Midsize Trucks are dumb.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The small truck market (that includes SUV) has been pissing me off for years. Manufacturers claim they know what people want, that nobody buys what they make, and that there's no market for the product they percieve people as asking for. The problem here is automakers are @#$% idiots.

The last 20 years has seen the SMALL truck die off completely. Replaced by "midsize" trucks NOBODY EVER WANTED. And as automakers phased out their beloved small trucks in favor of these new midsizers, sales dropped, prices rose, and differentiation from half-tons all but disappeared. Automakers blundered determinedly onward, shoving crappy powerplants under oversized "small" trucks then pricing them the same as half-ton models and acting confused when nobody bought them.

Here's the thing:

The last small truck was the Ranger. I DARE you to find a Ranger owner, or a former Ranger owner, who did not LOVE their truck. Despite anything it might not have done well at various points in its THIRTY YEAR RUN. Ranger owners LOVED their truck. And I can tell you, AS A FORMER RANGER OWNER, why they love them. And #1-#5000 on that list are "It's not a full size truck." The next reason is "it's infinitely practical."

Midsize trucks meet NEITHER of these key qualifications.

Midsize trucks are, quite succinctly: dumb as Hell.

They are the WORST form of compromise. None of the benefits of the size of a proper truck, but none of the benefits of the lack of size of a smaller truck. Compare a Frontier and Titan, Dakota (eurgh) and Ram, Tacoma and Tundra, or Colorado and Silverado in fuel economy, and the difference is so negligible as to be unnoticeable. BUT...because Midsize trucks stopped being small a long time ago, you don't have a truck that's easier to maneuver in small places, easier to fit in an average garage with the door closed, or any of the size and weight benefits of a truly small truck. So we've sacrificed the benefits for NO RETURN. Nothing is there to compensate for the bigness of modern "small" trucks.

Reality is much simpler than market-research seems to misindicate. if I wanted a half-ton truck, I would buy a half-ton truck. 1mpg combined is not going to talk me into a narrower, shorter bed or a less roomy cab. If I wanted a half-ton truck, I'd get a half-ton truck. The truck buyer is a very special kind of buyer who tends to need a specific vehicle for a specific purpose, but also tends to be unrealistically brand-loyal. If a truck buyer needs a half-ton truck, he needs a half-ton truck. Offering a marginally smaller model with near-nonexistent fuel savings isn't some kind of appealing alternative. It's the wrong damn thing for the job.

And that's the real issue. Companies like GM (whose Colorado is the fuel of this rant) look at midsize trucks as a MPG alternative to big trucks. Back when the Hardbody and its ilk reigned supreme, that was NOT the case. It still isn't...but you can't tell that to the dumbasses building 4/5s Silverados and calling them Colorados.

If someone's looking for a SMALL truck (and a HELL of a lot of people are: look at residual value on the things...you can buy a mid-90s Ranger, use it for years, and EASILY resell it for more than you invested) they were never interested in a half-ton truck in the first place. They aren't looking for something that can do what an F150 can do but while burning less gas. They're looking for something that can do what a SMALL TRUCK can do. There's no overlap. There's no joint appeal. You want one, or you want the other. You might not know what you want, but that's probably because you're a Toyota owner.

I want a small truck. I've been wanting one more and more lately. I'd like another regular cab 2wd 2.3 liter Ranger with the 5 speed. Or, as a close second, I'd like a late-90s KA Frontier with a 5-speed. I've even been looking at buying a mid-90s spaceship-styled Ranger and transplanting an SBC or 5.0 Ford into it because dirt cheap fun.

So when GM announced the new Colorado with much bragging about it's big-truck capabilities, it's "new, Silverado-derived" frame, its big dimensions, and other such midsize truck dumb-as-Hellness, I kind of wanted to scream.

Ford killed of the Ranger who-knows-why after 30 years. How can you lose money by continuing to make a truck whose R&D has been paid off ten thousand times over? There's a gaping void in the market now. The Frontier is so big it needs a V8, but Nissan won't give it one because the VK56 does 2mpg worse than the VQ40. The Tacoma is the same way, only less capable and no longer built with superior quality. What's left? The Colorado. Which at least doesn't come with an anemic and harsh 5-cylinder as the base engine this time around.

Bring back the small truck. Sell me something with 2.3 seats. Sell me something with a floor-mounted stickshift next to a floor-mounted transfer case lever. Sell me something with barely enough room behind the driver seat for a briefcase. Sell me something with an interior that's perfectly happy NOT to have any leather in sight. Something I can beat on, kick, throw stuff in, bump stuff with, get dirty, wear greasy coveralls in, and in which 130 ft-lb feels like ample torque.

I hate midsize trucks. They make me angry.

I miss my Ranger. And I miss THE Ranger. I also miss the Hardbody and Toyota Truck and S10, the LUV and PUP and the B-series. I definitely miss the old diesel-powered Isuzus (which I hunted agressively for for years before settling on my Ranger).

There was a flat-bed 90s Toyota for sale across town a few months ago, and I can't express my rage at not having spare cash to buy it.

[Jesda]

I agree. Midsizers aren't quite large enough to have room for sheets of drywall, nor are they compact enough to be efficient or easy to park. I would totally rock a genuine Mazda B-series, late-model Ranger, or almost any Toyota (excluding the most rust-prone years of the Tacoma).

Price doesn't justify midsizers either. Anyone who just wants a cheap pickup can get a V6, shortbed, regular cab half-ton for cheap, not including $500-$1000 in manufacturer incentives.

Small pickups of the future will likely be unibodies but packaged similarly to the Explorer Sportrac (a pickup based on an SUV based on a pickup... LOL).

[elwesso]

One of the funniest things I've ever seen is that one of my friends GF had a explorer sport-trac with a topper.. It's like, why did you buy an SUV that you can't get into the back???????????

The small pickups are basically for those people who want the fuel economy of a car, but have no need to tow anything heavy. I think it's a great market for those of us that want something practical to haul mulch or something like that...

Even the V6 Ranger borders on impractical. For not much more money, you can get into an F150 that's got a lot more space, better towing, not much less fuel economy, and so on.

[Kompresshun]

I cannot honestly think of a time since the Ranger was killed off that I have had any desire to buy anything less than a full-size truck, aside from the Tacoma. Hate all you want on that but i've always loved the Toyota pickup no matter what year.

I miss my Ranger. And I miss THE Ranger.

^This. I constantly find myself wanting another one. I miss the hell out of mine and i've never had a better truck in my life. I could beat on it all day long and it just kept going. It was extremely easy to maintain and it was dead nuts reliable.









I have been seriously thinking about getting back into a truck when it's time to replace the Five Hundred. We now have three vehicles that get 20+ mpg and my car only gets driven to work 90% of the time. Since i've gotten the Miata, I really think it would be nice to have something to pull a trailer with. I also miss being able to haul stuff around town, because I can't even go and pickup any mulch without having to borrow something to haul it with.

[Bubba1]

I DARE you to find a Ranger owner, or a former Ranger owner, who did not LOVE their truck. Despite anything it might not have done well at various points in its THIRTY YEAR RUN. Ranger owners LOVED their truck. And I can tell you, AS A FORMER RANGER OWNER, why they love them. And #1-#5000 on that list are "It's not a full size truck." The next reason is "it's infinitely practical."

.

Sorry, I know at least 3 former/current Ranger owners locally off the top of my head, and only one of the three loved his. The other two did not. The one that loves his is retired and puts on relatively few miles annually and still has it.
The other two have had too many problems with theirs ever to say they liked them. One dumped his Ranger as soon as he could (due to poor reliability and bad gas mileage) and replaced it with a Tacoma, which he seems to like better. The other (my neighbor) still has his but is not in a position financially to replace his yet. Post warranty problems areas include the AWD (can't engage or keep it engaged), the A/C died, power steering issues, rattles, electrical gremlins, and subpar gas mileage. And that Ranger has under 80K miles on it and not abused. Unless his use of "POS" when referring to that Ranger is a term of endearment, I don't see him sharing your enthusiasm.

[Jesda]

There is no joy quite like beating around a redneck town in an ugly-a** pickup.

http://jesda.com/2012/07/29/review-1978 ... kup-hilux/

[frapjap]

The first Nissan in our family was a hard body pickup with the KA and an auto transmission (my dad didn't care for standard).
Much like this one, but rustier and blue.


Let me tell you about the abuse this poor, poor, poor, POOR old truck had to go through. He bought it from an old lady whos husband had passed for $2,400. The truck wasn't in the best of shape body wise, but my dad was a mason so that didn't matter. It already had 170,000 miles on it. Since my dad had his own business, he hauled everything to the job site- EVERYTHING. Sand, bags of mortar, tools, shovels, masonry saw, wheelbarrows (the REAL kind), and enough scaffold & planks to go along the side of most houses. With all of this s*** in the bed, he also towed a full size cement mixer.
Not one of these b****- a**, rinky-dink, s*** wannabe mixers:


Rather, one of these old style, beat to s***, made of iron and steel rusted, but utterly reliable work horses. That f*** probably weighed in at ~300 lbs.


So, imagine this poor compact pickup, towing a busted a** mixer with a job sites worth of materials and tools lumbering down the road. It was a sight to be seen. While riding in it and driving it you could hear the engine straining to get to 60mph, the transmission refusing to shift gears upwards because it'll lose the torque, each bump and imperfection in the road jarring your back and butt as the U-joints were long gone, the brakes being manually pumped from a distance while anticipating the next red light, and listening to whatever measly sound the tape deck could muster out with the two windows down, cruising around in Florida with out a/c. But this little trooper carried on. It wasn't fast. It wasn't pretty. But I'd be damned if it wasn't one helluva truck. That poor vehicle took this abuse daily for 3 years and one additional transmission, before the rear end s*** the bed and left us stuck in our side yard with a fully loaded truck at 6:15am.

My point is, while we needed a half-ton, this smaller, cheaper, 4 cylinder work horse gave its all to our family's livelihood and remained impressive until the last day. Long live the compact truck!

[ScrapMetal]

You want actual compact trucks?



Chevrolet Montana

Comes with 1.4 and 1.8 gas engines and 1.3 and 1.7 diesel engines mated to a 5 speed manual. Has a payload capacity of 1,620 lbs. Gets 30+ MPG on the highway with the gas engines, don't know about the diesels but I'm assuming those do even better..



Fiat Strada

Comes with a long list of gas engines from 1.2 to 1.8 liters and 1.7 and 1.9 diesels mated to a 5 speed manual. Has a payload capacity of 1,466 lbs. Gets 30+ MPG on the highway. Has optional four wheel drive. Regular and extended cab models offered.



Volkswagen Saveiro

Only comes with a 1.6 gas engine mated to either a 5 speed manual or 5 speed automatic. Has a payload capacity of 1,576 lbs. Gets 30+ MPG on the highway. Regular and extended cab models offered.

These three trucks are of unibody construction, they're front wheel drive and they're not sold in the US.

I live in Florida, which I like to call "Texas Jr." The majority of people here are Confederate flag flying rednecks who wouldn't be caught dead in anything other than a jacked up half ton crew cab on 35"s.



Bro Truck

The majority of these trucks never see mud and 99% of the time their beds are just a waste of real estate. I guess they're trying to live some "Blake Shelton Southern Cowboy" fantasy.

I own a 1999 Chevrolet S10 regular cab with a 2.2l 4 cylinder and a 5 speed manual that I use as my daily driver that has 120K miles. I don't tow anything or have a need for four wheel drive. I haul two kayaks regularly and from time to time I haul engines and transmissions for work. The most I've ever loaded in the bed was 1,400 lbs of scrap metal and this truck hauled it like a champ.

In a few years I'd like to replace it with something new. I'd love to buy something like the Chevrolet Montana, which is a lot closer to my current S10 than the 2015 Chevrolet Colorado is but because of "Redneck mentality" and the "Chicken Tax( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_ta ... nd_the_UAW )" we'll probably never see any of these cool little pickups on our shores.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I wouldn't say the Frontier needs the VK56. The thing hauls a** with the VQ40. It could definitely use a better 4 cylinder though

[themadscientist]

The last small truck was the Ranger. I DARE you to find a Ranger owner, or a former Ranger owner, who did not LOVE their truck. Despite anything it might not have done well at various points in its THIRTY YEAR RUN. Ranger owners LOVED their truck. And I can tell you, AS A FORMER RANGER OWNER, why they love them. And #1-#5000 on that list are "It's not a full size truck." The next reason is "it's infinitely practical."

I ****IN LOVED MY RANGER! 88' short bed RWD with the 2.9 V6. I had monster Cragar street star wheels on it and the thing could hang with a 5.0 mustang in a straight shot and embarrass it in the corners. I did the field research.

I miss it so much and as cool as my Hijet is, it's painfully obvious as I put racing wheels on it and try to squeeze more power out of that little wind up motor, I'm just trying to recapture the magic of my old Ford Ranger.

The Air Force uses Rangers over here as flight line vehicles and if I ever see one at a DRMO sale I will buy it at any price and rock the s*** out of it even if it's the four banger. I can make that work with some SVO spirit.

[MinisterofDOOM]

You want actual compact trucks?



Chevrolet Montana

Comes with 1.4 and 1.8 gas engines and 1.3 and 1.7 diesel engines mated to a 5 speed manual. Has a payload capacity of 1,620 lbs. Gets 30+ MPG on the highway with the gas engines, don't know about the diesels but I'm assuming those do even better..



Fiat Strada

Comes with a long list of gas engines from 1.2 to 1.8 liters and 1.7 and 1.9 diesels mated to a 5 speed manual. Has a payload capacity of 1,466 lbs. Gets 30+ MPG on the highway. Has optional four wheel drive. Regular and extended cab models offered.



Volkswagen Saveiro

Only comes with a 1.6 gas engine mated to either a 5 speed manual or 5 speed automatic. Has a payload capacity of 1,576 lbs. Gets 30+ MPG on the highway. Regular and extended cab models offered.

These three trucks are of unibody construction, they're front wheel drive and they're not sold in the US.

Those aren't pickup trucks. They're Utes. Another vehicle segment the US sadly misses out on, but entirely different from a truck. For the same reasons I listed above (truck usually being a specific vehicle for a specific purpose) no one looking for a pickup would be interested in these.

Pickup trucks have:
Body-on-ladder-frame construction
Separate bed and cab
Longitudinal drivetrains

These things are really just compact sedans with a bed, similar to the Ridgeline. But even SUVs like the Avalanche are not proper pickup trucks, because the bed's not separate.

Utes are neat. But they're no replacement for a proper small TRUCK.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen is that one of my friends GF had a explorer sport-trac with a topper.. It's like, why did you buy an SUV that you can't get into the back????????

Big difference between a separate metal bed with a cap on it and the interior of your passenger vehicle. Sometimes you need to move a covered load in a pickup. But an SUV will never be well suited to a pile of topsoil or fertilizer in the back. You can also take the shell off your pickup bed. Unless you're one of the 3 people who bought an Envoy XUV, you can't take the roof off of your modern SUV. Of course, classic Blazers and Broncos had removable rear roofs, but they still covered the passenger compartment, making them less good for hauling dirty stuff.

[Kompresshun]

I ****IN LOVED MY RANGER! 88' short bed RWD with the 2.9 V6. I had monster Cragar street star wheels on it and the thing could hang with a 5.0 mustang in a straight shot and embarrass it in the corners. I did the field research.

I had an 89 Ext Cab RWD with the 2.9. I beat the living hell out of that truck and wish I would've kept the damn thing. 2.9's kicked a** as long as you didn't overheat them.

[themadscientist]

Infinitely better than the 3.0 and I'd put it at a stoplight next to a 4.0 with confidence. You like doing the plugs on it? I found it, challenging.

[Kompresshun]

I didn't mind changing plugs on mine, but I found it's MUCH easier with a 2" body lift.

I had the 3.0 in my gray Ranger above and it was a decent motor, but it wasn't near as gutsy as the 2.9.

I had a lot done to my 3.0 too though - underdrive pulley, power programmer, exhaust, headers, upgraded intake, 4.10 gears, and a Hurst short throw shifter. It would pull away from a 4.0 pretty well.

[Rev_D21]

The minitrucks of the 70's 80's and some of the 90's are where it's at.

[ScrapMetal]

Utes are neat. But they're no replacement for a proper small TRUCK.

Why not? Why the need for a Body-on-ladder-frame construction, Separate bed and cab or Longitudinal drive trains? Heck the new Ram Promaster is a FWD van that has a payload capacity of 4,430 lbs. Do you think companies who buy these as fleet vehicles are going to be put off by the fact that it's FWD or that it has a transverse drive train and opt for a more traditional gas/diesel guzzling work van? If Chrysler thought that way they wouldn't be bringing it here.

The Chevrolet Montana or Fiat Strada will do everything my S10 does and then some, all the while being more fuel efficient, comfortable and probably safer.



I love the new Chevrolet Colorado. I'd want one with the 2.5 4 cylinder with the extended cab and the 6 speed automatic, but what is the price going to be? I doubt this truck even in bare bones configuration is going to come out to less than $20K GM already said the Colorado won't be offered in regular cab or with a manual transmission. We still have the GMC Canyon to wait on but the truth is American buyers don't want a regular cab with a stick shift. Heck Toyota is getting rid of their regular cab Tacos come 2015.

I love the new Colorado but I don't need one. I'd be perfectly happy with a Chevrolet Montana that costs about $15K USD well equipped in Brazil, it does everything my S10 does but better.

[Kompresshun]

GM already said the Colorado won't be offered in regular cab or with a manual transmission.

Incorrect sir

For example, Chevy likely pleased many truck enthusiasts with a belated confirmation that it will offer a manual transmission, though only on the base extended-cab, two-wheel-drive WT model.

http://jalopnik.com/gm-is-building-a-ma ... 1471830813

[Loki]

I keep bitching to the higher-ups to bring back a small pickup like the Ranger. One of these days someone will listen to me.

[leesredgt]

I love the new Colorado! Theres even a possibility that there might be a diesel option!

[Bubba1]

You want actual compact trucks?



Fiat Strada

.

I had to chuckle when you cited the Fiat Strada. I know it's micro pickup now... but it has never been sold in the US, which surprised me you knew about it. You're probably too young to remember the last time Fiat sold a "Strada" in the US. it was back in the late 1970's. I fondly remember the Fiat Strada as a poorly built, funky looking (but fun to drive)econobox...intended to be a replacement for the old boxy 128 sedan, but it never caught on.





I imagine few NICOnauts have ever seen one, as Fiat did not sell many of them in the US, but I drove a bunch of 'em back when I worked at a Fiat-Lancia-Saab dealer.

[ScrapMetal]

That is one cool looking little hatchback, Bubba. You sure are right, I'm too young to remember this car. I thought Fiat only ever sold the old Spider convertible here, which I've heard were always unreliable nightmares.

[Bubba1]

That is one cool looking little hatchback, Bubba. You sure are right, I'm too young to remember this car. I thought Fiat only ever sold the old Spider convertible here, which I've heard were always unreliable nightmares.

Yep, they were indeed unreliable, and not built particularly well, (rumors were that FIAT stood for "fix it again Tony". )but Fiats were actually very fun cars to drive back in the day and not very expensive. And they were no worse for reliability than the comparable British Leyland offerings (think MG,Triumph, etc). And like those little British sports cars (upon which the modern day Miata is based), they were extremely nimble but best owned by those handy with a wrench.

The 124 Spider was one of their most popular models, but they actually sold a whole bunch of other interesting models you just don't see around anymore, which I think is a shame.

[nissangirl74]

Fly into Phoenix MoD and we'll pick you up. You can drive it home.

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale ... ex=5&Log=0


or this one

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale ... ex=9&Log=0

[AZhitman]

I'm chuckling at the ranting about midsize trucks, but honestly, I hate full-size trucks.

Anyone with a Tacoma can leave the thread right now, because it's a pathetic excuse for a "truck" regardless of configuration. Toyota "Camry-fied" that thing with a quickness, and they get outperformed in almost every meaningful category to the Frontier.

The new Colorado looks slick. However, need I remind everyone that there's a reason the Colorado went away? Yep - Quality. IIRC, it was dead-last in customer satisfaction and dead-last in reliability. GM screwed the pooch on that thing, which drove buyers to the Taco and Fronty in droves.

I don't like F/S trucks because I don't need one. I don't like the extra size, because they're unwieldy and cumbersome in traffic and parking lots. Most of the stuff I need to haul in a truck bed is smaller than a sheet of plywood, and having seen what off-roading does to a truck, I don't plan on taking anything off-road unless it's a POS Craigslist Special.

Our Fronty pulls 6K lbs like there's nothing behind it. It handles like a car. It has a small turning radius. It rides like a firmly-sprung luxury car. It doesn't rattle. It's quiet inside. It hauls a$$. It's fun to row through all six gears, and it gets fair to decent fuel economy.

I'm always impressed when we tow a car out (or back) from CA... We're towing a 18-foot steel car hauler with a 2700-lb car on it, pulling a 6-7% grade at 70mph in 110* heat with the A/C on full-blast, passing vehicles with almost no effort, and looking good (and being comfortable) doing it.

Even with 120K trouble-free miles on the clock, it's still the most impressive vehicle we've ever owned, period.

[nissangirl74]

Little did I know the day I bought that truck the cool things she would do and the places she would go. As much as I love Bella, the 3, and the rest of the fleet, she will always be my favorite. No question.

[Jesda]

It's amazing what an exhaust system, upgraded stereo, upgraded suspension, and manual transmission can make. Becky's pickup is a hoot to drive while the brand new automatic Frontier 4.0 I rented for a month was like a Buick Century with a pickup bed. They drive like completely and entirely different vehicles.

[Bubba1]

Just curious. Am I the only one to notice some folks bash automobiles for having "dated" designs, yet seem to warmly embrace midsized pickups that have gone mostly unchanged for years (ie. Ranger, Tacoma, Frontier)?

[AZhitman]

Just curious. Am I the only one to notice some folks bash automobiles for having "dated" designs, yet seem to warmly embrace midsized pickups that have gone mostly unchanged for years (ie. Ranger, Tacoma, Frontier)?

Truck people don't care about "style" for the most part. When the "cutout" design started (having the bed "cut into" the cab), I think people freaked out, but now it's commonplace.

What I DON'T like is the fake s*** like stick-on overfenders, flares, bulges, and faux skid plates that so many domestics (and Toyota) use to project an "image" of toughness, when it's just plastic and trim.

A designer's job, IMO, is to stretch the sheetmetal over the important parts and GTFO. Leave the phony bulges and creases and wannabe macho s*** to Pontiac.

[Jesda]

Just curious. Am I the only one to notice some folks bash automobiles for having "dated" designs, yet seem to warmly embrace midsized pickups that have gone mostly unchanged for years (ie. Ranger, Tacoma, Frontier)?

Do your tools have pretty embellishments?

No. They're functional and basic.

[AZhitman]

Point and laugh.