Have Pick Ups Always Been this Expensive?

ojannen said:

What is the alternative to a $45K supercrew full sized truck for someone with kids and a race car habit?  I tow to enough events that enterprise truck rentals don't really make sense.  The kids come to events too so I can't get a standard cab.  $20K truck, $20K daily and double car insurance is tough if I want rear side curtain airbags in both vehicles.  Is there a secret here I am missing?

The secret is don't buy new. 
 

The bargains are in the high trim levels (like the Platinum) when they hit 100,000 miles. They depreciate like a rock. My last 3 full sized trucks have all been under $20K with 110K or so on them. I drive them to about 250K, and sell them for $12-15000. 
 

I enjoy vehicles that sell new for $70-90,000 that end up costing me $7-8,000 to drive 150,000 miles. 
 

I can't do that with a Miata. 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Why is it that old Suburbans are always cheaper than trucks of the same vintage? With the seats folded down you can actually haul more crap in the Suburban than you can a shortbed pickup and still use it as a tow pig. 

Ever tried to run a one-man landscaping business out of a Suburban? :)

I remember when I used to think that a Miata was all the vehicle that "most" people (including truck buyers) realistically need. Then life happened.

Sure the majority of the time any given person might see my truck (and minivan before it) on the road, it would have only 1 person in it and only be "hauling air". That's despite 1/3 of the miles being while towing and having 3-4 occupant in it on more than half of the days it's driven, even though they may only be in it for a relatively small percentage of the time. So if even if all truck users had the exact same use case, it would still look to the unobservant observer that most truck owners don't need a truck based on some of the arguments here.

The argument that "most" truck buyers would be served as well, or better, by a minivan is at least a reasonable one. The things the truck objectively does better are 4WD, oversize/gross cargo, and >3500lb towing... But anybody trying claim the same of a Miata is undermining their own argument, not to mention credibility on the subject.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Why is it that old Suburbans are always cheaper than trucks of the same vintage? With the seats folded down you can actually haul more crap in the Suburban than you can a shortbed pickup and still use it as a tow pig. 

Ever tried to run a one-man landscaping business out of a Suburban? :)

 

I have actually seen it done. I have also seen landscapers haul their equipment in old XJ Jeep Cherokees and even old minivans, Astro Vans and station wagons. I have even seen one guy dragging a trailer behind a Camry. Guys here running on a low budget will use just about anything.

I have a small trailer I tow behind my Mustang. I have used it to haul dirt bikes, building materials and all sorts of stuff you would normally put in the back of a  pickup.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Why is it that old Suburbans are always cheaper than trucks of the same vintage? With the seats folded down you can actually haul more crap in the Suburban than you can a shortbed pickup and still use it as a tow pig. 

That depends largely on the size and shape of what you're hauling. The 'useless' 5.5 bed on my crew cab truck comfortably hauls 3 bicycles, a large cooler, 2 inflatible 2 person kayaks, 2 scooters, all of the helmets and life jackets, and some other stuff like picnic blankets and whatnot, all while 4 people and a 50 lb dog ride in the cab while towing the travel trailer. I think I may be able to reconfigure it to also carry the LP fire pit and an extra tank.

Driven5 said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Why is it that old Suburbans are always cheaper than trucks of the same vintage? With the seats folded down you can actually haul more crap in the Suburban than you can a shortbed pickup and still use it as a tow pig. 

That depends largely on the size and shape of what you're hauling. The 'useless' 5.5 bed on my crew cab truck comfortably hauls 3 bicycles, a large cooler, 2 inflatible 2 person kayaks, 2 scooters, all of the helmets and life jackets, and some other stuff like picnic blankets and whatnot, all while 4 people and a 50 lb dog ride in the cab while towing the travel trailer. I think I may be able to reconfigure it to also carry the LP fire pit and an extra tank.

I have seen a non-inflatable kayak ride on the top of a Miata. The trailer behind my Mustang has towed two dirt bikes before with plenty of room in the trunk and the back seat for camping gear.

Driven5 said:

I remember when I used to think that a Miata was all the vehicle that "most" people (including truck buyers) realistically need. Then life happened.

Sure the majority of the time any given person might see my truck (and minivan before it) on the road, it would have only 1 person in it and only be "hauling air". That's despite 1/3 of the miles being while towing and having 3-4 occupant in it on more than half of the days it's driven, even though they may only be in it for a relatively small percentage of the time. So if even if all truck users had the exact same use case, it would still look to the unobservant observer that most truck owners don't need a truck based on some of the arguments here.

The argument that "most" truck buyers would be served as well, or better, by a minivan is at least a reasonable one. The things the truck objectively does better are 4WD, oversize/gross cargo, and >3500lb towing... But anybody trying claim the same of a Miata is undermining their own argument, not to mention credibility on the subject.

I haven't seen anyone claiming that a Miata is 4wd, carries oversize cargo or tows >3500.  I am claiming that the vast majority of trucks don't use 4wd, carry oversize cargo or tow >3500.  One of the most common failure points on Toyota 4wds is the actuator freezing up.  Because it's never put in 4wd.

Walk through any large urban parking lot and tell me that most of the trucks parked there are used for landscaping, contractor, etc. businesses or tow anything more than twice a year.   

parker said:

Driven5 said:

I remember when I used to think that a Miata was all the vehicle that "most" people (including truck buyers) realistically need. Then life happened.

Sure the majority of the time any given person might see my truck (and minivan before it) on the road, it would have only 1 person in it and only be "hauling air". That's despite 1/3 of the miles being while towing and having 3-4 occupant in it on more than half of the days it's driven, even though they may only be in it for a relatively small percentage of the time. So if even if all truck users had the exact same use case, it would still look to the unobservant observer that most truck owners don't need a truck based on some of the arguments here.

The argument that "most" truck buyers would be served as well, or better, by a minivan is at least a reasonable one. The things the truck objectively does better are 4WD, oversize/gross cargo, and >3500lb towing... But anybody trying claim the same of a Miata is undermining their own argument, not to mention credibility on the subject.

I haven't seen anyone claiming that a Miata is 4wd,

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Neat, I guess... But totally irrelevant. The point is that the Suburban cannot inherently haul more crap inside than a short bed pickup... For some size/shape crap it can, for other size/shape crap it can't. And if you want to use the 2nd row and haul crap, it just can't in general. We looked the Suburban and it wouldn't even have hauled as much of our crap as the minivan (mostly because the bikes wouldn't fit upright) which still couldn't fit a 3rd bike or the inflatable kayaks.

About the long loans - cars and trucks last longer than they ever have before. The average age of the US fleet keeps going up. So why not plan for longer ownership and a longer loan? I bought my truck with the intention of putting at least 300k on it, which means I'm going to have it for at least another 24 years :) The length of the loan was kinda irrelevant, especially with the crazy low rates that were being thrown around in 2010. I don't actually recall how long the loan was.

I paid it off early, of course, because that's how I'm wired. Same with the Tesla. But if I'd had to drop my monthly spend for some reason, it's a lot easier to stop paying extra and drop to the base payment than to renegotiate a lower payment. 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

bobzilla said:

Berck said:

Disagree hard on the utility of a Miata. I got by for more than a decade with a Miata as my sole vehicle.  They are incredibly practical and are the only car most people need--moving 1 or 2 people and some groceries around.  If you had 7 and were mostly driving a truck around, you were doing it wrong.

"If everyone drove a light 2 seater car, the price would double and we'd bitch about that too."

Yeah, no that isn't how this works.  Economies of scale would make them all cheaper. 

Except big boys like me that don't really fit in a Miata. But please continue to tell me what I need so I can ignore it. 

What I really need is a truck to tow my Miata to the track.

You can get a Miata for that.  I kid, but you also don't need a $75,000 rolling palace of torque to tow your Miata to the track.  I'm sure having one is fine, but as I said earlier, you can haul a racecar to the track in a $40k truck just like you could 30 years ago.  Same money still buys you a truck that tows just like they did back then, only everything else about is better (except for the stupid short beds).  Trucks haven't gotten more expensive, there are just more expensive trucks available now.

parker said:

I am claiming that the vast majority of trucks don't use 4wd, carry oversize cargo or tow >3500. 

A claim that, along with trucks not needing more than 2 seats, is being made with zero objective evidence that backs it up. Equating how something is appearing to be used for when you happen to be seeing it, with it not being used at in a way you didn't, is a logical fallacy. The fact that the vast majority of trucks spend the vast majority of their time doing not-truck-stuff, doesn't mean they aren't being used to do truck-stuff often enough for them to justify owning a truck... Or anything bigger than a Miata for that matter.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

I hauled two mountain bikes from Austin to Fruita, Colorado and back on the roof rack of my Neon.  

Driven5 said:

parker said:

I am claiming that the vast majority of trucks don't use 4wd, carry oversize cargo or tow >3500. 

A claim that, along with trucks not needing more than 2 seats, is being made with zero objective evidence that backs it up. Equating how something is appearing to be used for when you happen to be seeing it, with it not being used at in a way you didn't, is a logical fallacy. The fact that the vast majority of trucks spend the vast majority of their time doing not-truck-stuff, doesn't mean they aren't being used to do truck-stuff often enough to justify owning a truck.

Keep telling yourself that. 

You are correct, I don't have data for every owner in the country.  But the owners that I do know coupled with the sheer number of trucks (with pristine unscratched beds) sold in this country tell me that I'm right.  

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

I can haul two bikes on the bike rack on the back of my Miata. That rack will work on the back of just about any car.

I have a roof rack on my Cherokee XJ that can haul all kinds of crap. They make roof racks for Suburbans.

All of that applies to pickups every bit as much as it does a Suburban. So what exactly is the point you're trying to make here?

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Why is it that old Suburbans are always cheaper than trucks of the same vintage? With the seats folded down you can actually haul more crap in the Suburban than you can a shortbed pickup and still use it as a tow pig. 

Ever tried to run a one-man landscaping business out of a Suburban? :)

 

I didn't realize a Suburban was incapable of towing a small trailer? 

parker said:

Driven5 said:

parker said:

I am claiming that the vast majority of trucks don't use 4wd, carry oversize cargo or tow >3500. 

A claim that, along with trucks not needing more than 2 seats, is being made with zero objective evidence that backs it up. Equating how something is appearing to be used for when you happen to be seeing it, with it not being used at in a way you didn't, is a logical fallacy. The fact that the vast majority of trucks spend the vast majority of their time doing not-truck-stuff, doesn't mean they aren't being used to do truck-stuff often enough to justify owning a truck.

Keep telling yourself that. 

You are correct, I don't have data for every owner in the country.  But the owners that I do know coupled with the sheer number of trucks (with pristine unscratched beds) sold in this country tell me that I'm right.  

Who cares?

What business is it of yours what other people enjoy driving?

Frankly, it's none of your business.
 

I really hate this argument that comes up EVERY TIME there is a discussion about trucks.  

z31maniac said:

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Why is it that old Suburbans are always cheaper than trucks of the same vintage? With the seats folded down you can actually haul more crap in the Suburban than you can a shortbed pickup and still use it as a tow pig. 

Ever tried to run a one-man landscaping business out of a Suburban? :)

 

I didn't realize a Suburban was incapable of towing a small trailer? 

Life is easier if you don't need a trailer. Easier manouvering, less maintenance - and it can be the difference between requiring a CDL (or at least a DOT medical, DOT number and a logbook) and not.  There's a reason every pickup has a GVWR of 9,999 lbs.

Berck said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Trucks haven't gotten more expensive, there are just more expensive trucks available now.

I like this line.

Keith Tanner said:

z31maniac said:

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Why is it that old Suburbans are always cheaper than trucks of the same vintage? With the seats folded down you can actually haul more crap in the Suburban than you can a shortbed pickup and still use it as a tow pig. 

Ever tried to run a one-man landscaping business out of a Suburban? :)

 

I didn't realize a Suburban was incapable of towing a small trailer? 

Life is easier if you don't need a trailer. Easier manouvering, less maintenance - and it can be the difference between requiring a CDL (or at least a DOT medical, DOT number and a logbook) and not.  There's a reason every pickup has a GVWR of 9,999 lbs.

You need a CDL to tow a Harbor Freight trailer with a Mustang?

SV reX said:

parker said:

Driven5 said:

parker said:

I am claiming that the vast majority of trucks don't use 4wd, carry oversize cargo or tow >3500. 

A claim that, along with trucks not needing more than 2 seats, is being made with zero objective evidence that backs it up. Equating how something is appearing to be used for when you happen to be seeing it, with it not being used at in a way you didn't, is a logical fallacy. The fact that the vast majority of trucks spend the vast majority of their time doing not-truck-stuff, doesn't mean they aren't being used to do truck-stuff often enough to justify owning a truck.

Keep telling yourself that. 

You are correct, I don't have data for every owner in the country.  But the owners that I do know coupled with the sheer number of trucks (with pristine unscratched beds) sold in this country tell me that I'm right.  

Who cares?

What business is it of yours what other people enjoy driving?

Frankly, it's none of your business.
 

I really hate this argument that comes up EVERY TIME there is a discussion about trucks.  

To be clear on my intent for this thread; it was solely to understand if trucks really are more expensive now (as I precieved the case to be).

I'm very mercenary about what people do with their own lives............by a truck, live in a cave stick a rusty nail in your eye or whatever else............it's your life. I will still comment that I think it's nuts to spend $1000 a month on a vehicle but that's purely what I think......doesn't make it wrong or right.

In reply to SV reX :

We haven't even got to the height of the bed yet. I'm amazed :)

My truck - a 2010 diesel Dodge 2500 with a crew cab and a short bed - tows much better than a 2000 Tundra or a mid-teens Tundra. It's more stable, is more relaxed on the highway, gets better fuel economy under load and is overall built to Do Work instead of trying to be a car. The crew cab is handy because I do actually drive with more than two people in the cab, including a 2000 mile trip shortly after I got the truck. The short bed keeps it on the short wheelbase which is a lot more convenient than the long one, and I don't abuse the bed and tailgate by dropping heavy things from a great height so the bedliner looks pretty good - and it's covered most of the time by a soft tonneau. I maintain it like it's an investment in a significant piece of equipment and because I own it.

It looks almost new. So if you saw it in the Home Depot parking lot, people like Parker would dismiss it as a pointless truck that could be replaced with a Miata/Suburban/minivan/whatever. They don't see it with DOT numbers on the side pounding up a 12,000' high pass with a 20k total weight, midway through a 3400 mile trip. Something like 85% of its mileage is with a trailer on the back and it never gets a trailer without a multi-state trip, so that's the normal use. But it does go to Home Depot or to the recycling center once in a while.

It's got a stick and cloth seats, though, so it's still a truck :)

Anybody have the link for the truck buying permit application?

I may not have used it for hauling everyday, but when I need to it was a lot easier than installing rack, hooking trailers, or going to rent one. 

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Stop. 
 

Yes, it is possible to move material with almost any vehicle. But a Mustang with a Harbor Freight trailer for a landscaper is just plain stupid. 
 

When I first started in construction, I drove a VW Bug. For years. I pulled out the seats so I could put my tool boxes in it. The roof was flattened from hauling sheets of plywood on it. I am VERY well versed in how to rig crap up.
 

Doesn't make it right.