And it was never intended to be small. It’s been midsize in the rest of the world for years. If anything, the US version is the one that was behind the times.

CAFE regs mean we can’t have truly compact pickup trucks (as in, BOF RWD/4WD trucks). What we could have, though, is FWD unibody pickups that are compact and get over 30 MPG. And I hope we do.

Of course there will be. The global Ranger has three models on the same wheelbase: single cab with a 7.5' bed (usually swapped out with a trayback), SuperCab with a 6' bed, and double cab with a 5' bed. Here in the US, going based off of what every other midsize truck is offered as, we’ll see the SuperCab/6' and…

You two appear to be the only guys in here who have applied some rational thought to the physical dimensions of your vehicles. Thank you.

In a 4.5' bed?

F-100 and 150s have historically always had P tires, unless you sprang for the F-250 light duty/F-150 HD. The F-250 LD sold from 1980-86 can best be described as an F-150 with a slightly thicker frame, one more leaf in the rear, heavier 8-lug wheels, and LT tires, but the same engines and transmissions and the same…

I also seem to remember he tried to use it to do “truck stuff” like going off-road, then complained about the paint getting scratched.

“the frame hasn’t changed since 2000,”

When it comes to best C/H-body, I always have to say: 91-93 Olds Touring Sedan, as long as it has the (rare) supercharged 3800.

This would actually a more appropriate use of the “Charger” name.

The current Challenger models appear to be pretty much the same Cat yellow:

Also correct; the newest 1000 Series has MAN engines.

That last bit is a little extreme, but yes, there’s no excuse for inaccuracy in this day and age.

I feel obligated to mention that the Challenger lines are agricultural tractors made by Agco and powered by Cat, not construction/industrial machines made by Cat.

Reminds me of the Zip Feed Mill back in ‘05:

It’s still a mid-size CUV.

Okay, I think I understand the pun now. Woooooosh.

The ‘91 Civic hatchback was 160.2" long. The SX4 was 162-163".

The SX4 was classified as a compact, but I’ve always felt that any vehicle with a WB under 100" is better classified as a subcompact. By that same reasoning, the first and second-gen RAV4 were also subcompact CUVs.

The SWB (non-Grand) Caravan, as well as other SWB minivan models from Kia and GM, was discontinued because of low sales. When they came out, the original Dodge/Plymouth minivans were SWB-only, but buyers ended up preferring the LWB Grand versions because it meant you didn’t have to choose between having a third row…