It's Official: New GMC Canyon on the Way

After many months of speculation and secrecy, Brian Sweeney, vice president of Buick and GMC, finally announced today that there will be a new GMC Canyon midsize pickup to be paired with the previously announced Chevy Colorado. Both trucks will be built in the soon-to-be reconditioned and upgraded truck plant in Wentzville, Mo.

Although no mechanical or engine information was released, we think it's safe to say GM will continue with the same two-truck strategy with the Chevy and GMC pair that we are all familiar with: Chevy will likely continue to be the mainstream, work-friendly, price-aggressive model, with GMC mapping out a more upscale territory for itself. And if the new large and small GMC SUVs or rumors about the new Silverado vs. Sierra exterior design are true, we'd expect more visual and body styling separation between the two.

Exact production and arrival timing to dealerships will be announced later.

“While we continue to make strong progress in fuel-economy gains on our full-size trucks, we know that there is a group of customers who want the functionality of a truck but may not need full-size pickup,” said Tony DiSalle, vice president of Buick and GMC Marketing. “We believe that introducing a new agile and efficient mid-size Canyon will meet the needs of many pickup buyers.”

We should note that because General Motors only produces and sells the Chevy Colorado overseas, there are no photos of GMC models yet (likely only to be sold in the U.S. and Canada). Below are two global Chevy Colorado models. If you want to know more about how the new Chevy Colorado (badged as a Holden Colorado in Australia) performed in our most recent Global Pickup Shootout, click here

2012-global-market-chevrolet-colorado II

2013-Chevrolet-Colorado II


Today's half-tonner trucks just beg to be overloaded.

You realize that 5 average men weigh in at about 1,000 pounds, right? How much load can you carry if you're already at rated max?

People think I'm just griping about trucks being too big today, but really if you put some simple logic into it, none of these trucks supposedly rated at half-ton can carry a crew AND a load, yet that's how almost every one of the people who argue on these boards claim they use them.

Half-ton? Go back to the compacts.
Three-quarter ton? Bring back the middies.
One-ton or better? Hey, these full-size rigs fit the bill.

@DenverMike-You still don't understand midsize truck buyers for the most part will not buy full size they will just migrate to another brand. With your logic you could say that Focus buyers should migrate to Fusion or Taurus because there is little difference and the profit margin is greater on the bigger cars. They are lot losing money on midsize trucks it is just not as great a profit margin. Toyota is not losing money on Tacoma but the profit margin is greater on larger with higher trim levels. If you wanted to go with your logic you should just make Raptors, Platinums, and King Ranches and not make a product at below 30K. This would be shortsighted. To get new first time buyers sometimes you have to have a lower price alternative. Why do you think Kia and Hyundai have grown so fast. Ford did not lose money on the Ranger its just they did not make as much profit as F-150 and other products.

You also have to remember that these twins are full size in the global market so their numbers are greater worldwide than in NA. Our F-150, Silverado/Sierra, and Ram would be more of a niche product around the rest of the World than these twins are in the US. If you add these twins to their global cousins the numbers for GM would be much greater. The development costs have already been incurred so bringing these over is just a matter of manufacturer and marketing costs. We in NA have the extra cost of developing a unique full size truck and as Big Al says that with the new standards that will not be feasible in the future. Why do you think Ram and Ford are using global vans? We will no longer be able to do business as we have in the past, we will have to have global products to contain costs.

So, splitting the truck line from the car line should benefit the company. Either drop Chevrolet as a car brand (They're all either Holdens or Opels anyway) and keep the trucks or take the trucks away from Chevy and give it its own name--like GMC.

@DW, Chevrolet cars and trucks are never going away. It's the only brand most of America cares about and it's likewise the worldwide brand now. Opel will be gone someday or just renamed Chevrolet much like Holden. It's the only complete consistent company GM owns. Much like Ford or Toyota, there will always be Chevrolet trucks and cars as a complete line. If anything GMC should go or just do like JeffS, FT1 and Lou suggest, clean up the sides on the Silverado line and offer the Denali so Chevrolet trucks stop their sales slide to Dodge. Chevy had millions of heavy trucks, tractor trailers, buses and such. Not that it matters, you can have the heaviest duty of truck, a race truck, a baja truck and a luxury truck all in one. Both Ford and Dodge do and their loyalty increases everyday because of it. With all of GM's brands I suppose there was a possible case for a second truck line for non Chevrolet/Cadillac dealers but now that it's just Buick, it is rather pointless. I also agree that Dodge Ram just calling all of it's trucks Ram under the Chrysler corp. is like Chevy Silverado just calling all of it's trucks Silverado under the GM corp. It really wouldn't surprise me to see GM go under in 10 years again anyway. They'll probably restructure and change their name to Chevrolet Motors which is probably what they should have done anyhow. Their GM/GMC initials will haunt them forever.

I don't know why they bother with making 2 of the same trucks even if they change a few things. It's no different than all of the cars they made that were the same thing with a few things changed. It's a laughable practice that wrecked all of their companies and made GM itself the laughing stock of the auto industry. Doing that same stuff again Especially these days is just a sign of the end for them to me. GM round 2 won't last very long. A damaged name, a damaged company, a poor investment for shareholders. The treasury should just sell off Chevrolet and Cadillac like they did Dodge and Chrysler. Close GM-GMC for good. Let Opel go and quit dumping billions into a failed enterprise that isn't getting better and be done with it. Sell Buick off to the Chinese and let Holden go free. I too would entertain the idea of a well built Chevrolet truck if the company was owned by anyone else other than GM and the feds. Likewise, I wouldn't own a GMC because of what it's initials stand for now. The whole thing is just a mess waiting to boil over yet again in the future.

@Matthias --GM is not going under it will just restructure and possible be acquired by the Chinese or someone else. GM is making money in China. GMC could go away but if not then make it and Chevy the same that way you don't have separate development costs. In the past there were rumors of Ford merging with GM when Ford was weak, but it could happen that GM merges with Ford and Ford is the truck maker with GM making some of the cars and dropping everything else except Chevy and Cadillac. You can speculate but GM will not go out of business it just might get taken over and the name dropped. As a consumer I just want alternatives and whoever provides them I really don't care.

@Matthias: You make some very valid points; Chevrolet is not going away because it really is the flagship brand for General Motors. GM needs Chevrolet far more than Chevrolet needs GM. In fact, General Motors originally was nothing but a truck brand that began buying independent car companies--including Chevrolet, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Cadillac. Outside of the GMC trucks themselves, their only wholly-developed brand in the US was Saturn--an experiment that was really working until they realized it was taking brand loyalty away from the rest. Rather than continuing the build-out into their other marques, GM chose to bring Saturn down to the other marque's level instead by making Saturn cars just re-badged Opels.

Yes, I do know that many Saturn vehicles used Opel drivetrains. Believe it or not my 2002 Saturn Vue ran extremely reliably on the Opel 2.4 I-4 engine and manual transaxle giving me 30mpg highway average and 130,000 on the original clutch plates. The 'plastic' body absorbed conditions that would have essentially killed a lightweight steel or aluminum body and the aluminum liftgate and hood panels showed just how flimsy such thin metal would be on the sides--things now blatantly obvious on GM's trucks and will become more obvious on all brands as they try to lighten already over-sized and over-weight vehicles. By turning Saturns into Opels they didn't upgrade Opel but rather downgraded Saturn which is one reason why Opel is again struggling in the market just as they did 40 years ago when Opel actually tried to survive under its own badge in the US.

As for the 'nickname' that GMC and GM itself has gained--well, you guys are the ones who gave it to them, not GM itself. General Motors has paid off the loan our American government gave it. Chrysler has too. The difference between the two is that Fiat actually bothered to buy the rest of Chrysler's stock away from the government while nobody has stepped up to do the same for GM. If one or a few of our more wealthy Americans would actually bother to buy that stock and become major holders in the company, then it wouldn't have that nickname, would it? But NO---nearly every one of those wealthy people are saying, "Let GM go bankrupt!" without any idea of how that would affect not only the American economy but the Global one as well.

What it would do is make them richer while making everybody else poorer. Think of the millions of jobs world-wide that such a failure would destroy. Not just the assembly lines in Detroit, etc., but all of the different parts makers that make the radios, the displays, the seats and every single component that makes up even those assemblies. Tire manufacturers would see the loss of 4x as many tires that cars and trucks would normally wear them. You couldn't name more than one or two basic industries that wouldn't be affected by such a huge failure.

No, I'm not saying GM is too big to fail; what I am saying is that letting it fail would send ripples throughout the world that could completely change society as we know it. Our government knew it and even former President George W. Bush realized it when he authorized the "bailout" in the first place. How did Ford avoid the loan? By making their own PRIVATE multi-billion-dollar loan only about a year earlier which helped to carry them through that fall. Ford risked their own NAME to dodge that bullet.

So, should GM stay as a global brand, or should GM die and hope Chevrolet alone can try to carry that burden? The American viewpoint is far too narrow and American politics clearly emphasizes that point. Extreme views, on either side of the "Aisle" completely lose track of the greater picture. They say "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence," but the grass is greenest right at the fence.

If you do your own brake jobs, you know the rear pads/shoes will need replacement once for every 2 or 3 front replacements. If you don't, I bet the boys at the "only brakes" shop say you need all 4 done every time the fronts start squeeling. Great business model, Cha-ching!
Bottom line: Rear brakes don't do alot of work stopping a car and especially a truck with no load in day to day braking.
If splitting hairs over Rear Drums vs Disks is your big complaint, you must not have anything else to complain about.

The trend to use a truck as a family vehicle is fairly new,(starting with the downsizing of cars plus the length of time to realize that in a truck on small car accident, you want to be in the truck) and that popularity shows in the Chevy sales column. Truck sales keep the car division profitable.
The majority of comments here vote to kill the truck division (GMC) in favor of the bigger selling car division (Chevy). With the truck division of GM gone, you eventually end up with a style over substance truck that looks like what we have here today. Silverado lovers should be careful what they wish for.

@DWFields--Well said, I agree. I am more concerned about the loss of good pay jobs than of GM itself. I have no problem with these twins as well because it is just one more choice in the nonfullsized market. I disagree with DenverMike who thinks that there should only be large trucks. Anyone that has a preference for a smaller truck is not going to automatically trade up to a larger truck. That would be like a compact car fan being told to just buy a Taurus or an Impala. Ford has taken the gamble that it can just get its loyal Ranger owners to trade up to an F-150 or just go to a Transit Connect or Focus and maybe some will do just that but many are going to Nissan and Toyota. You cannot force everyone to buy the same product, it will not work. I don't know what will happen to GM but in some form they will survive and as for me I will have other choices which are not limited to domestic brands.

“While we continue to make strong progress in fuel-economy gains on our full-size trucks, we know that there is a group of customers who want the functionality of a truck but may not need full-size pickup,” said Tony DiSalle, vice president of Buick and GMC Marketing. “We believe that introducing a new agile and efficient mid-size Canyon will meet the needs of many pickup buyers.”

And Ford would tell you to buy a car. I may not like the styling, but at least Chevy is offering a mid-size. And brake drums are not all bad - they actually have less drag than disk brakes which is one reason some manufacturers have gone back to them.

So everybody wants to rag on GM for one eason or another, especially when it comes to their small trucks. At least they're doing something.

Are you guys still waiting on that new Ford Ranger or Dodge/Ram dakota replacement? Or maybe that new pickup Mahindra promised you? Yeah, good luck with that.

This is ugly,why the car front...The current model looks alot better,in fact the current model Canyon/Colorado look gorgeous compared to this !! GM is done !! I bet the new full size have this front clip on them as well !! Too bad GM is so screwed up...Hate just to see Ford and Chrysler as the only real truck makers around ! And that leads a way for some stupid Asian import brand to come in and take over GM's spot by then a distant 3rd place well below Dodge RAM & Ford,too bad Gumby Motors Company..too bad,what happened to you ???

Why are Ford and GM using all of their European divisions vehicles for the U.S and Canada ? Their Euro versions are ugly.

I can see Chrysler using some Euro versions as they were partnered with Mercedes and now Fiat,but even so Chrysler has less Euro models than Ford (all Ford cars except Mustang and F series are European) Even the new Ford vans are european(built in Turkey full of muslims who hate us)..Guess GM will be the same..what a shame.

@Josh & @imoore--I totally agree, at least they are not abandoning the market like Ford & Ram. From the Australian shootout it appears to be a capable truck.

Why does everyone hate on GMC :(. I own one and love it.

Posted by: DatTriple | Sep 21, 2012 8:06:56 AM

I'll tell you why. Because they are a bunch of CRYING LITTLE FORD GIRLY GIRLS. They are all probably mad that Ford abandoned the small truck market and Ford left them high and dry and have to take it out on someone.

I must say that I agree with the people who said that at least GM is doing something. Two more choices for the masses. I really think that Hyuandi will come out some day with a compact truck and stir things up. I'd bet it would be a good truck too.

@Fred the man --That would be great to have a Hyundai compact truck. Kia would be good as well.

@Jeff S, DWFields - I didn't say there should only be large trucks nor that buyers should step up to the bigger trucks because they're slightly bigger and more profitable. Buyers don't care what's profitable nor should they. That's an OEM problem.

I'm not for limiting choices in the least and it's ultimately buyers that limit their own choices by what they buy and don't buy. Where they shop, eat, whatever.

OEMs are just along for the ride. If the profits aren't there, you can't blame and them for opting out. Isuzu and Mitsu didn't abandon a profitable NA market. Subaru and VW didn't stop making pickups because profits were too high.

The last NA Ranger only remained in production, and profitable as long as it did (20 years) because it never received a major redesign and the '93 design had already been paid for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was absolutely no reason to reinvest in a new NA Ranger for a dying market.

The addition of the GM mid-size twins to the NA market may give you reason to think there could be a new mid-size renaissance, but this is GM we're talking about... "This is you brain on drugs..." Isuzu and Mitsu were here before and could do it again. Where are they? Maybe GM knows something everyone else doesn't.

You're right, development costs are defused around the globe, but 3rd world countries don't actually buy a lot of them. Total worldwide production is a lot less than you think. If not where's link?

Kia and Hyundia had good reason to invest in and take a loss (early on) to get their 'foot' in the NA car market. You take a loss when there's light at the end of the tunnel. At least with trucks, NA has it handled. With cars, it's a different story.

Aside from development costs, the assembly line overhead, supplied parts/material and of course labor, all require well equipped trucks to sell or outsell base strippers to be profitable or profitable enough to be worth an OEM's time.

Unfortunately, mid-size trucks are at the bottom of the NA barrel so fleet buyer will buy these loss-leader strippers for way under MSRP, 100 or 1,000 at a time with a single swipe of the corporate credit card. Unfortunately, you cannot refuse a buyer willing to order mass quantities of base stripper trucks that are in production, whether it's a private buyer or the Federal gov. The only way to opt out is not building them in the 1st place.

Commuters also love stripper mid-size trucks because their price and fuel economy is close to base Focus' and Corollas. I know which one I'd rather have...

Why would the majority of retail/private buyers opt for half the payload & towing, less interior and exterior volume while not actually saving much at the pump? And with similar MSRP???

NA truck buyers made their choice loud and clear. There will always be a niche mid-size market, but for the majority, as long as there's a full-size alternative, consider it done! I'd be great if OEMs cared more about giving us choices that profits. Nope.

@fear the voices - Brake cable seizures have little to do with the fact that they operate disc or drum brakes. I've always been told that the more you use your park brakes the less likely you are to get a seizure.
This whole drum brakes debate is funny.
Which century are we in?
Using the Tacoma as an example is stretching it thin. A 1/2 ton can tow and haul more and therefore should be able to do the job safely.
There is virtually no competition in the compact truck market. Toyota could have drum brakes in the front and the truck would sell.
The next gen Chevy according to spy photo's will have rear discs.
Why would GMC change over if all of their clients prefer drum brakes?

@DenverMike--It is hard to judge a product that is two years from being released on the market. Not everyone needs a totally loaded truck with all the features of a Lincoln or Cadillac. I would never use a truck like that for hauling or getting dirty. If I truly needed a large truck I would skip the half tons and buy an HD. I don't think that I would be interested in loading a scoop of dirt or mulch in the back of a Ford Focus or a Transit Connect or buy a big V-8 to drive around for the few times I get the scoops of dirt and mulch. I like what I have and I don't need to trade up to a Cowboy Lincoln. I would rather spend the money for a luxury crossover than drive around a large brick. As for MSRP do you pay that for your vehicles? How many guys pay that for their trucks? If you paid MSRP for your 2004 F-150 then I have some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona. Unless you are buying a Toyota or a Honda no one in their right mind is going to go into a dealership and pay MSRP for a new vehicle unless you don't know any better.

As for Ford I probably bought my last Ford and that is not because they are bad. If they view an ecoboost in a Explorer or Edge as not worthy of anything but a basic package even though I am willing to pay the extra 1k for the engine then I can forget about them. It seems like Hyundai and Kia have got my vote. You can argue over how great Ford is and how bad GM but my vote will be on the Korean and Japanese side. I use to follow Ford but guys like you tell me to take it or leave it and you would follow the same logic on the Explorer or the Edge. If you noticed I have not stated anymore that I wish Ford will make a small truck or a fuel efficient loaded midsize crossover because it is better just to not bother and select an Asian vehicle because that way I don't have to bother Ford with my cheap business of 30 to 40k and guys like you can buy their Raptors, King Ranches, and Platinum editions. Maybe they will come up with a Romney Gold & Plantinum edition F-150 at 100k. Anyway I thought this was an article about midsize GM trucks not a GM bashfest or a criique on the profitability of the midsize market. I haven't been going on Ford or Ram blogs telling readers how bad those trucks are or been telling readers that they should give up their V-8 Elephants.

I completely understand that you want your V-8 F-150 and I am good with that, I just don't want one myself and if the Japanese and the Chinese are the only ones that make what I want then I will take my measley business to them. By the way I doubt my carbon footprint is anything like yours because I drive 3 to 4k on my two trucks each and I do not drag race in them. I bet you drive at least twice what I drive so don't criticize me for driving a lot. I have grownup from wanting to prove my manhood by racing or showing off. I would rather read a good book or have an intelligent discussion.

As for the domestic manufacturers I will let you support them.

@Matthias - I'm not saying GMC should kill one pickup line. I believe that it makes no sense to give the higher end trim only to the lower selling truck.
If one were to believe that there are a large number of buyers who will not pick a GMC over a Chevy then that means GMC is loosing business and profits. Case in point, since GMC has added the Denali package to HD's I see a large number of Denali trucks. I live in Canada and the Sierra outsells the Silverado. I mentioned that fact for those who would say my post is an example that it doesn't matter. Guys buying trucks do not care if a top level trim adds 5K to the purchase price on a 60 - 70 k truck. Salesmen use the ploy "go with the higher trim since it only adds $50 dollars a month to the purchase price."

I'm on board with the diesel guys. We'll have to wait and see if GMC makes this an opportunity to differentiate itself from the Chevy brand. It's looking more and more like that Chevy will deliver the new Colorado with a gasoline engine and is quiet about whether or not it will offer a diesel engine. If Chevy doesn't, then this would be a great opportunity for GMC if they do.
It wish an OEM would offer a compact diesel pickup for the NA market, but currently OEMs are only offering midsize pickups if at all. I'll settle for a midsize diesel pickup and I'd bet good money that there are a lot of others out there who would also love a midsize diesel pickup.

@Jeff S - I'm not judging the product, I'm assuming it's great but that doesn't always guarantee big sales. The type of sales and how they're equipped is just as important though.

MSRP is a point in space used to compare vehicles similar to comparing EPA mpg. Your results or actual transaction price will vary, but to break it down to how low dealers will go for each vehicle, trim, time of the month or year would take up too much time and bandwidth.

It's clear that pickups have up to $10K plus of wiggle room, but taking several 1,000s off of base stripper mid-size can put an OEM deep into the 'red' and hopefully loaded 4X4 double cabs bring them back to black. It's critical that OEMs get as close to MSRP as possible on base compacts and mid-size trucks. These base strippers make up a huge part of compact and mid-size truck sales so it becomes that much more crucial.

The topic drifted into how smart GM is and how stupid of Ford not to give NA a Ranger. That wasn't my doing but, the truth is somewhere in the middle and possibly the opposite. Profits are smack in the middle an OEM's decision making. Or at least it should be. In business, this is how we keep score.

I'm sorry you're so disgruntled, but I goes to show, you can't please everyone. GM has always tries a little harder, but how has worked out for them?

If Colorados are already established around the world, why is it taking GM two years to deliver it? Could it be anything other than they would steal their new Silverado's thunder?

I'm not Ford fanboy or GM basher necessarily, but when people bash either on not enough info, I might respond with a clarification. Earlier in this blog, someone said it was stupid of GM for not dumping the GMC brand/Sierra. What was my response?

Actually, I don't drag race, put approx 2K easy miles a year on my F-150 and that's because I live in my work trucks and run errands while I'm out in them.

All my trucks have rubber floors, vinyl knit seats and basic radios. Just power window and locks.

I would not hold my breath expecting the US to open up and accept what is on offer elsewhere. US manufacturing is struggling, so it will be a case of the status quo for quite a while.
It is interesting that Volvo just released its most "cutting edge" HDT truck , but the US Volvo's will get a "decontented" version sometime later down the track.

Here is a picture of the Izuzu DMax, a clone of the Chev and GMC, but a lot better looking. This one is a base model pickup,

You are very correct in saying that 1/2 tons trucks will need to change dramatically if they are to achieve 33mpg.

That's why I've been saying mid size trucks can fill that role for most parts. And you guys only whine and cry about the potential loss of 1/2 ton trucks. The full size pickups will still be there and they should be taxed more to encourage people to buy smaller vehicles. Then you the enthusiast can still have one if you want. Or just increase fuel tax gradually. Because it will cost the same to drive a mid size pickup around if it is getting over 30mpg with an increase rate of fuel tax.

What I'm saying isn't socialist or destroying your civil liberties or what ever radical reasoning you can come up with. As I told Jeff S, I actually lean to the right in politics.

You made a statement on what damage you do by driving a V8. The damage you are causing is the unecessary additional importation of oil. Lots of V8 pickups equal a lot of extra oil.

Someone has to pay for your life style at the moment, because you guys in the US are living on credit with subsidised industry, agriculture etc. 38% per cent of your economy is government spending at the moment and that kind of money filters through every part of the economy and into everyones wallets. Someone has to start to paying it back.

And you guys say how socialist Europe is.
The US used to be viable economically to support what you have but not at the moment.

Here is a dual cab version of the new DMax, still much prettier than the Colorado and Canyon

GMC and bailout. That topic surfaces once again.
People keep saying it was necessary tp keep GMC alive and to save jobs. The problem is that the debate hinges on the assumption that without it, GMC would of dissappeared from the face of the earth like being swallowed up in some sort of black hole.
That can be viewed as the worse case scenario and is the favored argument for GM apologists, UAW/union schills, politicians and other groups.
Is that the likely scenario if GMC would of gone through bankrupcy proceedings?
I do not think so.
The most likely worst case scenario is that GMC would of died as a corporate entity and the divisions would of been purchased or taken over by other businesses.
Would this been a bad thing?
To the UAW - yes.
To GMC management - yes.
The best metaphor I can think of is a person suffering brain death.
Advanced critical care life support can keep the person physically alive, but eventually complications will set in and the person's body catches up to the brain and dies too.
This is the current scenariio - bailout has put the brain dead GMC on life support. I fear that we are alrready seeing signs of multi-organ failure.
The scenario I believe should of happened is bankruptcy.
That is more like the brain dead person being found to be truly medically dead but with viable organs. Organ retrieval for transplant would of been better. That would allow those organs to survive and give other ailing people the chance to survive and thrive.

In some respects that is what has happened to Chysler. They were given life support then the Italians took the viable organs and transplanted them making the new organism very strong.

@Denver Mike—About 11 years ago I lived out in the country and averaged about 15k to 20k miles a year. Now I live 30 miles from work and 3 miles from the park and ride which takes me to the front of the building where I work. Also I am able to work at home a couple of days a week.

I understand that the markup for small cars and trucks is much lower than full size and that there is little room for discount the smaller you go. I have been driving and buying vehicles for over 40 years and I would go with my father when he bought new cars so I fully know how the system works.

I have owned as many V-8 cars as straight 4 cylinders and I have a fondness for V-8s. I had a 73 Chevelle with a 350 V-8, a 77 Monte Carlo with a 305 V-8( which I switched out the 305 for a 4 bolt Chevy truck 350 V-8), a 78 Buick Regal with a 305 V-8 (was my mother-in-laws), and a 84 Chrysler 5th Avenue with a 318 V-8 (love those Mopar V-8s). The rest have been mostly 4s in an equal number. When I was growing up my parents had a 57 Chrysler Windsor (which I think might have had a hemi), 59 Plymouth wagon, 59 Buick Le Sabre wagon, 64 Impala wagon (327 4 barrel), and later my father bought a 77 Impala wagon with a 4 barrel 350 V-8 (I was an adult then).

Big Al is correct that NA will have to be more accepting of global vehicles. All the manufacturers are faced with the same challenge of developing a full size half ton truck that gets 33 mpg. They all have about hit the wall on what can be done with the internal combustion engine to make it more efficient so the next steps are to increase the aerodynamics, reduce the size, and use lighter materials. Even Ford on the F-150 is looking at carbon fiber body panels. The engineers have a huge challenge ahead of them. The most cost effective way to develop these new trucks is on a global basis that way the development costs are spread out. Midsize pickups in another 10 years will be a moot point because the full size trucks will be midsize; they just won’t be called midsize.

The only cost effective way for GM to have a midsize truck in NA is to bring over a truck that has already been developed that way they can afford to sell it in lesser volumes. I doubt there will be much change in the truck except to comply with US standards. If the truck is priced right and it is reliable it will sell well even with rear drum brakes. This is not to say that it is going to sell in large truck volumes but if comes in somewhere between Tacoma and Frontier sales numbers then it will be a success. By 2025 all these midsize trucks will not exist they will be replaced with similar sized full size trucks.

In part these new standards exist because of the growing popularity of the pickup. Pickups at one time were a functional affordable vehicle that was very basic (this was before your time but during my youth). My granddad, who was a farmer, had several Dodges and an IH stepsides with straight 6s, 3 on the tree (manual shift on the column), no radio, no air, no power steering, no power brakes, vent windows, and crank windows. They were not luxury vehicles but they were used in construction, farming, and service industry. An automatic transmission at one time was very rare. Most families drove large 4 door sedans or had large station wagons (that was what we had when I grew up). Then the full size custom vans came, then the mini vans, then the SUVS with the crew cab pickups, and now the crossovers (today’s version of yesterday’s station wagon) along with the crew cab pickups. The pickup trucks growing popularity has led to all this. I remember farmers 10 years ago complaining that the urban pickup owner has led to higher truck prices. Trucks in the past had less emission and safety standards to comply with because there were relatively fewer of them compared to cars. The popularity of pickups has created these new fuel standards.

@DenverMike-As for Ford I do not resent Ford I just don’t want to argue about what I want and need in a vehicle so I will just move onto Hyundai and Kia which are more attuned to my needs. American corporations view economy as cheap and with cheap you cannot get any extra nice options even if you are willing to pay for them. I have been happy with the Ford products I have along with the GM products I have but after almost 20 years of straight Detroit and the Big 3 not interested in giving me what I want it is time to give the Koreans and the Japanese my business. Also even if I express my opinion it will either be ignored by the Big 3 on this site with all the stupid fan boy comments or it will be attacked so it is just better to look elsewhere.

GM is making money in China.

@JeffS, GM is not making money in China. Buick is making money in China. Nobody gives a hoot about 'GM' over there, if they did, the cars would have GMCorporate badges on the front and not Buick badges. When GM goes under again, it will be such a damaged name that nobody will want it. They couldn't sell off GM now IMO the name is so damaged. Cadillac Company could be sold off, Buick company could be sold off, of course Chevrolet Company could be sold off. GM or GMC the name itself is worthless.

They really should be buying back shares instead of blowing cash on yet another truck. Not very cool after all that has transpired.

The most likely worst case scenario is that GMC would of died as a corporate entity and the divisions would of been purchased or taken over by other businesses.

@Lou, exactly. Just as I pointed out. I have no doubt Chevrolet would still be here and most likely Cadillac. They would just be owned by someone else. This was a ploy for the Unions plain and simple. Buick probably would have been sold to the Chinese.

I too will never buy something that said GM'C' on the grille.

With the truck division of GM gone, you eventually end up with a style over substance truck that looks like what we have here today

@Stevadore, pure nonsense. Ford is a Truck division and Car Division, So is Toyota, So is Dodge. Chevrolet could do the same thing. Funny how GM is the only company in the world with 2 trucks, neither of which are very stylish and neither have much of any substance. I find both the Ford and Dodge more stylish than either of the GM/Chevy twins and both Ford and Dodge offer far more capable off road trucks in those stylish bodies with optional luxury interiors. Even the Toyota or Nissan's fit that bill too. All are 1 name, 1 brand, car and trucks Both. And all offer style And substance. GM/Chevy were nowhere to be found in the PUTC off road shootout.

I'm on board with the diesel guys. We'll have to wait and see if GMC makes this an opportunity to differentiate itself from the Chevy brand. It's looking more and more like that Chevy will deliver the new Colorado with a gasoline engine and is quiet about whether or not it will offer a diesel engine. If Chevy doesn't, then this would be a great opportunity for GMC if they do.

@DrLou, Why would GM do that? Then they alienate the Chevy buyer that might want a diesel. If you so it for one, you've got to do it for both. This 2 truck thing is so stupid it's not even funny.

For all you "Knuckle Dragers"...a bit of advise. Drum brakes are cheaper to produce than disc brakes. So if GM is mass producing a new pick-up truck, and drum brakes are adequate, then they are going to save all the money they can. That way maybe they can open their 9th plant in China...self serving Communists....

@Jeff S - What can Ford do to please you? How would they go about building a truck specifically for you if you're already leaning towards a Hyundai Santa Fe or Kia Sorento? I guess they'd start with an Escape and switch to softer touch plastics and so forth.

Most truck owner don't care how the plastics feel and just need them to cover up the interior's mechanical bits, ducts, stamped steel and brackets. Those that get upset, probably weren't going to buy a truck anyways.

The choices OEMs make will leave many out in the cold, they have to follow the money, like anyone else that isn't a non-profit org. The Big 3 had been non-profits for too long and mid-size trucks had to die. There's absolutely no economy to building both. There's even less incentive now that CAFE is clamping down and full-size trucks may be shinking to mid-size.

OK, I'll admit I love V8s and they've yet to come up with something better. It's not just the sounds and grunt, but the trouble free, long engine life never hurts. I average, yes average 20.4 mpg and mid-size owners can't believe or more likely, they don't want to believe. I don't know what to tell them, but the Raptor PUTC tested that got 16 mpg should be their 1st clue.

@Big Al from Oz - If the added fuel my V8 cars and trucks drink in my lifetime add up to a several simi tankers, I can't really see it, but so be it. Shouldn't I get credit for my over all footprint? My 1906 house is a tiny by today's standards, I've made it to 44 without bringing kids into the world and my dogs are from the animal shelter. I don't want a pat on the back by any means, but let's not judge so much.

I'm guessing 33 mpg full-size V8s might be attainable with 10 speed transmissions, carbon fiber and aluminum body panels, start/stop and cylinder deactivation tech etc. but we'll see.

I don't mind paying a big one-time GG tax, but adding a huge tax to fuel would be unfair to Americans that built their lives on the promise of cheap fuel which lead to urban sprawl. Big Oil might be to blame for lack of mass transit, but our everyday lives are dependent on products that travel great distances over land and a huge fuel tax would turn everything upside down. Never mind that it would also impact those that are already doing the right thing and driving subcompacts.

My Lord can you say trolling!! lol This truck aint even out and people done flipped their lids bout brakes, looks, and who knows what else. A compact/midsized is meant to be cheap and better on fuel. It don't need no king ranch seats, and dash to sell son. Just cheap, simple and show the mpgs!!!

Its funny how new model vehicles always seem hideous when we first see them, making the prior model, all of sudden, look classic. Then after a model cycle, the process repeats itself.

That ladder frame is uninspiring.

@DenverMike-There is no use talking to you, you are bull headed. I want the option of heated leather seats and power passenger seats with an ecoboost 4 cylinder and that does not come as an option with the ecoboost 4 . You are sparring for a fight and it is no use to even argue with you because you think you are always right. If you are this way with your wife she has my sympathy. You talk about me not buying a new truck, you are driving around in a 2004 F-150 at least I bought a new truck 4 years ago. What a hypocrite.

@Rod Parsons--You must not read much news are you would know that Chevy is number 4 in China. It is GM that has plants in China not just Buick. I don't know what will happen to GM, but if you keep hoping that GM will fold up then our chances of recovering any more from GM will not happen and more workers will lose their jobs and that is not just GM workers but the suppliers as well. Be careful what you wish you just might get it. I do not wish any workers to lose their jobs whether they be union or nonunion.

@ johnny doe--The guys on this site bashing will not buy anything but a large truck and probably only an F-150. The Ford guys are the same types as the Ram fan boys and tbe GM Bobs they have to criticize and tear something apart to feel important. If your not even interested in the product and the brand why else would you get on here and type meaningless blather.

@Jeff S - Like I've said, I put approx 2K miles a year on it. It's still essentially new and I don't plan on upgrading soon, but one never knows. I could get a new one on a whim or it could get totalled or something. I don't buy new pickups just to dump them in a few years nor am I rich. However, I've bought 2 new work trucks since then and will likely get new ones again before trading-in my '04. Anyways, it still thinks it's new.

You don't even sound like you're interested in a truck. This is PUTC not CUVC. I'm just the voice of reason to unreasonable rants not based on reality. I mean the reality of profits vs losses and how they affect OEM's corporate decisions and therefor "choices". Those choices are not really up to them.

All you can hope for is enough buyers like what you like. Shop where like to shop. Eat where you like eat. I'm lucky in that respect, I guess, or maybe I'm just typical. Or normal. I can live with that!

I think what some of you Ford guys want is just to have one manufacturer in NA and that would be Ford. What would happen if Ford was the only manufacturer and vehicle to sell in NA? We would pay more and get junk because they would have no competition. That would be true as well if GM or Chrysler were the only ones.

Do you honest think that GM could have gone through bankruptcy and survived? Would you buy a car or truck from a corporation that declared bankruptcy? I wouldn't regardless of the brand because I would be worried about warranties, parts, and service. Now being rational and not emotional I would rather see GM be taken over by one of the domestics or possibly a foreign automaker and have the unprofitable products and divisions be eliminated, but not bankruptcy. It was different when K-Mart went into bankruptcy you are not risking much by buying a piece of clothing or a small appliance. Do you honestly think very many consumers will pay 20k to 50k for a product from a bankrupt corporation?

Anyway we do have competition, which maybe you don't like but I as a consumer and not a brand fan will choose competition every time. Do you think that if GM went completely out of business that Ford is going to get all their business. No the Japanese and Koreans would step their game plan up and take most of those sales that GM would have gotten. Also the Chinese would enter our market and they would get many sales. This is what is going to happen in the midsize truck market since Ford and some others have left. Great Wall of China is looking for a place in the US to put a assembly plant and plan to be operational in the next couple of years. GMs demise would just hasten GWCs entrance into the US. Be careful what you wish for because you might get what you wish for and you will not like it.

@DenverMike--I presently own two trucks so how do you know how do you know that I might just get a new truck in the next two years. You also assume that I expect my vehicles to be custom made. I never have bought a custom made vehicle or a custom made suit. You should be a politician because you like to twist things around. I said that Ford does not offer a nicer trim package for the ecoboost 4 cylinder on the Explorer or the Edge. If Ford at least offered the same trim levels on their ecoboost 4s as their V6s especially when you are paying a grand extra for their optional ecoboost 4 cylinder. That would be enough for me to buy one. And yes I want a crossover for my wife to be nicer than a work truck, after all it is for her and not for hauling a bunch of dogs in. That is not asking for custom made that is asking for equal trim packages for the ecoboost 4, GM or Chrysler do not offer that as well but Hyundai and Kia do. There again you are twisting things.

As for who makes a comment on this site who are you to be the monitor of this site? Who appointed you dictator? I have a right to my opinions as others that have a preference for these smaller trucks.

@Big Al from Oz--You are correct that DenverMike could be a plant from Ford or at least represent all the Big 3. He is anti diesel, anti midsize truck, only for expensive trim packages, anti choice, and tows the corporate line and espouses only corporate policy and interest. DenverMike comes on a post about compact trucks and basically says that they should not be made because they are cheap trucks and that they cannot make any money selling these. How does he know that no one can make money on these trucks? Do you have to just sell a million units annually of a certain product to make money or can you sell a 100,000 or less and still make money on a product that has already been developed for a global market? I guess Ford should not be selling Focuses or Transit Connects because there is no way that they will come close to a million units a year or the sales of the F series. Maybe Ford should just make the F series trucks and nothing else since they sell the most of these.

@DenverMike-At best the Colorado has a ten year life cycle because the new full size trucks by 2025 will not be much different in size but smaller than they are now. You are the one that needs to look at the big picture and economics you cannot see past the present. There will be V-8s in 2025 but they will not be the number engine on full size half tons. You will be stuck in 2012 when it is 2025. Most of us will adapt with no problem but you will be stuck in the past.

@Jeff S
I do think I'm correct. DenverMike does have some valid points, but unfortunately he seems to be towing the "Ford" line. Like I stated Ford is concentrating on gasoline technology for small vehicles. And that's what he is selling.

I have worked with the technologies that will make automobiles viable in the future that DenverMike is talking about. Everything from sheet aluminium to composites. I do know how hard they are to work with economically. At the moment Chinese automotive manufacturers have not perfected stamped aluminium body panels or water forming floor pans. Just using these familiar materials can be challenging.

As I stated we will need to exhaust existing technologies and materials first. Exotic materials and hybrids will be a massive hit to the cost of any vehicle in the foreseeable future.

Composites (carbon fibre,kevlar, fibreglass etc) have a tendency to delaminate when impacted, even slightly. This type of damage can cause component failure as the delaminations "spread" throughout the component. Also in an accident or damage to carbon fibre the damage has to be treated on site to prevent the fibre particles escaping and entering lungs, a fixative needs to be applied. Its even far worse in a fire. This material has to change to be used for automotive manufacturing on a large scale.

Diesels will be viable in NA by 2016 because the costs I mentioned above will far outstrip the cost of SCRs etc and the Eurodiesels will comply to US NOx standards and the US will comply to the particulate and CO2 Euro standards.

The technology currently being employed on your pickups is "bolt on". Using transmissions with more and more gears can only go so far. As you gain more gears the advantage expotentially reduces. Look at the Pentastar Ram. We can make a direct comparison of Chryslers engines in one platform and the diesel far outways any advantage of the Pentastar and the 5.7 Hemi.

I don't think DenverMike has a real handle on the position of economics, engineering etc. DenverMike keeps on arguing costs but his future will definitely make 1/2 ton trucks extremely expensive.

A very efficent gas engine has a 30% fuel efficiency ratio. Current diesels are running at 38-42% fuel efficiency. You will never have a V8 pulling 33mpg, unless its a 1 litre V8 in a Focus. Even then with frictional losses you would be better with 3 or 4 cylinders.

Most people on this site probably don't like what I write, but I'm a realist and cost will drive mid size pickups to supercede your 1/2 ton pickups, abeit gradually. Lou is correct with his assumptions on costs driving everything. A man will drive a "lesser" vehicle so he can still buy a case of his favourite beer and feed his family.

The developing world on average don't need these mid sizers we currently are recieving. They just need a basic vehicle, like the mini trucks of yesteryear. But the new mid sizers are a couple of pegs above the current Hilux.

@Jeff S, Big Al from Oz - If my views exactly coincide with Ford's, why does that make a "plant"? Maybe I'm a Prophet that speaks of profit. Speaking of profit, Ford has more truck buyers agreeing with them than anybody so aren't most of them potential "plants"?

If Ford agreed with me on diesels, they would not have invested billions into their 1st ever in-house diesel design from scratch. They have a lot riding on it and I'm sure they want to sell a lot of those and see a return on investment.
They sure as $H!T don't need me reminding buyers what an irrational decision that would be! Don't cha think??? These Scorpion diesels are mostly trouble free so far, but I've talked a lot of crap about their 6.0 PowerStrokes and not just on PUTC. What kind of "plant"does that???

Ford isn't promoting their V10 gas engines necessarily to steer buyers away from their diesels, which in F-650/750 would be Cummins', but are promoting their gas V10 option (base engine actually) as to target Hino, UD, Isuzu, Fuso and Navistar truck shoppers.

@Al - I don't agree that the Cummins "far outweighs any advantages of the Pentestar or 5.7 Hemi". Currently, Ram forces Cummins diesels on every 3500, 4500 and 5500HDs. Cummins are far heavier, but you will see Hemi options (or base engines) on all of them someday and you'll think of me...

Yes I do side with Ford's decisions more often than GM (or Ram), but so do most truck buyers. If you agree, you buy.

Really, some on here don't have clue about economics and question the rational of Ford's decisions? It's OK to have questions, but when I offer an answer, I'm accused of being a Ford shill just because it have a few more insights on business.

@Jeff - The Colorado has a potential to be profitable around the world, but most of its markets are more interested in regular cabs because of their ancient roads, non existent parking and 3rd world economics. It's NA that buys a lot of loaded 4X4s crew cabs. Unfortunately, they mostly want full-size trucks if they're going to go there.

Yes, the Colorado has a 100,000 unit NA potential, but if most are base strippers, the profit potential is washed out. I'm not making it up. It's well known that these generate little or no profits for OEMs. I already provided a link, further up the thread. Dealers hide them from he public and Nissan refuses to even build reg cab Frontiers and Titan. Why do you think that is? This is what happened to the Ranger and yes fleet buyers loved it too much as well as bargain shopping commuters just looking for a cheap A to B economy car.

Global Colorados have the worldwide added advantage of not having to compete with ful-size trucks, Silverados or otherwise.

I'm not trying to moderate anyone's comments. You called be a hypocrite for not being in the market for a new truck. I said you're not even in the market for a truck period.

When I asked how you would have Ford build a truck specifically for you, that was purely rhetorical. I know they don't custom build cars for anyone. I was just wondering what's missing from Big 3 CUVs.

Our Grand Cherokee comes with a VM Motori 3.0 litre V6 diesel, I didn't realise they were a Cummins. This style of engine could potentially give you guys the 33mpg required for your pickups, without all of the "other" technologies. Yes, they are superior to the Pentastar and Hemi 5.7. The same goes for the Renault/Nissan 3.0 litre V6 diesel.

For this to work or any of the future changes to work you will have to stop viewing your pickups as muscle cars and build work trucks, like pickups used to be.

The new technologies being regulated in NA will soon cost considerably more than diesels, with no real benefit. But then again CAFE/EPA will essentially conform to Euro VI by 2016.

Also, outside of NA Ford has been using diesel. My niece in France owns a diesel Focus. But its lastest business decision is to push Eco Boost engines of all sizes around the globe in the future. Bad decision by Ford. They didn't take off in Australia and I would have thought it would have been a better market than Europe for this type of engine.

Fiat actually has done a better job than Ford with the so called Eco Boost technology, have a read on their little 500cc gasoline engine.

Remember what I said, the current global automotive companies that are leading right now built what the world wanted. Ford still has to learn this. Ford's decisions appear to be NA orientated. The global ranger is one decision they made that was good.

Have a look at how many dual cab pickups are sold in Asia, particularly Thailand, they sell about 500 000 pickups a year. Africa and Australia. As a percentage of any vehicle sold in Australia the dual cab probably is the biggest selling body style. The NA market isn't the only large Pickup/SUV market in the world.

Have a look at me, I initially went to find a SUV and ended up with a BT50. This will happen in the US as well. There are a lot of people out there who drive SUVs, cars etc that would buy a economical dual cab ute.

From the near future, as vehicles across the globe cost more of your pay pack to keep, people will want better built vehicles, as an investment people will want more years out of them. Outside of NA the Big 3 are viewed as lower quality product.

Global vehicle production will increase, but in the "West" vehicle ownership will reduce as vehicles are kept longer and become uneconomical to maintain.

Vehicles will become more about transportation, rather than mobile living rooms. You will buy what is needed because of costs.

The Big 3 have a rough road ahead of them. They need to restructure from the ground up to survive.

Big Al from Oz beat me to it, the best selling pickups outside NA are dualcabs.
It would be very incorrect to say that "3rd World" countries all have dirt roads, primitive infastructure. Quite a few have better infastructure than some US Cities.
Silverado's etc cannot compete with Global Colorado's and other Asian sourced Pickups. If they did they would be sold globally.
I have a feeling that the Colorado's that are to be sold in the US will have to compete against the Tacoma and will be suitably priced and optioned.

Have a look around the world and what is going on.

In Thailand about half of the vehicles sold are dual cabs.

In Indonesia they just sold over 1 million vehicles this year. There sales rate is doubling every 4 years.

China in 1989 had only 189km of freeway, in 2012 it has 85 000km of freeway!

I travel to Malaysia on a regular basis and since the early 90s they have developed a freeway system. It is part of a system that starts in Singapore and goes through to China.

The Russians are working with the Eurozone on it Freeway system from the Pacific to Europe and China. Within our lifetime you will be able to drive on a Freeway from the top of Scotland to Singapore, fantastic stuff. That would be a drive from hell, and you would want a small diesel dual cab.

@DenverMike--I told you what I am currently looking for which is a midsize crossover with an ecoboost 4 cylinder that offers the exact higher end packages that are available on the V-6 engine. This means I want and ecoboost 4 with heated leather seats, power passenger seat, hands free connections, and if I have to get the same trim with other items that I don't care as much about then I have no problem with that. I have stated this several times so if you are not sure what I stated go back and read my prior comment. Other than that I am fine with Ford.

Many guys want the Global Ranger and that would be a good product but I can live with the current crop of midsizes which include Tacoma, Frontier, Equator, and remaning Colorados and Canyons. I do think that you are correct that GM is stalling the Colorado twins introduction in NA by 2 years in order to not take anything away from the introduction of the new Silverado and Sierra. But at least GM is offering these twins and for now that will be enough. Again I would like Ford in the next couple of years to consider offering the same trim levels with the same packages for the Ecoboost 4 cylinder as they do on the V6s for the Edge and the Explorer. My wife wants a premium package and I want the fuel economy because this will be our retirement vehicle. @Big Al can you help explain this to DenverMike because I honestly think he is not understanding what I am trying to say.

@DenverMike--By the time the Colorado/Canyon is available in the NA market this will be a 2015 model which by the 2025 model year will not exist because the newer full size trucks will already be about the size of the Colorado. Please read some of my previous comments above and you will see that I have stated this as well several times. The GM twins are coming out and if they have to put drum brakes and not make them as nice as a larger truck then so be it, at least they will be available. Do you understand I am happy with the twins along with what is currently in the market. Ford and Ram don't have to offer anything else in the truck department. Again I am satisfied with the current midsize truck offerings and adding these twins gives me plenty of choice.

@Big Al from Oz--You have more knowledge than I do about what manufacturers are going to have to do to make the 33mpgs on pickups. The only reason I brought up the carbon fiber panels on F-150s is that I read an article about that, but who knows for sure what material will be used. I do agree with you that I do not see how they will be 33mpgs from a V-8 unless there is technology that has yet to be developed. There was something on this site a couple of years ago after the F-100 concept was cancelled about offering ecoboost 4s in F-150s in a regular cab and possibly a extended cab. If I am incorrect please correct me. If this is true that could be away of obtaining 33 mpgs. Can someone clarify will these fuel standards be an average like the old CAFE standards or will each vehicle be required to meet these standards. If it is an average then the truck makers can make ecoboost 4s available to average out these standards in which case would make it easier to comply with the new standards. I would appreciate some more information.

@Big Al from Oz & Robert Ryan--I don't see anyway that NA can avoid globally developed pickup trucks in the future. You saw the reaction to the global vans that Ford and Ram are going to offer so you know the resistance level is high on this site. Same with Buick and the Opel platforms, but many don't realize the Chevy Malibu is also on the Opel platform. One of my neighbors bought a 2012 e assist Buck LaCross that is every bit as nice as Lexis. How many of these guys have driven a LaCross or ridden in one? If you have you would have a more positive view because it is a beautiful and well-designed car. I would rather own a global vehicle that is affordable than have a separate NA developed vehicle that I cannot afford. Guys I just want you to know that I am one of the few Americans that sees what is happening and is willing to adapt.

Big Al you hit the nail on the head about keeping vehicles longer in NA. The younger generation is for the most part not buying new cars and trucks and buying just what is necessary. I have been holding off on another purchase because I will purchase my next new vehicle just before I retire and this will be my retirement vehicle. That is why I am interested in EcoBoost or e-assist 4 cylinder with a premium package because I want a more efficient vehicle in a future of higher energy prices when my wife and I will be living on a fixed income. Containing costs to develop the new cars and trucks to meet these standards while not pricing most customers out of the new car and truck market necessitates globally developed vehicles where the development costs are spread out on a global basis. I honestly don't see any other way.

Hey! All you government bashers: When your house is on fire you call the fire dept. (oops, government), when someone has stolen your Chevy truck you call the police (oops, government), when you drive down the highway in your truck you are enjoying a smooth ride thanks to (oops, government), when you need protection from foreign aggressors, need to fight WWI, WWII etc, (oops, government), when you need to go to court, or laws are made so businesses have a safe atmosphere, how about the airport you fly in an out of? (oops, government), Like National Parks, National Forest, BLM Lands? (oops, government). Flood, airplane crash, earthquake, terrorists, how you gonna' call? (oops, government)

Every automaker is subsidized by the government through the government's maintenance of an infrastructure: Roads, oil from our public lands, USPS, courts and laws, military to go steal oil from other countries....etc..etc

Now, the government could be better ie; tax the rich who pay nothing and obviously with all their tax cuts are not "job creators" but job exporters. Stop subsidizing oil companies, stop subsidizing the ranchers, stop subsidizing the ADC, etc.

If you want to be pissed about something, saving the banks and the gangsters that ran them, stole your paychecks and sent this country into financial ruin. Those same banksters that should be in jail, but instead are richer than ever and with YOUR money. GMC was peanuts by comparison.

@Big Al from Oz--What you have mentioned about the rapid development of roads in Asia and Europe will create increased commerce. That is what happen when President Eisenhower signed the highway act in 1956 which openned commerce up even more in the US. Now the US has let the ball drop on this. We need to increase the amount of roads as well as replacing old bridges and crumbling roads. I live in Northern Kentucky where thanks to a beltway, I-275, and the Greater Northern Kentucky Cincinnati Airport we have many warehouses that employ many workers. Toyota North American parts distribution, Amazon, the Gap, Carl Zeiss, and many others contribute greatly to the Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky economy thank to easy access to an interstate.

The major bridge linking Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky was built in 1963 which links North and South via I-71 and I-75 and badly needs replacing. This is a major commercial corridor that links Michigan and Tennessee. The auto industry which includes GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda all use this corridor as well as the large retail distributors and others. There are many major roads going North and South but the critical need is for more east to west roads.

Ten years ago I saw a future plan to link Louisville, Lexington, and Cincinnati with an east to west belt way. This would open up more distribution warehouses and light manufacturing in Central and Northern Kentucky creating more jobs and more prosperity to areas that have high unemployment. This is where a higher gas excise tax is needed as long as this money will not be wasted on street cars, landscaping roads, museums, or roads to nowhere in Alaska then I would be in favor of much higher fuel taxes. Also higher fuel taxes would encourage people to buy more efficient transportation. I don't think this will happen but this is just one example where such expenditures would create jobs and create more GDP and tax revenue to the US. This is just one state so you can immagine the need in other states as well. The US funds all interstate roads and bridges through the federal excise tax and except for light rail and commuter buses this should only be use for roads and bridges. Many people are not aware of the need for more east to west freeways or loops to link the north and south interstates and the effect that this would have on economic growth. This would actually increase economic growth and jobs. This is not related to this article but it goes along with what the rest of the World is doing.

Via motortrend

Ram is still on the fence about bringing back a compact truck to its lineup. Should it get the green light, it may receive the Rampage badge also used on a 2006 Dodge concept.


The comments to this entry are closed.