Why does Ford treat US customers this way?

Caelan said:
@Sydney
It’s about meeting specific size and weight rules. Small trucks just don’t hit the mark under current regulations. I’ll find a simple explanation for everyone.

Here’s a video that explains it: https://youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=cE3Zkz3Lj5gM5SQj

Caelan said:
@Sydney
It’s about meeting specific size and weight rules. Small trucks just don’t hit the mark under current regulations. I’ll find a simple explanation for everyone.

It’s actually based on the gross weight, not wheelbase and engine size. No one wants a tiny 6000lb Ranger.

@Niko
True, I had to rewatch the video to double-check the details!

@Sydney
Basically, they need to make the trucks big enough to justify the low mpg. It’s the opposite of what the EPA intended.

@Sydney
Are you familiar with the Ford Maverick? Ford can barely keep up with the demand for it.

Zack said:
@Sydney
Are you familiar with the Ford Maverick? Ford can barely keep up with the demand for it.

Check out what u/No_Pension_5065 said above.

@Sydney
Yep, US automakers pushed for these emissions rules because it meant more money in their pockets.

@Sydney
But… what about the Maverick?

Mikayla said:
@Sydney
But… what about the Maverick?

The Maverick gets by because its main model is a hybrid, which is essentially an SUV with a bed. Real small trucks face a different set of rules under emissions laws.

@Ellison
Got it. Why can’t a body-on-frame (BoF) vehicle do the same with fuel efficiency?

Mikayla said:
@Ellison
Got it. Why can’t a body-on-frame (BoF) vehicle do the same with fuel efficiency?

  • Unibody designs are more aerodynamic underneath.

  • BoF vehicles have to bear all weight in the frame while keeping the cab strong enough for flips, which makes them heavier.

  • You can more easily place a battery in a unibody without frame issues.

BoF is flexible, which is why they’re more common in trucks—it’s easier to modify for different loads and uses.

@Ellison
Makes sense, thanks for the breakdown!

@Ellison
Appreciate the detailed info!

Mikayla said:
@Ellison
Got it. Why can’t a body-on-frame (BoF) vehicle do the same with fuel efficiency?

SUVs are often body-on-frame too, so they get to skip some regulations.

Dayton said:

Mikayla said:
@Ellison
Got it. Why can’t a body-on-frame (BoF) vehicle do the same with fuel efficiency?

SUVs are often body-on-frame too, so they get to skip some regulations.

Most modern SUVs are actually unibody; only the biggest ones like the Expedition or Tahoe stick with BoF.

Dayton said:

Mikayla said:
@Ellison
Got it. Why can’t a body-on-frame (BoF) vehicle do the same with fuel efficiency?

SUVs are often body-on-frame too, so they get to skip some regulations.

Yep, BoF SUVs used to be everywhere—Bronco, Durango, etc. Now maybe just the Expedition or Sequoia?

@Riley
My old ‘92 Tracker was BoF.

@Ellison
Funny enough, it actually has a higher payload than a Tacoma.

Lenox said:
@Ellison
Funny enough, it actually has a higher payload than a Tacoma.

It depends on the trim, though. Some Tacomas are more off-road-focused, which affects payload capacity.

@Ellison
The F-150 is BoF, hybrid, and has a decent-sized engine.