New Ram Exec Proves He Knows His Stuff

Reid Bigland Ram HD II

In a clear attempt to prove to the media that he's up to the challenge of moving from Dodge to Ram Truck, Ram's new CEO and President Reid Bigland sat down with a few members of the media to talk trucks. During the course of a 90-minute lunch, topics such as current and past sales, new models and even the current state of the loan industry were all up for discussion.

According to Scott Burgess from Truck Trend magazine, there was so much for him to say that he barely had time to pick through his salad and didn't even touch his main dish.

Among the topics discussed were:

  • Former Ram President Fred Diaz did a pretty good job laying the groundwork, and now it's up to Bigland not to screw it up.
  • Bigland is quite happy with the Ram 1500's positioning against the competition.
  • He is excited about the fact there continues to be a strong appetite for high-end pickups.
  • He likes the idea of a smaller pickup but can't see it working at the necessary price point.
  • He said there will be more utility vans coming from Ram Truck.

We expect it will take a while for Bigland to get comfortable in his new role, but if his command of all the major hot pickup truck topics is any indication, this could bode well for Ram Truck's future. His likely first big test will be with the premiere pickup truck show later in September when he attempts to carry the Ram Truck momentum into the State Fair of Texas and into the Texas Auto Writers Association's annual truck competition the month after that.

This is clearly a big year for Ram Truck, but maybe even more importantly for its new top executive. We wish him good luck.

ReidBigland16 II

 

Comments

@nomorechryco
We do understand in Australia.

Believe it or not on average our commerical vehicles are larger than the US pickups. Our road systems are more than adequate to manage them as is evident by the size of the vehicle in our commercial vehicle fleet ie, B Triples, Roadtrains etc.

We do have the means to afford to operate these vehicles, like in Canada as fuel in Australia represents the exact costs vs income as in Canada. What you fail to recognise in your statement is the protection offered to your SUV/Pickup/LCV market.

Full sizers in the US will always be a large part of your vehicle fleet, undoubtably. But, smaller commercial vehicles are in demand more than you think or you wouldn't have barriers and tariffs in place.

We do have full size trucks from the US here in Australia, grey market vehicles. Your market is quite sheltered/protected, you can't grey import into the US a Frontier/Navara diesel from France or even a global Ranger.

I think your understanding is limited not ours outside of the US.

Again, if you are that certain that full size pickups/SUVs/LCVs are dominant because of supply and demand, why do you require the most stringent trade barriers within the OECD and other countries on the above mentioned vehicles?

it funny reading all the info posted here from all you "engineers". the reason a coil spring suspension isnt desirable in a pickup truck is that the whole load is forced on one spot of the frame which makes overloading that much more of a danger. sure you can make it handle ok with 5 points of control arms but you in no way displace all the weight, its simply forced on one spot which is why its not a good idea for a truck plain and simple.

@ the scrutineer - Yes, they lost the PUTC 1/2 ton challenge due to cargo capacity. One can cry boo hoo hoo unfair because all of the auto companies with the exception of Toyota use arbitrary cargo/tow ratings.

The POINT is - any motor vehicle code uses capacities provided by the manufacturer.

Getting involved in an MVC with a Ram and saying it hauled those weights fine in the PUTC test isn't going to save your ass in a court of law.

One isn't legally allowed to exceed the rated GVW of your vehicle. In the case of the air ride Ram - those values suck.

I'd rather buy an "autoride" Suburban and not even try to pretend I can carry anything.

@BAF0 - You can't stand it when others share my views and can see the 'natural selection' taking place that shapes the US truck market more than anything else.

It's not really that complicated. You stop buying Mazda/Isuzu/Mitsu pickups, they stop offering them.

And it's true, those that claim they would, WITHOUT A DOUBT, buy a global truck are no different than all those that demand OEMs build them a small diesel station wagon with a stick shift. Once they hit showrooms, their arms suddenly can't reach their wallets.. T-Rex Syndrome is what they call it.

No, global OEMs aren't stupid. They ain't fallin' for no damn banana in da 'tailpipe'. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt and threw up on it at Tijuana donkey show...

Yes global pickups have been here and want no part of it. Zero!

The '80s mini-truck craze/fad/explosion/invasion PROVED the US is wide open to foreign trucks as much as any place else. Much more so, actually. And just where the Hell was this "Chicken tax" during that whole episode????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Use your head, mate. Mid-size trucks cost about 10/10th that of full-size trucks to build. While base prices are just 7/10ths of full-size. Actual transaction prices are around 6/10ths.

So why would and OEM like Fiatsler willingly cannibalize their line of profitable, cheaply built smaller cars as well as wildly profitable full-size trucks, with mid-size trucks that are crazy expensive to build? The same reason VW protects their profitable US cars from their own Amarok.

The US (& NA) truck market is set up different than anyplace else because full-size trucks 'run interference'. In other markets, OEMs freely charge whatever they want (or can get) for mid-size trucks. That's not possible in the US. Base prices are severely capped by full-size. Then mid-size trucks here top out at 10/10th the price of full-size, for similar configurations.

And other markets sell global trucks that rival our King Ranch, Limited editions. Those high end, mega dollar mid-size luxury trucks would be considered a joke in the US and Canada.

Yeah Big Al from Oz, question Bigland's numbers all you want. He didn't get to be the CEO of a major brand by being an idiot, dude knows what he's talking about. That's why he's the CEO, and well, your Big Al from Oz.

The tow mirrors are fantastic, what's the poor design? Please, enlighten us on their engineering shortcomings sir great one.

All you coil spring haters, lol. Of all the half tons sold and driving around the country, how many are hauling 2000lbs and towing 10K every day...EVERY DAY? less than 1%, guaranteed. Coil springs appeal to the masses that use a half ton as a daily driver. Not hard to figure out.

hemi lol is the best engineer ever, that's why he's here on PUTC telling us about coil springs and their downfalls according to his complex analysis of load distribution. What a maroon. Just another douche behind a keyboard that built a birdhouse in high school wood shop, now he's an engineer.

@Denver77 and FordMike :)
Then you do recognise that the barriers and taxes are protecting SUVs/LCVs/Pickups.

Read you comment carefully and understand what you just wrote.

Thank you very much Denver77 and FordMike.

Did you understand what they wrote? Nobody here is gonna pay $40,000 for a midsize truck, or 20,000 for a POS from China or India. I had a Datsun(Nissan) diesel pickup in 1981. Isuzu, VW had small diesel trucks as well. They obviously didn't sell well here. Maybe the reason they sell them in Au is because of the large profit margins made selling them there. There is nothing stopping any manufacturer from building a small or midsize truck plant here. Heck, they could easily use or share an existing plant if they thought sales were here. NOTHING to do with protectionism. Think about it.

@BAfO - Your fragile ego won't let you accept most don't agree with your biased, one sided "Smaller Truck Troll Alliance" views. No, it's not all just one commentor, spreading out under different user names with obviously differing perspectives/backgrounds. Get help.

As far as anyone has seen, you're the only one hiding behind multiple user names. Aside from "Vulpine/DWFields".

He says he doesn't bash America, but actually posts negative comments in nearly every thread. Now I'm beginning to think he is delusional, even mis-spelling and using improper grammar where he never did before. But, this is a NA site, not utes.com, so he needs to accept the fact that we basically don't care what the rest of the world drives.

@fordtrucks77

no what i did was point out the obvious. its simple math to understand its not a desirable idea. now you have to overcome that extra stress on the single point of the frame. its simply a poor design idea. no i dont claim to be an engineer but i know a thing or two. its also much harder with the weight bearing in one point to control the horizontal forces from one location "sway" if you will. the ONLY reason you would design something this way is for ride quality, PERIOD. ANYONE who wants a "truck" designed to do anything shouldnt desire this design, its just not favorable for use.

History repeating itself. Trucks shouldn't have 4 doors. Trucks shouldn't have fuel injection. Who needs more than 3 gears? Shift-on-the-fly 4x4 is a terrible idea, real men get out and lock their hubs! Electric windows are for sissies. The same irrational fear applies to coil springs here.

It is not fear. It is reality. The payloads are significantly lower on the Rams due to the coils and only provide neglible increase in ride quality under certain conditions. A more accurate comparison would be whent Dodge went off on its own and did the non-DEF diesels and then did a 180.

No, you can only use the "reality" argument once it actually becomes a reality. Until then, it's just speculation. As 2500s and 3500s are pretty much the same price, if coils are not for you, buy the damn 3500! If you only need an HD truck to pull a boat or RV a few times a year, the 2500 might be worth taking a look at! I bet it has better off-road articulation too. It's great that they are giving people a choice.

1300

@DenverMike and His fellow clowns and aliases
Bigland stated that Fiat doesn't want to sell pickups under $22 000 in the US. Fiat can, but won't and you are telling me about prices? And you think he a good guy?

So you are accepting that you guys should pay the prices we are paying in Australia and more, you want to pay $40 000 for a pickup as long as its not a midsizer? We don't pay that for a mid spec truck. Why do you think the US consumer should?

Have a look at the $27 000 Ram. What is its capability, it isn't truck like at all in performance.

I told you the price of trucks will rise in the US if nothing is done to remove the barriers and CAFE regs. The $27 000 under performing Ram is an indication of what's to come.

What I'm talking about is doing what is right for the US consumer not the UAW or Big 3. We aren't talking midsizers either. The midsizer argument or anti American argument is getting long in the tooth.

I'm not saying either that full size trucks are bad. Learn to comprehend and not misinform.

You are scared of what I'm discussing or you wouldn't come back with baseless retorts. Read what I'm writing not spinning some pro UAW spin to save your uncompetitive jobs.

@Big Al, I have read a few reports of what Bigland said. It's not that he doesn't want to sell pickups under $22k, he said the cannot make a midsize truck cheaper than that. He stated that he would love to make one for $16k, but can't. He states that by the time they made a small truck (with all the rules and regulations), it would be so close in price to the Ram 1500 that nobody would choose to buy it over the 1500, that's probably where his $22k figure comes in for a basic Ram 1500.

That's what happens when all these little rules keep coming, such as mandatory airbags, abs, traction control, rear camera, emissions, etc. We have to pay for this "free" stuff we all want.

@Alex
That goes back to another reason I stated for Bigland's views.

Fiat/Chrysler doesn't have a competitive pickup range. The place they are compeitive (sort of) is the US, even then their sales are nothing like Ford and GM.

Maybe Bigland should have a chat to Sergio and say hey, 'that Rampage concept should come on a ladder frame chassis and be made into a global midsizer and we will call them Dodges. Because Dodge is the best brand name for small Trucks globally that we currently own.'

Then there would be a case for Fiat to have a competitive mid sizer in the NA market.

A Jeep based midsizer would only appeal to some in NA. It wouldn't be a global vehicle.

A lot on this site only look within the US and not globally. Global markets will make and break car companies in the future.

The US has to open its door to the world, being insular will bite them eventually. Probably sooner than most would think.

Having 1950s socialist Euro style barrier in the 21st century is not a good model to base a large segment of a market on like the US CUV/SUV/Pickup/LCV/MCV/HCV.

The US needs to modernise its modelling and play catch up.

For those of you dissing on coil springs, just remember that those coils on rail cars are supporting hundreds of tons and even more on the locomotives. Those could are NOT "in conjunction with leafs" on those train cars and if you do see a leaf-spring car it's a significantly older car that is either privately owned or a fallen flag that simply hasn't died yet.

As for coils on trucks, maybe you should look under the trailers of most OTR trucks, and while you're at it look at those bobtails; those are coils, not leafs you're seeing now.

And finally, unlike some auto companies, I will state as a fact that Chrysler DOES care about its customers and will work to make a problem right, even if it means bypassing your local dealer. They won't let themselves be screwed, but if you have a legitimate issue they WILL back you up.

(( I hate auto-correct. And I quote: "Those COILS are Not 'in conjunction with...'"))

@Big Al, well it could do a Dakota to compete globally with the Colorado, Hilux, Amarok, Navara, and Ranger, but I agree with Bigland they don't have a business case for it in the US. Could you imagine trying to sell a midsize in the US for $40-60K like the rest of the world pays? It would only make sense if it was a lot cheaper. I disagree that the US has to become like the rest of the world, it just has to offer what the rest of the world wants outside of America. That's what it is doing. Selling hot hatches in places where hot hatches sell, selling cramped 7 seaters, where cramped 7 seaters sell well, and selling expensive midsize pickups where they sell well. It's not forcing American culture on everyone else.

"it funny reading all the info posted here from all you "engineers" - Hemi lol.

Who is claiming to be an engineer?

@DM: You are such a rube. You tout all this speculation as fact and when somebody challenges your data you start calling names. UNLIKE YOU, I never 'hid' my name and simply reverted to my original because it is REGISTERED and as such is more difficult to fake (because YOU don't know my passwords).

That said, I challenge you to present IRREFUTABLE PROOF of everything you've said about smaller trucks. I've seen what you presented before and in every case it was somebody else's opinion piece, not an industry reviewer who agreed with you. Your numbers, too, are wrong; as the price differential between similarly-equipped mid-size vs full-size trucks averaged about $5,000 apart--not much, admittedly, but enough to make the smaller truck more appealing *when the larger truck is not needed.*

As I have stated before, the Ranger, the S-10/15 and the Dakota are the trucks that drove out the imports--when they were about the same size as the imports. After that they grew to the point that Ford and RAM dropped the mid-size because they weren't 'needed' to compete with smaller trucks any more. Meanwhile, Nissan and Toyota simply chose to build bigger trucks IN the US to avoid the so-called Chicken Tax. Granted, the Tacoma and Frontier don't sell as many trucks, but those trucks DO sell which means there IS a demand. Can it be any more obvious?

@Alex
I didn't say the US has to become like the rest of the world, I'm saying the US has to look at how effective is its vehicle protectionism. It has already cost the US taxpayers.

Every market like Australia/US/Euro countries will have their own individual differences. But the differences should be made by the consumer, not influenced by tariffs and barriers like we have outside of the US.

Have a look at the Euro market compared to Australia it is different, so if the US liberalises its barriers and tariffs why would it not become what the people of the US want. If full size trucks are the rage, then full size trucks will sell.

What I'm hearing is the US doesn't want midsizers, then if that is the case why the barriers and tariffs? I'm also hearing the massive profits made on the pickups in the US, so then there is room for real competition.

Remove them and you will find that fullsize pickups will become cheaper and more competitive.

The Dakota was a good truck, but like every other midsizer in the US is old. The Dokata name isn't known outside of the US either (marketing).

The Rampage like I suggested is what Fiat really needs globally and in the US.

I have shown this before on previous posts but the us market just does not support mid size trucks the total sales are less than they where at the peak and have been in decline ever since essentially toyota has maintained its sales number but with all the other manufactures bowing out and nissan barely clinging on. Remember these compaines answer to share holders, who want profits, so these companies are going to maximize their rate of retrun on an investment, so if they invest in a small cheap pick up will they sell enough to recoup their costs SO if they make an front wheel drive 2 seat 2 door pick up how many people will buy it? most pick ups are extended or crew cab even fleet vehicels are now models with larger cabs. then you have to worry about cab configurations, and who wants to buy a pick up without 4x4 in many areas ? Have you seen how big the global pick ups are compared to a 1/2 ton crew short bed, and the T6 has only one wheel base, with all the manditory saftey equipment the prices will only continue to rise, federal law will soon mandate all new vehicles have back up cameras. That was a few hundred dollar option on my 2010 Raptor Now standard. Ask your self why do you really need a small pick up when a small suv would better meet your needs and give you the flexibility to haul paxs as well. mulch and stuff normally comes in a bag and you get the weather tech mats for your cargo area and you'll be fine. my parents had a chevy suburban(s) growing up never really needed the open bed with the cargo liner the truck could go to home depot just fine. An escape our similar size vehicle sounds like a better fit for all of you small pickup wanters.

The two camps line up, the battle lines are drawn and no one is capable of seeing the other side's point of view.

It is much easier to say that no one wants small trucks than to look at every factor that effects the truck market and why that ideal exists. People do not want to put the effort into exploring or understand the paradigm that they exist within.

It is much easier to gather into one's tribal groups and bash. No proof is needed when one does that. It is easier (if one is good at it) to play up emotions and get both sides angry.

Anger shuts down communication and subsequently shuts down the search for truth and mutual understanding.

Anyone seen as an "outsider" is immediate fodder to the great unwashed hordes.

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier -

"Bigland said in a round about way that they will not undercut a 22,000 dollar Dart. If 22,000 is what they feel would be the price cut off for a pickup - no wonder why they won't spend billions developing a small truck. As the Ecoodiesel press release pointed out - Quote "2014 Ram 1500 starts at $24,200".
Chrysler/Fiat has realized the same thing that Ford did a while back ; number 1 in profits is much more important that #1 in sales.
Prime example -
GMC is trying to be #1 in sales (globally or otherwise) but Ford made 2.5 times the profits. Even VW sells less than GMC but makes 3 times the profits.

There is NO business case for Fiat to build a small truck or rebadge a Strada since there are higher profit margins in full sized pickups. Ram will just keep adding more trim levels like Ford has done.

Under current market conditions which include having to build under UAW labour coupled with tariff protection - there is no business case. Even setting up shop in Mexico would still cost Fiat close to a billion if a new small truck were to be built - again, no business case.
Bigland isn't lying, he is just pointing out the 4 walls and ceiling to the truck box that is the USA market."

@Big Al, DWFields - you've been labelled the enemy, the warriors of the small truck camp. Anything you say, can and will be used against you in the illogical courts of PUTC.

Let the stoning of the infidels begin..........

LOL

I will say it again. Midsize trucks will only sell in the US if the purchasing cost is discounted proportionate to its lack of size. But we know the manufacturers cannot supply at the price where there would be significant demand. Consumers don't demand it at the price manufacturers are willing to supply them at. If this was not true, there would be an abundance of midsize trucks still on the market in the US.

@Alex - the most common small truck I see is the Tacoma Double Cab TRD Offroad or SR5 equipped 4x4's. Those trucks overlap 1/2 ton trucks. Most buy smaller trucks because that is what they want. Price is secondary.
10% or less of Tacoma's are low end or fleet trucks. The so called "cheapskate" market is a very small and no one likes to cater to those buyers.
What you say is true but that applies equally to any discounted product. If you dump the price to rock bottom levels, you will artificially create a demand for such a product.

Small trucks have become uncompetitive because of many reasons. Build costs are similar to full sized, and companies do not want to water down profits that come from full sized trucks. Regulations favour large trucks. Footprint rules (as we saw in an earlier story) might kill off reg cab short box trucks since they will have to meet tougher MPG and emission laws. The same laws that will hit smaller trucks.
Another factor is tariffs. There was a huge loophole in the chicken tax that was exploited by importers by shipping in chassis cab units and bolting on the box after hitting USA shores. When that closed, the price of small trucks rose proportional to the chicken tax.
Technical barriers also exist to trade. It costs billions to meet USA standards.
I do believe that many have substituted large pickups for the large land yachts of the 70's. They've also flocked to large pickups because they are the last bastion of the V8.
Most prefer larger trucks and if emotion is removed from the picture, there isn't much of a case for buying a small truck other than preference for the smaller size.
If the 25% chicken tax were removed, it would be easy for the Chinese and others to provide vehicles at that 16K price point.

I am sure that I'll be included in the anti-USA, anti-large truck camp and I'm sure someone will say that the chicken tax is ineffectual and I'm sure that someone will say that I'm full of it.
No one ever said that one needed proof to debate on PUTC even though I can provide it.

@Lou
Oddly enough I like full size trucks. I'm more anti competition.

All I'm saying to the pro Euro socialists that want to retain tariffs and barriers, 'if the full size truck is what everyone wants, then what is the threat of removing those barriers'.

I understand why the US market is the way it is or I wouldn't make the comments I do.

I also see a huge lineup of models by the Big 3 for pickups. Like I stated the V6/8 speed Ram for $27 000. This is indicating that my comments a year ago or so are true that the price of pickups will rise substantially in the US.

@Vulpine/DWFields.

Why the 2 user names? You're no better than BAFO with all his "apollo 13" and other "Troll Alliance" names he hides behind. I've noticed, once you drag one "name" thru the mud, you revert to the other name, until you soil that one. Rinse/repeat/start again...

@ BAFO

If there is so much pent up demand in the US and we are all just so clueless as to what we are missing, and there is a fortune of profits to be made--and I mean this in all seriousness--why don't you set up shop importing/manufacturing small pickups in the US and show us all just how smart you were all along and how dumb the current OEMs are... .

I'm going to go slightly off-topic here (as if we don't do that all the time) and ask one simple question:

Who would you recommend to do a complete body-off restoration of a 1990 F-150 XLT Lariat? I would prefer east of the Mississippi and north of Tennessee. The truck would be driven to the site and driven home after.

@Lou - Your timeline is a little OFF. The 'cab-chassis' loophole closed Jan, 1980. The price of small trucks didn't start to nip at the heel of full-size until the '90s. Yet another reason to reject mid-size.

Anyhow, 1982 was when Japanese OEMs started dumping cheap, cut rate mini-trucks on the US market by the boatload. It was entirely in response to the 'Voluntary Import (car) Restraint' (VIR) pact of 1981. The fact that they were more than affordable contributed to the craze/fad/explosion/invasion.

The Chicken tax was there for the whole entire rise and fall of smaller trucks. It had zero impact on prices.

Why would the Chinese pay 25% when the Japanese never did during the whole entire mini-truck craze/fad/explosion/invasion. Are they special? Yes it's called the "25% Chicken tax", but nobody ever pays it. Too many loopholes. Why don't Chinese OEMs start by importing cars and trucks to Japan? It's closer and has zero tariffs.

Japan has barriers known as "The Locals Don't Want Your JUNK", same as US truck consumers................

@Vulpine - I recommend you get your hands dirty and do most of the resto yourself. Otherwise you'll spend upwards of $50K. That's if you don't have too much rust. Teach yourself to weld, paint and wrench. It's not rocket science and it's darn rewarding too. And you'll experience true pride ownership. Look at the satisfaction you get from building your own computer from scratch.

@Denver Mike: It would cost me more than that just to rent a place to do all of that. Do you think I am so stupid that I couldn't do it myself IF I had a place to do it?

I'll also point out that if you're paying $50K for a resto up there, then you're getting screwed because a good commercial restoration tends to cost around $10K-$25K in Las Vegas for cars in far worse shape than my own. The thing is, I'm NOT in Las Vegas, so I can't get it done there, now can I?

@Lou
I'm pro competition, I believe this will give the consumer the best possible product at the best possible price. Plus, don't put me into the pro midsizer camp. I'm not defending midsizers but pro choice. Sounds almost like another issue in the US. Choice?

@DenverMike
America.........."the land of the free".............if the UAW agrees.

UAW spokesperson DenverMike on PUTC "you will drive what the UAW say's you can drive, period".

Remember DenverMike if the chicken tax and other technical barriers are removed the exUAW people can go and work for a foreign manufacture. Or maybe you guys should look at creating unrestricted workplaces, and even states that have closed shop rulings.

But you are interested in saving the great UAW institution, not doing what is correct for America or the consumers. Go back to Spain with the other socialists.

WOW, ANOTHER EPIC DENVERMIKE MOMENT IN THE DENVERMIKE BLOGOSHPERE

Remember DenverMike UAW, you stated that the tax doesn't impact fullsize trucks because they are uncompetitive and the US public doesn't want them.

Then if that is you view....remove the barriers and tariffs that is reducing the freedom of choice, hence natural selection can proceed without interference.

All you have to do is admit that global vehicles are a threat the the UAW and that's why you want the chicken tax and barriers to remain.

@Vulpine - You'll spend up to $25K, just on labour, to do it right. Frame-off restos aren't cheap. Anywhere. Trucks are cheaper to restore than muscle cars, lets say, but my neighbour is in the business and aside from his labour, spends upwards of $50K just on engine/trans/rear/parts/materials/supplies/fuel/shipping/etc.

OTOH, why not start with a clean, low mileage truck from the south west? My nephew and I spent $12K to do a rolling resto on an already decent '72 Mustang Grande w/351C. This was just on body/paint/interior/engine/suspension soft parts/wheels/trim/misc. It does add up quick although I had paid $3K for the car initially. It's my nephew's now and it looks, rides and runs amazing.

Had we started with a complete 'basket case' we'd still be working on it and would have ran into the $50Ks, doing the work ourselves.

@DenverMike
Vehicle restortation like your diesel trucks you own? You claimed here on PUTC you would never own a diesel truck and only run gas trucks in your business.

If you want I can cut and paste your lies. Is that the secret of being a UAW stooge, you must have a lack of sincerity and intergrity?

How can we believe your untruths?

Your interpretation of most subjects appear to be lacking, distorted, incorrect, baseless.

BAFO is quickly becoming one of the top 3 trolls here. Why is someone that does not even live in the US so concerned about these trucks? I ask myself that question every day.


"I'm sure someone will say that the chicken tax is ineffectual and I'm sure that someone will say that I'm full of it.
No one ever said that one needed proof to debate on PUTC even though I can provide it."

Funny thing, Edmunds suggested Ford get some coils when they tested Rams 3.6 vs. Fords 3.7. Something about the poor stability the Ford had.
In some cases, the coil Ram is near 30 pounds of payload as Ford.

Where they messed up is, the 4x4 has 225 pounds or so of extra drivetrain weight vs. The 4x2. Would be right if they atleast added 225 pounds to the GVWR, or 300.
But we know any brand can overrate stuff, like GM and Ford.

what this site REALLY need is posting the IP under the name so we can tell who is who and maybe allowing you to register the name so no one else can use it.

I do like the info in the comments and been reading for over a year but it reaches a point where it becomes a game to prove someone else wrong at all cost.

And theres old Tommy boy also showing up to troll against Ford and GM and talk about how superior RAM is over all other brands. The trolls are out in full force tonight.

@Dav
You answered my question with "if there is pent up demand". That isn't the argument, the argument is the barriers and tariffs.

Why have the barriers stopping imports. That is my argument. I do know full size trucks are a big part of the US market. I'm not putting down full size trucks.

Look at the numbers of pickups sold in the US to the number of manufacturers.

Now look at the number of cars sold to the number of manufacturers. There is a much larger number of manufacturers sellings cars proportional to pickup manufacturers. So there is room for more suppliers of pickups.

It's not just about midsizers, I use midsizers because most on this site talk pickups, it's all vehicles considered commericial in the US. This takes in CUV/SUV/pickups/Vans/LCV/MCV/HCV. That's a huge part of a market that is effectively closed.

I have never stated to remove full size pickups from your market, have I.

So your constant attacks are based on what? Some of you try to make me anti American or pro midsize. What for? If you think full size trucks can stand alone and compete, remove the barriers and tariffs that are preventing new vehicles coming into the NA market that you think will not sell. Who will it hurt. The US consumer is the winner.

Everyone will win. Vehicles have to become cheaper through fair competition.

@DM: Every time you think you're making a point ON me, you end up making my point FOR me. You makes assumptions and belittle anyone who disagrees with you, even when, rarely, that same person MIGHT agree with you on some point (I know you've forgotten those occasions.)

Now look at your argument about the resto I'm wanting to do. Where have I said it can't be, up to a point, a "rolling resto?" Yes, I do want a body-off job. Why? Because I want the frame itself to get a full sand-blast and repainting as well as taking care of the engine and other parts. The body work *could* be done by any body shop, but I don't want a crappy, el-cheapo job, I want one where the whole truck looks showroom-new when done.

I also have NO desire to dress it up with fancy uber-chrome everywhere which adds so much to those pricey restorations you describe; this truck is a SURVIVOR and still capable of working despite it's near-antique status. It's not an elderly rattletrap that's more rust than steel covered in paint, it's still a solid truck that simply needs a little more love than I can give it because I don't have a place to do my own work on it.

THAT, by the way, is why I made my request and quite honestly I expected all the negative tomfoolery you donated to the cause.

@Vulpine - You should get some estimates on a full, frame off restoration of your truck. You'll be in for a huge surprise. And you must really be in love to consider spending even $25K, on a 1990 that you may be able to sell for $10K once fully restored. If you're lucky. Unlike classic cars, there far too many combinations of trucks. Late '80s to early '90s 2wd regular cab, long beds don't have much value/demand as it is. Especially fully restored. Some landscaper might offer you $3,500 to haul trimmings to the dump.

Sandblasting the frame would be a waste and completely unnecessary if not for major rust. At that point, you would look for one in better condition. Were not talking '69 'Cudas.

I don't see the point in a complete, from the ground up, restoration of a 1990 pickup. There's far too many clean, low mileage examples to be found. Then, can you drive something so precious on the street? Dump or The Home Depot runs? Or insure for even $25K?

My friend had probably the only truck from 1990 that's somewhat collectible. A 454SS Silverado with 50K original miles in amazing condition. He had been asking $10K and finally sold it at the Pomona swapmeet/car show for $7K.

Do what you want, but I'm still puzzled by the concept.

Poor Vulpine doesn't get it. He said -

"You really don't get it--nor do a number of others here whenever the discussion of compact pickups come around. Let me repeat one sentence: "... a much bigger and more capable Ram is available." Key words here: "MUCH BIGGER". People who want a compact truck simply DON'T WANT "much bigger", they want SMALLER. For many, "much bigger" means TOO BIG."

Vulpine, it wasn't ME that said it, it was Bigland that said it wasn't cost effective to do a small truck.

Are there people who would like a small truck? Yes. Are there enough people who would buy one to justify putting it into production? No! What part of that are you incapable of understanding?

"@Glenn
Where did you pluck the $25 000 for a Mahindra? Out of your poop chute? That's about what we pay for them in Australia and that's a diesel. We are also paying at least 33% more for equivalent vehicles.

That would make a 4x4 diesel Mahindra in the US below $20 000."

Hi Al,

Not to pick a fight with you, but the $20k to $25k estimated price for the Mahindra pickup is on many sites - including this one.

"It appears to be all about price. Mahindra’s U.S. distributor, Global Vehicles U.S.A. Inc., has said it hopes to sell the yet-to-be-named Mahindra pickup starting in the mid- to low-$20,000s."

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/07/can-mahindra-become-the-volkswagen-of-pickup-trucks.html

Also here:

http://blogs.trucktrend.com/6558630/trucks/the-mahindra-pickup-what-we-know/

And here:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/future-cars/spy-shots/spied-2010-mahindra-pickup-truck

:-)



The comments to this entry are closed.