YACT: What's up with pickups?

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
Reading threads about towing and such, I realized that I would hate it if I had to tow a boat or carry manure, because I would have to get a lumbering full size truck.

Why is it that compact pickups have lower cargo and towing capacities than larger trucks? Why does the size of the truck matter? It's not the engine size. You can get a Tacoma/4Runner with the same engine as a Tundra. And I don't see why the suspension, drivetrain, and chassis have to be any weaker on a smaller truck.
If you don't agree on the size being a non issue, look at trucks like Ford's F series. An F-250, F-350, and F-450(?) are all the same size, with the only difference being the components and chassis (I assume), maybe different engines available. Is it just marketing?
 

d33pt

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2001
5,654
1
81
even though you don't seem to think so, the suspension, drivetrain, and chassis ARE weaker on smaller trucks...
also the weight of the vehicle has a major effect on its towing capabilities... imagine how fun it is to stop when you're towing a 4000lb boat with your 3000lb truck.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: d33pt
even though you don't seem to think so, the suspension, drivetrain, and chassis ARE weaker on smaller trucks...
also the weight of the vehicle has a major effect on its towing capabilities... imagine how fun it is to stop when you're towing a 4000lb boat with your 3000lb truck.
:D

Exactly. It's more than just the engine.. although that has a lot to do with it. It's the build of the truck, in general..
 

Cyberian

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2000
9,999
1
0
with the only difference being the components and chassis (I assume), maybe different engines available.
Yup, that's the only difference - the chassis, components (transmission, drive train, differential) and the engine.
The radios are exactly the same.
 

toph99

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2000
5,505
0
0
put a F-350 dually next to a ranger. The chassis IS stronger, look at the gross tow weight limit of each vehicle. You get a full sized truck because it is meant to take the abuse, has heavy duty components, compact trucks won't. I'd love to see a compact try to hold a cummins/powerstroke/duramax without crushing the whole front end

from edmunds:

2004 Ford Ranger
Base Number of Cylinders: 6 B
ase Engine Size: 3 liters
Base Engine Type: V6
Horsepower: 154 hp
Max Horsepower: 5200 rpm
Torque: 180 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 3900 rpm
Maximum Payload: 1260 lbs.
Maximum Towing Capacity: 3800 lbs.
Drive Type: 4WD
Turning Circle: 39.1 ft.

2004 Ford F-350 Super Duty
Base Number of Cylinders: 8
Base Engine Size: 5.4 liters
Base Engine Type: V8
Horsepower: 260 hp
Max Horsepower: 4500 rpm
Torque: 350 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 2500 rpm
Maximum Payload: 4715 lbs.
Maximum Towing Capacity: 12500 lbs.
Drive Type: 4WD
Turning Circle: 50.7 ft.



 

Ladies Man

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,775
0
76
If you don't agree on the size being a non issue, look at trucks like Ford's F series. An F-250, F-350, and F-450
any F-series truck does not equal a ford ranger... the type of truck you are talking about.
Also the engines offered in full sized trucks are no where near what's offered in compacts... Compacts biggest engine is usually a V6 which is the base engine in full sized.

You can get a Tacoma/4Runner with the same engine as a Tundra.
Tundra sucks... Trucks are one thing that US automakers know how to make.

A compact truck is more like car than it is a pickup truck.... If you drove each you'd immediately notice the difference.
 

flyfish

Senior member
Oct 23, 2000
856
0
0

You can get a Tacoma/4Runner with the same engine as a Tundra.
Tundra sucks... Trucks are one thing that US automakers know how to make.
Dude...you have got to be kidding me! :Q
The Tundra has the same v8 as the new Lexus!
the Tundra sucks? Why do you think this? I think the Tundra superior to any so called " american made "truck (Tundra is made in Indiana)(Fords,Chevy, made in Mexico, Canada)
I agree is is not as "lumbering" as American trucks, but it can easily hold it's own!
I don't agree with your opinion. Have you ever driven a Tundra?
 

Ladies Man

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,775
0
76
Originally posted by: flyfish

You can get a Tacoma/4Runner with the same engine as a Tundra.
Tundra sucks... Trucks are one thing that US automakers know how to make.
Dude...you have got to be kidding me! :Q
The Tundra has the same v8 as the new Lexus!
the Tundra sucks? Why do you think this? I think the Tundra superior to any so called " american made "truck (Tundra is made in Indiana)(Fords,Chevy, made in Mexico, Canada)
I agree is is not as "lumbering" as American trucks, but it can easily hold it's own!
I don't agree with your opinion. Have you ever driven a Tundra?

The new lexus can probably pull as much too.

Tundra...
4.7 v8. 245 hp and 315lb ft torque
Payload 1,366 lbs.
Max. trailer weight 7,100 lbs.

Chevy Silverado... This is where it gets good... even with the base v6 that puts out 200 hp and 260lb torque
Payload 2,123 lbs.
Max. trailer weight 8,300 lbs.
Not to mention you can get engines as big as 6L v8...

Ford F-150.... v6 202 hp 252 lb torque
Payload 2,015 lbs.
Max. trailer weight 8,800 lbs.
also several engines to choose from....

Get into superduty trucks with diesel engines and the tundra is a pos

I would love to see toyota come out with a superduty dually diesel... it won't happen anytime soon... they can't compete in the truck market against anything higher than a base model american truck.
Dodge is ahead of tundra too i just got tired to searching for facts.

i got all my info from cars.com.... v6 models used just cus they are listed and for my purposes are still better than the V8 tundra


also check out the prices... base models are cheaper for american trucks too... imagine that???
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
What I'm saying is why can't small pickups have stronger components? I didn't mean that small trucks aren't weaker.
 

flyfish

Senior member
Oct 23, 2000
856
0
0
Carss.com specs are wrong.
From Chevy Website: 2003 Silverado Ext cab with 4.8 V8 (comparing apples to apples)= 7100 lbs.
From Ford website: 2003 Ford F-150 Ext cab 4.6 V8 =6,800 lbs.
Tundra 4.7= 7,200 lbs. Also, it will still run after 100,000 miles.
 

JoLLyRoGer

Diamond Member
Aug 24, 2000
4,153
4
81
Tundra isn's even a half ton. I's something like a 3/8th ton truck. The least they could do is make a TRUE full size if they want to play the game. That's where I'd start anyway!


Thanks, but I'll keep my F-150
 

Ladies Man

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,775
0
76
Originally posted by: flyfish
Carss.com specs are wrong.
From Chevy Website: 2003 Silverado Ext cab with 4.8 V8 (comparing apples to apples)= 7100 lbs.
From Ford website: 2003 Ford F-150 Ext cab 4.6 V8 =6,800 lbs.
Tundra 4.7= 7,200 lbs. Also, it will still run after 100,000 miles.



7100 with 3.73 rear end... OR 8100 with 4.10 rear end. Hummm... yes comparing apples to apples... 4.8 v8
http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/library/fs/index_trailering.htm
 

JoLLyRoGer

Diamond Member
Aug 24, 2000
4,153
4
81
I suppose you could take a Tundra, then add some dual fart-cans, a turbo, and stickers then it might be as good!

EDIT: Oh Yeah! Cant forget the NOS!.....Got Rice?
 

Ladies Man

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,775
0
76
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
What I'm saying is why can't small pickups have stronger components? I didn't mean that small trucks aren't weaker.

They could... but why would they? I don't see the demand being there.
 

flyfish

Senior member
Oct 23, 2000
856
0
0
Originally posted by: Ladies Man
Originally posted by: flyfish
Carss.com specs are wrong.
From Chevy Website: 2003 Silverado Ext cab with 4.8 V8 (comparing apples to apples)= 7100 lbs.
From Ford website: 2003 Ford F-150 Ext cab 4.6 V8 =6,800 lbs.
Tundra 4.7= 7,200 lbs. Also, it will still run after 100,000 miles.



7100 with 3.73 rear end... OR 8100 with 4.10 rear end. Hummm... yes comparing apples to apples... 4.8 v8
http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/library/fs/index_trailering.htm

You are looking at a 4x4 Standard Cab !!!!!
 

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
What I'm saying is why can't small pickups have stronger components? I didn't mean that small trucks aren't weaker.

Sure, smaller trucks can have stronger components, but remember that towing is a balancing act. A post above mentioned towing a 4000 lb boat with a 3000 lb truck - it can be even worse than that.

Another aspect of towing is wheelbase size. Short wheelbase vehicles are much less stable than longer ones. I don't know if you've ever towed anything, and experienced the "wobble" of the trailer being towed. This harmonic could potentially get out of hand and cause the towing vehicle to jacknife. Longer wheelbase vehicles can withstand much more of this.

Sooo, you have: Vehicle weight, Heavier/stiffer suspension, Heavier chassis, longer wheelbase even before you touch the engine.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Yeah, this is really progress.
rolleye.gif


Pickups that can't haul sh*t. Eensie death mobiles the size of riding lawnmowers with sheet metal like beer cans on unibodies with cute little spoilers on the back... brother!
rolleye.gif


Everybody that wants the durability of yesterday's cars is buying SUVs now. Hope you're happy with the new times!
 

Demon-Xanth

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
20,551
2
81
Here's something to consider:
On the 1999 Dodge Rams, the 1/2 truck had a 6" frame rail, the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks had 8", and the chassis cab trucks had 10". If you've ever ridden in them, you'd know that a 3/4 ton and a 1/2 ton ride completely differently.

Another thing to consider: the drive line.
My Dakota can tow 5,400LBs. Not bad. But if I had gone for the 3.92 option, I would be able to tow 6,300LBs. Meaning that something in the drive line is limiting it. I suspect it's the driveshaft itself.

Also note that the towing specs tend to vary by engine and transmission options.

One notable "spec cheat" was the Land Rover Discovery, it claimed to tow 7,700LBs. However, if you looked into it, it could only do so in 4-lo. high range was limited to 5,500.

Although there's hard specs that are thrown around, there's no good way to spec how well a truck can pull a trailer. Diesels tend to tow incredibly well, 4.x liter gas engines, although they may be rated at 7,000Lbs, would barely be able to make it up a grade. An article on a T-100 a while back had the reviewer saying basically that it towed 5,000 LBs great, you just had to keep it in 3rd gear (5 speed manual) and never let the revs go below 3,500. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to do a long trip where the engine is in the 3,500-5000RPM range the whole time. That just seems like you're asking for trouble. By comparison, my dad and brother in laws diesel Rams tow 10,000 LB trailers just fine up and down grades. No special instructions needed.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
No, I'm not happy with the SUV craze. I think it's retarded, as are most of the owners. But I'd rather have a safe 3000 pound car (like mine) that gets 35 mpg and is faster than almost anything out of the 60's, than a safe 4000 pound car that gets 15 mpg with little to no performance benefit to speak of. Progress is a wonderful thing. I enjoy classic cars for what they are, but their design details don't have much place in todays world. (I'm speaking to passenger cars, not to trucks, the topic of this thread)

edited for clarity
 

bunker

Lifer
Apr 23, 2001
10,572
0
71
I think the Tundra superior to any so called " american made "truck (Tundra is made in Indiana)(Fords,Chevy, made in Mexico, Canada)
Want to show me where you got that info?
My F-150 was made in Kentucky, the new F-150 is being produced in Kansas City and Norfolk, Va. I love it when people spout out things they "think" they know
rolleye.gif


As for the original post. A compact pickup could be made to do the hauling/towing but it is cost prohibitive. The big 3 sell the smaller trucks because of their price. If they beefed them up enough to be able to do the hauling/towing of their bigger brothers it would cost a hell of a lot more. Why by a compact for the same price as a full size? Doesn't make sense.

That said I towed quite a bit with my old Ranger and it was painful every time I did. Upgraded to an F-150 and it's a pleasure to tow. With the Ranger you could feel the trailer pushing/pulling the truck around, with the F-150 I push and pull the trailer around.
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
Another thing to consider: the drive line.
My Dakota can tow 5,400LBs. Not bad. But if I had gone for the 3.92 option, I would be able to tow 6,300LBs. Meaning that something in the drive line is limiting it. I suspect it's the driveshaft itself.
WTF? Driveshaft? The 3.92 is the gear ratio, obviously you have something like a 3.55 ratio or so. Higher numbers mean deeper gears and better towing ability. There's no driveshaft problem.