Ok.. so I started thinking, while I was typing my gasoline to throw on this flame war, What is grassroots towing?
Here are some thoughts.. 1. Is using a vehicle that is way overbuilt for your needs grassroots? I mean sure if you could get it for super cheap, yes, but what else applies? 2. how much towing do you really need to do to justify owning a full size truck (for example, I had a ranger and couldn't even justify it) 3. Multi purpose is surely grassroots? or is it?
Why pay the extra cost to drive a full size truck around when you only need it to haul / tow things a few weekends a year?
For the cost of the vehicle, maintenance, insurance, and registration it's far cheaper and more practical for alot of people to rent a full size track when you need one. After realizing I only needed my 5.9L Dodge 1500 a few times a year I sold it for a Cavalier (I know, should have bought the Protege...) and cut my fuel and insurance costs in half. If I need a truck I swing by Uhaul and rent one for a couple hours. The Ridgeline, like the Civic and Fit, are just more practical for more people.
Maybe you have missed 90% of my posts. Maybe going back to reread would be good, no?
Grassroots, in my mind, is the low budget, weekend guy that doesn't have $30k a year to spend on his toy. . . hell, a lot of us can't afford $3k a year. So we need something that is frugal, can handle multiple tasks and be what we need when we need it. Right?
So why would you buy an underpowered, gas guzzler that doesn't really handle ANY of the needs, but merely tries?
Anyone priced one of these things? $26k-up. I paid $24k for our 06. Actually paid much less, but going off sticker here to keep things fair. So not only is it a compromise, but it's MORE EXPENSIVE!
I will ask this one more time, in hopes of an intelligent response: If it does less and uses more, how is it better? Worse economy. Worse payload. Worse comfort. Worse towing. Costs much more.
HOW is it BETTER?
Bobzilla wrote: Ok, it's great. But it still gets WORSE fuel economy than a standard truck.
I know most people can do way better than epa ratings. but for the sake of eliminating outside factors look at the EPA numbers. Statistically the ridgeline is better.
epa combined on a 2wd single cab 4.8 v8 chevy is 16mpg epa combined on 4wd 4 door ridgeline is 17mpg
your statement is incorrect by the offical numbers..
yes epa numbers are flawed, but they work to elminate outside influences such as driver and elevation tire pressure and blah blah blah...
bob.. How much is your truck worth now vs a ridgeline of same vintage and mileage?
your truck is not worth more. Hell.. your truck isn't worth $15k...
edit*** want to start looking at who statiscally is rated with beter build quality and longevity?
YaNi wrote: Why pay the extra cost to drive a full size truck around when you only need it to haul / tow things a few weekends a year? For the cost of the vehicle, maintenance, insurance, and registration it's far cheaper and more practical for alot of people to rent a full size track when you need one. After realizing I only needed my 5.9L Dodge 1500 a few times a year I sold it for a Cavalier (I know, should have bought the Protege...) and cut my fuel and insurance costs in half. If I need a truck I swing by Uhaul and rent one for a couple hours. The Ridgeline, like the Civic and Fit, are just more practical for more people.
Again, the ridgeline costs more. . . worse economy. . blah blah blah (BROKEN RECORD) . . again, how is it more practical?
Yes, with fuel costs we did buy the wife another beater Hyundai to take to grad school (kept her out of mine). Paid $2k for a used one and she's had ot for a year now. 38mpg and fits in the parking garages amd we don't care if it gets door dings.
ignorant wrote: bob.. How much is your truck worth now vs a ridgeline of same vintage and mileage? your truck is not worth more. Hell.. your truck isn't worth $15k...
I love these. . . I've been hearing them with the Hyundai's I have for years. . . Who cares? We keep our vehicles until they are dead in the water, so what good is resale to the person who doesn't suffer from a sever case of vanity and needs a new car every other year? It means squat.
But to answer your question. . .I haven't checked. I do know honduhs over inflated resale values are rediculous. But I also know that we paid $19k out the door on our truck 2+ years ago, currently owe $11k and are still rightside up if we needed to sell it.
I'm planning 175-200K miles for the newer Elantra, 200K on the older Accent (aka turd) and 300+k for the truck.
I'm not trying to degrade your vehicle.. I enjoy chevy trucks.. but you're arguement has holes in it.
I don't think anyone will argue that the chevy can tow more, but beyond bed use and towing capacity the vehicle choice is not clear cut. So for the average american its not a clear cut choice..
and you should check values as you are very close to being upside down.. VERY close.. http://www.kbb.com/KBB/UsedCars/PricingReport.aspx?WebCategoryId=44&YearId=2006&Mileage=50000&VehicleClass=UsedCar&ManufacturerId=9&ModelId=58&PriceType=Private+Party&VehicleId=273&SelectionHistory=273|29105|29418|0|0|&Condition=Good&QuizConditions=
ignorant wrote:Bobzilla wrote: Ok, it's great. But it still gets WORSE fuel economy than a standard truck.I know most people can do way better than epa ratings. but for the sake of eliminating outside factors look at the EPA numbers. Statistically the ridgeline is better. epa combined on a 2wd single cab 4.8 v8 chevy is 16mpg epa combined on 4wd 4 door ridgeline is 17mpg your statement is incorrect by the offical numbers.. yes epa numbers are flawed, but they work to elminate outside influences such as driver and elevation tire pressure and blah blah blah...
The offcial window sticker showed 17/22, is now 16/21 with the revised ratings. The Ridegline is 17/21. Not much difference in the EPA ratings. Real world ratings and GM kicks their butt. Real world we have yet to get under 19mpg in puts around town driving. 24 highway.
There is not any new truck you could pay me to own (well unless the turck was free, and the fuel was free, then maybe). They are too big and heavy, tall, etc and they carry the same or less than older trucks. If I wanted a truck to actually use, I would get an older (as in pre smog) chevy truck of the size that would be useful for my needs, and swap in a newer engine and seats, and make a few other upgrades, and have a way better vehicle for hauling and towing than anything you can buy new.
Who buys a new truck for occassional tow duty? Sounds like a sucker bet to me, why not get a used rig? I thought that was the grassroots way of doing things, along with buying a used trailer. Same utility for half the money! Personally, I'd much rather have an enclosed space instead of a pickup, something like an Astro or Suburban or Sprinter.
I haven't read the GRM article yet, FWIW.
Bryce
hey alfa driver...
how is the flex actually doing as a seller? And how do you like it?
I think the design is cool as hell, but wished it were alittle smaller with some better fuel econ numbers...
Travis_K wrote: There is not any new truck you could pay me to own (well unless the turck was free, and the fuel was free, then maybe). They are too big and heavy, tall, etc and they carry the same or less than older trucks. If I wanted a truck to actually use, I would get an older (as in pre smog) chevy truck of the size that would be useful for my needs, and swap in a newer engine and seats, and make a few other upgrades, and have a way better vehicle for hauling and towing than anything you can buy new.
Have you driven an old and a new truck to compare, Travis? Just going from a 70s truck to a 90s truck is a huge difference, same again from a 90s truck to a new one. The handling is FAR superior on newer trucks, not to mention much better creature comforts, HVAC, NVH, etc. If you're hauling two hours away, you can deal with it, but if you're hauling for 12 hours and over a couple of mountain ranges, that stuff makes a huge difference. There's a lot more to buying a new rig than horsepower.
Bryce
At the risk of repeating myself for the ninety-eleventh time, my wagon:
Seats Seven
Has 76 cu. ft. of cargo room
Tows 3300 lbs
Gets 35 city/40 highway
Oh wait, it fails the new-vehicle towing test because it's 24 years old.
Don't make 'em like they used to.
Why not??
What wagon, Evan?
Evan_R wrote: At the risk of repeating myself for the ninety-eleventh time, my wagon: Seats Seven Has 76 cu. ft. of cargo room Tows 3300 lbs Gets 35 city/40 highway Oh wait, it fails the new-vehicle towing test because it's 24 years old. Don't make 'em like they used to. Why not??
diesel caprice?
The only wagon I can think of that might get that kind of economy would be a Volvo diesel, and those things can't get out of their own way, so that's hardly worth mentioning in a thread about towing. I also thought they were only rated at something like 25/30, not 35/40, so I'm stumped on what wagon he could be referring to.
Bryce
Nashco wrote: The only wagon I can think of that might get that kind of economy would be a Volvo diesel, and those things can't get out of their own way, so that's hardly worth mentioning in a thread about towing. I also thought they were only rated at something like 25/30, not 35/40, so I'm stumped on what wagon he could be referring to. Bryce
definetly not a merc..unless he's running propane or something..
He drives a volvo wagon. And just because it has the capacity to tow 3500lbs, doesn't mean I'd want to do it.....
You're getting worked up over Tim's column, in which he explains the reasons he chooses the Ridgeline as his tow rig. It works well for him. It's not like we did a Tow vehicle comparison...yet.
Nobody said that the Ridgeline is the official tow vehicle of Grassroots Motorsports, it's not a comparison test. If we did have an "official" tow rig, it would probably be the Nissan Pathfinder that we've been beating senseless for the last few years.
I'm also in the "can't afford a Ridgline" camp, so my solution is to keep my Miata street legal and use a tire trailer when necessary. When my budget allows for a different solution, I'm hoping for a Diesel Touareg. 
ignorant wrote: hey alfa driver... how is the flex actually doing as a seller? And how do you like it? I think the design is cool as hell, but wished it were alittle smaller with some better fuel econ numbers...
So far, the Flex is an ok seller, not spectacular. Credit crunch came at the wrong time...
Capabilty wise, I hear it tows quite well. Since it's just like our Edge, I'm sure dynamically it's darend good.
Smaller aint going to happen, but there are rumors of smaller engines. WHen the ecoboost comes out in the Flex, it will be both more powerful and a more economical.
BTW, I have heard that incentives on Flex's right now are strong. If you can tolerate leasing the current one until the turbo comes out, it would work. (and I will be happy to give you a PIN for X-plan).
BTW, the Edge gets 18 in the city, 27 highway, 18-19 towing. MUCH better than any real truck I've used.
E
alfadriver wrote:ignorant wrote: hey alfa driver... how is the flex actually doing as a seller? And how do you like it? I think the design is cool as hell, but wished it were alittle smaller with some better fuel econ numbers...So far, the Flex is an ok seller, not spectacular. Credit crunch came at the wrong time... Capabilty wise, I hear it tows quite well. Since it's just like our Edge, I'm sure dynamically it's darend good. Smaller aint going to happen, but there are rumors of smaller engines. WHen the ecoboost comes out in the Flex, it will be both more powerful and a more economical. BTW, I have heard that incentives on Flex's right now are strong. If you can tolerate leasing the current one until the turbo comes out, it would work. (and I will be happy to give you a PIN for X-plan). BTW, the Edge gets 18 in the city, 27 highway, 18-19 towing. MUCH better than any real truck I've used. E
thanks for the offer on x-plan. I believe I get x-plan through work as well. the ecoboost is really intriguing.. I have a love for turbomachinery.. I do think the styling is great.
We got a baby on the way (just one right now) but if more start popping out then we'll have to see about a bigger car.. HA!
besides can't buy right now.. student loans from previous mba about to kick into suck you dry mode.. AAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Nashco wrote:Travis_K wrote: There is not any new truck you could pay me to own (well unless the turck was free, and the fuel was free, then maybe). They are too big and heavy, tall, etc and they carry the same or less than older trucks. If I wanted a truck to actually use, I would get an older (as in pre smog) chevy truck of the size that would be useful for my needs, and swap in a newer engine and seats, and make a few other upgrades, and have a way better vehicle for hauling and towing than anything you can buy new.Have you driven an old and a new truck to compare, Travis? Just going from a 70s truck to a 90s truck is a huge difference, same again from a 90s truck to a new one. The handling is FAR superior on newer trucks, not to mention much better creature comforts, HVAC, NVH, etc. If you're hauling two hours away, you can deal with it, but if you're hauling for 12 hours and over a couple of mountain ranges, that stuff makes a huge difference. There's a lot more to buying a new rig than horsepower. Bryce
Yes, I own a 1970 chevy pickup, and I have had expensive (for a short time) with a nissan titan, various 90s chevy and dodge pickups (although they were ex CDF fire trucks in really bad shape) and a maybe 2004 chevy 1/2 ton pickup. Other than maybe the front drum brakes (easy enough to fix) the 70 chevy is much better at being a truck. The new trucks are maybe better at commuting to work, but why buy a truck for that anyway. If someone wants to buy pretty much any vehicle that they like I dont see anything wrong with it, but I still have no desire at all to own a truck newer than 1975.
njansenv wrote: He drives a volvo wagon. And just because it has the capacity to tow 3500lbs, doesn't mean I'd want to do it.....
I suppose that's true.
I'm not in any sort of rush, though.
If you are, the '84 Volvo Diesel wagon is not a good choice.
And I wasn't reporting EPA mileage ratings, I was reporting real-world MPG
Well, Travis, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If you're looking at a ~5 year old truck compared to a ~35 year old truck, you'll find that the brakes, handling, lighting, comfort, controls, wiring, powertrain, fuel economy, HVAC, etc. are all significantly improved. These things combined make towing soooo much better, IMO. Given that you can buy a ~10 year old truck in good shape for a couple grand, it seems well worth the extra grand to have a more modern tow rig. Like I said, if you're towing a short distance, just about anything will do the job, but if you're towing a long distance, through twisty/hilly mountains, in the dark, inclement weather, etc. it's a drastic difference.
Bryce
You'll need to log in to post.
