Seeking Alpha

GM set to introduce new mid-sized pickup

  • GM (GM) is set to unveil its new GMC Canyon later today, ahead of the official opening of Detroit Auto Show tomorrow.
  • GM hopes that the redesigned vehicle, which is due to go on sale in Q3 along with the new Chevrolet Colorado, will pull sales from Ford's (F) F-150, Chrysler's (FIATY) Ram 1500 and Toyota's (TM) Tacoma, the market leader.
  • GM acknowledged that the Canyon could also take minimal sales away from the company's larger Chevrolet Silverado, although execs aren't worried.
  • GM abandoned the mid-sized segment in 2012 due to waning popularity. However, sales of mid-sized pick-ups are forecast to grow by more than a third, research firm LMC Automotive has estimated.
From other sites
Comments (39)
  • jea
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    If Chevrolet wants to take sales away from Ford they should come out with a 4 cylinder 30 mpg
    for us folks who do not work a truck but really like to ride in a truck versus a car. That would steal sales from all of the other truck manufacturers.
    12 Jan 2014, 07:56 AM Reply Like
  • Arthur Fisher
    , contributor
    Comments (257) | Send Message
     
    Better Toyota. They could call it a "Toy".
    12 Jan 2014, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    The truck will be available with a 2.5L 4 cyl., as well as a 3.6L V-6

     

    A diesel option is likely within a year as well.

     

    Ford should re-enter this market, IMO.

     

    Personal; use of Full-size P/U's will never go back to pre-Katrina levels IMO.

     

    Seems like an opportunity for me.
    12 Jan 2014, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • cbroncos
    , contributor
    Comments (1265) | Send Message
     
    Diesel does not make sense in the US. A recent article tested 10 diesel cars and the average time it would take to break even with the gas version was over 200,000 miles.
    12 Jan 2014, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    cbroncos,

     

    True, to an extent.

     

    Payback time varies greatly by model though.

     

    Payback comparing a Chevy Cruze-Eco vs the new diesel would be one example that would certainly apply to your comment. (as the gasoline model is already very high MPG)

     

    With trucks, a percentage gain on a lower MPG baseline, would likely accelerate payback.

     

    Even more so, if the vehicle was often used for things such as towing, where diesel's advantage is even greater.
    12 Jan 2014, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • TAS
    , contributor
    Comments (2507) | Send Message
     
    Who wants a girly man truck?

     

    ;)

     

    I think I know......
    12 Jan 2014, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • vick4717
    , contributor
    Comments (110) | Send Message
     
    GM is going to offer a 4 cylinder diesel in their new midsize trucks which could reach the 30 mpg figure.
    12 Jan 2014, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • vick4717
    , contributor
    Comments (110) | Send Message
     
    That is why I would only buy a GM true man truck.
    12 Jan 2014, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • cbroncos
    , contributor
    Comments (1265) | Send Message
     
    I suggest you do the math - First diesel engine usually cost more than the comparable gas version. For example from the VW site a Passat SE with gas engine is $23,495, the same car with diesel is $26,995, which is $3,500 more. Also most diesel fuel costs 30 cents per gallon more. So at 12,000 miles per year the gas version that gets 28 mpg (using $3.50 per gallon) will cost $1,500 to run. Using a 0% loan for 48 months with 0 down and the monthly car payment is $489.48 per months, add in the monthly gas cost and the total cost is $614.48.

     

    Now the Diesel version lets say it get 38 mpg and goes the same 12,000 miles. Gas cost $3.80 per gallon and that is $100 per month. Using the same car deal of 0% for 48 months the monthly payment is $562.39 add in the gas and the toatal monthly payment is $662.40 or $47.92 more each month over 48 months you pay $2,300 more. At that point both cars are paid off and the gas difference is just $25 per month so you break even another 92 months. So it takes 92+48 months to break even on the diesel version. That is 11.7 years.

     

    Now there is more to consider as most car companies don't offer the best incentives on the special models so you may not get 0% for 48 months on the diesel version. Secondly insurance companies always charge more for a more expensive car. So in a real world case your break even may be over 13 years. I don't know anyone with a 13 year old car. Do you?
    13 Jan 2014, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    If the US auto market wants a midsize truck enough to generate profitable volumes, you can bet that Ford will show up with something.

     

    Ford used to sell around 350,000 US Rangers a year some 15-20 years ago, roughly half that of the larger F150, but sales collapsed some 85% to barely 50,000 Rangers being sold before it was cancelled during the Great Recession, when you would think a smaller, lighter, cheaper fuel efficient truck that started at around $15k would sell like hotcakes.

     

    Ford would probably contemplate re-entering the midsize pickup market in the US if they thought they could build and sell around 200,000 of the things each year. That would probably be the break-even point. Ford's Global Ranger, the one sold almost everywhere but the US, starts at around $19k and comes with a 2.5L gas engine and 2.2 and 3.2L diesels.

     

    http://bit.ly/1dHp02K
    12 Jan 2014, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • vick4717
    , contributor
    Comments (110) | Send Message
     
    The problem for me with your statement is that I would never buy a Ford.
    12 Jan 2014, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • omarbradley
    , contributor
    Comments (966) | Send Message
     
    there are some really cool battery powered rangers folks have made...using just regular car batteries. that vehicle platform is "dangerous" in the sense that it is so light you really don't need an engine for it. i think i'll wait for the Tesla variant myself...
    12 Jan 2014, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    That's nice Vick, but totally irrelevant. We are talking about whether there is a viable market for smaller "midsize" trucks in the US. That market was huge 15 years ago (and Ford "owned" that market by the way with the Ranger), but it collapsed to the point where you could hardly give them away 5 years ago. Only Toyota sells the Tacoma now. What has changed? Perhaps absence does make the heart grow fonder?

     

    Well something has changed, as Tacoma sales are up 50% from Recession levels, although they still down from pre-recession levels. Of course the rest of the US vehicle market is up 70% from recession levels, so arguably the midsize trucks are still losing traction. But maybe that is what GM is looking at - a rising trend to tap into. Still it seems that GM and Toyota are going to battle over a 150,000-unit market, a market which used to be marginally profitable at over a half-million units - 350,000 of which were Ford's Rangers.
    13 Jan 2014, 05:27 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Mid-size?

     

    Actually, the only and original "mid-size" was the Dodge Dakota. It was marketed as such and could actually hold a sheet of plywood, unlike the others.

     

    The others were compact pick-ups. Although with each generation the others did tend to grow a bit. Especially the Toyota Tacoma & the Nissan. Even more when they went from ext cabs to full blown 4 dr crew cabs as Ford did as well.

     

    I think in a way that's how they killed the segment. They got so bloated, along with their ever bigger 6 cyl engines & auto transmissions, their price & fuel mileage was no longer worth the step down from a full size.
    13 Jan 2014, 07:42 AM Reply Like
  • jea
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    I have no use for mid-size trucks. They are good for flower pots maybe.
    A full size truck with gas mileage approaching the 30's mpg or better and I'll buy. If a transmission costs a little more so be it. There is no reason not to have the higher mileage options available. The ability is present. the will to do it is not.
    12 Jan 2014, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • Hubert Biagi
    , contributor
    Comments (711) | Send Message
     
    "Mid-sized" trucks are actually about the size that "full-sized" trucks were 25 years ago. And in the last 25 years, "full-sized" trucks have morphed into monsters. Totally unnecessary for most people, although many like being way up in the air, and having a front end face like a semi, the better to intimidate the car in front, lol.
    12 Jan 2014, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • omarbradley
    , contributor
    Comments (966) | Send Message
     
    again "you just put the batteries and drive system in the the bed of the truck." turn the cap into a solar collector. 12 year old kids are already printing out solar panels and generating more than enough electricity to run their go karts around the yard. with oil imports collapsing i'm sure the idea that oil itself might not be necessary soon is causing a lot of issues. i agree "making that solar truck last a million miles" might be a stretch. if vehicle sales drop to 8 million from the current 15 though i think you'll see this stuff roll out pretty quick.
    12 Jan 2014, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • jea
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Hubert,
    That is absolutely untrue about the size of trucks unless you want to go back to the days of wood floor boards in the beds. In the 70's 80's and 90's we could get 4 men in the cab of a pick up. The roominess was adored. When the twin I-beam came along it began the competition for comfortable ride and now the trucks ride as good or better than most cars.
    The downsizing of the trucks to the mid-size was to satisfy the delivery or small needs of some services and they are good for nothing but that and that's why sales are sluggish on the mid-size trucks. That being that the need (jobs and industry) are vanishing.

     

    To make statements like that are merely a distraction from commenters who have something to contribute.
    13 Jan 2014, 08:12 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    jea,

     

    True.

     

    The Cabs on the mid '70's Fords was huge, just before the major downsizing that occurred for the 1980 model year.

     

    I personally have owned 63, 72, 75, 79 (last year of the big ones) Ford Pick ups. Also an '84 & an '89

     

    Ford actually even offered tool box compartments in the sides of their Style-side pick-ups (mid 70's) back then. Dodge (Ram) new tool boxes are not that innovative in that light.
    13 Jan 2014, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • jea
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    This morning's news:
    "General Motors (GM -1.14%) is recalling 370,000 of its 2014 model-year Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks, citing software that could pose a fire risk."

     

    The last three Silverado's that I owned ('97, '2000, and a '04) I could not keep a heat control unit(the dash control box) in them or a speedometer. The heat control boxes was $140 each. I quit buying Chevrolet trucks. With this mornings news it appears they still have problems in the design area. Reason unknown.
    13 Jan 2014, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    It's a software download fix.

     

    No parts required, so I would not characterize it as a design flaw, only pushing

     

    the envelope on a tuning decision.

     

    It appears they were trying to run very lean to keep the
    Cat converter as warm as possible in cold weather, for emissions.

     

    Ford Recently had to do the same with some of their hybrids to get
    within advertised MPG range.

     

    Silverado just won North American Truck of the Year award this am.
    13 Jan 2014, 08:32 AM Reply Like
  • cbroncos
    , contributor
    Comments (1265) | Send Message
     
    Well that explains a lot!
    13 Jan 2014, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • cbroncos
    , contributor
    Comments (1265) | Send Message
     
    LOL - How much did they pay for that award? When have their two versions of pickup trucks sell more than a F series Ford? I like the "awards" I get with my Ford stock. My dividend is now over 5% what does your GM stock yield? Oh and by the way Ford pays for that dividend with the F-150 sales.
    13 Jan 2014, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    A full size truck's large frontal area, boxy design, (low CD) and towing/hauling capability requirements will prevent it from ever achieving 30 mpg levels. It's laws of physics.

     

    If it were that easy, one of the majors would already have done it.

     

    Even the Honda Ridgeline (which is not even a real truck) does not even come close.

     

    A new Corvette (1/2 the frontal area, and 2X as slippery from an aero CD point) struggles to get 30 mpg hwy while running on 4 cylinders.

     

    All the wishful thinking cannot overcome the Laws of Physics.

     

    The small/ mid-size P/U is the solution for those not using a truck for commercial use.
    12 Jan 2014, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • cbroncos
    , contributor
    Comments (1265) | Send Message
     
    You may be right the 30 mpg is not on the horizon, but 27 is and we should see that real soon!
    12 Jan 2014, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • DeeAgeaux
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    http://cnnmon.ie/1cS4xuD

     

    Ford's new aluminum F-150 will probably get 30 MPG.

     

    It will drop at least 400 lbs.

     

    Weight is the primary enemy of higher MPG. It is the laws of physics.
    12 Jan 2014, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    cbroncos,

     

    HWY MPG numbers for an uladen truck could possibly get close to
    the 27 MPG range if customers were a bit more
    willing to Forego the Boxy, Big Grill, Big Rig, Macho styling in their Pick ups.

     

    Dodge (Ram) once the leader in that styling trend has reversed it
    with their most recent generation, scaling down the grill, and
    improving Aero CD quite a bit.

     

    For now, the manufacturers have only been raking back the windshields, while maintaining the big boxy grills, that people like.

     

    Large vehicles need very slippery CD to compensate for their
    large frontal area, as aero drag is a major component for HWY MPG.
    It gets especially important as speeds exceed 50 MPH or so.

     

    Aero drag increases exponential with the increase in speed. The reason it takes almost double the HP to propel a big truck though the air at 75MPH, vs 55 MPH.
    12 Jan 2014, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • omarbradley
    , contributor
    Comments (966) | Send Message
     
    according to physics the primary problem is "friction" not weight per se. if i can create "frictionless power" that would mean 100 percent energy transfer from the source ("the engine" or "collector") to the drive system. the most efficient i am aware of are fuel cells...which are used to power satellites in space...in some cases for decades (and interestingly forklifts etc for big distribution facilities.) obviously they only use the sun's energy to convert very small amounts of hydrogen into a "cell" or battery which turns the chemical energy into electrical current. some of this electrical current now being generated is quite significant. it will be interesting to see what the Koreans have up their sleeve this fall. by news accounts they fully intend to go all in on fuel cell technology for vehicle power.
    13 Jan 2014, 12:05 AM Reply Like
  • jea
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    1980 xls,
    Here again are comments that have no reality. The 300 cu. in. 6 cylinder that Ford produced went in to pick up trucks as well as F-600 dump trucks (I owned a 1967 F600 wit a 300 6cyl). Do you think the transmission could have anything to do with power and mpg requirements? The ability to get the mileage has been with us for quite awhile. These comments of struggling to get to a mpg point are your opinion and not facts.
    13 Jan 2014, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    JEA,

     

    Really?

     

    The ability is there but nobody wants to do it?

     

    Tell us about the guy hiding the 200MPG carburetor too.

     

    BTW my '79 F-350 had the 300 ci inline 6 cyl. with a manual transmission.

     

    Sadly it was before fuel injection, so it ran like crap in that era of emission control. (lean condition starving outboard cylinders for fuel)

     

    You can't raise gearing infinitely, and still have enough power to punch a large hole in the air with a big, boxy truck at anything over 45 MPH

     

    If gearing alone would do it, it would have already been done.
    13 Jan 2014, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Weight is a major factor in city driving. A much lesser degree in hwy driving.

     

    Do the Math

     

    http://bit.ly/L3FQCq

     

    A Chevy Cruze Eco (the highest hwy MPG gas car (non-hybrid) you can buy)

     

    Weighs about 2800 lbs. has a miniscule 1.4L 4 cyl engine

     

    Has about 1/2 the frontal area, and nearly half the aero CD as a full size PU.

     

    That's using special low rolling resistance tires, and active aero flaps to control air volume into the grill, along with ultra tall overdrive gearing.

     

    All that, and it still struggles to achieve 40 MPG hwy with an Auto transmission.

     

    It's math, not opinion.
    13 Jan 2014, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    jea,

     

    really?

     

    Gearing can only be optimized for a particular engines power/torque curve.

     

    Beyond such optimization, there are no further gains to be had.

     

    Hwy MPG is mostly based on a vehicle's horsepower needed to
    overcome aero drag at a given speed.

     

    It's math, not opinion.

     

    http://bit.ly/L3FQCq
    13 Jan 2014, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • fuzzymc
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    Price point will be very important. Had a91 ford ranger loved it. Now have 2021 4x4 silverado 1500 msrp was 36 2014's are in the 40's would love a chevy or ford mid size ext cab 4x4 for low 20's!
    12 Jan 2014, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • rwbrown.bvf@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (95) | Send Message
     
    My dad had several Ranger ext cab pickups. Even the last one , a 2007, struggled to get 20mpg.
    My super crew F150 twin-turbo ecoboost just got an honest 23.0 mpg on a 200 mile interstate
    trip at 75mph. Super quiet, great sound system, huge interior (esp the back seat), solid feel, and will flat out haul. It is no wonder that this truck is #1. Why have a small truck when the F150 can
    do everything so much better? Not to say that an aluminum bodied F150 or the new Ranger may
    not be a giant leap forward in efficiency. Several mfrs have shown that a very strong aluminum
    structure is possible. Alcoa's new "bondable" aluminum sheet metal is going to bring on a revolution
    in vehicle body designs if they can keep up with demand at a reasonable cost.
    12 Jan 2014, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    Ford's so-called Global Ranger (ex US), currently built in Thailand, South Africa, and Argentina, is quoted at 22-24 mpg with the 2.5L gasoline engine, 29-31 mpg with the 2.2L diesel, and around 26-28 mpg with the 3.2L diesel.
    12 Jan 2014, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    rwbrown,

     

    True Rangers got terrible MPG given their size. That was largely due to their very dated powertrains, (the 3.0 V-6 was a pig) as Ford really did not continue to update much with the Ranger since about 1993

     

    It got to a point that the gains over a full size were so miniscule (or non-existent) that they kind of made the sacrifice in size not worth while.

     

    It was not much better with Chevy's S-10 either, as GM used old junky low tech 4 cyls or a pretty dated 4.3 V-6 as well.

     

    Never quite understood why GM never used the Gen 2, 3.8 V-6 (of Buick heritage) in the S-10, as that engine routinely achieved over 30 hwy MPG in many of GM's large sedan applications. (LaSabre, Impala, Bonneville, Grand-Prix, etc)

     

    Colorado/Canyon was not much better, (with it's 5 cyl) and not a very good truck either.
    They did offer a 2.9L inline 4 cyl as well. But never the nice 4.2 straight 6 from the Trailblazer.

     

    But the last couple years before it's demise, One could order the Colorado/Canyon with the same 5.3L V-8 from the Silverado.

     

    Those things were FAST!

     

    I would like to see Ford do a good effort with a new compact/ mid-size PU for the US. If GM's new truck does well, I suspect they might.
    12 Jan 2014, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • MrVincent
    , contributor
    Comments (257) | Send Message
     
    How many miles do you get on it before it falls apart?
    12 Jan 2014, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • TAS
    , contributor
    Comments (2507) | Send Message
     
    GM has figured out that non-fossil fuel vehicles are neither popular or as profitable.

     

    Plus, the resale on hybrids and electric, nat. gas vehicles falls like a rock (worse than a Lincoln...).

     

    Edmunds and KBB back that up with stats.
    12 Jan 2014, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • Rich in NJ
    , contributor
    Comments (49) | Send Message
     
    The continued recovery of the US auto industry should be a source of pride for all Americans.
    12 Jan 2014, 11:20 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs