Cannibal with less margin ^^^^^^

 

While I agree, I think the Canyon and Colorado are doing ok...

Colorado 2015 YTD Sales: 48,784
Canyon 2015 YTD Sales: 15,017

Right now they are track to sell as well as 2006 and 2004 respectively which isn't bad at all. In fact it is actually a bit impressive and they have beaten my personal estimates.

Yes, it is a cannibal, but not all sales are cannibal sales. The Colorado seems to be picking up stride in the fleet market (lower margin as you pointed out) which is not necessarily bad.

Is it enough sales? For Colorado and Canyon yes, but I do not think the market is big enough for a new Dakota to compete with them and the Tacoma.

I would love a Dakota, but I just don't think the market, margin, size, sales price gap to the full size, etc. makes sense at this time.

Here is the link to an Allpar news article from April on this subject:

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2015/04/colorado-sales-argue-against-new-dakota-28238

Mike

 

Below is one of at least 10 commonly expressed statements regarding Chrysler product availability:

"I am really missing the fill-in the blank. You don't know how often we have someone come into the dealership looking for a fill-in the blank."

 

Personally I consider the midsize trucks much more interesting than the big ones, because they are smaller, more efficient and often more load capacity.

The issue I think is that all midsize trucks have world wide markets to support then.

All competitors that offer products in this segment has global distribution networks and a global brand. The Ram is a brand without international reach. And these products are developed especially for Asia but also for Latin America, and their distribution in North America are possible by this global volume.

 

Personally I consider the midsize trucks much more interesting than the big ones, because they are smaller, more efficient and often more load capacity.

The issue I think is that all midsize trucks have world wide markets to support then.

All competitors that offer products in this segment has global distribution networks and a global brand. The Ram is a brand without international reach. And these products are developed especially for Asia but also for Latin America, and their distribution in North America are possible by this global volume.

The Tacoma that Toyota sells here is produced specifically for this part of the world. The Hilux they offer elsewhere is for the rest of the globe. Why? I believe they think North America wants a slightly larger, more capable truck at the sacrifice of fuel economy. Probably true since the domestics started out with smaller, lighter tucks and have spent the last 35 years making them bigger, heavier, more powerful and less full efficient thus blurring the lines between them and the traditional full-size 1/2-ton pickups like the Ram 1500. How big the market is here for a D-50 size truck is anyone's guess today. I know when I was selling Toyotas over the last couple of years the number of people coming in looking for a base 4-cyl. Tacoma you could count on one hand. They just aren't in big demand. Most people want a V6 4x4 of some sort.....at least in this part of the country. Occasionally you get the guy that wants to cheapest 4-cyl 4x2 and has $16K to spend.....but like I said, not many of those customers exist. I don't think there is enough of a market there to bother chasing.

 

Does (not) FCA plan on offering the soon-to-be launched Brazilian Fiat-branded midsize stylized C-pickup truck in the US, badged a Ram? If so: fully imported, presumably? Precisely for the economies-of-scale reason @Mario9 has justed posted about?

 

I owned two Dakotas and would love to own another mid-sized truck. Today's full-sized trucks are a lot larger than I need.

 

And they are too long to fit in a lot of garages.

 

I would probably buy a new Dakota (if it existed) over a new Ram. Better MPG, better maneuverability, decent payload and towing, cheaper, and its a better fit inside.

One of the main things stopping me from getting a Colorado right now is price. I can buy a RAM for a few thousand more than a Colorado. Of course the RAM can be had for 9-10k off sticker and the Colorado has zero incentives.

I would definitely buy a Dakota over a Colorado, if it were available.

Colorado diesel coming soon...new temptation.

 

I would probably buy a new Dakota (if it existed) over a new Ram. Better MPG, better maneuverability, decent payload and towing, cheaper, and its a better fit inside.

One of the main things stopping me from getting a Colorado right now is price. I can buy a RAM for a few thousand more than a Colorado. Of course the RAM can be had for 9-10k off sticker and the Colorado has zero incentives.

I would definitely buy a Dakota over a Colorado, if it were available.

Colorado diesel coming soon...new temptation.

There is the problem in your equation. "Cheaper" is not likely to happen. You may get all the rest, but you won't get significantly cheaper. Colorado has shown that and there's no reason to think a new Dakota would be cheaper.

 

I'm a big fan or the original Dakotas (I've had a '92, '95, and still have my '99 R/T) but in typical fashion, they kept making them bigger (and more expensive) 'till they basically built themselves out of a market IMHO. Damn near Ram sized and almost the same price. It seems too many times, the answer to the next model year's (or generation's) upgrades are to make them bigger, and bigger. Look at what passes as a "compact" today. The new Colorado "looks" big (haven't seen one in person) but at least it has a diesel option.
I'm sure it's (at least partially) market driven, but I think there's a lot of "some people are never happy" or "you can't please everyone" going on. Someone buys a small truck, lists all the features they like (smaller, easier to maneuver/park, better gas mileage, etc) then lists what they want to change (more power, more capability, more room/space etc). The next gen gets the upgrades, but loses some of the original benefits. Rinse and repeat 'till you end up with another full size
But that's just me, I still loved my '84 Rampage (and have no need for a full size truck) so I'm probably wrong (or at the very least, out of touch with the rest of the market. I'm still waiting on a Wrangler based pickup )...

 

As previously discussed, the Dakota grew slightly, but the looks were deceiving. Many people think it grew much more than it really did. What hurt the last Dakota the most was the interior quality.

The new Colorado/Canyon and marketed as midsize, not compact trucks... Just like the Dakota was.

Mike

 

I too would buy a Dakota if it was offered again. We have had 2 Grand Cherokees and I nearly bought an '08 Dak but after I tried the Jeep with the Hemi the power difference was noticable. A full size truck is too big for my parking set up.
If there was a mid size Ram it could be sold in South America and other markets where Fiat is strong which was not the case back when the Dak was still in production ; as long as it's designed to be suited for international markets as the Japanese trucks are.

 

Not necessarily as the Dakota may have been too large for those markets.

Mike

 

Honestly, as much as I miss my Dakota (99, RC, SB), I would not buy one again, unless it was a hot rod. Meaning, it would need to have a 5.7 hemi minimum. Thinking about it though, a Dakota with the PUG, and an 8 speed would really get after it!

I really think that if FCA is going to get back int othe domestic, >full size truck market, that it should be done on a pick up significantly different, and not easily duplicated by the competition. If it were me, I would do the long ask for Jeep Wrangeler pick up.

Does Trungler, or Wruck sound better?

 

Just remember, GM has a certain scale that Chrysler does not. GM, Ford, and Toyota can release just about anything and it will find a certain number of buyers. Well, so can Chrysler, but it will be a lower number of buyers.

 

The key IMHO is not to produce products that are predicted from "study" to attract an estimated portion of a segment. Chrysler always does well when they show some balls by creating a product that also correspondingly creates that market. This was Dakota (among others) until they decided to abandon leadership and commenced the following. Of course, they had to obey Daimler during those dark times.....

 

A Wruck, or Trungler, because it would be a Jeep, would be much easier to move into overseas markets, too. Much weasier than a Ram.

 

So one platform two trucks one exported?

 

ANY midsizer that comes to fruition at this time would be a V6 FWD based layout. Period. IMO We don't need a Ridgeline on our hands... that size and style of truck has NEVER done well in NAFTA ( Ridgeline, Brat, Rampage etc... )

The money is not there to develop a completely separate RWD truck based project that would fly solo-mio. And I say this as someone who has 3 Gen3 Dakotas sitting in the driveway.

I do agree with Muther though, if they were to do a Dakota style pickup ( retro to the Gen3? LOL ) and slam a Hemi in it, I would be all over that thing. Just think how much fun that would be as a SRT 6.4 variant........ I do

 

With the thread title asking if FCA missing the boat without a mid-size truck, I'd say no...the Colorado's good mileage numbers are with a 4 cyl...very FEW truck buyers will opt for a four-banger.

The facts are...the Ram's mileage is very good with the V6 gas (25 hwy) and even better with its VM diesel. You get more room, more power, good towing and mpg numbers as well. The fact that Colorado's best mpg numbers are based on an engine few customers will opt for, essentially makes those numbers meaningless.

I'd say the Ram wins hands-down in the customer's eyes when competing with a mid-size...and, more to the point, it would be a waste of time and money for FCA to pursue a mid-size truck when the Ram 1500 already competes respectable with that segment.

 

With the thread title asking if FCA missing the boat without a mid-size truck, I'd say no...the Colorado's good mileage numbers are with a 4 cyl...very FEW truck buyers will opt for a four-banger.

The facts are...the Ram's mileage is very good with the V6 gas (25 hwy) and even better with its VM diesel. You get more room, more power, good towing and mpg numbers as well. The fact that Colorado's best mpg numbers are based on an engine few customers will opt for, essentially makes those numbers meaningless.

I'd say the Ram wins hands-down in the customer's eyes when competing with a mid-size...and, more to the point, it would be a waste of time and money for FCA to pursue a mid-size truck when the Ram 1500 already competes respectable with that segment.

Which is easier to park or get into?

 

Import the brazilian midsizer. I just doesn't make sense to try to duplicate the effort with a NAFTA vehicle. Yes it will have to be modified to meet our regulations, but that would likely be cheeper than a new project given the relatively small number of vehicles we're talking about.

 

And just how big is this midsize truck to Tacoma GM

 

In my head, the not-so-compact compact truck serves the purpose of allowing the automaker to justify increasing the and price on the larger full-size trucks.

It appeases the call for a "smaller truck". I think what more consumers are looking for are "smaller and cheaper" trucks.

 

I love my Dakota, the Rams are just a little bit too big for the amount of use it actually would get hauling things around. With a lumber rack I can do everything I need and want with the smaller Dakota. With that, there are plenty of used Dakotas out there to meet most people's needs, and the truck from Brazil, if it isn't FWD (I can't recall), it would be a good contender to have half the development cost to bring back, not everyone wants a bow tie in the driveway, so get a used Dakota in the meantime. Rebuilding one from the ground up would be cheaper than a new one anyway.

 

It will never happen. I like smaller trucks, but that's just me. They don't have the money GM has. Ford hasn't even gotten back into it. I think if Ford joined in, maybe FCA would think about it.

 

With no 'real' XJ replacement ever likely, smaller pickups are now on my list of future vehicles.
I simply have no room or need for a full sized pickup.
Doesn't matter what the cost or mpg is, full size makes no sense for me.

With Jeep and Dodge out of the smaller pickup picture the Colorado is on my radar.

 

With no 'real' XJ replacement ever likely, smaller pickups are now on my list of future vehicles.
I simply have no room or need for a full sized pickup.
Doesn't matter what the cost or mpg is, full size makes no sense for me.

With Jeep and Dodge out of the smaller pickup picture the Colorado is on my radar.

Exactly why I bought the GMC Canyon. And to those who think they can get a Ram for the same money...good luck. Maybe a cloth seat, low options, extended cab RAM vs. a leather, loaded, crew cab Canyon.

Ultimately, it is more than just MPG. It is the ability to park/maneuver. It is having enough towing/hauling capability without getting retarded about it. Its about having an auto locking rear diff, 2WD/Auto/4hi-lock/4lo-lock, and solid rear axle. Its about a good ride, nice interior, and features. Then, it about better gas mileage than my Liberty.

Could I have gotten all of that in a Ram...nope. Not for the same cost, and even then the vehicle is just too damn big IMO.

 

Among other things, what made the Dakota, the Dakota, was its styling. It was alwasy a very nice looking truck... until it was restyled in 03/04 and it got FUGLY. Less than full size trucks have always been very style sensitive. The better selling trucks (less than full size) were always leaders in styling and design.

I would really hope that they do the Trungler. That truck would be able to enter markets that Ram, and for that matter Colorado, just could enter. It would have Wrangler's capabilities, and hopefully, good cargo capacity. I also belive it would be harder for anybody else to duplicate. Design? I would make it look as claose to a J10/20 as I could.

 

As an owner of a Shelby Dakota, I can say that the size is perfect for my needs and it has plenty of power. But I think that is where the problem started with the Dakota getting bigger. With the 3.9l v6 being significantly weaker than the 5.2, having about the same fuel economy, and seeing the success of the Shelby edition, Chrysler saw the need to put the v8 in the Dakota permanently and the continuous growth of the originally midsized truck started. It needed to happen back then, but nowadays the Pentastar v6 could be put in a truck the original size of the Dakota and have plenty of power.

If they were designing one today, I would say make it just large enough to fit the v6. Any bigger and people will just start jumping up to the 1500. If they want to make a performance version, slap a turbocharger or supercharger on it and be done with it.

And I agree with Muther, the Dakota always was a good looking truck until it that fugly redesign in 03/04 and probably contributed to its low sales. Although, when it was redesigned again in 2007 I thought it looked much better except that the styling made it look bigger than it really was and pushed people up to the 1500. I think a lesson can be taken from the XJ. It was a small SUV, but it still had rugged styling, not big styling and I think that contributed to its success, if that makes any sense.

 

Americans love their pickups but you can't please everyone. Some want sport trucks with hemis, others want trucks that look so nice they can take them to the oprea. Some even miss the old D50 or the S10.
FCA has a smaller truck that is ready right now. Google pro master city pickup, they sell it in Europe. Its cheap and functional and can carry more stuff then the old Dakota. It might be ugly but its a truck that does real truck things.

 

FCA has a smaller truck that is ready right now. Google pro master city pickup, they sell it in Europe. Its cheap and functional and can carry more stuff then the old Dakota. It might be ugly but its a truck that does real truck things.

Is that the same as the Fiat Doblò Work Up?

 

FYI : Diamler Dakota redesign was 2005. The 1997 design ended with the 2004 models.

 

I know a lot of guys who wanted a mid size truck but they also liked the V8 option, which nobody else in the segment had. So as it's been said before, I think Dodge sold Dakotas well for a lot of years due to the fact they had something nobody else had. I also think the late 90s to early 00s model looked great. The fuel crisis hurt V8 trucks in general by the mid 00s, and by then the Dakota had become a really ugly truck so I'm sure that didn't help keep it around. But for a long while they did really well in my part of the world because of the hardware offered and the size of the package. It was like having your cake and getting to eat it too.

 

Dan Roth from Autoblog is doubting weather it is different enough from the full size trucks to sell well.
I agree with his argument that the GM midsize trucks should be smaller than they currently are. I would be interested in such an animal from FCA, but that usually means no-one else would buy it.

 

Dan Roth from Autoblog is doubting weather it is different enough from the full size trucks to sell well.

Duh, we have sales figures.

 

Not that I think FCA desperately needs a new "Dakota", but you can add that boat to the armada of missed ships.
Dakota replacement
Chrysler small CUV or hatchback/wagon
Chrysler mid size CUV
Chrysler large FWD sedan
Dodge mid size sedan
Jeep XJ replacement
Jeep Wrangler truck and/or solid roof (see XJ replacement)
Ram full size SUV (Adventurer)

Oh to have a few billion just lying around needing something to spend it on...

 

RAM full size SUV would be cool.