OT tough pick up trucks.

[Doozer]

Drop a golf ball in the tank, you won't need to fix the gauge.

Funny ! ! ! Love it. Practical really. Ha !

--D

[barracudajoe]

Small trucks like Toyota's, Nissan's, Rangers and the rest certainly have their place. In fact our other truck is a 4runner, but hauling or towing heavy roads over mountain passes is really beyond the capabilities of trucks in that class. I owned a Toyota PU for 12 yrs back when they used the 20R engine. Pretty reliable truck but gutless. The drivetrain was solid and held up to the SB Chevy (283 CI) I dropped in and was still running when I sold it at around 170,000 miles but it wasn't really safe trying to tow our 23 ft RV that we had at the time. Big loads call for big truck but big, fancy, diesel pickups have become a status symbol. My BIL is a perfect example. He doesn't own an RV or a boat, doesn't haul anything, doesn't really have a need for a pickup of any size but sold his little BMW M2 Competition and bought the fanciest 3/4 ton Ram Diesel truck he could find just so he could say "I've got a diesel pickup too" This has pushed the price of trucks and diesel higher and higher.

[nickel-city-fab]

My BIL is a perfect example. He doesn't own an RV or a boat, doesn't haul anything, doesn't really have a need for a pickup of any size but sold his little BMW M2 Competition and bought the fanciest 3/4 ton Ram Diesel truck he could find just so he could say "I've got a diesel pickup too" This has pushed the price of trucks and diesel higher and higher.

Yup and guys like me that actually *do* stuff with those trucks, get screwed because we can't take on a 2nd mortgage. One of the guys (our lead mechanic) has a Ford diesel, puts over 100 miles a day with 2500 lbs of tools in the back every day. I'm lucky I get to stay at the local shop and not do the road work -- but that could change any time. We service Kenworth, Cummins, Liebherr, and Komatsu equipment and 100% of what we do is off-road. I don't really feel the need for 4x4, a decent limited-slip and some weight in the back takes care of that. Plus, I grew up playing in the snow. (Buffalo). So I *could* do OK with a 1500 truck with a small diesel and 2WD,,, but there's just no way in hell to make the payments without a 30-yr fixed rate. Heh, you should tell your BIL this.

[The Artful Bodger]

We have a slightly different attitude towards 'trucks'. 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'.

We have immediate access to a 'real truck', albeit a small one, and that is a 1947 era Bedford OLB. Old but a faithful vehicle and has the advantage that it can be loaded with a forklift. If we want to buy a pallet of bricks the dealer will deliver and we can unload with our forklift from his 'real truck'.

Those of us who have an 'RV' they are all self propelled vehicles except one with a 25' 'caravan' which is easily handled by a ute or a six cylinder car.

When we need to move aircraft parts we get the job done by a 'real truck'. Most such loads are too heavy for any vehicle that can't be forklift loaded and/or they are too bulky.

If we want to pull something we use a tractor and even the smallest we have (there are several tractors in our group) have more drawbar effort than any glistening 'pick-up'.

If we need a shipping container moved we call for the man with the side lifter.

None of us own boats that are small enough for road transport.

Two of my friends are plumbers and they do not have any trucks of any kind as their preference is for the enclosure and cubic capacity of a ubiquitous white van.

I am sure at least some of my friends could easily afford any 'pickup' on the market but apparently they do not see the need.

Whatever, I must say that a big pickup fully tricked out and shined up does to some eyes look nice!

P.S. I do not recall any machinery or vehicle repair 'pickups' around here as most seem to prefer a (small) 'real truck' with custom made tool storage and workspace module on the back.

[Michael Edwards]

we can even handle an 8x4 sheet of wallboard which I understand is beyond the capacity of many 'pickups'.

.

Even the new Ford Maverick which will be the smallest truck sold in America will handle 4x8' sheets of whatever, so not sure what kind of wimpy trucks you have over there.

[alanganes]

Around here anyhow, the problem with keeping an old vehicle on the road is that eventually everything succumbs to rust. The heavy use of road salt and somewhat silly strict inspection requirements here in the People's Republik eventually make keeping a 15 or 20 year old vehicle on the road challenging and a hassle.

I find the tendency towards pickups with beds that are at chest height pretty silly myself. I have almost always had one of my vehicles be a truck or utility van, even if it was not something I drove every day.

My 1998 Ford Ranger that I bought used 6 years ago finally had to be retired due to severe rust making it unsafe to tow even my small trailers with, and the fact that pieces were literally beginning to fall off of it. I replaced it a few months back with a 2017 Nissan Frontier that has a bit of modern gadgetry but that I really have come to like a lot. It gets decent if not exceptional mileage, has enough towing and carrying capacity for what I do and while it still rides a bit "like a truck" is comfortable enough to drive to work every day.

[The Artful Bodger]

Even the new Ford Maverick which will be the smallest truck sold in America will handle 4x8' sheets of whatever, so not sure what kind of wimpy trucks you have over there.

How so?

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022...cs-comparison/

. The Ford Maverick is 199.7 inches long and has a 121.1-inch wheelbase; its estimated curb weight is between 3,550 to 3,750 pounds. The Maverick's versatile FlexBed is 4.5 feet long, although it expands to 6.0 feet with the tailgate down.

........ and so by the same logic my little ute can carry flagpoles (so long as I don't mind a bit sticking out the back!

[Michael Edwards]

How so?

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022...cs-comparison/



........ and so by the same logic my little ute can carry flagpoles (so long as I don't mind a bit sticking out the back!

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.

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.

[J Tiers]

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.

[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.

[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]

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

What's it got up front?

[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]

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)