AD #2500 – Volvo Announces Electric Semi for U.S., Kroger Delivers Groceries in AV Pods, Ford Ranger Impressions

December 18th, 2018 at 12:00pm

Audio-only version:

Listen to “AD #2500 – Volvo Announces Electric Semi for U.S., Kroger Delivers Groceries in AV Pods, Ford Ranger Impressions” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 7:10

0:27 Another Good Month for Big Trucks
0:58 Volvo Announces Electric Semi for U.S.
1:20 Toyota Creates Maintenance Service for Mobility Companies
2:24 Kroger Delivers Groceries in Autonomous Pods
2:57 NIO Unveils New Electric Vehicle
3:40 Mercedes Reveals Pricing for AMG GT 4-Door
4:37 Ford Ranger Impressions

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems , Lear Corporation , and ExxonMobil.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website:

49 Comments to “AD #2500 – Volvo Announces Electric Semi for U.S., Kroger Delivers Groceries in AV Pods, Ford Ranger Impressions”

  1. David Sprowl Says:

    interesting..whats old is new again. Milk and groceries delivered to your home. Something out of the 50′s & 60′s when milk product was delivered. Not certain I’d use the home delivery for my groceries..I’m the weirdo that buys produce and I’d rather pick my own from the bin. Meat too.

  2. ChuckGrenci Says:

    1, David
    I’m with you, when you’re talking fresh food isle, I’m pretty picky what goes in the shopping cart (don’t even get me started with bananas). :D

  3. Bradley Says:

    The Ranger is a good truck and will do well. However, for me a true half-ton compact truck like the old ranger is what I want.

    1800 lbs payload!?!?! I know thatis trying to 1up Toyota Tacoma, but the Tacoma is to big too..

    Maybe the rumor Ford Courier will be more of a compact with 3500 lb towing.

    Someone will produce a viable compact truck..and it will sell like hot cakes.

  4. Larry D. Says:

    Wow. 0.5%v market share Volvo managed to get in the news again, now as a “monkey see, monkey do” developer of a e-semi, many months after TESLA pioneered the concept and got a ton of pre-orders from household names – Fortune 500 companies. Maybe this will fly.

    Kroger groceries. I assume if they have no driver, they have seriously thought about the safety of the goods delivered? How can they prevent the guy before my order stealing what I ordered and presumably already paid for my CCard?

    The Chinese EV looks good and has plenty of power and range.

    The AMG GT. I got one on Saturday for only $0.50. Only it is yellow and its doors and windows do not open.

    The Ranger looks OK, except for the cheapo plastics inside. Its biggest Rival is not the GM trucks which are not selling well. The best seller in this segment is the excellent TOyota Tacoma. Good luck getting owners to switch to a 2.3 lt Ego-boost 4 that barely makes 23 MPG.

    I wonder now, with such poor MPG, what good is the 10 speed tranny? Anybody know what speed does the 10th speed optimize the mpg of? Is it today’s realistic 80-90 MPH and even higher real life speeds? What about the others? With so many speeds, each one can be optimal for a specific MPH and two of them only 5-10 MPH apart.

  5. MJB Says:

    What is going on in the design studios of Mercedes Benz?

    First it was their GLC Coupe which wreaked of BMX X6 proportions, design cues and overall styling.

    And now their new AMG GT 4-Door is looking like a Porsche Panamera knockoff.

    What gives!?

  6. MJB Says:

    oops… I meant BMW X6, not BMX X6

  7. BobD Says:

    A $40,000 Ranger with a 4-cylinder engine? That would seem like a tough sell. Also on the fuel economy, what is considered the “class” in its best-in-class claim? A diesel Colorado would seem to top the Ranger numbers.

    On the grocery delivery service, I think each customer gets its own secure pod area rather than all the groceries co-mingled.


    7) According to the EPA, the combined fuel economy for the Colorado gas engine is 22MPG, The Colorado Diesel is 25MPG, and the Toyota Tacoma Gas engine is 21. I guess if you compare only to the gas variants, the Ranger is class leading at 23MPG combined.

    Diesel is fine for people who plan on towing/hauling a lot with the truck and need the torque capability. It is not good for someone who is primarliy using it for commuting with occasional towing/hauling. The diesel option is a few thousand more than gas so you get a higher car payment. Even though it has better fuel economy, it actually costs $300 more per year in fuel versus the gas because of the price premium on diesel. It is a bad deal for someone who really doesn’t need the capability of a diesel engine.

  9. Gary Paul Says:

    Well the Ranger might be a good truck… But hey where is the compact pickup truck line?–By any manufacturer for that matter? A turbo 4 cylinder as the only power-plant certain keeps the options limited (one) which is what i suggested if they ever saw the desire to offer a truly compact (but still a real pickup)so they could stop complaining that they can’t make any $$ by offering a pickup the size of the original Rangers (first offered in 1983 model year in the US). I also suggested a minimum payload of 1350 and a minimum towing of 3500lbs in my dream scenario. As this is a bigger truck the payload and tow ratings are good…But of course a truck this size i am sure will have a long bed of 7-8 feet right? hah! No! yep it’s the collusion to keep all Americans driving bigger pickups then they would desire if given a choice. I mean my old 97 Ranger had a bed over 7 feet long, as did the S10/S15/Sonoma etc (if you got the basic 3 across cab (which I did)with the bench seat). The diesel of course is not for most around town urban suburban drivers who are not towing + 3500 lbs regularly unless you want to pay for it. yep i love diesels but not when I have to spend my thousands of $$ more of my own money for a vehicle that i will use quite frequently as a do-it-yourselfer –but which tows 4000 pound loads about 2x a year.

    Since so many of these vehicles are no longer short cab models like back in the 1960s it is clear that many folks are buying them to substitute for a 4 door sedan (except that there is a useful little bed attached) higher ground clearance and a more rugged four-wheel drive if desired—and that’s a lot! So yes i can understand the use of the short bed. but don’t tell me that a long bed model isn’t being offered because they can’t! Its because they want you to move up into an even bigger giant “full-sized” pick up instead of these puny little ones (I’m joking) when you need a longer bed. Of course those short cab models are usually less well equipped and not available as the super luxury version vehicles so that to get the luxury you have to pay for the 4 doors and get the shorter bed that you may not want! By the way…Anyone know what the ground clearance is on these new US Rangers? I recall that was one of the weak points on the older models (in 2-wheel drive it was a paltry 5.9″). —I know the raptor models had over 11″. If it is 9″ like i have heard, that’s a relief. Will the turbo-diesel 3.2-liter 5-cylinder show up in 2020? Hey can i get one with a bench seat if I wanted?–I don’t think so! Too bad because then they could remove the space wasting center consoles… (I know they do a few handy things for storage and charge ports, routing rear vent ports, etc) but hey i could get that in a fold down seat armrest if they designed one that way and the rear ventilation can be ported under the rear seats…

  10. Gary Paul Says:

    As far as food deliver goes, hey I could use that as i would just order stuff that comes in boxes or cans, or bottles (oatmeal, sardines, mustard, etc…not fresh spinach or whole fish (can you even get a whole fish here at Kroger? (I live in the Philippines for a lot of the time)). Well its about the automated pod deliver system. lets see what happens.

  11. Gary Paul Says:

    Hmmm. Since this Ranger is no longer supposed to be available as stripper models with relatively few amenities, you would think that Ford would have offered the diesel right off the bat for people who have to have it or just plan want to spend for it. Maybe they have another production bottleneck –or worried about the diesel emission problems with the F250/350?

  12. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Colorado and Canyon together sell about 2/3 the volume of Tacoma. Tacoma is the top seller in the segment, only because it has been around for a long time, and is a Toyota, In CR’s reliability survey, it is very bad, for a Toyota, and the Colorado far outscored it in the road test. I looked at a Tacoma when I got my last “free” oil change at the dealer, and the interior is pretty crude, for a current vehicle. As far as Ranger, it will probably sell because of both names, Ford and Ranger. It will drive decently and get competitive mpg, but will be pricey, as normally equipped.

    7 Ford probably considers V6 Colorado/Canyon, Tacoma, and Frontier to be the “class” the Ranger will compete in. With its turbo 4, it should have about comparable acceleration to the V6s, The Colorado diesel gets only 20/30 EPA city/highway ratings, but if it’s like most diesels, it probably handily beats those ratings, driven normally.

    It seems like the “transmission gear race” has gone well past the point of diminishing returns. In some cases, similar vehicles with fewer gears get better EPA number than those with more gears.

  13. XA351GT Says:

    My guess is they went the eco boost route with the Ranger because it will run circles around a normally aspirated V6 without much loss in HP or torque. I watched a truck drag race compare on youtube . The F150 with the Eco boost V6 smoked every other truck tested V8 or V6 no one came close. So in smaller trucks it maybe much of the same.

  14. Larry D. Says:

    8 All these MPGs are lousy. Esp. for people unlike me, who do a LOT of miles each year, this is an unacceptable waste of $, especially if their incomes are not $500,000 a year, as is the salary of our friendly ASSISTANT athletics coach in our esteemed institution (the previous Athletics director, after a brief stint at Steelcase, is the current clueless Ford CEO)

    Diesel is the IDEAL engine for all pickups and any other vehicle doing serious hauling. Regardless the price differential. Also do NOT use EPA MPG numbers, they ALWAYS grotesquely UNDER-estimate Diesel MPG. We have discussed this here before.

  15. XA351GT Says:

    Speaking of youtube watched a video that was posted of a woman in a Tesla Model S trying to figure out where to put the gas at a station to the delight of the guys behind her filming it all. After 4 minutes of trying to put the nozzle in any orifice she could find the one guy got and explained that HER car doesn’t use gas. Who buys a vehicle that costs that much and doesn’t understand that a EV doesn’t require fuel , that is why it’s a EV?

  16. Gary Paul Says:

    What’s with Ranger and the hard plastic? I saw them in the Philippines (2017 models) and it was the same story. Now i don’t think that they need to get rid of it all—How about doing something like they did on my some competitors models (I can’t recall which year and model) where they put a soft cloth insert into the plasticky door panels so that my elbow and arm can rest on something soft? How hard is that?

  17. Larry D. Says:

    14 I could reverse the argument and say the Tacoma is by far the best seller DESPITE the fact that it is so long in the tooth as you mentioned. Most Toyotas have poor and stark interiors for their corresponding price point, you pay a premium for their reliability and then recoup it in the resale value. What was wrong w the Tacoma reliab-wise? Was the Tundra also unreliable? That might provide a second explanation, other than Pickup buyers buy domestic, why it lags in sales the F 150, the Silverado, and the Ram. bTW even the lowball 30 MPG HWY of the Colorado is pretty good, unless if GM charges $4k for the diesel option like it used to.

    Re transmissions, not all are tuned to optimize MPG. Even 20 years ago, I remember BMWs offered with both manuals and autos, the manual got worse EPA MPG, because it was tuned for better performance, not MPG.

  18. Kit Gerhart Says:

    9 There is no regular cab available in any of these “smaller” pickups, and only a “crew cab” version of the upcoming Gladiator.

    There would be a huge market for an S10/old Ranger size pickup with standard cab, an 8 foot bed, a naturally aspirated four, and an MSRP of $20K. A Chinese company should buy one of the many mothballed plants in North America and make one. These old S10s and Rangers are wearing and rusting out, and handymen who actually use a pickup for its originally intended purpose would like a replacement.

  19. Gary Paul Says:

    You know—extra focus on where elbows and arms tend to come in contact with hard plastics the most and replace with some inexpensive (but soft) inserts? Of course with the higher windows now-days on so many vehicles it feels rather uncomfortable to put your elbow out a window away!-I’m 5’9.” Same with the seemingly ever growing height of the bed sides (to match the smaller window sides?)so that I cannot reach into the bed to grab something out—even on a “compact” (basically close to full size) new truck! has the Ranger stopped growing the sidewalls? Does it have a fold out step that you have to buy and attach to the side to reach into it? When is Ford going to put a step into the rear bumper corners like GM has done for years now?–I found that step mighty handy when unloading a Chevy Pickup. What is this?–part of the “not invented here” disease or does GM have a patent on a hole in the rear bumper corners?

  20. Larry D. Says:

    15 I went and found that video on Youtube. Note that there is a vote going on if it is real of fake, as the driver trying to put gas in a Tesla S is a BLONDE Female with a rather silly hairdo. The video was too grainy to see her face clearly and estimate her age, she may not be that young.

  21. Kit Gerhart Says:

    17 It doesn’t take much to make a current or one year old vehicle “below average” reliability in CR’s survey, but the worst areas for the Tacoma were fuel system, drive system, brakes, body integrity, and in-car electronics. I think “drive system” is u joints/CV joints, wheel bearings, etc. The Tundra is “above average” overall in the survey.

    Other than brand loyalty, which is still a very big thing with pickup buyers, I suspect the Tundra sells well below the “domestics” because it isn’t as luxurious, as in ride, quietness, or cabin decor.

  22. Kit Gerhart Says:

    15, 20 Before long, her car will coast to a stop, and she won’t know why.

  23. Gary Paul Says:

    #18. not just handymen but guys like me who want to maximize the usefulness of a long bed compact p/u–and yes—-as i have said on other blogs before and you have stated– make a normally aspirated 4 cylinder as the main power plant (yeah i know it cant tow 5000, 6000, 7000 lbs) but it could be set up to bully around a 3500 lb trailer or so and have a 1350-1400 lb bedload capacity (of course ford will have ensure that the dreaded leaf spring hangers are more robust than on their original US Rangers so they wouldn’t keep cracking in two!). yes that’s right, as shocking as it may seem, give me a short cab, long bed (7 feet will do for me. The old Ranger had about 86″ bed length (after the 1997 models) and the S10s had a few inches longer than that, but non reached 8′), 4 cylinder, naturally aspirated, p/u that weighs in at about 3300 lbs. And hey offer me an a/c delete package as i am often up north Michigan and just don’t need a/c. I didn’t have it on my 1983 nor my 1987, and i ripped it out of my 97 Ranger (why?—because i did not want to pay the $700 charge to fix the leaks after 20 years) and used it rarely anyway…)

  24. Kit Gerhart Says:

    19 Something they could do to make it easier to load something over the bed side of a pickup would be to lower the whole thing about 2-3 inches, i.e. make it about the same height as they were as recently as the 1990s. The only people who need huge ground clearance are the one in a thousand, or ten thousand, who do hard core off road driving. Make the “lift kit” an option, not mandatory. You shouldn’t need aftermarket steps to get in a basic pickup truck. Even my friend’s recent basic 2wd F-150 is much higher than the 2001 Silverado it replaces, and for no good reason.

  25. Gary Paul Says:

    By the way these new “compact” full-sized p/us seem really quite the fine rides with their useful 4 doors and I have no complaint about the desire for those and even the little shorter beds are quite useful—I understand them as replacements for sedans of the past…..its the crap that these manufacturers will not offer a 7 foot bed and a regular cab on these machines that irritates me –and shows that some bean counter says no one will buy them or that they will steal sales from the truly super full sized trucks that we now have. And with the size of these new ‘smaller full sized’ compact p/u trucks, yes an 8 foot bed is easily possible!

  26. Gary Paul Says:

    #24. yes…Even with a lower side height the true compact that had a reasonable side height it would have 7-8″ ground clearance anyway which is sufficient

  27. ChuckGrenci Says:

    With the Colorado, Tacoma and now the Ranger in the fray and also the size of pickups of yor, maybe less is more; I want my S-10 sized pickup back.

  28. Drew Says:

    Cab Style: To all who want a regular cab small or mid-size pickup, the OEMs would offer it if the market was reasonably sized. But regular cab sales dwindled and crew cab sales grew.

    Box Length: With low lease prices for full-size trucks, the main Why Buy for a Colorado or Ranger or Taco (vs. a full-size pickup) is maneuverability and garageability. So, a 7’ box on the new mid-size trucks (super cabs and crew cabs) would violate the main Why Buy.

    Fuel Economy/Diesel: High frontal areas and big tires conspire against awe-inspiring fuel economy. As for a diesel, it costs a lot as an engine option (expensive emissions equipment), requires more expensive fuel (particularly if you are east of the Mississippi River), and has more expensive oil changes. The fuel economy payback just doesn’t exist unless you tow constantly for many, many years.

    Sorry Chuck, Gary, and Kit, you are in a small minority.

  29. Kit Gerhart Says:

    How do we know a regular cab, 7 foot box small pickup wouldn’t sell? No one offers one. The market would be for more “basic” versions, though, which the manufactures don’t want to sell. The way they would sell, at least to people I know, would be as basic, and inexpensive trucks.

  30. Kit Gerhart Says:

    28 Where I am, in the “space coast” of Florida, diesel fuel now costs 35-40% more than regular gas, even worse then when I had my diesel Jetta wagon about 15 years ago.

  31. Kit Gerhart Says:

    A lot of European cars have been geared top speed, i.e. the drag limited top speed coincides with the power peak rpm. That was the case with 40 hp VWs, 72 mph top speed at the 3900 power peak rpm. More powerful, and thus faster Euro cars have also been geared that way.

    Today’s big engine cars with many-speed transmissions, automatic and manual, are geared for mpg and “pleasantness.” I recently read the Road and Track “performance car of the year” article, and the Corvette ZR1 reached its top speed of over 200 mph in 6th gear of 8.

  32. Kit Gerhart Says:

    31 is re. last paragraph of # 17.

  33. Gary Paul Says:

    When did I say that I had to have a diesel or a vehicle particularly high off the ground with big tires? I said generally the opposite! Quote: “…The diesel of course is not for most around town urban suburban drivers who are not towing + 3500 lbs regularly unless you want to pay for it. yep i love diesels but not when I have to spend my thousands of $$ more of my own money for a vehicle that i will use quite frequently as a do-it-yourselfer ” (In other words most people do not need the diesel, including myself because of the initial cost and because it is unnecessary to tow 3500 lb loads)—However I also said as Ford claims that this truck is appealing to people who will pay $40,000 even $50,000+ for this vehicle I was wondering why Ford did not offer it at the get go unless it was because of the recent emission diesel problems of the F250/350. Regarding the short cab with 7 foot bed, there just has to be some people who want these versions (single men, carpenters, painters, tradesmen, or do-it-yourselfers like myself), and since there is no additional length to the truck (because of the shorter cab length) such a version could easily be built. I realize it would not be that popular but how hard is it to offer such a model when 99% of the engineering is already completed. In fact if Ford did that they would be the only nearly full sized pickup to offer a 7 foot or longer bed! As I said earlier what Ford needs to also offer is a: “…4 cylinder, naturally aspirated, p/u that weighs in at about 3300 lbs.” Why because it is a useful simpler less complicated less expensive more fuel efficient little vehicle that can do some trucky things (towing bed length, bed load capacity, ground clearance of 7-8 inches on 2 wheel drive models, etc) but is very reasonable to purchase and live with the normally aspirated engine, no up front costs for a diesel, lower bed sides, (and maybe the side steps built into the rear bumpers!)

    There is no reason why they can not make a reasonably priced truly compact pickup truck with an available 7 foot bed, or add a 7 foot bed to the present day “mid-sized” giant pickups. The present marketing analysis must be like this: if they made a truly compact 3300 lb pick up with the long bed short cab and a 4 cylinder it would steal some sales from the 2019 Ranger/Colorado/Canyon et al, and thus they would offer an 8-foot bed option on those trucks (with the short cab of course) and then today’s full sized pickups (Genus: Pickup Truck Giganticus) could actually offer 9 foot long beds with the short cabs! Ultimately this would likely reduce the ability of GM/Ford, etc to funnel people into bigger and bigger trucks and impact some profits downward (because the 7 foot bed basic compacts would steal from the mid-sizers which would steal from the full-sizers ultimately probably increasing overall sales but decreasing sales of the most profit generating pickups (today’s full sized Pickups), while creating fiercely loyal owners because they get the pickup truck that best fits their needs and desires. (And what manufacturer would possibly want fiercely loyal owners by catering to their desires/needs?)By the way—nothing wrong with today’s huge pickups but the idea that these manufacturers are really competing in the pickup truck arena simply does not seem to hold water.

  34. Drew Says:

    Gary, thank you for the detailed reply. My big tire reference was made as a comparison to the tire sizes on small and mid-size cars. Truck tires are generally larger as a necessity to support the GVW.

    The prior generation Ranger in North America was only offered as a Regular Cab and Super Cab. The Regular Cab represented less than 1/3 of the sales. The Regular Cab with the 7’ box represented less than 1/10 of the sales (nearly all were sold to Terminex).

    As an OEM adds a Crew Cab to the offerings, the business case for the Regular Cab (and the 7’ box) becomes very upside down. The Regular Cab mix drops to less than 1/7 and the 7’ box drops to 1/20 (at best). Tooling costs for these configurations are higher than you think… unique frames with kick-ups immediately aft of the cab, unique drive shafts, unique bodysides and unique doors (crew cab front doors get optimized for an angled B-pillar to provide better rear seat foot swing clearance than a Regular Cab’s perfectly vertical B-pillar). Simply, the lower/modest volumes and unique tooling/development costs generate an upside down business proposition.

    One last comment. We fondly remember the affordable small pickups of 20-35 years ago. Their sales grew in the late 80s/early 90s, partly because they were more affordable than small cars (the cost of most new safety and emission regulations hit cars 5-10 years before they hit trucks). When the regulation costs caught up to the trucks, their value positioning could not be maintained. Small truck segment volumes dropped because of it and because of the introduction of small Utes.

  35. Kit Gerhart Says:

    34 I mostly agree, but tire sizes today are not what they are “to support the GVW.” It is because big tires (and big wheels) are fashionable. A Honda HR-V mini crossover has 215/55R17 tires standard, with a payload of almost nothing. My 1995 S10 had 205/75R15 tires, with a load rating of 1200 pounds or so, plus passengers.

  36. Drew Says:

    It’s the air volume inside a tire that mostly determines its load-carrying capability. Why? Heavier vehicles and heavier loads cause more flexing of the tire as it contacts the road. That flexing causes heat (which can destroy a tire). Simply, the larger the air volume inside a tire, the better it can dissipate the heat. And off-roaders prefer lower tire pressure to better grip soft surfaces and absorb impacts… so they use higher profile tires with smaller rim diameters (large air volume to handle all the flex-induced heat). If you aren’t off-roading, you can increase air pressure to reduce flexing and heat, but ride quality and handling issues are limitations.

    That’s why your 75R15 has more load capacity than the 55R/17, despite the later having a wider tread.

  37. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I found that B. F. Goodrich Prius size tires, 195/65R15 have a load rating of 1365 pounds, enough for a vehicle a lot heavier than a Prius. The first HR-V size tires that came up on the Tire Rack site have a load rating of 1477 pounds, 5900 pounds for four tires, for a 3100 pound trucklet, allowing 1800 pounds of load. I think I’ve confirmed that a lot of vehicles have big tires for “fashion,” not load carrying. That may apply less to fully loaded pickup trucks than to cars or CUVs.

  38. Larry D. Says:

    Yesterday I got the “top ten” issue of Car and Driver in the mail and took a quick look.

    No 3 series and no Teslas in the top 10, but there sure was the Accord, 33 years in a row, the Civic, the Miata, the Golf FAMILY ( so it includes the failed e-golf, or, as the saying goes, along with the plant, the pot got watered), and even the failed (in sales) Genesis, the 70 3-series fighter, but a few pages from that there was a two-page ad for the genesis 70, which did not smell good at all.

    There was also a comparison test between the Silverado, the F 150 and the Ram Hybrid, in ridiculously overpriced $70-80k crew cab versions, and the Silverad got clobbered, was 20 points below the almost tied F 150 and Ram ( the Ram won by 2 points).

    RaM Hybridization produced next to nothing in MPG benefits vs the gas F 150.

    The detailed test also had the gear ratios of the two 10-speed autos (the Silverado has a 7 speed if i remember right), and that answered my question yesterday. The extra gears are all at low speeds, only three ratios are less than 1.00, usually a 0.83 or so, a 0.69 and a 0.64, so it is NOT optimized for higher speeds. maybe other 10 speeds on cars and not on trucks are, however.

    Wards also sent me some sales data, incl. those for INDIA, light trucks and cars there, in a huge nation of 4 times the US population, were LAUGHABLE, absolutely Laughable, at 342,060 units, (I assume they are for just the latest month, not … the full year), and the worst thing was, last year they were HIGHER, at 347,620! For such small numbers in an allegedly rapidly developing economy, they should be up 25% and not flat or down!

  39. Chuck Grenci Says:

    Okay it’s not 1975 anymore but bear me out; the utility, space and efficiency of a regular cab Datson pick-up (even smaller than what I touted in my missing of my extended cab S-10) was adequate for many many people of the time. This truck took me and my buddy many miles with 3 motocross bikes just fine. I believe that there still could be a market. I certainly will never purchase a full sized pickup even if fuel mileage got significantly higher; I just can’t justify the ponderous size.

  40. Kit Gerhart Says:

    38 With all of those gears, these new transmissions have a wide spread, so they can have extra low gears for good 0-60 times, and tall gears for highway mpg and quiet cruising.

    I suspect a lot of used cars are going to India, after being “retired” in places like Japan and Australia.

  41. Kit Gerhart Says:

    38 The Chevy and Ford trucks had 10 speeds, and the Ram 8 in the C and D truck comparison. It surprised me that the Ram was significantly slower than the others, until I checked the weight, and found that it was 500-600 pounds heavier than the Ford or Chevy.

  42. Kit Gerhart Says:

    38 Actually, I’m a little surprised that no Tesla made the C & D list, but then there wouldn’t be room for the Corvette, Mustang, M2, or 718, performance cars they must like better.

  43. Lambo2015 Says:

    I say bring back the Elcamino and Rancharo but built on a Fusion and Malibu platform.. With the requested 7 foot bed and regular cab.

  44. Larry D. Says:

    41 I left the issue at home, I may have mixed up the two. The Ram was the heaviest, it is also the only hybrid one w a V8 while the F 150 is a 6 with no hybrid, but I thought not over 500 lbs heavier.

    42 many publications (not C&D) are embargoing Teslas. But C&D has a limit of $80k which excludes the S, they had a high-performance Model 3 in a different test in the same issue, they could have included it. of course, Tesla does not pay C&D a cent in advertising (nor anybody else).

    There was a scandal many years ago where advertisers were pressuring car mags to write glowing reviews or they would withdraw their ads. In Motor Trend and elsewhere.

    Also the top 10 is cars only, I think they have a separate top ten for SUVs and Pickups.

    They had the 718 but not the iconic 911, despite its legendary success, also because of the $80k arbitrary limit.

    One entry that surprised me was the E Class, two of its models. C&D always put the 3 and 5 series and never in my memory the E Class in the top ten. I was also not aware the E is selling a hybrid version in the US?

  45. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I was a little surprised about the E-class too. I haven’t read the article yet, but am curious about what they say.

    The 718 is the ultimate “handling” Porsche, and while not iconic like the 911, has a strong following. There was a lot of “discussion,” though, when they switched from the six to the turbo four. The six certainly sounds better, but in most ways, the new engine works better.

  46. Dan Says:

    Something wrong with your Kroger food delivery story. No where in the country is it currently legal to operate a fully autonomous vehicle without a stand-by driver inside the vehicle at-the-ready to take over control if a problem occurs. None of the so called autonomous vehicles in development are smart enough yet to operate fully independently. I predict this type of transport will not truly be functional for another twenty years or more – beside the autonomous vehicle changes will need to be made to our road works and infrastructure.

  47. Dan Says:

    I really question the thinking behind fully autonomous vehicles and there ability to operate 100% flawlessly at of the time. Just think how often does your [electronic] home computer or smartphone have issues causing performance problems? How many times has you personal car or truck had some sort of electrical gremlin that caused a breakdown or required a trip to the dealer for repair? No way would this guy turn over his life to a bunch of computer chips running a 1 1/2 ton vehicle.

  48. Bishop Says:

    #34 & #36 Excellent informed and accurate posts, Drew.

    #43 Lambo, Drew explained in #34 why you will not see the 7′ bed and standard cab again – unless the market changes for those that do purchase NEW pickups.

    The handyman (for example) that wants that setup, typically does not buy NEW. OEMs do not produce for the used market. If someone wants a p/u with that setup, the best thing to do is search for a good used one, or wait another couple/few years when Ford (there maybe others) comes out with their compact pickup.

    I doubt that you will see either the El Camino or Ranchero nameplates – but you never know. Courier . . . much more likely.

  49. Brett Cammack Says:

    Besides the anemic 3.0 “Vulcan” V6, my only other disappointment with the 2000 Ford Ranger XLT Extracab I bought new “back in the day” was that I couldn’t buy a long bed. There was only one chassis for the vehicle.

    I’d own that vehicle again in a heartbeat, though. I was hopeful when I heard the RAM 700 might come to the USA, and disappointed when it didn’t. A Focus-based unibody pickup called the Courier just might get me into a Ford dealership for the first time in over fifteen years.