Toyota 'Back to the Future' pickup

[trailrunner]

to be perfectly honest what seems to be missing from the market is a cheap, affordable small truck, that is economical and has the 4x4 option, regardless of front axle type. (the last small truck is the Ford Ranger/Mazda B-series.)however, i will say, after riding and driving in both SFA vehicles (05,08,09 F-350) and IFS (92 s-10, 94 explorer) i would say that it is difficult to tell the difference in ride and handling on pavement and loose gravel roads. I live in British Columbia, where we use trucks for work primarily in forestry, and i can say that the IFS frontends generally do not hold up as well. would the market be there for something like the 70 series, probably not, they are too expensive and impractical for most work situations. a small truck that would hold up (generally not IFS) and return decent mileage would probably sell quite well. though we probably couldn't get this because of safety regulations that bubble wrap cars in safety sensors and crash beams.

on that note, i wonder if manufacturers made cars less safe if people would drive slower and more conscientiously knowing their life was on the line?

anyways enough incoherent ranting

 

[Martinjmpr]

to be perfectly honest what seems to be missing from the market is a cheap, affordable small truck, that is economical and has the 4x4 option, regardless of front axle type. (the last small truck is the Ford Ranger/Mazda B-series.)however, i will say, after riding and driving in both SFA vehicles (05,08,09 F-350) and IFS (92 s-10, 94 explorer) i would say that it is difficult to tell the difference in ride and handling on pavement and loose gravel roads. I live in British Columbia, where we use trucks for work primarily in forestry, and i can say that the IFS frontends generally do not hold up as well. would the market be there for something like the 70 series, probably not, they are too expensive and impractical for most work situations. a small truck that would hold up (generally not IFS) and return decent mileage would probably sell quite well. though we probably couldn't get this because of safety regulations that bubble wrap cars in safety sensors and crash beams.

on that note, i wonder if manufacturers made cars less safe if people would drive slower and more conscientiously knowing their life was on the line?

anyways enough incoherent ranting

The answers to your questions are NO and NO.

No, a small, solid axle truck would not sell well enough to justify its existence, and no, people would not drive more carefully if they didn't have all the safety equipment.

Remember that both Suzuki and Jeep were subject to very costly lawsuits because their SFA vehicles were highly prone to rollovers. The fact that people were driving them in a manner that was stupid didn't matter to the juries.

Do you know why the 2001-2002 Toyota 4runner sits lower than the 1999 - 2000 model? According to the folks over at the Sonoran Steel website, it's because of the rollovers in Ford Explorers in 1999 and 2000. When Ford started getting sued for making "unsafe" vehicles that were prone to rollover, Toyota saw the writing on the wall and lowered the 4runner by at least an inch, if not more, in order to make rollovers less likely. That's also when they added VSC (stability control) and deleted the locking diff option.

 

[Kodachrome]

it's an unmet niche in the marketplace.

Yeah, I get it, like aftermarket suspension components that put more of an emphasis on "Heavy-Duty" and "industrial use" rather than flashy race bred performance, the kind that do not have to be douched and sponge bathed after every off road run.

The 85' is my second favorite Toyota though, the one that inspired me to get a Toy 4WD was the original 79-83 style, those were tiny but able trucks.