I agree, the quality and engineering put into new trucks is leaps and bounds better than the trucks of ten or fifteen years ago. You have to go back pretty far before you get into any truck that I'd call more durable, and those are far less capable. I owned a 1977 F250 SuperCab with the 460 and camper special package. Great truck, very reliable. Thing is, my plush family hauler 2012 truck can handle about the same payload, a larger trailer, gets better fuel economy, has a dozen creature comforts, and rides much nicer. Only thing it's missing is the rumble under the hood and a bunch of hard surfaces in the interior to hurt yourself on in a crash.

 

Ford has the truck you (and others like me) are looking for...
It's a Ranger XL but it's not being sold in this country for reasons that completely astonish me....
Slap a small diesel in it ( like the rest of the world has) and you'll be looking at 30+ mpg on the highway and enough payload to carry your tools to work or haul your boat on the weekend....


Here's one with a 2.2 L diesel

 

New 2014 Ford F-150 XL For Sale in Grapevine TX EFC41959 | Grapevine New Ford For Sale 1FTMF1CMXEFC41959


http://services.forddirect.fordvehic...MF1CMXEFC41959

Is this what you're looking for?

 

I don't know why we can't get a better truck either. I guess if Ford will only offer the better truck overseas, then I should pay attention to my long-time drooling after the small toyota pickups. I wan to reply to all the suggestions here that new trucks are better than old trucks and that we are just nuts for wanting an old truck. I don't think anyone here said we wanted a 1959 ford. The thing we want is a decently designed and functional new truck. Please include the electric window cranks and the sound system. Please delete all the boops and beeps and idiot proofing. Please let customers decide when we want the lights on or off.

 

The problem with that is that most of that stuff is safety stuff that is mandated by the government.

 

I am not sure why people on this thread equate those who want a more functional truck to wanting a old truck. NOTHING could be farther from the truth in reality, what some of us want, with some differences is a NEW truck that does not sacrifice some of the old practicality.

Not one who commented on some people living in the stone age, wanting old trucks cared to answer why the new trucks have to be built so high. Not one.

I am a little different than Ray, I want a truck that does everything for me, I like the auto headlights and the automatic (aka Rain Sense) windshield wipers like my 02' Olds Bravada has. I like the most comfortable truck possible on the inside, without perhaps the carpet on the floor, but with the most functional and no glitz on the outside to make it usable as a hauler.

But that said, I am with Ray in wanting a more fuel economy, along with less height so loading is easier. I also want more than a 8' bed, and easier engine access. Why cannot any of these improvements be made? They have in the past, and could be done in the future as well. Yes, GMC longhorn trucks had a 8-1/2 box in the late 60's! Yes, trucks of the 80's don't have half the engine buried under the extreme rake of the windshield, after all as high as these trucks sit, with all of the exposed undercarriage do you really think having a highly raked windshield has any appreciable effect on economy or is it just for "styling"?

Why, I can answer one of them myself, it is called "styling" over functionality, and some of the current styling has absolutely nothing to do with government safety regulations. Why is the emphasis always on styling rather that practicality and function? People need trucks, and a more practical and user friendly truck would still sell, if the car makers knocked off this whole carefully crafted Kar Kulture atmosphere. I will say it again, showing adds that show a car or truck on a closed track "racing" with the disclaimer "closed course, do not attempt" should be illegal to air.

I would hope to shout that with all of the reliability improvements as well on the new trucks along with all that extra and I might add, unusable horsepower in a land with speed limits, why cannot we have at least the same fuel economy that we did in 1978? Why is the emphasis on horsepower and not the fuel economy? Why not be at 35 mpg with a gasoline engine by now, if 29 was achievable with 1978 technology, 35 or more should be achievable today!!!! I mean really we are only taking a gain of 6 mpg.. isn't that achievable after 35 years of "improvement"? Remember, no one starved when some trucks were rated at 29 mpg! Stuff still got hauled, and still got towed, as it would if we were all driving 35 or more mpg trucks.

And that is not living in the past, just wanting the future to not trash what was truly useful, as well as what works and worked well in the past, but instead to take the best of the past and build upon that to have something that is better than ever.

Improvement in the new trucks, and they have improved, but not a step backwards to have to have a step ladder to comfortably load over the side of a new truck, or have to have running boards to be able to slide into the truck easily.

Just thoughts and questions. I hope Ford is listening. David

 

I was alive and well in 1978 and I can't recall any truck being rated at 29 MPG. Proof please.

 

Here ya go - Download Fuel Economy Data I was alive and well too, and fresh from the memory of the 70's fuel crunches.

Scroll down to the 1978 model year.

But my mistake, for 1978 it was only 28 mpg, not 29. It may have been 29 for the 79 model year, but the EPA information does not have the highway numbers for 1979 listed, just the city.

Even at that 1 mpg less, it sure makes the new trucks look thirsty, being that they have 35 years to have improved upon the 1978 numbers.

Thanks for asking, made me look it up again to refresh my memory.

David

 

a person who drives like an Ahole will do it in any vehicle.....and please show me a commercial for any car/truck that isn't touting is power or nimbleness or some degree of "sportiness".....even Buick is trying to shed it`s old person car image

 

I will out harken reckon and out right what-the-hecken you but I'll never insult your favorite truck because it would just be downright rude. Now I have owned a variety of trucks and every single one of them served as a dirt hauling lumber transporting tool filled workhorse and also as my limo. I had a 76 Silverado a 70-something Plymouth Arrow and a 2003 V6 Ranger before purchasing just the other day a new 2014 F150. I actually ordered it a couple months ago, wanted it stock cuz didn't feel like paying for the extras and like to keep my floors clean and carpet doesn't handle my lifestyle well. This truck will work every bit as well as my others high sides and all cuz remember gentlemen and ladies it's not the truck doing the work it's the guy busting his *** outside throwing whatever it is he's throwing into it etc. even the guy commuting to an office job needs to look forward to his drive don't you think?

Now I've driven lower HP cars and I've liked them and I don't fault you if that's your style but I like the sound of my V8 and my 360 horses and if Americans were "sold" on performance you can look for the invoice date sometime around 1910 buddy!

 

Yes speed limits are there to protect us but are you telling me that it's un-American to blast your hot rod down the road on a quiet and deserted Sunday morning when everyone is safely still tucked into bed or eating bacon in their jammies? We all know the sound I'm talking about, the sound of some beastly engine roaring and we can hear it even if we're a half mile away. That IS America my friends - I mean it is a part of America - and that sound is music to my ears whether I'm just listening or making the growl. Peace to y'all.

 

As long as I am paying the bill, I will decide how much horsepower I need or want, if you want 110 horsepower and 60 miles per hour, that is your perogitive, in 1981, I owned a chevy c10 with a v8 with maybe 150 horse, with a 2.56 rear gear and a 4 spd with overdrive, this truck was unable to pull 4000 lb boat out of a fairly shallow boat launch, this truck was called a super saver in the sales brochure, it was perhaps the most useless truck I ever owned, for me these new trucks will do what I want them to do, I do not need some nanny stater telling me what I should be driving, as to how I drive, the government sets the rules and I follow them! In 1978, a family friend had a long bed reg cab f-350 4x4 with a 351, that truck got 9 miles per gallon going up hill or down, I highly doubt it could do what my f-150 with a v6 can do!

 

Choices....it's all about choices...and that's what manufacturers should offer us.

If a guy want a 400 hp V8 for his truck he should have that option.

If a guy wants a turbocharged 4 cylinder he should have that option

If a guy want the best of both he should be allowed to get a diesel.

Cramming this Ecoboost nonsense down our throat is short sighted and in the end will come back to bite Ford in the you know what.

Just sayin....

 

Not real sure I understand what you're getting at. You haven't been able to get a 400 HP V8 in a pickup truck until 2009 when GM put the 6.2L V8 into the Silverado 1500. Before that they simply didn't exist.

Those who want a V8 will still be able to get the 5.0L engine which happens to make far more power than any of the previous generation engines. I suspect CAFE requirements killed the 6.2L in the F150. Is that really cramming "Ecoboost nonsense" down our throat?

 

Tom, this horse is dead. Don't you know all us happy EcoBoost owners were "sold a bill of goods" and "manipulated" into buying this engine? Don't you know it's only marketing that's keeping us happy day after day, stoplight to stoplight, tow to tow?