Ram’s CEO Wants a Mid-Size Model “So Bad”

Ram 1200 Ram

Mid-size trucks have made an impressive comeback after years of wallowing in a pit of irrelevance. Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, and Nissan have all released new entries into the segment in the past few years, yet Ram is nowhere to be found. That’s surprising for a company that focuses on pickups, and its CEO hopes to change that soon.

“I want a mid-size truck so bad,” Ram boss Tim Kuniskis told Motor1. “Everything is more expensive. Trucks are way more expensive—bread goes up, you still got to eat, right? Trucks go up, you start looking for alternatives. I used to have a price point alternative with the Ram Classic. I don’t have that anymore.”

The quickest, easiest, and likely cheapest way for Ram to return to the segment would be to borrow the Jeep Gladiator‘s underpinnings, though nothing suggests that’s an option. The JT chassis is likely too off-road-focused and too old to spawn what would be the first Dakota in over a decade. Ram sells a sub-1500 truck in several markets, but none would be a good fit for the American market because they’re too small, too bare-bones, or both.

Walk into a Ram showroom in Brazil and you’ll spot a model called the Rampage (sound familiar?) that’s about 198 inches long. Built on the same unibody platform as the Dodge Hornet, it’s more closely aligned with the Ford Maverick than with the Toyota Tacoma that has reigned over the segment for many years. There’s nothing wrong with that—the Maverick outsold the Ranger in 2024, but we’re guessing Kuniskis was alluding to a heavier-duty model with body-on-frame construction, like the Chevrolet Colorado.

Make your way north to Mexico, stop by a Ram showroom, and you’ll see a truck called 1200. It uses a body-on-frame architecture, but it’s a badge-engineered version of the Peugeot Landtrek, which is a badge-engineered version of the Changan F70 designed and built in China. It also looks remarkably similar to GM’s Colorado/Canyon siblings. We can’t imagine it’d make an impact in a highly competitive segment dominated by much nicer trucks.

And, the hatchback-based 700 trucklet isn’t even an option. Ram likely has to start from scratch.

Of course, it takes more than an executive’s nod of approval to push a truck into showrooms, but making a business case for a truck positioned below the 1500 shouldn’t be difficult. The 2025 1500 starts at $42,270 including destination, and that figure corresponds to the base Tradesman trim with rear-wheel-drive and very little in the way of standard features. It comes with steel wheels, black bumpers, and vinyl upholstery. Knocking, say, $10,000 off of that figure for a mid-size truck’s starting point would make the Ram brand accessible to a much wider audience.

Would the demand be there? It’s difficult to say, but a look at the mid-size truck segment suggests there’s a not-insignificant number of buyers in the market for a smaller and more affordable alternative to a full-size model like the 1500, the Ford F-150, and the Chevrolet Silverado. Sales of the Tacoma, Colorado, and Ranger totaled 192,813, 98,012, and 46,205 units, respectively. Granted, the F-150 outsold the entire segment, but that doesn’t mean there’s not money to be made and new customers to be found.

“I’d love to have [a mid-size truck],” Kuniskis concluded. We’re filing this one under “wait and see,” then.

Read next Up next: To Make Progress, Sometimes You Need a Distraction

Comments

    It is a tough segment and with prices going up even more it will be even tougher. Prices now cresting $60K for a mid size is not an easy way to make money. Yes you can buy base trucks but there is little profit in them.

    I plan to keep the miles down on my Canyon since you can’t get a V6 anymore. I put the money I would have spent into a two seat sports car for about 1/3 I would have spent.

    I’m surprised they haven’t had a midsize in their lineup. How many years before it happens? Will Stellantis / RAM survive long enough for it to happen.

    Would not be a good fit in the North American market because they are “too small, too bare-bones, or both”. But I want a smaller, limited option pick-up. Don’t want or need 4 doors, short bed, infotainment center & power windows. Modern pick-ups are too danged big and unaffordable.

    My comment exactly, Radioman! Dangle a “bare-bones” Dakota model (regular cab, no power anything, rubber mats) under my nose, Tim, see how quickly I bite!

    Agree! I’m keeping my 2000 Dakota SLT regular cab shortbox V8 for as long as possible hoping that an equivalent product becomes available.

    I Love my 2000 Dakota r/t. V-8 power. Extended cab. Bought it new. Has108k on the clock. My only complaint is a leaking heater core. It looks like they built the truck around it!

    Agreed. Would some manufacturer actually give consumers a 2-door option on a smaller truck? Some of us still use a pickup to actually haul stuff but like to be able to do so in a smaller truck. I don’t need to bring 4 people along for a dump run, I need decent bed length.

    Yes, what’s needed is a smaller truck more like what the Ranger and similar were in the 2000s. Why does the auto industry always creep their vehicle models bigger and bigger?

    CAFE standards, which we can blame on California’s CARB. The CAFE standards are based (in part) on the overall footprint of the vehicle, with a larger footprint having more relaxed standards. So, when they up the CAFE goal, the options are 1) make drastically more fuel efficient engines, which is difficult, 2) make more small efficiency models and cut back on the super profitable larger vehicles that consumers are demanding, which would be silly, or 3) make the vehicle larger so it fits in a less restrictive standard. So, every time the gov’t ups the fuel efficiency target, expect larger body on frame vehicles to get larger. This issue is why the midsized truck segment fell apart a few years back, they couldn’t make a truck in that footprint and meet the fuel efficiency goals of that footprint segment. Also, the reason that most midsized trucks are now turbo 4s, to meet the CAFE goals.

    If the 1200 and Rampage platforms meet the standards to sell in North America (and have a left-hand-drive configuration –not everything is designed as a global car and Stellantis is Euro) they should just try it.

    Selling more of the same thing in more places brings down costs.

    Hyundai would sell a lot more Santa Cruz but they priced them higher than the perception in my opinion. Sell us a K-car of trucks and they can be popular.

    They had one, it was called the Dakota. They abandoned it. Dodge’s reliability and quality is in the tanks. Their customer relations is even lower. I was a devout Dodge customer for a long time owning several Rams and Chargers/Challengers. I won’t go back. They cannot be trusted for backing poor quality. SERIOUS SAFETY issues included.

    I feel the exact same way about General Motors.

    They let their quality and Engineering slip, and now they don’t have a single product – outside of their performance parts engines, that I would consider. Especially their trucks.

    I don’t trust Chrysler/Stelantis/Peugeot to be around. They did what many companies did by trading on a good name, cutting quality and making a quick buck

    So tired of not being to reach into the bed of my truck from the outside to pick something up, as well as having to just about tear a hammy to step up and over the tailgate and into the bed. If I ever come across another low mile, well kept Dakota, I will scoop it up, as I think even the Big 3’s idea of “midsize” is still ginormous.

    What an interesting article. Ram CEO Kuniskis laments that he no longer has his “price point alternative, the Ram Classic” Why? He’s the CEO and that decision to kill it surely rose to his level. Perhaps, they were displacing $80000 Rams on the assembly line? Of the alternatives already being sold globally by Ram, the one that seems closest to the American competition is the badge engineered 1200 Peugeot/Changan which is made in China. In a few days the place of manufacture may doom it’s entry into the US market, but the design basics might be just the ticket to ease Tim’s lament.

    1200

    With American mid-size trucks about as big a full-size of twenty years ago (and costing almost as much as a full-size truck now), I don’t see much to differentiate them from the full-size versions. I ended up buying a full-size on an end of year sales event deal because it was actually cheaper than the mid-size competition. Even the Honda (more of an actual mid-size in my mind) is $50K with some options.
    The Maverick has been a sales success, which speaks to the need for a small, nimble, affordable truck. Not everyone (anyone?) needs a huge semi-truck impersonator. But I think the auto makers are addicted to the full-size profit margins due to the long product life cycles and VOLUME.

    Issue with “midsize” or “small” pickups is they become priced so high buyers end up going to the full size models.

    I bought a super low mile 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 AT4 and a fuel pump control module sidelined it for 30+ days waiting on a $125 part. The service area had multiple full-size trucks and SUVs sideline waiting on transmission modules or complete transmission replacements. I would trade the GMC for a Toyota Tundra but they are losing engines.

    In August of 2007, I bought a brand new Mazda (Ford) B2300. It was a small and bare bones little truck with only rear wheel drive, 2.3L four cylinder and a five speed manual tranny. It cost me right at $11,000 new and I drove that little truck everywhere, putting over 169,000 miles on it in eight years and during that time, replaced only the alternator and battery (I did meticulous maintenance on it though). When it hit around 160,000, I started thinking about a replacement and would have bought another, but they didn’t make them anymore. Instead I bought a 2015 Frontier SV 4×4 crew cab, which has been just as dependable as the B2300 and I’ve owned it for about ten years now. If one was offered, with the right characteristics, I’d step down from the mid-sized that I have, though it’s been a fantastic truck for me. The prices of mid-sized trucks are not too far off from the lower end of full sized trucks now. If I end up replacing my Frontier in the near future and have to stay mid-sized, I’ll opt for another brand new Frontier. Tacomas are great trucks, but Toyota is a little too proud of their trucks (price) and the Frontier is just as capable and dependable as the Tacoma.

    I totally agree. I love my 2015 Frontier SV, and I loved the 2003 Desert Runner I had before that. Great trucks.

    Ram management should understand that a basic, bare-bones truck is what people want. I am not a Ford Maverick fan, but many people are and they appear to be selling well. Ram needs it now, not 8-10 years from now. And, it needs to get good fuel economy, better than the current 2.7 liter turbo 4 in the Chevy Colorado.

    We’d all love a versatile, fairly priced reliable work truck but we, the gear jammers reading these pages are not the bulk of the market. The masses want the most imposing (so they can continue streaming on their phones without the inconvenience of looking where they’re going), most luxurious (to instill envy in their neighbors) behemoths in town and they’ll take out mortgages to get them. It wouldn’t make financial sense for manufacturers to do anything different.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your daily pit stop for automotive news.

Sign up to receive our Daily Driver newsletter

Please enter a valid email address

Subject to Hagerty's Privacy Policy and Terms of Conditions

Thanks for signing up.