By on May 11, 2015

2015 GMC Canyon

Midsize pickup truck sales jumped 48% to just under 31,000 units in April 2015, a gain of 10,000 units.

In April, the overall U.S. auto industry grew by approximately 64,000 sales. Overall pickup truck sales increased by 15,000 units. In other words, much of the growth in the pickup truck market last month was generated by the smaller quintet.

Year-to-date, the Toyota Tacoma-led small/midsize category has grown by more than 38,000 sales, slightly more than the 36,000 sales added by full-size pickup trucks.

While their bigger brethren are growing faster than the rate of the overall industry, it’s the arrival of new GM midsize twins and continued growth from the two key established midsize players causing the overall pickup truck market to appear so especially healthy.

Yes, even as Chevrolet and GMC added 35,696 sales to the midsize category through the first four months of 2015 – equal to 31% market share – the Toyota Tacoma hasn’t suffered, nor has the Nissan Frontier.

Year-to-date, the Tacoma’s market share has plummeted from 63% to 48%. But if there was ever a situation in which market share tallies matter not, surely this is it. Toyota Tacoma sales jumped 13% through the first one-third of 2015 and in April more specifically. The Tacoma is on track for its best year since 2007, perhaps even 2006.

Auto
April
2015
April
2014
%
Change
2015 YTD
2014 YTD
%
Change
Toyota Tacoma
15,656 13,871 12.9% 55,322 49,100 12.7%
Chevrolet Colorado
7,010 5 140,100% 26,136 22 118,700%
Nissan Frontier
5,827 5,697 2.3% 24,929 23,559 5.8%
GMC Canyon
2,432 9,584 2 479,100%
Honda Ridgeline
43 1,328 -96.8% 470 5,172 -90.9%
Total
30,968
20,901 48.2%  116,441 77,855 49.6%

Nissan Frontier sales are also rising. In fact, the Frontier’s rate of growth matches the rate of expansion in the full-size truck category. April sales of the Frontier increased only marginally, however, and the 5,827-unit total was the lowest for the Frontier since July of last year. Nevertheless, the pace of improvement through the first one-third of 2015 suggests Nissan will easily exceed last year’s U.S. sales total, which was the best since 2006.

As for the GM twins, April was the best month yet for the new Chevrolet Colorado. At 7,010 units, April was about 10% better than the first-quarter average for the Colorado. GMC Canyon sales have hovered between 2,400-2,500 per month over the last three months. Combined, the twins continue to trail the Toyota Tacoma by a wide margin and will continue to do so until one of two factors takes effect: either Tacoma sales will drop as the automaker prepares to launch a significantly revised 2016 model or GM will decide there’s enough demand to support increased production.

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

134 Comments on “U.S. Midsize Truck Sales Jumped 48% In April 2015 – Colorado/Canyon At 30% Market Share...”


  • avatar
    RideHeight

    Americans have found some new mid-sized family sedans. Nice, tall ones.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      Exactly. It’ll be interesting to see whether these sales cannibalize full-size pickups and midsize SUVs at all, or midsize sedans only. They’ll definitely cannibalize some combination of the above.

      But if they cannibalize sedans, that’s probably a net gain for GM given its weakness in that segment.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @tonycd – if GM’s statistics can be extrapolated to the rest on the industry that would mean 16% of small truck growth is from full sized pickup owners downsizing.

      • 0 avatar
        RideHeight

        Well, everything tall is cannibalizing the sedans (and rightly so) but I’m thinking that these mid-sizers are much more garageable than full-sizers for the average home owner so I also think they’re going to preempt a fair number of Silvy, F-150 and Ram sales. Rabid brand loyalists excepted, of course, for Dodge and Ford.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Low conquest rate + GM overall sales growth in line with industry = Cannibalization of GM products and pent-up demand

        Since the large truck growth rate is considerably higher than average, cannibalization isn’t likely within that segment. It wouldn’t surprise me if non-trucks such as the Express and Impala were more directly impacted by it.

        • 0 avatar
          RideHeight

          “Low conquest rate + GM overall sales growth in line with industry = Cannibalization of GM products and pent-up demand”

          Wait! Ima gets mah dikshunary an’ parse dat!

        • 0 avatar
          alluster

          The conquest rate may be lower than to GM’s liking but I would guess a lot of trade-ins could be from owners of 4 to 12 year old Colo/Canyons, trailblazers/envoy, gmc jimmys or pre 2006 Tahoes.

          GM doesn’t sell a compact-midsize BOF SUV anymore and the FS SUVs have gone out of reach in price for most middle class buyers. These buyers would have most likely taken their money elsewhere once their current rides have bit dust.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The conquest rate is reportedly only 10%, which would indicate that this thing is largely invisible to the overall marketplace. I believe that the industry term for this phenomenon is that it sucks.

          • 0 avatar
            alluster

            Like i mentioned earlier, if someone trades in their 2003 Tahoe or their 2005 Trailblazer then it does not count as a conquest sale. However, GM had nothing to offer for these owners. He is not spending $55K for a ’15 Tahoe and is put off by how large and pricey the Silverado is. The alternative is to send him to a Toyota dealership to check out the 4Runner/Tacoma or a Jeep GC. The flip size of a low conquest rate is a high loyalty rate.

            BTW the 10% conquest rate makes no sense. GM’s own numbers are 41% conquest rate for the Colorado and 17 days to turn. For the 10% to be true, the other 31% would have to come from GMC, Buick and Cadillac. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that GM has a massive hit on their hands anytime they are <20 day supply when they are usually flirting with a 90 day supply.

            http://wardsauto.com/dealers/chevrolet-expects-sell-all-colorado-pickups-it-can-build

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Nine of the top 10 vehicles previously owned by buyers of the Colorado and Canyon are GM cars and trucks.”

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/22/us-gm-pickups-idUSKBN0ND2EH20150422

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @alluster – Isn’t it better to accept that occasional lost sale to Toyota etc, vs constantly losing obscenely profitable Silverado, Tahoe, etc sales for midsize pickups of questionable someday potential profits?

            Is it any wonder GM has purposely limited the midsize twin’s production?

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            “Nine of the top 10 vehicles previously owned by buyers of the Colorado and Canyon are GM cars and trucks.

            Owners of full-size Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks made up more than 16 percent of the consumers who switched into both smaller GM pickups, according to IHS data. ”

            Note that “9 of the *top* 10” does not mean “10% conquest rate”, unless we assume a VERY short tail on the distribution of trade-ins.

            If the top ten are [and this is just spitballing] only 25% of the total trade ins, for instance, which is *plausible* at a guess, then it means pretty much only that “people with a GM truck wanted another GM truck, maybe a smaller one, maybe their old S10 finally died”…

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            A “conquest” involves removing somebody from one brand and moving them into another. That’s a factor of trade ins.

            Not every sale involves a trade in, so it doesn’t account for every unit delivered. However, it does provide a good indication of whether those who aren’t brand loyalists are buying it. (In this case, they aren’t.)

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          The Express van is built in the same factory as the C/C twins. If these trucks continue to sell well GM will obviously devote more assembly plant time to them.

          I do not think that there is much overlap between the van and pickup market. Vans are great for securing items but aren’t as good for irregularly shaped loads.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Since this article (and none other of which I’m aware) has addressed exactly where this sudden mid-sized truck growth is coming from, it’s a bit difficult to make the claim that they’re cannibalizing mid-sized sedans only; in fact, I would be far more likely to say that the SUV/CUV market is seeing the bigger bite in overall numbers, if not in marketshare percentages. If so, this would be a pretty clear indicator that the SUV/CUV market has grown so large simply because there haven’t been enough ‘acceptable’ smaller trucks available. (Remember, even without racial prejudice there are some who refuse to buy foreign-branded vehicles.)

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “I would be far more likely to say that the SUV/CUV market is seeing the bigger bite in overall numbers”

          Would it kill you to look at GM’s delivery data? (Oh, that’s right — that would require that you learn how to look these things up, and that simply will not do.)

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Pch101 – do you have that data?

            All I saw was 16% trade down rate from full sized pickups and a 10% conquest rate.

            That does not break the data down by vehicle class.

            One can surmise that small trucks are riding the same wave of popularity that similarly sized SUV’s are riding.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            All of the major automakers report their US deliveries each month.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Pch101 – I’m well aware that manufacturers post monthly deliver stats but GM has not posted a specific breakdown of trade-ins on the C/C twins. The only thing they revealed was a 16% full sized trade-in rate and the remainder was from cars and SUV’s. That “car and SUV’s” portion of the market is extremely broad.

            It would be interesting to see the breakdown of conquests. The fact that GM has NOT mentioned rival brand pickup conquests indicates that it’s poor.

            Most buyers are first time pickup buyers. I suspect they were cross-shopping SUV’s of the same size and capacity.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Every nameplate is reported every single month. The information is on GM’s website.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Lou_BC
            Considering some of the lacklustre SUV’s and CUV’s GM has in it’s lineup, the new Midsizers would be a breath of fresh air

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Lou_BC,
            I have read 41% is the estimate of conquest sales for the GM midsize twins.

            I have been trying to find the article to post, but to no avail.

            When I find it I’ll save the link and post it when the time suits.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @BigAl – no need for estimates. GM said the conquest rate was 10%.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            There are sources now quoting Chevrolet Vice President Brian Sweeney as saying that Colorado has a 41% conquest as in “new” to Chevrolet.

            Odd, 1st they say 10% and now they say 41%.

            I suspect that we are seeing PR spin from the backlash of a 10% conquest rate. New to Chevrolet could also be GM, Cadillac, and Buick trade-ins.

            ” “We were low on supply of the new truck at startup for 2015, but now we’ve added a third shift at Wentzville [Missouri] and figure the truck will be sold out,” Chevy VP Brian Sweeney said at the 2015 Chicago Auto Show. “We’re turning the truck in 17 days or less and are finding a 41% conquest rate of buyers new to Chevrolet, while not seeing defection out of Chevrolet.”

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            I’d like to know exactly how they are able to know that people are not defecting out of GM. In addition to those they certainly could be trading in Pontiac, Olds, Saturn, or Hummer. I could see particularly the H3 SUT owner as making the switch.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “I suspect that we are seeing PR spin from the backlash of a 10% conquest rate.”

            Ever consider that the metrics can change month-over-month? The 10% figure came out for February, the latest numbers are out for April. While that 10% figure was valid way back when, it’s already obsolete–as is the concept that these trucks are a “failure” considering the rather sharp jump in sales between the two months.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Pickup trucks are the sole component making the difference between a profitable and MASSIVELY UNPROFITABLE General Motors at the moment.

      Anyone here who doesn’t understand that GM is setting themself up for major, recurring, quarterly losses in the not too distant future by offering very aggressive discounts on pickup trucks now (which they can afford to do since there’s about 12k to 15k of profit in mid to high trim ones), after pent up demand by individuals and fleets is satiated and/or cyclical sales kick down (or both) is not seeing the forest for the trees.

      p.s. – Cadillac CTS is joining ATS on a now abysmal, long term sales decline into the sink hole. The 3rd gen CTS is a massive failure even as judged by GM standards.

      Cadillac CTS Sales Down 42% CY15; Trim Level Changes Considered
      Automotive News

      May 11, 2015

      http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f15/cadillac-cts-sales-down-42-cy15-trim-level-changes-considered-208073/

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Look at post #12 in that thread by Ed753, who also posts a link to proof:

        “What Cadillac wants (price) and what the customers want (to pay) are mis-aligned, it is either that or Cadillac hasn’t yet found it true customers.

        GM is still advertising 2014 CTS on GM Family First (employee) site with $21,000 discounts: LINK (and ELR’s with $37,000 discounts).”

        https://www.gmfamilyfirst.com/GMVPP2/agency/pdf/emp/CTS-ELR-tagging-flyers.pdf

    • 0 avatar
      jjster6

      That is precisely why I just bought a Colorado. Replaces a mid-size sedan nicely and gives the capability of a real truck without the gargantuan size of the big ones. I love my Colorado Z71.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Congrats on your new pickup! I have to ask what you traded in and what you would’ve bought if the Colorado didn’t exist? What was MSRP vs what you paid? And it’s availability.

        • 0 avatar
          jjster6

          Traded a Cruze (great car as well, just a little too small after adding a third child). If the Colorado didn’t exist it likely would have been an Impala.

          What I paid vs. MSRP is anyone’s guess. I actually leased it with a 1.9% interest rate and I think $500 off the sticker (for my low mileage situation leasing just makes sense).

          I ordered the vehicle and it took about 8 weeks to get. They didn’t have any Z71’s on the lot at any dealer near me. Dealer is a family friend so that may have helped a little on price and delivery.

          And I used to be a Honda fan-boy. I’ve owned 3 Civics in the past. Used to hate GM vehicles. I’ve greatly enjoyed my Cruze and this Colorado. My 08 Malibu was pretty good too.

    • 0 avatar
      malikknows

      Yup, and I wonder if Ford regrets its killing off of the Ranger. Seems like quite a bit of consumer demand for smaller trucks.

  • avatar
    Truckducken

    Considering how GM has treated this segment for the past several decades, there are a lot of bold early adopters out there! I sincerely hope the new product has the durability to match the upgrades in looks and function.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Truckducken,
      The engine has been around for a while, so has the gearbox and the pickup is largely based on a vehicle that been around for 4 years.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    America loves pickups.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    When there’s sudden high growth in people dining out (in a particular town), coupled with 2 new restaurants in town, while the other eating establishments aren’t suffering any lost sales?

    Sounds like a temporary trend. Consumers will go back to their normal patterns and too, go back to the autos they normally buy.

    Aside from the consumers jumping on the Colorado/Canyon, most tradional truck buyers don’t seem much moved.

    • 0 avatar
      alluster

      “Aside from the consumers jumping on the Colorado/Canyon, most tradional truck buyers don’t seem much moved.”

      This is what GM hoped would happen. They went to great lengths to differentiate the MS trucks from their FS siblings. The ride is more CUV like with a modern interior(for truck standards) geared towards lifestyle buyers, weekend leisure boat hauling and light duty home depot trips.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “This is what GM hoped would happen.”

        GM was shooting for traditional CUV and other midsize auto buyers, just not *their own* traditional GM CUV and midsize auto buyers. Also known as shooting yourself in the foot. No doubt most of the lost GM sales were of more profitable GM autos, Silverados, Sierras and SUVs.

        • 0 avatar
          alluster

          Really? The aging equinox and traverse were up 42 and 22% in April, the Trax and Enore had their best months and FS trucks were up more than the competition. Full size SUVs dropped a bit (they were all new this time last year and the drop is natural). I am sure you would agree that none of the lost FS SUV sales that average 60 grand, or the lower Cadillac and Buick car sales went to the Colorado.

          GM would have lost sales if not for the mid size trucks. All the losses were from the Camaro (new one on the way + new mustang), Captiva (fleet sales ended), Malibu and Impala (were already trending lower). So what you say makes no sense unless all the midsize truck sales came from muscle car buyers or enterprise rental who couldn’t buy the Captiva anymore.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            The Introduction of the Midsizers has been a boost for GM Pickups in General. Now combined sales have outsold Ford , when has that happened before?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Sales of the midsize twins replaced sales GM sales of many segments. This doesn’t have to mean any GM models or lines have to have declines in over all sales per se.

            9,000 cannibalizing sales of the midsize twins isn’t much when spread across the OEM, but the facts remain not favourable for the twins themselves.

          • 0 avatar
            alluster

            “…but the facts remain not favourable for the twins themselves.”

            Especially the “facts” you made up. The numbers don’t lie. Camaro, Captiva, Express, Malibu, Impala, Cadillac and Buick cars lost sales while the Equinox, Traverse, Encore, SRX and Acadia had huge gains (+30%). You would think that any sales cannibalization would come from SUVs and CUVs.

            There will always be some internal competition. The real question is what are the trade-offs? What percentage of the 90% who stayed with GM would have not come back if not for the midsize trucks? Chevy could sell 3000 more Cruzes? if not for the Sonic but the other 5000 subcompact buyers would have gone to the competition.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Lost sales aren’t the end of the world. Otherwise every OEM would jump into every segment out there. GM likes to spread themselves thin, instead of focusing on what they’re good at and making it better. The midsize twins backfired on GM. I’m not making the facts up. Is what it is.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @ Robert Ryan, there have been several times in the past when you combined all the GM truck sales together that they outsold Ford. However since they are spread between Chevy and GMC they can’t make the best selling truck claim that Ford can. This is not changing the fact that the F series is the best selling truck or vehicle in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Scoutdude,
            Agree with Lou_BC. Hate to know what ” World” US Auto design and refinement falls into but it is not First Worid. Your cars are rehashed European and Asian Models, your Big Rig Trucks are to a great extent owned by the Europeans. New Vans are likewise European. Auto exports from the US are from European and Asian transplants, not Ford or GM.
            Overall looks grim long term for the U.S. auto industry and manufacturing. My prediction manufacturing will keep on going South

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          No doubt ( /s)

          As was said before, the trucks are undoubtedly more profitable than their autos and SUVs. And so far they’ve only pulled about 16% away from their full-sized siblings–if that much according to the data. The evidence is quite clear that they’re not harming the full-sized truck business at all, so the C-twin sales are definitely coming from less profitable vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – 16% isn’t harming the Silverado/Sierra much, except that’s 1,600 lost sales at approx $10,000 loss (each truck) of pure pre tax profits! $16 million dollars a month loss in fullsize trucks alone for midsize pickup sales, years from turning a profit???

            Never mind all the GM CUVs and SUVs that are definitely profitable. Same with sedans. When has GM cancelled sedans???

            Sedans aren’t AS profitable as SUVs and crossovers for GM, but still widely profitable. It’s the GM subcompacts that have marginal, if any profits.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “When has GM cancelled sedans???”
            When have they NOT? Remember the Biscayne? The Chevelle? The Nova? The Monte Carlo? How about the Bonneville? The GTO? In fact, how about the entire Pontiac brand? How about the Oldsmobile brand? Those were all sedans or 2-door variants of sedans. GM has been canceling sedan models left and right for over 50 years!

            No, sedans are not “widely profitable”. If they were, you’d be seeing 20%-30% discounts off the hood at least during year-end sales if at no other time and only rarely do they exceed 10%–while pickup trucks almost invariably put 20% on the hood just to make you think you’re getting a good deal. And I’m talking about OEM incentives–not even including whatever the dealership itself may offer. No, there is a very wide discrepancy between sedan profitability and pickup truck profitability and CUVs somewhat bridge that gap.

            As for that $16 million loss you mention–you forget that the C-twins offer profits of their own which could easily shrink that loss by 80% or more. If they’re also offering more profit than the sedans/CUVs they’re apparently cannibalizing, that means that $16 million loss could end up a $10 million added profit from the 6400 sedans/CUVs that would have made even less profit.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            There’s no way the C-twins are even remotely profitable. Not at this stage and maybe not at all.

            No sedans *themselves* (the segment, silly) have never been cancelled by GM.

            The C-twins midsize pickups were cancelled/dropped like the El Camino/Caballero were. Same reason. It wasn’t for they’re profitability, it was for lack of.

            And while GM prolongs/contemplates the killing off of turkeys, they negatively impact the profits of GM’s mainstream and profitable vehicles.

            My uncle would buy a new El Camino every 2 years until GM stopped the nonsense. Then he bought Silverados until the end.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “The C-twins midsize pickups were cancelled/dropped like the El Camino/Caballero were. Same reason. It wasn’t for they’re profitability, it was for lack of.”

            Why, if this statement is true, do we now have the C-twins? According to your logic, if they were dropped, then they simply should not exist now and these new models should at least have some other name–as happened to the S-10/S-15 before them. It’s logic like this that hurts your arguments every time.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            OEMs don’t arbitrarily kill off profitable segments. Like the El Camino/Caballero, the 1st gen Colorado/Canyons may have been profitable at the time they were killed off, only because they had several years to break even on tooling/R&D. Except there wasn’t a point in investing and losing on a new generation for the American market.

            The market didn’t change favourably for midsize pickups between the time the twins were killed off and when they came back.

            So why the change of mind? GM is a difficult one to read. Up coming changes to policy/rules/regulations that only GM knows about? Once the Chicken tax goes away, GM will just smoothly switch to straight import of the Colorado/Canyons assembled in Thailand or China? Then GM will severely undercut every pickup once fleet and cheapskates are used to and dependent the Colorado/Canyon? You tell me..

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I have told you, many times in many places. You just refuse to accept facts and prefer to believe opinion as proven by almost every reference you have ever offered in support of your views.

    • 0 avatar
      jjster6

      For me a Colorado Z71 did not cannablize a full size truck sale. I never would have bought a full size. It would have been a CUV or a mid-size sedan. I know, a sample of one is an anecdote. I’m just sayin’…

  • avatar
    runs_on_h8raide

    I wonder how a badge-engineered Cadillac version would do?

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      A Raptor-like version would be interesting.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        thelaine – A Raptor – like version is exactly what GM needs.
        Ram has the 3/4 ton end covered with the Power Wagon and Ford has the 1/2 ton market covered with the Raptor. Toyota does have the Tacoma Pro but that isn’t close to the Raptor or PowerWagon in function.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          That would be tempting Lou. If they did it right, I think it would even pull some sales from the Wrangler.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            thelaine – agree. I’d prefer a mini-Raptor over a Wrangler any day as long as the C/C Raptor would not loose much in capacity. My tool box and offroad gear easily sucks up 500lbs of cargo rating that is why the Raptor has little practical appeal to me (it has major impractical appeal though).

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          Plainly someone needs to make a 1-ton that can get to 60 in 4 seconds, stock.

          There’s a gap in the market coverage!

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Agreed. With a winch, and 16 inches of ground clearance. I’m in.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Sigivald – if one actually spends any time in more remote areas then one needs extrication gear (chains, cables, jacks, shovels etc.) along with tools, safety and survival gear. I weighed my gear once just out of curiosity. The toolbox was 150lbs and the contents 350lbs.

  • avatar
    Quentin

    This should be worth 2000 clicks.

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      Ozzy Ozzy Ozzy! Oi Oi Oi! But it’s still wee hours there.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @RideHeight,
        I do think you have it incorrect.

        I actually like full size pickup. I don’t like unfair trade barriers.

        The “group” have successfully convinced you that we don’t like full size and are only pro midsize.

        This is far from the truth.

        But, I suppose those with a weaker mindset can be sold anything.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAFO – What’s an “unfair trade barrier” that midsize pickups don’t also get to happily enjoy, same as fullsize, including the Tundra, Titan plus Frontier and Ridgeline?

  • avatar
    ttacgreg

    These look to be bigger than the standard sized pickups of my childhood in the 50’s & 60’s.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      They’re definitely taller (even in 4×2), and unless you had a one-ton pickup with a 9′(!) bed, they’re probably longer. The width is a little iffy. The new midsizers are 74″. The closest I can find for ’50s width measurements is 79.4″ on a ’61-66 Ford. I would assume the ’57-60 Fords were about the same width, given that they were the first Fords to have a “full-width” cab, but the earlier trucks were definitely narrower.

      Of course, a Canyon has much higher capacities than an old half-ton shortbed pickup. And it’s safer, and more efficient. And you wouldn’t be turned away if you showed up at the country club in one. What a time to be alive…

  • avatar
    Tinn-Can

    Isn’t this mirrored in the rest of the segments? Models keep growing each year and they have to introduce new ones to fill the space where the old ones were? Old accord the size of a current civic, and civic begat fit etc…

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      “Soon they’ll make an Accord big enough to destroy them all!”

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I was about to dismantle your comment with my rapier wit (implying my wit is any sharper than a butter knife) and say “nuh-uh, the Accord’s still small!”, but then I actually looked it up and saw that the Accord has been a midsize since 1990. If anything, we’re *overdue* for an upsizing of the Accord by about 10 years, given that it started out as a compact in ’75. But then again, the full-size sedan market is all but dead.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    As reported by TTAC last week – inventory turn on the Colorado is a paltry 12 days. 30 to 45 is healthy/normal so there remains inventory constraints due to production numbers.

    None of the trucks have cash on the hood – it appears Nissan has 0% for 36 months on the Frontier. (YMMV as incentives are regionalized and I’m not checking every darn zip code – so don’t get pedantic)

    I had said that no matter what, everyone will win when the Colorado/Canyon come out as it will draw more people into the whole segment. I’m not surprised to see this — but for now it does not appear Colorado/Canyon sales are just early adopter I have to have it buyers. Good luck finding any number of either Colorado or Canyon in their stripper trim levels on a lot – few and far between.

    • 0 avatar
      alluster

      @apagtth +1. Currently, the only way you will get the truck you want is to have the dealer order one for you, and wait 4 to 6 weeks. My Colo took nearly 7 weeks after the order was placed (partly my fault. I changed my mind on color twice) and we had to get by with one car for a while since we had privately sold my wife’s Acadia.

      Dealer inventory is almost non-existent. The closest three dealerships have a combined 5 on their lot. GM is sending most of these trucks to Houston, LA, Dallas and NYC metropolitan areas where smaller trucks are more popular. I would wait till inventory is at 60+ days and the discounts comparable to FS trucks before calling them out as a failure. Remember, gas prices are relatively low putting additional pressure on smaller trucks. Cars.com inventory shows 5,800 midsize trucks on dealer lots vs 211,000 full size trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      APaGttH – agree. I’m starting to notice them on the road but each time I check out my local dealership they seldom have one.

      If those who are purchasing these trucks are first time buyers one can view them as a gateway drug to harder stuff ;)

      First a few tokes of Colorado then hardcore rollin’ coal bro-dozer.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    I’d be curious to see if Mitsubishi’s been considering the business case for bringing the L200 here. Perhaps with a cleaned up version of their diesel? Not sure how it fairs from a safety point of view either.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      That would be incredibly wise on their part. They need product badly, and given their current lineup, its hard to imagine that it could cannibalize their other offerings. If I were MitsuUSA, Id order plenty of basic models to give shoppers an alternative to the other players (most of whom tend to stock higher equipped models, I havent seen a stripped base model Frontier or Tacoma with steel wheels, etc in their newer bodystyles yet). That would be their ticket into the market, buyers who place a higher priority on the value aspect of their choice. That type of buyer might just get a Mirage for the wife while there. I dont see how it could hurt. What do they have to loose? If given the go-ahead, they could build the truck in North America to avoid the chicken tax.

      Given how excellent the Mighty Max was, I believe they would have a pretty good chance at carving themselves a decent piece of the pie.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        In the end however they were selling (just barely) a rebadged Dakota. In the 6 years it was on sale they only sold about 25,000 of them, even less than the Colorado has sold so far this year. The Mighty Max was last sold almost 2 decades ago so Mitsu doesn’t have any brand equity in the US truck market (or much brand equity in general) so it would be unwise to reenter. With the market already quite full they would have a lot (of money) to loose by setting up a factory to build it in the US and/or certifying it for sale in the US.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Yeah the “Raider” was truly awful. A shame when the L200 is a highly regarded truck overseas.

          John I think you’re right, Mitsubishi with their rather skimpy lineup right now has an opportunity to come back swinging with a midsize/compact truck and some sort of SUV (please oh please bring the Montero back). I think their biggest issue is the brand doesn’t really give people warm fuzzy feelings like some other Japanese makers, they kind of brought it upon themselves with their ‘bottom of the barrel’ approach where they’d finance anyone with a pulse. I know I’m in the ghetto when I’m surrounded by a) Mitsubishi Galants and b) Dodge Avengers.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @gtemnykh,
      Do Mitsubishi make the Triton in Mexico already?

      If they don’t it isn’t viable for Mitsubishi to set up a factory to build them. That’s the only I can see of you getting the Triton.

      It’s actually quite a good seller here in Australia. But, Mitsubishi have to have huge discounts to move them. A diesel, dual cab, mid spec 4×4 will set you back around $23k USD.

      So, it’s a cheap family truck that can carry the family and tow the fishing boat and camper trailer off road.

      They look odd though in photos, but in real life they do look lots better.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    What Tim doesn’t have information on is the production capability of the Wentzville plant.

    From what I can gather the Colorado Canyon can only produce around 10k per month. This was even stated 2 years ago by GM.

    Also, the Taco will not be affected. This has been our experience here in Australia with the Hilux.

    If one uses our market to find out where all of our sales have come from, they have come from any vehicle that is large, ie, Falcon, Commodore, Landcruiser, Patrol, etc.

    I’d say with the much more refined pickup like the Colorado Canyon you will see a relatively equal break down of where the sales are coming from, full size, large/medium SUVs CUVs, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      Timothy Cain

      “….or GM will decide there’s enough demand to support increased production.”

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Tim,
        I do think GM are sitting it out for a while. Not only has the Colorado Canyon been a total success, it outstripped what GM anticipated.

        The article I speak of stated pretty much what many of the “pro” full size set state here. That is the US is only a “full size” market. But the neglect of the midsizers where driven by several factors.

        1. Profit from existing infrastructure to produce full size pickups.

        2. Regulatory and tariff measures promoting the production of full size pickups in the US market, ie, pickups can only be made in NAFTA. For this to occur a 100k market is needed to make it viable to set up a manufacturing facility.

        3. The GFC and instability in countries that had the potential to form FTAs with the US.

        GM underestimated the value of the new midsizers.

        I also think GM is waiting to see what is the outcome of the Pacific Rim FTA. If this is successful GM can sources Colorado’s from Asia. Australia is supposed to receive the US style Colorado later on this year.

        Ford had a similar plan in place regarding the sourcing of the global Ranger from Thailand. The Thai’s blew it with a military takeover of the government. Ford accelerated it’s new F-150 program and dropped the Ranger from the US market.

        If the Thai coup d’état never occurred the US pickup market would be different right now.

        But, Ford didn’t realise the acceptance of the Ranger on the global markets. No one really considered how well the new gen of midsizers do. They were a surprise to the manufacturers.

        Even if the TPP is knocked on the head by the Unions (UAW as is the case with pickups) and the opposing Democrats GM will be able to source much more out of Thailand (and China) for the Colorado.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAFO — Why dance around it like a wild Travolta? OK I’ll say it for ya..

          CHICKEN TAX!!!!!!!!

          Now don’t cha feel better?

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Al the Colorado, so far, is a total failure in the US. Yes it sells well but because 90% of the current sales are from current GM customers it is a money looser. They will not move its production overseas for this generation, they have spent way too much to develop the US specific tooling to walk away from it.

          For never intended to import the F100 they were going to build it in the US and it was never intended as a replacement for the Ranger. All 4 trucks were originally intended to be sold along side each other. However between the time that US Ford set the specs for the F100/global Ranger and it getting near production ready the market had changed significantly leading to dropping plans to bring it to the US and the discontinuation of the North American Ranger.

          No matter what happens with any free trade agreements the will not be bringing the Ranger to the US. The Colorado has proven that the tiny incremental sales increase is not worth the cost of tooling and certification. That was GM’s original finding when the Colorado specifications were being set which is why committed to making it a 3rd world design and not suitable for the NA market. Of course some idiot thought that the got it wrong initially but the results so far indicates that they were right in the first place and bringing it to the US is only resulting in the loss of money.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Scoutdude – “3rd world design”????

            The global Colorado was designed by Brazilians and built and tested in Thailand.

            That by definition is “1st World”.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            No Brazil and Thailand is 3rd world when it comes to safety, emissions and general content. US has the highest safety, emissions and general level of expected refinement, Europe is generally a level below that in one or more ways and Brazil and Thailand are well below that. Marcelo has made it pretty clear that in general the vehicles they get are several levels down from what we see in the US. The fact that they had to redesign it so significantly shows just how far it was below standards, and that is w/o considering the emissions angle.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Scoutdude – safety design has nothing to do with the “world” it comes from. If a country has higher standards and there is sufficient market they will build to that standard.

            As an aside, 1st, 2nd, 3rd world are all post WWII cold war terms. Any country aligned with capitalistic USA is 1st world, any country that was aligned with communist Russia was 2nd world and what was left over was 3rd world.

            Most of South East Asia aligned with the USA. Brazil was never communist.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            That definition of 3rd world is not typically used any more in general and certainly not in the business world. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Third-World.html The Colorado was designed with less developed and developing nations as the primary markets.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Big Al–You just stirred up Denver Mike he is now doing the Chicken Dance. Now we will read DM’s comparison of the midsize pickup to a roadster. I have looked at the new Colorado/Canyon and it does not resemble a Miata. Am I missing something?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Yes. You’re missing a lot. It went over your head. Notice the thread was about *profitability* only. In that area, midsize pickups resemble fullsize pickups as much as compact roadsters do. Probably less so.

      No I’m not trying to get into a chicken tax debate. When confronted with logic, BAFO scampers off anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        I have no dog in this fight, but both of you need to actually meet up IRL and discuss things over a few beers. I have a feeling that most people here are pretty chill, and it’s disenheartening to see the “B&B” comments section be reduced to ad hominem attacks and mudslinging because somebody’s always gotta have the last word.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Jeff S,
      My aim isn’t to “stir up” DiM, he doesn’t need any help in that area.

      But, he’s been at it now for several years, and yet nothing he has predicted has eventuated.

      I do ignore him most of the time, and by the looks at some of Scoutdudes comments he’s more or less in the same boat as DiM. They could in fact be triplets, along with Hummer.

      At least Pch101 has knowledge and intelligence (at time dubious). Pch101 biggest downfall is his aim to market whatever institution he works for. This cause him to lack sincerity. I do find this rather sad, as Pch101 could be a decent person.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @BAFO – The undeniable fact you keep running from is the Chicken tax does nothing to “protect” midsize sales, including the Ridgeline. The Chicken tax also does not much for the Tundra and even less for the Titan.

        It only protects the Silverado, Sierra, Ram, and F-150? How does that happen???

        Your half baked blanket statements lack any kind of logic. Zero! You’ll throw them out there and scamper off when challenged.

        If there’s true “barriers”, they work across the board, or not at all. Or do they “cherry pick”???

  • avatar
    sunridge place

    I tried to comment on the threads of morons above but it was too complicated.

    PCH- when IHS or Wards Auto counts the top 10 trade ins for a Colorado/Canyon and finds that 9 of the top 10 trade ins is a GM vehicle it doesn’t mean there is a 10% conquest rate. Come on. I will call them out for not putting that into the bigger picture of ALL trade ins…but come on. You are smarter than that. Don’t blame the source when it is crap. They didn’t put in perspective at all. You tried to.

    • 0 avatar
      dash riprock

      Thank you! My brain was hurting there.

      To the point that they may be trading more profitable potential Silverado sales for less profitable Colorado sales, does that matter if you are now meeting customers needs and wants better? How does a company benefit, long term, by trying to force clients into a product that does not satisfy their needs just to maximize your profits today? We saw that attitude from GM in the past and we also saw the end result.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Actually old GM’s method was to sell as many vehicles as possible, no matter how much money the lost doing so. Trying to play in too many and too small of segments was one of the ways they excelled in losing money. Even at the depths of the losses GM had the highest market share of any mfg.

        • 0 avatar
          dash riprock

          They committed a lot of sins including those that you mentioned.
          My road to shorting GM stock started when I was doing some contract work for a PBG dealer. They were blasting out Sunfires or G5’s(forget as we should all) at 20-30% below a Corolla or Civic. I knew they had high labour costs so I started to research how they could have one of the highest cost structures and one of the lowest retail prices. Took a long time to really understand how unsustainable, and why, the whole company was. Nothing was going to save it in the then present structure.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “…by trying to force clients into a product that does not satisfy their needs just to maximize your profits…”

        Ford is doing exactly that. They killed off their midsize trucks and not looking back. Displaced Ranger buyers may step up F-150s or other Ford vehicles or they may not. Enough do to offset any Ranger losses. Probably by a long shot. Profits come 1st, as they should. If customers don’t like it, they can pound sand.

        Ram is doing the same since they killed off the Dakota. Sounds right to me. We’re not talking non profit orgs. GM? Well the jury’s still out.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Well, I misread that. Mea culpa.

      If the conquest rate is 40%, then that’s reasonable. (I do hope that the Chevy guy isn’t including other GM brands in his conquest figures. The GM guys are good at parsing.)

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        The quote I read was 41% of Colorado buyers were new to Chevy. So it certainly seems like they are cherry picking the data to put a good spin on it.

      • 0 avatar
        dash riprock

        Who in the end should care. My point is that they are producing a product that people want judging from the days to turn, and the transaction price. That is the most important aspect for any business. Maintaining a client is no less valuable than acquiring one.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Days to turn measures whether production matches demand. It is not a measure of popularity. If you want to determine popularity, then you should look at retail sales.

          • 0 avatar
            dash riprock

            So under that measure the Colorado is the 2nd most popular midsize, and as an added bonus good transaction prices?

            As an investor(I have not acquired the intestinal fortitude to go long GM yet) I would be looking at issues beyond # of sales.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            No PCH. Again wrong.

            Trucks can and should be business fleet oriented as long as it is balanced with retail and capacity. You need to open your mind that fleet business can be good if done correctly.

            You launch at the high end then fill retail demand then fill fleet stuff. Colorado and Canyon aren’t there yet. Neither is the new F150.

            Just facts.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Fleet sales don’t tell you anything about “popularity.”

            popular
            adjective
            pop·u·lar ˈpä-pyə-lər

            1. of or relating to the general public

            Just the dictionary.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Of course, commercial fleet sales in trucks are a silly exercise in revenue. They tell you nothing at all about the massive business community and their purchase decisions which drive a large part of the truck and van business.

            You said retail sales would be an indicator of success on mid size trucks. You also have no clue at the end of each month how many reported sales are retail vs commercial.

            Should I insert a definition of a blind man here?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The previous poster commented about popularity.

            I addressed his point. Sorry that you missed it.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Previous poster who mentioned popularity? Don’t see that. You mentioned retail sales as the most ultimate indication of truck sales and you are wrong as commercial fleet is a big part of it after launch.

            You were wrong on compact SUVs like Encore too…it’s okay.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “My point is that they are producing a product that people want judging from the days to turn”

            “So under that measure the Colorado is the 2nd most popular midsize”

            Note the use of “people want” and “popular,” not “what fleet buyers want.” I was addressing his point, not yours.

            As we already covered, the Encore’s sales are a fraction of the leading cute utes such as the RAV-4 and CR-V, as I predicted. Still in denial, I see.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          When there’s a full scale shortage, yeah that leads to fast “days to turn”. There may be 1 Colorado for every 5 dealers at any given time. The PT Cruiser had to have similar “days to turn” at its initial launch.

          But GM is wise to keep or cap production way below demand, as long as it can. Heck, the more they build, the more they lose.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          @dash, no the most important aspect to any business is profitability. They need to cover the cost of converting it to something that can be sold in the US, certifying it, tooling up for it, marketing it ect. You also must consider how it affects your overall profits. If you cannibalize the sales of other models you reduce their profitability and you may end up w/o a net gain in profits or worse yet a net loss of profit.

          • 0 avatar
            dash riprock

            Once again I will refer to longer term profitability over maximizing short term.

            Can you provide a number on what they are making, or not making, per truck? Seems to me a major complaint has been that they are too similar in pricing to the full size, so how are they losing money on them?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…they are too similar in pricing to the full size, so how are they losing money on them?…”

            You’re confusing dealer markup for OEM profit. Long term profitability can be good, except when they deny the short term, big profits of other models on the same lot/showroom.

            Consumer like to stay loyal to their favourite brands. Lots of folks miss the El Camino and GM should forsake profitability to provide that one again too.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Actually it was GM that initially stated 90% of the vehicles traded in were on both trucks were GM brands and of those 17% were full size pickups. Now they are changing their tune and stating that 41% of the vehicles traded in on the Colorado were not Chevy. Both statements may be true since there are a lot of non Chevy GM vehicles.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Here’s the source of the error: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/04/general-motors-well-midsize-truck-segment-success-may-not-last/

        TTAC misquoted the Reuters story that I linked above. (No excuses from me, though — I should have caught it.)

  • avatar
    runs_on_h8raide

    Even Mitsubishi used to make a small truck.

    Anyone remember the SCCA pro truck series? Great racing action. Check out the field and makes.

    https://www.you tube.com/watch?v=ZnSYj1hAPs0

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Big Al–Denver Mike always compares midsize trucks to roadsters which is the point I was making. Unless you are comparing prior compact regular cab pickups with short beds then the comparison is not even close. Denver Mike also misses the mark when he says that midsize trucks are taking away sales from compact cars. Compact and midsize cars are losing sales to crossovers not midsize trucks. A crossover is a more logical vehicle for a sedan owner to trade for in that it is all enclosed, offers all wheel drive, sits a little higher, and is closer to combining the features of both a sedan and a truck. Denver Mike is correct that not every manufacturer has to be in every segment of the market but GM, Toyota, and Nissan are in the midsize pickup market and have managed to do well in it. I don’t really see Ford offering a midsize truck anytime soon because they have too many resources invested in the new F-150 and they don’t want anything to compete with it. I still have my suspicions about Denver Mike’s motives and think he is a paid marketer for Ford. Why would anyone be against expanding offerings in the midsize truck market unless they have an economic interest in it. If midsize trucks are not profitable then Toyota would have long ago discontinued the Tacoma.

    GM is taking a conservative approach to the twins in that they are not increasing production. If GM did not see a profit in the midsize truck market then they would have not entered it. Full size half ton pickups will still be the largest sellers and the midsize pickups will not replace them unless someone wishes to downsize from a full size pickup. Today’s midsize trucks are much different than yesterday’s compact pickups.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Yes the twins look to be very profitable for the dealer, if they can get enough of them. Looks to be maybe 2 or 3 per GM dealer a month. For the dealer and on a truck for truck basis, midsize pickups can presumably rival the profits of fullsize, mostly since the GM midsize twin come in two versions right now: Loaded or hard loaded. But that’s dealer markup/profits, not the OEM’s.

      What makes you think I want less midsize selection/options? I’ve owned more midsize and compact pickups than anyone here. I bought them used though. I wouldn’t mind a used Mahindra for around the ranch. The more (used) options, the better. I’m looking for a clean, low mi Sport Trac, but it must be V8 and 4X4.

      But we don’t know if the Tundra, Titan, Frontier or even the Tacoma are profitable for Toyota and Nissan. Nor the Ridgeline for Honda. There’s no law they have to be profitable. You don’t think some subcompact cars lose money for GM and Ford? Does FCA even offer any subcompacts that aren’t Fiat?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Toyota is not losing money on the Tacoma. Large volume doesn’t always mean a vehicle is profitable. If Tacoma were losing money Toyota would have discontinued it. Even the Tundra is profitable but it is not a huge seller. Denver Mike if Toyota is losing money on both the Tundra and Tacoma then why have they expanded their San Antonio and Mexico plants?

    As for cars the manufacturers sell smaller fuel efficient cars with less profit to obtain higher fleet efficiency standards in order to sell more trucks and suvs. Toyota and Honda don’t need to sell smaller cars at less profit or a loss because their fleet efficiency is greater than Ford, GM, and Chrysler.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Small car MPG has nothing to do with making it possible to sell trucks. Car CAFE and Truck CAFE are totally separate standards and are counted separately.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      We don’t know that the Tacoma and Tundra are profitable merely because they exist. Toyota has made a name for itself around the world as a top pickup producer and a full line OEM. So Toyota cannot back away from the North American pickup market, tail between its legs, no matter what happens. Yes Toyota would take a loss on pickups if they had to. Without a doubt.

  • avatar
    mr.cranky

    I know someone who recently bought a brand new Nissan Frontier. They wanted a small truck but weren’t interested in the GM or Toyota offerings. They lamented the fact that the current Ford Ranger wasn’t available, though it’s supposed to become available soon in the U.S as they claimed.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Silly GM.

    http://www.autonews.com/article/20150512/OEM11/150519962/gm-recalls-522000-malibus-pickups-for-potential-seat-hazards

    “General Motors is recalling about 469,000 2011-12 Chevrolet Malibus for a steel cable connected to the seat belt that can weaken and break, along with nearly 53,000 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon pickups for faulty seat frame attachment hooks.

    The Colorado and Canyon recall covers 48,309 vehicles in the U.S. and 4,620 vehicles in Canada. About 13,000 of the vehicles are in U.S. dealer stocks, a GM spokesman said in an email. 

    GM said it is not aware of any crashes, injuries or fatalities stemming from the defect.

    Seat frame attachments in the 2015 Colorado and Canyon may not have been properly attached to the vehicle body during assembly, GM said in the emailed statement. If the part was improperly attached, the front of the seat may not remain secured to the vehicle in the event of a crash.

    Dealers will inspect affected trucks to assess whether the seat frame attachment hooks need repair.

    GM recalled a record 27 million vehicles in the U.S. last year in the wake of a safety crisis caused by defective ignition switches, which have now been linked to 100 fatalities.”

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Interesting that GM says that there are about 13,000 of the Canyados in dealer stock. That represents a ~40 day supply, which does not indicate that they are in as short supply as everyone claims. Now ones that people actually want to buy are another thing.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Yes, of course. Once a vehicle is built at a factory, it is immediately at a dealership!

        You obviously have zero knowledge of logistics and distribution.

        Carry on.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          You obviously have poor reading comprehension. GM stated that they had about 13,000 *on dealer lots* not in transit, or at their storage yard but *on dealer lots*.

          Having worked about a 1/2 mile from the rail yard where all GM vehicles for Western WA are unloaded and stored until they get put on the truck to head to the dealer. So I have watched hundreds of thousands of GM vehicles flow to the dealer. That yard also handles the Chrysler Co vehicles. Typically it would take only 3 or 4 days to empty the lot from each train load. Yes there was always the stray vehicle or two that would sit for a little longer, but it was certainly not their top sellers.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Ok dude. I live and work a half mile from a ton of stuff that is not relevant to me. Also, most OEMs invoice their dealers when a vehicle is shipped from the factory. Liability moves to carriers etc so technically it is in dealer stock while in transit.

            Did you learn that working near the distribution place? Your annoying ‘gotcha’ comment from your ignorance and assumed knowledge triggered my comment.. Consider yourself smarter now.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Being in “dealer stock” is not the same as “on the dealer’s lot”. Even if they were counting the vehicles in transit as “on the dealer’s lot” that would mean that there are around 30 days worth of stock in possession of the dealer on average.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    “The Colorado and Canyon recall covers 48,309 vehicles in the U.S. and 4,620 vehicles in Canada.”

    Per Capita that would mean the take rate in Canada is on par with that of the USA. (USA population 10 times larger).

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Denver Mike–Again Toyota is not taking a loss. Toyota does not discount like GM, Ford, and Chrysler. If anything Toyota is more profitable than GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Larger volume does not always equal profit. Toyota has a lot less invested in the development and manufacturer of their trucks than Ford and for the most part both Tacoma and Tundra are at best refreshed. It takes a lot more capital to design a new truck and to completely retool and reconfigure plants as Ford has done with the F-150. Ford has much more risk than Toyota, Nissan, GM, and Chrysler and it will take a longer period of time and a lot more units to recover their costs which I believe they will but there are no guarantees. Ford has bet everything on the new F-150 and is for the most part dependent on it but Toyota and Nissan are not as heavily invested in their trucks and are not dependent on their very existence on trucks. GM, Ford, and Chrysler would all probably be receiving government bailouts if it were not for the sales of large trucks. Toyota will still be around after all the Detroit based vehicle manufacturers have either been acquired by the Chinese or India or they have gone out of business I am not saying this because I am a Toyota fan (I am not) but Toyota has a more sustainable business model than Detroit.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Actually large volume usually means large profits. For GM, Ford and Chrysler, FS pickups, without a doubt. They’re only the top 3 most profitable cars in the world. This we do know. NO we don’t know that the Tundra and Tacoma are anywhere near profitable just because you think so.

      Toyota doesn’t discount their trucks much at all, but that would indicate they really can’t afford to, as profits are too thin if at all. An OEM can limit incentives simply by limiting (already limited) production. Technically an OEM has to buy back overstock that doesn’t sell. It’s cheaper to stack enough money on the hood, than ship it back.

      Yes Toyota is more successful an OEM than any of the Detroit Big 3 will ever be, but at the same time, Toyota can certainly afford to sell pickups at a huge loss if they choose to.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Light truck sales are effected by the total overall fleet average of mpgs. Why do you think Fiat Chrysler made an electric Fiat 500 which they are not that anxious to sell at a loss.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “Why do you think Fiat Chrysler made an electric Fiat 500 which they are not that anxious to sell at a loss.”

      They make them because they have to, not because of “fleet averages”. One US state specifically requires any brand who wants to sell in that state MUST sell at least 10% Zero Emissions Vehicles or buy’ZEV Credits’ to remain in the state; this is why nearly every manufacturer now offers at least one battery electric car which is only available in that state and one other. However, that ZEV policy has been adopted by nine other states, meaning those OEMs need to figure out very quickly how to make those BEVs profitable, and their current minimalist attempts simply cannot scale as Fiat specifically claims they lose $10K per vehicle despite selling them for $10K above their ICE sisters. Right now the only brand that is making an individual profit on a per-vehicle basis is Tesla (though there’s a whole ‘nother argument about Tesla’s profits or lack thereof).

      No, light truck SALES or not affected by the fleet MPG average. Light truck SALES are affected by necessity for the hauling capacity and desire for something big and comfortable. This also means that as the truck fleet grows, the “fleet wide” economy falls. In fact, as I remember in the latest CAFE rulings, trucks have now been singled out as having a separate fleet requirement due to all the real economy work having been put into the cars where aerodynamics especially is far easier to implement.

      To be quite blunt, I expect to see those huge grills and flat faces on pickups morph into somewhat softer, more rounded shapes with some very exotic-looking bubbles and blisters where wind-grabbing slabs and planks currently exist. I do expect certain policies will be forced to change to permit cameras in place of mirrors on the exterior of the truck–with fighter-jet style interior mirrors as non-electric backups; those big truck mirrors generate a surprising amount of drag compared to their automotive cousins.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Rocket: Looks like the next Mondeo wagon will be coming Stateside as an Outback competitor. I could certainly do...
  • millmech: Looks like Chrysler used a longer-lasting leather than most.
  • slavuta: ajla, I went to Hyundai/Kia USA sites where looked at the engine specs. And 3.3 turbo and non-turbo are also...
  • Jeff S: When the Australian Government stopped subsidizing GM then GM pulled out of Australia. There are valid...
  • Greg Hamilton: Slavuta, How do you think the seven-speed, dual-clutch automatic transmission will hold up? A similar...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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