I can readily lean over the side or front of my F100 when I’m working on the engine. Or even just hop right in, and stand next to it, with my feet on the ground, if that’s what’s called for, as there’s a huge amount of space on either side of the little inline six. But not on one of these. Do they have special ladders for the techs at the Ford dealer?
“Do they have special ladders for the techs at the Ford dealer?”
no, for those really hairy repairs (especially on Powerstroke trucks) they unbolt the cab and lift it off of the frame with the hoist.
it’s more or less required for any top-end work on the 6.0 and 6.4 Powerstrokes, especially the failure-prone HPOP on the 6.0 which Navistar helpfully put on the /back/ of the engine.
Yes, I was amazed when I looked under the hood of one – the engine is halfway back under the cowl. It was reminiscent of an old Econoline van in that respect.
It’s unreal how big those modern trucks are… Any full size, super hiper crew cab, 4 doors, long bed, bla bla bla truck is as tall ang long as a locomotive…
2016 Ford Super Duty (F-250 or 350) SuperCrew 8′ bed 4×4–
Length: 263″
Width: 79.9″
Height: 79.8″
GE AC6000CW locomotive–
L: 912″
W: 123″
H: 192″
I tried to find wheelbase measurements too, but couldn’t.
I just KNEW somebody would call him on that! 🙂
They will get there….
How can you be sure? Just because something has increased in the past does not by any stretch mean it will continue to increase in the future.
https://xkcd.com/605/
That’s why I call them Yankee Monster Trucks, esp. the ones with lift kits so high, the tire tops are level with the sills & a step is needed.
People who actually drive off-road know better than to destabilize them like this; e.g. Marlin Perkins did just fine with a stock Land Rover, and the most obvious mod racing pickups have is cut-out fenders.
For the most part, yes, although larger tires and lifts can have advantages in mud, sand, and rockcrawling.
But those aren’t what Paul is talking about.
She’s been with many, I presume? Evidently it worked.
This line of generalization is obviously absurd, and not appropriate for CC. We have a policy of not disparaging groups of certain car owners, and we don’t want to include tall truck owners too. Enough already.
The truth is that anyone who keeps repeating that silly meme is suspect themselves. So there. 🙂
Not to mention the everyday useability of the thing such as getting in and out (no problem for me at my height, but shorter people really have to work at it) and especially getting things in and out of the box. On pickups 20+ years old I can easily reach deep into the box with my orangatan arms but on the new stuff it’s so much harder if not impossible.
The other day I noticed the power running boards on a new GMC going in and out. The guy probably thought he was cool but I thought it ridiculous. Didn’t running boards go away about 90 years ago? Isn’t that a clue that perhaps your vehicle is too high?
Hopping into the box is no picnic anymore either vs the old ones. And for what? Style. False sense of… machoness? Only time all the munchkins of the world get to feel big? “Enjoy” it while it lasts because someday (sooner rather than later) when fuel is expensive and regulations demand it, pickups will descend to reasonable and actually more useful heights when aerodynamics and fuel efficiency have to be improved.
I do enjoy many good laughs watching munchkins trying to park and ingress/egress these monstrosities.
The guy probably thought he was cool but I thought it ridiculous.
“My opinion is the only one that matters.”
Running boards have been an integral part of pickup trucks since..forever. In some cases, they never went away.
If I may ask, were your pickups 2WD or 4WD?
“I’m allowed to express my opinion.” Well… most of the time.
They weren’t integral forever; the one in your pic is added-on aftermarket and appears to me to be unnecessary.
4WD- pulling in mud and snow and frozen ground on the farm makes it advantageous. Otherwise I have had 2WD and they are superior in every way except as noted.
I’m just kind of salty today, and I don’t see why we needed to have another post that was just an excuse for everybody to start ragging on modern conveniences.
When I said “integral,” I didn’t mean “physically integrated,” I meant “important.”
The height of the vehicle is determined by the need for ground clearance, not ease of entry. Also, in modern trucks, it is determined by floor height, which tends to be higher than it used to be to enable them to design flatter rear floors that are roomier for passengers and cargo.
If you need running boards, it’s not the big deal you make it out to be. I don’t need running boards on my F-150, but my wife and kids do. Big deal. It still serves our needs better than any other class of vehicle out there. And entry and exit is actually still far easier than it was on many cars like my wife’s old Civic or my in-law’s Fusion.
MOTORIZED running boards. Think about it. Laugh. Shake your head at what we’ve become.
There is plenty of excess height designed in. You know it, I know it, we all know it and we know it isn’t for functionality.
If somebody wants to buy them, what’s wrong with them? A modern half-ton pickup is today’s LTD or Caprice. Why do you feel it necessary to laugh at the “silliness” of other people on the Internet? Can you prove the height is more than functionally necessary in every case?
Schaudenfreude, mostly.
+1 on the LTD and Caprice
If you want to get into an argument about conspicuous consumption and functionality, I will say that unless you are living in high-density housing and using public transit, you should probably STFU about the functional purpose of any personal vehicle. I can play your game with just about any vehicle you care to bring up if you really want to go down that route, but we both already know that so it would be pointless, wouldn’t it? Besides, it’s not appropriate on this site.
Well Frank I’m glad you may have figured out what I drive. I only mentioned it specifically in two earlier articles here this week and in the post you replied to above. Maybe if you read through the comments a few more times you’ll figure out a few other things too. Have a good weekend.
Right up there with power coat hooks.
About those running boards, even the mid-size Land Cruiser 150-series has factory running boards. Previous generations, ditto.
As did my last 4-Runner.
Frank Lee:
Everyone wants big and tall now in vehicles, not just
SUVs and pickups. Sedans and coupes average 4
to 6 inches taller than those of half a century ago.
I don’t know if it has to do with people bigger and
taller than they were back then, or just a psychological
sense of security.
All I do know is I love old car shows. I can see clear
across a lot full of old cars until my gaze meets a
1940s or ’50s pickup or other utility.
Sedans and coupes are taller now because we figured out the “longer, lower, wider” mantra up to the mid-70s wasn’t actually very practical.
We do need more ’40s and ’50s (and ’60s, and ’70s) pickups at car shows. Preferably stock or close to it, but if someone makes it completely custom, I won’t rag on them for doing it like they want.
Medical studies have determined that both the
average adult man and woman are one
inch taller today than they were in the ’60s.
They are also both 25-40lbs heavier. I’m
sure these statistics go into the design of
cars and car interiors.
I can believe that; I’m just surprised the weight difference isn’t greater. I’m five inches taller than my father but almost a hundred pounds heavier.
They’re looking for a psychological sense of security against the treat of a Dodge Ram-ming them, with its bumper at side window level. It’s the old protection racket, creating a threat and selling countermeasures.
@Clonedspork-
Not a good idea to troll the site owner / chief moderator. That’s a good way to get banned. Just some friendly advice.
In a few years from now these trucks get a hood like this, so you can stand right next to the engine.
Humvees are like that too.
Seriously? We’re gonna compare HD 4×4 pickups to a 4×2 F-100?
At any rate, 2008+ Super Duties have a flat-topped bumper that acts as a step.
I see what you mean. Like some classic big conventional diesel trucks, with a similar hood as all pickups. And cars, for that matter.
Is this the next styling direction for American pickups? 😉
That would be a retro-design then, since it’s a Scania from the seventies. Type 111 (see nose) says that it has Scania’s 11 liter 6-cylinder diesel under the hood.
@Frank Lee: “I do enjoy many good laughs watching munchkins trying to park and ingress/egress these monstrosities.” Every morning we would watch a lady try to park her “Behemoth”, she would back into a space crookedly, get out and check, get back in pull straight forward and then reverse WITHOUT any adjustment into the same position. This circus would repeat itself for about 10 minutes, until she would finally give up and go inside. No sooner than she had got to her office, security would call her to go down and move her vehicle as she was obstructing two spaces!!! 🙂
Exactly! If those trucks were saws they could cut a load of firewood just getting parked with all that back and forth.
ROFL!!!!!
Height became synonymous with safety, and lift kits became synonymous with status. Not my thing, but each to their own, right?
With that much ground clearance you can walk in from underneath. I like the semi hood idea, though.
To each their own until the bumper height mis-match creams something. Or the door dings get you because the behemoth is too close. Or you are stuck waiting for the stupid thing to finally get parked. Or they run over something/someone backing up because they couldn’t even dream of seeing behind them if they bothered to try.
Seems to me like you have more of a problem with the people than the machine.
Matt, what truck features are trickling down into cars? I’d say car features are trickling into trucks.
Me or Matt with 2 Ts lol?
I’d agree about trucks becoming more carlike(which I’m also no fan of), but the increase in height cars have undergone in the last decade I can’t help but attribute to the popularity of trucks/SUVs, either through people’s exposure to them(and Vans) demanding that experience in cars, or the extra utility potential(whether needed or not), people now will commonly cross shop between these formerly widely segregated segments, from car from a truck or vice versa, so the all important statistics showing a gross reduction of cargo capacity between one or another may be a deciding factor, so cars have big ol ghetto booties now to try tantalizing the truck/utility leaning potential buyer. On the flipside this is why a pickup is more car like today as well.
To be fair it’s not much easier to park cars either thanks to modern swept hoods which completely hide extremities from driver view. Drivers now are afraid to pull all they way into parking spaces lest they damage the low (and expensive) plastic fascia on abutments; I don’t blame them.
And sedan rear visibility is also terrible, so now they offer backup cameras as an antidote even though it’s best to look directly backwards so one has peripheral vision.
Boxy ’80s cars had none of these problems.
The Elevator Shoes of the 21st Century.
What exactly was it that made Ranchero / El Camino obsolete?
Seems now those were perfect and the ideal antidote to these high rise monsters.
Nobody was buying them; by the ’70s and ’80s, anyone who wanted a smaller-than-fullsize pickup was getting a compact.
The modern equivalent of the Ranchero/El Camino is the Honda Ridgeline. It’s a Pilot with the back cut off.
Are we still talking about stock pickups, or those uber-lifted toys everyone likes to point to as signs of how silly people are?
Hmm… valid point. As for stock trucks, it’s the evolution of the species, so to speak. With stouter chassis’ and 4×4, increased height was inevitable.
Uber-lifted toys? Er… we’re emotional people with prejudices. Forgive us. Although I suppose this post IS more about stock trucks…
As for the El Comino/Ranchero, they do still have utes Down Under, and they almost brought some here before Pontiac closed shop. Would have liked to see those up here.
I like those utes they have Down Under. They look like a downscaled big conventional diesel truck. And let’s be honest: a cargo bed like this is just more practical and useful than the typical pickup set-up (I’m strictly talking hauling cargo).
Yeah even the factories offer alloy dropsiders like that at least Toyota does.
Just for fun I searched for a Volkswagen Amarok ute “Australian style”. And of course they do exist. I never saw a modern truck in this segment with a flatbed, although I certainly remember the small Japanese COE-trucks of yore.
And yet ute sales have really gone down the gurgler – serious users are buying the Japanese pickups. Most Holden and Falcon utes I see around here these days are the performance versions.
I really wanted to like the Ridgeline. But its price and mileage were comparable to full size trucks while offering a much smaller bed and less towing. It just didn’t make much sense unless you really needed something smaller or wanted something more carlike.
The new 2017 looks almost perfectly sized I think…except the bed is so shallow it really limits the functionality for anybody who puts a tonneau cover on. I would have thought a main advantage of a truck based on a front wheel drive CUV platform would be a deep bed, but unfortunately that’s not the case. The trunk is neat and somewhat makes up for that I suppose.
In the 70’s after a hard day of ridding and before we loaded the motorcycles on the truck we’d lean on opposite sides of the bed talking, drinking a beer, and smoking a cigarette. Can’t or don’t do any of those things these days …well maybe a beer. I couldn’t buy a truck today that didn’t meet this old criteria.
Have you actually checked?
Yep, I agree completely. I recently changed the spark plugs in my 2011 F150. I needed a step stool for the front plugs, but the back ones required me to stand on the bumper and lean on the airbox.
As others have touched on, people now want to sit up high. Even passenger cars now often have a roof height of 58-60″ vs 54-55″ 40 years ago.
Listening to female coworkers justifying their SUVs, I hear “I don’t feel safe in anything smaller”, while men say “I feel powerful in a big truck”. So there you have it: nervous Nellies compensating for their anxieties about their physical inadequacies.
I tried an SUV a few years ago to see what all the fuss was about: a Ford Taurus X. Yes, I appreciated the roomy interior, and I loaded it to the gunwales with cargo a couple times. Trying to park the thing at the bank, or the public library when the schools were on vacation, or even trying to get it into my garage at the condo, were a pain in the kazoo.
Fortunately, I don’t have any anxieties about physical inadequacies, so the SUV was soon replaced by a Jetta wagon, and all the problems of getting into the garage, or any parking space, went away overnight.
Sedans and coupes are taller now because we figured out the “longer, lower, wider” mantra up to the mid-70s wasn’t actually very practical.
How do you know every single person who buys a taller vehicle is compensating for their anxieties? Don’t immediately assume the worst.
The Taurus X was a CUV (and a very good one at that).
Because they are with very, very few exceptions seen with one occupant and unladen?
Because in years past everyone didn’t have a semi to “move their stuff” (I mean, solo commute) in? How did they manage back then?
It would be useful to have more data points than just my observations. I hope others chime in with what they see.
Not EVERY SINGLE person is compensating. Just the vast majority.
Guess what, for 70% of my commute it’s just one person too because the kids don’t come to work with me. You do understand that most people don’t fill their vehicles full at all times, right?
How many 4-door Priuses do you see with 5 people in them? Oh my goodness it’s so bad, they could just as well be riding a bicycle! So wasteful, those Prius drivers. And it must be true for all of them, because I see it every day!
+1
So commuting to work solo in a 1970s boat getting 15 MPG highway putting out who knows what sort of pollutants is more acceptable than in a modern truck getting 20 MPG highway?
There’s no modern equivalent to a 70s boat so I can only bring the truck to it’s level to answer that.
Yes. A 70s boat getting 15mpg putting out who knows what sort of pollutants is more acceptable than a 70s pickup truck getting 7MPG putting out who knows what sort of pollutants.
That wasn’t the question.
Compensating, or just fitting in with the herd?
How do you know every single person who buys a taller vehicle is compensating for their anxieties? Don’t immediately assume the worst.
I am going by my observations around the coffee pot at work. My own boss said to me one day “oh, don’t you feel powerful in a truck?” He about fell over laffing when I made the comment about my not having issues about physical inadequacies. I heard women over and over cry they “don’t feel safe” unless they are sitting up high.
The Taurus X was a CUV (and a very good one at that).
It was really nice, for road trips. Roomy, quiet and mine was the top “Limited” trim so it had all the creature comforts. As a daily driver, it was horrible. I had it for two years and never got comfortable in a tight parking lot with it, and the Taurus X has much better outward visibility to the rear than a lot of SUVs, and mine had backup sonar that was a big help as well.
In spite of the many things I liked about it, it was a pain in the butt, because of it’s size and height. If it had been 10% smaller in every dimension, I would have been the happiest guy on earth. I still miss it at times, but then I spin the Jetta into a parking spot at the bank without effort or concern, and then I don’t miss the Ford so much.
I think I have been entirely fair about my assessment of big trucks and SUVs. I tried it. I didn’t like it.
If a Jetta is fine for you, you obviously never needed a truck in the first place. So your boss likes it because it makes him feel powerful. Big whoop. I know drivers who buy Priuses solely because of the image they portray. But I still realize most are bought because they they are a fine, functional, useful car.
200″ L–>180″
112.9″ WB–>101.6″
75″ W–>67.5″
68″ H–>61.2″
A Freestyle/Taurus X 10% smaller in every dimension is roughly Escape-sized (except for the height), which I feel is a perfectly sized vehicle for my needs…and a lot of other people too, apparently, since the compact CUV segment is probably the most competitive of any.
200″ L–>180″
112.9″ WB–>101.6″
75″ W–>67.5″
68″ H–>61.2″
My Jetta wagon: 179.4″ long
101.5″ wb
70.1″ w
59.2″ h
and I can wax the roof without standing on a ladder.
A Freestyle/Taurus X 10% smaller in every dimension is roughly Escape-sized
My problem with the current Escape is the styling, which, like many Asian cars now, limits rear visibility. Even with styling like the Taurus X has, I still could not see well because the beltline was so high it hid obstacles, like trash cans, shopping carts and hoods of normal size passenger cars. The sonar on it was a big help, but I still like to be able to see.
A Jetta wagon ?? Well Steve, wouldn’t you rather have a Seat Leon wagon ? 🙂
Ooh, that’s nice. I wish we had those this side of the pond.
We can call the one above a “hot wagon” since it has a 280 hp engine.
wouldn’t you rather have a Seat Leon wagon ?
I find the Skoda Octavia particularly attractive, some echos of the A4 wagon
I don’t like Skoda’s KIAish grill. My cheapskate soul however, says making three C segment wagons is wasteful.
Yes, yes…a wise choice, a wagon for the sensible man.
These always catch my eye. They have this greyish white metallic paint color available, suits the car perfectly.
Also a big fan of the Superb Scout.
Skodas are beginning to get quite popular here. The thinking person’s VW?
It’s not anxiety or physical inadequacy. It’s obesity and old high school sports injuries coming to haunt an aging car buying population. People en mass had no problem buying up the latest longer lower wider mobiles Detroit pumped out for 30 years, but the buying demographic gets older and older and suddenly space efficiency is in vogue, and not having to bend down ever so slightly. Funnily enough modern cars now look exactly like their owners…
You’d think every last person between 1947 to 1980 was brainwashed by Detroit reading about what truly matters in cars today
They also say that with dogs…
People en mass had no problem buying up the latest longer lower wider mobiles Detroit pumped out for 30 years,
People en mass rebelled against the longer lower wider mantra, and bought so many cars from a little outfit in Wisconsin that the big three were forced to offer intermediates and compacts to compete. In the 70s, the most popular cars in the country were not the full size floatboats, but intermediates like the Torino and Cutlass.
Funny – if space efficiency was really the driving factor, wouldn’t we all be driving these?
Nobody’s brainwashed. Taller vehicles are more comfortable to drive, make getting kids in and out of cars seats easier, and offer better visibility. This improves quality of life. Most people don’t careen down winding mountain roads at illegal speeds. If you do, then I suppose a taller car doesn’t make sense.
Don’t forget the age factor. When you get older and your knees are bad and your joints are creaking it’s a lot easier to get in and out of a taller vehicle.
My ’95 Chev K2500 4×4 isn’t an overly modern truck and it requires me to sit in the engine bay to change spark plugs, etc… and I’m 6’1…
It’s just a full size truck thing, I would say!
+1
My 1979 K20 4×4 was the same way. I would step right on top of the frame rail inside the engine compartment (small block 350).
Has anyone ever noticed that CC articles on large trucks and suvs seem to generate the most vocal arguments? Car in point, “To Big for America” on the Excursion.
I am 6′ and 210lbs. I drive a ’83 Ford Ranger 4X4, 302 powered. Suspension stock height. But with 31-10.50-15 tires, and a 2 inch body lift (makes 302 swap much easier) I do stand on a milk crate to clean my windshield, or change my back plugs. I have no physical inadequacies. And I might add, a half ton truck should be no bigger than a longbed early Ranger.
But even at the time of the early Ranger, a half-ton truck was closer in size to a modern half-ton than the Ranger.
1983 Ranger 7′ bed 4×2
OAL: 175.6″
WB: 113.9″
W: 66.9″
H: 68.2″
1983 F-150 RCLB 4×2
OAL: 208.3″
WB: 133″
W: 78″
H: 70″
2016 F-150 RCLB 4×2 (to compare apples to apples):
OAL: 227.9″
WB: 141.1″
W: 79.9″
H: 75.1″
I couldn’t find numbers for 4×4 versions of the Ranger and ’83 F-150, so I went to 4×2.
Looks like the ’83 F-150 was an ‘intermediate’.
What a mid-size pickup? Eh, not so much. The F-150 was always larger in almost every dimension* than the Dodge Dakota, which was the only mid-size pickup until 2005.
Max. length*: 219.9″
Max. WB: 130″
Max. width: 71.7″
Max. height: 68.7″
Width is the deciding factor when it comes to classifying a pickup mid- or full-size, as it contributes the most to how large the vehicle feels when driving. Full-size pickups went to 78″ in the early ’60s, and haven’t grown any appreciable amount since then (I mean, two inches…wow). 80″ is the “ceiling,” the widest you can make a vehicle without mandatory clearance lights. In the case of any full-size vs. the Dakota, the extra six inches make the difference between sitting 3 comfortably and getting to know the other passengers quite intimately.
*When the Dakota first came out in 1987, the longest available model (RCLB) was 204.4″, and the new 8th-gen F-Series RCLB was 210.2″. When the Dakota was discontinued in 2010, the 12th-gen F-150 RCLB was 231.7″.
With my old ’70 C10 I would back the rear wheels into the low point where driveway meets street, drop the tailgate, and slip out the folding metal stays on both sides of said tailgate and rest the gate on the bumper. I now had a built in ramp to the driveway to easily load and unload appliances with a hand dolly.
Now I have to do the same with my stock height 2WD Titan , but use a blanket between appliance and tailgate, lift it and slide it into the bed on it’s side then jump up into the bed and lift it back up on it’s bottom. PIA. Sometimes I can back up to a 2 step up porch and avoid having to do this. When washing the truck I need to climb into the bed to wash all of the roof. And need a windshield cleaner with handle to reach the center of the glass with my feet on the ground.
I carry a little plastic step so short people can step up and then grab the inside handles to get in.
The old Chevy had and didn’t need no stinkin’ handles or step! I can check fluid’s under the hood OK without a step being 6 feet tall, but I can see when I eventually need to do work under the hood a step will be needed. There is no room to climb into the engine compartment on this truck.
Newer trucks are all built on a 4WD designed chassis so 2WD only slightly lowers the truck.
2004 F150 Heritage (4×2) stock tire size and tired stock suspension.
I recently had to replace the battery and even at 5’10” I had to lift the battery to chest height to get it under the hood.
I am stuck with a Chevy 2500 4×4 for work. I do go off-roading, but I have to really climb into the cab and I am 6’4″ tall with a 36″ inseam and it is quite awkward to get in. The good thing is that since I am putting 250 miles per day on it I will only have it for 6 months or so and maybe we will to the 1500.
My first thought was “The Road Warrior” movie where the chief mechanic get rolled around slung under a hoist. Maybe we need more guys like that to work on pickups.
I would have titled this Another One of the Disadvantages, count me a fan of Paul’s F100 🙂
I have no objections to people driving what they like, high…low…long…short. I really don’t care. Please just watch out for me down there!
While Ford doesn’t have/supply them there are a lot of tool companies that offer some sort of “topside” creeper like pictured below. While I’ve never used on of those you always want a step ladder or something to stand on if you are going to be doing anything much more involved than adding washer fluid 😉 on many modern trucks.
Neat… I would put a sliding draw under the chest pad to hold the tools…
Isn’t it amazing how much angst a simple picture of a man working on his truck can cause?
Personally, I don’t really care what other people drive, it is a free country after all (well, sort of). But I do notice that a lot of people who drive behemoth size pick-ups seem to lack the skill behind the wheel to handle such a monster. Of course, the same could probably be said for drivers of any other sort of vehicle as well. I suppose it’s just that the size magnifies and makes more obvious the lack of skill.
I will say the best vehicle I have ever owned was a 1999 Dodge Durango. It would go virtually anywhere in any kind of weather and seemed to be almost indestructable. We traded it with somewhere well north of 200,000 on it, and my wife and daughter literally cried the day we traded it in on a Mercury Mountaineer – which was a big mistake – the Mercury was a piece of garbage. We got out of that Mercury as quick as we could and back into a Dodge. Been happy ever since.
a lot of people who drive behemoth size pick-ups seem to lack the skill behind the wheel to handle such a monster.
It isn’t the lack of skill that I notice, as how aggressive the driver is. No matter how fast I drive on the freeway, I get tailgated and it seems that over 90% of the vehicles I see tailgating me are large pickups and SUVs.
And it seems to always be the drivers of large, diesel, pickups that think it is great fun to rig their engines to blow a huge cloud of diesel soot on other cars and pedestrians. I have yet to hear of anyone “rolling coal” with a VW TDI.
I drive a 2003 Ford F-150 XLT Supercrew with the 6.5ft bed. Not long ago one of the new Colorados with an extended cab came up beside me in a parking lot, and I realized that it was as big as my truck in every respect aside from width. On the other end of the spectrum, my neighbour owns a 2011 F-150, and it’s taller and wider than my truck while being the same length. If the repainted wider parking spaces are any indication, vehicle dimensions are getting a bit out of hand.
“I drive a 2003 Ford F-150 XLT Supercrew with the 6.5ft bed”
Respectfully, you are mistaken. Ford did not make an F-150 SuperCrew with a 6.5′ bed until 2006. They were the first to offer such a configuration on a half-ton pickup, and GM and Dodge/Ram didn’t follow until 2014.
“[The Colorado] was as big as my truck in every respect aside from width”
You sure about that?
2003 F-150 SuperCrew:
Length: 226.2″
WB: 139″
Height: 73.9″/76.9″ (4×2 vs. 4×4)
2015/16 Colorado extended cab:
Length: 212.7″
WB: 128.3″
Height: 70.4″/70.6″
Now, if it were a crew cab with the 6′ bed, then yes, it would have a 1″ longer WB than the ’03 (140″ vs. 139″).
“…a 2011 F-150, and it’s taller and wider than my truck while being the same length.”
2003 F-150 width: 79.9″
2011 F-150 width: 79.9″
As I’ve stated before, 80″ is the maximum allowable width, and full-size pickups hit about 77″ in the early to mid-’60s, with only the most marginal of gains in the intervening 50 years. Any perceived increase in width, then, must be coming from the larger mirrors on the newer pickup.
The newer truck is taller, though that’s also a variable function of what sort of drive the vehicle has. We had a 1998 F-250 light duty (F-150 with heavy axles, frame, 7-lug wheels, etc.) with the offroad 4×4 package (the predecessor to what became FX4) and that was taller than our 2006 F-150 with the “normal 4×4”.
I can attribute most of the supposed change in size of the F-150s to visual bulk. The higher beltline, exaggerated flares on the fenders, and relatively flat sides near the bottoms seem to make the newer one bigger than it is. When we parked them side by side, both of us agreed that his truck seemed bigger, though the measurements you’ve provided seem to go against that.
Also, yes, it seems I was mistaken about the bed length. It’s apparently 5.5ft and not 6.5ft like I thought.
As for the Colorado, to me all these newer trucks seem much larger. The old Colorado was only 207″ in its longest configuration, and almost half a foot shorter in height. Adding those five inches either way makes it seem much larger compared to the old ones, and mammoth to the S-10s.
I’ve suspected that a raised pickup sends a message that the owner is above the humble world of physical labor. Who would want to shovel a truckload of manure, dirt or gravel up onto a bed at shoulder level? Not a farmer, and maybe that’s one of the statements these make, especially in rural areas.
It’s like a hundred years ago, when white-collar workers displayed their status with suits and neckties that would have ripped on the fields or gotten tangled in the machinery of the mills. They could afford to be impractical, and they were proud of that.
By that logic, explain why our farm uses an ’08 F-350 regular cab with the factory 4×4 offroad package that puts the top of the bed almost at chin level and the bottom above my waist. No farmer hauls manure in a pickup. Every farmer knows that even hauling it with a tractor means that tractor will be a manure hauler for the rest of its days, because there’s no removing that smell.
Dirt or gravel I could see, but with the quantities necessary even on our tiny farm, we get several truckloads in the L700 with the 18-foot dump bed. That bed is about five feet of the ground–are we being impractical?
The necktie evolved from wearing a bandana or other sweat-collecting rag around the neck while working. It might have been practical at one point, but yes, it’s mostly for show.
So you don’t use your truck for hauling. Got it.
I didn’t say that. Our truck hauls everything. Our pickup mostly pulls a gooseneck grain trailer or gooseneck flatbed. When we do haul with it, it’s usually an ATV with another towed behind on a homemade hitch.
My ’05 Dodge Ram is HUGE. And being a singlecab/short bed 2wd, its the lightest variant you can get. My neighbor had a ’03 Z71 Silverado 4×4 and my rig dwarfed his. Even though Ive lowered it 2″ front, 4″ rear its a big chunk of pig iron. I need my step stool to reach in the back of the engine bay, and at 6’1 Im no midget. By comparison, every Jeep CJ and Wrangler Ive owned except one has had some kind of lift on it…and my truck seems just as imposing, even lowered. If it was a 4×4 and lifted, then that would sit with me just fine, but something about a 2wd riding so high seems….unnatural.
I own a basic 2008 Ram 1500 ST (reg. cab, swb) and I totally agree. When the Ram 1500 was redesigned for the 2002 model year, I remember reading that Dodge wanted the two and four wheel drive trucks to be essentially the same height ( I can understand the logic-it probably was so that there could be many parts in common and all they would have to do is engineer the different front suspensions for the 2x and the 4x versions).The drawback is that my plain ol’ ST rides really high in the back. Yes-I have looked into the various lowering kits that are out there (not many…),but finances at the present time do not allow me to make it right. If I had wanted a 4×4, I wouldn’t mind the ride height. It’s overkill on a 2×4 (plus I don’t really want to do the ‘Pre Runner’ look).
I do not like the modern trucks at all. They are too tall and hard to see out of. I hate how they and especially Ford puts the engine in so low and half under the firewall which makes it a pain to too work on. The beds are too high. The old Ford’s were much easier to work on and see out of. I also don’t like the ridiculous thick roof pillars and giant seats they have. I would prefer an older simple truck like a pre 97 f 150 with just a radio, vent Windows and rear window that opens and none of the ridiculous luxury features. I like a simple easy to work on truck. I don’t really like trucks, but especially dislike the modern ones. I think most people get them to compensate or to replace the old full sized cars no one makes any more. They only seem to get worse, especially Ford. People will desert them when they have to pay to fix an overstretched ecoboost or repair damaged aluminum body parts.
So buy an old pickup. Nobody’s stopping you.
Those are not problems exclusive to modern trucks.
The plus side is modern trucks are more powerful, reliable, capable, nice driving, and efficient than ever.
Perhaps not the most convenient built-in bumper footplate, but still better than nothing (and yes, it could be [and actually was] much better before pedestrian safety became an issue for the car makers):
It’s not just the dimensional volume, it’s the sound volume as well. This morning I saw an original ’54 GMC half-ton driving into the Safeway parking lot, at the same time when a late model GMC 1-ton with dual cab and duallies was driving out. The roar of the V8 and the grumbling of the duallies filled the audio universe. 54’s quiet six didn’t have a chance.
Wonder what happened to this Ford’s original bed? Being able to stand in the engine bay of your truck Paul sure must be a sight to behold, I hardly ever see engine bays that spacious.
I had to stand on stuff to work comfortably on my POS ’77 Dodge Power Wagon. Usually, it was an old speaker I found someplace, and when a friend was on it, I used a milk crate. I found out the hard way that the milk crate was slippery as hell when it got wet. In Vegas, it got slippery really quick from sweat dripping on it. I ended up making a step stool thing after I slipped on the crate and tried to catch myself and ended up getting my arm impaled by the piano wired manual choke cable that I hadn’t cut off. It went in at the bottom of my thumb and came out about 6″ down, just past where I had my watch on. Adding to the pain was I had just sprayed it with carb cleaner. I had resisted cutting it off because I didn’t want to ruin my new wire cutters. I cut it off before I pulled it out of my arm. I guess it went through a vein in my wrist somehow, as it bled tremendously for just being two small holes. It did take a long time to heal up. I still have a little dotlike scar on my left wrist, and if I get tan in the summer, I can just barely see the one on my arm, but I don’t scar like a lot of people, so it’s really hard to spot.