This is a huge vehicle, probably more than 6' tall and, in profile view, the cab seems to be about 60% of the vehicle's length. This seemed particularly odd for such a big truck as I recall that the BED on my '76 Toyota seemed closer to 60% and the bed on the Dodge did not look as long as I remember the Toyota to be.
Did this Ram have a long bed or a short bed? If it had the long bed, it should be 8' long. Probably more like 9', once you consider the bulkhead in front and the tailgate. However, with the truck being so tall, and having high sides, and being wide, it's going to make the bed seem smaller than a 70's subcompact truck that's narrow and only has sides that come up crotch-high.
My '85 Silverado is 212" long overall. So if you factor in 108" for the bed, that's 51% of the overall length right there. Add maybe another 8" I guess, for the bumper, and you've got 55% of the truck's length being aft of the cab.
As for why you need a cab that big, simple. Several reasons, actually. First off, if that truck is something like 77-80" wide, why would they put a SMALLER cab on it? Might as well make the whole thing flow. Also, when you only have one row of seats, 3-across seating is more important. Sure, a lot of these things come with bucket seats, but keep in mind, that cab is also used in heavier-duty 3/4 and 1-ton (and possibly heavier) work trucks.
I've had three people across in my '85 Silverado, and it can be done with ease. Nobody gets crowded against the door, nobody's shoulders have to overlap. No problem with the center passenger crowding into the driver's space. And full-sized trucks these days are at least as wide inside, although some of them have a larger tranny hump in the center, which does limit the usefulness of the center section a bit.
The typical standard-sized pickup has around 65" of shoulder room, which is probably more generous than any mass-produced car ever had. I think some of GM's more basic '71-76 fullsizers were close, as was the '91-96 Caprice et al., but they also had doors that bowed in at the bottom and windows that curved in sharply at the bottom. So shoulder room might have been good, but you'd lose room up where your head is, or down where your feet are.
If the thing has a useable back seat, 3-across seating isn't so critical. But when you only have one row, it's essential.
Just out of curiosity, how "useful" would a 2008 Tacoma with the 2.7 4-cyl/automatic be. I see it's EPA-rated at 19/25, which IMO is pretty impressive. I think my Intrepid 2.7, under the new system, is 19/27.
I've sat in the new Tacomas, and they're not bad, with regards to legroom. However, I don't like the off-center steering (where you don't sit directly behind the wheel), nor do I like that crammed-up-against the door panel feel. For all that complaining though, I thought it was a better effort than the previous-gen Tundra, which felt like they just pulled some seats out of something little, like a Corolla, and plopped them into the truck.
In contrast, my '85 Silverado, under the new ratings, is a whopping, big-block-esque, 12/15!
I see. We need an extra TON of vehicle to provide space for one more person, but with only 65lbm more payload capacity, less than 1/2 ton capacity is available in the bed!??
Where are you getting this ton from? Comparing it to a modern small-ish truck, or to a 1970 tin can? I've ridden in a 90's Tacoma, and it had the kind of cowl shake and hood shimmy that I thought had been eradicated years ago. I remember helping to load a tv into it (an old 70's Sony console...unlike the cars back then, old Japanese tv's were BEEFY!), and when it bumped the side of the bed wall, it flexed noticeably. So if this Tacoma was that flexible, I shudder to imagine what a 1970's model would be like!
So yeah, it probably would take a ton to beef up a full-sized truck to the point that it wouldn't flex at the slightest breeze and rust away the first time you took it to the beach! :P
I do agree though, a lot of these modern pickup trucks ARE too heavy. Heck, I was shocked the day I found out that my '85 Silverado weighed 4200 lb! For some reason, I thought it was more like 3800.
In my earlier post, I was comparing the Dodge to my '76 Toyota long-bed and contrasting the small gain in incremental utility to the huge increase in size and mass. The Toyota was neither flimsy nor a rustbucket and had greater torsional rigidity than demonstrated by many domestic pickups when one rear wheel is on high ground. Granted, this is a comparison of old to new, but that is my point - small, useful vehicles seem to have disappeared and the utility of new vehicles has not scaled with their size and mass.
Granted, this is a comparison of old to new, but that is my point - small, useful vehicles seem to have disappeared and the utility of new vehicles has not scaled with their size and mass.
I actually agree with you here, to a point. Now personally, I wouldn't have found much use in a '76 Toyota pickup, because I probably wouldn't even be able to fit behind the wheel! However, even in some of these bigger small trucks of today, I'm still not all the comfortable, and in many ways their usefulness has diminished.
I remember a guy at work having some kind of 80's Toyota truck called a "space cab" or something like that? Had a pretty long bed. Not quite in the 8-foot league, but still pretty long. And it had storage/jump seats behind the front seat. Useless for passengers in any realistic sense, but really handy for storage. One reason he held onto it for so long was that they quit making small, extended-cab pickups that had a bed that long.
I really wish that they'd start making smaller trucks in the 3/4 and 1-ton variety. It really doesn't take much to push a half-ton truck up past its GVWR. For instance, my '85 Silverado basically has a payload of 1200 pounds. 5600 lb GVWR, 4200 lb weight, but I'm around 200 pounds. So, unless I want to get out and run along beside! :P
Anyway, a load of firewood, piled up roughly to the top of the bed wall, is about 2000 pounds. A cubic yard of dirt is around 2700-2800. A cubic yard of #57 gravel is around 3200 lb. I've done the firewood thing in my truck, and it seemed okay. The dirt, not so well. After the third load, I heard two snaps, one right after the other. And then I noticed my twin exhaust pipes dangling at a funny angle. Guess they got pinched between the rear axle and the bottom of the truck! :sick: They were pretty rusty too, so maybe it was just their time?
I wouldn't have found much use in a '76 Toyota pickup, because I probably wouldn't even be able to fit behind the wheel!
I owned one('76 Toyota 4 speed) and if I could fit behind the wheel I am sure you could have. I am 6'6", but the Toyota's, and I guess most trucks even today, did not have the center console to interfere with leg room. We could actually get three across, but that was in high school when I was alot skinnier.
I owned one('76 Toyota 4 speed) and if I could fit behind the wheel I am sure you could have. I am 6'6", but the Toyota's, and I guess most trucks even today, did not have the center console to interfere with leg room. We could actually get three across, but that was in high school when I was alot skinnier.
Were Toyota's trucks somehow bigger inside than the 70's than, say, a 1990's Tacoma? I found the 90's Tacoma to be pretty cramped inside. I mean yeah, I could fit. But I just wouldn't have wanted to be in it for any longer than I had to.
I remember as a kid, my grandparents taking me down to see some relatives in Lynchburg, VA, in a 1972 LUV. Granddad driving, Grandmom in the passenger seat, and me in the middle. It was a stick shift, too. Looking back, even if I was a lot smaller then (I was like 8 or 9), I can't imagine how we squeezed in that truck for that long of a trip!
I guess one thing that (I hope) is better with the new heavy trucks is safety. I seem to remember those 70s trucks being pretty crushable, especially in a rollover. :sick:
I guess one thing that (I hope) is better with the new heavy trucks is safety. I seem to remember those 70s trucks being pretty crushable, especially in a rollover.
From what I've heard, the newer trucks are pretty bad in rollovers as well. On one hand, the roof pillars themselves are stronger and thicker, but with more sharply sloped windshields and hoods, and more weight bearing down, the roofs are just as likely to fold as they ever were.
New trucks might be even more prone to rolling over, since they sit higher, but aren't much wider, and most likely have a higher center of gravity. And lower-profile tires that are grippier aren't going to give you much warning before they let go. At least those old bias ply tires, or the 75-series radials, would start to squeal and warn you well before they actually broke loose and sent you out of control.
At least newer trucks don't have those 2-inch thick doors, like the little ones of the 70's did. So as long as they don't flip, they should be safer when t-boned.
The xA is a nice vehicle, and does all three things well. For its time the Simca 1204 did also, and in rather surprising comfort. The seats were extremely comfortable in typical French fashion, and highway mileage at 70MPH was 35MPG.
Given your background, you may know the 1204 (1100 in Europe) was actually the basis for the design of the Golf, Rabbit, and later the Horizon (I know, bad car!). Extremely popular in France and in other parts of Europe, the 1204 bombed here in the USA, primarily because Chrysler didn't know how to market a small FWD hatch with excellent space utilization. The design was very unique for its time when it was introduced in 1967: Transverse engine, FWD, torsion bar independent suspension at at four corners, long suspension travel, hatchback, fold-down rear seat (for example, an 8-foot step ladder fit into the car with the hatch closed), etc. In some respects, the Nissan Versa is a 21st century equivalent to the 1100/1204.
There simply were not that many FWD cars around in the late '60s. BMC Minis, 1100s, and Austin Americas, Citroens, Renault R16, etc., - and, the Olds Toronado, and possibly the Caddy Eldorado - but, they were few and far between, with the exception of the BMC's running around.
Well in a nutshell, what's "wrong" with subcompacts is what's always been "wrong" with them and what always will be "wrong" with them. They're too small. While not "wrong", per se, they just don't fit the needs and wants of some people. And the only way to fix those shortcomings is to make them bigger. But if you make them too much bigger, then they're no longer subcompacts! Kind of a catch 22 situation. And then, when you start making them bigger, giving up the small size that makes them easier to park and move in tight spaces, and sometimes sacrificing fuel economy, you end up breaking what's "right" to fix what's "wrong".
Basically, subcompacts have their niche, and for that niche they do quite nicely. And they really have come a long way. But if what you really need is a larger car, the typical subcompact ain't gonna cut it.
I owned a Simca 1204 GLS during the same period. A great little hatchback, it had all of the qualities that Shifty enumerated as necessary for success. However, it was a captive import, and Chrysler didn't quite know what to do with it.
Hahaha....I can just see the Smart Pickup Commercial
"SMART Pickups...built TOUGH!
And then we'll pan in to a crane dropping a stack of potholders on the bed, and watch the suspension hunker down.
SIMCA 1100: I do remember that car. Too premature for the American market. It really took the VW Rabbit to introduce the hatch in mass market numbers. That car was a piece of crap but it was fun to drive and young drivers loved it.
It's a subjective thing, but you can throw ride in there, too. Small cars usually don't have very good suspension dampening, and the short wheelbases often contribute to a choppy, jittery ride. Now more expensive small cars can fix this problem with more sophisticated suspension setups and such, but most subcompacts are built to a price point.
Of course, big cars can have ride problems, too. I don't think I've ever seen a little car that could induce sea-sickness, like some of the floatier sub-species of those big 70's mastodons could.
Basically, ANY class of car is going to have its shortcomings. It's just the nature of the beast. If there was ONE class that fit all, you wouldn't have four different classes of cars (5 if you count mini-compacts, which the EPA does have a classification for)
In a sick sort of way, that SMART truck looks like it would have some functionality to it. Kinda like those old van-based cabover pickups from the 60's, like the Dodge A-100 and such. Pickup utility in a shorter package. And at least with the SMART, your legs don't rest ahead of the front axle!
Spot on with the 1100 - the right car at the wrong time. I had the 4-door GLS version, and it was really a very nice vehicle. Frankly, I wish I had it now!
Since it was a captive import, and when Chrysler dumped the car, parts acquisition became a huge problem. Chrysler sold ALL parts to one distribution company near Chicago - and, the prices, well you know! The only flaw in the FWD design was the half-shafts. The inner tripod CV joint liked to fail after about 35K, but replacement was very easy. You couldn't buy the joint, rather you had to replace the entire half-shaft at a price of around $150.
The longitudinal torsion bars for the front suspension and the transverse torsion bars for the rear suspension made for extremely space efficient suspension packaging - no springs per se of course, or struts to worry about. This resulted in maximum space utilization inside the vehicle. I wonder why more cars, especially with trailing arm or wishbone rear suspensions, didn't use torsion bars. I know, technically a torsion bar is nothing more than a spring, but its compact packaging allows for excellent space utilization.
I was always at the not so practical end of sub-compacts with my friends owning Rabbit GTIs, Civic/CRX SIs, Colt Turbos, Subaru GL-10s, Omni GLH-Ss and a Fiesta or 2 thrown in there. Oh and of course, the Sentra SE-R and derivatives. I spent ALOT of time in SE-Rs/NX200s/G20s and really never went wanting more, but that was also a relatively thirsty 2.0l w/140hp. Oh and as far as the compact truck thing, that early 80s Toyota 1-ton did everything I ever asked of it and that 22R went forever.
I see your point. Ram 1500 happens to be quite popular at my neighborhood Enterprise, so I have driven quite a few of those. Those things are unnecessarily big, extra size used in all the wrong places (others are almost as guilty of it). Some of it might also be perception, as it seems these automakers try to “bulk up” the look to make them look more “manly” (if true, that would be quite an irony). But, I may not be too far in my assumptions. A lot of folks do seem to buy into it.
And that might also explain why some might not be considering subcompact (cars).
(don't think it's a real SMART though even though it says so)
Wow a Smart El Camino with 6 wheels! Make it AWD and I'd actually consider buying one! Throw in a Hayabusa engine to power it and you'd have a real winner!
" but most subcompacts are built to a price point."
Most cars, period, are built to a price point. I suppose even trucks are, until you get up to the heavy duty models, and maybe even then.
As for that automatic 4-cyl Tacoma, the '07 was rated 21/27 EPA, so VERY close to your Intrepid! Good little trucks too. Up until a couple of years ago they had a base 2.4 for the RWD trucks that made even better gas mileage, but they nixed it when they did the last model update and oversized their smallest truck...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Pickup trucks by definition suggest a certain "utility". They have to be a certain size to work, like a spoon or a shovel. Too small is useless for most people.
But a subcompact car does not suggest utility as much as it does "accommodation to a set of circumstances".
are you saying that those buying the lithium-battery-powered rigs will be doomed(as in when they crash in to another car), or, do you mean that we are all doomed if this is what cars are coming to?
are you saying that those buying the lithium-battery-powered rigs will be doomed(as in when they crash in to another car), or, do you mean that we are all doomed if this is what cars are coming to?
I think he means Doomed as it sales wise. $35K will buy you a lot of car and 100 miles on a charge is pathetic! Wait a few years and all kinds of new technology will be coming out. Diesel hybrids are the way of the future only they will set them up like a railroad train. They will use hub motors in the wheels and power them with a diesel engine as well as a modified lithium battery back, something modified from what they currently have. Just give it a few years and Hub electric motors will replace all others. diesel is well suited to powering electric motors and the battery issue is about 3-4 years away from a real break through. I don't have a link, this is just what I believe.
Will the new technology be a boon or a bust to larger vehicles? It seems that it might give the American consumer to opportunity to get good fuel mileage and have their mid sized and larger cars.
I will admit that Shifty has a point that in town a small car has advantages because it is nimble enough to take some of the stress out of city driving. I just believe for most people 109 HP is a little light for daily use. I do believe small sub compacts can have a place as long as they aren't a primary car. As a second car in a small town I could live with one of those "think" cars from Chrysler. Because town in only one mile away and the next town is only five miles away. A sub Compact just isn't my idea of fun car for Trips of any distance.
But one other feature shifty didn't mention is that for a sub compact to do most of the things he does with his it almost "has" to have a manual. Not that manual is bad just that with an automatic most sub compacts stop being nimble and most americans don't like manuals. So unless we get more CVTs sub compacts will need more power in general to please the american buying public.
As daysaler pointed out they are almost determined not to make cars light and simple so a sub compact that is about as heavy as a compact but has less HP than a compact is going to fell like less of a car once it is loaded with fuel and whatever else you might put in it.
Will the new technology be a boon or a bust to larger vehicles? It seems that it might give the American consumer to opportunity to get good fuel mileage and have their mid sized and larger cars.
I don't know, do you consider a 6,000HP Diesel railroad engine to be big? The technology that is used to run the huge trains is easily scaled down for cars although what with Americans wanting to take up the max amount or real estate with their cars I'm certain a Hummer can accomodate a system like this as easily as a Honda Fit. I've seen tiny cars with this setup in them and for certain electric hub motors give you options like 2WD or even the traditional 1WD that most cars without a LSD have. With 2 motors one is each rear wheel or any other setup you could use that power under load and then switch to 1WD for highway cruising. This is the subcompact forum and I don't want to drift off to big cars. Suffice it to say you can use the technology in any size vehicle. electric motors have full torque from 0 rpms. Now if you have a diesel hybrid you just run the electric motors directly off the diesel when under full load. if you have a partial load you are generating lots of electric power fed into batteries which will power the electric motors fully until it's nearly discharged or as a boost for up a hill. The new Tech from MINI allows a diesel motor to shut off while at a light saving fuel. Regenerative braking and eliminating aerodynamic drag could easily get you up to 100mpg in a properly designed subcompact. Hummer sized stuff is another matter due to it's excessive overweight-ness. Subcompacts in order to give a big car ride which is the primary complaint would by design need to be wider, longer and heavier and then they are no longer subcompacts. So what is really wrong with subcompacts is they aren't big cars, according to you. Now I'll admit most subcompact cars do NOT get good enough fuel economy to warrant buying them for the vast majority of car buyers as is proven by monthly sales records. But get one that has decent power to do everything and is relatively comfortable and gets 100mpg and you will sell all you can make, if the price is right. I have owned many large cars going way back to a 1968 Buick Electra 225 and a 1965 Fleetwood Caddy. No question the land yachts give a great ride on the highway. However as cities get more and more congested and fuel keeps going up in price we are screwed if we stick to owning monster sized vehicles. The Fit really needs 20HP more for big highways and certainly i've owned a Geo Metro before as well as a 1995 Honda Civic Hatch and both had less HP than a Fit and I had no problems with either of them on long commutes daily. All we have to do is give subcompacts a big car feel in a small car package and some snazzy looks and great fuel economy and that should fix the problem. too bad it isn't that easy. :sick:
"All we have to do is give subcompacts a big car feel in a small car package and some snazzy looks and great fuel economy and that should fix the problem. too bad it isn't that easy."
It is if you buy a MINI! :P
However, the problem with the MINI is the same problem you have when you shop at one of those upscale supermarkets. Everything looks so good on the shelves and then you go to checkout and stare in disbelief at the total on your "itemized option list".
RE: "DOOMED"
Yeah, I meant that I thought a $35,000 electric car that pooped out at 100 miles range was fairly pathetic, given that a 1920 Detroit Electric would go 65 (albeit not so fast); also I meant that I thought that the SMART in general was doomed, since 34,000 deposits at $99 would add up to about 10,000 sales maybe and that economy of scale will not support a major automotive manufacturing effort---just as SMART has failed to support one in the past---hence the SMART's continuing red ink. Looks like SMART is the Avanti of micro-cars?
However, the problem with the MINI is the same problem you have when you shop at one of those upscale supermarkets. Everything looks so good on the shelves and then you go to checkout and stare in disbelief at the total on your "itemized option list".
My biggest gripe with MINI is there are no dealers near me. BMW doesn't sell them. If BMW sold them then I might consider one especially a diesel. But the dealer needs to be less than an hour away. I can't take a day off of work to get my car repaired or serviced.
Yeah, I meant that I thought a $35,000 electric car that pooped out at 100 miles range was fairly pathetic, given that a 1920 Detroit Electric would go 65 (albeit not so fast); also I meant that I thought that the SMART in general was doomed, since 34,000 deposits at $99 would add up to about 10,000 sales maybe and that economy of scale will not support a major automotive manufacturing effort---just as SMART has failed to support one in the past---hence the SMART's continuing red ink. Looks like SMART is the Avanti of micro-cars?
I'd take the bet that the Smart car will be like the Studebaker. I've heard all the pissing and moaning from car reviewers about the Smart but in the end for a city car. Boston, Manhattan, LA, Chicago, Miami, etc.... Any place where you really want to drive a motorcycle because you don't want to drive your car around the area for 30+ minutes to find a parking space that proves to be too small once you do manage to find one. But for rural commuters or like myself vast highway jaunts, it's a no go. Parking I do not worry about. They will move someones car or let me park anywhere I want because they called me to be there. But if I had to commute back into Boston too much highway, however parking is a solid nightmare and pay parking is insane. I do go into the Metro area but not into the city as there are no factories in Boston proper. Still if I lived in Boston I'd consider the Smart. My biggest gripe with it is no manual transmission and that kills it right off for me. The thing that will kill the Smart is if urban commuters don't warm up to it. If you have to do any real highway driving even a Fit is bare minimum nowadays unless you want to be run off the road by a semi doing a buck ten. The $99 deposit is a marketing ploy. The Smart Roadster they have in the UK has a lot more power and seems a lot of fun but the Mini Cooper S still wins out. MINI tempts me and if they release their AWD version within a few years then I might decide to drive more than an hour away to get it serviced. AWD and a diesel would rock my world! The Avanti was ahead of it's time. Lets see what Smart can do. Nero hasn't started fiddling yet. The fat lady isn't even out of bed yet. :shades: I'm all for giving it a chance. Toss in a Manual tranny and that Hayabusa engine and watch out Mama! Wonder if it's possible to do that legally.
I understand the system and have not understood why it wasn't introduced sooner. Marine applications have been using a motor to turn a electric turbine for years. the resulting increase in economy has been very impressive and the additional power on tap has been impressive as well. The offer of hybrids before we got any was for cars that would preform as well if not better using less fuel. That is not what we got. We got cars that have very weak performance but did get reasonable fuel mileage.
I could see myself in a EV or Hybrid if I didn't have to sacrifice twenty years of automotive performance progression to get it. A motor be it diesel or gas turning at the ideal RPM for fuel savings and torque production could easily generate enough power for car it would seem. I can generate 6000 Watts in my home generator with an old Brigs for 10 hours on 5 gallons of gas. How hard should it be to get something even better for our vehicles?
But if we did get something like you suggest how would that effect the sub compact market?
I understand the system and have not understood why it wasn't introduced sooner. Marine applications have been using a motor to turn a electric turbine for years. the resulting increase in economy has been very impressive and the additional power on tap has been impressive as well. But if we did get something like you suggest how would that effect the sub compact market?
Well for starters subcompacts are supposed to by their very design give you excellent fuel economy as a trade off for their smaller size. However I am not seeing any 50mpg cars out there. The hybrid systems take up too much space and weight. Hub motors remove a large part of that problem. diesel is far more suited to continuous duty than a gas engine. Since compacts have the least amount of room they benefit the most from the smaller scale of everything giving you more room in a car which is already pretty small to begin with.
The hybrid systems take up too much space and weight.
Not really. If you look at Honda's IMA system, the electric motor simply replaces the fly wheel. The IPU takes a little space, and battery is probably the biggest culprit.
Hub motors are a strong possibility in the future. Honda has showcased a few hybrid prototypes using that idea (2001 Dualnote/DNX which had hub electric motors to power front wheels while IMA unit powered the rear wheels; 2002 RDX which was quite different from the RDX in production today, had Dualnote like hub motors but powering the rear wheels, while front wheels were powered by IMA set up). In fact, Honda has, apparently, filed for a patent on hub electric motor for its motorcycle unit (the company had showcased a dual mode hybrid 2-3 years ago, not sure if it used hub mounted electric motor).
If it can go in a motorcycle, I see no reason why it can't be put in a subcompact. Perhaps we might see just that with the economy hybrid from Honda (next year?).
Comments
Did this Ram have a long bed or a short bed? If it had the long bed, it should be 8' long. Probably more like 9', once you consider the bulkhead in front and the tailgate. However, with the truck being so tall, and having high sides, and being wide, it's going to make the bed seem smaller than a 70's subcompact truck that's narrow and only has sides that come up crotch-high.
My '85 Silverado is 212" long overall. So if you factor in 108" for the bed, that's 51% of the overall length right there. Add maybe another 8" I guess, for the bumper, and you've got 55% of the truck's length being aft of the cab.
As for why you need a cab that big, simple. Several reasons, actually. First off, if that truck is something like 77-80" wide, why would they put a SMALLER cab on it? Might as well make the whole thing flow. Also, when you only have one row of seats, 3-across seating is more important. Sure, a lot of these things come with bucket seats, but keep in mind, that cab is also used in heavier-duty 3/4 and 1-ton (and possibly heavier) work trucks.
I've had three people across in my '85 Silverado, and it can be done with ease. Nobody gets crowded against the door, nobody's shoulders have to overlap. No problem with the center passenger crowding into the driver's space. And full-sized trucks these days are at least as wide inside, although some of them have a larger tranny hump in the center, which does limit the usefulness of the center section a bit.
The typical standard-sized pickup has around 65" of shoulder room, which is probably more generous than any mass-produced car ever had. I think some of GM's more basic '71-76 fullsizers were close, as was the '91-96 Caprice et al., but they also had doors that bowed in at the bottom and windows that curved in sharply at the bottom. So shoulder room might have been good, but you'd lose room up where your head is, or down where your feet are.
If the thing has a useable back seat, 3-across seating isn't so critical. But when you only have one row, it's essential.
I've sat in the new Tacomas, and they're not bad, with regards to legroom. However, I don't like the off-center steering (where you don't sit directly behind the wheel), nor do I like that crammed-up-against the door panel feel. For all that complaining though, I thought it was a better effort than the previous-gen Tundra, which felt like they just pulled some seats out of something little, like a Corolla, and plopped them into the truck.
In contrast, my '85 Silverado, under the new ratings, is a whopping, big-block-esque, 12/15!
So yeah, it probably would take a ton to beef up a full-sized truck to the point that it wouldn't flex at the slightest breeze and rust away the first time you took it to the beach! :P
I do agree though, a lot of these modern pickup trucks ARE too heavy. Heck, I was shocked the day I found out that my '85 Silverado weighed 4200 lb! For some reason, I thought it was more like 3800.
I actually agree with you here, to a point. Now personally, I wouldn't have found much use in a '76 Toyota pickup, because I probably wouldn't even be able to fit behind the wheel! However, even in some of these bigger small trucks of today, I'm still not all the comfortable, and in many ways their usefulness has diminished.
I remember a guy at work having some kind of 80's Toyota truck called a "space cab" or something like that? Had a pretty long bed. Not quite in the 8-foot league, but still pretty long. And it had storage/jump seats behind the front seat. Useless for passengers in any realistic sense, but really handy for storage. One reason he held onto it for so long was that they quit making small, extended-cab pickups that had a bed that long.
I really wish that they'd start making smaller trucks in the 3/4 and 1-ton variety. It really doesn't take much to push a half-ton truck up past its GVWR. For instance, my '85 Silverado basically has a payload of 1200 pounds. 5600 lb GVWR, 4200 lb weight, but I'm around 200 pounds. So, unless I want to get out and run along beside! :P
Anyway, a load of firewood, piled up roughly to the top of the bed wall, is about 2000 pounds. A cubic yard of dirt is around 2700-2800. A cubic yard of #57 gravel is around 3200 lb. I've done the firewood thing in my truck, and it seemed okay. The dirt, not so well. After the third load, I heard two snaps, one right after the other. And then I noticed my twin exhaust pipes dangling at a funny angle. Guess they got pinched between the rear axle and the bottom of the truck! :sick: They were pretty rusty too, so maybe it was just their time?
I owned one('76 Toyota 4 speed) and if I could fit behind the wheel I am sure you could have. I am 6'6", but the Toyota's, and I guess most trucks even today, did not have the center console to interfere with leg room. We could actually get three across, but that was in high school when I was alot skinnier.
Were Toyota's trucks somehow bigger inside than the 70's than, say, a 1990's Tacoma? I found the 90's Tacoma to be pretty cramped inside. I mean yeah, I could fit. But I just wouldn't have wanted to be in it for any longer than I had to.
I remember as a kid, my grandparents taking me down to see some relatives in Lynchburg, VA, in a 1972 LUV. Granddad driving, Grandmom in the passenger seat, and me in the middle. It was a stick shift, too. Looking back, even if I was a lot smaller then (I was like 8 or 9), I can't imagine how we squeezed in that truck for that long of a trip!
From what I've heard, the newer trucks are pretty bad in rollovers as well. On one hand, the roof pillars themselves are stronger and thicker, but with more sharply sloped windshields and hoods, and more weight bearing down, the roofs are just as likely to fold as they ever were.
New trucks might be even more prone to rolling over, since they sit higher, but aren't much wider, and most likely have a higher center of gravity. And lower-profile tires that are grippier aren't going to give you much warning before they let go. At least those old bias ply tires, or the 75-series radials, would start to squeal and warn you well before they actually broke loose and sent you out of control.
At least newer trucks don't have those 2-inch thick doors, like the little ones of the 70's did. So as long as they don't flip, they should be safer when t-boned.
Given your background, you may know the 1204 (1100 in Europe) was actually the basis for the design of the Golf, Rabbit, and later the Horizon (I know, bad car!). Extremely popular in France and in other parts of Europe, the 1204 bombed here in the USA, primarily because Chrysler didn't know how to market a small FWD hatch with excellent space utilization. The design was very unique for its time when it was introduced in 1967: Transverse engine, FWD, torsion bar independent suspension at at four corners, long suspension travel, hatchback, fold-down rear seat (for example, an 8-foot step ladder fit into the car with the hatch closed), etc. In some respects, the Nissan Versa is a 21st century equivalent to the 1100/1204.
There simply were not that many FWD cars around in the late '60s. BMC Minis, 1100s, and Austin Americas, Citroens, Renault R16, etc., - and, the Olds Toronado, and possibly the Caddy Eldorado - but, they were few and far between, with the exception of the BMC's running around.
Seems like the "subcompacts" thread has run out of steam...only took 5941 posts...
Basically, subcompacts have their niche, and for that niche they do quite nicely. And they really have come a long way. But if what you really need is a larger car, the typical subcompact ain't gonna cut it.
C'est fantastique!!! :shades:
1. They are too small for big people
2. They might not be comfortable for journeys over 300 miles or so.
3. Some of them blow around a bit in the wind.
4. Some of them don't give good enough gas mileage for their size.
As for more questionable criticisms (hard to prove, easy to challenge)
1. They are dangerous compared to big cars
2. They project an image of inferiority and poverty
3. Then don't have enough cargo space
"SMART Pickups...built TOUGH!
And then we'll pan in to a crane dropping a stack of potholders on the bed, and watch the suspension hunker down.
SIMCA 1100: I do remember that car. Too premature for the American market. It really took the VW Rabbit to introduce the hatch in mass market numbers. That car was a piece of crap but it was fun to drive and young drivers loved it.
The Smart Pickup.
Also announcing - standardized plywood panels in 1x3 sheets.
Of course, you really can find a pic of such a thing out there on the world wide web.
link (odd photo - it shows up in Firefox but not in IE). This one may work.
Of course, big cars can have ride problems, too. I don't think I've ever seen a little car that could induce sea-sickness, like some of the floatier sub-species of those big 70's mastodons could.
Basically, ANY class of car is going to have its shortcomings. It's just the nature of the beast. If there was ONE class that fit all, you wouldn't have four different classes of cars (5 if you count mini-compacts, which the EPA does have a classification for)
(don't think it's a real SMART though even though it says so)
Since it was a captive import, and when Chrysler dumped the car, parts acquisition became a huge problem. Chrysler sold ALL parts to one distribution company near Chicago - and, the prices, well you know! The only flaw in the FWD design was the half-shafts. The inner tripod CV joint liked to fail after about 35K, but replacement was very easy. You couldn't buy the joint, rather you had to replace the entire half-shaft at a price of around $150.
The longitudinal torsion bars for the front suspension and the transverse torsion bars for the rear suspension made for extremely space efficient suspension packaging - no springs per se of course, or struts to worry about. This resulted in maximum space utilization inside the vehicle. I wonder why more cars, especially with trailing arm or wishbone rear suspensions, didn't use torsion bars. I know, technically a torsion bar is nothing more than a spring, but its compact packaging allows for excellent space utilization.
Back to the discussion of the new subcompacts.
I spent ALOT of time in SE-Rs/NX200s/G20s and really never went wanting more, but that was also a relatively thirsty 2.0l w/140hp.
Oh and as far as the compact truck thing, that early 80s Toyota 1-ton did everything I ever asked of it and that 22R went forever.
And that might also explain why some might not be considering subcompact (cars).
(don't think it's a real SMART though even though it says so)
Wow a Smart El Camino with 6 wheels! Make it AWD and I'd actually consider buying one! Throw in a Hayabusa engine to power it and you'd have a real winner!
Most cars, period, are built to a price point. I suppose even trucks are, until you get up to the heavy duty models, and maybe even then.
As for that automatic 4-cyl Tacoma, the '07 was rated 21/27 EPA, so VERY close to your Intrepid! Good little trucks too. Up until a couple of years ago they had a base 2.4 for the RWD trucks that made even better gas mileage, but they nixed it when they did the last model update and oversized their smallest truck...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But a subcompact car does not suggest utility as much as it does "accommodation to a set of circumstances".
New Car Buying: smart vs. SUV
Smart Fortwo: Urban Spitfire Comes to the USA
I don't know about you guys and gals, but I feel much safer propelling myself along in my '08 Mitsu Lancer GTS. Lookin' better too.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I think he means Doomed as it sales wise. $35K will buy you a lot of car and 100 miles on a charge is pathetic!
Wait a few years and all kinds of new technology will be coming out. Diesel hybrids are the way of the future only they will set them up like a railroad train.
They will use hub motors in the wheels and power them with a diesel engine as well as a modified lithium battery back, something modified from what they currently have. Just give it a few years and Hub electric motors will replace all others. diesel is well suited to powering electric motors and the battery issue is about 3-4 years away from a real break through.
I don't have a link, this is just what I believe.
I will admit that Shifty has a point that in town a small car has advantages because it is nimble enough to take some of the stress out of city driving. I just believe for most people 109 HP is a little light for daily use. I do believe small sub compacts can have a place as long as they aren't a primary car. As a second car in a small town I could live with one of those "think" cars from Chrysler. Because town in only one mile away and the next town is only five miles away. A sub Compact just isn't my idea of fun car for Trips of any distance.
But one other feature shifty didn't mention is that for a sub compact to do most of the things he does with his it almost "has" to have a manual. Not that manual is bad just that with an automatic most sub compacts stop being nimble and most americans don't like manuals. So unless we get more CVTs sub compacts will need more power in general to please the american buying public.
As daysaler pointed out they are almost determined not to make cars light and simple so a sub compact that is about as heavy as a compact but has less HP than a compact is going to fell like less of a car once it is loaded with fuel and whatever else you might put in it.
I don't know, do you consider a 6,000HP Diesel railroad engine to be big?
The technology that is used to run the huge trains is easily scaled down for cars although what with Americans wanting to take up the max amount or real estate with their cars I'm certain a Hummer can accomodate a system like this as easily as a Honda Fit.
I've seen tiny cars with this setup in them and for certain electric hub motors give you options like 2WD or even the traditional 1WD that most cars without a LSD have.
With 2 motors one is each rear wheel or any other setup you could use that power under load and then switch to 1WD for highway cruising.
This is the subcompact forum and I don't want to drift off to big cars. Suffice it to say you can use the technology in any size vehicle. electric motors have full torque from 0 rpms.
Now if you have a diesel hybrid you just run the electric motors directly off the diesel when under full load. if you have a partial load you are generating lots of electric power fed into batteries which will power the electric motors fully until it's nearly discharged or as a boost for up a hill. The new Tech from MINI allows a diesel motor to shut off while at a light saving fuel. Regenerative braking and eliminating aerodynamic drag could easily get you up to 100mpg in a properly designed subcompact.
Hummer sized stuff is another matter due to it's excessive overweight-ness.
Subcompacts in order to give a big car ride which is the primary complaint would by design need to be wider, longer and heavier and then they are no longer subcompacts. So what is really wrong with subcompacts is they aren't big cars, according to you.
Now I'll admit most subcompact cars do NOT get good enough fuel economy to warrant buying them for the vast majority of car buyers as is proven by monthly sales records.
But get one that has decent power to do everything and is relatively comfortable and gets 100mpg and you will sell all you can make, if the price is right.
I have owned many large cars going way back to a 1968 Buick Electra 225 and a 1965 Fleetwood Caddy.
No question the land yachts give a great ride on the highway. However as cities get more and more congested and fuel keeps going up in price we are screwed if we stick to owning monster sized vehicles. The Fit really needs 20HP more for big highways and certainly i've owned a Geo Metro before as well as a 1995 Honda Civic Hatch and both had less HP than a Fit and I had no problems with either of them on long commutes daily.
All we have to do is give subcompacts a big car feel in a small car package and some snazzy looks and great fuel economy and that should fix the problem.
too bad it isn't that easy. :sick:
too bad it isn't that easy."
It is if you buy a MINI! :P
However, the problem with the MINI is the same problem you have when you shop at one of those upscale supermarkets. Everything looks so good on the shelves and then you go to checkout and stare in disbelief at the total on your "itemized option list".
RE: "DOOMED"
Yeah, I meant that I thought a $35,000 electric car that pooped out at 100 miles range was fairly pathetic, given that a 1920 Detroit Electric would go 65 (albeit not so fast); also I meant that I thought that the SMART in general was doomed, since 34,000 deposits at $99 would add up to about 10,000 sales maybe and that economy of scale will not support a major automotive manufacturing effort---just as SMART has failed to support one in the past---hence the SMART's continuing red ink. Looks like SMART is the Avanti of micro-cars?
My biggest gripe with MINI is there are no dealers near me. BMW doesn't sell them. If BMW sold them then I might consider one especially a diesel. But the dealer needs to be less than an hour away. I can't take a day off of work to get my car repaired or serviced.
Yeah, I meant that I thought a $35,000 electric car that pooped out at 100 miles range was fairly pathetic, given that a 1920 Detroit Electric would go 65 (albeit not so fast); also I meant that I thought that the SMART in general was doomed, since 34,000 deposits at $99 would add up to about 10,000 sales maybe and that economy of scale will not support a major automotive manufacturing effort---just as SMART has failed to support one in the past---hence the SMART's continuing red ink. Looks like SMART is the Avanti of micro-cars?
I'd take the bet that the Smart car will be like the Studebaker. I've heard all the pissing and moaning from car reviewers about the Smart but in the end for a city car.
Boston, Manhattan, LA, Chicago, Miami, etc....
Any place where you really want to drive a motorcycle because you don't want to drive your car around the area for 30+ minutes to find a parking space that proves to be too small once you do manage to find one.
But for rural commuters or like myself vast highway jaunts, it's a no go.
Parking I do not worry about. They will move someones car or let me park anywhere I want because they called me to be there.
But if I had to commute back into Boston too much highway, however parking is a solid nightmare and pay parking is insane. I do go into the Metro area but not into the city as there are no factories in Boston proper.
Still if I lived in Boston I'd consider the Smart. My biggest gripe with it is no manual transmission and that kills it right off for me.
The thing that will kill the Smart is if urban commuters don't warm up to it. If you have to do any real highway driving even a Fit is bare minimum nowadays unless you want to be run off the road by a semi doing a buck ten.
The $99 deposit is a marketing ploy. The Smart Roadster they have in the UK has a lot more power and seems a lot of fun but the Mini Cooper S still wins out.
MINI tempts me and if they release their AWD version within a few years then I might decide to drive more than an hour away to get it serviced. AWD and a diesel would rock my world!
The Avanti was ahead of it's time. Lets see what Smart can do. Nero hasn't started fiddling yet. The fat lady isn't even out of bed yet. :shades:
I'm all for giving it a chance. Toss in a Manual tranny and that Hayabusa engine and watch out Mama!
Wonder if it's possible to do that legally.
I could see myself in a EV or Hybrid if I didn't have to sacrifice twenty years of automotive performance progression to get it. A motor be it diesel or gas turning at the ideal RPM for fuel savings and torque production could easily generate enough power for car it would seem. I can generate 6000 Watts in my home generator with an old Brigs for 10 hours on 5 gallons of gas. How hard should it be to get something even better for our vehicles?
But if we did get something like you suggest how would that effect the sub compact market?
But if we did get something like you suggest how would that effect the sub compact market?
Well for starters subcompacts are supposed to by their very design give you excellent fuel economy as a trade off for their smaller size. However I am not seeing any 50mpg cars out there. The hybrid systems take up too much space and weight. Hub motors remove a large part of that problem.
diesel is far more suited to continuous duty than a gas engine. Since compacts have the least amount of room they benefit the most from the smaller scale of everything giving you more room in a car which is already pretty small to begin with.
Not really. If you look at Honda's IMA system, the electric motor simply replaces the fly wheel. The IPU takes a little space, and battery is probably the biggest culprit.
Hub motors are a strong possibility in the future. Honda has showcased a few hybrid prototypes using that idea (2001 Dualnote/DNX which had hub electric motors to power front wheels while IMA unit powered the rear wheels; 2002 RDX which was quite different from the RDX in production today, had Dualnote like hub motors but powering the rear wheels, while front wheels were powered by IMA set up). In fact, Honda has, apparently, filed for a patent on hub electric motor for its motorcycle unit (the company had showcased a dual mode hybrid 2-3 years ago, not sure if it used hub mounted electric motor).
If it can go in a motorcycle, I see no reason why it can't be put in a subcompact. Perhaps we might see just that with the economy hybrid from Honda (next year?).
NYT hybrid article