The US needs a compact diesel truck... HELLO FORD!!!
#1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VaBch, VA
Posts: 6,451
Total Cats: 322
The US needs a compact diesel truck... HELLO FORD!!!
So I'm down here in El Salvador and there are compact 4-dr diesel pickups everywhere. Toyota's are very popular and they look great. I've been a Ford Ranger fan forever and drove a 2000 4-dr 3.0 for about 80k miles. Ford is going to sell their new Ranger everywhere else in the world with 2 diesel options (3.2ltr I5 TDI with 200hp/347ftlbs) that I would buy in a heartbeat as my DD... but they say it's too close to the F150 and would take away sales there, and I say FINE!
http://www.thecarconnection.com/news...-u-s-heres-why
I know there is a market for turbo-diesel compact trucks in the states, but I guess manufacturers make too much money on full-size models (that other countries won't buy) to risk Americans realizing that 90% of people who do buy F150's and Rams don't need that much truck.
And could you imagine what a full Banks setup in a Ranger would mean... I can see 250whp and 400wtq with some ICE and a reflash.
Truck **** to follow.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/news...-u-s-heres-why
I know there is a market for turbo-diesel compact trucks in the states, but I guess manufacturers make too much money on full-size models (that other countries won't buy) to risk Americans realizing that 90% of people who do buy F150's and Rams don't need that much truck.
And could you imagine what a full Banks setup in a Ranger would mean... I can see 250whp and 400wtq with some ICE and a reflash.
Truck **** to follow.
#5
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,057
Total Cats: 6,618
< Confused.
I understand why a US automaker might not want to sell a compact diesel pickup in the US, given that sales of their large truck line would be affected. (This mentality is why IBM is no longer relevant, incidentally.)
But why would a company like Mitsubishi (or any other foreign automaker which is not subject to the Chicken Tax), which already has a broad US distributor network but does not sell any pickup trucks in the US at all, not seize upon this market if it were truly lucrative?
I understand why a US automaker might not want to sell a compact diesel pickup in the US, given that sales of their large truck line would be affected. (This mentality is why IBM is no longer relevant, incidentally.)
But why would a company like Mitsubishi (or any other foreign automaker which is not subject to the Chicken Tax), which already has a broad US distributor network but does not sell any pickup trucks in the US at all, not seize upon this market if it were truly lucrative?
#7
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,057
Total Cats: 6,618
Sidebar:
I recently rented a Ford 150 for two days; single cab, standard bed. For something that is supposed to be a "small" pickup, I was really shocked by how enormous it was. It honestly didn't feel any different to me, in terms of driving it, than the 16 foot Penske box trucks built on the Ford E-350 / GMC 3500 chassis. (Actually, it's amazing how well those things handle when empty.)
True story.
I recently rented a Ford 150 for two days; single cab, standard bed. For something that is supposed to be a "small" pickup, I was really shocked by how enormous it was. It honestly didn't feel any different to me, in terms of driving it, than the 16 foot Penske box trucks built on the Ford E-350 / GMC 3500 chassis. (Actually, it's amazing how well those things handle when empty.)
True story.
#8
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,057
Total Cats: 6,618
I had previously thought that the Chicken Tax applied only to pickup trucks made in France or Germany. But it's actually a global tariff, which applies to Japanese trucks as well.
Actually, no. I still don't understand. These days, Japanese and Korean cars aren't even made in Japan or Korea. They're made in the US. There is absolutely no reason why DSM or Mazda should not be building and selling compact diesel pickups in the US.
Except for one: maybe there's no market for them.
#9
DSM is partly owned by Chrysler who doesn't want them to bring competing trucks to market, plus Mitsu is focusing on electric cars & hybrids, hence no more Evo.
Mazda is owned in part by Ford, and that may have something to do with why they don't bring a small pickup to market (mazda b-series = Ford ranger).
Mazda is owned in part by Ford, and that may have something to do with why they don't bring a small pickup to market (mazda b-series = Ford ranger).
#10
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,057
Total Cats: 6,618
So there's no reason why we should not have a Mitsubishi compact diesel pickup.
Mazda is owned in part by Ford, and that may have something to do with why they don't bring a small pickup to market (mazda b-series = Ford ranger).
#12
Not any more. I used the name DSM as it's familiar to people, however Chrysler no longer has any involvement. The company formerly known as DSM is now MMNA, and while they do still have some co-op manufacturing agreements, the company is owned entirely by Mitsubishi Motors.
So there's no reason why we should not have a Mitsubishi compact diesel pickup.
Ford sold off most of its ownership in Mazda. At present, Ford owns only 3.5% of the company- hardly a controlling interest. As with D and S, F & M remain "corporate partners", however what you are describing (Ford requiring Mazda to keep the B-series out of the US to protect the Ranger) would be collusion, which is something that the Justice Department frowns on.
So there's no reason why we should not have a Mitsubishi compact diesel pickup.
Ford sold off most of its ownership in Mazda. At present, Ford owns only 3.5% of the company- hardly a controlling interest. As with D and S, F & M remain "corporate partners", however what you are describing (Ford requiring Mazda to keep the B-series out of the US to protect the Ranger) would be collusion, which is something that the Justice Department frowns on.
I wasn't aware that Mitsu/Chrysler Ford/Mazda cut ties.
Could you import one of those trucks that Sam wants?
#13
Guys who want big trucks aren't going to ditch their big trucks for a little truck, even if it is relatively powerful and economical (turbo diesel)
My first vehicle was a silverado with a 5.7L in it - and I must say that I'm not a "big truck" guy. It pulled whatever you put behind it, but it was too damn big as a realistic DD.
I do, however, have a mid-size SUV that is fat, gutless, and was probably "trendy" at one point in time. If I had the choice between a current Colorado and another mid-size SUV, I would pick the mid-size SUV. If I had a choice between this:
and another mid-size SUV, I would pick the pickup.
Of the three options, Chevy Colorado, Mid-Size SUV, and a Turbo-Diesel pickup truck, I would pick the diesel, but I would pay more for the SUV.
I think the current american belief is that to occasionally (once every 3 months) haul a trailer, you need to have a big pickup truck to do it. At the same time, if you want a daily driver, you need to have a small vehicle to do it. In order to create a real market for a half-size truck, you would have to reverse the long engrained American belief that it's unsafe to tow a tire trailer with anything smaller than a king ranch, and if manufacturers did that successfully, people who would have otherwise leased two cars (a tow vehicle and a daily) would now realize they could lease just one.
My first vehicle was a silverado with a 5.7L in it - and I must say that I'm not a "big truck" guy. It pulled whatever you put behind it, but it was too damn big as a realistic DD.
I do, however, have a mid-size SUV that is fat, gutless, and was probably "trendy" at one point in time. If I had the choice between a current Colorado and another mid-size SUV, I would pick the mid-size SUV. If I had a choice between this:
and another mid-size SUV, I would pick the pickup.
Of the three options, Chevy Colorado, Mid-Size SUV, and a Turbo-Diesel pickup truck, I would pick the diesel, but I would pay more for the SUV.
I think the current american belief is that to occasionally (once every 3 months) haul a trailer, you need to have a big pickup truck to do it. At the same time, if you want a daily driver, you need to have a small vehicle to do it. In order to create a real market for a half-size truck, you would have to reverse the long engrained American belief that it's unsafe to tow a tire trailer with anything smaller than a king ranch, and if manufacturers did that successfully, people who would have otherwise leased two cars (a tow vehicle and a daily) would now realize they could lease just one.
#15
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
I likely would purchase a mid size, diesel powered truck as well. Something around the size of an Explorer Sport Trac (maybe just a touch bigger in both wheel base and track) with a 4 or 6 cylinder turbo diesel would make a great DD, haul pretty much anything I need, and pull any normal bumper pull trailer. Put a beefy frame under it with big brakes and suspension, have a couple of compartments built into the bed sides so a drop in truck tool box wouldn't be needed, and have a factory option bed extender so the bed could be used to haul standard lumber, sheetrock, and dirt bikes. It would sell like crazy.
#19
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,601
Total Cats: 1,264
I recently looked at Rangers. Website, dealers, used, the works. Spent a lot of time researching and looking. Simply put, it came down to the fact that when you're spending $25-30k to get a reasonably optioned up small truck, it doesn't make financial sense. For only a few grand more you get a full size. Small trucks don't get that much better mileage, and you limit yourself in towing & cargo capacity. They're 2/3 the truck for 7/8 the cost.