Pickup truck sales numbers

[fordtech1]

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/09/august-2016-pickup-sales-breakdown.html

 

I love seeing the comments. Truck guys kill me. Most are so full of crap. So GM outsells Ford by combining two brands and two segments, midsize and full size. Ford has one brand and one segment. Truthfully, if gm couldn't outsell f-series by combining all trucks, they should be worried.

[twintornados]

Hope they don't mind when Fords' midsize gets piled into F-Series sales.....lol

[fuzzymoomoo]

Hope they don't mind when Fords' midsize gets piled into F-Series sales.....lol

It's still a few years away and I can already hear the whining and bitching

[MY93SHO]

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/09/august-2016-pickup-sales-breakdown.html

 

I love seeing the comments. Truck guys kill me. Most are so full of crap. So GM outsells Ford by combining two brands and two segments, midsize and full size. Ford has one brand and one segment. Truthfully, if gm couldn't outsell f-series by combining all trucks, they should be worried.

Never read the comments at Pickuptrucks.com, you'll need brain bleach afterwards.

[PRM]

They are very clear about what they are presenting so I have no issue with it. If you want to look at a manufacturer, it makes sense to combine them. It's not like F-Series is one truck, so without digging into the numbers you really can't tell how one truck (F150) contributes to the picture. I would argue a Colorado is probably closer to a 1500 Silverado than an F450 is to an F150.

 

GM made the decision to produce midsize trucks, why shouldn't' they get credit for those sales if looking at GM truck sales?

Edited September 14, 2016 by PRM

[silvrsvt]

They are very clear about what they are presenting so I have no issue with it. If you want to look at a manufacturer, it makes sense to combine them. It's not like F-Series is one truck, so without digging into the numbers you really can't tell how one truck (F150) contributes to the picture. I would argue a Colorado is probably closer to a 1500 Silverado than an F450 is to an F150.

 

GM made the decision to produce midsize trucks, why shouldn't' they get credit for those sales if looking at GM truck sales?

 

Because the metric they are using for measurement is stupid...it would be like combining the sale of all Ford/Lincoln Passenger cars/CUVs and comparing them to Chevy,Buick,Caddy and GMC sales numbers.

 

Ford still sells the most full sized pick ups...period, end of story.

 

If you want to basically add together 4 different name plates and two different products to outsell 1 Nameplate with two different frames that are now closely related to one another (Same passenger cabs)...be my guest. Once the Ranger is added back into the mix, Ford will still outsell those products combined.

[fordtech1]

They are very clear about what they are presenting so I have no issue with it. If you want to look at a manufacturer, it makes sense to combine them. It's not like F-Series is one truck, so without digging into the numbers you really can't tell how one truck (F150) contributes to the picture. I would argue a Colorado is probably closer to a 1500 Silverado than an F450 is to an F150.

 

GM made the decision to produce midsize trucks, why shouldn't' they get credit for those sales if looking at GM truck sales?

GM deserves credit for the midsize truck against the same segment. When Ford comes out the ranger and unless it's in the F-series family like a F-100, they should not combine those with numbers either. That's like putting f-series with transit vans. It's supposed to be apples to apples. GM is a much larger company. They just get butt hurt because they can't sell enough trucks under one brand. Although they are just badge engineered they are listed under two different divisions. Chevy and GMC. Toyota does not combine Toyota and Lexus numbers on their big SUV even though they are same except one is in a tux. VW doesn't combine A4 with Passat either. Same situation.

GM deserves credit for several good products. I dislike their marketing scheme. They are like a spoiled child if they don't get their way then they try and manipulate the situation to get what they want. The bed commerical really just proves that. Bottom line, Ford knows how to make trucks people want. GM hates it. It takes two brands of the same truck to beat one.

[PRM]

 

Because the metric they are using for measurement is stupid...it would be like combining the sale of all Ford/Lincoln Passenger cars/CUVs and comparing them to Chevy,Buick,Caddy and GMC sales numbers.

Ford still sells the most full sized pick ups...period, end of story.

If you want to basically add together 4 different name plates and two different products to outsell 1 Nameplate with two different frames that are now closely related to one another (Same passenger cabs)...be my guest. Once the Ranger is added back into the mix, Ford will still outsell those products combined.

 

What's stupid about it? It's trucks for GM vs. trucks for Ford. That each have chosen different business models is irrelevant.

 

If you want to break it down to full size trucks, fine, they presented that information clearly. What's the problem? But to limit truck sales to only what Ford builds would be stupid. And again, Ford classifying everything from the F150 through F450 is a rather broad definition of a "segment". Hardly a single segment of buyers. If anything, the mid-size trucks and F150/1500 class trucks would be a much more meaningful segment. At least it comprises alternatives a single buyer may consider.

Edited September 14, 2016 by PRM

[fordtech1]

 

What's stupid about it? It's trucks for GM vs. trucks for Ford. That each have chosen different business models is irrelevant.

 

If you want to break it down to full size trucks, fine, they presented that information clearly. What's the problem? But to limit truck sales to only what Ford builds would be stupid. And again, Ford classifying everything from the F150 through F450 is a rather broad definition of a "segment". Hardly a single segment of buyers. If anything, the mid-size trucks and F150/1500 class trucks would be a much more meaningful segment. At least it comprises alternatives a single buyer may consider.

Silverado does the same thing. 1500/2500/3500/4500 if it's a Silverado name it's included..

[PRM]

^^ I realize that. I meant to suggest that these segments are rather vague and not very meaningful. Thus suggesting that including mid-size is as valid as the current defined full size "segment". Regardless, Ford and GM each build trucks, and while they brand and segment differently, they intend to sell a product to the customer. The total number reflects their success, or failure, in that endeavor. The linked article broke it up enough to get a sense for where each is doing well.

[Anthony]

I think what PRM is referring to is is that in the article, one of the graphs indicated "Manufacturer Truck Sales" which includes all sizes from each manufacturer in total. In that measurement, GM does outsell Ford.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They also have a separate graph that breaks down Full-size pickup sales by model. In that case the F-Series handily wins.

 

 

 

 

 

....and as noted, they also break it down by midsize trucks models, which the Tacoma seems to have a lock on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Anthony

[Anthony]

So, in essence...while GM sells the most number of trucks in total, none of their pickups sells the most in its segment by itself.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Anthony
left out a word, oopsie

[jpd80]

Notice how the "old" Tacoma still outsells Colorado and Canyon by a wide margin.

 

I'm wondering if next gen "Ranger" is actually a narrowed F150...

that would suit Ford NA down to the ground and achieve a good weight reduction..

[tbone]

I don't really understand the desire to buy 7/8th of a truck. The midsized truck baffles me. I understand the the concept of the previous generation of the Ranger, as it was a compact pickup, but these current midsized trucks are truly not that much smaller than their fullsized counterparts.

[sullynd]

Why buy an F150 when it's not much smaller than a Superduty?

Why buy a Fusion when it's not much smaller than a Taurus.

Why buy a Focus when it's not much smaller than a Fusion?

Why buy a Fiesta when it's not much smaller than a Focus?

 

So what's your ideal Ford Lineup? Superduty, Taurus, and Mustang?

[PRM]

If you can make a 7/8ths truck that does all you need it to do, and fits in a garage, is easier to park, theoretically lighter, more aerodynamic, and gets better mileage, why would you buy the larger one?

[fuzzymoomoo]

If you can make a 7/8ths truck that does all you need it to do, and fits in a garage, is easier to park, theoretically lighter, more aerodynamic, and gets better mileage, why would you buy the larger one?

Bingo! All these are reasons why I'm getting a Ranger when they come out.

[tbone]

I see there are some midsize truck supporters here. My comments aren't meant to disparage you or the truck really, as I may consider a ranger for my son when the time comes. I guess I should have looked at it from a manufacturer's standpoint, and how it pertains to their lineup. Looking at the dimensions of a Chevy 1500 ext/cc with a size of 230"L x 80"W verses a Colorado at 213"-225"L x 74"W, there can be a noticeable difference in length and a 6" difference in width. I would guess the most commonly purchased model is the longer configuration of the Colorado. I don't have the numbers to back that up, but that is what I would buy. Ultimately I just don't feel like there is a large difference in dimensions between the two, and I would have liked them to be smaller, closer to the size of the original Ranger.

 

This doesn't mean I don't believe they should bring out the new Ranger, to the contrary, the more Ford trucks the better. So for those of you that want one, I hope they bring it to you soon, because as a person waiting for a new Expedition/Nav I can feel your pain.

[akirby]

Ranger can be successful if it's several thousand cheaper than a comparable F150 and gets slightly better fuel economy and it shares the platform and assembly line with other vehicles (which is obviously the plan).

 

In order to be wildly successful it would need to be much smaller, a lot cheaper and much better fuel economy - like the old 4 cylinder single cab Rangers.

[silvrsvt]

If you can make a 7/8ths truck that does all you need it to do, and fits in a garage, is easier to park, theoretically lighter, more aerodynamic, and gets better mileage, why would you buy the larger one?

 

It doesn't make a business case...why split your market into two if there is no demand for it? See the ATS/CTS debacle.

 

For all the bitching that goes on about the F-150 size, its not that much bigger then the one from 2003 F-150...overall length is 206.9 vs 209.3 for a Regular cab with a short box. Yes it gets bigger as you add Super Crew and bigger cabs, but its a difference of 6 inches at the most. A Ranger would be narrower and have an even smaller cab to it. I know at 6'2 I couldn't fit into a Ranger standard cab...I can fit into a Ranger with a Supercab fine.

 

Like stated before...if the Ranger can shrink down even smaller and still fit someone of my stature into it and get 30 MPG it would be a game changer, but 7/8 Ranger isn't going to be as impressive sales wise.

[PRM]

I don't claim to know what the right size is. My guess is you are right that the Ranger (or whatever they call it) should be smaller. My intuition is slightly larger than previous Rangers, but definitely cover the small end of the midsize market. I've had a couple Sport Tracs and that is a really nice size vehicle. Big enough to be comfortable for four adults and carry what I needed, without feeling big. I know my current F150 feels big and is a PIA at times. It's also very useful at times. I have driven a Colorado and Tacoma, in addition to Sport Tracs, and they really feel much, much smaller than an F150. More than the spec sheet would lead you to think.

 

I understand Ford doesn't want to split their F150 sales. From what I've read (and I certainly can't verify), GM has not lost much if any full size sales due to adding the Canyon/Colorado. By targeting the small end of the mid-size market Ford should be able to retain their F150 sales. Regardless, the mid-size market is showing signs of life and Ford will miss sales if they don't participate.

Edited September 15, 2016 by PRM

[akirby]

I also think it's a different market when you're selling 413K F Series trucks (2009) versus almost 800K (2016).

 

And today they have more than one vehicle to share that platform instead of only one (I'm counting Sport Trac as a 4 door Ranger).

[630land]

I'm glad the Ranger name is coming back, and maybe Bronco [name].

[jpd80]

the mid sized trucks and prices we see today are a lot different to when the segment was booming.

Today, they're mostly well appointed crew cab models with higher prices that fill the gap created

by full sized trucks increasing in price.

 

This new segment is for the buyer wanting a mixture of mid sized Utility and truck more than

just a 7/8ths truck which let's face it was Derrick Kuzac just dismissing any notion of the

then new T6 Ranger coming to America...my how things have changed in six years.

[silvrsvt]

the mid sized trucks and prices we see today are a lot different to when the segment was booming.

Today, they're mostly well appointed crew cab models with higher prices that fill the gap created

by full sized trucks increasing in price.

 

That is a good point, I just took a look at F-150s in my area on the Ford website and the Cheapest (F-150 XL) starts at $33K or so and I saw one that was nearly $40K! We know that F-150 pricing can go into 60K range. Ford doesn't need a luxury vehicle when they can sell this many F-series :p

 

The Ranger would top out at $45K (at the most) and most likely start in the high 20's...lots of room for a smaller but profitable truck (vs building a Focus in the US)