• ...m...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    …my wife’s `97 ranger single-cab was a fantastic utilitarian truck; after the wheels finally fell off we were disappointed that nothing so small + simple was produced any longer, so we replaced it with a glorious mazda 2 hatchback; sadly those are gone now, too, replaced by bloated crossovers…

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I know someone who works for one of the American car manufacturers who claimed they couldn’t afford to make small trucks. They are more complex because of the tighter regulations so they couldn’t make them much cheaper than big ones. Who’s going to buy a small truck when a big one coasts only a little more?

      I don’t know how much of that is true, but the effects of looser regulations for bigger vehicles are pretty clear

      • ...m...
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        …my wife’s '97 ranger cost $10,000 new from the dealership: bare-bones base model, straight four, stick shift, rear-wheel-drive, air conditioning, and crank windows, which adjusted for inflation would be $19,000 today…by comparison, the cheapest, least-bloated ranger you can buy today starts at $33,000, although a base-model maverick can be had $25,000 if you’re willing to consider a four-foot unibody a pickup truck…

        …methinks that’s a lot more about profit margins the manufacturers are willing to accept than what’s technically feasible in today’s market…