OT tough pick up trucks.

[nickel-city-fab]

Ah, thank you for the explanation. I had suspected there was a language difference as well as a completely different market.
The El Camino and the Ford Ranchero would be utes, then? Because I know of many who miss them, they are no longer made. There is really no such thing as ute in the US market which is really a pity. I do recall the Subaru Brat also, but have not seen one in decades.

Most of the guys that are commenting on the truck market here are referring to the US pickup truck market. And you , as well as they, are absolutely correct about the glossy garbage. Many Americans are just buying them for the hell of it I guess - those of us who actually depend on them for work aren't being given much choice in the matter. It's really hard to find an actual working man's truck here, it's all un-repairable plastic and chrome nowadays. And vastly over-priced.

I've always been a GM (Holden) guy but that could change. They've lost all the respect they once had when the people from marketing took control. My little S-10 is basically an Isuzu with a Aisin Toyota transmission and a GM brand label. I'm quite happy with it, although it is one of the smallest. And sadly no longer made. Like I say, American's aren't being given the choice that other nations have when it comes to vehicles -- the situation truly sucks.

I use my little pickup year round in all weather, off-road as part of my job repairing Semi-trucks (lorries) such as these: https://www.kenworth.com/
My employer uses them off-road in all conditions. Traditionally, the farmers, mechanics and tradesmen have always used pickups because it suits them very well.

PS my original work vehicle is a 30+ year old Jeep of the original US Army pattern. It carries enough tools for me to do my job and it never gets stuck in bad weather.... just keeps going and going and going verry sloowlyy....

Originally the 'ute' of Australia was a version of a car and until 1999 or so the utes were pressed with body shell in one piece. After 1999 the Ford made 'utes' had the 'box' separate from the cab. Holden (GM) continued with the traditional style until recently (5 years or so). I guess the El Camino and Ranchero would have met the Australian definition of a 'ute'. The Subaru Rodeo\Brat according to me passes the 'ute' test.

To my mind the American (and others) style of 'pick up' is not according to the Australian 'ute' definition.

Also, and this is my opinion, a 'real truck' is a vehicle designed from the ground up for the purpose of carrying 'stuff'. The payload will be a high proportion of the total vehicle mass. Of course a 'truck' is not a 'truck' unless loading and unloading practicalities are part of the design and you can see this even in the little Suzuki Carry where the sides drop. The sides do not drop on (most) pick-ups so they fail the loading design test and hence are not 'trucks'. Of course neither do the sides drop on most 'utes' and of course 'utes' also fail the 'truck' test.

[J Tiers]

That "Ute" has the ground clearance of a short worm. Not too good. A real "low-rider" of a "utility vehicle", like the one variant of an S10.

I notice they put the leafs on top of the axles, too. That's a 4-inch boost right there. (my old jeep is under-slung, they go under the axles) there's no easy way to re-engineer that without re-machining the slip yokes.... been there done that (I ended up making custom driveshafts)

There's a LOT of room under there. A couple guys of not huge size could get under there and play cards. Probably does not need to be that much, but there it is.

Despite all that, it's a good truck, I like it. The only things I dislike a good bit is the hood. I cannot see diddly in front, and I still have a lot of trouble seeing where the front is... or... guessing where the front is. Makes parking up to a line hard. Parking up to a wall is reasonable OK, I can compare the front edge of the hood to the wall.

Then there is an issue of a posible setup defect. Mentioned elsewhere.

[The Artful Bodger]

But my question is, what is the difference between a ute and a truck? I don't see any.

Originally the 'ute' of Australia was a version of a car and until 1999 or so the utes were pressed with body shell in one piece. After 1999 the Ford made 'utes' had the 'box' separate from the cab. Holden (GM) continued with the traditional style until recently (5 years or so). I guess the El Camino and Ranchero would have met the Australian definition of a 'ute'. The Subaru Rodeo\Brat according to me passes the 'ute' test.

To my mind the American (and others) style of 'pick up' is not according to the Australian 'ute' definition.

Also, and this is my opinion, a 'real truck' is a vehicle designed from the ground up for the purpose of carrying 'stuff'. The payload will be a high proportion of the total vehicle mass. Of course a 'truck' is not a 'truck' unless loading and unloading practicalities are part of the design and you can see this even in the little Suzuki Carry where the sides drop. The sides do not drop on (most) pick-ups so they fail the loading design test and hence are not 'trucks'. Of course neither do the sides drop on most 'utes' and of course 'utes' also fail the 'truck' test.

Glossy 'pick-ups' are not real trucks and nor are they 'utes'.

This is a 'real truck' with 7 diesel cylinders!



Pontiac offered the G8 GXP Sport Ute which was an Australian Holden under the skin. It is clearly a 'ute'.


....it looks like some one pilfered the badge off the front.

[Michael Edwards]

This is a real truck...
http://sodo-moto.com/wp-content/uplo...24-762x456.jpg

Ohhh now you've done it. I got a soft spot for the Suzuki Carry. Almost got one instead of my ranger, but here in the state of Washington it has to be 25 years old or more to import. So now you are dealing with a 660cc carbed engine that is 25 years old, so I had to pass.

I regularly haul a load that is about 2500# in my F250 work truck, and sometimes pull a trailer in addition to that so I need a full size truck for work.

ps. glad to hear the dog is ok.

[nickel-city-fab]

No, not 'just like the Maverick', an 8x4 sheet goes in the back of my ute with the tailgate up and just 400mm sticking out, much less if the tailgate was down.

My S-10/colorado (GMC) is similar. 4-cyl 5-speeds, and can take a half ton in the bed. No more than 300mm sticking out with the tail gate up. Two wheel drive is fine for me, and 100% of my work is off-road.

But my question is, what is the difference between a ute and a truck? I don't see any. Am I missing something in the translation? I work in a semi truck repair shop, I believe the Brits call them "lorries". These are the actual large trucks. I tell people that if I wanted one of those, I would buy one. Instead of the over-priced chrome and plastic crap that passes for a "truck" in todays world, driven buy people who worry about the size of their..... thing.

We do have service trucks or utes at work with custom utility beds for tool storage and etc. but we often use our own personal vehicles too. The only real difference is the ownership and registration for tax purposes.

[The Artful Bodger]

This is a real truck...
http://sodo-moto.com/wp-content/uplo...24-762x456.jpg

This is a toy...
https://www.toyco.co.nz/content/prod...nvas=620%2C620

[The Artful Bodger]

You just said in post #64 ... Several of my friends have 'utes' similar to mine or Nissan, Ranger etc, these vehicles are used for such arduous duty as hauling kids' bikes and bags of groceries, we can even handle an 8x4 sheet of wallboard which I understand is beyond the capacity of many 'pickups'.

So unless all of those utes have an 8' bed and can haul a full sheet with the tailgate up you are FOS because they have a short bed just like the Maverick and that wallboard will be sticking out the back just like the Maverick.

No, not 'just like the Maverick', an 8x4 sheet goes in the back of my ute with the tailgate up and just 400mm sticking out, much less if the tailgate was down.

All of that 'real truck' talk in your post makes it sound like someone in a full size pickup ran over your dog and you are still bitter about it. Get a truck that suits your needs and quit whining about a truck you don't have or want.

If I wanted a truck I would get a 'real truck' otherwise I am satisfied with my 20 year old ute which is called a 'ute' because it is not, and does not pretend to be, a 'real truck'.

My dog is quite well but thank you for your concern.

BTW, I do not need to hang testicles from the tow bar.

[Dave C]

I'd like to have my 69 C10 back, or the 74 Blazer that replaced it. I could do all the maintenance on them in my driveway. The old blazer quit one night while hauling a trailer load of firewood home, and I got it running by using my wife's nail file to clean the points. My current Z71 has been sitting unused while I try to figure out what electronic gremlin has it %&# up, and the OBD 2 scanner fails to communicate with it.

[JRouche]

Do you have any tough pick ups that have no frills in the states but just keep going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl1FNX08HFc

Stupid azz red necks. Makes you want to take their regular driver apart, the easy way, Plasma.

I dont have a pick-up, cant justify it because I dont do any hauling. We have had the toy 4-runner and I loved it. Wifes car. Now she has a sequoia because of new kids (16 years ago).. It will hold a full sheet (4x8) inside and a stack of cinderblocks to the roof. It has a 8800lbs towing cap.

My dad has a newish ford 350 dual for 5th wheel hauling so I can borrow that if I need more vert room. Dont know if I could drive it though, way too tall (not 4x4) and way too wide

I would love to have a 46 chevy P/U but an old car would have to go first. JR

[nickel-city-fab]

My 09 ranger has leafs in the rear and torsion bars in the front. Looks like the new ones are coilovers.

I notice they put the leafs on top of the axles, too. That's a 4-inch boost right there. (my old jeep is under-slung, they go under the axles) there's no easy way to re-engineer that without re-machining the slip yokes.... been there done that (I ended up making custom driveshafts)

[Michael Edwards]

My 09 ranger has leafs in the rear and torsion bars in the front. Looks like the new ones are coilovers.

[nickel-city-fab]

Here are the coil springs on the Ranger........

What's it got up front?

[J Tiers]

................... On nit I have to pick: The high bed height is due to designers using coil springs combined with wanting 18 inches (say 0,5 meter) of suspension travel, which most people will never use. The older trucks I grew up with had leaf springs on all 4 corners, and there was no detectable arch in them -- flat until the suspension flexed. They were designed to let the spring shackles do the work. That is why they were lower to the ground, with less vertical wheel travel.

I think the current design trends is to load things with creeping featurism ( scope creep of features) rather than spending the development money on good solid engineering. It is a trend that I disagree with, also treating vehicles as disposable and not-owner-repairable: I have never known anyone who considers tens of thousands of dollars to be "disposable". The only people who seem to think that is OK, is Wall St. and marketing hype-sters. And I strongly disagree with that also, much preferring the "basic solid engineering" style.

Here are the coil springs on the Ranger........

[nickel-city-fab]

My 2012 S10/Colorado gets 26 mpg and I'm happy with that. 4-cyl 5-speed. One of the very last "small" ones. Takes a half ton in the bed, and a 4x8 sheet with the tailgate at 1/2 position (6-ft bed regular cab)The Ranger sounds just perfect to me, but I'm one of those guys that *really* wants the manual shift and diesel. On nit I have to pick: The high bed height is due to designers using coil springs combined with wanting 18 inches (say 0,5 meter) of suspension travel, which most people will never use. The older trucks I grew up with had leaf springs on all 4 corners, and there was no detectable arch in them -- flat until the suspension flexed. They were designed to let the spring shackles do the work. That is why they were lower to the ground, with less vertical wheel travel.

I think the current design trends is to load things with creeping featurism ( scope creep of features) rather than spending the development money on good solid engineering. It is a trend that I disagree with, also treating vehicles as disposable and not-owner-repairable: I have never known anyone who considers tens of thousands of dollars to be "disposable". The only people who seem to think that is OK, is Wall St. and marketing hype-sters. And I strongly disagree with that also, much preferring the "basic solid engineering" style.

4 x 8 sheet.... Do not know of any pickup (aside from the "family cab" style "yuppie vehicles" which are not really pickups) that cannot handle a 4 x 8. Both the S10 and the Ranger will take them. With a 6 foot bed, which is the minimum credible bed, it sticks out over the closed tailgate, but whatever. An "8 foot" bed probably will take it inside, although some are apparently 7'11" and won't.

I've carried 10 foot lumber in the 6' bed, and only a little was sticking out, maybe 20" when put in cornerwise. Not enough outside the overall outline of the truck to require a flag. Of course I could put 10 foot lumber directly into the Volvo wagon, and close the back......

"pickups get crap mileage". The Ranger got 28+ mpg on a 250 mile trip recently, and 27.3 MPG over 1200 miles that ended yesterday. Cumulative average so far over 27,800 miles is 25.2 mpg, city, highway, winter, summer. 25 mpg is the EPA rating, which it beats on the highway. That cumulative average is a number that the S10, with half the power, never saw even for one trip. The S10 was rated 29 mpg, , and never got close, but the Ranger, rated 25 mpg, and with twice the power, almost gets the S10 rated mileage.

Small capacity.. Ranger will carry 1860 lb total weight. That's passengers , driver, plus load, but still is almost 500 lb more than the S10. I'd call it a "heavy half ton" pickup.

High bed... Well, yes. The tires are larger, which is part of it, and the springs need more travel because of the large load capacity. Load capacity also affects tire size. Basically comes with the territory.

BTW, for those of you not in the USA, the Ranger is built and sold overseas with diesel, and manual shift. I'd have bought one if it was available here.

[Michael Edwards]

Small capacity.. Ranger will carry 1860 lb total weight. That's passengers , driver, plus load, but still is almost 500 lb more than the S10. I'd call it a "heavy half ton" pickup.

That would have been a typical payload for a half ton truck not too many years ago.

I am jealous of your mileage, my 09 ranger gets 18-22mpg.