• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

Which Brand / Model Pickup Truck Is The Most Install-Friendly?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kayn1n32008

ØÆSØ
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
6,634
Location
Sector 001
Fuel mileage is interesting. My last truck 2015 F350 with the big V8. Best I could do was 19L/100km. Had a quad deck and was a shade over 9000lbs as it sat. Throw quads on and it went to 26-28L/100km.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Project25_MASTR

Millennial Graying OBT Guy
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
4,201
Location
Texas
I had a 1997 F250 with the 7.3 Diesel and I really liked it. Wish I hadn't gotten rid of it, however the regular cab was no longer sufficient for our needs. The local dealer was a bit lacking. Their "Diesel tech" wasn't always on the ball.
I had a F150 with the 5.4 and it was a good truck, but no matter what I did I could get more than 15mpg out of it.



I've got a friend that has on, and he's happy with it, but it's got a few minor issues and seems like the maintenance gets expensive up past 100K. I've still got a bit of an issue with Dodges because I drove so many 70's and 80's era Dodges that were really pieces of crap. Still, I'm going to give them a good look. Not sure about how I feel about Fiat owning them and how that might impact things. Fiat had a pretty bad reputation when I was a kid.



I owned a 1990 1/2 ton with the 5.0 liter engine. 1994 3/4 ton with the 5.7. Put 100K on that truck in about 2 years with no issues.
In 2005 I bought a GMC Canyon with the 3.5l I-5 engine. That was a good truck. Had the stick shift 5 speed that was a lot of fun to drive. 2wd but had the Z71 package with a locking rear end. Fun truck to drive on logging and fire roads. Squeezed a radio in there, actually had 2 at one point. I've got a 2007 Colorado with the 3.7 I6 here at work that's going great. It's only got about 25K on it. Just plain out grew it, so I've got a 3/4 ton 4x4 F250 on it's way with a service body. Going to keep the Colorado as a loaner.
Pretty much everyone else in my extended family is driving recent model Chevy 1/2 tons. They've all done just fine, and easy to install radios in. The 5.3 with the cylinder deactivation seems to do well on the fuel economy. I've always had an issue, though, with how low they sit, even the 4x4's have that nose down low ground clearance look to them. I wish GM would figure out a design that addressed that. I'm 6' 4" and shouldn't be able to see over the top of a 4x4 full size pickup. Extended family is all using them for towing campers, and they seem to do OK, even in the mountains.



The Nissan looks like they are off to a good start with that truck, but I don't see too many of them on the road. Looking at the XD, I see a truck with 1/2 ton capability with 3/4 ton weight and MPG. It just doesn't have the capacities that a "3/4" ton heavy duty truck should. Not sure what market they are going for there. It either needs to be a lighter truck with better MPG, or they need to make it a contender with the real 3/4 ton trucks. Right now it just seems to be stuck in the middle.

I see a lot of the Tundra's around, but the fuel economy seems to be lacking on them. That and after spending so many years driving US brand trucks, I can't make myself take them seriously. My wife had Toyota's and Hondas, and the reliability on the little things was awful and the build quality was not impressive. Again, since they don't have a real 3/4 ton contender, they won't even be considered.

I've got a 2011 F150 with the 3.5 turbo V6, and it's been a great engine. I know the idea of a V6 in a full sized truck doesn't sit well with many, but I've been happy with it. It'll out tow the GM's with 5.3's in my family and gets better MPG when not towing. Done a few long road trips and can easily get 20MPG or higher. Did a few round trips to Las Vegas and nailed 25mpg each time. Stomp on the gas and it'll scream. If I didn't need the higher towing capacity, and bigger brakes, I'd consider another. It did take a leap of faith to jump from V-8's to the V-6's, but I've been pleasantly surprised.



I'm in the same boat, I prefer the lower trim trucks. The cloth bench seats and lack of bells and whistles doesn't bother me. The GM's in the family all have the leather seats, and decked out interiors, and I really don't like them set up that way, just my personal preference.



It's not the V6 concept I dislike, it's the fact they are high rpm Engines. I utterly believe an engine should not have to operate above 3200 rpm for 90% of daily driving and that has traditionally been difficult to accomplish with the V6s. Part of it is also I went from a 94 F150 with a 300 to a 02 F150 with a 4.2 to a 04 Trailblazer with a 4.2. The 300 was great, the Essex 4.2 was horrid and had no power or torque and then the Atlas would perform like the 5.4 in my issued 7700's once you got it into the power band (they put out very close power numbers though the 5.4 made more torque). It took Ford really until 2011 to catch up engine tech wise and even then there are still improvements to the Ecoboost line which could be made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,857
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
My Ford with the V6 runs at the same RPM's as the V8's that are in the family. The engine has a lot of torque, so winding it up isn't necessary. It's usually loafing along at around 1200RPM in overdrive on the highway. They've done a pretty good job with the transmissions on those.

I understand your point, though. That was one of my concerns. So far, 92,000 miles, no issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top