Making its debut at the 2015 Dubai Motor Show, the Fiat Fullback will be playing its first season in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa next May.
The Fullback — a rebadged Mitsubishi L200 — takes its name from the position found in rugby, soccer, and American football. Its purpose: to help Fiat break into the medium-duty pickup segment in the aforementioned EMEA market, where 675,000 units from the likes of Ford, Toyota and Mitsubishi were sold in 2014.
Fiat’s new pickup will come in single, extended, double and chassis cab configurations with three trim levels available. Payload capacity will top out at 1,100 kg (2,425 lbs), depending on configuration.
Power for Middle Eastern and North African Fullbacks will come from a 2.5-liter diesel — good for between 110 and 178 horses — and a 2.4-liter gasoline engine capable of 132 horsepower. Both engines will send their power to the back or all corners through a five-speed manual gearbox.
Engines will differ in Europe where two 2.4-liter aluminum turbodiesels will deliver 150 and 180 horses, with either six-speed manual or five-speed auto with sport mode moving the power out back or all around.
Oop! Midsize truck talk time! I’m interested to hear about how Australia doesn’t want this, and how Americans won’t use it because of chicken tax on Transit Connects. Hilux isn’t here. Can’t wait!
Also, it’s uglier than a Ssangyong, and THAT’S saying something.
Edit: And it’s got Taurus SHO wheels on it.
Just wait until the run an article about the Ranger and Bronco coming back in 2020.
Ha, I saw a link to that on Yahoo, but did not click because the reporting is no doubt incompetent. I’ll wait for Cameron to write it.
Fiesta to Thailand
Focus and C-Max to Mexico
Ranger and Bronco to Michigan
There have been reports that the Bronco will just be an Everest, but that isn’t entirely true. Ford is just starting engineering on the Bronco in Dearborn. It is intended to be a Wrangler competitor.
The Everest-is-Bronco rumors are mostly stemming from the fact that the new Bronco and the Ranger will be produced at the same plant. This implies that they’re the same model, but does not in any way confirm it. The only thing I can say with any kind of certainty is that the new Bronco will not be F-150-based. It will be interesting to see what it *will* be.
It’s too early to tell as engineering for the Bronco is in early stages. Ford is in the process of obtaining competitors’ vehicles. The #1 target is the Wrangler Rubicon.
If Ford is going to target the Wrangler they need off-road credibility in a 2 door and 4 door. It has to trigger some retro vibes. If it doesn’t hit those 2 points then it will not sell. Oh, it should be easy to modify so make that 3 points to focus upon.
It won’t be too hard for Ford to make something more reliable.
Don’t hold your breath for a 2-door Ford SUV.
@bball40dtw – I only hold my breath for VW diesels and rollin’ coal brodozers ;)
I want to see a TDI owner roll coal. Cut some holes in the trunk or something guys!
If it is Ranger based, would it be a revived Bronco II versus a real Bronco? As one of the 7 Bronco II enthusiasts out there I am good with that.
@BBall
They Ford Australia seems to be designing both. Ford has hired many new personnel and considerably expanded its design plant at Broadmeadows in Melbourne
RobertRyan,
It seems Australia is doing alot of heavy lifting in the pickup and SUV world in design and engineering.
I don’t expect Ford to bring on a real Wrangler fighter.
There is only one other company that has any chance of taking on the Wrangler and it’s not a US company.
Land Rover. I believe the most successful competition to the Wrangler is if Land Rover can design a new retro 110. It would be more reliable as well.
In the US, the Bronco is best chance at a Wrangler fighter. The Bronco is a nameplate that means something to many Americans, piques other American’s interest, and is made by a company that sells a ton of trucks. The fact that they are benchmarking the Wrangler at least shows that Ford is taking this endeavor seriously. Three or Four years ago, I would have worried that they would have put the Bronco name on a butched up Focus.
You really ought to look into stand up comedy as a career. You sure post a lot of funny stuff. This has got to be one of your best one liners yet.
“Land Rover. I believe the most successful competition to the Wrangler is if Land Rover can design a new retro 110. It would be more reliable as well.”
A modern Land Rover being reliable, that is some seriously funny stuff.
Toyota could do it, so long as it is a real 70 series based rig versus that stupid FJ Cruiser we got.
Ford Australia may very well be designing Bronco. I don’t have any info about that. I just know that the engineering team is in Dearborn.
There is a big difference between designing a vehicle and doing the CAD. Chances that Ford AU will do no more than some CAD work, or testing, if anything at all, are very low. The primary market will be North America so it will need to be designed with US standards in mind.
I just didn’t want to speculate. I don’t know what their capacity will be, but it is 100% clear that this is Dearborn’s baby. People are excited about working on the Bronco after all the F150 and SuperDuty pressure the last few years. The Expedition/Navigator is still the priority though. It’s about time to cut tooling for that (They may have already).
bball40dtw – if the Bronco is to be Ranger and/or Everest based I could see there being a benefit to having input from Australian engineers with the final work done in the USA by Dearborn engineers.
The Colorado would be a good example to use here. It was designed and engineered by Brazilians for global consumption but the USA version was reworked locally to meet domestic needs.
The initial work has started on the Bronco, in Dearborn, by a team that isn’t working on the Ranger (or at least isn’t working on it yet). The Bronco isn’t just a “reworked” Everest. It’s a new product made for the US market.
Do we know for sure it’s absolutely not Everest-based?
I’m sure it shares a bunch of stuff with the Ranger and Everest, but it’s not a rebadged and Americanized Everest. Plus, by the time the Bronco comes out, the Ranger and Everest will be at the end of their cycle. The Ranger should be new by then. Were talking 2019/2020.
If someone in Dearborn is working on the Bronco right now, they aren’t simply federalizing the Everest.
Scoutdude
See my reply above. They have built new design studios, upgraded the test track, hired at least 1000 staff. Australian Personnell, doing testing in various parts of the US and other countries
@ Lou, I seriously do not believe that it will go down that way. Dearborn will do the designing and hand it off to Ford AU to finalize the world version.
@ Robert, Yeah remember One Ford where they have indicated that pickups and SUVs will be designed in the US. They will want a cheaper version for world consumption that I’m sure they will hand off to Ford AU for part of it.
@Scoutdude,
Major Design and Testing and considerable expansion of the Aussie Design studios in Broadmeadows. They have hired over 1000 extra staff.
Australian personnel testing Evererst in many parts of the US, plus many other countries
@BBall,
Ford is not a super rich organisation. So like the US Transit being almost identical to the European one, new Bronco’s and Ranger will be very similar to what you have in the US. Remember ” One Ford” ?
Engineering for the Bronco is currently being done in the US by the same people that work on the F150, SuperDuty, and Expedetion.
@Scoutdude,
From what I gather, Ford Australia is doing the finishing touches, but Ford US has to organise the infrastructure for production in the US,
As far as Pickups and SUV’s, we have been designing the Global versions. F series and NA only SUV’s designed mainly in the US
@BBall,
Not the impression, I got from talking to a Ford Engineer. As the Bronco is a derivative of the the current Ranger, Australian team are now working on it. In fact the Australian team are doing a lot of testing of the Everest in the US
http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/2015-ford-everest-desert-engine-testing-video-30188
Arizona
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xTYOgwnDKhA
General information
http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/nine-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-ford-everest-20150730-giob28.html
The Bronco and Everest aren’t the same thing.
I hope that is a reveal and not a red herring, @bball40dtw.
Are they expected to be made in the US, is the chicken tax expected to go away, or is that TMI and we will just have to wait and see?
And any info on towing capacities?
It’s way too early for specs and so forth. The Bronco will made in Wayne, MI.
@CoreyDL
We get the slightly more powerful Diesel versions
How do they sell given their… visual deficiencies?
Ssangyong sold 77 vehicles in Australia in October 2015 (Ford sold more F-series in the US on my lunch break). Let’s not get too excited about it. They were outsold by Foton and Alfa, but did better than Chrysler and Citroen. What a weird sentence that is.
Oh sorry I thought Robert was talking about the L200 diesel. I didn’t think they sold Ssangyong in AUS though. I wouldn’t have one unless it was a MB based model with MB engine at deep discount.
CoreyDL,
I would like to see this in Australia.
Bring in vehicles of all shapes and sizes.
That SsangYong truck is gross looking.
I saw the new redesigned Mitsubishi version the other day and it looks better in person than in pictures. Still, not nearly as attractive as the Hilux, DMax or Ranger.
This would need quite a redesign (more than what the Colorado got, even) to be palatable to American buyers as the new Ram 50 (this is slightly smaller than the Dakota, and the Ram 50 was the American Mighty Max/L200).
Raising its hindquarters in estrus. Soon the pride will have new members!
At first glance I thought it was a renamed Strada. The problem with this and small trucks like the defunct Sport Trac is the box is just too short. The Tacoma double cab and Colorado have things right by offering a 6 ft long box in their crewcab pickups.
Even in the full sized truck class Ford dominated the 1/2 ton crew market for years because they offered a 5.5 and a 6.5 box. Years later we now see both Ram and GM offer the 6.5 box. In my region the 6.5 box has become the dominant configuration.
I’m sure “someone” will come on here and say most pickups are not used for work nor are they used to tow or haul anything. Those who use their trucks to carry stuff prefer the longer box. Those who don’t prefer to have the “just in case” abilities of a truck. That is no different than NRA types who say that you are better off with it and never needing it than being without and needing it.
Pickups are like porn… size matters.
I won’t say you’re wrong, because I do appreciate that almost every pickup on the US market has a crew cab/6′ or 6.5′ model, but: The fact that the F-150 SuperCrew was sold with a 5.5′ bed exclusively from 2001-2005 should be proof enough that there are more pickup buyers who appreciate a “normal” WB than constantly lament their lack of bed space. The crew cab/5.5′ bed is still the dominant configuration nationwide.
Drzhivago138 – opps, I forgot that the original SuperCrew was only 5.5 box. I stand corrected.
I don’t see many around but I see a large number of newer 5.5 and 6.5 box supercrew’s. Ford had the market because they were first out the gate. The 6.5 box was icing on the cake.
Lou,
The move to extended wheelbases has more to do with meeting CAFE than consumer demand.
A 5.5′ bed will suite 85% of what the consumer needs. Remember most are buying these in lieu of a SUV or car.
If you are not aware CAFE employs the “footprint” model to determine FE. So, more footprint, more cubic inches.
I do know people here who want a 8′ tray, because some or even yourself want does translate to all.
The 6.5′ bed also happened because customers wanted it. They had a bunch of customers with extended cab trucks with 6.5′ beds that liked that size bed. It basically costs Ford nothing to throw a longer bed on the SuperCrew, and make money on selling it over a SuperCab.
Big Al from Oz -initially CAFE increased GVW. That is why we saw 1/2 ton trucks become “heavy halfs”. Same can be said for BOF SUV’s. Pickups and BOF SUV’s initially gamed CAFE by being heavier.Physical dimensions wasn’t an issue until recently. We saw the same thing with heavy duty pickups. Diesel HD’s and even gassers were subject to less stringent mpg and emission standards due to their GVW class.
CAFE has now become “footprint” based but even short box crew 1/2 ton trucks are above the cutoff for tighter regulations. A 19 foot long truck isn’t going to have a much smaller “footprint” than a 20 ft long one.
We have seen regular cab small trucks die off due to these standards coupled with the fact that no one other than fleets and bargain hunters wanted them. Even reg cab trucks to some degree have been reported as being “at risk” due to footprint rules.
In Canada what saves regular cab trucks is the fact that tax laws say they exempt fleet driver’s from claiming their use as an employee benefit. Anything with more seats becomes a taxable benefit to the driver. There are obviously all sorts of loopholes.
What I want tends to coincide with at least 1/2 of the pickup market.
What you want is going to be around 10% of 10% i.e. a diesel in a small truck in relation to the full sized market.
Given that every RCLB full-size pickup is either the same or only slightly shorter in footprint than a crew cab/5.5′ or ext cab/6.5′ bed model, RCLBs aren’t in danger of getting discontinued due to CAFE anytime soon. RCSB may be, however. As of the 2014 redesign, Toyota doesn’t even offer a RCSB Tundra.
Drzhivago138 – a story surfaced on a truck site a few years ago about this topic.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/04/is-the-regular-cab-pickup-doomed.html
If you combine emissions footprint with a dwindling market base and poor margins, there isn’t a strong business case for the building and selling of regular cab pickups.
Small volume products like the Tundra obviously are more likely to take a hit than large volume sellers like the reg cab F-series. Since Ford is going to share cabs that helps amortize regular cab costs.
I remember that. I followed PUTC quite closely back in the dark ages. Man, what an awful site.
RCLB half-tons are almost entirely propped up by fleet sales, though I actually see quite a few XLT/SLT/LT HD regular cabs for personal/farm use. In the HD market, regular cab still makes some sense because lighter truck=higher towing and payload ratings, and the WB is the shortest you can get, which is a boon out in the field.
Drzhivago138 -unfortunately there is insufficient blog moderation at PUTC. It is a fanboy cesspool.
Didn’t Fiat develop a different trucklet for South America? Why not just use that? What am I missing here?
What you’re missing, Speed3, is two different sizes. The Fullback is notably larger than the Strada as the Colorado is notably larger than the S-10 (or the South American Montana) for Chevy.
The Montana is called the S-10 in certain markets? I was unaware of that.
So what was the S-10 called in South America? Was it even there? Your attempt as snark came across as something far, far different.
I think we may have both misunderstood the other’s comment. No snark was intended.
Accepted, Dr.Z. And apologies for misunderstanding.
No problem. I think I understand now what you meant by your original comment, so mine looks pretty foolish in retrospect anyway.
What is with this ridiculous tall cab crap that the ROW loves so much, it’s senseless to destroy any design potential and increase the body sway that much for no purpose.
I know, right? Headroom is soooo overrated.
Comfort and visibility too.
Gotta have room for big hair and 10 gallon cowboy hats.
All kidding aside – unless you got to cough hack gasp unibody or have a really really low slung frame then there is no way around it.
BTW, Hummer has a ridiculously huge centre tunnel that kills interior room. How is that better?
While an F-150 based Bronco wouldn’t be a true Wrangler fighter, it would maximize profits. Better to have an F-150 based Bronco than not at all.
But it’s also necessary to attract the Border Patrol, Forestry, BLM, law enforcement, etc, ‘fleet’ demo. A bathtub and shower curtain on 4 wheels cannot.
I would love an F150 based Bronco, but Ford knows I’ll just buy a smaller Bronco or Expedition instead.
That center contains a transmission and a transfer case, it has purpose, there’s no purpose to making a truck taller than it is wide.
Also that’s ridiculous to say there’s no way around it, Americans have done it for years with almost every BOF vehicle that has been produced.
Obviously the H1 and H2 both prove this, but I’m sure those examples aren’t sound enough for some, so how about the GMT SUVs, or the Tacoma.
It should go without saying but if we go pre-90s almost every SUV marketed exhibited this trait.
Hummer – GMT SUV’s are based on pickups. They just happen to be wider due to being full sized.
The Tacoma gets panned for having an uncomfortably low seat and its cab doesn’t sit lower than a Colorado.
My new 4Runner manages fine being wider than it is tall, and the wrangler just manages to pass that itself.
More importantly than the numbers, neither of them look deformed and tippy, and they both have respectable ground clearance.
Can’t comment on the wrangler, but my 4R w/o sunroof has plenty of head room.
Basically my point being, these vehicles can be manufactured in such a way to not put so much emphasis on how high they can separate the roof from the floor, there’s no need to feel like the truck sitting next to you at a stoplight is going to tip over if a car taps the side of the truck.
Headroom doesn’t seem to be a problem with any of the American full size trucks, going back to the 60s at least. Headroom is not a legitimate excuse for a vehicle to be narrow and tall, when past vehicles never had this problem. Look at the last American Ranger, that certainly wasn’t afflicted.
You are my Antichrist.
Tall is All. You gets in easier, you sees more better.
Who the hell has to worry about body lean in a *truck*? Just slow down for corners, you’re in a freakin’ truck.
As much as some of the B&B would hate the thought, go test drive an old H2, and take it through a turn with some speed, a Miata it is not, but width is where it’s at.
I just don’t get the fascination with sitting on top of a truck and not “in” the truck. Which is not to say I don’t love tons of glass, the lower the belt line the better. Not to mention the tall cabin gives way for a windshield to be a foot in front of your face, and an A pillar that requires a good look around every time you come around a corner.
This Triton based pickup is the third largest selling ute at the moment here in Australia.
They are noticeably smaller than the competition and do look rather odd in how the rear pickup tub appears to be cantilevered over the rear axle.
The biggest bonus with these are the value they represent compared to the competition. Pricing is what sells them, which is how FCA operate.
Off road they are relatively competent, but not in the same league as the Ranger or Hilux.
In one review the Triton was rated above the new Hilux. Remember this Triton is just a spruced up version of the previous model.
From a reliability perspective they are quite reliable, very un FCA or even Big Three like from that perspective.
Best selling in the UK too.
God that beltline is high.
Is this BOF?
Yep. It is BOF.
The Mitsubishi version looks all melty.
But I thought BOF has zero advantages over unibody? Does this mean Mitsubishi is Zero?
Who said BOF has zero advantages over unibody?
There’s a two for one special on puns today which you may have missed.
Now I feel Less Than Zero.
28-Cars-Later – does Godwin’s law apply to Imperial Japan?
That was a brilliant pun BTW.
@bball
Wanna go for a ride?
youtube.com/watch?v=NBkjcvNztKQ
@lou
Not sure. Thanks.
One of my favorite Smashing Pumpkins’ songs. Mellon Collie is such a good album. My favorite Smashing Pumpkins song, Drown, wasn’t even on one of their albums. It was on the Singles Soundtrack. Now that it a he!! of a soundtrack. Every song is great.
I’m a fan, but not a huge fan. The established alternative bands such as Smashing Pumpkins, Foo Fighters, Nirvana, and Pearl Jam were the one playing in my youth, although Garbage was the best even if they came out just a bit later.
Aside from Pearl Jam, is it just a coincidence Butch Vig had a part either on the stage or in the studio in every one of those great bands?
Vig is certainly a great producer. Although I’d argue that all those bands made better albums without him. Maybe Nevermind is Nirvana’s best album, but I prefer In Utero. Regardless, he helped define the breakthrough albums for both Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins as well as the Seattle sound.
I was always more of a Soundgarden and Alice in Chains fan. Superunknown is my grunge album of choice.
I’d like to see some evidence to support the argument.
Soundgarden is great, never an AIC fan although the grungy neighbor up the street sure was (Dirt was an ok album though).
Now during this trip down memory lane I’ve got The Prodigy stuck in my head. Thanks for that /s.
Mellon Collie > Siamese Dream and Gish
In Utero and Insecticide > Nevermind
Those bands may not find their sound without Vig and probably learned quite a bit about production from him (especially Billy Corgan).
My favorite AIC album is the Jar of Flies EP.
The Prodigy suck.
I also prefer Mellon Collie to Siamese Dream, its been a while since I’ve played Gish but I’ll cede to you based on the fact you’re a bigger fan than I.
I’m playing Insecticide now simply because its been a long time since I played it vs Nevermind and I forgot its a compilation album when I noticed this on wiki:
“Madison, WI: Smart Studios (April 2, 1990 – April 6, 1990)
The sessions for the planned second Sub Pop album.
Song: “Dive”
Chad Channing – drums
Butch Vig – producer”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incesticide
“”Dive” and “Sliver” were released on the “Sliver” single in 1990.”
So I think a better comparison is Nevermind vs In Utero and of those two the latter was intentionally meant to be the opposite:
“Nirvana intended the record to diverge significantly from the polished production of its previous album, Nevermind (1991). To capture a more abrasive and natural sound, the group hired engineer Steve Albini to record In Utero during a two-week period in February 1993 at Pachyderm Studio in Cannon Falls, Minnesota.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Utero_(album)
So if you say to me I like In Utero better, I’ll nod and reply I prefer Nevermind. I think because the albums are supposed to be opposite its difficult to judge which is “better” unless you break it down by criteria. So were they better off without Vig? If the direction Cobain was taking the band was to some new raw, raspy, uber grunge level, I’d say yes IF that’s what was going down. Sadly we didn’t get to see the next page.
“The Prodigy suck.”
:(
The important thing is Vig got the three guys in a room, busted out “Nevermind”, and broke open the flannel grunge dam. He also imparted a lot of knowledge onto Billy Corgan. Corgan could have used Vig after Mellon Collie though. He got too obsessed with production details and didn’t focus on music enough.
You are a Prodigy fan?
Love me some sound garden. I kind of like Prodigy not that they are a great band but when your in the right mood and need a shot of angry energy it does the trick. Plus I had my groomsman and the bridesmaids walk out to a instrumental version of smack my bi^%& up as an inside joke (best man was big into electronic music)
Back in the “old days” when I worked the Fleet desk, medium duty referred to 10,000GVW and up. What gives?
That’s still the same. It may be different for overseas markets, though.
Sergio noticed a marketing opportunity when Toyota was taking heat for vehicles being supplied to terrorists.
As for the truck, I like that Mitsubishi is stil making trucks somewhere