Is America ready for 4-cylinder full-size pickup trucks? Because they're here (GM)

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by jcp123

I've always kind of thought that the truck and SUV thing grew at least in part out of the fact that there aren't really any more good full-size wagons and the like with big abilities to carry a load and/or tow. Americans' lust for having more capability than they need hasn't changed, but the availability of vehicles to fit that list certainly has. In a sense it's a bit of the law of unintended consequences.

Largely the original fuel economy requirements were only on cars and vans and left the light trucks which is what SUV's were listed as alone.


As someone who uses trucks and 4x4's, I don't like how big they have gotten, or how high the bed floor is now, almost unusable. We will often take the 19 year old small truck instead of the new comfy big one because it is so much easier to maneuver in tight spaces. Even though the new big truck gets almost the same fuel economy.

[thingstodo]

Just bought a full-sized F150. 2.7 liter engine, crew cab, short box.

And it's going to be my daily driver. After the first tank I'm doing 10.5 liters per 100 km, or about 22 mpg. That's better than my Hyundai Santa Fe was doing.

The Chevy does get better mileage, by the numbers. But not $5000 better.

It does what I need it to do, and what I *THINK* I need it to do.

The Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV won't tow over 1500 lbs (that's a cargo rating, *NOT* a tow rating!), the Volt won't tow and has little ground clearance, the Leaf won't drive for 220 km (130 miles) in an evening ... which I do most Fridays. The Model S or X would have worked ... but they cost more than my house. And used models are still rare up here.

I really didn't want to buy another dino-burner ... but I'm too darned practical to buy something that won't do all of what I think I need. SIGH!

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by jcp123

I've always kind of thought that the truck and SUV thing grew at least in part out of the fact that there aren't really any more good full-size wagons and the like with big abilities to carry a load and/or tow.

It happened nearly everywhere else.

Americans' lust for having more capability than they need hasn't changed, but the availability of vehicles to fit that list certainly has.

It's not just an American deal. Just look at Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, Middle East and China where sedan versions of subcompacts are by far more popular than in developed countries where the hatchback is often the only bodystyle available.

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Largely the original fuel economy requirements were only on cars and vans and left the light trucks which is what SUV's were listed as alone.


As someone who uses trucks and 4x4's, I don't like how big they have gotten, or how high the bed floor is now, almost unusable. We will often take the 19 year old small truck instead of the new comfy big one because it is so much easier to maneuver in tight spaces. Even though the new big truck gets almost the same fuel economy.

That's what I was gently pushing towards, so I'll play some hardball and see what trickles out of it.

A 25-30mpg - maybe more - highway rated wagon which can tow a good load doesn't exist because CAFE makes that costly. Enter trucks and SUVs, unencumbered by dimwit policy makers with little understanding of the things they are actually regulating, and said trucks and SUVs carry the torch for the same exact things American buyers have sought for a long time, aided by some marketing, of course. And we wonder why practical vehicles on a meaningfully more efficient scale don't exist.

There's no way to know how the counterfactual of more equal CAFE standards would affect fleet MPG. But I wonder if the shift to SUVs would have been so drastic? Would we have more, beefier cars with marginally but meaningfully better FE than full-size trucks and SUVs? Would it even out? Would it matter if the lower-to-the-ground cars had better accident rates?

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

It happened nearly everywhere else.




It's not just an American deal. Just look at Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, Middle East and China where sedan versions of subcompacts are by far more popular than in developed countries where the hatchback is often the only bodystyle available.

Regulations played a part here, in my opinion. But culturally, every spot has their own way of using cars. Asia is an interesting place, where the masses tend to use very efficiently packed smaller vehicles, but upper-crust individuals much prefer an exceptionally conservative, three-box sedan.

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by thingstodo

Just bought a full-sized F150. 2.7 liter engine, crew cab, short box.

And it's going to be my daily driver. After the first tank I'm doing 10.5 liters per 100 km, or about 22 mpg. That's better than my Hyundai Santa Fe was doing.

The Chevy does get better mileage, by the numbers. But not $5000 better.

It does what I need it to do, and what I *THINK* I need it to do.

The Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV won't tow over 1500 lbs (that's a cargo rating, *NOT* a tow rating!), the Volt won't tow and has little ground clearance, the Leaf won't drive for 220 km (130 miles) in an evening ... which I do most Fridays. The Model S or X would have worked ... but they cost more than my house. And used models are still rare up here.

I really didn't want to buy another dino-burner ... but I'm too darned practical to buy something that won't do all of what I think I need. SIGH!

You're not the problem, and IMHO you have zero need to justify your purchase. The 2.7EB is an interesting idea and 22mpg is pretty darn good for what the F150 is these days. That's about 1mpg less than my Dad's '00 Passat wagon with AWD and a naturally aspirated 2.8l, 190hp V6, and I'll wager you're well over 1,000lbs heavier on your curb weight (IIRC that wagon was a smidgeon under 4,000lbs). Plus you have a meaningful tow rating, a beefier frame, and the high seating position which can be nice. I don't know what kind of roads you have up there, but a bit of tire sidewall and a suspension that's not road-hugging can be a very nice thing to have.

[TheEnemy]

Even the 5.0 v8 in our f150 gets pretty good FE, considering its an automatic, and my wife has a heavy foot 14-16 in town and 22-24 at 75 on the highway and the AC is almost always on. We are considering the possibility of getting a crate engine and a 6 speed manual to swap into the little truck.

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Even the 5.0 v8 in our f150 gets pretty good FE, considering its an automatic, and my wife has a heavy foot 14-16 in town and 22-24 at 75 on the highway and the AC is almost always on. We are considering the possibility of getting a crate engine and a 6 speed manual to swap into the little truck.

That's a good example of what I'm wondering. For something as big, capable, and strong as an F150, I can't deny that's really good. But if CAFE hadn't interfered, could this be an 18 city/30 highway sedan/wagon with a 5000lb tow rating, quicker acceleration, better, more engaging road manners? Would the "royal we" have gone to trucks and SUVs? Would it balance out in favor of less fuel consumption overall?

[Ecky]

I see a lot of "almost as efficient" fuel economy statements, but it's worth noting that the absolute amount of fuel saved going from 70mpg to 90mpg is less than the amount saved improving from 25mpg to 27mpg, or from 15.0mpg to 15.7mpg. "Just" 1-2mpg is a lot of fuel when you're in the teens or twenties.

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by jcp123

That's a good example of what I'm wondering. For something as big, capable, and strong as an F150, I can't deny that's really good. But if CAFE hadn't interfered, could this be an 18 city/30 highway sedan/wagon with a 5000lb tow rating, quicker acceleration, better, more engaging road manners? Would the "royal we" have gone to trucks and SUVs? Would it balance out in favor of less fuel consumption overall?

My specific example would be 'YES'.

If I could have done the towing (4500+ .. not comfortable with a 5500 lb max rating on my wife's Acura MDX) .. maybe 6500 or 7000 lb .. and had some ground clearance for railway crossings and a few miles of gravel road ...

The bed of the truck is high. Like 'over-my-waist-how-do-I-lift-stuff-into-it' high. I'm sure I'll come up with a stool that stores in the back and gives me better access. It's on my todo list!