Author Topic: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)  (Read 5266 times)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2019, 08:16:02 AM »
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.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10175
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2019, 08:30:56 AM »
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.

SheWhoWalksAtLunch

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Location: Western NC
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2019, 09:09:36 AM »

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.

Years of emergency service work in northern climates - 2WD means we can see you from the road, 4WD usually means we need to walk farther into the woods/field to pull you out.

edited: still learning how to get the quotes to come out right
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 09:23:55 AM by SheWhoWalksAtLunch »

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2019, 09:37:51 AM »
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
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 09:49:25 AM by FINate »

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2632
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2019, 10:39:56 AM »
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. 

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3046
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2019, 11:17:16 AM »
but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.
=(

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2019, 11:17:55 AM »
but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.
=(
aww....

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12918
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2019, 11:32:57 AM »
but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.
=(
aww....

. . . except doing donuts in parking lots!

six-car-habit

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2019, 11:34:03 AM »
 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 !

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2019, 11:49:52 AM »
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.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #60 on: February 13, 2019, 11:57:44 AM »
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)).

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3268
  • Location: UK
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #61 on: February 13, 2019, 12:00:14 PM »
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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12918
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #62 on: February 13, 2019, 12:02:13 PM »
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

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2632
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #63 on: February 13, 2019, 12:43:06 PM »
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.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3046
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #64 on: February 13, 2019, 01:10:46 PM »
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.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3507
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #65 on: February 13, 2019, 02:48:40 PM »
Related:

https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2019/02/just-released-auto-loans-in-high-gear.html

Quote
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.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2019, 02:52:02 PM »
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.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2632
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #67 on: February 13, 2019, 08:42:34 PM »
Related:

https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2019/02/just-released-auto-loans-in-high-gear.html

Quote
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?

Cadman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #68 on: February 14, 2019, 10:57:54 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2019, 11:08:14 AM by Cadman »

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #69 on: February 15, 2019, 01:21:54 PM »
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?

Quote
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. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12918
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #70 on: February 15, 2019, 01:52:02 PM »
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?

Quote
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.

dignam

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 176
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #71 on: February 15, 2019, 02:18:01 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 02:21:37 PM by dignam »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3507
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #72 on: February 15, 2019, 02:48:07 PM »
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.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #73 on: February 15, 2019, 05:47:13 PM »
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.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5336
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #74 on: February 15, 2019, 06:51:23 PM »
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.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2632
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2019, 10:05:44 PM »
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.

sixup

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #76 on: February 16, 2019, 06:51:49 AM »


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.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #77 on: February 16, 2019, 09:15:25 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2019, 03:04:35 PM by PDXTabs »

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Location: At the Barn
  • Horses: for sanity & poverty!
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #78 on: February 16, 2019, 10:51:09 AM »
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.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1525
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #79 on: February 16, 2019, 11:07:38 AM »
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.

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #80 on: February 17, 2019, 04:56:02 PM »
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

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5336
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #81 on: February 17, 2019, 08:40:35 PM »
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.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2632
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #82 on: February 18, 2019, 06:48:03 AM »
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.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #83 on: February 18, 2019, 06:57:44 AM »
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.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2632
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #84 on: February 18, 2019, 07:27:01 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 07:29:36 AM by Just Joe »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #85 on: February 18, 2019, 09:04:04 AM »

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.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #86 on: February 18, 2019, 05:10:25 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 05:17:20 PM by PDXTabs »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5336
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #87 on: February 19, 2019, 01:29:58 PM »
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!

AccountingForLife

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #88 on: March 17, 2019, 08:30:27 PM »
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/


Holyoak

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 447
  • Age: 52
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #89 on: March 18, 2019, 06:51:43 AM »
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.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Article: Prices of Pickup Trucks Charge Into Luxury-Car Territory (WSJ)
« Reply #90 on: March 19, 2019, 08:26:18 PM »
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.