For those of us who need a vehicle to tow a boat, the choice of smaller, well-designed vehicles is non-existent. I would love to be able to buy a modern, smaller pick-up, or SUV, that could tow a ski boat, but drive nicely and get decent gas mileage during the 98% of the time it isn't towing.

Amen! I'm hanging on to my '96 S-10 because any newer alternative out there (other than the Ranger) is harder on gas, too expensive and, in the case of the Colorado/whatever they call the GMC model, no better if not a step backwards from my current ride.
 
Please, bring back the LUV!!!!!!!!!! I don't need more than that for a pickup truck.

If you look at the specs for the base, 2wd, reg cab tacoma it's really not that big, even compared to the smallest current ranger. Of course I only see those owned by businesses for the most part, delivering printing and autoparts etc. Regular consumers always seem to opt for the larger cabs and usually 4wd. I can't see toyota or any other truck maker seriously looking at selling even smaller trucks here till they start selling a lot more of the smallest ones they already have.
 
Anyway to find a breakdown on how well the diff tacoma versions sell (or any other compact truck for that matter)

Uh, I can't speak for the base, 2wd, reg cab tacoma, but any version I've ever taken a look at is pretty large, it seems as wide or wider than our Highlander and definately larger than a Ranger. The Dakota is really as big as a full size from 10-15 years ago.
 
Why can't Dodge take a jeep patriot and hack off the back end, or Toyota with the Rav4? Do compact pickup buyers really need a solid rear axle? I think Honda was onto something with the Ridgeline, but their exterior styling dept dropped the ball. It shouldn't be rocket science to make a unibody compact pickup, and I think the fuel milage would pull buyers across brands to get them.

The problem with a CUV style based pickup is the lack of a true 4WD drivetrain. I believe the Patriot and the Rav both send 50% or more of their power to the front wheels (and much of their weight). That's just an assumption though. When you drop 100 or 200 pounds of weight on the back bumper of a vehicle like that, you totally throw off the balance (rear suspension is soft because of the lack of weight designed to be there) and the traction because it likes to spin the front wheels. It makes it look ridiculous too when the back end is sagging like that. As we learned from the CUV craze, it's all about image.

Karl, this is exactly the problem my dad is facing. (I spent last Saturday teaching him how to research vehicles on Edmunds!) He has a 1999 full-size truck but doesn't really need it anymore. But, he was surprized to see that most of the new "compact" trucks get nearly as poor gas milage. What's the point in trading in (and paying for a new car) if he's not going to see substantial MPG savings?

Compact trucks do exist, just not in North America. People in Asia get to enjoy a different Ford Ranger, Toyota Hilux, and some Mitsubishi truck whose name I forget.

bbechtel, I don't quite follow you. What is the difference between putting 200lbs in the back of a Rav4, or in the back of the hypothetical Rav based pickup? If the Rav can tow 3500 lbs, surely the pickup variant could. Maybe it couldn't do everything a Tacoma could do, but many don't need that capability. I'm sure Toyota has some supplier, somewhere, that can provide stiffer suspension in back. I dobut that's a show stopper for them!
 
Tysalpha, even if you dad buys a Yaris he won't recoup the purchase price in gas saved in five years. I doubt many would rush in to buy a compact pickup to save gas money even if it got 28-30mpg. I just think for those who need to buy a new vehicle it's a market that isn't serviced by any manufacturer. And, I would think for commercial vehicles this could be big.
 
This is what we really need: http://jalopnik.com/377144/wrecked-civic-%252B-drag-bike--el-civico

I'm not saying it's any different between a real Rav and a Rav pickup. Both are equally bad choices for towing/hauling (depending on how much you're towing). If you're hauling 1 jet ski it's fine. 1 pop-up camper may be a different story.
 
On towing capacities, just because a vehicle "can" tow x number of pounds, doesn't make it a good idea. Towing capacities are completely arbitrary, set solely by the manufacture as a balance between the marketing and legal departments. We've seen Ford change towing capacities on the F-150 on a year to year carry over model!
 
My beef with it is the drivetrain and the chassis philosophy of vehicles such as the Rav. Numbers don't tell the whole story. You can tell which vehicles were designed with towing in mind and which aren't when you drop a trailer on the back. If someone puts out a unibody compact pickup with either true 4WD or an AWD system that puts 50+% of the power to the rear full time, I'll fully support it for light duty towing/hauling applications. Assuming of course it isn't a POS.
 
Regarding the El Civico...LOL I love how the story flows with such logic. What other option did the man have?! A true Alaskan! I can't wait to go back!
 
I almost bought an HX a couple years ago. You get more power than the LX and not a huge amount less than the EX, but of course much better mileage than either! The lack of cruise control was a deal breaker for me though. Who makes a car with a mission of delivering exceptional fuel mileage without even offering cruise control?! I use cruise A LOT on the rural highways in PA.

We need the types of small trucks available elsewhere in the world - the relatively light weight and small trucks with either a small but appropriately sized gas (or even better) diesel engine. Have them range from 2wd regular cabs to 4wd crew cabs. I think they are widely available worldwide made by multiple manufacturers.
 
I've owned true compact, mid-sized and (old) full sized trucks and each has their merits and place in the market IMO. I agree that the current full size trucks are monsters and perhaps too big - I think Dodge's revolutionary and successful Ram started that "arms race”.
 
RE: the Ranger.....what a shame....Ford showed back then with the current design that they knew what they were doing and they owned the market for a while. It's too bad that they didn't have a better plan for keeping it current. I was on a Ford lot on Sunday...the V6 Ranger is rated for 14 and 17.....not much better than the F-150! I know I had trouble getting more than 16.x most of the time with my Rangers. At this point I think they should be looking to "import" their small truck from elsewhere - I have seen small Ford branded trucks like I mentioned above in other countries (I think they are actually Mazdas).
 
I vote for a return to the days of good solid choices in the compact market as well as the mid and full size too.....if the market will bear it. Trucks have come a long way towards being useful and well rounded daily driver type vehicles. All that has been learned thus far should be applied to a new generation of compacts and they should be improved regularly to make them better and to widen their appeal too….to draw in buyers that might opt for something with more carlike attributes. The Ridgeline is the right idea – something that blends a small to mid SUV with an open bed – give it a diesel for MPGs.
 
-Truck Guy

"even if you dad buys a Yaris he won't recoup the purchase price in gas saved in five years. I doubt many would rush in to buy a compact pickup to save gas money even if it got 28-30mpg. I just think for those who need to buy a new vehicle it's a market that isn't serviced by any manufacturer."
 
Very true, bepperb. Honestly I think he's just ready for something new and is looking for better gas milage to help justify the purchase. And to your point and Karl's, that's one less new truck being sold because the old one will keep doing fine and what my dad wants isn't available. Well, unless he wants a 2008/1986 Ranger. ;)

Karl, there is one answer coming very soon. Is call Mahindra trucks. They offer compact trucks with diesel engines. They are going to be like true work trucks base on their payload and truck beds. Not your wimpy soft suspension we get here from the compact trucks. In simple words watchout for your kidneys! True the Ford Ranger is the only compact truck in the market as long as you choose the 4 cyl engine for fuel economy.

I still remember fondly my little 2wd Ram 50 pick up (Mitsubishi) I bought new in 1988.
 
It was cheap (same price as Omnis and Colts on the same lot), 1500 lb payload, 3500 lb towing, 6 foot bed, extended cab great for pets and stuff (not so much for people), got 28 mpg and with a weight of only 2750 lbs was lots of fun to drive.
 
I had it for 10 years and 300K and aside from cracking the cylinder head on the 2.6, it was bullet proof.
 
Why can't they build something like that but just update the interiors and use modern engines?

Besides ... a smaller truck will make your Truck Nutz look much bigger.

I don't think the answer is "crossover trucks". There may be a limited market for Brats and Bajas and the like. But mostly I suspect people still want "real" trucks, just smaller ones. As others have noted, they've got to have good fuel econ too, perhaps diesel. As it is, the small trucks get nearly as poor mileage as the large ones, and the rebates and incentives on large trucks are obscene, so you might as well super size me.
 
Another problem may be packaging. It seems that in most cases, you have to get the V6 to get the options you really want. Maybe if Toyota starts selling a greater percentage of 4-cylinders they'll begin to focus on that. I'd love to see choice of engine as a separate option on most vehicles, rather than bundled together with other packages. Honda does a pretty good job of this, you can get a 4-cylinder Accord for instance with leather, nav, etc. How about a 4-cylinder Tacoma Pre-Runner? You get the extended cab, the bigger wheels and body lift that everyone prefers, but with a little better mpg?

I think the '95-'04 Tacomas were the perfect size for a small truck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Hi-Lux#1995
 
My best friend owned one and it was a really versatile vehicle. It got decent mileage, had good towing, looked fantastic, and was the ultimate mudding machine. I'd rather have one of those than a Wrangler, even.
 
If they could shoehorn a V8 or an HD V6 (able to tow 8,000+ lbs), that'd be the perfect vehicle.

firstwagon,
 
The reason you're never going to see a new Ram 50 (or a new LUV, P'UP, take your pick) is real simple: the government.
 
None of these nice, economical, 2700 pound pickups were loaded down with airbags, modern crash structures, etc. It's all been mandated by Uncle Nanny State, and electronic stabilization is next. To attempt to build an equivalent truck nowadays means adding a few hundred pound of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with daily driving, unless your idea of daily driving is hitting something.
 
I'd love it to have a choice between a modern safety equipped truck, or a bare bones model - where the safety is merely good construction, handling and brakes and seat belts - even if it means signing away my right to sue the manufacturer in case of injuries in an accident.
 
We're never going to have a good, simple bare bones vehicle again - the government won't allow it. The lobbyists have won this one, permanently.

I've had a 1987 Mazda B2000 for 15 years now and it's been great. Much prefer it to the Rangers I've driven, it's lower to the ground so it handles better, clutch/shifting is Miata quality, and the extended cab is quite a bit bigger. Air shocks in the rear means if I'm hauling a load I just add some pressure. It's been a cheap, useful, and fun to drive little vehicle, especially with the Weber conversion on now.
  
Throw an efficient modern engine and up to date safety features (ABS, airbags, ESP) and I'd buy another one new.

Yep, safety regs prevent 2700 lb pickups - they were famous for their 'crushability' in rollovers.

Well, my wife and I still love her Ridgeline. I see it as the middle of the road between the full size guys and the efficient Tacomas of the past (which my wife actually wanted, but didn't like the new '06 model).
 
As for which wheels are driving it when you tow, I doubt that matters one bit as long as the vehicle still has full length frame rails (as the Ridgeline does) to help distribute the weight. Unfortunately, I don't tow, but met other owners at the St. Louis gathering that have had no issue exceeding the 5000lb tow limit. Checkout the videos on the 4wd system--it's always on:
http://www.ridgelineownersclub.com/event2007/photos.php?btn=photos
 
Over the weekend, I arrived at a park at the same time as a crew cab Dakota owner. We had similar setup--husband, wife, kid, and stoller. For him, he's got absolutely no room in the cab. They just stared when I pulled out the bigazz stroller from the in bed trunk.

"Yep, safety regs prevent 2700 lb pickups - they were famous for their 'crushability' in rollovers."
 
Actually it was full size pick up trucks that liked to crush their cabs, not the compacts. It's much easier to hold up 2700 lbs with your roof then it is to hold up 5000 lbs.

"I'd love it to have a choice between a modern safety equipped truck, or a bare bones model - where the safety is merely good construction, handling and brakes and seat belts - even if it means signing away my right to sue the manufacturer in case of injuries in an accident."
 
Sorry dude, but MY auto and medical insurance premiums are tied to YOUR ability to remain uninjured in a crash. Unless you sign those rights away and pay 100% of your own medical bills, you'll have to accept the safety equipment. ;)

So shouldn't people who don't wear seatbelts have to sign their rights away and pay their own bills too?

http://www.ford.co.th/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1178841144630&pagename=FTHEN%2FDFYPage%2FDefault&c=DFYPage
 
New Ford Ranger has already been designed, why not sell it in the US instead of the 1982 style Ranger?
Ford and/or Mazda could ship knockdown kits to US or to a country closer to Thailand for final assembly and avoid the Chicken Tax.
Mazda BT-50 anyone?
 
L200 is a very competent truck that would serve Mitsubishi much better than the Raider. If I were running Mitsubishi the L200 would replace the Raider and keep the Raider nameplate.
 
question for tysalpha, Are airbags rollover protection mandatory on all new motorcyles or do motorcyclists sign their rights away upon purchase?

We need a G8 pickup.

tysalpha,
 
You're talking to a guy who has ridden a motorcycle or (currently) a 150cc scooter as his main commuting transportation for the past 32 years. Which means your insurance is tied to me 90% of the time while I'm on two wheels and in the wind. Enjoy.
 
Hopefully that explains why I'm not exactly excited about 'safety' systems in a car. I'm refuse to be nannied to death by a society that doesn't have the guts to face up to any form of risk anymore.

Jeep truck? How about the Jeep JT? http://trucks.about.com/od/conceptcars/ig/Jeep-JT-Truck-Pictures/Jeep-JT-Front---Side-View.htm

Karl , I've been asking for a state-of-the-art small pickup for years with the following:
 
• 3.0L diesel or diesel hybrid
• Have a bed that can handle 4x8 building materials
• Have a 2000 pound payload
• Have a fully independent suspension
• Have a full-time, rear-biased AWD with a low range
 
The problem with the Ranger is that it's decades old. The length and with are fine, but that's about it. We need more Euro-like small trucks. The Sprinter is a great start, but it too is very large.

How about a Subaru Baja with larger bed, boxer diesel, 1 ton payload, and Subaru AWD system?

iskch, Take a closer look at the Mahindra. It's very poorly built and has a high cost of entry. The current Ranger is a MUCH better choice.

I'd love to see more efficient packaging applied to light duty hauling applications. Too bad the 45 year old "Chicken Tax" tariff on imported pickups keeps the car based open box vehicles of other countries out of the US market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickup_truck
Full-size and mid-size body on frame pickups make great tow vehicles, but they're overkill for weekend trips to Home Depot. Would be nice to have less massive alternatives.
 
Karl, how does GM plan to get the Pontiac G8 Sport Truck past the 25% tax on imported pickups?

Why don't you get rid of this "chicken tax"? I can't see what purpose it serves.

Moparbad - I forgot about the JT....good call, nice ride.

rsholland, I'm against pickups having independent suspensions and car platforms. IMO, a pickup should always be tough and ready for the job.....and comfort is a secondary issue. Independent suspensions wouldn't make pickups robust enough as farm workhorses....so beam axles are the way to go!
(My dad's 1982 Datsun Pickup was reasonably comfortable., but had beam/live axles and a leaf suspension, at least at the rear. Anyone who thinks such a pickup would be uncomfortable should really be driving a Mercedes.....)
 
I would also prefer the real 4WD systems with a proper transfer-case, and not an Evo-style AWD system.
 
Pickups work best when they are simple. I think a pickup like the Mazda BT series is what is needed for the compact truck market, and not a G8-style pickup with little use. I doubt the G8-pickup can frequently carry 10 bags of cement without getting damaged. The BT-50 is basic but modern and nicely styled. Check it out: http://www.mazda.co.za/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1137386308717&pagename=Page&site=MSA&c=DFYPage.

Suspension for a one ton payload means a beat your kidneys out ride when it's unloaded.
 
As already pointed out, these gargantuan vehicles are the result of the crash test requirements. Demanding to walk away from a 40 mph crash into a brick wall leads to cars that will let you walk away from a 40 mph crash into a brick wall.. at the expense of the qualities that make them well suited as, well, cars.
 
And meeting CAFE while carrying a 1500 lb crumple frame around you every foot of the way means tightening belts on the rest of the vehicle - onion skin body panels that dent if you lean on them, plastic interiors, aerodynamic plastic shell fascias that break going through a drift of snow, etc.
 
Not calling for a return to the impaled on the steering column days, but there's a sensible middle ground somewhere over the horizon behind us.

^ +1!

blackadder5639
 
IRS not robust enough for farm use? Balderdash! Many Oshkosh trucks, which are some of the toughest trucks in the world, use IRS.
 
http://www.oshkoshtruck.com/pdf/Oshkosh_MTVR_brochure_07.pdf
 
Properly designed, IRS is the way to go.

"Many Oshkosh trucks, which are some of the toughest trucks in the world, use IRS."
 
Are you serious? Did you look at that link?
 
We're talking light affordable trucks here. Those things are high dollar, heavy weights.
 
Can you make a tough IRS? Sure.
 
Can you make it light, cheap, durable and still able to carry a heavy load? Nope.
 
My 2wd Ram 50 rode and handled fine, I see no advantage to a more expensive, less capable and less durable suspension.
 
Remember, we're talking light trucks here, not sports cars.

Firstwagon
 
My point was to prove that IRS can handle heavy loads if designed properly.
 
Those who claim IRS won't work on trucks are the same people who said IFS won't work on trucks. Well, we now know that's not true. I'm already reading complaints from old-school truckers about how the 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 with coil rear springs won't work. Wrong. Again. I fully expect to see an affordable IRS on pickups in the not too distant future.
 
Heck the Ridgeline, with a GVW of 6000 pounds, and a payload of of just under 1600 pounds. If they made a regular cab version of the Ridgeline I bet it would have a payload of of around 1800 pounds because of the lighter curb weight.
 
As a point of reference, I used to have a 1986 Ford F-150 4x4 with an 8' bed. It had a GVW of 6200 pounds and a payload of 2200 pounds. That's not far off from the Ridgeline in terms of GVW.
 
It wouldn't take much for Ford or Nissan or Toyota to adapt the IRS from their full-size SUVs and put it on their 1/2-ton pickups. It's not a matter of "can it be done and priced reasonably," but more matter of "selling the idea" to pickup owners.

rsholland,
 
Edmunds own experience with the durability of the Honda Ridgelines IRS isn't going to help "sell the idea" to pickup owners. Read thier wrap-up of the long term Ridgeline.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=105797

rsholland, I think Firstwagon has already made the comments I wanted to make.
 
Your Ridgeline may have a GVW of 6000 pounds, but it will not last 5 years if used for serious farm or construction work, whereas that 1986 Ford F-150 would probably do 15 years under those harsh conditions.
 
About IRS, I remember that Land Rover had to resort to complex (and often unreliable) electronics in order to make their IRS have some of the virtues of beam/live axles. Like Firstwagon said, you just can't make pickup with IRS light, cheap, durable and still able to carry a heavy load. Have you checked Discovery/LR3 and Range Rover prices lately?
 
It's a fact: IRS is not as robust as live/beam axles. If it were, heavy trucks and F-350s would be using it. The fact that they don't use it should tell you something. And light trucks don't use them either..... It's mostly overweight luxury trucks that use them, because for luxury vehicles comfort is a priority....

johno5
Read that article when it first came out.
 
blackadder5639
I don't own a Ridgeline.
 
Let's pick up this debate again in 10 years. I'm willing to bet that by then we will have a number of pickup trucks with IRS.

I had this same problem last year when truck shopping. If Ford redesigned the Ranger(I loved my 93) I would buy one in a heartbeat. I basically came down to a last gen Dakota and last gen Tundra. In the end I chose the Tundra because its 4.0 V6 was both stronger and more efficient than the 4.7 V8 but had to sacrafice 4wd to get a manual. The Tundra definately drives small and I highly recommend it for someone looking for a alternative to full size but the fuel economy isn't much better, 18 MPG average for me.
  
I like the M80 concept. If they offered toned down colors and a reasonable engine(no 3.8) i'd be interested.

Even if IRS were able to handle the rigors of heavy loading, I can't imagine it surviving the long haul (pun intended). Heck, even passenger cars need their rear springs/struts replaced every 6 or so years, and they aren't even under load. Even if it were survivable, I can't imagine it being cost effective against leaf springs. Personally, I see it as a product that simply isn't broke.
 
We'll see in 10 years. ;-)

It's interesting to see a 2008 Honda compared to a 1986 Ford.

Which Honda to which Ford?

IVRanger, maybe you tested a bad example, but I owned an '00 Tundra with the 4.7L V8 (not as powerful as later versions) and now own an '07 Tacoma with the 4.0L V-6, and in no way is the V6 (while no slouch) as powerful or smooth as the V8, which is probably the best truck engine I've ever owned, and I've owned Ford, Dodge, Chevy, Toyotas, you name it. I achieved 12.5mpg towing in the Tundra, and today I'm getting.....about 12.5mpg towing in the Tacoma.
 
I agree the old Tundra was a very nice size for those who don't require a brute of a pickup, especially if you need decent bed space even the midsize Tacomas don't offer. I'm sometimes tempted to pick up a good '06 used example while they're still around. The Tacoma is fine, but narrower and less planted and I found the steering more numb and the chassis less athletic in general. (my tundra had minor rear suspension and shock mods which made a huge difference, the same mods on the Tacoma didn't change it much)
 
I like the show truck in the picture above. But isn't the Chevy colorado a suitable small truck in terms of mpg and size too? Not executed that well, but it looks pretty small to me.

myob: I was doing a Dakota/Tundra comparison so the 4.7 I was refering to was the Dodge one. If I could get a Toyota 4.7 with a manual I would.
  
I haven't towed(yet) but even with a heavy load in the bed my mileage doesn't dip much. The Tacomas are taller than my truck, maybe thats why you see the same mileage with the V6. Also, the 6MT(if you have it) is geared much deeper(higher numerically) than the autos.
  
I am interested in your suspension mods. I have considered this but don't want to compromise my load carrying. I am amazed that my Tundra is the best handling(non sport) truck i've ever driven.
  
P.S. Don't mean to nit pick but its LVranger, it didn't take the caps when I signed up.

Firstwagon you had a ram 50? I had two. Well one was a D-50 when they were still called that. They were great for smaller loads like a couch or things like that. Both of mine had 8 ft beds. They were not up to a 1,000 lbs of bricks or anything like that but they hauled lumber and things that most full size 1/2 tons are hauling anyway. I think that Dodge would have a huge market if they brought them back. A 2.0 Liter diesel that gets 25-30 MPG as well would be cool too. But I'll take a 4 cyl. gas for right now. Didn't VW have a small truck back in the 80's too?

We own an 05 GMC Canyon and our purchase decision was made exactly decided by what you guys are talking about. The big question is that when are people going to quit driving stuff they don't need. But then you can use that for anybody who likes to drive a muscle car. Until small effecient diesels make it into everyday trucks there will always be a compromise of capability for effeciency. When we looked to replace my fiance's Volvo with a truck we immediately ruled out a full size truck because even though they are nice they are expensive and exceeded our needs. So we started looking at frontiers, tacoma's, and colorado/canyons. The dakota was ruled out for the same reason the full size trucks were, and the ranger is simply outdated. We ruled out the tacoma based on price alone and it came down between ext. cab colorado/canyons or frontiers. But this is where efficiency won over capability. I was not a fan of the I5 in the GM twins but after driving a few of them I saw the reason. This truck can only tow 4000 lbs and doesn't have the power a frontier... but it was also 2-3 grand cheaper than a similarly equipped frontier. The gas mileage was 2-3 mpg better. So we had to compare. We just need a Truck for outdoorsy activities, occasional drives off-road, our dog, and in frequent trips to home depot. the fact that the truck was 2k cheaper and we were able t o find it in a manual fully loaded tipped the scales. We average about 18-19mpg in the Canyon (lots of short trips) where I know the Frontier with all it's power would be more around 15-16... and a full sizer would be around 12-14. I think we still need the full range of pick-ups. But the smaller truck fit our needs (and after putting nicer, larger wheels on the canyon it looks sharp!) if I could have gotten a frontier or colorado with a nice small diesel... it would have been even better.