The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: PDXTabs on February 11, 2019, 11:22:42 AM
-
I just don't understand: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (https://www.wsj.com/articles/detroits-latest-offering-big-pickups-at-bigger-prices-11549886400).
-
What don't you understand? It's just human culture - a 'thing' gets associations, and over time those associations become desirable.
So you're not buying the truck because you need a truck - the three seat, long box, bare bones thing. You're buying it because you're a straight-talking, upright, outdoorsy independent... etc.
Except you also have a family, so you need 5 seats. And you're 40 so you want luxuries. And the payment is only $450 a month.
Someone asked a question the other day about 'what do you consider your luxury purchases' (this was on reddit I think), and I didn't answer because my thought was: the meaning of the word has gone. Everything we have is luxurious - instant hot water, fridges, everything. Central heating.
What's to understand? Car companies are there to make money; to do that they must convince people to give them money. They design stuff and market it, marketing drives sales. Have you seen how many big fucking chrome GMC, Chevy, Ford, Dodge adverts there are on every commercial break on North American TV? How constant the 'are you tired of that three year old vehicle on your driveway' ads are on the radio? Oh my god.
You're buying a truck because you wanted one when you were 18 but you have a family, and because the TV and radio and newspapers and bill boards all tell you you want one.
The car companies make shitloads on these things - that's why they've stopped bothering with cars (Ford, GM, Dodge I mean). Stick in $200 extra of electronics and charge fucking $10k more. Ooh. A backup camera. Really. Probably cost 'em $40.
Oh I got the tech package. Yup.
-
Who the flip wants to spend $60K+ on a pickup truck and the load a bunch of gravel into the bed? Or firewood? Or dirt?
After the interior of the bed is scratched - well, that truck is ruined! Send it to the crusher!
I've owned pickup trucks. My favorite was the pickup truck that apparently everyone's Daddy owned at some point. It had a heater and brakes and a steering wheel. Not much else b/c it was designed to be used as a truck. Every time I drove it someone wanted to talk about it b/c it had enough age on it that it stood out.
If i were to buy a new pickup truck I'd likely need to buy something from a third world country like a Mahindra so it was plain and basic and all about getting the work done, not gallivanting around a country club.
-
I've never understood the luxury car market, especially luxury trucks. What's the point? If you not hauling stuff then why bother. Trucks are meant to get dirty and scratched and whatnot.
There are, however, features that do drive up the price that make sense to a point. 4WD features - some people need them. Tow package - depends what you're towing. But the key, especially with a truck, is to buy used. Let someone else eat the initial depreciation (really back on trucks), let them stress about the first few scratches.
But then again, from my POV all new car prices are silly. You can easily spend close to $40k on a Subaru Outback. Ok, it has AWD, but limited cargo/tow capacity. However, a used Ram 1500 Ecodiesel gets 27 mpg highway, roughly the same as an Outback. But the virtual signal value is way lower :)
Don't even get me started on vintage Westfalia/Vanagon vehicles. Outrageously overpriced and terrible MPG (like 14-18), terrible performance, almost nil cargo/tow capacity. Yet many around here think these are cool!
-
Here's what I don't understand; how the $*!^ have we allowed pickup trucks and SUV - which make up 2/3rds of the US auto market - to escape the more stringent fuel efficiency standards given to sedans and other cars. Especially when something like 90% of these cars are never used for anything other than passenger transportation.
Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.
-
You're buying a truck because you wanted one when you were 18 but you have a family, and because the TV and radio and newspapers and bill boards all tell you you want one.
Well, I sort of want the little red Toyota pickup that I played with as a young child, which probably would have been cerca 1988. But no one makes a truck like that in the US anymore.
-
Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.
Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.
-
Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.
Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.
Yes, IMHO we shouldn't allow such vehicles to be sold for non-commercial purposes.
-
Folks with horses or other big loads to haul would disagree. I'm skeptical of government's ability to determine acceptable use for such things, there are too many interests, needs, etc. that don't necessarily fall within the commercial sphere. What's next, do we disallow international air travel for non commercial reasons? Besides, if things were limited to commercial vehicles those really wanting them will just go through the steps needed to get commercial classification.
EDIT: If you mean the naturally aspirated 1/2 ton trucks that get less than 20 mpg, well I sort of agree, though I think a tax that makes these more (or equally) expensive to the smaller turbocharged engines would make more sense.
-
Folks with horses or other big loads to haul would disagree. I'm skeptical of government's ability to determine acceptable use for such things, there are too many interests, needs, etc. that don't necessarily fall within the commercial sphere. What's next, do we disallow international air travel for non commercial reasons? Besides, if things were limited to commercial vehicles those really wanting them will just go through the steps needed to get commercial classification.
I'd be fine requiring a CDL for larger vehicles.
EDIT: If you mean the naturally aspirated 1/2 ton trucks that get less than 20 mpg, well I sort of agree, though I think a tax that makes these more (or equally) expensive to the smaller turbocharged engines would make more sense.
I think ending CAFE and instituting a real carbon tax would make the most sense.
-
The venn overlap between luxury pickup owners who voice "personal responsibility" and those who are living "paycheck to paycheck" is probably pretty large.
-
I saw a late 70s Toyota pickup the other day in traffic. Tiny little thing. How much things have changed!
Saw an ad for a Chevy p/u that says it is rated for 35,000 lbs tow capacity. Wow.
-
Folks with horses or other big loads to haul would disagree. I'm skeptical of government's ability to determine acceptable use for such things, there are too many interests, needs, etc. that don't necessarily fall within the commercial sphere. What's next, do we disallow international air travel for non commercial reasons? Besides, if things were limited to commercial vehicles those really wanting them will just go through the steps needed to get commercial classification.
EDIT: If you mean the naturally aspirated 1/2 ton trucks that get less than 20 mpg, well I sort of agree, though I think a tax that makes these more (or equally) expensive to the smaller turbocharged engines would make more sense.
For a bit of perspective, you're talking to someone who uses a silverado 2500HD v8 Diesel at work to transfer heavy equipment and boats across the state. I'm also aware that there's a ton of people who think they need such a large vehicle, and many contractors who actually do. I would support requiring a CDL for these larger vehicles. As I see it the problem is that we've set fuel efficiency standards for some very good reasons, but then we've kept open this huge loophole for pickups. About half the trucks on the road are pickups and of those something like 90% of those are never used for anything more rigorous than carting people around on paved roads.
I'm also skeptical of this argument that people need these big pickups for hobbies and home projects, etc. THe half-ton, V6 pickups today can tow more and carry a bigger payload than largest trucks available back in the 80s - yet people in the 70s/80s/90s still moved horses and boats around with much less powerful trucks. If you really need to tow a 5+ton trailer (which some V6s are now rated for) or put a ton of material in your bed you've entered into commercial driving territory, and you should be restricted and regulated as such.
I'll just say my aim isn't to curtail people who actually need a pickup truck's capacities, and I realize requiring a CDL would be a burden on them. But letting the majority of pickup and large SUV users have lower fuel standards than the rest of us when they don't need that functionality is just needlessly trashing our planet.
*Half-ton/3/4-ton/one-ton pickups used to mean something, namely that was the max payload (+/- ~10%) that you could put into the bed. But trucks have become so powerful in the last two decades that **every** 1/2 ton is rated to carry at least 1500lbs, and the 3/4 tons are eclipsing 3000lbs (1.5 tons).
-
Yes, I've heard the arguments people use to justify various trucks and SUVs in their life. Gotta have the biggest or the best b/c they go fishing.
As a child I would go fishing with my grandfather. He towed a fishing boat with a small ~100HP pickup. Well, tiny by 2019 standards.
-
My Prius with a hitch and a small 1000-lb capacity trailer hauls literally everything I could possibly need to carry, and I'm an avid DIYer who regularly hauls sizable loads from the hardware store. I'm so glad that MMM opened my eyes to the possibility that I might not actually need a pickup truck! (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/12/08/turning-a-little-car-into-a-big-one/). That one article has saved me more money than any single page I've ever read.
-
No, you don't need a pickup to tow a tiny aluminum boat to go fishing. I'm well aware that there are many people driving huge trucks/SUVs around who don't need them. That's quite different, however, than saying no one has a legitimate use.* Bigger boats (around here we have ocean going vessels), gooseneck trailers, or heavy loads. If you're moving more than 5000 lbs you're more or less limited to a pickup/SUV.
That said, I'm all for policy to nudge people in a better direction. IMO the CDL route is too heavy handed, think a tax is more appropriate. But whatever, difference of opinion.
If the goal is reducing GHG (rather than lashing out at symbols of the culture war) then the number one thing we can and should do in the US is build denser cities - especially along the West Coast. What good does it do to drive around in a Tesla while insisting on suburban level density? This leads to urban sprawl and super commutes for many thousands of the less well off. Oh, right, we can feel smug in our elitism while enjoying our exclusive leafy neighborhoods. Dense cities result in less driving for everyone, and they also encourage smaller vehicles. Yet here I sit, in one of the supposedly "greenest" cities in the US, advocating for higher density while most of my neighbors fight to stop all development. It's messed up.
*About legitimate use: Does anyone need horses, or a big boat, or any other hobby requiring a big vehicle? Strictly speaking, no. But by definition no one "needs" any particular hobby or leisure activity. So if that's going to be the criteria for what we allow in society then we should ban all air travel for non-work reasons. In fact, all travel to any destination for non-work reasons should be disallowed. Entire industries should be shuttered...surfing, biking, skiing. These all have an enormous footprint. Obviously I don't really think we should do this, but pointing out that we should be careful about picking on certain groups of people just because we don't like them.
-
No, you don't need a pickup to tow a tiny aluminum boat to go fishing. I'm well aware that there are many people driving huge trucks/SUVs around who don't need them. That's quite different, however, than saying no one has a legitimate use.* Bigger boats (around here we have ocean going vessels), gooseneck trailers, or heavy loads. If you're moving more than 5000 lbs you're more or less limited to a pickup/SUV.
That said, I'm all for policy to nudge people in a better direction. IMO the CDL route is too heavy handed, think a tax is more appropriate. But whatever, difference of opinion.
If the goal is reducing GHG (rather than lashing out at symbols of the culture war) then the number one thing we can and should do in the US is build denser cities - especially along the West Coast. What good does it do to drive around in a Tesla while insisting on suburban level density? This leads to urban sprawl and super commutes for many thousands of the less well off. Oh, right, we can feel smug in our elitism while enjoying our exclusive leafy neighborhoods. Dense cities result in less driving for everyone, and they also encourage smaller vehicles. Yet here I sit, in one of the supposedly "greenest" cities in the US, advocating for higher density while most of my neighbors fight to stop all development. It's messed up.
*About legitimate use: Does anyone need horses, or a big boat, or any other hobby requiring a big vehicle? Strictly speaking, no. But by definition no one "needs" any particular hobby or leisure activity. So if that's going to be the criteria for what we allow in society then we should ban all air travel for non-work reasons. In fact, all travel to any destination for non-work reasons should be disallowed. Entire industries should be shuttered...surfing, biking, skiing. These all have an enormous footprint. Obviously I don't really think we should do this, but pointing out that we should be careful about picking on certain groups of people just because we don't like them.
Seems like we both have similar goals but want slightly different approaches.
regarding the pickup 'need' - let me phrase it this way; Pickups headline marketing has always been power (towing, hp, torque). But we already have the ability to design trucks that can tow 6,000 lbs safely and still get 30mpg. But they don't get built because clown consumers want acceleration and top speeds similar to sedans - yet they don't want to play by the same standards. 25 years ago it was unthinkable that you could buy a stock pickup and expect it to do 125mph+ or go 0-60 in 6.x seconds. Now that's the expectation.
Fuel standards (as well as safety standards) exist in large part so that there's a level playing field. We've kept that field from being level, and in so doing we've allowed pickups to become more and more powerful with only modest increases in efficiency.
I think we're falling into a bit of a straw man fallacy with talk of banning travel or leisure activities. I'm not suggesting people not be allowed to own and transport horses, boats, or any other number of heavy items. Merely that despite all the marketing BS you don't need 300hp V8 and 500lb-ft of torque to safely transport these payloads. We did it before with half that. Maybe you are right and heavy taxing would be better than requiring CDLs. I would argue I'm not 'picking on' a certain group as much as suggesting that they not be given special treatment, which is what they get now IMO by having an entirely different standard.
-
Maybe you are right and heavy taxing would be better than requiring CDLs. I would argue I'm not 'picking on' a certain group as much as suggesting that they not be given special treatment, which is what they get now IMO by having an entirely different standard.
I say do both! Carbon tax is market economics at its finest. CDL would be completely consistent with how we offer licenses to fly private aircraft. You can fly whatever you want, but you need to be type certified.
-
Who the flip wants to spend $60K+ on a pickup truck and the load a bunch of gravel into the bed? Or firewood? Or dirt?
The vast majority of pickup trucks I've seen are purchased for their 'manly' cachet. They're never, or almost never used for carrying things around. That's why short bed trucks exist . . . they're useless for carrying stuff around, but it makes it easier to park your immaculate pickup truck at the office parking lot every morning.
-
Are they though? It seems like the majority of the pickup I see have a short bed...and a full-sized back seat. It doesn't appear that they're actually shorter than a traditional-cab PU with an 8 foot bed. (and how often does one see one of those any more!)
-
No, you don't need a pickup to tow a tiny aluminum boat to go fishing. I'm well aware that there are many people driving huge trucks/SUVs around who don't need them. That's quite different, however, than saying no one has a legitimate use.* Bigger boats (around here we have ocean going vessels), gooseneck trailers, or heavy loads. If you're moving more than 5000 lbs you're more or less limited to a pickup/SUV.
Well, actually grandfather was towing a 16' fiberglass boat with his mighty 100HP. I recognize that SOME people do have valid needs for big vehicles and more power to them. I guess until the licensing laws or economics of owning a big vehicle changes we'll see people going shopping or commuting in huge 4WD pickups and SUVs.
I'm a big fan of the right size tool for the job. Dinky trailers for hardware store trips are great as are proper trucks for moving 35,000 lb loads.
-
Seems like we both have similar goals but want slightly different approaches.
regarding the pickup 'need' - let me phrase it this way; Pickups headline marketing has always been power (towing, hp, torque). But we already have the ability to design trucks that can tow 6,000 lbs safely and still get 30mpg. But they don't get built because clown consumers want acceleration and top speeds similar to sedans - yet they don't want to play by the same standards. 25 years ago it was unthinkable that you could buy a stock pickup and expect it to do 125mph+ or go 0-60 in 6.x seconds. Now that's the expectation.
Fuel standards (as well as safety standards) exist in large part so that there's a level playing field. We've kept that field from being level, and in so doing we've allowed pickups to become more and more powerful with only modest increases in efficiency.
I think we're falling into a bit of a straw man fallacy with talk of banning travel or leisure activities. I'm not suggesting people not be allowed to own and transport horses, boats, or any other number of heavy items. Merely that despite all the marketing BS you don't need 300hp V8 and 500lb-ft of torque to safely transport these payloads. We did it before with half that. Maybe you are right and heavy taxing would be better than requiring CDLs. I would argue I'm not 'picking on' a certain group as much as suggesting that they not be given special treatment, which is what they get now IMO by having an entirely different standard.
Agree specs have inflated over time. But I would argue this is true with most vehicles. It's interesting to watch a car model evolve over time, usually growing from small to large. Would love to see more midsize pickups (the Ford Ranger and Toyota Tacoma are like the 1/2 ton trucks of yesteryear). What I'd really like to see is a reasonable EV pickup. The Tesla concept truck is fugly IMO and appeals to a different set. I mean, they figured out how to make a great looking sports car that appealed to that market (rather than the previous weird looking EVs), hope they build a truck looking truck with long range and reasonable charge time (this seems to be improving with time).
The issue, I think, isn't with trucks specifically. It's with our car culture, and how we design our cities and infrastructure. Lots of luxury cars are equally as bad as trucks (mpg for the BMW 7 Series is about the same as many 1/2 ton trucks), and I've already said my bit about the #vanlife scene. My argument about leisure activities is, I admit, somewhat of a strawman, but also somewhat not - it's the logical conclusion of value judgements that aren't really consistent. E.g. take a look at the carbon footprint for an international flight.
Money is a proxy for value, so set annual registration fees (non-commercial) based on a function combining GVWR, engine displacement, and miles driven. And make this function non-linear so that those doing dumb things like driving massive engines huge distances get the message. Someone driving 30k miles/year in a F250 6.8L will reconsider when their registration bill comes to $5k. Same is true of someone using a super fast (and inefficient) sports car as a daily commuter. Those who really need (or want) such vehicles would have an incentive to find alternatives for daily driving (carpool, second vehicle, bike), and at the same time would have an incentive to buy the smaller more efficient engines.
-
Are they though? It seems like the majority of the pickup I see have a short bed...and a full-sized back seat. It doesn't appear that they're actually shorter than a traditional-cab PU with an 8 foot bed. (and how often does one see one of those any more!)
My FIL spent close to a year looking for a long bed, diesel, used pick-up at a good deal for using around his farm. I think he ended up going to another state when he found one. They're not easy to find.
-
Agree specs have inflated over time. But I would argue this is true with most vehicles. It's interesting to watch a car model evolve over time, usually growing from small to large. Would love to see more midsize pickups (the Ford Ranger and Toyota Tacoma are like the 1/2 ton trucks of yesteryear). What I'd really like to see is a reasonable EV pickup. The Tesla concept truck is fugly IMO and appeals to a different set. I mean, they figured out how to make a great looking sports car that appealed to that market (rather than the previous weird looking EVs), hope they build a truck looking truck with long range and reasonable charge time (this seems to be improving with time).
I'd love to see EV trucks - and I think holding them to a higher fuel efficiency standard would spur that innovation. There's a few in development, but as long as we allow them to (unfairly) compete with V8 Diesels it's going to be tough sledding.
The issue, I think, isn't with trucks specifically. It's with our car culture, and how we design our cities and infrastructure. Lots of luxury cars are equally as bad as trucks (mpg for the BMW 7 Series is about the same as many 1/2 ton trucks), and I've already said my bit about the #vanlife scene.
This is true, and a consequence of allowing fuel efficiency standards to be applied and averaged against a manufacturer's entire fleet, rather than individual models. Limit (or tax) the 7 series and 'super-cars' as well . Actually, the most logical way forward would probably be a carbon tax as well as a GVWR fee (which you brought up as well). This would also be applicable to the international travel you've mentioned. Wikipedia estimates a carbon footprint of roughly 90kg per hour per person (or ~500 miles) traveled, and most articles I've read say a carbon tax somewhere between $25 and $100 per ton would be a proper balance of economic incentive and ecological protection. Some quick math shows a flight from NYC to LA would yield about 0.44 metric tons of carbon/person. So using a 'middle value' of $50/metric ton each passenger would be assessed $22 for a one-way flight. I would support such a change.
-
Are they though? It seems like the majority of the pickup I see have a short bed...and a full-sized back seat. It doesn't appear that they're actually shorter than a traditional-cab PU with an 8 foot bed. (and how often does one see one of those any more!)
My FIL spent close to a year looking for a long bed, diesel, used pick-up at a good deal for using around his farm. I think he ended up going to another state when he found one. They're not easy to find.
The key here is "at a good deal". There are TONS of long-bed Diesels out there, but they hold their value more than most cars and cost a fortune to purchase new (typically $50k+). There's over a dozen within 50 miles of me right now, but most of them are over $40k (!) . One is selling for $9k but has 289,000 miles on it (a 2003 F250). Crazy.
-
It's great to have friends with trucks, so I can borrow them the one time a year or so something needs to be hauled that doesn't fit in the trunk of my Camry.
I'm in Nashville. Pickup trucks and cowboy hats. Who cares that you live in the suburbs?
-
The issue, I think, isn't with trucks specifically. It's with our car culture, and how we design our cities and infrastructure. Lots of luxury cars are equally as bad as trucks (mpg for the BMW 7 Series is about the same as many 1/2 ton trucks), and I've already said my bit about the #vanlife scene.
This is true, and a consequence of allowing fuel efficiency standards to be applied and averaged against a manufacturer's entire fleet, rather than individual models. Limit (or tax) the 7 series and 'super-cars' as well . Actually, the most logical way forward would probably be a carbon tax as well as a GVWR fee (which you brought up as well). This would also be applicable to the international travel you've mentioned. Wikipedia estimates a carbon footprint of roughly 90kg per hour per person (or ~500 miles) traveled, and most articles I've read say a carbon tax somewhere between $25 and $100 per ton would be a proper balance of economic incentive and ecological protection. Some quick math shows a flight from NYC to LA would yield about 0.44 metric tons of carbon/person. So using a 'middle value' of $50/metric ton each passenger would be assessed $22 for a one-way flight. I would support such a change.
Largely agree, though again would prefer a tax to be non-linear increasing exponentially. I don't want to unfairly punish the horse person, hobby farmer, etc. with a truck being used exclusively for it's designed purpose. Same for the car person with a sports car for occasional pleasure driving - I'm not a car person, don't really understand it, but don't begrudge someone enjoying an occasional weekend outing to wine country in their fancy car. And also the classic car folks (including classic vans) who aren't using these things for daily driving. Have your fun, but don't use them for commuting.
-
My Prius with a hitch and a small 1000-lb capacity trailer hauls literally everything I could possibly need to carry, and I'm an avid DIYer who regularly hauls sizable loads from the hardware store. I'm so glad that MMM opened my eyes to the possibility that I might not actually need a pickup truck! (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/12/08/turning-a-little-car-into-a-big-one/). That one article has saved me more money than any single page I've ever read.
I don't even have a hitch and trailer, but my Prius has brought home everything from my new (scratch and dent) clothes dryer to a new front door. I get some strange looks, but occasionally I pop open the hatch and let lumber hang out the back (properly flagged of course). Other times, no one can see it, but I'm heavily loaded with bags of sakrete or paving stones spread evenly over all the passenger seats. As a former pick up truck (and dump truck) owner, I miss my old girls, but I won't be buying another truck anytime soon (read NEVER). If I run across something I can't fit in my Prius, I can rent a truck for pennies on what it would cost me to keep a similar truck in the driveway.
Oh hell yeah, I do that all the time. I only hook up the trailer when it's absolutely necessary, like hauling home our new used, $100 fancy-pants refrigerator. I've carried enough 80-lb bags of concrete in the hatch to bottom out the springs. It's incredibly liberating to own a car with essentially zero resale value. I'd never haul half the stuff in a $50,000 pickup that I put in my Prius :D
-
The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.
Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.
While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.
-
What don't you understand? It's just human culture - a 'thing' gets associations, and over time those associations become desirable.
So you're not buying the truck because you need a truck - the three seat, long box, bare bones thing. You're buying it because you're a straight-talking, upright, outdoorsy independent... etc.
Except you also have a family, so you need 5 seats. And you're 40 so you want luxuries. And the payment is only $450 a month.
Someone asked a question the other day about 'what do you consider your luxury purchases' (this was on reddit I think), and I didn't answer because my thought was: the meaning of the word has gone. Everything we have is luxurious - instant hot water, fridges, everything. Central heating.
What's to understand? Car companies are there to make money; to do that they must convince people to give them money. They design stuff and market it, marketing drives sales. Have you seen how many big fucking chrome GMC, Chevy, Ford, Dodge adverts there are on every commercial break on North American TV? How constant the 'are you tired of that three year old vehicle on your driveway' ads are on the radio? Oh my god.
You're buying a truck because you wanted one when you were 18 but you have a family, and because the TV and radio and newspapers and bill boards all tell you you want one.
The car companies make shitloads on these things - that's why they've stopped bothering with cars (Ford, GM, Dodge I mean). Stick in $200 extra of electronics and charge fucking $10k more. Ooh. A backup camera. Really. Probably cost 'em $40.
Oh I got the tech package. Yup.
lol...I know it's not the point of your rant, but backup cameras are / have been mandatory in the USA for everything built in May 2018 or later.
Trucks are absurdly expensive these days though. I sold mine years ago after realizing that people asked me to use it more than I actually needed it myself. I really want a little utility trailer but have nowhere to put it. :(
-
Have you looked into a folding utility trailer?
-
Have you looked into a folding utility trailer?
I have nowhere to put one unless I carry it behind my house. :(
I'm in NJ, right outside of Manhattan...we have one small garage spot (occupied), one driveway spot (occupied), and a car on the street.
-
The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.
Bullshit. Minivans serve that role. They're not RWD, but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.
Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.
Throw a bed cover on a truck, and you've just invented . . . a minivan! Except a shittier minivan where there aren't removable rear seats in case you need them, and there's probably less space to store things as most truck beds aren't that high.
I have lived in Canada my whole life . . . including several years deep in Northern Ontario. Never needed 4WD or higher ground clearance for winter driving. You start to run into problems with ground clearance after about a foot and a half of snow has hit the road and not been plowed . . . how often does that come up where you live?
While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.
I just helped push an idiot in a truck with 4WD (who didn't know that 4WD means you can accelerate really well in snow, but can't stop or turn) off of a neighbour's front lawn today. I guess that the great ground clearance helped him more easily drive over the row of hedges before hitting the tree. No snow tires of course . . . because he had 4 wheel drive.
-
The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.
"Bullshit. Minivans serve that role. They're not RWD, but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations."
You can call bullshit all you want, but full-size car traditionalists aren't cross-shopping Toyota Siennas as Park Avenue replacements. They are nowhere near a rolling bordello with V8 power, stirring lines and great visibility. Hell, the last Park Aves were V6/FWD and that drove guys to the Panther platform. The car guys I talk to that refuse to buy pickups/SUVs are turning to the 300, and they're not happy about it.
Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.
"Throw a bed cover on a truck, and you've just invented . . . a minivan! Except a shittier minivan where there aren't removable rear seats in case you need them, and there's probably less space to store things as most truck beds aren't that high."
Except you're comparing capped truck storage to that of a minivan. I was pointing out a truck bed, even with cap, is 2 or 3 times larger than a sedan's trunk.
"I have lived in Canada my whole life . . . including several years deep in Northern Ontario. Never needed 4WD or higher ground clearance for winter driving. You start to run into problems with ground clearance after about a foot and a half of snow has hit the road and not been plowed . . . how often does that come up where you live?"
Here on the plains, it's not the accumulation, it's the drifts. I would not be home right now if I didn't have 4WD and snow tires. We're talking drift-busting on gravel. A week and a half ago we were snowed in for over 4 days. This very minute, they're pulling the plows off the roads, not because of snowfall, but because of high wind closing roads back in. The second you get out of city limits, it's every man for himself and the name of the game is ground clearance.
While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.
"I just helped push an idiot in a truck with 4WD (who didn't know that 4WD means you can accelerate really well in snow, but can't stop or turn) off of a neighbour's front lawn today. I guess that the great ground clearance helped him more easily drive over the row of hedges before hitting the tree. No snow tires of course . . . because he had 4 wheel drive."
Seems more like a reflection on the driver than on the vehicle.
-
Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.
The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.
Which is better? Depends on your needs. Lots of kids/people to drive around: Minivan. Have something to tow or bulky/messy/heavy stuff to haul: truck.
-
Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.
The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.
Which is better? Depends on your needs. Lots of kids/people to drive around: Minivan. Have something to tow or bulky/messy/heavy stuff to haul: truck.
Which comes back to the (whatever ratio) rule - how much time do you actually spend doing activity-X that needs the truck? And how much does it cost to own and run that vehicle, vs renting from UHaul for $20 every so often?
This is the thing, the constant argument on this forum - it is people who have a use for trucks, thinking like "we're" trying to take them away from "them".
If you have a genuine need for a truck, knock yourself out. If you want to carry horseshit because you're a small scale local market food box farmer? Cool. If you keep bees and need to carry hives? Cool. If you have horses and need to pull them? Cool. If you have a boat? Cool.
But for your *average* truck owner that uses the thing 'properly' once or twice or three times a year? Consider saving yourself some money, the environment some pollution, and use a rental every few months.
Or don't, and complain about the cost of fuel.
Or even worse - fucking blame the government for your poverty while you have this liability to drive around, costing you a huge car payment and $20 ($50? I don't even know, fuel prices have dropped like a rock lately) more every fill up.
And this takes me back up - most people on this site are not stupid. We don't need to argue amongst ourselves because most of us either think owning a truck is a bad idea *for most truck owners* or have a truck *that those other people would concede is not a bad idea*.
Spending a year's salary on a luxury item (over 5-8 years, of course) is what is stupid. Marketing is tricking people through repetition and, let's be honest, *shiny* into wasting a shit load of money. People on this site aren't those people.
-
The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.
Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.
While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.
You have described what a pickup can do for the typical family- but not why they need to be as powerful as they are, nor why they should be exempt from the more stringent fuel efficiency standards required for large sedans and station-wagons.
And as GuitarStv has already said, AWD/4WD is not necessary and generally offers no advantages for surface streets in incliment weather. A pickup is decidedly one of the less desirable vehicles in snowy conditions. But marketers love to showcase them plowing through snowbanks in closed courses that no one would say is proper driving.
-
This topic really strikes a nerve for me!
I teach and coach in a small, rural community. The boys I deal with on our football team all believe that a truck is a sign of "coolness". They've all been brainwashed into this idea that you need a truck even though they never tow anything. We are losing more and more of them from school activities because they have to work low wage jobs to make their big truck payments. Then they have to "upgrade" to the next best truck when that one is paid for. When I see these guys 10 years later, they are still driving that same truck they spent their entire "youth" working for.
We started coaching them in financial literacy along with football, but it will take time.
-
Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.
The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.
Which is better? Depends on your needs. Lots of kids/people to drive around: Minivan. Have something to tow or bulky/messy/heavy stuff to haul: truck.
Which comes back to the (whatever ratio) rule - how much time do you actually spend doing activity-X that needs the truck? And how much does it cost to own and run that vehicle, vs renting from UHaul for $20 every so often?
This is the thing, the constant argument on this forum - it is people who have a use for trucks, thinking like "we're" trying to take them away from "them".
If you have a genuine need for a truck, knock yourself out. If you want to carry horseshit because you're a small scale local market food box farmer? Cool. If you keep bees and need to carry hives? Cool. If you have horses and need to pull them? Cool. If you have a boat? Cool.
But for your *average* truck owner that uses the thing 'properly' once or twice or three times a year? Consider saving yourself some money, the environment some pollution, and use a rental every few months.
Or don't, and complain about the cost of fuel.
Or even worse - fucking blame the government for your poverty while you have this liability to drive around, costing you a huge car payment and $20 ($50? I don't even know, fuel prices have dropped like a rock lately) more every fill up.
And this takes me back up - most people on this site are not stupid. We don't need to argue amongst ourselves because most of us either think owning a truck is a bad idea *for most truck owners* or have a truck *that those other people would concede is not a bad idea*.
Spending a year's salary on a luxury item (over 5-8 years, of course) is what is stupid. Marketing is tricking people through repetition and, let's be honest, *shiny* into wasting a shit load of money. People on this site aren't those people.
I agree that spending a huge amount on a luxury truck is silly, but this is true for all luxury vehicles. The depreciation is terrible. If you need a truck for truck things, then get a used basic trim vehicle and save yourself a bundle.
The argument about saving the environment is less clear. Compared to a huge V8, sure. But the Ford Ecoboost engines are growing in popularity and some of these are out economizing (or are similar to) minivans and other vehicles long considered more eco-friendly (Subaru comes to mind).
-
out saving the environment is less clear. Compared to a huge V8, sure. But the Ford Ecoboost engines are growing in popularity and some of these are out economizing (or are similar to) minivans and other vehicles long considered more eco-friendly (Subaru comes to mind).
Its not the most fuel efficient pickups that draw my ire, the ones that are approaching 30mpg - its those V8/V10 models that get 19 mpg highway yet are used as passenger vehicles but treated as commercial vehicles (sans CDL or registration requirements).
-
out saving the environment is less clear. Compared to a huge V8, sure. But the Ford Ecoboost engines are growing in popularity and some of these are out economizing (or are similar to) minivans and other vehicles long considered more eco-friendly (Subaru comes to mind).
Its not the most fuel efficient pickups that draw my ire, the ones that are approaching 30mpg - its those V8/V10 models that get 19 mpg highway yet are used as passenger vehicles but treated as commercial vehicles (sans CDL or registration requirements).
+1
-
The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.
Bullshit. Minivans serve that role. They're not RWD, but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.
Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.
Throw a bed cover on a truck, and you've just invented . . . a minivan! Except a shittier minivan where there aren't removable rear seats in case you need them, and there's probably less space to store things as most truck beds aren't that high.
I have lived in Canada my whole life . . . including several years deep in Northern Ontario. Never needed 4WD or higher ground clearance for winter driving. You start to run into problems with ground clearance after about a foot and a half of snow has hit the road and not been plowed . . . how often does that come up where you live?
While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.
I just helped push an idiot in a truck with 4WD (who didn't know that 4WD means you can accelerate really well in snow, but can't stop or turn) off of a neighbour's front lawn today. I guess that the great ground clearance helped him more easily drive over the row of hedges before hitting the tree. No snow tires of course . . . because he had 4 wheel drive.
Today, yesterday, last week, I was late a couple of times earlier in the winter because they don't plow till later than I leave. Yes I wish I 4WD because I live in a rural area and we literally have 13 plows for 1/10 of the Buffalo population and a larger space.
-
Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.
The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.
Comparing gasoline to diesel consumption? The numbers read a bit differently if we compare apples to apples instead:
2018 Toyota Sienna: 19/27 city/highway - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39726 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39726)
2018 F150: 15/19 city/highway - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/39601.shtml (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/39601.shtml)
(Yes, I'm comparing a 4WD truck to a front wheel drive van . . . as a rear wheel drive is statistically much more dangerous to drive.)
-
Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.
The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.
Comparing gasoline to diesel consumption? The numbers read a bit differently if we compare apples to apples instead:
2018 Toyota Sienna: 19/27 city/highway - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39726 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39726)
2018 F150: 15/19 city/highway - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/39601.shtml (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/39601.shtml)
(Yes, I'm comparing a 4WD truck to a front wheel drive van . . . as a rear wheel drive is statistically much more dangerous to drive.)
Uh, so your F150 numbers are for the 5.0L naturally aspirated V8 that nereo and I have discussed. The F150s have a bewildering array of options and configurations. The turbocharged 2.7 L 4WD ecoboost gets 19/24 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39255) whereas the 2WD gets 20/26 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39241).
People drive trucks in 2WD mode unless they need the extra traction and then switch to 4WD (full-time rather than AWD) if they have it. So 4WD isn't safer for everyday driving. For traction purposes many folks can get away with 2WD with the optional E-Locker rather than 4WD.
-
Today, yesterday, last week, I was late a couple of times earlier in the winter because they don't plow till later than I leave. Yes I wish I 4WD because I live in a rural area and we literally have 13 plows for 1/10 of the Buffalo population and a larger space.
As a native of a less-than-urban part of Upstate New York, I feel obligated to point out that while 4-wheel drive is nice to have in the winter, it's not the main thing that makes a vehicle driveable when there's a bunch of snow on the roads.
In my experience, what "matters" in rough order of priority in a significant snowstorm:
1) Ground clearance (This is pretty binary - your vehicle either has enough ground clearance relative to the snow depth or it doesn't)
2) Driving intelligently - maintain speed and following distances that are appropriate for the reduced traction
3) Appropriate tires (snow tires DO help significantly with traction)
4) 4-wheel drive
In that order - i.e. 4-wheel drive is the *least* important of the above. For the overwhelming majority of situations, snow tires or chains, plus a basic understanding of how to drive in the winter are more than enough assuming you have enough ground clearance relative to the snow depth.
4-wheel drive has its uses, but for the majority of "normal" winter driving scenarios it's not the main thing that lets you make it to your destination safely. If I live in an area where the plows are slow to arrive, I'm not so concerned with 4WD - I'm going to make sure my vehicle has sufficient ground clearance and I'll certainly switch to snow tires at the start of the snow season in early November.
-
Just to add to what js82 said - there are literally dozens of real world and controlled tests comparing a vehicle equipped with winter tires and 2wd to one with all-season and AWD.
Snow tires wins out in a landslide in every metric (stopping, acceleration, cornering, driving up hills... on snow or on ice)- its not even close. Snow tires are such a difference that they are mandatory in most places in Canada and Scandinavia during the winter months, yet 2wd vehicles remain the norm.
-
Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.
Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.
Yes, IMHO we shouldn't allow such vehicles to be sold for non-commercial purposes.
"We shouldn't allow?"
Really? You want the government deciding what we can and can't buy, and for what purposes we can use what we are allowed to buy?
I'm sure that if you have influence with someone in the right commissariat, you'll be able get something written into the next 5-year plan of the central committee that will force citizens to do as you think they should.
Er, unless you live in the USA. We have prefer freedom, even if everyone doesn't do as you think they should.
-
Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.
Throw a bed cover on a truck, and you've just invented . . . a minivan! Except a shittier minivan where there aren't removable rear seats in case you need them, and there's probably less space to store things as most truck beds aren't that high.
Umm, no. Just...no.
A mini van is often not a substitute for a truck.
I drive a truck. When I go to the office (which is rare, since I generally work from home), my truck sits among many others, as well as tons of SUVs.
Some of the "I know what's best for you" scolds in this group would probably disapprove of my choice.
At least once a month, on the weekends, I use my truck to transport rescue dogs from rural/small town areas to the city, where they can be more easily adopted. When Houston flooded about a year and a half ago, I made probably a dozen runs to Houston to San Antonio. I hauled supplies on the way into the city, then transported abandoned/lost dogs back so they could get treatment/shelter. I simply could not have done that with a minivan, which just would not be up to the task of transporting large number of dog crates, as well as supplies.
Those are just a few examples of the many times I've used my truck as a truck. Just because someone parks in a business office parking lot from M-F doesn't mean that they don't use their truck as a truck. Nor does it mean they need your approval of their vehicle choice.
The kicker is, I probably use less gas in an average year than most Prius/Econobox drivers do.
-
Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.
Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.
Yes, IMHO we shouldn't allow such vehicles to be sold for non-commercial purposes.
"We shouldn't allow?"
Really? You want the government deciding what we can and can't buy, and for what purposes we can use what we are allowed to buy?
I'm sure that if you have influence with someone in the right commissariat, you'll be able get something written into the next 5-year plan of the central committee that will force citizens to do as you think they should.
Er, unless you live in the USA. We have prefer freedom, even if everyone doesn't do as you think they should.
Americans prefer freedom? Lol.
That must be why it's perfectly legal to smoke weed after paying for some sex, right? Or free to have a drink after enlisting in the army at 18? Or to be freely represented in government without anti-democratic policies like gerrymandering? Freedom to vote at 16? Freedom from unreasonable lay-offs at work? Freedom to be treated the same way by police and the legal system regardless of the colour of your skin? Freedom to move from job to job without worrying about losing the basic human right of health care? Freedom to leave your country without paying expatriation tax? Freedom do do what you want with your body . . . and get an abortion if you choose to? :P
Americans certainly talk more about freedom that the members of any other country I can think of . . . but when you put aside the nonsensical "FREEDOM!!!111" advertising, the US is much like any other western country. You're free to do some stuff and you're not free to do other stuff. You have some freedoms that aren't enjoyed in other countries, and you lack some freedoms that are enjoyed in other countries. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great stuff in the American system that should be pointed to as beneficial to personal freedom . . . but there's also a lot of room for improvement.
There are of course, also very tricky questions to answer when discussing freedom that tend to be glossed over and ignored by the libertarian crowd. Pollution controls prevent large companies upstream from just dumping toxic waste into the river that goes through my back yard. Is it more free for the controls to be removed allowing the business to do whatever they want, or for the controls to be in place allowing me to enjoy the land that I own without fear of toxicity?
-
Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.
Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.
Yes, IMHO we shouldn't allow such vehicles to be sold for non-commercial purposes.
"We shouldn't allow?"
Really? You want the government deciding what we can and can't buy, and for what purposes we can use what we are allowed to buy?
I'm sure that if you have influence with someone in the right commissariat, you'll be able get something written into the next 5-year plan of the central committee that will force citizens to do as you think they should.
Er, unless you live in the USA. We have prefer freedom, even if everyone doesn't do as you think they should.
Yes, I believe we should not allow.
I'm guessing from your user-name you and I will have a fundamental disagreement about government regulating the activities of its citizens, but it has a well established precedent, even in the US.
We banned leaded gasoline decades ago. Almost everywhere requires emissions testing on vehicles. There are fleet-wide fuel-efficiency standards on all new cars sold in the US. You are limited on how loud your vehicle can be, how fast you can drive it and how loud bright your headlights can be. You are required to have turn signals and brake-lights.
This is not a new, novel or extreme concept. The actions of some (in this case a whole lot of poeple) are negatively impacting the health of the many and causing substantial changes to our ecosystems. As was noted above we already have these standards - we just apply them very lopsidedly.
-
The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.
Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.
While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.
Memories - my old Chevy Impala (69?68?)- I could get a bicycle in the trunk with no hassle. My parents pulled a camper all the way to the maritimes with their car back in the 60s. We towed a water-ski boat with our Subaru in the 90s. The stuff we could get into a proper station wagon - hatchbacks are so useless in comparison.
-
The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.
Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.
While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.
Memories - my old Chevy Impala (69?68?)- I could get a bicycle in the trunk with no hassle. My parents pulled a camper all the way to the maritimes with their car back in the 60s. We towed a water-ski boat with our Subaru in the 90s. The stuff we could get into a proper station wagon - hatchbacks are so useless in comparison.
Useless...except that they get way better gas mileage and will more or less last forever when property maintained. While I have some nostalgia for the cars of my childhood (70s and 80s), I don't miss them. The quality of modern cars is so much better. The fit and finish of older cars is pretty bad: huge gaps between body panels, interiors that crack and breakdown, paint that quickly deteriorates, and oh, the rust . Yes, you could tow a trailer and ample cargo space, but typical MPG was, what, about 15 mpg? Major engine/mechanical work every 50k or so (if I recall correctly). And let's not forget how relatively unsafe they were. I know MMM has pointed out the use of safety as a marketing ploy, and there's truth to this if you feel the need to trade in your 10 year old vehicle because "safety." But statistically the safety improvements in recent decades are remarkable (https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/04/guide-to-safety-features/index.htm). These things work. I know that ABS, Brake Assist, and Stability Control have saved my butt more than a few times. Thankfully I haven't needed them, but airbags also work. I'll gladly keep my newish vehicle :)
Edit: For fun: https://jalopnik.com/why-old-cars-suck-5551040
-
Perhaps we could imagine a 2019 car in proportions similar to a late 1960s Chevy sedan. With all the tech improvements what would the fuel economy be? Maybe near 30 mpg simply b/c it isn't shaped like a barn (aka truck or SUV)? Add in a station wagon design for ~1 mpg less. I'd be happy with better fuel economy and less horsepower in a family car. As long as it doesn't struggle up hills or need more than 10-12 seconds to reach highway speeds, I'm happy. I've owned alot of 150HP vehicles and they are fine if there is enough torque available that the engine doesn't need to spin at 4000 RPM to maintain highway speeds. That gets tiring. I've also owned cars that took 20+ seconds to reach highway speeds. Seriously. I've even owned vehicles that aren't capable of highway speeds. That is a history lesson experience.
I wonder if that article is noting people's behavior or quietly making some readers think their expensive choices are okay b/c everyone else is doing it too. Personally I like the frugal approach discussed here. So much less stress worrying about keeping everything paid for when everything is paid for and there is more income than spending.
2019 consumer choices are just continuing a boom/bust cycle that I've witnessed my entire life. More car, more house, more poor than necessary.
-
but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.
=(
-
but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.
=(
aww....
-
but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.
=(
aww....
. . . except doing donuts in parking lots!
-
Just to chime in regarding CDL requirements - My estranged Father in Law bought a [used] 50 foot long Diesel pusher motorhome several years ago. It did Not require any sort of special endorsment on his drivers license. That seems a bit crazy but true, at least in this state. 2nd day of ownership he took out a stop sign, and cracked the fiberglass bodypanel by the rear inside wheel. Just by making a right hand turn and not swinging out wide enough...
Co-worker reportedly paid $ 62,000 dollars just last year for a Ford F-150 4x4 [ not even a Raptor ] - must be loaded with every convienence feature available.
He has a retirement check from military, in addition to his normal salary......apparently he doesn't believe in haggling much.
RWD - its not true - we love the burnouts you make possible !
-
Here's a question that's bugged me for years - why did they make older cars RWD in the first place?
My guess is that - back in the day - it was easier to connect the engine's crank shaft to the transmission in back because it was too complicated (tight) to mount it to the front wheels easily.
But if that's true (and I have no idea if it is) - why put the engine in the front to begin with? Just because previously the power source (horses, oxen, mules) were always in front (a form of confirmation bias?)
just curious.
-
Just to chime in regarding CDL requirements - My estranged Father in Law bought a [used] 50 foot long Diesel pusher motorhome several years ago. It did Not require any sort of special endorsment on his drivers license. That seems a bit crazy but true, at least in this state. 2nd day of ownership he took out a stop sign, and cracked the fiberglass bodypanel by the rear inside wheel. Just by making a right hand turn and not swinging out wide enough...
Boats are also surprising. While there are differnet state regulations for inland waters, you can go out and buy a 64 foot boat that weighs up to 99 tons and carries 999 gallons of fuel and you don't even need a bloody license. Seriously. At the same time if you own a rowboat and you accept so much as a 6-pack of beer to take your brother just outside the harbor you need a license which is about 10x harder than a drivers license and involves randomize drug testing (aptly named the 6-pack license, or OUPV (Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessels)).
-
Here's a question that's bugged me for years - why did they make older cars RWD in the first place?
My guess is that - back in the day - it was easier to connect the engine's crank shaft to the transmission in back because it was too complicated (tight) to mount it to the front wheels easily.
But if that's true (and I have no idea if it is) - why put the engine in the front to begin with? Just because previously the power source (horses, oxen, mules) were always in front (a form of confirmation bias?)
just curious.
Yes, transaxles are relatively new, tighter to fit than the straight line of engine-transmission-straight down the vehicle.
If you put the engine in the back they would then have to put the axle through to the front, and have to connect steering to the back (the steering wheels were not the powered ones remember) which wouldn't work because the steering wheel... is in front of you.
-
Here's a question that's bugged me for years - why did they make older cars RWD in the first place?
My guess is that - back in the day - it was easier to connect the engine's crank shaft to the transmission in back because it was too complicated (tight) to mount it to the front wheels easily.
But if that's true (and I have no idea if it is) - why put the engine in the front to begin with? Just because previously the power source (horses, oxen, mules) were always in front (a form of confirmation bias?)
just curious.
Yes, transaxles are relatively new, tighter to fit than the straight line of engine-transmission-straight down the vehicle.
If you put the engine in the back they would then have to put the axle through to the front, and have to connect steering to the back (the steering wheels were not the powered ones remember) which wouldn't work because the steering wheel... is in front of you.
I assume the real reason is parking lot donut related.
:P
-
FWD: probably engineering and manufacturing expenses. Cheaper to build what had always been built.
Until the 1950s car and truck engine bays were relatively narrow. Engines were commonly low output inline designs and thus long. FWD calls for sideways engines generally (Audi has done that differently). One engineering change leads to another. CV joints, half shafts, different details for front suspension and steering design, aesthetic changes, etc.
The Auburn-Cord was the first FWD American car and expensive. The Austin Mini was the first mainstream FWD car as I recall.
I've always questioned why we don't have turbo diesel hybrid drivetrains in SUV and pickup trucks to maximize torque and MPG. Cost again. All those technologies cost extra.
Surely if fuel was $8 a gallon people would make different choices and the automobile companies would offer even more advanced drivetrains to maximize economy and maintain power. We probably would not see as many casually driven large or luxury vehicles on the road.
-
but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.
=(
aww....
. . . except doing donuts in parking lots!
RWD - its not true - we love the burnouts you make possible !
I... may have done some donuts and burnouts in the past...
Rear wheel drive is superior in handling most real world scenarios.
-
Related:
https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2019/02/just-released-auto-loans-in-high-gear.html
The overall performance of auto loans has been slowly worsening, despite an increasing share of prime loans in the stock. The flow into serious delinquency (that is, the share of balances that were current or in early delinquency that became 90+ days delinquent) in the fourth quarter of 2018 crept up to 2.4 percent, substantially above the low of 1.5 percent seen in 2012.
[emphasis added]
Unemployment was ~7-8% in 2012.
-
As far as RWD vs FWD, working on something like a Volvo 240 is an absolute dream because there is tons of space. The engine goes in the front, the transmission goes in the middle, and the differential and drive axles go in the rear. Plenty of room for everything.
I've owned AWD, FWD, and RWD vehicles, and I definitely can see why we started with RWD.
-
Related:
https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2019/02/just-released-auto-loans-in-high-gear.html
The overall performance of auto loans has been slowly worsening, despite an increasing share of prime loans in the stock. The flow into serious delinquency (that is, the share of balances that were current or in early delinquency that became 90+ days delinquent) in the fourth quarter of 2018 crept up to 2.4 percent, substantially above the low of 1.5 percent seen in 2012.
[emphasis added]
Unemployment was ~7-8% in 2012.
So is that a drain circling motion we might be sensing right about now?
-
Here's a question that's bugged me for years - why did they make older cars RWD in the first place?
My guess is that - back in the day - it was easier to connect the engine's crank shaft to the transmission in back because it was too complicated (tight) to mount it to the front wheels easily.
But if that's true (and I have no idea if it is) - why put the engine in the front to begin with? Just because previously the power source (horses, oxen, mules) were always in front (a form of confirmation bias?)
just curious.
Putting power through the same wheels you use to steer was/is a major engineering challenge. It's a lot easier to transfer power efficiently through a solid rear axle since the wheels don't need to articulate, and you also have the advantage of a locking diff, so both wheels can put power to the ground. Not so, in FWD where one wheel turns faster than the other when turning.
Developing a joint that can transfer significant power without breaking, and that also doesn't require frequent maintenance isn't easy. On FWD cars you end up with both inboard and outboard CV joints because the wheels also move independently as well as turn, and they've got to be completely sealed, unlike a u-joint with grease cups. Then there's the matter of redirecting power to those shafts in a small enough envelope to package under-hood. An open differential and a change of direction in power (along with the output shafts and V somehow has to squeeze in that engine bay.
It was the '66 Olds Toronado that finally delivered a package that had no problem handling massive torque (550 ft-lb on the '70 Eldo), eliminated the problem of torque steer and was reliable well past 100k miles. And the engine was mounted longitudinally, so no issue of accessing "rear" spark plugs. The design is a thing of engineering beauty.
Of course that release was met by the public with a yawn, except for mid-westerners who bought them up in droves for their unstopped winter traction. It wouldn't be until the early 80's when cars got smaller that maximizing interior space became a priority and FWD was the obvious answer.
Edit: To the last part, moving the engine to the rear really screws with driving dynamics due to the pendulum effect. There are ways to overcome that, but especially in FWD, keeping the weight of the engine over the drive wheels effectively kills two birds with one stone.
-
Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.
Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.
Yes, IMHO we shouldn't allow such vehicles to be sold for non-commercial purposes.
"We shouldn't allow?"
Really? You want the government deciding what we can and can't buy, and for what purposes we can use what we are allowed to buy?
I'm sure that if you have influence with someone in the right commissariat, you'll be able get something written into the next 5-year plan of the central committee that will force citizens to do as you think they should.
Er, unless you live in the USA. We have prefer freedom, even if everyone doesn't do as you think they should.
Americans prefer freedom? Lol.
That must be why it's perfectly legal to smoke weed after paying for some sex, right? Or free to have a drink after enlisting in the army at 18? Or to be freely represented in government without anti-democratic policies like gerrymandering? Freedom to vote at 16? Freedom from unreasonable lay-offs at work? Freedom to be treated the same way by police and the legal system regardless of the colour of your skin? Freedom to move from job to job without worrying about losing the basic human right of health care? Freedom to leave your country without paying expatriation tax? Freedom do do what you want with your body . . . and get an abortion if you choose to? :P
Americans certainly talk more about freedom that the members of any other country I can think of . . . but when you put aside the nonsensical "FREEDOM!!!111" advertising, the US is much like any other western country. You're free to do some stuff and you're not free to do other stuff. You have some freedoms that aren't enjoyed in other countries, and you lack some freedoms that are enjoyed in other countries. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great stuff in the American system that should be pointed to as beneficial to personal freedom . . . but there's also a lot of room for improvement.
There are of course, also very tricky questions to answer when discussing freedom that tend to be glossed over and ignored by the libertarian crowd. Pollution controls prevent large companies upstream from just dumping toxic waste into the river that goes through my back yard. Is it more free for the controls to be removed allowing the business to do whatever they want, or for the controls to be in place allowing me to enjoy the land that I own without fear of toxicity?
That must be why it's perfectly legal to smoke weed after paying for some sex, right? Or free to have a drink after enlisting in the army at 18? Or to be freely represented in government without anti-democratic policies like gerrymandering? Freedom to vote at 16? Freedom from unreasonable lay-offs at work? Freedom to be treated the same way by police and the legal system regardless of the colour of your skin? Freedom to move from job to job without worrying about losing the basic human right of health care? Freedom to leave your country without paying expatriation tax? Freedom do do what you want with your body . . . and get an abortion if you choose to? :P
What? Do you even know what a libertarian is? Are you confusing "libertarian" with "right wing conservative?" We aren't the same thing, dude. Libertarians tend to be more liberal (in the classic sense, not the big government program sense) than Democrats on most social issues.
Libertarians support letting people to smoke or drink what they choose. We tend to be very vocal about this.
Libertarians support your right to do what you want with your body- whether that be regarding abortion, prostitution, whatever.
Libertarians are consistent opponents of any discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or sexual preference. I have no idea why you think libertarians support police brutality. Libertarians are vociferous opponents of any sort of unfair treatment of any citizen by the government (including the police)- if you want to get a libertarian worked up, just ask get him going about police brutality/overreach/militarization (especially in the name of the insane "War on Drugs," which tends to disproportionately harm those in minority communities).
We sure as Hell aren't in favor of any expatriation tax.
About the only "freedom" you listed above that we don't support is "Freedom from unreasonable lay-offs at work," because that isn't an issue of "freedom" at all. That's an issue of whether citizens should be free to hire/fire their fellow citizens in a voluntary relationship, or whether their hands should be forced by government bureaucrats/central planners.
-
Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.
Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.
Yes, IMHO we shouldn't allow such vehicles to be sold for non-commercial purposes.
"We shouldn't allow?"
Really? You want the government deciding what we can and can't buy, and for what purposes we can use what we are allowed to buy?
I'm sure that if you have influence with someone in the right commissariat, you'll be able get something written into the next 5-year plan of the central committee that will force citizens to do as you think they should.
Er, unless you live in the USA. We have prefer freedom, even if everyone doesn't do as you think they should.
Americans prefer freedom? Lol.
That must be why it's perfectly legal to smoke weed after paying for some sex, right? Or free to have a drink after enlisting in the army at 18? Or to be freely represented in government without anti-democratic policies like gerrymandering? Freedom to vote at 16? Freedom from unreasonable lay-offs at work? Freedom to be treated the same way by police and the legal system regardless of the colour of your skin? Freedom to move from job to job without worrying about losing the basic human right of health care? Freedom to leave your country without paying expatriation tax? Freedom do do what you want with your body . . . and get an abortion if you choose to? :P
Americans certainly talk more about freedom that the members of any other country I can think of . . . but when you put aside the nonsensical "FREEDOM!!!111" advertising, the US is much like any other western country. You're free to do some stuff and you're not free to do other stuff. You have some freedoms that aren't enjoyed in other countries, and you lack some freedoms that are enjoyed in other countries. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great stuff in the American system that should be pointed to as beneficial to personal freedom . . . but there's also a lot of room for improvement.
There are of course, also very tricky questions to answer when discussing freedom that tend to be glossed over and ignored by the libertarian crowd. Pollution controls prevent large companies upstream from just dumping toxic waste into the river that goes through my back yard. Is it more free for the controls to be removed allowing the business to do whatever they want, or for the controls to be in place allowing me to enjoy the land that I own without fear of toxicity?
That must be why it's perfectly legal to smoke weed after paying for some sex, right? Or free to have a drink after enlisting in the army at 18? Or to be freely represented in government without anti-democratic policies like gerrymandering? Freedom to vote at 16? Freedom from unreasonable lay-offs at work? Freedom to be treated the same way by police and the legal system regardless of the colour of your skin? Freedom to move from job to job without worrying about losing the basic human right of health care? Freedom to leave your country without paying expatriation tax? Freedom do do what you want with your body . . . and get an abortion if you choose to? :P
What? Do you even know what a libertarian is? Are you confusing "libertarian" with "right wing conservative?" We aren't the same thing, dude. Libertarians tend to be more liberal (in the classic sense, not the big government program sense) than Democrats on most social issues.
Libertarians support letting people to smoke or drink what they choose. We tend to be very vocal about this.
Libertarians support your right to do what you want with your body- whether that be regarding abortion, prostitution, whatever.
Libertarians are consistent opponents of any discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or sexual preference. I have no idea why you think libertarians support police brutality. Libertarians are vociferous opponents of any sort of unfair treatment of any citizen by the government (including the police)- if you want to get a libertarian worked up, just ask get him going about police brutality/overreach/militarization (especially in the name of the insane "War on Drugs," which tends to disproportionately harm those in minority communities).
We sure as Hell aren't in favor of any expatriation tax.
About the only "freedom" you listed above that we don't support is "Freedom from unreasonable lay-offs at work," because that isn't an issue of "freedom" at all. That's an issue of whether citizens should be free to hire/fire their fellow citizens in a voluntary relationship, or whether their hands should be forced by government bureaucrats/central planners.
The first sentence and following two paragraphs described several failings of the American "freedom" that you implied was superior to all other countries. I don't believe that all Americans are libertarian.
The final paragraph referred to an observation I've made of a particularly difficult topic for most self professed Libertarians. I can't help but notice that you failed to respond to that part.
-
Maybe you are right and heavy taxing would be better than requiring CDLs. I would argue I'm not 'picking on' a certain group as much as suggesting that they not be given special treatment, which is what they get now IMO by having an entirely different standard.
I say do both! Carbon tax is market economics at its finest. CDL would be completely consistent with how we offer licenses to fly private aircraft. You can fly whatever you want, but you need to be type certified.
True, but the risk of injury or death with any sort of aircraft incident is dramatically higher than with cars, so it makes sense. Private pilot here myself. You can seriously mess things up for yourself or others if you don't know what you're doing in the air (DM if you want to hear a story of how a pilot acquaintance of mine got the local ANG jets scrambled on him)
The issue is: where do you draw the line of who requires a CDL when it comes to consumer pickup trucks?
-
The final paragraph referred to an observation I've made of a particularly difficult topic for most self professed Libertarians. I can't help but notice that you failed to respond to that part.
That's because the Coase Theorem breaks down in certain situations like, oh, dumping battery acid in a river.
To be fair, there are some libertarians that don't immediately start fuming when they hear the word "tax" and recognize the need for an externality...fee.
-
The issue is: where do you draw the line of who requires a CDL when it comes to consumer pickup trucks?
I'd be willing to say that any pickup truck sold in the US which qualifies for the $25k IRS section 179 depreciation deduction should count. Right now all trucks with a GVW of 6000lbs+ qualify for that, with some (beds over 6', SUVs with 9+ passengers) qualifying for even more.
-
The issue is: where do you draw the line of who requires a CDL when it comes to consumer pickup trucks?
I'd be willing to say that any pickup truck sold in the US which qualifies for the $25k IRS section 179 depreciation deduction should count. Right now all trucks with a GVW of 6000lbs+ qualify for that, with some (beds over 6', SUVs with 9+ passengers) qualifying for even more.
Requiring a CDL to a drive a Ford Ranger or a Honda Ridgeline seems rather ridiculous.
-
The issue is: where do you draw the line of who requires a CDL when it comes to consumer pickup trucks?
Just do what my state does now - a vehicle below a certain weight is exempt from CDL. With the pickups, adjust the law so that driving the truck empty is no big deal but towing heavy loads requires more license and/or insurance.
I get a little twitchy thinking of an inexperienced pickup driver dragging 35000 lbs of anything down the road. How far can this go? Five more years and these trucks might be able to tow 45000 lbs of trailer? Horsepower and torque continues to climb.
Sure would like to think everyone has good equipment - tires, trailer, lights, brakes, etc. We have no vehicle inspections here so alot of details slide on by on older equipment. We see farm trailers with bad tires. I have heard of stories about bad trailer brakes or in-op trailer lighting. Guys who with some luck made it home in one piece.
-
The first sentence and following two paragraphs described several failings of the American "freedom" that you implied was superior to all other countries. I don't believe that all Americans are libertarian.
The final paragraph referred to an observation I've made of a particularly difficult topic for most self professed Libertarians. I can't help but notice that you failed to respond to that part.
I was about to post something about this FREEDOM concept in the universal health care thread but decided not to, but then it rears its head here in full form lol.
'Murican Freedom baby! It's our justification for anything. You pay way more per person for your healthcare, education, etc? Yeah but you have the Freedom to choose (between multiple shitty options or even more expensive options)!
Put that marketing concept in somewhere and our brains shut off. It's a very convenient idea for all the people making a lot of money/power off of it, too, because it's almost impossible to measure and has a different definition for every scenario.
-
Requiring a CDL to a drive a Ford Ranger or a Honda Ridgeline seems rather ridiculous.
The GVW of a 1995 Ford Ranger was 5,000lbs. The GVW of a 1995 Toyota Tacoma was 5,100lbs. The whole point of this thread is the ridiculous inflation in specs in trucks. We could argue about where to draw the line, but I promise that you shouldn't want my 17 year old haling a bunch of cars with a dually, which today is totally legal.
-
I shudder to think of replacing my now 19-year old pickup. It only has 120K miles on it, so hopefully it will continue to serve me well. It's a basic extended cab, and that is harder to find in the newer trucks. I certainly don't need a King Ranch edition blah blah blah to tow my trailer to a weekend horse show.
This is an interesting discussion. I'm not convinced a CDL is needed for driving a pickup alone, but wouldn't be opposed to it for any truck + trailer configuration over a certain size. I've been towing a 2- horse trailer with about a 15' floor for over a decade now, and it's not difficult, but I think the difficulty and needed skill increases a lot as the rig length increases. I've mulled over getting a trailer with a ~22' floor and don't think I want to deal with the driving/parking challenges that would pose.
WRT emissions, I wouldn't be opposed to a mileage based tax/fee to encourage people to reserve these vehicles for use only when they're really needed. Of course, I live in the only county in the state requiring periodic emissions testing, which is way easier, cheaper ($20 every 2 years??) and less rigorous than in California, and the outcry over extending this to other counties in the same air basin is horrific. I can't imagine how unpopular a mileage based tax, or any sort of restrictions on large vehicles would be.
-
I don't really see or hear many advertisements anymore because I watch everything with a DVR and skip commercials, I don't watch live events like sports, and I listen to commercial-free satellite radio, so when I do see or hear a truck commercial it just blows me away. How do so many guys tolerate being marketed to with the message that you aren't manly enough? I saw a truck commercial and I literally thought "WTF? How insulting!" I'm plenty manly enough. Thank you very much. Those Madison Ave Ad Execs can bite me.
-
WTC - we cut the cord in 2001, run ad blockers and avoid most TV/movies, and I have the same jarring experience every time I see a truck ad. Not just trucks, but any car ad. Actually, most ads of any kind. It's striking how much of our economy is based on making people insecure.
Came across these this week:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/electric-truck-startup-announces-700-million-funding-round-led-by-amazon/
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/12/scoop-gm-working-on-electric-pickup-truck-with-tesla-powertrain/
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/17/how-ford-plans-to-get-buyers-to-pay-more-for-hybrid-and-electric-pickups.html
-
Requiring a CDL to a drive a Ford Ranger or a Honda Ridgeline seems rather ridiculous.
The GVW of a 1995 Ford Ranger was 5,000lbs. The GVW of a 1995 Toyota Tacoma was 5,100lbs. The whole point of this thread is the ridiculous inflation in specs in trucks. We could argue about where to draw the line, but I promise that you shouldn't want my 17 year old haling a bunch of cars with a dually, which today is totally legal.
I'd hazard a guess that a 2019 Ridgeline is a hell of a lot safer in every respect than a 1995 Ranger, despite it being heavier than your arbitrary weight limit.
That said, you're not wrong -- it does seem like there should be a graduated licensing system, much like how a regular driver's license does not permit you to ride a motorcycle. I would think that a license endorsement would be the proper route to take, as a CDL is specifically a "commercial" license.
-
The motorcycle license is the perfect example. I have to have a special license endorsement to ride a 40 mph 150cc scooter but technically my 16 year old teenager could drive across the continent in an 10000 lbs truck towing a 35 ft gooseneck trailer that weighs 30,000 lbs.
-
It seems there are two discussions going on that keep getting intertwined but have separate concerns.
One focuses on the safety aspect of allowing anyone with a basic license to operate very large trucks with ever-increasing payload and towing capabilities
The second is focused on the environmental impacts of a broad swath of the population driving what amounts to a commercial/industrial vehicle for non-commerical use, but are not governed by the fuel efficiency standards which apply to most passenger vehicles.
-
I think both angles are important. Solve one of the angles and the other is solved too - or easier to solve anyhow.
What's everyone's thoughts about this need to making lasting changes within the next 12 years to have a chance at protecting the environment? I can't see people changing how they live voluntarily in that time span.
Too many folks making a profit off of the way things are now. They will fund whatever is necessary to maintain the status quo.
-
What's everyone's thoughts about this need to making lasting changes within the next 12 years to have a chance at protecting the environment? I can't see people changing how they live voluntarily in that time span.
Regulations exist because enough people don't take sensible actions on their own. With regard to the environment and the topic on hand this includes things like emission standards and hazardous waste disposal (e.g. motor fluids). It's clear that we need to make reductions in green house emissions across the board, and vehicles are a large component of that. Beyond emissions there's also the increased impact that larger and heavier vehicles have on our infrastructure: they are responsible for more road wear (requiring resurfacing), take up more physical space and their larger mass creates an oversized danger to others in a collision.
I like more stringent vehicle emission standards because it creates a more level playing field. Very, very few actually need the kinds of HP and torque available on large vehicles today, and that market could be addressed by other means discussed here (examples include needing a higher-level license (CDL-type), taxing vehicle weight, increasing the fuel tax and incorporting technology (eg turbocharging, hybrid drives)). None of these solutions is perfect and each would 'move-the-needle' in a slightly different way. But overall I don't think we can or should continue with business as usual.
-
I'd hazard a guess that a 2019 Ridgeline is a hell of a lot safer in every respect than a 1995 Ranger, despite it being heavier than your arbitrary weight limit.
Just for the record, that isn't my arbitrary weight limit. That's the arbitrary weight limit set by congress so that contractors can take the full depreciation of their work trucks the year that they buy them. Seems pretty commercial to me.
EDITed to add - and there is one metric by which a lighter vehicle is always safer: when you get hit by it.
-
I'd hazard a guess that a 2019 Ridgeline is a hell of a lot safer in every respect than a 1995 Ranger, despite it being heavier than your arbitrary weight limit.
Just for the record, that isn't my arbitrary weight limit. That's the arbitrary weight limit set by congress so that contractors can take the full depreciation of their work trucks the year that they buy them. Seems pretty commercial to me.
EDITed to add - and there is one metric by which a lighter vehicle is always safer: when you get hit by it.
That's the minimum weight that justifies something as being eligible for the full depreciation rule, yes?
You seem to be arguing that 6k lbs = commercial vehicle, and if that's the case you'd better add the Honda Odyssey to your list. The Toyota Sienna escapes commercialism by 5lbs, though, weighing in at a feathery 5,995 lbs!
-
There's nothing wrong with older trucks IMO. The problem is finding one that isn't rusted to bits, or has been poorly maintained.
I get by just fine with my $ 5,000 pickup:
http://chrisleoonline.com/dodge-dakota-review/
-
Not saying we should, or that it could even be conceived in the USA, but AFAIK Japan bases ownership fees by virtue of size and engine displacement - Big vehicle with big displacement costs exponentially more than a smaller sized, smaller displacement vehicle. Could help in this country if they also included MPG as a factor. A lot of larger vehicles get pretty good mileage with small displacement turbo engines, that could offset the size hit.
One thing that would never fly over here is the mandatory scrapping of engines in Japan, still running well... Huge market here and elsewhere for JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) engines with very low miles. As others have said, it is amazing to what folks figure is normal in a PU truck today... 0-60 faster than many BMW cars were not so long ago, the size of a tank, and nearly as tall. Can you imagine most folks under 50 who even know/have ever driven one with "three on the tree"? Boy do I miss my 1990 Mazda B2200 PU. Manual transmission, about 100 HP, and could carry a full sized washer and dryer in the bed at the same time. Perfect size, easy to see out of and get crap out of the bed. I hear Ford is planning on releasing a PU truck that is smaller than the new Ranger, and I can't see how it does not sell.
There seems plenty of folks are asking for such things (even a compact El Camino type 'truck'/BRAT sorta thing would be nice), say like the one from Hyundai I have seen, and other makes available in other countries. I still temper this with the Honda 'Ridgeline effect'; not looked on as a 'truck' even in AWD to the rubes, FWD in non AWD trims, a bit pricey IMO, and does not have body on frame construction. Even so, it still covers 90% of what 'real' trucks can do, and I love reading stories from 'truck guys' who feel ashamed admitting how nice an RL is after they drive one. Jesus, peanut brittle ego anyone?
So, make me a compact truck where the damn thing is simple in design, plain, easy to clean, and functional without all of the gadget and tech shit... And not cost a zillion $$$... Yeah, impossible dream I know, but it was a reality not so long ago.
-
Not saying we should, or that it could even be conceived in the USA, but AFAIK Japan bases ownership fees by virtue of size and engine displacement - Big vehicle with big displacement costs exponentially more than a smaller sized, smaller displacement vehicle. Could help in this country if they also included MPG as a factor. A lot of larger vehicles get pretty good mileage with small displacement turbo engines, that could offset the size hit.
A big carbon tax would probably do too. CAFE actually encourages huge trucks, which is the height of political tomfoolery.