Wow, some people are stuck in the stone age. Trucks today are way more capable than the previous models. They still make V-6 Engines if you don't need the HP. If you want less HP, put a block of wood under the gas pedal. It's not like the Ecoboost is always putting out 365 HP, or the 5.0 is always making 360 HP. The 96 F150, Reg Cab 5.0, 199 HP I just got rid of only got me a best of 16 MPG all highway driving. My replacement for it, my 02 F150 5.4 with 260 HP has already achieved 17 MPG and it's a Super Cab and probably outweighs the 96 by 500 lbs or more. I do not miss the 96 at all. My Bro-in-Law's 2014 F150, 5.0 is even more of an improvement to my 02. There's a reason Ford sells so many trucks, it because they are making what people want. That's why they sell. If you want a stripped down model, you are going to have to do some searching or special order it, because they are not where the money is at, and last I checked, Ford is in business to make money.

 

I understand what you guys are getting at, but I really don't think the average Joe or Jane Truck Buyer is interested in the same things as you are. Ford doesn't care if someone buys it to tow their boat, haul their camper, or as a rolling status symbol. They build trucks to sell to as wide of a market as possible. And like it or not, there are a great many people who buy large vehicles because they perceive them to be safer.

I tend to think the 2.7L EcoBoost engine is going to be geared towards people like yourselves who are interested in efficient power that may not get them to the top of the hill the fastest. Sadly the J2807 standard will not permit what any would consider to be an underpowered tow vehicle. None of the Class 8 tractors I've driven would come anywhere close to passing that test with a loaded trailer. I suspect the idea is that the average Joe Public won't know how to deal with a truck that takes a full minute to come up to speed on the highway.

Not that a guy like me would buy one anyway. I really like fuel economy, but even moreso I liked how the current-gen EcoBoost engine handled my 11,000 lb trailer. I'd take the bigger engine and sacrifice an MPG or two. I suspect most people will, but of course the option is there for those who don't want it.

Where do you get your 84 MPH figure from?

 

Remembering the past is not living in the past. I like all of the creature comforts as well. Remember this, "those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it"

FYI, my old 1985 F150 5.0EFI/AOD returned a maximum of 22.8 mpg on one trip from Spokane to Seattle. I was in the company of a Bronco, which used twice as much fuel. Of course I dropped to the minimum freeway speed on hills, and was not towing and not loaded. Funny thing is the Bronco driver (my son) blasted up the hills, but ended up waiting at the top for me anyways.....

So the main point is that styling still does not make up for the certain amount of intractability high trucks have when it comes to loading. Having automatic door locks, auto temp control HVAC is nice and desirable to me, but in no way does having those items mean that I also have to have a impractical higher than needed truck.

That is my main point here. Practicality over form.

But that said, I can also see a redesigned ENTIRE light truck market, make them all short hood / cabover, with the cab and fenders able to tilt up to access the engine. Imagine being able to stand next to the engine to work on it rather than straddled over the fenders. Imagine how much easier routine maintenance would be.

Imagine a shorter truck than what we have now, that turns more sharply and has a 12' box! Wow what a hauler. It would also make getting a proper loading on the front axle easier, especially with those long slide in campers. Imagine being able to use all of the load capacity in the front axle as well as the rear, unlike now where a large camper makes the nose of the truck rise up and the rear squat!

But I can dream now can't I. So cabovers / short hoods are ugly .... who cares! The practicality far outweigh any "lack of styling" besides, I do not need a long hood(or a tall truck) to make myself feel like I have a long p****.

Each to their own. David

 

But you may need that long hood to meet government-mandated crash tests. Even if you could make and sell one legally, a truck whose first line of defense on a frontal crash is the driver's legs probably wouldn't sell well.

Ever since driving trucks I've thought how nice it would be to have an engine bay like a commercial truck. Unfortunately I can't imagine making that work with a body structure that could stand up in a wreck.

 

I used to own exactly what you described. They were called Econoline pickups.



They never sold well, so we used to get them cheap for work trucks. The biggest problem with them was the ride quality, sitting over the axle made for a very uncomfortable ride. I also don't think they would have faired too well in a head on collision, but thankfully I never got to test that hypothesis.

They were fun vehicles, but I can't say I really miss them either. Later we bought Econoline chassis cabs with tray-backs, and that was the way to go. You could drop the sides, which made loading and unloading with heavy equipment very easy.

 

I understand the safety concerns. However I feel that with proper engineering it could be overcome. I mean look at the smart cars, they pass just fine and they have a pretty short hood. Besides that little 900cc engine Smart engine albeit hampered by a crappy automated manual, still is fast enough to get a speeding ticket in any of the fifty states. Not a truck nor a towing beast, but it does go to prove a point that you do not need to have a lot of horsepower to get down the road and speed fast enough to get tickets.

It is but a true basic transportation tool for sure. But the heated seats are a nice tough!

So back to safety, which is why if not a true cabover, then a short hood cab forward, but in no way do we need such long hoods as we have now, at least in my opinion. An anything that can reduce the overall length of the truck would make for a much more desirable turning radius.

But I do have to agree with you that it would not be every one's cup of tea, but on the same token the "hooded" trucks are not every one's cup of tea either.

Of course then there is this idea, since the cabs are made to be taken off for major engine work anyways, why not just strengthen the front fenders and make the whole front end and cab tilt up on the current trucks, what a easy access that would make, although not much for shortening the truck.

In other words there are way to design things other than the way they are, just like Ford is bringing out more aluminum in the truck building, seems semi's went to aluminum frames and front axles once as well... at least until the truckers got the ridiculous and road destroying 80 / 105k weight limits, on interstates that were designed originally for 50k loads.

Those though who always think outside the box are poopoo-ded by the majority, but without those that think outside of the box, we would never advance. Imagine that at one time tire air filled rubber tires were considered "impossible" and a real folly. Or a steel wheel on a steel rail was considered impractical, and look at how well trains move...

Or remember that boat propellers were once designed like screws, to screw the prop thru the water. Now look at propeller design, yet the new design was once considered Fulton's folly.

I would hazard to guess that I don't know 10% of what it takes to sell trucks, but I also feel the current "performance" at the cost of all else is a limiting factor on what could be designed, and sold. Not everyone is used to taking a country mile to get up to speed, but the point is that they could, if that was the mandate.

Food for thought

David

 

One good reason for them driving luxury vehicles is that they are tax deductions (in many cases the total amount) when they claim they are used for "business" purposes. Guess who actually pays for their write-offs?

 

Very close to my thinking, but the main difference would be a separate cab that tilts from the bed. Otherwise engine access is still limited.

As to ride, well a modern air ride suspension rather than the buggy spring suspension used (although with shocks added) would go a long ways to making the ride as smooth as a normal / conventional truck.

Modernize and build it and I will buy it!

Nice looking truck by the way, and look at that visibility with the corner windows!

David

 

BTW - You tube has a great video on these, made by Chevrolet promoting the rear engine Corvair pickup over the Falcon/Econoline pickup showing how on hard braking the Ford product with people but no cargo stands on its front bumper due to weigh transfer.


David

 

I really agree with your thinking David, but my point was mainly that not everyone will. The old adage "If you build it they will come" really doesn't apply if you don't understand why your customers buy your product. In September, 2009 I bought a brand-new Suzuki B-King for over $4,000 off MSRP. They were made for the 2008 model year, and Suzuki thought they would sell here because bikes like that sell well in other markets. It was a dismal flop, dealers couldn't get rid of them without incredibly deep discounts. It was, at least in my opinion, a perfect bike: LOTS of power that goes well with reasonable ergonomics. But the market for a performance-oriented motorcycle that didn't look and ride like the other modern supersports just didn't exist. Nobody made any money on them, and they were discontinued after that year.

Build a truck that doesn't resonate with the reasons why people buy pickups and your sales numbers will be dismal. Take, for example, the Honda Ridgeline that sold only 50,193 units its first year of production. Groundbreaking in many regards and able to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of half-ton truck owners with far above average fuel economy. And it didn't work. In 2010 they sold less than 10,000 units. It didn't fit the V8/RWD mold that "proper" half-tons had, and it couldn't tow five tons. Most of the folks whose needs never exceeded the capabilities of the Ridgeline never even considered it.

 

Tom, I certainly agree with this, that is why we need to break the stereotypical V-8/RWD mindset, that is so heavily promoted by the car makers. Front wheel drive in the average play or commute only 1/2 ton makes a whole lot sense. Same with a smaller more efficient engine. Not so much for those trucks that are actually used for more than hauling a couple of potted plants once a year from Home depot.... and then some of those types worry about scratching the inside of the bed.. lol it is a truck!

Funny how all the current high horsepower semi's do not use V-8's, so much for the need to have a V-8 to have power.

But I have to agree - there is a old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, and my ideas are mine, and I am not sure that all would like what I would drive, just like I don't always like what others want to drive. There just has to be a way of at least getting back to at least the fuel economy of 1978!! Let alone stopping the ever longer and higher trucks that are hard to load and take a country mile to turn.

David

 

Well, not everything from the "good old days" were all that good.

 

Wow! you guys are bringing up some good points.
More guts to me means better milage, less horsepower, maybe a foot of ground clearance all the way around, lower sides ( I can add higher sides with the 2x4 holes, remember them?), decent load carrying.

Less bluff means no oversized body, less reckless passing ability, less horsepower.
In that vein, I like dmanlyr's posts and points of view.

Here are another thoughts:
there are just too many motorists on the road to safely drive like a maniac. Roads are better, but the population has doubled since 1950.

Work on a 50 mpg F150 frame may be just what we need if the CO2 passes the point of no return. We could push that with batteries charged by solar panels. Maybe only 50 HP. I really would like pick-ups to survive as long as there are roads to drive on.

As a marketing point, I would suggest that many buyers now are over 55 or 65 y.o.
We know who we are, we really don't care what anyone else thinks about our manhood.
We don't need to prove a thing to anybody or make a statement on the road.
Convertables are just right for those of us over 55 that still aren't sure who we are.
We had good jobs and we can buy trucks. The reckless drivers have to hock their parent's house to get a mortgage on an over-priced, big shiny, flimsy bodyed toy.

We wince when we see a soccer mom who has no idea what 6000 pounds at 80 mph really means. So she drives that big pickup 10 feet from our rear bumper and maneuvers as to push us out of her way. The car makers are catering to just that customer's maniacal ego and reckless stupidity rather than marketing a safe and sensible ride.
But if she (or he) lives long enough they may figure out that they as customers have been duped by marketing. Some may be lawyers looking for a good class action deal. Reckless marketing, or marketing to the reckless side of customer's personalities, might make a good class action.

Here is another thought:
I never want to buy anything but American, but those VOLVOs are beginning to look reasonable. Help me!

 

I'll add this, back when we had tighter fuel economy standards and the base horsepower on a F150 was around a hundred horsepower, guess what, nobody starved, nobody lacked anything, the campers still pulled there trailers and the economy still worked fine. People got there groceries, people lived their lives just fine. People will live believe it or not if they have to slow down for hills, and guess what they might just save a little fuel in the process which means that they have more to spend on their vacations!

Now days people with the diesels can't imagine pulling with anything less than 300 or 400 hp diesels ---- but guess what people pulled there large fifth wheels just fine with the 155 to 170 6.9's. They still got to the same camp grounds, still had the same fun times.

Back in the day we had Class 8 trucks with little 220 Cummins in them, yes 80k with a 220. Wasn't much for power, found hills where one could not be seen, but the dam things averaged close to 10mpg loaded, a couple of drivers beat 10 mpg, and were rewarded with a fuel bonus..... and the deliveries got made and everyone was happy. Funny how the economy did not collapse or people starve just because people had to slow down a bit on hills. In fact these trucks, just like all of the higher mileage cars of the past really did put a dent in the wealth transfer to countries that really do not care for us. You could say driving a fuel efficient car and truck is truly patriotic.

Well so be it, horsepower sells to some, but just because the truck has 300+ horsepower does not mean it has to be taller than the older models. Just because it has greater creature comforts does not mean that it has to be less usable as a truck, or taller for that matter! How about a Lariet with rubber floor mats? Can't get it from Ford, but my 03 had the carpet removed and rubber mays installed. Gotta love the heated leather seats AND the rubber floor mats.

But more importantly, why does the truck have to sit so high? Why does it have to weigh so much that my 90' F250 has more usable weight capacity than a great big old F350! Yup, I can carry less weight legally in my F350 than a older F250! What's so "superduty" about that???

Not that the old days were so good. I miss heated seats on the 1990! I do not miss carburetor's or lack of a decent four speed overdrive / lockup automatic one bit in these light trucks. But why not keep what works, and add to it, rather than each new truck design seemingly getting taller and taller with corresponding harder to deal with bed sides and height?

And I will leave with this thought, if we can have 365hp ecoboosts, why can we not even meet the 1978 29 mpg fuel rating?

David

 

If Ford marketed the world Ranger here in North America, it would satisfy most of the concerns in this thread. However, an F-150 XL 4x2 RCSB with the 3.7L V-6 gets better MPG's and lays down better power numbers than a V-6 mid sized trucks.

Sorry guys, thankfully the 80's and 90's are gone. These were horrendous years for quality control and reliability. Gosh, while we're at it, we should go back to bias ply tires, 5 fans belts, no clear coat paint and a selling point where the rear bumper is an option like it was in the 80's.

But don't get me wrong: I don't believe that all of the advancements are for the best. For instance, climate control selections using electric motors to operate dampers just sucks. Interior material quality is plain lousy. The bumpers are a joke, Ford's warranty is out dated and uninspiring and yet, the prices are through the roof.

Even with that rant, I still believe that trucks are better built than ever before.