For years now, the compact pickup market has withered away due to the chicken-and-egg dynamic of poor sales and little investment in new models. Ford’s Ranger and Chevy’s Colorado are scheduled to die off this year, and with the new global Ranger not coming to America, Mahindra’s endless delays and weak mileage ratings, and no signs of other small truck investment, the segment looks ready to die. But, as it turns out, 2011 might not be the year that kills the compact pickup: tflcar.com reports from the Chicago Auto Show that
a well placed source within the company is that Chrysler will announce a new entry-level light pickup this year.
Since Fiat took over at Chrysler, there have been rumors of a Ram-branded unibody pickup… but rumors of a Jeep Wrangler-based pickup have been rampant as well. Whatever format a new Chrysler compact pickup comes in, here’s hoping it inspires other companies to bring out a rugged, fuel-efficient, compact pickup for the US market. You paying attention GM?
I hope they do bring out a small pick up with the option for a small displacement diesel as well.
With any luck, they will build something like the VW Amarok.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/12/vw-to-bring-amarok-pickup-to-america-if-we-promise-to-buy-100k-units/
” You paying attention GM?”
GM would be much better off figuring out how to stick a nice little fuel economy minded Isuzu I4 turbo diesel in the GMT-900 1/2 ton chassis than designing & building a new compact PU. If it could achieve 20 in town and high 20’s on the road they wouldn’t be able to build them fast enough. Of course a PU truck like this would also kill sales of the larger, fuel guzzling, diesel 1 tons.
Mileage is only part of the equation. The 900 is simply too large, even in half-ton guise.
If I were in the market for a compact truck to supplement (not replace) my diesel one-ton, it would be for its size, not its mileage. This is the basic point that the “just buy a 1/2-ton” crowd don’t get. Herding a fullsize pickup around in traffic and parking lots is a PitA, and unnecessary for many of the tasks a pickup is needed for. We want SMALL trucks.
Chrysler’s got 3 current ‘plans’ for a compact pickup: The Dakota replacement, the Euro-market Ram 50 (May or not be sold in NA) and the Gladiator. All 3 will probably happen eventually.
I would welcome a rebirth of the compact pick-up. I’m talking about the size of the Datsun and Toyota pickups that were available in the late 1960s through about 1980. These little trucks were fun to drive, would carry their own weight (not rated, but it worked), were economical to operate, cheap to buy, etc. etc.
The trouble for companies like the BIG 3 with introducing compact pickups is that doing so will cannibalize their biggest money makers. The compact will have to be enough cheaper to justify the perceived/actual lost utility over just buying an F-150. The price point for a base model had better be in the same neighborhood as cars like the Nissan Versa and cheaply optioned Chevy Malibu.
The most interesting possibility in this segment, to me at least, would be a Prius pickup. Sell it as a bare-bones stripper for about 15-17k with a quarter ton capacity in a 6-foot bed. Offer a nicely designed shell to put on the bed. Have a couple of up-market versions for people who just have to have a great stereo and heated seats. They’d sell like crazy. Toyota seems poised to flesh out the Prius brand with additional models, and this would be a great way to go.
A stripper isn’t that much cheaper to build than a truck/car with all the bells and whistles. hey only makes sense to sell them cheap because the development cost is carried more by the expensive versions of the model. If you don’t sell the expensive version than the stripper has to be more expensive.
ps. a prius pickup would cost about the same to make as a prius so don’t expect it to be much cheaper
I also think a small truck is a great idea, but who would be the target market? If vehicles are getting bigger because of obesity, and more older people are buying small cars than younger ones, then I guess the target market for compact pickups would have to be slim older people?
Maybe higher gas prices will create its own market.
As to who would buy a new generation small pickup? I would.
I’m 60 year old, 5’11”, 175 pounds. I’ve owned, over the last two decades, two first generation Dakotas, one S-10, and now have a 2003 Ranger.
I use the pickup for: hauling garbage (I live in the country, there is no local garbage service besides the homeowner himself); hauling motorcycles when necessary (and I’m not talking small dirt bikes, either); the usual trips to Lowe’s for building supplies, gardening stuff, etc.; hauling bicycles (just got back from a major swap meet in MD where I sold a number of restored bikes). Grocery shopping. Occasional moving of large, semi-heavy objects. In an average month, there is a load that would be uncarryable by an automobile or SUV due to size, weight, convenience of loading/unloading, or filth on at least four days out of that month.
I don’t need four wheel drive. Now that my wife can no longer drive, I no longer need (or particularly want) an automatic transmission. I do want something with interior appointments a step or two above a ‘fleet special’, but definitely do not want leather, satnav, heated seats, video screens, or anything fancier than power windows, for that matter.
And I especially do not want what passes for a full size pickup truck nowadays. I don’t care that a current full size pickup can probably match what my 4.0 V-6 in the Ranger is giving me (19mpg on the work commute when I use it, 21mpg on the trip I just took to MD) – I hate the size that pickups have evolved into. I was mildly disappointed to find that the ’03 Ranger is something like 3-4″ higher than the ’96 S-10 that preceded it, but realize that that’s the way pickups are going (and it doesn’t make life easy for my wheelchair-bound wife, either).
I want small. And from the looks of things, unless Chrysler comes riding to the rescue, my next pickup is probably going to be my last – a 2010/2011 Ranger, Canyon or Colorado. Oh yeah, I’m a neanderthal. I won’t own a Japanese pickup.
By the way Chrysler, keep the name Dakota. That truck kept a pretty good reputation. After my first two, the only reason I switched was because the wife insisted on something smaller. And then you went and got bigger with the third generation.
We have 3 S-10s in the family, so I agree.
I would love to see a reincarnated first generation S-10, with a modern 4-cylinder and manual transmission.
Not too likely from what I hear from GM and Ford. So if it’s Chrysler, so be it….
As a slim older person I say “bring it!” The fat people can have “mid” (ha!) and full size trucks.
Son of Rampage? (Says in the chart up there it will be a unit body product. BTW an old fella at church drives a real nice “last of the Elcaminos” to church as his winter beater. Still think that would be a great product to see again. I’m thinking GM 3.6V6 FTW.)
The industry is killing off the small pickup because they make more money on the larger pickups. To hell with the customers who still want a small pickup. You want a small pickup?, buy one of these stripped down bigger pickups instead. I’m sorry but I’ll be forced to buy used Rangers instead of wasting my money on larger F150’s. The only reason the Ranger quit selling is bee it didn’t keep up with the times and is dated. A brand new spectacular Ranger would sell like hotcakes. And the Australian Ranger is not that spectacular Ranger.
Hard to compete with Tacoma, and there are better choices available than a smallish PU. I’ve wanted another PU but don’t need a full size. Problem is: a) They’re two seaters, so their utility is limited, b) the 2wdTacoma I had years ago was a liability in any but perfectly dry weather, and c) an awd CR-V was a much better choice. Only thing I miss about my PU is sitting on the tailgate drinking a beer after a day of fly fishing.
Simple solution…buy a Honda Element as it has more utility than the CR-V has and it has the pickup tailgate in the back which is great as a bench seat or table / workbench.
The only pick-up Fiat makes is the Strada and as far as I know its a sub-compact. Now that would be interesting.
To me the old Dakota was basically what a 1/2 pickup should be (not a compact). But the constant growth in weight and height now that you cannot load a normal pickup truck and need “man steps” just to get in the bed of one nowadays. There’s a huge hole in this lineup and if gas does go up to $4 a gallon as they predict this year – whoever has an entry in this niche will corner the market (Toyota seems to be the one with a still somewhat updated compact pickup).
Jeep Gladiator!
I would love to replace my POS F-150 with a decent small pickup like what Toyota and Nissan used to sell. Look at the giant sizes of these trucks today. As for teh ranger and the S-10, lack of real competition shows in the lackluster designs and average build quality.
The Ranger has been starved to the point that there has been any significant power train development since 2002. For example, the current F-150 with the new 3.7 V6 has an EPA window sticker that claims 17 mpg city / 23 mpg highway, while the Ranger with its archaic 4.0 is rated at 15/20.
The Ranger’s decline to legacy status has been abetted by the divergence of the Explore away from its truckish roots and the fact there is no longer a small rear wheel drive van in Fords line-up. Toyota on the other hand still has its 4-Runner sharing drive trains with the Tacoma.
It would be pretty useless for GM to come out with a small pickup. When was the last time that GM was the class leader in any smaller, entry-level vehicle? The original Chevy II was quite crude compared to the Ford Falcon. The Chevette drove in the shadow of the Omni/Horizon. . . .
Chrysler should treat the small pickup market the same way it has the convertible market — a small but meaningful niche that is worth catering to even when others bail out. But don’t bother with a Wrangler pickup — it’s now too big and heavy, and the body is too crude for highway driving (e.g., the flat, upright windshield).
I hope they do a jeep, because I can get a base Silverado for high teens. not much room to price a smaller one below that. But a Jeep Comanche 2 would be more differentiated.
Rampage or Gladiator, if they get it to market and get it right (diesel?) they’ll win big.
Just don’t forget the 2wd extended cab models.
If Hyundai would morph KIA into it’s “GMC” equivalent to Hyundai’s Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac and sell small pickups & Dodge rampage/VW pickup style haulers here with genuine fuel efficiency, they would sell like…well like Hyundai’s do already. People are STILL paying a premium for VW Diesel trucks, just check out the bidding wars on eBay. On the topic, the Nitro is already ugly enough to be the next small pickup for Dodge, just do the el Camino thing to it. At least it would be fuel efficient.
If you mentally take a Sawzall to a Nitro and slap round headlights on it it looks almost like the 2002 Dodge M80 concept.
http://www.conceptcarz.com/view/photo/29433,4600/2002-Dodge-M80-Concept_photo.aspx
“Mileage is only part of the equation. The 900 is simply too large, even in half-ton guise”
Go to a boating or RV forum and make that statement. People who own their trucks for towing and have families would give a completely different opinion. I towed boats and snowmobile trailers with a ’93 4WD Toyota compact PU for 11 years. Eventually I needed a bigger truck.
Adding a small pickup to your lineup is something akin to adding ugly psycho women and unemployed old bald men to your dating website. It a market niche, sure, but nobody’s interested.
Nobody who owns a small truck really wants a bigger one. If they did they would switch. Take a gander at the dating site known as Craiglist and see what 15 YO toyota small pickups are selling for.
It’s amazing that Toyota basically abandoned this segment to make bloated big trucks. They perfected the breed and still sell the Hi-Lux everywhere but here.
I don’t consider my 2006 Tacoma 2wd extended cab bloated . In fact having long legs I appreciate the extra leg room over the 94 SR5 I had before it and the 2.7 liter 4 in it has more get up and go than the weakass 3 liter head gasket eating 6 from the 94 . Didn’t like the resin bed at first but am used to it now and appreciate a bed that will never rust out . It gets 26 mpg on the freeway and I could probably easily best that by at least 2 mpg by taking off the rear snows and slowing down a bit from 75-80 . Everyone romanticizes the 70s- 90s Toyota pickups , but to be honest they were underpowered with cramped interiors and rusted out easily . Don’t knock the new ones until you’ve tried them . I mean a roomier truck with a rust proof bed with better power , decent gas mileage and people are saying ewww who wants that ? Me want rusty underpowered truck for short people ! BTW the Hilux was reclassified as a mid size pickup in 2005 when it increased in size – looks just as big as a Tacoma in the pics on Wikipedia .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Hilux
I mean a roomier truck with a rust proof bed with better power , decent gas mileage and people are saying ewww who wants that ? Me want rusty underpowered truck for short people !
Exactly. There are three kinds of people who show up wanting the 3/4 scale trucks back but as with most internet product activism none of them would actually buy one.
1) People who used to drive one 20 years ago and dream of reliving their carefree youth. That dream invariably leaves out how cramped, noisy and slow that youth was because they have every oppurtunity to relive it in a Ranger yet none of them do.
2) People who still drive the one they did 20 years ago, often on the 2nd or 3rd used market replacement, crow about its frugality, and are emotionally attached to it. These people don’t want to spend $20,000 on a new vehicle. Most of them don’t want a new vehicle at all.
3) Greenshirts who disapprove of adult sized vehicles on principle. These people actually drive small FWD cars and have no personal interest in trucks of any size.
Take the political statements away and the people left wanting a practical truck buy a Tacoma just like you did.
Yep , not to mention the base Ranger costs over 1K more than the bigger base Tacoma (17,935 to 16,365) . I see posts on motorcycle forums all the time saying if they brought that Kawasaki W800 retro bike over it it would sell like crazy . But they had a W650 with the same retro looks that they tried to sell over here in 2000-2001 and no one bought it . So why would they bring the newer version over ? Some motorcycles like the Yamaha Super Tenere and Honda CB1000R are being brought over in limited numbers and available for pre-order only so dealers don’t get stuck with huge inventories of them when big talkers turn out to be exactly that . But I can’t ever see that happening with something as complex as a car or truck unless it was an ultra expensive exotic .
“It a market niche, sure, but nobody’s interested.” Ford Rangers and Isuzu Colorado’s sell quite well around here for a market niche that nobody is interested in. The problem with compacts is the fact that there is small profit in them vs full size as far as manufacturers are concerned. Japanese platforms are frequently updated since what the US calls compacts are the norm in the rest of the world.
Not true. The Colorado doesn’t sell well anywhere and the the Ranger isn’t much better. Total sales for 2010 are 25,000 and 55,000 for the Colorado and Ranger respectively. Ford sells that many full size trucks in a good month. In fact if you add together all of the small and mid-size trucks from every manufacturer in North America you still wouldn’t come close to the sales of just the F150.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/the-ultimate-guide-to-us-pickup-truck-sales-in-2010.html
I suspect Chrysler will end up with the same calculus Ford tried with the F-100. By the time you design a compact truck to fit the specifications customers say they want, you basically end up with something that’s just as expensive and thirsty as a full-size, and then your customers will just buy an F-150.
A Renger replacement makes even less sense with an eco-boosted F150 theoretically getting the same ballpark fuel economy.
Ford’s logic on this subject is maddening to Ranger and other compact truck owners everywhere: If you need a truck, there’s a “fuel efficient” (23 mpg) V6 F150 fullsize on the market now. If you can’t put up with that horrendous fuel mileage, then you obviously would be better off hauling mulch, garbage and everything else in a Fiesta. Obviously.
I hope Dodge keeps the Dakota name. It has been an ugly, oversized duckling for the last few years, but its credibility as a decent do-anything truck is still salvageable. I was kinda fond of the early to mid-’90s Dakotas, despite their horrendous fuel economy compared to the competition. They were slightly larger than any of the Rangers of S-10s of their time, so that made up for the mileage somewhat. I remember Grandpa having a regular cab ’92 Dakota with a 318 V8 and automatic trans. He pulled far too much weight far too many times with that truck, but still it soldiers on at least one rebuilt engine and two rear ends later with nearly 300,000 miles on it in the hands of its second (or possibly third or fourth by now) owner. I still see it around town every now and then.
Rumors of Nissan bringing back a truck more along the lines of their old Hardbody (a truck near and dear to my heart) are also circulating. Dollars to doughnuts it’ll only be available as a “King Cab” or “Crew Cab” if they ever make it, though. I saw an aftermarket company who turned the Nissan Cube into a pickup truck, which was an interesting concept. I forwarded it to the Nissan Cube Facebook fan page and told them to build it. I’d seriously consider replacing my Ranger with one of those if they could build in enough utility (quarter ton capacity? six foot bed?) to make it worthwhile.
As a current ’02 V8 Dakota Quadcab owner I’ll be keeping my eye on this, but doubt anything will come of it.
I don’t want anything bigger, in fact I could go back down to Ranger size. What I do want: good mileage, is 20 city / 25 highway too much to ask? Tons of torque for towing, this is easy just drop a turbo diesel in. Basic interior, no leather, no GPS (got an iPhone for that), no power seats or other “fluff”. However paddle shifters would be nice on a “sport” model, think Ranger Splash. Extra cab and/or quad cab configuration. 2WD model with “normal” ground clearance for easy entry / exit and bed loading. Unibody is fine as long as the towing isn’t compromised too badly, needs to haul 7,000lbs which should not be an issue if they give it diesel power and big 4 wheel disc brakes.
I had a S10 back in 1983 -it was a king cab with a 2.8 v6, 120 hp and 4×4. I remember getting 20 mpg with it and it was a good little truck. You can’t tell me that they can’t build something about that size with better engine/trans/etc now. Would it sell? I think so, with the Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Toyota boys all trying to have the biggest 1/2 ton, it gets to – where the hell do you park these damn things! I had a 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 4×4 w/hemi and I had the worst time parking that big bitch – and don’t get me started on “modern” parking decks.
People that need a truck for some weekend work or light stuff would welcome a smaller truck if it had the newest technolgy added in. Think of a Ranger with the 300 hp v6 out of the Mustang!
OK, but none possibilities for the compact truck are any good. Or to put it another way, none of the possibilities save one are really fuel-efficient or compact.
The first possibility I’ve heard is a minivan-based unibody, possibly like the crewcab Rampage. Now, this means it will have no off-road ability, reasonable hauling, some towing, good ride, but would be fairly expensive, just like the midsizers we have right now and just like the Ridgeline. Oh yeah, and it wouldn’t be much smaller than the midsizers, either. Mileage would be about 17/25, just above the F-150’s 17/23 with a 3.7 V6. Now, if somebody’s looking at trucks and the fullsize gets just 2 mpg less than a “midsize”, why would I buy the midsize?
Second possibility is the Jeep truck, and this one is even worse. Sure you get the off-road ability and it would be cool. But you get a bad ride, mediocre hauling and towing, and atrocious fuel economy. Forget Ranger mileage with this one.
The third possibility, which seems less and less likely by the day, is to import the Fiat Strada Adventure Locker. This is probably the best possibility, but also has the most compromises. You’ll get great mileage, all-wheel-drive with limited-slip diff, low-slung stance, with a mediocre ride but nothing as bad as the Jeep truck.
I don’t see potential in any of these. If I wanted a Jeep, I’d just go with the Wrangler, and if I wanted a pickup I’d go with the Ram, or Tacoma, which already has the off-road cred and the mileage. The minivan truck would be expensive, and the Fiat Adventure Locker would have third-world syndrome like the Colorado, where third-world design meets first-world expectations.
It’ll be the Jeep though. The easiest way to build a compact truck is to take a small body-on-frame platform, chop out the last two seats and add a bed. It’ll just be another branch of the Wrangler genes, like the Unlimited.
It may be a rebadged Fiat, as according to several South American websites, Fiat’s Brazilian division is currently developing a compact pickup, known as “Stradao” (or Big Strada).