Best-Selling Pickup Trucks: May 2014

Fords Pair 2013 II

Spring sales events are in full swing, and the entire country has thawed from a challenging winter. Combine the good weather with the fact that May had five weekends in which to sell vehicles and you see why just about every pickup truck manufacturer is happy with this last month's sales numbers.

Ram and GMC had particularly strong months and could be on track to do something this year that neither has done in a very long time — continue a string of back-to-back double-digit monthly sales improvements.

According to the Detroit News, we can expect incentive spending to get more aggressive later in the year as the market continues to grow but the rate of growth slows. GM will have to be the most cautious with incentives on full-size half-ton pickups as it has the new Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon coming later this year and will need to be careful about not allowing those entry-level pickups to offer pricing too close to their bigger brothers' prices.

With all that said, if things continue along this path we could start seeing predictions that the total number of automobile sales could get close to 17 million units by Dec. 31.

Next month we'll offer a six-month snapshot of the pickup truck market as well as more information regarding some of the fastest- and slowest-selling models. More to come.

Manufacturer image

 

May-chart

Comments

GUTS
GLORY
CLIMBING TO THE TOP
RAM

Boy! Ford can't get that Eco bust Beer can truck out fast enough. Sells are slip sliding away. lol

Part of a press release along with monthly sales report on all models: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-auto-sales-hit-9-high-may-191716697--finance.html

But Ford's truck sales dropped 4 percent as the automaker reduced incentives. Ford said it's trying to manage pickup truck inventories as it prepares for the new aluminum-clad F-150 pickup, which is due out later this year. Ford plans to close its truck plants for a total of 13 weeks this year. It would normally make around 90,000 trucks in that time.

"If we really wanted to, we could sell more trucks in the near term, but we've got to manage this thing through," said Joe Hinrichs, Ford's Americas chief.

To those keep picking at the "new aluminum bodies", research it, been used in some high end vehicles for years. As someone said, just wait until your RAM trucks do it, then what "band wagon" you gonna jump on. In many cases if your new aluminum paneled F150 needs repair, they'll just replace it rather than use bondo or a patch. I'd rather a new panel.

@Greg
"I agree with Steve. Ram sure got quiet about sales of the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel. Something fishy is going on."

Nothing fishy is going on. People just don't buy them, like they say they will because of price.
See, everybody cry he wants a diesel in half ton for years, but when they finally have that choice and see the window sticker price, they back up. All1 and his community cry about Jeep Wrangler with diesel, but he is not gonna buy one , because of price. Bafo is pushing his polytruck with 15 years old small diesel, but who is gonna pay $20 000 more in here for this useless manual trany truck without a balcony and very small master bedroom ? Everybody buys $20 000 less expensive Hemi with 8 speed automatic of course.
But they will still sell this diesel in here. In smaller numbers but at least we have a choice.
I just wanna know, if people are gonna buy new Titan with Cummins for $50 000, because everybody is so excited now, but when they see the window number, they will go to see a different dealer with more engines, less expensive options.
I think, that RAM has covered everything. All the options you can wish for, in every category, so doesn't matter how many small diesels they sell, they still sell RAM and they gain the market share every month.
And don't take me wrong, but if it takes 4 years to Ford customers to realize, that ecoboost has worst mileage than HEMI, its not very clever customer in my eyes.
RAM might need to build another RAM factory soon, because they sell everything they can right now.

@zviera
I totally agree, Ram has every base covered right now.

@supercrew02
People here aren't necessarily anti-aluminum, it's just that a lot of us don't think it's the best strategy. Ford would have everyone think that aluminum is the cure-all to improving efficiency.

What was Ram's solution? They took a 5 year old platform and threw in a VM Motori diesel at very little engineering cost.

Ford is still out there doing whatever their doing to get their trucks ready for release. Besides the recent siting at the HD testing, I haven't heard a single peep about the new trucks. Here we are almost half way through 2014, we don't know any specifics about the '15 F150. Ford really needs to start getting their act together.

I bet Ford is scrambling. They are realizing that all the aluminum and small V6 efforts were in vein. No the 2.7l Ecoboost won't get better fuel economy than the 3.0l ecodiesel. That is near impossible, for starters diesels are typically 30% more efficient than a gas engine of the same displacement.

@Zviera

Yes, I would sell my current Jeep Wrangler and buy a 3.0L diesel Jeep in a heartbeat. I am not too concerned on things such as price as some. When I want something bad enough and I feel it is worth it then I save to get it. Simple enough, now don't speak for me EVER again, m-kay pumpkin.

"And don't take me wrong, but if it takes 4 years to Ford customers to realize, that ecoboost has worst mileage than HEMI, its not very clever customer in my eyes."


Really? I think what I just posted in the other article goes here as well.

"I really would like to know where you did your testing as well since just about test site that did the actual testing data proves you completely wrong.

The 2014 Canadian truck challenge. The Ecoboost got better fuel economy unloaded, hauling, and towing than than all other gas V8s even the GM 5.3L that is rated to get better fuel economy. - http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/10/2014-canadian-truck-king-challenge-how-we-test.html


The first Ike Gauntlet, where the Ram Hemi 8 speed, 2014 Tundra, and 2013 F150 Ecoboost pulled the same 7,100lb trailer up the mountain road. The Tundra got 6.7 mpg, the Ram Hemi got 7.3mpg, and the F150 Ecoboost got 11.3mpg. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq05bNUaBnU&list=PLjXptazwnueqnqm_Y8NwotkAf1bXVTRvN&index=16

Then there is the actual real world in the form of Fuelly.com where the 2011 and 2012 GM Silverado which was rated at the same EPA mpg actually gets worse fuel mileage than the Ecoboost. ---->Chevy Silverado - http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado%201500/flex%20v8 F150 V6 - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/gas%20v6 http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2013/06/2013-light-duty-challenge-mileage-drive.html

So what testing have you done to back up what you say and prove all these guys who actually did testing wrong? Oh, and also what testing have you done on the reliability of these engines that went even further than any of the tests that Ford has done? If you are going to say it then you might as well back it up with facts, right?"

Did you notice the Ram Hemi got less fuel economy in EVERY review test than the Ecoboost. Gee, I thought you said the Hemi got better? I don't know about you, but I would stop listening to whoever is telling you all this bull$hit because you are beginning to sound like a dumb@$$ for regurgitating it.

@Zviera

Ooops, I messed up on this link and meshed it in with another. Am I seeing this right that the Ecoboost in the PUTC light duty challenge got better fuek economy than the Hemi unloaded AND loaded???? This can't be based off the assumptions you are telling everyone....

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2013/06/2013-light-duty-challenge-mileage-drive.html

@All1, Ford's Eco bust can't hold a candle to Rams MPG. Not one truck but two. Eco diesel with the same torque as Eco bust. And truck two pentastar v6.

MORE GUTS

MORE GLORY

MORE MPG

RAM

ALL1, do you always go out of your way to convolute your argument to try to win a debate? Nobody cares about the 2011 and 2012 Silverado results on Fuelly. Everything about those trucks was outdated.

The more salient observation, which of course you did not mention, is the new 2014 Silverado V8 mileage, which is sitting at an average of 17.5mpg accoriding to your Fuelly link. The F150 V6 (which includes the 3.7 - a rather glaring fact that you of course avoided) is sitting at 15.8,15.9, and 16.9 for 2014, 2013, and 2012 respectively. In other words, just so that you are clear, the new Silverado is CRUSHING the F150 on the fuel economy front. GMs new 5.3 probably beats the ecoboost by an easy 10% in fuel economy.

"The testing is over and the 2014 Ram 1500 has been named Motor Trend’s 2014 Truck of the Year®. That is back to back for those keeping score at home. The Ram 1500 is the first back-to-back winner of the Motor Trend Truck of the Year award. When it comes to truck accolades, Ram Trucks have claimed three Motor Trend Truck of the Year® awards in the last five years.

In this year’s testing the Ram 1500 was up against the all new Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra and GMC Sierra among others. Even though the 2014 Chevy Silverado was completely redesigned, the Ram 1500 came out on top again. The judges still appreciated the innovations introduced in the 2013 Ram 1500 and were blown away by the all new EcoDiesel engine."

http://www.lonestarram.com/blog/motor-trends-2014-truck-year/

All1, Just my friend told me I didn't even ask , who bought Ecoboost 2 month ago and he was shocked.
He is slowest driver in the city, never over limit, very picky and causes. I am o posit of him.
He says, it has lot of power, much more the his Avalanche, but very thirsty. He would be the first one to lie to me, because we always compete, who buys better stuff. From rifles, binoculars to computers.
So I don't have exact numbers, but it has worse mileage than his old Avalanche he traded in.
You can just dream of V6 mileage. Maybe ford meant 6.6 L V6. That would be accurate.


@Hemi V8

That is just a stupid comment....

That is like saying the Hemi can't hold a candle to the Ecodiesels or Pentastars MPG. Well, duh because the Hemi is way more powerful and capable then both of those engines just like the Ecoboost is as well.

The Ecodiesel has more torque than the Hemi, but doe that mean it is more powerful than the Hemi? No, it does not so why would you even suggest the Ecodiesel is anywhere is the same league as the Ecoboost or Hemi power wise?

Yeah, the Ecodiesel and Pentastar gets better MPG than both the Hemi and Ecoboost, but at the sacrifice of power and towing/hauling capability.

Why would one make such a nonsensical remark?

@ Mileage Man

I did mention that the 2014 Chevys did improve in my initial comment that I copy and pasted that from. However, when I copy and pasted it here it got messed up some how as I mention in my post immediately after that last.

Read my 4th from the last comment below and you will see my original comment.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/06/2015-ford-f-150-seen-on-the-streets.html

My point being was that people were stating that the Ecoboost did not get better fuel mileage than some V8s now, but at the time of it's release in 2011 it did. As with all things, competition makes things improve and the better fuel mileage of yesterday gets outdated.

@zviera - your friend's mpg doesn't constitute definite proof of the Ecoboost poor mpg. I can give examples of guys I know who say Ram/Chrysler products have been the most unreliable piles of crap they have ever owned.
I know 2 guys with Ecoboost F150's. They both are Platinum trim and both have max tow option. I guy says the mpg is on par with any other full sized truck he has ever owned and the other says he gets better mpg than any truck he has ever owned (30 mpg Imperial highway).

I have to side with @All1, even though EPA ratings and magazine tests can't replicate what individuals may get, it provides a pattern or trend.

If you said you had 20 friends with Ecoboost and they all got poor mpg, that would be a larger sample size providing a more reliable reportable average.

@ Mileage Man

Sorry, I just read the rest of your comment. If you are going to mention the 5.3L crushing the Ecoboost in mileage than you should mention the Ecoboost crushing the 5.3L in power. At no point does the Ecotec 5.3L has more horsepower than the Ecoboost, and in fact the Ecoboost has as much as 50 more horsepower in the lower rpms. Then there is torque. The 383lb-ft that it takes the Ecotec 5.3L 4,100rpm to make only takes the Ecoboost 1,800 rpm to make and it stays above 383lb-ft until around 5,000 rpm. In fact, at 2,500 rpm, the Ecoboost makes over 80lb-ft more than the Ecotec 5.3L and even 25lb-ft more than the Ecotec 6.2L. So if you want to be snooty and mention how mpgs of the 5.3L is crushing the Ecoboost then be sure to mention how the Ecoboost is crushing the new Ecotec 5.3L in power in the same paragraph.

Here, this is a rough dyno of the two based on the manufacturers SAE dynos so you will know what I am talking. ----> http://postimg.org/image/an76l34rf/

However, if you do not want to be snooty, just drop your 'CRUSHING" remark, and just respect that we all have different tastes in vehicles not calling any of them crap, then just forget about what I just said in this post.

@zviera

Yeah, I have a friend of a brother in laws cousin that owns a new 2013 Ram 1500 8-speed and he told me 10 years ago that he only gets 7mpg in that thing no matter what. So to me, all Ram 1500 Hemi's get crappy gas mileage.

Get real.....

Sorry if you can't figure out the sarcasm above. My keyboard does not have a sarcasm font selection.

Its very nice to hear.Congratulations! Best truck in market....

All1
You are mad, because you know that I am right.
Ecoboost doesn't have a mileage of 6 cylinder.
It has a mileage of 6 cylinder with 2 turbos.

@zveira.

I knew your usual play on words not making any sense would come out sooner or later. No, I am not mad at you. It's more of a feeling sorry for you than anything.

Lou BC
Nothing wrong with my F-150, I own the 2013 FX4 with the 5.0 V8, only getting 15.3 MPG, wish that was better with gas prices at $3.79/gal.
Its just all my friends have no respect for my F-150 and anybody with a Ram 1500 gets all the attention.
I am jealous when everybody goes wild over a Ram truck and nobody even notices my F-150.
I paid a lot more money for the FX4 just to get respect from other truck owners and it didn't work, if I knew that would happen I would have got the STX model instead.
I live in a small hillbilly town that's landlocked from heavy snow in the winter and everybody owns a 4x4 pickup and you are judged by what pickup you own.
In the late summer our small town has a contest for the best truck in town award, I wouldn't dare enter my F-150 cause I would be laughed at and I would never have a chance of winning against any Ram, and the Ram pickups win every year!
I always thought it was a fluke that only the people in my town loved and respected the Dodge Ram Pickup but the more I read the comments on PUTC the more I understand its the same everywhere else where everybody else is much more passionate about the Ram almost like a Ram religious cult, where that pickup controls their mind.
Frankly, I am ashamed of my F-150!

The only good thing about the Ram is the new 8sp transmission, Cummins diesel and that new Fiat sourced small diesel with the ultra low 490lb payload capacity. lol!

Once the competitors put 8-10 speed transmissions in their PU's, the 8sp/Hemi combo won't be such a big deal.

I like the new Ram, especially the high zoot editions with the two tone paint option. However, I sincerely hate the fact that they started this whole mini crew cab look mess for the extended cab models back in '02.

Why do I have to get a four door looking truck if I rarely have rear seat passengers with me most of the time?

No, a single cab won't cut it for me, but an extended cab will. It is for this very reason that I never considered nor will ever consider a Ram unless they change them. If you're going to hinge the rear doors forward, at least come up with a clever solution for the rear door handles to minimize the stodgy four door look.

Toyota was able to do it on the extended cab/quad cab Tundra, why can't Ram? And, if government roll over regulations is the reason for this design change, how come Ford still has the suicide rear opening doors on the upcoming '15 F-150 SC's?

ALL GUTS
ALL GLORY
PUTTING FORD AND GM TO SHAME
MY NEXT TRUCK
RAM

I'd still like to see these monthly sales reports broken out between LD and HD trucks. That would make it easier to see what changes are making a difference.

@Steve

Boy for someone who seems to hate Ram so much you sure do claim spend a lot of time at the RAM dealer with your claims of knowing how much inventory they have on their lot to the point of know what engines are in what trucks.

Clearly the path Ram has taken with their trucks has been a hit with the public as they keep increasing sales month by month.

Those still bad mouthing the rear coil spring suspension don't have a clue. In fact what are you Ford and Chevy/GMC fan boys going to say when Ford and Chevy/GMC make the switch over to coil springs in the rear and it will happen it is just a matter of time.

Ford is banking on their new full aluminum body F150 and a new 2.7 liter V-6 turbo charged engine. Something tells me that an engine that small is not going to be the most popular pick by the public.

Chevy/GMC are lost in the woods. I think their design staff was part of the old GM that got spun off in the convoluted bankruptcy lead by Obama which kind of explains why GM is performing so badly, Obama had his hands in their business and we all know what Obama touches goes to crap.

As for the comments about what will Rams fans do when Ram goes to aluminum in their trucks, well I hate to inform you of this but Ram has already been using aluminum in their Ram trucks, the hoods have been aluminum for a while and they also designed a good portion of the front suspension out of aluminum.

Depending on how the public receives the full aluminum body on the Ford F150 Ram has already said they can and are ready to respond but just don't see the need for it at this time.

My new Ram is getting 20 MPG in mixed driving, with the Hemi and 3.21 gears.

@All1
Well, If Ecoboost is that great for mileage you don't have to feel sorry for that.
Back on topic. I don't know a reason why Ford is loosing market share sharply with their most efficient Ecoboost and RAM is gaining double digits every mobth with their " low payload" rear coil suspension.
Is it because customers doesn't read PUT and particularly All1 coments? I believe what All1 says, I don't trust my friends, so I can't explain why. I trust ford and All1. If they say V6 mileage, it must be a V6 mileage. Maybe they meant V6 from 60's mileage. It certainly doesn't have a mileage of V6 Pentastar. Don't tell me that please.
Can someone elaborate on this? Please ?

@Lou
"I guy says the mpg is on par with any other full sized truck he has ever owned"

Exactly. Read your comment slowly again.

I am assuming he owned older trucks then Ecoboost in the past not newer one, which wouldn't make sense at all and he owned V8, which was the only option in the past. So Ecoboost has a mileage on par with older V8.

GM should note this year doesn't matter to them since they are no longer profitable with all the recalls

@zviera

There you go talking for me again. Who said I was not happy with my mileage. For how powerful and capable this engine is I am very happy with the fuel mileage. The only trucks on the road that match it's capabilities get considerably less fuel mileage. Although to be truthful, I did not buy this engine for its fuel economy. I bought it for it's initial power output and it's potential power output I knew I could easily and cheaply get out of it versus sinking a boat load of cash into other N/A engines that were available at the time only to get the same or less power from it. Who wouldn't be happy with getting their "half ton" engine up to 420hp and 530lb-ft of torque for less than $500. To get the same kind of torque output in a N/A would have cost me 5 thousand dollars or more.

All1-

You do know the Eco Tec 6.2L is rated at 420 HP and 460 lb/ft of torque and is rated at 1 mpg less than the Ecobust right? And in the real world usually gets better mileage towing etc. The new GM 6.2L crushes the Ecobust in every aspect and sounds a thousand times better doing it.

Don't try telling everyone the Ecobust will last as long as a v-8 because it never will. Stop watching Ford infomercials and get out in the real world for once.

All1-

You also forget to mention the EcoBust must run on Premium 91 Octane to achieve it's numbers and while towing...

the 6.2 requires premium as well

6.2 doesn't 'require' premium. It's 'recommended' for best performance. It runs just fine on regular.

EcoBoost doesn't require premium either. It is rated on 87. If you want more performance than its rated for you can go to a higher ocatane.

@Anything but....

Even though the new GM 6.2L has more top end power, it does not have more low end power than the Ecoboost. In fact, it is not until 3,200rpm that the GM 6.2L makes more horspower and torque than the Ecoboost. Before that, the EB has more power and torque.

If the GM 6.2L Crushes the Ecoboost. then why didn't it crush it here towing over 10,000lbs up an 8 mile mountain road. But you are right about one thing, it got better fuel mileage than the Ecoboost by .5 mpg, but that might have been because the 6.2L kept dropping down to 45mph.

2013 F150 Ecoboost 3.73 rear axle
http://youtu.be/QR-gMWRzvOg

2014 Silverado 6.2L 3.73 rear axle
http://youtu.be/g4Ngaj4eG5s

I am looking, but I can't find where it says the Ecoboost "requires premium fuel".
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/engine/

It does say that if you want better performance then to add premium because just as PUTC stated in an article, the Ecoboost gets bumped up to 385hp and 430lb-ft with 91 octane versus the 365hp and 420lb-ft with 87 octane. This is the same with all engines that have knock sensors and can adjust their timing. Old engines could not do that so they had a fixed octane rating, but new engines can adjust "on the fly" to different fuel octane ratings.

However, it does state that the GM 6.2L requires premium just as Nitro just stated and I have stated before. http://www.gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/PowertrainProducts.aspx ---search for the 6.2L V8 AFM VVT(L86)**NEW** and look under fuel type.

So you were saying.........

@Anything but.....

Here is the GMs owners manual even stating to use premium in the 6.2. Look at page 9-70 and 9-71. - http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Ownership/Manuals%20and%20Videos/02_pdf/2k14silverado.pdf

"For all vehicles except those with
the 6.2L V8 engine, use regular
unleaded gasoline with a posted
octane rating of 87 or higher. If the
octane rating is less than 87, an
audible knocking noise may be
heard. If this occurs, use a gasoline
rated at 87 octane or higher as soon
as possible. If heavy knocking is
heard when using a higher octane
rated gasoline, the engine needs
service.

If the vehicle has the 6.2L V8 engine
(VIN Code J), use premium
unleaded gasoline with a posted
octane rating of 91 or higher.
Regular unleaded gasoline rated at
87 octane or higher can be used,
but acceleration could be reduced,
and an audible knocking noise may
be heard. If the octane is less than
87, a heavy knocking noise may be
heard. If this occurs, use a gasoline
rated at 87 octane or higher as soon
as possible. Otherwise, the engine
could be damaged. If heavy
knocking is heard when using
gasoline with a higher octane rating,
the engine needs service."

And what studies and testing have you done to allow you to say which engine will last longer....... That's what I thought.

@All1
"However, it does state that the GM 6.2L requires premium just as Nitro just stated and I have stated before. http://www.gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/PowertrainProducts.aspx ---search for the 6.2L V8 AFM VVT(L86)**NEW** and look under fuel type."

Please show me where it states that this engine "requires" premium. Go back to your link and find me that please.

The tow tests done were done in drive mode and the 6.2 would shift into high gear when they let off the throttle because it was a 60 mph max they would let the trucks get up to. Of course they wouldn't put both trucks in manual mode and actually tow correctly because the ecoboost would have had its ass handed to it if they both went wide open. They also performed this test in the dead of winter and at high elevation, both giving an advantage to a turbo engine.

You forgot to mention the 6.2L almost doubled the Ecobust in the tow mileage.

A true test would be up Davis Dam in the middle of the summer and put both trucks in manual mode and go wide open the entire time.

Of course the Ecoboost would get creamed since the air would be too hot and an NA engine runs best at lower elevation, and both trucks would actually be running at higher rpm, not some rigged test to accomodate the EcoBust.

Its basic physics, when an engine has 40 more hp and 40 ft/lb of torque more, that engine will always go up the hill faster as long as weight, transmission, and gearing are equal.

Its also simple physics that an engine almost half the size doing the same amount of work will not last longer. This doesn't even go into the fact that twin turbos pose a much higher failure rating on a gasoline engine that runs higher egts than a diesel.

Show me an ecobust with over 200k miles that hasn't been touched except for oil changes. I can show you millions of V-8's that do this...

more guts

more glory

my hubby will buy a

hemi ram!!!! :)

or he will be sleeping on the back porch

@zviera - interesting advice on reading blog entries. You overlooked the comment abotu the "other" guy getting 30 mpg Imperial highway.

As always, you fixate on what ever snippet of information (regardless of context) that feeds your brand loyal view of reality.

Your Ecodiesel rant is a prime example. You are also fixated on proving Big Al wrong on the small diesel front and you've blindly blundered down that path and made your favourite brand look bad. It was also another example of your ideology bubbling over and killing any sense of credibility you have.
20,000 more for a an Ecodiesel?
"Everybody buys $20 000 less expensive Hemi with 8 speed automatic of course."

Maybe the Ecodiesel Ram isn't selling as well because people are getting sticker shock from the cargo capacity on the door tag and not the price on the window?

@Tom#3 - If your self worth is derived from the product you drive you need counselling.
If your little town bases one's personal worth upon what the owner drives you should find a new place of residence.

It all depends on how you drive and what you are doing with your truck. My best mpg based on USA gallons is 15 city and 20.5 highway and that is with a supercrew and 5.4 V8.

Are there places in the USA that actually get snow bound in the winter?
If that is true your economy is much worse than what I thought.

@Tom3 Snow question?

Yes there ARE places, Lou!

My ex and I had a house in the Great Lakes region of NY for about 20 years. There were many times that the only thing in town that was open for business was the prison, the police station and the hospital.

If you planted tomatoes before June you could count on losing 'em.

Good month for sales. Quality is another story as GM continues to have the highest quality & durability of all pick ups. Ford is a close second and that is why Ford & GM dominate the monthly sales chart. Tundra is moving up as the third best quality pick up and Ram & Nisson are last with quality & a useful life span of 10-12 years before the junkyard calls.

@Lou
I am not blinded. Just more experienced than you. Like I said many times, I had 3 diesels starting 23 years ago. Toyota Liteace, Toyota Hiace, Volkswagen Sharan 2L TDI with variable turbo geometry.
How many diesels did you have? Non.
How many diesels Bafo had? One.
30mpg imperial is achievable. It is 24.98 Mpg.
I overlooked that, because like All1 says , who cares about "friend of a brother in laws cousin mpg"
I don't see any problem with payload numbers for RAM1500 Ecodiesel. Right numbers for half ton truck.
It can make 38.1 MPG ~ 45.75 mpg imperial.

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/05/09/hypermiling-ram-1500-ecodiesel-38-mpg/

But not many customers will pay $58 000 for this truck.
On second thought, it's still less expensive than Bafos manual trany polytruck , with one missing cylinder, no balcony and no Master bedroom. So it's not expensive compare to different markets.


Yup lake affect snow from the great lakes can snow people in pretty fast if the bands of it happen to track over your area. My fathers 2013 5.0L STX with 3:55s normally averges around 15.5 mpgs he seen as low as 13 this winter and high as 16.5.

@johniedoe and papajim - I am aware that there are places in the USA that get big snowfalls but our friend left me with the impression that his community was left in utter desolation.

@zviera - I have plenty of experience with diesels. My dad had Mack trucks and worked in logging and construction. I drove diesel powered EMS units for 21 years. I have friends that are in logging and trucking.
Looks like I have to post a resume just to converse with you.

Plenty will pay 58k for a truck. Didn't you say every contractor you met had a Raptor?

Most 1/2 ton pickups I see are mid level trim and up which means 48k to 75k.

If you have the experience you say you have, you need to work on your communication skills.

Experience means sh!t if you are too inept to communicate in a credible way or too insecure to cope with someone questioning your experience.
Sounds like you suffer both ills - inept communication skills and insecurity.

I'm very interested to see the numbers of Ram EcoDiesels being sold.

The cost of the diesel is higher than the gasoline equivalents.

It's a pity the US appears harder to obtain manufacturing data than most other countries. As if it is secretive.

Even the monthly pickup figures are a joke in the US. Not even a breakdown of vehicle classes!

A F-450 is in a completely different class than a 1/2 ton, but yet a Tacoma can't be used in Tundra numbers.

It shows the protection and bias towards full size pickups in the US. Number and real figures are hidden so the consumer can't see what the f4ck is going on.

@Lou
So basically you never owned any diesel. I owned 3. 800 000 kms.
Bafo has first one , maybe 50 000kms.

@zvirus
WTF??? you fool.

You must be some school kid with some of the $hit that you put on this site.

You are a joke.

If you've read my comments you would know I owned a manufacturing business before my career in aviation.



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