Why can't auto manufactuers do this?

BurbMan wrote:
...the 6 speed trans has such tall OD ratios that a slight headwind causes it to downshift...

Thank you for validating my observations. I also found it has to downshift on the slightest grades that barely register an rpm drop. I too rent cars frequently for my job, and have found the Camry lacking in power, performance, comfort, and despite all Toyota's hype, mpg. I only got about 30 mpg on the same 500 mile trip that I got 33 mpg with a Dodge Charger of all things. Overall, I would rate the Camry in the bottom 3 cars I've had. But we digress....

I'd love to have a truck that could haul 3 ton while easily pulling and safely stopping 20k#, and still get 100 mpg. The technology just isn't there, and all the wishing, hoping, and legislating isn't going to change that.

I think you're dreaming about the Camry...I have rented several of those in the past few months to run up to Chicago (5 hrs) and assorted other road trips where it's easier tot drive than fly. Not that I asked for them, that's what I got. You are correct about the mileage, the 4 cyl is a gas sipper for sure. But the 6 speed trans has such tall OD ratios that a slight headwind causes it to downshift...I had to manually shift between 4 and 5 coming back from Asheville on I-40, just to keep the little motor pulling in the power band at 65 up and down those hills. If you put another person in the car besides the driver and hooked up a 500 lb trailer, you wouldn't see either 6th gear OR 30 MPG.

Lessmore wrote:
'Im sure this type of body modification also happened in Australia, in the early years of the car and before the advent of the factory made Australian 'ute' .

Correct. Then Body Builders made their own "Pickups". Ford made the first Production Ute in 1934.

RobertRyan wrote:

Lessmore wrote:
Who in turn were influenced by Model T's that were owner converted to pickups earlier.

Model T's were built CKD here and a "Pickup" type body was included by local body builders. Utes differ in that they do not have the separation between body and Cab.
A 1948 Chevrolet Stlymaster converted into a Ute.

Many people made pickups out of cars...right from the beginning. Often they took a saw and chopped away at the body till it was transformed from a car carrying people to a hybrid vehicle carrying cargo.

Also many early tow trucks were larger cars modified this way.

There was no separation between the body and the cab....in many of these...hybrids.

I'm sure this type of body modification also happened in Australia, in the early years of the car and before the advent of the factory made Australian 'ute' .

Hank857 wrote:
he other thing is who would buy one just because it looked like a truck? Even the honda is a dud in sales for whatever reasons, the el caminos and rancheros were the last attempt to get car/truck sales together and they to died after about 10 years. I had a ranchero, great car/truck, but not really a load carrier. did work for small things/lumber but not large items like a pickup could carry.

Then again a Pickup is not a Sportscar and a Sports Ute, can carry almost as much as a F150(1600lbs?) but have the performance to match an Aston Martin DBR9 around the Top Gear(UK) test track. Sales of Utes are hampered by Cheap Asian Pickups and Australians buying more SUV's/CUV's instead of larger passenger sedans.
http://topgearspecials.com/holden-maloo-top-gear-episode/

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
There is one pesky thing that always gets in the way, it's called physics! ;)

Physics says it should be possible, and relatively easy to achieve.

A truck that weighs half as much, is half the size, and has half the power should have double the fuel economy.

I'm not asking for a 1-ton dually to get 30MPG here.

Ford and Chevy are making jacked-up, full-size pickup trucks that visually have the aerodynamics of a cinder block. A friend of mine is doing 22MPG with his Ecoboost. GM is touting 20+ with their new direct-injection gassers. Heck, my 4.8L 1/2 ton got 20 MPG for years.

If they can get 20+ with a full size pickup, there is absolutely no reason they can't push 30 with a compact truck.

the other thing is who would buy one just because it looked like a truck? Even the honda is a dud in sales for whatever reasons, the el caminos and rancheros were the last attempt to get car/truck sales together and they to died after about 10 years. I had a ranchero, great car/truck, but not really a load carrier. did work for small things/lumber but not large items like a pickup could carry.

I think the vw one was somewhat successful but again it died an early death due to lack of sales and the diesel version didn't help much either. Build and they wont come, dont build it and someone will whine and cry about it. A never ending battle. Small trucks with 4 cyl are almost a waste of time and they still dont get good milage. My 94 ranger with 300000+ on it gets 15-16 in town around 20 on the road. Its a 4.0 v6, runs great, I think they advertise a 4 cyl version as getting 20-22 so there is no need to upgrade to newer as they have nothing to add over what I have and half the power. You want mileage drive a car and not a truck! On the rv site they ask about MPG's and the answer, if mpg's are a concern then you have the wrong hobby/interests in rving. same hold here I think.

Lessmore wrote:
Who in turn were influenced by Model T's that were owner converted to pickups earlier.

Model T's were built CKD here and a "Pickup" type body was included by local body builders. Utes differ in that they do not have the separation between body and Cab.
A 1948 Chevrolet Stlymaster converted into a Ute.

mkirsch wrote:
Why can't the auto manufacturers come up with a truck-like vehicle that gets 30MPG and has decent performance?

Work rented me a Toyota Camry for a road trip last week, and I got 36.6MPG, hand calculated, in the equivalent of a week's worth of driving. That's DOUBLE what I get with my Silverado 1500, but it's a CAR.

I've got the dually for hauling the camper and the heavy stuff, but I refuse to run it in the winter. I need to haul lighter stuff that won't fit in a car trunk, and tow small trailers year-round.

A compact pickup seems like the answer, but the gutless 4-bangers they come with barely get any better fuel economy than my 4.8L V8. With a V6, they're as bad or worse on fuel than the full-size 1/2 tons.

Seems like the auto manufacturers could come up with a truck-shaped object based on a popular midsize car platform that could do 30MPG, haul a few hundred pounds, tow 1500-2000lbs, and have decent get-up-and-go like that Camry I drove.

The more I think about it, the more the idea sounds like a modern day El Camino. Build it on the Malibu platform.

There is one pesky thing that always gets in the way, it's called physics! ;)

RobertRyan wrote:

Lessmore wrote:
The Ute is essentially a modern Chevy El Camino or Ford Ranchero.

Who in return were inspired by Ford and Holden Utes of the 1930's/ 1950's

Who in turn were influenced by Model T's that were owner converted to pickups earlier.