[V8] Pickup truck technology....and all that jazz

Tue Aug 16 05:23:43 PDT 2011

I'm not so sure.  

About eight years ago I bought a medium duty box truck for my fledgling
recycling business. The truck was a Mitsubishi Fuso with four cylinder
turbocharged diesel and automatic transmission.  The truck itself wasn't
hauling a lot of weight....the box was an 18 foot box with "school bus" door
and it never even vaguely approached max gross, carrying empty beverage
bottles and cans in large plastic totes.  Fuel mileage was fair, and never
varied so long as I didn't exceed any speed limits.  Driving cycle was
normally rural/suburban.  

When the business closed I toyed with the the idea of keeping the truck,
removing the box and fabricating a ten foot pickup truck bed in its place.
I really wanted to try it but for the simple fact that the truck was rear
wheel drive only.  Mitsu/Fuso never has developed a four wheel drive variant
that would be competitive in the marketplace.  All these trucks are dual
rear wheel configurations, and the 4X4 version is a short wheelbase truck
that just doesn't compare to a GMC 2500/3500 model.  But if Mitsubishi or
someone else wanted to take a shot, I for one would probably beat the drum
hard to sell them.  

The Mitsubishi truck that I had was a ONE TON rated truck, and even loaded I
don't think it would be outmatched by either traffic or load considerations.
It was a nice rig, and if that front axle had been powered I might still
have it.  With four wheel drive, it sure would have been a LOT easier to
plow with than the GMC that replaced it.

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Justusson [mailto:qshipq at aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:00 AM
To: rmwoodbury at fairpoint.net; v8 at audifans.com
Subject: Re: [V8] Pickup truck technology....and all that jazz

Problem:  Hauling weight/toys takes power.  4 cylinder engines don't do that
well.  BTDT, 22TRE gen II 87 4Runner Turbo (3/4 ton rear end installed) for
my tandem axle trailer duty for 6 years.  When I later traded that in for
the more appropriate 94 Landcruiser built for that abuse, my overall 'work'
mileage didn't change, yet the equipment to do so in comfort and safety was
increased by a factor of 10.  

A lot of opinion on 'revolutions' in the industry.  As I seen automotive
progress, revolutions are seldom found (Lambda probe, bypass valve on
turbo/SC's), evolutions are grown.  So in these discussions of p/u and
alternative fuels, I look at evolutions taking place, not revolutions taking
place.  As long as fossil fuels are the cost effective strategy per energy
unit used (including the cost of production and distribution
infrastructure), price of that energy will be inelastic to demand.  The good
news is, as price increases, the funding for alternative technology also
increases.  Enter the concept car.  20 years ago, hybrids were concept
cars...  20 years later, and 15 year in the future...   given our
infrastructure, hybrids show the best short and long term promise to energy
efficiency.  Run out of dead dynosaurs we can justify trillions of dollars
in alternative energy infrastructure.  Until then evolution is it.

Like it or not, what drives technology is marketing, and here in the USA we
add, perception and 2 major players dictations of it and market.  When I
spoke to Ford dropping Nitrogen fuel program, that's because it's too far
out to be considered a practical evolution of energy technology.  Whatever
the real or perceived benefits are, it's not a cost effective alternative.
GM has never considered it seriously (they are battery hybrid committed),
and Ford just had to step in line.  Do we invest in revolutions in research?
Sure, but revolutions are slow to the transportation sector, if you can find
one.  The simple reality then, if the 2 biggest investors in the US
transportation sector are GM and Ford, that's who you watch.

Diesel Diesel/hybrids are the immediate and long term future as I see it.
It's an evolution growing at a snails pace in the US, because GM so
butchered the Diesel marketing and perception problem back in the 80's, it's
a very slow regain of trust.  VAG/BMW/MERC are all feeding a grass roots
demand, waiting for the day when they can flood our market.  GM especially
will face trouble here, because VAG is probably the best poised to take a
big chunk of the diesel market share.  

Which is best summed by two different approaches to strategic outcomes.  VAG
invested in the Diesel technology commitment first, then marketed it, and GM
invests in the marketing and follows the trend in technology.  That's a
problem, and no revolutions are imminent using that approach.

4 cylinder high mileage truck?  BTDT for many years, that's not the answer.

My .02 

Scott J
92 v8 ABT Chipped
94 Landcruiser TRD Supercharged 4.5L DOHC I6

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger M. Woodbury <rmwoodbury at fairpoint.net>
To: v8 at audifans.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 6:00 am
Subject: Re: [V8] Pickup truck technology....and all that jazz

Yes, I know well the Toyota Previa. Nice vehicle and well executed provided

the maintenance was absolutly spot on.  Difficult to expect people to

actually want to have the floor taken up or the engine dropped when the

other options are the same old, same old, and the cost of operation and

amount of consumption of that same old same old isn't a concern.

But I think we in America are approaching the time when just getting a new

"something" may not be possible for the great masses, so something else that

performs the same old, same old mission may be more than just interesting,

it may be desirable.

The Toyota Previa wasn't exactly a heavy hauler...certainly not on the order

of a 3/4 ton GMC pickup.  I think only the concepts within the Previa are

worth considering, not the execution. 