Well maybe - the 1968 Chevy is a long box regular cab with a 292 inline 6 and a powerglide but it is 2 wheel drive. The 98 is a short box regular cab with a 4.2 V6 and a manual 5 speed but it is 4 wheel drive. The newer truck does better on fuel but not all that much. The aerodynamics of the 68 are pretty bad. It is like the windshield is verticle. I really can't help but think that the newer truck should be able to do better. My example relates to 2 Fords owned in the past. We had a 1977 Mercury Monarch with a 250 inline 6 that never did better than about 18 mpg (Imp gallons in Canada) and later a 1986 Taurus that would do 36 mpg. They were both about the same size and I assume similar weight. The Taurus had an overdrive transmission and fuel injection etc. It was more aerodynamic as well obviously as the Monarch was pretty boxy. I wonder why they have not been able to make similar gains with trucks. Weight, gearing, size, etc all have an effect I admit but surely the same was true for the cars and they did improve. What am I missing?
Randy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Brodbeck Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:20 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] Anyone Have Carfax? R A Bennell wrote: > There is still a place for the larger vehicles. We just need for the car > makers to try harder. My old 68 Chevy > pickup does almost as well as my 98 Ford pickup on fuel. Something is wrong > there. Compare the weight of the two trucks and I bet you'll find out why. Pickups have really porked up over the years, mostly because of a demand for more interior comfort and better handling.
