Talk:Pickup truck/Archive 1

Archive 1

Trucks & Capacity

I removed:

Typically, trucks with a load capacity of one tonne or less are regarded as pickups.

because vehicles larger than 1 ton capacity are considered pickups in the United States at least. —Morven 19:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're gonna get things like this here. Blame the "Old world" for this nonsense. ;-) Sneakernets 09:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

---

South African Utes

I know that the Ford Bantam compact (Fiesta-based-IIRC) ute is very popular in South Africa and has been for decades. Perhapse someone who knows more about South African utes could add that info to the article: like what other manufacturers make them? (AFAIK Mazda used to when the Bantam was a 323 clone). -- stewacide 05:01, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Your wish has been granted. For general information on the ute body style, see the article Coupe utility. For specific information on the Ford Bantam, see the article: Ford Bantam. -- Ddgonzal 05:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical Background?

This article needs some history. The first pick up was actually an Australian invention, but the idea rapidly spread to the US and has become mostly thought of synonymous with the US. I have some details about this somewhere but not sure if it's enough to write authoritatively. I will do so if no-one else feels better qualified though. Graham 00:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd imagine that 'first pickup truck' depends on one's definition of pickup truck. Daimler's first truck in 1896 looked somewhat pickup like, for example.

I would suspect that the definition in use for that Australian claim is first car-based pickup, which is a possibility. Some cites would be nice. —Morven 06:20, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

here's a page that actually contradicts the australian origin: [1]. I' e had little luck tracking down much evidence to supporting the australian claim - i read about it in a popular science book (published in australia) so it may well have got its facts wrong. The other thing is that it may be drawing a distinction bewteen what the australians calla "ute", and the pickup. As far as I can see in modern forms they are the self same thing, but earlier on they might not have been.Graham 01:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The modern day ute design is indeed based on the Australian design first manufactured at Ford in Geelong. But yes Ford offered a number of light utility trucks such as the Ford Models T and A. But the modern design came from Australia. Yeah it would be good if someone could write something... im quite tired. Something needs to be added about Australian Ute culture as well.... its huge (even though I detest it myself ;)) and I would presume larger than the American Ute culture. Check out Australian Ute Musters. Utes are considered as Australian as Apple pie is considered American. Some articles on Ute history are [2] [3]. - UnlimitedAccess 16:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Graham said "pick up" but is referring to the Coupe utility, an Australian invention known informally as ute. In colloquial Australian usage "pickup" and "ute" are used interchangeably, but that was not the case historically. Further confusing the matter is that manufacturers have used both terms to refer to the same vehicle, but this is the general pattern anyways (take various definitions of "sports car" as an example). -- Ddgonzal 05:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

History is definitely needed. I have heard Buick invented the pickup as we know it in 1912, 1913, or 1915 (I can't recall which). The Oz utes seem to have inspired the Ranchero and Camino, which could (should) also be mentioned here. --squadfifteen

International CXT

I've removed the International CXT from the full size pickups section. I believe it's too large and too heavy to be considered a proper pickup, as its size is closer to that of a Mitsubishi Canter or Toyota Dyna. While these, like the CXT, have pickup beds, they are actually considered medium-duty or heavy-duty trucks. --Pc13 18:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Australia reference

I removed the reference to Australia being the birthplace of the pickup truck. Australia was the first to have the ute, which at that time meant a car-like vehicle with a (pickup) bed in the back. However, PicupTruck.com's history page shows that pickup trucks were produced by American manufacturers even earlier. - Slo-mo 07:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keeping in line with Slo-mo's comments and sources and what Graham and UnlimitedAccess added, I have altered the introduction somewhat. I hope it fulfils everyones expectations. Bobby1011 13:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reference is back: "The basic modern design of the pickup truck first appeared in Geelong, Australia in 1934." This 1934 date is actually referring to the Coupe Utility, but Roadster Utilities were seen earlier than 1934, and even regular pickups were available in America prior to 1934. So it seems this should be removed, or better yet replaced with the more correct details. Ddgonzal 23:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

1-ton + a "pickup"?

Morven, are you sure? As a US citizen and car & truck fan, I cannot think of any truck with bigger than 1-ton rating that people generally call a pickup. 1-1/2 ton and bigger, even if they have a pickup-style bed, are considered medium-duty or heavy-duty trucks as with the International CXT discussion above . Ddgonzal 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Before I was born(which was in 1965), they used to make heavier pickup trucks than that. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Jeep and International Harvester used to have 1-1/2 ton pickups in their light-duty lineups through the 1960's and 1970's. ---- DanTD 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Coupe Utilities

Since Coupe Utilities are not generally called "pickups" I think this article should reference the Coupe Utility article.

In the US, they previously were not generally called "pickups", but instead called "car-based trucks" (so could go in the Truck article) or "passenger-car based pickup trucks" or "El Camino-style" cars or trucks or "Ranchero-style". Let's face it, there is no standard phrase used in USA like "Coupe Utility" or "ute" as used in Australia. Although the VW rabbit coupe utility was marketed as the "VW Pickup" if I recall correctly. I've asked several older americans from the 50's what El Caminos or Rancheros were called, and they tell me they don't recall hearing them called a plain "pickup", at least not without some kind of car-related qualification. This agrees with my memories of usage of the word "pickup" during the 70s and 80s.

Are they a car, like most Americans would say, or a truck like some other Americans would say? It seems to me that they are neither, but it can be shown historically and production-wise that they are closer to cars than trucks. So while this pickup truck article should refer to them, I don't think the details of Coupe Utility belong in this article. The details should be in the Coupe Utility article.

Mgthommo 07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)How about one article encompassing pick-up trucks and coupe utilities (utes) under the heading "Utility Vehicles"?Mgthommo 07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you Aussies say? Were coupe utilites called "pickups"?

I'd always thought of "pickup-truck" as a purely American term. As the article says, the term 'Ute' applied first to the Coupe Utility, but now encompasses that and light trucks. The Holden Rodeo, now qualifies as a ute, but was advertised as a 1-ton truck when it first came out here. I also know, that if I should go shopping for a "Ute", what I really want to look for is a "Coupe Utility" (changing language, mutter, grumble... =) --Martin Rudat(T|@|C) 12:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you Americans that actually owned new El Caminos or Rancheros back in the day say? Is this most appropriate for the Pickup Truck article, or as a "car body style"? Ddgonzal 23:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We had a Ranchero when I was a kid and we just called it a Ranchero. Sometimes people thought it was an El Camino. If there were more car like pickups then maybe El Camino would have become the generic term like Kleenex for tissues.--Gbleem 01:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way I think the Subaru Brat was refered to as a pickup even though its bed was not separate. --Gbleem 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The coupe utility is properly a subclass of the pickup family. The Coupe Utility (or ute as we Aussies call them) is a type of pickup that is car based and also has a monocoque body from the front all the way to the back (i.e. the tray area can not be separated from the front body). If the tray can be removed separately to the front body then it is a pickup and not a ute. This means that the popular Holden HQ one tonner is a pickup and not a ute, while the half tonner (with its monocoque body) is still a ute, even though both vehicles share parts except for the rear body. Americans invented the pickup, Aussies invented the ute. Stepho-wrs 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Coupé utilities section there is a link to "Wagonmaster" for the International Harvester Wagonmaster vehicle, however this link only goes to the Porter Wagoner record album, and not a Wagonmaster vehicle. Unless anyone objects or creates a page for "IH_Wagonmaster" then I'll remove the link. Bread Dog (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Here we go again: TBustah has decided that utes are not pickup trucks. He has then used this rational to decide that a vehicle with a hot V8 and decent cargo carrying capacity (eg Holden Malloo ute) is not a muscle truck. If he truly believes that utes aren't pickups then he should delete the entire coupe 'utility section'. But I would argue that a vehicle with an open rear cargo area capable of holding less than 2 tons should be classified as a pickup truck (greater than 2 tons moves it to a full size truck but I'm not a stickler for the exact weight limit). I've noted that this argument of "utes aren't pickups because they don't have a separate chassis" seems to come from Americans, yet these same vehicles are often called mini-trucks in American magazines.  Stepho  talk  07:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ford Ranger

The Ford Ranger is listed as a mid size and also as a compact. Which is it?

Reply: The older ford rangers around 1995 are concerned compact pickups. The new models are midsized. It's grown in size over the years.

Ford Ranger was also the next-to-upscale model of the full-size Ford F-Series between the late-1960's and early-1980's. ---- DanTD 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

External Link Spam

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. Thalter 17:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is this for? The spammers probably won't be reading the Talk page. -Rolypolyman 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing Something

A Pickup Truck article without a picture of the Ford F150? I am disgraced.

(humor)

Cissel 05:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah I know, I noticed this as well. That's what I expected to see when I clicked on this article, to be honest. :-) Sneakernets 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory

This article lists the "invention" of the pickup to both the United States, and to Australia (in the form of the ute, but still claiming to invent the style). Also, in one area of the article, Ford are described as having built the first Australian ute, and Chrysler and GM in another. --Matthew Proctor 03:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to this, which from time to time someone adds back to this article? "The basic modern design of the pickup truck first appeared in Geelong, Australia in 1934." This 1934 date is actually referring to the Coupe Utility, but Roadster Utilities were seen earlier than 1934, and even regular pickups were available in America prior to 1934. The article now does not include that comment. I see no contradiction now. - Ddgonzal 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"B&S" fashion

What does this mean?

An aussie term - Bachelor and Spinster Ball, sort of a party for farmers. I assume that the utes are customized in a particular way in this sub-culture? New B&S Ball Connection Rurik 12:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pickups as general transporation?

In North America, pickup trucks were commonly used as general purpose passenger cars.

Until relatively recently, is wasn't all that common in the US for pickups to be uses as general transportation. They were mostly used as work vehicles, with use as a general transportation vehicle as a secondary use. It has become more common in recent years to use them as a primary vehicle, but the article appears to give the impression that this is a usage that goes back a long way. Perhaps the sentence could be changed to something like "In North America pickup trucks have been increasingly used as general purpose passenger cars."?--RLent 20:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Also, four door crew cabs are (in the present entry) described as rare. This may be true for most urban areas, but simple observation shows that they are a significant portion of pick up truck sales in both Oklahoma and Texas and many are used for general passenger accommodation. 72.198.101.30 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

British Usage

"In the UK, the use of the term pickup truck is generally used to refer to vehicles which are used to retrieve other road vehicles that have broken down." This really needs a citation; in all my life and 20-odd years in the motor trade I've never heard anyone call a recovery vehicle a 'pick-up'. In my experience, it is 'break-down lorry', or more commonly these days 'break-down truck'. Recently, with US usage becoming more common, you often hear 'tow-truck', too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.161.178 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

With some 40 years in transportation, I too would question the use of pickup when refering to a 'breakdown lorry'. To me, living in Britain, a pickup has always been an open-backed light truck under about 3 tons GVW, with or without drop sides. Once you get above 3.5 tons it becomes a flat-bed or drop-side lorry. Even the toys of my childhood used 'breakdown lorry' (Commer from Dinky) and 'pickup' (VW from Corgi) accordingly. Douglasson (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

History

Someone has this line placed at the beginning of the History Section: "The first factory assembled trucks where NOt Fords, but International Harvesters, which were built as early as 1907 i believe. Please look it up and update." I assume it was a suggestion for someone in editing the article, and not intended to be an edit of the article. I am placing it here, where it belongs and removing it from the article. Failureofafriend (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Body-on-frame vs. unit-body

Are we quite sure that a vehicle can only be properly called a "truck" if it's got body-on-frame construction? That's what this article says (and/or strongly implies), but where is this notion coming from? Certainly most pickup trucks are body-on-frame, but we've got to account for the unit-body Honda Ridgeline. I don't think "trucks have frames, and if it doesn't have one it's not a truck" can be supported. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

...and furthermore, where is it written that a Coupe Utility must necessarily be built on a unit-body platform? Until we can find where it's written (i.e., until we can support the assertion from a reliable source I am rewording the definition to eliminate the unit-body specificity. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition unit-body trucks like the Honda Ridgeline typical have higher GVWR, and towing capacity than your entry level light trucks like the Ranger/Colorado. I believe hauling and load capacity are more important than frame vs no frame in decided what should be considered a "Pickup Truck." - Dan Fox ASE certified Master Mechanic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.205.189 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The article describes and eliminates unit body construction from the pick up truck description (which I agree) then goes on and lists it in the SUT (sport utility truck) line up which put it back INTO the category. I would put the ridgeline in the SUV category. It is the 1st vehicle I can honestly say is trying to cross the bondary between truck and car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.149.54.193 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The first vehicle to cross a car and a truck would be the coupe utility (shortened to 'ute' here in Australia) in 1934 - well before the Ridgeline. If only body-on-frame vehicles are allowed then what would we do with the Holden ute, the Falcon ute, the El Camino and the Ranchero? I've read that even small utes like the Datsun 1200 are called pickups or mini-trucks in America. A definition that works well for me is that a pickup is a light duty goods vehicle with an open rear capable of carrying between 250kg to 1000kg or cargo. A ute is then just a form of pickup where the tray is integral to the main body - the integral body can be either a unit-body or mounted on a frame. Like many automotive terms for body styles, there is no formal definition (likewise for coupe vs hardtop, cabriolet vs convertible). Manufacturers call a vehicle by what ever name they think will sell the most and people just follow that. So you get situations like the Holden Kingswood one ton ute. It is technically a pickup with a separate tray (ie not a ute) but everybody calls it a ute because Holden called it a ute and it looks similar to the Kingswood half ton ute (which has a true integral body). Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to the Ute vs. Pickup terminology.

I don't have a useful cite, but 3rd hand I have heard that (in some parts of Australia at least) a ute is based on a (existing) sedan model and a pickup is not.

(Personally I only knew of pickup as an Americanism.)

Mark Hurd (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all light commercial vehicles with styleside or stepside bodies are considered to be utes, not just those with the tray and cabin constructed as one unit. The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority uses this definition on registration certificates, including such vehicles as a Toyota Hilux 4WD, which has a separate styleside tray. Also, in the 1970s and 1980s when Ford Australia were building F100s and F150s, those that were fitted with a styleside body on the production line (as opposed to being built cab/chassis and getting a tray later) were actually labelled UTE on the compliance plate. Tabletop trays are mostly not considered to be utes for regulatory purposes, but are still commonly referred to as utes. --Athol Mullen (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Gallery format

[Another editor reverted my recent reformat, commenting "Use the same name and format as most automobile articles.")

There's no real MOS standard for galleries that I know of. As you probably know, the default size for images outside a gallery is 180px, so that's what I generally use inside one. The gallery software is wonky and won't allow user preferences for size. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The other editor would be me. Using 'Gallery of pickup trucks' in an article called 'Pickup truck' is redundant. The simpler title 'Gallery' gives the same information in a much more readable way. There is no MOS standard for galleries but we should strive to keep the same format in all automobile articles - and most other articles use the simple title 'Gallery' and a simple <gallery> without options and without centering. But if we can't agree then we can always ask some more experience editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Cheers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Title is fine, if you just want "Gallery". But this does seem an odd objection, since (by my count) "Pickup" is used 14 times in the TOC. For the rest, we will have to agree to disagree, I think. I find those 90 or 100px thumbnails the current gallery software supplies, near-worthless. I did remove the gallery centering, but you restored it. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Compact and mid-size pickups?

There's some confusion here: the article refers to the Toyota Hilux as a compact pickup, but the Toyota Tacoma, which is essentially the same vehicle, as "mid-size." There is the same problem for the Honda Ridgeline and the Nissan Navara/Frontier.

The mid-size (US-only?) category isn't really defined and perhaps should be dropped, retaining compact and full-size. At the very least, we shouldn't have the same truck in two different classes! --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Will use full size and compact only for now. --Cornellier (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Duelly

The classification of a dually truck with four wheels on the rear axle which is common place in the US is missing. Such trucks include Ford F-350, Dodge 3500 etc....Thehotshotpilot (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Cornellier (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, this configuration is called a twin-wheel pickup (or axle). Examples include the Ford Transit. A twin-wheel chassis-cab (ie, without rear body) was used as the basis for ambulances in London in the 1980s, but has now largely been replaced by Mercedes-Benz vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.150.2 (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

IIRC Surrey also had ambulances based on US chassis-cabs and there was a fearful stink when it was discovered that, with a two-person crew and full complement of equipment on board, they weren't legally capable of carrying a full-size patient without exceeding the permitted GVW. Which cost the taxpayer rather a lot of money. Mr Larrington (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

VW Saveiro, Chevrolet Montana and Fiat Strada

I know well Volkswagen Saveiro becose I'm from Paraguay (South America) and here they are very popular. I think Saveiro is not a Pickup truck but a Coupe utility, since Saveiro is just a Golf (or the Brazilian version Gol) modified to have a cargo bed.

The same ocurr with Chevrolet Montana and Fiat Strada -they ar Coupe utilities, not Pickups.

Can I remove them from this article?

Juanmoralesdesign (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The coupe utility is a subclass of pickup, therefore those vehicles should stay. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, thanks for the explanation. By the way, here in Paraguay (South America) there are some other models of pickups. Now I remember the Ford F100 made in Argentina (and the Ford F1000 made in Brazil -the same vehicle with a different name (http://pt.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ford_F-1000)) and the Chevrolet C10 (http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chevrolet_C-10). Also, there is a "native" pickup from Argentina -the Rastrojero (http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rastrojero). --Juanmoralesdesign (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Gallery image sizes

Editor Stepho-wrs recently shrunk the gallery images, commenting "MOS says use default (ie thumb, which allows user to override in preferences), which is quite different to using the same value as the default."

The problem is, the current gallery software doesn't allow user preferences to override the gallery default (~100px, ims), so everyone gets those squinty little thumbs. This is a known fault in the software, and there doesn't seem to be an easy fix.

So I usually set galleries to 180px, the default image size, as a workaround. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, give me a day to play around with this a bit. The MOS mentioned a proportional setting that might work. If I can't find a solution then I will revert it back.  Stepho  (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have confirmed what Pete said about the squinty thumbs not resizing. Can't see any obvious way around that but I did find the {{gallery}} template. It also doesn't resize but at least it's default width is 180px. By using this template we get what Pete wanted (180px) but without explicitly setting an override in the article. This means that if in the future the template is fixed so that it does resize then we get this feature for free. Best of both worlds, even if the best wasn't as good as we hoped.  Stepho  (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't aware of this template (makes note). Also see Template:Image gallery for another alternative. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bakkie

According to the article, bakkie refers to a coupé utility. Sifting through google images, I have the impression that the term is synonymous with a North American pick-up truck. So the same probably holds for bakkie as for the Australian ute: usage has changed in recent years. I would suggest that both bakkie and ute are moved to the lead section as synonyms for pick-up truck, but would leave it to South-African and Australian editors to clarify.  Andreas  ^(T) 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Any pickup is a called a bakkie - the term "coupe utility" is not known in SA, this article is the first time I've ever come across it.

Small bakkies based on sedans (around half tonne payload) such as the Fiat Strada, Ford Bantam, etc., are simply called "half tonners". The "standard" types are what the Americans call "compact" - 1 tonne payload types such as the Toyota Hilux, Isuzu KB, Ford Ranger, etc. Big American style pickups are represented only by very limited numbers of imported Ford F250s and surviving old (1960's or earlier) Chevrolet, Dodge, etc, "classics". Except for these rare Americans the biggest bakkies commonly seen in SA are Toyota Landcruisers or Landrovers. Cab-forward types are not generally called bakkies. Roger (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Average sizes

Average sizes? I'm trying to figure out how big some different common sizes of pickups are (length, width). I can't find this anywhere on the internet and it seems like this would be the place for it. User:Student7 (talk) 1:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"not technically trucks"

"Several North American vehicles, the Chevrolet El Camino, Ford Ranchero, Dodge Rampage, Honda Ridgeline and Subaru Baja have beds, but are not technically trucks" -- They are trucks if you use the definition given in wikipedia's Truck article. But even if the the statement is correct, this issue doesn't need to be discussed in the introduction, and certainly doesn't need to be most of the introduction. These vehicles seem to be adequately covered in their own section below. Nothing would be lost by deleting this paragraph and the following one, while clarity and organization would be improved.Leonard of Vince (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Those vehicles are coupe utilities. Since coupe utilites are a sub category of the pickup truck, that paragraph is simply wrong. The following paragraph about Australian utes (short form of coupe utility) should also be moved to its releveant section.  Stepho  (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a cabal of editors active in this article who are utterly obsessed with drawing fine esoteric distinctions between different types/classes/categories of (non)pickup trucks based on obscure minutiae of design details. IMHO it's all a bit too anal retentive for a general encyclopedia article. Roger (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Tax Exemptions/Reductions

The Texas section mentions that agricultural pickups see tax reductions, but fails to mention that it isn't just in Texas where farm trucks are taxed less. Here in Rhode Island for example (and I don't know the exact numbers) we also see reduced taxes on "Farm" registered pickups.98.182.53.130 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Bryan Salisbury

Many other countries also have reduced tax for pickups used commercially.  Stepho  talk  08:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Intro definition hyperbole

The introduction includes the phrase that the pickup truck body is a "light motor vehicle with an open-top rear cargo area (bed) which is almost always separated from the cab." The article seems built around the premise that vehicles with open beds where the cab isn't separate are not pickup turcks. The definition in the intro is supported, poorly and un-transparently by a book on auto body repair:

• James E. Duffy, Robert Scharff (2003). Auto body repair technology. Cengage Learning. p. 27. ISBN 9780766862722.

Since when do we use, alone, by itself, a body repair manual to define a whole class of vehicles? I could understand using it to support a contention, but not as a primary source. If the article introductory premise is real, then it needs at least one bona fide source that supports its main contention.842U (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Valid point. Fix it. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead photo

Would anyone object to moving the partial B&W image that is the lead down the page a bit and moving one of the modern color images in the article that shows an entire truck up to the lead image? Seems the article is about pickups, not just the history of the pickup. But didn't want to be too bold and just swap images around if there was some good reason for the one there now to be there. Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer File:1919 Ford Model T Pickup.JPG. Clean shot, arguably the first, and by being so primitive and simple, it illustrates the basic features of a pickup very well.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the angle on that suggestion Kww. I think an image taken from less head on would illustrate the cab/bed feature better. I don't like the current image much at all, too tight a composition. --Daniel 22:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps File:1922 Ford Model T Pickup 2.jpg then?—Kww(talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the angle, but the image is really mediocre. I don't think we have a good file for a Model T. What do you think of this one File:2009 Dodge RAM 1500 SLT 4-door pickup -- NHTSA 02.jpg, very high quality image and the rear quarter view shows off the bed. --Daniel 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest this one. The focus is not as sharp as it could be but it does show the utilitarian nature of pick-ups and gets away from the stereotype image of Yanks using them as daily drivers that never haul loads and never go off-road.  Stepho  talk  23:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My problem with all of these suggestions is that these are antiques. This isn't an article about antiques, it is an article about a modern vehicle. While I think antique photos have their place in the history section, it seems to me that a modern vehicle is better suited to the lead image. Compare truck, for example. No antiques there. Now I see there is an antique leading car, so if there's a broader consensus out there I won't mess with it. I will fully agree that the least we can do IS to put an image of an entire vehicle there, clearly showing the cab/bed -- the red truck above isn't a great quality image, but the angle is good. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The first picture is meant to be representative of the article. There is no compulsion for it to be modern/old, clean/dirty, good condition/beat-up, domestic/foreign. The article covers both old and new pick-ups, so the image could equally well be an old or new vehicle. For me, a pick-up is supposed to be a utility vehicle (ie it's there to get a job done), so I prefer a slightly older, slightly beat-up vehicle that is actually working for a living. Other's see pick-ups as custom jewellery - e.g. with 20" shiny wheels and flawless paint - something to be seen in that barely ever carries cargo. Hopefully we can find a good quality picture that represents the broad concept of pick-ups.  Stepho  talk  22:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of pure selfishness, I have to suggest this one. I think he looks pretty nice since I bought the new paint job.

My favorite. It's the same Morris Minor pickup currently pictured in the article, following a recent refresh.—Kww(talk) 04:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice Morrie. But the cargo bed is barely visible. Do you have a picture from the side that shows the bed better?  Stepho  talk  22:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Or can you go take another one?? Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Only after my new throwout bearing arrives in the mail. I wasn't really expecting support for the image, I just wanted to show off my truck.—Kww(talk) 04:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I like that picture of your Moggie (in the UK, Morris Minors are called 'Moggies' (same word is slang for a cat)) - It reminded me of riding in the back of one in Birmingham (England) in 1962. However, a side-on view would be more appropriate to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.150.2 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Crew Cab

I have a Land Rover 127 Crew Cab HCPU (meaning high-capacity pick-up) manufactured to special order in 1984. The HCPU refers to the larger, separate cargo pan as distinct from the normal Defender integral body construction. I have seen others of a similar age but I understand that assembly of a production model (as opposed to being a 'standard' conversion) did not start until 1987. This is currently known as a 130 Crew Cab (wheelbase 127") and there is also a 110 Crew Cab model based on the Defender 110. Single cab models of the Defender 90, 110 and 130 pickups are available.

In Romania, a variant of the Dacia 1300 series was available as a 4x4 crew cab. This has been replaced by the Logan pickup, which has neither crew cab nor four-wheel-drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

UK popularity rise / Twin-cab term

Here's a citation for sales rise in UK if someone wants to update sect 7.5 cultural significance in Europe: http://www.smmt.co.uk/2012/01/positive-december-completes-buoyant-year-for-van-and-truck-market/ It's more recent than the current article text though. The figure (34.1%) is in the docx in a zip linked at the bottom of the press release, direct link: http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/pr-4974-Commercial-Vehicle-registrations-Full-Year-2011.zip There is also a BBC article which gives the wrong figure (24%, which is probably the 24.1% rigids+artics [aka trucks, but in the UK English sense] figure from the same docx), but will serve as a citation for the currently undocumented (sect 5.3 crew cab ) term 'Twin-cab': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16509765 HuwG 203.208.123.81 (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Text previously from "ute" article

Greetings from Australia! Here is some old text from the ute (vehicle) in case you would like to move it here (I think it would suit the "pickup" article better since it refers to vehicles sold in North America)

By the 1980s in North America, the coupé utility began to fall out of favor again with the demise of the Ranchero after 1979, the Volkswagen Caddy, Dodge Rampage/Plymouth Scamp and of the Chevrolet El Camino by 1987.

Subaru offered the Brat in the early 1980s, and the Baja from 2003 to 2006. General Motors considered bringing a rebadged Holden Ute to the United States in the form of the Pontiac G8 ST in 2009, but the global recession, GM's ultimate bankruptcy, and the discontinuation of the Pontiac marque caused them to cancel it.

The pickup truck, on the other hand, started its life a little earlier and is defined by its separate, removable, well-type 'pickup bed'. This pickup bed does not contact the cabin part of the vehicle, eventually the pickup design found a natural home on the smaller truck chassis.

1973 Chevrolet El Camino

In North America, the major automobile and truck manufacturers built them from the 1930s to the 1980s. They were very popular in the early years with florists as a way to transport flowers and potted plants. Examples include the Studebaker Coupe Express, or the 1941 Chevrolet Coupe Pickup. A variation of the coupe pickup became the very specialized flower car that was used by funeral homes as an attendant vehicle to the hearse as part of funeral processions. Flower cars were custom-manufactured by several aftermarket coachbuilders by modifying a standard-production sedan, station wagon, or carryall (aka "suburban") in the same manner that ambulances, hearses, crummies, fire command cars, and Fire apparatus were/are manufactured.

The Ford Ranchero was produced between 1957 and 1979 based on full-size, compact and intermediate automobiles by the Ford Motor Company for the North American market. Variations based on the original 1960 US Falcon for home markets in Argentina and South Africa were produced through the late 1980s.

Though Ford car/truck combinations had been around since 1934, the Ranchero was the first postwar American vehicle of its type from the factory.

The Chevrolet El Camino was produced by the Chevrolet division of General Motors from 1959 through 1960, with production resuming in 1964 and continuing through 1987. El Camino was produced in response to the success of rival Ford's Ranchero. It had a variant called the GMC Sprint and later named the GMC Caballero from 1978 to 1987. In Mexico, it was also sold as the Chevrolet Conquistador.

Dodge produced the Rampage from 1982 to 1984, based on the front-wheel-drive L-body Dodge Charger. Plymouth also had a variation called the Scamp.

Built and sold only in Thailand between 1991 and 1995, Daihatsu offered pickups based on their L70 series Mira called the Mira P1 and Miracab. They were essentially the same model, the Mira P1 being a two door, and the Miracab a 2+2.

Daihatsu Miracab

Isuzu offered a coupé utility version of the Bellett between 1963 and 1972 called the Wasp. It was available with a bed or in flatbed configuration.

Mazda built a ute variant of the Familia between 1963 and 1978, and 1985 and 1989. The first run cars (1963–1978) were based on the first and second generations of the Familia, and sold in Japan and several other markets. The second run was based on the fifth generation (BF) Familia, was built in South Africa, and only sold there. Versions of both the second generation Familia and the second generation Familia Pickup were built under license by Korean manufacturer Kia between 1974 and 1981 as the Kia Brisa and the Kia Brisa B-1000, respectively.

Mazda Familia 800 Pickup

The BRAT would see a spiritual successor many years later in the form of the Subaru Baja, a four door AWD ute derived from the third generation Legacy wagon/Outback. The Baja was built at Subaru's plant in Lafayette, Indiana, and sold between 2002 and 2006 in the United States, Canada, and Chile.

Subaru Baja

Toyota built a pickup version of the first generation Toyota bB (aka, the original Scion xB) called the bB Open Deck, sold only in Japan between 2000 and 2001.

Toyota bB Open Deck

• 1959–1960, 1964–1987 Chevrolet El Camino
• 1953-1979 Citroën 2CV "Citroneta" (South America)
• 1991-1995 Daihatsu Mira P1 and Miracab (Thailand only, the P1 was a two door, the Miracab was a 2+2)
• 1982–1984 Dodge Rampage
• 1983 Plymouth Scamp
• 1983–2011 Ford Bantam (South Africa)
• 1952–1958 Ford Mainline utility
• 1971–1993 Ford P100
• 1957–1959 Ford Ranchero (full-size)
• 1960–1965 Ford Ranchero (Falcon compact)
• 1966–1979 Ford Ranchero (Fairlane/Torino mid-size)

1987 Chevrolet El Camino (United States)

1967 Ford Ranchero

1998–2002 Brazilian market Ford Courier, based on the Mark IV Fiesta

• 1971–1987 GMC Sprint/Caballero
• 1976–1990 Hyundai Pony
• 1963-1972 Isuzu Wasp
• 1973-1981 Kia Brisa B-1000
• 1963-1978, 1985-1989 Mazda Familia Pickup
• 1961–1982 Mini Pick-Up/95

• 1971–1980 Morris/Austin Marina

• 1995–2000 Škoda Felicia Fun
• 1937–1939 Studebaker Coupe Express
• 1979–2007 Volkswagen Caddy Typ 14/Rabbit Pickup
• 1996-1999 Volkswagen Caddy Typ 9U (rebadged Škoda Felicia Fun sold alongside Volkswagen's own Caddy Typ 9K light van)
• 1980-present Volkswagen Saveiro/Pointer Pick Up

Second generation (1982-1990) Hyundai Pony Pickup. The first generation Pony was available as a coupe utility as well.

Mini pickup (sold as Mini 95 starting in 1978), based on the Mk I-Mk IV versions of the Mini itself.

"Citroneta", a coupé utility variant of the Citroën 2CV built only in Chile.

• 2003–present Chevrolet Montana/Opel Corsa Utility
• 2007–present Dacia Logan pickup
• 1996–present Fiat Strada
• 1970s AMC Cowboy: Hornet-based coupe ute that never made it to production. Prototypes exist in private ownership.
• 1982–present Volkswagen Saveiro/Pointer
• Chevrolet SSR: the body was like a coupé utility, (albeit with a folding hardtop), and it had the performance option of the Corvette's LS2 engine (not unlike the El Camino SS and other muscle utes), but it was based on the GMT360 truck chassis, which means it is more of a sport pickup, like the Ford Lightning, Dodge Ram SRT-10, or the Chevy Xtreme.
• Honda Ridgeline: By the strictest definition, the Ridgeline is a coupé utility in the sense that it's essentially based on a car chassis (a unibody design that shares many parts with various Honda passenger cars, like the Accord and Acura TL), is monocoque (like many modern coupé utilities), and has an integral bed. However, it's far too large and truck-like for most people to consider it a true coupé utility. It could, perhaps, be best described as a sport utility truck or "crossover truck" instead.

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Australian Utes, Coupe Utilities

As an Australian, I would like to point out that the term "ute" is used in Australia for any vehicle with a tray at the rear. We do not split them up into categories like "pickups", "muscle trucks", "coupe utilities" etc; they are all just "utes".

Speaking of "coupe utilities", is the term still commonly understood in the USA these days? Also, if a Holden ute[4] were sold in the USA, which category of vehicle would you consider it to be? (FYI, many years ago, all Australian utes were technically "coupe utilities", but this is no longer the case, in fact I have never heard the term "coupe utility" used in Australia. Most Australians would say that "ute" is short for "utility")

It seems the relationship between the terms "pickup", "coupe utility" and "ute" is a messy mix of regional dialects and technical definitions of body styles. To minimise the confusion, I propose to move the text relating to Australian utes to Ute (vehicle). 1292simon (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Vans vs pickups

User talk:Seqqis has said that vans are used in Europe instead of pickups 'since they're better for the evironment and cheaper on fuel costs' with the edit summary 'Yes vans are environmentally better, thier engines aren't as powerful as a pickup truck.' He seems to have confused engine size with body type, apparently not realising that you can get pickups with small engines (eg 600cc Suzuki Mighty Boy) or vans with large engines (eg 5740cc Ford Falcon panel van).

He has also claimed 'As of 2012 kei trucks are the only remaining type of pickups in Japan'. I gave the counter example of the Toyota LiteAce and Toyota HiAce. He then claimed these are kei trucks, although both of these have 1495cc engines, well in excess of the 660cc limit for kei class vehicles. The exterior dimension are also larger than allowed for kei class vehicles.  Stepho  talk  00:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I said the LiteAce is a kei pickup, is because of it's length and size, it's engine had nothing to do with it. And in Japan, the HiAce isn't classified as a Compact pickup. However since you're saying it is, then by that logic in Japan, the Nissan Atlas, Mitsubishi Fuso Canter, and Toyota Dyna would be classified as compact/Midsize pickups. But I understand what you're saying. Seqqis(Talk)11:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The kei class has maximums of 3.4 m (L) x 1.48 m (W)x 2.0 m (H) and 660 cc (engine size does count). The LiteAce is 4.275 m x 1.675 m x 1.890 m and 1495 cc, exceeding the kei class in all specs except height. Its semi bonnet design doesn't match the US ideal of a pickup but its size, cargo capacity and weight capacity (800 kg) puts it in the light pickup class.

Note that above I said HiAce when I should have said TownAce, which is almost indistinguishable from the LiteAce (Toyota even uses the same photo on its website with only the number plate photoshopped to the new name)

Pickups rare in Europe

I must say that looks ridiculous. The sources, which I read, are also ridiculous. Pickups exist in heeps anywhere in Europe. They are even made there. The only "rare" pickup type, if such a term can be used at all, is in case the full size American pickup with a cowboy in it, like those they have in US redneck country. But mind you, even those exists. With cowboy and all. Another place in the article it says something like that fullsize US pickups are limited to the US, arab oil countries and Israel. Which is also bullshit. There are heeps of fullsize pickups, vans, Suburbans, Blazers and their like at least throughout Scandinavia, which is a part of Europe. I dont know about continental Europe, but I reckon they have their fair share, as despite the amount of steel you get compared to a Euro car, they are cheap. Saying that American fullsize pickups are rare in Europe is the same as saying that Mercedes is rare in the US. Saying that pickups in general are rare in Europe is the same as saying that panel vans are rare in the US.

--83.191.149.174 (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure sure I understand what would be wrong with claiming that Mercedes cars are rare in the US, if that's the case. It doesn't mean that you can't buy one or never see one, it's just a simple information about their popularity. Overall, from my personal experience, it seems fair to say that pickups are rare in Europe. Of course any statement about “Europe” has to be a simplification, there are lots of differences between countries. So you might find some regions where pickups are somewhat more common but even counting all of Scandinavia, adding Portugal (I have no idea if it's true but it's mentioned in the article) and some parts of Switzerland, it still doesn't amount to much. The only way you could possibly use any other word than “rare” for Central and Western Europe (UK/France/Germany/Netherlands/Austria) in my opinion would require including crossover SUV like the BMW X models, Volvo XC90, Toyota RAV4, etc. but that's stretching the definition. Except if pickups are very popular in Southern or Eastern Europe, I am confident that the original description is accurate.

Most importantly, this is all a simple statement of fact. Whether it looks ridiculous or not does not change its truth. If you disagree, fine, by all means, provide better sources and remove it entirely but hedging because it does not seem “plausible” to someone who admits not knowing continental Europe is not helpful. Along the same lines, I don't think “somewhat rare” provide any useful information. At least, something like “somewhat less common than in North America” or “rare in most European countries” would be more informative. GL (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 

It depends a bit where you are in Europe. Anywhere there is major highway infrastructure and urbanisation, spotting a pickup truck is a bit like spotting a white raven. On the island of Malta, they are not uncommon. On the smaller island of Gozo, they are fairly common (although still a small minority when compared to passenger cars). If you have unpaved roads, and one or more small fields (as is often the case on the island of Gozo), a pickup is a lot more practical than a tractor. Then again, the country of Malta (to which these two islands belong) has just over 400,000 inhabitants, so it's far from representative. SeverityOne (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

VW Transporter not a pickup

I found it quite strange that the 1st generation VW Transporter is mentioned in this article as a pickup. No, it is a regular commercial vehicle, does not have a passenger car body. Pickups are in passenger car form, with a long snout in front of the cabin, and a low roof, and with an open cargo bed situated between the back wheels, enclosed by sheet metal which continues the passenger car like body to the back of the car. And this passenger-car like sheet metal enclosure of the cargo bed is either integral part of the overall body, like in a Holden Ute, or a Chevrolet Montana/Bakkie, or a Dacia Logan pickup. But LCVs like the VW Transporter are designed from the ground up as a commercial vehicle, a closed van or an open dropside platform. But a pickup? No. That is something completely different. --L.Willms (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The article states at the very top "A pickup truck, often simply referred to as a pickup or pick-up, is a light motor vehicle with an open-top, rear cargo area (bed)." No mention of bonnet (hood in US speak) design. Furthermore, the Pickup truck#Cab-forward section is for those with the cab over the engine and front wheels (ie without a long snout) that covers a lot of Japanese and European pickups. Lastly, right from the very beginning the VW Transporter was sold as both a people mover and as a commercial vehicle, so not quite a ground up commercial vehicle. As a comparison, it could be argued that the Ford F-450 was designed from the ground up as a commercial vehicle (it's hardly a city runabout), yet it is still called a pickup by Americans.  Stepho  talk  04:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Citroën 2CV Fourgonette

Citroën 2CV Fourgonette with window in the box

But that introduction is wrong. Already the term "pickup truck" is misleading. A pickup is a passenger car with an open cargo bed, or a crossover (of a passenger car with a truck), if you prefer.

Independently if the basic construction of the car is for light or heavy loads. Nobody would call the Suzuki Carry (or similar mini-trucks by Piaggio) or the Mercedes T2 truck imaged in that section on "cab-forward" a pickup! Or the VW Transporter! The latter comes as mini-bus, as van, or as truck, but is certainly never a pickup! Except, maybe in the USofA - how strange...

The low passenger-car like form with a motor in front under a more or less long hood is what characterizes world wide what is called a "pickup". Well, maybe not in the USofA. But Wikipedia is not a US-only encyclopedia. OK, we are talking about a perception, about what is popularly called a pickup. There might be official regulations, some of which were mentioned in the article, also regarding what is called a "truck". My first car was a Citroën 2CV box car like the blue one imaged here, and I like to tell the joke that this car was officially registered as a truck (LKW = Lastkraftwagen in German) with some consequences for tax and/or insurance. With a window in the box, like the beige one, it would have been registered as a passenger car.

So, this article needs to change. It has to has to describe, and differentiate!, what is popularly perceived as a "pickup" in different parts of the world, and how this is reflected or influenced by statal, adminstrative regulations, and this in different political entities. --L.Willms (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that a pickup requires a long bonnet? Do you have any authoritative sources to back this up?

I live near the Severn Bridge the toll rules for that define pickups, and the VW Transporter pickup (which is what VW call it) fall under their rules for pickups (I regularly buy, or do not buy, my vehicles on account of what they'll cost me to use the bridge). It's about the open loadbed, not the bonnnet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This VW transporter with a dropside body is not considered as a pickup

This Dacia Logan Pickup is called a pickup because of its passenger car like body

This is a VW Pritschenwagen, nobody here would call that a pickup

This is what VW calls its "pickup": the Amarok

This is the typical shape of a pickup, as specified by a Polish wikipedysta

See, there you have a regulation, in this case by a private company, in this case the Severn River Crossing Plc; but as it goes, the Toll Price list for the bridge does not mention pickup (or pick-up) at all. And over at VW, you can get the "Transporter Chassis with optional dropside body". No pickup in the Transporter line. VW Commercial Vehicles though does offer a pickup, the VW Amarok. Well, globally, all over the world, people understand what I described as a pickup. And please not, that word is completely detached from the two words of the English language which did originally form this word in North America. It simply stands for a certain form of a passenger car body with an open cargo bay, the latter typically between the rear wheels, not above them. BTW, in Brasil and other portuguese speaking countries, this type of car is called the picape], phonetically for "pickup".

Methinks that the article should remove the word "truck" from the title, and explain what people in different parts of the world understand by "pickup", and that the world apparently differs on this from the USofA, where regular trucks/lorries are addressed as "pickup". And also if some company or state administrative regulation defines what this regulation understands as "pickup". Cherio, yours L.Willms (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I just found a pictorial presentation of various passenger car body styles in the Polish language Wikipedia, where you find the "pickup" just as I understand it. The German language Wikipedia defines as a pickup "a passenger car or an all-terrain-vehicle with a flat open cargo bay". Europe and other parts of the world always had smaller commercial vehicles for delivery, handicrafts, repair jobs, small transports, but they had a different design (more practical for the purpose, I would say) and different designations. The pickup which comes over here from the USA on the other hand is something completely different, because of its passenger car body style, with the long motor hood in front and the cargo bay in the back even enclosed with sculptured sheet metal as a passenger car. And only such cars are called a "pickup" over here or even all over the world outside the USA. Maybe USanians, who have no exposure to other forms of small cargo transport vehicles project the term "pickup" on those different vans found in other countries, but us natives don't. This should be clarified in the article, methinks. --L.Willms (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Severn Bridge detailed toll regs fill a small book, not just one simplified web page. I'm a local councillor; for my sins, I get to read stuff like that.

It would be interesting to read how that company defines what they consider to be a "pickup". It would be nice, if you could make that text available here; I looked around for a more detailed rulebook to download, but nope. OTOH, I noted that the company shows as an example of their Class 2 vehicles the silhouette of a pickup according to my description, recognizable by the passenger car like shape. So if they have a "a pickup for purposes of the toll prices of the Severn bridge is a car with the following characteristics ...", but not just mentioning that pickups belong to their Class 2. --L.Willms (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the current production VW Transporter T5 is a light truck built on a chassis cab, not a pickup – although trucks this size (and the similar Ford Transit) are still regularly called pickups by some drivers. However we're also discussing the earlier and smaller Transporters. These were pickups. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Model T pickup

Holden One Tonner

Hilux with tray

VW Transporter

I challenge the notion that the bed has to be between the rear wheels. The first 3 photos above photos show pickups that have a flat tray mounted above the rear chassis instead of a well-body. Trays are relatively common in Australia.

The flat nose pickup is more common in Europe where parking space is tighter.

We need to consider the global picture instead of getting caught up in what is common or not common in our local neighbourhood. Americans think Japanese Kei trucks are not real pickups or trucks. Australians think the Ford F-450 is a full-on truck, not a pickup. LW thinks a flat nose and a tray makes it a commercial truck, not a pickup - all local perceptions based on what you see on your daily drive. Global reality is quite a bit wider than this. There is no globally accept official definition of a pickup but I think the article's definition of a light duty vehicle with an open cargo area at the back covers it as good as can be expected.  Stepho  talk  22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no legally binding definition of what is a pickup. Nobody with a sane mind here in Germany would call the VW Transporter with a drop-side flat-bed a "pickup". It is a "Pritschenwagen", even if the first two (VW Beetle based) VW Transporter generations share one characteristic which what is called a "pickup" in Europe, namely the integrated sheet metal body, but above the wheels because it had also to be above the engine in the rear. The term "Pickup" in German is exclusively used for what everybody outside the USofA (or outside of the English speaking world) identifies as "Pickup": a low passenger car style body with a long front engine hood and a cargo bed more or less integrated with the same kind of sheet metal with the whole body, just the US-american pickup. I would hesitate to call this Toyota Hilux with tray a "pickup", although the long front engine hood makes it look like one. The typical pickup has the cargo tray laid low and integrated with the body, and has all the back covered with sheet metal. This article should at least mention in the lead paragraph that outside of the USA or maybe the English speaking world (I doubt that for Great Britain) people use "pickup" exclusively for this US-type whose characteristics I have noted often enough, but use different terms for what a USanian might want to call a "pickup" for lack of other words. --L.Willms (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have confused this with coupe utility, which is a subclass of pickups that shares front sheet metal and significant other parts (eg engine, dashboard, seats) with a passenger car. Even there, the Holden One Tonner (with tray) is actaully based on the Holden HQ passenger car. Whereas American pickups like the Ford F-Series and Chevrolet C/K are not based on passenger cars at all (in spite of many Americans using them like one). I will state this a bit clearer - pickups, in general, do not have to be based on a passenger car.  Stepho  talk  03:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I wrote that the term "pickup" internationally to cars which have the passenger car body style, by being low and having a relatively long engine hood in the front, and the cargo bay covered by passenger car style sheet metal. This is independent of the body being an integral monocoque like in an Australian Ute, or the Chevrolet Montana or Dacia Logan Pickup, or with a gap between the sheet metal of the front and back bodies like the USanian mastodons, which shape the image of what the world calls a pickup. And this is also independent of the car having been constructed from ground up as a pickup or derived from a regular passenger car. On the other hand, no variant of the VW Transporter, not even the first two on the basis of the VW "Beetle" passenger car would be considered to be a pickup. Have a look at the graphical presentation of passenger car body styles in the Polish Wikipedia, which I linked to already above. There you find what the world recognizes as a pickup: exactly what I described. That's the type of car which the world recognizes as a pickup. So I would call the above pictured Toyota Hilux with tray, or the Holden One-Tonner not as a real "pickup", but als "pickup based Pritschenwagen". --L.Willms (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

While I agree both with Stepho (these are all local and quite vague usages) and with LW (tray ≠ pickup in most senses, VW Transporter a questionable inclusion) what matters is reputable sources. And I honestly don't think there are any which supersede any others, ie I could find a source to support whatever I want. And so could my opponents. Meanwhile, it is not for us in WP to define "pickup", we are just to report what others say on the topic. Moreover, I miss the Coupé Utility article (Carthago delenda est).  Mr.choppers | ✎  09:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should have two articles: one Pickup truck, describing out of a USAnian perspective what they over there think when they say "pickup", another "Pickup" (just so short) which describes what beyond the US borders is considered to be a pickup, and how a pickup is not a truck, but a pickup. Looking more like a passenger car (and used largely as such in the USofA) than a truck, or like a station wagon with a cut out roof, and a wall between the cabin and the cargo bed. Dear USAnians, just cope with the fact that outside of that country a pickup is mostly seen as having the shape shown above in the image, and that we have other our own designations for regular forms of vehicles for transporting goods. BTW, dear Stepho, I will try to rearrange your Gallery as left aligned thumbs, for space and estethical reasons. After sending this, so that you can undo it without undoing my comment.

The "reputable sources", dear Mr.choppers, are a) the automobile manufacturers describing their products as pickup or not; b) possible public, administrative regulations which define the term "pickup", and which is then valid in their jurisdiction; c) the general public using the term "pickup" (or its phonetical versions in other language, like "picape" in Portuguese) and the common understanding of this or that community of what are the main traits by which they recognize a "pickup". You may take my reactions, and writings of other people as an indication of such a common understanding.

--L.Willms (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As to legal and administrative classifications, I have found nothing. Over there at Car classification, there is relatively at the beginning a table of a US-NHTSA classification where "Pickup" gets the abbreviation "PU", but I could not find anything whereby some US statal body had issued a legal definition of what they consider a pickup. They just use the term as being commonly used, and everybody to understand its meaning. The EU automobile registration rules refer to ISO-Standard 3833-1977 and list some named body shapes taken from there:

C. DEFINITION OF TYPE OF BODYWORK (only for complete/completed vehicles)

The type of bodywork in Annex I, Annex III, Part 1, item 9,1 and in Annex IX, item 37 shall be indicated by the following codification:

1. Passenger cars (M1)

Code	Type	comment
AA	Saloon	ISO Standard 3833-1977, term No 3.1.1.1, but including also vehicles with more than four side windows.
AB	Hatchback	Saloon (AA) with a hatch at the rear end of the vehicle.
AC	Station wagon	ISO Standard 3833-1977, term No 3.1.1.4 (estate car)
AD	Coupé	ISO Standard 3833-1977, term No 3.1.1.5
AE	Convertible	ISO Standard 3833-1977, term No 3.1.1.6
AF	Multi-purpose vehicle	Motor vehicle other than those mentioned in AA to AE intended for carrying passengers and their luggage or goods, in a single compartment.

No idea, if anywhere in that document the term "pickup" appears.

Anyway, here in Europe or at least Germany, where I happen to spend my life, the term "Pickup" is used for those typically US-american low, passenger car like shaped "pickups". --L.Willms (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Pickup bed styles

I edited this section due to the fact that the original author(s) repeatedly used the term "stepside" to refer to beds with external fenderwells...essentially using it as an industry-wide standard. This is inaccurate, as "stepside" is a registered trademark of Chevrolet only. Except for the explicit Chevrolet reference in this section, I changed "stepside" references (when referring to other domestic manufacturers' products) to "step-style", which is more generic and not infringing on a trademarked name. For clarity, I also added the proper bed-style nomenclatures for standard and step-style beds for Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge. 2/21/15

Cab forward

Continuing on in the same vein as the above topic #VW Transporter not a pickup, Cornellier (talk · contribs) has decided that cab forward vehicles are not pickups. Since this affects the Volkswagen Transporter and Kei trucks (both argued above), it would make sense to discuss this further before unilaterally removing them. Other vehicles affected are: Jeep Forward Control, Ford Econoline, Chevrolet Corvair Rampside and Loadside pickups, and Dodge A-100.

My suggestion above was that 'pickup' includes any light vehicle with an open cargo area on the back. I take it that Cornellier believes that a bonnet (hood) is a strict requirement - which differs from my own suggestion. Thoughts?  Stepho  talk  03:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi yeah sorry that was kinda unilateral. It looked to me that a consensus was never reached in the above-mentioned discussion. This article's been flagged for improvement for nearly five years and I'm just trying to add some referenced content to it. It'll be very difficult to improve the article without a working definition of what the article is about. I propose that for the purposes of this article a pickup truck be:

* a truck, not car-based or van based

* having a hood/bonnet, cab, and open cargo area.

Yes I get that there are global considerations and grey areas. But if you search the internet for images of "pickup truck" then 95 per cent of the images returned will fit the above description. Yes this may be a somewhat North American usage, but the pickup is mostly an American thing. That said utes, bakkies and coupe-utilities are all mentioned so cabovers should be too. I'll try to put them back in now. --Cornellier (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul, still to do

Been working on an overhaul of this article, made enough progress IMHO to delete the flags of shame. Anybody disagree? TODO: convert history timeline to a story. Anything else, ideas? --Cornellier (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

One aspect of overhauling this article concerns the "popular culture" section. Not only does Wikipedia generally not support pop-culture sections within articles, but according to WP:WPACT convention: the guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. The currently mentioned items in the popular culture section seem to be random and completely unrelated to influencing the tangible aspects of pickup trucks. In other words, this section should be eliminated per WP guidelines. CZmarlin (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks for pointing that out CZmarlin, I didn't know about that. Another way will have to be found to express the notion that these vehicles play a part in the popular imagination though. --Cornellier (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cornellier! Yes, including some information on how pickups play a role in popular culture would be interesting. However, this could invite a never-ending process because there are many points of view ... not to mention too many enthusiasts that would want to include their favorite examples! The article should focus on the tangible aspects of the vehicles! CZmarlin (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. But... I guess I didn't mean I want to explore "pop culture" for itself, rather try to explain the fact is that there is a huge disparity in the popularity of pickups, especially fullsize, across different geos. It's partly because of the distorted US market that favours pickups, partly because of cheap gas and more space, and partly because of the pickup's image. --Cornellier (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, and sticking to market share facts in all parts of the world would avoid having contributors add their favorite "pickup truck" songs, movies, books, etc. CZmarlin (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Narrow roads

Barcelona

Rolling Phantom has objected to the following part of the article: "Full size pickups are an oddity in Europe where high fuel prices and very narrow city roads make it particularly difficult to enjoy or even use on a daily basis." (http://www.carscoops.com/2013/06/how-do-europeans-view-ford-f-150-pickup.html). His edit summary says "European roads are not especially narrower than normal American roads. If too narrow for a pickup truck, how come big trucks go there?" Rather than start an edit-war, I have started this discussion. It looks like Phantom is think of the intercity roads where freight trucks run. These are indeed as large as American roads. However, the roads where people live are usually much smaller, being built centuries ago for foot traffic, as shown by this collection of images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Street . Large US style pickups simply do not fit well in these roads.  Stepho  talk  21:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. In any case, the statements deleted by Phantom came straight from the referenced article. --Cornellier (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi all.

As I recall, the reference article is about some Americans on vacation in France. I have another background. I live in Norway, where the narrowest and worst roads in Europe are. I earn my daily bread as a truck driver. This is my reality : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd7upLkOWrU

So if you thought I meant the large intercity roads "where the freight trucks run", you simply have no idea on where the freight trucks run. And if you think these trucks are smaller than American big rigs, well try and find a picture on the net with e.g. a Volvo FH parked next to an American truck. Prepare to laugh. My daily workplace is some 20 meters long and 2,55 meters wide, and carry 2 pcs 20ft intermodal containers most of the time. I drive on places you cant imagine. In Norway, if the road has a yellow stripe in the middle, that means the road has a width of 6 meters or more. Here in the northwest many roads dont have those stripes. See video above.

Other than that, my daily driver is a Ford E350. With the 7,3 liter diesel of course.(DH 51186) I think that is about the same size as an F350. These are not particularly common cars here, but nowhere near an "oddity", unless you wanna call any European car in the US an oddity. Russian cars may be an oddity over there though, in terms of what I think of as an oddity. I live in Rauma, a quite small district in the northwest, and my van is by no means the only American one here. Have only seen 2 or 3 full size pickups though, but in return one of them is a Ford F-150 Raptor. In Fræna, one of the neighboring districts, there are many more, could be due to that they sell them there: http://www.nerlandautosalg.no/ Perhaps the workers at the Moxy factory need them to negotiate the bad road that goes there...

I recall an earlier edit of this article that stated that pickups as in any pickup are rare in Europe. That is not the case in any way, at least not here. My neighbor for instance drives an Opel Campo, and there are heeps of HiLuxes, KingCabs, B2000s and the like, both in 2x4 and 4x4 versions. Polaks an Chezchs make pickups of almost everything, or wait.. those are "coupe utilities", not real pickups. Or what? At least a HiLux is a real pickup, despite being Japanese. I think the reference article was the same as mentioned here.

So, gentlemen, and ladies of course, if so should happen : This is why I dont agree with you and the statements in the text.

Rolling Phantom (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Norway is something of an outlier in Europe (and isn't part of the EC). Try this again in France, or Wales, or Portugal. Mostly I'm driving a Honda Jazz these days - tiny thing, and the dashboard-controlled fold-in mirrors come in handy for our one-lane-with-passing-places roads.

I was offered a Subaru BRAT recently. Realised it wasn't a good deal because even a tiny pickup like this has to pay double for the tolls on my local bridge. Pickups are locally unusual. Several Landies in the past - all with bodies over them, sometimes canvas, but always rigged. Pickups are locally unusual. It pisses down here, all year round. My local bikeshop once bought a Hummer for their race team - got rid of it after six months - it just didn't fit down anything. Pickups are locally unusual. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

We voted down the EC membership, but still everything has to comply with EU regulations.. strange thing.... Anyway, the statement that "Full size pickups are an oddity in Europe where high fuel prices and very narrow city roads make it particularly difficult to enjoy or even use on a daily basis." are taken straight from a TV show and as I see it, is more an "artistic liberty" sort of sentence than a fact. I can almost hear Jeremy Clarkson trying to speak with an American accent. Rolling Phantom (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Even Clarkson can be right twice a day. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is looking like a regional thing. Phantom has stated he is talking about Norway only. For myself, 'Europe' means mostly the southern countries (eg France, Germany, Italy). I suspect most of the rest of us are also thinking of the southern states but they can tell us if they wish. I'm willing to take Phantom's word that US style pickups are common in Norway and that Norwegian streets are wide enough for them. But I'm not willing to take his word that Italian city streets can take large pickups (there's a reason why Italians love the Fiat 500 and Vespa). Any suggestions on how to reword the article to reflect on varying regions with Europe?  Stepho  talk  23:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It was fine as it was, and Europe is narrow. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Are there no cattle farmers in Italy, and do the Germans have so good cars that they dont want American ones? As I said, if there is a yellow stripe, even a stipled one, in the middle of an European road (Europe, including Norway, has the same traffic rules all over) the road is over 6 meters wide and should do for a cowboy car. How would the Italians get goods into stores in the city if not at least some of the roads were wide enough for a distribution truck, which is bigger than the cowboy cars? Seriously, in continental Europe you can get any car you like, even cowboy cars. They may be scarce in the UK due to all of them having the steering wheel on the wrong side. Germany has 80 million inhabitants and Norway some 5. Rolling Phantom (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"there is a yellow stripe, even a stipled one, in the middle of an European road"

Frequently not. I have plenty of local roads that are exactly the usable width of one farm tractor, because that's the only thing that keeps the hedges back. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I wrote IF.. Frequently not here as well.. Even gravel roads. There are little pockets with blue signs with an "M" for "møteplass" or meeting place" along them. A semi truck is a bitch to drive on those roads. Rolling Phantom (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

In the UK there are 31 million cars on the road. Auto Trader UK lists 53,496 Fords for sale. Of those there are 10 F-150s. No RAMs are listed. One Chevy Silverado is listed. Over in Germany, a website [5] lists 98 Ford F-150s for sale. Compared that to 87,921 VW Golfs. It's the same in other countries in Europe. The facts show that pickups are extremely rare in Europe. --Cornellier (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I cant say that I agree on that 98 cars, on top of that of ONE particular model when we speak of an entire genre of cars can be considered "extremely rare" or "an oddity". Full size pickups and vans are enthusiast cars due to high fuel prices and impracticality compared to european equivalents but I doubt there is a mile between them in any direction. 2 or 3 cars as a whole in one country is what I consider extremely rare. Rolling Phantom (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Rolling, the convention on talk pages is to indent comments hierarchically. Would you please use indentation on your comments, as a courtesy to others so they're easier to read? I've shortened the sentence a little so that it's pretty much a factual summary of the referenced text. We don't need to have a discussion of the definition of the word "rare". The statement is backed up by the reference. If you think it's not true then please find some other documented evidence to the contrary. --Cornellier (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)