Cue the inevitable comment(s) about how all modern trucks are complete unnecessary and impractical for real work, and how anyone who drives one has a small penis.
It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison in almost every way: 4×4 vs. 4×2, Quad Cab vs. “regular” cab (not that there were any other cabs back then), Dodge vs. Ford.
I’d like to compare the step-in/seat height and the bed rail height – aside from the overall size, it’s the increase in these two dimensions that really hinder day to day practicality.
Plus you have to take into account the payload/towing capacities (the first of which might be compromised on the newer Ram because of the coil springs), HP/TQ numbers, and everything else that’s been increased in 20+ years.
And you have to include that one figure which is apparently so integral in choosing a new pickup, the dreaded bed height number.
Admittedly, it is a lot easier to do “pickup work” (carrying a load in the bed) if the bed is lower. But the number of times we’ve actually needed the 2″ of factory lift on our 4×4 Offroad ’08 F-350 far outweigh the added difficulty of accessing a bed that comes up to my shoulder (I’m only 5’8″).
I’m not sure when exactly the big bed became a thing. We can all point to the “terrible” modern trucks that apparently have sky-high beds, but if, say, a ’14 Chevy bed isn’t much taller than a comparable ’07 Chevy, and that’s not all that taller than a ’99…where did it actually happen?
The GVWR of the base ’92 D150 was 5500 lb., minus the curb weight of 3724 leaves a payload of 1776 lb. The ’14’s payload is around 1900 lb. – not much gain considering the size and hp/torque increases. A 4×4 crew cab knocks that down to 1260 – four big guys in the cab and you’ve used up nearly 3/4 of the capacity.
The 2004 F-150 started the trend to tall bed sides.
Cars are the same way. Anyone who has spent time in a Model A or in a lower priced 1930s car knows that they were really quite small inside. The modern minivan is much, much larger than a typical family car of the 1930s.
Hear hear. While modern pickups have gotten gigantic, I’ll be honest – they really are comfortable places to be. Even comparing my current ’99 F-150 to my previous ’92 F-150(s) is no comparison. The ’99 is one of the most comfortable and roomy vehicles I’ve owned while the other two – while certainly no slouches – didn’t compare.
I was absolutely blown away riding in a Hyundai Elantra the other day. Seemingly tiny car with a shockingly roomy interior. Same with the Kia Soul, that was far roomier than my 2003 Dodge Dakota.
Nope, neither one does. And guess what? I’d wager 75% of “real truck work” can be done just as easily with a 6.5′ bed with the tailgate down. AFAIK, Ford didn’t even offer an 8′ bed on the F-100 until the mid-50’s, and that was only because Chevy and IH made them before.
Houses have gotten bigger since the Baby Boom, too (as have loan periods for them). George Carlin said, we need a place to keep our stuff. That is what pickups are used for, right?
You would think so but the majority of them that I see are hauling nothing more than air in the bed. Sometimes I will see one actually being used as a truck but most of the time they are being used as a huge car with an open air trunk. I owned an F150 for 4 years and finally realized that it was a foolish vehicle for me to own. I really only needed the bed space a couple of times a year and for that I was putting up with 12 MPG (2 wd/4.6 liter V8) in a vehicle that was hard to park and would barely fit in my garage. Now, whenever I need something moved in a truck, I just borrow my brother’s 🙂
Sounds reasonable to me, though he must not have the bumper sticker, “Yes, this is my truck. No, you can’t borrow it.”
For such cases, one can even rent an open-bed truck from Home Depot should the need for infinite vertical headroom arise. For my part, I much prefer an enclosed volume, such as can be had in a deeper-floored unibody minivan. Just not so good for towing, that’s all.
I won’t deny that the modern crew cab is too big much of the time. Some random thoughts:
-Smaller size offerings that can haul, tow, and have good interior room have mostly dried up. Due to the recession, higher gas prices, and government regulations.
-When the market that needs this sort of vehicle, even occasionally, seeks such, these are the obvious choice and lower mid trim models are very reasonably priced.
– First two points explains popularity.
-These are today’s catch all full-size cars. Tow, haul, passenger space, comfort. Thank government regulations for that, capable full-size cars are effectively outlawed.
-Yes, I own one. I never thought I would.
-Purchase did not negatively affect my endowment.
-It is too big – kind of like a 1976 Olds Ninety-Eight when an Olds 88 was plenty, 88 percent of the time.
-Yep, the bed is high, and even a tall person like me has a tough time hauling my endowment up into the bed.
-Holy cow, the back seat is huge. My kids no longer complain about leg room.
-Gads, the thing is versatile. Fold up seats, add or delete tonneau cover, luxury car, outdoor rec car, boat towing car, property maintenance car, run to Lowe’s car.
-14.4 MPG over the first 26,000 miles with the 5.0 and 6 speed. Way better than full-size cars when I was a kid.
-Yes, I have a smaller vehicle and my endowment does not increase when I drive it. Like most big vehicle owners, we use the most appropriate vehicle when we can.
-Commuting to work in it by myself is technically less offensive then the guy in the S-Class or 7 Series if your prejudices are gas mileage. Or price. Or snobby impressions. Or being pointlessly judgmental.
Can I ask what model you have? The 2006 F-150 SuperCrew that serves as our “nice truck” is pretty spacious in back…and the 2009-14 SuperCrews are actually six inches longer. We could probably sleep three people in the back with one of those.
2012 F-150 Lariat Supercrew. The back seat area is shockingly roomy. At the lake I flip up the large seat and use it as a changing room. I have the Ford heavy duty floor mats in it, we can make a mess, pull the mat and hose it off.
“-These are today’s catch all full-size cars. Tow, haul, passenger space, comfort. Thank government regulations for that, capable full-size cars are effectively outlawed.”
While I agree that full-size trucks are today’s full-size cars, i don’t see how government regulations have outlawed full-size cars. Yes, CAFE standards are tighter for cars than for trucks, so there’s no way they could sell a mass-market vehicle with a large V8 anymore. But with today’s engine technology you could just as easily substitute a turbo 6 (Ford’s ecoboost comes to mind) or an I6 diesel. There’s nothing stopping carmakers from selling a full-frame car, or a car that can tow, or a car with more room inside than the biggest current models (Taurus, Impala, 300), or a large station wagon. It’s just that, when they were still in production, people weren’t buying them. Police, Taxi, and Livery fleets were pretty much the only customers for Panthers by the end of the line, so when they finally would have had to redesign the old workhorse, it made more sense to shift them onto other existing platforms and consolidate. it’s business.
Today’s new and more efficient engine technology that could power a full size car (in a competent and desirable manner) came on the scene in just the past few years – GM’s current 3.6 V6 for example. That aside, among the top reasons that GM would not stick this engine in a revival of an updated 1980 B-body is they cannot put this engine in a heavier body and even mass market that – standards and future standards are just too stringent. The V-6 is no long standard in all of the current Impala line for the same reason. Ditto for Ford Taurus.
The CAFE bugaboo had the U.S. manufacturers ready to pull the plug on BOF cars beginning about 1980. The large cars were mostly left to languish as there was too much fear to invest in them, and this caused younger people coming up to start migrating to SUVs, and now pick-ups. Yes, there are a few exceptions to this, but it was very little. There is a CC article on how much Ford wanted to kill the Panthers in the ’80s, but a few internal advocates pulled off the 1990 Town Car, which was a huge success – the last successful introduction of a large BOF car. The next three efforts, the ’91 base Panthers, the ’91 GM cars, and the ’97 Town Car were all botched style jobs, that, especially for GM, were struggling against CAFE even with weak sales! They threw in the towel when it was obvious that the way forward was SUVs and pick-ups that were selling themselves and were not running into the law. I recall a flap raised by an organization called the Coalition for Vehicle Choice and GM that continually threatened to close the Arlington full size plant and kill the large cars at any time if the government didn’t back off. Eventually, it became easier to just switch production to Tahoes and call it a day.
Ford actually advertised very briefly the updated Panthers as a place to move up from a Taurus, but the styling left people cold and the too long lived box Panther made the Crown Victoria name (an unfortunate choice itself) an old man’s car. They gave up and declared the Panther a fleet car, instead of trying to stimulate the consumer market out of fear of SUCCESS that would cause problems with CAFE. They didn’t put any real effort into the Crown Vic for 20 years due to this, and introduced the Expedition and Navigator to great success.
When consumer success of these sorts of cars meant a violation of the law, the manufacturers had no incentive to keep them competitive.
Things have not changed much. GM just invested in their large SUVs again, and apparently successfully. The 2015’s are simply everywhere just months after introduction. Can you imagine the difference if GM had invested in its North American BOF cars every five years since 1980 without the threat of government penalties? That’s five extra generations we missed, and we’d be getting a new one this fall!
V8 RWD cars are still made just but when they were sent to the US they didnt sell, so is there really any demand for such a device? Pickups have certainly grown there still the odd old one in regular use around here this 33 is a working vehicle, comes from Pauls home turf originally
Implying that a modern truck isn’t actually stronger, more efficient, and most importantly, safer for “real truck work” than anything built 40+ years ago.
Blaming government policies is often the easy alternative for those who don’t want to admit that modern designs and the “rules” of transverse V6/unibody/FWD construction are generally for the better.
BOF construction is great for trucks, but not so much for passenger cars. It’s unnecessarily heavy and expensive. When a modern V6 puts out enough power for 95+% of adequate passenger car duties, why would anyone who doesn’t have fantasies of NASCAR superstardom put up with the MPG penalty?
(I’m not trying to disparage anyone for having those fantasies. The Hellcat is awesome, really it is, but 95% of the time its crazy power is going to waste.)
Surely a modern V6 puts out enough power for 100% – 95% of the time they wouldn’t see more than half the power being used when you account for rpm and throttle being used.
“Blaming government policies is often the easy alternative for those who don’t want to admit that modern designs and the “rules” of transverse V6/unibody/FWD construction are generally for the better.”
They are, but only if your usage is limited to family hauling and a daily commute. If you regularly haul heavy items, tow a boat or do anything besides hum along in a basic appliance then its just fine. Even more so if you tend to not keep a vehicle more than 3 or 4 years. But while that may be the ‘majority’, that’s not the entire market. Lets not forget those of us who simply WANT more. Government policies can legislate out of existence the vehicles many of us want to buy, but they cant legislate warm bodies signing the papers. Overregulation only hurts, it never helps things….unless you’re a Japanese or Korean automaker. Nothing like having your competitors commit suicide by voluntarily forcing themselves onto unfamiliar ground where theyre ill-prepared to compete.
Mopar has the LX cars. Maybe not ‘full frame’ but that’s a dubious quality in a ‘car’. With the 5.7 Hemi (vvt, and cylinder shutdown) they can get hwy mpgs in the mid-high 20s while delivering muscle car era performance. V6 powered fwd cammacoords cost similar, get gut punched when it comes to performance and are hard pressed to get 5mpg better. Unless you do a LOT of driving, 5 mpg doesn’t mean dookie. I for one wont sell out and drive something I hate to save $30 a month unless Im completely destitute.
I wouldn’t say they’re the last thing we (USDM) do “well,” because that implies we can’t make a good vehicle in any other segment. I would say they represent the best effort “we” can make, and it shows.
We all have to bear in mind how quickly the regular cab/short bed 1/2 ton was almost abandoned after compact pickups were offered. How many shorties have you seen after about 1980 or so?
Unfortunately, theyre tough to find. ‘Shorties’ are my #1 pick for pickups. Extended cabs look like limousines, and crewcabs (in my mind) only make sense as an SUT like the Avalanche or SporTrac.
I guess that shows how two people with different opinions can still both be right, then, since a shortie pickup is outside the “Chosen Four,” or the four 1/2-ton pickup configs I would ever be comfortable buying, in this order: 1.) Extended cab/8′ bed, 2.) Extended cab/6.5′ bed, 3.) Regular cab/8′ bed, 4.) Crew cab/6.5′ bed.
As far as I’m concerned, give me the absolute most vehicle for my money, and I’ll build a new garage if mine doesn’t fit it. Of course, my dream home would be a garage big enough to fit six crew-cab dually pickups with room to spare, and a living space above…
My 1992 Jeep Comanche LWB, 2WD is a bit cozy in the cab and I’m not that tall: 5′-9″ but it is comfortable enough. It does fit in a “standard” garage and is easy to park. It is narrower than modern trucks including the “compacts” like the Tacoma and Frontier.
With the tail gate lowered and some “trestles” I build to clear the fender houses, I can easily haul 4′ x 8′ material without anything sticking out or hanging above the cab.
Interesting contrast Ed. When did the 8×4 sheet become the standard? I’m guessing it might have been introduced around 50-55 years ago based on when plywood became popular. So there is part of the increase in length when long beds have a reason to exist. Tires have been increasing in width since the 1930s, and for good reason too, which drives the increase in width. Tires are now taller, mostly due to larger brake rotors (change from 15″ rim in the 1990s to 17″ rims now).
The tall cab, low bed height is how things naturally evolved, with a shorter cab requirement when you sit more upright. Today’s pickups would have your legs extending further forward, plus the dash is thicker, and engines are larger. I would say as a generic observation that engine bay lengths haven’t reduced since the passing of the inline 6-cyl (apart from Dodge obviously) so perhaps the length has been reallocated to crash structure?
So it is easy to see how some repackaging might enable pickups to be shorter and lower, and perhaps a touch narrower, as fuel economy requirements start to hit harder I wonder if the manufacturers will go that way to squeeze a bit more efficiency?
The funny thing is, people seem to lament the passing of pickups with the basic stats of that old Ford and that modern pickups are so huge, yet whenever an El Camino or Ranchero is shown on here, many are quick to call them a ‘joke’ or ‘useless’. I don’t have the time/patience to track down and crunch numbers but Ill bet a ute would stack up favorably to that old Ford.
With better aerodynamics, lower ride height, a more generous cab and other benefits of a ‘car’ Id be willing to bet a ute based on the Mopar LX would meet or exceed the requirements of someone who would otherwise consider a 2wd Ranger, Tacoma etc. Its a more focused approach to a smaller, more efficient pickup without the typical minitruck drawbacks.
On the other hand, a pickup based on the Wrangler would be a more focused offroad vehicle. Had a Scrambler in college, it would haul more weight if not more volume than my buddys’ S-10s and nissans and would go places my BIL’s 85 Toyota wouldn’t touch.
In order for a modern truly compact pickup, the size of the original Toyota or Datsun trucks, to meet CAFE and other regulations, it’d almost certainly have to be based on a unibody, FWD platform. And that’s just fine, since a FWD platform, as has been demonstrated with numerous minivans and FWD wagons, is no slouch when it comes to carrying heavy or bulky items.
But I certainly wouldn’t be against seeing a LX-based V6 or V8-powered RWD “ute” either.
In the “FWIW Department”, when we owned a 1996 Ford Ranger XLT standard cab short bed, 4 cyl stick pickup, I compared the interior room to a similarly-configured Dodge Dakota around 14 years ago. For being a significantly larger truck, the cab wasn’t any larger except perhaps in width.
When I test-drove Dakotas and Rangers with regular cabs I found that I had to jiggle the seat adjustment and backrest angle just right to fit well into the cab at 6′ 2″. I suppose they had the same back-of-cab-to-back-of-box dimensions.
Old pickups are works of art! Look at all those curves!
I’ve been told the universe is still constantly expanding.
Cue the inevitable comment(s) about how all modern trucks are complete unnecessary and impractical for real work, and how anyone who drives one has a small penis.
It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison in almost every way: 4×4 vs. 4×2, Quad Cab vs. “regular” cab (not that there were any other cabs back then), Dodge vs. Ford.
Well, let’s look at apples and apples then…
2014 Ram 1500 2WD Regular Cab 8′ box
Length – 231″
Wheelbase – 140.5″
Height – 74.4″
Curb weight – 4900 lb.
1992 Dodge Ram D150 2WD Regular Cab 8′ Box
Length – 211″
Wheelbase – 131″
Height – 69″
Curb weight – 3724 lb.
So did the extra 20 inches of body length and 10 extra inches of wheel base length go toward the cab and engine bay?
I’d like to compare the step-in/seat height and the bed rail height – aside from the overall size, it’s the increase in these two dimensions that really hinder day to day practicality.
Plus you have to take into account the payload/towing capacities (the first of which might be compromised on the newer Ram because of the coil springs), HP/TQ numbers, and everything else that’s been increased in 20+ years.
And you have to include that one figure which is apparently so integral in choosing a new pickup, the dreaded bed height number.
Admittedly, it is a lot easier to do “pickup work” (carrying a load in the bed) if the bed is lower. But the number of times we’ve actually needed the 2″ of factory lift on our 4×4 Offroad ’08 F-350 far outweigh the added difficulty of accessing a bed that comes up to my shoulder (I’m only 5’8″).
I’m not sure when exactly the big bed became a thing. We can all point to the “terrible” modern trucks that apparently have sky-high beds, but if, say, a ’14 Chevy bed isn’t much taller than a comparable ’07 Chevy, and that’s not all that taller than a ’99…where did it actually happen?
The GVWR of the base ’92 D150 was 5500 lb., minus the curb weight of 3724 leaves a payload of 1776 lb. The ’14’s payload is around 1900 lb. – not much gain considering the size and hp/torque increases. A 4×4 crew cab knocks that down to 1260 – four big guys in the cab and you’ve used up nearly 3/4 of the capacity.
The 2004 F-150 started the trend to tall bed sides.
Cars are the same way. Anyone who has spent time in a Model A or in a lower priced 1930s car knows that they were really quite small inside. The modern minivan is much, much larger than a typical family car of the 1930s.
Also, it is hard to tell from this view, but that old Ford pickup may be lowered a bit.
The modern minivan is much larger than the “original” 1984 Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth minivan.
Hear hear. While modern pickups have gotten gigantic, I’ll be honest – they really are comfortable places to be. Even comparing my current ’99 F-150 to my previous ’92 F-150(s) is no comparison. The ’99 is one of the most comfortable and roomy vehicles I’ve owned while the other two – while certainly no slouches – didn’t compare.
I was absolutely blown away riding in a Hyundai Elantra the other day. Seemingly tiny car with a shockingly roomy interior. Same with the Kia Soul, that was far roomier than my 2003 Dodge Dakota.
Wow indeed, but I assume the FoMoCo does not have an eight foot bed. Do not think the Dodge has one either.
Nope, neither one does. And guess what? I’d wager 75% of “real truck work” can be done just as easily with a 6.5′ bed with the tailgate down. AFAIK, Ford didn’t even offer an 8′ bed on the F-100 until the mid-50’s, and that was only because Chevy and IH made them before.
Houses have gotten bigger since the Baby Boom, too (as have loan periods for them). George Carlin said, we need a place to keep our stuff. That is what pickups are used for, right?
You would think so but the majority of them that I see are hauling nothing more than air in the bed. Sometimes I will see one actually being used as a truck but most of the time they are being used as a huge car with an open air trunk. I owned an F150 for 4 years and finally realized that it was a foolish vehicle for me to own. I really only needed the bed space a couple of times a year and for that I was putting up with 12 MPG (2 wd/4.6 liter V8) in a vehicle that was hard to park and would barely fit in my garage. Now, whenever I need something moved in a truck, I just borrow my brother’s 🙂
Sounds reasonable to me, though he must not have the bumper sticker, “Yes, this is my truck. No, you can’t borrow it.”
For such cases, one can even rent an open-bed truck from Home Depot should the need for infinite vertical headroom arise. For my part, I much prefer an enclosed volume, such as can be had in a deeper-floored unibody minivan. Just not so good for towing, that’s all.
I won’t deny that the modern crew cab is too big much of the time. Some random thoughts:
-Smaller size offerings that can haul, tow, and have good interior room have mostly dried up. Due to the recession, higher gas prices, and government regulations.
-When the market that needs this sort of vehicle, even occasionally, seeks such, these are the obvious choice and lower mid trim models are very reasonably priced.
– First two points explains popularity.
-These are today’s catch all full-size cars. Tow, haul, passenger space, comfort. Thank government regulations for that, capable full-size cars are effectively outlawed.
-Yes, I own one. I never thought I would.
-Purchase did not negatively affect my endowment.
-It is too big – kind of like a 1976 Olds Ninety-Eight when an Olds 88 was plenty, 88 percent of the time.
-Yep, the bed is high, and even a tall person like me has a tough time hauling my endowment up into the bed.
-Holy cow, the back seat is huge. My kids no longer complain about leg room.
-Gads, the thing is versatile. Fold up seats, add or delete tonneau cover, luxury car, outdoor rec car, boat towing car, property maintenance car, run to Lowe’s car.
-14.4 MPG over the first 26,000 miles with the 5.0 and 6 speed. Way better than full-size cars when I was a kid.
-Yes, I have a smaller vehicle and my endowment does not increase when I drive it. Like most big vehicle owners, we use the most appropriate vehicle when we can.
-Commuting to work in it by myself is technically less offensive then the guy in the S-Class or 7 Series if your prejudices are gas mileage. Or price. Or snobby impressions. Or being pointlessly judgmental.
Can I ask what model you have? The 2006 F-150 SuperCrew that serves as our “nice truck” is pretty spacious in back…and the 2009-14 SuperCrews are actually six inches longer. We could probably sleep three people in the back with one of those.
2012 F-150 Lariat Supercrew. The back seat area is shockingly roomy. At the lake I flip up the large seat and use it as a changing room. I have the Ford heavy duty floor mats in it, we can make a mess, pull the mat and hose it off.
“-These are today’s catch all full-size cars. Tow, haul, passenger space, comfort. Thank government regulations for that, capable full-size cars are effectively outlawed.”
While I agree that full-size trucks are today’s full-size cars, i don’t see how government regulations have outlawed full-size cars. Yes, CAFE standards are tighter for cars than for trucks, so there’s no way they could sell a mass-market vehicle with a large V8 anymore. But with today’s engine technology you could just as easily substitute a turbo 6 (Ford’s ecoboost comes to mind) or an I6 diesel. There’s nothing stopping carmakers from selling a full-frame car, or a car that can tow, or a car with more room inside than the biggest current models (Taurus, Impala, 300), or a large station wagon. It’s just that, when they were still in production, people weren’t buying them. Police, Taxi, and Livery fleets were pretty much the only customers for Panthers by the end of the line, so when they finally would have had to redesign the old workhorse, it made more sense to shift them onto other existing platforms and consolidate. it’s business.
Today’s new and more efficient engine technology that could power a full size car (in a competent and desirable manner) came on the scene in just the past few years – GM’s current 3.6 V6 for example. That aside, among the top reasons that GM would not stick this engine in a revival of an updated 1980 B-body is they cannot put this engine in a heavier body and even mass market that – standards and future standards are just too stringent. The V-6 is no long standard in all of the current Impala line for the same reason. Ditto for Ford Taurus.
The CAFE bugaboo had the U.S. manufacturers ready to pull the plug on BOF cars beginning about 1980. The large cars were mostly left to languish as there was too much fear to invest in them, and this caused younger people coming up to start migrating to SUVs, and now pick-ups. Yes, there are a few exceptions to this, but it was very little. There is a CC article on how much Ford wanted to kill the Panthers in the ’80s, but a few internal advocates pulled off the 1990 Town Car, which was a huge success – the last successful introduction of a large BOF car. The next three efforts, the ’91 base Panthers, the ’91 GM cars, and the ’97 Town Car were all botched style jobs, that, especially for GM, were struggling against CAFE even with weak sales! They threw in the towel when it was obvious that the way forward was SUVs and pick-ups that were selling themselves and were not running into the law. I recall a flap raised by an organization called the Coalition for Vehicle Choice and GM that continually threatened to close the Arlington full size plant and kill the large cars at any time if the government didn’t back off. Eventually, it became easier to just switch production to Tahoes and call it a day.
Ford actually advertised very briefly the updated Panthers as a place to move up from a Taurus, but the styling left people cold and the too long lived box Panther made the Crown Victoria name (an unfortunate choice itself) an old man’s car. They gave up and declared the Panther a fleet car, instead of trying to stimulate the consumer market out of fear of SUCCESS that would cause problems with CAFE. They didn’t put any real effort into the Crown Vic for 20 years due to this, and introduced the Expedition and Navigator to great success.
When consumer success of these sorts of cars meant a violation of the law, the manufacturers had no incentive to keep them competitive.
Things have not changed much. GM just invested in their large SUVs again, and apparently successfully. The 2015’s are simply everywhere just months after introduction. Can you imagine the difference if GM had invested in its North American BOF cars every five years since 1980 without the threat of government penalties? That’s five extra generations we missed, and we’d be getting a new one this fall!
it’s simple. trucks used to be trucks, now they are full size cars. I wish they still made full size cars with v8, frame, and rear drive. blame CAFE.
V8 RWD cars are still made just but when they were sent to the US they didnt sell, so is there really any demand for such a device? Pickups have certainly grown there still the odd old one in regular use around here this 33 is a working vehicle, comes from Pauls home turf originally
Implying that a modern truck isn’t actually stronger, more efficient, and most importantly, safer for “real truck work” than anything built 40+ years ago.
Blaming government policies is often the easy alternative for those who don’t want to admit that modern designs and the “rules” of transverse V6/unibody/FWD construction are generally for the better.
BOF construction is great for trucks, but not so much for passenger cars. It’s unnecessarily heavy and expensive. When a modern V6 puts out enough power for 95+% of adequate passenger car duties, why would anyone who doesn’t have fantasies of NASCAR superstardom put up with the MPG penalty?
(I’m not trying to disparage anyone for having those fantasies. The Hellcat is awesome, really it is, but 95% of the time its crazy power is going to waste.)
Surely a modern V6 puts out enough power for 100% – 95% of the time they wouldn’t see more than half the power being used when you account for rpm and throttle being used.
“Blaming government policies is often the easy alternative for those who don’t want to admit that modern designs and the “rules” of transverse V6/unibody/FWD construction are generally for the better.”
They are, but only if your usage is limited to family hauling and a daily commute. If you regularly haul heavy items, tow a boat or do anything besides hum along in a basic appliance then its just fine. Even more so if you tend to not keep a vehicle more than 3 or 4 years. But while that may be the ‘majority’, that’s not the entire market. Lets not forget those of us who simply WANT more. Government policies can legislate out of existence the vehicles many of us want to buy, but they cant legislate warm bodies signing the papers. Overregulation only hurts, it never helps things….unless you’re a Japanese or Korean automaker. Nothing like having your competitors commit suicide by voluntarily forcing themselves onto unfamiliar ground where theyre ill-prepared to compete.
BOF construction is not really any heavier. A 2011 Crown Victoria weighs 4129, a 2011 Dodge Charger with the V8 is 4253.
Mopar has the LX cars. Maybe not ‘full frame’ but that’s a dubious quality in a ‘car’. With the 5.7 Hemi (vvt, and cylinder shutdown) they can get hwy mpgs in the mid-high 20s while delivering muscle car era performance. V6 powered fwd cammacoords cost similar, get gut punched when it comes to performance and are hard pressed to get 5mpg better. Unless you do a LOT of driving, 5 mpg doesn’t mean dookie. I for one wont sell out and drive something I hate to save $30 a month unless Im completely destitute.
Pickups are the last vehicle we do well in this country. We are a good distance ahead in this department.
I wouldn’t say they’re the last thing we (USDM) do “well,” because that implies we can’t make a good vehicle in any other segment. I would say they represent the best effort “we” can make, and it shows.
Muscle cars, don’t forget those. No one can touch us for the visceral feel of a V8 powered rwd hell raising machine.
Also, how many competitors, imitators, and knockoffs of the good old Jeep come and gone?
We all have to bear in mind how quickly the regular cab/short bed 1/2 ton was almost abandoned after compact pickups were offered. How many shorties have you seen after about 1980 or so?
Unfortunately, theyre tough to find. ‘Shorties’ are my #1 pick for pickups. Extended cabs look like limousines, and crewcabs (in my mind) only make sense as an SUT like the Avalanche or SporTrac.
I guess that shows how two people with different opinions can still both be right, then, since a shortie pickup is outside the “Chosen Four,” or the four 1/2-ton pickup configs I would ever be comfortable buying, in this order: 1.) Extended cab/8′ bed, 2.) Extended cab/6.5′ bed, 3.) Regular cab/8′ bed, 4.) Crew cab/6.5′ bed.
As far as I’m concerned, give me the absolute most vehicle for my money, and I’ll build a new garage if mine doesn’t fit it. Of course, my dream home would be a garage big enough to fit six crew-cab dually pickups with room to spare, and a living space above…
My 1992 Jeep Comanche LWB, 2WD is a bit cozy in the cab and I’m not that tall: 5′-9″ but it is comfortable enough. It does fit in a “standard” garage and is easy to park. It is narrower than modern trucks including the “compacts” like the Tacoma and Frontier.
With the tail gate lowered and some “trestles” I build to clear the fender houses, I can easily haul 4′ x 8′ material without anything sticking out or hanging above the cab.
Interesting contrast Ed. When did the 8×4 sheet become the standard? I’m guessing it might have been introduced around 50-55 years ago based on when plywood became popular. So there is part of the increase in length when long beds have a reason to exist. Tires have been increasing in width since the 1930s, and for good reason too, which drives the increase in width. Tires are now taller, mostly due to larger brake rotors (change from 15″ rim in the 1990s to 17″ rims now).
The tall cab, low bed height is how things naturally evolved, with a shorter cab requirement when you sit more upright. Today’s pickups would have your legs extending further forward, plus the dash is thicker, and engines are larger. I would say as a generic observation that engine bay lengths haven’t reduced since the passing of the inline 6-cyl (apart from Dodge obviously) so perhaps the length has been reallocated to crash structure?
So it is easy to see how some repackaging might enable pickups to be shorter and lower, and perhaps a touch narrower, as fuel economy requirements start to hit harder I wonder if the manufacturers will go that way to squeeze a bit more efficiency?
The funny thing is, people seem to lament the passing of pickups with the basic stats of that old Ford and that modern pickups are so huge, yet whenever an El Camino or Ranchero is shown on here, many are quick to call them a ‘joke’ or ‘useless’. I don’t have the time/patience to track down and crunch numbers but Ill bet a ute would stack up favorably to that old Ford.
With better aerodynamics, lower ride height, a more generous cab and other benefits of a ‘car’ Id be willing to bet a ute based on the Mopar LX would meet or exceed the requirements of someone who would otherwise consider a 2wd Ranger, Tacoma etc. Its a more focused approach to a smaller, more efficient pickup without the typical minitruck drawbacks.
On the other hand, a pickup based on the Wrangler would be a more focused offroad vehicle. Had a Scrambler in college, it would haul more weight if not more volume than my buddys’ S-10s and nissans and would go places my BIL’s 85 Toyota wouldn’t touch.
In order for a modern truly compact pickup, the size of the original Toyota or Datsun trucks, to meet CAFE and other regulations, it’d almost certainly have to be based on a unibody, FWD platform. And that’s just fine, since a FWD platform, as has been demonstrated with numerous minivans and FWD wagons, is no slouch when it comes to carrying heavy or bulky items.
But I certainly wouldn’t be against seeing a LX-based V6 or V8-powered RWD “ute” either.
In the “FWIW Department”, when we owned a 1996 Ford Ranger XLT standard cab short bed, 4 cyl stick pickup, I compared the interior room to a similarly-configured Dodge Dakota around 14 years ago. For being a significantly larger truck, the cab wasn’t any larger except perhaps in width.
When I test-drove Dakotas and Rangers with regular cabs I found that I had to jiggle the seat adjustment and backrest angle just right to fit well into the cab at 6′ 2″. I suppose they had the same back-of-cab-to-back-of-box dimensions.