"What is it?
2010 Pontiac G8 Sport Truck
What's special about it?
If there was an award for smoky burnout potential at the 2008 New York Auto Show, the 2010 Pontiac G8 Sport Truck would take it home without spinning a tire. Consider its setup: rear-wheel drive, standard V8 power and a big, empty cargo bed over the rear wheels.
It's a setup that has earned cult status in Australia where the Pontiac G8 Sport Truck will be built, but its success in the U.S. is far from guaranteed. We'll give Pontiac credit for giving it a shot, as the number of truly polarizing vehicles these days is growing smaller and smaller.
Essentially a G8 sedan from the B-pillar forward, the 2010 Pontiac G8 Sport Truck comes standard with the same 6.0-liter V8 found in the GT sedan. It makes 361 horsepower and 385 pound-feet of torque and sends it through a six-speed automatic transmission only. According to Pontiac, the setup is good for a 0-60-mph time of 5.4 seconds. A V6 is still being considered.
The basic suspension layout remains unchanged, with MacPherson struts up front and a four-link independent rear end. The rear springs were stiffened up to give the sport truck some actual hauling capability, while a 1mm-thicker front antiroll bar helps restore the handling balance. The brakes are carried over directly from the G8 GT sedan, with 18-inch wheels and P245/45R18 summer performance tires standard. A set of 19-inch wheels with P245/40R19 performance tires is optional.
Accommodating the 74-inch cargo bed has required a 4-inch stretch of the wheelbase. Pontiac says it added 60 new components to reinforce this G8's structure, so we expect the sport truck will deliver on its promise of a 1,074-pound payload capacity and 3,500-pound tow rating. A body-color soft tonneau cover is standard.
Compared to the G8 sedan, you won't notice any changes to the ST's interior. There's a pair of four-way adjustable cloth-upholstered seats, dual-zone climate control, a trip computer and even Bluetooth connectivity. Heated leather seats will be optional, along with two-tone red-and-black leather. Behind the front seats, there are 8.5 cubic feet of cargo space and two under-floor storage compartments.
As finished as it looks, sales of the 2010 Pontiac G8 Sport Truck won't start until the summer of 2009. Pontiac not only needs time to get G8 sedan production up to speed, it also needs to find a name that's snappier than "Sport Truck." In fact, Pontiac wants your help. Starting today, you can submit your ideas online. The winning entry will be announced April 15.
What's Edmunds' take?
Looks cool on the show stand. Probably won't look so great on the showroom floor, though, and it might be there awhile. ? Ed Hellwig, Lead Senior Editor, Inside Line"
(http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/newyork/2008/2010pontiacg8sporttruck.f342.img.jpg)
(http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/newyork/2008/2010pontiacg8sporttruck.r341.img.jpg)
(http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/newyork/2008/2010pontiacg8sporttruck.r344.img.jpg)
Very nice!
This will be a poorly selling cult classic.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 15, 2008, 12:06:40 AM
This will be a poorly selling cult classic.
I agree. It's an answer to a question no one asked, whereas the G8 is nowhere to be seen.
The new CAFE standards go into effect in 2011. I like the Ute, but why the V8? If they want the run to last longer than 2 years, they should do more than 'consider' a V6.
Speaking of CAFE, I think a vehicle like this has a lot of potential in our future market.
Quote from: Tave on March 15, 2008, 03:13:12 AM
The new CAFE standards go into effect in 2011. I like the Ute, but why the V8? If they want the run to last longer than 2 years, they should do more than 'consider' a V6.
Speaking of CAFE, I think a vehicle like this has a lot of potential in our future market.
Not unless it comes with 4 doors, and then the bed is too small to put anything in.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 15, 2008, 12:06:40 AM
This will be a poorly selling cult classic.
Kool-aid lineforms to the left. I'll save you a spot.
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 15, 2008, 12:15:15 AM
I agree. It's an answer to a question no one asked, whereas the G8 is nowhere to be seen.
You've never heard anyone ask why they don't make the El Camino anymore?
I agree - I love it but I don't think they're going to move a lot of metal on these. If/when it goes into production for the US, I think it'll have a V6. They're just not showing it that way now.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 15, 2008, 09:57:06 AM
You've never heard anyone ask why they don't make the El Camino anymore?
Nope.
(http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Chevrolet/100397072/2005.chevrolet.ssr.20022641-396x249.jpg)
A dismal failure. No doubt this thing will suffer the same fate.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on March 15, 2008, 05:22:05 PM
(http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Chevrolet/100397072/2005.chevrolet.ssr.20022641-396x249.jpg)
A dismal failure. No doubt this thing will suffer the same fate.
As much as I like this thing, I can't help but agree.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on March 15, 2008, 05:22:05 PM
(http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Chevrolet/100397072/2005.chevrolet.ssr.20022641-396x249.jpg)
A dismal failure. No doubt this thing will suffer the same fate.
The G8 is quite a bit more. More practical, more powerful. Less weight, less retro.
But, I don't know if that means it would sell any better.
Also, the way GM's been going with timelines, I doubt they'll make it for another 5 years. By that time, whatever interest it has generated thusfar will have decreased.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 15, 2008, 05:38:36 PM
The G8 is quite a bit more. More practical, more powerful. Less weight, less retro.
But, I don't know if that means it would sell any better.
Plus, GM released the SSR with a 5.3L and 4 speed auto. Eventually it got a Corvette engine and a 6 speed, but it was too late and the public had already decided it was an overpriced boulevard cruiser for old men with tiny flaccid penises.
SSR was north of $50K no?
It was going for about the same change as a Corvette up here (~$70,000 or more), even the original models with the 5300 V8 + 4-spd automatic combo.
This is much, much more practical than the SSR was. Personally I would have slapped a GMC grille on this one and called it Sprint (or Caballero), and marketed it on its merits as a smaller, lighter pickup truck. Call it "The most environmentally-friendly pickup truck on the market!" or something to that effect; I don't really know if this is true, but it seems plausible. You could make it seem plausible, anyway.
Caballero? Really?
Have you forgotten what those things looked like?
GMC also marketed their El Camino clone as El Conquistador for awhile too.
I don't think the last-generation ElCam was a failure so much as it was a casualty of GM's product strategy at the time. The El Camino was based off the rear-drive body-on-frame GM10 platform (Malibu, Monte Carlo, Grand LeMans, etc). As I understand them, body-on-frame platforms render themselves well for additional low-volume bodystyles, or at least this used to be the case until recent advancements in the past few years have made it easier to modify unibody platforms. I'd also imagine a body-on-frame design would be more desirable from a cargo-hauling standpoint.
When the GM10 models were replaced with front-wheel drive unibodies, there was no longer a suitable platform to engineer a replacement for the El Camino, and since it had always been a niche-player in the truck segment GM did not see suitable sales (ie 500,000+ sales, or whatever obnoxious number GM used in the 80's to justify a new model) volume to justify a replacement.
......We all know that this isn't a serious load-carrying ute/truck, yes? The VE series of utes is intended more as a two-door Commodore rather than a truck with any significant load-carrying or towing abilities, especially the V8 models. The highest payload rating is for the base Omega V6 automatic ute; the lowest the SS-V V8 manual.
To use an analogy, it's like the Dodge Magnum wagon - it's not as practical as other cars in its class, and a great deal of its existence is down to the fact that it looks good.
It's on par with other compact pickups.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 15, 2008, 09:33:00 PM
Caballero? Really?
Have you forgotten what those things looked like?
(http://www.classicsandcustoms.com/list/images/X_1979_GMC_Caballero_Laredo_07232007125941_18469.jpg)
:huh:
Quote from: omicron on March 16, 2008, 11:08:16 AM
......We all know that this isn't a serious load-carrying ute/truck, yes? The VE series of utes is intended more as a two-door Commodore rather than a truck with any significant load-carrying or towing abilities, especially the V8 models. The highest payload rating is for the base Omega V6 automatic ute; the lowest the SS-V V8 manual.
To use an analogy, it's like the Dodge Magnum wagon - it's not as practical as other cars in its class, and a great deal of its existence is down to the fact that it looks good.
That's odd.
I guess the only thing that V8 is good for is lighting up those rear wheels.
Oh well, that's fine with me. :rockon: :rockon:
Quote from: 93JC on March 16, 2008, 11:19:14 AM
It's on par with other compact pickups.
Look at you being all North American and referring to a five metre six litre 1.8 tonne ute as 'compact'.
It is compared to 6.3 metre, 2.8 tonne Dodge Rams...
Quote from: 93JC on March 16, 2008, 11:21:36 AM
(http://www.classicsandcustoms.com/list/images/X_1979_GMC_Caballero_Laredo_07232007125941_18469.jpg)
:huh:
Where's the barf smiley?
GM would be wise to distance itself from such a vile looking thing.
How is that vile?!
It looks quite plain and understated, in my opinion.
Quote from: 93JC on March 15, 2008, 09:28:19 PM
It was going for about the same change as a Corvette up here (~$70,000 or more), even the original models with the 5300 V8 + 4-spd automatic combo.
This is much, much more practical than the SSR was. Personally I would have slapped a GMC grille on this one and called it Sprint (or Caballero), and marketed it on its merits as a smaller, lighter pickup truck. Call it "The most environmentally-friendly pickup truck on the market!" or something to that effect; I don't really know if this is true, but it seems plausible. You could make it seem plausible, anyway.
Syclone! :rockon:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on March 15, 2008, 05:22:05 PM
(http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Chevrolet/100397072/2005.chevrolet.ssr.20022641-396x249.jpg)
A dismal failure. No doubt this thing will suffer the same fate.
The differance is this G8 is just a rebadge of a vehicle aleready for sale overseas.
Well there was once a GMC Sprint, and here's a 454 powered one!
(http://www.chevelles.com/sprint/poster.jpg)
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 16, 2008, 12:25:23 PM
Syclone! :rockon:
People screamed sacrilege when they imported the Monaro and called it GTO; I envision importing the Ute and calling it Syclone would garner similar emotional responses.
Quote from: Sprinterman on March 16, 2008, 12:33:59 PM
Well there was once a GMC Sprint, and here's a 454 powered one!
(http://www.chevelles.com/sprint/poster.jpg)
Those were cool. I remember seeing a few when I was a kid! :rockon:
Quote from: 93JC on March 16, 2008, 11:51:15 AM
It is compared to 6.3 metre, 2.8 tonne Dodge Rams...
That's metric, isn't it? Is that a lot?
What would that be in hogsheads? :tounge:
:rolleyes: Seppos...
Quote from: Catman on March 16, 2008, 02:52:28 PM
Those were cool. I remember seeing a few when I was a kid! :rockon:
GMC Sprints are cool, but the 1980's Caballeros look so frumpy and cheap.
Latest from down under on this. Nothing new, just their perspective. I hope this sells well to keep Holden viable but thing it'll have a hard go of it. A driver of this would get laughed at by clowns in those yellow coloarados dwarfing it.
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=50199&s_rid=theage:ClassiePuff
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 16, 2008, 10:44:56 PM
GMC Sprints are cool, but the 1980's Caballeros look so frumpy and cheap.
Yeah, they were sad as well as the Malibu's they were spawned from.
Who knows how things go with CAFE rearing its head. IF the mileage is much better than the Colorado/Canyon, I'd expect GM to push it more than the "smaller" pickups.
That being said, it's probably a better GMC (along with the ex-Torrent) than a Pontiac.
Quote from: Catman on March 17, 2008, 05:21:04 PM
Yeah, they were sad as well as the Malibu's they were spawned from.
Hey! I, like a lot of people, like those Malibus:
(http://photos2.ebizautos.com/4901/2071054_3.jpg)
(http://photos2.ebizautos.com/4901/2071054_11.jpg)
I love that car, but the rear needs to come down a couple inches.
That's a sharp-looking Malibu, Mr. V. Assuming the bonnet-scoop is non-standard, I'd probably go for a flush bonnet, but overall that's very crisp. The colour and wheels suit it perfectly, too.
Quote from: omicron on March 16, 2008, 11:08:16 AM
......We all know that this isn't a serious load-carrying ute/truck, yes? The VE series of utes is intended more as a two-door Commodore rather than a truck with any significant load-carrying or towing abilities, especially the V8 models. The highest payload rating is for the base Omega V6 automatic ute; the lowest the SS-V V8 manual.
To use an analogy, it's like the Dodge Magnum wagon - it's not as practical as other cars in its class, and a great deal of its existence is down to the fact that it looks good.
It looks good?
And as far as I can tell, the Magnum was plenty practical.
Quote from: Raza on March 18, 2008, 10:39:49 AM
It looks good?
And as far as I can tell, the Magnum was plenty practical.
Australia is a country of dimwitted footballers wearing inappropriately small shorts, thongs and T-shirts. Such people like the look of utes. The Falcon ute can be had with a cab-chassis 1-tonne tray - that's the ute people buy when they actually want to put lots of things in it, whereas a V8 SS-V ute is more for the dimwitted footballer with money and nothing much more than their Versace sunglasses to sit in the back.
A Magnum (and its 300C Estate Australian equivalent) is by no means practical when compared to a Falcon or Commodore wagon.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=13870.msg778007#msg778007 date=1205858389
It looks good?
And as far as I can tell, the Magnum was plenty practical.
The Magnum's cargo area is actually fairly large. The sloping roof is more optical illusion then reality. The side windows slope much more then the actual roof line and it makes it look like the rear portion of the roof is pretty low.
Quote from: Catman on March 16, 2008, 02:52:28 PM
Those were cool. I remember seeing a few when I was a kid! :rockon:
My grandfather has one. Mid to late 70s, I want to say '76 or '77. Whatever the last year of the full-size A body version was. His only has the 350, though.
They should call this G8 sport truck the "G8 SUV", or "G8 Sport Utility Vehicle". It deserves the title. All current SUV's will then change their designations to "Truck Wagons". Yeah, I bet that'll take a big chunk out of the sales of those abominable behemoths. Nobody wants to drive around in a thing that's called a Truck Wagon. Ha! Idiots. :evildude:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on March 15, 2008, 05:22:05 PM
(http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Chevrolet/100397072/2005.chevrolet.ssr.20022641-396x249.jpg)
A dismal failure. No doubt this thing will suffer the same fate.
Wasn't the point of the SSR to test GM's new hydroformed stamping technique more than anything? :huh: I could've sworn I read that somewhere.
Quote from: Schadenfreude on March 18, 2008, 10:49:44 PM
Wasn't the point of the SSR to test GM's new hydroformed stamping technique more than anything? :huh: I could've sworn I read that somewhere.
I have no idea. I was like 14 when they came out.
Why do people call the SSR a failure, when it clearly was not trying to be a huge seller? It was a one-off car built by Chevrolet.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 19, 2008, 10:10:12 AM
Why do people call the SSR a failure, when it clearly was not trying to be a huge seller? It was a one-off car built by Chevrolet.
One-off? :nutty:
Quote from: NACar on March 19, 2008, 10:12:16 AM
One-off? :nutty:
What he measn it was supposed to be a halo car bringing people in to buy the full size trucks. At that it worked. Numerous dealers described selling Silverados simply on the strength of having SSRs in the showrooms. It wasn't supposed to sell in huge numbers to a wide market. They sold as many as they had anticipated selling and used it's existence as an advertising budget. In that regard, it was quite successful.
Quote from: Schadenfreude on March 18, 2008, 10:49:44 PM
Wasn't the point of the SSR to test GM's new hydroformed stamping technique more than anything? :huh: I could've sworn I read that somewhere.
That was part of the effort. Like GM's efforts with plastic body-panels though, the effort proved nigh as GM only half-supported the venture. Hydroformed panels still proved too expensive to justify their use in full-scale production.
They thought about it but in production just the rails, same as the trailblazer/envoy/ranier/9x/whatever the oldie was called.
My concern is that these vehicles will be over-engined for an era of $3+ gas and too heavily optioned-out.
A bare-bones version with a 4-cylinder or smaller-than-currently-planned V-6 with "manual everything" would be an excellent choice for city delivery.
I don't need power windows, mirrors( the cable-operated adjustment system on my '77 an '78 LTDs worked just fine) and locks, 200+ horsepower, or automatic transmission, though the summers where I live are too humid for me to want to give up AC. As far as "audio systems" go, an AM-FM radio with a couple of good speakers and an external jack for an iPod is all I need.
What I need is a low liftover height, a full 6-foot cargo box and decent gas mileage.
A lot of the original '59-'60 full-size Caminos and the first and second generation Chevelle Caminos were stripped-down 6-cylinder models sold as a practical alternative to a big truck.
Somewhere around 1972, Chevy ( and Ford,too, with the Ranchero) made the emphasis on "sportiness" with ridiculously large and heavy engines and heavy electric motors in the doors and seats eating away at payload.
6s were still in the catalog, but the "hot" trim packages and a manual transmission with more than 3 gears required V-8s and power-options packages.
Quote from: Nebtek2002 on March 20, 2008, 09:16:32 AM
My concern is that these vehicles will be over-engined for an era of $3+ gas and too heavily optioned-out.
A bare-bones version with a 4-cylinder or smaller-than-currently-planned V-6 with "manual everything" would be an excellent choice for city delivery.
I don't need power windows, mirrors( the cable-operated adjustment system on my '77 an '78 LTDs worked just fine) and locks, 200+ horsepower, or automatic transmission, though the summers where I live are too humid for me to want to give up AC. As far as "audio systems" go, an AM-FM radio with a couple of good speakers and an external jack for an iPod is all I need.
What I need is a low liftover height, a full 6-foot cargo box and decent gas mileage.
A lot of the original '59-'60 full-size Caminos and the first and second generation Chevelle Caminos were stripped-down 6-cylinder models sold as a practical alternative to a big truck.
Somewhere around 1972, Chevy ( and Ford,too, with the Ranchero) made the emphasis on "sportiness" with ridiculously large and heavy engines and heavy electric motors in the doors and seats eating away at payload.
6s were still in the catalog, but the "hot" trim packages and a manual transmission with more than 3 gears required V-8s and power-options packages.
Sounds like you want a Camry.
The problem with basic cars as you describe is that there's not much margin in it, especially given this is in import and the USD is going to continue to tank for the foreseeable future. I don't think the target buyers would be that concerned with fuel economy.
Quote from: NACar on March 20, 2008, 09:28:44 AM
Sounds like you want a Camry.
Perish the thought! Since when did that name attach itself to a practical city delivery truck?
Quote from: dinkeldorf on March 20, 2008, 09:32:25 AM
The problem with basic cars as you describe is that there's not much margin in it, especially given this is in import and the USD is going to continue to tank for the foreseeable future. I don't think the target buyers would be that concerned with fuel economy.
The toolwork should come to the US and this vehicle, with its marketing re-targeted, should be made in an under-utilized domestic SUV plant.
Quote from: Nebtek2002 on March 20, 2008, 10:28:10 AM
The toolwork should come to the US and this vehicle, with its marketing re-targeted, should be made in an under-utilized domestic SUV plant.
No stealing our employment!
Quote from: omicron on March 20, 2008, 10:34:38 AM
No stealing our employment!
I'm not sure at what production volume that would be economically viable. And an unfortunate reward to Holden for having the gumption & engineering nouse to keep at the large car RWD.
Quote from: Nebtek2002 on March 20, 2008, 10:28:10 AM
The toolwork should come to the US and this vehicle, with its marketing re-targeted, should be made in an under-utilized domestic SUV plant.
This is GM's way of upping the production numbers for the OZ plants, and try and make them profitable. One interesting fact is the reason why they have car plants there is that Australia and New Zealand had closed markets (anything imported had ungodly tariffs applied to them) So GM, Ford, and Chrysler built cars in the land down under. These were ofter older models, that were upgraded through the years. Now it comes time that RWD is the in thing, and Aussie cars have been built that way forever.
Anyway, GM will not be producing these cars except for the weird and wacky world of OZ, and this is a way for them to squeeze more profit from a rather loss making division. They started doing this when the RWD Sedans went out of production in North America, and they exported "Caprice" and "Lumina" sedans from Australia to the Middle East.
Quote from: Nebtek2002 on March 20, 2008, 09:16:32 AM
My concern is that these vehicles will be over-engined for an era of $3+ gas and too heavily optioned-out.
A bare-bones version with a 4-cylinder or smaller-than-currently-planned V-6 with "manual everything" would be an excellent choice for city delivery.
I don't need power windows, mirrors( the cable-operated adjustment system on my '77 an '78 LTDs worked just fine) and locks, 200+ horsepower, or automatic transmission, though the summers where I live are too humid for me to want to give up AC. As far as "audio systems" go, an AM-FM radio with a couple of good speakers and an external jack for an iPod is all I need.
What I need is a low liftover height, a full 6-foot cargo box and decent gas mileage.
Hear Hear!
:clap:
although I'd want a cd player in that head unit, but that shouldn't be a huge expense
Quote from: Sprinterman on March 20, 2008, 11:04:47 AM
This is GM's way of upping the production numbers for the OZ plants, and try and make them profitable. One interesting fact is the reason why they have car plants there is that Australia and New Zealand had closed markets (anything imported had ungodly tariffs applied to them) So GM, Ford, and Chrysler built cars in the land down under. These were ofter older models, that were upgraded through the years. Now it comes time that RWD is the in thing, and Aussie cars have been built that way forever.
Anyway, GM will not be producing these cars except for the weird and wacky world of OZ, and this is a way for them to squeeze more profit from a rather loss making division. They started doing this when the RWD Sedans went out of production in North America, and they exported "Caprice" and "Lumina" sedans from Australia to the Middle East.
I believe there was also a minimum percentage requirement for local content, too. That, and many imported cars quite literally fell apart if they were launched in Australia without some degree of local modification. The suspension on the first Falcons collapsed within a few thousand miles, for example, and the first Opel Rekord/Senator prototypes broke in two at the firewall before the launch of the '78 Commodore.
I think both of you are right. Australia has had some really wild tariffs and protectionist schemes- one of which led to the Toyota Lexcen and a Nissan-based `Ute. Also Oz's overall infrastructure makes places like Montana seem positively cosmopolitan by comparison.
It's interesting to think that one of the worst cars ever sold in Australia was also designed specifically for it.
What are your thoughts on the Leyland P76, Omi?
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?p76ukf.htm
Quote from: akuma_supreme on March 20, 2008, 08:29:08 PM
I think both of you are right. Australia has had some really wild tariffs and protectionist schemes- one of which led to the Toyota Lexcen and a Nissan-based `Ute. Also Oz's overall infrastructure makes places like Montana seem positively cosmopolitan by comparison.
It's interesting to think that one of the worst cars ever sold in Australia was also designed specifically for it.
What are your thoughts on the Leyland P76, Omi?
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?p76ukf.htm
The P76 wasn't a bad car, but it was launched at completely the wrong time and was built with paper and glue by the children of Leyland Australia employees. Right as the 1973 oil crisis rolled into Australia, the I6 and V8 P76 range was launched - existing Falcon and HQ/J Holden models survived, but an unknown competitor from the clever (!) sods at Leyland quickly fell in the toilet.
I hear the 4.4 V8 was a lovely engine, based on the Rover V8 but manufactured locally; and there was never a problem with interior room or handling compared to the equivalent Ford or Holden. It must have been a decent car for the V8 model to have secured the '73
Wheels Car of the Year. However, industrial action limited production quite severely, and did nothing to help build quality as unfinished cars sat about waiting for parts to eventually come in.
Leyland's legendary (lack of) quality control was pounced upon by the Federal Government of the time as an example of how the Australian car manufacturing industry was lagging behind - but rather than lower tariffs to encourage competition and therefore encourage better build quality, they raised tariffs and demanded higher percentages of local content (inexplicably, the P76 was at almost 100%).
Perhaps Leyland jumped before it was pushed. Who knows?
A gal I went to school with had a mint P76 with the rover derived V8. It was a sweet ride at the time. I don't know if it was the worst car designed for Oz - the Cortina with the Falcon 250ci six to my mind was completely over engined and woefully crap quality. Not many cars get desribed as "scary", a term routinely applied to said Cortina.
Quote from: dinkeldorf on March 23, 2008, 08:11:40 PM
A gal I went to school with had a mint P76 with the rover derived V8. It was a sweet ride at the time. I don't know if it was the worst car designed for Oz - the Cortina with the Falcon 250ci six to my mind was completely over engined and woefully crap quality. Not many cars get desribed as "scary", a term routinely applied to said Cortina.
The stories I've read of the 250ci Cortinas are just brilliant fun - headlining collapsing, front suspensions caving in, and all manner of mechanical ills and rubbish handling. I believe the Leyland Marina Six is also worthy of inclusion on our Worst Cars list, based on reports of the time.
Well the Marina is of course a gimme. I don't think the P76 deserved the bum rap; the 'tina Six definetly so. Anyway I'll be anxious to see how the ute goes over here. My guess is a like a cup of cold sick.
Quote from: dinkeldorf on March 23, 2008, 08:11:40 PM
A gal I went to school with had a mint P76 with the rover derived V8. It was a sweet ride at the time. I don't know if it was the worst car designed for Oz - the Cortina with the Falcon 250ci six to my mind was completely over engined and woefully crap quality. Not many cars get desribed as "scary", a term routinely applied to said Cortina.
Sounds like my Contour- brilliant engineering embodied in a car that required monthly visits to the dealership. Even more fun, the car shared nothing with any other Ford in the US, so independent mechanics refused to work on it.
I think the P76 got its wrap partly from its poor Leyland build quality, but also because like Omi pointed out it was launched at exactly the wrong time. Also, at least IMO, the thing looks weird; poorly proportioned, and with weird details.
Quote from: akuma_supreme on March 24, 2008, 05:22:46 PM
Sounds like my Contour- brilliant engineering embodied in a car that required monthly visits to the dealership. Even more fun, the car shared nothing with any other Ford in the US, so independent mechanics refused to work on it.
I think the P76 got its wrap partly from its poor Leyland build quality, but also because like Omi pointed out it was launched at exactly the wrong time. Also, at least IMO, the thing looks weird; poorly proportioned, and with weird details.
I still want an SVT Contour.
Quote from: Raza on March 24, 2008, 08:46:53 PM
I still want an SVT Contour.
I know of one in the Toronto area that may be for sale...
Quote from: Raza on March 24, 2008, 08:46:53 PM
I still want an SVT Contour.
My brother's friend still has his for sale, as far as I know. Of course, he's unable to come up with a price...
Quote from: Raza on March 24, 2008, 08:46:53 PM
I still want an SVT Contour.
My SVT Contour never needed trips to the dealer in the three years I owned it. Neither did my buddy's base 4 cyl Contour (and man, that car was a DOG.)
Quote from: ChrisV on March 25, 2008, 07:21:51 AM
My SVT Contour never needed trips to the dealer in the three years I owned it. Neither did my buddy's base 4 cyl Contour (and man, that car was a DOG.)
Sure, but those are two examples. What about Eddie? He's been nothing but satisfied with his SVT :rolleyes:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on March 25, 2008, 08:37:35 AM
Sure, but those are two examples. What about Eddie? He's been nothing but satisfied with his SVT :rolleyes:
M_Power's car is one example. Though M_Power is probably not alone in his experience, it's not typical.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 25, 2008, 07:21:51 AM
My SVT Contour never needed trips to the dealer in the three years I owned it. Neither did my buddy's base 4 cyl Contour (and man, that car was a DOG.)
Well, mine was a piece of shit. it had more than enough problems for three cars, let alone a single car.
Here's the survey I posted on carsurvey.org:
http://carsurvey.org/review_53943.html
Granted, I did make the mistake of buying a first-year model, but I figured, "Hey, they spent over a billion dollars in development of this car, I can't go wrong!"
I did like the way it drove, when it was running properly. The ride was a nice mix between large-car isolation and quietness with the reactions of a much smaller car.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on March 25, 2008, 08:37:35 AM
Sure, but those are two examples. What about Eddie? He's been nothing but satisfied with his SVT :rolleyes:
He bought his used and abused. ANY car can fall apart, and a performance car that has been abused will be more likely to. He just didn't heed the warning signs when he bought it.
Quote from: akuma_supreme on March 25, 2008, 10:12:10 AM
Well, mine was a piece of shit. it had more than enough problems for three cars, let alone a single car.
Here's the survey I posted on carsurvey.org:
http://carsurvey.org/review_53943.html
Granted, I did make the mistake of buying a first-year model, but I figured, "Hey, they spent over a billion dollars in development of this car, I can't go wrong!"
I did like the way it drove, when it was running properly. The ride was a nice mix between large-car isolation and quietness with the reactions of a much smaller car.
Yeah, first year, base car. Mine was a '99, and a completely differnt car than yours. From the way they felt sitting in them to the way they drove, the SVT was night and day different.
(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/svt_balto.jpg)
And saying you woudn't buy another from the manufacturer based on one example...
If I said that, there wouldn't be any cars left to drive ;) (as I've said before, I've had over a hundred cars in the last 30 years, from most major manufacturers, and have had good cars and bad cars from most. The worst? VWs and Hondas. And I love VWs and Hondas. The best? Fords and Chryslers. Seriously. My PT Cruiser was driven hard for 70k miles without one single thing going wrong. And that mileage includes a season of successfully autocrossing it...)
I would actually go against the anti-FWD thing and go for an SVT Contour, but after Ed's experience I'm scared of them.
It looks like it's a good performing car, and it looks awesome, is cheap and is also practical. Too bad about the questionable reliability. :cry:
Quote from: thecarnut on March 25, 2008, 11:54:54 AM
I would actually go against the anti-FWD thing and go for an SVT Contour, but after Ed's experience I'm scared of them.
It looks like it's a good performing car, and it looks awesome, is cheap and is also practical. Too bad about the questionable reliability. :cry:
Just don't buy one with a "collapsed lifter" that turns out to be a bad timing chain tensioner which then proceeds to destroy the engine.
Those SVT Contour engines are interference engines? :mask:
Quote from: thecarnut on March 25, 2008, 12:00:48 PM
Those SVT Contour engines are interference engines? :mask:
don't you remember what happened to Ed's? yes, the valves smashed into the pistons and the engine disintegrated.
I think I'd rather have an SVT Focus 3 door.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on March 25, 2008, 08:37:35 AM
Sure, but those are two examples. What about Eddie? He's been nothing but satisfied with his SVT :rolleyes:
That's 1 example....
:confused:
Quote from: ChrisV on March 25, 2008, 11:26:09 AM
And saying you woudn't buy another from the manufacturer based on one example...
If I said that, there wouldn't be any cars left to drive ;) (as I've said before, I've had over a hundred cars in the last 30 years, from most major manufacturers, and have had good cars and bad cars from most. The worst? VWs and Hondas. And I love VWs and Hondas. The best? Fords and Chryslers. Seriously. My PT Cruiser was driven hard for 70k miles without one single thing going wrong. And that mileage includes a season of successfully autocrossing it...)
It wasn't the quality that has driven me off from Fords so much as the absolute assholes that run those places, in particular their service departments. Here I had a 3-4 year old car, and they were already claiming they "didn't typically stock parts for this model". I was told this several times, even for parts that should be pretty typical- like windshield wipers (of which the Contour of course uses a type not found on any other Ford model sold in the US. Of course since it was such a "unique" model I was pretty much fucked if I tried to find generic parts too. I started to improvise when I could- at one point I trimmed a pair of generic wiper-blades to fit.
American dealerships, from what I've witnessed personally as well as some of my parents' experiences over the past decade are still at least a generation behind the Japanese in terms of customer service. I'm sure part of this is due to Japanese cars tending to share more parts across the entire lineup (therefore requiring fewer types of parts in inventory, and also therefore being more likely to have the needed part in stock). I also think that their is a basic philosophical difference. American dealership service bays always struck me as a profit center for the dealership. They aren't concerned with fixing the problem so much as putting another band-aid on the problem, and wait for your next visit. The Honda and Toyota service bays have in general been more customer-friendly, and most importantly, are honest about when they will be finished.
Fuck Ford and may Goddamn every executive who decided to put profits before principle when they released that piece of shit on the marketplace.
Sorry buddy, but our Toyota dealer's service department sucks. The quality of their work was horrible, and they also had very poor estimations of time. In fact, our Toyota dealer sounds like your Ford dealer, except we knew that they had the parts in stock, they just took a very long time for no reason. We've had 2 cars that we occasionally got serviced at that dealer, a 1999 Avalon and a 1990 Camry.
Quote from: CALL_911 on March 25, 2008, 08:11:56 PM
Sorry buddy, but our Toyota dealer's service department sucks. The quality of their work was horrible, and they also had very poor estimations of time. In fact, our Toyota dealer sounds like your Ford dealer, except we knew that they had the parts in stock, they just took a very long time for no reason. We've had 2 cars that we occasionally got serviced at that dealer, a 1999 Avalon and a 1990 Camry.
When I say all Ford dealers are crap its because I went to every Goddamn Ford Dealer in both Phoenix and Tucson at one point or another. They are all a bunch of baby-raping motherfuckers who sold their souls to Satan decades ago. Every time I got shitty service at one dealer, I decided to try another one. Then, after getting shitty service at that dealer, I'd decide to go to the next. I did this until I exhausted every Ford dealership in town (Tucson wasn't too hard since there were only 2 at the time). I finally gave up and just started taking it to whichever dealership could get me in the quickest.
That's different. Wow, that really sucks.
You're from Tucson? There's this fantastic Mexican restaurant there, Casa Molina? I think that's still the best Mexican food I've had.
Quote from: akuma_supreme on March 25, 2008, 10:12:10 AM
Granted, I did make the mistake of buying a first-year model, but I figured, "Hey, they spent over a billion dollars in development of this car, I can't go wrong!"
I did like the way it drove, when it was running properly. The ride was a nice mix between large-car isolation and quietness with the reactions of a much smaller car.
My brother's 1995 runs like a top, and I think it must have close to 190,000 miles on it at the moment. And from what I understand, the suspension can be interchanged with a Taurus' (who would want to do that is beyond me). Also, the hubs are the same as the Focus'. As for most of the rest of the car, well...
Quote from: ChrisV on March 25, 2008, 07:21:51 AM
My SVT Contour never needed trips to the dealer in the three years I owned it. Neither did my buddy's base 4 cyl Contour (and man, that car was a DOG.)
Do you know where your Contour is?
Quote from: CALL_911 on March 25, 2008, 10:29:27 PM
That's different. Wow, that really sucks.
You're from Tucson? There's this fantastic Mexican restaurant there, Casa Molina? I think that's still the best Mexican food I've had.
I went to the UofA- Bear Down! Casa Molina rocks! :rockon:
Quote from: The Teuton on March 25, 2008, 10:29:27 PMMy brother's 1995 runs like a top, and I think it must have close to 190,000 miles on it at the moment. And from what I understand, the suspension can be interchanged with a Taurus' (who would want to do that is beyond me). Also, the hubs are the same as the Focus'. As for most of the rest of the car, well...
Interesting that the suspension and hubs were about the only things that didn't go wrong with my car.
Quote from: Raza on March 25, 2008, 11:27:14 PM
Do you know where your Contour is?
No, when it got sold off, I lost track of it.
I couldn't tell you how my Ford dealership experience was, because neither of my two new Fords ever had to go to one. ;) My PT Cruiser went for routine maintenance a couple times, and it was an in and out affair. Had no issues.
My buddy recently bought an Acura RSX and he's had nothing but problems with his dealership trying to get the known 3rd gear pop-out problem fixed.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 26, 2008, 10:16:28 AM
No, when it got sold off, I lost track of it.
Funny story. My Contour for some reason was a bloody cop-magnet when I owned it. I lost count of the number of times old Smokey pulled me over for no good reason.
Anyways, I ended up trading the Craptour in on my Xterra. Although they aren't supposed to do this, the dealer ended up selling the car to another party before updating the title to remove my name.
About a week after I changed cars, at 3am on a wednesday morning, I'm greeted by members of the Arizona highway patrol. It seems that my car was spotted driving erratically down near the Mexico border. When the officer turned on his lights to get the car to pull-over, the car apparently turned its headlights off, and drove off into the desert towards Mexico, never to be seen again. This was in the days before they went all whacky with border patrol, and there were hundreds of miles of relatively unpatrolled border.
The police came to pay me a visit as I was the one still listed on the title. I was off the hook since I had a 3500lb alibi in my driveway, but they were very curious about the name of the salesman whom I bought my car from. I never found out what happened after that.
Quote from: akuma_supreme on March 26, 2008, 10:11:48 AM
I went to the UofA- Bear Down! Casa Molina rocks! :rockon:
Oh hell yes. We stayed at this place called the Westin La Paloma. Tucson's an awesome place. And like I said, Casa Molina is absolute pwnage.
Quote from: CALL_911 on March 26, 2008, 05:02:59 PM
Oh hell yes. We stayed at this place called the Westin La Paloma. Tucson's an awesome place. And like I said, Casa Molina is absolute pwnage.
The thing I really miss most about Tucson (and what almost kept me down there) were the fabulous restaurants. Where else can you get Mexican, El Salvadoran, Andean, Italian, Chinese, and American cuisine on the same street? Afterwards, you also have the choice of two cafes or three bars, all on the same street.
I miss 4th Ave. :(
Quote from: akuma_supreme on March 26, 2008, 05:05:22 PM
The thing I really miss most about Tucson (and what almost kept me down there) were the fabulous restaurants. Where else can you get Mexican, El Salvadoran, Andean, Italian, Chinese, and American cuisine on the same street? Afterwards, you also have the choice of two cafes or three bars, all on the same street.
I miss 4th Ave. :(
Pittsburgh.
I had no idea Andean cuisine was so widespread. :p
I don't care if there is Mexican food in Pittsburgh, I'm sure it sucks.
Quote from: akuma_supreme on March 27, 2008, 10:18:20 AM
I had no idea Andean cuisine was so widespread. :p
I don't care if there is Mexican food in Pittsburgh, I'm sure it sucks.
You're not really talking mexican cuisine are you, but texmex? Acid test (no pun intended) - is there lime cooked fish? Hmmmm.
Quote from: dinkeldorf on March 27, 2008, 11:21:36 AM
You're not really talking mexican cuisine are you, but texmex? Acid test (no pun intended) - is there lime cooked fish? Hmmmm.
I love fish tacos. I had grilled mahi mahi tacos for lunch. :lol:
Texmex is anathema to Mexican cuisine.
Quote from: akuma_supreme on March 26, 2008, 10:56:08 AM
Funny story. My Contour for some reason was a bloody cop-magnet when I owned it. I lost count of the number of times old Smokey pulled me over for no good reason.
Anyways, I ended up trading the Craptour in on my Xterra. Although they aren't supposed to do this, the dealer ended up selling the car to another party before updating the title to remove my name.
About a week after I changed cars, at 3am on a wednesday morning, I'm greeted by members of the Arizona highway patrol. It seems that my car was spotted driving erratically down near the Mexico border. When the officer turned on his lights to get the car to pull-over, the car apparently turned its headlights off, and drove off into the desert towards Mexico, never to be seen again. This was in the days before they went all whacky with border patrol, and there were hundreds of miles of relatively unpatrolled border.
The police came to pay me a visit as I was the one still listed on the title. I was off the hook since I had a 3500lb alibi in my driveway, but they were very curious about the name of the salesman whom I bought my car from. I never found out what happened after that.
It's probably used to courier human cargo back and forth from the border... lol.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on March 28, 2008, 09:34:27 AM
It's probably used to courier human cargo back and forth from the border... lol.
It did have a big trunk. :tounge:
Quote from: akuma_supreme on March 26, 2008, 05:05:22 PM
The thing I really miss most about Tucson (and what almost kept me down there) were the fabulous restaurants. Where else can you get Mexican, El Salvadoran, Andean, Italian, Chinese, and American cuisine on the same street? Afterwards, you also have the choice of two cafes or three bars, all on the same street.
I miss 4th Ave. :(
There's a great El Salvadoran joint on 24th St. in PHX. I want to say 24th and Washington.
Quote from: Tave on April 02, 2008, 05:51:43 PM
There's a great El Salvadoran joint on 24th St. in PHX. I want to say 24th and Washington.
No shit. That's not too far from my house. Do you happen to remember the name?
As a matter of fact I just found it:
Eliana's, on 24th St. and McDowell
Quote from: Tave on April 02, 2008, 05:58:49 PM
As a matter of fact I just found it:
Eliana's, on 24th St. and McDowell
That's even closer! I think I'll check it out this weekend. Thanks! :cheers:
Quote from: 93JC on March 16, 2008, 11:19:14 AM
It's on par with other compact pickups.
what??? :huh: compact pick-ups, for the most part, are either fwd or awd (a major selling factor); carry loads more than this car; have a choice of bed sizes; and built as a REAL truck from the very beginning. needless to say, this "so called" quasi 'ute (umm coupe with a bed) was built off the very short-lived, embarrassing (from looks to sales) gto disaster :nono: .
one question: how old is this platform?
another major gm mistake: making this... umm car... umm truck... umm sport utility vehicle... umm crossover... umm who knows what
it is...
a pontiac opposed to a chevy or gmc truck :nutty: .
Quote from: Atomic on April 02, 2008, 07:10:31 PM
compact pick-ups, for the most part, are either fwd or awd
I think you mean rwd or awd
This thing doesn't have to be built like a regular truck to satisfy its market. Most city buyers of compact trucks would be better served by something like this, anyway.
Quote from: Atomic on April 02, 2008, 07:10:31 PM
what??? :huh: compact pick-ups, for the most part, are either fwd or awd (a major selling factor); carry loads more than this car; have a choice of bed sizes; and built as a REAL truck from the very beginning. needless to say, this "so called" quasi 'ute (umm coupe with a bed) was built off the very short-lived, embarrassing (from looks to sales) gto disaster :nono: .
one question: how old is this platform?
another major gm mistake: making this... umm car... umm truck... umm sport utility vehicle... umm crossover... umm who knows what it is... a pontiac opposed to a chevy or gmc truck :nutty: .
The platform is brand-new as of mid-2006, with the launch of the VE Commodore.
Quote from: Atomic on April 02, 2008, 07:10:31 PM
what??? :huh: compact pick-ups, for the most part, are either fwd or awd (a major selling factor);
You mean RWD, not FWD.
Quotecarry loads more than this car;
On the contrary, the payload rating of this vehicle exceeds most compact pickups on the North American market. In fact, the Ute Omega, the base V6 version in Australia, has a higher payload than all but one trimline of the Toyota TUNDRA. Not Tacoma, TUNDRA.
Quotehave a choice of bed sizes;
Big deal. Most people buy the regular length box anyway. Besides, I find most people with pickup trucks don't even use the damned thing.
Quoteand built as a REAL truck from the very beginning.
Define "REAL truck"...
Quoteanother major gm mistake: making this... umm car... umm truck... umm sport utility vehicle... umm crossover... umm who knows what it is...
It's PICKUP truck.
Quotea pontiac opposed to a chevy or gmc truck :nutty: .
This may be the only thing you've said that I agree with. I for one don't think it makes one lick of difference whatsoever, but I know there are people out there who would prefer this was a Chevrolet or GMC, be it for 'heritage' or the for idea that Pontiac is 'the sporty brand' and shouldn't have a pickup truck in their lineup.
Ok, I'm too drunk and too tired to read only one post, BUT:
GM should bring a 2008 Chevy Chevelle SS 454 over HERE. WIth LPG, I'd definitely buy it in 2012 as a used car. Gosh, I love sedan-flat-pickups.
Quote from: Pommes-T on April 03, 2008, 06:34:56 PM
Ok, I'm too drunk and too tired to read only one post, BUT:
GM should bring a 2008 Chevy Chevelle SS 454 over HERE. WIth LPG, I'd definitely buy it in 2012 as a used car. Gosh, I love sedan-flat-pickups.
:nono:
Chevelle was the sedan/wagon/coupe model. You're thinking of El Camino.
Quote from: 93JC on April 03, 2008, 11:56:22 AM
On the contrary, the payload rating of this vehicle exceeds most compact pickups on the North American market. In fact, the Ute Omega, the base V6 version in Australia, has a higher payload than all but one trimline of the Toyota TUNDRA. Not Tacoma, TUNDRA.
I never knew that.
Not quite right but still pretty good for those pottery barn construction material runs:
4x4 5.6L Tundra payload=1580LBs
4x4 5.4L F150 = 1710LBs.
The commodore ute: 830kg for the base - 660kg for the SS.
Of course when it comes to towing there's not contest: 1600kg v ~ 10,000LBs
They had to sell this as a pontiac: lined up next to the Colorado & Caynons would be unusual.
Quote from: 93JC on April 03, 2008, 06:59:03 PM
:nono:
Chevelle was the sedan/wagon/coupe model. You're thinking of El Camino.
Yep, exaxtly! :ohyeah:
Quote from: dinkeldorf on April 03, 2008, 08:45:36 PM
Not quite right but still pretty good for those pottery barn construction material runs:
4x4 5.6L Tundra payload=1580LBs
4x4 5.4L F150 = 1710LBs.
The commodore ute: 830kg for the base - 660kg for the SS.
Going back and checking some figures:
From Toyota.ca:
4x2 reg cab 5.7: 860 kg
4x4 reg cab 5.7 long box: 830 kg
4x2 reg cab 4.7: 795 kg
4x4 reg cab 4.7 long box: 765 kg
4x4 reg cab 4.7 std box: 720 kg
4x4 reg cab 5.7 std box: 690 kg
4x2 double cab 5.7 (long box): 655 kg
4x4 double cab LTD 5.7: 645 kg
4x2 crewmax 5.7 LTD: 640 kg
4x4 double cab SR5 std box 5.7: 630 kg
4x2 crewmax 5.7 SR5: 630 kg
4x4 double cab SR5 long box 5.7: 615 kg
4x2 double cab 4.7 (std box): 605 kg
4x4 crewmax SR5 5.7: 600 kg
4x4 crewmax LTD 5.7: 590 kg
4x4 double cab LTD 4.7: 580 kg
4x4 double cab SR5 4.7: 565 kg
From Holden.com.au:
Omega automatic: 794 kg
Omega manual: 775 kg
SV6 manual: 634 kg
SV6 automatic: 633 kg
SS manual: 617 kg
SS automatic: 597 kg
SS-V manual: 528 kg
SS-V automatic: 508 kg
I still say that's pretty damned competitive for a "not-REAL" truck, and more than enough for most people's needs. I made a conscious effort to count the number of pickups with anything in the bed on my way to uni this morning: there was one Avalanche with a motorbike and ladder in the back. That's it.
Thanks 93JC, I think I'd had a pint too many to be cutting and pasting accurately! You're dead right, it's an eye opener, and more than sufficient for all those empty trucks trying not to be minivans out there.
Quote from: 93JC on April 04, 2008, 10:16:32 AM
Going back and checking some figures:
From Toyota.ca:
4x2 reg cab 5.7: 860 kg
4x4 reg cab 5.7 long box: 830 kg
4x2 reg cab 4.7: 795 kg
4x4 reg cab 4.7 long box: 765 kg
4x4 reg cab 4.7 std box: 720 kg
4x4 reg cab 5.7 std box: 690 kg
4x2 double cab 5.7 (long box): 655 kg
4x4 double cab LTD 5.7: 645 kg
4x2 crewmax 5.7 LTD: 640 kg
4x4 double cab SR5 std box 5.7: 630 kg
4x2 crewmax 5.7 SR5: 630 kg
4x4 double cab SR5 long box 5.7: 615 kg
4x2 double cab 4.7 (std box): 605 kg
4x4 crewmax SR5 5.7: 600 kg
4x4 crewmax LTD 5.7: 590 kg
4x4 double cab LTD 4.7: 580 kg
4x4 double cab SR5 4.7: 565 kg
From Holden.com.au:
Omega automatic: 794 kg
Omega manual: 775 kg
SV6 manual: 634 kg
SV6 automatic: 633 kg
SS manual: 617 kg
SS automatic: 597 kg
SS-V manual: 528 kg
SS-V automatic: 508 kg
From ford.com.au
Falcon Ute Cab-Chassis: 1240kg
Falcon XR6 Ute Cab-Chassis: 1240kg (760kg Sports)
Falcon R6 Cab-Chassis: 1225kg
Falcon Ute Styleside Box: 1075kg
Falcon R6 Styleside Box Ute: 1060kg (600kg Sports)
Falcon Ute Styleside Box 3/4: 775kg
Falcon XR6 Styleside Box Ute: 585kg
Falcon XR6 Turbo Ute: 570kg
Yes, but Ford ain't bringing that here, are they?
Quote from: 93JC on April 04, 2008, 10:16:32 AM
I still say that's pretty damned competitive for a "not-REAL" truck, and more than enough for most people's needs. I made a conscious effort to count the number of pickups with anything in the bed on my way to uni this morning: there was one Avalanche with a motorbike and ladder in the back. That's it.
That's one of the stupidest things you have ever posted. Over the past 3 years of owning my Ram, I had a load in my truck while parked outside of my office a grand total of 4 times (that I can remember). However I hauled stuff in the evening and on weekends. Who goes to work every day with 2000 lbs of shit in the back of their truck? On the weekend, people use their trucks for yard work, towing travel trailers, hauling quads and dirt bikes and snowmobiles. They use them for camping, towing boats, and offroading. What the fuck does someone taking an empty pickup to work have to do with how much they use their truck to haul stuff? Does everyone use their truck for hauling stuff? Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean nobody does.
I'm not saying pickup trucks are useless, just that THE AVERAGE PICKUP TRUCK BUYER (for instance, a nerdy buddy from uni who bought a Chevy Silverado and to my knowledge has never put anything in the back of his truck, EVER) doesn't need a monstrous full-size truck, if one at all.
You may have used your Ram for offroading, yard work, towing, hauling quads, blah blah blah, but LOTS OF PICKUP TRUCK BUYERS DON'T. I think, based on my own experience, it may even be most.
I think smaller trucks like the Commodore Ute could easily supplant full-size trucks for MANY truck buyers.
In the same way I don't think people need minivans if they pop out one measly kid.
Quote from: 93JC on April 09, 2008, 01:02:25 PM
I'm not saying pickup trucks are useless, just that THE AVERAGE PICKUP TRUCK BUYER (for instance, a nerdy buddy from uni who bought a Chevy Silverado and to my knowledge has never put anything in the back of his truck, EVER) doesn't need a monstrous full-size truck, if one at all.
You may have used your Ram for offroading, yard work, towing, hauling quads, blah blah blah, but LOTS OF PICKUP TRUCK BUYERS DON'T. I think, based on my own experience, it may even be most.
Even so, you can't base that on what you see on your way to work. I don't know anybody who carries a load in their truck to work.
QuoteI think smaller trucks like the Commodore Ute could easily supplant full-size trucks for MANY truck buyers.
Sure, except that it can only seat 2 people. I wouldn't buy one, just because of that. They would have to build a 4 door version which they never will.
For my money, I don't think that a car-based `ute will ever be more than a niche model at best. The fuel-economy is not much better than a standard truck, and they still take-up a pretty good-sized piece of real-estate, meaning they really aren't much more maneuverable in real-world circumstances.
Quote from: akuma_supreme on April 09, 2008, 02:34:00 PM
For my money, I don't think that a car-based `ute will ever be more than a niche model at best. The fuel-economy is not much better than a standard truck, and they still take-up a pretty good-sized piece of real-estate, meaning they really aren't much more maneuverable in real-world circumstances.
:nutty:
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 09, 2008, 02:26:17 PM
Even so, you can't base that on what you see on your way to work. I don't know anybody who carries a load in their truck to work.
Then why drive the damned thing to work!?! Where's the line between "needing" a big pickup and wanting some toy for hauling shit a few times a year?
QuoteSure, except that it can only seat 2 people. I wouldn't buy one, just because of that. They would have to build a 4 door version which they never will.
(http://www.roadtester.com.au/images/cars/June%202/Crewman_Cross8_51.jpg)
I know I know, it's the old VZ, but I don't see why they couldn't make a VE.
Quote from: 93JC on April 09, 2008, 05:27:13 PM
Then why drive the damned thing to work!?!
Because I'm not going to buy another car just to drive to work. That's financially...stupid!
QuoteWhere's the line between "needing" a big pickup and wanting some toy for hauling shit a few times a year?
For me and for most pickup owners that I personally know, it's far more then "a few times a year".
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 09, 2008, 05:30:47 PM
Because I'm not going to buy another car just to drive to work. That's financially...stupid!
Wasn't that the point of buying the Shitfire? :lol:
QuoteFor me and for most pickup owners that I personally know, it's far more then "a few times a year".
For many of the pickup truck owners I know, it's only once in a while. In fact, the only person I know who regularly uses the bed of his pickup is my dad.
Quote from: 93JC on April 09, 2008, 05:42:12 PM
Wasn't that the point of buying the Shitfire? :lol:
OWNED
:lol:
The same Shitfire that went through... how many engines? :lol:
Quote from: 93JC on April 09, 2008, 05:42:12 PM
Wasn't that the point of buying the Shitfire? :lol:
Yes, and look at how that turned out.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 09, 2008, 05:50:48 PM
Yes, and look at how that turned out.
That's because you bought a bad car. Buying a cheap used car for commuting makes more sense than driving the huge truck to work.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 09, 2008, 03:23:56 PM
:nutty:
:orly:
So the man who bought a Sunfire
by choice is calling me crazy.
:clap: to Mr. Hemi for being a good sport.
It's just too easy a target.
Quote from: akuma_supreme on April 09, 2008, 05:54:12 PM
:orly:
So the man who bought a Sunfire by choice is calling me crazy.
If you think one of those utes gets the same mileage and is as cumbersome as a pickup truck then you're a lost cause.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 09, 2008, 10:43:03 PM
If you think one of those utes gets the same mileage and is as cumbersome as a pickup truck then you're a lost cause.
They're based off full-size car platforms. This may shock you, but there are actually pickups smaller than this on sale in some markets- even the US!
Quote from: thecarnut on April 09, 2008, 05:52:22 PM
That's because you bought a bad car. Buying a cheap used car for commuting makes more sense than driving the huge truck to work.
Not when you have to pay for insurance on both vehicles. The reason I bought the Sunfire was so that I wouldn't put any more kms on my truck before having to return it because it's a lease. Our Freestyle has a triler hitch and I can tow a utility trailer for most of the things I need to haul, however I made a conscious decision that some lifestyle choices were going to have to take a back seat to some other priorities such as having my wife at home for our kids for the next 3 years. That means the truck goes away and so do a lot of our preferred activities. If I was to have had a cheap used car for commuting during the entire 3 years I had my truck, it would have been more expensive then just driving the Ram to work every day...which I did. You factor in the purchase price for a reliable used car that won't give me any problems ($7000) and insurance ($600 per year) and that is a total of $8800 per year. That includes no oil changes, maintenance, repairs, tires, or anything else. Just that $8800 is much more then the extra cost in fuel I paid for driving my truck to work every day.
Quote from: akuma_supreme on April 09, 2008, 10:49:31 PM
They're based off full-size car platforms. This may shock you, but there are actually pickups smaller than this on sale in some markets- even the US!
We weren't talking about Ford Rangers. We were talking about Ford F-150s and Dodge Rams.
Quote from: 93JC on April 09, 2008, 06:08:30 PM
:clap: to Mr. Hemi for being a good sport.
It's just too easy a target.
:praise:
Quote from: akuma_supreme on April 09, 2008, 10:49:31 PM
They're based off full-size car platforms. This may shock you, but there are actually pickups smaller than this on sale in some markets- even the US!
Dude - the utes get comparable mileage to the sedans. Similar weight, engine. Drag coefficient suffers but the frontal area, the bain of most pickups, is pretty good.