cannibalized for parts to keep others on the road.

i will say one for dodge, in the 60's they a real built tough truck. but ford took over the tough truck title in 69 and has held it ever since.
i had a 66 W-300. that was a 1 ton 4X4 dually. original engine was a six cylinder, but when the 6 died around 300,000 miles i swapped a 273 V8 into it.
that truck would go anywhere any day towing anything you wanted. just did not get there fast. top speed was only 54 mph due to the 4.88 gearing

 

Same truck my grandpa had.
Personally I do like the old 12 valve. If I had to buy a Dodge.