What is a truck? A question a child might ask, yet not a childish question. You’d think the answer would be so obvious that you wouldn’t even need to ask, it’d be like that famous quote from that judge who makes legal decisions based on whether or not he gets erections: you know it when you see it. But I’m not sure the status of truckitude is all that simple. I realized this a few days ago when discussions in the comments of our post about the refreshed Hyundai Santa Cruz truck got downright existential, as people wondered exactly what a truck is. I can’t stand by and let people wallow in confusion; I’m the sort that will turn on the headlights rather than curse your darkness, so let’s see what we can do to solve this problem. Let’s get to the essence of just what is a truck.
You may recall the time I ushered in an era of peace and prosperity to the Peoples of Earth by defining the Three Rules of Wagonhood, which defined what a station wagon is, finally, ending centuries of conflicts all over the world. I’m pretty sure the UN gave me some sort of medal or fruit basket or possibly cookie bouquet for this achievement, but don’t check on that. I also defined what makes a van, as well. So I’m absolutely qualified to undertake this sort of important taxonomical challenge.
I’ve been giving the matter of what defines a truck a lot of thought lately, and trying to really get to the core of the concept. I think there’s a lot of red herring paths one can go down; for example, David was talking about a vehicle being built as a body-on-frame as a criterion for truck-itude, but I don’t think that’s the case, because unibody vehicles like the Honda Ridgeline or the Volkswagen Pickup are definitely considered “trucks.” And I’d even consider three-wheeled vehicles like a Piaggio Ape to be a truck. I don’t think the essence of what makes a truck can be found in any technical criteria or construction approach; I think it’s something different.
I think it’s about intent.
I think when it comes to what makes a truck, we have to consider why the vehicle exists. What’s the fundamental goal of a truck? To understand this, we can look at the simplest possible vehicle that still gets classified as a “truck”: a hand truck.
And what’s the point of a hand truck? It’s a human-powered vehicle designed to move stuff. And that stuff is the key. Fundamentally, for something to be a truck, at its core it must be a vehicle whose primary raison d’etre is the moving of stuff as opposed to people. Trucks move cargo, or at least were designed for that purpose.
So, with this fundamental core mission in mind, I think we can define what a truck is like this:
A truck is a vehicle where the design of the body is defined by a means to haul cargo instead of people.
Nothing else really matters; a truck can be electric or gasoline or even steam-powered. Hell, the very first automobile in the world, the 1769 Cugnot Steam Drag, was a machine designed primarily to haul artillery:
The first car ever made was a truck.
The mechanics don’t matter here, the method of construction doesn’t matter, but the body design does. The defining trait of the body design should be some way of hauling cargo, like a pickup truck’s bed, or a box truck’s box, or a flatbed truck’s flat, um, bed, or the whole rear cargo area of a van, because, yes, vans are a subset of truck.
With this in mind, the category of truck becomes very broad, but all members of the set of trucks still follow that one golden truck rule: they all have a design that is focused on the hauling of stuff. All of these are trucks:
As you can see, size, design, how it’s built, what sort of stuff it’s hauling, none of that matters. All that matters is that intent to haul stuff. And the stuff has to be the priority; an SUV can hold a lot of stuff, but it’s just the stuff that the people inside want with them – the people are still the focus. Same with buses. A bus isn’t a truck, because a bus is for hauling lots of people, and I think we feel this inherently. There’s a big difference in tone if someone yells “everyone get on the bus” as opposed to “everyone get in the truck.” One is going to take you to a museum or park, the other could be dumping you out in some war zone or some forsaken patch of jungle or something.
If you’re still not with me, consider this: the government seems to agree with this concept. The infamous Chicken Tax defines a commercial vehicle, or truck as something not designed to carry people (beyond the driver and one passenger). That’s why the Subaru Brat had those ridiculous seats in the bed, so it could be considered a “passenger car.”
It’s all ridiculous, of course, but so is the whole Chicken Tax. But that tax says a truck is something designed to move stuff, not people.
The focus on cargo over people doesn’t even have to have been baked in from the start; a vehicle converted to cargo use can become a truck. Consider cars turned into vans, like what GM is referring to in this old Vega ad that shows three cars and one “panel truck”:
See what I’m getting at? The intent of the car was changed from focusing on people to focusing on cargo, and the design was modified accordingly, The Fiat Panda van is another example:
Fiat changed the use case of their little hatchback, removed some glass, added that squared-off replacement for the hatch, and boom, the Panda is now a truck, with as valid a claim to truckitude as any farm-use F-150.
Before any of these, there were also the “business coupes” of the 1930s and 1940s, some of which could be converted into actual pick-up-like vehicles:
These were cars made for traveling salesmen who needed to carry around a lot of product. They looked like a normal coupé from the outside, but had an interior configuration more like a small truck, and some, like the Coupe Pick-Up seen up there, even shoved a whole truck bed into the trunk as well. They’re trucks because they were always intended to haul stuff as their defining trait.
There are, of course, some interesting gray areas here. Take the Chilean-market Citroën Citroneta:
This was a Citroën 2CV modified for the needs of the Chilean market, which included using the car to do truck-like hauling, sometimes. There was a lid for the rear bed, as seen above, but plenty of Citronetas had no lid, just an open, small truck bed, too:
So, are these cars or trucks? Is that a trunk or a bed? Is the lid a trunk lid or a tonneau cover? I think we can define some of these: a tonneau cover is a truck bed cover that is not an inherent part of the vehicle’s design. If your vehicle can look “finished” without any lid over the cargo area, then it’s not a trunk lid, it’s a tonneau cover over a truck bed. A trunk lid is an inherent, un-removable part of a car’s cohesive design. So, in that context, I think the Citroneta has a truck bed, not a trunk, and its lid is a tonneau cover, not a trunk lid.
But is the purpose of a Citroneta to haul people or cargo? I think perhaps people, more so. And it’s derived from a design that was a passenger car design, so I’m not thinking it’s a truck.
But what about a luxurious crew-cab pickup truck?
A pickup like that Ford F-150 Lightning up there is very likely going to be primarily used to move people around. It’s luxurious and expensive and the size of the area for people commands as much or more space on that wheelbase as the area for cargo. So is it a still truck?
I say yes, because the basic design is still from a vehicle that has cargo hauling as its defining body trait: an F-150 truck. Even if it never gets used for this purpose, it’s still a truck.
Can a truck willingly abdicate its status as a truck? This is a tricky one.
Would a Lincoln Blackwood, which is basically a Lincoln-badged, luxurious F-150, still be a truck, even if it seems like Lincoln wanted to separate itself from the concept of a truck? I mean, look at the ads Lincoln ran:
The only thing in that huge bed was a briefcase, which is even ejected at the end, and all the dude does is drive fast and do some weird telekinesis shit with a fish. You don’t need a truck for that. They never showed these hauling lumber or mulch, and that bed was far too nice to comfortably haul that kind of thing, anyway. So is it still a truck?
Same goes for those Freightliner-based SUVs; the Freightliner was designed as a big rig tractor, hauling trailers, but had an SUV body fitted to it, changing its purpose and intent, in sort of the opposite way that the Fiat Panda got turned into a truck. So if a non-truck can be converted with intent and some body modifications, why can’t it go the other way, too?
I’m going to stand by my truck definition, but I’m willing to listen. In the comments, I’d love to know what you think – is this a valid definition of a truck? Am I missing any key criteria? If you think it’s too broad, I’d love to know why, and I’d love to know how much of what we consider truckishness are based on more irrational, emotional concepts?
This is fascinating stuff, and we’re doing important work here. So let’s talk about what makes a truck.
Well if it’s primarily for pulling something like a trailer, then technically it’s a tractor.
That reminds me, what about the Minneapolis-Moline crossover hybrid ULDX ?
I mean just look at that
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2017/03/15/the-swiss-army-knife-of-farm-implements-1938-minneapolis-moline-udlx-comfortractor
I don’t have strong opinions on this topic, which is a bit unusual for me. I don’t think there needs to be a concrete definition of a truck. I’m not even sure it is possible to have a concrete definition of a truck we can all agree on. But I have too much free time so I will ponder this nonetheless.
Part of the problem is that modern truck-like vehicles (mTLVs) exist on a continuum. While there are plenty of vehicles that are 100% car (i.e. a Viper or Miata), mTLVs vehicles are designed to fulfill multiple tasks. As a result, mTLVs should be apportioned based on how much they are a car and how much they are a truck.
A few examples:
Realistically, it is far easier to define what percentage a vehicle is a truck as opposed to whether a vehicle is a truck. No vehicles aimed at the consumer market (i.e. not heavy duty commercial vehicles) are 100% truck in 2021.
Part of the issue is that trucks have changed dramatically over the years. Historically, trucks were barbaric machines you bought out of necessity. My two trucks are great examples of how these machines have evolved. My ’77 F250 is unquestionably a truck. It has two seats, an 8 foot bed, rides like a brick, and has zero creature comforts. It is good at truck tasks, but it is a lousy car. My 2021 F250 is an extremely comfortable vehicle that is very useful as a car. However, in many ways it is superior at truck tasks than my ’77 due to its higher payload and towing capacity.
So this brings up yet another hurdle. Is something less of a truck because it is better at non-truck tasks than its predecessors? Is my 2021 less of a truck than my ’77 because it is a better car? Is my ’77 more of a car than the 2021 since it is less good at truck tasks? I’m not a philosopher so I can’t answer questions like these.
Given the convergence of cars and trucks we have experienced over the last few decades it is probably impossible to have a concrete definition of a truck. I will concur with the Super Court porno definition that I know a truck when I see it. But in the absence of that, I would motion that we define trucks by their ratios instead of attempting to adjudicate whether a vehicle is or is not a truck.
Maybe what we need is a panel of experts to adjudicate what percent a modern truck-like vehicle is a car and what percent is a truck?
I don’t have strong opinions on this topic but I’ll go ahead and see if there is a character limit with my post…..just razzing you. You present some solid points.
Yeah… it turns out I probably do have strong opinions on this topic, in hindsight.
Well, I rather agree, and my essay below has some similar points to yours. Indeed, no modern vehicle aimed at the consumer market is 100% truck, and IMO that’s enough to call it Not Truck. It needs to be 100% Truck to properly be a Truck. That’s the ratio I advocate for.
Meaning, in the US market at least, the only trucks are medium and heavy duty rigs. My f150 is a decent daily, and so it’s not a truck.
You certainly made some valid points below, and I don’t disagree with you. There is clearly something different between a truck aimed at consumers and a commercial truck. I guess I draw a distinction between Trucks (i.e. commercial vehicles) and trucks (i.e. vehicles sold to the general public). A truck is usually not a Truck. But since they are different things entirely, maybe a Truck is also usually not a truck? This is another conundrum I’ll leave to the philosophers. If I ever perfect necromancy I’ll resurrect Sartre and let him work on this one.
I guess am more of a “big tent” truck guy. I’ll call a Santa Cruz a truck. I’ll call a Suburban a truck. I’ll call an H2 SUT a truck, but I might also mock its tiny bed relative to the overall ginormousness of the H2.
That is why I am advocating for a rating system. I’m envisioning a TQ (truck quotient) that reflects the truck’s passenger:cargo usefulness ratio. This seems like the only way to settle this issue.
90s Ranger = best truck. Used mine to haul a new water heater from the store to my house. Used mine to haul the old water heater to the recycler. Used mine to haul buckets of mulch from the nursery to my house. Used mine to throw my fishing gear and a cooler of beer in the back and go down to the lake. All kinds of stuff for around the house. I miss that truck. Never should have sold it.
My definition. If you are willing to drop a yard of manure in the bed, it’s a truck.
My definition swaps the manure for 500 dead fish.
If they’re fresh Alaskan salmon, I’ll bring my truck.
That would be awesome! Unfortunately, it was invasive catfish. Fed the bears well though.
A different idea how about a truck is a vehicle designed to carry cargo that doesn’t have a model name?
What counts as model name? Is Silverado a model name? What about Ram 1500?
Well Silverado is definitely a model name. But 1500 is that a capacity designation or model name I was iffy on that. Open for suggestions.
So…
Cargo ship = truck.
Vehicle that carried the space shuttle = truck.
Cargo cars of a train = truck.
Aircraft carrier = truck?
Is a hearse a truck – is the body cargo or a person?
I think it was implied the vehicle in question is wheeled, so yeah, technically the space shuttle crawler is a truck, but ships are not. Dead people are still people, just less lively, so that’s a passenger vehicle.
I had the same question on the hearse. I lean more towards at that point they are cargo, ergo a hearse is a truck.
Drat I was settled on the definition;
But now, where does an ambulance fit?
Passenger vehicle unless the patient doesn’t make it. Then it becomes a truck.
The ambulance I drive has lots and lots of stuff, each with its own designated spot. Riding on a Kenworth chassis, it drives like a truck. It has a a full frame, with a separate “cargo” area. Unless there is a separate classification for “ambulance “, I call it a truck.
Going by that logic the space shuttle is itself a flying truck; part of the design brief was that it could launch and retrieve military satellites and that’s why it became as large as it was. It even has a crane for moving cargo!
Freight trains are totally not trucks, however each grouping of two axles on each car are totally trucks.
And an opposite case – a WW2 troop carrier truck….is primarily for troops but I don’t think anyone would say it’s not a truck.
My old ’81 squarebody Blazer was considered a truck at the time, but it was not necessarily intentionally designed to haul ‘stuff’ over people, I like to think it was the precursor to the modern SUV. It was body on frame and based on a truck so, to me, it was a truck. Then came our 87 Suzuki Samurai. It looked truck-ish, it was a Blazer-left-in-the-dryer-too-long and behaved like the Blazer in snow and off-road (sometimes better) but it could haul neither people nor stuff…
Great Article. Each point you started I was ready with a counter point, but then you covered it. Even at the end I was thinking Humvee a military people mover turned into a pickup but then boom Freightliner argument coveted it. But just to be a knit picker you need to add LA d based vehicle, as opposed to ships and planes that are vehicles and independent travel to eliminate trains which are vehicles that move people and products.
Can I mount weaponry to the roof, stand in the cargo area and call it a technical ? if so it’s a truck
https://www.indy100.com/news/bmw-machine-guns-ukraine. ???
What about making a distinction between a truck and a ute? And what to make of this, the Suzuki Mighty Boy?
https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Suzuki-Mighty-Boy2.jpg?w=1200&ssl=1
https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Suzuki-Mighty-Boy3.jpg?w=1200&ssl=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Mighty_Boy
I term unibody vehicles with pickup beds Pickups, like the old VW Caddy Pickup.
It looks like a Rabbit
To me, a ute is based on a car, or could be based on a car, or a car based on a ute (opposed to an SUV or 4×4). But I think if it has a cab, and a tray of some sort in Australia, it will just be a ute anyway. I think here a truck is like an actual truck, that you need a special licence for, and when someone asks what you do for work, you’re a truck driver…
Bearing in mind Ute is short for Utility Vehicle, with the ability to haul some hay bales about, and go to church on Sunday and still be respectable.
Anyway to answer the question, a Mighty Boy is a ute.
Fun fact, the Mighty Boy is classed as a Light Commercial vehicle in New South Wales.
It is absolutely a ute (I agree with Dangerous Daveo on it being a car-based truck) and much more useful for carrying stuff than you would think!
Wow, pretty cool about the Light Commercial classification! Yeah, talk about light!!
And, yeah, upon further examination, the Mighty Boy does look quite capable of carrying a lot more than one might think, especially with the cool rail running around the cargo bay which would be eminently useful for tying down loads. Sure wish we got the Mighty Boy here in the U.S., pretty envious of those of you who got it!
There’s also quite a lot of space behind the seats, since they are based on the Alto hatch.
I don’t think they’re that expensive to import from Japan, plus many over there already have an F6A swap which really wakes them up!
I’m a truck, You’re a truck, We’re all a bunch of mother truckers!
If we weren’t built to haul our food back to the cave, none of us would be here.
I am truck. Sometimes I have trouble starting in the morning. Sometimes I haul cargo on my back. Sometimes I have a little blow back that causes a mess. I am truck.
Don’t pop the clutch, or you may inadvertently dump your load.
If a vehicle was originally designed for carrying cargo, and it was manufactured to carry cargo, and it was sold to a customer for carrying cargo, it is, and always will be a truck.
Even if someone completely tore a truck down to its frame and rebuilt it as a bus or RV, its chromosomes would still say it’s a truck. If it was in an accident, someone could come by afterwards and say, yep, that’s a truck.
I had a friend who claimed they transitioned their truck into an RV, and even though they spent a ton of time and effort and money on it, and that they could now completely live in it, I refused to call it a camper and only referred to it as a truck. My friend’s feelings were pretty hurt, but you know, principles are principles. I’m not going to lie about the fact it was originally designed and built as a truck, never mind what has happened to it since it was originally built…
Trucks are trucks.
I can’t figure out if trucks are female or male though… That one I’m willing to debate…
/s
As to your last point, every vehicle of mine is referred to by female pronouns, it doesn’t matter how it looks.
Maybe it’s because they’re all my babies to me, and it feels weird to call a dude baby.
That being said coincidentally or not I have and continue to be attracted to what others would consider masculine looking women so….
Well Futurama has the Crushinator which is a female robot but she can carry cargo is she a truck?
So you think “truck” is a label attached to the chassis which is quite independent of bodystyle?
I think it’s a suspension/payload thing. While both a sportscar and a pickup have stiff frames now days, the pickup sacrifices roadholding for carry capacity while the sportscar will sacrifice carry capacity for handling.
Does the truck get a say in this?
I used to say yes but now I’m not so sure.
Yea and I’m not going any further down the rabbit hole. I just get myself in trouble that way.
Smart move. I stared into the abyss, and it stared back. I was scouring YouTube for daily use pickup videos and stumbled upon some teenager who owns a 1987 Dodge Dakota longbed 4WD. His videos were how he uses the bed as a studio for his podcast.
So his truck is a studio does that make it not a truck or studios trucks?
Calling take me away!
Points for people who get the reference.
Oh it’s definitely a truck. No doubt about it! My first pickup was just like it but in a plainer package. V-6, Long Bed, 4WD. I worked the hell out of it! Did my landscaping jobs with it, brought home ten railroad ties and rebar to build rugged raised bed rose gardens for my wife. Hauled a JLG lift with it to trim trees in the backyard.
It’s a truck even if it isn’t used as one.
If anything, that guy reminded me it doesn’t matter what you buy as long as you enjoy it.
Sorry can’t edit I meant if truck is a studio does that make it no longer a truck or does it make studios trucks?
Calgon take me away !
Points for people who get the reference.
Sorry auto correct sucks.
Yeah, autocorrect ducks
i did get the corrected version
I’m not sure either but my coworker refers to her Dodge 1500 and her boyfriend’s GMC Sierra as “She”, but vehemently calls my Ranger a “Boy” truck. (So does my wife.)
IMHO a Truck has to be BOF. A Pickup Truck is a Truck with a Pickup bed separate from the cab.
Unibody Vehicles like the VW Caddy Pickup and the Maverick are what I’d term as pickups.
The grey area for me are vehicles like the Chevy Avalanche where the body and bed are one piece. I’d consider it a Truck but I wouldn’t consider it a Pickup Truck. It’s more like a Ute Truck.
Agreed – body on frame and an 8 foot bed. Also capacity to actually haul something heavy. Ford F250 2wd is a work “truck”.
Does my fat ass Nana count as something heavy? Okay before anyone gets upset I don’t have a Nana but if I did I would love her and never refer to her as my fantasy Nana. But if you have trouble with a person who refers to maybe actual family members as fatass complain to Larry the Cable Guy or just mellow out and enjoy jokes and get a sense of humor.
If somebody somehow built a unibody box truck or garbage truck, would it not count as a truck? This sounds far fetched, but box trailers normally are “unibody”. And vans normally are unibody.
Yes. The only bit that I’d be iffy about is where armored (not up-armored) wheeled vehicles would fit, as they are substantially more durable than traditional unibody utility vehicles.
Is a unibody box truck not a van?
Seems like Ute is a good catch all term.
Is there any particularly tangible, logical reason why a unibody box truck is less of a truck than a BOF box truck? I can’t think of one, and I’m interested to hear why you think there is.
I’d say it has to do with general trends in regards to durability and modularity.
I’ve seen more unibody vehicles than I can count with crunched “frames” where they were jacked up in the incorrect location, and I’ve yet to see a single BOF vehicle with a crunched frame due to improper jacking, though I hear that the new Tahoes and Suburbans have weak frames that will crunch if jacked up in the wrong place.
Traditionally most unibody utility vehicles were not very modular cargo wise, as the bed or box was part of the chassis, which is generally a disadvantage when compared to traditional Trucks of BOF construction, but modern chassis cab Unibody vehicles like the Ram Promaster get rid of the disadvantage (though they sadly lack a factory pickup bed option in the US at least)
I’d take a unibody vehicle I can jack up damn near anywhere without damaging it over of BOF vehicle whose frame will crumple if you jack it anywhere on the frame but the jacking points.
Long term I think BOF vehicles will be more like new Tahoes and Suburbans in the developed world at least which would basically negate the advantages of BOF construction, and at that point I’d say modern unibody utility vehicles are better Trucks than those BOF vehicles.
I agree that BOF is usually stronger, better and more durable, especially for utility vehicles, than unibody. But I don’t think it’s useful in a definition because it’s not absolute.
BOF is usually but not always better than unibody for this kind of thing. But I don’t see much value in a definition that’s usually but not always true. A definition kind of needs to be definitive.
I got it a unibody truck is a truck wearing a unitard. A small tiny outfit. But a BOF a Big Old Frame is a big outfit so a real truck over a frilly wannabe truck.
So a tractor trailer the epitome of trucks isn’t a truck?
Since when are they unibody?
They aren’t but you have the tractor which doesn’t have cargo space and a trailer that does but no motor so not a vehicle. It is only the 2 separate pieces together that make it a possible truck.
How about going off payload? Say with all seats filled the vehicle maintains half(or some percentage) it’s initial payload it’s a truck?
I like your idea better than my own.
While I like the Ford Maverick as a pickup due to the payload restrictions it can either have a full load in the bed, or a full load in the cab, but not both.
I genuinely wonder how much the payload would increase for the Maverick Hybrid if Ford made a 2 Door variant.
Yeah but it has issues, for example a 4runner without the 3rd row would probably be a truck and a Tacoma wouldn’t
I don’t see that as an issue really. I think that vehicles that lose half their payload when the cab is full of average sized individuals are not proper Trucks even if they have Truck DNA.
Well, not quite. A Maverick has a payload of 1500lb, or about the same as my f150. The Maverick only maxes out its payload(I guess? 4-5 people doesn’t weight 1500lb) because the cab is too big, not because the payload is too small. This is also the reason that crew cab half tons didn’t exist until the late 90s.
Yesterday I saw someone on the MTC forums who had the bed of their Maverick hybrid with a bed that was most of the way filled of dirt, (but not full enough to be taller than the bedsides), and it was almost certainly overloaded without anyone in the cab. Apparently it made the journey without bottoming out or anything, but having a 4.5ft bed full of dirt that is no higher than the bedsides seems like a reasonable thing someone with a pickup would do, especially considering how prevalent dirt is.
A 2 door Maverick with the same bed would almost certainly have more payload and for this case enough payload to haul that same load without going over the payload capacity.
If I’m having a pickup with fixed bedsides I personally think it should be able to at least be filled to the tops of the bedsides with dirt without going over payload capacity.
Most full-size 8′ bed trucks couldn’t do this though
Actually, ALL fullsize 8′ bed pickups couldn’t do this.
A full size 8 foot truck bed filled to the rails is a little over 2 yards, or 4000-4500 lb. My gas F350 has a payload of 4150 lb, and a dually can be as high as 8000 lb (2wd, no options, regular cab).
So while you’re right in general, there are definitely rare configurations of SRW and most DRW trucks can haul a bed full.
https://cedar-grove.com/docs/7.5x11_Truck_Capacities.pdf
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/10/27/all-new-ford-f-series-super-duty-pickup-takes-heavy-duty-triple-.html
Dang, I didn’t know that they got as high as 8k on some duallys.
Where did you get the number of 2 yards in an 8′ fullsize bed? Mine is definitely bigger than that.
The first link in my post says 2.2 yards:
8 x 5 x 1.5 is 60 cubic ft, and a yard is 27, so 2.2 yards.
Looking at Ford’s own site they say a long bed is more like 77 cu ft. Just shy of 3 yards, where I’d want a DRW for sure. So if you packed tight I bet your numbers are closer.
That said, I have had an unofficial 2 yards in my truck bed and it was pretty damn full. Handled it just fine though.
I’m specifically referring to short bed pickups.
Well hate to break it to you, but filling the bed all the way up with dirt is not a realistic want, at all.
My 1995 f150 with an 8′ bed would be SEVERELY overloaded if I filled the bed all the way up with dirt. A cubic yard of dirt(27 cu ft) weighs roughly 2000lb. My approximately 8’x6’x2′ bed has a volume of 96 cubic feet, or 3.5 yards, or 3.5 tons, or 7000lb. Compared to my ~1400lb capacity.
Even if you buy a 2wd gas engine one ton with maximum payload capacity, you won’t be able to fill a pickup bed all the way up with dirt.
Ok. Technically you can do this, but I highly recommend you don’t. It’s hell on the hubs and bearing.
Have you tried? my experience is, while you risk breaking something or blowing out a tire, odd are you can haul double the rated capacity.
(likely the rating is more about safety than damage)
DOUBLE? That’s terrible.
Rated payload capacity is 100% about damage, not safety. I can tell you from experience that, with a non braked trailer, my f150 can safely stop much more than the GVWR. This makes sense, since pretty much every vehicle has a significantly higher towing capacity than payload capacity.
I have tried maxing out the payload of my f150. I can tell you, the payload is about 1400lb, but I would be on the bump stops before 2000lb. If I doubled my capacity and attempted to haul 3000lb in my half ton, I would immediately destroy my bump stops, and I wouldn’t get far before blowing tires and smoking wheel bearings.
A friend did this with an old 1/2 ton Chevy truck. $10 a pickup truck load of shale at the local yard. He asked the loader guy to give him a second bucket load. Snapped off the rear wheel studs on the way home. Even though a bunch of shale dumped out when the wheel came off, he couldn’t budge that truck with his 2 ton floor jack. Had to borrow a big screw jack…
That’s hilarious, and a great illustration of why load ratings exist.
Referring to short bed pickups, in this case a 4.5ft bed.
The point being that because of the extra seating, doors, etc. The Maverick was overloaded when hauling that dirt. If it was a 2 door with no changes to the drivetrain it would have a higher payload.
It is the extra weight used to cater to hauling passengers that compromises it’s payload.
I’m not saying EVERY pickup should be able to haul a bed that is filled to the top of the bedsides with dirt, rather, if you’re stuck with a short bed it should have a very good payload to compensate for its inability to haul otherwise less dense cargo that won’t fit in said short bed.
In the Maverick’s case making a 2 door Maverick should be fairly cheap and simple. In exchange for losing 3 seats you get a lot more payload (probably 2000lbs+), a tighter turning circle, lower curb weight, etc.
Simply put, if you get a smaller bed both the bed and the vehicle it is attached to should have a higher payload rating.
So you’re asking for a single cab Maverick, but with the same 4.5′ bed? That would be an almost Mighty Boy-level stumpy little pickup. That likely would get you a 2000-2200lb payload, but that’s still not enough to totally fill the bed with dirt, and honestly even 1500 is more than a Maverick needs.
More likely, and probably more useful, would be a Maverick with the same footprint but a single cab, and a 6-7′ bed.
Worth noting that even with short beds, it is normal to still totally not be able to fill up the bed all the way. A 6′ fullsize bed is still 5400lb of dirt.
In general, I disagree with your sentiment that a short bed like a Maverick needs more payload. Like I said, I drive an f150 with ~1400lb payload, and I have maxed it out only rarely. In fact, the only time have maxed it out was at the rock yard who wouldn’t be able to load rock into a 4.5′ bed anyways with their loader. I also have a Comanche with ~1000lb of payload that I have rarely maxed out. I very frequently haul things that need the size of the long bed, but rarely things that need more weight capacity.
From what I’ve heard a long bed Maverick would require a massive redesign due to flex, this should be cheaper and easier than a 6ft bed Maverick in the meanwhile, and it would serve as a great replacement for actually compact shop trucks used by Autoshops and such.
That makes sense. The short wheelbase might be an issue though, really short vehicles tend to have issues with fitting the gas tank and spare tire underneath. That’s why so many old 4x4s like Broncos and Samurais have the spare tire on the back.
mebbe part of the definition is this:
If it can haul 50% more than its rated capacity without breaking, it can be considered a truck
My 92 Chevy K1500 has hauled many loads that were probably 200% (and towed trucks heavier than itself multiple times) – and is still running strong at 220,000 miles. (it even has the 4.3 V6)
Aah but capable payload or usage payload?
I was thinking the payload on the door sticker ( passenger and cargo shouldn’t exceed x). Take number and divide by the number of seats x average person’s weight if it’s greater then 2 it’s a truck.
I’d be willing to consider various people weights based on the seat in question
Well then those little Ford delivery trucks which I hate. Can carry cargo but top payload is 400 including passengers and all the other mini vehicles are out.
Eh I didn’t say it was perfect but at least it’s mathematical.
So statistically correct which is the worst kind of correct. For example 25% of accidents on the road are caused by drunk drivers. That means 75% are caused by sober drivers. So statistically we should require people to get drunk before they drive. That is of course ludicrous but statistically correct.
Mines not statistical (or mathematical I guess) it’s measurable.
So… if I hook a trailer to a motorcycle it becomes a truck?
Only if you weld the trailer to a motorcycle would it transcend to truckness. A Malibu hauling a trailer is not a truck, but a Malibu with a pickup bed is (was) an El Camino, a light truck or ute if you prefer.
I’m seeing a flatbed side car..
I’ve actually seen those in Korea and the Philippines.
The trailer must be welded to the motorcycle?
By that logic a hand truck isn’t a truck unless it’s permanently melded to a human.
No the trailer is carrying the product the motorcycle is just pulling it. You are a semi.
“ Fundamentally, for something to be a truck, at its core it must be a vehicle whose primary raison d’etre is the moving of stuff as opposed to people.”
“ Nothing else really matters; a truck can be electric or gasoline or even steam-powered.”
In my example the trailer is the truck, not the motorcycle.
The motorcycle just happens to be what powers the trailer.
Like the human that powers the hand truck.
So by Jason’s logic any old utility trailer has the potential to become a truck once it’s connected to a power source that provides locomotion.
Wow, this is my fault, I’m the one who started the giant argument the other day about what is a truck. I’m taking credit for this.
But, Jason, I really think your definition is wrong. My definition, and I have spent more time thinking about this definition than perhaps any other person ever, is:
A truck is a vehicle which, by every part of its design, is meant to haul cargo, and does NOT haul people as a primary goal.
This is different from Jason’s definition because he says the design of the BODY is what makes it a truck, but I think it has to be more than just the body.
I think this because truckness is obviously bodystyle independent. If we look at heavy trucks, a semi truck and a box truck and a dump truck are obviously all trucks, despite having very different bodies. And a semi truck doesn’t even have a body that facilitates carrying things; it only drags the trailer that carries things.
And if we can accept that truckness is bodystyle independent, then an f150 is not a truck. Why? Because nothing about the f150s design(apart from the bodystyle) is built with a special intent for hauling. The engine, transmission, chassis, suspension, are all normal car stuff. In many cases, like my f150, most major parts are exactly the same parts as a sedan.
An f150 is not a pickup truck, it’s a pickup car. Just like a VW Caddy or an El Camino or a Honda Ridgeline or a Hyundai Santa Cruz. All of these are a car that has a pickup body, with no especially major chassis changes.
Now, if you have ever worked on or driven a semi truck, you know that they are very different. Every part of the engine, transmission, chassis, suspension, even the cab and seat design, is built with the express and sole goal of hauling cargo, and they are all resultingly very different from what you’d find in a car or light pickup.
I totally disagree! Which sedan does an F150 share any parts with? Ford doesn’t make a sedan 🙂
That said – the engine – the 3.5L ecoboost’s first application was the F150. Same with the 2.7L Ecoboost. You could claim that the 5.0V8 is a Mustang engine, fine. The 10R80’s first application was the F150. The Chassis? It’s a unique frame to the F150. Suspension? Unique to the F-150. Definitely set up for hauling! Tow ratings are the big bragging point. The frame has mounts for a hitch, is that not set up for hauling?
Ford makes more F150s than anything, so F150 was most likely the primary usage application for any major component that was shared. They’re not putting a window switch from the Edge in the F150 unless it works in the F150.
This only stopped working because Ford stopped making sedans. A 2011 f150 has exactly the same engine, transmission, and rear end as a 2011 Crown Vic, as well as suspension which follows a similar design.
Ford pickups and fullsize sedans shared many fundamental parts, especially drivetrain parts, and basic chassis design from the beginning of Model TT production in 1917 until the end of fullsize sedan production in 2011. Ditto for Chevy and Dodge pickups and fullsize sedans.
As long as the Big Three made both pickups and fullsize sedans, the pickups and sedans shared almost every part of the design except the body.
I’d still argue that the Crown Vic has a truck motor, transmission, and axle as opposed to the other way around. And suspension is totally different – leaf springs for the truck and airbags for the Vic.
You’re not wrong historically, but in the modern era trucks have been the primary sellers, and therefore the primary design basis. The trucks didn’t have car parts. The cars had truck parts.
But why would the Crown Vic have a truck engine, transmission, and axle? What makes it more truck than car? That 4.6 was developed for, and first used in, the Crown Vic. It was used in Explorers, f150s, Vics, and Mustangs. It’s a pickup AND car motor, intended and suited for use in both, just like the 302 it replaced, and the Y-block before that, and the flathead before that.
Are you saying I’m right for all Ford pickups built 1917-2011, but not 2011-2024? That would make me 88% right, which ain’t bad. I’m trying to make a universal definition. One that’s, you know, definitive, for all trucks ever. Not just in 2024 model year.
What I’m saying is, there is no consistent and universal difference between ALL cars and ALL pickups besides bodystyle. And so I have to conclude that “pickup” is just a bodystyle of car, like sedan, coupe, or wagon.
This is different from trucks, which have a consistent and universal difference from cars that is much more than skin deep.
Going back a few years, the ford 390 cubic inch engine is found in both cars and trucks. Block, cam, and heads are different though.
You need to not make so much sense, or you’ll find yourself on the hook for more articles.
This is good stuff. Next, however, I need Jason to help me with the rules for what constitutes a pie. That’s where the real problems start. Goodness knows how to link that to cars though. Perhaps through the Ford Cortina MK1 taillight…?
however, I need Jason to help me with the rules for what constitutes a pie.
God God, don’t get him started on “soup” and whether it includes cereal…
Or is there a difference between souo and stew or even shower spaghetti? After all while spaghetti itself isn’t liquid enough to be soup you take it in the shower it does become liquid enough.
Truly these are questions for the ages.
And yet DT has still not shared his recipe for shower spaghetti. We need a recsharing column.
It’s not clear if the shower head is used to enjoy, cook or MAKE the spaghetti…
Exactly and we as members need to force DT to provide the recipe. We have paid for the information.
Oh, my favorite game.
Cobbler Crisp or Pie?
I never get the answer right but somehow I always win.
How, then, do we speak of “Monster Trucks” ? They carry nothing except a single passenger, and yet it would feel really wrong to say “Monster Vehicle” or something else.
The concept of abdicating Truckness is an interesting one – is there a bed height at which a lifted Bro-dozer has ceased to be a Truck? I would sure agree that they’ve become useless for carrying cargo, towing cargo (hell, they’re even extremely crappy passenger vehicles unless you happen to really like step ladders).
NGL the first thing that came to mind is Drag Queens, they’re not women, but they are caricatures of women. Monster Trucks are not Trucks, but they are built to be caricatures of Trucks.
Both are for entertainment.
and both are OK, no need to clutch one’s pearls and call for pitchforks.
Never implied otherwise.
I know, I was making a general statement, w a bit of snark
My bad
and both are OK, no need to clutch one’s pearls and call for pitchforks.
Monster trucks are OK in a stadium or other appropriate venue, not OK on public streets though.
tru dat
I think truck-based SUVs like the Tahoe have a better claim of being trucks than some of the unibody cars with open trunks or small vans pictured (or for that matter an El Camino), but I admit to not being able to define the threshold precisely.
From what I’ve heard about recent generations of the Tahoe and Suburban is that the frames are weak enough to be damaged if you don’t jack them up on their designated jacking points.
For me I don’t see the advantage of a BOF vehicle if the frame is as weak or weaker than a unibody vehicle.
A van is not a truck. A truck has open storage, a van has covered storage. The caveat of that is bed toppers BUT since those are not technically part of the truck itself and added afterwards I think they’re a loophole in the definitions.
Box Truck -> Box Van. I can see both. The box may simply need to be re-understood as simply part of the cargo being carried by the Truck (sort of how bare-cab chassis can become box trucks, ambulances, RVs…). If you take that worldview, then i’d probably add a rule that says “cargo and passenger areas must be separated by intent” and then you get a distinction between your chassis cab uses.
Box truck is tricky BUT it’s still a truck that the cargo is a box of stuff. It’s separated from passengers and its intent is quite clear.
But the box isn’t the cargo, it’s the body. If it’s permanently attached to the frame, it’s the body.
Well nothing is permanent, you could actually create a vehicle that allows the box to be loaded and removed like a shipping container for ease of transport. About 4 ubolts is the difference, and now with a opaque roof that let’s light in from the sun is it still a box?
That’s called a roll off truck, and it’s generally considered to be a different thing from a box truck.
Permanent obviously doesn’t mean it can’t be removed. It means it’s not meant to be removed as part of normal operations.
Damn I thought I designed a new type of vehicle. Need to change name to Buzzkill. JK.
That’s awesome. Hey, when you come up with an idea that already exists, at least you know it’s not a dumb idea.
Thanks that makes me feel better for awhile then Pet Rock, Cia Pet, Mood Ring, the Spork, Jalopnik, occurred to me and then I was sad again.
Your definition has no clear line. What about a Bronco that has a bed topper thing from the factory, as an original part of the design, but is removable? What if I sawzall the back off of a van? Is it now a totally different kind of vehicle? What if I weld the back back on?
Bronco, like the Wrangler, is not a truck just because it’s open, they fall closer to hardtop convertibles. Van + Sawzall does not make a truck, it makes a hacked up van.
A van is a truck and a vehicle with an open bed is a pickup truck. It’s a very specific distinction.
To expand the idea a bit, I think the definition of “hauling” should include towing as well.
The little orange flatbed up above made me think of an airport tug (the type that pulls airplanes around) but a traditional tow truck is designed for hauling even if the hauled item is only slightly within the dimensions of the truck itself. The car becomes cargo when the car cannot go on its own.
Wow you made an excellent point unintentionally. A tow truck doesn’t haul anything unless it is a lift truck but how about the old tow trucks that just pulled cars? Not hauling were they not trucks Jason?
That was not unintentional. I specifically mentioned the airplane tug and the “traditional tow truck”, meaning the kind with the hydraulic boom that lifts one end of the disabled vehicle off the ground.
Ironically, you unintentionally made the point that a flatbed wrecker actually is a truck rather than a tow truck. Which it is: a flatbed may use a winch to get the car on to the back, but it’s not towing anything when in operation. 🙂
Well I was working on pumping thousands of gallons of water out of my basement
Where does the Ford Explorer Sport-Trac fit? The new Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon? The Ford Maverick? I’ll argue that if the passenger compartment is bigger than the pickup bed, it’s not meant to do real “truck” things . . .
Still trucks, they have sections dedicated to cargo that is larger than a trunk and/or not enclosed with the occupants.. please don’t mention the Avalanche, that complicates it.
What about the Avalanche? Sorry had to do it. Never tell me not to push a button or I’m pushing it.
The Avalanche can switch between what amounts to an 8 foot bed and 2 seats, or a 5 foot bed and 5 seats, either one of which is available in a normal truck. Since you’re switching between two accepted truck configurations, the Av is always a truck.
Dude I just asked because the original poster said don’t ask. Don’t you get get sarcasm? It is in my name
Yeah the reply was better intended for the guy above you but touché
Not all of us accept a 5 foot bed crew cab as a truck.
I folded down the rear seats of my Mini Cooper the day I bought it and have never folded them back up. Did I turn it into a truck as well as a station wagon?
Going for a record in the comment section today?
If the truck isn’t designed with compromises for hauling stuff, it isn’t a truck. So no, those 4 door, 4.5ft box “trucks” don’t count, because they compromise truck stuff for comfort.