The Trucks of 'Da Yoop' in Michigan


 Da Yoop Extra-Ford Model A II

Words and photos by Robby DeGraff

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula is home to some of the wackiest, coolest and most bizarre vehicles I’ve ever seen. You can find everything from a lifted Chevy Silverado that proudly plays in mud while wearing Confederate flag livery to rusty Jeep CJs sitting in peoples’ front yards, combating the overgrown grass, just waiting to be sold.

I’ve always enjoyed searching for the four-wheeled hidden treasures that lurk behind used-car lots, inside old barns and off the beaten path. As a gearhead, you become excited when you discover something that once had a great past.

Da Yoop Willys Truck II

It’s a quest to find out everything you can, by looking through photos, wiping the dust off the VIN and talking with other enthusiasts. The UP — or “Da Yoop,” as spoken by the locals — was a perfect place for this.

I stopped at Lutey’s Heritage Motors to check out a 1929 Ford half-ton pickup with an aftermarket snowmobile conversion.  After a few helpful emails with the dealership, I learned a bit more about this unique pickup.

Da Yoop Model A Snow II

Kits like the one seen on this pickup were popular among rural mail carriers, commercial fishermen, woodworkers and farmers who lived in the Northern snowy areas of the country. Although there were several styles of snowmobile conversions for the Model A and T, the one pictured here features the easy conversion kit with removable front skis, along with a second rear axle for the longer tracks. Some snow kits even had permanently mounted skis up front. Seems like a perfect vehicle for the stormy winters in the UP.

Da Yoop 67 Jeepster II

Toward the back of the lot was a tan 1967 Jeepster Commando wagon still wearing Michigan plates from 1979. Under a tree and fading away in the sun was a 1950s Willys Jeep pickup begging for restoration.

Da Yoop Buick Snow Plow II

“Christine on Steroids,” as Da Yoopers would call it, caught my eye as I passed through Ishpeming. I pulled over to stop at Da Yoopers Tourist Trap, an outdoor collection of hilariously strange vehicles and figurines. (Who are Da Yoopers? Head over to YouTube and search for “Rusty Chevrolet.”)

Back to Christine, that’s a 1957 Buick Special mounted onto a 1974 Chevrolet three-quarter-ton truck frame.  Who wouldn’t want to plow with that beast?

Da Yoop Big Gus ChainSaw II

A small-block Chevy V-8 powers “Big Gus,” the world’s largest chainsaw. It’s a whopping 22 feet long and 6 feet tall. Then you’ll stumble across a big 1947-49 International KB-5 with the world’s largest firing gun mounted on the rear flatbed. That 35-foot gun is called “Big Ernie.”

Da Yoop International Big Gun II 

Tell us: What’s been the craziest or most unique truck you’ve seen on your vacation?

 

Comments

I grew up in "Da Yoop", and yes, everything is a bit more interesting up there. Great place, and a hidden jewel of tourism and beauty.

Cool. I like these kinds of travelling stories.

Does that chainsaw actually work? I mean, I'm sure the chain is off for safety reasons, but can you actually put on a chain and have it spin? That would be crazy.

@ Michael,

Would be great if the chain saw would work..but really want to see the gun being fired !! It would be sweet to see them both in action ! No body would with mess with you on the highway with that gun mounted on your truck..I have a strange feeling that Road Rage for some odd reason wouldnt happen to you with that gun mounted on your truck !

Australia is full of stuff like this.

A Bentley Ute
http://www.dgermancar.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Bentley-Ute.jpg

1976 Holden Overlander 4 x 4 Station Wagon
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3019/6124474597b5455d6339o.jpg

Chevrolet Blitz half track truck
https://www.vtcmagazine.com.au/img/classified/1337760687.jpg

There was even an Australian built F350 in 1979, 6.8 Litre Gas engine(DenverMike note)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5007/5250443836_489c174605_z.jpg

Check out the 'Toro" truck at the Keweenaw Mountain Lodge:

http://www.pasty.com/discuss/messages/994/1591.html

@Michael
Here is a big chainsaw that works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj7Fhyar5to

I just bought a used forest service truck out of watersmeet in the UP. got if for 5k. 04 f150 with 44k miles. Just using to tow the boat and camper, it's a 4X2 extended cab. Great deal, but it is forest service green! LOL!

Awesome stories and pictures Mark! Thank you!. My favorite is the Ford snowmobile conversion. I never knew such a thing existed back then? I'd drive it with pride even today right in the dead of winter. Very cool!

Chevrolet Blitz half track truck
https://www.vtcmagazine.com.au/img/classified/1337760687.jpg

@Robert Ryan, That is Awesome!!! Old Chevy's rock.

@FordTrucks1 and Robert Ryan
Notice the tail light from a Holden HR in the photo?

@Big Al, No I didn't. I didn't even know what a Holden was though until a year or so back when I ran across it online. Please understand, in America, that picture Robert Ryan posted of the Holden Overlander station wagon would be viewed by most as a 70's Chevy Monte Carlo. Had nobody told me it was a Holden, I would have argued till my last breath that it was a Chevrolet..

The modern age of the internet has opened the whole world unto itself. I can understand GM's dilema with changing a multitude of brand names to one brand. I can also understand why Ford decided to go with 'One Ford' worldwide. To me personally, it makes more sense. A Ford is a Ford is a Ford no matter where you may be on planet Earth. That's not so with Chevrolet. Nobody knows what the genuine article really is. Some may say that it's a General Motors. Well, what's that? A General observation of a motor vehicle? Ya, but what is it?? We know a Ford is a Ford, a Nissan is a Nissan, a Toyota is a Toyota for example. Yet nobody really knows what a Chevrolet is anymore. Is it a Holden? Is is a Daewoo? Is it something else?? Or is it just some random 'general' name for a General type of Motor car? I personally think GM should have just restructured as Chevrolet. They would have been better off in most of the world. Maybe in Australia it would have been tough for awhile though. I can understand you guys thinking the Overlander is a genuine Holden while us guys are thinking it's a genuine Chevrolet. Blame GM I guess..

@ FordTrucks1 Ford always used the prefix "Ford....". Not so with Chevrolet/GM . Good Reason as Vauxhall and Opel are much older than GM as national symbols.
Holden can trace it's History to 1852. So it is no Chevrolet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden

Great Trucks & Stuff !

@FordTrucks1
Judging from your name you are a Ford fan, but gratefully without the illogical fan boy approach.

I'm actually biased towards Nissan, but not a fan. I really think all automotive products have something to offer and increase competition across the board.

As most on this site are well aware I totally believe in the globalisation of the vehicle industry. This should be embraced and force the US to become more competitive and produce fantasitic products that can compete globally. Look at your aerospace industry exceptionally competitive globally with great aircraft, but why not your auto industry?

GM Holden will be in a bit of strife in Australia as GM Opel is going to compete head to head with them with European imports. With the value of the Euro so low I think it will impact Holden.

Chev is better known in NA than in any other region globally and in the early days GM bought all of the "brand" names and kept with them. This allowed for the "homegrown" feel to GM products in overseas markets. The reason is shown on this site by people who think a Tundra or Titan are Japanese, an example was with the Shuttle being towed with a Toyota. Like our country there are some very simplistic people in the US.

As we globalise more and more people will become accustomed to the changes and the reality is in the US where a vehicle comes from is not as significant as to some of the regular constributors on this site.

Like you stated I think Ford is doing you guys a disservice by not allowing the global T6 Ranger into NA.

GM could have made the correct decision by introducing the Colorado.

@Fordtrucks1 Even so Ford Australia has been substantially different to Ford US. That carries over to Ford Europe and Germany.
The Holden "Chevrolet Monte Carlo" is very different to the US vehicle. Different engines, (253 and 308 cu in V8's), different construction suspension etc. The car was designed by US designer Lou Pruneau and his team in Australia.. Lou ,now is well retired and lives in Australia.
He also designed this compact car that eventually had the 308 cu in engine as an option.
http://www.madwhips.com/upload/images/hdt_torana_gtr_xu_1_race_replica_1-568-426.jpg

GM could have made the correct decision by introducing the Colorado.

@Big Al, they just may have. Time will tell no doubt. While I'll always keep my Super Duty, if I was in the market for a small-midsize truck, the next brand on my list would be a Chevy since Ford offers nothing. Surely there's many like myself. Chevrolet/GM can capitalize on this if they have the right truck.

@Robert Ryan, I know and agree. This is GM/Chevrolet's entire problem in the new century. What worked back in 1920 isn't going to work so well in 2020 I'm afraid. There was a time they could have sold a Chevrolet as 100 different brands around the globe and not a single person would have noticed back then. Now, everyone knows within seconds and it only serves to hurt them. I'm not saying it's what I want or wish upon GM, I'm just saying that's truly how it is now. They need to figure out a 1 brand strategy for their cars and trucks. Then and only then will they be able to sprikle a little bit of extra's on top for further profit. Without a solid and brand loyal foundation on which to build though, you cannot build into the future. I honestly think this one fundamental difference is what helps Ford in the stock market and market place in general. They are very focused on the core of the company. I don't think GM truly knows what it's core is. Is it's core the 1908 version of Olds (now dead) and Buick? Or is it the one that really launched GM into the stratosphere when Chevrolet came on board a few years later? Once they figure that out and Focus on it, they'll be better off.

@Robert Ryan - this is a little off key.
Ford Australia was initially part of Ford Canada due to its "alignment" to the British Commonwealth. Some ridiculous Australian government policy with the British forced this to occur.

If Ford stops production in Australia and possibly Holden down the track the global auto industry will lose a significant capability in vehicle production.

Australia leads the world in production engineering. That is to design and produce small production runs of competitive vehicles. I thought this capability would have been significant to both Ford and GM.

Also due to the competition and lack of trade barriers in Australia, Ford and Holden Australia probably produce some of the best quality Ford and GM products.

@FordTrucks1 Still the same problem with Ford as well ,as several countries have unique Fords that are not built elsewhere. Australian like their Falcons . NA the F150 etc.
I agree with Big Al on this point, it is a bit late in the day for GM to introduce a "One Chevrolet" as Chevrolet is thought of a NA brand. Toyota and Hyundai do not have the problems that plagues Ford and GM.
VW on the other hand sees strength in the variety of national brands it holds.

@Robert Ryan and FordTrucks1
Yes we have gone off on a tangent, sorry.

Historically NA vehicle companies have gradually lost their appeal in overseas markets.

Companies like Toyota, Honda, Mazda, VW, BMW etc and now the Koreans Hyundai and Kia are becoming recognised as quality global brands. Like the fashion industry Levis is a global brand, or Coke in beverages etc. These will be the companies that will lead in the future if the Detroit companies don't change their ways successfully.

The NA automovtive manufacturers have had trouble creating themselves as competitive global products. Chrysler has been trying to do this since the mid 90s but quality issues have plagued them. I just hope Fiat's involvement in Chrysler will make them competitive globally.

Lower quality has been the biggest single factor in the GM, Ford and Chrysler lack of leadership in vehicles. What is produced in NA isn't what the rest of us want. Also the take up of "imported" vehicles in NA would indicate that the Big 3 have read the market incorrectly in the recent past. They didn't make the necessary changes and are now struggling and need to catch up.

The only real NA vehicles left are basically your full size pickups as everything so far is becoming global. And as nice as they are they unfortunately aren't required globally.

@ Big Al from Oz ,

Odd you say Ford Ford Australia was initially part of Ford
Canada ..But in Canada Ford is a part of Ford Motor Company of the USA ..

We have and always had the same vehicles as Ford of USA...Same with Chrysler & GM always the same as the U.S versions..(just to clarify that as some people will think we drive funny looking cars here but the F-series trucks best selling vehicle in Canada followed by the Dodge RAM and Dodge Caravan total sales including cars.)..We love to use full size trucks as daily drivers even in the City,mostly New Canadians drive import brands here you go to heavily populated immigrant part of the Province and its all import cars ,so much for multiculturalism,they hate us and our way of life as proven by their actions here (you just gotta see it to believe it,unreal)!!

To clarify to some people again,The Austrailian vehicles are totally different and never sold in Canada..Furthermore,Ford of Austrailia,Europe ect is all a part of Ford Motor company (USA)


@Canadian Car Guru ! -
No.
Ford Canada is separate from Ford USA.
What about Mercury? There were models that we available in Canada and not USA. Mercury Monarch, Frontenac and trucks come to mind. Another example of differences: My F150 is an XLT with STX package. Ford USA has the STX package as a trim level below the XLT. In Canada it is a step up for the XLT.
Nice to see your racist views sprinkled into the commentary. They hate "us". Hard to hide racism in oneself. They probably just hate "you".
I know and work with many people from various ethnic communities. I haven't sensed hatred from any of them.

You do not seem to understand how corporations work. The confusing part for many is the name "Ford" in the title. Yes Ford is the umbrella corporation that is MULTINATIONAL based in the USA. Ford Canada is considered different than Ford USA or Ford Australia, or Ford Europe etc. They all are separate divisions that fall under the umbrella of Ford which happens to be USA based.
Same can be said for other multinationals like Toyota. Toyota Japan may be the head base of operations but they have divisions all over the world. You cannot get a Tacoma or Tundra anywhere other than Canada and USA.

Don't you usually go by the name:Chrysler hemi or Canadian Hemi or similar variation? You sound like him.
Another Ram fan that used a false name and sounds like a complete idiot.
Interesting trend, isn't it?

We have a lot of immigrants and those with work visas here and most of them drive Asian cars. Its not that they hate us, most love American and the opportunities, it is more like they are familiar with Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Suzuki, Hyundai, and Kia and they are a known quality to them. I have a neighbor from India and he loves this country but he has a Honda minivan and a Camry because he knows those brands. Also the bigger is better mantra that is still prevalent in America is not so with foreigners. They have also heard some of the horror stories of American cars that were total lemons. That is one reason quality is more important the quantity. Once a manufacturer gets a bad reputation it is hard to shake. These are just my observations and many of them are from talking to people from around the World.

@Canadian Car Guru?
Yes, Ford Australia was initially part of Ford Canada.

In Australia an import comes from overseas, our Toyota Camry is not and import. Are you describing locally built imports? Don't get confused with imports and locally made products from other than the big 3.

Australia like the US, Canada and most of the OECD allow immigration. Most are constructive people who want a better life. If they are buying "imports" it then shows that the Big 3 don't have the influence globally you would think.

Australia is a country that allows for immigration like Canada and the US. Our countries were built with immigration. Don't feel threatened by people from other lands.

@Lou
Thank you for your comments.

Lou & Al--Most of the immigrants that I have met are hard working and buy Asian brands because they had those brands before or they know the name. Most would never want to insult the USA or any citizen it is just a comfort level with a product. Anyway a lot of them buy Asian brands that are made in the US so they are supporting workers in the US. That is a win win for everyone.

@JeffS, Big Al - egocentric and ignorant idiots like Canadian car Guru assume that our "American" car companies are globally known and loved the same way we in NA love them. The hated foreigners pick the so called foreign brands because people like to stick with what is familiar. That is human nature. We assume what we have is the best and are puzzled and confused because the rest of the world does not want our vehicles. Globalization is going to be a traumatic eye opener for many.

@Big Al from Oz, Robert Ryan - Big 3 full-size trucks aren't global sensations, aside from a cult-like niche/gray market following, but they are without a doubt, the 3 most profitable cars in the world.

It's hard to say how they would sell around the world or in Europe where the road tax would make them really expensive if they were allowed in at all. Remember, the current Mustang GT was banned from the EU for its dreadful(?) 26 MPG. The chicken tax alone would turn potential import of NA trucks into a political football.

I the end, "NA only" full-size trucks are fine with Big 3 OEMs because they already keep them afloat and solvent.

NA Ranger T6s would likely sell at a loss when you consider they would cost as much as F-150s to build (if they were to sell in equal #s), and it would cannibalize F-150s. Plus Ford has no mid-size SUV to share (amortize) its parts and assembly line.

As the world becomes "one" marketplace, American cars have yet to completely close the gap on Japanese, but then again, who cares? I'll buy a NA full-size truck when I'm buying a truck and Japanese when buying a car. Unless I'm buying a Mustang that is!

@DenverMike
I don't think they don't sell Mustangs in Europe because of their 26mpg fuel economy. That's sound like a bit of a "furphy".

Many performance cars from the Eurozone have much worse fuel economy than a Mustang. Just check out BMW, Mercedes Benz etc.

I also wouldn't say 1/2 ton pickups are the most profitable vehicles in the world either. The foreign manufacturers in the NA market seem to be profitable in comparison to the Big 3.

Also the German brands in Europe are achieving good results considering the current state of the global economy.

The T6 Ranger would be profitable in the NA market. Ford has choosen not to sell it because it would take sales from the F-150. Ford has done this at their own expense. Another poor decision from Ford.

@Big Al from Oz

http://gas2.org/2010/04/06/turbo-diesel-mustang-for-europe-maybe-some-day/

"Speaking strictly in terms of fuel efficiency though (26 mpg), the Mustang’s 5.0 liter V8 engine just doesn’t meet the ever-increasing European emissions standard"

http://www.autonet.ca/auto-news/new-car-models/2011/11/28/12-most-profitable-vehicles/

Kind of speaks for itself.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1050522_all-new-2012-ford-ranger-not-coming-to-the-u-s-heres-why

"A lot of Ranger buyers (like most compact truck buyers) were fleet purchasers, choosing that model only because of price (loss leader), Schirmer said. "It was often times only a purchase because it was an inexpensive Ford product, not as a pickup." Which, at the same time, always limited what could be done to keep the model updated."

"Then on the personal-use side, many Rangers were bought by commuters, who didn't really need a truck. There, too, it was because buyers simply wanted a low-price, fuel-efficient Ford. "It just happened to be a pickup truck," Schirmer quipped. "If you need a pickup to work, you're buying an F-Series."

Al, really you answered your own question. If a profitable truck cannibalized the F-150, who the heck would care???

Denvermike and Big Al from Oz
You are both right.
(1) The list of cars and pickups is NOT the most profitable around. I wonder where they got the criteria?

(2) Fuel usage acceptability depends on the Vehicle. A RR Or Bentley would be far heavier on fuel than a Mustang, but acceptable for what it is. The New Mustang would be competing against fairly fuel efficient, European/Japanese and Korean Sports Coupes, so it would need similar fuel usage. Diesel Mustang??? Contradiction in terms.

(3)"Then on the personal-use side, many Rangers were bought by commuters, who didn't really need a truck. There, too, it was because buyers simply wanted a low-price, fuel-efficient Ford. "It just happened to be a pickup truck," Schirmer quipped. "If you need a pickup to work, you're buying an F-Series."

The above statement applied to the very much smaller US Ranger, not the 9/10ths Global Vehicle. Yes I can see Ford cannabalizing its own F150 sales in a move like that.

@DenverMike and Robert Ryan
The Mustang sounds more like not meeting Euro V emissions more than anything.

"Speaking strictly in terms of fuel efficiency though (26 mpg), the Mustang’s 5.0 liter V8 engine just doesn’t meet the ever-increasing European emissions standard"

Euro V is quite strict in global terms and Euro VI will be harsher. Euro emission standards are based on a vehicles weight not "footprint".

@Robert Ryan - On what criteria would you base profitability? I mean since you basically refute my link. When you're amortizing costs spread out over 7 to 10 year production runs including full-size SUVs that run down the same assembly lines and sometimes 5 million total vehicles, usually at more than $35K, it becomes almost pure profit, pretty quick. Otherwise, got links?

OEMs want as few fleet sales as possible because they only want the smallest, cheapest, strippers for their fuel efficiency and limited space to corral them in at night. This means no extra or double cabs, just the loss leaders that OEMs hate selling. Notice Nissan didn't even build a regular cab Frontier, forcing fleet buyers elsewhere?

Fleet buyers won't pay retail and will dump them on the used truck market, forcing OEMs to rebate the hell out of their retail trucks including plain base trucks that already sell at a loss, full retail. The more Colorados GM builds, the better off Ford will be, especially since goverment fleet buyers stick to Big 3 OEMs.

Bentley and RR might get some extra weight allowance, but like most European vehicles, they're 'grandfathered' in and 'Euro V' exempt for the time being. Mustangs (and F-150s?) are not and must meet Euro V right now. That's why so many Euro V8s and V10s are getting old on the 'vine'.

Al, Euro V doesn't recognize CO2 emissions as much as MPG "emissions" if I understand correctly. This is why the (relatively) light weight Mustang GT and its 26 mpg 5.0 is essentially banned and the M3 went boosted 6cyl and retired its 19 MPG (hwy) pig of a V8.

@DenverMike
Euro emission standards concentrate much more on CO2 than the US. The US is using NOx as a tool for a trade barrier.

@Denvermike,
I noticed VW did not have a "profitable" vehicle according to the article, but made vastly more profit than Ford or Chrysler combined.
Yes I agree about amortizing costs, especially if you are like Toyota with their Corolla and Camry(one of the profitable vehicles listed)
The "New Mustang" if it does show up will be unrecognizable to the ones that have gone before and will be more in line with European and Asian Sports Sedans.
Euro V is pretty harsh on C02. The Fuel usage thing is more a European restriction. They penalize vehicles who do not achieve certain goals a bit like CAFE.

@Denvermike
VW made it's huge profit last year without the inclusion of Porsche. Porsche is now officially part of the VW empire.

@Robert Ryan, Big Al from Oz - VW is undoubtedly more profitable as a company and brand, but their individual models, not unlike Toyota's and Honda's, get a complete make over sometimes 4 year apart.

Then keep the price VW's in mind, many of which are bought by budget minded buyers and or in 3rd world countries. Mexico buys a lot of VWs.
OK, compare that to the selling price of F-Series, Expeditions, Navigators, Silverados, Suburbans, Tahoes, Escalades and Rams. Some of these are not the top 3 models concerned, but their profits go to amortize costs just the same.

Lastly is volume. The Article spelled it out for you. "Volume and prestige is the best recipe"

I agree the next gen Mustang will be more Asian and European influenced, but it won't be pony car minus the V8. That's what made it great, historically correct and brought V6 buyers to the showroom. I'm sure Mustangs will have V8s domestically, or at least I hope!

It's a shame the EU is taking such a hard line against V8s and the Mustang's Coyote 5.0L runs as clean and fuel efficient as any modern V8 of its size and power output on the planet. Their loss.

@Denvermike. VW is not just VW, but all 12 brands ranging from budget stuff to Audi's lamboghinis, Porsche(now) and Bugatti.

@DeverMike
Have you seen the volumes that are sold by VW? VW have a set amount of platforms on which to build vehicles, like GM or Ford.

Where I work, I cost my organisation double my pay to sustain me. The same goes for vehicle manufacturing. All cost of the organisation has to be divided among the vehicles manufactured. So the trucks don't provide a profit.

Your argument about VW developing new vehicles every 4 years discounts your argument in relation the the F series trucks. Yes they will become more profitable as time goes by. But approaching vehicle design with that ethos is what has sent the Big 3 broke, along with sub standard build quality.

The lack of adequate investment into the correct areas and into infrastructure is a managerial issue in NA. Even Ford had to go to the Government for a loan to retool. This means their vehicles aren't providing an adequate return.

The Big 3 are going poorly because the vehicles they are selling are costing more than they are returning.

Like any business investment in the business has to be correct. Particularly in the US the auto industry provides what they want more so than providing innovation. Look at your engine technology, until recently you guys (and Holden/Ford Australia) are running 50s technology with injection and pollution control.

Like I've been stating your auto industry needs to modernise both technologically and from a management perspective.

@Big Al from Oz, Robert Ryan - This discussion is about individual models, not car companies or 'groups'. Yeah, when you group enough highly profitable companies together, you'll dominate the world and so what? Talk to me about individual models.

Clearly not all 'Big 3' cars or actually none of the 'Big 3's cars produce profits anywhere near full-size trucks. Full-sizes trucks subsidize lower profit cars and loss leaders and therefor lose as a whole (company). I'm not saying Big 3 OEMs haven't been and still aren't mismanaged, but again that's a whole different topic... Tangent!

Full-size trucks were innocent in the bailout and bankruptcy madness. Big 3 OEMs would be the most profitable (individual) car companies in the world if they only produced full-size trucks, full-size SUVs and better managed.

VWs may share platforms, but do they run down the same assembly lines like full-size trucks and SUVs? Assembly lines aren't cheap are they? Do VWs sell for anywhere near what full-size trucks and SUVs get?

You're basing you're opinions on gut intuition, but have absolutely zero facts to back it up. Got links?

What started this discussion is the how big a mistake it would be for Ford to bring the Ranger T6 to NA and how irrelevant it is that NA full-size trucks, aren't sold or "needed" globally.
Do you have an opinion on these or am I just right???

@DenverMike
The T6 Ranger is being built in large numbers and it will only increase every year as the markets outside of NA improve ie developing nations.

I did state that building a vehicle over a greater length of time reduces costs, but it also reduces innovation and performance and makes it less competitive. This is graphically displayed by the selection of pickups you currently have.

Producing a cheap vehicle doesn't ensure success. A T6 Ranger is a far better vehicle than the F-150. They are more versitile and much cheaper to operate.

It doesn't have a V8 or size etc, but that isn't what determines a better vehicle. If a full size was cheaper to build then they would be the vehicle of choice in developing nations, but they are not.

Your F trucks, Chevs 1500 and Rams are mainly SUVs and personal transport. If they weren't they would constructed differently.

Most of what people say about the use of your 1/2 ton pickups is chest beating, as most people who own them don't use them for work.

The original pickups were used as work trucks and then gradually became a car, like most are now.

Our global trucks are still built like a work trucks.

@DenverMike
Most vehicles are built over a similar lifespan or 6-8 years.

How long do you think the Camry platform has been used.

Its not just a vehicle's production life that determines cost. In Australia the Ford Falcon 6 cylinder has been built since the early 60s. When the new OHC 6 was designed it had to be able to use existing tooling. So dimensionally it is almost the same engine.

You will find a lot of tooling is carried over between models.

Interchangability of parts also reduces costs significantly. Your full size pickup use mainly existing car technology. As large engined cars become obsolete the developement for pickup only vehicles will rise.

The problem is if the F-150 is profitable much of that profit would come from the developement of existing vehicles.

As I have noted on this PUTC site most people want the biggest for the cheapest, which might not give you the best possible outcome.

Like the comparison between the Raptor, Ram, Taco and Frontier. Listening to some of the comments a lot of people think if it is quicker its obviously better.

@Big Al from Oz - OK, the Ranger T6 is a better vehicle, but there's just one thing missing. A few things actually like they cost just as much and although a diesel option may give you better mpg, you may not own it long enough to see a return on investment.

They're 9/10ths the size so they're not much easier to park or maneuver. Also, how are they 9/10ths the size, but with only half the towing and payload?

That's from an owner's perspective, but from an OEM's, there's no reason to take a loss (unless you're GM). If GM wants to better serve fleet buyers that'll snap up loss-leader base Colorados like there's no tomorrow, more power to 'em.

You're right, bigger doesn't automatically make anything better, but smaller doesn't always mean cheaper, more versatile or more economical.

You have a lot of theories on what makes a car profitable, but nothing beats the winning combination of high MSRPs and shear volume of up to 500K units a year for up to 10 years. The current Superduty has been going strong with minor updates for 14 years and will likely push for 20. Plus Excursions helped amortize costs and shared the assembly line.

@DenverMike
The NA model (Big 3) of Auto Manufacturing has proven itself to be unviable unless there is government intervention.

Every vehicle manufacturered by the Big 3 is subsidised by borrowed money that your great grand children will be paying off. Even the F trucks are subsidised or Ford wouldn't have had to go for a government "loan" to retool or just use the vast F Truck profits, there isn't any.

Even their branches in overseas countries have been having problems.

As I have pointed out only several auto manufacturers are able to meet the demands of the future.

Yes the T6 Ranger is a better designed vehicle. The amount of people who would use a 1/2 ton for towing is marginal. If you were going to tow that much weight you would by an HD.

This logic of carrying a sheet of 8x4 ply and towing 5 tons is B/S. When at Lowes I saw a person rocked up in a 1/2 ton pickup towing a trailer to pickup wood chips for his garden. The truck looked very pretty but never worked a day in its life.

I do know some use the pickups for work, but like I've state again and again 95% are show ponies. We have the same kind of people here who buy pretty trucks and never use them other than a pose.

@Big Al from Oz - The Big 3 did get a bailout, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the world's 3 most profitable vehicles. In the end, full-size truck's tremendous profits weren't enough to avoid their OEM's bankruptcy , but that only speaks of how incompetently the Big 3 ran their operations. I'm not disputing this, but it has absolute zero to do with how good full-size trucks are or are not.

You keep bringing up the bailouts when your arguments hits a wall... ad hominem much? Actually, Ford never needed or received a bailout. You're thinking of the DOE loans Nissan, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai also received to invest in green technology.

Ford was struggling, but managed to pull off a huge private loan like the world has never seen and in the process, handed over rights to the Mustang, F-150 and Blue Oval trademarks as collateral. They've recently paid down that loan enough to regain control of said namesakes.

Ford wasn't completely innocent when it came to competency or business smarts, but again full-size trucks nor their world leading profitability obviously were never the problem.

What does it matter if trucks are used hard for work or showing off at the on he way to the shopping mall? Why do you care so much? You run your own life right and everyone else's fades into the nothingness.

Anyways, if you saw my pickup, you wouldn't know it's ever worked hard day in its life. You'd have to look real close to see all the scratches because I go out of my way to take care of it and minimize wear & tear. Plus I power wash it often before salt and minerals have their way on my frame and body. Plus I get out and look (GOAL) when maneuvering in tight places and so what? Why does a truck need to be 'tore up from the floor up' to be a working man's truck?
Follow me around for a week before you judge, alright???

Yeah I see dorks sneer when drive out of The Home Depot with just a couple lengths of pipe in a well preserved '04 pickup. I get more of a kick out of it than they do!!!

It's all relative because someone somewhere, on some odd occasion is going to under utilize a mid-size pickup and some goofy CUV owner will be there to point and sneer.

@Denvermike.
" This discussion is about individual models, not car companies or 'groups'. Yeah, when you group enough highly profitable companies together, you'll dominate the world and so what? Talk to me about individual models."
Yes , profitability can be from overall company profits or individual models. Still the markups on Lamboghini's , Ferrari's , Bugatti's would be substantiallly more than a Pickup.

@DenverMike
I dont' disagree about the potential profit from a long run of vehicles. The US has adopted this formula for decades across most of their range of motor vehicles and where are the Big 3 now. If one line of nearly obsolete vehicles are keeping them afloat then your auto manufacturers are in really deep $hit.

Your vehicle technology overall has been behind the 8 ball and now you need to catch up. The only way for you guys too realise what could be better in NA is by allowing an influx of affordable vehicles manufactured from overseas in.

The full size trucks wouldn't have made the profits if it wasn't for the trade barriers protecting them. You should be able to import them without Americanising them, just change the steering and give them a wheel alignment.

If you guys recieved exacty the same mid size utes we get it would put a big dent in your full size trucks and possibly take away from your SUVs. Base model 2wd utes with a 6'x8' bed that can carry 3 000lbs tow 6 600lbs and return over 32mpg and have a top speed of 109mph are possible because we have them now. And your prices would be about 75% what we are paying.

You have to put aside the Taco, Frontier and Dakota as a comparison. These new trucks are way in front now as all of your mid size trucks becoming very long in the tooth.

I know someone will perk up about V8s etc, but if you want that you should be able to buy full size trucks.

As I have pointed out your full size sales in August and through the year have improved. But the smaller pickups have blitzed the full sizers in the same time period. But not much is said about this discrepency on this site. This proves this site isn't going to attract many conusmers who want to buy a mid size.

So, did Ford make the best move by dropping the T6 from the NA market? Especially when mid sizers are improving markedly.

@Big Al from Oz - What exactly is "obsolete" on NA full-size trucks? They may not be 100% cutting edge, but how does than make them "obsolete". Yes they enjoy long production runs, but does that automatically make them "obsolete" towards the end? Why do passenger cars get completely made over in half the time or less? Doesn't that mean they're "obsolete" shortly after they hit showrooms?

Mid-size trucks were made "obsolete" when NA full-size trucks superseded them. There was nothing wrong with them or particularly "obsolete" about them when the slide towards full-size started to happen. They were just relieved of duty. The chicken tax wasn't their problem. It never was.

All trucks have to be "Americanized" including our own. Safety and emissions standards are an even part of the playing field.

The mid-size truck niche will always exist to some degree, but a slight uptick isn't anything to stop the 'presses' about. What, Orkin signed on for 10,000 base Taco loss-leaders? Who cares? Look at which mid-size trucks are selling and to whom. Are they loaded up double cab 4X4s with nav, leather and sunroof? ...Exactly!

If we had you're exact truck market, full-size trucks would lose a notable market share, but if our exact truck market hit your country, your mid-size market would be over and done!

@Robert Ryan - Yes the markup on Lamborghini's, Ferrari's and Bugatti's are substantially more than pickups', so you would be correct that high MSRP doesn't guarantee profitability.

You would also be correct if you said all Lamborghini, and Ferrari models would need sell for more than a million dollars each before even thinking about turning a profit. Bugatti's for multi millions.

Every new model sells at a loss when it hits the market and profitability may not happen for years if at all. This is true even when drivetrains and chassis' are common to the brand or group.

Volume obviously plays a vital role but it's the combination of that can make bank or break it. Price it too high and they won't leave the showroom. Too low and although they will leave the showroom in big #s, you may not make enough to cover expenses and risk losing brand cache.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com