Is There a Future for Midsize Pickups?

2nd gen forum because this is where everything goes.

So Dodge is no longer building the Dakota after this year. Ford is killing the Ranger.

Will anything smaller than full-size be available in 10 years?

Discuss.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...-as-small-pickups-show-few-signs-of-recovery/

 

Well after reading all of that it appears that the "Midsize Generation" of trucks(foreign and domestic) are declining, fast. The fact that the Ford Ranger and the Dodge Dakota are discontinuing in the near future shows just how bad the economy and the cost of gas has impacted the automotive midsize truck industry. I dont know for sure about the future. I do know that i will be keeping my DCSB 2005 Tacoma till the freaking engine and tires combust in front of my eyes.

-End Rant-

Cam.

 

I don't think it's that so much as you can get a F150 or Tundra for the price of a Tacoma. And for most people, why wouldn't you? More payload, power, same MPG, etc.

The economics don't make sense unless you wheel, and most don't.

 

Nissan is reworking the Frontier to be smaller and and more fuel efficient.Lets see how that turns out.

 

I do think the mid-sized truck is going the way of the do-do(sp?) bird. I really hate to see it happen, but with no competition and falling sales, Toyota may finally see it beneficial to start importing Hiluxes into the US instead of having 2 separate platforms. That would be a good thing in my opinion

 

Dodge will stop building the Dakota two days from now...

The way Tundra sales are going, the Taco will probably survive longer.

 

thats true. Tacoma's sometimes go for more than Full sizes and thats not a good thing. I see where your coming from.

 

Your right on the money. Toyota is bumping up the cost of the Tacoma and the big trucks are trying to keep their prices steady. Now you can get a bigger truck for pretty much the same money and still get the same gas mileage (little or no difference). When I bought my Tacoma the biggest reason I did was because I found it so much cheaper than anything else I was looking at. IF I had to go buy a new truck; I probably would of not bought a new Tacoma.

My truck is my DD and my rolling office. I don't wheel my truck; I have a trail rig for that.

 

I don't believe the small size truck market evaporated: I believe government regulation is killing it. The link to the proposed EPA economy regulations pretty much tells the story of (the continuation of) EPA's campaign to remove small trucks from the market place.

Manufacturers are just reacting to the inevitable. It's blatantly obvious the US market would respond favorably to the utility of a small economical pickup... like it did when one was available (pre-2000's) and it does in the rest of the world.

It sucks to live in a country where the government doesn't care about what the people want.

 

When I bought my 2010, I could have purchased a nicely outfitted Tundra for about the same price. In fact, the Tundra they had on the showroom floor was $500 cheaper. I debated it but saw the 13mpg in city mileage on the sticker and that just killed that idea. I'm getting pretty decent mileage on my Tacoma now, but until Toyota offers a more fuel efficient engine in our trucks, I fear the life of the Tacoma line will eventually be killed off like the Ranger and Dakota. If they could make a 4 cylinder that achieved a true 27-30mpg and still maintain acceptable hp/torque, that could save the Tacoma line. My 4 cylinder in my 2000, once re-geared, has great pulling power and never lacks for get up. I get about 21mpg in my 2000; about 18 in my 2010 6 cylinder.

 

The biggest problem with the EPA is the way it targets emmissions and MPGs together. If they would lighten up a little and let the auto makers bring in European diesels we would be almost double our MPGs in everything within a year. Some of the European diesels are already getting better than 50 mpg in a luxury car. In America that is almost impossible. I firmly believe that overall the EPA has done more harm than good.

 

This sort of behavior is why the big 3 failed, and it shows that they haven't completely learned their lesson.

The auto industry is very slow to react to market trends.

The drop in Compact and mid-sized truck sales during that period coicides with the explosion of large truck and suv sales. Studies have shown that something like 85% of full-size truck owners never tow more than 5000lbs- meaning that people are buying trucks they don't need.

As gas prices continue to climb, and people realize they need to save money, they will look more 'mid-sized' trucks. And by that time, Dodge, and perhaps Ford as well will not have any to sell. They will have to build new models from the ground up- which takes years. Adding to that, they will eventually find themselves holding on to a ton of big trucks that they can't sell.

 

The problem with the idea of mid-sized trucks being more economical is that they aren't! The only trucks that get decent mileage are underpowered and most people do not want to drive something that slugs around. My boss has a 4dr F-150 that gets as good or better mpg than my 4dr Tacoma. How am I saving money over him??? The only reason I'm in this truck and not an F-150 is initial purchase cost.

 

I cannot speak with any authority on the example of you and your boss. But I can speak for myself and my ex girlfriend, who has an '06 F150-

My gas mileage is not very good- around 14.5 mpg. That is all city driving, heavy on the skinny pedal. Also 4x4 with oversize mud tires.

Her F150 gets about 11mpg when I drive it. So in our case, what you stated about full size fuel econony is not true at all.

 

Also, I think the writer of that above article, looked at correct information, but didnt consider all facts before reaching their conclusion.

Ford is dropping the Ranger not because of the decline of mid-size trucks as a whole, but due more to its inability to compete with Toyota and Nissan, and the associated cost that would be inccurred to redesign a larger, mid-size pickup. They decided it just wasnt worth the money they would need to spend, for the amount of market share they'd get.

I believe this is also (some) of the reasoning for the Dakota being phased out. The larger reason being that they dont have a place for it in their newly re-structured organization.

They created the 'Ram' brand specifically for the Ram pickups- leaving the Dodge brand to be for cars and minivas. The Dakota doesnt fit in the Ram brand, and doesnt fit with the Dodge brand.

Also there has been talk of another Jeep pickup, which would serve as the Dodge/Jeep/Chrysler/Ram mid-side pickup.

 

Ford also had the problem of producing two options in this market. The Ranger pickup and the Explorer Sporttrac.


As for the previous statement about the 06 F150, true not all of them get great mpgs. My boss has an 09 with the newer 4.6 motor. There were some years where the 4.6 was a gas hog dog of a motor.

 

Same here, I traded in a 2004 Chevy Z71 Ext cab (4x4) for my Tacoma and the MPG's are almost identical. I do better in the city with the Tacoma but the Chevy actually did better on the highway. It had the 5.3L V8 and did not have the fancy electronics to save fuel. I went with the Tacoma vs a full size because of physical size mostly. The Tacoma is big enough to move anything I need to move (motorcycle, camping gear and it'll drag a uhaul trailer) but also small enough to maneuver around the city and parallel parking is actually possible.

Personally, I think Dodge dropping their Dakota and Ford discontinuing the Ranger could be good for the Tacoma. Who's left to compete with? I think 5 lugger sales will fly because there aren't any other good options for a cheap, mid-sized work truck anymore.

 

although gas prices are leveling off right now due to the global recession, i believe more people will choose to drive smaller vehicles in the future. between a generaly lower intial purchase price, lower cost of upkeep and decent fuel economy the tacoma should sell well.

i drove a 2000 taco for a decade and recently upgraded to a 2011 . i like the exra cab room and bed space. i didt loose much in mpgs either. i regularly get 26mpg driving around in the foothills.

with alot of americans having to cut back and spend less they may rethink the need for a full size truck and realise a smaller truck is adiquate 99% of the time.

 

That is the very compelling case for a small size truck like gen I Tacoma's and Hi-Lux in a nutshell. Tacoma is so close to Tundra now and yet Tundra is outclassed other true full size trucks. They should have left things alone: Tacoma small and Tundra mid-size. They were tops in those classes, but now are at the bottom in each.

The problem is...and was... they knew EPA was on a campaign to kill small trucks, whether intended or not. Large(er) trucks get breaks on economy and emissions because they have true 'utility' in the eyes of the government. That pushes mfr's to 'upscale' their offerings to meet less stringent requirements that are technically less costly to implement.

Former Tacoma owners, and those like me who knew what the gen 1 was like, are left disappointed by this gas hog 'monster' while those down-sizing from full-size heavy haulers complain how weak this so-called mid-size truck is. All because Toyota has made so many compromises to try to appeal to both markets. The only reason it's not a failure, IMO, is because all the other mfr's a failing at it even worse.

 

Same here. The price of a very nice Tacoma may be similar to that of a low end Tundra, but (a) I would rather have a nicely outfitted midsize than a stripped down full size, and (b) even though purchase price might be close, the long term cost of ownership is not going to be close if you look at getting 15mpg versus 20mpg.

Aside from that, I don't NEED a full size truck. It's overkill for me. I love the Tacoma for many qualitative reasons, but on the whole, because it's excellent at everything I need and not more.