wae wrote:EvanR wrote: For further proof that GM *can* make and sell a tiny pickup, but it chooses not to do so in the US, I give you the Mexican-market Chevy Tornado:I really want to like that, but what is that hole behind the door?$16,500 US, including air conditioning. I'd hit that.
I think it's a step, so you can reach into the bed. Either that, or it's just a styling element that has no purpose. My Spanish isn't very good :)
EvanR wrote:wae wrote: I really want to like that, but what is that hole behind the door?I think it's a step, so you can reach into the bed. Either that, or it's just a styling element that has no purpose. My Spanish isn't very good :)
I don't read Spanish, but my English is pretty good! Turns out this is also sold in South Africa as the "Chevrolet Utility". According to chevrolet.co.za it's a "loadbox side step".
Smyth has been promising one for a while.
mazdeuce wrote:dj06482 wrote: The Ridgeline is FWD-based, but they're all AWD. I think there were rumors of the next generation Ranger being FWD-based. The challenge is that there doesn't seem to be a good market for much smaller trucks. I've looked into them at a few different times, but they always ended up being more expensive for something that was far less useful to me. And when I last looked, the fuel economy of the compact trucks with the V6s wasn't anything to write home about.I don't think there's much of a market for trucks that are a little smaller, like the Ridgeline, but there might be a market for trucks that are a LOT smaller, like the tiny trucks you see in Mexico.
I just want to see a modern truck approximately the size of an early Mighty Max. Looking on the NADA website, the base price for the 1987 F150 was $9509, whereas the Mighty Max of the same year started at $6289. A full-size truck started at 50% more expensive then a compact, wheras nowadays, the price difference between a small truck and a base large truck is marginal. When manufacturers say that "there is no demand for small pickups," this may be intentional on their part.
Small - check
Good mileage - check
front wheel drive - check
Problem solved.
In reply to T.J.:
My mom wanted one of those in the worst way when I was a kid. She saved up for years and eventually found one in NH with a topper she could afford.
She handed her cash to my dad and he rode out on his motorcycle to pick it up. Only when he got there the seller had a van dad thought she would like better, so he bought that instead. Driving through Chicago he hit a pot hole and half the body fell off,nothing but bondo.
Thirty-five years later mom still can't see a Mini pickup without getting angry.
oldopelguy wrote: In reply to T.J.: My mom wanted one of those in the worst way when I was a kid. She saved up for years and eventually found one in NH with a topper she could afford. She handed her cash to my dad and he rode out on his motorcycle to pick it up. Only when he got there the seller had a van dad thought she would like better, so he bought that instead. Driving through Chicago he hit a pot hole and half the body fell off,nothing but bondo. Thirty-five years later mom still can't see a Mini pickup without getting angry.
Grounds for divorce.
petegossett wrote:Mitchell wrote: Every now and then, I wonder why the evolution of small trucks did not mirror SUVs.I'm being completely stereotypical and somewhat sexist in this reply, but I feel there's quite a bit of truth behind it: Women want cute-utes because they're easier to drive and get better milage than something larger, while still offering a higher seating position, giving them a sense being "bigger" and/or safer. On the other hand, men want the biggest pickup they can find, partly to one-up their friends and foes, and partly for penis-compensation. Pickups have also become the new musclecar - they offer power and masculinity for guys who have none of their own.
^This
It has been said, most of the focus groups they "selected" wanted a truck that could tow 7-8k lbs and handle 2k lb payload from the factory. When those same groups were polled to how much towing they do a year, a large percentage did no towing. The remaining towed less than 4 times a year with loads less than 5k lbs.
My Dakota tows the 740 on a trailer pretty damn nice . . .
Who has a Zetec our Duratec that will fit my Ranger?
CLynn85 wrote: Smyth has been promising one for a while.
^This is sweet! Maybe someone needs to start a business of converting customer's favorite cars into mini-trucks! If nothing else, they would sell to all the GRM forum members! 
Ford is bring out a whole line of Transit vehicles. Didn't see a pickup though.
The original Jeep Pickup was small and would haul a ton. Albeit, slowly.
I already use my SVT Focus like a small Transit. On many occasions, I have filled it to the brim with fresh produce for work. A small pickup would make loading and unloading a lot easier.
In reply to wae:
OOOO I know this one (from spending 2 years in Mexico):
it is a step to get into the front of the bed.
Strike_Zero wrote: ^This It has been said, most of the focus groups they "selected" wanted a truck that could tow 7-8k lbs and handle 2k lb payload from the factory. When those same groups were polled to how much towing they do a year, a large percentage did no towing. The remaining towed less than 4 times a year with loads less than 5k lbs.
I remember back in the 80's when the Ranger first came out - it was advertised as a "mid-size" since it was larger than the Courier it replaced and the other US and Asian small trucks. Then Dodge introduced the Dakota which was even bigger.
I spent 9 years with a '86 Toyota pick-up and have zero desire to own another small truck again. It was a compromise in the worst ways: too small to be a good truck and too inefficient to be a practical DD.
I do have some fond memories of carrying female friends in the middle of the bench seat. Did I mention the truck was a 5 spd? 
Small pickups cost virtually the same amount as full-size and thanks to the advances in fuel mileage on full-size pickups, don't get much better mileage.
A friend replaced his Ridgeline with a full-size GM and he is reporting better mileage under ALL conditions than he got with the Ridgeline. The difference in power while hauling loads is HUGE. The GM tows his boat like its not even there.
NGTD wrote: Small pickups cost virtually the same amount as full-size and thanks to the advances in fuel mileage on full-size pickups don't get much better mileage.,along with manufacturers using 30 year old tech in their small trucks
Fixed for truth. I'm still a believer in small trucks. Dad's 96 Taco gets an honest to God 30 MPG, my wife's 96 s10 would do 25-27 all day long. Granted they were both 2wd/4 cylinders, but they would accomplish every single task my F150 does save 2:
Lowes trips? Moving day? Mutch run? All day long with the little truck.
logdog wrote: I believe this is part of it http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/
I don't buy it though. I really truly think lack of consumer demand killed the compact truck and station wagon.
If their where significant customer demand for a Honda Fit with a bed they would make it and it would, with a modern drivetrain, have no problem meeting the CAFE standard for a ~41sq-ft light truck. CAFE does not as this article implies punish a Station wagon. The Mazda 6 station wagon is under no increased fuel economy standard relative to the normal Mazda 6. In fact it appears due to the "flat floor" created it could be classed as a light truck requireing lower overall fuel economy than the sedan. There simply is not sufficient customer demand for that vehicle.
How many people who go GAGA over the new mazda 6 wagon went out and bought an old one? Not enough to keep the old 6 wagon allive during the entire produciton run of the previous generation of Mazda 6 apparently.
Look if you want a ~27mpg small truck with ~1000lb capacity buy a 2wd 4cyl Ranger. It existed, as did the old size Nissan, Toyota, S10 etc. and not enough sold at not enough profit for the manufactures to continue making them. They saw that the New car buying public was not willing to pay the price for a ford ranger when the F150 V6 was only a couple of thousand more expensive and offered so much more capability.
tpwalsh wrote: Mutch run? All day long with the little truck.
Mulch? In a little truck? I don't think so... my Cummins would haul 3 yards of bulk mulch loaded at the garden center via a front end loader. No way in hell my old Toyota would have held a 1/3 of that, so a chore that was done before lunch with the Dodge (load up, drive home and unload direct from the truck to the flower beds) would take all day with the small truck. Not to mention cost a lot more since we'd have to buy bagged mulch. BTDT, with my van.
I tend agree the reason small trucks died was due to a general lack of need. SUV's cover DD needs better and full-size trucks are better at being trucks.
i want a new, camaro platform or impala based el camino.
I would probably never buy a small pickup because I would never use a pickup as a daily driver so that means I am buying used and something like an F-150 is the same price basically as a Ranger and I will chose the bigger more capable truck every time. Only except to this would be if Ford or Chevy brought over an Aussie ute.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/
That is a truly fantastic piece of work. I still hold to my point that the Chicken Tax came first (undeniable, by the dates) and remained a larger actor through most of the intervening years.
BUT that article makes excellent points, and if you read between the lines it only further reinforces my original point that US big business influences government to enact protectionist regulation that benefits their ability to profit from unsustainable models while the rest of world actually advances.
At some point it will come crashing down, and by some point i mean 'remember the auto bankruptcies a few years ago?' The structural regulatory/trade barrier problems havent changed, although the 'domestic' manufacturers have upped their car game enough to possibly survive the almost inevitable next crisis.
Got to imagine it was the chicken tax that let American cars makers just give up on trying to be competitive in the small truck market.
Give up makes it sound like they were reluctant and not the primary drivers of the policy changes that led to it.
Its hard for me to imagine a situation where a Dakota would be too small for me.
I still think the original Dakota (87-96) hit the sweet spot for truck size. My dad has one, ive had one, and will probably have another.
The challenge is that there doesn't seem to be a good market for much smaller trucks. I've looked into them at a few different times, but they always ended up being more expensive for something that was far less useful to me. And when I last looked, the fuel economy of the compact trucks with the V6s wasn't anything to write home about.
All by design, my friend. As the article asks, Cui Bono?
I want something truly small, a Fiesta based truck, a Fiat 500 based truck, a VW Polo based truck. Something that could get 40 miles per gallon on the freeway and park in tiny spaces and still haul 800 lbs.
This is semi-useless since we're talking about new vehicles, but i heard you had rampage experience and i know for a fact you have Omni experience. You can take a 1.7 VW drivetrain from an Omni, put it in a Rampage, and bolt a vw diesel to it. Just sayin!
I'd like to see a much more utilitarian small truck with a base price way way lower than full-size trucks. But given the market in America, they'd never sell them.
Replace "the market" with "the entities and interests that control the market", and you're there.
When manufacturers say that "there is no demand for small pickups," this *IS* intentional on their part.
FTFY
Who has a Zetec our Duratec that will fit my Ranger?
I drove a late model 16v ranger and found it actually semi-entertaining. I think you're on the right track!
Small pickups cost virtually the same amount as full-size and thanks to the advances in fuel mileage on full-size pickups, don't get much better mileage.
What you're describing is the intentional result of ~90/10 split of energy and resources devoted to improving full size trucks vs small trucks. Everything done to a full size truck can be done to a smaller one. The fact that it isn't is due to choices and intentions, nothing accidental or based on the 'freedom' of the market.
It's really simple. We don't have small pickups because on a global basis fuel is relatively inexpensive in the U.S. If our fuel prices rivaled Europe's or Japan's (for example) -- you would see a dearth of small pickups in the market place. We may get there artificially as CAFE requirements continue to place a premium on efficiency -- which will mean smaller engines which will mean smaller vehicles.
It's the same reason that, for decades, almost all of our cars and pickups were bigger than everybody else's stuff. Cheap fuel simply means they don't have to be as efficient. Cheap fuel forces most folks to the conclusion that 93EXCivic reached -- buy the larger/more capable pickup. And the manufacturers are happy to comply by building them.
nocones wrote: I don't buy it though. I really truly think lack of consumer demand killed the compact truck and station wagon. If their where significant customer demand for a Honda Fit with a bed they would make it and it would, with a modern drivetrain, have no problem meeting the CAFE standard for a ~41sq-ft light truck. CAFE does not as this article implies punish a Station wagon. The Mazda 6 station wagon is under no increased fuel economy standard relative to the normal Mazda 6. In fact it appears due to the "flat floor" created it could be classed as a light truck requireing lower overall fuel economy than the sedan. There simply is not sufficient customer demand for that vehicle. How many people who go GAGA over the new mazda 6 wagon went out and bought an old one? Not enough to keep the old 6 wagon allive during the entire produciton run of the previous generation of Mazda 6 apparently. Look if you want a ~27mpg small truck with ~1000lb capacity buy a 2wd 4cyl Ranger. It existed, as did the old size Nissan, Toyota, S10 etc. and not enough sold at not enough profit for the manufactures to continue making them. They saw that the New car buying public was not willing to pay the price for a ford ranger when the F150 V6 was only a couple of thousand more expensive and offered so much more capability.
Well, i think you're describing the current market without giving any attention to how the market got to where it is. We have to remember that the full size truck market today didnt really start down this rapidly accelerating path of car-like refinement (and selling trucks to car people) until the early 90s. Up to that point, Compacts were more carlike than full size ones were and a fair amount of effort went into them vs full sizes from the big 3 (a fair amount, but much less than if they'd had to compete on a level playing field with foreign products). Throughout the 90s as manufacturers figured out they could migrate their car customers into truck-based vehicles with higher profit margins, they focused their efforts on those vehicles. Compact trucks naturally lose out vs larger vehicles as car-alternatives because, for example, the biggest ranger still has a smaller interior than the smallest Focus, which itself is only a portion of the car range. So anyway, as the manufacturers dumped more and more effort and money into advancing full size pickups' viability as car alternatives, the compact pickup naturally declined FURTHER from the half-ass point it was at at that early 90s turning point because no effort was put into it. The Dakota benefitted massively from being big enough to be a viable car-alternative from its 4dr model, and the s10 and ranger quietly faded away. So on top of being less viable car-alternatives in the first place, compacts had to compete with full size trucks that were basically the financial 'halo vehicles' of their manufacturers and were treated as such. So by the 2000s you couldnt really compare full size pickups and compact pickups in most cases. You could only compare 200X model year full sizes with compact pickups that were stuck in 1995 due to neglect.
So when people werent willing to buy them because a relatively badass full size was only $3k more, that's a reflection of a decade-plus long shift that happened because of business influence in government policy allowing them to sell more-profitable full size trucks as car alternatives and benefit from the massive economies of scale from selling gigantic numbers of full-sizes.
I'm holding my breath for a mahindra, I'm purple right now.
I guess I'm a bitter clinger, I'll keep my 1994 toyota pickup, 9/10 gardeners/cardboard haulers can't be wrong. My truck is stealth, peeling grey stealth paint and dodge stealth seats. The only thing thats rough about a small truck is the 1000lbs load capacity but honestly how often do I need to haul brick.
If our fuel prices rivaled Europe's or Japan's (for example) -- you would see a dearth of small pickups in the market place.
If our fuel-related TAXATION (government policy again) was more similar to Europe's, our automotive landscape would be wildly different.
Really, people talk about fuel prices and 'market conditions' and 'consumer demand' and all this as if these things are somehow free of any possible human meddling. They almost always reflect the machinations of financially interested parties. Nothing is the way it is for 'no reason', and nothing is 'free' (of human meddling). All of these things are what they are for a reason, and the reasons go back to real people with real financial interests making real choices to take real actions.
You'll need to log in to post.
