Ask the Car People.SM


Pickups - Mating Aesthetics with Functionality - READ ONLY

18 messages,  Last post on Dec 10, 2004 at 2:49 PM

You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Javascript runtime error--TypeError: obj has no properties-- no stack trace file was written discussion.

What is this discussion about? Exterior, Interior, Truck

Messages Page 1 of 2

#1 of 18 Pickups - Mating Aesthetics with Functionality by xwesx

Nov 17, 2004 (7:43 pm)

Enough of limiting each other to the comparison of one make/model to another, let us expand our horizons. What are some functional or aesthetic qualities of past pickups lost that you continue to lament? Which manufacturers have continued to offer those make-or-break features without which you could not live? Heck, why limit it to qualities of the past or present.... what features would you LIKE to see on a pickup?

#2 of 18 The bed makes the truck by xwesx

Nov 17, 2004 (7:57 pm)

I own a pickup for one reason: Hauling stuff. LOTS of stuff.
 
There are too many vehicles to count that are far more practical for daily driving, commuting, vacations, you name it, but nothing can compete with a pickup in terms of getting a job -most any job- done.
 
To me, the functionality and versitility of the pickup's bed is the single most important feature of the truck next to the mechanics (suspension, drivetrain) that support it. Towing capacity is a real close second. I lament the loss of the perfect pickup bed: the 4'2" x 8'4" stepside from days long gone. Mine happens to be on a 1969 Chevrolet 3/4 ton camper conversion, but there are years and years of other makes/models with a similar bed. I can put two pallets of brick in there, a 2-ton stack of OSB, plywood, sheetrock, you name it, or even 1.5 yards of gravel, soil, etc., and it is the easiest truck to load, unload, and clean when hauling any of this cargo. Hands down. No modern pickup can even pretend to compete on all those levels, yet none of the modern pickups offer this bed. Why? They've sure picked up on other styling aspects of the 67-72 Chevy pickups - like their hood/fender lines.
 
To me, a pickup obviously must be aesthetically pleasing, but it needs to be extremely practical and facilitate accomplishing the job. I have yet to buy a new truck because none can compete on the same functional level with my old '69. Sure, they have plenty of creature comforts and they ride like many cars, but I'm not looking for a car...

#3 of 18 Functionality by pf_flyer HOST

Nov 18, 2004 (6:14 am)

Have to agree with that 100%. The looks of the truck really are secondary to me, other than I want it to look like a truck! We have a topic over on News & Views called Amatuer Redesign Studio where we digitally modify vehicles, and this "Mercedes pickup" was one of the projects:

 
But can it haul that load of mulch or lumber I need? And since I WANT to haul stuff, do I want a truck that looks TOO good??
 
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
 
SAAB and SUBARU chats are on TONIGHT. Check out the schedule

#4 of 18 Re: Functionality [pf_flyer] by xwesx

Nov 18, 2004 (10:52 am)

Replying to: pf_flyer (Nov 18, 2004 6:14 am)
And since I WANT to haul stuff, do I want a truck that looks TOO good??
 
Exactly. When and if I ever finish building my house, I plan to get my Chevy in the garage for a restoration. Once that happens, I will not be using it as a real pickup anymore (except maybe to tow trailers) because it will be "too pretty" and I will not want to dent, ding, or scratch it with normal use. BUT, in order to realize that dream, I must be able to replace it with something newer. As it is, I have yet to find a pickup for which I am willing to drop $30+K and call a 'replacement' without snickering.
 
Hahahaha. A Mercedes pickup like that (not to say Mercedes cannot make a good truck! Unimog, anyone?) would be cute to look at and fun to drive, but it would be no more functional than, say, an S10 or F150 that has been dropped to the ground and has 21" wheels with 2" sidewalls. A waste of a pickup in my mind...

#5 of 18 Now if you want to haul a LOT of stuff... by pf_flyer HOST

Nov 18, 2004 (11:25 am)

Opt for the "deep bed" version of the Titan
 

#6 of 18 by ateixeira

Nov 18, 2004 (11:43 am)

Put a diesel in that Benz...naaaah.
 
Start with an ML and put a diesel in that, maybe.
 
-juice

#7 of 18 Re: Now if you want to haul a LOT of stuff... [pf_flyer] by xwesx

Nov 18, 2004 (1:09 pm)

Replying to: pf_flyer (Nov 18, 2004 11:25 am)
Okay.... so now we get into the "aesthetics" part of the discussion! The Titan is certainly a capable truck, but it must be one of the overall ugliest trucks on the road. I can think of a few rigs that beat it, like the (Pontiac) Aztec or the (Nissan) Armada, but yuck. The good thing about it is that I would have no problem working it to death because keeping it "pretty" is a non-issue. But, I would have to have a lot of extra cash lying around to dole it out on such a hideous beast. The Frontier is a nice looking p/u (at least through '04), but certainly not a replacement for a full size.
 
Ugh. The more I look at that photo, the more I loath the appearance of the bed. The truck looks rather good up to there, but there's far too much bed there in relation to the size of the wheel wells and the sharp lines on the otherwise featureless surface just accentuate that atrocity. Maybe a 4-door with an 8' bed would look more balanced, but Nissan doesn't offer one yet, do they? Maybe even some two-toning would break it up a bit. You could rent that space out for moving billboard advertisements....

#8 of 18 by ateixeira

Nov 18, 2004 (2:09 pm)

Haven't seen a long bed Titan crew cab, but they do sell one for the Frontier.
 
-juice

#9 of 18 Re: Now if you want to haul a LOT of stuff... [xwesx] by dustyk

Nov 18, 2004 (5:30 pm)

Replying to: xwesx (Nov 18, 2004 1:09 pm)
Looking at the picture of that deep-walled Titan made me ponder.
 
I've owned several full-size pick-ups, but since purchasing my Dakota in '03, I cannot think of ever going back to a full-size truck now. For one, the lift-over on the Dakota is nice and low. Despite having a smaller dimensional box, I have yet to be daunted by any chore or task. The Dakota's box size, although I thought would be too small, has fit the bill in every instance.
 
Looks are not usually my number one concern when purchasing a new vehicle, but the flatsided Transformer's look of the Titan does pause me enough. The deepened box only makes it uglier, in my opinion.
 
Dusty

#10 of 18 Wasn't shooting for beauty... by pf_flyer HOST

Nov 18, 2004 (6:04 pm)

Sometimes I just like to have a bit of fun playing "what if" with the vehicles! Sure could pile a lot of stuff in that bed tho...LOL
 
I don't think the body work on the Titan turns me off as much as the Frontier did with that "rivet look" on the wheel wells. I'm not overly fond of the looks of the side mirrors on the Titan, although that probably wouldn't stop me from buying it if the Titan fit my needs and desires in a truck.
 
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
 
Subaru Crew chat is on TONIGHT. Check out the schedule

Messages Page 1 of 2

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement