After 'chicken tax,' a flood of foreign trucks?

[jpd80]

Ryan Beene
Automotive News
June 29, 2015 - 12:01 am ET

WASHINGTON -- In the background of the free-trade debate that has raged in Washington this summer,

a sacred cow of U.S. auto and trade policy is under threat.

 

The 25 percent tariff imposed on imported pickups and commercial vans, known as the "chicken tax," stands

to be significantly rolled back through big-ticket trade deals being hammered out with Pacific Rim nations and

the European Union.

 

With the legislative pieces now in place, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment

Partnership are closer to becoming reality. The Pacific Rim deal seeks to create a 12-nation free-trade bloc

encompassing some 40 percent of the world's economy. The EU deal would lower trade barriers and seeks

to align regulations between the U.S. and EU.

 

Both would remove the chicken tax. Critics of the tax say it has priced imported trucks out of the market, shielding

the Detroit 3's biggest profit machine from robust foreign competition. The tariff also has had other effects, experts say,

such as stifling pickup innovation and motivating Japanese automakers to build U.S. factories.

 

"It has provided a competitive advantage for the domestic pickup producers," says Daniel Ikenson, an economist and trade

expert at the Cato Institute, a Washington pro-business think tank. "The response of the Japanese manufacturers has been

to invest in production lines here in the United States."

 

After months of heated debate, Congress passed a bill last week that would give President Barack Obama authority to negotiate

and send free-trade agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote, free of amendments. With the so-called fast-track authority

ready for Obama's signature, the wheels on the Pacific treaty can shift into high gear, and a final version of the deal could go to

Congress by the fall. The EU deal is expected to take longer to finish.

 

Truck lovers have long hoped that removing the tariff would create a flood of new, smaller pickups that today are available only

overseas.

But trade watchers and auto industry experts agree that a barrage of new pickups would be unlikely. Free-trade deals would

roll back the tariff gradually over several years, even decades, they say.

Stifled innovation?

While Nissan and Toyota have spent billions on their U.S. pickup operations, most brands from South Korea and Europe

have stayed out of the U.S. pickup market. Just six brands offer pickups in the United States, compared with 19 that offer

compact crossovers and 14 that sell midsize sedans.

 

Playing chicken

> TOYOTA HILUX
The Hilux nameplate left U.S. showrooms in 1976, but it has been a mainstay around the world with some

16 million units sold globally in its nearly 50-year history. Toyota revealed the eighth-generation Hilux in May

at the Bangkok auto show. In crew cab configurations, the redesigned Hilux has a few more inches in length

and height than the 2015 Tacoma.
• Where it's made: Venezuela, Argentina, Thailand, Malaysia, South Africa, Pakistan

> FORD RANGER
The Blue Oval brand killed its compact pickup for the U.S. in 2011 but revealed an updated 2016 Ranger for

overseas markets in May at the Bangkok auto show. The global Ranger is bigger and beefier than its U.S.

predecessor.
• Where it's made: Thailand, South Africa

> MITSUBISHI TRITON
Mitsubishi discontinued the Mighty Max in the mid-1990s and has not sold an imported pickup in the U.S. since.

But the Triton, successor to the Mighty Max,
has lived on overseas.
• Where it's made: Thailand

> MAZDA BT-50
Mazda discontinued U.S. sales of its B-series pickup after the 2009 model year, when it was essentially a rebadged

Ford Ranger. Overseas, Mazda's midsize truck is called the BT-50.
• Where it's made: Thailand


> VOLKSWAGEN AMAROK
Volkswagen's U.S. dealers and fans alike have clamored for the Amarok, but it's unlikely to arrive stateside anytime soon.

The first modern pickup from VW's commercial vehicles unit, the Amarok is roughly the size of a Nissan Frontier.
• Where it's made: Germany, Argentina

 

 

That contrast shapes the view of John Krafcik, president of TrueCar and former CEO of

Hyundai Motor America, who says that the pickup segment "has the least competitive

intensity of any segment in the industry."

Krafcik says the U.S. would "definitely" get more pickups if not for the chicken tax. The tariff

has all but required pickups to be assembled in the United States to be sold here, he said.

 

 

The cost of installing pickup manufacturing capacity from scratch -- building a plant, paying for

tooling, engineering the truck and producing it -- can cost from $2 billion to $3 billion, he said.

 

Such a steep investment requires manufacturing at a large scale. As a result, Krafcik said,

product planners create trucks to compete in the full-size segment, where they see the

biggest chance of selling at volume. That means automakers can't afford to take a risk on

small-volume trucks with different sizes, bed and cab configurations or experimental storage

and packaging designs.

 

"I think what is lost the most is low-volume experimentation and innovation in pickups," Krafcik

said. "As soon as you get to that level of investment, the risks become so great that the

solutions become fairly mainstream."

 

Gradual change

The two free-trade agreements would roll back the chicken tax affecting nearly 40 nations -- 11 through the

Trans-Pacific Partnership and the 28 that make up the EU, through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment

Partnership. So would U.S. showrooms see an array of shiny new imported pickups? Probably not, at least

in the near term, industry experts and trade watchers say, for these reasons:

 

First, few countries involved in the talks have pickup assembly plants. Volkswagen builds the Amarok midsize pickup

in Germany, but, a company spokesman said, "If you look at where we produce vehicles, to bring an Amarok from Hanover,

even if the chicken tax were repealed, would be a bit of a stretch."

 

Much midsize pickup production capacity outside the United States is concentrated in Thailand, but that country isn't involved

in the TPP talks. In Thailand, Ford builds the recently redesigned Ranger, Mazda produces the BT-50, Mitsubishi assembles

the L200 and Toyota makes the Hilux. But the country could be a wild card -- Thai officials have expressed interest in joining

the TPP once the deal is completed, and the TPP is designed to allow other nations to do that.

 

 

Second, the chicken tax is expected to be rolled back slowly. Obama administration trade negotiators have said the tariff with

Japan would phase out on the longest possible timeline, as part of a bilateral U.S.-Japan side deal proceeding alongside the

TPP talks, says Matt Blunt, the former Missouri governor who now runs the American Automotive Policy Council, a Washington

trade group that represents Ford, Fiat Chrysler and General Motors on trade issues.

 

Blunt said it's only fair because barriers in Japan other than tariffs have effectively kept U.S. automakers out of the country.

"We believe it could take as many as 25 years to open up the Japanese market given that it's the most closed market in the

developed world today," Blunt said.

 

Third, pickups sold overseas aren't designed to meet rigorous U.S. crash and emissions regulations -- partly due to the high upfront

cost imposed by the tariff -- and they're unlikely to resonate with U.S. truck buyers, says Dave Sullivan, an analyst with AutoPacific.

 

It's not uncommon to find Ford, GMC, Chevrolet and Ram pickups loaded with leather interiors, premium audio systems and high-tech

features that push the sale price upward of $50,000 -- status symbols as well as cargo haulers. Trucks found overseas are Spartan by

comparison, often sold with manual transmissions and turbodiesel four-cylinder engines without the hauling power of full-size American

pickups.

 

"When you look at how we treat our trucks and how people do around the world, a lot of them wouldn't be able to withstand some of the

same things, and they're not designed with American needs in mind," Sullivan said. "We've come to have a very refined and sophisticated

pickup truck buyer."

 

nFourth, some automakers told Automotive News that the chicken tax is not the only barrier keeping their smaller pickups out of the

United States. Toyota spokesman Scott Vazin said the size of the Hilux would make it a "tweener" in the U.S., overlapping too much

with the full-size Tundra and midsize Tacoma. A Volkswagen spokesman said the company, which has said the tariff was the biggest

impediment to selling the Amarok in America, now also doubts whether the truck is the proper size for the U.S. And a Mazda

spokesman said the BT-50 would be a mismatch for Mazda's sporty, affordable-premium U.S. brand identity.

 

Despite the challenges, the prospect of fat profits might prompt automakers to adjust to a defanged chicken tax, Krafcik says.

Over time, that could mean more competition.

 

"I think it would take some time, but with clarity around that guideline, we would see opportunity for those products," Krafcik said.

"You would certainly be creating the conditions for manufacturers with production facilities in [Pacific treaty] countries to provide

low-cost compact pickups to U.S. truck buyers."

 

You can reach Ryan Beene at rbeene@crain.com. -- Follow Ryan on

Edited June 29, 2015 by jpd80

[jpd80]

One question I have, if the chicken tax is repealed, Thailand joins the trading partnership and its mid sized truck products

become accessible to the US market, what does that mean for GM's investment in US Colorado?

 

Meanwhile, I think Ford is hoping the trade agreement comes through because it then opens up the possibility of choosing

whether to import Ranger or not. Until now it has been able to nix the idea for various reasons knowing that the truck

was not available in any case. If Colorado get a shake on with sales, it may suit Ford to import a lower cost Ranger

from Thailand without fear of huge up front development and manufacturing costs.

Edited June 29, 2015 by jpd80

[sullynd]

The Hilux and Triton are both ugly. Isn't the 4Runner/Lexus GX Hilux based?

[theVengineguy]

This is nothing more than propaganda. I support free market, but it has to be fair. All the TPP will do is export more American, Canadian, and even Mexican jobs to even lower cost countries (Vietnam, China, etc.). I don't feel sorry that VW (#1 by volume) can't sell a truck here (or much of anything; at least the flannel shirt wearing hipster population is not huge).

 

US industries built the middle class (mining, material processing, automotive, aerospace, industrial equipment, etc) envisioned by great men (Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Alfred P. Sloan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, etc). Largely the US government had nothing to do with it, but reaped the benefit from tax revenue. The problem today is the builders/workers are not running the show anymore. It is old money being managed by Ivy League elitists who know how to swing a mean tennis racket but know nothing about building industries. They are pumped full of BS from the Harvard Business School, which teaches you how to win at all cost while avoiding prison time. So how does this rant tie in with the TPP? The TPP is nothing more than a tool so the old money elitists can repatriate their money in Asia in the hopes of making more. They intend to make it off the backs of people with no running water that live in shanties made of garbage all in an effort to WIN AT ALL COST. They are not building anything, just moving it to make more money.

 

But what will replace the jobs here? Oh you need to go to college, you need high tech jobs. The joke is high tech jobs are just concentrating the wealth to a smaller number of people. Take a company like Google, their primary investments are talent and computer servers. They build nothing of physical possession; therefore the profit margins are huge (probably 1000%). A company like Ford is lucky to see 8%. Google likely has a quarter the workforce of Ford, and with the high margins their people (especially programmers) get compensated handsomely. However there is less people to spend money, which lowers the velocity of money (look this up; is vital to economic success) which puts this country at great risk. Bottom line High tech jobs that require college education will not save the US economy. And paying the schools that churn out people for high tech jobs is another money pit. Happy Monday.

[jpd80]

The Hilux and Triton are both ugly. Isn't the 4Runner/Lexus GX Hilux based?

No, it's on Landcruiser Prado which is Tacoma based.

 

 

Unlike North America, most of our trucks aren't sold with a nude face, a huge bull bar normally changes the appearance lots.

 

 

 

[jpd80]

This is nothing more than propaganda. I support free market, but it has to be fair. All the TPP will do is export more American, Canadian, and even Mexican jobs to even lower cost countries (Vietnam, China, etc.). I don't feel sorry that VW (#1 by volume) can't sell a truck here (or much of anything; at least the flannel shirt wearing hipster population is not huge).

Free trade has to work both ways, if those countries won't buy your goods don't deal with them.

Thailand did the dirty on Australia before the FTA ink was dry, they imposed capacity taxes on

any vehicles imported to there and so did all their neighbors.

 

I'll give you all a clue, a Thai auto workers wage is $8 a day, much lower than Mexico.

How will North American plants compete with an aggressive push with cheap goods.

[92merc]

One thing NOT being mentioned is US regulations on crash worthiness and emissions. "Most" of those inexpensive vehicles as they stand today wouldn't make it though the US mandates. So they still can't come over here until then.

 

Plus, does this mean Japan would have to start allowing free trade with US vehicles? They have outsiders completely stifled at the moment.

[jpd80]

One thing NOT being mentioned is US regulations on crash worthiness and emissions. "Most" of those inexpensive vehicles as they stand today wouldn't make it though the US mandates. So they still can't come over here until then.

Range, Colorado and Hilux are not "inexpensive" to buy in ROW markets. While no NHTSA tests have been done to my knowledge,

the T6 program required lots of crash tests to be done to NCAP, as well as lots of virtual crash testing before that.The latest Ford

emission modelling programs were also used during the development of engnes, the 3.2 I-5 diesel used in Transit is US emission

compliant the same engine without exhaust after treatment is used in Ranger...

 

Plus, does this mean Japan would have to start allowing free trade with US vehicles? They have outsiders completely stifled at the moment.

Japanese home market is seen as the most protected, the US is proposing the slowest withdrawal of chicken tax for that market.

Edited June 29, 2015 by jpd80

[akirby]

Plus there is 10 times more innovation in the NA full sized truck market than any of those other low cost competitors could bring to the table.

 

It could bring cheap smaller trucks but how is that any different than the small car market where those mfrs can already compete?

[jasonj80]

One question I have, if the chicken tax is repealed, Thailand joins the trading partnership and its mid sized truck products

become accessible to the US market, what does that mean for GM's investment in US Colorado?

 

Meanwhile, I think Ford is hoping the trade agreement comes through because it then opens up the possibility of choosing

whether to import Ranger or not. Until now it has been able to nix the idea for various reasons knowing that the truck

was not available in any case. If Colorado get a shake on with sales, it may suit Ford to import a lower cost Ranger

from Thailand without fear of huge up front development and manufacturing costs.

Ford was a supporter of the Thailand Free trade agreement when it was being talked about in the early 2000's, that trade agreement died when the government was overthrown in 2006. The update vehicles can pass US regs and the 2.7LTT will also fit.

[jpvbs]

Besides the regulatory issues, I imagine many of the ROW trucks would need redesigns to make them acceptable for US tastes. We love our plush interiors and car-like ride. A tough, utilitarian truck would be a niche player.

[RichardJensen]

John Krafcik, president of TrueCar and former CEO of Hyundai Motor America, who says that the pickup segment "has the least competitive intensity of any segment in the industry."

 

 

That is, without question, the dumbest thing I will read all day.

[akirby]

 

That is, without question, the dumbest thing I will read all day.

 

Only in terms of non-Japanese Asian brands...........

[Bob Rosadini]

 

Only in terms of non-Japanese Asian brands...........

Agree- I think that Krafcik was wearing his Hyundai hat when he said that-as witnessed by the lousy performance of Tundra and TYitan in terms of sales numbers. When it comes to RAM/Fiat, GM and Ford, seems to me there is plenty of intensity between those three. Let's see-just this weekend I heard Chevy was..."the largest growing brand in the country". Hmnn-thought that was Ram/Fiat???

 

I the meantime 150 continues to kick butt.

[7Mary3]

This is all in the context of light duty pickups. I don't think repeal of the 'chicken tax' will really men much, maybe Hyundai and VW will bring their small pickups to the U.S.. The Ranger isn't coming, last thing Ford wants now is in-house competition for the F-150.

 

The potential significance is in commercial trucks. There are some competent medium/heavy truck manufacturers in China, and Isuzu/Hino/Fuso import many of the trucks they sell here. These Asian trucks may suddenly get a lot more competitive.

[Bob Rosadini]

This is nothing more than propaganda. I support free market, but it has to be fair. All the TPP will do is export more American, Canadian, and even Mexican jobs to even lower cost countries (Vietnam, China, etc.). I don't feel sorry that VW (#1 by volume) can't sell a truck here (or much of anything; at least the flannel shirt wearing hipster population is not huge).

 

US industries built the middle class (mining, material processing, automotive, aerospace, industrial equipment, etc) envisioned by great men (Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Alfred P. Sloan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, etc). Largely the US government had nothing to do with it, but reaped the benefit from tax revenue. The problem today is the builders/workers are not running the show anymore. It is old money being managed by Ivy League elitists who know how to swing a mean tennis racket but know nothing about building industries. They are pumped full of BS from the Harvard Business School, which teaches you how to win at all cost while avoiding prison time. So how does this rant tie in with the TPP? The TPP is nothing more than a tool so the old money elitists can repatriate their money in Asia in the hopes of making more. They intend to make it off the backs of people with no running water that live in shanties made of garbage all in an effort to WIN AT ALL COST. They are not building anything, just moving it to make more money.

 

But what will replace the jobs here? Oh you need to go to college, you need high tech jobs. The joke is high tech jobs are just concentrating the wealth to a smaller number of people. Take a company like Google, their primary investments are talent and computer servers. They build nothing of physical possession; therefore the profit margins are huge (probably 1000%). A company like Ford is lucky to see 8%. Google likely has a quarter the workforce of Ford, and with the high margins their people (especially programmers) get compensated handsomely. However there is less people to spend money, which lowers the velocity of money (look this up; is vital to economic success) which puts this country at great risk. Bottom line High tech jobs that require college education will not save the US economy. And paying the schools that churn out people for high tech jobs is another money pit. Happy Monday.

 

IMO, well said. The money managers will score once again. My fear is what solid manufacturing jobs we have, will continue to be whittled away while we satisfy the quest for an ever better bottom line. And I am unfortunately a benefactor of that. I remember quite a while ago seeing something on Newell RubberMaid- a favorable report. I said-"yah-the wife always buys their stuff-good ol' American goods"-and the stock was low. Well they have since bought up all kinds of other US brands- Irwin tools, Vise Grip to name a couple. And my stock has appreciated a lot.

 

But check out the label today on an Irwin tool package....."Designed in USA, built in...(fill in your favorite s-hole country)". I know its a world economy- and I have no trouble buying Euro goods-we do compete on a more equal footing in terms of wages and standard of living--but this trade agreement does nothing for the economic future of our grandkids I'm afraid.

[bzcat]

Automotive News like every other outlet that has written about TPP and TTIP completely missed the point about Chicken Tax.

 

The action is all going to be in VANS not pickup truck!

 

The boat has sailed so to speak on pickup trucks. Competitive landscape is such that anyone that could be thinking of importing pickup trucks to sell in the US have already invested in production in NAFTA zone. The only plausible player to import pickup trucks at this point are Mitsubishi (bit player) and VW (bit player). Toyota and Nissan are locked into building trucks in NAFTA zone for a loooooooooooong time. And no one else is even remotely thinking about challenging the market.

 

Van market on the other hand, are ripe for more comptition. US commerical vehicles segment is leaning towards more vans and less pickup trucks and with a major player (GM) exiting the market, there is room for growth for new entrants. It also helps that all existing players locked out by Chicken Tax has products that can be adopted for US sales. Toyota and Nissan are going to pounce, and so will VW, which has long eyed the US van market as a potential growth segment. Hyundai just invested a couple of billion to enter the European van market. Don't think for a second that investment was just for Europe only. They are playing a long game with vans and they are clearly positioned to enter the market in the long run.

[RichardJensen]

I don't know that the commercial van market is going to be that easy to enter.

 

Dodge/Sprinter/Mercedes/Freightliner has done nothing with what is essentially a EU spec vehicle.

 

I mean, the bottom line is that you need a clear cut incentive to either switch to VW or Hyundai, or to stay with them once their higher TCO becomes obvious (and it will almost certainly be more expensive to keep those things on the road given the utter lack of a US supply base for those vehicles)

[rmc523]

I think his point is simply that should this go through, there are more automakers that are in a better position to gain in the van market than the truck market.

[7Mary3]

Commercial trucks, vans included. The Sprinter misses because of cost. It is essentially the same vehicle that the Transit is, how else can you explain the Transit's success? Ford's dealer network doesn't hurt, but Freightliner sells a lot of Sprinters too.

 

GM exiting the van market? Sure about that?

Edited June 29, 2015 by 7Mary3

[RichardJensen]

I think his point is simply that should this go through, there are more automakers that are in a better position to gain in the van market than the truck market.

 

 

Well, kind of. I don't know that VW ultimately gets more of the commercial van market than they would the compact/midsize truck market.

 

I can't imagine that parts for any of these overseas-built vans are going to be cheap, and I question the reliability of the EU models, and the build quality of both EU and Asian models. VW especially has shown that it is unwilling to adapt to the US market, so I can't see them doing anything more ambitious than trying to sell barely federalized EU vans, failing, and then tossing up their hands and blaming Americans for being too stupid to appreciate European engineering.

Edited June 29, 2015 by RichardJensen

[rmc523]

 

 

Well, kind of. I don't know that VW ultimately gets more of the commercial van market than they would the compact/midsize truck market.

 

I can't imagine that parts for any of these overseas-built vans are going to be cheap, and I question the reliability of the EU models, and the build quality of both EU and Asian models. VW especially has shown that it is unwilling to adapt to the US market, so I can't see them doing anything more ambitious than trying to sell barely federalized EU vans, failing, and then tossing up their hands and blaming Americans for being too stupid to appreciate European engineering.

I'm not questioning your opinion or stating that they'll be successful, just that they have more potential in the van/commercial market than the truck market.

[bzcat]

 

 

Well, kind of. I don't know that VW ultimately gets more of the commercial van market than they would the compact/midsize truck market.

 

I can't imagine that parts for any of these overseas-built vans are going to be cheap, and I question the reliability of the EU models, and the build quality of both EU and Asian models. VW especially has shown that it is unwilling to adapt to the US market, so I can't see them doing anything more ambitious than trying to sell barely federalized EU vans, failing, and then tossing up their hands and blaming Americans for being too stupid to appreciate European engineering.

 

 

Some of them will be willing to buy market share and play a long game - start with imported vans and eventually commit to local production. It's a product that they know very well, not like pickup trucks. And US van market is converging with the rest of the world. Think of vans not in terms of pickup trucks but compact cars in the early 1980s... American consumers flipped the switch and decided compact cars are not supposed to be like Vega and Gremlin and more like Escort and (original) Accord. Very similar dynamics is playing out right now in the van market regarding right-sizing and expectation about fuel efficiency.

 

I'm not saying all the potential new entrants will all achieve significant market share. But it's conceivable that a few of them will jump in and make a go of it. I feel quite confident in predicting that Ford will still be #1 in commercial vans. But who is going to be #2 in 5 years? 10 years? I can tell you it won't be GM, and likely won't be FCA either. The market is wide open if you understand the limits... Ford is 500 lb gorilla but there is room for 2 or 3 more 200 lb gorilla.

Edited June 29, 2015 by bzcat

[bzcat]

Just my analysis... take it for what it is... an armchair CEO view. I'm not Biker so I won't be sad if you don't agree

 

The list - from most likely to benefit from TPP and TTIP to least likely:

1. Ford - Ford has been an ironic victim of Chicken tax - a tax originally enacted to protect Ford from VW but lately, has been costing Ford lots of money because US Customs ruled Transit Connect is a van and thus subject to the tax (Ford is paying the tax while it appeal the ruling). Just as in the case of Daimler, Ford can expand the Transit Connect offering significantly and also add the mid size Transit Custom if custom demands. Additionally, Ford can finally import the Ranger from Thailand (after Thailand joins TPP). It won't make or break Ford's business in pickup trucks but it will finally quiet the peanut gallery.

2. Daimler - Mercedes Commercial can expand the Sprinter and Metris line with fully imported version to augment the existing CKD line up (e.g. different powertrain options, more specialized body styles)

3. VW - With a line up that is basically identical to Ford, VW will probably move very fast to enter the van market in the US. VW will import all the vans at first but will probably switch to some local assembly once the business matures.

4. Toyota - Toyota has been slowly eating Ford and GM's lunch in more traditional commercial car fleet business (e.g. Toyota now has 70% of the NYC taxi business) and it is eying the only piece of US vehicle market that it doesn't dominate or have significant participation - the commercial van segment. They will probably start with something like the Hiace, which competes overseas with all the other midsize vans (VW Transporter, Mercedes Metris, Ford Transit Custom) that will inevitably be on sale in the US.

5. Hyundai - The Korean company invested a few billions to enter the European van market... they probably already figured out the US game plan already in their 10 year plan.

6. Nissan - Like Toyota, Nissan will probably start by selling NV350 but it will eventually figure out a way to offer a full range of vans. No reason to think that Renault will not design its next generation midsize and fullsize vans with US sales in mind.

7. FCA - TPP and TTIA doesn't benefit FCA very much because Brazil is not included... so not much opportunity to import small trucks from South America. And their van business will be under significant pressure as Ford, Daimler, and VW flex their muscles.

8. GM - GM is stuck between a rock and a hard place on vans. The strategic decision by Opel to exit van business a decade ago has left GM exposed in the van business in the US as the markets converged. GM has the outdated fullsize vans with V8 engine that will continue to have a small niche in the future but it will be outflanked by everyone else. The only thing GM has going for it is its Wuling van business in China (Wuling Hongguang is roughly comparable to Nissan NV200, Ford Transit Connect or VW Caddy)... but China is excluded from TPP and likely will remain so for a long time.

[bzcat]

Commercial trucks, vans included. The Sprinter misses because of cost. It is essentially the same vehicle that the Transit is, how else can you explain the Transit's success? Ford's dealer network doesn't hurt, but Freightliner sells a lot of Sprinters too.

 

GM exiting the van market? Sure about that?

 

Sprinter misses because it lacks gasoline engine. Without Chicken tax, Daimler could very well try to expand the business with fully imported models to augment its CKD Sprinters. If the business grows enough for them, they will invest in gasoline powertrain.

 

GM is leaving left the class 1 van market, which accounts for the bulk of the volume. And it has no European vans to Federalize to take advantage of the convergence of US van market with overseas markets so the long term outlook for Chevy Express and GMC Savana 2500/3500 is pretty grim. GM is buying Nissan NV200 to sell as Chevy City Express... I think that shows you where they are competitively speaking with Ford.

Edited June 29, 2015 by bzcat