These are the exact same reasons I am using to downsize. Cost for what you get is the biggest reason. And I can't stand inefficiency, so the bigger cab is just wasteful to me now. I may actually run out of needed bed volume but that can be addressed with my existing trailer. But I do agree with Fightnfire, the mpg is really the same. The funny part is if you just search for pickups under the EPA website, gas only, 1st is the Maverick, followed by Santa Cruz which makes sense. Next is the Ranger but then the Ram and F150 in front of the Colorado or Honda.
Unrelated, but awesome job with the forum. Really like the vibe and the discussion that are going on here. It really feels like I'm peaking behind the curtains of a youtuber's life and the truck industry. Cheers from Canada
I would disagree that there is more room in the Double cab Tundra than a midsized truck. I sat in both. At best they are the same, but I think there is more room in the Taco. I didn't measure them, but sitting behind myself I had more leg room in the Taco.
I thought they felt identical legroom wise but more headroom, shoulder room in the Tundra dbl. Proportion could play a factor I'm 6'1-6'2" but with a taller torso than legs. So I felt more space in the shoulders etc.
I certainly wouldn't. I think it still comes down to the same thing, do you need that space or not? We can always apply the "it's just 8-10K more" rule to upgrade to anything. From an extended to a crew, 5ft to 6ft bed, 2wd to 4wd, etc. And if we throw in brands, you can get a brand-new Ram right now for 8-10K less than other brands but if you don't want one, you don't want one.
I don't disagree because you and I know what we want. The general at large question tho is how many people don't have a very specific need and just want a truck. I need to be able to tow a large trailer and fit 2 teenagers in the back. Full size for me. It I think about the people who have purchased trucks close to me most of them don't have specific needs like that, a mid-size or full-size would both work great. Is that the norm or are we the norm?
That's how I've always felt sitting in them.
I'd add that you need to balance your realistic needs against your perceived needs. Prior to getting my AT4 I was taking part in a discussion regarding shortbed vs standard bed on a half ton. Someone brought up the following point in favor of getting the standard bed, “what are you going to do if you need a sheet of plywood?” Sounded convincing until I thought about how likely is it that I'll need to move a sheet of plywood considering it's been 30 years since the last time I needed to do so.
I'm 5'8 and 150 lbs so size does make a difference for head/torso for sure. I don't think someone your size would want to spend time in either of those places!
The Tundra was not mid-equipped, it was stripped like the Tacoma's they looked at, which were $42K, that's the ten difference I was pointing out. The Ram, well, that's the Classic so you know you are getting a 2009 design, so it better be lower than any other truck on any lot in any config. There are Mavericks that cost more....lol
That's a big one people get caught up in, bed size. Some still say it ain't a truck without an 8' bed! Once again, it comes down to use. 30-40 years ago, they were only used as trucks, not daily drivers so that mattered. Not anymore. I probably fill my bed more than many non-work truck users and I know I can easily get away with a 5' bed.
