Interestingly, Mexico gets the US market Tacoma and the world market Hilux. I wonder what sales numbers are like between the two.

I see Hiluxes pretty often as well. This guy was on a jobsite I was working on.

Attached File


And these two older pickups are part of my motley little collection of junk.

Attached File

No, I don't think it's not completely unrealistic at all.

You could make a small C channel frame based subcompact pickup and stick cabs(single or double) on top cheap. It doesn't have to rock the world with fully boxed frame, every tech package and offroad accouterments, costing thousands more(even though they could make one as a model if successful). If you mass market it in third world countries against stalwarts like Hilux or Triton for cheaper because its smaller with slightly higher upscale designed interior, but in the States as a lowscale entry it could bring cost of investment down globally.

Hyundai is successful in India basically because they started offering better than their normal standards to break out there. Take that brand recognition there, launch a small pickup which has enormous potential for growth because it fits their market, couple it with a strategy in Africa, South America, and hell even Europe with better interiors. There is a global market for small pickups and that includes here, but every automaker right now has vested interests in super large pickups with even larger profit margins. They are incentivized NOT to make a smaller pickup which will eat into their larger pickup sales. Hyundai has this missing from their portfolio and they could compete against Toyota/Daihatsu(which I think is always their marker for which they judge themselves against to surpass). I wholly believe Hyundai Motor Group could do it if they wanted to as a strategy to break into a pickup market better than their attempt like the Santa Fe Ridgeline ripoff. They are missing the boat with the ability to steal sales from the manufacturers who are invested in the large pickup market and from people who don't need or want large pickups, fleet sales, etc but still see that the midsize pickups as ripoffs when the large pickups are just a few thousand more.

Again you price something below a Frontier, slightly higher than a Rio, and you will see sales from one of the two key demographics: middle class suburban families who can afford a cheap third vehicle(for dad going to Lowes or for Junior's first vehicle) or lower class working families who need that vehicle for work, but cannot afford large trucks(maintenance, fuel costs, insurance, etc).

It's what Toyota did with huge success but lost their way with the Tacoma growing in size, Nissan did they same and it has grown marginally in size but consistent in sales(they are stagnant because Ghosn was all about cost cutting, sales volume using old platforms as long as possible), Honda has been meandering with their Ridgeline sales because they didn't build the reputation around "truck" which people here often point out and scoff at(while it's a decent vehicle for it's intended purposes). Ford and Chevy used to build actual small pickups but they are too far invested into large trucks they will never offer a true small pickup.(But Ford woke up and is making a Focus based one to keep costs down). Dodge went midsize truck before anyone else with their Dakota.

People who bought Tacomas are more likely to buy Tundras and most people who bought Titans were Frontier owners. You hook them in low, prove that they can be good enough, and then grow from there. That's a profitable, long term strategy which Hyundai is in position to do with their growth strategies. It would position them to make a large pickup that could give all of them a run for their money.

Shit, i went to buy a Ranger and similarly spec f150 was 2k cheaper due to manf. Incentives. There was zero reason to get the Ranger except if I wanted the smaller footprint.

^ have you ever driven a $13k new vehicle?

They are not typically good enough at anything.

truck pricing for base capabilities it too compressed.

4x4 ranger and 15 are mid to high 30s...

i can spec a f250 4x4 supercab that will tow 20000 lb or so for 43K.... which is actually a good bit cheaper then specing a max tow 150 as far as i can tell.

Yes, I have. Rental for a day. They don't have to do anything good but work. Hence why they sell in rental fleets and why lower class people buy them. There is a market for it and it's huge.

Also, isn't that the definition of character of a truck should be?

My 1964 F100 barely fits in my 1962 attached garage.

Older houses weren't designed to park a garbage truck inside.

Which configurations are those, and do either of those width numbers include mirrors?

We had an OBS F-150 in my family until last year, and I checked out the Ranger when they came out. The real world difference is gigantic.

Another factor I think are child car seats. You need a lot of room for these, especially for the rear facing configuration. Young families and grandparents pretty much need a large quad cab to haul 2-3 kids.

When I bought a truck in 2015 for retirement it became obvious if I wanted to be able to transport my wife and a couple of grandkids we needed a full size truck with quad cab.

And as you stated, after you add other safety engineering, EPA, etc the size and cost are way beyond the 1980s small truck. In the 80s I had a 1980 Toyota truck (only one size then!) that was pretty handy. Didn’t use it for heavy loads just small fishing boat trailer, tool hauling, hiking trailheads. Just 4-cylinder, 4-speed manual, regular cab but I believe it was rated as 1/2 ton.

At that time in my life it was great. But later it was too small for hauling gravel, firewood or kids. My 2500 Ram now can easily haul 2,500lbs and for shorter distances 3,000 lbs which is a full yard of basalt rock. Of course a small truck with a utility trailer can do the same, so.... But grandkids’ parents insist they ride in car seats instead of banging around in the bed like when I was a kid :D. Actually after seeing a pickup get hit and rolled on the freeway I am a big believer in no kids in the bed when in the road or going more than 5mph in a field.

Those tiny trucks were tiny because you would die in more collisions. They were not even in the same galaxy as modern trucks in terms of safety.

Tacoma, Ridgeline, Canyon, Colorado, and Ranger are still nicely sized and significantly smaller than their full size pairings. This is just another case of people resisting positive change because they were used to something else. Not all change is bad. Maybe many years from now we'll have better materials and engineering prowess to at the very least increase hauling space, towing capacity, and general room inside newest vehicles without sacrificing external size.

I was honestly shocked at how much more convenient the bed of my 64 4x2 F100 is compared to current gen Colorados and Rangers.

Yes the almighty NTHSA knows best and will force you to drive in a crappy looking huge bubble with zero visibility.

Onward comrade to progress!

Buy a kei truck wierdo.
660cc 3 cylinder Suzuki fury.

That’s for a loaded Lariat.

Why does GD always pick the most expensive model, and then act like it costs that much to own said vehicle?

ETA: This is what happens when you start piling options on. If you do it to a full size, expect it to cost $70,000.

Attached File


Attached File

Hopefully.

To be fair, being able to do a side by side comparison between an 80s toyota pickup and a newer Tacoma is pretty eye opening (I own some of each).
The really old trucks are deathtraps TBH. Roof that barely holds itself up, paper thin doors, no airbags, you are the crumple zone.
Also watched one flip over in front of me one day. Super low speed, low energy rollover (clipped a divider while making a left and just toppled over). Roof was crushed flat to the tops of the doors. Driver was uninjured (he ducked) but scary to see.
Doesn't prevent me from owning and driving mine but it something to think abt.

Bring back the El Camino!!  

True, but I think the 90's were the good mix of safety improving while not at the expense of form. If we could put today's engines into 90's safety requirements, it would be GTG.

73-87 Chevy half ton.
6.0 LQ4/LQ9
Perfect truck

No nanny state bullshit.
Real steel body.

Traction, stability control and 87 air bags can be shoved right up the politicians ass that decided we needed those.

90's safety was still appalling yet with the added expense and complexity of 90's car safety standards. It was spec sheet safety.  They were better, but not much and not nearly as safe as the following generations.

Did they even do small offset or rollover testing for them?

This.

The required standards made it impossible for them to be small and cost-effective simultaneously.

To fit the theme of this thread



Make GMC Syclone Again.

Given that trucks have gone full retard with their bed height, my next "work" truck will have to be a flatbed with removable rails.  Hope I can still find one as a single cab

I think the real reason crew cab work trucks are popular now isn't necessarily because of multiple passengers, it's because having such a high bed wall makes utilizing the damn thing such a pita that a back seat is now the default storage area.  No Suzie Soccermom wants to actually climb into a 5' high bed for groceries

My last truck was a 2004 Dakota with the 4.7L V8 and a 5-speed.

It was the last year before they screwed it up. Great truck and a ton of fun to drive. So many burnouts so little time.

For light homeowner stuff, a small utility trailer does all of that better, including hauling railroad ties.

IMO, the sweet spot for Toyota trucks was the 95-05 Tacoma (1st gen).
Power and safety of the new stuff, build quality closer to the old trucks then the new stuff. And not riddled with tech.

One of my fleet is a doublecab and yeah, I could see that.
I use the back seats as a space to haul stuff more then I do the bed.

You're probably one of those employees who flips their shit every single time you're told to do something different.

Meh.

But then you have to store it and have it with you when you go to get stuff.

Nope.

Just hate to see how much power the NTHSA has in inflating car prices and making vehicles ugly. You get a recipe for the biggest contrast:

Camaros all the way up to the early 2000's all around great visibility
New Camaro's, can't see shit past the front windshield. (probably causing crashes, now there is tech which adds even more money through side lane departure warning systems. They had to add thousands dollars more because they have to build vehicles you can't see out of LOL)

Couple it with the EPA and CAFE insanity and you get the reason why so many cars are ridiculously priced.

Don't be butthurt because you side with socialism, central government power and it's consequences. Here is a bitter pill they will never swallow from all the government regulators supporters:  You cannot prevent all deaths on the roads. You are causing more harm in the economy and people's lives because of your intentions to protect.

His Ranger numbers include mirrors and a rear bumper; his F150 numbers include neither. Comparing extended cab short bed trucks, a 2020 Ranger is a foot shorter and 6 inches narrower than an F150 of the early 90s.

Maybe one day they'll combine the utility of a trailer with a vehicle.  They can call it (i dunno just spitballin' here)... a truck.  Huh, I might be onto something here.

Only in a clown world would someone need to buy a trailer to haul stuff with a truck.  But in the age of unusable bed height, yes... it's unfortunately needed.

Can you even buy a single cab ranger anymore?

You can't buy any mid size truck with a single cab any more, which is why I'm comparing extended cabs.

This is exactly right.  I have a shortbed Tacoma.  I seldom haul anything the truck won't haul but in those rare circumstances, I hook up the utility trailer and I'm good.  I have the utility trailer to haul my ATV on, but it has come in handy for a bunch of other stuff too.

My last truck had a bed cap on it with a sleep platform and such.  I always used the trailer to haul stuff so I wouldn't get the bed dirty.  It was more like an SUV or camper than a pickup.

Im not sure of the configuration, or the mirrors. But if your size comparison has dwindled down to the mirrors we should go all in and let the air out of the rangers tires before we measure the height.

That's what I figured. For someone who doesn't need the extra cab space and doesn't feel like driving around in a dump truck a single cab makes more sense. In that case they're comparing a standard cab F150 to an extended cab Ranger.

What's the difference in size between those two?

My brother rolled three 1980's Toyota pickups. He was ejected every time. The cab was always flat with the top of the doors. My favorite was the 1987 Turbo 4x4.  I also miss the pre-airbag steering wheels.

However there days I'd like to see a Subaru Crosstrek 2 door with a bed and locking center differential.

I own a Nissan Titan and a Toyota Prius both base models and they do thier job just fine. Both purchased new.

In the end the only opinion that matters are those of new car buyers. Manufacturers don't care what the 3rd owner wants in a vehicle.

There are many modern tiny vehicles that are very safe.
Like say BMW 1. and 3. series, Merc`s A,B and C-class, new Mini etc.

But because of all that tech, gadgets and comfort options (that the consumers take for granted) these small trucks would be quite expensive.
And then the consumer would still choose a bigger truck for just slightly bigger monthly payment.

Average american can't fit in a small truck.

Most trucks are purchased to supplement the owners ego.  Small trucks dont help low self esteem.

I just dug a little deeper, that ranger width of 78 is mirrors folded, extended is 85. The f150 is w/o mirrors (in):79.0

And thats pretty much the same size, as we said from the beginning.

And 12mpg but great acceleration. Four barrels of aerated fuel gushing into those cylinders.

I had a 1973. Fun, fun truck.

There is virtually no market any more for a factory built puny low ground clearance 2wd pickup that is all about being cheap and practical and not cool.

Brodozers are now the way

The regular cab short bed F150 is shorter than the modern Ranger. Of course, the F150 is also shorter than an extended cab early 90s Ranger. Step up to an 8 foot bed on the F150 (because the kind of guy who likes a regular cab is all about muh plywood) and the Rangers are shorter again.

It's a foot shorter and six inches narrower. Again, the modern Ranger is closer in size to the third gen Ranger than it is to the early 90s F150.

The Ranger without mirrors is 73 inches, or about the same width as a Honda Accord. Is a Honda Accord pretty much the same width as an old F150? No, obviously not.

So they're nearly identical weight, with just a foot shorter and six inches narrower difference between a full and a mid size truck. Maybe I live in Bizarro world but that's pretty much the same thing.

People complained the the JK jeep was too wide compared to the TJ. but in reality it is only 4" wider.

But in the real world 6" better in a lot of parking lots.