For me, European multipurpose vehicles (sprinter vans?) were a revelation. An old Renault Kangoo is cheap to buy, cheap to drive and cheap to maintain. It's a small, simple car that drives and parks like a small sedan, but carries as much as a small pickup truck.
I can fit a bed, 3 months of luggage and a bicycle in mine. In a pinch, it's a brilliant microcamper. It's a big box on wheels. You can do what you want with it.
It's not a nice car, but it was designed to serve real user needs. That's why they're everywhere from Morocco to Poland.
I think this is true unless you're hauling something that you really don't want in a closed space with you. Lawn equipment, motorcycle, fertilizer, that sort of thing.
I think in America we'd just call that a "flat bed truck" or something, which is a catch all for those that do indeed have flat beds as well as these with short sides around the bed.
That got me there with a little extra searching. "Flatbeds with side gates."
Here they are very common on construction sites for the messier work (building roads, railways, walls, roofs, forestry etc) but normal vans with a roof are more common for the cleaner work (plumbing, electrics, painting, carpentry etc).
This made me realize why I see so many Kangoos in Japan, despite them not really being cheap here! A bit of a nicer version of a Kei truck, without being a full minivan!
Yeah, sure. If you're running some successful bakery in Kagurazaka having the nice-looking truck feels like a "fine" decision. My mental image is that Townaces are bigger, but maybe that's just my impression from the Kangoo's curves
Yup Kangoos are quite expensive in Japan. They start at JPY 3.8M [1]
The Toyota Sienta, which starts at JPY 2M, seems like a much better value for a passenger car - and I think they borrowed from the Kangoo's styling a bit for the latest iteration [2]. Or for business use a Town Ace, NV200, HiJet, etc.
There is this amazing Twitter thread comparing the Citroen C15 (a design from the 1980s) to a modern American pickup and a modern British SUV, with the Citroen blowing them out of the water in most scenarios: https://twitter.com/jmaris_/status/1570889945551863808
Aha that's amazing. It would be nice to retrofit them with electric engines, but I doubt that would be commercially feasible, as much as I love them I wouldn't want to crash in that above 20kph
Yeah, Stellantis just need to release a new one. They quote the C15 in the "more than 90 years in utility vehicles" press releases for their new (optionally electric) Citroen utility vehicles: https://www.media.stellantis.com/ch-fr/citroen/press/citroen...
The US equivalent is a minivan; which everyone seems to agree is absolutely impossible to admit buying unless you’re a housewife with small kids. But they’re incredibly practical.
Missing the point. Many people buying inefficient oversized pickup trucks don't care that there's smaller and more efficient options out there, but they do it for the status simbol and ego lifting, not to be utilitarian and efficient.
I see these monster pick-up trucks more and more in European cities nowadays too, F-150s, Dodge Rams, with some fancy paintjob and big wheels but who's bed hasn't seen any actual use carrying anything because the owner is usually some middle-aged Ray-Ban wearing divorced dad with money, using it as a toy, trying to look cool. Power to him I guess, but those monster trucks are horrible for visibility and safety of cyclists, pedestrians, small cars, etc.
Most utilitarians here, blue collar workers, people for whom their vehicles are a tool for the job, mostly drive white vans here, as they're a lot more practical and economical than big trucks.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I live in Dallas and this is 100% true.
What’s fun is when you notice that the biggest, flashiest trucks are all concentrated in the fanciest suburbs. Once you get out in the country, off the main roads like where I’m from, suddenly (1) pickup trucks make up a lower percentage of the traffic, and (2) they are generally* smaller, more utilitarian and more beat up.
* except for the occasional F350 dually pulling an actual horse trailer
Probably because nobody is missing the point. They understand that huge vehicles are largely bought as a status symbol and they're mocking those people for buying an unnecessarily enormous hunk of metal.
Another factor is safety. I don't share this point of view, but I have seen others purposely choose large, heavy vehicles for family members so they stand a better chance surviving a bad collision.
If you've ever sat in traffic driving a small car surrounded by large vehicles it definitely starts to sink in that you are at a distinct disadvantage if anything goes wrong. So this trend is also at least partially about this weird arms race of wanting to feel safer in the presence of ever larger vehicles.
You're at a safety advantage in a smaller vehicle more often than not. If you're in an accident going fast enough for the size of your vehicle to matter, you stand a very high chance of getting severely fucked up no matter what you're driving. You need to not be in the accident in the first place, and driving a large vehicle with worse handling, longer stopping distances, and a tendency to roll over does not help.
Your average person is not mechanically inclined enough to assess the safety of vehicles, usually to the detriment of the safety of everybody else on the road. Another example of this is people's perception that they're safer with AWD in snowy conditions when all it's doing is getting the vehicle moving faster and giving the driver the confidence to push it way beyond its ability to brake in those conditions.
> If you're in an accident going fast enough for the size of your vehicle to matter, you stand a very high chance of getting severely fucked up no matter what you're driving.
The most dangerous, a head on collision, will always be safer for the heavier vehicle. It's simple physics.
Rollovers are also extremely bad, and vehicles like the Tahoe have a ~25% rollover risk as assessed by the NHTSA. It's simple physics!
More than anything, you need to just not be in the accident in the first place. Buying a vehicle with dogshit braking and handling characteristics so you can "win" in a crash you could have just avoided is dumb, especially when you consider that you carry that increased rollover tendency every single second you're driving that vehicle.
By doing everything you can to not get in a head-on. Ditch it, land it in a yard, etc. Just about the only thing I wouldn't do is dump it in a flooded ag ditch, but that's a situation most people don't find themselves in. If you're in a city where you have literally nowhere to go, nobody is going fast enough to the point where the size differential between the vehicles is going to matter unless you're in something exceptionally small.
There are multiple times where I've had to drive on the shoulder to avoid people out of their lane and they would have been a hell of a lot scarier than they were if I had to do it in an SUV/truck. I've been in multiple fairly severe vehicle accidents and I can tell you from first-hand experience that you're not appreciably safer in an SUV.
Sprinter vans are more practical than modern pickups. You can fit a few sheets of drywall into it, lock up your stuff, and keep everything out of the elements. If you have a windowless van, you have everything out of sight, as well.
Do you live in a tent? Would you make the same comparison about your house?
We live in our RV for 3-6 months a year, in weather from -10 in Colorado blizzards and 120 degree California summers. In rain snow and sleet. I work remotely from it.
A tent is not a home. An RV It is for many of us.
Before you throw more stones, it's far more eco friendly and lower carbon Footprint to own an rv and travel and stay in it in various places than to own several properties and fly between them.
> it's far more eco friendly and lower carbon Footprint to own an rv and travel and stay in it in various places than to own several properties and fly between them.
It's considered worse to drive (vs fly) unless you have more than 2 people-- and that's for a normal car. With a truck+trailer the break-even point would need more passengers.
The info you posted doesn't include the property and accommodations, it's only the travel, which of course is higher, the savings overall is in the stay, so you have to compare it to flying AND accommodations, not just flying.
For the comparison parent post is making - leisure travel - I think there's a big difference in that flying enables much larger distances, thus much more emissions.
You can easily fly 1000 miles each way for a weekend trip. Not as easily with a car, the travel tends to be much shorter.
And also doesn't take into account economy of scale, a family of 4 has 4x the emissions in the plane example, same as 1 person in the car example. So if you do the math as a family of 4 it really changes things.
Owning multiple properties and flying between them is something rich people do that wastes an astronomical amount of resources, and the fact that it wastes more than towing 13,000lbs of RV around doesn't make either of them any better.
Or any worse - you apparently didn't notice, but I wrote that there are good reasons to own an RV, and want to reiterate that. Probably in your heart of hearts you know whether your ownership is justified, and I don't need to tell you.
TONs of non-rich people also have 2 properties and go between them. You can buy a cabin or vacation property in the rural US for a surprisingly affordable amount. I know many folks who are certainly not rich, but do spend time in various locations.
Think traveling nurses, seasonal employees, etc. Also look up the term "snow bird"
There's nothing more utilitarian than an extended-cab truck if you're a "divorced dad". You're hauling kids, furniture, trash, tools, etc. And if you need to move cross country guess what...You can tow a trailer. And I'd argue "ego lifting" is buying a 15k carbon fiber bike and riding in a traffic snarling peleton with your euro bike buddies...Everybody's guilty of some form of ego.
Not even necessarily ego or whatever. Some people just like trucks, and a car's "reputation" is part of the purchase decision for many buyers. It's why men don't buy Beetles or Priuses as often as women and women don't buy trucks as often as men for instance. Many people express themselves with their car.
The /r/fuckcars folks are being a little dishonest here. As another commenter mentioned, this is like asking a vegan for steak recommendations at a restaurant.
Ford F-250 Shelby edition towing capacity: 24,200 pounds
And that's just one additional dimension where these vehicles significantly differ.
These vehicles are utilitarian workhorses great for contracting, construction, farming (eg. hauling livestock), towing (eg. other cars, trailers, mobile BBQ, etc.), boating, leisure [1], etc.
I live in an urban area close enough to the forest, lakes, and pastures to see all of these uses frequently.
The electric version will power job sites, camp sites, and help with disaster recovery. It's going to sell like hot cakes.
> The /r/fuckcars folks are being a little dishonest here. As another commenter mentioned, this is like asking a vegan for steak recommendations at a restaurant.
The subreddit is specifically named 'fuck cars'. How exactly are they being dishonest? This is more like r/vegan showing how a vegan meal is better than a steak meal along some dimension, say, environmental impact.
> I live in an urban area close enough to the forest, lakes, and pastures to see all of these uses frequently.
In fact I would say that you are the one being somewhat dishonest by (implicitly) claiming both the benefits of being able to use it as a utilitarian workhorse, and in an urban area. If the trucks have the majority of their utility as contracting, construction, or towing, they should require being licensed as a commercial driver, and potentially be banned from being operated on city roads due to the danger they pose to smaller vehicles and pedestrians.
Think of the argument from that subreddit (and me) this way -- if you are driving a huge farm tractor, you cannot also bring said tractor into the city center. Not all heavy machinery needs to be allowed everywhere. Obviously you might not agree, but I think the argument is fundamentally honest.
They're comparing on a single dimension and laughing at F-150 owners.
> This is more like r/vegan showing how a vegan meal is better than a steak meal along some dimension, say, environmental impact.
Not when evaluating a purchasing decision, overall utility, or customer demographics and needs. I'm showing that morally opposed parties inject themselves and their biases orthogonally.
> In fact I would say that you are the one being somewhat dishonest by (implicitly) claiming both the benefits of being able to use it as a utilitarian workhorse, and in an urban area.
Have you ever been to a city that's half an hour to the woods? Or perhaps somewhere it's typical to find people owning acres of their own land right next to a major metropolitan? Not everything is SF or NYC.
If you want to tax an externality, do so. Many state gas taxes tax vehicle weight via the proxy of gas mileage. Right now it's the heavy EVs doing the damage that are slipping through the taxation cracks.
> they should require being licensed as a commercial driver
Okay, now we're getting into yucking other people's yums.
Some people own boats and full hog smokers, like getting muddy on the weekends and going fishing. There are millions of these folks in America.
If you want to regulate what you perceive as a negative externality, we should do it evenly against everything. Tax and regulate broadly and fairly.
Consider sex. It spreads disease and causes all sorts of relationship drama. Kids can be a nightmare. Think about all the lost productivity! Who's paying for that? (I'm joking, of course!)
In the scheme of things, these vehicles are much more good than bad. They sell like crazy, satisfy their consumers, get a lot of productive work done, and on the weekends are spent as leisure devices - getting folks muddy and smelly with beers and fish and sun. A good diversion for hard workers.
> potentially be banned from being operated on city roads due to the danger they pose to smaller vehicles and pedestrians
You can vote for that in your own district, and maybe that's correct, but other places and populations will feel differently about how they live their own lives.
> if you are driving a huge farm tractor, you cannot also bring said tractor into the city center. Not all heavy machinery needs to be allowed everywhere.
On the spectrum of farm tractor to kei car, the F-150 is tightly clustered in the middle with the rest of the "street legal" vehicles.
I grew up in agricultural rural America in the 80s and 90s. Tons of pickup trucks and, later, SUVs! Subjectively, though, I'd say:
* The real farm families would have a pickup for pulling a horse trailer, moving mulch/manure/hay bales/equipment, but also have a regular sedan for, like, driving places.
* The suburban families would have a pickup or SUV as a daily driver.
A quick Google search seems to back my impresssion:
"According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."
As you say, taxing the externality is reasonable (and currently imperfect, in a few dimensions). One reason to look especially hard at SUVs and light trucks is that they have externalities in a number of dimensions (road wear, emissions, accident safety for other cars) and seem to have very limited utility (most people who buy them aren't really using them for their supposed purpose).
I know a lot of people with those ridiculous big trucks, and 2 of them use them for utility, one has a boat and one has a 5th wheel. The others just...have them. So until there's zero people driving them for vanity or aggression reasons, it doesn't feel dishonest at all. Your response feels like a typical US response to social ills - turn a blind eye to a problem because a) the thing causing the problem is fun/popular/profitable b) there's a handful of hyper specific potentially valid reasons for the thing that have nothing to do with the people causing the problem (most of the giant trucks in my area can't even haul anything because of the vanity lifts and various "upgrades" - they would make the argument you are as to why they should be allowed but they would not support anything that would restrict them to those purposes).
I know a lot of people who drive big trucks, and all of them regularly use them for: hauling building materials, towing RVs, towing boats, towing four wheelers/dirt bikes/UTVs/snowmobiles, pulling utility trailers (for trash pickup, job site cleanup, lumber & metal, piping, furniture, landscaping, tree service, etc), tailgating parties, hunting, mudding, off-roading, barbecuing (towing a smoker), etc.
Literally don't know one person that drives a truck "for vanity" and I gotta know at least a few hundred truck owners.
I drive a F350. It will tow a mountain. I pull a fifth wheel with it. People are often surprised to hear that it gets 20 miles per gallon when it's not towing anything.
While I love the truck, I miss my old Tacoma. The Tacoma was a smoother ride and far more practical for urban navigation. But Tacomas have a bout a fifth or even less as much tow capacity as an F350.
Big trucks aren't causing social ills for anyone except people that have nothing better to do but complain about other people enjoying their own lives.
> Big trucks aren't causing social ills for anyone except people that have nothing better to do but complain about other people enjoying their own lives.
Just one of many reports from the past 20 years documenting the correlation between vehicle size and deaths/injuries to those on the receiving end. You'll find similar conclusions from IIHS, NHTSA, etc.
I drive a 2016 F150 crew cab, my first truck and generally speaking I love it. Aside from the usual utility (being able to haul large things like plywood/drywall for home projects or 25 bags of mulch every spring), my son and I play ice hockey and the equipment bags are large, plus the hockey sticks themselves are up to 5 feet long. I see many families at the rink struggling to store a bag or two into their SUVs and it’s a tight fit at best. I didn’t buy this truck as some kind of manly status symbol - it’s a comfortable and versatile vehicle and I make no apologies for owning it.
As I get older I’ve grown less tolerant of people trying to tell other people how they should live. Feel free to live your own life as you see fit as long as you’re not directly hurting other folks.
The transmission overheats after 3-4 hours going uphill with no load. They made it too heavy for the powertrain!
It’s also depressingly easy to trigger the overload light on the dashboard by doing things like buying bricks at Home Depot.
Seriously, WTF? Do we need a 2500 class to replace our old pre-fuel-injection GMC 1500? It had better fuel economy and was also lower to the ground. It could even handle mountain freeways!
(The newer GMC was even worse than the Ram, FWIW.)
I’d definitely look into one of these little japanese trucks if I could get a new one and have it serviced. Bonus points if it is an EV.
Sorry to hear that. The modern Ford PowerDiesels are amazing though. Mine has towed 20K+ pounds through a 10% grade in the Grand Tetons without breaking a sweat.
The point isn't that the smaller truck is an equally capable vehicle. The point is to make fun of people who don't need a truck but are getting an overkill vehicle as a status symbol, all the while people who actually need to transport goods can still get a lot done with a tiny kei truck.
When did “need” become a requirement for having things? Who gave you or anyone else the authority to decide what other people “need”? I don’t think people “need” motorcycles, private planes, vacation homes, more than a few million dollars in the bank, etc. But who am I to tell people what they should have? Live and let live.
My F150 pollutes much less than my wife’s car simply by virtue of me working from home while she commutes every day. Taking up more space is not an issue for people who don’t live in big cities. Trucks are not more inherently dangerous than any other vehicle just because of their size. If that were the case let’s outlaw semis, delivery trucks and anything larger than a VW Golf (a car I had & loved in my youth.)
You folks need to get it out of your heads that one size fits all and everyone needs to have the same values and make the same choices as you. Everything has risks and trade offs.
> My F150 pollutes much less than my wife’s car simply by virtue of me working from home while she commutes every day.
Awesome, but that's not about the car, it's about working from home.
> Taking up more space is not an issue for people who don’t live in big cities.
But it is for those who do. And still for a lot of people outside big cities.
> Trucks are not more inherently dangerous than any other vehicle just because of their size. If that were the case let’s outlaw semis, delivery trucks and anything larger than a VW Golf (a car I had & loved in my youth.)
It's not just the size, also other factors about the design, but there's a reason why commercial driving licenses exist. They should probably be required for all trucks.
> You folks need to get it out of your heads that one size fits all and everyone needs to have the same values and make the same choices as you.
It doesn't have to fit all, but it does have to fit the environment, or at least take it into consideration.
> They should probably be required for all trucks.
In your opinion
> It doesn't have to fit all, but it does have to fit the environment, or at least take it into consideration.
What does that even mean? It's a completely arbitrary non-specific statement. Look - if people don't want large vehicles, trucks or otherwise, they'll stop buying them and manufacturers will stop making them. It's entirely your right to dislike the state of things, but I don't believe it's anyone's job or authority to force people to buy a Fiat 500 (a perfectly fine car for many) when they prefer an F-150.
The problem is that currently people are buying an F-150 when it's not fine for them. People are buying them instead of Fiat 500s because in a Fiat 500 they feel less safe in between all those giant F-150s.
Maybe you should look around a bit through the rest of the discussion here, but lots of people are pointing out that those F-150s exist because they don't have to meet the same requirements as the Fiat 500, which is ridiculous. Especially since they do require the same license. They don't have to meet the same requirements as passenger cars because by some rules, they don't count as passenger cars, but as trucks. But you can drive with with a regular license, and they're used as regular passenger cars. This discrepancy is causing problems with lots of people driving trucks far bigger than what they need.
Also, apparently, US fuel efficiency rules seem to encourage larger cars, which are less fuel efficient. Clearly a broken system.
> The problem is that currently people are buying an F-150 when it's not fine for them.
In your opinion.
> Also, apparently, US fuel efficiency rules seem to encourage larger cars, which are less fuel efficient.
I'm not sure where you get that idea from. We're generally less sensitive to fuel economy because gasoline in the US is cheap - because it's not taxed to the hilt (I'd be happy to pay higher taxes for universal healthcare, but that's another hot topic).
> This discrepancy is causing problems with lots of people driving trucks far bigger than what they need.
Again, "need" is subjective.
You're in the EU and you have your own mindset that's very different from the vast majority of American's mindset (I would know, my parents are EU immigrants.) Nothing wrong with difference of opinions...but you're not going to change people's minds here with these arguments.
I think most people agree that "live and let live" is a good philosophy, but it's also tough to reconcile with the global tragedy of the commons wherein we destroy the earths ecosystems because we all have our eyes set on completely unsustainable standards of living.
Light-duty vehicles, including sedans, SUVs and pickup trucks, are currently responsible for 58% of U.S. transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions. Pickup trucks accounted for 14% of light-duty vehicle sales in the United States in 2020... (https://news.umich.edu/study-greater-greenhouse-gas-reductio...)
The sky isn't falling and pickup trucks aren't that big of a problem from an emissions standpoint (my F-150 gets 19mpg, within 1mpg of my wife's minivan and my neighbor's Toyota Highlander. Passenger car/truck transportation accounts for 7% of the world's emissions. People are acting like buying EVs and small cars is going to make a damn bit of difference.
I wasn't trying to imply people who have less efficient vehicles are somehow wrong or bad, just pointing out that there's some dissonance between the otherwise rational libertarian mindset (live and let live) and the big looming global problem that is unsolvable without cooperative effort. People getting upset about each others personal excesses is understandable, even if misplaced and/or unproductive.
The article talks about using the Kei truck as a replacement for a UTV/Side-by-Side, not for a daily truck. These /r/fuckcars people have never done real work in their lives and are just larping. 1100 pound tow capacity couldn't even tow most empty trailers.
The vast majority of large truck owners definitely do. 1300 pounds is nothing, and your ignorance is telling.
Most people doing real work with trucks are hauling heavy duty construction trailers, or otherwise, but even if you wanted to move furniture you'd quickly exceed 1300 pounds.
Thanks for the useless hit piece, if you can find the scientific data, I'll evaluate it, but when I click into the links on the article, I'm unable to find it.
So we're clear: because surveys are incredibly difficult to do in a scientific way and there's a dozen ways to ask a question that can skew results, there's a hundred ways a journalist can misinterpret the results of that question, and there's a thousand ways you could incorrectly slice the demographics such that your survey skews completely out of sync with the target subject.
We want to know what large truck owners are doing with their trucks. We don't care about small truck owners not towing things because small trucks aren't considered to be excessive and truck beds are useful things on their own.
No, it's literally just a blogger expressing their opinion based on broken link data that we can't independently evaluate, so it's just as valid as an HN comment.
The author has written thousands of car reviews for Car & Driver and Road & Track. I do find a professional automotive journalist citing a source more credible than an HN comment. If you have any better evidence, please share it.
I think many users here would have a heart attack and die to realize how many semis on the road are entirely empty (deadheading) and how many are filled way below capacity.
Most truck owners I know use their truck as a truck quite often. But that’s more rural; maybe everyone in a city commutes in an F150 for absolutely no reason at all.
> realize how many semis on the road are entirely empty
I'm sure semis are empty after they've dropped off a load at a destination and there is no commensurate return load back to where they came from. But given that semis are very expensive to move down the road, both from a human resource cost and an energy cost, I suspect the market is far better at optimizing that than you or I or any central operator could do.
Everyone I know that owns F150s use their truck beds or use their hitch to tow. I'm not sure what the big controversy is, except there seems to be a class of urbanites that are convinced they know other people's own needs better than they do. "They don't need a truck," says the Brooklyn blogger, who then proceeds to snark about a foreign micro truck that's normally used to skirt through the narrow streets and alleyways of Tokyo. The blogger has prob never owned acreage, cut lumber, smoked a brisket on-location, or hauled a load, but they know for sure that these silly Americans don't need a truck that's any bigger than a Prius.
A 24,000 pound barbecue? What does that look like?
I'm pretty sure most people who own these oversized pickup trucks never use that towing capacity. Maybe some do, and if they were the only ones using them, nobody would have a problem with it.
I know they have never ridden kei trucks. I'm a 175cm Japanese and its seat and space is obviously uncomfortable. It's fine for the purpose (carrying farm equipment and other stuff, drive max like 10km at 60km/s) but not comparable with richer trucks. Looks better to compare with 90s Hilux.
I'm a 185cm non-Japanese, and kei truck seat and space has been just fine for me. You can't recline the seats obviously, but that's not why you're in the truck
I rode in kei-trucks and kei-vans with an adult in every seat, up some very steep and long hills in Japan. We weren't exactly in the fast lane, but there was not any mention of the van not being up to the task. It felt just fine.
In fact my friend was SO excited about his new van (for 1998) that for a while, he was bragging about every last little aspect up and down those hills, every time we rode with him. He lived in a gigantic danchi at the top of one of the steepest hills around, and still loved that thing.
(He worked as a furnace-jumper-inner / furnace-insides-scraper at an auto recycling place all day, and had molten aluminum burns on his arms and sometimes face...I respected the heck out of that guy for what he did to support his family. I think he runs an IT business in Brazil now.)
Can you elaborate on what American dirt roads means? Japan has tons of dirt/gravel roads. A typical operating environment for a kei truck might look like this:
I would much, much rather have a new $70k Ford F150 Raptor than a tiny Japanese truck . Honestly a redditor - perhaps the most odious group on the Iternet - recommending the tiny Japanese truck over the F150 is a good enough reason to prefer the opposite; a redditor on "fuckcars" is a GREAT reason to prefer the opposite.
Basically because it's a high-mid-tier, nice modern car. Comparatively it has a quieter and smoother ride will allow me to make phone calls on my commute, using carplay to make the calls, read messages to me, and play music through the incredible sounding large badass speakers. The ride is much, much, much smoother. It'll be much more comfortable for a long road trip. There will be more room in the cab for stuff like say, my wife AND my dog. It comes with a warranty that I can use at any number of locations near me. Parts are still made for it and I can buy them here. It has R17 tires, 4 wheel drive, and anti-lock braking, electronic traction assist, TPMS, it will tell me when there might be ice on the road so I should proceed with caution, it has an advanced cruise control system with radar and lane keep assist, etc., etc., etc.
Because people who hate a thing are generally not the most knowledgeable about it and even if they know their judgement is clouded by hate. They only like the alternative to be contrarian.
I'm not gonna ask PETA for tips on raising beef steers, I'm not gonna ask Joe Biden what gun I should buy and I'm not gonna ask /r/fuckcars what car I should buy. And this is on top of the usual Reddit circle jerks and groupthink that make asking for advice there for anything of meaningful stakes questionable in general.
https://reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/sdrgv3/japanese_truck...
A kei truck has about 90% the bed length of a pickup while being a lot more nimble. The lower bed is more ergonomic to load and unload too.