this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
284 points (97.0% liked)
Canada
7187 readers
681 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
🍁 Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fuck trucks. I remember the Ranger it was barely bigger than a minivan. These things are obscene. People who own them don't need them. Most people don't even need trucks. People like to cosplay that they live up a 25 degree incline of muddy, rocky road. But a subaru would be just fine and IS in most of the world.
I drive a B2300 (the Mazda rebrand of the Ranger) and it kicks ass. I get 7-8L per 100km, when commuting, I've filled it to the tits with dirt, flooring and lumber, and it doesn't take up 2 parking spaces. I would pay an obscene amount to get the same truck but as an EV today. Why the fuck is that not a thing?!?
Best we can do is a behemoth truck that doesn't fit in spots and costs a first born child.
This is actually a good point, why are there no small EV trucks?
I bet they exist in China.
I see lots of Rivians where I live. I'm not about to spend $130k on a small truck though.
Ford Maverick is the size of the old school rangers. I have a hybrid one and love it. Only problem is finding one not marked up sky high.
Ever heard of a Ford Maverick? It's not a "real" truck since it's unibody instead of body-on-frame, but otherwise it's the next best thing to the old Ranger.
Transverse engine + transaxle + biased toward FWD
Like I said, it's (unfortunately) not a real truck.
Yeah. At that point, get a wagon and a trailer. That's my current setup but I am pushing the limits of it. 3 people + luggage + trailer + 2x 500lb bikes is really more than that flat 4 and CVT wants. I'm already having to do suspension mods to make it more comfortable and I'm still (officially) 700lbs under the tow rating.
I recently bought a 2010 B4000 and it is a great size for a truck.
I own a Ranger and used to own a Ford Aerostar. I'm pretty sure they were literally built on the same platform. Also, my Ranger is a regular cab short bed, while my Aerostar was the long wheelbase version, so the van was definitely bigger.
My dad used to have an Aerostar, loved that goofy looking little minivan. Ended up getting a Plymouth Voyager that looked very similar.
The nerdiest part of me wanted to modify mine to look like a shuttlecraft from Star Trek. I never went through with it, though.
I used to have a ~'99 ranger. Loved that thing. Now the closest thing Ford has is the maverick which is not only bigger overall but it has a smaller bed so it's less useful.
'10 B2300 driver. Why will no one make a real compact pickup instead of a movie theater with a 4 foot box?!?
I do appreciate Ford has the Maverick now as well.
I would love an old Ranger with the extended cab and suicide doors....I hate the new ones are f150 sized. Also the Tacoma structurally is no larger than the original tiny version...it's all puffy body panels. Why can't we ha have small trucks?
$$$
I probably don’t represent most people very well. But my wife and I have a single vehicle, a gmc sierra 1500. We probably use the bed twice a week. Trash/recycling. Moving heavy things around our property. Makes for a great mobile workbench for projects outside. And most often of all, we buy hay and grain for horses. A smaller truck would be a problem for us. We would actually benefit from a larger truck! But I don’t want a bigger gas guzzler. We get great fuel efficiency given the size of the truck.
Edit: I also don’t live in a city. It’s quite rural here
That, seems like a proper use.
I see many trucks with huge mud tires that they use as a main vehicle to commute to and from work and to run errands. I think these are the target for most people.
Obviously not (yet?) available in the US but other countries have much smaller trucks with larger beds. https://www.kia.com/dm/showroom/K2700-2022/specification.html
That plus a 2200 lb hauling capacity make them a very capable, efficient, and reasonably safe truck.
Kinda funny how much the styles differ between USA and Europe 🙂. Looks like a great work truck. No space for a car seat in the back though so you would need a separate family vehicle. Which might be practical anyway!
This would satisfy my regular truck needs. But a 2200lb hauling capacity doesn’t work well with horses. A single horse can easily weighs 1200 pounds.
I could see this being great for many people here. But it’s also not a universal fit.
I saw a similar truck in the US the other day, a Honda Street/Acty. It was so cute!
won't be. There's federal legislation that basically says a vehicle has to be large to burn fuel like that, so you can't make a small truck unless it makes small car mileage. The idea was that the auto manufacturers would improve mileage if forced, but you know how it usually goes when politicians try to direct engineers to make bullshit physics reality.
Do you run a farm? Meaning is your truck use for your business or job?
I consider it a hobby farm. We currently have 2 horses and 3 goats. But it’s not a business at all and doesn’t generate income.
? I'm sure you're aware GM used the exact same gasoline motors in the half tons as it did in the 3500s. You can have pretty much the same gas mileage as the half ton as long as you make sure to find a 2500 or 3500 with the 3:73 or 4:10 rear axle ratio, not the 4:88 that shows up fairly often, but way more carrying capacity. If it's throttle body era, the 3500s did have bigger injectors, just change them to the 1500 injectors.
I wasn’t aware but I’m also not surprised. I think there’s two things that give my truck decent fuel efficiency. First is it’s much lighter than a 2500 or 3500. Which means I can’t haul as much but oh well. Second is the feature where the engine only runs on 4 cylinders most of the time. I notice a big difference when it’s running all 8. This isn’t available on the larger trucks. Oh and I think mine has a 4:32 axel ratio but it’s been a while. If that’s the same engine, then the larger trucks should be able to run on 4 cylinders as well. Super lame if the just don’t enable it. Maybe it’s not effective with a heavier truck?
Oh ok. I had the initial impression your truck was a bit older, but yeah, no, you're not significantly lighter, than the gas powered 2500s and 3500s. You are significantly lighter than a diesel quad cab 4x4, but only if your a regular cab 2wd gas job. Your ratio would probable be 3:43, 3:08, 3:23, something like that, you don't get lower than 4:10 in a half ton generally, and even that's rare. The cylinder shut off was annoying joke, they quit doing that for a reason, it's really problematic and it takes the same amount of energy to move a certain vehicle a certain distance at a certain speed, regardless of 4 or 8 cylinders. Engines of different manufacture do use different amounts of fuel to do the same thing, not denying that. GM set up a scenario where you could see in real time if the exact same specced vehicle would get better mileage with four or 8 cylinders working. they didn't. I bet you get around 17-19 mpg, which is been the chevy v8 standard average milage for a roughly 5.5 liter v8 powered pickup with a rear end ratio somewhere around 3:40, since 1970. I know you do get better mileage than when the cylinders are fully activated, but, they only activate when they're needed, so, its kinda more marketing than anything, you'd get good mileage all 8 activated and not working harder too. GM is famous for shit like this, their old 4 barrel carbs with the tiny primaries and massive secondaries just lead to the secondaries opening ALL THE TIME, which resulted in worse mileage than a big 2 barrel carb or a equal bore 4 barrel. nevermind they were at the same time putting 800 cfm carbs on motors did better with 500, raised vacuum is beneficial, because people saw "800 cfm" as "just like my drag racing heroes". A significant part of corporate engineering is marketing driven. you never need bigger than 500 cfm unless you have an 8 liter ish motor exceeding 7000 rpm, or some sort of forced induction.
My first car was a '92 Ranger and it was a great little thing to have at that point in my life. It's really nice to be able to move without needing to worry about how to transport all your stuff to the new place and it was small enough that it still felt like a regular sized car.
The new rangers are pretty ridiculous in comparison.