Pardon Me… Your Behind is Showing

[minke]

Originally Posted by David B.

Alan, here is some food for thought, we have a 1/2 ton GMC pickup truck and a Prius. Having the right tool for the job is important. You wouldn't have to have another vehicle built, as there are plenty of very good used ones out there, and 52 mpg helps offset the 5 months of poor milage.
Dave & Paula

This is why I'm loath to suggest that I've got a better answer in the absence of context. When we aren't traveling we usually get nearly a month out of our 35 gallon tank. We don't drive much. We try to limit our driving to three trips per week but don't often succeed. Minor grocery shopping is done by walking to a disliked Safeway one mile away and a little more than 300 feet lower in altitude. We carry loaded backpacks a mile and up 300 feet. Most driving destinations are accumulated: we seldom drive to one place at a time. Can you still support, let us say, an $8,000 used car and maybe $700/yr insurance in his context?

[Jon in AZ]

The math varies greatly. When we made the decision to downsize from 3 vehicles to 2 a while back, it meant using a 24 mpg Sienna instead of a 34 mpg Camry to commute 350 miles round trip to Phoenix once a week for classes. The insurance savings along paid for the additional gas. Gas prices, insurance costs, maintenance, and miles driven all contribute to the bottom line. One factor we didn't consider at the time was towing, since we didn't have the Scamp. By racking up miles on the Sienna, we ended up having to purchase a new tow vehicle sooner than we might otherwise, and good tow vehicles tend to cost more than small sedans.

(First comment deleted, as it referenced a previous post which has been removed.)

[Dick & Joanne]

Originally Posted by Doug P.

Yup there oughtta be a law.... Against the tiny size of parking spots :-)

Cheers
Doug

[QUOTE=Carol H;586878]Yup! Totally agree on that!

Like

[minke]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

LOL... It wasn't a 2012 4Runner with 320K miles! It was a 4Runner of unknown vintage sold in 2012.

Yes, it was a '96 that suffered (with me) a ghastly commute for a while.

[Carol H]

Originally Posted by floyd

Ford also offers such stupid bandaids for poor design. All that proves is that they acknowledge the problem but refuse to fix it.
Of course you could build them even taller if you provide rocker mounted escalators for access to the box and the cab.
]

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?

[SilverGhost]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

Here in Pennsylvania you can get a ticket for leaving the shin buster ball mount in your receiver while not towing, that could save almost a 1' of parking space from just one vehicle..

I would agree, as I have busted my knee and shin on these things countless times, but the ball mount has actually save my bumper a couple times.

On two occasions I have had absent minded drivers or misjudged distance by said drivers that have hit my ball mount. Once by a Volvo 740 wagon that squeezed into the line for a left turn lane way too fast. There was a loud clang and he slouched down in his car with a sheepish wave. The other was some sort of Nissan or Mazda in Hartford stop/go traffic about 9pm. I looked at the damage, the other driver just ignored me and changed lanes.

Both cases the hit was slow enough that there was no damage to the frame mounted hitch, but fast enough that I probably would have needed new safety bumper, bumper cover, likely tweaked the hatch. Over a $1000 in each case easily.

Both times I had just gotten a hitch cover and procrastinated installing it. Now the ball mount stays on.

Jason

[SilverGhost]

I actually miss our work truck (when I was growing up). We had a couple auction PG&E Fords (F100 short box and F250 long bed), but we always kept the '51 GMC 2500. Easy to reach over step side, 8 foot oak board bed. Had a very common step/contractor rear bumper. Only in the last couple year was it converted to 12V. But we still made couple hundred mile drives to pick up thousands of pounds of cinder block with it. My favorite memory was towing the 3 axle semi and short (20ft?) shipping container home about 5 miles.

Jason

[larryc]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth EWA

The Chevy Colorado that I just got is what they call a mid-size. It's plenty big enough for me. When I was shopping, I didn't even consider the full size trucks.

chevy colorado overall length 225" chevy silverado length 130"
chevy colorado overall width 74" chevy silverado width 80"

I doubt that the 5" less in length would make parking any easier. but if you like a narrower truck for about the same money ... to each their own.

[cpaharley2008]

Originally Posted by larryc

chevy colorado overall length 225" chevy silverado length 130"
chevy colorado overall width 74" chevy silverado width 80"

I doubt that the 5" less in length would make parking any easier. but if you like a narrower truck for about the same money ... to each their own.

I think you may have used the wrong numbers here.....

[larryc]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

I think you may have used the wrong numbers here.....

Perhaps, i quick google search on dimensions for each model gave those numbers. Only point was, those mid size trucks really aren't much different from their bigger cousins.

[cpaharley2008]

Agreed, the small trucks are getting bigger and the bigger trucks are also growing...

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Carol H

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.

[larryc]

Originally Posted by floyd

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.

[minke]

Originally Posted by larryc

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.

[Carol H]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

I think you may have used the wrong numbers here.....

Suspect a typo.

[Jim Bennett]

Originally Posted by minke

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.

[minke]

Originally Posted by Jim Bennett

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 .

[DeBreez]

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.

[Roy in TO]

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.

[Raz]

Originally Posted by DeBreez

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