Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Safety standards don't REQUIRE a smaller truck to weigh more, as mass/size isn't in the standards. BUT, meeting those safety standards automatically makes the trucks weigh more AND cost more to make then they used to.
This is the key, it ends up costing as much to MAKE the smaller truck as the larger truck, but you have to sell the smaller truck for less money in order to make it a viable choice, which means there is no real margin for profit. And if there's no margin for profit, the manufacturer isn't going to make them. Even the Ranger, which had the tooling paid off many, may years ago, cost nearly as much to make as the basic F150. And no one is going to pay the same money for a Ranger as they would for an F150.
This is also why the Tacoma hasn't been updated for a while. Spending money on updating it would make it more costly to sell, which means it would cost as much as the base Tundra. There aren't enough truck buyers that would buy a smaller truck for the same money as a larger one. There just isn't. And you're simply not going to see a cheaper smaller truck, due to meeting safety and fuel mileage regulations anymore. At least not from any manufacturer of larger trucks.
The proposed F100/Ranger would not be the size of the old Ranger, but more midsize like the Dakota/Tacoma.
And I doubt we will actually see it, as it'll cost as much to make as the F150, and why buy a slightly smaller truck when you can get the utility of the full size for the same price with the same economy?
And I doubt we will actually see it, as it'll cost as much to make as the F150, and why buy a slightly smaller truck when you can get the utility of the full size for the same price with the same economy?
If I didn't need to tow a tractor occasionally I'd rather have a smaller truck like a Tacoma. My Tundra gets to be a headache at times to park, and sometimes I need to fold in my mirrors just to fit through the bank drive thru. It takes up too much room in the garage too.
If I didn't need to tow a tractor occasionally I'd rather have a smaller truck like a Tacoma. My Tundra gets to be a headache at times to park, and sometimes I need to fold in my mirrors just to fit through the bank drive thru. It takes up too much room in the garage too.
Point is, they sold a smaller truck that had all the profit margin built in and people still bought damn few of them. Not enough to continue making. At the same time, people bought the larger truck in ever larger numbers.
Ford had the same problem back when they sold the Contour. It was sized internally only barely bigger than the Escort, but it cost nearly as much as the Taurus. People that wanted a small car bought the Escort and people that wanted a bit more room bought the Taurus, leaving the Contour in limbo for much of it's run. Ford's been finding that out with the Ranger now that the F150 base gets similar mileage and costs barely any more. Most people simply opt for the more useful truck, even if they could "make do" with the smaller one. It's why Toyota hasn't invested significant money into the Tacoma for close to a decade. It's not much more economical than the full size, and costs almost as much as the base full size. So more and more peopel are opting for the full size.
You'd see the balance shift back towards the smaller trucks for a lot of people if the cost could come down, but these days it really can't come down enough to matter. And at nearly the same price point, there would be way too few people opting for the smaller truck just because it's smaller.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,690 posts, read 57,994,855 times
Reputation: 46171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
......at nearly the same price point, there would be way too few people opting for the smaller truck just because it's smaller.
There is the 'utility' issue, especially with your 'extra' vehicle costing $20K (Much more than my first house).
I would say 'SMALL TRUCKS' (mini-pickups) is not a core market in USA, as we always 'upsize'.
As more people tow trailers, or use their vehicles for carpool or soccer practice... the mini-truck didn't have to compete with SUVs, and Minivans.
As embarrassing as it is to say so... my minivan was likely the BEST all around vehicles I ever owned.
22 - 25 mpg, could haul refrigerator, bed, lumber, or people, or be a 'stealth-camper' (Safely and under cover). CHEAP to buy and insure, cost me $15 in parts in 200k miles.
When I jump in a Datsun Pickup these days, I don't feel an irresistible urge to 'hit-the-road'.
The thing I dislike MOST about my VW pickup is not being able to take a nap. That wasn't a high priority 40 yrs ago .
And I doubt we will actually see it, as it'll cost as much to make as the F150, and why buy a slightly smaller truck when you can get the utility of the full size for the same price with the same economy?
The only reason I can think of is it's easier to park in the city. But few people are going to buy a new truck with that feature as a high priority.
I guess I don't understand. Is there some sort of standard or requirement that mini trucks not be built anymore? If not, then wouldn't their weight be proportional to their size just like a full sized truck's weight would be proportional to its size? Are full size trucks built heavier (than older fuller sized trucks) to satisfy the same standards as mini trucks would?
If the truck is smaller it would weigh less, right? If it weighs less it gets better gas mileage using the same technology, right? Unless the safety standards require a truck not to weigh less, I don't see why a mini truck wouldn't get significantly better gas mileage than a full size truck - just like they always have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Safety standards don't REQUIRE a smaller truck to weigh more, as mass/size isn't in the standards. BUT, meeting those safety standards automatically makes the trucks weigh more AND cost more to make then they used to.
This is the key, it ends up costing as much to MAKE the smaller truck as the larger truck, but you have to sell the smaller truck for less money in order to make it a viable choice, which means there is no real margin for profit. And if there's no margin for profit, the manufacturer isn't going to make them. Even the Ranger, which had the tooling paid off many, may years ago, cost nearly as much to make as the basic F150. And no one is going to pay the same money for a Ranger as they would for an F150.
This is also why the Tacoma hasn't been updated for a while. Spending money on updating it would make it more costly to sell, which means it would cost as much as the base Tundra. There aren't enough truck buyers that would buy a smaller truck for the same money as a larger one. There just isn't. And you're simply not going to see a cheaper smaller truck, due to meeting safety and fuel mileage regulations anymore. At least not from any manufacturer of larger trucks.
merc hit it. true there is no government standard for the size of a truck, but when you start with a ranger pickup and add the stronger bumpers, crush zones, extra door guard beams, etc. you add weight. when you add weight, you lose hauling capability, thus you need to up size the mini truck to get that hauling capability back, and that means bigger engines that use more fuel. two good examples on the market are the toyota and the dodge(assuming the dakota is still in production, i dont know). the tacoma is nearly the size of the tundra, and the dakota is nearly the size of the ram 1500. fuel economy is similar between these trucks, as is performance, though the larger trucks have more hauling capability. thus when people walk into the dealership looking for a truck, they tend to bypass the mid size trucks and go with the full size trucks for a few dollars more.
in the old days, the mid 80s, mini trucks were hot because they got much better fuel economy than the full size trucks, and were nice little package for the person who wanted something that could haul a lazy boy recliner chair home from the furniture store, or haul a load of garbage to the dump, or haul some 2x4s or plywood or drywall home, and still be able to drive to and from work and every where else economically. today the full size trucks do everything the mini trucks did, except perhaps fit in tight spaces, and more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
