If you didn’t already see, David and I were in Long Beach yesterday and saw Ford’s prototype Universal EV Truck driving around Junipero Beach.
I’m gonna straight up plagiarize David for a second here because he said it better than I could myself: “If you’re not excited about Ford’s upcoming Universal EV platform — which Ford developed secretly at its West Coast Skunkworks with the goal of offering a competitive sub-$30,000 compact pickup truck among other frugal EV options — you should be.”
Though some petrolheads may not be ready for EVs, I know that I’ve been thinking a bunch about adding an electric car to my fleet, both on account of how expensive gas is in LA and because it sounds pretty darn nice to have a car that you basically don’t have to do maintenance on. This truck we saw driving around the beach would give me that daily relief of operating an EV, and would be a steal at a sub-thirty grand price, but the biggest sell to me is just how small it is.
A Bunch Of Guesswork Based On A Tire Size-Reference
The benefit of having a camera nerd on staff here is that I have a camera that shoots 30 photos per second and a lot of knowledge of how to process that data. The benefit of having an engineer like David on staff is that he actually remembers how to do math, while I struggle to remember to move my finger half an inch from the camera’s grip to the shutter button. Using both of our skills, we can calculate some things, here. But it might all be wrong.
Here’s David’s initial, back-of-napkin strategy with the photo used to calculate it:
[Ed Note: This really only works well if a photo is taken from a distance. Or else, the angle between the camera and the front/rear of the truck and also the tires ends up screwing up all the math. The photo below is the best shot we had from a distance, and approximately at the center of the truck’s wheelbase. All the math here is approximate. -DT].
My primary camera is a Sony A1 that has a 50MP sensor, and it was attached to a super high resolving Sony GM 70-200 2.8 II, a combination that allowed me to zoom in and see in clear detail that the tires are Michelin 245/50 R 20s, which are 29.6 inches. That’s our reference measurement.
Here’s David discussing how he used that.
[Ed Note: Instead of doing some basic algebra (which I’d have been delighted to do), I just found a software online that lets me put in a reference measurement for the tire diameter, and it projects measurements across the truck as I desire. The one issue I was having is that the shadow in the wheel wells makes it hard to identify exactly where the the sidewall ends and the treads begin, so what I did is I used another photo Griffin had (the one that showed the sidewall clearest) to figure out the dimension of the little circular stripe in the sidewall; figuring this out also has the added benefit of allowing me to not have to worry as much about tire deflection (since the overall diameter isn’t exactly 29.6″ from the bottom of the tire to the top due to load). Anyway, here’s what I mean:
So if the overall tire diameter is 29.6 (that’s what I entered for the red measurement) then the diameter of that inner circle is about 26.83 using basic ratios in that photo. With that circular stripe diameter, I calculated some length and height figures of the truck, first using the front tire as reference and then using the rear:
The figures are quite similar. If you average them, you end up right around 64-inches tall and about 195-inches long. -DT]
To put that height into perspective, a tech sheet of the 2026 Ford Maverick lists its height as anywhere from 67.7 to 69.45 inches across all trims. So height-wise, this appears to be a bit smaller than the Ford Maverick. And just to cover our bases here, the Ford Ranger’s height is listed as 74.4-75.9”, and the F-150 regular cab is between 75 and 77″.
To double-check the height, here’s an overlay of the ~30-inch tire stacked on top of itself just over two times. To help you better resolve it, I reduced the opacity of the base image and put a red square over the truck so that you can better resolve just the height of the tires. Yes, the graphic is ugly, but Photoshop is Torch and Pete’s department; I’m just a camera guy.
In the interest of transparency, while this is an anti-AI publication, I plugged some data into the horrible and damming ChatGPT while I was waiting for ChatGP-David to crunch his numbers, and its calculation said that the truck should be 66” with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 inches. 66 is about what I got using the silly tire-stacking method above, and it’s also roughly what David got when he just drew a bunch of lines in Microsoft Paint.
I also did the length.
With that image, you can see that the truck is roughly 6.5 tires long, which means the total length would be 192.4 inches. Obviously, this and all other math is approximate. The photo was shot at 52.7 mm on a 35mm full-frame sensor, and a “normal” field of view on a 35mm camera is a focal length of 50 mm.
In the optics world, normal means it looks more or less one to one compared to the human eye, having proper compression and very little distortion. The focal plane on the image should be pretty much flat, and I have nice lenses that have very little pincushioning or barrel distortion. Knowing this about my gear, I’m confident that the image (and therefore my calculations) are as accurate as they can be outside of a studio situation and without Ford’s internal tech specs in front of me.
David calculated 195″ and the aforementioned horrible ChatGPT is proving its worthlessness by constantly spitting out different calculations for me despite prompting it identically multiple times. At one point, it told me it’s 255 inches with a margin of plus or minus 8 inches (21.2 feet), and later it said it was 246 inches (20.5 feet). If that ain’t a reason to never trust a chat model, I don’t know what is.
So between David and me, there are only a few inches of difference. Referencing the Mav’s tech sheet again, it’s 199.8” in length at the shortest, and 200.9 at the longest. The Ranger is 210.6-210.9”, and the F-150 is 209.4 for the 6.5-foot bed and 228.1 for the 8-foot. So using our longest calculation, the new truck is about 5″ less than Ford’s current small-truck offering.
It’s also worth noting that I saw the Telo truck last year, and it’s overall dimensions are 152″ L × 73″ W × 67″ H.
What’s this new Ford truck’s width?
I Don’t Know.
There are probably a couple of smarter ways to calculate this, but what I did was use one of David’s videos and some of my photos and plug them into Polycam to generate two photogrammetry models, which you can see below.
As you can see, it’s very imperfect, as David really only shot one side of it while the car was at the stoplight, and my model was all from one perspective with one long lens that gave it insane compression (178 mm for most of these shots, firmly in the telephoto range that flattens details and features immensely). The benefit of apps like this, though, is that they have ruler functions built in! The bad news is that we had nowhere near enough data, so I wouldn’t trust it.
As you can see, it’s under the impression that the car is roughly 37 inches in width, which is smaller than, like…everything ever. And it calculated the length as being roughly 124 inches as well. So why am I showing it to you when it’s worthless from a data perspective? I don’t know. I just think photogrammetry is really cool.
Our Best Guess At The Ford Ranchero’s (?) Dimensions
This thing is seriously small, and I think that’s seriously exciting. Personally, I’m not a truck person because I’m a city boy now. Practically everyone I know, from all walks of life, has no use for a truck, and certainly no room for it in the city limits. But that being said, trucks are seriously useful.
When David and I went on the road trip to Moab, I was driving behind him the whole time in a brand new F-150 Tremor (review to come, I’m working on some things here, okay?) and it was an absolute dream come true, lugging all my camera gear and basically an entire autobody shop in the bed for the duration of the trip in case David’s craftsmanship on the WWII Jeep proved shoddy.
Combining the practical utility of a truck with a car-sized footprint, the ease of ownership of having an EV, and a super-low price tag just feels too good to be true, and yet, it very well might be. So to end this article here, I’ll once again echo David’s thoughts on the matter from his piece last night: “If you’re not excited about Ford’s upcoming Universal EV platform [yada yada yada], you should be.
[Ed Note: Five inches shorter in length seems plausible, but five inches shorter in height than a Maverick? That does seem quite small. That’s about the same height as a Tesla Model Y…
Anyone buying that? I’m not sure. I have little trust in my crude measurement method, and I’ve found in life that such unreliable methods are really best paired with intuition and not trusted on their own. My intuition says this $30,000 EV truck (we’ll call it a Ranchero for now) won’t be 64″ (five inches shorter than a Maverick) but probably closer to 66 — so, three inches shorter than the Maverick, a couple inches taller than a Tesla Model Y. Then again, the Hyundai Ioniq 5 XRT is 64″ tall…
And I could see this being roughly the dimensions of an Ioniq 5 XRT with a bed.
In any case, whether it’s 64″ or 66″ tall, the point is that the new Ford EV is almost certainly shorter in length and height than the Maverick — the Maverick! That’s a tiny truck already by today’s standards (not far from the size of an old Subaru Baja!), and now it seems we’re getting even smaller. The minitruck is back, folks, just as the car gods prophesied. I, for one, am excited. -DT]
Uhg! You both geeked out. You have a standard David banana in shot, in a standard sasquatch gait, at a standard David banana distance. No slide rules needed.
Geeking is where all the fun is, Hoonicus!
Its a great product offering but I can buy one overseas today. Right now… not vaporware.
You could have just used the wheel, you know they are 20 inches and shouldn’t change do to load, plus 20 is much easier than 26.9 to work with and the definition of the wheel is easy to see.
I was just going to say the same thing!
20″ is the diameter of where the tire seats. The actual diameter is something between 21 and 22″ and is not consistent.
Need to drink my coffee, total forgot about the bead seat
Could you go back to the spot where the photo was taken and measure the curb?
I put that photo into AutoCAD and did some scaling. I came up with a wheelbase of 118 3/8″, total length of 189 1/4″ and a height of 62 5/16″.
Let me know if you want to see my work or want a line drawing or something.
You could totally be right! Though I’m curious how realistic a height of 62″ is…
Report back in the fall to compare once this truck/Ranchero is formally revealed, will ya?
(I worked with AutoCAD years ago and scaled a couple of times from a pic. Fortunately didn’t do much with Revit as I moved away from drafting by then.)
I just want to say that camo scheme reminded me of an old movie scene:
“Calling all cars. Calling all cars. Be on the lookout for Johnny Dangerously and accomplices driving a sedan covered with bunnies and duckies.”
Best movie since Corvette Summer. /s
So long story short, it’s not that short. My own single-cab, long bed Toyota is 186 inches long and doesn’t feel especially compact except in width. It is quite svelte compared to modern vehicles. And at 63 inches high while it is plenty high enough to suit me, it’s not high enough to be a “compact” pickup in the current paradigm.
I get that some height is now necessitated by under-floor battery packs, but since the driveshaft is now optional, maybe not?
Remember when compact trucks, despite their utility, were actually compact? At what point did the compact truck have to be a car first – a BIG car – and a truck second?
To answer your question: Since people stopped buying single-cab trucks. And for a crew-cab, this thing is small.
It’s still not small enough for me and my wife, David.
People (and small businesses) stopped buying regular cab trucks because auto companies decided it would be more profitable to stop selling (relatively) inexpensive regular cab trucks.
Regular cab trucks still sell quite well in other countries because they’re still available in other countries.
The two full-size regular-cab trucks available are about as expensive as the crew-cab models, and many times, due to over-ordering, the crew-cab ones are discounted to where they’re even cheaper than the regular-cab models available.
Great; the Slate should be perfect for you, then!
If I can get it to work without owning a cell-phone.
And if the frame doesn’t rust away in a few years.
Do yourself a favor and buy a ten-year old truck. Maybe 25, if you’d like to avoid some of the dumber electronic key foibles.
I currently drive a 16-year-old regular cab, 4-cyl, 5-speed GMC Canyon with hand-crank windows. It’s got around 165,000 miles on it, and still runs beautifully, but the frame or cab will most likely collapse in another 4 years.
I could buy a 10-year-old truck, but around here, they’re all rusty already. And if I have to get another ICE truck, I’d want it to be small, with a regular cab and three pedals.
Unfortunately, there is no 10-year-old truck like that. I like the idea of the basic Slate. I just don’t need all the techno-crap.
23 yo S10 here. I agree. Mine has 175000, runs, like a Chevy. Will be fine, but I don’t see a successor like it. Mine belonged to a lawn/pest company for a specialist
We would have to have a conversation to determine exactly what is covered by “techno-crap.” Certain things that I absolutely define as techno crap are non-optional for new vehicles, like vehicle stability control and ABS. You either put up with them or drive something older.
The Slate’s dimensions are extremely close to those of a last-year Toyota Truck short bed – taller, but taking up about the same amount of space on the ground. It’s an enticing option for those of us who liked the immediacy of the compact trucks.
I’m a fan of big fours like the one in your truck, though usually when you see a big four it’s actually a biggish V8 that has had a bankectomy.
The 2.9L 4-cyl was designed from the start as a modular motor. It’s sort of like a de-cylindered 3.5L I-5 from the Colorado/Canyon twins, which is sort of like a de-cylindered 4.2L I-6 from the Trailblazer/Envoy/Buick/Oldsmobile/Saab GMT360 SUVs. But it’s not really de-cylindered, as they were all developed jointly.
Interesting side note: They all take the same oil filters, too. 🙂
By techno-crap I mean most anything that requires a phone to work. ABS, stability control, even the mandated back-up camera are all fine with me.
But I have no need for Bluetooth, Apple Play, Android or Google Auto, push-button-start, voice commands, automatic climate control and all the rest of the obvious ‘techy’ crap like automatic high beams, lane-keep-assist, or adaptive cruise control, although regular cruise control would be just fine.
I needed a second key for my completely manual window manual lock s10 and the local hardware store wouldn’t make a key cause they claimed it had a chip. My daughter worked there a couple years later and it works fine. Dumbasses
My key is delightfully simple. If I have a piece of brass and a file, I can make a new one by hand.
The truck is also equipped with a remarkably effective anti-theft device, a paralyzingly mysterious third pedal on the floor.
Ha! My Wagon is the same, I am comfortable leaving the car running. Dog in the car helps
In many of those other countries, pick-up trucks are strictly considered work vehicles and are rarely used as a personal/family vehicle, which is why single cabs sell so well there. The North American insistence to use pickup trucks as a semi-luxury family vehicle is what has killed the regular cab here.
Pickup trucks are not just semi-luxury family vehicles. That’s just how they’re marketed today in the U.S.
Everybody seems to forget that businesses once bought inexpensive little trucks by the millions.
According to Google:
“Millions of compact pickups were sold in North America during the 1980s and 1990s, with annual sales peaking at roughly 1.2 million to 1.4 million units per year in the late 1980s. Over the combined 20-year span, cumulative sales of these highly popular “mini-trucks” reached an estimated 15 to 20 million vehicles.” Sources: [1, 2]
Small Businesses That Relied on Compact Trucks:
Landscapers & Gardeners: Carried mowers, trimmers, and yard waste.
Residential Painters: Hauled ladders on custom racks, paint cans, and drop cloths.
Pool Maintenance Services: Transported chlorine jugs, pumps, and cleaning poles.
Pest Control Technicians: Fitted beds with chemical tanks and pressurized sprayers.
Locksmiths: Used capped beds as mobile workshops with key-cutting machines.
General Contractors: Transported tools and light building materials to jobsites.
Handymen & Electricians: Kept organized toolboxes and wiring spools in the back.
HVAC & Plumbers: Hauled pipes, water heaters, and diagnostic equipment.
Also, Delivery Drivers & Fleet Users:
Auto Parts Delivery: Local parts stores used them daily to drop off brakes and rotors to mechanics.
Courier & Express Mail: Local independent couriers used camper-capped trucks for packages.
Newspaper Distributors: Delivered massive bundles of daily papers to local route carriers.
Appliance & TV Repair: Carried tools, tubes, and replacement parts to homes.
Florists: Transported delicate floral arrangements safely under covered camper shells.
Food Delivery: Used by local catering businesses and early wholesale food suppliers.
Government Fleets: Utilized by city water departments, meter readers, and park rangers.
So there is a market for a small regular-cab truck. Manufacturers just do not want to make them anymore due to lower profit margins. Now most of the auto-parts delivery stores in my area are driving either a Trax or a Maverick, the two cheapest domestic vehicles that are suited for that job anymore.
If either F*rd or Chevrolet would make a small, sub-$25K, basic regular-cab truck, there are still businesses (and individuals) who would line up to buy them.
Most of those users listed would rather use a cargo van or SUV/crossover with an enclosed cargo space than an open bed truck nowadays, so there’s no guarantee that they’d line up to buy a vehicle that’s inherently worse (exposed cargo area). So the total addressable market for small, cheap regular cab trucks is no longer very big. Chevy would probably import the Montana from Brazil if they didn’t need to reengineer it for crash safety.
Back in the day, they all had lockable fiberglass or aluminum cab-height bed caps.
And a van is better for advertising your business.
https://kingofthehill.fandom.com/wiki/Dale%27s_Dead-Bug
My local NAPA replaced an old Ranger with a Yaris…..says a lot
Did they stop buying the compact trucks, or did the manufacturers just stop making them? Model bloat is a thing. At one time the Honda Civic, for instance, was barely 12 feet long; a brand new Civic is literally the size of a 1990 Accord.
The last-generation American-market Hilux (Truck, in US sales) was 174 inches long in the short bed base model. The first-gen Tacoma was approximately the same; the second-gen Tacoma, in its most compact iteration, was over a foot longer. The latest Tacoma, ostensibly a midsize truck, is 213 inches long while offering considerably less cargo bed than the full size-segment 1991 F-150 whose dimensions it eclipses in every metric.
I submit that the manufacturers don’t have to make them bigger. They just do.
Always liked how my Datsun/Nissan pickups were narrow enough they could often slip between trees or bollards that would block most cars.
My little 1st-gen S-10 Blazer was like that, too.
For all of those bemoaning its gargantuan size when compared with whatever mini truck from whatever specified era…
Hey, it’s a step in the right direction – I for one embrace the trend and hope it continues. I owned a 1st gen Geo Metro in the day and recently was behind one in traffic. They were small when I owned one 20 years ago but holy shit – now it is ridiculously tiny compared to literally EVERYTHING around it.
My wife drives a Kia Rio5 which is just 160″ long. It’s a fantastic little car but it’s size really does feel absurd when we’re out in the suburbs or on the interstate compared to everything else on the road. She’s started to consider something larger to be safer even if a new vehicle fits her life less well.
It’s a true bummer that the SUV arms race has pushed people who genuinely like small cars into larger vehicles You’re right, this is a step in the right direction.
That’s genuinely a thing. I’ve been a committed fan of small cars pretty much since the beginning, and have been mostly immune to feeling any kind of intimidation while on the road. But in the last few years when virtually nothing was the same size as my Prius and there were way too many aggressive drivers all piloting pathologically oversized trucks whose headlights were literally higher off the road than my own roof, it was just a bit too much. So the wife drives a RAV now, and feels a bit more respected because the other drivers would most likely feel something if they ran over her.
It’s truly depressing seeing this behemoth being called small because you’re so used to seeing absolutely gargantuan trucks.
At best it’s a tad smaller than the UK-spec Ford Ranger, which over here is overwhelmingly considered a ridiculously oversized vehicle with no discernible rational use. (It can’t do anything as well as a Transit with a Luton box or drop side bed on the back can, in real world usage – except carry four people, at which point, get a crew cab transit.)
It might be sad, but the idea that anyone is attempting any sort of real effort to develop something that isn’t enormous is a pretty big win for us here.
My point was that it still is enormous. And also that apart from a few vanishingly small niches, US trucks are not actually the best vehicle for any job. No-one drives a drop side Transit for the image, but there doesn’t seem to be any non-image reason to pick a big truck.
Someone said this platform was also going to underpin a van too. So no need to pick a truck in this case if a van will do the job.
I defininitely see the thumb of Big Mulch on the scales here in the U.S.
Hey, I’m a freaking van nut. I love vans. Everyone here has had to suffer with me connecting nearly every article to my Chrysler van. I’m absolutely insufferable.
For better or worse (probably worse, lol) image is absolutely a main factor for people spending tens of thousands on a new vehicle. People want to feel special. Trucks seem to do that, even though I don’t quite understand it. Could 90% of the US be served well by a Mitsubishi Mirage? Yes. But the void between need and want is enormous. Hell, I don’t even need my van, I have two kids, but I want it for all the things it can do beyond that.
As I see it, if a number of people choose something like this or a Maverick over a larger truck or SUV, then I’m stoked for these to exist. Even if this vehicle is by no means small, it’s smaller than what most people currently buy, and by extension, that’s a win.
By extension? By contraction, surely? 🙂
I love vans, but the lack of anything small with sliders is keeping me in my hatchback for now. I hope the UEV or Telo van materialize sooner or later. If not, maybe I’ll just import a B-Max in 2037.
I like my van and some of it’s best traits like the ability to move sheet goods are great and all, but if something more akin to an MVP or slightly larger than a Mazda5 were available, I’d prefer that. Driving a full living room around as a daily can get a little tiring.
“…US trucks are actually not the best vehicle for any job.”
One exception: towing. Bigass trucks can drag away a serious amount of mass and if you’re a farmer, there’s often some serious mass – or a hell of a lot of bulk, which requires a not-lightweight trailer to schlep around. You might be able to drive the combine to a field, but life is easier if you can trailer the head over there. Getting down the road when you’re 30′ wide is a challenge, even in farm country. Next field over is one thing, five miles is something else entirely.
You could make the argument, perhaps, that you need one of these colossal trucks for towing your boat, but at the weight classes some of these trucks can tow, you can’t legally tow the boat without a pilot vehicle flying WIDE LOAD markers. But if you’re not trying to move a 30+ foot cabin cruiser down the road, you might be able to get by with less. Even my RAV4 Prime can tow a 17′ bass boat.
You cherry-picked the bit after the qualifier about ‘apart from a few very small niches’.
Anyway, a big Transit dually (or similar from other manufacturers) has pretty serious towing capacity too. Need more than that and you’re looking at small lorries, tractors, etc.
All the real uses for big trucks are not really relevant here, though, since vanishingly few purchasers in the US need to do things like that.
I didn’t cherry pick it so much as forget, just a couple of minutes after reading your comment, the bit where you said niches.
I don’t think it’s actually “vanishingly few,” though. There’s over a million independent farms with 50 acres or more just in the US. That’s a market big enough to justify all the full-size truck offerings; considering trying to run just five acres quickly put me far beyond the limits of my old Hilux. You don’t need to look at the various tasks for long before you get into serious towing, even beyond the capacity of a fully-kitted Transit. My Hilux could tow away maybe two round bales; a Transit, 5 (including the weight of the trailer in these considerations). An F-350 has a base towing capacity that exceeds the Transit’s highest achievable rating, and can be optioned much, much higher – a dozen bales is within the capacity of a single trip behind a Super Duty, whereas the Transit would need three trips to make it happen. And in agriculture as in every other industry segment, time is money.
But then a bizarre segment of shoppers who don’t run a few hundred head of cattle or tote huge combine headers from one field to another – or even have a gigantic boat – also buy the trucks, and that’s just goofy. Those people don’t need all the size, power and capability. They just want it.
Off road capabilities are the only real reason to choose a Ranger over a Transit. Forest guards here use them / similar pick ups.
You can get 4×4 Transits. Body on frame, agricultural suspension, 4wd. What’s the difference?
Ground clearance?
Maybe. Not sure about things like wheelbase, high-centring, and so on. But Transits can have quite a lot of ground clearance depending on spec, and there are always packages that can be fitted to increase ground clearance.
I mean Transit (and Transit-equivalents) are widely used by public services here, so if forest guards are using pick up trucks instead of four wheel drive versions of the vans there must be a reason.
They are the sort of police departments that use 3-door Land Cruisers and Monteros.
The Transit we get in America is AWD and unibody. Ford couldn’t even figure out how to fit bigger tires or a real skid plate to the American one. So if you need to do real off-roading, the Transit doesn’t hold a candle to the Ranger.
I just did some googling, and apparently the Transit isn’t technically BOF – it’s a strange hybrid, when ordering a chassis-cab version to put a bed on the back. The cab section seems to be unibody, whole the rest is a relatively traditional frame.
to answer both, the transit van has chassis rails but the floor pan is welded to the top of the rails to make a monocoque/unibody. The chassis cab variant then has a top hat section welded to the top of the frame to box in those chassis rails, so its a square corss section chassis, not a traditional c section chassis like a truck. If you want one of those you need an Iveco Daily, and those definitely do come with a 4×4 option that would kick a Ranger’s ass.
Are we joking? Behemoth? This thing is TINY for any crew-cab truck. It’s roughly the size of a Subaru Baja!
A Subaru Baja is not a small vehicle, and this must be at least a foot wider, maybe 18″ even.
I am not saying it isn’t smaller than most US trucks. The point is that those are so ridiculously huge this still-very-large vehicle is only small in comparison.
A generation ago US vehicles were a lot bigger than Euro ones. Then ours unfortunately grew to pretty much catch up, and maybe 10 years ago there was near parity in a lot of cases. You lot then decided you weren’t having that, and started driving semi trucks to restore the lead 😉
I drive one of the brand new Clios and that feels big (for a Clio).
Yes, it’s one of those where the model has slowly moved up the range in size terms. Now the Twingo is the size a Clio used to be – I can’t be bothered to Google exact dimensions, but allowing for slight increases for safety reasons that seems about right.
My first car was an 02 Fiat Punto. Less than 10 years later, the Panda was slightly wider, and a bit taller – though still 18cm shorter.
25-30 years ago C-segment used to be called “4 metres” because that was the length of the cars.
My Clio is 4.12m long.
But width is definitely the biggest issue. Fitting new cars in cities, parking spaces and lanes not designed to accommodate them is a faff.
Even for Europe, this is a small truck.
For Europe it is a regular truck. It’s Ranger-sized or nothing. Pick up truck market in Europe is really small.
But all trucks are huge, for anything approaching personal vehicles, in Europe. Which is the point.
I’m also giving you the benefit of the doubt being the only person here to you know… actually see it in person lol.
An actually TINY crew cab truck is a Kei ‘deck van’. I’d bet Changli has some tiny options too. Otherwise it’s just ‘Tiny for the US’
The Baja is an interesting example since it’s the biggest truck Subaru ever made while also being the least capable. Very spot on for something designed for the US market.
The UK-spec Ranger is the same thing as the American spec Ranger, and the whole world’s current spec Ranger…
I wasn’t sure, so I stuck to what I know 🙂
Adjusted for ground clearance I think the overall bodies of the Maverick and the RanCouriero are very similar in size, with the beds being most similar, and the new EV truck having a shorter nose but a slightly longer cab to make room for the rear of the cab to open inside the bed with its mid-gate.
RanCouriero, I love it
Thanks, I have fun with portmanteaus
What is this? A truck for ants?
That’s some impressive trying-to-work-out-a-usable-dimension-from-a-photo-of-a-tyre you’ve done there.
However a 20” wheel will be about 21” in diameter on the outside face (just measure any 20” wheel to get the exact dimension), and that gives you a nice high contrast image to scale from.
You call 195 inches small??
Last time I bought a smallish normal pickup it was a Datsun 720 Regular Cab (Standard Bed): Approximately 172 to 175 inches (14.3 to 14.6 ft).
That’s a full 20 inches shorter.
The Slate has an overall exterior length of 174.6 inches, that’s in the ballpark for small, or at least as small as a regular Japanese compact pickup.
Fora a crew cab pickup, yes this is absolutely small (and it would be foolish to try to sell a single cab truck). It’s not much bigger than a Subaru Baja.
Oh, crew cab.
Looking at the pix, it would make a very nice wagon.
I don’t get crew cabs outside of a few use cases, like hauling workers and , say, a pile of chainsaws.
Yes, wagon! I can’t wait to see that version of this.
We were a Toyota truck family for 40 years.
Never any bigger than the 1989-1994 models.
Always wished for a 4 door model in the US though.
Easier to throw groceries or any of the other crap my wife was always hauling around in the backseat than just a standard cab was.
A four door hilux would be fine. You could still drive it in traffic.
https://www.edwardsgm.com/new-Iron+Mountain-2026-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-WT-3GCNKAEKXTG166123
Foolish? No.
Overpriced? Yes.
I would like an extended cab version. I don’t need 4 seats for a work truck. That should give me more bed length.
The Tacoma Crew Cab, the OG compact crew cab truck was ~203″ long so this is objectively small. My sense is that this isn’t pleasing because the folks asking for a small truck also don’t want four doors. If you do want four doors, it’s tough to understand why you’d go with this over the Maverick.
And what’s a few inches between friends?
It’s how you use it. At least what my girlfriend tells me.
Not sure if having ONLY an electric powered vehicle in already electricity starved regions is a wise decision, from a security and safety perspective. I suppose the same was said of people who replaced all their horses with a Model T.
Well it’s a little easier to make your own electricity off grid than your own gasoline. Ethanol is almost as easy I guess.
So many pro’s and cons no matter what source of energy is used. It all seems academic until the elephant in the room is addressed, which is the excessive mass / weight / size of current vehicles.
Mass begets mass.
I think a smaller footprint would help with the mass, and fitting in parking spaces and garages etc.
The grid was never iny mind when I bought an EV, ever. We are nowhere near that point yet, and perhaps moving away from it for a little bit.
I hope so. Combo of natural gas, solar and wind. Just heard that solar has surpassed coal in electric production here in the US. I’m leery of nukes, stakes are too high and permanent when one goes bad. Expensive too. maybe the new mini reactors will be better. But still have the waste.
Not at all advocating for coal and “dirty” energy sources, but clean energy failures can be extremely deadly too. Failures notwithstanding though, I’d say it’s still better than just, yanno, burning the world alive if you ask me.
Part of the problem with Nikes is that Admiral Hyman G. Rickover pushed a reactor design that was optimized for use on ships and submarines, with military management, but really wasn’t optimal for a power plant on land.
There are so many designs better than pressurized water reactors.
Helium cooled Pebble Bed Reactors for example or Molten Salt Reactors that operate critically but cannot melt down, or accelerator driven reactors that are subcritical to start with.
Fission isn’t inherently unsafe, but the implementations so far are stupid and wasteful as well as unsafe using lots of water.which is not only wasteful but leads to placement in stupid locations near water.
What dumb ass sticks the emergency equipment where it will get flooded?
Fukushima. Emergency switching gear and controllers in the basement because there could never be a tsunami higher than the wall that was built, until there was. I understand that the French have managed their reactor program quite well. Different design that produces far less waste, but what is left can be enriched to weapons grade, or is closer to weapons grade. That cat seems to have gotten out of the bag.
They’re also having issues with having to decrease power output because the river water they rely on has become too warm thanks to climate change.
I wonder what a ‘Air Rickover’ shoe would look like.
I mean, this makes sense. By the virtue of being an EV, they’ve clearly taken some ground clearance out compared to the Maverick, and shaved a little off the roof. The front end looks a little shorter than the Maverick.
Basically, this thing is going to look like an function like an EV Maverick. Most people probably won’t be able to tell that their dimensions are all that different, more than likely it’ll look a little “squatter” than the Maverick and that’s about it.
Lowered trucks look awesome, and this just might be exactly that. If you don’t go off-road, then who cares. I’m 48, and I’ve been off-road 3 times. My pickup could be slammed to the ground and I would only notice that is just looks better.
Yeah there’s nothing wrong with this.
I also appreciate anything that takes up less visual space and makes visibility for other normal cars better.
I’ll admit, there’s a handful of places I go every year that require at a minimum, a soft roader like a Subaru (to get to trail heads, a friend’s camp up a pretty nutty access road that my van wouldn’t handle) so for some people I get the rationale. But I live in the mountains. Normal bumper scrape avoidance clearance and angles should be enough for most.
I don’t understand why adjustable ride height isn’t a thing. Default and optimize for lowered, and have a driveway and fully loaded mode.
Some airbags would be cheap and effective.
Because cost and complexity.
This is supposed to be a budget Ford – Not a Range Rover.
I’m glad you went through this exercise to give us an idea of it’s size – so we could all know that it’s slightly smaller than a Maverick, which makes a lot of sense.
But when I think of a “tiny” truck, I think of Dad’s old 1978 Ford Courier long bed, which was 188.5″ (The short bed was 172″ long) and 61.5″ high.
This new truck is by no means “tiny”
My 2011 Ranger is pretty close to my buddy’s Maverick in length and height. It’s the “supercab”, so a lot shorter cab that the Maverick but a much longer bed. The big difference is the width. The ranger is much narrower.
Despite being a 2011, the design of most aspects of the truck are much older. And you feel that when you sit inside and feel how narrow it is. You are one with the door. And having driven more modern vehicles for a while, my immediate reaction was “ooh, this is great for resting my arm out the window” followed by “if I get t-boned by a bicycle I’m a dead man”.
Point being, I don’t think we’re getting a truck smaller than this thing any time soon that passes crash testing. HOWEVER I do think if they weren’t trying to make it look like an american pickup, they could shorten that nose a ton (maybe not quite a cab-over, but more van-like) since there is no engine up there and utilize that for a longer bed.
T boned by a bicycle? Wow. Pretty sure it wouldn’t kill you
I like the Telo approach. Long front clips feel like lazy design to me now.
I am so sick of hearing trucks liked this described as tiny when they are still significantly longer than any vehicle I’ve ever owned. Fine they are smaller than modern full-sized trucks but being smaller than a house doesn’t mean they are tiny.
The only properly small trucks we may eventually see are the Slate and Telo, if they manage to make it to market and succeed.
I think resurrecting the Courier name would be better than Ranchero. Just steal Nissan’s “Li’l Hustler” instead?
For non-F*rd owners, in comparison a 2024 Chevy Trax LS is 61.4 inches tall. 71.8 inches wide, (not counting the side mirrors) and 178.6 inches in length, according to Edmunds.
So if the platform will be used for a sedan or small CUV, it looks like it might be bigger than a Trax.
Trashes have gotten absurdly large for having just two generations. Yikes.
“Trashes have gotten absurdly large for having just two generations. Yikes.”
Our Trax is only 3 inches taller than our 1st-gen Cruze, but 1 inch of that is additional ground clearance. The Cruze is a compact car.
Overall Length: 181.0 in.
Overall Width: 70.7 in.
Overall Height: 58.1 in.
Wheelbase: 105.7 in.
Ground Clearance: 6.3 in.
The Trax is a subcompact SUV, but it’s more like a small wagon to us.
Overall Length: 178.6 in
Overall Width (without mirrors): 71.8 in
Overall Height: 61.4 in.
Wheelbase: 106.3 in
Ground Clearance: 7.3 in.
And it’s not trash. It’s a nice little wagon. 🙂
Wasn’t the Trax originally based on the Mokka? Those are the current measurements for the Mokka:
Overall Length 163.4 in
Overall Width (without mirrors) 70.4 in
Overall Height 60.4 in
Wheelbase 100.7 in
Ground Clearance 7.5 in
So it has indeed grown quite a lot. More C-segment than B-segment.
Yes, it’s essentially a Daewoo (on the Aveo/Sonic platform, in fact) sold as the trax, chevy tracker, opel mokka, and buick encore.
“Compact” isn’t that compact anymore. My point was that the second-generation model trax is much bigger than the first-gen (which also wasn’t truly “compact” but met the contemporary definition at the time), which had measurements of 167.6″ long, 69.9″ wide, 100.6″ wheelbase, and 65.2″ tall, essentially making the new one an entire class size larger. As for the Crude, it’s close in size to mid-size sedans from the ’80s and’ 90s, so also not really “compact”.
As for the “trash” thing, you can thank autocorrect for that. Given that “trax” is a made-up word I can see how it would have decided to change it. It changes Ford SportTrac as well, and gets flummoxed with some of the modern Alphabet Soup-like “names” of a number of vehicles, probably worst of all the cadillac models that end in “-iq”.
Autocorrect also decided the Cruze was crude… 😀
Lol indeed
Well they are compact on the inside with all the interior clutter.
All the armrests, bolsters, cup holders, center consoles. And a big honking switch for the automatic transmission mode selector, pluss that thing that always bangs the nerve on my knee.
The Trax is only about one inch longer than my Jetta Sportwagen, which most people would call a compact wagon. Apparently the stock height is 59.2 inches and width is 70.1 inches, not far off from the Trax either.
Yeah the new trax is definitely more wagon-like. A pity they made it so hideous.
Hideous? Maybe the 1st-gen.
The 2nd-gen is a cool little wagon.
https://carfax-img.vast.com/carfax/v2/8909208074862620847/5/640×480?format=webp
https://autoimage.capitalone.com/dealer/2024-Chevrolet-Trax-LS-KL77LFE24RC198996-dealersync_KL77LFE24RC198996_47414H-80e2ebab74751da351a86899e2ed08a3.jpg?width=1214&height
The LS models without the roof racks look the most wagon-like.
I think your bias is showing. They’re objectively and subjectively ugly, even if they are more wagon-like than hatchback-like. The fact that they also resemble a Nissan or kia/Hyundai more than a chevy is also not really in its favor, either.
The only current gm crossover/SUV that isn’t entirely unpleasant to look at is the equinox EV, but that also looks like a stretched Hyundai Kona, so it’s not original nor unique in any way.
By comparison, a good-looking small crossover that also is a bit wagon-like would be the Mazda CX-50. Despite the fake rear corner vents it looks good from all angles, and is essentially universally-praised for being a good entire package.
I think it comes down to individual taste.
I feel that this Trax looks nicer than this CX-50.
The Mazda has black wheels, which automatically makes it look worse, but if you like those hideous things, you can always opt for the Trax Activ with the black wheels.
Overall they’re similar looking vehicles, but I still feel that the Trax is better looking. Now the CX-50 is available with AWD so if you compare the CX-50 to the Trailblazer, then I’ll admit that the CX-50 is the better looking vehicle if you could get it with bright or polished aluminum wheels.
Oh boy – all that math for getting dimensions most people on earth will have to pick up their calculator (app) to get some useful (metric) information.
Neither does „200 in“ count as a „small vehicle“ anywhere outside the US of A.
Happy you get a useful „small“ electrical truck anyway 🙂
About 4,95 x 1,68 m (Length x Height)
Thank you very much 🙂
Not just USA you are forgetting Liberia, Mynamar and Surfers!
And most Canadians are going to be conversant in most Imperial units (Fahrenheit is the only common one I’ve struggled with)
Handy little tip: think about Fahrenheit as “% hot”
38°C = 100°F = 100% hot
21°C = 70°F = 70% hot
0°C = 32°F = 32% hot
-18°C = 0°F = 0% hot
Yeah, that’s what’s helped me get a handle on it!
After writing my previous comment, I’d like to amend my statement. I’m generally good with the most common unit of a type, so pounds and gallons are fine, but ounces and pints aren’t as intuitive
As a Brit I can ‘do’ imperial measurements, but if I have to do any maths then I’ll convert everything into metric/SI, so that I don’t have to faff around with base 12, or 3, or 14, or whatever.
I have a spreadsheet that will divide any input by 25.4, then divide it by 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 so I can reverse engineer US imported data to the size they designed it in. Sometimes it’s just a decimal fraction, which is another layer of bullshittery. They do like it when I refer to a 3/16 doodad correctly though, so it’s worth it.
They should have rejected imperial measurements when they left the empire.
Don’t even get me started on Fahrenheit, the scale that starts at the melting point of one particular anti-freeze and goes up to not-quite-the-right-human-body-temperature-because-we-measured-it-wrong.
Oh yeah, Fahrenheit can do one, and whatever ‘fluid ounces’ are supposed to be. Is it a weight? A volume? Who knows?
It has fluid in the name, is it really that hard to figure out?
I think is the occurrence of the word “ounce” in the name which causes the confusion, because that’s already a unit of mass. And sometimes force.
Jesus, it’s not “one particular anti-freeze”, it’s a combination of water, salt, and ammonium chloride, and it was chosen specifically because it can freeze water without the need for any mechanical refrigeration!
If freezing water is so important why not have that as zero?
… Did you forget high school chemistry? Because the freezing temperature of water in the eutectic sodium & ammonium chloride is NOT the same as the freezing point of pure water at sea level.
And think about a phase change (liquid/solid or liquid/vapor) is that the medium can absorb thermal energy without changing temperature.
So yes, the eutectic solution is superior because it can self-regulate to a constant, stable temperature without the need for external cooling
We didn’t study that at high school because in the UK Fahrenheit is just something that old people bang on about when they can’t understand whether 20C means they have to wear a coat or not.
Also according to Wikipedia the Fahrenheit scale is now calibrated using the freezing point of water at 32 degrees.
Most Imperial units are actually base 2
For easy comparison:
Ford Maverick. L: 200 in; H: 69 in; W: 73 in
Ford “Ranchero” (est.). L: 196 in; H: 64 in; W: ?? in
Slate Truck: L: 175 in; H: 69 in; W: 71 in
Telo MT1: L: 152 in; H: 66 in; W: 73 in
*L=~195
And I honestly think the H is probably closer to 66.
Thank you though for that comparo list!
OTOH, the Ranchero is actually going to make it to market, and the Slate and especially the Telo are still very much an open question. I mean, I hope they do, but I expect that the Slate is going to flop due to lack of ameneties, and the Telo just doesn’t have the money behind it that it needs to make it out of the hole.
I think this vs. the Slate is going to really demonstrate that people are willing to have a 20″ longer vehicle if they can get four doors.
I think old, small pickups are cool. But putting aside the cool/nostalgia factor, I’d take a four-door pickup like this or the Mav every time because 4 seats is far more practical to me than 20″ shorter length or a 6 foot bed.
Right? As long as I can get a bed extender for it or there’s some way to easily secure a bike or a kayak, the utility of more enclosed space outweighs the bigger bed for most use cases that I’m likely to have. especially if it can tow something like a uhaul motorcycle trailer.
I’m really hoping Telo makes it, but this pickup might be the thing that breaks it. Assuming they come to market and hit their price target, Telo’s price is going to be substantially higher than the Ford. I’d love to have one, but people are going to probably prioritize a cheaper vehicle from a known manufacturer.
Also prioritize one that doesn’t look like ass lol
If Telo’s correct about only needing 5k units/yr to hit profitability, I think they’ll be fine. It’s a lot more capable than the Slate, and priced accordingly, still much lower than other trucks on the market.
The big question will be what sort of capability the Ford has compared to the other two. The F150 sells best, but Chevy and Dodge are still in the game.
I suspect that profitability at 5k units is a little optimistic, but that is a good point. They don’t have to be high-volume to succeed. I’m really hoping they can deliver the product they’ve been saying it is.
And, yeah, Ford’s capabilities are still a question, but they have already said they aren’t prioritizing towing, so it probably won’t be the most capable.
Slate seems like it’s ready to start shipping later this year, so it will beat the Ford to market, but it will only have a short window to prove itself. I like to think the trucks all have different niches they’re serving and they’ll all survive, but if Ford can hit a sub-$30,000 MSRP, that’s going to be hard to beat.
I don’t think Ford will hit under $30K, or if it is, it’ll be something like $29,995, for an unobtanium spec that no dealer will ever order more than one of so they can advertise that they have them “Starting at under $30K” With Ford’s history, I’d guess that the model you can live with will be $35K, and the one you *want* will be over $40K.
Slate is taking a big swing on what I think is a very limited market. It would be nice if they succeed, or at least survive. I think they’re avoiding some of the Vinfast and Karma pitfalls of overly-complicated tech and software, and a simpler-to-manufacture design, but I am quite afraid that they went too far to the side of simplicity. People like certain creature comforts that they have gotten used to in even the most spartan cars from mainline companies.
Sadly, for most people who use a car as appliance, it’s still not a rational decision, or a rational evaluation of their actual needs vs. wants. The wants win out, and the irrational need to be prepared for *any* eventuality, and placing image over practicality dooms the purchase of a sensible compact hatchback in favor of a 3-row semi-luxury crossover.
The Slate would be a viable choice for a business with local travel and a need for the bed. Like a pest control company, parts delivery company, etc. A shell on the back to keep stuff dry, a little more safe from sticky fingers.
The Slate would be a viable choice for a business with local travel and onsite parking and a need for the bed. Like a pest control company, parts delivery company, etc. A shell on the back to keep stuff dry, a little more safe from sticky fingers.
That’s how I see any starting price. I know I’m going to want some options. My RAV4 cost around $50k (Prime with the highest trim). The base price was about $30k. This doesn’t have different drivetrain options, but it will likely offer a large battery. I figure I’d be spending $45k on one of these if they offer options I’d want, but it’s hard to say until they release some details.
I have to think they’re going to offer single and dual motor configs, and probably small and large battery. Plus the inevitable trim levels where the one option you really want is tied to a $3K option package.
That’s fair. So the RAV4 starting at about $30k and top trim Prime being close to $55k might be a good frame of reference to set expectations for this.
That seems regrettably realistic.
Unless I missed it, did you ever get around to estimating the wheelbase?
Oops, I only read the numbers in prose, not in the pictures. The wheelbase is around 122.11-124.51in (3,102-3,163mm).
This compares to the Maverick’s 121.1in (3,076mm), F-150 Lightning’s 145.5in (3,696mm), Escape’s 106.7in (2,710mm), Bronco Sport’s 105.1in (2,670mm), the Telo MT1’s 111in (2,819mm), and Rivian R1T’s 135.8in (3,452mm).
Ford’s Chinese JV partner Changan makes the Deepal E07, which has a fairly similar size at 122.8 (3,120mm) and 198.6in (5,045mm) in length.
So are they only doing a truck on this platform? Or will we get a small SUV and a wagon form factor out of this?
An Escape replacement based on this platform is scheduled come out within a year of the truck according to several good sources. Other vehicles are TBD.
It is the Universal EV Platform, after all. I’m hoping for a sedan, too.
Compact crossover and small van are in the pipeline.
There’s a gif thing that shows the various body styles and notes about different ‘sizes’:
https://www.theautopian.com/ford-is-building-a-30000-electric-pickup-as-part-of-a-5-billion-investment-into-affordable-electric-cars/
None of which are a sedan.
“the tires are Michelin 245/50 R 20s”
Those are not small car tyres.
It would also be about X5-sized. Which is not a small car.
It’s different with EVs. They tend to have bigger wheels and tires due to the the battery pack.
But it’s not really necessary, is it? BYD’s Dolphin (a C-segment hatchback) has 205/50 R17, the 5 (B-segment hatchback) 195/55 R18 and the Twingo (A-segment hatchback has 195/60 R16. All BEVs.
Then again the truck in the pic might not be wearing base model wheels, so there’s that.
All three vehicles you mentioned have wheels roughly 2 inches bigger than what a comparable ICE vehicle would’ve had 10–15 years ago. I think you just furthered DT’s point.
He says EVs, not modern cars, your point is valid (everything is being supersized today), but why the specific relation to EVs?
My hybrid / ICE model (B-segment hatchback) has 195/60 R16 and optional 215/45 R18, so inline with the BEVs.
Urban Runabout has a very good comment below as well.
That’s probably a high trim since it looks like it has a front hood camera and camera in the mirror arm tips for 360 view.
It’s common for prototype mules to have wheel sizes that are very different from the production intent. Sometimes because it just hides the design language or the proportions. Sometimes because the wheels aren’t ready yet, so they grab some from another vehicle. Sometimes because they need extra space for brakes they are testing or something along those line.
I don’t know that’s the case here, but I’d hope for some smaller wheels and taller sidewalls.
Hopefully, although they should also test these wheels / tyres, if they will be offered as production options, to refine chassis setup.
Why would battery packs dictate that?
Yes, weight to a certain extent – but Ford Camper Specials (up to 5 tons when loaded with a camper and paraphernalia) did just fine on 16″ and 16.5″ (!) wheels with big sidewalls a few decades ago. And certainly not due to brake clearance needs since much braking is handled via regeneration.
Or is it that larger wheels and tires are simply the current style?
A lot of EVs have large wheels because of large brakes -they are often faster than the ICE vehicles in their class and also much heavier. They need to be able to stop all that mass if the regen doesn’t help. The up side is that if you are using regen most of the time the brakes last forever.
“…they are often faster than the ICE vehicles in their class…”
Shorter acceleration times does not equal overall speed – of which EVs are generally no faster, and are often limited to preserve range.
So there’s no need for larger brakes and wheels than a similarly sized and weighted vehicle.
Especially on an economy vehicle.
Some BEVs top speed is also limited by gearing curiously. Electric motors “rev” a lot higher than regular ICEs, but there’s a point where they can’t spin any faster. Combine this with single speed gearboxes… et voilà, limited top speed.
Why are bigger wheels necessary? Why in the world would I want 20″ wheels on my small car based EV pickup?
Larger brakes due to more mass, regeneration systems for the brake calipers, and if the EV has hub motors could all demand a larger wheel.
I’m hoping the 20″ wheel is for a top-trim model and not standard. I prefer sidewall to wheel if all else is equal.
The regen system uses the motors, which are inbound.
Hub motors basically don’t exist in production vehicles besides a few exceptions.
I also doubt this vehicle will be that heavy that it’ll require brakes so big that you need 20″ wheels. An R1T requires 20″ wheels because it has massive brakes, but that’s a very heavy truck. This should hopefully be lighter.
The first generation Chevy Bolt had 215/50R17. That’s quite a bit smaller and they didn’t look at all undersized.
Hopefully the 20s will be the largest option and there’ll be smaller ones in the lower and midline trims.
Curiouser and curiouser. Again, the size is a plus, though I’d prefer a two-door extended cab and longer bed. Many would argue that wouldn’t sell as well since people would use these as family cars, but I’d argue Ford already offers an affordable, small four-door truck in the Maverick for the family crowd and it’s more suited for that use case. This littlest truck is equally likely to be acquired by singles or couples who don’t need another seat, but would like more hauling capability. Of course, there is no EV Maverick, so that’s a mark for making this a four-door, too.
I’m wondering if this will be AWD from the jump or if Ford is going to charge extra for that and make us wait as with the hybrid Maverick. I suspect battery space will dictate a lot of that. Decent range might not be achieved if a second motor has to be added (excluding hub motors) in the limited space available. Also think any towing capability will be minimal if just FWD/RWD. Still hoping for a midgate.
As pictured, that ground clearance wouldn’t let this truck make it into my driveway without scraping its belly.
My current proposed small truck favorite is the Telo, which is even smaller (taller though) and manages to pack a lot more utility and probably range, too. If it ever makes it to production, that is. Much more expensive than the Ford’s price estimate, but I’ve got to believe that price will be close to a bare bones truck and that places the Ford in the Slate’s wheelhouse. I’d still lean toward the Slate in that case.
Ford’s advantages are that they’re good at trucks and don’t need to rely on outside capital to move forward, so this might be the only survivor until other big car companies join the fray.
Thanks for all the great work in bringing this to us. It is exciting.
I’d bet my britches this will be standard RWD, no way are they offering AWD that cheap. Definitely an option I could see, probable paring with a larger battery.
Agree.
It will almost definitely be 2WD for the extra range, with a dual motor AWD as an option that also serves as the power upgrade. The battery will likely be identical for either version. Expectations for towing capability is probably always going to be relatively low for a small truck, so I expect them to sacrifice most of it; it should probably match a typical mainstream compact crossover.
Side note: hub motors aren’t proven to increase range in any way.
I was thinking of packaging with hub motors versus any range performance since they wouldn’t use as much space and reduce battery location space. I agree though that battery size has probably been optimized as much as it can be with future AWD versions making do the same size, so hub motors wouldn’t do anything about that and have their own issues.
Oh I see, with hub motors you could use a battery pack that’s longer in length but shorter/thinner in height, meaning you can lower the roofline for a given amount of rear headroom, resulting in less drag and more range & efficiency. Or you could just make the pack bigger and get more range that way, lol.
In general it’s better to keep the number of battery packs you design for a vehicle to a minimum; offering a standard range LFP and a long range NMC is usually enough, and in North America offering just the latter is fine too. Bonus if you can share packs across several vehicles.
That’s nearly five metres long…which isn’t small in terms of your average car. It’s certainly a tad shorter than the only other small EV pickup that I’m aware of (KGM Musso EV) which is nearly 5.2 metres. But that only comes out that way because of the platform it sits on. Which dictates a longish hood.
Surely Ford could package an EV platform that gives a shorter hood, keeps the interior space and maximises the otherwise miniscule load area which would (I would think) be key to the marketing…
No matter how you look at it, this is a large vehicle.
If you look at it backwards through some binoculars it will look incredibly small.
It is not a large vehicle. Long relative to non-pickups? Sure; it’s the length of a Grand Cherokee. But it’s a small truck.
Just checked that the base regular cab EDM Ranger is slightly bigger than this. And that the smallest F-150 is about the same size as a Ranger (only significantly deviates in width, by around 100mm).
Crazy.
In the US context, it’s not large. But everywhere else it is. And, like the Subaru Outback Baja before it, it’s compromised.
And this is why it’s “large” in the international sense. People are already complaining the bed is too short to be useful; if it was a 2 door people would complain it didn’t have enough seats (like the Slate); if it was a weird cabover style people would complain it was ugly (like the Telo).
The truth is that to meet the practical needs of a “truck” owner in the US right now it just needs to be bigger. Shoving all that stuff into a platform this size is enough of a compromise; they’ll never manage it with an even smaller footprint.
Counterpoint: if they were able to fit a properly sized frunk, then it was absolutely the right decision to add some hood length to accommodate it, since frunks are extremely useful in pickup trucks specifically.
I think any 2-row pickup is inherently going to be longer than a crossover unless it has an extremely stubby bed; crossovers get utility from total cargo volume, while utility for pickups is disproportionately dependent on length.
A Volkswagen Transporter has no real bonnet or frunk. The dual cab chassis version has a 2.4 metre (8 foot) bed and is/was less than 6 metres long. And has seats for six. There’s a perception and packaging problem here. Which is fine if you (and enough other people) can accept the compromises.
The compromise with the Transporter is that your legs are the crumple zone, and your lungs are the air bags. Not sure it’s possible to build something like that and conform to modern US safety expectations.
If the “universal” trucklet has a midgate, that will help considerably with bed space.
VW will sell you one right now that’s actually a rebadged Ford Transit Custom. So that argument is utter bullshit….
That layout is also ugly (if not viewed through the VW nostalgia lens).
If Ford released a Telo-like truck that was 20″ shorter with a 6 foot bed, it just plain wouldn’t sell. I think this is larger than it needs to be, but I’m genuinely interested (esp if it has a frunk). I view the Telo as an interesting product, but I would never buy one for myself.
And that’s from a guy who drives a Mazda5 because of the practicality. I consider myself somewhat immune to the stylistic preferences of the general public, but even I can’t bring myself to like the Telo.
It might be ugly but it’s been popular for decades. Ford even sells one…
The Transporter dual cab chassis’s primary role is to serve as a utility vehicle for commercial purposes in countries limited by vehicle size, while the Ford’s primary role is to serve as a small family utility vehicle for personal/private users in countries limited by high-speed range. The former doesn’t care as much about comfort, crash safety, high speed aero, etc while the latter does.
BREAKING NEWS: Ford has already released a recall for it.
…. And a stop-sale. Customers are urged to park it outside.
I believe Jeep is trademarking the phrase “park it outside” based on frequency of us.
Better a voluntary recall than sweeping it under the rug and hoping no one notices, especially lawyers and government officials, as a number of Ford’s competitors are wont to do.