SeeYou190made by PACCAR.
Russell
tree68 And you can't forget that many, if not most, Walmarts and Sam's Clubs allow one to set up overnight in their parking lots. I would imagine they'd frown on anything longer than a couple of days, and it's not exactly the beach.
And you can't forget that many, if not most, Walmarts and Sam's Clubs allow one to set up overnight in their parking lots. I would imagine they'd frown on anything longer than a couple of days, and it's not exactly the beach.
Walmart is like that in Canada too. They realized years ago that people who overnight in the parking lot shop in the store.
Some provinces have minimal restrictions and no fees for camping on Crown (public) land.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SeeYou190If you want a real truck, buy something made by PACCAR.
Weird flex, but ok I guess.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
tree68 BaltACD Camp Sites are no longer cheap. Unless you intend to spend your time at Truck Stops (they aren't cheap either) or Interstate Rest Areas (they fill up early). There is apparently a website that tells you where you can camp "free." The Deshler rail park is/was listed (a donation is appreciated). A couple of years ago, as we railfans sat around waiting on the next train, a young couple pulled in pitched a tent and stayed the night. That's when we found out about the website. I forget where it was, but their next destination, as they travelled across the country, was the next closest free site in the direction they were generally travelling. And you can't forget that many, if not most, Walmarts and Sam's Clubs allow one to set up overnight in their parking lots. I would imagine they'd frown on anything longer than a couple of days, and it's not exactly the beach.
BaltACD Camp Sites are no longer cheap. Unless you intend to spend your time at Truck Stops (they aren't cheap either) or Interstate Rest Areas (they fill up early).
There is apparently a website that tells you where you can camp "free." The Deshler rail park is/was listed (a donation is appreciated).
A couple of years ago, as we railfans sat around waiting on the next train, a young couple pulled in pitched a tent and stayed the night. That's when we found out about the website.
I forget where it was, but their next destination, as they travelled across the country, was the next closest free site in the direction they were generally travelling.
Previously tracks that I race at permitted camping by competitors, workers and spectators at no charge. Now they have identified camping as another profit opportunity and charge for it - at some tracks it is much more than a 'nominal' charge.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDCamp Sites are no longer cheap. Unless you intend to spend your time at Truck Stops (they aren't cheap either) or Interstate Rest Areas (they fill up early).
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
York1 SeeYou190 If you want a real truck, buy something made by PACCAR. My wife won't let me! Neither will my bank. It would sure be fun to go on a coast-to-coast vacation in one, though. Wouldn't have to pay for hotels!
SeeYou190 If you want a real truck, buy something made by PACCAR.
My wife won't let me! Neither will my bank. It would sure be fun to go on a coast-to-coast vacation in one, though. Wouldn't have to pay for hotels!
Camp Sites are no longer cheap. Unless you intend to spend your time at Truck Stops (they aren't cheap either) or Interstate Rest Areas (they fill up early).
York1 John
SeeYou190You guys are so funny discussing the pros ond cons of light duty consumer quality trucks.
Since it has evidently escaped you, the topic of this thread is light-duty consumer-quality trucks.
Might as well comment in MR threads, in a post on the STRATTON AND GILLETTE, on how primitive and toylike those little HO trains are, compared with real models in Gauge 1 or larger...
You guys are so funny discussing the pros ond cons of light duty consumer quality trucks.
.
If you want a real truck, buy something made by PACCAR.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
tree68Ambulances are starting to go back to gas engines these days after a shot a Diesel for a while.
Even school busses in some areas (the ones that aren't LPG).
Many work trucks I see are gassers anymore. Between the inflated prices of diesel trucks, fuel and the maintneance headaches of them, it's no wonder.
Amazing how diesels went from work horse to beauty queen in a few short years.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAgreed, but Sheldon would not even consider a diesel of any brand in these days of much improved gasoline engines, especially not for the uses Sheldon needs the truck for.
Overmod Enormous on the outside, but smaller on the inside than my '94 3/4ton diesel Sub. And with only the equivalent of a 5' bed... I had a station wagon in the '70s with a bigger load floor.
Enormous on the outside, but smaller on the inside than my '94 3/4ton diesel Sub. And with only the equivalent of a 5' bed... I had a station wagon in the '70s with a bigger load floor.
Our family had a 1969 Checker Marathon wagon, 4x8 plywood would lay flat, and you could close the tailgate........
Taxi duty Chevy 327, Borg Warner FMX three speed auto, Dana 44 axle, 20 mpg pulling a large Apache pop up camper........That car went 275,000 miles with only a timing chain replacement and a trans overhaul - still running good when it was in a crash.......
Actually we had a fleet of Checkers in those days, the whole family drove them. Every one lasted nearly 300,000 miles.
Sheldon
SD70Dude ATLANTIC CENTRAL zugmann ATLANTIC CENTRAL Go on Youtube, look up FORD vs CHEVY, and watch F250 pickups drag bigger CHEVYS around backwards in pulling contests..... Mostly staged by idiot BRO-trucks with useless rims and tires. Railroad around here has used chevy 2500s for MOW trucks for years. Not uncommon for them to rack up 1/4-1/2 million miles and they beat the hell out of them. State DOT uses fords and they do the same. Even our yard van (chevy expresss 1500) had north of 350 when it was finally retired. Most of the modern day trucks will last a very long time if they are somewhat taken care of. My 07 ford doesn't have a ton of miles, but it's been pretty darn reliable. I've also had a chevy and a toyota - I'm not a huge brand loyalist. Seems to limit what you can enjoy. GM builds a good truck, RAM builds a good truck. When shopped for the current F250 I looked at both and debated the 150/1500 vs the 250/2500 in all three. In the end, I wanted an extended cab 8' bed. RAM does not offer that anymore in any class. GM only offered it in a 2500. FORD did not have them available yet in the new aluminum F150, and I think has decided now not to offer them. So the FORD F250, which is built a little heavier than the GM 2500, won out. It has been a great vehicle. We have looked at other brands most times when buying cars, always ending up back at FORD. I could drive a FORD FLEX the rest of my life if they keep making them. Our eccoboost FLEX is all wheel drive, I'm sold on that. Never liked any front wheel drive car I ever drove. Don't like small cars, don't like sitting on the floor with my legs stretched out in front of me. I don't worry one bit about fuel economy. For me, cars are about utility, comfort, safety and performance. Sheldon Every car company has had their winners and their turds. Even Toyota has had some issues. Their automatic transmissions from 2001-2003 were prone to failure, and certain engines from 2006-2011 burn through oil like crazy. Sheldon would likely not have the same rave review of the F250 had he bought a 2003-2010 diesel, both engines Ford used during those years had mechanical problems and excessive fuel consumption. The 6.0 (2004-2007) was underbuilt, and had problems with head bolts pulling out of the block, while the 6.4 (2008-2010) had multiple issues with the emissions control systems, resulting in a tendency to eat turbos and shoot flames out of the exhaust pipe. Hallcon uses Dodge minivans out here, and those things normally rack up well over 400,000 km before they die. I have no idea how, considering how rough railyards are, not to mention the drivers...
ATLANTIC CENTRAL zugmann ATLANTIC CENTRAL Go on Youtube, look up FORD vs CHEVY, and watch F250 pickups drag bigger CHEVYS around backwards in pulling contests..... Mostly staged by idiot BRO-trucks with useless rims and tires. Railroad around here has used chevy 2500s for MOW trucks for years. Not uncommon for them to rack up 1/4-1/2 million miles and they beat the hell out of them. State DOT uses fords and they do the same. Even our yard van (chevy expresss 1500) had north of 350 when it was finally retired. Most of the modern day trucks will last a very long time if they are somewhat taken care of. My 07 ford doesn't have a ton of miles, but it's been pretty darn reliable. I've also had a chevy and a toyota - I'm not a huge brand loyalist. Seems to limit what you can enjoy. GM builds a good truck, RAM builds a good truck. When shopped for the current F250 I looked at both and debated the 150/1500 vs the 250/2500 in all three. In the end, I wanted an extended cab 8' bed. RAM does not offer that anymore in any class. GM only offered it in a 2500. FORD did not have them available yet in the new aluminum F150, and I think has decided now not to offer them. So the FORD F250, which is built a little heavier than the GM 2500, won out. It has been a great vehicle. We have looked at other brands most times when buying cars, always ending up back at FORD. I could drive a FORD FLEX the rest of my life if they keep making them. Our eccoboost FLEX is all wheel drive, I'm sold on that. Never liked any front wheel drive car I ever drove. Don't like small cars, don't like sitting on the floor with my legs stretched out in front of me. I don't worry one bit about fuel economy. For me, cars are about utility, comfort, safety and performance. Sheldon
zugmann ATLANTIC CENTRAL Go on Youtube, look up FORD vs CHEVY, and watch F250 pickups drag bigger CHEVYS around backwards in pulling contests..... Mostly staged by idiot BRO-trucks with useless rims and tires. Railroad around here has used chevy 2500s for MOW trucks for years. Not uncommon for them to rack up 1/4-1/2 million miles and they beat the hell out of them. State DOT uses fords and they do the same. Even our yard van (chevy expresss 1500) had north of 350 when it was finally retired. Most of the modern day trucks will last a very long time if they are somewhat taken care of. My 07 ford doesn't have a ton of miles, but it's been pretty darn reliable. I've also had a chevy and a toyota - I'm not a huge brand loyalist. Seems to limit what you can enjoy.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Go on Youtube, look up FORD vs CHEVY, and watch F250 pickups drag bigger CHEVYS around backwards in pulling contests.....
Mostly staged by idiot BRO-trucks with useless rims and tires.
Railroad around here has used chevy 2500s for MOW trucks for years. Not uncommon for them to rack up 1/4-1/2 million miles and they beat the hell out of them. State DOT uses fords and they do the same. Even our yard van (chevy expresss 1500) had north of 350 when it was finally retired. Most of the modern day trucks will last a very long time if they are somewhat taken care of.
My 07 ford doesn't have a ton of miles, but it's been pretty darn reliable. I've also had a chevy and a toyota - I'm not a huge brand loyalist. Seems to limit what you can enjoy.
GM builds a good truck, RAM builds a good truck. When shopped for the current F250 I looked at both and debated the 150/1500 vs the 250/2500 in all three.
In the end, I wanted an extended cab 8' bed. RAM does not offer that anymore in any class. GM only offered it in a 2500. FORD did not have them available yet in the new aluminum F150, and I think has decided now not to offer them.
So the FORD F250, which is built a little heavier than the GM 2500, won out. It has been a great vehicle.
We have looked at other brands most times when buying cars, always ending up back at FORD.
I could drive a FORD FLEX the rest of my life if they keep making them. Our eccoboost FLEX is all wheel drive, I'm sold on that. Never liked any front wheel drive car I ever drove.
Don't like small cars, don't like sitting on the floor with my legs stretched out in front of me. I don't worry one bit about fuel economy.
For me, cars are about utility, comfort, safety and performance.
Every car company has had their winners and their turds. Even Toyota has had some issues. Their automatic transmissions from 2001-2003 were prone to failure, and certain engines from 2006-2011 burn through oil like crazy.
Sheldon would likely not have the same rave review of the F250 had he bought a 2003-2010 diesel, both engines Ford used during those years had mechanical problems and excessive fuel consumption. The 6.0 (2004-2007) was underbuilt, and had problems with head bolts pulling out of the block, while the 6.4 (2008-2010) had multiple issues with the emissions control systems, resulting in a tendency to eat turbos and shoot flames out of the exhaust pipe.
Hallcon uses Dodge minivans out here, and those things normally rack up well over 400,000 km before they die. I have no idea how, considering how rough railyards are, not to mention the drivers...
Agreed, but Sheldon would not even consider a diesel of any brand in these days of much improved gasoline engines, especially not for the uses Sheldon needs the truck for.
And while all that was going on, Sheldon was happily still driving the 4.6 liter 2000 F150.
SD70DudeThe 6.0 (2004-2007) was underbuilt, and had problems with head bolts pulling out of the block,
Not so much 'underbuilt (the VT365 version of the engine was more reliable -- but produced far lower horsepower) and the problem wasn't that the head bolts pulled out, it's that they were torque-to-yield and hence would stretch on loading, causing the puking and other issues.
There was a long laundry list of problems with the 6.0, most of which could be solved with a little attention. ARP head studs fixed the puking, properly built injectors fixed most of the problem with tips and stiction and DLC wear ... but still left you in trouble if you let the thinh run out of fuel for even a few seconds. Better fuel conditioning, bypass oil filter, coolant filter (who else's engine needs that??) and some other stuff fix the issues ... well, most of them, with using sump oil in high-pressure proportional pilot injectors. Get rid of the EGR, especially that idiot heat exchanger; fix the downpipes; put prelubing on the starter; a few other details, and you could build a pretty good 600hp engine.
Problem was, of course, that a Cummins with similar work could easily provide over 1000hp, with greater inherent reliability; there are limits to what you can force out of V8 mains and aluminum construction...
I had a 2003 in an Ex, and the thing reliably delivered over 26mpg indicated (and close to actual) at highway speeds (this with the 5R110 that is actually a six-speed with wacky ratios). Unfortunately the brake pads would wear to where they'd drop out of their locating grooves, go about 90 degrees, and jam between the caliper frame and the disc, at which point the caliper pistons, made of some weird rubber material, would push out of their bores and crumble, leaving you with neither pistons nor fluid ... and Ford had no p/n for the pistons. One of the contactless switches for the doors (the one in the rear glass) would routinely "stick" and leave you trying to back up in the dark with all the inside lights on and impossible to turn off; perhaps this was the same technology that would periodically kill the climate control or the radio (the dealer techs couldn't figure it out, but give them time and they'd come back on by themselves). Enormous on the outside, but smaller on the inside than my '94 3/4ton diesel Sub. And with only the equivalent of a 5' bed... I had a station wagon in the '70s with a bigger load floor.
CShaveRRthe trucks (the ones underneath the cars) have been modified to reduce the load limit. I never learned the reasoning behind that, but it's done with nearly every auto rack.
They may use smaller wheels (as small as 28") to allow more working room within plate limits. The smaller contact patch causes higher wheel and rail stress, so the load limit per wheel (and hence per axle, and per truck, and per car) is less.
SD70DudeEvery car company has had their winners and their turds. Even Toyota has had some issues. Their automatic transmissions from 2001-2003 were prone to failure, and certain engines from 2006-2011 burn through oil like crazy.
I know that one first hand. I had a 01 Tundra. To be fair, the dealership honored their free on-year warranty and replaced it. But that thing ate O2 censors and was having rust issues on everything under it.
Now my old little tacoma.. that's a truck I regret selling.
CShaveRRso I don't know how many would fit on one deck.
You just have to ask the "know it all"...aka me.
It is 4-5 pickups per level on a bi-level autorack. If they are regular pickups I would guess 5, crew cab, probably 4. I seem to remember the Milwaukee Road Ford Hauler could do 5 full size vans on one level if they were not the extended Econoline Vans..........and if they were 4 with spaces between.
Gosh this brings back childhood memories. Remember when Ford tried to compete with the after market van customizers by adding custom paint and a bubble window on the side rear of the van (eck!)............have some old MILW pictures I was looking at that are rather faded now of the Ford Hauler circa 1970's. Silver vans with mag wheels and a orange and red stripe leading to a porthole type bubble window in back (lol). That crap would never sell these days I bet, how times have changed.
Ten empty bilevel auto racks would weigh close to a million pounds (I think you'd probably be rounding up just a little to reach a million). I don't know what one of these pickups would weigh, but the load limit of an auto rack would be in the area of 44 tons. I also don't know how long they are, so I don't know how many would fit on one deck. Note that the load limit of the rack car is less than the light weight--that's because the trucks (the ones underneath the cars) have been modified to reduce the load limit. I never learned the reasoning behind that, but it's done with nearly every auto rack.Not trying to draw any conclusions here, just trying to help someone else with the calculations.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
oltmanndI get about 2100# TE needed to haul 625 tons over 10 cars at 5 mph. If that F150 weighs 4000 lbs with 60% of the weight on the rear axle (probably where the batteries are...) and tires gripping at 90% adhesion you get 2160# pulling force.
Would be more impressive if they pulled it one way, then stopped it and hooked onto the other end and pulled it the other way.
oltmanndI blame the Prius.
I blame the Prius drivers doing 40mph in the left lane.
ATLANTIC CENTRALGo on Youtube, look up FORD vs CHEVY, and watch F250 pickups drag bigger CHEVYS around backwards in pulling contests.....
oltmanndI assume that this commercial is only a staged illustration of a feat they will contend is possible. But staging that is disingenuous and I think that is a clue to what owning the truck will be like.
You mean like this???
(Watch for the feet...)
Murphy SidingMurphy Siding wrote the following post yesterday: CMStPnP Betting big on Ford. Typically when a member of the Ford Family becomes directly involved in a project such as the Electric Program and the Michigan Central Station rehab.......good things happen with the company. I think they are going to out compete GM with their electric trucks. Like that one time, when Edsel Ford got involved?
Probably more like when Lee Iacocca became directly involved.
Euclid The commercial is gimmicky because nobody is going to use the truck to pull trains. Instead, buyers will want to know how it handles practical challenges such as cab heat in northern winters. While the freight car feat is probably possible, I assume that this commercial is only a staged illustration of a feat they will contend is possible. But staging that is disingenuous and I think that is a clue to what owning the truck will be like. This is actually a marketing pitch to those who do not buy pickup trucks for practical reasons such as towing, hauling, rugged durability, etc. The purpose of this truck is to make a statement.
The commercial is gimmicky because nobody is going to use the truck to pull trains. Instead, buyers will want to know how it handles practical challenges such as cab heat in northern winters.
While the freight car feat is probably possible, I assume that this commercial is only a staged illustration of a feat they will contend is possible. But staging that is disingenuous and I think that is a clue to what owning the truck will be like.
This is actually a marketing pitch to those who do not buy pickup trucks for practical reasons such as towing, hauling, rugged durability, etc. The purpose of this truck is to make a statement.
The point is trying to convince people that "electric" <> "whimpy".
I blame the Prius.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndTransmission fluid might get a bit toasty if you did it too long, though.
Not with a proper separately-cooled motorhome-grade transmission-oil cooler, as I indicated. The critical issue is the torque converter (and its stall speed) and to an extent the engaging clutches in the transmission. This stuff is commodity-level (e.g. in the truck-pull community, where 2000hp-capable "light-truck-compatible' transmissions are understood.
Converter stall is definitely the limiting factor in starting this kind of load. I observed this watching an F250 (with 7.3 diesel and E4OD) trying to pull something north of 30,000lb (I never did estimate how far north) over a 3' railroad embankment. He'd get just to where the second set of duals on the trash trailer started to rise up past the transition curve, and it would just sit there at full throttle. As Don said, heating up the transmission oil in fine fashion, but not able to pass any more torque.
Electric transmission is different: the limiting factor, if not flux-related, will be heating of critical parts of the motor. Things like using copper instead of aluminum in the rotor bars help 'raise the bar' for the required motor package size and weight.
Of course, providing this torque capability in a 150 chassis may be, as someone once commented about putting a 6.5TD in a 1500 (which GM once did), like trying to turbocharge a potato chip...
Erik_Mag oltmannd I get about 2100# TE needed to haul 625 tons over 10 cars at 5 mph. If that F150 weighs 4000 lbs with 60% of the weight on the rear axle (probably where the batteries are...) and tires gripping at 90% adhesion you get 2160# pulling force. I suspect the electric F-150 may weigh a bit more than that and wouldn't be surprised if it was 4WD. Virtually all electric vehicle motors are some sort of polyphase induction or synchronous motor. I also suspect that a low speeds (i.e. when accelerating from a stop), the motor runs in some sort of torque control that will operate right up to the adhesion limits. A 3/4 ton 4WD pickup with automatic transmission and running in low range would not have much difficulty in duplicating this stunt.
oltmannd I get about 2100# TE needed to haul 625 tons over 10 cars at 5 mph. If that F150 weighs 4000 lbs with 60% of the weight on the rear axle (probably where the batteries are...) and tires gripping at 90% adhesion you get 2160# pulling force.
I get about 2100# TE needed to haul 625 tons over 10 cars at 5 mph.
If that F150 weighs 4000 lbs with 60% of the weight on the rear axle (probably where the batteries are...) and tires gripping at 90% adhesion you get 2160# pulling force.
I suspect the electric F-150 may weigh a bit more than that and wouldn't be surprised if it was 4WD. Virtually all electric vehicle motors are some sort of polyphase induction or synchronous motor. I also suspect that a low speeds (i.e. when accelerating from a stop), the motor runs in some sort of torque control that will operate right up to the adhesion limits.
A 3/4 ton 4WD pickup with automatic transmission and running in low range would not have much difficulty in duplicating this stunt.
Agree. Transmission fluid might get a bit toasty if you did it too long, though.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.