GM trucks have slipped

[bdog]

I have owned 2017 or newer pickups of all three brands. I concur that GM is definitely not on the same level. It is sad as there was a time when they were ahead. Normally when I buy a truck which is very often as we have multiple trucks we use for lwork I look at all three brands before making a decision. Until something major changes I am not even going to look at GM.

I am not a proponent of any brand as I often own trucks of multiple brands but currenty owning Ram and ford I can say the Ram for sure wins the technology and creature comforts race. We have had no issues with the Ram yet but haven稚 really had it long enough to tell. The fords just work and work and work some more.

 

[flyerdan]

When they first started hawking those ads for that poxy whiz-bang tailgate, I thought there's a fragile bit of kit exposed to damage hazards that will cost more to fix than I paid for my pickup.

 

[bdog]

When they first started hawking those ads for that poxy whiz-bang tailgate, I thought there's a fragile bit of kit exposed to damage hazards that will cost more to fix than I paid for my pickup.

Normally I like gadgets. I like the step on the fords. It is really useful for someone with bad knees like me. That GM tailgate looks like a disaster.

 

[ruffdog]

I like the GM bumper corner steps as you can use them when a trailer is hooked up.

 

[Copperhead]

Illinois is 10.9
Ohio is 11.6
Minnesota 11.8
Wisconsin is 11.5

Like I referred to, registration may show those kind of numbers but from a viewing perspective the numbers don't match up on the road. And therein lies the rub. While the average age of vehicles in a particular state may be 10,11, 12 or whatever years, more than half actually on the road on a daily basis is younger than that average. In any given state, there are a lot of cars that still are registered that are rarely if ever driven. So I am not sure that cars that have been replaced in many households by a newer vehicle and sitting around not being driven, even though they have current licensing and registration, are really making a good case about the average age of vehicles in a particular state. Especially in a presentation that infers the average age of vehicles on the road are 10, 11, 12 or whatever years old.

For instance, in many states after 10 years a vehicle annual tags and registration is nominal as far as cost. Some folks will hold onto a car after 10 years just because it can be a cheap backup. My wife's 2006 Cadillac CTS she just sold this last summer, the tags were down to $50 annual and insurance was very cheap. But that car sat in our barn not being used for a while before we sold it. So while it contributed to the idea of the "average" age being something like 11 or 12 years, it was not a daily driver.

 

[4570Man]

There’s a lot of 90s and early 2000s vehicles still in service in my area. When a lot of the “new” vehicles are 4-5 years old it would take a lot of then to bring the average up. Rust isn’t much concern in my area so vehicles are driving until they’re completely junk or wreaked.

 

[oosik]

I still remember the ONLY pickup my father ever had. A 1948 - one ton - Chevrolet. It was purchased by the government and was for government use only. It was a real bruiser and it did not have a heater. My dad finally had a short load of gravel put in the bed. That helped the ride - somewhat.

 

[MossRoad]

Like I referred to, registration may show those kind of numbers but from a viewing perspective the numbers don't match up on the road. And therein lies the rub. While the average age of vehicles in a particular state may be 10,11, 12 or whatever years, more than half actually on the road on a daily basis is younger than that average. In any given state, there are a lot of cars that still are registered that are rarely if ever driven. So I am not sure that cars that have been replaced in many households by a newer vehicle and sitting around not being driven, even though they have current licensing and registration, are really making a good case about the average age of vehicles in a particular state. Especially in a presentation that infers the average age of vehicles on the road are 10, 11, 12 or whatever years old.

For instance, in many states after 10 years a vehicle annual tags and registration is nominal as far as cost. Some folks will hold onto a car after 10 years just because it can be a cheap backup. My wife's 2006 Cadillac CTS she just sold this last summer, the tags were down to $50 annual and insurance was very cheap. But that car sat in our barn not being used for a while before we sold it. So while it contributed to the idea of the "average" age being something like 11 or 12 years, it was not a daily driver.

While those are very good points, I can take you down streets in South Bend, Indiana where you'd be hard pressed to find any car less than 10 years old. Drive through the south side of Chicago or east Chicago and what you'll see is older cars. It's their daily driver.

Again, I think you're seeing fewer rusted out beaters, but you'd be hard pressed to identify cars by year accurately at quick glance.

 

[ovrszd]

Again, I think you're seeing fewer rusted out beaters, but you'd be hard pressed to identify cars by year accurately at quick glance.

I would for sure.

 

[MossRoad]

I would for sure.

Impalas, Malibus, Crown Vics, Mustangs, Mercury Marquis, Corollas, Civics, Camrys, Accords, let alone all the pickup models.... please. :laughing: