I'm not quite so negative about it, but do agree that they screwed up with the narrow (and short) bed. In a conventional pickup it is a common practice to build a simple platform to utilize the full width of the truck bed above the wheelwells, giving you a usable width of nearly 6'. The original specs for the CT were touting a 6.5' (or 6'-5"-I forget which) bed length. All would have been great for camping in it. At least on trucks with a decent sized bed-so many new ones have a 5.5' bed that is useless for much beyond groceries). I also expected at least some sort of pass-through or mid-gate, allowing AC for camping. And especially for dogs-being able to put them in the bed while traveling and keep them out of the passenger area, while still providing AC would have been great. I've said it before-IMO shortening the truck to make it fit a small suburban garage is a mistake. With all the other cool tech it also would have been nice to have AC vents in the bed area as well
Another limitation with the unibody/integrated bed design is of course that the bed can never be removed, meaning no way to ever make a flat-bed out of it. Though not a terrible limitation. The sloped sides of the bed also make it a lot harder to design/mount a canopy. Though I do love the powered tonneu cover, that alone is a big selling point to me to have all that lockable storage without some poorly done aftermarket design. There are also no stake pockets in the bed, so forget about putting side-boards on it for extra hauling capacity-this (and the narrow bed) make it useless for carrying a big load of firewood or hay bales. A standard, flat-topped bed, at a standard width, would have been much more practical for a lot of existing accessories, could still have kept the tonneu cover and a usable rear window/rearview mirror. Not sure just how much this would have compromised the structure by not having the "wings" integral from the back of the "cab".