How do you classify the size of a Pickup?

[PaPaG]

So I was reading the post about the Maverick being acknowledged for its interior design. Within the article they referred to the Maverick as a "MIDSIZE" truck. There were quite a few comments in that post taking exception with that statement. Not really arguing that it should be classified as mid sized, clearly today Ford's other trucks are much bigger than the Maverick. Should that decide classification?

Perhaps the other trucks, being victims of incremental bracket creep, skew our perceptions. 50 years ago a full size base F-100 Short Bed in 1972 (F150 came out next year) had a wheelbase of 115 inches, 195 inch total length and came with a standard 140 horsepower engine. About 40 years ago, In 1983, Ford's new Ranger came in base configuration with a 2.0 L engine (used in the Pinto) with a whopping 73 hp on a wheelbase of 108 inches and a tot"al overall length of 176 inches (short bed). Ford Ranger replaced the Courier which was a Mazda product that was sold under the Ford label. Both trucks are generally considered "Compact trucks." Interesting to me is that the price on the attached sticker for an 1983 Ranger is $7868, which today would be about $22500. That price is highly consistent with the new Maverick.

The standard base Maverick has a 121 inch wheel base, a total length of 200 inches and a 192 horsepower engine.

Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be the 1987 Dodge Dakota. It was introduced and consistently advertised as being the first "Midsized truck" placing it as larger than the compact Ford Ranger or Chevy S-10. 1987 base Dakota stats are 112 in wheelbase, 186 in total length, 2.2 L engine with 96 horsepower. This base version was offered at $6600. (that would be close to $17,000 today.) I owned a first generation Dakota and it was clearly different than the Chevy and Ford.

I have heard the Maverick referred to as a "mini-truck", "tiny", and "small". Is this a fair description? I have no "AGENDA" here. Hopefully this thread will not fall victim to the internet geniuses that need to quibble about my choice to round the length of the Maverick up a half inch, cherry pick a few dates or ignore some important example that proves how stupid I am. I haven't discussed width, torque or clearance or a host of other ideas. This is not an exhaustive thesis on truck size. Just asking the questions...what classification would it be historically? Is it something new? Perhaps and SUT? Please be civil.

I have attached a few pics and tables if that helps you.


Dodge Dakota Ad

Sponsored

 

[woppinger]

Compared to contemporary pickup trucks, "compact" seems the correct classification, if you feel the need to put such a label on it (similar to how a current Honda Civic, while bigger than an Accord from the 80s, is a "compact" car.)

(EDIT: I believe there are technical specifications for how goverment entities like the EPA etc classify vehicles as subcompact, compact, etc. - not really taking that into account personally)

 

[TacoHolder]

Many US govt agencies classify vehicles, but the EPA is the only one that classifies pickup trucks into multiple categories:

• Small - trucks under 6000lbs GVWR (e.g. Ford Maverick)
• Standard - trucks between 6000 and 8500lbs GVWR (these are the ones that qualify for tax write offs if you run your own business)
• Special purpose vehicle - trucks over 8500lbs GVWR

 

[NOLAguy]

It's a compact truck, period, with or without the over analysis.

 

[TimmH]

Much like large trucks are classified as compensators for small members. Maybe the Maverick should be classified as a small truck owners compensating for large members.

 

[My1stFord]

How we classify vehicles is so random. We should do it based on quantifiable measurements. Let's call it a one ton pickup, as that is the payload capacity.

 

[Scupking]

Mav is todays compact truck.

 

[Bj517]

How we classify vehicles is so random. We should do it based on quantifiable measurements. Let's call it a one ton pickup, as that is the payload capacity.

Payload is only 1500 pounds, give or take depending on trim level and options added

 

[My1stFord]

Payload is only 1500 pounds, give or take depending on trim level and options added

Ok, 3/4 ton

 

[Scott Asheville]

As mentioned above, the US government classifies by weight. Historically, over the last 50 years, consumers and marketers have classified by payload size. But different strokes for different folks. Some people care about towing capacity. Others by bed length. Trucks are so versatile and the use cases so varied that it's really all about "what works for you".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_classification

 

[The Weatherman]

So I was reading the post about the Maverick being acknowledged for its interior design. Within the article they referred to the Maverick as a "MIDSIZE" truck. There were quite a few comments in that post taking exception with that statement. Not really arguing that it should be classified as mid sized, clearly today Ford's other trucks are much bigger than the Maverick. Should that decide classification?

Perhaps the other trucks, being victims of incremental bracket creep, skew our perceptions. 50 years ago a full size base F-100 Short Bed in 1972 (F150 came out next year) had a wheelbase of 115 inches, 195 inch total length and came with a standard 140 horsepower engine. About 40 years ago, In 1983, Ford's new Ranger came in base configuration with a 2.0 L engine (used in the Pinto) with a whopping 73 hp on a wheelbase of 108 inches and a tot"al overall length of 176 inches (short bed). Ford Ranger replaced the Courier which was a Mazda product that was sold under the Ford label. Both trucks are generally considered "Compact trucks." Interesting to me is that the price on the attached sticker for an 1983 Ranger is $7868, which today would be about $22500. That price is highly consistent with the new Maverick.

The standard base Maverick has a 121 inch wheel base, a total length of 200 inches and a 192 horsepower engine.

Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be the 1987 Dodge Dakota. It was introduced and consistently advertised as being the first "Midsized truck" placing it as larger than the compact Ford Ranger or Chevy S-10. 1987 base Dakota stats are 112 in wheelbase, 186 in total length, 2.2 L engine with 96 horsepower. This base version was offered at $6600. (that would be close to $17,000 today.) I owned a first generation Dakota and it was clearly different than the Chevy and Ford.

I have heard the Maverick referred to as a "mini-truck", "tiny", and "small". Is this a fair description? I have no "AGENDA" here. Hopefully this thread will not fall victim to the internet geniuses that need to quibble about my choice to round the length of the Maverick up a half inch, cherry pick a few dates or ignore some important example that proves how stupid I am. I haven't discussed width, torque or clearance or a host of other ideas. This is not an exhaustive thesis on truck size. Just asking the questions...what classification would it be historically? Is it something new? Perhaps and SUT? Please be civil.

I have attached a few pics and tables if that helps you.


Dodge Dakota Ad

Here’s the everyday Joe’s truck classification: (This everyday Joe anyway.)

Compact
Mid-size
Full-size
and
Gargantuan

 

[PaPaG]

Ok, 3/4 ton

Standard payload on the standard F100 is less than a 1000 pounds, but no one would have called it compact. They would have called it "Light Duty."

 

[Revengeman01]

HUGE

 

[cavemold]

Small-Maverick,s10, earlier tacomas, older rangers
Medium -tacoma 2015- until now . frontier, ranger, f150, etc
Large - Super duty, Duramax,

I know very creative!

Sponsored