Plus a more recent example to revive the Brat, the Subaru Baja (2003-2006). It failed pretty bad, and I never saw many on the roads, despite living in a place where every fourth car is a Subaru. I guess I don’t see many BRZ/86/FR-S on the road either, but they’re still making them.
Thought we were talking about American production vehicles.
Yeah, El Camino’s body tin and bed tin were integral… but I don’t think they were considered to be built upon a unibody frame.
(I think) They were some variant of a box frame, such as the Chevy “A platform” etc.
BTW: The separate bed and cab configuration on a pickup (unlike an El Camino) helps to relieve strain on the body tin, not the frame. The frames on American made pickups are essentially some variant of a solid box type frame, and benefit from the separation mentioned above. As the frame flexes under load, the body tin floats, preserving alignment of the tin. That is why unibody frames aren’t generally considered good truck frames. Under load, unibody framed body tin tends to distort more readily, due to a more intimate connection to load stresses, and not rebound as well as those on a “solid” frame with body tin isolation. (I think.)
#59 ? :rolleyes:
Too late for edit:
Bolding/underline for placement of deletion.
Should read: yet do not benefit from…
Took to long to finish posting, and not sure how I quoted that first one.
National origin is pretty meaningless, these days. Toyota is mostly made in the US (Tacoma is one of the few exceptions, being partially in Texas and part Mexico). And RAM is basically an Italian company now.
After posting earlier, I thought about this aspect. I’m pretty sure one of the main reasons for the appearance of small trucks back in the 80’s (S series, etc.) was fuel economy. The newer trucks are getting MPG numbers that I wouldn’t have believed twenty years ago. The Ram 1500* I mentioned upthread routinely exceeded 20mpg highway, and 15-17 in town. My newer Ram 2500** is getting 22-23 highway and 17-18 in town. This negates one of the main selling points of the small trucks, leaving only parking convenience as their advantage.
*2011 quadcab, shortbed, 5.7L, tow package
**2017 crewcab, longbed, turbo-diesel
the “chicken tax” is a convenient excuse for some to complain about, but the simple reason these small trucks disappeared is that people stopped buying them. I mean, if they were so damn desirable, the automakers would just build them here the same way they do the Tundra, Tacoma, Frontier, Titan, and Ridgeline. All of which would be subject to the tariff if imported.
the reality is a that a small, two-seat vehicle is very, very niche in this country and not worth anyone’s time or resources to pursue. Whining about an irrelevant tariff is not going to change that.
The observation that the chicken tax helped kill off the tiny truck market in the US, and continues to be a disincentive for any resurgence to this day, is just a statement of fact. I don’t think this qualifies as whining.
As you point out, markets change and buyer’s tastes evolve… These days there isn’t much demand for such trucks in the US, irrespective of the chicken tax. However, it cannot be denied that this tax (tariff) is a nail in the coffin of the compact truck market.
I’d still snap one up if they became available.
Well, they’re alive and well as Technicals. Maybe we can make some and donate them to our “rebel” allies in Syria…or whatever they are.
No, trucks for sale in America.
They were* everywhere,* and purchased eagerly by young men and by gardeners, etc.
So now you have to explain why they stopped being so popular.
I’m guessing the auto companies just reasoned that they could make more money by upcharging people for larger trucks.
Probably this. And, as several people have noted, trucks (and cars, as well) have generally become more upscale, with more features, even on the “entry level” models.
That said, I don’t know how much of it is the chicken (i.e., fewer people wanted to buy small, basic trucks) or the egg (i.e., fewer such trucks were offered), but as has been noted, the CAFE rules apparently created a disincentive for automakers to sell a lot of them.
Let’s not forget the Dodge Rampage and Plymouth Scamp pickups. True 1/4 ton pickups with front wheel drive. I had a Rampage years ago, it was fantastic in the snow. Volkswagen also had the mini pickup years ago too.
My comment above was in regards to a slight hijack of your original question, re: #55, #57, and #59 in which the reference was to American made autos. Sorry for the derailment, back on track now.
As I understand the chicken tax, it applies to imported trucks with no rear seats. The jump seats in the Brat got around the tax that way. Currently, Ford Transit vans are all imported with back seats for the same reason, whether they’re sold that way or not. Japanese trucks used to be sent here partially assembled so they could be put together in the U.S.
Also, all El Caminos (except '59 and '60) were built on Chevelle, or later, Malibu frames. Rancheros were based on the unit-bodied Falcon for a while. GM planned to start importing the Holden ute but the bankruptcy restructuring did away with that idea.
Adequately addressed by Drunky Smurf. That said, my job has usually allowed me to own better rides than the 1990 Nissan 2WD, and the 1983 Corolla that followed it (in 2003). Folks would occasionally ask me why I didn’t get something newer & nicer. I just told them I was compensating for my penis. And yes, I drive a 2016 BRZ for the same reason. 
A niche market may be big enough to justify import, but not big enough to justify domestic production. Because of economy of scale.
scr4
I read and re-read your link to the CAFE standards, pondered their graphs, and attempted to get a handle on their opinions…
I think some of their conclusions are subjective, re: the sentiment that CAFE solely killed the small truck, exclusive of the chicken tariff. Why could it not be both? (Along with the previously mentioned evolution {BIGGER is BETTER} in consumer demand, too).
From the charts however, it is obvious that the smaller footprint vehicles are definitely held to tougher CAFE standards. HOWEVER, they seem to contradict themselves with the statement:
“Chrysler is rumored to be… exploring a car-based compact pickup, possibly based off of a Fiat product. A truck like that would be a **huge boon as far as CAFE compliance goes…” ** WTF?
Though I may not necessarily agree with all their conclusions, the article is certainly an eye-opener into CAFE standards… A sort of 101 primer in the art of finagling categories of vehicles and number crunching statistics, in order to achieve the desired CAFE outcome.
Thank you for the link!