I can fit a bed, 3 months of luggage and a bicycle in mine. In a pinch, it's a brilliant microcamper. It's a big box on wheels. You can do what you want with it.
It's not a nice car, but it was designed to serve real user needs. That's why they're everywhere from Morocco to Poland.
The Toyota Sienta, which starts at JPY 2M, seems like a much better value for a passenger car - and I think they borrowed from the Kangoo's styling a bit for the latest iteration [2]. Or for business use a Town Ace, NV200, HiJet, etc.
* protects your goods from weather
* more cargo volume
* better forward visibility without a long hood
* easier to load and unload due to being lower
* can park it without people being able to walk up to it and taking your tools and equipment out of the exposed truck bed
In use: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bairon-FR-08-chantie...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mercedes-Benz_Sprint...
(Can an American tell me what these vehicles are called in the USA?)
Flatbeds.
Here they are very common on construction sites for the messier work (building roads, railways, walls, roofs, forestry etc) but normal vans with a roof are more common for the cleaner work (plumbing, electrics, painting, carpentry etc).
I see these monster SUVs more and more in Europan cities nowadays too, F-150s, Dodge Rams, with some fancy paintjob and big wheels. Usually it's some middle aged Ray-Ban wearing divorced dad with money trying to look cool. Most utilitarians here, blue collar workers, people for whom their vehicles are a tool for the job, mostly drive white vans here.
If you've ever sat in traffic driving a small car surrounded by large vehicles it definitely starts to sink in that you are at a distinct disadvantage if anything goes wrong. So this trend is also at least partially about this weird arms race of wanting to feel safer in the presence of ever larger vehicles.
Your average person is not mechanically inclined enough to assess the safety of vehicles, usually to the detriment of the safety of everybody else on the road. Another example of this is people's perception that they're safer with AWD in snowy conditions when all it's doing is getting the vehicle moving faster and giving the driver the confidence to push it way beyond its ability to brake in those conditions.
The most dangerous, a head on collision, will always be safer for the heavier vehicle. It's simple physics.
More than anything, you need to just not be in the accident in the first place. Buying a vehicle with dogshit braking and handling characteristics so you can "win" in a crash you could have just avoided is dumb, especially when you consider that you carry that increased rollover tendency every single second you're driving that vehicle.
Not really sure how you can avoid someone drifting over the line at you...
There are multiple times where I've had to drive on the shoulder to avoid people out of their lane and they would have been a hell of a lot scarier than they were if I had to do it in an SUV/truck. I've been in multiple fairly severe vehicle accidents and I can tell you from first-hand experience that you're not appreciably safer in an SUV.
I bought a F250 diesel to tow my 13,000 lb rv. Smaller vehicles can't do that.
There are obviously some good reasons to buy a huge RV instead of using a tent, but the RV itself is an expensive and heavy status symbol.
We live in our RV for 3-6 months a year, in weather from -10 in Colorado blizzards and 120 degree California summers. In rain snow and sleet. I work remotely from it.
A tent is not a home. An RV It is for many of us.
Before you throw more stones, it's far more eco friendly and lower carbon Footprint to own an rv and travel and stay in it in various places than to own several properties and fly between them.
It's considered worse to drive (vs fly) unless you have more than 2 people-- and that's for a normal car. With a truck+trailer the break-even point would need more passengers.
https://terrapass.com/blog/carbon-footprint-of-driving-vs-fl...
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-...
https://www.trianglerv.com/blog/post/how-an-rving-vacation-a...
Tiny homes and RVs have about 7% of the energy Footprint of traditional dwellings: https://beginrv.com/tiny-house-vs-rv/
So if you add all that up, its more eco friendly, affordable, and what we've chosen to do.
For the comparison parent post is making - leisure travel - I think there's a big difference in that flying enables much larger distances, thus much more emissions.
You can easily fly 1000 miles each way for a weekend trip. Not as easily with a car, the travel tends to be much shorter.
Or any worse - you apparently didn't notice, but I wrote that there are good reasons to own an RV, and want to reiterate that. Probably in your heart of hearts you know whether your ownership is justified, and I don't need to tell you.
TONs of non-rich people also have 2 properties and go between them. You can buy a cabin or vacation property in the rural US for a surprisingly affordable amount. I know many folks who are certainly not rich, but do spend time in various locations.
Think traveling nurses, seasonal employees, etc. Also look up the term "snow bird"
What’s fun is when you notice that the biggest, flashiest trucks are all concentrated in the fanciest suburbs. Once you get out in the country, off the main roads like where I’m from, suddenly (1) pickup trucks make up a lower percentage of the traffic, and (2) they are generally* smaller, more utilitarian and more beat up.
* except for the occasional F350 dually pulling an actual horse trailer
In fact my friend was SO excited about his new van (for 1998) that for a while, he was bragging about every last little aspect up and down those hills, every time we rode with him. He lived in a gigantic danchi at the top of one of the steepest hills around, and still loved that thing.
(He worked as a furnace-jumper-inner / furnace-insides-scraper at an auto recycling place all day, and had molten aluminum burns on his arms and sometimes face...I respected the heck out of that guy for what he did to support his family. I think he runs an IT business in Brazil now.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9510791,138.6746615,3a,75y,2...
They are pretty capable offroad vehicles.
No trouble going up long or steep hills in windy mountain roads with the whole family of 4+luggage in the car.
No trouble going up long hills at highway speed (120 km/h) with two adult friends in the back.
Aircon on and everything. Works great.
I'm not gonna ask PETA for tips on raising beef steers, I'm not gonna ask Joe Biden what gun I should buy and I'm not gonna ask /r/fuckcars what car I should buy. And this is on top of the usual Reddit circle jerks and groupthink that make asking for advice there for anything of meaningful stakes questionable in general.
Subaru Sambar (kei truck) towing capacity: 1,300 lbs
Ford F-150 towing capacity: 5,000 to 11,300 lbs
Ford F-250 Shelby edition towing capacity: 24,200 pounds
And that's just one additional dimension where these vehicles significantly differ.
These vehicles are utilitarian workhorses great for contracting, construction, farming (eg. hauling livestock), towing (eg. other cars, trailers, mobile BBQ, etc.), boating, leisure [1], etc.
I live in an urban area close enough to the forest, lakes, and pastures to see all of these uses frequently.
The electric version will power job sites, camp sites, and help with disaster recovery. It's going to sell like hot cakes.
[1] https://www.f150forum.com/f34/how-pull-jeep-out-mud-130086/#...
The article talks about using the Kei truck as a replacement for a UTV/Side-by-Side, not for a daily truck. These /r/fuckcars people have never done real work in their lives and are just larping. 1100 pound tow capacity couldn't even tow most empty trailers.
iPhones somehow manage to be a status symbol even with 50% of the US population owning one
You folks need to get it out of your heads that one size fits all and everyone needs to have the same values and make the same choices as you. Everything has risks and trade offs.
Awesome, but that's not about the car, it's about working from home.
> Taking up more space is not an issue for people who don’t live in big cities.
But it is for those who do. And still for a lot of people outside big cities.
> Trucks are not more inherently dangerous than any other vehicle just because of their size. If that were the case let’s outlaw semis, delivery trucks and anything larger than a VW Golf (a car I had & loved in my youth.)
It's not just the size, also other factors about the design, but there's a reason why commercial driving licenses exist. They should probably be required for all trucks.
> You folks need to get it out of your heads that one size fits all and everyone needs to have the same values and make the same choices as you.
It doesn't have to fit all, but it does have to fit the environment, or at least take it into consideration.
In your opinion
> It doesn't have to fit all, but it does have to fit the environment, or at least take it into consideration.
What does that even mean? It's a completely arbitrary non-specific statement. Look - if people don't want large vehicles, trucks or otherwise, they'll stop buying them and manufacturers will stop making them. It's entirely your right to dislike the state of things, but I don't believe it's anyone's job or authority to force people to buy a Fiat 500 (a perfectly fine car for many) when they prefer an F-150.
Maybe you should look around a bit through the rest of the discussion here, but lots of people are pointing out that those F-150s exist because they don't have to meet the same requirements as the Fiat 500, which is ridiculous. Especially since they do require the same license. They don't have to meet the same requirements as passenger cars because by some rules, they don't count as passenger cars, but as trucks. But you can drive with with a regular license, and they're used as regular passenger cars. This discrepancy is causing problems with lots of people driving trucks far bigger than what they need.
Also, apparently, US fuel efficiency rules seem to encourage larger cars, which are less fuel efficient. Clearly a broken system.
In your opinion.
> Also, apparently, US fuel efficiency rules seem to encourage larger cars, which are less fuel efficient.
I'm not sure where you get that idea from. We're generally less sensitive to fuel economy because gasoline in the US is cheap - because it's not taxed to the hilt (I'd be happy to pay higher taxes for universal healthcare, but that's another hot topic).
> This discrepancy is causing problems with lots of people driving trucks far bigger than what they need.
Again, "need" is subjective.
You're in the EU and you have your own mindset that's very different from the vast majority of American's mindset (I would know, my parents are EU immigrants.) Nothing wrong with difference of opinions...but you're not going to change people's minds here with these arguments.
From this very discussion. Read what some other people here write.
The sky isn't falling and pickup trucks aren't that big of a problem from an emissions standpoint (my F-150 gets 19mpg, within 1mpg of my wife's minivan and my neighbor's Toyota Highlander. Passenger car/truck transportation accounts for 7% of the world's emissions. People are acting like buying EVs and small cars is going to make a damn bit of difference.
Literally don't know one person that drives a truck "for vanity" and I gotta know at least a few hundred truck owners.
I drive a F350. It will tow a mountain. I pull a fifth wheel with it. People are often surprised to hear that it gets 20 miles per gallon when it's not towing anything.
While I love the truck, I miss my old Tacoma. The Tacoma was a smoother ride and far more practical for urban navigation. But Tacomas have a bout a fifth or even less as much tow capacity as an F350.
Big trucks aren't causing social ills for anyone except people that have nothing better to do but complain about other people enjoying their own lives.
"These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35202168
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
Just one of many reports from the past 20 years documenting the correlation between vehicle size and deaths/injuries to those on the receiving end. You'll find similar conclusions from IIHS, NHTSA, etc.
This is not the win you think it is.
That's a massive failure, in other developed countries, motor vehicle deaths have drastically declined in 40 years.
As I get older I’ve grown less tolerant of people trying to tell other people how they should live. Feel free to live your own life as you see fit as long as you’re not directly hurting other folks.
The transmission overheats after 3-4 hours going uphill with no load. They made it too heavy for the powertrain!
It’s also depressingly easy to trigger the overload light on the dashboard by doing things like buying bricks at Home Depot.
Seriously, WTF? Do we need a 2500 class to replace our old pre-fuel-injection GMC 1500? It had better fuel economy and was also lower to the ground. It could even handle mountain freeways!
(The newer GMC was even worse than the Ram, FWIW.)
I’d definitely look into one of these little japanese trucks if I could get a new one and have it serviced. Bonus points if it is an EV.
The subreddit is specifically named 'fuck cars'. How exactly are they being dishonest? This is more like r/vegan showing how a vegan meal is better than a steak meal along some dimension, say, environmental impact.
> I live in an urban area close enough to the forest, lakes, and pastures to see all of these uses frequently.
In fact I would say that you are the one being somewhat dishonest by (implicitly) claiming both the benefits of being able to use it as a utilitarian workhorse, and in an urban area. If the trucks have the majority of their utility as contracting, construction, or towing, they should require being licensed as a commercial driver, and potentially be banned from being operated on city roads due to the danger they pose to smaller vehicles and pedestrians.
Think of the argument from that subreddit (and me) this way -- if you are driving a huge farm tractor, you cannot also bring said tractor into the city center. Not all heavy machinery needs to be allowed everywhere. Obviously you might not agree, but I think the argument is fundamentally honest.
They're comparing on a single dimension and laughing at F-150 owners.
> This is more like r/vegan showing how a vegan meal is better than a steak meal along some dimension, say, environmental impact.
Not when evaluating a purchasing decision, overall utility, or customer demographics and needs. I'm showing that morally opposed parties inject themselves and their biases orthogonally.
> In fact I would say that you are the one being somewhat dishonest by (implicitly) claiming both the benefits of being able to use it as a utilitarian workhorse, and in an urban area.
Have you ever been to a city that's half an hour to the woods? Or perhaps somewhere it's typical to find people owning acres of their own land right next to a major metropolitan? Not everything is SF or NYC.
If you want to tax an externality, do so. Many state gas taxes tax vehicle weight via the proxy of gas mileage. Right now it's the heavy EVs doing the damage that are slipping through the taxation cracks.
> they should require being licensed as a commercial driver
Okay, now we're getting into yucking other people's yums.
If you want to regulate that negative externality, we should go all the way. Tax and regulate everything.
Let's start with sex. It spreads disease and causes all sorts of relationship drama. Kids can be a nightmare. Think about all the lost productivity! Who's paying for that? (I'm joking, of course!)
> potentially be banned from being operated on city roads due to the danger they pose to smaller vehicles and pedestrians
You can vote for that in your own district, and maybe that's correct, but other places and populations will feel differently about how they live their own lives.
> if you are driving a huge farm tractor, you cannot also bring said tractor into the city center. Not all heavy machinery needs to be allowed everywhere.
On the spectrum of farm tractor to kei car, the F-150 is tightly clustered in the middle with the rest of the "street legal" vehicles.
* The real farm families would have a pickup for pulling a horse trailer, moving mulch/manure/hay bales/equipment, but also have a regular sedan for, like, driving places.
* The suburban families would have a pickup or SUV as a daily driver.
A quick Google search seems to back my impresssion:
"According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. 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."
As you say, taxing the externality is reasonable (and currently imperfect, in a few dimensions). One reason to look especially hard at SUVs and light trucks is that they have externalities in a number of dimensions (road wear, emissions, accident safety for other cars) and seem to have very limited utility (most people who buy them aren't really using them for their supposed purpose).
Lots of folks haul their own boats. Renting at a marina is expensive.
Most people doing real work with trucks are hauling heavy duty construction trailers, or otherwise, but even if you wanted to move furniture you'd quickly exceed 1300 pounds.
Even a tiny 4'x 8' U-Haul is 850 pounds empty: https://www.uhaul.com/Trailers/4x8-Cargo-Trailer-Rental/UV/
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
So we're clear: because surveys are incredibly difficult to do in a scientific way and there's a dozen ways to ask a question that can skew results, there's a hundred ways a journalist can misinterpret the results of that question, and there's a thousand ways you could incorrectly slice the demographics such that your survey skews completely out of sync with the target subject.
We want to know what large truck owners are doing with their trucks. We don't care about small truck owners not towing things because small trucks aren't considered to be excessive and truck beds are useful things on their own.
Show me the data. Not the spin.
Most truck owners I know use their truck as a truck quite often. But that’s more rural; maybe everyone in a city commutes in an F150 for absolutely no reason at all.
I'm sure semis are empty after they've dropped off a load at a destination and there is no commensurate return load back to where they came from. But given that semis are very expensive to move down the road, both from a human resource cost and an energy cost, I suspect the market is far better at optimizing that than you or I or any central operator could do.
Everyone I know that owns F150s use their truck beds or use their hitch to tow. I'm not sure what the big controversy is, except there seems to be a class of urbanites that are convinced they know other people's own needs better than they do. "They don't need a truck," says the Brooklyn blogger, who then proceeds to snark about a foreign micro truck that's normally used to skirt through the narrow streets and alleyways of Tokyo. The blogger has prob never owned acreage, cut lumber, smoked a brisket on-location, or hauled a load, but they know for sure that these silly Americans don't need a truck that's any bigger than a Prius.
I'm pretty sure most people who own these oversized pickup trucks never use that towing capacity. Maybe some do, and if they were the only ones using them, nobody would have a problem with it.
https://reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/sdrgv3/japanese_truck...
A kei truck has about 90% the bed length of a pickup while being a lot more nimble. The lower bed is more ergonomic to load and unload too.