throwway120385 2 days ago

One nitpick on the article is comparing a passenger sedan or passenger SUV to a light truck like the F150 when you're discussing depreciation is a bad comparison. Light trucks hold their value better generally for a variety of reasons including because the parts that get used are heavier and are more designed to be maintained with lubrication schedules and such. SUVs are not light trucks and have more in common with a minivan or a sedan. A better comparison would be to compare the depreciation of say a Tesla SUV to like a Ford Escape.

▲

gtowey 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't disagree with you, but man is it crazy to hear that a "light" truck these days includes a 5 liter V8 that gets 16 mpg.

▲

bityard 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

"Light truck" is slightly more formal way of saying "pickup truck." And is meant to differentiate the class from commercial trucks like moving vans, dump trucks, and semis.

Smaller pickups like the Ford Ranger and Chevy S-10 are in the "compact pickup" class. (And unfortunately these are not sold in the US anymore. For those with genuine need, we either have to resurrect some old heap headed for the scrapyard or import them on the gray market from Asian countries.)

▲

davey48016 2 days ago | parent [-]

The Ford Ranger is still (or once again?) sold in the US.

▲

jaggederest a day ago | parent [-]

But it's basically the same size as the F-150 from the 80s, and double the size of the Ford Ranger from that era.

By no means is it a compact truck any more.

▲

sureshv a day ago | parent [-]

The Maverick fills that space but has limitations (less towing capacity than a 90's Ranger). I've seen it used by a ton of service folks that need a pickup but not for towing (1500 payload).

	▲	jaggederest a day ago \| parent [-]
		Even the Maverick is GVWR 5100. The original Ranger was around 3200 GVWR, which these days almost makes it a kei truck.

▲

usefulcat 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed. If the F150 is Ford's "light" truck, what does that make the significantly smaller Maverick?

▲

engineer_22 2 days ago | parent [-]

Maverick is styled like a truck, but unibody design is more like a ute. Same way the Subaru Outback is not a truck

	▲	Aloisius 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It is a truck. Unibody might not be commonly used by truck makers, but using it doesn't mean it's not a truck. A Tread Unibody bulk truck can haul 50K pounds and no one would call it a ute.
	▲	Marsymars 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I've always found that to be a silly distinction, like it's a thing that matters to use cases in the same way that axle type matters, but it's not the sole distinguishing marker of whether something is a "truck". There are various non-trucks that are body-on-frame - BMW i3, Ford Crown Vic, Suzuki Jimny, etc. (The highest-spec Jimny tows less than the lowest-spec Honda Ridgeline.)

▲

engineer_22 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Heavy trucks are industrial/commecial. In comparison to those vehicles, a 5 liter v8 is indeed "light".

▲

bob1029 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The F150 achieves its maximum available payload capacity (over a ton) in the trim level with a 3.5L turbocharged V6.

	▲	rootusrootus a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm a little surprised it isn't a regular cab with the 2.7L V6 that gets the highest payload. But they manipulate the suspension components a fair bit between different models so it's not just going to come down to the weight of the engine. The Lightning weighs as much as a gasser F250 but still has a payload in the 1650 pound range; my guess (without doing any research to prove it, mind you) is that the Lightning has the highest GVWR of any F150. I think even the HDPP only gets an ICE F150 up to 7850 GVWR. On a related note, we have some real candidates on the Lightning forums for being the modern "Danger Ranger" trucks -- turns out you can load a Lightning with well north of 2000 pounds and it still isn't squatting anywhere near the bump stops. Stiff suspension.

▲

jaggederest 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wait until you find out about the proper trucks that use a 7 to 15 liter turbocharged i6 and get 5-8 mpg.

	▲	gtowey a day ago \| parent [-]
		Nah, for me it's about utility. Big trucks are tools, and they spend much more of their lifetime putting that engine to use where nothing else will do. The shocking thing about light trucks with fuel economy in the teens is that most of the time they never haul anything. They're driven to the grocery store and to soccer practice where they have little value.

▲

mrits 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That is city mpg for the less common V8. What is crazy is that is that is what the Toyota 4Runner has gotten for over a decade.

▲

xeromal 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're confusing SUVs with Crossovers. Most sales are crossovers and they are a taller sedan or minivan but SUVs like the land cruiser, 4runner, escalade, or armada are body on frame and built like a truck including being able to tow several tons.

▲

o10449366 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not true from a mechanical perspective. Most SUVs use the same frame and parts as trucks by the same manufacturer (which is why they handle so poorly compared to sedans - it isn't just center of gravity)

	▲	neogodless 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If you define SUV as body-on-frame, sure. But most people think of crossovers as SUVs, and most are unibody. It's a big umbrella and how it's made isn't how mainstream thinks about buying.
	▲	potato3732842 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		By weight (gotta over-count those chevy suburbans, lol) that could be possible. By number the median SUV is some sort of crossover or compact SUV built on a platform the OEM also builds sedans on.