Help w pick up truck purchase

madmax

I personally wouldn't pay more than blue book, even with the lower mileage. I would give the salesman that piece of info and then ask if I should hang around to close the deal or not. If the answer is not a good one I would leave and not return unless they made me an even lower offer. This often works. They say they cannot sell that cheap then call you in a few days later once they realize they lost the sale.

WilliamM2

Blue book value is based on the current average selling price of a particular vehicle in any given area. So the fact that the used car market is hot, is already figured in. Why would anyone pay more? My family runs new car dealerships, and every trade-in on the lots is listed for less than NADA book value, just like all the other dealers. I have yet to see any dealers around here list cars for more than BB, except the instant car credit places.

sucks2beme

You you the **** didn't give the guy trading it in any more than Bluebook.
They either go with the book or you go home without.

ohskigod

after some checking (and realizing I forgot to account for the 3 valve engine and 6 speed tranny, it is right at blue book. they are giving me a little better on trade and 5% for 5 yrs. dealer is trying, i'll give em that

Incidentally that was Edmunds

ohskigod

gdb wrote: »

A certain pontificating, gas-bag here has their head up their tailpipe! How does 2010 w/9,736 miles for $15,990 tickle your tuna? Go to auto trader and also....see my sig.




http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/searchresults.jsp?lastBeginningStartYear=1981&num_records=25&search_lang=en&page_location=findacar%3A%3Aispsearchform&search_type=used&distance=200&address=21701&marketZipError=false&body_style=TRUCKS&make=FORD&model=F150PICKUP&make2=&start_year=2009&end_year=2010&min_price=&max_price=&seller_type=b&transmission=&engine=&drive=&doors=&fuel=&max_mileage=&color=&keywordsrep=&keywordsfyc=&keywords_display=&sort_type=priceASC&body_code=32&certified=&advanced=y&highlightFirstMakeModel=&showZipError=n&default_sort=priceASC&systime=&sownerid=77684&dma=WASHINGTON_DC_NO&rdm=1309186805274

that was a rental truck dude, not touching that with a 10 foot cattleprod. at least the dealership was good enough to have the free carfax showing as such, plus what would he give me on trade?

probably a good deal for someone out there though.

although negative points for the listing from Sheedy below it that says "one owner" again, its not "one owner" when that owner was a rental outfit..lol


I will wager a guess that they are the 2 valve engines, which lowers book value over the 3 valve engine (more powerful) and also the 4 speed tranny ) as opposed to the 6. both significant options if you ever want to tow down the road.

billbillw

How long have you been looking? These trucks are pretty common in just about any form. Personally, I'd still hold out for one from a southern state and again, don't worry about mileage. On a 2-3 year old truck, I wouldn't pay any extra for a sub-15k miles vehicle compared to one in clean shape with 30-35k miles.

ohskigod

A while. Believe me. These base trucks are a rarity new or used up here. Everyone gets the soup to nuts trucks got 40k. That ain't my style

VR3

Dude just take a road trip down to NC - there are THOUSANDS of F150s in your price range in all colors, shapes, sizes - you name it...

I could literally look at 40 15,000 dollar F150 tomorrow if I put my mind to it

BIZILL

seems high to me. that is my initial impression. but then again, geographic location may be in play.

do you plan to ever tow anything heavy? ever? 4.6l V8 seems small, but will be a good tradeoff in gas mileage if you don't plan to tow.

gdb

ohskigod wrote: »

that was a rental truck dude, not touching that with a 10 foot cattleprod. at least the dealership was good enough to have the free carfax showing as such, plus what would he give me on trade?

probably a good deal for someone out there though.

although negative points for the listing from Sheedy below it that says "one owner" again, its not "one owner" when that owner was a rental outfit..lol


I will wager a guess that they are the 2 valve engines, which lowers book value over the 3 valve engine (more powerful) and also the 4 speed tranny ) as opposed to the 6. both significant options if you ever want to tow down the road.

That truck and the other both have tow packages included,$1,090 Below retail book value. Plenty of V8s made since the mid 1950s have done just fine with only 2 valves per cylinder. Closer reading will reveal that they were fleet vehicles from rust-free Arizona with quite a bit of original warranty remaining. What do I know,buy a rusty, over book truck if you want to. 5.7Liters is about the minimum that I'd consider a tow vehicle. Your mileage might vary.

exalted512

BIZILL wrote: »

seems high to me. that is my initial impression. but then again, geographic location may be in play.

do you plan to ever tow anything heavy? ever? 4.6l V8 seems small, but will be a good tradeoff in gas mileage if you don't plan to tow.

My small v-8 (4.8) gets worse mileage than almost everyone I know with the 5.3. When I took it to the dealer, they said that's pretty common because its working the smaller engine harder. Freakin' sucks...and is about the only thing I dont like about my truck...small engine AND **** mileage...yay.
-Cody

ohskigod

The 4.6 in 3 valve form gets around 280 hp and 320 lbft torque. More than enough for me. From the research I did this engine with the 6 speed makes decent mileage. 2 wd helps In the regard. This is why I like 2 wheel drives. Less weight. Better steering. Better ride. I don't off road anymore and have a talent for driving 2 wheel drive trucks in snow.

Exalted is yours the 3V or 2?

ohskigod

gdb wrote: »

That truck and the other both have tow packages included,$1,090 Below retail book value. Plenty of V8s made since the mid 1950s have done just fine with only 2 valves per cylinder. Closer reading will reveal that they were fleet vehicles from rust-free Arizona with quite a bit of original warranty remaining. What do I know,buy a rusty, over book truck if you want to. 5.7Liters is about the minimum that I'd consider a tow vehicle. Your mileage might vary.

15999 is not 1000 under book for that truck. It's is pretty much right on book

billbillw

There are at least 3 book values for retail pricing. The way I see it, KBB is slanted towards the dealers, NADA is influenced by the Banks, and Edmunds is pro-consumer. In my opinion, Edmunds is the number you should be negotiating towards. Sometimes the 3 numbers are very close, sometimes there is a lot of discrepancy.

BIZILL

exalted512 wrote: »

My small v-8 (4.8) gets worse mileage than almost everyone I know with the 5.3. When I took it to the dealer, they said that's pretty common because its working the smaller engine harder. Freakin' sucks...and is about the only thing I dont like about my truck...small engine AND **** mileage...yay.
-Cody

I still have my 5.3 and my gas mileage used to be near 16mpg when i REALLY babied the gas pedal. My average now that IDGAF is low 13's. I try to take the older camry when i can to work.

exalted512

BIZILL wrote: »

I still have my 5.3 and my gas mileage used to be near 16mpg when i REALLY babied the gas pedal. My average now that IDGAF is low 13's. I try to take the older camry when i can to work.

I get better mileage at 80 than I do at 70. I average around 13. Most people I know with the 5.3's are averaging 18 mpg

Even on GMC's website for the new models, the 4.8 gets 14/19 and the 5.3 gets 15/21.

I'm not buying a new truck anytime soon, but when I do, it'll be 4wd and the estimated city mileage will be over 18mpg, preferably 20mpg., that way hopefully I'll get 18. And not some hybrid or 'special' edition that adds cost to the truck.

Until then, I'm going to enjoy being payment free
-Cody

bobman1235

exalted512 wrote: »

I get better mileage at 80 than I do at 70.

Does your truck have an instantaneous gas mileage readout? Otherwise I can't imagine how you could make such a claim.

dorokusai

Mine does.

ohskigod

billbillw wrote: »

There are at least 3 book values for retail pricing. The way I see it, KBB is slanted towards the dealers, NADA is influenced by the Banks, and Edmunds is pro-consumer. In my opinion, Edmunds is the number you should be negotiating towards. Sometimes the 3 numbers are very close, sometimes there is a lot of discrepancy.

Oddly enough. Edmonds was the highest of three. It seemed to best add in the better engine and tranny this truck has over the base 2 valve

Exalted. Have you had the cat converter checked? Better mileage at higher speed makes little sense. Especially at those speeds. Also I know of few 5.3 owners with 4wd getting 18.

ohskigod

bobman1235 wrote: »

Does your truck have an instantaneous gas mileage readout? Otherwise I can't imagine how you could make such a claim.

Even I'd it did. Those have to be taken with a grain of salt to
A degree. Only accurate way to calc mileage is After a tank fill. My mileage gauge in the
Cube can be anywhere from 3 mpg too high to 1 too low.

In terms of mileages at speed. If a truck with it's gearing is not optimum at a certain speed. It can be possible to be more efficient at a higher speed if it upshifts.

exalted512

bobman1235 wrote: »

Does your truck have an instantaneous gas mileage readout? Otherwise I can't imagine how you could make such a claim.

It's easy. When I take my 4 hour drive to my parents house which is almost entirely highway, when I would drive 80 on the highway, I'd get better mileage than driving 70. When I was in college, I tested my theory at least 20 times...actually had a spread sheet of it at one time. I averaged something like 1.6 mpg better on my 80mph 'test runs' than I did on my 70mph ones.

I'm not the only one to notice this either. When I was researching my gas problem several years ago, there were a few other people in West Texas that noticed the same thing when they were driving on the highways out there. I tried finding the threads but I couldn't. But anyway, there's even less stops than I have out in West Texas and I-10 is an 80mph road anyway.
-Cody

exalted512

ohskigod wrote: »

Exalted. Have you had the cat converter checked? Better mileage at higher speed makes little sense. Especially at those speeds. Also I know of few 5.3 owners with 4wd getting 18.

Not specifically. When I took it to the dealership originally, they said they couldn't find anything wrong with it...but I'm willing to bet they checked the air filter, if that, and called it a day.

The truck only had like 40k miles at that point...and we dont have snow, so we dont have salt. It's got about 70k on it now and the mileage hasn't changed. It's due for quite a bit of maintenance next year.
-Cody

Jstas

bobman1235 wrote: »

Does your truck have an instantaneous gas mileage readout? Otherwise I can't imagine how you could make such a claim.

It's possible.

The problem is not aerodynamics but rather volumetric efficiency. Peak VE is where your engine is essentially getting as complete a burn of fuel as it can. That means it's running at it's most efficient. Not necessarily when it's using the least amount of gas, just when it's getting the most energy out of the gas it's using.

Forced induction engines tend to see this more pronounced because of the fact that the compressor/blower is always feeding the engine more air than it can suck in by itself. This artificially boosts VE.

In a non-boosted engine, you have to have the engine running at a certain RPM to reach max VE for your setup. Often times, that RPM is hovering right around where you make your peak power levels. Well, actually, just a bit lower 'cause when you hit peak power levels, the efficiency plummets because because your production stops and you VE numbers fall off because RPM increases slightly but power doesn't. The gap widens really fast. With modern, multiple gear transmissions, they often have 2 or 3 overdrive gears. This is nice and all because it makes the engine cruise at 65 MPH all day and hover at just above idle to around 1800 RPM. It's quiet, it's sipping fuel and keeping cool so mileage and emissions stay favorable for the majority of drivers.

However, if that RPM level that the OD gear keeps the engine at is too low, the VE goes in the toilet. So, running at 65 MPH in top gear might keep the engine at, say 1800 RPM. But, the engine's peak VE is at around 2300 RPM. So if the OD gear is keeping your RPM down, you can be more efficient if you run faster. At 80 MPH, you hit that 2300 RPM mark. You are now making more power so the extra power overcomes the aerodynamic drag so it's not an issue. Yeah, it's noisier but it's not necessarily detrimental. Mainly because the engine is probably getting just as good hours per gallon fuel usage as it was at 1800 RPM but the vehicle is moving 15 MPH faster. So, the mile MPG numbers can actually change because of the higher rate of speed and the ability to cover more miles in a single gallon because the VE is higher.

So yes, there are times where you can get better efficiency in fuel mileage when traveling faster. It's not as common as many think but it's not impossible either.

Jstas

ohskigod wrote: »

Even I'd it did. Those have to be taken with a grain of salt to
A degree. Only accurate way to calc mileage is After a tank fill. My mileage gauge in the
Cube can be anywhere from 3 mpg too high to 1 too low.

In terms of mileages at speed. If a truck with it's gearing is not optimum at a certain speed. It can be possible to be more efficient at a higher speed if it upshifts.

Many of those gauges take averages and not the actual MPG.

Part of the reason for that is that they measure fuel pressure and compare to a table of values for flow at certain pressure levels. So if you're gunnin' for the finish line one minute and piddling along like Miss Daisy the next minute, it's going to take an average of a bunch of data points and flat out lie to you.

The other problem is that just because fuel pressure is high doesn't mean all the fuel is being used. Many cars have return lines that dump the unused fuel back in to the tank. That's why sometimes, after you stop driving like a maniac, the fuel gauge can seem to come back up. This is especially apparent in long vehicles like a pickup truck or SUV where the fuel lines can hold has much as 3 gallons of gas. When you shut the engine down, the fuel pump goes off and the gas drains back in to the tank. Those gauges don't compensate for that.

20hz

exalted512 wrote: »

My small v-8 (4.8) gets worse mileage than almost everyone I know with the 5.3. When I took it to the dealer, they said that's pretty common because its working the smaller engine harder. Freakin' sucks...and is about the only thing I dont like about my truck...small engine AND **** mileage...yay.
-Cody

about 10 years ago a friend had a older chevy pup (round headlights) just to pull his 19 foot speedboat the truck had a 350 cubic V8 he got just nasty milage (like 12mpg max) pulling the boat , so they pulled the moter and put in a 454 cu big block and since there is so little effert to pull the boat he got better milage (like 20 mpg) pulling the boat .
So its true match the engine to your needs or will spend more at the gas station .

exalted512

I've never heard of anyone on the better half of 12mpg with a 454...damn.
-Cody

madmax

Jstas wrote: »

The problem is not aerodynamics but rather volumetric efficiency. Peak VE is where your engine is essentially getting as complete a burn of fuel as it can. That means it's running at it's most efficient. Not necessarily when it's using the least amount of gas, just when it's getting the most energy out of the gas it's using.

Forced induction engines tend to see this more pronounced because of the fact that the compressor/blower is always feeding the engine more air than it can suck in by itself. This artificially boosts VE.

In a non-boosted engine, you have to have the engine running at a certain RPM to reach max VE for your setup. Often times, that RPM is hovering right around where you make your peak power levels. Well, actually, just a bit lower 'cause when you hit peak power levels, the efficiency plummets because because your production stops and you VE numbers fall off because RPM increases slightly but power doesn't. The gap widens really fast. With modern, multiple gear transmissions, they often have 2 or 3 overdrive gears. This is nice and all because it makes the engine cruise at 65 MPH all day and hover at just above idle to around 1800 RPM. It's quiet, it's sipping fuel and keeping cool so mileage and emissions stay favorable for the majority of drivers.

However, if that RPM level that the OD gear keeps the engine at is too low, the VE goes in the toilet. So, running at 65 MPH in top gear might keep the engine at, say 1800 RPM. But, the engine's peak VE is at around 2300 RPM. So if the OD gear is keeping your RPM down, you can be more efficient if you run faster. At 80 MPH, you hit that 2300 RPM mark. You are now making more power so the extra power overcomes the aerodynamic drag so it's not an issue. Yeah, it's noisier but it's not necessarily detrimental. Mainly because the engine is probably getting just as good hours per gallon fuel usage as it was at 1800 RPM but the vehicle is moving 15 MPH faster. So, the mile MPG numbers can actually change because of the higher rate of speed and the ability to cover more miles in a single gallon because the VE is higher.

I think this is a right wing conspiracy to make people want to raise the speed limits.

exalted512

madmax wrote: »

I think this is a right wing conspiracy to make people want to raise the speed limits.

Could be going to 85 in some parts of Texas
-Cody

madmax

ohskigod wrote: »

Trading the cube was the plan

Its gonna suck to go from 40mpg to 20mpg. :eek:

ohskigod

More like 29 - 20. It took a long highway drive to get over 30 and I had to stay 80 or under to get it. Over 80 it dropped like rock........ Hypothetically speaking as I never really speed ;-)