Damn. Thought I had it. (Pickup size growth)

[Saddle Tramp]

Like most, I have asked myself life's biggest question: Why have pickups gotten so big?

We've heard reasons like bigger radiators creating larger bodies to accommodate them all caused by higher tow ratings, but I think there's a different reason. I am thinking it's because of the growth of compact pickups to mid-sized status. When Ford shifted from the compact sized Ranger to the T6 model in 2012, Ford dropped the Ranger in the US market until the F-150 was "upsized". This size growth, along with the resurgence in the mid-sized pickup market, convinced Ford to bring back the Ranger in 2019.

Doing a trip through Wikipedia, I noticed that pretty much all the mid-sized pickups had hit roughly the same general dimension. (Most likely to creating a global platform for pickups like they did for cars.) Besides looking at the afore mentioned T6 Ranger, I looked up the Chevy Colorado, the Toyota HiLux, the Nissan Navara, the Isuzu D Max and the Mitsubishi Triton.

What I found was that wheelbases ranged from 121 inches to 129 inches with Mitsubishi being an outlier at 118. (Though they did recently up it to 123 inches)
Widths range from 70 to 76 inches with Ford's Ranger reaching up to 79.8 (Most likely bring the Raptor model.)

Height ranges from 67 to 74 inches depending on the model, cab size, and option package.

Let's compare these to the latest, 13th Gen, Ford F-150. Wheelbase is 122.4 to 163.7 inches

Width is 79.9 inches.

Height ranges 75.2 to 76.9 inches.

Rounding we get an average of 125 by 73 by 70.5 for a mid-sized and 142.8 by 79.9 by 76 for a full sized.
That means we are looking at a difference of 17.8 inches for the wheelbase, 6.9 inches for width, and 5.5 inches for height.

How does this measure against an F-150 from the 90's and early 2000's? (Tenth series - built from 97 to 2004) Well the dimensions are 120 to 157 wheelbase, 79.5 inch width, and a height of 73 to 75 inches depending on 2wd or 4wd.

Rounding again we get 138 by 79.5 by 74; or 4.8 inches difference in wheelbase; 0.4 inches for width, and 2 inches difference in height. That's for full sized vs full sized. What's the difference between the tenth gen vs the mid-sized average? Doing the math, we get a difference of 6 inches in wheelbase, 6.5 inches width, and 3.5 inches for height.

Personally. I think it was the 3.5 inch difference in height that did it. Parked side by side you might notice it but parked separately people would definitely ask why you popped extra for the full sized when you could get an "almost same sized" mid-sized pickup.

That's why I think full sized trucks got bigger. So the average person could see the difference. What are your thoughts?

But what about that old Ranger? the 2011 model? Well that measures 111.6 to 125.9 inches in wheelbase, 70.3 width, and 68.3 to 69.4 in height.


Links:

Ford Ranger (Americas) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ford Ranger (T6) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nissan Navara - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chevrolet Colorado - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Toyota Hilux - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Isuzu D-Max - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mitsubishi Triton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ford F-Series (thirteenth generation) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ford F-Series (tenth generation) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[testerdahl]

Like most, I have asked myself life's biggest question: Why have pickups gotten so big?

We've heard reasons like bigger radiators creating larger bodies to accommodate them all caused by higher tow ratings, but I think there's a different reason. I am thinking it's because of the growth of compact pickups to mid-sized status. When Ford shifted from the compact sized Ranger to the T6 model in 2012, Ford dropped the Ranger in the US market until the F-150 was "upsized". This size growth, along with the resurgence in the mid-sized pickup market, convinced Ford to bring back the Ranger in 2019.

Doing a trip through Wikipedia, I noticed that pretty much all the mid-sized pickups had hit roughly the same general dimension. (Most likely to creating a global platform for pickups like they did for cars.) Besides looking at the afore mentioned T6 Ranger, I looked up the Chevy Colorado, the Toyota HiLux, the Nissan Navara, the Isuzu D Max and the Mitsubishi Triton.

What I found was that wheelbases ranged from 121 inches to 129 inches with Mitsubishi being an outlier at 118. (Though they did recently up it to 123 inches)
Widths range from 70 to 76 inches with Ford's Ranger reaching up to 79.8 (Most likely bring the Raptor model.)

Height ranges from 67 to 74 inches depending on the model, cab size, and option package.

Let's compare these to the latest, 13th Gen, Ford F-150. Wheelbase is 122.4 to 163.7 inches

Width is 79.9 inches.

Height ranges 75.2 to 76.9 inches.

Rounding we get an average of 125 by 73 by 70.5 for a mid-sized and 142.8 by 79.9 by 76 for a full sized.
That means we are looking at a difference of 17.8 inches for the wheelbase, 6.9 inches for width, and 5.5 inches for height.

How does this measure against an F-150 from the 90's and early 2000's? (Tenth series - built from 97 to 2004) Well the dimensions are 120 to 157 wheelbase, 79.5 inch width, and a height of 73 to 75 inches depending on 2wd or 4wd.

Rounding again we get 138 by 79.5 by 74; or 4.8 inches difference in wheelbase; 0.4 inches for width, and 2 inches difference in height. That's for full sized vs full sized. What's the difference between the tenth gen vs the mid-sized average? Doing the math, we get a difference of 6 inches in wheelbase, 6.5 inches width, and 3.5 inches for height.

Personally. I think it was the 3.5 inch difference in height that did it. Parked side by side you might notice it but parked separately people would definitely ask why you popped extra for the full sized when you could get an "almost same sized" mid-sized pickup.

That's why I think full sized trucks got bigger. So the average person could see the difference. What are your thoughts?

But what about that old Ranger? the 2011 model? Well that measures 111.6 to 125.9 inches in wheelbase, 70.3 width, and 68.3 to 69.4 in height.


Links:

Ford Ranger (Americas) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ford Ranger (T6) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nissan Navara - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chevrolet Colorado - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Toyota Hilux - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Isuzu D-Max - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mitsubishi Triton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ford F-Series (thirteenth generation) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ford F-Series (tenth generation) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sorry, I got busy and didn't get a chance to respond. Another thing to keep in mind is CAFE made it easier to hit MPG targets for a larger wheelbase. So, if you built a smaller, reg cab truck it would have to get better MPG than a crew cab. The problem is physics doesn't work that way even if you drop the weight by a few hundred lbs. A truck is still an aerodynamic brick. Plus, it costs automakers more money to build so many different configurations of trucks to meet those CAFE targets.

What's happened instead is automakers focus on building crew cab trucks and then just give discounts on them versus extended and regular cab trucks.

You also have the migration from a work truck to now a family vehicle. People want extra headroom and more legroom for their family. This leads to taller and longer cabs.

Now if you have a taller cab, you have to raise the hood and bed height to match. Voila, you have a bigger truck.

You also have to make the grilles larger for more airflow since engines work more efficiently with cooler air. Thus the small grille, like the one found on my 1962 C-10 don't work at all. I've talked with engineers who have charts on how they have widened the grille and moved more metal out the way for more airflow.

Funny story how customers haven't kept up. When the new twin-turbo Tundra came out, a company started offering fabric covers for the front end shrinking the air flow. Both myself and the chief engineer commented on the Facebook post by saying "air flow??" That company responded by saying, "we did it on the 5.7L V8 with no problems." Talk about not understanding how things have changed.

The same thing happened with people putting snow plows on the front of their half-ton trucks with twin-turbo engines. It doesn't work. You can't block that airflow like that and still expect the engine to perform. I know Toyota and Ford specifically state you can't use turbo engines with a snow plow. My assumption is that will be the same for the Hurricane. Hmm...

Anyway, CAFE, family vehicle and overall consumer demand have lead to an increase in truck size. I've bitched that I don't understand why a 2WD can't have a lower bed though and that's fallen on deaf ears.

I also bitched to GM on their HDs about making the bed a bit lower to help with hooking up trailers. Trucks have gotten taller, trailers haven't. GM VP told me to come back next year he had something for me. We were at a half-ton truck launch.

The next year, he proudly says he got the bed height dropped by a whopping 3/4 of an inch. SMDH.

 

[Dusdaddy]

When they build for CAFE regs, doesn't the footprint matter the most? In other words, the length x width. I read somewhere that is why the mid-size all went crew cab, to increase the footprint so they could be considered bigger and have a lower min mpg. And that was the specific reason Ford killed the old Ranger, too small.

 

[Saddle Tramp]

Sorry, I got busy and didn't get a chance to respond. Another thing to keep in mind is CAFE made it easier to hit MPG targets for a larger wheelbase. So, if you built a smaller, reg cab truck it would have to get better MPG than a crew cab. The problem is physics doesn't work that way even if you drop the weight by a few hundred lbs. A truck is still an aerodynamic brick. Plus, it costs automakers more money to build so many different configurations of trucks to meet those CAFE targets.

What's happened instead is automakers focus on building crew cab trucks and then just give discounts on them versus extended and regular cab trucks.

You also have the migration from a work truck to now a family vehicle. People want extra headroom and more legroom for their family. This leads to taller and longer cabs.

Now if you have a taller cab, you have to raise the hood and bed height to match. Voila, you have a bigger truck.

You also have to make the grilles larger for more airflow since engines work more efficiently with cooler air. Thus the small grille, like the one found on my 1962 C-10 don't work at all. I've talked with engineers who have charts on how they have widened the grille and moved more metal out the way for more airflow.

Funny story how customers haven't kept up. When the new twin-turbo Tundra came out, a company started offering fabric covers for the front end shrinking the air flow. Both myself and the chief engineer commented on the Facebook post by saying "air flow??" That company responded by saying, "we did it on the 5.7L V8 with no problems." Talk about not understanding how things have changed.

The same thing happened with people putting snow plows on the front of their half-ton trucks with twin-turbo engines. It doesn't work. You can't block that airflow like that and still expect the engine to perform. I know Toyota and Ford specifically state you can't use turbo engines with a snow plow. My assumption is that will be the same for the Hurricane. Hmm...

Anyway, CAFE, family vehicle and overall consumer demand have lead to an increase in truck size. I've bitched that I don't understand why a 2WD can't have a lower bed though and that's fallen on deaf ears.

I also bitched to GM on their HDs about making the bed a bit lower to help with hooking up trailers. Trucks have gotten taller, trailers haven't. GM VP told me to come back next year he had something for me. We were at a half-ton truck launch.

The next year, he proudly says he got the bed height dropped by a whopping 3/4 of an inch. SMDH.

Thanks for replying. I can't imagine why you were so busy. Isn't the life of a journalist just free travel, flowing liquor, and dancing darlings? (LOL) I enjoyed all the videos you cranked out. That was a lot of work!

I can see the -cheap- aftermarket totally not getting the changes and demands created from new engineering. Have you looked at a LUND catalog lately? Yeesh!

I think the designers and engineers don't change bedsides of a 2wd pickup from a 4wd for the same reason why there's only crew cab mid-sized trucks now. Cost of separate tooling for body parts.

The CAFE footprint explanation kinda confuses me. IF Toyota and Nissan can have extended cab pickups in their mid sized line up, why not Ford and GM? I think it's more of sales numbers and profit thing over volume. (What is the ratio of extended cabs to crew cabs at the Nissan and Toyota dealerships?)

There's definitely a market for them as well as regular cab mid sized trucks. Is it under rated or just too small?

Wish we could get this here...

Of course overseas only. I might actually buy a new ranger if this was here.

www.therangerstation.com

As for taller cabs? Nobody want to relive those "Littke Tykes" memories in a new truck?

 

[Saddle Tramp]

When they build for CAFE regs, doesn't the footprint matter the most? In other words, the length x width. I read somewhere that is why the mid-size all went crew cab, to increase the footprint so they could be considered bigger and have a lower min mpg. And that was the specific reason Ford killed the old Ranger, too small.

Fun fact, the 2011 Ranger sold better than the Mustang of the time.

Question: With the Hybrid engine available, wouldn't an extended cab or even regular cab Maverick still meet CAFE standards?

 

[testerdahl]

Thanks for replying. I can't imagine why you were so busy. Isn't the life of a journalist just free travel, flowing liquor, and dancing darlings? (LOL) I enjoyed all the videos you cranked out. That was a lot of work!

I can see the -cheap- aftermarket totally not getting the changes and demands created from new engineering. Have you looked at a LUND catalog lately? Yeesh!

I think the designers and engineers don't change bedsides of a 2wd pickup from a 4wd for the same reason why there's only crew cab mid-sized trucks now. Cost of separate tooling for body parts.

The CAFE footprint explanation kinda confuses me. IF Toyota and Nissan can have extended cab pickups in their mid sized line up, why not Ford and GM? I think it's more of sales numbers and profit thing over volume. (What is the ratio of extended cabs to crew cabs at the Nissan and Toyota dealerships?)

There's definitely a market for them as well as regular cab mid sized trucks. Is it under rated or just too small?

Wish we could get this here...

Of course overseas only. I might actually buy a new ranger if this was here.

www.therangerstation.com

As for taller cabs? Nobody want to relive those "Littke Tykes" memories in a new truck?

CAFE is corporate average fuel economy. Average being the key word. They should be able to build those trucks you described within CAFE guidelines imo, however, when I talked to brands they tell me the math is actually a lot more complex.

I think you’ll find with the other versions of trucks by Nissan and Toyota, like you mentioned, they are counting on and planning to artificially restrict production to make sure they have many more of the crew-cab variety.

Also keep in mind there are credits you can buy/sell or use to offset certain vehicles. For example, for everyone Prius or Leaf that gets sold, that automaker gets a credit they can put on a non-compliance vehicle.

Tesla, it’s said, makes more money selling credits than selling cars.

It’s all pretty complex and I’ve only been able to scratch the surface.

 

[Saddle Tramp]

That's what worries me. That I have to find, download, print, and decipher the CAFE regulations.

 

[Dusdaddy]

My thinking is, with Toyota and Nissan, as a corporation, have plenty of CAFE credits to shift to their truck divisions from their more efficient car divisions, especially Toyota with Hybrid everything. That allows them some leeway in continuing to build the extended cabs as well as Taco manuals. They weighed the complaints and hate they would get to using the credits and made a decision to keep fans happy. When the pain of the money gets too great, they'll end it. That pain just came quicker for Chevy and Ford. Hell, Ford already makes the extended cab overseas, so it can be done, like Tim said, just not worth the cost for such a low volume seller.

From what I read; the whole reason CAFE switched to the footprint model was because some makers were trying to call small SUVs light trucks so they'd have more room in the regs. One huge example: The PT Cruiser was considered a "Light Truck" for CAFE reasons.

 

[Hilux]

CAFE is corporate average fuel economy. Average being the key word. They should be able to build those trucks you described within CAFE guidelines imo, however, when I talked to brands they tell me the math is actually a lot more complex.

I think you’ll find with the other versions of trucks by Nissan and Toyota, like you mentioned, they are counting on and planning to artificially restrict production to make sure they have many more of the crew-cab variety.

Also keep in mind there are credits you can buy/sell or use to offset certain vehicles. For example, for everyone Prius or Leaf that gets sold, that automaker gets a credit they can put on a non-compliance vehicle.

Tesla, it’s said, makes more money selling credits than selling cars.

It’s all pretty complex and I’ve only been able to scratch the surface.

First post and dumb question, why dont truck makers just make a regular cab truck on the crew cab wheel base? to get around the CAFE requirements since the foot prints would be the same, maybe make them chassis cab only for work type trucks, Edit: this pertains to midsize trucks as GM, Ford and Ram still make regular cab trucks.

 

[testerdahl]

First post and dumb question, why dont truck makers just make a regular cab truck on the crew cab wheel base? to get around the CAFE requirements since the foot prints would be the same, maybe make them chassis cab only for work type trucks, Edit: this pertains to midsize trucks as GM, Ford and Ram still make regular cab trucks.

So just a really long bed then? Not really much demand for that. Everyone is going crew cab, short bed since it’s so popular.

 

[GMT 900]

First post and dumb question, why dont truck makers just make a regular cab truck on the crew cab wheel base? to get around the CAFE requirements since the foot prints would be the same, maybe make them chassis cab only for work type trucks, Edit: this pertains to midsize trucks as GM, Ford and Ram still make regular cab trucks.

Ahh, the "Orkin" configuration maybe

https://www.orkin.com

Looks to be still Tacoma's

Probably will get a fleet version of this to keep with their brand:

 

[GMT 900]

This thread and a discussion at work with a fellow older military guy sparked some research on something that came into service 40 years ago (1984) and which I had some extensive experience operating: The Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle (CUCV) or in military slang of the time, the "Cut Vee." Chevy even ran a commercial about them that maybe some of you remember when you were kids:

Vets will cringe at the total out of reg haircuts and the complete safety violation of vehicle operations near aircraft (Between the propellers?!?) but GM had won the contract (all CUCVs were bowtie badged) and wanted to toot their horn.

The specs of these tough military pickups and SUVs? GM was still in the throes of responding to Ford's upping to the F-150 from F-100, so some sources think they are closer to K-3500 than K-30s as GM upped their capacities vehicle line wide. GM was still was addressing this in '99.

https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/che...ght-duty/chevrolet-silverado-2500-light-duty/

Past is prologue: Titan XD before Titan XD?

Here are the GM specifications "brochure" provided to the military on the CUCV models

https://www.vehiclenanny.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CUCV-Brochure-and-Spec-Sheets.pdf

So recent discussions in Tacoma and other threads have talked about payloads of mid size trucks and adjunct topics such as wheelbases and bed size. Some highlights:

- The M-1008, with a wheelbase similar to the 31XX-2 Colorado and Canyon twins and the '24 Tacoma has an 8ft+ plus bed

- The M-1009 Blazer, upped to 3/4 status by GM, has the same payload as the featured Beninbeta 2024 Tacoma

- The HD M-1009 Blazer is over 600 lbs less than my 2010 Tahoe LTZ and the One Ton M-1008 is almost 100 lbs lighter than my 2012 1500 Avalanche LTZ

I feel old...If you, as a fellow GI, told me back in the day the smallest Toyota pickup (well, they only had one model back then) would have as long a wheelbase as my M-1008 and the payload of my M-1009 in the future, I would have reported you for command-directed drug testing!

 

[chaseydog]

Drove a CUCV on and off while in the Marines back in the 80’s. Pickup truck and ambulance style body we used for delivering aircraft components. Swear they painted those things with green house paint and a brush.

 

[GMT 900]

Drove a CUCV on and off while in the Marines back in the 80’s. Pickup truck and ambulance style body we used for delivering aircraft components. Swear they painted those things with green house paint and a brush.

Ahh yes, the CARC paint. Spent a lot of $$$$ developing it and still available:

https://industrial.sherwin-williams...agent-resistant-coatings/liquid.10656565.html

I see no price listed. If you have to ask...

Note the tank in the top right corner. Had to blow it up; it does have a CARC paint scheme and is a Czech Army T-72M4 CZ, so this paint is exportable with State Department license.

 

[Dusdaddy]

They were fine but those diesels were a mechanics nightmare. My first 4 years was arty and we hated these things. Constantly in MT shop. The hummer replaced most of them.

 

[GMT 900]

They were fine but those diesels were a mechanics nightmare. My first 4 years was arty and we hated these things. Constantly in MT shop. The hummer replaced most of them.

Yeah, I was little Tongue in Cheek with the "tough military pickups and SUVs?" The M-1008 in temperate climate (Southeast Turkey) worked pretty good, but they were factory fresh...M-1009s in desert with a few years on them were much worse.