By on March 8, 2016

American Expedition Vehicles four-door Brute

Two months ago at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Jeep CEO Mike Manley confirmed that the next generation Wrangler will spawn a pickup. No other official announcements related to the exciting new product have been released. But as TTAC reported in October (The Untapped Potential of Wrangler), the move was entirely predictable. And it was made all the more inevitable when the company recently announced its intention to stop developing small cars.

The revelation of a forthcoming Wrangler pickup could have justified a front page New York Times headline. That is how important the new pickup is for the $10 billion company. Investors may not have valued the announcement, as Fiat Chrysler Automotive’s stock price continued its steep decline from $9.20 on December 31st to $5.88 in early February, but Wall Street analysts are not known for their long-term perspective. Regardless, Jeep is a well known bright spot under the sagging FCA umbrella and investing in its record-setting Wrangler nameplate is an action the company needs to take.

How will Jeep execute the Wrangler pickup and what will its real impact be?

American Expedition Vehicles two-door Brute

Assuming the pickup arrives in late 2017, as Mr. Manley has stated, its design has already been frozen and the die cast for what will be an entertaining chapter for Jeep, its enthusiasts, and the industry. But Wrangler fans pining for a two-door short box Scrambler should cool their heels. This isn’t about the few thousand of you. Yes, a two-door is possible, but the brand needs to find tens of thousands of new customers and it will take four-doors to do that. The current Wrangler sales mix is 70 percent four-door. And a lack of demand for two-door trucks led Toyota and General Motors to axe them during the recent updates of their segment-leading Tacoma and Colorado/Canyon. FCA lacks a traditional mid-size pickup in its North American lineup and harbors little hope of developing one on its own. Its Wrangler pickup will therefore need to take aim at expanding the Wranglerati, but also at pulling shoppers out of other traditional mid-size pickups.

The big question for Wrangler watchers is will FCA go all-in on the Wrangler, or will it hedge by limiting itself to a single configuration? At perhaps $500 million, the lowest cost alternative is to develop the obvious four-door short-bed pickup. This strategy would position the new truck to compete in the highest volume configuration. However, this conservative approach would limit the truck’s addressable market and fall short of achieving its full sales potential. It would also fail to capitalize on the economies of scale available during the development stage to design up to four additional configurations at a deep savings.

2016 Chevrolet Colorado Z71, Image: General Motors

Before exploring potential cab and bed configurations, can a Wrangler pickup attract buyers from the Tacoma, Colorado, Frontier, and upcoming Ranger? The Wrangler is loud and unrefined, and there is little reason to expect that to change in the next generation. Yes, hard tops will be offered across the range, but they come at an additional cost on a vehicle that already carries a price premium when compared with other pickups. And though they cut interior decibels, a hard-top Wrangler pickup will not be Canyon-quiet. Security and pricing will be additional concerns keeping a significant portion of mid-size pickup shoppers out of Jeep showrooms. Moreover, commercial users will not pay the Jeep premium, particularly if four-wheel drive is superfluous. The forthcoming Jeep pickup will at best compete for half of mid-size buyers. And, oh, by the way, pickup buyers tend to be more loyal than consumers in just about any other segment.

2016 Toyota Tacoma TRD 4x4, Image: Toyota

A four door, short-bed Wrangler is a given. Additional configurations could include both short and long-bed single cabs, which could use the Unlimited and the four-door short-bed wheelbases, respectively. The arguments for developing these would rest on their low cost to develop, the opportunity to satisfy a market segment ignored by the domestic market leaders, and their potential appeal in international markets where mid-size, single cab, long-bed trucks dominate the commercial market. Jeep may also consider mounting a long bed on the four-door truck and simply accepting the additional rear over-hang as the cost of reaching a wider audience. Additionally, the wheelbase created for the four-door short-bed Wrangler opens up the possibility for a three-row SUV similar to the Wrangler Africa concept prepared for the Easter Jeep Safari in 2015.

Jeep Wrangler Africa Concept, Image: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

Jeep’s biggest challenge in extending the Wrangler range to include a pickup is the Wrangler SUV. No matter what configurations are developed, the pickup will cannibalize SUV sales. But by moving ahead with the pickup, FCA is betting its repurposed factory in Toledo that the net sales impact will be positive. The successful Cherokee is being moved out of Toledo and its production line significantly reworked to make room for more Wranglers. The cost to develop five new configurations, as outlined above, would more than double FCA’s additional investment in the Wrangler pickup from $500 million to approximately $1.2 billion.

At a minimum, FCA believes the addition of a four door, short-bed Wrangler will be profitable, which allows analysis to back into some of their sales forecasting. The company will likely require a break-even on its Wrangler pickup investment in 18 months. Wrangler’s gross profit per unit already exceeds $10,000, though the addition of a pickup will elevate it further. This means FCA is forecasting a minimum annual sales boost of 33,000 units in the first full year the pickup is available. Jeep is developing the all-new Wrangler in parallel, so the reality is not so simple, but enough facts exist to turn this into a clean algebraic equation. If a $500 million investment for one new configuration nets 33,000 new annual sales, then a $1.2 billion investment for the full five configurations would need to result in a minimum of 80,000 new Wrangler sales annually to break-even at 18 months.

2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, Image: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

Putting these sales numbers in context, U.S. and Canadian consumers purchased 224,000 Wranglers last year. Thirty-three thousand additional Wrangler sales would equal half the sales generated by the ancient Nissan Frontier. And if Jeep could shift 80,000 additional Wranglers north of the Rio Grande, that would equate to 64 percent of combined Canyon/Colorado sales. Earning half the sales of the also-ran Frontier seems straight forward. Achieving two-thirds of GM’s mid-size sales is a bigger hurdle. But the segment is growing, some consumers would convert from full-size, half-ton trucks, and don’t forget the likely inclusion of a diesel in the next-gen Wrangler.

FCA is cash constrained. However, given the explosive growth in the mid-size pickup market (up 36 percent over last three years), Wrangler’s tremendous sales momentum (up 43 percent over last three years), and Mr. Marchionne’s all or nothing attitude (well documented), an all-in Wrangler strategy would not be a surprise. As a consumer brand, why wouldn’t FCA place a big bet on its sales hero from its record-setting brand?

Cannibalism be damned, FCA does not care what model mix the Wrangler sells in. It only cares about selling as many Wranglers as possible. How important is the Wrangler pickup? It depends. Is FCA Calling, or is it All-In?

[Images: AEV Brute, American Expedition Vehicles; General Motors; Toyota; Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

79 Comments on “What Does the Wrangler Pickup Mean for FCA?...”


  • avatar
    thelaine

    Glory. Legacy. Money.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    “What Does the Wrangler Pickup Mean for FCA?”

    more money to waste on Alfa Romeo.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Maybe they should just make a Chrysler 200 edition of the Wrangler. Then the 200 would sell.

  • avatar
    heavy handle

    Seth,

    A little constructive criticism: you read like a writer who is trying too hard, looking for a voice. You’ll get there but, in the meanwhile, maybe you should question more and repeat stuff less.
    I don’t feel like I’ve learned much from a very long piece.

    • 0 avatar
      Seth Parks

      heavy handle – Thanks for taking the time to read the entire piece and for taking a moment to share your thoughts. I appreciate your input. And yes, reducing my word count is one of my writing objectives.

      • 0 avatar

        I disagree, the article reads fine as an essay and speculation. The core problem is, the public does not know much, so it all comes down to a couple of sentences: due to blah blah blah, we expect several Wrangler pickups, not just one, although probably not a 2-door version. Dixi. That’s the nature of the complaint about the length.

  • avatar
    wmba

    What about relton’s comments on this exact subject several days ago? He’s a real industry insider. Yes, this means you have to go and look. Not before 2020 if they can manage to think straight, or give the project to their actual US engineers, not Fiat corporate, who couldn’t organize their way out of a wet paper bag. See Alfa.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I think the Wrangler is more of a lifestyle vehicle, and anyone who buys it is more than willing to put up with the mediocre fuel economy, spartan cabin, booming road noise, and the way it gets blown all over the road on the highway…versus another vehicle of similar price. I don’t think anyone looking for a serious pickup truck will buy one. So the Wrangler pickup really just needs to appeal to existing Wrangler customers. It shouldn’t have to worry about what the Tacoma, Colorado / Canyon and Frontier are doing.

    That said, a single-cab, longer-bed configuration would probably please the fanbase and sell better than a standard single-cab mid-sized truck would. And I always thought the cab-over Mighty FC concept was a great idea, and a neat homage to the original cab-over Jeep…but fat chance that it’ll actually see production because it would require separate engineering.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      I think there could be an issue with the “expand to Wrangler truck” theory. And the issue is Ford.

      A Ranger is coming, and that has more brand stability, history of cheap running and utility, and credibility than the GM options and Dodge/FCA. And of course it’ll be massively cheaper than this Jeep truck. A Bronco is coming as well, which will chop into these lifestyle sales the Wrangler has enjoyed solo for so long.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        I read some reviews of the Australian version of the Everest (likely the Bronco will be similar) and even though the Everest didn’t finish at the top of the comparisons, I got excited about the prospect of the Bronco.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I think if they do some heritage styling properly on the Bronco (and not full SSR route) it can be quite successful.

          Now, if it’s only four doors, that’s a worry.

          And like maybe it’ll convince GM to bring back a two-door Tahoe Sport, and stuff.

      • 0 avatar
        SSJeep

        Neither of those will chop into Wrangler sales much unless Ford develops a convertible Bronco or Ranger. And neither are in the cards, at least not today.

        • 0 avatar
          Drew8MR

          I’ve been living by the beach here in Orange County for 10 years now and I’ve seen 1 4-door Wrangler sans top and doors. Freaking 1. 2-doors about 60-40 or so, but the 4-doors? Never.

          • 0 avatar
            MRF 95 T-Bird

            I see plenty of 4 door Wranglers here in the NYC metro area in a variety of trims. It’s the G-Wagen for the middle to upper-middle class family.

      • 0 avatar
        formula m

        I don’t think Ford has much credibility. 80’s Rangers were garbage and the ’93 redesign wasn’t much better. When I sold these in 2011 it was just sad for the price. I can appreciate something simple but they are too expensive. The new Ranger will cost more to build than an F-150.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      I test drove a 6spd JKU last fall and even with a soft-top, I found it to be perfectly reasonable road/wind noise wise. Likewise it was not too-uncivilized on the highway, of course expansion joints mid-turn would produce some unsettling bobbing and weaving but that is par for the course in this class of vehicle. My old 4Runner with IFS is not a whole lot better in any metric in terms of driving dynamics. Now for someone used to more road-oriented vehicles that is definitely damning with faint praise, but it was a very comfortable fit for me.

      • 0 avatar
        87 Morgan

        Had what you describe for 20k miles and 18 months.
        2011 frontier CC 6 MT 4×4.

        Awful.
        Uncomfortable, slow, and a gas hog.

        The front driver seat is/was perhaps the worst I have ever owned.

        I traded it for a 2 door wrangler 6 mt. Couldn’t be happier.

        The jeep front seat is 10x more comfortable. Is slow and a gas hog.

        I guess you know which quality I value most

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          The Frontier is indeed too utilitarian and rough for everyday use, but it lacks the styling and cool factor of the Jeep. The VQ40 should have died a long time ago. Thirsty, rough, down on power.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Hmm good to know. I test drove a 6mt Xterra pro4X and coming from my 183hp 4Runner saddled with a 4spd auto, it felt like a rocket, so I guess that is a matter of perspective. How gas-hoggy are we talking? I can eke out a consistent 20 mpg with sane highway driving with some city streets mixed in with the old ‘yota. Seat comfort is definitely something that is good to hear about, it is something that is hard to get a good feel for on a short test drive. My 4Runner is not really great but I’ve knocked down a 17 hour day in it before, and more 10 hour drives than I can count without too many complaints.

          I just really had a blast working the ‘trucky’ clutch and shifter on that Xterra and I’d imagine the Frontier would be the same. Did you run into any reliability issues?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            My mom got at most 18mpg out of her VQ40 Pathfinder.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Corey I was able to coax out an indicated 20.3 mpg out of a ’12 Pathfinder Silver Edition on a test drive, mostly highway driving at 70ish mph followed by some pretty easy 45mph driving without too many stops. You’re right, something about the VQ40 gives it a healthier appetite than Toyota’s 1gr V6 of identical displacement. The Nissans have steeper ramped throttle response from a stop, the 4Runners that I’ve driven roll out unless you really hammer the throttle, sort of a default ECO mode that you can’t disable.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I believe it! Try telling my mom how to drive economically, ha. She spends most of her time around town at 35-40 as well.

          • 0 avatar
            87 Morgan

            I would highly recommend a long test drive. I found my limit was 100 miles was my limit in the Frontier at any one ‘sitting’. I live mountains west, so 100 miles is pretty easy at 75 mph posted limit, or higher.
            It is entirely possible you will find it to your liking, but for me it was the sole reason it had to go.
            As for reliability, it was fine. The Frontier guts are basically the same for 14 model years. Sheet metal changed is all.
            MPG was 19 city/highway. I guess for me what really irked me was/is my Suburban is bigger, heavier, more powerful, more comfortable gets 18 mpg. Seemed like a play toy truck should do better is all. By the same token my Wrangler returns the same economy as the Frontier and this bothers me none at all. I think you can chalk it up to I just did not like the truck and would use any reason to justify unloading it.

      • 0 avatar
        SSJeep

        Agreed. People coming from a truck into a Wrangler will generally be fine with all of the JKU driving dynamic nuances. Someone coming from a sedan would likely find them unsettling for a while. Highway behavior is much improved over the years, but the JKU is loud at 70mph (even moreso with a soft top on) and squirrely at 75 plus.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      But pickup trucks are largely image vehicles too. A Jeep Wrangler pickup with like an ultra image vehicle: you get the outdoorsy image of the Wrangler & the brawny workman image of a truck!

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        This is true.

        • 0 avatar
          Mandalorian

          A Wangler “Sport” like the Range Rover Sport would not be a bad idea, all the image of the real thing but a little more optimized for highway/nvh in this case. Hard top, improved deadening, nicer interior, and a 5.7L Hemi to weigh it down a little.

          They really should try to find a way to shoehorn the Hemi in the Wrangler, especially the pickup, could be a mini-Raptor.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            Yeah, that would work. A Wrangler Sport would be smart.

            As far as the HEMI, I think they should go the other way, and work on making the Wrangler more efficient. If FCA’s strategy depends on higher-profit-margin vehicles like the Wrangler…it needs to make those vehicles as efficient as possible…lest they get caught out by CAFE mandates. The Cherokee and Renegade are already pretty competitive in that regard, but the Wrangler could use some MPG love.

          • 0 avatar
            derekson

            Jeep Grand Wrangler?

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    The Africa concept is awesome if it sheds the space-eating rollbars and is instead a traditional hardtop SUV, I am quite serious when I say I would be driving down to the dealer immediately to put money down on a 6spd variant. As it stands the Wrangler Unlimited is a bit too compromised in terms of cargo capacity and rear passenger comfort for my taste. The pickup version is certainly interesting as well. In fact I’m currently window shopping lightly used manual crew cab Frontier Pro-4Xs, they are a good value and they seemed to be very popular with my Mexican colleagues that subject them to unimproved road commuting day in and day out. Less ground clearance than a Tacoma, but they also depreciate significantly quicker and are more easily found in offroad-trim with a stick shift it seems.

  • avatar
    npaladin2000

    It means money, pure and simple. The US has been missing a small off-road cargo carrier since the Ranger disappeared. The Wrangler pickup will draw the Tacoma , Ranger, and Frontier buyers who were looking for an off-roader with more utility than the traditional Wrangler, since the Wrangler pickup will likely be a better off-roader than those choices. Also, it should find a unique niche in commercial and government fleet sales. FEMA should grab some, as well as some other emergency management/response agencies. Finally, it could challenge the Land Rover and Range Rover in certain areas of the world for go-anywhere utility. There’s really no downside to this. I just hope they don’t ruin it when they make a RAM version.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      “Wrangler pickup will likely be a better off-roader than those choices”

      Maybe once you get into some hardcore rockcrawling, but box stock you’d be hardpressed to need anything more than a TRD Tacoma. Frontier is no slouch either, although it needs a small lift to really shine. In fact for how most people define ‘offroading’ or getting into the wilderness, a sturdy independent front suspension as found on the Toyota would be preferable on the unimproved roads that you would be driving over at higher speeds. Better control and smoother ride, with no sacrifice in durability (it might actually be better). The Jeep wins in terms of lopping close to a foot off the wheelbase of those midsize trucks, but again in just about any typical scenario, something like a Tacoma has oodles of ground clearance to compensate for that long wheelbase.

      • 0 avatar
        SSJeep

        Agree and disagree. The Taco’s seating position is abysmal and neither the Taco or the Frontier are convertible. Part of the fun of offroading is doing so in the open air.

        Other than the seating position, the new Taco is a great truck.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          I hear you on the legs-out position, I finally got used to it in my 4Runner, but it is an acquired taste. I guess I was speaking specifically to technical capability, not the experience as much.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          SSJeep – ” Part of the fun of offroading is doing so in the open air.”

          Well, If you like feeding mosquitoes, filling your lungs full of dust and splashing mud all over the cabin.

          Oh and I haven’t mentioned winter yet ;)

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      “The US has been missing a small off-road cargo carrier since the Ranger disappeared.”

      Finally! Cowboys can once again take grub, barbed wire and boxes of harmonicas out to their campfires. “Hand ’em out, Otis. All around. We gon’ play us some Debussy tonight!”

      Or do they just use heat packs and eat MREs nowadays?

  • avatar
    musicalmcs8706

    This will sell well to the Wrangler faithful who want a truck for the few times they need something in the bed, while being able to have the aspects of the Wrangler they love. Most people who love the Wrangler don’t care about the refinement. They like it because it’s a Jeep. When most people think of a Jeep, something Wrangler based is what they imagine. I have a friend who her dream vehicle is a Wrangler. She knows it isn’t practical, isn’t the most comfortable, all of those things. But she doesn’t care. It’s a Jeep, and she loves it. Those sorts of people will buy a Jeep pickup.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Provided the design has the option to remove the roof/top even if it is a freedom top which is a two piece targa, they will sell every single one they make. Period.

    • 0 avatar
      319583076

      *sighs* I drew the shortest straw today.

      “…they will sell every single one they make.”

      This thoughtless, stupid comment implies that manufacturers sometimes (or often, even) dispose of product through means other than selling which is not true.

      Every automaker sells every single car they make.

      The only metric that matters is whether or not selling every one they make is profitable.

      Thus, please modify your stupid, senseless comment into something reasonably meaningful like:

      “…they will make money selling these. Period.”

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “Every automaker sells every single car they make.”

        That’s what you think. *Conspiracy theories intensify*

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Don’t you think that was a bit rude?

      • 0 avatar
        87 Morgan

        Yikes, must have had a rough morning and needed to hammer someone to feel better about your intellect with your comments. I was typing on my phone in between meetings, so please allow me to expand with my sincerest apologies for offending your sensibilities.

        ‘They will sell everyone one they make’: yes they all do, I agree. What I was implying was/is without inducements to the buying public; read excessively large rebates or zero percent for 72 months. They will sell for close to MSRP and not be flooded into rental fleets. Just like the current 4 door Wrangler which sells very well and next to a 4Runner I can’t find another SUV that holds its value similarly.

        Truly, I hope your day improved.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        319583076 –

        “…they will sell every single one they make.”

        …………………….VERSUS……………………….

        “…they will make money selling these. Period.”

        Considering your avatar, the latter makes much more sense.

        Oh and the former is just an expression.

  • avatar
    cgjeep

    I think they will only make the 4 door. The longer wheelbase will help their CAFE numbers.

  • avatar
    ezeolla

    I am really hoping for some kind of extended cab, like the Gladiator concept. Give me that with 4×4 and a manual (and under $30k), and there will be an ’05 TJ with a for sale sign in the window

  • avatar
    Higheriq

    Yes, I read the article; I still want a regular cab…please.

  • avatar

    Anyone who doesn’t believe this thing will be an unmitigated runaway success fails to understand the Wrangler as a lifestyle accessory. Remember that this is a vehicle that people shop around, test drive, negotiate a price, sign the contract, and immediate spend abother $2000-4500 on lift kits, tires, winches, bumpers, and other accessories before their payment coupon book arrives.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    I really liked my 1972 Jeep Commando (C104), a two-door pickup built on the CJ frame. It was a convertible runabout that could do light hauling. The fun factor compensated for the atrocious build quality. I don’t think Jeep quality has improved notwithstanding the passage of time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeepster_Commando#/media/File:Jeep_Commando_C-104.jpg

  • avatar
    SoCalMikester

    hit em where they aint.

    how hard/expensive could it be to do a 2 door pickup variant on the 4 doors existing frame? this is pretty much stone age tech.

    i guess if they wanted to be “fancy” they could make an avalanche-like 4 door, since theres no avalanche anymore, either. single rear bench, easily removed would give close to 8ft, no?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      SoCalMikester – as Seth pointed out, the ratio of 4dr to 2 dr Jeeps is 70:30.

      IIRC Ford is around 15% of it’s fleet are regular cab. Most are white and end up with a company name on the door.

      Tacoma reg cab was around 10% IIRC.

      Another issue beyond the fact that most people don’t buy regular cab trucks is EPA. There was a story posted on a truck site a few years back saying that as MPG and emissions laws tighten up “footprint” comes more into play. It was reported especially in the small truck market the footprint could be small enough to push them into a tougher EPA classification. Car companies aren’t going to bother with separate standards for a low volume vehicle.

      Toyota killed the reg cab Tacoma and the new Colorado/Canyon do not offer it. You can get a seat delete option in the GM twins.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    It may have a niche in NA, but like Hyundai is finding out, selling Pickups in general is a tricky business

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      RR, Jeep fans everywhere will find it appealing.

      When AEV was building these (and other variations) they enjoyed more business than they could handle, even at their steep pricing.

      My cousins in Germany are really excited about this Jeep trucklet but then they also were fired up about the Grand Cherokee VM Diesel. How well did that work out, eh? I think maybe there’s only one lonely Diesel JGC in my family there.

      No doubt, when this Wrangler trucklet first hits the market, the Jeep dealers will pad the hell out of the MSRP like they did when the 2014 Grand Cherokee first came out in March 2013, selling at 3% – 5% OVER MSRP, plus dealer-installed crap like silicone paint sealant and etched window glass. What a crock!

      I can’t blame the dealers for wanting to make extra money since there is a fool born every minute who will pay the premium. But they will sell them.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Europe is not a happy hunting ground for Pickups. I have ridden in a Wrangler, must say the ride left a lot to be desired.
        Hyundai will probably produce that mini Pickup for the NA market,but is having a lot of problems trying to decide if it will produce anything larger for the NA or Global Market

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    I picture these lined up as far as the eye can see at the mountain bike trailhead with Dakine tailgate pads galore. That’s about all these things are destined to carry in the bed.

    ….and that’s ok. I like it. Problem is, there are some small pickups that are actually capable pickups. The new colorado with a diesel and 7000 lb tow rating comes to mind. Is this vehicle TOO limited for a truck?

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      “The new colorado with a diesel and 7000 lb tow rating comes to mind. Is this vehicle TOO limited for a truck?”

      It is too limited for a truck IMHO. Which is why people like me that buy PU trucks to work would never give this thing a second look. BUT there is still big market that will buy it for the image. They’ll never tow squat with it and the heaviest thing they’ll put in the box is two mountain bikes. So it works for them.

      That diesel Colorado just may be my next truck. That I can put to work!

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Carlson Fan – assuming the mini-Duramax finally clears emissions testing.

        Thank you very much VW!

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          The new mini-duramax is already scheduled to go into the Chevy Express and GMC Savana ( or whatever the GMC is called)

          They’re deleting the 6.6 option for the 2.8, not sure how that makes sense but w/e.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    This vehicle desperately needs a V8, that’s easily another 50k sales.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    2.5 door extended cab please. Don’t need no full second row and don’t want it.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Alex L. Dykes, United States
  • Kamil Kaluski, United States
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States

Get No-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners Automotive News in your Facebook Feed!

Already Liked