SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (486679)5/11/2012 9:54:47 AM
From: sm1th3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 793975
 
105 horsepower?

This is what we are facing to get that kind of mileage. No zip, tinny, plastic noisy bodies.


That is not as true as most people think. I currently drive a Ford Ranger, 20-21 mpg. I have driven similar size pickups for over 30 years. My first was a 1980 Ford Courier (really a Mazda). In 1980 the country was still in shock from the 2 oil crises of the 70's and high mileage cars were the norm. I had the bigger of the 2 available 4 cyl engines, almost 90 hp. After you stop laughing, I can assure you it was a quite servicable truck. It was geared very low, empty I never used 1st gear. It consistently got a little over 30 mpg, and that was with a carburetor. Highway passing was pretty lame, but at any legal speed power was quite adequate. I once towed a trailer twice the rated capacity, and I was a lot more worried about my ability to stop it than to move it. Each truck since then had a bigger engine and got worse mileage. With today's engine improvements they could easily build a 30+ mpg pickup, but Americans are in love with power. All of the engine efficiency improvements over the last 30 years have been applied as improved performance, not improved mileage. That 105 hp diesel is probably a fine engine for a small truck.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext