• bassomitron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yikes, even Rivians are having similar issues, so this isn’t exclusive to these shitty trucks. Guess weighing 7,000+ LBs isn’t great for daily commuting, who’da thunk. I hate America’s obsession with huge trucks as their daily drivers. Whatever happened to smaller Ford Ranger type trucks? That way you still have the convenience of a truck when needed without the utter waste that the big ass trucks create for city driving.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Whatever happened to smaller Ford Ranger type trucks?

      I could be wrong, but I heard it was emission regulations that happened.

      As the emission standards became stricter, the truck manufacturers started producing bigger trucks as they had more lax emission requirements.

      • Poach@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fuel efficiency standards are more relaxed for a vehicle with a larger “footprint”. So that incentivizes larger vehicles because it’s easier to pass MPG standards.

      • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re right. But it’s more that emissions standards didn’t happen.

        Cars got them while trucks got them much, much less. So they build more trucks and fewer cars.

        They should just have a road tax based on weight and an emissions tax based on emissions. Not emissions per class twice removed just CO2 per mile. All vehicles.

        Roads get maintained by the weight tax, emissions tax to fund decarbonisation of the economy.

        • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          But instead they’re charging me an extra $100 to renew my tags for my hybrid sedan. If i had a full electric, it would be $200 extra.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Gas vehicles pay that as taxes on gas, hybrid and electric cars put more wear on the roads due to their weight so it’s only fair that owners would pay for road maintenance as well.

            • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              I understand that, and i have no problem paying my fair share as a driver. But it’s a hybrid and thus I still do buy gas. On top of that, I work from home and really just don’t drive that much, so that makes it feel especially unfair for me since the new fee is not usage-based like the gas tax. Regarding the weight argument, most of the huge trucks and giant SUVs I see driving around here weight around a literal ton more than my car (sure they also get shit gas milage, but that’s something they knew when they bought the damn things). I also looked up the weight for the ICE version of my car and the hybrid weights less than 100lbs more.

              It wouldn’t bother me so much if they had ear-marked some or most of the funds towards charging stations, improving roadways with bike and pedestrian safety in mind, and public transport initiatives, but as it stands, it sure feels like i’m being forced to subsidize road damage from gas-guzzling toddler smashers.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                As you said, those huge trucks burn more gas therefore they put more money into road maintenance, your car weights the same as a much bigger car while getting better mileage so there needs to be some form of compensation and unless you want the government to come and check your mileage every year to charge you a fee then it’s a flat rate, which you should have known about before buying your car.

                • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Actually, the law was passed a full two years after i purchased my car. And they could have easily checked my milage when i took my car in for emissions testing.

      • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s partially that, the fact that instead of making the trucks more efficient they made them larger to skirt the regulation, but another factor is the profitability of larger trucks. It doesn’t cost them that much more to make a massive truck vs a reasonable vehicle but the target market for unnecessarily large trucks is willing to pay hand over fist for them and so the manufacturers and distributors make more money per sale by a large margin.

        So when you see a large truck, don’t just think “someone who’s compensating” but also think “someone who got fleeced”.

        The roads would be safer without massive trucks, no one should be above ridicule.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Just to be clear, small trucks weren’t good on gas either (I would know, I’ve had a bunch of them) and we’re at the point where full sized trucks and mid sized trucks get pretty much the same fuel economy. The shape of the vehicle is bad for fuel economy, it’s that simple…

          • thejoker954@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I could get 25 mpg average with my old ass stick ranger regularly going 75+ mph.

            You’re luck to average 19 mpg on a flat highway going 55-65.

    • bizarroland@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The modern Ford ranger is the same size as the F-150 from 2004.

      Now if you want to buy a Ford ranger size truck you have to buy the Ford Maverick, which costs ~$35,000.

      It’s fucking madness and I don’t know a single company that hasn’t lost the plot.

          • xpinchx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            I only have anecdotal data but that doesn’t line up with my experience… But you might also be right.

            In 2004 I bought a new Honda Civic (base trim) for $13k USD. Adjusted for inflation that’s about 22.5k. Starting MSRP for a 2024 civic is apparently $24k so it’s not too far off. If you factor in what you actually get, most new cars have backup cameras, sensors, collision avoidance, blind spot monitoring, better safety and presumably better handling and power deliver and efficiency. It’s not that bad of a deal I suppose.

            My main hangup is the amount of dollars because my salary sure as shit hasn’t doubled since 2004.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The modern Ford ranger is the same size as the F-150 from 2004.

        Not if you’re actually honest and compare trucks with the same features (4 doors, similar bed length).

        Trucks are mostly higher than they were before, but their width and length hasn’t increased as much as some people think as long as we compare trucks with the same features

        2004 F150 crew cab, 5.5’ bed:

        • Length: 224"
        • Height: 73.5"
        • Width: 78.9"

        2023 Ford Ranger crew cab 6’ bed:

        • Length: 210.8" (-13.2")
        • Height: 71.5" (-2")
        • Width: 73.3" (-5.6")
          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Crazy right? Who would have thought that a mid size truck with four doors and a 6’ bed would be longer than a full size truck with two doors and a 6’ bed?

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                What’s funny is that the Ranger with the 6’ bed is still more than a foot shorter than the 20 years old F150 crew cab with the 5.5’ bed, so as I said, when you compare the two with the same features, the 20 years old F150 is bigger, people look at 4 doors mid size and compare them to regular cab short bed full size trucks and come to stupid conclusions…

    • ceiphas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Or - hear me Out - don’t drive a Truck at all. It’s easy, just drive a car that ist meant to drive in cities, and not in a desert.

            • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I’ll translate for you: This thread is about trucks getting bloated.

              Then someone suggested: if you don’t need a truck, don’t drive one.

              Then you replied that some people still need trucks, to which someone replied: sure, but they don’t need the bloated ones we’re talking about either.

              The implication is that nobody needs bloated trucks with a tiny bed. Either you need one for work, in which case you don’t want a Karenwagon, or you don’t need a truck.

              • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                don’t drive a Truck at all. It’s easy, just drive a car

                No nuance there. Don’t drive a truck. Period.

              • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                don’t drive a Truck at all. It’s easy, just drive a car

                No nuance there. Don’t drive a truck. Period.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      Whatever happened to smaller Ford Ranger type trucks?

      Oddly enough, environmental regulations happened. When the government was pushing for fuel economy regulation, the auto manufacturers were scared. They managed to talk the government into adding an exception where as wheel base increases, fuel economy is allowed to drop.

      If you don’t see the loophole in this, you wouldn’t the only one. After all, it sounds fine on the surface; large trucks need more fuel… Right? But it means that auto manufacturers pivoted to almost universally making (and marketing) larger SUVs and trucks, because their quality control can be much more lax when they aren’t trying to hit strict emissions and efficiency milestones. Their profit margins on large vehicles are much higher. Like 20-40% higher, because they’re easier to produce and sell for more. They’re able to get away with much more when the vehicle is larger, so they heavily leaned into the “larger cars are better” marketing.

    • Sludgehammer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yikes, even Rivians are having similar issues, so this isn’t exclusive to these shitty trucks.

      That being said, given the sheer number quality control problems with the Cybertruck I’m not willing to discount there being some sort of manufacturing defect contributing to tire problems. Like maybe Telsa didn’t give the right specs to Goodyear, or maybe they cheaped out on the materials used, or Elon got involved and demanded that ketamine needed to be mixed into the rubber or something.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Whatever happened to smaller Ford Ranger type trucks?

      Ford’s compact truck is called the Maverick now. Unfortunately, it’s actually an Ute (like an El Camino) not a real truck, because it’s unibody instead of body-on-frame, but it’s the closest we’re gonna get. Honda and Hyundai also make kinda-small unibody kinda-trucks, by the way.

      Really small trucks, like '80s Nissan P’ups and VW Rabbit Pickups, continue to no longer exist.

    • dai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ranger… Those things are a monstrosity.

      Whatever happened to Ford Falcon Utes. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Ford_AUII_Falcon_XR8_Ute.JPG/1920px-Ford_AUII_Falcon_XR8_Ute.JPG

      Whatever happened to vehicles that don’t require steps to exit / enter the cab. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/1999_Ford_Falcon_(AU)_XR8_sedan_(2004-01-24)_02.jpg/1920px-1999_Ford_Falcon_(AU)_XR8_sedan_(2004-01-24)_02.jpg

      The obsession / normalisation of huge vehicles that transport generally one person is toxic beyond belief. I feel like shit driving my 1.4L shitbox most places, sure it’s convenient but it’s not great for the environment, my wallet or my health. Can’t imagine the wasted resources from people driving their emotional support vehicles to do their errands.