Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people use their truck for work. Hauling plywood, studs, drywall, fence posts, etc.
We need a truck that will haul a heavy load over a Colorado pass without losing the transmission and engine due to overheating. There is a reason for the diesel shop 20 miles down the road from the pass.
Modern trucks disgust me. Plastic wonder boxes with computers running everything. I can't do hardly anything to my truck. Rides nice though.
If Trump can trim the EPA, perhaps we will be able to work on our engines again? Good luck with either wish.
Not really there was never a market for them. I mean it. Why would chevy ford and dodge axe the mini truck? They're useless. They're a great candidate for one thing and one thing only, to be a blank canvas for a hot rodder like me who will buy one for peanuts, build a nasty small block and throw it in. Or slam it to the ground and bag and drag for car shows.
You can't haul or tow anything substantial. Older Dakotas with 318s (the "5.2" magnum) and a stick shift, could tow if you didn't mind the squatting rear with leaf springs screaming for mercy. ZR4 S10s were only good for their rear diffs. That was the 4th and final rear end I had swapped into my 327 T10 S10, it had beefier axles and was just stouter in every word of the sense...
The brakes and suspensions in those little trucks didn't allow for hauling or towing anything substantial. They were an alternative to feeble wheel drive econoboxes.
Ranger. These I give credit where it's due. Ford always had a stouter chassis in their pickups than chevy or dodge. The ranger was a hefty piggy. And owners of them all complained that they couldn't get better than 18 mpg out of them, that anemic 4.0 V6 in a hefty little truck was a gas hog. May as well have bought an F150 with an anemic 4.6 they'd do 18 consistently and could actually haul or tow something.
I don't see a purpose for the likes of the Tacoma the S10 the Ranger the Dakota. What are you going to put in the bed? Maybe a dirtbike? A small quad like a blaster? Maybe with the tail gate down a banshee...if the bed is wide enough to fit a sportsman or a grizzly that rear end would be squatting.
What are you going to tow? A boat? Maybe a jet boat under 20 feet. A camper? Maybe a pop up not a 20-30 foot travel trailer. You'll melt the brakes going down hill and blow the trans out going up a hill, snap leaf springs going over bumps!
I'd rather see chevy go to holden and bring the Ute over here rebadged as an Elcamino add in functioning cowl induction and that would sell.
Or take the 14+ body silverado, regular cab short box step side, sit the frame 2 inches from the ground 5 link coil spring the rear, beefy sway bars and links duals exiting behind the cab or through a rear roll pan, led light bar between the bed and roll pan, cadillac style tail lights, shaved door handles, keep the 5.3/6.2 but throw lumpy bump sticks in combined with the cam phaser, headers, a 4 speed 6 speed stick with a hurst shifter, no ABS no traction control, no stability control. Set it on 18s/20s to clear huge rotors and calipers and pads, wrap them with 285 or 305 40 series tires. Price it at 20-35k I'd buy it in a heart beat.
You talk about how useless all those mid-sized trucks were, but plenty of people found a use for them. Then you go on to describe the ultimate useless truck, and you'd want to buy one. Why?!
You talk about how useless all those mid-sized trucks were, but plenty of people found a use for them. Then you go on to describe the ultimate useless truck, and you'd want to buy one. Why?!
If they sold, and made Ford, Mopar, and GM money why aren't they still in existence?
Useless maybe in Alaska, in snow. I should show you a picture of my C10 and see how ya really feel it had no roof slammed to the ground. Was my spring through fall toy.
But for what I'd need it/want it for, would serve it's purpose just fine. Cart a quad/dirt bike, even if the tailgate had to be down. And go like a bat outta hell. If I had to pull a small block from a junkyard to bring home to build for a toy it could do that. Haul a T10/M22 it could do that. Plus people price out 67-72 C10s in that range with wimpy crate engines and slush box TH350s. Aside from the paint jobs and wheels you couldn't tell them apart for the most part...
No more winter to worry about down here so it would actually be practical year round for me. Already have a 14 CCSB so if I had to take a group of people with me there's that...
If I need a cheap work truck they don't rot down here a TBI 350 reg cab short box can be had for under $1000. Vortec 350 96-99 1500-2k or a 99-02 4.8-6.0 3-6500
Not arguing. Just pointing out the real world flaws in the idea of Volvo selling pickup trucks. It's a discussion. I'll give you answers as to why it won't work. Please give me answers as to why it would.
The flaw you pointed out was silly. Thinking that just because the truck and car cos are seperate could keep it from happening. That tells me that any serious discussion would be wasted.
Among heavy truck makers I think Volvo would have a better go of it than any others because of brand recognition and their dealer network and thats it. Nothing left to discuss.
The flaw you pointed out was silly. Thinking that just because the truck and car cos are seperate could keep it from happening. That tells me that any serious discussion would be wasted.
Among heavy truck makers I think Volvo would have a better go of it than any others because of brand recognition and their dealer network and thats it. Nothing left to discuss.
Lighten up Francis. We're not discussing world peace here.
Lighten up Francis. We're not discussing world peace here.
Lol tell me more about what Volvo's target market is while you explain the Mercedes Benz X-class. Having more product to sell and a possible hit means manufacturers are not going to necessarily stay in their assigned and expected lanes when it comes to new product.
Lol tell me more about what Volvo's target market is while you explain the Mercedes Benz X-class. Having more product to sell and a possible hit means manufacturers are not going to necessarily stay in their assigned and expected lanes when it comes to new product.
The MB X Class isn't coming to North America per MB USA CEO: "Once the next version of the truck comes out—when we see the next iteration—there might be an opportunity to bring it [to the U.S.] in the medium and the long-term,"
I'm not saying it's an impossibility that Volvo couldn't sell an pickup. I'm just saying that it would be a difficult uphill battle that would take money that could be better spent developing vehicles that would sell. Dropping hundreds of millions developing a pickup for Volvo cars limits the ability to spend on keeping their good selling products up to date and competitive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it had no roof slammed to the ground. Was my spring through fall toy. 
