The worst part with all these big trucks is the bed is significantly higher requiring much more effort to actually put anything in.
You're not only looking like a dumbass you actually are one.
Honestly this. I had one of these that replaced my old Dodge van at work, and I hated it because all my equipment was much more of a pain in the ass to get in and out.
That's something i often wonder--how do they manage to load stuff in/out? I'll always remember a woodshop class i took and someone asked me to help lift a chicken coop they built into their truck. It was heavy af to begin with but the extra height to put it into his big/tall truck made it a much more difficult task. It's just stupid, really--no benefit i can see and further drawbacks seem inevitable ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe they are more manly than you give them credit for?
If it’s hard for you to throw something in the bed of a truck you should hit the gym.
@SqueakyBeaver @ji17br Funny how such items enter chats a lot more frequently than they enter the bed of the typical suburban driver’s pickup truck.
The comparison is kinda unfair. The big truck has a wider bed, bigger tires and more power. It also seats more people. So it is able to get more load through more difficult terrain. However we can be quite sure it won't be used in that way.
I've never seen one with wear and tear and/or dirt that would indicate difficult terrain. Those only leave the city in advertisements.
There's a few in the country around here. The ones with dirt on them are almost exclusively the Toyota Hilux, though
up to but not including 7th gen hilux is more in line with what I would consider a reasonable truck design. I'd give them a pass before 2004 or so. The bulbous round ones, if people actually use them off the streets then it probably won't offend me to see them on the road but personally I'd just have a small car for day to day and only use the truck for what I bought it for, storage insurance when I don't need it. I'm still too scared of having my bike stolen to commit to no car it turns out. Some places are just too sketchy.
Are you around forestry, oil drilling, or similar sites? Obv most are fleet stock simple (with decent tires), but the 4 door, white truck with a V8 is ubiquitous when you need 4 grouchy dudes to effectively live out of it for a whole day, plus all their equipment and food. It's hilarious how much shit these trucks hold and get anywhere with a 2 track
That truck isn't this truck though. That truck is dirty, dinged and always in use. The part of this truck that gets used the most is the entertainment system.
Well of course not this one with all the candy. But same frame, same class of engine, same door configuration, etc.
The tonneau cover is usually there because A) they do mostly highway mikes and want the improved mileage resulting from reduced drag, and B) they rarely use the bed, as those covers are a PITA unless you only remove it once in a great while.
I live in Central America where its mostly little trucks owned by workers, and they often drive on mud roads and hard terrain. The only people with trucks like the black one in the picture are US expats with ...particular political leanings.
Nearly every tonneau cover folds or rolls up. Outright removal is a pain, but using the bed isn’t.
The factory standard cover rolls up in about 30 seconds.
that only happens when actual working people buy it used, maybe a decade down the line, to do actual work.
unless the owner does a full handwash, clay, compound, and wax every time, there is no way the trucks I'm seeing in my region are washed off road vehicles.
it won’t be used in that way.
However, there is (or was) an additional product for faking off-road activity: Spray-on mud for giving a justification to need such a car.
In a way I almost prefer that to the blatant posers I see driving around with huge lifts and offroad tires looking spotless in our muddy season out here. I was at the combo laundromat/carwash the other day watching one of them wash an already clean truck while I was thinking about the massive mud puddle I'd be driving through to get home.
My brother in law has a truck like the one on the right. That backseat area is huge. You could stop and have a picnic back there during a road trip.
I can't imagine owing it. It looks dumb to me and it's far too big for normal use. But he's a cross country hauler, so it's not a big truck to him.
And they have three kids, so I doubt he gives af about pp showmanship.
Yeah.
Sure, most people with a big truck don't need one.
That said, the capabilities of the bigger truck far exceed that of the Suzuki.
The majority of trucks i see are driven by a guy in a perfectly clean dress shirt, carries a fancy bag for papers and they work an office job. Their justification is often something along a couple potholes on their rural road just outside of town (so they dont have to pay as much property taxes to fit potholes). They moved a fridge once for their kid 5 years ago so that paid for the truck in their mind.
The majority of these things are ego boosts. Hence why they tailgate, rollcoal, have loud exhausts and can be covered in sexist/racist/religious stickers. Its all about look at me for most of these trucks.
Amazing.
I'm not defending any of these people.
My point is, the two vehicles pictured have dramatically different capabilities.
I have yet to see a big truck carrying more than a ton of things, and I'm near home depot often. These trucks are capable of 800lb which should be fine for most people. I'd love a vehicle where if I found something I liked I could pick it up while still being a viable economical daily driver.
How did society even function without these big ass trucks. They are so capable and essenti.
The one on the left is used by people who need to carry things. The one of the right is used by losers.
What about people who need extra room for a child's car seat (they're huge nowadays) and also need to carry stuff the way a truck does?
Edit: I live out in the country and I'm in need of a pickup for carrying loads of stuff. Putting it in the back of my Ford Edge is highly inconvenient as it doesn't fit in one load and messed up the interior (the sides of the trunk are scratched to hell now.
And my point was simply that there are entirely legitimate uses for a pickup truck. 98% of people don't have a legitimate use case, but that didn't mean no one does.
seriously, americans are fucking delusional with what the requirements of life are, 90% of the rest of the world does just fine with regular-sized cars.
I live out in the country. We don't get garbage pickup. The garbage dump is very close to my child's daycare. It's 20 minutes away. It's open from 8am to 4:30pm, Monday to Friday. I either bring the garbage with me when I go to daycare, or I have to schedule time off from work to take out garbage.
I have a Ford Edge, so no, a minivan wouldn't work. To be clear, it's not impossible. But a truck would be 10x more convenient.
Thats a reasonable use case for a truck. The majority of hate I have for trucks are for more city based people who claim they totally need it when they maybe move something 2-3 times a year.
That said, a small trailer could probably handle your garbage behind an SUV or capable car. Although it would still require more parking than the truck so the benefits overall are arguable.
This obviously varies based on where you live, but using a trailer where I'm at incurs a ton of extra costs: *Landfill charges extra when using a trailer to bring your trash. *Tollway charges extra for the trailer *State charges annual property tax on the trailer Granted, I have an '04 regular cab Chevy Colorado (before they started making them as huge as half tons of years past), but I'm dreading the day it dies. There are no small pickups available anymore (Santa Few and Maverick's 4.5' bed is worthless for my use case).
A trailer isn't out of the question, it just adds a whole new level of inconvenience. It's extra time to move the car, hook up the trailer, verify the electrical is working (I always check left-right-breaks-4way whenever I connect a trailer), then parking the trailer, disconnecting it, then parking the car. I know it doesn't sound like much, but that time quickly adds up, and it can get 35+ in the summers and -30 in the winters (Celsius). When getting the kid ready to leave for daycare it's easier to load up in the relatively comfortable garage. I know that's a first world problem, but a truck would just simply all of that.
To be clear, I'm not getting a truck because they're as expensive as a sports car now, but the point stands.
Yes you like the convenience of it. Noones saying they aren't convenient. Its not only about your personal convenience, because cars affect everyone nearby.
Theres a reason they cost so much, and will continue to raise as the price gets closer to its actual cost to create and use one.
And I know you know this, because you ended the post saying that if you didnt have the truck now, you wouldn't buy another one. Have you actually thought this through or is it just some automatic cognitive dissonance reaction from owning a truck?
you ended the post saying that if you didnt have the truck now, you wouldn't buy another one
Have you actually thought this through or is it just some automatic cognitive dissonance reaction from owning a truck?
I think it has more to do with your reading comprehension and thinking I said anywhere that I own a truck.
•
How size of your truck is compared to Lada Granta? Because my grandparents drove it with driver + 3 adults + child me + stuff including garbage from dacha.
Well, for one, I don't have a truck. Too expensive.
Second, child care seats in North America were revised recently to be larger so that they can protect children better.
To put it in context, putting a child seat in my 2013 Jetta makes it so that the front passenger can barely fit. Anyone over 5' 6" has to srunch their legs to fit.
The Jetta claim is weird because I fit a 6’ adult comfortably in the passenger seat of my GTI with the car seat in the back.
How big is your car seat?
I don't know the exact dimensions, but it's big enough that I actually had to get rid of my 2015 golf because the front passenger seat became unusable. And I'm not exaggerating. The car seat barely fit with the front seat pushed all the way forward and leaned forward past vertical.
I know this is a common complaint with parents in the past few years in Canada. I don't know if child car seat regulations are different at all in the US. I don't think they are, I'm just not sure.
You live out in the country, you clearly didn't grow up in the country.
I grew up in the country, we had a truck with a full sized bed and a bench. You put the baby seat in the middle of the bench, strap it down like you do in the car and a lap belt and you pick up your chicken feed with your kid in the truck. Ain't rocket science here and you don't need to have a crew cab and a worthless short bed to do things out there.
Shit dude, if you're worried about scratches to your vehicle, maybe you should move back to the suburbs.
But I don't have a truck.
if you're worried about scratches to your vehicle,
I said "mess up the interior" with "leaky garage bags". But yes, the inside is scuffed also.
maybe you should move back to the suburbs.
Thanks for gatekeeping where I live, you clearly know everything about me.
WTF do you expect when you post anonymously about "needing" a gigantic truck with a extended cab and a tiny worthless truck bed because you have a kid in a car seat and don't have the sense to know that if you actually grew up in the country, you'd damn well know you can strap in a car set in on a truck bench.
And here's another judgement, it's a pretty piss poor excuse for trying to justify "needing" once again a huge, wasteful, dumb short bed truck because you have a car seat and have a want to haul a few bags of trash. Ever heard of double bagging? Or a trailer? Or if you did grow up in the country, a burn barrel?
You're right that I don't know everything about you, I only know what you share on a anonymous social media board, and what I have read so far, you sure do sound like one of those suburban transplants wasting good farmland.
do you expect when you post anonymously about "needing" a gigantic truck with a extended cab
I never said "need" once.
Ever heard of double bagging?
Cause THAT'S environmentally friendly.
Or a trailer?
A bunch of assumptions there.
a burn barrel?
LMAO, that'd be a helluva fast way to get fined around here. I'm in the "country", but it's not in the middle of nowhere. It's a neighborhood built just a bit out from a small town of 5000 people. It's "country", but kind of isn't at the same time. I have to register with the county each time I want to have a fire in the fire pit. And burning garbage is a fast way to get in crap. And not to mention monumentally stupid.
Pretty sad that you feel you have to put so much effort and so many words to justify why you shouldn't be a suburbanite like you should be.
I mostly agree with the fact that most people who have pickup trucks don't actually need them.
That being said, the only thing sad in this comment section is how much energy you are wasting to gatekeep this one person's 'countryness', just because they posted a random comment.
This still doesn't matter make sense. Lots of people have multiple kids and/or a spouse. Manufacturing more vehicles just to please your ego is not the economical or environmentally friendly thing to do.
This doesn't make any sense. You live out in the country, you're probably going to need a truck. You aren't going to haul horse shit, lime, a crap ton of chicken feed, or water for your cistern in a car or even a SUV. But you should be buying a vehicle that actually fits the work being done and if it's a small truck then buy a small truck and not giant penis extender with no ability to haul a damn thing.
if it's a small truck then buy a small truck and not giant penis extender with no ability to haul a damn thing.
Ok, so is this whole discussion a misunderstanding?
I'm saying "there are valid uses for a truck" and (from what I thought) everyone else is saying "all trucks are bad, you don't need a truck".
But now you're saying that the discussion is explicitly the exact truck that's in the photo and small trucks are ok? Is that what you're saying?
Could be. I'm not in the camp of all cars are bad.
The whole discussion about the, in my opinion, worthless truck in the picture and when you state you have a car seat without clarification about a ute or a compact truck, then it's assumed you're talking about the need for one of those dumb things that all suburbanites seem to want and buy.
And I'm not saying that just blanket small truck ownership is okay either, I'm of the opinion you should buy the car that fits what you need and wish we had a society and cities that could get me to not even driving day to day. So to me even a guy that lives in a small town only to drives to and from work only and never hauls a thing still doesn't need a small truck that gets crappy gas mileage.
Well, I can't shove drywall, leaking smelly garbage, construction scrap, etc into a Ford Edge without seriously messing up the inside. So that kind of way.
What an absolutely bonkers suggestion. Do you legitimately think this solves the problem?
If someone actually did this, strapped drywall, leaking garbage bags, and other random garbage on top of their vehicle, there would be a post on here so fucking fast calling the driver a moron.
You can't make this argument while also stating in other comments that a truck is too expensive.
I'm not arguing that. You have a fair point.
But my argument about a use case for a truck isn't about MY truck (I don't have one), it was merely about the valid use for owning a truck.
I'm getting by right now by wrecking the inside of my car (it's already done). I looked at getting a roof rack, but the quote I got was around $1400. But that only would help with getting new drywall. Not broken up garbage drywall, and wouldn't help with bags of garbage.
•
would be over $1000.
How?
on my car
Although maybe your car doesn't have rack mounts from factory. For lada it's about 20€ and tightening few bolts.
Yes cause body shaming is OK as long as it's making fun of people you don't like. Let's call the guy a fag also
My guy you are the only one dropping slurs here.
But more to the point, I am comfortable with my incredibly tiny penis, which is why I don't have a truck.
If micropenis (something people are born with and can't change even if they wanted to because of ridicule) isn't a slur than neither is fag (something people are born with and can't change even if they wanted to because of ridicule)
Catch up
A tax on vehicle axle weight proportional to the damage done to roads (which goes up exponentially with weight).
Vehicle fee based on some combination of size, weight, and miles driven would be the fairest.
Miles driven is just taken care of in fuel taxes. Sales tax on size, yearly tax based on weightwould be perfect I think.
That's a real man's truck. Air conditioned, soft suspension, big boi so scary big truck don't scare, brightest lights because corners scary, 4 seats cos wife is scary, big tyres because tools are scary, big tank because human interaction is scary.
The thought of someone getting a 4 seater truck purely because they are so terrified of their own wife that he only feels safe when she is in the back seat of a car
that's why I ride a bike.
I could get away with a unicycle if it weren't for my MASSIVE SCHLONG requiring support and it's easier that way than getting two unis.
Traditionally bikes for women had the horizontal stabilizing bar much lower probably to account for dresses and the like, but the differences has been slightly washed out over the years.
The top bike is referred to as the "lady bike", as you've said, but for any external viewers, the top bike is probably a better choice for city bike in general. There's the point about not having to swing your leg around when mounting and dismounting the bike, true, but the bike also promotes an upright seating position as opposed to a totally horizontal, leaned down, motorcycle like position, which will be more comfortable for long ride periods for most riders, at the cost of aerodynamics. The bottom bike is extreme overkill for most uses, but it's also the bike you're going to probably see most often in the US outside of mountain bikes, since nobody tends to commute on bike here.
I drove pickup trucks for years. Most people probably don't realize is how much higher the operating cost is compared to smaller vehicles, even if they know that it's generally higher. The first hybrid I bought was a Prius about a decade ago and when I finally looked at the difference in the cost of fuel and maintenance, it was not insignificant.
There's plenty of legit reasons to need a pickup but outside of that, you're just throwing your money away. Nowadays our Sienna Hybrid minivan has a hitch receiver on it so I can hook the trailer up to it if I need to haul something big. I haven't needed a truck in a long time.
I think you’re making up crap. Or at least you’re comparing an old vehicle to a new one.
My truck costs the exact same to maintain as all of the other vehicles I’ve owned. Gas usage is worse than a Prius, but pretty much inline with most SUV.
There’s really not anything that’s materially more expensive to maintain in a truck than any other car.
The is no way your parts and materials for maintaince are the same cost as a smaller average car. The shocks are bigger, the brake parts are bigger, the tires are bigger, the engine has a higher oil capacity, the vehicle is probably more valuable so the insurance premium is probably higher.
Oil change costs the same in my truck as every other vehicle.
None of the other parts are materially different in cost over the life of a vehicle. The size difference is trivial compared to the cost of manufacturing, distributing, and selling. If you’re paying for labor, the price difference is even proportionally smaller.
These are all items you change 2 or 3 times over the life of a vehicle. The truck part being 20% more expensive doesn’t add up to a drastic difference in overall cost of ownership.
You can think whatevever you want. A conventional gas job requires 2 to 3 oil changes to every 1 on a hybrid, depending on if you're changing it every 3k or 5k miles. Plugs and wires, brake pads, coolant, etc. also require more frequent replacement on conventional vehicles. I would know and I've got the financial records to back it up.
I would also know. I’m driving a hybrid truck right now.
I truly think you’re comparing an old car to a modern one. None of the stuff you listed needed changing with any regularity, one any modern car.
Could changed happen every 9k miles, brake pads are entirely usage based (going 80k+ miles on original), coolants might get changed once in the 200k lifetime of the truck, etc, etc, etc.
If you got a newer car, all those things would still last just as long but be cheaper to maintain and replace because the parts would usually be smaller and require less materials.
Put the parts are within, like 10% of each other.
“Size” really isn’t a major factor in pricing of most products.
If you're worried about making the cab bigger and comfier, you don't need a truck.
There are no arguments to this and no one has a point against me here. If cab space is the concern, you need a minivan or SUV.
Blanket statement with impunity incoming. Combining these vehicles is a bad idea. For safety and efficiency. If you think this is a good idea in any possible way, you're simply incorrect.
You're just buying an SUV with a truck bed attached because your little balls say you want a "manly" vehicle.
You wouldn't put a hitch on a moped. Don't put a bed on a SUV.
Extending the length of a vehicle past the point where a hitch makes it longer than a parking space should be a "first offense your company is due down immediately" kind of offense first of all. The amount of these hitches blocking sidewalks and handicap accessibility spaces is absolutely bonkers.
Why don't we have a president type of office that doesn't mess with politics or international affairs, they just have nationwide power for common sense stuff like banning pickups simply being used as passenger vehicles, curbing attempts to overgrow parking spaces, and probably a bunch of other stuff too.
Also, I have a great idea for a whole new tax. :)
Let's make an industry out of dining these people to the point where only businesses use trucks. Regular people can rent them easily enough to move between apartments or what have you, but these should never have been general use daily drivers.
Let's just crush and compact the entire pickup truck industry to an incredibly tiny fraction of what it is now.
You wouldn’t put a hitch on a moped
My dude, I put a hitch on a scooter. My little trailer kicks ass. Well, it did before it was stolen, but that's besides the point.
Trailers are great! You can tow with minivans, cars, suvs and trucks. Trailers typically are easier to load, have more capacity and can be a lot longer than a truck bed.
Contractors get most of their building supplies delivered by flat bed trucks anyways.
You are definitely wrong, there is a market for it. It’s clearly not as big as it currently is, but there are absolutely people that families and work some sort of construction or farming job where a truck is necessary, and carrying more than 3 people comfortably is also necessary. And two vehicles is also not feasible.
That market is astronomically smaller than the amount of these large pickups with huge cabs being sold.
Yes, that’s what I said. Doesn’t change the fact that the market does in fact exist, unlike the comment I replied to was claiming.
I mean, fuck, I own a bar and need a pickup truck simply because how else am I gonna return 250 empty cases of beer to recycling? I ain't putting that smell in an enclosed van and if I got an open trailer, I'd need a truck to tow it anyways. (I actually do have a van, I use it in winter and rainy days for picking up full beer cases, doesn't have near the weight capacity of the truck although using the same motor and getting similar mileage)
Okay…so you need a truck to haul beer cans. What’s wrong with the simple low-profile one for that job?
The criticism is on freak hybrid SUV-trucks.
Do you know how much 250 empty cases of 24 bottles weighs? Its a lot more than the little one can hold. I had to construct 2x4 stake panels up to the height of the roof as it was with a full size long bed, in order to avoid making 3 trips (twenty miles to the depot), and it would take five with that little truck that can't even hit highway speed. It also can't tow my fifth wheel camper. (From 1983, before I get the rich person problems accusation. I ain't rich, I'm rural and handy enough buy old shit cheap)
I’d need a truck to tow it anyways.
Common misconception, but you do not, and a folding trailer hooked up to a car with a tow rating capable of pulling it takes up much less overall space when it's folded up than the truck will most of the time. You'll also probably get better gas mileage, which is a bonus, plus better pedestrian safety, less force going into a car crash which collectively makes everyone on the road safer, and makes it safer to crash into stationary objects, decreased roadwear, things of this nature. This sort of trailer setup is done all the time in europe, as another comment concurs.
I'm not putting 3000 lbs of beer bottles on a trailer behind a (modern) car. It's borderline unsafe and over car capacity. You're talking to a CDL holder, I do know s thing or two about pulling trailers. Cars domt have full frames anymore, that's only one of the many reasons this bad idea
3000 lbs is well within the towing capacity of a VW Golf with a braked trailer. Not to mention a van.
LOL. I just looked up tongue weight max on a golf. 300 pounds. They're literally useless and dangerous for towing anything over 1000lbs.
Said three thousand pound load, that does not include the trailer. Gross weights gonna be 4500, 5000 ish. Vans are generally pickup truck drivelines this continent, so no real difference there for mileage.
No difference in mileage, maybe. Certainly a huge difference in danger to pedestrians and cyclists.
In addition, suvs are also unnecessary and unneeded.
You want a cross country vehicle? Get a jeep or a Suzuki samurai or a Unimog. You want to flaunt your wealth and show everyone how big you are on the road? Buy a tram company and lobby your city to install it. If you can't do that, you're not wealthy enough and have no right to flex.
I agree about SUVs actually, but that's a different argument. That one is more opinionated, whereas I can't even fathom this ones being arguable.
When I had to buy a truck I didn't really care that the A/C and radio didn't work. I didn't care that the interior was stained and uncomfortable. I didn't care that the ride was rough and noisy. I didn't even care that much that it got bad gas mileage, as I wouldn't be driving it much.
I needed a truck for truck stuff. I'm not gonna buy a truck with a leather interior when I'm normally covered in dirt when I'm using it. I don't need it to look big and manly because I just need it to haul garbage and tow livestock trailers. And I definitely don't want to pay $70,000 for something I'm going to use it offroad.
Stating in your argument "there are no arguments to this" highlights up front how close-minded you are to discussion on the subject. It's perfectly acceptable to discuss things you strongly believe in while still allowing yourself to be open-minded about opposing views. In fact, I would say it is required for honest discourse to occur.
In my personal experience, I have one of these vehicles with a comfortable and spacious cab. It allows me to have one vehicle for all the tasks that come with a sheep and pig farm, and also allows us to transport our large family comfortably to and fro. I would like my family to be comfortable while riding in our vehicle, which is equally able to perform various work functions related to farming and transport a family. Why would we purchase and maintain two separate vehicles for these purposes when a single option exists?
Corn, wheat, and other farmers have separate vehicles to accomplish the tasks necessary for their farms, e.g. a combine harvester, seeder, iriggator, etc. I know they also have large spacious trucks as well, but my point is that it is feasible to expect an agricultural business owner, or any buisness owner, to have different commercial equipment for different tasks related to their industry. Besides, whereas all the people who need pickups for their business have them, not all pickup owners need their vehicles for business. I see many, many large pickups parked in residential areas of the city and around the suburbs. The closest most of those people get to agribusiness is going to the grocery store. That's the second point, if you don't absolutely need a large truck for business, you shouldn't use one for your everyday driver. Imagine if big rigs were affordable for most everyone and people used them for daily driving.
While I agree that farmers can have specialized vehicles for different tasks, not all do. We farm sheep, pigs, chickens, and ducks and do not have specialized equipment. We don't even have a tractor. I also don't disagree that people who don't have a use for trucks don't need them, but I wouldn't go to far as to say they shouldn't have them. While objectively worse for the environment than a vehicle more suitable to their lifestyles, it's a slippery slope (as we've seen) once we start legislating morality.
Bottom line: if we didn't operate a farm business, we wouldn't have a need for or the desire to have a large truck. More likely, any truck at all. We certainly wouldn't have one to park in the driveway of the suburban house we would probably live in. It's just impractical, but not everyone is gifted with innate pragmatism.
commonly held misconception, laws in fact just spontaneously come into existence and we have no choice but to follow and enforce them (except for rich people, who are inherently better people and thus are able to disobey the law without consequence)
While I absolutely despise the rise of dumbass suburban cowboys, making it to require a business to own one is kind of stupid. I mean growing up in farm land, you do often need a truck to do things like grab manure or lime, picking up feed, or the occasional carcass.
You could tax based on vehicle weight and vehicle type instead of a stupid, outdated gas tax and that could actually put a curb on this type of dumbass penis extender behavior. Maybe lesson it depending on where you're registering it, farmland zoned and registered under gets less tax but I honestly think that unless you fix the stupid bro country, wanna be cowboy culture that leads to this suburban cowboy dumbfuckery, you're honestly not going to make much of a dent even with taxes.
While I would be in favor of making vehicle sizes regulated we already have that but thanks to the requirement of dealerships and the lobbying from the big 3 tmcars here in America have minimum sizes rather than maximum sizes so if anything I believe it to be more ideal to break regulations so cheap affordable cars can finally be legal to build, sell and import
We had a quad cab Nissan Navarra (Frontier) working forestry. Four guys in the cab. Saws, petrol, oil, gear, tools, wire and fence posts in the bed. Fantastic vehicle, got everywhere. Could haul serious weight when needed. It was a tool that became a battered jalopy. We’d leave it in the yard every night. I’d take the train home, my mate cycled and the other two guys somehow squeezed into a Smart car as they shared a lift. We were all insured to drive it on public roads 24/7 but none of us saw the point. Great vehicle in its arena but a hindrance and inconvenience outside of it.
This is stupid. Why should a blue collar worker with a family have to buy and drive two different vehicles just because of your personal preferences. Building two vehicles is no doubt worse for the planet than making one slightly less efficient vehicle. This is especially true if we are talking about EVs which are the future of trucks this size.
They are pointing out that you have alternatives, just like the rest of the worlds blue collar workers. Americans seem to weigh their personal comfort higher than nearly anything.
Are cars like this not sold in Europe? Their popularity in USA has much more to do with USA vehicle regulations than anything else.
The regulations are in place to maximize profit, so they make huge expensive luxury trucks.
In my experience, a large group of truck owners buy them purely for luxury. They are absurdly expensive vehicles, its impossible to justify buying them unless they fill all roles so they are now the family vehicle, grocery getter, daily driver, vacation vehicle, etc.
The two cars we own combined, brand new, totaled up to 40k, but we bought them used for a total of 20k. Thats easily 30k+ I could spend on a whole other vehicle, a trailer, modifications to my existing vehicles, or whatever else would make sense for a number of use cases.
Ego and status drive a lot of luxury truck sales, mainly because I dont know many blue collar workers that want to spend extra on an interior thats going to get destroyed from regular use anyhow. And the tiny beds dont help.
One of them tows 12000 and can get on the highway and not die. The other has a payload capacity of 1500lbs.
What a dumb comparison. I own a Kei.
Except the people who own the monster trucks never carry more than 1500 lbs and rarely take it on the highway.
A little off the topic, but sometimes I wonder if driving a rally car with a cage, 5 point seatbelts and a helmet will be more safe on a highway. Like it seems to me that it is safer, but will it actually be?
It would be better able to handle a severe crash, but pretty inconvenient and pointless.
You can put a full and spec cage, bucket seats, and a 5 point harness in any car. You don't need to go full racecar and take the interior out. You would need to wear a helmet, Hans device, and the full 5-point every time you drive the car because an otherwise survivable accident could kill you. You would also probably want a fire suppression system because a fire in a damaged car may not be escapable after you get hit without help.
You would be giving up airbags and visibility. Airbags can save you as much as a cage could. Visibility could prevent the accident in the first place. The cage and whatnot wouldn't save you from a catastrophic wreck, but a serious accident would be more survivable.
You might as well just not drive on the highway or don't get in a car at all if you are so concerned about your safety. Don't want a baby, use protection. Terrified about having a baby and don't think that protection is adequate, get sterilized or don't fuck.
It’d be safer, but it wouldn’t be very comfortable. Rally cars have very barebones interiors to cut down on weight. You’d also need different tires and tuning.
Except the people who own the monster trucks never carry more than 1500 lbs and rarely take it on the highway.
All of them? Like every single one?
You might be shocked to know that fitting a family of four plus vacation gear quickly approaches 1.5k.
Payload capacity includes how much people weigh. It’s not just how much you can throw in the bed.
That's either a very heavy family or a lot of vacation gear! You would need all 4 people to be around 300lbs to start getting close.
That comparison is the point, isn't it? The amount of people owning the large truck model is significantly larger than the amount of people who need to regularly haul more than 1500 lbs.
But the one on the left wouldn't pass US fuel economy standards, which are based on vehicle footprint since 2012.
That's the reason the Ranger etc were discontinued for a while, and when they returned were bigger than the old F-150s.
It's so the reason the small cargo vans (Nissan NV200, Ford Transit Connect, and Ram Promaster City) were all discontinued in the last 2 years. CAFE standards increase over time, and it's easier to just make bigger cars.
Its also in my opinion, a complete failure of the EPA and a disconnect from what it's true goals should be. The marketing trends show that bigger vehicles (which have more leneient standards and can guzzle more fuel) have been sold more and more since these standards, all to the benefit of oil companies selling gas to fill the bigger tanks and the benefit of auto makers enjoying higher price margins on bigger vehicles. Once again the hand of capitalism and the "free market" prioritizing profits over everything.
Everyone blames EPA while forgetting two things.
The manufacturers chose to do this; no regulations prevent them from making a vehicle like the one on the left that meets the new standards. They're just evading the standards.
Politicians of all walks allow regulatory capture, so almost all regulations are influenced by the people that should be regulated, making them useless or easy to evade.
It was a misguided reaction to the last round of CAFE fuckery.
The manufacturers started putting hatchback options as the standard kit on a bunch of models so they could classify them as lite trucks. So instead of basing standards on vehicle classification, the EPA changed it to vehicle footprint.
What that resulted was the subcompact trucks and cargo vans being held to the same efficiency standards as small cars, which really isn't fair.
Yeah, Ford now sells a small truck with a hybrid engine and a 4-ft bed, but it has a towing capacity of 2,000 pounds as opposed to the old Ranger's 6,000.
Yeah, it does 40 instead of 27 mpg, but the smallest truck that can actually haul plywood or tow a trailer big enough to be useful now has 23mpg. It's a net loss in fuel economy because small vehicles are required to be designed around hauling passengers, not cargo.
Its also in my opinion, a complete failure of the EPA and a disconnect from what it’s true goals should be. ... Once again the hand of capitalism and the “free market” prioritizing profits over everything.
I see a contradiction here.
Somebody designed a regulation without using their brain (or using to wrong ends), but apparently capitalism is to blame.
But you can still legally buy older Kei trucks in the U.S.
And they're affordable.
https://boekiusa.com/inventory/new-jersey/paterson/all-vehicles/available
Not too many dealers specialize though.
But the one on the left wouldn’t pass US fuel economy standards, which are based on vehicle footprint since 2012.
Bigger cars consume more fuel.
Yes, but the regulation is a "amount of fuel per weight of vehicle". In absolute terms it's more.
It's like when you're buying produce. $10 for 10 strawberries ($1.00 per berry) and $15 for 20 strawberries ($0.75 per berry). The $15 option is "only" $0.75 per berry, but it's also just more money in total.
Can it truly be considered intended when Congress just signs the bills ALEC pays them to sign? I guess ALEC intends it.
If the purpose is to sell more expensive trucks and SUVs then the bill has been wildly successful.
A lot of people who buy trucks these days just need something that can tow a travel trailer or a boat to their favorite camp site a few times a year. It's not that they need a truck on a day to day basis, but they might need the towing capability on occasion. That's why these trucks are a weird combination of luxury sedan (with their leather seats and high end interiors) and pickup truck. Most of the time they use it like a regular car, but sometimes they might need the towing capability.
Rental companies, at least in America, have policies against using their vehicles to tow things.
In addition the truck in front has to be imported to the US and there's weird regulations about purchasing them so you can only buy used. As far as I know you can't import a new model. If a car is newer than 25 years old it can not be imported unless it meets the requirements of US Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/importing-vehicle/importation-and-certification-faqs
These all sound like regulatory, issues. Nothing that can't be fixed with a minimal amount of political goodwill.
I think it is regulatory. However getting US politicians to do what's right is never trivial. It would take the legislative branch to change the regulations, while likely ignoring lobbyists within the automotive industry. It's fixable but it won't be fixed.
Michigan is an important swing state, and the UAW is a major political player nationally. Ironically, that doesn't stop the US automakers from routinely screwing over auto workers and labor in general.
Part of the issue there is that for a large number of people the 'few times a year' are major holidays when everybody else wants to tow their house-sized RV and boat to the lake for a day or two. The rental fleet just isn't big enough to service the surge demand.
Your Subi wouldn't be able to pull some of these American travel trailers. Many of them are absolutely massive, they're like a luxury condo on wheels.
We have no sense of reasonable proportion here in the US. Everything must be unnecessarily large and unwieldy, gaudy and exorbitant. Bigger is always better here in the good 'ol US of A.
some of these American travel trailers
Can't forget the boat! For reference, while this isn't typical, it's not uncommon. That's a pretty small travel trailer and boat. I've seen this setup with much bigger trailers and boats several times.
Not uncommon at all. My cousin had a giant fifth wheel, and he would often pull his four wheelers behind it.
Literally planning to buy a truck for when I need it and I'd still make it a daily driver if needed.
Kei trucks feel like they'd be a perfect alternative to a gator. They appear to be cheaper too even considering importation.
That is amazing and I need one. Unfortunately I don't think threads are great for paved roads, so I doubt the government will let me drive one to the DIY store.
Unfortunately I don’t think threads are great for paved roads,
It depends on the type of tread, some are made to run on roads, some really aren't, or just kind of tear up roads. It's the same principle as running chains or studs on your tires when you're not in the winter or not in the mud. If you have rubber pads for contact on your tread, it could probably be better considering the load is spread out much more compared to the relatively small contact patch of a tire. The problem is that you're gonna outweigh that gain with the larger amount of emissions it's gonna take you to go anywhere on account of your treads not being as efficient.
•
If it's an actual work truck, that backseat is filled with tools that you can't have out on the bed. I do doubt it's a work truck though.
Hence why most smart labourers and contractors use a cargo van. No pesky seats blocking access and taking up space. Lots of customizeable room in the back for storage and shelves. Tall vans you can even walk inside and use a workbench. Many vans also have a decent towing capacity. Bed height is typically lower on a van, making heavier items easier to load. A lot of the same items people typically fit in truck beds can fit in the back of the van with the added benefits of being out of sight of thieves, being protected from weather and dirt, possibly even being heated or cooled if required.
A truck bed is way better for transporting potential dangerous vapors, like gasoline or welding gases.
You don’t want that stuff venting off in the interior space of a van.
That could be solved with an adequate partitiion installed (partition seperates the cab from the cargo). Many places require a work van to have a partition to prevent tools from entering the cab area when driving. The partition could be made to be comepletely air tight blocking fumes from the back. A sparkless ventilation system could even be installed if required.
This all may sound like an expensive upfront cost but it sounds worth it to keep expensive welders and such dry from rain and clean from road dirt.
It's not like the beds are the same size. Length sure, but don't you know that girth is what mattera for your dick replacements?
•
Not including the wheel well the Isuzu should be about 47 in. The F-150 is about 42. Including the wheel well it's like 50 on the Isuzu and 52 on the F-150. The Isuzu will have more usable bed space and the wheel wells don't go up very far so they're pretty usable going like 2 inches up.