First off, I want to be clear that I’m a champion of small, useful trucks. I love them! There’s a reason I picked a tiny Taylor-Dunn workhorse for the Autopian’s first Truck of the Year, and why I braved the wrath of so many Ford F-150 owners when I pointed out how a small, one-cylinder Indian-market pickup had more payload capacity than some F-150s. Big-ass trucks do not always make a lot of sense, and if all you’re doing in them is driving to work and getting groceries or taking your dog to the movies or whatever then it’s possible you’re using the wrong tool for the job. Then again, drive what you want. I’m bringing all this up because there’s been another half-assed viral car-related tweet that’s blown up and has been seen by millions, shared by the kind of smug jackasses you desperately try to avoid at parties. Last time it was about how all SUVs allegedly look alike, and this time it’s about being wrong but still a judgy prick about truck bed sizes. I guess we may as well do this.
Here’s the tweet about this I saw first, coming from a Twitter account named “FuckCars,” which might be valuable context to keep in mind:
A new F-150 is just a minivan with a doorless trunk. pic.twitter.com/IsRZeyJB4v
— FuckCars (@FuckCarsReddit) January 29, 2023
At most recent count, that tweet has been seen 11.3 million times, which is a lot of times for anything to have been seen by anyone. I’ve probably only seen The Big Lebowski one-millionth of that many times, and I think it’s a fantastic movie, for example. So, what’s this tweet saying? It appears to show how truck bed length has decreased as a percentage of overall length over the F-150’s lifetime, based on measurements from 1961 to 2021. I’m pretty sure anyone reading this sees the inherent flaw here, but before we address this wildly obvious elephant in the room wearing a hat that says ELEPHANT in bright LEDs, let’s go to the source data of this chart, which is noted as coming from Axios, specifically this article, which is a subset of this longer, more involved one.
Essentially, what that Axios article describes is how the pickup truck in America has transitioned from being primarily a workhorse vehicle into a much more mainstream, general-use family car, and the associated body and other changes that went along with that, most specifically cab size. This is generally a reasonable observation about what’s been happening over the decades, and there’s definitely positives and negatives to this trend.
The viral tweet latches onto one part of the Axios story, how the cab to bed ratio seems to have changed over the years, and states that “A new F-150 is just a minivan with a doorless trunk.” Now, even if we ignore the weird language (doorless trunk? Who talks like that?) and the strange attempt at minivan shaming (there’s nothing wrong with a minivan [Ed Note: Also, trucks don’t have sliding doors, so this makes no sense. -DT]) we can’t ignore what this whole mess ignores: You can still buy single-cab, long-bed pickup trucks. If we look at a brand-new Ford F-150 with a long (8 foot) bed with a single cab and compare it to one of those 1961-1979 F-150s shown in that chart, and then do our own math based on the overall length of the truck and seeing what percentage the bed takes up, we see it’s just about identical:
Comparing apples to apples here, where those apples have single-cabs and long-beds, we see that bed percentage of overall length really hasn’t changed all that much at all. And, if we’re feeling saucy, like we clearly are, why shouldn’t we also just take a moment to note that the modern truck is much more fuel efficient and wildly safer than the old F-150, at least from the perspective of the people inside. It’s not wrong that bigger and heavier pickup trucks can cause more damage in wrecks, but it’s not like being hit by a ’70s-era F-150 is a picnic, either.
The Axios article has a similar graphic to the one in the tweet, too, and it’s similarly misleading:
(image: Axios)
This isn’t showing any ratios flipping, it’s comparing fundamentally different types of trucks. A crew cab, by the very nature of how human bodies require physical space to exist, needs to be bigger. And, unless you want your truck itself to be even longer, then you have to take that space from somewhere, hence shorter beds. It’s not a new thing, it’s how crew cabs have always worked.
That old ’70s Ford extended cab on the left there has a long bed, and the whole thing is incredibly long; and that’s not even a full crew cab, it just has two doors. And other crew cab designs like the Volkswagen Type 2 double-cab there has a shorter bed, but still decently long, and keeps the overall length short because it’s a rear-engine-under-the-bed design with no hood, something that’s not really feasible if we care about meeting modern crash standards. Don’t get me wrong, I love that design, but there’s actual reasons why modern crew cab trucks look the way they do.
This isn’t a trend of “shrinking beds” as those graphs and articles claim, it’s a change in how people use trucks, and I think it uses the trends of more mainstream truck ownership to make some kind of vague point that we’re all going crazy and being more and more wasteful and killing everyone and somehow the inherent problem is our nation’s love for trucks, which are, you know, bad I guess.
But, any amount of scrutiny shows that this really isn’t the case. Yes, we all could get by with smaller cars for most use. I believe this, and, as a driver of a miniscule 52 hp weirdo car, I practice what I preach. But that doesn’t mean I see the past through a rose-tinted windshield and think every current truck owner is a monster, because they’re not, and modern trucks aren’t the demons they’re made out to be.
As far as the argument goes that it’s terrible that four-door crew cab pickup trucks have become normal, everyday cars, let’s not forget what normal family cars were like in the past. Growing up, my family’s two-car fleet was made up of a 1968 VW Beetle and one of these:
Yes, a Ford LTD Country Squire Wagon. Long as a truck, big-ass V8 engine, gas mileage numbers that, if they were the age of a child, would be definitively pre-B’nai Mitzvah, and about as safe in a wreck as being in a file cabinet dropped from a second-story window. Modern trucks may be excessive as family cars, but to cast this excess as something new and representative of some sort of moral decline is just not looking at what the past was really like. Even the most ostentatious-seeming modern big-ass truck gets better fuel economy, is vastly safer, and pollutes a hell of a lot less than family cars from the past decades. It doesn’t matter if it’s a truck or a station wagon.
Plus, charts like these deliberately ignore huge-selling double-cab pickup trucks like the Ford Maverick, which has the big cab and short bed these articles and tweets are lamenting, but can also get 40 mpg in its entry-spec hybrid form. A compact car like a Honda Fit, for example, gets about 35 mpg combined. So, really, what’s the matter with the Maverick being a truck with a big cab and a short bed?
What seems to be going on here with these tweets and articles is that they seem to want to make trucks into this scapegoat for everything that’s going poorly in the automotive space, when the reality is that like almost every other category of motor vehicle, they’re getting safer, more efficient, less polluting, and more. Sure, they’re also more expensive, more feature-laden, harder to repair on your own, and, yeah, probably generally more vehicle than is needed for most situations.
What cars become popular has never been rational. People don’t buy cars for rational reasons, and people have been buying cars for stupid reasons like status markers since cars have existed. If you can’t accept that, then you’re living on the wrong planet, because that’s how humans work, for better or worse.
If you want to tweet about some car-related things that actually matter and aren’t, you know, provably wrong with minimal effort, tweet about how cool tiny efficient cars can be! But if someone rolls by in a pickup truck with a bed only 37% of the overall length of the vehicle, just calm the fuck down, and be happy that they’re possibly getting better fuel economy and almost certainly polluting less than a 1990s Camry.
It’s Time To Stop Sharing That Meme With All The White SUVs Because It’s Wrong And Stupid
The Taylor-Dunn Bigfoot Is The 2022 ‘Autopian Truck Of The Year’
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
If I could easily rent a capable, comfortable truck for hauling my 30 foot travel trailer and family across the country a handful of times a year I would. Unfortunately that rental framework does not exist.
In the meantime… YES I’ll help you move into your new apartment, YES I’ll bring your construction debris to the dump, YES I’ll pull out you of that ditch, YES I’ll pick up that mulch and drop it off on Saturday.
Agree on everything but the apartment moving. Done that too many times and my back is always stiff.
Viral Tweets Are Stupid
– There, fixe your headline 🙂
Oh no, companies are making products that people want to buy, and people’s buying preferences haven’t remained stagnant for 100 years! Someone fetch me my clutching pearls!
My F100 truck bed calcs to 32%. Pretty dang close to a modern F150 crewcab. And mine has been around since 1964. Then again it is a crewcab. Still a truck.
Honestly, I completely agree with the post making fun of the truck bed sizes.
Comparing miles per gallon when old trucks run practically forever and new hybrids don’t is a stretch.
Picking the unobtainium maverick is also a big stretch. Use the F150 Ecoboost numbers there… 17 on a good day, not 40.
The VW Rabbit unibody thing, ok well those were diesel, lasted 500,000 miles and got 50mpg while still having a better than maverick bed and lower ride height.
I have a 2000 Hybrid that at 170k had the battery fail and I just drive without it thanking my stars the car can do that.
My 1983 Rabbit diesel 1.6 runs just great with 286k on the clock and my 2003 TDI ran great with a fully built HY35 turbo engine making 330whp for over 380k before I finally upped the boost beyond 30psi and popped it. Got a spare motor for 800 and off she goes again for another 100k+ with stupid power.
I simply disagree on all points. Older was better. Old F150s didnt rust out and have cam phaser issues before 150k. My buddies 14 is already halfway to the grave and its what 8 years old.
I have a 2000 Hybrid that at 170k had the battery fail and I just drive without it thanking my stars the car can do that.
Sounds like an Insight! Wanna sell it? 😀
There are two interesting groups of Honda Insights in Facebook, sometimes people will post their car, and you can find great advice (Owner of a 2004 Honda Insight)
1) Honda Insight Owners Club
2) North American G1 Insighters
I paid 2K to replace the HV Battery and its been working great since then, 260k trouble free miles
Its not a normal Insight anymore. 2000 MT with ported cylinder head. Ecu replaced (2000 was non flashable lacking a Q series chip) and I personally reverse engineered how to flash it with a bdi-2000 jtag/bdm debugger, used IDA pro over the course of a few months to reverse engineer the rom tables, and worked with some Russians from PCMflash back in 15 to write my rom back.
Engine sees 11,000 rpm regularly, I dropped two valves on cylinder three experimenting how high of an rpm I could reach. That was two cylinder heads ago.
I just replaced the radiator and water pump last week and did the complicated burp procedure.
Probably the only one running around like this yet not turboed.
When it pops, I’m gonna throw in a high revving K-series, drop out the hybrid battery and at around the 1500lb mark it’s going to be pretty untouchable.
Doubt Id sell it but I have a huge shop with all my cars if you want to come to michigan sometime and see the HY35 TDI and write about it. Self tuned that too with MPPS/IDA.
WOAH! Ok, I’m out as a buyer, but I think we should definitely feature you on a Members’ Rides or something! 🙂
“Old F150s didnt rust out and have cam phaser issues before 150k.”
Sure old F150’s didn’t have cam phaser issues but they certainly rusted out. I spent my youth in the rust belt. The trucks from the 80’s and 90’s were all rusted out around the rear wheels, in the bed floors and cab corners (Chevy cab corners seemed to come pre-rusted from the factory).
New F150s don’t rust out either. They’re made of aluminum.
I take it you haven’t spent much time around old Aluminum Bodied Land Rovers.
When bare aluminum and bare steel touch it causes dissimilar metal corrosion which accelerates the corrosion of both metals. I’ve seen Aluminum Land Rover pickup beds that corroded through like rust through steel due to Dissimilar Metal Corrosion. New F-150s are the aluminum bodied Land Rovers of this time, it’s just a matter of time before the frames rust out from under them.
I remember a Reddit “discussion” about me planning to buy a 1500 class truck. I need moderate towing capacity for my travel trailer and an SUV with enough towing capacity would be $25-30k more here for similar equipment.
Many said “why not rent when you need to tow?”.
Fair question, but the math fails big time.
Renting a pickup that can tow runs about $200/day here. I would need it an average of 20 days a year, or $4000/year.
I keep my cars at least 10 years. That’s $40k in rental fees.
Subtract 40k from the 65k truck I was looking at.
You don’t get much car for $25k these days.
Renting also means having to deal with just getting to the rental counter (necessitating a second car and driver or an Uber), no modifications for towing/camping, deposits, credit card policies, hidden fees, getting arrested (Hertz customers), lack of availability, etc. when you can just hop in the vehicle that you already own and just go.
Well your wrong on the maverick crumpling at 5 mph…I got on in shop.that squarely took a 20 mph rear hit and only needs the Rear bumper cover, reinforcement, and tailgate…. No measurements outside of spec.
Yeah.. this dude is clearly just full of shit.
Glad to hear it.
Someone who got rear ended on the MTC forums who said he hardly felt it had his Maverick totaled, rear “frame” crumpled. Maybe it was illusion of sorts, where at low enough speeds it doesn’t crumple and you feel it, and at higher speeds it crumples a lot and doesn’t crumple much.
Also kinetic energy has to play into it as a civic hitting you at 5 MPH vs a F-350 hitting you at 5 MPH is a massive difference in kinetic energy.
It’s worth pointing out that Volkswagen, Ford and Mercedes Benz all still offer van based dual cab utility options with minimum 8′ bed lengths. The VW T6 does it in a foot print similar to that of a single cab F150…and with a much bigger payload. If you need something bigger then the Crafter or Transit or Sprinter dual cabs fit the bill. After that there’s cab over dual cab trucks from Hino, Isuzu and Fuso… many of which are no bigger, more capable and still significantly cheaper (in Oz anyway) than one of the North American full size offerings.
Personally, the problem most people outside North America have with the full size pickup is the inefficient use of space in the whole package…especially the width but also the height. There are different (better?) solutions on offer in other parts of the planet but they seem to be dismissed out of hand…
Man, nothing is more annoying than the “back in my day things were better” types.
We’ll be annoyed because they were
Depends on your definition of better. I prefer simplicity, durability, reliability longevity, etc.
However no one time had everything be better than now and in the future now won’t be considered the best time.
I love older cars, but the old emissions systems that were on cars during the 70s and 80s were pretty ridiculous, with modern self learning TBI systems you can bolt on one of those, get rid of all the old activated charcoal cylinders and vacuum tube nest crud, and still pollute less while being more reliable, getting better MPG, and reducing the complexity of the emissions system, etc.
I just think a throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach is the wrong way to go. We should keep the good from old eras and get rid of the bad, just as we should keep the good from now and get rid of the bad from now.
Seems like the 60s and 70s trucks were bought and used by people who actually needed trucks.
We have a Ford f350 crew cab dually truck at work, hauls 3 people, fuel tanks and a trailer, and a buttload of tools and extra parts, so justified. ….. We laugh at the pavement princesses with all their bling, and cuss out parents who can’t or shouldn’t be driving their crewcab to daycare, grocery stores, gymnastics etc!
It’s Mean I know, but really, leave trucks for people who need them.
P.S. I loved my minivan, way more useful most of the time than my truck, 😉
In Australia we’ve recently had more American pickup trucks being imported and converted to RHD lately (which means they sell for double the price in the US, and is basically just a status symbol). The thing is, because our roads and parking spaces aren’t built for vehicles of that size they tend to usually be the dual cab short bed variants.
Compared to the trucks I’ve seen in the US, they look awfully short and stubby that it’s a bit silly:
https://carsales.pxcrush.net/carsales/cars/private/65m7c6y84vm4e5p7u6ou5fml7.jpg
Of course this tweet looks bad – they made it about a FORD instead of a CHEVY, fnar fnar fnar!!! COULDA SAVED YOU A LOT-A WORDS THERE TORCHHHHHHH.
Hooray for misleading images and clever wording!
Like for example, my D100. It’s a Club Cab, so an extended cab with an 8ft bed. It was advertised as fitting in a standard garage which TECHNICALLY it does, but only if there’s nothing else in there and you park in a way that your door opens to the house. If I didn’t have shelving in my garage and parked with the front bumper physically touching the wall, I have less than a foot between the truck and the door.
People want a reason to lash out at the current monoculture of trucks. I get it. Everything is truck now, like the old cake meme. Cut open a scooter and it is also truck. I too get irked when I see a tiny lonely person lost inside that oil tanker on wheels in the middle of a traffic jam.
Well, maybe one day this too will pass. Today I sing the praises of an endangered body stile that was once ubiquitous: the minivan. Maybe in 20 years we’ll be celebrating those magical beasts that could haul a family and their furniture with superb economy – as soon as the next monoculture starts and suck out all the oxygen from everything else.
As someone who regularly parks a Honda Fit in between a couple of giant Ford pickups, the size on that graphic feels accurate.
And I can squeeze 45 mpg out of mine if I keep it out of VTEC.
Not to burst your bubble, butttttt the “VTEC” in your Fit is technically VTEC-E nee i-VTEC for economy (not performance). At low rpm (~3300rpm or less) your vehicle is technically in VTEC by only partially opening 1 of the intake valves (or keeping it closed completely) so the engine is running as a pseudo-reverse 12-valve (1 intake, 2 exhaust). This increases swirl in the combustion chamber and brings usable torque at lower RPMs vs. High RPM HP (K20 as an example).
Above that 3300rpm threshold, VTEC is off (no extra/reduced lift, VTC is still utilized) and it runs as a normal 16v engine.
Economy in a Fit means your VTEC is kicked in, yo.
I think what you’re missing here is that while single-cab, long-bed trucks are still *available* the norm has shifted. The average pickup sold today is an XL-crew-cab, short-bed. If you look at what a ‘normal’ truck is, this post is decently accurate (if dumb and reductive)
Still available in theory, hard to find for sale in practice, and many trucks don’t offer any single cab or long bed options at all (Silverado EV, Hummer, Gladiator, Santa Cruz, Maverick, Ridgeline)
The most annoying part to me is the chart would be a lot better/alot less misleading if they said we’re comparing the most popular configuration of any given generation.
Its still bad data, but at least its bad data that makes sense in context.
Bed length aside, it’s been written in these very pages that the modern pickup is just a tall sedan with an open trunk, so the basic point here might be convoluted (doorless trunk? On a minivan?) but it’s solid.
I don’t know why they focused on the bed length so much, it’s not like 8 foot beds aren’t available anymore. One nit I do often like to pick is just how huge the crew cab interiors have gotten. I rode in a 2020 f150 recently, and it had more legroom, as well as a longer cab than my Grand Marquis. I can understand how that might be appealing, but I do find it a little excessive. Even the regular extended cab Chevy’s have full doors, rather than the more traditional suicide door.
The Fords have enormous back seats but from what I can tell they still have a similar footprint to the other full size trucks.
Torch don’t call the Maverick a Truck. A Truck is BOF. The Maverick is a unibody pickup, like the VW Rabbit Pickup of old. The VW Hormiga while being FWD is a Truck because it is BOF.
One massive difference I’ve noticed is how many unibody “frames” get crunched because a floor jack was put in the wrong place or didn’t have the special adaptor needed, I’ve never seen a BOF vehicle with a crunched frame because someone didn’t use the correct jacking point.
And from what I’ve seen of Maverick if it gets rear ended at 5+ MPH the whole rear of the “frame” crumples like a beer can.
Nothing wrong with having just a pickup, but conflating Trucks and Pickups is not good in the slightest. If we conflated Muscle cars and Sports cars the same way there would be a lot of muscle cars that went off a cliff on a windy mountain road because the driver thought it would handle like a sports car, and if you try to beat on a sports car like a muscle car you’ll almost certainly snap an axle shaft.
Why can’t the Maverick be treated like how Hondas we’re treated in those ‘You meet the nicest people on a Honda’ commercial? Not every utility vehicle has to look like a roided out Incredible Hulk.
The “trucks are body on frame, cars are unibody” thing that has been cropping up is, uh, stupid. Very stupid. I keep seeing it – was the origin on TikTok maybe? – but that doesn’t make it less stupid.
The Maverick is a light-duty pickup truck.
Never said all cars are unibody. Rather Trucks are BOF and Pickups are Unibody. Pickup Trucks are a designation of Truck (which is BOF) with a Pickup bed.
The Maverick is a Truck in the same way a PT Cruiser is a Truck. Legally, and that’s all.
Reading your remarks makes me think of that smug jackass we all desperately try to avoid at parties…
Genuinely what is there to be smug about in life? If you’re so caught up in yourself and or your achievements as a person to be smug about them then you’re not improving, you’re just stuck in the past while the rest of us are dealing with the present. So by being smug about something you’re not living in the present, you’re not helping, and how could one be smug about that?
So no, I’m not smug. I am however concerned that conflating Trucks and Pickups because they look very similar externally will be bad. More unibody pickups severely damaged because people treated them like Trucks, more people driving short bed crew cab Trucks because ‘they’re all the same thing’ while getting 20 MPG on a good day and only ever hauling groceries or the occasional thing that a pickup bed would be useful for when they’d be much better off with a Maverick Hybrid.
I think we can all agree that a person getting the best automobile for their use case is the way to go. That way we don’t have people breaking their automobile regularly because they’re exceeding the automobile’s limitations and we don’t have people driving Gas Guzzling Goliaths on the road when all their towing and or hauling is just air.
We shouldn’t conflate Unibody Pickups and BOF Pickup Trucks, they’re all Pickups due to the presence of a Pickup bed but they’re very different from one another.
“Trucks are BOF and Pickups are Unibody. Pickup Trucks are a designation of Truck (which is BOF) with a Pickup bed”
I’ve been into cars/trucks my whole life and have nearly 30 years working in the engineering side of the automotive industry here in Detroit. I have never, in my life or career, ever heard such nonsense before about what defines a truck, let alone that there is an actual difference between a truck and a pickup. It’s like arguing over the difference between freeway and highway.
I’m not sure which drunk touchy uncle told you this nonsense when you were young and impressionable, but let it go. You’re just making shit up and nobody here agrees with you.
Jesus Christ man, that last sentence sounds like pure projection.
Get some help, seriously, sounds like a heavy burden you carry that you don’t have to carry.
Technically an F350 is a “light duty truck.”
ah yes, my favorite truck, the B-body Caprice
A B-body Caprice ute would have been pretty awesome…. lol
Nice strawman you got there.
I did not say anywhere that ALL BOF automobiles are Trucks.
Rather BOF utility vehicles with Beds are Trucks.
*edit BOF utility vehicles with a separate cab and chassis. So Semi Trucks are Trucks, Fire Trucks are Trucks, Ambulances are Trucks, ETC.
“Ambulances are Trucks”
But the 1974 Dodge van (ambulance version too) is a unibody.
Reading the first part of the sentence you replied to specifies “BOF utility vehicles with a separate cab and chassis”
You edited that statement after I made mine.
You also keep trying to move the goalpost to fit your narrative (getting called out on the El Camino). That’s boring. You’re boring.
My question would be: Why does it have to be body-on-frame to be a truck? I’ve seen this same argument used against unibody SUVs (that unibody SUVs are crossovers because only BOF SUVs can be SUVs) and the best explanation I’ve read is “that’s how it’s been.”
For a good example of how the SUV argument is pretty silly, look at a 2008 Volkswagen Touareg, which is unibody. Payload gets up to 1,400 pounds (VR6, 1,230-lb for V10 TDI) with a towing capacity of 7,700 pounds regardless of trim level. You get a full-time 4×4 with locking diffs, low-range, underbody protection, off-road adjustment for the suspension, etc.
Now, let’s look at what Ford was offering that same year in a mid-size body-on-frame SUV. The 2008 Explorer could tow as much as 7,130 pounds (though some trims can tow just 3,500 pounds) with a payload of 1,520 lbs depending on trim. It also has a 4×4 system with low-range, though obviously isn’t as tech-heavy as the German barge.
Weirdly, some folks want to say that the Touareg is a “crossover” despite it having SUV traits across the board except for a body-on-frame design. It’s fine to call a unibody pickup a truck. Nobody gets hurt calling a Maverick a truck, just like nobody gets hurt calling a Touareg an SUV. 🙂
Similarly, I can’t call an XJ Cherokee a crossover. It’s unibody, but has solid axles, low range, etc. And it rides nothing like what most people would consider a crossover. Transmission feels like it’s from a tractor (that is not a criticism). It’s unrefined, in the best way. Call it what you want, but I can’t see mine as a crossover.
In the end, your vehicle is whatever your title says it is. My parent’s Ramcharger was titled as a station wagon back in 84.
I’d say the Touareg is a capable Crossover.
Depends on your definition of “Nobody get hurt calling a Maverick a truck”
Jack it up in the wrong place it gets hurt, hit a bump too fast that the BOF with dual I beams of old Rangers could easily take you could easily damage the aluminum A arm suspension of the Maverick. Get in a relatively minor accident and it’s much more likely to be totaled than a BOF Truck, so that hurts you because it costs you more money to get a replacement than it does for a body repair on a Truck.
I come from logging country. Trucks there are log trucks, semis, dump trucks, etc. Pickups are pickups, whether BOF or unibody. That said, I do not insist everyone else follow that rule.
I used to call my Explorer my car and some of my friends called it a truck. If someone wants to call their Santa Cruz a truck, sure, why the hell not? The Maverick specifically took design steps to look like a “truck.”
As to crumple zones and a rear-ended Maverick, I can’t speak much to that except that we’ve been designing vehicles to absorb impact instead of passing it to the occupants for a while now. That said, I have seen at least one post where someone was rear-ended by a Tacoma. The Taco was totaled and the Mav needed $6k in work. Maybe not the norm, but doesn’t seem like they crumple particularly easily.
Just because something looks like something else it does not suddenly imbue the something with the characteristics of something else. For people who understand the difference between a unibody Pickup and a BOF Truck it’s not much of an issue, but for the people who buy a Maverick pickup expecting it to be like their old BOF Ford Ranger they’ll banana that thing in no time.
Interesting, I haven’t seen any mention of a Maverick getting rear ended by a Taco and repaired for $6K on the MTC forums but perhaps I missed it.
What about the unibody F100 and F250 Ford offered from ’61-63? You’re going to tell me that it isn’t a truck, while the BOF versions are?
Yes.
And a ’64 El Camino would be a truck since it is BOF?
Hmm. Honestly that’s a good point. I think I need to add the stipulation that the bed and the cab should be separate to be called a Pickup Truck.
If I take the bed off, and just leave naked frame rails back there, it’s no longer a pick up truck?
What if replace the bed with a tray?
What if I replace the bed with a utility box thingy?
What if I leave the bed, but permanently mount a welding set up in there?
What’s a Hummer H2 SUT?
What’s a Dodge Canopy Express?
“for the people who buy a Maverick pickup expecting it to be like their old BOF Ford Ranger they’ll banana that thing in no time”
I don’t think that anyone buying a Maverick is even thinking this or anything like this.
I think Ford had a release or infographic or something that said the most oft-traded car (pardon, vehicle) on the Maverick was the Honda Civic.
https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/forum/threads/already-got-rear-ended-updated-1-with-frame-underbody-photos-update-2-6k-repair-estimate.22266/page-9
Admittedly, the only one I have read, so it’s not a good data set.
And the number of Rangers that were just used as cars makes me think that the people who don’t understand the capabilities of different vehicles probably aren’t using those capabilities, anyway. Hell, it’ll tow more than some F100s if you get the non-hybrid with the tow package, and it has a higher payload rating than a 1990 Ranger. So it’ll do plenty for most buyers.
As far as deciding what makes something a truck, I’m just saying for the people who want the truck status, it’s great. They can get something that is relatively efficient to commute in that still lets them drive a truck. Sure, it’s not for heavy loads or much towing, but it’s still more truck than a lot of truck buyers need.
Current GM full-size non-EV trucks and SUVs require special adapter pads so that conventional lifts don’t puncture their frames.
Also, your categorization of “truck” vs. “pickup” is flawed (moreso for lack of an accurate accepted noun to describe them than any wrongdoing on your part). “Trucks” refer to a wide array of vehicles, from hand-trucks for carrying items and motorcycles with beds, all the way up to the massive building-sized quarry dump trucks. “Pickups” typically refer to vehicles that have non-moving beds with raised sides, like a Model T with a bed, Ranchero, Maverick, Corvair rampside, Hilux, F-150, Ram 3500, even the Freightliner M2 in such a configuration. To that end I’d say the term “pickup truck” is most accurate, as it describes the function and shape of the cargo area of the vehicle. Yes, we need more definitions within “truck” and even “pickup” to delineate BOF vs unibody vehicles (much like the ongoing “SUV” vs “crossover” discussion).
Wow, that’s genuinely the first time I’ve ever heard of that and that makes me feel very sad.
My definition of Truck is for street legal 4 wheeled automobiles.
I think Truck, Pickup Truck, and Pickup are plenty enough to Delineate between BOF non-pickup Truck, A Truck with a Pickup Bed, and a Unibody automobile with a pickup bed.
So what you’re saying is even though they’re legally classified as trucks and everyone else calls them trucks, including the manufacturers, they’re not actually trucks because they don’t meet your superior definition of what a truck is? I think there’s a word for that.
Is the PT Cruiser a Truck?
“Is the PT Cruiser a Truck? ”
According to the EPA, it is.
Exactly, not a Truck or a Pickup but a Government agency calls it a Truck. How many PT Cruiser owners do you think call their PT Cruiser a Truck?
Unless you’re that weird guy who converted one who lives near where I buy groceries, it’s not a pickup truck – no open bed.
But that’s a different body style entirely.
But the Government calls it a Truck, which by Rusty S. Trusty’s definition makes it a Truck.
I’m not trying to argue truck semantics, I’m describing what you’re doing in this thread in a way that matches, word for word, the definition of snob (i.e. truck snob).
I’m not implying that Pickups are less than Trucks, rather they are very different though they look outwardly very similar.
If you want a more fuel efficient, lighter weight, automobile with a pickup bed and you’re willing to sacrifice durability, and chassis longevity for that then go right ahead.
Same goes for if you want a more durable, heavy duty, automobile with a non integral pickup bed and multiple choices for bed and cab size that is more capable than a unibody pickup.
But they’re not the same, and treating them as if they are by referring to all of them as Trucks doesn’t help anyone, if anything it causes more harm.
Trucks and pickups are the same thing. I have a 1973 International Harvester 1310, commonly known in adverts as ‘the other PICKUP’. Guess what? It has a body-on-frame construction. It is also commonly known as a ‘light truck’ and a pickup-truck. You can’t “conflate” trucks and pickups; they are the same thing.
What’s a Comanche?
Unibody with a separate bed. So it’s just a Pickup.
The Ram Promaster Cab and Chassis is unibody as well.
Lookit this MoFo trying to frame-shame trucks.
You probably also think that the Honda Ridgeline isn’t a truck.
What a weird stance to take.
The Ridgeline isn’t a Truck.
The graphic is highly misleading and really only shows that 1/2 ton crew cabs have shorter beds.
A more interesting and instructive view would be a breakdown by year of percentage of cab style/bed length since most cab styles are available with multiple beds. For example a 97-03 F150 Super Cab or regular cab had a choice of two 6 1/2′ short beds (standard and flare side) or an 8′ box. I definitely see more crew cabs and more short 5 1/2′ beds although a lot of newer 1/2 ton and compact crew cabs have optional 6′ beds.
You answered your own question. I’ll bet that graphic wouldn’t change much if they specified that they were comparing the most popular model.
Man, fuck r/fuckcars. All my homies hate r/fuckcars.
r/RCSB is so much better.
Seriously, fuckcars is this weird hate-filled echo chamber. I get some of it, the designing of America to need cars has had all sorts of horrific ramifications.
Doesn’t mean the car is the problem in this scenario, though
They are such blowhards, can’t stand them, agree 100%. Fuck /r/fuckcars
There’s some unwritten rule that, if you’re a suburban Dad, you’re supposed to drive a crew cab short bed truck.
I’m an outcast with my “there’s a proper vehicle for every occasion” philosophy, which leads to a driveway and barn load of interesting junk, including a single cab 8 ft bed truck, the quintessential hauling machine.
Hauls the kids, hauls the boat, hauls the mulch and the hand-me-down couch when Johnny moves out.
Good call on the markets. I’m gonna go ahead and double, then triple down on the pedantry. 1967 F100 (not F150). And fuel cap is on the wrong side.
That’ll be enough of that from me.
Shoot. Was supposed to be a reply to RustHoles.
Ah yes… F100, totally forgot, I’m guessing the image was flipped putting the fuel cap on the wrong side. Appreciate the pedantry!
I would really like to have a new truck with the same dimensions as a mid-1970s Ford Courier (a rebadged Mazda) or a slightly later B-series actual Mazda.
Nothing too posh – a bench seat would be fine – but with a decently-sized bed and LOW LOAD HEIGHT. I would use it to transport motorcycles and anything that will reduce the load ramp angle and related issues would be great.
I have considered a van but the “vanlife” wankers have essentially destroyed that market.
I completely agree. Modern trucks/pickups/utes are too high and are a pain to load bikes into. Aside from vans being lame, the other down side is that if your bike happens to leak fuel/oil you are stuck breathing the fumes. The humble trailer doesn’t have that problem and is much easier to load into, but also I hate pulling/storing a trailer.
Counterpoints: vans can be locked with all the stuff inside, and they offer better protection from the elements for the cargo.
Of course an enclosed trailer could offer the same benefits, but with the existing drawbacks of pulling a trailer.
And if my bikes leak fuel, that’s my fault. If they leak oil, well… 🙂 JK – they’re Japanese, so that’s much less of an issue.
If I went the van route, the plan was to put a kind of divider in it behind the front seats to reduce the load on the climate control (since it would be heating/cooling a smaller volume of air).
Vans are not lame, they are perfect for many uses like yours. Do not listen to anti-van propaganda! Anti-vanaganda? No matter. They’re great for all the reasons you mentioned plus people don’t see the murderous look in a van’s face, like they do in modern pickups, and assume that the driver has an anger problem and an armory in the glovebox. If it’s white a lot of the time you can avoid parking tickets since the meter readers will think you’re working. Sometimes you can even get away with parking in places that weren’t meant for it at all. And if it’s an Express or a Savana it can be repaired with basic tools and knowledge. I’m not sure that’s true of the current offerings from Ford, Ram and Mercedes.
Yeah but a simple rock thru a window and the thief is in. I havent locked my vehicle in the last 15 years.
My cousin, way back, carefully performed all the measurements and decided he could fit his Norton 750 into his ’68 Chevy van. Further, he reasoned it would be simplest to drive it up the ramp & in the back opening.
It was only as he saw his point of view rising rapidly above the van roof that he discovered the flaw in his plan. A rapid drop to a prone position, while keeping hold of the handlebars (and front brake) allowed him to successfully complete the loading operation. Belated quick thinking!