Why Mini Trucks are not made: Unintended Consequences?

93gsxturbo said:

....Minitrucks always seemed like one of those vehicles that are good at nothing and bad at everything.  Not comfortable.  Not a big payload.  Can't tow.  Not offered in high trim versions.  No power.  Not really that great of economy considering the size.  

I would say pretty much the opposite.  Modern full size trucks are optimized for what 90% of their users never use them for.  Very few tow, very few carry larger loads (larger than a mini could hold), and you don't need huge power if you neither of those.  Mini's seem more realistic to actual use (of most).

I have an 87 Mazda B2000, and I don't find it uncomfortable at all, especially for an 80's car and find it as a rather useful general purpose vehicle.  I don't tow, most don't.  I don't carry large loads, most don't.  It does carry what loads I have rather easily (Home Depot runs etc) and is way easier to load than larger trucks.  Mileage is pretty good for an 80 carb car (say 23 / 28), which would jump significantly with a more modern engine and a bit of aero work.  It does have AC, so comfort options of the day where available. 

As noted, the biggest downside of a mini Truck it is more difficult to use it as an everyday transport the kids car.  I am also wondering if the "growth" of the average American has created an issue.  Vehicles of even the 90's are noticeably smaller than modern ones.  There of course is also the issue of safety, which almost always favors larger vehicles, which in turn makes things a bit less safe for everyone else, so they go larger.... 

Not sure a mini truck (a real one) would sell, marketing wise, even if they did make them.

In reply to aircooled :

I think I saw the same video about a week ago.  I kept meaning to post about it.  I had not realized how the footprint so greatly determined MPG ratings.  There needs to be a change in the way they calculate this as it is actually encouraging automakers to make bigger less efficient vehicles.  If you could replace 3/4 of the new F150's that they are putting on the road this year with smaller pickups that "only" got say 40 MPG I can see that being a big win for the EPA.  Additionally, you would use less raw materials to make the same number of vehicles which would also be good for everyone.  

FWIW, I dont believe the 'consequences' mentioned here are unintended.  The NHTSA saw a direct correlation between size and safety and wanted CAFE rules not to result in insanely small unsafe vehicles.

But we still get things like the "Smart" car and the Versa.  I don't think that is a concern for the EPA.  In fact you would argu that bigger SUV's and trucks endanger more of the general public in their smaller cars than the lives they save.  

I have no actual facts or statistics to back any of this up. . . . 

The EPA isn;t in this equation.  CAFE is set by the NHTSA.  You can imagine safety is a top priority.  https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy

I wont dispute the larger SUV argument, but its difficult to prove.

The footprint does not discourage a Smart or a Versa, it just does not encourage making tiny cars to achieve CAFE.

dean1484 said:

 

I have no actual facts or statistics to back any of this up. . . . 

It is out there, we are killing 43% more people because SUVs and Trucks are more common

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-419

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/u-s-new-car-safety-ratings-are-overdue-for-update

NHTSA has no pedestrian safety tests like EuroNCAP does. 

aircooled said:

93gsxturbo said:

....Minitrucks always seemed like one of those vehicles that are good at nothing and bad at everything.  Not comfortable.  Not a big payload.  Can't tow.  Not offered in high trim versions.  No power.  Not really that great of economy considering the size.  

I would say pretty much the opposite.  Modern full size trucks are optimized for what 90% of their users never use them for.  Very few tow, very few carry larger loads (larger than a mini could hold), and you don't need huge power if you neither of those.  Mini's seem more realistic to actual use (of most).

Modern full size trucks are optimized to be 20MPG living rooms with really good stats for internet shopping and they do that extremely well.   Can't even get wireless Carplay/Android Auto on a Maverick at any price.  

 I agree with aircooled 100%. My 2002 Ranger isn't too big or small, gets around 18 mpg, and is comfortable with A/C. Easy to get in and out of and has been my DD for 8 years. It's hauled most of a large maple tree, loads of gravel, loads of mulch, brush constantly, 4X8 sheets of drywall and, of course, many loads of furniture. If I could get a new one (this size) I would be set for life as I only average around 5/6K miles a year. 

I wonder what percentage of GRMers live in relatively congested urban areas? My Ridgeline is right at the top end size-wise as something that I care to drive as a daily. Full-size trucks and vans just get tiresome when lanes and parking places are small.   Truck-wise, I've driven everything from a 1948 Dodge dumptruck with 5-ton capacity through modern stuff, and the most fun was a 1989  Toyota shortbed single cab V6 SR5. It was basically a tall sports car. A modern version of that would be awesome. 

It is amazing how Detroit manages to wrangle fuel economy out of full-size pickups. Impressive efficincy given that mass.

I really wish I could buy a small truck again. I refuse to buy something that doesn't meet my needs though.

1) It has been 5 years or more since I needed to carry another person with me in a truck. I am a solo being when it comes to driving. I won't buy a 4 door truck. It's simply the wrong tool for my uses. When my wife and I go somewhere we take her car. 

2) I haul a bicycle almost every day. I want a truck with a 6 foot bed. I do not believe in, and will not, haul a bicycle on a hitch carrier behind my "pickup". like I see so many people doing. If I can't haul a damn bicycle in the bed easily, it's not something that meets my needs. That means a reasonable lift-in height to put the bike in the bed. I also haul motorcycles less frequently and the usual car guy stuff like engines, etc...

3) Small trucks fit real well in my garage. Full size trucks, not as much. In Texas where I live, the extreme sun and the hail both compel me to place a high priority on keeping my stuff under cover. 

In the past I have driven a lot of miles in my 1986 Mazda B2000 and my 2007 Tacoma. Both were regular cabs with 6 foot beds. Perfect ! But I foolishly sold both of them not realizing how much harder it would be to find a truck to fit my needs later on. I sold my Tacoma to do an accelerated pay off on my house and get debt free. I figured no big deal, I'll just grab another one when the time is right. Then Toyota quit making them and now here I stand, yelling at the clouds. Buying used is pretty much hopeless too. The people who have them are not interested in selling them. 

Just buy a maverick (ok I know that's not easy) and deal with the extra doors?  It should easily fit in a a garage, haul mountain bikes, etc.  Lower it to get the bed loading height as low as possible?

I have similar use cases and that's why it's on the top of my list.  Mine would be my do everything vehicle, and even though I rarely carry more than a single person with me, I would appreciate the extra dry storage anyway.

Most people spending they kind of coin on a vehicle want it to cover as many use cases as possible so 2 seater trucks are becoming almost non existent.  I doubt a 2007 Tacoma will ever exist again.

In reply to alfadriver :

In the 70s and 80s, yep. Emissions sapped power, so the engines had to work harder to perform, sucking more gas. My '65 F100 with a 352 had no trouble getting 15-16 mpg constantly. Trucks of that period were more like 12, or single digits if you opted for the 460.

My Ranger with it's glorified Pinto 2.3 and manual trans could barely crack 20 mpg. That little engine had to be wound so hard to do anything it wasn't worth all of the other inconveniences. My dad's Mazda B2000 and Datsun King Cab could achieve better numbers but with acceleration similar to tapping maple syrup in January. My old Ford Courier needed a calendar to calculate acceleration. If you were only chasing mpg's, then they were fine. As pleasant, comfortable vehicles, they missed the mark completely. When Japan, Inc first shipped them here they were closer to today's Kei vehicles. They weren't really meant to be used on the highway, as they were adapted from vehicles for farm use at home. People bought them because they were cute, cheap and didn't suck fuel. And then the whole mini truck customizing phase began because performance was dead in the 1970s.

Once you got into the 1990s with better EFI, full size trucks started to return to far better fuel economy numbers. The overdrive trans and EFI in my Lightning actually does pretty good (mid double digits) despite the 4:10 rear axle. When trucks can achieve low 20's, the suffering required with a small truck no longer is that appealing.

ProDarwin said:

The EPA isn;t in this equation.  CAFE is set by the NHTSA.  You can imagine safety is a top priority.  https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy

I wont dispute the larger SUV argument, but its difficult to prove.

The footprint does not discourage a Smart or a Versa, it just does not encourage making tiny cars to achieve CAFE.

When I was a licensed state inspector we were told by the state that the emission regulations were all at the directive of the EPA. They are the big dog with the mucle to both approve and enforce the emission regulations. 

In reply to dean1484 :

CAFE is not emissions, it is "stop the US from giving oil money to countries who are aligned against us" (the oil embargoes were fresh in everyone's minds, too) and that somehow fell into NHTSA's scope. 

Even if the US produced enough to be completely self sufficient, high demand still drives the price of oil up, because it is a world market.

Are these small '70s and '80s Japanese trucks the next hot items for the BAT bros?  Think about, most were ridden hard and put away wet.  Forlorn and unwanted for many years.  They were also susceptible to the tin worm.  So there ain't too many left.  Add to that the fact that so many Gen-X'rs drove around these back in the day and have fond memories and you have a classic formula for a price bubble.

Maybe it's already happened?  Don't know.  Haven't been following BAT lately.

alfadriver said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I'm sorry, frency, but that info makes no sense at all. The math has to work out so that there isn't a corporate underwriting for it to actually be 12% profitable.  $10k underwriting means $10k less revenue on each truck.  Which means the plant wasn't profitable.  And that's why the ranger ended production in 2012.

And the lack of profitability is why both the plant and the truck didn't receive actual, significant, upgrades for the last 14 years of it's production.

Personally, I thought it would have been an easy job to update the truck- lift the more modern Escape interior and put it inside.  But I also understood that mid 2000's, Ford had to walk away from the products that didn't make money.

IT costs Ford a lot less to build a Ranger than the F 150. Smaller, cheaper engine/ transmission.  Rear end and suspension. Less metal, simpler, older design. 
   They accepted a 12% profit in addition in order to make the price more in line with imports. As they do on all their small cars.  No they don't sell an Ford Econobox at 23% mark up.  It's also at 12%.  The mark down in price was an attempt by Ford to stimulate sales.  

  As far as profit, the plant in St Sul was profitable until the day it closed. 
I'd proposed an automated parts retrieval system  that paid for itself in 4 years on labor savings. To get the numbers to justify it. I was shown  internal numbers the plant sent Headquarters. 
    The StPaul plant was smaller plant built in the 1930's along with the Dam).  So it was always a low volume plant,  perfect for the low volume of the Ranger.   
   The price mark down was an attempt by Ford  to increase volume  at the cost of the imports. 

The used market for cars that aren't museum pieces is cratering. I had to pretty much give away the last car I sold, a couple of months ago.

Not sure about the truck market, it might still be inflated, but that can't last forever if demand starts to fade.

Why weren't there more El Caminos and Rancheros?

I'm not being inflammatory, I'm genuinely curious, and a thread about mini trucks seems a place to ask. 

The one Elkie I've been in was far more comfortable than my S10, in that my stomach didn't rub on the steering wheel. 

Ford, Chebby, and Ram can keep their extravagant fluffy bigness. I'm gonna do truck stuff with my mini-truck.

In reply to ddavidv :

All good points, except I don't see a small truck as suffering, unless it doesn't meet your needs. In other words, the suffering isn't inherent to the vehicle, it's in the manner in which you use it. Get my distinction? Driving a F350 dualie around San Francisco would be suffering. As would trying to get 6 people in a Maverick.

In reply to RevRico :

Yeah, why not? The Aussies really took to that type of vehicle and we somehow did not.

A 401 CJ said:

Are these small '70s and '80s Japanese trucks the next hot items for the BAT bros?  Think about, most were ridden hard and put away wet.  Forlorn and unwanted for many years.  They were also susceptible to the tin worm.  So there ain't too many left.  Add to that the fact that so many Gen-X'rs drove around these back in the day and have fond memories and you have a classic formula for a price bubble.

 

Maybe it's already happened?  Don't know.  Haven't been following BAT lately.

Based on prices I've seen, it's starting to happen.  I think some really nice 80s Toyotas have already turned up on BAT.  Saw someone at a cruise-in that found the cheat code, though.  He bought a Toyota-based camper, and replaced the camper with a flatbed.  Voila, 1 ton mini truck.

I saw one of those Toyota campers the other day!  The last time I saw one was in 1996.

What I want to know is, where do you find load range E 14" tires, and someone who will mount them on the dual rear wheels? 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to ddavidv :

All good points, except I don't see a small truck as suffering, unless it doesn't meet your needs. In other words, the suffering isn't inherent to the vehicle, it's in the manner in which you use it. Get my distinction? Driving a F350 dualie around San Francisco would be suffering. As would trying to get 6 people in a Maverick.

I agree. My dailies the last 30 years, 86/87 S10, 93 B2200, 06 Canyon, 11 Colorado. All base model, 4 cylinder manual transmission trucks. Perfect. 

They did everything I needed and I didn't have to suffer through driving a massive and over priced vehicle or spending 50-100% more on fuel. 

In reply to frenchyd :

The only thing less was materials.  The same labor was needed to put it together.  It also had similar number of parts outside of the engine.  So the savings isn't nearly as much as the cost differential, and it's not "a lot".  

Again, you even stated that the trucks were underwritten by Ford to sell, so they were not profitable.  You can't closed the system loop on the plant only, it has to include the rest of Ford Motor Company.

And for a profitable plant to be that way until the day it closed? So it was closed because of spite?  Or Ford hated St Paul?  That makes no sense.

Pretend what you want, but it's a system (as in all of Ford) thing, not an individual plant thing.