Wonder if this would sell in suburbia?

[flamin lib]

Based on the Nissan Sentra which gets 33 MPG mixed driving. Stretch the wheelbase from 103 to 130, make it a flair side (need to widen the space between the rear wheel wells to accommodate a 4'wide load) and use leaf springs for the rear suspension. I'd guess a 500-700 lb load capacity.

It would gain about 700 lbs in weight and might lose 2-3 mpg but it would haul everything the average suburbanite might want--plants from the nursery, projects from the hardware/lumber store etc and still get 30 mpg plus haul the family around.

Comments?

[Gold Metal Flake]

1. 48 inches.

Few small trucks have 48 inch clearance. That's asking a lot. My VW Caddys did not have 48" clearance between the rear wheel wells, but they are still popular. The little Toyotas don't either but they sell. In fact, the inner clearance on my 1990 Mercury Colony Park, the big wagon, is shy of 48 inches.
Now, I am hip to the convenience of such clearance. it sure makes getting sheetrock home in one piece easier, but it's not a requirement for the critter you suggest.
BTW, Ford could just shove the steering wheel to the other side on the long-running Aussie Ute and sell it here. Bastards won't, though.

[Tab]

2. I'm reminded of a car - I think Ford put out

I can't think of the name, but it was basically a car profile but with a pickup bed.

It didn't last long in the marketplace.

[Gold Metal Flake]

3. The Ford Ranchero 1957 to 1979.

Or, you could be thinking of the Ford Durango, 1990. A Fairmont Ranchero and damn sexy.
The Ford Ute has been in continuous production in Oz since about 1954.

[Tab]

8. Yeah, it was the Ford Ranchero

An ugly-ass thing, but I guess it would be practical. It was just gawd-awful ugly.

[Gold Metal Flake]

12. I've owned one.

I love em!

[Gold Metal Flake]

4. BTW...

Nice work with the pix. Your concept is a damn nice looking mosheen. Some reshaping on the rar door is all it needs for production. A four door Ranchero, I'd own one.

[flamin lib]

5. Actually it's more than just a four door Ranchero (or El Camino for

the Chev bunch). It's a front wheel drive built on an automotive chassis and drive line. As a passenger car it is subject to CAFE standards, light trucks are not. Minivans, SUVs and PU trucks are all "light trucks".

I picked the Sentra for a number of reasons: I own one and can take measurements, it gets phenomenal fuel mileage and with the five speed it's geared low enough to not need gearing modification for a small load capacity.

About the 48" width; measuring from wheel well to wheel well in the trunk it would only take another six inches to get to a full 48" flat bed. Add 4 inches to each side and flair the fenders for a sporty look! The big issue is the McPhearson struts that take up a lot of space inboard. That's why the leaf sprung solid axle rear suspension is necessary.

The concept is to build on an existing economy vehicle base, use as much sheet metal and mechanical as possible for economy of scale.

About the CAFE standard: I owned a Lincoln Mark VIII. It weighted 5000 lbs, had 275 hp, 0-60 in under 6 seconds and got 28.8 mpg on a highway trip with the cruise set at 95 mph. Why the hell can't a 4 cyl Dodge compact truck get better than 20 HW? Because it doesn't have to!

[Gold Metal Flake]

6. First, we agree about far more than we realize.

I say that because I can tell that you and I have a great deal of common automotive knowledge.

The Ranchero and El Caminos were always classified for safety and smog as passenger vehicles. They may have been licensed by various states as light pickups, but that is not how the NHTSA and the EPA saw them. The Ranchero engines always carried the same smog equipment as the counterpart Falcons, Fairlanes, Torinos and LTD IIs did. That includes the HIPO option engines like the 428 & 429 CJs and the 351 CJ and HO.

I know what you mean about smog and safety regs as applied to pickups vs. cars and minivans. The lessened regs for both smog and safety on trucks is a major reason why SUVs are more profitable. Cost less to build, charge more to sell. Think about that when you ponder why Ford stopped building the CV wagon in 1991 and why the whole "minivans suck" meme was worked into the popular culture. Maybe you don't ponder why Ford stopped the CV wagon. I do. Sniff. Family Truckster, RIP.

As for the Sentra Cheyenne (or some similar western sounding name. Got something in mind?), I would look at coil springs for the rear. A four link with coils might allow a unit design that could make assembly simpler. Whadaya think? I am now officially sold on widening the rear track and adding flairs. Being able to load sheetrock without a framework would be a key selling point for the do-it-yourself suburban crowd. Makes for good ad pix, too.

[flamin lib]

7. Thought about coil springs but they still interfere with space inboard above

the wheels. Couldn't think of anything but leaf springs to minimize intrusion into the bed area and not require a lot of re-enforcement of the frame. Stretching the WB 30 inches will need a lot of structure to prevent flex and fatigue in the unibody. The bed basically has to just sit on the axle.

The point of this thought exercise was to devise a vehicle for urban use that incorporates the utility of a PU without the attendant 18 mpg hwy. It wouldn't work for dry wallers or real contractors who have to haul a real 1/2 ton payload but for the weekend handyman it should be a neat solution for light hauling. Why should a PU require rear wheel drive? Make this a REAL crossover.

Call it a Suburban Utility Vehicle.

[Gold Metal Flake]

11. By way of comparison...

The VW Caddy was front wheel drive, could carry a lot, and got 40+ MPG with the diesel engine option, or in the 30s with the gas. Basically, the mileage was the same as for the Rabbit So, your assumption that this Sentra ride can be efficient is right on. I've owned two, one I set up to run on veggie oil. It had leaf spring rear, which was used in place of the McPherson Struts on the regular Rabbit.

[Tab]

9. Seriously

You owned a 5000 pound Lincoln (presumably at least 6 cyl) that got nearly 29 mpg on the highway at 95 mph?

Assuming you can even maintain 95 mph without getting pulled over...

I'm having a little trouble believing those numbers.

[flamin lib]

13. Believe it or don't, makes no diff. The Mark VIII was the two door

sport coup. 4.6 Liter 32 valve V8. It was a really sweet ride. The trip was from Dallas to Kansas City, all freeway and yes I did set the cruise at 95. Couldn't maintain it all the time but the car really liked going fast. It was more efficient at speeds over 70 than below. It's almost like the car used the same gallons per hour regardless of speed.

Mileage was computed by the on-board computer. All other aspects of the OBC seemed accurate enough; distance to empty, fuel remaining, etc so I have no reason to doubt it. Mixed driving got about 19 mpg.

[Gold Metal Flake]

10. Curb weight for the MK VIII is 3800

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1993-to-1998-lincoln-mark-viii-4.htm

It's a tarted-up T-Bird, not a lead sled! ;-)

Even the 5.0 versions got pretty good gas mileage.

[flamin lib]

14. 3800? Gee, that's pretty light considering all the other stuff it had

compared to the T-Bird. I once thought it was just a T-bird upgrade until I owned one (had t-birds and Cougars from the mid 80's up to '98. The MK VIII was no T-bird! The frickin' engine alone would add 200 pounds.

My 'Birds got something close to 26-27 hwy but I never had the chance to make a long high speed drive like the Dal-KC run.

But maybe so.

[Gold Metal Flake]

15. The engines were the same, but Ford made a change.

Sorry, but I am a Ford guy and I build my own engines so I can get all wonky with the engine stuff. Ford used the 5.0 pushrod engine in Tbirds and the VIII through 1993. In 1994 they started using the 4.6 overhead cam engine in both, which is physically a larger and heavier engine The 5.0 is a very compact engine and the longblock weighs around 450. The 4.6 is around 600 so it weighs about as much as the old Ford FE series (390,427,428). It's wider than a Boss 429 hemi! What I am not clear on is if they used a 4 cam version in the MKIII at any time. The MKIII would be a bit heavier than the Tbird due to more sound deadener and more options. Good cars.

WHat year was your MK?

[Gold Metal Flake]

16. Strike my comments on the weight MKIII vs. Tbird.

Thinking about it, I don't know near as much as I thought I did. Fortunately I have a search engine.

[flamin lib]

17. Thanks! How refreshing! nt

[jimmil]

18. Having worked with DOHC engines

You are spot on as far as the new modular Ford engines. They are a heavy lump and the gains over the old pushrod engine are suspect. I have heard that Ford insiders have said the same thing but they have already made the leap. Currently Ford is spending a lot of dollars on diesel R&D and have contracted with AVL in Austria to do the research. If you recall, AVL has done some pretty wild work like the camless F1 engine for Toyota. It turned 23,000 RPM and made around 950 hp. After spending a rather large chunk of change the engine was not allowed in F1 so the final result was never brought to light. AVL also helped set up the Ford production line in China so their talents are not specifically engine development but everything automotive.

[LeftinOH]

19. GM is seriously considering bringing the Holden Ute to the US market.

Personally, I feel they should have had it over here long ago. The Ford Ranchero/Chevy El Camino "car-trucks" were popular for a long time -for as long as they were on the US market. Just as the truck/SUV craze started to gain some momentum, they disappeared. The picture shows the Holden Ute models available in Australia: