Karl on Cars - Talk Back Tuesday: Market Void Alert! -- Small Trucks

Talk Back Tuesday: Market Void Alert! -- Small Trucks

Last Friday's blog entry discussed the crash-and-burn status of large truck and SUV sales. Basically, if it's big and it's truck-based, it ain't sellin' (with rare exception). At the same time, Ford's archaic Ranger is up for the year, and anecdotel evidence suggests new and used Rangers, along with older Toyota and Nissan compact trucks, are quite popular with truck buyers in 2008.

This is basically a repeat of what happned with American cars in the 1970s. For decades they'd grown larger and larger, then a fuel crisis hit and everyone (car buyers and car makers) stopped, took a critical look at the size of their vehicles, and basically said, "What the #@&* are we doing?! Nobody actually needs vehicles this big, we're just caught up in a 'Size Arms Race' with the rest of the industry. Now our vehicles are just stupid-big -- and they guzzle a lot of gas!"

This epiphany had every carmaker immediately downsizing their offerings as a result, and while cars have grown in recent years we've still never approached the behemoths being sold in 1974.

I would suggest that SUVs and, particularly, trucks have reached the same point. They've been unnecessarily large for years, but the latest gas-price spike has forced everyone (car buyers and car makers) to re-examine their actions. The shift to smaller SUVs and CUVs is obvious, but with open-bed trucks the answer isn't as readily apparent. If you don't really need a full-size truck you can buy a "compact" Dakota, Tacoma, or Frontier, but those trucks aren't really compact either. They're only small in comparison to the monstrous full-sizers on the market. Only the Ford Ranger is truly compact, and that's just because it hails from a time when compact trucks were actually small.

The continued popularity of the Ford Ranger (remember, sales are up so far this year) suggests it's time for a shift in "mine is bigger than yours" thinking by American truck sellers. When Dodge showed off the M80 concept truck at the 2002 Detroit Auto Show I remember thinking, "Here's a vehicle whose time has come. A cool-looking, truly compact truck could give Dodge a corner on that market -- a market currently held by the tired Ford Ranger."

But Dodge dropped the ball by dropping production plans on the M80, and instead gave us an even larger Dakota that lost its long-standing edge over the Tacoma and Frontier with cheap interior panels and compromised ride/handling traits, plus a V8 that didn't perform any better than the Japanese 6s -- but required more fuel. Oops.

I'm not sure what it would take to revive the M80, and I'm not sure when (or even if) Ford will redesign the Ranger, but there's a market out there waiting for a fuel-efficient, easy-to-drive, easy-to-park small truck (and no, the Honda Ridgeline doesn't count -- it's still too big; and the Subaru Baja was simply too weird).

At least that's my take on how a 20-plus year-old vehicle can still make sales gains. Am I the only one who would like to see a new batch of truly compact trucks?

Posted by Karl Apr 8, 2008 6:00 am

Permalink

Categories: Dodge | Talk Back Tuesday | Auto Shows | Future Vehicles

Comments

george2040 - Apr 8, 2008 6:35 pm (#31 Total: 50)

I'd love to see more efficient packaging applied to light duty hauling applications. Too bad the 45 year old "Chicken Tax" tariff on imported pickups keeps the car based open box vehicles of other countries out of the US market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickup_truck
Full-size and mid-size body on frame pickups make great tow vehicles, but they're overkill for weekend trips to Home Depot. Would be nice to have less massive alternatives.

Karl, how does GM plan to get the Pontiac G8 Sport Truck past the 25% tax on imported pickups?

firstwagon - Apr 8, 2008 6:53 pm (#32 Total: 50)

Why don't you get rid of this "chicken tax"? I can't see what purpose it serves.

rick8365 - Apr 8, 2008 7:34 pm (#33 Total: 50)

Moparbad - I forgot about the JT....good call, nice ride.

blackadder5639 - Apr 8, 2008 8:06 pm (#34 Total: 50)

rsholland, I'm against pickups having independent suspensions and car platforms. IMO, a pickup should always be tough and ready for the job.....and comfort is a secondary issue. Independent suspensions wouldn't make pickups robust enough as farm workhorses....so beam axles are the way to go!
(My dad's 1982 Datsun Pickup was reasonably comfortable., but had beam/live axles and a leaf suspension, at least at the rear. Anyone who thinks such a pickup would be uncomfortable should really be driving a Mercedes.....)

I would also prefer the real 4WD systems with a proper transfer-case, and not an Evo-style AWD system.

Pickups work best when they are simple. I think a pickup like the Mazda BT series is what is needed for the compact truck market, and not a G8-style pickup with little use. I doubt the G8-pickup can frequently carry 10 bags of cement without getting damaged. The BT-50 is basic but modern and nicely styled. Check it out: http://www.mazda.co.za/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1137386308717&pagename=Page&site=MSA&c=DFYPage.

aspade - Apr 8, 2008 8:07 pm (#35 Total: 50)

Suspension for a one ton payload means a beat your kidneys out ride when it's unloaded.

As already pointed out, these gargantuan vehicles are the result of the crash test requirements. Demanding to walk away from a 40 mph crash into a brick wall leads to cars that will let you walk away from a 40 mph crash into a brick wall.. at the expense of the qualities that make them well suited as, well, cars.

And meeting CAFE while carrying a 1500 lb crumple frame around you every foot of the way means tightening belts on the rest of the vehicle - onion skin body panels that dent if you lean on them, plastic interiors, aerodynamic plastic shell fascias that break going through a drift of snow, etc.

Not calling for a return to the impaled on the steering column days, but there's a sensible middle ground somewhere over the horizon behind us.

bbechtel16 - Apr 9, 2008 5:54 am (#36 Total: 50)

^ +1!

rsholland - Apr 9, 2008 6:59 am (#37 Total: 50)

Ellicott City MD United States of America

blackadder5639

IRS not robust enough for farm use? Balderdash! Many Oshkosh trucks, which are some of the toughest trucks in the world, use IRS.

http://www.oshkoshtruck.com/pdf/Oshkosh_MTVR_brochure_07.pdf

Properly designed, IRS is the way to go.

firstwagon - Apr 9, 2008 8:21 am (#38 Total: 50)

"Many Oshkosh trucks, which are some of the toughest trucks in the world, use IRS."

Are you serious? Did you look at that link?

We're talking light affordable trucks here. Those things are high dollar, heavy weights.

Can you make a tough IRS? Sure.

Can you make it light, cheap, durable and still able to carry a heavy load? Nope.

My 2wd Ram 50 rode and handled fine, I see no advantage to a more expensive, less capable and less durable suspension.

Remember, we're talking light trucks here, not sports cars.

rsholland - Apr 9, 2008 9:18 am (#39 Total: 50)

Ellicott City MD United States of America

Firstwagon

My point was to prove that IRS can handle heavy loads if designed properly.

Those who claim IRS won't work on trucks are the same people who said IFS won't work on trucks. Well, we now know that's not true. I'm already reading complaints from old-school truckers about how the 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 with coil rear springs won't work. Wrong. Again. I fully expect to see an affordable IRS on pickups in the not too distant future.

Heck the Ridgeline, with a GVW of 6000 pounds, and a payload of of just under 1600 pounds. If they made a regular cab version of the Ridgeline I bet it would have a payload of of around 1800 pounds because of the lighter curb weight.

As a point of reference, I used to have a 1986 Ford F-150 4x4 with an 8' bed. It had a GVW of 6200 pounds and a payload of 2200 pounds. That's not far off from the Ridgeline in terms of GVW.

It wouldn't take much for Ford or Nissan or Toyota to adapt the IRS from their full-size SUVs and put it on their 1/2-ton pickups. It's not a matter of "can it be done and priced reasonably," but more matter of "selling the idea" to pickup owners.

johno5 - Apr 9, 2008 10:15 am (#40 Total: 50)

rsholland,

Edmunds own experience with the durability of the Honda Ridgelines IRS isn't going to help "sell the idea" to pickup owners. Read thier wrap-up of the long term Ridgeline.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=105797

blackadder5639 - Apr 9, 2008 10:18 am (#41 Total: 50)

rsholland, I think Firstwagon has already made the comments I wanted to make.

Your Ridgeline may have a GVW of 6000 pounds, but it will not last 5 years if used for serious farm or construction work, whereas that 1986 Ford F-150 would probably do 15 years under those harsh conditions.

About IRS, I remember that Land Rover had to resort to complex (and often unreliable) electronics in order to make their IRS have some of the virtues of beam/live axles. Like Firstwagon said, you just can't make pickup with IRS light, cheap, durable and still able to carry a heavy load. Have you checked Discovery/LR3 and Range Rover prices lately?

It's a fact: IRS is not as robust as live/beam axles. If it were, heavy trucks and F-350s would be using it. The fact that they don't use it should tell you something. And light trucks don't use them either..... It's mostly overweight luxury trucks that use them, because for luxury vehicles comfort is a priority....

rsholland - Apr 9, 2008 11:15 am (#42 Total: 50)

Ellicott City MD United States of America

johno5
Read that article when it first came out.

blackadder5639
I don't own a Ridgeline.

Let's pick up this debate again in 10 years. I'm willing to bet that by then we will have a number of pickup trucks with IRS.

lvranger - Apr 9, 2008 3:11 pm (#43 Total: 50)

I had this same problem last year when truck shopping. If Ford redesigned the Ranger(I loved my 93) I would buy one in a heartbeat. I basically came down to a last gen Dakota and last gen Tundra. In the end I chose the Tundra because its 4.0 V6 was both stronger and more efficient than the 4.7 V8 but had to sacrafice 4wd to get a manual. The Tundra definately drives small and I highly recommend it for someone looking for a alternative to full size but the fuel economy isn't much better, 18 MPG average for me.

I like the M80 concept. If they offered toned down colors and a reasonable engine(no 3.8) i'd be interested.

estreka - Apr 9, 2008 4:02 pm (#44 Total: 50)

subarctic north - Great Falls, MT

Even if IRS were able to handle the rigors of heavy loading, I can't imagine it surviving the long haul (pun intended). Heck, even passenger cars need their rear springs/struts replaced every 6 or so years, and they aren't even under load. Even if it were survivable, I can't imagine it being cost effective against leaf springs. Personally, I see it as a product that simply isn't broke.

We'll see in 10 years. ;-)

brn - Apr 9, 2008 5:28 pm (#45 Total: 50)

It's interesting to see a 2008 Honda compared to a 1986 Ford.

firstwagon - Apr 9, 2008 6:08 pm (#46 Total: 50)

Which Honda to which Ford?

myob - Apr 10, 2008 4:42 pm (#47 Total: 50)

IVRanger, maybe you tested a bad example, but I owned an '00 Tundra with the 4.7L V8 (not as powerful as later versions) and now own an '07 Tacoma with the 4.0L V-6, and in no way is the V6 (while no slouch) as powerful or smooth as the V8, which is probably the best truck engine I've ever owned, and I've owned Ford, Dodge, Chevy, Toyotas, you name it. I achieved 12.5mpg towing in the Tundra, and today I'm getting.....about 12.5mpg towing in the Tacoma.

I agree the old Tundra was a very nice size for those who don't require a brute of a pickup, especially if you need decent bed space even the midsize Tacomas don't offer. I'm sometimes tempted to pick up a good '06 used example while they're still around. The Tacoma is fine, but narrower and less planted and I found the steering more numb and the chassis less athletic in general. (my tundra had minor rear suspension and shock mods which made a huge difference, the same mods on the Tacoma didn't change it much)

I like the show truck in the picture above. But isn't the Chevy colorado a suitable small truck in terms of mpg and size too? Not executed that well, but it looks pretty small to me.

lvranger - Apr 11, 2008 10:16 am (#48 Total: 50)

myob: I was doing a Dakota/Tundra comparison so the 4.7 I was refering to was the Dodge one. If I could get a Toyota 4.7 with a manual I would.

I haven't towed(yet) but even with a heavy load in the bed my mileage doesn't dip much. The Tacomas are taller than my truck, maybe thats why you see the same mileage with the V6. Also, the 6MT(if you have it) is geared much deeper(higher numerically) than the autos.

I am interested in your suspension mods. I have considered this but don't want to compromise my load carrying. I am amazed that my Tundra is the best handling(non sport) truck i've ever driven.

P.S. Don't mean to nit pick but its LVranger, it didn't take the caps when I signed up.

skierx420 - Apr 14, 2008 10:55 am (#49 Total: 50)

Firstwagon you had a ram 50? I had two. Well one was a D-50 when they were still called that. They were great for smaller loads like a couch or things like that. Both of mine had 8 ft beds. They were not up to a 1,000 lbs of bricks or anything like that but they hauled lumber and things that most full size 1/2 tons are hauling anyway. I think that Dodge would have a huge market if they brought them back. A 2.0 Liter diesel that gets 25-30 MPG as well would be cool too. But I'll take a 4 cyl. gas for right now. Didn't VW have a small truck back in the 80's too?

06scooby - Apr 14, 2008 11:21 am (#50 Total: 50)

We own an 05 GMC Canyon and our purchase decision was made exactly decided by what you guys are talking about. The big question is that when are people going to quit driving stuff they don't need. But then you can use that for anybody who likes to drive a muscle car. Until small effecient diesels make it into everyday trucks there will always be a compromise of capability for effeciency. When we looked to replace my fiance's Volvo with a truck we immediately ruled out a full size truck because even though they are nice they are expensive and exceeded our needs. So we started looking at frontiers, tacoma's, and colorado/canyons. The dakota was ruled out for the same reason the full size trucks were, and the ranger is simply outdated. We ruled out the tacoma based on price alone and it came down between ext. cab colorado/canyons or frontiers. But this is where efficiency won over capability. I was not a fan of the I5 in the GM twins but after driving a few of them I saw the reason. This truck can only tow 4000 lbs and doesn't have the power a frontier... but it was also 2-3 grand cheaper than a similarly equipped frontier. The gas mileage was 2-3 mpg better. So we had to compare. We just need a Truck for outdoorsy activities, occasional drives off-road, our dog, and in frequent trips to home depot. the fact that the truck was 2k cheaper and we were able t o find it in a manual fully loaded tipped the scales. We average about 18-19mpg in the Canyon (lots of short trips) where I know the Frontier with all it's power would be more around 15-16... and a full sizer would be around 12-14. I think we still need the full range of pick-ups. But the smaller truck fit our needs (and after putting nicer, larger wheels on the canyon it looks sharp!) if I could have gotten a frontier or colorado with a nice small diesel... it would have been even better.