What ever happened to the utility coupe?
I know the Aussie's still make them, but the ranchero and the el camino are both part of American automotive legend. Why did they just stop existing?
For someone completely ignorant on ford's international offerings, how does a modern Taurus differ from the Australian's Falcon?
And if the answer isn't "completely", why can't we get pick related in the U.S.?
Utes need to look like this, with more define lines instead of svelte curves which make them look horrendous.
Seriously. It's not hard to make something palatable. If the Australians would make and buy something like this >>14154621, the whole country needs to get rangebanned.
I wonder how much this cost the guy.
>you'll never drive a Falcon ute with the 4.0 Barra
>some guys in a body shop with a pile of old camino parts in the 80's made THAT, but Mercedes thinks thinks THIS is a valuable addition to their brand.
It's quite possibly the ugliest vehicle to roll out of Europe ever.
They actually made it the absolute madmen.
>how does a modern Taurus differ from the Australian's Falcon?
Taurus is smaller
Taurus is bitch mode fwd not rwd
Taurus is V6 and not glorious Barra
Tarus is pigfat in all the wrong ways
basically, but whities are the only ones with the money to buy a new truck. Without white people to buy the vehicles, and without white people selling off their older trucks for mexicans to buy, the small truck was killed.
Dude, the Taurus is huge. It's bigger than the Falcon. By quite a bit actually, 2 inches more hip room, 1.5 inches more head room, 1.5 inches more front leg room, 2 inches more rear legroom, it's almost 3 inches wider and 5 inches longer.
That's what brown folks tell themselves because they don't understand that small trucks are not a good financial choice compared to the volume full sized trucks.
You have to literally want a less capable vehicle to choose a small truck, you aren't going to save any money over the life of the purchase by going small.
Ehhh more or less, some people will argue that they aren't, but the 'utes' were always based on unquestionable muscle cars, like the Torino and the Chevelle. So in my opinion at the very least they are muscle cars by proxy.
but what about the Dodge Rampage? It was based off the Dodge Omni. No muscle there, but they claimed to be the first ever sports truck according to some fliers they had back in the day.
Because Washington legislature shows considerable favor towards pickup trucks in terms of fuel economy and crash safety mandates which are far stricter for passenger car classed vehicles in order to ensure sufficient revenue for Detroit in the one category of vehicles where imports don't dominate domestic brands already. When you build a car platform utility vehicle it'll have to conform to car emissions tests and crash tests, unlike pickup trucks whose test are far easier to pass.
Still wouldn't mind having a rampage though, I've driven a Horizon before (Plymouth's Omni) and it was pretty bad but still somewhat charming.
Also remember the Dodge GLHS? The car can't be that gutless if shelby picked it up. Still no idea why they did it though.
Both the Chevelle, and the Elco could be had with engines ranging from a pitiful inline six, to a firebreathing bigblock. Having a powerful engine in a cheapass two door coupe is what defines a muscle car. Not a two door coupe? Not a muscle car. Muscle wagon, muscle sedan, or muscle ute, but not muscle car.
>tfw when no challenger-derived rampage revival
>tfw when no interceptor-derived ranchero reboot
>tfw when Pontiac went out of business so we won't get any rebranded Holdens.
Why even live.
>we won't get any rebranded Holdens.
If you're in the US, you can go and buy a Chevy SS, which is a rebranded Holden. hell, you can get it with Holden floor mats. Just graft a ute bed onto the SS.
So? If Ford had thrown more money at him than Chrysler (like they later did) there would have been a Ford based Shelby during the time of the GLHS and the GLHS would have been named something else. The man was quite mercurial. I just wish he hadn't been quite so blatant about it. Especially in his later years.
I think the proportions on this are quite near perfect, maybe taller windows and a longer bed would finish it off. The grill isn't too big or tall, the wheels aren't largely out of proportion, and the cab isn't too long either
You're not alone anon, that's my primary reason for looking the charger more. The challenger looks like a waterlogged 69 challenger.
I wish they wouldn't be so heavy handed with the styling of the challenger either, let it be it's own car, not an overweight remake. Maybe make it something light, but still powered by a hemi V8
It's ugly but if you want the good Ute get a Baja Turbo. Hands down the best car Ive ever owned. It can make it though technical four wheeling and its almost as fast as a wrx all for under 10k.
While I'm not into mini trucks I know a shit ton of other Mexicans that are
I'm more into single cab old trucks
Ugh, I hate this, and all of the other "SUT's" that came out in 'Merrika. Too big, too heavy, too expensive, not durable enough. Worst of all worlds.
I'd fucking kill for a subcompact truck/ute that could offroad, haul 1000 lbs of payload, tow itself, and get an honest 30 mpg. Am I asking for too much?
Even if there was "enough" demand for utes (or minitrucks for that matter) in the United States, the big 3 won't dare re-introduce them. By their logic, every sale of a ute would be a lost sale of a more profitable full-sized pickup.
The flip-side to this is that the foreign manufacturers have had a tough time selling trucks in the US, so we may see Japanese/Korean/German brands attempt to use that niche to crack into the American pickup market.
Unfortunately, with the way cars are designed these days and the perceived "needs" of American car buyers, we'll probably see more four-door abominations like the Baja, or pickup crossovers.
Pic related, Hyundai Santa Cruz concept, derived from the Tucson.
The El Camino hung on through the 80's pretty much only as a CAFE dodging scheme, a way to build what was basically a car and get it put in the truck category, with it's looser fuel economy, crash safety, and emissions standards.
Even with more strict modern CAFE rules, manufacturers still get an MPG break for putting a cargo bed on a vehicle and calling it a truck.
They're not made any more because the sales simply weren't there. El Camino sales peaked in 1973, weren't terribly impressive then, and declined to the point where they barely sold 15,000 of them in the final year. That's an even smaller market niche than the FRS/BRZ.
American's are just fucking weird when it comes to cars for anything except V8 engines.
>like every American ever made except some glaringly obvious exceptions (Vette, most Mustangs, some 50s and 60s metal)
Ausfailian here, currently in cali, shit guys make a car that isn't fucked.
I saw one el Camino being driven by a Mexican in home depo or the home deep. It was cool and wasn't retarded fuck huge.
The rams and fords are too big. They are ugly.
Stop driving them. Stop fucking buying them.
The roads are too small to fit the things.
>The flip-side to this is that the foreign manufacturers have had a tough time selling trucks in the US, so we may see Japanese/Korean/German brands attempt to use that niche to crack into the American pickup market.
It's like no one here knows about the chicken tax in the US, and no Mexican here can into reading comprehension.
Refer to here >>14154605
Foreign market can't bring in small trucks without being charged a 25% import tax from the old chicken tax.
None of the big 3 will make a small truck because it'd compete with their regular line, which makes them more money per sale. Lastly, no one bought em when they were being made, so why try again? Every time a company makes a small truck, it doesn't sell well enough to justify the costs.
Not the guy you replied to, but I agree with his points.
Yes, I don't need an extended cab and much less want to sacrifice bed size for it
For its towing and load capacity, 3485lbs is obscene. Compare that to a 2002 Ford ranger super cab and you'll notice they have the same towing for the super cab layout... Except the Ford has a much bigger bed, and can load up more too. The Baja is too close to being a medium duty truck, without any of the utility.
>Foreign market can't bring in small trucks without being charged a 25% import tax from the old chicken tax.
Thank you anon, your condescension is justified and totally necessary. I was utterly ignorant of that decades-old chicken tax, as you so rightly assumed.
It's not as if Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, Hyundai, Kia, Volkswagen, Mercedes, and BMW have manufacturing facilities within the United States that could make the chicken tax a complete non-issue.
Also, the Toyota Tacoma/Tundra, Nissan Titan, and Honda Ridgeline don't exist.
are you guys kidding? its probably the best looking falcon ever made. Both the sedans and utes
Gotta agree with this poster, FG-X looks the goods. Better than the FG blob it replaced and the complete non event BA/BF... Shame it still handles like a pickup truck compared to the Commodore equivalent.
Not only do I think that's the first time you've heard of the tax, I think your failure to finish reading my post is laughable. There's more than just the import tax stopping them. No one buys small trucks in the US, even more so the case with fuel being under 2 bucks. The last fuel crisis is what brought them into the market, and the new epa regulations is what kept them around. Neither of these things are issues anymore, so don't expect to see a resurgence in small trucks. Go buy a Ridgeline if you consider it small. Go get a Tacoma if you think it's the holy grail of small trucks.
You'll never get to buy a new small truck from the late 70s/early 80s
I didn't respond to the rest of your post because I had already said almost the same thing, smartass. Domestic manufacturers want to sell full sized trucks. it makes them money.
I pointed out chicken tax because you present it as if it were some kind of deal-breaker. that may have been true 20 years ago, but it's certainly not the case anymore.
And I don't consider Tundra/Titan/Ridgeline "small" trucks. I mentioned them because they, too, would be affected by the chicken tax if they were imported into the US.
Smaller trucks have a market. Tacomas still sell despite being embarrassingly outdated. There's also the Colorado/Canyon and the allegedly upcoming reintroduction of the Ranger to the American market. Not "minitrucks" exactly, but smaller. I imagine that building a modern minitruck to pass crash tests would be difficult. if we get anything smaller than a mid-size, it will probably be on some crossover platform.
nah, chicken tax is still very much applicable.
If it wasn't, they could just import their foreign truck surplus over here and that'd be the end of that discussion. since it's still active though, in order to get those trucks cheap, they'd have to build them here, with no indications that they'd sell. The startup costs don't justify doing it, whereas if they had surplus of their 2014 models, they could ship them over here, and they could probably sell them well enough to justify importing them.
I would like to see the tax lifted for this reason alone. It'd be interesting to see how the market reacts to the reintroduction of small trucks.
It makes no sense to get one over a body-on-frame truck. They're damn near the same size, have inferior payload/towing, equal fuel economy, not as easy to repair because unibody, and aren't any cheaper. Like, the entire goddamn reason you can't buy a body-on-frame car anymore is because unibody is lighter and thus more effecient, but this somehow doesn't apply to trucks...even though in not-America it clearly does.
I can't think of an honest reason to get a Ridgeline over a Taco, and US market couldn't either. If it were 10% smaller and 10% more efficient it might have had something.
>>14165229 The tow payload and bed size is fine for what I use the Baja for. I just don't like the ride and handling of body-on frame trucks. I don't worry about reliability with that thing, by the time Subaru came around to making the Baja the design had already been used for a decade in the Outback.
FG-X front looks baller, then the back looks fucking European as fuck. They should've put a Mondeo rear instead of the abomination that the Falcons have.
I reckon the BA/BF is still best looking Falcon, especially the XR's. FG's XR's can look pretty sexy too though.
1. A lot of the reason for these car/truck combos was that they filled a niche. They were smaller and got better mileage that the fullsize trucks, and they gave a car-like ride and comforts the rest of the time when you don't need to use it.
However, the niche was soon filled by the minitruck market, which provided the same/better fuel economy, a slightly smaller body, and better ground clearance, plus the body didn't deform when somebody overloaded it, so it was slightly more durable.
2. They were majorly profitable, because the engineering was already done, they used the frame and front half (and most of the interior) off of the platform they were based on.
However, GM's switch from Frame/RWD setups to Unibody/FWD setups effectively left no platform to build an El Camino out of. Ford was making so much bank on the Ranger/F150, that a Crown Vic based (because it was the only Frame/RWD platform they had) was pointless.
Domestic manufacturing does increase the break-even sales threshold, yes, but it's not a night and day difference. Even if unsold stock were imported for sale in the US, it would need to pass American safety and emissions standards. Then there's all the overhead for marketing and parts that still happens in either case. Plus, at this point in the game they'd be looking at retooling existing domestic manufacturing capacity, which is a hell of a lot cheaper than building out new factories.
I can agree that the tax shouldn't exist just in principle, but repeal now is probably more unlikely than ever. GM and Ford would almost certainly lobby to protect it (even though they'd be first in line to outsource if it went away), and with the foreign automakers' "workaround" in domestic manufacturing, it would be argued that the tax protects American manufacturing jobs.
Unibody trucks and utes never hold up to "real trucks" for normal truck uses, but that's not really what they're designed for. They're compromise vehicles. As >>14167041 explains, they're intended for consumers who need some of that kind of utility, but less of it, and are willing to trade off some capacity for other advantages.
I would agree that Ridgeline misses the mark in being oversized for what it is, and something smaller might've gone over better. Being fugly also didn't help, nor did it help with the Baja. I'm sure there will be more attempts, and hopefully someone will get it right.
There might be some situations where having something bigger would be more helpful but it happens to work fine for a lot of tradespeople here.
With the cab chassis version it's rated to carry one tonne payload and can tow up to 2.3, but only if it's fitted with the automatic irritatingly
If you need to move more then you could use a small truck like this, no big deal.
Or in some cases shipping a van to the US with rear seats in it, therefore making it a passenger vehicle, then taking the seats out and shipping them back to the origin. I think Daimler did this with the Sprinter at first, or maybe they're still doing it.
The grille definitely did not need to be that tall. That's really ugly
Someone near me is selling their project dodge rampage. I might go take a look tomorrow if it doesn't sound too messed up when I call the guy about it.
Yeah i have no idea wtf ford was thinking with the new front end on those utes, they look fucking ugly.
all australian cars have aggressive styling, look at the 2014 fpv's even.
No idea why the decided the last falcon should look like a shit tier european car, it is literally just ford trying to be something it is not, the cars are bogan skid rigs they are supposed to look angry.
>all australian cars have aggressive styling
>last Falcon looks like a European car
All Falcons look like European cars. The XD/XF was a slightly bigger Granada as far as looks go. They look nearly identical.
Agressive styling in what sense? The design of the car itself or just the stripes etc?
Without the graphics, Falcons do look subdued and Americans would call them plain and boring like they did the Monaro when they got it.
they were trying to sell them as a new falcon gt so they tried to make them look menacing.
And i suppose you are right aggresive styling was more Holdens thing in the last 10 years.
>Without the graphics, Falcons do look subdued and Americans would call them plain and boring like they did the Monaro when they got it.
To be fair to the Yanks, when they got the Monaro it was already a dated design.
The thing i don't get about the Monaro is the yanks got the cv8 monaro while HSV was building GTO coupes for the europoors, the Vauxhalls even have a HSV badge on the boot.
nono the UK got both GTO's, in 2003 they came with an ls1 producing 285kw and in 2005 they came with an ls2 producing 297kw.
Monaros came with i think 220-260kw and shit brakes/suspension. (GTO's have HARROP racing brakes and suspension)
Isn't this a CV8?
I know the UK got these first
i thought use got these (wrong pic before, that one is a superchaged GTS coupe.)
Why does everyone think they need to drive an SUV/'crossover'? Why do half-tonne pickups fly off the lots into private suburbanite hands? Why is 600cc now considered a beginner bike?
Because people think more of everything is better, even when it's clearly not. More power (they can't exploit), more size (they'll never use), more 'utility' (they have no actual use for).
The notion of something being built for purpose, and appreciating efficiency and simplicity, seems to have gone by the wayside. People what a vehicle that does everything badly, not one that does one or a few things well.