By on April 25, 2015

Industry sales chart no pickup trucks

With 29% and 30% of their U.S. sales coming from pickup trucks, respectively, General Motors and Ford Motor Company fall from the top two positions to the second and third when auto manufacturer sales are compared without pickups.

Toyota, therefore, becomes the top dog with 507,000 non-pickup sales through the first-quarter of 2015, 21,000 more cars, vans, SUVs, and crossovers than General Motors.

Excluding Frontiers, Titans, and Ridgelines doesn’t change the fact that Nissan and Infiniti are still outselling Honda and Acura. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles nearly pulls level with Ford MoCo when the Ram and dominant F-Series, America’s best-selling vehicle line, are left out of the equation.

Those figures don’t accurately reflect the state of the industry. That’s why today’s chart of the day also includes the actual figures. But the second subject line would clarify the state of the industry if the top manufacturers couldn’t lean on their pickup popularity.

U.S. pickup truck sales are up 12% to 567,560 through the first-quarter, equal to 14% of the industry’s year-to-date volume.

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

186 Comments on “Chart Of The Day: Imagine The U.S. Auto Industry Without Pickup Trucks...”


  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I would argue the conclusions as those pickup sales would have to go somewhere and I don’t think the European or Asian automakers would absorb more than ¼ of those sales each. Remember, Toyota and Nissan both would lose their pickup sales as well, even if their loss is less than the US brands. On the other hand, I’ll bet we’d see a huge return of the full-sized station wagon if that did happen.

    • 0 avatar
      VanillaDude

      That is right.

      “Imagine The US Auto Industry Without Pickup Trucks And Anyone Who Drives Them Dead And Unable To Select Something Else”

      Your Chart of the Day has a hole of assumption big enough for a Dodge Quad Cab, Ford F350 and a Chevy 2500 to drive right through it at the same time – three abreast.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    The US auto industry without pickup trucks? I cannot imagine that.

    It’s what makes America so uniquely America.

    Pickup trucks: the most versatile, all-around vehicle anyone can own!

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @highdesertcat,
      Your comment is similar to a person making a comment of self importance, “look at me, without me nothing would occur”.

      I disagree with your statement as the US will have pickups irrespective of where they are manufactured. Look at what’s coming out of Mexico.

      In Australia with the demise of GMH and Ford hasn’t negatively affected out ute/pickup segment.

      The opposite has occurred and our pickup segment is smokin’.

      So, maybe if the US manufacturers didn’t have an unfair stranglehold on the US market your market would have many more pickups than it currently has.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @BAFO – You have an even GREATER selection of hatchback than what’s for sale in North America, so do they have their own Chicken tax here??

        It’s great to have extras choices, but I’m not hearing yourself or Robert Ryan making that Mahindra pickup upgrade. Thing is you’re missing several classes of pickups and real “choice”. I’d be bitter too!

        You could have a hundred choices of hamburgers stands in your town, but what if you want seafood?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          DenverMike, it seems like we have “a hundred choices of hamburgers stands” but soon enough we dwindle that down to our favorite.

          Mine happens to be the 6″-round green chili double cheeseburger, with a s!de of onion rings and a Coke, at Lotta Burger.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @highdesertcat,
            Did I state the comment was about you?

            I made mention on how your comment comes across.

            The world isn’t the US, this is how I read your comment.

            Pickups are not “US”, even though you wouldn’t think so after reading many of the comments on this site and others.

            Pickups, like pizza and beer is a global addiction to countries that have enough affluence to operate (or eat as is the case with pizza) one.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I didn’t know that pickup trucks as we know them in the US had been popular anywhere else.

            When I was picking up an airplane load of Australian beef in Sydney in 1967 there wasn’t even one pickup truck on the roads there during my 7 days of R&R. There was a lot of heavy gear, but no pickup trucks like my 1962 IHC 4-door flightline truck. for instance.

            I never saw any US-type of pickup trucks in South Korea, Viet Nam, Germany, Holland, Belgium and Italy all the years that I was there, unless some American had brought them over there with them. Europeans who saw them would gawk at them, as in “WTF?”

            I saw a lot three wheeled contraptions passing for pickup trucks, and some heavy-duty 1-ton small trucks, usually Toyota in Asia, and Bedford or Vauxhall in Europe. But no US-style pickup trucks, and I was in Europe for 8 years, Asia for three.

            But in America, where the pickup truck really is an extension of the horse-drawn Conestoga covered-wagon, the development and application has been unique in my view.

            I know that settlers in Australia followed much the same evolution as the American pioneers did, but it hasn’t been as widely portrayed as the development of the US pickup truck over the decades.

            What is the earliest date you can remember that pickup trucks were popular in Australia?

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        ” Your comment is similar to a person making a comment of self importance, “look at me, without me nothing would occur”. ”

        This isn’t about me. This is about all those buyers in America who have made pickup trucks the best-selling vehicles in America.

        And, indeed, without all these people buying new pickup trucks, nothing would have occurred.

        Because pickup trucks is where the money is at. Pickup trucks is what keeps Ford and GM afloat. It ain’t Lincoln or Cadillac, that’s for sure. And even RAM is enjoying improved sales.

        Of course, you are always free to disagree with me. Unlike some other commenters on ttac I have no need to endlessly debate my posit or tenets just to prove I am right. Feel free to disagree – it won’t change my beliefs or how I live my life.

        So, feel free to reject my perspective but if you follow the industry (which I no longer have to do) you may find that some foreign OEMs are exploring adding pickup trucks to their vehicle lines in the US.

        I do agree with you that Ford and GM have an unfair stranglehold on the US market and that they will fight tooth and nail to keep other OEMs from bringing pickup trucks to the US, among them Tata.

        Look at what Toyota had to go through to bring that magnificent Tundra to market in the US.

        But they beat Ford and GM at their own game by designing and building their better Toyota trucks in the US; Tacoma, the best selling mid-size truck in the US. And Tundra, the pickup truck for the truly discerning connoisseur of pickup trucks.

        But it was well worth it for those of us who value quality trucks; so other OEMs may go through what Toyota did and design and build their trucks in the US of A (or Mexico). Maybe Hyundai will, or Mercedes-Benz.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @HDC – Con a Sewer??? While I can’t find any faults with my mom’s Tundra, Toyota’s service dept has been absolute pr!cks to her.

          Meanwhile I don’t know what my local Ford dealer’s service dept is like, since I’ve never been there during my F-150’s warranty. Zero issues with lots of abuse. So she’ll eventually replace her Tundra with an aluminum F-150. She bought her Tundra about the same time I bought mine but spent as much for a regular cab, as I did my better equipped Super cab.

          The Avocado Bacon Cheeseburger will knock your socks off at some local burger stands, but when in CA, I’ll hit the In-n-Out when it comes to fast food joints, every time. Just a 3X3 cheeseburger, Animal fries, and a shake.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @highdesertcat,
          I do understand, sort of, the view that many in the US have of the pickup.

          But, here and even in NZ and other nations it is the same.

          Pickups are no longer an Australian or American feature, it’s a global trend.

          Many who comment on this site don’t even have a clue what’s it’s like to be able to buy a new diesel pickup for under $14k USD.

          To have the ability to buy a pickup with the variety as buying a car. We can get a budget beauty or a very flash supercharged 178mph pickup. Even HDs.

          In the US the difference between Australia and the US is the pickup tends to be connected to the redneck. Here it isn’t, greenies even buy pickups.

          Pickups here are egalitarian. As a person on the miniumum wage can afford to buy a new one, or if someone wants to race a Euro performance car around curves they can buy a ute to give it a run for it’s money.

          You mentioned Tata. Tata represents a very percentage of our pickups, but they actually do look great.

          An HSV designer/engineer has made a Tata pickup with a body kit and it’s one of the best looking midsizer’s I’ve seen.

          Here’s hopefully some images of the Tata, neat truck.

          http://resources.carsguide.com.au/dp/images/uploads/Tata-Tuff-Truck-Front-3-4finalW.jpg

          http://cdn.crossoverplus.info/files/gallery/1912/33693-tata-xenon-tuff-crossoverplus.jpg

          This shows even India, a nation with one of the lowest standards of living globally can make a good pickup.

          This is one that the US won’t get, what a pity as they sell in 4×4 twin cab here for around $20k USD.

          Farmers would love them, instead of quads and they are diesel.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I don’t know of any trucks of any size or class that are affordable in the US. Trucks are the staple the OEMs turn to for profitability.

            A truck that costs $20K to manufacture, all in, will retail easily for well over $50K. Cheaper version are not selling for much less either.

            There isn’t much to my 2011 Tundra, save for the Hino bearings, brakes, differential and frame to jack up the price to well over $30K (at the time), although that magnificent 5.7L V8 has to be worth at least $20K IMO.

        • 0 avatar
          Frylock350

          A discerning connoisseur chooses a Tundra? Is it for the cheap plastic interior, the hilariously terrible mileage, agricultural ride quality, or the floppy frame?

          In all seriousness, the Tundra, F150, Silverado, and Ram stand on equal ground with regards to reliability so the reason for choosing one over the other is going to come down to feature content and/or aesthetics. Anyone who doesn’t think any of those four will last is deluding themselves.

          In 2007 the Tundra was competitive on all fronts and class leading on many fronts. It was a tremendous effort and it showed. The fact that the entire rear window opens is a damned cool feature! Now the competition has caught up and passed them. The interior is back of the pack, the 5.7L’s mileage isn’t worth it anymore in the light of better performing GM and Ford trucks that get better MPG. The non-5.7L Tundras are completely non-competitive and the 5.7L is barely so. Hell even a new 5.3L GM will run a dead heat with a 5.7L Tundra (see car and driver articles: a 2014 Tundra CCSB 5.7L with 4.30s did 0-60 in 6.7 with a 1/4 mile of 15.3 sec @ 92mph; a 2014 Silverado CCSB with a 5.3L with 3.42s turned in an identical time). With ethanol in the tank it will pull ahead (Lingenfelter confirmed it’s good for a .5 seconds quicker to 60 and .5 in the quarter on a 5.3L CCSB with 3.08s).

          I’ve driven all the big trucks and while they’re more alike than different, there’s definitely some areas where there are standouts. The Tundra’s 5.7L is fantastic to drive. The Silverado’s two tone brown/tan interior is gorgeous, high quality and has excellent ergonomics. The Ram rides astonishingly well and the HEMI makes better noises than any other truck. My trucks are used in an all-purpose manner. They’re commuters, tow rigs, highway cruisers, family cars, and Home Depot haulers. Reliability is just the staring point. I drive an average of 18,000 miles annually; fuel economy is important. The Tundra would cost me $800 to $1000 more each year to feed than an Ecoboost Ford or 5.3L GM. Handling is important too. Ford and GM stand out as better than the rest. Tundra and Ram feel more ponderous. Ride quality is important. The Ram rides like a luxury sedan, the GM is close behind. Ford and Toyota haven’t figured that one out yet. Interior quality is important. This is the Tundra’s biggest fault for me. GM is the clear winner here and its ultimately the reason I chose the truck. If I’m going to spend at least 2 hours a day somewhere, I’d like it to be nice.

          It’s not like Toyota can’t do better, they just are choosing not to. The Tundra is Toyota’s Malibu; its a good vehicle in its own right, but the competition is just better. Toyota needs a better interior (I’m not springing for the 1497), sharper handling, better ride quality, and a competitive mid-level engine.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Frylock, to each his own. But more and more people who can afford it are stepping up to the Tundra.

            Why do people by a Rolls? Or a Bentley? Or a Ferrari? The answer is because they want to, and they can.

            Ditto the Tundra.

            People who can will buy a Tundra as an alternative to run-of-the-mill. If you want a luxo Tundra, they make that too.

            I cannot afford one of those, but I can afford a 4-door 4X4 Limited, and that’s what I intend to trade my 2011 Tundra for.

            I’ll take that magnificent all-aluminum 32-valve DOHC 5.7L Tundra V8 over anything Detroit has to offer in the same size and displacement class.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Fascinating chart.

    Some people see the truck volume as a risk; others see passenger cars as a risk. But the majority of mfrs have no choice but to put all their efforts into passenger cars, SUVs, and/or CUVs.

    It’s nice to have a money-printing truck business in the US which can fund other endeavors.

    • 0 avatar
      Timothy Cain

      “Some people see the truck volume as a risk; others see passenger cars as a risk. But the majority of mfrs have no choice but to put all their efforts into passenger cars, SUVs, and/or CUVs.”

      Well said.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        Except the part he forgot, which should read: “…because they (Toyota, Nissan) have tried and failed to compete head to head with American full size trucks.”

        Remember how Toyota built a huge factory in Texas so they could churn out big numbers with the Tundra, only the factory was so under used (due to poor Tundra sales) that they had to relocate Tacoma production there in order to keep the factory going (and its still nowhere near max capacity)? They thought they were going to clean Ford, GM and Ram’s clock with the new Tundra, but it didnt quite work out that way.

        While we’re at it, how about a chart showing where Japanese brands would be without their FWD snore box sedans. Honda would still have a decent showing thanks to the CRV, but the larger crossovers from those brands are outsold by Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee (and probably by GM’s entries as well, though Im not sure on that mark). Same with Nissan’s full size vans. Ford, Ram and GM continue to dominate that market also. And how about the Sequoia and Armada? Outsold by Tahoe and Expedition. Toyota can lay claim (now since FCA cut production to retool their factory) to the best selling minivan, a segment very much in decline.

        This chart is nothing but a wet dream by import fans who’s only wish is that the American brand’s best (and best-selling) products would somehow magicly dissapear.

        • 0 avatar
          Brumus

          I agree with the thoughts posted hereabove by JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N.

          Pickups are an important, sizable market and the Americans are good at serving said market. No need to put an asterisk after their sales figures.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          That’s funny. TMC has barely gotten into the full-size truck market.

          What has saved Detroit is the lack of demand for full-size trucks outside of North America. Nobody else has taken those trucks seriously because they had no other market that wanted them. The Japanese have had nothing to import in that segment for that very reason.

          Now TMC and Nissan are both in it. Nissan may very well fail, but Toyota usually succeeds at playing the long game.

          JD Power found that the most common reason that those who purposely avoid buying Japanese vehicles do so is because they dislike Asians. (Yes, they’re racist.) Building plants in the South and moving the HQ to Texas are all part of Toyota’s long-term plan to win over the heartland. You committed Detroit fanboys won’t be won over, but the next generation or two of buyers will probably be won over.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Pch101 – your observation is unfortunately true. I have seen many comments made against Toyota Tundra that mention Pearl Harbor. My favourite was a guy with the blog name of “BuyAmericanorsaybyetoAmerica”. He was anti-Japanese but drove a Mexican built Ram HD. I see the same thing with Japanese bikes.

            Even in Canada those with a high tattoo to tooth ratio seem to think that “imports” are just Japanese/Asian. My Ford pickup and Toyota Sienna are both imports from the USA.

            Benefit to a country’s GDP is based upon the soil the factory sits not the location of the flag of head office.

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            That was my Wife’s Grandfather. You call him a racist…We called him a Pearl Harbor Survivor. He also survived a Kamakazi attack. Bet you wouldn’t have called him a racist to his face though, even when he was on into his 80’s.

            He never gave me any grief about my automotive choices though and assisted his other granddaughter in the purchase of a Civic, but he drove what men of his generation generally drove and he was a Ford Man. His last ride was a Crown Vic with the sport package and floor shifter.

            My Grandfather fought in Europe and her made it known just what he thought of my mother’s VW Jetta He was a Buick man. Are there racists out there? Sure. But just because a dude holds a grudge because he had a ship blown out from under him or maybe he fought at the Battle of the Bulge doesn’t make him one.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I have sympathy for those veterans who fought in the war, particularly those who were in the Pacific. They certainly get a pass.

            I have zero sympathy for boomer rednecks who can’t get over the fact that they were on the losing side of the civil rights movement.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            I obviously can’t prove this, but I always believed that Toyota, Nissan & the other major Japanese Auto Manufacturers have never really tried to steal anything remotely approaching a significant % of pickup truck sales in North America.

            Think about it: If pickup trucks are responsible for such a huge percentage of Ford’s, GM’s and FCA’s revenues, and an even larger percentage of their net profits (to the point that it’s no stretch to claim that these 3 “domestic” companies would be unprofitable the majority of the time if the lost anything more than 15% of their current pickup truck sales volume), the backlash against Toyota, Nissan and others would be huge if they fielded superior full size pickups, sold them at aggressive prices, as it would literally bankruptcy Ford, GM, and FCA.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Large pickups are (a) unique vehicles that are (b) unique to North America. That requires a repositioning of their R&D since there is less opportunity for platform and parts sharing and betting heavily on US success since there is no other market where they can be sold.

            It’s a big bet. Honda is obviously unwilling to devote much effort to it — the Ridgeline is a platform-sharing exercise, which limits the upside potential but greatly reduces the cost.

            TMC and Nissan are now trying, but they’re still learning and it will take decades of investment and low returns to see whether it works out. (At this rate, Nissan will fail and Toyota will sputter along for awhile.)

            The rest of the Japanese automakers are too small to try.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            You don’t believe it’s possible, if not likely, that Toyota has intentionally moved slowly & non-aggressively in terms of fielding more competitive midsize and large pickup trucks, as it fears the backlash (political and business wise) that would result from literally conquesting a much larger % of the domestics’ pickup truck sales – which represents a massively outsized % of their profits to such an extent that it subsidizes their passenger car operations?

            I asking this sincerely.

            I have little doubt that Toyota possesses (and has for some time possessed) the technical and manufacturing ability to field a full size pickup that would steal many domestic pickup truck sales.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Toyota is a conservative company that is a “fast follower.” It rarely acts as a pioneer, but tries to improve on what others are doing as it grows organically. So it tends to move slowly and cautiously — sometimes too cautiously — until it is confident that it can eventually win.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            mkirk – my comments are in relation to those who have NOT served. Anyone who has seen active combat has the right to be against any product that was used against them in war.

            I have the utmost in respect for those who have put themselves in harms way for their country.

            I find it laughable in regard to “boomer rednecks” who are too stupid to understand the difference between domestic and import to the point where as mentioned they support Chrysler/Dodge/Ram/Fiat which is an Italian company with a Tax centre in Britain, a corporate head office in the Netherlands and a stock offering on the NYSE.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @DW – Any one of these OEMs can put a Man on the Moon, but it does seem to be a Gentlemen’s Agreement. And I’d take a *brand new* reverse-engineered ’05 Camry by Ford, over a ’15 Taurus. Cassette player and all!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Pch101: Where have you been for the last 4 decades? Toyota and Nissan both have had assembly plants in NA–admittedly Mexico, but still North America–since the ’80s. It’s certainly not something new for them. Their problem is that they’ve been gradually growing their trucks just as the “Big 3” have been doing, to the point they’re almost 25% larger than when they started. But strangely, despite their age, the old compact trucks are still remarkably popular, as evidenced by the number of S-10s, ’90s Rangers and yes, even some of the old ‘Hardbody’ Datsun/Nissans are still on the roads where they haven’t been rusted out by salted roads.

            I do agree that the average American pickup owner would prefer an American-branded model; I certainly would. But I certainly don’t need nor want a truck as large as what the American brands have become–and that includes the Colorado/Canyon. I don’t have a large family, so an extended cab is enough cab for me–four full doors are a waste of space and money for me. I’m old enough to appreciate being able to sit DOWN into a truck, not climb a stepladder just to reach the driver’s seat. (When the running board/side steps are almost a foot off the ground just to climb into the cab, it might as well be a stepladder.) (Don’t make assumptions, you’re going to almost certainly be wrong.)

            My point is that I want something that’s comfortable and practical, and today’s full sized trucks are neither. They’re gas hogs on average, only barely better on economy than my ’08 Wrangler. They’re unsafe (approximately 80% of all single-vehicle pickup accidents are fatal). They’re ungainly (turning radius in excess of 30 feet) and just plain clumsy. Sure, they may ride like a Cadillac today; they may be very stable on the highway; they may even be a great family vehicle–I don’t need any of that. But most of all, I don’t need the ridiculously high cost of one that still meets my minimum needs for interior appointments. Even with $10K on the hood making the full-size the same price as a compact with the same appointments, I’d buy the compact because it simply fits my needs and desires better than the full sized truck.

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          The Toyota Tundra has the same problem in the NA full-size pickup truck market that the Chevrolet Cruze has in the compact sedan market. Neither are bad vehicles, but they face dominant, continually improving, models that consumers like better. Toyota would need the next Tundra to be a significantly better vehicle for the money than the F-150, Silverado, or Ram 1500, but they no longer have the advantageous position they had when the 1992-1996 “fat” Camry moved up in the sales ranking. Toyota would have difficulty making money loading Tundras with more standard equipment for the money. Even if they were willing to aggressively buy market share, it’s not clear Toyota knows how to apply that money to a Tundra to make it significantly more desirable.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Timothy Cain,
        Pickups in the US will never be a risk as the globe is awash with them. If the US stopped manufacturing pickups and light commercials tomorrow, there are plenty of vehicles and I might add of greater choice globally to suit commercial requirements of the US.

        As for the 75% of US pickup sales, they are a car/SUV alternative. There are plenty of alternatives globally to fill that void as well.

        Pickups in the US will only become a risk to the manufacturers if the measures and controls offering them an unfair advantage is lifted. I might add this would also move into SUV/CUV/vans as well. These aren’t offered the same degree of protection as the US pickup, but they are protected as well.

        Then the US manufacturers will have to compete like most any other global manufacturer.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Pickups are a risk only if gasoline becomes unobtanium.

      We saw a cull in the pickup ranks in 2008 when fuel prices hit high levels.

      I can’t see myself without a pickup. I tried it for 2 years and it sucked.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Lou_BC,
        Incorrect.

        This is only for US full size pickups.

        We will still have our up to 54mpg (Imp gal.) diesel pickups.

        Maybe by then the US will have no choice but to import them.

        • 0 avatar
          Mandalorian

          The reason pickup sales (especially the 4×4 Crew Cab Platinum King LTZ) models are doing so well is because cars in general have gotten more expensive in the last 25 years (even with inflation).

          Up until the 90s, trucks were cheap for a reason. They were very crude and basic. A loaded one would have power windows, cloth seats and an FM radio. People who needed the truck capabilities could afford a truck and a nice sedan.

          Now this is not the case. A bare bones F150 and a basic Fusion is going to be $45-50k. Most people would just rather have one nice vehicle with the capabilities they need and leather, nav, etc and take a small hit on fuel economy, hence the loaded Crew Cab pickup.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Agreed Mandalorian. You can also configure a US pickup exactly how you want it. No other vehicle gives you so much choice in capability.

            Also, you can almost always find good deals on pickups. The competition is strong.

            CAFE helped kill the big, powerful affordable family sedan. The pickup was a natural replacement.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Big Al from Oz – ummm….. the posted chart is for the USA. Did I mention global pickups?

          I agree that pickups sell well because they are SUV alternatives. Why do you think Ford decided to build a crew 1/2 ton in the first place? That is what triggered the pickup truck sales boom.

          Pickups are the ultimate sports utility vehicle. Where else can you get that kind of versatility and 400 hp V8’s?

          No shame in that.

          Companies are building what customers want.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Lou_BC,
            Have I ever stated otherwise?

            You tend to overplay and overstate.

            Look and comprehend my scribes. Don’t become shrouded in a cloud of isolation, you’ll end up like DenverMike or HemiV8.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Big Al – you do dance around a bit but not as much as Denver.

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          BAFO, by January 20, 2017 there will be a new US president and congress. It’s more likely that CAFE will be changed to fit cars Americans will buy than for CAFE to cause Americans to downsize.

          Expensive low sulfur diesel fuel and emissions control equipment killed demand for diesel engines in US passenger cars. Sort of like how demand for leaded gasoline disappeared overnight when leaded became more expensive than unleaded at the pump. New clean diesels are too expensive and fragile to run on relatively cheap used vegetable oil, farm diesel, or heating oil.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @gorgeb,
            You have commented and read enough on TTAC to realise my response/retort to you, F#ckhead. Remember Al, Big Al or Big Al from Oz,

            You must be related to DenverMike or Pch101 with a foolish statement you’ve just made.

            You attempted to sound intelligent but completely disregarded fact. What a joke you are.

            1. US diesel fuel is of a lower quality than it’s competitors. It has a higher scar rate, has 50% more sulphur and is of a low cetane value.

            Lower cetane equate to a diesel engine required to run at higher compression ratios. This equal heat, which in turn equates to more NOx.

            2. A GDI engine emits 1 000 times more particulates than a modern diesel.

            3. The US refines the higher and better quality diesel, but sells it to the EU. So it isn’t as if the US can’t refine this stuff.

            4. A diesel fragile? You really are DiMs twin. I suppose dust and dirt make them fail?

            5. CAFE will not have the changes you speak of. Why? Because the US government can’t afford to subsidise and pay down the debt incurred by the auto manufacturers.

            Cars will stay as they are. Provide a link to show otherwise.

            Also, read up before you make a dumbass comment of little merit. What everyone tells you at the bar where you drink isn’t true.

            Also, don’t believe Fox and Friends or MSNBC.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        Well what is the magic price? 4-5 dollars a gallon slowed sales but not to the point they were still not crazy profitable to produce. If Gasolie honestly becomes unobtainium (you can’t buy it at any price) your civic is as useless as a 6.2 Raptor. Ironically, it is the guy with that old school diesel pickup that can run it on grease that will be laughing at all of us as we all likely starve.

        I drove a 12mpg Land Cruiser during all this. I drove it less for sure but it was paid for so taking on a payment for less pain at the pump was a net loss.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Gas prices aren’t nearly as threatening to pickup truck sales as is the real, underlying health of the economy.

      The next sustained, significant slowdown in pickup truck sales will occur when a) pent-up demand for new trucks has been reasonably satisfied, and b) there’s a significant slow-down in economic activity and especially demand for they goods/services the types of people and businesses that buy pickup trucks produce.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Deadweight,
        I do think the US vehicle market in total is currently as stable as a house of cards, not just pickups.

        When the house collapses the pickup will be the hardest hit.

        Cheap extended loans/leases is the biggest threat, not the possible increase in fuel prices.

        But, if you look at how the manufacturers in the US have organised the production of vehicles they have hedged themselves slightly.

        US vehicle production has increased by a couple of million vehicles annually, but yet the total numbers employed in the US vehicle production side of the industry has remained relatively static.

        This has been caused by the importation of vehicle components mainly from Mexico and China. That’s why I laugh at the “I would never buy a Chinese vehicle” comments.

        When the ass falls out, then there will mainly be assembly workers losing their jobs.

        The US auto manufacturers seem to be stumbling from one problem to the next. The next is going to really work out which companies have best restructured to manage a large slowdown.

        But, it’s all about the short term and shareholders, not the consumer.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Between them, Toyota and Honda lead just about every mainstream segment that doesn’t involve large and a bed.

    The Germans have taken over the luxury car space.

    Aside from FCA’s share of the 4WD Jeep niche, big trucks are the only things that Detroit has left. If Japan had had wide roads and cheap gas, then they probably wouldn’t have that, either.

    • 0 avatar
      thx_zetec

      Where would Germany be without luxury cars? Looks like Detroit has to get buy with the biggest, highest-margin segment.

      Where would Philippe Morris be without Tobacco?

      What if Japan had cheap gas and wide roads? What if Napoleon had a B52 at the battle of Waterloo.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        ” Looks like Detroit has to get buy with the biggest, highest-margin segment.” That’s the only way Detroit can reach break-even and, along with some creative accounting, show a profit.

        Looks like Ford is going to do some more cost-cutting by laying-off several hundred workers because of slow sales. Good thing they’re UAW members because they’ll keep getting paid without having to work.

        But the pickup trucks, they’ll keep them a-rollin’.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        “Looks like Detroit has to get buy with the biggest, highest-margin segment.”

        Obama’s CAFE is poised to squeeze the margins right out of full sized pickups.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @CJinSD,
          As much as many state how CAFE affects US pickups, it also offers protection to them as well from external competitors.

          I don’t think you would see for some time the need to build an aluminium global pickup.

          Or, for that matter a 4×4 pickup with the front air dam that scraps onto the bitumen.

          CAFE is offering some assistance to the US pickup manufacturers as well as making the cost rise.

          This is what occurs when an unfair competitive environment is set. Someone has to pay for the protection and it is the US taxpayer and consumer.

          If the consumer wins, everybody wins.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – it’s real ignorant (even for you) to say US D3 pickups are protected by the tax payers. These pickup OEMs were dragged down by lack of profitable fwd cars alone.

            And exactly what external “completion” would they be protected from???

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s common sense to have a different CAFE standard for bigger and heavier vehicles, especially when used commercially. Europe’s CAFE equivalent protects bigger vehicle too, but based on weight instead of footprint.

            Forced smaller vehicles means more trips back and forth to accomplish the same. And dangerous when overloaded. Losses all around including productivity.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          CJ conveniently forgets that CAFE dates from 1975 when a Republican was in the White House.

          It’s pretty impressive that a 12 year old Kenyan Muslim could have such impact on American law.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            How do you maintain your level of ignorance?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @VoGo,
            CAFE has been evolving over the period since it’s inception.

            Originally light commercials/trucks, which include SUV/CUVs/Vans/etc were included.

            The US manufacturers exploited these loop holes and they are gradually being closed off.

            I would say over 50% of all private vehicles sold in the US are classified as trucks by the EPA and CAFE.

            This gives them an advantage to use larger capacity engines with lower FE requirements.

            Remove this and you will see a quick end to the use of “trucks” as private vehicles in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Pretty impressive a Kenyan Muslim can be elected President and the go on to act like a twelve year old for seven years when he finds time in between golfing rounds. This of course is after an eight year period of a ex-cokehead and recovered alcoholic of questionable intelligence who was also questionably “elected” who led the nation on a bankrupting and ultimately fruitless war while expanding untenable liabilities (medicare part D) among other things. This after a more intelligent but much more Machiavellian character sells secrets to the Chinese while overseeing the period where the US economy and stripped off and sold piecemeal to the third world (not to mention hundreds of bodies in his wake as gov and later president and the mysterious death of Secy Ron Brown).

            Seriously though you have a point on 1975, the blue team/red team meme from all sides gets old. They all are in cahoots at the top.

            Another fun fact is the CAFE target for cars went unchanged from 1990 to 2010 at 27.5mpg.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @CJinSD,
            Ignorance?

            Do you think the rest of the world is like the US?

            Use google and read up on what has shaped the US vehicle market.

            Since the 1960s the US has gradually created a massive web of regulations, tariffs and controls that are only of any use in the US.

            There are levels of control throughout the US vehicle regulatory framework. From the use of different quality diesel, to difference in emissions, different safety standards (that aren’t as effective as global standards) and on and on.

            DoT was formed in 1967 by the Democrats with the UAW pushing President Johnson to adapt it. The chicken tax was also pushed by the UAW and Johnson.

            Read and learn. You’d be very surprised on how regulations have impacted and shaped the US light truck segment.

            Now in isolation the US consumer will be paying more for pickups than their global counterparts.

            The US has become different to maintain its uncompetitive advantage.

            You will pay for this as a taxpayer and consumer at the end of the day.

            This isn’t ignorance, this is fact.

            Ignorance is your inability to recognise the deficiencies within your own country.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In this case, I believe that CJ is referring to the new version of CAFE which was a byproduct of the Obama administration.

            Unlike the old CAFE, efficiency improvements now need to be included in every platform — offsetting big vehicles with small vehicles no longer cuts it. But he’s panicking unnecessarily; the industry would not have accepted the new standards if it couldn’t cope with them.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – US regs/tariffs are impartial to the OEMs they may “protect”. Peugeot was just as protected as GM, Ford and Chrysler. Now the biggest US sellers are foreign owned OEMs. If OEMs influence DC, Toyota’s, Honda”s, Nissan’s, VW’s and Hyundai’s money is just as good as anyone else’s.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            I’m not panicking. I would love to see the UAW-3 go the way of the US steel industry. They accepted Obama’s absurd CAFE targets because that’s what whores do. They take it. They weren’t in any position to say no, but even Obama’s minions were surprised by how pliable they were when degrading propositions were made, ones that will leave the UAW-3 ruined, and set up the rest of the economy for years of depression.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In that case, you’re celebrating unnecessarily.

            The industry would not have accepted CAFE if it couldn’t live with it. As it stands, the regulatory trends globally and the uncertainty of future oil markets are causing automakers to focus on fuel economy generally, while China and Brazil in particular are prompting OEMs to develop 1.0-liter engines.

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          If GM had the political clout to get the Government to bailk them out then what on earth makes you think that same political clout is going to allow the only profitable lineup in thier lineup to be legislaterd out of existance especially when no matter who gets elected they are likely to be less beholden to the enviornmental left than the current administration.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            mkirk – to a great degree it depends on who is in power. GM as a corporation would have more clout with the Republican side of the spectrum. The UAW obviously has more clout with the Democrats.

            We saw the whole bailout started by the Republicans and was finished off by the Democrats. Many argue that big unions were the ultimate benefactors of the bailout. Regardless of whether or not that is true, GM and Chrysler benefited, and so did Ford indirectly.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Lou_BC,
            I do think the TARP money was to be used differently by the Republicans.

            The best option would of been to allow the deadwood to fall. Then have whatever’s left and profitable restructure.

            The Democrats gave billions to the UAW, then the long term UAW workers stiffed their fellow workers on pay and conditions.

            So much for solidarity. You can see why the UAW will have future problems recruiting. Selfish group, they are.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      I agree Pch with your statement.

      You forgot to add without the chicken tax the US manufacturers wouldn’t have a stranglehold on the pickup segment.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        That’s just stupid, BAFO. There’s no ‘internal’ US competition, let alone Global. Would the end of the Chicken tax invent completion that’s yet to exist?

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      ….If Japan had had wide roads and cheap gas, then they probably wouldn’t have that, either…..

      I don’t agree with that statement. Japan has msde multiple attempts to dig into the pickup market and had more or less failed. And not because the product is necessarily bad, at least when discussing the Tundra, twerking bed aside. It really is a good truck but for whatever reason, the market is choosing a different manufacturer. Brand loyalty? God Bless America? Those certainly weigh into it for sure. But that is irrelevant. The same could be said for habitual Honda buyers that look right past class competitive domestic cars. The big two Japanese makers no doubt had much higher aspirations for the Tundra and Titan.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Toyota is new at large pickups. It took decades for them to conquer the car market; even more time will be needed for pickups, as Detroit does a better job with those than they did with the cars that the Japanese steamrolled over.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          They felt the Camry, Altima and Accord of pickups would set the pickup world on fire. Well…

          It was a great plan in theory. Actually the next gen Titan screams of F-150 ‘reverse engineering’. So does the current Tundra refresh.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The Tacoma is the best selling small pickup in the US, and the Hilux is the second best selling truck on the planet. I’m not crying for TMC.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Congrats to Toyota and the Hilux, but it’s not nearly as profitable as any one of the D3 fullsize pickups. Not by a longshot. Toyota has to be licking their chops!

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Ford has come close to bankruptcy more than once. Quite a few eggs in one basket.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          I think we’re forgetting part of the reason why Toyota can’t gain a larger percent of the market, price and lack of options.
          Compare the real world paid cost of a 2 door 5.7l Ram with that of a 2 door 5.7 Tundra, massive difference, and the MPG of the Ram puts the Toyota to shame. The options availible for both Japanese Fullsizers are minuscule, and those availible are costly. Nissan ruined the reputation of its trucks right off the bat with a severely weak rear end. Toyota’s tailgate design they had for the first several years of the big truck design was just sad, who designs a tailgate incapable of supporting the weight of an adult sitting on it?

          Not to mention the 2nd and 3rd generation Tundra has a design that isn’t exactly the bees knees, I can get behind the 1st gen Tundra but after that I have no idea what they were thinking.

          Toyota also doesn’t really have anywhere to go in the market with the current DOHC engine design as far as the MPG minded are concerned, even Ford has almost abandoned that V8 design for the 150s except for the tiny 5.0l. And I don’t see Toyota having the courage to build a competitive OHV V8 to compete with the others.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Hummer,
            I do concur with your statement.

            But, you need to delve a little deeper and identify the cause of what you stated.

            First up, how does the new US Colorado fair against the US 1/2 ton pickups in most areas, most particularly, refinement and capability?

            I do know you will state that we have 1/2 ton pickups that tow 10k+ lbs. But what is the majority of US 1/2 pickup owners buying? What capability?

            The refinement I speak of isn’t just related to bling, but handling, FE, power, etc.

            Countries external to the US have had a comparable midsizer to the US pickup now for some time.

            As I stated in the beginning of this comment. Look at what impacts the US pickup market and has influenced what it is today.

            The US pickup will be the making of it’s own demise.

            Why? Because the US wants to play ball it’s own way and not allow any real competition inside it’s borders.

            Sort of like World Series sports. World Series I ask?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Al, your mind is made up.
            The Colorado needs 2 years before anyone can call it a success or a failure. I will say the Twins are not made with heavy work use in mind, maybe it’s different in the rest of the world. But these designs are competing with the crossover demographic more than the pickup using demographic. The interior uses a console shifter instead of a more appropriate column shift. And I found the interior tighter than it needed to be, again, in part to the unnecessary console shifter, but also due to the steeply raked windshield. The bumper sitting on the ground not only furthers my view in the above, but looks extremely poor and almost feminine compared to the more appropriate bumper height on the Tacoma.

            The U.S. FS truck market is an icon of our automotive landscape, the cost of building a fullsize pickup vs a midsize pickup is nil. Even if we were to flood the market with midsize trucks, that somehow affected the sales of the Fullsize, U.S. Makers could slash the prices of the FS trucks on a dime and retake the market. They’re not going anywhere, I find trying to argue this is akin to calling computers a fad.
            The U.S. FS makers have not been given the chance to sell their trucks around the world at fair prices. The new F150 is affected by Australlias Luxury tax, if Australlia was given these trucks at prices that reflect the true cost of manufacturing and shipping, they would easily sell enough units to be profitable.

            Additionally, I was actually on an Australlian car media news site, a story on the F150 had quite a few comments of individuals willing to pay twice the price we pay, but simply couldn’t afford the 100k+ the trucks costed. (Also saw RobertRyan’s handle there, pretty sure the AU auto industry pays him at this point)

            Also happened to see an early 00s F150(with 186,000 kms) going for $39,000 and several late 00s for $70,000, if that’s not a clear sign demand exists in AU for these, then something needs to be explained. I can Guarantee our early 00 S10s, and Rangers aren’t going for anywhere near that.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Cost of F150s in Australlia, which are still availible in limited quantities.
            http://carsales.mobi/car/ford/f150/?csn_tn=true

            Cost of Rangers in the U.S. a size of truck that has been completely abandoned.
            https://raleigh.craigslist.org/search/cta?sort=rel&query=ranger

            Interesting tidbit, that $85,000 2011 F150 with 96,000 kms, has a 6.2L, a $7,000 option in the U.S. when it was availible.
            The number of Raptors priced well over $100,000 is astonishing, it’s quite obvious Australlians wants Fullsize pickups but are denied them due to Government regs.

            Similarly, for the small truck Mafia we have on this site, we can look at our old S10 and ranger trucks and see the demand is much lower for small trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Hummer,
            At least we can get a F-150.

            Can you get a BT50? Nope.

            What would it cost to have one in the US and be able to drive it on your roads.

            Also, look at our market size and what we have to offer.

            We have a larger range of vehicles on offer to us than the US.

            Choice here is what is hurting full size pickups. If we had a 25% tax on all pickups except US full size what do you think many would be driving?

            I do think you need to look a little than you are.

            It isn’t the American people and apple pie that makes the US pickup sales as they are.

            There are other factors and important factors at that.

            1. Affluence,

            2. Cheap fuel,

            3, Regulatory controls and protection of the industry, and

            4. Culture.

            Australia isn’t that much different from the US in most respects, except we have a free commercial vehicle sector with no protection offered.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Hummer – agree on the options list. One can get a pickup exactly the way they want from the US badges. Chevy/GMC seem to have less options than either Ford or Ram. The Tundra is too expensive and options are too limited. In 2010 the Tundra rated slightly better than my F150 but the price difference was 10k with rebates. The Tundra isn’t 10k better than a F150.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Big Al – still stuck on the notion that the Colorado/Canyon are eating up sales from the full sized 1/2 ton trucks.

            We saw on the “General Motors Doing Well In Midsize Truck Segment, Success May Not Last” thread that 90% of their sales have come from GM customers. Only 16% was from GM full sized truck owners moving down in size. 10% were conquest but that is really negligible considering the size of the pickup truck market.

            I do think that the diesel Colorado/Canyon will cut into Ram Ecodiesel sales since the Ram ecodiesel is a pizz poor hauler and has low tow ratings.

            If the Duramax Colorado/Canyon keeps their max 1800lb haul rating and 7K tow rating of the gasser it will definitely be a better “working” truck than the Ram.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Lou_BC,
            It appears I more accurately predict what’s going on and going to happen in the US pickup market than most I’ve interacted with on the net.

            The Colorado Canyon will do exceptionally well.

            Again, I’m not in no way stating the demise of the US full size. But the US full size share of the market is distorted, due to regulatory controls, tariffs, etc, in other words protectionism.

            If this weren’t the case then why the need for the chicken tax?

            We so many ignorant people here on TTAC who make those ludicrous statements on how the chicken tax has no effect.

            Then lets have these people start telling me why the need for the chicken tax.

            In all seriousness what would happen if the US had midspec 4×4 twin cab, diesel midsize pickups for $25k?

            You can see why the US manufacturers, UAW and other interests have been pushing for protection of the US pickup.

            The last time cheap imported pickups arrived in the US they were a hit.

            The same would occur again, except these aren’t minitrucks. These are trucks with the capability of most full size 1/2 ton pickups.

            Really, have a look at the US pickup and what it’s become. It’s almost a circus freak, yet a smaller and just as capable vehicle can do the same for most.

            It’s not as if the new gen midsizers are that small or light as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Lou_BC,
            One can get what they want with US badges??

            Well, when I move to the US how do I get hold of a diesel 4×4 midsizer twin cab that can carry 3 000lbs?

            How can I buy a truck the size of a midsizer with duals and a 10′ bed??

            If you have never been exposed to something, I suppose you don’t know what you’ve missed in life.

            This appears to be your case and others.

            You should of stated we can any US badged pickup we want, but can’t get anything offered outside of the US.

            I suppose you believe World Series Baseball is a global sport. I mean why else would it be called World Series?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @BigAl – there you go again……….. The conversation was about why Tundra does not sell well. TUNDRA does not have the choices that Ford or Ram or GM has.

            I do agree that the small truck market is limited partially by regulations. I doubt that the USA market would be flooded by 25k 4×4 crew diesel small trucks once tariffs are lifted. CAFE, EPA, NHTSA safety regulations would pump up the cost by at least 25%.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    The chart really illustrates why the US manufacturers don’t want any external competition in the pickup segment.

    I do see a gradual unwinding of the Big 2 and FCA’s reliance on the pickup over the next couple of decades

    This will be driven by a open or at least a more open trading stance with light trucks in the US.

    Once this occurs then the US manufacturers will need to adjust to how most of the free world operates.

    I have read that the TPP (Trans Pacific FTA) has a few hurdles prior to it’s acceptance by other nations and the pickup protection offer to US manufacturers is a sticking point.

    The three main sticking points in the TPP are, pickups (chicken tax), US pharmaceutical protection and agriculture (on all sides).

    The US desperately wants this FTA as the influence in the Pacific Rim by the Chinese is ever expanding.

    It will be very funny if the eventual removal of the chicken tax due to the global expansion of the Chinese.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    If it wasn’t for the invention of pickups, vans would thrive here instead. King Ranch 4X4 dually vans with 5 leather heated/cooled/massaging/flushing captain’s chairs.

    This is a America, Babe. It started with lifestyle ‘covered wagons’ while the rest of the world abused the GVWR of poor donkey’s backs!

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @DiM,
      As a matter of fact the US pickup, like the King Ranch were an ongoing evolution from Aussie ingenuity.

      So, maybe most everything great in the US is an adaptation of other’s people idea’s. The Chinese are doing this as well.

      I mean for best Ford pickup is the Ranger and that was also designed in Australia and it will make a profit for Ford.

      ………………………………………………………….

      Here’s a comment straight from Ford’s website;

      “Ford is celebrating the 80th anniversary of its Australian invention of the iconic ute, which led to the development of vehicles such as the F-Series and Ranger and propelled the company to years of truck leadership.”

      Here’s Ford’s website link;

      https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/02/25/ford-celebrates-aussie-ute-s-80th-anniversary.html

      ……………………………………………………..

      The kaleidoscope you view the world from in Winnepeg or Spain or LA, might not be that accurate. Maybe, just maybe you are incorrect most of the time.

      Drug abuse can cause this to occur. Or aligning oneself to a socialisst cult like institution or organization brainwashes you.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – It hardly matters who had the 1st pickup, but the North America, and OZ both have a strong history of loving pickups.

      But our pickups date back 100+ years with the Model T and Model A Pickups.

      You’re talking about a marketing campaign exclusively in OZ/NZ for the Ranger and your 1st historic pickup down there.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        Bingo. The pickup truck came from the model T in 1925…well before the “Ute”.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Wikipedia got that one wrong.

          A cab chassis version of the Model T (called the TT) was introduced in 1917. It added a bed in 1924.

          Dodge offered a truck with a bed in 1921: http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/ram-history.html

          Ford introduced the “coupe utility” in Australia in 1934 in response to the Depression. If the Aussie duo of dumb is claiming that Oz was first, then they’re both wrong (as they usually are about everything.)

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            But, where they called pickups?

            Are they the forefathers of the modern carlike pickup?

            In 1898 the Germans had small and light trucks as well.

            You guys can rattle your chain regarding the pickup, but the fact remains the pickup is just an evolution of the cart.

            The car is an evolutionary extension of the buggy.

            Ford Australia according to the Ford US site seems to consider otherwise.

            Maybe Ford itself has it wrong and they don’t have a clue on what Ford’s history is.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      DenverMike – funny metaphor BUT covered wagons aren’t a USA exclusive. Romans used covered freight wagons. Railway track width is a vestige of Roman times. Track width was the same width as their freight wagons. The English built their wagons to fit those ruts. When they started building trams the tram builders used the same jigs used for wagons. Since the USA was once an English colony the first rail lines were built to British standards.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        That’s not all completely true, though close enough. What you forget is that there were several gauges of which 4’8½” became the standard, but especially here in the US track gauges have run from 2′ to 6′ and even today some now-tourist railroads run on the 3′ gauge most logging railroads used while there’s one 2′ railroad that has been restored for tourism. Before the War Between the States, southern railroads ran a gamut of gauges of which 5′ was the most common. To some extent, that’s why the South held out so long, because northern locomotives and cars couldn’t run on southern track so had a notable problem with their supply chain. Northern engineers had to re-gauge the tracks for their own use while being forced to sabotage track farther south to disrupt Southern troop and supply movements. Even England/the UK had arguments about track gauge and the current “Standard” gauge is really a compromise.

        Why do I bring this up? Because I see the pickup truck market headed the same way. Were it not for the protectionism involved with the Chicken Tax and a few other regulations, the Colorado/Canyon would be full-sized while there *might* be a smaller size for those who got used to the compacts and still want them. The American trucks would be a compromise designed to compete with other brands’ ‘global’ trucks which, by the way, would reduce costs AND increase profits. But the American OEMs don’t want to compromise. Just like too many American people.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Vulpine – good points. Tariffs and emissions/EPA loopholes have helped shape the market. SUV’s and 1/2 ton pickups got bigger to game mpg/emissions rules.

          The USA market does have its own unique characteristics. Supersizeme is part of the picture.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Lou_BC ~ it’s a lot of factors, none of which are tariffs. Mostly pickup trucks are hella expensive to build and complicated by an almost endless list of ways to order/option and trim them. Without very high volume, they’re selling at a loss.

        Think back to the Mini-Truck Craze/Circus. Yep. High volume while same tariffs.

        What global pickups have going for themselves around the world is lack of US fullsize competition. They get to fill the role of a family’s primary vehicle and luxury pickup, fetching prices not possible in the US.

        If there was nothing better and we didn’t know any better, the midsize truck would dominate the US and North American markets. Is there any doubt you and I would have a midsize truck as our primary rides?

        Of course cheapskates and fleet, like Orkin are here to spoil what little fun midsize pickup OEMs can have. They can’t be turned away. Nissan did and their pickup sales have been in the Sh!tter ever since.

        If there ever was a lose/lose situation…

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          DenverMike – you have NEVER proven that tariffs had absolutely no effect. There are multiple scholarly papers and books that say they helped shape the market.

          I do not deny the fact that there were many other factors.

          Prove me wrong…..

          You do keep dusting off the same old stupid arguments.

          I may disagree with Pch101 on this topic but at least his rebuttals are based upon a logical thought pattern.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – I’ve never said tariffs have no effect on the market, just no effect worth mentioning. A few hundred annual sales of Camrys may be dependent on tariffs. A few hundred annual sales Corollas too. And a few hundred Civics. And Accords, Altimas, Sentras, Taurus, Cruze, Focus, Elantra, etc, too.

            All tariffs do is filter out the absolute weakest of the weak.

            A few hundred lost sales perhaps of each pickup too, when the Chicken tax is lifted. It would means absolutely nothing to the Silverado, F-150, Ram and Sierra. Maybe a few hundred each would be felt by the Tundra, Tacoma, Colorado and Frontier, but that many lost sales would be devastating the Titan, Canyon and Fridgeline.

            HD trucks would be non affected whatsoever.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Ford, GM & FCA are all dependent on profits from Truck/SUV sales to constitute 75% (FCA) to 85% (Ford) to 88% (GM) of their profits – all this in a very pro-pickup & SUV sales environment, and where they are achieving a mere 3% to 4% net profitability margin.

    I’ve said it before and will repeat it: Let GM’s or Ford’s pickup/SUV sales fall by a mere 10% to 12% and they go from profitable to unprofitable.

    Let their pickup/SUV sales fall by 14% or more, and their losing money again at a brisk clip, just like the early to mid 2000s, because their business models have changed so slightly from then (and this is after GM was given a quick rinse, taxpayer subsidized bailout allowing it to screw shareholders, bondholders, taxpayers, retirees, suppliers, and other creditors).

    SSDD.

    Wait until pickup/SUV sales fall again and watch the carnage. It’s cyclical and inevitable.

    Those who do not learn from adverse lessons jn history are doomed to repeat them.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      What do you want them to do about it? Small cars don’t make big profits and the market is saturated with car choices to the point it’s only worth the effort for CAFE. All 3 of them have a strong foothold in the fullsize truck market which easily brings over $10k per unit, with minimal competition. Why would they want to diverge even more profits from the fullsize segment, which is make or break, into car segments that are lucky to bring in $2-3k per sale.

      I realize it’s poor planning to not hedge for economic fluctuations, but diverging more money from a known cash cow is just as risky in itself. Get behind the curve in that segment and your screwed.

      I will however point out, GM lost a significant number of car sales with the loss of the Pontiac division.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Because it is a cyclical but not sustainable model. Detroit 2 + FCA need to cut production costs so they can profit on other models, part of those costs not shared by J3 + other transplants is still going to be UAW. As cool as the trucks are, the fact Detroit can make up to 10K PER UNIT shows they are incredibly overpriced, its not just not a long term solution.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          As I pointed on this website some time before the bankruptcy, GM was already a low cost operator. Cost cutting is not the answer; GM had a revenue problem, not a cost problem.

          Detroit is doing much better than it was before the crash, in part because it now has fair alternatives to offer if oil prices rise. The vehicles that aren’t trucks have improved and the portfolio of non-gas guzzlers is much better than it was. They’re not quite on the honor roll, but they’ve gone from being failures to C+/B- members of the class.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Does Detroit have a sustainable model for future growth?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            All three of them have their weaknesses, but all of them are in considerably better shape than they were a decade ago. Of the three, FCA is the most vulnerable, although that is offset by good management.

            I know that panic is in fashion on this website, but there is really no comparison between 2005 and 2015. They should be able to operate fairly well, although I would not expect any of them to be stars. (One of them might surprise me, but I doubt it.)

            The UAW fixation is equally ridiculous. The union is not exactly a benefit, but it doesn’t pose a problem. (If you want to see what union problems look like, learn about South Korea.)

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          As much as I would love to see the UAW cut out of the picture, the government intervention in 09 ensured their survival for at least another couple decades. Also I point back to Toyota, the Tundra is priced into the stratosphere for a base trim truck, where D3 is firmly in the low 20s or high 10s for the same deal.

          I don’t disagree that they have structuring problems that hurt the profitability of the cars, but what is a realistic solution? Screw with the UAW and your likely to be put on a hit list. GM didn’t have to build the Cruze and Sonic in the U.S., we’re greatful they did, but where do they draw the line?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Agree that Toyota prices their products, including their trucks, out of reach of the mainstream.

            But people keep buying them, so I say, let the market place shake itself out.

            Once Toyota trucks quit selling, Toyota will be forced to put as much money on the hood as GM puts on the hoods of their trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        “diverging more money from a known cash cow is just as risky in itself”

        That’s known as the Kodak strategy: you’ve got a cash cow, just stick your head in the sand and your ass in the air. Works great if your options vest before the sh*t hits the fan.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      “Suddenly, Ford Offers Big Discounts on New F-Series Pickups”
      http://247wallst.com/autos/2015/04/25/suddenly-ford-offers-big-discounts-on-new-f-series-pickups/

      Higher costs and disappointing mpg isn’t helping the new Ford trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        The article quotes that one model in one market has a $4250 incentive. $4250 is low compared to the incentives that GM and Ram has been offering on a much wider basis. New York City does not represent a significant pickup market. So the material presented in that article doesn’t really mean much at all. Sounds like maybe some dealers and/or Ford though that the 2015 F150 would sell better in the XLT trim than it is. It does not point to a larger issue with F150 sales by any means. Around here the best you can get is $750 the last I checked, again that is not across the board.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    It’s amazing how emotive patriotic logic can distort the truth.

    Wow, talk about soft heads.

  • avatar

    What is interesting is that if Saturn and Pontaic where not axed during the bailout, GM would just beat Toyota in car sales. GM lost at least 250,000 annual sales by losing those aforementioned divisions. Right now Buick and Cadillac are barely keeping GM ahead of both Ford and Toyota in overal sales. If GM ever decided to cancel either Cadillac or Buick there would be a good chance they would be in third place!

    Since GM’s marketshare is under 17% there should be another deathwatch.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    Big, roomy 4-door sedans are as popular as ever; people just want them a lot taller these days. Having vestigial beds in back is just icing on the cake and they’ll usually get covered with something to keep the rain off.

    Given the new status of pickups as family sedans I think they are well positioned to weather whatever CAFE has in store. Little turbo 4s can get the family to the mall as well as any other power option.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      A 4500+ pound vehicle (before anyone hops aboard) with a turbo 4 cylinder engine and poor aero? Sure, that’ll totally work.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        NoGoYo – a vehicle the size of a pickup with 365 – 400 hp engines that still pull over 20 mpg is respectable. My 2010 F150 Supercrew 4×4 is considerably bigger than my previous 1990 F250 reg cab 4×4 and has 120 more hp but beats it by 4-7 mpg highway. All of the current 2015 pickups beat my F150 in mpg, power, and capacity.

        • 0 avatar
          NoGoYo

          That wasn’t my point though. The top commenter mentioned small turbo 4 powered pickups, and I pointed out that, with the weight and poor aerodynamics of pickup trucks, small turbo 4s would be disastrous. Performance would be on par with old S Class Mercedes with 123 hp turbodiesels.

  • avatar
    Spike_in_Brisbane

    Holden may have introduced the world’s first ‘Ute’ but in Australia the term ute or utility refers to a body style in a car family. Ford’s Aussie Falcon ute followed soon after and the U.S. May have trailled with the El Camino and Ranchero but pickup trucks have been around forever. The claim of being first depends on semantics and cultural viewpoints.

    When I was living in SoCal I was visited by an Aussie Apple orchardist friend and we went to visit some new car yards. He positively drooled over the F150s and Rams. He reckoned he could fit his Hilux in the tray and he would have bought one on the spot if he could have taken it home. The problem is more than the luxury tax or higher fuel costs, it is the fact that domestic U.S manufacturers have seldom built vehicles with any thought of the RHD third of the world. It’s true that you can buy an F150 in Oz but it costs a fortune and comes from third party conversion companies. Many people are wary of dealing with a non-manufacturer for a new vehicle and even more cannot justify the extra tens of thousands of dollars for the conversion.

    I suspect that if Ford and Chrysler gave a little attention to building a vehicle that could be assembled for driving from either side (like Toyota, Nissan, Volkswagen, Mazda and most international car makers) they would sell from dealers in Oz at reasonable prices, avoiding the luxury tax and would sell like ice creams in summer.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The ute (as in coupe utility) was invented by Ford, not Holden. This Ford press release provides the cute and common version of the story, claiming that it was prompted by a letter from a farmer’s wife: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/02/25/ford-celebrates-aussie-ute-s-80th-anniversary.html

      There seems to be some truth to the letter story, but the more boring version of this tale is that banks were not inclined to make car loans in rural areas during the Depression, so the ute was intended to be enough of a work vehicle that the customer could convince a bank to provide a loan for it.

      I would assume that demand for RHD large US pickups would not be high enough to justify the added cost of production, so they don’t bother with the engineering. The Aussies and Kiwis might have some interest, but those markets are small. As I noted above, FCA will be making more of an effort, but it will still be a matter of converting LHD units rather than building them as RHD.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      On the other hand, Spike, you can buy a Jeep Wrangler in right-hand-drive pretty easily here in the States. They make great rural postal vehicles.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @BAFO – You have a “larger range of vehicles” just within ONE class! Anything else is expensive to the point of absurd. Even used.

    But what would be the purpose of importing a BT50 to the US? Just to be different? Why not import a Tacoma to OZ??? I’d be just as pointless and dumb. Stupid no doubt!

    We truly have a “larger range of vehicles” anyone_can_afford. Used if they have to. If you can get a new diesel 4X4 crew cab for our $22,000, why did you spend almost 3X that? For leather, Nav and sunroof??

    We’ve tried truly disposable vehicles, but it’s waste all around. Pure junk with negligible resale value. Even the junk yards didn’t want them for more than ‘scrap metal value’ for late model Daihatsus and such.

    The Chicken tax doesn’t support, sponsor, allow or protect US fullsize pickups. Not even the Tundra or Titan. Or the Ridgeline for that matter.

    The Chicken tax is there for Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Mitsu, Subaru, VW, Hyundai, etc, if anyone. They’d be the 1st and last to cry to DC if it was about to be taken away.

    Show what trucks could challenge US fullsize pickups. The Colorado isn’t doing much more than barely challenging cars, CUVs and fullsize pickups on_the_same_showroom.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Pickups add to the profitability of the Detroit 2 and Fiat Chrysler otherwise we would be still bailing out the GM and Chrysler with the addition of Ford. I would argue that the trend is away from as much dependence on pickups and more dependency on crossovers of all sizes. Crossovers have effected the sales of cars more than trucks and they are the segment of the market that is growing the fastest. Pickups are not as large of a percentage of the total vehicle market as they were a decade ago and will continue to decline but then level off. Pickups will still be more profitable per unit than cars but the cuvs are highly profitable and all manufacturers are jumping on the cuv bandwagon.

    Comparing pickups to hamburgers is misleading unless you are comparing them to more expensive gourmet hamburgers because the transaction prices are higher than most vehicles. Big Al is correct that the US truck market is protected and there is little incentive to offer more affordable trucks. Offer few affordable models and limit their availability and offer mostly high level trim lines because the profitability goes up proportionately. The less competitive a market is the less incentive there is to compete. If I were GM, Ford, and Chrysler I would not want any tariffs removed from trucks and if anything I would want more restrictions and limit my production and sales to only the higher trim level of trucks. I would maximize my profits on fewer more expensive units.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      You guys can never answer, PROTECTED FROM WHAT??? The Colorado joins a long list and history of “trucks” that challenged everything EXCEPT fullsize pickups by GM, Dodge/Ram and Ford.

      Remember the Mini-Truck Craze? I guess not…

      The Chicken tax was a political stunt NOT because of import German pickups, but because of *CHICKENS*! Get it? That’s why it’s not called the TRUCK TAX!!!

      In the early ’60s, pickups were a small segment and up to the 60’s the VW transporter was a rare niche vehicle.

      The Chicken tax can obviously *protect* anything on 4 wheels, and more likely autos by Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, VW, Hyundai, etc.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @DenverMike – it costs pretty much the same to build a small or large pickup in the USA. That is partially why small trucks cannot challenge full sized ones. A loaded Colorado or Canyon sit in the 40-45k range. A comparable full sized pickup is going to be 50-55k. Full sized trucks tend to have higher discounts so basically sale price is the same. Most will buy full-sized if the price is the same.

        Tariffs help keep IMPORTS out of the USA. I’ve said this multiple times. A prime example is VW. They said they’d have to sell 100,000 Amarok’s to justify a NAFTA zone factory. They also said more recently that an FTA with the EU would make importing the Amarok viable.

        The full sized pickup is a fixture/icon of the USA market and with the USA supersizeme preference I doubt that small trucks represent much of a threat BUT the small truck market would be bigger if there were more alternatives. Importation allows for economies of scale. Having to set up shop in the USA for a low volume product decreases the ability to compete based on price.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “it costs pretty much the same to build a small or large pickup in the USA. That is partially why small trucks cannot challenge full sized ones.”

          Exactly!

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          VW doesn’t offer a particularly competerive lineup at any level here save the GTI maybe. So Chicken Tax or Not I don’t see the most conservative and loyal market segment lining up to buy an Amorok.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            2014 US deliveries of the Tacoma outnumbered global registrations of the Amarok by about 2:1.

            Those who keep squawking about the VW being some kind of hit really ought to learn more about it before offering their grandiose predictions for US success. It doesn’t stand a chance here.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Pch101,
            First, I do doubt the Amarok figures you put forward. Like most information and data you present it is tainted.

            Second, Even if your numbers are accurate it does show how competitive the global pickup market is.

            Total numbers don’t necessarily translate into profit. So, if VW can produce 60k pickups per annum (2012 figures, a year after it’s release) and make a profit and still sell a diesel 4×4 dual cab for cheaper than a V6 gasoline Colorado, then you’ve just highlighted the uncompetitive deficiencies within the US pickup manufacturing sector.

            It’s great to see you supportive of the US vehicle manufacturers. But, blind allegiance is foolish. This tends to produce people like you, who spin and bullsh!t.

            Why don’t you try and use integrity and sincerity in your discussions?

            The US makes great pickups, but they are protected and are expensive to make.

            Like evolution, the most successful species tends to be dispersed widely across the globe.

            Dinosaurs were nice, but mammals survived.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Pch101 – I never said the Amarok was a success. I just pointed out what VW said they’d need to sell if they had to build a plant in the NAFTA zone.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I was responding to Mkirk, who noted correctly that there are good reasons to believe that demand for the Amarok in the US would be lacking.

            If those who obsess about it would simply look at Volkswagen’s own sales data, then they would know that the Amarok is not a strong seller. But the small truck jihadists are too busy typing their mindless rants to bother.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Pch101 – I agree that the VW Amarok would fair poorly in the USA since VW doesn’t have much of a reputation for durability nor do they seem to understand the USA market.
            I have not looked at the global statistics on the Amarok.

            I am far from a small truck Jihadist.

            I’ve asked before but you’ve never answered me…… do you even own a pickup?

            I’ve owned HD’s, 1/2 tons and small trucks. I buy what I think fits my needs the best at time of purchase. In 2010 a 1/2 ton fit the bill. Tacoma was the only one I looked at back then and it didn’t have the capacity in towing or hauling that I wanted plus it was relatively expensive.

            I’m here to have a discussion the pros and cons of each pickup class and the debate over tariffs and politics is interesting and entertaining. I don’t have a problem with a difference of opinion as long as I know why one thinks the way they do.

            Insults or cheezie attempts at applying labels makes me wonder about the quality and/or veracity of one’s opinion.

            Care to try again without the lame comments?

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Lou_BC – The Ford Ranger or BT50 could be built in China with zero tariffs, and still have questionable profits in the US. You’re not understanding *volume* is crucial here. Compounded by the fact midsize trucks as “luxury vehicles” is laughable in North America. Too heavy of a fleet/cheapskate uptake instead.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            DenverMike – again……….where is your proof that the small truck market is the exclusive domain of cheapskates?
            I’ve pointed out time and time again that most Tacoma’s are double cab 4×4’s. Those are hardly cheapskate products. Less than 8% of Tacoma sales are plain jane base model reg cab 4×2’s.
            Toyota Tacoma fleet sales are also in the 6-8% range.

            Chinese built Rangers or BT50’s would be highly profitable without tariffs at lower volumes than VW’s predicted sell rate as build costs would be 75% less than a NAFTA zone product.

            You aren’t comprehending economies of scale on a global basis. An Asian Ranger can be sold in almost all regions of the world. Add a 25% tariff and a 25% “modify for USA” cost to it and that eats up a lot of that production cost advantage.

            Currently the chicken tax does more harm to niche trucks and those that want truly small or cheap trucks. Vulpine comes to mind.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – Have you got the data? Toyota keeps their ratio of loaded trucks vs strippers Top Secret. It must be embarrassing. Ford, GM and Ram have all put that info out there.

            Your little “study” of what’s left behind at dealers just spells out what’s NOT SELLING! And fleet sales never hit the sales lot.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Denver –
            PUTC posted fleet sales a year ago. Inventory IS a reflection of what sells especially when one sees that same inventory mix on streets and highways.

            PUTC also posts fastest and slowest selling pickups.

            Here is March’s best and worst 10:

            Fastest-Selling Pickups
            1.2015 Chevrolet Colorado crew cab, 14 days on sale (961 pickups sold)
            2.2015 Ford F-150 crew cab, 18 (2,939)
            3.2015 Chevrolet Colorado extended cab, 20 (443)
            4.2015 Ford F-150 extended cab, 20 (595)
            5.2015 GMC Canyon crew cab, 22 (523)
            6.2015 GMC Sierra 2500 Denali crew cab, 23 (289)
            7.2015 Toyota Tacoma extended cab, 23 (1,042)
            8.2015 Toyota Tacoma crew cab, 24 (3,261)
            9.2015 GMC Canyon extended cab, 33 (110)
            10.2015 GMC Sierra 3500 Denali crew cab, 38 (121)

            Slowest-Selling Pickups
            1.2015 GMC Sierra 2500 extended cab, 112 days on sale
            2.2015 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 extended cab, 109
            3.2015 GMC Sierra 2500 regular cab, 87
            4.2015 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 extended cab, 83
            5.2015 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 crew cab, 81
            6.2015 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 crew cab, 72
            7.2015 Ford F-350 Super Duty crew cab, 69
            8.2015 GMC Sierra 3500 extended cab, 68
            9.2015 Ram 3500 crew cab, 66
            10.2015 GMC Sierra 3500 crew cab, 66

            Tacoma extended cab 23 days and Crew 24 days………

            So where is your theory that what sits on the lot doesn’t sell?

            I rarely ever see plain jane pickups on ANY lot. I drove over 2,000 km over Easter and drove by quite a few dealers in large urban centres. Not many plain jane trucks their either.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “I rarely see plain jane pickups on ANY lot.”

            @Lou_BC – You should check the back lots of various service companies in hundreds of industries, on your way to Disneyland. Rows upon rows upon rows. It’s not too far from City of Industry. Real city.

            Dealer keep as few strippers around, as they can possibly get away with. Dealers are privately owned btw.

            The “Days to Sell” is silly. OEMs overproduce the trucks they hope and wish to sell the most of. Common frackin’ sense. The strippers are ‘special orders’, unless you get lucky. Or ‘know’ some one.

            Except Toyota will kick you out of the damn Fleet Office, even if you’re buying 9 vehicles in one shot!! Toyota is the toughest to give out complete fleet incentives and official “Fleet Sales.”

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Denver – oh, the “you don’t see what’s hiding” theory of sales volumes……..

            Every large industrial company have lots full of pickups and most are plane jane and as you have pointed out are special order but as I have pointed out, those are accounted for in fleet sales.

            Fun to watch you chase your tale. (Tale deliberately spelt that way)

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            No, they’re definitely not all accounted for in the fleet “total”. Any company running less than 10 trucks is disqualified from Toyota “fleet”. That’s any small to medium company or mom-n-pop. That’s also most companies in the US, and the backbone of the nation. Toyota will and does still sell them a stripper truck with loads of incentives, but not officially “fleet”.

            And this doesn’t begin to account for all the private consumer cheapskates and bottom feeders!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Denver ol’ boy, you continue to insist on conclusions that have absolutely no verifiable data to back them up. If you’re so sure, how about showing us some real, take to the bank, PROOF. That whole tirade is pure assumption; perhaps logical, but without a bit of evidence to back it up.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        PROTECTED FROM WHAT???

        Stupid comment.

        It’s called freedom of choice. This concept might be hard for some to comprehend.

        The current choice of pickups in the US is limited to internal production capacity. The US pickup can only be made in the US. This imits what is available to the consumer in the US.

        Why should someone decide what brand of pickup you can buy? The US has a very limited choice of pickup brands and models.

        Imagine if you were limited when shopping for food. You’d be the first one to whine.

        Freedom is something that we all should cherish, it’s not something that unions, industry, or government should interfere with.

        DiM, you are a foolish man, who’s arguments are of no merit other than to destroy your beliefs.

        Or you are just a jerk off troll.

        Or then again, you could have some form of mental sickness.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “I would maximize my profits on fewer more expensive units.”

      You are confusing margin with profit. Selling fewer units would reduce profit.

      There were plenty of compact trucks in the US until the demand for them collapsed. The auto industry is not Field of Dreams — building it does not guarantee that anyone will show up.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      I just read the above comments.

      What I’m getting is most think the US full size is invincible.

      But, then why retain the chicken tax and other regulatory protective measures?

      You comments I would believe if there was no protection offered to the US full size.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @BAFO – You still won’t answer the question, although you keep harping “PROTECTED” like a trained parrot.

        You could have 1,000 flavours of ice cream, but if that’s not the treat you want, but that’s all that’s available, it’s still an extremely limited market. You’ve got a lot of Chinese/Indian trucks you BAFO and most Aussies wouldn’t touch with a 10 ft auger. So what?

        You got a depressingly narrow market unless you’re a super rich farmer. Or a rocket scientist such as yourself!

        There was a time when you could ‘grey market’ import anything you wanted to the US. It would be just as stup!d now to import a smaller pickup now, as it would’ve been when it was allowed.

        Disposable pickups would be no different than the disposable global cars we’ve had. Nor do these global OEMs want another stab at the US market. US consumers are a tough bunch. We can barely tolerate VW. And vise versa. Some ran away screaming bloody murder!!!

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DiM,
          Our interaction has ceased.

          As usual you will attempt to bait me with your f#ck up trolling questions.

          Use google and go back through all of our discussions and you will be able to find an answer to your question.

          Or, simply read my previous response in this article.

          Good bye.

  • avatar

    I guess Honda still had a couple hundred Ridgelines sitting around on dealer’s lots.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    This seems like a pointless exercise.

    Imagine Honda without the CR-V.

    Imagine Lexus with the RX.

    Imagine Toyota without the Camry.

    Imagine Kia without the Soul.

    You can point to almost any automaker and say, “imagine if they didn’t sell…” and paint a selective picture.

    Toyota, Nissan and to a lesser extent Honda (the Ridgeline was really a midsizer and a half-hearted one at that) have all tried to break into the game. Only Toyota has come close, in one model year, to their sales target. The Tundra and Titan are both behind the competition (that isn’t to say they’re bad trucks) especially for fuel economy and amount of power coming out of their engine options.

    Just as American buyers are reluctant to buy American sedans because of belief systems ingrained – American buyers are reluctant to buy non-American trucks (brand not where built) for the same ingrained biases.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The point is that Detroit used to dominate just about every category, but they no longer do. The Japanese (and to a lesser extent, the Koreans) have come up from underneath, while the Germans have squeezed them out at the top. They have been defeated on two fronts in a two-front war.

      Large trucks are the only segment in which they enjoy a clear competitive advantage (and Toyota poses a long-term threat to that as well.) In the other categories, they are fair-to-middling at best.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Pch101,
        Finally a response that is accurate.

        Your comments states why the need for protection of the US pickup.

        Without the protection Detroit would find it very awkward to exist.

        Uncompetitive is the word you are looking for.

        • 0 avatar

          Almost every major import brand operates one or more US factories. If they really wanted to build trucks and avoid the chicken tax, they would make them in their US factories – like Toyota (San Antonio, TX) and Nissan (Canton, Mississippi) do.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It isn’t even necessary to build a full factory. Assembling them from knockdown kits is sufficient for avoiding the tariff.

            Sprinters are built in Germany, partially disassembled for US export, then rebuilt in the US in order to avoid the tariff. They sell for less in the US than they do in Germany, in spite of the extra work involved.

            (All of this information is readily available. I guess that Google never made its way to Australia, as the ignorance is unrelenting.)

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Pch101 – knock down kits work depending on margin and volume.
            Anything that reduces the margins even further on a low volume product is going to affect a companies decision making process. IIRC Sprinter is the only one doing knock down kits. Ford got caught with the Transit Connect.

            madanthony – as I pointed out earlier, building pickups in the NAFTA zone for USA markets involves larger volumes. VW stated 100,000 was their target to justify a factory.
            Another factor as Toyota and Nissan found out is the fact that full sized truck buyers are extremely conservative and prefer US badges.
            That conservatism even extends to the perennial small truck king – Tacoma.

            if one looks at JD Power and other durability statistics we see Ford and GM consistently posting higher ratings than the Tundra since 2011. Ram 1500 finally cracked the Top 3 this year. The so called domestics may have all of their eggs in the full sized basket but they have brought their A game.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            GM, Ford, FCA, Toyota and Nissan don’t need to use knockdown kits, since they are already building trucks here.

            I know that this is a shock to some people, but it isn’t hard to get major automakers to build plants in the second largest auto market in the world.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Pch101 – correct. “it isn’t hard to get major automakers to build plants in the second largest auto market in the world”. But with that being said, small trucks have to compete against big trucks and a bigger is better mentality. Fuel prices are cheap in the USA even before the oil price collapse. The USA also isn’t faced with weight based or displacement based penalties. Add to that “wide open” spaces.

            There are many reasons why companies won’t spend billions to build small pickups for the USA market.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Specious argument, Mad. Very few companies can afford to tool up a plant on speculation. Hyundai has apparently chosen to be the one to take that chance, considering the trucklet they’ve been showing. But in the case of Toyota and Nissan, they sold enough in the ’80s to make the effort back then, while companies like Kia and Hyundai and several of the others now selling here were unheard of at the time. Volkswagen itself was locked out for a long time, the plant in Chattanooga, TN even now only a few years old. Worse, Volkswagen’s Passat sales–the US model–hasn’t done as well as they hoped; it’s simply not all that popular a car here. Had they chosen to build the Golf instead, I’d be willing to bet it would have been far more successful.

            The point is that Toyota and Nissan already had manufacturing capability in North America before the other brands got pushed out. Mitsubishi attempted to hang on, but after losing their Chrysler contract to make the D-50, their sales fell to dangerously low levels. Over time, the brand’s total sales fell enough that they had to cut costs and not only did their truck get the axe, but the Mirage did too–until they redesigned it as an economy car (where it began) instead of a sporter. It costs money to re-tool a plant. It costs more money to build one when you don’t already have one in operation. Hyundai is taking a chance–or at least considering it–because it is cheaper to re-tool than to build from scratch. And considering their truck would be on a shared platform already built in the US, their risk is less than a company that doesn’t already have a plant here–like Mahindra. Even FCA, who has a lot of plants in the US now, doesn’t have one carrying a shared platform carrying the Strada/RAM 700. The nearest plant is in Brazil while the shared platform is mostly built in Europe.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Sprinters are built in Germany, partially disassembled for US export, then rebuilt in the US in order to avoid the tariff. They sell for less in the US than they do in Germany, in spite of the extra work involved.”

            Not quite true, though close. The Sprinter is actually only partially assembled for US import–the body is mostly completed and the suspension is never installed. They are loaded into separate containers and shipped over for final assembly, which reduces Benz’s costs. You should do a bit of your own research. (Stop reading opinion pieces and read the reality.)

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Big Al–The only way I see GM, Ford, and Chrysler wanting to remove the Chicken Tax and all tariff barriers is if they decide to make their trucks anywhere other than North America (the US, Canada, and Mexico). If I were them I would fiercely protect my market and be against any lifting of protective tariffs. As long as the fuel is not that expensive and more efficient and less expensive trucks are kept out of the market the domestics will make money on trucks. I do see the crossovers eating into some of the truck sales for those who are not die hard truck fans. GM has been successful with the smaller compact Encore crossover and the competition has taken notice and are coming out with their own. The Ford Escape has been successful but despite its success it has not toppled the CRV from the top position.

    The full size pickups will continue to get more expensive and many who are more sensitive to price will go to less expensive and smaller crossovers, but even in the crossover market the better optioned ones are doing well. Still a 30k for a well optioned CRV is still less than a 40k to 50k well optioned F-150 and the CRV holds its value just as well. Leasing and long term loans are helping fuel the sales of the more expensive trucks and crossovers.

    I do think Toyota and Nissan are in the large pickup market for the long haul and will eventually gain more market share at the expense of the domestic based manufacturers. Toyota especially has the resources to hold out for the long haul.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The American Automotive Policy Council, a trade organization comprised of Ford, GM and FCA, supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, with the caveat that it wants terms that would effectively keep the Japanese out of it. The TPP would include Thailand.

      Both the AAPC and the ACEA, the latter of which is the European equivalent of AAPC, support a free trade agreement between the EU and the US. (It, too, has demands that make it clear that it does not want an FTA between the EU and Japan.)

      Free trade agreements invariably lead to these kinds of tariffs being eliminated out right or phased out over fairly short periods, as was the case with the US-Canada auto pact, NAFTA and the US FTAs with Australia and South Korea. So no, you’re off the mark.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Pch101 – Not totally correct. Lobbying by CAW, Ontario politicians and even USA car companies convinced the Canadian government to reinstate old tariffs still on the books once the Canada/USA Autopact was replaced by NAFTA. The Autopact cancelled out those old import tariffs as long as companies had factories in Canada. Once the Autopact died those old tariffs technically were still legally in place. NAFTA gave USA car companies an advantage over imported vehicles into Canada outside of the NAFTA zone.

        The Canadian/EU FTA eliminates tariffs but there are some limitations. Vehicles have to be built in Canada or parts have to be built in Canada. The EU made sure USA “knockdown” kits assembled in Canada would not be included in the FTA.
        The most interesting part of the FTA is the fact that Canada and the EU has agreed to reciprocity in relation to emissions and safety standards. EU emissions and safety standards will be accepted in Canada with no need for modification.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          These threads would be much less painful if people would grasp the points being made.

          The US waives the chicken tax for its free trade partners.

          The US is currently negotiating free trade agreements with the EU and much of the Pacific Rim.

          If those FTAs are approved, the chicken tax will for all intents and purposes have been eliminated.

          I suppose that when that happens and the Ford Ranger revolution fails to materialize stateside that the small truck jihadists will have to find something else to obsess about. Some folks need to figure out that tariffs make no difference when the demand is not there.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Pch101,
        Thailand isn’t a part of the TTP.

        It isn’t even on the Pacific Ocean.

        Why do you disperse so much inaccurate information??

        Try and at least use google, I’d swear at times you don’t have much knowledge, you are intelligent.

        You require both of these attributes to be successful.

    • 0 avatar

      The fact that it’s a global economy means that the domestic companies get hit by the chicken tax when they import trucks from abroad, and foreign companies avoid it by building trucks in the US (which Nissan and Toyota both do).

      Ford for a while was importing the Transit Connect from Turkey. They were all being imported as the passenger version, then having the seats removed and windows covered at the port to make the panel version, because the chicken tax hit the panel but not the passenger. I believe the government eventually shut them down on that, and that they ended up moving production to the US.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        madanthony – I’m not sure if Ford has resolved the Transit Connect dispute.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        You’re at least partially right here, MadA, but Ford’s not the only one any more that has to worry about it. And no, to the best of my knowledge the Transit Connect is still imported from Turkey, though Ford has shifted their E-series plant over to the full sized Transit. Ford is either currently paying the tax on the Connect, or they’ve somehow managed to shift the mods elsewhere. It would almost make sense to let the dealerships themselves do the mod, as they could ‘customize’ the truck to the customer’s needs.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    If the questions is, is GM, Ford and FCA scared of losing the Chicken tax? Well of course they are. But who exactly is “They”? Each has one of more departments that do nothing but run around like chickens with their heads cut off, screaming “The Sky’s Falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!”, all day, everyday.

    But if the question moves to, are their fullsize pickups in any way dependent on the Chicken tax, or “Protected” by it in any way whatsoever, let’s not be ridiculous!

    Meanwhile, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, VW, Hyundai, etc, are the silent beneficiaries of the Chicken tax, laughing all the way to the bank!!!

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      DenverMike – the chicken Tax protects ANY domestic built pickup truck. That would include Tacoma/Tundra, Frontier/Titan, and Ridgeline.
      the point that you deliberately overlook is that in this current day and age Ford, GM, and cough hack Ram do not need full sized pickup truck protection BUT back in the 70’s and ’80’s when they built complete crap they did need all of the help they could get. The Japanese took over the car market because of the crap Detroit was selling. It didn’t happen with pickups and large SUV’s because of tariffs and blind dumb azzed misplaced loyalty to Detroit trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Lou_BC – The more you ramble, the more you prove my point. That “misplaced loyalty” might have saved or spared fullsize pickups the same fate as US Big 3 autos, HOWEVER, foreign pickups gave it an awesome attempt, NO HOLDS BARRED.

        Can you name one legit foreign pickup that WASN’T sold in the US during the Mini-Truck Craze/Circus?

        Where was the Chicken tax back then? Why didn’t it “work”, like it supposedly “does” Today (according to yourself and the whole Small Pickup Mafia or SPaM)? Could it have been, with fair *demand* therefor VOLUME, the Chicken tax had absolutely ZERO affect on the US small pickup market?

        You’ll admit today’s fullsize pickups don’t need any kind of smaller truck ‘repellent’ or Protection, misplace loyalty or not!

        Geez even the new Colorado has had negligible impact on the Silverado. Much less on the F-150 and Ram. Never mind HDs. Way more impact on the autos with liftbacks and trunks!

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @DM: Ford, GM and FCA are all both helped, and hindered, by the Chicken Tax today. They all have vehicles they want to import; Ford’s Transit connect and FCA’s ProMaster vans for instance, which one way or another is costing them extra to import but yet don’t really offer enough sales to consider converting an existing US plant over–likely sacrificing a different vehicle that may be selling better. GM is forced for now to import a Nissan and badge-engineer it until they can figure out how to economically build one here.

      Not only that, but they all three have other vehicles on the global market that they would undoubtedly like to bring in, but which would be grossly priced out of the market for what they are. Why doesn’t Ford bring the global Ranger in? Because they’d have to pay import taxes, pushing the price into the range of their full-sized models. FCA has the Strada/Ram 700 which is proving very popular in Mexico and South America, but by having it built in Brazil, that 25% tariff would price it closer to a Ram 1500. GM, too, has a smaller truck built in Brazil and for the same reason they simply can’t afford to import it as it would be priced in direct competition with their other trucks. The Chicken Tax is hurting them at least as much as it’s helping them.

      And yes, the Chicken Tax IS still helping them as it works to keep competing brands from flooding the American market with less-expensive trucks. America’s full-sized trucks–and even their mid-sized trucks–have grown significantly from their 1980’s models. Worse, because of overpopulation, new housing has shrunk the size of the average garage and placed houses on much smaller plots of land on average, especially in suburban areas. A subdivision that would originally have been single-family homes only now have a combination of singles, duplexes and townhomes within a stone’s throw of each other. Garages are smaller, driveways are smaller and parking spaces in general are smaller. A full-sized truck is now at a disadvantage in many locations around the US, though I won’t argue that the older homes still have ‘large enough’ garages.

      America’s trucks have grown for multiple reasons, but not everyone who wants a truck is willing to compromise when the size is just too large for their needs and wants. The Chicken Tax effectively forces that compromise and is one reason why CUVs have become so popular here. Whether you want to admit it or not, the Chicken Tax is still affecting the American economy, though not necessarily in a good way any more.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    The sky is not falling, just a less competitive marketplace. It is ironic that those who espouse competition and free enterprise are the very ones who say that the Chicken Tax has no effect on competition and many of them find excuses to support a tax that is almost 52 years old that was a retaliatory tariff in response to tariffs in Europe levied against cheaper American chicken imports. Either someone is in favor of a competitive marketplace or they are in favor of a restrictive marketplace. Which is it? I would assume from many of the comments that some are for the restrictions and fear a competitive market. Large domestic trucks will still sell without protective tariffs but there would at least be more choice in the marketplace.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Jeff S – Let’s not assume global pickups OEMs are pee!ng on themselves, in anticipation of the lifting of Chicken tax. Some have been here, done that, want no part of it. It was like a bad weekend in Tijuana. Btw I spent a month there one night! But the US is a hostile, unforgiving marketplace, and not just for pickups. Some pickups are subsidized by Altimas, Accords and Camrys.

      So what Chicken tax keeps Peugeot from coming back for more torture? Or Citroen? What about Renault? They have the Nissan connection now too.

      But which specific pickups do you think would make a showing? And would you buy one?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @DenverMike – pickups have a 25% tariff and imported cars have a 3% tariff. 3% doesn’t keep cars out. (Peugeot from coming back for more torture? Or Citroen? What about Renault? ) Poor example but then again all of your rebuttals are poor.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Lou_BC – Truck OEMs don’t pay 25%. New Word of the Day: *Loophole*

          There’s no evidence it costs OEMs much more than 3% to partly take apart then reassemble trucks at port. If it costs any more and it’s a taxing chore, the OEM is in the WRONG business. Plug-n-play, drive away.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “But which specific pickups do you think would make a showing? And would you buy one?”

        How about the RAM700/Fiat Strada? I, for one, would buy one. Brand New.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The chicken tax will pretty much disappear when the TPP and US-EU FTAs are negotiated.

      What will you grouse about then?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Pch101 – it will be interesting to see what happens when the chicken tax disappears. I doubt that there will be much effect on the large pickup market but I suspect more niche players will enter the USA.
        Denver does not provide any logic or proof to back his claims. At least you try to be logical even though you get rough around the edges with your attempts at insults.

        @Denver – Companies that are established in the pickup market with factories in the USA do not need to play around with the tariff.

        Mahindra was going to contract with Navistar to “assemble” kits in the USA but those trucks could not meet USA safety or emissions requirements. A POS truck like the Mahindra needs to be cheap to sell. Tacoma and Colorado… not so much.

        Ford got caught with the “assembly at port” mode of chicken tax avoidance. Their method was a cheap and simple solution. Do you have the costs for a Sprinter reassembly in the USA?

        Denver – once again I’m not going to bother any more since you don’t offer any real proof to back your claims.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Lou_BC – What “proof” could you possibly need? You’re the one (along with members of SPaM) concocting half baked conspiracy theories.

          If you’re gonna claim the existence of Sasquatch, don’t ask the non believers to show “proof” HE DOESN’T EXIST.

          Put up or shut up…

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          Lou_BC–Denver Mike must be mathematically challenged. Is 25% greater or lesser than 3%? Economics 101 would state that a tariff of 25% would have an effect on price and demand. When someone states that they are for free competition but supports a 25% tariff then I would question either their rationality or their motives. Even if the manufacturer can get around paying a 25% tariff they are going to spend more money to get around the tariff than they would if there were no tariffs. Anyway I don’t see the Chicken Tax going away because the Government would rather keep the tax than lend anymore money to the domestic auto industry. Denver Mike does not have to worry the Government will protect his company Ford and his UAW. Much cheaper to protect a market than to bailout failing corporations.

          I didn’t know Peugeot, Citroen, and Renault made pickups? Maybe they have Peugeot pickups in Spain. Maybe Denver Mike has seen Sasquatch driving a Peugeot pickup in Spain. It is amazing what you can make with a sawza and a welding touch. There might be a Peugeot pickup in Havana running on a Russian diesel coated with lots of Bondo.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Jeff S – It’s only 25% when OEMs actually PAY IT! The 3% tariff on cars is low enough to just pay.

            But is 3% enough to kill the deal for Peugeot, Citroen, Renault? Hardly. Too many other things at play, like lack of strong demand.

            But if global pickup and van OEMs are spending more than 3% to do finally assembly in the US or Mexico, they shouldn’t be in the business .

            But it doesn’t matter how much it costs to get vehicles on to the showroom floor, if demand, therefor VOLUME is lacking.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s pretty obvious that foreign automakers have figured out how to sell trucks to Americans without paying a 25% tariff.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Pch101,
            Back in the olden days the East Germans figured a way to sell Trabants to their people.

            The argument isn’t about selling what’s only made locally available to the public. It’s about what really could be available to the public.

            The current pickup manufacturers in the US can only produce in the US.

            The maintain a competitive advantage the US has a high tax on an imported product. Why?

            The Japanese have up to a 738% tax on rice. Is this fair to the Japanese? How much could they be paying for their rice?

            Would Japanese rice be cheaper if American or Australian rice could be imported?

            If the US pickup manufacturers are making a 25% profit on a product, when they could reduce their profit by having additional competition wouldn’t that be better for the consumer?

            Why are you scared of competition? It’s as almost if you represent some organisation. By you constant distortion of information and data to suit your arguments.

            Provide a link showing that the US pickup consumer is getting the best price for a pickup. You can’t because I can provide many links, working documents and studies that indicate otherwise.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – Pickups still offer tremendous value, even midsize, especially when you layoff the Nav, sunroof and cowboy theme/fetish. Tremendous profits occasionally happen, but only as a result of very high volume. Pickup trucks, including midsize are protected only by AWESOME!!!

            And you can spend as much on a cheap to build, luxo minivan, based on fwd car.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Vegemite is produced by Kraft. So yes, Amerikkka dominates the Aussie brekkie table.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @mhurt,
    Boy, what’s wrong with you man?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    mkirk,
    By the way I’m a Yank, a real Yank from NY.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    It is hard for me to accept an argument where having a tariff increases competition and lowers price. My college Economics course would say otherwise. Trucks are not as cheap as Denver Mike pretends they are, but they are not the most expensive vehicle either. It is a poor comparison to compare French cars with smaller trucks from Asia unless you like to compare apples and oranges. Affordable Asian trucks would sell much better than French cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Of course. Why allow facts to get in the way of your elementary econ course?

      Here’s a basic exercise for you. Create the following lists:

      -The automakers that were producing small trucks for the US market prior to the closing of the “chicken tax” cab-chassis loophole in 1980.

      -The automakers that were producing small trucks for the US market after the closing of the “chicken tax” cab-chassis loophole in 1980.

      Firstly, notice how the second list is longer than the first.

      Secondly, do a little digging and you will realize that the new entrants came into the market because of the tariff increase, not in spite of it.

      For a large market such as the US, manufacturers will respond to tariff barriers by looking for loopholes and relocating production if they believe that there is enough of a market. Unfortunately, you would have take more than one course to learn that.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Pch101,
        Are you not DiM?

        It appears so by your comments.

        How can a 25% import tax not affect a market?

        Use google and all you need to type in is “Effect of Chicken Tax”.

        Really, to pass the comments you do some group/organization must be funding you.

        You can’t be that stupid. Or, maybe there are people as stupid as you in our society.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @big al–Pch101 could run for political office with the political promise that he would raise tariffs and that in turn would increase competition and lower prices. How about raising income taxes to increase discretionary income–that would really boost the economy.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      You and BAFO have a lot in common: You equate redundancy with accuracy, and can’t comprehend basic concepts even when they are explained to you plainly and slowly.

      Did you make those lists yet?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Vulpine: Gasoline, or as it was sometimes called, “naphtha”, was a waste product of making kerosine for...
  • FreedMike: That battleship grey color is dope.
  • TR4: The engine also needs compression, which is normally obtained by rotating the crankshaft. That said, I’ve...
  • seth1065: Have not had the issue on any rental cars, instead, I have the heated seat not work on 5 of my 6 cars in...
  • ToddAtlasF1: What was gasoline a waste product of? Just think of all the effort we’re expending at refineries...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States