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

[nemo]

Originally Posted by cujet

It's obvious to anyone who looks at the situation, there is massive room for improvement. Engine size, turbocharging, transmission, aerodynamics, drivetrain, shape, weight, etc, etc........

A voice of reason.

I read somewhere the French are leading Europe in FE. This should be a mater of pride like getting a man on the moon and a lot more practical. May be we can have a little competition North America against Europe. Heck just replace the Olympics with FE games.

[robchalmers]

hell invite Asia too!

US v's Europe v's Asia

the thing is they'd need common emissions regs as that what holding back alot of the 90+MPG(imp) cars here and the east make :P

[Clev]

Originally Posted by robchalmers

hell invite Asia too!

US v's Europe v's Asia

the thing is they'd need common emissions regs as that what holding back alot of the 90+MPG(imp) cars here and the east make :P

And crash standards. Look up "Cherry crash test" on Youtube to see where cutting corners gets you.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by cujet

However, the goal of all of this, as far as I am concerned, is to achieve an excellent quality of life without excess waste.

Which is really my point, too. What I see is a lot of people being persuaded by advertising that they need this or that - the big truck, the travel trailer, the snowmobiles, jet skis, and all the rest - in order to improve their quality of life. But what usually happens when they buy all this stuff is that their quality of life decreases - they're behind on the payments, maybe losing their house 'cause they took out a home equity loan to buy the toys, having health problems because of the lack of exercise, and more. All that's increased is the bottom lines of the toy sellers and advertising agencies.

Efficient large vehicles are part of that equation. Not riding a bicycle in the snow, with grizzly bears pawing at my 20 pound tent.

No, 20 pounds was for ALL the camping gear: tent, sleeping bag & pad, stove, food, and more. The tent's maybe 3-4 lbs.

Also, and I realize that since you're from Florida you may not know this:

1) Bears hibernate in the winter.

2) About the only place in the lower 48 that you're going to find grizzlies is in parts of Montana.

3) If a grizzly wants to get into your travel trailer, or your truck, it will, as easily as it gets into your rip-stop nylon tent.

[instarx]

However, the goal of all of this, as far as I am concerned, is to achieve an excellent quality of life without excess waste.

I agree. However, we have very different definitions of quality of life and excess waste. Most of the trucks in use aren't really used as trucks, but as cars. The true cost of these trucks are in more than just dollars in purchase price and operating expenses - there are unintended and hidden costs like massive balance of payments deficits, support of regimes that we don't like and who don't like us, environmental damage and depletion of natural resources. and costs of increased injuries (see below).

The millions of trucks needlessly owned and driven reduce the quality of life for everyone - there is no free lunch.

Trucks are bought by most people not because they need them, but because the car companies make the most profit on them so they market the hell out of them. Think about it - we see many, many more truck advertisements on TV than car ads. US companies essentially don't advertise their cars. US car companies have for years made small cars with only cheap interiors so if you wanted comfort you had to buy a large car (or ironically, a truck). You may see advertisements where trucks pull trains or power through a swamp in slow motion, but you'll never see one for the things most of them are used for - like driving to the store buy beer (or, heaven forbid, being filled up at a gas pump).

The frequent argument that trucks are safer is false. Trucks have a very high roll-over rate - the type of accident with the highest fatality rate by far. Fatality rates per mile driven are much higher for trucks (and SUVs) than for any car. I've forgotten where I found the stats but the likelihood of being killed in an accident are almost ten times higher in a truck than in a small sedan. It's ironic that mothers often want SUVs to protect their kids when in fact they are doing just the opposite. It's just marketing PR that makes people think that trucks and SUVs are safer. From the NHSTA:

...data show that each new SUV comes loaded with an average of at least $3,500 in discounted economic consequence costs for the rollovers they will have during their lifetime. For pickups, the added liability is at least $2,200.

My point is that trucks for the masses don't make sense from a quality of life OR a cost/waste point of view.

[robchalmers]

Originally Posted by Clev

And crash standards. Look up "Cherry crash test" on Youtube to see where cutting corners gets you.

ok leave out china, but korea, japan and malaysia are still more than welcome

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by instarx

Trucks are bought by most people not because they need them, but because the car companies make the most profit on them so they market the hell out of them.

And the same applies to big trucks vs small ones.

I have to disagree somewhat with your argument about trucks being needlessly owned. For a lot of people, a SMALL pickup does make sense as a second vehicle. Mine doesn't get driven a lot - maybe 3000 miles a year - but when it does, it's usually doing things or going places that the Insight couldn't handle. And because I have the truck available for those tasks, I can do the bulk of my driving in a smaller, much more fuel-efficient car.

It's about having the right tool for the job, rather than having one that supposedly does everything, but doesn't do anything really well.

[instarx]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

And the same applies to big trucks vs small ones.

I have to disagree somewhat with your argument about trucks being needlessly owned. For a lot of people, a SMALL pickup does make sense as a second vehicle.

I agree - I didn't say it, but I was only talking about 1 and 3/4 ton trucks being oversold and over-bought. I have very little issue with small trucks. They're basically utility cars with outside space. I'd love to see El Caminos come back.

[ShadeTreeMech]

I'd nearly kill to have a small pickup. My friend had an s-10 for a while, and I think I got nearly as much use out of it as he did. It also served as an economical vehicle to drive; IIRC he got close to 30 mpg.

I would LOVE to see them make small FWD pickups, or even start selling us Utes here in the states. The El Camino and Ranchero died too soon.

[The Rooster]

Did someone say they wanted a compact, diesel, utilitarian, relatively inexpensive pickup truck that get's 30mpg?

Coming soon: Mahindra Clean Diesel Pickup Trucks and SUVs

Also, you can rent an RV now for about 400 or 500 bucks a week, and for the half dozen times a year you'll use it, it's much cheaper than owning a big truck AND the trailer.

For example: RV Rentals- Rent Motor Homes Travel Trailers and Campers

And if you need home improvements, you can rent either a moving truck, or rent a truck from Home Depot, or have Lowes just deliver it all to you.

And if you have toys that you haul in the BED of your truck, that's nothing a sedan, minivan, or a gaggle of other options cant just tow on a trailer. A trailer usually has a much higher rating than the bed of a truck does anyway.

The bed of a truck is essentially a trailer you take with you everywhere you go, and the whole design of the vehicle is imprisoned by it. Completely unneeded unless you haul things in it AND have to tow something every day.