balthazar

Except you’d be wrong. Let’s take a hypothetical from your basket: ‘BEV buyers will be fine with 125-mile range vehicles because most people only drive 30 miles/day.’ ‘A 2025 BEV with a 125-mile range battery pack will do fine in the market.’

Here's a current snapshot of GMC's inventory within 250 miles of me, by bed lengths : Note the absence of a 4.5' bed... ?

There's a place for everything / there is no universal solution.

Chevy 305 & 350 are different experiences on numerous fronts, from what I've read/heard.

TO clarify, I do NOT have an 8' bed. My previous F-150 was (regular cab), but I hadn't started my contracting business then. I hauled plenty in that 8' bed; firewood, scrap, car parts, lumber, etc. I do miss the amazing capacity of an 8' bed... however, I am nicely settled working out of the back of a crew cab (the more important criteria), and an 8-ft bed/crew cab truck is EEEEnormous; too much. That's the only legitimate truck size people can complain about parking. My 2500HD crew cab is a 6.5' bed. That's a compromise; 8-ft material is fine but 12-fters are 7' in (to top of tailgate), and 5' out. That's iffy but doable. If I did decks regularly I'd have to do something different. The deck I built last fall, I think I had (20) 12-ft 2x6s in the bed- that's a lot of volume/weight. I drove slow. All that said, the most common bed size in the 1500-series trucks is 5'5" / 5'8", not 6.5'. I've been monitoring the GMC locator since Dec, plus I've also looked at the Ford & Ram locators occasionally; I know this to be true. IMO, 5'5" - 5'8" beds are ALSO useless- obviously down on capacity and ability to carry common-length materials. 8-ft material is fine (6' in / 2' out), but 12-ft material is out. Yes; less folk carry 12-ft material, but the capacity is still down. They're not for work.

"Our vehicles only fit people up to 6'2" in height because that covers almost all driver scenarios. We're redefining vehicle interior dimensions - you're welcome!'

Where does one draw the line between personal stuff and 'commercial or job-type' work, and more importantly; WHY?

I couldn't find the specs on site, but there's no way the bed is 32" deep / the tailgate is 32" tall. Re-check your source. That aside, carrying loads with the tailgate open is certainly not as secure or safe as with it latched. RE: commercial vs. private registration- that's pretty meaningless. 1. not all commercial ventures use commercially-registered trucks ( ask me how I know) and 2. Not all cargo hauling is done by commercial ventures.

They also needed to bicycle to the paint store & to the airport, and not ridden on any petroleum-leaching paved roads or any CO2-emitting concrete roads in doing so.

It'll be fine.

How'd that practice work out on the semi-conductor chip scene for domestic OEMs? Why do you think there aren't any 100% Chinese automotive efforts on sale in the U.S.? Buying from a known entity with a proven track record is a major component of Gov't & corporate contracting. It's common sense. What Chinese BE delivery truck company did you have in mind (if they're not a fly-by-night start-up?)

Trucks have long wheelbases [mine is 153" and it's not the longest]. That, in & of itself, is not a problem. Where the problem comes in is in 2 areas- off-roading & heavy bed loads. Both can deflect the body with some negative consequences. Ford tried a 'unibody' pickup '61-63, but there were customer issues when trucks had heavy loads- the doors sometimes would wedge shut/not close if loaded when open. Off-roading puts tremendous stress on a truck, and an independent bed allows for a flex point between the two, alleviating damage. Recall when toyoter was having so many issues on the FJ- people were taking them off-road and the body sheet metal was cracking/ripping. No; don't recall? 'Journalism'. Technically one could build a chassis/frame/skateboard strong enough to resist damage, but how frickin’ heavy are we going to go? A BE F-150 is going to weigh 8000 lbs as it is. I also believe it's cheaper to build the bodies & bed separate when you have a lot of body configurations (unlike Rivian will have). It also allows a huge aftermarket partnership- flatbeds, custom bodies, etc. You have to ask what a full-size truck with an integral bed/body offers the consumer, other that greatly-reduced choice. Because I don't know what that might be.

You’ve seen OEM info stating their EV F/S trucks are to be integral body/bed?? That would be a mistake.

Rivian is not a 5’ box.

Don't know how old this sign is- Ford claims trucks sales leadership since '48, but this screams '60s to me. Another sign- both from a small-town, closed-down Chevy dealer auction within the last 10 years :

Guy I've talked to occasionally over the last 12-13 years (his sister is a customer of mine) had a S-10 long bed still, circa 2010. By that time it was extremely rotted out, but standing by it I too was like 'this is a decent-size bed!'. The trucks overall are tiny, relative to now, but the beds were logically-sized to haul.

'91 GMC brochure : '91 Cyclone brochure. Looks like the longer, but I'm sure it's the shorter 6'1" bed. Here's mag quotes about the Cyclone (cherry-picked by GMC) :

I joined a genealogy site for a bit, and guess what; you can search all their archives for people named 'Pontiac Sales' and 'Cadillac Pontiac' and the like. Brings up (among other sources) high school yearbook ads of dealerships, sometimes with photos. Goodie for my Pontiac list! The site automatically colorizes the old B&W pics, tho you can click a button to go back to B&W. Many of the colorized ones are awful- the software depends on a clear original and 'inetprets / guesses', but if the photo is too dark in areas it makes a mess of it. Great opportunity to compare the original with a guesswork version. I'll see if I can post a comparison...

Would love to read a link, because I HIGHLY doubt it; it had a 6' bed. Of course it was a limited volume performance truck (2998 built), and there were loads of 7'4" beds in the line, too. - - - - - RE the Hummer, I see that now. It looks so massive, I never really thought about it. Reports are saying 'about 5', which is 8" short of other GMC short beds, and a half foot longer than the Rivian super-short bed. I think Hummer should've at least matched the 5'8"box...

^ Remember this post every time some article whines that a Cadillac trunk is smaller than Bimmer's. Seriously, all the Gladiator pics with some sort of 2-wheeled contrivance in the bed show it either a. with the front wheel removed, b. with the tailgate down and the rear tire to the tip of the 'gate, or c. a Bizzaro World rack that hoists said 2-wheeler completely above the top of the bed. Seems a canoe, a pair of dirt bikes, a pair of motorcycles, a snowmobile, a jet ski.... I dunno; all sorts of 'targeted lifestyle devices' are being called into play by Rivian for a box barely longer than 4-feet. As for the integral body/bed, seems reasonable that an extra foot of length would be more than handled by a truck-specific, battery skateboard structure.

Interesting they could show that much emissions drop, with that much volume explosion, on an all-IC vehicle fleet. I thought there was no more room for improvement out of IC... ?

'50-52. '48-49 still had separate rear fenders, and '53 had the huge(r) Dagmers out front.

^ Because it has a 4.5' bed. Ranger is now the size of an F-150 of 20 years ago (unfortunately). Ranger wheelbase is 127", Rivian is 136", an F-150 CC/5.5 is 145". Rivian would be closer to 142" with a 5.5' bed.