Why are there no small trucks with big, torquey engines being

>>17323116

You can get a Silveraydo with the 6.2 for under $40k. Much faster than the 454 SS.

>>17323116
Dodge SRT10 and Ford Lightning are more recent examples of this. The Silverado SS kinda counts.

Try harder next time.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 11.06.05 PM.png (18KB, 503x154px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 503x154px

>>17323133

Nope. They make it so you need to buy crew / double cab to get the 6.2.

>>17323116
The new 5.3 probably makes more HP than the old TBI 454 but even the 6.0 and 6.2 lack the low end grunt of a 454.

For a 2WD 1/2 ton, I don't really see it making a difference. Even for towing with a 3/4 ton, you're likely better off winding a 6.0 up a little bit than trying to troll around with a TBI 454. The Vortec 454 was the best of both to an extent. Shorty headers, very mild cam, and a good tune with an L29 will eat just about anything for breakfast. Port and polish with a little more duration and you've got a real monster.

File: bhangra!.gif (492KB, 300x223px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 300x223px

Have you ever driven a small truck??? They dont haul anything more than what a regular car can carry, and are usually heavier too, making them slower and use more fuel. people talk about bros buying trucks and not needing them, youre doing that, except youre poor too

t. previous 1994 S-15 owner

File: IMG_20170520_210043.jpg (4MB, 4640x2610px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4640x2610px

>what is the Lightning
>What is the Ram SRT

Google 'holden ute' you won't be disappointed.

>>17323116
that wasn't a small truck, it was a 1500, they're full sized
an s10 with a 454 would have been insane

>>17323133
>>17323140
> Small trucks
> Silverado, Lightning
Reading comprehension 20/20

Also OP the 1st Generation Colorado/Canyon came with the option of a 300HP V8

>>17323140
>>17323496
The lightning doesn't count. It wasn't especially torquey.

>>17323514
> An S10 with a 454 would be insane
> What is GMC Cylcone

>>17323523
i dunno
the Syclone on the other hand was a v6 with awd

File: 1496292620221.jpg (1MB, 1111x597px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1111x597px

>7.4 L
>230 hp

holy shit, pushrod cucks WILL defend this

>>17323514
>that wasn't a small truck, it was a 1500, they're full sized
It was the smallest cab/bed configuration and had an especially large engine that was never offered in that configuration.
To add to that, that generation "full size" was closer in exterior dimensions to the average mid size.

>>17323517
That 300HP V8 was a relatively high strung V8, making those peak HP numbers in the upper RPM range. OP is looking for torquey engines.

>>17323523
>What is GMC Cylcone
Not an S10 with a 454. It had a turbocharged 4.3 V6.

>>17323536
It's an 80s truck engine. What do you expect? Do you not understand how torque curves work?

>>17323518
>Supercharged 5.4
>Not torquey

Pick one

>>17323536
And your truck makes less than both. Sad.

>>17323518
>450 lb-ft isn't torquey

File: 1496514672819.jpg (35KB, 359x377px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 359x377px

>>17323544
>>17323541
>""""performance """" truck

>230 hp

seriously, this is fucking sad

>>17323531
>>17323539
I know the syclone was a V6. But its numbers were really close to a stock 454 at the time. The syclone had hella torque too. The syclone will be the closest produced small truck that has a powerful as fuck engine stock.
>>17323539
The V8 Colorado is pushing more torque than horses though (320 torque at 4000 RPM) That's pretty torquey if you ask me...plus that much torque for a small truck is pretty good stock.

>>17323541
>>17323544
>replying to cancer posting

>>17323551
Still more than a Jag V12 was making at the time.

File: Torque Curve.png (40KB, 891x984px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 891x984px

>>17323554
>4000 RPM
You don't seem to get it.
Peak numbers only matter when you are at that RPM. Moving peak torque up the RPM range can often gain peak torque but sacrifices torque below that, as it changes the shape of the curve. In this purely hypothetical example of two torque curves on similar engines, the top example makes more peak torque, but the bottom example is a better truck engine.
If you were racing and spending most time in the 3500-5500 range, the top example would be best. If you're pulling a trailer in a daily driven truck and spend most time in the 1500-3500 range, then the bottom example would be better.
Make note of the difference in peak torque, and then make note of the difference in torque at 2000 RPM.
Top example obviously makes a good amount more torque, but for most driving the bottom example is going to feel quite a bit more powerful.

To add to that, the 320 ft-lb figure is a bit pathetic compared to the comparable big blocks making anywhere from 410 to 690 ft-lbs.

>mid 90's toyota truck with a lexus engine

HNNNNNNNG

>>17323116
Putting sports tires on a Silverado doesn't make it small.

>>17323514
454 SS was a fucking 1500 silverado

KYS, faggot

>>17324218
did you even read my post, i said it was a 1500 cockbreath

Because Mexicans svuse them

>>17324280
Abuse

>>17324288
Then report me faggot.

>>17323619
Wrong, Jaguar's 5.3L V12 produced 295hp (263 in burgerland) and 318hp in the 6.0L format.

>>17323116
There was a sale on F-150s not too long ago, they were deep discounting them - and they still put the Coyote in a few of them. You will have to go out of your way to look for them though - muh ecoboost.

>>17323619
No shit, a broken V12 that doesn't run will make less power than a working engine of the time.

>>17323116
2006-2009 chevy colorado had 5.3 v8 option
Dakotas have always had v8 option but 90's had R/T with 5.9L
Also kits for s10's to swap in 350

Because there's no market for them.

Who /FordRanger/ here

File: 20170526_172831-1.jpg (1MB, 2582x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2582x1936px

>>17327166
Mini truck master race

>>17327166
me
Ford Rangers are god tier if it's a single cab with a little lift.

>>17327598
and it has to be manual and in black

File: gmc-syclone_2932.jpg (204KB, 690x319px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 690x319px

Find a flaw.

File: IMG_20170605_211958.jpg (893KB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 2448x2448px

>>17323116
Colorado up until '10 came in i-4, i-5, and single cab V8.

>>17327598
If you're over 5ft 6, it gets uncomfortable.

>currently posting from my ext.cab ranger in a parking lot waiting for friends

File: 01b4e036923cae7d5d97f175a9a5bc75.jpg (320KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1600x1200px

>>17327657

It's not the Marlboro t-top special edition.

File: tremor.jpg (1MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1360px

>>17323116
>454 SS
lol that's not small... or maybe it is in this day and age since trucks are large behemoths.

I personally wouldn't mind a sporty half ton truck again. My old Lightning sucked dick in speed but was a fun vehicle. Kinda pissed Ford isn't reconsidering in reviving it. With all the weight savings with the newer models, they could actually make a decent sport truck. But instead they're pandering to the potential Raptor buyers who will most likely never leave pavement with one. They had the Tremor, but that too wasn't as great.

Back in 2015 my father got a 2014 model Ram new for a little over 20 grand. Single cab very few frills but I've borrowed it to do truck tasks and it hauls ass.

>>17323140
Dude what the fuck both of them havent been made in over 10 yrs

ops poiny is there is no single cab short bed dodge with a 6.4

Ford released a half baked tremor and never released the 6.2l in an rcsb truck

Chevy doesnt offer the 6.2 in a rscb either

>>17323518
Okay fucker you obviously never driven one

>>17327657
>Automatic
>low production
>have to choose between this and typhoon.

"Let's put a huge, powerful engine in this little truck! People will love it!"

"Ok, but trucks have the aerodynamics of a brick and are made to tow things"

"So let's lower it, tune it, and make more aerodynamic"

"Like an El Camino or Subaru Baja?"

"Nevermind"

File: SycloneFerrariSept91_Page_6_Image_0.jpg (222KB, 810x1024px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 810x1024px

>>17328727
Still quicker than a Ferrari 348 at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hJ0kMY6rc4

>>17323536
Well it's was smoged down 80s/90s.

>>17328769
Never said it was slow. Legitimately the only truck I would ever want in my life. It's so beast.

File: IMG_0187.jpg (720KB, 2048x1356px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 2048x1356px

>>17327166
Ranger ubermensch reporting

>>17329454
But anon, you misspelled "Tacoma"

>>17323116
>Why are there no small trucks
fixed that for you
and the reason is fuel economy regulations, chicken tax, stuff like that. it's more economically feasible after all is said and done, to just make the bigger truck, when the smaller truck will end up costing the same.

>>17331356
maybe if you're a mexican gardener

>>17328765
aerodynamics are for automakers that cant make good engines

>>17328765

This also brings up the question of why there are no utes around in burgerland.

New El Camino when?

>>17323551

It's the 405 pounds of torque at 2400rpm that make it appealing pleb.

>>17331796
because the el camino/ranchero just weren't selling well enough
people that wanted cars bought cars
people that needed to haul stuff bought trucks and these days with 4 door trucks you can haul 4 adults and a bed full of gravel or whatever

they were an odd compromise

>>17331796
because utes were always a weird concept when you had small trucks and station wagons