They just overdid it with prices. They’d sell like hot cakes for under 40K.
I drove trucks a lot, split my time between city home with Mom and rural home in the middle of farms with Dad. Lots of backing up open hauling trailers (dirt, rocks, furniture, lumber, whatever) and boat trailers. Modern trucks are so much less usable than they were 25 years ago. They’re not just expensive, they’re impractical. Why would I pay more to get less?
It’s past time to reform the CAFE standards to incentivize smaller trucks and slowly phase out the 25% “chicken tax” on imported trucks to let domestic manufacturers compete on design and quality.
I’m also very uncomfortable driving around with the giant blind spot in front of the truck. This did not used to be a problem with my old pickup trucks. Now you need front cameras in addition to backup cameras just to not run over your own kids!?
New trucks have some wonderful features but I don’t think theres any reason that smaller trucks couldn't have these too. These include higher towing capacity than in the past, 360 birds eye cameras, trailer back-up computer aid, apple carplay / android auto, excellent crash protection for passengers. Of those, the only two that size can affect are crash protection and towing capacity. I think you could still get most of the performance with a smaller truck that is more usable for 90% of the population.
Then I realized you can't fit an 8' 2x4 into an average pickup truck bed, where it fits perfectly fine into my Focus. WTF?
I've moved my motorcycle, industrial embroidery machine, lumber, tools, etc. all very comfortably. It might be nice to have more payload, but right now I dont need it, and very few people do.
I know europeans get away with much higher towing ratings on their sedans than American equivalents. I never could figure out if this was conspiracy in underrating American sedans to force sales of pickups, slight engineering upgrades specific to EU markets, or the fact that you just drive slower in Europe so there’s less stress on components allowing greater trailer weight.
The fact that Americans seem to have rejected them wholesale boggles the mind. Probably has to do with the "more is better" mind disease.
Or being over ab out 5'8"
Or being over about 40y old
Or any of a host of other factors
People can make whatever choices suit their desires and circumstances, but most people shouldn't pretend huge SUVs and trucks are a necessity.
“Objectively more usable” based on “payload/HP/torque” is missing a LOT of usability metrics and is not purely objective at all - the vast majority truck owners would get more utility from better ergonomics even if improving that cost up to 20% of their “payload/HP/torque”.
What you mean is “objectively more powerful”, not “objectively more usable”. Is a semi truck or Caterpillar 797F “objectively more usable” than an F-150 because they have “more payload, HP, torque”? Of course a semi truck is not objectively more usable than an F-150 - only objectively more powerful.
Many people need yesterday’s half-ton. Many people would benefit from lower ride height, not having to use a ladder to reach into the bed or climb into the seats. Being able to see children in front of the vehicle. But it’s not available.
Furthermore - when is the last time you shoveled one ton of sand/gravel/stone out of a pickup bed? It was a hell of a lot easier with a lower bed that I could reach farther into with a standard transfer shovel.
The market has signaled that it will pay obscene prices for a good truck. Maybe the reason we don’t have powerful trucks that can also be “good” (whatever that means–fuel efficient? less dangerous to pedestrians?) daily drivers is because it’s infeasible?
> Furthermore - when is the last time you shoveled one ton of sand/gravel/stone out of a pickup bed? It was a hell of a lot easier with a lower bed that I could reach farther into with a standard transfer shovel.
Last time I shoveled a ton of dirt from a pickup bed, I climbed up into the bed and shoveled it out from there.
Even neutralizing the CAFE standards to stop incentivizing bigger trucks would be a huge victory. Reducing the fuel economy target for larger vehicle footprints is one of the worst perverse incentives ever created. Not only are huge trucks emitting more carbon, but pedestrians are at much great risk of serious injury and death from tall grills and poor visibility.
Edit: It is shockingly difficult to find statistics on imports as a % of US market size, if you want to filter out Canada+Mexico and also separate cars vs. trucks. Everything either lumps Canada+Mexico into "imports" or fails to differentiate cars (not subject to chicken tax) vs. trucks (subject to chicken tax).
The 2024 Ford Ranger is as big as least, as the 1996 F150, and with 30% more power depending on engine.
Perverse incentives with CAFE standards, and crash test requirements, encourage this bloat of weight. I would love a 2.3L turbo 4 cylinder in my old truck.
The reason people aren’t buying pickups is because they’re vastly less convenient and more expensive to run than a regular car for the overwhelming majority of people.
Sometimes you can only get half the dream so you have to pick which side you start from.
In my observation and conversations with people, electric vehicles are associated with the brainiacs and luxury brands. There's a large portion of people that identify with the "blue collar" - they don't perceive EVs as aligning with their values. Some taglines from truck manufacturers: "Built Ford tough" "Guts. Glory. Ram." We might suspect that people buy these vehicles as a reflection of their male virtues.
Trucks don’t have a cool factor unless you already like trucks, normal cars - hell my decade old Prius C - handles “the dilapidated infrastructure of the modern city” with ease as well, and it can park easily as well! I’ve driven plenty of pickups (utes!), SUVs, vans, etc and honestly I find super squishy pickup suspension unpleasant, though in fairness that seems more a matter of US car design in general.
A small hatchback is better by pretty much every metric in my experience: you can carry loads of stuff - obviously not as much as a pickup could but I’ve needed that much haulage maybe once or twice times in the last five years - but it can also park easily, costs less to run, and can hold as many people as the majority of trucks.
I get that you like trucks, that’s really not a problem - it becomes a problem only if you’re going all in on BS like coal rolling and “masculine” driving - but you need to recognize that the overwhelming majority of the time a truck is not the right choice. As for SUVs as far as I can make out that’s just a combination of all the weaknesses of trucks and cars, with a side note pedestrian carnage.
> Harder to park
This is simply not a concern for much of the US where density is low, parking lots are huge, and street parking is a rarity. You can live your entire life in swathes of the country and never once need to parallel park.
> we more fuel
It's not as big a difference as you might imagine. The widely criticized big Ford F-150 gets 21 MPG combined and a smaller Maverick gets 25.
> carry fewer people for the same size+weight (if you need a bigger vehicle).
Because of the previous two points, size+weight don't really directly matter much. If you've got the room for the size and the weight doesn't hurt the fuel economy much, then it's not much of a downside.
In return, you get a vehicle that can fit more people and more stuff.
I know it's fun to criticize truck owners as douchebag bros over-compensating, but, honestly, for many regions, the rationale behind owning them makes a lot of sense. If space and gas is cheap, a vehicle that gives you the status symbol and feel of a luxury sedan, the personal safety of a tank, the passenger capacity of a station wagon, and the storage capacity of a moving van.
I think they're bad for the world because they make passengers safer at the expense of everyone else on the road. They are a safety arms race. But people tend to prioritize their own safety first. I would never own one because I don't want to spend that much money or be attached to the kind of cultural associations they have, but if I lived in the 'burbs or a rural area, I would be tempted. They are fun to drive and can do a lot.
What about garages in homes? I've seen plenty of photos of massive trucks parked outside or sticking out because they cannot fit inside.
> It's not as big a difference as you might imagine. The widely criticized big Ford F-150 gets 21 MPG combined and a smaller Maverick gets 25.
And a Ford Focus does 30-40 mpg depending on travel type. A Renault Clio does 47 mpg. Both can fit the same amount of people, just less cargo.
> I think they're bad for the world because they make passengers safer at the expense of everyone else on the road.
You're also forgetting the outsized impact on roads that everyone else pays for and the extra pollution everyone else is breathing.
> What about garages in homes?
In the suburbs in the US, it's common to have a large two-car driveway and deliberately not park in the garage so that the garage can be used for workshop space. (Personally, I would kill to have a garage big enough to have real woodworking gear and room for my kayaks.)
> And a Ford Focus does 30-40 mpg depending on travel type. A Renault Clio does 47 mpg.
Sure, and a moped has even better mileage. But the comment was about giant trucks in comparison to smaller ones. No one's going to take a family of five camping in the woods for a week in a Renault Clio.
There is a fair argument that truck owners rarely use the truck to its full capabilities. But I think that understates the psychological value of owning a vehicle that can do those things and that sometimes does.
We all know that it can be hard to find the activation energy to drive up in the mountains to hike, or go camping, or buy some lumber to start that DIY project. If doing any of those also means having to rent a vehicle, some of those experiences simply won't happen.
A vehicle that can do those things is a constant reminder to their owners to maybe live a little more.
> You're also forgetting the outsized impact on roads that everyone else pays for and the extra pollution everyone else is breathing.
I'm not forgetting it. I just think it's silly that people against huge trucks seem to completely overlook all of the real reasons why people like them.
It is a big difference, that maverick will require 4 gallons to go 100 miles, while the F150 3/4 of a gallon more. It means 19% more greenhouse gasses per mile.
I'd argue vehicle and home pricing increased to match the decreasing values of currency.