Starting a new thread to not derail the EV thread.

I've heard, and it was stated on a different thread, that "we'll never see another small pickup due to CAFE standards."

What does that really mean? How is CAFE limiting pickup size (I'm thinking S-10/Ranger)

And what does "never see another small pickup mean"? The Ranger, Maverick, and others are currently being produced. Does this mean after their current gen they'll be retired? Does it mean no new small pickups from other manufacturers?

lb3 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

And what does "never see another small pickup mean"? The Ranger, Maverick, and others are currently being produced. Does this mean after their current gen they'll be retired? Does it mean no new small pickups from other manufacturers?

---

The Ranger is basically the size of F150s from the 80s. These aren't small pickups.

---

I agree with that but the Maverick and Santa Cruz still exist. But also, small is relative. Even my 2000 F250 Superduty is smaller than today's F150.

Edit after watching the above video: if small means as small as a a 1980s small truck, then I would agree but I think some of that is due to the consumer not truly wanting a small truck and the space limitations in the cab that come with that.

The 2025 Maverick has a gas particulate filter (GPF), it is hard out there for a small truck when loopholes exist for the large SUV and trucks

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

1:57

---

Thanks for that.

Go to ANY foreign country and look at the small pickups on the road there. They are not the Silverados, F-Series, and Ram's you see here. The work trucks are just that. You only see true utility here in box and panel trucks.

But I can't imagine a market not being present for a true 1/4 ton truck that can do real 1/4 ton truck work that doesn't cost $50,000+.

Yep, these Rangers and s10s would sell just fine without emissions bs and excessive electronics. They're basically like UTVs now.

I have a '24 Santa Cruz, an SE model, and it has almost a 2000 lb payload and will tow 3700 pounds. Unloaded it gets me almost 30 mpg's around town and 35 or so on the highway. These desired little trucks are out there, but people really are not interested in them unless they have a specific function for them to fill.

My 22 Maverick is averaging 40 mpg over its lifetime. I really don't need a full size pickup anymore. I traded in an f150 when I bought it and don't miss it at all. I have truly enjoyed owning my maverick. It does everything I need it to do and then some. I even moved my stepson into his first apartment with it and a small utility trailer. (Took a few trips of course!) Mostly I enjoy it because it's a comfortable daily driver for my 30 mile commute to the office. I don't plan to ever sell this truck.

I think ford will be able to sell these for a long time regardless of cafe standards.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

lb3 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

And what does "never see another small pickup mean"? The Ranger, Maverick, and others are currently being produced. Does this mean after their current gen they'll be retired? Does it mean no new small pickups from other manufacturers?

---

The Ranger is basically the size of F150s from the 80s. These aren't small pickups.

---

I agree with that but the Maverick and Santa Cruz still exist. But also, small is relative. Even my 2000 F250 Superduty is smaller than today's F150.

Edit after watching the above video: if small means as small as a a 1980s small truck, then I would agree but I think some of that is due to the consumer not truly wanting a small truck and the space limitations in the cab that come with that.

---

The 80s diesel wins on everything but parts and speed versus a 80/90s gasser if you can diy your own repairs. This is a great example of artificially induced government stupidity. Math below

I am a recent college grad, I have what I jokingly term a Broke Bidenomics Boy (BBB) mindset (no debt). I require a pickup for work constantly and did the math on this comparing a 2.3L inline 4 Ford ranger 2WD to a 80s diesel 2.3 inline 4WD. I'm not being entirely fair to the diesel only because mine is a 4 speed vs 5 speed overdrive gasser

Cheapest gas is 2.70 ish here. Diesel is 3.30. I cannot afford a new vehicle.
Highway miles so 25mpg gas and 37mpg diesel on my two trucks.
City the difference is 16 to 30

2.7 divided by 3.30= 0.81
25 divided 37= 0.67
20 divided 30= 0.66
Both hit their efficiency band at 2-3k( gas is 10mph faster at 80) and accelerates faster.
I assume I drive in the 20k range. So $2,160 for gas a year vs 1,885 a year.
A fuel filter in diesels may need to be replaced regularly with bad diesel. Mine are double the price of a gas one. Not enough to matter IMHO.

My diesel is 33%, more efficient with the price of diesel only only 20% more at cost per gallon. This means I save 10% on fuel..

A diesel VE fuel pump rebuild is ~$1000 (~$200 parts) vs $70. But that same pump needs a rebuild every 7-10 ish, you break even in three years+/-.

If I buy a top of the line diesel in good shape ~5-7k I make that back in 3 years over a gasser at ~3k. If you add in (modern) emissions/safety then the calculus changes. There no airbags on my diesel so I do have to worry about getting hit by I'm imbeciles on the highway.

I can't find a 2.3 in good shape below 5k here though, so I have a 4.0 2WD and a 2.3 4WD, my fuel savings are different, more like 50+%. The diesel tows better (despite the GVWR) and is more reliable than my 4.0.

2.3 5 Speed gets around 40% better mpg vs the 2.2 2WD

P.s Diesels exempt from emissions in TX EPA counties ($25 USD). There's another fuel filter spare.