
SUVs and pickup trucks are now too big for already gigantic garages - edward
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/epgqzj/suvs-and-pickup-trucks-are-now-too-big-for-our-already-gigantic-garages
======
gamegoblin
Back in 2018 I wanted a small beater truck when I bought a house (to move
tools, lumber, garden stuff, etc). I was originally looking for a first
generation Toyota Tacoma (later models are F150-sized), but was surprised that
the 20 year old trucks were still selling for $12-14K. The lack of small
trucks in the US is partially caused by bad regulation [1] that penalizes them
(I am surprised the article doesn't mention this).

I wound up getting a Japanese kei truck [2]. It was under $4,000 to import,
title, etc. It gets 50mpg (4.7 liters/100km) and carries 880 lbs (400kg) in
the 4.5x6.5ft bed (1.4x2m). You could use a large-ish garden shed as a garage
if you wanted.

It's really the perfect city utility truck if you are mainly a weekend warrior
making trips to the hardware store, moving around plywood and tools,
occasionally helping friends move apartments, etc. You can parallel park it
damn near anywhere, turns on dime, and it's incredibly mechanically simple and
easy to repair.

Only thing it lacks is modern safety features (for regulation reasons, it's
only easy to import and drive trucks > 25 years old in the US). The one
marginally common thing it can't do that a large modern pickup can is tow a
boat (kei vehicles are limited to 63 horsepower).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Sambar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Sambar)

~~~
subhobroto
> I wound up getting a Japanese kei truck [2]. It was under $4,000 to import,
> title, etc. It gets 50mpg (4.7 liters/100km) and carries 880 lbs (400kg) in
> the 4.5x6.5ft bed (1.4x2m). You could use a large-ish garden shed as a
> garage if you wanted.

This is great information!

I would like to dig in a bit deeper because I need a reliable work truck too.

So in California it's not impossible to find good quality trucks at a great
price.

For example: My last truck purchase was a F350 7.3 Turbo Diesel for $1500

Why? Because it was a manual, the diff was busted, body's all dented, seats
torn out and the doors did not work as it was run as a jobsite truck and the
contractor wanted to get rid of it.

After fixing it up, the challenge became the ongoing registration and
insurance fees in California which I had not taken into account.

The DMV in California classifies a F350 as a commercial truck.

As a result, you have to pay a much higher registration and insurance fees
than what you would pay for a SUV or minivan.

Because of this, it's financially smarter to just rent trucks from
Lowe's/HD/UHaul/CL for whenever I need it unless I'm using it more than 6
months per year - which I don't.

Now this $4k truck is new and welcome news to me, so thank you.

At 6' I'll probably fit a bit tight BUT how much could the registration and
insurance fees in California be?

The same as a SUV?

Less?

Please, feel free to contact me please. I would love to continue this
discussion

~~~
jjeaff
I'm kind of surprised there isn't an Uber "pickup truck" option.

~~~
gamegoblin
I once saw some ads in the Seattle metro for a company called Dolly which
seemed to be marketing itself as "Uber for Moving/Delivery"

[https://dolly.com/](https://dolly.com/)

Never used their service so I have no idea how it is.

------
ndonnellan
I have been fitting a little under 1000lbs of sand / gravel in my hatchback
(elantra gt) a few times this past week. It can also handle 10' 2x4s for short
drives. Given than I only need that a few times a year, it's a no brainer.
Also, Home Depot rents trucks/vans for $30 for 75 minutes; U-Haul is better if
you need them for the whole day.

I sometimes wish I had a small dumpy pickup so I could put bulk stuff in (and
full 4x8 sheets), but mostly it's fine without.

Related: my dad looked to replace his 92 Dodge Dakota, single cab, long bed
(which was a great, functional truck) and could find absolutely zero similar
size trucks out there (short cab, long bed, no ladder required to get to the
front seat). You can probably design them on the manufacturer site, but no
dealers will have them in stock.

~~~
tjr225
> Also, Home Depot rents trucks/vans for $30 for 75 minutes; U-Haul is better
> if you need them for the whole day.

I had a good friend argue that this was too inconvenient. My response was that
I believe the amount of effort put into affording a new truck far outweighs
the inconvenience of filling out a form or two at home depot.

> I sometimes wish I had a small dumpy pickup so I could put bulk stuff in
> (and full 4x8 sheets), but mostly it's fine without.

Unfortunately even these are pretty sought after! I have a '94 Toyota
Pickup(right before they rebranded them to the Tacoma) that I bought off of my
father in law for pennies. In many places in the world these are cult trucks.

~~~
myself248
What caught me completely off-guard when I went to rent from the Depot was
needing my insurance paperwork. Okay, that's out in my car's glovebox halfway
across the parking lot, kindly serve another customer while I hike out there
and get it...

It's doubly weird because I rent cars from Enterprise and Budget all the time
and they've never asked me for it.

But anyway, once that was done with, yeah the 75-minute truck rental was just
what the doctor ordered. I picked up a bunch of industrial auction items,
dropped them at my friend's place and my place, and had the truck fueled and
returned with several minutes to spare.

Everything I've ever bought from HD itself, including 10' pieces of conduit
and Unistrut, 8' pipe and lumber, numerous bags of cement and aggregate and
mulch, has fit just fine in my Prius.

I wouldn't mind owning a pickup for full sheets, but in practice everything
I've made has tesselated just fine into 32x48 one-third-sheets so I just have
'em ripped on the panel saw in-store.

~~~
tjr225
> What caught me completely off-guard when I went to rent from the Depot was
> needing my insurance paperwork. Okay, that's out in my car's glovebox
> halfway across the parking lot, kindly serve another customer while I hike
> out there and get it...

That caught me off guard the one time I did this as well. However, it is a
small lesson to learn compared to financing and insuring even a cheap truck
such as an f-150 IMO.

------
davidw
MMM's advice on trucks is sage:

[https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-
wo...](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-work-truck-
say-about-you/)

In other words, you should have a truck if you're using it for work and drive
it around loaded.

~~~
blaser-waffle
MMM is out of somewhere sort of rural though, no? Aside from the obvious
financial angle -- which is correct, thems big fancy trucks are money
obliterators -- there is also a personal axe to grind.

And I get it, even as a dude that used to drive a truck. US truck culture is
weird and kind of toxic.

~~~
davidw
He lives in Longmont, Colorado, which has nearly 100K people. I think he
mostly rides his bike for everything, and has some kind of electric vehicle
for when the bike doesn't suffice.

------
alamortsubite
The next time you're driving on a highway in the U.S., entertain yourself by
playing this game: count the number of pickup trucks (non-commercial) with
empty beds, resetting to zero every time you spy one that's actually carrying
or towing something. Try not to be surprised when you reach the triple digits!

~~~
strikelaserclaw
I moved to dallas from the east coast, i was quite surprised at how many
people view having a pickup truck as some kind of status symbol (southern
culture). Nothing like seeing a lifted pickup hurling towards you at 75 mph in
your rear view mirror everyday.

~~~
zerr
Another way to look at it would be - the person is not rich enough to own
several types of vehicles therefore owns the most universal one.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Unless they're actually using it for its intended purpose it is almost
certainly cheaper to own a small efficient vehicle and simply rent something
else if you need it.

~~~
blaser-waffle
I know folks with giant (F250) trucks, but who use a 2007 Honda Civic as a
daily commuter.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
That's at least not wasting money on fuel efficiency, but it's not like
leaving the truck in the garage all the time is a good application of the
money used to buy it either.

------
floren
Small pickups, on the other hand, are fantastic. I've got a 2005 Ford Ranger.
The bed is big enough that I've hauled drywall, lumber, flagstones, furniture,
a dead elk... pretty much everything I've ever needed to move. But on the
other hand, it's narrower than almost anything on the road today (barring
compact cars of its own era and before), so it's easy to park. It's also got
enough window visibility that I can easily keep track of each corner of the
truck when I'm trying to park. It's got high enough clearance that I don't
scrape the front when I pull up to the curb in a parking lot, and that I can
drive down rutted forest roads without too much concern.

I see a ton of little Rangers and S10s around town, but judging by how
difficult it was to find my own, other people recognize how useful they are
too! I think there are a lot of us who just want a small utilitarian vehicle,
but when the Ranger was discontinued we lost that option in pickup format.

~~~
lostapathy
It's a shame, really, that nobody makes small trucks in the USA anymore. Great
vehicles.

~~~
gamegoblin
Blame (at least in part) the chicken tax for distorting the market:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax)

~~~
toast0
I don't think that makes that big of a difference. This just means you need to
build the trucks in a NAFTA facility, and everyone has one of those. It
doesn't explain why the Ranger and the S10 were stopped.

I think the manufactures like building the bigger trucks cause they make more
$$$, and most buyers are willing to take a bigger truck if the smaller ones
aren't available. But, having owned a regular cab Ranger I bought new and now
a regular cab S10; they're lovely vehicles as long as you don't need to carry
people. Amazing visibility; no fiddly bits, and you don't have to worry about
curbs or parking stops.

~~~
theluketaylor
The real reason small trucks are dead in america is the bizarre way the CAFE
standards are written. In the 2008 update the fuel economy target is based on
the vehicle 'footprint', so bigger trucks have lower targets. This led to a
bloating of all trucks. It also killed off small trucks as the cost of
compliance was just too high.

------
Someone1234
Space requirements for families have also increased. Which is rarely discussed
when talking about why more people are buying SUVs.

Car seats are a legal requirement. Most take up more space than a fully grown
adult and due to additional padding/side impact protection, keep growing. So a
family that needs to fit three kids across, only really has the choice of SUVs
or more expensive Minivans (the cheap/fleet tier Minivans cost the same as low
end SUVs while being worse/outdated designs).

So why do people buy SUVs? Higher ride means that more of the car's internals
can be pushed out of the passenger compartment (particularly the rear
seat/trunk) and they have a wider Axle track meaning longer seats. Which is
conveniently exactly what car seats and strollers benefit from. Meaning
they're great family cars.

The continued rise in trucks is more due to the Crew Cab-style becoming
functional, and them being used as a family vehicle as well as utility (e.g.
moving, dump runs, DIY projects, etc).

Without even trying to understand why people buy these vehicles, the
discussion largely turns into moralizing. People have good reasons on a whole.
They don't need to be using a Crew Cab truck exclusively for work for it to
make sense, or an SUV for off-road adventures (most SUVs cannot off-road
anyway).

~~~
zip1234
How have space requirements for families increased when average family size
has decreased?

~~~
lsaferite
They called out the increasing size of car seats specifically and I can attest
to that. The increase in size being driven by safety, not child size.

------
symfoniq
I always preferred sporty sedans. But then I became a (relatively handy)
homeowner and a father. After I got my pickup truck with a crew cab, I
couldn't imagine not owning one, even though (as the title says) it barely
fits in my garage.

I work from home and drive maybe 6K miles per year, so the fuel costs and
emissions aren't a significant consideration for me. But there's something in
the bed almost every weekend, and even when there isn't, there's usually a kid
or three in the back seat.

If you don't have a family, or you automatically call a handyman when
something breaks, I can understand why you might not want or need to own one
of these magnificent vehicles.

But for many of us, these trucks are carefully considered purchases that solve
a lot of problems.

~~~
Ididntdothis
I am not even opposed to pickups but the sheer size of a lot of them is just
obscene. You could get most of the benefits from a much smaller pickup.

~~~
floren
For years, the only option for an even slightly small pickup was the Toyota
Tacoma, which is still pretty hefty. The newly-revived Ford Ranger looks like
it'll be ok, but I haven't had a chance to get up close to one yet for a
proper evaluation.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>the only option for an even slightly small pickup was the Toyota Tacoma,

The only option for people who turn up their nose at GM. They've been making
the Colorado/Canyon continiously since they EOL'd the S10.

------
Whatarethese
There is very small subset of people who actually need an SUV or Truck. Most
cars now days can comfortably fit 5. Most cars can fit 2 car seats with a
booster seat. Most get them because they like to sit up high so they can see
over traffic. That doesn't help when everyone else drives an SUV or Truck.

~~~
bcrosby95
When we had twins (and a 4 year old at the time) we tried to make do with a
smaller car. Putting them all in the same row was disastrous once the twins
hit around 1 year old. We couldn't go a trip without at least one of our kids
crying most of the way.

Now everyone is outside of hair pulling, biting, pinching, toy/book stealing,
throwing, and spitting range.

I guess my kids are just animals. It certainly seems to work for some parents.
Maybe it will work out better when they're older.

~~~
AdamN
Sounds like you need a minivan, not a truck

------
arielweisberg
Miata Is Always The Answer

On a more serious note I have been watching YouTube car reviews for a while
and eventually they get bored and start reviewing SUVs and CUVs. There is an
internal capacity difference between wagons and sedans.

Wagons and sedans lose internal capacity to drivetrain components because the
body rises lower. Great for handling and efficiency.

It becomes really obvious when you look at The Straight Pipes box test.

That said just because the difference exists doesn’t mean people know or need
it.

~~~
pengaru
> Miata Is Always The Answer

It really is
[http://pengaru.com/~vc/tmp/tank1.jpg](http://pengaru.com/~vc/tmp/tank1.jpg)

------
thrill
The rant at this link is mostly holier-than-thou word porn. Try visiting the
referenced article instead for a slightly more informative piece:
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2020/03/05/suvs-
pi...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2020/03/05/suvs-pickups-
trucks-garages-parking/4904811002/)

------
zzleeper
I just wish SUVs and pickups to be taxed proportionally to all the damage they
cause, either to the road, or to others (higher accident rate with pedestrians
and fatality rates), and that's besides the pollution.

------
Waterluvian
On this topic, I'm a single vehicle family with two toddlers. We have a Nissan
rogue and are very happy. But I've been looking at possible upgrades in size
as the kids get older and its stupid.

First off, the Rogue is considered a "compact crossover" and yet it has far
more cargo space than the Murano or Pathfinder. I don't get names. It's like
cars are named like video cards. So confusing.

Also, if I do want to go up in size, I have to go way up. And suddenly it
won't fit comfortably in my garage. And it's annoying. I don't want a six
cylinder engine. I don't want a tow kit. I just want a rogue with 20% more
trunk so I can fit everthing a modern parent needs for a trip with two kids.

Sigh. Is it minivan time?

~~~
acheron9383
Hey, Minivans are great! Those bad boys fit an astounding amount of cargo, are
easy to drive, and most are insanely reliable. You'd better just bit the
bullet lol.

\--Edit: Plus cops never pull you over

~~~
Waterluvian
I can't help but feel like I'm buying a third row of seats that I take out and
fill my garage with.

~~~
lutorm
Get one that stows them into the floor. Then you can rearrange your cargo
space at a moment's notice.

------
symmitchry
The rise of the Platinum F350 as a luxury vehicle is something I wouldn't have
predicted. It's crazy how much money people are willing to spend on an
impractical vehicle like a full-size pickup.

That being said, I really like big trucks. I guess it's selfish to want one,
but I still do. Of course I don't live in the city, where it would be more
hassle than enjoyable.

~~~
Gibbon1
I've heard contractors complaining that they can't get cheap basic work trucks
anymore. That was one of my thoughts about people complaining about non ones
going to buy an electric vehicles because 'too expensive'. Have they priced a
full sized truck lately?

------
jakearmitage
What's the problem with liking big vehicles? To each his own.

I love motorbikes. They are so cool. I don't need it, it is not practical for
commute, it rains a lot where I live... yet I have one just to ride on
weekends.

~~~
waiseristy
HN has a huge hate boner for USA vehicle culture. I'd imagine the majority
opinion is that one should ride a bicycle for any trip under 5 miles, public
transit the rest. And if your arm is really twisted, buy the smallest, least
expensive, and most efficient vehicle one can get their hands on.

God forbid you like a vehicle with power, is fun to drive, or you have hobbies
/ activities which facilitate it.

~~~
ryandrake
I don't know if I'd put it that way, but the gist of what you're saying is
right. I think a lot of HN commenters live in very dense urban environments,
where riding a bicycle is a practical choice. Some of them unfortunately
extrapolate this to everyone else on earth and then you get the "there's never
any reason for cars" posts.

Everyone's situation is different and many people live where they need a car
to function. My commute averages about 2 hours each way by car. That would be
4 hours by bicycle according to Google Maps. Sorry, but there is nothing you
can say that would convince me to spend 8 hours per day commuting by bicycle.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_My commute averages about 2 hours each way by car._

I'm sorry to hear that, hopefully you can fix it soon.

~~~
ryandrake
That's the attitude I'm talking about. There's nothing to fix! I wouldn't have
it any other way. I don't _want_ to live close to work, if it means being
packed into a sardine can apartment, sharing a wall with my neighbor. I don't
_want_ to pay $1,000/sq ft. I don't _want_ a book-sized backyard. Not everyone
thinks "dense urban" is the best way to live, and downvotes won't change that.

~~~
waiseristy
It's funny that someone responded to you with that, I was going to mention
that HN'ers would deride you for taking a 2 hour commute.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Well it was a bit of a poke to see what reaction it would get but there was
also an element of sympathy. I had a similar commute when I was younger and I
ended up regretting it.

------
baddox
I'd like the article to provide an example of a modern stock vehicle that
doesn't fit in a relatively modern standard garage.

The article claims that American garages "tend to be seven or eight feet
high." The article also mentions a women whose F-150 doesn't fit in her
garage. The tallest 2020 F-150 I can find is 6' 6.5". I found a 2020 Silverado
that's nearly 6' 8". Where are these unmodified trucks that aren't fitting in
7 foot garages?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
The sliding overhead doors you find on typical residential garages don't open
the full height of the door opening.

------
rjkennedy98
I really appreciate articles like this that call out our how off the walls
absurd American car culture is. As someone who bikes to work, almost everyone
I've met that bikes has developed a deep hatred (and fear) of car drivers
(whose sense of entitlement has gone off the rails). Biking to work, you will
on a regular basis encounter drivers that yell at you, try to run you off the
road, floor the car by you (even when there is a red traffic light ahead)

~~~
RickS
Preface: there's no excuse for drivers being assholes to bikers (yelling,
speeding, worse).

But as a driver, our resentment for bike commuters doesn't just come from
entitlement (though somewhat, yes). It comes from fear, just like yours. I
_really_ don't want to accidentally kill anyone, and bikers are one of the
only encounters in my daily life when I feel like that might happen.

I wish it were safer for bikers. Our infrastructure is terrible. The bike
lanes are spotty and bad when they exist. Lane separation is more symbolic
than physical.

I get that bikers want to be on the road anyway, and that conceptually, it
should be a shared space. But the _reality_ is that our roads are ill suited
for the task, catastrophically and obviously dangerous, and people insist on
trying it anyway because _in principle_ , it _should_ work.

It feels like bikers think they're the only ones shouldering the risk of
having their lives destroyed if things go sideways. As a driver, that's not
how it feels. Maiming or killing a biker would be strictly worse for the
biker, but I'm not excited about living in the aftermath either. It feels like
bikers increase the risk of a terrible thing happening to _both of us_.

For me, that's what makes it a moral gray area: bikers definitely have the
environmental upper hand. But they do it by engaging in activity that is
borderline reckless given the reality of American roads. I find it difficult
to enthusiastically encourage that.

Open to having my views changed on this.

~~~
jefurii
As a kid my dad commuted to work on a bike and he made me take a class at a
local bike store with actual course materials and a totally-not-official bike
license before he let me ride on the street.

In the late 1970s-early 1980s when cyclists started calling for bike lanes and
changes to laws, part of the deal was that cyclists would adopt smart habits
AKA the rules of the road, that helped them become part of a shared car-bike
system. Things like wearing helmets, signaling turns, riding in the same
direction as traffic. A lot of the rules are designed to make cyclists'
behavior less unpredictable and thus safer.

I see this system breaking down when cyclists do dumb things like riding the
wrong way on a street and swerving across lanes. (I'm probably showing my age
but I mostly notice this from fixed-gear cyclists).

As a mostly car driver myself now, I want to ensure that bikes are safe. But
it requires the cooperation

~~~
jolmg
> riding in the same direction as traffic

I've never understood how riding in the same direction is safer. The rider
can't see me, so it feels like I'm creeping up on them. I feel there should be
some degree of coordination when a car is approaching a bike, some eye
contact, you know? But that can't be done when they're riding in the same
direction.

I've never ridden a bike in traffic before, but I'm sure I'd feel really
nervous to have an unknown set of cars approaching me from behind and passing
by me unexpectedly.

Is it about reducing the relative velocity between them? I'm sure it's still
significantly high even when going in the same direction.

EDIT: Here, I'm mostly thinking in the context of highways. It may be that the
rule makes more sense in a city- or suburban-like environment.

~~~
lutorm
I'm not sure it matters much on an uninterrupted stretch of road (except you
conflict with the bicycles being on the right side of the road...) But when
you _enter an intersection from the opposite direction the drivers are
expecting you to_ , it's pretty clear that it's not safer.

~~~
tropo
Drivers expect people to enter intersections from both directions on the
crosswalks, which is where normal non-athlete bicycle users need to be for
safety. This is a solved problem if we keep all the small unarmored travelers
(walking, bicycling, crawling, etc.) together on the sidewalk and crosswalk.

~~~
saltcured
As someone who has witnessed this accident or near-accident unfold several
times, the difference is speed how quickly the opposing cyclist or pedestrian
moves from invisible or out-of-range to collision range. Bicycles and other
wheeled vehicles like scooters and skateboards move much faster than
pedestrians. Even a conscientious driver who watches for pedestrians may miss
a cyclist who is riding "the wrong way" in the time it takes the driver to
swivel their attention among the various hazard zones that need to be checked
when making turns.

A driver needs to check both ways in a sequence, with the final visual check
being for traffic in the incoming lanes they are about to enter or cross. They
check for pedestrians coming the opposite way first, but the slow rate of
pedestrian movement means that the conditions do not change dramatically while
the driver attention switches to the opposite direction. However, a
cyclist/skater/scooter flying into the picture from the blind side is at great
risk of collision with the driver who is now checking the opposite direction
and initiating their maneuver.

~~~
tropo
There is no "flying into the picture from the blind side" with normal
bicyclists. They are timid and non-athletic. They often cross roads with their
feet on the ground, walking the bicycle across. If they ride across the
street, it is after stopping to wait for traffic.

There would be many more of these normal bicyclists if they didn't have to
choose between legal danger (on sidewalk) and extreme physical danger (on
road).

~~~
saltcured
The accidents and near accidents I have witnessed in Los Angeles are people on
wheels moving at ~10 MPH or higher against the flow of traffic on the shoulder
or in a crosswalk. Dramatically faster than a walking pedestrian. People
moving at these speeds on wheels also make unwise maneuvers to conserve
momentum, unlike most joggers.

As a third party observing several of these events, I noticed that the
cyclist/scooter rider/skateboarder more often accelerates to attempt to make a
stale light as well, quite the opposite of normal pedestrian patterns. This
has only gotten worse in recent years, with many more people having motor-
assisted wheeled contraptions and not a lot of common sense about their
newfound speed.

------
lacker
_All of the benefits of driving big cars, as I have previously argued, are
illusory._

The benefit is pretty simple - they are bigger. I have a Prius and a Mazda
CX-9 (somewhere from a mid-size to large SUV). I also have a wife and three
kids. For daily use the Prius is fine, but if we go on vacation and there are
1.5 or so items of luggage per person, the Prius really doesn't work any more
and we need to take the SUV.

------
doe88
Corollary: it becomes more and more difficult to open doors and get out of
vehicles in shrinking parking spots designed only few years ago (at least
where I live in Europe).

------
Animats
Even the once humble Jeep Wrangler has become bloated.

First, Jeep came out with a 4-door Wrangler. That became a mommiemobile SUV
for the Hummer 2 crowd. Then customers wanted more "luxury" \- entertainment
systems, power windows, sound-deadening, always-on Internet. Now the base
Wrangler is over $30K, and hard to get without options you don't need.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
The 4dr Wrangler is a brilliant exercise in box checking.

Husband and wife walk into the dealership wanting a new car. They're both now
well paid and are looking to trade in the older of their two vehicles for an
upgrade. One of them wants something more convenient for their new life in the
suburbs, hauling around kids, etc. The other wants something fun, maybe
sporty, maybe a convertible. The Jeep Wrangler lets them both compromise
without compromising. It has two rows so it's great for kids. It's a
convertible so you can put the top down. It's available with a manual. It has
4wd so it's good in snow. Etc. etc. No matter how disparate a couple's idea
for what they want in a new vehicle odds are the 4dr Wrangler does a pretty
decent job checking off things on their mental "must have" lists.

Now, anyone who's actually driven the Wrangler long term knows that those
benefits I just rattled off aren't as cut and clear in reality but you also
know that you didn't figure that out on the test drive and that it's still
probably a nicer vehicle than whatever it replaced.

What I'm getting at is that having every possible feature known to man
dovetails perfectly with this strategy of letting people buy the vehicle they
want while also convincing their SO they're buying the vehicle they want.

------
RickJWagner
"....so you can haul dozens of cubic feet of air with your 3.5 liter V6
engine..."

Hooboy. This author is not a car enthusiast. That's on the very small end of
the big-truck power spectrum.

------
tchock23
The biggest thing people I know with pickup trucks haul is their laptop to
their desk jobs.

------
kolleykibber
Isn't all this down to marketing due to the chicken tax? (I'm not from the US)

------
yellowapple
There are some glaring issues with this article.

> All of the benefits of driving big cars, as I have previously argued, are
> illusory.

Literally only one of the points mentioned in this paragraph is actually
mentioned in the linked article (and that point - about safety - is dubious
considering that it in turn links to a NYT article that doesn't actually link
back to any real data; said article pulls the "11% more likely to die in a
crash" number out of its ass with no opportunity for the reader to discern
what that number actually means or how it was derived).

> The vast majority of people who drive them do not need the space or towing
> capacity nearly as much as they think they do

Okay, well that's nice, but those of us who do need that space _do need that
space_ , whether you think we do or not.

I was able to move myself from San Francisco to Reno entirely by myself (no
moving van, no moving crew, not even family members' vehicles this time
around) specifically because I owned an SUV and was able to fit large items in
said SUV (including my couch - which does come apart, granted, but still would
absolutely not have fit in a sedan), and thus able to move everything from one
apartment to the other. Even that was stressful, and involved multiple trips;
I would have had an even easier time if I had a similarly-sized van (of the
cargo variety, or even a minivan if all the middle and rear seats are
removable) or pickup. Yet, it was still possible.

This same vehicle comfortably hauls myself and 4 passengers (and has done so a
multitude of times, with passengers ranging from fussy nieces/nephews in car
seats to coworkers to drinking buddies to grandparents and everyone and
everything in between). Hell, it can do so even while hauling a bit of cargo
in the back. It gets me to work and back.

I can't speak to towing capacity since I don't tow anything (I don't even have
a hitch, though I've been tempted to buy one). I know plenty of people who do
tow with their SUVs, though. I also know that there are times I wish I can tow
(for example: a trailer would've also helped with moving logistics).

> they do not handle inclement weather better than a smaller car with similar
> technology—such as all wheel drive—which many have.

This is patently false when you take ground clearance into consideration. I
sometimes need to be able to drive through a foot (or more!) of snow, and
would prefer to do so without my headlights being used as a snowplow, thank
you very much.

> In addition to the higher sticker price, owners of big cars pay hundreds if
> not thousands of dollars more every year in gas because the gigantic car is
> so much less fuel efficient.

Hm, if only there was a drivetrain that used electricity from my house or a
public charging station instead of petroleum.

(Not that my SUV has such a drivetrain, given that it predates the relatively-
widespread availability of electric SUVs by nearly two decades, but still)

> SUVs and trucks are now so profoundly gigantic they no longer fit in the
> already pretty large suburban American garages constructed to store said
> cars.

Clarification: _some_ SUVs and trucks are too big to fit in garages. The
author apparently lacks zero comprehension of the idea that there's such a
thing as "mid-size" and "compact" SUVs and pickups, instead pretending that
literally the only options are Canyonero-esque monstrosities.

Has the author never seen a CR-V? Or a RAV-4? Or a Rogue? That category of SUV
(a.k.a. "crossover" SUVs) accounts for more than 50% of the American SUV
market. When those stop fitting in garages, then sure, go ahead and start
punching that strawman again.

The Ranger and Tacoma are also still reasonably-sized, though I'll admit
they've grown a fair bit since the 90's/00's.

> Large vehicles mean roads wear out faster and need more repairs

"Large vehicles" being semi trucks, the author surely means. One semi causes
the equivalent damage to a road as thousands of cars. The difference between a
sedan and even a full-size SUV (let alone compact or mid-size) is negligible
in comparison.

\----

Like yeah, sure, I'm happy to mock the folks buying big SUVs and pickups to
compensate for certain idadequacies, but if you could avoid throwing those of
us who actually do need those capabilities under the bus that'd be great.

~~~
DHPersonal
> Okay, well that's nice, but those of us who do need that space do need that
> space, whether you think we do or not.

> I was able to move myself from San Francisco to Reno entirely by myself…

I don’t think that this is as compelling an argument as you may think. The
author would likely have pointed out that you could have done the same moving
trip once by packing a U-Haul truck and driving it from your old home to your
new home, using a vehicle that was more appropriate for a move without the
need for multiple trips. You could have towed your car behind the U-Haul, had
a friend drive it to the moving site to help you unpack, or returned the
U-Haul to the original location and taken your car back to your new apartment,
making it at most a two-trip move.

~~~
yellowapple
> The author would likely have pointed out that you could have done the same
> moving trip once by packing a U-Haul truck and driving it from your old home
> to your new home

A U-Haul would have cost more, have done more damage to the road, have done
more damage to the environment, would have been far more difficult to get over
the pass (which was under chain controls during one of the trips), would have
been far more dangerous to other drivers, and would have been far more
difficult to park in reasonable proximity to both the old apartment and the
new one without being a massive nuisance to my neighbors.

Regardless, that's just one example. Other examples (among many, many, _many_
others):

\- The time I bought a couch from IKEA (not to mention other large pieces of
furniture) and hauled it home entirely on my own, which was possible because I
own an SUV

\- The multiple times I've hauled hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of
IT hardware between sites for a company, which was possible because I own an
SUV

\- The multiple times I've lugged home piles of computers I bought on the
cheap, which was possible because I own an SUV

That is, there have been enough times that my SUV has been an absolute godsend
that it's more than justified its own existence. All three of those things
would've been easier with a pickup truck or cargo van, granted, but a pickup
doesn't also allow hauling as many passengers (without significantly
sacrificing bed space or making the truck obnoxiously big), and cargo vans (or
even minivans with fully removable seats) with 4WD/AWD seem to be less
affordably available (else I would pick one up in a heartbeat).

------
m463
The tesla cybertruck should be able to park itself.

The tesla model s could pull itself into and out of the garage for almost 4
years now.

(in regard to the original article)

------
avalys
Article is written by someone who does not own a truck or SUV and consists
mainly of him sneering in superiority at those who do.

Aaron Gordon, whoever you are: mind your own damn business.

~~~
rtkwe
Unless your job requires you to haul stuff around on a regular basis what use
is a truck? For the exceedingly rare cases where a person not in those trades
does need to haul furniture or building supplies, rentals are exceedingly
cheap from numerous places.

~~~
Someone1234
> rentals are exceedingly cheap from numerous places

It is $100+/day out the door around here. Where are you where it is
"exceedingly cheap" and what is your definition of that?

~~~
crispyambulance
$150/day for, maybe, one or two days a year is far cheaper than buying a
$25-50K pickup, maintaining it, gassing it and dealing with the stress of
driving a huge vehicle-- all so you can haul stuff, "if necessary".

They're status symbols like Porsche's or Tesla's, but for a different
demographic, one that gets defensive about admitting they just want to drive a
truck because it makes them feel good.

~~~
Someone1234
Most people aren't looking at pickups relative to owning no vehicle at all.
Which is to say they aren't spending a $25K _premium_ for one. They're looking
at the cost/utility benefit relative to other new vehicles with similar
features. For example a large trunk SUV Vs. a Crew Cab-style pickup. The cost
increase could be <$3K.

Cheap pickups definitely aren't a status simple. The pickup market ranges from
$100K+ all the way down to $25K or less. Some are status symbols, some aren't,
but the cheap ones definitely aren't.

~~~
rtkwe
It's accruing cost year round though from the reduced MPG but even if we don't
factor in daily fuel consumption that $3k cost increase covers 20 solid days
renting a truck vs buying one. The math rarely works especially with so many
places offering home delivery for large furniture. The number of times a
person really needs a truck vs it being more convenient than a car are pretty
slim.

