←back to thread

The Reason Why Are Trucks Getting Bigger

(toddofmischief.blogspot.com)
173 points yasp | 1 comments | 11 Aug 22 13:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
paulgb ◴[11 Aug 22 13:54 UTC] No.32425596[source]▶
This is an interesting theory, but there's a way to test it: if it's true that trucks have gotten bigger to avoid the light truck definition, we should see a proliferation of light trucks just long enough to avoid the classification.

[Edit: I originally cited 280cm as the wheelbase cut-off from [1], but on a re-read, it's more complicated; see below.]

The best-selling vehicles:

F-series pickup[2]: 392cm

Dodge Ram[3]: 367cm

Chevy Silverado[4]: 373cm

Correction/Edit: The relevant definition for a light truck is based on a number of criteria which relate to the wheelbase but don't actually specify it. If someone wants a fun trig problem, you could determine whether these vehicles are designed to be just long enough to satisfy the requirements listed here [5].

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...

[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150

[3] https://carsauthority.com/2023-dodge-ram/#:~:text=2023%20Dod....

[4] https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/specs/...

[5] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...

replies(3): >>32425711 #>>32425937 #>>32425956 #
SV_BubbleTime ◴[11 Aug 22 14:15 UTC] No.32425937[source]▶
The TFA is exactly correct. It’s something I’ve tried to explain for a long time. But… no one wants to hear Obama’s green ideas on emissions where so completely wrong.

There were CAFE (emissions average over all mfg’s products) changes that also lead to some strange things.

Example… in order to make the 392 Wrangler, Jeep also had to make the plug-in hybrid (which is good. In order to make more 2-door Rubicon models they had to make more larger 4x cylinder JT model trucks.

The best thing to remember with regulations is that nothing is ever built to regulation, it’s built around regulation.

replies(1): >>32426148 #
1. paulgb ◴[11 Aug 22 14:26 UTC] No.32426148[source]▶
I'm very willing to believe that it's correct, but this article doesn't provide the evidence. A plot that showed that these top-selling vehicles just barely avoid the light truck cutoff would be a compelling way to demonstrate that. I'm afraid anything else will devolve into partisan bickering, even though this is an empirically testable theory.