As record fuel prices leave automakers' carefully-laid truck plans looking as if they've been bombarded by a squadron of B-52s, an unlikely survivor might poke its head through the wreckage at Ford: the Ranger. Originally slated to be given a gold watch, a pat on the back, and then shown the door in 2009, the Detroit News reports that the current Ranger might live on until 2011, when its new global replacement will be ready. Attractive fuel economy and good sales numbers -- the Ranger is the #2 compact truck behind the Taco, even though opening the door to the Ford is like stepping into a time machine to the 1990s -- might be the current Ranger's saviors. Salvation is not completely assured, however. Some investment would be required to keep Ranger alive no matter what, as the current truck doesn't have side airbags, which are required after 2009 (this was probably one of the reasons it was slated to die off then in the first place). Is spending money on the Ranger to extend its life just two years in Ford's best interests? Bean-counters will decide. In case you haven't noticed, they've been doing a lotofdeciding, lately.
When the current GMT900 SUVs hit the market in 2006, gas prices were already near $3.00 per gallon, but the super-sized transports sold in prodigious numbers anyway. The reasoning from the General and its customers was that there were still people with big boats or trailers to tow, and unibody CUVs just aren't up to the task. In the two years that followed, gas prices have gone from pesky to pandemic, and buyers are leaving their body-on-frame SUVs by the thousands.
The General isn't blind to the trend, and a report from Bloomberg says that GM may be ready to take the drastic step of separating the platforms of its trucks and full-size SUVs by 2012. The move is extreme because SUVs and trucks have saved development time and money by sharing a platform for many decades, but with such a dramatic shift away from the handy but fuel-thirsty rigs, GM has little choice but to think of alternatives. A unibody Tahoe or Escalade wouldn't be able to tow quite like its predecessor, but they would be lighter and have better fuel economy.
Our first thought was that GM already has eight-passenger unibody CUVs like the Enclave, Acadia, Outlook and upcoming Traverse, but without more utilitarian SUVs like the Tahoe, there should be room for a more purpose-built CUV in the lineup. While this news isn't exactly earth-shattering, we're thinking it very accurately illustrates just how fast these times they are-a-changing, and how far automakers will go to stay viable. Thanks for the tip, Fro!
Thinking of trading your gas-guzzling SUV in for something smaller, a bit more fuel efficient? You are not alone. The rocketing cost of gasoline, and diesel fuel, is having a ripple effect on the SUV market. With consumers trading in their behemoths by the thousands in exchange for more frugal transportation, dealers are stuck with a surplus of unwanted sport-utes sitting on their lots with values dissolving.
Diesel-burning trucks aren't immune either. As diesel fuel costs hovering about fifty cents per-gallon above gasoline, some of the bigger oil-burning SUVs and trucks are losing measurable resale by the day. Overall, according to CNW Marketing Research, used SUV sales were down 14% in March alone. With any surplus, come big discounts. It may be a ghastly time to fill a 30-gallon tank on an SUV, but it is the perfect time to negotiate with a dealer for that seven-passenger family truckster you've been fancying. No need to hurry -- there will be an even better selection tomorrow.
The trucking industry spend $113 billion on diesel fuel last year, and the way prices are going up, the industry will shell out $135 billion this year. To help restrain that kind of runaway profit-loss, the American Trucking Associations has released a list of ideas on how the federal government can lower fuel prices.
In addition to asking the government to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, open up currently prohibited areas for drilling, and fund the EPA's SmartWay program, the ATA wants two intriguing things: speed limiters set at 68 mph on all new trucks, and a national speed limit of 65 mph.
While many states limit trucks and autos with trailers to 55 mph in any conditions, there are states that allow truckers to drive faster, and we find it interesting that the trucking industry wants the federal government to police its drivers with a 68-mph limit in order to save fuel. As for the 65-mph national limit -- the press release doesn't make a distinction, so it looks like the industry is proposing that measure for all vehicles on the roads. If that's the case, not only do we not know how that would bring fuel prices down at all, we don't know why they think slowing cars down in the states that have 65+ speed limits would help the price of diesel fuel. Thanks for the tip, Dan!
The HUMMER H3T has been much in the news lately, now we finally have some press coverage that doesn't involve broken embargoes. After a few days in the High Sierras putting pre-production versions through boulder-strewn paces, the words from HMR magazine are: it's good!
Once past the marketing-speak -- like "With its unique size and HUMMER traits, the H3T is ideal for the customer who works hard and plays harder" -- the H3T with the Adventure Package put in a proper HUMMER showing: the 5-foot bed hasn't killed the truck's departure angle, the length hasn't ruined its agility, and it even got in the obligatory Jeep smackdown encounter. The H3T also has 160 official aftermarket partners creating a glutton's range of branded accessories.
The public will find out if it's really the lion's roar when it shows up on dealer lots in September. Until then, click the link to get the full review, and Autoblog will bring up the up-close and personal from its debut at next week's Chicago Auto Show.
The federal government has gotten more interested in greenhouse gases, and as a result there has been a lot of tough talk concerning raised CAFE numbers. Much less time has been devoted to reducing CO2, which is the single largest contributor to global warming. Now that the spotlight is shining squarely on emissions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has thrown out the 2008-2011 CAFE rating for light trucks. The 2008-2011 changes represented the largest jump in fuel economy in the history of CAFE, with MPG going from 22.2 to 24, but with the growing problem of greenhouse gases, that obviously didn't go far enough for the courts.
While better fuel economy and less harmful emissions coming from light trucks would be a welcome sight to all, changing the rules after 2008 trucks are already on the streets sounds a bit ridiculous. It isn't like automakers can easily change course for 2011, since much of the product plans are already set in stone. It has been 19 months since the new CAFE standards were introduced, which makes this seem more like an effort to get automakers to chase their own tails.
The housing crisis is being blamed for decreased truck sales. In light of the credit crunch, fewer loans are being disbursed and fewer construction workerss are actually at work. With GMC Sierra and Chevy Silverado sales taking the hit, GM has decided to cut a shift at its Oshawa, ON plant in Canada. In a factory that employs 3,000 people, that's a direct loss of 1,000. The indirect job losses won't be known for a while, as GM's suppliers and the businesses around the plant make cuts of their own. It represents the first time the plant has run just two shifts since the early nineties.
The move is more regrettable news for the CAW following Ford's closing its Windsor plant and Chrysler's plan to shed 2,000 union jobs in Ontario. With 85% of the Oshawa plant's output coming south of the border, the 7% drop in sales for the two trucks has made them especially susceptible. The potential light on the horizon is that GM plans to build a state-of-the-art factory next to the Oshawa truck plant to build 500,000 cars per year -- but only after closing one of the two car plants that are currently there. It's quite a fall for the region; GM's Oshawa Plant No. 1 was the most efficient plant in North America in 2004.
A new program to urge Canadian drivers to downsize to more fuel-efficient vehicles from large gas-guzzling SUVs has had the unwarranted effect of lifting sales of pickup trucks. The new ecoAUTO Rebate Program offers a rebate ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 for people who pick up certain fuel-efficient vehicle, but slaps a $4,000 excise tax on fuel-heavy SUVs and sports cars.
Of course, there are many out there who are forced to use heavy pickups for their businesses, so to appease them, the Government exempted the excise on pickups. According to research released by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants, the program has been driving up sales of new pickup trucks since its introduction in March as a result. New car-buyers who previously wanted an SUV are now switching to pickup models. Take Ford's Ranger, sales are up 18% for the first seven months of the year, and that trucklet ain't exactly a spring chicken.
Things aren't expected to change anytime soon because the Government isn't about to admit it made a mistake. Now, where have we heard this before?
The Fiat group seems to be on a ceaseless campaign to bring its products to the U.S. market. A range of products from Alfa Romeo are in the pipeline for importation, the upcoming high-performance Abarth version of the new Fiat 500 has been tipped to make the trans-Atlantic voyage, and now Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne has announced plans to bring the group's heavy truck subsidiary Iveco to the American market. But while the 500 and Alfas may take a while to make the trip, Marchionne has a much tighter time-frame in mind for Iveco, declaring that they company "will have something done within six to nine months." That's mighty soon.
Iveco, short for Industrial Vehicle Corporation, builds close to half a million diesel engines and some 200,000 commercial vehicles every year, including heavy trucks, military vehicles, fire engines, buses, vans and even a formula racing truck that makes NASCAR Craftsman Series trucks look like toys.
In Parts 1 and 2 of his 2007 Heavy Duty Shootout, Mike Levine and his cohorts from Pickuptruck.com compared the acceleration of gas three-quarter ton and diesel one-ton pickups from Dodge, Chevy/GMC and Ford on flat surfaces, both unloaded and loaded with 10,500-lb trailers. For the third and final report, however, Levine introduced grades of 7% and 15% to the equation.
The results were surprising, and really had the most influence on Pickuptruck.com's final conclusions. We won't spoil the dramatic tail of each hill climb at Ford's Michigan Proving Grounds, but the 2007 Ford F-250 with its 6.8L Triton V10 was particularly impressive in the gasser category, and as anyone who has driven one would expect, the 2007 Chevy Silverado 3500 and its 6.6L Duramax diesel/6-speed transmission combo proved overly dominant among the oil burners. That said, the conclusions are only half the story, as Pickuptruck.com follows each truck through every gear as they climb their grades. These rigorous tests brought every truck's weakness, which were glaring in some cases, as well as their strengths.
Click the Read link below to read the conclusion to the 2007 Heavy Duty Shootout and learn once and for all what pickup these guys would park in their garage.
GM shrinks Volt's gas tank, range drops from 600 to 360 miles
MINI dealers to sell Alfa Romeos in the U.S.
Honda to reveal OSM open-top concept in London
With crisis looming, GM may unveil Volt for 100th anniversary
Next BMW M5 will nix V10 in favor of twin-turbo V8
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Lincoln MKS
Track Test: 2008 Roush 427R Trak Pak Mustang
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Porsche Cayman S
First Drive: 2009 Chevrolet Traverse
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mazda MX-5 Miata Retractable Hard Top
