# Pickup truck regrets?



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

I'm thinking about getting a pickup to replace my SUV but wondering if I will regret it for mtb duties (potential heresy, I know). The SUV with a hitch rack works great in this role currently - quick, easy, efficient. A pickup with a tailgate pad should be even more so but the more research I do, the more I'm starting to worry about downtube damage, exhaust pipes damaging carbon wheels, sun-damaged tailgate pads needing replacement after a year or two, tires rubbing on paint, more difficult to lock up, etc. not to mention that trucks are longer and wider than most SUV + hitch rack setups making mountain road driving and trailhead parking more challenging potentially. I'm ignoring the fuel efficiency, handling, and ride quality issues at this time.

So while trucks do offer a lot of upside for all around utility, does anyone regret getting one as their bike vehicle?


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

while i personally don't own a pickup (maybe i should just shut up right now?!), you don't need to hang your bikes over the tailgate. just lay them down in the bed. everyone i know who has recently bought a p/u has not regretted it. the person i attempted to sell my bike to had a tundra and he said he wished he hadn't traded it for his f150. go figure.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I bought a 2019 Ranger last spring. Went from a Honda Fit, so a pretty big change.

I had a few goals/reasons for making that change. The only one really related to bikes was that I was tired of carrying bikes inside my Honda and beating up on the interior. I had started carrying bikes on the roof to avoid that issue, but roof transport presents its own issues. Pickup truck bed transport is a nice alternative that helps keep the interior cleaner.

I wanted a 2nd vehicle that could tow my teardrop camper (other vehicle is a Subaru which is about the smallest vehicle that can pull the camper), and particularly one that would be the primary TV with less strain on the vehicle and less of a decrease to fuel economy when towing.

I wanted something I could more easily transport stuff for house projects. Mulch. lumber. rocks. It's not a super common use for me, but it's often enough that it was a factor.

I could have picked up an SUV and done most of those things with it. Especially with a utility trailer (cheap to rent since I don't have space to store one). But the bike transport while towing my camper was really where the pickup shines.

I'm glad I didn't buy anything bigger, that's for sure. It's notably more challenging to maneuver the pickup in town as compared to my old Honda. We have lots of really tight parking spaces and some of the parking structures downtown are pretty tight, too. A bigger pickup would be a right pain to deal with. I've also used it for trail maintenance a few times hauling tools and people to the worksite. Some places we work have convenient gated gravel roads we are allowed to use to get deeper into the trail system. A bigger pickup would be a bigger pain to maneuver on some of those tight wooded roads.

When it comes to transporting bikes in the truck, I also skipped the tailgate pad. I have an Exodux MultiTaskR that takes the place of a pad quite nicely by giving easy loading/unloading plus lockability. I also have a piece of wood with fork mounts on it. That takes care of road bikes that won't work on the MultiTaskR and also for occasions when I want the bikes tucked inside the bed a bit better, like when towing.


----------



## Mike Aswell (Sep 1, 2009)

Upsides to trucks for biking: in a pinch, you can haul a lot of bikes. There are countless options. Hitch racks, tailgate pads, racks that go on the bed rail, etc. Having a tail gate to sit on at the end of a ride to drink a beer is nice. Like Harold, there are are times I am towing a camper and I can still have my bikes secured in the bed since my hitch is in use, also nice. 

One of the only downsides that comes to mind that is specific to biking is that if you are packed under a tonneau cover for a trip (i.e. no more room in the covered/locked bed) then you don't have an an easy option for secure storage. I take my gravel bike to the beach and we stop overnight on the way, I either have to take the front wheel off and put it in my back seat or take it into the hotel. I suppose the same could be argued for most SUVs.

The only other downside I got is that if my dog gets filthy on a ride he still has to ride home in the back seat. LOL.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

I bought a Metris cargo van. It is literally the best multi-purpose vehicle I’ve ever owned.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

I've owned a fullsize pickup my entire driving life. I also used to have a little truck for about 16 years on top of the full size truck. I replaced that with an SUV and while I have to have a pickup to pull my fifth wheel, the SUV is so convenient, both shorter, more room inside, better for passengers, etc. Ever notice that pickups are being built with more and more cab and less and less bed? Everyone is trying to find a precise niche between a truck and an SUV, because the interior of the SUV is convenient to have when needed, but of course when you need the bed, you really need it.


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

Get a truck, get a topper. Throw your bikes in the back, and whatever else you want. Lock it up. Keep your bike out of the rain (driving into your bearings at highway speed) and sun.

When I only had a truck, I didn't bother with a hitch rack at all, a truck bed with a topper is perfect for carrying so much different stuff.

My opinion is that tailgate pads are only useful for shuttle runs.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

I have two different trucks I use to transport my bikes, which I usually lay them down in the bed and have no regrets having a truck as my bike hauler. My main issue is gas mileage and also having an open bed exposing the bike when I need to go into a store or something similar, otherwise I am happy with the truck for now.


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

Harold said:


> Exodux MultiTaskR


woah that thing is genius


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

rant on
----
I have a pickup and I just throw by bikes in the bed, laying on top of each other. done.

simple. more bikes ? then wheels off and jam it all in there

for F sake riding the bike in chundery woods is far harder on everything than laying bikes in the back

everyone in a tizzy Oh I don't wanna scratch my bike ....well IMHO no one cares about your bike, but you.

IF you plan of reselling it and want to keep it all fancy and a garage queen....I don't know what to tell ya,
that ain't mountain biking to me

/rant off


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

Oh, and I'd recommend getting a smaller truck; a Frontier, Tacoma, Colorado or Ranger (baby diesel!), with 4 doors and a 6-foot bed. I had Frontier "king cab" for a while and It didn't take long before I wished for a full-sized cab. Bike fits upright in 6-foot bed, will not do so in a shorter bed. My business owns a Frontier, a Titan, and F250's and I much MUCH prefer driving the Frontier for personal use.


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

127.0.0.1 said:


> rant on
> ----
> I have a pickup and I just throw by bikes in the bed, laying on top of each other. done.
> 
> ...


my thinking exactly. a bike is meant to be scratched. unless your a dentist.


----------



## fraseot (May 30, 2007)

If you end up using a truck pad and care about preventing the pad from scratching the tailgate paint, I would suggest adding paint protection film to the tailgate. It isn’t cheap, but tailgates are a much easier PPF DIY than curved surfaces like car bumpers. You can use the leftover material to cover your downtube where it rubs the pad (assuming you don’t already PPF your bike)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

I have a truck - 05 Dodge Dakota quad cab. I eventually found a topper that matched. I never used a tailgate pad and can't see me ever using one for a truck. Bikes either go inside and secured (they used to go under my tonneau cover) or on the bike rack and locked to that. Using a tailgate pad just advertises insecure bikes and reduces potential cargo space. If you go any decent distance with more than you in there, you want cargo space PLUS bike space. Decent racks give plenty of ground clearance as well. 
If your main concern is clearance and parking, get a rack with clearance and practice parking.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

I love my Ridgeline for biking. Locking trunk in the bed makes a world of difference with the utility of the truck as a bike hauler. Helmets, gear, tools, etc all stay securely locked in the trunk. I'll run a tailgate pad (aka $10 moving blanket) with a metal cam buckle strap for quick in town hauls. I'll use a cable lock to lock the bikes in the bed if needed. Blanket gets thrown in the trunk when not in use. For long multi day trips I'll use a hitch rack. Keeps the bed clear for hauling or I can throw the tonneu cover on for additional covered storage for those long trips. AWD. Very roomy compared to other midsized trucks (especially the Tacoma). Road manners very SUV like instead of a truck. If you like your SUV and just want a little more truck utility might want to give the Ridgeline a look.


----------



## ugadawg (Jun 27, 2020)

I have a truck and I wouldn’t trade it for a SUV. Trucks are good for biking and projects around the house. The key is to get a tonneau cover so you can store things in the back if you need to. I’ve had a heard folding cover and a soft roll up cover. I prefer the soft roll up cover.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I looked at the Ridgeline, but turned it down primarily because of that trunk space.

What I saw when I looked at it was that I'd need to fuss with the damn thing after hauling a load of mulch or loose gravel or something and little bits and pieces of stuff jammed into the gap between the lid and the rest of the bed.

AWD probably suits me better than 4wd most of the time, so it ranked well. Fuel economy was decent (though the Ranger edged it out there). Towing was sufficient for my needs, though I had read from folks that the engine felt bogged down with even fairly light loads.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

I have a Frontier 4dr and a tailgate pad. I keep the pad in the garage and only use it for shuttling. I can't lay my bike down in the back unless I take my front wheel off, which is fine by me. I don't know how people who ride bikes and/or own a home dont have a truck.


----------



## DoctorJD (Jan 15, 2004)

Long time pickup driver here. Currently driving a GMC Sierra 4-door short bed. I've been using a tailgate pad for the last 5-6 years, on three different bikes. If you have the downtube covered with protective tape (which I always do regardless), there shouldn't be any worries about frame damage. Over the years I've had any number of bike racks inside the bed, mostly homebrew creations, but nothing beats the simplicity of a tailgate pad. I made up a (vinyl coated) cable to loop through the eyelets at the back of the bed for security, so I can put a padlock on it if need be.

I've flirted with an SUV as my daily driver over the years, but considering that's what my wife drives, and I have an idea what SUV/bike life is like compared to my truck. I'm good with my truck.


----------



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

I'm kinda surprised at how many of you throw the bike in the bed rather than use a tailgate pad. That's kind of telling I think. And while i don't sweat my bike getting nicked up, I can't stand stuff bouncing and rattling around while I'm driving.



DeoreDX said:


> I love my Ridgeline for biking ... If you like your SUV and just want a little more truck utility might want to give the Ridgeline a look.


That's exactly what I'm looking at, hence why I wasn't worried about the ride and handling.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Harold said:


> What I saw when I looked at it was that I'd need to fuss with the damn thing after hauling a load of mulch or loose gravel or something and little bits and pieces of stuff jammed into the gap between the lid and the rest of the bed.


Honestly not that big of a deal. Look at the channel around the trunk space in the picture and how there is no ledge at the back of the trunk space. Takes maybe 5 seconds to run your hand or a rag along that channel is both directions and slipe whatever is in there out of the back to clear it out. You are talking about occasional say minute or two of hassle of clearing the channel in exchange for an extreme amount of utility that will get uses every day. I've own full sized Toyota, Fords, and midsized Toyota and Nissan. Honestly not sure I could go back to a daily driver truck without a locking trunk.


----------



## Shane5001 (Dec 18, 2013)

I have a gmc sierra 4door, short bed with topper. Coming from an old Durango suv and a suzuki swift (geo metro) with roof rack. You can stick a bike on or in pretty much anything. I'd focus on the rest of your life needs with the vehicle. I bought my truck because I had a large dog, now that he is gone my truck is a pain in the ass, as I have many kids. Not only that, in California you have to license it and pay for it as a commercial vehicle based on weight, might affect you .


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

I've had 2 crew cab 4x4 Colorados over the last umpteen years. If you are a tall-ish dude an over-the-bed rack works out pretty great. Mine is a modular arrangement that allows for up to 4 bikes easy, or 6 if you get creative. Or several more if you utilize a hitch rack as well, assuming you are not towing something. Or 3 bikes and a boat. Or 3 bikes and ski pod. And 3 normal sized adult passengers. I like having the bikes up high even though they catch some wind, and might not fit through the drive-thru.
When I need to go for a load of mulch or something, there are 8 bolts to remove the entire thing.
If the weather is really bad and I'm carrying a nice bike, I can take the front wheel off and tuck it in under the tonneau cover.
Lots of room for gear, and if I was on the ball, I'd have come up with a canopy to attach to the rack, but I'm kinda lazy.

-F


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

What else would you use it for? Every once in a while I get the itch, but then helping my father in-law load his pickup nixes that itch.

I find for the few times a year I actually would need a bed( Currently run a Ford Flex- plenty of cargo space) I'd rather pay UHaul $20 and get a trailer I can walk/cart heavy stuff up into vs. lifting that **** up into a high off the ground bed of a PU.


----------



## MX9799 (Feb 11, 2018)

GiddyHitch said:


> I'm thinking about getting a pickup to replace my SUV but wondering if I will regret it for mtb duties (potential heresy, I know). *The SUV with a hitch rack works great in this role currently* - quick, easy, efficient. A pickup with a tailgate pad should be even more so but the more research I do, the more I'm starting to worry about downtube damage, exhaust pipes damaging carbon wheels, sun-damaged tailgate pads needing replacement after a year or two, tires rubbing on paint, more difficult to lock up, etc. not to mention that trucks are longer and wider than most SUV + hitch rack setups making mountain road driving and trailhead parking more challenging potentially. I'm ignoring the fuel efficiency, handling, and ride quality issues at this time.
> 
> So while trucks do offer a lot of upside for all around utility, does anyone regret getting one as their bike vehicle?


There's no reason you can't use your hitch rack with a truck like you do with your SUV. It's really no different.

With a hitch rack on an SUV, you have to fold it back out of the way to get the rear gate open.
With a rack on a truck, you'd have to fold it back out of the way to get the tailgate open.
The bike would still be transported in the same way on the same rack.
There really isn't any difference.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> I don't know how people who ride bikes and/or own a home dont have a truck.


I have a home, a giant yard, and a long history of big DIY projects, in addition to lots of bikes, and other outdoor endeavors. In terms of a do-everything vehicle, my old 2000 Honda minivan puts most pickup trucks to shame. I guess if you're young, single, and live in an apartment, a pick-up is the way to go. Don't forget your "Punisher" decal.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

I made the truck switch and can’t believe I didn’t have this sooner.

I bought a Tacoma

Rocky mounts wheel off racks for 4 bikes*

I can lock the forks down to the truck and run another cable through the frame. I am very confident when traveling and having to be out of Elamite of the bikes.

For extra space, I have a cargo box swing out (roll and Thule and others make these). We can carry weeks worth of travel gear in the box and can have a dog/passenger in the back. 

If I was single, I would likely have some camper with integrated roof top tent. Bikes would stay locked inside the camper. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

I've owned a truck, an AWD Subaru hatchback, and an SUV. I think an SUV is best for most mountain bikers. Here's my pros/cons:

*Truck*
_pros_: practically a must for rural homeowners: chop wood, put your stinky dogs in the back, much other gear hauling that city slickers don't think about. Just throw your bike in the back, or securely mount it in multiple ways.

_cons_: I would not recommend a 2WD truck if you ever drive in wet weather or mud, too much forward weight bias. Even though many guys love them, they drive vaguely, get terrible gas mileage, and are generally impractical for most life things. Your bike is very light, you can haul it with a Miata--it doesn't require a truck.

*SUV*:
_pros: _If you have a mountain bike, you'll need to haul a lot of extra gear: your helmet, pads, tools, camping gear, and so on. Car camping! I have an inflatable mattress and mine easily converts into a camper for me, just got back from 2 days of desert riding.

_cons: _You could throw your bike in the back, but then you're taking up all the space. A hitch mount rack will be needed. Depending upon the model, it'll handle like a truck (see above) or be too small. They're even more expensive than trucks, except for small ones--make sure you get something that's actually capable of driving off-road, a lot of crossover imposters being sold now.

*Subaru (aka AWD wagon)*: 
_pros_: Better gas mileage, driveability, and cost than most SUVs

cons: Smaller. Not big enough to car-camp in. Remember that a rack mount bike and a roof mount box will cut significant MPGs off of good car mileage. Also their frames are not as tough.

*Van (van life)*
_pros: for the truly hardcore MTBer, this is the best option: keep your bike indoors at all times, live in it, you're your own boss, enjoy living that life.

cons: even more expensive and unweildly than the above options, possibly be mistaken for a child molester  _

* * *

I HIGHLY recomend *AWD or 4WD*. 2WD may get better gas mileage but do you really want to get stuck in the middle of nowhere? Either that or you pull up into a field to park for a race, and get stuck in the mud--happens all the time. Bonus points if you get a Tesla, although they don't have great ground clearance.

If you take long trips, I also recommend *adaptive cruise control*. I wouldn't have made it to the places I'm going without a rest day should I not have that feature in my current SUV.

Finally, *heated seats. *I know it sounds like a luxury, but no better way to wake up on a cold morning out of your sleeping bag, and get dressed.



GiddyHitch said:


> I'm thinking about getting a pickup to replace my SUV but wondering if I will regret it for mtb duties (potential heresy, I know). The SUV with a hitch rack works great in this role currently - quick, easy, efficient. A pickup with a tailgate pad should be even more so but the more research I do, the more I'm starting to worry about downtube damage, exhaust pipes damaging carbon wheels, sun-damaged tailgate pads needing replacement after a year or two, tires rubbing on paint, more difficult to lock up, etc. not to mention that trucks are longer and wider than most SUV + hitch rack setups making mountain road driving and trailhead parking more challenging potentially. I'm ignoring the fuel efficiency, handling, and ride quality issues at this time.
> 
> So while trucks do offer a lot of upside for all around utility, does anyone regret getting one as their bike vehicle?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DeoreDX said:


> Honestly not that big of a deal. Look at the channel around the trunk space in the picture and how there is no ledge at the back of the trunk space. Takes maybe 5 seconds to run your hand or a rag along that channel is both directions and slipe whatever is in there out of the back to clear it out. You are talking about occasional say minute or two of hassle of clearing the channel in exchange for an extreme amount of utility that will get uses every day. I've own full sized Toyota, Fords, and midsized Toyota and Nissan. Honestly not sure I could go back to a daily driver truck without a locking trunk.


It was something I wasn't willing to experiment with, and had never seen addressed. Honestly, no review about that truck that I've read ever mentioned putting anything like mulch in the back.



D. Inoobinati said:


> I guess if you're young, single, and live in an apartment, a pick-up is the way to go. Don't forget your "Punisher" decal.


Way to stereotype people. That's great that your minivan works for you. Lots of people get great use out of vans.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I'd love to see the minivan get loaded up with cactus that's been cut down, and the remnants of rodent middens ... and have the folks that have to occupy it later be happy with that 

It all depends on what your needs are. I use a truck as well, a truck. So the real question isn't about hauling bikes, it should be what else are you gonna use it for


----------



## aaronedmonton (Nov 28, 2020)

Just my bike going out = laying down in bed
Multiple people and bikes = draped over tailgate 

I love having a truck.


----------



## shakazulu12 (Jul 14, 2015)

I think this just depends on where you live and how far you are driving. All of this is just my opinion though. I stopped using my SUV and got an AWD minivan recently. Mainly for the fact that on long trips, I can stand the bike inside on a fork mount for security. Even for not so long trips, is nice to be able to get out of the car and feel reasonably confident my bike will be there when I get back (it's got window curtains and tint, you can't see it from the outside). Couldn't get it in my SUV, though obviously some SUV's are capable of doing this. Oh, it also has TON more interior room for camping. I almost can't believe how much crap I can shove in that thing given that it's footprint is so small.

But..........if it weren't for driveway limitations. I would have either a full size truck or full size van. I've owned both over the years, but moved into a townhouse to simplify life a bit and had to go with a smaller vehicle. For the truck, I wouldn't personally ever use a pad. I would still probably use a hitch rack and have a topper. Rack for quick trips, under the topper for longer ones. The newer full size trucks with the smaller engine options get the same or better MPG than the small trucks, so that's a wash. Assuming it fits where you need to park it, I wouldn't have any regrets at all having another one. I drove a crewcab dually for a long time and got used to navigating it around the city. But, depending on your particular town or city, that may be a hinderance. If you are going down tight forest roads, then yeah, Canyon or Tacoma size is way better.

Oddly enough, my minivan may be on the move, even after I made a thread about it. As life changes and I'm likely buying another house that will have parking. In the event that happens, I'll have either a full size van or pickup back in the driveway almost immediately.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I've been very pleased, btw, with the v6 in my current ford. It's been as good as the 350 in the GMC 4x I had in the 90s. With about the same mileage as my wife's old Subaru.


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> I don't know how people who ride bikes and/or own a home dont have a truck.


Simple, I have a friend a block away that owns a truck. I borrow truck, he borrows my canoe, tools, etc. My local lumber store and landscaping suppliers also offer free delivery.

I drive a F-150 for work and really REALLY prefer to drive cars on my own time - especially now that my trailheads are getting so crowded.


----------



## Briareos (Aug 2, 2011)

GiddyHitch said:


> I'm thinking about getting a pickup to replace my SUV but wondering if I will regret it for mtb duties (potential heresy, I know). The SUV with a hitch rack works great in this role currently - quick, easy, efficient. A pickup with a tailgate pad should be even more so but the more research I do, the more I'm starting to worry about downtube damage, exhaust pipes damaging carbon wheels, sun-damaged tailgate pads needing replacement after a year or two, tires rubbing on paint, more difficult to lock up, etc. not to mention that trucks are longer and wider than most SUV + hitch rack setups making mountain road driving and trailhead parking more challenging potentially. I'm ignoring the fuel efficiency, handling, and ride quality issues at this time.
> 
> So while trucks do offer a lot of upside for all around utility, does anyone regret getting one as their bike vehicle?


We have both an extended cab (two door, not four door) Tacoma and an FJ. Use both for carrying bikes. We take the FJ when there are three to four riders and can carry up to four bikes on Yakima Hangover rack. We take the Tacoma when its only my wife and I, using the two Yakima Frontloaders mounted over the bed. I enjoy driving the FJ more, but the tray style racks on the Tacoma are easier/faster to use.

Also look at the number of riders you have, and strongly consider which vehicle would bring you more pleasure overall. For me it would be my FJ.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

The vehicle I like driving the most on pavement is my diesel pickup, BUT it is long and a hitch rack makes it even longer so that is the downside...I carry the bike in a bed rack. I can't stand small trucks so a full-size it is. The 4Runner or Rubicon are far easier to get in tough spaces and even many parking lots though trailhead parking is usually quite nice and spacious. For ease of use, I'd recommend a SUV with a hitch rack. My truck can pull a camper safely and carry bikes over steep mountain passes easily, so it has benefits. It really depends on exactly what you want to do with it and could you make that a daily driver. I'd still recommend a SUV with AWD or 4WD. Some people like smaller pickups too, that are easier to live with. I don't particularly like them due to the cramped interior and small beds but that's just me.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

In case u do some home projects or plan to use it for towing RV or work, truck would be beneficial, otherwise SUV with proper bike rack (hitch mounted) will be more comfortable practical and so on;

Also it depends where do u live, commute type to trails and parking availability...

I would not buy truck purely for commute to the trail with bike/bike's;

Agree with others, AWD is a must;


----------



## Bikeworks (Sep 10, 2020)

I have a short bed Ram, my second pickup. I've previously had multiple SUVs, and while I do love their "everything inside" approach, I don't ever see myself going back to one. There's just so much versatility with the pickup, provided you are willing to spend some money (storage boxes, bed covers, etc.). One place I didn't spend a lot was the bike mount. I followed the directions of someone here who linked to a YT video, made my entire mount for $60. That said, the mount @Harold mentioned (Exodux) is damned sexy. Advantages of the mount I made (aside from price) is that it is always in place and never in the way. Disadvantage are that it doesn't accommodate a longer bike without catty cornering it. FTR, I in my 50s, married with kids, and live in a private house. And nary a Punisher sticker in sight, although he is an all-time fave of mine (hardcore comic geek).


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

About a year ago I bought a F150 with a 6.5 foot bed. I also struggled with the decision, having never owned a pick-up truck before. So far I’m happy with the result. But there is a caveat. I also bought a topper with slightly more headroom than most The topper doesn’t allow me to dump anything in the bed. But, I have other methods to deliver mulch or something like that to my house, and the truck sees no farm use. 

I built a bike rack in the bed (by removing the front wheels) and I have a hitch rack. Around town, I use the hitch rack. But on the open road, my bike goes inside, and I really love it. It’s great to finally have my bikes inside while on highways (especially in the rain). Moreover, even with two bikes in the bed, I still have plenty of space for other gear. I added a Yakama roof rack to haul even more bikes, and the topper is great for car camping.

A downside is the cost of the topper. But I bundled the cost into the loan. Finally, full size trucks really suck to park.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

I have hung bikes over the tailgate, but not very often, for the reasons you mention. If I'm solo, I put the bike in the bed. If I'm bringing friends, I put the bike rack on. 

No "regrets" but why are you getting a truck? While I own one, I generally prefer using my Outback unless I have to haul a bunch stuff. Next car is likely something similar to the Outback but electric.

If you need a truck, they work fine as a bike hauler. If you don't really need a truck for something else they seem like a waste.


----------



## coachhomer (May 9, 2017)

Once you go truck you will never go back. Tough to park? Meh... I drive an F-350 crew cab. You get used to it. Current setup is a Retrax Pro XR. I can get 3 bikes across the top, 2 in the bed, and 5 on the hitch rack. Not many people need 10 bikes but you get the point. Love having the bikes on the rack because I can pack out the bed and pull the cover.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

DeoreDX said:


> Honestly not that big of a deal. Look at the channel around the trunk space in the picture and how there is no ledge at the back of the trunk space. Takes maybe 5 seconds to run your hand or a rag along that channel is both directions and slipe whatever is in there out of the back to clear it out.


Or use a tarp. Always lay down a tarp before hauling loose materials, makes unloading much faster and whole operation much cleaner.


----------



## drich (Oct 9, 2015)

I like easy. Don't want to use a rack, take off the front tire, etc. I have a Tundra with a tailgate pad. I have a truck so that I don't lose sleep over a scratch. I have a mountain bike so that I don't lose sleep over a scratch. 90% of the time I use a Da Kine tailgate pad and haven't seen any issues with paint. 10% of the time I throw the bike in the back. I also surf, and I can throw surfboards in the cab and just use a bungie cord. No bike rack, no surf rack.


----------



## sa12 (Sep 7, 2018)

SUV is a very vague term. They can come in very small/useless sizes, or they can be as large as trucks. I'd recommend trying to rent a truck to see how you like it. You can try a standard rental agency, or an app-based thing like Turo. Also, Ford apparently has a compact sized pick-up truck coming out soon which will be smaller than a current Ranger.

I currently own a Ford F150 and love it (4-door, 5 foot bed). I can carry my bike several different ways with it, and can haul all sorts of crap in the back. But I also own a car and live in a rural area, so the larger size of the truck isn't an issue for me.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

I sold my last pickup several years ago and I really miss it because it was convenient for yard and house projects, even though it is cheaper to just rent a trailer from Home Depot. With my pickups I would usually just throw my bike in the bed for quick trips to a trail and if someone else was joining me we could place them in there so they didn't make much contact. For longer trips or to fit more bikes I had a Yakima roof rail near the back of the cab on each of my trucks with some fork mounts on it and could mount a few bikes with their forks up there and the rear wheels in the bed, like I had on my F-150 many years ago:









These days our older Explorer SUV works really well for most things. I can haul quite a bit of building material and some appliances in it and can get 4 bikes inside with the front wheel off and one of the back seats folded down, and still have room for cargo. We do have a roof rack and a hitch rack to increase capacity as needed. Also, it is nimble and small enough to get to some pretty remote locations.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

I hate my pickup truck. Well, that's too strong. I don't love it, for sure. We got a crew cab because we needed 3 abreast kid seats and towing for our travel trailer. It's too expensive, too complicated, guzzles gas. We got a fairly premium one used and the accessories are now starting to break down. And it's just really dull. When presented with the choice, I take the minivan.

I had a Tacoma but sold it for above reasons. A 2007 Speedway Blue TRD Sport. Miss it a lot.

Typical situation:


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

I think i‘m about to trade in my Outback on a Frontier. I’m beating the crap out of the OB as I am using it to carry bikes as well as house renovation stuff. I’m not happy with gas mileage of trucks, but will deal with it. The Frontier is the smallest PU out there and hasn’t had a real update in 15 years or so, which means less electronic crap to be expensive to fix and I like the look of it. Plus we camp a lot and could use more room.


----------



## Verbalkint999 (Jul 21, 2020)

I have had trucks for years and have tried almost every method for healing bikes. I have slide them in on their sides under tonneau covers, used fork mount clamps in the bed with and without camper shells, tailgate covers, and upright bed racks with the front wheel on.

My current set up is easily my favorite and most versatile. I had the idea for a while but took some time to figure out how to execute it. It uses roof rack trays mounted on cross bars over my soft tonneau cover with a roof rack basket in-between.

The truck is a 4 door Dakota (that I love and wish they still made). With this set up I can haul two full size bikes with the kiddie trailer inthe middle basket and enough stuff in the bed to support a family of four on a week long camping trip. Plus I still have the same towing capacity of a base F150 or Ram for the trailer.

At the trail head my short frame can have the bike unloaded and heading for the trail in less than a minute, and back on the rack just as fast.


----------



## Mark16q (Apr 16, 2006)

Get a 6’ bed and use motorcycle tie downs. Can fit lots of bikes and nothing moves or scratches anything else. Throw a cable lock through the bikes when stopped. Lots of room between bikes for gear too.


----------



## r-rocket (Jun 23, 2014)

We've got a truck with an 8 foot bed and a couple of cars. Tossing a bike in the truck was super easy. 

Thought I was smart when I replaced a car with an SUV thinking I could easily toss a bike in the SUV. Bought the SUV without first testing if my bike would fit. Turns out I still had to take a wheel off to make it fit in the SUV, so it is still easier to toss the bike in the truck than take the SUV.

I still take the truck most the time. 

I'm not sure if the moral is to buy a truck, or to make sure to test putting your bike in an SUV before you buy. Or if the moral is don't be dumb like me..


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

FWIW, I use the same hitch rack on all vehicles. Truck, SUVs, sports cars. No takin wheels off, or any of that.


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

I was facing this same decision, but with the additional factors that I scuba dive and so carry wet gear around. That was a deciding factor in getting a truck 3 years ago. I went with a double cab Tacoma 4WD with the 6ft bed. I immediately bought a shell and made a super easy to remove bike rack with RockyMounts Driveshaft fork mounts bolted to a wood panel so that I could lock bikes inside for quick trips into the store and keep them out of the elements. This type of bike carrying arrangement isn’t possible with the short bed (with longer modern bikes, the rear wheel often touches the front of the bed or comes within a few inches) and having the bike(s) upright allows me to carry a bunch of other gear simultaneously. 

Fast forward 3 years and I’m very happy with my purchase. For my lifestyle, the 6ft bed, 4WD and shell were necessities. I haul firewood, building supplies, wet and muddy gear and a giant smelly dog in the back on a regular basis. 

The shell does mean no hanging bikes over the tailgate, but I can squeeze 4 bikes in the shell, so it’s not an issue for me. 

Mileage was initially a concern, but even when living in Berkeley and doing a lot of city driving I’d average between 18-20 MPG a tank. Now that I do more highway driving, I’m never below 20 MPG per tank unless I’m doing a bunch of runs up the mountain or using 4WD a ton (e.g., snow or forest service roads). 

The lack of a lockable trunk is the biggest downside for me, especially given that I often need to carry firearms in my vehicle. I’ve mitigated this somewhat with a lockbox that fits in the center console and bolts directly to the transmission tunnel and another lockbox that replaced the plastic storage under the rear seat. 

As others have said, take a realistic look at your lifestyle. If you don’t need a completely separate large storage compartment (i.e., a truck bed) then a truck likely doesn’t make sense. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

I'm eager to see the specs on the new Ford Maverick when it's released. It will be a smallish, unibody truck to slot below the Ranger. It seems very likely it will launch with a hybrid version.

I don't need a big truck. I currently drive a Transit Connect where I usually toss my bike in the back of I'm alone or put it on a tray rack if I'm with the family. It's a good vehicle overall, but I've moved to a land of endless dirt roads and want something with AWD drive (hopefully with a good sand mode like the Ridgeline) and a bit higher ground clearance. I could justify a tougher 4x4, but I value the gas mileage more. I often end up covering 100+ miles exploring for day hikes/random adventures, so if the truck can handle some sandy, somewhat rutted BLM roads, that's enough for me. I don't need a rock crawler.

Bikes would likely have to over the tailgate as the bed will probably be 4-5 feet, but that's fine around town. For trips,I'd still use a rack and have the gear in the bed. If it's longer than 40 in, it would be more room than the pretty cavernous back of the Transit Connect.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I'm pretty happy with the fuel economy in my Ranger. In summertime, I've averaged 28mpg with mostly freeway driving and around 24 city/hwy combined. I bet I'll be able to hit 30 this summer. This time of year, it's lower. Maybe 21-22 combined. I average better than 20mpg when pulling my camper in the mtns.

I have the big cab and the short 5' bed. I can fit bikes on fork mounts, but longer ones have to angle. An XL or bigger might be angled enough to be trouble. I kinda wanted the 6ft bed, but the price I paid for the one I have swayed me.

In an ideal world, I'd have a little electric car for city/daily duties and the truck for weekends. But I don't have the kind of budget to be able to do that, unless the truck was a real beater. But around here, pickups with 100k on the odometer still sell for over 20k, so I wasn't really willing to buy something crappy enough to put it into my budget.

I got heated seats and oh, man, I'm loving them. My wife got heated seats in her subie when we bought that several years ago, and I made sure the truck had them to keep her happy.

I currently run with an open bed and a rack over the bed for boats and lumber. I've thought about a shell vs. tonneau cover, but I'm more likely to get the retrax pro tonneau cover than a shell, I think. I may change my mind at some point, but I'm not excited about removing a shell for the occasional mulch moving.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

MarcusBrody said:


> I'm eager to see the specs on the new Ford Maverick when it's released. It will be a smallish, unibody truck to slot below the Ranger. It seems very likely it will launch with a hybrid version.
> 
> I don't need a big truck. I currently drive a Transit Connect where I usually toss my bike in the back of I'm alone or put it on a tray rack if I'm with the family. It's a good vehicle overall, but I've moved to a land of endless dirt roads and want something with AWD drive (hopefully with a good sand mode like the Ridgeline) and a bit higher ground clearance. I could justify a tougher 4x4, but I value the gas mileage more. I often end up covering 100+ miles exploring for day hikes/random adventures, so if the truck can handle some sandy, somewhat rutted BLM roads, that's enough for me. I don't need a rock crawler.
> 
> Bikes would likely have to over the tailgate as the bed will probably be 4-5 feet, but that's fine around town. For trips,I'd still use a rack and have the gear in the bed. If it's longer than 40 in, it would be more room than the pretty cavernous back of the Transit Connect.


I've been somewhat aware of how the Maverick project is coming along and I was liking a lot about it until I saw the appearance. I'm not thrilled with how it's shaping up to look. Also not liking how the Ranger redesign is going, either.


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

Harold said:


> I've been somewhat aware of how the Maverick project is coming along and I was liking a lot about it until I saw the appearance. I'm not thrilled with how it's shaping up to look. Also not liking how the Ranger redesign is going, either.


What part of the appearance don't you like? Outside of those factory links of the bare unibody, most of the renders have been pretty speculative.

Your gas mileage looks pretty darn good for that size vehicle. It's really fairly similar to my van and better than most of what the magazines got in real world driving. Fuelly has the 2019 and 2020 Ranger with the 2.3 averaging ~19.8mpg. I don't have the heaviest foot in the world, but I suspect I'd be there.

I'm like you, though. I think we'll eventually have a two car set up where one is an electric runabout and the other is bigger and off road capable-ish for all our hobbies and adventures. I'd like that one to be a hybrid too, though, if possible as I do longer drives in it.


----------



## Proto20000 (Jan 19, 2021)

GiddyHitch said:


> I'm thinking about getting a pickup to replace my SUV but wondering if I will regret it for mtb duties (potential heresy, I know). The SUV with a hitch rack works great in this role currently - quick, easy, efficient. A pickup with a tailgate pad should be even more so but the more research I do, the more I'm starting to worry about downtube damage, exhaust pipes damaging carbon wheels, sun-damaged tailgate pads needing replacement after a year or two, tires rubbing on paint, more difficult to lock up, etc. not to mention that trucks are longer and wider than most SUV + hitch rack setups making mountain road driving and trailhead parking more challenging potentially. I'm ignoring the fuel efficiency, handling, and ride quality issues at this time.
> 
> So while trucks do offer a lot of upside for all around utility, does anyone regret getting one as their bike vehicle?


Got to have a few vehicles. Dirt capable and road capable. Don't try to get one that does both. 2000 F150 4x4 sits a lot but when needed, it has the HP, Daily is a Bimmer.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

The only truck i would consider incase i do not need or want track is raptor - u’ll enjoy driving it, others are functional cars that can get bikes to the trail, however not designed to do so... all depends on your situation amount of bikes and people to carry and roads (budget as well, however no mention means any)


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

GiddyHitch said:


> I'm kinda surprised at how many of you throw the bike in the bed rather than use a tailgate pad. That's kind of telling I think. And while i don't sweat my bike getting nicked up, I can't stand stuff bouncing and rattling around while I'm driving.
> 
> While the bike rides in the bed of the truck I do keep it strapped down so that it does not move around much, and the bed also had a rubber bed liner so it does not get too dinged up.


----------



## dsciulli19 (Apr 14, 2014)

Another full size truck user here, Crew Cab short bed with a tonneau cover. I've laid bikes down in the bed, used a tailgate pad, and now use a hitch rack. The hitch rack + Tonneau cover combo wins. Most hitch racks fold up so they don't take up much more space lengthwise and if you aren't going to use it for a while just take it off. The real benefit to this setup is being able to carry bikes AND gear, and if you're in a pinch you can take the front wheel off of the bike and get it under the cover out of sight and out of the weather. Plus if you need to haul/shuttle a lot of bikes, you can do that with ease.

It's tough to beat the functionality and versatility of a pickup truck, but you definitely pay for it in up front cost, parts, tires, and of course lackluster fuel economy. So, if you don't have much of a use for a truck other than wanting to haul bikes it's hard to justify the cost. If you are going to be hauling firewood, drywall/lumber, moving furniture, or pulling a trailer on a regular basis it's a no brainer. My house needed a lot of work when I bought it and I'd have to borrow or rent a truck constantly if I didn't own one. 

-DS


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

D. Inoobinati said:


> I have a home, a giant yard, and a long history of big DIY projects, in addition to lots of bikes, and other outdoor endeavors. In terms of a do-everything vehicle, my old 2000 Honda minivan puts most pickup trucks to shame. I guess if you're young, single, and live in an apartment, a pick-up is the way to go. Don't forget your "Punisher" decal.


I won't forget my Punisher decal as long as you don't forget your "I USED TO BE COOL" and the ultra nerdy Star Wars characters to represent your 7 kids stickers.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

MarcusBrody said:


> What part of the appearance don't you like? Outside of those factory links of the bare unibody, most of the renders have been pretty speculative.
> 
> Your gas mileage looks pretty darn good for that size vehicle. It's really fairly similar to my van and better than most of what the magazines got in real world driving. Fuelly has the 2019 and 2020 Ranger with the 2.3 averaging ~19.8mpg. I don't have the heaviest foot in the world, but I suspect I'd be there.
> 
> I'm like you, though. I think we'll eventually have a two car set up where one is an electric runabout and the other is bigger and off road capable-ish for all our hobbies and adventures. I'd like that one to be a hybrid too, though, if possible as I do longer drives in it.


I don't like the super squared off hyper-aggressive look. I'm not talking about the renders, necessarily, which have been all over the place. I'm talking about what I've seen from the spy shots of Mavericks in those obscuring wraps actually being driven. I get why so many trucks do it. I know the old square body designs are still generally people's favorite truck designs. I just think that manufacturers are going a bit TOO far with making the grills tall and aggressive-looking. I think the most recent Taco is an especially egregious example of this.

My fuel economy actually isn't terribly unusual if I go from the reports in the Ranger forum I'm on. I'm sitting at about 19mpg on the tank in the truck right now, but that's because I'm less than half a tank into it and I've spent a lot of time in drive-thrus idling (plus it's wintertime and I have very few highway miles on this tank). Couple components seem important there:

I use premium gas (get a small mpg bump there which maybe isn't "worth" the cost for regular driving, but is probably more important for towing and other heavier work)
I'm light on the gas pedal (most of the time). It sure is fun to get the turbo spooled up, but it sucks down gas fast doing that. Still, it's fun making people in sports cars do a double take when my bone stock 4-banger pickup truck accelerates the way it does.
It's also running stock suspension and tires. I have zero need to get into lifted bro dozer territory, and more aggressive (and bigger) tires get heavy fast, and also cut into the fuel economy of the truck in a big way. When it comes time to replace the OEM tires, I'll definitely be keeping tire weight on my criteria list so I can keep my mpg up. The gnarliest terrain I'm likely to drive on will be my yard (which can be steep and does require 4wd at times to avoid tearing up the grass after I drop a load of mulch) and barely maintained USFS service roads, though the better-maintained gravel roads will definitely be much more frequent than either. No need for me to get K02's two sizes bigger than OEM for that kinda stuff.
It's funny to me that there's apparently a class action lawsuit from people complaining that they're not getting Ford's stated fuel economy from the Ranger. Things that can get you under Ford's ratings pretty quick include using regular gas, winter driving, having a heavy foot, and aftermarket mods (including computer tunes, but some of those can also INCREASE fuel economy). Combine multiples on that, and you'll be in trouble fast.

In spite of the fact that I'm not impressed with its appearance, if the Maverick was available a year ago, I'd probably be giving it a hard look because I mostly don't need a truck the size of the current Ranger, even. I had a 98 Ranger years ago and I liked that little truck a lot, minus a couple issues. The size, certainly, fit my needs better. I looked at Frontiers awhile ago, and even though their size is closer to my needs, their fuel economy seems to be the worst of the current bunch of smaller trucks, too.

Still, I HAVE made use of the extra size of the Ranger and have been happy for it. I'm hoping post-pandemic I'll be able to do more of that.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

Verbalkint999 said:


> View attachment 1914288


I really like this setup. I've been contemplating a cap, they're not cheap and can be limiting at times. But I like the tonneau cover idea as it allows me to fill the bed with camping gear and keeps it all mostly safe and dry. I have both Yakima aero cross bars as well as a Yak Frontloader bike tray, only then need the towers, so this configuration looks pretty good. It's also not a difficult lift to a rooftop for a bike and I'd bet you could fit a roof box on the rack if needing more room (which I have)


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

Harold said:


> I don't like the super squared off hyper-aggressive look. I'm not talking about the renders, necessarily, which have been all over the place. I'm talking about what I've seen from the spy shots of Mavericks in those obscuring wraps actually being driven. I get why so many trucks do it. I know the old square body designs are still generally people's favorite truck designs. I just think that manufacturers are going a bit TOO far with making the grills tall and aggressive-looking. I think the most recent Taco is an especially egregious example of this.
> 
> My fuel economy actually isn't terribly unusual if I go from the reports in the Ranger forum I'm on. I'm sitting at about 19mpg on the tank in the truck right now, but that's because I'm less than half a tank into it and I've spent a lot of time in drive-thrus idling (plus it's wintertime and I have very few highway miles on this tank). Couple components seem important there:
> 
> ...


I'll definitely look at the Ranger and similar trucks (maybe even including full size). We're not in a place where size is a big problem (save maybe my wife bumping into stuff), so it's the efficiency that's my biggest hangup. I'm more excited for the Maverick than the Ranger as I imagine it will be more efficient and possibly even roomier for passengers as it seems to be more of a passenger designed vehicle. We will see if that's true though. I do have reason to run light AT tires and want a decent AWD mode, but I also don't need something in the Brodozer range. I'm pretty ambitious in what I'll take my current vehicles on, but I would be more comfortable with a little bit more capability (I currently stay off most of the myriad 4x4 recommended roads if I haven't scouted them). I'd also love some skid plates.

The Maverick does look like it has a pretty square front end. We'll see what that does for visibility. I'm spoiled with the Transit Connect and the Fit we had before. My other current car is really little so it's "sportier" levels of visibility aren't as important.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

MarcusBrody said:


> I'll definitely look at the Ranger and similar trucks (maybe even including full size). We're not in a place where size is a big problem (save maybe my wife bumping into stuff), so it's the efficiency that's my biggest hangup. I'm more excited for the Maverick than the Ranger as I imagine it will be more efficient and possibly even roomier for passengers as it seems to be more of a passenger designed vehicle. We will see if that's true though. I do have reason to run light AT tires and want a decent AWD mode, but I also don't need something in the Brodozer range. I'm pretty ambitious in what I'll take my current vehicles on, but I would be more comfortable with a little bit more capability (I currently stay off most of the myriad 4x4 recommended roads if I haven't scouted them). I'd also love some skid plates.
> 
> The Maverick does look like it has a pretty square front end. We'll see what that does for visibility. I'm spoiled with the Transit Connect and the Fit we had before. My other current car is really little so it's "sportier" levels of visibility aren't as important.


Yeah, I kinda need to balance size a bit. I live at the edge of the country and the city. But being in the mtns, a big truck is hard to fit in a lot of the places I go. I have friends with huge diesel duallys for pulling 5th wheels, and there are definitely places they can't go. They don't generally go the same places I do, though. The downtown area is pretty tight and I do miss my Fit for navigating down there. My wife and I don't go down there a lot, but when we do, we try to use her subaru as much as possible. Doesn't always work out that way, but it helps.

All the driving and parking aids help a lot with visibility and blind spots, so I'm thankful for that at least.


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

One thing to keep in mind when considering SUV vs truck is that the mileage difference between the two is often not what you’d expect. On the same Reno-Berkeley round trip, both my Tacoma and 2017 Honda Pilot get right at 24 MPG. When you add the rooftop cargo carrier to the Pilot, it drops to 21 MPG for that same trip. Of course, the Pilot can haul more people more comfortably, but the Tacoma can haul more cargo and still fit 4. Again, it’s all about what best fits the needs of your lifestyle. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

Harold said:


> Yeah, I kinda need to balance size a bit. I live at the edge of the country and the city. But being in the mtns, a big truck is hard to fit in a lot of the places I go. I have friends with huge diesel duallys for pulling 5th wheels, and there are definitely places they can't go. They don't generally go the same places I do, though. The downtown area is pretty tight and I do miss my Fit for navigating down there. My wife and I don't go down there a lot, but when we do, we try to use her subaru as much as possible. Doesn't always work out that way, but it helps.
> 
> All the driving and parking aids help a lot with visibility and blind spots, so I'm thankful for that at least.


There aren't many places I've explored where I think a full sized truck would have been a problem out here, but I prefer to go as small as I can for what I need. The Transit Connect and Fit are both nice as they pack maximum space in a given footprint. There are a few places where two cars passing one another is an issue (driving to the top of Bootleg Canyon for instance, but I don't think differences in non-dually sized vehicles would really make or break that. If I was actually off roading with completing trails being the goal, that's a different story, but this is more for bike/hiking transport and long distance dirt road trip adventures. My wife didn't love all the dirt roads/washboard in the van on this summers cross country road trip and I've gotten it stuck once by just backing up a little too far onto unconsolidated gravel at a trailhead ( though hand digging and floor mats freed it). My next vehicle whether it's a truck or SUV will hopefully solve those problems and let me explore a lot more of the dirt roads on Lake Mead NRA and the BLM land around my town. I have a year old son, so we aren't able to do huge approach hikes to get to the good stuff.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

MarcusBrody said:


> There aren't many places I've explored where I think a full sized truck would have been a problem out here, but I prefer to go as small as I can for what I need. The Transit Connect and Fit are both nice as they pack maximum space in a given footprint. There are a few places where two cars passing one another is an issue (driving to the top of Bootleg Canyon for instance, but I don't think differences in non-dually sized vehicles would really make or break that. If I was actually off roading with completing trails being the goal, that's a different story, but this is more for bike/hiking transport and long distance dirt road trip adventures. My wife didn't love all the dirt roads/washboard in the van on this summers cross country road trip and I've gotten it stuck once by just backing up a little too far onto unconsolidated gravel at a trailhead ( though hand digging and floor mats freed it). My next vehicle whether it's a truck or SUV will hopefully solve those problems and let me explore a lot more of the dirt roads on Lake Mead NRA and the BLM land around my town. I have a year old son, so we aren't able to do huge approach hikes to get to the good stuff.


Ah, yeah, you live out west. Lots more space out there.

I live in the east in a city whose streets are the same width now as they were before cars were invented. So that can be fun.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Harold said:


> Ah, yeah, you live out west. Lots more space out there.
> 
> I live in the east in a city whose streets are the same width now as they were before cars were invented. So that can be fun.


That and pickups are pretty much a car out here. So parking lots tend to be a lot more truck-friendly.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

dysfunction said:


> That and pickups are pretty much a car out here. So parking lots tend to be a lot more truck-friendly.


Yeah, there are definitely some surface lots around here that are REALLY tight for a midsize truck, even. And if you're parked next to something else larger like an SUV or another truck, then it's not so easy to get in/out without hitting an adjacent vehicle with your door. And that's not even the parking garages downtown. The antenna on my stock-height Ranger hits the ceiling clearance beams in a few garages. And some of them have ramps between levels that are so narrow that I have to rely on the bumper parking sensors to make sure I've got clearance.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Catmandoo said:


> I really like this setup. I've been contemplating a cap, they're not cheap and can be limiting at times. But I like the tonneau cover idea as it allows me to fill the bed with camping gear and keeps it all mostly safe and dry. I have both Yakima aero cross bars as well as a Yak Frontloader bike tray, only then need the towers, so this configuration looks pretty good. It's also not a difficult lift to a rooftop for a bike and I'd bet you could fit a roof box on the rack if needing more room (which I have)












Posting for inspiration.

This doesn't work for me or anyone who wants/needs to load bikes in a garage.

Me and my mall crawler are in a parking garage. Until we are loaded up for 2000 Mike road trips.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

Those over bed tents just make zero sense to me. They are insanely expensive, and what benefit do you get over a regular tent? You can buy a really nice tent for a fraction of the cost of those, and just keep it in your truck at all times. Not only that, but you're limiting the use of your bed by putting one of those monstrosities over the top. At that point, you may as well just put a camper shell on it and sleep in the bed when you want to car camp. 

I am probably just being judgy here, but I live in Arizona and see these things all over the place. 99.9% of them are on brand new, super clean trucks owned by suburbanites who probably camp once or twice a year tops. They seem like more of a status symbol than an useful piece of outdoor equipment.


----------



## blaklabl (Mar 14, 2011)

I just picked up a 2021 Tacoma TRD OR a couple weeks ago, after a long time not having a "truck" (probably 20 years). At first, I was dead-set on getting a tailgate pad and never taking it off, but then I started to do research and realized all the cons already listed in this thread. Additionally, this truck came equipped with a tonneau cover that I have no intention of removing and "storing" as the dealer suggested. So, after a lot of thought and research, I just decided to carry on with my hitch rack and am enjoying using the locking cargo area for my ride equipment, cooler, etc. As mentioned before, having a tailgate to plop down on isn't too bad either!

Eventually I'll pick up a nicer 1up rack, but for now the Swagman gets it done and I already own it.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Those over bed tents just make zero sense to me. They are insanely expensive, and what benefit do you get over a regular tent? You can buy a really nice tent for a fraction of the cost of those, and just keep it in your truck at all times. Not only that, but you're limiting the use of your bed by putting one of those monstrosities over the top. At that point, you may as well just put a camper shell on it and sleep in the bed when you want to car camp.
> 
> I am probably just being judgy here, but I live in Arizona and see these things all over the place. 99.9% of them are on brand new, super clean trucks owned by suburbanites who probably camp once or twice a year tops. They seem like more of a status symbol than an useful piece of outdoor equipment.


For most, you're probably right.

I know one guy who has a rooftop tent on his 4runner. He loads his bike inside. He camps in it almost weekly. He owns a shop and on the weekends he likes to drive somewhere to camp and ride for the weekend. In the summertime when his shop is open more, he doesn't travel as far. Pretty sure he keeps most of his stuff loaded up permanently, so he only needs to grab food and clothes and then head out.

I see lots of rooftop tents as well as really expensive camper van builds here.

I'd rather have a small towable instead of junk bolted onto my truck all the time. I have a teardrop now, but I think my wife and I will probably get something like a Casita in a number of years as our trailer upgrade.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

I am sure there are people out there who have them and actually use them. That part of my post was just me being grumpy. The main point was that I don't see the benefit of them over a regular tent or a camper. I have a few different camp setups: solo backpacking tent for bikepacking in the desert, hammock for bikepacking places with trees, and a Softopper for my truck for when I drive somewhere to ride and I just sleep in the back. The Softopper can be put on/taken off in about 10 minutes and only cost me like $600. I am struggling to see where these over bed tents that go for thousands of dollars would be any better or different than that setup.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> I am sure there are people out there who have them and actually use them. That part of my post was just me being grumpy. The main point was that I don't see the benefit of them over a regular tent or a camper. I have a few different camp setups: solo backpacking tent for bikepacking in the desert, hammock for bikepacking places with trees, and a Softopper for my truck for when I drive somewhere to ride and I just sleep in the back. The Softopper can be put on/taken off in about 10 minutes and only cost me like $600. I am struggling to see where these over bed tents that go for thousands of dollars would be any better or different than that setup.


The idea is that it puts the shelter up high so the bed can still be used for cargo. you can find some mid-height overland racks that still tuck the tent under the roofline (fuel economy, center-of-gravity, etc) but give cargo space beneath.

They absolutely are wildly expensive for what they are, though.

What's really irritating to me about them is that if you need to drive away from camp. say, to visit a different trailhead or whatever, you've gotta tear everything down to drive somewhere. If that's how you plan to operate, then I guess that works for you. But when I go camp, I like to stay somewhere for a few days. Leave my camp set up and maybe go to different trailheads, maybe do a grocery or beer run somewhere, etc. Sleeping in the bed with a topper works fine for that, because you don't have to setup/teardown anything to move. But with a RTT, blech.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

Harold said:


> The idea is that it puts the shelter up high so the bed can still be used for cargo. you can find some mid-height overland racks that still tuck the tent under the roofline (fuel economy, center-of-gravity, etc) but give cargo space beneath.
> 
> They absolutely are wildly expensive for what they are, though.
> 
> What's really irritating to me about them is that if you need to drive away from camp. say, to visit a different trailhead or whatever, you've gotta tear everything down to drive somewhere. If that's how you plan to operate, then I guess that works for you. But when I go camp, I like to stay somewhere for a few days. Leave my camp set up and maybe go to different trailheads, maybe do a grocery or beer run somewhere, etc. Sleeping in the bed with a topper works fine for that, because you don't have to setup/teardown anything to move. But with a RTT, blech.


I haven't looked at them in close detail, but the useable bed height looks the same with those RTT as it would be with a camper. I don't know, like I said I could be missing something. I am notoriously a cheap ass, and am happy to sleep on a regular sleeping pad in the back of my truck with a Softopper protecting me from rain if it saves me a couple thousand dollars.


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> I am sure there are people out there who have them and actually use them. That part of my post was just me being grumpy. The main point was that I don't see the benefit of them over a regular tent or a camper. I have a few different camp setups: solo backpacking tent for bikepacking in the desert, hammock for bikepacking places with trees, and a Softopper for my truck for when I drive somewhere to ride and I just sleep in the back. The Softopper can be put on/taken off in about 10 minutes and only cost me like $600. I am struggling to see where these over bed tents that go for thousands of dollars would be any better or different than that setup.


I have multiple ground tents and have occasionally wanted a roof top tent. Here's why:

I think the main thing is having a nice flat surface at all times. Find a reasonably flat place to park, maybe adjust a little with some rocks/piece of wood/traction boards and you are good to go. You don't need to find a flattish, nonrocky tent site.

Second is that you don't have to drive stakes. If you are camping in really rocky areas, finding a spot to get the stakes in that's also nice and flat can be hard. My big, car camping (sorry, I mean "overlanding") tent is one of those canvas springbar jobs which work due to tension, so you need most of the stakes well in. We've camped a few places where that was tough even with lag screws and an impact driver.

Third CAN be ease of set up. If you're talking a hardshell rooftop tent or one of those pickup shell wedges (eg Go Fast Camper), then they set up a lot faster than the 20+ minutes it takes me to put up/take down my big tent. The soft shell tents are roomier, but take much longer to take down. On the downside though, they have to be taken down every time you drive, so they're less ideal as base camp tents.

For our needs right now, our palatial 10x10 canvas ground tent is best for me, my wife, kid, and dog. If I was a single person roadtripping around though, one of those wedge shells would be tempting.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Those over bed tents just make zero sense to me. They are insanely expensive, and what benefit do you get over a regular tent? You can buy a really nice tent for a fraction of the cost of those, and just keep it in your truck at all times. Not only that, but you're limiting the use of your bed by putting one of those monstrosities over the top. At that point, you may as well just put a camper shell on it and sleep in the bed when you want to car camp.
> 
> I am probably just being judgy here, but I live in Arizona and see these things all over the place. 99.9% of them are on brand new, super clean trucks owned by suburbanites who probably camp once or twice a year tops. They seem like more of a status symbol than an useful piece of outdoor equipment.


You mean like this 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

FJSnoozer said:


> You mean like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Depending on the tent and tent-top design(s) they can be faster to get setup and taken down. I've been watching a set of YT video's of a guy that car top camps in a 4 door Jeep. It's really quick and if you are not putting away a ground pad and sleeping bag into a stuff sack in the AM, is faster. My 1 person ground tent takes about 2-3 minutes to setup but in the AM I have to pack up the pad and bag, so I can see the attraction to car top/bed top.

On the other hand, the tent/top unit used in these YT ran $7,000 plus as its a hard shell replacement for a Jeep. That's a heck of a lot more money than any tent. I've no idea what a pickup bed design costs.

venture4wd - YouTube


----------



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

Y'all are passionate about your trucks and your setups, that's for sure. I must admit that you have dampened my enthusiasm for a truck somewhat but I may still end up making a bad decision yet because sometimes, the heart wants what the heart wants.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

MarcusBrody said:


> I have multiple ground tents and have occasionally wanted a roof top tent. Here's why:
> 
> I think the main thing is having a nice flat surface at all times. Find a reasonably flat place to park, maybe adjust a little with some rocks/piece of wood/traction boards and you are good to go. You don't need to find a flattish, nonrocky tent site.
> 
> ...


the idea of climbing on top of my can to sleep or wake up in the middle of night and climb down and up just freaks me out!
Also regular car can handle family up to 5 or 7 people with will be impossible to fit within rooftop tent;


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

Nick_M said:


> the idea of climbing on top of my can to sleep or wake up in the middle of night and climb down and up just freaks me out!
> Also regular car can handle family up to 5 or 7 people with will be impossible to fit within rooftop tent;


As someone who often has to get up in the middle of the night to pee, especially if I've so much as looked at a beer, the hassle of having to climb down the ladder is definitely keeps me away from a rooftop tent.

There are rooftop tents that will comfortably handle 4 people though. I suspect that most people you see driving around with them aren't gigantic families as 1. family size is shrinking in general 2. rooftop tents seem to be more of an outdoor bro accessory these days. If I ever did a van, though, it might be nice to sleep inside the van with my wife while we made our son sleep up on top.


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

I’ve thought about getting a surplus army trailer (specifically an M1102), building a slightly elevated rack for it and then mounting a rooftop tent and using the cargo area underneath for..... cargo! And. Little kitchen setup. I’m still pricing it out, but a cool lightweight camper trailer might actually be. Better deal. 

Anyway, OP, trucks are fun, SUVs less so, but SUVs have a bunch of benefits. Let us know what you choose. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

I guess some people didn’t grow up with bunk beds. 


Full disclosure. I drive my truck full of bikes, my wife and dog from a high rise 1000 miles to airBNBs with hot tubs. 

But the Boy Scout in me digs that rooftop setup on the Tacoma. I could set up a tent in 3 minutes, but where would I secure my bikes while I slept? My wife races, so it’s rare I would ever go somewhere without her. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

FJSnoozer said:


> I guess some people didn't grow up with bunk beds.
> 
> Full disclosure. I drive my truck full of bikes, my wife and dog from a high rise 1000 miles to airBNBs with hot tubs.
> 
> ...


someone must not be getting old enough yet that they've gotta get up to pee in the middle of the night.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

FJSnoozer said:


> I guess some people didn't grow up with bunk beds.
> 
> Full disclosure. I drive my truck full of bikes, my wife and dog from a high rise 1000 miles to airBNBs with hot tubs.
> 
> ...


A buddy of mine bought a hitch mount tent for exactly that reason. Basically it lets you put a tent on your tow hitch. Secure your bikes inside the back of your truck and away you go. He puts his in the back of his forerunner.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Harold said:


> someone must not be getting old enough yet that they've gotta get up to pee in the middle of the night.


That's what gatorade bottles are for.


----------



## sa12 (Sep 7, 2018)

Never in the history of the world has "getting away from it all" involved so much crap and so much money, and yet, somehow, also piss bottles.

That's just a joke. Camping gear is not a terrible way to spend your money. When I'm driving on the highway I'd 1000x rather see rigs like the ones above rather than be surrounded by people who blew their money on stupid suspension/exhaust mods and stick-on accessories.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ogre said:


> A buddy of mine bought a hitch mount tent for exactly that reason. Basically it lets you put a tent on your tow hitch. Secure your bikes inside the back of your truck and away you go. He puts his in the back of his forerunner.


Wow, that thing is an absolute sail in the travel position. I wouldn't consider it for a pickup unless I had a topper so that thing could ride in the slipstream. But even on the SUV in the vid, it sticks above the roofline. No thanks.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Harold said:


> Wow, that thing is an absolute sail in the travel position. I wouldn't consider it for a pickup unless I had a topper so that thing could ride in the slipstream. But even on the SUV in the vid, it sticks above the roofline. No thanks.


I should have put a caveat on my post because that was exactly my concern. My buddy has a taller SUV but even then it sticks up. I'll have to check with him on what it does to mileage. It would be interesting to see how these compare on fuel economy versus a teardrop.

In fairness though, roof tents are giant sails as well and likely catch just as much air. I won't even put bikes on my roof any more, used a roof rack for a few years and it absolutely crushed my mileage.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

I don't understand any of those vehicle mounted tents, honestly. 
Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ogre said:


> I should have put a caveat on my post because that was exactly my concern. My buddy has a taller SUV but even then it sticks up. I'll have to check with him on what it does to mileage. It would be interesting to see how these compare on fuel economy versus a teardrop.
> 
> In fairness though, roof tents are giant sails as well and likely catch just as much air. I won't even put bikes on my roof any more, used a roof rack for a few years and it absolutely crushed my mileage.


I mean, I've noticed a hit to fuel economy carrying bikes up top, but it's never been horrible. a few mpg, for sure. and notably less with a hitch rack.

granted, I also don't set my cruise to 80mph or anything, either.

I agree that a lot of RTT's suck in the aerodynamics aspect, too. the ones in square bags like that 23zero in particular. The guy I know who uses one all the time has a clamshell type from alucab that looks a LOT more efficient. The shape of stuff on the roof matters a lot. I like to tell the story about how transporting a 16ft canoe on the roof of my old Fit would actually result in BETTER fuel economy, simply because the shape was better.

But the example of this hitch carrier is an interesting one because of how the forces get distributed. Wind hitting exposed parts of the RTT will push backwards, of course, but the structure of the carrier will actually wind up transferring a lot of that DOWN through the hitch, as well, and lightening the front of the vehicle. How much will depend on how much of the RTT is exposed, of course, but I definitely don't like it.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

WHALENARD said:


> I don't understand any of those vehicle mounted tents, honestly.


The appeal to me is essentially having a nice thick mattress on a nice flat floor which 2 people can reasonably share. Kind of done with sleeping on rocks.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I don’t have much interest in a RTT, but I still think GoFast Campers are awesome. They’re intended to fade into the background on a daily driver truck. They can carry a load so you can put gear on top or use it for work around town. Their footprint is similar to a standard topper. But you can pop a tent in less than a minute in the settings that’s ideal. My ideal setup would be a GFC in place of a topper for my convenience when I’m traveling solo and light, and a camper trailer for longer trips with the lady.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Harold said:


> I mean, I've noticed a hit to fuel economy carrying bikes up top, but it's never been horrible. a few mpg, for sure. and notably less with a hitch rack.
> 
> granted, I also don't set my cruise to 80mph or anything, either.
> 
> ...


There will be some wind hitting the tent when it's behind the car, but it's very much in the wind shadow of your truck so the air is swirling all over the place and not super strong. They also have a shorty model which is a bit more compact.

One thing I'd considered is getting this and then sliding it into the bed of the truck. Most of the same benefits of this without the drag. It's pretty pricy for a cot/ tent combo though.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ogre said:


> There will be some wind hitting the tent when it's behind the car, but it's very much in the wind shadow of your truck so the air is swirling all over the place and not super strong. They also have a shorty model which is a bit more compact.
> 
> One thing I'd considered is getting this and then sliding it into the bed of the truck. Most of the same benefits of this without the drag. It's pretty pricy for a cot/ tent combo though.


a mid-height overland rack does the job of putting the RTT into the slipstream of the truck much better, while still leaving space underneath for cargo.



https://wilcooffroad.com/wp-content/uploads/img_2770.jpg


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Harold said:


> a mid-height overland rack does the job of putting the RTT into the slipstream of the truck much better, while still leaving space underneath for cargo.
> 
> 
> 
> https://wilcooffroad.com/wp-content/uploads/img_2770.jpg


The biggest advantage this has over the RTT (maybe only advantage) is you can leave the tent behind and still use your truck for getting to the trailhead without breaking camp. It's also a lot easier to mount and pop off the back of your truck at beginning/ end of your trip.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ogre said:


> The biggest advantage this has over the RTT (maybe only advantage) is you can leave the tent behind and still use your truck for getting to the trailhead without breaking camp. It's also a lot easier to mount and pop off the back of your truck at beginning/ end of your trip.


Yeah, the ability to leave the tent behind is nice. But that's one reason why I have a trailer.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Harold said:


> Yeah, the ability to leave the tent behind is nice. But that's one reason why I have a trailer.


Been thinking about a little trailer or teardrop myself. Just haven't pulled the trigger yet.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ogre said:


> Been thinking about a little trailer or teardrop myself. Just haven't pulled the trigger yet.


I love mine.


0423191439 by Nate, on Flickr

The only thing that really sucks about it is when the weather goes south for an extended period of time. I don't have a good, sheltered spot to cook and eat. The awning is great for light rain and shade, but it's no good in heavy winds. Did a trip earlier last year where heavy winds were an unanticipated problem. We could get out of those winds by going out onto the trails, but our campsite was too exposed (none were open where we could move) and made cooking (and eating) dinner a real drag.


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

If I didn't have a kid I'd be very much looking at one of those little trailers. They seem super convenient for camp set up. Getting a third place for someone to sleep seems to increase size greatly, though, and you often have to reconfigure something to set the extra bed up. At that point, it's not as advantageous over my large canvas tent.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Harold said:


> I love mine.
> 
> 
> 0423191439 by Nate, on Flickr
> ...


Looks like No good for heavy winds is an understatement, looks like a giant sail. Been there and surprise weather sucks when camping.

But you have to go big and burn a lot of gas if you want to bring proper accommodations with you.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

MarcusBrody said:


> If I didn't have a kid I'd be very much looking at one of those little trailers. They seem super convenient for camp set up. Getting a third place for someone to sleep seems to increase size greatly, though, and you often have to reconfigure something to set the extra bed up. At that point, it's not as advantageous over my large canvas tent.


Mine has enough room inside for a bed for a small child. when they're too big for that, they'd be big enough for their own tent outside. Some folks with similar trailers put a rooftop tent on them, but using one of those for kids, you'd probably want them a little older/bigger still.



Ogre said:


> Looks like No good for heavy winds is an understatement, looks like a giant sail. Been there and surprise weather sucks when camping.
> 
> But you have to go big and burn a lot of gas if you want to bring proper accommodations with you.


yep. once it's buttoned down, it's surprisingly sturdy, but it's very fragile during setup and take down. small breeze pulled it out of my wife's hands once when she was camping solo at a mtb fest. fortunately, there are "breakaway" parts that prevent the whole awning from being destroyed if that happens. there are also zip-on walls and side tents and stuff you can attach to it to provide more functional space outside the camper. but again, setup and take down are the weak points.

the wife is already pushing for a bigger camper. I'm not ready just yet (storage is the issue - this thing fits in our garage, but anything bigger would need either a rented space or for me to have a space built at the house, since the HOA requires "screening" for campers). nobody has yet built out approved camper screening, so I am not entirely sure what approved screening would look like. The covenants are not specific. I think what I'd prefer to upgrade to would be something like a Casita. Still easily towable by a truck the size of what I have. I have a 7500lb towing capacity, but from what I've seen from people who tow something closer to the max limit for the truck, they get about 8 or 9 mpg, and with the little gas tank in it, I'd be needing to fill up every 160mi or less and that's just unacceptable. I want to stay small and light.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

GiddyHitch said:


> Y'all are passionate about your trucks and your setups, that's for sure. I must admit that you have dampened my enthusiasm for a truck somewhat but I may still end up making a bad decision yet because sometimes, the heart wants what the heart wants.


I tried this for almost a year...it wasn't the smartest decision from a financial standpoint but I could not get my last truck out of my head. So, right or wrong, I got another truck. I absolutely love it, though I am partial to diesels. I have an awesome Rubicon and a solid 4Runner, but the truck is absolutely my favorite unless I want to go off-road, in which case I take the Jeep.

I have heard many of you say that you simply lay the bike in the bed. Does it not slide around all to hell, or do you guys try to tie it down a bit?


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

Harold said:


> Mine has enough room inside for a bed for a small child. when they're too big for that, they'd be big enough for their own tent outside. Some folks with similar trailers put a rooftop tent on them, but using one of those for kids, you'd probably want them a little older/bigger still.
> 
> yep. once it's buttoned down, it's surprisingly sturdy, but it's very fragile during setup and take down. small breeze pulled it out of my wife's hands once when she was camping solo at a mtb fest. fortunately, there are "breakaway" parts that prevent the whole awning from being destroyed if that happens. there are also zip-on walls and side tents and stuff you can attach to it to provide more functional space outside the camper. but again, setup and take down are the weak points.
> 
> the wife is already pushing for a bigger camper. I'm not ready just yet (storage is the issue - this thing fits in our garage, but anything bigger would need either a rented space or for me to have a space built at the house, since the HOA requires "screening" for campers). nobody has yet built out approved camper screening, so I am not entirely sure what approved screening would look like. The covenants are not specific. I think what I'd prefer to upgrade to would be something like a Casita. Still easily towable by a truck the size of what I have. I have a 7500lb towing capacity, but from what I've seen from people who tow something closer to the max limit for the truck, they get about 8 or 9 mpg, and with the little gas tank in it, I'd be needing to fill up every 160mi or less and that's just unacceptable. I want to stay small and light.


What type of trailer do you have?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Flyer said:


> I tried this for almost a year...it wasn't the smartest decision from a financial standpoint but I could not get my last truck out of my head. So, right or wrong, I got another truck. I absolutely love it, though I am partial to diesels. I have an awesome Rubicon and a solid 4Runner, but the truck is absolutely my favorite unless I want to go off-road, in which case I take the Jeep.
> 
> I have heard many of you say that you simply lay the bike in the bed. Does it not slide around all to hell, or do you guys try to tie it down a bit?


Well, my own trucks have always had something in the back...bare minimum a simple rubber mat, which helped prevent excessive sliding. But part of it depends on driving conditions. A lot of my trailheads are accessed from twisty gravel USFS roads and the thing with just tossing a bike back there is less sliding and more bouncing around. I prefer a more secure hold.

On a previous truck on much older bikes that fit well inside the bed, I used a simple pvc bike rack, which now lives in my garage. Now, with longer bikes and a shorter bed, that doesn't work anymore.



MarcusBrody said:


> What type of trailer do you have?


It's called a Hiker Trailer Highway model. They've got two production facilities. One in Indiana and another in Colorado. They build each trailer to order. Mine came from the IN facility back when build times were around 3mo. I think they're out over a year now (has been that way for a few years, so not pandemic-related), and both facilities expanded this year to try to handle the demand.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

....people that buy a full size pickup because removing a front wheel from bike is inconvenient. LOL.


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

I originally bought a truck because we wanted to get a travel trailer. The one we settled on was 25ft 6000# loaded. Add another 300/400 pounds with a full fresh water tank. Our Outback was rated at 2500#. Not gonna happen.

Was set on a Tundra until I looked at crash test ratings (2016) The only acceptable truck quickly became the crew cab F-150. I didn't even know what Eco-Boost was at the time.
That 2016 was totaled (hit from behind on the highway in a snowstorm by an idiot) and now have a 2019 F-150 3.5L twin turbo v-6 375HP 470Torque. Holy Jebus that thing rips, and has a towing capacity of 10,500#

Gas mileage is the only con 17/18ish around town, 21/22 HWY. 12 when towing the trailer. It has a 36 gallon tank (the 23 gallon tank was a deal breaker) so we don't have to stop for gas every 200 miles, and twin turbos are a big help at altitude.

It's been said multiple times - you can have eco or boost, not both.

Live in NM, so space is not a concern. Have a 4 bike Kuat hitch rack. and a hardcover
Tonneau to hide the goods, like snowboards, dual fuel generator, suitcases, etc. Have a Fox tailgate pad when towing. It's rather thick, never had any damage to down tubes.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Gas trucks generally make more sense. Once you have a diesel though (especially a modern diesel) it is really hard to go back to a gas truck. I think this is more relevant if you live in the mountains and if you tow as well. Even the Hellcat RAM with 700+ HP will not tow anywhere close to how effortlessly a diesel will pull a 6000-7000 lbs camper up the mountain passes....not even close. That new Ford with the PowerBoost motor, looks really good though I'm always emotionally partial to the bigger V8s like the crazy-powerful RAM or the new V8 Raptor cranking out 700+ HP. Something about these big trucks just gets into your blood.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I had a 1 ton dually diesel, when I was towing a 14,000 lb trailer regularly. Then it made sense. Maintenance was more (a 3 US Gallon oil change etc).. and it was fun to load the bed until I had to use the airbags to get it off the bump stops... but it was what it was.

If I didn't have to have a truck, I wouldn't. It's completely wasteful to drive when it's not loaded. But that is what it is. I need the hauling capability, and since it's not always 'clean' hauling.. I'm not gonna toss it in a panel van (which would be my choice anyway).


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I can't wait until a viable compact or midsize electric truck hits the market that has a 400-500mi range and can handle maybe up to 3-5k towing. all the electric trucks in development I'm aware of seem to slot in more at the F150-ish size and capability range. I just don't need OR want something that big.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

My ex and I bought a used F150 when she totalled her PT Loser. She kept it in the separation. I really loved that truck. She still has it, now with 230000+ miles. Overall not a complicated vehicle, mostly easy to work on, reliable, and practical. Four door model had enough room for inside storage of stuff, and I could camp out in the back seat fine. Bed was big enough that I could haul a half ton of hay for the horses. Great truck. No regrets with that one. In my area an F150 is a small truck.

I am in the market for a vehicle right now and my #1 hangup is finding vehicles with a manual transmission. I would love a truck with a manual, but the options are very limited. I am pretty sure this will be the last chance I get at being able to buy a new vehicle that isn't a sports car with a manual, so I am committed to getting one. If the Ranger had the 7 speed the new Bronco is getting, I would already have it.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Sidewalk said:


> My ex and I bought a used F150 when she totalled her PT Loser. She kept it in the separation. I really loved that truck. She still has it, now with 230000+ miles. Overall not a complicated vehicle, mostly easy to work on, reliable, and practical. Four door model had enough room for inside storage of stuff, and I could camp out in the back seat fine. Bed was big enough that I could haul a half ton of hay for the horses. Great truck. No regrets with that one. In my area an F150 is a small truck.
> 
> I am in the market for a vehicle right now and my #1 hangup is finding vehicles with a manual transmission. I would love a truck with a manual, but the options are very limited. I am pretty sure this will be the last chance I get at being able to buy a new vehicle that isn't a sports car with a manual, so I am committed to getting one. If the Ranger had the 7 speed the new Bronco is getting, I would already have it.


I've been mostly a MT guy since I learned to drive. But there have been enough occasions where owning a car with a MT has been a PITA that I decided I'd cave on the transmission. I've been pretty happy with the 10spd auto in the Ranger. It pairs well with the 2.3L Ecoboost.

I suppose it's still possible that the next version of the Ranger could get that 7spd MT the Bronco is getting. I keep hearing rumors of multiple engine options along with the other updates. That doesn't help you now, though, as those things are years off (even the Bronco is prob more than a year off, even for folks who preordered).


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

Sidewalk said:


> My ex and I bought a used F150 when she totalled her PT Loser. She kept it in the separation. I really loved that truck. She still has it, now with 230000+ miles. Overall not a complicated vehicle, mostly easy to work on, reliable, and practical. Four door model had enough room for inside storage of stuff, and I could camp out in the back seat fine. Bed was big enough that I could haul a half ton of hay for the horses. Great truck. No regrets with that one. In my area an F150 is a small truck.
> 
> I am in the market for a vehicle right now and my #1 hangup is finding vehicles with a manual transmission. I would love a truck with a manual, but the options are very limited. I am pretty sure this will be the last chance I get at being able to buy a new vehicle that isn't a sports car with a manual, so I am committed to getting one. If the Ranger had the 7 speed the new Bronco is getting, I would already have it.


My daily driver is a manual and I love it, but I care less about getting a stick in a truck (now that most are adequately powered). My car is this a little, old, pos BMW. It's underpowered but a blast to drive with it's close ratioed stick and sharp handling. Its like driving a go cart. A truck is never going to have amazing driving dynamics and is more of tool for me, so I just want to maximize it's utility. As my wife can't drive a manual (and now that autos get better gas mileage), I'll go auto in my future trucks/vans/suvs. But I wouldn't mind having a fun little car with a stick as our second car!


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

My 1992 Toyota pickup may have been my favorite. It was 2-wheel drive, manual transmission, 6 foot bed, no A/C, crank windows and got 29mpg in town. It was a bit of a beater, but super zippy to drive with the 22RE engine and almost no weight. It was easy to toss a bike in the back for a quick trip to a trail and could handle rough forest roads surprisingly well. It was great for trips to the home improvement store or the landfill. Cheap and reliable.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Most US manufacturers are completely eschewing manual transmissions. There are no more full sized trucks available with them, and few cars. When I bought my mk5 GTi, I had to special order the manual transmission and that was 12 years ago, the last car I found new on a lot with one was the MX5. Basically, there's just no market in the US for them. I go home, and it's cheaper and easier to rent a manual. Although, I suspect that will be changing soon enough too.


----------



## aaronedmonton (Nov 28, 2020)

Flyer said:


> I have heard many of you say that you simply lay the bike in the bed. Does it not slide around all to hell, or do you guys try to tie it down a bit?


My Stumpy barely fits the way I put it in the bed so it doesn't move around at all, which is great.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Flyer said:


> I have heard many of you say that you simply lay the bike in the bed. Does it not slide around all to hell, or do you guys try to tie it down a bit?


I have a spray on liner which is mostly softer than my bike paint and prevents it from sliding. Friction goes a long ways. IMO the spray liner is almost a must-have on a truck if you actually use the bed for much.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ogre said:


> I have a spray on liner which is mostly softer than my bike paint and prevents it from sliding. Friction goes a long ways. IMO the spray liner is almost a must-have on a truck if you actually use the bed for much.


I think it depends a little bit on which brand of liner you get, but yeah, I think they're usually softer than the plain ol painted metal you start with. That helps with the banging. And definitely more friction for less sliding.


----------



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

dysfunction said:


> Most US manufacturers are completely eschewing manual transmissions. There are no more full sized trucks available with them, and few cars. When I bought my mk5 GTi, I had to special order the manual transmission and that was 12 years ago, the last car I found new on a lot with one was the MX5. Basically, there's just no market in the US for them. I go home, and it's cheaper and easier to rent a manual. Although, I suspect that will be changing soon enough too.


The take rates on manual transmissions has been in steep decline since the 80s at least but they've been further eliminated on new models recently (last ten years) in the interest of EPA mileage ratings in the mainstream and outright capability (shift speed and torque loads) in the performance space. Ironically, they will command a premium on the used market because almost no one buys them in the new market.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Ogre said:


> I have a spray on liner which is mostly softer than my bike paint and prevents it from sliding. Friction goes a long ways. IMO the spray liner is almost a must-have on a truck if you actually use the bed for much.


I'll try it. I do have a spray on liner (I think Line-X) that came with the truck. I can also use a couple of cords to prevent much sliding.


----------



## CaptainA (Jan 2, 2020)

I have camper shell that i put a regular rack in, like you see at stores. put bike in 1 strap on handle bar and done. I keep gravel bike in truck 3 seasons of the year. mountain bike in winter. it fits 5 bikes in it


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

I’m not a big fan of SUVs. Only soccer moms and dads drive them. But my opinion may be a generational thang. SUVs don’t have much room in them and really don’t offer much utility compared to a crew cab truck and the under appreciated mini van. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

DrDon said:


> I'm not a big fan of SUVs. Only soccer moms and dads drive them. But my opinion may be a generational thang. SUVs don't have much room in them and really don't offer much utility compared to a crew cab truck and the under appreciated mini van.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I own a van, but I definitely see the advantages of SUVs in some situations.

Advantages over van: Ground clearance, easier to get with decent 4WD/AWD

Advantages over a crew cab truck: Gear stays inside in climate controlled area, sealed from dust. They're generally shorter. Three rows are available. You can make a sleeping platform in them (many crew cab trucks beds are too short for tall people).

Personally my first choice would be a van with some ground clearance, then a truck, then an SUV, but I see where they'd be the best choice.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

MarcusBrody said:


> I own a van, but I definitely see the advantages of SUVs in some situations.
> 
> Advantages over van: Ground clearance, easier to get with decent 4WD/AWD
> 
> ...


Lifted:


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

Pisgah said:


> Lifted:
> 
> View attachment 1918907


I love those and the new hybrid version is reasonably affordable. The most prominent lift builder is said to be working on a lift for the current gen so I'll be watching. I do think there is some debate about how robust they are after they're lifted and how much extra wear it puts on the drive system, but a factory version of that would be basically my ideal vehicle at the moment.


----------



## TechniKal (Mar 18, 2004)

I spent 30+ years driving trucks, from compacts to full sized. I switched to a compact SUV in 2019. My thoughts so far (thought I didn't drive nearly as much with Covid shutting everything down.

Truck pros:

Practicality - with the 4 door trucks, you get all the goodness of a passenger vehicle with the flexibility of a bed and the ability to tow.
Ride height /visibility - Easier to see, large mirrors, easier to get in/out of
Bike hauling flexibility - in the bed, on a rack, on the tailgate, fork mounts on the rails, etc - more options that any other vehicle
Truck cons:

They are huge. Current full sized trucks and even most compact truck are giant these days. They are hard to park, don't fit in normal garages, etc
Bad gas mileage - I was lucky to get 15mpg in my F150 and I don't drive fast
Expensive - I started driving trucks because they were cheap. Now they cost considerably more than comparable cars/SUVs. It's crazy to think you can spend $100k on an F150. Sure, they advertise base models starting a reasonable prices, but those are hard to find outside of fleet sales and they remove a lot of options

SUV Pros: (I have a Subaru Forester)

Practicality - does just as good a job getting me and my family where I want to go, can haul bikes, stuff from home depot, etc. I rent a trailer the once a year when I need to haul anything messy.
Much easier to drive - The subaru has similar visibility to most trucks I've owned, but is much smaller and more agile. Lighter steering. Much easier to park. Fits in the garage with room to spare
Much better fuel economy - typical driving I'm 28mpg +. I will say that putting on the cargo basket, or even a hitch rack with a couple of bikes impacts that pretty severely.
Much cheaper - about 1/2 the price of a comparably specced full sized truck
SUV Cons:

I miss the bed. It's nice to never have to think about what you're bringing, have a place to put smelly clothes/muddy shoes, etc.
towing capacity sucks - This is specific to the smaller SUVs. I didn't tow regularly at all with the trucks, but I don't have the option of anything other than a very small trailer with the Forester

If someone would come up with a full sized truck that got decent mileage, fit in my garage and didn't cost $80k, I'd switch back - but for the foreseeable future, I'm happy with the SUV.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

TechniKal said:


> If someone would come up with a full sized truck that got decent mileage, fit in my garage and didn't cost $80k, I'd switch back - but for the foreseeable future, I'm happy with the SUV.


The problem with SUVs is the back is too small for more than 1 bike and once you put a rack on the hitch, the hatchback area is kind of useless for cyclists because you can't open the hatch. So you have have this big empty space behind the back seats and your kit is on the passenger seats.

For me anyhow, I don't need a giant truck. I'd buy a Subaru Baja if I could get one reasonably priced.


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

Ogre said:


> useless for cyclists because you can't open the hatch. So you have have this big empty space behind the back seats and your kit is on the passenger seats.


You can't be serious or maybe haven't put ANY thought into this.

Loading up for a ride? Open the hatch, insert gear, close hatch, load bikes onto rack. Arrive at the trailhead? Repeat the same steps in reverse.


----------



## TechniKal (Mar 18, 2004)

The tilting bike racks help with access, but they can be difficult to manage with more than 2 bikes on the rack. With the smaller SUV, I just drop the rear seats and access the back from the back door of the car.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

dir-T said:


> You can't be serious or maybe haven't put ANY thought into this.
> 
> Loading up for a ride? Open the hatch, insert gear, close hatch, load bikes onto rack. Arrive at the trailhead? Repeat the same steps in reverse.


Yes, I am totally serious. I have about 10 years of experience with various hatchback setups and racks.

It puts the cart before the horse. When you get to the trail, it's far better to get dressed, then get the bike off the rack. Doing the reverse means you have bikes piled willy nilly all over the place in a potentially crowded parking area and in general are handling them when you really don't need to be.

Likewise at the end of the ride. You've just finished the ride, you bust out the ice chest and chips and shoot the bull with your buddies... its far nicer to have your bike out of the way when you are doing that. The more people you are hanging out with, the bigger the mess of bikes sprawled all over the parking lot.

You are totally right. But the extra BS it involves doing that means my gear is in the back seat almost every time.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

TechniKal said:


> The tilting bike racks help with access, but they can be difficult to manage with more than 2 bikes on the rack. With the smaller SUV, I just drop the rear seats and access the back from the back door of the car.


Yeah, usually I just end up with the seat down much of the time if I can't fit my gear on the back seat.


----------



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

Ogre said:


> The problem with SUVs is the back is too small for more than 1 bike and once you put a rack on the hitch, the hatchback area is kind of useless for cyclists because you can't open the hatch.


I think that the bigger issue is when you have a hitch rack that blocks the SUV/wagon/van hatch in the folded position. Dropping the hitch to open the hatch and then raising it again after closing the hatch are seemingly trivial tasks but become monumental on a day-to-day basis. I've had it both ways and I basically stopped using the hatch area on my old Pathfinder because the hitch rack blocked it. The hitch on my RX350 sticks out far enough for the hitch to clear my bulky Kuat rack and it makes all the difference. Hatch clearance is mission critical for any mtb vehicle that will do double duty as a daily driver (alliteration!) in my opinion.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

GiddyHitch said:


> I think that the bigger issue is when you have a hitch rack that blocks the SUV/wagon/van hatch in the folded position. Dropping the hitch to open the hatch and then raising it again after closing the hatch are seemingly trivial tasks but become monumental on a day-to-day basis. I've had it both ways and I basically stopped using the hatch area on my old Pathfinder because the hitch rack blocked it. The hitch on my RX350 sticks out far enough for the hitch to clear my bulky Kuat rack and it makes all the difference. Hatch clearance is mission critical for any mtb vehicle that will do double duty as a daily driver (alliteration!) in my opinion.


Wish they were a little less proud of these: RakAttach

At $360 it's a bit of a bitter pill but I think would be a lot better than the pivot down. Of course has its own problems with space but I think it'd be ok at most trailheads.


----------



## sa12 (Sep 7, 2018)

TechniKal said:


> Bad gas mileage - I was lucky to get 15mpg in my F150 and I don't drive fast
> Expensive - I started driving trucks because they were cheap. Now they cost considerably more than comparable cars/SUVs. It's crazy to think you can spend $100k on an F150. Sure, they advertise base models starting a reasonable prices, but those are hard to find outside of fleet sales and they remove a lot of options
> <snip>
> 
> If someone would come up with a full sized truck that got decent mileage, fit in my garage and didn't cost $80k, I'd switch back - but for the foreseeable future, I'm happy with the SUV.


bad gas milage - I have a 2018 F150 SuperCrew with 2.7L Ecoboost engine and have been getting around 20mpg of 'city' driving on all-season tires. Increases to about 24mpg on the highway. I live at 6,600ft elevation and drive in the hills almost daily. Currently, on my winter setup (Blizzaks + 500lbs of sand in the bed) I'm getting 18mpg city. I normally drive in Eco mode because allows me to modulate the gas pedal a bit better, and don't really drive it too hard. So I think that the current crop of eco-friendly trucks is a nice improvement over the days of "it gets 15mpg if I'm lucky," which I do remember well. More generally, the current crop of American full-size trucks mostly have either 8-speed or 10-speed transmissions, which allow them to be more efficient than before.
Expensive - Cars can get expensive. SUVs can get expensive. Trucks can get expensive. No surprises there. I think that trucks get super duper expensive because oil fields exist, and Ford/GM/Ram would be real stupid not to cater to the oil field execs who want a shiny thing to remind the world how successful and important they are. Fine. Let 'em have it. F150/Silverado/Ram all start in the low 30s, and you can probably option one out nicely for $50k. That's definitely still a lot of money to spend, but a far cry from $100k.

If you're used to the older trucks you probably don't need a full-size truck. You might be just fine with a Toyota Tacoma or Ford Ranger or Chevy Colorado or GMC Canyon. My brother's GMC Canyon is only a little smaller than my F150 (visually speaking, I haven't measured), and he said his truck is around the same size as the family's old 1997 Suburban. Honestly, the mid-size trucks are probably just fine for anyone that's owned trucks since the 80s or 90s...unless you want something bigger. Problem is that the "something bigger" might be too big for the garage.

All that said, rumors are that Ford will be releasing a new compact-size truck some time soon. Ford Maverick. That would probably put it around the same size as a mid-size CUV.


----------



## Bikeworks (Sep 10, 2020)

sa12 said:


> bad gas milage - I have a 2018 F150 SuperCrew with 2.7L Ecoboost engine and have been getting around 20mpg of 'city' driving on all-season tires. Increases to about 24mpg on the highway. I live at 6,600ft elevation and drive in the hills almost daily. Currently, on my winter setup (Blizzaks + 500lbs of sand in the bed) I'm getting 18mpg city. I normally drive in Eco mode because allows me to modulate the gas pedal a bit better, and don't really drive it too hard. So I think that the current crop of eco-friendly trucks is a nice improvement over the days of "it gets 15mpg if I'm lucky," which I do remember well. More generally, the current crop of American full-size trucks mostly have either 8-speed or 10-speed transmissions, which allow them to be more efficient than before.
> Expensive - Cars can get expensive. SUVs can get expensive. Trucks can get expensive. No surprises there. I think that trucks get super duper expensive because oil fields exist, and Ford/GM/Ram would be real stupid not to cater to the oil field execs who want a shiny thing to remind the world how successful and important they are. Fine. Let 'em have it. F150/Silverado/Ram all start in the low 30s, and you can probably option one out nicely for $50k. That's definitely still a lot of money to spend, but a far cry from $100k.
> 
> If you're used to the older trucks you probably don't need a full-size truck. You might be just fine with a Toyota Tacoma or Ford Ranger or Chevy Colorado or GMC Canyon. My brother's GMC Canyon is only a little smaller than my F150 (visually speaking, I haven't measured), and he said his truck is around the same size as the family's old 1997 Suburban. Honestly, the mid-size trucks are probably just fine for anyone that's owned trucks since the 80s or 90s...unless you want something bigger. Problem is that the "something bigger" might be too big for the garage.
> ...


I love my hemi Rebel. That is all. 😆


----------



## drag_slick (Sep 24, 2004)

sa12 said:


> Currently, on my winter setup (Blizzaks + 500lbs of sand in the bed) I'm getting 18mpg city.


Daaaang, that's 200lbs more sand than i run in the back of my 3/4 ton, and I'm only running severe snow rated AT's. Does that thing get that bad of traction in 2wd?


----------



## Truckee29 (May 9, 2011)

Just a picture. Ya'll already did the 1000 words part


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

Truckee29 said:


> Just a picture. Ya'll already did the 1000 words part
> 
> View attachment 1919138


Is that an endorsement or a regret? I can toss my bikes wheels on in my van.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

MarcusBrody said:


> Is that an endorsement or a regret? I can toss my bikes wheels on in my van.


It's a glass is half full picture. Or a Rorschach test for cyclists.

I think the photo poster is trying to say "Hey look here, problem solved". For me all I see is the headache of taking the bike wheels on and off twice for every ride.


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

As I've previously stated, I love my 2017 Tacoma 4DR with the standard (not short) bed and am planning on having it for the next 15 years. That said, if the current Dodge Caravan came in AWD and it had decent reliability (please don't try to tell me it does as I had 2 different ones for work and they were both nightmares despite having less than 10,000 miles) I would consider getting one just because of how awesome the lay flat seats are in the back. Because of this feature, they're my go to vacation and road trip rental. But, where I live, not having AWD is a no go. And yes, I realize the Pacifica has lay flat seats and comes in AWD, but see my second condition above. Oh, and after dealing with a Chrysler/Dodge dealer for repairs in the past, I would prefer to never set foot in one of their dealerships again. Now, if the Toyota Sienna came with those same awesome lay flat seats....


----------



## Truckee29 (May 9, 2011)

It's an endorsement. 

If taking the front wheel off is a headache to some. Tell me the headache level of driving your roof racked bikes into the garage. Or the headache of losing your bike to brazen theft after a ride. Hell, on the way to a ride! Or The headaches of damaging the tailgate or top tube. Or the liability of your front wheel killing someone on the freeway. Or the chain induced greasy skid-marks on the back seat of moms Camary. Or the dust, rain and other elements packed into precision bike components after a 1500 miles unprotected on your hitch rack. Or being rear ended (or backing into something) - my wife did that one.

Any way you slice it. Hauling your bikes inside the vehicle has the least consequences of any other means


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Truckee29 said:


> It's an endorsement.
> 
> If taking the front wheel off is a headache to some. Tell me the headache level of driving your roof racked bikes into the garage. Or the headache of losing your bike to brazen theft after a ride. Hell, on the way to a ride! Or The headaches of damaging the tailgate or top tube. Or the liability of your front wheel killing someone on the freeway. Or the chain induced greasy skid-marks on the back seat of moms Camary. Or the dust, rain and other elements packed into precision bike components after a 1500 miles unprotected on your hitch rack. Or being rear ended (or backing into something) - my wife did that one.
> 
> Any way you slice it. Hauling your bikes inside the vehicle has the least consequences of any other means


Packing your bike up in a bike shipping box and reassembling it at the trailhead has the least consequences. That doesn't mean I'm going to do that every time I ride. Even when hauling bikes in my truck I usually use a rack or keep the wheels on.

Everyone has a different set of compromises they are willing to live with.


----------



## roughster (Dec 18, 2017)

You can pry my 4WD crew cab (don't care about "brands") from my cold dead hands. No regrets and will never be without one. I'll leave it to my brothers or son and know I have enriched their life


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

Ogre said:


> Even when hauling bikes in my truck I usually use a rack or keep the wheels on.
> 
> Everyone has a different set of compromises they are willing to live with.


Geeze man. Between not being willing to put your bike on the ground or lean it against a tree while you chill at the trailhead and not R&Ring the front wheel, I'm surprised you have the motivation to ride the darn thing in the first place


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

roughster said:


> You can pry my 4WD crew cab (don't care about "brands") from my cold dead hands. No regrets and will never be without one. I'll leave it to my brothers or son and know I have enriched their life


When my son first saw my truck, which is nothing fancy, I told him he better like it because it'll be his someday. He was 2.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krankie (Feb 22, 2019)

Any ford ever!


----------



## sa12 (Sep 7, 2018)

drag_slick said:


> Daaaang, that's 200lbs more sand than i run in the back of my 3/4 ton, and I'm only running severe snow rated AT's. Does that thing get that bad of traction in 2wd?


No, it gets great traction in 2wd. It's more weight than I need for sure. Awhile back I bought a bunch of sand for my neighbor's truck, but he ended up not needing it. So I just left his share in my truck because it would take effort to move it.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

dir-T said:


> Geeze man. Between not being willing to put your bike on the ground or lean it against a tree while you chill at the trailhead and not R&Ring the front wheel, I'm surprised you have the motivation to ride the darn thing in the first place


You have it completely backwards. I want my bike to be as easily accessible as possible so I can ride it all the forking time. Spending 5 minutes futzing with carefully loading the bike in the car/ truck so I don't screw up the paint (or my car which I rather like a lot)? Mounting, dismounting the bike from the rack so I can access my gear? Taking the tires on/off? All that crap eats into ride time. My bike loading/ unloading is optimized for ride frequency. Particularly on nights like tonight where I can get to the trailhead and want to soak up every minute of riding before the sun sets (then ride for a bit more after).

I have a good rack that does a great job keeping the bikes safe. When I drive my truck, we're often shuttling which means time spent unloading and loading is often double or triple (quadrupled or quintupled on a good day!). He gets 3 picks crammed into the back of his truck? I get 5 or six bikes & people crammed into my truck and on the back. It's all about moving the gear and getting my ride on.

I'm not crapping on his way, as I said, we all have our priorities. I ride a lot, I know what works for me.


----------



## Truckee29 (May 9, 2011)

Ogre said:


> You have it completely backwards. I want my bike to be as easily accessible as possible so I can ride it all the forking time. Spending 5 minutes futzing with carefully loading the bike in the car/ truck so I don't screw up the paint (or my car which I rather like a lot)? Mounting, dismounting the bike from the rack so I can access my gear? Taking the tires on/off? All that crap eats into ride time. My bike loading/ unloading is optimized for ride frequency. Particularly on nights like tonight where I can get to the trailhead and want to soak up every minute of riding before the sun sets (then ride for a bit more after).
> 
> I have a good rack that does a great job keeping the bikes safe. When I drive my truck, we're often shuttling which means time spent unloading and loading is often double or triple (quadrupled or quintupled on a good day!). He gets 3 picks crammed into the back of his truck? I get 5 or six bikes & people crammed into my truck and on the back. It's all about moving the gear and getting my ride on.
> 
> I'm not crapping on his way, as I said, we all have our priorities. I ride a lot, I know what works for me.


Right.

There are circumstances that preclude how we transport. Where we live, ride etc Or lifestyle, job. I'm sure these have all been discussed. I love the "out of sight, out of mind" aspect that hauling bikes inside of a vehicle provides. I suits my lifestyle. I can pack up my sh*t after an evening ride. Roll to the Taqueria, run errands etc. Go home and leave it in my truck and not unload if I wish until the next day after work - or do it all over again. No one knows it's there but me. Sure it's not 100% secure. Nothing is. I have a secondary lock if I wish to use it. But which easy to steal bike is a thief going to target? Out of sight...

We have all read the posts where people have lost bikes while transporting. I live in a metro area where I prefer no one can see what I'm transporting. I reinforce this effort with 100% tint, avoid any decals or stickers (no matter how rad!) and a few other points that will remain unspoken here.

I agree that some of it cuts into my precious riding time but routine makes for efficiency. What you do at home to prep I generally do at the TH It takes me all of 30 sec to unload my bike and put the front wheel on. Maybe 5 mins for the rest of my routine. On my way to my rides or on my way home, I may move through areas where I want anonymity as a cyclist or a bike owner and my set up provides this

I think back to the 60's and 70's when dirt biking (motos) was huge in NorCal Anyone who rode hade an Econoline Ford van. Decals, chrome duals, nice wheels and tires/ You knew they were moto. The rest of us were stealth


----------



## Truckee29 (May 9, 2011)

Took me a while to dig this up but it's relevant to this discussion









Bike stolen in Santa Cruz off truck at stoplight!


If you see it, log onto facebook and let her know.




www.mtbr.com


----------



## shakazulu12 (Jul 14, 2015)

Truckee29 said:


> Took me a while to dig this up but it's relevant to this discussion
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Watched this happen in Portland recently as well. This is why I built an interior rack for my mini-van.


----------



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

I’ve tried almost every method of transport - hitch rack, interior rack, roof rack, and trunk rack - with the exception of tailgate pad, hence the reason for this thread. I will note that within my riding circle, everyone who was running interior racks eventually switched to hitch racks, myself included.


----------



## shakazulu12 (Jul 14, 2015)

GiddyHitch said:


> I've tried almost every method of transport - hitch rack, interior rack, roof rack, and trunk rack - with the exception of tailgate pad, hence the reason for this thread. I will note that within my riding circle, everyone who was running interior racks eventually switched to hitch racks, myself included.


I still use my hitch for the riding spot that is really close and doesn't go through town. Anything over 20 minutes or going through Portland, I take off the wheel and put it inside.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Truckee29 said:


> Took me a while to dig this up but it's relevant to this discussion
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not possible with my wheel off setup, nor would I even be comfortable pooping at a gas station with a tailgate solution. I don't want to poop in shifts at a gas station while someone keeps an eye on gbe bikes.

My wheels are off, locked under cover, and my bikes are all attached and locked with these:









RockyMounts DriveShaft Track Locking Thru-Axle Mount - Bike


Buy the RockyMounts DriveShaft Track Locking Thru-Axle Mount online or shop all Bike from Backcountry.com.




www.backcountry.com





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Truckee29 said:


> Took me a while to dig this up but it's relevant to this discussion
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Needs a remote switch and pepper spray....

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

The built in cable lock on my Kuat gives me piece of mind for preventing a Santa Cruz junkie from stealing my bike at a stop light. Granted, it won't stop a shifty contractor with some bolt cutters from grabbing it but that's much less likely.


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

I have no regrets at all. I've had a truck for over 30 years. My current truck is a 2015 crew cab GMC Sierra 1500. 
This is an awesome truck that I used for my business, Exodux Truck Racks. It has all the power you need, its got a great interior with almost limo like leg room in both the front and rear seats. 
Although I don't tow anything big or heavy, we do tow our display trailer to events on the west coast( although not many events during covid). On freeway driving I'll get up to 24mpg+.

We are currently looking at the Jeep Gladitor Rubicon with the Eco Diesel. We will be keeping the GMC.


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

@Hurricane Jeff how did you find the short bed worked on the tacoma (is that even a truck that you drove)? was it inconvenient to have or not really noticeable?


----------



## pej7445 (Dec 16, 2020)

DeoreDX said:


> I love my Ridgeline for biking. Locking trunk in the bed makes a world of difference with the utility of the truck as a bike hauler. Helmets, gear, tools, etc all stay securely locked in the trunk. I'll run a tailgate pad (aka $10 moving blanket) with a metal cam buckle strap for quick in town hauls. I'll use a cable lock to lock the bikes in the bed if needed. Blanket gets thrown in the trunk when not in use. For long multi day trips I'll use a hitch rack. Keeps the bed clear for hauling or I can throw the tonneu cover on for additional covered storage for those long trips. AWD. Very roomy compared to other midsized trucks (especially the Tacoma). Road manners very SUV like instead of a truck. If you like your SUV and just want a little more truck utility might want to give the Ridgeline a look.


The Ridgeline is awesome, especially the older style. I don't care for the newer body style, it looks too meek to me.


----------



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

pej7445 said:


> The Ridgeline is awesome, especially the older style. I don't care for the newer body style, it looks too meek to me.


Have you seen the updated 2021 version?


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

GiddyHitch said:


> Have you seen the updated 2021 version?
> 
> View attachment 1919484


it still looks like a honda pilot with it's ass cut off and a bed spliced on.


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

diamondback1x9 said:


> @Hurricane Jeff how did you find the short bed worked on the tacoma (is that even a truck that you drove)? was it inconvenient to have or not really noticeable?


My truck is the GMC in the photos. 
The Jeep and the Tacoma are pictures that the customer sent over. I do know that the Toyota owner was really unhappy with using a tailgate pad and absolutely loves his RailRideR rack.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

diamondback1x9 said:


> @Hurricane Jeff how did you find the short bed worked on the tacoma (is that even a truck that you drove)? was it inconvenient to have or not really noticeable?


They are everywhere, I see more tacoma's around here at the trailheads so many people use them to cart their bikes around.

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

diamondback1x9 said:


> it still looks like a honda pilot with it's ass cut off and a bed spliced on.


In a couple years Honda is going to breath a huge sigh of relief as they pass on the burden of being the ugliest truck on the market.










I might be buying one of these in spite of the looks. Gotta see/ check on out first, but...


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

Ogre said:


> In a couple years Honda is going to breath a huge sigh of relief as they pass on the burden of being the ugliest truck on the market.
> 
> View attachment 1919517
> 
> ...


B A N N E D


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

The Pilot may be ugly and the bed too short for me to even consider, but my buddy has one and I’m super impressed with the interior. We had 4 male adults, the shortest one being 5’10”, in the cab and it did not feel cramped whatsoever. If only it was body on frame with at least a 6ft bed...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

pej7445 said:


> The Ridgeline is awesome, especially the older style. I don't care for the newer body style, it looks too meek to me.


And the older version didn't..........

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

diamondback1x9 said:


> it still looks like a honda pilot with it's ass cut off and a bed spliced on.





Ogre said:


> In a couple years Honda is going to breath a huge sigh of relief as they pass on the burden of being the ugliest truck on the market.


They passed it already ...


----------



## 1 cog frog (Dec 21, 2004)

I never regret owning a truck. I use my 2015 Tacoma all the time for moving stuff, carrying bikes, camping, driving dirt roads, & as my daily driver.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

I regret selling my f150 to get a car, but double the gas mileage is nice I guess


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

GiddyHitch said:


> They passed it already ...
> I love the look of the 2019-2021 2500 Silverado and Sierra!
> View attachment 1919609


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

diamondback1x9 said:


> B A N N E D


You have to be more specific about which part of my post is offensive. Too many bits that might offend someone in 2 short sentences.


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

Ogre said:


> You have to be more specific about which part of my post is offensive. Too many bits that might offend someone in 2 short sentences.


really, this picture should be blocked by mtbr because of sensitive content...


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

diamondback1x9 said:


> really, this picture should be blocked by mtbr because of sensitive content...


If a 7 year old can draw it, it can't be that sensitive.


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

Ogre said:


> If a 7 year old can draw it, it can't be that sensitive.


lol. it's still ugly.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

indeed.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Like a Pilot - wanna be truck. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

GiddyHitch said:


> They passed it already ...
> 
> View attachment 1919609


I'm glad someone else understand my pain. This is the worst Chevy redesign ever.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

diamondback1x9 said:


> lol. it's still ugly.





FJSnoozer said:


> I'm glad someone else understand my pain. This is the worst Chevy redesign ever.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Too many fugly pickup trucks.

I get why you'd want to make one with a smoother front end for better aerodynamics. But pickup trucks are about function first. That Tesla abomination makes me wonder wtf the function is. Aerodynamics are a function aspect, sure (aka recent Ridgelines being criticized for looking like SUV models), but the Tesla makes those aerodynamics take away from function. The tendency to make the front ends hyper aggressive and angular also applies. There's no function for that crap. That's all about trying to please truck buyers who feel emasculated and have to puff themselves up with a "strong" truck.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

It's certainly up there. 

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Harold said:


> Too many fugly pickup trucks.
> 
> I get why you'd want to make one with a smoother front end for better aerodynamics. But pickup trucks are about function first. That Tesla abomination makes me wonder wtf the function is. Aerodynamics are a function aspect, sure (aka recent Ridgelines being criticized for looking like SUV models), but the Tesla makes those aerodynamics take away from function. The tendency to make the front ends hyper aggressive and angular also applies. There's no function for that crap. That's all about trying to please truck buyers who feel emasculated and have to puff themselves up with a "strong" truck.


DITTO. I wouldn't be a truck if I didn't need one. Because my father forced me to load and unload trucks that rode so hard I couldn't wear a seatbelt, I have PTSD.

Here is my baby. About to hook up a 7500lb trailer to it.









Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

DrDon said:


> DITTO. I wouldn't be a truck if I didn't need one.


For sure. If we didn't want a truck for our recreation and utility needs, I certainly wouldn't choose it for a daily driver. I'd rather have an A4 or maybe A3 sportswagon for regular day-to-day use.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

evasive said:


> For sure. If we didn't want a truck for our recreation and utility needs, I certainly wouldn't choose it for a daily driver. I'd rather have an A4 or maybe A3 sportswagon for regular day-to-day use.


Good choices. I had a GTI prior to the truck. Great car.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

DrDon said:


> Good choices. I had a GTI prior to the truck. Great car.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I moved to Montana with an A4 sedan. I loved it (despite its appetite for O2 sensors) but sedans don't work well for my current lifestyle. If it had been a wagon I'd probably still have it.


----------



## GiddyHitch (Dec 1, 2009)

Harold said:


> I get why you'd want to make one with a smoother front end for better aerodynamics. But pickup trucks are about function first. That Tesla abomination makes me wonder wtf the function is. Aerodynamics are a function aspect, sure (aka recent Ridgelines being criticized for looking like SUV models), but the Tesla makes those aerodynamics take away from function. The tendency to make the front ends hyper aggressive and angular also applies. There's no function for that crap. That's all about trying to please truck buyers who feel emasculated and have to puff themselves up with a "strong" truck.


It comes down to manufacturing costs. The panels on the Cybertruck all look to be flat panels with linear cuts. This approach is dramatically cheaper and simpler than traditional curved stampings that require tooling and equipment that often cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Tesla leaned into that constraint and designed something that looks completely different and futuristic/ridiculous, depending on your perspective.

In the case of the Ridgeline, the small volume sold (35k/year) doesn't justify a purpose-built platform or a lot of custom tooling (see above), so Honda repurposes as much as possible from the Pilot/Odyssey. The downside is that the proportions are different from other trucks and payload/towing capacity numbers are lower, but the upside is that on-road handling and rear seat comfort are best in class.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

GiddyHitch said:


> It comes down to manufacturing costs. The panels on the Cybertruck all look to be flat panels with linear cuts. This approach is dramatically cheaper and simpler than traditional curved stampings that require tooling and equipment that often cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Tesla leaned into that constraint and designed something that looks completely different and futuristic/ridiculous, depending on your perspective.
> 
> In the case of the Ridgeline, the small volume sold (35k/year) doesn't justify a purpose-built platform or a lot of custom tooling (see above), so Honda repurposes as much as possible from the Pilot/Odyssey. The downside is that the proportions are different from other trucks and payload/towing capacity numbers are lower, but the upside is that on-road handling and rear seat comfort are best in class.


I don't think the Ridgeline is a problematic vehicle in any way. I seriously considered one. Its appearance was not a detractor for me. Nor was its unibody construction. It absolutely suits a certain subset of people who want a pickup truck. Most of its attributes suit me, as well. For me, though, I was unimpressed with its combination of pickup utility and its fuel economy. With the Ranger I ended up buying, I get similar if not better fuel economy, better towing, and realistically better payload. The under-bed trunk of the Ridgeline is one of those things where I saw benefits, but also saw problems so it really didn't sway me. Also read about how the Ridgeline didn't perform well even with relatively lightweight trailers.

Yeah, it really seems to me that the cybertruck could have accomplished the flat panel, less expensive construction aspect without screwing around with the utility of the bed. They made it futuristic-looking because they wanted to. In spite of the fact that it really screws with your ability to put on a bed rack or camper shell.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Harold said:


> Too many fugly pickup trucks.
> 
> I get why you'd want to make one with a smoother front end for better aerodynamics. But pickup trucks are about function first. That Tesla abomination makes me wonder wtf the function is. Aerodynamics are a function aspect, sure (aka recent Ridgelines being criticized for looking like SUV models), but the Tesla makes those aerodynamics take away from function. The tendency to make the front ends hyper aggressive and angular also applies. There's no function for that crap. That's all about trying to please truck buyers who feel emasculated and have to puff themselves up with a "strong" truck.


The 4WD Cybertruck is about $20k less than any of the the competition. The base Cybertruck is $30k less. At $49k and $39k respectively for a full sized truck with 4 full doors, it's one of the first EVs to be cost competitive with much more basic petrol counterparts.

That's it in a nutshell. Tesla went with the high end on their first cars, but with the truck, it seems to be going for an entirely more practical angle. It has a full 6.5' bed and with the "vault" going up to the peak of the roof, it's got a pretty huge area under there. The only real competitor on the near horizon is the Rivian which has a shorter bed and costs $67,000 for the base model.

About the only thing really impractical about it is the high sides on the bed. I'm _hoping_ that the air suspension which brings it down to ground level most of the time makes up for it. Being able to squat the back down to load/ unload it has a lot of appeal to me. One of the things I don't care for about my current truck is having to climb into the bed and lift things up into the truck bed.

I'm definitely not sold on this thing, but after buying my first EV, I'm definitely not going back to a Dino burner. I just need to figure out what works. Need to see it in person to see if the savings is worth the fugly.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ogre said:


> The 4WD Cybertruck is about $20k less than any of the the competition. The base Cybertruck is $30k less. At $49k and $39k respectively for a full sized truck with 4 full doors, it's one of the first EVs to be cost competitive with much more basic petrol counterparts.
> 
> That's it in a nutshell. Tesla went with the high end on their first cars, but with the truck, it seems to be going for an entirely more practical angle. It has a full 6.5' bed and with the "vault" going up to the peak of the roof, it's got a pretty huge area under there. The only real competitor on the near horizon is the Rivian which has a shorter bed and costs $67,000 for the base model.
> 
> ...


As I said in different post, I think those cost reductions could have come without making the weirdass sloping bed sides. That's the main reduction in utility I'm referring to. The lack of a flat roof is weird, too, and makes it more of a PITA to carry long things that extend over the cab.

I really wished I could do an electric truck for the one I bought last year, but neither the tech nor the function I sought were available at the time. I hold out hope that there will be viable options when it's time to buy this truck's replacement. I'd honestly prefer options smaller than a truck that's trying to compete on the fullsize market.

I'm trying to press the wife to make her next vehicle purchase electric. She seems far less enthused about the concept.


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

Harold said:


> As I said in different post, I think those cost reductions could have come without making the weirdass sloping bed sides. That's the main reduction in utility I'm referring to. The lack of a flat roof is weird, too, and makes it more of a PITA to carry long things that extend over the cab.
> 
> I really wished I could do an electric truck for the one I bought last year, but neither the tech nor the function I sought were available at the time. I hold out hope that there will be viable options when it's time to buy this truck's replacement. I'd honestly prefer options smaller than a truck that's trying to compete on the fullsize market.
> 
> I'm trying to press the wife to make her next vehicle purchase electric. She seems far less enthused about the concept.


It would be amazing if Ford did an electric Ranger that looks just like the gas version.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Harold said:


> I really wished I could do an electric truck for the one I bought last year, but neither the tech nor the function I sought were available at the time. I hold out hope that there will be viable options when it's time to buy this truck's replacement. I'd honestly prefer options smaller than a truck that's trying to compete on the fullsize market.


I'm not so sure they could have hit those price targets with a different design. I'm not a structural engineer, but I was reading somewhere that the triangle design is a pretty big part of how they are saving on materials and costs. I bought the truck I had with the idea I needed it to help build that house and it's been invaluable, but the house is mostly built. I can probably just hang onto this one for another 20 years for the dwindling number of times I need to haul things and use the Model Y to take care of bike hauling needs. It's just not ideal for shuttling up gravel roads.



Harold said:


> I'm trying to press the wife to make her next vehicle purchase electric. She seems far less enthused about the concept.


Not sure about other brands, but the Teslas are quite nice. Though the suspension on the Model Y is perhaps a bit harsh, reminds me of driving my old Mini Cooper.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Now I'm thinking I should reserve the license plat: *TRUKGLY* or *TRUGLY* just in case I do buy it.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

inonjoey said:


> It would be amazing if Ford did an electric Ranger that looks just like the gas version.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I know there's a hybrid Ranger coming. Not sure if it'll hit the US market or not, but I think it's coming with the next redesign I've seen spy shots of.



Ogre said:


> I'm not so sure they could have hit those price targets with a different design. I'm not a structural engineer, but I was reading somewhere that the triangle design is a pretty big part of how they are saving on materials and costs. I bought the truck I had with the idea I needed it to help build that house and it's been invaluable, but the house is mostly built. I can probably just hang onto this one for another 20 years for the dwindling number of times I need to haul things and use the Model Y to take care of bike hauling needs. It's just not ideal for shuttling up gravel roads.


If that design actually DOES reduce production costs, then I'm sure there's a "fewer parts" thing going on. I just think that the whole package results in a less functional pickup truck. Might as well have just made it an SUV, honestly.



Ogre said:


> Not sure about other brands, but the Teslas are quite nice. Though the suspension is perhaps a bit harsh, reminds me of driving my old Mini Cooper.


I got to sit in one in a showroom once awhile back. They're nice, for sure. Wife REALLY wants to replace her subaru with another subaru, and the last I saw is that an electric subaru isn't coming for a few years still. Not sure she'll be willing to hold out for quite that long. I MIGHT be able to convince her to get the currently available hybrid version, but from what I've seen so far, I'm not totally thrilled with how subaru does hybrids.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

inonjoey said:


> It would be amazing if Ford did an electric Ranger that looks just like the gas version.


I think Ford and GM are still trying to figure out how they are going to launch trucks which look acceptable to their customers, are competitive with Tesla, and don't cost a fortune.

How appealing would the EV Ranger be if the base sticker price was $67k?



Harold said:


> If that design actually DOES reduce production costs, then I'm sure there's a "fewer parts" thing going on. I just think that the whole package results in a less functional pickup truck. Might as well have just made it an SUV, honestly.


I definitely think its more of an SUV with truck-like features than a straight pickup. They don't even call it a truck bed, they call it a vault.



Harold said:


> Wife REALLY wants to replace her subaru with another subaru, and the last I saw is that an electric subaru isn't coming for a few years still.


That funny, we have a 2012 Subaru and we were in the same boat. Loved the Subbie, but I just couldn't see anything the new Outback offered that was appealing. Same engine, same fuel economy, same body, there are some car smarts and a better entertainment system, but other than that, otherwise it's the same car. What's crazy is even now I don't see a ton of other vehicles out there that do a lot better at what the Subaru is good at.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Trucks always have the same issue: the bed is not accessible from the cab, so it becomes a big cold trunk.

SUVs and Vans solve that problem.

Really, a truck is meant for towing, straight load carrying capacity is higher with a van. I can carry four thousand pounds in the back of my Promaster and I get anywhere from 20-28mpg.

If I gotta get an SUV, I’d be looking at a four door Bronco or Jeep with a pop top. 

If I need a van to tow and haul, it’d be the Nisan SV with factory 4 x 4, but that makes for one big van! We drove the Nissan SV with the small v8, it’s a Titan chassis, so it rides like a full sized truck. Very plush, but bigger feeling than an AWD Sprinter.

I’m tempted to build a Nissan, but thr only builds that make sense are the high roof (fugly as hell) or the low roof with a pop top ($$$$).


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Nurse Ben said:


> Really, a truck is meant for towing, straight load carrying capacity is higher with a van. I can carry four thousand pounds in the back of my Promaster and I get anywhere from 20-28mpg.


Trucks are meant for carrying things which don't go inside of boxes well. Try getting a kayak in a van and you see the usefulness of a truck in a hurry. Likewise stacking hay bales or refrigerators (which you shouldn't haul flat). When I owned a van, I hauled quite a bit of lumber, but a truck does better with anything longer than 8 foot.

But aside from that, you are spot on, if what you are hauling fits well inside a box, a van is fantastic.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Kayaks fit great in a van, and when they're longer than the van box, they go lovely on top.

I drive a short bus, the cargo area is just eight feet behind the seats, my SUP is ten foot so it sits nicely with the nose between the front seats

How long is the bed on a long bed truck? I thought they maxed out at six feet.

As for bikes and gear, I can load up a whole lot of stuff, then bikes with the front wheels on, then I lock the van and they're secure.

Talk about hauling, try loading Sheetrock into your truck while it's raining, or better yet a pallet of concrete sacks.

So yeah, I ain't seen the need for a truck since I started driving a van. Maybe you had one of them old American vans? The new vans are much bigger, they can carry a fridge upright.

Any more questions? ?



Ogre said:


> Trucks are meant for carrying things which don't go inside of boxes well. Try getting a kayak in a van and you see the usefulness of a truck in a hurry. Likewise stacking hay bales or refrigerators (which you shouldn't haul flat). When I owned a van, I hauled quite a bit of lumber, but a truck does better with anything longer than 8 foot.
> 
> But aside from that, you are spot on, if what you are hauling fits well inside a box, a van is fantastic.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

inonjoey said:


> It would be amazing if Ford did an electric Ranger that looks just like the gas version.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I could not deal with the styling of the ranger but that's just me, I was holding out for the nikola badger but that went to crap so I'll have to see what comes out in the future.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Nurse Ben said:


> Any more questions? 😆


Never have any questions. 

As I said above, I've owned a van, I know what they are good for. I own a truck now because I needed something a van wasn't good at. I've had zero days of being disappointed with that choice.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

Nurse Ben said:


> Kayaks fit great in a van, and when they're longer than the van box, they go lovely on top.
> 
> I drive a short bus, the cargo area is just eight feet behind the seats, my SUP is ten foot so it sits nicely with the nose between the front seats
> 
> ...


the long bed on my father's truck was just a bit over eight feet long, most compact long beds are about six and a half feet long.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ogre said:


> I think Ford and GM are still trying to figure out how they are going to launch trucks which look acceptable to their customers, are competitive with Tesla, and don't cost a fortune.
> 
> How appealing would the EV Ranger be if the base sticker price was $67k?
> 
> ...


67k would be a difficult pill for me to swallow. I spent 33k on my truck (after a nice hunk of discounts - msrp was 41k originally) and that was the most expensive vehicle my wife and I had bought by a good margin.

I've noticed the same about vehicle capabilities on the car side of things. I can't necessarily blame my wife for wanting the subie capabilities. Anything less than a subaru gets beat to hell driving the USFS roads to trailheads. Our winter weather is spotty enough that the subaru gives a good bit of capability for my wife to get to work (or home) when it gets iffy. I think what really sold her there was the snowstorm that dumped 14" on the area around my house overnight when she was working nights, and her subie was able to motor through it, making freshies, to get home. otherwise, she'd have had to park a mile away and hike home at 4am or somesuch. my car (a Honda Fit at the time) was stuck in the neighborhood for a week.

I LOVE having an econobox for its maneuverability. I seem to alternate between hatchbacks and smaller pickups. I've had 3 hatchbacks in my life and am on my 2nd pickup. I had a hand-me-down sedan once in college, but I've always preferred hatchbacks. Maybe after I pay off the pickup, I'll add an electric hatchback for daily driver duties and getting around downtown and such. would need to pay less attention to things like awd, fold flat seats, and things that way.



Nurse Ben said:


> Trucks always have the same issue: the bed is not accessible from the cab, so it becomes a big cold trunk.


sometimes you actually want that. that's why I bought a pickup. I was tired of putting dirty **** inside the passenger cabin. First week I owned the truck I was happy I had that, as I got a decent sized load of mulch delivered at the house and used the truck bed to move it to different places in the yard where I needed it. That includes dirty bikes, dirty trailbuilding tools, etc.



natas1321 said:


> I could not deal with the styling of the ranger but that's just me, I was holding out for the nikola badger but that went to crap so I'll have to see what comes out in the future.


styling is a personal thing, sure, but are you aware the ranger is getting VERY different styling in its next iteration? of course, no word on an electric Ranger yet. sounds like the F150 will be the first Ford to go full electric in 2023.









2023 Ford F-150 Lightning Review, Pricing, and Specs


The 2023 Ford F-150 Lightning EV shares much of the gasoline truck's body and cabin but two electric motors and a big battery pack make it a very different species of pickup truck.




www.caranddriver.com


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Harold said:


> I LOVE having an econobox for its maneuverability. I seem to alternate between hatchbacks and smaller pickups. I've had 3 hatchbacks in my life and am on my 2nd pickup. I had a hand-me-down sedan once in college, but I've always preferred hatchbacks. Maybe after I pay off the pickup, I'll add an electric hatchback for daily driver duties and getting around downtown and such. would need to pay less attention to things like awd, fold flat seats, and things that way.


That is the frustrating thing for me. If the Cybertruck were just a bit nicer looking and smaller, it would be an almost instant buy, even at the current price.

Actually, my dream car right now is something like the Honda Element but electric.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Ogre said:


> That is the frustrating thing for me. If the Cybertruck were just a bit nicer looking and smaller, it would be an almost instant buy, even at the current price.
> 
> Actually, my dream car right now is something like the Honda Element but electric.


I had two AWD Elements, I loved them, but they are "cars", built on a Civic chassis, so they are limited much like a Subaru.

As much as Iove my big van; a low roof 118" WB, I often wish there was something midsized like a Metris with AWD.

This ^, add a poptop and a lift, decent 5k tow and 4k load carrying, enough room to move around, sleep upstairs, gas mileage in the low tenties, hybrid would be ideal.

I have a feeling there are some vans on the way that will be better suited as successors to the Vanagon.

As for hauling yucky stuff, that's what I use a trailer for, but I can also just sweep out my van and call it good. Having four dogs, bikes, and hauling stuff for the ranch, well, it's not all that clean inside anyhow


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Ogre said:


> Never have any questions.
> 
> As I said above, I've owned a van, I know what they are good for. I own a truck now because I needed something a van wasn't good at. I've had zero days of being disappointed with that choice.
> 
> View attachment 1920067


You need a bigger tractor, that's just a little ole toy


----------



## drag_slick (Sep 24, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> You need a bigger tractor, that's just a little ole toy


Bigger ones are just harder to pull out when you bury 'em


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Nurse Ben said:


> I had two AWD Elements, I loved them, but they are "cars", built on a Civic chassis, so they are limited much like a Subaru.
> 
> ... I have a feeling there are some vans on the way that will be better suited as successors to the Vanagon.


I have a Subaru and it fits perfect in our lifestyle 99% of the time. The only reason I want something Element sized is because sometimes being able to put the bike in the back is super nice. Something Vanagon sized would be alright if it could bob up forest roads and you could put bikes in the bake with tires on.



Nurse Ben said:


> You need a bigger tractor, that's just a little ole toy


I have 5 acres. It's just about perfect sized.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Nurse Ben said:


> You need a bigger tractor, that's just a little ole toy


This is a little ole toy:


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

Harold said:


> 67k would be a difficult pill for me to swallow. I spent 33k on my truck (after a nice hunk of discounts - msrp was 41k originally) and that was the most expensive vehicle my wife and I had bought by a good margin.
> 
> I've noticed the same about vehicle capabilities on the car side of things. I can't necessarily blame my wife for wanting the subie capabilities. Anything less than a subaru gets beat to hell driving the USFS roads to trailheads. Our winter weather is spotty enough that the subaru gives a good bit of capability for my wife to get to work (or home) when it gets iffy. I think what really sold her there was the snowstorm that dumped 14" on the area around my house overnight when she was working nights, and her subie was able to motor through it, making freshies, to get home. otherwise, she'd have had to park a mile away and hike home at 4am or somesuch. my car (a Honda Fit at the time) was stuck in the neighborhood for a week.
> 
> ...


If the new f150 looks similar to the raptor I might consider it, had to many issues with the current raptor to otherwise consider another ford.

Time will tell but all the major manufacturers are supposed to have EV's by 2024_2025 I believe.

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk


----------



## VTSession (Aug 18, 2005)

Figured I'd chime in here after owning a '15 GMC Sierra 1500 for about a year and a half now. 

Pros: I live in rural Vermont so the go anywhere capabilities of a 4wd truck with proper tires is awesome. 2 feet of snow last night and I want to go ski? No problem. Rutted out, muddy dirt roads? Let's go. Pull your car out of ditch in a snowstorm? Sure! It has its practical side too - interior space is huge with 4 doors, I can fit damn near anything in the full size bed and its reasonably comfortable as a daily driver.

Cons: Its huge and hard to park if you're driving around town, gas mileage is bad - like 13 mpg bad. Biggest con is its zero fun to drive on the road. My last car was a GTI and I've always owned small, stick shift cars and the truck isn't engaging to drive at all. 

Overall, the pros outweigh the cons for me as a mountain biker. Plopping my bike down in the bed is so easy - no racks, no straps or any nonsense and its easy to secure once the bed cover goes over it. With a tailgate pad, I can fit 5-6 bikes with room for gear and people. Throwing smelly, muddy gear in the bed is also great and the tailgate is the perfect post ride spot for an apres beer.


----------

