Hi Ford, This is Chevy

[notfast]

It's a USA/Canada thing where manufactures have been obsessed with the monster trucks that most people have.

I think the big truck phenomenon is partly due to CAFE regulations incentivizing automakers to make vehicles with large cabin volumes and large footprints. Hence probably at least partly why the F-150 now has more leg room in the back seat than the front. Big cab = more cabin volume = less fuel economy required.

Market it heavily that you too can go bogging through the woods, racing across the desert, or tow a big trailer with 5 of your 6'2" friends and all their stuff if you buy this big crew cab truck and watch them practically sell themselves, while the automakers laugh their way to the bank, knowing that the majority of these trucks sold at retail (to private owners) will be commuters hauling nothing but sailboat fuel.

Sponsored

 

[icegradner]

I think the big truck phenomenon is partly due to CAFE regulations incentivizing automakers to make vehicles with large cabin volumes and large footprints. Hence probably at least partly why the F-150 now has more leg room in the back seat than the front. Big cab = more cabin volume = less fuel economy required.

To be fair, it's how manufactures choose to respond to those regulations, not the regulations themselves. The market could have shifted to trucks like the Maverick, but they decided to go bigger instead. 25 years ago almost nobody wanted trucks as commuter vehicles, now they do as a status symbol, which you rightly pointed out in your second paragraph. Then there is the false narrative that bigger is safer that manufactures sold people on.

 

[North Coast Joe]

Looks more like a Santa Cruz size.

That is my thought exactly. In fact, maybe a cooperative/joint venture.

 

[Cherokee]

Montana,
Looks like a Subaru,
No thanks.

 

[CajunMick]

Different strokes fir different folks.
Long ago Chevy tried selling the old Nova in Latin America. Sales was really slow, almost nonexistent. So GM sent team down there to ascertain why not selling.

Team came back. Suggested to change the Nova name. Huh, why, management says. Reason - in certain dialects word “Nova“means “It doesn't go”.

A Montana in S America?

 

[Aherpa]

Thank you for posting.
120 HP not a hybrid, no towing cap.
I'll keep my Maverick.

That is one ugly Subaru . . .

 

[Goose20]

14" shorter than Maverick, 1.2L 3-cylinder. No thanks.

HRG

Lucky to get 75 k out of that hamster wheel engine.....

 

[Donaldw]

Thanks for everyone for the interesting facts and insights. Fwiw, we've seen 2 or 3 mavericks in the last 3 weeks. My wife won't let me stop them for a beer.

 

[FischAutoTechGarten]

See these everyday here in Sonora... Even rode in a few... very, very basic transportation... feels wheezy...

 

[MadDogMike]

Seen yesterday in Mazamitla Mexico. This truck in my estimate the exact same size as a Maverick. Same height. Same hood length and height. Same cabin size. Same bed side. It is a turbo. It is called "Montana." It's a Chevy.

Seen yesterday in Mazamitla Mexico. This truck in my estimate the exact same size as a Maverick. Same height. Same hood length and height. Same cabin size. Same bed side. It is a turbo. It is called "Montana." It's a Chevy.

Seen yesterday in Mazamitla Mexico. This truck in my estimate the exact same size as a Maverick. Same height. Same hood length and height. Same cabin size. Same bed side. It is a turbo. It is called "Montana." It's a Chevy.

The Montana has been around for quite some time now and is only available in South America. I hope they keep it there, it is truly an ugly truck especially when you look at the front end.

 

[wax87]

14" shorter than Maverick, 1.2L 3-cylinder. No thanks.

HRG

and that is why there is no trailer receiver

 

[Suzukiridr14]

Seen yesterday in Mazamitla Mexico. This truck in my estimate the exact same size as a Maverick. Same height. Same hood length and height. Same cabin size. Same bed side. It is a turbo. It is called "Montana." It's a Chevy.

Price one, and you'll be glad you bought a Maverick. (my Maverick replaced my GMC Canyon) for half the price!

 

[ClemsonU88]

To be fair, it's how manufactures choose to respond to those regulations, not the regulations themselves. The market could have shifted to trucks like the Maverick, but they decided to go bigger instead. 25 years ago almost nobody wanted trucks as commuter vehicles, now they do as a status symbol, which you rightly pointed out in your second paragraph. Then there is the false narrative that bigger is safer that manufactures sold people on.

10 years ago a Consumer Reports article about safety said the "feature" that accounted for safety as much as all other features combined is weight. In other words, 50% of your vehicle's safety rating would be due to how much it weighs.

That makes sense, but it's at everyone else's peril. If an 800 lb. vehicle hits a telephone pole at 55 mph, the car is totaled. If a 4,000 lb truck hits a telephone pole at 55, the pole will be totaled. Same with a 1,000 lb truck vs a 4,000 lb truck.

Of course you want the safety features (ie side impact beams, crumple zones, air bags,...), but combined they all matter about as much as weight does.

 

[icegradner]

10 years ago a Consumer Reports article about safety said the "feature" that accounted for safety as much as all other features combined is weight. In other words, 50% of your vehicle's safety rating would be due to how much it weighs.

That makes sense, but it's at everyone else's peril. If an 800 lb. vehicle hits a telephone pole at 55 mph, the car is totaled. If a 4,000 lb truck hits a telephone pole at 55, the pole will be totaled. Same with a 1,000 lb truck vs a 4,000 lb truck.

Of course you want the safety features (ie side impact beams, crumple zones, air bags,...), but combined they all matter about as much as weight does.

And as the average weight of all vehicles is rising, that means an increased risk of injuries when vehicles crash. The weight only helps you if you have the heaviest vehicle. If an F-250 crashes into an F-250, the result is worse than a smart car crashing into a smart car.

 

[dochawk]

50% of your vehicle's safety rating would be due to how much it weighs.

I'd refine that further as being that in a collision with a non-fixed object, your weight as a fraction of the total matters.

If you weigh 200 in an 1800 pound vehicle, hoy absorb 10% of the energy transferred by the other. But in a 3800 pound vehicle, you only end up with 5%.

But if you hit a fixed object (big tree, concrete wall, etc), your share of energy absorbed is offset by the mass of the ride, and that mass ends up making little difference in how much you absorb (as it's the same fraction that you carry and absorb; basically the kinetic energy of your body).

as the mass of your vehicle becomes smaller compared to the other, it increasing becomes "immovable object"

Sponsored