If the cab-forward layout is allowed for the big-rigs, why not in light-duty ones?
 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y3WjHM6PRJ.../Photo9256.jpg

They're pretty much capable to perform any task a regular bonnetted truck can do.

workaround ideas to discuss among friends: Cab-forward light-duty trucks: why not to give them a chance in the American market?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cuXLsQn4wf...Photo10316.jpg
Why would a random full-size with a boat-anchor V8 be needed when a Hyundai with a 4-pot turbodiesel under 3.0L can get the job done, such as this one with a fully-functional wrecker platform.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-urzl65-7Bo...Photo10318.jpg

Really, really need a dually for your landscaping business?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pyc-87BNgT.../Photo9850.jpg

Wanna impress the ricers with your sporty-looking truck?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5Edaa5bQ_m.../Photo9590.jpg

For some reason, maintaining a high speed up a steep grade while towing several tons is important for light duty vehicles in the US.

Also, crash standards. If I recall, cab-forward designs only have to pass the most rudimentary of crash tests in Japan, and will definitely not pass NCAP certification elsewhere.

It's not impossible to throw a small-block V8 (or a more powerful turbodiesel) into a Hyundai HR :D


Nothing that a safety cage can't solve :D

The Hyundai and Kei trucks in general don't need all that power to go fast... I've seen several that were quite capable of exceeding the local speed limits in mere seconds.

I actually want to get myself a cabover QD or Nissan at some point. They use relatively small, efficient diesel engines and have plenty of leftover frame for whatever I need it to hold, accomplish, etc.

I believe the QD trucks [cab and chassis] come standard with an Isuzu BD39T, a 3.9 Liter I4 turbo similar to the Cummins 4BT in power and weight.

It will help, but the additional cost is prohibitive... and having hard structures close to the driver is a no-no on NCAP.

Crush space is important, so the trucks will need a nose, anyway. Many new cab-forwards are getting rudimentary noses to meet the (still lax) crash requirements for cab-forwards in Japan.

There were gasser versions for the Hyundai with the 2.4L 4-pot in Mexico, and it won't disappoint one who considers the performance of a 2.2L S10 acceptable. But I'd rather get a Diesel one anytime...

Toyota had to stop selling the Hi-Ace in Europe on safety grounds.

The Kia trucks posted above don't have a good reputation for reliability here. Let's just say they disappeared almost as quickly as they appeared.

There are a good number of cab-forward models (I think Izusu, Mercedes, etc) in the light commercial market here. As for why they don't get into the non-commercial market, it's probable for the same reason American pickups are built so high off the ground, have quad-cabs and 4-foot long beds, and are bulked up with a lot of extra sheet metal.

Isuzus are quite a bit bigger, and Mercedes don't make a true cab forward any more, ie where the driver sits over the wheels (engine access is from inside the cabin), not behind them.

I have an older cab forward MB100, it's the same size at a Hyundai Iload (wheels forward), but only has 4.3m2 or cargo space vs 6.2 for my MB100. A much more compact layout.

Although the engine cover is a bit of a pain to remove, nothing quite like sitting comfortably in the driver's seat while changing spark plugs!

We have already had the conventional cab vs cab forward debate recently.

What is the gain with cab forward besides a little more maneuverability in close quarters and potentially a slight weight loss?

There are real safety issues that come along with being seated ahead of the front axle.

Who is going to buy a new truck with a cage in the cab to climb over/through?

It's not like they've been legislated out of existence; if the market said we really, really want cab forward pickups, we'd have them. The cabs could be hardened without cages.

We DID have them: VW, Ford, Dodge, Chevrolet, and Willys all offered forward control vans and pickups. And now we don't.

BTW I love cab-forward designs- I like how they look and I think they are fun to drive. I'm just not seeing any huge advantage to it, that can outweigh the disadvantages.

I drove a Kia Bongo III quad-cab a couple times when I was stationed in Korea. Seemed like a decent truck. I don't know how much they cost in Korea, but they would probably have to be under $20k for anyone in the US to look at them. It would be a great little truck for moving materials and people around job sites. Its pretty much a supersized UTV.

[Citiation needed]

Sometimes the old ways are best.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-fr...15444m0g-0.jpg

So far as safety is concerned, if the engine is in the rear, you'll go off the road backwards—the whole vehicle becomes crush space; else if you get T-boned or wrapped around a power pole like a taco shell all you'll get is a little whip-lash.

The driver is the first one to the wreck!

Yeah, safety is or is made to be the biggest issue. I had the task of selling cab over isuzu bucket and cable trucks to the north east. FOr what ever reason these trucks are not equipped with air bags where as a f350 or e350 is. The Unions dug in and stated safety was the concern. Oh well, there loss as the trucks the npr got better mpg, in tighter areas and had the same creature comforts.

but whats the last thing to go through his mind? :eek:

Probably it wouldn't appeal to an average redneck, but for commercial operators it still outweights the disadvantages. No wonder they've been taking almost all the market share from the full-size pickups in 3rd-world countries such as mine.

I'm not even talking about redneck appeal; simply functionality.

We use to sell the npr and nqr. The npr got around 15mpg and could make some nice tight turns. The nqr could haul more than a traditional american made truck and be under cdl requirements.

I don't think safety cages would be half as necessary if the average Joe didn't think he had to impress everybody with his big pickup or gigantic SUV that he never needs anyway. And if he would just go the speed limit, that would also really help. If he did something as unimaginable as go less than the speed limit, then there would hardly be any worries other than being run over by a semi or bus. Not that America uses busses half as much as Europe and a lot of other continents.

have a firsthand safety.
 

While Nader was bashing the pinto vega and corvair which the latter also had a cab fwd truck.
The econoline pickup and jeeps were impaling drivers on the steering column.
Also drivers and passengers alike were loosing thier legs in front corner collisions. But The geometry and tractor style steering wheel was the worst.
It was a shame that safety wasnt fore front to those vehicles.
The Local tow guy was rite down the street I would call them my friends but I was just some Groupie tow rat who hung out there and oogled at the carnage. I seen 2 that I viewed as mild impacts where drivers died it was enough to make up my mind.

This reminds me of a joke. What's the last thing to go through a flys mind when it hits your windshield?......














It's butt.

If a rear engined Smart car can be safe on US highways then some form of more cab forward pickup could also work. I think the comparison to 60s crash statistics is very flawed. No safety glass, no laminated windshields, no air bags, no computer aided collapsible structure designs.

Are Vans not a form of cab forward? I'm not talking about something like my 66 Chevy van, with the engine sitting between the driver and passenger, more a FWD style with the engine and powertrain in front of the driver and passenger.

regards
Mech

those chinese trucks
 

Run on the Hiways down here so Dot musta agreed to crash stats already on them.

The smart is considered safe? I had read about crash reports after it came here and swear I read due to the well built egg cage inside the car it subjected the passengers to 70+gs in an accident, which was more than enough force to detach retinals and blinded those who survived an accident.

Small car safety is only "safe" if they hit a barrier or something else small, if they hit something twice the weight or more they lose no matter how well built or how many "stars" they have. Its just physics. The common cab forward design we have are full size van, especially the Dodge from 70 to whenever they stopped making it. In an offset frontal crash they are pretty terrible, then again so were the early minivans. Probably why the new Nissan full size van has quite the nose on it. The nose is not needed for the motor, Dodge stuffed 440s under their B series. Dodge made that van as a cutaway for lots of motorhomes, it would have made just as good a pickup or box van, if you want one just make your own.
The A100 was truly cab over and also had a pickup version, they are somewhat collectable.

At some point in impacts and collisions, it doesn't matter what you're driving unless it's a M1 ABRAMS. I've seen at lot of wrecked cars, in the tens of thousands. I've seen some of the most amazing examples of survival in wrecks you could ever believe, including a very good friend who walked away from a 63 VW after a head on with a 67 Pontiac Catalina at a combined 100 MPH. The steering wheel on the VW was pushed through the windshield while the front end crumpled like a tin can. The steering shaft came out of the column almost 3 feet and the wheel was almost a foot above the roof.

I traded him the VW for a 65 Black Lincoln Continental with red leather interior and suicide doors.

I grew old in the industry and retired after 30 years. I've seen cars that would make you puke if you walked within 50 feet of them downwind. The floor was covered with shredded human flesh from a head on at 150 MPH combined (stolen Road Runner).

Went to one auction with 300 wrecked cars. 3 of them were Toyota Land Cruisers, all 3 were rollover, nice trcuk to run inot someone with, but lousy in a corner. Fixed a Jeep with $700 in damage and 3 dead from the accident.

If the US govt allows a Smart to be sold then I can't see any reason for a unibody pickup with a front end with the ideal aerodynamic shape and a bed cover that maintained that shape all the way to the rear end. A transversely mounted 2 liter ecoboost type engine and a 6 speed manual.

40 MPG combined and capable of carrying 1500 pounds.

Comparing this to the disasters (collision wise) of decades ago just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the vast improvments in collision absorbing design that have evolved.

Argue away, slam my post or logic, waste your time. It will happen if the manufacturers want to meet the new mileage regulations in the US anyway.

I just wish I could get a 3L Lupo in the US.

regards
Mech

It is clear more people will die from higher cafe standards. Crash safety is always s better but physics never changes. Funny how you will hear arguments in other topics about, "if we could save just one child"... The people who will die from jacking cafe standards I guess don't count, there will be more then just one child killed. Sure almost any crash has the possibility of a miracle survival, I'm just talking averages.

I dont know about you guys or your areas, but mines its not too common a work truck is involved in an accident. Its either big yellow school buses on the days school is in session and various cars plus a few 18 wheelers.

When I worked at the shop selling commercial trucks all the accidents that occurred were either roll overs from parking on a soft shoulder, fire from improper use of a generator or not stabilizing a truck that was outfitted with a lift or hoist of some type.

Start with a full size GM van, with or without 4x4 conversion, no AWD, add a "template" rear composite body over a flat bed, Ecotec gas or Duramax diesel. 25 mpg easy. For load carrying vehicles, cab forward is the most efficient, load area / overall length. Looking macho is for people who are not aware.

Double-edged sword. How many people have died over the years because of ever increasing SUV sizes... SUVs which are more likely to kill you when they run into you or when they roll over?

If everyone drove golf carts, then arguments about size and safety wouldn't exist.

And no matter how big an SUV you have, when you get hit by a big rig whose driver is nodding off, you lose. Period.

Found this somewhere. It reminded me of this thread.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-fr...6qbddl8qqc.jpg

Not all of us can drive a golf cart, we have trailers to pull, mountains to traverse, materials to haul. My 84 Diesel Suburban 4x4 was a GREAT truck, it had pulling power ( not very fast uphill), it would go anywhere I needed, I could sleep in the back out of the weather, it got 20+ mpg, it could carry plywood, and 20' material on the roof.

Ah, but you could do that with a golf-cart with a small diesel. You can tow any load with any size of engine, with the right gearbox.

(If you can put up with crawling at a walking pace going up hill... :D )

It's a conundrum, and a bigger conundrum that people who just need a vehicle good for one (bicycle/motorcycle), people who need vehicles good for two people or one and a lot of groceries (small car), people who need vehicles to carry several passengers (minivans), people who need big trucks for work (SUVs/pickups) and people who need to deliver ten tons or more of goods (big rigs) all have to share the same road.

"(If you can put up with crawling at a walking pace going up hill... )"

We have minimum speeds on our major highways, pulling the travel trailer up the hill outside of Benson AZ with a golf cart will get one; run over by semi trucks, arrested for obstruction of traffic, and probably shot by most everyone else....It is NOT an option.

It was suggested in jest.

The problem, like I said: is that we expect vehicles of such vastly varied sizes, weights and capabilities to share a ribbon of asphalt that's usually no more than two or three lanes wide.

The original golf cart line was not to suggest that everyone should be driving in golf carts. It was just to say that safety is relative and that buying a bigger car isn't always the answer, because there's always going to be something bigger than you out there.

10-4 there good buddy...!

Mass, material strength, and design configuration all go into making a crash worthy car. No design is idiot proof because idiots are so creative;) Safety includes crash avoidance as well crush space. Crush space only works if there is material to deform in a manner that spares the occupants trauma.

Less people in the SUVs and more people in small cars, so some people will play the odds and go big for safety for them and their family. Government getting involved only makes the wealthy able to have the big gas guzzlers while everybody else is forced into something they otherwise would never choose. Also most people can't have 5 different cars to use depending on the exact situation they need at the moment. So a single driver in a full size 8 passenger 4x4 SUV in the middle of summer may need the 4x4 in winter, or the towing ability on vacation, or 6 passengers, 2 dogs, and 2 weeks worth of luggage. Maybe if they made some kind of train car where you could hook multiple 2 passenger powered modules together to get the passenger and power level you needed, that would be cool. Still the guy with 4 of them hitched up hitting the guy in a single is going to "win". I also am all for dividing most high speed highways, we have a 4 lane close to here that could really use a divider down the middle.

Being on the receiving end of a four ton SUV is less a problem here outside America. Gas taxes, displacement and footprint taxes and the like ensure that. People have gotten used to hiring panel vans for any heavy load carrying they need to do (farm owners and construction company managers do use SUVs and pick-ups, though, but even those are smaller than the US nortm).

Still, our safety problem is car versus bus or truck (with a lot of passenger and cargo movement reliant on those two, as most people choose not to drive due to gas prices) is an even worse comparison than car versus SUV.

The multi-module car would be an ideal solution if you could get people to buy the add-on modules. But even if the other guy has a five-car train, he's sitting in the first car. In a head-on, he's now in the middle of a six car sandwich. Not a great place to be.

Maybe the multi-module vehicle could have the power unit as the front one, and add on passenger and cargo modules, behind the operators module..?