Photographed in Fairfax, Virginia in June 2017.
A few weeks ago I noticed a first gen Ranger in traffic behind a current gen F-150. Even that made for an interesting size comparison, but still nothing like this.
Ask and ye shall receive. That’s my ’15 RAM 2500 next to my Dad’s old ’95 Ranger. The iPhone lens tends to exaggerate the size difference, but not by that much. The RAM is at stock ride height, BTW. I did change wheels & tires, but kept the same rolling diameter.
I tried my best to find lowering springs for the RAM (the tailgate is about 41-42″ off the ground), but there aren’t any available. Sure makes it a lot harder to load hay bales in the bed, or anything, for that matter.
Can’t do that with an MGB!
The tires it came with were highway tires. I almost got it stuck the first time I drove out in the pasture on them (it’s a 4×4!). Changed those out pretty quick!
Good one Ed —
A genuine working truck …. not seen as often as we’d like …..
? Did someone say ‘Working Truck’ ? .
Even my “too-big at 18.5 feet long” 2013 Tacoma is small (if you can use that word) compared to a normal modern F-150.
The load decks are about the same height, but the Ford’s cab is much bigger than the Tacoma’s.
I love driving F-150s, but they felt too much like an embarrassing throne room for my needs. Even the Tacoma is a bit overkill, but my options were limited in 2013. They still would be today.
I find the Miata puts me into the position of staring at the center of large truck’s wheels, so I try to avoid using that car on major interstates. Such size differences didn’t bother me when I was young (and stupid), but it does now. As one gets older, life becomes more precious (and fragile).
And the typical NoVa parking habits of large trucks and SUVs.
You have to squeeze into one of these to grasp how tiny they are .
And this is the later model, bigger one no less .
Cute as a button but has the worthless Triumph 1500CC ‘grenade with pin pulled’ engine that cannot be made to exceed 50,000 miles no matter what you do .
More’s the pity as these are basically Go Carts with lights and tags, super fun to drive if not really very fast .
Photo is actually a MGB, not a Midget.
I assume (hope) the author knows that too, and that the headline is meant to say that the MGB feels like a Midget today. That’s how I’m reading it, but I can’t guarantee it.
Yes, the title is a play on words.
I think Dan was replying to Nate, who may have confused the subject car with a Midget (i.e., the 1500cc Triumph engine in his comment).
Yup, was in response to Nate’s comment, I should have made it clearer. Having owned a couple ‘B’s, they’re actually pretty roomy inside, but one does feel small next to big pickups and SUVs. I’ve driven a few Midgets as well, and they are tiny inside and out, even compared to the MGB. Can’t imagine how one feels in an actual Midget next to something large.
I need to pay closer attention .
I had an MGB GT MKI, it was plenty roomy for my fat 6′ self and passably peppy and could (barely) do the Ton when in over drive after I overhauled the engine .
A prime example of my belief that modern pickups should be taxed off the road. Like you really need something that big. And tall.
We could say the same thing about quite a few other things, like new houses, which are now more than twice as big as the average house in the 60s. And families are smaller.
And then there’s the size of food portions.
And people themselves.
Big sells, if it’s affordable.
Maybe we should tax all big things?
“And people themselves. Maybe we should tax all big things?”
Hey, Paul, don’t go giving some overzealous Gubmint Greg any ideas! I can just imagine the mental gymnastics that would be justified. Larger people eat more, use more resouces, and require more space. And besides, what about all the physically weak and unimpressive who are also emotionally fragile? How can they possibly have the same self esteem when they feel so intimidated and inadequate around the strong and strapping?
Youre something like 6’4, right? I’m 6’1 and go around 250 so you and I would BOTH be paying that big and tall person tax. I’m being a bit facetious but in a time where a 3rd string bench rider still gets a trophy for existing on the football team its hard to completely write off the possibility…
250? Sheez; I weigh 168. The tax will be on weight, not height. And I’m not paying. 🙂
Most of it is muscle mass but ideally id be about 225-230. It isn’t ALL pizza and beer, but those are definitely contributing factors!
That’s one of those things which irritates me. Around here, some older (1920s-1970s) houses have been getting huge, ridiculous expansions which destroy the way they look, and they were a perfectly reasonable size to begin with!
Very true — this is the housing equivalent:
I raised three kids in a 800 sq ft town house in downtown Vancouver, with three tiny bedrooms. One room even had a piano under a loft bed. Said family of five got around just fine in a 2008 Honda Fit.
Now I could have had bigger stuff, but for me it was more important to spend the money to educate my wife, as she was not able to attend university in China, due to political reasons. Creating a solo-violinist daughter simultaneously meant I never had the money to buy a monument to myself. Now there is a budding computer engineering son…..
The satisfaction I get watching those around me thrive is more important to me than big stuff.
You don’t have to change the tax code to make them unattractive. You can do it two very easy ways. One, change the tag fees to reflect that they are commercial vehicles based on GVW and size, and charge the higher tag fees. They did that with tax codes relating to commercial vehicles and suddenly, every real estate agent was driving a Hummer or Escalade rather than a luxury sedan. Second, make them so that you have to have a commercial license to drive one. That means additional insurance costs for anyone driving one. The additional hassle of needing a new license, along with increased insurance rates, will stop a lot of ownership by wannabes. And don’t kill the messenger, that is how they have made motorcycles less attractive. By requiring a Motorcycle endorsement, only dedicated people ride them.
Whoever parked that truck so badly needs a commercial license! And yes, the Motorcycle endorsement usually means that the rider has completed a basic safety course, which can only help the fatality/injury rate.
Like I posted below, I recently returned from a road trip to Alberta. Gasoline there is about C $1.00 per litre. I’d say at least 80% of the vehicles on the road are trucks.
Here in Vancouver, we have higher taxes, 17.5 cents for transit, and 8 cents carbon tax. Add the mandatory Vancouver price gouge, and it costs $1.40 a litre. At least 80% of the vehicles on the road are four cylinder cars and CUVs.
So you think that everything you don’t like should be taxed out of existence. Maybe the things YOU like should be taxed out of existence, too???
Since I don’t own a motorcycle or have a RennFaire type hobby, and since no one ‘needs’ any of that, they should be taxed or regulated out of existence. Since we’re apparently grooming for wannabe dictators today…
Taxed off the road….Hmm, let’s think about that.
Sales tax when purchased. Higher price, higher tax.
Fuel tax with every gallon. It varies by state but the fuel tax in Virginia is $0.111 per gallon to go along with the federal fuel tax of $0.17 per gallon.
He’s obviously got non-stock tires on that rig. Cha-ching on sales tax.
The other non-stock items all have sales tax on them and possibly more tax if he paid somebody to install it.
Oh, and it has license plates. Yep, there’s another tax.
Several states have personal property tax. Again, more value, more tax.
So, what’s that you were saying about being taxed off the road?
Jason, youre dead on. Consider that pretty much every speedbump, flaming hoop, alligator pit and pack of zombie clowns has been thrown in the path of prospective pickup ownership and people STILL fall all over themselves to buy them.
OTOH, with all the tax credits, use of HOV lanes, free plug ins, etc aimed at hybrids and electrics its a total bribe fest of freebies trying to incentivize people to jump on board yet all that stuff is a bit player in the grand scheme. If wallet vote isnt enough to really make the priorities crystal clear, then theres just no hope for some people.
Spot on, Jason.
I just got back from Alberta. Gasoline was 93 cents a litre, and trucks dominate.
Here in Vancouver, gasoline is $1.40 a litre. No trucks.
Those puddle jumper pickups aren’t really very big compared to a real truck, but why can’t the owners park them properly.
Probably because they learnt in a car, and ‘graduated’ to one of these without needing to upgrade their skills to reflect the larger vehicle. Personally I believe that if you can’t park it properly, you shouldn’t be driving it.
All jokes about compensating aside, why are these pickups getting so big? Compare the size of a 40s pickup to one from the 60s and there is some growth, but mostly in bed size and capacity versus overall size. Then, 60s to 80s, about the same size the whole time, and now, about 50% larger overall. What gives? How are these more useful, especially as a daily driver? Without a compact pickup choice, which I assume would be the same size now as a full sized truck of the 80s, they have grown too large IMHO. As a fashion/lifestyle choice, I get it, but really, why so big?
My theory (aside from the compensation theory, which I tend to apply to a large percentage of modern pickup owners whether they deserve it or not) is that as the overall height and tire sizes of everything else on the road has grown, pickups had to compensate for the loss of a perceived advantage in size and toughness by growing taller and bolting on bigger tires too. So yeah, I guess in my mind it really is all about compensation one way or the other.
It’s definitely about people who *want* a pickup vs those who really do need one for work purposes, most of whom (of a certain age) will lament no longer being able to reach into the pickup bed from the side and get a shovel or toolbox.
You’re mistaken; pickups really aren’t any significant amount bigger than in the late 60s to 80s. They are taller, and more folks are choosing to buy extended cab/double cab versions than back then. But the basic size hasn’t hardly changed at all.
I respectfully disagree. Compare the F150 in the photo with the Silverado. I understand that perspective has some effect, but a modern standard sized P/U is bigger than an equivalent one from 20 years ago. They are taller, yes, and that means larger, but I also think they are longer and wider, too. It may be due to the cab being larger, but often they shorten the bed to make the overall length the same. It may be my misperception, but seeing old and new ones side by side does show a significant change over the years.
I did a very detailed comparison of my ’66 F100 with a 2016 F150 here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/cc-comparison-1966-ford-f-100-and-2016-f-150-just-how-much-has-changed-in-50-years/
Assuming my F100 had a rear bumper, the 2016 is about a foot longer, 5″ taller (at the top of the cab), and 2″ wider. That’s 50 years worth of growth. And compared to most cars, that’s considerably less. Think of how much most cars have grown in the past 30 years, like the Civic, Accord, Corolla, Golf, and CUVs too. Consider how small the first Rav4 and CRV were. And Subaru wagons. Motorcycles even. Semi-trucks are much longer and wider. Buses are longer and wider. And…
My point is that pickups have grown a bit, but very little in relation to almost everything on the road.
I will make a bet that less than 10% of pickups exit a manufacturing plant this size and configuration. And just try to go and buy one. It is a loss leader for bait and switch. I know of someone who went to buy a similar PU and was told it was sold. He said I will just order one then. He was told he couldn’t order one because it was just a factory promo item and could not be ordered. Why do you think all the auto ads have all the disclaimers in them? And your old Ford will still be running when all the newer ones are Lucusfied piles of dustified plastic.
Vintage Car Loner: Agreed. But that’s a reflection of the market, not trucks being that much bigger. It’s what folks want.
It’s not what I want, and I’m hardly a fan. But the market speaks, loudly.
FWIW, I specifically searched out as ‘base’ a truck as I could find, and as you note, it was difficult. Not many ¾ ton RAM trucks out there with the “small” 5.7 Hemi (even the base Tradesman, which is what I bought). And almost impossible to find a standard cab long bed!
I couldn’t get over how BIG my truck looked, and it dawned on me after a while that it’s exactly the same size (other than height) as the ½ ton RAM 1500, which comparatively looks like a much smaller truck in traffic. It’s simply the height that makes it look larger.
If that Silverado was like the one in the picture below, the comparison would be a lot less extreme. You’re comparing apples and watermelons.
This Chevy has at least a 6″ lift to overcome the fact that’s stock, a 4×4 nowadays has about as much clearance under the airdam as that MGB does. Factory wheels/tires are so mild and unaggressive they wouldn’t be out of place on a cammacord.
Did it ever occur that some people don’t have to ‘compensate’ for a damn thing? Maybe some of us like our trucks big, burly and rugged. Maybe it’s just a free effin country and we want to treat ourselves to something we’re proud of with what few dollars we have left after the politicians steal half of it without a bunch of people whining about what we do with our own money because it doesn’t fit someone’s namby pamby idea of what’s socially acceptable in 2017.
When you or these overbearing politicians and bureaucracies are paying the note, filling the tank or paying the insurance then maybe I might have a stray thought about caring about anyone else’s opinion on the matter. Til then, I’ll buy and drive whatever I damn well want.
I don’t take issue with an owner wanting to customize, however the part that irks me is that vehicles are manufactured and sold with a set of standards including bumper height. Putting a 6″ or more lift kit on the thing negates that completely and doesn’t even give others a fighting chance in a collision. Interestingly, that pictured MGB was actually RAISED when the bumper height rules came into effect which negatively affected its handling. Look at the F150 behind it, its bumper is more or less on the same plane as the MGB and other cars around it. The raised Silverado with the metal tubular add-on no less is way higher. It’ll ride right over anything it hits and crush it to bits. We were hit a couple of years ago by a stock height F150 4×4 and it hit us right in the back of our Outback. We ended up more or less OK. The F150 looked as bad if not worse than our car when all was said and done. There is an article with pix here on CC detailing the whole thing. If we had been hit by this Silverado instead it easily could have been much worse. Had we been in the 911 instead of the Outback and been hit by this Silverado it WOULD have been way worse.
So I don’t take issue with you or anyone else changing the wheels, modifying the engine (just don’t make it smoke), adding a tint or lights or whatever, but when you raise it without modifying the crash structure back to work as intended, then that’s the point at which is DOES potentially affect me and others. Frankly I think it’s criminal that states somehow allow this to occur. What is the point of having a bumper height standard or even having bumpers in the first place? Or, keep it exlusively on your own property and not on the roads that we all share and pay for.
Also, please note that when I say “YOU” I don’t specifically mean you, MoparRocker74, I mean the greater “YOU” as in the populace in general.
Point taken, Jim and no I didn’t assume that was aimed at me. You raise some valid points. Its only common sense that a lifted truck will destroy a smaller car. So will a semi truck. A motorcyclist wont stand a chance against ANYTHING. The point is, the safest wreck is the one you weren’t in to begin with. And no matter how much we let the safety nannies regulate the fun out of life, its a drop in the bucket. None of us is getting out of this world alive, man. Me personally, Id prefer to roll the dice in a world where I’m as free as possible to do what I think is best for me. Ive no interest in making it to ANY age that requires me to live in a nursing home. If a motorcycle, monster truck, asteroid, lava resistant zombie, or scorned lady cuts that trip short, I just won. Just my $0.02
While I don’t entirely disagree with your point, at least semi bumpers are low enough where my car won’t (ideally) go underneath.
Perhaps these lifted pickups should have front and rear Mansfield bars…
They are socially acceptable, in fact they’re socially desirable. If Syke wants to get them off the roads, he should start a charity which pays gay celebrities (and Jane Fonda) to drive them, and they will largely vanish.
The problem I have with these trucks is they are often lifted with these ultra rugged looking kits, dual shocks, knobby tires, but then they have cheap looking, borderline donk, looking wheels bedazzled with fake rivets and matte black accents in a diameter probably too large for any actual off-roading. And are always SPOTLESS, as clean as a Ferrari at Concours ‘dElegance. It becomes a statement rather than a lifestyle, and I think that’s where the compensation trope comes from.
Mind you, I think the compensation thing is way overused. I won’t say it’s an accusation thrown out by people out of jealousy(which is also overused, and a horrible comeback in general) but I will say if every man with a beige sedan had enormous genitalia they simply couldn’t be the most average vehicle choice. Tastes in cars have shifted to extremes like so much else in the world it seems. People either seek dull anonymity or BIG LOUD LOOK AT ME, and I think there’s resentment when one sees someone clearly not conforming to normal civilized vehicle choice.
If I got a pickup, it would be a basic v-6 Ford or Chevy with the 5 speed stick and normal sized cab for use as a slide-in camper hauler. No jacked up ride height or huge tires, just a inconspicuous truck. Sort of like Paul’s truck with lots more electronics.
Last time I got close to a giant pickup, it was a Ford, at the annual auto show. I was amused to find that its enormous chromed grille was made of — plastic. Sensible, I guess, but . . .
Before beginning my all-too-brief time with a 124 Sport Spyder, I drove a used Firebird ragtop and looked at an MGC. That’s a B with a six stuffed under the (bulging) hood. A wag wrote that the engine looked to have been designed by an engineer transferred against his will from the tractor division. Pardon the digression.
I loathe the suggestion of adding additional regulations, seeing FMVSS 108 is already onerous, but one thing that has always bothered me are the pick-ups and SUVs with lifted suspensions. The bumper height is so high that no matter how safe a conventional sedan, crumple zones are completely bypassed if hit by one of these behemoths. It is quite unnerving to have a lifted F350 with mud tires behind me on the highway when driving my E46.
Many US states have “bumper height” regulations but unfortunately they are rather poorly enforced. Ohio for example for many years had a regulation that said the bottom of the bumper should be no more than 22 inches from the pavement. However I am sure that people dig up pictures of trucks with Ohio plates that are clear violators of that regulation.
To each their own. I like smaller trucks like the Rangers I had.
My biggest complaint with new trucks is the height and really bright head lights.
They blind me in my Focus.
I love this picture. Without the benefit of a side-profile perspective, the MGB almost looks like it could fit in the bed of that Silverado.
They make older “full-size” trucks look small too.
Perfect example of what’s wrong with modern trucks: the white one is a 4wd 3/4 or 1-ton and appears to have at least a small lift. Yet a 2wd 1/2 ton on trike tires has more clearance at the bumper. What’s the point of a 4×4 if it’s so low and plasticky that driving over a can of organic peas dropped in Whole Foods parking lot mangles the plastic fascia? You sure as HELL aren’t going far off-road without dropping $6K into the suspension and upgrading the tires/wheels. However it’ll probably be some poser who will promptly mount 26″ full chrome wheels with low profile ‘mudders’. SMH…
I’m such a big fan of those box body C/K pickups, it’s had to look at that Optimus Prime styled thing beside it. The sides aren’t bad, and in reality they probably aren’t much bigger besides height, but the busyness of the design just makes it look ungainly. 2010s bloat eclipses (still topical?) 1970s bloat.
You and me both. My bias against jacked up pickups (even factory) started when I traded my ’96 S-10 two wheel drive for the equivalent in a ’04 Ranger. Both were as equal specced as two products from competing manufacturers could get (big V-6, club cab – 1 half door in the Chevy, two in the Ford, automatic). And the first thing I realized after getting the truck home and putting my invalid wife in it was that the Ford floor pan was about 4″ higher off the road than the Chevy. I looked at the Colorado, and found the same thing. All on basic factory wheels, suddenly you had fender/tire gaps that looked like it had a small lift kit.
Then, during that time, my car choices have been: Porsche 924S, Scion xB (first generation), Fiat 500C Abarth. Then there’s the motorcycles. And, quite frankly, I’ve gotten damned tired of tiptoeing around these four doored monsters. And no, I have no interest in upsizing my personal rides. My Kia Sedona is already big enough, and I consider that an RV. At 5′ 10-1/2″ and 178lbs, these cars fit me just fine.
And my comment regarding taxing them off the road is made in half-jest. During the days when traffic has me putting up with a bunch of these bro-dozers in traffic, my more rational side entertains the idea of just taking them from the owners at gunpoint, and putting them thru a mobile crusher immediately in front of the former owner.
Yes, I have my passions . . . . . . Broughams and bro-dozers are two of my biggest.
Another big advantage is that I can put something large and bulky in it, close the tailgate. and pop it in the garage for safety/weather reasons…..And don’t need a step-ladder to do any of this!
I had a 1976 GMC 3/4 ton long bed and thought it HUGE .
Look at this difference. 1st generation Civic vs. 3rd generation Fit. 20″ longer and 1,000 lbs. heavier.
What’s crazy is that the Fit is larger than the first generation Honda Accord wagon, which was the largest vehicle Honda sold in the US when that Civic was new.
OOPS! You get the picture?!
There’s a couple key items few seem to consider. One of the comments above compares pickups now from 20 years ago. If you compare apples to apples, the sizes are about the same. Sure cabs have grown some in length but there is also the safety consideration of heads going through rear windows in pickups from the jolly old 1980s and before. Twenty years ago we didn’t have crew-cab pickups in a half-ton configuration the way we do now.
The bigger issue is GVWR. People who need a pickup know that means Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. Per a quickie Google search, the GVWR on a 1996 Ford F-150 ranged from 6,010 pounds to 6,250 pounds, depending upon setup. The GVWR on a 2016 F-150 ranges from 6,010 pounds to 7,050 pounds. A weight rating increase of 800 pounds is not insignificant and that such a wide variety is available is a reflection of how profoundly well engineered new pickups are. Naturally it takes more suspension and frame to accommodate this increase.
If I were so inclined, I would put the shoe on the other foot and bitch about the ridiculously small size of that MG and how it is utterly useless. But I’m not going to.
That is the Beauty of Living in Free Country.You Can Live However You Want& Drive Whatever You Like.God Bless USA.God Bless Our Planet.
(We’ll mine other planets later)
Just a little humor about MG and their MG Midget. The year was 1969. I was selling International Trucks in Bridgeport, CT. A man in his mid forties came in with his MG Midget and wanted to trade it in for an IH pickup, which he did – one ordered to his specification. Why did he want to trade in his thrifty little MG Midget? Well, he stood 5′ 3″ tall and measured 40″ at his waist. After a couple of years of difficulty steering the vehicle, he decided to get a man-sized pickup truck. The steering wheel of the Midget kept rubbing against his belly!
What Chevy trucks snack on?
Great post & subsequent discussion …..
Back to the MG —
I had both an MG Midget & its sib, an Austin-Healey Sprite, back in the ’70’s.
When a semi would pass me, I’d look out my driver’s side window…… all I’d see was a humongous set of “dually” wheels spinning next to my ears.
I knew I was too low for the driver to see me in his side-views, and I’d hope he wouldn’t start to move right while I was still enjoying a top-down ramble next to his 17th & 18th wheels.
I’ve lived to tell those tales …… and would jump at the chance to shift thru those 4 midget-gears again.
“Good goin’ MG Midget, you sure make the going good!” Forty-five years later, that jingle is still rolling around in my head!
What?! There was an advertising jingle for the Midget? How’d I miss it?!
I looked up & down youtube, but can’t find it.
Got a link? Thx!
I found it on a site called “SpridgetGuru.”
I’m such a poor fit in the modern world, I like cars to be V8 powered, long and low 2 doors and I like trucks to be 2wd single cab shortbed stepsides. This style of custom truck seems comparable to driving around in a straddle carrier on public streets
$10 says the owner has a matching tattoo of the blue spider decal featured on the faux cowl hood scoop..
I like to think that the convertible’s driver has a big “MG” tattoo somewhere as well.
Gotta love that octagon from Morris Garage!
You and me both, man. I like those things too. Pickups must be single cabs with minimal comfort items. Lift the 4×4’s lower the 2wd’s. SUVs should be 2 doors with removable roofs and serious Offroad chops. Cars, short deck long hood 2-doors with stupid levels of power. V8’s, loud exhaust, manuals and Coke bottle mags on everything, no wheels over 18″ diameter and RWLs on all tires! And playing 80’s Metallica while driving is mandatory!
I’ve seen many a fleet ordered regular cab F-150 or Ram 1500 or Silverado 1500 pickup used by utility companies or businesses. They seem to be pretty much stock with unmodified suspension wise.
They all “seem to be bigger and heftier” than my old 1968 GMC CS1500. This is evident in height, i.e., The tailgate height from ground, cargo bed height, cab step in, roof height, engine compartment access are all higher.
When I sat in those trucks, it seems there is less shoulder and hip room. The center console also gave the impression of smaller cab too. Doors and pillars are thicker.
Of course I’ll admit I’m a leetle bit hefter than I was in 2007, the last year that I owned that old GMC.
From what I’ve read of the specs, today’s F-150/RAM 1500/Silverado 1500 trucks’ empty weight range from 4500 to 5000 lbs. My 1968 GMC CS1500 had an empty weight of 3500 lbs.
Is the the “bigger and hefier” size of today’s trucks compared to the older trucks have to do with the built-in safety-related specs, like heavier frames and cab, thicker and heavier doors, thicker pillars and air bags for front and side impact protection, etc.?
The size contrast of that “humongus” Chevy to the “diminutive” MG is striking to say the least.
Fawlty Towers. BBC TV 1975 (starring John Cleese as a very irritable hotel owner Basil Fawlty)
American businessman: “Couldn’t find the freeway, had to take a some little backstreet called the M5.”
Basil Fawlty: “Well, I’m sorry if it wasn’t wide enough for you. A lot of the English cars have steering wheels.”
My rental Kei car on the left, next to a not-so Mini
My apologies if this was already said, but the crash tests are not done with bull bars on trucks are they? So what if you have a truck that can roll over a small car (leaving the question off the table of how socially connected that attitude might be)… If you are more likely to be injured because your bull bar compromises your truck’s designed-in crushability, is the bad-ass look worth the safety compromise?
I spent last weekend in Alberta, driving around in a friend’s F-150. I kind of get these vehicles for the prairie environment. The interior is indeed very large, if of rather dubious quality, with expose screw heads all over the place, and poor quality plastics.
It is also very easy to see why Ford et al loves these things so much: they generate huge profits. The basic technology is from the 1940’s, and basic items such as rear inner fenders are absent.
I find trucks to be among the most thoughtfully designed vehicles on the road. Those “poor quality” plastics are usually chosen for their durability in hard use. Function over form. They usually also feature big buttons to be able to be operated with gloves on. Drivetrains, infotainment, and safety features are just as advanced as anything else out there today. You can’t just look at a solid rear axle and BOF and claim “the basic technology is from the 1940’s”.
I don’t know that they are the most thoughtfully designed vehicles, but since they have remained relatively unchanged from their ancestors, they are a product of years of refinement of the old design. Plastics may be chosen, but not for durability over metal. The big buttons for gloved hands makes one think that you mean worker’s gloves, hardly a mark of refinement, rather of utility. No, the basic chassis does go back to the 40s, as the unit body, predominantly FWD sedans, coupes, and hatches have moved on from BOF and solid rear axles. Refinement happens to both cars and trucks, but the trucks being produced today are more similar to a 1940s truck than a new sedan is to a 1940s car.
Engine in front, transmission in the middle, full frame, solid rear axle on leaf springs.
It’s been around since the Model T. There’s hardly anything groundbreaking about any pick up truck. That’s why they are so profitable.
I still don’t understand the trucks of today. Is there an absolute need for the front to be that high. Is there an absolute need for the bed rails to be so high. Is there an absolute need for the tailgate to be that high. Paul has a 65 F100 and I have a 65 F100 and I’m sure we can both lean over our bed rails (backs notwithstanding) or find that our tailgates are no higher than thigh level for sliding in and out. These things look like trucks from a Monster truck bash downsized a tad for buyers who imagine themselves as monster truck drivers.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of new posts by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Copyright 2011 - 2023 Curbside Classics. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Type your email…