20 ms·
The Reason Why Are Trucks Getting Bigger
- AndrianV 4y agoAgain, the fact that this is a problem that only exists in the United States of America strikes me as odd. Despite the fact that automobiles in Europe have also grown in size over the years, I feel that even their largest models are far smaller than the monstrosity.
- LanceH 4y agoEvery now and then someone visits from Europe and has an idea of the "day trip" they are going to make. We have to explain to them it will take them 12 hours to drive that in one direction even if it is in the same state and there is no possibility of doing it by rail. The miles driven are just much different, and much more necessary. Along with that comes the desire to enjoy the time spent in the car/truck.
- bannedbybros 4y ago
- badtension 4y agoDoes the law always have to be a "cat and mouse" kind of play? Everyone knows what the regulations were really for, including car manufacturers.
- hjkl0 4y ago“Unintended” consequences feels charitable. Regulations like this don’t come from nowhere. There is no “clean room” process for working this stuff out. They’re created by government officials based on feedback from industry specialists. The loop is almost completely closed. The article already mentions the Subaru Sambar. That vehicle is also a result of government regulation. But Japan’s regulations created a market for very small and cheap cars with real innovations in efficiency, while the regulations in the US resulted in very big and expensive cars, with innovations in passenger comfort. So what’s the difference?
- KevinGlass 4y agoThe regulations where written by auto execs. The auto industries least profitable market got regulated out of existence just as their most profitable had regulations massively loosened and new tax relief for massive trucks seemingly every year? Surely this is the result of inept regulators and not blatant corruption!
- honkkong420 4y agoI don’t think Toyota lobbied to stop selling corollas. This likely was intentional from the Obama admin, my recollection is that the US government owned Chrysler and GM when they made so many rules that favored big trucks over efficient cars.
- sircastor 4y agoI’d be willing to bet this was an anti-competitive move. Eliminate the small, foreign vehicles in one go.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- woah 4y agoJust tax carbon lol
- falcolas 4y agoGas prices recently (roughly) tripled, and it didn’t deter them from buying, or driving them.
- jefftk 4y agoAre you sure it didn't deter sales or driving? I don't have the numbers, but I suspect if we found them we would see that the average vehicle purchased used less gas and that sales of gasoline were lower than typical.
- gruez 4y agoPeople aren't going to stop driving to work or drop $40k on an electric car (especially during a shortage) in response to a short term price spike. However, if it persists people would eventually switch over to alternatives
- falcolas 4y ago> However, if it persists people would eventually switch over to alternatives Perhaps, but that's speculation too.
- 4y ago
- agomez314 4y agoAnother interesting case of the administrative state deferring to nice-sounding slogans over an incentives-based approach that produces right outcomes. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
- RivieraKid 4y agoSo electric trucks should become smaller, right?
- csours 4y agoYes, and that's why we have a tiny Hummer and a tiny Cybertruck
- wongarsu 4y agoThey'll go with the grain for now. It's easier to sell people on "this truck is electric, but otherwise the same" than on "this truck is electric and smaller, but all you need". Once the majority of trucks is electric they'll have an easier time finding their own identity, which likely includes getting smaller.
- ReptileMan 4y agoA Nash equilibrium is not so easy to break. Bigger frame allows for bigger battery. Those huge trucks should have not been built, but once they are here and the people like them - probably as a class of car they are here to stay. It is fun to see Toyota tundra in the middle of small European town - the streets are like upholstery to the trucks.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoYou have to really think how CAFE works. There is incentive to make small efficient vehicles, but also to make large efficient vehicles. Both will allow more large inefficient vehicles to be sold.
- Havoc 4y agoSo bad policy making rather than some inherent benefit? > Smaller light-duty trucks were regulated out of existence by tighter fuel standards. Because regulations were made looser on larger vehicles, the easiest way for automakers to meet the standard is to build a bigger truck.
- trgn 4y agoIt's not a coincidence the law conveniently incentivizes vehicles with larger profit margins. Also, it's a fine excuse, basically consumers avoiding responsibility for their own choices. `But it's the Fed's fault!` The size of current trucks and SUVs are completely sociopathic in most urban environments. Certainly because they're dangerous to other road users (as the current rise in fatalities bear out). And, if you wish, because they contribute excessively to carbon emissions. These vehicles don't purchase themselves. We're trapped in a large vehicle arms race (cars are getting bigger too). Yes, at some level that has to do with ego, or at least, an atrophied sense of civic duty and responsibility.
- falcolas 4y agoI have no issue with the article’s logic, at all. But I live in Montana, where easily 3 out of 5 vehicles are large SUVs or trucks. There is definitely ego there too. Whether it’s caused by owning such a large vehicle or the reason they own the same, it’s definitely there. They largely hold you in contempt if you’re in a car or less, gassing you out with exhaust, high beams at eye level, or tailgating you until they can roar by in a cloud of exhaust. They are bloody absurd as a single person vehicle, and even the recent high gas prices didn’t temper the number of pickups or their behavior.
- pneumatic1 4y ago>high beams at eye level I had to fully tint the windows on my car for this reason. Trucks with lift-kits are guaranteed to behave this way. If I see one coming, I'll pull over to let them pass before they get the chance to tailgate.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- csours 4y agoI am not convinced. Yes, the regulations are a factor, but ego is also a factor. See also Giraffe Necks.
- honkkong420 4y agoEgo is why people buy trucks. Regulations disincentivize Chrysler from selling an economy cars. Also, trucks have some of the highest inventory levels of any new vehicle type right now. If ego is the only way to explain this, why did folks buy so many more trucks last year? Did the American ego Change more than gas prices?
- csours 4y ago> "If ego is the only way to explain this" If you re-read my comment, you may note that I did NOT say this.
- strikelaserclaw 4y agoi heard some lady in the south say she wouldn't date a guy who didn't have a truck, those are the social forces putting pressure on a certain type of man to buy a truck. It truly is a macho thing.
- throwaway5959 4y agoAnd I wouldn’t date a woman who judges me based on the kind of vehicle I drive. Oh well, I’m sure she’s a real winner.
- nsxwolf 4y agoYou shouldn't judge people from a single data point. She might in fact be a real winner. She just likes guys with trucks.
- throwaway5959 4y agoSomeone should tell her that.
- themoonisachees 4y agoOK but they are still making small cars. If all cars suddenly got bigger i'd get it, but the fact of the matter is that people are buying bigger trucks and not small cars despite both being available. My pet theory is that among other factors, being the biggest on the road is desirable as a repilian-brain thing. Also selling larger vehicles that are just higher and wider for more money but that are not significantly different than similar but smaller vehicles is just easy money, really.
- bko 4y ago> Also selling larger vehicles that are just higher and wider for more money but that are not significantly different than similar but smaller vehicles is just easy money, really. Large cars are also safer for the people in them at least. Car safety ratings are misleading because they're a relative measure based on the class of vehicle. So a "3 star" safety rating on a large SUV is considerably safer than a "5 star" safety rating on a smaller car: > These ratings are only useful when you're comparing cars within the same size class. If a small car has a five-star rating from NHTSA, that doesn't mean it will protect you as well as five-star-rated large sedan. The same holds true for a Good rating from the IIHS. "The ratings are meant to be used to compare crashes with vehicles of similar size," said Adrian Lund, president of the IIHS. "You can't really go between the segments with these ratings." People aren't dumb and they realize larger cars are safer for the occupants. That's at least one reason some people prefer larger vehicles. https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-as-large-cars.html https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-...
- thecrumb 4y agoAll cars are getting bigger. There used to be a handful of us at work who all drove Subaru's and we parked them next to each other in chronological order. Was crazy to see just how much bigger the newer cars were.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoThe article is exactly correct on why. You can non-ironically say Thanks Obama to this. If you can remember the “All cars mandated to get XX MPG by YYYY year” headlines… that was this.
- sircastor 4y agoI worked for Jaguar Land Rover for a number of years and we couldn’t bring the Defender to the US (I was told) because it lacked a proper airbag on the steering wheel. I’m sure it was slightly more complicated than that, but it makes for great story of regulation gone awry.
- jefftk 4y ago> it makes for great story of regulation gone awry How so? A driver side airbag sounds like an important safety feature.
- sircastor 4y agoDon’t misunderstand, I’m not saying that I don’t think a driver’s side airbag is not worth it, I’m sure it is. But if that’s all it was, surely we would’ve just put a different steering wheel in the American version. The reality is probably more complicated, but it gets stuffed into this little anecdote.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoAirbag unit itself, module, and the calibration for it. They need to smash a bunch of vehicles to do calibration. It’s not really worth it in the case of vehicles where development was shut down a long time ago.
- rascul 4y agoI've heard that introducing a vehicle into the US market can be an expensive and time consuming process. Some of those foreign vehicles look interesting, though.
- ActorNightly 4y agoSafety features for personal protection shouldn't be the reason why you can or cannot drive a car.
- pc86 4y ago
- themitigating 4y agoI always thought it was a combination of masculine insecurities and one upping your neighbors. Edit: lifted trucks, after market front bars, louder exhaust with larger exhaust tips, truck nuts, American flags or thin blue line flags covering the rear window.. None of these are from government regulations
- honkkong420 4y agoThen why don’t people buy class 8 semi trucks?
- pc86 4y agoThe need for a CDL is one obvious reason. It looks like the internet disagrees on whether CDL requirements start at class 6 or 7, so we're really only talking about 1-5. And I've definitely seen 4s and 5s on the highway that have probably never seen a spec of dirt in their life. So there are certainly some people just looking to get the biggest thing they can legally drive.
- driverdan 4y agoCDLs only apply for commercial use. You can drive a tractor without one if it's for personal use.
- bombcar 4y agoThey require a special license. But, in the USA, you can drive up to 26,000 GVW with a normal license, so everyone should be driving box trucks or similar.
- happytoexplain 4y agoNothing in the parent's hypothesis implies that the normal mitigating factors like cost/practicality don't apply. Also, size is only one prominent factor in masculinity. E.g. a pickup truck is frequently seen as more masculine than an RV.
- 4y ago
- thriftwy 4y agoI will remind it to the people who want me to do 'X' because global warming, like, every time.
- thriftwy 4y agoI also see how VW would now like to have their fine back, seeing how you were never serious about emissions, that being just an elaborate plot; and sue for damages.
- cowpig 4y agoWhy doesn't the article address the question of why emission standards are looser for larger vehicles? Isn't that the supposed problem?
- philwelch 4y agoBecause vehicle weight is a major factor in fuel efficiency that’s inherent to the problem and can’t be regulated away. Meanwhile, some people actually need large trucks.
- oceanplexian 4y agoNot sure if it’s the intent but a large vehicle carrying a trailer with 10,000lbs. Is much more efficient than a small vehicle that might need to make 5 or 10 trips to move the same load. In that sense, the larger vehicle is more fuel efficient.
- 2143 4y agoI think it's something like, a plane carrying 400 people over a long distance is more efficient than if those 400 people drove that same distance in 400 cars. Something like that. (I don't know which one pollutes more).
- adamsmith143 4y agoA truck isn't carrying 8 people though. In the US I'd say the majority of the time it's carrying 1.
- 2143 4y agoYeah that's inefficient. My guess is that the rule supposes that bigger trucks carrying freight is more efficient (than many smaller trucks).
- ejstronge 4y agoThis feels more like a political statement than a researched perspective. Is there proof that the F-150 of perhaps 2007 is smaller than that or 2012? Did the truck sizes change to become smaller once the emissions rule was revoked?
- vinyl7 4y agoI volunteer to help manage parking lots and I've definitely noticed that vehicles are getting larger and larger. The emissions rule was relaxed/revoked by Trump, however California maintained the higher standard (and the auto manufacturers sided with California). So because California has those standards and manufacturers want to be able to sell in California, nothing changed. Even if the rule was revoked and manufacturers could make cars smaller again, they wouldn't because of marketing. Who would want to buy a new truck that is smaller than the last?
- theluketaylor 4y agoF-150 11th gen (2004-2008) SuperCrew 6.5' length: 5,989 mm, width 2004 mm F-150 13th gen (2015-2020) SuperCrew 6.5' length: 6,190 mm, width 2029 mm CAFE is a huge driver of truck sizes and this has been known for many years. There is consumer demand in there as well, and once one of the big three go bigger the rest have to follow, but if the CAFE rules didn't take size into account it would be far, far harder for auto makers to increase the size since there is a fuel consumption penalty for more mass and frontal area.
- briffle 4y agoOne of the big differences between pickups like the F-150 of the mid 2000's and now, is almost every truck now is a 4-door. Back then, they were 'extended cab' trucks with a very, very small bench in the back. And then for a few years (up till around 2006 or 07, they were uncommon, but had a small set of doors for the back seat (sometimes opening backwards so there was no pillar between, giving more room to climb in)
- Bud 4y agoFeels very, very much like a clumsy attempt at a gotcha attack on Obama. The truth, of course, is that ALL car and truck sizes in the US have been rapidly increasing for several decades now, and Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that. Pickup-truck culture had a lot to do with it, but isn't entirely to blame: look at the current Honda Civic vs. a 1980 model or a 1990 model.
- carterschonwald 4y agoMy understanding is that it’s simply that larger vehicles have laxer fuel efficiency requirements under the current automotive regulations. So manufacturers can side step parts of current emission regulations by simply making everything bigger
- neogodless 4y agoThat's the synopsis of the article shared here.
- malfist 4y agoSure, that's one of the reasons. The other reason is that the people buying trucks prefer bigger trucks. Just the same as the people buying SUVs prefer buying bigger SUVs and people buying cars want bigger cars. But sure, it's Obama's fault.
- ReptileMan 4y agoAs always it's the Germans that get things right. Their class of high performance (200+ hp) 4x4 high clearance station wagons are just brilliant family cars. Think audi all road, insignia country tourer, Small-ish compared to the truck, you can cram a lot of stuff in them, relatively nimble and fun to drive, safe and can take on surprisingly challenging dirt roads. Unless you are construction worker or the like - probably most us SUV could be replaced by them. Of course they are the most unsexy and uncool cars there are
- dmitriid 4y agoWhat's weird to me is that this, again, is such a uniquely American problem. While in Europe cars have also increased in size, I believe the largest of them is at least a magnitude smaller than the abomination that is Ford F250, for example.
- ReptileMan 4y agoProbably but where I live in EU i see a lot of big trucks imported secondhand from the US. People like big cars.
- pc86 4y agoI don't have a big truck but I also don't remotely think it's a "problem" that some people do.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pcrh 4y agoDriving a truck like the F-150 would severely limit your mobility in most of Europe, even in rural areas. You would be unable to drive or park in most of the city centers, and rural roads are often fairly narrow as well. So you would generally be restricted to driving on major roads. Further, American-style trucks are not considered "classy", those with $50-60K to spend on a vehicle would likely prefer something like a Mercedes.
- pneumatic1 4y ago"Bigger trucks pose a greater hazard to pedestrians and smaller vehicles" It's an arms race. I used to live near a couple who were both doctors in the ER and they both drive the biggest trucks that they could find because they saw that people in large trucks tended to be fare better in accidents. I have a small sedan for myself and a smallish SUV for my wife and kids. I feel pressure to upgrade both to something larger.
- jahnu 4y agoThey may have seen that but is it actually true? Is there high quality evidence for this?
- mlyle 4y agoHigher mass means in a collision you "win" and have smaller accelerations than the other vehicle. Larger potentially means even in a single-vehicle accident, there is a greater distance to decelerate over and things are less likely to intrude into the vehicle. The IIHS, which systematically tests vehicles in simulated crashes, says: > A bigger, heavier vehicle provides better crash protection than a smaller, lighter one, assuming no other differences. The part of the vehicle between the front bumper and the occupant compartment absorbs energy from crashes by crumpling. As a result, the longer front ends of larger vehicles offer better protection in frontal crashes. Heavier vehicles also tend to continue moving forward in crashes with lighter vehicles and other obstacles, so the people inside them are subject to less force. https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight There is some simple actuarial data there on their page, too, which shows there's a marked advantage but it is less than it used to be.
- pneumatic1 4y agoAlso safety ratings are only with respect to other vehicles in the same class. Great ratings for a sedan don't say anything about how well it will perform head-on against an F-150.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
- tablespoon 4y ago> Democrats, having learned nothing, criticized the move as "anti-science." The OP misunderstands: science, by its modern definition, is the ideas and policy choices that liberals want to pursue and exudes everything they oppose. Nothing more, nothing less. [This is more a swipe about the corruption that happens when terms get swept up into becoming political labels, than a swipe at any particular party]
- mhh__ 4y agoScience is also a corpus of knowledge that can be used to inform policy decisions.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 4y agoThat would be a nice thing to try sometime. Of course neither side is very consistent about that.
- mr_spothawk 4y agoAnd as long as I trust it, i still get dates on Tinder.
- eertami 4y agoVehicle tax in much of Switzerland is decided by the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW). Important distinction of GVW is that it takes into account the maximum permissible operating weight, if the vehicle is fully loaded. Drive a heavier car, pay more tax. Funnily enough, you don't see a lot of pickup trucks or minivans.
- newgre 4y agoThe opposite is true, really. You see tons of (big) SUVs which you did not see as much, say, 10 years ago.
- 2143 4y agoIt's not black-and-white. Most SUVs around there aren't based on trucks or minivans. Over the last decade or so people are increasingly preferring SUVs. Most of these are soft-roaders, and not trucks or minivans. They aren't very capable off the road. Some of them aren't even 4/AWD, and most are monocoques and not body-on-frames.
- Maximus9000 4y agoI'm not sure, but I think France did the same: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20201015-suvs-targeted-in-new-french-weight-tax https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20201015-suvs-targeted...
- hocuspocus 4y agoYou make it sound like way simpler than it is in reality. Tax criteria by canton: Displacement only: AG, FR, GL, GR, LU, NW, OW, SH, SO, TG, VS, ZG Gross weight only: AI, AR, BE, BL, JU, SG, UR Horsepower and gross weight: SZ, TI, VD Displacement and gross weight: ZH Net weight and CO2 emissions: BS Horsepower only: GE CO2 emissions only: NE And for the full picture you still need to add the discounts or exemptions for low and zero emission vehicles that also vary wildly.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoDid folks not want federal officials deciding the rule? Because it seems quite inefficient to have so many variants.
- 1-6 4y agoThe Chicken Tax doesn’t help either for manufacturers to build small light trucks.
- orliesaurus 4y agoI think it's one of those problems where the minority of trucks owners forces non truck owners to have to upgrade to truck because otherwise you will lose the war if you ever get to a collision. And by lose the war I mean, your car will be much more wrecked than the other person in a pickup truck.
- logifail 4y agoWe own two vehicles, a tiny (4 seater) car and a larger (7-seater) MPV. On the odd occasion that either I or my wife need to drive a car into town and don't have to take the family too, there is simply no way either of us would ever voluntarily choose the larger vehicle for the simple reason that it's much, much harder to park it. The little car will happily fit in every single car park space known to mankind. It fits into car parking spaces that aren't even real spaces, too. It's the single best feature it has. It's got a tiny engine, and is hopeless at accelerating hard - particularly up hills - but who cares? It gets up to four people from A to B in relative comfort and great efficiency. It cost us $10k, brand new. Could it be that we should talk about setting higher taxes on more expensive and/or larger-engined vehicles? Downsizing our vehicles might be a way to help save the planet without compromising on personal mobility.
- 2143 4y agoIt's your tiny car a Honda Jazz? (I think it's called "Fit" in the US)
- powerhour 4y agoNot the person you're responding to but yeah, the Fit was the Honda Jazz. Sadly it has been discontinued. I'm not sure anyone makes a comparable car (must have fold-flat seats that also flip up for transporting taller items).
- TremendousJudge 4y agoThe Fiat 500 is just that. I've driven one in Europe, but sadly not available where I live.
- powerhour 4y agoIt looks like they fold flat but I don't think they flip up like they do in the Fit. Still, good to know that the fold flat feature is available.
- 4y ago
- hardnose 4y ago
- stevesearer 4y agoThese same reasons could basically apply to the folks buying huge Sprinter vans instead of smaller minivans or lightweight delivery vans. When I was a kid in the 90s, the Suburban was the vehicle people bought for these reasons. I’ve assumed the Sprinter was this generation’s Suburban.
- happytoexplain 4y agoI agree with the article's point, except not to the exclusion of ego, and I also agree with all of your points. Part of their hypothesis is legal/political, but it's nowhere near a "political screed that doesn't belong on HN".
- soneil 4y agoIf you sort the wheat from the chaff, I think there's still a valid issue there. It's just being wrapped in divisive crap as is the trend. In Ireland we had a brief period where the difference between tax on personal and commercial vehicles was significant enough that it paid off to register yourself as an LLC/sole-trader and get a pick-up. That loophole was swiftly plugged. This genuinely sounds extremely similar - the loophole is more attractive than the incentive.
- bambax 4y agoAn idea for a regulation would be to measure the ratio of maximum weight of living things that a vehicle can transport / weight of vehicle when empty, and make this ratio grow progressively bigger. The ratio is probably around 0.1 today on average (just an intuition, I don't have the actual numbers), and ideally it should be close to 1, or maybe over 1. For an ebike for example, it's around 3. Moving 2-5 tons of metal to transport just one human being is positively insane.
- robin_reala 4y agoMy car can happily seat 4 adults (so let’s say 250kg) and weighs a touch over 1000kg, so the ratio is 0.25. 0.1 would mean that a car that seats just 4 adults weighs 2.5 tonnes, which seems extreme?
- routeroff 4y agoA 2021 Chevrolet Silverado weight 5190 lbs [0], which is 2.35 tonnes, which is extreme but in the range of the article. [0] https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/2021/features-specs/ https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/2021/featur...
- jeffbee 4y agoHave you heard of Rivian?
- bambax 4y agoYeah you're right, maybe closer to .15 or .2; the F-150 weights between 2 and 2.5 metric tons depending on configuration, and seats only 5. The Yukon SUV that Arnold Schwarzenegger drives weights over 2.7 metric tons (6k pounds). The Tesla truck is announced to pass the 8,500 pounds mark, or around 3.8 metric tons (!!)
- mayniac 4y agoThe average weight of a mid-sized sedan is about 1,500kg, and the average weight of all American cars is closer to 1,900kg. A 4-seater close to 1,000kg is exceptionally light by modern standards. The Mazda MX-5 is a 2-seater which is famous for being lightweight, and it also weighs a few kg above a ton. Also going off maximum human capacity isn't great in context, as the average car journey has <1.5 occupants. Not to mention if this was codified, car manufacturers would simply put folding seats in the trunk.
- peter422 4y agoWhy does the EPA report that the MPG of new vehicles is at an all time high [1] (and has been going up consistently the last 15-ish years)? It seems like the new regulations are also working, in addition to having some other unintended consequences. 1: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report#Highlight1 https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...
- seandoe 4y agoThey might be factoring in the mpge of electric vehicles.
- enragedcacti 4y agoEven as of 2022 EVs are probably less than 1% of cars on the road in the US. If we use Tesla as a proxy that number would probably be less than 0.5% back in 2020 when this EPA analysis is from.
- woodruffw 4y agoThe author makes a correct observation (trucks are getting bigger to circumvent emissions guidelines, not solely out of ego), but fails to address the underlying market demand: as trucks have gotten bigger, they've also gotten "meaner"[1]. Emissions requirements don't require a truck to look like it's going to beat you up. In other words: consumer ego (wanting to drive a big, mean looking truck) is an underlying pressure in the market, even if the sufficient mover for the current size explosion is emissions dodging. [1]: https://jalopnik.com/we-need-to-talk-about-truck-design-right-now-before-its-1830860270 https://jalopnik.com/we-need-to-talk-about-truck-design-righ...
- RyanGoosling 4y agoLol
- jeffbee 4y agoTruck design used to be such that you pretended to be a working man. Now, you just show everyone how big a jerk you are. There's an entire brand of truck rims that are just called "Hostile". Anyone who would buy such a thing should just be followed everywhere by the cops. http://www.hostilewheels.com/ http://www.hostilewheels.com/ I think the article would have done well to also discuss America's general lack of vehicle safety inspections. There's a reason people don't drive around in lifted pickups with ridiculous wheels in Germany.
- nsxwolf 4y agoThey're just... wheels.
- bombcar 4y agoSomeone somewhere is doing something I don't like! Call the cops! It'd be hilarious if it wasn't the governing principle of America.
- jeffbee 4y agoThey are a reflection of the attitudes of the driver and their intentions every time they climb up behind the wheel. And in California they are unlawful if they protrude beyond the body of the truck, which they invariably do because that's the only reason people buy these. Slogan of the company is literally "There's no place for mercy!"
- davidhay 4y ago> "The Reason Why Are Trucks Getting Bigger" FTFY "The Reason Why Trucks Are Getting Bigger".
- bilsbie 4y agoI will say large trucks are very comfortable. I think there must be more vertical room so you can sit in a more chair like position. It’s also great for bigger people in general to have wider seats and not have your head not be half an inch from the roof. I will also note I switch between the family minivan and the large truck frequently and the difference in how other drivers treat you is jarring. In the truck people seem happy to let me in and coexist with me. In the minivan I’m constantly being cut off or blocked from merging. I have people try to pass me no matter how fast I go.
- rascul 4y agoI've found that trucks tend to be easier to get in and out of than cars.
- bena 4y agoYou're often stepping up into a truck or down out of them rather than sitting down into a car or standing up out of them. It is an easier motion, that is true.
- LanceH 4y ago> I think there must be more vertical room so you can sit in a more chair like position. I'm tall. Yes, you sit more upright. There is more headroom sometimes. Nicer trucks mostly have a moonroof installed, which chops 1.5" out of the headroom. Where the seat is located relative to the rollover support (where the seatbelt is attached on the side) is important. A lot of trucks have this too far forward, so a tall person is shouldered up against it. For the most part, though, the seating and instrumentation are all built for the same size people as cars. Before my current truck, I drove a saturn and then a prius. Probably the width of the truck is more helpful than any height. The big benefit for me with regard to height is that I step up into the truck, rather than have to slide down into the car. Especially on those days when my back isn't feeling so great.
- michaelt 4y ago> In brief, Obama-era fuel regulations incentivized automakers to build bigger trucks. I read a similar thing, many years before Obama, about the rise of SUVs - that emissions standards were tightened for cars, but not for 'light trucks' and SUVs could dodge the standards by claiming to be light trucks. So this isn't the first time automakers have responded to tightened emissions standards by selling more products that aren't subject to them. The article also claimed US vehicle makers had the quiet support of a lot of people in government, because Japanese automakers were kicking their ass at making sedans - but due to market differences and import tariffs [1] the foreign manufacturers weren't as competitive in the truck market. As the rise of bigger and bigger vehicles was bad for emissions but good for US automakers, legislators turned a blind eye to it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
- muststopmyths 4y agoYep I remember Subaru specifically moving the outback to a light truck platform for this reason, years before Obama. I suppose bill Clinton was being blamed back then
- bombcar 4y agoAll vehicles tend to become bigger. Check any model year over year over year. The problem isn't that the F150 is getting bigger, the problem is that the F050 hasn't come into the picture. (Arguably the Maverick may be an attempt here).
- agluszak 4y agoWell, so the solution should be to put the same regulations on bigger cars as well. Another thing is that I don't really see almost any pickups in Europe. Why do Americans love them so much?
- paulgb 4y agoThis is an interesting theory, but there's a way to test it: if it's true that trucks have gotten bigger to avoid the light truck definition, we should see a proliferation of light trucks just long enough to avoid the classification. [Edit: I originally cited 280cm as the wheelbase cut-off from [1], but on a re-read, it's more complicated; see below.] The best-selling vehicles: F-series pickup[2]: 392cm Dodge Ram[3]: 367cm Chevy Silverado[4]: 373cm Correction/Edit: The relevant definition for a light truck is based on a number of criteria which relate to the wheelbase but don't actually specify it. If someone wants a fun trig problem, you could determine whether these vehicles are designed to be just long enough to satisfy the requirements listed here [5]. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-533/section-533.4 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p... [2] https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150 https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150 [3] https://carsauthority.com/2023-dodge-ram/#:~:text=2023%20Dodge%20RAM%202500%20Engine,-The%202023%20Ram&text=The%206.4%2Dliter%20V8%20petrol,of%20up%20to%204%2C010%20lbs https://carsauthority.com/2023-dodge-ram/#:~:text=2023%20Dod.... [4] https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/specs/2023/chevrolet_silverado-1500_chevrolet-silverado-1500_2023 https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/specs/... [5] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-523/section-523.5#p-523.5(b)(2) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...
- bombcar 4y agoI suspect that a driving force of "large truck" is vehicles getting expensive enough that people don't buy two - whereas in the past you might have a commuter car and a family van and a weekend hauler, now you have to get one vehicle that fits all those roles. And nobody wants to drive a minivan so they opt for a truck (need the bed) but they also want to be able to haul four people, so they go for a crew cab.
- lom 4y agoI remember that when these standards were revised some german car manufacturers warned the EPA that they favor larger vehicles and will have an adverse effect of what was intended.
- jjoonathan 4y agoThe American manufacturers wanted to favor larger vehicles. The adverse effect was intended.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y agoI drive a Honda CR-V, and the thing that bothers me is that, even in an SUV, I CAN'T SEE AROUND THESE THINGS. I almost got hit pulling out of a parking space because you literally can't see past the front end of these monsters without sticking your nose out of the space. I was traveling down the interstate not long ago, and had one of these new trucks to my left, and a semi tractor to my right. The front end of the truck was a FOOT higher than the semi. (These trucks has all the design finesse of a brick with a cutout for a bed.) I presume that the auto makers justify the ridiculous sight lines with all-around cameras and warning sirens or something. I've long been a "hey, you do you" kind of person when it comes to vehicles and emissions, but I really, really resent this trend. I think it creates unnecessary hazards. Also, have fun with paying for the gas, and good luck finding parking spaces.
- nsxwolf 4y ago
- Bud 4y agoDid you not really read the comment in your haste to blame the commenter for tailgating? They didn't refer to any vehicle at all in front of them. Tailgating is a big problem, though.
- nsxwolf 4y agoFair, there are other visibility issues besides being behind a car. Maybe it's because I drove a Miata for many years - I couldn't see around anything, not just trucks. I just adapted. At lights, I would creep up if there was enough room and get a look. If not, I'd just wait until it was clear.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago> You're following too close, like most drivers. You're an outlier who thinks they know better and your standards do not reflect the average person, like all people who complain about "most" people's choices when it comes to subjective matters like risk assessment, the right way to cook a steak, what colors look good on a house, etc, etc. Basically it's impossible for "most people" to be wrong here because the standard for what is reasonable is roughly defined by social consensus.
- mgoetzke 4y agoFunny that in Germany even a Model Y is already so big that it can be cumbersome to park it in the cities :)
- IanDrake 4y ago
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoAutomotive EE here… I’ve been trying to explain this to people for a DECADE. It’s all exactly correct. Obama’s emission rules basically were impossible. So they made a CAFE-exception for footprint. They told the mfgs “we’re going to grade you on footprint”, the mfgs said ok “we’ll give you footprint”. Trump admin was 100% right, but this feel good bs damage is done. Biden admin has seemingly doubled down where Obama admin failed so badly. I want to believe it’s good intentions and they don’t know, but I’m pretty sure they all know the cause and effects here.
- mr_spothawk 4y agoTL;DR - > The regulations meant to get better mileage out of vehicles also made it easier for larger vehicles to meet fuel-efficiency standards.
- PaywallBuster 4y agoPersonally Bikes: flows like water Cars: "flows" like Tetris Some developing countries have a big majority of people moving around in bikes and it feels so much better (albeit chaotic). Other countries have developed a local auto industry and ofc it became a big business which the government is happy to "promote"
- aejnsn 4y agoMy truck doesn’t drive near pedestrian areas. A smaller truck cannot trailer my work loads or toys. My modern diesel with high-tech emissions systems intact gets 20+ mpg unloaded. Perhaps some of you remember trucks of the 80s. Not much has changed dimensionally, without safety improvements. Those did ~8-10 mpg unloaded while making 25% of the power with half the tow rating of a recent truck and none of the modern safety features for collision avoidance, blind spot monitoring, etc. The armchair distortion is real here. Please visit the numbers before making blanket anecdotes—the manufacturer websites have good uptime for their brochures. :)
- jiveturkey42 4y agoSir, can't you see this is a pickup truck hate session? Get out of here with your rationality
- 2143 4y ago> My modern diesel Thank goodness you drive a diesel. Can somebody explain why people tend to prefer petrol engines for trucks America? Doesn't diesels haul better, because of all that torque from a lower RPM, from a smaller engine?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rascul 4y ago> Can somebody explain why people tend to prefer petrol engines for trucks America? Fuel and maintenance costs. Gasoline is currently $3.58/gallon here, and diesel almost $5/gallon. Also, diesel isn't necessary for most pickup truck usage. I would consider replacing my gasoline truck with diesel if I had to haul lots of weight often. I would also have to upgrade from a half ton. I have no problem hauling most building materials that I need for work, but I wouldn't want to move for example heavy equipment on a regular basis with my (comparatively) small gasoline truck.
- 2143 4y ago
- neogodless 4y agoOverall, I think between the article and the comments, we cover a lot of the reasons (plural) and I think it's a combination of many of them. People want a vehicle that works for every (edge) use case they have, even if they forget that usage only comes around once every third year. The bed has to be big enough for plywood, the cab has to fit six adults comfortably, and so on. SUVs are popular for this reason. And beds are getting left behind because it really is an edge case for most to need a long truck bed, while having family ride in the crew cab is at least kind of common. Not to mention, having a crew cab and then a long bed makes for a truck so long, it's really kind of a pain to maneuver it. (Source: Briefly owned a "smaller" double cab Silverado with a 6' 6" (198 cm) bed and it was already ridiculously long.) It's amazing truck rental hadn't become a bigger business, while everyone gravitated towards nimble, fuel efficient cars, but there has to be a reason for that not happening, and I don't think it's fuel regulations. Among other things, there's an addiction to convenience. Everyone insists that the vehicle in their driveway covers every possible use, instead of the daily uses only, because there's a 20 minute round trip in having to go pick up a rental vehicle for special cases. All of this is interesting to me, as GMC will reveal the bigger 2023 Canyon later this morning. (You can look at the 2023 Chevrolet Colorado[0] now for a good preview. And for those unfamiliar, it's a "mid-sized" or smaller line of trucks, like the Toyota Tacoma.) The redesign is basically the Silverado/Sierra from 5 years ago and they've eliminated all but one configuration - crew cab and 5' 2" (157.5 cm) bed. No more regular cab, no "long"/standard box. In the car world, the most popular configuration has the best profit margin, so slowly any variations get eliminated by bean counters until only the very middle of the bell curve is left. EDIT: Also wanted to add that these smaller trucks are much less popular than the larger versions. One reason is the obsession with specifications and capability and features. A lot of times the price difference between smaller and larger is small when you consider extra payload and towing (that only one in ten buyers actually needs), or that features X, Y and Z are included on the larger model but left out on the smaller. Gas mileage is also shockingly similar between the sizes. But in the end, I think too many people buying trucks look around, see that everyone else has full-size, and justify it for themselves, when almost everyone would've gotten their needs met with the smaller options. [0] https://www.chevrolet.com/upcoming-vehicles/2023-colorado https://www.chevrolet.com/upcoming-vehicles/2023-colorado
- 4y ago
- 2143 4y agoAnd ironically, USA does not get the Toyota Hilux, which the rest of the world loves.
- rascul 4y agoUntil 1995 they were sold in the US under a different name.
- jrochkind1 4y ago> In 2020, the Trump administration eased what the then-president described as the "failed" emissions rule, citing among other considerations safety. So... are trucks going to get smaller again now? Is there going to be an improvement to safety, or emissions, because of this change?
- bombcar 4y agoBasically no because California kept the same limits and it's easier for the manufacturers to just go with that. The underlying problem of all this is it's nearly impossible for a new manufacturer to get off the ground (that's the most amazing thing about TSLA - not that they made electric cars, but that they made anything). So the only way to get a new "vehicle type" on the road is to get an existing manufacturer to build it.
- yboris 4y agoSUVs are immoral -- one of my favorite philosophy papers: Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? by Douglas Husak https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447
- wyager 4y ago> First and most obviously, personal vehicles cause tremendous amounts of harm. Large vehicles are safer for vehicle-on-vehicle or vehicle-on-object crashes, and vehicle-on-pedestrian crashes are a very small fraction of total fatal crashes. The core objection of this blog post^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H paper is nonsense. I refuse to take seriously anyone who talks about "moral issues" like cars on purely qualitative, opinion-based grounds. When you're talking about hundreds of millions of people, you need to use statistics, and that is a necessary but insufficient condition for you to be taken seriously (as most papers of this type don't use statistics correctly).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- overthemoon 4y agoYou can't say it's definitely not ego. You can say there are regulatory issues that incentivize larger trucks, but if people didn't want them, they wouldn't buy them. Their mere availability doesn't explain it. It's a statement vehicle, that's how it's marketed. It's masculine, it's imposing, and it has the excuse of utility to assuage fears of appearing vain (a stereotypically feminine trait). It can be other things, too: it can be useful to move shit around, it can be safe relative to the car you pancaked, it can lug your family around, it's the result of poorly thought out regulations. But it is also a vanity purchase. It's not bad as the justifications people would make when they bought Hummers back in the 2000s, but it's closer to that than a sheer calculation of utility and efficiency, which should be obvious because they don't have to be that goddamn big to move things around. Disclaimer: I drive a Honda Fit. These trucks could turn me into paste. I'm irritated that I have to consider upsizing just to ensure my infant son survives a collision with a vehicle whose driver can't see in front of them. But I confess my car is a vanity statement, too. I bought it because I won't have to go to the shop as often (fingers crossed) and I won't have to buy another car for good long while. But it also has the vibe of being smart and urbane. Americans very much buy their cars based on image.
- soylentcola 4y agoAlso currently driving a Fit. I didn't own a car (of my own) for several years as my partner had one that we shared. When that ended and I bought a fixer-upper house, I initially wanted to buy a small pickup - think of the old S-10 or the older style Rangers and Tacomas - because it seemed to fit my needs: - Rarely need to transport more than myself and one passenger - Frequently need to pick up lots of supplies or drop off junk at the dump - Drive in the city with lots of parallel parking/stop and go traffic But used versions of those trucks were either quite old and/or still demanding quite a premium due to scarcity. All newer trucks were bigger than I needed, seemed to be focused on cab size over bed size, and a lot more expensive than what I had in my budget. Instead I just got a Fit for under $10k cash. I've transported a full sized door and can even squeeze in a sheet of plywood or drywall if I cut them down the middle before loading. Most everything else is no problem. For the rare occasions where I need to haul something bigger, I just rent a truck for the afternoon. I'd still love a small truck to make these trips easier, but I'm not currently willing to spend more or get something huge. Also, I'm bummed that they stopped selling new Fits in the US. Great little cars.
- seitzej 4y agoSeeing some of the larger trucks parked on city streets near me makes it very apparent how large they've gotten. The roof of my Toyota Corolla was below the hood of a GMC Sierra parked behind me The new Ford Ranger is the size of the F-150 from the 90s
- d0liver 4y agoThis post is really narrow-sited in terms of economics. The argument is essentially that "Absentminded regulations forced those poor truck makers into building bigger trucks and then consumers just had to buy them". Unfortunately, that's not actually how buying things works. The market being willing to buy behemoths is what validated the product experiment that the truck makers ran and is a much more potent force than what a company decides to make. The real issue is thus: Trumpers don't actually care what happens to the world or the people in it and if something is "bad for business" then they'll do anything to get around it - regardless of the ethics. People should not be blundering idiots that are continuously drawn towards the next shiny thing; they should be accountable for what they choose to do.
- EricE 4y agoDOn't forget the chicken tax - it froze Mahindra and other manufacturers out too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://carbuzz.com/news/5-amazing-trucks-the-us-can-t-have-because-of-the-chicken-tax https://carbuzz.com/news/5-amazing-trucks-the-us-can-t-have-...
- TrispusAttucks 4y agoYet another example of complex regulations creating unintended negative effects. “Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple and stupid behavior.” – Dee Hock, CEO Emeritus VISA International
- chrisux 4y agoVisibility and perceived personal safety I think are a big factor on why people are driven to prefer purchasing suv & truck models. American anecdote: when I am driving my sedan, I don't feel safe. I can not see through the windows of vehicles ahead of me due to the volume of large vehicles on the road, and a big part of driving safely is predicting traffic - I am at a large disadvantage due to only being able to be reactive to the back end of a vehicle in front of me instead of being able to predict what they are going to do by being able to see ahead. Larger trucks & suvs also seem to have higher safety features these days in strength and crumple zone coverage. If so many other vehicles are so much bigger than my car, how do I fare in an accident in my ford fusion vs "everybody else's" f250. Someone else here called it an arms race and I absolutely see why. I would rather drive my 4runner than my car even though my car is absolutely the better choice for practicality - I feel better and safer in my 4 runner. This is in addition to edge case buying. Large vehicle purchases are also popular due to what those vehicles bring to the buyer, including: cargo capacity, towing capabilities, ground clearance for rural needs, and in the case of large vans&suv's extra passenger space.
- alamortsubite 4y ago> I am at a large disadvantage due to only being able to be reactive to the back end of a vehicle in front of me instead of being able to predict what they are going to do by being able to see ahead. This is only a problem for someone who is tailgating.
- chrisux 4y agoNo, it really isn't. Even given proper distance being reactionary vs predictive is an issue.
- alamortsubite 4y agoIf you're following a vehicle so closely that prediction requires you to be able to see through that same vehicle's windows (as per the parent's complaint), then yes, you absolutely are tailgating.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nirinor 4y agoWe see so many examples of regulations having directionally wrong effects... That regulation is adversarial (largest regulated entities are savvy and often propose the regulations), has higher order and long term effects, this all makes it a hard domain, but also is well known in advance. What's the current best practice for validating regulation have their intended effects in advance?
- dghughes 4y ago>90% as much as truck bed as F150 Volume and mass are not the same thing. The F150 max payload 1,000kg The Subaru Sambar max load is 350kg The Ford or any truck in US/Canada may not need to be that big since they were not that big years ago. But the Subaru is too small for US/Canada roads and what is hauled.
- grumpwagon 4y agoThis seems like a classic example of taking one small part of a larger trend that agrees with the viewpoint you came in with, and massively overinflating its impact. Trucks have been getting bigger since long before 2008, including light trucks. The Ranger's platform was ancient by the time it was retired -- it was going to go regardless. It does seem that the author has correctly picked out one of the many factors pushing things in that direction, but also during the time frame in question (2008-2020) overall American vehicle fuel economy increased (see the EIA's total energy consumption report). I realize that wasn't the direct point the author was making, but it seems like an important note. The author's weird insistence on the "own the libs" snark really takes away from the impact of what this could have been -- a reminder of the importance to consider unintended consequences when rulemaking.
- charles_f 4y ago> One particular goal of the Obama Administration was to increase fuel efficiency through the typical political process: telling someone else to do it. To that end, the DOT and the EPA handed down a series of standards that nearly doubled the miles-per-gallon requirements for cars and light trucks. As opposed to what? Having Obama and its administration build more efficient engines? Have them run a car pooling scheme across the US? Not transfer it to authorities with actual subject matter knowledge? They emitted policy, I don't know what else an administration can do.
- simonsarris 4y agoThe proper answer, if you want more fuel efficient vehicles, is to simply raise the gas tax and allow every company's engineering teams decide what to build, and every consumer to decide what they want. This keeps domain expertise where it belongs while achieving the stated goals, and does not strictly reduce choice. If engineers could not figure out more efficient designs, and customers wanted more efficient vehicles, they could simply make smaller trucks to sell. Instead they demanded companies engineer vehicles to conform to weird mpg/area curves that accidently skew towards "huge." It was in effect backseat engineering.
- tablespoon 4y ago> The proper answer, if you want more fuel efficient vehicles, is to simply raise the gas tax and allow every company's engineering teams decide what to build, and every consumer to decide what they want. But that's bad politics. Voters don't like paying more for gas, and if you make it expensive enough to drive engineering changes, you make yourself open to attack on that issue. Also, making gas more expensive would have a lot of perhaps bad follow-on effects (e.g. getting people laid off/lowering growth because you made many industrial/commercial activities more expensive). > Instead they demanded companies engineer vehicles to conform to weird mpg/area curves that accidently skew towards "huge." It was in effect backseat engineering. But that's good politics. You're saying "make things better."
- wiseleo 4y agoThat would have a devastating impact on existing vehicles, which just happen to be owned by voters. Consumers already decide what they want, if they can afford to. Many are locked into financing agreements for vehicles they can't afford.
- briantakita 4y ago> It’s not ego, it’s economics. Smaller light-duty trucks were regulated out of existence by tighter fuel standards. Because regulations were made looser on larger vehicles, the easiest way for automakers to meet the standard is to build a bigger truck. The government skews yet another market with unintended consequences using regulations & intervention. Big surprise. The only solution is more government regulation & intervention.
- ausbah 4y agotax cars based on size / weight! and charge higher parking fees!
- yung234 4y agoThe headline on the page is "The Real Reason Why Trucks Are Getting Bigger" - and it is not supported by the item. The assertion is that Obama-era fuel restrictions on cars and small trucks incentivized manufacturers to make bigger trucks which conformed to a less onerous standard. At the same time, though, we can all agree that there is at least some consumer preference for large trucks. The question is how do these compare? Is the state of play now 95% due to consumer preference and 5% to manufacturers trying to push larger trucks. Or is it the other way round, or some other mix? Todd offers no evidence either way.
- renewiltord 4y agoI'd get the Subaru Sambar but the bed can only load 350 lbs, right? It's a bit risky to put two Yamaha YZ125s in them. But I'd totally buy the Sambar honestly, for other stuff. Does anyone know of a light truck that's small? I live in San Francisco and the big trucks are really infeasible here.
- bulbosaur123 4y agoThis is very primitive and I don't care. I still want a car that looks "cool" and "badass" and "mean" not some cringy virginmobile. inb4 barrage of downvotes
- semasad 4y agoThere is a lot of examples of this, and in economics has a colloquial term: cobra effect -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive When Englad still domain India, there was a lot of cobra there, that means a problem for the English people. The solution: pay directly to anyone who brings a dead cobra. The result: people raised cobras to kill them and get paid for that. Always surprise me the incapability of some countries/governments of think in long term.
- wiseleo 4y agoIf you tow heavy trailers, you need the vehicle in front to be heavier than the towed object for stability. By the time you are buying 3/4 ton or a 1-ton vehicle, fuel consideration is secondary. When loaded, you are going to have terrible mileage anyway. I own a Ford Escape Hybrid commuter car, a 4.2L V6 F-150 with 8' bed for light truck duty, and a 7.5L V8 F-350 for heavy towing with a 12' box. I also have enough land to store all these vehicles and I bought them broken and cheap. Regular cab pickups exist and they get reasonable mileage these days. You can get combined 22mpg in an F-150 2.7L v6. It's a bigger truck because it is designed to tow 5000lbs and carry 2000lbs in the bed in its smallest configuration. If you launch boats or operate on wet construction sites, you need 4x4. Why? Your rear wheels will be on a slippery boat ramp. If you don't have 4x4, your rear-wheel drive truck's front wheels are useless and your truck can become a submarine by sliding into water. It is difficult to buy a new truck with an 8' bed that's not a full-size truck. You need to in general look for a fleet vehicle. However, vans exist. My Grand Caravan minivan converts into a cargo van and fits 4x8 with gate closed. It's dead at the moment and so I got an F-150 to tow it home and drive around until I fix it. So, if you want an 8' bed in a pickup, you are getting a minimum of a 1/2 ton truck. If you don't need one that long, 6' beds are available on smaller trucks. Your other option is to trailer something since they have 3500lbs towing capacity. 6' bed is perfectly usable for 8' loads with a bed extender. So, why can't you get an 8' bed in a smaller truck? They are prone to getting overloaded. There's the legend of the immortal Ford Ranger that work much harder than they should. 20 sheets of 3/4" plywood is 1200lbs and that will fit inside a truck bed. Unless you have that 1800-2000lbs capacity, you'll overload it. Now, consider the weight of drywall, cement etc... Anything related to 4x8' items can unintentionally overload a small truck's rated payload capacity relatively easily. Do you need an off-road 4x4 3/4 ton truck, which are huge and tall, for city driving? You do not. I need my 1-ton truck for towing a car trailer weighing more than 5000lbs. However, it's only driven when when I have to tow something that heavy.
- awinter-py 4y agoseems valid to point at CAFE, but I disagree with the exact framing post is saying 'trucks are larger because it decreases their fuel target', I'd prefer a take like 'setting abrupt boundaries in policies leads to strange effects at the boundary' unnecessary categorization disrupts optimization processes Not sure why you'd want to regulate vehicles rather than taxing fuel directly, but even taking fuel tax off the table, a continuous scale would let manufacturers find a better balance than imposing a hard limit
- greenhearth 4y ago"It's Obama's fault" is definitely one of the greatest conservo hits. Love that tune!