[zactato]

I hope this ends up being smaller than the F150.

I get the popularity of that form factor, but I simply don't believe that many people are hauling yards of soil or towing boats.

2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US.

[actionablefiber]

I get the sense that the pickup truck market in the U.S. particularly in suburbs is driven by brand marketing rather than consumer needs. People are paying a premium, in the cost of purchasing as well as in the cost of insuring, maintaining, and fueling, for the image of the rugged individualistic American ready for any terrain, weather, or load that needs hauling, and maximally armored to "win" should they ever hit a person or vehicle in their path.

There's a subset of contexts where they make sense although I think for _most_ people they're infrequent enough that it's way more sensible to use a cargo van or a sedan and then just rent a truck during the minority of times when you actually need one.

[decafninja]

That probably applies for many vehicle classes in general.

I live in the NYC area, and I see many specialized "lifestyle" vehicles such as offroaders like Jeep Wrangler Rubicons or sports cars like Porsches.

I would bet the majority of Rubicons I see rarely see terrain tougher than an unpaved driveway. The majority of Porsches I see will rarely experience a more thrilling drive than the owner flooring it from a stoplight.

Rather, it's to convey status or a lifestyle image.

While we're on the subject of pickup trucks - the Cybertruck. I have many friends who would never have thought of owning a truck before placing preorders for Cybertrucks. They are all white collar office workers, I've never seen them do any kind of hauling of cargo or offroading or other "rugged" or "adventurous" activities. But they are madly in love with the Cybertruck. It's purely a "look at me" lifestyle thing. Trucks like the F-150 (including the Lightning EV), Silverado, Tacoma, etc. don't even enter their radar.

Meanwhile I do have a handful of friends that work the trades, work in construction, etc. These guys all dismiss the Cybertruck as a toy and are interested in the F-150 Lightning, etc.

[kurthr]

The giant king cab luxury seating is the only thing available on the larger and more expensive models unless you have access to fleet purchasing. They definitely have a market and they've tuned product lines for it. There are even supersport models. Personally, I hate the short-beds cuz you can't easily transport lumber or plywood sheets.

[EricE]

Both the Hyundai Santa Cruz and Ford Ranger have tail gates that will partially lower to the same level as the tops of the wheel wells, providing a perfect platform for 4x8 sheets of plywood. I have a friend with a Ranger and we have hauled plywood and other larger objects with no issues. Would I want to do it routinely? Probably not - but for casual hauling they work well enough. I would expect the Scout to be designed in a very similar way.

I've owned trucks with 8 foot beds in the past - I'd rather have a second row of seats and a smaller bed as well as a vehicle that's overall smaller than the 8 foot bed trucks of old. These newer designs are a great compromise of functionality and convenience, which is why you are seeing them take over the lower end.

What I really want is the return of true micro pickups like the original Nissan hard body :(

[kevin_thibedeau]

The other problem with the short beds is that they are "compensated" for by raising the belt line to make the bed deeper. This compromises rear visibility. Then the long beds suffer because they also get a deep bed to integrate with the cab. On old Rangers you used to be able to walk up and just reach into the bed to get stuff. That isn't possible on any current midsize and up pickups.

[EricE]

Yup. The old Ranger died because it was a partnership between Mazda and Ford - and it expired.

With the chicken tax squelching real competition and the fact that they can charge more for larger vehicles - whelp, you end up with the current American market where there are truly no more mini pickups. It sucks!

[rascul]

> That isn't possible on any current midsize and up pickups.

Yes it is. Or maybe I'm just tall enough? I do it all the time. I can't reach the middle of full size trucks with both feet on the ground, but I never could with older full size trucks, either.

[EricE]

And if you are as frustrated by the lack of true mini-pickups as I am, search the 'net and read about the chicken tax. Which was aimed at locking VW out of the US market quite a while ago, has lingered on way past it's prime and has bit even American manufacturers in the butt as more manufacturing has shifted outside of the US. Gotta love unintended consequences - ha!

[dieselgate]

Ya it’s insane and unfortunate how the chicken tax wrecked trucks. Was it really directed towards VW though? I thought it was more against Japanese auto makes.

[EricE]

Nope, VW around WWII (I think just before - need to go re-read)

EDIT: It was post WWII. And VW Type 2 is profiled in the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

[dieselgate]

I’ve been curious with the functionality of short beds - the only advantage I can think of is a shorter wheel base for towing/maneuvering a trailer. Otherwise they make no sense to me

[corrral]

> There's a subset of contexts where they make sense although I think for _most_ people they're infrequent enough that it's way more sensible to use a cargo van or a sedan and then just rent a truck during the minority of times when you actually need one.

Even a minivan can tow a small trailer for occasional lumber store runs or towing a jet ski or two. Or just use the roof rack and some tie-downs. Or take the seats out, many of them will fit some plywood inside without trouble. For a larger boat, you can often rent a slip at your usual lake or whatever cheaper than the difference in annual TCO between a truck and a smaller car. Not helpful if you move your boat from one body of water to another a lot, but the only folks I know who do that have small fishing boats that a van could probably tow just fine. Besides, you can pay for several construction deliveries and probably pay to have your boat moved a couple times a year for the difference in annual cost. No sense paying all that extra gas, insurance, and up-front cost for something with features you only use every other month or less, when you can just pay less money to do a daily truck rental periodically, for a delivery service, et c.

But no, people need their immaculate $50,000+ trucks in the 'burbs just to show that they could blow $50,000+ on a truck they don't need, and so they fit in with their buds who also own trucks. Quite a few are purchased for good reasons, but a lot are mostly purchased for social signaling.

[bluGill]

If you need a truck even 5% of the time it is overall cheapest to just own a truck. Insurance, car payments, and other fixed costs are too high to make a second car worth it, and renting a car is not cheap, not to mention rental rules often mean you can't use the truck as a truck. (I've been looking for a place to rent a truck so I can replace mine, a couple times a year I do something that no rental truck will let me do) Sure a truck uses a lot more fuel, but fuel is a small part of the cost of a car.

Though I don't get families with more than one truck/suv. One will do the job for all of those things, and a EV (even a limited range one like the older leaf) will take care of all the other. Only rarely do you have to tell your spouse that you need the truck so drive "my" car.

[olyjohn]

No it's cheaper to just get a utility trailer and hook it to your existing vehicle. Even a compact economy car can do just fine towing one. They can carry up to 1500lbs for the smaller ones, and cost less than $1000. You don't have to pay the same road tax every year, or insurance. You don't have maintenance to do on it other than tires and wheel bearings which are all generic and dirt cheap.

I've been able to do all my house projects for the last 7-8 years towing one behind my Honda Fit. I've picked up motorcycles with it (which is way easier to load than a tall pickup bed). Picked up engines, car parts. I have hauled sheetrock, pavers, plywood, lumber, furniture... I have done countless dump runs... I have moved with it, and helped others move with it. The car + trailer ends up embarrassing the pickups who show up to help move, as they can't carry as much stuff as the car + trailer combo.

And when I'm not hauling things, the car seats 4 comfortably, and we can put stuff in the hatch without worrying about it getting wet... I get mid-30s mpgs.

Anything that's too big or heavy for my trailer... well I have it delivered. Chances are, that load is also too big for your average 1500 pickup.

[JoeAltmaier]

Most compact cars can tow maybe 1000 pounds. Thats including the trailer weight. Any more, you risk damage to the transmission - they're largely aluminum these days, and not designed to do much more than move the car around.

You have FWD, don't even think about it.

I would be careful taking any recommendation to 'just pull a trailer'. Sure U-Haul will install the hitch. That doesn't mean anything.

[yencabulator]

> renting a car is not cheap

U-Haul pickups are $19.95 + mileage. For me personally, I think that'd come to something like $50 for a single hardware store trip, plus inconvenience. So far I haven't had to do that, so I can't vouch for that number to be accurate.

[ovao]

There’s the subject of availability, however. Pickup trucks tend to move quickly on weekends especially. The last time I needed to rent one on a Saturday, for example, it took eight or nine phone calls and driving to three different Home Depots (which rent out trucks on a first-come, first-serve basis). Just getting the truck took half a day.

More planning would’ve helped on my part, but damn, what a hassle.

[yencabulator]

Sure, your mileage may vary. There's a lot of pickups and small box trucks a few miles from here, and I've never seen it empty in the last several years. I'm pretty remote though, bigger cities are probably much more rush hour driven.

[NeuNeurosis]

Is your need expedition based; ie, rugged backcountry vacation? or work based, need to haul some dirt, lumber, random material? If so what about renting a truck form Uhaul?

[bluGill]

I collect antique tractors which will fit on a heavy duty car trailer. One bigger than what uhaul rents for cars.

As mentioned elsewhere, uhaul is often sold out when i'm likely to do this.

[corrral]

I expect using a truck as a truck, for a situation in which a roof rack or a small trailer towed by a lesser vehicle wouldn't have sufficed, 18-19 days a year would put you way above average for non-business truck owners in my area.

[quickthrowman]

> I've been looking for a place to rent a truck so I can replace mine, a couple times a year I do something that no rental truck will let me do

Off the top of my head: Home Depot, Lowe’s, Menards, U-Haul, Penske, United Rentals, Sunbelt Rentals.

[mulmen]

Will those places let you tow a heavy utility trailer with trailer brakes?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32158302

[quickthrowman]

Yes, United or sunbelt for sure, they rent construction equipment.

[rascul]

> it's way more sensible to use a cargo van

If I could have gotten a cargo van for an equivalent price when I bought the (used) truck I have now, I would have. But they were starting at 4x the price. I use it to haul tools and materials and a cargo van would have been so much easier.

[mulmen]

> hauling yards of soil or towing boats

I'm not defending the number of pickups on the road in America but this is an out of touch comment. Some common uses of pickup beds include:

* Hauling motorcycles and ATVs including snowmobiles.

* Carrying campers.

* Carrying home improvement projects such as bags of soil, plants, and raw material such as 8'x2"x4" lumber or 4'x8' plywood. At least in the 2000s a 4x8 sheet of plywood will not fit in a compact pickup but lays flat in a fullsize.

Some common uses of pickups include:

* Towing pull-behind RVs or fifth-wheels.

* Towing boats.

* Camping with the family.

A lot of modern pickups seem to include some kind of bed cover that makes them well suited to mundane tasks like hauling groceries as well.

All of that suggests to me that pickup manufacturers do in fact know their customers.

> 2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US.

Because it's too small to be useful. You can't fit a sheet of plywood in that easily. You might be able to get a small motorcycle in there with some wrangling, but maybe not. 2 seats means you can't carry the whole family, so now you need a second car if you have kids, or friends. And if you actually do use the truck for weekend activity like hauling boats or an RV then you need to drive both cars.

The fact is the fullsize truck actually does work for American consumers. That's why people buy them. And why manufacturers make them.

All of this totally ignores the hundreds of thousands of "work trucks" that are being fully loaded every day. Landscapers, farmers, contractors, etc all rely on the pickup form factor for obvious reasons. And looking around those are often used trucks, including the high trim level luxury versions from a previous generation.

[SandersAK]

About 2/3rds of truck owners don't use the bed much at all.

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

[mulmen]

> And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.

Reads to me like 2/3 of truck owners use their bed at least twice a year.

From the same paragraph:

> 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never).

Over 25% of trucks are used for towing.

> Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less.

A third of truck owners go offroad.

Add all that up and it sounds like pickups are getting a lot of use. There are no stats on what percentage of people do at least one of those things so we are left to guess but by the claims in the article it is at least "most".

[bluGill]

> 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never).

Even once is not never, because nothing else will do that job.

Note too that there people who use their bed but never tow, the fact that a truck could serve either purpose but for some only does one doesn't mean that those people don't use a truck.

[yread]

Or you could just drive a much smaller cheaper and easier to park car most of the year and rent a truck once a year when you need it

[SoftTalker]

As mentioned in another subthread, rental contracts for pickup trucks often prohibit towing, and the trucks aren't even fitted with a tow hitch. If you want to tow with a rented truck, you'll need to rent from a "commercial" rental company and you'll be paying a lot more.

[jerlam]

In the suburbs, there is no penalty for owning a large vehicle.

Even if it doesn't fit in your garage (because it's full of cars/stuff), you can park in your driveway. No one will complain if you block the sidewalk, because no one walks anywhere.

Shopping areas have large parking areas and structures. It is not unusual to see pickup trucks taking up more than two spaces. Parallel parking is uncommon and usually can be avoided.

[mulmen]

Yes. I would have liked if they bucketed the responses. Something like 0, 1-10, 20-50, etc. But they just asked (or The Drive only reported) the 0-1 numbers.

What is conspicuously absent from these numbers is a response to the question "do you never use the bed or go offroad or tow with your truck". Which is the case that the article seems to be trying to make but can't.

[ozarker]

Probably all the trucks I see driving in cities. Come out to the country and see how much trucks get used.

[mulmen]

I live in the city and I see pickup trucks every day. Most of them are "work trucks" but that just means city trucks are getting a lot of use too.

[wink]

Still seems to be an American phenomenon (saw it first hand in Mexico, not US/Canada) - in Europe everyone has a van for (construction) work, not a pickup truck. And by everyone I mean easily 90% (unless you're talking real truck of 7.5t+) with maybe an exception for garden workers.

[yardie]

> At least in the 2000s a 4x8 sheet of plywood will not fit in a compact pickup but lays flat in a fullsize.

I hate to break it to you but the F150 XLT Crew Cab tops out at 6.5ft. Your 4x8 plywood won't fit with the gate up. And if you have to put the gate down for standard sizes do you really need a fullsize pickup to do it?

[rascul]

If I'm only hauling a few sheets than I leave the tailgate gate up and lean the board on it. Straps can't hold just a few sheets very well laying flat unless the attachment points are significantly lower. I learned this the hard way when I had to pick up a couple sheets of plywood off the highway. The other option is to lay a few 2x4s under it to raise the sheets and give the straps a better capability to hold.

[mulmen]

Yes because in a smaller truck (like a Tacoma) the plywood doesn't fit between the wheel wells so it has to be loaded awkwardly and reduces what else you can haul because you can't put things on top of the plywood.

[thecrumb]

Pfft. Not sure where you live but I usually you see pickups doing none of the above, with one person in the cab.

[mulmen]

And you follow these trucks for their entire service lives?

[dieselgate]

I presume the availability of 4x4 helps with trucks as well? Does for me at least

[rootusrootus]

> yards of soil

Very few F150s are rated to carry a single yard of soil. About half that is more typical.

> 2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US.

The market has spoken. Crew cabs were available in the 70s but not common. Now they dominate. Why? Because the average pickup buyer in the US can accurately be described as "everyone." Which means a do-everything vehicle with seating capacity like a car but utility like a truck is extremely popular.

[toast0]

Well, an old Scout is a two-door, two row SUV, with a bit of storage in the back and a hatch-back + tail gate. Not a compact pickup (but actually a pretty short length; it qualifies for a small car rate on the Washington State ferries!). International Harvester did make pickup trucks into the mid 70s and they share some bodywork and design elements with Scouts such that you might call it a Scout pickup, but that's not what IH called them.

The compact pickup with a standard cab + 6 foot bed was mostly killed by CAFE standard updates. It didn't make sense to make them based on the footprint model. Hopefully electric trucks will bring this segment back, since they don't have the same constraints leading them towards larger footprints.

[ovao]

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

[jandrese]

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

[rootusrootus]

I would wager it is only the retail market where the non-crew-cab is nearly extinct. A two seat pickup is a niche vehicle, about as useful for carrying a family around as a two seat sports car.

[corrral]

> A two seat pickup is a niche vehicle, about as useful for carrying a family around as a two seat sports car.

Not to country folk—kids ride in the bed. Or crammed in the middle if there aren't too many of them and they're still fairly small and you're lucky enough to still have a bench seat.

[alistairSH]

Not legally (in many states).

[corrral]

Never stopped country folk before. See also: shooting stop signs.

Doesn't work for suburbanites with trucks, though.

[rascul]

Lay down in the bed and nobody will see.

[mulmen]

Have you ever been in the back of a pickup? This would be incredibly uncomfortable at best and is likely to cause a concussion or worse.

[rootusrootus]

Hasn't been my experience. Rural or not, everyone I know has a crew cab now. Supercabs are not uncommon, but the minority for sure, and single cabs are so rare that they catch your eye. Mostly because the fundamental design of modern trucks was clearly not intended for a single cab, so it looks chopped.

[corrral]

Damn, that changed fast.

[bluGill]

Even in the work market they want the crew cab: for the crew to ride around in. I've been the person on a crew who had to ride in the middle seat of the small truck, I never want to again.

[jandrese]

Pickup trucks aren't for carrying a family around. The whole point is to have a large open cargo space for building materials, equipment, etc... If you want to haul a family use a sedan or minivan. Those back seats in crew cabs are always cramped and uncomfortable anyway. They are a terrible tradeoff, and yet the entire automotive industry has gone all in on them.

[jaredhallen]

What if you need to haul things while simultaneously carrying a family around? I don't find them to be a terrible tradeoff at all, and I expect that the reason the entire automotive industry has gone all in on them is because I'm not an outlier in that regard.

[freemint]

> What if you need to haul things while simultaneously carrying a family around?

Have one partner drive a sedan/wagon with the kids and another partner haul. A lot more economical too.

[rascul]

How is it more economical to drive the truck and car instead of just the truck?

[jandrese]

Get an ute then?

[rootusrootus]

> Those back seats in crew cabs are always cramped and uncomfortable anyway

Huh? Show me a single sedan with the rear seat legroom of an F150? Heck, how many come within six inches of having that kind of legroom?

No wonder you think pickups aren't for carrying a family around.

[alistairSH]

FWIW, I have a Ridgeline with a 5'4" bed. My 10'6" surfboards are fine with the tailgate down (total flat length just shy of 7') and a red flag on the end.

Edit - I would have considered a Santa Cruz or Maverick, had they been available when I bought the RL. But, they're beds are smaller yet and one of the big selling points of the RL was the under-bed trunk, which is massive (about the same as the trunk on my wife's BMW).

[EricE]

The Santa Cruz has a lot of storage under the bed. I was shocked that Ford completely seemed to miss the boat with that in the Maverick.

I finally saw a Santa Cruz in person - the bed is quite a bit higher than I was expecting; then again that's how they get the storage :p

[alistairSH]

It's about half the size of the Ridgeline trunk, mostly due to shallower depth.

My trunk always contains a small toolbox, bicycle pump, electric SUP pump, several camp chairs and a folding table, PFDs, SUP/kayak paddles, water shoes/flip-flops, tie-downs, and some other odds/ends, with room to spare.

[itsoktocry]

>2 Seats + 6 Foot bed seems like a winning combination in practicality, but is quite rare in the US.

I'd argue that it seems the exact opposite. People aren't buying $50,000+ 4-door 4x4 trucks because Ford is forcing that on them, they are demanding it. And 2 seats are nowhere near optimal practicality.

[Kon-Peki]

> I hope this ends up being smaller than the F150.

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

[jmann99999]

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

[givemeethekeys]

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