new Small Pickup coming to the US?

ProDarwin wrote: It is annoying, but easily fixed. I know when we had an old ranger, we just put a few cinder-blocks in the bed on their sides to support whatever 4x8 sheet higher than the wheel arches. There was still plenty of room to carry tons of them (likely near the payload capacity). I'd rather the bed narrower if it makes the whole truck narrower.

Even better than that are the nooks in the bed rails that hold the ends of 2x4 sections that traverse across the bed at about the same height, or maybe just above, the wheel arches. I believe at least later model Rangers had this. If you need extra support add a sheet of plywood too. Something functionally similar is probably about the best solution available for anything that could genuinely still be considered a "compact" truck, and are more than adequate for all but the most unreasonable expectations from people trying to avoid a full size truck.

Wow. I had to go back, to check if this was a zombie thread, as the article in question is over two years old.

Arguing about something that's been produced for close to two decades in Brazil, and just now getting bantered about here.

(and, yes, I'd love a small pick'em up like this! )

jstand wrote: Besides it's my pet peeve about compact trucks, so I can whine about it if I feel like it

But the narrow width essentially defines a compact truck. If it has 4' between the wheel wells, it's not compact anymore - mid-size at best, but realistically a full-size.

A van is much better for hauling sheetrock anyway. That stuff doesn't like getting wet.

Thinking about it, probably the easiest way to make your compact truck is to base it on a current minivan. Most do have 4' between the rear wells (my '08 Caravan does) and a relatively low loading height. The downside to many would be it being FWD. Forget gas mileage too... even with the small 3.3L V6, mine gets low 20's most of the time, with an occasional venture to 25 mpg.

I agree that minivan would be a good starting point, especially if the sloped nose was retained to help reduce length.

Fuel economy is challenging, our Sedona gets 21 hwy, although the latest gen Hondas are getting much better, and the 2015 Kia should also get into the high 20's.

As for the FWD, Toyota still offers an AWD version of the sienna, so it can be accomplished without extensive changes to the external packaging. It's not 4wd, but for the average driver it's probably better.

jstand wrote: I agree that minivan would be a good starting point, especially if the sloped nose was retained to help reduce length. Fuel economy is challenging, our Sedona gets 21 hwy, although the latest gen Hondas are getting much better, and the 2015 Kia should also get into the high 20's. As for the FWD, Toyota still offers an AWD version of the sienna, so it can be accomplished without extensive changes to the external packaging. It's not 4wd, but for the average driver it's probably better.

The answer, once again, is diesel.

And guess what...Chrysler already builds a rebadged Town&Country (using the Lancia badge, which seems like heresy to me but that's another discussion).

And guess what.....it has the CRD turbo-diesel and gets 33mpg (US) on the highway and has 265tq (twice what my Plymouth Voyager had 25 years ago...)

And guess what.....it's rated for 3500lbs towing.

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2014/1571270/chrysler_grand_voyager_2_8_crd_limited.html

Fuel economy is only challenging because of the US's arcane regulations/views regarding diesel engines.

In reply to irish44j:

US fuel economy is a challege because the EU rating is a lot less than real. The Euro test is unbelieveably easy for effort. And even though people complain that the rating isn't what real cars are getting, the test is also part of they way European countries are meeting CO2 treaties. Fiesta people think that we don't get as good a car as the Europeans due to the EU vs. EPA rating. The cars are almost identical.

If you drove that like a real vehicle, you'd get better than what a US gas engine will do, for sure. 30mpg might be a stretch, though.

US emissions are hard, mainly because the US treats all vehicle equally- no benefit for gas or diesel- which is fair, as far as I'm concerned. Which will end with Euro VII, too- as they finally figured out that the strong bias towards diesel is making the air quality a lot worse.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to irish44j: US fuel economy is a challege because the EU rating is a lot less than real. The Euro test is unbelieveably easy for effort. And even though people complain that the rating isn't what real cars are getting, the test is also part of they way European countries are meeting CO2 treaties. Fiesta people think that we don't get as good a car as the Europeans due to the EU vs. EPA rating. The cars are almost identical. If you drove that like a real vehicle, you'd get better than what a US gas engine will do, for sure. 30mpg might be a stretch, though. US emissions are hard, mainly because the US treats all vehicle equally- no benefit for gas or diesel- which is fair, as far as I'm concerned. Which will end with Euro VII, too- as they finally figured out that the strong bias towards diesel is making the air quality a lot worse.

I've lived in Europe (where I drove a diesel for a while) and travel there often (and always rent a diesel). My last trip there I spent several days on the Autobahn in an Audi A4 diesel (6MT) wagon going between cities in Germany. My AVERAGE speed (converted from kp/h to mph) was roughly 110. My AVERAGE mpg (converted from liters to US gallons) was nearly 40 (and that included some city driving). My previous trip (als with an A4 rental) a few years ago had similar numbers. And believe me when I say that I drove that car hard, all the time, including some top-speed runs. I'm not sure what the euro A4 wagon is rated at, but I can't imagine it is much more than what I actually got. YMMV. No pun intended.

In reply to irish44j:

That's great. But the EU measurement is still really, really easy. Heck, the EPA measurement for CAFE is pretty optimistic, too- but there's a big adjustment to the sticker to be more representative. The EU rating does not change for the consumer.

Nearly 40mpg in a small sedan does not really translate to 30mpg in a minivan. I can get nearly 40mpg in a Fusion, but not in an same engine Escape.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to irish44j: That's great. But the EU measurement is still really, really easy. Heck, the EPA measurement for CAFE is pretty optimistic, too- but there's a big adjustment to the sticker to be more representative. The EU rating does not change for the consumer. Nearly 40mpg in a small sedan does not really translate to 30mpg in a minivan. I can get nearly 40mpg in a Fusion, but not in an same engine Escape.

The main point was not to say that the numbers that the Lancia minivan are necessarily real-world or not, but whatever they actually are, I think it's reasonable to assume that they are substantially better than what one will get in a US-engined Town&Country that is pretty much the same vehicle otherwise.

So that section in the middle with all of the numbers is just fluff then.

That's cool.

I was just pointing out that the magical 30mpg isn't real.

What I presented are figures that, while they may or may not be accurate compared to "real world," one can assume as accurate in comparison to other vehicles rated in the same method. And one can assume there are cars in Europe rated by that method that have the same specs as US models in terms of engines, etc. So a statistical analysis could be done quite easily if someone cared to devote the time to it.

You sound like you know how the testing is done, and that you are an engineer in the industry - so I have to assume you know where to find a comparative study by the auto industry that would differentiate these criteria and present some statistical analyses...care to share?

And maybe you're new to the internet, but about 99% of things posted on this board is fluff.... I save my extensive engineering analysis for work, where our determinations can be the difference of a lot of people dying or not dying. For the internet, keeping it "general" is sufficient, in my book, especially when we're basically discussing a theoretical small pickup created from a diesel euro-model minivan (aka something that will not be build).

in either case, I have no use for a small pickup personally, so I'm just arguing for the sake of argument and because evenings are terribly boring around here with no car work allowed....

HiTempguy wrote:

accordionfolder wrote: I base my tow ratings on the oversea number. My forester was rated at ... Less than a ton and I pulled over a ton with it through the mountains.

Explain that to DOT when they pull you over. I'm sure that would go well

Driven5 wrote: The people disagreeing with you, disagree with you.

Sure People are entitled to their opinions, even if they are stupid or misguided. Not all thoughts are equal

I passed more state troopers than you could shake a stick at and went through one of those obnoxious check points. Uhaul dude says he gets tons of Foresters and various other small Subaru's pulling the big trailers regularly. Drive like you have a brain and you won't have a single problem.

irish44j wrote: You sound like you know how the testing is done, and that you are an engineer in the industry - so I have to assume you know where to find a comparative study by the auto industry that would differentiate these criteria and present some statistical analyses...care to share?

That's actually a good challenge. Hmmm.. how to present that, I'll have to look into.

I know not many EU officals would want to show this, as it really illustrates that it's more of an illusion that EU states are really doing effective things to reduce CO2 that they all signed treaties for.

But for a board like this, real data is important- as European fuel economy numbers are regularly posted.

So here's what I need to look into- first show the tests, and how the dyno loads are estimated for the cars. (the one side thing I've been shown is that the gliding times on the EU cycle actually moves the car forward, wereas the US tests drag it naturally)

Next, find a couple of cars that are identical in the US as they are in Europe- for that I'll kinda be forced to stick with F producs, as I can confirm the equality- so the comparison will proably be 1.0l Fiesta, 1.6l Fiesta, and 2.0l Focus. If possible, the 1.6 and 2.0l ST versions of both, too. Of those, I know that the cars are so close that they are identical. US data, I'll rely on my standby for cert data- the EPA. For Euro data- hmm... Perhaps others who have detailed knowledge of other brands can tell me specific models to look up- all of the data should be found on public sites.

But all of this will require some friends at work to help me find some info. Funny thing is that it's not just for this board that it's interesting- it's useful on a professional level as well.

So I'll end this tangent on this thread, and start a new one. Give me some time, I have to find time between all of the web surfing I do... (and I'm not at work today)

irish44j wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to irish44j: US fuel economy is a challege because the EU rating is a lot less than real. The Euro test is unbelieveably easy for effort. And even though people complain that the rating isn't what real cars are getting, the test is also part of they way European countries are meeting CO2 treaties. Fiesta people think that we don't get as good a car as the Europeans due to the EU vs. EPA rating. The cars are almost identical. If you drove that like a real vehicle, you'd get better than what a US gas engine will do, for sure. 30mpg might be a stretch, though. US emissions are hard, mainly because the US treats all vehicle equally- no benefit for gas or diesel- which is fair, as far as I'm concerned. Which will end with Euro VII, too- as they finally figured out that the strong bias towards diesel is making the air quality a lot worse.

I've lived in Europe (where I drove a diesel for a while) and travel there often (and always rent a diesel). My last trip there I spent several days on the Autobahn in an Audi A4 diesel (6MT) wagon going between cities in Germany. My AVERAGE speed (converted from kp/h to mph) was roughly 110. My AVERAGE mpg (converted from liters to US gallons) was nearly 40 (and that included some city driving). My previous trip (als with an A4 rental) a few years ago had similar numbers. And believe me when I say that I drove that car hard, all the time, including some top-speed runs. I'm not sure what the euro A4 wagon is rated at, but I can't imagine it is much more than what I actually got. YMMV. No pun intended.

I grew up in Europe

I've just spent 2 1/2 weeks in England driving a rented Audi A3 Diesel with the baby 1.6L TDI engine. On the motorway it got great mileage, I was easily well over 40 (UK) mpg. But get into an urban environment or especially the hills around where I grew up and I was instantly into the low LOW 20's I was really disappointed. That vehicles is rated at 43.5mpg combined according to Audi's UK web site. That's just not possible in normal driving.

In reply to alfadriver:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading years ago that one big difference between the EU and the US is how they calculate polutants.

In the US everything is measured as absolutes: each measurement has to meet a strict minumum. Period.

In Europe it's cummulative: you can be high in some measurements if you're low in others, effectively evening things out.

Diesels are typically high in NO, but low in HC and CO/CO2, so it balances out vs. a gasoline engine.

alfadriver wrote:

irish44j wrote: You sound like you know how the testing is done, and that you are an engineer in the industry - so I have to assume you know where to find a comparative study by the auto industry that would differentiate these criteria and present some statistical analyses...care to share?

That's actually a good challenge. Hmmm.. how to present that, I'll have to look into. I know not many EU officals would want to show this, as it really illustrates that it's more of an illusion that EU states are really doing effective things to reduce CO2 that they all signed treaties for. But for a board like this, real data is important- as European fuel economy numbers are regularly posted. So here's what I need to look into- first show the tests, and how the dyno loads are estimated for the cars. (the one side thing I've been shown is that the gliding times on the EU cycle actually moves the car forward, wereas the US tests drag it naturally) Next, find a couple of cars that are identical in the US as they are in Europe- for that I'll kinda be forced to stick with F producs, as I can confirm the equality- so the comparison will proably be 1.0l Fiesta, 1.6l Fiesta, and 2.0l Focus. If possible, the 1.6 and 2.0l ST versions of both, too. Of those, I know that the cars are so close that they are identical. US data, I'll rely on my standby for cert data- the EPA. For Euro data- hmm... Perhaps others who have detailed knowledge of other brands can tell me specific models to look up- all of the data should be found on public sites. But all of this will require some friends at work to help me find some info. Funny thing is that it's not just for this board that it's interesting- it's useful on a professional level as well. So I'll end this tangent on this thread, and start a new one. Give me some time, I have to find time between all of the web surfing I do... (and I'm not at work today)

Hmm. I like this.

I have an excel file we used along with a BSFC calculator to simulate the EPA test on a vehicle for our Powertrain class. I'm going to put the EU cycle in just for the hell of it and see what the differences are.

Ian F wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading years ago that one big difference between the EU and the US is how they calculate polutants. In the US everything is measured as absolutes: each measurement has to meet a strict minumum. Period. In Europe it's cummulative: you can be high in some measurements if you're low in others, effectively evening things out. Diesels are typically high in NO, but low in HC and CO/CO2, so it balances out vs. a gasoline engine.

Partially.

In the US, the measurment is cumulative over a whole test, and then weighed for the test- but each of the consitutents is separate- you get one target for HC's (really NMOG), one target for NOx, and one target for CO. So for a diesel, it's HC emissions are usually pretty low, but the NOx emissions are high- and that's the problem.

In Europe, it's measured the same way, weighted differently, but the targets are HC+NOx and then CO. So when put together, the fact that the diesel is more one way than the other, it's not as big of a deal.

The other thing about Europe, they have different standards for diesel vs. gas- the diesel emissions are quite a bit higher than allowed gas emissions. Again, the reason for this was the precieved need of diesel cars to meet their legal CO2 targets. Also, the EU's standards are about 5-10 years behind ours in terms of levels. This IS changing, and by the end of the decade, the diesel targets will be almost the same as gasoline. Which is why I've posted in the past that I will predict that the small car diesel will go away for all but the premium brands- the cost will just be too high.

The other thing that is changing in the US, with LEVIII (California and the green states) as well as Tier3 (Federal), the targets become a NMOG + NOx standard. That helps a lot. Or at least shifts things a lot. Everything is getting cleaner, and by the time I target retiring, the average car will emit PZEV kind of emissions.

Lastly, the fuel economy is a calculation where all of the carbons in the exhaust is summed- CO2, CO, HC- which is then converted to mass of fuel burnt. It's always been that way.

In reply to ProDarwin:

When you do that, make sure that you adjust the drag numbers used for the cycle. They are not the same, I think, for the same cars. I need to look into that.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to ProDarwin: When you do that, make sure that you adjust the drag numbers used for the cycle. They are not the same, I think, for the same cars. I need to look into that.

You mean drag coefficient? How much of a difference would there be between here and Europe?

I've never been to Europe but I hear the streets are paved with free diesel fuel and the sign posts are made of Swiss chocolate.

In reply to ProDarwin:

No, I suspect the drag cacluation used for the road load is different. The dyno simulates a road/aero drag, and I know that there are parts of the NEDC cycle where the car will glide as if it was going down hill. There are some crazy ideas that are very cycle specific thanks to that.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to ProDarwin: No, I suspect the drag cacluation used for the road load is different. The dyno simulates a road/aero drag, and I know that there are parts of the NEDC cycle where the car will glide as if it was going down hill. There are some crazy ideas that are very cycle specific thanks to that.

Ah drag due to a road grade. I'll have to look into it. I've never seen that on a US test.

I just want to thank Alfadriver for this last series of posts.

The whole grass is greener in europe thing (regarding small diesels in this case) is based on a lot of misplaced assumptions and anyone who tries to straighten that out gets a thumbs up from me. Especially since i get to learn from it.