LTTP, but you're a freakin' inspiration, CM

(January 1, 2018 at 9:00 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(January 1, 2018 at 5:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Your face shows up at the end of the second video and it looks as nice as ever!

I look about ready to faint or puke or both

Nah... You're not fooling me... You were looking at the goblins at the foot of that bed, and thinking how yummy they looked.

Lol, gotta read the background sign.

(December 24, 2017 at 11:44 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 24, 2017 at 10:36 am)A Theist Wrote: That's got a 6 in it? For as light as that truck is and with the 5 spd that thing oughta scoot along pretty good.

It does indeed, and it's a dramatic improvement in performance over my Ford with its 4-cyl. I discovered the other day that it also handles much better in sloppy weather -- back end is much less squirrelly and the wider tires keep it nice and straight.

Oh yeah, that six oughta produce much better performance over the 4 in the Ranger. I had a few Fords and quite often found them under powered. I had an F 250 sometime back that had a 302 8 in it. It was a 7,000 lb truck with ladder racks and the small 8 struggled to put it in motion. But your new truck is pretty nice and that six seems like it will work out pretty good.

Strella Card and Stationery Store?

Omg, I was visiting my mom for the holidays and found my old first communion photos and the looks on our faces tell it all!


I'm the one with darker hair

Lol, my bothers face cracks me up. He is also an atheist. is a group photo:

Lol, we are on the far right:

(January 2, 2018 at 9:54 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(December 24, 2017 at 11:44 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It does indeed, and it's a dramatic improvement in performance over my Ford with its 4-cyl. I discovered the other day that it also handles much better in sloppy weather -- back end is much less squirrelly and the wider tires keep it nice and straight.

Oh yeah, that six oughta produce much better performance over the 4 in the Ranger. I had a few Fords and quite often found them under powered. I had an F 250 sometime back that had a 302 8 in it. It was a 7,000 lb truck with ladder racks and the small 8 struggled to put it in motion. But your new truck is pretty nice and that six seems like it will work out pretty good.

The only downside is that the mileage is lower and the tank is smaller -- 15 gal vs 20 in the Ford, and 18 hwy vs 23, so it has to stop for a drink a bit more often. But -- when I pull onto TX 71 it gets up to speed right quick. But mostly I like that it's more stable, odd for having a shorter wheelbase and a hotter engine. Drove home tonight on 18°F icy roads, running straight and true all the way. I think it's just balanced better.

I like Fords and may well buy another when the time comes ... but no F250 for me, unless I buy a tanker truck for convoy duty.

(January 3, 2018 at 4:26 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 2, 2018 at 9:54 pm)A Theist Wrote: Oh yeah, that six oughta produce much better performance over the 4 in the Ranger. I had a few Fords and quite often found them under powered. I had an F 250 sometime back that had a 302 8 in it. It was a 7,000 lb truck with ladder racks and the small 8 struggled to put it in motion. But your new truck is pretty nice and that six seems like it will work out pretty good.

The only downside is that the mileage is lower and the tank is smaller -- 15 gal vs 20 in the Ford, and 18 hwy vs 23, so it has to stop for a drink a bit more often. But -- when I pull onto TX 71 it gets up to speed right quick. But mostly I like that it's more stable, odd for having a shorter wheelbase and a hotter engine. Drove home tonight on 18°F icy roads, running straight and true all the way. I think it's just balanced better.

I like Fords and may well buy another when the time comes ... but no F250 for me, unless I buy a tanker truck for convoy duty.

It sounds like a good trade off, performance over mileage. At the moment I drive an older GMC full size 1500 with a 4.3/ 6. To me it's still under powered. I drive the freeway a lot and I've encountered many situations where I need the extra horses. But a 6 in your light truck seems like it could scoot along the freeways with ease. Another good thing with your new truck over your Ford, if you're going to haul anything it's not going to struggle against a load as your 4 cyl Ford would. In that respect, it would do better on gas.

I've had a few Fords when I did roofing, an F 350 1 ton with a Cleveland 351 modified, the F 250 with its 302 small block, and an '80 F 100 with a 300 straight 6. All three of those trucks were grossly underpowered. I finally test drove a Chevy truck some years back that had a 350 that was backed up by a 4spd manual. Talk about power. I thought I was driving a muscle car!

(January 3, 2018 at 5:23 am)A Theist Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 4:26 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The only downside is that the mileage is lower and the tank is smaller -- 15 gal vs 20 in the Ford, and 18 hwy vs 23, so it has to stop for a drink a bit more often. But -- when I pull onto TX 71 it gets up to speed right quick. But mostly I like that it's more stable, odd for having a shorter wheelbase and a hotter engine. Drove home tonight on 18°F icy roads, running straight and true all the way. I think it's just balanced better.

I like Fords and may well buy another when the time comes ... but no F250 for me, unless I buy a tanker truck for convoy duty.

It sounds like a good trade off, performance over mileage. At the moment I drive an older GMC full size 1500 with a 4.3/ 6. To me it's still under powered. I drive the freeway a lot and I've encountered many situations where I need the extra horses. But a 6 in your light truck seems like it could scoot along the freeways with ease. Another good thing with your new truck over your Ford, if you're going to haul anything it's not going to struggle against a load as your 4 cyl Ford would. In that respect, it would do better on gas.

Well, mine's not a work truck, just light utility/household stuff. But yeah, a fullsize with a six just don't seem right.

Going up and back to D/FW over Christmas, I ran about 17 mpg -- but much of it at 80 mph, not the sweet spot for a truck. I'll either get a tonneau or a netgate, eventually.

(January 3, 2018 at 5:23 am)A Theist Wrote: I've had a few Fords when I did roofing, an F 350 1 ton with a Cleveland 351 modified, the F 250 with its 302 small block, and an '80 F 100 with a 300 straight 6. All three of those trucks were grossly underpowered. I finally test drove a Chevy truck some years back that had a 350 that was backed up by a 4spd manual. Talk about power. I thought I was driving a muscle car!

Yeah, all those sound like they'd be huffing up the hills here. Remind me some time to take a pic or two, the roads here are very three-dimensional, elevation varying 700-800 foot inside half-a-mile at points. My Ranger would run out of breath halfway up them. That's a big thing about this Nissan -- I've got power enough to get out of tight spots better.

It's all a trade-off, as you already know.

(January 3, 2018 at 5:45 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Going up and back to D/FW over Christmas, I ran about 17 mpg -- but much of it at 80 mph, not the sweet spot for a truck. I'll either get a tonneau or a netgate, eventually.

17mpg?...
My Ford Fiesta would give me something closer to 40mpg. Sure, it's not a truck... but did you really have to haul a truck to where you were going?

I wish to one day have an EV and leave the mpg measure behind me forever.