What's become of the small 4x4 truck?

[straightrod]

^ Yea, I looked back after posting and knew I would be hearing about it.

[mud]

Originally Posted by longtallsally

I got 21mpg towing the WR Up to the Sierra on Saturday in the '12 Wrangler Rubicon. Custom ordered, we paid the same money as an '02 or '03 463 G Wagen and the Jeep is cheaper in every way and better off road in every way.

I think for what you get, the latest Rubicon is a heck of a bargain, but it may not suit everyone.

I can't speak for which is more capable. But the Wrangler Rubicon sure has become the goto vehicle for expedition type setups these days (in the US).

Rubicons, or G wagens for that matter, don't work for me anyway.....

[Ritalin Boy]

Originally Posted by Tinfish

Everyone in these threads always says they want to buy the kinds of vehicles that are sold elsewhere... but no one would want to pay those prices, or pay the high gasoline taxes that make these vehicles make sense

Those of us who drive sportwagens would disagree.

[IKIGAI]

....23 years, 800,000 klms,......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18910560

Go G Wagen, or stay at home!

[Doc.Snyder]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18910560

[Doc.Snyder]

oops....

[longtallsally]

Originally Posted by mud

I can't speak for which is more capable. But the Wrangler Rubicon sure has become the goto vehicle for expedition type setups these days (in the US).

Rubicons, or G wagens for that matter, don't work for me anyway.....

The G is a heck of a machine (we actually have a 460 series diesel that gets 22+mpg that we just brought back from Germany) but for what is readily available in the States, it really is a tough one to choose based on fuel economy alone.

In terms of off road capability, the JK (Jeep) has better axle articulation and clearance in every way. Coupled with the lockers (which the G has as well) and the significantly lower acquisition, repair, and upkeep costs, it's kind of a no brainer to me as to why the JK Rubicon is so popular.

In terms of the Jeep being a good machine to get as a "small truck" it is what we chose instead of a Tacoma based on off road prowess alone. I chose to tow bikes as opposed to having the convenience of a bed in order to get solid axles and be able to do the Jeep's namesake (the Rubicon trail) box stock. I'll just have a utility trailer for those times that I'll actually need to haul something other than bikes.

But to that end the discussion gets very muddy: you can do an awful lot with a number of vehicles and use them in a "small, truck-like" capacity, while still retaining their original "purpose". For example, my wife's 325xi has carried a king sized bed and frame on more than one occasion, carried a few hundred pounds of firewood in the trunk with a 10 foot Christmas tree on top, and still looks new with nice leather interior and all the amenities you expect. It also was used to go up a "trail" in the Sierra where the AWD was actually needed (yes, a little 3 wheel motion), not to mention countless snow days in Germany and some in Tahoe. And when we don't abuse it in those regards, it gets 30 mpg at around 70 mph (and about 20 mpg when in Germany in speed free zones and the cruise set at 115 mph). This all for a car we spent under $20k for.

So like I said, the conversation- in my mind- can get really muddy in terms of what the real need is.

[acesandeights]

Originally Posted by troidus

You think you're going to get equal torque numbers for the same displacement between TDI gas and diesel? You think component longevity is going to be equivalent? Show me an example.

Lot more to think of than just engine/motor torque. As an example the 6.8L V10 gas from Ford produced more "rear wheel" (where the rubber meets the road) torque than the 7.3L Ford diesel. The 6.8L V10 was engineered with a 400k mile service life and is typically less costly to maintain or repair than the 6.0L that replaced the 7.3L diesel (which put the diesel truck torque numbers over the V10). The longevity of the engines are equivalent; although many other components have an easier "life" behind the gas engine. Also, depending on speed, the V10 can/does put more torque to the ground than the 6.0L. The 6.4L diesel that replaced the 6.0L was intially introduced with both programming and DPF that reduced the economy to gas-like numbers.

So, blanket statements just don't work. Gas can be made to work well, and in some cases better than diesel, as diesel can be made to work better than gas. Application and need has a lot to do with it though. Also, transmission, driveline components, etc come into play in the gas versus diesel equation. Even suspension in many cases, as the diesel can be significantly heavier in some applications, causing additional wear on suspension and steering components.

Payload is often higher in an equivalent gas truck due to this very thing, which should be a consideration when payload (i.e., truck camper) is concerned (although many people generalize that a diesel has more power and therefore greater payload capacity).

[flipr]

2012 Toyota Tacoma Base 4x4, automatic, air-conditioning, radio, manual windows and door locks. Six-foot bed, regular cab, I4 - 2.7L engine, tow an eighteen foot aluminum boat, mostly use 4-wheel drive on boat ramps. Seems a capable, relatively basic, 1/2 ton small truck to me...

Overall length: 190.4"
Overall width: 74.6" (4WD)
Overall height: 69.9" (4WD)
Wheelbase: 109.6"
Vehicle weight capacity: 1300 lbs. (4WD)
Trailer weight rating: 3500 lbs.

[troidus]

Originally Posted by flipr

2012 Toyota Tacoma Base 4x4, automatic, air-conditioning, radio, manual windows and door locks. Six-foot bed, regular cab, I4 - 2.7L engine, tow an eighteen foot aluminum boat, mostly use 4-wheel drive on boat ramps. Seems a capable, relatively basic, 1/2 ton small truck to me...

Overall length: 190.4"
Overall width: 74.6" (4WD)
Overall height: 69.9" (4WD)
Wheelbase: 109.6"
Vehicle weight capacity: 1300 lbs. (4WD)
Trailer weight rating: 3500 lbs.

Or about the same size as a '67-'72 full-size Chevy pickup with a short box.

[madeouttaglass]

Originally Posted by troidus

Or about the same size as a '67-'72 full-size Chevy pickup with a short box.

Or my 2000 Tundra that used to be the Tacoma's big brother. In fairness though, I used to have a 97 Taco. Both the Taco and Tundra beds were the same length and width. (I measured them when they were parked next to each other.) The main reason I kept the "larger" truck was that the mirrors were spaced wider to look around our trailer boat, and I liked the access to the back via the short rear suicide door.

[flipr]

Originally Posted by troidus

Or about the same size as a '67-'72 full-size Chevy pickup with a short box.

Or... 10" shorter wheelbase and 15" shorter overall length than a current full-size, regular cab, short box Chevy pickup. I've changed a bit in the last 40 years too.

[madeouttaglass]

I do wish they would bring back the smaller trucks though. I understand the crash standards have changed, but damn.

[Grainbelt]

Originally Posted by madeouttaglass

I do wish they would bring back the smaller trucks though. I understand the crash standards have changed, but damn.

We have Smart cars, Fiat 500s, and Minis. It isn't the crash standards. Most of it is market demand - people want to tow, seat four comfortably, etc.

My Dad's old Datsun pickup with the tiny jump seats in the back just doesn't cut it in 2012.

[troidus]

Originally Posted by Grainbelt

Most of it is market demand - people want to tow, seat four comfortably, etc.

Marketers tell us what they want us to buy and that's what we purchase. Few people need something the size of a blue-water cargo ship for daily use. Lots of regular vehicles are perfectly capable of towing moderate loads, and they're way more practical to live with on a daily basis. And there would be a market for smaller trucks if there were some available.