I think the timing of the Cybertruck starting deliveries roughly aligning with when Elon got heavily involved in politics hurt it quite a bit. It is such a distinctive vehicle with a strong association with Elon, that there was an immediate brand association. It may have had poor sales anyway, but it certainly didn't help that many folks on the left, who are typically the most 'pro EV', had a large 'anti-Elon' shift around its launch.
That said, even though it's not to my taste, I do admire that they dared to do something different and took a big gamble on it. So many vehicles, especially in the truck space, are almost indistinguishable and lack any kind of imagination. Kudos to Tesla for trying to break the mold and push the category somewhere new.
>I think the timing of the Cybertruck starting deliveries roughly aligning with when Elon got heavily involved in politics
That and also it's just a bad product.
>That said, even though it's not to my taste, I do admire that they dared to do something different and took a big gamble on it.
A pickup truck should just be max utility, especially if you're a manufacturer making your first one
edit: agree there's a market for the raptor off-road tremor package thing, but it wasn't ford's first and they've been selling commerical trucks for 75 years. A true tesla f150 competitor would have sold like crazy, I think
> A pickup truck should just be max utility, especially if you're a manufacturer making your first one
The modern US pickup truck isn't built for utility. It's a $60,000 four-door lifted luxobarge with leather interior and a short bed. It signals (perceived) wealth while preserving working-class alignment. It can also be justified by way of having to pick up used furniture for TikTok refinish and flip projects or bimonthly runs to Home Depot to buy caulk and lightbulbs. Independent tradesman can write them off as work vehicles or, allegedly, use COVID-era PPP loans to buy them.
It's the suburban equivalent of a yuppie's Rolex Submariner. Investment bankers generally don't go scuba diving and if they did a dive computer would be vastly preferable.
I say all of that to say that making a pickup truck for that market segment isn't a bad idea from a numbers perspective. You just can't market it as a luxury vehicle because the whole point is that it is but it isn't.
Bingo.
Sprinter vans, utility vans, or even minivans are far, far more useful for trades than modern pickups. Heck, my minivan was the goat for home renovations—it’d easily fit a dozen full 4x8 sheets of drywall/osb/ply/mdf/etc and I could still close the rear gate. I always got chuckles from guys awkwardly wrangling/securing sheets onto a pickup’s bed at the supply yard when I’d easily slide the sheets off the cart directly into the van by myself.
A heavy duty pickup makes sense when you have regular towing, or large bulky transport, needs. While on this topic, I’ll take a moment to lament the demise of the light duty pickup that provided a bit of extra utility while still fitting in a normal parking space.
> I’ll take a moment to lament the demise of the light duty pickup that provided a bit of extra utility while still fitting in a normal parking space.
Remind me of my favorite article title: In the land of the free, why can’t we have mini-pickup trucks like the Taliban and ISIS?[0]
[0]: https://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dion-lefler...
> I’ll take a moment to lament the demise of the light duty pickup that provided a bit of extra utility while still fitting in a normal parking space.
I miss the hell out of my '82 Chevrolet S10 with extended cab and two-tone paint job. The extended cab isn't going to be used for hauling the soccer team, but I could put it was plenty of space for "inside only" cargo. Damn thing threw a rod and cracked the case, and I never could convince my parents to keep it and put a new engine in it. I'd like to think I'd still own it today if they had.
You could run a single issue presidential campaign on bringing the S10 back (all it would really take is patching some weired emissions regulations mistakes). A better truck from a better time.
My pitch to the people near me who have no connection to the auto industry is that an electric Ranger (90's style) would have been a huge hit. I get the feeling that the Lightning came about because Ford managers don't really know how to make vehicles that regular people want.
Funny thing is that Ford made an electric 90’s Ranger. Sold only in Mexico IIRC. Internally it was referred to as the Ranger Glider.
They were sold in California as well.
A fully-electric Maverick?
That new Slate pickup looks pretty cool.
I have never owned a truck or a new car and I might buy one if they can truly keep the slate under 20knincluding delivery and all taxes and fees.
IIRC the 20k number depended on the 7k federal rebate that recently expired, so it will probably be more like 27k
- [deleted]
F-150 Lightning was supposed to start at $39,974 and ended up at $54,780. I'll be surprised to see Slate actually happening under $30k. Having lost the $7,500 rebate, more like $35k.
USA seemingly can't sell small or base trim cars.
A fun-sized six speed pickup with a turbo four banger? Sign me up.
Educate me: How is the Canyon, Ranger, or Frontier not a modern equivalent to the S10? All small(ish) trucks available in a two door or extended cab configuration with basic options.
The Frontier is massive compared to what it used to be. 90s Frontier was a small pickup truck. 2010s Frontier is the size of a 90s F-150.
Product of mfrs cheating CAFE standards.
Small pickups could be pretty fuel efficient. The problem is not CAFE standards but the fact that zero Americans buy small trucks, because the entire market for new vehicles in the US is people who are financially illiterate and easily marketed to and making them buy $80k brodozers is more profitable than a $30k S10
Half these people still choose to buy the vehicle they do for insane and superficial reasons like "It's got a Hemi", like my uncle, even though Hemispherical combustion chambers haven't been state of the art or even good ICE technology in decades.
Also a lot of contractors consider their vehicle appearance a tax deductible marketing expense.
They're substantially larger in all around size. Like comparable to a Dodge Dakota. A Maverick or Santa Cruz is comparable to a historical Ranger or S10, with the caveat that they're only available in one cab and bed configuration.
I'm taking my 1st gen Tacoma 5-spd to the grave
Buy a Ford Maverik hybrid. Similar size, great mileage.
Except it's a Ford and not a Chevy. If you think those things don't matter, you're just fooling yourself.
The 2.5 hybrid in the Maverick is better than any 4 cyl GM could plop into a mini truck at the moment.
We bought our first minivan in 1998, a Ford Windstar. It was purchased to run our teenagers to activities, but I quickly fell in love with all the other things it could do, including what you've mentioned above. We put a ton of miles on it before trading it in. Next was a 2007 Town and Country with two sliding doors! By this time we were running grandkids and it was perfect.
After deciding to replace it, we struggled to decide what kind of vehicle to upgrade to. For our lifestyle and the side projects I like to do, another minivan was the obvious choice. Now it's a 2018 Pacifica and we're retired. The quality is outstanding, with 112K miles on it, I expect to put on another 100K before seeing what's available for the next upgrade. None of these vans ever gave us any engine or transmission trouble, despite the high number of miles I was able to put on them.
You can buy a hitch for any vehicle and a brand new 8 foot trailer for < $2k.
For the "I need to sometimes pick up large objects" use case it's hard to beat.
I have 3 vehicles, an old project jeep, an old truck, and a sedan.
Sedan handles 99% of my driving, but can't really tow anything. Truck handles all of my towing stuff, but gets ~14mpg which hurts so I don't drive it.
Jeep is a jeep, it's always being worked on, but when I use it I'm using it to go ride around on dirt paths or for camping. It gets 17-20mpg when I'm driving it but I don't want to drive it often.
If the jeep was a 2000's series jeep I would totally just get a small trailer for the occasional towing things that I do with the pickup and downsize to 2 vehicles. I know I could rent a uhaul from time to time for about what I pay for insuring and titling the truck, but the $100 annual difference is worth it for the convenience of not having to deal with uhaul 4 times a year.
But I said all of that to say, that a hitch isn't a perfect solution for everyone. I would feel very uncomfortable towing an empty 4x6 trailer behind my sedan, not to even mention the occasional couch or dresser or bunch of boxes from helping a friend move.
> I would feel very uncomfortable towing an empty 4x6 trailer behind my sedan, not to even mention the occasional couch or dresser or bunch of boxes from helping a friend move.
Why? 1500 lbs rated tow hook on an average sedan should be no problem at all. And that's more than enough for a 4x6 with a couch and a couple of boxes. Might even get a slightly larger trailer so you don't have to take the couch apart.
I've towed 14' sailboats including all gear behind a Corolla, didn't even feel the trailer was there.
I towed heavily loaded trailers - stuffed with books, tools, furniture, the trailer was loaded to the roof and I couldn't get up steep San Franscisco hills - to and from Alaska, and across the entire United States.
With an Impreza.
That included highways in the Yukon that were more river rock than gravel, backwoods of Montana and Wyoming, you name it.
It was totally fine. Especially in a Subaru, with AWD and a low well centered center of gravity. I'd do it again.
I bought a used "regular" F-150 with an 8-foot bed about the last year that made sense, and when the frame finally rusted out and it could no longer pass inspection, the prices of used trucks was insane, and most of what was available was a lot of luxuries I didn't want to pay for.[0]
So I replaced it with a 5x8 trailer, which anymore gets pulled behind a Chevy Volt. I'd hesitate to load it to the max and take it on the thruway, but for most of my tasks it's actually more convenient than the truck. Loading up a riding lawn mower or a few hundred pounds of scrap metal is way easier with it being closer to the ground, and I'm mostly driving 10-15 miles over back roads so if I'm worried the load is too heavy for the compact car I don't mind taking it a little slow.
Also, it's convenient to load it while it's unhooked, piling in garbage and debris over a week or a weekend and then hooking it up to run to the dump; likewise, just unhooking the trailer full of construction materials and (weather permitting) just unloading it as you build.
I occasionally miss being able to drive it into the woods, but to be honest not being able to parallel park the trailer is a bigger inconvenience than not being able to off-road it.
[0] Since having kids I've come around on the second-row-of-seats/short bed trade-off; not being able to pick up dimensional lumber with kids in tow is way more limiting in my current phase of life than not being able to fit it in the bed with the tailgate up.
It's at least as much about being able to stop it as it is being able to pull it. An loaded utility trailer with no trailer brakes on a wet road is going to jacknife in any kind of emergency stop, and the brakes on a Corolla are going to be challenged to do it even on a dry road.
I don't know the specifics but the US has some sort of strict requirement on Towing, such that vehicles like hatchbacks and sedans that have ubiquitous 1500lb towing ratings in Europe are not rated to tow at all in the US.
People mostly still do it though, because it's cheap and easy to do.
Just because. It's a Malibu, its tow rating is don't. I'm sure I could, but its not worth jeopardizing a $25,000 cars' drive train to potentially save about $600/year in insurance and tags and fuel for the truck.
2001 Wrangler owner, I do some towing (particularly like the flexibility of UBox for borrowing a box on a trailer for a few days to store items at my house or leisurely pack up for storage).
The 2 door model unfortunately has a pretty weak tow rating of 1 ton, and I'm fairly certain I have gone well over that a few times. IIRC the four door models a few years later took that up to 5000 lbs because of the extra length.
I have a 2018 Forester and it holds a surprising amount of furniture or 8' lumber. My only regret is that it won't fit 4x8 sheet materials well - if only they had designed the interior plastic cladding a little better it would be a great workhorse.
I remember my 1982 Toyota Corolla wagon had an obvious cut-out in the plastic interior, that was just a hair wider than a 4x8 sheet. I still miss that car.
Yep, my parents had an old Honda Odyssey (minivan) that exactly fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood. Comical that some pickups can't quite measure up.
Manufacturers are selling what their market wants. It sucks.
Ironically, the Honda Ridgeline - long lambasted as “not a real truck” - can fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood, at least width-wise. You’ll have to either prop it up on the tailgate, or drop it and strap it down (which honestly you should do either way), but it will fit between the wheels.
I love my Ridgelines; had a Gen1 RTL, and now a Gen2 BE. A neighbor I used to have traded his F-150 for an F-350. The most I ever saw him haul was a very small trailer with some furniture. I’ve had a cubic yard of mulch dumped into mine repeatedly (a Gen1 Ridgeline will hold and haul this, but it’s heaped, and depending on moisture content it’s slightly over max rating, so maybe don’t bring a passenger).
I think there's basically one 4x4 van on the market in the US right now. So you're making a pretty bad generalization here. In the Bay Area, it's probably true that a van would work well, although I lived in a mixed-income neighborhood and all the construction guys had beater pickups. But if you live in a place with snow and unpaved residential roads, 4x4 is pretty much a must (and pickups can be also be used for plowing, etc).
Since when? I sincerely do not understand that point about snow. I've lived in Canada (not southern Ontario) for most of my life and everyone had (and still mostly has) FWD. 4x4 was only for people actually going off road... I don't get how this is now a "must".
Since California required drivers to equip chains when driving in the mountains, unless they have AWD or 4x4. So, probably at least 70 years ago.
it's a perceived must. when running "all season" tires year round the AWD inspires more confidence, and most people don't even know winter tires are a thing. Plus 4x4 only helps you start moving, but once you are, every car still only has 2 wheels to turn and 4 to stop, which are quite possibly more crucial in snow....
4x4/AWD makes slides in snow/slush more controllable as you spin around the center of the vehicle and have two extra drive wheels to regain traction with.
More fun, you mean.
Couple years ago I was driving through Arizona during a massive blizzard. Everyone's doing 15, and I'm doing 50 - taking things slow and careful because of the traffic.
I had people in vests standing out in the road waving at me trying to get me to slow down! And I'm going "What in the hell are you doing out in the road!? Don't you know this is a blizzard!"
I grew up in Alaska, we laugh at the snow :)
I would rather drive my rear wheel drive Camaro with its snow tires in a snowstorm than my the pickups I've borrowed over the years with their all season tires. It's quite the thing to remember that you need to drive like an old lady suddenly, even though you're in a big bad 4x4 pickup.
Surely that has nothing to do with the weight distribution and handling characteristics that result in the pickup and sports car having different ability to create traction out of whatever friction coeficient is available. /s
Snow tires don't really stand on their own merit unless you're constantly encountering the conditions the snow tire people use in the commercials to magnify the difference. The biggest reason to get snow tires is simply that then you can run a "pure" summer tire rather than an all season the rest of the year. The second biggest reason is dry road performance.
> AWD inspires more confidence
Stop and work backwards and ask yourself why that is rather than doing the Principal Skinner "no everyone else is wrong" routine. In practice, all seasons on an AWD car result in less slipping around than snow tires on a FWD car. Heck, if the difference where anywhere near close everyone rich enough to have a new car would probably have snow tires because the dealership or tire shop would be able to make that sale. The reason they can't is because in people's experience they're just not necessary.
Stupid internet circle jerks about stopping distance are not the pain point or performance bottleneck for the average user. The degree to which you can enter/exit a side street that has snow plowed in front of it, navigate a steep and poorly plowed driveway, park in an unplowed space, cross the slush between lanes on a main roads or highway, those are what "real users" care about and they're where AWD shines.
>but once you are, every car still only has 2 wheels to turn and 4 to stop, which are quite possibly more crucial in snow..
These trope needs to be taken out back and shot. Regardless of your tire type the amount of traction available in snow conditions is such that "not being stupid enough to come into a situation too hot" is the dominant factor in overall outcome in braking/turning situations. Snow tires are an incremental improvement, not a categorical one. And the difference between a wet road and a snowy one is very much a categorical one.
AWD is the right choice for the statistical average person or "casual user" who's snow experience is dominated by somewhat plowed, somewhat churned snow/slush roads and is already driving incredibly conservatively. If you're driving on a frozen lake all the time like in the tire commercials or live somewhere rural and drive on a ton of fresh snow, by all means get the snow tires. But most people aren't, in that category they're better served by some random crossover and not thinking about it. And if you are one of those people, then spend a little more and get something with studs for all the ice you're inevitably also encountering.
> Stupid internet circle jerks about stopping distance are not the pain point or performance bottleneck for the average user.
Uh, it should be? The ability to confidently stop is far more important than to go. If you can’t get going, you’re not in a wreck. If you can’t stop, well…
You also missed another key reason to get snow tires: many (most?) vehicles do not come with AWD even as an option. Telling someone to trade their Civic in for a CR-V just so they can get AWD isn’t sensible, when they could mount snow tires and get a significant traction boost.
>Uh, it should be? The ability to confidently stop is far more important than to go
First off, this is the principal skinner "everyone else is wrong" take.
Second, it's just not how things work in practice. In practice what happens if you have a FWD car that can't "just go" you wind up driving way harder to make up for it. Stuff like hitting hills at speed and trying to take on-ramps at the limit of traction because you are having to work around the limitation of being unable to actually put power to the ground when you need to. Say nothing of all the sketchy situations that happen at the margin of that (backing down a hill you couldn't go up, getting stuck less than graceful merges, etc).
>You also missed another key reason to get snow tires: many (most?) vehicles do not come with AWD even as an option
I don't think that's anywhere near true for the US market.
There was an anecdote that went something like "a 4x4 will just get you stuck worse then a 2wd" =)
And, like you said, people think that an AWD car will stop faster. No, it'll just start moving faster, more traction doesn't make the brakes better or the road any less slippery.
I owned a single 4WD car and it was super fun in the winter, but... when it's icy, you're most likely moving faster than you would be with a 2wd, which again results in some heart palpitations when you're trying to stay on the road =)
> more traction doesn't make ... the road any less slippery.
What does more traction mean unless it's that the road is effectively less slippery (to my vehicle)?
>And, like you said, people think that an AWD car will stop faster.
The only people I know who think this way are made up people who exist only in the minds of people seeking to validate a purchasing decision.
I remembering driving in a near-blizzard in Connecticut one night (got caught out in it; this wasn’t on purpose), and feeling like this explanation was the only one that made sense. I had a Pontiac G6 at the time, which was a fairly boring FWD sedan. Having learned to drive in Nebraska, I was decent at driving in snow, so I tootled along at about 25 MPH. I was being passed by SUVs and trucks, and then felt vindicated from seeing many of them off the road a few miles later.
I would’ve stopped to help, but I was concerned that if I lost momentum, I wouldn’t get going again.
Yeah..h as someone in Upstate New York, one of the snowiest places in the country. Snow tires are really what you want. AWD is really nice. BUT end of the day, if you can only go 30 you can only go 30. What really saves you with AWD is when you are dealing with tracks through the snow, AWD makes that a lot easier without spinning out.
> who exist only in the minds of people seeking to validate a purchasing decision.
Don't forget the people who just want to sneer at other people in ill-considered condescension! Plenty of that from the "the world outside the Bay Area and NYC isn't real and none of those people exist" folks.
Now those people absolutely largely exist in the minds of others.
If you mean true 4x4, there are none. Sprinter went AWD a few years ago.
But I believe most vans on the market have an AWD option. Ford Transit and Volkswagen IDBuzz both offer AWD. Toyota’s Sienna is (only?) AWD with a silly lifted trim for the off-roading soccer mom market. Chrysler’s van is AWD.
That leaves the ProMaster as the only two wheeler I’m certain about. Mazda and Kia also have vans, unsure about their drivetrain options. Did I leave anyone out?
I think your generalization is the bad one. Most trade jobs get better value out of vans compared to trucks. Vans offer awd, I am not sure a 4x4 offers much value.
Most companies prefer vans over trucks. Much better economics.
Fullsize vans don't offer AWD at a reasonable price point.
Either AWD/4wd is necessary when you're going to other people's property because you can't guarantee any given property isn't an icy shithole and when you're a professional being paid by them to be there for a specific purpose the last thing you wanna do is slip out trying to do a 25-point turn on their stupid sloped driveway and put a tire in the landscaping.
Maybe we are talking about different things. AWD is a $4k upgrade on a transit. 4wd buys you nothing and at that point it’s more about the tires.
Even in cold parts of the US your hvac or plumber is going to be using something like a transit. Very few trade jobs opt for a truck. They don’t make economic sense and impossible to secure anything in the bed.
Sure landscaping crews can utilize trucks but even then, your mowing operation can get more value from a transit style van if they are only using pus mowers.
Maybe it’s just in my neck of the woods but if you cannot get up or down a hill because a homeowner does not clear their driveway then it’s a no go. Very acceptable boundary.
> They don’t make economic sense and impossible to secure anything in the bed.
I've never seen or known a trademan that drove a van. They all drive pickups. Maybe this is a regional thing.
What region of the US are you in. I have lived in the south east, Midwest, NY, CA, TX and vans are the norm for most trade jobs outside of landscaping or jobs that can actually benefit from an open bed. HVAC, plumbing, electricians and the like all have equipment that is a lot easier to organize and safely store inside of a van. Now sometimes depending on the type of work that person does they may opt for a high roof and I have seen some opt for the chassis cab and go with a third party body that gives even more room but still enclosed and may even choose the van chassis.
I am quite surprised to hear you have never seen an electrician use a van. That said there are certainly specialities where it’s more common.
90% of trade work is all on pavement and trucks suck for tools. If you are a logger yeah sure you may be using a truck to get to your equipment, similarly for lineman but for the vast majority of trade jobs companies opt for commercial vans. You are describing trade work like it’s the tv show landman.
That's strange. All the plumbers and HVAC guys in my area seem to drive vans.
Is your area "the entire rest of the world outside the United States"?
Pickups are absolutely a regional affectation. I kinda want one, but I do not need one.
AWD is a luxury outside of the most extreme of extreme locations.
I grew up in Minnesota driving rear wheel drive cars to start. They worked fine even in the olden days where plows would take a couple days to clear the country backroads and even rock salt was applied sparingly due to the expense.
Not a single one of my vehicles had winter tires - all seasons were perfectly serviceable. You’d get stuck once in a great while but that’s what the bag of sand and shovel in the trunk were for.
Front wheel drive came along and made it easy mode.
All wheel drive is certainly something I love these days, but it’s an extreme luxury that makes winter driving laughably easy.
A basic utilitarian work vehicle does not need to be 4WD in 90% or likely even 99% of use cases anywhere in the country.
>AWD is a luxury outside of the most extreme of extreme locations.
Only in the most strictly technical "I'm not touching you" sense.
Either AWD/4wd is necessary-ish when you're going to other people's property because you can't guarantee any given property isn't an icy shithole and when you're a professional being paid by them to be there for a specific purpose the last thing you wanna do is slip out trying to do a 25-point turn on their stupid sloped driveway and put a tire in the landscaping.
Even if it's some megacorp's facility that "should" be plowed and salted, it might not be when you show up at 6am on the dot to service something.
>I grew up in Minnesota driving rear wheel drive cars to start. They worked fine even in the olden days where plows would take a couple days to clear the country backroads and even rock salt was applied sparingly due to the expense.
>Not a single one of my vehicles had winter tires - all seasons were perfectly serviceable. You’d get stuck once in a great while but that’s what the bag of sand and shovel in the trunk were for.
I completely agree but the past isn't coming back. Those standards of performance are unfortunately no longer acceptable, especially in business settings.
There are exceptions, like to everything in life. They just aren't really that interesting to discuss when talking about trends and averages.
The average contractor servicing suburban and exurban properties in a work van is going to be able to trivially navigate 95% of all snowfalls with FWD with a modicum of winter driving skills. It's just not that hard, and very few places get the type of snow that requires a fully off road capable vehicle.
If I lived in the mountains of Colorado and servicing ranches or something of course I'd be buying for those conditions. But a standard city in the northern US or Canada? Meh. Total waste of money for a fleet vehicle. These sorts of locations are where something like 99% of all vehicle miles are put on.
For personal use now that I can afford it? AWD is on all my vehicles. It's a magical technology since it allows turning your brain off, and making some situations comically easy to navigate. But I'm not optimizing for cost efficiency or practicality there - I'm optimizing for luxury and convenience.
>If I lived in the mountains of Colorado and servicing ranches or something of course I'd be buying for those conditions. But a standard city in the northern US or Canada? Meh. Total waste of money for a fleet vehicle. These sorts of locations are where something like 99% of all vehicle miles are put on.
I'm not talking about places that can be written off because "the boonies are a rounding error".
I'm talking about some guy who owns a plumbing business in Boston and wants to reduce the number of days per year that conditions make things sketchy. $3k per truck or $4k per van is absolutely chump change compared to the PITA of having to add more buffer to winter scheduling to account for delays and inconvenience.
>for personal use now that I can afford it? AWD is on all my vehicles. It's a magical technology since it allows turning your brain off, and making some situations comically easy to navigate. But I'm not optimizing for cost efficiency or practicality there - I'm optimizing for luxury and convenience.
Baffling that someone who readily admits that "you can turn your brain off" doesn't see why people who either have to drive their own work vehicle every day, or put a vehicle in the hands of an employee wouldn't value that even higher.
Ford Transit and Sprinter both have AWD. GMC apparently has a 4x4 van, the other 4x4 vans are aftermarket.
No vans are currently sold in the US with 4WD. The Sprinter and Transit are available in AWD, that's it. There are companies that will convert a van to 4WD but it's typically around $20,000 which is beyond the budget of most people.
2026 GMC Savana 3500 is first-party 4x4.
The only trims I see online at gmc dot com are RWD. Would you elucidate on this 4x4 option please?
Light-duty pickups still exist, eg the Nissan Frontier with the 6’ bed is probably the most reliable, sturdy and cost-effective pickup out there. Europeans may know this truck as the Navarro.
Sprinters vans are the GOAT. My wife drives a 2009 Ford Ranger, love that damn truck. When it goes, the Sprinter it is.
The sprinter is massively over-hyped by people who've never owned one.
Yeah, everything about it is generally "solid" and well done but at it's roots it's a very german car. The longblock will theoretically go a million miles but realistically you're gonna replace every part around it several times over to get it there. I'm sure they're fine when new but as they age it's basically the same "replacing way too much BS because while nice it's over engineered" as the rest of german car ownership. Like c'mon man, an asian or american car would "just" require simpler less invasive things and generally be less of a headahce in old age.
Source: semi responsible for keeping one running
The only reason i have a pickup is because i put dirtbikes in it. They also fit in a van, but good luck finding a reasonably priced one with AWD (very high demand, especially due to camper conversions).
Vans are way better in almost every regard.
Actually, I'm buying a house with a garage and I may get a bike trailer, and a tow hitch for my BMW. That would be an even simpler solution
Same. Where are you, want to hit the trails sometime?
A minivan with the two rear seats removed can move so much stuff.
Yeah but the same exact geniuses in here screeching about "you don't need a truck" will judge you so hard when they see you in the home depot parking lot stacking the thing floor to ceiling with building materials.
Source: own minivan
How do you fit a 40ft ladder inside a van? How about a mound of mulch or compost? How about hauling away customer's old plumbing or any number of filthy things you don't want in a car interior? Not to mention that when it contains heavy items like a large beam of wood, you often can't physically lift it out with those awkward van angles, but could in a truck bed.
First of all I'm not convinced that the utility of the trucks is mostly unused. This seems like a trope from anticar people. But second of all and more concretely, I've done a lot of trade work that would have simply not worked in a van, so seeing your common sentiment is always bemusing.
> How about hauling away customer's old plumbing or any number of filthy things you don't want in a car interior?
Funny story, the guys who demolished an old bathroom for us hauled the crap & dust away in a very dirty beater van (either a small cargo van or a minivan with rear seating removed, can't remember). It was their designated demolition vehicle.
Really hoping Slate works out! The modern pickup is usually a tuba for assholes not a working tool.
As someone who's just been trying to buy a crappy used truck to haul some crap to the dump a couple times a year, you're absolutely spot on. I even live in the southwest US where trucks make up a considerable portion of vehicles on the road.
Crappy used trucks simply aren't up for sale. And even the rare listing I do come across, the asking price is ridiculously inflated.
I was looking for the same thing and a friend gave me some advice.
Get an SUV with a trailer hitch.
worked out great. Maybe better than a pickup.
For example - taking mountain bikes somewhere to ride - you can put them in the back, go ride, and leave them there while you go eat without someone stealing them. You can even load them the night before.
dirty stuff can use a trailer (I've never needed one)
and suv carries lots of people - which has worked out many many times more than I predicted.
(it is a gas guzzler, but was cheaper because of that, and didn't compete with higher-priced pickup market)
Never understood why the yanks don't like vans? Pickups are much less popular here in the UK, many more people use vans. A crew cab van with removable seats is infinitely more flexible than a pickup, other than long stuff which you chuck on a roof rack.
Indeed. It's because of the fashion preferences of American SUV and pickup buyers.
I can attest to the fact that minivans are much more comfortable. I picked up my Pacifica hybrid minivan in early 2021 before the price hike and it was a steal compared to SUVs and pickups. When I was doing paperwork for the vehicle at the Chrysler dealership, I was chatting with some sales guys and discovered the shocking fact they had recently sold a luxuriously loaded-down pickup for over $100K. I was fortunate to easily haggle with them over my minivan because they don't make much money on minivans so they focus on pickups, Jeeps, etc.
A couple decades ago, I had started looking to replace an old hand-me-down car from my grandma, and had been mulling over whether I could ever justify spending $30K on an Infiniti at that time. My boss at work got a new pickup, and he was rather proud of it, and I innocently asked if it cost $25K because plenty of my Texan relatives had driven them over the years and I assumed they were a no-frills working man's practical vehicle. After a brief pause, he answered, "It was a little over 40 thousand." That was over 20 years ago.
Vans don't project manliness. Most people don't use pickup trucks for pickup truck things. They'd be fine with a station wagon, but they have self-confidence issues.
This is the main thing. The US is very, very weird in terms of how it genders every possible lifestyle choice, and polices those gender norms. The rise of SUVs in the US was partly driven by things like inconsistent emissions standards, but also by the need to make a more "masculine" alternative to the minivan or station wagon.
Euros claiming we gender everything in the USA as though their romance languages don't arbitrarily gender literally every noun.
- [deleted]
Vans usually have a very difficult time off-road or in mountainous terrain.
Vans are commonly used in urban areas, especially by businesses, but suburbs, rural, and construction benefit from higher clearences of SUVs and trucks.
SUVs are also usually much better in hazardous driving conditions because of a more optimal weight distribution.
Vans work just fine on mountain roads. And driving off road is simply not a thing for like 99% of drivers.
Reality is, people buy these things thinking they would drive them off road, and never actually do it.
It's possible to make an off-road van, by the way. It's just that real demand is so vanishingly small that you don't really see them.
Having grown up in the mountains, and currently living in a hilly snowy area, no thanks I'll keep my SUV. My in laws have a mini van, and it's not great.
I deal and have dealt with enough deep snow that would eat a van.
I still might get a Sienna Hybrid for daily commuter
He said Van, not mini van. I think you two are thinking of different vehicles.
I like sprinter vans, but they won't fit in my garage.
It also makes more sense for me to get a large SUV, as towing is important.
The SUV or Truck is still more capable in hazardous road/off-road conditions compared to the van.
Though in my current neck of the woods, a Sprinter would satisfy my needs well.
I can't take this comment seriously unless you are buying snow tires. If you have snow tires, and you still can't get where you want in the winter, sure get 4wd.
I had a RWD pickup with snow tires and went anywhere I wanted to through two utah winters and many vermont ones too.
Yanks never got cool vans. Vans also became synonymous with Chester the Molester. Yanks also had Chevy Astro as an option. I grew up with the family owning a full sized custom van with 2 rows of captain chairs and the third row bench folding out into a bed.
From all of the bitching in the driveway, vans were not pleasant to work on the engine. Some of them had to remove a cover from inside the van to gain access, and that cover tended to not be well insulated and was the source of a lot of heat. Not much of a firewall as a car with the engine fully separated from the passenger compartment.
There were a lot of things people did not like about vans available in the land of Yanks. The Limey vans are not the same, so do not equate your experience as being the same.
Vans had tones of popularity. They are an iconic part of 60s culture(minibus) and 80s as well(A Team van)
There are two current reasons
- Millennials grew up in minivans and its viewed as a mom mobile and they don't want that look (despite the fact that most family SUVs are basically mini vans with out the sliders
- US laws favour light trucks
I love a van, but they're a pain to work on compared to a full size truck. Like a popular minivan that has a 5 hour book time to do a simple tuneup. Reaching the plugs between the firewall is most of that time. Same with compact PCs, it's a puzzle to get everything in your 7L case.
Anecdotally, a lot more people in the US tow. And pickup trucks are the indisputable king of towing.
There's also the fact that it's a lot harder to take the top off a van than it is to add a top to the bed of a pickup. If I sometimes moved manure and had a van... I'd probably rent a trailer.
The powertrain packaging for vans is much tighter than for trucks. Who amongst us remembers removing the interior to change sparkplugs 6 and 8 in a GMC Vandura?
Even if you're not going to do the knuckle-skinning work yourself, the packaging negatively influences book rates when you take it to a shop
Some "yanks" align their identity with their vehicle. There are songs about trucks but yes a van or mini-van are more flexible.
There are many that buy trucks for off road capabilities but probably 70% or more of truck owners don't go off road more than once a year. Many pick up truck models, like stock versions with crew cabs, are too long and not equipped for serious off-road use. Shallow sand/snow they can handle but so can SUVs.
The same reason we don't like wagons.
The 70s/80s screwed them up big time. They were big ugly garabge cars. I love fast wagons, but they are dying here.
"infinitely" more flexible is kinda laughable -- Van's have a height restriction. They're inherently more limited.
I wouldn't want to haul 3 yards of dirt/mulch in a van, or yard refuse. I wouldn't want to try and move a full-sized fridge in a van, or a queen bed box spring, neither will fit.
I can't fit an ATV in a van, and I really don't want to put a dead deer in the back of a van after I hunt one.
I wouldn't trust a van to haul 75 8x8x16 concrete bricks (over 2000 lbs/1100kg) because the suspension wasn't designed to do that, nor was the transmission, and the van will quickly deteriorate.
How about moving a couch? Fits in the truck, not in a van.
I did all of those things in the past 12 months.
All that being said, vans are great, especially with kids. They absolutely do not replace trucks... if you use the truck and don't mind getting it dirty. Shiny trucks with 5.5ft beds are fucking stupid. My kids all laugh at "trucks with a baby bed" these days.
Or, downthread, people just assume everyone with a truck is insecure, projecting wealth, and generally ignorant. Which ironically, is a very ignorant take.
The larger vans used by tradespeople in the UK, like a full size Ford Transit, would be fine with those loads (though I agree I wouldn't stick a dead deer in one as they're harder to hose out than a pickup bed). 10ft long loadspace, 1400kg payload, plenty of room for couches, beds and things. They're quite different beasts than the smaller kind like a minivan with removable seats. Plus it rains so much here that having a roof on is generally an advantage.
There are some pickups here, having said that: more rural utilities people, or landscapers who move lots of dirt, or farmers, might have one. They tend to be smaller than an F-150, but then everything's smaller in Britain including the roads...
Most of what you said is not true, at least for a full sized van. Sure you may not want to get it dirty inside, that makes sense. But they have more space than an 8' pickup bed. You can absolutely carry 2000lbs in a 1 ton van. An ATV or a couch will fit in one better than a pickup.
Yep, the bed of a van being 2-3 feet lower than a truck saves a lot of pointless effort, and having that load carried lower makes far more sense.
Not all trucks are lifted… but sure, the tailgate of a van is a few inches lower than the tailgate of a truck. Inches, not even a half foot.
You don't actually do anything of those things though, if youre the average US pickup truck owner
Yeah yeah, and 30-50 feral hogs could burst into your yard any moment.
For moving yards of mulch, topsoil or concrete blocks, almost anyone in my country, including people in construction would just have that delivered to the site, next day, by the seller.
No clue what van you're imagining, but weather alone makes many things much worse in an open bed. Moving a couch is a very common use of vans, people rent them specifically to move furniture all the time.
minivan != van.
It’s 10 bucks for me to haul mulch and topsoil from a place down the road.
It’s hundreds of dollars to have the same literal dirt, delivered and dumped on my property. So now, instead of driving the truck full of dirt around my property and using it as desired, I now need to do it one wheelbarrow full at a time.
Fuck that.
As for weather, they make removable flat and domed “roofs” for truck beds, the weather argument is a nonstarter.
I own a station wagon, a van and a pickup (none of which are nice or new) vehicle and three trailers (to be fair one is special purpose) and I'll put up to ~1000lb on the roof of the car before I drag a trailer around.
Trailer is kind of obnoxious pain in the ass and has a bunch more shit to go wrong with it's use compared to a vehicle that "just does what you need".
It might not be the literal cheapest but a truck with the desired cab to bed ratio is the right call for the casual user who just wants to do homeowner things and doesn't wanna think about it.
I just plain don't have room to store a trailer, but I do have room for a second car - hence I own a ute (pickup or whatever in American parlance).
Which is really the thing: it's very useful to have a second car, but a trailer can't be a second car.
What's really desperately missing is useful payload capacity: a standard ute can't carry 1 ton in the tray confidently (and it's downright impossible to find accurate info on what you should do to get that outside of "add a tag axle").
Even cheaper than SUVs are used minivans. My 2005 Honda Odyssey was an amazing “truck” with a good amount of towing capacity for most cases.
I appreciate the suggestion! It's crossed my mind, but unfortunately a trailer doesn't really work for my living situation. It'd require off-site storage which just sounds like more of a headache (and expense) than I care to take on.
Do you not have services in the US to do this for you? The problem: I have a pile of construction waste, household junk, garden waste etc. is solved by many businesses who'll come pick it up for a small fee.
If your local government doesn't offer this, there are many commercial operators that do this in the UK. Seems bizarre to buy a whole giant, inefficient, vehicle just for 'hauling' occasionally.
Scheduling a "bulk trash" pick up at my current home is only accomplished by calling my landlord, who then calls the trash company, who then calls back with some arbitrary date and time a month or more in the future. When I have crap I want to get rid of it, I don't want to deal with any of that. I'll take the "inefficiency" of storing and maintaining a second vehicle -- which my family would easily make use of other than hauling duties -- over dealing with the bureaucratic nuisance.
There are private options, of course, but the fees are nowhere near "small" for this service.
If you only need a truck a couple of times per year, maybe it makes more sense to rent one?
Not even. When I lived in the boonies trash service was ~$75 a quarter, the local hardware store would deliver pallets of mulch for free, and furniture stores offered free delivery above certain purchase amounts. My buddy's dad would haul your boat between the marina and your house for a flat fee. Hell, I was able to cram a full PA with floor monitors and a few guitars into my Corolla for weekend band gigs.
I started looking into getting a trailer or hitch hauler but it didn't seem to make much sense. I could usually pay somebody on-demand to move stuff around and it always worked out to be cheaper than owning and maintaining a truck. I presently work from home and don't even own a car anymore; the math is quite similar with rideshare and motorcycle maintenance coming in significantly cheaper.
Consider a Honda Acty - they even have models with a dumping bed.
These are quite expensive for what you get and are slooooooow. It's fine if you want an expensive, quirky neighborhood runabout, but you'll be made very aware that this is a product not at all designed for the US market (there's a good reason most examples do ~1000 miles a year). The ACTYs I found online were in the $7-20k range, for a ~30 year old model - more for a nice van.
The best used work truck is actually a van. They lack the coolness factor of trucks, but are far more versatile. You can pick up a <10 year old Transit with under 100k miles for like 10-15k. That price point will get you a >10 year old F150 in the 100-150k mile range.
Plus, there are good options if you want something smaller can car-based, like NV2000s and Transit connects. Which don't really exist for trucks outside of newer (maverick) or niche (Ridgeline) options.
Bonus points, a nice Transit is a great daily driver too.
Harsh did a tipper conversion for the Daihatsu Hijet, which had an 850cc triple with a lot more poke than the Acty's 660cc twin, and had a "true 4WD" variant.
In the UK, Truck and Driver Magazine featured one so equipped in a head-to-head AWD tipper test (AWD in the sense of all wheels driven regardless of number of axles, not Subaru AWD/Audi Quattro type AWD), alongside a variety of extremely large trucks. Proper trucks, not F150s, we're talking 18-tonne Scanias and stuff here.
Everyone wanted one of the little Hijets to take home.
> As someone who's just been trying to buy a crappy used truck to haul some crap to the dump a couple times a year,
I don’t get it. Why would you buy, maintain, and park an entire second vehicle for something that is beyond trivially cheap to hire out?
If you wanted to DIY then renting a truck for the day makes more sense.
I have had good luck with farm type auctions just check the rust. IronPlanet is also really good but a little more expensive.
Rent?
For me personally, it's too much hassle. Between the paperwork, rental fees, getting a ride to and from, etc. I just start to lose motivation, and end up deciding to do the chore the "next weekend" which never comes. I need as few barriers between me and accomplishing a chore if I ever want to have any hope of completing it.
Consider a trailer if you have even a mildly acceptable tow vehicle that can take a 2 inch receiver. Use what UHaul will rent you as a rough limit for what your vehicle can handle, and then if you want to save some weight get your own because it will be lighter than UHaul's brick shithouses.
Having said that, I'm still in the market for a larger vehicle with a better tow weight rating as I use the trailer more than a handful of times per year, and my current tow vehicle is getting a bit long in the tooth.
It is utility, just not the utility you're thinking of. Try spending all day, every day in a basic, rough riding pickup truck, then compare it to spending all day in a "luxobarge" that can still tow a 7,000lb trailer.
To the people I know who drive trucks like that, they're basically mobile offices.
Yep. The internet loves to bash truck owners as all being the same one guy who buys a truck to drive 1.3 miles to the office every day, but the audience of truck buyers is huge and diverse. Acting like nobody who buys a truck actually uses it or thinking that contractors couldn’t possibly appreciate (or deserve?) a nice interior for what is basically their mobile office is pretty out of touch.
> thinking that contractors couldn’t possibly appreciate (or deserve?) a nice interior for what is basically their mobile office is pretty out of touch
I'm not familiar with the USA. What do contractors over there do in terms of clean/dirty clothes? Do they change into clean boots and trousers before getting into the truck? Or are they all in roles where they don't get their hands dirty?
In my country, vehicles marketed to tradesmen and agricultural workers usually aim for a hard-wearing, easy-to-clean interior that's fairly spartan.
The trades are wide and varied. A lot of tradespeople will show up to the job in an old 250,000 mile Honda if they’re just doing dirty work and going home.
The farm and woodworking people I know have nicer trucks, but they’re not afraid to get them dirty. Put some rubber floor mats down and the floor is easy to clean. Leather seats are actually easier to clean than cloth seats. The steering wheel wipes clean.
Every square inch of my truck’s interior is covered in a layer of fine dust every time we go off roading because the windows have to be down. I can clean it all relatively quickly because everything is accessible and the interior is smaller and boxier than my car.
LOL. I know you're serious, but that's just funny.
Using my wife's fairly recent (2024 model year) pickup truck as an example, every horizontal surface is covered in papers, clipboards, horse tack and medications (she trains horses and operates a horse rescue). The floors and kick panels are probably muddy at this time of year, but I'm so used to it that I don't notice. The surfaces that aren't covered by papers or something else have a nice thick layer of dust (the truck spends a lot of time on gravel roads).
It might actually be vacuumed out a few times a year, but that's far from a priority. Generally, the cleanup only happens if one of us has to wear "nice" clothes to go somewhere.
But bear in mind that the areas that your body touches tend to clean themselves simply because you're moving around. So, the floors, dashboard, etc., might be muddy or dusty but the seats will generally be clean.
The basic "spartan" trucks tend to be for uses where you don't have to travel very far. If you're driving a hundred miles or so on an average day, you'll want to be as comfortable as possible or it gets old really fast.
>he internet loves to bash truck owners as all being the same one guy who buys a truck to drive 1.3 miles to the office every day
Because the only truck owners the people who bash trucks see are their neighbor across the street who is that guy.
The demographically comparable guy who commutes in 80mi one way from his "country estate" in his Audi isn't on the internet bashing truck owners because the guy he lives across from uses his truck.
Also, acting like the whole of the working class are basic burger shop cashiers who struggle to buy anything while simultaneously being idiots who buy 80k trucks just to "virtue signal"... This thread is totally incoherent. Most of the jobs people have are better than that, and most of the trucks people drive are cheaper than that, but the two extremes are mixed to create the most outlandish narrative.
You're out of touch with the working class. Some people practically live in these trucks. A little comfort goes a long way toward making their day bearable. Leather is easy to clean, power adjustment makes the seat more comfortable. Auto wipers, climate, etc., help them focus on the calls they're taking. And so on. Fleets of these are bought for commercial purposes as well. Companies wouldn't spend that kind of money without a reason.
There's a reason these "luxobarges" are the best selling vehicle in the U.S., and the answer is not virtue signaling.
Brother, people are scraping by right now. Auto loan defaults are nearing all-time highs. Car loan lengths are longer than ever. The average age of a vehicle on the road is something like 14 years old now.
I promise you with all my heart, those luxobarges are not being purchased because they’re practical in any way, shape, or form. It’s 110% virtue signaling.
I don’t get the recent internet trend of trying to excuse any bad behavior by saying it’s all actually very logical and simply a tragedy of reality. Nobody is buying a gigantic vehicle because it has seats that are easy to clean. Nobody is buying an expensive ride because they just NEED those auto rain wipers.
People are bad with money, and keeping up with the Joneses has always been a high priority in American culture. I see people making $20-25/hr driving brand new Cadillac SUVs. I talk to my car selling friends, and they have the loan rates for 6-10 years memorized, not 3-5 years. Nobody does those anymore.
Of course there is an enormous amount of virtue signaling around cars. It’s one of the strongest social signals people purchase.
> they have the loan rates for 6-10 years memorized, not 3-5 years
Playing Devil's Advocate, if you're going to be fucked either way, why not be fucked and have a nice truck than not?
It seems like, at least from an uninformed EU perspective, that if the "system" gives you the ability to get a big truck for no worse off that if you weren't going to get it, why wouldn't you?
It seems like auto manufacturers overly inflated their prices, and the loan issuers are mopping up said inflation back - so in the end the borrower (at least if poor and they're going to default either way) is better off getting more truck for their buck than less.
Because most people who are fucked, are fucked due to terrible money spending habits. Tons and tons of people who make six figures are living paycheck to paycheck. Not because they must but because they won't stop spending poorly.
Again, I don't understand the desperate internet trend of defending terrible choices by focusing on the, like, 0.001% of people who do everything right and still fail. We've got the highest living standards on the planet. It's absolutely a choice.
I was hoping for some genuine counterpoints but this just feels like a rant? It feels like the stereotypical response that millennials could afford property if only they didn’t spend their money on avocado toast at Starbucks.
Let’s say a normal car costs you $200/month and a big truck costs 400.
200 is not going to make a difference in your situation - you are either good either way or close to breaking point and therefore fucked either way (if not this month, then the next one when you have an unexpected large expense).
If you’re fucked, why not take advantage as much as possible and get the most truck for your buck? Well “your buck” in quotes but you get my point.
If my budget was at breaking point and for only 200 bucks extra (one time payment since I’m gonna default next month) you can bet I’m gonna take advantage and get another ~20k worth of truck that I’ll get to keep until the bankruptcy proceedings complete (at which point the extra would’ve depreciated off anyway). Or is there something I’m missing?
If you think people are spending just $200-400/mo on a car, I can see why you don't understand how bad this situation is. Most people are spending more like $700-1000/mo.
It has nothing to do with avocado toast, though that wasn't nearly the zinger you thought it was. As it turns out, eating out is insanely expensive. Cook most of your food and you can save a TON of money. The fact that this simple idea is so hard for people to pull out of the avocado toast comment continues to astound me.
And you're right - you can certainly scam the system for 6 months of "more truck". That's exactly the kind of monetary responsibility that got us into this situation in the first place. Thank you for showing everyone a perfect example, I suppose.
I don't think most people are buying trucks and then defaulting the next month either that's a bizarre argument to make. And 200 a month is a lot of money!
200 * 12 = 2400 * 4 years( let's be real it would be longer ) = 9600. That IS a lot of money, it's not going to solve every problem immediately but applying the mindset of whatever Im screwed so I might as well set my money on fire is exactly how people keep sinking into the hole. You take the 200 extra on the car, on the apartment, the 150 pants. Its death by a thousand paper cuts and it will make a bad situation much worse.
The thing you’re missing is that it isn’t a $200 difference. Auto loans above $1k/mo are becoming common now vs the $400 for something “affordable”. Since people don’t have large down payments, the monthly rate scales beyond linearly to offset default risk with the loan upside down.
You’re also presenting a false scenario of “screwed either way”. One decision is getting a car that doesn’t leave you with $10k+ negative equity in a year because you did $1000 down on a $85k truck financed over 10 years with an 8% rate. That’s a decade long financial albatross that will cost you $150k by the time it’s done.
The alternative is you put $1k down on a $30k vehicle over 4 years with the same monthly payment and never end up with negative equity.
The gulfs here are enormous and the “screwed either way” altitude is pure defeatist financial ignorance.
>Brother, people are scraping by right now
Yes some are, but not everyone with a big truck. I'm in truck country and most people can afford their big trucks no problem at all. It's not virtue signaling, they are do-everything cars. Nothing else beats them.
You can go to a off-road work site during the day, and take it downtown for dinner after. Lots of people are making good money and can easily afford them.
> I promise you with all my heart, those luxobarges are not being purchased because they’re practical in any way, shape, or form. It’s 110% virtue signaling.
not sure virtue signalling is best description here. I think "conspicuous consumption" is far better description of the process
You're absolutely correct, thank you.
Indeed, in a sense it might even be better referred to as "vice signalling".
> I promise you with all my heart
You have such a deep misanthropic view that it's prevented you from seeing anything outside of it. You're preaching a faith not practicing an understanding of the world.
> Nobody is buying a gigantic vehicle
There are tons of contractors, laborers, small business and property owners who need the space or the utility of the vehicle. The reason these vehicles sell well is because they come in _tons_ of configurations.
> because it has seats that are easy to clean
No, that's why the manufacturer puts them in there, it helps them sell more vehicles by expanding their options.
> People are bad with money
Just.. like.. universally? Then how do you explain the number of billionaires and millionaires in this country? Let me guess.. from your heart it's 110% graft and corruption and 0% skill and sense and building wealth?
> I talk to my car selling friends,
Who has "car selling friends?" Your access to anecdotal information may not be helping you.
> It’s one of the strongest social signals people purchase.
We know this.. how?
> According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.
> So what do people actually like about trucks? According to Edwards, the answer is counterintuitive. Truck drivers use their trucks very much like other car owners: for commuting to and from work, presumably alone. The thing that most distinguishes truck owners from those of other vehicles is their sheer love of driving. “The highest indexed use among truck owners is pleasure driving,” says Edwards. Truck drivers use their vehicles this way fully twice as often as the industry average. “This is the freedom that trucks offer,” says Edwards.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
The F-series is the best selling car family in the US. Some of them are using it for its intended purpose sure, the majority are just using it as parent said, a luxobarge.
>The F-series is the best selling car family in the US. Some of them are using it for its intended purpose sure, the majority are just using it as parent said, a luxobarge.
A F550 box truck and a crew cab shortbed F150 are both F-series as well as everything in between.
If not the best selling it had better be damn close with all the different vehicles that exist under that one nameplate.
The F-150 alone has been Americas best selling vehicle for 47 years straight until getting dethroned by the RAV4 in 2024 (unless you add any of the other F-series trucks). It appears to be back on top in 2025.
> the majority are just using it as parent said, a luxobarge
25% use it for towing.
30% use it off road.
65% use it for hauling.
Obviously there's overlap but how many people do none of those three?
It's less than 35% which is not a majority.
100% because they want to and it's their choice.
Can't believe we sit here and judge people for choosing to drive a truck or not.
one time a year or less was the suffix for each of these, many more people fall into the once a month or so category. The economical thing to do is buy a civic and rent a truck the one time a year you use it for truck things.
How many people driving a civic never have someone in the back seat?
If your argument is that most Americans should be on public transit and save the average $500,000 they spend during their lives on private vehicles then I completely agree.
If you're saying "a less bad thing is still bad!" then your comment reads more like the "We should improve society somewhat. / Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent." meme.
>You have such a deep misanthropic view
For being certain about something based on industry data?
>There are tons of contractors, laborers, small business and property owners who need the space or the utility of the vehicle.
And if that was the majority of these purchasers, this would be a reasonable response, but the extreme majority of truck owners use their truck for its intended purpose ONCE A YEAR. Bro just rent it from frickin' Home Depot and drive a Camry.
>No, that's why the manufacturer puts them in there
Ah, and of course the cheaper cars are purposely given seats which aren't cleanable? Or is it still correct that in the context of our conversation, it's nothing special and completely unrelated to how most people use their car? It's not within a million miles of a decision point.
>Just.. like.. universally?
Yes. You got it. I literally meant that every single person on the planet, rich, poor, and everything in between, is bad with money. I certainly wasn't making a hyperbolic point to bring an idea to the forefront - incredible detective work.
>Who has "car selling friends?"
I buy a lot of cars, and eventually made friends with the people I keep buying them from. We hang out sometimes. Do you just... not make friends with anyone?
>We know this.. how?
Who knows? My friends actually sit around talking about the specs on their refrigerators and the color options. They tinker in the garage on the cooling coils for hours a day. You should see how smooth the drawers in mine are.
On the out of touch point, I will just note that every time we drive to West Virginia or Pennsylvania you can see when you leave the rich exurbs because it goes from $80k vanity trucks to fuel and maintenance efficient sedans, old Toyotas and vans, and the heavy trucks guys like welders use. There is zero question that they’re using those trucks from the wear patterns, whereas the luxury trucks in the areas where the average house is a million plus are spotless.
It’s not “virtue signaling”, it’s lifestyle messaging like wearing cowboy boots or walking around with DJ headphones as if you’re going to drop a set after the morning standup.
Those aren't the people I'm talking about in my post and they aren't the primary buyers of the vehicles I'm describing.
Maybe you are out of touch. I bet even many people here think it's mainly virtue signaling.
I mean… do any of the commercial services in US use pickup trucks? It seems to all be vans? Why not to get a van then as a contractor?
Here (southeast US), lawn services use pickups, often also with a trailer. Most other services (plumbing, electrical, HVAC) use vans. Less sure about contractors, I interact with them less.
- [deleted]
Most commercial services near me use trucks with or without a trailer. Painters tend to use vans, and some electricians. Everyone else has a truck with a logo on it. You can't tow well with a van, so it has to be a company that never tows.
Granted probably most people on here are CA or SV adjacent, which has a fairly idiosyncratic relationship with its service industries and stricter emissions regs.
I see commercial lawn services driving in pickups a lot. It's a job that benefits from the open bed.
I tend to see them with either flatbed, trailer, or both. Occasionally box van plus trailer. Not usually a pickup and certainly not a luxury one.
I don't understand why flatbeds aren't more popular here. (Well if we assume that pickups aren't actually for utility then I guess it makes sense.)
You still need to tow.
You need body on frame, not the van unibody junk.
[dead]
But I think the Venn diagram of "people who can afford these new trucks" and "people who live in their truck" is two completely separate circles.
That's opinion/stereotype, and unsupported. From Rob Cockerham's experiment (2002):
"I guessed that 98% of all truck beds are empty"
"In 25 minutes I had counted 150 trucks, and 99 of them had been empty. This 66% empty ratio was much lower than I had expected. I hadn't realized that so many trucks were being so successfully utilized."
"The results were similar: 39% of the trucks were hauling goods, and 61 of them were empty"
"Along with this adjustment of my perception, I also realized that an empty truck is no more wasteful than an empty back seat. Most cars AND trucks in the US drive around with 75% of the cargo space unutilized...what difference does it make if it is interior or exterior space?"
https://cockeyed.com/science/data/truck_beds/truck_beds.html
I'd imagine that % changes heavily on hour in the day and road observed.
People using truck for work (tradesman etc) do it all thorough the day. People who just use it as status symbol get to work and back from work at given hour. Also probably more usage in weekend when people doing weekend project go shop and people not doing that don't even get out on the longer trips.
Sitting on one road for an hour (and looking at photos, far from peak traffic) is near meaningless
The "peak traffic" that all the 9-5 office workers on HN see is also not when trucks that carry things move. Blue collar work usually starts at 6/7/8am.
A vehicle thousands of pounds heavier, with much worse mpg, and almost by definition terrible aerodynamics, is no less efficient than a car with empty rear seats? Sure.
The only part that matters is the weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> The modern US pickup truck isn't built for utility. It's a $60,000 four-door lifted luxobarge with leather interior and a short bed. It signals (perceived) wealth while preserving working-class alignment.
Reading the HN version of truck drivers is such a stark contrast to interfacing with actually contractors on a day to day basis.
A vehicle being comfortable and luxurious isn’t something only the bourgeoisie can appreciate. People who work spend a lot of time in their vehicles too.
No, but a sprinter van is going to provide better actual utility for most trades and a 80k f150 platinum is a long way away from a white 2 door long bed which can make the spend not make sense business wise.
As you say though I do see trades workers with the fancy pickup trucks (often with a trailer, cant scratch that bed paint aha) which I attribute to low interest on auto loans and poor business sense.
> but a sprinter van is going to provide better actual utility for most trades
Certain jobs in certain trades, not all of them
> and a 80k f150 platinum
Base F150 starts at half that. This is silly
> Base F150 starts at half that. This is silly
No it isn't [1].
> There seems to be no limit these days to how lavishly equipped, not to mention expensive, full-size standard-duty pickup trucks have become at the upper reaches of their respective model lines. [...] They’re brash and uniquely American alternatives to fine-tuned European luxury SUVs. For those keeping score, Kelley Blue Book says the average full-size pickup sold for $66,386 last month, due in large part to the growing popularity of such upscale models.
Sixty. Six. Thousand. Dollars.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2026/01/14/the-cos...
How dare those workers buy nice cars for themselves to drive every day! What were they thinking?
- [deleted]
> Certain jobs in certain trades, not all of them
Correct, which is why I used said most trades and not all trades
> Base F150 starts at half that. This is silly
The average new vehicle price in the US is 50k, people are not buying the base model.
> The average new vehicle price in the US is 50k, people are not buying the base model.
$50K is much closer to the $40K base model than the $80K platinum model.
Everyone loves to cite the platinum model as if all the contractors or CEOs or whoever were bashing today are driving it, but most people are not buying the most expensive models.
> The average new vehicle price in the US is 50k, people are not buying the base model.
Half of the vehicles are below 50k.
Way than half. Average is dragged up by 100k F-550s with $100k service bodies installed on them and $200k+ exotic cars. There are no negative and zero dollar sales to drag down the average.
This is a textbook example of a case where median would be better.
Lol, these people do not care about sprinter vans.
The online crowd has such a love for sprinter vans, I don't see anyone talking about them except a very small group.
The people around me have F250s + a trailer twice the size of a small sprinter. They can work and have a small house behind them when needed.
The Euro vans (sprinter and transit) are very well suited to businesses who'll own new stuff, depreciate and trade in before it's out of warranty. There's a reason those things get exported to the low labor cost 3rd world from there rather than winding up on used car lots like domestic van based single rear wheel box trucks and utility body stuff.
Oh I know they are good and I see them almost daily on the road. But it is a completely different market.
Sprinter/Transit will NOT replace F250s.
> It's a $60,000 four-door lifted luxobarge with leather interior and a short bed
It can be that but all the major manufacturers have a ton of trim levels and options. Personally I drive a f150 that doesn't even have power windows.
Most Cybertrucks I've seen in the wild are running at a low ground clearance, reminiscent of a 'coupe utility' vehicle like an El Camino.
If you look at the cybertruck's architecture it basically is the "top end" of that line.
It's a big car platform with a bed. It's the "top of the line" for "car based" pickups like the old Subarus, the Maverick/SantaCruz and Ridgeline.
While it nominally competes with the F150 it doesn't really. Same as how the Ridgeline nominally competes with the Ranger, but doesn't really.
I think it's a real shame the cyber truck never took off. While gimmicky I think the longevity of it's absolutely stupid thick(er than typical) gauge stainless body would have put pressure on other OEMs to stop building shitty truck beds that dent and rust if you look at them funy.
I know plenty of engineers with expensive trucks used to carry their families around during the week and haul their hunting bounty home on weekends. In that scenario, the Cybertruck is a total failure. Where's the exposed bed for a deer? How about hauling the boat to the lake?
Cybertruck is a product management failure.
The venn diagram between people who say what you just said (which to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with) and people who screech about safety if they see a pickup being anywhere near full utilized is way too close to a circle for me to take either seriously.
I believe you're accurate for some purchases, but also woefully inaccurate outside of your experience space.
There are millions of workers carrying tools, parts, supplies, and refuse in pickup trucks. Where I live (rural), almost everyone has a truck, and it is for work, not show.
And in cities, as I walk around neighbourhoods, I see endless roofers, plumbers, builders, gardeners, and more using them for work.
Pickup trucks also portray toughness - the other all-important American virtue in addition to wealth. I always get a kick out of American Football ad breaks, where every other commercial is either a truck commercial narrated by some guy with an extremely gravelly voice talking about how tough their trucks are, or an ad for ED pills.
The modern US pickup truck still has the utility image and they make sure they sell a bunch to people who want utility to ensure that the image is not lost. That is why the lightening came in a cheap pro trim clearly targeted at the things pros are likely to want. (I don't know how well it worked, but they seriously tried to sell to that market)
Of course the real money is in the high trim levels that sell for twice as much but don't really cost much more.
They can be luxury vehicles with reasonable running costs - regular gas and less depreciation than the usual luxury brands. They also have utility in case you need it. Pickup trucks aren't my cup of tea but it can be very rational to buy one even if you don't need it as a work truck.
Yes, and they're awesome. Also much closer to 100k.
What's 100K? My Lightning was just under 51K out the door, and it is not a base model. You must be referring to something else? Maybe pickups in general? It's true that they do tend to be expensive.
Edit: OH, you mean the CT. Silly me.
I'm looking forward to the Telo-- if they get to market. It's absolutely all about utility. It will be interesting to see if people only want pickups as a fashion statement or if a weird, very practical vehicle can win.
(Same bed-size as Tacoma; midgate that folds down to hold a full sheet of plywood; seats 4 people comfortably; same length as a Mini Cooper SE).
I'd love it if Telos were cheaper, though. $40-50k is enough to keep me buying used cars.
It never stopped being possible to order a bare bones F-150 with a 8ft bed. Might not have the tradeoffs that many people are looking for, but difficult to argue something like that has less utility than a mini truck that can't drive on the highway.
I once rented a "kei van" in Japan once. I think I remember seeing similarly utilitarian trucks, but forget what they were called. I found the kei vans very practical.
I have one. Four wheel drive, turbo, 660cc little motor. There's even a cute "bashguard" built in to the oil filter, which is hilariously the lowest thing to the ground. No frills. Knobs control everything.
I love it. Full-flat back allows for camping in your car (I'm just over 6 feet tall.) Three bicycles and three people can fit. Wood, tools, DIY... And it is tiny, so it is easy to drive and park.
It doesn't like driving faster than about 110km/hr, but that's good enough for me.
The utilitarian trucks you are talking about are k-trucks, or kei-trucks. "Kei" just means "lightweight."
In Japan, they are refered to as "kei-tora": 軽トラ
On that note, kei car minivans like the Honda N-box are just about the most practical car you can buy for your teen offspring - 4 seats and a ton of boot space.
a pick up without flat bed rails has significantly reduced the areas where it can be used as a work truck. Pretty clear signal that the CyberTruck was a status symbol not a work truck.
> It's the suburban equivalent of a yuppie's Rolex Submariner.
The difference is that the Submariner can actually be used as a dive watch. If it turned to fail significantly more often than other dive watches underwater, people would be much less inclined to buy it even though it would literally make no difference for them.
> The difference is that the Submariner can actually be used as a dive watch.
Are you suggesting that modern trucks can’t be used as trucks?
I mean the Cybertruck, and EV trucks in general to a certain extent, are rather lousy trucks, so they aren't seen as aspirational the same way a normal F150 or Submariner are.
> and EV trucks in general to a certain extent,
There are some good EV trucks out there. The Cybertruck is kind of uniquely bad because they tried so hard to make it unique and funny looking.
The customer is always right. If they were good, sales wouldn't have plummeted as soon as the novelty wore off.
My impression is that the pickup truck as status symbol began with a Back to the Future product placement. You may recall that the character Marty lusts after a 1985 Toyota SR5 Xtra Cab.
I saw the movie in the theater and, at the time, found it strange that anyone would have a work vehicle as a dream car.
- [deleted]
Maybe temper your otherism a bit, and try reading this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/opinion/marie-gluesenkamp...
<blockquote>
“Spreadsheets can contain a part of truth,” Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez told me. “But never all of truth.”
Looking to illustrate this, I bought the recent book “White Rural Rage” and opened it more or less at random to a passage about rural pickup trucks. It cites a rich portfolio of data and even a scholarly expert on the psychology of truck purchasers, to make what might seem like an obvious point — that it’s inefficient and deluded for rural and suburban men to choose trucks as their daily driving vehicles. The passage never does explain, though, how you’re supposed to haul an elk carcass or pull a cargo trailer without one.
It’s all but impossible to go into any rural bar in America today, ask for thoughts on pickup trucks and not hear complaints about the size of trucks these days, about touch-screens and silly gimmicks manufacturers use to justify their ballooning prices. Our economy, awash in cheap capital, has turned quality used trucks into something like a luxury asset class.
It’s often more affordable in the near-term to buy a new truck than a reliable used one. Manufacturers are incentivized by federal regulations, and by the basic imperatives of the thing economy, to produce ever-bigger trucks for ever-higher prices to lock people into a cycle of consumption and debt that often lasts a lifetime.
This looks like progress, in G.D.P. figures, but we are rapidly grinding away the freedom and agency once afforded by the ability to buy a good, reasonable-size truck that you could work on yourself and own fully. You can learn a lot about why people feel so alienated in our economy if you ask around about the pickup truck market.
Instead, the authors of “White Rural Rage” consulted data and an expert to argue that driving a pickup reflects a desire to “stay atop society’s hierarchy,” but they do not actually try to reckon much with the problem that passage raises — that consumer choices, such as buying trucks, have become a way for many Americans to express the deep attachment they have to a life rooted in the physical world. A reader might conclude that people who want a vehicle to pull a boat or haul mulch are misguided, or even dangerous. And a party led by people who believe that is doomed among rural voters, the Midwestern working class and probably American men in general.
</blockquote>
> The modern US pickup truck isn't built for utility.
Not really true. Something like an F150/250/350 is absolutely built for utility. It's popular for a reason. It's just not used for utility by a large number of buyers. It's a "pavement princess".
The Cybertruck is an objectively bad product for many reasons of which utility is pretty high up there.
For example, it's really heavy because of the steel body yet it has an aluminium frame. The problem with aluminium is that it deforms with stress in a way that steel doesn't. Why does this matter? If you're towing a heavy load over rough terrain the frame is going to face large forces up and down that will end up snapping that frame.
> It's the suburban equivalent of a yuppie's Rolex Submariner.
That's a funny example because it shows you know just as much about watches as you do about trucks, which is to say nothing.
Sure, finance bros might buy Submariners but that doesn't change the fact that it's a very robust product designed for diving, originally. Now the need for that has been diminished because we now have dive computers, quartz dive watches and such and you can argue it's not worth ~$10k or that there as good or better options for less (which there are) but it's still an excellent product with many years of design to suit its original purpose.
Even if you use a dive computer as an experienced diver, you'll generally also have a dive watch because computers can fail [1].
> I say all of that to say that making a pickup truck for that market segment isn't a bad idea from a numbers perspective
So we have luxury SUVs where once the SUV was a commercial vehicle (eg Toyota Land Cruiser) and they may sacrifice some of the features such vehicles originally had (eg AWD) but the trades are made for a product that people want.
So yes, you could make an equivalent truck and say it has a market. Maybe it does. But even if it does, the Cybertruck isn't it. Because it's a terrible product for every purpose other than an expensive demonstration of your political leanings.
[1]: https://www.analogshift.com/blogs/transmissions/watches-for-...
> That's a funny example because it shows you know just as much about watches as you do about trucks, which is to say nothing.
Nice ad hominem. No diver is buying a Submariner specifically as a backup for their dive computer for the exact reasons that you went on to outline in your post. It's a textbook Veblen good. The Chinese can build a mechanical Sub clone that keeps the same time as a real one for $100. Swatch (via Omega) builds a more technically-impressive dive watch at a fraction of the price. Oris makes one with an analog depth gauge for even less than the SMP. All of them are more inaccurate and less reliable than anything quartz or digital.
Rolexes stopped being tool watches a few years into their post-Quartz crisis recovery. My GC buddy drives a Tundra. Fleets of white collar workers drive Crew Cab F-150s with wheels more expensive than the worthless Regular Cab I had years ago. No need to get twisted up about it.
Class tourism is a succinct term here. Blending in with hardworking blue collar Americans is a whole marketing industry in itself.
Blending in with imaginary people, you mean. Every single actual blue collar worker who needs a truck for that purpose drives a 1997 Toyota Tacoma.
I had a 2008 Tundra I sold when I moved to the EU not too long ago. Still miss it. It was big, but could easily tow my boat or haul anything I needed. Was a 4 door and had a full sized bed. Had 125k miles when I sold it, and still ran great.
I would have gotten a Tacoma, but I need the extra towing capacity.
I searched this thread for "Tacoma" to see if anyone was mentioning this. (A few other comments had similar sentiments as well.) It's so true. I live half a block from an auto shop that is well patronized by small-time gardeners, contractors, etc. A sizable proportion of the vehicles there at any time are 20- to 30-year-old Tacomas.
- [deleted]
[dead]
> A pickup truck should just be max utility
A working truck should be max utility. Around the core market of "working trucks," there are various wannabe truck products that do not have to be max utility. For example, a Subaru Brat or a Hyundai Santa Fe. Niche products compared to an F-150, but they had/have their fans.
I personally can't stand the design, but the idea of an impractical "halo vehicle" that appeals to a niche audience but burnishes the brand as "forward-looking" is not a bad one. It's just the execution of this particular halo vehicle that I would have a problem with were I in the market for a lifestyle look-at-me vehicle.
All trucks should be working trucks. There is no reason to drive something that large and heavy that isn't better served by smaller vehicles that don't damage our shared infrastructure while being safer to drive.A *working* truck should be max utility.Oh sure, but look at the vast popularity of these monstrosities that never even see gravel. I get how you (and I) find that abhorrent, but there's clearly LOTS of folks that find a blinged out useless luxury pretend truck to be very attractive.
I was in the market for a pickup recently. I had wanted to like the Cybertruck, but ... too damn ugly, too version 0.3, too many dweebs driving them, too many teething issues even for a first cut. Plus it's as heavy as an F-250. There's almost no actual reason to grab one besides it being electric. Since I drive so little, I'd never pay back the embedded energy it takes to make the thing - so even that isn't a selling point.
So instead I got a used Tacoma, and disappeared into the ocean of Tacomas that exist here in the PNW. It could be worse :)
Trucks don't have to see gravel to be working trucks.
If you use a truck for work purposes once a year it is likely cheaper to just drive a truck for everything than have a second car. Don't say rent a truck is an option - you probably can't rent a truck for most work purposes - most rentals have fine print against that, even if you can find a place to rent a truck the cost quickly gets to more than just owning your own truck.
Are you in the US? Most Home Depot locations will rent you one of several sizes of work truck for as low as $20 for a quick there-and-back of 75 minutes, or ~$100-200 for a day. I understand Lowe’s to do something similar. U-Haul does trucks.
And if your needs are more ambitious, there’s Sunbelt Rentals through much of the country and Enterprise’s Trucks arm as opposed to their more consumer-familiar operation.
If I’m using it once a year, I’ll splurge for a bigass 1 ton 4x4 which Enterprise Trucks is currently listing for $139 a day including 150 miles… and in 100 years, have spent the $13,900 difference between a dweeby little smarte car and owning my own pickup
Not that there’s the least thing wrong with just preferring to own one, just options that I wish I’d known about earlier in life.
Have you read the contract with Home Depot? You can't use their trucks for anything other than hauling your purchased from Home Depot home.
I haven't see the contract with enterprise trucks, but I suspect it is similarity restricted against the type of damage this is normal from using a truck for work. You can at least tow a trailer with them. Their locations are not convenient for me either.
I have thoroughly audited Home Depot truck contracts many times and don't believe this to be true. Do you have a source? I have never seen "secret" fine print beyond the agreement which is embedded badly in https://www.homedepot.com/c/Tool_Rental_FAQ . People use these trucks for work all the time, and I use their trailers very frequently to haul all sorts of things.
EDIT: I realized I have plenty of these contracts archived and don't need to believe HN conspiracy theorists:
(a) Use Restrictions. The following restrictions apply to the use of the Vehicle:
• The Vehicle will not be operated by anyone who is not an Authorized Driver;
• All occupants in the Vehicle must comply with seat-belt and child-restraint laws;
• The number of passengers in the Vehicle will not exceed the number of seat-belts and child-restraints;
• Renter will only operate the Vehicle on regularly maintained roadways;
• Renter will ensure that keys are not left in the Vehicle and will close and lock all doors and windows upon exiting the Vehicle;
• Renter will not (i) transport people or property for hire; (ii) tow anything (with the exception of an attached trailer if rented pursuant to this Agreement); (iii) carry or transport hazardous or explosive substances; (iv) engage in a speed contest; or (v) load the Vehicle or transport weight exceeding the Vehicle’s maximum capacity;
• Renter will not engage in reckless misconduct which causes the Vehicle damages or causes personal injury or property damage; and
• Renter will not use the Vehicle for the commission of a felony or for the transportation of illegal drugs or contraband.
So unless you are trying to reuse the vehicle for hire or tow a non-Home-Depot trailer (which I admit is kind of restrictive, but nothing like what the parent post says), it seems fine.
Can’t use a truck for towing and can’t drive it off of the road is pretty restrictive.
For a truck you rent in an at least semi-urban area by the hour it’s never mattered for me, it’s always covered all of the “I live in a city but need a pickup truck” cases like picking up landscaping materials, appliances, large furniture, and so on - a lot more than “just being allowed to bring stuff home from home depot.” Since I drive an SUV which can tow now I just do the opposite and rent a trailer when I would have needed a pickup bed, which also works well.
I’m actually far from a pickup truck hater; they certainly have their place (my parents live in a rural area and I can’t really see them not having one), and I occasionally miss owning one, but I’ve never managed to make the economics come even close to balancing out vs. renting for myself.
Yep. Renting a truck where you could actually haul a load of dirt or mulch, or tow anything, you will need to go to with a "commercial" rental which will be 5x the rate for a consumer rental or "Home Depot" truck rental. The Home Depot/consumer trucks don't even have a tow hitch.
LOL, the Home Depot flatbed I rented a week ago (the $19 deal although I went a little long and ended up paying $32 total) had just hauled a load of dirt or mulch. No one read me anything saying I couldn't use it for purposes other than carrying a Home Depot purchased item (although that's what I was doing). The HD page for the F250 flatbed does say they only supply a hitch if you are renting something towable from them but says nothing about using it for other purposes (like hauling dirt).
The fine print is on the cantract and not elsewhere.
What? I regularly rent a Lowe's truck when I need one (tends to be every year or two) to move mulch, furniture, whatever. I don't understand this take.even if you can find a place to rent a truck the cost quickly gets to more than just owning your own truck.I have not read the contract with Lowe's - but I know home depot's contract states that you can only use the truck to take things you by at Home Depot home. If there is an accident you could be in big legal trouble with your rental use (so long as there isn't one they might not care)
U-Haul rents work trucks and vans meant to be haulers and rented out specifically for hauling.
Their trailors only though. Which often have surge breaks (terrible)
It's a lot cheaper to rent a trailer.
I hope someone fully capitalizes on what Edison is trying to do up in Canada.
That is a fully electric drive train hybrid. That way you can charge it at home and charge it with a generator under use. Problem is our current laws are making certifications a mess.
> Oh sure, but look at the vast popularity of these monstrosities that never even see gravel.
Normal-sized pickups aren't meant for offroading.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/opinion/marie-gluesenkamp...:
> It’s all but impossible to go into any rural bar in America today, ask for thoughts on pickup trucks and not hear complaints about the size of trucks these days, about touch-screens and silly gimmicks manufacturers use to justify their ballooning prices. Our economy, awash in cheap capital, has turned quality used trucks into something like a luxury asset class.
> It’s often more affordable in the near-term to buy a new truck than a reliable used one. Manufacturers are incentivized by federal regulations, and by the basic imperatives of the thing economy, to produce ever-bigger trucks for ever-higher prices to lock people into a cycle of consumption and debt that often lasts a lifetime.
> This looks like progress, in G.D.P. figures, but we are rapidly grinding away the freedom and agency once afforded by the ability to buy a good, reasonable-size truck that you could work on yourself and own fully. You can learn a lot about why people feel so alienated in our economy if you ask around about the pickup truck market.
> Instead, the authors of “White Rural Rage” consulted data and an expert to argue that driving a pickup reflects a desire to “stay atop society’s hierarchy,” but they do not actually try to reckon much with the problem that passage raises — that consumer choices, such as buying trucks, have become a way for many Americans to express the deep attachment they have to a life rooted in the physical world. A reader might conclude that people who want a vehicle to pull a boat or haul mulch are misguided, or even dangerous. And a party led by people who believe that is doomed among rural voters, the Midwestern working class and probably American men in general.
> This approach to politics governed by data and experts is what we mean when we talk about technocracy. It’s a system that no longer really functions today because the broad societal trust that once allowed data and experts to guide political choices has broken down. Democrats, increasingly, live in a world where data and researchers convincingly show that low-wage immigration raises the economy and our gun laws are reckless and misguided.
> A reader might conclude that people who want a vehicle to pull a boat or haul mulch are misguided, or even dangerous.
How about I just conclude that while pulling a boat or hauling mulch are completely OK things to want a vehicle for (*), one does not need a F150 with a front end that reaches my chest and has gas mileage to prove it.
As many have noted, pickups like the 90s Toyotas did these things just fine for almost everyone, but most US based manufacturers have stopped making them.
Me noting that doesn't make me part of the doom of the political party I always vote for.
(*) to the extent that we live in a society where private ownership of vehicles is completely unremarkable, that is. And we do, for the foreseeable future.
The Tacoma is the modern equivalent of the 90s Toyota, and while it is certainly bigger, it is not that much bigger.
Also, there are a lot of boats, RVs and trailers which my 2019 Tacoma absolutely would not have towed successfully.
> How about I just conclude that while pulling a boat or hauling mulch are completely OK things to want a vehicle for (*), one does not need a F150 with a front end that reaches my chest and has gas mileage to prove it.
Did you miss like the entire first half of the quoted passage? Because it kinda sounds like you're judging the people buying the trucks.
One buys from the options the market gives them, and the market often does not optimize for what consumers want. It optimizes for barely tolerable products that maximize profit.
No, actually, I did not. But I thought that the part that I requoted stood in a weird opposition to it ...
> No, actually, I did not. But I thought that the part that I requoted stood in a weird opposition to it ...
Which kind of makes sense, because it's Gluesenkamp-Perez critiquing a book she opposes.
The Santa Cruz is about the same size as a Santa Fe and weighs less.
The Ford Maverick is a smaller vehicle but also a truck. It is a working truck for some, and a rec/handyman vehicle for others.
A Maverick is hardly a working truck. It's got the same towing capacity of an older Kia Sportage. It's got front wheel drive (or awd). It's a car with a bed, not a truck.
I don't get this attitude. Everyone criticizes auto companies for not making a small truck anymore, and then Ford comes out with the Maverick and then you say it doesn't have enough towing capacity. It can tow 4000 lbs. That covers a whole lot of use cases. It also has a payload capacity of 1500 lbs which is quite respectable for a small truck. As for FWD vs. RWD, who cares? How does that affect your ability to move things around?
Really the only thing I think you can ding it for is the small bed. It used to be that trucks this size would have a regular cab or an extended cab with the two tiny side facing seats, and they would have a longer bed. With the tailgate down you can still move sheet goods with a Maverick though.
I get your point, but those tow numbers are notoriously optimistic. Most people I bet would not be comfortable towing 4000 lbs with a Maverick, and it would struggle on grades or in heat. You can even feel that kind of weight with a full-size truck. Above 5000 lbs in most places you need independent trailer brakes.
The real issue that limits the Maverick for a wider audience is the rear is too small to comfortably fit kids, especially in car seats. Adding 4 in of leg room to the rear and making the whole truck 4 in longer would've made in a great homeowner family option without sacrificing much agility.
Most people don't need to tow 4000 lbs period. If I had a Maverick and needed to tow 4000 lbs I would absolutely do it though. I've towed more than that in an older Tacoma that's not that different from the Maverick. Would I do it at 75mph? Probably not. Would I be towing 4000 lbs going 65 up an 8% grade in the heat at high altitude in Arizona? Again probably not, but the idea that a small truck needs to be able to do everything is just against the concept of a small truck. If you must have the ability to do that, get something bigger.
I agree that the Maverick's bed is small and the back seat is small. IMO they would have been better off making a regular cab or an "access cab" thing with two doors and fold-down seats, and used the extra length to add to the bed. Those are great if you're single or don't have kids, and you just need to carry passengers very occasionally. If you're regularly hauling kids around you definitely want the next step up. A lot of tradesmen essentially never even use the passenger seat though, and the back seat is just lost bed space unless you're using it for locked storage.
People want smaller, not weaker, trucks. The 1985 Ford ranger compact truck could tow over 3000 lbs base, and over 5000 with upgrades.
The Maverick only tows 2000 base, the 4000 is an upgrade package and only for trailers with their own brakes.
RWD is pretty functionally important for a vehicle to maintain control while towing significant weight, as all the weight sits on the back of the frame, and that's where you want the engine power to go.
The Maverick is not a working truck, which was my original point. In terms of what matters, it is worse in every way than a 40 year old design.
You need to have AWD for the Maverick to have the 4000 lbs rating. It's going to be sending power to the rear wheels when you're towing.
You can't really compare the tow ratings with a 1985 Ranger. Back then the ratings were not standardized and were generally inflated for marketing purposes. Today tow ratings are standardized by SAE J2807. The Maverick has way more power than the old Ranger and weighs about 600 lbs more, plus it has trailer sway control. You're going to have a much easier time towing 4000 lbs in the Maverick than the Ranger.
Edit: The Maverick also has 300 lbs more payload capacity than the 1984 Ranger. The fact is, not everyone needs a giant heavy truck. I see loads of tradesmen driving Mavericks.
The '22 ranger tows up to 7500, payload 1500. Sure, bed is only 5-6 feet, but is 4x4, and interior feels good, and is about as bougie as the big F gets. Had it down to 12L/100km, a full tank gave me a 700km range at that point. Fits my family of 5 when it needs to. I would buy one again e-z.
Grabbed it in '25 with factory warranty still on it for about the price of a new maverick.
A BMW i3 is a body-on-frame rear-wheel-drive vehicle, but I don't think anyone would call it a "truck without a bed, not a car".
Ford calls it a truck. Ask a random person on the street, and they'll say it is a small truck.
I've seen plenty of people in working clothes driving them, carrying working tools and such.
Also called a Ute, which is fine! It avoids the weight and height that makes trucks dangerous vehicles to operate in a society.It's a car with a bed, not a truck.> It's got the same towing capacity of an older Kia Sportage.
How often do you need to pull 2000kg?
Several times a year at a minimum, and not always with good notice.
Towing weight is also a good proxy for frame strength. I do some light forestry work moving and bucking logs, freeing stuck cars, plowing snow in addition to towing trailers and equipment.
Okay, so a Kia Sportage ought to do then, I guess?
I didn't really trust it for some of the logs I was moving, as the trailer hitch was added on after and the frame isn't really designed for shocks like what I was putting it through. On top of that, hauling messy stuff in the back was a pain with having to lay down tarp and hoping it caught everything and didn't rip.
Plus, you can't really put a winch or snow plow on a Sportage.
If it's able to have a trailer hitch fitted, it's designed to have a trailer hitch fitted. You can't just stick it on with a couple of random holes drilled and a bolt through.
I always find it kind of surprising how large a vehicle people in the US think they need to pull trailers, especially when you compare with the size of trailers people pull in the UK. My own elderly Range Rover (1990s P38A) has a plated towing weight of 3500kg which means you can pull another one on a trailer with it easily. With the back full of tools and spares and a couple of passengers, you've got an all-up weight well over six tonnes!
[dead]
There are different sized trucks for different purposes. A Maverick or Kei truck is lighter and safer than a lot of cars on the road while being way more useful.
Maverick has a tiny bed (4.5 foot) whereas kei trucks can have up to 7 foot beds. I really wish we did small trucks with bigger beds here in North America. Really all I want is a hilux champ.
The Subaru Brat was not a large and heavy vehicle, and the Santa Cruz is basically an SUV with a bed instead of a third row. Niche vehicles do not have to be Hummers.
Tragedy of the commons.
This is a tragedy of an awful taste.
Tragedy of not having better regulations. The commons don't have anything to do with it.
Some of the motivations to get vehicles like that, like being up higher than everyone and having more mass in a collision, are solidly tragedy of the commons.
The reason is personal preference. Same reason people buy sports cars. I also wish their preferences were different
Reply to the sibling comment about little to no negative externalities:
Sports cars sure do have negative externalities. I live next to a custom car mod shop in the boonies. People hoon around here like there's no one else alive. They put my life and the lives of my family at risk on the regular. That is most definitely a negative externality.
Sports cars largely don't have any of the negative externalities of trucks.
Their fuel consumption is about the same, what externalities are you referring to?
Sure, if you're talking about high-power cars (M2, Corvette, etc). A Miata or Civic Type R will get far better fuel consumption.
And there's also wear on the road, noise, and damage to property and people when accidents happen (physics is a bitch).
Sure, if you’re talking about high-power trucks (F350, Ram 3500). A Ford Maverick hybrid will get far better fuel consumption.
I think more sports cars are burning out, revving loudly (or getting modified to take out their mufflers), and the damage from going a lot faster creates more damage.
It might depend on where you live. Nine times out of then when a vehicle with an obnoxiously loud and high revved gear vehicle drives by it's a truck. Probably more like 95% of the time.
Around here, it's usually beater Accords or other random generic sedans. With fake LEds, slammed to the ground, and lots of dents.
No, you just don’t dislike them enough to find them.
HN has hated Trucks and American cars, except when Tesla came out, for as long as I’ve been here. Same with Reddit.
It's pretty funny how much truck rage there is here.
It’s crazy to me. If you hate automobiles, trucks still make the most sense- if you’re just carrying people and a grocery or two you should probably be on a bike or ebike.
That is quite a European take there. Most places in the US do not have safe pedestrian infrastructure mandating "share the road" policies with bicycles which puts you into direct contact with motor vehicle traffic, and suburban spread means you're probably not close enough to walk to your grocer.
- [deleted]
In the same line of thinking we wouldn't be able to do anything for fun at all, since our very presence increases the living cost for everyone else. When we stand in the same line for ice cream, you're making it take longer to get mine, especially if you also have kids. Should kids be allowed in line for ice cream? They've made our shared line take longer and our shared source of ice cream more expensive.
This is a modern society in which we must live and let live. That core value of tolerance, which preserves our personal freedoms, deserves to be weighed as much and more than our shared infrastructure, imo.
A modern F150 doesn't have "max utility". It's for site foremen and driving to Walmart.
I can't speak for the Santa Fe, but most Brat owners admit they have no intention of using it as a utility vehicle. The same cannot be said for most F-150 owners I know.
These days Brat owners are classic car collectors...
>A pickup truck should just be max utility,
The problem is as soon as you go EV, you use a lot of utility from the get go. With a truck specifically, because its a brick aerodynamically. There is no reason to buy a Cybertruck or Lightning when you can get a gas or hybrid F150 (or a Raptor) for a little bit more, and be able to sit at 80 mph on highways without worrying about range.
The biggest suprise about the lightning is that Ford didn't put in a gas engine in it as a range extender. They have 3 cylinder ecoboost engines that would have been perfect for that.
My brother has one, it is an amazing vehicle with better range performance than Tesla. It's dramatically better in the snow. Towing of large loads is a valid downside, but reality is that most people don't tow, and people who do are probably fine with 80% of the use cases (construction trailers, lawn trailers, etc).
The business problem Tesla solved at Ford cannot is the dealer network. He pre-ordered his, and the dealer he was stuck with tried to rip him off like 4 different ways.
The other issue is that car guys are afraid of electric, as the entire supporting industry is essentially obsolete. It's hard to get excited about something that will take away your ability to pay your mortgage. Every car dealer employee and mechanic knows that.
Electric cars still need maintenance. They don't get regular oil changes, but they wear out tires sooner. They have more recalls in general than ICE (this will likely change, but manufactures are still learning how to make EVs reliable). The parts of a car that are not common with EVs don't break for the first 100k miles, and almost nobody is using the dealer for cars that old. There is plenty of other work that is common that dealers will still need to do.
Your argument hinges on any level of maintenance being enough to maintain our current level of investment. The truth is always more complicated.
Take for example DVD rental. The market completely evaporated, while there is still a small lingering community that could be serviced by rentals. My local library is proof that there is a market. But there are, bar some weird exceptions, no remaining DVD rental stores.
If an EV needs 50% of the maintenance, then it stands to reason that you need 50% of the staff. That's the easy part. But what about all the other staff? Can you afford as many staff in front of house when your main profit centre shrank massively? Can you keep the same amount of cars in the lot if you don't have the cash to pay the manufacturer fees?
I'm sure that some mechanics will need to go. However a lot of them will still remain because there are a lot of cars and a lot that can go wrong that is common. There are also potential new failure modes, though only time will tell.
It displaces well paid mechanic jobs with greasemonkey stuff.
It's not bad for consumers, but a significant amount of the economy is maintaining cars. It's the same thing that happened when emissions standards made cars more reliable. The corner repair shop was displaced by convenience stores, and repair consolidated.
> they wear out tires sooner.
This is dependent on how you drive them. EVs are fun, so you get a disproportionate number of people driving them aggressively. That's hard on tires. If you drive normal, you get normal tire life.
EVs are typically heavier than ICE cars so will cause more tyre wear.
Yes, but typically by a small margin. Close enough that tire wear is dominated by driving style. The problem is that instant torque is simultaneously addictive and also maximally damaging to tire tread.
The F-150 lightning weighs about 25-35% more than the ICE version. That's a significant margin.
They wear out tires because they weigh a shit ton, not because their drivers like to go below the limit trying to draft off a rig.
They weigh slightly more than a similar ICE vehicle. And why would drafting a big rig increase tire wear? The problem I mentioned was that EV drivers frequently drive more aggressively because it's intoxicating to be able to silently dust basically every other car on the road that isn't another EV. Those people do have tire wear issues :). And they're not drafting a big rig...
Here's a different aspect of utility: The F150 Lightning includes 120V and optionally 240V outlets, so it replaces the need to carry a separate gas-powered generator.
That's probably more relevant to fleet vehicles for construction and maintenance firms than to individuals towing boats. But just to offer an example of how the F150 Lightning is a great fit for certain uses.
I'm surprised it didn't sell based on that. 20 years ago when I was in construction the truck drove at most 130 miles per day (we made sure to work 14 hour days when we were going to spend an hour on the road - the crew hated those jobs), but typically more like 30. The the first thing we did was pull the generator out of the truck and started it. If would could just plug into the truck that would have saved a lot of space/weight in the truck, it seems like a no-brainer.
Then again, all the construction sites I see these days have mains power on a post, which we never had back then (I don't live in the same state so I don't know if this is universal or just this area has always been different).
You can also get a standard hybrid F150 with the "Pro Power(?)" package, and the hybrid drive-train turns into a 7.2kW generator.
I just read about the hybrid F150. I didn't know about it until recently I guess because of all the press the Lightning received. The hybrid works the best for me. My state also charges a lot less yearly registration for a hybrid compared to an EV.
7.2kW could run most of my house for days, and it wouldn't be very loud I guess.
It's great for rural folks or others with power issues. For a few thousand bucks, you have a backup generator in your garage.
The only question is range when those rural folks go to the big city (if less than an hour they do this once a week because groceries in the suburbs of a big city are so much cheaper. If farther than that they still go once a month because of things they can't get. Though I don't know anyone who lives so far out that they can't get to a city and back in a long day.
Otherwise rural folks often have something to fix on the other side of their property that needs tools. Cordless tools do a lot but sometimes are not enough.
The thing is, charging an EV in todays age is something that takes planning. Its not as easy as getting gas. For most people that end up at their house every night. For people that use their vehicles more, it becomes more of a problem. If you are going somewhere overnight, you have to make sure that place has charging.
For fleet vehicles this is the same story. You have no idea what kinda bullshit circumstances you are going to run into, and investing in EVs is just not worth it at this point when a F150 XLT or XL + Honda generator suffices.
Until that trend flips where fast charging takes the same time as gas station stop (or automakers start putting small gas engines in their vehicles) EVs are always going to lag behind gas vehicles.
> Here's a different aspect of utility: The F150 Lightning includes 120V and optionally 240V outlets, so it replaces the need to carry a separate gas-powered generator.
A small generator costs few hundred bucks and fits comfortably in any truck actually used for work. It's a small perk that some pro users would probably pay for, but it's not a selling point for a radically different car design.
it's a few hundred bucks, an extra thing to remember, takes up bed space, requires bringing gas, and is loud and annoying to use. It's not the biggest thing, but it's a pretty nice value add.
I mean, if you bought a Cybertruck, you've already given up on a ton of bed space. I'm not saying that a built-in power source isn't nice, but I doubt it swayed any minds.
Easily stolen.
Next generation of lightning is doing exactly that with a smaller battery, they're claiming 700+ miles of range: https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2025/next-ge...
You have one reason listed, which is going 80mph (which is illegal in most states). They also can't tow long distances easily, but are superior in nearly every other way.
Most of the places where you would realistically use a truck have highways that are at least 75 mph. And its not the 80 mph thats important, its the fact that the faster you try to get to the destination, the more the range drains, which conversely takes you longer to get to the destination if you consider charging time.
> The biggest suprise about the lightning is that Ford didn't put in a gas engine in it as a range extender.
They announced that along with the EV Lightning cancellation: https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2025/next-ge...
You also gain some utility. Infinite torque at idle, cheaper 4wd, better traction control, fewer mechanical problems, etc.
They tow way better aside from reduced range. And the near perfect 50/50 weight distribution means they handle better than a truck should.
> max utility
As the owner of a rusty 1985 pickup with manual windows and no radio, I can tell you there is great demand for utility pickup trucks that the manufacturers WILL NOT MAKE.
The first problem is CAFE rules. Congress legislated the light pickup truck out of existence. To get around CAFE rules, manufacturers increased the size of trucks and added a back row so they could be reclassified in a way that skirted CAFE rules.
However, there's a big demand for pickups, so people bought these because they needed trucks, and nothing else was available. Manufacturers took advantage of demand and started adding features normal pickup drivers didn't want or need, to access a high-market class of buyers. "Where else are you gonna go?"
$100k pickups, here we are.
Manufacturers are in no hurry to go back to the low-margin pickup days, even though that is what classic pickup buyers actually want.
> A pickup truck should just be max utility, especially if you're a manufacturer making your first one
> 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.
[1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
I wonder if there are any other countries in the world where the best-selling automobile is something completely impractical? Or are Americans unique in that regard?
Serious question. I can't think of any, but I'm also not familiar with car markets the world over. In Japan, for example, the best-selling car is the Honda N-BOX [1], which is an incredibly practical car.
> pickup truck should just be max utility
Except the main demographic buying F150s is suburban dads driving to their office job.
I think the reason this take gets push-back in discussions (including here) is that it's highly regional.
I've lived in parts of the US where I doubt more than 10% of pickup trucks on the road (and there were a lot of them) were really justifiable purchases as trucks. They were aspirational purchases, and/or were selected for status/class/politics signaling.
I've lived other places in the US where the whole region had far fewer trucks (but a hell of a lot more Volvos... like, easily 10x as many as the other place) where I bet at least 50% of pickup trucks saw enough truck-use to really be justifiable.
This. Where I live the suburban dads wouldn't be caught dead projecting the "fullsize truck owner" image. They buy a Tacoma. Or they did until the Maverick came out.
And using the truck on weekends to tow the boat, or do other work with it. Not every weekend, but once a month in summer.
Usually the imagined uses are very aspirational at best. The imagination doesn't fit reality. I've seen it firsthand, many years ago my dad got the fancy pickup because he "needs the utility." Whenever an opportunity presented itself for him to use his truck as a truck though, he'd pay the extra fee for delivery because he didn't wanna bother.
It did make his reckless driving more dangerous for the innocents, though.
I'll go further, Most Americans who buy stuff like boats don't use them anywhere near enough to justify the purchase. I'm pretty sure well less than 30% of boats are being used at least once a year.
America is so full of hoarding and objects that go years without anyone touching them. It's profoundly sad.
There are 5x more households with trucks than households with boats, so this hardly explains it.
There are a lot more uses of a truck than towing a boat.
Gas doesn't cost enough.
I think the problem is Trucks are a visible lifestyle preferences that does not align with yours.
You can have all the weird lifestyle preferences you want that don't involve conspicuous waste of natural resources and accelerating anthropogenic climate change.
It’s very hard to not see how any resource using activity falls in that bucket including: boating, shopping, having kids, going on vacation, having a home, ordering exotic things, eating at restaurants, using AI, etc.
The primary limiter is on how many resources we give people.
Tax carbon and we can ration it out using market prices. But yes, many of those things are also carbon-intensive lifestyle choices, but some are more valuable than others.
I find most people with critical looks at trucks have not looked at their own habits the most. Some have but I bet there are a lot of meat eaters here talking about how wasteful trucks are.
> You can have all the weird lifestyle preferences you want that don't involve conspicuous waste of natural resources and accelerating anthropogenic climate change.
you’re right.
but I’m still not changing my habits. fuck the environment
Are we not talking about electric vehicles here?
>A pickup truck should just be max utility, especially if you're a manufacturer making your first one
How do you even define that? Give it a heavy duty bed and you're wasting weight that could be put toward hauling/towing capacities (and lord knows how people here would feel about ignoring those). A big engine for "reasonable driving" when fully loaded guzzles fuel.
I don't know much about car economics but I'd think Tesla probably should have built a truck to sell as a fleet vehicle first. There are very few car brands that aren't part of a larger entity doing b2b vehicle sales.
- [deleted]
> A pickup truck should just be max utility, especially if you're a manufacturer making your first one
That's very unrealistic considering the market.
BINGO: the folks buying these things are doing so to virtue signal their politics. If you need a truck for work or hunting, you're still buying a truck, not some Silicon Valley concept car like the Cybertruck.
> That and also it's just a bad product.
I want whatever the v3 equivalent of the Cybertruk would be. Assuming they improve on it.
That's basically the F150 or a rivian
That's... a very uneducated take, even according to those car's CEOs RJ and Jim.
Normal cars vs the fever dreams of a ketamine addict.
And a lot of the best automotive+ engineers in the world.
That's a challenging claim to justify when their output is the Cybertruck. Honestly, none of Tesla's lineup is currently impressive - it's mostly gimmicky with less than stellar build quality.
I strongly considered a Model S years ago when they first came out, but the price just didn't seem justifiable. Now? The world has moved on, and Tesla... hasn't.
Has the world moved on? While it may be anecdotal my area has only exploded with Teslas, I live in Florida for context. I see Cybertruks nearly everyday (some days I don't have to drive anywhere due to working remote). I always see a Tesla, heck, sometimes I see two or more of them at any given time, all over Central Florida I always see a Tesla somewhere, but in my area in particular it feels like "Tesla Country" at this point, and I don't see it dwindling, they just built another Tesla building near our Airport (MCO) too. Even see some bumper stickers on Teslas with "Elon" crossed out on them. Heck, my wife's own relatives have Teslas and they don't like Elon's politics, nor do they live in my area.
Panel gaps
> it's just a bad product. So you've never driven one?
> A pickup truck should just be max utility You don't know much about trucks? What does this even mean, max utility? Trucks are designed for different purposes. Should we eliminate all programming languages besides bash or python?
> especially if you're a manufacturer making your first one Seems like you don't know much about business either. Most new products should NOT try to do everything at once the first time.
Cybertruck is the greatest vehicle ever made.
I remember the unveiling (loved the "bullet proof" glass demo). That was before I understood who Elon really was and I was pro Tesla. I never would have bought such an ugly vehicle, and I don't normally use looks to evaluate a potential ride.
> A pickup truck should just be max utility
Yet we are in a thread where one with max utility has been cancelled and one flop of the century continues to sell.
>A pickup truck should just be max utility, especially if you're a manufacturer making your first one
I don't think this is actually true, most pickup trucks aren't designed for maximum utility. They're designed to sell a lifestyle.
Heartbreaking but true. The most popular pickups today are not the most useful pickups. There are no more basic utilitarian pickups any longer, at least in the US.
Pickups are a little bit interesting in this regard. For any given model (eg: Tacoma, Frontier, etc.) the more premium the truck, the worse it is at being a truck. Each feature you add reduces its payload, and in the case of the Frontier, you could drop from a 6' bed with ~1,600 lbs of payload on the base model all the way down to a 5' bed with ~900 lbs of payload for the most premium offroad model.
I would be willing to say that a small Japanese kei truck is more than the average American would ever need for hauling furnishings, appliances and lumber. If you really need something bigger renting a trailer or truck is dirt cheap
>If you really need something bigger renting a trailer or truck is dirt cheap
It’s neither convenient nor cheap to rent a trailer in much of the US. Major cities have options, rural areas less so. Full disclosure I have a mid-sized pickup, but I recently looked into renting a trailer for a landscaping project that was above the weight limit for my truck. First issue I ran into was that there were not any trailers available for rent anywhere near my location. Second issue was that after factoring in driving distance + rental cost + dump fees, it was ~ the same price just to pay a junk company to haul the materials…and it was not cheap. Anecdotally, my pickup was cheaper than most other vehicle options at the time I bought it, my commute is short (so fuel economy is less an issue), and as a homeowner I use the bed to haul something at least once/month (Unfortunately kei trucks weren’t available at the time). So the cost/benefit/convenience factor of owning a truck over renting a trailer works for me. YMMV.
Yeah, I cannot speak for rural US as much, I live in a large metropolitan area, and I would estimate around 1/5th cars here are pickups. You can rent a truck from Home Depot for as low as $100 a day.
But you cannot tow with it. Just haul.
You can tow a trailer rented from them, but not your own trailer/boat/whatever.
I found out a couple of years ago that you cannot rent a vehicle and use it to tow. This is a major barrier to the argument "when you need to tow <X> just rent a vehicle that can do that" (an argument I would like to support).
I found this out recently as well, and it's really interesting since it must mean that a lot of these "just rent a truck when you need to tow" claims must have been unfounded.
That's good to know.
However, the most likely place to rent a pickup from (U-Haul) does not allow this.
I agree with you on the kei truck. They are pretty darn tough, and have so many uses.
However, they are TINY inside. If you are taller 6'1" and/or heavier than 200lbs, it is a tight squeeze, especially for anything longer than 30 minutes. The "average American" can't fit it a kei truck.
Also, the weird manliness of the average American man would make this truck unsuccessful, simply because it is too small. Which is hilarious, because some of the most resourceful, strongest, reliable and adventurous men I have met drive kei trucks.
I guess finally, the big highways with longhaul trucks and fast speeds are not so good in a k-truck.
Except most people also use trucks as daily driver vehicles. You can't exactly fit the wife and kids in a kei. Sure you could also own a car for that but now I need to own/store 2 vehicles instead of one.
Sure, you can. Two kids up front and your wife in the bed.
Jokes aside I could purchase a new hatchback and a small old Kei truck for a fraction of the cost of something like an f150
>Sure, you can. Two kids up front and your wife in the bed.
Quieter than the other way around.
At least this way round its perfectly legal in some states
Yeah let's not pretend every family with a truck only owns one vehicle. Most families already have a second car anyways. Especially people spending $60k+ on a truck.
That is my argument for EVs as well. One truck with an ICE for take the whole family on long trips, or towing. Then an EV for everyone else - whoever is making the long trip that day gets the truck.
Truck works well for those role because it can do so much. It isn't the best for most of those, but it can do them.
Daihatsu "Deck Van" is pretty rad.
>Heartbreaking but true. The most popular pickups today are not the most useful pickups. There are no more basic utilitarian pickups any longer, at least in the US.
Any OEM will happily sell you a white vinyl floor half ton with your preferred cab/bed/engine/drivetrain configuration.
The GMC 4cyl 1500s were stupid cheap for awhile, because they shat out a bunch for CAFE and weren't selling so they were going for like 25-30k going into the new model year. I wanna say this was 2024 into 25, maybe 23 into 24, idk.
Ford Maverick seems to fit the bill for compact stuff though I suspect it may make the goalposts zip to "single cab option" and "body on frame"
The Ford Maverick is pretty utilitarian, inasmuch as any new US vehicle is.
The Slate is utilitarian, but remains to be seen if it actually ships. https://www.slate.auto/en
I decide if a truck is utilitarian by whether I have to flag a 2x4x8 in the bed or not.
I decide if you need to have a step on your bumper because the truck is too high to get anything in and out of it. Lowering my truck made it way easier to load and unload.
You don't have to flag stuff under 4ft of overhang in most states.
I can fit one of those into my Ford Fiesta with the hatch closed. :smh:
I used to fairly often carry 2x4x8 and 4x4x8 in a Toyota Matrix (Corolla wagon) with the hatch closed. Couldn't do a full-width sheet of plywood, though.
Closed and latched? I find that hard to believe (used to own an 80s Honda Civic which would allow "closed but not latched" for 4x8 sheet goods) ...
Yes, with room to spare. I assume the grandparent was referring to a stud, i.e. the nominal "2x4" that is 1.5x3.5inches in cross section and 8 feet long :-) Sadly I cannot fit 4x8 sheet goods though I haven't tried very hard. I can definitely fit them if I ask nicely for a lengthwise cut, so I end up with 2' wide 8' strips. Those I can fit and close the hatch.
Ford had a terrible but well packaging rear suspension design in those cars. It was designed to not have strut towers so he gets the full width which is probably around 4ft.
No way does the length check out though. I haul lumber in a similar size car and 8ft is basically trunk to dash so there's no way he's hauling an 8ft by 4ft sheet without it conflicting with the driver's seat if not torso.
Individual boards should fit in just about anything though.
> There are no more basic utilitarian pickups any longer, at least in the US.
What makes you say this? The F-150 series has a pretty serviceable option in their XL trim. 8ft bed, 4x4, "dumb" interior (maybe not, looking at their site looks like the most recent is iPad screen, sigh) - but what else would you look for to call it utilitarian?
You're right that each feature is further limiting, but I would argue premium and utilitarian are reaching for opposite goals.
A F-150 from the previous century is much utilitarian than today's F-150's. The bed height and rail height are much more reasonable heights -- you can reach into the bed from the side.
Manual gearbox, triangle vent windows, engine bay room, repairability, bench seats.
I would argue that the first couple of these could be considered "features." Not sure what you mean about the bench seat - the "regular cab" configuration is a 3 person bench.
Yes, utilitarian features. A manual gearbox is simpler than an automatic.
I wish it had even fewer features, but I take your point.
these trucks are still a thing; Toyota sells a 10k stripped down work truck for places like Thailand
https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a45752401/toyotas-10000...
wouldn't fly due to chicken tax + other safety and emissions. they plan on selling em in Mexico tho, so maybe we'll see some float up...
The most utilitarian truck is probably the Hilux champ and it’s not even sold in the US.
Lifestyle sells.
I drive a wagon. Of course wagon owners talk about the utility. And yet, you can buy a wagon with a twin-turbo V8 engine. What's the "sportwagon" segment all about? Certainly not going to Home Depot to buy four toilets for the new house, it's about putting your $15,000 Cannondale Black Ink MTB on the roof and swanking up to the trailhead.
I drive a wagon, among other vehicles. I live in a "tech area" of the country.
Last weekend I hauled ~700lb of rebar on the roof (because they come in 20ft sticks so the wagon is the best choice). The number of dirty looks I got was off the charts. The same exact demographics that are in here shitting on pickups were judging me for not using one. Good thing I don't give a shit what anyone else thinks.
I'm a wagon-person. I picked up four new toilets when I moved into my home, take as many as four bikes to the trailhead, and our full-sized Chesapeake Bay Retriever likes having the entire "trunk" area to himself.
I also do not allow my lifted pickup and Model Y neighbours to choose my vehicle for me.
It's about drag racing on the way to your Jiu-Jitsu club with the baby seats in the back. And still being able to fit that new vanity from Home Depot in on your way back home!
The brain is a confabulation/justification engine.
In reality ideal utility is likely found in the shape of a 2008 Toyota Camry and a U-Haul truck rental when necessary.
You may underestimate how much consumption some people in the US have and why a Camry wouldn't work. Hell, for the amount of hobby project stuff I bring home on a bi-weekly basis a car just doesn't cut it. Then again, I'm not sure where I fit in the average population.
It's not even "stuff I bring home". There's just never ending amount of shit that needs to be schlepped around. Sometimes I wish I lived in a condo, leased a Prius and golfed for a hobby.
- [deleted]
More like a 2001 Renault Clio. Camrys are already bloatware.
safety standards, gas milage, and a bunch of other factors have improved dramatically since 2008.
buy yourself a gently used 2019 Camry
I struggle to think what vehicle has more all around utility (by my own definition) than my Lightning. The only things it does not do well is tow 300 miles, and drive in NYC. Neither of which are on my requirements list.
- [deleted]
- [deleted]
Not just trucks. Almost all cars sell a lifestyle.
> ... most pickup trucks aren't designed for maximum utility. They're designed to sell a lifestyle.
Yes, but that lifestyle can and sometimes does include actual needs for some of the utility. There is a great observation from Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from Washington’s 3rd District in an NYT piece a couple of days ago. I included a perhaps too long quote in lieu of apologizing for the paywall.
> “Spreadsheets can contain a part of truth,” Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez told me. “But never all of truth.”
> Looking to illustrate this, I bought the recent book “White Rural Rage” and opened it more or less at random to a passage about rural pickup trucks. It cites a rich portfolio of data and even a scholarly expert on the psychology of truck purchasers, to make what might seem like an obvious point — that it’s inefficient and deluded for rural and suburban men to choose trucks as their daily driving vehicles. The passage never does explain, though, how you’re supposed to haul an elk carcass or pull a cargo trailer without one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/opinion/marie-gluesenkamp...
If I mostly trim my hedges, but sometimes, very rarely, need to cut down small trees, am I best served by simply owning a hedge-trimmer and renting a chainsaw or other appropriate tool when necessary, or by buying a katana for both jobs?
Everybody knows why you bought the katana. We know you have a story to tell yourself, it's just not convincing.
> and renting a chainsaw or other appropriate tool when necessary,
I don't think most people realize how expensive and time consuming tool rental is.
This is where things also get kind of messy in the US. In manicured suburbs you probably don't need a chainsaw. But in older growth and places with larger lots you really do need one. If you wait till you need one after a big storm, you may travel 100 miles out of the storm damage to find one to rent or have to wait for weeks as your driveway is blocked and contractors are booked up.
For me the utility function is somewhere in between a car and a truck, hence why I have an SUV. I can carry the large boxes/items I seem to have at a regular basis. When I need something bigger I can rent a trailer to hook to it. Trucks themselves are way too expensive now, and I don't need that much capacity. A car would have me constantly renting or borrowing one from someone else (which I did when I owned a car and it was a pain in the ass).
We recently moved to a more rural location that has needed more tools. It is shocking just how expensive and inconvenient it is to rent tools (and even vehicles to some extent) and just how much worse it is being even just a little bit rural.
The big box store in our town doesn't rent tools or vehicles. You have to drive 45-60 minutes to get to a store that does. This means the 4 hour rental prices (which for something like a wood chipper or chain saw might be sufficient for a lot of jobs) become nearly non-viable or highly stressful rushing through unfamiliar power equipment that really shouldn't be rushed.
A full day tool rental is often 1/3 to 1/2 of the price of a new mass market version of the tool. A week rental is almost always more. The tools are rarely in great shape. You are almost always way better off going to an estate sale or local marketplace and buying a used tool. If there is a job you end up doing 2-3 times or need for more than a week its even cost effective to just buy new ones. You save so much on labor doing things yourself that even with new tools you basically always come out ahead.
The best case is that you have a community run tool library that lets you check stuff out cheaply for a week and can have a relationship with the folks that run it. Similarly, getting to know the neighbors and being able to swap/borrow stuff. For vehicles this is a little more dicey because of liability & insurance issues.
We've definitely struggled with the vehicle for long and sheet goods. We really don't need a pickup truck and it would honestly be a hazard on skinny mountain roads... but we do need to move lumber, sheet goods, appliance sized things just enough that it's a pain without one. We settled on a midsized SUV with passable towing power (as an aside, EV power and control makes towing a breeze as long as your round trip fits in one charge). Renting a trailer is still annoying, but at least can be done close by. For larger orders delivery can sometimes be cost effective (vs renting a vehicle or buying and maintaining a truck) especially because places often subsidize delivery to win business.
>A full day tool rental is often 1/3 to 1/2 of the price of a new mass market version of the tool
For sure. I had to dig some post holes in limestone that was very hard. Rental was going to be $200 for a tool that would do it in a day.
Instead I went to harbor freight and bought a tool closer to $100 even though it took me a bit longer, and I get to keep the tool which is still working to this day.
Heh, and labor costs in the Austin area are off the hook. I did a project for around $5000 that a neighbor had a similar but smaller in scope project quoted for $21,000.
> I don't think most people realize how expensive and time consuming tool rental is.
Same with truck rentals.
People seriously underestimate how much trouble a pickup truck rental from U-Haul can be.
I’ve wasted so much time trying to track down which location near me has one available on the exact day I want to do major yard work. Often I have to reschedule my work or plan out super far in advance. Or take a day off during the week because everyone else also wants to rent trucks on the weekend. Then I’m running against the clock the whole time.
An extra $100-$200 a month car payment to have a truck instead of a crossover is totally worth it.
But Cybertruck has better vibes. /s
That be easier to believe if there weren't so many Model 3 and Y vehicles that are clearly the new ones (changed headlights/taillights) all around. I'm sure Elon's "political" salutes gave their sales some headwinds, but I'm inclined to think it is more like 15% less sales (Q4 2024 vs Q4 2025). The CyberTruck factory is operating at <20% capacity.
The biggest problems are: it costs ~2x what Elon said it would, it has less than half the range he said it'd have, and it has had 10 recalls in its short life.
The recalls have been for things as basic as: light bar falling off, exterior trim falling off, bed trim falling off, the acceleration pedal falling off, inverter failures. It paints a picture of a low-quality product that has a very premium price.
I know this is a dead thread, but...
How do so many people justify buying the new redesign? I mean it came out after the CEO went in front of the world and gave two nazi-like salutes, then did DOGE!
Do they buy his 'autistic' defense? Do they just not care about what the CEO does and support him with their money anyways? Do they actively support his ideology?
I suspect it's likely a mix of these depending on the person, and probably more that I can't think of.
I mean they're good cars, no doubt, and it's a damn shame many decent engineers and workers put in so much effort to have it all tainted by such nasty politics.
But I cannot ignore those salutes, nor the myriad other slights starting with calling those Thai cave-diving heroes pedophiles. Tesla is dead to me, a victim of this insane time and its CEO.
> I do admire that they dared to do something different and took a big gamble on it. So many vehicles, especially in the truck space, are almost indistinguishable and lack any kind of imagination.
I 1000% agree with this, in fact I love the way it looks, like something out of a SEGA Saturn game. But I would never buy one for the same reasons I would never buy any Tesla, or in fact any EV, or any post-2014 car at all. But the looks of it are not one of those reasons :)
I do have to laugh every time I see a Tesla with one of those “Bought this before we knew Elon was crazy!!” stickers, because to me they just read as “Wahhh I bought my car to make a statement and now it makes the wrong statement and I am self-conscious about it!!”. It's weird to me to think that other people are thinking that way about their automobiles, because I bought mine (Prius C) based on its features and how they fit into my needs and my life. I guess the Prius line was a popular “statement car” of the pre-Tesla era, though, like how Brian drives one on Family Guy, or the “Smug Alert” episode of South Park, but it was never that for me.
> Wahhh I bought my car to make a statement and now it makes the wrong statement and I am self-conscious about it!!”. I
I read it exactly the opposite. Somebody bought a car not because they were making a statement but just because they thought it was cool, only to find out later Elon was a nazi nutjob, and they don't want people to think they bought it because they share the same views.
Nobody thinks you share the same views as the CEO of your car company. Jesus. GP is right. It makes them seem utterly self-conscious.
People were absolutely giving attitude towards people in Teslas in general, and Cybertrucks in particular, around the peak of all the DOGE nonsense.
Still are, for Cybertrucks
Nonsense?
Yeah, you're right, the US Federal government is a peak engine of efficiency and it's nonsense to think massive sums of money are wasted.
If I told you I could save you money on fuel by making your car more efficient, then removed it's engine, you would still call that nonsense no matter how much of a gas guzzler it was before or how little fuel gets put in it now.
You just made a massive non sequitur. The government does have waste, as does any large organization, including in the private sector. Whether or not DOGE saved money needs an independent analysis, not numbers which DOGE itself produces.
Musk and Trump cut a large number of jobs and declared, without any evidence, that it was all fraud and waste. For example, they dismissed everyone who was in a probationary period, claiming these were all low-performing people. In fact, every person hired or promoted was automatically in a probation status. In many cases the fired people turned out to be critical and the government asked them to come back.
Think about this: when Enron exploded, it took a team of forensic accountants months to untangle the bookkeeping. Musk came in with a team of mostly teenage hacker types to siphon all the data from all the agencies he could and in less than 48 hours declared he had found hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and fraud. It beggars belief that Elon Musk just happens to be an accounting expert and could process terabytes of data and make sense of it in a day or two.
Another thing you should know is the founder of Gumroad, a man in his 30s and who joined DOGE in a good-faith effort to help make the government more efficient, found that things were not at all like he expected. Even if you don't believe him, he was closer to the action than Musk, has more technical knowledge than Musk, and if nothing else, offers a counter-narrative from what you apparently have bought:
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/02/nx-s1-5417994/former-doge-eng...
After expressing his opinions he was quickly sacked by DOGE. Transparency indeed.
Oh, and many (hundreds?) of thousands of people will die each year due to loss of international aid. Meanwhile Musk was dancing around on stage like an idiot with a chainsaw thinking he was the coolest guy.
Nonsense in how they approached things. Clinton-era we had govt. cut backs all over the place. It was done according to a plan and according to the law.
This was just a hatchet job, aimed and cutting and gutting any and every agency they thought they could get away with.
Not that you share the same views but at least directly funneling money to someone harming many.
You do that merely by using the monetary system at all.
"You criticize society, yet you participate in it!"
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342...
If only you knew how bad things really are. https://i.ibb.co/7NTZdSC8/intelligent.jpg
Even were I to be more charitable to your original comment, it is nihilism, which I dislike. "Don't criticize any particularly immoral component of our system, because it's all bad and resistance is futile".
Nihilism is a self fulfilling prophecy.
You shouldn't confuse disinterest with The Spectacle and its siren song to Support or Oppose every new storyline with belief in nothing at all. I am definitely not a nihilist.
You won't survive long without using the monetary system, but you could go your whole life without supporting many of the companies who you see as harmful. Now that money is speech and corporations are increasingly running the oligarchy there are very few levers people have left to try to influence their government. I don't think boycotting massive corporations will be any more successful than trying to get our representatives to care more about our wishes than the bribes they get from those same companies, but at least it feels like doing something.
I'm not sure how that adds to the conversation. Let's say North Korea puts out a really cool phone. Are you going to go: "yeah buying it supports a dictator who is brutal to his people but so does participating in a monetary system so nothing matters so it's okay"
I would buy a North Korea phone if it was cool, band-compatible with my domestic carrier, and wasn't embargoed (i.e. if sale was possible), yeah. I already daily a China phone and depending on who you talk to that isn't much better: https://redmagic.tech/pages/redmagic-9s-pro
People absolutely do. Elon, Trump, and his supporters have politicized the cars (https://www.the-sun.com/motors/11906310/trump-rally-cybertru...) and now the connection is to be expected.
It's not surprising since people don't really have meaningful representation in government and have to resort to trying to hit companies where it hurts in order effect change whether that means boycotting a car company because of a CEO, or boycotting a beer because of a trans person in an instagram ad.
Unfortunate as it is, what you buy and where you shop is very much a political statement.
You're labeling someone a "Nazi nut job" over nothing.
It's juvenile and silly and screams "midwit overly absorbed into political news."
Enjoy your unearned moral superiority. It's a thin blanket against the cold wind of mediocrity, but you do you.
In 2026, if you're genuinely unaware of his white supremacist opinions, perhaps you need to be more absorbed into [sic] political news.
He's alluded to thinking that Asians and Indians are "better" on some metrics so supremacy still seems a bit sensationalist. He certainly doesn't think all races are equal.
> You're labeling someone a "Nazi nut job" over nothing.
Nothing except his antisemitic tweets, his posts defending Hitler, his support of Alternative for Germany, his support of prominent white supremacists, his chatbot which praises Hitler, his endorsement of racist conspiracies, and the occasional "Sieg Heil". What exactly would "something" look like to you?
Being morally superior to that is an exceptionally low bar to clear and it's earned easily by everyone who rejects the hate and lies he publishes, supports, and encourages.
The man is officially a dear friend of Israel, he has never defended Hitler, he indeed supports the German far right party, his chatbot had an alignment issue that has been patched within 16 hours.
What you call a "Sieg heil" was an innocent hand gesture made once, and that hoax has been debunked by both the anti defamation league and the Israeli PM personally. You know this, yet you cannot let go of your hate.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we have to entertain the possibility that we are dealing with a duck.
To me it looks like Musk is overly concerned about discrimination against whites as well as woke ideology, also out of personal experience with his child.
The rest, where progressives slander Musk and label him a Nazi or, their newest addition, a pedophile, appears to be a litany of lies, like the ones just shared above.
Then sell the car. Putting the sticker on the car won't make you look good in the eyes of either Elon fans or Elon detractors.
Selling the car is complicated by market conditions and tariffs which could make the cost of a replacement and/or the terms of the sale much worse. We can cut people some slack for making a stupid purchase under very different circumstances. They're already being punished by owning the shitty car as it is.
This seems like it is speaking from privilege. I have not even paid the car off, 5.5 years later. I am not going to sell a perfectly working (if not very good IMO) car at a loss. And buy what instead? No, I will stick with my functional but terribly unergonomic car now built by a nazi.
> Elon was a nazi nutjob
I find it hilarious that people think this because he did some tangentially Roman-salute-esque gesture once. His political platform is nowhere near Nazism. He would actually be a much more interesting person if it were.
Let me get this straight. You bought a "statement car" but not for its statement, and then you assume that other people driving a different "statement car" bought it because of the statement?
Yes, anybody who puts a sticker on their car apologizing for owning it is somebody who bought it to make a statement. I bought mine because I researched best gas mileage, lowest ongoing maintenance cost, and dimensions that fit the the city, and that's what I came up with.
>Yes, anybody who puts a sticker on their car apologizing for owning it is somebody who bought it to make a statement.
Or the opposite, buying the car wasn't a statement at the time and they don't like that driving it feels like a statement now so they got a bumper sticker to acknowledge that their continued ownership is not a statement of support for Musk and his ideology.
Real ones wouldn't be thinking about it at all.
Lots of reports of Tesla's getting keyed. I know Tesla owners who bought the sticker just to avoid getting keyed.
My favorite is the cybertruck with the T O Y O T A decal on the back
How are you defining "real ones"? Because it seems like you're implying that someone can't have political opinions while also occasionally making apolitical decisions.
The world's richest man did a nazi salute. Real ones would fight WW2 against him
So it all boils down to "No True Scotsman"? How about I offer you an alternative:
We don't try to guess why you bought what you bought, or why you need to so actively rationalize it, and you stop assuming that those stickers are something other than "Please don't key this car" signs. Less dramatically some of them are also "I bought this before the guy started throwing celebratory HiterGruß on stage and carving up important parts of the government for nonexistent savings."
Which... for people outside of your bubble is something important.
Until someone who hates Elon (not saying that's wrong per se) throws a brick through the window (which IS wrong per se) and you're on the hook for paying for it.
Then you are really bad at research
The 175k miles I've put on it over the last decade say otherwise :)
How is a Tesla a "statement car"? A Cybertruck, sure. But Tesla's are as normal as anything on the road nowadays.
Depends on the market. In Australia Tesla is much pricier than all the Chinese options (more the norm). In my area people who would have probably bought a Tesla are looking at BMW's range.
- [deleted]
> then you assume that other people driving a different "statement car" bought it because of the statement?
He assumed that people who drive a statement car emblazoned with a big sticker that says "HERE'S THE STATEMENT I INTENDED TO MAKE" bought it because of the statement. I think that's a reasonable assumption.
They also avoid buying certain cars to make a statement.
You're right about it looking like something out of a game. I passed one wrapped in fluorescent green at a gas station the other night (owner was checking the tire pressure) and it indeed made think 'low polygon count'. I would not have been entirely surprised if the driver had looked similar.
Thing is, after the initial momentary amusement the novelty quickly evaporates. It doesn't have the compelling presence of, say, a Tumbler. https://brucewaynex.com/pages/tumbler
> “Wahhh I bought my car to make a statement and now it makes the wrong statement and I am self-conscious about it!!”
The correct interpretation for most people is "I bought my car because it was a good car and now for reasons beyond my control it may appear to be a political statement. Also sorry for giving that guy money, I didn't know he would spend it on Trump."
I understand you don't think it's a good car, which is fine, but most people who bought one did not agree with you.
Your comment is a little confusing because you obviously understand this concept, you bought a Prius because you thought it was a good car, not because of a political statement others may have projected onto your purchase. The same is true of most Tesla owners.
> The correct interpretation for most people is "I bought my car because it was a good car and now for reasons beyond my control it may appear to be a political statement. Also sorry for giving that guy money, I didn't know he would spend it on Trump."
No, he had it right. Those stickers are idiotic. It won't make anyone like them any better. Sell the car if you don't like it that much.
They may not have put it there because they were "self-conscious" about their "statement car." They may have put it there in an honest attempt to avoid having their car vandalized for something they had nothing to do with.
> I guess the Prius line was a popular “statement car” of the pre-Tesla era, though, like how Brian drives one on Family Guy, or the “Smug Alert” episode of South Park, but it was never that for me.
... So you admit to falling for Toyota product placement in cartoons.
Did Toyota pay for "Smug Alert"? Wasn't that the one where owning a Prius was smelling your own farts?
Learn to read. I actually didn't see that episode until years after I both owned a Prius and lived in San Francisco, and I found it very funny :)
Politics or no, the price point ultimately dictated its maximum sales. By that measure it's a reasonable success, and if Elon was forecasting that they would sell multiple tens of thousands of vehicles per year at a $80,000 price point he needs to lay off the drugs. Elon sometimes seems like the living embodiment of "How much could a banana cost, Michael, $10?" parody of out of touch rich people.
I think if people who like trucks didn't see videos of things like the bumper ripping off when towing or minor failures leading to whole vehicle shorts it might have done better. The people who want trucks want resilience and ability to self-service more than the average car buyer.
Cybertruck offroading attempts were also a hoot to watch. The whole vibe is that it is merely a truck-shaped Tesla EV that's terrible at most truck tasks. Sure, there's a market for mall-run trucks with pristine beds and never get any mud on them, but it's not a big one.
It's an amazing vehicle well suited to many normal tasks and more, and is an absolute pleasure to drive off road. I think you were subjected to either misinformation or very biased clips that were intended to warp your opinion.
It actually wasn't the bumper that ripped off in that video, it was the entire rear subframe tearing in two.
If you're talking about the JerryRigEverything video, the negative interpretations represent a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. Pinning the front down removes the main real-world load-sharing path (vehicle rotation and suspension compliance) so the rear subframe is forced to absorb an unrealistically large bending moment that would normally be distributed across the whole vehicle. This created conditions which do not occur in real towing, and which give no insight into the actual towing limits of the vehicle.
All the test demonstrated is that you should not exceed the towing capacity of Cybertruck while its front subframe is pinned to the ground by a tractor.
I've never seen a JerryRigEverything video.
I remember the "under $40k" announcement price
2019 just before covid was a bad time to make price estimates five years into the future.
well half of the problem is that it ended up 2 years late.
Have we completely forgotten about how Tesla dealerships were shot up, firebombed? Video after video showing cybertrucks vandalized with scratches and spray paint?
It may be a terrible car from a terrible program, but these events at least bear mentioning. If you saw it happening in 2025, would it have a cooling effect on your decision to purchase? Who would want the trouble?
The targeted vandalism/terrorism definitely stopped a lot of purchases.
Lots of people are still buying other Teslas.
The discussion was about the cybertruck. If vandalism specifically against cybertrucks has cooled sentiment, then a response stating that all the other Tesla models are still selling is a non sequiter.
You seem to have forgotten why those things happened. It was the Nazi salutes Elon did at an official US government event.
Well that totally justifies terrorism against people who aren't even Elon Musk
You can attribute the failure of this vehicle to politics if you like, but it's fairly obvious to anyone watching why it failed - it came out at double the proposed priced with half the proposed range. It's not even the hideous design, there were hundreds of thousands of "pre orders" who knew about the horrible design. It's the price and range.
Eh, that might explain failure to convert preorders to sales. But it doesn't really matter when comparing to other vehicles in the same market.
I was already a Tesla owner and I reserved a Cybertruck right after I saw the original Cybertruck Unveil live stream on November 21, 2019. The infamous one where the window glass shattered.
That was when it was supposed to cost around $35,000.
Four years later when my reservation was ready to order, on December 8, 2023, the CyberTruck cost more than $100k.
Because it cost almost 3x more than what was originally advertised, I cancelled the order. I know many other people who canceled for the same reason. Keeping in mind this was after several delays, so I and many others with reservations were already frustrated with the product before it became available to order.
> Elon got heavily involved in politics hurt it quite a bit
I think the Cybertruck was DOA and his involvement in politics got people who shared his views to buy one in order to signal the same.
Also the fact that many truck deliveries were literally DOA as in the truck bricked itself in the driveway.
This isn't even remotely true though?
I don't know man maybe I hallucinated all the news coverage
https://www.thestreet.com/electric-vehicles/teslas-cybertruc...
I'll applaud anything that tries to move us away from the current stale design trend where every car looks like the same boring bar of soap and every truck looks like the same aggressive, drivable, mechanized fist.
But anything in this case is a pedestrian-maiming, finger-slicing, dumpster on dubs. Not sure that's really a move in the right direction.
I like the fact the design is bold. I don't like the fact it's criminally unsafe.
There are lots of interesting concept cars on every car show. Too bad companies choose to never make them.
It might be safer foe pedestrians than most trucks due to the significantly lower hood, despite the sharp edges. We don’t have statistics on that. But we know trucks are more deadly because instead of launching a struck person up and over the hood, they maim them underneath
The bar of soap is aerodynamic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
Right. All cars are converging on the shape of the Dodge Intrepid Hybrid. It is simply unavoidable. It is carcinisation, but for cars.
They're so ugly to me.
Anything with that teardrop shape is immediately out of my purchasing decision matrix.
I like boxy vehicles and sharp angles you could cut yourself on. The Toyota FJ Cruiser. The new Ford Bronco. The new Land Cruiser FJ.
The original DeLorean DMC-12 speaks to me. The Ferrari F40. The Corvette C8.
The Unimog. FMTV trucks.
Nothing that looks like a dollop of sour cream or a tear drop breast implant is ever going to appeal to me. Aerodynamics be damned.
I love the look of Unimogs and FMTVs.
I was seriously thinking about looking into finding a surplus FMTV until I realized just how loud and uncomfortable they probably are. Sure, that can be fixed, but I have enough projects.
Elon Shithead promised a lot for apparently a good price and wasn't able to deliver.
It wasn't just the hate i think.
The Cybertruck also does the tightest turns because it has front and back wheel steering. I could imagine that to be useful on job sites.
The kinds of people buying cybertrucks aren't going to be caught dead on a job site.
That's not true. Boss likes being flashy. You won't see them being used for actual work, but that's a different proposition.
- [deleted]
In my opinion it isn't useful at all because if the only thing you can get into a spot is a vehicle with 4-wheel steering, you have already fucked up your site planning. You aren't going to be delivering materials with that thing, bulk materials are too heavy and light materials are too large. Maybe tools, but it isn't that large to be a tool truck and too expensive for small handyman type work.
There are many situations that are not proper job sites. All sorts of rural situations that require turning.
2002 GMC Sierras did this, it was called quadrasteer
As did some models of Honda Prelude starting in '87.
whoa I was not aware of this, super cool
There is a certain subset of Tesla owners who have this belief that features in certain Tesla vehicles are completely novel to Teslas and other auto manufacturers haven't even considered them. They can often be identified by how they refer to them as "dinosaurs".
Adjustable ride height? Miraculous. Meanwhile my car is mapping the road surface, actively leaning into corners and following road camber, actively avoiding potholes, and adjusting the suspension, including ride height, constantly.
Traffic Sign Recognition, including recognizing school zones, and recognizing active school zones.
Adaptive blind spot - so nice. Speed differential low, or you're going faster? Will not activate, or only activate last moment. But if someone is blowing by you in the HOV lane, it will warn of them when they're still several hundred feet back.
Laser headlights. Matrix headlights. Night vision with thermal imaging.
Predictive active suspension - The car actively scans the road ahead with sensors and it will adjust suspension for poorer road conditions.
The car can not just stop, but will actively swerve, if safe, around obstructions to avoid a collision, or even a parked car opening a door into traffic.
No it doesn't. A regular Suburban without 4 wheel steering still has a tighter turning radius. A fucking Suburban!
A full-size Ford Transit - which is much larger than a Cybertruck, and much more useful - turns in about an 11-metre kerb-to-kerb circle.
That's fully a metre and a half tighter than the Cybertruck.
Not really, sites are pretty much always spaced out. Ironically, it’s best for city and daily driving - it’s a pure luxury feature.
It would be amazing in the city if it weren't two lanes wide.
It's the same width as an F150
Tbf F150s also suck in the city lol
Its not amazing in the city. The turning radius on the cybertruck is atrocious. Go look it up and quit believing the marketing bullshit.
It's great, maybe stop looking it up and go drive one?
A Suburban without 4 wheel steering has a tighter turning radius. It's pathetic that something with 4 wheel steering can't outdo a Suburban.
And why would I want to drive one? I have literally no reason to drive that waste of batteries.
I'm one of the few people that love the cybertruck design, but even I can't look at one these days and not think "swasticar". It's terribly disappointing, really. Fully self-inflicted.
> So many vehicles, especially in the truck space, are almost indistinguishable and lack any kind of imagination.
Because utilitarian design and purpose of this vehicles has been established long time ago. Cybetruck "wanted to be different" but it fails in every aspect of its own "innovation". It's ultimately stupid vehicles with so many flaws that arguing it tried something is pointless. Like, having a man walking to North Pole in runners - he's not trying something new, he's straight stupid and should be treated like that
> I do admire that they dared to do something different and took a big gamble on it.
Why? Do you want your other tools to be _different_ for no reason at all? Do you want your drill come with sharp corners you can't touch just because it'll look different?
It's just a darn shame that we're reduced to a simple measure of a single dimension, whether a right or left point on a single axis. You'll find many EV owners are multidimensional, a little bit up and down and all around an x-y plane, or even x-y-z cube. Conservative and liberal progressive alike in Europe are sick of Musk and it shows on the Tesla sales tanking.
https://electrek.co/2026/01/06/tesla-full-2025-data-europe-t...
The main problem was that it was and is twice as expensive with less range as they said it would be with seemingly no push to address either.
It seems to be a good product (with compromises as any product) but its not a slam dunk to choose that as a Model 3/Y is.
The thing with Cybertrucks losing panels certainly didn't help.
A big part of the Cybertruck marketing was the robustness of its unusual design: exoskeleton! space grade materials! They smashed the door with a hammer and it didn't dent (just avoid pétanque balls...), Elon Musk commented that it would destroy the other vehicle in an accident. Morally dubious arguments sometimes, but it appeals to many potential customers.
And then, the vehicle that is supposed to be a tank falls apart by looking at it funny. And the glued on steel plates, is it that the exoskeleton? Not only the design is controversial, but it failed at what it is supposed to represent.
> I think the timing of the Cybertruck starting deliveries roughly aligning with when Elon got heavily involved in politics hurt it quite a bit. It is such a distinctive vehicle with a strong association with Elon, that there was an immediate brand association. It may have had poor sales anyway, but it certainly didn't help that many folks on the left, who are typically the most 'pro EV', had a large 'anti-Elon' shift around its launch.
IMO the sort of person who wants a vehicle like Elon's dumpster has a strong overlap with Elon's politics. Basically everything about its design and marketing was aimed at the sort of person who is focused on presenting a masculine image, who thinks they're going to be in a war zone on their daily commute, who wishes they could drive through a crowd of protesters, etc.
Basically the only thing "left wing" about it is the fact that it's electric.
> Kudos to Tesla for trying to break the mold and push the category somewhere new.
The only thing it actually did new was the drive-by-wire steering, which is by all accounts impressive but could have been done on any normal vehicle as well. The "unique" styling is mostly just re-learning lessons that John DeLorean taught the rest of the industry decades ago.
> IMO the sort of person who wants a vehicle like Elon's dumpster has a strong overlap with Elon's politics. Basically everything about its design and marketing was aimed at the sort of person who is focused on presenting a masculine image, who thinks they're going to be in a war zone on their daily commute, who wishes they could drive through a crowd of protesters, etc.
Elon is an ass, but this is still the most crudely and childishly stereotyped thing I've read on the internet today. Congrats.
- [deleted]
I wager people care way more that it simply costs a lot, and they don't like it or need it
As someone who has used both light and heavy pickups for work, recreation, and farm work for decades, the Cybertruck is absolutely terrible at everything you want a truck to do.
It's a brodozer for people that are slightly environmentally conscious or have Elon issues.
And again, I say this as an actual cowboy, in that yes, I own cows. And a lineman who ferries manly men (and a few manly women) to do manly man work on high voltage power lines that will kill you so dead it's a guaranteed closed casket funeral. Trucks aren't just dick compensators, they exist to do work. And the Cybertruck sucks at all of that work. The F-150 lightning was a useful fleet vehicle due to the 120VAC outlets alone, aside from being, you know, a usable truck.
There's a reason most of the offering are very similar. We figured out what work pickup trucks need to do and how they're engineered to do it 50 years ago. The Hilux and friends made it highly economical. So you've got the Hiluxies and the SuperManlyMinivans and those are the two main kind of pickup trucks.
Trucks being dick compensators is also based on their association with the work they do. Easier to pretend to be a salt of the earth tough guy when you both drive the same truck but with a different trim package.
I'll always give Tesla, SpaceX etc props for the work they accomplish, even though Elon is at the helm, he's not a perfect dude but I will give him props when he gets something right too. At the end of the day his employees are doing incredible work and it should not be written off because of Elon. To any Tesla / SpaceX employee whether you agree with Elon or not, thank you for helping to build a more interesting tomorrow.
Yeah SpaceX's tech is amazing. Funny China's like "star link launches are bad" then they're trying to do even more, China knows what's up.
As much as this is to blame, don't forget the year plus delay, ~60% increase in price, omitted features, safety investigations, recalls, etc.
It's clear the design was half baked from the start.
I mean as with most "product" things related to Musk, it's more about the meme stock than any fundamental coupling to finances in the real world.
Ford is a car company. They sell cars. The Lightning was a poorly selling car, so they stopped selling it. Pretty simple!
Tesla is a lifestyle company. They make line go up by owning the libs, catering to edgelord identity, and triggering speculation. The Cybertruck probably gained the company more memetic shareholder value than it lost as a real product.
> many vehicles ... are almost indistinguishable
That is so right on the money. I attended the LA Auto Show a couple of months back and the takeaway was that every manufacturer pretty much makes the same safe car. There might be a feature here and feature there, but it's the same car.
In the years past they at least had lots of concept cars. This year, I maybe saw two and they weren't all that "concept".
Elon going off the deep end is the tail wagging the dog. It's an objectively terrible car.
The collapse of the company overall, particularly the Model Y, which is a great car, is all about Elon. Not only his unveiling as a fascist, but he essentially looted the company.
pumped the stock and then tried to use the twitter buy as a way to sell greatly without taking the price too hard.
they wouldn't let him out of the sale -- he sued 3 times to get out of the twitter buy agreement -- so now he owns that too.
> So many vehicles, especially in the truck space, are almost indistinguishable and lack any kind of imagination. Kudos to Tesla for trying to break the mold and push the category somewhere new.
You haven't seen enough trucks and pickups then. The Cybertruck serves no utility purpose.
Elon had to ignore so many people who told him using stainless steel was a very bad idea
- [deleted]
Honestly, both the Lightning and the Cybertruck are just bad trucks. Some review of the Lightning I read said it has less than a 100 mile range towing a full load.
It's a fashion statement, not a work vehicle.
> Some review of the Lightning I read said it has less than a 100 mile range towing a full load.
Because of course towing long distances is the only reason you'd ever want a truck.
Obviously we can start by acknowledging that the vast majority of F-150s (and other half-ton pickup trucks) sold in the US these days are purchased by people who maybe haul a load of mulch or dirt once a year and otherwise use them as daily commuter vehicles for which no part of their "truckiness" actually matters for any reason other than image. I absolutely agree that these people should drive something that's not a truck, but that's a battle we're not going to win, so I'd rather have them driving an EV truck instead of a gas-guzzling V8. It's an improvement in some ways even if in reality that suburban parent would be best off with a minivan as their daily and renting a pickup from Home Depot for that mulch run.
My one friend who has a Lightning is exactly this. She used to have a gas F-150, replaced it with a RAV4 that she didn't like so she rapidly replaced that with the Lightning and loves it. Lots of power, quiet, smooth, and never needs to go to the gas station. I don't think she's ever fast charged it, just plugs in at home and goes about her life.
Where I live there are a lot of people who actually do need a truck or truck-based SUV for recreational purposes but don't really go long distances, like towing their boat up to the lake for the weekend, towing ATVs to the trail, or towing a RV trailer to a nearby state/national park where they'll then plug in to the nice 50A outlet and charge back up overnight without having to think about it.
There are also an absolute ton of commercial fleets that need pickup trucks for one reason or another but their trucks never leave their metro area and always end up back at the office every night. Lawn care, delivery, etc. where the only downside of the current lineup of electric trucks is that they're all only offered as the ultra short bed crew cab configuration instead of a long-bed standard cab.
---
EVs are absolutely the wrong choice for time-constrained long distance travel, like long-haul trucking or the midwestern three-day-weekend road trip, but the Lightning and its GM competition that were actually designed to be good at things instead of a pure image machine are very good at certain roles.
But a lot of the people who buy trucks for image want the image of somebody who's going out towing, carrying a bunch of stuff, and doing "truck things".
They don't fit the image if they drive an e-truck because e-trucks aren't great at those "truck things. At least that's my theory why the e-trucks aren't doing well, even if they should be.
No doubt a used Lightning is a great deal if you only need to carry stuff once in a while.
I counted 49 pickup trucks with empty beds in the parking garage downtown this morning.
Wouldn't there be a selection bias, as trucks in parking garages are much less likely to be doing hauling /towing tasks?
Half of them sticking out into the roadway blocking half the lane. What an entitlement.
I counted 50 sedans with empty seats in the parking garage downtown this morning.
But a lot of people buy trucks so they can tow and carry stuff when they need to, not because they're doing it all the time.
Downvote all you want, the sales numbers speak for themselves.
Point being the majority of pickup trucks you see day-to-day are fashion statements.
I agree they are not work trucks, not meant for work tasks.
So? You saw them for one subset of what they are doing. Perhaps the most common one, but still just a subset.
Back in 2020, a friend working at Tesla told me how frustrated the engineers working on the cybertruck were, because they knew its design choices pushed by Musk made no sense, making the cybertruck way too complicated to design and build for no reasons, and everybody already knew the product would be a failure.
gl getting out of one in case of a crash when the battery that opens the doors malfunction
I'm very much on the left, and I honestly like the design of the Cybertruck. (I know this puts me in a minority.) It is disappointing that the original "unibody" design was abandoned. The new design where the body panels just randomly fall off is silly.
If it was made by some other company I would genuinely consider buying one. But I would never buy another Tesla. I owned an older Model X, before Elon went full-fascism. And even ignoring Elon, the car was awful. It was shoddily built, kept breaking down, and the service experience was shockingly bad. Absolutely atrocious.
But after all that, I can't give money to Elon ever again. I can't fund America's descent into fascism. I could not live with myself.
> I'm very much on the left, and I honestly like the design of the Cybertruck. (I know this puts me in a minority.) It is disappointing that the original "unibody" design was abandoned. The new design where the body panels just randomly fall off is silly.
Function should drive form. The design would be cool if it was for a cool function.
Say you have a beautifully-made, expertly-weighted tack hammer. That looks cool on your work bench and works well. If you refashion the hammer into a kitchen spoon, it looks dumb in the kitchen and works poorly for stirring a pot.
It is designed for cool functions, although a pure exoskeleton turned out to be infeasible the thick panels still help with side crashes, helping it get the Top Safety Pick+ award (equal/better than the competition other than "safety belt reminders). The steel makes it great for driving in places with branches and grocery cart/door dings. The panels also don't just "randomly" fall off, there was a period of time where the manufacturing process didn't follow the spec on applying the adhesive so ice crystals would form and degrade the adhesion.
I mean, in certain circles online, people were literally calling Cybertrucks "Swasticars." Not the greatest for marketing.
While largely true, that trucks have adorned the comforts of luxury cars, most are running 6' beds. This largely ignores the evolution of the truck and the job site. My family operates contracting and excavating businesses that operating in all manner of weather and terrain, no one is carrying loads in their truck beds anymore... its not even legal most places unless you convert to a dump bed...
Whats in their trucks? Well, a crew cab occasionally is used for car pooling workers, where they all park their vintage beater trucks at the business... Sometimes weather sensitive tools, or job related items, documents, you can just throw these in a glove box... The bed usually has a gas pump for refilling remote equipment. Cones and other safety shit. Sand hoppers for plowing. Yes they also use these "luxury" trucks to plow.
The thing is... These people are making decent salaries... my direct relatives are multi-millionaires who still pick up a welder, a hammer, a shovel.
Im see alot of assumptions about why trucks evolved the way they did, who owns them, and what for... I would argue the "luxury faker" is a very small crowd, one that likely moved to the cybertruck... and despite the trucks looking modernized, are beaten to pulp over long service lives.
Now, go get in a modern tractor, dump truck, or excavator. They are also all AC, Radios, Computers, Leather Seats, etc... People want to be comfortable.
I feel like kudos for making a public eye-sore merely because people typically don't make public eye-sores is a bit missing the point.
> it's not to my taste
It's not just you, it's universally tasteless and that's the point: It is a contrarian vehicle.
In an age where the Internet has flattened subcultures into surface phenomenons, the only remaining way to publicly distance yourself from normality is by making patently, obviously bad decisions and using the backlash to further fuel your ego.
This is true. If I see a Tesla I don’t immediately assume that driver is personally aligned with Elon. It’s a popular and good car.
If I see a Cybertruck I’m extremely confident that driver approves of Elons antics and likely fervently supports them. It’s a physical manifestation of his ego and mostly bought by his legions of fans.
If you’re a Cybertruck driver and you don’t want people to think that, you’re in the wrong car.
There are plenty of reasons I don't want a Cybertruck, but I can assure you that your opinion (or any other Karen's opinion), doesn't even come close to making the list.
