Ford 2015 f150 to get 27mpg

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by mcrews

Didn't know toyo had a full size pickup in 88???

Toyota's had a useful-sized pickup since at least 1968. (The 'Stout' - I owned one in the mid-'70s.) What they haven't had until fairly recently is a bloated equivalent to the American "full-sized"* pickup. The strange thing is that I have friends who own these "full-sized" trucks, yet I can haul as much or more than they ever do, and go places they don't even think of going.

So if the goal is really to improve fuel economy, it would seem more sensible to simply build smaller, and spend some money marketing that.


*A bit of double-speak that always reminds me of the marketers who refer to fat women as "full-figured".

[Xist]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

*A bit of double-speak that always reminds me of the marketers who refer to fat women as "full-figured".

My sister never shared my skinny genes and Mom always referred to her as "athletic." When my sister was not around, I asked "what sport?!"

I waste time on dating sites and see many aggressively defensive statements about women not being wide, my mind is just too narrow, and me not being man enough for them anyway. They often show pictures of heavier women with muscular men.

What are they doing to win over a guy who spends hours in the gym?

I guess that the moral of the story is, do you get better fuel economy with a 120-pound girlfriend, compared a 330-pound young lady that I know?

Maybe everybody should just ignore me...

[basjoos]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Toyota's had a useful-sized pickup since at least 1968. (The 'Stout' - I owned one in the mid-'70s.) What they haven't had until fairly recently is a bloated equivalent to the American "full-sized"* pickup. The strange thing is that I have friends who own these "full-sized" trucks, yet I can haul as much or more than they ever do, and go places they don't even think of going.

Also those older smaller pickups had a lower bed height that made it easier to climb into and to lift and load heavy items into.

[user removed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxK3vFNyYxQ

lol @ toyota quality.

regards
mech

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Toyota's had a useful-sized pickup since at least 1968. (The 'Stout' - I owned one in the mid-'70s.) What they haven't had until fairly recently is a bloated equivalent to the American "full-sized"* pickup. The strange thing is that I have friends who own these "full-sized" trucks, yet I can haul as much or more than they ever do, and go places they don't even think of going.

So if the goal is really to improve fuel economy, it would seem more sensible to simply build smaller, and spend some money marketing that.


*A bit of double-speak that always reminds me of the marketers who refer to fat women as "full-figured".

Interesting take on fibbing.......
I would think honesty would be a better policy....

So bottom line.....a corolla w/o a trunk lid counts as a useful sized truck.

[PaleMelanesian]

Originally Posted by basjoos

Also those older smaller pickups had a lower bed height that made it easier to climb into and to lift and load heavy items into.

TRUTH!

I'm 6'2" and some modern trucks I can't reach over the side and touch the bed floor. You MUST climb up into the bed to do anything. And now they offer flip-down steps in the tailgate as a solution. How about not making it so stupidly huge in the first place instead?!!

I had an old Mazda truck (pre Ranger twins) that I could not just reach into, but actually step into the bed from the side.

[cosmick]

I once had a new '94 Chevy W/T1500 RCLB 4.3L / auto / 3.73:1 that peaked as high as 26 MPG stock, and it should have done 27 with a 3.42:1, so I can believe Ford could get there, IF they'd get rid of all the extra frontal area they've added since about '83.

[cosmick]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

About time, RAM already makes a 3.0liter turbo diesel that gets 28mpg on the highway.

Edit: the weight saving is encouraging though. Other manufacturers will have to follow suit.

That's nothing. The '83 GM fullsize with 6.2L diesel was rated as high as 31 MPG, and I personally saw one do 35 MPG.

[Xist]

In 1983, Volkswagon had a 42-MPG diesel pickup.
The Chevrolet C-10 6.2L 2WD was 21 MPG on diesel, while the 4.1L gas was only 17.
The C-20 with 6.2L diesel 2WD was 23 MPG.
The GMC Caballero 5.7L diesel got 22 MPG.
The C-15 with 6.2L diesel got 23 MPG.
C-25 with 6.2L got 23 MPG.

Then it showed 4WD with similar mileage, vans, and that was pretty much it. I did not find any GMC truck higher than 23 MPG, and that is the old system. Is there some conversion factor between old and new EPA? Divide by two?

Document Display | NSCEP | US EPA

[user removed]

Around here diesel is 20% more than gas. That makes 27 mpg on gas equal to almost 34mpg when you compare it to diesel factoring in the additional cost per gallon (cost per mile).

A lot of the older smaller trucks got decent mileage, but they would never pass todays crash requirements. The Ranger beats 30 consistently. It weighs a little over 2800 pounds. Most of the Japanese imports were under 2500 in the 70s and 80s.

regards
mech