A coworker recently observed that, when our long-term Suzuki Equator was parked beside a Ford pickup owned by Truck Trend and Motor Trend, they didn’t look that different in size. The Ford is a 1997 F-150 SuperCab. I was skeptical at first, until I went to the garage and looked. And he was right. The difference between the two is a lot smaller than you’d think it would be between a full-size truck and a compact.
While our shortbed Equator is a little over a foot shorter than the F-150, I started looking up the numbers. The F-150’s length is 220.8 inches, with a wheelbase of 138.5 inches. The long-term 2009 Equator, a Crew Cab with the short bed, is 206.6 inches long, with a 125.9-inch wheelbase.
Yes, that’s a noticeable difference, but if we had received a longbed Crew Cab Equator, the length would be 220.1 inches (0.7 inch shorter than the F-150) and the wheelbase 139.9 (1.4 inches longer). In a decade, what was once considered a compact truck is now nearly the same size as a full-size pickup from the 1990s.
It isn’t just that the Frontier (basis for the Equator) has gotten bigger; the entire segment has, following in the footsteps of the also-growing full-size trucks. (And for those who suggest the Ranger has stayed the same size, I looked it up-the Ranger has grown, too.) Lengths for compact trucks have increased by as much as 20 inches; with that evolution, the trucks have become more capable, cabins have gotten roomier, and prices have gone up. Another thing that’s happened: People who want a little pickup, what was once considered a compact truck, no longer have the same options they once did. The names are the same, but today’s compacts practically dwarf those from even the 1990s.As we’ve mentioned in previous issues of Truck Trend, even if a compact truck’s base price is well under $20,000, it’s not all that unusual for a fully loaded one to cost near -- or even over -- $30,000. And considering the price point and size of these trucks, maybe it’s more accurate to call them midsizes (as Dodge has referred to its Dakota for some time now) and bring back true compacts.
This move would help buyers and truckmakers alike. More casual truck shoppers, those who don’t necessarily need a truck for hard-core work, may be hesitant to get into something bigger for fear of feeling the pinch of skyrocketing gas prices. New vehicle sales aren’t setting the world on fire right now, but that will change, and when it does, there will be people who are looking for entry-level choices. An entry-level pickup, one with a smaller-displacement engine, could still offer some light payload and towing capacity, while providing compact-car-like fuel economy, at a low price.
The prospect of being able to afford a little truck would bring more people into dealerships; the lower-priced models could also appeal to fleet buyers and small businesses, who could see expanding a fleet as more realistic than they could with current offerings. It would also help with automakers’ CAFE numbers. Smaller, more fuel-efficient trucks would increase the average fuel economy on the truck side, easing pressure to sacrifice capability to increase mpg in the bigger trucks in the line. See? Everyone wins.
There have been some recent concepts that make us think automakers are interested in the idea of producing small, fuel-efficient pickups. For example, there was the A-BAT, with hybrid power and a midgate-type cargo/people divider. There was also the Pontiac G8 ST, the El Camino-like truck that could have been sold as high-performance and fuel-efficient models. Unfortunately, both of those choices likely won’t make it into production -- even if this concept had been a Chevrolet or GMC instead of the now-defunct Pontiac.
Clearly, I don’t want vehicles like this to take the place of full-size and heavy-duty pickups, especially when you consider that what would make sense for these little trucks would be hybrid power and unibody construction (although the idea of a small diesel is appealing).
The arcane rules of the CAFE S-curve encourage full-size trucks with efficient engines that achieve mpg above their spot on the S-curve, as much as small trucks that barely make their place on the S-curve. Still, because each manufacturer must also meet an overall CAFE of about 30 mpg for trucks, they’ll also need new compact and midsize pickups.
Hard work still needs to get done, the type that requires a body-on-frame layout and big power. There are big trailers to be pulled. And, honestly, big trucks are just plain cool. But there are people out there, those with small garages or limited resources, who can’t realistically get into a full-size truck.
And it could turn out that building little trucks could help save the larger ones.