TurboSalsa

No offense, but if your 5.9l MegaCab is getting 29 hand-calculated miles per gallon, you're probably on a steep downslope with a stiff tailwind. If you can actually achieve that in normal driving cycles, I suggest you call Dodge and have them dissect your engine to find out what makes it so different from the millions of other 5.9s that can't achieve that kind of mileage.

I don't think they meant that horsepower is irrelevant, I think they meant that, given the same amount of horsepower, the car with more torque will probably come out on top. If torque were the only thing that mattered, I could stuff a Cummins diesel in an F1 car and blow them off the track since my engine would have 2.5 times the torque of the other cars. Sure, huge diesels can get the truck moving in a hurry but once they bump into their 3500 rpm redline in 6th gear, they're out of steam.

Fuel injection, as opposed to carburetors, is old indeed. Gasoline direct injection is relative new in consumer applications and has mostly been relegated to high-efficiency/high-performance engines.

zap

Common Rail 5.9's get fuel mileage in the high 20's to begin with. All of my friends get between 25 and 27 mpg with their 4WD's. Therefore, a 2WD would traditionally get better mileage, which my father's is. That is hand calculated from a 900 mile run from Austin, TX to Westcliffe, CO which is a 7000 ft change in elevation. Running at 70 mph most of the way the truck was running at 1900 rpm in 4th (OD). The engine hits peak torque at 1600 rpm (650 lb-ft) and torque curves on diesels don't drop off like they do on many gassers.

I apologize, I should've clarified that.

My point there was if a new technology comes to gas engines (EFI for example, or turbocharging) it doesn't take 120 years to get adapted to diesels. Why wait so long to introduce this on gassers when the technology has been around?

SAWMAN556

Aliens took over Washington DC.

Herox21

As far as everyone arguing over 97-03 vs 04 frame strength rigidity....what about a 9th gen f150? zachman03 was rearended at a stoplight by a woman driving a 97-03 model f150 in his 9th gen 96 and from the pictures all that happened to him was a dented tailgate and slightly bent bumper. Her truck was totaled. I'd like to see any of the newer trucks take a full hit in the front or rear and have just a tailgate and bumper replaced like it was nothing. Just my 2 cents.

Personally I think manufacturers have caved to public opinion way too much. A truck is meant to be a truck....not a lifted bmw. I'd love to go back to the days when you bought a truck to actually work with it, or take it off road, and not just be a road queen.

I've also test driven brand new super duties and the 10' f150, the interior shook more than the interior in my truck, and my truck is almost 16 years old now and has a broken dash mount on the passenger side, lol.

No offense, it's just my opinion of trucks now-a-days.

zap

I got rear ended by a Cobra in my 10th gen which I had replaced the rear mounts with something much cheaper but much stronger than the OE mounts and I just had a slightly bent rear bumper. The stang was totaled though. Both my front and rear mounts are heavily reinforced to let the the front bumper protect, and the rear out pull any class 4 hitch. My rear bumper is at Class V specs (along with all the mounts to the frame). The frame will actually tear/crumple before the bumpers and mounts fail.

I agree, it's meant to be a truck. You buy one to do work, not to have a high performance street machine. The acceleration and top speed doesn't mean anything to you as long as it will do work.