Best-Selling Pickup Trucks: February 2016

2015 PUTC sales photo

Although the first two months are typically some of the slowest sales months of the year, February 2016 is shaping up to be one of the best Februarys in 10 years for some truckmakers.

Some analysts predicted that because of winter storms that hit much of the country in January, February could be a strong month because of pent-up demand. Others predicted the up-and-down volatility of the stock market might make buyers take a pause from dealer lots, but that prediction did not turn out to be accurate. With the exception of Chevrolet, GMC and Honda, all the other truck brands had a good month. Additionally, the fact that fuel prices remain low for most of the country seems to be helping pickup sales as well.

The big winner for February is Ram with an almost 25 percent gain over last year at this time and double-digit gains so far this year. Ford also had a solid sales result, beating the combined total of Chevy and GMC's full-size truck lineup. It's also worth noting that Nissan is gaining traction with the all-new full-size Titan XD turbo-diesel as it gets into more dealerships, posting yearly and monthly gains of more than 25 percent with momentum building.

Chevy is the biggest question mark on the chart, with February sales percentages well behind the industry average, although it should be noted it did have a strong February 2015. Conversely, the Colorado had a strong sales month, outselling its arch rival, the Frontier, by more than 500 units. GMC sales were flat.

Tacoma sales continue to be strong, up double digits for the year and almost 15 percent for the month. Since the Tacoma and Tundra are built in the same production facility, if Toyota determines it needs more of one model than the other, then production of one truck goes up while production of the other goes down. And that's what we're seeing as Tundra sales aren't keeping up with the 2015 pace. We're guessing that trend will continue through the summer.

March tends to be the beginning of the strongest part of the pickup-selling season for full-size pickups (summer through fall), but much is likely to depend on continued market instability and/or fuel-price changes; then again, a contentious presidential election and predicting how new-vehicle buyers might react make sales predictions anyone's guess.

Editor's note: The Honda Ridgeline monthly sales numbers were updated on March 1 to correct information from the manufacturer.

Manufacturer image

 

Feb 16 sales update

Comments

I was behind an f150 and this happened when I bumped him.

http://www.f150forum.com/f118/2015-f150-rear-ended-293940/

The rank is different Canada...

Sierra outsells Silverado
Ram sales are double that of Silverado
Both the Colorado and Canyon are ahead of the Frontier
Tacoma barely outsells the GM twins combined

Damn, these chevy/gm boys are crying!! hahaha

Pickup truck why this years you don't show the category numbers of sales,,,f150,,250,350,450 ??

If Ford use all is pickup sales gm still in the front whit all is pickup sales ,,,


Damn, these chevy/gm boys are crying!! hahaha
Posted by: MIKEY | Mar 1, 2016 3:35:46 PM


Naw,Ford clowns are crying. Just look at Frank he already gone to name calling because he's so jealous LOL!

It's actually not that impressive to have all of these different brands and sell only 7k more a month. GM has double or quadruple the startup, double the designing, double the production, double the parts, double the locations to sell, double the the marketing for colorados, canyons, silverados and sierras, it is nuts. The little bit you made selling the 7k Colorado, you lost in extra costs. should just shut that down. Do like I say and make one great brand of truck. Now if you were sell 120,000 trucks more then we could talk. The 4 truck strategy is a bleeping failure. Period.

There should just be Silverado. Period! Chevy should be the ultimate brand. The ultimate truck. From work truck to top end luxury. Stop playing games GM. If Ford can sell so many trucks with one brand GM is doing something very wrong. It's time that GM and GM fans wake up and smell the coffee.

4 truck strategy?

Midsize/half ton/HDs, that only 3. Ford has 3 to half ton/ HD/ medium duty LOL! Under 50 units shy of out selling Ford by 16,000 units for the year total, can't Ford people count? LMBO!!!!

Ford is offering 0% for 72, $5k off and a free 7 year 100k powertrain warranty where I live.

well, nissan has a long ways to go to get to 100,000 per year

I have nothing to be jealous about johnny dildoe, GM trucks are sub-par compared to Ford.

I just like to point out your idiocy and call you out on it. I like making you look dumb, keep at it, you're doing a great job.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Silverado sales will not match last year's total because of the 16 MY losing 40000 miles of warranty. This why GM did the 16 facelift. I will say that the fanboys who bought the 15MY with the 100000 k warranty knew that they will need it. Silverado sales will decline the rest of this year. Boy Ram is right on their heels.

I just heard an ad on the radio about a week ago. Promised at least 11,000 off msrp on ALL new ford, chevy, and ram pickuptrucks. Sounds like all of them are going big on rebates right now. http://www.mhautoranch.com/

Stop being stupid johhny. There are 4 brands of trucks. Colorado, Canyon, Silverado and Sierra. GM treats Chevy truck customers like second class citizens and it is showing in the sales. 4 brands and you can only sell 7k more compared to Ford? Hello! McFly anybody home????? This is a disaster. Also the square wheel wells need to go once and for all. GM better not think about bringing them back on the next gen!!!!!!!! Enough is enough already.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. Silverado sales will not match last year's total because of the 16 MY losing 40000 miles of warranty. This why GM did the 16 facelift. I will say that the fanboys who bought the 15MY with the 100000 k warranty knew that they will need it. Silverado sales will decline the rest of this year. Boy Ram is right on their heels.

Posted by: Todd | Mar 1, 2016 4:29:15 PM

I have my doubts about this theory. Due to prices of new trucks leasing is extremely popular over buying. With a lease, no body cares about warranty to 100K. 2 or 3 years and they turn it in for a new one.

I will say that the fanboys who bought the 15MY with the 100000 k warranty knew that they will need it. Silverado sales will decline the rest of this year. Boy Ram is right on their heels.
Posted by: Todd | Mar 1, 2016 4:29:15 PM

HMM right that's one their was more GMC and Chevys on the 200,000 mile story the other day. They cut the mileage to Fords level, you getting start GM will make more profit then Ford Todd?


I like making you look dumb, keep at it, you're doing a great job.
Posted by: Frank

The only person that looks dumb is you Frank LMBO! Your how old and call ppl names like a 10 year old. So yeah keep it up. You are doing a great job making yourself look like a fool.

@ Tom
Doubt it if you want but Silverado sales will fall this year.

why* scared*

There are 4 brands of trucks.

No there is only two, Chevy and GMC. Once again learn to count.

@Jim - that's exactly how it was designed; a crumble zone & passenger cabin was untouched...

GM should just stop playing games with 2nd place Ford already and really take all their sales away. Offer a frame that offers both a IFS and SFA 4wd set up. Ford sales will real flush down the toilet then.

Frank, you where rite, what was i thinkin, sorry man. LMBO

I liek ford guys

i can't spell smetimes, i'm really undereductadd

WOW the Ford clowns are so mad they are using my name once again, probably Frank no doubt.

Lionel Reread it, I said Ford was second place to GM.

johnny dildoe is a good Chevy name.

Fords February sales were so down last year, we had all the excuses, the "they don't have all the configurations out yet". The 2014s were gone pretty much thru most of the month.

So it'should not like they are doing that good.

They did sell a crap load of fleet trucks. (low bidder)

GM has had 7500 off a 2016 1500 all thru the month, along with all the free oil changes, and what do you get with a GM, 3 months of satellite service?

As opposed to a whole year that you get with RAM, which RAM has been doing for lots of years.

Looks like the two new high-tech trucks are barely selling more than RAM.

You know it won't take too many changes for Ram to sell right there with them.

"You know it won't take too many changes for Ram to sell right there with them.'

Ram can't afford "too many changes".

Maybe at their next bankruptcy a company with more money than Fiat will take them over.

Trx-4 Tom, low bidder is not necessarily true. Most definitely not for my company or the company that contracts us out. We have fleet managers who have compiled data to ensure we have the best truck for the job. In our case, good fuel economy, longevity, initial cost and potential downtime for maintenance or repairs. Even with warranty companys do not want there trucks in the shop for obvious reasons. Only a fool would purchase a truck based on lowest transaction or lowest bid and hope there company will succeed in the long term.

I would like to know how much of the increase in sales are do to increased leasing. With some of the lease deals it is less expensive to lease if you are not planning on keeping a vehicle for 5 years or more. Long warranties would be less important to those who lease. Ford, GM, and Ram are less interested in an owner keeping a vehicle a long time except for advertising claims of having the longest lasting trucks. Manufacturers want to shorten the number of years one owns a vehicle and give the buyer an incentive to come back more often which makes leasing vehicles much better than 72 month loans.

Chevy Truck Guy,

GM has two brands and and 4 truck lines: Silvy, Sierra, Colo, Canyon. I agree that its a big big efficiency and sales problem for GM. Ford has one truck brand Ford and 1 truck line F-Series and almost beats 3 of GM's lines combined.

I also agree about the square wheel wells. Who puts round wheels in a square hole?

@Lou,

New February records were set by the Jeep Cherokee, Wrangler, Patriot, and Compass, by the Ram pickup, ProMaster, and ProMaster City, and the Dodge Challenger and Journey.


GUT
S
GL
ORY
R
A
M

Ram can't afford "too many changes".

Maybe at their next bankruptcy a company with more money than Fiat will take them over.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Mar 1, 2016 5:37:09 PM


Did Ford Take Bailout Money Too? Yes They Did.

When it comes to brand loyalty and fans of the other automakers, GM always gets beaten up for taking bailout money from the TARP fund back in 2009. Ford fans point out that the blue oval crew didn’t take any “bailout money,” which is almost true. When it comes to this topic, its like a duck floating on a pond. Above the water level, everything is calm, but below the water surface, the duck is paddling like hell. If we are talking about Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money, then yes, Ford did not take any money from the TARP fund. Did they get bailout money from other sources in the government? Yes they did… and a lot of it.

Let’s reset the timeline history. The big three automakers appeared before congress in November of 2008, requesting $50 billion to avoid bankruptcy.

Congress put the automakers in the hotseat and refused their initial request, sending the automakers back home to refine their plans. Congress was willing to loan the companies money as long as it was tied to the development of energy efficient vehicles. GM, Ford, and Chrysler wanted another 25 billion from the TARP fund, largely to support the auto unions and jobs within the companies.

In December of 2008, the automakers came back to congress requesting $35 billion, of which congress agreed to $23.4 billion in bailout money using TARP funds.

What The Automakers Got

The breakdown of the Automotive Industry Finance Program had loans to provide operating cash to GM and Chrysler, as well as money available for the car buyers through GMAC. General Motors was awarded a $13.4 billion loan with $6 billion set aside for GMAC. Chrysler was given a $4 billion loan. These amounts were determined to be the best alternatives for the companies by congress.

Does that mean that Ford did not get any money from the governement? Hardly. Congress decided that the best alternative for Ford was to get funds from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which is a government program for auto, student, and other consumer loans. These were very low-cost government loans to the tune of $5.9 billion that helped Ford tip-toe past bankruptcy and overhaul their factories to bring out more fuel-efficient technology. The Obama administration’s plans of having a million electric cars on the road by 2015 were being funneled through Ford and two other companies (Nissan and Tesla), and Ford fans had the audacity to call GM “Government Motors.”

That was the tradeoff for Ford. They promised to fast-track development of energy-efficient vehicles and consolidate operations by making “greener” cars that the Obama administration wanted to see.

Ford Credit borrowed $15.9 billion dollars as opposed to GMAC, GM’s financing arm which borrowed $13.9 billion. These numbers make the perception that Ford was the only Detroit-based company that didn’t need a federal handout during the economic crash completely false.

For their part, GM agreed to streamline the number of brands they produce. The big three CEOs agreed to work for $1 a year and sell their corporate jets as well.

Let’s be honest here: Ford has gotten a free pass and earned market shares for being the only US automaker that “didn’t take bailout money,” when they did in fact, take government loans with the condition of making cars that the government wanted. Which company was truly “Government Motors” in the real behind the scenes scenario? That would be Ford, of course.

All of this information is public and easily researched. We don’t want you to take our word for it but we expect you to take a minute and look it up for your own edification. Then the next time a Ford owner says; “At least Ford didn’t take bailout money,” you can call BS and set the record straight.

Ram can't afford "too many changes".

Maybe at their next bankruptcy a company with more money than Fiat will take them over.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Mar 1, 2016 5:37:09 PM


Did Ford Take Bailout Money Too? Yes They Did.

When it comes to brand loyalty and fans of the other automakers, GM always gets beaten up for taking bailout money from the TARP fund back in 2009. Ford fans point out that the blue oval crew didn’t take any “bailout money,” which is almost true. When it comes to this topic, its like a duck floating on a pond. Above the water level, everything is calm, but below the water surface, the duck is paddling like hell. If we are talking about Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money, then yes, Ford did not take any money from the TARP fund. Did they get bailout money from other sources in the government? Yes they did… and a lot of it.

Let’s reset the timeline history. The big three automakers appeared before congress in November of 2008, requesting $50 billion to avoid bankruptcy.

Congress put the automakers in the hotseat and refused their initial request, sending the automakers back home to refine their plans. Congress was willing to loan the companies money as long as it was tied to the development of energy efficient vehicles. GM, Ford, and Chrysler wanted another 25 billion from the TARP fund, largely to support the auto unions and jobs within the companies.

In December of 2008, the automakers came back to congress requesting $35 billion, of which congress agreed to $23.4 billion in bailout money using TARP funds.

What The Automakers Got

The breakdown of the Automotive Industry Finance Program had loans to provide operating cash to GM and Chrysler, as well as money available for the car buyers through GMAC. General Motors was awarded a $13.4 billion loan with $6 billion set aside for GMAC. Chrysler was given a $4 billion loan. These amounts were determined to be the best alternatives for the companies by congress.

Does that mean that Ford did not get any money from the governement? Hardly. Congress decided that the best alternative for Ford was to get funds from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which is a government program for auto, student, and other consumer loans. These were very low-cost government loans to the tune of $5.9 billion that helped Ford tip-toe past bankruptcy and overhaul their factories to bring out more fuel-efficient technology. The Obama administration’s plans of having a million electric cars on the road by 2015 were being funneled through Ford and two other companies (Nissan and Tesla), and Ford fans had the audacity to call GM “Government Motors.”

That was the tradeoff for Ford. They promised to fast-track development of energy-efficient vehicles and consolidate operations by making “greener” cars that the Obama administration wanted to see.

Ford Credit borrowed $15.9 billion dollars as opposed to GMAC, GM’s financing arm which borrowed $13.9 billion. These numbers make the perception that Ford was the only Detroit-based company that didn’t need a federal handout during the economic crash completely false.

For their part, GM agreed to streamline the number of brands they produce. The big three CEOs agreed to work for $1 a year and sell their corporate jets as well.

Let’s be honest here: Ford has gotten a free pass and earned market shares for being the only US automaker that “didn’t take bailout money,” when they did in fact, take government loans with the condition of making cars that the government wanted. Which company was truly “Government Motors” in the real behind the scenes scenario? That would be Ford, of course.

All of this information is public and easily researched. We don’t want you to take our word for it but we expect you to take a minute and look it up for your own edification. Then the next time a Ford owner says; “At least Ford didn’t take bailout money,” you can call BS and set the record straight.

Ram can't afford "too many changes".

Maybe at their next bankruptcy a company with more money than Fiat will take them over.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Mar 1, 2016 5:37:09 PM


Did Ford Take Bailout Money Too? Yes They Did.

When it comes to brand loyalty and fans of the other automakers, GM always gets beaten up for taking bailout money from the TARP fund back in 2009. Ford fans point out that the blue oval crew didn’t take any “bailout money,” which is almost true. When it comes to this topic, its like a duck floating on a pond. Above the water level, everything is calm, but below the water surface, the duck is paddling like hell. If we are talking about Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money, then yes, Ford did not take any money from the TARP fund. Did they get bailout money from other sources in the government? Yes they did… and a lot of it.

Let’s reset the timeline history. The big three automakers appeared before congress in November of 2008, requesting $50 billion to avoid bankruptcy.

Congress put the automakers in the hotseat and refused their initial request, sending the automakers back home to refine their plans. Congress was willing to loan the companies money as long as it was tied to the development of energy efficient vehicles. GM, Ford, and Chrysler wanted another 25 billion from the TARP fund, largely to support the auto unions and jobs within the companies.

In December of 2008, the automakers came back to congress requesting $35 billion, of which congress agreed to $23.4 billion in bailout money using TARP funds.

What The Automakers Got

The breakdown of the Automotive Industry Finance Program had loans to provide operating cash to GM and Chrysler, as well as money available for the car buyers through GMAC. General Motors was awarded a $13.4 billion loan with $6 billion set aside for GMAC. Chrysler was given a $4 billion loan. These amounts were determined to be the best alternatives for the companies by congress.

Does that mean that Ford did not get any money from the governement? Hardly. Congress decided that the best alternative for Ford was to get funds from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which is a government program for auto, student, and other consumer loans. These were very low-cost government loans to the tune of $5.9 billion that helped Ford tip-toe past bankruptcy and overhaul their factories to bring out more fuel-efficient technology. The Obama administration’s plans of having a million electric cars on the road by 2015 were being funneled through Ford and two other companies (Nissan and Tesla), and Ford fans had the audacity to call GM “Government Motors.”

That was the tradeoff for Ford. They promised to fast-track development of energy-efficient vehicles and consolidate operations by making “greener” cars that the Obama administration wanted to see.

Ford Credit borrowed $15.9 billion dollars as opposed to GMAC, GM’s financing arm which borrowed $13.9 billion. These numbers make the perception that Ford was the only Detroit-based company that didn’t need a federal handout during the economic crash completely false.

For their part, GM agreed to streamline the number of brands they produce. The big three CEOs agreed to work for $1 a year and sell their corporate jets as well.

Let’s be honest here: Ford has gotten a free pass and earned market shares for being the only US automaker that “didn’t take bailout money,” when they did in fact, take government loans with the condition of making cars that the government wanted. Which company was truly “Government Motors” in the real behind the scenes scenario? That would be Ford, of course.

All of this information is public and easily researched. We don’t want you to take our word for it but we expect you to take a minute and look it up for your own edification. Then the next time a Ford owner says; “At least Ford didn’t take bailout money,” you can call BS and set the record straight.

Ram can't afford "too many changes".

Maybe at their next bankruptcy a company with more money than Fiat will take them over.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Mar 1, 2016 5:37:09 PM


Did Ford Take Bailout Money Too? Yes They Did.

When it comes to brand loyalty and fans of the other automakers, GM always gets beaten up for taking bailout money from the TARP fund back in 2009. Ford fans point out that the blue oval crew didn’t take any “bailout money,” which is almost true. When it comes to this topic, its like a duck floating on a pond. Above the water level, everything is calm, but below the water surface, the duck is paddling like hell. If we are talking about Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money, then yes, Ford did not take any money from the TARP fund. Did they get bailout money from other sources in the government? Yes they did… and a lot of it.

Let’s reset the timeline history. The big three automakers appeared before congress in November of 2008, requesting $50 billion to avoid bankruptcy.

Congress put the automakers in the hotseat and refused their initial request, sending the automakers back home to refine their plans. Congress was willing to loan the companies money as long as it was tied to the development of energy efficient vehicles. GM, Ford, and Chrysler wanted another 25 billion from the TARP fund, largely to support the auto unions and jobs within the companies.

In December of 2008, the automakers came back to congress requesting $35 billion, of which congress agreed to $23.4 billion in bailout money using TARP funds.

What The Automakers Got

The breakdown of the Automotive Industry Finance Program had loans to provide operating cash to GM and Chrysler, as well as money available for the car buyers through GMAC. General Motors was awarded a $13.4 billion loan with $6 billion set aside for GMAC. Chrysler was given a $4 billion loan. These amounts were determined to be the best alternatives for the companies by congress.

Does that mean that Ford did not get any money from the governement? Hardly. Congress decided that the best alternative for Ford was to get funds from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which is a government program for auto, student, and other consumer loans. These were very low-cost government loans to the tune of $5.9 billion that helped Ford tip-toe past bankruptcy and overhaul their factories to bring out more fuel-efficient technology. The Obama administration’s plans of having a million electric cars on the road by 2015 were being funneled through Ford and two other companies (Nissan and Tesla), and Ford fans had the audacity to call GM “Government Motors.”

That was the tradeoff for Ford. They promised to fast-track development of energy-efficient vehicles and consolidate operations by making “greener” cars that the Obama administration wanted to see.

Ford Credit borrowed $15.9 billion dollars as opposed to GMAC, GM’s financing arm which borrowed $13.9 billion. These numbers make the perception that Ford was the only Detroit-based company that didn’t need a federal handout during the economic crash completely false.

For their part, GM agreed to streamline the number of brands they produce. The big three CEOs agreed to work for $1 a year and sell their corporate jets as well.

Let’s be honest here: Ford has gotten a free pass and earned market shares for being the only US automaker that “didn’t take bailout money,” when they did in fact, take government loans with the condition of making cars that the government wanted. Which company was truly “Government Motors” in the real behind the scenes scenario? That would be Ford, of course.

All of this information is public and easily researched. We don’t want you to take our word for it but we expect you to take a minute and look it up for your own edification. Then the next time a Ford owner says; “At least Ford didn’t take bailout money,” you can call BS and set the record straight.

Ram can't afford "too many changes".

Maybe at their next bankruptcy a company with more money than Fiat will take them over.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Mar 1, 2016 5:37:09 PM


Did Ford Take Bailout Money Too? Yes They Did.

When it comes to brand loyalty and fans of the other automakers, GM always gets beaten up for taking bailout money from the TARP fund back in 2009. Ford fans point out that the blue oval crew didn’t take any “bailout money,” which is almost true. When it comes to this topic, its like a duck floating on a pond. Above the water level, everything is calm, but below the water surface, the duck is paddling like hell. If we are talking about Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money, then yes, Ford did not take any money from the TARP fund. Did they get bailout money from other sources in the government? Yes they did… and a lot of it.

Let’s reset the timeline history. The big three automakers appeared before congress in November of 2008, requesting $50 billion to avoid bankruptcy.

Congress put the automakers in the hotseat and refused their initial request, sending the automakers back home to refine their plans. Congress was willing to loan the companies money as long as it was tied to the development of energy efficient vehicles. GM, Ford, and Chrysler wanted another 25 billion from the TARP fund, largely to support the auto unions and jobs within the companies.

In December of 2008, the automakers came back to congress requesting $35 billion, of which congress agreed to $23.4 billion in bailout money using TARP funds.

What The Automakers Got

The breakdown of the Automotive Industry Finance Program had loans to provide operating cash to GM and Chrysler, as well as money available for the car buyers through GMAC. General Motors was awarded a $13.4 billion loan with $6 billion set aside for GMAC. Chrysler was given a $4 billion loan. These amounts were determined to be the best alternatives for the companies by congress.

Does that mean that Ford did not get any money from the governement? Hardly. Congress decided that the best alternative for Ford was to get funds from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which is a government program for auto, student, and other consumer loans. These were very low-cost government loans to the tune of $5.9 billion that helped Ford tip-toe past bankruptcy and overhaul their factories to bring out more fuel-efficient technology. The Obama administration’s plans of having a million electric cars on the road by 2015 were being funneled through Ford and two other companies (Nissan and Tesla), and Ford fans had the audacity to call GM “Government Motors.”

That was the tradeoff for Ford. They promised to fast-track development of energy-efficient vehicles and consolidate operations by making “greener” cars that the Obama administration wanted to see.

Ford Credit borrowed $15.9 billion dollars as opposed to GMAC, GM’s financing arm which borrowed $13.9 billion. These numbers make the perception that Ford was the only Detroit-based company that didn’t need a federal handout during the economic crash completely false.

For their part, GM agreed to streamline the number of brands they produce. The big three CEOs agreed to work for $1 a year and sell their corporate jets as well.

Let’s be honest here: Ford has gotten a free pass and earned market shares for being the only US automaker that “didn’t take bailout money,” when they did in fact, take government loans with the condition of making cars that the government wanted. Which company was truly “Government Motors” in the real behind the scenes scenario? That would be Ford, of course.

All of this information is public and easily researched. We don’t want you to take our word for it but we expect you to take a minute and look it up for your own edification. Then the next time a Ford owner says; “At least Ford didn’t take bailout money,” you can call BS and set the record straight.

Bailout vs loan.... Bailout equal tax payers losing billions.... 11 billion on GM alone. Ford has been pay back there loans with interest.... I think they will be finished paying it off by 2020 with interest. Lets not confuse a loan vs bailout when we are discussing gov't money. One screws taxpayers out of money and one doesn't.

What a bunch of little kids, fighting over who sells the most, who has the roundest wheel wells. I have a message for you folks GET A LIFE. Research your truck buy the one you want but this is rediculous.

Atta boy Andy!

Hey RAM, I think your post button is stuck. Good write up though.

@Scott
So where is that new efficient engine ford got billions from obama for?
Please don't tell me it's ecoboost, because its scam .
They call it loan, but it's hidden Obailout.

Thanks ram. That needed repeating but it probably fell on deaf blue ears

@RAM - I would be more concerned about FIAT's current financial situation than Ford's GOVT loan that they're paying back with interest...not a bailout hand out to FIAT/GM where tax payers lost millions!!!

If I owned a FIAT/RAM truck - I would be more worried they'll go belly up again or get bought out by another foreign automaker. Yep...a good time to sell it quick while still with some value...unless it's falling apart already (like my buddies '98 RAM 2500 truck with the dash board caving in)...what a piece of crap!!

@Lou_BC: It won't always be the same truck, sure, they won't change platforms every 6 years like Phord, or 7 years like a Chivy. But, what is it, 2018, we will see a new Ram truck?

We know the Ram 2500 can out work a "Super Duty" F-250, and keep close to a GM 2500, using progressive coils that ride better then said GM.

When will we see these on 1500?

The current RAM 9.25 rear axle, is it's 5 lugnut (vs.6) holding back the payload increase? I have a 87 D-250 parts truck, the axle rating on it is 4,880 pounds or so. Vs. 3900 pounds the 2010 4x4 quad 1500 I had, (with Light Truck tires).

So it might be just the coils, or the lugs. The airbag set up holds it up fine, but has no increase in GVWR.

Would bet it isn't the frame holding it back.

So of course, they don't need to be in a payload pissing contest, but they need more payload.

The roof needs strengthened. That holds back buyers.

People are big on the Phord turbo hype, sad they can't do much without one.

The 3.5 non turbo, anybody buy those? Why? Because Ford can't compete without a turbo? That'sounds about gutless, and what mileage, lol!

Of course, Chrysler has the 3.6 for Durango and Grand Cherokee getting more usable (lower rpm) torque, and better mileage.

Yup ram boy has a studded problem and cant tell the difference between a loan and a grant.

FIX
IT
AGAIN
TONY

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3175647/Government-orders-Fiat-Chrysler-offer-buy-500-000-Ram-pickup-trucks-customers-making-biggest-action-U-S-history.html

Recalls
Are
Many

How does one sell -1 trucks?

Honda had -1 sales? Does that mean they lost they only one they had left? Or maybe it was stolen. Hmmmmm

@Lionel
You can be concern about that matter you posted in here, it's your problem. I am not.
98 RAM , LOL. You won't find ford that old on the road.
Thanks buddy.


So where is that efficient engine ford got billions from obama for?

In the toilet covering bailout, paying slowly back.
Ford is a government company. Truth hearts, doesn't it ?



The comments to this entry are closed.