Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by CDJSalesPro, Aug 3, 2015.
Doesn't Ram start at 25k MSRP for a no frills work truck?
$25,660 for a regular cab with either a short box or long box, buyers choice.
-2000 consumer cash for my region, and it's $23,660.
They can buy a new 4x2 Tacoma for under $17K for the base model regular cab. With the manual trans. they can get into Ram 1500 diesel MPG range on the highway....regardless of what the EPA numbers are. You don't see many 4x2s around here because Toyota allocates mostly 4x4s in this part of the country. Last year they shipped us a real mongrel. A 4x2 crew cab Tacoma 4-cyl. auto. That's the first....and last....one I've seen. About the cheapest you can get a base 4x4 Tacoma regular cab is $25K. Or you can get a three year old one with 35K miles for $23K. They hold their value extremely well. And people are willing to pay for it.
Yes, that is hard to compete with and probably why Ram never did a midsize truck.
Isn't the Tacoma the little truck? That's kind of an unfair comparison with the ram. Try tundra.
No, the issue is that there was a very small price gap between the Hemi powered Ram and a similarly equipped, but 4.7L powered, Dakota.
It was and still is easy to up sell to full size for many many buyers in the mid size market.
Yup. The old "it's bigger and more powerful for just a little more money" tactic works almost every time.
Even the new Colorado looks to have a pretty tall leftover to put items in the bed behind the cab.
I waited a year and got a 360 Dakota instead
One thing that seems to be overemphasized is the idea that bigger is always better, so a Dakota must be cheaper than a similarly equipped Ram. Given the choice with both trucks having the same equipment and at the same price, I would choose the smaller truck simply because it better fits my needs and wants.
And many consumers over the last two decades chose to do the opposite of you.
There are more opinions on this subject listed in the Truck section - Ram pickups - under Height of New Trucks.
What about the new FWD C-segment Fiat Toro pickup? I know it is not in the most recent product plan, but could it not be sold in NAFTA as a Ram "lifestyle" pickup? They could even make a Jeep version with the Renegade's suspension and drivetrain.
I see the Colorado is the 2015 truck of the year in Motortrend. That might give them an extra push in sales.
I have only loosely followed this thread, having read everything posted from the beginning, just not in a single sitting.
I hope I'm not inadvertently doubling what another person has posted -
What I see as needs are less likely going to be considered or pursued. I had a 2006 Ram 2500 (years before that had a Dodge 50). The Ram was 6400 Lbs. I loved it. It hit all the marks in the 'Best Vehicle I've Ever Owned' category. I foolishly let it go when the Crash happened (trying to lighten the load, so to speak). It was too much for my wife to handle with confidence, though. I learned the then Dakota would likely have been the sweet spot for our family's truck.
I don't see a Modified Wrangler pick-up happening. I don't see a BoF lightweight pick-up being leaked, so not yet in NAFTA. And we've discussed a few things as potential starting points.
I'm wondering if we've discussed/talked our way back to the FCA version of the Ridgeline starting point again? A dressed-up Caravan Chop, with a nicely designed bed?
Well, have we yet Bandied the potential that might be found in a Short Wheelbase Crew Cab ProMaster Chassis Cab Chop with a factory styled Pick-up Bed? Built-in Pentastar base engine* ... optional Diesel (agreed, that's a stretch between that Diesel and the Ram EcoDiesel). I'd wonder if the hauling capacity of the ProMaster (ladder frame) and the towing rating would work as a Tweener Truck as we've come to expect when thinking in terms of an "Other-than-the-1500" utility truck. Stratuscaster's Decontented 1500 (Ram 1000 idea) would be remotely similar - more as an idea than in how this would come across.
* - With discussion of Hemis being de-emphasized in favor of stronger Pentastar gear; perhaps that could trickle down to such a truck? Just a thought.
To Me the Dakota question comes down to the business case.
How much money can be made from it?
Believe it or not, FCA has people that are very, very good at figuring out stuff like that.
Where would it be built?
Would it take production capacity from other, more profitable vehicles (i.e. Ram 1500)?
How much would it cost to bring to production?
At what point point would it start contributing money to the bottom line?
In other words, how long would the investment in it remain cost negative, and could FCA withstand NOT having that much money available to bring other more profitable vehicles to market?
Also, how much money would they be losing to competitors that are in that market segment?
Is it worth NOT being in that segment?
Meaning, is it worth producing a possibly lower margin vehicle to have a presence in that market?
There is a lot that goes into answering such questions. It is my belief that FCA wants to be in the small/mid-size truck category, but it just does not make budgetary sense to do so.
Alright, I think this dead horse has been beat enough...
Thanks everyone for the very interesting and informative discussion.