Nissan shows off new Titan pickup

[silvrsvt]

If selling around ~110K full size trucks is profitable...well

 

 

Found this interesting nugget about truck sales:

 

Detroit Is Now Truly Taking Over The Very Pickup Truck Market It Has Always Owned

 

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/02/usa-import-truck-nameplates-market-share-2015-2007.html#more

[RichardJensen]

That chart also illustrates that, broadly speaking, the F-Series hasn't lost market share to anyone.

[jpd80]

That chart also illustrates that, broadly speaking, the F-Series hasn't lost market share to anyone.

Considering the F150 changeover last year, that's an impressive feat...

 

[aneekr]

When annual sales of the Titan are a third of one month of F-Series sales loyalty doesn't mean much.

 

To Nissan, it's apparently meaningful enough to continue fielding an entry in the full-size LD pickup truck market.

[aneekr]

Found this interesting nugget about truck sales:

 

Detroit Is Now Truly Taking Over The Very Pickup Truck Market It Has Always Owned

 

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/02/usa-import-truck-nameplates-market-share-2015-2007.html#more

 

Nice find, silvrsvt! The 25% tariff the USA imposes on light trucks imported from non NAFTA countries was stupid since its inception in 1963; the information in that article makes a stronger case than ever before for the tariff's immediate repeal.

Edited March 28, 2016 by aneekr

[RichardJensen]

 

Nice find, silvrsvt! The 25% tariff the USA imposes on light trucks imported from non NAFTA countries was stupid since its inception in 1963; the information in that article makes a stronger case than ever before for the tariff's immediate repeal.

 

?

 

The Tundra, Titan, Frontier and Tacoma are all exempt from the chicken tax, and it is highly doubtful that any import would build full size trucks at an overseas plant.

[aneekr]

 

?

 

The Tundra, Titan, Frontier and Tacoma are all exempt from the chicken tax, and it is highly doubtful that any import would build full size trucks at an overseas plant.

 

That's the point. The article in silvrsvt's link indicates that all new LD pickup trucks currently sold in the U.S. market are assembled in NAFTA countries and are exempt from the chicken tax as you noted. As such, the 25% tariff serves no purpose whatsoever. It doesn't "protect" an industry experiencing a surge of imports (and wouldn't make sense even if an import surge did exist), and it offers no benefit to the U.S. in trade negotiations. On the contrary, the fact that 52 years have elapsed since the USA imposed retaliatory tariffs on brandy, dextrin, potato starch, and light trucks via LBJ's Presidental Proclamation 3564, and that the trade dispute with Europe that prompted Proclamation 3564 in the first place is long gone, makes the U.S. a laughingstock. (The tariffs on brandy, dextrin, and potato starch are also long gone).

 

An immediate, complete, and unilateral repeal of the 25% light truck tariff is way overdue.

Edited March 28, 2016 by aneekr

[RichardJensen]

 

As such, the 25% tariff serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

Ah, well, then it's probably not going away. Nobody wants it to go away bad enough to put in the effort & spend the money required to get rid of it.

[BORG]

Intersting to see F-Series loosing so much marketshare in a 2 year period, a first for the F-Series in 10 years. Looks like the truck market is simply outgrowing Ford and most of that growth is likely going to RAM and Chevy. Hopefully that'll turn around in 2016 with SuperDuty.

Edited March 29, 2016 by BORG

[RichardJensen]

Intersting to see F-Series loosing so much marketshare in a 2 year period, a first for the F-Series in 10 years. Looks like the truck market is simply outgrowing Ford and most of that growth is likely going to RAM and Chevy. Hopefully that'll turn around in 2016 with SuperDuty.

 

So you're going to treat that 35% market share as something other than an unsustainable spike, and you're going to ignore the supply issues that plagued Ford all last year, such that Dean ordered a work truck in early 2015 and didn't get a VIN until 2016s were being built.

 

 

Ok, UGH, anyone?....just printed the 2016 F-150 ordering guide, my order from January 16 has to be re-ordered as a 16...so heres a list of commodity issues?...SERIOUSLY, the trucks already had a years production and we STILL have availability issues?....GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! Regular cab ( 4x2 ) w 5.0 and 141"wb 4x2 w/ 3.5 ecoboost, 5.0 or 2.7 w payload..LATE AVAILABILTY, Reg Cab 122 wb 4x4 w 5.0 and 141 wb 4x4 w3.5 eco, 5.0 or 2.7 w payload, LATE AVAILABILITY, Supercab ( 4x 2 ) 163 wb 2.7 eco and 163wb 4x2 w 3.5 eco, 5.0 @2.7 eco w payload...LATE AVAILABILITY, Crew cab (4.2 ) 157 w HD payload, 3.5 and 5.0 LATE AVAILABILITY, Crewcab 4x4 w HD payload 3.5 or 5.0 LATE AVAILABILTY. Theres a few common denominators but seriously after this time frame they should be up and running....

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/59662-2016-f-150/

Edited March 29, 2016 by RichardJensen

[probowler]

Fender vents lol

[jpd80]

Intersting to see F-Series loosing so much marketshare in a 2 year period, a first for the F-Series in 10 years. Looks like the truck market is simply outgrowing Ford and most of that growth is likely going to RAM and Chevy. Hopefully that'll turn around in 2016 with SuperDuty.

Have a look at the devil in the detail though

 

F Series sales

2010 528,349

2011 584,917

2012 645,316

2013 763,402

2014 753,851 (Dearborn TA down for months depleting '14 inventory) - another 60K sales to maintain 35.1%

2015 780,354 (Kansas City TA and Inventory 100K below normal) - another 110K sales to maintain 35.1%

 

Without the disruption on 2014, it's more than likely that F Series would have maintained its market share

but going into 2015, I'm not sure that the hypothesis stacks up.....

 

Not making excuses for Ford but a lot of that loss of market share is entirely due to the changeover.....

Edited March 29, 2016 by jpd80

[PRM]

I was surprised when I talked trucks to an acquaintance who has had a couple Titans. He absolutely beats the living crap out of them off roading and they have been exceptionally durable, and capable. They also have the ability to chain up all four wheels for accessing some pretty remote back country in the snow and mud. You can't do that with an F150 thanks to the front suspension design. And the clearance on the F150 is nothing impressive (Raptor aside). I don't consider the Titan as refined, but his example convinced me it's a reasonably capable truck. The new one I have no experience with, except to say I find it ugly.

[Kev-Mo]

 

That's the point. The article in silvrsvt's link indicates that all new LD pickup trucks currently sold in the U.S. market are assembled in NAFTA countries and are exempt from the chicken tax as you noted. As such, the 25% tariff serves no purpose whatsoever. It doesn't "protect" an industry experiencing a surge of imports (and wouldn't make sense even if an import surge did exist), and it offers no benefit to the U.S. in trade negotiations. On the contrary, the fact that 52 years have elapsed since the USA imposed retaliatory tariffs on brandy, dextrin, potato starch, and light trucks via LBJ's Presidental Proclamation 3564, and that the trade dispute with Europe that prompted Proclamation 3564 in the first place is long gone, makes the U.S. a laughingstock. (The tariffs on brandy, dextrin, and potato starch are also long gone).

 

An immediate, complete, and unilateral repeal of the 25% light truck tariff is way overdue.

 

Our US Constitution allows for and encourages tariffs over taxation of the property of the people. I'm in support of the founding fathers - external taxation is the way to go. Internal taxation was (correctly) considered an intrusion of personal liberty by our founding fathers.

 

I don't want to start a big debate here, just a historical note that some very smart people (far smarter and able to think through problems than our modern leadership) were in favor of and successfully used tariffs.

 

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specific articles of consumption imported, the first revenue raising Act also imposed an across- the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports shipped in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act

shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be

imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the

property of a citizen or citizens thereof."

 

http://usafoundingfathers.blogspot.com/2006/03/founding-fathers-original-tax-plan.html

 

Here from a liberal news outlet:

It is no accident that after Independence, a tariff was the very second bill signed by President Washington. It is also no accident that the Constitution — which notoriously does not authorize a great many things our government does today — explicitly does give Congress the authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” (Article I, Section 8.) This fact drives flag-draped libertarians crazy, but there it is.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/america-was-founded-as-a_b_713521.html

Edited March 29, 2016 by Kev-Mo

[BORG]

I'm not saying Ford is "Loosing" per-se, the new F-150 drove up Ford's ATPs and margins which more than makes-up for lost share, although that is reportedly changing now as F-Series is back on the incentive game with higher inventories and more fleeting. I think Ram in particular has grown its marketshare by deep discounting at a time when F-series was vulnerable and growing more expensive. I have to say i see far more Rams than any other Truck in Michigan, it's actually the bestselling truck in many states now.

 

As far as waiting for a new Ford or Lincoln, I probably have more horror stories than anybody here, haha. Last two Lincolns have come with a 6+ month delay and a 12-month lease extension.

Edited March 29, 2016 by BORG

[RichardJensen]

I think RAM in particular has grown its marketshare

 

The long-term trend shows that Dodge is not increasing its market share at Ford's expense. If anything, Ford has yet to surrender market share gains that they apparently picked up by virtue of not filing for bankruptcy in 2009.

[BORG]

 

The long-term trend shows that Dodge is not increasing its market share at Ford's expense. If anything, Ford has yet to surrender market share gains that they apparently picked up by virtue of not filing for bankruptcy in 2009.

 

This sounds like an issue with semantics, not data. F-Series sales are up, but not keeping pace with the industry growth which is why their piece of the pie has shrunk to pre recession levels. So if that market growth isn't coming from F-Series and it's not going to the Japanese...who is it going to? Again, I don't see this as a problem but I just hadn't seen the greater marketplace picture that put sales into a more global context. I'm mostly interested in how those brands have been successful at growing the industry sales and if that means Ford is loosing out.

 

Ford is a brand facing stagnant sales in many key areas and I don't see a path toward brand growth (factory constraints, aging products, lack of new segment diversity)...although in the case of the F-Series I think this is just a momentary blip for reasons stated.

Edited March 29, 2016 by BORG

[RichardJensen]

 

This sounds like an issue with semantics

 

First of all saying that something is 'semantics' as a way of trivializing matters is specious.

 

Secondly, the F-Series was absolutely not capacity constrained last year. The KC plant was shut down for conversion during part of 2015, and there were significant supplier issues, as well as issues in the plants themselves.

 

Pretending that a market share decline in a year in which Ford could not participate fully in the market is a sign of long-term issues is simply absurd.

Edited March 29, 2016 by RichardJensen

[akirby]

Discussions concerning market share while ignoring profitability are useless.

[bzcat]

 

Ah, well, then it's probably not going away. Nobody wants it to go away bad enough to put in the effort & spend the money required to get rid of it.

 

Chicken tax will be effectively repealed as part of TPP and TTIP. Phase out schedules for Chicken tax are included as part of the deal negotiated with all vehicle producing countries of TPP (Australia, Japan and Korea but Australia and Korea already has their own Chicken Tax phase out period in the book) and similar negotiations are underway with TTIP countries.

 

And countries that have signed FTA recently with US have all successfully negotiated sunset provisions on Chicken Tax. Australia was the first to benefit... just in time for its last remaining trucks to die. Korea will get full repeal in 4 years. Thailand would have been the first but the military coup a couple of years ago scuttled negotiations.

 

Chicken Tax is now functionally pointless but it remains as a "concession" that US trade negotiators can give up in return for the other countries to lower other trade barriers.

[BORG]

 

First of all saying that something is 'semantics' as a way of trivializing matters is specious.

 

Secondly, the F-Series was absolutely not capacity constrained last year. The KC plant was shut down for conversion during part of 2015, and there were significant supplier issues, as well as issues in the plants themselves.

 

Pretending that a market share decline in a year in which Ford could not participate fully in the market is a sign of long-term issues is simply absurd.

 

You're changing the context and subject of the discussion to divert attention and change the narrative without addressing the fundamental question...where is the marketshare going? According to you, Ford hasn't lost any of it...which makes no sense when even you admit that Ford had supply issues. Explain why Ford's shrinking marketshare means they haven't lost marketshare to the competition? For you this question doesn't matter because over a 10 year aggregate Ford hasn't lost marketshare, growth was only a 10 year blip. Or it's semantics, Ford hasn't 'lost' marketshare, the market has simply grown..which is mathematically inaccurate anyway.

 

Is it unreasonable to say Ford has lost marketshare for the time being...but that's because..such and such? But nope, it's personal and offensive to you so it must be absurd.

Edited March 29, 2016 by BORG

[RichardJensen]

 

Richard, you're spinning this...that is semantics. You're changing the context and subject of the discussion to the divert attention and change the narrative without addressing the fundamental question...where is the marketshare going? According to you, Ford hasn't lost any of it...which makes no sense when even you admit that Ford had supply issues. Explain why Ford's shrinking marketshare means they haven't lost marketshare to the competition? For you this question doesn't matter because over a 10 year aggregate Ford hasn't lost marketshare, growth was only a 10 year blip. This is absurd.

 

First of all, you don't know what semantics are. And you can argue that that itself is a matter of semantics, which would also be wrong. Semantics is not concerned with individual word definitions.

 

Secondly, from my perspective there has been no market share loss to speak of. There have been a pair of blips that more or less offset each other. Each readily accounted for by circumstances--Ford picked up share largely at the expense of GM in 2014 during their truck launch, and the rest of the domestics picked up share from Ford during theirs in 2015. The change nets almost to zero and neither instance represents an ongoing and fundamental change in the market.

 

Your decision to focus on those blips is hardly binding on anyone else capable of reasoning independently on the subject, and I would be very much surprised if you could muster even a plurality of reasonable people eager to draw the same conclusions you have.

[akirby]

The real question is what will the market share look like in 2016 now that F series is back to full production and full inventory.

[BORG]

 

First of all, you don't know what semantics are. And you can argue that that itself is a matter of semantics, which would also be wrong. Semantics is not concerned with individual word definitions.

 

Secondly, from my perspective there has been no market share loss to speak of. There have been a pair of blips that more or less offset each other. Each readily accounted for by circumstances--Ford picked up share largely at the expense of GM in 2014 during their truck launch, and the rest of the domestics picked up share from Ford during theirs in 2015. The change nets almost to zero and neither instance represents an ongoing and fundamental change in the market.

 

Your decision to focus on those blips is hardly binding on anyone else capable of reasoning independently on the subject, and I would be very much surprised if you could muster even a plurality of reasonable people eager to draw the same conclusions you have.

 

 

 

From "your perspective" means you're changing the context of the argument I'm making which is focused on the past 2 years. Explain to me who is grabbing the marketshare that Ford isn't? And why does that mean Ram isn't taking any of it? Is your meaning that marketshare and potential sales are different things and one can't assume F-150 lost anything to the competition? If so, than that is truly speculative.

Edited March 29, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

 

 

 

From "your perspective" means you're changing the context of the argument I'm making which is focused on the past 2 years. Explain to me who is grabbing the marketshare that Ford isn't? And why does that mean Ram isn't taking any of it? Is your meaning that marketshare and potential sales are different things and one can't assume F-150 lost anything to the competition? If so, than that is truly speculative.

 

So if Ford is back up to 32% market share in 2016 would you agree they haven't lost marketshare?