Any regular cab truck on the fastest selling list looks like fleet sales to me.

Sale is a sale.

What is a crewcab tundra? Did you meant double cab?

Sierra Denali shouldn't be counted because it's a trim package and you don't break out the trim packages for anything else.

Trying to make much of the numbers here is a little awkward.

The GM mid size twins appear to still be a positive.

It is hard to make the call that the reg cab aluminium F-150 is largely fleet sales, even though it could be true.

If this is true and looking at the demand side of the new aluminium F-150 the so called chassis issue is not really impacting numbers moving off the lots.

Also the new aluminium F-150 crew cab is sitting on the lots longer than last month. This indicates the consumer has pretty much reached a point in how much they will pay for a new pickup. GM and FCA should keep Ford under pressure with pricing.

Maybe another issue and not the chassis issue is impacting the new F-150 numbers. This could be surmised If these numbers are looked together with the monthly sales numbers.

Ford will sooner or later have to come up with a new response to appease its share holders and the media.

Until all the new trucks reach full productions and demand vs production normalizes, the data means very little.

Well said, Denver Mike. BAFO is a clown. F-150 invertory is half of what it should be and they don't have the right mix yet.

Even if the f150 sales are a little slower then last month I still don't see any Ram or GM halftons on that list that sell faster. ummmmm..... Though I do agree that the prices of any of these trucks is a bit much!

Andy,
Ford will need a lot of profit above manufacturing costs to make ends meet.

The data for the new aluminium F-150 is indicating the high end models have are reaching their maximum numbers.

The crew cab aluminium F-150 are sitting around for a week or more from last month. So there are enough frames for them.

The single cab sales could be some pent up demand or as someone pointed out fleet numbers. But these are sitting around longer than a couple Colorado models.

Still if there was such a shortage of the new aluminium F-150 one would assume a different result than what is given here. There is no real figure that shows the F-150 is the most in demand pickup.

Ram again seem to have their plants running quite well for the 1500. GM the same.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the HD trucks--with the exception of jewel-encrusted models like the Denali--are purchased to do real work.

As has been said here many times before, the half ton crew cab is increasingly the vehicle of choice for the suburban family that likes the functionality of a full-length GMC Yukon or Ford Expedition SUV, with the practicality of a Sierra or Silverado crew cab.

So, why do the HD's linger so long on the lot, but half ton crew cabs sell? Lousy economy. A hot stock market does NOT sell HD trucks. Companies expanding, hiring more help, signing more new deals--this sells real working vehicles. The additional work is just not there.

Until there is some real consistent economic growth--more than just a quarter or two, you'll continue to see limp sales of the HD models.

Please!

Please don't get mad when ford tops next month's sales charts....

Please!

Please don't talk nonsense trying to persuade buyers to look elsewhere.

Please!

Please ease up on ford they are so weak! They sell the least amount of trucks to people. All the sales they have are from fleets. They couldn't handle losing another customer based on reading the assessments given by The genius above...

Ford can't take a hit like that! Small little baby company with almost no sales. Anyone talking against Ford should be ashamed! Pick on a corporation you're own size! Bwahaha!

Freaking things are selling like hot cakes, at a larger profit margin than The rest... And we get people talking about how they need to do this or that to keep up with other brands? Bwahahahahahaha!

Only in an open forum like this stupid stuff being said like that would fly! F150 are really struggling!
They are ugly and overpriced but are still selling more than each of the rest. At higher profits... Getting worst fuel eco,only to boot! Ford is practically giving ram and GM the opportunity on a silver platter to upstage them with a single brand. Problem is that they are too stretched out to do what they need to. Ford isn't!

Fiat Chrysler Accused of Neglect in 23 Recalls

By BILL VLASIC JULY 2, 2015 - NY TIMES

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators on Thursday accused Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of putting lives at risk by repeatedly failing to perform timely vehicle recalls and inform consumers of dangerous defects.

Looks like fleet sales to me

Of all the data you fail to see,
Welcome to PUTC. I bet you also have read PUTC for years and now decided to pass comment;)

I do think you need to have the ability to comprehend. You are obviously a diehard Ford freak for yourself to solicit a response with little accuracy in it.

I do not recall anyone really stating the new wonder truck, the aluminium F-150 is struggling. Ford sits in the number 2 position, including HDs and what is left of the ever popular steel F-150.

For you as a Ford freak to mention so indicates that you are not happy about Fords current situation with the wonder truck.

Try not to be a phan boi, this makes it easier to analyse information and not pass on comment like you had.

The Ford Fuked us Series is going down the toilet faster then you can flush HAHA!

@David Robertson

What does this have to do with this topic? And just FYI GM and Toyota are having this same problem (in the case of GM they actually are responsible for a number of deaths).

Truck guy Ford is the most deadest car/truck company in the USA! It's great people are waking up and dump them.

LOL. Hundreds of people have died in the death bombs while Chrysler and NHTSA dragged their feet on notification and recall. Chrysler-Fiat is facing a $150m penalty over the horrific death of a young Georgia boy. What you need to understand is that FCA does not care about lives. They will only take corrective action if profit is on the line. It's funny that some speak of $150 Million as killing incentives and costing consumers, but you don't reference $8.5 Billion in bailout money provided to Chrysler that came from tax payers, who lost out in the end, because all the money was not paid back from these bailouts. Taxpayers are also consumers and should not have to be subjected to death from corporate negligence, nor should taxpayers have to pay to bail out these corporations. Yet, you feel more sorry for the corporation, than victims.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/01/02/taxpayers-lose-billions-auto-industry-bailout-ends

Well,

@Baker

When you get a little older you'll understand that most corporation, big or small, are made of the investments of millions of average people, not the Donald Trumps or Warren Buffetts of the world.

For every share of GM or Ford owned by some billionaire there are untold thousands of shares owned by teachers or firefighters pension funds.

For every hot shot Hollywood star that owns a big chunk of shares, there's some not-profit childrens hospital that keeps its endowment funds in the shares of Fortune 500 companies and bonds.

Lastly, I'm not a huge fan of the bailouts--hardly--however I always try to keep in mind that there are thousands of employees at companies like VW and Toyota that spend their whole careers trying to build safer cars.

Mid size truck sales are on fire. Ford and Ram scratching their heads wondering why they are not participating.

Mid size truck sales are on fire. Ford and Ram scratching their heads wondering why they are not participating.

Posted by: Greg | Jul 5, 2015 8:26:41 PM

Kind of depends how you look at it..... Gm for example sold less of there midsize twins this month compared to last month. Several thousand less. While there big brothers sales remained unchanged.

Tacoma sold several thousand less this month compared to last month as well.

I think gm is keeping there inventory purposely low so as to get a better price on a perceived desirability. Gm twins are a very expensive vehicle to develop and manufacture. Doesn't really share anything with the big brothers. So they need years and years of low incentive midsize to even begin to recoup there cost.

Should the midsize market continue to grow, which I believe it will,Ford will re enter the market.I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't already planning on it.

As for FCA,I think they might join in also,but with a midsize Jeep pickup.JMHO,nuthin' more.

@Scott - GM is capping or limiting production of the Colorado/Canyon at around 10,000 units (combined) monthly and it's kind of obvious they're out to limit their losses this way.

GM has to know sales of the twins will level off at 10,000 units a month eventually. Right now they're pushing as many loaded trucks as they can, while there's still in high demand, partly because of this cap/limit.

So then stripper trucks will eventually fill the needs of fleets and cheapskates.

We've known for decades mini-trucks and midsize pickups have very thin profits. *Except* it turns out that for every 10 Colorado/Canyons GM sells, they lose 9 sales of other GMs, and likely more profitable GMs, including the Silverado/Sierras.

But too, the Colorado/Canyon assembly line is borrowed from the Savana/Express vans, except the plant/assembly line is running at full capacity now (building both fullsize vans and Colorado/Canyons). So obviously for every one Colorado/Canyon they build, one van sale is lost. Keeping in mind the aging, long running and hardly changing, fullsize vans have insane profitability and don't take away sales of other GM, highly profitable, bread & butter vehicles.

It's mess GM got itself into, so it's even less likely Ram or Ford are dying to get back into pushing midsize pickups, even if the midsize pickup market is growing temporarily. Why would they care?

They've already vowed to never come back.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if GM cancels the Colorado/Canyon in the next coming years.

papa jim was doing so well here until he missed Baker's point. Baker was responding to the charge that excused FCA and singled GM out for deaths. However, FCA has deaths on their own hands and more will die if Sergio keeps dragging his feet on recalls.

The teachers owning stocks is an interesting topic but is off topic for this discussion.

I am not a fan of bailouts either and I would argue the malfeasance by the Obama admin went beyond just short-circuiting and rigging the bankruptcy process. Once GM was owned by the gov’t, the Obama admin had incentive to help/encourage GM to keep the ignition switch issue quiet until the time was right. They were probably pressuring the regulators to go after Toyota for the possibly specious acceleration problem while simultaneously pressuring the regulators to ignore GM problems. Frightening - how many more people died because of this collusion.

@Mr Lemon

Please re-read Baker's post.

Funny how the F150 is a flop in BAFO's eyes yet the Colorado/Canyon is a success despite selling under 10k units a year and also bottlenecking their production like he accuses Ford of.

@mark49 - It has been reported that Ford was initially going to build crewcab mid to high end trucks first then move to lower margin mid to low end crew and extended and reg cab trucks. It has also been documented that fleet orders were delayed due to the change over to the new truck.

Fleets do tend to be the domain of regular cab trucks but how can it be a bad thing? If there is a high take rate on the new aluminum F150 then that would indicate that there is confidence in the new truck's ability to hold up to heavy work.

@PapaJim - just because a HD is sold in full bling trim does not mean it is NOT going to be used for work. Other than fleet trucks I see an amazing number of full load HD's used in logging.

@papa him,
We are heading for record sales of Pickups and cars in Australia, and even heavy trucks, but the economy is in "transition " Business investment is still lagging

@Denver Mike--Your points are debatable. GM's vans although profitable are losing ground to the newer vans from Ford. If GM is selling mostly loaded Colorados/Canyons then GM is making plenty of profit. Someone who wants a full size pickup will buy a full size pickup and someone who wants a midsize truck will buy a midsize truck. Next you will go on about the mini-truck craze and how it has past.

@papa jim--True, we must not forget who owns the stock of the automobile corporations and who they employ. I don't take great joy in any automobile corporation failing because a failure effects the lives of many.

YEAH ALL THE NEGATIVE TALK ABOUT FORD, AND GM WILL BE USING ALUMINUM IN ITS NEXT GENERATION TRUCK. IN JUST A FEW YEARS FROM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS CALLED STAYING IN BUSINESS OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELL SEND AN EMAIL TO GM AND TELL THEM HOW YOU DON'T LIKE THE IDEAL OF THEM USING ALUMINUM AS BUILDING MATERIAL FOR THERE TRUCKS, AND GM RESPONSE WILL YOU ARE CRAZY!!!!!!!!!! MINDS IN VERY OLD BOXES

Funny how the F150 is a flop in BAFO's eyes yet the Colorado/Canyon is a success despite selling under 10k units a year and also bottlenecking their production like he accuses Ford of.

Posted by: KeithCT | Jul 6, 2015 8:37:58 AM

BAFO will be along to tell also how americans want a diesel 1/2 tons. That kid is rarely right about anything.

"Data for Ram 1500 registrations through May of this year show slightly less than 10 percent have been equipped with the diesel engine."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billvisnic/2015/07/02/months-after-saying-customers-yearn-for-its-new-diesel-pickup-ram-still-cant-deliver/

RAM can't even hit there initial target of 10 percent. Ford and GM would be stupid to waste money on a 1/2 ton diesel seeing Ram's failure develop in front of our eyes.

@Jeff S - "Losing ground" or not, fullsize GM vans are pure profit, paid off a long time ago. But you forget no truck is profitable when first released. It might by 10+ years for a midsize truck to be profitable. If at all.

If GM could sustain mostly selling hard loaded Colorado/Canyons, it'd still take several years to profitability. GM will only sell a little over 100,000 units combined. They'd have to sell at 2 or 3X that rate to be profitable in the next few years, all hard loaded. Not happening.

Just having a pickup bed, doesn't mean instant profitability. Even the F-150 that averages about $40,000 per truck, might take a 400,000 trucks sold, to be profitable. Not counting the Expedition, Navigator that amortize costs immensely.

The Colorado/Canyon might be 700,000+ trucks in, or most of the generation, to be profitable, if you don't count the losses to other GM cars and trucks the twins cannibalize.

Robert Ryan,
I read the same regarding the vehicle sales in Oz.

Of the top 5 seller, 3 are pickups.

Latwoods,
My view is not the use of aluminium. But rather how well the vehicle has been recieved.

As I pointed out many times, why buy an unproven pickup, that is so different? Then to top it off Ford offers the pickup with no real advantage to give it a definite jump over its competitors.

I do bet Ram and GM ease into the use of aluminium more than Ford had done.

The steel F-150 was a tank in the weight department. Ram and GM pickups only need to reduce half the weight as Ford.

The only technological advance for Ford is the manufacturing processes employed. This is where Ford invested heavily.

Ford will have to adjust to the number 2 position as a pickup manufacturer. The shareholders will have to adjust eventually with lower value shares.

@Big Al from OZ
Do not know if this will come out
BEST SELLING CARS
1 Toyota Corolla
Toyota Corolla
2 Mazda 3
Mazda 3
3 Toyota HiLux
Toyota HiLux
4 Hyundai i30
Hyundai i30
5 Holden Commodore
Holden Commodore
6 Ford Ranger
Ford Ranger
7 Mitsubishi Triton
Mitsubishi Triton
8 Toyota Camry
Toyota Camry
9 Mazda CX-5
Mazda CX-5
10

Robert Ryan,
That total is the year so far from 01 Jan.

The i30 apparently topped the list for the month of June.

Chevrolet rips ford in web commericals

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/07/06/general-motors-ford-pickup-truck-wars/29768225/

@Big Al

The 2014 f150 was too heavy but I believe (without taking time to look it up) that the new Ram 1500 is just as heavy or even heavier than the pre aluminum F150.

@GM Man

Interesting article but certainly nothing new. Just typical GM bashing Ford. Seems to be what they do best. I don't like to see automakers bashing each other for trying new things. Really we as consumers are the ones getting hurt by it because it dampens advancements in design and engineering. It's just like the Republicans. Afraid of change and just sitting there waiting to smear anyone who tries to instigate change.

Yeah Chrysler has repaid their government loan, and ford hasn't.

@Denver Mike--You forget that the Colorado/Canyon were not designed from the ground up like the all new F-150. Bhe oth are based on the global Colorado and both have limited colors and options unlike the F-150. Two bed sizes are available on the crew cab and only one bed size is available on the extended cab. There is much less variation on the assembly line and GM did not have to completely redo the assembly plant unlike the Ford and the F-150. Much less cost to develop the twins and less volume required. GM will not lose on these twins so the risk is minimum. Ford bet their entire company on the new aluminum F-150's which it is not guaranteed success. I think Ford will come out alright but the profitability will be spread out on more units and will require more time.

You are under the assumption that all midsize truck buyers will only buy full size pickups or crossovers. Wrong they will not. I doubt I will ever buy an F-150, Silverado, Sierra, or Ram but I will likely buy a Colorado/Canyon. I am as likely to buy a full size pickup as I am a Suburban instead of a CRV. Not going to happen.

GM might not have an all aluminum body. It is possible that GM will use both aluminum and steel on their next models. GM has not fully committed to aluminum so it remains to be seen. Most who buy the F-150 are loyal Ford owners and are buying the truck more because they like F-150's and less because of the aluminum bodies.

Yeah Chrysler has repaid their government loan, and ford hasn't.

Posted by: roadram360 | Jul 7, 2015 12:53:07 PM

Incorrect. Chrysler never took a loan. They took a bailout which in the end it cost taxpayers well over 1 billion in loses.

Currently Ford is paying back there loan. Repayment started in 2012 and they had no trouble making there 1/2 billion loan payment to the Department of Energy every year since 2012. They have made 3 payments so far and will make another by the end of this fiscal year. It should be all wrapped up and paid back according to the terms by the year 2021.

@DenverMike - you say you have your own business but say " But you forget no truck is profitable when first released. It might by 10+ years for a midsize truck to be profitable. If at all."

Product R&D and tooling is amortized and built into the sale price of a vehicle.

I'll give an example:

I borrow 120,000 to buy a small dump truck with sand spreader and plow. That is over 60 months or 2,000 per month.
It costs me 1,000 per month to operate.
A driver costs me 4,000 per month.
I'm face with 7,000 dollars per month over 60 months.

I carry out my due diligence before buying the truck and research the market, talk to new clients and old clients and arrange contracts that will cover my expenses.
Lets say for the sake of argument I have 9k per month income.
That means 120,000 profit over the next 60 months. I can chose to reinvest into the business or walk away with it.

GM does the same thing. They research the market, line up clientele, plan out costs and set amortization limits.

It is asinine to think that NO profit is made until a product "is paid off".

there is always risk in business.

You saying that Ford will not make a dime until the new F150 is "paid off" ????????????????????

@roadram360 --Technically Ford never received a Government loan. Ford was given Government funding to retool plants to make more fuel efficient vehicles like the Focus and the Fiesta with no expectations for repayment. I understand your point but this was not a loan.

@Lou_BC--True and the same can be said for the new aluminum F-150. Ford will eventually make a profit but it might take Ford longer to realize a profit than Ford projected. There is no guarantee of a profit and a new or redesigned product still has risks. It is much easier for a manufacturer to not release a new product or completely redesign a product but then the risks are that you lose customers and that competition gains because you have a dated product. There is no such thing as guaranteed profit and success.

Plus Ford will amortize the costs over a period of time so yes Ford and GM will show a profit before they recover all their costs. That is why depreciation exists so that the large long term costs such as designing a product and retooling can be spread out over many years. As your example of a small dump truck with a spreader and a plow you will not realize the costs right away even though you might have paid for them up front or more likely you took a loan out, but you will depreciate the assets over a period of time with an estimate of useful life against income derived from their use.

@roadram360 --Technically Ford never received a Government loan. Ford was given Government funding to retool plants to make more fuel efficient vehicles like the Focus and the Fiesta with no expectations for repayment. I understand your point but this was not a loan.

Posted by: Jeff S | Jul 7, 2015 6:22:21 PM

Jeff
You are incorrect. The ATVM incentive loan has to be paid back.... It's the same loan that tesla and Nissan also has. Tesla paid there loan back. Only way ford won't have to continue paying on it is to go belly up. Gm and Chrysler didn't qualify for the loan cause they were in bankruptcy as a qualification for the loan was to be able to be financial sound enough to pay back.

There are some that got the DOE loans that didn't make it and went belly up ie fisker.

If you are unfamiliar with the DOE is Department of energy which is a branch of the government that gave ford the loan under ATVM "Advanced Technology vehicle manufacturing" at a super low interest rate..... 2.3%.

Ford has been paying back every quarter (148 million each quarter). The end of 2014 they have made there payments which started in 2012 and of the original 5.9 billion they are paid down to 4.4 billion.

Page fs 44, fs 45 and fs 46 will dial you in Jeff s on this subject. It near the bottom.
Ford last year financial report to the sec
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/37996/000003799615000013/f1231201410-k.htm

I see many of my favorite commenters online tonight.

Regarding profit: Making comments about the profits of a small business is vastly different from comments about the profits of huge global conglomerate like GM, VW or Ford.

Even if those firms were actually TRYING to be transparent about their operations and finance--which they definitely are NOT--it would still be a very complex discussion, with more than one good opinion available.

Let's just say that the F150 continues to be Ford's number one product, both in terms of sales but also the company's sense of its ID.

Regarding the 2nd gen GM midsizers: it is way too soon to try and judge their success. Wait a couple of years.

Go back to 2005 and the first gen Colorado looks like a big success. Fast forward to 2009, the Colorado turns into a big stinky dog with intestinal worms.

Without the GM bankruptcy/bailout, they would have shuttered the Tonawanda Engine plant. Hard to imagine today.

I'm convinced that Ford would love a do-over re: the new gen F150. When that truck was on the drawing board, people thought gas was headed for $6.00 per gallon. Who could have known that we're now looking at gas headed back down again, for the second time in less than 2 years.

Game changer.

I'm convinced that Ford would love a do-over re: the new gen F150.
Posted by: papa jim | Jul 7, 2015 7:21:06 PM

I don't think they would. The future is what needs to be looked at.... EPA and Cafe isn't going away. Not going to happen. Even if the majority of country wanted to do away with the EPA it wouldn't happen cause the largest economy in the US won't allow it (California). For example look at gas can's that you can buy these days. Have to meet california (largest market/economy in the US) specs just like most manufactures will just make all there vehicles meet what ever california specs.

One thing with the EPA (california) not standing still you will see electric and or hybrid pickups. Ford has enough room now to add batteries and electric motors and still maintain a decent tow and cargo capacity. Once they do it California will force the other manufactures to do it. Just like they forced Sergio to sell electric Vehicles in that state just to market there Fiat brand.

Also another thing in the future as vehicles add weight with mandated EV and hybrid technologies Ford will be able to glue composites body panels to there aluminum panels. Can't weld those together just like you can't weld aluminum to steel.