Pardon Me… Your Behind is Showing - Page 6 - Fiberglass RV


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-17-2016, 10:56 AM   #71
Senior Member
 
cpaharley2008's Avatar
 
Name: jim
Trailer: 2016 2ndGen Escape19 Prairie Schooner pulled by 2014 Dodge Ram Hemi Sport
Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,398
Registry
Agreed, the small trucks are getting bigger and the bigger trucks are also growing...
__________________

__________________
Jim
Never in doubt, often wrong
cpaharley2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 12:04 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 6,046
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carol H View Post
Got to ask Floyd, if they hired you to fix the design problem what would you design that does not impact the trucks bed carrying capacity?
Given a choice,I really would never own one of these oversized trucks for a daily driver.
But to answer your question....
I would not really need to do much to fix the problem since it was adequately addressed in most of the older model trucks.
Wheel and tire sizes are the general limiting factors for ground clearance, so jacking the bodies up so that it is difficult to access the cab or the box is unnecessary. Secondly the standard depth of the boxes on the older fullsized trucks was plenty adequate.
I just spent some time this week working on a 1969 Chevy with an 8ft box. The ACREAGE of the box on that truck speaks for itself.
The cab was easy to get into and out of and the top of the nearly arm deep box was barely above elbow height.
The standard box sizes which persisted through 70's,80's, and 90's were plenty large enough, as was ground clearance for on road driving and most off road.
The front clips could loose a little bulk with no loss of useful room for people or cargo which could also improve visibility and maneuverability.

If I were FORCED to buy a new full sized truck today...I might consider a new Ford Transit cab&chassis, then shorten the frame, move the axle forward and fit a standard pickup box. In my case a 6fter.

The real problem is not so much size , but CHOICE! There are plenty of trucks blocking the driving lanes when angle parking on the streets of our country, but the buyer is no longer offered a reasonable sized truck which can perform the tasks of everyday life while still fitting in the driveways, garages, and parking spots in which we park our other vehicles.
Now I realize that most folks have cell phones nowadays, but you shouldn't need one to simply talk to someone across the cab of your truck, Some have so much wasted space that the console holds more than the trunk on a compact car!
. Those who must endure the inconvenience of a large truck in order to gain the work capacity could still buy an F250 or larger truck if they would just down size the F150 and bring back the Ranger for real world everyday use.
Bravo... GM brought back the fullsized truck in the form of the Colorado, Whoopee! but at least it is a step in the right direction.
__________________

__________________
floyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 12:11 PM   #73
Junior Member
 
Name: larry
Trailer: Casita, but in the market for a bigfoot
Colorado
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
Given a choice,I really would never own one of these oversized trucks for a daily driver.
But to answer your question....
I would not really need to do much to fix the problem since it was adequately addressed in most of the older model trucks.
Wheel and tire sizes are the general limiting factors for ground clearance, so jacking the bodies up so that it is difficult to access the cab or the box is unnecessary. Secondly the standard depth of the boxes on the older fullsized trucks was plenty adequate.
I just spent some time this week working on a 1969 Chevy with an 8ft box. The ACREAGE of the box on that truck speaks for itself.
The cab was easy to get into and out of and the top of the nearly arm deep box was barely above elbow height.
The standard box sizes which persisted through 70's,80's, and 90's were plenty large enough, as was ground clearance for on road driving and most off road.
The front clips could loose a little bulk with no loss of useful room for people or cargo which could also improve visibility and maneuverability.

If I were FORCED to buy a new full sized truck today...I might consider a new Ford Transit cab&chassis, then shorten the frame, move the axle forward and fit a standard pickup box. In my case a 6fter.

The real problem is not so much size , but CHOICE! There are plenty of trucks blocking the driving lanes when angle parking on the streets of our country, but the buyer is no longer offered a reasonable sized truck which can perform the tasks of everyday life while still fitting in the driveways, garages, and parking spots in which we park our other vehicles.
Now I realize that most folks have cell phones nowadays, but you shouldn't need one to simply talk to some one across the cab of your truck, Some have so much wasted space that the console holds more than the trunk on a compact car!
. Those who must endure the inconvenience of a large truck in order to gain the work capacity could still buy an F250 or larger truck if they would just down size the F150 and bring back the Ranger for real world everyday use.
Bravo... GM brought back the fullsized truck in the form of the Colorado, Whoopee! but at least it is a step in the right direction.
Don't forget the government regulations in place since the golden age (1969). Just to mention a few: crash ratings, roll over sensitivity, tire pressure monitoring, back up camera, and there are many others. I believe some of the lack of maneuverability is restricted turn radius to reduce roll over tendency. And crash ratings drive a lot of the front end design. Of course "styling" is driving the push to larger tires.
__________________
larryc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 01:12 PM   #74
Senior Member
 
minke's Avatar
 
Name: alan
Trailer: looking
Colorado
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryc View Post
Don't forget the government regulations in place since the golden age (1969). Just to mention a few: crash ratings, roll over sensitivity, tire pressure monitoring, back up camera, and there are many others. I believe some of the lack of maneuverability is restricted turn radius to reduce roll over tendency. And crash ratings drive a lot of the front end design. Of course "styling" is driving the push to larger tires.
In about '04 the F-250s and F-350s had a complete front end re-design that yielded (among other things) a significantly diminished turning radius. I don't know if that was just 4WD or all models.

I spend some time at the Ford Truck Enthusiast message board and am astonished at the importance of cosmetics to a noticeable population. I just thought that they are trucks and unlikely to be displayed at the Museum of Modern Art.
__________________
minke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 01:30 PM   #75
Senior Member
 
Carol H's Avatar
 
Name: Carol
Trailer: 22' Airstream Formerly 16' Scamp
British Columbia
Posts: 11,731
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpaharley2008 View Post
I think you may have used the wrong numbers here.....
Suspect a typo.
Carol H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 01:33 PM   #76
Moderator
 
Jim Bennett's Avatar
 
Name: Jim
Trailer: 2017 Escape 5.0 TA
Alberta
Posts: 4,727
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by minke View Post
just thought that they are trucks and unlikely to be displayed at the Museum of Modern Art.
There was an old Airstream there, the last time I was at MOMA. I guess a Ford pickup would be just as fitting.
__________________
2017 Escape 5.0 TA (January 26)
2015 Ford F150 Lariat 3.5L EcoBoost
2009 Escape 19 (previous)
“Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.” — Abraham Lincoln
Jim Bennett is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 01:59 PM   #77
Senior Member
 
minke's Avatar
 
Name: alan
Trailer: looking
Colorado
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bennett View Post
There was an old Airstream there, the last time I was at MOMA. I guess a Ford pickup would be just as fitting.
I'd look forward to a format like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Ranch .
__________________
minke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 03:09 PM   #78
Senior Member
 
DeBreez's Avatar
 
Name: Jim
Trailer: 2015 Casita 17SD
Miami, FL
Posts: 161
The new full-size pickups are pretty nice, and I especially like the F-150s. but when I bought my 02 Tundra, one of the things that sold me on it was the fact that it was about 90% the size of the competition. My previous truck was a 95 S-10 (worst piece of junk I've ever owned) and in 02 the small pickup choices weren't all that great - at least, they didn't fit my needs.

My 02 had higher ground clearance than its contemporaries, is super maneuverable and has a nice ride. It also pulls my Casita like it's not there. I like tech, but I don't feel the need to have a consumer electronics showcase in my vehicle.

Now, the new Tundras are as big as the Fords and Chevy's, and the Tacoma has grown to the size of my first generation Tundra. If I was to replace the Tundra, I'd consider the crew cab Tacoma, though.
__________________
DeBreez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 03:17 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
Roy in TO's Avatar
 
Name: Roy
Trailer: 1972 boler American and 1979 Trillium 4500
Ontario
Posts: 4,954
The only complaint I might have about the box size on my 94 Ranger is that it is just a tad short in height to hold a 20# propane tank upright with the Tonneau cover I have.

A minor inconvenience that I can live with. I can leave the Tonneau open and lock the tank.
__________________
Roy in TO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 05:13 PM   #80
Raz
Senior Member
 
Raz's Avatar
 
Name: Raz
Trailer: Trillium 2010
Vermont
Posts: 4,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeBreez View Post
The new full-size pickups are pretty nice, and I especially like the F-150s. but when I bought my 02 Tundra, one of the things that sold me on it was the fact that it was about 90% the size of the competition. My previous truck was a 95 S-10 (worst piece of junk I've ever owned) and in 02 the small pickup choices weren't all that great - at least, they didn't fit my needs.

My 02 had higher ground clearance than its contemporaries, is super maneuverable and has a nice ride. It also pulls my Casita like it's not there. I like tech, but I don't feel the need to have a consumer electronics showcase in my vehicle.

Now, the new Tundras are as big as the Fords and Chevy's, and the Tacoma has grown to the size of my first generation Tundra. If I was to replace the Tundra, I'd consider the crew cab Tacoma, though.
I had an '03 Tundra. Very nice truck and certainly a big improvement on my '91 Ranger. When the time came to replace it, I went with the Nissan Frontier over the Tacoma. For my purposes all three are sized just right. Not much smaller than my '80s full size Fords and Chevys and certainly more reliable. I suspect my next truck will be a Honda. Raz
__________________
Raz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 06:17 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 6,046
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raz View Post
I had an '03 Tundra. Very nice truck and certainly a big improvement on my '91 Ranger. When the time came to replace it, I went with the Nissan Frontier over the Tacoma. For my purposes all three are sized just right. Not much smaller than my '80s full size Fords and Chevys and certainly more reliable. I suspect my next truck will be a Honda. Raz
My '92 Ranger was a 4.0L 5SPD with a 3:08LS gear, it was a great truck,It had articulated Mustang GT style seats, leather wrapped tilt wheel with cruise, a great stereo, a sunroof and everything else I wanted, including unsurpassed performance and reliability. It was like a sports car with a big trunk and the ability to tow my car trailer.
All that... and I only paid $9000.
__________________
floyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 07:11 PM   #82
Senior Member
 
Jay H's Avatar
 
Name: Jay
Trailer: Boler 1300
Ontario
Posts: 254
I have had a '87 Ford Ranger that I loved, a 92 Nissan Hardbody that was cheap and decent and I have been driving a 2004 GMC Canyon for 12 years now. I am 6'4" and I bought all 3 trucks because I fit in them (not so comfortably in the Nissan..). I live in the country and always have and I have always preferred a truck. I don't see the need for me to have a huge truck so I appreciate the options on the market. (I am looking forward to the return of the ranger too).
Yes, the new canyon/colorado are nothing like the old S10 in size and really they are more like 80s or 90s era full size trucks but I still see that as an option. I would rather buy a midsize than a current model full size. The only thing I really wish hadn't gotten bigger on the midsize trucks was the purchase price - guess I'll have to drive my truck a few years longer!
__________________
Jay H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2016, 07:42 PM   #83
Moderator
 
Jim Bennett's Avatar
 
Name: Jim
Trailer: 2017 Escape 5.0 TA
Alberta
Posts: 4,727
Registry
Ford will be giving us new sizes within the next year or so, when they bring back the Ranger and Bronco.

The Ranger will be a great tow vehicle. Though larger than the previous model in North America, it is still smaller than the F150, and offered elsewhere in the world with a 2.2 or 3.2 litre diesel. If it has the payload capacity, it would be a contender for an Escape 5.0 TA.

Not sure the Bronco will be a good tow vehicle, or not, as it maintains the short wheel base similar to its predecessor, kinda like the Jeep YJ.
__________________
2017 Escape 5.0 TA (January 26)
2015 Ford F150 Lariat 3.5L EcoBoost
2009 Escape 19 (previous)
“Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.” — Abraham Lincoln
Jim Bennett is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 06:15 AM   #84
Senior Member
 
Roger H's Avatar
 
Name: Roger
Trailer: Y2K6 Born Free 32RQ on the Kodiak chassis, 1995 Coachmen 19' B-van and 1996 Precision 21' Sailboat
Iowa
Posts: 5,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
What really bothers me though is that the new vehicles are little more than smart phones with wheels. Nobody seems to care about the mechanicals anymore, they simply want to know how many "apps" they can get on the big screen dash.

Of course, there are all those terrifying new electronic "safety" devices which take control away from the driver. (for his own good of course)
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
I'm not a Luddite when it comes to technology, but I do resent the ersatz technology provided by electronics which has completely stifled any progress in real mechanical improvements and taken the driver out of the equation.
Electronics are an important element (still overused) in engine control technology but the rampant and excessive use of electronics for peripherals is nothing short of obscene.
A vehicle should do the same exact thing with the same input every time, and drivers should go back to learning how to drive and paying attention to the task at hand.
Oh man, Floyd, did you punch my buttons here! I bought a new Jeep Wrangler Rubicon in February. I needed a towed that can, itself, tow at least 3500 lbs in really bad weather as I tow my Kubota tractor 30 miles to an apartment building I own and do my own mowing in the summer and snow removal in the winter. i also tow, launch and, recover my 2,500 lb 21' trailer-sailor sailboat on some pretty steep ramps.

I wanted Dana 44 rear ends front and back, with a heavy-duty transfer case (a Dana 300 would have been just fine) and a six-speed manual transmission. I don't even care if the thing has a radio, frankly. Manual window regulators are fine. I have a $99 Magellan gps, I don't need it in-dash. I have mirrors, I don't need a backup camera. I simply want it to go where I want to go, be easy to tow behind the moho, and two 3500 lbs.

So I walk into a Chrysler dealer and sit down with a twenty-something salesman who asks me to rank the features I want, and he starts with Bluetooth, Nav, and how many speakers I want! This is a JEEP I'm looking at for cryin' out loud! The last two I had were CJs that barely had real seats!

I looked at him as seriously as I could muster and said, "Son, I don't give a sh*t about ANY of that nonsense. I want Dana 44 rear ends, a six-speed manual, the heaviest transfer case and two package you've got. I want doors and a hard top. Do you think you can find something like that?

He looked stunned, and stuttered for a few seconds about all of the electronics... and I asked him if he even knew what a Dana 44 is... and he didn't. I left that dealership.

I ultimately got what I wanted from another dealer here in eastern Iowa, although they weren't a lot more knowledgeable about the actual capabilities of the Jeep, and they had to dealer trade after finding one with what I wanted in St. Louis, 310 miles away. At least they were willing to listen to what I was telling them I wanted. This Jeep has a "standard" radio with bluetooth and steering wheel controls, although it does have power windows and locks. Amazing.
__________________

__________________
Roger H is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It's time for an intro and our story. Pls pardon our delay.... Mikell Hi, I am.... 9 05-02-2012 08:53 AM
Showing your trailer... Monica M General Chat 15 08-24-2010 02:40 PM
Reply Posts are not showing up. The Hobo Forum Admin, News & Announcements 5 08-04-2010 10:53 PM
Showing off Gina’s new trailer Gina D. General Chat 1 08-03-2007 03:37 PM

» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.