Ford Gives Up On Compact Pick Up Trucks - Nissan Stays

[Rogue]

I think this is a dumb move by Ford, especially since they outsold Nissan, AND they have existing compact pick up platforms.  Put a diesel in those compacts and they have a winner (that may poach F150 sales).  WTF is Ford thinking?  
 

Nissan expects to gain as Ford exits compact pickups
Source: Automotive News
Published: 01.06.2012
Nissan North America believes there is life in the compact pickup market that Ford Motor Co. is leaving behind. Especially now that Ford is leaving it behind. "We're really the beneficiary of Ford pulling out of the segment," says Al Castignetti, Nissan Division's U.S. sales boss. "We felt it was an opportunity to capture market share and we went after it last year, and we went after it without increasing incentives." Nissan began fanning its Frontier compact pickup sales last summer, and the push helped boost Nissan to the biggest U.S. sales year in its history. The brand sold 944,073 cars and trucks in 2011, up 17 percent from 2010. The Frontier sold 51,700 units last year, up 28 percent from 2010. Ford announced its intention to exit the compact pickup segment last year, and built its last U.S. Ranger in December in St. Paul, Minn. Ford remains in the segment in other world markets, relying on compact pickups built in South America, Thailand and South Africa. Despite its lack of enthusiasm for compact pickups, Ford outsold Nissan in the segment last year, selling 70,832 Rangers, also a 28 percent uptick from 2010. But unlike Nissan, Ford remains king of the full-sized pickup segment with its big-selling F series. Last year, Ford sold nearly 585,000 full-sized pickups, while Nissan's full-sized Titan pickup sold fewer than 22,000 units. To step up awareness for the Frontier, Nissan created the truck's first ad campaign in four years, Castignetti says. The campaign promotes the Frontier as a less expensive alternative to full-sized pickups. "We got our dealers reinvigorated on the truck and got our marketing out there," he says. "We're having great success with it."

[veefer800canuck]

RIP Ranger.  

Mine lives on, sitting faithfully outside, waiting to go on another adventure. Or just a trip to the store.

[Thundergod]

YEA NISSAN.

2007 Nissan Frontier Crew Cab NISMO.

Best Truck EVER.
Here is a recent photo when we went to the museum and all of the parking was taken....
Well all of the CAR parking. There were several mounds of snow in parking spots--

1...2...3....RESCUE DAD! We had front row parking. A few people gave us thumbs up as we walked away from the truck-- they were still searching for parking.




AND that is just one of the reasons I bought a truck....

Ford is making a bad mistake.

[Justin]

1...2...3....RESCUE DAD! We had front row parking. A few people gave us thumbs up as we walked away from the truck-- they were still searching for parking.

Those weren't  thumbs  

[phoenix]

I sooooo wanted a Frontier a few years ago, but I couldn't get waited on when I went to the dealership. They weren't busy, they were just not interested in working. In the end I got a Ranger. That was a disappointment.

And I cannot understand how those full size trucks sell in huge numbers. Sure, they are nice. But holy shit do they cost a medium sized fortune.

[Mr.Black]

Just so you know, the new F-150s get better mileage than the Ranger. they just cost a whole bunch more.

[Thundergod]

I don't understand the full size truck market....unless you work outside for a living doing all different kinds of construction.

Midsize and compact trucks are a perfect size for the majority of the people. Ive been very happy with the half-bed. We have loaded it to overflowing and towed trailers and we have
had plenty of power left on tap. I bought this as a camping truck-- some hill climbing jeep trails but no serious rock crawling.

I almost bought the Jeep Rubicon 4 Door, but then I realized picking up a load of mulch, or throwing a dirt bike in the back would be impossible.

FORD survived because the shifted to smaller cars and more economical vehicles...now they are dropping the midsize trucks? If anything they should scrap the current Ranger and update it from the wheels up.

[birdrunner]

Just so you know, the new F-150s get better mileage than the Ranger. they just cost a whole bunch more.

Ford hasn't done a single thing to the Ranger in how many years?

Same engine, same stlye, same lousy mileage, the only thing changed was the price.

No wonder it didn't sell "big".   If I wanted a 15 yr old design, I'd buy a used truck.

[sodapop6620]

I think calling the Ranger and what ever Chevy has, a mid size truck is just wrong.  I tried both of them the went with the Dakota.  But now the Dakota is bloated.

I agree if the manufactures drop a decent diesel in them they would start selling again.

[CLAY]

I think calling the Ranger and what ever Chevy has, a mid size truck is just wrong.  I tried both of them the went with the Dakota.  But now the Dakota is bloated.

I agree if the manufactures drop a decent diesel in them they would start selling again.

This.  But I can't quite bring myself to buy a Dodge again.  It's looking like a high-mileage F150 crewcab when the Dakota goes (she rusting quickly these days).  I need the pickup for all the stuff I do- the Chevy small truck is teeny in the back seat area- hardly room for adults.  The Dakota ta least has a real back seat.

[JonS]

I think calling the Ranger and what ever Chevy has, a mid size truck is just wrong.  I tried both of them the went with the Dakota.  But now the Dakota is bloated.

I agree if the manufactures drop a decent diesel in them they would start selling again.

When I needed a truck, it was between the Ranger and the Dakota. The Dodge was bigger by just enough that I bought that instead. A full size would have been nice, but I wasn't willing to pay the large amount required. Now, I really don't need the Dakota, so Frontier, you're the one.

[jay547]

YEA NISSAN.

2007 Nissan Frontier Crew Cab NISMO.

Best Truck EVER.

which engine what kind of HONEST mileage are you getting in that truck?

i'll be looking for a replacement late next summer. i currently have a 97 f-150 with over 272k  relatively trouble-free miles. i would like to go smaller than full size if the mileage makes it worth it. if not, i'll stick with another f-150. the only others i will consider are the frontier and the tacoma.

[veefer800canuck]

As for the better mileage thing: I just drove my ranger to work yesterday because I got called in to work unexpectedly.

It was $18.00 in fuel for the round trip of 142 kilometers. 4.0 v-6, 225,000 km on the truck.

With the work truck, 2011 gmc half ton, 5.3L with variable cylinder management, etc. 135,000 km on the truck.

Same route, same distance, same speed, same driver, the GMC uses $26-$27 dollars of fuel, I've checked it myself. And the GMC Has used that same amount of fuel on the same route everyday, since new.

[Rogue]

Ford sold about 70k Ranger in 2011, which was the largest slice of the compact truck market.  Maybe twice that of Nissan.

In the same year, Ford sold close to 1M F150 pick ups!  That's right!  Almost 1 million!  

Not sure what some of you are saying about how much the F150 cost.  I just came back from the Ford dealership and they had half a dozen F-150's in there costing $22k.  Albeit these were basic "Work Truck" models but they were nicely equipped with V8's and automatics.  It's a truck so must buyers have power windows/door locks, Keyless entry, leather, DVD, chrome, and all the accoutrements that are usually reserved for luxury cars? That's why many F-150's cost $35k+ because people think they have to load them up with unnecessary shit on a utility vehicle.  If I were in the market for a Pick Up truck I would be all over those work truck models.  

[David Morrow]

I think this is a dumb move by Ford, especially since they outsold Nissan, AND they have existing compact pick up platforms.  Put a diesel in those compacts and they have a winner (that may poach F150 sales).  WTF is Ford thinking?  

I note that you said that for "outsold" Nissan. That only means vehicle volume but not profit per vehicle. One of the problems with the Big 3's thinking prior to 2 out of 3 going bankrupt is that they believed volume would equate to bottom line profit and hence all those rebates you used to see. I give them credit for knowing their products and markets better than you and me and if this is what they have decided to do, I suspect that it's a well thought  through move with way more information than any of us have.

[JonS]

Ford sold about 70k Ranger in 2011, which was the largest slice of the compact truck market.  Maybe twice that of Nissan.

In the same year, Ford sold close to 1M F150 pick ups!  That's right!  Almost 1 million!  

Not sure what some of you are saying about how much the F150 cost.  I just came back from the Ford dealership and they had half a dozen F-150's in there costing $22k.  Albeit these were basic "Work Truck" models but they were nicely equipped with V8's and automatics.  It's a truck so must buyers have power windows/door locks, Keyless entry, leather, DVD, chrome, and all the accoutrements that are usually reserved for luxury cars? That's why many F-150's cost $35k+ because people think they have to load them up with unnecessary shit on a utility vehicle.  If I were in the market for a Pick Up truck I would be all over those work truck models.  

I just checked Autotrader and found one truck that I would think about. New Ford F150 XLT  $30,179. The extras I would not buy without are 4X4 and extended cab. Comes with 6speed auto tranny and V6. That's better than I thought.

[Joey Stalin]

I always said, something the size of an extended cab Ranger or an older Tacoma (the new ones are huge), with a ~2.0 liter turbodiesel engine would sell like hotcakes. And you know what? Toyota has that exact truck in other parts of the world, and it sells like hot cakes. It's called the Hilux.

[J-Mac]

I had a Ranger a couple of years ago, and it got horrid mileage. It also had a very cheap feel to it.
I traded it in on an 09 F150, and have never looked back. The newer Fords are amazing, and worth every penny IMHO.
Mine has the 4.6 and gets better mileage than the 4.0 Ranger did. Those new eco boost engines haul arse! V6 twin turbo doesn't mess around.

[Snowbird]

Just so you know, the new F-150s get better mileage than the Ranger. they just cost a whole bunch more.

If Rangers get the same mileage as my Ecoboost, they are pathetic. I've yet to break 13 mpg in normal use.

I don't understand the full size truck market....unless you work outside for a living doing all different kinds of construction.

Towing.

But what I don't get is why all the new full size trucks have to be as physically large as they are. They could be somewhat smaller and still be capable tow vehicles.

[NoGear]

In Iraq we had a bunch of European Ford Rangers w/diesel engines to drive around Taji in.  They were driven everyday and we'd only have to fill them up about every 6 days.  We liked them better than the full sized F150s or armored Suburbans that we had.

http://jalopnik.com/5156453/2010-ford-ranger-europe-gets-all-the-good-stuff

[naustin]

Killing the Ranger is about killing the factory where it is built.   It is old, outdated, inefficient, and full of long term employees with big benefits price tags.

I have a Nissan Frontier and love it.  It has the same frame use in the full-size Titan.  Overkill for a mid-dive truck, maybe - but it saves Nissan a fortune in production a tooling costs.

Ford will re-enter the category with a new "mid-size" truck, built on the F-150 platform within two or three years.  Look for it to be named the "f-100" and be built on the same production line as current f-150s.

[Snowbird]

Killing the Ranger is about killing the factory where it is built.   It is old, outdated, inefficient, and full of long term employees with big benefits price tags.

I have a Nissan Frontier and love it.  It has the same frame use in the full-size Titan.  Overkill for a mid-dive truck, maybe - but it saves Nissan a fortune in production a tooling costs.

Ford will re-enter the category with a new "mid-size" truck, built on the F-150 platform within two or three years.  Look for it to be named the "f-100" and be built on the same production line as current f-150s.

Unless that's a new development, the Titan's frame must be pretty spindly. My co-worker drives a Frontier and I would not want that frame under a truck the size of the Titan. Now, this Frontier is a few years old... so I'm not sure.

However, if that is the case, then that's just the thing I suggested a few posts back.  

[SalsaShark]

Ford will re-enter the category with a new "mid-size" truck, built on the F-150 platform within two or three years.  Look for it to be named the "f-100" and be built on the same production line as current f-150s.

I would be seriously interested in that...

I currently have a Ram 1500 w/ a 5.9L v8. I've owned a 2005 frontier (hated it), a 98 Dakota, and a 2000 Dakota. Of the three, I would own another older Dakota, but the new ones are worthless. The 2000 was a great compromise from a micro truck and a full sized behemoth.

If Ford reintroduces a mid sized truck that's smaller than a F-150, I'd jump all over it.  

[Snowbird]

I would be seriously interested in that...

I currently have a Ram 1500 w/ a 5.9L v8. I've owned a 2005 frontier (hated it), a 98 Dakota, and a 2000 Dakota. Of the three, I would own another older Dakota, but the new ones are worthless. The 2000 was a great compromise from a micro truck and a full sized behemoth.

If Ford reintroduces a mid sized truck that's smaller than a F-150, I'd jump all over it.  

A recent issue of Truck Trends ( a shitty mag if there ever was one) had anarticle about a "Ranger" sold in the rest of the world, but we won't be getting it here. I don't think it was body-on-frame, though.

[birdrunner]

Unless that's a new development, the Titan's frame must be pretty spindly. My co-worker drives a Frontier and I would not want that frame under a truck the size of the Titan. Now, this Frontier is a few years old... so I'm not sure.

However, if that is the case, then that's just the thing I suggested a few posts back.  

My understanding is the new Frontier is on the frame of the old Titan.

[JReazor]

The problem is that it doesn't cost any less to build a small truck then it does to build a full size one. On top of that, full size trucks are getting fuel mileage close to the smaller ones. Most Americans aren't willing to pay the same price for a smaller truck. We just don't see the value in it.

A small diesel is a nice idea but they're expensive. It doesn't matter how many they sell if there's no margin in it.

I'm still hoping that the Mahindra pickup makes it to the states. Think Toyota Pickup circa 1981 or 82. If they hit the right price, that's all I need in a truck.

[Giaka]

Never understood the mini truck thing. If I wanted a truck it would be a full size unit. I would never consider something smaller than an F150.

[oldenslow]

Love my '94 Ranger, mostly a work truck, now with 187000 miles.  And these aren't highway miles, start and stop, short 10-15 mile trips.  Handy as hell, and a much smaller footprint then a full size.  The times I have taken longer trips (30-100 miles), I've gotten 23 mpg, with the v-6, between 55-60mph.  It doesn't owe me a dime.

[Kootenanny]

In Iraq we had a bunch of European Ford Rangers w/diesel engines to drive around Taji in.  They were driven everyday and we'd only have to fill them up about every 6 days.  We liked them better than the full sized F150s or armored Suburbans that we had.

I'd be all over one of those, if they were sold in NA.  Unfortunately, none of the small diesel stuff ever seems to get in here.

[TuffguyF4i]

My friend bought a new ranger in 2000.  Thing was a POS.  He had constant nagging problems with everything from powertrain issues to suspension problems.  

He took very good care of it.

[stevent]

I've had a couple of them over the years, pretty decent trucks IMO. Since 90% of the time I was driving with an empty bed the Ranger was a pretty good choice, they did get shitty gas mileage though, My '94 Toyota pick-up got around 30 mpg as opposed to the 22 or so with the Ranger. I hate to see them go myself.

[Rogue]

70k units sold in 2011 is not enough for Ford to keep the plant open because according to them, that sales number is dwindling every year.

The catch is, if Ford gives it up, it gives Nissan that 70k units so effectively tripling Nissan's compact truck sales for a couple of years.  Ford is looking at sales numbers and forecasts and it's telling them, it's not worth it for them right now, given they sell so many more F150's.  

Ford and GM just doesn't want to invest in a market that sells less than 100k units/year.  These guys sell in the millions so 100k is chump change.  It's what Wall Street Analysts call "rounding error" in Financial statements.  That's because margins for these compact P'ups are so small.  So yeah.  If it cost more to keep such a plant open to sell low margin products, screw it!  Maybe they're right.  

I do believe that whomever enters the compact/mid-size p'up market with a Turbo-Diesel is going to make a killing.  If Ford finally puts a diesel engine in the F150, they would sell twice that many trucks.  Instead they put Eco-boots V6.  However, maybe the Eco-Boost V6 is the Turbo-Diesel engine that just doesn't use Diesel.  I looked at the mileage figure for this powertrain and it seems to be right in line with what a Turbo-diesel engine would get in an F150.  

[phoenix]

The catch is, if Ford gives it up, it gives Nissan that 70k units so effectively tripling Nissan's compact truck sales for a couple of years.  

I think Toyota will be more of the share than Nissan.

[veefer800canuck]

70k units sold in 2011 is not enough for Ford to keep the plant open because according to them, that sales number is dwindling every year.

That's 70k units of a 18 year old design. The current Ranger is practically the same as a 1993, save for front sheetmetal, dashboard, and a better 4.0 engine.

Imagine how many they would sell if they redesigned it from the ground up and brought it into the 2000's.

I sure as hell don't want an F150. The double cab Ranger with a diesel would be great if it didn't cost an arm and a leg.

[bluedogok]

When I bought my pickup I thought I wanted an Extended Cab Ranger or Tacoma but on the used market they were hard to find and when I did they were more expensive than a comparable full size extended cab pickup in my area (Oklahoma). There are plenty of whatever flavor of full size pickups on the used market in this area to make compact pickups look like a bad deal.  I miss my F-150 (not enough to get rid of the Z4) and will probably be adding another pickup (F-150 or a Tundra) next year and keep the Z4 in the garage more for fun instead of an everyday commuter. The reason for a full size is a compact pickup won't haul a track car (BMW Spec E36) very well, I don't feel the need for a Super Duty level pickup for that type of duty.

[veefer800canuck]

Shit, you can get the double cab Ranger in freaking MEXICO, but not here.  



205,500 Mexican Pesos is the MSRP for the base model.

205,500.00 MXN = 15,405.43 CAD = 14,942.42 USD

The double-cab version shown above is priced like this:

291,400.00 MXN = 21,843.81 CAD = 21,188.91 USD


VERY comparable to US and Canadian pricing. Canadian Rangers start at $11,999 for a base, reg cab, 2wd and zero options, and go to $12,999 for an extended cab base model with zero options, and go up to $18-$23,400 for a 4x4 extended cab, depending on trim level/options.

USA Rangers go up to $23,000 and change.

[Rogue]

I sure as hell don't want an F150. The double cab Ranger with a diesel would be great if it didn't cost an arm and a leg.

That right there may be the catch.  They can't build it and make it affordable with a turbodiesel when sold in those numbers.  I believe they can IF it was built somewhere other than the US.  Or, if they invest in a highly automated plant.  At 70k units a year, that's just not worth it.  They have to share a platform with some other Ranger built in other countries AND sell in high numbers.  Kind of like how they're doing the Focus & Fiesta.  Just to certify a small turbo diesel engine in the US costs millions!  Maybe they should put an Eco-boost 2.0 four cylinder in it.  However, that engine is still a year away and it will NOT be cheap but at least it will be a shared powertrain with other Ford products in the US.  I'll bet this is what Ford plans to do in the next couple of years.

[Rogue]

Shit, you can get the double cab Ranger in freaking MEXICO, but not here.  

Yes but not THAT truck. It looks like ass!  

[peacemaker24]

I was looking for a little truck last year, and test drove both the Nissan and the Ford.  The difference in driving experience between the two was startling.  The Ranger felt cheap, flexible, and generally shitty.  The Frontier was an order of magnitude better put together.  Had not employment troubles nixed the new vehicle plan, I'd have gone Nissan (or Toyota) in a heartbeat.

[zer0netgain]

And I cannot understand how those full size trucks sell in huge numbers. Sure, they are nice. But holy shit do they cost a medium sized fortune.

More marketing.

I hardly ever saw ads for the compact pickup compared to the full-sized ones.  

If you don't NEED a full-size pickup but need more than a car or van will give you, the compact pickup was perfect.

[Rincewind]

That's a shame, Ford.  You'd think with their compact-size car and small SUV success that they'd continue playing compact pick-ups in the US.  

Check this out - the redesigned Ranger that we don't get...  

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1050522_all-new-2012-ford-ranger-not-coming-to-the-u-s-heres-why





I drive a Full-Size pick-up, but I'd like to get back into a compact.  Guess I'll be sticking with Dodge.  

[TuffguyF4i]

I would love a midsized truck with a really nice turbo diesel in it.  

Think that will happen?  Would it just be too expensive?  

[rgbeard]

And, In Mexico they sell this by the dozens:



All for $155,000MN ($11,300 US)

[SalsaShark]

I drive a Full-Size pick-up, but I'd like to get back into a compact.  Guess I'll be sticking with Dodge.  

Unfortunately, and since internet rumors are fun, the next gen Dodge Dakota is rumored to be a unibody like the Honda Ridgeline...  



As far as I'm concerned, Mopar killed the Dakota with the last evolution... when it became a bloated ugly version of its former self. I wouldn't look to Mopar to make a sub RAM 1500 sized truck for the 'Merican market.

[bomber]

And, In Mexico they sell this by the dozens:



All for $155,000MN ($11,300 US)

I would jump allllll over this when my Y2K Frontier needs replacing (thank goodness, it's running like a top at 190K miles) . . . ..  cheap, simple, just the right size . . . . . bring it, Ford!

[Mr.Black]

I love everything about my Ranger except the suck ass gas mileage.

I'd ride that little Mexican Hottie all day long.

[naustin]

The 2012 ranger shown in Australia and above is almost a clone of the latest Frontier in terms of size and capabilities.  

More evidence that Fords decision in the US is all about closing the old Ranger factory in St. Paul.  

[Kootenanny]

I do believe that whomever enters the compact/mid-size p'up market with a Turbo-Diesel is going to make a killing.  If Ford finally puts a diesel engine in the F150, they would sell twice that many trucks.  Instead they put Eco-boots V6.  However, maybe the Eco-Boost V6 is the Turbo-Diesel engine that just doesn't use Diesel.  I looked at the mileage figure for this powertrain and it seems to be right in line with what a Turbo-diesel engine would get in an F150.  

I've been "waiting" for a compact or mid-sized diesel truck to be sold in this market for a loooong time.  Doubt it'll ever happen...as someone else stated, getting any small diesel engine certified for the NA market is difficult and expensive (for reasons I shan't go into here).

AFAIK, Ford has basically decided that anyone who was interested in a Ranger could be talked into an F150 with the Ecoboost (which, BTW, sounds like an impressive engine...we'll see about reliability, hopefully it isn't another 6.0 diesel...).

BTW, that Ford compact PU rgbeard posted looks like the old Escort front end...for many people, that's really all the truck they need (but they'll buy an F350 diesel because of advertising...).

[Kootenanny]

That's a shame, Ford.  You'd think with their compact-size car and small SUV success that they'd continue playing compact pick-ups in the US.  

Check this out - the redesigned Ranger that we don't get...  

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1050522_all-new-2012-ford-ranger-not-coming-to-the-u-s-heres-why

OK--this I like!  From the article:

...the new 2012 Ranger is powered by a 2.2-liter four-cylinder turbo-diesel engine, or a 3.2-liter in-line five-cylinder turbo-diesel, making 200 hp. The larger engine makes 347 pound-feet of torque—as much as some V-8s. Those engines come mated to six-speed manual or automatic transmissions; a version of the 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine and five-speed manual transmission are also offered.

Give me the 5 cylinder diesel with a 6-speed manual, please

[NoGear]

I'd be all over one of those, if they were sold in NA.  Unfortunately, none of the small diesel stuff ever seems to get in here.

We all said we'd want one if they sold them in the States. They were a blast to drive (except around IEDs, no pun intended).  They got great gas mileage and not one that we had ever broke down unlike the fullsized Fords and Chevys and you can be sure we beat the crap out of them. We constantly overloaded them.

[Rogue]

NoGear, you are funny.  I like your sense of humor.  

Koot, what I see happening is that Ford will NOT bring in a small turbo-diesel in the F150/Ranger line up.  Instead, they are bringing in the Eco-Boost.  The F150 will get the V6, while the higher end compact cars and SUV's will get the 2.0 4-cylinder EB motor.

The 2.0 EB will be basically an equivalent to a Turbo-Diesel (Direct Injection, turbo-intercooler, high torque and mileage).  It may not reach the diesel engine mileage but I strongly believe this is what will come in a compact pick up in the near future.  It seems only the Germans want to invest in small turbo-diesels in the N.A. market.  Based upon current CAFE requirements, all the other automakers are counting on hybrids & electrics to meet them.  They all signed on to the higher CAFE except the Germans because it does not offer any incentives for Diesels.  

[Rodan]

Efficient turbo diesels don't fit the enviro-activist agenda here, so there is significant bureaucratic resistance in the certification process.  I doubt you'll see a small TD in trucks here anytime soon.... makes too much sense.

[Hardware]

Dodge sources their Ram diesel engines from Cummins.

Cummins makes a wide range of smaller diesel engines for commercial vehicles (there are 2.8 and 3.8 litre models for example).  I don't see why they wouldn't sell them to, say Dodge to shoe into a Wrangler or updated Dakota.

[Highway Star]

What advantage does a small pick-up have over a trailer for occasional use?  I have an '03 CRV and with a roof rack, can get 4x8's and 12' boards home with ease.  I've loaded a 32" snowblower in the back and closed the hatch.  I've thought of getting a utility trailer for the occasional load of dirt/mulch, but that's about it.

I understand the need for a PU if you are loading it with bulk goods on a regular basis or needing to haul stuff out to the back 40.  But if that's the case, you'd get a full size one.  But if the small PU is a 100% solution 100% of the time, I see the CRV etc as a 100% solution 98% of the time.  And a trailer or Home Depot rental can bridge that last 2%.

What am I missing?

[Lawn Dart]

... And a trailer or Home Depot rental can bridge that last 2%.

What am I missing?

Garage space.  

(not everyone can store even a small folding HF trailer...)

[JReazor]

Efficient turbo diesels don't fit the enviro-activist agenda here, so there is significant bureaucratic resistance in the certification process.  I doubt you'll see a small TD in trucks here anytime soon.... makes too much sense.

There are some extremely clean diesels but they're expensive. Gas is too cheap here. Diesels aren't worth the premium to most Americans.

[veefer800canuck]

Dodge sources their Ram diesel engines from Cummins.

Cummins makes a wide range of smaller diesel engines for commercial vehicles (there are 2.8 and 3.8 litre models for example).  I don't see why they wouldn't sell them to, say Dodge to shoe into a Wrangler or updated Dakota.

Dodge sells Diesel MINIVANS in the Uk and Europe! 2.8 Litre inline-4 CRD, 161 HP, and 265 torques.

http://www.chrysler.co.uk/grandvoyager/specs

[Kootenanny]

Dodge sources their Ram diesel engines from Cummins.

Cummins makes a wide range of smaller diesel engines for commercial vehicles (there are 2.8 and 3.8 litre models for example).  I don't see why they wouldn't sell them to, say Dodge to shoe into a Wrangler or updated Dakota.

Full sized pickups fall under different emissions regs than cars/SUVs/minivans/compact pickups, AFAIK.  Because yeah, there are lots of small diesels available, but few are certified for use in NA.  Apparently, when Jeep had a small CRD engine in the Liberty in 2005/2006, they sold something like 3x as well as expected...then they dropped that engine when new regs came into effect in 2007 (2007 was also the year VW had no diesel Golfs or Jettas available here, either).  They did sell the Grand Cherokee with a diesel (different engine than the Liberty had) for a few years, but I don't think that one's available any more, either.

[NoGear]

Dodge sources their Ram diesel engines from Cummins.

Cummins makes a wide range of smaller diesel engines for commercial vehicles (there are 2.8 and 3.8 litre models for example).  I don't see why they wouldn't sell them to, say Dodge to shoe into a Wrangler or updated Dakota.

the, not so, funny thing is you can buy a Jeep Wrangler in Europe with a diesel but you can't buy it here in the States.

[Justin]

the, not so, funny thing is you can buy a Jeep Wrangler in Europe with a diesel but you can't buy it here in the States.

Same thing with the Toyota Hilux - can get it anywhere in the world but here

I'd be all over one if they imported them to the states.

[zer0netgain]

Garage space.  

(not everyone can store even a small folding HF trailer...)

That, AND you never know when you'll need to haul something of small to moderate size.  Having to go get the trailer is a pain.  More so, towing is more hazardous and requires more driving skill than just putting something in the back of the pickup.

Besides, unless you need the sheltered storage area (and need it air conditioned), heating and cooling a SUV or minivan is more work on the motor and the vehicle, overall, is heavier...resulting in worse MPG for a benefit you only use on rare occasion.

SUVs and minivans are better investments for people who need to haul stuff and/or people on a regular basis.  For those of us with no brood to haul around, a pickup or extended cab is more than enough inside space, and the truck bed gives us options.

[tomek]

Besides, unless you need the sheltered storage area (and need it air conditioned), heating and cooling a SUV or minivan is more work on the motor and the vehicle, overall, is heavier...resulting in worse MPG for a benefit you only use on rare occasion.

Heating does no change MPG of  SUV , minivan , car , etc . As usual you are clueless about basics .  

[Rogue]

Heating actually does put some drain on the powertrain, however, AC puts a HUGE drain on it because not only does the engine need to run the compressor, the load on the generator increases due to the heavier electrical usage.  I once read an article that stated an AC can take up to 25 bhp from an engine's output.  That's a big drain when you don't have much horsepower to work with, as in a compact truck/SUV with small motors.

As an example, Ford's Crown Victorias (the favorite of Police everywhere) shut down the AC system whenever the engine is given WOT.  This is in order to transfer as much power from the engine to propel the vehicle when needed.

Even in turbine powered airplanes putting out thousands of horspower, a climate control system along with pressurization requires a lot of horsepower to drive.

[zer0netgain]

Heating does no change MPG of  SUV , minivan , car , etc . As usual you are clueless about basics .  

Tell me how much longer it takes to heat the interior of an SUV/minivan compared to a car or pickup.  

[Cablebandit]

As an example, Ford's Crown Victorias (the favorite of Police everywhere) shut down the AC system whenever the engine is given WOT.  This is in order to transfer as much power from the engine to propel the vehicle when needed.

I thought pretty much every vehicle did that. At least back in the day.

[Justin]

Tell me how much longer it takes to heat the interior of an SUV/minivan compared to a car or pickup.  

Doesn't matter, the heat is a byproduct that would otherwise be wasted - Unless you are driving a Corvair  

[bomber]

Am I the only one that most often runs the fan when the heater is on?

Certainly, the HEAT is a byproduct of the engine running, but the blower motor uses some amount of electrical energy, which IS a drain on the engine (small though it may be).

[CLAY]

What advantage does a small pick-up have over a trailer for occasional use?  I have an '03 CRV and with a roof rack, can get 4x8's and 12' boards home with ease.  I've loaded a 32" snowblower in the back and closed the hatch.  I've thought of getting a utility trailer for the occasional load of dirt/mulch, but that's about it.

I understand the need for a PU if you are loading it with bulk goods on a regular basis or needing to haul stuff out to the back 40.  But if that's the case, you'd get a full size one.  But if the small PU is a 100% solution 100% of the time, I see the CRV etc as a 100% solution 98% of the time.  And a trailer or Home Depot rental can bridge that last 2%.

What am I missing?

For me- I hunt- alot.  I have a cap on my truck so I can carry my hunting gear back there in a locked location.  When I harvest game, I can move my gear around (or throw it in the back seat of the truck), and put the animals in the back.  When I get home, I can hose it out and it's clean.  I can remove the cap (I usually have it on during the fall/winter months only), and get a couple yards of bark in the back- or anything else I want.  This time of year I put two snowmobiles on the trailer, and the "Kitty Cat" (a small snowmobile) in the bed of the truck with the cap on, along with our snow gear, then take myself and my kids out to the farm to ride them.

You can't do all that as easily without a truck.  A CRV could not do all those things, so for my needs, a small truck (I have a Dakota) is perfect.  V-8 for easy trailer pulling, and room for the stuff I use and haul- yet I don't need a full sized bed.  It works perfectly.  

[Rogue]

You can put the game animal on top of your hood or the roof on a CR-V.

 

[Marcster]

Ford hasn't done a single thing to the Ranger in how many years?

Same engine, same stlye, same lousy mileage, the only thing changed was the price.

No wonder it didn't sell "big".   If I wanted a 15 yr old design, I'd buy a used truck.

You know, the same thing happened in the motorcycle world with two different bikes (minus the lousy mileage part)

 

[HipGnosis]

There are some extremely clean diesels but they're expensive. Gas is too cheap here. Diesels aren't worth the premium to most Americans.

Oh, I dunno about that..
From http://www.autoblog.com  2012/01/08/
"2011 that saw VW brand sales in the U.S. go up over 26 percent and TDI (diesel) sales jump 33 percent"

It'd sure be interesting if VW brought the Amarok to the US

[bomber]

What am I missing?

Also, you missed cost to purchase and ensure, complexity (and, therefor, service expenses) and simple over buying. A CRV is capabkle of doing things I simply do not want to pay for . . . . .

[Rogue]

Oh, I dunno about that..
From http://www.autoblog.com  2012/01/08/
"2011 that saw VW brand sales in the U.S. go up over 26 percent and TDI (diesel) sales jump 33 percent"

It'd sure be interesting if VW brought the Amarok to the US

My theory is this regarding VW increased Diesel sales.

Their Jetta's, Passats, and Golfs are available with a horrible base model 2.5 liter 5 cylinder engine.  Every test report of this engine come out with lackluster reviews.  It’s a half-assed effort by VW to provide N.A. with a big enough engine to propel their base cars.   In 99% of road tests, VW provides the magazine testers with their Tdi powertrain even when the magazine testers ask for a base model.  Nevermind that the Tdi option raises the price of any VW quite a bit over the five pot.  Finally, VW wants to push the Tdi so they load their dealers with cars with Tdi’s.  It’s a good powertrain but when one tester drives any VW, you go from the base five pot, then go to the Tdi, it’s obvious how bad the five is vs the Tdi.  So most people will just go for the Tdi.  The VR6 rarely ever becomes an option because the price premium for it is huge.  

What’s obvious is that VW has a great engine in the Tdi and 2.0 DI Turbo.  However, VW is resistant to supply the 2.0 DI Turbo across the board.  So for 2011, VW made the Tdi available on all their cars and in large numbers, while limiting the 2.0 DI turbo to top line models like the CC, Tiguan, and their minivan along with the VR6.  Most people go with the 2.0 since it’s that good.  

This is why VW can say, Diesel sales is up for them.  I will bet you given the choice, most N.A. buyers will take the 2.0 DI gas turbo engine over the Tdi.  The 2.0 turbo is faster, smoother, and more fun to drive.  

[Highway Star]

For me- I hunt- alot.  I have a cap on my truck so I can carry my hunting gear back there in a locked location.  When I harvest game, I can move my gear around (or throw it in the back seat of the truck), and put the animals in the back.  When I get home, I can hose it out and it's clean.  I can remove the cap (I usually have it on during the fall/winter months only), and get a couple yards of bark in the back- or anything else I want.  This time of year I put two snowmobiles on the trailer, and the "Kitty Cat" (a small snowmobile) in the bed of the truck with the cap on, along with our snow gear, then take myself and my kids out to the farm to ride them.

You can't do all that as easily without a truck.  A CRV could not do all those things, so for my needs, a small truck (I have a Dakota) is perfect.  V-8 for easy trailer pulling, and room for the stuff I use and haul- yet I don't need a full sized bed.  It works perfectly.  

I completely understand what you are saying.  There are a lot of people who have a frequent need for what a PU has to offer.  Even a small PU makes sense in that case.  

I'm just not one of those people.  My needs are more suburban in nature.  I already own the CRV and have since new (chose it over a minivan).  It's a daily driver and hauls kids but will someday be replaced or relegated to third car status.  I'm just trying to ask, albiet poorly, what is the appeal of a small PU for light duty.

Space for a trailer is an issue, I get that.  

[CLAY]

I completely understand what you are saying.  There are a lot of people who have a frequent need for what a PU has to offer.  Even a small PU makes sense in that case.  

I'm just not one of those people.  My needs are more suburban in nature.  I already own the CRV and have since new (chose it over a minivan).  It's a daily driver and hauls kids but will someday be replaced or relegated to third car status.  I'm just trying to ask, albiet poorly, what is the appeal of a small PU for light duty.

Space for a trailer is an issue, I get that.  

Oh, I get that.  Different strokes and all.  For me the light pickup is the perfect answer- although due to political reasons (bailout) my next truck will probably be a used, 3-4 year old, high mileage 4 door F150.  That answers the family needs (we have 4, but I'll probably get the one that seats 6)- then the Odessey will probably be replaced with a commuter-type car, like the diesel Jetta.

I am very curious about what the numbers are on the diesel Jetta- initial cost (we'd be looking at 2-4 year old used), real world MPG, etc.  Are they one of the best commuter cars?  This is the info I seek.  The truck will be for me, but my commute is 6 miles total, so the truck will stay low-mileage.

[Kootenanny]

It'd sure be interesting if VW brought the Amarok to the US

Another nice one!

I drove a diesel VW pickup once...dated from the 80s, I think it was basically the front end of a Rabbit with a pickup box...FWD, tiny diesel, and sooooo slow.  This one looks much better!

[Hardware]

A guy I used to work with had lived and worked in Belgrade for a few years before I met him.  He brought a VW diesel pick-up back with him.  Thing is, it was really a Toyota Hilux (the full four door model) identical to this:



...except for colour, the grille guard & rollbar and his sat quite a bit higher on its suspension.

It was the same generation as my '90 Forerunner and the dash and all interior components looked identical to those in my old truck.

The grille was also a VW part with VW badging.  I believe the owner said the engine was actually a VW diesel - it was small and 0-60 times were best measured with a calendar, but it was unstoppable offroad.  Kind of like a mini Unimog!

[CLAY]

I would buy one like that in a heartbeat- but I'd ditch the rollbar and get a cap for the back.  

[Fourstring]

I am very curious about what the numbers are on the diesel Jetta- initial cost (we'd be looking at 2-4 year old used), real world MPG, etc.  Are they one of the best commuter cars?  This is the info I seek.  The truck will be for me, but my commute is 6 miles total, so the truck will stay low-mileage.

Regarding real-world mileage on the Jetta, I crunched the numbers and bought the 5-pot 2.5.  Yes, it's a dog of an engine.

However, VW is known for crap electronics, which doesn't speak for reliability; all of the tdi's come with every freaking option possible. Yes, I'm sure a base model tdi exists, but my dealers were unable to find one.

In addition to the tdi premium of a few grand, the mandatory 'options' pushed the price up to almost another 10k. It became a choice between owning a car f/c or financing, so I went with a base model.

Still hate the engine. But I like the rest of the car.

[tomek]

Heating actually does put some drain on the powertrain

Oh ,yea , really  ? How ? It is essentially free unless you count that , maybe , 100 W that fan draws . Heater in the car is nothing more then additional radiator . Internal combustion engines generate heat whether you like or not and you have to get rid of that one way or another , so it is FREE . No additional drain on powertrain .

Now , 25 hp to drive compressor in the car ? Gimmie a brake . You could probably cool small mansion with that . In case you wonder it is about 18 KW . Your average room AC is what ? Couple KW ?    
Look at older cars with those tiny , individual accessory belts , you thing they  could handle 25 HP ?
Many , in not most of cars cut AC during WOT acceleration .  

[JReazor]

Oh, I dunno about that..
From http://www.autoblog.com  2012/01/08/
"2011 that saw VW brand sales in the U.S. go up over 26 percent and TDI (diesel) sales jump 33 percent"

It'd sure be interesting if VW brought the Amarok to the US

I wonder what percentage of VW's 320,000 sales was made up of diesels and how many of those sales were due to factory incentives and dealers playing with thier commission. My brother bought a Jetta TDI at a pretty deep discount a couple months ago. That's not a great long term strategy for the manufacturer. Those numbers don't mean much with out a whole lot more info.

I would love to see a diesel Amorok in the states but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

[Hardware]

Regarding real-world mileage on the Jetta, I crunched the numbers and bought the 5-pot 2.5.  Yes, it's a dog of an engine.

However, VW is known for crap electronics, which doesn't speak for reliability; all of the tdi's come with every freaking option possible. Yes, I'm sure a base model tdi exists, but my dealers were unable to find one.

In addition to the tdi premium of a few grand, the mandatory 'options' pushed the price up to almost another 10k. It became a choice between owning a car f/c or financing, so I went with a base model.

Still hate the engine. But I like the rest of the car.

 

I like VWs in general but whenever we've been considering a new vehicle, we shy away due to the electrical/electronic issues they're now known for.

Friends had two new-to-them VWs - he had a Toureg and she had a GTI.  Great vehicles, solid motors and overall good reliability but both had numerous electrical problems.  Nothing that ever left them stranded but feck, it convinced me that if I ever did get a People's Car, it would have minimal electrical doodads.

[CLAY]

Regarding real-world mileage on the Jetta, I crunched the numbers and bought the 5-pot 2.5.  Yes, it's a dog of an engine.

However, VW is known for crap electronics, which doesn't speak for reliability; all of the tdi's come with every freaking option possible. Yes, I'm sure a base model tdi exists, but my dealers were unable to find one.

In addition to the tdi premium of a few grand, the mandatory 'options' pushed the price up to almost another 10k. It became a choice between owning a car f/c or financing, so I went with a base model.

Still hate the engine. But I like the rest of the car.

Good to know.  Thanks man!    What kind of gas mileage do you get?

[sodapop6620]

Regarding real-world mileage on the Jetta, I crunched the numbers and bought the 5-pot 2.5.  Yes, it's a dog of an engine.

However, VW is known for crap electronics, which doesn't speak for reliability; all of the tdi's come with every freaking option possible. Yes, I'm sure a base model tdi exists, but my dealers were unable to find one.

In addition to the tdi premium of a few grand, the mandatory 'options' pushed the price up to almost another 10k. It became a choice between owning a car f/c or financing, so I went with a base model.

Still hate the engine. But I like the rest of the car.

I think your dealer may have seen you coming.

I must be lucky, my Jetta was $2000 more than the gas version.  The TDI standard features encluded cruise control and electric windows that was it in 2000 maybe they have changed things since.  My winter fillups are averaging 49.x mpg and the summer time it ranges from 53 to 57mpg.

With every car you will have some issues or can find people who have had some issues.  

With 473xxx miles on the clock I will be hard pressed to give up the TDI.

[rgbeard]

Would be nice if VW would bring the Saveiro to the USA.

[Mydlyfkryzis]

Oh ,yea , really  ? How ? It is essentially free unless you count that , maybe , 100 W that fan draws . Heater in the car is nothing more then additional radiator . Internal combustion engines generate heat whether you like or not and you have to get rid of that one way or another , so it is FREE . No additional drain on powertrain .

Now , 25 hp to drive compressor in the car ? Gimmie a brake . You could probably cool small mansion with that . In case you wonder it is about 18 KW . Your average room AC is what ? Couple KW ?    
Look at older cars with those tiny , individual accessory belts , you thing they  could handle 25 HP ?
Many , in not most of cars cut AC during WOT acceleration .  

Typical Room A/C is less than 700 Watts nowadays.
My house has a 2 ton (24000 BTU/Hr) and is under 1400 watts.

Cars run 18000-24000 BTU/Hr. About 2 HP max for the cooling part. However, due to mechanical loss, and the need to run at varying RPM (Electric Units run at constant RPM), the losses are higher. This is about 5 HP on the outside. Older cars, with reciprocating compressors (Piston) used more, due to inefficient designs. I don't know any car that doesn't use a rotary compressor nowadays.

If you Google some information, many cars get lower mileage with the windows open and no a/c then the same car with A/C and windows shut, due to wind resistance changes.

The other factor is weight.  You add 20-40 pounds with the compressor, plumbing, and condenser and evaporator. Even those have been getting lighter.

A/C is probably using 1-2 MPG. Windows down, on a modern, streamlined car, probably has the same effect.

[Rogue]

Oh ,yea , really  ? How ? It is essentially free unless you count that , maybe , 100 W that fan draws . Heater in the car is nothing more then additional radiator . Internal combustion engines generate heat whether you like or not and you have to get rid of that one way or another , so it is FREE . No additional drain on powertrain .

Now , 25 hp to drive compressor in the car ? Gimmie a brake . You could probably cool small mansion with that . In case you wonder it is about 18 KW . Your average room AC is what ? Couple KW ?    
Look at older cars with those tiny , individual accessory belts , you thing they  could handle 25 HP ?
Many , in not most of cars cut AC during WOT acceleration .  

There is no need to get you panties in a bunch if you disagree.  Why don't you look it up yourself.

I read it in a Motor Trend article a while back.  An automotive A/C can consume up to 25 horsepower on startup, and about 10-12 continuous.  Obviously, once you have the interior cooled down you can turn the A/C down and the power consumption is lower.  

Yes and this is why many (but not all) cars cut the A/C at WOT because it does absorb a lot of horsepower.  You are forgetting that it's not just the draw from the compressor but the load on the generator.  On older vehicles, there is also the draw from the radiator fan that used to be connected to the motor.  So yes.  25 horsepower on initial start up when you are trying to quickly bring the interior temps down.

Relax.  It's just a discussion about auto A/C.    

[Baz]

Here is the real reason why Diesel automobiles will not ever be a big hit here.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7641


North American refineries are configured to produce gasoline, and you don't just switch over to make diesel. (You basically must build a new refinery) Due to the oil boom here, we have actually seen shortages of diesel fuel as of late. It gets really messy when one of the refineries shut down for maintenance. There has been very high diesel consumption here as of late due to the truck and equipment use.

As for the Ranger.

Ford actually issued a press release stating that F-150 sales had badly cannibalized Ranger sales to the point that they were not selling many. I believe Dodge has axed their Dakota for the same reasons.

[Fourstring]

Good to know.  Thanks man!    What kind of gas mileage do you get?

About 26 in mixed driving- nothing stellar.  Long trips, I can do maybe 30.

The car is basically our 'truck'; I use it to take music equipment downtown, put the bikes on the hitch, carry home improvement stuff, haul a ton of people, but still be able to drive (and park!) like a car, which is a big deal in Chicago.

[JonS]

About 26 in mixed driving- nothing stellar.  Long trips, I can do maybe 30.

The car is basically our 'truck'; I use it to take music equipment downtown, put the bikes on the hitch, carry home improvement stuff, haul a ton of people, but still be able to drive (and park!) like a car, which is a big deal in Chicago.

My 95 Jetta had the 2.0L, 4 cylinder version of a slug motor. It really wasn't bad to live with. It had 250,000 miles on the car and the power train was still going strong when I sold it. Never even had to replace a cv joint. There were some little, annoying electrical problems, like the cruise didn't work anymore.

[Joey Stalin]

The 2.slow is a completely uninspiring engine, I can't believe that they brought it back for the new Jetta. I really despise what they've done with that car, completely dumped it down for the US market. Everything is cheapened. But back to the engines, the 2.0 is a dog, but the 2.5 was a nice engine, plenty of power and torque, stone reliable, but you paid for it with some loss of fuel economy. On the flip side, an exhaust on a 5 cylinder engine sounds very very nice.

Although it's in a different price category (and complexity level), my 2.0 liter turbo in my GTI has returned a solid 27 mpg in all types of driving over the last 6,000 miles. It struggles to break 31 on the highway, but I can't argue with the overall mileage.

[CLAY]

I think your dealer may have seen you coming.

I must be lucky, my Jetta was $2000 more than the gas version.  The TDI standard features encluded cruise control and electric windows that was it in 2000 maybe they have changed things since.  My winter fillups are averaging 49.x mpg and the summer time it ranges from 53 to 57mpg.

With every car you will have some issues or can find people who have had some issues.  

With 473xxx miles on the clock I will be hard pressed to give up the TDI.

You are getting 49-57 MPG?  You have the TDI Jetta?  Wow.  More info please!  That mileage and longevity make the car and engine worth the premium, I would think...

[Cablebandit]

Friends don't let friends buy a VW (that doesn't have a bumper to bumper warranty)

[Rogue]

The 2.slow is a completely uninspiring engine, I can't believe that they brought it back for the new Jetta. I really despise what they've done with that car, completely dumped it down for the US market. Everything is cheapened. But back to the engines, the 2.0 is a dog, but the 2.5 was a nice engine, plenty of power and torque, stone reliable, but you paid for it with some loss of fuel economy. On the flip side, an exhaust on a 5 cylinder engine sounds very very nice.

I thought the 2.5 liter was standard on the Jetta/Golf with 2.0 Tdi optional?  That's what I read recently.

VW's goal is to be #1 by 2016.  Part of that plan is to expand production and sales worldwide.  This is why they re-opened a factory in the USA that can produce 500k+ cars a year.  Also part of that plan is to have wider standardization across the board and the general lowering of overall build cost (and materials) for all their cars.  VW sold a mere 12k Passats in 2010 and a big part of that was due to its price, which was uncompetitive.  Today’s Passat starts at $20k and of course that big drop in price means cheaper components and interior materials.  

[Fourstring]

As much as I like my 09, I wouldn't buy a new VW. 2010 and onwards are a huge drop in quality, especially the interior feel and base engine. (The 2.5 is now an 'upgrade' from a base NA 2.0)

[Joey Stalin]

I thought the 2.5 liter was standard on the Jetta/Golf with 2.0 Tdi optional?  That's what I read recently.

VW's goal is to be #1 by 2016.  Part of that plan is to expand production and sales worldwide.  This is why they re-opened a factory in the USA that can produce 500k+ cars a year.  Also part of that plan is to have wider standardization across the board and the general lowering of overall build cost (and materials) for all their cars.  VW sold a mere 12k Passats in 2010 and a big part of that was due to its price, which was uncompetitive.  Today’s Passat starts at $20k and of course that big drop in price means cheaper components and interior materials.  

Yes, and I don't care for that business plan. Doesn't matter to me if they make more profit or not, but the cars used to be relatively fun to drive across the board, and offer a unique alternative to the Japanese crowd of bland Camrys, Civics, and Accords. If I didn't want a soft riding, generically designed, large family sedan that doesn't like to be hustled through the curves, I used to look to VW. Well, not anymore.

[Rogue]

Nevertheless, the Passat is still winning comparisons.  A recent article by either C/D or M/T tested the Passat against the Camry and Sonata, in the following guises:

Base model
Hybrid (Passat had Tdi)
Sport (Passat had VR6)

Guess which model won all three?  Yup.  Passat.  The performance is still there, and now it's also competitively priced.  Having said that, the Passat is still a softly sprung mid-size sedan for the masses.  If you want better, try the CC.

[Cablebandit]

Guess which model's buttons all still work after a year or two...

[Rogue]

Toyota.  Of course we knew that.

[tomek]

There is no need to get you panties in a bunch if you disagree.

Hmmmmm , basic physics and reality of automotive design disagree with your posts , it is not a matter of my opinion or not .
Sometimes , frankly , you spew nonsense in your auto related posts .

Nothing wrong with Motor Trend but if you are trying educate yourself about engineering and basic physics perhaps it is not the best source .

There is no effing way A/C draws 25 hp , start up or not . The only electrical loads related to AC operation are  interior and radiator fans . The much bigger one may draw 30-40 amps top  , it translates to about  400-600 Watts or about 0.5-0.8 hp .

You still have not addressed how heating system loads up the powertrain .

[Rogue]

I'm simply speaking of what I read in an article.  Like I said, you can look it up as I'm sure you are a foremost expert in Internet search.  

Up to 25 horsepower on start up.  I did not say, nor did the article say ALL A/C systems do this on all cars.  But it can "up to...."  In other words, it's a major draw on initial startup and at full blast.  The draw is less after the A/C is turned down.  I also mentioned that.  

In any case, believe what you want to believe.  What is true is this:  When you go WOT, many cars shut off the A/C compressor.  Ever ask why?  Also, anyone who has ANY experience driving cars will admit to feeling a drain on the power when the AC is on full blast.  The smaller the engine, the more you feel that drain on power.  Those are facts.  In non-pressurized light airplanes, it's often a procedure that the AC be off on take off.  Hmmm.....I wonder why?  

So what were you saying:  .8 horsepower at most?  That seems to contradict reality.  You won't even feel 1 horsepower gain or loss.  Yet, you do feel the power draw whenever that A/C is on full blast.  So how do you explain that?  

Nevermind.  Back on topic--Compact Pick ups.

[bluedogok]

Guess which model's buttons all still work after a year or two...

Toyota.  Of course we knew that.

...or they could just melt which is a known problem on my wife's 2007 4Runner. The rear door button has some sort of plastic cover that has just kind of melted, it gets sticky, black crud on your hands.....of the surface of the sun heat in Austin the past few summers probably hasn't helped matters much.

[HipGnosis]

Just came across the following and had to dig up this thread

Does The Midsize Truck Have A (USA) Future?
http://autos.aol.com/photos/future-midsize-trucks/?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl10%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D130792

Does the midsize truck make sense anymore?

It's a question -- a tough one -- that nearly every automaker has been asking itself for the past several years, each coming up with slightly different answers.

Since the mid-1990s, midsize trucks have been declining in popularity for a variety of reasons. As automakers continue to make their larger pickups more and more fuel efficient, a major selling point for smaller trucks has become obsolete. And as consumers have demanded more features in midsize trucks, they are no longer a cheap alternative.
Some automakers, like Chrysler and Ford, have let their offerings in the segment die off. Why? They say they no longer see a market for midsize trucks. Ford even has a new Ranger it developed to sell abroad, but it won't be sold here in the U.S.
Others, however, aren't so sure it's time to quit just yet. General Motors, Toyota and Nissan all have opted to remain in the segment, with brand-new and refreshed offerings. Even Indian company Mahindra wants a shot, as it looks to bring its Scorpio model to our shores.
There's no question that the segment looks much, much different than it did even just a few years ago.

Chrysler killed the Ram Dakota in August 2011, after selling only 13,000 of them last year (Chrysler sold 177,000 in 2000).
Recently, however, Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne has hinted that the midsize truck could make a return on a unibody chassis, giving it an edge in fuel-efficiency over its competition.
Marchionne also said that the new Dakota would come with a diesel engine, which would be a huge differentiator from the rest of the segment.
It's an interesting idea. A small, lightweight diesel-powered truck could find a place here in the U.S.

[Joey Stalin]

Marchionne also said that the new Dakota would come with a diesel engine, which would be a huge differentiator from the rest of the segment.
It's an interesting idea. A small, lightweight diesel-powered truck could find a place here in the U.S.

i think i said that on page 1. get on it, detroit.

[JReazor]

i think i said that on page 1. get on it, detroit.

I wonder how a unibody truck will play with the Detroit faithful though. I think it could be very cool but there are those that think it isn't a truck without a body on frame.

[sodapop6620]

I wonder how a unibody truck will play with the Detroit faithful though. I think it could be very cool but there are those that think it isn't a truck without a body on frame.

[KenH]

New trucks are way overpriced. Build your own. Less money, better truck.

My son has 2 Rangers (bagged 5.0 T5 that lays rocker and solid axle 4x4 408 Windsor C6 on 38s) and 2 S10s, one with a 383 Edelbrock Performer RPM EFI package with a Doug Nash 5-speed and 3-stage nitrous system (low 9s @ 140+). Though he does drive all three on his short 2-mile commute to work, all 3 are pretty much useless as dependable and efficient transportation, so he built a '98 S10 extended cab.

He bought a high mile truck used to deliver flowers, body dinged, blown trans, but it had power everything and was complete, with no major crash damage. Yanked the 2.2 and dropped in a 350 with the entire Edelbrock Performer Plus package, including retrofit roller cam and needle bearing roller rockers, coated long-tube headers, and a T56, mounted as low and as far back as the mounts would allow. Rear axle is a 3.55 8.8 with disc brakes out of an Explorer redrilled for the Chevy lug pattern and fitted with a clutch-type aftermarket limited slip. Suspension is a retrofitted ZQ8 with polyurethane bushings, and Edelbrock shocks. B-body 12-inch front brake kit with tubular A-arms. Wheels are 17x9 and tires are 245/45ZR17 Gatorbacks. Battery and jack are relocated behind the right rear wheel and a full size spare replaces the donut. Aluminum radiator with twin electric fans, aluminum water pump and mini starter reduce front axle weight. Flush bed cover to keep sticky fingers off the destination accouterments. ~$11K counting the cost of the truck, bumper-to-bumper rolling chassis including all ancillaries, new leather interior, sound system, body and paint.

All work other than setting up the differential, 4-wheel alignment, and paint done at home. Kid works in a body shop so did the paint there--plain and simple monochrome white, the only body mods are a custom roll pan with a flip-up plate to access the hitch receiver, electric sport mirrors replacing the dumbo ears, and halogen auxilary low beams and driving lights for spotting deer when driving at night. Differential and alignment farmed out.

300hp, 375 lbs/ft, 3170 pounds, 21-23mpg pulling a trailer with one of the other trucks, consistent 27+mpg highway empty.  Not worth a flip offroad, but comfortable ergos, a strong, stable tow vehicle that will out corner, out brake, and out accelerate 99% of the vehicles on the road today. Somehow the kid just doesn't understand why people tell him he needs to enter his tow vehicle in shows along with the Ranger.

Minitrucks are far from dead. If you don't mind getting your hands dirty, you can build a far superior truck to anything you can buy.

[BradleyRas]

I think your dealer may have seen you coming.

I must be lucky, my Jetta was $2000 more than the gas version.  The TDI standard features encluded cruise control and electric windows that was it in 2000 maybe they have changed things since.  My winter fillups are averaging 49.x mpg and the summer time it ranges from 53 to 57mpg.

With every car you will have some issues or can find people who have had some issues.  

With 473xxx miles on the clock I will be hard pressed to give up the TDI.

Same here, my 00 TDI (bought new) was $19250 (GLS model with Luxury package) and I have reaped the benefits of the TDI longevity. At 190K miles, it's brakes, tires, fuel filter ($20 part, 15 minute DIY) and for the first time since new, replaced glow plugs and coolant temp sensor. Early on, the MAF and NV 75 valve failed but they were covered under warranty. Other than that it's regular maintenance. I did change out the stock suspension at 120K for a set of Bilstein touring class struts and poly bushings but that was my doing. Just changed my oil (Rotella T Synthetic every 5-10K miles-factory VW gear oil every 50K miles) and noticed I'll be needing a new serpentine belt and both CV joints are torn.

All in all, not bad for a car that pulls a 5x8 landscaping trailer loaded with firewood or my ZZR when needed...not to mention my hunting kills.




I still get 600-650 miles to a tank.

It's a shame direct injection turbo diesels have not been pushed in the American market. They have so much to offer.

[Kootenanny]

It's a shame direct injection turbo diesels have not been pushed in the American market. They have so much to offer.

Not to quibble, but ALL diesels use direct injection.  The term "direct injection" normally refers to direct injection gasoline engines.

Diesels have no throttle, and power output is not controlled by manifold vacuum; instead, full pressure is available in the intake manifold at all times, and power is controlled by varying the amount of fuel injected into the combustion chamber.  While gasoline engines are normally fixed at or close to the air-fuel ratio of 14.7:1, diesel engines can operate from close to 100:1 at idle to around 30:1 at full power.  They may have the same parts as gasoline engines, but the diesel cycle is quite different.  It is these differences which dictate that diesels usually operate at lower rpm but create higher torque than comparable gasoline engines.

[Mydlyfkryzis]

Not to quibble, but ALL diesels use direct injection.  The term "direct injection" normally refers to direct injection gasoline engines.

Diesels have no throttle, and power output is not controlled by manifold vacuum; instead, full pressure is available in the intake manifold at all times, and power is controlled by varying the amount of fuel injected into the combustion chamber.  While gasoline engines are normally fixed at or close to the air-fuel ratio of 14.7:1, diesel engines can operate from close to 100:1 at idle to around 30:1 at full power.  They may have the same parts as gasoline engines, but the diesel cycle is quite different.  It is these differences which dictate that diesels usually operate at lower rpm but create higher torque than comparable gasoline engines.

Not all diesels are direct injection, as some are indirect, also called pre-chamber. I drove a 1964 Autocar with a 225HP Cat engine that was pre-chamber.  The diesel indirect injection is different than the gasoline indirect, as the gasoline has injection in the intake manifold, usually above the intake valves.

What some of the people are also referring to here is common rail diesel. This differs in that the injectors all receive the high pressure fuel, and are fired electrically, rather than mechanically, in the newest version. Cummins actually uses a form of mechanical common rail. the older Cummins varied the pressure on the fuel rail (PT Pump - Pressure Throttle Pump). while the injector was mechanical, the amount of fuel injected varied on the injector by the fuel rail pressure and how much fuel could enter the injector pumping chamber  through an orifice. More pressure, more fuel.  This is contrasted by other mechanical pumps where the volume of fuel is determined by the stroke of the piston, either at the injector (GMC for instance) or at a distributor pump (Mack or Scania, for instance).

Cat used a six cylinder injection pump (looked like a small engine) on the engine in the truck I drove. The pre-chamber reduced knocking, but was a bear to start when cold. Pre-chamber engines usually have glow plugs, and I believe the earlier VW diesels were pre-chamber too. I know the Mercedes in the 70's were definitely pre-chamber.

 

[Kootenanny]

Not all diesels are direct injection, as some are indirect, also called pre-chamber. I drove a 1964 Autocar with a 225HP Cat engine that was pre-chamber.  The diesel indirect injection is different than the gasoline indirect, as the gasoline has injection in the intake manifold, usually above the intake valves.

I stand corrected.  But as you say, even an "indirect injection" diesel still has to inject fuel under pressure into the pre-chamber, which is part of the combustion chamber.  No diesel has a carburettor, and fuel is never added to the intake AFAIK.  Indeed, this is one of the reasons diesels were developed much later than Otto cycle engines.  Rudolph Diesel's first engine ran or coal dust injected in a stream of high-pressure air.

The Dodge Cummins I had used an inline Bosch pump with mechanical injectors...the pressure pulse in the individual injector line opens each injector, and the amount of fuel is metered by the pump itself.  I understand the electric injectors used on modern common rail engines allow better control of fuel delivery, and can even deliver a double pulse for better efficiency and reduced clatter.