• papabobolious@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    If it was suited to the Scandinavian market it wouldn’t be a truck. We don’t understand why you want your stuff outside, we’re van people.

    • SomeAmateur
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Vans are frustratingly underrated, and overlooked mostly because it just doesn’t look as cool. But to answer the question basically some stuff is better with an open cargo area, or at least one that isn’t shared with the driver/passengers.

      Dirt/gravel/mulch, hay bales, killed fish/game, chainsaws/fuel jugs, chemicals, disgustingly dirty work clothes etc.

      How often the average truck owner uses it for those purposes is debatable but when needed it’s nice to just toss stuff in and hose off the bed later. Trailers can do the same stuff mostly but manuvering is way better without one of course.

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyzM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Maybe if it was 3 times as long, wide and tall. This looks like the small trucks of lore. I wish we could attain them.

      • OnlyTakesLs
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The maverick is just tall. Its foot print is pretty small.

        • M0oP0o@mander.xyzM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It is wider, taller and about as long as a 3/4 ton truck from 30 years ago. We have been gaslit into thinking that it is a small truck. I think removing the standard cab as an option was the final move towards the embiggining of trucks.

          • OnlyTakesLs
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s straight up false. The 1993 F-250 had a width of 79 inches. The length of the 250 at it’s shortest was 213.3 inches.

            The Maverick is 72.4 inches wide, and 199.7 inches long. It’s tall, sure, but so is everything.

            • M0oP0o@mander.xyzM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I was using a 1986 c20. Also including the massive side mirrors (on both old and new). So with the mirrors (maverick is 83.5 with mirrors and the c20 is 79 with non trailer add on mirrors) it is taller, wider and almost as long. Like I said we have been gaslit to think it is small as it is small compared to every other truck being sold now. I would love to drive the size of new truck in this AI rendition.

              • OnlyTakesLs
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Oh yeah, it’s nice to drive old small trucks. But my point was the maverick is smaller than you think.