# Vehicle options



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Next year I will buying a new *dog* vehicle. It will be my primary vehicle with the Ford Explorer, wich will have 225K by then in retirment as a back up vechicle only. Since I will be working from home commuting miles not an issue but hauling pine straw, fertilizer, etc is.

Looking to a smaller truck (tacoma, ranger, dakota, colorado) but may consider bigger - want to meet my goals while being as fuel efficient as possible.

I have decided on a truck for sure - still debating engine and transmission options. Most efficient and long lasting would be manual transmission with smaller engine and locking differential. But I am not sure how good that would be off road. I know old farm trucks when I was a kid did not have 4 wheel drive and I remember those going everyhwere. Off road for me is: farm fields, muddy dirt roads, clear cuts, lake banks. I think the same vehicle that would work for a hunter * fisherman would work for me. The biggest thing I would ever tow is a jon boat.

What is your take? Fuel Efficiency and Longevity are both considerations but I don't want to get stuck.

Also concerning bed options-most of the beds will not fit 2 crates side by side between the wheel wells but anchored properly above the wells could be an option with storage underneath. I don't want to have to be a gymnast to access dogs and gear. Want to be able to lock everything up and keep it dry.

Option 1 - Fiberglass Shell with crates etc. inside
Option 2 - Custom Dog Topper (Expensive-not sure of hot weather performance, most dog compartments are smaller than I would like but may be big enough at 36x24x24)
Option 3 - Ladder rack and customizing myself (may give me better warm weather performance.

Would love your insights about what does and does not work. I figure dogsport folks probably have almost as much gear and leave dogs in vehicles for long times like SAR folk. I guess you probably don't have to have to accomodate overnight stuff but that is the exception for me, not the rule but you have to be prepared nonetheless.

MY argument against SUVs is that they get hot, not great for 2 dogs, not great for extra gear, no place for me to sleep in a pinch. My argument against minivans is ground clearance and heat issues again.

Thanks for your thoughts on this


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

I would go for a Ford Ranger with 4WD and a custom dog topper(mounted so you load dogs off the side of the truck and don't have to crawl in the truck bed). I drove my old Ranger for 14 yrs, always as a dog truck and it was a real good dependable truck, didn't have 4WD but as I have it now I don't think I would ever not have it(lots of snow here). The weight of my dog boxes made for pretty good traction(had extra leaf springs put in) in the Ranger but I do like the 4WD if you have to go on really rough going. Extended cab is nice as you can put extra passengers or gear you don't want outside. I would do a custom topper and include stuff like a water tank (like you have for horse trailers) and a good external work light also. I have a full size 4X4 truck and it is a great truck and hauls lots of dogs but is hard on the wallet at the gas pumps.


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

Don't get a Dodge. Fuel mileage sucks (our 4x4 '99 Dakota gets a whopping 14mpg), and you're guaranteed to have some kind of transmission/differential problem with it. :lol: Ours is in the shop right now, and Stacia had a heck of a time with her brand new Durango. I like Lynn's idea. My first car was a Ford Ranger 2x4 w/a 4cyl engine and manual transmission. Not so good on power, and not good on soft ground unless there was weight in the back (or two guys jumping up and down in the bed to give traction), but a reliable, gas efficient vehicle that could also haul stuff if needed. My dad has a newer 4x4 Ranger w/an automatic transmission, and it seems to be a good little truck, too.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

*Honda Ridgeline will have at least the fuel efficiency of the smaller trucks*, have more room, less depreciation (that is a very big deal people often ignore with trucks), and a lot more compartments and thoughtfulness (vertical/horizontal rear door opening, all-weather lockable trunk beneath the truck bed). V6 would do you fine, they are all, I think, AWD standard. Go test drive one. Check out the ground clearance, I think that is supposedly an issue, but maybe just one from people who like to jump out of their trucks.

I don't have one. But I would like one. It strikes me as an excellent choice if you're limited to trucks and have dogs. 

Ridgeline is the top-rated truck according to Consumer Reports.

I am not a big fan of small trucks, not when you can get a Ridgeline or Tundra. I do not like American trucks anymore. Not a real big fan of American cars in general at this point.

BTW, I have a manual 2003 Subaru Forester, which I think is an excellent one-dog vehicle. Would work with two dogs but not much room left for sleeping Nancy. Coolest sunroof ever, AWD and the Subaru engine (horizontally mounted) make for very great control.

But I don't think I'll ever buy anything other than another Honda if I get a car again. They are just insanely great cars. And Honda engineers are the very best in the world for what they do.

Would still want a Honda Odyssey before anything else, IMO. That is a wonderful minivan. I understand your concerns about Minivan heat but bottom line is that a minivan is way more accomodating and has higher utility than anything else.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

You know I like Honda vehicles a LOT and Honda also leads the pack for SAFETY and reliability but ...........

They have that funky design that means getting a topper for dog box would be a challenge - there is only 8.2 inches of ground clearance

AND they put the darned spare tire IN THE BED COMPARTMENT instead of below the truck between the rear wheels. It looks like the target market is the suburban family, kind of like the Explorer Sport Trac. Worth some more research though. Wish the had target the construction market as there are lots of things designed for every day pick up trucks

My Ford Escort straight shift went 275K and never EVEN needed a new clutch (it was starting to slip but by then the engine was going) and my Explorer at 194 has been very reliable.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> You know I like Honda vehicles a LOT and Honda also leads the pack for SAFETY and reliability but ...........
> 
> They have that funky design that means getting a topper for dog box would be a challenge - there is only 8.2 inches of ground clearance
> 
> ...


http://www.4are.com/product/view_models.php?mk=h&md=r

You will be more limited in after-market upgrades, no doubt. And the lines are very funky. But I'd still test drive one...lucky you...!


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Thanks for the link good to know someone is making something. I will have to give it a chance and look at spare tire access. Gets frustrating that it is harder and harder to find a fuel efficient pick up designed as a true utility vehicle!!

Buying a vehicle is a BIG deal for me - like I said planning for sometime between next July and November probably Oct when the 2007s are being cleared out. Earlier if the Explorer lives up the Ford Exploder name (ie how the transmission goes when it goes)

We drive 'em until they drop. I cannot think of a vehicle we have ever retired with less than 250K


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

i'm on my second ranger. my first one was a 93 manual transmission, 2.3 liter 4 banger. DO NOT GET THIS COMBO. sure mileage is a consideration, but that engine is just not powerful enough. i know they have more juice now than the 93 did, but c'mon. that thing was an absolute DOG. reliable as hell though.

my current is a 01 with auto trans and 4.0 V6. this engine has tons of power. it's the same engine they put in the explorer, so you can imagine how it does in a little ranger (i've smoked my buddy who has a full size chevy). it probably has more power than you'll need. i think you'd be fine with the mid engine which i think is a 3.0 V6. i love my truck. i just have the camper shell, dog crate in back combo. this is nice when i have to goto the dumps or load up the back, i just pull out the crate...


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

You know, the 3 liter manual transmission does not offer any fuel advantages over the 4 liter automatic. Go figure. I know the 4 liter engine is tried and true with a long history. Glad to get a 2nd report about the smaller engine note being powerful enough though.

The biggie with an automatic is when they go they go all of a sudden and a clutch gives you some warning. But maybe I should hang it up at that point :lol: - We are actually planning on retiring the Explorer earlier than our other cars because I really don't want to be out in the middle of nowhere at 3am and have the transmission go out on me and anything above 200K is good luck. Plus I am kind of scared of being in the left lane on a busy interstate and losing power all of a sudden.

I have no complaints with the Explorer and have driven a Ranger and it is the same base vehicle as the Explorer (well the NEW Explorers are not and I would not have one) - the only thing attracting me to Tacoma over Ranger is the option of getting a full sized quad cab and better safety features. Reliability looks to be about the same by the reviews. But I have not heard too many people have a bad experience with either vehicle.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> You know, the 3 liter manual transmission does not offer any fuel advantages over the 4 liter automatic. Go figure. I know the 4 liter engine is tried and true with a long history. Glad to get a 2nd report about the smaller engine note being powerful enough though.
> 
> The biggie with an automatic is when they go they go all of a sudden and a clutch gives you some warning. But maybe I should hang it up at that point :lol: - We are actually planning on retiring the Explorer earlier than our other cars because I really don't want to be out in the middle of nowhere at 3am and have the transmission go out on me and anything above 200K is good luck. Plus I am kind of scared of being in the left lane on a busy interstate and losing power all of a sudden.
> 
> I have no complaints with the Explorer and have driven a Ranger and it is the same base vehicle as the Explorer (well the NEW Explorers are not and I would not have one) - the only thing attracting me to Tacoma over Ranger is the option of getting a full sized quad cab and better safety features. Reliability looks to be about the same by the reviews. But I have not heard too many people have a bad experience with either vehicle.


i have the xtra cab model and yes, it's really not that much extra. but with the quad cab tacoma, you get what? a 5 foot bed? plus, i ALWAYS buy american. 

as a side note, i get HORRIBLE gas mileage on my truck. i'm pretty sure it has to do with my driving habits (i live 1 mile from work and my truck sees the freeway MAYBE once every two weeks). i usually get about 170-180 miles out of a tank of gas


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

The Tacoma quad cab is available with a 5 or 6 foot bed and the Ranger with a 6 or 7 foot bed. 

The Tacoma has an option of side airbags as well.

My main issue with Ford even though I have had good service is they do not have much good in terms of safety focus. The Pinto and Explorer problems coming to recent memory and the Toyotas and Honda seem to lead the pack there. Nissan always seems to have poor safety features. Good point though - a part of the cost of ownership is insurance and that should be a factor too.

I like to buy American too but what does that mean anymore with all the outsourcing that is done and a lot of foreign cars get manufactured over here any more. ...


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I like to buy American too but what does that mean anymore with all the outsourcing that is done and a lot of foreign cars get manufactured over here any more. ...


Agree 100%. 

http://www.freep.com/misc/frontpage/06models_20060507.htm


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

And funnily enough, the manufacturing principles the Japanese used to reform their manufacturing capabilities...things like total quality managment, statistical process control, process management, etc...that improved their product quality so much in the 70s forward...



...were principles taught to them by American engineers, principally J. Edwards Deming, who MacArthur brought over after WWII to rebuild the economy, people who were virtually ignored by American industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming#Work_in_Japan

Heh. Funny, just not ha-ha funny. In addition to the good it has done, he American automotive business has also brought a great deal of harm to the American people, and will continue to do so...get ready for the biggest pension fund bail-out in history if GM or Ford go completely under.

That won't happen, GM does GREAT business in China and Europe! :lol:

But I still think the cars and the business model are garbage.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

LOL Woody - I am a CQE whatever that gets anyone 
Ideas and Implementation are two different things.

What does ISO mean anymore other than you pay someone to get a certificate but you don't embrance quality improvement?

Guess I am in the "P" part of my Deming Cycle. 8)


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> LOL Woody - I am a CQE whatever that gets anyone
> Ideas and Implementation are two different things.
> 
> What does ISO mean anymore other than you pay someone to get a certificate but you don't embrance quality improvement?
> ...


ISO 9000:2000 standards are nothing more--literally--than documenting current operational processes, proving you have people in place to support quality change (these people can be blind chimps with pencils in their mouths) and paying a fee to be evaluated by an ISO inspector. They are nonsense. Not familiar enough with 9004, which is supposedly "evidence" of continuous improvement in a mature operation, but it not an implementation guide. Oh, sheesh, the things that people get to put on their billboards. Firestone of the Exploding Ford Explorer Tires was ISO 9000 certified at the time.

One of the bigger hoodwinks in American business history until Y2K and Sarbanes-Oaxley came along. Don't get me started.

It's a starting point if people want to burn money, but they are better off hiring well-rounded and scarily efficient process managers and actually supporting them (and leaving them alone). My resume availible on request.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Outsourcing: My Pontiac Vibe is nothing more then a Toyota Matrix with a body change. Both built in the same plant in California.
If I'm not mistaken, the Ford Ranger is a Mazda with a body change.
No such thing as all American.......unfortunately.
Ditto with Woody on the reasons Japan has developed their quality. WE taught them. 
When I was a kid, "made in Japan" was only on cheap carnival prizes. 
No comments Woody! :evil: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> No comments Woody! :evil: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:


Just the facts, sir! And if you ever really want to know how any major US company became powerful before the computing revolution...it's all because of gov't subsidy and contracts. Coca-Cola, Catapiller, Boeing...war is good. Search around for some of the whore-festing going on with Iraq as well as military IT modernization. $600 toilet seats are cheap by comparison.

One of the many reasons I'm not a strict capitalist/libertarian anymore is that no business actually survives without gov't subsidy and support (as provided by taxpayers). Not one. Double-dare somebody to prove me different.

Coca-Cola's expansion is particularly interesting, they basically got an exclusive contract to feed GI's cokes in WWII and then...as the Allies progressed through Europe...just opened up production sites!


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

when people use the excuse that "foreign" cars are mostly built over here, it makes me laugh. great. so they bring factory labor jobs over here. where do the profits go? back to japan...


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> when people use the excuse that "foreign" cars are mostly built over here, it makes me laugh. great. so they bring factory labor jobs over here. where do the profits go? back to japan...


...To companies who have shown a willingness to reinvest in America instead of living off of govt largess. Instead of creating 54 billion dollar taxpayer liabilities with accounting tricks.

Its an interesting argument. But bottom line is that its a global economy and its virtually impossible to buy American when you are talking about complex widgets like cars.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> > when people use the excuse that "foreign" cars are mostly built over here, it makes me laugh. great. so they bring factory labor jobs over here. where do the profits go? back to japan...
> ...


Unfortunately, global economy means that big business wants the American worker, earning 15-20 dollars, to find a happy medium with a foreign worker making 15-20 dollars a week. 
Sounds like a loser to me. 
The "American dream" for a blue collar class worker is going down the tube.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> The "American dream" for a blue collar class worker is going down the tube.


That's true. And there is very little anyone who buys anything can do anything about it with the present system. We created it.

We can START by only using American showline GSDs, though. Buy American! :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

That's was jus plain cruel Woody! :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> That's was jus plain cruel Woody! :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:


I'm just sayin'. Awful lot of imports on this forum.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I was referring to buying an American Showline GSD. I wouldn't force that on my worst enemy. 
 I'll probably make a couple with that statement.  :wink:


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

We love baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and chevrolet!










Sorry couldn't resist lol


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Back to vehicles ........

Part of a capitalist system is to provide what the consumer values and is willing to pay for. In my case it is fuel economy (given the limitations of a truck), reliability, safety and quality. That is the provider I would go with.

I have no interest in lining the pockets of some rich CEO who has no concern about his employees and outsources to third world countries (Japan is not a third world country, BTW) to cut labor costs while encouraging horrible labor conditions and low pay. I pay more for the Union label but it is harder and harder to find - I still have some ILGWU clothing that is 40 years old and in good shape!

From reading up it appears that these trucks (Ranger and Tacoma) are not getting anything near the EPA mileage - for the Ranger owners, is that the case? I am hearing 14mpg which just won't cut it!!! My old Explorer CONSISTENTLY gets 19-20mpg at 194K on the Engine and a mix of suburban and highway driving.


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

Actually, I think I'm the only one that said my truck gets 14mpg, but it's not a Ford. It's a Dodge Dakota. Tim is only getting around 9-10mpg out of his truck, but like he said, it's only being driven 2 miles a day. :lol: 

If you want to compare mpg, the website http://www.fueleconomy.gov is one to check out. I think it is just comparing the EPA ratings, but that should still give you something to go on.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I got the 14-16 off of various user forums for both vehicles - YIKES - I think the EPA estimates must simply be based on the engine displacement.

But looky here
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/longterm/index.html


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I got the 14-16 off of various user forums for both vehicles - YIKES - I think the EPA estimates must simply be based on the engine displacement.
> 
> But looky here
> http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/longterm/index.html


Nancy, I say this lovingly, but as a guy that tried to sell Chevys for a few months back in college...we HATED customers like you. :lol: :lol: :lol: Complete PITAs.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

LOL the last two vehicles we *helped* buy were Honda Civics for my daughters. I dealt with the internet sales folks and went into it knowing what I was planning to pay. No emotion here. Got their with side airbags too (they had to move some cars around to get them - guess most southerners not willing to pay for them but even Click and Clack like them  )

I do plan on test driving anything but I am pretty good at walking away - I am just VERY CLEAR up front that today is NOT a buying day and if they pressure me that I will go elsewhere. And make sure I deal with the same person I started with if they seem ok (Hubby did commission sales for years)


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Got the Tundra - 4x4 5,7L engine -- (sepsite the hokey ad campaign) 

Prices got too good and fuel economy looks ok - during break in period it is getting 16 around town; 18-19 on highway. Putting a Leer shell on the back.

If someone is buying a small truck in a few years Mihandra (Indian tractor company) has a small common rail diesel truck they plan on offering if it meets emission standards [I think it takes urea injection for newest standard]

What I was finding was the small V6 trucks don't have much better fuel economy than the big V8s on the highway - I can tolerate poor mileage around town.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Nancy,

It's funny that you think that 18-19 mpg is OK. In Europe people would have a heart attack at that.  

As fuel prices go up (and when the US sorts out it's diesel fuel quality) you'll be getting a whole load of trucks with large V6/V8 common rail diesels, which should get you around the 30mpg mark.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

This is a rather long but fascinating look at the car sales industry:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/buying/articles/42962/article.html

Btw, how common are flex fuel vehicles and stations are where everyone lives? MFA Oil is right here in town, so there are lots of 85% ethanol pumps.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I do NOT think 18-19 is ok. I have spent the past year begging the truck people for vehicles you can buy over there. It is not an option in the US. The common rail diesels in the small trucks available in Europe are simply not for sale over here. 

My understanding is that they won't meet our emission standards without urea injection. Also, it is a marketing decision. Short of writing car manufacturing executives and my congress what else would I do? My current vehicle has over 200,000 miles and I needed a new one.

I tried and tried and tried to get a Ford Ranger Thunder. Perhaps the Indian Mihandra will manage to make it over her in 2009-2010 but I am not sure of the Indian focus on safety and reliablity -the tractors have a good rep but I would like to actually see that truck running for a few years first. 

Bottom line is that over here I can buy a big truck or a little truck that gets about the SAME mileage on the hwy, which is the bulk of my driving as I telecommute and don't go running around in my vehicle without combining trips. All things being equal (but they were not - I could not get side airbags or traction control on the little truck) the big truck makes more sense.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I do NOT think 18-19 is ok. I have spent the past year begging the truck people for vehicles you can buy over there. It is not an option in the US. The common rail diesels in the small trucks available in Europe are simply not for sale over here.
> 
> My understanding is that they won't meet our emission standards without urea injection. Also, it is a marketing decision. Short of writing car manufacturing executives and my congress what else would I do? My current vehicle has over 200,000 miles and I needed a new one.
> 
> ...


It'll happen soon Nancy.....;-) . Any European diesel vehicle that meets EU4 emissions standards and has a DPF will meet any emissions standards you have in the US, including California. Whether you can buy them in the US is another matter altogether :-x .

Traditionally the diesel fuel quality in the US has been poor (low cetane values, high aromatics, high sulfur etc.), which has concerned vehicle OEMs, but this is improving.

In a few years you'll be able to get that Ford Ranger Thunder in the US with a 2.4L I4 that will meet EU5 emissions......


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

OR you could move to Europe, buy your diesel there, and never have to drive more than 30 miles to get anywhere  Think of how much money you'd save! Ofcourse.... everything else is really expensive, including the vehicles. Hmmm, so, in reality.... the amount you might save in gas, is only a fraction of how much more it would cost you to buy the vehicle to begin with! Don't forget the tax too... I probably paid more (annual) tax on my car in Belgium than I will spend on a years worth of gas in Florida filling up an SUV.

Amazing how the world balances out and people still envy "the other country". So how about we bring Diesel to the US, then raise vehicle prices and vehicle tax to match Europe too?


----------

