The next time you're driving on a highway in the U.S., entertain yourself by playing this game: count the number of pickup trucks (non-commercial) with empty beds, resetting to zero every time you spy one that's actually carrying or towing something. Try not to be surprised when you reach the triple digits!
If there is anything inside which doesn't stick out above truck sides then it can be carried in a regular medium sedan just as well. So count them as not carrying anything worth buy a truck for.
What gets me. For a while I owned a van as my only vehicle. I was only driving about 3000 miles a year. Then my company moved and I was driving 12000 miles a year. And I bought a used Prius. Because when I ran the numbers the van would have cost around $10,000/yr. Vs $4000 for the Prius.
I see people commuting in full sized trucks all the time and I don't get it. It's 80 cents a mile when you add everything up.
I'm sure there are alternatives, but If you spend a significant amount of time in your vehicle everyday, the size and comfort of the vehicle does come into play. For one, if you are a big person, either horizontally or vertically, a Prius can become less than comfortable. Also, sciatica and back issues can come into play. I know for me, sitting for too long in a small car keeps me folded a little too tightly to the point that my lower back will start to throb. Where sitting up and stretched out with a high enough seat to keep the bottoms of my thighs supported while feet are flat on the floor or at the petals makes a big difference for back and leg pain.
I moved to dallas from the east coast, i was quite surprised at how many people view having a pickup truck as some kind of status symbol (southern culture). Nothing like seeing a lifted pickup hurling towards you at 75 mph in your rear view mirror everyday.
It depends on where you live in Texas, but you only have to hit a deer once to understand the utility of those ugly brushguards.
My son ran into a deer with our beater Aerostar minivan awhile back it totaled it. Airbag went off and everything.
Meanwhile I hit a deer with my Ram diesel pickup with a Ranchhand guard last week and no damage. So they do have some utility. ;)
I do agree these trucks are ridiculous; if I didn't have a farm and the need to haul a large trailer I probably wouldn't have it. As it is we mostly drive my wife's Subaru when we actually need to go somewhere unladened.
Yeah, it's really weird. I've always noticed that the top 3 best seller of vehilcles in the US were pick up trucks. and articles talk about them like their somehow aspirational. I've always thought of them as big, ugly and dorky: about as far away as cool gets.
Unless they're actually using it for its intended purpose it is almost certainly cheaper to own a small efficient vehicle and simply rent something else if you need it.
That's at least not wasting money on fuel efficiency, but it's not like leaving the truck in the garage all the time is a good application of the money used to buy it either.
You can also do this survey in a parking lot. For bonus points, check the bed liner for wear, which is a good indication whether they ever haul anything in their truck. Many are surprisingly pristine.
And the lower class, a 4 door 5 seater sedan is what I drove when I didn’t have that much money.
If I’d had more money, I could afford a coupe.
And if I had more money still, I could afford a 2 seater sports car.
An under utilized vehicle may be a hallmark of the middle class, but a desirable vehicle that is only exactly what you need at that moment is a hallmark of the upper class.
On top of being more expensive, it’s also far more likely to be a secondary vehicle.
That 5 passenger car is going to use WAYYYY less gas then the mostly empty giant truck, while also being less of a risk to other drivers and not obstructing other car's view.
Here is another game... Sit outside of a car wash and count how many of these supposed "utility" vehicles go through them. They're almost always spotless both before and after they go through...
I haven't driven much the last ten years, but used to find myself behind a lot of sports utes with a driver and at most one passenger. For the rest, they here hauling empty space, and I would fantasize about suggesting that they just get a sedan and a compressed-air tank.
On a more serious note I have been watching YouTube car reviews for a while and eventually they get bored and start reviewing SUVs and CUVs. There is an internal capacity difference between wagons and sedans.
Wagons and sedans lose internal capacity to drivetrain components because the body rises lower. Great for handling and efficiency.
It becomes really obvious when you look at The Straight Pipes box test.
That said just because the difference exists doesn’t mean people know or need it.
Miata is Always The Answer doesn't really nest well. You get a Miata, you turn it into a track/race car... Now you need a truck to tow it, can't really load a Miata onto a Miata, unfortunately.
I support Aaron Gordon's right to express his opinions, which I happen to share. I also assert that people who buy and drive gratuitously huge trucks are polluting the atmosphere, which affects me and my family and which gives me a right to weigh in on this. [Note: I did not downvote you - that was other people.]
Polluting the atmosphere, sure, but don't forget that their masses and geometries also put other road users in direct mortal danger to a degree that reasonably sized cars don't.
It's almost funny how so many large SUV and truck owners actively project the attitude their vehicular choices imply: "I don't give a shit about anybody but myself."
As a matter of fact I have given up eating beef (except for certain special occasions involving traditional family foods) and drinking cow's milk for this very reason. I also restrict my intake of pork, which is the next most environmentally-damaging food animal. I'm definitely not a vegetarian, more like a flexitarian.
Unless your job requires you to haul stuff around on a regular basis what use is a truck? For the exceedingly rare cases where a person not in those trades does need to haul furniture or building supplies, rentals are exceedingly cheap from numerous places.
A U-haul truck starts at $20/day + $1/mile.[1] Where are you getting $100+/day from?
Not to mention the difference in operating costs between a truck and a more modest hatchback could easily by $100/month. How often is someone hauling something that can't fit in a U-haul truck?
After I rented a truck for a day, I handed them $100+. I rented from the cheapest local place. Home Depot is $39/4 hours + tax for comparison. Sounds like you're reading some advert, have never actually tried to rent the truck, and legitimately expect to pay just $20/day. Good luck with that.
$20/day would be a dream come true around here, I paid more than that in tax and fees alone.
Please read my entire post. It's $20/day + $1/mile. Not literally $20. And you have to refill gas.
> Sounds like you're reading some advert, have never actually tried to rent the truck, and legitimately expect to pay just $20/day
I have rented from U-haul in the past. No special ads or deals or anything. I just walked into the store and took what they had. It sounds like you got ripped off by Home Depot. The last time I moved my entire apartment with all my belongings and furniture, I rented a big moving truck and spent like $70 total.
$150/day for, maybe, one or two days a year is far cheaper than buying a $25-50K pickup, maintaining it, gassing it and dealing with the stress of driving a huge vehicle-- all so you can haul stuff, "if necessary".
They're status symbols like Porsche's or Tesla's, but for a different demographic, one that gets defensive about admitting they just want to drive a truck because it makes them feel good.
Most people aren't looking at pickups relative to owning no vehicle at all. Which is to say they aren't spending a $25K premium for one. They're looking at the cost/utility benefit relative to other new vehicles with similar features. For example a large trunk SUV Vs. a Crew Cab-style pickup. The cost increase could be <$3K.
Cheap pickups definitely aren't a status simple. The pickup market ranges from $100K+ all the way down to $25K or less. Some are status symbols, some aren't, but the cheap ones definitely aren't.
It's accruing cost year round though from the reduced MPG but even if we don't factor in daily fuel consumption that $3k cost increase covers 20 solid days renting a truck vs buying one. The math rarely works especially with so many places offering home delivery for large furniture. The number of times a person really needs a truck vs it being more convenient than a car are pretty slim.
Purchase prices of vehicles are increasing, driven in no small part by the higher cost of larger vehicles (trucks and SUVs in particular). A truck or SUV simply costs more than a car, especially if you're buying used (where trucks hold their value longer for essentially no reason except desirability).
Partially driven by the higher costs of purchasing trucks and SUVs, the average American owes more money in car loans with longer terms than before.
Cheap pickups aren't a status symbol, but look around and see how many people are actually driving cheap pickups. The number of people out there driving the newest, largest, most expensive truck (and never using the bed for anything 80% of the time) is shocking.
I can rent a truck from Lowes for $89 all day or $20 for 90 minutes + $5/15 min after that. Uhaul even in NY, NY charges $20 for the rental then $2/mile for local use, where I live it's only $.60/mile plus gas. All of those are very cheap compared to the reduced fuel efficiency and additional cost of actually owning my own truck to move things the few times a year I actually need them. (Which is actually only really once every few year or less since my house is mostly setup now and I don't do woodworking projects)
You are ignoring a very prominent aspect of the American psyche: aspiration. It’s the reason why people who do nothing more than email and Facebook buy MacBook Pros. It’s the reason why suburban dads have garages full of tools. And it’s the reason that Americans drive more car than they need: they want to need more.
Not if you ride in a group. One or two people on one motorcycle? Sure, that's efficient. Two motorcycles, six motorcycles, etc, in a group ride? Forget it.
Smaller vehicles do have "superior" gas mileage, which sadly many Americans don't seem to care about. Also, trucks and SUVs are simply not safe to others, especially to cyclists and pedestrians. This is more serious issue than people acknowledge.
Strikes me that a lot of the comments, not to mention the article itself, seem to approaching the problem from the perspective of what other people should think and how they should behave. As if certain choices automatically make you and superior human.
I think perhaps avalys could have expressed it more politely, but at least he was succinct. That article is very judgemental. I'm sure I could invent lots and lots of ways anybody could be potentially annoying or impacting me and my family. I'm not going to use that as an excuse to claim some assumed moral high ground. People absolutely have the right to buy and drive what they want. The overwhelming popularity and price of pickups, even at a large size, is testament that it is working for them and is well worth it to a lot of people.
I'd prefer to read the comments pro or con that talk about one's personal experience with their automotive choices, rather than finger-waging at and judging those they don't agree with.
Space requirements for families have also increased. Which is rarely discussed when talking about why more people are buying SUVs.
Car seats are a legal requirement. Most take up more space than a fully grown adult and due to additional padding/side impact protection, keep growing. So a family that needs to fit three kids across, only really has the choice of SUVs or more expensive Minivans (the cheap/fleet tier Minivans cost the same as low end SUVs while being worse/outdated designs).
So why do people buy SUVs? Higher ride means that more of the car's internals can be pushed out of the passenger compartment (particularly the rear seat/trunk) and they have a wider Axle track meaning longer seats. Which is conveniently exactly what car seats and strollers benefit from. Meaning they're great family cars.
The continued rise in trucks is more due to the Crew Cab-style becoming functional, and them being used as a family vehicle as well as utility (e.g. moving, dump runs, DIY projects, etc).
Without even trying to understand why people buy these vehicles, the discussion largely turns into moralizing. People have good reasons on a whole. They don't need to be using a Crew Cab truck exclusively for work for it to make sense, or an SUV for off-road adventures (most SUVs cannot off-road anyway).
> Wouldn't that be offset by the falling birth rate in the US?
So because the birth rate is lower in aggregate, people with three kids don't exist? Or that they should need less space somehow? I don't understand the relevance to either the post you replied to or even the article itself.
Seems like you're responding to a point nobody made, including yourself.
> They're cheaper than anywhere else in the world, and people feel safer in them. They're reasons, but not especially good ones.
Why did you even reply to a post when you're ignoring what it said? If you want to grandstanding about this topic, by all means reply to the thread as a whole. That's what top level replies are for.
Why reply to a specific post if you have no interest in discussing that post's content or ideas? Nothing you replied to even came close to being relevant, I'm not even sure you read the post you replied to.
There are fewer of them today than there used to be. I was responding to your point that "space requirements have increased" by showing that on average they have either stayed the same or gone down. And yet sales of big vehicles are at record highs. Which means not everyone (maybe even most) who's buying these things today actually has 3 kids.
> So a family that needs to fit three kids across, only really has the choice of SUVs
All 3 of my kids fit with booster seats in my 2005 Prius (deceased) or Ford Focus EV. The 5 of us regularly go out in the EV. It even worked when I had 2x slim carseat (Diono Radian) + booster.
A minivan handily beats almost all SUVs in both space for people and space for cargo, while generally being more efficient. Which are the good reasons for choosing an SUV over a minivan?
I agree that SUVs are preferable for child-hauling, but if you select car seats carefully for slim ones you should be able to fit three across in a sedan. Specifically, I know a Prius can handle two Diono Radians plus an Uppababy Mesa. I recommend those to anyone worrying about fitting enough car seats in their car.
I always preferred sporty sedans. But then I became a (relatively handy) homeowner and a father. After I got my pickup truck with a crew cab, I couldn't imagine not owning one, even though (as the title says) it barely fits in my garage.
I work from home and drive maybe 6K miles per year, so the fuel costs and emissions aren't a significant consideration for me. But there's something in the bed almost every weekend, and even when there isn't, there's usually a kid or three in the back seat.
If you don't have a family, or you automatically call a handyman when something breaks, I can understand why you might not want or need to own one of these magnificent vehicles.
But for many of us, these trucks are carefully considered purchases that solve a lot of problems.
For years, the only option for an even slightly small pickup was the Toyota Tacoma, which is still pretty hefty. The newly-revived Ford Ranger looks like it'll be ok, but I haven't had a chance to get up close to one yet for a proper evaluation.
I, too, am a relatively handy homeowner and father, and we are finally upgrading our Prius to a ...minivan!
The only thing I've come up with that we wouldn't be able to do with the minivan but with a truck would be fitting a refrigerator standing up. The load floor in a minivan is also a lot lower, making it much easier to load and unload stuff. Not to mention that you can comfortably haul people, too, which is most of the use.
Which problem is it that you have to own a truck for?
I own a minivan, too, as it's the only vehicle that the entire family will fit inside.
Like the pickup truck, our minivan is an extremely versatile vehicle, but there's just no way I'm going to put loose gravel, wet bags of mulch, or trash bound for the landfill in the back of it. Furthermore, I sometimes need to tow a trailer, and minivans simply aren't built for this.
That's what trailers are for. Minivans can absolutely handle trailers even if manufacturers claim they can't. Don't go hard on the gas, keep transmission temperatures down, have sufficient braking capacity. You can easily tell when trailer is overloaded if you have any reasoning skills whatsoever. The most important feature for trailers is trailer brakes, an easily retrofitted feature.
It is extremely easy to go over the tow and payload ratings for any minivan sold in the US market (and that's without getting into why vehicles with transverse engines make poor tow vehicles). Towing at or beyond design limits is more irresponsible than owning a pickup truck IMO.
Gas cans
Used oil containers
Lawn and tree equipment
Gravel
Sand
Soil
Mulch
Trash/refuse/recycling
Mountain bikes
While a floor liner would certainly help, all that stuff is still going to destroy the inside of a family vehicle pretty quickly. And taking precautions to prevent that from happening means being extremely diligent about cleanup, whereas I don't care one bit if the bed of my pickup truck is dirty.
MMM is out of somewhere sort of rural though, no? Aside from the obvious financial angle -- which is correct, thems big fancy trucks are money obliterators -- there is also a personal axe to grind.
And I get it, even as a dude that used to drive a truck. US truck culture is weird and kind of toxic.
He lives in Longmont, Colorado, which has nearly 100K people. I think he mostly rides his bike for everything, and has some kind of electric vehicle for when the bike doesn't suffice.
There is very small subset of people who actually need an SUV or Truck. Most cars now days can comfortably fit 5. Most cars can fit 2 car seats with a booster seat. Most get them because they like to sit up high so they can see over traffic. That doesn't help when everyone else drives an SUV or Truck.
It most definitely still helps. I drive a CUV, which isn't as tall as a SUV but I can properly see through the window of an SUV and see quickly when red lights from the car in front of him come on so I can start slowing down ahead of time.
When we had twins (and a 4 year old at the time) we tried to make do with a smaller car. Putting them all in the same row was disastrous once the twins hit around 1 year old. We couldn't go a trip without at least one of our kids crying most of the way.
Now everyone is outside of hair pulling, biting, pinching, toy/book stealing, throwing, and spitting range.
I guess my kids are just animals. It certainly seems to work for some parents. Maybe it will work out better when they're older.
The nice thing about a truck is that the trunk is outdoors. Hose it off, car wash.
It's kind of surprising Toyota doesnt have an outdoor edition of the 4runner thats basically the same thing but with a waterproof rubber back instead of carpet, and some kind of removable divider. Take the seats out and hose it down.
I can get two adults and three kids into a Prius, and it works okay if we're driving somewhere ten minutes away, but we don't have enough room to include luggage for a family trip.
The rise of the Platinum F350 as a luxury vehicle is something I wouldn't have predicted. It's crazy how much money people are willing to spend on an impractical vehicle like a full-size pickup.
That being said, I really like big trucks. I guess it's selfish to want one, but I still do. Of course I don't live in the city, where it would be more hassle than enjoyable.
I mean I want a Suburban or Expedition... I mean I guess I could get a minivan too but having towing capacity for something I may never tow sounds good. :/
I've heard contractors complaining that they can't get cheap basic work trucks anymore. That was one of my thoughts about people complaining about non ones going to buy an electric vehicles because 'too expensive'. Have they priced a full sized truck lately?
Corollary: it becomes more and more difficult to open doors and get out of vehicles in shrinking parking spots designed only few years ago (at least where I live in Europe).
I have been fitting a little under 1000lbs of sand / gravel in my hatchback (elantra gt) a few times this past week. It can also handle 10' 2x4s for short drives. Given than I only need that a few times a year, it's a no brainer. Also, Home Depot rents trucks/vans for $30 for 75 minutes; U-Haul is better if you need them for the whole day.
I sometimes wish I had a small dumpy pickup so I could put bulk stuff in (and full 4x8 sheets), but mostly it's fine without.
Related: my dad looked to replace his 92 Dodge Dakota, single cab, long bed (which was a great, functional truck) and could find absolutely zero similar size trucks out there (short cab, long bed, no ladder required to get to the front seat). You can probably design them on the manufacturer site, but no dealers will have them in stock.
Nice, ~1000lbs of sand in the back of an elantra gt must put it on the bump stops, no?
I made a roof rack for my miata which attaches to the roll bar and windshield frame like the convertible top, it enables moving 4x8 sheets of plywood/drywall. I even moved a 305 gallon cistern using the setup without trouble, and a dozen 4x6x12' beams of douglas fir.
> Also, Home Depot rents trucks/vans for $30 for 75 minutes; U-Haul is better if you need them for the whole day.
I had a good friend argue that this was too inconvenient. My response was that I believe the amount of effort put into affording a new truck far outweighs the inconvenience of filling out a form or two at home depot.
> I sometimes wish I had a small dumpy pickup so I could put bulk stuff in (and full 4x8 sheets), but mostly it's fine without.
Unfortunately even these are pretty sought after! I have a '94 Toyota Pickup(right before they rebranded them to the Tacoma) that I bought off of my father in law for pennies. In many places in the world these are cult trucks.
A few years ago I was in the market for a small beater pickup. I was looking for a late 90s Tacoma (before they started making larger models to compete with F150), but was surprised that those still regularly go for $12-14K in good condition. I wound up getting a Japanese kei truck (I describe in another comment in this thread).
Depending where you are, carshare is a great way to go. I can book a pickup truck using an app and go get the vehicle, use it as long as needed, and return it without ever interacting with a person. The co-op charges my card automatically and gas is included in the hourly rate, which is $7 for a pickup.
What caught me completely off-guard when I went to rent from the Depot was needing my insurance paperwork. Okay, that's out in my car's glovebox halfway across the parking lot, kindly serve another customer while I hike out there and get it...
It's doubly weird because I rent cars from Enterprise and Budget all the time and they've never asked me for it.
But anyway, once that was done with, yeah the 75-minute truck rental was just what the doctor ordered. I picked up a bunch of industrial auction items, dropped them at my friend's place and my place, and had the truck fueled and returned with several minutes to spare.
Everything I've ever bought from HD itself, including 10' pieces of conduit and Unistrut, 8' pipe and lumber, numerous bags of cement and aggregate and mulch, has fit just fine in my Prius.
I wouldn't mind owning a pickup for full sheets, but in practice everything I've made has tesselated just fine into 32x48 one-third-sheets so I just have 'em ripped on the panel saw in-store.
> What caught me completely off-guard when I went to rent from the Depot was needing my insurance paperwork. Okay, that's out in my car's glovebox halfway across the parking lot, kindly serve another customer while I hike out there and get it...
That caught me off guard the one time I did this as well. However, it is a small lesson to learn compared to financing and insuring even a cheap truck such as an f-150 IMO.
I have a '94 Toyota Pickup(right before they rebranded them to the Tacoma)
I have a '93 SR5 pickup with the single cam V6, bought brand new in '94 (only difference from the '94 is the third brake light, AFAIK). I still get people asking about buying it all the time.
>I sometimes wish I had a small dumpy pickup so I could put bulk stuff in (and full 4x8 sheets)
Minivans are so much more versatile and many can take full 4x8 sheets. You can carry more passengers and or have a fully covered cargo area. If utilizing for the versatile "pickup" needs try and find one with the stow and go seats (absolutely for the back seat, and preferably for the middle row).
I have a 95 Dodge Caravan for exactly that: it’ll move full sheets of plywood no problem. It has about 350,000 km on it and is slowly dying, but man is it great for hauling stuff around.
Also, since regular vans the vehicles actually driven by people who use vehicles for work, they've largely remained the same size as they've always been.
Plus, they are cheap used because they are the anti-status symbol: nobody is going to daily drive a "___-van" unless absolutely necessary.
I grew up with our family 'car' being a Toyota Hiace van (Australia, no idea what it was called in the US). We lived in the country and needed something that could carry us two kids plus a small animal or 5 (dogs, sheep, a shetland pony once), or bales of hay, or bags of feed. It could take 4x8 sheets at an angle and when we road tripped to family it could fit a king single mattress in the back to sleep on.
> I sometimes wish I had a small dumpy pickup so I could put bulk stuff in (and full 4x8 sheets), but mostly it's fine without.
Utility trailers are cheap and require hardly any maintenance. The model I have is really cool in that it stands up on end, so it takes up very little space in the garage.
Yep, small cars can do more than you give 'em credit for.
I considered getting a truck for some time, but ended up buying a 5x8 utility trailer. Sure, it's a little less convenient (and more bouncy) than a truck, and my 2009 Chevy Cobalt doesn't have a very high towing capacity, but for my purposes, the trailer gets the job done just fine.
I will happily continue to avoid car payments until the wheels fall off (which should be awhile, because I just replaced the bearings).
They don't make useful trucks any more, that's why a dilapidated toyota with a standard cab, long bed, and half a million miles still costs $10k. Like you I can put a quarter ton of gravel in a Honda Fit. 500 lbs of gravel only takes up 4 cubic feet. It's not like you can fill the bed of an F-150 with sand and drive off; the truck would break in half.
I actually thought about buying one and I looked on the internet and was disappointed I couldn't find aftermarket shocks for recent models. My first car was a 92 Civic, and when I got Koni adjustable shocks for it, it totally transformed it. For all of Honda's engineering skills, the stock suspension tuning on their cars always seemed too jittery/bouncy. I drove a rental Chevy Sonic once, which I think many people would describe as a "shitbox" but the suspension tuning really stood out as significantly better than I'm used to from Hondas.
...actually Wikipedia says:
"For Chevrolet Sonic models built in the United States, the Sonic features suspension tuning by Corvette Racing engineer John Buttermore."
An F-150 can hold 2500lbs in the bed saving a driver four trips relative to the aforementioned Honda Fit. Granted, that’s often a rare activity that doesn’t necessarily solely justify truck ownership (as if it’s needed).
Subaru could only afford to do a single body style since that generation WRX was a pretty serious departure from the Impreza chassis. Everyone else in the market was offering a hot hatch, so Subaru, being Subaru, decided to do things a differently.
I prefer the sedan. It's much less boomy and noisy than the old WRX hatch. I never got much use out of the hatch anyway.
I've moved 5x5 sheets of plywood and 10' 2x4s in my '04 G35 without too much trouble. The back seats don't even fold down, I just stuff everything through the ski hole or tie it on the roof :).
I would probably rather have a hatch if I didn't love this car though, fair point.
I needed some wood from HD and tried to rent a truck, it was a nightmare. At least at my local HD, they don't allow you to reserve. They only have 2 trucks, both of which are constantly busy. They won't even hold it while you grab the stuff you want to transport home, so you have to camp out or get there super early, rent it, and then let it sit while you do your shopping and check out.
Agree with using u-haul if needed, but that's also normally quite a pain. We bought a truck recently, and it's been super nice to just hop in and go. Full disclosure, we bought one only because it'll be towing a track car 2x/month, and at that rate renting stops becoming at all attractive.
> I needed some wood from HD and tried to rent a truck, it was a nightmare. At least at my local HD, they don't allow you to reserve. They only have 2 trucks, both of which are constantly busy. They won't even hold it while you grab the stuff you want to transport home
It's meant for customers who need a truck but don't have one.
You fit that exactly so there's something I'm missing - are you buying those really long 2x4 - 4x4 or the like?
If so, a lot of people do that, so you need to stand out with the staff.
So this is what I do - buy a $11 big drywall and then tell them to call me when the truck's available.
It works every time. I have no clue why. I even use it to rent trucks for towing cars on a trailer bed.
The drywall will sell on CL like hot cakes once you're done with the truck but see my previous post.
Just saying, but you are most likely exceeding the specifications of your vehicle.
The tires, brakes and accident safety systems are designed to protect you and others. Look at the door sticker and be clear what your car is designed for.
That said, I liked having a small toyota pickup (the one named "pickup").
> my dad looked to replace his 92 Dodge Dakota, single cab, long bed (which was a great, functional truck) and could find absolutely zero similar size trucks out there (short cab, long bed, no ladder required to get to the front seat). You can probably design them on the manufacturer site, but no dealers will have them in stock.
I used to have a ford ranger, and that was my feeling after it finally died. The US truck market is essentially big commercial vehicles meets luxury SUV.
There is a 2019 Ford Ranger out there somewhere, though I've heard mixed things.
I really appreciate articles like this that call out our how off the walls absurd American car culture is. As someone who bikes to work, almost everyone I've met that bikes has developed a deep hatred (and fear) of car drivers (whose sense of entitlement has gone off the rails). Biking to work, you will on a regular basis encounter drivers that yell at you, try to run you off the road, floor the car by you (even when there is a red traffic light ahead)
Yes. It happens. I've had the same yelled at me, and been cursed at and flipped off (middle finger) when:
- Riding on a bike/pedestrian overpass going OVER an intersection.
- Riding on a bike path that is separated by grass from and parallel to a road.
- Waiting at a crosswalk light for my turn to cross an intersection (while traveling on a bike path).
Cyclists are a frequent place for irrationally angry folks in cars to let out their anger.
I've been biking to work >10 miles each way for about 9 years now and I understand where this is coming from: when an inattentive/careless driver cuts us off it feels as a personal attack, because if an accident happens the results are equivalent. This means it's natural to start feeling personally targeted when drivers do stupid things around us in traffic. But I'd caution letting our natural feelings drive our opinions. Not all drivers do those things and I suspect most of those that do have no idea of the danger or the threat they create. It's not malice so it shouldn't be payed back with hatred, especially not generalized to the entire driving population. All that does is to further the "us vs them" mentality which is already a huge problem when trying to make drivers understand how they should act around bikes, it's not helping.
I have moved from a bike riding culture type of country to a suburban car driving country and I am also finding myself angry with bike riders while driving. In most bike riding countries the bikes don't mix with cars, they either got their own lanes like in Holland or intermix with foot traffic like in Japan. People drive on the road only when it is relatively empty from cars.
But in my current country the riders ride on any road, sometimes on the side, sometimes as block of riders. It is more sporty type of riding rather than a commuter type of riding. Mixing it with cars cause a lot of stress to the car drivers because they have to slow or take over and be extra careful all the time. It is just annoying me both as a driver and as a bike rider. There is so much space on the footpath but I must ride on the road and try to keep up with much faster traffic.
That definitely explains why some drivers may feel angry/frustrated but note that it's not an excuse. Legally and morally speaking bikes have equal rights to the roads.
If those drivers drive around smaller/slower cars do they get equally frustrated/angry?
Even if they do, what gives them the right too get angry at other participants in traffic that are legally using the road?
As to why in the US a lot more bike commuters are also into recreational biking, it's because of a feedback loop created in combination with bad bike supporting infrastructure and urban planning: the current situation means that in many places commuters have to share the road with cars, which means that only those that really like bike riding and/or are comfortable with a high level of stress/risk do it which, as it happens, it overlaps largely with the traits of those that enjoy recreational biking. With a lot of these riders on the road drivers get a sense of "these bikers are enjoying themselves and annoying me at the same time so they don't deserve respect" which further reinforces the current situation.
I'm a German that used to live in the US for a while, in Seattle. And people would go crazy when they found out I used public transportation. Usually a disgusted reply: "But there are homeless people on it."
Preface: there's no excuse for drivers being assholes to bikers (yelling, speeding, worse).
But as a driver, our resentment for bike commuters doesn't just come from entitlement (though somewhat, yes). It comes from fear, just like yours. I really don't want to accidentally kill anyone, and bikers are one of the only encounters in my daily life when I feel like that might happen.
I wish it were safer for bikers. Our infrastructure is terrible. The bike lanes are spotty and bad when they exist. Lane separation is more symbolic than physical.
I get that bikers want to be on the road anyway, and that conceptually, it should be a shared space. But the reality is that our roads are ill suited for the task, catastrophically and obviously dangerous, and people insist on trying it anyway because in principle, it should work.
It feels like bikers think they're the only ones shouldering the risk of having their lives destroyed if things go sideways. As a driver, that's not how it feels. Maiming or killing a biker would be strictly worse for the biker, but I'm not excited about living in the aftermath either. It feels like bikers increase the risk of a terrible thing happening to both of us.
For me, that's what makes it a moral gray area: bikers definitely have the environmental upper hand. But they do it by engaging in activity that is borderline reckless given the reality of American roads. I find it difficult to enthusiastically encourage that.
As a kid my dad commuted to work on a bike and he made me take a class at a local bike store with actual course materials and a totally-not-official bike license before he let me ride on the street.
In the late 1970s-early 1980s when cyclists started calling for bike lanes and changes to laws, part of the deal was that cyclists would adopt smart habits AKA the rules of the road, that helped them become part of a shared car-bike system. Things like wearing helmets, signaling turns, riding in the same direction as traffic. A lot of the rules are designed to make cyclists' behavior less unpredictable and thus safer.
I see this system breaking down when cyclists do dumb things like riding the wrong way on a street and swerving across lanes. (I'm probably showing my age but I mostly notice this from fixed-gear cyclists).
As a mostly car driver myself now, I want to ensure that bikes are safe. But it requires the cooperation
I've never understood how riding in the same direction is safer. The rider can't see me, so it feels like I'm creeping up on them. I feel there should be some degree of coordination when a car is approaching a bike, some eye contact, you know? But that can't be done when they're riding in the same direction.
I've never ridden a bike in traffic before, but I'm sure I'd feel really nervous to have an unknown set of cars approaching me from behind and passing by me unexpectedly.
Is it about reducing the relative velocity between them? I'm sure it's still significantly high even when going in the same direction.
EDIT: Here, I'm mostly thinking in the context of highways. It may be that the rule makes more sense in a city- or suburban-like environment.
I'm not sure it matters much on an uninterrupted stretch of road (except you conflict with the bicycles being on the right side of the road...) But when you enter an intersection from the opposite direction the drivers are expecting you to, it's pretty clear that it's not safer.
Drivers expect people to enter intersections from both directions on the crosswalks, which is where normal non-athlete bicycle users need to be for safety. This is a solved problem if we keep all the small unarmored travelers (walking, bicycling, crawling, etc.) together on the sidewalk and crosswalk.
As someone who has witnessed this accident or near-accident unfold several times, the difference is speed how quickly the opposing cyclist or pedestrian moves from invisible or out-of-range to collision range. Bicycles and other wheeled vehicles like scooters and skateboards move much faster than pedestrians. Even a conscientious driver who watches for pedestrians may miss a cyclist who is riding "the wrong way" in the time it takes the driver to swivel their attention among the various hazard zones that need to be checked when making turns.
A driver needs to check both ways in a sequence, with the final visual check being for traffic in the incoming lanes they are about to enter or cross. They check for pedestrians coming the opposite way first, but the slow rate of pedestrian movement means that the conditions do not change dramatically while the driver attention switches to the opposite direction. However, a cyclist/skater/scooter flying into the picture from the blind side is at great risk of collision with the driver who is now checking the opposite direction and initiating their maneuver.
There is no "flying into the picture from the blind side" with normal bicyclists. They are timid and non-athletic. They often cross roads with their feet on the ground, walking the bicycle across. If they ride across the street, it is after stopping to wait for traffic.
There would be many more of these normal bicyclists if they didn't have to choose between legal danger (on sidewalk) and extreme physical danger (on road).
The accidents and near accidents I have witnessed in Los Angeles are people on wheels moving at ~10 MPH or higher against the flow of traffic on the shoulder or in a crosswalk. Dramatically faster than a walking pedestrian. People moving at these speeds on wheels also make unwise maneuvers to conserve momentum, unlike most joggers.
As a third party observing several of these events, I noticed that the cyclist/scooter rider/skateboarder more often accelerates to attempt to make a stale light as well, quite the opposite of normal pedestrian patterns. This has only gotten worse in recent years, with many more people having motor-assisted wheeled contraptions and not a lot of common sense about their newfound speed.
Bicycling on sidewalks is not safe for walkers, in dense areas it’s not safe for the biker either due to cars coming out of driveways with blind spots, and in non dense areas there typically are no sidewalks.
Cyclists should use their best judgment as to whether the sidewalk or street would be safer in a given area but there are even areas in cities where it’s illegal to ride the bike on the sidewalk.
Yep, relative velocity is one of the main considerations. The other would be to have cyclists following the same basic set of rules as cars, making their behavior more predictable to auto drivers.
It serves to maintain the legal fiction that a bicycle is an automobile. Strong athletes, who are the people involved in crafting bicycle legislation, prefer it that way. Pedestrians also prefer it that way.
It does a huge disservice to less-athletic people who might benefit from bicycle use. These people are far too slow to be in the road. They really need to be on the sidewalk. They could go in the road opposite to traffic, pulling off whenever a car approaches. Either way, they would walk the bicycle through intersections.
The typical bicycle user is far more like a pedestrian than like a car, and ought to be legislated as such, but our laws were written for the most serious and dedicated bicycle users.
As a biker, I think I distinctly remember the bad experiences and don't always consider the majority of time motorists are doing the right thing. Those bad experiences stick with you, and can fester, which may cause some bikers to overly assert their place out of anger or resentment. It would be good to for both "sides" to remember most people are trying not to be an asshole.
> But the reality is that our roads are ill suited for the task, catastrophically and obviously dangerous, and people insist on trying it anyway because in principle, it should work.
The vast majority of roads are ill suited for bikes in our area (Asheville NC). The roads are narrow, curvy, blind and there is rarely even a shoulder. Bikers are in danger so much I don't know how they stomach it. I see them a lot of side walks which just endangers pedestrians.
It seems they cause traffic build up (people wanting to pass safely) which just enrages drivers and want to lash out at these "idiots" for being on these kinda roads in the first place.
It's up to society to make this work for both groups. Doing what NY did and separating the bike lane from car lanes (ideally with parked cars in between) is what will keep people safe and both groups happy.
Also it should be mandatory for bikers to wear lights - not just reflectors - so as to be almost painfully visible. It's not difficult to put rear blinkers + front light on a bike.
> bikers definitely have the environmental upper hand. But they do it by engaging in activity that is borderline reckless given the reality of American roads. I find it difficult to enthusiastically encourage that.
> Open to having my views changed on this.
If you agree that a world with more cyclists would be better (for the environment, for safety, maybe for public health), how do you suggest we get there? Encouraging change towards a better world often requires swimming upstream, shouldering some stress and discomfort and pressure, in order to exert pressure back on the system one wants to change.
Nobody will build safer bicycle infrastructure if nobody rides bicycles.
I've cycle commuted for significant periods of my life and heard that kind of argument from motorists plenty of times.
It simply doesn't match the reality of how drivers behave.
First, motorists often just have no idea how to drive sensibly around bikes and do weird things that contravene road laws and common sense - not leaving any passing margin, passing way too close right before red lights, cutting off bikes that they've just overtaken to turn right.
Second, motorists will get aggressive and impatient with cyclists that are riding in the most perfectly considerate and legal way. I've seen motorists get irritated with cyclists if they get delayed more than a second or two. That happens all the time with other cars - if the car in front of you is turning, it's going to delay you the same amount as if you have to slow down to safely overtake a cyclist. It goes both ways too - some motorists get upset if you ride in a textbook manner (occupying a lane as needed, doing hook turns, etc) and some get upset if you don't do that (they think you should be riding in the gutter or the sidewalk or whatever).
Third, if you look around, you'll see cars breaking minor traffic laws more frequently than people. In my old neighbourhood I kept an eye on how often different vehicles blew through stop signs, and cars did it with frequency and in far more dangerous ways than bikes. Just look at the statistics about how many deaths are attributed to cars behaving badly versus bikes.
The only way I can explain it is two things. First, people get confused when they have to interact with cyclists, because they don't really know what they're doing, and as a result get frustrated and angry. Second, motorists are primed to be annoyed at cyclists because they're different. It's hard to get annoyed at the car in front of you delaying you by a few seconds by its simple presence, because you yourself are also a person in a car.
The complaints about cyclists doing this that and the other are red herrings - if cyclists stopped doing them, the people complaining would find another way to rationalize their frustration.
I think all road users should up their game, but it's cars that are the big problem.
What type of situations are you constantly experiencing that make you feel this way? Bikes riding against traffic to the right of me (ie at me), and bikes coming off the sidewalk are really the only two situations that get my hackles up. And these are better categorized as poor individual behavior rather than putting it on all bikers.
My experience is that I used to bike often and now I don't. So this probably alleviates my surprise at say an inexperienced biker riding in the gutter, coming up on a parked car, and jutting out at the last minute. But a little bit of riding would get you this sense too - its probably the best way to change your perspective. It will also give you the superpower of knowing when a car is going to change lanes before it puts on its blinker.
When riding, my biggest worry was being creamed from behind on non-city roads where traffic is going much faster, and drivers tend to space out or expect to pass within inches. But this tension is totally on the specific drivers themselves, and the easy answer is for them to explicitly pass rather than viewing a bike as some kind of roadside decoration.
FWIW I wasn't a fan of bike lanes in general. They're redundant and constraining, creating an expectation that you'll ride in the door zone or through road hazards, backed up by a solid white line. I'd rather explicitly share the right lane with cars rather than have a fake division. (Well-done bike lanes like modern NYC obviously change this)
I just wish SUVs and pickups to be taxed proportionally to all the damage they cause, either to the road, or to others (higher accident rate with pedestrians and fatality rates), and that's besides the pollution.
What's the problem with liking big vehicles? To each his own.
I love motorbikes. They are so cool. I don't need it, it is not practical for commute, it rains a lot where I live... yet I have one just to ride on weekends.
What because of vehicle weights? A Model X weighs the same or even 1500 lbs more than a modern F150. The fuel subsidy argument is bupkis, a 30% fuel cost difference is not going to have Americans switching to Ford Fiestas.
HN has a huge hate boner for USA vehicle culture. I'd imagine the majority opinion is that one should ride a bicycle for any trip under 5 miles, public transit the rest. And if your arm is really twisted, buy the smallest, least expensive, and most efficient vehicle one can get their hands on.
God forbid you like a vehicle with power, is fun to drive, or you have hobbies / activities which facilitate it.
I got told in a comment that I must be a dirty pollution loving asshole because I thought it was ridiculous I needed to take my car to a dealership to code parts to it (BMW locks some parts to the car via VIN check), so I hacked it myself instead to avoid paying $1k for the dealership to do it. As if that some how made any sense.
I don't know if I'd put it that way, but the gist of what you're saying is right. I think a lot of HN commenters live in very dense urban environments, where riding a bicycle is a practical choice. Some of them unfortunately extrapolate this to everyone else on earth and then you get the "there's never any reason for cars" posts.
Everyone's situation is different and many people live where they need a car to function. My commute averages about 2 hours each way by car. That would be 4 hours by bicycle according to Google Maps. Sorry, but there is nothing you can say that would convince me to spend 8 hours per day commuting by bicycle.
That's the attitude I'm talking about. There's nothing to fix! I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want to live close to work, if it means being packed into a sardine can apartment, sharing a wall with my neighbor. I don't want to pay $1,000/sq ft. I don't want a book-sized backyard. Not everyone thinks "dense urban" is the best way to live, and downvotes won't change that.
Well it was a bit of a poke to see what reaction it would get but there was also an element of sympathy. I had a similar commute when I was younger and I ended up regretting it.
Back in 2018 I wanted a small beater truck when I bought a house (to move tools, lumber, garden stuff, etc). I was originally looking for a first generation Toyota Tacoma (later models are F150-sized), but was surprised that the 20 year old trucks were still selling for $12-14K. The lack of small trucks in the US is partially caused by bad regulation [1] that penalizes them (I am surprised the article doesn't mention this).
I wound up getting a Japanese kei truck [2]. It was under $4,000 to import, title, etc. It gets 50mpg (4.7 liters/100km) and carries 880 lbs (400kg) in the 4.5x6.5ft bed (1.4x2m). You could use a large-ish garden shed as a garage if you wanted.
It's really the perfect city utility truck if you are mainly a weekend warrior making trips to the hardware store, moving around plywood and tools, occasionally helping friends move apartments, etc. You can parallel park it damn near anywhere, turns on dime, and it's incredibly mechanically simple and easy to repair.
Only thing it lacks is modern safety features (for regulation reasons, it's only easy to import and drive trucks > 25 years old in the US). The one marginally common thing it can't do that a large modern pickup can is tow a boat (kei vehicles are limited to 63 horsepower).
I'm a sucker for El-Camino-ized cars (replace the back with a bed, like the El Camino or Australian Utes); I'd love to have one of these turned into BEV with a little battery pack (ie Chevy Spark) for a daily driver and run around town vehicle.
I rent out my small city car, and I'm considering getting a ute to rent out as well because the margins are better. I was shocked to find that the basic ute style that was so common when I used to live on farms is almost gone. I need to park on city streets, and dual cab is overkill. Relative fuel efficiency would be nice, too.
The few I did find were lovingly restored classics with a surprisingly high price tag.
I am 5'10 and have exactly 5" of headroom in mine, so you might be able to find one that barely fits you. That said, the seats have no adjustment capability, so legroom might be a problem for you. Definitely try it out. They are pretty easy to mod if you are comfortable with an angle grinder and stick welder.
> I wound up getting a Japanese kei truck [2]. It was under $4,000 to import, title, etc. It gets 50mpg (4.7 liters/100km) and carries 880 lbs (400kg) in the 4.5x6.5ft bed (1.4x2m). You could use a large-ish garden shed as a garage if you wanted.
This is great information!
I would like to dig in a bit deeper because I need a reliable work truck too.
So in California it's not impossible to find good quality trucks at a great price.
For example: My last truck purchase was a F350 7.3 Turbo Diesel for $1500
Why? Because it was a manual, the diff was busted, body's all dented, seats torn out and the doors did not work as it was run as a jobsite truck and the contractor wanted to get rid of it.
After fixing it up, the challenge became the ongoing registration and insurance fees in California which I had not taken into account.
The DMV in California classifies a F350 as a commercial truck.
As a result, you have to pay a much higher registration and insurance fees than what you would pay for a SUV or minivan.
Because of this, it's financially smarter to just rent trucks from Lowe's/HD/UHaul/CL for whenever I need it unless I'm using it more than 6 months per year - which I don't.
Now this $4k truck is new and welcome news to me, so thank you.
At 6' I'll probably fit a bit tight BUT how much could the registration and insurance fees in California be?
The same as a SUV?
Less?
Please, feel free to contact me please. I would love to continue this discussion
My dad has one, he uses it similarly to a ATV. Be warned that they are not legal for road use in all states- they are often liscenced the same as an ATV/UTV, so it was not legal to drive in Colorado for instance. I can't specifically say for CA. However very handy vehicles if you don't need to haul tremendously heavy loads or go very fast. The other potential downside is the cab is very small, bigger people will not be able to fit comfortably. Otherwise, they are definitely very handy vehicles,and can be found reasonably cheaply in excellent shape. Japanese vehicle registration starts getting more expensive for older vehicles (to encourage new sales and get older more polluting cars off the road) so at some point these trucks become uneconomical to register in Japan.
Small pickups, on the other hand, are fantastic. I've got a 2005 Ford Ranger. The bed is big enough that I've hauled drywall, lumber, flagstones, furniture, a dead elk... pretty much everything I've ever needed to move. But on the other hand, it's narrower than almost anything on the road today (barring compact cars of its own era and before), so it's easy to park. It's also got enough window visibility that I can easily keep track of each corner of the truck when I'm trying to park. It's got high enough clearance that I don't scrape the front when I pull up to the curb in a parking lot, and that I can drive down rutted forest roads without too much concern.
I see a ton of little Rangers and S10s around town, but judging by how difficult it was to find my own, other people recognize how useful they are too! I think there are a lot of us who just want a small utilitarian vehicle, but when the Ranger was discontinued we lost that option in pickup format.
I have a 2016 Colorado and I have some buyer's remorse over not getting one of the previous generation. The interior is much nicer, and it's a better truck overall (imho), but it suffers from size inflation. Taller truck =/= better truck
...and that's not saying much. I have to punch the ceiling for the dome light to work pretty often. Compared to the Subarus I was used to, the GM interior is cheap.
Light trucks abounded in my experience long after that tax. I thought the big change was that, starting maybe around 2000, full-sized trucks started getting nearly the same fuel economy for casual driving as compact trucks. I always suspected it was that, combined with the overall trend for preferring larger vehicles, that caused the relative decline of compact trucks.
I don't think that makes that big of a difference. This just means you need to build the trucks in a NAFTA facility, and everyone has one of those. It doesn't explain why the Ranger and the S10 were stopped.
I think the manufactures like building the bigger trucks cause they make more $$$, and most buyers are willing to take a bigger truck if the smaller ones aren't available. But, having owned a regular cab Ranger I bought new and now a regular cab S10; they're lovely vehicles as long as you don't need to carry people. Amazing visibility; no fiddly bits, and you don't have to worry about curbs or parking stops.
I don't know enough about the topic, so take this with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised if the market for small trucks isn't big enough to justify a NAFTA facility, but the 25% tariff on imports is enough to make importing light trucks (which are immensely popular in a lot of the world) a non-starter.
That is, consider a bare-bones light truck with MSRP of $18K. After the tax, it becomes 23K. You can get an F150 for 28K, so in America you might as well get the bigger truck. Whereas if it were $18K vs $28K that would draw some of the market towards the smaller imported truck. And if some of the market is drawn towards the import, domestic makers might be forced to compete (e.g. with the Ranger).
The real reason small trucks are dead in america is the bizarre way the CAFE standards are written. In the 2008 update the fuel economy target is based on the vehicle 'footprint', so bigger trucks have lower targets. This led to a bloating of all trucks. It also killed off small trucks as the cost of compliance was just too high.
The problem I believe is CAFE (fuel economy) regulations. For light trucks, the required fuel economy to avoid a penalty is based on the "Footprint" of a vehicle, which is width*wheelbase. [1]
An F-150 with a long bed is expected to get 25.25mpg. The new Ranger is expected to get 30.25mpg. The F-150 actually gets 22, and the Ranger gets 26.
My understanding is that it's difficult to build a smaller truck that gets the required mileage. The result is that the new Ranger is the size of the F-150 from 15 years ago or so. You simply can't buy a compact pickup truck like the 90s Tacoma or Ranger.
An excellent example of a well meaning regulation with weird real world consequences.
The new EU directive to hit 95g CO2/km is a much better regulation since it directly measures the goal: less carbon emitted. It also measures the fleet more directly, unlike CAFE that carves out tons of categories. It does allow for the double counting of EVs for a few years which incentivizes doing the R&D on EVs rather than paying penalties.
The issue with the EU directive is that it measures emissions just from the tailpipe, not for their lifetime. So an electric car always has 0 emissions even if driven on coal electricity. And a biogas car would have the same as a natural gas one. This hurts things like biogas needlessly.
There have been efforts to change this, don't know their status.
The Ford Ranger is great! They even made an electric one for a while, up until 2002. Would love an upgraded one just like it with modern batteries and L2 charging.
There is a 2019 and 2020 Ford Ranger. I used to have one of the old school Rangers and I miss it.
Of the 3 new Ranger models the plain jane XL is the simple 2 door model, similar to the older Rangers. I haven't seen em much on the road, though, and haven't heard lots of good things. Not sure if that's cuz the 2019s were bad, or the market has shifted to the Big Stonkin Truck and no one wants to consider the smaller vehicles.
On this topic, I'm a single vehicle family with two toddlers. We have a Nissan rogue and are very happy. But I've been looking at possible upgrades in size as the kids get older and its stupid.
First off, the Rogue is considered a "compact crossover" and yet it has far more cargo space than the Murano or Pathfinder. I don't get names. It's like cars are named like video cards. So confusing.
Also, if I do want to go up in size, I have to go way up. And suddenly it won't fit comfortably in my garage. And it's annoying. I don't want a six cylinder engine. I don't want a tow kit. I just want a rogue with 20% more trunk so I can fit everthing a modern parent needs for a trip with two kids.
Hey, Minivans are great! Those bad boys fit an astounding amount of cargo, are easy to drive, and most are insanely reliable. You'd better just bit the bullet lol.
I love our minivan. It fits our family comfortably, and can haul anything I need it to (a full size sheet of plywood will fit flat on the floor in the back).
Even the once humble Jeep Wrangler has become bloated.
First, Jeep came out with a 4-door Wrangler. That became a mommiemobile SUV for the Hummer 2 crowd. Then customers wanted more "luxury" - entertainment systems, power windows, sound-deadening, always-on Internet. Now the base Wrangler is over $30K, and hard to get without options you don't need.
The 4dr Wrangler is a brilliant exercise in box checking.
Husband and wife walk into the dealership wanting a new car. They're both now well paid and are looking to trade in the older of their two vehicles for an upgrade. One of them wants something more convenient for their new life in the suburbs, hauling around kids, etc. The other wants something fun, maybe sporty, maybe a convertible. The Jeep Wrangler lets them both compromise without compromising. It has two rows so it's great for kids. It's a convertible so you can put the top down. It's available with a manual. It has 4wd so it's good in snow. Etc. etc. No matter how disparate a couple's idea for what they want in a new vehicle odds are the 4dr Wrangler does a pretty decent job checking off things on their mental "must have" lists.
Now, anyone who's actually driven the Wrangler long term knows that those benefits I just rattled off aren't as cut and clear in reality but you also know that you didn't figure that out on the test drive and that it's still probably a nicer vehicle than whatever it replaced.
What I'm getting at is that having every possible feature known to man dovetails perfectly with this strategy of letting people buy the vehicle they want while also convincing their SO they're buying the vehicle they want.
All of the benefits of driving big cars, as I have previously argued, are illusory.
The benefit is pretty simple - they are bigger. I have a Prius and a Mazda CX-9 (somewhere from a mid-size to large SUV). I also have a wife and three kids. For daily use the Prius is fine, but if we go on vacation and there are 1.5 or so items of luggage per person, the Prius really doesn't work any more and we need to take the SUV.
I'd like the article to provide an example of a modern stock vehicle that doesn't fit in a relatively modern standard garage.
The article claims that American garages "tend to be seven or eight feet high." The article also mentions a women whose F-150 doesn't fit in her garage. The tallest 2020 F-150 I can find is 6' 6.5". I found a 2020 Silverado that's nearly 6' 8". Where are these unmodified trucks that aren't fitting in 7 foot garages?
222 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 256 ms ] threadI see people commuting in full sized trucks all the time and I don't get it. It's 80 cents a mile when you add everything up.
My son ran into a deer with our beater Aerostar minivan awhile back it totaled it. Airbag went off and everything.
Meanwhile I hit a deer with my Ram diesel pickup with a Ranchhand guard last week and no damage. So they do have some utility. ;)
I do agree these trucks are ridiculous; if I didn't have a farm and the need to haul a large trailer I probably wouldn't have it. As it is we mostly drive my wife's Subaru when we actually need to go somewhere unladened.
I don’t see many luxury vehicles here, but I see quite a few $80k+ trucks.
I had a coworker that had a $1,200 month truck payment.
Not having to use your vehicle to capacity at all times is one of the hallmarks of being at least middle class (at least in the US).
If I’d had more money, I could afford a coupe.
And if I had more money still, I could afford a 2 seater sports car.
An under utilized vehicle may be a hallmark of the middle class, but a desirable vehicle that is only exactly what you need at that moment is a hallmark of the upper class.
On top of being more expensive, it’s also far more likely to be a secondary vehicle.
So you are going to spend 20-30% less on gas which, depending on how much you drive and gas prices, might amount to around $100/month.
Then of course deduct the cost of a rental and the hassle and if you need a truck once a month, you are already about even.
On a more serious note I have been watching YouTube car reviews for a while and eventually they get bored and start reviewing SUVs and CUVs. There is an internal capacity difference between wagons and sedans.
Wagons and sedans lose internal capacity to drivetrain components because the body rises lower. Great for handling and efficiency.
It becomes really obvious when you look at The Straight Pipes box test.
That said just because the difference exists doesn’t mean people know or need it.
It really is http://pengaru.com/~vc/tmp/tank1.jpg
Aaron Gordon, whoever you are: mind your own damn business.
It's almost funny how so many large SUV and truck owners actively project the attitude their vehicular choices imply: "I don't give a shit about anybody but myself."
Nice, we are trying to get there. Down to kike once or twice a month for red meat. Rest is vegetarian and chicken maybe twice a week.
It is $100+/day out the door around here. Where are you where it is "exceedingly cheap" and what is your definition of that?
Not to mention the difference in operating costs between a truck and a more modest hatchback could easily by $100/month. How often is someone hauling something that can't fit in a U-haul truck?
1. https://www.uhaul.com/Reservations/RatesTrucks/
After I rented a truck for a day, I handed them $100+. I rented from the cheapest local place. Home Depot is $39/4 hours + tax for comparison. Sounds like you're reading some advert, have never actually tried to rent the truck, and legitimately expect to pay just $20/day. Good luck with that.
$20/day would be a dream come true around here, I paid more than that in tax and fees alone.
> Sounds like you're reading some advert, have never actually tried to rent the truck, and legitimately expect to pay just $20/day
I have rented from U-haul in the past. No special ads or deals or anything. I just walked into the store and took what they had. It sounds like you got ripped off by Home Depot. The last time I moved my entire apartment with all my belongings and furniture, I rented a big moving truck and spent like $70 total.
They're status symbols like Porsche's or Tesla's, but for a different demographic, one that gets defensive about admitting they just want to drive a truck because it makes them feel good.
Cheap pickups definitely aren't a status simple. The pickup market ranges from $100K+ all the way down to $25K or less. Some are status symbols, some aren't, but the cheap ones definitely aren't.
Partially driven by the higher costs of purchasing trucks and SUVs, the average American owes more money in car loans with longer terms than before.
Cheap pickups aren't a status symbol, but look around and see how many people are actually driving cheap pickups. The number of people out there driving the newest, largest, most expensive truck (and never using the bed for anything 80% of the time) is shocking.
Where are you?
I think perhaps avalys could have expressed it more politely, but at least he was succinct. That article is very judgemental. I'm sure I could invent lots and lots of ways anybody could be potentially annoying or impacting me and my family. I'm not going to use that as an excuse to claim some assumed moral high ground. People absolutely have the right to buy and drive what they want. The overwhelming popularity and price of pickups, even at a large size, is testament that it is working for them and is well worth it to a lot of people.
I'd prefer to read the comments pro or con that talk about one's personal experience with their automotive choices, rather than finger-waging at and judging those they don't agree with.
Car seats are a legal requirement. Most take up more space than a fully grown adult and due to additional padding/side impact protection, keep growing. So a family that needs to fit three kids across, only really has the choice of SUVs or more expensive Minivans (the cheap/fleet tier Minivans cost the same as low end SUVs while being worse/outdated designs).
So why do people buy SUVs? Higher ride means that more of the car's internals can be pushed out of the passenger compartment (particularly the rear seat/trunk) and they have a wider Axle track meaning longer seats. Which is conveniently exactly what car seats and strollers benefit from. Meaning they're great family cars.
The continued rise in trucks is more due to the Crew Cab-style becoming functional, and them being used as a family vehicle as well as utility (e.g. moving, dump runs, DIY projects, etc).
Without even trying to understand why people buy these vehicles, the discussion largely turns into moralizing. People have good reasons on a whole. They don't need to be using a Crew Cab truck exclusively for work for it to make sense, or an SUV for off-road adventures (most SUVs cannot off-road anyway).
Wouldn't that be offset by the falling birth rate in the US? [1]
> So a family that needs to fit three kids across
The size of the average household or family hasn't appreciably increased or decreased since roughly 1985.[2]
> People have good reasons on a whole.
They're cheaper than anywhere else in the world, and people feel safer in them. They're reasons, but not especially good ones.
1. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/723518379/u-s-births-fell-to-...
2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a...
So because the birth rate is lower in aggregate, people with three kids don't exist? Or that they should need less space somehow? I don't understand the relevance to either the post you replied to or even the article itself.
Seems like you're responding to a point nobody made, including yourself.
> They're cheaper than anywhere else in the world, and people feel safer in them. They're reasons, but not especially good ones.
Why did you even reply to a post when you're ignoring what it said? If you want to grandstanding about this topic, by all means reply to the thread as a whole. That's what top level replies are for.
Why reply to a specific post if you have no interest in discussing that post's content or ideas? Nothing you replied to even came close to being relevant, I'm not even sure you read the post you replied to.
There are fewer of them today than there used to be. I was responding to your point that "space requirements have increased" by showing that on average they have either stayed the same or gone down. And yet sales of big vehicles are at record highs. Which means not everyone (maybe even most) who's buying these things today actually has 3 kids.
All 3 of my kids fit with booster seats in my 2005 Prius (deceased) or Ford Focus EV. The 5 of us regularly go out in the EV. It even worked when I had 2x slim carseat (Diono Radian) + booster.
Minivans are expensive, selection is limited and there's not that much competition. If you want a crossover or midsize SUV the opposite is true.
You tryin to say we're too fat?
I work from home and drive maybe 6K miles per year, so the fuel costs and emissions aren't a significant consideration for me. But there's something in the bed almost every weekend, and even when there isn't, there's usually a kid or three in the back seat.
If you don't have a family, or you automatically call a handyman when something breaks, I can understand why you might not want or need to own one of these magnificent vehicles.
But for many of us, these trucks are carefully considered purchases that solve a lot of problems.
1. https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/12/08/turning-a-little-...
The only option for people who turn up their nose at GM. They've been making the Colorado/Canyon continiously since they EOL'd the S10.
The only thing I've come up with that we wouldn't be able to do with the minivan but with a truck would be fitting a refrigerator standing up. The load floor in a minivan is also a lot lower, making it much easier to load and unload stuff. Not to mention that you can comfortably haul people, too, which is most of the use.
Which problem is it that you have to own a truck for?
Like the pickup truck, our minivan is an extremely versatile vehicle, but there's just no way I'm going to put loose gravel, wet bags of mulch, or trash bound for the landfill in the back of it. Furthermore, I sometimes need to tow a trailer, and minivans simply aren't built for this.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-wo...
In other words, you should have a truck if you're using it for work and drive it around loaded.
And I get it, even as a dude that used to drive a truck. US truck culture is weird and kind of toxic.
Now everyone is outside of hair pulling, biting, pinching, toy/book stealing, throwing, and spitting range.
I guess my kids are just animals. It certainly seems to work for some parents. Maybe it will work out better when they're older.
It's kind of surprising Toyota doesnt have an outdoor edition of the 4runner thats basically the same thing but with a waterproof rubber back instead of carpet, and some kind of removable divider. Take the seats out and hose it down.
That being said, I really like big trucks. I guess it's selfish to want one, but I still do. Of course I don't live in the city, where it would be more hassle than enjoyable.
I sometimes wish I had a small dumpy pickup so I could put bulk stuff in (and full 4x8 sheets), but mostly it's fine without.
Related: my dad looked to replace his 92 Dodge Dakota, single cab, long bed (which was a great, functional truck) and could find absolutely zero similar size trucks out there (short cab, long bed, no ladder required to get to the front seat). You can probably design them on the manufacturer site, but no dealers will have them in stock.
I made a roof rack for my miata which attaches to the roll bar and windshield frame like the convertible top, it enables moving 4x8 sheets of plywood/drywall. I even moved a 305 gallon cistern using the setup without trouble, and a dozen 4x6x12' beams of douglas fir.
I have to unload a few before I have clearance to back up our long driveway.
I had a good friend argue that this was too inconvenient. My response was that I believe the amount of effort put into affording a new truck far outweighs the inconvenience of filling out a form or two at home depot.
> I sometimes wish I had a small dumpy pickup so I could put bulk stuff in (and full 4x8 sheets), but mostly it's fine without.
Unfortunately even these are pretty sought after! I have a '94 Toyota Pickup(right before they rebranded them to the Tacoma) that I bought off of my father in law for pennies. In many places in the world these are cult trucks.
It's doubly weird because I rent cars from Enterprise and Budget all the time and they've never asked me for it.
But anyway, once that was done with, yeah the 75-minute truck rental was just what the doctor ordered. I picked up a bunch of industrial auction items, dropped them at my friend's place and my place, and had the truck fueled and returned with several minutes to spare.
Everything I've ever bought from HD itself, including 10' pieces of conduit and Unistrut, 8' pipe and lumber, numerous bags of cement and aggregate and mulch, has fit just fine in my Prius.
I wouldn't mind owning a pickup for full sheets, but in practice everything I've made has tesselated just fine into 32x48 one-third-sheets so I just have 'em ripped on the panel saw in-store.
That caught me off guard the one time I did this as well. However, it is a small lesson to learn compared to financing and insuring even a cheap truck such as an f-150 IMO.
You think that is a small pickup? WOW.
I have the '93 club cab, so it's a touch longer, but it's dwarfed by an F-150, let alone anything larger.
Minivans are so much more versatile and many can take full 4x8 sheets. You can carry more passengers and or have a fully covered cargo area. If utilizing for the versatile "pickup" needs try and find one with the stow and go seats (absolutely for the back seat, and preferably for the middle row).
Plus, they are cheap used because they are the anti-status symbol: nobody is going to daily drive a "___-van" unless absolutely necessary.
Utility trailers are cheap and require hardly any maintenance. The model I have is really cool in that it stands up on end, so it takes up very little space in the garage.
I considered getting a truck for some time, but ended up buying a 5x8 utility trailer. Sure, it's a little less convenient (and more bouncy) than a truck, and my 2009 Chevy Cobalt doesn't have a very high towing capacity, but for my purposes, the trailer gets the job done just fine.
I will happily continue to avoid car payments until the wheels fall off (which should be awhile, because I just replaced the bearings).
...actually Wikipedia says: "For Chevrolet Sonic models built in the United States, the Sonic features suspension tuning by Corvette Racing engineer John Buttermore."
An F-150 can hold 2500lbs in the bed saving a driver four trips relative to the aforementioned Honda Fit. Granted, that’s often a rare activity that doesn’t necessarily solely justify truck ownership (as if it’s needed).
I prefer the sedan. It's much less boomy and noisy than the old WRX hatch. I never got much use out of the hatch anyway.
I would probably rather have a hatch if I didn't love this car though, fair point.
Agree with using u-haul if needed, but that's also normally quite a pain. We bought a truck recently, and it's been super nice to just hop in and go. Full disclosure, we bought one only because it'll be towing a track car 2x/month, and at that rate renting stops becoming at all attractive.
It's meant for customers who need a truck but don't have one.
You fit that exactly so there's something I'm missing - are you buying those really long 2x4 - 4x4 or the like?
If so, a lot of people do that, so you need to stand out with the staff.
So this is what I do - buy a $11 big drywall and then tell them to call me when the truck's available.
It works every time. I have no clue why. I even use it to rent trucks for towing cars on a trailer bed.
The drywall will sell on CL like hot cakes once you're done with the truck but see my previous post.
The tires, brakes and accident safety systems are designed to protect you and others. Look at the door sticker and be clear what your car is designed for.
That said, I liked having a small toyota pickup (the one named "pickup").
I used to have a ford ranger, and that was my feeling after it finally died. The US truck market is essentially big commercial vehicles meets luxury SUV.
There is a 2019 Ford Ranger out there somewhere, though I've heard mixed things.
"Get a car" - seriously?
- Riding on a bike/pedestrian overpass going OVER an intersection. - Riding on a bike path that is separated by grass from and parallel to a road. - Waiting at a crosswalk light for my turn to cross an intersection (while traveling on a bike path).
Cyclists are a frequent place for irrationally angry folks in cars to let out their anger.
But in my current country the riders ride on any road, sometimes on the side, sometimes as block of riders. It is more sporty type of riding rather than a commuter type of riding. Mixing it with cars cause a lot of stress to the car drivers because they have to slow or take over and be extra careful all the time. It is just annoying me both as a driver and as a bike rider. There is so much space on the footpath but I must ride on the road and try to keep up with much faster traffic.
If those drivers drive around smaller/slower cars do they get equally frustrated/angry?
Even if they do, what gives them the right too get angry at other participants in traffic that are legally using the road?
As to why in the US a lot more bike commuters are also into recreational biking, it's because of a feedback loop created in combination with bad bike supporting infrastructure and urban planning: the current situation means that in many places commuters have to share the road with cars, which means that only those that really like bike riding and/or are comfortable with a high level of stress/risk do it which, as it happens, it overlaps largely with the traits of those that enjoy recreational biking. With a lot of these riders on the road drivers get a sense of "these bikers are enjoying themselves and annoying me at the same time so they don't deserve respect" which further reinforces the current situation.
But as a driver, our resentment for bike commuters doesn't just come from entitlement (though somewhat, yes). It comes from fear, just like yours. I really don't want to accidentally kill anyone, and bikers are one of the only encounters in my daily life when I feel like that might happen.
I wish it were safer for bikers. Our infrastructure is terrible. The bike lanes are spotty and bad when they exist. Lane separation is more symbolic than physical.
I get that bikers want to be on the road anyway, and that conceptually, it should be a shared space. But the reality is that our roads are ill suited for the task, catastrophically and obviously dangerous, and people insist on trying it anyway because in principle, it should work.
It feels like bikers think they're the only ones shouldering the risk of having their lives destroyed if things go sideways. As a driver, that's not how it feels. Maiming or killing a biker would be strictly worse for the biker, but I'm not excited about living in the aftermath either. It feels like bikers increase the risk of a terrible thing happening to both of us.
For me, that's what makes it a moral gray area: bikers definitely have the environmental upper hand. But they do it by engaging in activity that is borderline reckless given the reality of American roads. I find it difficult to enthusiastically encourage that.
Open to having my views changed on this.
In the late 1970s-early 1980s when cyclists started calling for bike lanes and changes to laws, part of the deal was that cyclists would adopt smart habits AKA the rules of the road, that helped them become part of a shared car-bike system. Things like wearing helmets, signaling turns, riding in the same direction as traffic. A lot of the rules are designed to make cyclists' behavior less unpredictable and thus safer.
I see this system breaking down when cyclists do dumb things like riding the wrong way on a street and swerving across lanes. (I'm probably showing my age but I mostly notice this from fixed-gear cyclists).
As a mostly car driver myself now, I want to ensure that bikes are safe. But it requires the cooperation
I've never understood how riding in the same direction is safer. The rider can't see me, so it feels like I'm creeping up on them. I feel there should be some degree of coordination when a car is approaching a bike, some eye contact, you know? But that can't be done when they're riding in the same direction.
I've never ridden a bike in traffic before, but I'm sure I'd feel really nervous to have an unknown set of cars approaching me from behind and passing by me unexpectedly.
Is it about reducing the relative velocity between them? I'm sure it's still significantly high even when going in the same direction.
EDIT: Here, I'm mostly thinking in the context of highways. It may be that the rule makes more sense in a city- or suburban-like environment.
A driver needs to check both ways in a sequence, with the final visual check being for traffic in the incoming lanes they are about to enter or cross. They check for pedestrians coming the opposite way first, but the slow rate of pedestrian movement means that the conditions do not change dramatically while the driver attention switches to the opposite direction. However, a cyclist/skater/scooter flying into the picture from the blind side is at great risk of collision with the driver who is now checking the opposite direction and initiating their maneuver.
There would be many more of these normal bicyclists if they didn't have to choose between legal danger (on sidewalk) and extreme physical danger (on road).
As a third party observing several of these events, I noticed that the cyclist/scooter rider/skateboarder more often accelerates to attempt to make a stale light as well, quite the opposite of normal pedestrian patterns. This has only gotten worse in recent years, with many more people having motor-assisted wheeled contraptions and not a lot of common sense about their newfound speed.
Cyclists should use their best judgment as to whether the sidewalk or street would be safer in a given area but there are even areas in cities where it’s illegal to ride the bike on the sidewalk.
It does a huge disservice to less-athletic people who might benefit from bicycle use. These people are far too slow to be in the road. They really need to be on the sidewalk. They could go in the road opposite to traffic, pulling off whenever a car approaches. Either way, they would walk the bicycle through intersections.
The typical bicycle user is far more like a pedestrian than like a car, and ought to be legislated as such, but our laws were written for the most serious and dedicated bicycle users.
The vast majority of roads are ill suited for bikes in our area (Asheville NC). The roads are narrow, curvy, blind and there is rarely even a shoulder. Bikers are in danger so much I don't know how they stomach it. I see them a lot of side walks which just endangers pedestrians.
It seems they cause traffic build up (people wanting to pass safely) which just enrages drivers and want to lash out at these "idiots" for being on these kinda roads in the first place.
Also it should be mandatory for bikers to wear lights - not just reflectors - so as to be almost painfully visible. It's not difficult to put rear blinkers + front light on a bike.
> Open to having my views changed on this.
If you agree that a world with more cyclists would be better (for the environment, for safety, maybe for public health), how do you suggest we get there? Encouraging change towards a better world often requires swimming upstream, shouldering some stress and discomfort and pressure, in order to exert pressure back on the system one wants to change.
Nobody will build safer bicycle infrastructure if nobody rides bicycles.
It simply doesn't match the reality of how drivers behave.
First, motorists often just have no idea how to drive sensibly around bikes and do weird things that contravene road laws and common sense - not leaving any passing margin, passing way too close right before red lights, cutting off bikes that they've just overtaken to turn right.
Second, motorists will get aggressive and impatient with cyclists that are riding in the most perfectly considerate and legal way. I've seen motorists get irritated with cyclists if they get delayed more than a second or two. That happens all the time with other cars - if the car in front of you is turning, it's going to delay you the same amount as if you have to slow down to safely overtake a cyclist. It goes both ways too - some motorists get upset if you ride in a textbook manner (occupying a lane as needed, doing hook turns, etc) and some get upset if you don't do that (they think you should be riding in the gutter or the sidewalk or whatever).
Third, if you look around, you'll see cars breaking minor traffic laws more frequently than people. In my old neighbourhood I kept an eye on how often different vehicles blew through stop signs, and cars did it with frequency and in far more dangerous ways than bikes. Just look at the statistics about how many deaths are attributed to cars behaving badly versus bikes.
The only way I can explain it is two things. First, people get confused when they have to interact with cyclists, because they don't really know what they're doing, and as a result get frustrated and angry. Second, motorists are primed to be annoyed at cyclists because they're different. It's hard to get annoyed at the car in front of you delaying you by a few seconds by its simple presence, because you yourself are also a person in a car.
The complaints about cyclists doing this that and the other are red herrings - if cyclists stopped doing them, the people complaining would find another way to rationalize their frustration.
I think all road users should up their game, but it's cars that are the big problem.
From the biker's perspective, your driving a car on the road is increasing the risk of something bad happening to both of you.
I'm not disputing that you have no choice but to drive a car on the road, but it's quite possible that the biker is in the same situation.
My experience is that I used to bike often and now I don't. So this probably alleviates my surprise at say an inexperienced biker riding in the gutter, coming up on a parked car, and jutting out at the last minute. But a little bit of riding would get you this sense too - its probably the best way to change your perspective. It will also give you the superpower of knowing when a car is going to change lanes before it puts on its blinker.
When riding, my biggest worry was being creamed from behind on non-city roads where traffic is going much faster, and drivers tend to space out or expect to pass within inches. But this tension is totally on the specific drivers themselves, and the easy answer is for them to explicitly pass rather than viewing a bike as some kind of roadside decoration.
FWIW I wasn't a fan of bike lanes in general. They're redundant and constraining, creating an expectation that you'll ride in the door zone or through road hazards, backed up by a solid white line. I'd rather explicitly share the right lane with cars rather than have a fake division. (Well-done bike lanes like modern NYC obviously change this)
I love motorbikes. They are so cool. I don't need it, it is not practical for commute, it rains a lot where I live... yet I have one just to ride on weekends.
God forbid you like a vehicle with power, is fun to drive, or you have hobbies / activities which facilitate it.
Everyone's situation is different and many people live where they need a car to function. My commute averages about 2 hours each way by car. That would be 4 hours by bicycle according to Google Maps. Sorry, but there is nothing you can say that would convince me to spend 8 hours per day commuting by bicycle.
I'm sorry to hear that, hopefully you can fix it soon.
I wound up getting a Japanese kei truck [2]. It was under $4,000 to import, title, etc. It gets 50mpg (4.7 liters/100km) and carries 880 lbs (400kg) in the 4.5x6.5ft bed (1.4x2m). You could use a large-ish garden shed as a garage if you wanted.
It's really the perfect city utility truck if you are mainly a weekend warrior making trips to the hardware store, moving around plywood and tools, occasionally helping friends move apartments, etc. You can parallel park it damn near anywhere, turns on dime, and it's incredibly mechanically simple and easy to repair.
Only thing it lacks is modern safety features (for regulation reasons, it's only easy to import and drive trucks > 25 years old in the US). The one marginally common thing it can't do that a large modern pickup can is tow a boat (kei vehicles are limited to 63 horsepower).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Sambar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_T360
The few I did find were lovingly restored classics with a surprisingly high price tag.
I had a friend who mocked it relentlessly. "It's not much of a car, but then again it's not much of a truck either."
I guess I'll have to see if there's a place stateside that I can sit in one and maybe drive it around the parking lot for a minute.
This is great information!
I would like to dig in a bit deeper because I need a reliable work truck too.
So in California it's not impossible to find good quality trucks at a great price.
For example: My last truck purchase was a F350 7.3 Turbo Diesel for $1500
Why? Because it was a manual, the diff was busted, body's all dented, seats torn out and the doors did not work as it was run as a jobsite truck and the contractor wanted to get rid of it.
After fixing it up, the challenge became the ongoing registration and insurance fees in California which I had not taken into account.
The DMV in California classifies a F350 as a commercial truck.
As a result, you have to pay a much higher registration and insurance fees than what you would pay for a SUV or minivan.
Because of this, it's financially smarter to just rent trucks from Lowe's/HD/UHaul/CL for whenever I need it unless I'm using it more than 6 months per year - which I don't.
Now this $4k truck is new and welcome news to me, so thank you.
At 6' I'll probably fit a bit tight BUT how much could the registration and insurance fees in California be?
The same as a SUV?
Less?
Please, feel free to contact me please. I would love to continue this discussion
https://dolly.com/
Never used their service so I have no idea how it is.
I see a ton of little Rangers and S10s around town, but judging by how difficult it was to find my own, other people recognize how useful they are too! I think there are a lot of us who just want a small utilitarian vehicle, but when the Ranger was discontinued we lost that option in pickup format.
#iWorkForGM
I think the manufactures like building the bigger trucks cause they make more $$$, and most buyers are willing to take a bigger truck if the smaller ones aren't available. But, having owned a regular cab Ranger I bought new and now a regular cab S10; they're lovely vehicles as long as you don't need to carry people. Amazing visibility; no fiddly bits, and you don't have to worry about curbs or parking stops.
That is, consider a bare-bones light truck with MSRP of $18K. After the tax, it becomes 23K. You can get an F150 for 28K, so in America you might as well get the bigger truck. Whereas if it were $18K vs $28K that would draw some of the market towards the smaller imported truck. And if some of the market is drawn towards the import, domestic makers might be forced to compete (e.g. with the Ranger).
An F-150 with a long bed is expected to get 25.25mpg. The new Ranger is expected to get 30.25mpg. The F-150 actually gets 22, and the Ranger gets 26.
My understanding is that it's difficult to build a smaller truck that gets the required mileage. The result is that the new Ranger is the size of the F-150 from 15 years ago or so. You simply can't buy a compact pickup truck like the 90s Tacoma or Ranger.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy (scroll down to Agreed standards by model year, 2012–2025)
The new EU directive to hit 95g CO2/km is a much better regulation since it directly measures the goal: less carbon emitted. It also measures the fleet more directly, unlike CAFE that carves out tons of categories. It does allow for the double counting of EVs for a few years which incentivizes doing the R&D on EVs rather than paying penalties.
There have been efforts to change this, don't know their status.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV
Of the 3 new Ranger models the plain jane XL is the simple 2 door model, similar to the older Rangers. I haven't seen em much on the road, though, and haven't heard lots of good things. Not sure if that's cuz the 2019s were bad, or the market has shifted to the Big Stonkin Truck and no one wants to consider the smaller vehicles.
First off, the Rogue is considered a "compact crossover" and yet it has far more cargo space than the Murano or Pathfinder. I don't get names. It's like cars are named like video cards. So confusing.
Also, if I do want to go up in size, I have to go way up. And suddenly it won't fit comfortably in my garage. And it's annoying. I don't want a six cylinder engine. I don't want a tow kit. I just want a rogue with 20% more trunk so I can fit everthing a modern parent needs for a trip with two kids.
Sigh. Is it minivan time?
--Edit: Plus cops never pull you over
The tesla model s could pull itself into and out of the garage for almost 4 years now.
(in regard to the original article)
First, Jeep came out with a 4-door Wrangler. That became a mommiemobile SUV for the Hummer 2 crowd. Then customers wanted more "luxury" - entertainment systems, power windows, sound-deadening, always-on Internet. Now the base Wrangler is over $30K, and hard to get without options you don't need.
Husband and wife walk into the dealership wanting a new car. They're both now well paid and are looking to trade in the older of their two vehicles for an upgrade. One of them wants something more convenient for their new life in the suburbs, hauling around kids, etc. The other wants something fun, maybe sporty, maybe a convertible. The Jeep Wrangler lets them both compromise without compromising. It has two rows so it's great for kids. It's a convertible so you can put the top down. It's available with a manual. It has 4wd so it's good in snow. Etc. etc. No matter how disparate a couple's idea for what they want in a new vehicle odds are the 4dr Wrangler does a pretty decent job checking off things on their mental "must have" lists.
Now, anyone who's actually driven the Wrangler long term knows that those benefits I just rattled off aren't as cut and clear in reality but you also know that you didn't figure that out on the test drive and that it's still probably a nicer vehicle than whatever it replaced.
What I'm getting at is that having every possible feature known to man dovetails perfectly with this strategy of letting people buy the vehicle they want while also convincing their SO they're buying the vehicle they want.
The benefit is pretty simple - they are bigger. I have a Prius and a Mazda CX-9 (somewhere from a mid-size to large SUV). I also have a wife and three kids. For daily use the Prius is fine, but if we go on vacation and there are 1.5 or so items of luggage per person, the Prius really doesn't work any more and we need to take the SUV.
The article claims that American garages "tend to be seven or eight feet high." The article also mentions a women whose F-150 doesn't fit in her garage. The tallest 2020 F-150 I can find is 6' 6.5". I found a 2020 Silverado that's nearly 6' 8". Where are these unmodified trucks that aren't fitting in 7 foot garages?
Hooboy. This author is not a car enthusiast. That's on the very small end of the big-truck power spectrum.