this may make me consider chevrolet again

[AngryScientist]

i'm an admitted euro car snob, but i always like to have a truck available for "truck stuff". looks like chevy will be bringing a smaller pick-up back to the US market with a diesel option to follow. looks good on paper, anyway.

http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Chevy_Is_Going_Back_Into-58b21e2b318cd8da389a7de99905c77e

[thirdgenbird]

It's not very small... Half tons have just gotten huge.

I haven't checked myself, but several sources have told me the interior and exterior dimensions are similar to fords and Chevys from the late 90s

[goonster]

looks like chevy will be bringing a smaller pick-up back to the US market with a diesel option to follow.
It will be 90% the size of the Silverado, and don't hold your breath for diesel.

[Nooch]

It's not very small... Half tons have just gotten huge.

I haven't checked myself, but several sources have told me the interior and exterior dimensions are similar to fords and Chevys from the late 90s

yeah -- definitely isn't the old S10 it replaced...

even the tacoma is pretty big..

[ColonelJLloyd]

What is the compelling reason for diesel in a half ton truck?

[zandrrr]

I must be grossly out-of-step with the standard US auto buyer, because I just do not understand why a small, fuel-efficient pickup truck doesn't exist. Think 4-cylinder Ford Ranger but updated more recently than 1991. Not every pickup buyer needs to haul construction equipment.

[EDS]

That is a "small" truck? I guess in the world of supersize fries peoples expectations are just out of whack.

[AngryScientist]

I must be grossly out-of-step with the standard US auto buyer, because I just do not understand why a small, fuel-efficient pickup truck doesn't exist. Think 4-cylinder Ford Ranger but updated more recently than 1991. Not every pickup buyer needs to haul construction equipment.

hell yea.

would love it if they still made this exactly:

http://www.jgrmx.com/files-CGR/cgr/Image/Newsletter%202012%20pre%20season/Old%20School%20Toyota(1).jpg

[AngryScientist]

yeah -- definitely isn't the old S10 it replaced...



i drove an s-10 for over a decade of reliable service. miss that truck a ton.

[malcolm]

What is the compelling reason for diesel in a half ton truck?


torque and fuel efficiency

[Dale Alan]

hell yea.

would love it if they still made this exactly:

http://www.jgrmx.com/files-CGR/cgr/Image/Newsletter%202012%20pre%20season/Old%20School%20Toyota(1).jpg
Now that's a truck. I had one back then. I commuted 200-250 miles a day with that rig.It never let me down, even when it was 30 below.

[bluesea]

hell yea.

would love it if they still made this exactly:

http://www.jgrmx.com/files-CGR/cgr/Image/Newsletter%202012%20pre%20season/Old%20School%20Toyota(1).jpg



Last year for the solid front axle. 4wheelers would kill for that.

[saab2000]

What is the compelling reason for diesel in a half ton truck?

To get better than 14 mpg.

I drove around Europe last year in a 7-passenger Chevrolet Captiva (not the same as one here in the US) with a 2-liter diesel. It drove just fine and never wanted for more power or torque. It wouldn't accelerate 0-60 in the now-requisite 6 second range, but in exchange I pretty much doubled my fuel economy.

For me there is not compelling reason for a gasoline engine in a truck like this. A 3-liter diesel would likely be a great engine.

What I see happening though is that they will make it available but at such a premium and in such low numbers that there won't be many sold. For kicks I looked at the Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel. It commands an enormous price premium, something like $6k above the comparable gasoline version.

[goonster]

I must be grossly out-of-step with the standard US auto buyer, because I just do not understand why a small, fuel-efficient pickup truck doesn't exist. Think 4-cylinder Ford Ranger but updated more recently than 1991.
You are not out-of-step with buyers, you are out-of-step with manufacturers.

Small trucks would sell, in modest numbers, but they would not be profitable. The bare-bones compact utility truck that everyone claims to want cannot be sold at volume with any kind of margin to make it worthwhile.

[goonster]

What is the compelling reason for diesel in a half ton truck?
Having owned both a MkIII VW TDi (90hp/150ft*lb) and a four-banger YJ Wrangler (121/145), I can tell you that the low-rev torque of a little diesel would make so much sense in a truck, it hurts.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Those were the good old days . . .

BBD

[malcolm]

Just for what it's worth Ram is offering a diesel in it's 1500 half ton truck. Due out around the first of the year. 200+ hp and over 400 lbs-ft torque. It's I think a 3 liter from an Italian company that apparently already has a decent track record.

[54ny77]

I had an '85 in that same rig. And I wish I had it. Somewhere out there in the U.S., that truck is undoubtedly still chugging along.

I now have a full size, long bed, gas sucking 4x4, and I do need it (for hauling & towing capacity), but those small trucks are (or rather, were) really great.

Now that's a truck. I had one back then. I commuted 200-250 miles a day with that rig.It never let me down, even when it was 30 below.

[54ny77]

major chunk of u.s. automaker profit is in the full size trucks.

shared truck & suv chassis, big economies of scale.

I must be grossly out-of-step with the standard US auto buyer, because I just do not understand why a small, fuel-efficient pickup truck doesn't exist. Think 4-cylinder Ford Ranger but updated more recently than 1991. Not every pickup buyer needs to haul construction equipment.

[Anarchist]

What is the compelling reason for diesel in a half ton truck?

By that logic I guess the question is what is the compelling reason for a diesel in my Passat station wagon?

I would say reliability, torque, ease of driving and 50 mpg on the highway.

[Lanterne Rouge]

Those were the good old days . . .

BBD

That's amazing.

[Ralph]

If you take the best features of a car/light truck diesel engine (not talking about 3000 lb 18 wheeler Cummins or Cat engine), direct injection, turbo charging, steel crank shaft, fordged pistons and rods, etc......and apply that to a beefed up internals gasoline engine.....you get Ford's Eco Boost line of engines. Almost the TQ of a diesel, 90% of the fuel economy with fuel 90% of the price of diesel......same engine life as car diesels (again not talking about 1,000,000 mile 3000 LB truck engine), with up charge of only about a $1000. And even that takes about 3-4 years of normal driving to make up. And no urea tank to top off as with a modern diesel car engine in US. Urea tanks in Audi, BMW, Chevy, and some others. Particle traps in small engine VW's and Mercedes. But their larger diesel engines may require urea tanks in future.

Hybrid technology offers even more opportunity for fuel savings.....but not at a competitive cost.

I also think diesel best suited to small trucks like the new Dodge 1500. But also think diesel is not the answer to fuel economy, as it was 20 years ago. And I like modern clean burning diesel engines, even with Urea tanks. BTW....check out Mazda's new 14-1 compression (low for a diesel) aluminum block diesel coming to US soon.....no need for urea tank. Mazda may have most advanced car/small truck diesel engine to date that will be in regular production.

[malcolm]

If you take the best features of a car/light truck diesel engine (not talking about 3000 lb 18 wheeler Cummins or Cat engine), direct injection, turbo charging, steel crank shaft, fordged pistons and rods, etc......and apply that to a beefed up internals gasoline engine.....you get Ford's Eco Boost line of engines. Almost the TQ of a diesel, 90% of the fuel economy with fuel 90% of the price of diesel......same engine life as car diesels (again not talking about 1,000,000 mile 3000 LB truck engine), with up charge of only about a $1000. And even that takes about 3-4 years of normal driving to make up.

Hybrid technology offers even more opportunity for fuel savings.....but not at a competitive cost.

I also think diesel best suited to small trucks like the new Dodge 1500. But also think diesel is not the answer to fuel economy, as it was 20 years ago. And I like modern clean burning diesel engines, even with Urea tanks. BTW....check out Mazda's new 13-1 compression aluminum block diesel coming to US soon.....no need for urea tank. Mazda may have most advanced diesel engine to date that will be in regular production.

I had a ford eco boost engine in an F-150, very powerful and smooth but gas mileage was not that great but not bad for a truck averaged about 17 and would get close to 20 on the highway. My F-250 diesel got 21 on the highway while towing a 10,000 lbs boat.

[christian]

http://worldcarslist.com/images/volkswagen/volkswagen-saveiro-cross/volkswagen-saveiro-cross-01.jpg

or

http://www.motorstown.com/images/volkswagen-pointer-pick-up-02.jpg

[Ralph]

I had a ford eco boost engine in an F-150, very powerful and smooth but gas mileage was not that great but not bad for a truck averaged about 17 and would get close to 20 on the highway. My F-250 diesel got 21 on the highway while towing a 10,000 lbs boat.

You can't really compare a 3.5 Eco Boost in a F150 to a big Power Stroke diesel in a F250. If you are using the F250 Super duty Power Stroke diesel in an application where the Eco Boost would work, you will never make the F250 diesel cost up with fuel savings. You can better compare the Eco Boost 3.5 in a F150 to same truck with 5.0 V8 or 6.8 V8. Eco Boost is more economical in that comparison....and may do more work. That's Ford's point with Eco Boost.

I have done some work with a company that has all those trucks. Have driven all of them. But agree.....nothing like a Power Stroke diesel if that's what you need. Amazing truck. I believe it would pull a house off it's foundation.

[malcolm]

You can't really compare a 3.5 Eco Boost in a F150 to a big Power Stroke diesel in a F250. If you are using the F250 Super duty Power Stroke diesel in an application where the Eco Boost would work, you will never make the F250 diesel cost up with fuel savings. You can better compare the Eco Boost 3.5 in a F150 to same truck with 5.0 V8 or 6.8 V8. Eco Boost is more economical in that comparison....and may do more work. That's Ford's point with Eco Boost.

I have done some work with a company that has all those trucks. Have driven all of them. But agree.....nothing like a Power Stroke diesel if that's what you need. Amazing truck. I believe it would pull a house off it's foundation.

Agreed. No diesel is cost effective in normal application in the US. The additional cost of the vehicle and the increased cost of the fuel would require years to make up the difference. I just like not having to purchase fuel as often making me feel like I'm saving money and I can hope the government will do something about the road use taxes added to diesel.

The Ram diesel will be an upcharge of around $2,800

[Ralph]

Agreed. No diesel is cost effective in normal application in the US. The additional cost of the vehicle and the increased cost of the fuel would require years to make up the difference. I just like not having to purchase fuel as often making me feel like I'm saving money and I can hope the government will do something about the road use taxes added to diesel.

The Ram diesel will be an upcharge of around $2,800

Ha.....You need to be a farmer or rancher with farm equipment no road tax diesel tank....if that's same fuel. It used to be....other than color, don't know now.

[malcolm]

Ha.....You need to be a farmer or rancher with farm equipment no road tax diesel tank....if that's same fuel. It used to be....other than color, don't know now.

I used to use "red" diesel in my boat.

[slidey]

No diesel here, but I've always had a soft spot for this vehicle.

http://4wdinfo.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/subaru_baja_12.jpg

[OtayBW]

yeah -- definitely isn't the old S10 it replaced...

And a good thing. My new S10 back in the day had a rear main seal blow out at 50K....last Chevy I ever bought.

[54ny77]

Diesel used to be so much cheaper, which is (or rather, was) a major cost factor. Friend of mine converted his work truck fleet to diesel a decade or so ago. Trucks are used for a few hundred thousand miles, at least.

The last few years he's been cryin' the diesel price blues.

You can't really compare a 3.5 Eco Boost in a F150 to a big Power Stroke diesel in a F250. If you are using the F250 Super duty Power Stroke diesel in an application where the Eco Boost would work, you will never make the F250 diesel cost up with fuel savings. You can better compare the Eco Boost 3.5 in a F150 to same truck with 5.0 V8 or 6.8 V8. Eco Boost is more economical in that comparison....and may do more work. That's Ford's point with Eco Boost.

I have done some work with a company that has all those trucks. Have driven all of them. But agree.....nothing like a Power Stroke diesel if that's what you need. Amazing truck. I believe it would pull a house off it's foundation.

[Ralph]

http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/ecodiesel/

For those who want a light duty pick up truck.....as mentioned above....check out the Ram (Dodge). Small 3 L diesel with 8 speed automatic. May be just what many want.

[ultraman6970]

That truck those sizes arent seen in the US doesnt mean arent being sold somewhere else.

[kramnnim]

Still haven't figured out why Ford dumped the Ranger for the US...guess they want to sell 150s instead?

[Ralph]

Still haven't figured out why Ford dumped the Ranger for the US...guess they want to sell 150s instead?

Small cab F150 with 305 HP 3.7 engine gets as good as, maybe better, fuel economy as the Rangers, except maybe the 4 cylinder ones. Plain model F150 not very expensive....as trucks go. And I believe so called full sized pick ups are going to be down sized over next several models.....just like they have up sized as each new model came along. Ford can keep the Super Duty wih large V 8's and diesel for real work. Chevey and ram will do the same. So maybe....no big need for smaller trucks (in US) as these product plans play out over time.

[54ny77]

F150 sales alone are ginormous. Ford won't kill or cannibalize that platinum goose.

In 2012, the F150 half ton stats were 343k units. That's more than Toyota, Nissan and Dodge trucks combined.

[Germany_chris]

It came on my facebook that they'd announced that it was going to get a 2.8 Diesel :confused:

[thirdgenbird]

F150 sales alone are ginormous. Ford won't kill or cannibalize that platinum goose.

In 2012, the F150 half ton stats were 343k units. That's more than Toyota, Nissan and Dodge trucks combined.

I can't remember the last time I saw a Titan.

[Louis]

Still haven't figured out why Ford dumped the Ranger for the US...guess they want to sell 150s instead?

This may be a stereotype, but I'm guessing that for most typical truck buyers bigger is better in just about everything.

[pbarry]

Just for what it's worth Ram is offering a diesel in it's 1500 half ton truck. Due out around the first of the year. 200+ hp and over 400 lbs-ft torque. It's I think a 3 liter from an Italian company that apparently already has a decent track record.

That sounds nice. Must be the engine that was used in the '05 and '06 Liberty diesels? They seem to have a good rep tho not that many were sold. The Libertys were rated at 26-28 mpg, so the 1500 might get around the mid 20's. Baby steps. :)

[MRB]

.... don't hold your breath for diesel.
^^ very punny

[pbarry]

Still haven't figured out why Ford dumped the Ranger for the US...guess they want to sell 150s instead?

Agreed, weird decision unless Mazda upped their sub contracting costs?

The last diesel Ranger I followed on ebay went for over $7k: Mid 80's, 2wd, 175k miles, nice but not minty condition. There's a demand, but it seems to go unheard.

[oliver1850]

Louis has it right. I love my old Chevy half tons with straight sixes and manual trans. No 4 WD, no AC, no PW, no PS, no BS. My '81 is totally rusted out but I can't give it up because it gets 24 mpg and I can fix anything on it myself. Modern technology should be able to give quite a bit better mileage, but there's no demand for a basic truck. Most people that drive trucks never do any work with them.

[pbarry]

Louis has it right. I love my old Chevy half tons with straight sixes and manual trans. No 4 WD, no AC, no PW, no PS, no BS. My '81 is totally rusted out but I can't give it up because it gets 24 mpg and I can fix anything on it myself. Modern technology should be able to give quite a bit better mileage, but there's no demand for a basic truck. Most people that drive trucks never do any work with them.

There is, but we've all been up-sold on everything from blenders to houses since your truck was built. The straight six push rod design is the most dependable and torquey gas motor ever made, choose the manufacturer; from BMW to International tractors to Ford trucks, they just work.

I had no idea the early 80's GMC basic trucks got that kind of mileage. Amazing, but I need to see a mileage log to believe you. ;)

My '97 F250 4wd with the 5.8 gets 11-12mpg in mixed driving and 14.5 on the highway. The 2006-2011 Ford F250/F350 trucks in the fleet at work get 9 to 11 mpg. That's with a lot more electronics and a coil on each cylinder, and way more down time for service. The Tritons aren't as dependable as the old 351. :eek:

[parris]

I was talking to a friend just a couple of days ago about pickup trucks getting just huge. My dad was a farmer and as such the vehicles got well used. He and by extension the farm never bought any pickup other than a 2wd 1/2 ton with a a small 8 and an automatic. We had all 3 brands depending on where we could find the best deal and the thing that killed each and every one was not mechanical or even wear issues. It was road salt from NY winters. I ended up with his last truck after he passed away and it consistently got mid 20's on the highway. My wife liked the fact that she didn't need a ladder to get into it.

An example of what we would typically load onto the truck would be 25 50lb bags of seed, 5 5gallon cans of fuel, and a butt load of tools and parts. Ford , Chevy, Dodge. They all got the same type of treatment for years.

[gavingould]

after high school I drove a Mazda b2000 (mid-80s model)
Now that was a mini truck; especially as I was 6'4" even then.
The drivetrain was complete garbage though so it didn't last long.
Smallish truck with a little diesel would be great, but most Americans don't realize that.

[54ny77]

4x4 not enough for ya?

6x6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmz-Evlmxk#t=461

[Don49]

Sounds like Toyota is the battle tested choice: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ea4a121e948b

[parris]

^ Several years ago Top Gear had a long segment where they tried to kill a Toyota pickup. Like all their stuff it's entertaining as all get out.

[bikinchris]

I must be grossly out-of-step with the standard US auto buyer, because I just do not understand why a small, fuel-efficient pickup truck doesn't exist. Think 4-cylinder Ford Ranger but updated more recently than 1991. Not every pickup buyer needs to haul construction equipment.

I guess their market research says that the market just won't buy enough of them. I completely disagree with their market research.

Still haven't figured out why Ford dumped the Ranger for the US...guess they want to sell 150s instead?

This...

This may be a stereotype, but I'm guessing that for most typical truck buyers bigger is better in just about everything.

Except when you need to PARK THE THING.

Small cab F150 with 305 HP 3.7 engine gets as good as, maybe better, fuel economy as the Rangers, except maybe the 4 cylinder ones. Plain model F150 not very expensive....as trucks go. And I believe so called full sized pick ups are going to be down sized over next several models.....just like they have up sized as each new model came along. Ford can keep the Super Duty wih large V 8's and diesel for real work. Chevey and ram will do the same. So maybe....no big need for smaller trucks (in US) as these product plans play out over time.

A good 4 cyl turbo diesel is all I would want. The idea that smaller doesn't sell is opposed by the wildly popular Transit Connect minivan. Sometimes companies and regular people just don't need a large vehicle.

The little Ford Ranger was sold with a Mitsubishi turbo Diesel in the 80's. It made 35mpg hwy and with the dual tank option could travel all day without a fuel stop. Or of course, you could hold out for a better price for a LONG way.

Overall, I think it's time for someone to recapture the SMALL truck market.

[Germany_chris]

There is, but we've all been up-sold on everything from blenders to houses since your truck was built. The straight six push rod design is the most dependable and torquey gas motor ever made, choose the manufacturer; from BMW to International tractors to Ford trucks, they just work.

I had no idea the early 80's GMC basic trucks got that kind of mileage. Amazing, but I need to see a mileage log to believe you. ;)

My '97 F250 4wd with the 5.8 gets 11-12mpg in mixed driving and 14.5 on the highway. The 2006-2011 Ford F250/F350 trucks in the fleet at work get 9 to 11 mpg. That's with a lot more electronics and a coil on each cylinder, and way more down time for service. The Tritons aren't as dependable as the old 351. :eek:

You can only get so efficient pushing a brick through the wind. My Jeep gets about 16 my 83 F150 4.9 4wd got 11. Long ago when I worked for a Chevy dealer our parts truck was an S10 2wd 2.5 auto and it got close to 30 unloaded. Aero dynamics and 2wd will drive the Mileage of any truck


Sent from my Jeep

[malcolm]

That sounds nice. Must be the engine that was used in the '05 and '06 Liberty diesels? They seem to have a good rep tho not that many were sold. The Libertys were rated at 26-28 mpg, so the 1500 might get around the mid 20's. Baby steps. :)


I think it's a different diesel than the one in the Liberty. I'm not sure everyone was happy with that particular application.

[Steve in SLO]

Getting back to the original post, I think this is a wise decision by GM.
I have two teenagers, and currently have a Dodge Dakota Quad cab with a 4.7 L V-8. It is the perfect size for us: Big enough to have my long-legged teenagers in the backseat without complaint, yet small enough to maneuver in our small town traffic and parking areas. i have been perusing classifieds thinking I might want to replace it was something a bit newer, but other than another Dakota or a generation old Tundra, nothing is even close to this midsize anymore. Tacomas and Frontiers are just a wee bit too small.
The option of the diesel is very attractive, since we go up to higher elevations to our cabin, and the extra torque would and fuel mileage would be welcome.
I don't think I am alone in my situation.

[Anarchist]

If you take the best features of a car/light truck diesel engine (not talking about 3000 lb 18 wheeler Cummins or Cat engine), direct injection, turbo charging, steel crank shaft, fordged pistons and rods, etc......and apply that to a beefed up internals gasoline engine.....you get Ford's Eco Boost line of engines. Almost the TQ of a diesel, 90% of the fuel economy with fuel 90% of the price of diesel......same engine life as car diesels (again not talking about 1,000,000 mile 3000 LB truck engine), with up charge of only about a $1000. And even that takes about 3-4 years of normal driving to make up. And no urea tank to top off as with a modern diesel car engine in US. Urea tanks in Audi, BMW, Chevy, and some others. Particle traps in small engine VW's and Mercedes. But their larger diesel engines may require urea tanks in future.

Hybrid technology offers even more opportunity for fuel savings.....but not at a competitive cost.

I also think diesel best suited to small trucks like the new Dodge 1500. But also think diesel is not the answer to fuel economy, as it was 20 years ago. And I like modern clean burning diesel engines, even with Urea tanks. BTW....check out Mazda's new 14-1 compression (low for a diesel) aluminum block diesel coming to US soon.....no need for urea tank. Mazda may have most advanced car/small truck diesel engine to date that will be in regular production.

Diesel fuel is cheaper than unleaded where I live.

[Salsa_Lover]

i'm an admitted euro car snob, but i always like to have a truck available for "truck stuff". looks like chevy will be bringing a smaller pick-up back to the US market with a diesel option to follow. looks good on paper, anyway.

http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Chevy_Is_Going_Back_Into-58b21e2b318cd8da389a7de99905c77e

is that small ?

.. and BTW Diesel is the most harmful thing you can buy

[AngryScientist]

.. and BTW Diesel is the most harmful thing you can buy

this has to be the silliest statement i've read on this forum all year.

[Salsa_Lover]

this has to be the silliest statement i've read on this forum all year.

http://www.cleanair.org/sites/default/files/danger%20from%20diesel.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/12/diesel-fumes-cause-cancer-who

[AngryScientist]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/12/diesel-fumes-cause-cancer-who

OK. diesel fumes are certainly not the greatest thing on the planet, but definitely not "the most harmful thing you can buy", i can think of quite a few things that are worse...

from your article:

"For the man on the street, nothing has changed," he said. "It's a known risk but a low one for the average person, so people should go about their business as normal ... you could wear a mask if you want to, but who wants to walk around all the time with a mask on?"

[shovelhd]

By that logic I guess the question is what is the compelling reason for a diesel in my Passat station wagon?

I would say reliability, torque, ease of driving and 50 mpg on the highway.

I'm looking to replace my pickup with a small wagon. The main uses are commuting and as a race vehicle. It has to be able to fit at least two bikes inside with two seats available. I am looking at the VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI. It gets 40mpg on the highway.

[malcolm]

I'm looking to replace my pickup with a small wagon. The main uses are commuting and as a race vehicle. It has to be able to fit at least two bikes inside with two seats available. I am looking at the VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI. It gets 40mpg on the highway.

lots of TDI sportwagen owners on the forum. I've got 33k miles on a '11 and so far so good. I don't get the mileage some folks claim but not bad and while I don't think I'm heavy footed I make no effort to drive conservatively. I get low to mid 30s mixed driving and 40-42 hwy at 75-78mph.

[Chance]

I guess their market research says that the market just won't buy enough of them. I completely disagree with their market research.



They don't have to do a lot of market research when all they have to do is look at actual numbers of units sold. Ranger volumes almost disappeared towards end of production cycle. Obviously part of decline was that Ford wouldn't upgrade the model, but to invest in upgrading we'd have to buy more of them. And we didn't. So it's part chicken-and-egg question, but in the end manufacturers don't seem to avoid spending on new models. If Ford really thought we'd buy them, they would have built new Rangers.

Also remember that through much of Ranger's life cycle they shared some chassis with Explorer SUV. When Ford converted Explorer to FWD it left Ranger model to carry its own entire weight. And the volume just wasn't there.

[Chance]

Small cab F150 with 305 HP 3.7 engine gets as good as, maybe better, fuel economy as the Rangers, except maybe the 4 cylinder ones. Plain model F150 not very expensive....as trucks go. And I believe so called full sized pick ups are going to be down sized over next several models.....just like they have up sized as each new model came along. Ford can keep the Super Duty wih large V 8's and diesel for real work. Chevey and ram will do the same. So maybe....no big need for smaller trucks (in US) as these product plans play out over time.

As you probably know, Ford has announced that the new Transit vans will have a 3.2 liter inline 5-cylinder diesel engine option. That's the same engine used in Ford Rangers in other markets outside the US. The engine is rated at approximately 200 HP and 350 lb-ft. Those ratings may change since in the new Transit it will be coupled to a much stronger transmission and chassis than is available in the overseas Ranger.

Of interest is that the new Transit van will be built in the same plant as the F-150. So there has been a lot of speculation that if the RAM 1500 diesel with a 3-liter V6 does well, that Ford may drop the 3.2-liter I5 in the F-150. Although it would probably have to be upgraded in power to compete.

[Chance]

P.S. -- for diesel lovers: Nissan will be introducing a Cummins 5.0-liter diesel V8 in the next 1/2-ton pickup. Apparently they also think (in addition to RAM) that there is a demand for diesel light-duty trucks.

[Netdewt]

Go diesel! I own a MK5(.5) Jetta Sportwagen diesel, and kind of want another one. If I bought a truck, I would want a diesel.

[pbarry]

I think it's a different diesel than the one in the Liberty. I'm not sure everyone was happy with that particular application.

Indeed, you are correct. The Dodge is a V6 and the Liberty had a 2.8 inline 4. I found this meet and greet review. The Dodge went 22.3mpg on the PCH:
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130923/carreviews/130929945

[sailorboy]

Learned to drive on one of those 4 banger Toyota pick ups in the 80s in vermont. And it was a stick. That thing kept going until the body panels rusted off. If they did another one with a slightly more powerful turbo-diesel and only modestly heavier and bigger overall, I'd be on it like stink on ·····. You all know you'd hit that as well. Just like the indestructible hi-lux from top gear. The nuts

[soulspinner]

[QUOTE=saab2000;1456469]To get better than 14 mpg.

I drove around Europe last year in a 7-passenger Chevrolet Captiva (not the same as one here in the US) with a 2-liter diesel. It drove just fine and never wanted for more power or torque. It wouldn't accelerate 0-60 in the now-requisite 6 second range, but in exchange I pretty much doubled my fuel economy.

For me there is not compelling reason for a gasoline engine in a truck like this. A 3-liter diesel would likely be a great engine.

What I see happening though is that they will make it available but at such a premium and in such low numbers that there won't be many sold. For kicks I looked at the Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel. It commands an enormous price premium, something like $6k above the comparable gasoline version[

That's the rub. Cost up front.

[ColonelJLloyd]

By that logic I guess the question is what is the compelling reason for a diesel in my Passat station wagon?

I would say reliability, torque, ease of driving and 50 mpg on the highway.

By what logic? I just asked a question. I'm not seeing a Passat and a 1/2 ton truck as both apples.

I don't have experience with the small diesel engines that might make sense in a 1/2 ton truck. That's why I asked. My experience with the 15mpg F250 HD makes it a legit question. Diesel fuel is more expensive than unleaded in my part of the country, I wouldn't expect diesel vs. gasoline torque to be much of an issue in a 1/2 ton, light duty truck and my dad's 6.0L power stroke has been a reliability nightmare.

[bicycletricycle]

little trucks were super cool, loved my 91 toyota. why cant we have small stuff.

[dawgie]

I drove a Ford Ranger for 15 years and it was a great truck. It got 20+ mpg around town and about 25 mpg on the highway, with 4-cylinder engine and 5-spd manual. When it came time to get a new vehicle, Ford was no longer selling Rangers. Apparently Ford sells an updated Ranger overseas that gets rave reviews but they won't sell it in the US.

The F150 does not get nearly as good mileage as the Ranger, at least not the 4-cyl manual trans versions. It is also much larger, which not everyone wants. I liked the Ranger because it was large enough for my needs and easy to park. Full size pickups would be a pain for me to park and I simply do not need all their cargo space.

We got a Honda CRV for my wife to sorta replace the Ranger and I downsized to a VW Golf -- although I wish now that I had held out for a Jetta Sportwagen, which were in short supply at the time. You can get good deals on them now.

[Netdewt]

I don't have experience with the small diesel engines that might make sense in a 1/2 ton truck. That's why I asked. My experience with the 15mpg F250 HD makes it a legit question. Diesel fuel is more expensive than unleaded in my part of the country, I wouldn't expect diesel vs. gasoline torque to be much of an issue in a 1/2 ton, light duty truck and my dad's 6.0L power stroke has been a reliability nightmare.

Diesel is more expensive everywhere in the US, AFAIK because of taxes here (it is actually a cheaper fuel to make), but the fuel savings make up for it. Our Jetta is a family hauler, i.e. the alternative is a minivan or SUV with little difference in interior space in many cases. However, we get 40mpg+ on trips (and often 44-45mpg). The best I ever saw in our Explorer was 20mpg highway.

Diesel is generally 10-25% more money to buy than gasoline, so as long as you get that much more efficiency you break even on fuel (we usually at least get 50% better than a comparable gas car). Plus, you still have the benefits of overall longevity, longer maintenance periods, 500 miles on a tank, and great torque for it's size. Plus I love how it sounds and smells, but that is kind of weird. Also, they are usually turbo, which is neat, and in a comparable turbo gasoline car, you'd have to pay for premium fuel, and have none of the diesel efficiency benefits.

[Chance]

In objective testing of otherwise identical vehicles diesels no longer get 50 percent better fuel efficiency than their gasoline counterparts; not usually anyway. They often did in the past due to large gasoline-engine displacement but rarely do so today due to modern direct-injection smaller gasoline engines and transmissions with many more gears.

Just look up EPA ratings for Chevy Cruze in gas versus diesel. Or Jeep SUV with gas versus diesel. Or RAM 1500 (1/2 ton) pickup with gas V6 versus diesel V6. Data suggest a much smaller difference; and much of that is due to diesel having higher energy content per gallon of fuel.

And by the way, we pay more for diesel in large part due to it having more energy per gallon. And also so refineries can cover the capital investment required to produce low sulphur fuel mandated by EPA.

There is nothing wrong with kicking all this around, but let's not live in the past. Decisions today should be based on what is available today and not what we did 20 or 30 years ago.

[Chance]

....cut......

and my dad's 6.0L power stroke has been a reliability nightmare.

My understanding is that that engine is a lemon. Lack of reliability forced Ford to develop their own diesel and part ways with the manufacturer.

[oliver1850]

Well, they haven't sold me. I'm planning to do another ground up rebuild of a 1973-1987 GM. Should probably be the last truck I'll own. Doubt I'll be needing one much past my mid 70s.

UPS was one of GM's best customers for the engine. I think they switched everything over to V6s sometime after the straight 6 went out of production.

I went through a bunch of old gas receipts where I'd figured the mileage on fill ups, found 5 that were 25 mpg or better. Most likely summertime driving with very little loaded running or trailer pulling. There were a lot more of them in the 18-22 mpg range, and one or two dipped to mid teens. Stands to reason, as sometimes the truck would be picking up hay bales in the field, lots of running time but no mileage to speak of, and loaded with up to 1.5 tons of hay. Truck only weighs 3900lb. I wonder what the lightest (full sized box) pickup you can get these days weighs. Hard to get good mileage when they are so heavy.


There is, but we've all been up-sold on everything from blenders to houses since your truck was built. The straight six push rod design is the most dependable and torquey gas motor ever made, choose the manufacturer; from BMW to International tractors to Ford trucks, they just work.

I had no idea the early 80's GMC basic trucks got that kind of mileage. Amazing, but I need to see a mileage log to believe you. ;)