CarForum.net - Car Forums, Automotive News and Community
Home Gallery Register Calendar Members List

Go Back   CarForum.net - Car Forums, Automotive News and Community > General Car Discussion > General Automotive Discussion

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools
Unread 06-21-2013, 01:50 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
MetalBeerSolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 520
Rep: 21 MetalBeerSolid is on a distinguished road
Default [PUTC] 2013 Light-Duty Challenge

Not really news so I guess it goes here: 2013 Light-Duty Challenge: Overview - PickupTrucks.com Special Reports

http://blogs.cars.com/files/ldc-whatyougetchart1.pdf

It's amazing how close the top 3 are, it's crazy how much full size trucks have improved in the last 10-15 years.

The Ram would definitely be my personal choice, but I have to hand it to the GMC, 23.1 mpg with the new 5.3 is pretty incredible. And it did it with "only" 6 speeds!

These new full sizes are making my Ranger seem rather pointless. Now, if only they could put this much effort into compact pickups
__________________
1994 Ford Ranger XL | Long bed | 2wd | 2.3 | 5-speed | custom intake, custom Magnaflow exhaust | 2" lift, Rancho RS5000's | 31x10.50x15 BFG AT's | 8.8 LS 4.56 | 365k km

MetalBeerSolid is offline MetalBeerSolid's Gallery  
Reply With Quote
Unread 06-21-2013, 06:46 AM   #2
Spah sappin' mah susp!
 
Kenny McCormick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth...I think
Posts: 3,271
Rep: 96 Kenny McCormick will become famous soon enough
Default

It's be great if they got put on a diet though. Modern quarter-ton trucks are larger than my half-tons and weigh about as much. Modern half tons are absolutely massive, dwarfing even the 1-tons of yesteryear. They're simply too damn big IMO, and I genuinely feel they'd get the same MPG if they used ten year old engines and were shrunk back down to the sizes/weights they were 20 years ago as they do now. They wouldn't need all this high-end engine/trans tech to get 23MPG if they weren't the size of small moons...


Also no manual gearboxes in any of 'em. :\
__________________
Tired Iron ain't got no time to wear out...

My rigs:

1985 Ford F150 | 4x2 | 300ci OHV inline six | 4-speed OD manual | 310K | No power brakes | Running 100% - It hasn't driven this good in 15 years!

1984 Ford F150 | 4x2 | 300ci six | granny four | 3.55 rear end | 210K | Brakes shot. Rear drums are doing most of the work. Not fit to drive due to that.
1997 Ford Explorer XLT | 4.0L Vulcan V6 | 5-speed automatic | shift-on-the-fly 4WD | 210,000 miles | Running 95% - Needs brakes on all four corners + bald tires
1989 Ford F150 | 300cid six...again | 5-speed | 4x4 | 160K | Needs brakes done as well. Oi!

Kenny McCormick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Unread 06-21-2013, 07:06 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
MetalBeerSolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 520
Rep: 21 MetalBeerSolid is on a distinguished road
Default

Yeah, and if the Ford Atlas concept is anything to go by the F150 is only gonna get bigger :/

At least they're making it lighter anyway http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/06...ed-weight.html
__________________
1994 Ford Ranger XL | Long bed | 2wd | 2.3 | 5-speed | custom intake, custom Magnaflow exhaust | 2" lift, Rancho RS5000's | 31x10.50x15 BFG AT's | 8.8 LS 4.56 | 365k km

Last edited by MetalBeerSolid; 06-21-2013 at 07:09 PM.

MetalBeerSolid is offline MetalBeerSolid's Gallery  
Reply With Quote
Unread 06-21-2013, 11:59 PM   #4
Community Director
 
Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 7,602
Rep: 153 Mike has a spectacular aura aboutMike has a spectacular aura about
Default

I've never really bought into truck comparisons. Buy whichever you like best. Outside of reliablilty and options there ain't that much difference. I care if its got power to pull a trailer down the freeway comfortably or pass someone, I couldn't care less how fast it can accelerate to 60 on a grade while pulling a camper.

Realistically every truck out right now has MORE than enough power and torque. It's becoming gravy. Make the brakes better, more fade-free, and longer lasting. Stop them from having the turning radius of a moon. For gods sake, make them smaller again.
__________________
"He shouted: 'You've won! Didn't you know?' I didn't, and it's about the nicest thing I've ever been told" -Bruce McLaren, 1968 Belgian Grand Prix
Read the rules! | DO NOT REPLY TO SPAM
Daily Driver: 2006 Mazda 3 S sedan - 2.3L I4, 5 speed manual - 78k miles
Girlfriend's Car: 2013 Chevy Volt - 30k miles
Bikes: 1979 Yamaha XS 750


Mike is offline Mike's Gallery  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Shogun Interactive Development Copyright 2015 Shogun Interactive Development. All rights reserved.