"Torture" Is Right"Truck Torture Test" (Oct. '98) is not only informative, but shows itself as yet another example of the superb writing in your magazine. Instead of concentrating only on facts and test results, your editors write about what really went on during the test, both to the vehicles and to themselves, getting the reader intimately involved with the test and the story behind it. (Who did get all the Pop-Tarts?) By the way, if both Dodge trucks were praised so much, why did they both get Cs in the overall ratings? Anyway, thanks for writing such a great article and keep up the good work. I opened up my mail box, and my day was instantly brightened.Joseph RiccaEdinburgh, Conn.via Motor Trend Online
Joe, much to our chagrin, our Lit'lest Donkey mascot got to the petrified pastries before anyone could stop him. He was relegated to the bed of the Ram for the duration of the trip for disciplinary and gastro-intestinal reasons we'd like to forget.-Ed.
We were wondering if the spare from the Ranger would have fit the F-150. We know that the Chevy and Dodge are six-lug. We hope you aren't the morons we think you are.Kevin Doughertyvia Motor Trend Online
When the F-150 was redesigned in '97, Ford outfitted it with its new Hub-centric wheel design, which has caused great turmoil, especially in the aftermarket. Custom wheels had to be designed for the new truck, and as a result, no, the Ranger's spare wouldn't have fit the F-150.-Ed.
The new Dodge Durango must be one heck of a truck. It got decent marks in the truck torture test without even competing. Too bad its truck cousin, the Dodge Dakota, isn't as good. It competed and didn't even get graded. Is it that bad?!Joel Schustervia Motor Trend Online
Okay, you caught us. The names are astonishingly similar, so much so, that we all had a hard time coming up with the correct name in a moment's notice while driving it: "Hey, it's me, [insert name here], in the Durango. Where are you guys?" Sorry, no Durangos on this trip. Thanks for writing, Csaba.-Ed.
Perry King's experience with tires in Death Valley reminds me of some trivia about WWI armored vehicles, including production Ford Model Ts modified for desert warfare. The armor-plated flivvers featured tires filled with jelly said to be impervious to gunshots. Perhaps they were resistant to rocks, as well. Just a thought.Will WrightOklahoma City, Okla.
2000 ResponsesI sat back to enjoy an evening of quiet reading with my old friend MT. Your editorial on what to call the 2000 model (Oct. '98) cars caught my attention more than usual. The answer to your question was there in front of you. Simply drop the Y in Y2K and designate them as 2K models. You will then add a new designation to the lexicon of car talk. The 2001 cars would be 2K1, etc. It's no more than the logic of Occam's razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution is more elegant and preferred.Perry Childers PHD [sic]Address Withheld
Why not just call the 2000-model-year cars and trucks just that? After all, that's what they are. You did it on the cover and on the table of contents page, and it sounds right. '00 is just an abbreviation. I don't think it will kill anyone to say 2000 instead of '98 or '99 or what have you.John PurcellBethesda, Md.via Motor Trend Online
I've been thinking about the same ridiculous question as Mr. Tune in his editorial about what to call the 2000-model-year cars. I suppose we could refer to them, like Jethro Bodine said of his spy career, as "double naughts." Or, perhaps, like a three-year-old making a mistake, as "oh-oh's." Or, maybe, we could take a hint from the computer world's year 2000 problems, and refer to a 2000-model-year car as a 2K. Or, for an imported model based on the metric system as 2M. Great magazine, keep up the good work.Ed LaneAustin, Texasvia Motor Trend Online
...
next page >>