8 ms·

I hope this ends up being smaller than the F150. I get the popularity of that form factor, but I simply don't believe that many people are hauling yards of soi

I hope this ends up being smaller than the F150. I get the popularity of that form factor, but I simply don't believe that many people are hauling yards of soil or towing boats. 2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US.

actionablefiber 4y ago
I get the sense that the pickup truck market in the U.S. particularly in suburbs is driven by brand marketing rather than consumer needs. People are paying a premium, in the cost of purchasing as well as in the cost of insuring, maintaining, and fueling, for the image of the rugged individualistic American ready for any terrain, weather, or load that needs hauling, and maximally armored to "win" should they ever hit a person or vehicle in their path. There's a subset of contexts where they make sense although I think for _most_ people they're infrequent enough that it's way more sensible to use a cargo van or a sedan and then just rent a truck during the minority of times when you actually need one.
- kurthr 4y ago
  The giant king cab luxury seating is the only thing available on the larger and more expensive models unless you have access to fleet purchasing. They definitely have a market and they've tuned product lines for it. There are even supersport models. Personally, I hate the short-beds cuz you can't easily transport lumber or plywood sheets.
  - EricE 4y ago
    Both the Hyundai Santa Cruz and Ford Ranger have tail gates that will partially lower to the same level as the tops of the wheel wells, providing a perfect platform for 4x8 sheets of plywood. I have a friend with a Ranger and we have hauled plywood and other larger objects with no issues. Would I want to do it routinely? Probably not - but for casual hauling they work well enough. I would expect the Scout to be designed in a very similar way. I've owned trucks with 8 foot beds in the past - I'd rather have a second row of seats and a smaller bed as well as a vehicle that's overall smaller than the 8 foot bed trucks of old. These newer designs are a great compromise of functionality and convenience, which is why you are seeing them take over the lower end. What I really want is the return of true micro pickups like the original Nissan hard body :(
    - EricE 4y ago
      And if you are as frustrated by the lack of true mini-pickups as I am, search the 'net and read about the chicken tax. Which was aimed at locking VW out of the US market quite a while ago, has lingered on way past it's prime and has bit even American manufacturers in the butt as more manufacturing has shifted outside of the US. Gotta love unintended consequences - ha!
      - dieselgate 4y ago
        Ya it’s insane and unfortunate how the chicken tax wrecked trucks. Was it really directed towards VW though? I thought it was more against Japanese auto makes.
        EricE 4y ago
        Nope, VW around WWII (I think just before - need to go re-read) EDIT: It was post WWII. And VW Type 2 is profiled in the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
        dieselgate 4y ago
        Nice thanks for the follow up!
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      The other problem with the short beds is that they are "compensated" for by raising the belt line to make the bed deeper. This compromises rear visibility. Then the long beds suffer because they also get a deep bed to integrate with the cab. On old Rangers you used to be able to walk up and just reach into the bed to get stuff. That isn't possible on any current midsize and up pickups.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - 4y ago
  - dieselgate 4y ago
    I’ve been curious with the functionality of short beds - the only advantage I can think of is a shorter wheel base for towing/maneuvering a trailer. Otherwise they make no sense to me
- corrral 4y ago
  > There's a subset of contexts where they make sense although I think for _most_ people they're infrequent enough that it's way more sensible to use a cargo van or a sedan and then just rent a truck during the minority of times when you actually need one. Even a minivan can tow a small trailer for occasional lumber store runs or towing a jet ski or two. Or just use the roof rack and some tie-downs. Or take the seats out, many of them will fit some plywood inside without trouble. For a larger boat, you can often rent a slip at your usual lake or whatever cheaper than the difference in annual TCO between a truck and a smaller car. Not helpful if you move your boat from one body of water to another a lot, but the only folks I know who do that have small fishing boats that a van could probably tow just fine. Besides, you can pay for several construction deliveries and probably pay to have your boat moved a couple times a year for the difference in annual cost. No sense paying all that extra gas, insurance, and up-front cost for something with features you only use every other month or less, when you can just pay less money to do a daily truck rental periodically, for a delivery service, et c. But no, people need their immaculate $50,000+ trucks in the 'burbs just to show that they could blow $50,000+ on a truck they don't need, and so they fit in with their buds who also own trucks. Quite a few are purchased for good reasons, but a lot are mostly purchased for social signaling.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    If you need a truck even 5% of the time it is overall cheapest to just own a truck. Insurance, car payments, and other fixed costs are too high to make a second car worth it, and renting a car is not cheap, not to mention rental rules often mean you can't use the truck as a truck. (I've been looking for a place to rent a truck so I can replace mine, a couple times a year I do something that no rental truck will let me do) Sure a truck uses a lot more fuel, but fuel is a small part of the cost of a car. Though I don't get families with more than one truck/suv. One will do the job for all of those things, and a EV (even a limited range one like the older leaf) will take care of all the other. Only rarely do you have to tell your spouse that you need the truck so drive "my" car.
    - corrral 4y ago
      I expect using a truck as a truck, for a situation in which a roof rack or a small trailer towed by a lesser vehicle wouldn't have sufficed, 18-19 days a year would put you way above average for non-business truck owners in my area.
- decafninja 4y ago
  That probably applies for many vehicle classes in general. I live in the NYC area, and I see many specialized "lifestyle" vehicles such as offroaders like Jeep Wrangler Rubicons or sports cars like Porsches. I would bet the majority of Rubicons I see rarely see terrain tougher than an unpaved driveway. The majority of Porsches I see will rarely experience a more thrilling drive than the owner flooring it from a stoplight. Rather, it's to convey status or a lifestyle image. While we're on the subject of pickup trucks - the Cybertruck. I have many friends who would never have thought of owning a truck before placing preorders for Cybertrucks. They are all white collar office workers, I've never seen them do any kind of hauling of cargo or offroading or other "rugged" or "adventurous" activities. But they are madly in love with the Cybertruck. It's purely a "look at me" lifestyle thing. Trucks like the F-150 (including the Lightning EV), Silverado, Tacoma, etc. don't even enter their radar. Meanwhile I do have a handful of friends that work the trades, work in construction, etc. These guys all dismiss the Cybertruck as a toy and are interested in the F-150 Lightning, etc.
- rascul 4y ago
  > it's way more sensible to use a cargo van If I could have gotten a cargo van for an equivalent price when I bought the (used) truck I have now, I would have. But they were starting at 4x the price. I use it to haul tools and materials and a cargo van would have been so much easier.
jandrese 4y ago
Non-crew cab is almost extinct. I think there are tax/regulatory reasons for this, but it also drives me crazy that so many trucks have beds that are terrible at carrying 8' long items like 2x4s and plywood sheets. At least with a 6' bed the stuff is only sticking out a little past the end of the tailgate.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I would wager it is only the retail market where the non-crew-cab is nearly extinct. A two seat pickup is a niche vehicle, about as useful for carrying a family around as a two seat sports car.
  - corrral 4y ago
    > A two seat pickup is a niche vehicle, about as useful for carrying a family around as a two seat sports car. Not to country folk—kids ride in the bed. Or crammed in the middle if there aren't too many of them and they're still fairly small and you're lucky enough to still have a bench seat.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      Not legally (in many states).
      - corrral 4y ago
        Never stopped country folk before. See also: shooting stop signs. Doesn't work for suburbanites with trucks, though.
      - rascul 4y ago
        Lay down in the bed and nobody will see.
        mulmen 4y ago
        Have you ever been in the back of a pickup? This would be incredibly uncomfortable at best and is likely to cause a concussion or worse.
givemeethekeys 4y ago
3 Seat bench + 6ft bed for me, but yes. Keep it small.
Kon-Peki 4y ago
> I hope this ends up being smaller than the F150. The 2023 Ford Ranger will have an EV (or plug-in hybrid, or both) option. VW is using the platform for their Amarok truck. It seems reasonably likely that it may be the platform for the 1st-gen Scout pickup, rather than starting from a clean sheet of paper.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> yards of soil Very few F150s are rated to carry a single yard of soil. About half that is more typical. > 2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US. The market has spoken. Crew cabs were available in the 70s but not common. Now they dominate. Why? Because the average pickup buyer in the US can accurately be described as "everyone." Which means a do-everything vehicle with seating capacity like a car but utility like a truck is extremely popular.
mulmen 4y ago
> hauling yards of soil or towing boats I'm not defending the number of pickups on the road in America but this is an out of touch comment. Some common uses of pickup beds include: * Hauling motorcycles and ATVs including snowmobiles. * Carrying campers. * Carrying home improvement projects such as bags of soil, plants, and raw material such as 8'x2"x4" lumber or 4'x8' plywood. At least in the 2000s a 4x8 sheet of plywood will not fit in a compact pickup but lays flat in a fullsize. Some common uses of pickups include: * Towing pull-behind RVs or fifth-wheels. * Towing boats. * Camping with the family. A lot of modern pickups seem to include some kind of bed cover that makes them well suited to mundane tasks like hauling groceries as well. All of that suggests to me that pickup manufacturers do in fact know their customers. > 2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US. Because it's too small to be useful. You can't fit a sheet of plywood in that easily. You might be able to get a small motorcycle in there with some wrangling, but maybe not. 2 seats means you can't carry the whole family, so now you need a second car if you have kids, or friends. And if you actually do use the truck for weekend activity like hauling boats or an RV then you need to drive both cars. The fact is the fullsize truck actually does work for American consumers. That's why people buy them. And why manufacturers make them. All of this totally ignores the hundreds of thousands of "work trucks" that are being fully loaded every day. Landscapers, farmers, contractors, etc all rely on the pickup form factor for obvious reasons. And looking around those are often used trucks, including the high trim level luxury versions from a previous generation.
- SandersAK 4y ago
  About 2/3rds of truck owners don't use the bed much at all. https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
  - mulmen 4y ago
    > And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less. Reads to me like 2/3 of truck owners use their bed at least twice a year. From the same paragraph: > 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Over 25% of trucks are used for towing. > Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. A third of truck owners go offroad. Add all that up and it sounds like pickups are getting a lot of use. There are no stats on what percentage of people do at least one of those things so we are left to guess but by the claims in the article it is at least "most".
toast0 4y ago
Well, an old Scout is a two-door, two row SUV, with a bit of storage in the back and a hatch-back + tail gate. Not a compact pickup (but actually a pretty short length; it qualifies for a small car rate on the Washington State ferries!). International Harvester did make pickup trucks into the mid 70s and they share some bodywork and design elements with Scouts such that you might call it a Scout pickup, but that's not what IH called them. The compact pickup with a standard cab + 6 foot bed was mostly killed by CAFE standard updates. It didn't make sense to make them based on the footprint model. Hopefully electric trucks will bring this segment back, since they don't have the same constraints leading them towards larger footprints.
- ovao 4y ago
  The original Scout 80s and 800s had a removable top. International produced both full-length and half-cab hard tops, so you could definitely have your Scout configured as a compact pickup truck.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jmann99999 4y ago
You haven't been camping in Utah recently. If you did, you would wonder whether anyone has any other vehicle besides an F150/250/350. It's incredible.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US. I'd argue that it seems the exact opposite. People aren't buying $50,000+ 4-door 4x4 trucks because Ford is forcing that on them, they are demanding it. And 2 seats are nowhere near optimal practicality.

actionablefiber 4y ago

I get the sense that the pickup truck market in the U.S. particularly in suburbs is driven by brand marketing rather than consumer needs. People are paying a premium, in the cost of purchasing as well as in the cost of insuring, maintaining, and fueling, for the image of the rugged individualistic American ready for any terrain, weather, or load that needs hauling, and maximally armored to "win" should they ever hit a person or vehicle in their path. There's a subset of contexts where they make sense although I think for _most_ people they're infrequent enough that it's way more sensible to use a cargo van or a sedan and then just rent a truck during the minority of times when you actually need one.

kurthr 4y ago
The giant king cab luxury seating is the only thing available on the larger and more expensive models unless you have access to fleet purchasing. They definitely have a market and they've tuned product lines for it. There are even supersport models. Personally, I hate the short-beds cuz you can't easily transport lumber or plywood sheets.
- EricE 4y ago
  Both the Hyundai Santa Cruz and Ford Ranger have tail gates that will partially lower to the same level as the tops of the wheel wells, providing a perfect platform for 4x8 sheets of plywood. I have a friend with a Ranger and we have hauled plywood and other larger objects with no issues. Would I want to do it routinely? Probably not - but for casual hauling they work well enough. I would expect the Scout to be designed in a very similar way. I've owned trucks with 8 foot beds in the past - I'd rather have a second row of seats and a smaller bed as well as a vehicle that's overall smaller than the 8 foot bed trucks of old. These newer designs are a great compromise of functionality and convenience, which is why you are seeing them take over the lower end. What I really want is the return of true micro pickups like the original Nissan hard body :(
  - EricE 4y ago
    And if you are as frustrated by the lack of true mini-pickups as I am, search the 'net and read about the chicken tax. Which was aimed at locking VW out of the US market quite a while ago, has lingered on way past it's prime and has bit even American manufacturers in the butt as more manufacturing has shifted outside of the US. Gotta love unintended consequences - ha!
    - dieselgate 4y ago
      Ya it’s insane and unfortunate how the chicken tax wrecked trucks. Was it really directed towards VW though? I thought it was more against Japanese auto makes.
      - EricE 4y ago
        Nope, VW around WWII (I think just before - need to go re-read) EDIT: It was post WWII. And VW Type 2 is profiled in the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
        dieselgate 4y ago
        Nice thanks for the follow up!
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    The other problem with the short beds is that they are "compensated" for by raising the belt line to make the bed deeper. This compromises rear visibility. Then the long beds suffer because they also get a deep bed to integrate with the cab. On old Rangers you used to be able to walk up and just reach into the bed to get stuff. That isn't possible on any current midsize and up pickups.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - 4y ago
- dieselgate 4y ago
  I’ve been curious with the functionality of short beds - the only advantage I can think of is a shorter wheel base for towing/maneuvering a trailer. Otherwise they make no sense to me
corrral 4y ago
> There's a subset of contexts where they make sense although I think for _most_ people they're infrequent enough that it's way more sensible to use a cargo van or a sedan and then just rent a truck during the minority of times when you actually need one. Even a minivan can tow a small trailer for occasional lumber store runs or towing a jet ski or two. Or just use the roof rack and some tie-downs. Or take the seats out, many of them will fit some plywood inside without trouble. For a larger boat, you can often rent a slip at your usual lake or whatever cheaper than the difference in annual TCO between a truck and a smaller car. Not helpful if you move your boat from one body of water to another a lot, but the only folks I know who do that have small fishing boats that a van could probably tow just fine. Besides, you can pay for several construction deliveries and probably pay to have your boat moved a couple times a year for the difference in annual cost. No sense paying all that extra gas, insurance, and up-front cost for something with features you only use every other month or less, when you can just pay less money to do a daily truck rental periodically, for a delivery service, et c. But no, people need their immaculate $50,000+ trucks in the 'burbs just to show that they could blow $50,000+ on a truck they don't need, and so they fit in with their buds who also own trucks. Quite a few are purchased for good reasons, but a lot are mostly purchased for social signaling.
- bluGill 4y ago
  If you need a truck even 5% of the time it is overall cheapest to just own a truck. Insurance, car payments, and other fixed costs are too high to make a second car worth it, and renting a car is not cheap, not to mention rental rules often mean you can't use the truck as a truck. (I've been looking for a place to rent a truck so I can replace mine, a couple times a year I do something that no rental truck will let me do) Sure a truck uses a lot more fuel, but fuel is a small part of the cost of a car. Though I don't get families with more than one truck/suv. One will do the job for all of those things, and a EV (even a limited range one like the older leaf) will take care of all the other. Only rarely do you have to tell your spouse that you need the truck so drive "my" car.
  - corrral 4y ago
    I expect using a truck as a truck, for a situation in which a roof rack or a small trailer towed by a lesser vehicle wouldn't have sufficed, 18-19 days a year would put you way above average for non-business truck owners in my area.
decafninja 4y ago
That probably applies for many vehicle classes in general. I live in the NYC area, and I see many specialized "lifestyle" vehicles such as offroaders like Jeep Wrangler Rubicons or sports cars like Porsches. I would bet the majority of Rubicons I see rarely see terrain tougher than an unpaved driveway. The majority of Porsches I see will rarely experience a more thrilling drive than the owner flooring it from a stoplight. Rather, it's to convey status or a lifestyle image. While we're on the subject of pickup trucks - the Cybertruck. I have many friends who would never have thought of owning a truck before placing preorders for Cybertrucks. They are all white collar office workers, I've never seen them do any kind of hauling of cargo or offroading or other "rugged" or "adventurous" activities. But they are madly in love with the Cybertruck. It's purely a "look at me" lifestyle thing. Trucks like the F-150 (including the Lightning EV), Silverado, Tacoma, etc. don't even enter their radar. Meanwhile I do have a handful of friends that work the trades, work in construction, etc. These guys all dismiss the Cybertruck as a toy and are interested in the F-150 Lightning, etc.
rascul 4y ago
> it's way more sensible to use a cargo van If I could have gotten a cargo van for an equivalent price when I bought the (used) truck I have now, I would have. But they were starting at 4x the price. I use it to haul tools and materials and a cargo van would have been so much easier.

jandrese 4y ago

Non-crew cab is almost extinct. I think there are tax/regulatory reasons for this, but it also drives me crazy that so many trucks have beds that are terrible at carrying 8' long items like 2x4s and plywood sheets. At least with a 6' bed the stuff is only sticking out a little past the end of the tailgate.

rootusrootus 4y ago
I would wager it is only the retail market where the non-crew-cab is nearly extinct. A two seat pickup is a niche vehicle, about as useful for carrying a family around as a two seat sports car.
- corrral 4y ago
  > A two seat pickup is a niche vehicle, about as useful for carrying a family around as a two seat sports car. Not to country folk—kids ride in the bed. Or crammed in the middle if there aren't too many of them and they're still fairly small and you're lucky enough to still have a bench seat.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Not legally (in many states).
    - corrral 4y ago
      Never stopped country folk before. See also: shooting stop signs. Doesn't work for suburbanites with trucks, though.
    - rascul 4y ago
      Lay down in the bed and nobody will see.
      - mulmen 4y ago
        Have you ever been in the back of a pickup? This would be incredibly uncomfortable at best and is likely to cause a concussion or worse.

givemeethekeys 4y ago

3 Seat bench + 6ft bed for me, but yes. Keep it small.

Kon-Peki 4y ago

> I hope this ends up being smaller than the F150. The 2023 Ford Ranger will have an EV (or plug-in hybrid, or both) option. VW is using the platform for their Amarok truck. It seems reasonably likely that it may be the platform for the 1st-gen Scout pickup, rather than starting from a clean sheet of paper.

rootusrootus 4y ago

> yards of soil Very few F150s are rated to carry a single yard of soil. About half that is more typical. > 2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US. The market has spoken. Crew cabs were available in the 70s but not common. Now they dominate. Why? Because the average pickup buyer in the US can accurately be described as "everyone." Which means a do-everything vehicle with seating capacity like a car but utility like a truck is extremely popular.

mulmen 4y ago

> hauling yards of soil or towing boats I'm not defending the number of pickups on the road in America but this is an out of touch comment. Some common uses of pickup beds include: * Hauling motorcycles and ATVs including snowmobiles. * Carrying campers. * Carrying home improvement projects such as bags of soil, plants, and raw material such as 8'x2"x4" lumber or 4'x8' plywood. At least in the 2000s a 4x8 sheet of plywood will not fit in a compact pickup but lays flat in a fullsize. Some common uses of pickups include: * Towing pull-behind RVs or fifth-wheels. * Towing boats. * Camping with the family. A lot of modern pickups seem to include some kind of bed cover that makes them well suited to mundane tasks like hauling groceries as well. All of that suggests to me that pickup manufacturers do in fact know their customers. > 2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US. Because it's too small to be useful. You can't fit a sheet of plywood in that easily. You might be able to get a small motorcycle in there with some wrangling, but maybe not. 2 seats means you can't carry the whole family, so now you need a second car if you have kids, or friends. And if you actually do use the truck for weekend activity like hauling boats or an RV then you need to drive both cars. The fact is the fullsize truck actually does work for American consumers. That's why people buy them. And why manufacturers make them. All of this totally ignores the hundreds of thousands of "work trucks" that are being fully loaded every day. Landscapers, farmers, contractors, etc all rely on the pickup form factor for obvious reasons. And looking around those are often used trucks, including the high trim level luxury versions from a previous generation.

SandersAK 4y ago
About 2/3rds of truck owners don't use the bed much at all. https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
- mulmen 4y ago
  > And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less. Reads to me like 2/3 of truck owners use their bed at least twice a year. From the same paragraph: > 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Over 25% of trucks are used for towing. > Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. A third of truck owners go offroad. Add all that up and it sounds like pickups are getting a lot of use. There are no stats on what percentage of people do at least one of those things so we are left to guess but by the claims in the article it is at least "most".

toast0 4y ago

Well, an old Scout is a two-door, two row SUV, with a bit of storage in the back and a hatch-back + tail gate. Not a compact pickup (but actually a pretty short length; it qualifies for a small car rate on the Washington State ferries!). International Harvester did make pickup trucks into the mid 70s and they share some bodywork and design elements with Scouts such that you might call it a Scout pickup, but that's not what IH called them. The compact pickup with a standard cab + 6 foot bed was mostly killed by CAFE standard updates. It didn't make sense to make them based on the footprint model. Hopefully electric trucks will bring this segment back, since they don't have the same constraints leading them towards larger footprints.

ovao 4y ago
The original Scout 80s and 800s had a removable top. International produced both full-length and half-cab hard tops, so you could definitely have your Scout configured as a compact pickup truck.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jmann99999 4y ago

You haven't been camping in Utah recently. If you did, you would wonder whether anyone has any other vehicle besides an F150/250/350. It's incredible.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US. I'd argue that it seems the exact opposite. People aren't buying $50,000+ 4-door 4x4 trucks because Ford is forcing that on them, they are demanding it. And 2 seats are nowhere near optimal practicality.