new Small Pickup coming to the US?

In reply to Driven5:

I base my tow ratings on the oversea number. My forester was rated at ... Less than a ton and I pulled over a ton with it through the mountains.

Brand it as a Dodge and sell a cheap stripped model and I would imagine it would do well replacing the many Ford Rangers rolling around here held together with duct tape and hope much the way the Transit Connect sent most of the aging Astro vans into retirement.

For what I want a truck for it would be ideal. I could use a small truck for going to the lumber yard and dump but I could not justify the fuel mileage of a larger truck to commute in.

GTwannaB wrote: So will they have to deliver these with the beds full of frozen chickens or something? Isn't that stupid import bad still in effect? Or are they going to build in North America?

The 'chicken tax' is definitely something they need to consider. Hopefully, they will learn from the mistake MINI made with the cargo version of the Clubman.

I understand Chtrysler does have some unused manufacturing capacity in North America, so building it here could be possible.

As long as this can tow a lawn trailer and associated equipment that's normally stowed in the truck, they can shut up and take my money.

I thought the Subaru already brought back the BRAT and called it the Baja?

Why is this more appealing to people than, say, a colorado or canyon, or dakota with a base engine? I think the fiat is ugly, and I would rather have full frame of the domestic stuff.

In reply to gearheadmb:

Because people don't want larger truck. I know several people with Rangers and S-10s that sits around until something needs to be hauled like brush or potting soil from the garden center. They're cheap enough to insure and pull their weight that they are always sitting on the wayside to do what the owner needs.

exactly.. the only reason I do not have a ranger is because I need to tow around 5000 pounds of boat and trailer. I have never wanted or wished for a full sized pickup. Place I worked at had a full size chevy and a small Nissan hardbody at my disposal. Unless I absolutely needed to take the chevy, it was always the Nissan's keys in my hands

I used a 81 rabbit pickup for a couple of years. It was awesome. Small pickups are perfect for me.

I hate the hassle of big trucks. I dislike driving them in traffic, hate trying to park them in lots, I abhor the amount of space they require in the driveway for something I only use once or twice a month. Driving an F250 makes sense with a big trailer but is silly when I am taking a load of yard debris to the recycling center or picking up a sink at Lowes Depot.

This Fiat appeals to me strongly. I suspect it will appeal to the seemingly large group around here who keep Datsun 620's and old couriers around for the same reasons.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: In reply to gearheadmb: Because people don't want larger truck.

Just curious, have you seen trucks lately? People, and most of them, want their trucks to be as large, and with as much power, and as many options as possible.

You know several people. That's roughly how many in N. America would buy the Fiat.

I would love an 80's S10 sized truck, or even better, a 70's Japanese sized pickup with a 2.0L or smaller motor, but I am very much in the minority. Small trucks will come back again. Everything runs in cycles, but they won't come back as car-trucks like that. They'll be real trucks.

If VW would sell a TDI Amarok in the US, I would buy one yesterday.

Sign me up. I would go down the new car path again for this

The question is- would you want to pay a realistic price, or the low ball price that you all remember for small pick-ups?

Realistically, a small pick-up will cost roughly the same as a Fusion/Accord if not a little more. So figure mid-$20k's for a small pick-up.

Add $3k for a diesel.

Now, would you buy one?

(and feel free to point out that a new larger pick up costs that much. there's a reason for that)

In reply to Zomby Woof:

I wouldn't be so quick to be cocky. You forget that there are also businesses that want small trucks.

Yes there are people who want the largest trucks possible for no good reason, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who don't want the smallest trucks possible too.

Just because it's a Fiat doesn't mean it's a huge POS. I honestly have more faith in Fiat than I do VW.

alfadriver wrote: The question is- would you want to pay a realistic price, or the low ball price that you all remember for small pick-ups? Realistically, a small pick-up will cost roughly the same as a Fusion/Accord if not a little more. So figure mid-$20k's for a small pick-up. Add $3k for a diesel. Now, would you buy one? (and feel free to point out that a new larger pick up costs that much. there's a reason for that)

If the base model version of the Fiat was more than $18k I would be surprised.

alfadriver wrote: The question is- would you want to pay a realistic price, or the low ball price that you all remember for small pick-ups? Realistically, a small pick-up will cost roughly the same as a Fusion/Accord if not a little more. So figure mid-$20k's for a small pick-up. Add $3k for a diesel. Now, would you buy one? (and feel free to point out that a new larger pick up costs that much. there's a reason for that)

See my comment above about the TDI Amarok - 310 lb/ft of torques and 36 mpg?

I'm a player at $35,000, maybe a bit more.

In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid:

Be prepared to be surprised. The reason the old trucks were so cheap is because they had to meet CAFE numbers. The someone figured out that it's bad business to sell cars at a loss.

An $18k Fiat is the 500. There is a lot more to the pick up than there is to a 500, thus it will cost more.

Granted, the Fiat does have the advantage that it's a unibody (apparently)- which saves a ton over a traditional body on frame truck design. But it's still as much or more stuff than a 500.

I like those. I need a little more towing, but I like where this is going. The reason they would be more interesting than the new Colorado or Dakota for most people is really simple - mileage. Despite all the hype about light and aero around the new Colorado (of which I am also a fan), I'd be floored if it can get 30mpg on the highway. If this can break 40 - that's a huge difference for a fairly small trade in capability.

Someone was decrying the low load capacity, but I'm pretty sure the article quoted a 1600 lb load capacity - that's more than a full size Ford from the 70s, and getting close to an old-school 3/4 ton pickup. How is that too small? How much scrap iron and lead block does the average homeowner haul?

Personally I need a tow rating of 5k lbs for my camper, and that's leaving a safety margin I'm comfortable with in the mountains. I've gone and looked at new F150s a couple times with the intent of buying one but they just feel obnoxiously huge sitting in them, I can't get past it. I'm 6'1" tall and the bed rail comes up to my chin. I wouldn't be able to reach ANYTHING I put in the bed. I'm fairly certain the crew cab has more interior space than my first apartment.

I have a 97 V8 Explorer that is the perfect size. Big enough to hold anything I need to take, strong enough to tow 6500lbs. It still gets 16mpg towing a 3500lb camper at 70. I keep thinking that I'll have to replace it since it's well over 200k miles, but there's nothing out there new that can do what it does in the same footprint.

Give me 5k lbs towing and 30+ mpg on a gas motor, ideally with some kind of 4wd, and I will be standing in line.

bludroptop wrote:

alfadriver wrote: The question is- would you want to pay a realistic price, or the low ball price that you all remember for small pick-ups? Realistically, a small pick-up will cost roughly the same as a Fusion/Accord if not a little more. So figure mid-$20k's for a small pick-up. Add $3k for a diesel. Now, would you buy one? (and feel free to point out that a new larger pick up costs that much. there's a reason for that)

See my comment above about the TDI Amarok - 310 lb/ft of torques and 36 mpg? I'm a player at $35,000, maybe a bit more.

And at that price, you can get a full sized truck that can do more.

Which is the real problem. the actual market for people willing to pay that money for a smaller thing is darned small. While there are probably 20-30k people just like you out there, that's still a very small market for a truck.

Plus- much of the buying public put more value into total ability than smallness.

Trucks are an odd market. Rarely do you ever see anyone trying to appeal to a market that has less capabilty and is smaller.

We'll see...

(and I also wish we (F) had a unibody Ranger sized truck, based on the AWD Explorer platform- we'd probably get one and use for towing and utility)

bludroptop wrote: See my comment above about the TDI Amarok - 310 lb/ft of torques and 36 mpg? I'm a player at $35,000, maybe a bit more.

New F150 is 700lbs lighter with the 2.7TT. The 2.7TT will get better mpg than the 3.5, and is supposed to make ~300hphp and ~350tqs.

The 36mpg you quoted for the VW is imperial gallons. That is 30usmpg. A Dodge Ram 1/2 ton ecodiesel gets that on the highway with way more capability. The vehicle you want is already available, at the price you demand and yet you haven't bought it. If the concern is size, the actual size differences are negligible IMO for there to be a real world difference in drive ability.

In short, put your money where your mouth is. I guess I am starting to understand alfadriver's point of view a bit now.

alfadriver wrote: While there are probably 20-30k people just like you out there, that's still a very small market for a truck.

Yet that's still apprently a big enough market to justify the creation and existence of the Flex.

HiTempguy wrote: In short, put your money where your mouth is.

I did. There is a 2013 VW TDI in my driveway.

alfadriver wrote: An $18k Fiat is the 500. There is a lot more to the pick up than there is to a 500, thus it will cost more.

Hm, they start around $16k before rebates.

An '84 Dodge Rampage was $6800. An '84 Dodge Charger was $6500.

Extrapolating, a pickup based on a FIAT 500 would start around $17k.

HiTempguy wrote: If the concern is size, the actual size differences are negligible IMO for there to be a real world difference in drive ability.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

The people disagreeing with you, disagree with you.

All they have to do is make one of these again:

This whole dialogue reminds me of the old truck vs. car-based SUV thing. 80 percent of SUV users are better off with a lightweight SUV. They handle better, stop better, get better fuel economy, et cetera. Comparing a Dakota to the Fiat or Subaru truckette is absurd. You might as well compare a defensive back to a lineman. But just like in football, each provides an important function.

Way too many Americans are stuck up on the macho thing. Their eyes get all glassy as soon as someone mentions "Ram Tough". As someone who has been around those guys and their trucks all his life, an awful lot of it is bullE36 M3.