Toyota RAV4 overtakes the Ford F-150 as the best selling in the US.

If by “stick time,” you mean stick shift/manual transmission, then, yes, I really miss those. Our Ford was stick shift; it was so much fun to drive despte being a sedan, but. . . .

Our Ford developed electrical issues, some due to battery acid leaking on wiring and wire looms cracking due to age, exposing wires to heat and friction. Furthermore, in the 10-days since failing, the Ford has been sitting on the side of our driveway, and a rat or a mouse has already moved into the engine bay.

 

gen 4 over the last 10 years has been pretty reliable, def better than gen 3

 

I've owned sportbikes, sedans, hatches, and vans -- defo prefer hatches as my cage, as do most families who don't have giant parking spaces nor tolerance for crap mpg. Hot hatches were not a game-changer in their time for nothing (still are in EU and Asia, at least for younger buyers).

Since crossies are so much more profitable (whilst making you spend more for higher weight and consumables costs like fuel, tires and shocks / struts due to it), hatches have been disappearing from larger mfr swimlanes a while now -- Ford stopped making all its car lines for entirely profit-related reasons, save the Mustang (yep, technically a hatch too, if not exactly utilitarian). So was happy the 5G was a true hatch -- even if the concept were heavily compromised vs. 4G.

Lived with a little Paseo rollerskate (not a hatch, btw) over 15y -- and got thru life just fine, g/fs occasionally inhabiting the right seat. Buying my first new car (turbo Honda Civic), had to be a hatch -- one thing that Honda were actually good at, was being a warm hatch (tho lots of past hot Civics were much better at space utilisation than 10th-gen).

Funny thing about 'liftback' -- that's what Corolla hatches were called in the '70s -- so really, they've brought the term back Does sort of make me laugh the concept of 5D being rebranded as a new thing If Toyota would wise up and offer the HyCam as a hatch or better yet, sell their wagon / estate models here as the only variant... no need for the lukewarmly-received-and-defo-overpriced Crown, maybe?

Tbh, unless you have a garden allotment somewhere, or are trying to build a new wall around your property every year... a HyCam can easily do a 4-person family's clean hauling like moving, then pivot to a U-Haul for the big / dirty stuff. Moved houses 3x like this during the Paseo years... works fine for me, and don't have to be penalised for 16 mpg every other day I'm not hauling something big or filthy, in a truck bed.

Low ride height's never bothered me, after riding a motorcycle 21 yrs -- some of it thru storms hundreds of miles wide. I gauge my youth on the ability to climb into a car w/o b*tching about it, by doing it I guess. But may not feel that way, when up in years where some of us here are

 

Fourth gen Prius interior was a bit tighter than third gen as well. This is the sense I get, from hazy recollection, mostly comment here. Posing a neutral question to Google AI yields corroboration:

https://share.google/aimode/eubjIVOG48r1X0EZb

Too, components of storage “disappeared”: the second glove box*, and under hatch floor storage.

* we had our 2010 a few years before I even realized there was second glove box…

(Geeze, early morning here in the Pacific Northwest, and the crows are just losing their minds, over something. Rivalries, bird of prey, god knows…)

 

I don't have a problem with hatchbacks at all. I've owned several of them.
Our GMC Terrain is a small, front wheel drive hatchback - actually classified by people who keep track of such things as a "Compact Crossover SUV."
I agree with that designation completely - except the "SUV" part.

IN FACT.....it's a lot like my old 2010 Prius except:
It's 30MHP faster, 9 inches longer, 4 inches wider, and about 8 inches taller.
The Terrain has a longer wheelbase by half a foot and it's 750 pounds heavier.
It's interior is vastly larger than my old Prius - which somehow got labeled, AGAIN by people who track these sorts of things as a......"midsized car."

-can't make that up.
FWIW....
I never felt unsafe in a G3 and it made good use of its interior volume, but it's not the sort of car that you'd want to use to haul trash, building material, limbs, refrigerators, motorcycles, etc....etc.

Key word: Clean.

You do not 'pivot' to a U-Haul, and they're not cheap.
THAT is why I bought a trailer capable of hauling a 3000# load - and I used to tell myself, AND others...in this forum even that I could 'get by' without a truck, and that my 09 Sierra would be my last truck.

Maybe when I start slowing down in my 80s I will get one of the trucklets that they're making like FOMOCOs Maverick.

 

Dunn o man -- lived 30y without a van or truck -- driving a 351 Windsor-powered '78 E150 Chateau in mil briefly with everything wrong with it... literally drove me -- or not -- down that path (what a pile a late-'70s Econoline was, even in '93) And certainly do 'pivot' to a U-Haul for the stuff that didn't fit in the Paseo. Just gotta work a bit harder, to not have a sub-20-mpg vehicle yoked around your neck, indefinitely...

Then again never owned a domicile with a yard (nor the mortgage what come with)... so hauling trees and big appliances / furniture if ever, can go in a rental -- as an IT droid in WA, and tech and moto-wrenching business owner in AZ, was affordable enough (just $50 a day back then), and $75 per here, on everything--is-30%-higher-than-even-covid-mainland-prices Maui. Just get your hauling done in a couple of days, and clean it out afterwards so you don't get a slob charge, golden days

Don't need to own a sub-20-mpg vehicle just for chores, unless you own property what needs that -- in fact you'd need to find the hauling chores full-stop, to even justify owning one

Moved from AZ to WA in the Paseo, 1500 mis w\ 500 lbs+ of my apartment crap Tetris'd into that rollerskate -- and that little tank handled it like it was designed for miserly milquetoasts like me (not anymore). Made it over the Siskyous in winter, no problem (was actually better, as the weight made it more stable and aerodynamic, hoofing it 75 mph at 3am down the backside of the range, to get to Seattle in < 30 hrs). Was all my stuff, so were pretty clean -- no palm trees, A/Cs, or jacuzzis in sight. Did have to go back and get my 700-lb top box and rollaway a month later tho -- with, you guessed it, a rental box truck (graciously discounted for me at their business rate, by old workmates holding the toolboxes for me at their data center). Moving costs in total: <$300 in 2005

Pivot accomplished, would pivot again Tho do see you on the Maverick -- the hybrid tech is licensed from Toyota anyway, so that part should be reliable as they come, esp over the SKs and Honda's iffy hybrids w\ wet clutches in them (suuure that'll make it 100K, riiight).

That I see loads of Mavs here w\ biz logos from Upcountry (where all the high-dollar produce farms are), on $4.70/gal-for-bathwater Maui, defo significant -- the rest drive 25yo Kei-class trucklets from Japan and Taiwan, struggling to get to 50 mph. 40 mpg in a smol FWD HEV Escape with a bed, nothing to sniff at -- not sure about how much more you can squeeze past it, with aero like a Rubik's cube... but halving the fillups in a month over your last vehicle's always a plus...

So Ford, if they actually cared (debatable), should offer an uglier but super-utilitarian biz version, body-on-frame so bed/box configurable, for maybe $16K -- much like Toyota's Stout they keep talking about (but haven't seen a thing in half a year ).

 

My son traded his 2015 Prius V for a new 2023 RAV4 Prime XSE a few years ago. He could not get another Prius V since they are no longer sold in the US. He usually travels hos work commute on straight EV but easily makes other trips in hybrid mode.

 

.




By the way ... when I typed "Jeep*" with that asterisk, it was for a reason I forgot at the time. That Focus Wagon had MORE cargo space than that following Jeep. That was a general piss-off.

 

Gen4 was when the Prius started moving away from the utilitarian everyman design to something more basic car like in the hopes of getting sales from non-hatch buyers.

For those with people and stuff, it is really hard to beat a minivan for moving a lot of things while not guzzling fuel. So of course they went the way of the station wagon with only 3.5 companies selling them. Kia's Carnival looks nice, but Ford Flex with sliding doors was my first impression.

With the Mav being unibody, that likely will cost more to develop than Ford is willing to pay.

I remember the last wagon Focus having the same cargo space as the Rav4 of the time.

 

Develop...? We've only had frame-on-body trucks, what, 100 yrs now?

It's more about what they're willing to spend for, having farted away $5B large on underdeveloped EVs. If they got their act together (again, debatable), Ford could debut it within 2 MY easy -- complete with crash testing -- as won't have to be developed as much for the tech nonsense skyrocketing the cost of the average vehicle in the 2020s.

If such a unicorn makes it to market before the Stout, at least the flyover states would enjoy a 2nd coup from Ford, Toyota wouldn't be expecting. The fact Toyota didn't make a Maverick HEV already must sting a bit, considering all the shens with their ICE-only truck line these days

So submitted, proof I'm not a Toyota or JDM shill... just like good ideas actually becoming good vehicles... and the Mav's the first Ford I've ever wanted to own myself, since the 1st-gen Focus SVT 5-door (which I've driven -- and did not disappoint). When Ford tries and sticks its neck out, it can make some neat rides. Trouble is... seems every time they show up, buyers don't -- save the Mustang. And then there's their dealers -- good luck fixing that bunch of grifters

 

But Ford doesn't make a full frame truck or car that is smaller than the midsize Ranger now, and there are pretty good reasons for that.

Unibodies tend to be better at safety and efficiency. With the footprint regulations making MPG targets tougher for smaller trucks, the latter is a big factor. In the case of vans, the unibody can yield more cargo space in the volume of the truck.

Safety was the reason why the compact Ranger died in the US, and then Ford made the international one bigger. Did the old Ranger have van or naked versions available? I don't recall ever seeing such. The companies that were using the Ranger commercially switched to compact hatchbacks when it became unavailable. Then the Transit Connect; until it was cancelled in the US do to sales.

There just isn't a business case for a small full frame truck. People that want to haul or tow more than what the Maverick can do now, will opt for the bigger model. Businesses looking at smaller trucks are likely doing doing to cut fuel costs. Configurability is a loss with the unibody, but production scales and demand likely results in smaller savings with the smaller truck as an option.

If a non-business case could have been made for the small full frame truck, Ford likely would have done it with the Maverick in order to have it for the Bronco Sport. The Stout will likely be unibody.

I agree Ford can make a great car. Sometimes I regret not getting an early 2000's Focus over the Matrix. Unfortunately, Ford doesn't have the reserves to risk sticking their neck out more.

 

For MOST people, I do not think body-on-frame is required for a pickup - but at $3.179 (this morning price for fuel) I'm willing to continue driving one JUST for the fuller ride height.
The notion that unibodies are "safer" is something that I will stipulate for the purposes of this discussion.
The REAL REASON that a 1980's Dodge D50, or a Chevy S-10 is not available is a happy crossroads where profit margins align with EPA regs.

Speaking as a owner for over 40 years:
The three or four "things" that trucks are called upon to do:

Haul a 4x8' hunk of building material
Haul trash or maybe a light load of loose gravel or fill dirt - anything you do not want INSIDE a passenger compartment.
Have 5 or 6 seatbelts.
Tow something.

My truck was $35,000. OTD.
It should have been closer to 40 but it was damaged in shipping with a golfball sized ding on the bumper.
So:
It has 6 seatbelts, gets 22mpg, is factory rated to tow 9400#, and it can (and HAS) hauled all of the things listed above.

HOWEVER (comma!!!!!)
For about 33-34k (real world, and without the ding on the bumper) you can also do all of the same things IF you only need 5 seatbelts, and if you can deal with 1/3 or less of the towing ability - and a more diminutive ride height with one of the unibody not-quite-a-trucks on the market.
AND...if you live in some authoritarian hellscape that taxes the begeebers out of petrol the entry level Maverick can pull down some pretty impressive fuel economy numbers!!



Personally

 

Agreed -- but do side with ETC on unibody being defo inferior for truck duty (and lots more expensive to develop and build, not to mention retail, to not be that). A Stout-like framed truck with a bed-less, commercial-only variant won't have to conform to the same safety regs as passenger vehicles (which every crossover now is), which would defo bring down R&D cost to attractive levels, vs. unibody trucks w\ profits baked-in.

I've seen with my own eyes, an otherwise highly-rated 1st-gen Honda Ridgeline park with its RF tire on a 5" bump, and the doors misaligning so bad, they could open, but not latch (as expected from a Pilot with half its roof shorn off). Doesn't give much confidence in unibody for what NA customers buy trucks for -- hauling, and some off-road duty with an open bed.

When the passenger cell has the structural support of an enclosed cargo area behind it, this happens less often -- why SUVs / crossies are unibody (also the passenger-car crash reg conform for rear impacts). An offered-bedless truck -- like so many domestic trucks offer for their full-size lines -- why not downscale to make tough BOF trucks but smaller & more efficient (but less-profitable) trucks for small biz everywhere in NA, rather than grey-market 25-yo Kei trucks? Not profitable enough for these bloated OEMs to consider, is why.

The same things offered in their full-size bedless BOF trucks, can also be offered in a early-'90s-Toyota-pickup size. Why not? When a Transit -- full-size hauler, not the Connect, which is car-based -- goes fully-unibody (currently utilising a hybrid, partial BOF design -- which can be applied to the new mini-truck), then perhaps need to update my view of them. Until then tho

The number of biz owners on Maui, like 1-3-man arborist and landscaper companies, who drive clapped-out, crumbling 30-yo trucks to work everyday, seems to suggest safety equipment is not high on their list for vehicle choice, 4-cylinder economy however (>25 mpg with a load) is.

Maybe a Transit-like hybrid, as above? Perfectly reasonable -- but still more R&D than a simple body on frame truck. F-150s are BOF and pass crash regs just fine, and have for decades.

I'm not in some huge metropolis with giant industrial areas (thus big companies with big motor pool budgets) -- most small biz owners here needing trucks, have something to do with the hotels, the sea or some ag product -- and zero of them are buying new Rangers or Tacomas or Ridgelines or Colorados -- they're buying crumbling 4-cylinder Hardbodies and nursing rusted out 1st-gen Tacomas... or if not needing to haul catamarans or tow trailers w\ bicycles / kayaks / dirtbikes / ATVs / lawn maint stuff... a 660-cc Kei truck for $3K's a no-brainer -- they're everywhere here and in the rest of the State, and were already plentiful in WA when I still lived there Y2Ks (know a couple of importers who've seen their business skyrocket, given Seattle's a major port).

Just saying, large contingent of biz owners out there, all the OEMs are ignoring to their peril, with 300-days-on-lot for some of their bloated and laughably-overpriced ICE truck / SUV lines, they could put towards a commercial offering, just to keep revenue flowing. Until then, they deserve the corner they've painted themselves into.

They do, they just won't -- because of shareholder strangleholds on their purse strings.

When your company's so big and has so many greedy symbiotic parasites, you have to resort to shilling content-stripped-but-premium-priced, Trojan-horse full-size trucks (what require armies of lawyers to defend from angry owners) just to satisfy ludicrous quarterly revenue goals, or there's the door... opens the floodgates for startups (not that I trust startups) to disrupt with products like the Slate. That the same OEMs haven't already launched an assault on this product (legally, in the market anyway ), shows they're simply too ponderous and set-in-ways, to respond (Bezos, as much as I loathe the guy, wouldn't invest in something not disruptive and a gold vein in one).

At least with a BOF (or hybrid of) small truck, they know how and have resources to do so, vs. develop an EV truck from scratch. Slates have a hybrid unibody / BOF design, which is how OEMs should continue to design small trucks for small truck customers. Also getting high ratings for crashworthiness, so this problem can be solved

 

In the US, a compact truck needs to comply to the same safety regs regardless of what chassis type it is. The slackening of such regs for trucks doesn't start until you get bigger than half ton class.

With the amount of butt dragging I've seen by Hondas with even smaller trailers, I would not look to them for examples.

What NA customers say they buy trucks for, and how they actually use them, are two different things. A shift from full frame to unibody hasn't seemed to impact sales.

The regulations results in smaller trucks having a retail price close enough to the bigger model that most buyers have opted to size up.

A buyer willing to get a less safe truck doesn't let the manufacturer skimp on the safety regs. While a smaller truck with smaller engine will use less fuel than a full size truck, the EPA rules assign the small truck a higher CAFE target than the bigger truck. Making it harder for the manufacturer to meet than when designing the bigger truck.

I'd like to see kei type cars and trucks in the US. Current laws mean such need t meet the same regs as the bigger models. We don't have the carve out like Japan that lowers the costs for such cars. If we did have such, the trucks would likely be unibody. Most of the new kei models now are.

The OG Ranger had reached the point were modifying the platform wasn't enough to meet regs; a new platform was needed. So it died in the US. With far greater sales, the math is different for the F150.

A few years later, the new international Range debut. It is now a midsize. As far as I know Ford doesn't have a smaller full frame truck or car now. Cheaper to make car platforms that can be used for vans than a full frame for a few models.

Your local market is likely looked at like any other small island nation by the car companies.

Then what you accuse them ignoring, they are not in other markets. The issue is in the laws making what you want too costly for them to other here.