What happened to mini-trucks?


I was interested in a mini-truck for transportation to and from work but
they disappeared. I bought a brand new Nissan in 1985, it got close to
30mpg. Today's small trucks all look larger, more the Dakota size. Anyone
making trucks smaller than Dakota's these days? The best I've seen for gas
mileage is Ford Ranger with 27mpg, not very impressive after 25 years.
RogerN
"Even after the Super Bowl victory of the New Orleans Saints, I have noticed
a large number of people implying with bad jokes that Cajuns aren't smart.
I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment.
Anybody that would build a city 5 feet below sea level in a hurricane zone
and fill it with Democrats is a damn genius"
Larry the Cable Guy
Reply to
RogerN
Loading thread data ...
formatting link

ebay item #320530041119
Reply to
JohnB
"RogerN" wrote in news:uoadneloH5KNeXTWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
They stopped importing them.
While there may be some usable ones on ebay, don't expect to find any new ones.
Reply to
RAM³
Back in the days of the Arab oil embargo, with the red flags, the green flags odd and even days etc. the popularity of the cheap Japanese econo boxes was at their peak, and the American auto companies managed to get import quotas on the cars but not the trucks.
With a limited supply of the cars the Japanese companies were stuffing the less popular trucks down the dealers throats so they could buy the popular cars.
The dealers then were "giving away" the trucks. This meant that most of the trucks sold were to the cheap skate buyers and the trucks tended to be those with the smaller engines and few options.
Those trucks got pretty good mileage. Then the situation changed. Buyers were demanding more performance and plusher vehicles the crash safety requirements meant more steel and the smog standards said goodbye to the carbs the points and so the mini truck lost it's market.
The mini truck with the best mileage was the VW rabbit diesel close to 45 MPG.
Reply to
Roger Shoaf
When I bought my 1985 Nissan 2wd it was $6k new without air or radio. The basic Nissan Sentra was in the same price range. The Nissan truck seemed more substantial than many of the cars in that day, and many of the cars today. For example, it had a frame and didn't seem that it would be worse in a crash than my Honda Civic or any other similar small car. I guess I would prefer to see them the size they made before they became Dakota sized and lost their economy. A couple of years later I traded in for a Nissan 4X4, I don't remember the exact gas mileage but I think it was close to 25.
My friend bought a Chevy Aveo and gets 35-36mpg, he said he saw where the Ford Mustang with a 6 cylinder is supposed to get 31mpg highway. I guess I'm a bit disappointed that a Ranger 4X4 with a 6 cyl doesn't do much better in gas than some of the full size trucks. I was hoping to be able to find something as economical to drive as my 85 Nissan was. I guess the 27mpg Ranger or 26mpg Tacoma wouldn't be bad though. It seems to me that smaller trucks have a lot of room for improvement, no wonder I see so many full size trucks on the road these days.
RogerN
Reply to
RogerN
My '79 Diesel Rabbit with the 1500cc gets close to 60MPG around town, and a tad over on road trips. Suck it up, SUV owners. Had it for 25 years now. The 1600 pickups get about 20% less. They go for 3-5K now on Ebay. JR Dweller in the cellar
-------------------------------------------------------------- Home Page:
formatting link
If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes Doubt yourself, and the real world will eat you alive The world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around me No skeletons in the closet; just decomposing corpses -------------------------------------------------------------- Dependence is Vulnerability: -------------------------------------------------------------- "Open the Pod Bay Doors please, Hal" "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."
Reply to
JR North
Thanks for that. My dad had a diesel Rabbit truck, 5-speed, and I was sure I remembered 60mpg with it.
Reply to
Beryl
It's great until you get rear ended by the idiot in the wannabe monster truck.
Jon
Reply to
Jon Danniken
On to the metalworking topic, I wonder if metalworkers could come up with good fuel efficient transportation. Maybe take an old truck, fit a brushless electric motor with drive, a generator (or reactor?) in the bed of the truck...
Seems like if metalworking skills and homebuilt aircraft skills were combined the people could make an automobile better than the automakers are providing for us.
RogerN
Reply to
RogerN
I have worked on recent electric vehicle development projects and seriously doubt that a vehicle >>which meets regulations
Reply to
Jim Wilkins
\ \I have worked on recent electric vehicle development projects and \seriously doubt that a vehicle >>which meets regulations
Reply to
RogerN
Just missed out on a Mercedes "smart" for $750 that had all the engine controls toasted - would have made a dandy electric runabout
Reply to
clare
I am a lab technician and don't specify the motors, controls or batteries, just wire them all together. I know what works but not always why it was the best choice.
Use the most efficient motor drive you are capable of designing or at least understanding. Three phase AC motors with feedback seem to be a common choice. The high-end stuff has very sophisticated redundant computer controls, much of it for safety monitoring to hopefully avoid Toyota incidents. How good are you with DSPs?
I think the 2.3l 4 has decent performance around town and in commuter traffic. The truck has a 4.10 differential and enough zip to spin the wheels coming off a light if the road is damp. Only 5th gear seems sluggish. You can't go any faster than the car in front of you and around here there is almost no place to pass. When it's full of logs or old iron I drive slowly anyway and pull over a lot.
jsw
Reply to
Jim Wilkins
"RogerN" on Sat, 15 May 2010 17:23:48 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
It could be engine displacement, it could be power to mass ratios.
I get 29 mpg with a Mazdaranger - but it is also 4 cylinder and Electronic Fuel injection.
Reply to
pyotr filipivich
Is that a B2300 or Ranger w/2.3L engine? I've heard they get more power from the 2.3L than the 2.5L, wasn't sure what one gets best mileage.
RogerN
Reply to
RogerN
There's the loophole. Regulations are for manufacturers. Once you get a vehicle off the dealer's lot, you can pretty much weld/mount/pile anything on it you want.
State regs still apply as a condition of relicensing. But these are mainly in the areas of emmission modifications and things that could push it over the licensed weight. Mods to safety equipment (lighting, brakes, etc.) are also checked in some states.
There's some truely bizzare stuff on the road, welded onto late model truck chassis.
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
"RogerN" on Wed, 19 May 2010 05:46:14 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
B2500 - so I'm guessing it is the 2.5l
It will do 70, but it sucks down the gas. I figure sixty five is good enough for my purposes.
Reply to
pyotr filipivich
My 94 Mazda B3000 (445,000 miles) got 21 mpg with its 3.0 6 cyl, and its replacement..a 2001 Ranger 3.0 6 cylinder (auto), 188,000, gets 19mpg. (Both came off the same assembly line)
I still have the Mazda and an low mile replacement engine. When I get the time, Ill install it and put her back on the road. When I parked it because it would no longer pass smog, it was still mostly original parts and in VERY good running condition.
I drove the Ranger home this morning, from my 2 week stay in Los Angles.
Gunner
Reply to
Gunner Asch

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.