In other words, a pickup truck! Not a giant SUV masquerading as one, with a 5ft bed and 5-passenger luxury car cab, with price to match. I'm old enough to remember normal pickup trucks, affordable for actual "work" use, with bench seating for three, full 8x4 bed with half ton cargo capacity and not much else.
Every year car models get bigger and heavier. If you compare the original Tacoma to a 2023 Tacoma they look like totally different trucks. A new Tacoma looks bigger than the original Tundra.
I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, length, width, and height. The bigger the vehicle the more likely to cause an accident and the heavier the more likely for the accident to be severe.
> I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, length, width, and height
Roughly speaking, they are. Unfortunately, the system didn't quite get the memo, so there are two classes of vehicles based on size here; car, and truck. small trucks, like we are discussing here would fit into the car category. unfortunately, because they fit into the car category, they have to follow the car rules, which they can't, which means they don't exist. all the bigger vehicles fit into the truck category, which has more lax standards about certain things, and which is why we have such big SUVs.
Toyota used to have a pickup called "pickup" that was awesome. Small, light, but a full-sized bed. minimal with little to break - manual transmission, crank up windows, bench seat, etc.
I guess they rely on full-sized american pickup habits and creative financing to get folks to buy more expensive and bulkier trucks.
You can still buy them, but when they're gone, they're gone. After Ford stopped the Ranger in 2011, nobody has sold a US market regular cab compact pickup truck. (The more recent Ranger isn't available as a regular cab)
You can get a regular cab F-150, or similar, and you can get a smaller truck with a tiny bed and two rows of seats.
This seems unlikely to make it here, but my hope is someone bring something like it here. It will probably need to be electric to meet cafe standards, but I'd prefer hybrid.
I have a 2 door late 2000’s Ford Ranger I’ve been driving for the past decade. Crank windows and the vinyl seats are falling apart and it’s my favorite vehicle I’ve ever owned. Low maintenance costs: only had one actual mechanical problem, bad coil pack, since I’ve owned it and I’ve had the sway bar replaced but otherwise nothing. other than that it’s only been batteries, oil and tires and registration/insurance. I bought a $200 vinyl tonneau cover off of Amazon a few years ago and the utility of the thing is just amazing for the price (I paid around $6000 USD for it in 2012). I recently replaced the crappy radio with a $40 unit with Bluetooth.
I’ve been interested in upgrading it as it’s kind of getting old now and it would be nice to get something with CarPlay without having to do a retrofit but the main killer feature that’s just not available on consumer trucks anymore is the bed size. It’s extremely rare to find a truck with the features I want that still have a 6 ft bed size. There are so many things I haul around that fit exactly into that bed length
All of the mid-size trucks (Tacoma, Ranger, Frontier) have 6 foot bed versions. Unfortunately they don't make the traditional pickup single row seat versions anymore, but you can still get a two door model with the little back seats.
Yeah, I've got a 2016 Tacoma TRD OR Access Cab (6' box, tiny back seat with suicide doors) and it has been absolutely fabulous. The little back seats are big enough for my nephews or my dogs... not so much our wives when we went on a couples' hiking trip.
For brand-new trucks, both GM (Chevy/GMC) as well as Ford make half-ton trucks with a regular cab and six-foot bed, which is the closest thing to what your Ranger is and can be optioned with CarPlay. Ram, unfortunately, stopped selling the regular cab 1500 Classic as of the last model year.
Used availability varies, of course, but used cars are such a silly deal at the moment compared to new car pricing that it may not make sense.
I will say towing with my weak 2.3L engine is pretty comical. I have a hitch but it can’t pull much more than a flatbed trailer or a small sized UHaul. I suspect as long as you never took it on the highway though you might be able to really tow something of decent size with it, with the expectation you’d never be able to get it to go over 45 MPH.
It constantly does way more than I would expect though. I took it up a few mountains in Colorado and its little 2WD was going over rocky roads that you would basically otherwise need a Jeep to handle. Maybe that’s how I broke my sway bar.
I know you and everyone is salivating over it, mostly due to price, but this is NOT a pickup truck. This is an upscaled UTV. You can already buy similar in the US for offroad purpose (farm) for 1x - 2x the price of the Toyota/hilux.
This vehicle does not meet any safety standards whatsoever and is not roadworthy. I doubt it even has the rollover protection of a forklift.
A ton is 1000kg which is approximately 2200lb. Half a ton never seemed much for the pickup trucks of old, but on the other hand, you could overload them by 1.5-2x and still have a bit of suspension travel left for a careful drive home, e.g. when fetching roof shingles. This was when they were cheap utility vehicles of course.
For additional confusion's sake, I got it wrong - It's not an "Imperial" ton in the US, but a "Customary" ton. There's also a British "Imperial" ton, and sometime called the "Long ton" (whereas the US Customary unit is also called the "Short ton". The Imperial Ton is 2240 pounds, which if you're dyslexic is the same as the Metric Ton's 2204.6 pounds.
A small pickup, at least with any kind of ICE, is literally illegal to sell here due to CAFE regulations, which are strangely based on the footprint of the car. An actually small pickup would have to be as fuel-efficient as sedans and small SUVs, which isn't going to work out.
EVs will work, but not at that sub-$20k price point.
This can't be right. Maybe it is, but it makes no sense.
The 90s Frontier is a tiny little thing, almost what a Kei truck is today. Same with the Ranger. An El Camino is bigger.
I bought a base Frontier in 2017, wanting that tiny truck but ended up with something the size of a 90s F150. Literally the smallest option on the market, whose weak-ass v4 struggles to haul its own weight (and has the turning radius of an aircraft carrier).
Tacomas? I like Toyota but the used market for those is worse than MSRP.
And Ford stopped making the Ranger; the Maverick ain't it. It's basically what I have already.
How is this the result of new efficiency standards? We still have small cars on the road. Cutting the roof off and appending a flatbed doesn't require a monster footprint.
In 2008 CAFE introduced a formula that calculates the required MPG based off of the track times the wheelbase (basically the rectangle formed by the tires). Trucks are less aerodynamic than sedans, so small trucks can't be made that get sufficiently low MPG to meet this standard, and thus even though a smaller truck would use less fuel than a larger truck that meets the standard.
Am I missing something or is this regulation as dumb as I think it is? It seems to have the effect of replacing a bunch of small trucks on the road with giant trucks that get much worse mileage overall.
CAFE regs also killed the station wagon (estate for you Brits) in the US. Being regulated as cars, station wagons murdered the manufacturers' averages - but minivans, which barely existed in the US (other than the VW Bus) before the mid-80s, were light trucks and so had different (lower) standards. My mom's 1987 minivan got worse mileage than the 1980 station wagon it replaced, and the only advantage it had was that its interior was taller and so moving things was easier. (I ended up driving it for a few months in the mid-90s, right around move-in for my senior year of college. I was suddenly everyone's best friend for a few days.)
What I've always wondered is: Does the larger footprint lead directly to a taller truck?
Is is it just that an F-150 that is as tall as a 1990 Ranger would look silly or something? The 1990s Buick Roadmaster Estate is not just 17" shorter in length than an F-150 Super Cab with a 6.5' bed, but also 17" shorter in height, which makes a sharing the road with these trucks bad (even before they are raised, which seems relatively common).
My dad wanted an 8' bed standard cab for his work and got an old one with almost 200k miles and I was slightly surprised to see it wasn't a step-up cab, while it seems like all modern trucks are.
[edit]
The Roadmaster Estate is also 8" shorter in height than the Ford Maverick, despite having a longer length; granted the Buick keeps its maximum height for a longer part of the length, but it has a shorter hood, and from the cab-back the Maverick doesn't go under 50" until the bumper.
> Many european cars have versions both sedan and wagon.
BMW's 3- and 5-series wagons are no longer sold in the US. Audi only has the A4 and A6 Allroad versions. Mercedes-Benz has only the E-class wagon remaining. Volvo, long the king of European wagons in the US, recently restored two models. So yeah, unfortunately for the most part they're out.
> Look like everyone wants a SUV these days.
This is true. Most of those wagons that were phased out became equivalent SUV models.
My point was that not CAFE regulations killed wagons in US but simple market force. Wagons are still alive, they are manufactured globally, just not selling well in US. Same story with compact cars like Toyota Yaris.
Luxury brands can price the tax for failure to meet CAFE standards into their sticker; an extra thousand isn’t going to make or break an E class sale, but it’s going to matter for a Malibu wagon.
It's beyond dumb and currently all stick and no carrot. By that I mean - at least in CA - a huge state bureaucracy including visual inspections that essentially precludes any real modifications to vehicles - unless you see a referee in which case it is a crapshoot on approval. We would IMO be better served by larger tax incentives on electric, and reduce the CARB bureaucracy enormously - insist on a simple tailpipe test "as it blows". Ridiculous standards have effectively forced small, high compression, often turbo charged, engines on consumers which run extremely hot (observe the heat shielding on newer subarus intended to prevent the engine mounts from burning out). Such engines, while fuel efficient, will never last the 300k miles we saw previously, without extensive messing with - by that I mean engine pulling, gasket full gasket and ring replacement type operations. If you want longevity, the older style toyota, lower compression, engines - which run cool and are marginally less fuel efficient (available in most other places in the world) will last in the 1m mile range.
It does appear that dumb. CAFE seems predicated on exceeding a particular average gas mileage for each class of vehicles.
If I understand it correctly, having a small truck counted among your sedans hurts the average MPG of your "car" line since even a fuel-efficient truck performs worse than cars.
Solution: add just enough mass to the Frontier to bump it from "cars" and put it in the "truck" class.
Among "trucks," the dummy-thicc Frontier now becomes the best-performing Truck, whose high average MPG raises the shittier average MPG of the rest of your gas-guzzling Titan/equivalents. Then you don't need to improve any of your existing trucks.
...which leaves little incentive for anybody to make a small truck. It hurts your average car MPG and only qualifies as a Truck if you add so much weight to it that it's no longer "small." This is dumb.
I think it is which results not only in huge trucks using much fuel but also killing people more than small ones would. Many things in US politics move in mysterious ways.
It's dumb, but also don't forget that any law that will disproportionately hurt Ford is going to be a non-starter; over 650k F-150s sold in a year.
[edit]
Ford existing necessitates allowing pickups, it doesn't necessitate forcing them to be large. I'm just pointing out that any regulation that makes pickups unsaleable altogether is not going to work.
People don't even realize that the government agencies responsible for saving us from "climate change" are the same ones causing absolutely stupid issues like this.
> Oooh, I would _absolutely_ buy one of these to tow with.
From an outsider, that's the thing that baffles me the most about the current state of the whole world's auto industry. Sometimes it seems that all auto makers are colluding to prevent any competition based on price, and are instead invested in forcing this notion that the only possible consumer pressure is on seeking luxury features like onboard computers, touchscreens, media centers, etc etc.
A vehicle's primary use is take people and objects from point A to B, and do so reliably and economically. The automotive industry is the textbook example of economy of scale. Why are we still seeing low-end cars being sold for small fortunes?
> A vehicle's primary use is take people and objects from point A to B, and do so reliably
Car longevity increased a ton in the last several decades years, and so "something that moves" isn't as central a motivation for new car sales anymore. If they just need something that moves, buyers can find countless used cars that still run and will keep doing so for hundreds of thousands of more miles. It's tough to compete in that space and come away with a worthwhile margin on top of fresh design and manufacturing costs.
So manufacturers, who don't want to scale down sales and production, try to entice buyers with shiny things that aren't available on old models and focus on higher price tiers. And that it coincides with booming tech culture and its fashion/impulse-driven purchase cycles makes it that much easier for them.
> Car longevity increased a ton in the last several decades years, and so "something that moves" isn't as central a motivation for new car sales anymore.
I don't think this is a valid take. Robustness is absolutely not the reason why cars are being heavily marketed based on luxury extras, even on base models.
> If they just need something that moves, buyers can find countless used cars that still run and will keep doing so for hundreds of thousands of more miles.
This is a very silly and absurd take. Cars devalue from their dealer price, which is justified based on all these useless luxury features that no one is able to avoid by design. Used cars might be cheaper than brand new models, but they are by no means cheap.
Dude the delta between new and used cars right now is virtually nothing. You can get a 2012 tacoma with 200k miles on it for like 28k or a brand new 2023 tacoma for 35k.
New is a better deal just based on the projected mechanical life of the car. Dont need fancy features to sell it
The projected longevity of trucks is actually going back down again, which is why the older ones are holding value. The modern ones are full to the brim with computer/DRM enforced anti-repair measures so that the dealership can profiteer.
The reason is government regulation. I'm not saying that increased safety and emission standard are bad, but they're the main thing driving up car prices.
How can I assert that with confidence? Because all you need to do is to look up what the cars that are illegal to sell in the US, EU and countries that are similarly regulated.
> The reason is government regulation. I'm not saying that increased safety and emission standard are bad, but they're the main thing driving up car prices.
I don't think that is remotely true. You're commenting on a discussion on Toyota launching a $10k pickup, and there is absolutely no suggestion this price is achieved by ignoring regulation.
the point is that this truck will never see sale in the USA- It would be illegal to sell and not meet standards.
Regulations are different by country, so you see different cars at different price points. It is also illegal to import this car (again regulation), so that impacts price as well
The Maverick is only small in modern terms. It's larger than the old S10 or Rangers were by quite a bit, and more like an old midsized truck -- it's length is actually smack in the middle of a short-bed and long-bed 1990 F-150 and 11-inches longer than the Long Bed 1990 Ranger.
The Maverick is nowhere near a success. Powertrain issues aside, it was nearly impossible to buy the $20,000 trim of the truck. Sure you can buy a $40,000 optioned out hybrid version, but a used Frontier or Tacoma is a much better option for a $20,000 truck.
If you ordered new from Ford, you'd get the maverick with your desired options at the advertised price. The problem was, it's such a great truck that the order books for the entire year have closed within DAYS of opening. It's the used ones, or the new orders declined by the customers and then sold by the dealerships, that are ridiculously priced. If you have the time, ordering from Ford is a great option to get a great value truck.
What are you going to tow? The unbraked tow capacity is 750Kg. The fact that there even is an unbraked vs braked capacity points to how horrible (ie, not roadworthy) this vehicle is.
Excellent farm truck, I assume, or Toyota wouldn't put their name on it. But not something you are going to use on highways in the US, and esp not with a trailer.
I feel like the question in the title is just... forgotten about, lol. I guess the reader is supposed to know it's because it's not available in the U.S.
Toyota see the huge demand in the US, but won't have something ready for a few years. It'll be a Hilux-vs-Tacoma thing.
The Ford Ranger/Maverick is selling like hotcakes and Toyota can't ignore that market, esp. with Ford's labor issues and Toyota's challenges with EVs and focus on ICE.
To be fair, in APEC/ASEAN markets, this isn't "new", innovative or unique this is general competition because the Suzuki Carry is the market leader. You can purchase a new Suzuki Carry for less than $10,000 in Indonesia:
So while the news media and everyone on hackernews touts this as "wow!", "Zinga!!" or "I am a ten out of ten!" - this is not as revolutionary as it seems. Everything in this PR material release is alreeady done on the Suzuki Carry as used as a cafe on wheels, or a RV is done with the current Suzuki Carry.
Philippines models: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wszDcDfhYF4 8:14 one of the most expensive ASEAN/APEC markets, where the suzuki carry is assembled but not manufactured.
I love the flatbed with the flip down sides. I used one of these in Europe, and they are incredibly convenient. You flip down the sides and load it up without having to reach over anything and then just flip them back up to drive. Unloading dirt or gravel by hand is so much easier when you can just push it off the side with a shovel.
I've seen this once or twice in the U.S., but only on very large trucks. I wonder if there's some regulatory reason.
> I've seen this once or twice in the U.S., but only on very large trucks. I wonder if there's some regulatory reason.
In very general terms, pickup trucks in Europe (and other countries outside of North America) are used for hauling things in the bed, whereas pickup trucks in the US are used to tow things. Not to mention that especially in the US, they're very often used as daily drivers, so the flip-down sides, as handy as they are, are less appealing because they look dingy and will rattle.
With modern half-ton and higher pickups in the US, the bed is actually very difficult to use, because the market keeps demanding more and more "aggressive-looking" and "off-road capable" trucks, which means the whole vehicle and the load floor get taller and taller. You basically have to be a giant to actually be able to load and unload things from the bed.
Not gonna lie, this thing looks pretty hot. With a lift and overlanding gear, this looks like it could be a fun rig. (I have no real overlanding experience, only wanderlust.)
For a farm run around I'd love an EV version of this with just a small motor and battery. Even a simple golf cart costs more than this these days. A 50kW motor and 25kWh LFP or Sodium battery would be plenty and should allow hitting a very similar price point.
The Chinese manufacturers are definitely promising but it's still an import ordeal for a dubious quality product. For now we're making do with some second hand lead-acid UTVs and planning on doing lithium conversions mostly to get rid of the hassle of watering and maintaining lead-acid. But this market could definitely use some more options from the automotive side. EV converting a small Suzuki 4x4 has been on my mind for a while now. That and an EV converted skid steer would be my ideal duo of farm vehicles. With LFP batteries finally becoming more easily available it may become possible soon.
> EV converting a small Suzuki 4x4 has been on my mind for a while now.
That'd be perfect.
Please share when you do.
I was curious about converting a 80s VW Rabbit/Golf to BEV. Starting with a non-functioning car, my wild guess is ~8k. Assuming a ~10 kWh battery, which should have > 100m range. Way more than I need for dog parks, groceries, errands.
> which should have > 100m range. Way more than I need for dog parks, groceries, errands.
If that's the range you're looking for, very lightly used (under 20k miles and less than 3 years old) Nissan Leafs can be had for around $20k, and comes with CarPlay. It certainly wouldn't be as cool as an 80s Golf EV conversion, but it would also be a lot more comfortable inside ;-)
There are a few on YouTube already if you want to check them out. And for an old Golf that's probably even easier. EVWest and others probably already have a drop in kit for those.
> Japanese manufacturers initially found they could export "chassis cab" configurations (which included the entire light truck, less the cargo box or truck bed) with only a 4% tariff. A truck bed would subsequently be attached to the chassis in the United States and the vehicle could be sold as a light truck.
> From 1978 to 1987, the Subaru BRAT carried two rear-facing seats in its rear bed to meet classification as a "passenger vehicle" and not a light truck.
> Ford imported all of its first-generation Ford Transit Connect models as "passenger vehicles" by including rear windows, rear seats, and rear seat belts. The vehicles are exported from Turkey, arrive in Baltimore, and are converted back into light trucks by replacing rear windows with metal panels and removing the rear seats and seat belts.
Tacoma is a softer and less rugged vehicle than the Hilux, since people use them more like a car. People in third world countries use the Hilux as a work truck. People here in the US use a one ton truck for a work vehicle.
Despite being made in a Mexico they won’t be sold in the States and probably wouldn’t meet NHTSA or EPA requirements. But if you could buy them… I’d write a check for 3 tomorrow.
The RV world has a dearth of light, towable vehicles for pulling behind Class A and Class C types. The margins and target audience are not big, but a truck like this would definitely sell into that market.
I mean, $10000 is almost enough to ignore just how ugly that thing is. I just don't see the comparison to the 70 series or Hilux, except vaguely, maybe similar to La Croix's relationship to water.
To be clear, I find the effort they put into "styling" it ugly; if they committed and made a utilitarian vehicle without the style-effort, it likely would look great.
I get that, which on its own is awesome. But even fitted out, it looks like overlanding is their goal market, cause its gotta look "mean."
Maybe because I use power tools so often that when something flips form-follows-function backwards, it stands out like a sore thumb -- for example none of the exterior design of the cab affects its use or modularity, yet they clearly spent some time on it.
In the cab, I see mostly just flat surfaces and simplified corners incorporating the plate glass, all of which seems driven by low cost manufacturing while also meeting basic structural requirements.
Toyota has always trended on the ugly side, but when you factor design with reliability and price (pick 2 out of the 3), they have a winning combination.
Yeah, give me this truck with just a bit of upsell: airbags, antilock, A/C and a long bed and i'll throw on a spray on bedliner, a tonneau cover and a stereo.
These would sell like hotcakes in the US but no, the US market can only sell the biggest $70k trucks and with the most computerized/electronic crap necessary.
It is not the EPA emissions regulations that caused the problem of gigantic, expensive trucks. It’s a combination of NTSB safety requirements for price and CAFE fuel efficiency requirements for size.
You're a fool if you think the EPA is at fault. A 2022 Ford F-series catalytic converter costs $824 at retail, much less in volume. The average car in the USA is 12 years old so that's $70 per year per car to have a catalytic converter. Each year almost 300,000 early deaths (1 in 1100) people are prevented by EPA pollution controls. People tend to die about 10 years early from air pollution deaths (MIT - 2013). The return on investment is estimated to be 30:1.
Air Pollution dropped 77% from 1970 - 2020. Assuming that early deaths scale up and down linearly with air pollution, I calculate (***) that this should result in the average person living at least 3.8 months longer, at a cost of $70/yr, or a rate of $266/yr for a longer life. What rate would YOU pay annually to live a year longer?
A gym membership costs at least $500 annually (including travel and equipment) and yields an average 3.4-year increase in life expectancy, but you spend 150 minutes a week exercising which is 1.6 waking-years engaged in exercising ... so the net is $500 annually for 1.8 net years of extra (free-time) of life, or $277/yr annually to live a year longer?
According to a 2013 MIT study the death rate from air pollution is 200,000 per year in the USA, and people die about a decade too soon, so 2M years of lifetime are lost per year. 1/70th of our country dies each year which is 4.7m people. So if air pollution were eradicated from 2013 levels, people would get to live about 5.1 months (12 * 2m/4.7m) longer, at a cost of only $70/car/yr over their lifetime as adults. Air pollution is down 77% from peak, so If I take 0.77 of 5.1 months I get 3.9 months. In 2020 air pollution was already less than half of 1970 levels so the savins are actually much, much higher.
https://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75ye...
I still remember when the auto industry said Catalytic converters were the only way and testified to Congress they weren't ready yet so they couldn't meet climate goals.
Toyota through a holistic approach was able to meet the emission standards without a Catalytic converter, but was still forced to adopt one even if it wasn't more efficient than their current design as it was a one size fits all solution.
Sort of like saying a gym membership is good for everyone since it increases life expectancy, and not taking into account blue collar workers might get the equivalent of a workout from just doing their job, and that going to the gym after 9 hours of physical labor might do more harm than good for those people
