Everyone but honda gets smacked on the sales floor

[SuperTrooper]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But the Ranger is not a small truck, it's a mid-sized truck. Small trucks are the size of the 75-76 Toyota models pictured at this link: Toyota compact pickup trucks - Hi-Lux and Tacomoa

When you compare the dimensions the Ranger is within a couple of inches all the way around. When you add things like side impact protection (none in 1975) and other safety systems required by goverment or the market (sound insulation) even the 500 lb weight gain is right in line with newer vehicles. Those older Toyotas were rust buckets made from recycled steel. In any climate other than the dry western states they no longer exist. Anyway, the Ranger is the CLOSEST thing to the small pickup available today. Given the demands of the modern truck owner there is limited interest in the basic cab/box on wheels. Ford Supercab Rangers outsell standard cabs 5 to 1.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by SuperTrooper

When you compare the dimensions the Ranger is within a couple of inches all the way around.

You must be looking at a different Ranger than the ones I've seen. The Toyota (and its Datsun counterpart) that I drove in the '70s were a lot smaller than the Ranger the guy down the street has. Even my '88 Toyota is smaller.

Those older Toyotas were rust buckets made from recycled steel. In any climate other than the dry western states they no longer exist.

But I live in one of those western states :-) And questions of materials, manufacturing quality & durability are entirely separate from form factor. I do remember from my childhood in the northeast that pretty much all cars rusted out within a few years, so it's hardly a problem unique to Toyota.

Anyway, the Ranger is the CLOSEST thing to the small pickup available today. Given the demands of the modern truck owner there is limited interest in the basic cab/box on wheels. Ford Supercab Rangers outsell standard cabs 5 to 1.

You've got a circular argument going there. If the Ranger is the smallest thing available today, it's pretty hard to determine what the market would be for something smaller - especially after a couple of decades of advertising the pickups on steroids that Detroit wants to sell, but can't when gas is heading to $4.50. I know I'd have bought a smaller pickup with better fuel economy if one was available (used, of course). I imagine that for instance fleet managers would be happy to send service people out in smaller trucks, if it'd save them money.

[Formula413]

LOL at that Sportka ad.

Another thing that is presently driving up demand for "small" pickups is the fact that tons of Tacomas are being yanked off the road due to a massive recall for frame rust. My brother had just bought one, they are buying it back for 150% of blue book. Talk about a gold mine.

[Nden]

i <3 my honda !! domestics just don't have the quality= lower resale value. i wanna see hydrogen gas powered cars too. or that air-powered motor from australia improved upon.

[Nden]

minus the recent toyota p/u which they got greedy and started assembling in mexico (wft) i think that change started in 2003. so older tacomas i hate how toyota made them bigger n uglier- they look like dodge now

[SuperTrooper]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

You must be looking at a different Ranger than the ones I've seen. The Toyota (and its Datsun counterpart) that I drove in the '70s were a lot smaller than the Ranger the guy down the street has. Even my '88 Toyota is smaller.



But I live in one of those western states :-) And questions of materials, manufacturing quality & durability are entirely separate from form factor. I do remember from my childhood in the northeast that pretty much all cars rusted out within a few years, so it's hardly a problem unique to Toyota.



You've got a circular argument going there. If the Ranger is the smallest thing available today, it's pretty hard to determine what the market would be for something smaller - especially after a couple of decades of advertising the pickups on steroids that Detroit wants to sell, but can't when gas is heading to $4.50. I know I'd have bought a smaller pickup with better fuel economy if one was available (used, of course). I imagine that for instance fleet managers would be happy to send service people out in smaller trucks, if it'd save them money.

If fleet sales drove the market you would be right, but the general public that buys the majority of these trucks wants more. My friend Skip was able to get a basic Ranger and similar units probably fill fleets, but people like the extra room of the Supercabs. Look at what Toyota builds today. Why did the Tacoma get bigger? Because that's what people wanted. Look at the T-100 debacle. Toyota thought they could convice Americans they don't need big trucks with V8s. They were right, but people didn't WANT them. And let's not blame the Detroit marketing machine for the expansion of truck sales. Americans figured out that trucks were very versatile and Detroit figured out that the more trucks offered creature comforts and better ride the more they sold. Add in the backlash against the more practical minivan and you have the surge in SUVs. Nobody owns these vehicles because they didn't want them. You can't blame the automakers for giving the people what they want. Look at the Accord: when it first came to America it was a COMPACT and now it is classed as a LARGE car. Civics have grown from sub-compacts to compacts and are knocking on the midsize class door. The market drove that.

The unexpected rise in oil prices is eerily similar to the gas shortages of the '70s: a truly seismic event that changes the desires of the car buying public in a heartbeat. The survivors will be better car companies.

[Will]

I think I will stick with my old Metro. It just is not worth the additional mpg to get the payments on a new Prius. It would take me 1,000 years (not really) to make up the cost difference. I will admit, however, that I am looking for an Insight.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by SuperTrooper

If fleet sales drove the market you would be right, but the general public that buys the majority of these trucks wants more.

Or perhaps the people who make decisions on what to build THINK (because of all that advertising from the other builders of oversize pickups) that people want more.

Why did the Tacoma get bigger? Because that's what people wanted.

Then how come I didn't buy one? And how come you still see a lot of the '80s models, like mine, out there on the roads? There are two sides to this: the truck makers built what they thought a lot of people wanted, but then people like me who wanted something even smaller could only buy what they offered.

Nobody owns these vehicles because they didn't want them. You can't blame the automakers for giving the people what they want.

Not so. Again, I can only buy what they chose to make. I want a small, two-seat hatchback that gets good gas mileage. If Detroit, and indeed the Japanese, don't choose to make such a car, I can't buy it no matter how much I want it.

The plain fact is that Detroit deliberately drove the market towards large vehicles with its advertising. When small cars like the Mini were offered here (against the conventional wisdom), they sold well.

[fshagan]

Originally Posted by Will

I think I will stick with my old Metro. It just is not worth the additional mpg to get the payments on a new Prius. It would take me 1,000 years (not really) to make up the cost difference. I will admit, however, that I am looking for an Insight.

You're getting nearly 50 mpg with your Metro, so you are probably right! If you were switching from a 23mpg vehicle like I did, going to a Prius makes sense (I had already swapped with my wife so I wasn't driving the 17mpg vehicle any more!) Cutting your gas cost in half if pretty nice, but you would only see an improvement of a few miles per gallon over what you are getting now.

[Arminius]

Not to mention the increased cost of insurance........!