By on July 7, 2015

 

TTAC USA truck sales June 2015 YTDU.S. sales of pickup trucks increased 10% through the first six months of 2015, a gain of more than 107,000 units over the span of 2015’s first-half.

Ford’s F-Series continues to be the category’s top seller, but F-Series volume has decreased in each of the last five months. Second-quarter sales slid 6.5%. As Ford properly equips its dealers with truck inventory and as the automaker figures out precisely how to price the new range of F-150s, we can expect to see F-Series numbers stabilize.

In the meantime, GM’s full-size twins have taken full advantage of the F-Series’ slide.

Year-to-date, the Chevrolet Silverado, America’s second-best-selling vehicle, and GMC Sierra, America’s fourth-ranked truck, have outsold the F-Series by 19,492 units, lashing the Ford by 14,995 units in June alone. Their market share in the full-size segment has increased to 37.2% in the first-half of 2015 from 34.5% at this time a year ago.

silverado

GM trucks have also powered the midsize category to a 52% year-over-year improvement so far this year, helped along by an 18% improvement from the class-leading Toyota Tacoma. Midsize trucks still own a small portion of the overall pickup category: just 15.%. That’s up from 11% at this stage one year ago.

Overall, pickups formed 14% of the U.S. auto industry’s volume in the first-half of 2015, up nearly one percentage point compared with last year.

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

31 Comments on “Chart Of The Day: 2015’s First-Half U.S. Pickup Truck Sales Wars...”


  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do think Ford is overplaying the position it is finding itself in with the new F-150 aluminium wonder truck.

    It seems the bread and butter trucks, ie, dual cabs are sitting on the lots longer in June than in May.

    The single cab work trucks are moving quite quickly of the lots, but slower than the dual cab C twins from GM.

    I do not foresee Ford overtaking GM in numbers for some time.

    A side effect is the opportunity for other manufacturers to claim some usually Ford biased customers.

    I do expect the Ford apologist to come and defend Ford. Ford was premature in offering the wonder truck.

    GM and Ram would do better by making a gradual move to aluminium, ie, bed, doors, etc first. This would pretty much make the GM twins and Ram weigh roughly the same as the new aluminium F-150.

    • 0 avatar
      jthorner

      Ford’s Sync is horrible. What were they thinking choosing Microsoft for an in-car system?

      I don’t think the problem is that Ford introduced a “wonder truck”. I think the problem is that all of the cost, risk and complexity of moving to aluminum and turbo-chargers has delivered very little in terms of real world fuel economy, and only marginal improvements in specifications which the vast majority of users never need to care about anyway.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      See my remarks below (now that I’ve driven in the new F Series).

      Both the GM/GMC twins and RAM feel/drive better than the new, very expensive, poorly constructed F Series.

      The rollout of the new aluminum paneled F Series (which accounts presently for 80% to 90% of Ford’s total global PROFITS) will be a turning point for Ford, and complete disaster, and may go so far as to put Ford into financial jeopardy yet again – especially since we’re about a year away from all pickup truck sales slowing dramatically, with incentives needing to be massively ramped up, and Ford’s new F Series is not only is suffering serious teething problems, but is the most expensive full size p/u to build.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    >>I do think Ford is overplaying the position it is finding itself in with the new F-150 aluminium wonder truck.<<

    It seems the Ford truck doesn't get better mpg over rivals in real life and I doubt their claims about aluminum being no more dent prone and no more costly to repair.

    GM is hitting that:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/07/06/general-motors-ford-pickup-truck-wars/29768225/

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      It may be too early to tell, but it’s possible that they overestimated how much more customer’s are willing to pay for their pickup. Especially one that doesn’t feel substantially better or different than the previous one. It’s difficult to convey the benefits of aluminum construction to new truck customers and turn that into a sale.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        Agreed, although some on here have said that the depressed volume (in a rising market) was due to the crossover. That started late last year and should be getting better with each month not worse. If this continues another few months then the “reason” of the crossover should give way to the “reason” that consumers are not convinced of the benefits.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “although some on here have said that the depressed volume (in a rising market) was due to the crossover.”

          That’s the reason I think it might be too early to tell. Dealer lots seem to be stocked, thought not necessarily to the levels the outgoing model was at it’s peak.

          • 0 avatar
            an innocent man

            The few local Ford dealers I drive through on Sundays don’t have nearly the inventory of 150s I’m used to seeing. And until recently, one had as many 14s as 15s. YMMV

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Ford’s incentives are slim. Given how things work in this segment, that would suggest that inventories are on the low side.

            As a suggestion to the author, a line chart is probably better suited for the information that you are trying to convey.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @an innocent man

            Anecdotal of course, but I have noticed quite a few of the new F-150s on our local roads. If the supply is truly constrained despite given the amount I have seen I’d say Ford is “winning”.

      • 0 avatar
        Sgt Beavis

        I’ve done some extensive driving on the new F150 with the 2.5liter EB and found it to be significantly better than the outgoing model.

        However I totally agree with you on price. I wanted a new 4×4 crew cab Lariat but couldn’t find one below $50K and Ford wasn’t discounting them much. I ended up getting a 2014 Ram Laramie Longhorn 4×4 that was still on the lot. It came with a $10K discount and was vastly better equipped than any Lariat F150. FCA’s Uconnect is outstanding as well. I sure as heck blows away Ford’s Sync.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “I’ve done some extensive driving on the new F150 with the 2.5liter EB and found it to be significantly better than the outgoing model.”

          You mean the 2.7L. I spent some time with it, as well as the new 3.5L version. The most I can say is that the new 3.5L version versus the 2014 model with the same engine feels a tad faster and a bit more spry in the corners, but still has the same ride qualities as the old truck. Are the improvements enough for customers to shell out extra over the competition? I think you’ve given a good data point.

        • 0 avatar
          jthorner

          Ford’s Sync is horrible. What were they thinking choosing Microsoft for an in-car system?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        danio3834,
        I totally agree with you on pricing. It would not surprise me if the new aluminium F-150 is the most costly vehicle ever developed, from new processes, plant and equipment to the vehicle itself.

        The irony of all the resources expended, the new aluminium F-150 is no game changer. The new Colorado/Canyon were larger game changers in their segment.

        Overall the new F-150 is nothing really special, reported FE not meeting claims, suspension not performing as well as it should, even a 6spd box.

        I do believe Ford can not offer the new aluminium F-150 at a price as competitive as GM or Ram or it will lose lots of money.

        As nice as the aluminium F-150 is I do believe more will find a cheaper alternative that will do the same job of driving to work, soccer moms, Lowes, camping, etc.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAFO – It’s not the true game changer Ford had hoped, but the Colorado/Canyon aren’t any better. Like bar-size pool tables instead of full-size. Ram put all their chips on air-ride, diesels and rear coils. But GM leaving the Silverado/Sierra withering on the vine is good too. ?? They’re only the most profitable for GM by far. Whatever is #2 for them doesn’t even compare. I mean besides fullsize SUVs.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        danio3834 – I do agree that Ford keeping transaction prices high has done more harm to sales than any fear of new drivetrains or aluminum bodies.

        Ford most likely kept the look of the 2015 F150 similar to the previous generation to ensure acceptance in the marketplace but that may be a ploy that has been part of the “backfire”.

        GM’s new fullsizers met with lukewarm market acceptance at first and GM did try selling them at a higher price as well but soon started ramping up rebates. The market has become conditioned to rebates and I for one would not buy unless significant cash is on the hood.

  • avatar
    cwallace

    I’m curious as to what the “other” trucks would be– Honda Ridgelines about to celebrate their birthdays? Leftover bobtail E-series vans? Maybe Mahindras are finally in limited release somewhere? (That’d be kind of cool, I was really rooting for them.)

  • avatar
    Rday

    my buddy bought a new GMC pu and had major problems with drive line. these trucks drivelines hardly change at all so it is absolute gross negligence that these problems haven’t been ironed out yet. but this is gm and what else can you expect.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      The new drivelines are drastically different. The LT engines in the 2014s are significantly different than the LS in the 2013. Additionally the new 8-speeds are out, and I know the trucks with the 6.2L have been showing major problems with the 8-speeds shifting poorly, when I last checked, 2 months ago, no solution had been found to correct the transmissions. Some were being replaced, some were being band-aided by re-programming. I think engineers were hinting at tolerances being too high.

      I also noticed 6.2L trucks were damn near impossible to find, which comparing it’s MPG to the 5.3, truly makes it a no-brainer on a personal vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        I’m the owner of a ’15 Sierra with the 6.2 engine and the max trailer tow package (which gives me a rated payload of 1960 lbs. in a crew cab truck). I did a global search on cars.com to find this truck for sale, used, in Colorado. It was a program vehicel with about 4000 miles on it. I flew out to Denver to buy it and drove it home to DC. The worst fuel economy was 21.9 mpg, doing 80 in Wyoming and South Dakota. The best was 24.9, doing 65-70 through eastern Pennsylvania and Maryland. Pulling a 7600 lb. GVWR Airstream travel trailer (the reason I bought the truck), I’m getting about 13 mpg at 60 mph in the Appalachians. This is a truly impressive engine.

        It is possible to get the 8-speed to engage harshly, when coasting at very low speeds. The transmission seems a little eager to lock up the torque converter. Shifts under load are perfectly smooth, including forced downshifts to increase engine braking. Oddly, a gentle start from a standstill produces a lot of shifting that is a little annoying: the truck shifts to second gear at about 1600 rpm, dropping engine rpms to about 1300. So, the perception is of a lot of shifting when accelerating gently from a standstill. Accelerate more aggressively, and the shifts are delayed, as they are if “tow/haul” mode is selected.

        The only real downside is that the engine requires premium gasoline, which is generally more expensive than diesel fuel. OTOH, I hope to avoid the maintenance issues associated with modern diesel engines, which are considerable.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    For all their trouble, the new Ford trucks are only a couple hundred pounds lighter than GM trucks–NOT hundreds of pounds it should have. The real world mpg is pretty much the same.

    Also, I would have serious reservations about the durability of turbochargers. They are an expensive, complex component that the GM and Ram don’t have to worry about in their gas trucks.

    Success breeds arrogance. This is why Ford’s (overpriced) ’95 Taurus and Contour did not do well. While the F-series will do well, it will not do as well as Ford would have liked. Were it not for Ram and GMC, I would not have been surprised to see Chevy surpass Ford in sales in a year or two.

    Interestingly, Mr. Mullally, on whose watch Ford took such a big chance with their corporate gem, collected his hefty pay, and is long gone…

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @tomLU86
      Quite a few Boeing shareholders would like to speak to Mullaly about his alterations to the Dreamliner, they are not happy.. Potential problem is the inclusion of the Russian Sukhoi in building part of the airframe
      Turbocharged engines are OK on Diesels,but not exactly brilliant on Gas engines in extreme heat.
      Ford has made some very stupid decisions under his command, some of those problems are just starting to appear
      Game changer would be when “Datsun” starts to consistently overtake Ford in the Pie Chart

      • 0 avatar
        jthorner

        The Dreamliner roll-out was a complete disaster for Boeing and cost them billions of dollars in extra costs and lost business. Mullaly set “the plan” in motion, then got out of dodge for the outsource-everything carbon fiber to hit the fan.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      tomLU86 – the F150 was always heavier than the GM siblings. For them to be able to undercut GM by a few 100 lbs was a needed thing.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    It’s not aluminum; it’s price. Or price, with a turbocharged engine, with an aluminum truck bed that will get marred and dented with use. One should have been introduced after the other was into 15 year old “beater truck” category. Too much change too fast in a conservative market. Or it could be price. 10 Thousand American dollars cheaper than a comparable F-150? That Silverado/GMC/RAM is looking mighty fine.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    Consumer Reports recently released their test of the latest F150, and rated it well below both the Silverado and RAM. They particularly criticized it for ride, handling, and the still buggy Sync infotainment system. Fuel economy is at best marginally better than Chevy’s more conventional vehicle.

    If the newest Ford truck didn’t have Ford Truck Loyalists to sell to, it would be an also ran.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I haven’t even read that issue yet, but rode in a new 2015 on the 4th for about 20 miles, and was seriously unimpressed with the ride & build quality, and shocked by the glove box sticker (that was just removed from the window).

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      jthorner – Consumer Reports may be good for durability data but they don’t seem to be any good at testing pickups. They used to consistently pick the Avalanche and even the ugly mini-me Ridgeline as favourites.
      I looked at the test and what I could access indicated that all they did was drive around in an empty truck. A Ram Ecodiesel air ride or coil with 1,000 lb cargo rating is going to be less skitterish than an empty pickup rated to haul 1,800 lbs or more.

      PickupTrucksdotcom did a 1/2 ton shootout recently and the Ram air ride 5.7 delivered a poor loaded ride and a poor trailering ride.

      “According to our judges, there is no denying the tremendous amount of value you get for the money with the Laramie Longhorn interior, but where the Ram lost most of its points was in its limited payload, braking numbers and the ride quality of the air suspension when towing or loaded.”

      The F150 finished 3rd behind the GM siblings with 6.2/8 speed combos.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • JimZ: Not only that, but two or three shades of blue just on the dash!
  • Pete Zaitcev: Renegade is not based on Panda.
  • mjg82: I only know these from watching bonus rounds of Classic Concentration with Alex Trebek on YouTube
  • dal20402: This should be good for a few more wrecks every winter on the way up to or down from the ski hills.
  • ToolGuy: “I have no intention of flying to China” Had a conversation out at the mailbox the other day...

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