Chevy confirms global Colorado pickup for U.S.
#1
10-10-2011, 11:24 PM
Chevy confirms global Colorado pickup for U.S.
Just found this on Autoblog
Chevy confirms global Colorado pickup for U.S.
Obviously GM still sees a market for their compact pickup trucks in the U.S. I wonder if Ford was just waiting to let GM play their hand or if they're still going to give the rest of the world a new Ranger and leave the U.S. customers out.
ON EDIT: Here's the pickuptrucks.com article on it as well.
It's Official! The New Colorado Is Coming to the U.S. - PickupTrucks.com News
Chevy confirms global Colorado pickup for U.S.
Obviously GM still sees a market for their compact pickup trucks in the U.S. I wonder if Ford was just waiting to let GM play their hand or if they're still going to give the rest of the world a new Ranger and leave the U.S. customers out.
ON EDIT: Here's the pickuptrucks.com article on it as well.
It's Official! The New Colorado Is Coming to the U.S. - PickupTrucks.com News
#2
10-10-2011, 11:30 PM
Logistics Pro
A diesel Ranger AND a diesel Focus would be incredible. 
The fact that there is a 60-70+mpg Ford Focus in Europe but not here drives me mad.
Also, more diesel demand would be good because if we had more diesel refineries the cost of diesel would be lower than gas, let alone more efficient. (<Less emissions.)
The fact that there is a 60-70+mpg Ford Focus in Europe but not here drives me mad.
Also, more diesel demand would be good because if we had more diesel refineries the cost of diesel would be lower than gas, let alone more efficient. (<Less emissions.)
#3
10-10-2011, 11:32 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Arlington,Texas
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A diesel Ranger AND a diesel Focus would be incredible.
The fact that there is a 60-70+mpg Ford Focus in Europe but not here drives me mad.
Also, more diesel demand would be good because if we had more diesel refineries the cost of diesel would be lower than gas, let alone more efficient. (<LESS class=inlineimg title="Whad Up?" alt="" border="0" src="http://images.ford-trucks.com/forums/images/smilies2/cool0046.gif"
The fact that there is a 60-70+mpg Ford Focus in Europe but not here drives me mad.
Also, more diesel demand would be good because if we had more diesel refineries the cost of diesel would be lower than gas, let alone more efficient. (<LESS class=inlineimg title="Whad Up?" alt="" border="0" src="http://images.ford-trucks.com/forums/images/smilies2/cool0046.gif"
#4
10-10-2011, 11:45 PM
#5
10-10-2011, 11:46 PM
Logistics Pro
#6
10-10-2011, 11:56 PM
OK, I looked that page over pretty well, and it provides no answer to my question.
#7
10-11-2011, 12:04 AM
I think it's a mixed bag. The necessity to meet EPA regulations ends up requiring added expense to the vehicle in the form of the smog equipment, etc. In turn, the price of the vehicles increases and begins to edge into the territory of the larger trucks. I believe the Corporate thinking on this is that folks won't want to pay F-150 prices for a Ranger. I believe they're wrong and the trucks don't really have to cost that much either.
I believe the other thinking is that they really have no accurate way of gauging demand for the diesel in a small truck. And they're probably afraid of losing some F-150 sales to it if they were to offer it. Again, I think they're wrong. I think that if they offered the diesel in the Ranger, they'd begin to see some GM and Ram (read Fiat) defectors coming over and overall sales would increase.
There's still demand for the Ranger or it would have been discontinued before now. I still want to think that they were waiting for GM to show their hand before announcing anything, if they even do.
I know if they did offer the Ranger (the new Global Ranger) with the diesel, I'd probably look at one as a second vehicle.
I believe the other thinking is that they really have no accurate way of gauging demand for the diesel in a small truck. And they're probably afraid of losing some F-150 sales to it if they were to offer it. Again, I think they're wrong. I think that if they offered the diesel in the Ranger, they'd begin to see some GM and Ram (read Fiat) defectors coming over and overall sales would increase.
There's still demand for the Ranger or it would have been discontinued before now. I still want to think that they were waiting for GM to show their hand before announcing anything, if they even do.
I know if they did offer the Ranger (the new Global Ranger) with the diesel, I'd probably look at one as a second vehicle.
Trending Topics
#8
10-11-2011, 12:05 AM
Logistics Pro
Emissions. Ford can't afford to put emissions on the car that meet's the EPA's demands, meanwhile selling the car at a price where people will buy it.
It make no sense that a car that gets better mileage than a friggin prius won't pass "emissions standards."
IMO we should get rid of the EPA, or at least cut it WAY back and disarm them.
#9
10-11-2011, 02:07 AM
Maybe the underlying problem is that they can't bear the idea of breaking the F150's top seller status. I have an F150 but I would love to have a smaller more manuverable truck in addition to the one that I have. It would be worth it if I could get it with 4x4 and 50-60 mpg! Most especially it it had massive torque, it would be a dream come true.
My F150 is a nice Lariat with all the goodies and it's a super crew cab. So it's great to take two couples out to dinner, it's a great grocery getter, but not much of a work truck with the small bed. I have a tool box that shrinks the bed even more but it is needed for security. The bed it too high for reasonably easy access. I'm 5'11" but I carry a small folding ladder to reach into the bed. A smaller truck would be great.
I don't know exactly what the EPA rules are that would drive up the cost so much.
Do you get lower emissions when you burn vegetable oils?
I don't know how old you are but I am old enough (and have lived many years in Southern California) to have seen the rise of air pollution and the growth of the EPA and the subsequent drop in air pollutions. They have done a lot of good as far as cleaning up the environment.
The Marine Corps used to change oil in those big old tanks and they would just pull the plug and dump 36 gallons of waste oil on the ground. They don't do that now because the EPA made a rule against the practice. So I would prefer that we don't shut down the EPA.
My F150 is a nice Lariat with all the goodies and it's a super crew cab. So it's great to take two couples out to dinner, it's a great grocery getter, but not much of a work truck with the small bed. I have a tool box that shrinks the bed even more but it is needed for security. The bed it too high for reasonably easy access. I'm 5'11" but I carry a small folding ladder to reach into the bed. A smaller truck would be great.
I don't know exactly what the EPA rules are that would drive up the cost so much.
Do you get lower emissions when you burn vegetable oils?
I don't know how old you are but I am old enough (and have lived many years in Southern California) to have seen the rise of air pollution and the growth of the EPA and the subsequent drop in air pollutions. They have done a lot of good as far as cleaning up the environment.
The Marine Corps used to change oil in those big old tanks and they would just pull the plug and dump 36 gallons of waste oil on the ground. They don't do that now because the EPA made a rule against the practice. So I would prefer that we don't shut down the EPA.
#10
10-11-2011, 09:20 AM
Logistics Pro
Maybe the underlying problem is that they can't bear the idea of breaking the F150's top seller status. I have an F150 but I would love to have a smaller more manuverable truck in addition to the one that I have. It would be worth it if I could get it with 4x4 and 50-60 mpg! Most especially it it had massive torque, it would be a dream come true.
My F150 is a nice Lariat with all the goodies and it's a super crew cab. So it's great to take two couples out to dinner, it's a great grocery getter, but not much of a work truck with the small bed. I have a tool box that shrinks the bed even more but it is needed for security. The bed it too high for reasonably easy access. I'm 5'11" but I carry a small folding ladder to reach into the bed. A smaller truck would be great.
I don't know exactly what the EPA rules are that would drive up the cost so much.
Do you get lower emissions when you burn vegetable oils?
I don't know how old you are but I am old enough (and have lived many years in Southern California) to have seen the rise of air pollution and the growth of the EPA and the subsequent drop in air pollutions. They have done a lot of good as far as cleaning up the environment.
The Marine Corps used to change oil in those big old tanks and they would just pull the plug and dump 36 gallons of waste oil on the ground. They don't do that now because the EPA made a rule against the practice. So I would prefer that we don't shut down the EPA.
My F150 is a nice Lariat with all the goodies and it's a super crew cab. So it's great to take two couples out to dinner, it's a great grocery getter, but not much of a work truck with the small bed. I have a tool box that shrinks the bed even more but it is needed for security. The bed it too high for reasonably easy access. I'm 5'11" but I carry a small folding ladder to reach into the bed. A smaller truck would be great.
I don't know exactly what the EPA rules are that would drive up the cost so much.
Do you get lower emissions when you burn vegetable oils?
I don't know how old you are but I am old enough (and have lived many years in Southern California) to have seen the rise of air pollution and the growth of the EPA and the subsequent drop in air pollutions. They have done a lot of good as far as cleaning up the environment.
The Marine Corps used to change oil in those big old tanks and they would just pull the plug and dump 36 gallons of waste oil on the ground. They don't do that now because the EPA made a rule against the practice. So I would prefer that we don't shut down the EPA.
However, when it comes to EPA and diesels... new ones need filter fluid. Filter fluid for their exhausts. It's that ridiculous. Diesels are more expensive anyway because of the way they are built, but the EPA's standards are way overkill. Look at the "future" MPG requirements.... you think that's gonna be a good thing for us autos/automakers???
#12
10-11-2011, 10:02 PM
Postmaster
#13
10-13-2011, 11:00 AM
#15
10-22-2011, 09:32 PM
