GM XFE trucks: Progress?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by SuperTrooper

Whoa. The 2009 F150 4X4 Supercab weighs 5434 lbs!

I don't like the current gen F150 ONE BIT! I've driven one and it felt so huge, ponderous, and chunky- lots of completely unnecessary and undesireable bulk. And, it was much less maneuverable than mine- hard to tell where the corners were- poor visibility out. And, for gosh sakes, how do they expect anyone to have access to stuff in the box when they make the dang thing 5 1/2 feet up in the air? I'm 6'4" and it looks like I'd have to climb into the box to reach/do anything back there whereas on mine I can generally reach anything in there from standing next to the side of the truck. Oh, that's right: trucks these days are made for commuting and the box doesn't actually get used for anything anyway.

[Big Dave]

How can you do a decent pulse & glide with an automatic?

On the plus side, I found an outfit that converts "B" body GMs to the T-56. That means they could easily do the same with a GM pickup. I'm wondering if they could put a T-56 behind a 617.952 five-banger in a W123 Benz.

[taco]

the xfe use light wheels better areo, and llr tires. maybe gears but they already run low.

i was able to pull off A 23 MPG trip(~100miles) in my dad 08 silverado crew cab 4x4 w/ factory 20's 5.3 auto., by driving with load and watchin the instant gas gauge, tried to keep it in v4 mode as much as possible.

,ost newer manual truck are rated lower than there auto counterparts.

but 20 is not bad for a pig

(my 98 4x4 truck weighted in at 3170lbs and is rated at 16/20)

20 mpg is what i am gettin out of my 09 v6 auto 4x4 excab trdsprt tacoma not driving easy

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Duffman

The problem with trucks right now is they are sold on capacity.

They are? Could have fooled me - I thought they were sold on how closely they can be made to resemble a penis :-)

Seriously, though: from what I've seen of current-generation pickups, the bed is no larger than that of old '60s Fords & Chevys. They've just wrapped more sheet metal around it: where the '60 model might have a single layer of metal, or two layers an inch or two apart, the current models loot to have 6-8 inches or more. Then there's the vertical dimension: jacked up suspension on absurdly large tires, then the body thickened by a foot or more... Well, just look at a '65 Ford Ford Truck History - Pictures of Vintage Ford Trucks and compare it to current models.

[Christ]

welcome wuling

the specs on the WuLing sunshine are there, as well as pics.

5.5L/100KM... about 51mpg rated. Only available in 5 speed, said to be sold retail for around $5000 or so. Kinda like a ecomodder's dream, no? Cheap but new, 5 spd only, already efficient, needs aero improvement.

Meets the criteria, it would seem.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I tend to agree with that, but...

ratings for my '94 were better for the a/t vs m/t!

fueleconomy.gov: 12/17 a/t; 12/16 m/t

The automakers had this bad habit of giving the AT a deeper OD ratio than the manual had. If you look at a truck like the super duty where the OD ratios are the same between the AT & MT, the MT wipes the floor on the AT when it comes to FE.