[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by freakystyly

You have a legit truck with long bed. The vast majority of F150s on the road are short bed quad cab, basically glorified SUVs in that department.

Not everyone needs or wants a long bed and/or quad cab. It's still a truck.

[FC4]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Sad that people love boring cars

If you pull up lists of the best selling espresso machines, cameras, road bikes, guitars, etc... respective enthusiasts of each item will feel the same way.

I'll bet there is someone who'll look at your washing machine and laugh at the model you chose.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Sad that people love boring cars

It seems the masses in general like to sit high up rather than low in a car. That's clearly what started the SUV craze although I have never figured out why so many North American men need to drive pickup trucks in the city as their daily driver. So many of these massive fullsize 4x4 trucks in parking lots with empty beds that are rarely used and very few that actually have to tow stuff. So many times I've been a passenger in a truck where the driver has to go out of his way to try and fit in a busy parking lot and I wonder why you would want to put yourself through this all the time. Trucks and SUV's have killed cars (speaking of killed, not to mention 45% deadlier to pedestrians) and that's a shame but it is what it is as people want what they want whether they need it or not.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

It seems the masses in general like to sit high up rather than low in a car. That's clearly what started the SUV craze although I have never figured out why so many North American men need to drive pickup trucks in the city as their daily driver. So many of these massive fullsize 4x4 trucks in parking lots with empty beds that are rarely used and very few that actually have to tow stuff. So many times I've been a passenger in a truck where the driver has to go out of his way to try and fit in a busy parking lot and I wonder why you would want to put yourself through this all the time. Trucks and SUV's have killed cars (speaking of killed, not to mention 45% deadlier to pedestrians) and that's a shame but it is what it is as people want what they want whether they need it or not.

A big part of it is EPA regulations. CAFE and similar.mandates make small cars an unappealing option as they have to hit unattainable fuel economy goals. Light trucks on the other hand have much more attainable goals, and most crossovers and the like fit the requirements to be a light truck. So you end up in a situation where it's cheaper to build and sell the crossover than it is the same car as a hatchback (see how the USA gets the GLA from Mercedes but not the nearly identical A-class).

So not only is it what people want, but it's what is forced by regulation.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

It seems the masses in general like to sit high up rather than low in a car. That's clearly what started the SUV craze although I have never figured out why so many North American men need to drive pickup trucks in the city as their daily driver. So many of these massive fullsize 4x4 trucks in parking lots with empty beds that are rarely used and very few that actually have to tow stuff. So many times I've been a passenger in a truck where the driver has to go out of his way to try and fit in a busy parking lot and I wonder why you would want to put yourself through this all the time. Trucks and SUV's have killed cars (speaking of killed, not to mention 45% deadlier to pedestrians) and that's a shame but it is what it is as people want what they want whether they need it or not.

Part of why my wife wanted the CX-5 was the sitting up higher nonsense.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

A big part of it is EPA regulations. CAFE and similar.mandates make small cars an unappealing option as they have to hit unattainable fuel economy goals. Light trucks on the other hand have much more attainable goals, and most crossovers and the like fit the requirements to be a light truck. So you end up in a situation where it's cheaper to build and sell the crossover than it is the same car as a hatchback (see how the USA gets the GLA from Mercedes but not the nearly identical A-class).

So not only is it what people want, but it's what is forced by regulation.

All in the name of power & greed behind the scenes with the puppet masters.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

All in the name of power & greed behind the scenes with the puppet masters.

They have to save us mere taxpayers from ourselves. We need to fund them more momey so they can create more regulation to protect us from ourselves.

Personally I think we should abolish CAFE entirely, CARB as well. Tailpipe emissions should be frozen at a previous level, and if companies want to be cleaner than that as a marketing or image thing, good for them. Of not, they've been chasing tiny improvements in emissions , at the cost of longevity and reliability, for like 2 decades. We made big gains in emissions up until the 90s, slowed dramatically into the 00s, and has been effectively stagnant since then.

But if we did that, a lot of government employees wouldn't need their jobs and the children of donors wouldn't get key positions and sweet retirement plans.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

They have to save us mere taxpayers from ourselves. We need to fund them more momey so they can create more regulation to protect us from ourselves.

Personally I think we should abolish CAFE entirely, CARB as well. Tailpipe emissions should be frozen at a previous level, and if companies want to be cleaner than that as a marketing or image thing, good for them. Of not, they've been chasing tiny improvements in emissions , at the cost of longevity and reliability, for like 2 decades. We made big gains in emissions up until the 90s, slowed dramatically into the 00s, and has been effectively stagnant since then.

But if we did that, a lot of government employees wouldn't need their jobs and the children of donors wouldn't get key positions and sweet retirement plans.

Agree 100%. The goal of CARB since it's amalgamation in 1967 has been zero-emissions vehicles. The EV mandate is the realization of that goal.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Agree 100%. The goal of CARB since it's amalgamation in 1967 has been zero-emissions vehicles. The EV mandate is the realization of that goal.

Even if they magically eliminated all ICE cars over ight and we all got EVs and magically had enough everything to go along with it.... They'd find something new to regulate. Mark my words, they will one day regulate the amount of energy that EVs are allowed to use in the name of the environment.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Even if they magically eliminated all ICE cars over ight and we all got EVs and magically had enough everything to go along with it.... They'd find something new to regulate. Mark my words, they will one day regulate the amount of energy that EVs are allowed to use in the name of the environment.

I wonder if CARB believes the (geological) science the Earth has been absent of Polar ice caps 3 times in its history.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

They have to save us mere taxpayers from ourselves. We need to fund them more momey so they can create more regulation to protect us from ourselves.

Personally I think we should abolish CAFE entirely, CARB as well. Tailpipe emissions should be frozen at a previous level, and if companies want to be cleaner than that as a marketing or image thing, good for them. Of not, they've been chasing tiny improvements in emissions , at the cost of longevity and reliability, for like 2 decades. We made big gains in emissions up until the 90s, slowed dramatically into the 00s, and has been effectively stagnant since then.

But if we did that, a lot of government employees wouldn't need their jobs and the children of donors wouldn't get key positions and sweet retirement plans.

I think anyone in favor of this should have their exhaust routed into their cabin.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I wonder if CARB believes the (geological) science the Earth has been absent of Polar ice caps 3 times in its history.

Is climate change about long term temp change?

[Schn3ll]

Originally Posted by RM7

Is climate change about long term temp change?

No, it’s about money, power and control.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by RM7

Is climate change about long term temp change?

Animals adapt to the climate. The climate doesn't adapt to animals.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

It's interesting to hear that so many current BMW owners of relatively new models have had or currently have F150s and how many of those owners loved those trucks. The F150s, even the 2024s, are a huge difference when it comes to quality control and general feel of materials. I constantly go back and forth with myself about if I could handle owning an F150 after drinking the German car koolaid for so long I went and looked at new F150s yesterday and was a bit surprised by how bad the exterior panel fitment was on the trucks. You'd think with how many they sell, they could address that. I probably wouldn't be too upset as I'm looking to order a bare bones V8 2WD single cab XL for mid $30s, but I'd be pissed if I was spending $50-70K which is what most of those trucks are listed at.....which is bonkers.

Comparing panel gaps of a body-on-frame vehicle to a unibody vehicle is a bad practice. There are different engineering principles at work.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Not everyone needs or wants a long bed and/or quad cab. It's still a truck.

I traditionally felt that only a single cab long bed made sense -- sort of the purist "work truck" philosophy. So here I am with a four-door short bed medium-sized Honda Ridgeline. But it makes sense to me for my use case.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I traditionally felt that only a single cab long bed made sense -- sort of the purist "work truck" philosophy. So here I am with a four-door short bed medium-sized Honda Ridgeline. But it makes sense to me for my use case.

Other than the 1st-gen Ridgeline being butt-ugly, I think it is a great truck design. For what most of the market really needs, it fits well within most people's use cases. The 2nd-gen is much nicer to look at and with the faux bed panel gap, it gives it a bit more truck cred. There is no reason not to consider the Ridgeline for truck duty IMO.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Part of why my wife wanted the CX-5 was the sitting up higher nonsense.

Universal truth; "Chics dig the SUV."

[Germanauto]

The NPC mobiles..

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

Why do they put up with it?

When you need the bed, it's there.
Have acreage, garden, flower beds and haul lots of messy stuff? Throw it in the bed.
Pull a trailer of any description up to GVWR.
Like to take driving trips? Nothing and I mean nothing devours miles in comfort like a full-size crew cab pickup.
So, you put up with tight parking so you have the bed when you want it or need it.

If you live on a farm, acreage, or even small town then yes a truck makes sense. It's the people living in the concrete jungle using them as city commuters that's a little puzzling to me.

[Ugly Kar]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

If you live on a farm, acreage, or even small town then yes a truck makes sense. It's the people living in the concrete jungle using them as city commuters that's a little puzzling to me.

A lot of people are compensating for something else.

[DanG]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Part of why my wife wanted the CX-5 was the sitting up higher nonsense.

My wife feels the same way. So we also have a CX-5.