Bruce's Journal

[RollingAcres]

Probably your daughters won't ask to borrow them.

His daughters might ask to borrow the truck. Chicks look cool in big trucks, you didn't know that STA? That's why I drive one.

The downsides? Initial cost, operating costs, etc. I get the WONDERFUL fuel economy of 15 MPG. But I'd still prefer my truck over a smaller vehicle.

I can't get over how expensive a new truck costs now a days. No way I'm getting a new truck or even new car. I kinda like that we have no vehicle payments. You are right about the wonderful fuel economy we get from the trucks but like you, I'd prefer it over a smaller car. Also helps a lot with 4 WD when driving on snowy roads.

 

[High Desert Cowboy]

Sorry about your vehicle but a car is replaceable where you are not. Glad it’s only whiplash, it’s painful in the short go but hopefully there’s no lasting damage. Buying a new car is never fun, especially if you’ve gotta pay down thousands more to replace it. But sometimes you get lucky, when I totaled my truck a few years back I got back 4000 more than what I paid for it. Fingers crossed you’re that lucky

 

[farmerjan]

I have a small ford ranger and get in the neighborhood of 22-25 mpg. My 2000 forester subaru gets the same. There is no way I would get a "car" that I cannot haul feed and my testing equipment and all that in. I use the truck all the time for hauling buckets of feed from the 4 ton gravity bulk feed bin up to the pasture/barn where I have my nurse cows. I understand that you like the economy of the hybrid, but the outlay cost difference would never be offset here by savings in fuel, or convenience of use. I paid 1200 for my USED 1994 (?) ranger. Paid 400 for the 4wd then redid the engine for a total of 1300 in it. Paid 1500 for the 2000 subaru put 100,000 miles on it, and just got it back after putting a new engine and rear struts for 1450. It will hopefully go at least another 100,000. Especially since I am not testing as many farms, and not travelling to Pittsburg Pa for the prolotherapy treatments every 2 months, round trip of 1,000 miles. I look at it as a cost per month....
My car will cost me about 150 month for the next 10 months then the "engine cost" will be paid back. I would have to put gas and do maintenance on anything I drove. The total insurance is 450 a year for liability with the highest prop damage etc allowed in Va. Total insurance for Full coverage was 800/yr. so I am saving nearly half. If I had to make payments then I would be saddled into something for at least 2 or more years. I will not buy new for the ridiculous costs.
If I were to go any long distance trip, I can rent a "new" type vehicle for about 200 a week. All their headaches and payments. Have done it several times. If it breaks down, call them; not my problem. It is money well spent if I have to go anywhere that I don't want to take my car. I have no problem in going 500 miles with what I have.
Understand too, that I don't care what it looks like much. The subaru is a decent looking car. The trucks get used in the field, the cows can and do rub against them. Lenses get cracked and broken, they did break a plastic bracket for a mirror once. They rub their nice mud covered butts on it.
We also have the big trucks for the farm. Can't easily carry a 1,000-1500 lb round bale on a little vehicle. And we take at least 2 at a time to save trips that are too far from the barn to run the tractor. Can't use a little truck to haul a trailer with 8-10,000 lbs of cattle.
It is all in WHAT YOU NEED. If the Prius works for you, and you obviously like them, then good for you. I like the principles of the hybrid, but cannot see where they make economic sense due to the very high cost and then the maintenance that would cost a good amount when the batteries need replacing. I have not seen where it is justified with the increased mileage. But that is me.... maybe they have improved since I first looked into them.
And I am also one to want some "metal" between me and the person who hits me. Another reason to have some older vehicles.... they aren't made out of tinfoil and plastic.

 

[farmerjan]

The truck would be too big for his daughters to drive too. It is hard to go from a small vehicle, to learning the "size" of a big one and things like turning allowances, and stopping distances. And on top of that, all our trucks are standard shift. The only automatic is my subaru.... It is alot easier/cheaper to replace a clutch, pressure plate, and throwout bearing, than rebuild an automatic transmission. Although all new trucks under a 1 ton are now automatic.... another reason I will not buy one. Even with my ankle I drive a standard shift. The best thing, is if you get stuck in mud, you can "rock it" to get it out. And if you have a battery or starter problem..... you can roll it down a hill, or pull it and pop the clutch and get it started. Can't do that with an automatic.

 

[greybeard]

It is alot easier/cheaper to replace a clutch, pressure plate, and throwout bearing, than rebuild an automatic transmission.

X2!!!

Lots easier and cheaper to rebuild a standard transmission than an automatic too, tho the newer ones with OD are getting more complicated.

 

[Bruce]

you can roll it down a hill, or pull it and pop the clutch and get it started. Can't do that with an automatic.

Actually I think you can. Put it in neutral, get it to speed and drop it in drive. Though I've never tried it and would be fine with being told you really can't.

But sometimes you get lucky, when I totaled my truck a few years back I got back 4000 more than what I paid for it. Fingers crossed you’re that lucky

Not bloody likely! You made out really well buying that truck for so much less than its 'book value'. I think the value of my car now is about 1/3 of what it cost as a 3 year old in 2012.

Paid 1500 for the 2000 subaru put 100,000 miles on it, and just got it back after putting a new engine and rear struts for 1450.

Hell of a deal. I would expect just the engine (new being 'new to you' I'm sure) would cost well more than that. What year did you buy the Subaru and how many miles did it have at the time?

If the Prius works for you, and you obviously like them, then good for you. I like the principles of the hybrid, but cannot see where they make economic sense due to the very high cost and then the maintenance that would cost a good amount when the batteries need replacing.

Sadly the urban myth that the traction batteries will fail and need replacing will not die. Started by naysayers when the cars first came out and repeated by people who know no better. We have had ZERO maintenance cost related to any part of the hybrid system on any of our cars. DW's car was bought new in April 2006 and has 207K miles on it. The only maintenance done on the car is the same as would be needed on any ICE based vehicle. And as to initial cost? The absolute cheapest F150 costs $4K more than the cheapest Prius. The cheapest Ranger cost $1K more than the cheapest Prius.

I understand that some people DO need a truck. Up here anything as old as your truck would likely be at the junkyard rusted out. As you said "It is all in WHAT YOU NEED." I don't need to haul 1,000 pound round bales. My hay (small squares or small rounds (1 round = 10 small squares)) is delivered by the guy up the road that bales and sells hay. I use < 30 small squares a year. If I needed to pick it up hay I could rent a UHaul for a few hours for about $40. Somewhere in my journal I detailed all the fencing materials I brought home from TSC in, on or behind (cargo tray) my Prius. None of my fencing materials were delivered and that includes numerous 7.5' T posts, 6" wood 8' posts, 16' cattle panels, 300' rolls of field fence and 12' pipe gates. Yes it did take a few trips but it would in a PU as well.

 

[greybeard]

Actually I think you can. Put it in neutral, get it to speed and drop it in drive. Though I've never tried it and would be fine with being told you really can't.

It depends on whether the automatic transmission in question has what is know as a rear pump (as well as the usual front pump.) The rear pump would be driven off the transmission's OUTput shaft which is coupled to the drive wheels. The rear pump then, can provide hydraulic fluid to the pistons inside the transmission as well as to the torque convertor. Torque converter has to have fluid to it in order to transmit energy, except at highway speeds when the converter's stator and rotor are hydraulically or electrically lacked together, which is called going into lockup. (if lockup clutch is an option for that model)
The usual arrangement tho, is to only have a front pump which of course is driven by the transmission's INput shaft, which is driven by the engine.

GM Hydramatic.

All the early automobiles with automatics had a rear pump so they could be push started..Ford's Fordomatics/cruiseomatics, the early GM steel cased Powerglides and right up until the minivan craze, the Chrysler Torqueflites.
No rear pump is also why you aren't supposed to pull or push an automatic powered vehicle with the drive wheels on the ground......no rear pump means the gears and bearings don't get lubricated unless the engine is running. When the Chrysler Voyagers first came out, there was even a warning sticker telling people to not even coast downhill in neutral.
As far as I know tho, Mercedes has always had a rear pump.

 

[Senile_Texas_Aggie]

His daughters might ask to borrow the truck. Chicks look cool in big trucks, you didn't know that STA? That's why I drive one.

I always smile whenever I see the bumper sticker on a truck that reads "Silly Boys -- Trucks are for Girls"

 

[High Desert Cowboy]

Woops my 0 button got over excited it was 400 not 4000. Still not bad after driving that thing for 5 years.

 

[Bruce]

I agree, you still did pretty well driving it for 5 years with a capital 'cost' of -$400.

According to @greybeard's post, seems like it isn't advisable to try to push start most automatics.