Is the Regular Cab Pickup Doomed?

Tundra-regular-cab-sport II
 

By Tim Esterdahl

For the past several years, truck manufacturers have been adding more double and crew cab pickups to their build orders. They say customer demand is behind this increase, but could a combination of factors — the most important of which is pending federal corporate average fuel economy regulations — ultimately cause the regular cab pickup to disappear? It could, and here's how.

First, understand that the newest set of fuel economy regulations — set to have a major effect in 2017 — penalize truck manufacturers for selling short wheelbase versions of full-size trucks. The reason? The newest regulations are based on a vehicle's "footprint," which is calculated as the square footage between all four wheels.

To figure out a truck's footprint, take the track in inches (width from wheel center to wheel center), multiply it by the wheelbase in inches, then divide by 144 and you've got square footage. Here's a chart that shows the square footage for a handful of 2013 models, sorted by footprint.

Vehicle-footprint-calculation II

As you can see, regular cabs jump to the top of the list, as they have the smallest footprints. This is bad for their future because fuel economy targets are based on this figure, and they're proportional. For example, a Toyota Tacoma Regular Cab with a footprint of 46.4 square feet must achieve 32.8 mpg in 2017, and 45.4 mpg by 2025. A Tacoma Double Cab with a 6-foot box, on the other hand, needs to achieve just 26.4 mpg in 2017 and 35.5 mpg by 2025.

That difference of 10 or more mpg by 2025 is huge in the truck world. A regular cab is a little bit smaller and lighter than a double cab, so it should do a little better in terms of mileage, but not 25 to 28 percent better.

Whether looking at a regular cab short-box Ford F-150 or regular cab short-box Toyota Tundra, the story is the same: A full-size short-box regular cab has to get from 8 to 13 percent better fuel economy than a double cab or crew cab version of the same truck. And if it doesn't? Every regular cab sale hurts a manufacturer's fleet fuel economy rating, to the point where the truck's manufacturer will owe millions in fines to the government.

In other words, that becomes an incentive to stop building short-box regular cab trucks before the 2017 model year.

The Case for Regular Cabs: Not So Good

Set aside the new fuel economy rules and consider the following:

Regular cab trucks really aren't any cheaper to design or manufacture than extended cabs. Need proof? Cars.com pegs the MSRP of a new 2013 two-wheel-drive Double Cab Toyota Tundra at $28,805. A 2013 two-wheel-drive Regular Cab Toyota Tundra (8-foot bed & 4.0L V-6) is $26,450 (prices include destination). That's just over $2,000 for the extra doors, sheetmetal, a V-8 and back seats. And that doesn't include the many incentives that could bring that number much closer together. 

The problem here is that building a limited number of regular cabs is costly, as it reduces the efficiency of the production line when the line has to support multiple versions of the same vehicle. Truck makers also have to design and manufacture special parts just for the regular cab — and that's not cheap. While Toyota lists the MSRP of the regular cab Tundra as roughly $1,900 lower than the double cab, it doesn't offer the same kind of incentive money on the regular cab because regular cabs aren't any cheaper to build.

About 90 percent of truck buyers opt for double cabs or crews. This is why Nissan decided against building a regular cab Titan from the beginning, and why it dropped the regular cab Frontier in 2002.

Footprint Chart II

Oddly, the short box is popular, which brings us back to the new fuel economy rules. Taking a quick survey of all the 2008 Ford F-150 regular cabs currently listed on Cars.com (255 total), only 25 of them are long boxes. While this isn't the most scientific survey (we've heard the take rate on a long box could be as high as 50 percent if you include commercial fleet sales), one can assume that consumers prefer the short-box regular cab over the long-box by a large margin. But if it isn't feasible for truck makers to build short-box pickups because of fuel-economy rules, what happens then?

Prediction: Enjoy the Regular Cab While You Can

There are plenty of reasons to believe that manufacturers will get rid of or severely reduce their half-ton regular cab offerings before the 2017 model year. In fact, it could happen sooner.

Toyota could be first since it doesn't do a lot of fleet business, and a lot of regular cabs are fleet trucks. Ram would likely be the next to drop the regular cab, as it is going to struggle to hit CAFE requirements this year, let alone in 2017. However, it probably won't happen for Ram until 2017 or 2018 when an updated model arrives.

Ford and GM will probably keep building regular cab trucks, but buying a short-box regular cab Ford or GM truck is going to be hard by 2020. It isn't that much of a stretch to say these trucks could be more expensive than double cabs, likely requiring a special order, and they might only be offered because there's a commercial need for them.

Will you miss the regular cab?

2007-regular-cab-tundra II
 

[Tim Esterdahl grew up in Michigan surrounded by the automotive industry and has been writing about trucks for several years. He is currently an associate editor at Tundraheadquarters.com and Tacomahq.com.]


Comments

No, I will not miss the regular cab.

No more excuses. Manufacturers just need to get off the pot and get it done. Enough of out-doing the competition's horsepower. Bring in diesels and maybe even ditch dead-end, planned-obsolescent, direct injection turbo engines.

Another stupid govt. rule. Any idiot knows a lighter trucks saves fuel and less crap in the air. This makes no sense at all, but we are talking about the feds. Thank Mr. Obozo for that one.

Keep the regular cabs and add a clean diesel....problem solved.Some folks,like myself,don't need a bigger cab.

I forgot to add,I buy a new truck every 2 to 3 years because I can.OEM's,keep that in mind.

YES!!! My all time favorite truck is and will be a regular cab, long bed 4x4!! I think we should keep regular cabs and get rid of our government!!!! Liberal Dumbassesss!!!

Since Ford dropped the Ranger, Toyota has 5,000 regular cab orders coming their way from Orkin that Toyota is not thrilled about. If the regular cab strippers are cancelled, the orders may not be fulfilled.

A log bed is all they would need to ensure enough footprint. the current 5' and 6' beds are simply too short.

Of course, I'd be happier with an extended cab and quite honestly don't need OR WANT a so-called Quad (crew) Cab.

LoNg, not log.

I guess we can all look forward to slightly longer wheel bases with just about every model no matter what the bed and cab configuration. Good for approach and departure angles but bad for keeping a smaller turning radius.

They better start offering more 8 ft. beds on crews, and ext cabs then. Seem kind of dumb to me as Fred the man said "smaller truck use less fuel to move it which equals less emissions."

As long as the extended cabs are not eliminated then that would work for many. If the only choice were crew cab that would not be good. An extended cab is only a couple of feet longer.

It's interesting how the market has turned upside down. 20 years ago I bet regular cabs were 90% and extended cabs/crews were 10%.

Nevertheless, this regulation is pretty arbitrary (like the chicken tax that kept 2-door import pickups so expensive). The gov't should stay out of it and allow the consumer to decide what they want.

Either way, be it demand or regs, regular cabs are doomed. If it was just demand, regular cabs may only stick around for fleet sales, but my local Chevrolet and Ford dealers don't have a single regular cab truck on the lot.

In 1980 you had the family car and the pick up. Today, with women in the workforce a complete given, she needs a family car and so does he. Since a regular cab doesn't seat kids well, in with the crew cabs and extended cabs.

The regs are just the nails in the coffin, but the changing culture was what put the body in there in the first place.

Long live the RC. Hopefully this all turns out differently. I want a truck, not a bus.

Well, I've been preaching this for over a year now and have taken much flak. To the point as of the past several months with all the crap.

I told you so and no one wanted to listen or believe.

I do hope Ford gets its way with you guys aligning to UNECE regulations, but I don't like your chances. You can have similar vehicle design regs as we do in Australia.

@Old GM Guy,
It isn't the 'liberals' as you would like to call them, because if it was the liberals you would be like Europe.

You guys can blame the UAW, Big 3, oil companies etc and mostly yourselves for voting the preceeding governments in.

Everyone votes for whom they think is giving them the most for the least.

As you can see here, everythings will cost somehow.

Diesels appear to be the best option, not V8s and the Atlas will be the 'new' 1/2 ton trucks, probably with a 3.5 Eco Boost.

The exotic materials and technologies to make these trucks viable will increase prices and make them a rich mans toy.

@DenverDike
Read and weep. The UAW is great stuff isn't it. Protect jobs even if we kill a segment of an industry.

Nobody but Orkin is buying the shor box RC strippers so what difference does it make? None.

so the way to beat this is to widen the track and lengthen the wheelbase, thus reducing the mpg required making it easier to acheive. we are going to regulate ourselves to extinction.

"because regular cabs aren't any cheaper to build."

As DenverMike has been saying since day 1. Toyota doesn't want these sales.

On a related note, this is what they want. Oakley just dumped Toyota for Ford and bought eight-teen (18) F150 FX4 crewcabs with the Apperance Package. Toyota was angry. H/T @mrlevine on twitter.

http://www.at.ford.com/news/TeamContent/Pages/GFTCOakley-Switches-Fleet-Vehicles-to-F150.aspx

I don't think they will disappear but you will see them only available with the more efficiant smaller engines. Regular cabs having been diminishing in sales in recent years anyway. I did like my reg cab dodge good off roading and easy U turns but I'd rather have the space to through things in the cab and carry people in the back if needed. I do think its a stupid government rule though.

Regular cab long bed 3/4 and 1 tons will always be around for fleets. 1/2 ton shortbeds? Probably not.

jason=denvermike?

Apollo 14 is watching.

Well, I've been preaching this for over a year now and have taken much flak. To the point as of the past several months with all the crap.

I told you so and no one wanted to listen or believe.

I do hope Ford gets its way with you guys aligning to UNECE regulations, but I don't like your chances. You can have similar vehicle design regs as we do in Australia.

@Old GM Guy,
It isn't the 'liberals' as you would like to call them, because if it was the liberals you would be like Europe.

You guys can blame the UAW, Big 3, oil companies etc and mostly yourselves for voting the preceeding governments in.

Everyone votes for whom they think is giving them the most for the least.

As you can see here, everythings will cost somehow.

Diesels appear to be the best option, not V8s and the Atlas will be the 'new' 1/2 ton trucks, probably with a 3.5 Eco Boost.

The exotic materials and technologies to make these trucks viable will increase prices and make them a rich mans toy.

@DenverDike
Read and weep. The UAW is great stuff isn't it. Protect jobs even if we kill a segment of an industry.

If this is the case, all of your Ford Expeditions, Chevy Tahoes, Toyota Sequias, and every other full size SUV will be gone too as they ride on similiar if not sharing wheelbases of regular cab trucks and I don't think that will happen, they will find a way around it.

The problem with CAFE and the other regs weight reduction.

Another area of concern of mine it what you guys call an acceptable look. Aerodynamics.

I think certain aspects of what you define as a "truck" will have to change.

Even our midsizers will have problems meeting your CAFE targets, even though they are getting much better fuel economy than your full size trucks.

Maybe you guys will end up with 600cc turbo diesel Kei trucks.

It will interesting to see how the manufacturers who helped create this mess try and resolve it.

Yeah, I won't miss the regular cabs much, however I'd prefer one because I wouldn't haul many people around. An extended cab would be my next choice to store small items securely inside. I can understand regular cabs being costly to build. Look at the doors of the Ram, Toyota Tundra and '14 GM'ers versus their 4-door counterparts. Which means that Ford is the only one that uses the same front doors on all cabs. Wouldn't say so for the '04-'08 F150 models as the RC and crews used the narrow doors and XC used the wider ones. Plus the death of RC 7' box combo in the US killed the small pickup, so that killed any interest of mine in a small RC. Overseas got it right...build one wheelbase, one length: RC 7' box, XC 6' box, and crew 5' box. In the US I foresee cutaway and chassis cab vans as the new basis for "regular cab pickups", utility trucks, ambulances, delivery trucks, etc. in the near future.

On the topic of footprints determining MPGs, should pickups be exempt simply by virtue of having different wheelbases? I mean, a Ford F-150 SuperCab 8' bed (163" WB) is certainly a lot longer than a Reg Cab 6.5' bed (127" WB), but anyone can see that they're essentially the same vehicle. But honestly, I've always thought than anyone who buys a regular cab full-size with anything less than an 8' bed wasn't planning on using it solely as a work vehicle anyway.

On the topic of consumer demand for more crew cabs, I guess this has been coming ever since pickups (and SUV's) were redefined as personal vehicles in the late 90's, or even all the way back in '73 and '74 when Dodge and Ford introduced their Club and SuperCabs, respectively.

The regular cab pickup, which has been from day 1 about work, will be more efficiently handled by a van chassis with a utility body or flatbed. It'll look butt-ugly, sure, but it'll get the job done. And that's what really matters.

But that doesn't mean I don't feel a little emotional about the possibility of one day not even being able to buy one.

The favorite geezer cab is the RC. But the younger generation has moved to the larger cabs so they will not miss the RC's. The geezers who were 30 year olds in 1980 were the ones buying 95% RC's. They will talk of those days for nostalgia purposes. But these geezers aren't in the RC mini truck market anymore. What a peson talks about and what a person buys are two different things entirely. If one wanted a RC there are many to choose from, but the geezers aren't buying.

In unscientifically looking around, the only guys buying RC-SB trucks are old guys who will have bought their last truck before the end of the decade. The foot-print rule won't affect RC-LB trucks, since they tend to have the same WB as XC-SB trucks. I don't think they'll be completely doomed. There will still be a demand for RC-LB and RC-CC trucks, so at least those making HD pickups will continue to tool for making RC's. What this WILL end IMHO is the RC-SB with the big engine, like the Tundra with the 5.7. Shame, but so it goes. The car manufacturers agreed to these rules because it allows them to build cars more as natural demand would have it, rather than having to "give away" Escorts, like Ford did in the day.

@George- I happen to think that is exactly what will happen. The Sequoia probably won't get renewed in the next generation. The LC is insignificant for Toyota in America. At GM, the Tahoe and regular Yukon will be displaced with the large cross-over. Those who insist on a truck-based vehicle will go back to buying Suburbans, like they did before.

YES ! Will miss...more choice is always better !

I will miss the single cab !!

I personally own a 4 door RAM QuadCab,prefer the look better then the CrewCabs ..And being tall its nice to have more room,and the option to carry people around or put items in the back seat are if need be,thats my personal choice...

The single cabs are good for business ,who dont need an extra thousand pounds to roam around with,nor the need to carry extra people around.Or a private citizen who just needs a single cab as their personal choice for their ride.

And I do love the look of a short box,single cab 4x4 !

Once again,government wrecking our lives,in this case because of fake ,non-existant so-called Global Warming !

Science and reality proved global warming is a fake,just a way to limit our lives and take away our freedom to drive around,make things more expensive.They want us to all be packed on a bus or train so they can watch our every move..The left hates that we have the right to go where and when we want to ! As the left always ruins our cars/trucks..the 70's they bogged them down ,made them slower and they used more gas,making them pollute more..erasing the emissions they say they saved by adding smog devises ! Then we had slow,small unsafe cars..Now they are safer,bigger and again want to ruin them,as the left has done with these new rules...Help us all,let us drive big vehicles with big engines and let us BURN RUBBER in peace !!

@ Jim: Ah, yes...the "geezer pickup," or the "grandpa pickup," thusly named because both my mother's father and my father's father, God rest his soul, owned one at one point. (He bought his F-150 brand-new in 1997, and in the fifteen years he drove it, he only put 14,000 miles on it.)

Most "geezer pickups" can be identified by the following characteristics:
--Regular cab, 4x2, long bed, almost always has a topper on it. These are all because from the 1960's through the 1980's, a majority of pickup trucks sold were these, and most "geezers" feel uncomfortable with changing things too much (and have no need for the MegaUltraTripleCrew Cab).
--Either the lowest or second-lowest trim level, because "geezers" are kind of cheapskates, or as they would like to call it, "thrifty."
--Powered by either the 6-cylinder or the smallest V-8, because most "geezers" don't feel the need for speed (and because finding a regular cab with a big V-8 anymore is as difficult as all get-out). As for transmissions, they may have a manual ('cause it's cheap) or an automatic (because they can remember when "Ultra-synchro-hydro-matic" was a pretty swell thing for a truck).
--Generally seen puttering between home, the Eagles club, church, the VFW, the bingo lounge, maybe the local bar, the grocery store, etc., etc.
--Very well-kept, no scratches, dings, or rust. May or may not have "Proud to be an American," "Nobama," or "From my cold, dead hands" bumper stickers on the back window of the topper, but will probably have no other accessories besides running boards (even though it's a 4x2, that's not enough for arthritic knees).

But as "geezers" die off, where do these pickups go? Usually to young bucks like myself, but I have no need for a 18-1/2 ft., 4500 lb. vehicle that puts out 220 hp, seats three, and is only two-wheel-drive. It's a changing world, and we all need to define for ourselves what our place is in it.

And your SUV's like the Grand Cherokee, Wrangler that have even much short wheelbases and are still somewhat Guzzlers will be gone as well not to mention you a lot of your sports cars.

Regular cab, not so much. What puzzles me is the lack of long (8 ft) beds. This would solve the problem . A crew with an 8ft bed doesn't exist until you move up to a 3/4 T. Even then, Try and find one. The marketing logic escapes me. Why buy a pickup with a 6ft bed, regardless of cab type? You can haul bigger loads in an escape/explorer/suburban/durango with the seats folded.
Pickups have a bed length of 8 feet. anything less is...... what? Useless comes to mind. Try and haul an ATV, you can't even close the tailgate. Which makes a lie out of the idea that they are making pickups for weekend warriors. Making short beds may make them money. but not from me. And before you squawk about it, check your states codified laws. I KNOW that you can be ticketed in my state for driving with the tailgate down. Loaded or not, it does not matter. Strangely enough it is ok to drive without one, but not with it down.

Improve fuel efficiency by penalizing the smaller vehicle. Yea, seems legit. Seeing that only reminds me why anything government run is failing. It's all OK though. More tax dollars and subsidy's can fix everything right! The only thing accomplished here is making some choices unaffordable so no one will buy them, or gone completely. Though I suppose that is the ultimate goal.

My god, people don't know how to park their pickup trucks now; and you want people to drive crew cab long beds?

@ John: No, we want a full-sized, rear-wheel-drive V8-powered sedan for less than $40K, so we can get all the suburbanite posers out of the gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs that they have no need for and into something more their style.
But, this is a free country (for now), and if you want to drive something that gets horrendous gas mileage and you're not hurting me, then by all means, go ahead. *Sigh...*

@Liam--That is the best idea yet to standardized bed sizes which basically makes the regular cab, extended cab, and crew cab the same length. Most dealers keep few if any regular cabs in stock and can either get one from another dealer or order one. I went to an extended cab 14 years ago and to a crew cab 4 years ago. I am indifferent to whether regular cabs are continued or not continued, but I don't think it would be good to stick all truck buyers with crew cab only. Costwise stocking different sized beds as options for all the cab sizes makes little sense.

@Jim--You seem to have some real hangups about those of us that are older than 30. Are you some snot nosed pimpled face 13 year old that has nothing better to do than to make wise ass comments? Every generation has its own vehicles and taste and someday some young punk is going to make a smart ass remark to you and call you a geezer. What anyone drives is their own business.

@Big Al from Oz--The changes you say that are coming will eventually come. Higher fuel prices and higher costs to develop and build trucks will bring more global products to the US. Some of the younger guys are the most resistant to these changes. Most will adapt or they will die off as Jim who likes to call others geezers.

This seems to be "part of" the whole argument as to why small trucks have all but died off = CAFE Footprint rules.
I suspect that we will see 1/2 ton pickups get bigger not smaller. We may see weight reductions but not footprint reductions. Short box pickups will have to die. Fleets, at least the ones in my part of the world do not buy short box regular cab trucks anyway. I can see Toyota killing their regular cab Tacoma. They don't offer it in Canada. These rules kill any chance of a small (as in 70's era) trucks ever coming back.

The simplest way is to tax based on hp/engine size and intended use. 1/2 ton pickups have become SUV's with a box. I cringed a while back when reading a GMC story where they stated the 6.5 box was standard in a HD. When did that happen? I grew up with regular cab 8 ft box pickups. They were rough, tough, crude and basic. They were meant for work. Things have reversed and the SUV with a box crowd is now protesting.
The global warming is a conspiracy crowd have surfaced too. Makes me laugh. I should buy property in the Yukon or NWT as it will be beach front soon.
The "if you can afford a truck why worry about fuel cost" crowd has yet to surface. The way I look at it, if you can afford any vehicle you don't really need, you should be able to afford to buy it or pay a luxury tax to run it.
The footprint rule will not be eliminated. Ford, Chrysler, and GMC would die if full sized pickups were not protected by footprint rules. The other option would be to globalize the rules and the 1/2 ton pickup would be replaced by the global pickups.
I find it incredibly ironic since there have only been a few posters on this site that have talked about the oddity of the rules, the protectionistic nature of the rules, and how they may have to change anyway.
Let the bashing begin, and the left wing conspiracy theories flow over the land like the rising tides post ice cap melt ;)

Jeff, You're a geezer and troll. If you were interested in a truck you would have bought one. Like most geezers, all you do is talk about the old times or some coming apocalypse that will force everyone into smll trucks, but you don't buy. You are resistant to the modern pickups. You want to sit around and talk about your glory days...

I won't begrudge a young person who gets a RC small bed truck as a hand me down, but taking on or buying your grandfather's used truck won't help the OEM's and is why they are being cancelled along with the Rangers.

In the other thread these geezers were saying the Colorado was too small. They say this now after begging for it to arrive. The geezers don't want anything on the market. They just talk about what they liked when they were kids or some old pickup they have now that they "will just keep." We call these tire kickers.

@Jim--You are the troll. I have been on this site for a number of years. I was commenting on a truck that was of interest to me. I have two trucks, do you have a truck? Yes I have talked about older trucks but I am happy with air bags, fuel injection, and even backup cameras. I never talked about the apocalypse, but if it does happen there is not too much any of us can do about it. As for modern pickups I own a modern pickup and appreciate its features. You sound like a real bigot, do you enjoy making racial remarks? Growup and act like an adult.

@Lou--I agree with your assessment, the CAFE standards are not left wing conspiracies but more of government regulations that have gone amok. A regulation can start out with the best intentions but by the time it gets written and implemented it can create an opposing outcome. I don't even blame the manufacturers because they are trying to comply with the new rules and if the regulation leaves a hole the size that you can drive a King Ranch thru then you will use that to your advantage. Those who are skeptical about government protecting us from ourselves should be. This is not to say that the government has done bad things, there are many positive things but government can also make a mess of things.

Half ton RC trucks rock! I can actually make a U Turn in mine; try that with your double cab truck!

My Silverado LS V8 gets great mileage without the cylinder deactivation and complex intakes. Handles great in the woods too.

Detroit got in bed with these Washington bastards 25 years ago and they will regret it. Look at what's happened to brands like Jeep and Ram! In 10 years you won't be able to buy a Wrangler unless they make it in China. The posts saying that Toyota and Nissan will bail are right. It's over.

When should a senior citizen stop driving?

I hate to say it but most senior citizens shouldn't be on the road. The good thing for them is they will usally drive only close to home or what truck they currently have will be the last truck...kiss the regular cab small truck sales goodbye.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a senior citizen is more likely than a younger driver to be at fault in an accident in which they are involved. The most common violations include failure to obey traffic signals, unsafe turns and passing, and failure to yield the right of way.

In particular, fatal crash rates rise sharply after a driver has reached the age of 70.

If you know an older driver who is experiencing trouble on the road, it is important to carefully monitor the situation. This article can help you determine whether you should take steps to encourage the senior to stop driving.

http://www.seniorsguideonline.com/blog/aging-at-home/senior-citizen-driving

I've been predicting the demise of mid-size regular cabs for a while now, but for reasons other than quoted by the author. First, we need to know the 'author' of the article is, Tim Esterdahl who just happens to be the News Editor for the straight up fanboy sites, TundraHeadquarters.com and TacomaHQ.com


That mere 10% take rate of regular cabs is a wild guess on his part. OEMs don't disclose that information, but for sure varies considerably between classes and OEMs. Common sense alone would tell us the Tacoma sells the highest percentage of regular cabs in the entire industry and the only regular cab mid-size in the US currently. Orkin and other cheapskates will tell you the rest.


Tim E. forgot to mention the Tacoma regular cab has already been killed off in Canada. The problem is North America uses mid-size trucks like casinos use ashtrays. The lowest common denominator will always be the #1 target for cheap, economy car buyers and of course fleets. No fancy nav systems, no 17 speaker stereos, no hand-stitched leather on the dash, etc. Mid to high end pickups are vital in the extremely competitive "Light Truck" class.

How did we go from a discussion of cab sizes to a discussion of senior drivers? Not everyone over the age of 30 is a geezer. i have known many people 70 and older that are better drivers than younger people. I also know many active seniors 70 and above that volunteer to prepare tax returns for free. Those seniors are far from being demented, if anything the tax law stimulates their brains. Let's get back on topic which is the eventual demise of the regular cab pickups. Now a word from Lawrence Welk and Dodge.

@ Jeff: It's most likely because of my "geezer pickup" comment, which I thought would hopefully be a little entertaining. It seems I was wrong in assuming so, and I apologize if it made anybody else derail the conversation. For what it's worth, both my grandfathers were completely safe drivers, but my grandmother is a speed demon.

...Back on topic, people. I don't have much else to add to the conversation; I'd like to know what other people think.

Hey... I have an RCSB Ram Hemi and im no geezer.... Im 16!...


@ Jim: Ah, yes...the "geezer pickup," or the "grandpa pickup," thusly named because both my mother's father and my father's father, God rest his soul, owned one at one point. (He bought his F-150 brand-new in 1997, and in the fifteen years he drove it, he only put 14,000 miles on it.)

Most "geezer pickups" can be identified by the following characteristics:
--Regular cab, 4x2, long bed, almost always has a topper on it. These are all because from the 1960's through the 1980's, a majority of pickup trucks sold were these, and most "geezers" feel uncomfortable with changing things too much

But as "geezers" die off, where do these pickups go? Usually to young bucks like myself....

Posted by: David | Apr 17, 2013 3:42:49 PM

@David, I hear you. There is nothing wrong with hand me down "geezer pickups." I have been there myself. The only problem is the OEM's aren't in the used truck business and see no new sales so they discontinue the geezer pickups.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2014 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com