By on July 22, 2016

Isuzu D-Max

Update: Automotive News is reporting General Motors is now focusing “on the higher end of the market while the Japanese firm sticks to selling vehicles for everyday commercial purposes,” strongly hinting that GM is the one that broke off the collaboration. We’ve added detail below.

After announcing a new bromance with Mazda just over a week ago, Isuzu is calling it quits with its old beau General Motors.

(Or maybe GM caught Isuzu cheating behind its back. Who knows? The relationship dynamics at play between automakers are difficult to flesh out.)

Regardless, midsize trucks — badged as both Isuzus and Chevrolets — will be no more in the Land of Smiles. The duo, which has a truck plant each in Thailand, will decouple their R&D efforts as they move toward engineering new global midsize pickups.

As part of the previous announcement, Mazda ended one of its last ties with former parent Ford. The Japanese company will instead work with Isuzu on its next BT pickup, which will become a rebadged version of the Isuzu D-Max. Since Isuzu now has a new willing partner in Mazda, the automaker that once gave GM all its LUV is parting ways with Detroit in the global pickup segment after more than a decade working together. The current Isuzu D-Max provides the basis for the global Chevrolet Colorado, which is structurally different from the one Chevrolet sells in North America.

“After detailed discussions with GM, we have agreed that we will continue pickup truck development on our own,” Isuzu said in statement, reported by Automotive News.

“Both GM and Isuzu agree that due to unique requirements for each company, joint development of the next-generation midsize pickup truck for GMI markets is no longer the optimal model for this project,” GM said in today’s statement.

From AN:

One GM executive said the “unique requirements” for GM are about the strategic shift it began making last year in Southeast Asia where it is now trying to focus more on competing in the higher end of the region’s truck and SUV markets.

Despite the obvious benefits of collaborating on development such as sharing costs, the executive, who declined to be named because he is not authorized to discuss the move, said that GM had decided not to try to copy its Japanese rivals in Southeast Asia where brands like Isuzu, Toyota Motor Corp. and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. dominate.

“It doesn’t make sense for us trying to copy the business strategy of the Japanese rivals in Southeast Asia,” the executive said.

Domestically, Isuzu and GM announced they’d be working together to launch GM back into the medium-duty market with a new line of cabover trucks. Six new models will be available in the U.S. – Chevrolet 3500, 3500HD, 4500, 4500HD, 5500 and 5500 HD – all based on the Isuzu N-Series.

The change in Japan’s pickup strategy leaves GM and Ford to fend on their own outside of North America — unless they can figure out a way to work together.

[Image: Isuzu]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

81 Comments on “Isuzu to GM: ‘It’s Been Grand, But I’m Dating Someone Else Now’ [UPDATE]...”


  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    Whose fault is the current Canyonero? If it is Isuzu’s, then good for GM.

    • 0 avatar

      Read the article and try again.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “Whose fault is the current Canyonero?”

      It’s GM’s fault. They can’t get it out of their minds that Bigger is supposedly Better even when people make it VERY clear that smaller is where it’s at. The average length of most SUV/CUVs is around 15 feet, some as low as 12 feet and some as long as 17 feet (not counting those BoF models using full-sized pickup chassis.) My old Ranger is roughly 17 feet long and is an ideal length, width and height for the kind of driving I do, though I would gladly sacrifice 18″ of bed to have the extended cab. I would NOT sacrifice more of the bed than that for a full back seat I will never use.

      Personally, I’d like to see Isuzu/Mazda bring in a smaller truck than the current round of mid-sizers.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Fact is the Canyero was never intended for NA so it was sized for what sells in outside of NA and I’m sure that Isuzu had as much to do with setting the dimensions as GM did. Yes the Canyero is NA specific and GM had to do a lot of work to make it acceptable in our market but they could only afford to differ from the global truck so far and they certainly couldn’t afford to make it smaller because that would have required too many unique parts that would kill profitability.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Scoutdude,
          From the outset the Colorado was for the US market in mind as well.

          You’ll find most any vehicle other than a full size pickup/SUV designed has the global market in mind, including the US.

          This makes vehicle design more challenging.

          What occurred, GM designed it on a budget and ran out of money and needed to be kept alive by the US taxpayer.

          The same occurred with the global Ranger which was initially touted for the US market, except Ford were the ones who didn’t want any competition against the newer aluminium F-150 to ensure it is as successful as possible.

          As an aside I do like the front end sheet metal on the US Colorado (and its grille), not so much the global Colorado. The Izuzu is also a good looking pickup in real life.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            No the Canyado was not originally designed for the NA market which is why they had to do such an extensive redesign so it would meet US standards.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Scoutdude,
            That is why the Pickups might have similar bodies,but structurally different. Ford has a video of 1100kg(2,400lb) being dropped into the back of a Ranger from 10ft, up ,equivalent to roughly 4,000lb in the bed No way a Midsize or a 1/2 Ton are going to take that type of load.
            Go to South America or Asia,then you can see that happening a lot.
            Midsizers in NA are Lifestyle vehicles,not designed to be work vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “Payload” comparisons are just lame. You’ve got zero equivalents to the DOT/SAE standards in Oz/Africa/SE Asia. Marketing arms are free to embellish all the want in your part of the world.

            Do you want me to pull up the article where Oz journalist testing Ute pickup’s payloads were frightened after driving the loaded pickups?

            Here it is anyway.

            caradvice.com.au/388419/ute-comparison-ford-ranger-v-holden-colorado-v-isuzu-d-max-v-mazda-bt-50-v-mitsubishi-triton-v-nissan-navara-v-toyota-hilux-v-volkswagen-amarok-2/

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        How many people made it clear that “smaller is where it’s at”? And how does this number compare to, say, all the continued and repeat Tacoma and Frontier buyers, as well as the new Canyon/Colorado buyers?

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          If Vulpine makes a statement at least three times, then he has “proven” that it must be true. That’s the case even if there is zero evidence to support it.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Either, really.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          “…How many people made it clear…?”

          Counting the voices in his head??

          Vulpine, what you don’t realize is pickups were “compact” because they had to be. Then in ’91 they were included in the CAFE exemption known as “Trucks”, along with minivans, SUVs, and guess what happened next?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            DenverMike,
            Here’s some insight.

            The minitrucks, up until the release of the US designed D20 were built to Japanese vehicle class sizes.

            A minitruck was built to 1.7m width and 5.5m in length. This was the largest a Japanese large vehicle could be under their classification system. Also, engine size for a Japanese large vehicle was limited to 2 litres.

            This is why Australia didn’t not receive any Japanese ute with an engine larger than 2 litres until 1986.

            The same as the US didn’t recieve any engine in a Japanese minitruck until 1982(?). This was when the chicken tax was tightened and mini truck production was forced into the US with the rise in price of mini trucks rising by around 25% due to the implementation of the tax. Odd that bit.

            Mini truck size has nothing to do with the US per say.

            Also, minitrucks and midsizers are classified as “small trucks” by the US EPA, not compact trucks. They have never existed in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Japanese pickups were originally shipped without a bed for the cab/n/chassis loophole, which ended in 1979. That’s the only change in the Chicken tax in the ’80s, except for the BRAT’s “bed/seat loophole” ending.

            No, Japanese mini-trucks were not forced to build in the US/NAFTA. The Mitsu Mighty Max never was made in the US/NAFTA and it held on ’til ’96.

            There was steep inflation at the height of the Mini-Truck Craze, around ’84, if that’s what you’re referring to, so all prices were dramatically increasing. Except “import” pickups still managed to undercut the domestic mini-trucks, by up to 25%!!

            thepeoplehistory.com/80scars.html

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            DeverMike,
            The US couldn’t compete with Japan in both cars and light trucks during the period we are discussing. The outcome were poor trade deals that cost the consumer to pay more for vehicles. This is evident to this day with the virtual lockout of light commercials affect by the chicken tax.

            The UAW and US auto manufacturers lobbied their asses off to Washington to do something.

            Here is the story as to why Japanese vehicles cost more during that period.

            Cut and paste;

            “In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to limit exports of passenger cars to the United States. This “voluntary export restraint” (VER) program, initially supported by the Reagan administration, allowed only 1.68 million Japanese cars into the U.S. each year. The cap was raised to 1.85 million cars in 1984, and to 2.30 million in 1985, before the program was terminated in 1994.”

            From the same article, link below;

            “By limiting the supply of cars from Japan, the export restraints raised the prices of Japanese cars. This increased car sales by U.S. firms, thereby hiking their profits. All of this came chiefly at the expense of American auto consumers”

            http://www.perc.org/articles/voluntary-export-restraints-automobiles

            …………………………………………………………………..

            This is from the CATO Institute regarding the chicken tax or as they term it “The Big 3s Shameful Secret”.

            Cut and pastes;

            “Americans love pickup trucks. They are rugged and utilitarian, like the American pioneer. They serve our inclination toward industriousness. Pickups embody the American spirit.

            But the “Big Three” harbor a shameful secret. The industry is not as tough as the “like a rock” image it projects. Behind the façade, the industry fears foreign competition.”

            more;

            “At 25 percent, the import tariff is virtually prohibitive. In 2001, fewer than 7,000 pickups were imported from outside North America.”

            and more;

            “Without imports, supply is smaller, choices are fewer, and domestic producers are the only game in town. It’s a veritable sellers’ market, sanctioned under official U.S. policy. And truck buyers — if you’ll pardon the pun — carry the load.

            and more;

            “More importantly, the truck tariff weakens the U.S. bargaining position by undermining the credibility of U.S. trade policy. Maintaining a tariff of 25 percent — almost 10 times the average U.S. tariff — at the behest of a powerful domestic interest reeks of hypocrisy.

            U.S. policymakers have advocated open trade and have urged our partners to remain steadfast in the face of their own domestic protectionist pressures. The tariff is jarringly inconsistent with that rhetoric and is unfair to America’s pioneering truck buyers.”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s all BS meant to slander, bought up by those that don’t know any better, hook/line/sinker. By now, I know you know better.

            Consumers had to pay more for import cars, not trucks. Except their “prices” didn’t go up, aside from inflation. Japanese auto makers made the base strippers a little harder to get, while loading up their cars with extra options. So cheapskates got bumped to the back of the line.

            But then Acura, Infiniti and Lexus were invented to counter act the restraints, along with tarted up 929s, and a host of sports/sporty compact cars, and turbos left and right. A turbo Toyota pickup too. US consumer didn’t have to step up to these, but happened to love them.

            Despite what they cry about, you cry about, there is no “competition” for US, Big Three, fullsize pickups. You can’t name a single one that directly competes. Not from Japan, Thailand, India, Turkey, China, Tijuana, Bavaria, etc. Myself and others have asked you repeatedly for examples, and you scamper off every time.

            It’s just so darn silly! If any auto makers would suffer from the Chicken tax being lifted, it would be Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Subaru, VW, Hyundai, Kia, etc, long before any of the Big Three. Or do you really *think* these brands aren’t lobbying for the Chicken tax to stay?

            The import pickups of ’80s Mini-Truck Craze had no problem escaping and sidestepping the Chicken tax. Americans jumped all over these for their cut-rate pricing, and made up the difference in any losses experienced by the Japanese automakers due to “restraints” on cars. There were no restraints on pickup imports so they built them by the millions.

            So the mini-truck fad ends, consumers move on, and snivelers have to say the current lack of small truck choices are due to the Chicken tax. The Mini-Truck Craze was the perfect storm. Americans don’t normally like smaller pickups that much, nor smaller *anything*.

            And the prices asked for midsize pickups is far from cut-rate. They’d have to lure consumers out of their comfy cars and CUVs in a big way. That’s not not going to happen in a big way. Midsize pickup trucks suck when it comes to seating comfort, ride quality, etc. It’s a different world/market now.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          How many people were buying the smaller Taco before the current Colorado came out? Why is the Taco still selling better than the Colorado? Why is Hyundai preparing to market the Santa Cruz, which is a full two-to three feet shorter than the Colorado? Why are the other brands looking at something smaller than the Colorado (which may even include Ford?) Why are so many people hanging on to old S-10, Ranger, Taco, etc. compact/midsize trucks? (Funny that. I never realized just how many of the older Rangers are still on the road until I got one myself and now see them nearly every time I go out… and not always the same ones.)

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Vulpine,
            Appears Hyundai has a had major change of heart, as result of pleading from their dealers outside NA. They are dropping the NA suggested mini Pickup and going for the much larger” 1 Tonne” Global Model. Earliest date 2020

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Proof?

            Just ’cause you said it don’t make it so, you know.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            “Why are so many people hanging on to old S-10, Ranger, Taco, etc. compact/midsize trucks?”

            Dey po’?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I saw a Ranger, therefore everyone must love them, is not much of an argument. The only point that you have proven is that your logical reasoning is lacking.

          • 0 avatar
            indi500fan

            Re: Old S10 popularity

            I have a 99 with 150,000 miles.

            While it’s not the most reliable vehicle, parts are really cheap and available.

            High numbers in Pick-a-Part stock of pickups and SUVs (Chev/GMC/Olds/Buick). New and re-man stuff everywhere also. Basic platform ran for two decades at high volume.

            Pretty easy to work on.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Why are so many people hanging on to old S-10, Ranger, Taco, etc. compact/midsize trucks? ”

            because they still work?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Thumbs up, JimZ. We may not agree on everything, but I’ll agree with this.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Vulpine
            Many articles,including one on this site.
            “S. customers await the unannounced Santa Cruz-like sort-of ute they’ve been promised for some time, Australia is getting traction from Hyundai on a genuine midsize pickup.

            Following much lobbying from down under, Hyundai Australia’s chief operating officer Scott Grant told Car Advice that company brass in South Korea are slowly coming into agreement on the need for a bona fide pickup, but fans will have to be patient.

            “It’s been advanced as we understand it,” Grant told the publication. “We’ve got a planning horizon in place where they’re looking at the vehicle quite seriously, but there is yet to be a commitment to produce.”

            Because of the automaker’s global plans, any Hyundai-badged pickup given the green light won’t appear before 2020.

            Grant wasn’t talking about the Santa Cruz concept, which bowed in early 2015 and was focused mainly on the U.S. market. That vehicle — a youth-oriented four-seat unibody runabout with an abbreviated cargo bed — has been rumored for production since last year, though Hyundai hasn’t said when it will appear, or what form it will take.

            No, the executive meant a real pickup that intends to play with the big midsize boys.”

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “No, the executive meant a real pickup that intends to play with the big midsize boys.”

            That’s the part I don’t like. Meanwhile, all the data I can find indicates a reveal of the Santa Cruz either later this year or early next year with rumors (questionable) saying it’s already in production to build inventory.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Vulpine – please post the dimensional differences between the Colorado and Canyon.

            I personally do not view one being significantly bigger than the other. The Tacoma felt roomier in the back for some reason but the Colorado definitely is nicer in the front.

            The Tacoma sells more because it is the Tacoma made by Toyota.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I said nothing about dimensional differences between the Colorado and the Canyon. I have posted about dimensional differences between the New Colorado and the Global Colorado (which were well published while the American version was in the engineering and road-test stage) and the older mid-sized trucks like my ’97 Ranger.

            I gave the new Tacoma the once-over and yes, it is visibly and measurably larger than the old Taco, but Toyota continues to crowd the driver too much under the wheel to where a six-foot woman can’t manipulate the pedals without the wheel itself rubbing her thighs. Letting the drivers seat go back another couple of notches would be a huge help. That could also explain why the Tacoma felt roomier in the back.

            Appearance wise, I give the Colorado a thumbs up as it’s at least gotten rid of that fake ‘big-rig’ grill which currently rides on all the other trucks. I promise you, if I ended up buying any full-sized truck (and the other “mid-sizers”) I would be taking it down to get that grill skinned to minimize its apparent bulk as much as possible. Covering that acreage of chrome would be the first step.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    “engineering new global midsize pickups”

    Meaning smaller pickups for countries with lax/nonexistent crash safety standards that could never be sold in the States so GM is reluctant to invest?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Kenmore,
      I think you and ToddAtlas should have a conversation.

      I didn’t read any comment in the article suggesting a smaller less safe pickup.

      Don’t forget whilst the US pickups only cottoned onto safe pickups the Euro and Japanese pickups have been quite safe. I don’t think there is any Japanese pickup that is less than 5 Stars for its safety rating.

      Also, smaller?? The Hilux and Nissan Navara are the same size as the Ranger and Colorado. Hmmmm ……??

      You have an unusual way for analysis. Start basing your outcomes on real infromation would be a good start.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “You have an unusual way for analysis. Start basing your outcomes on real infromation would be a good start.”

        I’d reply to that but I don’t want to violate a ton of blog etiquette rules.

        It all starts with “real infromation “.

        That typo says it all.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        My google-fu of the NHTSA site says this is incorrect. The only trucks scoring overall 5 stars were the F150 and The Sierra/Silverado. The IIHS bears this out with the F150 being the top pick. Ain’t 2016 grand. We have this whole google thing that allows us to quickly slice through the ascertains of purveyors of crap info such as yourself.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Don’t forget, Ford got caught out last year by having only one VERSION of the F-150 getting that 5-star rating; the company conveniently left certain braces out of the untested models.
          Not saying they can do it now, only that the IIHS and NHTSA ratings aren’t always as accurate as people want to believe.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Would not be very happy with only a two rating out of 5, if I was a consumer. Somehow US Pickups have not progressed much since 2003, when the F150 rated as well as a Bongo Mazda Van…. terrible

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          from Murica,
          ……………….. yes, so?

          Did anyone state otherwise what you were chasing on Google? ………… nope.

          Re-read my statement.

          Thank you for your time looking up to tell me in 2016 that there are 2 five star safety rated 1/2 ton pickups. Bravo.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    “The change in Japan’s pickup strategy leaves GM and Ford to fend on their own outside of North America — unless they can figure out a way to work together.”

    you make it sound as though GM and Ford “needed help” from Japan. I’d wager it was vice-versa, Mazda and Isuzu wanted a mid-size pickup but didn’t want to spend the money developing their own.

    • 0 avatar
      Adam Tonge

      With Mazda, I’d say that was the case. With Isuzu, I don’t know. Considering that they are building a pickup with Mazda and build a bunch of commercial vehicles, I’d bet that they bring a lot of knowledge to the table.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Adam,
        Mazda needs to partner up as does all of the Japanese manufacturers. Mitsubishi will stop working with Nissan in building pickups as well.

        The only loner is Toyota.

        I think have Mazda designed the chassis and suspension, let Izuzu design the engine and drive train.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @Adam,
        Correct about Isuzu, they wanted to break from GM in doing compromise ” MidSize Pickups” and we’re more interested in the extremely profitable ” 1 Tonne” Global segment.
        ” GM MDT’s” are basically rebadged light duty Isuzu’s for the US market.

        • 0 avatar
          Adam Tonge

          Right. GM got rid of that in-house business. They got complacent and never spend money on the truck and bus division.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Adam,
            Going by the mediocre performance of anything that is not US Pickup based,then they are saving a lot of money elsewhere

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          No Robert, they’re too big for that. They’re bigger than the Isuzu model, even if they do have less load capacity. They’re family cars with a back porch any more, not working trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            So that 6000 or so pounds currently hooked up behind my “family car with a porch” ain’t working?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Which silly model did you buy? The Raptor? The EcoDiesel? Or did you buy a SuperDuty or some such? Remember, not everybody buys the most expensive model and it seems as you upgrade the trim level, you downgrade the capabilities.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Vulpine,
            MDT Isuzu’s ot the DMax ?it is the same size as the.Colorado

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            New Colorado or old Colorado. IIRC, there is a very definite size difference between the Isuzu/global Colorado as compared to the US Colorado.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Vulpine,
            I do not think so. Current Global Colorado, is as big as a 2003 F150.
            Current F150’s are not really huge. Global Colorado is not a that small

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Vulpine,
            Holden Colorado( current model) towing a 25ft small 5th Wheeler.
            http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/RobRyan7/image_zpsh7tooniv.jpeg

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Please note that the Holden Colorado looks nothing like the new American Chevy Colorado. There doean’t appear to be any point of commonality between them, based on the photo you sent. I won’t comment on their comparative size as I have no real frame of reference in that photo for comparison. Have to admit I do like that caravan, though, a lot more streamlined than most American models.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        @Adam, exactly. The T6 Ranger is pretty much all Ford, Mazda just gave it a new face and name.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          John Taurus,
          I do believe Mazda did provide over 300 engineers in Australia for the design of the T6 Ranger/BT50 program.

          A Ford engineer lead the team.

          It isn’t quite as you think. Believe it or not Mazda did design trucks and manufacturer trucks and commercial vehicles in the past. So, Mazda does have the specialist skills required.

          The same for the Colorado. Izuzu had significant input as well.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          John,
          A Ford Trader badged Mazda truck/s;

          Also the new Mazda Titans (name used since the early 70s, long before Nissan) are Izuzu N Series. This relationship between Izuzu and Mazda has been around for a number of years now.

          Ford;

          http://usedtruck.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/1996-Ford-Trader-for-Sale.jpg

          Mazda Titan; Old Titan,

          http://static.shop033.com/UserFiles/6846-Files/image/LOGOS/MADA%20T.jpg

          New Titan,

          http://ckvehicleimports.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2000-2010-Mazda-Titan-tray-truck-2.jpg

        • 0 avatar
          Guitar man

          . The T6 Ranger is pretty much all Ford, Mazda just gave it a new face and name.

          Nope, the 2.2L engine is a Mazda engine, which Ford calls “Duramax” and makes under licence.

          • 0 avatar
            Guitar man

            “Please note that the Holden Colorado looks nothing like the new American Chevy Colorado. There doean’t appear to be any point of commonality between them, based on the photo you sent.”

            The “Global Colorado” was designed in USA and is identical except for a few plastic mouldings to the US model. The only difference is the US model is available with a long wheelbase version.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “The “Global Colorado” was designed in USA and is identical except for a few plastic mouldings to the US model. The only difference is the US model is available with a long wheelbase version.”

            False. While the new Colorado is longer as you say, you ignore the fact that it is both wider and taller as well. As was stated earlier, the new Global Colorado is the same size as the OLD American Colorado.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I would much rather have a useful compact truck that is comfortable, than a comfortable mid-sized truck with limited usability. The current American Colorado can meet my needs, but it is really too large for my comfort level; I’ve always hated driving vehicles that are too wide for narrow urban and rural roads and too long for easy parking in both pull-in and parallel spots. It needs to be able to get out of its own way in traffic but it doesn’t need to be a race-truck either. It needs to be comfortable, but that doesn’t mean I need Cadillac, Mercedes or Lincoln-level luxury either. It seems nobody any more really understands what mid-scale, mid-sized and mid-performance really means.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      “It seems nobody any more really understands what mid-scale, mid-sized and mid-performance really means.”

      I think that means “go live somewhere else”. But then you might have to actually buy something. So maybe that “This is the best of all possible worlds.” thing isn’t so wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      I would kill for an updated 97-04 Dakota with a 3.6 and 8 speed. R/T with 5.7L and 8 speed. The best part was that my Dakota fit in the garage, a 1500 Ram would not.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Vulpine,
      Buy a Transit Connect things sized van. That should suit your needs.

      When required to move those plastic BBQ chairs, buy a small utility trailer to tow behind your Transit or even Fiat/Ram Doblo Van thing. How about a small Nissan van?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “It seems nobody any more really understands what mid-scale, mid-sized and mid-performance really means.”

      They understand that almost no one wants that, at least in profitable volumes.

  • avatar
    alexndr333

    Sounds like GM decided that Izusu was a low-end brand that no longer fit GM’s business model – which now includes focusing on making decent profits (imagine!) Since its mid-size trucks are selling well as Chevies and GMC’s, no need to dilute the series with Isuzu models.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Other way around,GM very much wants Isuzu’s ” Medium Trucks”

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        RobertRyan – people do not realize that companies like Isuzu or Toyota make commercial class 4 – 8 trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Lou_BC
          I know Pretty stunned by that. I heard people in the US,refer to the Mitsubishi Canter as the ” Mitsubishi Fuso” . Outside NA that refers to the whole Truck range, which includes Class 8 trucks. Actual MDT Truck is called the Mitsubishi Fighter,not a name that would be popular in NA

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Build a single model in the NAFTA zone and Brazil, export the rest.

    I haven’t seen model-level sales figures aside from the US, Canada and Australia (Holden). But brand-level Chevrolet sales figures are available for markets outside of North America, and those would suggest that these trucks are not a hot seller. There is not much point in having two versions of the same thing.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Isuzu will have to come up with a gas V-6 and/or an emissions-compliant diesel for North America and depend on Mazda to sell it for them here and in Canada since they closed up the non-medium truck dealers here/there.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      They will be basically changing the badge and adding a GM Gas engine,what they did before. Isuzu provides the truck in knock down form to GM and they assemble them in the US or Canada.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’s just more irrational behavior by GM not using their fullsize pickup platform as cab/n/chassis 4500/5500HDs and 4500HD pickups. Note, fleet owners want to say with one brand, one platform for all their trucks, perhaps 1500 on up.

    When fleets trusts their 2500HD pickups, not just the drivetrain’s reliability, but cab electronics, AC, right down to power windows, heated/cooled power seats, etc., the upgrade to medium-duty class GMs would be a natural step.

    It doesn’t hurt to have Lariat trim levels available or equivalent. For some, they just want a medium duty that’s similar to driving their HD pickup, except for the rock-hard suspension.

    Of course it wouldn’t hurt to have the insane availability of GM parts, new or used, with cab and body parts interchanging with pickups. Plus the accessories aftermarket that caters to pickups, would be for your medium duty too.

    Not that it wouldn’t be a good idea to sell badge engineered, Isuzu COEs selling next to pickup GM based medium-dutys, as the *alternative* Ford and Ram don’t offer.

    Except I’ve had to drive COE trucks, UDs mostly, and they’re not my favorite. Given a choice, no stinkin’ way. Give me a conventional and pickup-based truck if possible.

  • avatar
    jimbob457

    It had to happen eventually. The chicken tax has finally turned and bit GM. They no longer seem to comprehend the small sized ute market.

    Now with no small sized utes available in their portfolio, they appear to see only giant NA style utes as their solution. It may work for awhile. Granted, fracking and $50 oil will help.

    I still don’t see GM shares as buy and hold.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      so what are the Colorado and Canyon, then? they’re damn near the exact same size as the Ranger.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        New Ranger or old Ranger? I can promise you the new Colorado is very much bigger than my ’97 Ranger. Just look at them side by side and it’s taller and wider, not to mention longer but I’m willing to give that a bit of a pass since mine is a standard cab with 6′ bed which would exaggerate the differences.

        If I had no other choice in size that can still seat my 6′ wife comfortably (without crowding her under the wheel) then I may be forced to go Colorado as it’s the best looking (for now) of the American pickups. But I would much rather have something more compact and easier to maneuver.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I would say that the Isuzu and Mitsubishi COE trucks must work for many businesses or they would not buy them. I do not think having a long hood would work as well for delivery trucks in urban areas with tighter parking. If these trucks did not serve a purpose then no one would buy them.

    As for midsize versus compact trucks Government standards have basically made a true compact truck a harder sell for the manufacturers. A smaller truck would be subject to the same efficiency standards as a compact car which while not being fair it is what it is. The current midsize trucks are not subject to as strict a standards. At the present time a compromise to a midsize truck is more doable than a full size half ton truck for those wanting a smaller truck. If in the future a full size half ton is reduced slightly in size then a midsize truck will no longer be viable. It is possible to reduce the length of full size pickups if these trucks are made of lighter materials and if most have smaller engines.

  • avatar
    Guitar man

    “Regardless, midsize trucks — badged as both Isuzus and Chevrolets — will be no more in the Land of Smiles. The duo, which has a truck plant each in Thailand, will decouple their R&D efforts as they move toward engineering new global midsize pickups.”

    ? Nope. Both GM and Isuzu will continue to build and sell pick ups in Thailand.

    “The current Isuzu D-Max provides the basis for the global Chevrolet Colorado”

    Wrong again.
    The bodyshell of the D-Max was designed by GM at their Buena Vista studios, and it is in fact the _previous_ model Colorado.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • redapple: Hatch struts still work? W T Fudge? My sawed off broomstick handle was always in the back.
  • kosmo: “How’s that Ranger Raptor coming, Ford? Oh, it isn’t? I see. Thanks for the mobility scooter,...
  • dividebytube: When I’m down south I’m taken aback by the number of decent looking old trucks and even G...
  • redapple: RED…. Great catch. Love it.
  • teddyc73: What an ugly rear end.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

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

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