GM Patents 'Man Step' After Criticizing Ford For Selling One

Stude probably had easier design parameters for their step. I bet 95% of '65 Wagonaire buyers were probably between 130-200lbs, cf the figure for 2017 bro truck buyers which is probably 130-400.

@JimC2 Considering the weight increase of the average American over the past 50 years I doubt that step would hold up today. Between mall moms, soccer dads, contractors etc. a modern version for a CUV or truck would have to be well designed.

@MRF 95 T-Bird OMG, today's average 14 year-old would buckle the "U" in the middle and probably rip the pins right out of hinge. But in fairness, it appears so delicately built that I imagine it was only for grade school kids of the era.

@MRF 95 T-Bird Also consider that there's no handle.

@OldManPants Or just look at the weight of the typical NFL player. At one time 250-280 was freakish, now its the norm. Though granted they are a bit quicker on their feet. Not to go off on a food policy tangent on a auto blog but when Nixon/Ford era agriculture secretary Earl Butz proclaimed "Cheap food and lots of it" its had profound effects to this day.

@MRF 95 T-Bird On the other hand, I don't think tubby is going to climb out of the scooter in the WalMart parking lot and shimmy up the man step...

@OldManPants Let's not get started on Earl "get big or get out" Butz.

But making pickup trucks absurdly tall was also a dumb move. Trucks are supposed to be functional. Not being able to reach in from the side because the wheels are tall for no functional reason is dumb. Oversize wheels make a truck less functional. They make a truck look like a giant child's toy, rather than something that will get the job done. What makes a truck look good is function over form, capability to do get the job done. An absurdly tall truck, that makes the job more difficult because it is so tall, is a dumb truck.

Why not just shrink the truck, instead? There is absolutely no reason they have to sit more than 21 feet long and stand nearly seven feet tall.

@Vulpine Where would you remove length?

@Drzhivago138 I think that's a private discussion with one's plastic surgeon.

@Drzhivago138 Hood, wheelbase, rear overhang. The interior space of today's full-sized 4-door pickup is equivalent to a '70s-vintage Cadillac with a much taller ceiling. You don't need a 15" wide console between the front seats, so you could slim the truck's width down somewhat, too. And for those who say the trucks aren't that long I would point out that a 4.5' bed is almost too SHORT to tow one of the larger fifth-wheel travel trailers and I've read in more than one case where a truck has received cab damage from jackknifing a trailer trying to back into a campsite. I would also note that many, right here on these forums, declare a 4.5' bed too short when speaking about any "smaller than full sized" truck.

@Vulpine Where is the hood going to be shortened? It's pretty full of engine right now. Width cannot be decreased, because that's what seperates full-size from mid-size and smaller pickups, and it's been constant for over 50 years. Having a narrower HD pickup would be a liability when towing a wide trailer. Many buyers don't have a 15" wide center console up front, but they do appreciate the full-width front and rear bench seats when it comes to seating adults and child seats alike. Wheelbase can't really be decreased without decreasing cab space, which no company would want to do. Rear overhang would involve either shortening the bed--and bed sizes have been essentially standardized--or lengthening the wheelbase. There are no pickups with a 4.5' bed, except maybe the S-10 crew cab from the early '00s, and you really wouldn't pull a fifth-wheel with that. I agree that even a 5.5' bed on a half-ton is "too short" for a fifth-wheel hitch, but they have sliding fifth-wheel hitches now that mostly mitigate the issue of potential cab damage when turning. Yes, full-size pickups are big, but they haven't gotten larger since the F-150's 6" cab stretch in 2004/09. They've hit the ceiling. They can't get wider (legal reasons) and there's no good reason for them to get longer.

@Drzhivago138 "Where is the hood going to be shortened? It’s pretty full of engine right now." -- You're kidding, right? With the exception of the largest V8 and diesel engines, you've got more than a foot of empty space in front of that engine. It only looks full because of all the cosmetic covers and shrouds that simply make the engine look larger than it is. Look at that engine outside the truck, without all those covers and shrouds and it's almost tiny by comparison. "Width cannot be decreased, because that’s what seperates full-size from mid-size and smaller pickups, and it’s been constant for over 50 years." -- False. Width could easily be reduced by a foot, bringing it BACK to the full size of 1990, only 25 (ok, now 27) years ago. This is also why I argue that today's mid-size models are equivalent to yesterday's full sized models--meaning there is absolutely room for a modern, compact model. "There are no pickups with a 4.5′ bed, except maybe the S-10 crew cab from the early ’00s, and you really wouldn’t pull a fifth-wheel with that." -- Would you like me to present examples of TODAY's full-sized trucks with 4.5' beds? You only have to go to any brand's web page to see that the shorter bed is the standard bed and that a 6' to 6.5' bed is considered the 'long' bed. "Yes, full-size pickups are big, but they haven’t gotten larger since the F-150’s 6″ cab stretch in 2004/09. They’ve hit the ceiling. They can’t get wider (legal reasons) and there’s no good reason for them to get longer." -- Outside of continuing to dodge the EPA fuel economy requirements, which is the SOLE reason they're as big as they are now.

@Vulpine A lot of modern full sized pickups are already wider than their owners' competence. When you have a big truck but you park it on the edge of a parking space because you can't figure out how to park it in the middle, it should be: - big truck - driver's license - man card You don't deserve all three anymore.