September's Fastest- and Slowest-Selling Pickups


With a strong sales month heading into fall and winter, some are predicting one of the strongest new-auto sales years in a decade, with the final number close to 17 million units. All but one of the models on our fastest-selling list are 2015 model-year pickup trucks, with the vast majority having four full-size doors. The only exception is Toyota, which continues to offer good deals on its 2014 models so those trucks are selling well too — not a bad opportunity for those looking for a good deal. With the exception of the TRD Pro Series Tacomas, the 2015s are essentially a carryover product.

Both our lists measure how many days a particular type of vehicle has been on a lot before a buyer signs the final paperwork to purchase the truck. We look exclusively at 2014 and 2015 model-year vehicles. For the fastest-selling vehicles, we require a 100-vehicle threshold before we put them on the list to keep the list free of specialty products or limited editions that could skew the results. We have no sales volume threshold for the slowest-selling list, and all are 2014 models. From the looks of it, GM's dealerships are having trouble moving 2014 heavy-duty pickups; however, if you're in the market for an HD pickup, this is where the best deals are likely to happen until GM thins out its stock.


Fastest-Selling Pickups

  1. 2015 Toyota Tacoma Crew Cab, 9 days on sale
  2. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew Cab, 11
  3. 2015 Ford F-450 Super Duty Crew Cab, 11
  4. 2015 Toyota Tacoma Extended Cab, 11
  5. 2015 Nisan Frontier Extended Cab, 13
  6. 2015 Nissan Frontier Crew Cab, 15
  7. 2015 GMC Sierra Denali 2500 HD Crew Cab, 23
  8. 2014 Toyota Tacoma Crew Cab, 29
  9. 2015 GMC Sierra Denali 3500 HD Crew Cab, 30
  10. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 HD Crew Cab, 32


Slowest-Selling Pickups

  1. 2014 GMC Sierra 3500 HD Crew Cab, 238 days on sale
  2. 2014 Ford F-450 Super Duty Crew Cab, 228
  3. 2014 GMC Sierra Denali 2500 HD Crew Cab, 216
  4. 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 Crew Cab, 192
  5. 2014 GMC Sierra 3500 HD Regular Cab, 191
  6. 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 HD Regular Cab, 186
  7. 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD Crew Cab, 182
  8. 2014 Ford F350 Super Duty Crew Cab, 181
  9. 2014 GMC Sierra 2500 HD Crew Cab, 176
  10. 2014 Ford F-250 Super Duty Crew Cab, 174 image by Evan Sears


I'm not surprised to see Silverado 1500 CC selling so well. Fantastic truck. It turns heads when you see one and I see loads of them on the road now

Was there a drastic change between '14 and '15 F450? Why is one selling some much faster than the other one? Demand vs. supply? Many less '15s on the lots?

Gregory J
agree, I have been seeing lots of new Silverado's on the roads but its tough to tell the difference between the 2014-2015. The 5.3 V8 is getting better gas mileage than the F-150 Eco-Bust.
I would also like to point out the reason why the Tacoma and Frontier is doing well is they are attracting SUV customers and once the 2015 Colorado-Canyon hits the market its going to be on fire!

Given the UAW wiring on the Colorado/Canyon, yeah, I could easily see them on fire... .

The ranking on this list does not necessarilly indicate how well they are selling. It is more of an indicator of the supply/demand balance.

"I would also like to point out the reason why the Tacoma and Frontier is doing well is they are attracting SUV customers and once the 2015 Colorado-Canyon hits the market its going to be on fire!"

I think I'm going to dispute this argument because this appears to be a bit of a surge--especially for the Frontier. The Tacoma and the Frontier are still visibly smaller than even the Colorado, which is as large as the '90s and older full-sized trucks.

Guts, glory, where the heck are they? Nissan outselling Ram?

Walt is right. Ram is not on any of these lists, but percentage wise they are at the top of sales. Ram has about anything you want on the lot so you have a large selection and no waiting.

Gee once again pickup truck dot com is playing there stupid games.

Guts, glory, where the heck are they? Nissan outselling Ram?

Posted by: Don E. | Oct 4, 2014 9:58:43 AM


Ram kicks Nissan's rear end every month in sales so you can take your Ram bashing else where.

Given the UAW wiring on the Colorado/Canyon, yeah, I could easily see them on fire... .

Posted by: Dav | Oct 4, 2014 8:45:10 AM
That distinction is already claimed by the F150, across multiple generations.

@Tom3, I took the 2014 Silverado 5.3 for a spin. It got about 21-22 on the highway, which is very good for a V8. But it doesn't pull hard at low rpm. Driving it around empty, it definitely feels adequate, but I wouldn't want to hook up a big trailer. The 3.5 EcoBoost feels completely out of the Chevy's league, you would have to get the larger 6.2 which uses more fuel for it to be comparable to the 3.5. So the 3.5 gets 6.2 performance with 5.3 economy. I'm sure we will see 24-25 highway from the 2.7 (so 5.3 performance with 4.3 V6 economy). I am surprised Ford doesn't allow the option of a tall axle ratio like the 3.15:1 with the 2.7. That would help it even more for those who are focused on mpgs. It certainly has enough low-end torque. Chevy has the super tall 3.08:1 axle, but don't get it if you are towing! It sounds like you just want a big gas V8 engine, so you would have to get an LTZ or High Country with the 3.23:1 axle in order to get the big 6.2. If I were buying a new half-ton on the condition that it had to have a V8 gasser, that's probably what I would buy (but probably the GMC version).

Really what's the deal with you Ram guys? Ram DOES NOT have anything you would want. Some people want a performance engine like the GM 15 6.2L with 8-speed auto, some want a gas V8 mid range power like the 15 GM 5.3L and 15 Ford 5.0L and some want a twin turbo V6 like Ford. What Ram does have is probably an awesome product that will continue to get better but it may not meet the needs r wants of some and that is okay. All that matters is Ram owners are happy.

Again this article is useless, sure Nissan stocks 3 Frontiers perm dealer so they spend less time on the lot then Ram who keeps 20 on the lot per dealer.

LOL rammed by little horn is so pissed, to funny!

The Ram bashers are in full song right now. Funny thing is Ram is on track to sell over 400,000 trucks while Nissan is on track to sell what 60,000 trucks for the year, but according to the Ram Haters Nissan is kicking Ram's butt.

Fastest and slowest selling is a joke but the Ram haters just keep drinking their hateraid.

Road Whale
I was rather disappointed when I found out the size of the Colorado/Canyon trucks and I’ve seen you state the same. I was hopping for a truck the size of my 83 Isuzu to the size of my old S-10. My first thought was too big and they want sell but after taking in consideration of others needs not my own I decided I could very well be wrong. They are smaller and should fit well with the younger and middle age generation for toy haling/towing, a couple of kids, home projects and a second vehicle for commute. The older gen. may want something smaller but this beats nothing and is cheaper which could make a big difference in some cases of buying or not being able to afford a new truck.
Now you said visibly different between the Tacoma and the Colorado? Wik. Has the Tacoma at 208 inches long & 74 inches wide and GM list the Colorado at 212 inches long & 74inches wide both extended cab 4x4. This would put the Colorado at 4 inches longer and no wider. I have not seen a Colorado yet and the dealer told me yesterday 2 weeks. What do know or have seen that I haven’t?

You seem to make many pro Ford comments. But, if the Eco Boost was that good an engine for work it would be offered in Ford HDs. It 's not good for work it drains your wallet as quick as the fuel tank.

So, this makes the Eco Boost not as good an engine as the 6.2 Chev.

Why wouldn't you hook up a big trailer to a Chev? How is a Eco Boost going to make it better to hook up a trailer?

The reality is the towing comment is of little relevance to the majority of pickup owners as is the poor FE from an Eco Boost when working.

How many actually tow what you are stating?

It is also recommended to use premium fuel when working the Eco Boost.

So, it's horse for course I do think the GM will be just as good as the Ford. You seem to make many Ford'esque comments.


@JakeD: Having just been to a local auto show where the Tacoma and Frontier made an appearance (but not the Colorado) my wife and I agreed that full-sized trucks are FAR too bloomin' big for our purposes and the Nissan Frontier suddenly became a strong player in our quest for a replacement for our 25-year-old F-150.

The Tacoma failed due to not enough legroom for the driver (wife has VERY long legs), where the Frontier fit very nicely, while the back seats of the "King Cab" (extended cab) folded up to leave a clean, flat floor almost perfect for carrying a three-ball roller (bowling bag) or our dog, who refuses to lie comfortably in the seat of any previous or current vehicle we drive. As such, until we can compare the size and furnishings of a Colorado, the Frontier becomes the closest current truck to our needs and desires. My wife, by the way, is 20 years younger than me and of the general age group you describe as being more likely to find the Colorado more appealing than something smaller.

@Jake D and RoadWhale,
Here the Colorado is the size of the Navara/Frontier. I don't think the US Colorado is any different other than the longer wheelbase version.

The biggest difference between the Colorado/Canyon and the Taco/Frontier is refinement and appointments.

Take one for a drive if and when you can get your hands on one. They are not as big as you guys would assume. They are still bigger than most any car.

As for the older smaller pickups. They used to be made 1.7 meters wide. They were built to the Japanese vehicle regulations.

Here's a cut and paste for the Japanese vehicle that pickups used to be built to;

Small size Passenger vehicles, commonly called "5 number" vehicles in reference to their license-plate prefix. This class is defined as limited to vehicles less than 4.7 m (15.4 ft) long, 1.7 m (5.6 ft) wide, 2 m (6.6 ft) high and with engine displacement at or under 2,000 cc (120 cu in). Vans, trucks and station wagons (considered commercial vehicles in Japan) in the compact size class receive a "4 number" license prefix. This size classification is the most popular in Japan, and Japanese manufacturers make regular improvements to compact sized products to maximize interior accommodation while remaining within the exterior boundaries.

@Big Al from Oz,

See you are a little misinformed. The Chevy 6.2 is not available in the 2500/3500 trucks. The GM HDs still use the 6.0 Vortec with iron block. So by your own standards, they are not suitable for real work either. Other engines unavailable in the 3/4 and 1-tonne variants include the 5.3L GM EcoTech V8, 3.0L V6 EcoDiesel, 5.0L V8 Cummins diesel, and Toyota's iForce 5.7 V8. I guess, according to you, none of these engines are suitable for work.

Another thing you are wrong about is the recommendation for premium fuel.
"Recommended fuel: Regular Unleaded"
I just deal with the facts. You're welcome.

I guess by his comments, fuel economy is number one in Au. Most people I know would rather have power than fuel economy, especially since we are talking a few measly mpg. I'm talking trucks here, not cars. The 5.3 might get better economy towing, but will be in the ecoboost rear view mirror.

Where did I state that the 6.2 is fitted to a HD? Maybe you should re-read my comment.

My comment isn't directly related to what vehicle a particular engine is fitted. If you read the comment it is regarding characteristics of an engine vs another type of engine. I then furnished proof to support my argument.

As I tell many of the other fanboi's who attempt to distort an erroneous comment on their part. Read my comment and comprehend the comment.

Considering your claimed profession as a psychologist you should hopefully be able to make such simple observations. Accurate observation and the processes employed to manipulate information or input from your observations determine the outcome you present. If your powers of processing this information is flawed then you will be prone to making a poor assessment or an error.

My comment is directed at your erroneous comment. EBs chew up fuel when under load than a V8 and it's recommended they use a more expensive when under load. This makes them less than ideal as a work engine. Towing is work.

EBs are used because of CAFE and most pickups don't work. They are satisfactory for very light work in relation to FE.

The Eco Boost as I pointed out wouldn't be the better tow engine. Or it would be fitted to a Super Duty. That is the crux of my comment.

Frod doesn't use Eco Boost's in HDs for a reason and that is due to their less than stellar FE under load.

I don't know how you can distort or change my comment. Sort of like another pro Frod commenter on this site ;)

Hint; Not one or two but ???.

@DeverMike/Paul/Tom Lemon/Greg Baird/TRX4Tom/Dave/Hemi V8/Tom Terrific/sandman 4x4/lautenslager/zveria/Bob/US Truck Driver/Glenn/Jason/Hemi Rampage/smartest truck guy/Maxx/SuperDuty37/Ken/Ron/johnny doe/jim/ALL1/Frank/Idahoe Joe/The Guy/AD/Casey/papa jim/Young Guy/BeeBe/Steve/Chris/The truck guy/Alex/Mr Chow/Yessir/All Americans/Scott/Buy American or say Bye to America/Ram Big Horn 1500/Hemi Monster/Tom Wilkinson at Chevy/mark49/Tom#3/Truck Crazy/carilloskis or whoever you want to call yourself.

Quit the crap, really.

It's getting long in the tooth.

You want to debate, but it has to be on your terms.

Learn to debate with good information, then we might be able to have a decent debate.

Opinions are good, but if they are only your view to support the UAW, then how good are they. Look at what you guys have done to Detroit.

Terror tactics (union tactics) don't work on me.

If PUTC wants the UAW or whatever to control this site I suppose it's their decision.

It's not kids like I've been told by PUTC.

Remember Apollo 13 is watching.

@Big Al, grow up. Rereading your comment doesn't change what you wrote. You wrote "if the Eco Boost was that good an engine for work it would be offered in Ford HDs."

You also wrote "It 's not good for work it drains your wallet as quick as the fuel tank." Are you saying it takes about 3 minutes to empty the tank from driving it?

"So, this makes the Eco Boost not as good an engine as the 6.2 Chev." What is your premise? That you imply that it's offered in the HD and the EcoBoost isn't, or I am supposed to buy into your rhetoric unsubstantiated by empirical data.

You have a funny understanding of what "proof" is. Your opinion is not what I or anyone else consider to be proof of any kind.
The fact is you mention Ford not using EcoBoost engines in the Super Duty (yet) means it's less capable than the GM 6.2. It's also not used in the HD! Your arguments are weak and invalid.

Are you stating does Frod manufacture Chev HDs with a 6.2?? This is news to me. Where did I state this?

You see Alex I can distort like you. I never mentioned anything regarding a Chev HD with a 6.2, you introduced this lateral movement in our discussion and want to debate it.

Again, please, re-read my comment.

When you initiated your last response to me with a derogatory and provocative retort, it becomes evident you possibly have erred.

It all psychology.

This then does support my argument that your comment was intentionally incorrect. Or again you wouldn't have made the Chev HD comment as a distractor to the point I made.

Again, how many Ford 3.5 Eco Boost powered Super Duties are there?

Not many.


Because the 3.5 Eco Boost is such a good work engine?

I rest my case. A gasoline V8 is a better engine for work. Work includes the size of the towing you described.

@Tom the turbo diesel is the best for work.

@Big Al, so which half-ton would you buy then?

What has that got to do with our previous conversation?

Another lateral move in the discussion.

Gee Al, I didn't think that was such a difficult question for you to answer, but I guess I was wrong. You're essentially saying to me "Oh I can't tell you what I like because that will make me vulnerable to criticism; I can only attack whatever you think is good."

Big Al (on another thread) "This new F-150 is the way of the future for US pickup manufactures."

Big Al on this thread "Frod doesn't use Eco Boost's in HDs for a reason and that is due to their less than stellar FE under load."

You're just a troll. You're inconsistent. You can't even state what truck you like. That's because you enjoy attacking everything. Not just the trucks, but the people who like them, so you get all personal with your attacks. I hope things work out for you one day so that you enjoy life and interacting with people.

I'd love to see the f-150 on the slowest selling list. I need a better rebate! Test drove an ecoboost today. DANG!! I thought my hemi was fast, but the ecoboost feels much more powerful! Got a block away from the dealership and was hoping the salesman didn't hear me squeal the tires. It was an accident I swear! :)

Show me the connection between those two comments that you consider contradictory.

I don't see any conflict in my comments. What I do see is a shortcoming on your part with your inability to accurately assess and correlate data and information. This is apparently a recurring theme.

You seem to have had this problem when discussing your view that Frod manufacturers 6.2 litre Chev HDs. Get the point.

Show me the conflict or contradiction in those statements.

In one comment I'm describing a specific power plant versus another power plant.

The other/new argument you have now introduced we are talking about all of the systems and components that make up a complete motor vehicle.

Now, if for argument's sake both examples you provided were discussing the same topic, ie, engines, I would then agree with your assessment. Again where is your judgement?

What I do see is an argument with little salience on your part, It's porous.

Do you want to continue?

Can you please expand your case, as I having difficulty comprehending your position in relation to your argument.

Are you now introducing a 'chalk and cheese' dimension?

Again, you are attempting to laterally move this discussion from my original comment regarding the FE of an Eco Boost under load in comparison to a V8.

Nope, he still didn't say what vehicle he actually likes. There's the surprise of the century! Hey Big Al, stop trolling you idiot! You make Australians look bad. Seriously man, get a grip!

Yep, mate.

The provocative retort is a good indication of whom the troll may be.

I might even add the Apollo 13 and Beebe comments do really cement my view of who is whom on this site.

Do you really get the picture this time? Seriously.

@Big Al (and I am really doubting you're that big), yes it is apparent that you think you're clever, you love to argue, you get a kick out of the negative attention because the positive attention would be too overreaching. You criticize the F150 EcoBoost (after stating in another thread you think it is going to lead the way), I asked you a simple question about what truck you like, and you do everything in your power to change the subject. It's really simple, you criticize something, then state what you think is better. But like I said before, you don't really like any particular truck, you're just here to stir the pot. I hope you find that fulfilling. I will ask you one last time: WHAT HALF TON TRUCK DO YOU LIKE?

Got'ch ya!

You don't have an argument. Period.

You will not dispute my view on the performance of a 3.5 Eco Boost.

Even the 2.7 Eco Boost under load will be a pig with FE.

Normal and light driving it will be good, like the 3.5.

Remember you are the one who continually made attempt to deviate from my original comment.

You don't want the Eco Boost engines to be brought up. Especially when under load.


@Big Al, that's the best response you have posted. I actually agree with you. The EcoBoost is not for people who tow big loads all the time. But if you do have a big load to pull occasionally, I think it's a great motor.

Not sure why you think I don't want the EcoBoost engines to be brought up (sticking with your passive voice). I have said I think they are great engines, what else would you like me to comment about it?

The Eco Boost and all other new turbo gasoline engines are necessary in the US. As other viable alternatives have been made unnecessarily a more expensive option.

The Ford Eco Boost I don't think is any better than the Pentastar 3 litre turbo with MulitAir. They are all quite competitive.

Restrictive regulatory and technical protective controls limit the accessibility of alternative sources of energy to power pickups in particular.

Maybe except CNG and EV, which wastes billions of tax payer dollars in handout and subsidies.

To answer your question regarding what half ton US pickup I would own.

My answer is not one.

I would consider a short wheelbase diesel US Colorado with a suspension kit, so it could carry it's designed load off road. I wouldn't have the kit for lift, maybe 2" of lift.

The US full size half ton don't offer the attributes that make for a good 4x4. This will shock some.

Look at the video Mark Williams presented of the 2015 F-150. When traversing the mud the front end was scrapping the surface. The depth of the mud was quite shallow. This vehicle was also fitted with an off road package.

The ramp over is atrocious, along with the approach and departure angle.

So what benefit is the 4x4 package if the vehicle is quite limited in it's off road prowess.

The size of the vehicles also limit their use off road as does their overall load capacity.

The US pickups might be able to tow up to 25% more than our globals and have more room in the cab, but they don't provide the important capabilities that make them an excellent off roader.

Towing off road limits off roading. FE off road is significantly better with a diesel. Traction off road is better with a diesel.

If you are going camping and driving on a rough dirt road or track a 4x4 1/2 ton would suffice.

Looking at the packages for the new 2015 F-150 most of what is contained is what we get when we buy a 4x4.

What is destroying the off road capability in the US pickup market is CAFE. FE is the end all and be all of vehicles.

The higher a vehicle the worse it's FE. So the front of pickups will have to reach for the ground.

Like I stated the new F-150 is the future direction of US 1/2 ton pickups.

The technology might be mind boggling, but what is occurring to the flexibility and capability of the vehicle in the process of meeting the regulations.

All pickups have a pretty poor ramp over. Even the Raptor and Power Wagon. That's why I really hope Ford brings back the Bronco on the next Super Duty (even though the chances of that happening are not good). I'd be ok if Chevy does an HD Blazer and Ram does a Ramcharger (no brand bias here). I actually wouldn't buy a half-ton again either. Though I like what all the companies are doing with them, I really want a big diesel with a lot of capability for my next one. Especially right after driving a friend's chipped 6.0 diesel Excursion. Wow, what a beast! He didn't know how much power it had, but it felt in the ballpark of 450HP to me.

@RoadWhale - The surge in Frontier sales should be obvious. It's now the cheapest truck, now that the regular cab Tacomas gone and the playing field is even. But really it isn't.

I've always considered the Frontier a much better truck than the Tacoma. And that Nissans are much better cars/trucks that Toyotas. Quietly so.

So we'll no doubt see the Frontier gaining on the Tacoma in the following months/years, probably outselling the Tacoma. And it wouldn't shock me to see the Frontier eventually outsell the Colorado and Canyon (combined).

The Nissan Hard Body was the #1 small truck for years. Those trucks are still absolutely everywhere.

Although the Colorado/Canyon being the only "domestic" offerings, will help them tremendously with the "buy American" crowd and the fleet, utilities, municipalities, government, military, that are compelled or forced to buy "domestic" base strippers.

The 2015 Silverado is 2nd on the list, but the 2014 Silverado isn't even on the list.
There are BIG discounts on the 2014 where you can get a 2014 Silverado 4x4 Crew LT for $34K, but the same 2015 is $42K.
So does that mean people want the 2015 over the 2014 even paying more for the same truck?
There are no difference or changes between the 2014-2015
If you price a 2015 Silverado Crew you won't touch a similar option 2015 F-150 for the same price, you'll pay $4000 MORE for the F-150, plus you'll have a higher insurance bill cause of the aluminum body.

Well, my wife and I visited a local auto show yesterday and looked at a number of different cars and all the trucks on the floor. After taking everything into consideration on size, capability and performance, it looks like my next pickup truck is going to be a Nissan Frontier.

Why? It's NOTABLY smaller than full sized--which are far too large for our needs and comfort and it's the only "compact" that my wife can fit comfortably behind the wheel--the Toyota simply doesn't offer enough legroom. The Colorado? A no-show. For having supposedly shipped two weeks ago, not one was visible (granted, not on showroom floors yet either).

@Alex: By chance were you at the Wilmington Auto Show yesterday? I overheard another individual there commenting to his companion that he thought a new Bronco was on the way. And while the trucks were being swarmed by males of all ages, I heard a surprising amount of commentary that they were simply too large. The Tacoma and Frontier were almost as heavily trafficked by both genders and the kids.

@Alex: "You criticize the F150 EcoBoost (after stating in another thread you think it is going to lead the way)..."

There is no contradiction in that argument; he's absolutely correct. We already know that even Ram--or rather FCA--is going to follow Ford with turbo-charging and maybe even supporting that with hybrid technology; a true hybrid, not the add-on type GM tried by putting an electric motor on the driveshaft. So Ford's F-150 is leading the way into the future for American pickups and I do agree with Big Al that it's going to do more harm than good simply because the American pickup isn't going to BE the all-powerful, do anything SUT it has become. Even Ford guys are complaining about the abysmal fuel economy the EcoBoost offers when it's really worked; not even considering some of the reliability issues that have cropped up.

CAFE has ruined trucks--or rather, the OEMs' response to CAFE. Rather than trying to improve economy up front, they chose to make them ever larger and heavier to the point they now impinge on Class V size and capacity while leaving a huge hole in actual usability by the average consumer. They're so big, so tall and so unstable than in a single-vehicle collision, there is almost invariably a major injury and often fatality involved. This was proven just over a month ago when a full-sized crew-cab pickup went out of control, caught a curb and rolled several times--killing three of the four occupants and an innocent bystander mowing his lawn in north Georgia (USA for any international readers).

Ford did do something right once with the F-150, but despite all the evidence that keeping it smaller and improving the ride, handling and aerodynamics which DID improve economy over its predecessor, that 1998 body style was scrapped, because it didn't look 'manly enough'. The OEMs are learning very quickly that if they want to meet CAFE now, the large size of today's trucks is going to hurt them more than help. They're going to HAVE to downsize somewhat and I think the Colorado/Canyon are merely the tip of the iceberg. Full size will have to drop back to its old dimensions while a newer, even smaller size will need to be added to push truck fleet numbers higher. And yes, they'll have to be true trucks, as passenger vehicles shaped to look like trucks no longer qualify; they need to be a truck first. It's also why we're seen a new round of cargo-centric small delivery van styles hit the car show circuit.

@RoadWhale, awesome if the Bronco really happens. It would have a shorter wheelbase than any pickup, so great off-road. Yes it would still be wide and massive in other dimensions, but I like that about it. I have my ATV for the narrow trails, I think a Bronco would be great to explore Moab or even the Australian outback.

@RoadWhale, I was not at that auto show yesterday. I usually go to the one in Salt Lake City in January.

Tom#3 wrote "The 2015 Silverado is 2nd on the list, but the 2014 Silverado isn't even on the list.
There are BIG discounts on the 2014 where you can get a 2014 Silverado 4x4 Crew LT for $34K, but the same 2015 is $42K.
So does that mean people want the 2015 over the 2014 even paying more for the same truck?
There are no difference or changes between the 2014-2015

These are the HD's. not the 1500's, so there are a tremendous difference in the two! The 2014 is the old style, the 2015 is the new style.

The comments to this entry are closed.