• chknbwl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I think they mean professional hauling trucks, like an F650. Vehicles used for commercial transport/utilities (i.e. US DOT, Uhaul, construction firms) are typically equipped with high-torque engines specifically engineered for towing.

      This is where the issue arises: for one reason or another, some people want what they call the “best of both worlds”. They want a smaller-sized truck with the same amount of power. To them, this sounds reasonable.

      However to anyone into engineering, this is clearly creating a product for profit rather than practicality. It’s a jack of all trades, master of none situation. A car is a tool, and a tool is created with a specific use in mind.

      Sometimes I get desperate while working on my carpentry: I have to hammer one more nail in to finish my bookcase, but I don’t have a hammer. I have a wrench, which will do terrible work but it’ll get the job done. Yet my neighbor next door has a good hammer, I could borrow it from them for a bit. Now, what if I had to build a house? I’m not wanting a wrench then, I want my own really good hammer.

      Same analogy could be made for Trucks and SUVs. I don’t tow often, but when I do I can rent a capable vehicle. I don’t need to own anything more than a Subaru Legacy at that point. Hell, maybe all I need is an electric bike if my workplace is close enough.

      TL;DR there is no net-positive use-case for the average consumer to need a vehicle with over 400lb•ft of torque. It’s just excessive.

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        (F 350s are far better at towing than an F650. F650s are specifically designed, sprung and geared to haul, not tow, and usually have a weaker motor than the f350s)

      • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        What? You can get a 1/4, 1/2, and full ton and they’ll cover 99% of all non professional towing and be 5 mpg down on a car for the 1/4 tons.

        • chknbwl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          What is being towed so often in your scenario?

          no net-positive use-case for the average consumer

          I’m not talking about professionals, or people who take their boat out four times a week. That is a specific need for a specific tool, or vehicle. I’m talking about people who daily drive these things to the grocery store and work. So, the average consumer.

          • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Ahh right, truck drivers don’t use them correctly of often enough. I don’t know a single driver of a truck that doesn’t use it at least a few times a year. And everyone time I ask for the numbers, they cite a decade old 2013 survey or the more recent Axios survey which is about as scientific as a truth social post.

            • force@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I don’t know a single driver of a truck that doesn’t use it at least a few times a year. And everyone time I ask for the numbers, they cite a decade old 2013 survey or the more recent Axios survey which is about as scientific as a truth social post.

              https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume

              “According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.”

              You mean this one? Why do you call everything that disproves your point “unscientific”? Do you just discard it if it says something you don’t like?

              Edit: Actually I recognized your username and looked at your recent comments and wow, you are clinically insane. Nobody can take you seriously, and I suddenly can’t either. Weirdo fakey-““libertarian””/discount conservative trolls have become all too common here recently

                • force@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  It literally states the methodology, but regardless, I don’t see you giving a source with “methodology or explanation”.

                  • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    < Methodology Our scales represent how people really think and make decisions. Our survey design allows for the most meaningful, actionable data available.

                    How insightful. If only all our papers could have such rigor. Right up there when the JD power awards.

                    You literally went to Google it whenever search you use and found the first result without looking at a damn thing just like everyone else parroting this shit.

                    And I didn’t list a source because the data isn’t out there, but then again I’m not making up baseless accusations and trying to impose restrictions on people.