The Future of Nissan, Carlos Ghosn, pay attention.

[datsunaholic]

There's a difference between having a market, and having a profitable market. All the "small" trucks left in the market are classified as mid-size. The Ranger was classified as such after the 1997 "stretch" which made the standard cab slightly bigger.

 

Sure, there'd be a market for a true compact pickup, if you could make it cheap enough. Problem is, base models don't make money. You need all the other crap American consumers want, and that all costs about the same to produce whether it's in a compact truck or a Freightliner. The power windows, airbags, A/C, buttwarmer seats, 350-mode climate control, onboard navigation, etc. That crap is where the profit is made. A compact truck costs maybe 15, 20% less to make but you can sell a full size for 2-3X the price. Folks will pay $45K for a Loaded RAM that cost $10K to build. But they won't pay $35K for a Compact truck that cost $7.5K to build.

[angliagt]

And don't forget the 10 cupholders,the iPod connections,

the GPS,the.........

That's one thing that made the older,small trucks great -

they were simple.

 

- Doug

[datsunaholic]

What did I read, the Toy Tacoma Access Cab has 4 seats and 7 cupholders. Gotta fix that, not enough. Or the 7-passenger minivans with 13 cupholders. Why is it one person gets shorted a cupholder?

[Dat Lurka]

I got a last year Aerostar. It's pretty nice. It's basically a Ranger.

[DanielC]

"I got a last year Aerostar. It's pretty nice. It's basically a Ranger."

 

Except if you put something in the bed of a Ranger, it gets wet. I got the Ford service manuals for an Aerostar, and the manual is put together with the Ranger.

[Dat Lurka]

"I got a last year Aerostar. It's pretty nice. It's basically a Ranger."

 

Except if you put something in the bed of a Ranger, it gets wet. I got the Ford service manuals for an Aerostar, and the manual is put together with the Ranger.

 

Exactly.

It's got the small v6. It's weaksauce on the interstate but will pull 5000 pounds.

[datzenmike]

_{Back in the late '70's,I wanted to buy a crewcab Datsun/Toyota,}

_{but they wouldn't bring them here.I actually saw a Datsun in Redding,CA back then.I}

_{should have left a note on it,in case the owner ever decided to sell it.}

_{When I looked at trucks,about a year ago,I was looking at full sized,}

_{extended cab models.After coming to my senses,I decided that I really didn't need to}

_{drive anything that large - I just needed something to tow my car trailer with,when I}

_{needed it.My '95 Dakota fits the bill.}

_{And what about cities,counties,government agencies?The small trucks}

_{saved them money,not only in puchase price,but fuel economy too.}

_{I had a friend who told me that he knew someone who,when the local Ford-}

_{dealer advertised a stripper Ranger for a really low price,told them that he wanted to buy}

_{it.It turns out that they didn't have it in stock,so they had to order it for him.}

_{- Doug}

 

 

Will you use font size 14 so old bastards like me can read what you have to say????

 

 

 

In the late '40 a V8 Cadillac averaged 20 MPG. Twenty years later it was below 10MPG. Gas was cheap. When energy is cheap you can do anything you want. If you don't like boats for cars you can go 426 HEMI muscle power.

[Dat Lurka]

I had a boat car

 

I'd absolutely buy another one. It really needs a turbo cummins.

 

[HRH]

There's a difference between having a market, and having a profitable market. All the "small" trucks left in the market are classified as mid-size. The Ranger was classified as such after the 1997 "stretch" which made the standard cab slightly bigger.

 

Sure, there'd be a market for a true compact pickup, if you could make it cheap enough. Problem is, base models don't make money. You need all the other crap American consumers want, and that all costs about the same to produce whether it's in a compact truck or a Freightliner. The power windows, airbags, A/C, buttwarmer seats, 350-mode climate control, onboard navigation, etc. That crap is where the profit is made. A compact truck costs maybe 15, 20% less to make but you can sell a full size for 2-3X the price. Folks will pay $45K for a Loaded RAM that cost $10K to build. But they won't pay $35K for a Compact truck that cost $7.5K to build.

 

But that's just it, I think they would. Most consumers' mindsets are built by the manufacturers. A lot of morons want all those creature comforts, but many don't. That's why they're driving old rigs. Many can't afford $45k for a truck, but could probably afford $15k for a truck. A stripped base model truck similar to a 2wd 620 should cost no more than $15k by today's standards. And if you could make a good quality, albeit stripped, truck that cheap, there's a damn good chance you'd sell the shit out of them. The $45k Ram owners would buy one just to haul crap to the dump, as it would be a disposable truck that would get much better mileage and they could ding it up. It's all in how you sell it, and the goddamn manufacturers are too blind or too stupid to pull the trigger on the idea!

[Tristin]

Nissan needs to make a Ruckus competitor so that I dont have to buy a Honda.

[Dat Lurka]

Buy a Zuma

[nismo dr]

They (Nissan) aren't looking for the entry level crowd when it comes to trucks/suvs. Thats what Sentra's & Versa's are for. They are not trying to appeal to the market you describe at all. Look at the new Pathfinder..... Unibody, no frame; transverse 3.5L w/a cvt......

[nismo dr]

Soccer Moms make the world go round

[datsunaholic]

Here's the thing, though- Ford was selling base stripped down Rangers for under 10K, but probably at a loss. Couldn't sell them at 15K though. Even then they weren't selling enough of them to keep the line running. Even on fleet sales. Part of that was they simply didn't make enough of them- the loss leader was out the door the second it cleared initial detail. The dealers might have had one totally stripped, no-option standard cab 4-cyl manual trans truck a quarter. But that loss leader probably cost $11K to make. One with all the bells and whistles cost $13K to make and could sell for $23K.

 

The issue is that corporations are run by the bean counters. The folks with vision are expensive, and if it bombs its a fiasco. I'm sure the Aztek was someone's pride and joy, the features were pretty good, but the thing was butt ugly. But if you'd thrown all those features on a Tahoe folks would be "meh", because it wasn't flashy. It's a balance that's been won by the bean counters- sell what makes the most profit. You've heard companies saying they are closing "underperforming" stores? Most of those stores are NOT operating at a loss, they just aren't as profitable as the others. Stand it alone, it would look successful. But to the bean counters, it's not. That's what happened to the Ranger. It made money, just not as much as the F-series. The market wasn't buying them. Of course they sell like hotcakes on the used market. Most of that is simply because Ford let it go stale- the Ranger had never had a full redesign, the basic frame was pretty much the same as 1984, and the sheet metal was nearly unchanged from 1994-2011. So everyone that wanted one had one.

 

 

Nissan hasn't truly looked at the entry level market since the 1980s. It's essentially given to the Korean brands. The Versa is a Renault more than a Nissan, and it's simply to keep a foot in the market. pickup trucks don't fit the corporate image of an Entry-Level buyer- entry level is defined as college grads 23-27 years old, single, living in an apartment in the city. They don't NEED a truck. They figure, if you can afford a house, you can afford a Frontier.

 

the thing is, with Nissan's crappy MPG on trucks, i don't see why they don't offer a gutless 120HP microtruck to offset them for CAFE standards. guess they think they can do it with smoke and mirrors like Ford is. Some folks say you're lucky to get half the advertised mileage for a F150.

[HRH]

See, and conversely, I would accept crappy mileage if they stuffed the Titan V8 in a Frontier. That would make way more sense to me. If you're going to get shit mileage, go whole hog. Why make a "midsize" that only gets 1-2 mpg better than a fullsize? The fuck's the point?

 

I still maintain if they cut out a shitload of models and simplified things, they could make plenty of money. Think of it, what did they have in 1972? A truck, the 510 in sedan and wagon, the 1200 for the economy car, and a 240Z for performance. Made perfect sense. 5 options, that's it.

 

Look at how much bullshit they have now. It's like it's 1998 again, with Nissan saying, "oh hey, we have too many different vehicles, we're going under." It's not at that level yet, but at some point, you have to wonder, how many options do we really NEED? I count 22 different models in Nissan USA's lineup. WHY? Stick to the basics, sell more. Do it like Honda, change the styling every three years so people don't get bored.

 

Oh, and the Ridgeline is NOT a truck. It has no frame, nearly no bed, and I don't even care if it gets better mileage, I wouldn't drive one period.

 

You know what the current Nissan model is? Right here:

 

[Dat Lurka]

People say my 620 isn't a truck either <_<

 

I think the ridgeline is a good looking truck.

That's why I drive my 620 and not a 720 or D21. It's a much nicer looking truck. I'd love to have a supercharged ka24de, a small lift, and some fatter tires.

[DanielC]

When I had my first 521, I was taking auto classes at Clackamas Community College. Of course I got a lot of flack for having a Jap small engine import truck in a world of high performance V-8 engines.

Then one day, I had the 521 up in the air, working on something. One of the instructors looked under it, called another instructor over, and I think another "non student" person and the remark was "Look at the frame under this truck. It looks stronger than the frame under my full sized Chevy"

Before I finished the two year program, one instructor, and the person who worked in the parts department had Datsun 521 trucks.

[HRH]

Not to mention, a 521 bed holds more than a 2001 Silverado 4 door cab with short box. No lie, loved rubbing my buddie's nose in it! :D

[angliagt]

^{The Ridgeline (sp) has to be one of the UGLIEST vehicles to come down the road.}

^{Our fire department bought a White one,& nobody wanted to be seen riding in it.}

 

^{- Doug}

[MicroMachinery]

:yawn:

[Burabuda]

 

 

 

 

deadthreadftw

[HRH]

YESSS!!  If only they can kick the French out of the equation and go back to being like Datsun of the 60s and 70s.  Simple, fun, affordable offerings.  Bring back a truck with lines like the 620.  Bring back a simple car that gets good mileage and is FUN to drive!

 

And above all:  BRING BACK A COMPACT PICKUP!!!  I don't want a mid-size.  Read my lips:  No bigger than a hardbody!  If Mazda can make a Miata that's as light as the original and still holds true to the idea, Nissan out to be able to not only build a pickup, but a z car, and a 510.  That's it.  3 things.  Truck, sporty sedan (with wagon variant), and sports car.  No crossover bullshit, no super cool impractical junk.  Just back to basics manufacturing.

[datzenmike]

It would have to have air bags (front side w/e) and supplementary restraint systems, EFI and the latest emissions systems, 4 wheel anti lock brakes at a minimum because you can't build a car today without them. and a large 4 liter V6 to haul it. There may be more.

 

On top of this is what drivers expect and want, air, gps navigation, high end stereo, heated mirrors .... endless junk. 

 

 

The Z car died from over option back in the 70s too.  It became an old man's car just like the Corvette and the road barge Thunderbird. True you could order it with option delete but dealers ordered them loaded to make more money. I think the zx was the worst for this. Barely looked like a Z car and needed a turbo to haul it's over optioned heavy ass around.

[hobospyder]

I want a 510 hatch back. Why doesn't nissan make a hatchback?

[datzenmike]

Niche markets are losers. It everybody wanted them you wouldn't be posting.