Chevy Responds to Sales Loss By Ramping Up Incentives

IMG_7459a II

Nothing motivates an athlete like good competition, and that's exactly what Chevrolet wants us to think about how it's responding to the March sales totals that put Ram just a nose ahead of the Chevrolet Silverado in monthly sales: 42,532 versus 42,247. Statistically, that's a difference of just more than one-half of 1 percent. The year-to-date numbers put Ram about 11,000 units behind Chevy for 2014, and it could be even less by the end of the first quarter.

To combat this encroachment, according to Automotive News, Chevy is extending its relatively successful Truck Month promotion and adding bonus cash on select Silverado models, specifically both light-duty and heavy-duty double-cab pickup trucks. Several regional sales managers reportedly wrote some strongly worded communiqués to rally the sales troops to take back the monthly title by the end of April.

There has been a loud and vocal debate about which manufacturers are using the most incentive money to lure customers who value price above all else. Some argue this is a short-sighted way of boosting sales and losing profit margin, while others argue that not using incentives gives the competition a significant advantage. If history is any indication, finding the right balance is not easy for any truckmaker.

Both Ram and Chevy have worked hard in the last several weeks to get their days supply of pickups down while watching incentive spending as much as possible. But as some regional managers have noted, the gloves will have to come off if they're going to win this monthly battle. We expect to see more promotions and possibly more creative TV commercials as the truck race heats up through the more aggressive sales months in summer and fall.

Cars.com photo by Mark Williams

 

Comments

@Jeff S

Your other comment was a rambling diatribe about topics unrelated, or so distantly related that it required explanation.

My Christian education and upbringing demand that I be charitable with you, so if my comments ever sound condescending it's probably because they are. Not intentionally mind you, but in fact.

So, let's review: Incentives are a way for distribution and sales to screw with the company's competitors and keep the faithful out in the dealerships happy.

On almost every retail deal, the dealer and GM contribute to the final deal to win the customer's signature. GM's contribution may include financing deals, dealer credit (floor plan) and end-of-year volume incentives.

Apart from assembling the truck, manufacturing is not involved.

Manufacturing (or overproduction, as you've been fond of calling it) does not have much to do with it.

papa jim--GM priced the 2014 Silverado/Sierras too high to begin with. In the eyes of most consumers these trucks are not new enough to justify the price increase so GM has no other choice but to do significant discounting. You act like I have never bought a new car or truck. I have bought mostly new and I have played the price game with the dealers. Some discounting is expected but large discounting over several years is not a long term solution for a manufacturer like GM. The customer starts to expect these discounts and when the price is raised significantly and the discounts are reduced then only the most brand loyal will buy. To say that GM's current problems are off topic to this article are naive. GM has to use heavy discounting just to get most customers into the showroom. GM has lost a lot of trust and has a lot of work to do to repair their image.

@ Jeff S.

GM does not "price" its trucks--dealers do.

GM, just like the rest of the industry produces a mythical creature (think: Unicorn) called the MSRP.

No one pays list! repeat No one pays list price. Period. Ever.

The use of incentives, draw, floor plan, financing, commission splits, etc., permits the major automakers to collude with dealers to keep their prices a deep dark secret.

That's why this whole discussion of "price" and "cost" is bogus.

What the truck costs you (minus expenses like fuel, taxes, insurance) is, I repeat, the difference between what you paid retail, and the amount you get when you trade or sell.

@Jake,
I see that you had no problem understanding that I was talking about LARGE SUV market since Chevrolet Tahoe was brought up.
Lou, Chris and the rest of them read every other sentence and then try to spin everything into Fords favorite. Typical for Ford fanboyism.

While government owned, GM probably had less $$$ for R&D then Ford and Fiat's RAM, so they ended with the worst trucks at this time. And the lack of incentives limited the sales.

"GM will control 80% of that market with ease. There is nothing Ford offers that can come even close to GM's big SUVs." - Diesel Power

Good for GM. But it is actuallyit 71% and falling and you have to cobmine Chevy and GMC.

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2014/04/usa-large-suv-sales-figures-march-2014-ytd.html

Suburban down 29%
Tahoe down 7%

The market is not coming back and GM only controls it because it is a dying market.

There are more choices available in small to mid-sized crossovers and utilitie and there is no reason for Ford or Ram or anyone else to go back to big BOF suvs.

As for GM saving money over Ram and Ford, GM had to design and make 2 different trucks - Silverado and Sierra and 3 midsizers - US Colorado & Canyon and the global. GM isn't saving much if anything.

They think Silverado sales are bad now, wait until the mid-sizers are released. They will cannibalize Silverado and Sierra sales.

Then…….every time GM adds more rebates to sell the Silverado, the mid-sizers will suffer from being too close in price to the full-size range. Then they will need to rebate the mid-sizers to sell them.

And so on, and so on.

And wasn't DP the one who said the site was showing bias again because Jeep and Dodge CUV recalls were not posted on pickuptrucks.com?

Why would they want Cherokees and Durangos on here?

@John: then if that's what most people use a double/quad/extended cab for, the Ram and Tundra have more room for STUFF, OR EQUIPMENT, as you say.

No matter how you spin it, Ford SCAB and GM double have less room!

Geez Loiuse!

@papa jim: not all of us just use trucks like you for short trips. Aren't you mr v-8, but now you say you do mostly short trips (in flat Florida)

My last job was 22 miles to work. I'm a student now, so no sense in me driving a v-8 truck 4 miles to college

Bottom line.
All pickup are CRAP, so pick your flavor and enjoy, and lets others enjoy their flavor.

Production diesel engines have yet to exceed 30,000 psi. That is being worked on right now.
There isn't a variable spray pattern, the injectors can break up the fuel dispensed into smaller bite sizes. But that isn't a change in sprayed pattern.
But the solenoid injectors on the 3.0 'ecodiesel' aren't as fast as piezo injectors, so you aren't going as many pulses.
There isn't VVT on diesel engines, because of the high compression ratio. If anyone would have attempted that, it would have been Mazda with their world record LOW compression ratio of 14:1.
Hell, in the Dodge Ram TV ad, you can see the fixed camshaft sprockets attached to the chain drive.

@Big Al

I was going to say Mexico and parts of of the middle east which makes this statement...... "The 3.5 Eco Boost is a US/Canadian engine only" dead wrong.......as in you are not right.


Also, do more homework because if I were talking about the CAR version of the Ecoboost 3.5L then I would have quoted the power numbers of 365hp and 350lb-ft of torque. Since the truck version has a different block,different internals, different heads, different turbos from different suppliers, and extra parts like an oil cooler which is why I quoted it's 365hp and 420lb-ft of torque power numbers. The truck version and car version are very different from each other. It would also out accelerate and flat out pull a load better in terms of performance then that 3.2L diesel and the VM 3.0L diesel by a considerable margin. No, it doesn't have better FE which is what you use to rate if an engine is better, but it has better performance..... a lot better performance both unloaded and towing.

@papa jim--So what you are saying is the factory does not offer incentives to dealers to move certain models. The manufacturer never offers any cash back or no or low financing? I have bought new GM and Ford products which I know for a fact that there were factory incentives to the dealer. Usually the large volume dealers get larger incentives. The manufacturers give dealers incentives to sell models that have higher inventory because they want the dealers to order more product. This is a typical practice in retailing especially clothes, appliances, and electronics. Yes dealers set there own discounts but the larger volume dealers can afford to give a larger discount because the manufacturer rewards them for volume. Larger dealers also get to order more harder to get but popular vehicles because of their volume.

Love my New Mexican built sled!
2014 GMC Sierra SLT with 6.5 ft bed and 3.42 rear which is much better than my 04 that had 3.73.
Engineering overcomes mediocrity.
Ford and RAM sell more because they are cheaper!
When you want a real truck step up to GM!

@Lou & Dave,

The bottom line is there is nothing that comes close to GM SUV's. Trot out all the numbers you want but GM owns the big SUV market and nothing you Ford fanboys say will change that!

GM wins again.

GM sales unscathed by recall crisis

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/01/news/companies/car-sales/

GM's gains did outpace a 3% increase at Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), a 4% gain at Hyundai Motor, which includes both the Hyundai and Kia brands, and a 2% drop in sales at Honda (HMC).

Overall, March was a bounce-back month for the industry after a weak start to the year in January and February.

"We now can confirm cold weather was the primary factor holding back car sales at the start at the year," said Karl Brauer, senior analyst with sales and price tracker Kelley Blue Book.

@JRT and Lou, pretty well on the money there. The Silverado in particular has been a design disaster for quite a while. The so so build quality hasn't helped. I also agree with the thoughts that GM may have had it in the back of their minds to wind down the Chevy truck line. They've made it pretty obvious for several years now that their truck and suv focus is GMC and not Chevrolet. When this new model came out, they pushed their efforts on the Sierra even harder in terms of product and marketing. Chevrolet went by the wayside. Just a couple of forgettable cowboy commercials is all I ever saw and nothing was even said about the truck itself. It's the same robbing peter to pay paul syndrome that they've always had. Just amplified now that many of Chevrolet's products are taking a beating in the market place.

Short term incentives aside, there's no way they can keep going like this into the future and expect Chevrolet to regain and then hold that #2 spot if that's truly what they're after. GM themselves spends most of their time and money telling people to go buy a GMC Sierra. They put the good looks, good packages and good marketing behind it. Then attempt to convince themselves of two different types of truck buyers that in reality don't even exist. Surely then they can't be surprised at the Silverado's dwindling popularity? They're reaping exactly what they've been sowing. No doubt their efforts have siphoned off a few Silverado buyers and put them in Sierra's. Most former Chevrolet customers however are just buying Ram's and F-Series instead.

@Edward- The Colorado is DOA. I looked at one up close and the frame hangs way too low to the ground. No way is anyone going to want it once they see it and do a back to back comparison with the Toyota. I was excited about the Colorado up until that moment. The Tacoma has a frame that sits high off the ground and gives excellent ground clearance. It's just an all around better set up. This is the same issue Chevy has with their 25/3500's. Those low slung frame rails. No ground clearance at all and just awful to look at.

Here's 13 pages of rusty Chevrolet failure. They really expect to get away with building this kind of junk and have people keep coming back? How about building a quality truck that looks good doing the work. Something Ford and Dodge have figured out how to do. Chevrolet needs to fix their looks and rebuild their reputation before they can try to charge Ford prices.

http://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/9900/chevrolet/silverado-1500/chevy-silverado-and-gmc-sierra-undercarriage-rust/p10

This article actually highlights how economic factors are the most significant factor driving vehicle purchases.

The traditional ute will not be made because it's economically not viable anymore.

It's not that the product is disliked or not wanted in Australia. Many love V8 utes.

But what caused this to occur? It's competition from another similar style vehicle is making the Aussie ute less attractive. Why? Again economic. A diesel is much cheaper to run. Design is another factor making the Aussie ute less attractive.

Aussie utes don't come in 4x4 or dual cab, or are blinged, can't tow as well, carry loads as well.

The newer midsize utes are more attractive economically, are cheaper to run and are more flexible.

They do fit in with the cultural aspect of the Aussie ute as well. No different than a midsize in the US compared to a full size. Both can do 90% of what the other can do.

But at the moment economics makes a full size attractive, regulatory controls make them attractive and they fit in with your culture, like the ute fits into ours.

The demise of the Aussie ute is primarily economic. The same can happen to full size pickups.

Chevy's sales problems haven't just been with the Silverado. The slow selling Silverado is noticed because everyone has been watching the truck market. In the background, on car that has gone on sale is the SS. However, I have yet to see ANY driving around town. It is priced at $43k which is about the same ballpark as a Charger SRT8, and $13k more than a Charger R/T. There is not to much competition in the performance sedan market, so you would think people would be running to the dealerships to grab them. Not the case. I would bed pricing has a lot to do with it.

Similarly, the Malibu wasn't selling well, and GM did their "emergency" refresh, but I have yet to see how that has positively impacted sales. The point is, I think GM has two underlying issues, 1) They aren't making vehicles that people want to buy, 2) Their vehicles aren't priced realistically. Now of course people here will accuse me of being anti-GM, but I really think GM needs to take a moment to listen to some of their criticism. Criticism isn't always a bad thing. It can help them make better products. Until they reverse the culture of having top level management who aren't attuned to customer needs and wants, they will continue to have issues period.

@BAFO
Are trying to tell us that someday full sized pickups won't exist??? I think we all know that is completely untrue. At worst, maybe at some point in the future people won't be driving them that much. Another possibility is there will be a return to a work-centric paradigm of the full sized pickup, but they will never disappear.

@ dieselpower - typical. You change your story. You called out Alex on his pricing of the Suburban and were the first one to bring up SUV sales volume.

In a later post you brought up other SUV's that definitely are NOT large SUV's.

You opened the door to the full SUV market not me.

Do I have to cut and paste your post?

As far as big SUV's go?

It isn't a very big market.

If one looks ONLY at large SUV's there were ONLY 260,866 sold in 2013. That is 22% of the total market.

GM sold 163,064 large SUV's in 2013. That is 62% of the market.
You said 80%.

Ford's global plan is to focus on the 20% that makes 80% of the profits. It is working since Ford has had double the profits of GM over the last few years.

@Lou, are you f@#$%ing retarded?
Alex was talking about Tahoe not Suburban first of all.
And I didn't bring up other SUV talk. It was a response to Chris' earlier post. You don't have to copy and paste anything. I will do it for you because it seems like you like to skip posts and then argue about something you weren't involved in from the beginning anyways.

"Top 20 best selling SUV's.
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2014/04/march-2014-usa-suv-crossover-sales-rankings-by-model.html

Escape outsells Equinox.

Explorer sells more than double the Tahoe.

Edge outsells Acadia and Terrain.

Expedition outsells Suburban.

These are just Fords outselling them. Now add up all the other makers. 80% for GM my a$$.
Posted by: Chris | Apr 4, 2014 7:36:30 PM"

@Diesel Power - weak reply and typical for any fan boy.

Diesel Power,

You brought up the SUV market and sales first and you were even wrong about that 80% number. The era of the body-on-frame, fullsize SUV is rapidly vanishing in favor of smaller, unibody SUV's.

"No one pays list! repeat No one pays list price. Period. Ever.

The use of incentives, draw, floor plan, financing, commission splits, etc., permits the major automakers to collude with dealers to keep their prices a deep dark secret.

That's why this whole discussion of "price" and "cost" is bogus."

@Jeff S

Can't you read? The entire goal is for the automakers to control markets without risking indictments under the Sherman Anti Trust Act. It works.

Why do you worry?

@trx 4 tom

I drive what I want, and I make no apologies. Buy whatever you want.

Why do you worry?

@Lou,
I thought so. Typical Ford fan boy. First try to spin it Fords way then if it doesn't work just call everybody else fan boy. Just keep your mouth shot and it all will be fine.

@ Diesel Power

Idiot.

@ALL1
Again, a fan boi response.

" It would also out accelerate and flat out pull a load better in terms of performance then that 3.2L diesel and the VM 3.0L diesel by a considerable margin. No, it doesn't have better FE which is what you use to rate if an engine is better, but it has better performance..... a lot better performance both unloaded and towing."


What you wrote immediately displays that the 3.5 Eco Boost isn't the best engine for work. If you have to use acceleration and negate the impact of FE, then you've lost the argument.

Try and present your argument as a business case for a company to buy 3.5 Eco Boosts.

Are we talking a truck engine or a performance engine? I had a L20 Datsun engine in my 620 pickup that was highly tuned. It out accelerated many vehicles and even carried weight and still out accelerated many vehicles.

Does this mean it's a better truck engine? I built the truck for racing.

ALL1, the Eco Boost does deliver lots of power and torque, but it is far from the best engine for work, like most gasoline engines.

Irrespective of the power and torque figures you can quote, more horsepower and torque doesn't necessarily equate to a better engine for work.

A detuned top fuel engine would be used in semi trailers if that was the case using the basis of your argument..

The 3.5 Eco Boost is probably the best engine currently AVAILABLE for the F-150, even for work, but I would say a 3.2 Duaratorque would be a better engine for work in a F-150.

Maybe the 3.2 will become available one day in the F-150.

At the moment the VM V6 diesel Ram would make the better engine in a 1/2 ton for work. Ram have to work out a decent suspension that can carry a load first.

Mazda BT50 with duratorque and manual trany is the best truck ever! Nooot !

@Lou,

So are you.

@Diesel Power -

why don't you just let your mind drift back to the 60's and 70's when GM was the kink.

Don't you recall those days?

Sorry, shouldn't use the word recall and GM together.

BTW, when is GM going to release a HD competitive with Ford or Ram?

@Big Al

And your response is not a diesel fanboy response? Get real. I know you like to think your opinions are fact, but they are just that.... opinions. We all know you rub one out every night listening to a diesel exhaust. Your response to any engine question is always diesel. You won't even say a negative thing about your precious diesel either. We all know this so don't try and call others fan boy when you are one yourself.

What engine is the best for work out of the two engines is subjective. For those that would sacrifice some capability and performance for FE, then yes a 3.2L diesel you have would suit them better. For those who are comfortable with paying more at the pump for better performance and capability would be suited for the Ecoboost 3.5L. So get this through that egotistical head of yours..... NOT EVERYONE IS THE SAME AND WHAT YOU THINK IS BEST FOR YOU MAY NOT BE WHAT SOMEONE ELSE THINKS IS BEST FOR THEM....

Facts are facts, the 365hp and 420lb-ft 3.5L Ecoboost will pull weight better then that 200hp and 350lb-ft 3.2L diesel hands down, PERIOD. It will not loose speed going up hills when towing heavy weight like you would with the 3.2L diesel of yours. It will have plenty of power to spare to pass slower traffic(or others with a 3.2L diesel) if needed. You can't do things like that in a 3.xL diesel. A 4.xL diesel on up is a different story, but as it stands now we Americans are accustomed to more power that what these 3.xL diesels engines offer. They may have plenty of power for you Aussies(and there is nothing wrong with that), but not enough for us.

Hell even Ford themselves knows the 3.5L Ecoboost is more powerful than the 3.2L diesel which is why you the 3.5L Ecoboost is the only engine available in the HD 350 (9.950/10,360 GVWR) variants of the Transit vans and NOT the 3.2L diesel. You would think if the 3.2L diesel were more powerful then it would be offered in the heavy duty Transit versions. Hmmm, maybe Ford knows something you don't. Same goes for Ram and the 3.0L Ecodiesel. It is the the Ram 1500s highest towing engine, the Hemi is. With all things being equal like gear ratios, a Ram 1500 with a Hemi is rated to tow over 1,000lbs more than identical configured Ram 1500 with an Ecodiesel. Hmmm, maybe Ram knows something you don't. These 3.x liter diesels are NOT the same powerful diesels in the big boy trucks and are only meant for one thing, fuel economy. Which fuel economy is why you bought yours so don't sit and tell us they are better for us than what we have just so you can feel better about your vehicle purchase.

The other thing about your what is "best for work" idea is that it is only based on your OPINION that the most fuel efficient engine is the best and you completely neglect things like power/performance. Some would rather have more power/performance than fuel economy which is why more powerful premium truck engines generally outsell the base engines. It is all about how much power and fuel mileage someone is comfortable with. So please, get off this trip that you know what is best for everybody, and that your opinions are fact because they are not.

@George C
Read up and learn, the world is a'changin.

https://www.erc.wisc.edu/documents/SAE960633.pdf

http://gasure.udea.edu.co/docs/5-18.PDF

This is a rather large document from Sth Africa, but worth a read.

http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-11262009-210133/unrestricted/dissertation.pdf

George C
Sorry, it's called vario nozzle injection, it utilises piezos (I don't know the plural for piezo) to form the pattern.

Also, a pulse injection sequence is also used to minimize emissions and soot build up on the injectors.

As for the pressures, I do agree. I haven't heard of any 44 000psi injection systems yet.

@ALL1
What is the best work engine isn't subjective. That's why trucking and transport businesses from maritime, rail to road use diesel.

A work engine is just that, an engine working under load.

Even Mark Williams made a comment in the Tremor article on the FE performance of the Eco Boost under a load.

A very part time 'work' engine in a SUV style pickup, yes I can comprehend and even appreciate the 'want' for such an engine as the Eco Boost.

But not as a work engine.

I've always stated my position on diesel, it is the best option looking into the future to meet regulatory requirements and provide enough performance for the average person.

@Big Al

"What is the best work engine isn't subjective."

Yes it is because not all work is the same just as all wants are not the same. You are only going off of what you want out of an engine which is fuel economy. To you fuel economy trumps all other aspects of an engine, but that is not the case for everyone or every fleet. Others may be willing to sacrifice fuel economy for more power/performance/capability. Paying more is worth it to them therefore they see a more powerful engine as the best for the work they do or wants they have.

For example. Say you had two identical trucks with one having 3.2L diesel that has 90% of it's peak 350lb-ft of torque available between 1,700-3500rpm just like yours does, and the other truck having a 3.5L Ecoboost that has 90% of it's peak 420lb-ft of torque available between 1,700-5,000rpm like mine does. Not only does the Ecoboost have more torque at every rpm than the 3.2L diesel, but it also has a much broader power band allowing it to still retain 90% of it's torque by the time it hits it's peak horsepower at 5,000rpm. Now lets say they both are sent out to pull a 7,000lb trailer. I can promise you the more powerful Ecoboost will have a much easier time pulling that weight with less rpms due to fact that it has more torque at every point in the rpm range than the 3.2L diesel. The Ecoboost would also have no problem keeping the speed going up hills or passing slower traffic due to the much greater horsepower available. The 3.2L diesel would probably not be able to maintain the speed limit going up steep grade 5 inclines dropping back about 5 to 10 mph while having the pedal to the floor(the more powerful 3.0L Ecodeisel Ram was like this in the same scenario going up a grade 4 hill). You would also have to be careful and pick your moments wisely when attempting to pass slower traffic on two lane roads. You would have to give yourself a lot more room therefore those moments that you have available to pass would be more rare leaving you being behind slower traffic longer than you would have in the much faster Ecoboost. On the fuel economy side, the 3.2L diesel gets a lot better fuel economy towing the load than the Ecoboost by a considerable margin.

Now to you the 3.2L diesel above may be the better choice at doing work above because it gets better fuel economy, and you don't mind having less power or less performance. To me on the other hand my time and my sanity of not being stuck behind a semi for 20 miles is more valuable therefore I would gladly pay the added cost for more performance therefore the Ecoboost is better at doing my work. You see it is subjective depending on what is more important to the person performing the work. Also, you don't get to dictate how much is "enough performance" for the average person. Just as you don't get to dictate how big of a truck they need either.

@ALL1
Again you are spinning numbers and wanting to debate.

You can spin all the $hit you want about the Eco Boost.

It will never be as efficient as a diesel for work.

To do what you want with the Eco Boost your best option is to buy a diesel F-250, not an Eco Boost F-150.

Or wait for a diesel Transit with the 3.2, which will do what you want, again much cheaper.

@Big Al

What numbers am I spinning? I posted factual numbers. It is a fact that the 3.2L Duratorq/Powerstroke has 90% of it's 350lb-ft/470Nm between 1,700-3,500 rpm. It is also a fact that the Ecoboost 3.5L has 90% of it's peak 420lb-ft/569Nm between 1,700-5,000rpm. Where am I spinning the numbers? Go ahead check my facts I can wait......

Also, if the main purpose is cost factor like you say then why would I get an F250 diesel? That would end up costing me A LOT more money in fuel. I average between 15-17mpg in my Ecoboost unloaded depending on how I drive. According to the various friends that have F-250 diesels and fuelly.com, they get between 14-16mpg average. Since diesel is $.55-.60 cents higher than regular unleaded, that means that 14-16mpg in a diesel is equivalent to me having a gas engine truck that got 12-14mpg average. How is that cost effective when I got something that cannot only easily handle the weight, and is less to maintain? Mine does what I want and need to just fine. In fact I invite you to come see the next time you are supposedly in the US.

Why would I get a Transit, that is not a truck.......oh wait, that's right......because it has a diesel. God forbid anyone drive anything else but a diesel in Big Al's eyes. You're like that guy on Ancient Aliens on the History channel that answers every question with aliens as the answer to everything.

Big AL----------------> http://postimg.org/image/vxffg0hbn/

http://autoindustrynewsletter.blogspot.se/2014/04/ram-1500-gives-general-headache.html

Ram 1500 gives The General a headache
General Motors’ product planners may be scratching their heads at the way the US market has moved in the direction of the Ram 1500 pick-up truck.

@ALL1
Ford Transit doesn't have trucks????

http://www.kenhire.uk.com/to_import/images/Transit%20Dropside%201.JPG

Look at this Transit, looks very similar to the US variant. A possible HD alternative?? A cab chassis for the US market??

http://az483350.vo.msecnd.net/ukimages/c38a1d21-f3a2-7161-8794-9b3116083e14.jpg

Everybody is waiting for the 2015 F-150,, including me

@Papa jim--MSRP still matters. The manufacturer can control the supply of a certain model if a dealer does not play by its rules. I am not worried, I could care less what a dealer does. As for dealers being able to set whatever price they want that is not necessarily true for all manufacturers. Toyota and Honda are much more restrictive about aggressive pricing.

@Hemi Monster--I agree it is not always true that criticism is a bad thing. For example look at the criticism Honda received on the 2012 Civic which was criticized for being cheapened. Honda had a refresh for 2013 on the Civic which was better received. Having said that there is a difference between constructive criticism and fanboyism. I am not accusing you of this but there are fanboys for all the brands.

****BOUNCY****BOUNCY***BOUNCY***CLUNK! Hey Jim why is your Ram1500 pickup so bouncy on the road?
Oh! its that rear coil spring suspension, isn't it wonderful?
Jim, why would they use coil springs on a pickup with such extreme hauling and towing specs?
Oh! Ram has won truck of the year awards for 2 years now.
But Jim? Don't you think that the leaf springs add extra support to hold and secure the rear drive axle that makes the truck stronger to haul and tow?
Oh! You really don't know anything about pickup trucks, do you?

Dang that red Silverado pictured in the top of the article looks ugly. People look at the picture, read the article and say "No duh incentives are needed" and read something else. Atleast try to post a nice looking Silverado so it becomes more compelling to read why such a nice looking, totally new design, professionally engineered, outstanding value needs to have higher incentives in order to sell. Or maybe, the truck just sucks and people get it!

$92,000 Cadillac Escalade!!!
I own a Duramax, but I swear I hope GM's stock drops by 50% and they are bought out by Tesla. GM needs totally new leadership and a different business plan.

Jeff S says, "...I am not worried, I could care less what a dealer does."

@Jeff

When was the last time you bought a brand new half ton American pickup?

Not "caring" what the dealer does will cost you from 5 to 10 thousand dollars depending on the model, season and local competition. Before you buy your NEXT half ton pickup be sure to get educated about the tricks of the trade or it could cost you a big chuck of your take home pay.

@BAFO - Like I said, even a broken clock is right twice a day. You throw enough predictions out there, you might be right 1 out of 100. Most range from ridiculous to plain stup!d.

It's a given, the Tundra and Titan will go 3/4 ton and up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. I've been saying that here since before you even heard of PUTC. or TTAC. It's an obvious move and Nissan already has the HD truck hardware sitting in close by bins as the Titan rolls down the assembly line.

The demise of full-size pickups and V8s is just one of your more popular predictions. Replaced by Euro vans no less! 1st we'll replace Harleys with Mopeds...........................Stup!d A$$!!!

@papa jim--The last time I bought a new half ton pickup will be 6 years this June and I got $10k off of MSRP. The last time I bought a new vehicle was June of last year. When is the last time you bought a "new" vehicle of anytime? As for not caring about what a dealer does, no I only care about the price I pay and that they are a reputable dealer. In all honesty the price is not the major consideration in that I would pay a little more if I know that the dealer has a excellent service department and treat their customers right. For example when my wife had her Taurus I had it serviced across the river in Indiana because he Ford dealership had an excellent service department and they were family owned and operated for over 60 years. That Ford dealership stood behind their work and always treated me honestly and fairly The Ford dealership that was nearby had a bad service department. Price is not the only consideration when buying a vehicle.



The comments to this entry are closed.