Hyundai Made The 2025 Santa Cruz Look More Like A Truck, Which Is Good, Because It Is A Truck

2025 Santa Cruz Ts1
ADVERTISEMENT

When the 2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz debuted at this year’s New York Auto Show, we couldn’t help but admire it. Sure, it might not gain electrification or anything headline-grabbing like that, but a new interior and a slightly more serious off-road trim go a long way. These updates excite us immensely because we like buttons, we like tires, and we already like the Hyundai Santa Cruz.

Spec’d with the unexpectedly potent 2.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine, the Santa Cruz hauls ass. In Car And Driver testing, it ran from zero to 60 mph in six seconds flat, with a rolling-start five-to-60 mph time of 6.4 seconds. That’s not slow! It also handles shockingly well, with excellent control over its mass, well-weighted steering, and a properly sorted ride. If anything, it feels more like a hot hatch with a bed than a pickup truck.

Sure, the Ford Maverick will do pretty much everything you want a compact pickup truck to do, but the turbocharged Santa Cruz feels like an athlete, and while it is more expensive, it has the materials to justify the price tag. So, what happens when the dashboard and the screens get more user-friendly?

Large 58823 2025santacruzxrt

As part of the 2025 facelift, the Hyundai Santa Cruz downloads its entire dashboard from the revamped Tucson crossover. Not only does this mean you can get a 12.3-inch touchscreen navigation system, you can also get a 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster. More importantly, that giant capacitive touch panel on the old top trim is gone, replaced with real buttons and knobs for volume, tuning, cabin temperature control, and even the homepage on the infotainment system. Hyundai has even found space for a shelf above the glovebox, a useful addition to an already practical vehicle. Perhaps the biggest news is wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto now coming on all trims, a bit of tech that consumers are sure to enjoy.

Large 58837 2025santacruzxrt

Oh, and since rugged good looks are in right now, the Santa Cruz’s XRT trim gets some meaningful upgrades for 2025, starting with an actual set of 245/60R18 all-terrain tires. How about that? If I were to hazard a guess based on sizing, they may be the same Continentals used on the new Santa Fe XRT, which would bode well for road manners. In addition, the 2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz XRT gets a clawed-back front fascia for improved approach angle, functional recovery points that are easily accessible on the front of the vehicle, a unique rear bumper, a new grille, and a 360-degree camera system so you might not need a spotter. Even if extra underbody protection would’ve been nice, this is still some decent stuff.

2025 Santa Cruz Front Compare

 

Screenshot 2024 03 27 At 11.25.40 am

The regular 2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz and the XRT Trim both get new front ends with blockier daytime running lights and squarer elements, and while it looks less alien than before, I actually prefer the more organic nature of the old front end. At the same time, it definitely wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea, so the squarer treatment may have more mass appeal. Speaking of mass appeal, turbocharged XRT and Limited models get a new towing drive mode, for those who want to put the 5,000-pound towing capacity to the test. That extra capability over the Ford Maverick Ecoboost’s 4,000 pounds goes a long way.

2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz Xrt (1)

Large 59422 2025 hyundai santa cruz limited

All in all, the 2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz gets some useful, meaningful upgrades that should make a great trucklet even better to live with. Expect it to roll into showrooms this summer, and although Hyundai hasn’t announced pricing yet, we wouldn’t be surprised if it’s similar to what the 2024 model goes for.

(Photo credits: Hyundai)

Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.

Relatedbar

Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.

About the Author

View All My Posts

165 thoughts on “Hyundai Made The 2025 Santa Cruz Look More Like A Truck, Which Is Good, Because It Is A Truck

  1. Isn’t this just a ute?

    It’s like we have to call anything close a “truck” so that it is palatable for the American market. Even though Australians have know for decades how great a ute is.

    1. Two nations divided by a single language.

      Ute doesn’t really have a history as a term outside of Australia so it’s not going to be super useful as a description of a product category for the majority of consumers in the US market.

    2. Yes, it is ultimately a ute, but as Citrus said, that language doesn’t travel here, so we are left with “truck”. I have heard small trucks referred to as trucklets, but I highly doubt that would be ever popular.

    3. In the US, truck is a broad term subject to a lot of context. In common usage, pick up truck (ute) is shortened to truck. This is understood to be distinct from heavier commercial trucks, which are often referred to by more usage-specific terms such as semi-truck, box-truck, delivery van, tow truck, etc.

      1. I got several replies on language, but chose to reply to the first one.

        We’ve adopted both SUV and CUV/crossover in recent decades, which are made up and didn’t exist before, so the idea that we’re stuck with “truck” and can’t adopt new terms is not true.
        Why is there a subtle barely clear distinction between SUV, CUV, wagon, and yet everything from a 2 seater S10 up to a crew cab F350/3500 is just a “truck” or “pick up truck”?
        I’m just saying there is plenty of room for more specific terms and “ute” exist, and is appropriate.

        I, aspirationally, would like to see it adopted here. That’s all.

        1. I really don’t have issues with everything from an S10 to a crew cab one ton being called a pickup. If I need to communicate that they’re different, I just call it “an S10” or “a one ton” or “a big crew cab”.

    4. Aussies call all pickups short of American full-size ones ‘utes’. To them a Hilux or Tacoma is a ‘ute’. Calling only car-based things ‘utes’ is a uniquely American enthusiast phenomenon.

      1. Good to know.
        But I think this matches my desired use case where vehicles like this, which are smaller, or less, than a full sized pickup, could be called a ute.

  2. There are Subaru Baja fanatics out there. This is the closest thing to that.

    But, I’d definitely pick the Honda Ridgeline over this. I’ve never warmed up to the styling and the 4ft bed is just too small.

  3. Looks decent enough but can Hyundai fire their wheel designer? They continually come out with the most god-awful, overly complicated wheel designs. Just give us a basic five-spoke please?!?

    1. I won’t say that these are especially good wheel designs, but most basic five spokes look like a$$, and that’s ignoring how extremely bland and generic they are.

      At least they’re making an effort to be interesting.

      1. The base wheels that came.on my grandfather’s 2 door F150 Sport (just 1 trim above base) look better than these. ????

      1. There ya go. How about a tall potted plant? I’m trying to think of things that are hard to fit in my otherwise spacious Forester cargo area. Usually I have issues with long things, not really tall things.

      1. I like it. I suppose it would be good for beach stuff, keeps the sand off the seats! Maybe this thing needs a canoe rack situation like the one on that Ranger Splash.

    1. Things I haul in my Colorado that would fit:
      bags of garbage. Topsoil, gravel, mulch. Plants. bags of concrete. kids muddy and wet soccer gear after practice. Maybe the kid if he’s that dirty.
      Tools, gardening equipment. Power tools. My chainsaw and gas can.
      walk-behind vibratory tamper. table saw.
      pavers, sand.
      beach toys.

      You wouldn’t want any of those things in the cabin.

      Edit, I actually saw a santa cruz about a month ago with a boxed refrigerator in it. It stuck up way over the roof but it was in there.

      1. I think I have put every single one of the items on your list into a minivan. Never bothered me to have them in the cabin with me, not sure why people make a big deal about that.

        1. I mean, you can. But it’s easier and you have less to worry about when it’s a truck bed.

          I used to put most of that stuff in the back of a Saturn Vue. It’s so much easier to throw it in a bed. No need to put down a tarp or blanket. If the mulch rips open you just use a leaf blower or hose to clean it out. Also, you don’t have to smell gas fumes or hope the chainsaw doesn’t get bar oil everywhere.

          On the other hand, I’ve put people in the bed of my truck. So not sure why everyone makes a big deal about minivan’s having a third row.

          1. If you’re hauling bulk materials(gravel, mulch, ect) more than very occasionally, a pickup bed is a no brainer. Other than that, eh. I used to just accept that the back of the minivan was full of grass and stuff from hauling a lawnmower.

            1. I use my Forester as my mulch gettter/dump hauler. It stop being nice enough long ago for me to care about the gross things I put back there. I’m planning on replacing it soon though as it now has the dreaded Subaru oil consumption issue, and I’m seriously considering one of these or a Maverick. It’s just that when I’ve checked them out in person, the super short beds really give me pause. I don’t really want to help my friends move though, so maybe this is a perfect solution after all!

  4. The lack of a hybrid variant is what’s killing the Santa Cruz. It hardly gets better MPG than proper BOF Trucks, and gets much much worse MPG than the Maverick Hybrid.

    If Ford made enough Maverick Hybrids to meet demand and forced their dealers not to massively mark them up, the Santa Cruz would be dead in the US.

    1. The Santa Cruz seems to work for a specific buyer, but it never quite made sense to me in a world where the Maverick and the Ridgeline both exist. The best I can guess is it’s aimed at the people who want more features and refinement than a Maverick and they want something a bit more modern and updated than the Ridgeline.

      1. It’s because the Santa Cruz is a little smaller and drives more like a car than a truck. The size difference with the Maverick is negligible, but the Ridgeline is a lot bigger. It’s tough to find something that will tow 5000 pounds but isn’t a brodozer.

        1. Fair. I always forget how small the Santa Cruz is, a hair shorter and only a bit wider than the Maverick. Given it’s size, I’m curious to see how well the Maverick would tow a 3500 lb travel trailer, compared to a Ridgeline with the same tow capacity.

          In this loosely defined category of compact/midsize unibody trucks, the Santa Cruz definitely seems to be the tech and comfort leader.

  5. Disagree that this looks better in any way! It’s now looks blocky and square to make it appear more “rugged” whereas before it was a nice balance of truck and sporty. Now it just looks like those stupid Subaru Wilderness pseudo overland variants.

    1. I think that if somebody somehow built a unibody dump truck or box truck or something, it wouldn’t magically not be a truck. Semi trailers normally are unibody(they’re not body on frame anyways).

      No, the Santa Cruz isn’t a truck for other reasons.

  6. It looks… worse. Not so much worse that I’m mad about it, but it’s certainly not an improvement. You can see the intent of “make more truck-like” in the changes and honestly, that comes off as some pretty crappy design to me.

    The thing that actually sucks here is that Hyundai still refuses to put a damn hybrid in this. Seriously Hyundai, what is wrong with you? Ford can’t make enough hybrid Mavericks and your answer after 4 models years is to give us a blockified face and more screen but still have it get 22 mpg? Boooooo.

      1. The Tucson’s actually had the hybrid and PHEV all along in the current generation. But with Honda/Toyota leaning so heavily hybrid in that segment they really need to focus on the hybrid variants in that segment anyway.

        1. Gotcha. I misunderstood the launch announcement this morning – I thought the PHEV and Hybrid were new. I agree though – they need to add these options to the SC.

  7. That face is still pretty polarizing though, which is preventing me from considering it. I wish Subaru would come out with the Brat again to give Hyundai and Ford a little competition. Super stoked about the Stout as well.

    1. Yes please! I’d buy one too. Realistically I’d prefer something smaller like a PHEV Kona or a Corolla hatch but I’d take a PHEV Santa Cruz if it was available.

          1. I’m with you. I have a Niro and I cannot force myself to be happy with it. I’d like something just a touch bigger, but mostly something I like more. A K4 PHEV would definitely be better.

            1. I get it. I have a 2019 Elantra and it’s a perfectly fine car but I’d like something a little more stylish and versatile that isn’t huge.

              I’m currently driving a rental 22 Corolla hatchback and I like the looks of it. Maybe with the K4 coming to the US as a hatchback that means the Elantra GT will come back… At least that’s what I’m hoping because we need more actual hatchbacks and less hatchbacks/wagons cosplaying as CUVs

  8. This vehicle has a bit of a fatal flaw compared to the Maverick and even Ridgeline.

    The Santa Cruz is trying to style the vehicle with a kinda off road look, and I’m sure that plenty of people will want to spec their with the turbo engine.

    The fatal flaw is that the turbo motor is exclusively pared with a dual clutch. Dual clutch transmissions are simply the worst type of transmission for even moderate off road driving.

    Example: The owner of my local Hyundai dealer has blown up more than one transmission already taking his Santa Cruz Turbo on mild off road adventures. DCTs just heat up too much in loaded + inclined environments…. it just doesn’t work.

    You can get the base motor with a regular automatic, which might be fine, but those base 2.5 NA motors + 8 speed are pretty slow.

    If they offered this with the hybrid drivetrain from the Tucson/Santa Fe that would be a winner though… but they aren’t doing that, yet.

    1. How to solve the problem of DCTs being bad for offroading: Remove the rugged pretenses and make it the “Santa Fe N” and lower it, stiffen it, and move it right into a vacant market segment for “Compact Street Truck”.

      1. I totally agree! When I saw 5000 lbs… um… I’m very skeptical.

        A former coworker of mine had the unfortunate experience of working at Ford and being involved in their failure of a DCT platform. He said that a loaded vehicle (but still within limits) plus stop/go, plus inclines, plus hotter climates is the worst possible case for a DCT. Granted those fiesta/focus dcts had dry clutches and the Santa Cruz has wet clutches.

        Controversial opinion, I’d rather have a chain CVT in this vs a DCT.

  9. So they gave it blockier “eyelids” (since it’s above the headlights/”eyes”) and a squarer grille? Lose the Hyundai logo and turn the DRLs off it could be a chevy. That’s not a compliment.

    Giving it the Tucson face wasn’t the greatest idea ever, but doubling down on it instead of cribbing some cues from the new Santa Fe seems like a misstep.

  10. Changes are fine, though not exciting. Nice to see at least one real color, finally. I reserve judgement on the Rockwood Green because I can’t find a photo, though I think I saw it on a Santa Fe and it did not inspire. More of an olive drab than real green. Still, I’ll wait till I see it on Santa Cruz.

  11. Wow, I disagree SO strongly with the headline: “Hyundai Made The 2025 Santa Cruz Look More Like A Truck, Which Is Good, Because It Is A Truck”

    I don’t think I have ever beheld such a bad headline here on the Autopian.

    They didn’t make it look more like a truck, they made it look like a Hyundai Santa Fe still but with *marginally* wider headlight slots.

    And it’s not a truck, or remotely close to being a truck. Please don’t push this weird and untrue agenda in the headline with no further reference or explanation in the article. It feels awfully clickbaity to have something in the headline that has zero relation to the article.

    1. And it’s not a truck, or remotely close to being a truck. Please don’t push this weird and untrue agenda in the headline with no further reference or explanation in the article. It feels awfully clickbaity to have something in the headline that has zero relation to the article.

      Sarcasm? It’s got an open bed capable of carrying cargo. It’s a truck.

      1. So…. Truck vs not truck is a relatively nuanced discussion, and I would love to write like a whole article about it.

        But one thing is extremely clear, and everybody should be able to understand this: Truck vs not truck is definitely NOT a question of open bed vs not open bed.

        A semi truck is definitely a truck, yet it doesn’t have an open bed for carrying cargo.
        A Toyota Tercel is definitely NOT a truck, yet through the simple expedient of a sawzall it can quickly gain an open bed for carrying cargo. And it doesn’t seem like such a simple modification should be able to change such a fundamental quality as “truck or not”.

        1. Jason already wrote the article.

          Of course heavy duty commercial vehicles are going to play by different classifications than light duty consumer vehicles. But, arguably, if you modified a car or SUV in the appropriate way (be it a Smythe kit or a reciprocating saw and too much Busch Light), you have now functionally created a truck.

          I have yet to see any consistent or logical criteria based on objective qualities and capabilities that define a truck – outside an “open bed, separate from the passenger compartment, designed to carry cargo” – that would disqualify something like the Santa Cruz without clearly being tailored to exclude specific models.

          1. “of course heavy duty commercial vehicles are going to play by different classifications than light duty commercial vehicles”

            This is the principle I disagree with. Why on earth would light duty highway vehicles and heavy duty highway vehicles have grossly different definitions of a simple word like “truck”?

            I define a Car as: a vehicle which, fundamentally and by every part of its design, is intended to carry people and people’s stuff, reliably, comfortably, safely, and efficiently.

            I define a Truck as: a vehicle which, fundamentally and by every part of its design, is intended to carry cargos, usually large and heavy ones. It is not meant to carry people as a primary goal of its operation, and almost every part of its design is very different from a car in ways that reflect the significantly different use.

            I think these definitions are logical and reasonable, and I would be surprised if you thought that they were fundamentally wrong. But by these definitions, a Santa Cruz is very far from being a truck. Like not even close. It is very clear that its design and engineering support the intended use of carrying primarily the driver and passengers.

            1. a vehicle which, fundamentally and by every part of its design, is intended to carry cargos, usually large and heavy ones. It is not meant to carry people as a primary goal of its operation, and almost every part of its design is very different from a car in ways that reflect the significantly different use.

              Would you consider a quad-cab short-bed pickup a truck? Would that definition change based on the attention paid to making the cab occupants comfortable? What if that change was to the suspension and reduced the cargo capacity?

                1. Okay, that helps me see your strict definition of a truck. For what it’s worth, I agree with you in theory. But I’m also very aware that language changes over time and popular usage is an important factor. I’m a descriptivist, rather than a prescriptivist. If the common parlance is that pickups are trucks, I’m not going to argue the Santa Cruz isn’t one.

            2. By your definition, a crew cab F-150 is not a truck. Nor is a Chevy S-10.

              The definitions of commercial vehicles are typically set by the vehicle’s GVWR and/or passenger capacity. These definitions are used to determining operator licensing, taxation, and road limitations. If you want to make a distinction between heavy duty commercial trucks and light/medium duty pick up trucks, that is fine. But that does not support the idea that an F-150 or Ranger would be classified as trucks when a Maverick would not.

              1. I’m not trying to support any idea that a Maverick or Santa Cruz isnt a truck while an F-150 is. My f150 isn’t a truck. S-10s aren’t either.

                1. Based on your other comments, it seems like the only definition of “truck” you are willing to entertain is a Medium/Heavy Duty commercial vehicle. Either you’re making a bad-faith argument or you’re trying to walk back a failed argument by being pedantic.

                  1. That’s right. I think that only medium and heavy duty vehicles meet a definition of Truck that doesn’t also include quite a few cars. Any other definition(body on frame, solid axles, capable of towing, open bed, 4wd, ect) has major holes that misclassify quite a few cars as trucks.

                    This isn’t bad faith, and I’m not walking back a failed argument. This is the conclusion I came to after WAY too much thinking about this definition. This was my firmly held conviction long before this discussion started 30 minutes ago. And I really don’t think that a Santa Cruz is a truck.

                    1. Unless you came out of the gate saying something to the effect of “the Santa Cruz is not a truck because it is not a commercial vehicle with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs”, the basis of your argument is suspect… especially within the context of discussing a single model like this.

                      Your earlier definitions don’t jive with your current heavy/medium duty one. Previously, you said the primary defining characteristic was the singular focus on carrying cargo. This would suggest a Honda Acty would be a truck despite coming nowhere close to being a Medium or Heavy Duty vehicle.

                      This is the principle I disagree with. Why on earth would light duty highway vehicles and heavy duty highway vehicles have grossly different definitions of a simple word like “truck”?

                      This also suggests you were previously willing to entertain a definition of “truck” that is independent of Light/Med/Heavy duty classifications.

                      If you want to draw a distinction between a commercial “truck” and a light duty “pick up,” that is fine. But by arguing this point within that context, you’re just ignoring common vernacular in service of a particularity pedantic stance.

                    2. You are right, and that is the hole in my argument. I should have said, “in the context of normal North American vehicles, the only trucks are medium duty and up”.

                      I am willing to entertain a definition of truck that is independent of weight classification or size, and I think that many mini trucks and similar can properly be considered trucks.

                      I didn’t especially consider mini trucks in this discussion, I was working within the limited scope of my North American world, and that’s on me. However, considering that the Santa Cruz is a North American vehicle, that kind of makes sense for the scope of this discussion.

                    3. I appreciate the concession, but even within the context of a North American market, making such a limitation on what is considered a truck still flies in the face of practical and common usage. There is a case to be made in differentiating a half ton pick up from a Class-8 big rig. But the way you started framing your arguments was in line with the common argument where people try to draw an arbitrary distinction between something like a Santa Cruz and something like an F-150 – both of which are commonly referred to in regulatory and practical senses as *light duty* trucks.

                    4. Yes, my definition does fly in the face of common usage, because common usage is wrong in my opinion.

                      If some bad and dumb arguments happen to sound like my smart and good argument, that doesn’t make me less correct. I never said anything, explicitly or implicitly, to suggest an arbitrary distinction between something like a Santa Cruz and something like an f-150.

                      In fact, distinctions like that are what bothered me, and caused me to go to all this thought about what is the proper distinction. Because both a Santa Cruz and an f150 are ultimately car based vehicles with an open bed, and there is no intelligent way to classify them separately.

            3. Considering you can spec a Santa Cruz to have a higher payload capacity and a higher towing capacity than some Tacoma’s, then many “trucks” wouldn’t be “trucks” either.

          1. I used semi truck as just one easy example. Many trucks, like a box truck or a crane truck or a concrete pumping truck, do not have an open bed yet are most certainly trucks. And aren’t tractors.

        2. I’d put Mercedes Sprinter squarely as “truck”.

          I’d also extend that logic to the Dodge Promaster/Fiat Ducato (even though they’re FWD).
          I would also consider the Ford Transit/Tourneo Connect as Truck, too.

          And, if I consider the little Ford as a truck, what stops a Minivan from being a “truck” of someone’s using it for commercial reasons?
          Extending that: what about a panel-van Mini Clubman if it’s used by a florist to deliver flowers?

          1. As I thought long and hard about what the definition of “truck” should be, I came to two possible conclusions: either 1. no light vehicles are trucks, or
            2. every single vehicle is a truck in some capacity, as long as it’s capable of carrying something.

            You have clearly chosen the latter philosophy, and I don’t think that’s necessarily wrong. It is pretty different from how most people use the word though.

            1. For how most people use the term, Jason’s old article has one key factor that most people would agree with (not the EPA or my college friends who called my Explorer a truck, though):

              There must be a physical divider between the passenger cab area and the cargo area.

              He actually used this to classify the Avalanche as sometimes a truck.

              Here’s his three criteria:

              The vehicle’s primary design goal is to haul cargoThere must be some sort of cargo bed, which may be a flatbed, an open-topped tub (like a pickup truck), or an enclosed structure, box-like or otherwise, made from any number of materialsThere must be a physical divider between the passenger cab area and the cargo area.
              Admittedly, the first gets muddied with most pickups, since they have become popularized as commuter vehicles.

              1. Yeah, but “truck” seems like a rather fundamental attribute of a vehicle. I don’t think anybody really believes that a Chevy Avalanche suddenly changes from Truck to Not-Truck when you open the mid gate. I just don’t think it makes sense to hinge any definition of such a fundamental term on something so minor and easily changeable.

                1. I mean, we’re getting into the weeds here, but those small details get to the heart of the problem with categorization of anything. Plato can present a plucked chicken as a man or you can find yourself trying to define a sandwich to exclude a hotdog, but it turns into an exercise in futility.

                  Personally, if I were defining “truck,” I’d choose to include only commercial vehicles. But it’s in the common vernacular and there’s no changing that. Trying to define it more narrowly at this point just turns into a game of whack-a-mole if you want to include some pickups and not others. There’s going to be counter-examples and things that don’t feel like trucks.

                  As for me, I’ll keep saying pickup and let everyone call their vehicles trucks if they want.

                  1. The thing is, and this is part of what bothers me, the common vernacular accepts and understands the definition of trucks as vehicles medium duty and up.

                    When there’s a sign at the weigh station that says, “all trucks must stop”, everybody understands that an f150 doesn’t have to stop. When Flying J has separate entrances for “trucks” and “autos”, nobody is whipping their Tacoma into the truck entrance and pulling up to the diesel fuel island.

                    Almost every American, on some level, understands the correct definition of “truck”, but uses a less correct definition anyways. And there’s not much I can do about it, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

                    1. Language is contextual. Common parlance accepts that an F-150 may generally be referred to as a truck (a pick up or light duty truck, if you want to make the distinction) but that it may not be treated the same way as a Class-8 Peterbilt when it comes time to pick a lot at the rest stop. Similarly, a motorcycle can be comfortably referred to as a “bike” in most contexts but the average person wouldn’t expect that allows you to take a Ninja 250 on the local bike path.

                      If, as you claim, almost every American understands the common definition of truck, but uses it in an incorrect context anyway, that would suggest the context you have identified as incorrect is now the common definition.

                      Let’s just scrap the word truck and start referring to them as utes and lorries.

                    2. Now that’s a real solution to our problem! I like it. Solutions instead of complaints is what we really need.

            2. I would argue that any legal swing of “truck” should be limited to commercial use.

              Other than pure commercial use: it’s an automobile that should be subject to all the same rules & regulations as a car – not instill special privileges on some archaic that enables them to skirt EPA/safety rules.

    2. I own a ’23 Night Edition and the state of Texas (which should know trucks since 80% of what’s on the road here seems to be trucks) calls it a truck.

      Granted, it’s never going to be confused with an F-250 with an 8-inch lift or a lowered Silverado. Heck, it’s not even going to be confused with more direct competition like the Honda Ridgeline or Ford Maverick. And you know what? That’s perfectly fine with me.

      My “truck stuff” needs are fairly modest. It’s great to have a vehicle that meets my needs without being excessive. And my Hyundai truck does just that.

      1. If a Santa Cruz can fulfill the same truck needs that a non-truck vehicle like a minivan, SUV, crossover, hatchback, or station wagon could also fulfill, that doesn’t make it a truck.

        1. By that logic: Bro-dozer’s F250 that never goes offroading, doesn’t tow or get dirty, and generally just moves the driver from home to work would fall under the same umbrella.

          1. I give a shit. As a serious Car Nerd, I care deeply about the classifications and definitions we use to classify the machines that I’m so obsessed with.

            If that’s weird or foreign to you, you must not have been around here very long. This is a website specifically targeted at major car nerds.

            1. I’ve been here since they started the site. I’m not a massive car nerd like you apparently are but I find it kind of hilarious that people hyperventilate over trucks. Classifying what exact vehicle category is, is not something I stress over. Besides, this isn’t a truck or a car, it’s a Ute. 😛

        1. Depends on the law.

          Per the EPA: “Many SUVs and minivans are considered light duty trucks. Since vehicle manufacturers, and not EPA, determines the GVWR for vehicles and their other characteristics that determine the car/truck classification, EPA has not compiled a list of make/models by model year that classify vehicles. Typically, EPA uses contractors to compile EPA certification records, decode vehicle identification number (VIN) and contact manufacturers to identify the appropriate classification for individual vehicles and rely on national sales data provided by manufacturers to develop nationwide fleet mixes.”

    3. Would it feel more correct to replace “truck” with “pickup,” I wonder? Where I come from is logging country, and I grew up with trucks being the ones for hauling freight or the like. I still don’t call pickups “trucks,” though I’ve gotten used to hearing it all the time.

      Personally, I prefer to call this a ute, but I’m not going to get too upset about someone calling it a car, pickup, truck, or SUV.

      1. I also treat “pickup” and “truck” as having very different definitions, and pickup is definitely more correct for this.

        Although I define a pickup as “a bodystyle which prioritizes a large open cargo area over passenger space”, so I kind of have a hard time calling any crew cab short bed a pickup.

        1. “I also treat “pickup” and “truck” as having very different definitions, and pickup is definitely more correct for this.

          Although I define a pickup as “a bodystyle which prioritizes a large open cargo area over passenger space”, so I kind of have a hard time calling any crew cab short bed a pickup”

          I dunno, this kinda definitely seems like you describing your personal definitions regarding trucks and pickups to me.

          1. Neither of those quotes is talking about a definition of truck, only pickup, which is different.

            Like I said, I was explaining the most common practical and legal definition of truck. Not just me. Not the Rust Buckets personal definition.

    1. It’s got a bed. It’s a truck.

      If you want to make a distinction between traditional BOF trucks, SUV-based unibody trucks, utes, kei trucks, etc. that’s fine. But they are all still capable of carrying cargo in an open bed. Ergo truck. But if you could convince the state DMVs Santa Cruz, Maverick, Ridgeline etc aren’t really trucks, then some of us could save a few bucks on annual registration.

      1. Could also save a couple bucks if you could convince the state DMV that Dodge Grand Caravans and PT Cruisers aren’t trucks. But the DMV seems quite convinced that they are.

        1. Minivans and PT Cruisers are classified by trucks in some states based on NHTSA/CAFE loophole classifications. I know of no state that would issue a truck plate to an F-150 but not a Maverick.

          1. Minivans and PT Cruisers say “light truck” on the title in all 50 states.

            I also know of no state that would issue a truck plate to an f-150 but not a Maverick.

    2. Today’s Shitbox Showdown features two trucks. Says so in the headline and the article, multiple times. My 2013 Ridgeline has a higher payload capacity and tow rating than either. Sure, both models could be equipped to higher numbers, but in this case, they weren’t. I don’t really think of the Ridgeline as a truck, but I’ll wager the cargo box of my Ridgeline has seem more “truck” use than most pick-us out there. So, I’ll just stick with my classification of it as a multipurpose perfect vehicle for the slot I need it to fill.

  12. It would be absolutely perfect as a PHEV, but considering this entire segment consists of this and the Maverick, I’m not going to complain. I’m just happy it exists.

    1. Do you think this might be the beginning of more vehicles for this segment?

      Apropos the Ranger Splash piece (and Matt’s addendum) yesterday, is it possible that we’re we’re on the cusp of more buyers getting into these smaller, more actually useful for most people trucks?

      1. The success of the Maverick invites more competitors, and there have been many rumors of competitors from Toyota, Dodge, and others. I think that if Toyota in particular made a small four door not-really-a-pickup-but-outdoorsy that it would sell like hotcakes purely on the virtues of Toyota outdoorsy Instagram cred and Toyota reliability reputation.

    1. Yeah, surprising since the Tuscon & Sportage are available as hybrids. Is the rear part of the platform different, so there’s no room for batteries?

      1. I think it’s simply that they prioritize the volume sellers for the hybrid setup. I get it, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

    2. No N-line, no care. 🙂

      Hybrid would have been nice, too.

      Either way, despite the great shade of red now offered, I’ll stick with my ’23 Santa Cruz.

    3. It’s nuts to me that this isn’t offered in a hybrid. It’s nut to me that ANY midsized vehicles are coming out in 2024 and beyond that aren’t hybrids (either HEV or PHEV).

Leave a Reply