|
Smaller trucks?
Who has a recent vintage "smaller" 4x4 pickup truck and what has been your experience with it in terms of durability, fit and finish, small boat towing capabilities, gas mileage, et cetera. By smaller, I mean pickups like: Ford Ranger Toyota Tacoma Chevy Colorado Nissan Frontier |
Smaller trucks?
|
Smaller trucks?
On 12/26/10 3:49 PM, Gene wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:06:57 -0500, wrote: Who has a recent vintage "smaller" 4x4 pickup truck and what has been your experience with it in terms of durability, fit and finish, small boat towing capabilities, gas mileage, et cetera. By smaller, I mean pickups like: Ford Ranger Toyota Tacoma Chevy Colorado Nissan Frontier I had a 4WD Colorado with the I-5. Limited carrying capacity and even my son's 17 foot aluminum G3 felt like towing an anchor. It got 20 MPG on the highway, unless towing the boat and then it got about 14 MPG. I think, even with the new V8, they just aren't designed to tow that much. I now have a 4WD Silverado with the 5.3L V-8 and can tow anything less than the Grady effortlessly. I get 20MPG in the winter on the highway and 18.5 MPG towing my MC trailer and the G3. I think I can tow about 9,700#. I had owned a Chevy big block dually that got 8 MPG, regardless... then an S-10 and the Colorado... so, I thought the increase in mileage was worth it.... I won't own another mid size truck, I don't think. Thanks, I don't think I'll be buying another trailer boat of any substantial size. I had a nice Ford Ranger Splashtruck in the 1990's that was adequate for short tows of my 18' Sea Pro to the ocean ramps. I haven't looked at the new Rangers, or the Chevy, Nissan or Chrysler offerings. I have seen the Tacoma, a 4x4 model that apparently has a 6500 pound tow capacity. Mostly I'll need the truck to haul around garden stuff, or tow my tractors to the shop, and stuff like that. I have a lot of miles on my 4Runner. Might just get another 4Runner. The new "full size" pickups seem humongous to me. |
Smaller trucks?
Gene wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:06:57 -0500, wrote: Who has a recent vintage "smaller" 4x4 pickup truck and what has been your experience with it in terms of durability, fit and finish, small boat towing capabilities, gas mileage, et cetera. By smaller, I mean pickups like: Ford Ranger Toyota Tacoma Chevy Colorado Nissan Frontier I had a 4WD Colorado with the I-5. Limited carrying capacity and even my son's 17 foot aluminum G3 felt like towing an anchor. It got 20 MPG on the highway, unless towing the boat and then it got about 14 MPG. I think, even with the new V8, they just aren't designed to tow that much. I now have a 4WD Silverado with the 5.3L V-8 and can tow anything less than the Grady effortlessly. I get 20MPG in the winter on the highway and 18.5 MPG towing my MC trailer and the G3. I think I can tow about 9,700#. I had owned a Chevy big block dually that got 8 MPG, regardless... then an S-10 and the Colorado... so, I thought the increase in mileage was worth it.... I won't own another mid size truck, I don't think. The Colorado was not a favorite in the automotive press. The V8 should be a huge improvement. |
Smaller trucks?
I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings
compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote:
I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. |
Smaller trucks?
On Jan 4, 5:15*am, Harryk wrote:
On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. Yep. When I think of small trucks I'm thinking of GM- SW15's Chevy S-10's Ford Rangers and Dodge rams. The little ones. Granted today's average 'heavy half' ton truck is build a lot larger than the 'heavy 3/4' ton trucks from 20 years ago. So when I think of small trucks, I do mean "small" They may get a bit better economy but their overall usefulness is lacking compared to their larger counterparts. Obviously, I'm not a slave to fashion and never was, but I'd take an early 2000's Dodge diesel or a 7.3 Ford power-stroke over any new models of the smaller v-6's offered by almost anyone. |
Smaller trucks?
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:12:35 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Jan 4, 5:15*am, Harryk wrote: On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. Yep. When I think of small trucks I'm thinking of GM- SW15's Chevy S-10's Ford Rangers and Dodge rams. The little ones. Granted today's average 'heavy half' ton truck is build a lot larger than the 'heavy 3/4' ton trucks from 20 years ago. So when I think of small trucks, I do mean "small" They may get a bit better economy but their overall usefulness is lacking compared to their larger counterparts. Obviously, I'm not a slave to fashion and never was, but I'd take an early 2000's Dodge diesel or a 7.3 Ford power-stroke over any new models of the smaller v-6's offered by almost anyone. If I didn't pull a trailer which required something on the bigger side, I'd go for a Tacoma like the one I showed Harry, with the V6. Something like this: http://tinyurl.com/366njfn |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/5/11 10:47 AM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:12:35 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 4, 5:15 am, wrote: On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. Yep. When I think of small trucks I'm thinking of GM- SW15's Chevy S-10's Ford Rangers and Dodge rams. The little ones. Granted today's average 'heavy half' ton truck is build a lot larger than the 'heavy 3/4' ton trucks from 20 years ago. So when I think of small trucks, I do mean "small" They may get a bit better economy but their overall usefulness is lacking compared to their larger counterparts. Obviously, I'm not a slave to fashion and never was, but I'd take an early 2000's Dodge diesel or a 7.3 Ford power-stroke over any new models of the smaller v-6's offered by almost anyone. If I didn't pull a trailer which required something on the bigger side, I'd go for a Tacoma like the one I showed Harry, with the V6. Something like this: http://tinyurl.com/366njfn I don't "get" those CarMax prices. For a few thousand more than that Toyota truck at the CarMax price, I can buy a brand new one equipped about the same. $23,600 for a three year old small truck with nearly 30,000 miles? Why? Pretty close to the same little truck, 4x4 *retail* is under $30,000 before haggling discount, probably about $27,500 actual price. Brand new. |
Smaller trucks?
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... On 1/5/11 10:47 AM, John H wrote: On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:12:35 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 4, 5:15 am, wrote: On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. Yep. When I think of small trucks I'm thinking of GM- SW15's Chevy S-10's Ford Rangers and Dodge rams. The little ones. Granted today's average 'heavy half' ton truck is build a lot larger than the 'heavy 3/4' ton trucks from 20 years ago. So when I think of small trucks, I do mean "small" They may get a bit better economy but their overall usefulness is lacking compared to their larger counterparts. Obviously, I'm not a slave to fashion and never was, but I'd take an early 2000's Dodge diesel or a 7.3 Ford power-stroke over any new models of the smaller v-6's offered by almost anyone. If I didn't pull a trailer which required something on the bigger side, I'd go for a Tacoma like the one I showed Harry, with the V6. Something like this: http://tinyurl.com/366njfn I don't "get" those CarMax prices. For a few thousand more than that Toyota truck at the CarMax price, I can buy a brand new one equipped about the same. $23,600 for a three year old small truck with nearly 30,000 miles? Why? Pretty close to the same little truck, 4x4 *retail* is under $30,000 before haggling discount, probably about $27,500 actual price. Brand new. I don't understand the allure of CarMax. Everything is over priced and the perceived quality is not there. And, if the salesdroid insists on going on the test drive then he had better be prepared to change his underwear. A Honda salesdroid was extolling the virtues of their 4 wheel steering in the late 80's Prelude. Guy nearly had a heart attack when I took a 90* turn at 45 miles an hour and commented that it wasn't that good. CarMax is no better than any other used car dealer around. When I was shopping for a car I told the salesman at CarMax that I wanted my mechanic to look over the vehicle before I purchased it. The CarMax salesman said that I could purchase the car and then have my mechanic look at the car and if I didn't like the vehicle I had 3 or 5 days to bring it back and roll-back the entire transaction. I laughed at the salesman, turned and walked away. |
Smaller trucks?
"Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. The new trucks do seem way too big for a city dwelling weekend warrior. I did have the Ranger for three years , but I have mixed feelings about them. I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty.................. anyway, they jack the Rangers up.. even the 2WD versions and seem to compress the cab height so you have to sit in a lower seat that say, a mini-van or even a RAV4. I found the seat of firm foam uncomfortable for a couple of months and even called the salesman to see if I could unload the Ranger and move up to a F150. He told me to wait and the foam would conform to my shape.. and he was mostly right. If I was in the market today, I'd take advantage of the great sales Ford has been offering and try to find a short wheelbase regular cab F150. (6.5 foot box). That's all I would need the vast majority of the time and I could always put a cap over the box to accommodate the dog. |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/6/11 11:00 AM, YukonBound wrote:
"Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. The new trucks do seem way too big for a city dwelling weekend warrior. I did have the Ranger for three years , but I have mixed feelings about them. I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty.................. anyway, they jack the Rangers up.. even the 2WD versions and seem to compress the cab height so you have to sit in a lower seat that say, a mini-van or even a RAV4. I found the seat of firm foam uncomfortable for a couple of months and even called the salesman to see if I could unload the Ranger and move up to a F150. He told me to wait and the foam would conform to my shape.. and he was mostly right. If I was in the market today, I'd take advantage of the great sales Ford has been offering and try to find a short wheelbase regular cab F150. (6.5 foot box). That's all I would need the vast majority of the time and I could always put a cap over the box to accommodate the dog. I had a Ranger and an F150. Both were good trucks, as was my Tundra. I've eliminated the Chrysler and GM small trucks; they don't do much for me. That leaves Toyota and Ford, I guess. I need to take a test drive in the Toyota Tacoma 4x4 small truck. |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/6/11 11:07 AM, Harryk wrote:
On 1/6/11 11:00 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. The new trucks do seem way too big for a city dwelling weekend warrior. I did have the Ranger for three years , but I have mixed feelings about them. I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty.................. anyway, they jack the Rangers up.. even the 2WD versions and seem to compress the cab height so you have to sit in a lower seat that say, a mini-van or even a RAV4. I found the seat of firm foam uncomfortable for a couple of months and even called the salesman to see if I could unload the Ranger and move up to a F150. He told me to wait and the foam would conform to my shape.. and he was mostly right. If I was in the market today, I'd take advantage of the great sales Ford has been offering and try to find a short wheelbase regular cab F150. (6.5 foot box). That's all I would need the vast majority of the time and I could always put a cap over the box to accommodate the dog. I had a Ranger and an F150. Both were good trucks, as was my Tundra. I've eliminated the Chrysler and GM small trucks; they don't do much for me. That leaves Toyota and Ford, I guess. I need to take a test drive in the Toyota Tacoma 4x4 small truck. Great idea, test drive the truck before buying it. |
Smaller trucks?
|
Smaller trucks?
|
Smaller trucks?
|
Smaller trucks?
"Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/6/11 11:00 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. The new trucks do seem way too big for a city dwelling weekend warrior. I did have the Ranger for three years , but I have mixed feelings about them. I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty.................. anyway, they jack the Rangers up.. even the 2WD versions and seem to compress the cab height so you have to sit in a lower seat that say, a mini-van or even a RAV4. I found the seat of firm foam uncomfortable for a couple of months and even called the salesman to see if I could unload the Ranger and move up to a F150. He told me to wait and the foam would conform to my shape.. and he was mostly right. If I was in the market today, I'd take advantage of the great sales Ford has been offering and try to find a short wheelbase regular cab F150. (6.5 foot box). That's all I would need the vast majority of the time and I could always put a cap over the box to accommodate the dog. I had a Ranger and an F150. Both were good trucks, as was my Tundra. I've eliminated the Chrysler and GM small trucks; they don't do much for me. That leaves Toyota and Ford, I guess. I need to take a test drive in the Toyota Tacoma 4x4 small truck. ====== The vehicle of choice for international projects in the crapholes of the world with the worst terrain and minimal support is the Toyota Hylux (called the Tacoma here) and the Hardtop Land Cruiser. Difference is diesel engines, winches, roo guards and roll bars, HF radios, no fluff and lots of spare tires. The Land Rover 110 used to be the hot ticket but the Toyotas are a lot more dependable and handle a lot better. We had Nissan PUs on a project in Southern Africa and Rangers in Kosovo and neither held up. Back after Desert Storm, we had F250s and Nissan Patrols (not offered here) and both held up great in that environment. |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/6/11 1:39 PM, MMC wrote:
"Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/6/11 11:00 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. The new trucks do seem way too big for a city dwelling weekend warrior. I did have the Ranger for three years , but I have mixed feelings about them. I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty.................. anyway, they jack the Rangers up.. even the 2WD versions and seem to compress the cab height so you have to sit in a lower seat that say, a mini-van or even a RAV4. I found the seat of firm foam uncomfortable for a couple of months and even called the salesman to see if I could unload the Ranger and move up to a F150. He told me to wait and the foam would conform to my shape.. and he was mostly right. If I was in the market today, I'd take advantage of the great sales Ford has been offering and try to find a short wheelbase regular cab F150. (6.5 foot box). That's all I would need the vast majority of the time and I could always put a cap over the box to accommodate the dog. I had a Ranger and an F150. Both were good trucks, as was my Tundra. I've eliminated the Chrysler and GM small trucks; they don't do much for me. That leaves Toyota and Ford, I guess. I need to take a test drive in the Toyota Tacoma 4x4 small truck. ====== The vehicle of choice for international projects in the crapholes of the world with the worst terrain and minimal support is the Toyota Hylux (called the Tacoma here) and the Hardtop Land Cruiser. Difference is diesel engines, winches, roo guards and roll bars, HF radios, no fluff and lots of spare tires. The Land Rover 110 used to be the hot ticket but the Toyotas are a lot more dependable and handle a lot better. We had Nissan PUs on a project in Southern Africa and Rangers in Kosovo and neither held up. Back after Desert Storm, we had F250s and Nissan Patrols (not offered here) and both held up great in that environment. Unfortunately, the Tacoma/HiLux is not available here with a diesel, nor in Canada, apparently. |
Smaller trucks?
"Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/6/11 11:00 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. The new trucks do seem way too big for a city dwelling weekend warrior. I did have the Ranger for three years , but I have mixed feelings about them. I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty.................. anyway, they jack the Rangers up.. even the 2WD versions and seem to compress the cab height so you have to sit in a lower seat that say, a mini-van or even a RAV4. I found the seat of firm foam uncomfortable for a couple of months and even called the salesman to see if I could unload the Ranger and move up to a F150. He told me to wait and the foam would conform to my shape.. and he was mostly right. If I was in the market today, I'd take advantage of the great sales Ford has been offering and try to find a short wheelbase regular cab F150. (6.5 foot box). That's all I would need the vast majority of the time and I could always put a cap over the box to accommodate the dog. I had a Ranger and an F150. Both were good trucks, as was my Tundra. I've eliminated the Chrysler and GM small trucks; they don't do much for me. That leaves Toyota and Ford, I guess. I need to take a test drive in the Toyota Tacoma 4x4 small truck. I sat in the Tacoma cab while having my RAV4 serviced and found that the windshield cut off too low. I felt like the roof was caving in on me..... and the seating is low, similar to the Ranger. Too bad that Honda Ridgeline is so expensive. It might be a good choice for a light, mid-sized pickup. |
Smaller trucks?
"I am Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty, Always the troll, it's clear what Donnie is here for. Wonder if Harry will condone this bull**** or if he will prove himself a hypocrite? -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - Pain is temporary, Glory is forever! Hey........ just sayin'. |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/6/11 3:13 PM, YukonBound wrote:
"Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/6/11 11:00 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. The new trucks do seem way too big for a city dwelling weekend warrior. I did have the Ranger for three years , but I have mixed feelings about them. I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty.................. anyway, they jack the Rangers up.. even the 2WD versions and seem to compress the cab height so you have to sit in a lower seat that say, a mini-van or even a RAV4. I found the seat of firm foam uncomfortable for a couple of months and even called the salesman to see if I could unload the Ranger and move up to a F150. He told me to wait and the foam would conform to my shape.. and he was mostly right. If I was in the market today, I'd take advantage of the great sales Ford has been offering and try to find a short wheelbase regular cab F150. (6.5 foot box). That's all I would need the vast majority of the time and I could always put a cap over the box to accommodate the dog. I had a Ranger and an F150. Both were good trucks, as was my Tundra. I've eliminated the Chrysler and GM small trucks; they don't do much for me. That leaves Toyota and Ford, I guess. I need to take a test drive in the Toyota Tacoma 4x4 small truck. I sat in the Tacoma cab while having my RAV4 serviced and found that the windshield cut off too low. I felt like the roof was caving in on me..... and the seating is low, similar to the Ranger. Too bad that Honda Ridgeline is so expensive. It might be a good choice for a light, mid-sized pickup. Hmmm. I haven't looked at a Honda or its pricing... :) |
Smaller trucks?
In article ,
says... "I am Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty, Always the troll, it's clear what Donnie is here for. Wonder if Harry will condone this bull**** or if he will prove himself a hypocrite? -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - Pain is temporary, Glory is forever! Hey........ just sayin'. Don't worry little buddy, I'll condone your name calling and insulting because I like the feel of your nose in my ass. I just call out those who don't agree with me or believe my lies. |
Smaller trucks?
"Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/6/11 3:13 PM, YukonBound wrote: "Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/6/11 11:00 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. The new trucks do seem way too big for a city dwelling weekend warrior. I did have the Ranger for three years , but I have mixed feelings about them. I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty.................. anyway, they jack the Rangers up.. even the 2WD versions and seem to compress the cab height so you have to sit in a lower seat that say, a mini-van or even a RAV4. I found the seat of firm foam uncomfortable for a couple of months and even called the salesman to see if I could unload the Ranger and move up to a F150. He told me to wait and the foam would conform to my shape.. and he was mostly right. If I was in the market today, I'd take advantage of the great sales Ford has been offering and try to find a short wheelbase regular cab F150. (6.5 foot box). That's all I would need the vast majority of the time and I could always put a cap over the box to accommodate the dog. I had a Ranger and an F150. Both were good trucks, as was my Tundra. I've eliminated the Chrysler and GM small trucks; they don't do much for me. That leaves Toyota and Ford, I guess. I need to take a test drive in the Toyota Tacoma 4x4 small truck. I sat in the Tacoma cab while having my RAV4 serviced and found that the windshield cut off too low. I felt like the roof was caving in on me..... and the seating is low, similar to the Ranger. Too bad that Honda Ridgeline is so expensive. It might be a good choice for a light, mid-sized pickup. Hmmm. I haven't looked at a Honda or its pricing... :) Consumer Reports seems to like it... here's some of their online report... "Honda RidgelinePhotosVideo Base MSRP price range:$28,900 - $36,830 HighsRide, handling, powertrain, rear seat, access, in-bed trunk, dual-action tailgate, crash-test results, composite bed, reliability. LowsRoad noise, towing capacity, turning circle. See our user reviewsAlready own it? Write a reviewCar Type: Compact pickup trucksCR overall score Honda's pickup truck has agile handling and a ride that's supple and steady. The tailgate opens vertically or horizontally, and beneath the bed is an all-weather, lockable trunk. The 3.5-liter V6 is quiet, smooth, and responsive. Road noise is pronounced. The roomy crew cab is nicely detailed and easy to access. The five-foot-long cargo bed has no wheel-arch intrusion and is made of composite material. While not designed for serious off-roading, the Ridgeline is capable in mild off-road conditions and it can tow 5,000 pounds Realibility, ride, owner satisfaction and acceleration are all better than average but fuel economy is worse. |
Smaller trucks?
"YukonBound" wrote in message
... "Harryk" wrote in message ... On 1/3/11 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: I haven't seen where smaller trucks are really that great of a savings compared to their bigger counter parts, Especially if you plan on really using them. It depends on how you plan to use a truck. I no longer have a trailer boat so I don't need a full-sized truck to tow a heavy boat. The smaller trucks are...smaller...and therefore easier to park, easier to maneuver, a little easier on the gas. Most of the time the "stuff" my wife buys at the garden shops and other stores will easily fit into a smaller truck. The other times, the "stuff" is too large for even a full-size pickup truck. I happened to park next to a new Toyota Tundra the other day, and thought that truck was just humongous. I owned a Tundra some years ago; it was significantly smaller than the current models. The new trucks do seem way too big for a city dwelling weekend warrior. I did have the Ranger for three years , but I have mixed feelings about them. I could never claim to be tall in a newsgroup where every second poster claims to be 6' 4" and weighing 230 or so .................... but on the other hand, if you stood me next to Scotty.................. anyway, they jack the Rangers up.. even the 2WD versions and seem to compress the cab height so you have to sit in a lower seat that say, a mini-van or even a RAV4. I found the seat of firm foam uncomfortable for a couple of months and even called the salesman to see if I could unload the Ranger and move up to a F150. He told me to wait and the foam would conform to my shape.. and he was mostly right. If I was in the market today, I'd take advantage of the great sales Ford has been offering and try to find a short wheelbase regular cab F150. (6.5 foot box). That's all I would need the vast majority of the time and I could always put a cap over the box to accommodate the dog. Reply: Son in law has an older Tundra. Nice size truck. I drove it about 500 miles. Ride and driving did not impress me. Sloppy steering and truck did not give a solid feel. Felt like lots of road steer. My 1989 s-10 extended cab was a nice size truck for most city people. Hauled just about every thing you needed to haul as a home owner. I love my 2004 Crew cab, short bed diesel Chevy 2500. Comfortable, decent mileage. 19 mpg no towing and driving 80 mph to Los Angeles. 14 towing a 3300# boat and trailer with a 1500# pop-up camper. Drawbacks? Takes huge area to turn around in and large parking spaces. Newer Tundra's seem to be oversized, poor mileage from the people I have talked to. Seems as if most of the trucks are supersized these days. The Tacoma would be the small truck I would get today if not towing or hauling a camper. Is a nice size unit. Was looking at an F-100 Ford the other day driving down the road. Seemed to be about the same size as the Tacoma. And the F-100 was a popular truck for a lot of years. |
Smaller trucks?
wrote in message ...
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 19:37:29 -0400, "YukonBound" wrote: Hmmm. I haven't looked at a Honda or its pricing... :) Consumer Reports seems to like it... here's some of their online report... "Honda RidgelinePhotosVideo Base MSRP price range:$28,900 - $36,830 HighsRide, handling, powertrain, rear seat, access, in-bed trunk, dual-action tailgate, crash-test results, composite bed, reliability. LowsRoad noise, towing capacity, turning circle. See our user reviewsAlready own it? Write a reviewCar Type: Compact pickup trucksCR overall score Honda's pickup truck has agile handling and a ride that's supple and steady. The tailgate opens vertically or horizontally, and beneath the bed is an all-weather, lockable trunk. The 3.5-liter V6 is quiet, smooth, and responsive. Road noise is pronounced. The roomy crew cab is nicely detailed and easy to access. The five-foot-long cargo bed has no wheel-arch intrusion and is made of composite material. While not designed for serious off-roading, the Ridgeline is capable in mild off-road conditions and it can tow 5,000 pounds Realibility, ride, owner satisfaction and acceleration are all better than average but fuel economy is worse. We looked at a Ridgeline a while ago. It is basically the Odyssey with a pickup looking body. The road noise thing is typical of all Hondas. We have had 3 (Accord, CRV and my Prelude) and they all sound like you are running cheap snow tires. This is still a car with a truck like body. You can't confuse it with a real truck. It is similar to the GM Aztec Not the Aztec. The car that made a Pacer look good. I do agree with it being a car and not a truck. I think any of the units with a 5' bed are not really trucks. |
Smaller trucks?
On Jan 6, 12:39*pm, "MMC" wrote:
The Land Rover 110 used to be the hot ticket but the Toyotas are a lot more dependable and handle a lot better. The old one liner: "Did you hear about the guy that bought a new Land Rover and it didn't leak any oil so he kept taking it back and hounding the dealer till they got it right?" |
Smaller trucks?
On Jan 6, 6:51*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 19:37:29 -0400, "YukonBound" wrote: Hmmm. I haven't looked at a Honda or its pricing... *:) Consumer Reports seems to like it... here's some of their online report... "Honda RidgelinePhotosVideo Base MSRP price range:$28,900 - $36,830 HighsRide, handling, powertrain, rear seat, access, in-bed trunk, dual-action tailgate, crash-test results, composite bed, reliability. LowsRoad noise, towing capacity, turning circle. See our user reviewsAlready own it? Write a reviewCar Type: Compact pickup trucksCR overall score Honda's pickup truck has agile handling and a ride that's supple and steady. The tailgate opens vertically or horizontally, and beneath the bed is an all-weather, lockable trunk. The 3.5-liter V6 is quiet, smooth, and responsive. Road noise is pronounced. The roomy crew cab is nicely detailed and easy to access. The five-foot-long cargo bed has no wheel-arch intrusion and is made of composite material. While not designed for serious off-roading, the Ridgeline is capable in mild off-road conditions and it can tow 5,000 pounds Realibility, ride, owner satisfaction and acceleration are all better than average but fuel economy is worse. We looked at a Ridgeline a while ago. It is basically the Odyssey with a pickup looking body. The road noise thing is typical of all Hondas. We have had 3 (Accord, CRV and my Prelude) and they all sound like you are running cheap snow tires. Really? My wife just bought a 2009 CRV and even though I'm really nit impressed with the ride (I'm biased, I drive large float-mobiles), I thought it was pretty quiet. and it gets about 30 mpg. highway... |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/6/11 10:25 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
I still hate front wheel drive.. Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle, Please explain. |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/7/11 7:53 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 10:25 PM, I am Tosk wrote: I still hate front wheel drive.. Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle, Please explain. Pffftttt... Yeah, I kinda figured *that* was the lack of thought underpinning your absurd statement, "Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle." Fortunately, Alec Issigonis wouldn't have paid any attention to you back then, and no automotive engineer would pay any attention to you today. But, hey, go ahead...go through life wallowing in your ignorance. |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/7/11 8:11 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articleNb6dnZrukcPwkrrQnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/7/11 7:53 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 10:25 PM, I am Tosk wrote: I still hate front wheel drive.. Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle, Please explain. Pffftttt... Yeah, I kinda figured *that* was the lack of thought underpinning your absurd statement, "Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle." Fortunately, Alec Issigonis wouldn't have paid any attention to you back then, and no automotive engineer would pay any attention to you today. But, hey, go ahead...go through life wallowing in your ignorance. STFU, you don't know what google is talking about.. I have raced front wheel drive vehicles.. Come back to me when you actually know what you are talking about...snerk.. I do know what I am talking about; you do not. Your ignorant statement is all the proof that is needed. Please explain why it "Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle." Use your own words. Go ahead. Oh, it's axles, by the way, usually. |
Smaller trucks?
|
Smaller trucks?
On 1/7/11 8:30 AM, Harryk wrote:
On 1/7/11 8:11 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In articleNb6dnZrukcPwkrrQnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/7/11 7:53 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 10:25 PM, I am Tosk wrote: I still hate front wheel drive.. Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle, Please explain. Pffftttt... Yeah, I kinda figured *that* was the lack of thought underpinning your absurd statement, "Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle." Fortunately, Alec Issigonis wouldn't have paid any attention to you back then, and no automotive engineer would pay any attention to you today. But, hey, go ahead...go through life wallowing in your ignorance. STFU, you don't know what google is talking about.. I have raced front wheel drive vehicles.. Come back to me when you actually know what you are talking about...snerk.. I do know what I am talking about; you do not. Your ignorant statement is all the proof that is needed. Please explain why it "Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle." Use your own words. Go ahead. Oh, it's axles, by the way, usually. For someone who said you were going to let the "Righties" stir up all the **** in rec.boats, you seem to be doing your best to stay ahead of them in the insult count. |
Smaller trucks?
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 10:25 PM, I am Tosk wrote: I still hate front wheel drive.. Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle, Please explain. Well, I can as the real Harry, because if you remember, I took many mechanical engineering courses. First of all, when the driven wheels are also the steering wheels, there are parts that are under a LOT of stress at times, such as the CV joints. Then if you lose traction like in snow, no steering. Simple as that. |
Smaller trucks?
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... On 1/7/11 7:53 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 10:25 PM, I am Tosk wrote: I still hate front wheel drive.. Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle, Please explain. Pffftttt... Yeah, I kinda figured *that* was the lack of thought underpinning your absurd statement, "Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle." Fortunately, Alec Issigonis wouldn't have paid any attention to you back then, and no automotive engineer would pay any attention to you today. But, hey, go ahead...go through life wallowing in your ignorance. Spoofer, please see my previous reply and get back to me. |
Smaller trucks?
|
Smaller trucks?
On 1/7/11 8:43 AM, HarryK wrote:
In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 10:25 PM, I am Tosk wrote: I still hate front wheel drive.. Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle, Please explain. Well, I can as the real Harry, because if you remember, I took many mechanical engineering courses. First of all, when the driven wheels are also the steering wheels, there are parts that are under a LOT of stress at times, such as the CV joints. Then if you lose traction like in snow, no steering. Simple as that. There are many advantages of rear wheel drive over front wheel drive, and they have been discussed for many years by auto engineers. A quick Google came up with this: 1) "Balance": The car rides on four patches of rubber, each about as big as your hand. An ideal car would distribute its weight evenly, so each tire had to bear the same load, and none would give way earlier than all the others. The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking). "A rear-drive car can typically approach that," says Zellner. Engineers can move the front wheels forward, so that the engine – which doesn't have to be connected to those wheels -- sits behind the front axle. Meanwhile, the driveshaft and rear differential (necessary to send power to the rear tires) add weight in the rear. Front-drive cars, which must connect the engine and transmission to the front axle, typically have their engines mounted way forward and can't do much better than a 60/40 front/rear weight distribution. 2) Center of Gravity: This is the point the car wants to "rotate around" in a turn. On a rear-drive car, it's "about where the driver sits," says Zellner. In a turn, in other words, the car seems to be rotating around you – you're at the center. It's a natural pleasant effect, suggesting you're in control, the way you're in control when you're walking or running around a corner and your weight is centered inside you. (Analogy No. 2: It's like wearing stereo headphones and having the sound centered between your ears!) A front-drive car, in contrast, with its massive front weight bias, wants to rotate around a point in front of the driver. So in a corner, the driver isn't just rotating around his spine. He's moving sideways, as if he were a tether ball on the end of a rope, or Linus being dragged when Snoopy gets hold of his blanket. Not such a pleasant feeling, or a feeling that gives you a sense of natural control. 3) "Torque Steer": One of the most annoying habits of many powerful front-drive cars is that they don't go straight when you step on the accelerator! Instead, they pull to one side, requiring you to steer in the other direction to compensate, like on a damn boat. This "torque steer" usually happens because the drive shafts that connect the engine to the front wheels aren't the same length. Under power, the shafts wind up like springs. The longer shaft -- typically on the right -- winds up a bit more, while the shorter left shaft winds up less and transmits its power to the ground more quickly, which has the effect of pulling the car to the left. (This winding-up phenomenon occurs the moment you step on the pedal. After that, the wind-up relaxes, but "torque steer" can still be produced by the angles of the joints in the drive axles as the whole drivetrain twists on its rubber mounts.) Veer madness?Veer madness?Engineers try various strategies to control this veering tendency, but even designing shafts of equal length (as in all Cadillacs) doesn't completely solve the problem because the engine still twists a bit in its mounts and alters the angles of the drive shafts. True, some manufacturers -- Audi, for example -- are said to do a particularly good job of repressing torque steer . But even a top-rank company such as Nissan has problems -- its otherwise appealing new front-drive Maxima is said to be plagued by big-time, uninhibited torque steer. Rear-drive cars, meanwhile, don't really have a torque-steer problem that needs repressing. Their power goes to the rear through one driveshaft to a center differential that can a) have equal-length shafts coming out from it and b) be more firmly mounted. 4) Weight Shift: Suppose you just want to go in a straight line. What's the best way to get traction? Answer: Have as much weight over the driving wheels as possible. Front-drive cars start with an advantage -- but when any car accelerates, the front end tips up, and the rear end squats down. This transfers weight to the rear wheels -- away from the driving wheels in a FWD car but toward the driving wheels in a rear-drive car, where it adds to available traction. In effect, the laws of physics conspire to give RWD cars a bit more grip where they need it when they need it. (This salutary effect is more than canceled out in slippery, wet conditions, where you aren't going to stomp on the accelerator. Then, FWD cars have the edge, in part, because they start out with so much more of their weight over both the driving and the turning wheels. Also, it's simply more stable to pull a heavy wheeled object than to push it -- as any hotel bellhop steering a loaded luggage cart knows. In snow, FWD cars have a third advantage in that they pull the car through the path the front tires create, instead of turning the front tires into mini-snowplows.) 5) "Oversteer" and the Semi-Orgasmic Lock-In Effect: In a rear-drive car, there's a division of labor -- the front tires basically steer the car, and the rear tires push the car down the road. In a FWD car, the front tires do all the work – both steering and applying the power to the road – while the rears are largely along for the ride. That, it turns out, is asking a lot of the front tires. Since the driving wheels tend to lose traction first, the front tires of front-drive cars invariably start slipping in a corner before the lightly loaded rear tires do -- a phenomenon known as "understeer." If you go too fast into a curve -- I mean really too fast -- the car will plow off the road front end first. In rear-drive cars, the rear wheels tend to lose traction first, and the rear of the car threatens to swing around and pass the front end -- "oversteer." If you go too fast into a corner in an oversteering car, the car will tend to spin and fly off the road rear end first. |
Smaller trucks?
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 12:39 pm, "MMC" wrote: The Land Rover 110 used to be the hot ticket but the Toyotas are a lot more dependable and handle a lot better. The old one liner: "Did you hear about the guy that bought a new Land Rover and it didn't leak any oil so he kept taking it back and hounding the dealer till they got it right?" ======= haha! That sounds right! |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/7/11 9:05 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... In , says... On 1/7/11 8:11 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In articleNb6dnZrukcPwkrrQnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/7/11 7:53 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 10:25 PM, I am Tosk wrote: I still hate front wheel drive.. Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle, Please explain. Pffftttt... Yeah, I kinda figured *that* was the lack of thought underpinning your absurd statement, "Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle." Fortunately, Alec Issigonis wouldn't have paid any attention to you back then, and no automotive engineer would pay any attention to you today. But, hey, go ahead...go through life wallowing in your ignorance. STFU, you don't know what google is talking about.. I have raced front wheel drive vehicles.. Come back to me when you actually know what you are talking about...snerk.. I do know what I am talking about; you do not. Your ignorant statement is all the proof that is needed. Please explain why it "Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle." Use your own words. Go ahead. Oh, it's axles, by the way, usually. I'll go, but then I want your rebuttal in your own words. First when the driven wheels are on the same axles as the steering, it's more complicated mechanically. Secondly, you have steering components and driven components that are under a lot of stress, such as CV joints which fail very often. Third, if you lose traction like in snow, you can steer all you want and you go in a straight line. Could be our Google queen is playing some kind of semantics game. Remember, all I said was front wheel drive sucks, he made a fight over it... What you said: "Just doesn't make sense to have the steering and drive on the same axle." That's not the same as FWD sucks. Or maybe it is in your dysfunctional brain. Oh...and FWD doesn't suck. |
Smaller trucks?
On 1/7/11 9:14 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
And anybody who has raced knows if you are going off the road, hit the gas and get that back end between you and the guardrail. I did this without even thinking about it a few years back when I hit the ice in my Wrangler... I slid long enough to know I wasn't catching it, so as I came around I stayed in the throttle to turn the vehicle and we hit rear end first, nobody was injured. This doesn't work well in four wheel either so back then I used to stay in 2 wheel until I needed it to pull out of something. Now with crazy computer controlled traction on my new Jeep, I let it decide how to act, you just can't drive it fast though, not what it's made for. If you try to take a fast corner, the computer brakes wheels and tries to get you back unless you switch it off;) The top performing rally cars are FWD and 4WD. Whatever problems you are having with your vehicles is attributable to your driving skills or lack of same. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com