From the article (archive link): The article goes on to discuss the fact that these vehicles aren't compliant with current U.S. and state emissions standards, allowable only via a regulatory...
Minicars—or kei-cars (kei means “light” in Japanese)—and ultra-tiny trucks and vans have become an unlikely hit outside their home market. Exports more than quadrupled over the past decade, to almost 70,000 last year, according to government trade statistics. Used kei-trucks from Toyota, Daihatsu, Suzuki and Honda are among the popular models sent overseas to begin a second life.
Hundreds of the minitrucks are shipped by individual order each year to the US, which ranked eighth among countries for the Japanese export in 2023, behind the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Kenya and others. The diminutive transports have generated a kei culture among ranchers, homesteaders and outdoor enthusiasts, along with a brisk business for brokers who can navigate the maze of cross-border secondhand vehicle laws—for a fee.
The vehicles are unique to Japanese production, where they make up more than a third of all auto sales. They began as part of a national motorization and manufacturing program in the 1950s, according to Tatsuo Yoshida, a senior auto analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. “They are not a fashion item,” he says.
In both Japan and the US, kei-trucks are used for carting produce and tools. A kei-truck’s flatbed size is similar to that of a Ford F-150 with a 6.5-foot box, so it can haul a lot. But it has a much smaller cab, and its typical length of about 11 feet is half that of Ford’s mainstay truck. That makes a kei-truck especially useful for a small agricultural plot. Owner Jason Contreras says his vehicle is small enough to drive along trails on his 14-acre homestead in western North Carolina and light enough to not tear up his land even when hauling water and feed.
The article goes on to discuss the fact that these vehicles aren't compliant with current U.S. and state emissions standards, allowable only via a regulatory loophole which exempts vehicles older than 25 years. Some states are declaring that kei trucks aren't permitted on public roads, again due to lack of compliance with current safety standards and underpowered engines that can barely reach 55 m.p.h.
But the popularity of these vehicles again opens discussion about why Western, particularly U.S., manufacturers are ignoring clear market demand for smaller cars and trucks.
Open to comments from Tilders from the EU and other nations on their locally available small utility trucks and vans.
Because auto dealerships are really loan servicing companies. And there's lower margins on smaller, cheaper vehicles. Edit: And a result of history, car dealerships are the real customer for...
manufacturers are ignoring clear market demand for smaller cars and trucks.
Because auto dealerships are really loan servicing companies. And there's lower margins on smaller, cheaper vehicles.
Edit: And a result of history, car dealerships are the real customer for manufacturers. They're a legally mandated middleman in most states, which means they're gonna push whatever vehicles give them the highest margins, regardless of what consumers may actually want.
[friendly local gearhead knuckle crack] ...which is a BS argument because no 25 year old vehicle will be compliant with current US and state emission standards. The standards are more stringent...
[friendly local gearhead knuckle crack]
The article goes on to discuss the fact that these vehicles aren't compliant with current U.S. and state emissions standards
...which is a BS argument because no 25 year old vehicle will be compliant with current US and state emission standards. The standards are more stringent now than they were in 1999 and even the cleanest of 1999 models is unlikely to pass an emission test required of a new 2024 model. "Decades old thing doesn't comply with new standard, news at 11."
allowable only via a regulatory loophole which exempts vehicles older than 25 years.
"Loophole" an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules; this isn't that. The laws are written to specifically allow 25+ year old vehicles to be imported because they're no longer a threat to new or even used car sales at that point. Canada has a similar law but for 15 year old vehicles, for example.
Some states are declaring that kei trucks aren't permitted on public roads, again due to lack of compliance with current safety standards
...again is a BS argument because even a car originally sold here in 1999 doesn't comply with any current safety standards.
and underpowered engines that can barely reach 55 m.p.h.
Misnomer. Kei cars/trucks are fully capable of reaching 55mph and typically have top speeds of 75mph. 60hp is the norm, which doesn't sound like much, but 1,500lb curb weight is also the norm, so half the power for half the weight. Yes, they are slower to accelerate than modern cars just as most 25+ year old vehicles are, which is both not a problem and if anything modern cars are too powerful/fast. I am willing to debate with anyone that thinks anyone with a driver's license should be allowed to pilot a 5 ton vehicle that can hit 60mph in 3 seconds or that any car driven on US public roads should be able to exceed 100mph.
It's already like pulling teeth to get a "normal" 25 year old imported car titled and on the road in many states, but start importing affordable, usable, trucks into the US and little lobbyist red flags and bureaucratic laziness comes up with new rules and regulations to stop any possible threat against people buying stupid oversized modern pickups.
Chiming in for fun. I used to have a 1979 Honda CVCC, which was, conveniently, ~1,500 pounds, with ~60hp. It had no problem at all going SoCal freeway speeds! Wind noise was annoying past 75MPH,...
Chiming in for fun. I used to have a 1979 Honda CVCC, which was, conveniently, ~1,500 pounds, with ~60hp.
It had no problem at all going SoCal freeway speeds! Wind noise was annoying past 75MPH, but that was the extent of it. It was genuinely peppy from the stoplight and around town. ~40mpg, too.
Great little car, I miss it. The manual choke + stick shift was a fantastic anti-theft system. :D
I used to daydream about getting a '91 CRX. The problem with those cars, though, is that the body has roughly as much structural rigidity as an aluminum can. Any serious collision at all, and the...
I used to daydream about getting a '91 CRX.
The problem with those cars, though, is that the body has roughly as much structural rigidity as an aluminum can. Any serious collision at all, and the passenger compartment will crumple up with you inside it. Add enough metal that the car is reasonably safe to crash, and it's no longer peppy at that power level, and no longer efficient if you soup it up.
(Just to be clear, the weight line for "reasonably safe" is far to the light side of modern cars, even discounting the absurd bloating due to physical dimensions. It would be great to see some enforced lightening of cars on American roads. But as long as I'm dreaming about unrealistic policy goals, I'd rather replace the whole lot of them with trains.)
Your car is very cute, I hope you had a good time with it. =)
Reading between the lines, I think you already know this, but I wanted to point this out for other readers: A car crumpling in an accident is the ideal. Of course, if the crew compartment crumples...
Reading between the lines, I think you already know this, but I wanted to point this out for other readers:
A car crumpling in an accident is the ideal. Of course, if the crew compartment crumples into you, like this old car would, that is very bad. But modern cars are designed to keep the crew compartment intact while allowing all other areas of the car to crumple. This design makes crashes look much more dangerous, but they actually end up being much safer to the people in the car. These crumple zones take the forces of the impact so your body doesn’t have to. A car that is strong and doesn’t crumple is a death trap. You want a car that will crumple but still keep you safe.
Oh, yes, of course. Crumpling everything except the passenger compartment is ideal. This is the canonical illustrative video, which most people have probably seen at this point. There are two...
Oh, yes, of course. Crumpling everything except the passenger compartment is ideal.
This is the canonical illustrative video, which most people have probably seen at this point. There are two obvious observations: first, that '57 takes the impact like a baseball bat to a delicate glass vase, clearly demonstrating that older cars are not indestructible chunks of iron; and second, the force of the collision is basically concentrated into the driver's body.
(It's possible to quibble with the details of that specific crash test, but it's not really intended to be a compelling argument on its own, for all that it convinces a lot of people; it's a very dramatic illustration of the point made by car crash injury and death statistics, which are compelling. Modern cars are much, much safer than older ones.)
Popping in for more fun. I currently daily a restored 1987 Civic wagon (last generation with CVCC head) that's a hair over 2000 lbs and has 76 whole horsepower. It easily cruises at 70 on the...
Popping in for more fun. I currently daily a restored 1987 Civic wagon (last generation with CVCC head) that's a hair over 2000 lbs and has 76 whole horsepower. It easily cruises at 70 on the interstate and accelerates with traffic no problem. Such a fun and straightforward vehicle (at least, after a carb swap--original Honda Keihin carb is a brilliant nightmare).
My first new car was a 1989 Honda Civic DX 5-speed hatchback, and I loved that thing to death at about 200,000 miles. The 1.5 L SOHC, 92 HP engine felt like plenty of power at a curb weight of...
My first new car was a 1989 Honda Civic DX 5-speed hatchback, and I loved that thing to death at about 200,000 miles. The 1.5 L SOHC, 92 HP engine felt like plenty of power at a curb weight of 2,147 lb. 45 - 55 mpg, it too easily hit 90 m.p.h. if I wasn't paying attention. The only major maintenance costs were clutch and brake pads plus exhaust pipe rust. I moved an entire apartment's worth of stuff + 2 cats across the country in the hatch. I could park it on a postage stamp, and the handling felt like an extension of my skin.
By current standards, it was a deathtrap, but I miss that grown-up go-cart feeling. I still haven't adjusted to the sheer behemoth size of current vehicles, and driving is not fun these days. That car would cost $24,000 new in the present day; there are comparably affordable cars, but nothing that small or efficient.
I firmly want to import the keijidousha regulations to the US. Light, compact, efficient vehicles should be encouraged and there should be severe financial and licensing downsides to owning a...
I firmly want to import the keijidousha regulations to the US. Light, compact, efficient vehicles should be encouraged and there should be severe financial and licensing downsides to owning a larger vehicle, progressively scaling by weight.
If you need a dumb monster truck for work reasons, that's commercial activity and should require separate licensing and taxation.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, this at least initially makes sense from an emissions perspective. On the other hand, as a 1 person business (independent contractor) who uses a RAM...
there should be severe financial and licensing downsides to owning a larger vehicle, progressively scaling by weight.
If you need a dumb monster truck for work reasons, that's commercial activity and should require separate licensing and taxation.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, this at least initially makes sense from an emissions perspective. On the other hand, as a 1 person business (independent contractor) who uses a RAM Promaster (large, high-roof work van), I really don't need another financial drain on me. So... I'm a bit conflicted there.
I would hope for a more nuanced approach, maybe one where someone would need to show commercial need? On the other hand, I can absolutely see random people making a laughing stock of such a law by making up technically valid 'commercial needs' that are obvious bull.
As for the kei trucks? Those things are awesome. They fill a great utility niche for incredible fuel economy. The article mentions them not meeting emissions standards? My logical question is that, if they are getting 50+MPG, might they for all practical purposes, be better from an overall emissions point of view than something that meets technical standards but consumes 3 or 4 times as much fuel per distance?
The tragedy of the commons, in a nutshell. "I really want to stop destroying the environment, but on the other hand I don't want to be inconvenienced in any way"
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, this at least initially makes sense from an emissions perspective. On the other hand, as a 1 person business (independent contractor) who uses a RAM Promaster (large, high-roof work van), I really don't need another financial drain on me. So... I'm a bit conflicted there.
The tragedy of the commons, in a nutshell.
"I really want to stop destroying the environment, but on the other hand I don't want to be inconvenienced in any way"
I am in a position where I have a legitimate need to transport about 2,000 pounds of tools and materials for my work. That... does require a large vehicle. Edit: since I see the question come up...
I am in a position where I have a legitimate need to transport about 2,000 pounds of tools and materials for my work. That... does require a large vehicle.
Edit: since I see the question come up in other comments about what I specifically do and use the van for, I am an independent contractor who does multiple jobs:
I do OSP (OutSide Plant) telecommunications infrastructure work. Tools I need for this: Ladders - many ladders of different sizes, earth moving tools (multiple different shovels, pickaxe), 500ft Rodder (basically a 500ft long coiled spool of stiff fiberglass rod that can be shoved through underground conduit in order to then pull a nylon line back through, which you can then use to pull your copper or fiber lines through said conduit - it is a large tool), pipe wrenches (needed to rotate / work on/off conduit joins), a bunch of power tools including a rather massive Core Drill for drilling 2+ inch cores through concrete/brick/cinderblock/rebar, misc hand tools.
Materials I need to tansport: multiple spools of bull line (this is the ribbon-style nylon line we use to pull telco cables), heavy gage ground wire spools, bulk 10ft x 2in PVC conduit with various attachments. Also various spools of smaller line like RG6 and Cat6 for interior work that is sometimes included. All the miscellaneous hardware for working with / installing all the above.
I also sometimes need to pull a 1500lb trailer holding large spools of copper or fiber hardline.
Telecommunications field survey. Most of what I need for this job fits into a single Milwaukee packout, with the exception of my 17ft height rod (it collapses down to ~5.5ft) and bipod. In the winter I also need to transport cold weather gear, sometimes very heavy amounts of cold weather gear (many layers top and bottom) - and in the winter I also need the interior space of my van to take warming breaks which means I need the heated interior to strip down and rest (I have a separate Webasto Diesel heater installed so I'm not just running my engine all the time for heat) - the warming breaks are not a luxury, but really critical for health and safety in the winter when I'm out sunup to sunset with wind chill going down to -5F and once to -20F.
I also need medium and heavy tree clearance tools for this work (sometimes, not always) to cut access paths and sight paths to telephone poles. Hedge trimmer, chainsaw, pole saw, axe, hatchet, machete...
Surveillance trailer on-site support. I do work for a company that fields a fleet of solar/fuel cell powered surveillance trailers to provide video security without the need to install infrastructure. Tools I need for this: my primary low-voltage toolbag (about 40 pounds) which contains most of what I need, plus enough space to bring out various replacement parts (sometimes small, sometimes large). I also use the interior van space to bring in the head unit (about 60 pounds and the volume of about 2.5x2.5x2ft) to work on it if I need to do extensive servicing. Again for winter work, I would not choose to accept that work if I needed to do significant head unit servicing in the blowing cold - it is delicate work and would be absolute misery to attempt.
Random IT support contracts. Honestly, I'm just including it because it's one of the things I do, but I don't need the giant van for this one. My packout rolling toolbox + my main low-voltage toolbag on top is enough for the IT jobs.
Hah, they certainly need it more than people need whatever it is I do all day. But I do hope you understand, I wasn't making any specific accusations against you, and they would hold no weight if...
Hah, they certainly need it more than people need whatever it is I do all day.
But I do hope you understand, I wasn't making any specific accusations against you, and they would hold no weight if I did. I was just acknowledging a possibility.
I do understand the point of view you were expressing. Issues of relative value to society and how justifiable certain actions and costs are. Example: CEO of a big landscaping company (who in this...
I do understand the point of view you were expressing. Issues of relative value to society and how justifiable certain actions and costs are.
Example: CEO of a big landscaping company (who in this example doesn't actually do the labor) driving around a giant truck 'just because' or with logos for his company to be seen, and to be seen as a giant work truck with those logos. Is it arguable there is a legit marketing reason? ...yes... ...to some extent... How much value does that reasoning hold vs the trucks actually carrying the tools / soil / etc...
So, yes, I do get the point you were making. And forgive the example, I'm sure there are more clear ones to be made, I'm just not thinking of them at the moment.
It really doesn't matter what I suggest - everyone has their "need" that they justify their current decisions on. That's kind of the point of the concept. No one in particular wants to change,...
It really doesn't matter what I suggest - everyone has their "need" that they justify their current decisions on. That's kind of the point of the concept. No one in particular wants to change, they want everyone else to change.
Doesn't worry me none as I'll be dead long before it's enough of an issue to impact my lifestyle, and I don't have kids so I don't have a horse in the race to preserve future generations. I just found that snippet of that post such a perfect summation of the problem in trying to turn around the climate change ship - I'm so concerned about all these emissions, but I couldn't possibly change anything because it would cost more money.
No one in this thread can answer that without at the very least knowing what they're using the vehicle for currently. But even if there is no better vehicle for them to use, it's possible that the...
No one in this thread can answer that without at the very least knowing what they're using the vehicle for currently. But even if there is no better vehicle for them to use, it's possible that the best situation from a societal perspective is that they go ahead and use that vehicle, and also pay a higher price. Or, unfortunately for them, it might be better for society that they just don't do the thing that they need the van to do.
I agree except for your last point. The problem is not what people are driving, but in the case of commercial use, is it appropriate for the actual use, which is also their livelihood. Lets take 2...
I agree except for your last point. The problem is not what people are driving, but in the case of commercial use, is it appropriate for the actual use, which is also their livelihood. Lets take 2 businesses for example, one is a landscaper, and the other does office cleaning. The landscaper needs to haul heavy equipment to provide services to his clients, while the office cleaner only needs a few supplies. In this hypothetical, the landscaper will need a vehicle that performs to a certain spec to be both efficient and useful for their needs, most likely a larger truck or van. The cleaner probably can make due with a much more fuel efficent vehicle to both travel and carry some supplies.
All of that being said whether the landscaper should have to pay more based of needs of his business is debatable. There are certainly ways to make sure small businesses stay afloat while larger ones carry a larger burden.
I recognize that it's not great for them if their livelihood is not in service to society at large, but that is very much a possibility. If they are, say, a landscaper for golf courses, the...
I recognize that it's not great for them if their livelihood is not in service to society at large, but that is very much a possibility. If they are, say, a landscaper for golf courses, the chances are very good that their livelihood is a detriment to society overall and it would be for the best for the climate and the majority of the people who live on the planet for them to get a different livelihood. They may need the heavy equipment to effectively service their clients, but effectively servicing their clients is not necessarily what is best for the world at large.
So the question is not just "do they need this vehicle", it's "do we need this job performed?" and for a lot of jobs, the answer is "no", or "yes, but way less than it currently is" (it's probably fine for us to have some golf courses).
That's not a moral judgement that I'm passing on them, by the way. I have a job that would not exist if America had a functioning healthcare system, and every single resource that I use to perform said job is a waste as far as the benefit of society goes. But I got bills to pay. I am, unfortunately, contributing to the tragedy of the commons, as much as I would rather I wasn't.
My opinion, in short, is that the burden for these "big dumb monster trucks" shouldn't be on a business, but individual consumers. There's no reason Jim...
If you need a dumb monster truck for work reasons, that's commercial activity and should require separate licensing and taxation.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, this at least initially makes sense from an emissions perspective. On the other hand, as a 1 person business (independent contractor) who uses a RAM Promaster (large, high-roof work van), I really don't need another financial drain on me.
My opinion, in short, is that the burden for these "big dumb monster trucks" shouldn't be on a business, but individual consumers. There's no reason Jim the-cubicle-dwelling-apartment-living-sales-guy should even have a pickup truck (or SUV for that matter). "Luxury" pickups and SUVs shouldn't even exist because practically no business would spring for such and no individual consumer has a need for such. It's become a vehicular arms race because of it. If a consumer wants one of these vehicles for personal use that's fine, here's your 50% tax for the privilege of sitting in traffic on the way to your office job in a cloth upholstered, manual windows, stripped down fleet truck. Bet that Honda Accord looks really good from that high seat, huh?
Agreed on the 'vehicular arms race' idea. Also angry with the vehicle manufacturers for... sigh. I was about to say 'angry with them for aggressively marketing giant, more expensive and less fuel...
"Luxury" pickups and SUVs shouldn't even exist because practically no business would spring for such and no individual consumer has a need for such. It's become a vehicular arms race because of it.
Agreed on the 'vehicular arms race' idea. Also angry with the vehicle manufacturers for... sigh. I was about to say 'angry with them for aggressively marketing giant, more expensive and less fuel efficient vehicles TO EVERYONE so they can sell as many as possible... but of course they did that. I just had to RE-remind myself that corporations do not have ethics or morality beyond what is forced upon them by laws - and only the laws that cost them enough money to actually be more than just 'cost of doing business'.
I remember when I was a kid back in the 90's my family had a tiny little Honda Civic (I think that's which model it was). Got around 35-40mpg! It was a cheap little car, and cheap to own and fuel, and it was great because of that.
Now US car manufacturers have seemingly no interest in filling that niche - and as long as not one of them bothers to re-enter that market none of the others need bother competing in that market, thus pretty much locking it out for US manufacture.
The EV market somewhat intersects the small / lightweight market out of design and engineering necessity, but even there, if you look at the Tesla models as example, they are still quite a bit larger than the compact light cars of the 1980's Japanese manufacture. And yes, I acknowledge I am comparing apples to oranges a bit there as battery mass is a factor.
I would love to see that market get some attention, but then manufacturers would have to deal with the bad optics of "hey, wait, that little thing can get 50 to 60mpg!? Why can't you do better with your mid-sized sedans then? Surely they can do better than 22MPG?" - a question that the petroleum industry, which is certainly partnered in economic interests with the vehicle industry, really doesn't want to have more attention on.
Well, that spun into a frustrated rant on my part. I'll leave it there.
Even what qualifies as “small” has crept up over the years. Continuing with your example of Tesla, people largely consider the Model 3 small at ~186” long, but in my opinion that’s approaching or...
Even what qualifies as “small” has crept up over the years. Continuing with your example of Tesla, people largely consider the Model 3 small at ~186” long, but in my opinion that’s approaching or within midsize territory. It might be “small” relative to a behemoth SUV or truck but I don’t think anything exceeding 175” in length is really all that small.
This has especially frustrated me with interior space. Even though cars get bigger, as someone with rear-facing child seats they're getting awful on the inside. Mazda is the worst; a Mazda 3 just...
This has especially frustrated me with interior space. Even though cars get bigger, as someone with rear-facing child seats they're getting awful on the inside. Mazda is the worst; a Mazda 3 just does not fit a rear seat or tall adult in the back, and I couldn't really sit comfortably in front of my baby in my CX-5. All the slanted rear hatch windows are terrible for cargo, too.
Though I'm not as impacted by this (my use of space behind the front seats is more often going to be hauling things rather than people) I've noticed this too. Auto manufacturers obviously know how...
Though I'm not as impacted by this (my use of space behind the front seats is more often going to be hauling things rather than people) I've noticed this too.
Auto manufacturers obviously know how to design for large internal volume — just look at the Honda Fit, which one can cram more stuff into than your average SUV and many other hatchbacks, despite its tiny size. It feels like it's done on purpose to upsell larger vehicles… people who want more than the bare minimum in terms of passenger room or cargo space will have to be buying a 4Runner or Highlander instead of a Corolla Cross or RAV4.
My understanding (which may be wrong!) is that heavier vehicles are judged by lower standards, so for (a probably way off) example an SUV that gets 30 MPG is fine, while a sedan that gets 30 MPG...
They fill a great utility niche for incredible fuel economy. The article mentions them not meeting emissions standards? My logical question is that, if they are getting 50+MPG, might they for all practical purposes, be better from an overall emissions point of view than something that meets technical standards but consumes 3 or 4 times as much fuel per distance?
My understanding (which may be wrong!) is that heavier vehicles are judged by lower standards, so for (a probably way off) example an SUV that gets 30 MPG is fine, while a sedan that gets 30 MPG is not. These judgements are based on weight, not function. So since the kei truck has the weight of a sedan, despite having the function of a truck, it's going to be judged by sedan standards, which it doesn't meet. If it were judged by the same standards as the vehicles it's replacing, it would beat them handily, but that's not how it's being classified.
It’s a shame that we don’t have any US counterpart for kei trucks and vans. Both would be incredible for suburbanites with a bit of a DIY streak who could use more capacity to haul things than...
It’s a shame that we don’t have any US counterpart for kei trucks and vans. Both would be incredible for suburbanites with a bit of a DIY streak who could use more capacity to haul things than you’d find in the average sedan/hatch/SUV but don’t want to have to deal with the pain of fueling and parking the battlecruisers that are modern American trucks.
The closest I think any car sold in North America recently has gotten in terms of utility:size was the Toyota Matrix or its GM rebadge the Pontiac Vibe, which with its full complement of fold-flat seats and pop-open back hatch glass had cargo capacity approaching that of a small truck but still got ~30MPG and drove and parked like a car. Sadly it was discontinued in favor of lower-utility SUVs and the Corolla hatchback, the latter of which might look similar but has steeply reduced cargo capacity. The also-discontinued Honda Fit ranks highly here too, but is more limited due to inability to carry long things.
I’m hopeful that Telo will see the light of day and help turn this around, but it’d still only be fixing the truck side of the equation. Rivian’s R3/R3X looks like a great modern Matrix counterpart with the fold flat seats and pop-open back glass bits but they have yet to announce a date on those.
Trailers should be more common. I bought a small 6' (~2 meter) utility trailer from Tractor Supply for $250 and build a plywood base and some wood slat sides with corner latches for it that fit...
Trailers should be more common. I bought a small 6' (~2 meter) utility trailer from Tractor Supply for $250 and build a plywood base and some wood slat sides with corner latches for it that fit into the stake pockets -- all in about $350. Another $200 for a hitch and the wiring. It costs me about $25 per year to register it. Less than $600 for the first year, and even less going forward. I have plenty of room to park it next to my house when I'm not using it, but with the sides removed it'd be easy to stand on end and lean it against the wall in my garage. I pull it with my 4 cylinder Subaru and use it regularly for yard waste, mulch, garden compost, etc.
Granted, I did the hitch installation and trailer assembly myself, but even if I paid somebody else for all of the labor it'd be about $1500. If they were more common then used ones would also be available and more cars would come with hitches.
When I don't need the extra capacity (most of the time) it sits idle, costing nothing in fuel or insurance, but it's easy to hook up and use whenever I need it. Moreover, I can spend as much time loading/unloading it as I need (e.g. a week of adding leaves/sticks during the fall or a week of unloading fresh compost and mulch in the spring) without hauling the stuff around everywhere I go. A pickup, on the other hand, would be less convenient, use more fuel, cost more to insure, cost more for tires, etc.
Trailers are the answer. I paid Uhaul <$500 to install a tow hitch on my Subaru Outback, and now I can rent a giant trailer online for ~$15 anytime I need it.
Trailers are the answer. I paid Uhaul <$500 to install a tow hitch on my Subaru Outback, and now I can rent a giant trailer online for ~$15 anytime I need it.
Back when I was still in school, every time I would go visit my parents, I would pass by two of these trucks parked in a little town along my route. The owner wanted $9,500 for them... each. I...
Back when I was still in school, every time I would go visit my parents, I would pass by two of these trucks parked in a little town along my route. The owner wanted $9,500 for them... each. I thought that was ridiculous, and I guess I was right, because they have been sitting there for at least four years now.
Still, I tried to convince a family member of mine to buy them for his ranch. I told him to just make the owner a lowball offer and who knows, maybe he'd get a good deal. For even $5,000 though, you could buy a side-by-side or similar type of vehicle and it would do pretty much everything these trucks do. You can even register them for non-highway use in a lot of states. The only downside might be, in some cases, a smaller bed to hold cargo.
I still love the idea of owning one of these trucks, especially if I lived near a small town with lots of country roads. I also wonder if these trucks are prime candidates for aftermarket electrification? If you're just using the truck to get around the farm and occasionally haul produce into town, your required range is probably pretty small. States that regulate these vehicles off the roads entirely (though not necessarily highways) have really got it backwards.
The article was interesting to me because we live among a number of small farmsteads and I've seen a few of these trucks around. But it's more usual to see an assortment of cargo ATVs, and I've...
The article was interesting to me because we live among a number of small farmsteads and I've seen a few of these trucks around. But it's more usual to see an assortment of cargo ATVs, and I've even encountered one of these all-electric mini-trucks. In the U.S., at least, it's impractical to use them for anything but private roads. Most farms adjoin county highways with 45+ m.p.h. speeds.
I'm sure you could stick a reflective caution triangle on them as is done for moving heavy farm equipment by road, but pissed off drivers will raise a stink if it happens too often.
The prices I see on kei trucks in the USA don't make sense to me... we pay those same prices in Canada except instead of 10K USD we're paying 10K CAD. Also we can import 15 year old cars instead...
For even $5,000 though, you could buy a side-by-side or similar type of vehicle
The prices I see on kei trucks in the USA don't make sense to me... we pay those same prices in Canada except instead of 10K USD we're paying 10K CAD. Also we can import 15 year old cars instead of 25 year old cars. I think a major issue is that shipping and importing fees are such a massive fraction of the price that a 25 vs 15 year old truck end up costing similar amounts.
Another thing, $5000 does not really buy a used side by side where I'm at. 6100 CAD is the cheapest one I see on FB marketplace and they absolutely cannot be registered on the road here. For 6500 I can find slightly (or very) beat up kei trucks from the 90's while 10,000 or more is usually getting a 2005 or newer trucks with EFI and aircon. Most used side by sides I see here are 8k or a LOT more depending on what it is.
If you needed to do some more serious offroading then a side by side would be way better, but they don't really have a usable box from what I can see.
The tariffs and other anti-China protectionist tactics in the U.S. mean we don't have access to perfectly adequate Chinese electric minis like this. So it's not surprising there's such a cost...
The tariffs and other anti-China protectionist tactics in the U.S. mean we don't have access to perfectly adequate Chinese electric minis like this. So it's not surprising there's such a cost differential between the U.S. and Canada.
Actually, I was somewhat surprised at the results of a quick Alibaba search. China is all-in on electrifying farm, construction, and off-road vehicles of all sorts. There are some very obvious attempts to imitate premium U.S. brands, like the tiny truck with the giant letters "RAM" on the front. But the USD prices pre-shipping should make Western manufacturers quiver in terror at how impossible it is to compete on function for price.
God, I love small trucks. A few years back I went down the rabbit hole of figuring how to import a kei truck: spoiler alert, it's a massive pain in the ass. Among other things, you have to have...
God, I love small trucks. A few years back I went down the rabbit hole of figuring how to import a kei truck: spoiler alert, it's a massive pain in the ass. Among other things, you have to have the title translated, you have to go to the port, you have to hire a company to essentially escort you through the port, and you have to pay and trust an agent to inspect the vehicle for you in Japan. In the end I couldn't justify the time/effort expenditure, and the cost (and risk) was iffy too. You can buy them already imported, but as others have mentioned, that puts the cost way over iffy.
Small Japanese import trucks from the 70s and 80s have also exploded in price over the past few years. My dad had a 1990 (ish) Toyota pickup that was beat to shit that he sold for $500 in like 2013, today that truck would probably bring $4000. I'll regret letting him sell that for the rest of my life.
I'm really hoping Canoo can bring their little electric utility truck to mass market, but their prospects have been grim.
It's infuriating that manufacturers for the U.S. market only have "small" trucks that are misbegotten sliced-off SUVs like the Ford Maverick, Hyundai Santa Cruz, and the hideous Jeep Gladiator. If...
It's infuriating that manufacturers for the U.S. market only have "small" trucks that are misbegotten sliced-off SUVs like the Ford Maverick, Hyundai Santa Cruz, and the hideous Jeep Gladiator. If it takes new startups like Turo and Canoo to bring forth functional small trucks that can handle a sheet of plywood or typical small farm tasks, that's a missed opportunity for the established players.
Maybe you haven't seen it in its truest, most beautiful form...... With a lift, small wheels, and a paint-matched matching topper, where it looks like it may have come from the 1930s but with an...
Maybe you haven't seen it in its truest, most beautiful form...... With a lift, small wheels, and a paint-matched matching topper, where it looks like it may have come from the 1930s but with an MSPaint scale tool?
It really, really is infuriating. I get that part of the issue is improved safety standards since small trucks were a thing here, but that isn't the whole story - the whole story is, if they sold...
It really, really is infuriating. I get that part of the issue is improved safety standards since small trucks were a thing here, but that isn't the whole story - the whole story is, if they sold actual functional small trucks again, it would eat into their market for ridiculously expensive full-size trucks. And as you said, the Santa Cruz and new Ranger hardly count. They're unibody faux trucks, not built to really haul or tow. And they don't look good either.
I rented a Suzuki Every in Japan and fell in love with the thing. Redlining the <1L engine through the mountains overloaded with SAR gear and oversized western passengers was magical. I swore I'd...
I rented a Suzuki Every in Japan and fell in love with the thing. Redlining the <1L engine through the mountains overloaded with SAR gear and oversized western passengers was magical.
I swore I'd get one when we returned state-side. But actually looking into it, the process to import was painful and expensive and already imported vehicles prices reflected that.
I tried a hail mary with my wife to, instead of getting a Sienna for the dogs and kids, get a 90's HiAce with SUPERIOR INTERIOR CONFIGURATION OPTIONS. she politely declined
Having experienced how good they can run across parts of east Africa as taxis I've wanted one with a similar vibe to what you linked. At least for me the limitation is budget and not wife approval...
Having experienced how good they can run across parts of east Africa as taxis I've wanted one with a similar vibe to what you linked. At least for me the limitation is budget and not wife approval factor as it's easier to budge haha
I really enjoy my Piaggio Porter. I bought it together with my mom after my dad sadly passed away. Their previous campervan was way too much for her alone so we opted to get something smaller. And...
I really enjoy my Piaggio Porter. I bought it together with my mom after my dad sadly passed away. Their previous campervan was way too much for her alone so we opted to get something smaller. And since the whole tiny house movement was gaining traction a few years back I also looked up some smaller cars. Ended up with a kei truck of my own and I love it to bits. It's super practical and I customized it to fit a bed for two along with a tiny kitchen. Now it's a mini campervan that chugs along the european roads.
the downside of the NP6 chassis is that it doesn't come with a full van body. It's only available as a flatbed option which sucks if you'd like to haul people around or do a camper conversion....
the downside of the NP6 chassis is that it doesn't come with a full van body. It's only available as a flatbed option which sucks if you'd like to haul people around or do a camper conversion. Here's hoping they realize the demand for a closed cabin version is popular enough to warrant making them.
From the article (archive link):
The article goes on to discuss the fact that these vehicles aren't compliant with current U.S. and state emissions standards, allowable only via a regulatory loophole which exempts vehicles older than 25 years. Some states are declaring that kei trucks aren't permitted on public roads, again due to lack of compliance with current safety standards and underpowered engines that can barely reach 55 m.p.h.
But the popularity of these vehicles again opens discussion about why Western, particularly U.S., manufacturers are ignoring clear market demand for smaller cars and trucks.
Open to comments from Tilders from the EU and other nations on their locally available small utility trucks and vans.
Because auto dealerships are really loan servicing companies. And there's lower margins on smaller, cheaper vehicles.
Edit: And a result of history, car dealerships are the real customer for manufacturers. They're a legally mandated middleman in most states, which means they're gonna push whatever vehicles give them the highest margins, regardless of what consumers may actually want.
[friendly local gearhead knuckle crack]
...which is a BS argument because no 25 year old vehicle will be compliant with current US and state emission standards. The standards are more stringent now than they were in 1999 and even the cleanest of 1999 models is unlikely to pass an emission test required of a new 2024 model. "Decades old thing doesn't comply with new standard, news at 11."
"Loophole" an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules; this isn't that. The laws are written to specifically allow 25+ year old vehicles to be imported because they're no longer a threat to new or even used car sales at that point. Canada has a similar law but for 15 year old vehicles, for example.
...again is a BS argument because even a car originally sold here in 1999 doesn't comply with any current safety standards.
Misnomer. Kei cars/trucks are fully capable of reaching 55mph and typically have top speeds of 75mph. 60hp is the norm, which doesn't sound like much, but 1,500lb curb weight is also the norm, so half the power for half the weight. Yes, they are slower to accelerate than modern cars just as most 25+ year old vehicles are, which is both not a problem and if anything modern cars are too powerful/fast. I am willing to debate with anyone that thinks anyone with a driver's license should be allowed to pilot a 5 ton vehicle that can hit 60mph in 3 seconds or that any car driven on US public roads should be able to exceed 100mph.
It's already like pulling teeth to get a "normal" 25 year old imported car titled and on the road in many states, but start importing affordable, usable, trucks into the US and little lobbyist red flags and bureaucratic laziness comes up with new rules and regulations to stop any possible threat against people buying stupid oversized modern pickups.
Chiming in for fun. I used to have a 1979 Honda CVCC, which was, conveniently, ~1,500 pounds, with ~60hp.
It had no problem at all going SoCal freeway speeds! Wind noise was annoying past 75MPH, but that was the extent of it. It was genuinely peppy from the stoplight and around town. ~40mpg, too.
Great little car, I miss it. The manual choke + stick shift was a fantastic anti-theft system. :D
I used to daydream about getting a '91 CRX.
The problem with those cars, though, is that the body has roughly as much structural rigidity as an aluminum can. Any serious collision at all, and the passenger compartment will crumple up with you inside it. Add enough metal that the car is reasonably safe to crash, and it's no longer peppy at that power level, and no longer efficient if you soup it up.
(Just to be clear, the weight line for "reasonably safe" is far to the light side of modern cars, even discounting the absurd bloating due to physical dimensions. It would be great to see some enforced lightening of cars on American roads. But as long as I'm dreaming about unrealistic policy goals, I'd rather replace the whole lot of them with trains.)
Your car is very cute, I hope you had a good time with it. =)
Reading between the lines, I think you already know this, but I wanted to point this out for other readers:
A car crumpling in an accident is the ideal. Of course, if the crew compartment crumples into you, like this old car would, that is very bad. But modern cars are designed to keep the crew compartment intact while allowing all other areas of the car to crumple. This design makes crashes look much more dangerous, but they actually end up being much safer to the people in the car. These crumple zones take the forces of the impact so your body doesn’t have to. A car that is strong and doesn’t crumple is a death trap. You want a car that will crumple but still keep you safe.
Oh, yes, of course. Crumpling everything except the passenger compartment is ideal.
This is the canonical illustrative video, which most people have probably seen at this point. There are two obvious observations: first, that '57 takes the impact like a baseball bat to a delicate glass vase, clearly demonstrating that older cars are not indestructible chunks of iron; and second, the force of the collision is basically concentrated into the driver's body.
(It's possible to quibble with the details of that specific crash test, but it's not really intended to be a compelling argument on its own, for all that it convinces a lot of people; it's a very dramatic illustration of the point made by car crash injury and death statistics, which are compelling. Modern cars are much, much safer than older ones.)
Popping in for more fun. I currently daily a restored 1987 Civic wagon (last generation with CVCC head) that's a hair over 2000 lbs and has 76 whole horsepower. It easily cruises at 70 on the interstate and accelerates with traffic no problem. Such a fun and straightforward vehicle (at least, after a carb swap--original Honda Keihin carb is a brilliant nightmare).
My first new car was a 1989 Honda Civic DX 5-speed hatchback, and I loved that thing to death at about 200,000 miles. The 1.5 L SOHC, 92 HP engine felt like plenty of power at a curb weight of 2,147 lb. 45 - 55 mpg, it too easily hit 90 m.p.h. if I wasn't paying attention. The only major maintenance costs were clutch and brake pads plus exhaust pipe rust. I moved an entire apartment's worth of stuff + 2 cats across the country in the hatch. I could park it on a postage stamp, and the handling felt like an extension of my skin.
By current standards, it was a deathtrap, but I miss that grown-up go-cart feeling. I still haven't adjusted to the sheer behemoth size of current vehicles, and driving is not fun these days. That car would cost $24,000 new in the present day; there are comparably affordable cars, but nothing that small or efficient.
I love it! Glad to see another early Honda fan. :) And yeah, those carbs were something else.
I firmly want to import the keijidousha regulations to the US. Light, compact, efficient vehicles should be encouraged and there should be severe financial and licensing downsides to owning a larger vehicle, progressively scaling by weight.
If you need a dumb monster truck for work reasons, that's commercial activity and should require separate licensing and taxation.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, this at least initially makes sense from an emissions perspective. On the other hand, as a 1 person business (independent contractor) who uses a RAM Promaster (large, high-roof work van), I really don't need another financial drain on me. So... I'm a bit conflicted there.
I would hope for a more nuanced approach, maybe one where someone would need to show commercial need? On the other hand, I can absolutely see random people making a laughing stock of such a law by making up technically valid 'commercial needs' that are obvious bull.
As for the kei trucks? Those things are awesome. They fill a great utility niche for incredible fuel economy. The article mentions them not meeting emissions standards? My logical question is that, if they are getting 50+MPG, might they for all practical purposes, be better from an overall emissions point of view than something that meets technical standards but consumes 3 or 4 times as much fuel per distance?
The tragedy of the commons, in a nutshell.
"I really want to stop destroying the environment, but on the other hand I don't want to be inconvenienced in any way"
I am in a position where I have a legitimate need to transport about 2,000 pounds of tools and materials for my work. That... does require a large vehicle.
Edit: since I see the question come up in other comments about what I specifically do and use the van for, I am an independent contractor who does multiple jobs:
I do OSP (OutSide Plant) telecommunications infrastructure work. Tools I need for this: Ladders - many ladders of different sizes, earth moving tools (multiple different shovels, pickaxe), 500ft Rodder (basically a 500ft long coiled spool of stiff fiberglass rod that can be shoved through underground conduit in order to then pull a nylon line back through, which you can then use to pull your copper or fiber lines through said conduit - it is a large tool), pipe wrenches (needed to rotate / work on/off conduit joins), a bunch of power tools including a rather massive Core Drill for drilling 2+ inch cores through concrete/brick/cinderblock/rebar, misc hand tools.
Materials I need to tansport: multiple spools of bull line (this is the ribbon-style nylon line we use to pull telco cables), heavy gage ground wire spools, bulk 10ft x 2in PVC conduit with various attachments. Also various spools of smaller line like RG6 and Cat6 for interior work that is sometimes included. All the miscellaneous hardware for working with / installing all the above.
I also sometimes need to pull a 1500lb trailer holding large spools of copper or fiber hardline.
Telecommunications field survey. Most of what I need for this job fits into a single Milwaukee packout, with the exception of my 17ft height rod (it collapses down to ~5.5ft) and bipod. In the winter I also need to transport cold weather gear, sometimes very heavy amounts of cold weather gear (many layers top and bottom) - and in the winter I also need the interior space of my van to take warming breaks which means I need the heated interior to strip down and rest (I have a separate Webasto Diesel heater installed so I'm not just running my engine all the time for heat) - the warming breaks are not a luxury, but really critical for health and safety in the winter when I'm out sunup to sunset with wind chill going down to -5F and once to -20F.
I also need medium and heavy tree clearance tools for this work (sometimes, not always) to cut access paths and sight paths to telephone poles. Hedge trimmer, chainsaw, pole saw, axe, hatchet, machete...
Surveillance trailer on-site support. I do work for a company that fields a fleet of solar/fuel cell powered surveillance trailers to provide video security without the need to install infrastructure. Tools I need for this: my primary low-voltage toolbag (about 40 pounds) which contains most of what I need, plus enough space to bring out various replacement parts (sometimes small, sometimes large). I also use the interior van space to bring in the head unit (about 60 pounds and the volume of about 2.5x2.5x2ft) to work on it if I need to do extensive servicing. Again for winter work, I would not choose to accept that work if I needed to do significant head unit servicing in the blowing cold - it is delicate work and would be absolute misery to attempt.
Random IT support contracts. Honestly, I'm just including it because it's one of the things I do, but I don't need the giant van for this one. My packout rolling toolbox + my main low-voltage toolbag on top is enough for the IT jobs.
From u/GenuinelyCrooked:
I mean... do people need telecom? I think people need telecom.
Hah, they certainly need it more than people need whatever it is I do all day.
But I do hope you understand, I wasn't making any specific accusations against you, and they would hold no weight if I did. I was just acknowledging a possibility.
I do understand the point of view you were expressing. Issues of relative value to society and how justifiable certain actions and costs are.
Example: CEO of a big landscaping company (who in this example doesn't actually do the labor) driving around a giant truck 'just because' or with logos for his company to be seen, and to be seen as a giant work truck with those logos. Is it arguable there is a legit marketing reason? ...yes... ...to some extent... How much value does that reasoning hold vs the trucks actually carrying the tools / soil / etc...
So, yes, I do get the point you were making. And forgive the example, I'm sure there are more clear ones to be made, I'm just not thinking of them at the moment.
What do you suggest they use instead of a van (which is what I see people suggest using instead of a pickup truck)?
It really doesn't matter what I suggest - everyone has their "need" that they justify their current decisions on. That's kind of the point of the concept. No one in particular wants to change, they want everyone else to change.
Doesn't worry me none as I'll be dead long before it's enough of an issue to impact my lifestyle, and I don't have kids so I don't have a horse in the race to preserve future generations. I just found that snippet of that post such a perfect summation of the problem in trying to turn around the climate change ship - I'm so concerned about all these emissions, but I couldn't possibly change anything because it would cost more money.
No one in this thread can answer that without at the very least knowing what they're using the vehicle for currently. But even if there is no better vehicle for them to use, it's possible that the best situation from a societal perspective is that they go ahead and use that vehicle, and also pay a higher price. Or, unfortunately for them, it might be better for society that they just don't do the thing that they need the van to do.
I agree except for your last point. The problem is not what people are driving, but in the case of commercial use, is it appropriate for the actual use, which is also their livelihood. Lets take 2 businesses for example, one is a landscaper, and the other does office cleaning. The landscaper needs to haul heavy equipment to provide services to his clients, while the office cleaner only needs a few supplies. In this hypothetical, the landscaper will need a vehicle that performs to a certain spec to be both efficient and useful for their needs, most likely a larger truck or van. The cleaner probably can make due with a much more fuel efficent vehicle to both travel and carry some supplies.
All of that being said whether the landscaper should have to pay more based of needs of his business is debatable. There are certainly ways to make sure small businesses stay afloat while larger ones carry a larger burden.
I recognize that it's not great for them if their livelihood is not in service to society at large, but that is very much a possibility. If they are, say, a landscaper for golf courses, the chances are very good that their livelihood is a detriment to society overall and it would be for the best for the climate and the majority of the people who live on the planet for them to get a different livelihood. They may need the heavy equipment to effectively service their clients, but effectively servicing their clients is not necessarily what is best for the world at large.
So the question is not just "do they need this vehicle", it's "do we need this job performed?" and for a lot of jobs, the answer is "no", or "yes, but way less than it currently is" (it's probably fine for us to have some golf courses).
That's not a moral judgement that I'm passing on them, by the way. I have a job that would not exist if America had a functioning healthcare system, and every single resource that I use to perform said job is a waste as far as the benefit of society goes. But I got bills to pay. I am, unfortunately, contributing to the tragedy of the commons, as much as I would rather I wasn't.
The GP has mentioned they were using a Ram Promaster van.
I went ahead and gave a detailed outline for this in a reply to u/Krawler's post.
My opinion, in short, is that the burden for these "big dumb monster trucks" shouldn't be on a business, but individual consumers. There's no reason Jim the-cubicle-dwelling-apartment-living-sales-guy should even have a pickup truck (or SUV for that matter). "Luxury" pickups and SUVs shouldn't even exist because practically no business would spring for such and no individual consumer has a need for such. It's become a vehicular arms race because of it. If a consumer wants one of these vehicles for personal use that's fine, here's your 50% tax for the privilege of sitting in traffic on the way to your office job in a cloth upholstered, manual windows, stripped down fleet truck. Bet that Honda Accord looks really good from that high seat, huh?
Agreed on the 'vehicular arms race' idea. Also angry with the vehicle manufacturers for... sigh. I was about to say 'angry with them for aggressively marketing giant, more expensive and less fuel efficient vehicles TO EVERYONE so they can sell as many as possible... but of course they did that. I just had to RE-remind myself that corporations do not have ethics or morality beyond what is forced upon them by laws - and only the laws that cost them enough money to actually be more than just 'cost of doing business'.
I remember when I was a kid back in the 90's my family had a tiny little Honda Civic (I think that's which model it was). Got around 35-40mpg! It was a cheap little car, and cheap to own and fuel, and it was great because of that.
Now US car manufacturers have seemingly no interest in filling that niche - and as long as not one of them bothers to re-enter that market none of the others need bother competing in that market, thus pretty much locking it out for US manufacture.
The EV market somewhat intersects the small / lightweight market out of design and engineering necessity, but even there, if you look at the Tesla models as example, they are still quite a bit larger than the compact light cars of the 1980's Japanese manufacture. And yes, I acknowledge I am comparing apples to oranges a bit there as battery mass is a factor.
I would love to see that market get some attention, but then manufacturers would have to deal with the bad optics of "hey, wait, that little thing can get 50 to 60mpg!? Why can't you do better with your mid-sized sedans then? Surely they can do better than 22MPG?" - a question that the petroleum industry, which is certainly partnered in economic interests with the vehicle industry, really doesn't want to have more attention on.
Well, that spun into a frustrated rant on my part. I'll leave it there.
Even what qualifies as “small” has crept up over the years. Continuing with your example of Tesla, people largely consider the Model 3 small at ~186” long, but in my opinion that’s approaching or within midsize territory. It might be “small” relative to a behemoth SUV or truck but I don’t think anything exceeding 175” in length is really all that small.
This has especially frustrated me with interior space. Even though cars get bigger, as someone with rear-facing child seats they're getting awful on the inside. Mazda is the worst; a Mazda 3 just does not fit a rear seat or tall adult in the back, and I couldn't really sit comfortably in front of my baby in my CX-5. All the slanted rear hatch windows are terrible for cargo, too.
Though I'm not as impacted by this (my use of space behind the front seats is more often going to be hauling things rather than people) I've noticed this too.
Auto manufacturers obviously know how to design for large internal volume — just look at the Honda Fit, which one can cram more stuff into than your average SUV and many other hatchbacks, despite its tiny size. It feels like it's done on purpose to upsell larger vehicles… people who want more than the bare minimum in terms of passenger room or cargo space will have to be buying a 4Runner or Highlander instead of a Corolla Cross or RAV4.
My understanding (which may be wrong!) is that heavier vehicles are judged by lower standards, so for (a probably way off) example an SUV that gets 30 MPG is fine, while a sedan that gets 30 MPG is not. These judgements are based on weight, not function. So since the kei truck has the weight of a sedan, despite having the function of a truck, it's going to be judged by sedan standards, which it doesn't meet. If it were judged by the same standards as the vehicles it's replacing, it would beat them handily, but that's not how it's being classified.
Yea way off. The Ford Expedition Max gets something like 14/22 EPA rating, which translates more to 13 MPG or less in IRL use.
I'm still pretty proud of myself if the rest of my explanation was basically right, even if the numbers were nonsense.
Yea you're good, hence why I didn't criticize that bit :)
It’s a shame that we don’t have any US counterpart for kei trucks and vans. Both would be incredible for suburbanites with a bit of a DIY streak who could use more capacity to haul things than you’d find in the average sedan/hatch/SUV but don’t want to have to deal with the pain of fueling and parking the battlecruisers that are modern American trucks.
The closest I think any car sold in North America recently has gotten in terms of utility:size was the Toyota Matrix or its GM rebadge the Pontiac Vibe, which with its full complement of fold-flat seats and pop-open back hatch glass had cargo capacity approaching that of a small truck but still got ~30MPG and drove and parked like a car. Sadly it was discontinued in favor of lower-utility SUVs and the Corolla hatchback, the latter of which might look similar but has steeply reduced cargo capacity. The also-discontinued Honda Fit ranks highly here too, but is more limited due to inability to carry long things.
I’m hopeful that Telo will see the light of day and help turn this around, but it’d still only be fixing the truck side of the equation. Rivian’s R3/R3X looks like a great modern Matrix counterpart with the fold flat seats and pop-open back glass bits but they have yet to announce a date on those.
Trailers should be more common. I bought a small 6' (~2 meter) utility trailer from Tractor Supply for $250 and build a plywood base and some wood slat sides with corner latches for it that fit into the stake pockets -- all in about $350. Another $200 for a hitch and the wiring. It costs me about $25 per year to register it. Less than $600 for the first year, and even less going forward. I have plenty of room to park it next to my house when I'm not using it, but with the sides removed it'd be easy to stand on end and lean it against the wall in my garage. I pull it with my 4 cylinder Subaru and use it regularly for yard waste, mulch, garden compost, etc.
Granted, I did the hitch installation and trailer assembly myself, but even if I paid somebody else for all of the labor it'd be about $1500. If they were more common then used ones would also be available and more cars would come with hitches.
When I don't need the extra capacity (most of the time) it sits idle, costing nothing in fuel or insurance, but it's easy to hook up and use whenever I need it. Moreover, I can spend as much time loading/unloading it as I need (e.g. a week of adding leaves/sticks during the fall or a week of unloading fresh compost and mulch in the spring) without hauling the stuff around everywhere I go. A pickup, on the other hand, would be less convenient, use more fuel, cost more to insure, cost more for tires, etc.
Trailers are the answer. I paid Uhaul <$500 to install a tow hitch on my Subaru Outback, and now I can rent a giant trailer online for ~$15 anytime I need it.
Back when I was still in school, every time I would go visit my parents, I would pass by two of these trucks parked in a little town along my route. The owner wanted $9,500 for them... each. I thought that was ridiculous, and I guess I was right, because they have been sitting there for at least four years now.
Still, I tried to convince a family member of mine to buy them for his ranch. I told him to just make the owner a lowball offer and who knows, maybe he'd get a good deal. For even $5,000 though, you could buy a side-by-side or similar type of vehicle and it would do pretty much everything these trucks do. You can even register them for non-highway use in a lot of states. The only downside might be, in some cases, a smaller bed to hold cargo.
I still love the idea of owning one of these trucks, especially if I lived near a small town with lots of country roads. I also wonder if these trucks are prime candidates for aftermarket electrification? If you're just using the truck to get around the farm and occasionally haul produce into town, your required range is probably pretty small. States that regulate these vehicles off the roads entirely (though not necessarily highways) have really got it backwards.
The article was interesting to me because we live among a number of small farmsteads and I've seen a few of these trucks around. But it's more usual to see an assortment of cargo ATVs, and I've even encountered one of these all-electric mini-trucks. In the U.S., at least, it's impractical to use them for anything but private roads. Most farms adjoin county highways with 45+ m.p.h. speeds.
I'm sure you could stick a reflective caution triangle on them as is done for moving heavy farm equipment by road, but pissed off drivers will raise a stink if it happens too often.
The prices I see on kei trucks in the USA don't make sense to me... we pay those same prices in Canada except instead of 10K USD we're paying 10K CAD. Also we can import 15 year old cars instead of 25 year old cars. I think a major issue is that shipping and importing fees are such a massive fraction of the price that a 25 vs 15 year old truck end up costing similar amounts.
Another thing, $5000 does not really buy a used side by side where I'm at. 6100 CAD is the cheapest one I see on FB marketplace and they absolutely cannot be registered on the road here. For 6500 I can find slightly (or very) beat up kei trucks from the 90's while 10,000 or more is usually getting a 2005 or newer trucks with EFI and aircon. Most used side by sides I see here are 8k or a LOT more depending on what it is.
If you needed to do some more serious offroading then a side by side would be way better, but they don't really have a usable box from what I can see.
The tariffs and other anti-China protectionist tactics in the U.S. mean we don't have access to perfectly adequate Chinese electric minis like this. So it's not surprising there's such a cost differential between the U.S. and Canada.
Actually, I was somewhat surprised at the results of a quick Alibaba search. China is all-in on electrifying farm, construction, and off-road vehicles of all sorts. There are some very obvious attempts to imitate premium U.S. brands, like the tiny truck with the giant letters "RAM" on the front. But the USD prices pre-shipping should make Western manufacturers quiver in terror at how impossible it is to compete on function for price.
God, I love small trucks. A few years back I went down the rabbit hole of figuring how to import a kei truck: spoiler alert, it's a massive pain in the ass. Among other things, you have to have the title translated, you have to go to the port, you have to hire a company to essentially escort you through the port, and you have to pay and trust an agent to inspect the vehicle for you in Japan. In the end I couldn't justify the time/effort expenditure, and the cost (and risk) was iffy too. You can buy them already imported, but as others have mentioned, that puts the cost way over iffy.
Small Japanese import trucks from the 70s and 80s have also exploded in price over the past few years. My dad had a 1990 (ish) Toyota pickup that was beat to shit that he sold for $500 in like 2013, today that truck would probably bring $4000. I'll regret letting him sell that for the rest of my life.
I'm really hoping Canoo can bring their little electric utility truck to mass market, but their prospects have been grim.
It's infuriating that manufacturers for the U.S. market only have "small" trucks that are misbegotten sliced-off SUVs like the Ford Maverick, Hyundai Santa Cruz, and the hideous Jeep Gladiator. If it takes new startups like Turo and Canoo to bring forth functional small trucks that can handle a sheet of plywood or typical small farm tasks, that's a missed opportunity for the established players.
The Jeep Gladiator looks SO BAD. When will it take the title of "worst looking vehicle" away from Pontiac Aztek or Subaru Baja?
Maybe you haven't seen it in its truest, most beautiful form...... With a lift, small wheels, and a paint-matched matching topper, where it looks like it may have come from the 1930s but with an MSPaint scale tool?
Oh god, just needs two inch wheel spacers to go full mall ninja hideous.
The competition is fierce. But customization helps.
Your second link appear to be broken.
Not everyone uses Kagi, I guess... Fixed with a singular example.
I'd never even heard of Kagi before.
The Baja wishes it were the Brat.
The PT Cruiser and the Cybertruck would like a private word with you. I think the Gladiator looks all right.
It really, really is infuriating. I get that part of the issue is improved safety standards since small trucks were a thing here, but that isn't the whole story - the whole story is, if they sold actual functional small trucks again, it would eat into their market for ridiculously expensive full-size trucks. And as you said, the Santa Cruz and new Ranger hardly count. They're unibody faux trucks, not built to really haul or tow. And they don't look good either.
I rented a Suzuki Every in Japan and fell in love with the thing. Redlining the <1L engine through the mountains overloaded with SAR gear and oversized western passengers was magical.
I swore I'd get one when we returned state-side. But actually looking into it, the process to import was painful and expensive and already imported vehicles prices reflected that.
I love how space-efficient japanese cars (or rather, cars in japan) are. I hate that we can't find cars like that here
I tried a hail mary with my wife to, instead of getting a Sienna for the dogs and kids, get a 90's HiAce with SUPERIOR INTERIOR CONFIGURATION OPTIONS.
she politely declined
Having experienced how good they can run across parts of east Africa as taxis I've wanted one with a similar vibe to what you linked. At least for me the limitation is budget and not wife approval factor as it's easier to budge haha
I really enjoy my Piaggio Porter. I bought it together with my mom after my dad sadly passed away. Their previous campervan was way too much for her alone so we opted to get something smaller. And since the whole tiny house movement was gaining traction a few years back I also looked up some smaller cars. Ended up with a kei truck of my own and I love it to bits. It's super practical and I customized it to fit a bed for two along with a tiny kitchen. Now it's a mini campervan that chugs along the european roads.
Looks like Piaggio is partnering with Foton of China on electric versions of their kei chassis.
the downside of the NP6 chassis is that it doesn't come with a full van body. It's only available as a flatbed option which sucks if you'd like to haul people around or do a camper conversion. Here's hoping they realize the demand for a closed cabin version is popular enough to warrant making them.