Over the years, we have done many posts on the changing shape of cars; however, when it comes to trucks, shape is a constant. Size and height shifts (and amenities!), on the other hand, can be something to study. And this pair uploaded by Saint Sacrilicious to the CC Cohort, a 1976-1980 Terra and 2017 or so F250, got me thinking about the topic; even if the angle is tricky, and they’re not quite the best models to make the case. But even so, as the neat pair they are, they do show that life has gone upwards and larger. And that is a look that many look forward to, and often enhance.
If we were to make a better contrast, we would ideally have, let’s say, a 1961-1968 era International truck against some current offering. After all, those Internationals were from a period when the low-wide mantra had a mighty sway over the automotive landscape, to the point that even truck builders went after it. As much as the format allowed, of course. From what I can tell, International was the one to go furthest on that idea, with the 1961-1968 being the most influenced by the tendency. It’s something Paul touched on a while ago with a Travelall model from those years.
Dimensions do make a difference if we stick to the 1961-1968 models, and recently, Hyperpack (Slant Six) uploaded to the Cohort a model from the era that also had me thinking about the subject. The shape, so low, got me wondering whether it had been lowered or not –It hasn’t, and even got larger wheels than the Travelall caught by Paul.
In any case, a mid-sixties International 1100 could run as low as 66.5″, climbing to 72.8″, depending on model (and not counting 4WD ones). The F250 featured today? Anywhere from 77.8″ to 82.1″. Admittedly, the F250 is a heavy duty truck, but if we went with the contemporary F150 (2014-2020), that’s 75.2″ to 76.9″.
The International Light Trucks from 1969 started to climb progressively upwards, and today’s Scout Terra is actually a substantial vehicle for the time. As a survivor, it’s a rare one, from a time when off-roading as a hobby was in its early stages and coming up with unexpected variations. Also, its conception came when International’s fortunes were floundering –the kind of scenario when creators go bold and desperate.
A spinoff of the unibody Scout II, the model was covered by JP a while back. With a removable fiberglass top, and a bed integrated with the bodywork, it was sold as “a packhorse for work and pleasure,” with advertising accentuating an outdoorsy lifestyle. Sizewise, it was a mix, as JP said, “It was larger than the new crop of compact pickups but smaller than the standard sized trucks (including the dearly departed “Other Pickup” from International.) On a 118 inch wheelbase, the Terra was a big jump over the Scout II’s 100 inch wheelbase and was even a little longer than the 115 inches on the shortest wheelbase of the 100 Series of the departed Light Line pickups…”
Clearly, these later Scout models didn’t save International, but little could have by then. Still, it’s a good memento that shows the many ways in which the segment was transitioning away from its workhorse roots.
Not noticeable from this angle, but the Terra’s 118″ wheelbase pales against the F250’s, which came in 4 lengths and ranged from 141.6″ to 176.0″. Clearly this F250 towers over the International (even with this Terra’s larger wheels), though we don’t really know from this angle what the suspension setup is on this F250; it could be far from stock, for all we know. Also, the Terra’s windshield looks Model-T like against the F250’s wind-tested one. Whatever mods these two have had since new, they make the case that life has gone upwards and plusher. Even where I live, in Central America, large modern F150s and F250s have become somewhat common, not the rarities they once were.
And we can probably have a whole post on how these two differ in their interiors and amenities. On the other hand, both can work, and both can provide pleasure. It’s all a matter of which flavor you prefer.
Related CC Reading
Curbside Classic: 1976 International Scout Terra – The Hometown Truck
A more comparable modern vehicle to the Scout might be a modern Jeep Gladiator. Both more midsize trucks without a separate bed. Still, according to Google, the Jeep ranges from 73.1″ to 76.1″ in height. Ground clearance accounts for part of the difference, 10.1″ to 11.1″ for the Gladiator; 7.6″ for the Scout. Scoutdude undoubtedly can correct my lazy research.
And tire size is part of the reason for the increase in ground clearance as noted below.
From the factory Scout II’s mostly came with G78-15 tires roughly equivalent to the modern 215/75-15 ~27.5″ tall, though 10-15lt tires were available in later years equivalent to the sort of modern 31×10.5-15 ~30.5″ tall.
Meanwhile the Gladiator’s tires seem to start at 245/75-17 at 31.5″. accounting for ~2″ of that ground clearance difference. Step up in trims and you get taller tires. Of course, many of those trucks don’t stay on their stock tires for long and many people go up in diameter.
So for years I preferred tall trucks. First I’m on the taller side so not hard for me to get in or reach, but more then that I loved lifted trucks looks had several and went offload a lot. Now that I’m middle aged they are starting to seem a bit much to me. My son has my old 1988 Ramcharger with a 3″ lift and 32″ tires, and my inlaws have a brand new Silverado 2500 to haul their 5th wheel. I swear the Chevy has a higher step in height then the Ramcharger by a ways. Like its a bit of a climb. I have a friend with a 1985 F250 4wd thats stock height and it is several inches lower maybe as much as 6 from the silverado. I think some of this has been driven by capability underneath but alot seems to be going for a certain look. At some point I think they will need to level it out a bit or at least make the higher ride heights restricted to off road packages, as it seems like it’s becoming a bit impractical.
A couple of corrections.
IH offered 2 1/2 tons from 61-73 the torsion bar IFS “1000” series (later 1010) and the dropped I-beam equipped “1100” series (later 1110). The IFS trucks also had a completely different frame which along with that IFS caused the big range of heights of the 1/2 ton trucks.
Also the Scout II is not a “unibody” in the traditional sense it is BOF, but yes the “bed” is connected to the cab since it is the same body tub as used on the SUV version. Either standard SII for the Cab Top or Traveler in the case of the featured Terra. The only difference in the tub are a few holes on the sides and floor for the bolt in bulkhead.
A big reason that trucks have gained height is 4wd. Back in the day 4wd trucks were a small portion of sales so they took a standard 2wd frame and jacked it up to get the straight axle and the differential to clear. Meanwhile 4wd continued to increase in popularity and a good ride became a bigger priority. That lead to IFS and the trucks primarily designed as 4wds. That left the 2wd front end as a 4wd missing the diff and axle shafts. (Not unlike the Scout which used a front axle which was the 4wd axle minus the pumpkin and all the spinny bits, with some thin metal plates to cover the hole where the locking hub would go on a driven axle).
Another reason for the change in height is tire size, the diameter of which has been increasing along with wheel diameter. 235/75-15 with a ~29″ height used to be fairly common on 1/2 tons and now the upper trim 4wds roll out of the factory with ~34″ tires which often get replaced with even taller tires.
That lead to IFS and the trucks primarily designed as 4wds..
I don’t understand your explanation for modern higher truck heights. IFS is exactly what would allow a lower 4WD, as there’s no solid axle and pumpkin to clear the engine. But that’s not the look buyers want. Can you imagine a low-slung pickup nowadays? Out of the question. Although FWIW the Cybertruck is only 70″ tall.
I’m curious if you’ve heard how advance sales are going for the Slate. I put in my $50 reservation fee, and I believe you did too. Looking at the dimensions on their website, would you classify it as a low-slung pickup? Looking at the success of the Maverick, and periodic news reports of an upcoming smaller Toyota truck gives me some hope for something sensibly sized to buy.
They’re only taking the $50 reservations, and those passed the 100k mark last spring.
The Slate is 69.3″ tall, the Maverick is 67.7 – 69.4″ tall, so roughly comparable. There’s no number given for the Slate’s bed height, but I’d guess its also comparable to the Maverick’s.
Yes, Toyota is teasing a smaller truck, which would be welcome as the Tacoma has gotten quite large.
Thanks, that “unibody” term was wrongly used. I cleaned it up in the text.
Even better comparison. A guy down the street from me bought a new Ranger, a while back, and kept his old Ranger.
Another Ranger comparison, my Dad’s before he passed, alongside my former RAM 2500 4×4. The Ranger is sitting a little forward of the RAM, which accentuates the size difference a bit in the photo.
Has there been a CC analysis as to the rationale of the extreme raising of modern pickup cabs and bed heights? IOW, is there any true benefit or is it (as I suspect) simply a massive marketing ploy for manufacturers to pad their bottom lines with options to mitigate getting in and out of the now egregiously sized bed sides? There is certainly no shortage of those, with lots of step and tailgate options specifically designed for that purpose.
It’s a shame that the upcoming Slate EV basic small pickup (if it actually makes production) is going to take a huge hit from the cancellation of the federal EV tax credit. Less the $7500 from MSRP, it could have been a success with it’s much more practical low bed height. But, as will likely be the case, the non-discounted price will be a bit too close to the more conventional Ford Maverick hybrid small pickup which, even with the annual price increases since its introduction, continues to sell well. Not to mention that the competing Hyundai Santa Cruz hasn’t exactly been setting the sales charts on fire, either.
The high riding 4WD truck has become the model for the industry, 4WD or not. That’s the look (and function, if actually used off-road) that buyers clearly want. And who actually uses a truck bed to haul things? Well, I guess some, but I mostly see trailers used for that function.
The Slate is not going to succeed (or not) on its bed height. I bet the majority of them will have one of the two factory toppers in the back.
Pickups have become the passenger cars of the times. Bed height is largely irrelevant. I very rarely see anything in the back of a Maverick, even with its low bed height. Stephanie would like one; you think she’s going to haul stuff in it?
is there any true benefit or is it (as I suspect) simply a massive marketing ploy
The women around the office where I worked, nearly all big, as in Explorer size, SUV drivers said “I like to sit up high, I feel safe”. I remember a TV ad for the Scout II, with a woman driving, talking about how nice it was to sit up high, and see over the other cars.
Back when the earth was young, I had a history text book with an illustration of a particular type of carriage used in ancient Rome. The caption said the carriage was built tall, to raise the occupant above head level of people walking, so that the surrounding mob could see how important the occupant was.
I might be wrong. Trucks with more powerful engines and bigger payloads (ought to) have bigger brakes. Bigger brakes call for bigger wheels. Base wheels on a 1973 half-ton Chevy were 15″. Modern Chevy truck wheels start at 17″. If you keep similar aspect ratio tires, you’re already a couple inches taller.
Thank you for the detailed explanation .
I see that many base model Municipal Feet trucks are still pretty low so it’s not impossible to make them, they’re just responding to market demands .
-Nate
Thank you Nate for pointing that out. I was going to comment that a noticeable number of fleet municipal pickups I see, and also real fleet contractor trucks, are lower than the versions driven by the average consumer. Unless you have a need for something like plowing, a high truck has got to be a pain to get into and out of constantly all day long…as real workpeople need to do.
I agree with Steve, above, about the “I feel safe” and the high Roman carriage concept.
Higher truck heights: better to kill pedestrians with.
🙁
“Slightly” O/T. I had a 74 Scout ‘II’ (as they were called). Bought it for $400 in 88. 258/4 sp., In pretty good nick. Got it ‘Relatively’ cheap, as the Motor knocked more than ‘Willy Loman’.
Luckily, ‘Uncle John’ had a Pacer (also a 258 🙂 ) in his yard and said I could have the Motor.
Pulled the Pacer 258 one weekend. Pulled the Scout 258 another weekend. Then I had to sell it before I could ever do the swap. (Due to the ‘situation’ at place I was renting at the time.)
I did manage to get $300 for it, but not really a happy ending as I really liked the Scout. Just seemed like the perfect 4×4 vehicle.. for the times?.
Long story short and back on the rails, Yes, Trucks are MUCH bigger these days.
You have to wonder if not for the ‘Studebaker Effect’, the Scout Terra might have been a success (if not a gamerchanger) in the domestic small pickup market. IH products didn’t exactly enjoy a good quality reputation, and by 1976, they could have been seen as ‘dead car company walking’ which undoubtedly kept many potential customers away, not unlike Studebaker in the early sixties.
At best, IH was seen as a rural, agricultural product whose main attraction was service at IH farm tractor facitilities. With few urban buyers, it just wasn’t enough to sustain production and by 1980, their truck facility in Fort Wayne was shuttered. I would imagine that most farmers simply were not interested in anything smaller than a full-size pickup.
And, just like Studebaker, while a successful Terra wouldn’t have saved IH’s truck/SUV business, it might have kept them going a bit longer and maybe even found a buyer for their truck division. Of course, with the Chevy S-10 introduced for 1981, well, that pretty much would been the final nail, anyway, just like the Big 3 entering the compact market in 1960 effectively wiped Studebaker off the map.
Interestingly, IH would eventually become Navistar, a company which VW owns a controlling interest and a proposed EV successor to the Scout was planned. But with the current economic environment, I don’t know if that’s on track for production, anymore.
You have to wonder if not for the ‘Studebaker Effect’, the Scout Terra might have been a success (if not a gamerchanger) in the domestic small pickup market.
The Terra was essentially DOA, due to its pricing. A 1976 base 4X2 Terra with the wimpy 196 CID four cylinder started at $4612. A ’76 Chevy C10 with a standard 250 six started at $3863. That was a huge gap, compared to a somewhat larger pickup. For someone looking for a smaller truck, the Japanese imports were vastly cheaper. The Terra could only hope to appeal to a International die hard, or possibly to a handful of those wanting a diesel version, which was priced at an astronomic $7200, for the 4×2 version.
Good point about pricing, I think that alone put off a lot of Scout prospects.
As for the Scout revival, yes, it’s still in the works. International was purchased by VW’s commercial truck operation, now known as Traton. VW has spun Traton off as a separate company, though they still have a substantial interest in it for the time being. VW did retain the ‘Scout’ trademark and will be introducing a new SUV under than name on both EV and hybrid versions. There is a lot of interest in the new Scout, particularly the hybrid version.
As for the size of new light trucks, one of the factors driving the high hood line is customer preference for overpowered diesels, which require a lot of room under the hood and large grilles for cooling.
1967 GMC 2500 vs. 2012 3500:
The latest buzz is that only the EREV (extended range EV) Scout with an IC generator under the rear seat will be available initially. There’s been a significant shift away from EV trucks; the F150 Lightning is a major flop and cancelled, Ram canceled their EV pickup, and the Cybertruck is not selling well at all. Nor is the Rivian pickup.
Also, VW is having severe financial stress (once again); they will be cahs-flow negative this year, so the Scout project is a major drain at a bad time. I suspect they may very well regret it in the end. VW has only racked up massive losses in the US for decades now, and I’m not very confident the Scout will turn that around.
As for the size of new light trucks, one of the factors driving the high hood line is customer preference for overpowered diesels, which require a lot of room under the hood and large grilles for cooling.
It may be convenient to use a very large radiator (in square inches) but Formula 1 cars manage to keep their 1000 hp engines that are less efficient than diesels cool with radiators that have drastically smaller frontal area. If there were a good reason to make radiator systems with smaller frontal areas, it can obviously be done.
Very true, but diesels like the Powerstroke and Duramax also have large intercoolers required by the high boost pressures they run, along with large engine oil and transmission coolers required by their high gross combination weight (tow) ratings. Sometimes fuild-to-fluid (oil to water) coolers are used, but the heat load goes to the engine coolinf system which requires more radiator capacity. Heat management has become a tricky business in these modern ‘light’ trucks that can tow upward of 30,000#’s. How many owners of these trucks actually tow that much weight is subject to debate. My truck is 6.0L gasoline powered (I don’t tow that much), but as the engine bay is sized for a high output turbo-diesel V-8, I do get the benefit of good accessibility for service and repair.
Well, F1 cars have turbos too with intercoolers and they need cooling for various other systems as well. They have an enormous heat load to throw off.
And it’s not just F1 cars, but all high performance cars. The manage to tuck their radiators and intercoolers and transmission coolers into much smaller areas.
I get that the large surface area of a relatively thinner radiator has advantages (cheaper) but I’m just pointing out that it is really not actually necessary A racing or high performance car running fast has to throw off more heat than a diesel truck and they do it without a grille the size of a billboard.
I spent a fair bit of time using a 1980 Terra diesel. Crude but endearing thing. Nice size and capability. Big thing for me was that I knew someone who died in one. Roll over protection was nil unless a ROPs was fitted.
The giant power and capability of modern pickups has increased the size of rear differential sizes noticeably. I think my F150 has a 9.75 rear vs the 8.8 on my older F150. The housing is noticeably bigger. The newer truck’s stock tires are 32 inch tall. The old trucks ones are 30 inches. I don’t think my new truck as any more clearance than the older Jellybean at the lowest point. I presume this holds for 3/4 tons as well.
The old Jeep Gladiators and Wagoneers were plenty capable off road without being jacked up.
I go off road 3 or 4 times a week. Now it’s snow time I note that many 4×4 trucks drag the pumpkins where my Subaru with its 8.7 inches doesn’t. Aproach angle sucks though.
It is a bit sobering. This was an empty runaway thank goodness.
The other thing to keep in mind: age.
My 1963 Travelall is identical to the one in the second picture, and it sits at about the same height. The springs are completely flat. I’m sure it rode 3-4″ higher off the factory floor, before time, gravity and weight took their toll on the suspension. I’m going to pull the springs this winter while it’s off the road during salt season and have them rebuilt and re arched, but I know I’ll never get the truck as high as a modern F250.