Cost of Ownership: Pickup Class Leaders

   7 Vincentric COOEvery wonder how to calculate the actual cost of ownership of your pickup or figure out how to use that information to make the best purchase for your next midsize or full-size pickup?

No worries. The people at Vincentric have just made that much easier by being the source for mountains of data collection, analysis and cost measurements to accurately calculate the real cost of ownership for a vehicle. In fact, Vincentric gives out awards each year to the winners in five key pickup truck categories: Brand, Compact, Full-Size Half-Ton, Full-Size Heavy-Duty Three-Quarter-Ton and Full-Size Heavy-Duty One-Ton.

The eight primary elements that go into the calculation are depreciation costs; fuel costs; insurance; financing; repairs; fees and taxes; maintenance; and opportunity costs. Of course, there are other factors that get much more complicated that are also collected to give them information about sales of new and used vehicles, as well as brand-specific data. (For more details on how the award is calculated, download this file.)

The data compares all the segment players over a five-year period against one another, specifically measuring each against the average. The players with the best scores in relation to that average are designated the winner. In the four most important categories (meaning the ones related to trucks), we listed the winners below. Of note, Chevrolet won Best Truck Brand from the 2012 Best Value Awards. 

 

Overall Pickup Brand Winner: Chevrolet

2 Vincentric

Vincentric liked how many configurations Chevrolet offered across its lineup and especially gave praise for having the lowest depreciation in its full-line truck segment, great fuel economy in its class and low insurance rates and fixed costs.  

Compact Winner: Toyota Tacoma

1 Vincentric
The Tacoma is a strong player in its segment, with strong showings in depreciation, maintenance, insurance and fuel costs. Against the Tacoma's direct competition, Toyota has been the clear winner in this category for five straight years.

Half-Ton Winner: Ford F-150

3 Vincentric
The F-150, in both two- and four-wheel-drive configurations, has the best fuel-economy ratings of the segment, as well as the lowest insurance and maintenance costs across the trim packages as well. This is the second year in a row the F-150 beat the Chevy Silverado 1500.  

Three-Quarter-Ton Winner: Chevy Silverado HD 2500

4 Vincentric
The Chevy Silverado HD 2500 model won mainly because of its strong fuel economy, low depreciation and lower insurance and financing costs. 

One-Ton Winner: Chevy Silverado HD 3500

5 Vincentric
In the big-truck category, as you would expect, many of the same HD strengths in 2500 trucks also played well in the 3500 segment. Among its most significant strengths, the 3500s have low depreciation rates and relatively low insurance cost. This win is the 3500 Silverado HD's third in a row. 

 

Comments

Chevy wins and Ford loses again!

Congrats to all of the winners!

Speaking of losers... Hi Bob

No way in hell the toyota has been beating the ranger for cost of ownership the last 5 years. How about cost of ownership for used pickups? That's what most of us buy.

Guts
Fading Glory
Not even mentioned.

Ram

As usual Chevy and Ford are the best trucks on the market.

I am a big fan of the Duramax, but I really lost all my respect for GM for taking the taxpayer bailout money. I know fanboys don't like hearing that, but it's true. A company should thrive by making competitive products that people actually want to buy. I will always vote for capitalism over socialism and avoid buying GM.

Dumbass, how is Bob a loser with his comment? Elucidate, please, Kind Sir/Ma'am.

Figuring fuel economy into the equation is misleading since people who have to worry about fuel economy have no business buying any truck.

And limiting the evaluation period to only five years hides the true cost of ownership since it leaves out the cost of replacement parts covered during the warranty period, if any.

If any truck breaks down and requires repair after the warranty expires does this affect the cost of ownership? Of course it does!

So does this mean that my 2009 Tundra 5.7 with 60+K miles on it, that has never had anything done to it except oil and filter changes, costs less to own and operate than my brother's 2009 F150 that has been in the shop for a couple of warranty and after-warranty issues?

Or does that only apply to whenever maintenance and repair is required AFTER the warranty period ends?

If that is the case, we'd all be better off leasing our trucks for the duration of the warranty period, since all vehicles will eventually break down and need repair.

And then there's the matter of retained value at trade-in time. Vehicles with high retained value can actually make up for all the expense to keep them running.

I am a big fan of the Duramax, but I really lost all my respect for GM for taking the taxpayer bailout money. I know fanboys don't like hearing that, but it's true. A company should thrive by making competitive products that people actually want to buy. I will always vote for capitalism over socialism and avoid buying GM.


Posted by: Alex | Nov 11, 2012 12:17:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex, I agree with you... well mostly. As a native to the metro Detroit area much of my family (myself included) are directly involved in dealings with the auto industry, and most specifically GM. I have close family that's in the higher up of GM (high level engineers, low level execs) and all of them say they wish the bailout never would have happened. They believe that they would have made it through bankruptcy stronger than ever and really on the right foot forward. I have close friends and family that are the plant workers and they will swear up and down the world would have ended without the bailout. What the bailout really did was save Obama's unions from being destroyed through bankruptcy. Everybody in the UAW has made out like nothing happened, if you weren't in the UAW, well you've lost everything. I truly believe without the bailout GM would have made it through bankruptcy and although the preceding months/years would have been much tougher, they would be a much stronger company overall. They would have ousted the ridiculous union wages and be much more competitive, and more over, the people who weren't in the unions would not have lost everything as they did.

That said, I will continue to support GM and the rest of the AMERICAN auto industry as I always have. The way I plan on fighting this is with my votes for who's in the government, and I hope we will finally be able to move forward in another 4 years. Right now we just have to accept the fact that GM or our government didn't do the right thing, but we need to restrengthen our AMERICAN economy.

Don't send me this BS that yada yada foreign POS's are just as American. They aren't. Just because a car has more parts, or is assembled in America doesn't mean anything. The largest cost and profit in making a car is the engineering, research and development. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the home country over 5-7 years in the making of a new vehicle. Tens of thousands of dollars maximum is spent over 12 hours for a car to go down an assembly line. You tell me which is more important.

A big congrats to Ford and GM on producing some great vehicles. Hopefully we'll see Ram in there next time. Somebody obviously forgot Ford made the Ranger when putting this together, saying the Tacoma is hands down best in segment 5 years running is laughable.

@Durastrokinns, I want to continue to support American companies too, but I don't like Washington's solution to all problems: raid everyone's income and throw money at the problem. I didn't want to see GM disappear, but the process should have taken longer and they should have done what Alan Mulally did for Ford. Make dramatic changes, better products, and not use bailout money. As for unions, yes I blame them for being part of the problem. They help people in the short-term, but over demanding benefits that cause companies to go under hurts everyone in the end. Cheaply made crappy products was another, and too many brands (expenses) was another.

Unions only help themselves in the short term. If it weren't for the government using the threat of force to help the unions negotiate, no current unions would exist in the United States. In fact, the only professions that would have a chance of unionizing would be high level technical professions, whose employees are difficult to replace.

Janitors, assembly workers, and most other manual labor with a short training time would never be able to extort employers to give them artificially high wages and working conditions since they are much easier to replace.

"Don't send me this BS that yada yada foreign POS's are just as American. They aren't. Just because a car has more parts, or is assembled in America doesn't mean anything. The largest cost and profit in making a car is the engineering, research and development."
Posted by: Durastrokinns | Nov 11, 2012 12:58:58 PM

@Durastrokinns
I am not trying to change your mind with this but I cant tell that you know the Tundra has a high domestic part content and is assembled here in San Antonio, TX but you don't know where it was designed and what people designed it so let give that info out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5obLlWqaTo&feature=g-vrec. I don't care about the American as apple pie comment as that is a comment from a Toyota employee I just want the facts straight.

"I didn't want to see GM disappear, but the process should have taken longer and they should have done what Alan Mulally did for Ford."
Posted by: Alex | Nov 11, 2012 1:17:37 PM

@Alex
GM and Chrysler did what Alan wanted them to do http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/bailouts-gm-chrysler-were-good-ford-too-alan-113859133.html "If GM and Chrysler would've gone into free-fall they could've taken the entire supply base into free-fall also, and taken the U.S. from a recession into a depression," Mulally says in the accompanying video, taped Friday at Ford's world headquarters in Dearborn, MI. "That's why we testified on behalf of our competitors even though we clearly did not need precious taxpayer money."

"Referring to his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on Nov. 4, 2008, "today looking back I think we'd absolutely make the same decision," Mulally says."

When it comes to the bailout you Ford guys say one thing but Corp. Ford says and did another. They also said looking back at it they would have done it again. All I want is the Ford guys to realize that your beloved Ford had a hand in the bailouts as well. So if you hate the bailouts and felt swindled and cant have anything to do with companies responsible for them well then don,t buy a Ford either because they help organize it. In a lot of States you get the same punishment for organizing a murder as the guy who pulled the trigger. If I were a big anti-bailout guy I wouldn't want to fall for the Ford "We didn't take any money" marketing because they are just as guilty as the other two.

Can't be the same Chevy that built the pos 2006 I had, oh wait, all that stuff was fixed under warranty, but if I had it past 36 months I woulda paid big $$.


Let's see, my 2010 Ram cost me a new battery as it was just over 36 monthes from when it was built, and the warranty was actually up by being over 36,000 miles. Could be the same battery that is distributed to many other manufactures.

I bitched about about tow haul keeping the trans in the 1 to 1 gear, but that's the way it works. I haven't had the trans break.

My key fobs just needed contacts clean, and although the batteries were just over a half hear old, I went with new ones. Those have been my issues. Not even a flat in 39,000 miles, thanks to a tire that has as much tread plies and more sidewall plies then the the sizes you get it in on Ford and Chevy. May not get the best mileage, but they carry a load too.

My Chevy? Bought in December 2006, the headliner showed it's sides. Even after a new one was put in, same old quality, or lack of. Same as my friends 2003 had, only he never saw it. Had maybe 10,000 easy miles on it and took it on a highway trip to Colorado, about 1600 total miles. During that time the frame to cab mount broke, making a popping noise while turning left. GREAT! The driveline made a clunking noise while shifting up, the tach made a noise. The plastic interior made a bunch of noise on any inperfect road.

When you put that together with the fact that Chevys sell for the most off of MSRP, no wonder they are cheapest. So, if you aren't too picky, you can have a 2006 like mine was, and it got great highway mileage. Of course, with tires only good for the street, no post between the doors (can't take much of a hit from the side, and no side airbags) it's also alot lighter. If your picky, you'd pay more for a Ram, or a bit more for the Ford.

@5.3, I don't know why you are calling me as part of "you Ford guys." I don't know what led you to believe I am biased toward Ford. Reread what I wrote. I didn't want GM to disappear. I'm very aware the Alan Mulally correctly didn't either. So save yourself the links. I just don't believe that bailout money was the only way to do it. It should have stripped itself of all unnecessary expenses.

@beebe,

The Ford Ranger suffers at re-sale values!

That is where the Tacoma destroys the Ranger because the Tacoma is a better value overall and retains that value over the long term better...

Better reliability also hurts the Ranger when compared to Tacoma also...

@Durastrokinns
I don't think many people working for an organisation would like to see it accept a bailout. It would make me feel uncomfortable.

But the support given the the UAW from the bailout was the wrong decision. All of the unionist should have taken a hit. Unions want to be part of the process in the management of a business, so they should also take the loss. The government should have raided all of the unions across the US and Canada to support the bailout.

Union supporters should look and see how many businesses are owned by unions. There is a reason why they don't own businesses. Becasue they couldn't run one, it would go broke. So how can they demand equal say in a business then negate the responsibilties that it should entail.

But anyone who thinks any auto manufacturer in the world can design and develop a true indigineous vehicle are playing with themselves. How many vehicles are truely 100% of US origin? None.

Parts suppliers are multinational like the auto manufacturers and they aren't brand loyal, they are loyal to their shareholders.

The bailouts have occurred and there is not much that can change now, other than restrictive barriers to prevent a competitive market.

Its all good to think that you are so American you will only buy from the Big 3. But you are only fooling yourselves.

Buying with an only US attitude will reduce competition and you will be provided with vehicles that are of reduced quality.

If you keep on having this attitude the Big 3 will not improve and they might go broke. Force them to improve.

@Big Al, I don't think one buyer having a "US-only" attitude will cause 3 manufacturers to decrease the quality of their vehicles. You would be correct if one manufacturer monopolized the entire market, but that is not the case and never will be.

@Alex
I am not telling you the bailouts were the way to do it that would be your opinion. You were the one that mentioned Alan and Ford and what you thoght they did first. I just gave the link that showed what Alan and Ford really did and would have done again according to Alan. I am sorry if the link burst the little bubble you were in. I DID NOT post the link to change anybodies mind on the bailout but to tell the truth that Alan and Ford had a hand in it and should be held equally responsible.

Wow take it easy dude.

@Alex
It's not the buyers that are causing a reduced quality. It's the lack of competition. The mainstream vehicles in the US are manufactured mainly in NA. What have they got to compare themselves too, or more correctly who are their main competitors. The same, more so applies to you pickups.

If the competition is intensified by the Big 3, then your locally made "imports" would improve also. To make this happen you need to import from overseas, you guys will see the difference in vehicle quality. And by competition I'm not just talking costs. Vehicle quality has plenty of room for improvement in NA. That approach has worked in Australia.

Even your cars have different "standards" just like your pickups. A protected market, unions and some relatively poor management decisions has made Ford, GM and Chrysler what they are. It's continuing on right now, just look at the CNG pickup, really is that a competitive vehicle?

The buy "American" people I'm refering to are the fanboi's.

If you want to lower the cost of ownership keeping your truck for at least 10 years by keeping up with all maintenance and taking care of the body. Depreciation is only significant if you keep your vehicles for less than 5 years. If you plan on keeping a vehicle a long time depreciation is not a factor. For most cars and trucks the first few years of ownership are the most costly due to high depreciation and higher insurance costs. Toyotas and Hondas overall keep more of there value than other brands. After almost 14 years of ownership I am not too worried about depreciation on my 99 S-10 and the money of have spent on maintenance and repairs is not as significant as the increased cost of buying a truck every 3 to 5 years. Of course for some that put above average mileage on a vehicle it might be more cost effective to not keep a vehicle as long and then it might be better to invest in a Toyota or a brand that retains most of its value after a few years.

The American brands are much better quality than they were 10 to 20 years ago but I do agree with Big Al from Oz that more competition from a less protected market would allow for a better product. After reading the Austalian shootout those trucks appear to be more capable than our full size half tons, but we will never see any of these trucks except the Colorado and even then we probably will receive a less capable version. Maintenance is the key to lowering overall cost of ownership. As they use to say in a commercial "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later."

Crack cocaine.

It's the only explanation I can think of for this article.

After rereading my previous post, I worded it a little harshly. I live in metro Detroit, without the auto industry, the little that's left around here would be gone. I will support them for that reason alone. In all honesty, whether I had the ties to the Detroit or not, I don't like the Japanese/Asian products at all. It's stereotypical to say all of them, but I have yet to see one that I would drive. European vehicles are a different story, they make some awesome cars. As far as the truck market goes 100% American's own that.

I agree to what's been said about the unions. They feel as though they are superior for some reason. The reason we are loosing out so much to oversea vendors is because of the outrageous wages AND BENEFITS we have to pay here in the states. I just hope we can restructure eventually so our wages can be set at what they should be at. The unions need to realize this and cede along with everybody else in America. Unions were formed on great principles. Unfortunately, they have taken their liberties way to far. IF THE GOVERNMENT STOPS INTERFERING WITH THE FREE MARKET (read: GM bailout) IT WILL BALANCE ITSELF OUT TO WHERE WAGES ARE COMPETITIVE AND THE BEST PRODUCTS ARE PRODUCED.

I dont know about this...nothing to do with breakdowns /reliability ect..


EXAMPLE:

If you follow the manufacturers oil change schedule,that is the only reason why some have a higher cost of maint..

My Dodge RAM says it needs an oil change every 3000 miles while my wifes Toyota says 6000 miles so right there the cost of ownership of the Ram is more ,just by oil changes.So all you fan boi's it has nothing to do with reliability,it doesnt mean the Toyota will last longer,just less oil changes recommended (i change it every 3000 miles on her Toyota because at 6000 it was black as hell)

"Figuring fuel economy into the equation is misleading since people who have to worry about fuel economy have no business buying any truck."- DeBinder Dundett

While it's hard to compare a v-6 truck like a Ford or Ram that gets alot more mileage then (insert name of healthy v-8 of your choice, in your case i-Force 5.7) a v-8 that can haul alot more, it's a pretty senseless comment that people who worry about fuel economy have no business buying a truck.

We know, you have a money tree and could care less what the gas costs. Some of us do care.

Interesting debate in regard to bailouts. Ford was afraid that if Chrysler and GMC went down so would they. I'm not completely sure that Ford would of died too. Just like I don't think that GMC and Chrysler would of disappeared without the bailout.
Trade unions would of disappeared almost completely or would of suffered severe restructuring without a bailout.
Who did we bailout?
The car companies or the parasites that the unions have become?
I've said this before, if we did not bailout GMC and Chrysler:
Chrysler is small enough that a global car company would of bought them at fire sale prices.
GMC being much bigger would most likely of been parcelled out and sold to the highest bidder. GM's better divisions would live on but under another owner.
Would a depression have occured if the bailout and bank rescue did not happen?
Probably.......................
BUT
a depression will probably occur anyway.
If it does it will be much worse since the USA has gotten further in debt and are in a poor position to weather a real depression.

Back on topic:
Did Bob or anyone actually look at the links?
The reality of the situation is that there isn't a huge difference between the winners and the industry average. The winners garnered their victories by slim margins.
The statistics do seem to reflect trends in sales.
GMC has lost sales in the 1/2 ton ranks and gained sales in the HD ranks.
Ford had done well in the 1/2 ton ranks but have faultered in the HD ranks.
Chrysler? They still are plagued by a reputation of poor reliability. That is probably unfounded in the 1/2 ton ranks. In the HD ranks I think that they have a long way to go. I know 1 guy with good things to say about the Ram HD's. The rest have varying stories about reliability. Most seem to centre around front end problems.

I disagree on a few points:
1. Fuel costs don't matter.
Make that comment to a large fleet owner. If you have to put fuel in a 1,000 pickups, a 10% difference is huge.
For example, my brother's company - They currently run GMC/Chev trucks and are trialing 3.7 V6 Fords. They've been happy with the fuel economy difference.

2. 5 years doesn't give a clear indication to reliability.
My brother's company increased their amortization period from 3 years/50K miles(80,000 km) to 5 years 88k miles (140,000 km) and have seen a huge spike in maintenance costs.

For John Q Civilian driving a pickup like a SUV, 5 years isn't a true reflection of longevity but statistics say that most people do not keep their vehicles for more than 6 years.

Not surprised Chevy is the over all winner. They make the best of the best. My neighbor has a Dodge Ram, biggest POS on the road. He is constantly fixing it. I've had one issue with my GM truck, a new u-joint, and that has been it. As for the uneducated morons commenting on the GM bailout, ford, toyota and BMW got government bailout cash, but being as stupid as you are you would not know that. For Philly trash, if you don't like unions because you are too unskilled to get in one, go back and finish elementary school. You should aslo get out of my country, the Union of American States, go to China, they don't like unions either dumbass.

Could it be that GM has a lower cost of ownership because they are "personal" use vehicles and not heavy use fleet trucks like mining and logging and such because of peoples dislike of the sissy GM IFS ?

If you are a considering a fleet of vehicles I would think that you would go for the best all round deal. This would include servicing costs.

You would play one manufacturer against the other until you can obtain the best possible outcome. Reliability and down time would have to factored in when considering the quantity of vehicles you would invest in. That's no different to employing people, they don't work a full year.

Buying a vehicle for domestic or private use you should factor in initial costs (including finance) and running costs. A cheaper initial cost might cost more down the track.

But from what I've seen many of the posts on this site people are brand conscious and only drive V8s. So they must have good jobs.

Another thing to remember when buying a vehicle, its not an investment that appreciates. Vehicles are a loss.

If you run a business buy the most economical. That means a bit of research, so if you can get away with a 2.7 litre Taco, buy it. Don't buy a V8 or something on the premise that you might need it once and a while. If that is the case rent a truck for a day.

The same goes for towing if you are at most going to tow 4 000lbs of fishing boat a V6 would work etc.

Always use servicing cost as leverage when buying a vehicle. Tell the saleman that his vehicle cost more to service and maybe he could drop the price of the vehicle to compensate.

Keep it longer, do the maintance on it and it will bring down the overall cost.

We have a 98 Merc Mountaineer that the wife drives for work. Still get 21 mpg to the gallon.

After this many years I consider those free miles as she travels regionally for work.

Cost us an oil change per month and very little in maintance cost otherwise.

Frank should be any time now to start trolling. We are 30+ posts into this thread and no sign of him yet....very unusual.

everybody work and drive the Chevy hd no this truck is the best on the market..power,stronger frame..some company like better have a nice dash and forget what is a real working truck..

@Lou--Any money loaned to GM and Chrysler is insignificant compared to 12 years of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars and the US defense budget are bleeding the US dry., At least workers pay payroll taxes and income taxes and the Government is not paying these workers unemployment and food stamps. The US government would rather spend money on weapons and wars and the US would rather rebuild Iraq than repair and rebuild its own infrastructure. Many politicians on Capitol Hill would rather have Americans fighting over auto bailouts and Obama care than to question US involvement in the MIddle East and funding for Cold War weapons that are ineffective against Taliban armed with roadside bombs and guns mounted on Toyota pickups.

It is ironic that many of these readers will readily criticise GM and Chrysler for loans but remain silient on Wall Street bailouts. I guess many of the critics did not have to try to work with Wells Fargo as my cleaning lady did and then be foreclosed on because the banks would rather foreclose than to work out a settlement. It appears that a lot of these readers just like a lot of Americans would rather help out the fat cats than help out their fellow working class citizens. This is what the Koch brothers want and that is why they have given so much financial support to the Tea Party. Keep the working class fighting among each other and then take a bigger piece of the pie for yourselves and cut pay and benefits to the workers.

GM and Chrysler are turning the corner and GM is making money in every market except in Europe where Ford is suffering as well due to the Euro crisis. Getting back to the article there are a lot of things to consider with cost of ownership. I have found for myself that not abusing my vehicles, regular maintenance, taking care of the body and mechanical issues before they get worse, and keeping my vehicles for at least 10 years have worked for me. It is a good feeling to not be in debt over a car or truck and it is good not to have to worry about any vehicle that has been well maintained. I do not worry about my vehicles breaking down because I keep a written log on all maintenance and repairs for each vehicle and can tell you when any maintenance whether tires, oil, brakes, and tuneups are due and I can budget accordingly for all repairs. I would rather pay myself first rather than the bank or the auto companies.

@scott-Amen to that. You are being smart. Those extra miles are like paying yourself back first. This is what my father did as well and he had a very comfortable and worry free retirement.

@Big Al from Oz-I totally agree with your comments. You need to look at economy and get what you need not anymore than that. If you can get by with a 4 cylinder Tacoma and you do not need to tow or haul heavy things then the Tacoma would be the best choice even at full sticker price. If you need something bigger to haul or to tow then you need to look at full size. Comparative shopping is always the best choice and being informed about any changes. Brand loyalty is subjective and can be misleading. Yes do tell the salesperson that his vehicle cost more to service if this is true and if you are still interested ask for a further discount, Your goal is to get the best vehicle for your money at a fair price.

I've owned my 2012 Ram 1500 5.7L 4x4 for a year now. Have 15k mike on it. I drive it everywhere....city, highway and some off road. So far no squeaks, rattles or problems. I don't baby it, it's a truck and I drive it as such. Maintenance has been simple oil and filter changes. My mpg has been 13 city and about 18 on the highway. My only mods are going to be changing out the crappy stock tires to an AT type and maybe a set of Bilsteins adjustable shocks to level it out.

But I'll admit the Ram was not my first choice. I was first looking at the Ford F150 4x4. But the prices were so much more, and the dealers were just not will willing to "deal". So I went to Dodge. So far I have been happy with my purchase.

Congrats to the winners especially Chevy who won in two categories.

Finally a study that has some merit to it. The results show what we have KNOWN ALL ALONG! Chevrolet provides the best ownership experience OVERALL. Put this on the scoreboard as ANOTHER LOSS FOR FORD. Let it be written....let it be DONE.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention bailouts?

The auto and bank bailouts was nothing short of POLITICS!

The auto bailout had NOTHING to do with saving an industry which is ILLEGAL and more to appease UAW supporters and the WEAK minds of the dumba$$ 99% that votes for the two evil parties that are in fact the same party!

When are you guys going to stop sleeping?

Finally a study that has some merit to it. The results show what we have KNOWN ALL ALONG! Chevrolet provides the best ownership experience OVERALL. Put this on the scoreboard as ANOTHER LOSS FOR FORD. Let it be written....let it be DONE.

Posted by: Michigan Bob | Nov 12, 2012 9:59:31 AM

Dude you must be smoking crack! RAM is the best truck going right now. Get out of the dark ages.

GUTS
GLORY
BEST OVERALL TRUCK
RAM

@tj: you talking the same unions that turned away help from power crews in the northeast latley because they were not unions?

Stupid.

Unions aren't all they are cracked up to be.

I remember some union put a sign in front of my dads body shop in the Chicago area in the mid 70s. It said "this is not a union built building" Big deal! Like that's any better? He tossed it in the scrap pile.

@Big Al from Oz: we didn't have many real V-6 FULL SIZE choices until Ford and Ram now bring modern V-6s to the table. Sure, we could buy the 3.7 12 valve Dodge or the 4.3 old Chevy, neither tow much.

Or we could have bought little trucks from Toyota, Nissan, the Ranger, the Dakota, the Colorado...and not carry much becuase they have no space. Oh, I know, special order the Tacoma or Frontier longbed, the ones not available with longer beds? Nah, still too small to hold much.

The trolls are having a field day. ALL HAIL THEIR TROLL LEADER - MICHIGAN BOB!!!!

Have fun trolls!

ALL HAIL TO THE LEADER OF THE FORD TROLLS.....FRANK
Everyone knew you would be here to foul up this discussion thread. You're late tough!! You had better make up for lost time and start some heavy duty trolling. I know you can get the job done.

@JeffS - I do agree that the USA is wasting billions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For what?
A stable Middle East?
The USA Imperial Empire needs to come to a close. You can't afford it. Once it all comes to an end your weapons industry will just set up shop in China and India.

@Big Al from Oz - one does need to be careful when shopping. In the NA market if one were to look closely at comparing 1/2 ton trucks to small trucks, there isn't a very good business case for buying a small truck. A preference for a small truck is about the only viable reason. 1/2 ton V6's (with the exception of GM's 4.3) outperform the Japanese V6's.
There is no competition in the small truck market making it stagnant.
There is more value in a 1/2 ton.
I looked at the small trucks and it is hard to justify paying more for a Tacoma Double cab V6 that costs more, gets about the same MPG, and has less capacity.

@Michigan Bob - the study doesn't show the best overall ownership experience.
It shows cost of ownership.
Insurance, maintenance, MPG, depreciation, purchase cost etc. all factor into that.
If you look at the tables, GMC is slightly above average for cost of maintenance but is the same as the average for repair costs.

Tacoma better reliability than a Ranger He Beebe who the ... are you.
Tacoma won cause it`s the only midsize pick up no competition.

You guys have lost track of what this article is about. This article is about the Cost of Ownership: Pickup Class Leaders. This article is not about auto bailouts, unions, or Obama. As Big Al has told us that Australia, Thailand, Japan, S Korea, and other countries have given loans and support to their auto industry and that too is questionable. Big Al is correct as well when he says you guys are under the false assumption that US taxpayers are supporting markets outside the US. Ford, Toyota, and others have received government assistance and loans.

The union is not blameless but if you are under the assumption that the US is the only nation with unions you are wrong. Japan has strong unions in every industry including autos. Europe has unions, Canada has unions, and so does Australia. We could go back to the turn of the last century and have 16 hour works days seven days a week with child labor. Those were called sweat shops but then if they would teach history in schools you guys might have learned that. How about company housing and company stores where you pay all your wages to. Do you think that Tennessee Ernie Ford was singing a make believe song when he sung "I owe my soul to the company store." Oh I forgot some of you guys are too young to know who Tennessee Ernie Ford is and anyway he is dead and history is the past.

Yes the auto loans were not ideal and the unions should have been forced to give in more but do you honestly think GM and Chrysler would have survived without any financial backing? Maybe we could have sold parts of GM to the Chinese and maybe Chrysler would have been acquired by Fiat anyway, but if any of you can remember or if you actually read the news the only company willing to take Chrysler was Fiat and that was after the government gave them some guarantees. It is doubful that Chrylser would be doing as well as it is without Fiat. Thank you Fiat.

I seriously doubt we will see anymore government loans to the auto industry. I am optimistic that we the taxpayers will get paid back and I would rather GM and Chrysler be successful than to celebrate their demise and the effect that their demise would have on our economy.

As for the article it is interesting but any vehicle will depreciate over time and maintenace cost increase with mileage and age. Unless you put more than the average amount of miles on a vehicle and the vehicle is exposed to harsh environmental conditions such as what Lou has said about his brother's company truck, most of us can drive our cars and trucks for 10 years or more and this is where the cost of ownership is lower. Even Consumer Reports did a cost breakdown of car ownership and found that after 10 years of ownership versus getting a new vehicle every 3 to 5 years that you can save up to 25k keeping a vehicle 10 years or more. $25k is not chump change unless you are Romney or Trump.

@tj
I think you need to listen to your own advice buddy:
" As for the uneducated morons commenting on the GM bailout, ford, toyota and BMW got government bailout cash, but being as stupid as you are you would not know that."

there is a difference from companies going bankrupt and getting bailouts to being resuurected then to getting loans and selling off holdings to stay alive (not bankrupt), GM and Chrysler were officially under bankrupcy protection, Ford was never there. Grant you Ford was on that downward spiral but got smart and looked ahead and figured it out to prevent going down too, namely hiring Alan Mulally. As to Toyota and BMW, I won't comment on because I am not sure on what happened with them and I don't want to be one of the uneducated morons you refer too...

moral of the story is bailout and loans are 2 different things while bankrupcy and not bankrupt are also 2 different things
class is over, move along

Ford needed to do what they did by divesting themselves of the other brands they acquired and then closing the Mercury division. GM was forced to trim Pontiac, Saturn, and Saab under the bailout, which I agree should have been done sooner. The bailout is over and hopefully we will not repeat it. Lessons learned now move on.

@TRX4 Tom
This is what I'm talking about (look at the link below), if you don't have many tray manufacturers, it might be a good business idea. The traybacks are a lot more useful and can carry a lot more than a "normal" pickup bed.

@Lou
You are correct. I was trying to point out to research and shop and look at all angles of costs associated will vehicle ownership.

Yesterday I did a run to Darwin and back to go to the bank (yes the nearest bank is a 700km round trip). I used 60 litres of fuel.

On the way up I sat on 135kmph (85mph) and on the way back about 112kmph (70)mph. The BT50 used a bit over $90 (just to go to the bank).

I averaged 8.5 litres per 100km or 28.5mpg. Overtaking a road train I hit 185kmph (115mph), but the diesel didn't have much left, the engine sort of died in the ass within a 5kmph band. But that's how a diesel engine is.

One thing you guys might not know is that the Northern Territory used to be a haven for high speed testing by vehicle manufacturers. The previous "state" government reduced to the speed limit to 130kmph from an open limit. The new (different) government is going to remove the restriction :)

Posh brands from Europe and Asia used to bring their vehicles here for some arduous workouts. This brought much money to the Territory, we'll soon have it back.

You have to be really careful driving at high speeds, because you can easily run out of fuel between gas stations. So when driving you also have to work out your cruise speed.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/cars-for-sale/NEW_709718620120418/new-2012-HOLDEN-COLORADO-LX-(4X4)-RG-6-SP-AUTOMATIC-Diesel-Ute-/-Tray-in-Australia.html



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