Small pickup nostalgia and why they are gone

I had an Isuzu Pup (similar to this one) when I lived in Hawaii, circa 2000-03.

It was my transitional vehicle because our primary (2003 Honda Pilot) was getting shipped to my next duty station: Ramstein GE.

It was the only "truck" I've ever owned so I'm sorta nostalgic about it.



I did like the compact-ness of it.

Nowadays, I see the Maverick and think, "Wow, that is compact compared to my truck."

Needless to say, the wife was just not buying it..."It's still a truck." lol

My family gives me a hard time for owning my Tacoma...but, it's what I wanted since the kids are grown up!

 

Had a number of small pickups over the years and here are specs from what I remember. Between trucks I had a bunch of compact and mid size cars and towed a utility trailer mainly because I could only afford 1 vehicle at the time and car with trailer fit the bill.

1 mid 70s Toyota, 2 people comfortable, 3 in a pinch, 7' box, 1000 lb capacity, 30 mpg, Cost about same as Corolla.
2 mid 80s Nissan KC, 2 people comfortable, 2 big 2 small in a pinch, 6' box, 1000 lb capacity, 30 mpg, Cost slightly more than a Corolla.
3 mid 90s Chev S10, 2 people comfortable, 3 in a pinch, 6' box, 1000 lb capacity, 30 mpg, Not sure but I think about same as Corolla.
4 2011 Tacoma access cab, 2 people comfortable, 2 big 2 small in a pinch, 6' box, 1200 lb capacity, 30 mpg, Cost midway between Corolla and Camry.
5 2024 Tacoma double cab, no access cab in Canada, 4 people, 6' box, 1400 lb capacity, 29 mpg, Cheapest model cost about 13 k more than Camry, 60 K on the road here in Canada.

Wanted to replace my 2011 Tacoma with a 2024 but just too expensive to buy and operate. No one knows where the price of gas is headed. Buying a RAV4 hybrid shortly and dusting off the old utility trailer. 4 people, 5 in a pinch, 10' box plus lockable weather proof storage, 1200 lb capacity, 41 mpg, Fits my needs now. Sure a pickup would be more convenient at times but not worth the extra expense.

 

Lots of people think they know what the market wants....most are wrong because they feel everyone agrees with their choices.

There is an unmet demand for small pickups, and it's not just few hundred. Most households have multiple vehicles, in those households cars are losing favor to trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. A small old school semi-tough bed on frame truck would do well in many of those households.

I'll use my house as an example: Retired couple, 2 vehicles. My Tacoma and the wifes's Explorer. The Tacoma is almost never driven by the wife and almost everytime we go somewhere together it's in the Exploder, the Tacoma has a single occupant 90% of the time. A retro small truck would be much better than the Tacoma in this capacity...something like the old Chevy LUV or original US Toyota Hilux. Reg cab 4 cyl manual trans, maybe lever op 4WD, crank windows, AM radio, maybe A/C, thats it.

It has nothing to do with demand it's all the other bullshit involved, EPA - virtue signaling assholes in office and the limp dicks that support them - the manufacturers that are all too willing to "add value" to the window sticker of every model - and the bleating sheep that line up by the millions to chose their custom option package to be in an exclusive group of a couple hundred thousand that bought the exact same thing.

 

My first vehicle was a 1990 Mazda b2200 Extended cab MT. It had those chrome Nissan pathfinder wheels.


Loved that little truck. I was in grade 11 so I had lots of fun with that little guy haha.

My previous truck:

Miss it dearly. Had it for 7 years and ~90k miles, very reliable machine. I wish I had the space and the funds to keep it.

They definitely don’t make pick ups like they used to.

 

I wish we had the Toyota trucks that are available in Australia and New Zealand. Land Cruiser 70 series. Basic, no frills, available diesel and manual transmission, no carpet. I know it will never happen because of safety and emissions but still.

 

You say that, but the 70 series did have airbags put into it and would meet the most rudimentary safety requirements in the US, especially if sold as a commercial van or truck cab.

The real reason they can’t sell it here is they can’t bloat it with “features,” add-ons, and accessories to blow up the price close to $100,000.

The platform is essentially that of a mining corporation vehicle.

 

There should be an Official "TacomaWorld Hall of Fame Posts" thread, and if there ever is one created, the above original poster quote should be the the first one in it.

 

I know right, its like new trucks look bigger, but inside they are same size... Bigger trucks, smaller engines. Old gen 4runners, Tacos were so simple , could unscrew whole truck by a screwdriver.


But well, highway safety does have a point, the modern cars are safer, and i guess better for environment. BUT my issue is, what about big fat rich people polluting planet with jets, ships, luxury cars?

for fk sake dont get me started on China or India pollutions.

 

I still have my 86 Toyota base model that I bought new, had them put on a rear bumper and right side mirror before I left. I paid just over $5,500 for it, I’d say I got my moneys worth oh and I’m way more comfortable in the 86 then the 09 as long as the temps don’t go above 90 degrees!
Circa 1987

6 months ago

 

Me and my wife were talking the other day about how much better my 87 Mazda B2200 SE5 was compared to my 17 Tacoma. The Mazda was a much better truck for practical reasons. It was low and you could reach into the bed from the sides just by leaning over. I had no problem loading up my riding mower into the back with a set of boards. My Tacoma I have to use a step ladder for everything. The gas mileage is about the same with both being 4 cylinders and I am sure reliability will be comparable but that little Mazda was phenomenal. With the exception of normal scheduled repairs that little truck stayed in my driveway until 2003. It finally wouldn't pass e check in my area and I had to sell it to a coworker who drove it another year. He lived just outside of the e check zone and drove it on the same roads that I did.
In 93 the little B2200 was starting to get rusty and my wife talked me into buying a new Ranger. The Ranger just sat because the B2200 was able to get everything done and I didn't have to worry about a dent or ding here and there. 2 years later with barely 2000 miles on it the Ranger was traded in for another car for my wife.
When the B2200 finally gave out I replaced with a new Red 2003 Chevrolet S10 LS. The Mazda had 186000 miles on it and was burning oil after I overloaded it hauling rocks while landscaping my new house. The S10 with no warning grenaded the engine at 22000 miles.
I restore old cars as a hobby and I have already decided my next project will be a mini truck when I am ready. I am clueless as to why they stopped making trucks like that. That little Mazda never got stuck in the snow. Id fish tail it and drop it into second and just keep going. My Tacoma acts retarded when it gets in a little slop and the rear end makes all kinds of grinding sounds which I have been told are normal. I also miss not having AC to work around and I loved those old crank windows. They were little but they were trucks. I like my Tacoma and wont part with it but that B2200 was still better. The Maverick is a step in the right direction but we still need a small rear wheel drive truck.

 

I remember reading somewhere once that the reason the trucks keep getting bigger has to do with size and mileage, because it’s bigger it can pass regulations with the lower mpg, if manufacturers made a small truck because of its size it would have to get un achievable mpg, true??

 

My 93 Nissan Hardbody standard cab had a manual transmission, windows and steering rack. With the 6' bed it was a better truck than my current Tacoma.

I didn't have kids back then but honestly the Tacoma isn't the best family truck either. The family fits in the Tacoma but for extended road trips it's cramped; and we aren't high calorie individuals.

 

Demand and profit, that's all there is to it. If as many people wanted a small one as want an F150, they would be making them. I'm sure the chicken tax has something to do with it. They bloat the prices because you got to sell twice as many cheap ones and expensive. If people didnt buy them, they wouldnt make'm

 

No those are cars with a bed, not to confuse with an old El Camino or Ford Ranchero. OP means real frame trucks.

 

I would have gotten a smaller truck, but I want real 4WD.

Are there any small 4WDs left, truck or not? A Jeep Wrangler might be the smallest you can get.

I'd rather have a regular cab Tacoma and a longer bed (7-8ft?) or even a regular cab and a 6ft bed and a shorter wheelbase, if that's more manufacturable somehow. The access cab is really only good for storage in my opinion (and the 4th gen Xtra cab even more so). But you know what else is good for storage? A truck bed! You can add a toolbox if you want lockable waterproof storage, or use it for whatever you want.

 

oldtimertoyota is correct, and the second video posted at the beginning of the thread explains this. There is no way to meet the CAFE mpg requirements for a small footprint truck unless they are willing to pay a penalty. I don't think they can even get close with a hybrid.

Based on the numbers provided, here's a scenario:

MFG A creates a small pickup truck, that by the CAFE standards must get 46 mpg based on its footprint (wheelbase x track). This is not unrealistic.

Actual mpg is 28 mpg, 18 mpg under what is required. Again, probably a realistic number. They have to pay a penalty of $5.50 per tenth of an mpg that they missed it by, multiplied by the number of vehicles sold. That's $990 per vehicle. Say it's as popular as a Tacoma and they sell 237,000 over a year. That's $234 million+ in penalties just for one year. A five-year run would be over a billion.

What wasn't clear in that video was if the number of vehicles was across the entire fleet, or just for a specific model. That could potentially make it much worse.

Now, they could just give the feds the finger and roll that $990 into the price of the vehicle. But, they may be cannibalizing their sales on other models, and this addition may price their small, simple pickup truck outside of what the market will bear. Meeting safety standards drives cost up as well. In the end, it may just be a bad business decision -- it could be that for a little more money, you can get a lot more truck, and that's what people will choose.

 

I would take a manufacturer penalty of a few hundred bucks added to my purchase price instead of having to pay 70 grand for a luxury dad truck.

If you keep pruning the models that “don’t sell as well” as your popular models, you’re eroding more and more of your customer base because some people will just walk away instead of buying whatever thing you assume they will buy because you’ve gotten rid of the thing they wanted to buy.

 

I think a lot of people would, but I don't buy into the corporate greed thing as being the main driver. I'm pretty sure they've done the math and market research. If someone can get a bare-bones Tacoma SR for $33k, or a much smaller, stripped-down truck for $28k, they're likely to choose the bigger Tacoma with more bells and whistles. I just don't know what's possible.

The $8500 I paid for my '92 would be like $19k today. But if you have to add airbags and additional safety features that weren't required then, you probably add a couple grand to that. Then add on a grand for your CAFE penalties. So, say $22k is the target you are shooting for as a base model. Seems like the rumored Stout is coming in at $23k. That seems like a reasonable option.

 

Typical government results