By on August 5, 2014

2015-Chevy-Colorado-3-450x275

GM announced pricing for their mid-size trucks, with the Chevrolet Colorado starting at $20,995 and the GMC Canyon starting at $21,880.

Those sticker prices are ostensibly for a base, 2WD extended cab with a 6-speed manual transmission. Crew cab versions with V6 power and 4WD will cost more, with GM telling the media

“…the Colorado LT crew cab with 2WD and the 5-foot box has a starting price, including dealer freight, of $27,985. The Colorado Z71 crew cab 4×4 with the 5-foot box starts at $34,990…”

GM was more loose with details on the Canyon

“…beginning with the SLE trim level, with prices starting at $27,520 (2WD extended cab), Canyon customers get aluminum interior trim, soft-touch instrument panel and door pads, EZ-lift and lower tailgate, eight-inch diagonal color-touch radio with Intellilink, and OnStar 4G LTE Wi-Fi hotspot with a three-month or three-GB trial (whichever comes first).  A 4WD Canyon SLT crew cab short box model starts at $37,875, and includes the 3.6L V-6 engine with 305 horsepower, leather-appointed seating, automatic climate control, 18-inch polished cast-aluminum wheels, remote start and an automatic locking rear differential.”

Detailed pricing and fuel economy figures are said to be announced closer to launch.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

149 Comments on “Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon Pricing Announced...”


  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    So a diesel, 4WD, SLT will probably be $40K+? Yikes.

  • avatar
    segfault

    So, how large of a rebate and other incentives do they plan on offering?

    • 0 avatar
      VCplayer

      Hopefully a lot if they want to move volume. Starting Silverado is around $26,000, and there’s easily $4,000+ worth of rebates on that.

      It seems as though most buyers are going to be people that just feel like the 1/2 tons are too big, not that these are a whole lot smaller.

  • avatar
    Nicholas Weaver

    Owch, the prices do seem high, but not out of line. $37k for the leather interior loaded 4×4 is within spitting distance of the fake-leather version of the Tacoma in the same crew cab/4×4 configuration.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Last week we got a new 2014 Tundra 4×4 double cab, 8 foot bed, with a 5.7 liter V8 for $29K. MSRP was about $33K. It does have real vinyl.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      IMO, people who buy a ‘luxury’ truck deserve to be separated from as much of their cash as possible.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        Highly offended because I love the King Ranch but then LMAO. True dat.

      • 0 avatar
        BigOlds

        Once upon a time I might have agreed with you.

        Then I met a guy (now a friend) who has a small business maintaining rights of way for utilities (knocking down the brush under power lines, etc). He spends all day every day driving up and down these dirt roads, carrying tools in the bed. He’s not rich but he does well.

        He buys King Ranch/LTZ/equivalent because he figures if he will spend that amount of time in the thing he wants to enjoy the experience.

        I can’t fault him for that.

        And his trucks do get worked. Hard.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Doesn’t sound like it gets worked all THAT hard, if all it does is carry the guy’s tools. Dirty work, yes. Rough, inaccessible roads, yes. Hauling? Not really. I’m sure he just dumps his cuttings off to the side rather than carrying them out.

          • 0 avatar
            Toad

            “Doesn’t sound like it gets worked all THAT hard”

            When you have no idea what you are talking about or don’t know the individual being discussed it is usually better to STFU.

            Power line right of way maintenance involves moving mowing and cutting equipment (tractors, skid steers with cutters, etc) and/or traveling from site to site in very rough terrain. All those millions of acres under transmission lines need to be maintained wherever they are. It is hard work with lots of machinery in difficult remote locations.

            A pickup in the right of way clearing business generally works VERY hard. BigOlds probably knows what he is talking about.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And I’m going to stick by what I said. I can’t help it if you ignored everything after the first phrase.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “Those sticker prices are ostensibly for a base, 2WD standard cab with a 6-speed manual transmission” … and I4? Starting at $21K?

    Yeaaahhh…

    Oh but wait for even more you can get a whole bunch of crap:

    “Canyon customers get aluminum interior trim, soft-touch instrument panel and door pads, EZ-lift and lower tailgate, eight-inch diagonal color-touch radio with Intellilink, and OnStar 4G LTE Wi-Fi hotspot with a three-month or three-GB trial (whichever comes first).”

    Wow touch radio! Wifi! Soft touch panel! Such amenities I expect in a TRUCK, and a “cheap” truck at that. But what about the truck-ness?

    “A 4WD Canyon SLT crew cab short box model starts at $37,875, and includes the 3.6L V-6 engine with 305 horsepower”. Wow FORTY GRAND for 4×4 and a V6! Such a deal!

    Well I guess we’ll see if the small truck mafia pays to play. I know a whole bunch of people who won’t be.

    • 0 avatar

      I could get a crew-cab Sierra SLT for the same. That’s ridiculous.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        For the 4wd Crew Cab SLT?

        You’re talking $46K MSRP starting price for a Sierra crew cab 4wd SLT, listed on the GMC webpage for $41K with the cash on the hood with no options.

        My Dakota crew cab had a sticker of $29K when I bought it on 2006, and it only had the V-8, 3.92 anti spin, power seat, and OTIS.

        People are thinking they’re going to get a $10,000 truck…and it’s not going to happen.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      I don’t expect anything ‘touch’ or soft in a truck. I expect stuff that’s hard, durable, and easy to clean. Car companies have already found that truck users prefer controls that can be used with gloves, so we’ll have to see how the options on this one get picked.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Need to back all of those numbers down 5k.

    These prices sound more reasonable for the half ton pricing strategy.

    • 0 avatar

      “Need to back all of those numbers down 5k.”

      That makes no sense. A mid-size sedan with the same engine and transmission starts at $22,500. How do you suppose a lower volume pickup truck that has the following costs added be cheaper?

      Longer, taller, heavier.
      RWD
      Beefier suspension
      Bigger tires and wheels
      Standard rearview camera

      Its not the 90’s anymore. Todays pickups have a liveable interior and the same tech and safety features you find in a midsize sedan.

      I don’t see the point of making two similar trucks. Chevy should have the Colorado and the GMC version should have been a BOF midsize SUV to compete against the Grand Cherokee and 4Runner. a $28,000 SUV will be easier to sell than a $25,000 pickup with the same number of doors and seats.

  • avatar
    April

    A stripper truck for $21K? So much for a affordable new truck.

    :p

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Exactly.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Perhaps they are pricing in the $5000 rebates coming soon…

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      Costs less than a Prius.

      I think 90% of the people who bitch and moan about the price of new cars and trucks are still mentally in 2004 or 1994.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        What does the price of the prius have to do with the price of a pickup truck. I would most certainly expect a midsize pickup to be cheaper than a prius.

        I’m certainly not stuck in 1994 or 2004, 21k for a 4 cyclinder engine attached to a manual trans turning 1 solid rear axle, on a frame the holds a small cabin with no where near the rigidity of a car, and a pickup bed designed with zero structural integrity to protect from accidents; is priced too high.
        Almost all the electronics are off the shelf, the running gear is all bought from different suppliers or used in other applications.
        But be my guest Mr, space aged future man.

        • 0 avatar
          cronus

          You just listed the things that make a truck more expensive then a car not cheaper. A three piece body with a cab, bed, and frame means you are using more parts and more material. Rear wheel drive with a solid rear axle is more expensive then front wheel drive because it uses more parts and more material. Engine and electronics are not any cheaper if they came from another model, add in customization to fit the platform and it ends up costing more.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I’m not sure your grasping the material and process differences here. The frame takes up a lot of the energy from a wreck, you can bend a frame without any major deformations to the cab on a conventional BoF vehicle. The unibody design in a car uses different techniques that cost more, weigh less, as are designed to crumple in a wreck. Also the engine setup in a FWD car is more complex and expensive than a RWD compounded by a simple conventional manual transmission.

            If I have a nonmajor roll over in an old frontier, I can simply remove the cabin, replace it with a cabin from a junkyard frontier that was rear ended bending the frame. All is well no one knows. You pay a price for a unibody safety and its a once and done deal in anything near major. A uniframe car has to have the entire design made with safety in mind, the A,B, and C pillars are part of the frame, and the rear hatch has to be made to take damage. Thats a lot of extra cost a BoF vehicle doesnt have, a pickup in particular doesnt need any of this attention, the only protection needed is the cab, no engine bay to reinforce the cabin, and no hatch area to reinforce the rear, just a single shell on top of the main device.

            Trying to compare the cost of the two doesnt pass rationale.

          • 0 avatar
            cronus

            Unibody is cheaper then body on frame not more expensive. Like I said fewer parts, less material. A stamping is a stamping, you can price them by the pound and they get spot welded into place. Frames require dedicated equipment to build and use more expensive means to join the parts, MIG welding, rivets, or screws.

            FWD transmissions are cheaper then RWD again fewer parts and less material. No, driveshaft. Differential integrated into the transmission, not separate. No extra stampings for a transmission hump.

            The cheapest vehicles worldwide are FWD not RWD, did you ever ask why that is?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Again I point to materials used. Sure the process to build the unibody may be easier, quicker, etc, but unless you want beer can strength, the steel to make the bed on a pickup isn’t going to be the same grade for the integral parts on the uniframe, unless your unconcerned for safety.
            Hydroforming has done a lot here for frames.

            Sure nothing’s easier than stamping but you get into a matter of different materials, and different costs.

            Check out people putting old 4 speeds into the new 2010+ camaros, that frame is a PITA to cut through, a pickup bed will cut like butter.

          • 0 avatar
            cronus

            They use the same grade of steel for the majority of the unibody, the pillars and some critical areas are where you use high strength steel. Those are also the same places you use high strength steel in a BOF vehicle because the body actually needs to be stronger to meet the same rollover requirements since the whole vehicle is heavier.

            Again, the cheapest vehicles worldwide are FWD not RWD, did you ever ask why that is?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            The cheapest car in America is the versa, let that be the baseline. I’m sure you could sell a box on ill-welded L beams with a scooter engine chain driving a go-cart rear axle to people in developing countries. Doesn’t mean it would ever meet our standards.

            But that doesn’t change the fact a cheap car has more sale potential than a cheap truck. Nissan will make more sales with a 12k car than a 12k truck, simple as that.

            An American consumers uniframe car must be self-supporting, something that isn’t necessary on a BoF vehicle, supporting a vehicles weight on its roof is no where near as complicated as designing a uniframe. If I cut the roof off of a Jeep grand cherokee, and cut the roof off of a Tahoe, I’m quite sure which one I’d rather be in. Unless BOF vehicles have made massive strides in the last 5 years to make a cab as self supporting as an entire uniframe car, then I’m not sure what your getting at. The newest trucks I’ve really looked at/ workd on are 2010s, and they haven’t changed much in the last 10+ years from what I saw

          • 0 avatar
            cronus

            A frame provides zero assistance in a rollover and minimal assistance in side impact, so yes a truck cab needs to be as strong or stronger then a unibody vehicle to get the same crash results. Remember roof strength standards are based on a multiple of vehicle weight so a truck cab has to support more test weight over a smaller area.

      • 0 avatar
        LectroByte

        Trucks like the S-10 and Ranger were typicall pretty much an entry level vehicle for a lot of folks. I’m not sure about this truck, it seems close enough in price and size to a full size truck I suspect that they will mainly be used to upsell folks into Silverados and Sierras.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Hummer – the frame in a pickup is designed to crumple. Ever wonder why the bumpers are made so whimpy? Those plastic covers on the front of an F150 hide deformation horns. The fenders are made as part of the crumple zone. The cab is not the only part of a BOF truck that is involved in occupant protection.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        @bumpy

        I hope your income has doubled in the same time period so you can afford these things. I was a student then so my income went from zero to what it is now, which still puts this in the pricy range.

      • 0 avatar
        burgersandbeer

        Count me in that group! The only new car I’ve bought was a 2002, so at least within the same segment I can’t help but make comparisons. Obviously I realize that’s wrong, but I have to remind myself that it isn’t a fair comparison.

        Besides being mentally stuck in another era, salaries haven’t kept pace with inflation. If you were already in your peak earning years in 2002 or 2004 or whatever, your buying power has likely decreased.

    • 0 avatar
      shifterbrains

      Remember, the Sierra had $4000 rebate on the hood before it even went on sale (in Canada anyway).

  • avatar
    dwford

    My 2014 GMC Sierra SLE Double Cab 4×4 with Z71, leather, 18″ wheels, auto climate control, heated seats, 5.3L V8 stickered for $44,455, I negotiated to $41,140 – $6750 rebates = $34,390+++. They priced the Canyon Crew Cab 4×4 V6 with leather at $37,875. Do you see the problem here…

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      Wait a few months until the Colorado/Canyon discounts kick in and then we can do a fair apples to apples comparison of value.

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        I’m just saying that what’s already possible for discounts on the full size trucks is going to put pricing pressure on the midsize trucks. Discounts are inevitable and I’m sure they are priced in already.

      • 0 avatar
        johnny_5.0

        I think the discounts might be in place by month two. And I can’t imagine they’ll sell many in month one without them. If a V6 crew cab 4×4 stickered at $29,999 I think they’d get a lot of people in show rooms, and probably move more metal starting from there with much smaller discounts. But the big 3 have a crap ton of sales data and know better than me.

        I imagine all of the commercials for these will feature the stripper four cylinder models at $22K when they talk pricing. They can’t do anything else when the next commercial break will show an excellent Silverado with $6K in rebates. These don’t look like bad vehicles at all, but so far we see the same issues that drove them out of the US market in the first place. Why not just buy a nice full size for not much more money unless you absolutely can’t deal with the behemoth size? Will the V6 get significantly better mileage than an F-150 with the 2.7?

  • avatar
    carguy

    Some thoughts:

    1. Three cheers for the availability of a stripper with a manual box at a reasonable price.

    2. Another three cheers for finally getting the aging Taco some much needed competition.

    3. The MSRP for the rest seems on the high side but then Chevy hardly ever sells anything for MSRP. Or at least not for long. Look for healthy rebates on the higher end models but less so for entry level.

    3. The super duper rancho deluxe editions of any truck are always insanely expensive. I guess they are not aimed at working folk but white collar suburbanites who can afford them. However, they could be worth a look after $20K of depreciation.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Yes, maybe these trucks will force Toyota and Nissan to up their game with their trucks. They’ve had it too easy for too long.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Completely agree that these force Toyota and Nissan to do much needed upgrades. Both have been coasting selling what are becoming very dated platforms.

      The Tacoma is still the defacto leader IMHO, but technology it is pretty darn dated. Sure the 5-speed is reliable along with the 4.0L V6 – but the V6 Taco has fullsize truck 16/21 MPG that is beaten by all of the big three offerings. A 6 or 8 speed auto would help with that.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      These might be true Tacoma competitors from the beginning; but I really doubt it. GM has a deep and storied tradition of getting almost right the first time and three years later giving us what the vehicle should have been in the first place.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      If Toyota is smart, they’ve already got a full Tacoma redesign ready to hit the market in the next year and have used their de facto segment domination thus far to rake in a bunch of money on an old and far overpriced platform. I haven’t dug deep, but I don’t recall any news about a Tacoma redesign.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      $21,000 is in no way a reasonable price for a stripper 2WD truck. It’s a sheet metal box with a cheaply finished little cab and a 4-banger hanging off the front and only one driven axle.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        The Tacoma starts at $23,000 for the access cab. 4 cylinder, 5 speed manual.

        Are people forgetting that the “base” Colorado is an extended cab truck?

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          “Are people forgetting that the “base” Colorado is an extended cab truck?”

          I suppose so. This article calls it a “standard cab”.

        • 0 avatar
          mnm4ever

          The Tacomas are being discounted like crazy right now. I can get a doublecab prerunner for $23k with a 4cyl, its pretty perfect for a basic compact pickup that will do all I need. Adding the V6 and 4WD ups the price by about $3k, still significantly less than the MSRP of the GM twins. Going with an accesscab saves a ton, IIRC putting it under $20k but I really need a backseat.

          I am sure these GM prices are pre-discounts, but they skew the numbers for those people who shop on price.

  • avatar
    LALoser

    They have new Ram diesel 1/2 tons at a local dealer for 29k. SLT or Work truck trims, but hey, it’s a truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @LAloser
      A real truck??????

      Put a couple of people in the Fiat and see how much impact it has on it’s pathetic GVM.

      So with two people, the Fiat can carry, What? 1000lbs??

      What can a Colorado carry in the bed with two people?? Probably more, for the same price.

      • 0 avatar

        I think many here in the US would still take the RAM for personal use. While I know w lot of commercial guys that use the full payload the recreational user cares more about towing then payload (yes I realize that tongue weight is affected but the average consumer has no idea)I think ram knows this too. Ram has basically stopped going after the commercial 1/2 ton market (they are pushing those customers to 2500’s and 3500’s and has decided they want to own the personal use market. I’m not sure thats a great idea because here in the North east and from what I hear from the West coast personal use sales are falling fast but the south and midwest may make up for that. My local Chevy dealer only has 6 silverado’s in stock but 25 Cruzes to give you an idea our local trends here.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    To high. Hard to do an apples to apples build with this limited information but a crew cab Toyota Tacoma Limited (which on paper seems like a fair comparo with 18″ wheels, nav, leather, heated seats blah blah blah) is $36.4K

    I’m with the B&B – either the fat rebates on the hood and dealer discounting has been “built in” or this pricing is really high.

    At $37K loaded up or not, the Silvy/Sierra sitting next to it is going to be a problem.

  • avatar
    340-4

    Smaller… although maybe not by much… maybe better mpg’s… same price as big truck..

    Not sure about this one at all, GM.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    The Colorado prices are almost dead-center in line with the Toyota Tacoma–for a truck that’s measurably and visibly larger than the Tacoma. It becomes tempting again–even though it’s bigger than I want.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    I am not a pickup guy but quick question, what price do you all want, please remember GM needs to make a buck, seems all I read is I want a smaller cheap truck that is up to date, well here you go for about 22 K you can buy one, very few bells I am sure but isn’t that what you asked for?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Like I posted above 5k cut across the board would be a start. The fullsizes are plenty overpriced as is, but as already demonstrated, one can get a comparably equipped fullsize for the same price, or lower as shown above.

      Honestly even 16k sounds expensive for a 4 cyc manual truck. Wasn’t that long ago a brand new midsize could be had for less than 12k after rebates. There’s no reason a midsize should start above 20k today, throw a painted steel bumper on it, cloth 60/40. The more I think about how little it takes to make a base truck like this the more I feel I was generous only cutting the price 5k.
      Go check out a base 99 frontier 5 spd, 4 cyl, pretty sure mine was ~9k out the door brand new, I didn’t buy it new but from what I found that sounds in line. There’s not that much that makes up one of these, increased safety, mpg standards, inflation, etc dont make the new Colorado worth an additional 12k.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Just checked 9k in 1999 is worth $12,875 in 2014.

        There’s no way a 5k cut in price could eliminate profits unless the entire execution was poorly botched.

        • 0 avatar
          cronus

          According to the BLS inflation calculator $11k in 1999 is $15,736 in 2014 and MSN Autos says base MSRP on a 99 S-10 was $12,300. So to produce a S-10 today would be almost $18,000, add in new regulatory requirements like TPMS and stability control, crash performance better then a bud light can, and yes the cost of building a larger vehicle and here we are. Sorry you didn’t get that free lunch you wanted but neither did anyone else.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Ok let’s say this is that S10, the design has been in use outside the US for several years, its paid for, technology to build this truck has increased but so has regulation.

            Now if I remember my S10s correctly the 2nd gen isn’t too dissimilar from the 1st (you can put a second gen bed on a first gen frame visa verse) these trucks were built in multiple different plants with multiple different trim levels. The new trucks get what two trim levels, and 1 basic interior trim, no where near as much differentiation between 4wd parts and 2wd parts ie. different brakes, rotors, suspension design, exhaust design, cab floor design, frame design etc in 1st and 2nd gen s10s.. ( unfortunately I know this from experience)
            Having one design to house all options is a massive reduction in cost, no blue, red, black, tan, gray interiors to confuse and increase pricing. A 2wd truck can use the same suspension and rims as a 4wd.
            All of this is to reduce costs, there’s a lot more here to save money on then there are regulations to spend money to meet when you have a massive parts bins to pull from.
            Economies of scale at work.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        If you think $16K is too much Cheddar for a 4-banger manual 2WD regular cab short bed pickup be prepared for sticker shock. A base stripped Tacoma tickles $19K.

        Cars are expensive today my friend.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Every BoF vehicle toyota makes is overpriced. Why do you see that as the basis for this trucks pricing?
          A 99 Tacoma that matched my above frontier was 3-4k more expensive new.

      • 0 avatar
        JD-Shifty

        that’s ridiculous. 16k is what an S10 costed in 1996. try going outdoors sometime.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Maybe at mid-high trim levels, but by doing a simple internet search you find the base cost of a 96 S10 to be about 11k.

          http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/pricing.aspx?year=1996&make=Chevrolet&model=S10%20Pickup&trimid=5667#VIP_TAB

          And here’s a similar truck to my 99, easy to see how I got the price I got.
          http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/pricing.aspx?year=1999&make=Nissan&model=Frontier&trimid=3741#VIP_TAB

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          So both a 96 S10 and a 99 frontier were priced ~11k

          Now its time for you to step outside.

          • 0 avatar
            JD-Shifty

            not for something that has 200hp. the 4 cylinder DI makes as much power as the old 4.3. wake up, pops. the 4.3 S-10 with a couple options were 16k plus.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            This is apples to oranges, of course its going to make more HP than it did before. The whole point of technology and advancements is to lower the price of increasingly powerful technology. The machines to make this aren’t the same relatively inefficient machines that made the trucks in 96.
            Base price is the most important number when it comes to small and midsize trucks, most of these will go to fleets, fleets don’t care if it has 60hp or 600hp as long as its cheap.
            Compare stripper to stripper, not well optioned truck, as most 4.3s were to one of these strippers, that’s rediculous.

            Horsepower isn’t sellin these, if it were people would go for the V8 in the halfton.

        • 0 avatar
          cronus

          I think my parents payed $14,000 or so for a 4wd Ranger in 1990.

    • 0 avatar

      Well to look at this another way in 2000 a Cavalier BASE MSRP $13,150
      Base S-10 $12,655

      Today Cruze base $17,520.00
      Today Colorado $21,000

      To me it looks like it’s at least 4k overpriced.

      With some quick research using small car vs small/midsize truck. It appears that they priced the same in 2003 then the trucks became more expensive in 2005 and the gap grew every year after that. (to note in 2005 a colorado was still at $15,000 which today would be around $18,000 according to BLS).

      Again it seems the automakers are overpricing their trucks. unless somehow in the last 10 years it became 20% more expensive to make a BOF stripper truck than a unibody car.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Yeah it did get more expensive to make a small pickup than what it was 10 years ago. The biggest factor is volume, it is expensive to develop a vehicle and you need to recoup those costs before you get an actual profit. At this point it is hard to say how many Colorados they will sell but it will be far less than the Cruze numbers. Back then trucks did not have to meet as stringent standards as cars of the era did, there were also much lower expectations of the refinement in a truck as in a car. Now truck the standards that trucks are expected to meet are on par with those of cars.

        • 0 avatar
          petezeiss

          “Now truck the standards that trucks are expected to meet are on par with those of cars.”

          Truth. And to this end they have become ludicrously expensive mega-cars whose tailgate can’t be closed on a 5′ load.

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            More significantly, trucks (including SUVs) have become Road Survival Modules for the families of American professionals.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “…it is expensive to develop a vehicle and you need to recoup those costs before you get an actual profit.”

          In the case of the smaller pickups, that task becomes more difficult as the SUVs that shared the truck platform in past generations are replaced by new models that ride on car platforms. When the truck is losing sales and the SUV is transformed into a boxy elevated passenger car, then the profitability of the truck goes away.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @seth1065 – it all depends on perceived value. We are too conditioned to look at trucks from a “supersizeme” perspective.

      I think that a full bling small truck should overlap with a mid level trim truck. A midlevel small truck should be priced compared to a bottom rung full-sizer.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Looks like the future discount is built into the sticker price. Still, I don’t think these will be big sellers. Pretty much any new release that does not get a crowd at the NY auto show does not do too well, according to my observations…and there was next to zero traffic by these trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I’m not in marketing or sales but I can’t help but feel GM is hurting itself.

      Every single vehicle they have released in the last decade has shown to have built in discounts. I mean 90k for an escalade? 70k for a suburban with options? All the pickups. I as a consumer aren’t even going to look at these vehicles, and I know for sure my parents never would. What’s common knowledge here doesn’t translate to the rest of the buying world. They may get a few people with more money than sense to pay the high prices but the real problem is your pushing away people that would otherwise come see your products if they were listed at their true OTD cost. It’s disingenuous and in my opinion a bad business practice.
      At 90k for that escalade is there anyway that GM isn’t making $50k in profit? I mean seriously….

      • 0 avatar
        seth1065

        Hummer,
        I agree GM should sell my a new vett for $9999, and hell a truck should be no more than $6500, I doubt many caddis are 90 k , hell I sound be able to be a home in the Hampton’s for 75 K

      • 0 avatar

        Well I see your point Seth I think Hummer has a better point In the age of internet research I think those MSRP’s mean more than they used too. Last year Nissan dropped MSRP and their sales shot up. If you are searching for a car on the internet you first look at the manf website where you see MSRP. you need to go thru a bunch of steps from there to get to the incentives etc I doubt most non car people do this. So you are relying on the dealer to give you the actual street price (and True car) I’m not sure thats the best marketing strategy I wonder how many people look at the MSRP of a Tahoe say thats crazy and buy a pilot.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          I personally have come to rely on big discounts (and so have many other truck buyers). It seems that they will hit any truck brand at one time or another. I’d rather sit and wait for the initial hype to die down, let the first year or two of sales be beta tested by buyers and then pick what I like and wait for discounts.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Hummer
        Are you a Ford fanboi?

        It seems all of your arguments are anti anything but Ford…..unless it an import……..built by non union labour.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Did I really just get called a Ford fanboy?

          Ford has made maybe 2 vehicles in the last 30 years I’d ever consider buying.
          Crown Vic
          Raptor 6.2l.

          Now that they have killed the raptor they have nothing that even slightly interests me. Everything they have is plagued by turbos.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The Raptor isn’t dead, it is on sabbatical. I have a feeling that without the 6.2L, you won’t be a fan of the Raptor anymore.

            I’m as suprised as you are that someone called you a Ford fanboi though.

          • 0 avatar
            IHateCars

            The Raptor should be back, except probably with a tuned/blown 5.0 instead of the 6.2…Ford has been seen testing one lately.

            I’ll stick with my ’12 for now though…

  • avatar
    el scotto

    It will be a good time to be a lot porter at your Chevy/GMC dealership. These will sticker for what their big brothers do and the public will laugh when some GM suit suit says “they’re as good as a Tacoma”. Yep lots of these to keep clean for 8-9 months until the panicked deep rebates kick in.

  • avatar
    petezeiss

    Aside from likely fitting inside more garages, what advantage do these have over similarly priced “half-ton” pickups?

    Small trucks used to mean cheap, small and agile; these are none of those. I just don’t get it. For the same $$ I’d go Ram Tradesman in the optional Tree Green any day.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      I like the size of these far better. A 4-door 1/2ton pickup is just too big for my tastes, even with the short bed. I don’t need maximum payload and towing capacities, so it would be OK that the midsizers are down on those. I’m obviously not the core of the market, though, and that will probably be reflected quickly in the sales numbers of these trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        petezeiss

        “I’m obviously not the core of the market”

        Heh, I know how you feel. For me, a small pickup truck is all about bed length and ride height so you can haul more and bulkier stuff, sometimes through road conditions that would rule-out the minivan you could otherwise use and which would always deliver greater FE and passenger comfort than any pickup.

        Less convolutedly, if it’s not about hauling, why buy a pickup? Four doors are for passenger vehicles.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Certainly pickup trucks are about hauling–and the size truck you may want/need really depends on WHAT you’ll be hauling. Now, if you’re hauling multiple engine blocks, a horse farm load of hay, a 30-foot travel trailer (fifth-wheel or otherwise) or a full cubic yard of mulch, stone or other landscaping materials, then maybe a full-sized truck IS the better choice. But if all you’re hauling is the occasional home appliance, DIY landscaping or construction materials, five or six bales of hay, etc., then certainly you don’t NEED a big truck and if you’re trying to do this in an urban/suburban area where roads and alleyways are tight then the massive size of the modern full-size is simply impractical.

          Yes, I do understand that certain fleets prefer smaller trucks; it’s not because they’re cheaper necessarily, it’s because they’re more agile and can get to the places that a full sized truck would have difficulty reaching. They simply don’t NEED the size so don’t want to waste their money on more rig than they need. But “cheapskate” doesn’t define all small truck buyers. Those who buy them for personal use simply see a full sized truck as an inconvenience when it’s not being used for the specific purpose of hauling; something smaller makes a perfect second vehicle/daily driver even when empty.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      You can reach into the bed without opening the tailgate and climbing in?

    • 0 avatar
      jjster6

      Did you say small trucks used to be agile? I had an 87 Toyota and 93 Mazda SE5 (both new off the lot). They were cheap, but they were definitely not agile. Take a turn to quick and the ass end was very quickly in the lead. The handling was damn scary!

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Agile in comparison to the average F-150 or C1500, I suppose.

        • 0 avatar
          petezeiss

          Yeah, “agile” as in more easily maneuvering in city/burb traffic and parking situations.

          “Handling” in jjster6’s sense is the last thing I had in mind or expect from anything that lets me haul a sofa or drive through 12″ of snow.

      • 0 avatar

        Depends on your reference I’ve driven a lot of trucks (more than cars) I would say my 87 Toy pickup was very agile. In fact it handled better that my 2001 outback.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Agility is different from handling. Agility is the ability to turn in tight places–its turning radius–something a full-sized truck simply can’t do. And your old ’87 Toyota and ’93 Mazda didn’t have the stability control systems that are standard “features” on modern trucks.

        Handling is the ability to corner well, not tightly. A race car is built for handling, but your showroom stock version of that same car can turn far tighter, even if not as quickly.

        As an example of the above, it takes my 1990 full-sized truck effectively three and a half lanes to perform a U-turn when including the median of a divided highway. My Jeep Wrangler Unlimited (4-door) does it in less than 2.5 lanes. Which one is more agile?

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Hmmm. I like midsize pickups but these prices are too high. I’d wait a year for the small market of folks who genuinely wanted a midsize pickup to be satiated, then create a bidding war between GM and Toyota for my business once sales slacked off. No way they are going to sell these at MSRP in volume for very long.

  • avatar
    hubcap

    I like these trucks and have no doubt that a discount is already baked in. The only question is how much? I don’t need a full size so these could hit the spot. Time will tell.

    And why no mention of the diesel engine? Has G.M. changed their minds?

    • 0 avatar
      seth1065

      Hummer says a oil burner should be 15K after all diesel cost more than reg gas so GM should sell the truck for less.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Look bo, you asked for opinions, I gave them. I’m glad you feel that way but don’t use me as a front. I dealt with little trucks years ago and I’ll never go back.

        But I’m glad you love me enough to consider me.
        :)

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          What trucks have you dealt with?

          In Spain;) ???

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Meanwhile, Hummer, I WANT to go back. A true compact pickup truck (and I mean even smaller than the Tacoma) is almost ideal for my wants and needs. It can go anywhere I want to and I don’t have to worry about taking up the entire highway to turn around. (Have you even seen how some of today’s pickup trucks have to do a U-turn on some roads?) A true compact can go between two rocks that a full sized truck may have to go excessively out of its way just to reach the same destination. A full sized truck can’t even fit through the doorway of a single-car garage in newer homes. Based on specs, the Colorado/Canyon may not be able to either.

          Yes, I do understand that this is unimportant for many…, maybe even most people; but it is important for others who simply don’t have the space for something larger or don’t have the NEED for something larger. Why buy what is now medium-duty-sized when all you want is sedan-sized with an open bed?

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            There was a post today about the Nissan NV and the other small van offerings. One of those and a pack of sawzall blades would fit your bill nicely.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Not that I’m calling you crazy or anything, but I can’t picture new homes with garage doors too small for pickups. Even midsize???

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Sure you are, Denver; and it’s simply because where you live is quite different from where I live. Developers are building houses on 1/10th of an acre lots around here and with the average car qualifying as a ’70s sub-compact, garages are being built pretty much to the average in order to make room for as much living space as possible.

            I don’t know if you’ve ever heard the term “crackerbox house”, but they’re very long and thin–almost like a mobile home without the wheels or the steel frame. Now try sticking a full-sized garage in one end. Now consider that these houses may be as little as 5′ apart–you’re certainly not parking any car or truck in the back yard, are you?

            I’ve lived in many parts of this country and spent time in other countries. Where I live now most resembles the kind of living spaces you would find in European towns. A full-sized truck is simply too large to be convenient in many circumstances and even the Colorado is very close to a full-sized truck of 25 years ago.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The standard garage door 8′ wide, 7′ tall minimum. Anything less isn’t up to the UB code. That’s for all North America. Including Mexico. Or someone sold you a tool shed…

            garageresource.org/standard-garage-door-sizes

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Every state has its own building codes.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Show me a garage door ANYWHRE that’s less than 8′ wide. Istanbul, don’t matter!

            New word: Uniform Building Code. Forget about the states. It means I can buy a fridge in Arizona and it’ll fit in my apartment’s kitchen in Winnipeg. AND through the front door!!!

          • 0 avatar
            burgersandbeer

            The argument over building codes is moot. Even if we assume all garage doors are at least 8′ wide, the 2014 F-150 is not getting through without folding the mirrors (97″ wide, including mirrors). Width including mirrors wasn’t as easy to find for the ’14 Silverado, but given that the truck is 0.8″ wider than the F-150 without them, it probably isn’t going through either.

            The new Canyon is about 5″ narrower than those two full sizers, so you’ll have only a few inches to spare on either side without folding the mirrors.

            And this is only talking about getting through the door, nevermind getting out of the truck once you are inside the garage or being able to close the garage door behind you.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And I have a room in my house where that refrigerator would simply NOT fit through–not even the smallest one. Said house is also only 15 years old.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – But why are you trying to cram a fringe into your bathroom???

            Point is, you’re sidestepping the point. Midsize trucks aren’t as big as you dramatize and garage doors aren’t as small as you claim. I’m still waiting to see that tiny garage door (tool shed!).

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            My point, Mike, is that you are wrong and more than one person besides me has confirmed it. Not everyone WANTs to pull their mirrors in EVERY TIME they want to garage it.

            Hey, my Wrangler fits through an 8′ door just fine with the mirrors out; why can’t anyone build a pickup truck to do the same?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Not everyone has to park in a single car toolshed. The several million full-size pickups and SUVs sold every year should tell you something. MOVE!!!

            Your Jeep is a midsize, so 8′ openings are no problem, just like they’ll continue to be ‘no problem’ for the Colorado/Canyon. And they’re not even close to matching the width of your ’90 F-150. Nor fullsize pickups from the ’60s and ’70s. How would a fullsize cab-over camper look on a Colorado/Canyon? Goofy, top-heavy, ect. It wouldn’t even fit!

            Just buy an extra cab Colorado FOR THE LOVE OF GAWD!!!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Mike, old boy, you’re purposely avoiding the point; the Canyon/Colorado are NO SMALLER than a 20-year-old full sized pickup. Those 8″ openings will not “continue to be ‘no problem’ for the Colorado/Canyon and you might just be surprised HOW close to the size of my ’90 F-150 it is, according to the spec sheets. In all dimensions, it comes in at almost exactly 3” smaller–a stupid, insignificant THREE INCHES. That is hardly “mid-sized”. And I’m willing to bet that an older slide in would certainly fit and most modern slide in campers would fit.

            As for buying one; the jury is still out. The pricing makes it tempting despite it being too big–but there’s still the chance that the Fiat Strada may hit the US market and that would be a much better fit for my wants and needs.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah towns or sometimes counties or states adopt building codes. My town has not adopted the universal codes and had their own plus some sections of various codes they do adopt. One of the towns near my has adopted no codes and it’s currently a bit of a free for all.

      • 0 avatar

        I measured my brothers garage the other day new build in 2006 1 car attached to the house. 9′ wide (8’door) 7, tall door and only 18′ long. That eliminates parking a full size crew cab inside. Now that’s on a small urban lot. My wife pet sits at a Condo built in the 90’s all the garage doors are custom built at 6.5′ tall. They are also only 18′ deep.

        The best one was my buddy Steve he lives in a new development with big houses one of his neighbors bought a stock house from the developer. The house was 3,500 sq ft and cost more than 500k. He buys a new F150 supercrew and it won’t fit. turns out the builder built the garage 19′ deep. He ended up trading the Ford for a Tacoma.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @DenverMike – Damn – a guy name Denver that said he lived in California that all of a sudden started spelling words like a Canadian then denied it and now lives in Winnipeg.

        I didn’t know that the USA dictates building codes in Canada.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          For good reason, Canada’s codes and regulations are the same as the US, for the most part. Autos, housing, about everything. But Canada does have a more no-nonsense approach, especially when it comes to FTAs and cultivation of hemp.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – Our Codes and regulations are not the same. There are differences.

            here is one example:
            http://life.nationalpost.com/2014/06/11/mike-holmes-mulling-the-new-building-code-rules-on-windows-doors-and-skylights/?__lsa=856e-1413

            Another one for you-
            A new facility was built in my town and the vent hoods were USA spec. They had to be torn out and Canadian spec ones installed.

            Canada does not have a legal requirement for TPMS. We require daytime running lights and metric speedometers. Our MPG testing is different than that of the USA.

            We accept USA spec vehicles because it would be too expensive to force different regulations.

            The recent FTA with the EU will allow EU vehicles into Canada built to EU safety and emission codes not USA mandated ones.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – Still most code are compatible, but have you heard of ‘code compliant’ front doors less than 3′ wide or garage doors less than 8′ wide?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Ummm… Denver? The front door on MY house, right here in the US of A, is less than three feet wide, and it’d code compliant because it is part of a large community that was built roughly 15 years ago.

            Now you’re going to tell me my house doesn’t meet code?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yeah. Your house doesn’t meet code with a front door less than 3′. Because your house is a TRAILER!!! Show proof it’s not a 3′. Or a trailer. Getting back to your garage door, 8′ or not?

            And it’s never “code” to have houses 5 ft apart. That’s fire code too. Check your title, because you may own a (free standing, solo unit) “condo”, technically. That’s the only time it’s allowed. Other than trailers parks…

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Believe it or not, Denver, it is POSSIBLE to have single-family houses actually touching. I’m sure it’s quite common even where you live. And they’re called Townhouses, not condos. Condos are privately-owned apartments in a different style of building.

            And as I’ve told you MORE than once, my house doesn’t have a garage–and no, NOT because it’s a trailer–unless you want to show me a three-story trailer with 1,000 square feet of living space? A nice size for two people without kids, don’t you think? HEY! Whaddaya know! Now you see WHY I don’t need a family hauler.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – The Building Code doesn’t care if it’s a rented townhouse or privately owned condo. They’re the same thing, physically.

            If your parking spot is less than 18′, that’s not a problem for the million+ that buy trucks that long or longer, annually. If that rules out everything except a regular cab fullize for you, no big loss…

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Vulpine
            I do think Winnipeg would have similar building codes as the US, overall.

            DiM’s home town of Winnipeg does have building that are “touching”.

            What surprises me that a 10 square government provided apartment in Manitoba would supply a garage large enough to fit all of DiMs trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Denver, your education–or lack thereof–is showing. There is a difference between a townhouse and a condo. And rental of such is NOT the difference. But that’s beside the point since all you’re trying to do is attack the messenger simply because you can’t argue the point.

            My parking spot is EXACTLY 18′ long; no more, no less. My current 25-year-old pickup truck fills it from end to end. On the other hand, neighbors who own new crew cab full sized trucks lap over both onto the public sidewalks AND out into the street. When the snowplow comes through after a snowstorm, the piled-up snow comes right to the bumper of my truck without the driver having to veer away from the curb, but said driver is forced to veer away from the others which in one case narrows a full 2+ lane residential street down to one lane because two of these big trucks are parked across the street from each other. It becomes a problem not ONLY for the owners of the trucks (who have that much more snow they have to dig through to get out) but also the entire neighborhood’s drivers who now have to fight each other to get through that chicane because they’re too selfish to show any courtesy. As an example of this latter type, because of such a narrowing of the road, a school bus and an SUV had a face-off right in front of my house with the SUV unwilling to show any courtesy and chose to scrape the side of her vehicle along the ice-packed snow rather than give the bus the right of way. Yes, people who live around me are just as bull-headed as you.

  • avatar

    Well now we know GM was never planning on selling any mid-sizers here after all what a shame.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    By “standard cab”, did you mean “extended cab”?

    Sorry, no “regular cab” Colorado/Canyons this time around. And no more regular cab midsizers after the ’14 Tacomas are gone. So if you want a new regular cab, now would be a good time to panic…

    That slightly throws off everyone’s comparison of “base trucks”, then vs now.

    So if approx $21K is MSRP for base “extended cabs”, that’s about what the “Access cab” Tacos are, or will be for ’15. Still it’s hard to ignore fullsize “regular cabs” for slightly more. Or less, after rebates.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Haha, I’ve been waiting for someone to point that out.

      :)

      Economies of scale, one less trim level, obviously more materials but it also makes for less options and therefore costs to a certain extent.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        There are several reasons why GM will not offer a regular cab:
        1. Exclusive domain of fleets and cheapskates with slim profit margins (I’m starting to sound like DenverMike).
        2. CAFE/Emissions rules are more strict on smaller vehicles.
        3. Less than 8-10% of sales volume.
        4. If sales take off it makes more sense to use manufacturing capacity making higher margin trucks.

        Toyota has killed off the regular cab Tacoma.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Cheapskates and fleet will have a dilemma, with no midsize regular cabs available. Bite the bullet on an extendo cab? Step up to a regular cab fullsize? CUV? Escape? Yaris?

          At Nissan, the regular cab went away when the Hard Body went away. Then buyers went away. Over all, it’s one more nail in the midsize coffin.

          But it’s hard to say what bottom feeders will do. Or what percentage of the midsize class they represent. Or if they need their low cost vehicle to be a pickup at all. In Canada, they’ve lost all regular cab midsizers a while ago. Orkin stepped up to fullsize pickups, if that’s any indication. They absolutely need an open bed though.

          The midsize segment in Canada is dying out for some reason.
          And best selling midsize pickup in Canada, the Tacoma, is occasionally outsold by the Hyundai Veloster.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            If the cheapskates need an open bed, they will go to the full size regular cab trucks. They are already cheaper than the midsizers. Last time I bought fleet vehicles, I purchased two 2013 Silverados for less than the MSRP of a V6 Colorado.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            >If the cheapskates need an open bed, they will go to the full size regular cab trucks. They are already cheaper than the midsizers.

            Exactly, except for the 0.01% who decry that a 1500 is simply too large. Why those people are upset when the Daihatsu Hijet is available, I don’t know.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Danio: It is? WHERE? Where can I find one here in the States?

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            >It is? WHERE? Where can I find one here in the States?

            These people can help you.

            http://www.americasminitruckcenter.com/

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – I’d like to see your proof that indicates the midsized segment is dying in Canada.

            You latched on to that because we do not have regular cab small trucks BUT I’ve explained the reason why small reg cab 4×2 trucks don’t work here and I’m not about to waste my time explaining it again.

            We also have some strange fascination with small cars and oddballs like the Veloster. Journalists have commented on the fact that our market has differences from the USA one.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – Tacoma sales in Canada are much improved, actually. They’re up to #44, best selling vehicle. And best selling midsize pickup. They used to be close to the Frontier, #108 best selling. Congrats on that!

            But the Tacoma is still among the worst selling vehicles in Canada. The Hyundai Sonata (barely) outsells it and it’s on the “Canada’s Worst Selling Autos” list. And the Taco basically has the whole midsize market to itself.

            goodcarbadcar.net/2014/07/canada-auto-sales-figures-by-model-june-2014-ytd.html

            goodcarbadcar.net/2014/08/canada-pickup-truck-sales-figures-july-2014-ytd.html

            goodcarbadcar.net/2014/06/canada-worst-selling-autos-may-2014-sales-figures.html

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Ah. Thank you, Danio. Now all I have to do is wait for a dealership to open in my region–or walk 1500 miles to the site so I can drive one back home.

            Yes, that does sound ridiculous–just like your own comment. Making a claim like, “Why those people are upset when the Daihatsu Hijet is available, I don’t know,” is like saying, ‘why those people are upset because the nearest power pole is two miles away, I don’t know.’ Available means accessible. While I don’t deny SOME people would drive, fly or even walk 1500 miles or more to buy some one-of-a-kind type item, the people who really want these need them available LOCALLY.

            Why are they upset?
            A) most people that want something like this don’t even know they’re here.
            B) They want to be able to study them in person; walk around it; drive it; and they don’t want to have to travel 1500 miles to do so.
            C) Quantities. Even the website makes it quite clear that THIS importer is looking for dealerships to carry his CUSTOMIZED products. What about the people who want them stock? Is this the ONLY importer of these trucks? Maybe somebody else–closer to the actual import docks–could offer a better price because they don’t have to be shipped out to the middle of the country AND BACK–over double the distance in some cases while even cross-country shipping would be cheaper since it doesn’t have to be off-loaded and re-loaded from the train/truck/plane–however it ships. Why upset? Because it is NOT “available”, it is in a remote location that makes purchasing more difficult for the people who really would want one–or more.

            By the way, the Daihatsus are only available as USED models. Until now I’ve never heard of an AMTC brand (which is obviously their own in-house brand name.)

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – what dilemma?
            Fleets want the cheapest product that meet their needs that is available.

            Your wet dream about small truck sales being driven by fleets has never been proven by you.
            Just like a wet dream all you have produced is a set of sticky sheets.

            You manipulate data once again to prove a point in hopes that no one will check (and most will not)
            Here are Tacoma and Tundra sales:
            2010 year end totals
            Tacoma – 8,111
            Tundra – 7,560
            2013 Year End Totals
            Tacoma – 10,400
            Tundra – 7,535

            The Tacoma was #5 in truck sales in Canada in 2013.

            that would be a 20% increase in 3 years.

            Not bad for a truck that does not target cheapskates (at least not in Canada)

            or should I call you Winnipeg Mike from now on?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – The #5 “Best Selling” truck in Canada ain’t sayin’ much. The Tacoma has improved a “dramatic” 20% in 3 years, but look at which of it’s direct competitors were killed off in that time period. Most of it’s competitors actually. In theory, Taco sales should have at least doubled. Anything less is pathetic!

            The Tacoma, even while basically having the entire midsize market to itself in Canada, got beat by the Tundra in July, for some weird reason. That puts it down a notch at #6.

            You don’t know jack about Canada. Or its truck scene. Or is that Lou_BC as in Baja_California???

            goodcarbadcar.net/2014/08/canada-pickup-truck-sales-figures-july-2014-ytd.html

  • avatar
    360joules

    Normally a link to a Motley Fool article is usually a guaranteed “no-jump” but I followed the link and think the gist of the article is correct. In the world of car & truck marketing, tens if not hundreds of thousands of rubes will be lured by the the truck with “(U)p to 28 Empeegees if equipped with a [methamphetamine powered hamster]~Boost engine.” I like a lot of what Ford is doing but heavy vehicles with puny, over-boosted gas engines doesn’t bode well for Jane/Joe Consumer.

  • avatar
    SOneThreeCoupe

    $33,068.

    That’s how much my ideal new truck for towing my track car is slated to cost, optioned with a diesel, limited slip, quad cab, cloth interior, air suspension, rear-view camera and trailering package. It’s got active grille shutters and an 8-speed auto. Everything I’d want in a truck, chrome for resale value, no leather, no power seats, no big useless stereo (although that price includes Bluetooth and a CD player), no cowboy Cadillac bits.

    We’re talking about a truck that would get 28mpg+ on the freeway and likely 22+mpg average(making it 4mpg more economical than my current daily driver car, in addition to running cheaper fuel), be able to tow up to 9200lbs, and would handle all the parts running for my position at my business.

    I’m just saying- these GM trucks are smaller but don’t seem to be any cheaper to purchase and run for the same features.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I do hope that these trucks with a diesel have better cargo ratings than the Ram.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        They might if they continue GM’s practice of removing equipment like bumpers and spare tires when they set the capacity ratings. Ram doesn’t game the ratings like that. One of the reasons the cargo capacity appears lower, Ram rates them as they appear on the dealer lot where GM and Ford do not.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @danio3834 – all of their trucks took a hit in cargo towing when changing over to coil springs.
          Ford used to offer 3 different frames in the F150 based on capacity ratings. They are now down to 2.
          That fact in itself explains why Ford has higher ratings across the board and can offer a 2300 lb cargo capacity in a SuperCrew 4×4.
          It does make me wonder about GM when they have 1 frame across the board and offer 2k cargo ratings.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Part of the reason, sure. Still, in light of how they game the measurements, the Ford and GM ratings are opaque where the Ram’s are not.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Does selling trucks with sh!tty ratings automatically mean they are telling the truth?

            A guy on another site looked at Ram’s 3500 dually that is supposed to tow 30,000 lbs.

            A simple math exercise based on tongue weight meant that the Ram would need a 55 lb driver to not be overloaded.
            I might be off a bit on recalling the exact numbers but basically it can tow that weight if no one sits in the cab.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • PandaBear: Yaris and XLE doesn’t belong in the same model, just like you wouldn’t make a Lexus with CE or...
  • highdesertcat: That’s what I had in mind when I wrote my comment. Know of one instance where Dex-Cool...
  • PandaBear: They are probably either #1 or #2 AC manufacturer in the world. Never heard of Lennox outside of the US.
  • Inside Looking Out: It is like my wife. She often scares my into hitting brakes.
  • Inside Looking Out: It is like my wife. She often scares my into hitting brakes,

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber