Soviet EV and taco chronicles + future ponderings about Fendie

Strut your greasy stuff!
User avatar
D Griff
Trollistrator
Trollistrator
Posts: 28784
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:49 am
Drives: Bicycles/Two Feet

max225 wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:06 pm Also I am highly disappointed that no one gave me shit for completely overloading the truck and endangering school children.
:lolol:

I drove an overloaded Bang Bus 100K miles... :aintcare:
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

max225 wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:23 pm
Detroit wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:08 pm
Because you didn't. I've driven overloaded trucks my entire life. It can be done safely as long as you're cautious, which you clearly are.
:mahman: 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 :house: shit really does benefit from a truck/big vehicle quite frequently.
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.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Detroit wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:07 pm
max225 wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:23 pm

:mahman: 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 :house: shit really does benefit from a truck/big vehicle quite frequently.
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.
:dat: x 100. I was leaving 2x the distance I normally do.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

max225 wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:12 pm
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.
:dat: x 100. I was leaving 2x the distance I normally do.
Exactly, you get it. Hence the lack of :triggered:
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.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
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.
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.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Detroit wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:21 pm 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.
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
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:49 am
Detroit wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:21 pm 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.
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
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" :bs: 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.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Detroit wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:22 pm
max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:49 am

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
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" :bs: 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.
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.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:27 pm
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" :bs: 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.
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.
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.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Detroit wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:35 pm
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.
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.
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.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:40 pm
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.
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.
The only redeeming quality of the Ranger is the powertrain. I don't care for the 10 speed, but the 2.3 is great.
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.
User avatar
Desertbreh
Chief Master Sirloin
Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 16800
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
Location: Beyond Thunderdome

Detroit wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:44 pm
max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:40 pm

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.
The only redeeming quality of the Ranger is the powertrain. I don't care for the 10 speed, but the 2.3 is great.
:butwhy: I would think that would help with low end torque as well.
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
User avatar
Desertbreh
Chief Master Sirloin
Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 16800
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
Location: Beyond Thunderdome

Detroit wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:44 pm
max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:40 pm

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.
The only redeeming quality of the Ranger is the powertrain. I don't care for the 10 speed, but the 2.3 is great.
It is a misshapen POS if there ever was one. Every time I see one I am :disgust:
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Desertbreh wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:48 pm
Detroit wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:44 pm
The only redeeming quality of the Ranger is the powertrain. I don't care for the 10 speed, but the 2.3 is great.
:butwhy: I would think that would help with low end torque as well.
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.
User avatar
Desertbreh
Chief Master Sirloin
Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 16800
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
Location: Beyond Thunderdome

Basically the Ranger appears to have been designed in Romania by ex-Lada guys
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
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
:howdareu:
User avatar
Desertbreh
Chief Master Sirloin
Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 16800
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
Location: Beyond Thunderdome

max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:53 pm
Desertbreh wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:52 pm Basically the Ranger appears to have been designed in Romania by ex-Lada guys
:howdareu:
It's right up there with the Crosstranny in terms of "non a chance in hell you'd see me in one."
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Desertbreh wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:54 pm
max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:53 pm

:howdareu:
It's right up there with the Crosstranny in terms of "non a chance in hell you'd see me in one."
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.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

Desertbreh wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:48 pm
Detroit wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:44 pm
The only redeeming quality of the Ranger is the powertrain. I don't care for the 10 speed, but the 2.3 is great.
:butwhy: I would think that would help with low end torque as well.
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: 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.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

Desertbreh wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:52 pm Basically the Ranger appears to have been designed in Romania by ex-Lada guys
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: 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.
User avatar
Apex
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 29815
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:36 pm
Drives: Abominable
Location: NJ

Too bad we have all the requirements on modern diesels that chokes them with complexity. I still desire a diesel JT, wasn’t about to add another 4K onto my price doe.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Apex wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:04 pm Too bad we have all the requirements on modern diesels that chokes them with complexity. I still desire a diesel JT, wasn’t about to add another 4K onto my price doe.
And the diesel adds like 500lbs... which is insane.
User avatar
Desertbreh
Chief Master Sirloin
Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 16800
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
Location: Beyond Thunderdome

max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:05 pm
Apex wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:04 pm Too bad we have all the requirements on modern diesels that chokes them with complexity. I still desire a diesel JT, wasn’t about to add another 4K onto my price doe.
And the diesel adds like 500lbs... which is insane.
This is the biggest bummer. I can deal with the complexity and expense.
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Desertbreh wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:08 pm
max225 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:05 pm

And the diesel adds like 500lbs... which is insane.
This is the biggest bummer. I can deal with the complexity and expense.
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. :disgust:
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42429
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.
Image

This was the "racetrack" at Death Valley. Frankly I was a bit underwhelmed.
Image
Image

Image
Flexing on the life guards.
Image

Image

There is always a bigger fish!
Image
Image
How will I ever get the dust from behind the tail lights off.?!
Image


Image
Post Reply