My dad seeks headroom (long torso not so long inseam)
Ford or Chevy?- 1/2 ton trucks
- Thread starter Brett Miller
- Start date
- Status
I've had or driven all three. Never cared for Dodges handle or drive train. Chevy does has the nicest interior and ride the only complaint was the nickel and diming.. not just one but two and that was enough. The Ford's I've and the family has had always have been the best as far as reliability and drive-ability over the long term. Cars or trucks. I refuse to pay twice for anything tax or personal dollars so Ford is the only the option as far as trucks go.
Originally Posted By: cousincletus
Actually, I'm 6'5" and the Ford's gas pedal was a little too close for me. The Chevy was noticeably better for legroom. I traded a Dodge for Chevy because I didn't like Dodge's gas mileage. Reliability was good, though. The Dodge impressed me as a well made truck.
I have noticed the same thing. I am 6' 3" and I find the Ford cab's to have the least room between the Big 3. Head room is fine but the rest of the cab feels small to me. Dodge and Chevy are more roomy. When I driving or riding in my Brother's 06 F250 I feel slightly cramped.
Actually, I'm 6'5" and the Ford's gas pedal was a little too close for me. The Chevy was noticeably better for legroom. I traded a Dodge for Chevy because I didn't like Dodge's gas mileage. Reliability was good, though. The Dodge impressed me as a well made truck.
I have noticed the same thing. I am 6' 3" and I find the Ford cab's to have the least room between the Big 3. Head room is fine but the rest of the cab feels small to me. Dodge and Chevy are more roomy. When I driving or riding in my Brother's 06 F250 I feel slightly cramped.
Last edited:
Pop ended buying a 2008 loaded Silverado extended cab with 15,000 miles. It was owned by a fellow that trades every 2 years. A friend of mine is the service advisor at the dealership and verified they also serviced it.
Originally Posted By: Brett Miller
Pop ended buying a 2008 loaded Silverado extended cab with 15,000 miles. It was owned by a fellow that trades every 2 years. A friend of mine is the service advisor at the dealership and verified they also serviced it.
Sounds like a nice truck. Good luck. BTW I really like the new body style, and was tempted to get the Silverado short bed regular cab 4.3 auto instead of my Colorado.
Pop ended buying a 2008 loaded Silverado extended cab with 15,000 miles. It was owned by a fellow that trades every 2 years. A friend of mine is the service advisor at the dealership and verified they also serviced it.
Sounds like a nice truck. Good luck. BTW I really like the new body style, and was tempted to get the Silverado short bed regular cab 4.3 auto instead of my Colorado.
I see no mention in this discussion yet of the all-to-common Chevy V-8 fault of "piston-slap". This is not present in all Chevy V-8's, and sometimes only affects one or two cylinders. A main cause of this in Chevies can be traced to the fact that back around 1998, they quit the practice of matching piston size tolerances to cylinder bore tolerances as a manufacturing economy. As a result, tolerances sometimes stack up and result in a loose piston; there you have piston slap, especially in a cold engine before the piston warms and expands.
Chevy made engines without piston slap for years. Why some bean counter would force this change and result is symptomatic of the quality problems that have sullied GM's reputation.
Chevy made engines without piston slap for years. Why some bean counter would force this change and result is symptomatic of the quality problems that have sullied GM's reputation.
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
I see no mention in this discussion yet of the all-to-common Chevy V-8 fault of "piston-slap". This is not present in all Chevy V-8's, and sometimes only affects one or two cylinders. A main cause of this in Chevies can be traced to the fact that back around 1998, they quit the practice of matching piston size tolerances to cylinder bore tolerances as a manufacturing economy. As a result, tolerances sometimes stack up and result in a loose piston; there you have piston slap, especially in a cold engine before the piston warms and expands.
Chevy made engines without piston slap for years. Why some bean counter would force this change and result is symptomatic of the quality problems that have sullied GM's reputation.
The piston slap issue for their trucks was mainly the 99-03/04 5.3L's( others did it yes but mainly 5.3L in that time frame ). From 05 on it is not an issue.
I see no mention in this discussion yet of the all-to-common Chevy V-8 fault of "piston-slap". This is not present in all Chevy V-8's, and sometimes only affects one or two cylinders. A main cause of this in Chevies can be traced to the fact that back around 1998, they quit the practice of matching piston size tolerances to cylinder bore tolerances as a manufacturing economy. As a result, tolerances sometimes stack up and result in a loose piston; there you have piston slap, especially in a cold engine before the piston warms and expands.
Chevy made engines without piston slap for years. Why some bean counter would force this change and result is symptomatic of the quality problems that have sullied GM's reputation.
The piston slap issue for their trucks was mainly the 99-03/04 5.3L's( others did it yes but mainly 5.3L in that time frame ). From 05 on it is not an issue.
Last edited:
Sounds like your pop got a great deal. I hope he enjoys his new ride.
The late model 5.7's were doing it as well. We were promised it would be gone with the 5.3's.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
You are literally the first person I have ever seen that has noticed issues with Ford frames.
All of the fleet Chevys I have dealt with have been overrun with electrical issues, not to mention their basic construction is notably flimsier in every respect.
I have never seen frame issues with either, but Ford has had the larger frame rails in half-tons since '97.
Interesting. I've never searched around to see if this was a well known or common issue.
I know of 6 Fords in our fleet that have broken in the same spot. Of course they're all overloaded, driven over very rough terrain by idiots who could care less about the truck. Really what the company needs is a fleet of F350s. It's just too much loaded onto an F150 and couple that with the fact that they get airborne everyday and you find the weak link. Even so, the Chevies didn't have frame issues.
You are literally the first person I have ever seen that has noticed issues with Ford frames.
All of the fleet Chevys I have dealt with have been overrun with electrical issues, not to mention their basic construction is notably flimsier in every respect.
I have never seen frame issues with either, but Ford has had the larger frame rails in half-tons since '97.
Interesting. I've never searched around to see if this was a well known or common issue.
I know of 6 Fords in our fleet that have broken in the same spot. Of course they're all overloaded, driven over very rough terrain by idiots who could care less about the truck. Really what the company needs is a fleet of F350s. It's just too much loaded onto an F150 and couple that with the fact that they get airborne everyday and you find the weak link. Even so, the Chevies didn't have frame issues.
Thanks, he really likes the truck. It was the circumstances with my buddies dealership having a Chevy. When I called him to see what they had in stock, they only had 1 used truck on the lot. He faxed me the service records yesterday. Oil changed every 3,000 with Pennzoil Yellow Bottle.
You're old man made the right choice.
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
I see no mention in this discussion yet of the all-to-common Chevy V-8 fault of "piston-slap". This is not present in all Chevy V-8's, and sometimes only affects one or two cylinders. A main cause of this in Chevies can be traced to the fact that back around 1998, they quit the practice of matching piston size tolerances to cylinder bore tolerances as a manufacturing economy. As a result, tolerances sometimes stack up and result in a loose piston; there you have piston slap, especially in a cold engine before the piston warms and expands.
Chevy made engines without piston slap for years. Why some bean counter would force this change and result is symptomatic of the quality problems that have sullied GM's reputation.
Its more than just that. Its really the result of the fact that they went with Hypereutectic pistons about that time to reduce cylinder leakage and thermal loss and improve efficiency, and also moved to shorter piston skirts to reduce friction. HE pistons require a much tighter cylinder-to-piston fit than ordinary cast or forged pistons because they expand less as they heat up than regular pistons, and short skirts allow the piston to "rock" more and so aggravate the problem. There is much less room for error in fitting HE pistons. If you get an ordinary piston on the loose side, it'll warm up and expand very quickly. If you get an HE piston loose or even within spec but on the looser end of the range, it will either take FOR EVER to warm up and quit slapping, or it just won't ever fully quit.
But that's better than fitting one too tight because although they don't expand much, they DO expand. You want to get them loose enough so that if you have an inadvertent overheat, or get them hotter than normal towing a trailer up a long grade (for example) you don't get binding and galling. Most of the OEM engine builders and virtually all the aftermarket HE piston makers are now coating the skirts of HE pistons with a solid lubricant that can take the binding when hot, and allows quiet operation even when cold. My '66 440 is built with some older (non-coated) Keith Black short-skirt HE pistons and they were very carefully fitted right in the middle of the recommended clearance range. It sounds like a Navistar 7.3 diesel when its cold and has audible slap for about 15 minutes after its warm, but I've gotten used to it and at 20,000 miles so far it burns much less oil than any other big-bore v8 I've owned despite the noise.
Piston slap is an annoying noise, but it really is harmless. Virtually zero added wear results from it.
I see no mention in this discussion yet of the all-to-common Chevy V-8 fault of "piston-slap". This is not present in all Chevy V-8's, and sometimes only affects one or two cylinders. A main cause of this in Chevies can be traced to the fact that back around 1998, they quit the practice of matching piston size tolerances to cylinder bore tolerances as a manufacturing economy. As a result, tolerances sometimes stack up and result in a loose piston; there you have piston slap, especially in a cold engine before the piston warms and expands.
Chevy made engines without piston slap for years. Why some bean counter would force this change and result is symptomatic of the quality problems that have sullied GM's reputation.
Its more than just that. Its really the result of the fact that they went with Hypereutectic pistons about that time to reduce cylinder leakage and thermal loss and improve efficiency, and also moved to shorter piston skirts to reduce friction. HE pistons require a much tighter cylinder-to-piston fit than ordinary cast or forged pistons because they expand less as they heat up than regular pistons, and short skirts allow the piston to "rock" more and so aggravate the problem. There is much less room for error in fitting HE pistons. If you get an ordinary piston on the loose side, it'll warm up and expand very quickly. If you get an HE piston loose or even within spec but on the looser end of the range, it will either take FOR EVER to warm up and quit slapping, or it just won't ever fully quit.
But that's better than fitting one too tight because although they don't expand much, they DO expand. You want to get them loose enough so that if you have an inadvertent overheat, or get them hotter than normal towing a trailer up a long grade (for example) you don't get binding and galling. Most of the OEM engine builders and virtually all the aftermarket HE piston makers are now coating the skirts of HE pistons with a solid lubricant that can take the binding when hot, and allows quiet operation even when cold. My '66 440 is built with some older (non-coated) Keith Black short-skirt HE pistons and they were very carefully fitted right in the middle of the recommended clearance range. It sounds like a Navistar 7.3 diesel when its cold and has audible slap for about 15 minutes after its warm, but I've gotten used to it and at 20,000 miles so far it burns much less oil than any other big-bore v8 I've owned despite the noise.
Piston slap is an annoying noise, but it really is harmless. Virtually zero added wear results from it.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
I see no mention in this discussion yet of the all-to-common Chevy V-8 fault of "piston-slap". This is not present in all Chevy V-8's, and sometimes only affects one or two cylinders. A main cause of this in Chevies can be traced to the fact that back around 1998, they quit the practice of matching piston size tolerances to cylinder bore tolerances as a manufacturing economy. As a result, tolerances sometimes stack up and result in a loose piston; there you have piston slap, especially in a cold engine before the piston warms and expands.
Chevy made engines without piston slap for years. Why some bean counter would force this change and result is symptomatic of the quality problems that have sullied GM's reputation.
Its more than just that. Its really the result of the fact that they went with Hypereutectic pistons about that time to reduce cylinder leakage and thermal loss and improve efficiency, and also moved to shorter piston skirts to reduce friction. HE pistons require a much tighter cylinder-to-piston fit than ordinary cast or forged pistons because they expand less as they heat up than regular pistons, and short skirts allow the piston to "rock" more and so aggravate the problem. There is much less room for error in fitting HE pistons. If you get an ordinary piston on the loose side, it'll warm up and expand very quickly. If you get an HE piston loose or even within spec but on the looser end of the range, it will either take FOR EVER to warm up and quit slapping, or it just won't ever fully quit.
But that's better than fitting one too tight because although they don't expand much, they DO expand. You want to get them loose enough so that if you have an inadvertent overheat, or get them hotter than normal towing a trailer up a long grade (for example) you don't get binding and galling. Most of the OEM engine builders and virtually all the aftermarket HE piston makers are now coating the skirts of HE pistons with a solid lubricant that can take the binding when hot, and allows quiet operation even when cold. My '66 440 is built with some older (non-coated) Keith Black short-skirt HE pistons and they were very carefully fitted right in the middle of the recommended clearance range. It sounds like a Navistar 7.3 diesel when its cold and has audible slap for about 15 minutes after its warm, but I've gotten used to it and at 20,000 miles so far it burns much less oil than any other big-bore v8 I've owned despite the noise.
Piston slap is an annoying noise, but it really is harmless. Virtually zero added wear results from it.
Ford began using hypereutectic pistons for the 1993 model year in the 5.0L Mustang. The cars with the (less desirable) hypereutectic pistons are apparently identifiable by a black oil pan, whilst the older, TRW forged slugged engines had grey pans.
They don't slap.
GM began "bulk fitting" pistons to bores at the same time the piston slap issue came about with the LSx engines. AFAIK, this is what is regarded as the cause. The pistons are no longer hand-fitted and so the clearances vary bore to bore, piston to piston.
They later went to coated skirts (like Ford used in the Modular engines) to help deal with the problem.
Other than being annoying, it apparently has no affect on engine life expectancy as far as I know.
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
I see no mention in this discussion yet of the all-to-common Chevy V-8 fault of "piston-slap". This is not present in all Chevy V-8's, and sometimes only affects one or two cylinders. A main cause of this in Chevies can be traced to the fact that back around 1998, they quit the practice of matching piston size tolerances to cylinder bore tolerances as a manufacturing economy. As a result, tolerances sometimes stack up and result in a loose piston; there you have piston slap, especially in a cold engine before the piston warms and expands.
Chevy made engines without piston slap for years. Why some bean counter would force this change and result is symptomatic of the quality problems that have sullied GM's reputation.
Its more than just that. Its really the result of the fact that they went with Hypereutectic pistons about that time to reduce cylinder leakage and thermal loss and improve efficiency, and also moved to shorter piston skirts to reduce friction. HE pistons require a much tighter cylinder-to-piston fit than ordinary cast or forged pistons because they expand less as they heat up than regular pistons, and short skirts allow the piston to "rock" more and so aggravate the problem. There is much less room for error in fitting HE pistons. If you get an ordinary piston on the loose side, it'll warm up and expand very quickly. If you get an HE piston loose or even within spec but on the looser end of the range, it will either take FOR EVER to warm up and quit slapping, or it just won't ever fully quit.
But that's better than fitting one too tight because although they don't expand much, they DO expand. You want to get them loose enough so that if you have an inadvertent overheat, or get them hotter than normal towing a trailer up a long grade (for example) you don't get binding and galling. Most of the OEM engine builders and virtually all the aftermarket HE piston makers are now coating the skirts of HE pistons with a solid lubricant that can take the binding when hot, and allows quiet operation even when cold. My '66 440 is built with some older (non-coated) Keith Black short-skirt HE pistons and they were very carefully fitted right in the middle of the recommended clearance range. It sounds like a Navistar 7.3 diesel when its cold and has audible slap for about 15 minutes after its warm, but I've gotten used to it and at 20,000 miles so far it burns much less oil than any other big-bore v8 I've owned despite the noise.
Piston slap is an annoying noise, but it really is harmless. Virtually zero added wear results from it.
Ford began using hypereutectic pistons for the 1993 model year in the 5.0L Mustang. The cars with the (less desirable) hypereutectic pistons are apparently identifiable by a black oil pan, whilst the older, TRW forged slugged engines had grey pans.
They don't slap.
GM began "bulk fitting" pistons to bores at the same time the piston slap issue came about with the LSx engines. AFAIK, this is what is regarded as the cause. The pistons are no longer hand-fitted and so the clearances vary bore to bore, piston to piston.
They later went to coated skirts (like Ford used in the Modular engines) to help deal with the problem.
Other than being annoying, it apparently has no affect on engine life expectancy as far as I know.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Ford began using hypereutectic pistons for the 1993 model year in the 5.0L Mustang. The cars with the (less desirable) hypereutectic pistons are apparently identifiable by a black oil pan, whilst the older, TRW forged slugged engines had grey pans.
They don't slap.
I never knew they even used HE in the 5.0. But Ford DID have some piston slap and high oil consumption issues with the early 5.4 Modular. Fixed it really quick, though, unlike the GM noises that went on for years.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
GM began "bulk fitting" pistons to bores at the same time the piston slap issue came about with the LSx engines. AFAIK, this is what is regarded as the cause. The pistons are no longer hand-fitted and so the clearances vary bore to bore, piston to piston.
I don't know enough to dispute that, but my understanding that all of the auto manufacturers have used a quasi-bulk fitting process for a long time- at least since the 60s. Pistons (and other parts) are binned into tolerance ranges for both size and weight (for engine balance), and then when a block comes down the line pistons are pulled from the bin that most closely matches that block's actual dimensions. Its halfway between true machine-shop hand fitting and blind plugging them in the holes. Maybe GM did away with the binning process, or reduced it to fewer tolerance ranges. GM doing that kind of thing is why I always preferred Mopars and Fords anyway...
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
They later went to coated skirts (like Ford used in the Modular engines) to help deal with the problem.
The Jeep 4.0 got coated skirt pistons way back in the 90s (not sure what year exactly). Now and then you hear one that's a bit noisy and prone to very light piston slap, but nothing to the degree that the GMs were.
Ford began using hypereutectic pistons for the 1993 model year in the 5.0L Mustang. The cars with the (less desirable) hypereutectic pistons are apparently identifiable by a black oil pan, whilst the older, TRW forged slugged engines had grey pans.
They don't slap.
I never knew they even used HE in the 5.0. But Ford DID have some piston slap and high oil consumption issues with the early 5.4 Modular. Fixed it really quick, though, unlike the GM noises that went on for years.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
GM began "bulk fitting" pistons to bores at the same time the piston slap issue came about with the LSx engines. AFAIK, this is what is regarded as the cause. The pistons are no longer hand-fitted and so the clearances vary bore to bore, piston to piston.
I don't know enough to dispute that, but my understanding that all of the auto manufacturers have used a quasi-bulk fitting process for a long time- at least since the 60s. Pistons (and other parts) are binned into tolerance ranges for both size and weight (for engine balance), and then when a block comes down the line pistons are pulled from the bin that most closely matches that block's actual dimensions. Its halfway between true machine-shop hand fitting and blind plugging them in the holes. Maybe GM did away with the binning process, or reduced it to fewer tolerance ranges. GM doing that kind of thing is why I always preferred Mopars and Fords anyway...
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
They later went to coated skirts (like Ford used in the Modular engines) to help deal with the problem.
The Jeep 4.0 got coated skirt pistons way back in the 90s (not sure what year exactly). Now and then you hear one that's a bit noisy and prone to very light piston slap, but nothing to the degree that the GMs were.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I never knew they even used HE in the 5.0. But Ford DID have some piston slap and high oil consumption issues with the early 5.4 Modular. Fixed it really quick, though, unlike the GM noises that went on for years.
My brother's 99 F350 w/ 5.4L was a real "slapper". His 06 F250 w/ 5.4L no slap.
I never knew they even used HE in the 5.0. But Ford DID have some piston slap and high oil consumption issues with the early 5.4 Modular. Fixed it really quick, though, unlike the GM noises that went on for years.
My brother's 99 F350 w/ 5.4L was a real "slapper". His 06 F250 w/ 5.4L no slap.
- Status
