From: JoeSpareBedroom on 25 Mar 2007 07:53
"Mac Cool" <Mac(a)2cool.com> wrote in message
>> 1992 Taurus (6 cyl): Used a quart every 2-3 months, from the time the
>> car was new until I got rid of it in 2002. The exhaust made it clear
>> what was happening.
> I had a 93 Taurus (6 cyl), ran it up to 190k, never used a drop of oil and
> the only mechanical problem was a water pump went out. Sold it to a Ford
> mechanic who is probably still driving it.
> Don't accept hearsay from a disgruntled employee as god given proof of
> some conspiracy.
> Mac Cool
Not sure where you got "employee" from. You're not sure, either.
From: Picasso on 25 Mar 2007 09:19
C. E. White wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2(a)mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> Aparently have not been following the thread. The dicsssion was about
>> Tundra phony TV ads and their 10,000 towing ability. . If one is looking
>> to buy a truck with which to tow they can not buy a Ford equipped to tow
>> pack that does not have a V8. You are corect the six speed, is a late
>> option, not currantaly available
> I agree with you that the new Tundra ads are deceptive. That is not an
> issue. In my post I was trying to correct all the errors you made regarding
> Ford trucks. Apparently you did not bother to read my post and you reposted
> more incorrect information regarding Ford trucks with the V-6.
> I'll try to set you straight about the Ford one more time -
> GO READ THE 2007 F150 ORDERING GUIDE - it definitely allows the Towing
> Package with the V-6 and a manual transmission. And if you use the Ford
> Website to build your F150, it will let you build one that way. Dealers
> don't order many of them that way, but they do occasionally. I had no
> trouble at all finding a manual transmission V-6 with the towing package in
> a dealers stock (VIN 1FTRF12237NA36871 at Beach Ford Inc., 2717 Virginia
> Beach Boulevard, Virginia Beach, VA). I had no problem finding a V-6
> Automatic with the towing package either. How many VINs do you want me to
> post to prove your are wrong? For a normal person finding one should be
> enough to prove that you can order a V-6 Manual Transmission F150 with the
> towing package, but you don't seem to be able to admit it when you are
> I also like the way you tried to cover your mistake in claiming the 2007
> F150s got the six speed automatic. I assume available in the 2008 model
> counts as "late availability" in your mind. Wouldn't it have been easier to
> admit you were wrong about that as well?
> And is the 4.5 V-8 a late availability option also?
>> Ford dealer Guide Maximum Loaded Trailer Weight (Lbs.) - Automatic
>> Engine Axle Ratio GCWR (Lbs.) 126 -
>> inch wheel base 144.5 - inch wheel base
>> 4.2L SEFI V6 3.55 10000 5200 5100
>> (trailer tow package requires 4.6L V8)
>> 4.6L Triton� SEFI V8 3.55 11500 6600 - 6200
>> 5.4L Triton� 3-valve SEFI V8 3.55 13000 8000 - 7700
>> (All Ford trucks since the late eignties have required an automatic tranny
>> if the TT option was added).
>> Trailer tow package
>> Includes Class IV trailer hitch receiver, 7-pin wiring harness, upgraded
>> radiator and upgraded auxiliary transmission oil cooler (requires 4.6L or
>> 5.4L Triton� V8); aux. trans. oil cooler only with 4.2L V6 A/T
>> Ed White" <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> On Mar 16, 8:06 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...(a)mailcity.com> wrote:
>>> No so, all F150s with the trailer tow package have the 4.6 V8 standard.
>> But not all F150s have the Trailer Tow Package. And no F150 come with
>> a 4.5 V8.
>> You said "The F150 has a six speed and a V8 is standard as well." This
>> is an incorrect statement since neither a V-8 or a six speed
>> transmission is standard (and the six speed transmission isn't even an
>> option). And your revised statement is also incorrect. Go to
>> and build an F150. Selecting the Trailer Tow Package does not reuire
>> the V-8 or an automatic transmission. And finally, Ford doesn't offer
>> a 6 speed transmission in the 2007 F150 (they do in the 2007
>> The following information was clipped directly from the 2007 Ford F150
>> Ordering Guide:
>> TRAILER TOW PACKAGE (535)
>> Usage: Required for towing over 5,000 lbs.
>> � All F-150 units
>> � Class IV trailer hitch receiver
>> � 7-pin wiring harness
>> � Upgraded radiator & upgraded auxiliary transmission oil cooler [req.
>> 4.6L V8
>> (99W), 5.4L 3V V8 (995) or 5.4L 3V V8 FFV(99V) engine; auxiliary
>> transmission oil cooler only w/4.2L V6 A/T (992/44Q)]
>> Optional Equipment:
>> � Heavy duty 72-amp battery (59H) [incl. when ordered w/both Satellite
>> (91S) & Rear Seat Entertainment System (915)]
>> Notice that the Trailer Tow Package is availale with all F150 Units.
>> Also notice that it includes an "auxiliary transmission oil cooler
>> only w/4.2L V6 A/T" Please admit that the trailer tow package is
>> available with the 4.2L V-6.
>> As for the Powertrain Options:
>> 4.2L EFI V6/5-Spd. Manual O/D
>> 4.2L EFI v6/4-Spd. Auto O/D
>> 4.6L EFI V8/Electronic 4-Spd. Auto O/D
>> 5.4L 3V EFI V8/Electronic 4-Spd. Auto O/D
>> 5.4L 3V EFI V8 FFV/Electronic 4-Spd. Auto O/D
>>> "Ed White" <ce.whi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> On Mar 16, 4:54 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...(a)mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>> Get real. Ford is the Silverado competition not the Tundra. Ford
>>>>> of the full-size trucks in the US. Chevy 30% and Toyota a measly 5%.
>>>>> base engine in the Tundra is a only a V6. The F150 has a six speed
>>>>> and a
>>>>> is standard as well. The Tundra is just beginning to catch up to the
>>>>> quality of what GM, Ford and Dodge have been offering in their truck
>>>> Actually Ford and Chevrolet also have standard V-6s in their half ton
>>>> pickup trucks. When I was shopping for a pickup last year it was much
>>>> easier to find a V-6 F150 than a V-6 Tundra. There was not a single
>>>> V-6 Tundra on any of the local lots for me to test drive. V-6 F150
>>>> were easy to fiind.
>>>> Ed- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
The big question is, why would you want a v6 f150?
From: DH on 26 Mar 2007 09:05
"FDRanger92" <csu13081(a)nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote in message
> Yeah I looked at CR when I bought my 92 Ranger 171K miles ago. Think they
> described my engine as a "primitive but reliable design". The truck didn't
> really get great marks as I recall particularly compared to the Toy, but
> it's held up better than most of the Toys purchased around the same time
> by people I've known. Can't really take CR too seriously since.
> Maybe some of you "toyota can do no wrong" people can 'splain to me why it
> was ok for toyota to intentionally try to hide the engine sludge problems
> they were having for so many years?
Who said "Toyota can do no wrong?"
However, in spite of all the noise about sludgy Toyota engines, after all
these years, I have yet to meet someone who actually has a sludgy Toyota
engine. Why is that? Maybe it's only because the engine is predisposed to
sludging WHEN IMPROPERLY MAINTAINED.
> "DH" <dh(a)stargate.com> wrote in message
>> "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:59:26 -0600, dh rearranged some electrons to
>>>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message
>>>> On the other hand, the anectdotal evidence can be readily corroborated
>>>> looking at a Consumer Reports (or other) car realiability survey.
>>> Anyone who believes CR is an unbiased, reliable source, is just plain
>> Then why don't you go survey about a million and a quarter car owners and
>> report on your findings?
>> CR stays in business because they make their readers happy. They're not
>> going to make them happy by steering them into crappy cars.
>> I finally started to consult CR before I bought cars just a few years
>> ago. As a result, I have been buying Toyotas.
>> I have 4 Toyotas, 3 purchased used, now at an average age of 7.3 years,
>> with 10.1 years of ownership and 108,000 miles of driving and ZERO
>> problems. They look good, they don't squeak or rattle and the offer a
>> good combination of fuel economy and performance.
>> Maybe I'm gullible but I'm also happy to follow CRs advice.
>> What are the other options? Listen to you? Hah!
>>> David M (dmacchiarolo)
>>> T/S 53
>>> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 18 days 27 min
>> That's nothing. We had individual Vaxes run for at least two years and
>> Vax clusters up for longer than that. And we weren't a 24X7 shop, that's
>> just how Vaxes worked.
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Scott in Florida on 27 Mar 2007 09:42
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:33:52 GMT, "Whitelightning"
>Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning down
>warranty claims even when the owners had reciepts showing every scheduled
>service was performed by a Toyota dealership.
That is simply not true.
No one that had their oil changed at the correct intervals at a dealer
Scott in Florida
From: C. E. White on 27 Mar 2007 10:15
"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant(a)mindspring.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:33:52 GMT, "Whitelightning"
> <white.lightning2(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>>Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning
>>warranty claims even when the owners had reciepts showing every
>>service was performed by a Toyota dealership.
> That is simply not true.
> No one that had their oil changed at the correct intervals at a
> developed sludge....
And you can prove this? And what was the correct service intervals?
7500 miles, 5000 mile, 3000 miles?
No matter how you spin this, certain Toyota engines sold in certain
years were more likely to development significant internal sludge than
engines from most other manufacturers. I am not going to claim that
all the complaints are valid, but it seems to me there are enough
people complaining about certain Toyota engines compared to other
engines (even Toyota engines from other years) that there was a design
flaw. Claiming otherwise seems to fly in the face of reality.