▲ 136 ▼ Presenting the Fjord F-150, a sensible car for the discerning Scandinavian consumer (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by improvisedbuttplug@lemmy.world to c/imageai@sh.itjust.works 14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe if it was 3 times as long, wide and tall. This looks like the small trucks of lore. I wish we could attain them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The maverick is just tall. Its foot print is pretty small. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It is wider, taller and about as long as a 3/4 ton truck from 30 years ago. We have been gaslit into thinking that it is a small truck. I think removing the standard cab as an option was the final move towards the embiggining of trucks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That's straight up false. The 1993 F-250 had a width of 79 inches. The length of the 250 at it's shortest was 213.3 inches. The Maverick is 72.4 inches wide, and 199.7 inches long. It's tall, sure, but so is everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I was using a 1986 c20. Also including the massive side mirrors (on both old and new). So with the mirrors (maverick is 83.5 with mirrors and the c20 is 79 with non trailer add on mirrors) it is taller, wider and almost as long. Like I said we have been gaslit to think it is small as it is small compared to every other truck being sold now. I would love to drive the size of new truck in this AI rendition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Oh yeah, it's nice to drive old small trucks. But my point was the maverick is smaller than you think. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The maverick is just tall. Its foot print is pretty small. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It is wider, taller and about as long as a 3/4 ton truck from 30 years ago. We have been gaslit into thinking that it is a small truck. I think removing the standard cab as an option was the final move towards the embiggining of trucks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That's straight up false. The 1993 F-250 had a width of 79 inches. The length of the 250 at it's shortest was 213.3 inches. The Maverick is 72.4 inches wide, and 199.7 inches long. It's tall, sure, but so is everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I was using a 1986 c20. Also including the massive side mirrors (on both old and new). So with the mirrors (maverick is 83.5 with mirrors and the c20 is 79 with non trailer add on mirrors) it is taller, wider and almost as long. Like I said we have been gaslit to think it is small as it is small compared to every other truck being sold now. I would love to drive the size of new truck in this AI rendition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Oh yeah, it's nice to drive old small trucks. But my point was the maverick is smaller than you think. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It is wider, taller and about as long as a 3/4 ton truck from 30 years ago. We have been gaslit into thinking that it is a small truck. I think removing the standard cab as an option was the final move towards the embiggining of trucks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That's straight up false. The 1993 F-250 had a width of 79 inches. The length of the 250 at it's shortest was 213.3 inches. The Maverick is 72.4 inches wide, and 199.7 inches long. It's tall, sure, but so is everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I was using a 1986 c20. Also including the massive side mirrors (on both old and new). So with the mirrors (maverick is 83.5 with mirrors and the c20 is 79 with non trailer add on mirrors) it is taller, wider and almost as long. Like I said we have been gaslit to think it is small as it is small compared to every other truck being sold now. I would love to drive the size of new truck in this AI rendition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Oh yeah, it's nice to drive old small trucks. But my point was the maverick is smaller than you think. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That's straight up false. The 1993 F-250 had a width of 79 inches. The length of the 250 at it's shortest was 213.3 inches. The Maverick is 72.4 inches wide, and 199.7 inches long. It's tall, sure, but so is everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I was using a 1986 c20. Also including the massive side mirrors (on both old and new). So with the mirrors (maverick is 83.5 with mirrors and the c20 is 79 with non trailer add on mirrors) it is taller, wider and almost as long. Like I said we have been gaslit to think it is small as it is small compared to every other truck being sold now. I would love to drive the size of new truck in this AI rendition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Oh yeah, it's nice to drive old small trucks. But my point was the maverick is smaller than you think. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I was using a 1986 c20. Also including the massive side mirrors (on both old and new). So with the mirrors (maverick is 83.5 with mirrors and the c20 is 79 with non trailer add on mirrors) it is taller, wider and almost as long. Like I said we have been gaslit to think it is small as it is small compared to every other truck being sold now. I would love to drive the size of new truck in this AI rendition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Oh yeah, it's nice to drive old small trucks. But my point was the maverick is smaller than you think. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OnlyTakesLs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Oh yeah, it's nice to drive old small trucks. But my point was the maverick is smaller than you think. permalink fedilink source parent
