A full-size pickup truck is a very large machine. Trucks were always larger than cars, but now they’re larger than… trucks.
Last Call indicates the end of Hooniverse’s broadcast day. It’s meant to be an open forum for anyone and anything. Thread jacking is not only accepted, it’s encouraged.
About
More like blind-spots and BLIND-SPOTS.
More like “Blind-spots and BLIND-SPOTS”.
Including forwards!
The bigger the truck…
Quite possible that I am repeating myself here, but so does history. There will come a day we will look back at this period with baffled curiosity. These trucks lack any redeeming elegance though, so I am afraid time’s judgement might be even more damning than with these:
https://www.fidosysop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1971-Chrysler-Imperial-LeBaron.jpg
I remember that commercial.
Quite possible that I am repeating myself here, but so does history. There will come a day we will look back at this period with baffled curiosity. These trucks lack any redeeming elegance though, so I am afraid time’s judgement might be even more damning than with these:
https://www.fidosysop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1971-Chrysler-Imperial-LeBaron.jpg
But, but, but, I love the look of the fuselage Chryslers. They’re so, er, fuselagey.
Yes, exactly – their looks are their only redeeming feature. Today’s monster pickups don’t have that. And they are not good at anything in particular, and neither are they good “generalists”.
My neighbor and I were just discussing this yesterday morning. I’d like to buy a small pickup, and mentioned that my dad has my grandfather’s ’88 F150 bricknose that he’d probably give me outright, but that I wanted something smaller. My buddy joked that it’s probably smaller than the new Ranger, so I looked up the specs. The old full-sized truck is 1″ shorter, 7″ narrower, and a mere 1″ taller than the Ranger.
Narrow is a feature, not a bug.
But how narrow are you willing to go?
https://omgpancakes.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/noriyaro_odaiba_kei_truck_drifting_001.jpg?w=655
A short while ago I saw an 80’s regular cab F150 riding on lowered suspension. At first I thought I was looking at a Ranger with a grille swap.
I was at the auto show last night, poking around the Jeep Gladiator – in spite of offroad ground clearance, it has to have one of the lower, more accessible beds on the market. I was in love.
You must be looking at the width of the Ranger that includes the mirrors, it isn’t wider than any F150
I too thought it was a big difference, so I double-checked the reference, which stated “excluding mirrors”. I found other sites that had the same value but included the mirrors, so I’ll assume the first place I checked was in error. Regardless, it appears that the new Ranger is roughly the same width as the old F150, which still suggests some excessive model bloating.
Should be about 5″ narrower. F-series have always been about 79″, Ranger is about 73-74″.
Ok, ok already. Maybe the new Ranger just feels the size of an old FSPU, and an erroneous Google result seemed to initially confirm the fact. Regardless, it’s much bigger than I want, and it’s automatic-only, so I’m not interested.
Fair enough, just posted the results of a reality check making sure I wasn’t going crazy.
They are big enough to make car parks a pain here, which are definitely not sized for FSPUs Haven’t driven the Ranger, but have the Niss/Toy/Mits competitors
In a reverse situation, I would have certainly fact-checked that one, too. It surprised me, and I should have dug a little deeper. Of note, the outside bed width on my dad’s ’88 is 73″, so it is a considerably smaller truck than the current F150.
Here in the States, we don’t get the full picture of the world’s mid-sized pickup offerings (Mitsubishi, VW, Renault, etc.), but my narrow perception is influenced by the evolution of the compact pickups of the 80s and 90s into the much larger versions offered today. Sitting in the new Ranger reminds me nothing of my ’97 regular cab shortbed of the same name, a truck that was perfect for hauling mulch, my camping gear and mountain bike, etc., but also returned good fuel mileage, was fun to toss around, and easy to park.
I’d like Ford to offer a basic compact pickup again (small dimensions, manual transmission, minimal options). It appears that the Courier name is still available…
Even cars have grown, around 2012 a colleague wanted replace his 87 Accord, and bought a new Civic because it was the same size as his old Accord. I’m occasionally astonished at how low a 70s or 80s pickup rides compared to new ones. Also I saw an original RAV 4 the other day and they are tiny.
Exactly.
New Civic = old Accord,
new Fit = old Civic,
new HRV = old CRV,
new Accord = old… Crown Vic???
Fusion – Old Taurus
New Taurus – Vic
My Vic comment was in jest, but you’re correct. Ford specifically intended the Taurus to replace the Crown Victoria and the Fusion to take the place of the Taurus. To bad they didn’t just go with Fairlane and Galaxie…
We’re wintering in south central Texas and I’ve never felt more intimidated by traffic in all my life. Almost every vehicle is a huge full or super-duty size truck. Can’t see around them or over them. I used to have an 85 F-150 extended cab that was just the right size but this is crazy. Here, they seem to be the new min-van or soccer mom-dad vehicle. Yikes.
We need a gas price spike to curb some of that enthusiasm.
Leave a Reply