I did not see the thread at all until Swingman brought it to my
attention. Using Google I saw parts of it but not all of it.

Yeah, I bought one of those too. It is more powerful than the Domino.

I am not sure what has been said exactly but here is how my past week
has been which included the shopping and purchase of the 07 Tundra.

My wife took a weeks worth of vacation off and we went to Corpus
Christi for 3 days. I had been considering the purchase of a new truck to
replace my 97 Silverado. I always start off doing the research online
through Edmunds and KBB to learn the dealer invoice. 90% of the time the
dealer deals off of that pricing. I requested both to contact a dealer for
price quotes and to e-mail me with their current pricing programs. I am an
old GM guy and am slightly partial to GM over any other make but I am not
hell bent on buying GM. For reasons that I will not mention I have very
favorable reasons to buy GMC and a better reason to buy Chevrolet in
addition to the rebates and deals being offered.

Because of how Dodge and Ford have been reviewed lately I did not seriously
consider either. In the last year I have seen a new Ford F150 get torn a
new one by a Chevy S10 PU and the S10 had minor damage. The Ford was
missing the front wheel and brake rotor. Another F150 had severe quarter
panel flex as I watched it going down the street. That said, the new Fords
are purdy.

I narrowed down my serious contenders to the Honda Ridgeline, the New
Chevrolet LT1, the new GMC SLE1. and the new Tundra.

For my needs big and powerful is not needed. The Honda with a 247 hp V6,
LOADED was my over all favorite but that darn bed is 18" too short and about
12" too narrow. You cannot haul a piece of 60"x60" BBirch in it. Normal
sized plywood hangs past the dropped tailgate about 18". The truck handled
great.
Price offered over the internet was $3000 off from Honda plus an additional
$3400 off from the dealer. All dealer add-on's if equipped are free. We
got a similar deal on our 2004 Accord 3 years ago.

The GMC was next and I can honestly say that the new suspension on the new
GMC and Chevy trucks makes them feel and handle like the 1997 models. For
me that is not good, I want that modern feeling. The truck feels enormous
and it is. The extended cabs seats were uncomfortable and could not be
adjusted to suite my wife. The back seats can be used as a 90 degree
reference. Not comfortable for any period of time. The back doors flex and
have considerable movement while going down the freeway on all models
including the Chevrolet.
The local dealer offered $26,500 + TTL. Not even in the ball park as far as
I was concerned.

A Chevy dealer held my wife and I captive. The truck was basically the same
price and equal to the GMC. I actually ran the thought in my mind to
strangle the salesman when he would not return my key and license. I did
however follow him to the "TOWER" where he was getting his figures and
offers from the GSM. I walked in and explained that they were going to
have to do much better in the next 5 minutes. I really did not want the
truck but if the price was right I would buy. They shot me another figure
and I fired back with $20000 drive out. They came down $6K to $20500.
Whew, I walked.

After all this I did not want to drive the bigger Toyota. The GM trucks
felt huge and cumbersome. the new Tundra would surely be worse. I really
was not even fond of the Tundra's looks having seen one at the Auto show
earlier this year and had not paid much attention to them. I did decide to
honor the test drive appointment and was pleasantly surprised. On Thursday
I ordered the V6 which had a couple more horses than my more than adequate
97 Silverado with 5.0 engine.

Saturday noon I get a call from the GMC GSM where I test drove the GMC. He
wanted to know what it would take to sell me a truck. I told him that we
had already ordered the Toyota and that it was very comfortable by
comparison. He asked me again what price it would take for me to cancel
the Tundra order and buy a GMC. I said make me your best offer and keep
in mind that it would take a lot to overcome the lack of comfort that we
would be settling for. His price dropped and including my trade in sight
unseen I could have the GMC SLE1 with the Texas option package for $18000
drive out and he would extend this same type discount to any model GMC he
had on the lot. I told him that I would come take another test drive.

The Toyota dealer is literally next door to the GMC dealer. I stopped there
first and told them about the GMC offer and asked them for their best deal.
We had previously only partially negotiated price and would finish that
process after the ordered vehicle had been built with no obligation to buy.
Because they had did not have a V6 in the configuration that I wanted I had
to step up to the V8. The drive out price with more options than the one I
had on order was $6400 under the "sticker drive out price" less my trade in.
Fortunately the big V8 and the smaller V6 EPA mileage rating differ by 1 mpg
in town and no difference on the highway. The v6 is rated at 236 hp and
the big V8 is rated at 381 hp with 401 #ft of torque.

We went to the GMC dealer and drove 4 more trucks and sadly never even
started talking price. Comfort and handling was first and foremost
important.

We picked the Tundra up on Monday. As Charlie commented the big V8 has more
hp than 99 percent of the owners will ever need. Give the throttle a quick
1/2" push and the rear tires chirp. I suspect that full throttle would
smoke the tires. From the EPA mileage estimates the fuel savings is slight
to none over the V6 but the big V8 certainly is much more fun. Insurance
with the big V8 increased less than $100 per year for the 07 Tundra over the
97 Silverado.
The Tundra is wonderfully comfortable "for a truck" over anything that we
test drove. With the SR5 trim package and 6 or 7 other options we ended up
with more truck and more creature comforts.

I'll be glad to answer any questions from my 4 days experience with the
truck. ;~) I LIKE IT.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:44:24 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

I did not see the thread at all until Swingman brought it to my
attention. Using Google I saw parts of it but not all of it.

Yeah, I bought one of those too. It is more powerful than the Domino.

I am not sure what has been said exactly but here is how my past week
has been which included the shopping and purchase of the 07 Tundra.

My wife took a weeks worth of vacation off and we went to Corpus
Christi for 3 days. I had been considering the purchase of a new truck to
replace my 97 Silverado. I always start off doing the research online
through Edmunds and KBB to learn the dealer invoice. 90% of the time the
dealer deals off of that pricing. I requested both to contact a dealer for
price quotes and to e-mail me with their current pricing programs. I am an
old GM guy and am slightly partial to GM over any other make but I am not
hell bent on buying GM. For reasons that I will not mention I have very
favorable reasons to buy GMC and a better reason to buy Chevrolet in
addition to the rebates and deals being offered.

Because of how Dodge and Ford have been reviewed lately I did not seriously
consider either. In the last year I have seen a new Ford F150 get torn a
new one by a Chevy S10 PU and the S10 had minor damage. The Ford was
missing the front wheel and brake rotor. Another F150 had severe quarter
panel flex as I watched it going down the street. That said, the new Fords
are purdy.

I narrowed down my serious contenders to the Honda Ridgeline, the New
Chevrolet LT1, the new GMC SLE1. and the new Tundra.

For my needs big and powerful is not needed. The Honda with a 247 hp V6,
LOADED was my over all favorite but that darn bed is 18" too short and about
12" too narrow. You cannot haul a piece of 60"x60" BBirch in it. Normal
sized plywood hangs past the dropped tailgate about 18". The truck handled
great.
Price offered over the internet was $3000 off from Honda plus an additional
$3400 off from the dealer. All dealer add-on's if equipped are free. We
got a similar deal on our 2004 Accord 3 years ago.

The GMC was next and I can honestly say that the new suspension on the new
GMC and Chevy trucks makes them feel and handle like the 1997 models. For
me that is not good, I want that modern feeling. The truck feels enormous
and it is. The extended cabs seats were uncomfortable and could not be
adjusted to suite my wife. The back seats can be used as a 90 degree
reference. Not comfortable for any period of time. The back doors flex and
have considerable movement while going down the freeway on all models
including the Chevrolet.
The local dealer offered $26,500 + TTL. Not even in the ball park as far as
I was concerned.

A Chevy dealer held my wife and I captive. The truck was basically the same
price and equal to the GMC. I actually ran the thought in my mind to
strangle the salesman when he would not return my key and license. I did
however follow him to the "TOWER" where he was getting his figures and
offers from the GSM. I walked in and explained that they were going to
have to do much better in the next 5 minutes. I really did not want the
truck but if the price was right I would buy. They shot me another figure
and I fired back with $20000 drive out. They came down $6K to $20500.
Whew, I walked.

After all this I did not want to drive the bigger Toyota. The GM trucks
felt huge and cumbersome. the new Tundra would surely be worse. I really
was not even fond of the Tundra's looks having seen one at the Auto show
earlier this year and had not paid much attention to them. I did decide to
honor the test drive appointment and was pleasantly surprised. On Thursday
I ordered the V6 which had a couple more horses than my more than adequate
97 Silverado with 5.0 engine.

Saturday noon I get a call from the GMC GSM where I test drove the GMC. He
wanted to know what it would take to sell me a truck. I told him that we
had already ordered the Toyota and that it was very comfortable by
comparison. He asked me again what price it would take for me to cancel
the Tundra order and buy a GMC. I said make me your best offer and keep
in mind that it would take a lot to overcome the lack of comfort that we
would be settling for. His price dropped and including my trade in sight
unseen I could have the GMC SLE1 with the Texas option package for $18000
drive out and he would extend this same type discount to any model GMC he
had on the lot. I told him that I would come take another test drive.

The Toyota dealer is literally next door to the GMC dealer. I stopped there
first and told them about the GMC offer and asked them for their best deal.
We had previously only partially negotiated price and would finish that
process after the ordered vehicle had been built with no obligation to buy.
Because they had did not have a V6 in the configuration that I wanted I had
to step up to the V8. The drive out price with more options than the one I
had on order was $6400 under the "sticker drive out price" less my trade in.
Fortunately the big V8 and the smaller V6 EPA mileage rating differ by 1 mpg
in town and no difference on the highway. The v6 is rated at 236 hp and
the big V8 is rated at 381 hp with 401 #ft of torque.

We went to the GMC dealer and drove 4 more trucks and sadly never even
started talking price. Comfort and handling was first and foremost
important.

We picked the Tundra up on Monday. As Charlie commented the big V8 has more
hp than 99 percent of the owners will ever need. Give the throttle a quick
1/2" push and the rear tires chirp. I suspect that full throttle would
smoke the tires. From the EPA mileage estimates the fuel savings is slight
to none over the V6 but the big V8 certainly is much more fun. Insurance
with the big V8 increased less than $100 per year for the 07 Tundra over the
97 Silverado.
The Tundra is wonderfully comfortable "for a truck" over anything that we
test drove. With the SR5 trim package and 6 or 7 other options we ended up
with more truck and more creature comforts.

I'll be glad to answer any questions from my 4 days experience with the
truck. ;~) I LIKE IT.


Glad you finally checked in, although, I think Swingman has hauled in
his lines and gone to the house.

Glad you like the truck. Bought an '07 Tacoma which exactly fit my
current needs and I am quite happy with it. I'm particularly knocked
out by the city driving mpg.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message

Glad you finally checked in, although, I think Swingman has hauled in
his lines and gone to the house.

Make that "shop".

And just what I suspected. His ISP treated that shiny lure and perfect cast
like _spam_ ... go figure! But hey, I got to ride in it Monday night and
Leon didn't even charge me!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/1/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Leon wrote:

I'll be glad to answer any questions from my 4 days experience with the
truck. ;~) I LIKE IT.

Welcome to the cult. G

I have a current-version Tacoma which suits my needs.
Out of curiosity, I took an '07 Tundra for a ride, and what a truck!

Enjoy it, and good luck!

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:44:24 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


Glad you finally checked in, although, I think Swingman has hauled in
his lines and gone to the house.

I have missed the group.




Glad you like the truck. Bought an '07 Tacoma which exactly fit my
current needs and I am quite happy with it. I'm particularly knocked
out by the city driving mpg.

Frank


You have one too! AND you like the in town gas mileage..... COOOOOOL. I
assume you also have the big V8. Strange that the smaller V8 gets less mpg.

I just unloaded 15 sheets of plywood out of it and, well, it was like
removing 15 sheets of plywood. ;~)

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
. net...
Leon wrote:
I'll be glad to answer any questions from my 4 days experience with
the truck. ;~) I LIKE IT.

Welcome to the cult. G

I have a current-version Tacoma which suits my needs.
Out of curiosity, I took an '07 Tundra for a ride, and what a truck!

I actually liked the looks of the 06 more than the 07 in the beginning. The
car show in Houston did no justice to the truck. So far I am impressed and
perhaps the blaaa American branded trucks will sit up and take notice.

Enjoy it, and good luck!

Thank you sir.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:46:13 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:44:24 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


Glad you finally checked in, although, I think Swingman has hauled in
his lines and gone to the house.

I have missed the group.




Glad you like the truck. Bought an '07 Tacoma which exactly fit my
current needs and I am quite happy with it. I'm particularly knocked
out by the city driving mpg.

Frank


You have one too! AND you like the in town gas mileage..... COOOOOOL. I
assume you also have the big V8. Strange that the smaller V8 gets less mpg.

Read again. Tacoma. 4.0 V6. All you can get and all you need.

But I have seen that before, that is, smaller engine, worse mileage.
I think that was the case with the GM 4.8 vs 5.3 iron block when I was
truck shopping. There doing some tricks with valve timing and
cylinder management these days, that may cause that to be the case.

Frank

I just unloaded 15 sheets of plywood out of it and, well, it was like
removing 15 sheets of plywood. ;~)

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Read again. Tacoma. 4.0 V6. All you can get and all you need.

Doh....


But I have seen that before, that is, smaller engine, worse mileage.
I think that was the case with the GM 4.8 vs 5.3 iron block when I was
truck shopping. There doing some tricks with valve timing and
cylinder management these days, that may cause that to be the case.


That and more of the engines are all aluminum vs having an iron block and or
heads.

"Leon" wrote in
et:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Read again. Tacoma. 4.0 V6. All you can get and all you need.

Doh....


But I have seen that before, that is, smaller engine, worse mileage.
I think that was the case with the GM 4.8 vs 5.3 iron block when I
was truck shopping. There doing some tricks with valve timing and
cylinder management these days, that may cause that to be the case.


That and more of the engines are all aluminum vs having an iron block
and or heads.


I got a new GMC 1500 longbed in 1996. It was a really good buy, and has
been a pretty good truck for the boys, after I got done with my day to
day use of it in 1999. Its well over 200k miles now.

But it has a Vortec 5000 V8 in it, with (at least) aluminum heads, IIRC.
And this baby doesn't like heat very much. I think I've done head
gaskets twice now.

Once, though, was after the boys brought home a very full load of
freshly cut oak over the mountain from Lake County one July afternoon.
That 'free firewood' that they brought home for a friend of theirs must
have cost me $1400. ;-) The other truck, my then and now daily driver,
is a 1999 GMC Silverado extended cab. They had that one loaded down
really heavy, too, but managed not to burn up that motor. Only ripped
open one of the tires backing up in my dad's yard.

Ain't kids wunnerful?

Patriarch

"Leon" wrote

I just unloaded 15 sheets of plywood out of it and, well, it was like
removing 15 sheets of plywood. ;~)


And that is a sad commentary on trucks in America today. That having a sheet
of plywood fit into the bed is a rarity. If you haul anything around in a
truck and if performs any real function , you need an eight foot bed. A lot
of people don't know this.

I have baffled many people by commenting on the limited utility of the short
beds on the purty, city boy trucks. They think I am some kind of knuckle
dragging neanderthal. I just tell them I am your average PRAGMATIC farmboy.

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
. ..

"Leon" wrote

I just unloaded 15 sheets of plywood out of it and, well, it was like
removing 15 sheets of plywood. ;~)


And that is a sad commentary on trucks in America today. That having a
sheet of plywood fit into the bed is a rarity. If you haul anything
around in a truck and if performs any real function , you need an eight
foot bed. A lot of people don't know this.

I have baffled many people by commenting on the limited utility of the
short beds on the purty, city boy trucks. They think I am some kind of
knuckle dragging neanderthal. I just tell them I am your average
PRAGMATIC farmboy.




I started with a long bed in 1978 and got the first 6.5 short bed in 1997.
That is now the regular bed and the 5.5 is the new short bed. I have been
perfectly fine with the 6.5. If 8' is protected by the bed and tail gate I
have no problem. I could have bought the 8' this time as all offer it but
it tends to be a PIA to maneuver on the 4 door models.
IMHO the width is more important and that discounts the smaller trucks and
step sides for me.

"Leon" wrote in message

I started with a long bed in 1978 and got the first 6.5 short bed in 1997.
That is now the regular bed and the 5.5 is the new short bed. I have been
perfectly fine with the 6.5. If 8' is protected by the bed and tail gate
I
have no problem. I could have bought the 8' this time as all offer it but
it tends to be a PIA to maneuver on the 4 door models.
IMHO the width is more important and that discounts the smaller trucks and
step sides for me.

Seems I always needed some kind of tool box in the 8' beds because there was
no room behind the front seat for keeping tools out of the elements. This
effectively cut back on usable bed space, so I was glad to give some up to
get an extended cab. I also have no problem with a 6.5 as long as the
tailgate is beefy.

The trend towards "high" is what gets me. It's getting harder and harder to
lift anything over the side of one of these monsters, and getting into one
is getting tougher and tougher each passing year as they get higher, and I
get older.

Hmmm ... Judging from the blizzard of Viagra commercials there must be a
hell of a lot of useless tools in this culture. Could this current trend
toward pickup "macho" size be rooted in the fact that Viagra sells so well?



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/1/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Hmmm ... Judging from the blizzard of Viagra commercials there must be a
hell of a lot of useless tools in this culture. Could this current trend
toward pickup "macho" size be rooted in the fact that Viagra sells so
well?

You have only to look at all the "executive" gray-beards on Harleys for
your answer.

)
-
NuWave Dave in Houston

"Leon" wrote:

I started with a long bed in 1978 and got the first 6.5 short bed
in 1997.

Read Leon's litany of his negotiation process and smiled.

Here in SoCal, there are 48 Toyota dealers within 20 miles, so
obviously wasn't going to visit all of them so to be fair wouldn't
visit any of them.

Wanted a small Toyota pick up.

Went to a dealer lot after hours and identified all the options I
wanted using the labels on the trucks as my source.

Sent a fax to all 48 dealers requesting a bid to my spec, which was
NBD since it was a process automated by software.

Within minutes, the fax started receiving bids.

24 hours later, placed order.

Neat, clean and no hassle.

And yes, got a fair price, more than I wanted to pay, but still fair.

Lew

Next car or truck I buy, I'm taking Leon with me.

On Jul 20, 5:40 am, "Swingman" wrote:

The trend towards "high" is what gets me. It's getting harder and harder to lift anything over the side of one of these monsters, and getting into one is getting tougher and tougher each passing year as they get higher, and I
get older.

Man alive, you and me both. Since I do all manner of repairs, I have
all manner of equipment and materials in and out of the truck. I had
a job out of town last year that required about an hour's trip to get
there, and an hour back. I paid one of my guys (who loves to drive
his new truck) his wage, gas, and a little more if he drove us. That
way I could work in the truck for an hour both ways.

I HATED loading the compressor and materials in his F150. That slab
sided sombitch is probably 8 - 10" higher than mine at the bed since
it is the style, but he also had those huge rims and tires on it from
the dealer. What a surprise that makes at the end of the day when you
have to keep the gate up to take away the day's wasted and you put
your tools on top of it. At that time after a long work day, that
dual tank compressor and 12" miter saw seem like they weight a ton
each.

Now the trucks are even higher than his. I don't have a clue what I
will do when I get another truck.

Robert

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:04:09 -0700, "
wrote:

Now the trucks are even higher than his. I don't have a clue what I
will do when I get another truck.

I use a Haulmark cargo trailer, with a floor ~ 14" off the ground.

My TRD 4x4 Tacoma has a high bed, but it's shallower than a full-size.
One side benefit is that I spent all last week cutting hardwood
flooring on the lowered tailgate, and the height works out great for
my 6' body.

I added full length cab steps ( real steps, not the currently in-style
"tube type") that allow me to easily get to the front overhead rack to
tie things up. I can put one hand in the roof channel and pop right
up there.

BTW, to the other Toyota owners:

If you want genuine accessories, there's a dealer in Brookfield, WI
that advertises low accessory prices on the web. My local dealer
matched the web prices without much effort, well after the sale,
saving me a ton of money off MSRP on the steps, a rubber bed mat, and
a wind deflector.


---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

wrote in message
ups.com...

Man alive, you and me both. Since I do all manner of repairs, I have
all manner of equipment and materials in and out of the truck. I had
a job out of town last year that required about an hour's trip to get
there, and an hour back. I paid one of my guys (who loves to drive
his new truck) his wage, gas, and a little more if he drove us. That
way I could work in the truck for an hour both ways.

I HATED loading the compressor and materials in his F150. That slab
sided sombitch is probably 8 - 10" higher than mine at the bed since
it is the style, but he also had those huge rims and tires on it from
the dealer. What a surprise that makes at the end of the day when you
have to keep the gate up to take away the day's wasted and you put
your tools on top of it. At that time after a long work day, that
dual tank compressor and 12" miter saw seem like they weight a ton
each.

Now the trucks are even higher than his. I don't have a clue what I
will do when I get another truck.

Robert


That is absolutely what turned me off on many of the new trucks. The new
Tundra tail gate with extended cab and 6.5' bed has a load height of
approximately 35". Fortunately this is not much higher than the older
trucks IIRC. At least it did not feel much higher when loading sheets of
plywood.
GONE are the days of reaching over the bed sides though.

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
. ..

"Leon" wrote

I just unloaded 15 sheets of plywood out of it and, well, it was like
removing 15 sheets of plywood. ;~)


And that is a sad commentary on trucks in America today. That having a
sheet of plywood fit into the bed is a rarity. If you haul anything
around in a truck and if performs any real function , you need an eight
foot bed. A lot of people don't know this.

I have baffled many people by commenting on the limited utility of the
short beds on the purty, city boy trucks. They think I am some kind of
knuckle dragging neanderthal. I just tell them I am your average
PRAGMATIC farmboy.


Hmmmmm... I really like my '94 Silverado extended cab, short box. I've
never troubled over carrying 8 foot sheet goods, and I can still maneuver
the thing while plowing snow. Never saw the need for the longer bed which
only makes the truck longer than it needs to be. The reason that a lot of
people "don't know" that you need an 8 foot bed for a truck to perform any
real function is that they are fooled by their 6.5 foot beds doing such a
functional job.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
. ..

"Leon" wrote

I just unloaded 15 sheets of plywood out of it and, well, it was like
removing 15 sheets of plywood. ;~)


And that is a sad commentary on trucks in America today. That having a
sheet of plywood fit into the bed is a rarity. If you haul anything
around in a truck and if performs any real function , you need an eight
foot bed. A lot of people don't know this.

I have baffled many people by commenting on the limited utility of the
short beds on the purty, city boy trucks. They think I am some kind of
knuckle dragging neanderthal. I just tell them I am your average
PRAGMATIC farmboy.


Hmmmmm... I really like my '94 Silverado extended cab, short box. I've
never troubled over carrying 8 foot sheet goods, and I can still maneuver
the thing while plowing snow. Never saw the need for the longer bed which
only makes the truck longer than it needs to be. The reason that a lot of
people "don't know" that you need an 8 foot bed for a truck to perform any
real function is that they are fooled by their 6.5 foot beds doing such a
functional job.

--

-Mike-


My personal experiences with my 2000 Ranger is that a 6 1/2 foot bed is
perfectly fine carrying 8 foot plywood, drywall, and 2x4's. The stuff does
stick out the back, but then Ford also designed the bed so that if you need
to carry plywood or drywall you can make a platform that straddles the wheel
wells with 2x4's. I frequently carry 10 sheets of 1/2" sheetrock in the bed
with zero problems. There are also a small mod you can do with the tailgate
bolts to use the lip of the tailgate to act as a platform for plywood. Ford
and I would imagine Chevy put quite a lot of thinking in their light duty
trucks - too bad they didn't advertise those features.

Not saying a larger truck helps with REAL farm labor, a light pickup has its
limitations that I'm well aware of, just that for someone who only does
occasional projects and work my Ranger is perfectly suited - and I can
parallel park it in the city.

"Eigenvector" writes:


My personal experiences with my 2000 Ranger is that a 6 1/2 foot bed is
perfectly fine carrying 8 foot plywood, drywall, and 2x4's. The stuff does
stick out the back, but then Ford also designed the bed so that if you need
to carry plywood or drywall you can make a platform that straddles the wheel
wells with 2x4's. I frequently carry 10 sheets of 1/2" sheetrock in the bed
with zero problems. There are also a small mod you can do with the tailgate
bolts to use the lip of the tailgate to act as a platform for plywood. Ford
and I would imagine Chevy put quite a lot of thinking in their light duty
trucks - too bad they didn't advertise those features.

Not saying a larger truck helps with REAL farm labor, a light pickup has its
limitations that I'm well aware of, just that for someone who only does
occasional projects and work my Ranger is perfectly suited - and I can
parallel park it in the city.


And it gets 24mpg, is reasonably peppy and cost less than $10k new off the
lot.

scott (another 2000 ranger owner).

"Eigenvector" wrote in message

Not saying a larger truck helps with REAL farm labor, a light pickup has
its limitations that I'm well aware of, just that for someone who only
does occasional projects and work my Ranger is perfectly suited - and I
can parallel park it in the city.

I like my current 6.5 bed, but that extra ten to twelve bales of hay per
load, times ten loads, could mean getting out of the field early on a hot
summer day.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/1/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Jim Behning" wrote in message
...


I can get 32 square bales of Bermuda on my Toyota one ton with a 7
foot bed. I could get another 8 bales if I stack one more course. I
have to take turns pretty slow if i go for 40. 32 is not so bad as it
is only 1500 pounds of hay or so. How many bales to others get on
their trucks?

Where do you live that you are able to find/have a Toyota one ton?

Mike Marlow wrote:

The reason that a lot of
people "don't know" that you need an 8 foot bed for a truck to perform any
real function is that they are fooled by their 6.5 foot beds doing such a
functional job.


My Toyota pickups have never had more than a 6'3" box, and I've never
had problems carrying 8' goods. Most small trucks and aftermarket
liners) have notches for 2x6's in the bed so sheets will sit on the
wheel wells.


When I think of my '85 Toyota vs. my '05, I can't believe they still
call them "small" trucks. G

Jim Behning wrote:
How many bales to others get on
their trucks?

One!

That's all I need when the wife's classroom guinea pig needs a refill.

Leon wrote:

Where do you live that you are able to find/have a Toyota one ton?


Toyota sold a 7 1/2 foot bed, one ton pickup 'till ~ 1991 in the US.

The original "extra cab" was built on the long bed chassis using a
standard bed. Nowadays, I think the current Access Cab Tacoma, with a 7
1/2' bed, and 3 liter turbo diesel, on the Double Cab long bed chassis
would be cool. They sell it outside the US as the "Hilux"

Toyota loves to confuse people with the current Tacoma. The double cab
"long" bed is actually the 6.3' bed used on every other Tacoma. The
"short" bed double cab is an ultra short 5 footer, built on the Acces
cab frame.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:42:10 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Jim Behning" wrote in message
.. .


I can get 32 square bales of Bermuda on my Toyota one ton with a 7
foot bed. I could get another 8 bales if I stack one more course. I
have to take turns pretty slow if i go for 40. 32 is not so bad as it
is only 1500 pounds of hay or so. How many bales to others get on
their trucks?

Where do you live that you are able to find/have a Toyota one ton?

First concept is this. Toyota called a truck that carried a ton a one
ton. US makers call a vehicle that can carry a ton a 1/2 ton. The US
manufacturer's current one ton can carry over 2.5 tons.

US. 1987 model that has a 5500 pound gvw and weighed less than 3,000
pounds empty. It came with 8 ply rated tires. Mine came with a 4
cylinder engine. The one ton had bigger brakes, bigger rear end, and
heavier springs. I ordered the towing package so it had larger
radiator and a different rear end ratio. The truck is rather bumpy
empty but pretty ok with 500 pounds or more in the back. It was rated
to tow 5,000 pounds. It did not set any acceleration records when
towing a horse and trailer but it did keep up with the 18 wheelers
crossing the pass in Tennessee. I guess they imported the truck for a
few more years and some had the V6.

"Jim Behning" wrote in message
...

First concept is this. Toyota called a truck that carried a ton a one
ton. US makers call a vehicle that can carry a ton a 1/2 ton. The US
manufacturer's current one ton can carry over 2.5 tons.

US. 1987 model that has a 5500 pound gvw and weighed less than 3,000
pounds empty. It came with 8 ply rated tires. Mine came with a 4
cylinder engine. The one ton had bigger brakes, bigger rear end, and
heavier springs. I ordered the towing package so it had larger
radiator and a different rear end ratio. The truck is rather bumpy
empty but pretty ok with 500 pounds or more in the back. It was rated
to tow 5,000 pounds. It did not set any acceleration records when
towing a horse and trailer but it did keep up with the 18 wheelers
crossing the pass in Tennessee. I guess they imported the truck for a
few more years and some had the V6.

I see. Thanks.
Also, I do see that a certain version and option of the 07 Tundra with the
big V8 can be had with the payload capacity of just over 2000#'s.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
et...
Leon wrote:
Where do you live that you are able to find/have a Toyota one ton?


Toyota sold a 7 1/2 foot bed, one ton pickup 'till ~ 1991 in the US.

The original "extra cab" was built on the long bed chassis using a
standard bed. Nowadays, I think the current Access Cab Tacoma, with a 7
1/2' bed, and 3 liter turbo diesel, on the Double Cab long bed chassis
would be cool. They sell it outside the US as the "Hilux"

Toyota loves to confuse people with the current Tacoma. The double cab
"long" bed is actually the 6.3' bed used on every other Tacoma. The
"short" bed double cab is an ultra short 5 footer, built on the Acces cab
frame.

I gotcha now. IIRC some of those older truck did look pretty stiff and HD.
I guess the confusion for me was that the trucks were still relatively small
on "cargo space" rather than cargo weight capacity. IIRC I remember seeing
a dually back then. I think that the T100 which evolved into the Tundra
simply had the benefit of room more so than weight capacity.

Well, I filled the tank on the new Tundra Friday night, 296 miles on the
odometer and a 26.4 gallon tank. The needle was very close to "E" however
the warning light had not yet come on. I will say that the gas gauge
needle on the 07 Tundra moves fast and immediately off of the "F" mark. I
was thinking 10-12 mpg for in town driving. I was hoping for more. The 97
Silverado, 5.0 was and getting an average of 13 mpg in town.

The pump clicked off at 19.2 gallons. I thought it shut off prematurely and
I squeezed the lever once more, it shut off again at 19.4 gallons. I new
that this was looking pretty good. Apparently with the needle "almost" on
"E" I still have 7 gallons of gas.

So, 19.4 gallons to go 296 miles in town on the first tank of gas. That's
15.25 mpg... ;~)

Leon wrote:

So, 19.4 gallons to go 296 miles in town on the first tank of gas. That's
15.25 mpg... ;~)


With 381 HP, and far from broken in, that is fantastic!

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
et...
Leon wrote:

So, 19.4 gallons to go 296 miles in town on the first tank of gas.
That's 15.25 mpg... ;~)

Our '06 Landcrusier (4.7 V8) is about in that range with full-time AWD.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:24:20 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Well, I filled the tank on the new Tundra Friday night, 296 miles on the
odometer and a 26.4 gallon tank. The needle was very close to "E" however
the warning light had not yet come on. I will say that the gas gauge
needle on the 07 Tundra moves fast and immediately off of the "F" mark. I
was thinking 10-12 mpg for in town driving. I was hoping for more. The 97
Silverado, 5.0 was and getting an average of 13 mpg in town.

The pump clicked off at 19.2 gallons. I thought it shut off prematurely and
I squeezed the lever once more, it shut off again at 19.4 gallons. I new
that this was looking pretty good. Apparently with the needle "almost" on
"E" I still have 7 gallons of gas.

So, 19.4 gallons to go 296 miles in town on the first tank of gas. That's
15.25 mpg... ;~)



Be careful you don't break that egg between your foot and the gas
pedal. :~)

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news

So, 19.4 gallons to go 296 miles in town on the first tank of gas.
That's
15.25 mpg... ;~)



Be careful you don't break that egg between your foot and the gas
pedal. :~)

Frank

LOL.... Yeah, with age, I have become a bit more light footed. What's the
darn hurry. Having been in the automotive industry most of my professional
career I am well aware of the first tank results.

1. It's new, you driver easier and naturally get better gas mileage.
2. It's new, the engine is tighter and as it breaks in it will naturally
get better gas mileage.
3. It's new, the on board computer control's a lot of how the vehicles
performs during the first few thousand break-in miles, mileage will probably
get better.

4. It's not so new any more, the engine has loosened up and the computer
has adjusted to the higher mileage and gas mileage improves.
5. It's not so new any more, No more babying, put the pedal to the metal,
gas mileage ain't what it usta be.

Fortunately I have been in the "baby the petal" mode on the older truck
since gas prices started going towards "what the market would bare".

Then again, that first tank did have a few demonstrations of "a bit more"
than moderate accelerations. ;~)

Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 4:44pm (EDT+4) (Leon)
doth sayeth:
**********I did not see the thread at all until
Swingman brought it to my attention. Using Google I saw parts of it but
not all of it.
**********Yeah, I bought one of those too.snip

I'm like the guy that said he rather own ten $3,000 vehicles than
one for $30,000.

Last year my '79 GMC pickup developed problems. I didn't feel like
putting a few hundred dolars into it, so sold it. And shopped around.

Wound up with a 1978 Chevy El Camino. Someone had yanked the 350
and put in a 307 instead - rebuilt, Vortech heads, Crane cam, aluminum
intake, Edelbck carb, true dual exhaust. Front end rebuiltl, Sony
CD/radio, two speakers, stupid IROC looking wheels. And new: Radiator,
water pump, belts, tires, shocks, air conditioning compressor, and so
on. But the clock didn't work and the front passenger fender is a bit
wrinkled, and it needed a repaint. So I got it for $1400, that's
fourteen hundred dollars. Had to drop about $250 for a new master
cylinder and tie rod end. Since then the radio quit working a few weeks
ago, but the CD still works. Just sunk another $359 for a cracked
flexplate and some other work. Except for gas and oil, that's it. It's
not the fastest in the world, but it sound absolutely beautiful, has a
nice lumpy idle, and kids like it. It's got a trailer hitch for if I
want to haul something larger than the bed. I've had it for about a
year and a half, and could probably triple my money on it. Bet you guys
can't sell your trucks in a year and a half and triple your cost.
Hehehe

Oh yeah, it got goood gas mileage when I first got it, then it
gradually dropped down to about 3 miles per gallon. Then noticed the
speedometer worked but theodomoter had stopped working. LOL

Them new trucks are just plain ugly. If I wanted another big
pickup, I'd find one I liked, an old one, for real cheap. Then I'd get
a crate engine, and crate transmission, dropped in it, and get the
brakes completely redone with new parts. Should be able to get all that
done for less than $5,000 over the cost of the truck, depending on who
you buy from, and who you get to do the work. I don't know about where
you guys live, but you look around a bit here and you can often get an
older truck, sometimes with body work done, interior, and paint, usually
needing engine and/or transmission work, for $15,00 or less, sometimes
even as low as $2-300.



JOAT
I do things I don't know how to do, so that I might learn how to do
them.
- Picasso

That's all find an dandy if you like spending the time doing that.
I dealt with other peoples problem vehicles for 20+ years. I've been there
and done that. ;~)



"J T" wrote in message
...
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 4:44pm (EDT+4) (Leon)
doth sayeth:
I did not see the thread at all until
Swingman brought it to my attention. Using Google I saw parts of it but
not all of it.
Yeah, I bought one of those too.snip

I'm like the guy that said he rather own ten $3,000 vehicles than
one for $30,000.

Last year my '79 GMC pickup developed problems. I didn't feel like
putting a few hundred dolars into it, so sold it. And shopped around.

Wound up with a 1978 Chevy El Camino. Someone had yanked the 350
and put in a 307 instead - rebuilt, Vortech heads, Crane cam, aluminum
intake, Edelbck carb, true dual exhaust. Front end rebuiltl, Sony
CD/radio, two speakers, stupid IROC looking wheels. And new: Radiator,
water pump, belts, tires, shocks, air conditioning compressor, and so
on. But the clock didn't work and the front passenger fender is a bit
wrinkled, and it needed a repaint. So I got it for $1400, that's
fourteen hundred dollars. Had to drop about $250 for a new master
cylinder and tie rod end. Since then the radio quit working a few weeks
ago, but the CD still works. Just sunk another $359 for a cracked
flexplate and some other work. Except for gas and oil, that's it. It's
not the fastest in the world, but it sound absolutely beautiful, has a
nice lumpy idle, and kids like it. It's got a trailer hitch for if I
want to haul something larger than the bed. I've had it for about a
year and a half, and could probably triple my money on it. Bet you guys
can't sell your trucks in a year and a half and triple your cost.
Hehehe

Oh yeah, it got goood gas mileage when I first got it, then it
gradually dropped down to about 3 miles per gallon. Then noticed the
speedometer worked but theodomoter had stopped working. LOL

Them new trucks are just plain ugly. If I wanted another big
pickup, I'd find one I liked, an old one, for real cheap. Then I'd get
a crate engine, and crate transmission, dropped in it, and get the
brakes completely redone with new parts. Should be able to get all that
done for less than $5,000 over the cost of the truck, depending on who
you buy from, and who you get to do the work. I don't know about where
you guys live, but you look around a bit here and you can often get an
older truck, sometimes with body work done, interior, and paint, usually
needing engine and/or transmission work, for $15,00 or less, sometimes
even as low as $2-300.



JOAT
I do things I don't know how to do, so that I might learn how to do
them.
- Picasso

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:24:20 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Be careful you don't break that egg between your foot and the gas
pedal. :~)

Nyuck, nyuck.

One might can squeeze an additional mpg out of that new truck by going
with synthetic lubricants though I do recommend a thorough break-in with
conventional mineral oil. I did two each 4,000 mile stints when my '01
PowerStroke was new; 4,000 with the factory oil and 4,000 with Castrol (or
somesuch). At 8,000 I moved it to Amsoil 15w40 HD Diesel/Marine. I put
about 30k a year on it, the biggest majority being highway miles between
Houston and the San Antonio area. Most always getting 16.5 - 16.75 mpg. Me
thinks the switch was too soon. Suddenly, around 160k my fuel mileage
jumped a whole mpg. Me thinks I may actually have retarded break-in and
that the engine has just now loosened up. I'm pushing 164k now. Whatever,
I'm not complaining.
And, I have an eight foot bed behind a four-door crew cab. Gawd it's a
long truck.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 6:02pm (EDT+4) (Leon)
doth sayeth:
That's all find an dandy if you like spending the time doing that. I
dealt with other peoples problem vehicles for 20+ years. * I've been
there and done that. ;~)

I wasn't talking about doing it myself. Not for a daily driver.
That was including paying someone else to do the intalling. Wouldn't
take any more time really then waiting on an on-order vehicle from a
dealer. Insurance would be a lot less too.



JOAT
I do things I don't know how to do, so that I might learn how to do
them.
- Picasso

"Dave in Houston" wrote in message
...

Be careful you don't break that egg between your foot and the gas
pedal. :~)

Nyuck, nyuck.

One might can squeeze an additional mpg out of that new truck by going
with synthetic lubricants though I do recommend a thorough break-in with
conventional mineral oil. I did two each 4,000 mile stints when my '01
PowerStroke was new; 4,000 with the factory oil and 4,000 with Castrol (or
somesuch). At 8,000 I moved it to Amsoil 15w40 HD Diesel/Marine. I put
about 30k a year on it, the biggest majority being highway miles between
Houston and the San Antonio area. Most always getting 16.5 - 16.75 mpg.
Me thinks the switch was too soon. Suddenly, around 160k my fuel mileage
jumped a whole mpg. Me thinks I may actually have retarded break-in and
that the engine has just now loosened up. I'm pushing 164k now.
Whatever, I'm not complaining.
And, I have an eight foot bed behind a four-door crew cab. Gawd it's a
long truck.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

I am considering using a snthetic for the first time in this truck. The new
vehicle engines use such light viscosity oils these days I want maximum
protection against oil break down. I really do not drive this vehicle too
much and oil changes are usually 1 to 2 times a year at 3,000 mile
intervals. I wonder how a synthetic would do compaired to regular oil in
holding up for 6 months at a time with few miles.

Leon wrote:
"Dave in Houston" wrote in message
...
Be careful you don't break that egg between your foot and the gas
pedal. :~)
Nyuck, nyuck.

One might can squeeze an additional mpg out of that new truck by going
with synthetic lubricants though I do recommend a thorough break-in with
conventional mineral oil. I did two each 4,000 mile stints when my '01
PowerStroke was new; 4,000 with the factory oil and 4,000 with Castrol (or
somesuch). At 8,000 I moved it to Amsoil 15w40 HD Diesel/Marine. I put
about 30k a year on it, the biggest majority being highway miles between
Houston and the San Antonio area. Most always getting 16.5 - 16.75 mpg.
Me thinks the switch was too soon. Suddenly, around 160k my fuel mileage
jumped a whole mpg. Me thinks I may actually have retarded break-in and
that the engine has just now loosened up. I'm pushing 164k now.
Whatever, I'm not complaining.
And, I have an eight foot bed behind a four-door crew cab. Gawd it's a
long truck.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

I am considering using a snthetic for the first time in this truck. The new
vehicle engines use such light viscosity oils these days I want maximum
protection against oil break down. I really do not drive this vehicle too
much and oil changes are usually 1 to 2 times a year at 3,000 mile
intervals. I wonder how a synthetic would do compaired to regular oil in
holding up for 6 months at a time with few miles.


The synthetics do not oxidize as readily and thus do not form acids as
readily. They will better than mineral oils.

Bill


--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000759-1, 07/24/2007
Tested on: 7/24/2007 5:30:48 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com