I drove an overloaded Bang Bus 100K miles...
Soviet EV and taco chronicles + future ponderings about Fendie
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
TECHNICALLY if you got in a crash and injured/damaged something/someone you could be sued and insurance dropped for driving over the vehicle's payload rating. That's why a lot of people who live 100% by the rules make a big deal out of it.max225 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:23 pmI mean it was interesting because a lot of people bitch about payload ratings... not to say that they don't matter. But I have frequently gone over and it hasn't been too bad. Seems to be less affected than the average landscaping truck which has blown out suspensions etc.
This shit really does benefit from a truck/big vehicle quite frequently.
The reality is, when you're over limit, you drive slower, stop leaving more room, etc.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
x 100. I was leaving 2x the distance I normally do.Detroit wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:07 pmTECHNICALLY if you got in a crash and injured/damaged something/someone you could be sued and insurance dropped for driving over the vehicle's payload rating. That's why a lot of people who live 100% by the rules make a big deal out of it.max225 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:23 pm
I mean it was interesting because a lot of people bitch about payload ratings... not to say that they don't matter. But I have frequently gone over and it hasn't been too bad. Seems to be less affected than the average landscaping truck which has blown out suspensions etc.
This shit really does benefit from a truck/big vehicle quite frequently.
The reality is, when you're over limit, you drive slower, stop leaving more room, etc.
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
Exactly, you get it. Hence the lack ofmax225 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:12 pmx 100. I was leaving 2x the distance I normally do.Detroit wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:07 pm
TECHNICALLY if you got in a crash and injured/damaged something/someone you could be sued and insurance dropped for driving over the vehicle's payload rating. That's why a lot of people who live 100% by the rules make a big deal out of it.
The reality is, when you're over limit, you drive slower, stop leaving more room, etc.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
I don't even know the payload ratings on my trucks. I just load the bed up and depending on the rear squat, I adjust my driving accordingly.
The CT is dangerously slow when loaded/towing, maybe that's by design so it just can't go that fast.
The CT is dangerously slow when loaded/towing, maybe that's by design so it just can't go that fast.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
Haha yea I hear ya. Honestly turbo diesel is the proper power train for these things. You should never have to rev a truck above 3500rpm.
But no... let’s adapt high revving v6s for “truck” duty.
Way to go Merica
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
FCA is the only one that does it, and it's really a bad solution. There's a reason GM kept the 4.3 around for so long, there's no replacement for displacement when it comes to torque. The new GM 2.7 was designed specifically for torquey truck duty. Ford boosts their engines to the moon to get torque. The 3.6 does not belong in a FSPU, even despite it's "best in class horsepower" I was legit concerned that the truck was going to blow up when I was towing the boat up a mountain pass in Colorado, revving at 6k for 30 minutes barely doing 55mph, it started to ping a bit toward the end...I legit thought we were going to be stranded.
I hate that powertrain in that truck.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
FCA isn't the only one...Detroit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:22 pmFCA is the only one that does it, and it's really a bad solution. There's a reason GM kept the 4.3 around for so long, there's no replacement for displacement when it comes to torque. The new GM 2.7 was designed specifically for torquey truck duty. Ford boosts their engines to the moon to get torque. The 3.6 does not belong in a FSPU, even despite it's "best in class horsepower" I was legit concerned that the truck was going to blow up when I was towing the boat up a mountain pass in Colorado, revving at 6k for 30 minutes barely doing 55mph, it started to ping a bit toward the end...I legit thought we were going to be stranded.
I hate that powertrain in that truck.
GM using the 3.6 in Colorado+Canyon ( 2nd best selling)
Toyota using the 3.5 (best selling mid sizer)
Those engines aren't right... Both companies have far better powertrains in other countries. Toyota and GM both use great reliable TDs abroad.
The darn emissions requirements here are killing them so to me the V6s are huge compromises IMO. They are just there for no reason other than showing "power figures" that make sense on paper but are terrible in practice.
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
Honestly, mid sizers are fine. I had zero complaints with the 3.6 in the Colorado and JT. Even towing, they did fine. Less mass, but also less frontal area for aero means the engines just don't have to work as hard to move the vehicle down the road than a mid size. But still, you're right that torque is king and there's better options. Hell, I think the JT would be way better with the 2.0T from the JL than the 3.6. The Colorado will get the 2.7 from the Silverado in the next gen, which will be a phenomenal combination. Smaller boosted engines have their own issues (complexity/reliability), but they produce the right power in the right RPMs.max225 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:27 pmFCA isn't the only one...Detroit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:22 pm
FCA is the only one that does it, and it's really a bad solution. There's a reason GM kept the 4.3 around for so long, there's no replacement for displacement when it comes to torque. The new GM 2.7 was designed specifically for torquey truck duty. Ford boosts their engines to the moon to get torque. The 3.6 does not belong in a FSPU, even despite it's "best in class horsepower" I was legit concerned that the truck was going to blow up when I was towing the boat up a mountain pass in Colorado, revving at 6k for 30 minutes barely doing 55mph, it started to ping a bit toward the end...I legit thought we were going to be stranded.
I hate that powertrain in that truck.
GM using the 3.6 in Colorado+Canyon ( 2nd best selling)
Toyota using the 3.5 (best selling mid sizer)
Those engines aren't right... Both companies have far better powertrains in other countries. Toyota and GM both use great reliable TDs abroad.
The darn emissions requirements here are killing them so to me the V6s are huge compromises IMO. They are just there for no reason other than showing "power figures" that make sense on paper but are terrible in practice.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
Ooo interesting (About the 2.7) the Ford 2.3 while getting a lot of heat from randos that never drove it, it really does do things better than the comparable V6s even though it lacks displacement and cylinders.Detroit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:35 pmHonestly, mid sizers are fine. I had zero complaints with the 3.6 in the Colorado and JT. Even towing, they did fine. Less mass, but also less frontal area for aero means the engines just don't have to work as hard to move the vehicle down the road than a mid size. But still, you're right that torque is king and there's better options. Hell, I think the JT would be way better with the 2.0T from the JL than the 3.6. The Colorado will get the 2.7 from the Silverado in the next gen, which will be a phenomenal combination. Smaller boosted engines have their own issues (complexity/reliability), but they produce the right power in the right RPMs.max225 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:27 pm
FCA isn't the only one...
GM using the 3.6 in Colorado+Canyon ( 2nd best selling)
Toyota using the 3.5 (best selling mid sizer)
Those engines aren't right... Both companies have far better powertrains in other countries. Toyota and GM both use great reliable TDs abroad.
The darn emissions requirements here are killing them so to me the V6s are huge compromises IMO. They are just there for no reason other than showing "power figures" that make sense on paper but are terrible in practice.
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
The only redeeming quality of the Ranger is the powertrain. I don't care for the 10 speed, but the 2.3 is great.max225 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:40 pmOoo interesting (About the 2.7) the Ford 2.3 while getting a lot of heat from randos that never drove it, it really does do things better than the comparable V6s even though it lacks displacement and cylinders.Detroit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:35 pm
Honestly, mid sizers are fine. I had zero complaints with the 3.6 in the Colorado and JT. Even towing, they did fine. Less mass, but also less frontal area for aero means the engines just don't have to work as hard to move the vehicle down the road than a mid size. But still, you're right that torque is king and there's better options. Hell, I think the JT would be way better with the 2.0T from the JL than the 3.6. The Colorado will get the 2.7 from the Silverado in the next gen, which will be a phenomenal combination. Smaller boosted engines have their own issues (complexity/reliability), but they produce the right power in the right RPMs.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- Desertbreh
- Chief Master Sirloin
- Posts: 16932
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
- Location: Beyond Thunderdome
- Desertbreh
- Chief Master Sirloin
- Posts: 16932
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
- Location: Beyond Thunderdome
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
I had minimal if any gripes with it in the Stang I had for 1k miles. I thought it was a good trans. I never realized it had 10 speeds until looking at the little shift indicator light. It doesn't seem to shift any more than the ZF8 speed for ex.Desertbreh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:48 pmI would think that would help with low end torque as well.
- Desertbreh
- Chief Master Sirloin
- Posts: 16932
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
- Location: Beyond Thunderdome
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:52 pm Basically the Ranger appears to have been designed in Romania by ex-Lada guys
- Desertbreh
- Chief Master Sirloin
- Posts: 16932
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
- Location: Beyond Thunderdome
It's right up there with the Crosstranny in terms of "non a chance in hell you'd see me in one."max225 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:53 pmDesertbreh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:52 pm Basically the Ranger appears to have been designed in Romania by ex-Lada guys
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
You don't strike me a zi/zir working for the Berkeley city counsel. So yea, cross tranny is not a recommended vehicle for most males.Desertbreh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:54 pmIt's right up there with the Crosstranny in terms of "non a chance in hell you'd see me in one."
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
It doesn't need help. The 2.3 is plenty torquey. The 10 speed just seems unnecessary, and I had some wonky shifts in the one I drove...like it had a software issue causing weird shift behavior (holding gears when it shouldn't, upshifting too fast, etc)Desertbreh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:48 pmI would think that would help with low end torque as well.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
It kind of was. It's a global market vehicle, not a US vehicle. In those markets, mid size trucks are purely utility vehicles, and they're designed to cost as such. It's why the Colorado is similar to the global market truck, but almost completely different in the US. Ford skipped spending money when bringing it here, and it shows badly.Desertbreh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:52 pm Basically the Ranger appears to have been designed in Romania by ex-Lada guys
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- Desertbreh
- Chief Master Sirloin
- Posts: 16932
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
- Location: Beyond Thunderdome
This is the biggest bummer. I can deal with the complexity and expense.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
It is still a bit odd... Not a huge deal but oil is 10.5 quarts, and fuel filter every 20k and oil filters cost $45 a pop.Desertbreh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:08 pmThis is the biggest bummer. I can deal with the complexity and expense.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
Finally made it to Teakettle junction. 15 years in the making... never had a vehicle that was truly capable to get there.
This was the "racetrack" at Death Valley. Frankly I was a bit underwhelmed.
Flexing on the life guards.
There is always a bigger fish!
How will I ever get the dust from behind the tail lights off.?!
This was the "racetrack" at Death Valley. Frankly I was a bit underwhelmed.
Flexing on the life guards.
There is always a bigger fish!
How will I ever get the dust from behind the tail lights off.?!