Those are my favorites too and I liked the 64's (that generation) too. If I could have easily bougth one locally that wasn't a rust bucket, that is what I would have. My absolute favorite Ford trucks are the 73-79 generation, regardless of engine choice. I have never driven an FE powered wehicle, so I can't say weather I want one more than a 400.

 

IMO Ford should go with a DOHC on both 1/2 ton truck motors, mate the 5.4, 4 valve to a six speed with at least 4:10's and I'd say they would have a real winner.
It boggles my mind why Ford would even go with a 3 valve design when the 4 valve has been tried, tested, and true even before the 3 valves came out.

 

It's all about money, Ford did not want to price their biggest V8 out of the work truck market. At least that is all I can think of for a reason. Toyota doesn't care about making low ball work trucks, since there is virtually no money in them on a per unit basis. With a manufacturing capacity of only 200,000 trucks per year, why take away production capacity from your loaded up high profit density models?

Now, I don't neccessarily think that only a DOHC engine will get the job done; witness the durability, high power output, good fuel economy, and flexibility of the current GM small block family (LSx). I wouldn't really care what the operation of the cams and valves were, so long as the engine is relatively compact, is durable, makes good power at any engine speed, and is cost effective to produce. Ford really needs a better engine(s) than the current line up of gassers in my opinion. While the 5.4L makes good low end torque, to me it felt like it ran out of breath at higher engine speeds, and didn't feel all that great at mid to high engine speeds either. The need for a 6 speed tranny is obvious and long over due, GM will have theirs available in a year but I don't know about Ford. More gears are better, no arguments, no contest.

One last thing I would note, that I know will not happen because Ford management seems to be in a state of complete denial these days is that Ford and the other domestic auto makers need to stop concentrating on cars and trucks for the lowest common denominator. Making boring, plain vanilla cars and trucks is a sure path to disaster these days. The Japanese, and now the Koreans have perfected the manufacture of cheap, reliable automobiles, that are more like appliances than cars. US makers can no longer compete in this market, and should have realized that a long time ago and focused their efforts on making well built, desireable, interesting cars. Vehicles more along the lines of the Chrysler 300C. Love it or hate it, this car is distinctive; it doesn't look like a damn jelly bean, nor is it a FWD car in a party dress, it is powered by a proper V8 driving the rear wheels or optionally all the wheels. The car has appeal for the fact that it offers something different, while still accomplishing the goal of being a good daily driver and family car.

GM seems to have gotten the message on this with their cars, soon we'll see RWD V8 sedans from GM that should be fast, handle well, and be pretty efficient to boot. Their new GMT900 trucks are very good according to reviewers, and the few guys I know that have them really like them; technology wise they have really come up in content, all they lack is a 6 speed auto and that's coming.

So some advice to the Ford execs that must surely browse this site to see what the faithful are saying; get you heads out of each other's butts. Build cars and trucks that are superior in all possible ways to their competitors, do not settle for as good as, or almost as good as but cheaper. Consumers gladly pay more money for something they can tell no corners were cut on, and they can tell the people who conceived the product had a passion for what they were making. I haven't seen that out of Dearborn in a long time unfortunately, with the exception of the new Mustang and maybe the new Super Duty.

 

Here is an interesting article comparing all the current 1/2 ton pickups on the market in terms of actual towing performance.

http://www.trailerboats.com/output.cfm?id=1210051

Looks like the Tundra can in fact tow without falling apart.

 

Yes - although it didn't win the towing acceleration test apparently

 

I noticed this too, but the reviewers neglected to provide any test data, which was kind of annoying. It would have been nice to see what actual acceleration times were on all the trucks.

 

First off, great post Hobo.

If it is a cost issue and for overpricing the work truck with a 4V v8, why not have the different variations as options. If you are willing to spend the extra money and want the 4V, or just keep the 3V standard. But alas, I'm not running the show and heaven forbid a huge, world wide company listen to the small guys.

Once again great reading Hobo!

 

I saw new Tundra today at Milwaukee Auto Show and I really don't see what's so special about it. I also saw new GMC Sierra and I liked it a lot better than Tundra.

 

The new Sierra is a nice truck, GM just needs to hurry up and get their new 6 speed behind the 6.0L Vortec to have a real winner on their hands. The Denali gets the 6.2L 400+ hp motor when it comes out, that should be nice.

There is no link for it since it isn't posted online, but Car and Driver compared the Dodge, Nissan, Toyota, GM, and Ford 1/2 tons in a head to head test. The GM won outright, followed by the Nissan, the Toyota, the Dodge, and the Ford came in dead last.

Biggest complaint with the Ford: poor engine performance, and indifferent handling.

One funny test number in the article was the new GMT900 stopping a good 12 feet or so shorter than the new Tundra, even after Toyota has made such a big deal about the brakes on their new truck.

 

Is that the newest issue of Car and Driver?

 

Yes, April issue.

Go to the Tundra forums, those clowns are frothing at the mouth they're so mad about it.

 

I don't subscribe to Car and Driver and new issue is coming out next Friday.

How the hell was Nissan able to get #2. I would rather pick Ridgeline than Titan.

 

They liked the Titan for it's willing motor. Nissan has always been pretty good about tuning their motors for good responsive throttle tip in. They also generally liked the interior, and the well controled ride and handling.

 

First off, Car and Drivel's auto writers aren't truck orientated. Brock Yates was the only decent writer they had, and he was canned last year after 30 years on staff without so much as a good bye.

GM spends more money on advertising than any other car maker in the world. No matter where you go on the net, there are "in your face" Silverado ads everywhere. How Ford did so poorly is beyond me. IMO, it's still a better truck than anything tested. The only fault is....it's basically a 2004 model.

No car magazine is going to give Chevrolet anything less than second place, and it's already been named truck of the year by Motor Spend. It's all about advertizing dollars..period.


And a Ridgeline is hardly a truck in the true sense of the word. It's a grocery hauler for the ladies, at least here in LA La Land.

More competition for Ford coming soon, as the new 2008 Titan will be out in May.

 

I guess Ridgeline's is a truck for people who are looking at trucks more than just numbers. I saw one of them today at Milwaukee Auto Show and I think they're pretty nice trucks. A lot of interior space and bed for potential use. I could use something like that, I hardly ever use bed on my F-150, and I still didn't tow anything in 18 months of ownership. Only thing I don't like is the price, I think $28,000 base price is way too much.