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]
My 03 S10 is barely taller than the bottom of a window on a Sierra and has a longer bed. I use my truck all weekend long. Packouts are fine. I fit a new water heater in it and closed the tailgate
So if this thing is 195″ long x 66″ tall, that is a couple inches shorter, and 20 inches longer than the Slate. For 4 doors, this seems totally plausible. I think it would be a good package for people that only use a truck as a truck on the weekends, no WT trims need apply.
Also, it’s the RanchEVo, clearly.
If the Slate has any chance, they better get it out there before this thing. (I have zero confidence they will.)
Guess I picked the wrong day to give up acid.
It needs to lose the rear seats and most of that area, and add that to the bed. Nocalray is correct – my take is that it’s practically a small SUV with the rear section of the roof missing.
Trucks need to haul stuff in order to be trucks. 95% or more of the vehicles on the road have two or less occupants, and the vast majority of the time, just the driver. The rear seat is usually used as a parcel shelf or just takes up space.
Lengthen the bed and you have a winner here.
This bed is two tire diameters long, or about 5 feet. That’s just short enough to make potential buyers move on and possibly consider a larger, more capable truck. Lose the back seat and it’s easily 7 feet, which is eminently usable, with room for secure storage behind the front seats.
Oh, and Ford, how about some more window glass? This looks like it’s taking its cues from the Camaro, which is not a very good idea.
The Maverick’s bed is 4.5′. Your garden variety crew cab F150 has a 5.5′ bed. Neither of those vehicles’ specs are hampering sales in the least.
Not everyone needs a Super Duty.
The biggest benefit of the bed on this, the Maverick, the Baja, etc., is that it is exterior cargo space. Dirty, smelly, or wet stuff doesn’t make the interior dirty, smelly, or wet. This isn’t a pickup for hauling a bunch of lumber. It’s for a few bags of mulch. It’s for your wetsuit and scuba gear. It’s for a dirty toolbox.
A 122″ wheelbase? Just about the same as the last Fleetwood Brougham?
That’s not a truck, it’s a sedan with the trunk lid removed. $30K is too much for a vehicle I’m going the beat the hell out of. If you’re buy that just get a sedan and pay the delivery fee.
But then you can’t slap the lumber and say “that ain’t goin anywhere”.
I was part of a consumer test panel to evaluate something very similar. Definitely a unique and cool vehicle. Based on the Maverick’s success, this should be wildly popular in the city/suburbs if its truly >$30k and has moderate range
20 inch wheels? Yawn. Can we go back to 17s already?
15s!
LLMs are not that great for math.
Very evidently it sucked badddd.
Yeah, much better to use a real math tool like Excel. LLMs weren’t really designed for mathematical tasks; they’re using math to predict what words go next in a sentence, to oversimplify a bit.
I’m just going to keep putting it out in the universe that the fabric covered back is to hide a mid-gate in hopes that I will it into existence.
instead of a midgate, do any trucks have like a foldout tailgate extender?
Toyota had something like that on the EPU concept.
https://www.theautopian.com/the-toyota-epu-compact-electric-pickup-truck-concept-deserves-to-be-built-for-real/
Why not something like this?
https://www.harborfreight.com/truck-bed-extender-69650.html?hftm_sc=14
It’s fun to see the Autopian’s excitement about this vehicle. It’s not something I could use, but I’m interested to see what else Ford might do with the bones. An EV Focus hatchback, even 4 door, would be hard to resist.
And I love how the various staff skillsets complement each other.
It’s very much a team here! Gotta lean into what makes us all great.
They’ve said UEV is meant to support any type of smaller vehicle. 190″ is closer to Taurus than Focus, but either could work on the platform.
I’m personally more interested in a small van or follow up to the B-Max, but I do want more cars on the road again.
It’s still giving me Smyth Charger Ute vibes, I thought they were going after Slate and Telo but looks like they might actually be going to Ute-ville. The camo covers up the bottom of the window which I’m sure will have the usual Ford truck dip, but the roof height, especially if it has the Rivian R2 inboard spoiler, is still fairly low compared to like the hood.
The bed has to be at least 48″ wide for the standard plywood measure, and looking at the Mazda behind it which has a 52 inch bed width it might be juuuust at 48 inches.
Also wondering if those 20s will be stock, as that thing is riding low. Like I get it’s not for offroading but standard production model trucks generally have much more fender gap, even the Maverick Lobo which is their lowrider model has more gap than this, unless they don’t have the suspension set for 2 American males sitting in the front, or some cement bags in the frunk or something lowering it.
Despite my 6’3″ 220# frame, I am more than comfortable in my Maverick with plenty of headroom to spare, even with the sunroof. If the Ranchero (lol) offers similar cabin space utilization, it should be golden. I had an F-150 loaner and had to return it the afternoon I picked it up; way too much truck for my driving comfort.
I, too, am a sasquatch. If I can’t fit in a vehicle, it’s a dealbreaker. Gen1 and 2 VW Rabbits were out, Gen1 Dodge Dakotas were out, Dodge Stratuses (Stratii?) were out, older and smaller older Toyota pickups were out.
And yet, I fit perfectly in an old Beetle, a Dodge Neon, Gen2 Dakotas and Durangos, and a little Gen1 Mitsubishi pickup. Vehicle size bears little relation to passenger ergonomics. It’s the design of the cabin that matters.
And I know what you mean about the F150…it’s a boat. I currently drive an ’05 Tundra, and while it’s perfectly fine to drive, maneuvering it in and out of parking spots and other semi-tight spots drives me absolutely crazy. I refuse to even try to parallel-park it. I much prefer small vehicles.
…if someone would just make a proper small truck again, I’d be all over that shit. Single cab, maybe a bit of extra storage space behind the seats for my crap, and a six-foot bed would be just dandy. Also, yes, I’d need to be able to fit in it. Doesn’t need to go 0-60 in 2 seconds, or even be able to spin the tires. I don’t need plush, I don’t need more than two decent speakers, and I don’t need electric windows and all the other crap. Buttons and knobs, no f—ing big screen in the middle of the dash, and a single-DIN slot for a decent stereo. A/C would pretty much be a requirement, though…it’s still spring, and it’s pushing up against 100F here.
I’m cautiously hopeful about the Slate truck, but I’m still worried. So many manufacturers don’t get it. I’m probably gonna have to hang onto my Tundra until it dies, or I die. Given the state of my bowels, I could die like Elvis did at any time.
…okay, I’m done ranting. Take me back to my room…it’s time for pudding and The Young and the Restless.
Geez, sounds like you want a 2nd gen s10 with the 6
No, I want my old ’86 Mitsubishi pickup with the 2.0l 4cyl.
Re the truck actually being that not-tall: Yes, it looks that short to me, the proportions above and below the beltline indicate it. Tiny greenhouse, approaching ZZ Top chopped hot rod level. And short is so important for EVs for have a small frontal area to multiply by the Cd.
Re Griffin’s photo kit: wow, nice stuff. Of course being in your profession justifies it and requires it. I was thinking maybe you used an a7S or an A9, but you have the best of both action and resolution worlds in the a1 with a GM2.
Re the photogrammetry: cool stuff.
Also re photogrammetry, for anyone: Keep in mind that if a vehicle is stationary like in a parking lot and you have an iphone (maybe there’s similar on some android phones?), there’s the Measure app that will use the built in LIDAR to do live measurements.
It’s a good piece of cam kit, no doubt! I used to have an A7IV and A7RIV but got further into motorsports photography so I wanted something faster, which left the A9 and A1 lines, but then I linked up with DT and started doing more video so I needed something that was a better hybrid all-arounder which ruled out the 7S line and the A9. A9 is good at video, not great when compared to the A1. On the flip side, I don’t need 50mp but I’m not mad at it. Everything is a trade off at this level.
When I do Polycam scans, I always add something of known dimensions to the scan. Then I can use that as a reliable scale when I put it into modelling software.
I was thinking that someone whose work involves hunting for spy shots in areas where testing is done would carry either a ruler or a measured stick, maybe two feet or a meter long, to put on the ground alongside a parked vehicle. Placed right on the drip line and at middle of the wheelbase would be perfect. A carpenter’s folding ruler would be easy to carry.
I use an awesome vintage Lufkin No.1206 metal folding ruler.
I had to look that up, never heard of a metal folder. That thing rules! I imagine it’s half the size of a wooden one when folded.
I’m very interested in this vehicle. But I’m a bit put off by the fact it may be SMALLER than the Maverick. I liked the Maverick and the overall size seemed good to me. But when I looked at one while shopping, the interior just felt cramped.
If this new vehicle is even smaller and with a possibly smaller interior, that would be a hard sale for me.
I was under the impression the entire purpose of offering this vehicle was to be smaller than the Maverick?
First, I REFUSE to get excited about a $30K truck that will be impossible for me to buy short of me also buying an airline ticket to East Bumf*ck, Idaho on a random Tuesday. Based on recent experience with the Maverick, the majority of Ford dealers will add dealer markups and/or other crap you don’t want to pay for like magic undercoating, so that the truck will cost $35K, or $40K (or even more) before tax/title/registration.
WHEN Ford enables buyer to purchase this truck for its claimed $30K MSRP, THEN I’ll get excited.
I know that’s not the point of this article of course.
With that said, I’ll say that the greenhouse looks oddly squashed, as if it had been grafted onto the truck body from a small sedan.
I dunno, East Bumf*ck is nice this time of year. Maybe make a vacation out of it?
In its defense, there’s probably a fantastic BBQ place in town that would make the trip almost worthwhile if the Ford dealer (who promised to sell me the new EV truck for $30K) welches on the deal when I show up with my checkbook.
The best BBQ is over the tracks in West Bumf*ck out there by the old box factory.
Find the trucks with the specifications that you want on Cargurus, and email the dealerships with your non-negotiable, no surprises, no BS offer. One will accept, sooner or later.
Hint: the more days the truck has been sitting on their lot, the more likely they are to accept such an offer.
This is so wrong!
Everyone knows you forgot to use the pi measurement, as well as forgot the use of the abacus…
Or maybe just the wheel of fortune.
“I’ll take small trucks for 200 Alex.”
I’m dead
Ionic 5 pickup now that’s what we need. Basically a ev rabbit pickup. The ford is interesting. I’ve heard people saying the maverick is too big of course people want a 2 door mini truck and probably have or have had a mini truck. The shorter rear doors looks sort of like some of the extented cabs. Doesn’t seem terrible. A true extended cab might not be a terrible thing.
A true El Camino styled body would fly out the door as soon as the transport carrier dropped them off. Car body, two doors, useful bed, easy to park and see out of, decent electric range, reasonable price, and attractive paint colors would make for a top selling vehicle.
I think the SSR seems to indicate the Camino isn’t the hot seller we thought it would be. Granted, that thing was hella expensive, so maybe that was more the problem?
I’m still dubious since Hyundai also cancelled the Santa Cruz and hardly anybody sells a 2 door anything anymore.
I think it could be if priced right. But I also feel the slate has the whole industry on their shoulders. If they do well, maybe others will take some chances. If they don’t nothing will change. No one will know for sure why it didn’t work because it’s so different and that might cause problems too. People were begging for a model 3 truck and got a cyber truck they didn’t buy. Maybe ev buyers are different enough at least for now to go back to things that worked well.
66″ tall means it juuuuust could hide a monster truck/field sprayer tire behind the cab. (I actually got jumpscared by a field sprayer on 66x43s the other day. Big monster tricycle booking it around a blind corner in town…)
I would doubt it’d be much narrower than a Maverick, though. We like our elbow room here.
So it seems the super-secret vaunted Ford “skunkworks” that Mr. Farley has mentioned at every possible public appearance has managed to basically shave 6″-ish in length from a Maverick and make it an EV, the next question is did the 6″ come from rear seat room, the bed, or the “engine” bay? It just does not change the overall game unless Ford can somehow actually keep the price at $30k the same way they kept the Maverick at $20k and the Lightning at $39k. Oh, wait… And if it DOES stay at $30k what’s the reason to purchase a Maverick now from the same manufacturer for anyone who has a garage or driveway with an outlet?
The EV makes kind of sense in modern urban areas with a lot of infraestructure, here in Mexico City the Maverick is a better option due the lack of recharging stations and that kind of stuff
This is an old architect’s trick. I can’t tell you how many times I have drawn building elevations (and floor plans) based on a photograph. Simply by measuring a few key items. The height of a door. The size of a trim piece, and the master of all modules – count the bricks. Take overall and close up pictures, measure a couple of key items and boom – accurate drawings.
The width numbers have me concerned. I know that what they provided here is likely wildly inaccurate, but if the bed isn’t wide enough to fit a full sheet of plywood, it’s not going to be nearly as useful and a much harder sell. This is a vehicle that I have very much been waiting for, but if I can’t get a sheet of plywood in it, the TELO people might have my money.
The width numbers are certainly inaccurate. I just like Photogrammetry and wanted to show it off
Maybe it will have a 120V plug in the bed for a skillsaw…
Y’all, give it up on the single cabs. They aren’t coming back, especially for a vehicle this size. Most buyers don’t want them, stopped buying them, and the market responded. I owned a 2006 single cab F-150 for ten years – I bought it because I was young and thought it looked cool (and yes, it did look cool). But I can be honest with myself, and that is, it just wasn’t a very usable vehicle especially after I started a family. Now I drive a crew cab Nissan Frontier, it’s still ‘small’ compared to a full size truck but it gives me extra space for the car seat and anything else I want to keep dry, and I can make the short bed work for weekend warrior runs to Home Depot.
And I know you can take my argument and run it through the wringer, tell me I don’t even need a truck and can be happy with a mini-van or something (looking at you Technology Connections).
But… I still like driving a truck, so my little Nissan is a happy compromise. No more single cab, but no sedan either.
I’m a lot more comfortable with a load of mulch in a truck rather than a minivan
Pretty much the same here. Crew cab truck is a lot more usable than a regular cab truck for most people. Especially when you consider a lot of people with long bed single cab truck had tool boxes which take up about as much room as the longer cab does. Now you can stow most of that stuff inside the truck, plus you have seating for 3 people in the back when needed. Lastly, carrying lumber with the tailgate down isn’t the big deal some people make it out to be. In fact, for that hallowed 4×8 sheet of wood it’s easier to unload because you don’t have to reach over the tailgate to get it out.
One time I was building a pergola, and I still managed to get home some 16ft boards in that 5ft short bed – I found a hitch extender online for kayaks, and that thing worked like a dream for holding the lumber. Would I do this regularly?! No, but for the short couple of miles from the hardware store it worked!
Yeah, I just borrowed my friend’s trailer when I needed to move some 16′ boards. But up to 12′ is no problem as the tailgate being down makes it about 7′ long and as long as the center of mass is over the bed or tailgate it’s going to make it home with a simple tie down.
We need this in a convertible version. With the skateboard doing the heavy structural lifting, there’s little reason why a soft top couldn’t be done. I’d love a soft top version for more open air adventures. C’mon, Ford! Not everyone wants a Mustang convertible.
See, then you can make the regular cab version, because it’s basically a Miata.
Or you can bolt some seats into the bed and your buddies can ride in the open air with you.