This is Lou_BC's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Lou_BC's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Lou_BC
Recent Activity
Robert Ryan - I'm surprised that you haven't been flamed ""We are not going to develop a fat cowboy truck for North America," Laramie, Long Horn, Lariet, King Ranch, High Country, 1794 all play up to that cowboy image.
Same old arguments on both sides of the line drawn in the sand. We do see small trucks have similar price tags to full sized and comparable mpg. We've also seen a convergence in capacities. 1400-188 lb in the Colorado is definitely full sized capacity. Ford looks at it from a profit basis...... will this product make me money? They decided that the global Ranger or a variant is a non-starter for the USA. VW has said that they would need to sell 100,000 Amarok's per year in the USA to make building a factory profitable. Tim Esterdahl has not addressed the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Small/midsized pickups currently are 90% the size (according to Ford) of the full sized pickup. One can assume a 10% cost reduction? Assembly costs are the same i.e. Tundra and Tacoma roll down the same line. One can therefore assume that build costs are the same. Global small trucks aren't the same as USA ones.... Why? Tariffs, EPA, Safety Regulations. That has been compared to the cost equivalence of a 20-40% tariff. (Some countries have extremely poor safety regulations). If one wants Global small trucks here then one needs homogenization of tariffs, emissions, and safety regulations. That is the only way one can truly have a "GLOBAL" product. Click bate. Nothing more....... nothing less.
Preventative maintenance................ Nice to see Uncle Sam has your back ;) Was 2007 the year that de-icing chemicals came into full use? Those chemicals are a very corrosive.
Wrong rear end ratio? If the guy bought the truck with specific towing in mind then Ram needs to give the guy a new truck. A gear change doesn't alter the ratings on the door tag unless Ram is going to recertify the door tags.
I don't like the fact in past tests trucks with higher payloads automatically get higher points even when compared to non max trucks. Funny to see a Ram guy say that.
papa jim - some tires are better on ice and like anything there are differences in icy conditions. My friend moved to a warmer climate that rarely gets snow but when they do get it it is hell or maybe hell froze over ;). The snow is wet and heavy and packs quickly to ice but when it does it sheds a lot of water. That is about the worst possible ice scenario. I've raced dirt bikes on lake ice with tires set up with carbide steel ice racing screws. You get better traction than on dirt. Great fun.
4x4 will expand the market for these vehicles. Good EMT vehicle. This is the kind of testing one should do with any 4x4 pickup. Running them in an off-road park doesn't give any real world information.
I prefer the monochromatic look to the big fake chrome look. Good looking truck. The grill on the Silverado is much nicer than the Sierra.
George C - never heard of a transfer case described as a PTO T-case in the format you describe. I grew up around heavy machinery so PTO means something totally different to me.
The 3 season Wrangler SR/A's on my truck were better on paved road for traction on wet or dry pavement than my General Grabber AT2's. I know that and try to drive accordingly. The AT2's are vastly superior in puncture resistance, gravel road use, mud and snow. Even though they are winter rated they actually were not as good on ice as the 3 season Wranglers. The take home message is: know your vehicle,and know your tires and drive accordingly.
@BigAl - for most people they will never drive one of these trucks hard enough for long enough to shorten the lifespan. Guys like my brother who spend most of his time on dirt roads, logging and construction sites can kill a truck easily in less than 100,000 km.
uh huh - agreed. Rear end ratio's mattered more in the day of 3 speed automatics and a top gear ratio of 1:1.
papa jim - I've been mentioning tire selection as a critique for the last few shootouts. The 1/2 ton shoutout had the GM siblings, Ford and Ram all coincidentally running Wrangler SR/A's but there is a difference between a 20 inch tire and an 18 or 17. The Tacoma was at a huge disadvantage due to its offroad bias. Toyota deserves what they got. A TRD package would of been a better choice. The Nissan looks scary with that huge nose dive. No thanks. I'd take the Colorado or Canyon over the other 2 any day.
@PapaJim - 1400 plus cargo rating and 7k tow for the GM siblings put them on par with many full sized trucks. The only real reason now to pick between a 1/2 ton and a small truck is preference for external dimensions and interior space. Capacity comes into play only if you are towing heavy or carrying heavy. There will always be those that want 350-400 hp V8's and big trucks but GM has finally given the buyer better choices.
George_C - you can only get a PTO drive in HD's. Why would you want it in one of these? @PapaJim - agreed. Anyone I know who does any hardcore offroading modifies their own truck since what you want/need varies based on where you live. The Colorado/Canyon cover more bases than the other 2 trucks. I like the looks of the Colorado but I'd rather have the better interior of the Canyon.
The whining and crying post test is just too predictable. As others have pointed out, PUTC can only test what the manufacturer sends them. Toyota sent the TRD Pro to both the 1/2 ton and small truck shootout. Bad choice on Toyota's part. I'd pick the Canyon too. - I don't like the mini-me Sierra looks but one does not see that out of the driver's seat. It is unfortunate that the Colorado does not get the same level of interior refinement as the Canyon. - The Canyon was way too soft for the offroad test but who drives one of these trucks or any truck on a closed course track? People buy smaller trucks because that is what they want. Pretty simple. The Canyon offers great ride, good empty and loaded performance, and respectable economy. I'd add: -Tow test with 4-5k trailer. - Testing with both max load and load based on weakest truck. - Test with the same tires. - Extended gravel road test. I love the idea of adding civilian testers to the mix. Good job PUTC.
BD - ask Tom#3. He sounds like he could cover the first option you mentioned.
Interesting to see guys saying that Silverado/Sierra is as light as the current F150. One forgets that the F150 has taller box sides, the truck rides higher and has a bigger cab. All that adds weight to a truck. Cam in block pushrod engines tend to be lighter and more compact when compared to twin overhead cam engines. Turbo's and their associated hardware also add weight. Ford needed to shed weight from the F150 to stay competitive. Here is a tidbit - I read a test where a 2010 F150 supercrew 5.4 was run against a comparable Chevy crew with 5.3. There was only 0.1 seconds difference in the 1/4 mile. Like i said, Ford needed to loose weight.
Nick- great comments. The global Colorado was Brazilian engineered and IIRC most of the testing occurred in Thailand. I suspect that a USA version was also planned since new products tend to have a 5-6 year R&D cycle i.e. from initial idea to rolling off the line. GM did get hit with a very poor product roll out for the Sierra and Silverado. Some pundits said it was GM's poorest launch ever. I do not think anyone would of predicted an oil price crash. Fuel prices have traditionally have had an effect on small trucks versus larger ones. That would mean small truck sales should crash but we have seen the opposite happen. The billion dollar question is "who is buying Colorado/Canyon? Tacoma and Frontier sales have improved so it is safe to say that they have not been hurt by the GM twins. Big Al floated the theory that they are poaching V6 1/2 ton buyers BUT as you pointed out, GM isn't bragging about conquest sales. Big Al also thinks that the aluminum F150 is a flop and that may be a source BUT again, no bragging from GM on conquest sales. I suspect that they are attracting buyers that normally would buy a SUV or CUV. GM has a huge stable of those vehicles so I'm inclined to say that most buyers are chosing a smaller GM pickup over a GM SUV/CUV.
Fiat could bring the Strada aka Ram700 to the USA if it was built in a tariff free zone but why would they? They would rather sell you a Pentastar Ram or Ecodiesel Ram with considerably higher profit margins. FCA does need to improve mpg across the board or hope CAFE rules get adjusted. It is starting to look like we will get readjusted CAFE ratings.
I doubt that Merc would bring a pickup to the USA. it isn't the image they want to send. The rest of the world is a different story. I always find the whole small versus large truck debate interesting. No sense putting down a product if it doesn't meet their wants or needs. You put down a product only if it doesn't compare well to the competition - in this case other small trucks. There is overlap between every class of truck: We have the doublecab Tacoma with a cargo rating around 1100 lbs and tow of around 7k. The new Colorado crew can carry 1800 and tow 7k. Those numbers fit the mid to lower end of the 1/2 ton crew market. One then looks at max cargo F150 Crew in the 2,300 lb range and Chevy at 2k. Both can tow 12k which again overlaps with 3/4 ton trucks. Look at your wants and desires and buy what makes you happy. Just make sure it can do what you want it to do.
This story perpetuates the legend that small trucks sell based on price and mpg. That was why they sold in the 70's but no more. People just want a smaller truck and want the same features available in larger trucks and are willing to pay for it. How hard is that for people to comprehend?
waste not want not
HEMI V8 - Ram 1500 gets the nod for civilian use but not work. Ram doesn't make a 1500 work truck. Just a reskinned Crown Victoria with a useless balcony.
Tom#3 - how many miles on it? What brand of tire? Original? How does rear diff behave on snow/ice and mud?