24 is also BS not untrainable under normal driving conditions. If it wasn’t down hill with a hurricane of a tail wind or at low/sub posted hwy speed on flat ground it didn’t happen.

[/quote]
24 is also BS not untrainable under normal driving conditions. If it wasn’t down hill with a hurricane of a tail wind or at low/sub posted hwy speed on flat ground it didn’t happen.[/quote]


Yep I just made it up. I like to lie to internet strangers in my free time. I would bet that you have never owned one but are an expert on them like you think you are on everything else.

I’m normally a D student so I’m good with that lol

Yep I just made it up. I like to lie to internet strangers in my free time. I would bet that you have never owned one but are an expert on them like you think you are on everything else.[/quote]
Lol look who cares!

Cruise control LOWERS the mileage.

Ecoboosts are known for massive oil leaks. Not sure what else since I'm not a F*** tech.

My dad's 6.2L gas half ton 6-speed GMC gets way better mileage than my 5.3L gas 4-speed he used to own and it's not just the two extra gears. He has MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED more horsepower via a point and a half of compression and direct injection. Mine is tuned, his is not. I get 12 combined but mostly stop and go. He gets about 18 combined...with a 1500 crew "medium" bed 6' 8".

Funny someone bragged about only 405 HP in a 1500 gas truck. Dad's is a 2014 with more than that stock. If it weren't for the medium bed and camping mirrors I'd have talked him into trading so I could get that one.He pulls a 12.5K 5th wheel with his 1500 and gets about 9 MPG doing it without all the DIEsel issues.

Especially in hilly areas. On flat ground I would call it a wash. When I am driving roads like 281 from Hico to Lampasas I rarely use cruise. On some of those hills you will drop 2 gears. When I run without cruise I speed up going downhill in anticipation of the next hill. If no passing lane I will maintain speed up hill but try to avoid dropping a gear.

Is this addressing my post? I was not bragging about 405 horsepower. But it’s pretty freaking good. Is 405 horsepower not enough? Not that long ago about 260 horsepower was at or near the industry standard.

That 405 horsepower (that’s a factory motor too) is a big step up from my old dodge with a 518 v8 and 6 speed. Really big step up from the old f150 with a 6 cylinder engine and one wheel turning. I miss the old F150 it was a great truck. I think it’s about the same size as the new Ford Ranger.

There are big rigs out there rolling 80k pound gross, with engines factory set to economy mode that make a lot less power. They have them choked down so bad you’ll never hear the turbo spool up. Maybe 300-350 hp and 500-600 pounds of torque on a 10 speed. But they will get 8 miles a gallon rolling at max gross.

I found a great truck that works for me and didn’t have to go buy the extra most bestest of trucks and double the debt. That’s where I was going with that.

The tundra is probably better lol. But I probably would never notice the difference.

The eco boost though. I had no idea they were so good.

The trouble with those hp numbers is they are peak numbers at over 6000 rpm. I. Rpm ranges we typically use, half of that they don’t make near as much.

I had a 1987 F150 with the 351 H.O.. it had a Holley double pumper and an Elderbrock intake. It put out a whopping 215 hp. Sometimes I swear that truck towed as well as modern trucks. I wanted to see what it would do with 3200 lbs behind it and hit 95 mph with plenty of pedal leftover. Not sure if HP ratings back then are comparable to today's.

Touque ratings are what you need to look at in trucks. Maximum torque is at a lower RPM than HP will be.

Cousin had a 64 with 351HO, 4 barrel Holly, hurst shifter on the floor, and posi rear end. He would take it to Kenndale back in the day. Cherry Red… man I loved that truck. To bad he totaled it in
Oklahoma via a cow

The best thing about those old trucks is anybody willing could learn to fix it. Good luck with a new one.

That’s no joke.