Originally Posted By: FXjohn
A tacoma is bigger than a ranger and not much smaller than a full size. I like S-10 and rangers. Believe it or not you can even get a colorado with a V8 in it now. there comes a time when you have to admit a full size makes more sense new when there's no mileage or cost difference. next dinosaur?
reg cab.
less than 7 percent of new trucks are reg cab now.
it would be cheaper to buy an older small toyota t100 and rebuild it. if that's your ideal.
It's true that there isn't a massive size difference between a Tacoma and a Tundra. But there is still a significant market for the Tacoma. Why? Because bigger isn't automatically better. Ever tried to get a 7.5ft wide truck through a 7ft gap? It doesn't work too well, at least not after you've done it...
I wish that Ford would introduce the RoW Ranger in North America. I think that they'd be surprised by the public acceptance. It is a far better truck than what we've been stuck with. The NA Ranger doesn't make the kind of sales numbers that Ford wants because the truck is simply outclassed by the competition, not because no-one wants a compact Ford pickup. The compact pickups are competitive in Latin America, despite the fact that people can also buy full-size models in those markets.
The GM mid-size trucks have also fallen behind the competition. They're not saddled with as old a structure as the Ranger, but it's not a whole lot better. At first, GM failed to get competitive numbers out of the Atlas L4 and L5 engines, leaving them short in the power wars. Then, to compensate, they installed the V8. In my estimation they would have been better served by going with the Atlas L6 which should have provided an advantage in power, without the payload penalty of the V8. But, in the end, it was all moot as the trucks had already fallen behind in other ways.
The problem the domestics have is that they fail to take the compact and mid-size market seriously. But I believe they do this deliberately, in hopes that once a potential customer sees what their offerings are like, they will automatically default to their full-size products. I think this is an error on their part. Some may be swayed to something bigger with the same badge, but most people shop a segment and not a brand.
Rarely have I found that a marques' similarly equipped full-size truck is the same price as its compact or mid-sized sister. Sure, you can find
a full-size at the same price as
a compact or mid-sized pickup. But who compares a compact or mid-sized truck loaded with all the goodies with a stripped down full-size one? Answer: NOBODY.
The death of the regular cab has been predicted before, but it all depends on the target market of the truck. Dodge realized that the Dakota customer base had no interest in the regular cab and thus the 3rd generation wasn't designed with one. Nissan saw the same thing in the market for both of their pickups. However, there
is a steady demand for regular cabs in both the commercial work truck and cab-chassis markets. There are a number of issues that can complicate installing a given body on a cab-chassis with longer BBC and shorter CA measurements. You can't just switch from using a regular cab, to an extended or crew-cab. While 7% seems like a miniscule number, do the math on just how many regular cab units that works out to in real numbers. It's not as small a market as it might seem...
