For years in the various comments here at CC we’ve been hearing all sorts of denigrating comments about the physical size of current pickups.
Monster trucks. Oversized. Compensation for lack of manhood. Monstrosities. Ad nauseam. But you know what? Every one of those comments is painfully correct. Please know as a longtime defender of contemporary pickups I sure do have egg all over my face. This picture certainly shows me the gross error of my indefensible ways.
Good gracious – look at this early 1990s model half-ton four-wheel drive Dodge next to a current half-ton four-wheel drive GMC. That GMC simply dwarfs it, sort of like Andre The Giant standing next to Danny DeVito.
Even from the back the difference is breathtakingly inescapable. How in the wide world of sports does the owner of this GMC ever fit it under highway overpasses, let alone into his garage?
No doubt he needs an over dimension permit with an escort vehicle for operating this rig on public highways. With the height of that GMC a person may need to be a pole-vaulter simply to access the bed. Conversely, the Dodge is so petite a child could reach in while flat-footed. The overwhelming difference between these two is truly amazing. And sobering.
Oh, and look at the difference in length! That GMC is about as long as those city buses that are articulated in the middle. A person may need a commercial driver’s license given the absurd length of this thing. It’s about the length of a wagon track on the Oregon Trail.
But let’s face it, gentleman; we all have a positive reaction when we hear those four magic words of “oh, it’s so big!” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Since coworkers own all three of these pickups, I also was able to see the dainty Dodge parked next to a newer steroid filled Dodge Ram. Like with that GMC, the differences are breathtakingly astronomical. Damn, these new pickups should be outlawed! We all know a 2019 Honda Civic is the same size as a 2009 or a 1999 or a 1989; it’s only been pickups that have puffed up in those years.
These new monster trucks are so obscene and obnoxious. And let’s not even talk about the copious amounts of fuel needed to move these new beasts. I’m sure that diminutive old Dodge gets stellar fuel mileage, yielding results that would make your grandmother proud.
This Dodge Ram has a really profound case of The Gigantics. What was FCA thinking? It’s sad how these pickups have gotten so massive in size. They are truly gargantuan. It is incomprehensible how the size of these rigs has gotten so out of control.
It’s almost like all pickup stylists were perversely inspired by the movie Super-size Me.
Yep, it doesn’t matter from what angle – these pickups are the embodiment of how things in the automotive world have run amok and really gone to the dogs.
This current state of affairs has become truly unfortunate. Please know as I type this admission of misguided defense, I’m suffering from a knot in my throat and my eyes are quite moist. Fighting such profound guilt over misplaced loyalties can be a real bitch.
The world would be a better place if all contemporary pickups were of an infinitely more manageable size. The physical size of the old Dodge is just about ideal, isn’t it?
It’s refreshing to see such a nice, vibrant color that you just don’t seem to see anymore on the “old” truck too.
In this case it shouldn’t be a surprise given it’s from the 90s – the decade that ushered in the great greyscale epoch. If it were s 70s D series it’d probably be a typical 70s color, albeit not exactly vibrant, but a real color nonetheless.
The kicker is I’ve seen two others with this same paint scheme this week and the bed I bought for the ’87 Dodge I had years ago also had this two tone color combination.
Wow. The sarcasm is awesome !! Lol!! Actually I can now see they aren’t as far off as even I thought.
I think the manufacturer with the largest difference is between the 80-90 f150 vs now.
Regardless, yes they are mostly all closer then we thought
Not so fast there, bub. That’s a RAM 1500 (is it even 4WD?). My RAM 2500 4WD stands a good 5-6″ higher than the 1500 (going on memory here). I’ve searched fruitlessly for lowering springs for the truck – the lowered tailgate is a good 41-42″ off the ground, fer cryin’ out loud!
And, just to stir the pot a bit, here’s my RAM next to my Dad’s old Ranger…
Here’s a current 2500 next to a current 1500. The 2500 does have the PowerWagon package which I believe increases the ride height over 2″ more than a “regular” 2500 according to Allpar. Both pictured trucks are 4WD.
Can’t you just swap in a standard 2500 suspension, yours is the PowerWagon as well if I’m not mistaken?
Although I think Jason wasn’t trying to compare older half tons to newer 3/4 and 1-tons. Or to compact trucks.
My 2500 is actually a Tradesman – I rebadged and added the PW fender flares, etc.. Pic shows my truck next to an OEM PW, which uses the same frame (slightly modified for the PW suspension).
I know the point of the post wasn’t for comparing compact trucks… just stirring the pot for fun… (c:
It’s all good.
Besides, you are the unabashed owner of a 3/4 ton! You’ve upped the ante.
Yeah you’re right Jason, I was comparing apples to apples. In regards to the rangers, I had 3 of them and at that time it WAS the biggest compact truck. Lol
The new Ram is indeed 4wd.
Ed, my purpose was to compare like-to-like, ie 4wd half-ton to 4wd half-ton. Too often I’m seeing pictures of some old light duty 2wd half-ton next to a newer 4wd 3/4 ton with growling about how pickups have grown. That is not a like-to-like comparison.
We’re in violent agreement. Sorry for derailing the conversation! (c:
I *really* wish my ¾ ton sat as low as the ½ ton (4WD, even). I don’t need or want the added height! But I needed the extra load capacity, so there you go.
OK, I’m going to take the bait. It’s not about “how they’ve grown” so much as it is about the obnoxious oversized, goofy proportions that try so pathetically hard to scream “alpha-male”.
The grills have grown so much that the trucks are all snout and the “eyes” of the headlights have in some cases, slid off to the sides, making the truck’s face look like some demented abomination from hell.
The tailgates are so big that you need a ladder to get anything into the bed, erasing the ease of utility that made the pickup a working vehicle.
The rear view mirrors obnoxiously extend further and further away from the body like apehanger bars, adding to the macho, chest-puffing, faux tough-guy stance that caters to so many men with obvious dysmorphic issues.
Today’s pickups are all about image, masculinity, and poseurdom. Whether they literally dwarf the frames of yesterday’s pickups misses the point for those who pine for the look of yesteryear’s trucks as many at CC do.
That why I’m so excited to see the success of the new Ram – it seems they purposely took a step back from the edge of the cliff in the monster truck wars. It’s a very classy look… the polar opposite of the Chevy.
“…adding to the macho, chest-puffing, faux tough-guy stance that caters to so many men with obvious dysmorphic issues. Today’s pickups are all about image, masculinity, and poseurdom. ”
As demonstrated by many comments here, they are among the most useful vehicles an active and/or working family can own. Not sure why some people feel the need to get angry and hurl insults. I could make the same arguments about the overwrought styling of the current Prius and any number of modern vehicles. But in the end, most people will buy what they want despite attempts to shame them into a singular vision of conformity. And that’s a good thing, because this site would be pretty dull otherwise.
Explain this
If the bed was the same size the newer trucks would be about four feet longer than the old Dodge. I am not a pick-up person. But I do rent them from time to time. I have recently wanted to rent a pick-up with a large bed. When I got to the rental counter all they had was four door short beds. I ended up paying a small up-charge for an Expedition Max instead.
Most of the new pick-ups are “pick-ups” in name only and are actually Buick Electra 225’s with a small bed attached to make the government believe these things are actually used for “work” and are “more-exempt” from CAFE violations than a hypothetical 2020 Buick Electra 225 would have been.
I think you’re missing the fact that the new truck happens to be a crewcab with a 5.5″ bed. If it was a singlecab with an 8ft bed like the old truck it would not be “four feet longer”, it would even out. Same as if the old truck was a crewcab with a (then non-existent 5.5foot bed).
My point is that in the 80’s and early 90’s when the old Dodge was purchased a “pick-up” meant 8ft bed single cab to most of America. If you want something that could fit more than three passengers and haul you brought a Suburban, Full size station wagon, Full size sedan (with tow package) or Minivan.
Somewhere between when the 80’s-90’s Dodge was built and today most of America decided that “Pick-up” meant “crewcab” short-bed. As one-by-one Station wagons, Full Size Sedans, and Minivans fell out of favor. The Suburban is still around but for family duty at least in New England has been mostly replaced by the full size crossover (Traverse, etc.)
All of this is to say that the American pick-up went from being primarily a “utilitarian” vehicle to being primarily a vanity-luxo-barge over the last thirty years.
This is not to say that the regular cab 8 foot bed is totally extinct today or that crewcabs were not available in the 1980’s but that their respective market shares have managed to switch places. So that overall size of a pick-up has remained the same but overall utility (ability to haul large items in the bed) has decreased.
Your definition of utility is subjective. A crew cab can haul a lot of stuff inside the cab, including a family of up to 6 if necessary while also hauling stuff in the bed and towing a trailer. I’d say that’s more overall utility in the real world and why they are so popular.
It’s not vanity. They are genuinely useful vehicles.
Yes, crew cabs are great….unless you need to haul 4×8 sheets of plywood or 8′ 2x4s etc. I think that ‘s what James is talking about.
A crew cab with the 6.5 bed can do all that no problem.
I’ve hauled many of both no problem. Bed is just over 8′ long with the tailgate down. They will fit most of the stuff most people want to haul…including people.
And back in the day there were a lot of 1/2 short bed trucks with 6.5′ beds, in fact I’d say that was the norm in the 50’s and not uncommon in the 60’s.
Yet many would say the overall utility has increased since you can now use the pickup to take the family along with you when you take the boat out or go camping and you still have the bed to carry bulky or dirty items. Sure you can’t close the gate with that 8′ lumber but you can still get it home by setting it on top of the gate, if a few pieces, or dropping the gate and strapping it down if you’ve got a larger stack.
Don’t get me wrong I like my 8′ beds and that is what my primary truck has, along with its crew cab. However it is not used as a daily driver it only goes when I need it for its hauling ability or because I need/want the 4×4. However if I had to have one vehicle for all needs then yeah it would be the bed that had to be cut down.
I liked the idea of the Avalanche and Cadillac Escalade EXT. It had the crew cab design but was able to be converted into a long bed by folding down the rear seat and dis-assembly of the rear window. Not as complex as it sounds, I was able to do the conversion myself in about twenty minutes with no instructions.
I think it was GM’s most innovative vehicle between the time the C5 Corvette was launched and the Chevy Volt was launched. It was made for two generations so there was some initial interest but fell victim to the recession in 2008. GM also gave it the ability to be optioned with a 454 cubic inch engine for the gearheads.
I never brought one though couldn’t afford it and had no real use for a full-size pick-up at the time. But if I had to choose one the 454 Avalanche with cladding delete would be my choice. Even today.
The Avalanche was never available with a 454-V8. Most were powered by the 5.3L (325 cid). Some Avalanches were available with 3/4 ton suspensions. Those units had an option of the 8.1-V8 (496 cid). It had the 454 bore, but with a longer stroke. Both the 8.1L and the 3/4 ton Avalanche are quite rare.
Put me down as an Avalanche-lover, as well, and was really bummed when the next generation big GM SUV abandoned the Avalanche concept. I wish they’d bring it back. It seemed like the Swiss Army Knife of pickups (even though it was SUV-based).
I liked the idea of the Avalanche too, but it had a couple of problems that took it off my list when I was looking at them about 10 years ago. They were quite a bit more expensive than pickups, and losing the space around the wheelwells made the bed cramped and loading and unloading difficult.
There is a actually a specific point in time that the transition occurred and it started when Ford introduced the 2001 F-150 Supercrew, the first 1/2 crew cab since IH dropped theirs decades prior, and was completed by the introduction of the Silverado 1500 crew cab for 2004.
Must be all in the perspective of the particular generation. My comparison for size to today is from the mid-60s and not the 90s.
If I had to load grain bags into a truck I’d chose this old Dodge over anything new. A proper load height goes a long way towards saving your back.
That depends on your height and what you’re loading. I’d rather not have to bend over to get stuff out of the bed. Waist height is perfect.
Getting stuff out of the bed isn’t usually an issue. Gravity helps a lot. As to what you’re loading, a 50 lb bag of sand weighs as much as a 50 lb bucket of fish. Regardless of how tall you are, the higher the bed, the more lifting you’re doing to load it.
Not for nothing, but my complaints relating to trucks have never related to size or weight gain. Although, it is worth noting that an early 90’s Dodge D150 ranged from 3600 pounds to 4200 pounds curb weight, whereas the 2019 Dodge Ram 1500 ranges from 4800 to 5400 pounds curb weight. In any case, my complaints regarding trucks have always been directed toward their size problems when there are many of them. It is not usually a problem when there is a truck in the parking lot. There is a problem when there are 30 of them, and only 5 of them are parked properly. My complaints have also been directed at the shift from the utilitarian nature of trucks to a more comfort-oriented nature, which has only encouraged people who cannot handle a vehicle of that size to drive them. Which brings me to my final point: My main complaint-and this applies to SUVs too-is not with the trucks themselves, but with the people who drive them but don’t really know how to handle them. This point is especially important, because I’ve actually had a truck back onto my car before.
Still as big as the current pickup trucks are today over the ones in the past, they have more power and get better gas mileage then the trucks of yore.
That old Ram may be smaller then the current one but it was a huge gas pig
The problem with your argument is that the Dodge is 4wd and in its time it was the outlier. Back then 2wd was the norm and 4wd was more or less an afterthought. That meant that 4wd trucks, to get that solid front axle under the frame and engine and still provide at least 2″ of compression travel meant they had to sit much higher than their IFS 2wd counter parts.
However somewhere along the way 4wd became the norm and the trucks are engineered first and foremost to be IFS 4wd. So now the 2wd trucks sit just as high as their 4wd brethren since they use the same mounting points and basic front suspension design, there is just a hole where the differential should be.
I always assumed that lowered 2WD trucks was a towing thing. I guess you really do learn something new every day.
But 4wd or awd is how much more prevalent across all types of vehicles than it was in the early ’90s? Sure, that Dodge is arguably an outlier for the time, but it works out well when comparing like types, which is what I was out to do. Too often, as stated I stated further up, is a picture of some light duty half-ton next to a 4wd 3/4 ton with growling about the increase in size. Well, yeah, but it’s also comparing a watermelon to a bowling ball.
I agree, I was just pointing out that the common 1/2 ton truck in the Dodge’s era was 2wd while today it is 4wd and as such each were designed around the dominate truck of the time. So park today’s 1/2 2wd next to a 2wd version of that Dodge and the difference will be much greater, at least in the height dept.
The footprint however is pretty much the same.
My biggest criticism for modern trucks is two things – visual bulk, giving the front ends a tall intimidating almost semi-truck profile(which might be intentional…), which is very apparent in the first picture, and cab/bed configurations, as most privately owned pickups on the road now are configured like the Sierra with the crew cab/shortbed.
Modern trucks give the impression of bulk even if they are in fact no bigger than an old school longbed 4×4 in any dimension. I dislike driving around in classic longbeds because they’re indeed too big feeling as well, but they’re very useful when you need them. Having the overall length of a longbed pickup but with the limited capacity of a crewcab really makes trucks like this the worse of both worlds to me. “But I need the crewcab to haul my whole family” is a strange rationalization on a vehicle so inefficient and expensive. They still make traditional cab longbeds and shortbeds but they’re all seemingly poverty spec strictly for work use.
“Having the overall length of a longbed pickup but with the limited capacity of a crewcab really makes trucks like this the worse of both worlds to me. “But I need the crewcab to haul my whole family” is a strange rationalization on a vehicle so inefficient and expensive.”
This exactly.
The crew-cab short bed is the Personal Luxury Coupe of the 21st century.
The extended cab is the PLC of today, the crew cab is the full size sedan of today.
What is so strange about people who have to haul families around wanting vehicles that can haul their families around? Try stuffing 3 kids in carseats in the back of a Civic and driving them and all their stuff 4 hours to grandma and grandpa’s house, then we can have a discussion about what’s practical. 😉 I quite literally hauled my finished basement home in a short bed crew cab, so it’s not like they aren’t useful. Most of the common stuff people tend to haul fits just fine, including ATVs and 4×8 lumber.
And sure MSRP is expensive but nobody pays anywhere near that for a domestic truck. I looked long and hard at smaller trucks but in the end a modestly equipped full size did not cost any more and only averages 1-2 MPG less. In fact I’m currently getting a little better city mileage in my truck than in our minivan.
I mean I guess this is why I dont own a pickup, or want kids for that matter, but I don’t exactly consider ATVs a common item, at least in my parts, and while it might take a few trips depending on the scale of the project, I have got by hauling long boards of lumber with the rear seat folded down in my car. Not exactly riding in style in the process, but I’m not doing such projects everyday. Heck, my Dad hauled our finished basement home in his Audi 100 sedan back in the mid-90s, and my tree fort. Only times I remember us having things delivered back then was furniture that wouldn’t fit within a 5.5” pickup bed either.
As for families I don’t find it strange except that most families with as many kids seemingly get by just fine in cars/vans/crossovers. Most households in the suburbs with a shiny new crewcab are seemingly at least two car households where the pickup isn’t necessarily being used at full capacity very often. Crewcab pickups most often simply seem an excuse to say to the significant other “see, it’s the perfect family car for us, not my own personal indulgence!”.
Well the fact is that crew cab does mean that you can have a vehicle that can haul the family and tow the boat/camper and that short bed means you can park it.
Common pickup truck configurations, current vs. about 50 years ago.
Yeah, that ’72 Chevy is practically S-10 size.
I always liked the ’72, especially in that color.
1968 C-10
Width 79″, Height 70″
1983 S-10 (for RetroStang)
Width 67.9″, Height 63.4″
2019 Silverado
Width 81″, Height 75″
No, it is most assuredly not the same size as an S10. I had an S10 in high school, my friend had a 71. We could sit three wide comfortably in his, only two in mine. It was basically the same size as my mom’s 91 GMC.
The S10 is narrow, I can open the passenger door from the driver seat without much movement. No way I could do that in a 70s C10, in fact with the bench they actually seem wider inside than their modern counterparts due to the openness. Full size pickups have always been wide, you’d probably need to back to the 50s to find a full size pickup that’s S10 sized.
This, and I am also disappointed in the vertical dimensions of truck interiors. The trucks are so tall, when I get into one I expect to sit chair height and have a lot of air around my head. Instead I too often feel like I’m sitting in a ’72 Nova.
I was merely commenting on the appearance of the two trucks in the photo, an optical illusion if you will…
I had an S-10. It was a 2002, which is likely a little bigger than a Luv from the ‘70(s). Yes, I agree, it was really narrow, and having driven a mid-nineties F-150, found that truck to be considerably wider, than my little S-10 (pictured below). I think it was Matt that commented on appearances of the newer ones somewhere in all of these replies.
I have to agree. As Jason points out, albeit with his great wit and sarcasm, there really isn’t too much difference after all. but Matt is right. These new full sizers LOOK massive. Maybe it’s for pedestrian safety compared to the older trucks, although if you were hit by one, it would be like getting hit by a speeding building!
Herlong Chevrolet in Batesburg-Leesville has that same image in their main office.
Not really seeing Mr. Shafer’s view? They all look pretty much the same size to me. Maybe you had to be there, or I guess I need my eyes adjusted.
Anyway, a great read this morning and put me the right mood for digging into our new open burning regulation…..
I think XR7Matt has it right, it’s not the actual physical size, but the styling and how newer trucks look so much bigger/bulky not helped by most being at the very least extended cabs and lots of crew cabs just adding to bulk perception.
He was being sarcastic and you kind of made his point for him. 😀
I know he was, which is why I got a nice chuckle from reading it this morning. Sometimes my expression of humour is not very good.
And on top of all that the wheels on the old one aren’t nearly big enough.
I just happened to come across this picture recently of my local Ford dealer, circa 1981. The Courier in this photo agrees with your commentary 100%:
I have a ’67 GMC and a ’12 GMC, both regular cab long beds. They are close in width, the ’12 is a few inches longer, but the ’12 is much taller. The ’67 is a 3/4 ton 2WD, the ’12 is a 1 ton 4X4. Some of the height difference is attributable to the taller cab and deeper bed on the ’12. Interior of the ’12 is much more spacious than the ’67.
One thing is certain, back in the 1960’s there were far fewer long bed crew cabs, 4X4’s, and there were not any ‘factory’ dual rear wheel pickups.
“One thing is certain, back in the 1960’s there were far fewer long bed crew cabs, 4X4’s, and there were not any ‘factory’ dual rear wheel pickups.”
Exactly. This is one of the main differences in newer vs. older trucks; the prevalence of crew cab and 4×4 configurations in almost all trucks sold north of the Mason Dixon line, and the large number of dually 3/4 and 1 ton trucks you see running around. These configurations add greatly to the visual bulk of the truck even if the actual footprint on the ground is much different from the older models (although dually trucks obviously add a lot of rear track width).
Anyway, these truck configurations were almost non-existent back in the 60s and early 70s. It wasn’t really until the late 80s or early 90s that crew cabs were even offered as a regular option on most 1/2 ton trucks. Their sheer utility as combination family/cargo haulers is what has made them so popular.
The first modern era 1/2 ton crew cab was the 2001 F-150 Supercrew, the others soon followed. The first 1/2 ton crew 5.5′ bed however was in 1957 when International introduced the Travelette.
Paul once mentioned that the most recent example of the ‘perfect’ pickup was the old, first generation Toyota T-100 regular cab with the four-cylinder engine. I can’t say I disagree with that sentiment. It was just about the perfect size for nearly anything a pickup should be needed to do, and the big Toyota four provided adequate power, as well. Combined with Toyota reliability, what more could anyone ask from a pickup?
A whole bunch, as these new, gargantuan behemoths loaded with Cadillac creature comforts would seem to indicate.
Sorry, but to me they are just little puddle jumpers, anything less than 2.5m wide and under 3.5 tonne tare isnt a truck, if you can drive it on a car licence it simply doesnt qualify for the title Truck.
I think you’d be surprised and/or shocked (likely both) if you looked into what one can rent and drive over here on a simple car license that is usually gotten with maybe 3 hours of formalized hands-on training in a compact car with a somewhat qualified instructor, a few more hours of documenting (on the honor system) driving with a parent or older person and a simple written quiz (and that’s in a fairly restrictive state, in most states your high school gym teacher does the official “teaching”.
I believe our common 26-foot moving van is 2.5m wide and over 3.5 tons tare weight, all you need is a valid license and zero proof that you’ve ever actually driven anything beyond said “instruction” in high school. Load it up to the maximum which Penske advertises at 33,000 pounds GVW and feel free to drive coast to coast, you won’t get checked by anyone.
It does depend on the state and the nature of the use. In my state the max you can drive with a standard license is class 6 or 26,000lbs, unless it qualifies for an exemption. Some of those exemptions are personal use such as RVs and 2 axle rental trucks. So yeah if you are moving yourself you can drive the 33,000 truck, but if it is for a business use you’ll need a CDL.
If my Ryder rep is able to work her magic I’ll be picking up a couple of 26′ trucks tomorrow. I’ll try to snap a couple of pictures.
The sarcasm is awesome, indeed! But, as the owner of an ’89 Ford F150 (2WD, regular cab, long bed), I have to say in the three plus years I’ve owned it, I’ve had many people comment on how much they like my older, “smaller” pickup. These are not car people but just ordinary folks, passersby, friends, etc. The reality is yes that the size is actually not so different, but the small, airy-looking cab (the dark tinting on the windows of most modern trucks plays a part in making them look bigger and more imposing, too), and the lack of any massive look-at-me grille (as XR7Matt noted in his comment), all contribute to creating the impression of relative small-ness as compared to the new trucks.
This is similar I think to when I owned a station wagon back in the ’80s. I often had people comment on how “big” my car was… but when I would point out that my wagon was no longer or wider than the sedan version of the same car model, I was sometimes met with blank stares or even disbelief. “But.. look at it. It’s bigger.” Perception is what matters—the facts, not so much.
Maybe this picture does the comparison more justice. 1992-1997 F-250 vs Ram 2500?
Pic didn’t load
It’s most likely too large. Try re-saving as a smaller format, it virtually always works then.
That old Dodge is gorgeous.
Love this post. Well done, Jason.
Tired of hearing about how modern trucks have become more like Cadillacs, and less like trucks. I think this point of view is typically offered by those who don’t own a modern pickup and therefor have no concept of just how useful – and wonderful – these new trucks are.
In my case, in the four years I’ve had my ’15 F150 4×4 CC SB I use it regularly for every use case or task for which you might want a truck: Hauling family or friends out to dinner in comfort and style; taking an 8 hour road trip to visit my son in supreme comfort, with a nearly 600 mile range (my bladder doesn’t last that long!); hauling all manner of stuff in the bed AND/OR in the back of the cab with the seats folded up…who needs a bed cover or topper with all this cavernous, lockable space back there; towing my race car and all the requisite support gear, spare tires, etc to the track, again in supreme comfort, no muss, no fuss; or going off-road into the boonies to hunt turkey or whitetail or elk.
You name it, this truck does it without breaking a sweat. As millions of modern pickup owners will readily attest.
Thank you.
Some of us carry a pocketknife and always find a need for having it around. Pickups are like pocketknives in that there are a world of uses for them. Those that don’t partake of pocketknives sometimes don’t understand why some carry them and the same goes for pickups.
Have a ’15 F150 Lariat 4×4 CC SB, but I’d love an older truck, too. Been eyeing late 70s F150 4×4 long bed regular cabs lately, but don’t need two trucks so will have to let this latest hankering subside.
More than happy with my current F150, though. Yes it’s large, but it does everything one might want a truck to do without breaking a sweat. Whether hauling people or cargo, towing a race car, going off road to hunt whitetail or turkey, or just making a milk run to the store, there’s really nothing this truck doesn’t do well. The fuel economy isn’t so terrible considering its size and capabilities and it even fits in my garage.
There’s a reason modern full-size pickups sell in the millions each year. They’re simply some of the most useful, versatile vehicles on the planet.
Being a certified old man, I can try to weigh in here briefly.
If I’m honest, newer trucks don’t seem to be made for being trucks. Old pickups and work trucks were made for exactly that. Work. Not for looking cool, or aggressive, or “manly”, or anything else unnecessary. Work. Rougher terrain, hauling and moving things, pulling trailers and even tractors. New stuff looks like it’s had more plastic attached and tries to look weirder than whoever that Minaj girl is.
I am a bit biased towards older trucks, owning a 74 GMC 3500 and a 75 Chevrolet K20, but I can somewhat see the appeal to certain audiences for new trucks. Still, it’s getting a bit ridiculous.
They still make very basic trucks for purely “work” – The Ram 2500 I drove recently had a rubber floor as standard for example. Manual windows are standard in the F150XL as is a vinyl seat. Heavy Duty pickups now will tow things that forty years ago you’d need to hire someone with a Semi. Or take multiple trips.
The junkyard truck we just featured where someone disassembled the engine on the spot in the dirt was a mid-70’s Chevy and was offered in four trim levels, none of which looked all that “work”-man like; the one we showed was a Custom, apparently the base, and it had a multi-colored patterned bench seat and fake wood trim inside. It got fancier in the three trim levels above it but surprisingly was hardly a hair shirt even in base mode.
I’ve spent some seat time in some newer trucks and some older trucks, and I’ll agree to a point. Modern trucks tend to be more plush, although you can get them quite spartan if you choose, but they also are quite capable. Infuriatingly so, sometimes. My father’s Lincoln MK LT is a chrome-slathered mistake of a truck, but it is also capable of towing, hauling, and going off-road. I may be the only person ever to do any of those things in a MK LT. Which is why I agree with you. They’re capable of work, but there do not feel as though they are *made* for work. They’re more about style than substance.
I’d actually say work trucks are more work trucky than ever. Big matte black textured facias, appliance white bodies, and rubbery grey interiors. Come to think of it they probably make the more uplevel examples seem more luxurious and garish by comparison than they actually are.
There were all sorts of early examples of non-work truck trucks as well, the F100 unibody was all about style, and compromised from it, the Dodge “Dude” pickup literally may as well be called manly, and the Little Red Express and Warlock looked cool. And as Jim said, there were tons of options that took a typical pickup out of fleet spec.
In reply to MicKhafer 1961:
Amen.
Yes, Mic, it’s the look of the new trucks and perhaps not the size, that annoys. If today’s trucks are close in size to the older ones, they are much more desperate to be viewed as badass. An old truck was big because it had a big job to do. A new truck is big because its owner too often wants to convey a message about who he is and why you should be impressed with him.
I appreciate all the opinions here.
There is a point to be made for certain new heavy duty trucks, I didn’t mention it above but I did have a 2018 F350 Platinum that was a relatively good farm truck and did what it was built to do, but to a degree it still looks a bit aggressive and “manly” to my tastes.
I wasn’t intending to say ALL of the newer trucks are just really meant for looks and all that, it’s just with some of them that’s what it seems like.
And XR7, you got a good point. Funnily enough there’s a lime green Dude pickup a few blocks down from me. Might do a CC on it.
My 2006 F-250 XL is all about work with its painted bumpers, black grille, rubber floor and vinyl seats. The truck it replaced was an 84 F350 and the newer truck works harder and is more capable, hands down. Not to mention the new truck uses much less fuel.
But as I’ve mentioned before for me it is a truck for truck things and not a daily driver, if it was a daily driver I wouldn’t put up with an XL.
I remember I was shocked when I saw the new 1990-ish Dodge front end, compared to the one right before it. It was the same or similar as the featured “old” Dodge.
But compared to the new trucks I can’t believe how simple and clean it looks.
I never thought new trucks were bigger than the old. They’re just big fat blocky looking piles of plastic and plastichrome over more plastic and plastichrome, like the designers never know what to do with all that space. Vastly more comfortable, to be sure. Safer than ever before. Hell, that old Ram probably doesn’t even have headrests. More capable and powerful by far. So I respect the product, I just don’t think it’s nice looking anymore.
But if I had to buy/get a mortgage out on a new pickup, it would definitely be a Ford. GM got too tacky and stacky, and Dodge is, well, Dodge. Toyotas are great but right now they’re so ugly I wince when I see them. Gimme the plain old T-100 any day, though.
In ’91, I had personal use of a 1986 GMC 2500 4X4 “Heavy Duty” from my job. It had 80 psi tires and only rode smoothly with a ton of bricks or something in the back. Good ‘ol injected 350 under the hood. Differentials the size of my head, and I am Polish…
Classic big box shape. Plow attachment. All that good truck stuff. No nanny-state doodads either. Of course it didn’t need headrests, because real men can smash their heads against glass in a rear-end crash and not break a sweat.
Kidding. I would sweat. A lot. That sunlight right on the back of my head on my balding spot would make me very hot now…
What an awesome truck it was. I once drove up what must have been a 40 percent grade sand hill in 4-low and it did it like nothing. (Going down was scary; didn’t think that far ahead. I was 19 and acted like it)
To me that was a REAL truck, without any show-offy nonsense. Rubber floors, vinyl bench seat, giant chrome mirrors. Wish I had it again. Of course back then I didn’t care about the MPG ’cause the company bought my gasoline. 😎
Chrome mirrors! What a poser! You just gave it all away, “Real Truck”, Ha! Those mirrors need to be painted flat white to match the white-painted steel bumper if you want to claim proper hairy-chested man-truck! 🙂
The joke’s on you!
I only PRETEND to be a poser!
😉
When I went looking for a truck to handle the home center runs, my minimum spec was a 6 foot bed and extended cab. Submitted for inspection by the CC commentariat, one 2008 Chevy Colorado with 86,000 miles.2.9 Vortec, baby! Gettin’ the job done for the PRNDL family since 2016. 😉
Here’s the pic.
The old Dodge looks like it would clear better on steep rollups with that high front end.
I had a 64 D-100, was driving with my brother in the midwest. We stopped at a rural Walmart with a grade in the parking lot. When we left was night and raining heavily. As we were pulling out at a stately slant-6 velocity, a shopping cart rolled out in front of us into the headlight pattern. I kept going and it went flying off to one side into wet darkness with a loud clang and crash.
My brother asked if I’d dented the truck, I laughed and said I didn’t think so. Later he looked and could not even find paint missing, no sign of that encounter.
Think that new Chevy or Ram would say the same?
90s F250 vs Ram 2500?
All joking aside, I do find it curious that nobody produces a 1/2 ton full crewcab with the 8foot long bed. While it exists in the 3/4 and 1-ton lines everywhere it does not and never has in the 1/2 ton and the makers certainly have the powertrains in the line-up that could handle it, perhaps not the entry level engine but certainly the uplevel ones. They also have all the components on the shelf already bar the frame but adding another 18″ to a 1/2 ton frame doesn’t seem difficult. I can see plenty of use cases for it, in fact I’d guess that half of the aforementioned 3/4 tons in that configuration could be half-tons if this was offered. I spoke with the RAM HD line manager about it earlier this year and his answer was that there wasn’t any demand for it, which I don’t know if I really believe.
That’s a good observation. It may be like what the regular cab is becoming in that it’s a good opportunity to get a person into a more expensive 3/4 ton.
That’s what my thought process was too. I reckon though that if one of them decides to offer one, the others will all of a sudden see an obvious business case as well.
Part of the problem with a Crew-Cab half-ton 8′ foot box truck would be that the GVWR might be pushed to high. All the extra weight will require a higher GVWR to have a decent payload. Once GVWR is pushed too high, it also causes different emissions and registration requirements. Look at many 3/4 ton trucks that are well loaded and have diesel engines. Often times even with those higher GVWR, once you add in all the weight of the options, and the heavy diesel engine, the payload actual real world payload (GVWR – real world weight) is not much more than many half-tons.
The other issue I see with this configuration is it was way too long for most people. An average crew-cab 5.5′ box truck today is about 230″ long. That is a long vehicle. Add an extra 2.5′ on that and it’s just too big. Manufacturers have offered crewcabs with 6.5′ boxes in half ton configuration for some time now, but the shorter 5.5 foot boxes are far more popular. The demand for a Ext-cab 8-foot box has also died off too, with some manufacturers dropping this configuration. Even in the 3/4 ton and 1 ton trucks, the crewcab 8 foot box is not overly common. My BIL just bought an F-250 with a crewcab and 8 foot box, and he had to special order the truck because no dealer had stock. I just don’t see much market for a half-ton in this configuration.
The picture in the post right above mine is what made me think of it again. I just think that equipped with the right engine it could well work, sure it might not be able to haul AS much but not everyone hauls heavy loads either, some people are more about bulk.
I don’t think a 5.5″ bed is that useful, before there were crewcabs that short of a bed was pretty rare in a full size. A 6.5 foot lets you put 8foot lumber in diagonally and close the tailgate, obviously not a huge load but still.
The 5.5foot bed on a crewcab almost defines a personal use truck that occasionally sees truck duty in my mind (not every case of course but many or perhaps the majority?), Anyone with a longer bed on a crewcab likely specifically wanted it that way for a “truck/capability” reason.
Around here in the 1/2 ton crew cab the 5.5′ box is far and away the most common, and it isn’t just personal use trucks, you see a lot that are company trucks, that yes probably are take home vehicles.
As far as the extended cab trucks go the 8′ bed is still pretty common, I’d say maybe 50/50.
Once you get into 3/4 ton and above the 8′ bed is the most common, no matter what the cab configuration.
I do think there are two reasons that they don’t offer a 8′ bed on the 1/ 2 ton crew cabs. One is the take rate of the 6.5′ bed is so low. The other is that you probably are running into problems with GVW when you figure a crew cab will carry people in the back and still have a decent payload because some people will always fill it up all the way.
For HD extended cabs, it still seems to be about 50/50 between 6.5′ and 8′, but for 1/2 tons, I see about three extended cab/8’s a month.
I’ll take that old Dodge…preferably with a Cummins under the hood. I like the simple, honest styling of the older trucks, and one of those with a good engine will do everything you can throw at it and come back for more.
What a great read Jason! I am pretty sure you and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to this topic. I love old pickups and miss their simplicity, but new pickups are one of the most useful vehicles you can buy. I don’t understand why people get so hung up on a pickup having to exclusively a work vehicle. Van’s can be both focused on cargo and passengers, why not trucks?
While the photos here show the trucks aren’t really all the much different in size, they have in fact grown. In the 80s and early 90s a regular cab long box truck was typically 210-215″ in length. Most modern crewcab 5.5′ box trucks (or ext cab 6.5′ box) are about 230″ long. Park them in a residential garage and the growth is noticable. That said, the size of the cabs have grown considerably and even the front passenger space is far better than on old trucks.
Width hasn’t really changed much in a long time. Most full size trucks have been about 80″ wide for decades. There are a few exceptions like the GMT 400s which were just under 77″ wide.
All that said, nearly 12 year old pickup is one of the most practical vehicles I have ever owned, and I’d buy another if i needed to replace it tomorrow. However, the styling and over the top bulkiness of the newest trucks is a bit much for me. I know I am in the minority of pickup buyers when it comes to that, but it’s probably also why I drive a less mainstream truck. My all time favourite modern truck is the 1988-98 GMT400s. Nice size, roomy cabs and clean styling. I wish modern trucks looked more like them.
It bears mentioning that until the mid-’90s, the still-optional rear bumper was not included in official length measurements.
I think your sarcasm is misplaced. The problem with current trucks is not so much the width or length but the ground clearance and height – which is very evident in the first photograph.
The Dodge was made for farms, building sites and other off-road work where ground clearance and entry/departure angles may be important. The front dam of the GMC improves aerodynamics (I assume) but would substantially impede its ability as a work-horse like the Dodge.
The GMC could have an overall lower height without sacrificing passenger or load-carrying capacity. It doesn’t, mostly for reasons of styling, perceived safety and practicality for those whose physical condition makes getting down into (and out of) a lower riding vehicle uncomfortable. Unfortunately, this reduces visibility and increases bulk and the height of impact – making roads less safe for other road users (especially for those driving cars).
There has been much talk here over time in regard to bumper heights and pedestrian safety – might pickups fall into this same regulation? I simply don’t know but am compelled to ask rhetorically.
To play Devil’s Advocate, wouldn’t the lower bumper height of the GMC place it more on par with passenger cars? Or, to put it another way, wouldn’t the higher bumper height of the Dodge inject the very concern you mention of height differential? A Corolla hitting the GMC head-on will encounter a bumper. A Corolla hitting the Dodge head-on will encounter a differential and driveshaft.
That is one reason, another is simply aerodynamics.
You can easily increase their approach angle to something respectable by removing the air dam. In most trucks that takes a matter of minutes.
The size increase from my 1986 GMC to new trucks is hard to believe. I am not sure how much larger they can legally get. This is not a photo shopped photo.
Is the GMC a 3/4 ton 4×4 as is the Ford? Is the GMC a crew cab as is the Ford?
My GMC is a standard 2 wheel drive standard cab long bed, and I am not sure about the Ford except that it is a 4 door (crew cab). Not saying they are the exact same type of vehicle, but only that these large trucks are extremely common these days as compared to the common standard trucks of the past.
Yes, but my point all along has been a person needs to compare like to like when talking size. Those two aren’t comparable as they have neither similar weight ratings nor the same purpose. That Ford is an F-250 or F-350 with a different mission than your GMC.
Of the two I far prefer your GMC for purposes I would have. In fact I’m writing up a GM pickup as we speak, one of the best GM pickups ever.
That Superduty is 4wd and has been lifted/leveling kit installed and the tires, if they are a factory size are at the upper end of what is available.
I know in my truck’s computer there is something like 8 different tire size settings. Mine did come with the smallest, but I did install some take offs that were the second largest available in that year which is a ~34″ tire.
But yes I agree the average truck on today’s street is much bigger than the average truck of yesteryear, since the popular configurations have dramatically changed.
How much truck do you need to haul a few 2X4s home after all?
I snapped this to show the monstrous difference between a pickup and a car that could probably easily fit in the back of the thing. This at a car show this summer.
this time with the photo. I had to reduce the file size..
A little late, but I’ll jump in on this interesting and popular conversation. I haven’t read every comment, so I’m sure I’m repeating some.
Jason makes a good point, overall dimensions don’t seem to have changed as drastically as one might think from looking at today’s visually bulky trucks. The photos compare 4×4 to 4×4. If the photos compared 4×2 to 4×2, the old truck would be significantly lower than the new one. It’s hard to tell a stock 4×4 truck from a 4×2 nowadays, but in the 80’s and earlier, it was extremely obvious.
On the topic of 4 door cabs, I remember when the 4 door trucks first started coming out, they looked strange to me. It really threw off the proportions I associated with pickup trucks. Now they are almost universal and they look normal. Funny how that works.
Good article, should have come with a sarcasm alert though!
The Ford Ranger has gotten a MASSIVE growth spurt in the past 8 years.
We are living in “The Twighlight Zone”.
I’m inclined to disagree with Jason. He positioned an older 1/2 ton 4WD next a newer unit. Fair enough. As far as that comparison goes.
It’s nearly impossible to discern a newer 4WD from a newer 2WD. The ride height is about the same on both., whether 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton (3/4s are higher off the ground, period). What I’d like to see is a comparison of older 2WDs versus newer 2WDs. The difference would be plain to see. I recall walking up to my 2003 2WD F-150 parked next to a 2WD 2015 Chevy at work. The hood on the Chevy was an easy 6 to 8 inches higher than my Ford. Overall width and length of pickups haven’t changed, but ride height has definitely changed on the 2WD models. I would also include the height of the tailgate and bedsides. Ford started this mess with their 2004 F-150. Ford had that drop down front window sill reminiscent of big rigs on their hugely popular Super-Duty. They did the same on the redesigned F-150 in 2004. My thought is they carried the design over because it looked cool (it still exists on my 2016 model), but also to serendipitously have the window sill line up with the increased height of the bed rails which were necessitated by the increased depth of the bed. Ford then truthfully advertised their bed held more cubic feet than the competition.
I’m forgetting that the GMT 800 heavy duty 2WD pickups had incredibly high bedsides, too. I remember thinking at the time a stock tire would fit inside the rear wheel well on top of the existing stock tire. Even Toyota no longer offers the Tacoma in standard height, anymore, it’s all PreRumner height, now.
Wow. I got away from myself, there. The length times width dimensions of trucks hasn’t really changed, no. It the height that has. Will you believe that the bed rails on a 2016 F-250 4WD (stock height with LT245/75R17 tires) is about the same, perhaps a hair lower, as those on my 2016 F-150 2WD (stock height with P265/70R17 hooves)?
The old Dodge is vastly more handsome than any of the bloated mastodons that currently pass for trucks plodding along the highways today. I guess it’s the whole mentality that drove the construction of the Titanic–bigness for the sake of being big, with no real-world increase in carrying capacity or space. In other words–a waste of resources.
Payload and towing are higher than ever in 1/2 tons, and the crew cabs have tons of interior space.
Thank you for pointing this out so effectively. I was wrong about new truck growth, and it’s good to be corrected.
I sold my 1990 Dodge W250 about seven years ago, but I do remember that it had a very long hood compared to those on newer trucks. That could have been a sign that newer trucks are more space efficient, or just that their windshields are less upright. I wonder: has the bumper-to-dash distance actually been reduced over time?
Is it a good or a bad thing that I was absent for this entire exchange?
I have both a 2019 GMC Sierra and a 1989 Ramcharger, and previously a ’95 F150 4.9. I can say that yes, they may be the same height, width, etc, the one area that has grown- and for the worse- is the height of the bodywork above the engine. I can reach everything in the Ramcharger or F150 without a problem. The engine of my Sierra is at least a foot lower than the hood opening, and beyond the reach even if standing on a ladder. It is buried almost as deeply as a 1980s Van engine, without the benefit of the passenger compartment access. The hood does not open vertically either, as on a Mercedes, so there is a tiny triangle to wedge one’s body in to reach anything. As its under warranty it is not my problem now, but I do wonder how anyone works on these things. I think some type of drive-under scaffolding must be the way to do it, laying flat with arms dangling. Otherwise, trucks are trucks, and I can gladly give up the hairbrained TBI system on the Ramcharger for GDI any day.
Yup. Literally identical in size..
Correct me if I’m wrong but is that older Dodge not lifted by 3-6 inches? If so the the other is definitely not making this an unfair comparison
It’s a factory 4×4 with a solid front axle, so yes, it rides several inches higher than a 2WD version.