I truely dont understand how this pertains to anything.
That being said my 87 Ranger has the 1600lb payload package. Youd think with it being "new" and "improved" they could beat a truck of the same species built more then 30 years earlier? Right?
200lbs aint shit man.
Either way, ive owned, worked, and rode these old trucks, hard. And continue to do so today. Im sorry but untill i start seeing this new crap prove itself (and im talking all trucks, not just the ranger) my thoughts on the matter wont change.
Im not talking about towing some 5th wheel 80mph down the interatate either. Im talking about bouceing thru ditches carrying 1000lbs more then rated capacity, dragging loaded corn wagons thru axle deep mud, traversing bumper deep water....
You know, truck stuff.
we have much in common...we both prefer v8's and old iron...
but uhhh...a modern truck does everything you listed better and more comfortably so i am at a loss to what your getting at. i work mainly in the oil field these days....we destroy trucks like no other. its just the way it is.
i dont understand why you think midsize / mini truck payloads would be expected to be equal to a one ton or have to exceed 1200 pounds for the average user. the tow rating is killer though for sub fullsize...and i suspect it wont be any different then a 351 ho at 7500 pounds for most situations...but unladen is where that difference is... its a mid sized truck which exceeds yesterdays full size stuff handily.
and it should. so really its no big deal. this thing is what i would expect. not really impressive for the tech involved.
like i stated in an earlier post....this truck factory equipped will destroy any factory bullnose working in the same place. it will do more work in worse conditions stock for stock. its got a tube frame for shits sake. 4wd traction control system thats off the hook and a locker if shit gets real.
any modern half ton in the conditions your speaking to with the same tires...easily out do the old trucks....literally run them into the ground.
you take any ranger from the 80's and with the same load...or add 1000 to the new one for that matter..no way it can touch this thing..
i drive an antiquated pos 88 ranger as my main personal vehicle. its purpose built to my goals/needs. it runs on an array of fuel. it can easily be configured to operate with no electricity needed to get out of a jamb.
experience dictated those goals, i need to be confident in arrival.
i am also just fine driving a 79 ford anywhere. with all of its factory interior glory...fresh seats of course.
naturally...i would put a 6.5 or a duramax... possibly a cummins in it so i could afford to drive it in the configuration i would prefer.
and to prove i agree newer isnt always better..
the ecoboost 3.5 would not be a good fit because it would not meet the economy the duramax would. not even close...i dont think it would top 17. 20 plus with a d max no issues though. seen it done.
i base this on real world use. lifted eb 150 that equalled what a 79 would be=17 mpg real world. real world d max 78 k3500 on 37's...22 mpg at 70...
great for me...but the new trucks are better and stronger in any case stock for stock...
its not an opinion. it is physics..