I can safely say I never had a car like that. Generally they were all older, usually 3-5 years but in about the middle of that model release, with proven mechanics even when some were kinda meh overall. There was a period in my early 20s when I was going through cars like underwear so possibly not enough time to find the flaws.Originally Posted by Borderland
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
When I bought my current truck (a 2016 RAM 1500 Crew Sport 2WD) I seriously considered their "Express" model at that time in 2 door with as few options as possible but with the 3.92 rear end and the Hemi. I figured that would be the fastest RAM available at the time (which wasn't saying much).
Looks like an RST Chevy with the 6.2 does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds.
Not bad, considering the 2001 Lightning took 5.8 seconds....
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
I did get the Express and it is red. 3.92s, but quad cab and 4x4.
Still, a red Express is certainly not a Lil Red Express. They were only made for two years, '78 and '79. If you aren't familar:
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Oh yeah, I'm familiar for sure. Everyone bitched and moaned when Ram came out with the "Express" model because it was defiling the sacred name and all that other car voodoo naming BS people get so mad about.I did get the Express and it is red. 3.92s, but quad cab and 4x4.
Still, a red Express is certainly not a Lil Red Express. They were only made for two years, '78 and '79. If you aren't familar:
My vague recollection about the OG was that emission standards had turned all the "sports cars" into dogs, and the workaround was to make a "fast truck" because they weren't covered, or something like that. I'm sure a quick google will prove my memory to be wrong (more voodoo bs, haha).
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
I think people are buying basic Rangers ($25,070), that still come with the 2.3L turbo engine and 10 speed, and doing bigger turbos like the EB Mustang.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
I think it was fuel economy averages. An 8mpg car would drag down the fleet average, but an 8mpg truck was for "hauling".
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Sounds familiar. We buy either new or used and drive them into the dirt. Last new family vehicle we bought was a '08 Chrysler minivan that has never left anyone stranded but has required a few significant repairs over 177K miles. Thank God for the lifetime warranty we bought. Saving up for its eventual replacement hopefully without incurring debt being close to retirement.
I have wanted a truck for thirty-five years but couldn’t justify the purchase enough to pull the pin.
Since we have started gardening seriously the last two years, I could justify the expense to save the minivan from overloading and accelerated interior wear.
This GMC Sierra came to me from a friend of a friend at a very good price this past February.
129K and garage kept.
Everything I need and nearly nothing I don’t.
Almost pulled the trigger on a new-ish Ram earlier in the year.
As someone stated earlier, now is a poor time to have to purchase a house or a vehicle.
No catalytic converter was required on the '78 truck, whereas a car would have had to have them. The '79 had to have cats but performance didn't change much. They actually got better fuel economy then a lot of the "regular" trucks of the era. They were pretty expensive, though, something like a 50% upgrade over a base truck by the time you got the Express package and all the mandatory upgrades.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
The current Tundra is woefully underequipped, gets awful mileage no matter what, and very long in the tooth; to put it mildly. I’d wait.
#RESIST
Reply With Quote