No, it’s obviously not.
A van without enclosure looks like that:
A pickup truck with enclosure looks like this:
One of these allows you to see a three year old standing 60cm in front of your car, the other one doesn’t even allow you to see the same kid when it’s 3 meters away.
First of all, I already said they shouldn’t be used for daily commuters and I hope there aren’t a bunch of children on a job site.
Second, the hood design is separate from the purpose of the vehicle. They could put sloped hoods on F350s, and they have had sloped hoods on comparable pickups in the past. That is a separate and valid design issue.
Third, your van without an enclosure IS THE SAME THING with a different cab and hood design. That is a FLATBED PICKUP TRUCK with a better hood design. What you should be arguing for is the DESIGN instead of just trashing the concept of the type of vehicle existing in the first place.
It’s not just the hood. A Ford Transit has a smaller wheelbase, a smaller track and a lower ground clearance than an F250. The smallest F250 engine I could find has 405hp, more than a full sized German fire truck, the biggest Transit engine has 310hp. They’re clearly not built on the same platform. Noone would use a Ford Transit flatbed for their daily commute, and noone would do this to a Ford Transit flatbed either. Because they’re not the same type of car.
I think he means that the engine, transmission, and frame are the same, not necessarily the body.
Also, I don’t think you two really disagree with each other, as his first comment was:
The big one is a work truck and should not be driven as a commuter. It really shouldn’t be allowed on roads where cargo trucks aren’t allowed.
The horrible sightlines of modern pickups is a different issue, and I was actually going to post that same chart in this thread because I was thinking of it too. I will add that the pickup is about the same size as the tank, though, and has a worse view.
A van is an enclosed pickup truck.
No, it’s obviously not.
A van without enclosure looks like that:
A pickup truck with enclosure looks like this:
One of these allows you to see a three year old standing 60cm in front of your car, the other one doesn’t even allow you to see the same kid when it’s 3 meters away.
First of all, I already said they shouldn’t be used for daily commuters and I hope there aren’t a bunch of children on a job site.
Second, the hood design is separate from the purpose of the vehicle. They could put sloped hoods on F350s, and they have had sloped hoods on comparable pickups in the past. That is a separate and valid design issue.
Third, your van without an enclosure IS THE SAME THING with a different cab and hood design. That is a FLATBED PICKUP TRUCK with a better hood design. What you should be arguing for is the DESIGN instead of just trashing the concept of the type of vehicle existing in the first place.
It’s not just the hood. A Ford Transit has a smaller wheelbase, a smaller track and a lower ground clearance than an F250. The smallest F250 engine I could find has 405hp, more than a full sized German fire truck, the biggest Transit engine has 310hp. They’re clearly not built on the same platform. Noone would use a Ford Transit flatbed for their daily commute, and noone would do this to a Ford Transit flatbed either. Because they’re not the same type of car.
I think he means that the engine, transmission, and frame are the same, not necessarily the body.
Also, I don’t think you two really disagree with each other, as his first comment was:
The horrible sightlines of modern pickups is a different issue, and I was actually going to post that same chart in this thread because I was thinking of it too. I will add that the pickup is about the same size as the tank, though, and has a worse view.