The modern US pickup truck isn't built for utility. It's a $60,000 four-door lifted luxobarge with leather interior and a short bed. It signals (perceived) wealth while preserving working-class alignment. It can also be justified by way of having to pick up used furniture for TikTok refinish and flip projects or bimonthly runs to Home Depot to buy caulk and lightbulbs. Independent tradesman can write them off as work vehicles or, allegedly, use COVID-era PPP loans to buy them.

It's the suburban equivalent of a yuppie's Rolex Submariner. Investment bankers generally don't go scuba diving and if they did a dive computer would be vastly preferable.

I say all of that to say that making a pickup truck for that market segment isn't a bad idea from a numbers perspective. You just can't market it as a luxury vehicle because the whole point is that it is but it isn't.

Crappy used trucks simply aren't up for sale. And even the rare listing I do come across, the asking price is ridiculously inflated.

I started looking into getting a trailer or hitch hauler but it didn't seem to make much sense. I could usually pay somebody on-demand to move stuff around and it always worked out to be cheaper than owning and maintaining a truck. I presently work from home and don't even own a car anymore; the math is quite similar with rideshare and motorcycle maintenance coming in significantly cheaper.

The best used work truck is actually a van. They lack the coolness factor of trucks, but are far more versatile. You can pick up a <10 year old Transit with under 100k miles for like 10-15k. That price point will get you a >10 year old F150 in the 100-150k mile range.

Plus, there are good options if you want something smaller can car-based, like NV2000s and Transit connects. Which don't really exist for trucks outside of newer (maverick) or niche (Ridgeline) options.

Bonus points, a nice Transit is a great daily driver too.

In the UK, Truck and Driver Magazine featured one so equipped in a head-to-head AWD tipper test (AWD in the sense of all wheels driven regardless of number of axles, not Subaru AWD/Audi Quattro type AWD), alongside a variety of extremely large trucks. Proper trucks, not F150s, we're talking 18-tonne Scanias and stuff here.

Everyone wanted one of the little Hijets to take home.

Having said that, I'm still in the market for a larger vehicle with a better tow weight rating as I use the trailer more than a handful of times per year, and my current tow vehicle is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Get an SUV with a trailer hitch.

worked out great. Maybe better than a pickup.

For example - taking mountain bikes somewhere to ride - you can put them in the back, go ride, and leave them there while you go eat without someone stealing them. You can even load them the night before.

dirty stuff can use a trailer (I've never needed one)

and suv carries lots of people - which has worked out many many times more than I predicted.

(it is a gas guzzler, but was cheaper because of that, and didn't compete with higher-priced pickup market)

I can attest to the fact that minivans are much more comfortable. I picked up my Pacifica hybrid minivan in early 2021 before the price hike and it was a steal compared to SUVs and pickups. When I was doing paperwork for the vehicle at the Chrysler dealership, I was chatting with some sales guys and discovered the shocking fact they had recently sold a luxuriously loaded-down pickup for over $100K. I was fortunate to easily haggle with them over my minivan because they don't make much money on minivans so they focus on pickups, Jeeps, etc.

A couple decades ago, I had started looking to replace an old hand-me-down car from my grandma, and had been mulling over whether I could ever justify spending $30K on an Infiniti at that time. My boss at work got a new pickup, and he was rather proud of it, and I innocently asked if it cost $25K because plenty of my Texan relatives had driven them over the years and I assumed they were a no-frills working man's practical vehicle. After a brief pause, he answered, "It was a little over 40 thousand." That was over 20 years ago.

Vans are commonly used in urban areas, especially by businesses, but suburbs, rural, and construction benefit from higher clearences of SUVs and trucks.

SUVs are also usually much better in hazardous driving conditions because of a more optimal weight distribution.

Reality is, people buy these things thinking they would drive them off road, and never actually do it.

It's possible to make an off-road van, by the way. It's just that real demand is so vanishingly small that you don't really see them.

I deal and have dealt with enough deep snow that would eat a van.

I still might get a Sienna Hybrid for daily commuter

It also makes more sense for me to get a large SUV, as towing is important.

The SUV or Truck is still more capable in hazardous road/off-road conditions compared to the van.

Though in my current neck of the woods, a Sprinter would satisfy my needs well.

I had a RWD pickup with snow tires and went anywhere I wanted to through two utah winters and many vermont ones too.

There's also the fact that it's a lot harder to take the top off a van than it is to add a top to the bed of a pickup. If I sometimes moved manure and had a van... I'd probably rent a trailer.

From all of the bitching in the driveway, vans were not pleasant to work on the engine. Some of them had to remove a cover from inside the van to gain access, and that cover tended to not be well insulated and was the source of a lot of heat. Not much of a firewall as a car with the engine fully separated from the passenger compartment.

There were a lot of things people did not like about vans available in the land of Yanks. The Limey vans are not the same, so do not equate your experience as being the same.

There are two current reasons

- Millennials grew up in minivans and its viewed as a mom mobile and they don't want that look (despite the fact that most family SUVs are basically mini vans with out the sliders

- US laws favour light trucks

There are many that buy trucks for off road capabilities but probably 70% or more of truck owners don't go off road more than once a year. Many pick up truck models, like stock versions with crew cabs, are too long and not equipped for serious off-road use. Shallow sand/snow they can handle but so can SUVs.

I can't fit an ATV in a van, and I really don't want to put a dead deer in the back of a van after I hunt one.

I wouldn't trust a van to haul 75 8x8x16 concrete bricks (over 2000 lbs/1100kg) because the suspension wasn't designed to do that, nor was the transmission, and the van will quickly deteriorate.

How about moving a couch? Fits in the truck, not in a van.

I did all of those things in the past 12 months.

All that being said, vans are great, especially with kids. They absolutely do not replace trucks... if you use the truck and don't mind getting it dirty. Shiny trucks with 5.5ft beds are fucking stupid. My kids all laugh at "trucks with a baby bed" these days.

Or, downthread, people just assume everyone with a truck is insecure, projecting wealth, and generally ignorant. Which ironically, is a very ignorant take.

There are some pickups here, having said that: more rural utilities people, or landscapers who move lots of dirt, or farmers, might have one. They tend to be smaller than an F-150, but then everything's smaller in Britain including the roads...

For moving yards of mulch, topsoil or concrete blocks, almost anyone in my country, including people in construction would just have that delivered to the site, next day, by the seller.

No clue what van you're imagining, but weather alone makes many things much worse in an open bed. Moving a couch is a very common use of vans, people rent them specifically to move furniture all the time.

minivan != van.

It’s hundreds of dollars to have the same literal dirt, delivered and dumped on my property. So now, instead of driving the truck full of dirt around my property and using it as desired, I now need to do it one wheelbarrow full at a time.

Fuck that.

As for weather, they make removable flat and domed “roofs” for truck beds, the weather argument is a nonstarter.

The 70s/80s screwed them up big time. They were big ugly garabge cars. I love fast wagons, but they are dying here.

Even if you're not going to do the knuckle-skinning work yourself, the packaging negatively influences book rates when you take it to a shop

Trailer is kind of obnoxious pain in the ass and has a bunch more shit to go wrong with it's use compared to a vehicle that "just does what you need".

It might not be the literal cheapest but a truck with the desired cab to bed ratio is the right call for the casual user who just wants to do homeowner things and doesn't wanna think about it.

Which is really the thing: it's very useful to have a second car, but a trailer can't be a second car.

What's really desperately missing is useful payload capacity: a standard ute can't carry 1 ton in the tray confidently (and it's downright impossible to find accurate info on what you should do to get that outside of "add a tag axle").

I don’t get it. Why would you buy, maintain, and park an entire second vehicle for something that is beyond trivially cheap to hire out?

If you wanted to DIY then renting a truck for the day makes more sense.

Renting a vehicle invites bureaucratic nonsense. For my personal situation, I need it ready to go at virtually a moments notice or I'll simply just avoid the chore.

If your local government doesn't offer this, there are many commercial operators that do this in the UK. Seems bizarre to buy a whole giant, inefficient, vehicle just for 'hauling' occasionally.

There are private options, of course, but the fees are nowhere near "small" for this service.

Of course the real money is in the high trim levels that sell for twice as much but don't really cost much more.

Edit: OH, you mean the CT. Silly me.

I would have gotten a Tacoma, but I need the extra towing capacity.

To the people I know who drive trucks like that, they're basically mobile offices.

I'm not familiar with the USA. What do contractors over there do in terms of clean/dirty clothes? Do they change into clean boots and trousers before getting into the truck? Or are they all in roles where they don't get their hands dirty?

In my country, vehicles marketed to tradesmen and agricultural workers usually aim for a hard-wearing, easy-to-clean interior that's fairly spartan.

Using my wife's fairly recent (2024 model year) pickup truck as an example, every horizontal surface is covered in papers, clipboards, horse tack and medications (she trains horses and operates a horse rescue). The floors and kick panels are probably muddy at this time of year, but I'm so used to it that I don't notice. The surfaces that aren't covered by papers or something else have a nice thick layer of dust (the truck spends a lot of time on gravel roads).

It might actually be vacuumed out a few times a year, but that's far from a priority. Generally, the cleanup only happens if one of us has to wear "nice" clothes to go somewhere.

But bear in mind that the areas that your body touches tend to clean themselves simply because you're moving around. So, the floors, dashboard, etc., might be muddy or dusty but the seats will generally be clean.

The basic "spartan" trucks tend to be for uses where you don't have to travel very far. If you're driving a hundred miles or so on an average day, you'll want to be as comfortable as possible or it gets old really fast.

The farm and woodworking people I know have nicer trucks, but they’re not afraid to get them dirty. Put some rubber floor mats down and the floor is easy to clean. Leather seats are actually easier to clean than cloth seats. The steering wheel wipes clean.

Every square inch of my truck’s interior is covered in a layer of fine dust every time we go off roading because the windows have to be down. I can clean it all relatively quickly because everything is accessible and the interior is smaller and boxier than my car.

Because the only truck owners the people who bash trucks see are their neighbor across the street who is that guy.

The demographically comparable guy who commutes in 80mi one way from his "country estate" in his Audi isn't on the internet bashing truck owners because the guy he lives across from uses his truck.

There's a reason these "luxobarges" are the best selling vehicle in the U.S., and the answer is not virtue signaling.

I promise you with all my heart, those luxobarges are not being purchased because they’re practical in any way, shape, or form. It’s 110% virtue signaling.

I don’t get the recent internet trend of trying to excuse any bad behavior by saying it’s all actually very logical and simply a tragedy of reality. Nobody is buying a gigantic vehicle because it has seats that are easy to clean. Nobody is buying an expensive ride because they just NEED those auto rain wipers.

People are bad with money, and keeping up with the Joneses has always been a high priority in American culture. I see people making $20-25/hr driving brand new Cadillac SUVs. I talk to my car selling friends, and they have the loan rates for 6-10 years memorized, not 3-5 years. Nobody does those anymore.

Of course there is an enormous amount of virtue signaling around cars. It’s one of the strongest social signals people purchase.

Playing Devil's Advocate, if you're going to be fucked either way, why not be fucked and have a nice truck than not?

It seems like, at least from an uninformed EU perspective, that if the "system" gives you the ability to get a big truck for no worse off that if you weren't going to get it, why wouldn't you?

It seems like auto manufacturers overly inflated their prices, and the loan issuers are mopping up said inflation back - so in the end the borrower (at least if poor and they're going to default either way) is better off getting more truck for their buck than less.

Again, I don't understand the desperate internet trend of defending terrible choices by focusing on the, like, 0.001% of people who do everything right and still fail. We've got the highest living standards on the planet. It's absolutely a choice.

Let’s say a normal car costs you $200/month and a big truck costs 400.

200 is not going to make a difference in your situation - you are either good either way or close to breaking point and therefore fucked either way (if not this month, then the next one when you have an unexpected large expense).

If you’re fucked, why not take advantage as much as possible and get the most truck for your buck? Well “your buck” in quotes but you get my point.

If my budget was at breaking point and for only 200 bucks extra (one time payment since I’m gonna default next month) you can bet I’m gonna take advantage and get another ~20k worth of truck that I’ll get to keep until the bankruptcy proceedings complete (at which point the extra would’ve depreciated off anyway). Or is there something I’m missing?

200 * 12 = 2400 * 4 years( let's be real it would be longer ) = 9600. That IS a lot of money, it's not going to solve every problem immediately but applying the mindset of whatever Im screwed so I might as well set my money on fire is exactly how people keep sinking into the hole. You take the 200 extra on the car, on the apartment, the 150 pants. Its death by a thousand paper cuts and it will make a bad situation much worse.

You’re also presenting a false scenario of “screwed either way”. One decision is getting a car that doesn’t leave you with $10k+ negative equity in a year because you did $1000 down on a $85k truck financed over 10 years with an 8% rate. That’s a decade long financial albatross that will cost you $150k by the time it’s done.

The alternative is you put $1k down on a $30k vehicle over 4 years with the same monthly payment and never end up with negative equity.

The gulfs here are enormous and the “screwed either way” altitude is pure defeatist financial ignorance.

It has nothing to do with avocado toast, though that wasn't nearly the zinger you thought it was. As it turns out, eating out is insanely expensive. Cook most of your food and you can save a TON of money. The fact that this simple idea is so hard for people to pull out of the avocado toast comment continues to astound me.

And you're right - you can certainly scam the system for 6 months of "more truck". That's exactly the kind of monetary responsibility that got us into this situation in the first place. Thank you for showing everyone a perfect example, I suppose.

You have such a deep misanthropic view that it's prevented you from seeing anything outside of it. You're preaching a faith not practicing an understanding of the world.

> Nobody is buying a gigantic vehicle

There are tons of contractors, laborers, small business and property owners who need the space or the utility of the vehicle. The reason these vehicles sell well is because they come in _tons_ of configurations.

> because it has seats that are easy to clean

No, that's why the manufacturer puts them in there, it helps them sell more vehicles by expanding their options.

> People are bad with money

Just.. like.. universally? Then how do you explain the number of billionaires and millionaires in this country? Let me guess.. from your heart it's 110% graft and corruption and 0% skill and sense and building wealth?

> I talk to my car selling friends,

Who has "car selling friends?" Your access to anecdotal information may not be helping you.

> It’s one of the strongest social signals people purchase.

We know this.. how?

> So what do people actually like about trucks? According to Edwards, the answer is counterintuitive. Truck drivers use their trucks very much like other car owners: for commuting to and from work, presumably alone. The thing that most distinguishes truck owners from those of other vehicles is their sheer love of driving. “The highest indexed use among truck owners is pleasure driving,” says Edwards. Truck drivers use their vehicles this way fully twice as often as the industry average. “This is the freedom that trucks offer,” says Edwards.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...

The F-series is the best selling car family in the US. Some of them are using it for its intended purpose sure, the majority are just using it as parent said, a luxobarge.

25% use it for towing.

30% use it off road.

65% use it for hauling.

Obviously there's overlap but how many people do none of those three?

It's less than 35% which is not a majority.

Can't believe we sit here and judge people for choosing to drive a truck or not.

If you're saying "a less bad thing is still bad!" then your comment reads more like the "We should improve society somewhat. / Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent." meme.

People generally buy vehicles for to fit all of their needs not 95% of them. My back seat and trunk are almost always empty and my passenger seat is mostly empty.

A F550 box truck and a crew cab shortbed F150 are both F-series as well as everything in between.

If not the best selling it had better be damn close with all the different vehicles that exist under that one nameplate.

For being certain about something based on industry data?

>There are tons of contractors, laborers, small business and property owners who need the space or the utility of the vehicle.

And if that was the majority of these purchasers, this would be a reasonable response, but the extreme majority of truck owners use their truck for its intended purpose ONCE A YEAR. Bro just rent it from frickin' Home Depot and drive a Camry.

>No, that's why the manufacturer puts them in there

Ah, and of course the cheaper cars are purposely given seats which aren't cleanable? Or is it still correct that in the context of our conversation, it's nothing special and completely unrelated to how most people use their car? It's not within a million miles of a decision point.

>Just.. like.. universally?

Yes. You got it. I literally meant that every single person on the planet, rich, poor, and everything in between, is bad with money. I certainly wasn't making a hyperbolic point to bring an idea to the forefront - incredible detective work.

>Who has "car selling friends?"

I buy a lot of cars, and eventually made friends with the people I keep buying them from. We hang out sometimes. Do you just... not make friends with anyone?

>We know this.. how?

Who knows? My friends actually sit around talking about the specs on their refrigerators and the color options. They tinker in the garage on the cooling coils for hours a day. You should see how smooth the drawers in mine are.

not sure virtue signalling is best description here. I think "conspicuous consumption" is far better description of the process

Yes some are, but not everyone with a big truck. I'm in truck country and most people can afford their big trucks no problem at all. It's not virtue signaling, they are do-everything cars. Nothing else beats them.

You can go to a off-road work site during the day, and take it downtown for dinner after. Lots of people are making good money and can easily afford them.

It’s not “virtue signaling”, it’s lifestyle messaging like wearing cowboy boots or walking around with DJ headphones as if you’re going to drop a set after the morning standup.

I mean… do any of the commercial services in US use pickup trucks? It seems to all be vans? Why not to get a van then as a contractor?

I don't understand why flatbeds aren't more popular here. (Well if we assume that pickups aren't actually for utility then I guess it makes sense.)

You need body on frame, not the van unibody junk.

Granted probably most people on here are CA or SV adjacent, which has a fairly idiosyncratic relationship with its service industries and stricter emissions regs.

Sprinter vans, utility vans, or even minivans are far, far more useful for trades than modern pickups. Heck, my minivan was the goat for home renovations—it’d easily fit a dozen full 4x8 sheets of drywall/osb/ply/mdf/etc and I could still close the rear gate. I always got chuckles from guys awkwardly wrangling/securing sheets onto a pickup’s bed at the supply yard when I’d easily slide the sheets off the cart directly into the van by myself.

A heavy duty pickup makes sense when you have regular towing, or large bulky transport, needs. While on this topic, I’ll take a moment to lament the demise of the light duty pickup that provided a bit of extra utility while still fitting in a normal parking space.

But I believe most vans on the market have an AWD option. Ford Transit and Volkswagen IDBuzz both offer AWD. Toyota’s Sienna is (only?) AWD with a silly lifted trim for the off-roading soccer mom market. Chrysler’s van is AWD.

That leaves the ProMaster as the only two wheeler I’m certain about. Mazda and Kia also have vans, unsure about their drivetrain options. Did I leave anyone out?

Couple years ago I was driving through Arizona during a massive blizzard. Everyone's doing 15, and I'm doing 50 - taking things slow and careful because of the traffic.

I had people in vests standing out in the road waving at me trying to get me to slow down! And I'm going "What in the hell are you doing out in the road!? Don't you know this is a blizzard!"

I grew up in Alaska, we laugh at the snow :)

And, like you said, people think that an AWD car will stop faster. No, it'll just start moving faster, more traction doesn't make the brakes better or the road any less slippery.

I owned a single 4WD car and it was super fun in the winter, but... when it's icy, you're most likely moving faster than you would be with a 2wd, which again results in some heart palpitations when you're trying to stay on the road =)

The only people I know who think this way are made up people who exist only in the minds of people seeking to validate a purchasing decision.

I would’ve stopped to help, but I was concerned that if I lost momentum, I wouldn’t get going again.

Don't forget the people who just want to sneer at other people in ill-considered condescension! Plenty of that from the "the world outside the Bay Area and NYC isn't real and none of those people exist" folks.

What does more traction mean unless it's that the road is effectively less slippery (to my vehicle)?

> AWD inspires more confidence

Stop and work backwards and ask yourself why that is rather than doing the Principal Skinner "no everyone else is wrong" routine. In practice, all seasons on an AWD car result in less slipping around than snow tires on a FWD car. Heck, if the difference where anywhere near close everyone rich enough to have a new car would probably have snow tires because the dealership or tire shop would be able to make that sale. The reason they can't is because in people's experience they're just not necessary.

Stupid internet circle jerks about stopping distance are not the pain point or performance bottleneck for the average user. The degree to which you can enter/exit a side street that has snow plowed in front of it, navigate a steep and poorly plowed driveway, park in an unplowed space, cross the slush between lanes on a main roads or highway, those are what "real users" care about and they're where AWD shines.

>but once you are, every car still only has 2 wheels to turn and 4 to stop, which are quite possibly more crucial in snow..

These trope needs to be taken out back and shot. Regardless of your tire type the amount of traction available in snow conditions is such that "not being stupid enough to come into a situation too hot" is the dominant factor in overall outcome in braking/turning situations. Snow tires are an incremental improvement, not a categorical one. And the difference between a wet road and a snowy one is very much a categorical one.

AWD is the right choice for the statistical average person or "casual user" who's snow experience is dominated by somewhat plowed, somewhat churned snow/slush roads and is already driving incredibly conservatively. If you're driving on a frozen lake all the time like in the tire commercials or live somewhere rural and drive on a ton of fresh snow, by all means get the snow tires. But most people aren't, in that category they're better served by some random crossover and not thinking about it. And if you are one of those people, then spend a little more and get something with studs for all the ice you're inevitably also encountering.

Uh, it should be? The ability to confidently stop is far more important than to go. If you can’t get going, you’re not in a wreck. If you can’t stop, well…

You also missed another key reason to get snow tires: many (most?) vehicles do not come with AWD even as an option. Telling someone to trade their Civic in for a CR-V just so they can get AWD isn’t sensible, when they could mount snow tires and get a significant traction boost.

First off, this is the principal skinner "everyone else is wrong" take.

Second, it's just not how things work in practice. In practice what happens if you have a FWD car that can't "just go" you wind up driving way harder to make up for it. Stuff like hitting hills at speed and trying to take on-ramps at the limit of traction because you are having to work around the limitation of being unable to actually put power to the ground when you need to. Say nothing of all the sketchy situations that happen at the margin of that (backing down a hill you couldn't go up, getting stuck less than graceful merges, etc).

>You also missed another key reason to get snow tires: many (most?) vehicles do not come with AWD even as an option

I don't think that's anywhere near true for the US market.

Most companies prefer vans over trucks. Much better economics.

Either AWD/4wd is necessary when you're going to other people's property because you can't guarantee any given property isn't an icy shithole and when you're a professional being paid by them to be there for a specific purpose the last thing you wanna do is slip out trying to do a 25-point turn on their stupid sloped driveway and put a tire in the landscaping.

Even in cold parts of the US your hvac or plumber is going to be using something like a transit. Very few trade jobs opt for a truck. They don’t make economic sense and impossible to secure anything in the bed.

Sure landscaping crews can utilize trucks but even then, your mowing operation can get more value from a transit style van if they are only using pus mowers.

Maybe it’s just in my neck of the woods but if you cannot get up or down a hill because a homeowner does not clear their driveway then it’s a no go. Very acceptable boundary.

I've never seen or known a trademan that drove a van. They all drive pickups. Maybe this is a regional thing.

I am quite surprised to hear you have never seen an electrician use a van. That said there are certainly specialities where it’s more common.

90% of trade work is all on pavement and trucks suck for tools. If you are a logger yeah sure you may be using a truck to get to your equipment, similarly for lineman but for the vast majority of trade jobs companies opt for commercial vans. You are describing trade work like it’s the tv show landman.

Pickups are absolutely a regional affectation. I kinda want one, but I do not need one.

It could also be just a further deal with Quigley. You can already order from a dealer with the 4x4 option, and your vehicle will go factory->Quigley->dealer and be sold to you as "new", with good warranties.

I grew up in Minnesota driving rear wheel drive cars to start. They worked fine even in the olden days where plows would take a couple days to clear the country backroads and even rock salt was applied sparingly due to the expense.

Not a single one of my vehicles had winter tires - all seasons were perfectly serviceable. You’d get stuck once in a great while but that’s what the bag of sand and shovel in the trunk were for.

Front wheel drive came along and made it easy mode.

All wheel drive is certainly something I love these days, but it’s an extreme luxury that makes winter driving laughably easy.

A basic utilitarian work vehicle does not need to be 4WD in 90% or likely even 99% of use cases anywhere in the country.

Only in the most strictly technical "I'm not touching you" sense.

Either AWD/4wd is necessary-ish when you're going to other people's property because you can't guarantee any given property isn't an icy shithole and when you're a professional being paid by them to be there for a specific purpose the last thing you wanna do is slip out trying to do a 25-point turn on their stupid sloped driveway and put a tire in the landscaping.

Even if it's some megacorp's facility that "should" be plowed and salted, it might not be when you show up at 6am on the dot to service something.

>I grew up in Minnesota driving rear wheel drive cars to start. They worked fine even in the olden days where plows would take a couple days to clear the country backroads and even rock salt was applied sparingly due to the expense.

>Not a single one of my vehicles had winter tires - all seasons were perfectly serviceable. You’d get stuck once in a great while but that’s what the bag of sand and shovel in the trunk were for.

I completely agree but the past isn't coming back. Those standards of performance are unfortunately no longer acceptable, especially in business settings.

The average contractor servicing suburban and exurban properties in a work van is going to be able to trivially navigate 95% of all snowfalls with FWD with a modicum of winter driving skills. It's just not that hard, and very few places get the type of snow that requires a fully off road capable vehicle.

If I lived in the mountains of Colorado and servicing ranches or something of course I'd be buying for those conditions. But a standard city in the northern US or Canada? Meh. Total waste of money for a fleet vehicle. These sorts of locations are where something like 99% of all vehicle miles are put on.

For personal use now that I can afford it? AWD is on all my vehicles. It's a magical technology since it allows turning your brain off, and making some situations comically easy to navigate. But I'm not optimizing for cost efficiency or practicality there - I'm optimizing for luxury and convenience.

I'm not talking about places that can be written off because "the boonies are a rounding error".

I'm talking about some guy who owns a plumbing business in Boston and wants to reduce the number of days per year that conditions make things sketchy. $3k per truck or $4k per van is absolutely chump change compared to the PITA of having to add more buffer to winter scheduling to account for delays and inconvenience.

>for personal use now that I can afford it? AWD is on all my vehicles. It's a magical technology since it allows turning your brain off, and making some situations comically easy to navigate. But I'm not optimizing for cost efficiency or practicality there - I'm optimizing for luxury and convenience.

Baffling that someone who readily admits that "you can turn your brain off" doesn't see why people who either have to drive their own work vehicle every day, or put a vehicle in the hands of an employee wouldn't value that even higher.

I miss the hell out of my '82 Chevrolet S10 with extended cab and two-tone paint job. The extended cab isn't going to be used for hauling the soccer team, but I could put it was plenty of space for "inside only" cargo. Damn thing threw a rod and cracked the case, and I never could convince my parents to keep it and put a new engine in it. I'd like to think I'd still own it today if they had.

USA seemingly can't sell small or base trim cars.

Product of mfrs cheating CAFE standards.

Half these people still choose to buy the vehicle they do for insane and superficial reasons like "It's got a Hemi", like my uncle, even though Hemispherical combustion chambers haven't been state of the art or even good ICE technology in decades.

For the "I need to sometimes pick up large objects" use case it's hard to beat.

Sedan handles 99% of my driving, but can't really tow anything. Truck handles all of my towing stuff, but gets ~14mpg which hurts so I don't drive it.

Jeep is a jeep, it's always being worked on, but when I use it I'm using it to go ride around on dirt paths or for camping. It gets 17-20mpg when I'm driving it but I don't want to drive it often.

If the jeep was a 2000's series jeep I would totally just get a small trailer for the occasional towing things that I do with the pickup and downsize to 2 vehicles. I know I could rent a uhaul from time to time for about what I pay for insuring and titling the truck, but the $100 annual difference is worth it for the convenience of not having to deal with uhaul 4 times a year.

But I said all of that to say, that a hitch isn't a perfect solution for everyone. I would feel very uncomfortable towing an empty 4x6 trailer behind my sedan, not to even mention the occasional couch or dresser or bunch of boxes from helping a friend move.

The 2 door model unfortunately has a pretty weak tow rating of 1 ton, and I'm fairly certain I have gone well over that a few times. IIRC the four door models a few years later took that up to 5000 lbs because of the extra length.

Why? 1500 lbs rated tow hook on an average sedan should be no problem at all. And that's more than enough for a 4x6 with a couch and a couple of boxes. Might even get a slightly larger trailer so you don't have to take the couch apart.

I've towed 14' sailboats including all gear behind a Corolla, didn't even feel the trailer was there.

So I replaced it with a 5x8 trailer, which anymore gets pulled behind a Chevy Volt. I'd hesitate to load it to the max and take it on the thruway, but for most of my tasks it's actually more convenient than the truck. Loading up a riding lawn mower or a few hundred pounds of scrap metal is way easier with it being closer to the ground, and I'm mostly driving 10-15 miles over back roads so if I'm worried the load is too heavy for the compact car I don't mind taking it a little slow.

Also, it's convenient to load it while it's unhooked, piling in garbage and debris over a week or a weekend and then hooking it up to run to the dump; likewise, just unhooking the trailer full of construction materials and (weather permitting) just unloading it as you build.

I occasionally miss being able to drive it into the woods, but to be honest not being able to parallel park the trailer is a bigger inconvenience than not being able to off-road it.

[0] Since having kids I've come around on the second-row-of-seats/short bed trade-off; not being able to pick up dimensional lumber with kids in tow is way more limiting in my current phase of life than not being able to fit it in the bed with the tailgate up.

People mostly still do it though, because it's cheap and easy to do.

With an Impreza.

That included highways in the Yukon that were more river rock than gravel, backwoods of Montana and Wyoming, you name it.

It was totally fine. Especially in a Subaru, with AWD and a low well centered center of gravity. I'd do it again.

Yeah, everything about it is "solid". The longblock will theoretically go a million miles but you're gonna replace every part around it to get it there. I'm sure they're fine when new but as they age it's basically the same "replacing way too much BS because while nice it's over engineered" as the rest of german car ownership.

Source: semi responsible for keeping one running

Vans are way better in almost every regard.

Actually, I'm buying a house with a garage and I may get a bike trailer, and a tow hitch for my BMW. That would be an even simpler solution

Source: own minivan

Ironically, the Honda Ridgeline - long lambasted as “not a real truck” - can fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood, at least width-wise. You’ll have to either prop it up on the tailgate, or drop it and strap it down (which honestly you should do either way), but it will fit between the wheels.

I love my Ridgelines; had a Gen1 RTL, and now a Gen2 BE. A neighbor I used to have traded his F-150 for an F-350. The most I ever saw him haul was a very small trailer with some furniture. I’ve had a cubic yard of mulch dumped into mine repeatedly (a Gen1 Ridgeline will hold and haul this, but it’s heaped, and depending on moisture content it’s slightly over max rating, so maybe don’t bring a passenger).

After deciding to replace it, we struggled to decide what kind of vehicle to upgrade to. For our lifestyle and the side projects I like to do, another minivan was the obvious choice. Now it's a 2018 Pacifica and we're retired. The quality is outstanding, with 112K miles on it, I expect to put on another 100K before seeing what's available for the next upgrade. None of these vans ever gave us any engine or transmission trouble, despite the high number of miles I was able to put on them.

Remind me of my favorite article title: In the land of the free, why can’t we have mini-pickup trucks like the Taliban and ISIS?[0]

[0]: https://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dion-lefler...

First of all I'm not convinced that the utility of the trucks is mostly unused. This seems like a trope from anticar people. But second of all and more concretely, I've done a lot of trade work that would have simply not worked in a van, so seeing your common sentiment is always bemusing.

Funny story, the guys who demolished an old bathroom for us hauled the crap & dust away in a very dirty beater van (either a small cargo van or a minivan with rear seating removed, can't remember). It was their designated demolition vehicle.

There are only two trades that use sheet goods: drywall and carpentry. Most of the time they’re getting dozens or hundreds of sheets delivered to a job site.

What are you going to do with (12) 32 sq ft pieces of sheet goods anyways, put up drywall in a half of a bedroom or reroof a quarter of a garage?

If you really want to do this, you’ll get a roof rack for hauling sheet goods.

(Same bed-size as Tacoma; midgate that folds down to hold a full sheet of plywood; seats 4 people comfortably; same length as a Mini Cooper SE).

I saw the movie in the theater and, at the time, found it strange that anyone would have a work vehicle as a dream car.

Not really true. Something like an F150/250/350 is absolutely built for utility. It's popular for a reason. It's just not used for utility by a large number of buyers. It's a "pavement princess".

The Cybertruck is an objectively bad product for many reasons of which utility is pretty high up there.

For example, it's really heavy because of the steel body yet it has an aluminium frame. The problem with aluminium is that it deforms with stress in a way that steel doesn't. Why does this matter? If you're towing a heavy load over rough terrain the frame is going to face large forces up and down that will end up snapping that frame.

> It's the suburban equivalent of a yuppie's Rolex Submariner.

That's a funny example because it shows you know just as much about watches as you do about trucks, which is to say nothing.

Sure, finance bros might buy Submariners but that doesn't change the fact that it's a very robust product designed for diving, originally. Now the need for that has been diminished because we now have dive computers, quartz dive watches and such and you can argue it's not worth ~$10k or that there as good or better options for less (which there are) but it's still an excellent product with many years of design to suit its original purpose.

Even if you use a dive computer as an experienced diver, you'll generally also have a dive watch because computers can fail [1].

> I say all of that to say that making a pickup truck for that market segment isn't a bad idea from a numbers perspective

So we have luxury SUVs where once the SUV was a commercial vehicle (eg Toyota Land Cruiser) and they may sacrifice some of the features such vehicles originally had (eg AWD) but the trades are made for a product that people want.

So yes, you could make an equivalent truck and say it has a market. Maybe it does. But even if it does, the Cybertruck isn't it. Because it's a terrible product for every purpose other than an expensive demonstration of your political leanings.

[1]: https://www.analogshift.com/blogs/transmissions/watches-for-...

Nice ad hominem. No diver is buying a Submariner specifically as a backup for their dive computer for the exact reasons that you went on to outline in your post. It's a textbook Veblen good. The Chinese can build a mechanical Sub clone that keeps the same time as a real one for $100. Swatch (via Omega) builds a more technically-impressive dive watch at a fraction of the price. Oris makes one with an analog depth gauge for even less than the SMP. All of them are more inaccurate and less reliable than anything quartz or digital.

Rolexes stopped being tool watches a few years into their post-Quartz crisis recovery. My GC buddy drives a Tundra. Fleets of white collar workers drive Crew Cab F-150s with wheels more expensive than the worthless Regular Cab I had years ago. No need to get twisted up about it.

I love it. Full-flat back allows for camping in your car (I'm just over 6 feet tall.) Three bicycles and three people can fit. Wood, tools, DIY... And it is tiny, so it is easy to drive and park.

It doesn't like driving faster than about 110km/hr, but that's good enough for me.

The utilitarian trucks you are talking about are k-trucks, or kei-trucks. "Kei" just means "lightweight."

In Japan, they are refered to as "kei-tora": 軽トラ

"I guessed that 98% of all truck beds are empty"

"In 25 minutes I had counted 150 trucks, and 99 of them had been empty. This 66% empty ratio was much lower than I had expected. I hadn't realized that so many trucks were being so successfully utilized."

"The results were similar: 39% of the trucks were hauling goods, and 61 of them were empty"

"Along with this adjustment of my perception, I also realized that an empty truck is no more wasteful than an empty back seat. Most cars AND trucks in the US drive around with 75% of the cargo space unutilized...what difference does it make if it is interior or exterior space?"

https://cockeyed.com/science/data/truck_beds/truck_beds.html

People using truck for work (tradesman etc) do it all thorough the day. People who just use it as status symbol get to work and back from work at given hour. Also probably more usage in weekend when people doing weekend project go shop and people not doing that don't even get out on the longer trips.

Sitting on one road for an hour (and looking at photos, far from peak traffic) is near meaningless

Reading the HN version of truck drivers is such a stark contrast to interfacing with actually contractors on a day to day basis.

A vehicle being comfortable and luxurious isn’t something only the bourgeoisie can appreciate. People who work spend a lot of time in their vehicles too.

As you say though I do see trades workers with the fancy pickup trucks (often with a trailer, cant scratch that bed paint aha) which I attribute to low interest on auto loans and poor business sense.

Certain jobs in certain trades, not all of them

> and a 80k f150 platinum

Base F150 starts at half that. This is silly

Correct, which is why I used said most trades and not all trades

> Base F150 starts at half that. This is silly

The average new vehicle price in the US is 50k, people are not buying the base model.

$50K is much closer to the $40K base model than the $80K platinum model.

Everyone loves to cite the platinum model as if all the contractors or CEOs or whoever were bashing today are driving it, but most people are not buying the most expensive models.

Half of the vehicles are below 50k.

This is a textbook example of a case where median would be better.

No it isn't [1].

> There seems to be no limit these days to how lavishly equipped, not to mention expensive, full-size standard-duty pickup trucks have become at the upper reaches of their respective model lines. [...] They’re brash and uniquely American alternatives to fine-tuned European luxury SUVs. For those keeping score, Kelley Blue Book says the average full-size pickup sold for $66,386 last month, due in large part to the growing popularity of such upscale models.

Sixty. Six. Thousand. Dollars.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2026/01/14/the-cos...

The online crowd has such a love for sprinter vans, I don't see anyone talking about them except a very small group.

The people around me have F250s + a trailer twice the size of a small sprinter. They can work and have a small house behind them when needed.

Sprinter/Transit will NOT replace F250s.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/opinion/marie-gluesenkamp...

<blockquote>

“Spreadsheets can contain a part of truth,” Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez told me. “But never all of truth.”

Looking to illustrate this, I bought the recent book “White Rural Rage” and opened it more or less at random to a passage about rural pickup trucks. It cites a rich portfolio of data and even a scholarly expert on the psychology of truck purchasers, to make what might seem like an obvious point — that it’s inefficient and deluded for rural and suburban men to choose trucks as their daily driving vehicles. The passage never does explain, though, how you’re supposed to haul an elk carcass or pull a cargo trailer without one.

It’s all but impossible to go into any rural bar in America today, ask for thoughts on pickup trucks and not hear complaints about the size of trucks these days, about touch-screens and silly gimmicks manufacturers use to justify their ballooning prices. Our economy, awash in cheap capital, has turned quality used trucks into something like a luxury asset class.

It’s often more affordable in the near-term to buy a new truck than a reliable used one. Manufacturers are incentivized by federal regulations, and by the basic imperatives of the thing economy, to produce ever-bigger trucks for ever-higher prices to lock people into a cycle of consumption and debt that often lasts a lifetime.

This looks like progress, in G.D.P. figures, but we are rapidly grinding away the freedom and agency once afforded by the ability to buy a good, reasonable-size truck that you could work on yourself and own fully. You can learn a lot about why people feel so alienated in our economy if you ask around about the pickup truck market.

Instead, the authors of “White Rural Rage” consulted data and an expert to argue that driving a pickup reflects a desire to “stay atop society’s hierarchy,” but they do not actually try to reckon much with the problem that passage raises — that consumer choices, such as buying trucks, have become a way for many Americans to express the deep attachment they have to a life rooted in the physical world. A reader might conclude that people who want a vehicle to pull a boat or haul mulch are misguided, or even dangerous. And a party led by people who believe that is doomed among rural voters, the Midwestern working class and probably American men in general.

</blockquote>

Would you believe that moose are also hunted in places that have very few pickups?

It can be that but all the major manufacturers have a ton of trim levels and options. Personally I drive a f150 that doesn't even have power windows.

Most Cybertrucks I've seen in the wild are running at a low ground clearance, reminiscent of a 'coupe utility' vehicle like an El Camino.

It's a big car platform with a bed. It's the "top of the line" for "car based" pickups like the old Subarus, the Maverick/SantaCruz and Ridgeline.

While it nominally competes with the F150 it doesn't really. Same as how the Ridgeline nominally competes with the Ranger, but doesn't really.

I think it's a real shame the cyber truck never took off. While gimmicky I think the longevity of it's absolutely stupid thick(er than typical) gauge stainless body would have put pressure on other OEMs to stop building shitty truck beds that dent and rust if you look at them funy.

The difference is that the Submariner can actually be used as a dive watch. If it turned to fail significantly more often than other dive watches underwater, people would be much less inclined to buy it even though it would literally make no difference for them.

Are you suggesting that modern trucks can’t be used as trucks?

There are some good EV trucks out there. The Cybertruck is kind of uniquely bad because they tried so hard to make it unique and funny looking.

There are millions of workers carrying tools, parts, supplies, and refuse in pickup trucks. Where I live (rural), almost everyone has a truck, and it is for work, not show.

And in cities, as I walk around neighbourhoods, I see endless roofers, plumbers, builders, gardeners, and more using them for work.

Cybertruck is a product management failure.

A working truck should be max utility. Around the core market of "working trucks," there are various wannabe truck products that do not have to be max utility. For example, a Subaru Brat or a Hyundai Santa Fe. Niche products compared to an F-150, but they had/have their fans.

I personally can't stand the design, but the idea of an impractical "halo vehicle" that appeals to a niche audience but burnishes the brand as "forward-looking" is not a bad one. It's just the execution of this particular halo vehicle that I would have a problem with were I in the market for a lifestyle look-at-me vehicle.

    A *working* truck should be max utility.

I was in the market for a pickup recently. I had wanted to like the Cybertruck, but ... too damn ugly, too version 0.3, too many dweebs driving them, too many teething issues even for a first cut. Plus it's as heavy as an F-250. There's almost no actual reason to grab one besides it being electric. Since I drive so little, I'd never pay back the embedded energy it takes to make the thing - so even that isn't a selling point.

So instead I got a used Tacoma, and disappeared into the ocean of Tacomas that exist here in the PNW. It could be worse :)

If you use a truck for work purposes once a year it is likely cheaper to just drive a truck for everything than have a second car. Don't say rent a truck is an option - you probably can't rent a truck for most work purposes - most rentals have fine print against that, even if you can find a place to rent a truck the cost quickly gets to more than just owning your own truck.

And if your needs are more ambitious, there’s Sunbelt Rentals through much of the country and Enterprise’s Trucks arm as opposed to their more consumer-familiar operation.

If I’m using it once a year, I’ll splurge for a bigass 1 ton 4x4 which Enterprise Trucks is currently listing for $139 a day including 150 miles… and in 100 years, have spent the $13,900 difference between a dweeby little smarte car and owning my own pickup

Not that there’s the least thing wrong with just preferring to own one, just options that I wish I’d known about earlier in life.

I haven't see the contract with enterprise trucks, but I suspect it is similarity restricted against the type of damage this is normal from using a truck for work. You can at least tow a trailer with them. Their locations are not convenient for me either.

EDIT: I realized I have plenty of these contracts archived and don't need to believe HN conspiracy theorists:

(a) Use Restrictions. The following restrictions apply to the use of the Vehicle:

• The Vehicle will not be operated by anyone who is not an Authorized Driver;

• All occupants in the Vehicle must comply with seat-belt and child-restraint laws;

• The number of passengers in the Vehicle will not exceed the number of seat-belts and child-restraints;

• Renter will only operate the Vehicle on regularly maintained roadways;

• Renter will ensure that keys are not left in the Vehicle and will close and lock all doors and windows upon exiting the Vehicle;

• Renter will not (i) transport people or property for hire; (ii) tow anything (with the exception of an attached trailer if rented pursuant to this Agreement); (iii) carry or transport hazardous or explosive substances; (iv) engage in a speed contest; or (v) load the Vehicle or transport weight exceeding the Vehicle’s maximum capacity;

• Renter will not engage in reckless misconduct which causes the Vehicle damages or causes personal injury or property damage; and

• Renter will not use the Vehicle for the commission of a felony or for the transportation of illegal drugs or contraband.

So unless you are trying to reuse the vehicle for hire or tow a non-Home-Depot trailer (which I admit is kind of restrictive, but nothing like what the parent post says), it seems fine.

I’m actually far from a pickup truck hater; they certainly have their place (my parents live in a rural area and I can’t really see them not having one), and I occasionally miss owning one, but I’ve never managed to make the economics come even close to balancing out vs. renting for myself.

    even if you can find a place to rent a truck the cost quickly gets to more than
    just owning your own truck.

Normal-sized pickups aren't meant for offroading.

A decent SUV can get you by in a pinch. A “normal sized” truck, is exactly what you take off road - yes you might have to do some modding, upgrades, but I don’t understand this take. And I’ve been around many a truck at the top of a gnarly mountain.

I must be misunderstanding what you’re saying here. Even rock crawlers aren’t typically using F250 and larger truck sizes.

That is a fully electric drive train hybrid. That way you can charge it at home and charge it with a generator under use. Problem is our current laws are making certifications a mess.

> It’s all but impossible to go into any rural bar in America today, ask for thoughts on pickup trucks and not hear complaints about the size of trucks these days, about touch-screens and silly gimmicks manufacturers use to justify their ballooning prices. Our economy, awash in cheap capital, has turned quality used trucks into something like a luxury asset class.

> It’s often more affordable in the near-term to buy a new truck than a reliable used one. Manufacturers are incentivized by federal regulations, and by the basic imperatives of the thing economy, to produce ever-bigger trucks for ever-higher prices to lock people into a cycle of consumption and debt that often lasts a lifetime.

> This looks like progress, in G.D.P. figures, but we are rapidly grinding away the freedom and agency once afforded by the ability to buy a good, reasonable-size truck that you could work on yourself and own fully. You can learn a lot about why people feel so alienated in our economy if you ask around about the pickup truck market.

> Instead, the authors of “White Rural Rage” consulted data and an expert to argue that driving a pickup reflects a desire to “stay atop society’s hierarchy,” but they do not actually try to reckon much with the problem that passage raises — that consumer choices, such as buying trucks, have become a way for many Americans to express the deep attachment they have to a life rooted in the physical world. A reader might conclude that people who want a vehicle to pull a boat or haul mulch are misguided, or even dangerous. And a party led by people who believe that is doomed among rural voters, the Midwestern working class and probably American men in general.

> This approach to politics governed by data and experts is what we mean when we talk about technocracy. It’s a system that no longer really functions today because the broad societal trust that once allowed data and experts to guide political choices has broken down. Democrats, increasingly, live in a world where data and researchers convincingly show that low-wage immigration raises the economy and our gun laws are reckless and misguided.

How about I just conclude that while pulling a boat or hauling mulch are completely OK things to want a vehicle for (*), one does not need a F150 with a front end that reaches my chest and has gas mileage to prove it.

As many have noted, pickups like the 90s Toyotas did these things just fine for almost everyone, but most US based manufacturers have stopped making them.

Me noting that doesn't make me part of the doom of the political party I always vote for.

(*) to the extent that we live in a society where private ownership of vehicles is completely unremarkable, that is. And we do, for the foreseeable future.

Also, there are a lot of boats, RVs and trailers which my 2019 Tacoma absolutely would not have towed successfully.

Did you miss like the entire first half of the quoted passage? Because it kinda sounds like you're judging the people buying the trucks.

One buys from the options the market gives them, and the market often does not optimize for what consumers want. It optimizes for barely tolerable products that maximize profit.

Which kind of makes sense, because it's Gluesenkamp-Perez critiquing a book she opposes.

The Ford Maverick is a smaller vehicle but also a truck. It is a working truck for some, and a rec/handyman vehicle for others.

Really the only thing I think you can ding it for is the small bed. It used to be that trucks this size would have a regular cab or an extended cab with the two tiny side facing seats, and they would have a longer bed. With the tailgate down you can still move sheet goods with a Maverick though.

The Maverick only tows 2000 base, the 4000 is an upgrade package and only for trailers with their own brakes.

RWD is pretty functionally important for a vehicle to maintain control while towing significant weight, as all the weight sits on the back of the frame, and that's where you want the engine power to go.

The Maverick is not a working truck, which was my original point. In terms of what matters, it is worse in every way than a 40 year old design.

You can't really compare the tow ratings with a 1985 Ranger. Back then the ratings were not standardized and were generally inflated for marketing purposes. Today tow ratings are standardized by SAE J2807. The Maverick has way more power than the old Ranger and weighs about 600 lbs more, plus it has trailer sway control. You're going to have a much easier time towing 4000 lbs in the Maverick than the Ranger.

Edit: The Maverick also has 300 lbs more payload capacity than the 1984 Ranger. The fact is, not everyone needs a giant heavy truck. I see loads of tradesmen driving Mavericks.

Grabbed it in '25 with factory warranty still on it for about the price of a new maverick.

The real issue that limits the Maverick for a wider audience is the rear is too small to comfortably fit kids, especially in car seats. Adding 4 in of leg room to the rear and making the whole truck 4 in longer would've made in a great homeowner family option without sacrificing much agility.

I agree that the Maverick's bed is small and the back seat is small. IMO they would have been better off making a regular cab or an "access cab" thing with two doors and fold-down seats, and used the extra length to add to the bed. Those are great if you're single or don't have kids, and you just need to carry passengers very occasionally. If you're regularly hauling kids around you definitely want the next step up. A lot of tradesmen essentially never even use the passenger seat though, and the back seat is just lost bed space unless you're using it for locked storage.

I've seen plenty of people in working clothes driving them, carrying working tools and such.

    It's a car with a bed, not a truck.

How often do you need to pull 2000kg?

Towing weight is also a good proxy for frame strength. I do some light forestry work moving and bucking logs, freeing stuck cars, plowing snow in addition to towing trailers and equipment.

Plus, you can't really put a winch or snow plow on a Sportage.

I always find it kind of surprising how large a vehicle people in the US think they need to pull trailers, especially when you compare with the size of trailers people pull in the UK. My own elderly Range Rover (1990s P38A) has a plated towing weight of 3500kg which means you can pull another one on a trailer with it easily. With the back full of tools and spares and a couple of passengers, you've got an all-up weight well over six tonnes!

Sports cars sure do have negative externalities. I live next to a custom car mod shop in the boonies. People hoon around here like there's no one else alive. They put my life and the lives of my family at risk on the regular. That is most definitely a negative externality.

And there's also wear on the road, noise, and damage to property and people when accidents happen (physics is a bitch).

I think more sports cars are burning out, revving loudly (or getting modified to take out their mufflers), and the damage from going a lot faster creates more damage.

It is true that some sacrifices and brief periods of discomfort must be made if you care for the environment, this is nothing new and generally accepted.

This is a modern society in which we must live and let live. That core value of tolerance, which preserves our personal freedoms, deserves to be weighed as much and more than our shared infrastructure, imo.

The problem is as soon as you go EV, you use a lot of utility from the get go. With a truck specifically, because its a brick aerodynamically. There is no reason to buy a Cybertruck or Lightning when you can get a gas or hybrid F150 (or a Raptor) for a little bit more, and be able to sit at 80 mph on highways without worrying about range.

The biggest suprise about the lightning is that Ford didn't put in a gas engine in it as a range extender. They have 3 cylinder ecoboost engines that would have been perfect for that.

That's probably more relevant to fleet vehicles for construction and maintenance firms than to individuals towing boats. But just to offer an example of how the F150 Lightning is a great fit for certain uses.

7.2kW could run most of my house for days, and it wouldn't be very loud I guess.

Then again, all the construction sites I see these days have mains power on a post, which we never had back then (I don't live in the same state so I don't know if this is universal or just this area has always been different).

Otherwise rural folks often have something to fix on the other side of their property that needs tools. Cordless tools do a lot but sometimes are not enough.

A small generator costs few hundred bucks and fits comfortably in any truck actually used for work. It's a small perk that some pro users would probably pay for, but it's not a selling point for a radically different car design.

For fleet vehicles this is the same story. You have no idea what kinda bullshit circumstances you are going to run into, and investing in EVs is just not worth it at this point when a F150 XLT or XL + Honda generator suffices.

Until that trend flips where fast charging takes the same time as gas station stop (or automakers start putting small gas engines in their vehicles) EVs are always going to lag behind gas vehicles.

The business problem Tesla solved at Ford cannot is the dealer network. He pre-ordered his, and the dealer he was stuck with tried to rip him off like 4 different ways.

The other issue is that car guys are afraid of electric, as the entire supporting industry is essentially obsolete. It's hard to get excited about something that will take away your ability to pay your mortgage. Every car dealer employee and mechanic knows that.

Take for example DVD rental. The market completely evaporated, while there is still a small lingering community that could be serviced by rentals. My local library is proof that there is a market. But there are, bar some weird exceptions, no remaining DVD rental stores.

If an EV needs 50% of the maintenance, then it stands to reason that you need 50% of the staff. That's the easy part. But what about all the other staff? Can you afford as many staff in front of house when your main profit centre shrank massively? Can you keep the same amount of cars in the lot if you don't have the cash to pay the manufacturer fees?

This is dependent on how you drive them. EVs are fun, so you get a disproportionate number of people driving them aggressively. That's hard on tires. If you drive normal, you get normal tire life.

It's not bad for consumers, but a significant amount of the economy is maintaining cars. It's the same thing that happened when emissions standards made cars more reliable. The corner repair shop was displaced by convenience stores, and repair consolidated.

They announced that along with the EV Lightning cancellation: https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2025/next-ge...

You also burn gasoline faster when going faster, since it all comes down to wind resistance. You don't really notice more or longer stops when going 80 vs 60, maybe an extra 3-5 min for every 4hrs of driving which just means you don't have to rush eating your meal or going to the bathroom. What you do notice is not having to pay nearly as much attention while FSD is running, and the smoothness of the ride.

I do own a cybertruck so I'm a bit biased, but I use the bed pretty much every weekend, don't live in a place with 75mph highways, and I've driven many gas cars before this- pickups, sedans, and SUVs. I'm not sure why you're trying to explain to me how my car works, or how it compares to other ones I've driven.

From a manufacturing perspective, adding a range extender does add a lot of cost and complexity. And from an ownership perspective it adds a lot of service, maintenance and reliability considerations that you don't have with a pure EV.

But in any case, this is exactly what they're doing: replacing the Lightning with a range extender ("EREV") plug-in hybrid. But a new all-electric truck based on Ford's upcoming, cheaper "Universal EV platform" is also due in 2027.

Except the main demographic buying F150s is suburban dads driving to their office job.

It did make his reckless driving more dangerous for the innocents, though.

America is so full of hoarding and objects that go years without anyone touching them. It's profoundly sad.

you’re right.

but I’m still not changing my habits. fuck the environment

The primary limiter is on how many resources we give people.

I've lived in parts of the US where I doubt more than 10% of pickup trucks on the road (and there were a lot of them) were really justifiable purchases as trucks. They were aspirational purchases, and/or were selected for status/class/politics signaling.

I've lived other places in the US where the whole region had far fewer trucks (but a hell of a lot more Volvos... like, easily 10x as many as the other place) where I bet at least 50% of pickup trucks saw enough truck-use to really be justifiable.

I want whatever the v3 equivalent of the Cybertruk would be. Assuming they improve on it.

I strongly considered a Model S years ago when they first came out, but the price just didn't seem justifiable. Now? The world has moved on, and Tesla... hasn't.

If you were looking for a cheap car, why look at the model S? The 3 and Y were designed for that. It seems that you're not part of the world that's been moving on, the only updates you care about are ones that bring no real news.

> A pickup truck should just be max utility You don't know much about trucks? What does this even mean, max utility? Trucks are designed for different purposes. Should we eliminate all programming languages besides bash or python?

> especially if you're a manufacturer making your first one Seems like you don't know much about business either. Most new products should NOT try to do everything at once the first time.

I don't think this is actually true, most pickup trucks aren't designed for maximum utility. They're designed to sell a lifestyle.

Pickups are a little bit interesting in this regard. For any given model (eg: Tacoma, Frontier, etc.) the more premium the truck, the worse it is at being a truck. Each feature you add reduces its payload, and in the case of the Frontier, you could drop from a 6' bed with ~1,600 lbs of payload on the base model all the way down to a 5' bed with ~900 lbs of payload for the most premium offroad model.

It’s neither convenient nor cheap to rent a trailer in much of the US. Major cities have options, rural areas less so. Full disclosure I have a mid-sized pickup, but I recently looked into renting a trailer for a landscaping project that was above the weight limit for my truck. First issue I ran into was that there were not any trailers available for rent anywhere near my location. Second issue was that after factoring in driving distance + rental cost + dump fees, it was ~ the same price just to pay a junk company to haul the materials…and it was not cheap. Anecdotally, my pickup was cheaper than most other vehicle options at the time I bought it, my commute is short (so fuel economy is less an issue), and as a homeowner I use the bed to haul something at least once/month (Unfortunately kei trucks weren’t available at the time). So the cost/benefit/convenience factor of owning a truck over renting a trailer works for me. YMMV.

However, the most likely place to rent a pickup from (U-Haul) does not allow this.

Truck works well for those role because it can do so much. It isn't the best for most of those, but it can do them.

Jokes aside I could purchase a new hatchback and a small old Kei truck for a fraction of the cost of something like an f150

Quieter than the other way around.

However, they are TINY inside. If you are taller 6'1" and/or heavier than 200lbs, it is a tight squeeze, especially for anything longer than 30 minutes. The "average American" can't fit it a kei truck.

Also, the weird manliness of the average American man would make this truck unsuccessful, simply because it is too small. Which is hilarious, because some of the most resourceful, strongest, reliable and adventurous men I have met drive kei trucks.

I guess finally, the big highways with longhaul trucks and fast speeds are not so good in a k-truck.

The Slate is utilitarian, but remains to be seen if it actually ships. https://www.slate.auto/en

No way does the length check out though. I haul lumber in a similar size car and 8ft is basically trunk to dash so there's no way he's hauling an 8ft by 4ft sheet without it conflicting with the driver's seat if not torso.

Individual boards should fit in just about anything though.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a45752401/toyotas-10000...

wouldn't fly due to chicken tax + other safety and emissions. they plan on selling em in Mexico tho, so maybe we'll see some float up...

What makes you say this? The F-150 series has a pretty serviceable option in their XL trim. 8ft bed, 4x4, "dumb" interior (maybe not, looking at their site looks like the most recent is iPad screen, sigh) - but what else would you look for to call it utilitarian?

You're right that each feature is further limiting, but I would argue premium and utilitarian are reaching for opposite goals.

Any OEM will happily sell you a white vinyl floor half ton with your preferred cab/bed/engine/drivetrain configuration.

The GMC 4cyl 1500s were stupid cheap for awhile, because they shat out a bunch for CAFE and weren't selling so they were going for like 25-30k going into the new model year. I wanna say this was 2024 into 25, maybe 23 into 24, idk.

Ford Maverick seems to fit the bill for compact stuff though I suspect it may make the goalposts zip to "single cab option" and "body on frame"

I drive a wagon. Of course wagon owners talk about the utility. And yet, you can buy a wagon with a twin-turbo V8 engine. What's the "sportwagon" segment all about? Certainly not going to Home Depot to buy four toilets for the new house, it's about putting your $15,000 Cannondale Black Ink MTB on the roof and swanking up to the trailhead.

In reality ideal utility is likely found in the shape of a 2008 Toyota Camry and a U-Haul truck rental when necessary.

buy yourself a gently used 2019 Camry

Last weekend I hauled ~700lb of rebar on the roof (because they come in 20ft sticks so the wagon is the best choice). The number of dirty looks I got was off the charts. The same exact demographics that are in here shitting on pickups were judging me for not using one. Good thing I don't give a shit what anyone else thinks.

I also do not allow my lifted pickup and Model Y neighbours to choose my vehicle for me.

Yes, but that lifestyle can and sometimes does include actual needs for some of the utility. There is a great observation from Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from Washington’s 3rd District in an NYT piece a couple of days ago. I included a perhaps too long quote in lieu of apologizing for the paywall.

> “Spreadsheets can contain a part of truth,” Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez told me. “But never all of truth.”

> Looking to illustrate this, I bought the recent book “White Rural Rage” and opened it more or less at random to a passage about rural pickup trucks. It cites a rich portfolio of data and even a scholarly expert on the psychology of truck purchasers, to make what might seem like an obvious point — that it’s inefficient and deluded for rural and suburban men to choose trucks as their daily driving vehicles. The passage never does explain, though, how you’re supposed to haul an elk carcass or pull a cargo trailer without one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/opinion/marie-gluesenkamp...

Everybody knows why you bought the katana. We know you have a story to tell yourself, it's just not convincing.

I don't think most people realize how expensive and time consuming tool rental is.

This is where things also get kind of messy in the US. In manicured suburbs you probably don't need a chainsaw. But in older growth and places with larger lots you really do need one. If you wait till you need one after a big storm, you may travel 100 miles out of the storm damage to find one to rent or have to wait for weeks as your driveway is blocked and contractors are booked up.

For me the utility function is somewhere in between a car and a truck, hence why I have an SUV. I can carry the large boxes/items I seem to have at a regular basis. When I need something bigger I can rent a trailer to hook to it. Trucks themselves are way too expensive now, and I don't need that much capacity. A car would have me constantly renting or borrowing one from someone else (which I did when I owned a car and it was a pain in the ass).

The big box store in our town doesn't rent tools or vehicles. You have to drive 45-60 minutes to get to a store that does. This means the 4 hour rental prices (which for something like a wood chipper or chain saw might be sufficient for a lot of jobs) become nearly non-viable or highly stressful rushing through unfamiliar power equipment that really shouldn't be rushed.

A full day tool rental is often 1/3 to 1/2 of the price of a new mass market version of the tool. A week rental is almost always more. The tools are rarely in great shape. You are almost always way better off going to an estate sale or local marketplace and buying a used tool. If there is a job you end up doing 2-3 times or need for more than a week its even cost effective to just buy new ones. You save so much on labor doing things yourself that even with new tools you basically always come out ahead.

The best case is that you have a community run tool library that lets you check stuff out cheaply for a week and can have a relationship with the folks that run it. Similarly, getting to know the neighbors and being able to swap/borrow stuff. For vehicles this is a little more dicey because of liability & insurance issues.

We've definitely struggled with the vehicle for long and sheet goods. We really don't need a pickup truck and it would honestly be a hazard on skinny mountain roads... but we do need to move lumber, sheet goods, appliance sized things just enough that it's a pain without one. We settled on a midsized SUV with passable towing power (as an aside, EV power and control makes towing a breeze as long as your round trip fits in one charge). Renting a trailer is still annoying, but at least can be done close by. For larger orders delivery can sometimes be cost effective (vs renting a vehicle or buying and maintaining a truck) especially because places often subsidize delivery to win business.

For sure. I had to dig some post holes in limestone that was very hard. Rental was going to be $200 for a tool that would do it in a day.

Instead I went to harbor freight and bought a tool closer to $100 even though it took me a bit longer, and I get to keep the tool which is still working to this day.

Heh, and labor costs in the Austin area are off the hook. I did a project for around $5000 that a neighbor had a similar but smaller in scope project quoted for $21,000.

Same with truck rentals.

I’ve wasted so much time trying to track down which location near me has one available on the exact day I want to do major yard work. Often I have to reschedule my work or plan out super far in advance. Or take a day off during the week because everyone else also wants to rent trucks on the weekend. Then I’m running against the clock the whole time.

An extra $100-$200 a month car payment to have a truck instead of a crossover is totally worth it.

That's very unrealistic considering the market.

Yet we are in a thread where one with max utility has been cancelled and one flop of the century continues to sell.

As the owner of a rusty 1985 pickup with manual windows and no radio, I can tell you there is great demand for utility pickup trucks that the manufacturers WILL NOT MAKE.

The first problem is CAFE rules. Congress legislated the light pickup truck out of existence. To get around CAFE rules, manufacturers increased the size of trucks and added a back row so they could be reclassified in a way that skirted CAFE rules.

However, there's a big demand for pickups, so people bought these because they needed trucks, and nothing else was available. Manufacturers took advantage of demand and started adding features normal pickup drivers didn't want or need, to access a high-market class of buyers. "Where else are you gonna go?"

$100k pickups, here we are.

Manufacturers are in no hurry to go back to the low-margin pickup days, even though that is what classic pickup buyers actually want.

How do you even define that? Give it a heavy duty bed and you're wasting weight that could be put toward hauling/towing capacities (and lord knows how people here would feel about ignoring those). A big engine for "reasonable driving" when fully loaded guzzles fuel.

> 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.

[1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...

Serious question. I can't think of any, but I'm also not familiar with car markets the world over. In Japan, for example, the best-selling car is the Honda N-BOX [1], which is an incredibly practical car.

[1] https://car.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/2076520.html