By on August 6, 2015

TTAC COTD Truck Market Share July 2015 YTD

General Motors reported 86,051 U.S. pickup truck sales in July 2015, the highest figure for a seventh month of the year since 2006, GM says.

It does not appear as though the advent of new midsize GM trucks – Colorado and Canyon – have had any measurably negative impact on their full-size siblings. Combined, the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra outsold the class-leading Ford F-Series by 9,900 copies in July. They lead the F-Series by more than 29,000 units heading into August.

The GM full-size duo hasn’t outsold the F-Series on a calendar year basis since 2009.

GM’s four truck nameplates owned 39 percent of the overall American truck market in July 2015, up nearly eight points compared with July of last year. Through the first seven months of 2015, GM’s total share of the truck market has risen from 31 percent in 2014 to 37 percent in 2015, nearly seven points greater than Ford’s share of the category.

F-Series sales did, however, improve in July, rising 5 percent to 66,288 units, the first increase for the F-Series since January.

Ram pickup truck sales growth has stalled over the last two months, rising just 1 percent over the course of June and July. Tacoma sales made up 62 percent of the truck sales at Toyota last month, sales of which jumped 29 percent to 17,033 units, 55 percent of the small/midsize pickup category’s volume.

Timothy Cain is the founder of, 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!

16 Comments on “Chart Of The Day: GM’s Pickup Truck Market Share Soars In July...”

  • avatar

    2013 Colorado Sales: 3,412
    2014 Colorado Sales: 8,003
    2015 Colorado Sales, YTD: 48,784

    They sold more Colos in MAY than ALL of last year, and the big little truck is on pace for 83,000 sales in 2015, the highest figure in NINE YEARS.

    Think about where you were nine years ago. Where TTAC was. That was the last time the Colorado was remotely relevant. Now it’s remotely relevant again!

    • 0 avatar

      All 2013 calendar Colorado sales were left-over 2012 Colorados, while all Colorado sales in 2014 were more left-over 2012s and a few 2015 Colorados hitting showrooms.

      Except current Colorado/Canyon production is capped around 110K annual.

    • 0 avatar

      And think about the doom-and-gloom predicitons on TTAC for the Colorado, and the full size GM pickups…they suck…they will NEVER sell…blab blah blah…

      • 0 avatar

        Well, that goes back to Bertel, who declared that GM was channel stuffing building up GMT900 inventory, and it would take until 2015 to sell of these trucks no one wanted when the new Ram showed up, and how much better the current F-150 was.

        The Colorado/Canyon are too big, while at the same time too small, and over priced. The last inventory turn I saw on Colorado was less than 20 days – GM can’t build them fast enough and is noted above capacity constrained. Spend some time on Auto Trader and you’ll see most available inventory for Colorado/Canyon are equipped, not stripped.

        GM made mistakes on the GMT9xx rollout and it was slow, but clearly consumers have warmed up to the styling and packaging. What they got right was squeezing every drop of efficiency out of their drive trains – the power vs. displacement vs. MPG numbers of their V8 engines is pretty darn remarkable.

        The improvement in sales aren’t an aberration. What is interesting is GM did so well in a month where Ford’s inventory woes are gone and their sales numbers are back up to ‘normal’ levels.

        the marketshare take appears to be more from FCA and a thin sliver from Toyota (fullsizers)

        • 0 avatar

          Inventory woes aren’t gone. Retail inventory woes are basically gone, but fleet inventory woes are still a big deal.

          • 0 avatar

            Also, Ford didn’t build up enough inventory before the change over. Although Bertel was yelling about it, GM need those units to bridge the gap.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          I see a distinct difference in the situation that Ford finds itself with the new aluminium F-150 in comparison with GMs Colorado/Canyon.

          Judging by the rebates offered Ford is hitting a ceiling with the more popular upmarket pickups, hence the great incentives offered.

          GM hasn’t reached this point with the Colorado/Canyon.

          As you mentioned Ford isn’t in a poor inventory position with the aluminium F-150.

          This is evident by the incentives offered on particular F-150 models.

          I do think the F-150 numbers for July are a blip. How many were not sold and just sitting in car yards? Time will show us that Ford in July didn’t sell the numbers that were provided, especially if there is a dip in the aluminium F-150 numbers in August.

          • 0 avatar

            @BAFO – Around 10% Off most ’15 F-150 is hardly desperate times. Early adopters got theirs at full price and it’s getting to be business_as_usual. If F-150s were production capped, like Colorado/Canyons, then I could see Ford withholding any kind of meaningful rebates until Fall. And the Colorado/Canyons have very limited variation of colors, trim, packages, cabs, beds, etc. Most show up mid to hard loaded, take it or leave it. Completely different animals to fullsize.

  • avatar

    Colorado sales are even better than the numbers imply–they are flyig off the lots, how many day’s inventory do they have, TTAC?

    My question is, is it Ford’s capacity constraints or are people not so enamored of the aluminum, turbocharged F-series?

    My sense is Chrysler is capacity constrained..GM probably is too.

    For all the hoopla, the new Fords are only slightly lighter than the current GM trucks. The turbocharged engines may behave like V8s, but that is an expensive component–some (maybe several) will fail well before the engine does, and they will be expensive to fix.

    If the new Fords weighed 1000 lbs less than the current GM trucks, then consumers could realize meaningful fuel savings (vs NO fuel savings no), and they would be a hit.

    Over time, I see Colorado/Tacoma cannibalizing full-size truck sales

    • 0 avatar

      “Lighter weight” is not necessarily beneficial in a truck. Put a heavy camper on top of a light truck, and it gets top heavy. Tow a big trailer behind it, and the truck gets pushed around more. Hit heavy crosswind in a tall, large surfaced vehicle, and you want inertia and weight to remain bigger contributors to trajectory than unpredictable aero forces.

      Even if you rarely tow/haul much, as long as your manhood, or occasional/potential need, requires a vehicle with big ratings, an overly light truck ensures the difference between empty and max loaded gets very large, percentage wise. For safety reasons, the suspension has to be tuned to handle the latter case. Leaving ride, and possibly handling, in the light common use case, more compromised than if the truck was a bit heavier to begin with.

      If you want a lighter truck; the safe, conservative way to go about it, is buying a smaller truck. With smaller ratings. Colorado instead of Silverado. Not a larger one, where there maker have cashed in all his lightness gains for even higher max ratings. Some times, improved technology can render “safe and conservative” unnecessarily old fashioned, but certainly not always.

      • 0 avatar

        ““Lighter weight” is not necessarily beneficial in a truck. Put a heavy camper on top of a light truck, and it gets top heavy.”

        More top heavy than a the same truck with a heavy camper AND a heavy steel cab? CG is lower in this truck than the all steel version last year.

        “If you want a lighter truck; the safe, conservative way to go about it, is buying a smaller truck. With smaller ratings.”

        The absurd payload ratings are on the up engined trucks. The 2.7 is rated for a wholly reasonable 6500 GVWR (4WD crew cab). That’s 700 pounds less than the turbo V6 last year, 850 under the old V8.

        • 0 avatar

          “More top heavy than a the same truck with a heavy camper AND a heavy steel cab? CG is lower in this truck than the all steel version last year.”

          Assume a truck made of unobtanium, weighing all of 1 ounce, with the size and shape of a current half ton. No matter where the COG of the truck is, the COG of the tru/camper combo will be way up there. A bit of a contrived example, but even on planet real world, a half ton even with helper springs making it equally stiff as a heavier Diesel HD, will still feel more top heavy than the diesel, with the bigger campers on the back.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      I see it this way, Ford has only started improving numbers of the aluminium F-150 when decent incentives were put in place and priced competitively with the other main pickup manufacturers.

      From what I can see many believe the new aluminium F-150 is no better a vehicle than the “traditional” steel pickups and offers no real advantage, even FE. The promotion of more load and tow capability by Ford is quite meaningless except for a couple of percent of potential customers. As most who buy a full size 1/2 ton don’t use the capabilities offered by most pickups anyway.

      The aluminium F-150 is only slightly better, if at all than its competition, and more radical. This will definitely have an impact on vehicles sold.

      You will see a slight increase in aluminium F-150 numbers as I would bet many sold in July were to the people waiting for the price to fall on the new aluminium pickups.

      • 0 avatar

        Sounds about right to me, and also goes some way towards explaining why, while Ford may not sell as many of the new alu trucks, the ones they do sell, tend tom be of the higher priced variety.

        One way where lighter alu construction is a definite benefit, that may become more important to customers in the near future, is that it allows for stronger structures up high, without as much adverse impact on COG/rollover-risk. Pickups in general, aren’t the strongest at resisting being crushed if they roll, and alu should allow fro a stronger rood and roof pillars, for any given weight budget.

  • avatar

    After the bankruptcy, I figured the General would limp along for a while and the slide into oblivion would continue. They’ve done much better than I expected, despite monster negative pub over the ignition switch fiasco.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • EBFlex: Please show us a Hellcat powered Peugeot
  • EBFlex: He sure did…
  • dal20402: He’s not wrong that it’s a big shakeup and some current players will likely find themselves...
  • EBFlex: Well………yeah. Who doesn’t know that? It’s so plainly obvious. Manufacturers...
  • dal20402: If they would have a real hybrid version, ideally a plug-in, with the NA V6 and two of the 190 hp electric...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber