If I were the manufacturers, I'd be looking for ways to reduce costs or expect lower profits; today's big trucks aren't going to stand up all that well to the reduced economy and high gas prices we can expect for the next few years. After all, there's a reason why the average truck fleet is so old now.

What is needed are trucks that can offer the box size that's really needed by workers and homeowners in a more compact and fuel-efficient package. This may ultimately mean going to trays with stake sides rather than the road whales we're currently seeing in the market. Yes, there may be the occasional need to carry 96 cu.ft. of bulk (20 3'x8' yard sale tables) in the bed of a truck, but it's far more likely that the driver will be carrying far, far less total bulk even if it is heavier that the load described above. A smaller truck could serve the purpose just as well for less cost in vehicle and fuel and get by with a smaller engine as well.

I would guess that a mere 1% of PUT dot com readers need a Class 5 truck.

The trend is downsizing for sure. My present truck is a 2000 F-250 w/diesel. When I replace it it will be a F-150 in all probability due to the present day 1/2 ton capabilities. Still hoping for a diesel in 1/2 tons. Just keep the oil changed and the fuel and air filters replaced. That's pretty much what I've done and the 7.3L been bullet proof.

Chrysler Group LLC reported that its preliminary second-quarter net income was $436 million, an $806 million improvement from the $370 million net loss in the second quarter of 2011 (due to a $551 million charge related to repayment of its government loans). Excluding the one-time charge in 2011, net income increased $255 million, or 141%, quarter to quarter.

Second-quarter 2012 revenue was $16.8 billion, up 23% from the second quarter of 2011, driven by a 22% increase in shipments.

For the first six months of 2012, Chrysler recorded net income of $909 million on revenue of $33.2 billion.
Chrysler’s Modified Operating Profit was $755 million, or 4.5% of revenue, in the second quarter, up 49% from the $507 million reported in Q2 2011. Higher volume and better pricing was partly offset by a shift to a less truck/SUV-heavy mix, along with greater vehicle content and increased spending for new models. Modified Operating Profit for the first half of the year was $1.5 billion.

“Our results reflect a tireless pursuit by the people of Chrysler Group to deliver the very best quality and value across our brands,” said Sergio Marchionne, Chrysler Group LLC Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

I really dont think that there is a huge size diffrence between a f250 with a 6.5 ft box and an f150 with the same box. you can only make cabs and boxes so small and still fit people and cargo. full size trucks have been in this configuration for over 50 yrs. crew cabs are now more comon in half tons with shorter beds as people use them as personal vehicles, they are the same price as a midsize suv and return the same millage but are more cabable compare an xlt supper crew ecoboost 4x4 or a lt 4x4 z71 crew to a pathfinder or 4runner and you will see that the truck is a better deal.

Most work trucks i see are 3/4ton and bigger and almost all of them are crew cabs with the 8ft box.

@Carilloskis: While I will acknowledge that we have had "full sized" pickups for a long, long time, most of them weren't as big as they are now--a 'Crew" truck or Heavy-Duty often physically larger than the average consumer pickup even if that consumer truck carried an 8' bed. Once the truck concept grew from single cab-short-bed/single cab-long-bed to a three-way system still using the same two frames: SC-short bed/EC-short bed/SC-long bed. But at about the time of this transition--namely the mid-70s right after the first gas crunch--we also saw compact trucks that met an economy need where their length, width and height were more car-like and usually boasting a 6' bed as the long bed or a 5' bed with an extended cab. Considering the most common bed sizes I'm seeing in today's pickups, that compact long bed would probably carry as much as today's short bed trucks and do it with better economy.

@Vulpine the probem is that the compact trucks are so close in size to fulsize.

2012 Tacoma crew long box 4x4

Measurements

Width: 74.6 in.
Height: 70.1 in.
Length: 221.3 in.
Ground clearance: 9.3 in.
Front track: 63.0 in.
Rear track: 63.4 in.
Wheel base: 127.4 in.

2012 f150 crew 4x4 short box
Width: 79.2 in.
Height: 76.7 in.
Length: 231.9 in.
Ground clearance: 8.3 in.
Front track: 67.0 in.
Rear track: 67.0 in.
Wheel base: 144.5 in.

The Tacoma is 4.6 inches Narower, 6.6 in smaller, and 10.6 in shorter. in the grand sceme of things these are insiginficant, as the f150 is closer in size to a tacoma than it is to an f150 raptor. and with both trucks getting the same epa rating (with ecoboost) and costing the same you cannot blame people for wanting a rommier cab. i will never buy a regular cab truck, as would most americans , it sucks fiting 3 people across the split benches addtionaly i regualarly cary 3 or more people in my truck so need the bigger cab.
Also i dont see the frame length issue the same way you do. thake for das an example the standard frames are 145' and 157" wheelbase, the 145 is your crew 5.5 bed, your extended 6.5 bed and your regular 8 ft beds, 8ft beds where the standard for a long time. now the manufactures offer longer wheel bases for ford that is the 157 it mounts the crew 6.5 and the extended 8ft bed, and they are not common options. they also offer the short wheel base modles ie 133 with the ec and the 5.5 bed for off roading like the raptor. and a 127in for the regular cab 6.5 ft bed. many classic regular cab pickups had the 8ft bed so most pickups have not grown alot as i have posted on other threads.

@Vulpine--I basically agree with you but I think Lou on an earlier blog was right on target. A 6 foot bed length for most full size 1/2 ton trucks would be enought if you maintained thge same bed width and about the same cab size as the current full size trucks. Lightening up the frame and the hood, doors, and tailgates with alumnium, alloys, and plastics such as xenoy would allow for smaller size motors thus the hood could be shortened. Also some of the motors could be mounted transverse. Another thing if the 1/2 tons were not so tall and the frames like on the GMs were tucked in then you would not need steps to reach into the bed. If you need an 8 foot bed and more towing and hauling capacity then the manufacturers should offer the HDs with tha current capacities. As for the midsize trucks they need to be put on a diet with lighter metals and plastics as well making them more similiar to the D-50s, pre Tacomas, and MightyMaxes but with all the current safety equipment. I agree some of the other comments on this post and the past post is that cab and bed size are important to the full size truck buyer and we as humans keep getting bigger. My belief is that all the truck makers will do what I have mentioned because they are reading these comments as well and will maintain cab size and width. Full size half tons will become much more like the Global Ranger in size and prices will go up but costs will be contained as well because they do not want to price themselves out of the market.

As for aluminum and plastic hoods this is nothing new to the auto world. Some of you that are old enough to remember remember the downsize full size GM cars starting in 1977 and the downsize intermediates in 1978. Surprise to some of you F-150 owners these GM cars had aluminum hoods and trunk lids along with more plastic and fiberglass in the front and back ends. Those changes along with taking about a foot off the length of the cars shed several hundred pounds and allowed smaller engines to be used with more excelleration than the older models they replaced. All these things I mentioned are very feasible and with a global product as Big Al from Oz stated should be easier to do than landing a man on the Moon and in the long run create a much better product.

@Jeff S: That's where I disagree. The vast majority of cars sold in America are significantly smaller in the cabin area and most people are used to it. We could get away with cutting almost a foot off the width of the average truck, as much as 3 feet from the length and more than a foot from the height--including ground clearance for 2x4s--without harming most of the load carrying capability for the average consumer. You simply do not need a 5' wide cab unless you're crowding 3 full-sized adults in the back seat (or front bench if stadard/extended cab). Since most trucks are set for 2 people up front, you can lose a foot of width without truly affecting the comfort for the driver or the passenger.

And that's my point. I'm not talking about today's compact trucks, I'm talking about the compacts of 30 years ago when they were visibly smaller than even the full-sized trucks of their day. They were also a good 1/3 cheaper than the full-sized trucks, too--starting at around $10K when the full-sized trucks started between $15K-$18K. Now the full-sized trucks start at $20K and the "Mid-sized" trucks start at $17K on average--not enough cheaper to really inspire sales.

Bring back the true compact truck.

I'm six foot eight and I don't think they should trim trucks down, you cut a foot out of the width of the interior and you better bet you will afftect comfort, cutting a foot will make it narrower then most compacts and you loose a lot of elbow room making it very uncomfortable, not to mention you will make the trucks much more likely to overturn being narrower. Same thing goes for length and hieght, I don't wan't my truck lower to the ground even if it is 2wd it still goes out in the dirt and I take it hunting and i wouldn't want it any lower then it is.

The width argument is stupidful size =3 across comportably, you cannot get 3 skinny people across the back of alot of small cars. I rode in a dodge charge over the weekend with 5 people and it should be a few inched wider in the shoulder area. we could not have fit in a narower car. many of us use the addtional seats, so if you make the 1/2 tons smaller than alot of people will jump to HDs which are heavier.
On transvers motor , really? notolnly does it make towing lower but hurts off road preformance as well. many of us have to have a true 4x4 system with high and low range not dial a terrain that changes the traction control like many new suvs like explorer and grand cherokee. also some of us whish we had more clearnce not less we buy trucks to take us and our gear where ever.
Jeff your dream vehicle already exists its called the ford transit conect.

@Cariloskis-So you are telling me to stop driving my S-10 and Isuzu and get a Transit Connect. I don't think so you Ford fanboy!! I am not against full size trucks but you are saying don't change them when the standards are going to change them you biased bigot. I don't make the laws and quite frankly I think they should not have any standards and then use as much gas and diesel as you want. Please drive more because I own lots of Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Then Mr. Bigot you can ask your Congress to do something about the high cost of fuel which I don't think they are willing to do since their campaigns are funded by a lot of oil companies. I was just recommending somethings that can be done instead of crying in my beer like you are. I have faith in all the companies that they will do some of the things but if you don't want anything to change than I suggest you get a new F-150 before 2015 and keep it the rest of your life. Maybe you are a kid or some old senile fart but this same thing happened back in the 1970s with Ford LTD, Mercury Marquis, Buick Electra 225, Cadillac Sedan DeVilles, Olds 98s, Chevy Caprices, and etc. Maybe you have forgotten how large those cars use to be. I heard people back then say they would never drive anything smaller than that and I know many who rushed out and bought the last of those large cars. Fast forward 30 plus years and look around you. Either those people are dead or maybe they just adapted.

I really don't believe any of the manufacturers are going to make their full sizes too small but they have to meet the new standards and there is a often misunderstood word called adapting and compromise. I think you need to get that King Ranch or whatever you like before they make any changes because you are not going to like any change. Like I said I wish they still made a big truck and maybe lower the gas mileage for bigots like you because I could sure use a higher dividend and Canada sure needs the money from the USA. Drive often and use lots of Oil. Exxon Mobil and I thank you for your patronage and while you at it get a Dixie flag for your front license plate. Long live the Confederacy.

@Vulpine-I never said make the current midsize trucks the same. What I said was to reduce the size of the current midsize to the size of D-50 and Pre Tacoma which is about 1985 to 1994. But like many of the other commentors have stated you have air bags and other safety equipment that did not exist 30 years ago and that add weight. Then you have to look at lighter materials which make frames and components lighter and allow smaller more fuel efficient motors. Another thing Vulpine you will not get the manufacturers to reduce the full size too drastically because they will lose a lot of sales. True the full size dimensions maybe could be reduced to more like the size of full size trucks from the mid 80s to maybe the mid 90s but too much smaller and you would have a revolt on your hands. I have confidence unlike some of the other commentors that all the truck makers can do this with the full size half ton truck and make a truck that is much better than anything we have ever seen yet much more efficient. I believe in complying with the laws while giving the customer what they want. Some of what Big Al from Oz and Robert Ryan is true we just might like some of the trucks the rest of the world has. This is something that we all can share information on but change is inevitable. I am not trying to argue with you Vulpine just express that there are many options here and maybe a tranverse engine is not the answer but at least I am willing to have a discussion unlike some of the other commentors who just want to complain. I think it is better to look for answers than to just not do anything.

@Southern IL Man--Good advice for anyone. You can argue about which brand is better but if you change the oil and use the severe maintence schedule you can take take almost any vehicle and make it last indefinitely. That would be a good suggestion for anyone who thinks that might not like a downsized truck in the future, that does not want to buy the few larger midsize trucks and is happy with their compact truck, or anyone that wants to save their hard earned money and really likes what they are driving. Good maintenance is vital to longevity.

This should not surprise anyone. Pickup trucks, especially the four door variety, are the most versatile vehicle on the road. I have always had at least one truck in my household and will continue to do so until my last breath.

Pickup trucks are the 'can do anything' vehicle!

@Highdesertcat--Agreed. I have had a pickup for over 26 years and I don't know how I ever got by without one. The 4 doors are bigger but it is nice to have 4 doors. Trucks should be available in all sizes and all cab configurations.

@Vulpine - I owned a brand new '84 Ranger Reg cab long box and a '90 F250 Reg Cab long box. Guess which one I kept for 15 years? The F250. I don't have wet dreams about those vehicles in the middle of the night. Several decades later I would not want to own either. The Ranger was ok for a single guy going out into the bush hunting and fishing for a few days with another buddy. Add dirt bikes, quads, a car topper boat, and supplies for a 2 week trip into the middle of no-where and it doesn't cut it. I guess I could rig up a Tacoma with 1 ton springs and all sorts of cargo racks for that looming zombie apocolypse, but that would work only as a one way trip.
Your theory of cutting 1 foot of width out of the currect truck will not work. Like some posters of mentioned - what about elbow room? another point is what about the transmission tunnel? You know - that hump in the middle? I've driven lots of 1 ton vans and that engine house gets real f--ing annoying after a 14 hour night shift.
I do believe trucks will shrink. I do not think that we will wake up one morning and all of the global trucks will be sitting on our dealer lots. I believe that through careful evolution our full sized 1/2 tons will by default shrink in size towards the globals. Once they are very similar, our 1/2 tons will be replaced by globals.

I'm not sure why you keep saying that the "90's era full sizers are much smaller. They aren't. I've seen enough posts to prove otherwise. Will compacts ever go back to being truly compact? NO.Look at the globals. The Ranger is 9/10ths F150 is physical size. Do you recall the 9/10th size Tundra?

The Colorado will be the great experiment of the decade.
Will they sell well?
If there is millions of people waiting for a global compact - then we should see the Colorado explode in sales.
Does that mean the 1/2 ton ranks will implode?
It looks like Ford and Chrysler are betting that they will, hence no global Ranger or Dakota type truck.

Your comments about cars are interesting. What are the top selling cars?
They aren't the micro cars that you seem to be talking about. The F150 and Camry seem to be trading places all of the time for #1 selling vehicle in the USA.
Here are the USA Top 20 for June.
#1 Ford F-Series 301,141 264,079 + 14.0%
#2 Toyota Camry 213,903 147,469 + 45.0%
#3 Chevrolet Silverado 194,508 182,785 + 6.4%
#4 Honda Civic 162,582 127,571 + 27.4%
#5 Nissan Altima 157,101 131,842 + 19.2%
#6 Honda Accord 155,178 127,105 + 22.1%
#7 Toyota Corolla/Matrix 151,726 136,747 + 11.0%
#8 Honda CR-V 146,682 110,916 + 32.2%
#9 Chevrolet Malibu 141,437 122,783 + 15.2%
#10 Dodge Ram 138,581 111,898 + 23.8%
#11 Ford Fusion 136,849 131,686 + 3.9%
#12 Ford Focus 131,423 98,024 + 34.1%
#13 Ford Escape 127,167 122,607 + 3.7%
#14 Toyota Prius 126,654 66,520 + 90.4%
#15 Hyundai Sonata 117,412 115,014 + 2.1%
#16 Chevrolet Cruze 113,884 122,972 - 7.4%
#17 Chevrolet Equinox 110,890 95,838 + 15.7%
#18 Chevrolet Impala 98,495 103,644 - 5.0%
#19 Hyundai Elantra 97,769 103,301 - 5.4%
#20 Toyota RAV4 89,438 73,155 + 22.3%

Even the smaller vehicles on the list aren't really that small inside. I was just inside a new Honda Civic last week. NOT the Civic of the '80s. My neighbour has a Corolla. It is also bigger than its '80s counterpart. I was sitting in a Prius a month ago. Pretty roomy.
Every "compact" on this list has grown in size since the '80s.
They've all gotten bigger.
Yeah, sure I get it, full sized pickups are road whales that 99% of the public do not use to full capacity.
Do some research on obesity statistics in the USA. Some say that extra weight costs the USA an extra billion dollars in fuel consumption per year. Fatty ain't gonna want a vehicle if his sweaty carcass won't fit.
But then again, most of us aren't going to spend our hard earned money on something we don't want.

@not realy a hemi, mostly hecho en mexico, and italian owned -

For the first six months of 2012, Chrysler recorded net income of $909 million on revenue of $33.2 billion.

That is only 2.7 % .

GMC = 2.66%

Ford = 3.12%

Those numbers on face value sound like alot but relative to their expenses - they ain't out of the woods yet.

Profit margin is very useful when comparing companies in similar industries. A higher profit margin indicates a more profitable company that has better control over its costs compared to its competitors.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/profitmargin.asp/#ixzz22A3SX7JK

@Lou, this from a man that bought a toyota.LOL.
In North America, Ranger and F-series trucks are built in Oakville, Ontario; Dearborn; Claycomo, Kansas; Louisville, Kentucky; St. Paul., Minnesota; and Edison, New Jersey. Trucks also are built in Mexico, Malaysia, Vietnam, Argentina and England.

Read more: Where Are Ford Vehicles Made? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5040488_ford-vehicles-made.html#ixzz22AHWBaTd

@Lou--I think you are right on. The challenge for all the truck makers will be to deliver a half ton truck without sacrificing little if any interior room and maintaining a similiar bed width and length (Dodge Dakota maintained a full size bed in 1987) yet meeting the new fuel standards which will be about 54 mpgs by 2025 but starting in 2015. A daunting task but something that all the manufacturers have to achieve. Lighter materials which will make lighter components which will allow the use of smaller more efficient motors that have respectable performance. Who says that any or all of these manufacturers haven't begin developing these future trucks. True they have maybe just begun but I would find it hard to believe they haven't gotten together a group of their engineers which include those Global Ranger, Thai Colorado, Some Fiat Chrysler Engineers, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, and Mitsubishi. And you might also see some codevelopment among car companies (joint ventures) because these trucks will not just be NA but global vehicles. Just as in cars which Opel shares platforms and technology with Buick and Chevy, Holden has had a hand in the Pontiac G-8 and Camaro, Ford is sharing Ford Europe platforms, and Chysler is using Alfa Romeo and Fiat platforms for the new Dart and other Chryslers. Big Al from Oz is right that none of US based manufacturers can survive in the long run without globally developed products and without a common platform shared globally. With safety, fuel, and environmental standards changing the cost of developing and manufacturing vehicles has become higher and more risky. Sharing development cost lessens the risk and in the long run creates a more uniform and quality product. I hope that the Colorado does well in NA because even if it does not last it will influence the new generation of GM half tons for the next decade or more.

I do agree that there is a market for a new compact truck that is smaller but the only feasible way is to use existing platforms whether they be front wheel drive compacts or
Transit Connects, or Fiats. Every manufacture has to look at development and production costs and the more sharing then the lower the volume necessary to make a profit. Big trucks whether they be in a new more fuel efficient form will be the bread and butter for the Big 3 but any other products that are developed from existing platforms can be profitable even in smaller numbers. The World is flat and we are becoming more interconnected. That is life.

@Jeff S Ford Australia will probably be not around after 2016.
"One Ford" and the high Aussie dollar have claimed another victim. @Highdesertcat has seen the discussions regarding this on another site.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2012/07/expert-fears-slow-death-for-ford-australian-operations-victoria-in-on-ndis-as-blame-game-continues.html

@Jeff S . Ford itself will leave totally after 2016, they have virtually no global products that people want to buy here.

@Jeff S, Robert Ryan - will Ford retain a presence in Australia? or will they import all of their vehicles?

@Lou,
I think they will have a problem surviving as even an importer in the long run. As an importer they will be at best middle ranked. Their European products are not hitting sixes or home runs. Only the Territory is doing well outselling everything else, it is based on the Falcon with a diesel engine.. The Ranger is being outsold by it's ugly sibling the Mazda BT-50. Problems are due to the high Aussie dollar and Ford's 'One Ford" policy that killed local initiatives and not allowing Ford Australia to be part of the Global product cycle. Admit they were given a reprieve to design and develop the Ranger. So many aborted projects, bad timing ,unnecessary Detroit interference .Pretty sad situation all round, but Ford Europe is as bad. Holden and Toyota here are surviving as they are part of the GM and Toyota product cycle.
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/content/image/2/0/2011_ford_territory_ts_awd_diesel_03-4d9d2903c8f62-450x240.jpg

@All
As I have pointed out Fiat's ownership of Chrysler will pay off.

I do fear that Ford will end up like Chrysler in Australia and I agree with Robert Ryan that Ford Australia will end up a middle player.

Also the new mid-size trucks are a bees d!ck over 6' wide and you can put a 8'x6' tray on the back. With this and their current load capacity they should suffice for most of your needs and tow quite well.

They also accommodate a family of 5 very comfortably, and you can load 2 500lbs of camping gear in the back.

For the guys who use trucks to earn a living there are alternatives, the rest of the world functions like that.

You guys will have to stop thinking in 1 500lbs loads and start thinking 3 000lbs. I think it is useless to have a vehicle that can carry a little more than a SUV. You might as well buy a SUV and tow a small trailer to pick up your sheet of ply.

Your 1/2 ton pickup aren't going to be "here one day gone the next", the change will be gradual.

The problem with C.A.F.E., unlike the rest of the world your government is regulating change not creating change, with some trade barrier orientated regulations.

And to all of the people who are saying they will only buy a full-size truck and not a mid-size are kidding themselves. If it came down to economics you'll drive a 20 year old mid-size and if it came down to business you'll make something work.

@Robert Ryan--Interesting article I would have never thought Ford would be having trouble in a market such as Australia. Ford is doing so well in NA as are Chrysler and GM. I know that they are all having troulbe in Western Europe. We Americans are still so isolated from the rest of the World and have little knowledge as to what goes on in the rest of the World but unless you listen to BBC news and read other sources other than US you are only seeing what they want you to see. How is GM and Holden dolng? I do think that a lot of vehicle buying in the US is pentup demand with the average age of cars and truck at an all time hight since World War II. Of course the vehicles last longer than they use to and a lot of people in the construction and other trades have been hard hit since 2008 and others have been scared that they might lose their jobs. A lot of this buying is not real growth as much as it is that consumers are replacing aging vehicles (the number of existing vehicles on the road is not growing like it is in China and India). If the economy stalls so will new vehicle sales stall as well. In the long run I will agree with what Al from Oz has said that the US truck market is protected but eventually we will be driving the same trucks as we are now driving much of the same autos. This is not what a lot of readers on this blog want to hear but change happens whether you want it or not and those that refuse to change will be passed over.

@Jeff S. This is from the GMI Forums, gives you an idea of the ridiculous "micro managing' at Ford.
"Unfortunately you are making a seriously bad assumption - that Ford marketing have any idea of what they doing - either that or they are being given instructions to scupper the brand here deliberately (at least that how i view it as a Ford driver). In their defence I have been told they can't even pick their nose without getting approval from Head office these days and they are hardly concerned about things 12,00k away"

Statistics of June 2012 sales:
Top Ten Marques

Toyota 21,649
Holden 10,632
Hyundai 9672
Mazda 9593
Ford 9140
Nissan 8330
Mitsubishi 6498
Volkswagen 6446
Honda 4136
Subaru 4101

Top Ten Vehicles
Toyota HiLux 4308
Mazda3 – 3924
Toyota Corolla – 3804
Holden Cruze – 3057
Nissan Navara – 3034
Hyundai i30 – 3024
Volkswagen Golf – 2746
Holden Commodore – 2743
Toyota Camry – 2303
Mitsubishi Triton – 2186

Top Ten Vehicles YTD
Mazda3 – 21,813
Toyota HiLux – 19,412
Toyota Corolla – 19,026
Holden Cruze – 16,437
Holden Commodore – 15,860
Hyundai i30 – 14,000
Nissan Navara – 13,180
Toyota Camry – 10,948
Toyota Yaris – 9836
Mitsubishi Triton – 9686

Holden is struggling with the Commodore and Toyota the Camry(More overseas sales, than local) as a result of the high Australian Dollar.

@Jeff S for comparison July 2011. You can see how quickly Ford has fallen. Two Ford Models in the Top Ten
http://www.caradvice.com.au/130947/july-2011-vfacts-holden-and-ford-lead-australian-fightback/
Top 10 sales by model:

Holden Commodore – 3551
Mazda3 – 3290
Toyota HiLux – 3147
Holden Cruze – 3123
Toyota Corolla – 2502
Hyundai i30 – 2232
Ford Falcon – 1835
Mitsubishi Lancer – 1539
Ford Territory – 1445
Mazda2 – 1421

Compare those results with June 2012. Ford has disappeared.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/180313/car-sales-june-2012-winners-losers/
Top 10 Best-selling Vehicles – June 2012

Toyota HiLux – 4308
Mazda3 – 3924
Toyota Corolla – 3804
Holden Cruze – 3057
Nissan Navara – 3034
Hyundai i30 – 3024
Volkswagen Golf – 2746
Holden Commodore – 2743
Toyota Camry – 2303
Mitsubishi Triton – 2186

Top 10 Best-selling Vehicles – 2012 to date

Mazda3 – 21,813
Toyota HiLux – 19,412
Toyota Corolla – 19,026
Holden Cruze – 16,437
Holden Commodore – 15,860
Hyundai i30 – 14,000
Nissan Navara – 13,180
Toyota Camry – 10,948
Toyota Yaris – 9836
Mitsubishi Triton – 9686

@Jeff S
Believe it, I really do like your trucks, I like the F-250HD I drove around Vegas earlier this year. It had a massive amount of torque. But I only drove it around empty.

I really do see pickups (and vans) gradually changing into global platforms. The affordability will increase forcing a downsizing to occur. The increasing cost of vehicle ownership will be a global trend as more and more economies vie for the same resources. I think this is the aspect of the change that is coming that many NA readers fail to realise. The NA market is becoming smaller on a global scale. In two years the Chinese will be consuming over 25million vehicles per year. That is equivalent to the US and Euro market, plus the fuel to operate them.

The most affordable trucks are your 1/2 ton trucks and their use is parallel to what ours are used for. So adapting them is relatively easy.

The more commercially used trucks and vans will change first, because of economics.

Once the depressed markets start to improve cost will increase rapidly, the fastest and biggest increase will be fuel.

I do know alot of readers feel uncomfortable with my threads, but I'm outside the "fishbowl" looking in and we in Australia sort of have gone through the changes you guys will go through.

@Robert Ryan
My ugly sibling is cute!

Some trucks will be slimmed down, even the HD's, I mean the superduty pictured above has a Ford Badge thats about a foot across, the biggest I've ever scene, they could make it a bit sleeker looking.

Wow i think comparing AU to the US is apples and oranges but to each their own. Ford Sells more F-Series in the US then AU sells vehicles of all makes added together by your numbers by a long shot. I can see why Ford isn't worried to leave that market.... SMH

@MikesFX4. That thinking is killing Ford in Europe. I guess Ford wants only to be a NA only Manufacturer?
When GM went into bankruptcy in the US, Holden it's subsidiary in Australia was still making profits. Ford got the relatively small Ford Australia Operation to design it's Global Ford Ranger, not Ford NA. Any organisation that has it's subsidiaries rapidly declining should be worried. The US economy is far from being out of the woods.
http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/07/31/us-central-bank-weighing-actions-to-boost-weak-economy/

Just glad I wasn't hauling a 5,000 pound 92 Chevy K2500 ext cab with a midsize. I can just imagine the little wheelbase getting wagged by the 6500 plus pound load. No thanks, I will stay in a full size. And drive my 4 cylinder 5 speed 2 door Camry when a truck is not needed, or possibly my 96 Chrysler LHS. Either way its cheaper to put the high mileage on a car and drive a truck when needed.

But when the noses of the full sizes get shorter (I believe a Titan nose is shorter then my Ram?) and they get the slant noses like most the highway/OTR tractors have, ie Peterbuilt, Freightliner and such; I wont be complanning. They made those trucks look good and function better. Sure the Peterbuilt 379 drivers might frown on them for looks, but not when he/she is pumping fuel. And can we put an end to the biggest tire rage? The current rotors we have now are plenty big.

@Robert Ryan
What's killing Ford in Europe is the same thing that is killing almost all automakers in Europe: a stagnant, uncertain economy that is hurting vehicle sales, and plant overcapacity coupled with inflexible labor laws. While Mullaly has been very good at integrating Ford NA with Ford Europe, Ford Australia has been left to wither on the vine with no clear role within One Ford. It has baffled me how a sizeable asset like Ford Australia has been basically ignored.

@ Luke in CO . Yes cannot figure it out at all. I have not posted all the blunders Ford NA has imposed on it's local arm, but they have had to put up a lot from their Detroit parent. A lot earlier on , it was the "not invented here" syndrome Ford NA used as regards what their overseas arms were producing. That is now changing with the Mondeo and Fiesta becoming he Fusion and Fiesta and the Transit/Transit Connect coming to the US
As far as Ford in Europe goes. Yes the market is floundering there, but VW, Daimler and Renault have made profits in a very down market. Ford on the other hand has had dramatic downturns with it's European operation.
It would appear "The changing of the deck chairs on the Titanic' at GM, suggests a lot of worries all round with it's very poor performing European operations.

@Robert Ryan
Yes, Renault, VW, Daimler, and others have still produced profits, but pretty much every company is trending in a negative direction and has warned of immenant profit and sales reductions. It would be foolish to think any of those companies will be immune from the deteriorating market that has already hit GM, Ford, and PSA.

What I've never understood is why Ford hasn't ever leveraged the RWD Falcon platform to underpin the Mustang, a large Ford sedan, and a few Lincolns. Surely there would be sufficient demand in NA, Oz, and China (not to mention the Middle East and SA) to justify the development costs. And if Ford thinks Lincoln will ever be a serious player in the luxury market, the brand needs RWD (look at Acura for evidence of how far FWD/AWD will take you in the premium segment).

@Luke in CO Many have asked the same questions here and in the US, why Ford has not used the Falcon like GM is using the Commodore for the new SS Sport?. Even the Camaro which has been reasonably successful in NA was engineered and to a lesser extent designed here.
Well they sell the Commodore in the ME, New Zealand, the UK (Vauxhall VXR), South Africa(Lumina). Ford could have done the same.
Ford was going to build the Mondeo(Fusion in US) here but decided not to go ahead. Holden did the same as Ford and built the small Cruze locally, It has boomed in the sales. Ford's imported Mondeo and Fiesta are going nowhere.
Lincoln I feel like Cadillac are both "endangered species" unless they start exporting. FWD Luxury cars are very much in the minority Globally. Lincoln needs to get a good RWD platform and dramatically improve it's quality and choices.. Cadillac just needs to vastly improve its' quality and choice as well.

@Robert Ryan
Well from what I've read it really sounds like Ford Australia is dead, so I guess this is a moot discussion, or maybe a cautionary tale. If and when it happens (most likely when the Falcon reaches the end of its life) I will be very interested to hear Ford's reasoning. The marketplace may be very different in four years and they may very well regret their decision. Oh well, seems like a big mistake to me.

Why is it that people purposely misunderstand me? I made it quite clear that my suggested size for a COMPACT was to cut those dimensions from the FULL SIZED and make it a NEW VEHICLE. Sheesh some people are dense!

At no point have I said kill the road whales; but I have said not everybody NEEDS the road whales. Take that cut-down Ford and give me a new Ranger. Take that cut-down Chevy and give me a new LUV. Take that cut-down RAM and give me a new Billy Goat for all I care. But what I know will happen is that when they do, each of those brands will see about a third to a half of their full-size sales go to those cut down sizes. They don't want that, but I can promise you they're going to eventually have to do it just as they did in the '70s when the govt. said fleet-wide mileage needed to surpass 21mpg average.

@Lou: "... most of us aren't going to spend our hard earned money on something we don't want."

True, unless what we want isn't available, then you're forced to choose the best of the worst. I only bought my full size because of price and availability--not brand, size or load capacity.

Oh, and Ford is living up to Ford's rep for me. Fix Or Repair Daily. I've got a new problem that I haven't been able to locate--yet.

@TRX4
You wouldn't replace a HD with a mid-size, maybe a light truck. HD's are nothing like a mid-size or a 1/2 ton pickup. They have a more robust drivetrain, suspension etc.

@Vulpine--I agree make a new compact size of truck like they were 20 to 30 years ago. Not everyone needs a road whale and those that do still have a choice and those maybe that don't but feel their manhood is threatened can always get one.

@Robert Ryan & Big Al from Oz-There are a few of us on this site that would welcome your trucks and your cars but many American males feel that their manhood is threatened unless they have the biggest baddest truck out there and they need a ladder to get into it. Many farmers and construction contractors that I know that really use their trucks usually have HDs and most of those trucks don't have all the "Bling" on them. It gets me that some of these macho men want these big trucks but they complain about a dashboard or not having enough soft touch panels which doesn't sound very masculine to me. Nothing wrong with the soft touches but I beginning to think they are having an identity crisis.

As for Ford they have made some dumb decisions which have been ego based like Henry Ford II firing Iacacco and GM has made their fair share as well. Chrysler has had a few diasters as well but it looks like they are headed on the right track. GM concentrating on Asia is a smart business move because you need to go where the growth is. If you have noticed so is Ford but hopefully they will not make the same mistakes that they made in Australia. I do not like to see any company fail because not only from a historical perspective but from the lives of the workers who are affected by the outcome of bad decisions. Your Ford Falcon would have been an excellent platform for a new Crown Victoria and a new Lincoln. GM at least got that right with using the Holden for the Camaro, G8, GTO, and new Chevy Caprice which is now only in police cruiser form. Also regardless of what some of these uninformed GM bashers who want to kill Buick off the Opel platforms transformed a lackluster car into a world class car. The Buick LaCross is a great car but if you have never driven one let alone sit in one you would not know. But a lot of Americans have a hatred of anything European especially some of the good old boy truck types (not all but a lot of them). Chrysler seems to be on the right track with the new Dodge Dart base on the Alfa Lancia platform. Chrysler seems to be making a lot of the right move recently.

As for the American full size truck I agree that they are nice and they have their place but like anything they will change and this change is a threat to many an American truck owner that feels their manhood is threatened. It will take a gradual evolution of the full size and a new generation of truck owner just like the 70s Land Yacht cars. Some of the old generation of truck owners will die off just like the dinosaurs. If you have learned anything from reading these comments is that Americans hate change and many don't believe in Evolution because many are not evolved. I should have not bantered above with my comments which I just lowered myself to their standards. I was wrong and you cannot change their opinions or have an intelligent discussion with a lot of them. Personally I think they should drive what they want and if at all possible maybe they could bring back a Hummer that is the size of the military version with an 8 foot bed that gets terrible gas mileage. I don't want one but hey it is a free country. The new fuel standards that will take effect starting in 2015 will force changes and the manufacturers will adapt as will the consumers. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. We will see more global trucks as we have seen more global cars and this will not change. I myself welcome the changes but then I realize I am not everyone but life goes on and I have much more important things to do with my life.

@Jeff S,
I do not know about Big Al from OZ, but
'"like anything they will change and this change is a threat to many an American truck owner that feels their manhood is threatened."
That is a pretty Alien concept to us. Pickup, Ute Truck is a work vehicle first, lifestyle vehicle a secondary consideration. Not the main driver why you buy one.
That is why I scratch my head when someone posts a photo of a grossly overloaded Pickup with a Gooseneck hitch. Then commenting
"Look what my Truck can do, no trouble at all"

Vulpine | Jul 31, 2012 6:39:15 PM, I don't think that Ford, GM and Dodge can make any money doing what you suggest.

Isn't that precisely the reason that all of them dropped their compact trucks in North America? They lost money on each and every one of them. If they were making money on them, they would not have discontinued them.

And didn't Ford come out with two kinds of six-cylinder engines in their full-size F150 to offset the loss of Ranger sales?

Dodge must share the same sentiments because it will be offering the Pentastar V6 in a full-size road whale to offset the loss of Dakota sales.

Only GM is lagging so far behind that it isn't even a contender. GM has nothing to offer the compact truck buyer.

The undisputed sales champ was, is and will continue to be the various iterations of the Tacoma. It's a sad testament and epitaph to the marketability of domestic-brand compact trucks.

Today’s announcement of a new Ford ‘Merican Edition F-150 is an attempt by the automaker to capitalize on the commonly held (and incorrect) belief that Ford’s truck is the most “American” truck available on the market today. From Ford:
Our new ‘Merican edition F-150 is a vehicle that was mostly built by ‘Mericans for ‘Mericans celebrating ‘Merica as the greatest country on Earth. Don’t tread on me, these colors don’t run, various patriotic sentiment, etc.
When asked about the fact that the new ‘Merican Edition F-150 was only mostly built in the USA (only 55% of the parts in an F-Series truck come from the US or Canda), Ford’s spokesman replied “What do you want us to do – build a $1.2 billion dollar factory in Texas, bring in dozens of suppliers to build their own factories next to ours, and then hire thousands of American workers to build our truck? Do you have any idea how cheap it is to buy truck parts from Mexico? We’d like to hire Americans to build our truck and keep our domestic parts content at 90%, but we can make a lot more money if we build a lot of our parts in Mexico.”
Each ‘Merican F-150 buyer will be given a genuine “100% ‘Merican” certificate of authenticity that is totally and completely meaningless, as 45% of Ford’s F-Series contains parts from outside the US or Canada.
A Ford dealership salesperson will give every new ‘Merican edition F-150 buyer permission to walk and act as if he or she is better than everyone else because they bought a
supposedly “American” product.
When asked about the possibility that potential Ford truck buyers might realize the wool is being pulled over their eyes, the Ford spokesman said:
Listen, there’s official US government data that shows 45% of the parts in a typical F-Series don’t come from the USA.LOL

@Big Al from Oz: Point being your little truck is rated to tow 7000 pounds, is it not? Your midsize trucks are OVER RATED, our 1500 (what I have) is underrated. But even if you drive your midsize, your mileage is not that great when comparing to a diesel say, VW car? Yeah, your payload is higher, but will it really safely do it? Doubt it. Put 2500 pounds on that truck, or better yet, how about 2200 in truck and 300 on those little racks on the back, even further from the axle. Lets see those little midsizes stop. No thanks. A 6'4" bed is big enough and my quad cab holds my tools, my clothes and stuff just fine.

@Vulpine - so you cut off your nose to spite your face? You bought a 22 year old truck sitting in someone's barn not being used. Dude - red flags all over that one. It ain't the fault of the badge on the hood that you got to spend money on it.
If a 1970's or '80's compact is what you desire why don't you go out and buy one and completely fix it up or restore it.
It actually sounds like a utility trailer is all you need. I've seen some fold up ones that collapse into a very small package.
Another option is that Jeep pickup conversion.
Another option is go rent a pickup next time you need to carry 20 folding tables.
Sure no one makes exactly what you want or need.
You ever stop to think why the manufacturer's don't make it?
You and 30,000 others are probably the only ones wanting one. well maybe add one more zero but I doubt it. The current small truck market isn't even 250,000.

@not really a hemi, not really made in the USA, not really american owned

You attempt at humor is on par with your attempts at logic.
Epic failures caused by epic fanboi worship of all that is pentastar.

Do you bow to Auburn Hills 3 times a day to pray? or does that sombrero get in the way?

I thought I'd try the fake post thing that is all of the rage by those Rambo Fiat spagetti western types.

I don't see the attraction.

Guts

Glory

Viva la Revolución

I have seen the light.

GUTS GLORY RAM!

I am a true believer now!