Where is the modern mini-truck?

Ridgelines have the ZF 9 speed.
Today they do. When I first ogled them, they had 5AT's, then later 6AT's. Because I'm cheap, I still occasionally look at the older ones; it seems the 5AT's might hold the edge in longevity/durability, not sure (but should not have the dreaded cylinder deactivation, not sure, as I only casually look as I know it's still not the right/best vehicle for me at this time).
 
Ford Maverick specs (esp MPG) are amazing. I walked around one at the dealership though and it looked tiny. And kind of strange looking. But still for pure function. I think it's very amazing.
 
Saw a Kei truck driving in south Austin yesterday with TX plates. They are popular, thus expensive. I've had my eye on such things for some time but only for ranch work. Solved it by getting a mini dump truck, works great, diesel, and will last another 30 years.

 
I'd love to see a mini truck comeback but I don't think it will ever happen. It would be great to have a two door, body on frame, minimal interior/exterior with a NA four cylinder and a turbo'd version as an option. No LCD dash or touchscreen radio. Simple. AC as an option and rubber flooring standard. Manual transmission standard and a simple 6 speed automatic as an option. 2WD standard with 4WD as an option with a manual transfer case shifter. Roll up windows standard too.

The problem is that it will never happen. Those 2,800lb mini trucks of yesteryear would weigh closer to 4k pounds to meet modern crash standards. The Ford Maverick weighs about 3,600lbs in FWD form and is a uni-body. Also consumers are picky. They want a crew cab option and an extended cab option. Some want a luxury version and some want an off road version.

Remember the days when all the trucks were the same and an SE, SL, SLT, etc package just added A/C, a radio, carpet or maybe some chrome trim somewhere. And all trucks came as a single cab with your choice of bed length.
 
No my grandson is a mechanic for Ford. This is the turbo 2.0 with the 8-speed automatic. 18,000 miles now zero issues.
 
IDK if I am saying this correctly, however, it's the way I understand it.

Small/mini trucks must meet a certain EPA Fuel Economy & Emissions figures. The size of the truck determines how the manufactures reports these figures to the EPA which is why small trucks are getting larger with each generation/redesign. As are our new vehicles in general. As you can see, most all vehicles are getting larger with each generation in their respective segment. And that's because(the way I understand it), the EPA regulations are always changing...depending on the size of the vehicle, the EPA numbers change. So manufactures are being forced to make vehicle just that little bit larger in each new generation/per segment or meet an even hight fuel economy & emission figure.

The way I understand it, for those older sized mini pickup trucks in todays market, in order to meet EPA fuel economy & emission figures, might have to be so underpowered that they'd be a terrible truck.

And the same for cars/SUV's. Compact size today was Midsized just a decade or so ago. And so on!
My daughter's '22 Civic for example, is as larger or larger than some of my older Accords that I've owned.
My '23 Venza is a larger Compact than my '01 RX300 was as a MidSize. Coincidently, both are Toyota Harriers...just saying!
 
Last edited:
IDK if I am saying this correctly, however, it's the way I understand it.

Small/mini trucks must meet a certain EPA Fuel Economy & Emissions figures. The size of the truck determines how the manufactures reports these figures to the EPA which is why small trucks are getting larger with each generation/redesign. As are our new vehicles in general. As you can see, most all vehicles are getting larger with each generation in their respective segment. And that's because(the way I understand it), the EPA regulations are always changing...depending on the size of the vehicle, the EPA numbers change. So manufactures are being forced to make vehicle just that little bit larger in each new generation/per segment or meet an even hight fuel economy & emission figure.

The way I understand it, for those older sized mini pickup trucks in todays market, in order to meet EPA fuel economy & emission figures, might have to be so underpowered that they'd be a terrible truck.

And the same for cars/SUV's. Compact size today was Midsized just a decade or so ago. And so on!
My daughter's '22 Civic for example, is as larger or larger than some of my older Accords that I've owned.
My '23 Venza is a larger Compact than my '01 RX300 was as a MidSize. Coincidently, both are Toyota Harriers...just saying!
The so called platform laws combined with crash pushes the idea of a EPA “footprint”/vehicle shadow, wheelbase, along with passenger space as somehow working for or against the necessary fuel economy rating.
Another thing is the vehicle type, passenger, truck, commercial, HD all have their own formula and crash requirements.
Thats why my 9 passenger 1982 Suburban had car plates but now little 3 cylinder hatchbacks have 1/2 ton truck plates.
The net effect is that ACTUAL cars are forced to comply with stiffer crash and fuel economy standards and that every vehicle has its
wheels pushed to the outermost edges even in cases where it reduces a truck’s capability somewhat and obviously destroys the turning radius and visibility on many vehicles.
Meanwhile Makers desperately do everything they can to make their “car” slightly outside the .gov standard for the legal definition of what a car is so they can slap truck plates on it, because who wants stiffer crash and fuel economy standards? Maybe Toyota/Honda

Honestly the best thing that could happen now days is going back to a level playing field of only counting ACTUAL fuel economy and understanding that 5mph crash bumpers and 4 point visibility likely saved more lives than the slab faced cockpit alternative that results in thousands of children getting hit in driveways every year let alone the increased propensity of current US cars to be far more fatal to general pedestrian traffic than other parts of the world.

Who knew? Making vehicles where you can’t actually see the ground outside a limited little blurry screen that only faces the rear was a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
IDK if I am saying this correctly, however, it's the way I understand it.

Small/mini trucks must meet a certain EPA Fuel Economy & Emissions figures. The size of the truck determines how the manufactures reports these figures to the EPA which is why small trucks are getting larger with each generation/redesign. As are our new vehicles in general. As you can see, most all vehicles are getting larger with each generation in their respective segment. And that's because(the way I understand it), the EPA regulations are always changing...depending on the size of the vehicle, the EPA numbers change. So manufactures are being forced to make vehicle just that little bit larger in each new generation/per segment or meet an even hight fuel economy & emission figure.

The way I understand it, for those older sized mini pickup trucks in todays market, in order to meet EPA fuel economy & emission figures, might have to be so underpowered that they'd be a terrible truck.

And the same for cars/SUV's. Compact size today was Midsized just a decade or so ago. And so on!
My daughter's '22 Civic for example, is as larger or larger than some of my older Accords that I've owned.
My '23 Venza is a larger Compact than my '01 RX300 was as a MidSize. Coincidently, both are Toyota Harriers...just saying!

Correct. This was covered in the 5th post of this thread... https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/where-is-the-modern-mini-truck.389572/post-7072741
 
That's not stopping anyone from producing them domestically.
It also didn’t stop ford from importing unibodies from Turkey and upfitting them here.

All the catches of wheelbase and passenger area still applied but I believe they treated them as “commercial vehicles “ which got around some nonsense
 
The so called platform laws combined with crash pushes the idea of a EPA “footprint”/vehicle shadow, wheelbase, along with passenger space as somehow working for or against the necessary fuel economy rating.
Another thing is the vehicle type, passenger, truck, commercial, HD all have their own formula and crash requirements.
Thats why my 9 passenger 1982 Suburban had car plates but now little 3 cylinder hatchbacks have 1/2 ton truck plates.
The net effect is that ACTUAL cars are forced to comply with stiffer crash and fuel economy standards and that every vehicle has its
wheels pushed to the outermost edges even in cases where it reduces a truck’s capability somewhat and obviously destroys the turning radius and visibility on many vehicles.
Meanwhile Makers desperately do everything they can to make their “car” slightly outside the .gov standard for the legal definition of what a car is so they can slap truck plates on it, because who wants stiffer crash and fuel economy standards? Maybe Toyota/Honda

Honestly the best thing that could happen now days is going back to a level playing field of only counting ACTUAL fuel economy and understanding that 5mph crash bumpers and 4 point visibility likely saved more lives than the slab faced cockpit alternative that results in thousands of children getting hit in driveways every year let alone the increased propensity of current US cars to be far more fatal to general pedestrian traffic than other parts of the world.

Who knew? Making vehicles where you can’t actually see the ground outside a limited little blurry screen that only faces the rear was a bad idea.

Indeed; no improvements, only workarounds to circumvent laws and restrictions.
 
Back
Top Bottom