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

[The Rooster]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Did someone say ...




CarloSW2

Hey, what do you expect by page 14?

[usergone]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Frank -

I miss the 1980's stripped down compact pickups. You could get one for $6K and be good to go with bare-bones simplicity.

CarloSW2

Like... a Jeep Comanche? That ol' beater I'm sure will keep going till it is totaled. Glad I got rid of it, though. Niceness IS still a factor. Consider how much time (percentage of a year) you spend in your car. One that is at least quiet will make life loads easier (noise was one of the major pitfalls of my jeep, power being next, too much electrical apparatus/computers third)

Sure. I bought a 3/4 ton truck. Will you hear me complaining about the poor FE? No, you won't. That is partially because I take responsibility for the situation I put myself into, but also partially because it won't disappoint me.

Do I need it? Heck no. Do I want it? Ooooohhh, yes. Hey, I commute with it most of the time! (Last tank was 70% short city trips) Sheer size and hauling are not the primary reasons I got it. The mechanical control of the engine was a BIG selling point for me. And I like the size (I know, I know, flame me).

I know this thread is about NEW trucks, but I can't help throwing out there that the curb weight of my ram (according to the factory service manual) is only 4,440 lbs (EDIT: 5280). Compare that to MINIVANS! We had a 2004 mercury (with the V6 and automatic, blech) for a while (thank God it is gone). It weighed 4,340 lbs. 100 lbs difference for a minivan that is less reliable, less efficient, less payload/capacity, and MORE cost doesn't seem to be a logical move. It consistently got 14-16 MPG with a good mix of highway and city. Not to mention the crappy 70K transmission.

Another pet peeve of mine is that people associate size and weight with safety. Ok, ok, at a point you will be so big (think semi truck) that you are out of the impact zone completely, but smaller than that the dynamics are not what most people think. There are two (or so) factors in vehicle safety. Mass and rigidity.

Take cars from the "golden years" of 1950 through 1975. They were pretty heavy. Did that make them safe?

You tell me (link)

. What good is it to have tons of mass if you just squish in on the side you get hit from? A side impact just puts you between the rock (impacting car) and a hard place (the mass of your car). The other side of the equation is if you have a frame that won't deform even if you put it in the car crusher,but it only weighs say 300Kg. If you get hit in that you have the acceleration that gets you. Off topic, but what I'm saying is that size is NOT safe. I know I'm preaching to the choir on this site, though.

Why don't auto manufacturers build cars simply, like from the 70s, but engineered to be safe? Why do they put tons of emissions junk on the engines that restrict the life out of them, and make them burn more fuel, making more... emissions?

Look at many small commercial vehicles. Delivery trucks, (purpose built) landscaping trucks, etc... like little isuzu box trucks, don't have a monster engine. Just from looking at the outside you can see that they don't have much space for anything but a 4 banger TDI diesel. I imagine that is because the people who buy those vehicles new (business owners) take the time to observe the bottom line.

[Clev]

And make sure that mass isn't all behind you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPpU5azjCB8

[The Rooster]

Oh Wow @ Bus. Never did like the idea of the Driver BEING the crumple zone.

Hey, at least the cargo was safe.

[cfg83]

thecheese429 -

Originally Posted by thecheese429

Like... a Jeep Comanche? That ol' beater I'm sure will keep going till it is totaled. Glad I got rid of it, though. Niceness IS still a factor. Consider how much time (percentage of a year) you spend in your car. One that is at least quiet will make life loads easier (noise was one of the major pitfalls of my jeep, power being next, too much electrical apparatus/computers third)

...

Egg-zactly like a Jeep Comanche. That *design* was the closest I ever got to really wanting a truck.

The niceness factor is a fair argument. I can't remember if this was part of a study, but somewhere I read an article that argued a "comfy" car was good for your personal health, especially in combination with all the other stresses of commuting.

My lament is that I don't have the *choice* to buy a new bare-bones truck at a cheap price. My perception is that you are getting *less* with a truck than you are getting with a sedan or wagon, so why are you paying equal or more?

CarloSW2

[usergone]

Originally Posted by Clev

And make sure that mass isn't all behind you...

"Hey! Where'd the front half go?!"

[usergone]

Originally Posted by cfg83

thecheese429 -



Egg-zactly like a Jeep Comanche. That *design* was the closest I ever got to really wanting a truck.

The niceness factor is a fair argument. I can't remember if this was part of a study, but somewhere I read an article that argued a "comfy" car was good for your personal health, especially in combination with all the other stresses of commuting.

CarloSW2

If it had the "legendary" (according to jeep connoisseurs) V6, and about 200 bucks put into Raamat, maybe even some better weatherstripping and smoother suspension, it would definitely be a "nice" vehicle.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by thecheese429

Niceness IS still a factor. Consider how much time (percentage of a year) you spend in your car.

But the time I spend in my car is not time I'm spending in the truck. The truck is a tool that I use when I need to haul stuff, or go somewhere the car won't.

...I can't help throwing out there that the curb weight of my ram (according to the factory service manual) is only 4,440 lbs.

Only? Not a word I can really associate with "over two tons" :-)

Or we could think of it this way: you say it's a 3/4 ton trunk, meaning its max load is 1500 lbs, no? So that means the truck itself weighs three times as much as the load it's supposed to carry.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Only? Not a word I can really associate with "over two tons" :-)

Or we could think of it this way: you say it's a 3/4 ton trunk, meaning its max load is 1500 lbs, no? So that means the truck itself weighs three times as much as the load it's supposed to carry.

And Toyota managed to build a 1-Ton in 2,800 pounds. Even given the safety equipment, it should be possible to do it in well under 3,500 pounds today.

[usergone]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But the time I spend in my car is not time I'm spending in the truck. The truck is a tool that I use when I need to haul stuff, or go somewhere the car won't.

Only? Not a word I can really associate with "over two tons" :-)

Or we could think of it this way: you say it's a 3/4 ton trunk, meaning its max load is 1500 lbs, no? So that means the truck itself weighs three times as much as the load it's supposed to carry.

Lol, I suppose you are right. looking back for the payload, I noticed that I read the wrong curb weight. It is actually 5,280. But the payload, despite the "3/4 ton" rating, is 4,115. Go figure.

Oh, and I meant "vehicle" when I said car. I only have one.

I'm not trying to vindicate myself in my choice of vehicle. No, it is not as efficient for "car use" as a metro or a civic or even a late model sedan. No, I don't need the power/size. I'm not trying to say that. I am just here to venture into the betterment of my truck's FE.