View Single Post
Old 01-22-2014, 09:56 PM   #81 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
We can have the truck weigh as little as it did 40 years ago, but it would have to haul a lot less and have a smaller motor.

As with most things American, the 1/2T pickup grew in size. It used to be called a 1/2 ton because it was rated to only haul 1000 lbs in the bed. Nowadays it's rated to haul 3120 lbs.

I'm less concerned with how fuel efficient a working truck is because it's purpose designed to haul a lot of weight. If it were a commuter vehicle, then I would be more concerned with fuel economy. That said, reducing weight is a great thing because it increases the available payload.
Don't you know, trucks aren't for hauling, they are for commuting and solo tearing around. Since that is an inarguable fact these days, I think the "1/2T" trucks really should be 1/2T like they used to be, then you really can lighten it and downsize the engine and gear it right and etc. and the poseurs and short people and the genitalia challenged can buy them because we all know they can't be seen in something sensible like a Ranger. For those in the minority that really haul and tow, they used to have this thing called the 3/4T truck- make that one capable of heavier work.

__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 01-22-2014 at 10:01 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
redpoint5 (01-23-2014)