Large truck sales took a 12.4 percent cut of the U.S. market this month-- the largest bite they've taken in nine months. For the year as a whole, Edmunds analysts are expecting pickup truck sales to reach 11.4-percent for the entirety of 2010, the largest slice since 12.2 percent in 2008-- before the economy imploded.
The jump can be traced, in part, to Ford: In 2008, the F-series had a 29.7 percent share of the market which jumped to 34.8 percent last year and is running at 37.6 percent today. And this is before Ford's revised powertrain announcement. GM combined has a 36.4 percent share with 27 going to Silverado and nine going to Sierra.
So truck sales are on the rise: Is this Americans jumping instantly back to big, safe trucks when the recession starts to fade, or is this a sign of real recovery and growth which necessitates real, working trucks?
For a full breakdown see AutoObserver.
greenpony says:
12:00 PM, 08/11/10
First, why does Nissan even try? They should stop wasting their resources.
And why are the GM twins not garnering more market share? I thought they were pretty darn good trucks.
blueguydotcom says:
12:11 PM, 08/11/10
Got a little bias in your report?
"Is this Americans jumping instantly back to big, safe trucks..."
Safe? Based on what? Roll a pick-up truck and tell me how safe it is. How's that handling in wet weather? Come on, don't feed the ill-informed notion that large vehicles are somehow safe.
cardesigner82 says:
12:50 PM, 08/11/10
greenpony says:
"First, why does Nissan even try? They should stop wasting their resources.
And why are the GM twins not garnering more market share? I thought they were pretty darn good trucks."
Why not try? They've managed 2% of the market, on a design that's overdue for an update. I rented a Titan awhile back when I was moving, and it was a pretty solid truck.
The GM twins are great trucks, and that's pretty much where the percentage has been between GM and Ford. Usually GM out sells Ford combining Silverado & Sierra sales, but 2010 is not over yet my friend!
inlinesix says:
06:56 PM, 08/11/10
"First, why does Nissan even try? They should stop wasting their resources."
Ive got an Armada (Titan base) and I can haul a load of crap (and people) or pull 9,000lbs. I drive it only when I need it but its a good truck.
hybris says:
08:53 PM, 08/11/10
"Safe? Based on what? Roll a pick-up truck and tell me how safe it is. How's that handling in wet weather? Come on, don't feed the ill-informed notion that large vehicles are somehow safe."
That used to be valid until the NTSB expanded the vehicle weight requirements to include trucks in roof crush strength tests.
On the handling in wet weather front its not even worth arguing. You drive any RWD drive vehicle with a light rear end and/or high torque producing drive train like a bloody idiot of course the handling is going to be crap and that's before you factor in if the person as a good set of tires and brakes in good working order.
Are large vehicles safer vehicles then small cars? The answer is based on a easy to understand balance.
A Suburban uses more brute Mass then High End Engineering to provide safety to the driver while a VW GTI uses more Engineering then mass to provide safety.
Is the answer as clear cut as that? No but I would think twice about calling the idea that a heavy vehicle is safe a "ill-informed notion".
blueguydotcom says:
10:47 PM, 08/11/10
hybris,
The bias of the article was blatant. They shouldn't be feeding into ideas of passenger safety when SUVs account for far more rollover deaths than sedans by a wide margin (I believe it's almost 2 to 1) and trucks are also at least 50% more likely to result in a rollover death than a car.
lostboyz says:
08:10 AM, 08/12/10
I don't see a bias, its more of a blanket statement. As far as those statistics (though probably made up, I don't disagree with) you have to put them further into context. SUVs and trucks have a greater likelihood of rolling over and therefore of course they account for more rollover deaths. That doesn't mean that if a car rolled it would be any safer than an SUV. Even though SUVs have been around a long time I don't think the people that drive them realize that they aren't cars and they can roll.
Anything other than a rollover a truck will be considerably more safe. Since rollovers are the minority of crashes, a truck or SUV will end up being safer. Even moreso with a competant driver.
mazda609 says:
08:49 AM, 08/12/10
I have read this in multiple articles the the Smart is indeed a very safe car. In todays day and age I believe the size of car is pretty close to irrelevant.
lostboyz says:
09:02 AM, 08/12/10
the smart only passes crash testing by claiming the other cars crumple zone as its own. Assuming that you will only be hitting another vehicle yes it does quite well. Though in cases being pancaked or hitting a brick wall you have no chance.