Lighter pickups coming soon- but geez have they gotten fat!

[Clev]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So people do buy the smaller truck. Couple that with the number of smaller '80s Toyotas still on the road, and I don't see how you can argue that there isn't a market for small trucks.

The manufacturers don't make it an easy choice, either. If you want a Ford Ranger, but you want the V-6 so you can actually tow more than 1,600 pounds, you have to get the XLT Supercab at a minimum. That pushes it to about $450 less than the F-150. (Of course, it doesn't help that you get the crappy 4 liter designed back in the Carter administration which gets worse mileage than the 3.7L V-6 in the F-150.)

There's no reason why the 2.3L shouldn't be able to tow 4,000 pounds and get 30 mpg unloaded, but they specifically put in a lighter duty manual transmission with the 4-banger, as well as going light on the suspension parts, because they want to keep pushing the big trucks.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Clev

There's no reason why the 2.3L shouldn't be able to tow 4,000 pounds and get 30 mpg unloaded, but they specifically put in a lighter duty manual transmission with the 4-banger, as well as going light on the suspension parts, because they want to keep pushing the big trucks.

Which is pretty much what my '88 Toyota does. 4 cyl, 2.3 liter engine, 3500 lb tow rating, averages 26-27 mpg - and that's with 4WD, and mostly driven with loads or on really rough dirt.

I agree that a lot of it is down to the manufacturers and their often-mistaken ideas of profit maximization. They can sell larger trucks (or big cars & SUVs) at a higher profit margin (plus avoiding all sorts of inconvenient regulations), so they think they can make more money overall by selling only big trucks. But what happens instead is that a lot of people who might be willing to buy a new small truck are instead buying the '80s Toyotas and the like. So in fact they've lost business.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But what happens instead is that a lot of people who might be willing to buy a new small truck are instead buying the '80s Toyotas and the like. So in fact they've lost business.

Or they rebuild an antique with a different drivetrain

[autoteach]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Which is pretty much what my '88 Toyota does. 4 cyl, 2.3 liter engine, 3500 lb tow rating, averages 26-27 mpg - and that's with 4WD, and mostly driven with loads or on really rough dirt.

I agree that a lot of it is down to the manufacturers and their often-mistaken ideas of profit maximization. They can sell larger trucks (or big cars & SUVs) at a higher profit margin (plus avoiding all sorts of inconvenient regulations), so they think they can make more money overall by selling only big trucks. But what happens instead is that a lot of people who might be willing to buy a new small truck are instead buying the '80s Toyotas and the like. So in fact they've lost business.

Not to divert this topic, but that would have had the 22r/e engine, which was commonly considered a 2.4 litre, although it had 2,366 cc's of displacement. It is just a good way to remember it if you are trying to order any parts. I had an 89 and miss the hell out of it. hilux, 4wd, 5spd manual, sr5 package. It was unstoppable compared to even large trucks as it was a half ton p/u. I would say it might have been one of the best trucks to roam the earth. I wish we had diesel variants here. I DO NOT like the current flavor of Tacoma, as it is TOO BIG.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by autoteach

Not to divert this topic, but that would have had the 22r/e engine, which was commonly considered a 2.4 litre, although it had 2,366 cc's of displacement. It is just a good way to remember it if you are trying to order any parts. I had an 89 and miss the hell out of it. hilux, 4wd, 5spd manual, sr5 package. It was unstoppable compared to even large trucks as it was a half ton p/u. I would say it might have been one of the best trucks to roam the earth. I wish we had diesel variants here. I DO NOT like the current flavor of Tacoma, as it is TOO BIG.

And the '87 1-ton could tow 5,000 pounds and was EPA rated at 26 mpg on the freeway using the new numbers. How far we've fallen in two decades.

[autoteach]

The one limiting factor was power, coming in at just over 100hp in the late 1980's. The hp was fine for around town, great for heavy off hwy work in tight quarters, but really didnt allow the truck to reach its full potential, IMO. I can imagine if it had 150-175hp 4 cylinder, it would have been incredibly more popular than what it was.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Clev

And the '87 1-ton could tow 5,000 pounds and was EPA rated at 26 mpg on the freeway using the new numbers. How far we've fallen in two decades.

Dunno about that "we", 'cause I've still got one :-)

I won't say it couldn't have been improved - I'd like about 6" more cab, a more comfortable seating posture (like the mid-70s SR5, and a few inches less ride height. But overall, that vintage Toyota was pretty close to optimum.

[The Rooster]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

There's a bit of chicken and egg going on here. People can't buy small pickups if the manufacturer chooses not to build them. Consider Toyota, which currently makes a mid-size pickup (Tacoma) and a large one (Tundra). The mid-size consistently outsells the large one:

So people do buy the smaller truck. Couple that with the number of smaller '80s Toyotas still on the road, and I don't see how you can argue that there isn't a market for small trucks.

You just said the Tacoma was a mid size truck, but used it in your argument that because the Tacoma sells more than the Tundra that people want small trucks, even though neither of them are small. Using your own logic, the Tacoma cant be considered small, so should be excluded from the already paltry small truck sales figures. So if you only count the ACTUAL small trucks...Colorado, Canyon, Frontier and Ranger...the numbers are pathetic.

Another point I'd like to submit here is, there is a reason why the Ranger, for example, overseas has been redesigned and has a signifigant investment into their development...It's because they SELL there. Ford won't bring them here because they can't sell enough to make any money on them. It's cheaper just to keep cranking out sad little outdated Rangers and giving them to Hertz and Enterprise.

And small trucks are for sale, the Colorado, Frontier and Ranger are both pretty damn small, but they sell like crap.

I didn't say there was "no" market at all for small trucks, but consider that every company not named Toyota loses money on compact truck production due to very poor sales figures. In fact, the only reason the Ranger, Colorado and Dakota exist at all is to meet CAFE standards, and a large chuck of domestic small truck sales are fleet sales made at a loss to the manufacturer.

Now if gas gets up to $5 or more a gallon and stays there, the story will certainly change.

[sid]

As someone who bought a new Ranger in 1999 (3L 6 cylinder) and another new 2010 Ranger (2.3L 4 cylinder) last year, plus from talking with friends who used to own Rangers but who got F-150s the last time they bought new vehicles, it is extremely obvious that Ford puts a lot of pressure on potential Ranger buyers to switch to F-150s. I think that is the main reason Rangers don't sell anywhere near as well as they used to. And many of my friends who were talked into F-150s are regretting it, especially when gas prices rise.

I also used to have a 1985 Toyota pickup with the 22R engine (4 cylinder, I thought it was 2.2L but could have been 2.4L). I loved the truck and thought it was the perfect size. But my 2010 has better acceleration and better fuel economy than my 85 Toyota ever had.

All my trucks were extended cabs and manual transmissions, by the way.

[The Rooster]

Yep, 22R is a 2.4L. The 20R was the 2.2L. No sure why Toyota designated them like that.