Toyota's new $10k pickup
motortrend.com
motortrend.com
I guess they rely on full-sized american pickup habits and creative financing to get folks to buy more expensive and bulkier trucks.
Extended cab, 5 speed manual. It was my first vehicle when I turned 16 and I loved it
I’ve been interested in upgrading it as it’s kind of getting old now and it would be nice to get something with CarPlay without having to do a retrofit but the main killer feature that’s just not available on consumer trucks anymore is the bed size. It’s extremely rare to find a truck with the features I want that still have a 6 ft bed size. There are so many things I haul around that fit exactly into that bed length
Used availability varies, of course, but used cars are such a silly deal at the moment compared to new car pricing that it may not make sense.
I'm a big fan of those "shorty" trucks.
It constantly does way more than I would expect though. I took it up a few mountains in Colorado and its little 2WD was going over rocky roads that you would basically otherwise need a Jeep to handle. Maybe that’s how I broke my sway bar.
You can get a regular cab F-150, or similar, and you can get a smaller truck with a tiny bed and two rows of seats.
This seems unlikely to make it here, but my hope is someone bring something like it here. It will probably need to be electric to meet cafe standards, but I'd prefer hybrid.
That’s like the weight of what, 2 fat people?
A ton is 1000 lb, right?
Don't forget the metric fucktonne, as well.
So...five 400lb people
I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, length, width, and height. The bigger the vehicle the more likely to cause an accident and the heavier the more likely for the accident to be severe.
Roughly speaking, they are. Unfortunately, the system didn't quite get the memo, so there are two classes of vehicles based on size here; car, and truck. small trucks, like we are discussing here would fit into the car category. unfortunately, because they fit into the car category, they have to follow the car rules, which they can't, which means they don't exist. all the bigger vehicles fit into the truck category, which has more lax standards about certain things, and which is why we have such big SUVs.
I know you and everyone is salivating over it, mostly due to price, but this is NOT a pickup truck. This is an upscaled UTV. You can already buy similar in the US for offroad purpose (farm) for 1x - 2x the price of the Toyota/hilux.
This vehicle does not meet any safety standards whatsoever and is not roadworthy. I doubt it even has the rollover protection of a forklift.
It's become almost impossible to find a cheap pickup truck in the US. Even older USED trucks are commanding $30K these days.
If they could fit this out to pass safety regs in North America and keep the price under $20K, it would be a license to print money.
EVs will work, but not at that sub-$20k price point.
The rest of your point is totally valid (CAFE is a textbook example of well-intentioned regulations backfiring spectacularly).
But the climate denier nonsense kinda spoils the message.
We are pretending that what the government is interested in isn't climate change.
The 90s Frontier is a tiny little thing, almost what a Kei truck is today. Same with the Ranger. An El Camino is bigger.
I bought a base Frontier in 2017, wanting that tiny truck but ended up with something the size of a 90s F150. Literally the smallest option on the market, whose weak-ass v4 struggles to haul its own weight (and has the turning radius of an aircraft carrier).
Tacomas? I like Toyota but the used market for those is worse than MSRP.
And Ford stopped making the Ranger; the Maverick ain't it. It's basically what I have already.
How is this the result of new efficiency standards? We still have small cars on the road. Cutting the roof off and appending a flatbed doesn't require a monster footprint.
TL;DW:
In 2008 CAFE introduced a formula that calculates the required MPG based off of the track times the wheelbase (basically the rectangle formed by the tires). Trucks are less aerodynamic than sedans, so small trucks can't be made that get sufficiently low MPG to meet this standard, and thus even though a smaller truck would use less fuel than a larger truck that meets the standard.
[edit]
Ford existing necessitates allowing pickups, it doesn't necessitate forcing them to be large. I'm just pointing out that any regulation that makes pickups unsaleable altogether is not going to work.
These laws are written by the same people who think you shouldn’t be in charge of your own life.
CA has nothing to do with the regulation in question, which is federal CAFE standards.
BMW's 3- and 5-series wagons are no longer sold in the US. Audi only has the A4 and A6 Allroad versions. Mercedes-Benz has only the E-class wagon remaining. Volvo, long the king of European wagons in the US, recently restored two models. So yeah, unfortunately for the most part they're out.
> Look like everyone wants a SUV these days.
This is true. Most of those wagons that were phased out became equivalent SUV models.
Is is it just that an F-150 that is as tall as a 1990 Ranger would look silly or something? The 1990s Buick Roadmaster Estate is not just 17" shorter in length than an F-150 Super Cab with a 6.5' bed, but also 17" shorter in height, which makes a sharing the road with these trucks bad (even before they are raised, which seems relatively common).
My dad wanted an 8' bed standard cab for his work and got an old one with almost 200k miles and I was slightly surprised to see it wasn't a step-up cab, while it seems like all modern trucks are.
[edit]
The Roadmaster Estate is also 8" shorter in height than the Ford Maverick, despite having a longer length; granted the Buick keeps its maximum height for a longer part of the length, but it has a shorter hood, and from the cab-back the Maverick doesn't go under 50" until the bumper.
If I understand it correctly, having a small truck counted among your sedans hurts the average MPG of your "car" line since even a fuel-efficient truck performs worse than cars.
Solution: add just enough mass to the Frontier to bump it from "cars" and put it in the "truck" class.
Among "trucks," the dummy-thicc Frontier now becomes the best-performing Truck, whose high average MPG raises the shittier average MPG of the rest of your gas-guzzling Titan/equivalents. Then you don't need to improve any of your existing trucks.
...which leaves little incentive for anybody to make a small truck. It hurts your average car MPG and only qualifies as a Truck if you add so much weight to it that it's no longer "small." This is dumb.
Ford misjudging demand is a screw up, but it’s definitely a been a success.
as problems go, that's a good one to have.
and keep in mind that covid, economic upheavals, and chip shortages messed with car production hard. labor issues may also be a challenge.
It's nowhere near a success because it's so far past the line that it's obscene.
And add dealer's markup fee and hidden fees, it will automatically touch 30K
From an outsider, that's the thing that baffles me the most about the current state of the whole world's auto industry. Sometimes it seems that all auto makers are colluding to prevent any competition based on price, and are instead invested in forcing this notion that the only possible consumer pressure is on seeking luxury features like onboard computers, touchscreens, media centers, etc etc.
A vehicle's primary use is take people and objects from point A to B, and do so reliably and economically. The automotive industry is the textbook example of economy of scale. Why are we still seeing low-end cars being sold for small fortunes?
Car longevity increased a ton in the last several decades years, and so "something that moves" isn't as central a motivation for new car sales anymore. If they just need something that moves, buyers can find countless used cars that still run and will keep doing so for hundreds of thousands of more miles. It's tough to compete in that space and come away with a worthwhile margin on top of fresh design and manufacturing costs.
So manufacturers, who don't want to scale down sales and production, try to entice buyers with shiny things that aren't available on old models and focus on higher price tiers. And that it coincides with booming tech culture and its fashion/impulse-driven purchase cycles makes it that much easier for them.
I don't think this is a valid take. Robustness is absolutely not the reason why cars are being heavily marketed based on luxury extras, even on base models.
> If they just need something that moves, buyers can find countless used cars that still run and will keep doing so for hundreds of thousands of more miles.
This is a very silly and absurd take. Cars devalue from their dealer price, which is justified based on all these useless luxury features that no one is able to avoid by design. Used cars might be cheaper than brand new models, but they are by no means cheap.
How can I assert that with confidence? Because all you need to do is to look up what the cars that are illegal to sell in the US, EU and countries that are similarly regulated.
E.g. South Africa has pickup trucks starting at around $15k, new: https://briefly.co.za/facts-lifehacks/top/138901-12-cheapest...
I don't think that is remotely true. You're commenting on a discussion on Toyota launching a $10k pickup, and there is absolutely no suggestion this price is achieved by ignoring regulation.
Regulations are different by country, so you see different cars at different price points. It is also illegal to import this car (again regulation), so that impacts price as well
Excellent farm truck, I assume, or Toyota wouldn't put their name on it. But not something you are going to use on highways in the US, and esp not with a trailer.
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2025-toyota-imv-0-pickup-...
I feel like the question in the title is just... forgotten about, lol. I guess the reader is supposed to know it's because it's not available in the U.S.
The Ford Ranger/Maverick is selling like hotcakes and Toyota can't ignore that market, esp. with Ford's labor issues and Toyota's challenges with EVs and focus on ICE.
https://www.suzuki.co.id/automobile/new-carry
https://www.suzuki.co.id/pricelist
So while the news media and everyone on hackernews touts this as "wow!", "Zinga!!" or "I am a ten out of ten!" - this is not as revolutionary as it seems. Everything in this PR material release is alreeady done on the Suzuki Carry as used as a cafe on wheels, or a RV is done with the current Suzuki Carry.
Philippines models: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wszDcDfhYF4 8:14 one of the most expensive ASEAN/APEC markets, where the suzuki carry is assembled but not manufactured.
Indonesian models, where it is assembled and also manufactured https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AewiO-8fnJ0
I've seen this once or twice in the U.S., but only on very large trucks. I wonder if there's some regulatory reason.
In very general terms, pickup trucks in Europe (and other countries outside of North America) are used for hauling things in the bed, whereas pickup trucks in the US are used to tow things. Not to mention that especially in the US, they're very often used as daily drivers, so the flip-down sides, as handy as they are, are less appealing because they look dingy and will rattle.
With modern half-ton and higher pickups in the US, the bed is actually very difficult to use, because the market keeps demanding more and more "aggressive-looking" and "off-road capable" trucks, which means the whole vehicle and the load floor get taller and taller. You basically have to be a giant to actually be able to load and unload things from the bed.
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/i-actually-bought-a-cheap-ele...
That'd be perfect.
Please share when you do.
I was curious about converting a 80s VW Rabbit/Golf to BEV. Starting with a non-functioning car, my wild guess is ~8k. Assuming a ~10 kWh battery, which should have > 100m range. Way more than I need for dog parks, groceries, errands.
If that's the range you're looking for, very lightly used (under 20k miles and less than 3 years old) Nissan Leafs can be had for around $20k, and comes with CarPlay. It certainly wouldn't be as cool as an 80s Golf EV conversion, but it would also be a lot more comfortable inside ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
Yet another regressive slant in our tax system, inglorious legacy of an earlier generation.
> Japanese manufacturers initially found they could export "chassis cab" configurations (which included the entire light truck, less the cargo box or truck bed) with only a 4% tariff. A truck bed would subsequently be attached to the chassis in the United States and the vehicle could be sold as a light truck.
> From 1978 to 1987, the Subaru BRAT carried two rear-facing seats in its rear bed to meet classification as a "passenger vehicle" and not a light truck.
> Ford imported all of its first-generation Ford Transit Connect models as "passenger vehicles" by including rear windows, rear seats, and rear seat belts. The vehicles are exported from Turkey, arrive in Baltimore, and are converted back into light trucks by replacing rear windows with metal panels and removing the rear seats and seat belts.
Otherwise amazing. I love how value engineered the aesthetic is.
but 10000 Saharan militiamen in toyota hilux models can't be wrong.
this model of truck is primarily for Asia, esp. Thailand, so entirely likely they wind up in Burma sporting a 12.7mm MG
Ford Maverick is a low cost truck and is selling like crazy. Demand has exceeded factory capacity and orders are in through next year.
Meanwhile this truck won't even be sold in the US.
Blue collar workers don't drive Raptors.
Edit: and CAFE refs per gottorf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38179829
> But Toyota's longer-range plan is to minimize profit on sale of the basic truck, and earn on the upfit potential.
Eagerly awaiting the official Toyota Technical.
To be clear, I find the effort they put into "styling" it ugly; if they committed and made a utilitarian vehicle without the style-effort, it likely would look great.
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2025-toyota-imv-0-pickup-...
https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/2023/11/2024-Toyota-IMV-0...
Does it have an outlet to run power tools? I assume the food truck is getting electricity from the truck?
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-cost...
Air Pollution dropped 77% from 1970 - 2020. Assuming that early deaths scale up and down linearly with air pollution, I calculate (***) that this should result in the average person living at least 3.8 months longer, at a cost of $70/yr, or a rate of $266/yr for a longer life. What rate would YOU pay annually to live a year longer?
A gym membership costs at least $500 annually (including travel and equipment) and yields an average 3.4-year increase in life expectancy, but you spend 150 minutes a week exercising which is 1.6 waking-years engaged in exercising ... so the net is $500 annually for 1.8 net years of extra (free-time) of life, or $277/yr annually to live a year longer?
=== Footnotes ===
(***) - https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-...
According to a 2013 MIT study the death rate from air pollution is 200,000 per year in the USA, and people die about a decade too soon, so 2M years of lifetime are lost per year. 1/70th of our country dies each year which is 4.7m people. So if air pollution were eradicated from 2013 levels, people would get to live about 5.1 months (12 * 2m/4.7m) longer, at a cost of only $70/car/yr over their lifetime as adults. Air pollution is down 77% from peak, so If I take 0.77 of 5.1 months I get 3.9 months. In 2020 air pollution was already less than half of 1970 levels so the savins are actually much, much higher.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1137375/air-pollution-de....
Sort of like saying a gym membership is good for everyone since it increases life expectancy, and not taking into account blue collar workers might get the equivalent of a workout from just doing their job, and that going to the gym after 9 hours of physical labor might do more harm than good for those people