I was interested in a mini-truck for transportation to and from work but
they disappeared. I bought a brand new Nissan in 1985, it got close to
30mpg. Today's small trucks all look larger, more the Dakota size. Anyone
making trucks smaller than Dakota's these days? The best I've seen for gas
mileage is Ford Ranger with 27mpg, not very impressive after 25 years.

RogerN

"Even after the Super Bowl victory of the New Orleans Saints, I have noticed
a large number of people implying with bad jokes that Cajuns aren't smart.

I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment.

Anybody that would build a city 5 feet below sea level in a hurricane zone

and fill it with Democrats is a damn genius"

Larry the Cable Guy

"RogerN" wrote in
m:

I was interested in a mini-truck for transportation to and from work
but they disappeared. I bought a brand new Nissan in 1985, it got
close to 30mpg. Today's small trucks all look larger, more the Dakota
size. Anyone making trucks smaller than Dakota's these days? The
best I've seen for gas mileage is Ford Ranger with 27mpg, not very
impressive after 25 years.

They stopped importing them.

While there may be some usable ones on ebay, don't expect to find any new
ones.

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

I was interested in a mini-truck for transportation to and from work but
they disappeared. I bought a brand new Nissan in 1985, it got close to
30mpg. Today's small trucks all look larger, more the Dakota size.
Anyone
making trucks smaller than Dakota's these days? The best I've seen for
gas
mileage is Ford Ranger with 27mpg, not very impressive after 25 years.


Back in the days of the Arab oil embargo, with the red flags, the green
flags odd and even days etc. the popularity of the cheap Japanese econo
boxes was at their peak, and the American auto companies managed to get
import quotas on the cars but not the trucks.

With a limited supply of the cars the Japanese companies were stuffing the
less popular trucks down the dealers throats so they could buy the popular
cars.

The dealers then were "giving away" the trucks. This meant that most of the
trucks sold were to the cheap skate buyers and the trucks tended to be those
with the smaller engines and few options.

Those trucks got pretty good mileage. Then the situation changed. Buyers
were demanding more performance and plusher vehicles the crash safety
requirements meant more steel and the smog standards said goodbye to the
carbs the points and so the mini truck lost it's market.

The mini truck with the best mileage was the VW rabbit diesel close to 45
MPG.

--
Roger Shoaf

If knowledge is power, and power corrupts, what does this say about the
Congress?

"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

I was interested in a mini-truck for transportation to and from work but
they disappeared. I bought a brand new Nissan in 1985, it got close to
30mpg. Today's small trucks all look larger, more the Dakota size.
Anyone
making trucks smaller than Dakota's these days? The best I've seen for
gas
mileage is Ford Ranger with 27mpg, not very impressive after 25 years.


Back in the days of the Arab oil embargo, with the red flags, the green
flags odd and even days etc. the popularity of the cheap Japanese econo
boxes was at their peak, and the American auto companies managed to get
import quotas on the cars but not the trucks.

With a limited supply of the cars the Japanese companies were stuffing the
less popular trucks down the dealers throats so they could buy the popular
cars.

The dealers then were "giving away" the trucks. This meant that most of
the
trucks sold were to the cheap skate buyers and the trucks tended to be
those
with the smaller engines and few options.

Those trucks got pretty good mileage. Then the situation changed. Buyers
were demanding more performance and plusher vehicles the crash safety
requirements meant more steel and the smog standards said goodbye to the
carbs the points and so the mini truck lost it's market.

The mini truck with the best mileage was the VW rabbit diesel close to 45
MPG.

--
Roger Shoaf

If knowledge is power, and power corrupts, what does this say about the
Congress?

When I bought my 1985 Nissan 2wd it was $6k new without air or radio. The
basic Nissan Sentra was in the same price range. The Nissan truck seemed
more substantial than many of the cars in that day, and many of the cars
today. For example, it had a frame and didn't seem that it would be worse
in a crash than my Honda Civic or any other similar small car. I guess I
would prefer to see them the size they made before they became Dakota sized
and lost their economy. A couple of years later I traded in for a Nissan
4X4, I don't remember the exact gas mileage but I think it was close to 25.

My friend bought a Chevy Aveo and gets 35-36mpg, he said he saw where the
Ford Mustang with a 6 cylinder is supposed to get 31mpg highway. I guess
I'm a bit disappointed that a Ranger 4X4 with a 6 cyl doesn't do much better
in gas than some of the full size trucks. I was hoping to be able to find
something as economical to drive as my 85 Nissan was. I guess the 27mpg
Ranger or 26mpg Tacoma wouldn't be bad though. It seems to me that smaller
trucks have a lot of room for improvement, no wonder I see so many full size
trucks on the road these days.

RogerN

When I bought my 1985 Nissan 2wd it was $6k new without air or radio. The
basic Nissan Sentra was in the same price range. The Nissan truck seemed
more substantial than many of the cars in that day, and many of the cars
today. For example, it had a frame and didn't seem that it would be worse
in a crash than my Honda Civic or any other similar small car. I guess I
would prefer to see them the size they made before they became Dakota sized
and lost their economy. A couple of years later I traded in for a Nissan
4X4, I don't remember the exact gas mileage but I think it was close to 25.

My friend bought a Chevy Aveo and gets 35-36mpg, he said he saw where the
Ford Mustang with a 6 cylinder is supposed to get 31mpg highway. I guess
I'm a bit disappointed that a Ranger 4X4 with a 6 cyl doesn't do much better
in gas than some of the full size trucks. I was hoping to be able to find
something as economical to drive as my 85 Nissan was. I guess the 27mpg
Ranger or 26mpg Tacoma wouldn't be bad though. It seems to me that smaller
trucks have a lot of room for improvement, no wonder I see so many full size
trucks on the road these days.

RogerN


Haven't you seen all the stories on TV and all the pictures of obese
Americans? Most Americans are so big and fat that they can't fit in
small vehicles. Besides being fat they want big, fat vehicles that take
up a lot of space on the road and use a lot of gas. They couldn't care
less about anything but being comfortable and in being in big, huge cars
and trucks. So if you want something small and economical you're out of
luck, Dude. This is America. Land of the big, fat, lazy, pigs. But we're
still better than anyone else. Just ask us.

Hawke

JR North wrote:
My '79 Diesel Rabbit with the 1500cc gets close to 60MPG around
town, and a tad over on road trips. Suck it up, SUV owners. Had it
for 25 years now. The 1600 pickups get about 20% less. They go for
3-5K now on Ebay.

Thanks for that. My dad had a diesel Rabbit truck, 5-speed, and I was
sure I remembered 60mpg with it.

The mini truck with the best mileage was the VW rabbit diesel close to 45
MPG.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip


Haven't you seen all the stories on TV and all the pictures of obese
Americans? Most Americans are so big and fat that they can't fit in small
vehicles. Besides being fat they want big, fat vehicles that take up a lot
of space on the road and use a lot of gas. They couldn't care less about
anything but being comfortable and in being in big, huge cars and trucks.
So if you want something small and economical you're out of luck, Dude.
This is America. Land of the big, fat, lazy, pigs. But we're still better
than anyone else. Just ask us.

Hawke

I remember in the late 70's gas prices shot up over $1/gallon with talk of
$2/gallon, seemed fuel efficient autos became popular. Then gas prices
stabilized for a few years and I started seeing SUV's become popular, I
thought "they're doing it to us again", wasting fuel, raising demand and
prices. The tire factory where I worked used to have mostly 14,15,&16 inch
tires, now they are mostly 16,17,18 inch, we had to widen conveyors and get
larger equipment to handle the tires for the gas guzzlers. It works out
better if an economy car has a crash with another economy car but when so
many drive the gas guzzling SUV's (and drive them like they own the road)
the roads are more dangerous for fuel efficient cars.

RogerN

JR North wrote:
My '79 Diesel Rabbit with the 1500cc gets close to 60MPG around
town, and a tad over on road trips. Suck it up, SUV owners. Had it
for 25 years now. The 1600 pickups get about 20% less. They go for
3-5K now on Ebay.

It's great until you get rear ended by the idiot in the wannabe monster
truck.

Jon

On to the metalworking topic, I wonder if metalworkers could come up with
good fuel efficient transportation. Maybe take an old truck, fit a
brushless electric motor with drive, a generator (or reactor?) in the bed of
the truck...

Seems like if metalworking skills and homebuilt aircraft skills were
combined the people could make an automobile better than the automakers are
providing for us.

RogerN



"Even after the Super Bowl victory of the New Orleans Saints, I have
noticed a large number of people implying with bad jokes that Cajuns
aren't smart.

I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment.

Anybody that would build a city 5 feet below sea level in a hurricane zone

and fill it with Democrats is a damn genius"

Larry the Cable Guy

On May 15, 10:59*am, "RogerN" wrote:
...
Seems like if metalworking skills and homebuilt aircraft skills were
combined the people could make an automobile better than the automakers are
providing for us.
RogerN

I have worked on recent electric vehicle development projects and
seriously doubt that a vehicle which meets regulations could do
much better. If you don't need to meet them a car chassis from 1910
(recent experience) and a design top speed of 40 MPH or less might be
able to achieve 100 MPG or its electric equivalent. The first cars
were built like buggies or bicycles, both optimized for low drag at
low speed in ways that still work well. The rolling resistance of
narrow, large diameter tires is very low.

Honda failed to sell many Civic FEs in the early 80's. Those were
rated at up to 70 MPG and people actually got mid 50's from them. I
had a 1978 Accord with their version of lean burn that delivered 36 -
38 consistently and up to 44 on a trip. It was about the same size
inside as a Saab or BMW, but not very powerful. Customers wanted more
power instead and for 1980 Honda raised the HP and lowered the MPG. I
still have one of those on jackstands in the garage.

In 1991 I bought a 4WD, long bed Ranger with the 4 cylinder engine.
Despite its 26-28 MPG the lower power made it undesirable and it sat
on the lot until the end-of-year clearance. It's powerful enough for
me up to about 60 MPH, top end is ~75. Ford soon discontinued that
combination. I'm told the sixes can barely hit 20 MPG.

We could have anything we wanted from a Segway on up, customer demand
drives the market. The desire for safety regardless of low skills ansd
inattention is a large part of it, otherwise just buy a midsized
motorcycle.

jsw
running an alternate energy test with this laptop right now.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 10:59 am, "RogerN" wrote:
...
Seems like if metalworking skills and homebuilt aircraft skills were
combined the people could make an automobile better than the automakers
are
providing for us.
RogerN
\
\I have worked on recent electric vehicle development projects and
\seriously doubt that a vehicle which meets regulations could do
\much better. If you don't need to meet them a car chassis from 1910
\(recent experience) and a design top speed of 40 MPH or less might be
\able to achieve 100 MPG or its electric equivalent. The first cars
\were built like buggies or bicycles, both optimized for low drag at
\low speed in ways that still work well. The rolling resistance of
\narrow, large diameter tires is very low.
\
\Honda failed to sell many Civic FEs in the early 80's. Those were
\rated at up to 70 MPG and people actually got mid 50's from them. I
\had a 1978 Accord with their version of lean burn that delivered 36 -
\38 consistently and up to 44 on a trip. It was about the same size
\inside as a Saab or BMW, but not very powerful. Customers wanted more
\power instead and for 1980 Honda raised the HP and lowered the MPG. I
\still have one of those on jackstands in the garage.
\
\In 1991 I bought a 4WD, long bed Ranger with the 4 cylinder engine.
\Despite its 26-28 MPG the lower power made it undesirable and it sat
\on the lot until the end-of-year clearance. It's powerful enough for
\me up to about 60 MPH, top end is ~75. Ford soon discontinued that
\combination. I'm told the sixes can barely hit 20 MPG.
\
\We could have anything we wanted from a Segway on up, customer demand
\drives the market. The desire for safety regardless of low skills ansd
\inattention is a large part of it, otherwise just buy a midsized
\motorcycle.
\
\jsw
\running an alternate energy test with this laptop right now.
\

Do you think it would be difficult to get better than 20mpg from a Ford
Ranger (or other small truck) with descent performance? Would it be best to
use something like a brushless servo motor or an AC motor with a VFD and
enough batteries in series to get the desired DC bus voltage? I'm not sure
why a Ford Mustang claims 31mpg with a 6 cyl but a Ranger gets ~20mpg
either.

RogerN

On Sat, 15 May 2010 09:59:36 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


On to the metalworking topic, I wonder if metalworkers could come up with
good fuel efficient transportation. Maybe take an old truck, fit a
brushless electric motor with drive, a generator (or reactor?) in the bed of
the truck...

Seems like if metalworking skills and homebuilt aircraft skills were
combined the people could make an automobile better than the automakers are
providing for us.

RogerN



"Even after the Super Bowl victory of the New Orleans Saints, I have
noticed a large number of people implying with bad jokes that Cajuns
aren't smart.

I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment.

Anybody that would build a city 5 feet below sea level in a hurricane zone

and fill it with Democrats is a damn genius"

Larry the Cable Guy


Just missed out on a Mercedes "smart" for $750 that had all the engine
controls toasted - would have made a dandy electric runabout

On May 15, 6:23*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 10:59 am, "RogerN" wrote: ...
Seems like if metalworking skills and homebuilt aircraft skills were
combined the people could make an automobile better than the automakers
are
providing for us.
RogerN

\
\I have worked on recent electric vehicle development projects and
\seriously doubt that a vehicle which meets regulations could do
\much better. If you don't need to meet them a car chassis from 1910
\(recent experience) and a design top speed of 40 MPH or less might be
\able to achieve 100 MPG or its electric equivalent. The first cars
\were built like buggies or bicycles, both optimized for low drag at
\low speed in ways that still work well. The rolling resistance of
\narrow, large diameter tires is very low.
\
\Honda failed to sell many Civic FEs in the early 80's. Those were
\rated at up to 70 MPG and people actually got mid 50's from them. I
\had a 1978 Accord with their version of lean burn that delivered 36 -
\38 consistently and up to 44 on a trip. It was about the same size
\inside as a Saab or BMW, but not very powerful. Customers wanted more
\power instead and for 1980 Honda raised the HP and lowered the MPG. I
\still have one of those on jackstands in the garage.
\
\In 1991 I bought a 4WD, long bed Ranger with the 4 cylinder engine.
\Despite its 26-28 MPG the lower power made it undesirable and it sat
\on the lot until the end-of-year clearance. It's powerful enough for
\me up to about 60 MPH, top end is ~75. Ford soon discontinued that
\combination. I'm told the sixes can barely hit 20 MPG.
\
\We could have anything we wanted from a Segway on up, customer demand
\drives the market. The desire for safety regardless of low skills ansd
\inattention is a large part of it, otherwise just buy a midsized
\motorcycle.
\
\jsw
\running an alternate energy test with this laptop right now.
\

Do you think it would be difficult to get better than 20mpg from a Ford
Ranger (or other small truck) with descent performance? *Would it be best to
use something like a brushless servo motor or an AC motor with a VFD and
enough batteries in series to get the desired DC bus voltage? *I'm not sure
why a Ford Mustang claims 31mpg with a 6 cyl but a Ranger gets ~20mpg
either.

RogerN

I am a lab technician and don't specify the motors, controls or
batteries, just wire them all together. I know what works but not
always why it was the best choice.

Use the most efficient motor drive you are capable of designing or at
least understanding. Three phase AC motors with feedback seem to be a
common choice. The high-end stuff has very sophisticated redundant
computer controls, much of it for safety monitoring to hopefully avoid
Toyota incidents. How good are you with DSPs?

I think the 2.3l 4 has decent performance around town and in commuter
traffic. The truck has a 4.10 differential and enough zip to spin the
wheels coming off a light if the road is damp. Only 5th gear seems
sluggish. You can't go any faster than the car in front of you and
around here there is almost no place to pass. When it's full of logs
or old iron I drive slowly anyway and pull over a lot.

jsw

"RogerN" on Sat, 15 May 2010 17:23:48 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Do you think it would be difficult to get better than 20mpg from a Ford
Ranger (or other small truck) with descent performance? Would it be best to
use something like a brushless servo motor or an AC motor with a VFD and
enough batteries in series to get the desired DC bus voltage? I'm not sure
why a Ford Mustang claims 31mpg with a 6 cyl but a Ranger gets ~20mpg
either.

It could be engine displacement, it could be power to mass ratios.

I get 29 mpg with a Mazdaranger - but it is also 4 cylinder and
Electronic Fuel injection.

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"RogerN" on Sat, 15 May 2010 17:23:48 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Do you think it would be difficult to get better than 20mpg from a Ford
Ranger (or other small truck) with descent performance? Would it be best
to
use something like a brushless servo motor or an AC motor with a VFD and
enough batteries in series to get the desired DC bus voltage? I'm not
sure
why a Ford Mustang claims 31mpg with a 6 cyl but a Ranger gets ~20mpg
either.

It could be engine displacement, it could be power to mass ratios.

I get 29 mpg with a Mazdaranger - but it is also 4 cylinder and
Electronic Fuel injection.

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Is that a B2300 or Ranger w/2.3L engine? I've heard they get more power
from the 2.3L than the 2.5L, wasn't sure what one gets best mileage.

RogerN

"RogerN" on Wed, 19 May 2010 05:46:14 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
"RogerN" on Sat, 15 May 2010 17:23:48 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Do you think it would be difficult to get better than 20mpg from a Ford
Ranger (or other small truck) with descent performance? Would it be best
to
use something like a brushless servo motor or an AC motor with a VFD and
enough batteries in series to get the desired DC bus voltage? I'm not
sure
why a Ford Mustang claims 31mpg with a 6 cyl but a Ranger gets ~20mpg
either.

It could be engine displacement, it could be power to mass ratios.

I get 29 mpg with a Mazdaranger - but it is also 4 cylinder and
Electronic Fuel injection.

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Is that a B2300 or Ranger w/2.3L engine? I've heard they get more power
from the 2.3L than the 2.5L, wasn't sure what one gets best mileage.

B2500 - so I'm guessing it is the 2.5l

It will do 70, but it sucks down the gas. I figure sixty five is
good enough for my purposes.

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Sat, 15 May 2010 09:49:29 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

In 1991 I bought a 4WD, long bed Ranger with the 4 cylinder engine.
Despite its 26-28 MPG the lower power made it undesirable and it sat
on the lot until the end-of-year clearance. It's powerful enough for
me up to about 60 MPH, top end is ~75. Ford soon discontinued that
combination. I'm told the sixes can barely hit 20 MPG.

My 94 Mazda B3000 (445,000 miles) got 21 mpg with its 3.0 6 cyl, and its
replacement..a 2001 Ranger 3.0 6 cylinder (auto), 188,000, gets 19mpg.
(Both came off the same assembly line)

I still have the Mazda and an low mile replacement engine. When I get
the time, Ill install it and put her back on the road. When I parked it
because it would no longer pass smog, it was still mostly original parts
and in VERY good running condition.

I drove the Ranger home this morning, from my 2 week stay in Los Angles.

Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost