# Why do modern trucks come in such boring paint schemes?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-modern-trucks-come-in-such-boring-paint-schemes/377369>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [October 21, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-modern-trucks-come-in-such-boring-paint-schemes/377369 "2006-10-21T21:34:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-modern-trucks-come-in-such-boring-paint-schemes/377369/1 "2006-10-21T21:34:26Z")

</div>

In the 90’s, Dodge, GM and Ford all offered trucks in two-tone paint schemes. A lot of them looked really nice. My favorite is the Dodge combo of maroon and pearl white. Chevy made Silverados and Suburbans in tan-and-blue and red-and-white. Ford also had a huge number of combinations of two tones available for the F-series trucks up to 1997.

What happened? I see a few late-model trucks in two-tone schemes but they all appear to be custom jobs and not factory stock.

Mind you, I think ALL the new American pickups look ugly, curved and overly-bulky, and two tone paint jobs wouldn’t make them look any better in my eyes. But why have the companies apparently stopped offering these colorful paint options?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2006, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-modern-trucks-come-in-such-boring-paint-schemes/377369/2 "2006-10-22T14:49:03Z")

</div>

I imagine that it’s simply a case of economics: two tone paint jobs cost more. If the public doesn’t buy enough of them, then the car companies can’t justify the added expense of painting them.