The next-generation, 2015 Ford F-150 isn’t even out yet, but that’s not stopping the rest of the automotive industry from re-evaluating its truck strategy. Case in point: General Motors has reportedly partnered up with both Alcoa Inc. and Novelis Inc. — both of which are aluminum supplying companies — to supply the necessary metal needed for the next-generation Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra full-size pickups, which are currently all-new as of last year.
Those trucks, however, won’t arrive until 2018 at the earliest.
And, yes, while there are concerns of cost increases, economies of scale should eventually take effect, spreading the expenses out to minimize the price hike. Especially since both the F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado are some of America’s best-selling vehicles.
Meanwhile, consider GM’s current three-truck segment strategy.
Comments
GM did promise better mid-cycle overhauls for these trucks than what we’ve seen in the past. Aluminum, body panels only, wouldn’t be hard to swap in place of steel on the current trucks.
I agree Andrew that it would be nice to see aluminum implemented sooner than 2018. But the limiting factor will be how fast the aluminum supplier can increase their production (and it would be in the thousands of tons of aluminum to supply an entire truck line). It takes time to build or increase factory production, negotiate contracts, end contracts with other buyers so they can focus on supplying GM, etc. Ford actually secured their supplier 3-4 years ago while they were developing this new 2015 truck. They were able to do this because of the R & D budget they had. This was in turn due to the fact they restructured 3-4 years earlier than GM/Dodge when Ford took their government backed loans/remortgages (and this is not a bash, good on Ford for doing it sooner).
I think we will see GM having to do other things in the next 4 years to stay competitive. They have leaked a little info about the 3.6 LFX V6 being available in both natural aspiration and turbo’s. Plus the 8-speed is close also. Perhaps as their supplier increase production, GM may change certain body panels like doors, front fenders and roof to aluminum while leaving the box (most important part) roll-formed steel.
Imitation is the best form of flattery. One company leads, the other follow. Come on GM! How long before we see a turbo V6 in your trucks? We know you can do it! We know you have the technology! We know you want to do it! Pay no attention to those people who will accuse you of copying Ford. Believe me GM, there is nothing wrong with copy, if you copy from the best! Just ask your cadillac ATS engineers who copy the BMW E90!!
“Believe me GM, there is nothing wrong with copy, if you copy from the best! Just ask your cadillac ATS engineers who copy the BMW E90!!”
Reverse engineering and bench marking isn’t the same as copying. Outright copying is illegal, whereas bench marking an E46 (not the E90) that results in an Alpha ATS is legal.
I’m gonna have to side with the skeptics and critics on this matter; GM is now in a position of being a follower instead of a leader. So they’re going to have faithful GM customers wait another four years until their “truly revolutionized” pickups hit the market? After a so called “new” truck was just released? What a way give the competition an edge. This is exactly why GM is going to remain at the back of the pack. Weak product planning and poor executive decisions are not what this great company needs right now.
On the flip side, at least they’re taking a better approach to making their pickups more efficient. I’m very curious to see GM’s use of aluminum on their pickups.
@Andrew: It’s not that easy, any contact between steel (frame) and aluminum (body) can cause galvanic corrosion. It has to be engineered.
Better late than never. I suppose. I will join you all in cheering GM for being last at yet another technology milestone.
In the late 90s when Ford started putting the larger grilles on the Super Duty, Dodge ran an ad that only showed the outline of their own macho grille. The only words to the ad were these: “Ever notice how the sheep follow the Ram?”
You get bragging rights when you are first at something. It shows a willingness to take risks, a vision for the future, and testicular fortitude.
This reminds me of the South Park “Simpsons did it!” episode, substitute For for The Simpsons.
I agree that GM needs to take risks and get ahead of their competition. We need to see better product planning. I know GM is still getting out of a tough situation, so I will give them a break. But in the near future, I expect that all is well. The Impala, Corvette, Volt, Spark, Sonic, Regal, LaCrosse, Enclave, ATS, CTS, Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Colorado and Canyon are all crowd pleasers! Let’s get the others up to par! Meanwhile, GM should be careful not to make the Silverado/Sierra as light as the Colorado/Canyon!
This is not so much imitation but the fact when GM started on the present trucks they were in no position to make the investment or take the risk on this at that time. Think back 5-6 years ago and take a look at just where GM was. They were broke and shutting down Pontiac. Not a good time to throw a hail Mary when you had so many products that needed investment.
The key here again is GM has not just been sitting around doing nothing. As of right now GM undercuts the equal Ford trucks by around 500 pounds. The new Aluminum Ford will only be around 280 pounds lighter so GM is not as far off as some would like you to believe. Have you seen the new Ford Curb Weight posted by them yet. If it was that good it would have been on the windshield at the Detroit show. The reality is the present Ford is the pig of the market right now and they had to find a way to lose a lot of weight now.
I took the weight posted on the present Chevy Crew and Ford Crew and subtracted 700 pounds from the Ford to see what the weight would be and it was not much of a jump over the Chevy.
Either way GM was going to have to move to this material at some point but they should at the present market the real weights they have as they have had an advantage that few know about.
Scott I know we are going in circles but that porky pig of a Ford already outruns, and outsells the comparable GM truck while returning about the same real world mpg. The 2015 Ford won’t be a big jump over the GM trucks in weight savings, but it will be a gigantic improvement over the model it replaces, with incredible advances in mpg, handling and power. Make no mistake, an F150 Ecoboost with 700 lbs less to carry around is any GM engineer’s worst nightmare.
So we can look for an aluminum GM truck around the time the next Winter Olympics are on TV. Meanwhile, the lowly Nissan Titan gets a Cummins diesel with a 500 ft lbs wallop this year. This sucks.
Copy copy copy Ford… The Leader in Trucks!!!
Add the advanced features with the efficient n powerful 2.7 EcoBoost v6 n GM is falling way behind n all they will have to compete is price.. Butt that puts them up against there own midsize trucks… Bummer !!!!!
Plus Ram is looking to sell lots of diesel trucks putting a real squeeze on GM trucks n profits!!!!
Then Ford launches aluminum Super Duties n Big SUV Expeditions n Navigators n GM is going to be in tough shape with all of there big profit products!!!
You had me up until you said ‘Navigator’.
Ford will need more than aluminum to make Navigator relevant.
@ Grawdaddy:
“You had me up until you said ‘Navigator’.
Ford will need more than aluminum to make Navigator relevant.”
Post of the month!!
Piece of crap trucks (ford))
America leader in selling trucks with huge rebates just to prove nothing…lol!!
Scott, stop inventing numbers! Comparatively equipped, the new Silverado is no more than about 200 lbs lighter than the old F150, NOT 500 lbs! I have heard that on multiple occasions from GM’s executive. The below quote is from Mark Reuss
Talking Trucks
JK: What do you think of the new Ford F-150?
MR: If I was in Ford’s shoes [aluminum] would be one way to solve an equation on a line that doesn’t get any better from a CAFE and grams of CO2 standpoint. That’s one way to solve it. I don’t know what their product portfolio is, I don’t know what the time frame is, so I can’t answer what the interplay is.
From an engineering standpoint, mass begets mass. Relatively speaking, the Silverado is about 200 to 250 lbs. lighter [than the outgoing F-150.] They’re advertising that the new truck is about 700 lbs. lighter than their old truck. So, in effect, they’re now 450-500 lbs lighter than us with their aluminum truck—if we did nothing [going forward.]…I would think they’re lightening up their component sets when they lighten the truck, and I would assume they’re lightening their corners—cutting brakes and suspension and engines—but I don’t know.
This is the entire interview
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1402-mark-reuss-interview/
And as magirus keep pointing out, the upgraded ecoboost will indeed have 700 lbs less to carry.
Pal my numbers came from the Ford web site and Motor trend truck trends. I did not make it up and they were posted and printed numbers from a MFG and Road Test. There was a big difference in model weights. Both were 4×4 and both were V8 models to be fair on this.
I know what Mark said but I also have looked up the numbers myself and know what I found.
If the new Ford is so light then why have they not posted a Curb Weight. I would think if it were such a great number they would have it right out front?
I can not find my original notes but here is what I just found here now on Crew 4×4 V8 models
Chevy Curb Weight 5218 MFG
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1305_2014_chevrolet_silverado_first_drive/
Ford Curb Weight 5731 MFG
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/
Also GM has more MPG coming in the tranny.
Note too the 700 pounds it the best case in Ford weight loss as many models including the V6 models will not lose that much as they are already lighter by a little.
As we already know magirus Is just soiling his pants as the GM trucks are not to his expectations. If he hates it so much then buy a Ford. He has tried to flush GM’s sales just because of two months and likes to leave out the fire sale prices of the other trucks right now. GM is making more on each truck and has a good leg on breaking the incentive deals that have been a issue in this segment. The key here is incentives have become the crack of the industry and someone has to stand their ground.
the reality is GM will not outsell Ford for many reason. One of which is Ford dumps a ton of trucks on fleet sales. Just look around at how many companies get cheap rates on fleet sales. I am sure they make some money but no where what they should be making. While being number one is great being more profitable and making as much or more money even selling less trucks is a big win from where investors see it.
Much of this whole deal goes back to when these trucks were planned. Keep in mind GM was not sure they would even be around to finish these so they could not do all they would have like. Ford is 5-7 years ahead as they got their bank bail out loans earlier when the banks were still loaning money and Ford leveraged their plants to get it. They are still paying on it too. But they have their cars to the point they can afford a gamble here. GM has most of the car models being funded with the cash flow from the trucks and SUV models and could not take the risk at that time. Ford has spent a lot of money on this and will not see the recouped money on the investment until later down the road.
Ford just as they have done with the Ecoboost has done a good marketing job as the V6 only gets one MPG better than the V8 but they have convinced people to pay more for it. GM has a V8 that will match or beat it MPG wise and GM says nothing about it. This is where GM is losing the game. Get the standard V8 and more MPG but nary a word of it. Ford will do the same here with the Aluminum where it will have a little advantage but they will market it like it is a lot. The fact is they are just catching up.
Again my numbers are not made up and you can check the links. The number I found here were 513 pounds different. You can subtract the 700 pounds from the Ford weight and see it comes close to my other number in the 200 pounds different range.
Note too these are MFG weights to they are base models with not a lot of options. Once added the weights for the GM truck would be 5607 pounds and the Ford would be equally higher.
While I am not saying GM is perfect I also know better to buy all the Ford PR on this too. You have to look deeper than the marketing hype. Ford has too much hype and GM just does not have enough.
GM has 5 more years to just get to where they need to be. They had a lot of work to do and you are not going to revamp a company as large as GM in 5 years. There will be some models that might only be a small improvement as they need more funding on the next platform to reach where they need to be like the Malibu etc.
Do I wish GM had more truck to offer…Yes. But I also take all the factors in and understand the limitations they face. They are working on it and not every model will be what it needs to be till the next revamp.
Don’t mislead people. The very Ford website you reference shows the 5.5 ft box weight with the V8 as 5586 lbs (over 85% of Ford’s crew cab sold are the 5.5 ft box) The 5731 you quoted is for the long box, which is not the volume seller, so not a apples to apples comparison. These are base models off course, but when you option the truck they way most customers buy them, the GM is still lighter, but not by 500 lbs. Mark Reuss knows what he is talking about.
Secondly, why are you complaining about Ford not releasing their curb weight on the new F150 already? Why would they? All details, fuel economy, tow ratings, horse power, torque, curb weight, price,etc will be released closer to the on sale date, as per usual in the industry.
Thirdly, fleet sales are only “bad” when the other company have more. I am close to the industry, and know for a fact that both Ford, Gm and Dodge compete viciously for fleet business from the police depts, city vehicles and large companies for business.
Scott, I am not a Ford fanboy, but their ecoboost engine is a gem. If you are neutral, and test drive it, and compare it with any V8, it’s hard not to be impressed with that torque curve.
My final point is, all this talk about GM being 5 years behind, Ford’s government loan, and GM’s bail out money is stale. Smart consumers in the market think about the available products and not about what happen 5 years ago, or what might happen 5 years time. GM truck is not a bad truck, but why is it hard to agree that the new F150 might be better?
Pal Why would Ford not state the curb weigh when marketing an Aluminum truck. All they state is they are cutting up to 700 pounds on some models. This was 750 before but they missed it with the final production version. If the weight loss was that dramatic over the others you would state it would you not. Right now the difference of a Aluminum Ford vs. High Strength Steel GM will be one fat buddy. Not as impressive as saying 700 pounds on some models.
I have no issue with the Ecoboost as it is a good engine. I wish GM had done similar with the 3.6 but I also know the V8 is a better deal as it will match the performance and better the MPG. Note my daily drive is a Turbo DI engine with 300 HP so I know what a Turbo can do.
Fact is the new Ford will be a good truck but it is not going to be the demise of GM trucks. In this segment people are pretty loyal and while few cross over most do not. This is why GM has a hard time gaining on Ford as brand loyalty is hard to break. Too often the cross overs just come back anyways. Also Ford has truck fleet sales that they dump on many commercial fleets that add a lot of volume but not as much profits.
Sorry I missed on the bed from 5.5-6.5 Ft And I also now noted my weight 5731 was an Ecoboost that is heavier than the V8 that is 5716.
The point is the truck is still much heavier than the GM is now so they will gain a little but not the 700 pounds like they want people to think. It is just good marketing on Fords part as they have turned a couple hundred pounds into 700 pounds. Keep in mind since we do not have the real Ford curb weights the weights may even be closer in the end. Watch when they are posted and most of the GM trucks will end up with in 175-275 pounds of the equal Ford. If this pans out as I expect GM needs to pounce on it fast.
While Aluminum will help Ford from where they are it will not be as big of a gain in real weight as they are leading you to believe over the GM trucks. Once they have to publish the numbers we will know but buy then the marketing will have lead people from considering that. They are already working hard to justify the added cost and this is how they are trying to do it.
As of now it is what it is and GM will not vanish and Ford will garner some headlines for a while.
Sorry this was rushed since I have to head for work.
You’ve got to be shitting me!!!
GM only gets ( 1) MPG better than current Ford F150s (23 mpg) vs. 24 mpg (not best in class!) and GM has:
– DI
– Active fuel mgmt / cylinder deactivation
– Lighter wt – pick a number…?
– Better aerodynamics
– Latest OHV engine tech – all new designs
The new aluminum F150 should get Best in Class MPG because:
– 700 lb wt loss (Industry says: 1-2% MPG gain / 100 lbs) + 2 mpg
– better aerodynamics (sharp edges in body detach wind, front / rear spoilers, shutters, sleeker windshield) + 1 mpg
– Smallest engine in class – 2.7L v6 EcoBoost (DI, TiVVT) with CGI block “High Output” (320 hp / 360+ ft lbs) + 2 mpg
Projection = 28 MPG “Best in Class” (gas engine)… that a BIG 4 MPG Better than GMs best…!
Add new 10-speed auto in 2-years (with GM) + 2 mpg… for the magical 30 MPG…!
Maybe OHV is Not the way of the future… small displacement + high tech OHC is where its at… Go EcoBoost…!!
Note; The new 2.7L V6 EcoBoost is the Real Game Changer… the CGI block gives Ford all kinds of power flexibility!!!
(Ref; Read the WardsAuto article from Detroit Auto Show titled “Game Changer” and see what the experts say!)
http://wardsauto.com/blog/new-ford-v-6-will-be-game-changer
Here’s the engine problem for GM:
– with EcoBoost you know its more efficient with the “smaller displacement”… makes sense in your head
then when you step on the gas… You FEEL it in the acceleration… “thrilling and reassuring” = Sold!
GM big displacement V8 means inefficient… already in everyone’s head “no replacement for displacement”…!
then when you step on the gas u feel it … suck gas… you do NOT Feel “active fuel mgmt” = marketing problem!!!
Ecoboost that, Ecoboost this… goodness i get tired of hearing about these engines. They are game changers for sure and are great for the car segment and the CAFE numbers. But the reality is… who knows how reliable these “turbo” trucks will be 5 or 10 years from now. Ive owned several turbo cars/trucks over the years and must say… I would much rather climb into the engine bay of my Chevrolet and sit on the wheelwell and change the plugs on my “OHV” V8 that gets 23mpg rather than dealing with all the complexities, expense and headache (along with a packed engine bay) of servicing my daily driver “turbo” truck that gets 24mpg and has a WAY less appealing exhaust note as well. OHV is far from its demise. The next step for GM to take with these DI small blocks is a concentric cam.
Next thing to plagiarize for GM is a half ton diesel a la Ram. Here’s why: They sold out in three days. See below.
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/initial-run-ram-1500-ecodiesel-sells-just-3-153014176.html?.tsrc=samsungbm
What I found interesting is that after the first 3 days and Ram says they sold out every truck they build/delivered to dealers, one of our local dealers had 2 of the 5 they got on their lots available for sale and the other dealer had 3 of the 9 they got available for sale.
I asked them how they were able to have trucks if they sold out in 3 days. Both dealers told me the same story: in order to get more diesels, dealers ordered them as “sold orders” under customer names (doesn’t mean the customer ends up taking them). Sold orders with a customer name get preferred build dates as compared to orders just for inventory. The GM dealership I work at did the exact same thing when the new trucks came out, when the Trax came out, and when the Cruze diesel came out.
This means that Ram can take the number of retail sales that were recorded, added in the sold factory orders under customer names (which are now on dealership’s lots for sale) and it adds up to a sell out.
Now I’m not taking away from the success of this motor for Ram. It will be a great motor (afterall, GM designed it when they owned 50% of VM Motori before Fiat bought them out last October). But even Ram is saying it may comprise 8-10% of their truck sales. The motor costs about $4000 more to buy and the 20% fuel savings is offset by a 20-25% higher cost of diesel at the pumps. And the oil companies have stated that diesel will continue to be higher priced than gas.
That is why we had tons of people asking about the diesel in the Colorado when it first was spied a year ago but in the last 3-4 mths almost everyone asking about the Colorado is now asking what gas engines will be available.
Ford has extensively Tested the durability of the EcoBoost engine – ref: the Video series of all the torture tests they did – Dyno, hauling logs, running around race track, challenge up hills, running the Baja… then they tore down the engine at the Detroit Auto show in front of Live Audience for all to see…. PROOF POSITIVE!!!!
– Thats why 1/3 of F150 buyers get the EcoBoost engine… it works!!!
Show me GM’s testing… NONE..!
Turbos from yesterday had problems, true… But these new Turbos are solid… why do all Big Trucks use turbos… they work for the long haul… no issues… so get over it… this technology is here to stay!
– You can either Lead (Ford), Follow (GM) or Get Out of the Way… I think I know where you belong!
Also, I Love It when GM mentions Fords EcoBoost in your truck advertising… it shows EcoBoost is really getting to GM when they give Ford free airtime…!!!
So Greg, 1/3 of all F150 buyers are buying the bullet proof, sent by God Ecoboost? So what you are actually saying is that nearly 2/3’s of all F150 buyers are still buying the V8’s in the 5.0L and Raptor. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess the market for V8’s in trucks is still going strong.
There are videos of GM’s testing, you just have to find them. And since you seem to think that everything shown in a video is 100% the truth, I guess you can’t get a stronger pickup box than the GMC Sierra since it must have the exact same roll-formed steel that the Submarine has in the TV ad? Holy crap Greg.
Ford had to show videos of the Ecoboost testing because they were trying to get truck buyers to buy a V6. V8’s have been proven and that is why no one (Ram, Toyota, GM or Ford for that matter) ever show testing of a V8.
As far as the ecoboost, is it a good engine, but not without it’s problems: Moisture in the intercoolers, overheated turbo’s, sudden loss of power at highway speeds, hard 2nd to 3rd shifting (combination of engine programming and transmission programming), sudden limp home modes, and so forth.
http://www.f150forum.com/f43/ecoboost-problems-nm-co-az-223877/
http://www.f150forum.com/f70/ecoboost-stalling-accel-issues-168384/
http://www.f150forum.com/f38/ford-acknowledges-eco-boost-problem-211583/
http://www.f150forum.com/f70/class-action-suit-ecoboost-problems-153403/
http://www.f150forum.com/f2/ecoboost-problems-231619/
http://www.f150forum.com/f38/ford-f-150-ecoboost-problems-limp-mode-many-other-issues-157704/
Need I go on Greg?
By the way Greg, the turbos those ‘big trucks’ (most of us know them as semi’s or highway tractors or even big rigs) use have a very different design and use much more hardened materials and heat treatment and if you even talk with a lot of truck drivers they will mention they still have lots of turbo issues.
Also Greg, when the Ecoboost first came out, all of Ford’s ads mentioned it had better fuel economy than both the Dodge Ram and GM trucks, right in the ad (1 mpg better), so don’t flatter yourself that GM mentions the ecoboost in an ad.
The Ecoboost is a good motor and a good option for a lot of truck buyers. V8’s are still the number one engine design in the industry between Ford’s, GM’s, and Rams V8’s.
@scott
Those Motortrend numbers are estimates, not fact.
GM WEBSITE: Lowest weight configuration Curb Weight 1500 V6: 4587 2WD, 4986 4WD
FORD WEBSITE: F-150 V6: 4,685 lbs 2WD, 4925 4WD
Actually GM botched their own measurements, the said 4587 was the 4wd, and 4986 was the 4wd. But I took the liberty to switch it in the right order.
That means the 4wd Ford is lighter and only 98 pounds heavier in 2wd configuration
http://www.gmc.com/sierra-1500-pickup-truck/features-specs/capabilities.config%3Dregular_cab_standard_box.html
By the way Manoli Katakis, GM isn’t going to “follow” the F-150, they are going to COPY the F-150, the new F-150 will be some 700 pounds lighter than the Silverado. (SAE just revealed the new F-150 will save 750 pounds).
I can give Ford some props for moving to aluminum bodies and for the Ecoboost technology. What people seem to forget is that Ford had a 3-4 year head start in developing new technology because they went through their restructuring 3-4 years before Ram and GM when Ford took their government backed loans and remortgaged everything they had in order to restructure. And good for them for doing so.
That allowed them financial stability to secure a contract with their aluminum supplier 2-3 years ago in developing this new truck. Also don’t forget than this means the supplier has to now increase their aluminum supplies by thousands of tons of volume each year and this takes time to build additional plants, equipment, secure contracts, etc.
That is why even though GM has this contract secured now, it will be 3-4 years before it hits the trucks. It will take their supplier time to either build additional production plants, secure more supplies of aluminum and finish/terminate any contracts they have with other buyers in order to have enough aluminum to supply such a large demand from GM.
When GM restructured, everyone was crying at GM to build better quality cars and SUV’s instead of big gas guzzlers. They did that with the Cruze, Equinox, Sonic, Trax, Impala and Camaro. Unfortunately that is the same time they had to start developing the new truck which meant that this truck didn’t exactly get the evolutionary technology it deserved. There is only so much money to go around. Ford had stabilized themselves a few years early which allowed them to put more money into R & D sooner, and good on them for doing so.
Excuse? No, reality. GM got themselves into their financial situation and it is up to them to pull themselves out. But that doesn’t happen over night (4-5 yrs). Even though Ford did their restructuring back in 2005-2006, it still took 5-6 years to bring out the Ecoboost technology for a truck that really hasn’t changed in technology since 2004. It has also taken 9-10 years to bring about the move to aluminum.
GM has stated that the 3.6L LFX engine would be available for the Silverado if the market demanded it; in both natural aspiration and turbo’s, so I think we will see this happen before the next generation truck in 2018.
But right now, I like GM’s approach to the truck market. Ford is going to have the Ecoboost covering a wide range of customer uses since the larger Raptor engine will be gone. GM has 2 engines to cover that same range of buyer; the 6.2L that will still beat the 2015 Ecoboost for hp and torque for those who need the power everyday for work and the 5.3L that will provide better mileage for those who don’t need or use a truck’s max capabilities every day. Will it match the Ecoboost gas mileage ratings after 2015? Not with the 6 speed but the 8-speed will be out shortly and that will also increase their fuel ratings likely around 2 mpg for each engine (enough to keep CAFE happy). Plus, if GM is 2 mpg behind the Ecoboost, with the average truck owner putting on around 20,000 kms per year, it may add up to an extra $10-15/mth in gas between the Ecoboost and GM trucks. Again, many make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Then they have the smaller Colorado and Canyon, which Ford and Ram just don’t have anything to line up against it. Almost 40% of truck owners do not use their truck’s max tow/hauling ratings. They want a truck to pull a boat, snowmobiles, small camper, or haul lumber, garbage, etc or just want a truck for times when they need a truck, plus have the 4×4 for peace of mind. Everyday we hear people complain about how big half tons are getting. That is where the Colorado and Canyon will come in. Those who are looking at the fuel mizing F150 version will seriously look at the Colorado/Canyon because they don’t need a huge bulky truck for their uses.
So cudo’s to Ford for restructuring a few years earlier which gave them a jump on having money to R & D new innovative technology. Unfortunately GM and Ram are 3-4 years behind in stability (financially) but until the new F150 actually hits the road and we see real world numbers and see what GM / Ram have for updates like the 8-speed, etc, everything right now is people’s opinions and guesses. I doubt anything one of the manufacturer’s comes up with for technology will put either of the other two out of business.
And even though Magirus continues to rag on about GM sales dropping while Ram and Ford increase their sales due to the physical truck, the $5000 more it costs to buy a GM truck over the hugely rebated F150 and Ram is a lot of money to most people in a time where the economy is trying to turn around. People just aren’t seeing a $5000 value jump in the GM trucks. But they wouldn’t see a $5000 value jump either in the new F150. I give GM credit for not following the “We will give our trucks away to buy market share” theory with their new trucks; credit that will also be given to Ford because they too won’t be giving the new F150 away either. GM may sell 6-8000 fewer units per month in North America, but if they are making up to $5000 more per truck in profit because of not giving as large of rebate, they actually make more profit than Ford does by selling 6-8000 more trucks but with a $5000 less profit per truck.
And stability in the auto industry is all about profits. You can’t R & D without money/profits.
The ATP for Ford trucks is $40,600 which is higher than GM trucks with Ram at $37,500.
When Ford launches the new F150 this fall… GM will not be able to deep discout their big trucks because the net price may be too close to the new launch pricing for Colorado n Canyon so GM will be squeezed for sales!
If new CnC trucks come out with 28-29 mpg but with 4 cylinder vs if new F150 with hot 2.7 v6 EcoBoost gets 27-28 mpg… Why buy CnC when you get lots more capability with F150…!
Gonna be interesting to see how this all plays out…!
Actually the new Colorado/ Canyon is as much about size as it is efficiency. We have lots of customers commenting on how big half tons are getting and they don’t want that big of truck.
If they can purchase a truck to pull their boat, haul lumber, etc and give them the peace of mind of a 4×4, plus be able to put it in the ever shrinking attached garage, or shrinking parking spots, I think these people wouldn’t want a full size F150 or any other truck. It will be interesting as time goes on.
GM has VVT, SIDI, AFM, iVVL, weight saving materials and more gears to produce a 5.3L that gets 29mpg. Your numbers are off as well. You act like the F-150 is some “magical” truck with its underpowered Ecobust that doesn’t show its EPA numbers. The F-150 is the dinosaur in the truck market and Ford is giving them away at this point. Aluminum will most likely turn some customers away as well as definitely raise maintenance and insurance costs. The “new” F-150 doesn’t look very new to me. It has the exact same overall shape with some new fascias and a somewhat different interior. At least the Silverado/Sierra look more different than their predecessors compared to the F-150.
Ford sucks !!!
Built for today’s women!!!
Sounds. Like u r in the car business n u r Very bias…!
When did everything start “Shrinking” all of a sudden… Or did u just make it up so u can position the CnC twins in ur mind…!
I do not trust anything u say… Typical used car salesman… All BS…!!
Wow, Greg, sounds like you are feeling a little intimidated by someone who actually is in the business. I base my opinion on things customers are saying and asking. You no doubt are a GM hater who would put down anything GM does (and that’s not biased, is it?) I have actually been in the business for 17 years and you don’t last that long in the business (and have a 98% CSI for 17 years) by being a “typical used car salesman”.
Exactly what credible information are your opinions based on? You seem to be spewing numbers about fuel economy gains the Ford will have; based on what? Guestimates. No one knows exactly how technology will affect true world fuel economy until the vehicle has been on the road for a while. It will depend on many things like final drive ratios, transmission gear ratios, right down to size/rating of tire they put on the truck. (Am I speaking too techy for you?)
Above you mention all the things that will increase the F150 fuel economy, yet in the end you throw in the 2.7L ecoboost which will likely have a tow rating in the 6-7000 lbs range. That is where the Colorado and Canyon will be. So why would some customers buy a full size bulky truck that is hard to get into the typical attached garage, hard to park in today’s narrow parking lots, has a larger turning radius, etc if they don’t need a vehicle that large? There is a market for the Colorado/Canyon, Tacoma, etc. and with full size trucks getting bigger and bigger plus more expensive every day, this market could be an important one in the near future. Then throw in the fact that there are more and more couples who are not having kids today and don’t require large crew cabs for kids.
All you have to do is look at how many Colorado/canyons, Dakota’s, Rangers, Tacoma’s, etc are on the road today and you can see there is a demand for it. But in the last 3 years, the manufacturers have taken the option away. Ranger – gone. Dakota – gone. Colorado/Canyon – gone (until now). People have been forced to buy full size trucks if they want a truck.
You my friend are the customer who walks into a dealership, lies to the salesperson about what you can buy a truck for elsewhere, belittles their vehicle and the salesperson and in the end, buys NOTHING because you think you know more than anyone else and thinks big of himself for doing so. Pathetic Greg, pathetic.
Unless you are in the business and hear what buying customers are saying when they walk in the door, your belittling opinion means nothing. NOTHING!!
EvanG said:
”
GM has VVT, SIDI, AFM, iVVL, weight saving materials and more gears to produce a 5.3L that gets 29mpg. Your numbers are off as well. You act like the F-150 is some “magical” truck with its underpowered Ecobust that doesn’t show its EPA numbers. The F-150 is the dinosaur in the truck market and Ford is giving them away at this point. Aluminum will most likely turn some customers away as well as definitely raise maintenance and insurance costs. The “new” F-150 doesn’t look very new to me. It has the exact same overall shape with some new fascias and a somewhat different interior. At least the Silverado/Sierra look more different than their predecessors compared to the F-150.”
Such a misinformed mindless individual who can’t see straight!!!
Chevy is currently using all the latest engine tech VVT DI AFM and reduced wt n the 5.3 can only get 23 mpg vs the more powerful Ford 3.5 EcoBoost at 22 mpg…. BFD…! All that new tech and GM only gets 1 mpg better…!!!
Get ready for a real hurting when the NEW F150 that will weigh 700 lbs less plus be more aerodynamic n the use the powerful n efficient little 2.7 v6 EcoBoost that will compete with the Chevy 5.3 and Ford will get 27-28 mpg!!
GM will only be able to compete with price like the just announced 20% Off Chevy trucks…!
Ref: Automotive News article
Also checkout what WardsAuto says about the 2.7 EcoBoost with CGI engine block being a “Game Changer”
Greg, do you not realize that your gift from god ecoboost gets killed by the 6.2L for hp and torque and only gets 1mpg better? Wow, talk about a lame duck the Ecoboost is. All that “new” technology and it can’t even beat the 6.2L by more than 1 mpg while being eaten for lunch in performance. 1mpg. BFD!! (to use language you are apparently familiar with).
Greg, the more you spew on here, the larger idiot you appear to be. Why would a truck buyer settle for a boosted V6 if they can get the same mileage and performance out of a V8? Plus, the tow ratings for the 2.7 will be lower than the 5.3L. The next generation ecoboost will have more power yet, but hopefully they deal with all the ecoboost issues I mentioned in my last post (if you dared to read it). GM will no doubt have new technology coming in the next transmission plus they have leaked that the LFX 3.6L would be available if the market demanded it in both a natural aspirated and a turbo’s option. But, as long as they are within 1-2 mpg of the beer can aluminum F150 (it uses 6000 series aluminum which is not the top notch military grade aluminum), as you stated above, BFD!! So it will cost me about $15-20 per month to drive my proven V8.
It is quite apparent you are a Ford lover trying to sound intelligent on a GM based forum. It’s not working for you 🙂
Oh my god!! A game changer you say? I am on the edge of my seat!
GM is not using the best technology they have as of now. They are not using iVVL (which will increase at least 2mpg by itself), they are not using an 8 or 10 speed automatic transmission (which will increase another 2mpg), and they are not using as much boron steel as I would have liked. They are also not using aluminum (clearly).
The 2.7L Ecobust doesn’t sound very promising to me. It sounds like an unreliable, tiny engine with abysmal power. The 4.3L, 5.3L and 6.2L kick ass as of now and with an increase in power as well as using more technology, they will be even better! I have no doubt that the 4.3L could get up to 32mpg, the 5.3L could get up to 29mpg and the 6.2L get up to 26mpg.
First all next gen-2 3.5 v6 EcoBoost isn’t out yet n not rated but is expected to have higher hp n torque ratings n does Znot get killed by the almost “twice the size” 6.2 v8 Because the 3.5 producers more usable torque at much lower rpm (2500 vs 4100) where it matters most!!!
It’s a close race… Stay tuned!!
Why would a truck buyer consider the EcoBoost… Look at the Facts:
2011 GM had 40% of the truck market then Ford introduced the EcoBoost
End of 2013 GM has just 33% martket share while Ford has 40% n EcoBoost is the best selling engine in the truck market!
Just the Facts!!!!
By the way Ford n GM are working together on RWD 10 speed auto coming in 2 years so they both get that advantage at the same time!
The new little 2.7 v6 EcoBoost that is half the size of the 5.3 v8 will use strong CGI block vs aluminum in 5.3 block so the 2.7 will have capability for high pressure like diesel n produce very “high output”….
Stay tuned for its rating… Will surprise u of its capability!!!! Plus higher mpg!!!
Um, Greg, you just stated that only 1/3 of F150 buyers are buying the Ecoboost, so 2/3’s are buying the V8’s and there are very few raptors being sold which means well over 1/3 are the 5.0L V8.
So Ford is moving the 3.5L ecoboost up in hp and torque a little closer to the 6.2L and it will only get 1-2 mpg better while still not matching performance. BFD. (again your language).
Yes, Ecoboost’s max torque curve is at lower rpm’s. But the new 6.2 has an even flatter torque curve than the 2013, which means that it will have 95% of max torque around 2500-2600 rpms , which means at the same rpm’s as the ecoboost it should have right around 425-430 torque. Um, isn’t that more than the current Ecoboost? And the new Ecoboost will likely get the typical 5-10 hp and 10-20 torque jump like usually when an engine up grade is made. Yes the next Ecoboost will have a truck that’s around 250 lbs lighter than the current GM but I need to have a heat-producing turbo in the Ecoboost to get any additional performance out of it. Plus with the number of turbo/intercooler issues the current Ecoboost has had, it will be really interesting to see how an Ecoboost turbo with 125,000 miles stands up. Even the ‘big trucks’ (to borrow your terminology) have turbo work to do every 250,000 miles and they are 10 times the turbo of the ecoboost.
But whenever I’m towing my 8000 lbs trailer, I don’t care how fast I can get up to 60 mph after all it is not a race. What I care about is getting there safely (and anything over 400 torque will do that very sufficiently with 8000 lbs behind) and being able to keep my speed in the hills and if I need to pass someone. That is where hp comes in. Torque gets you up and going but hp keeps you there when you need it. That is where the extra hp of the 6.2L V8 (and the flatter and broader hp curve of the V8) will really help in towing.
Greg, until Ford releases the next Ecoboost numbers and independent testers put it to the test, all you are doing right now is spewing wish numbers.
I have nearly 100,000 miles of towing 8000 lbs under my belt (and a ton more years ago hauling livestock on the farm) with mostly V8’s. I do have around 2500 miles towing the same 8000 lbs trailer with an 2013 Ecoboost though (a friend’s truck as we made a trip down to the southern US). I must say the Ecoboost has great torque for it’s size. But when I went through the Rocky’s, I could definitely feel the difference in the ups/downs with the V6 versus the V8. The extra hp and wider/flatter hp curve of the V8 made a difference. There was also quite a difference in fuel mileage towing 8000 lbs in favour of the 6.2L especially when we hit the hilly areas.
But with also 17 years under my belt in the auto industry, I’ve seen a lot of technology come and go. The ecoboost is good technology. But in the end it is just a different way to achieve the same goal. Have a 9000 lbs towing capacity, be able to do it safely and confidently, and get as good as fuel economy as possible doing it. And all the trucks are all within respectable reach of each other.
If people just rely on the spec numbers to rate a truck, they are really missing out on the mark. A truck has to be a total package in capability including hp, torque (both peak and flat curves), grade braking, rear axle ratio, transmission gearing, transmission shift points, handling, etc not on a flat drag strip, but in the hills, mountains, cities, etc.
As far as market share, the previous generation was out for 3 buying cycles of the average truck buyer (people who bought in 2007, buy in 2010 and also in 2013) and we had a number of people who didn’t want the exact same truck as their two previous ones. Yes, that is GM’s fault but a reality in the market share. GM had a lot of other products that they were being pressured to bring to market like better quality cars and SUV’s (instead of gas guzzling trucks) after their restructuring.
When the 2014 came out, GM is refusing to give the truck away to gain market share. Right now the 2014 F150’s have right around $5000 more in rebates which means a lot to a lot of people. So yes Ford has gained market share as has the Ram (also much higher rebates than GM) but it has cost them millions in profit to do so.
GM sold around 6500 fewer trucks in January than Ford (total for North America) but made $4000 more per truck in profits. GM sold 40,044 units and Ford sold 46,536. GM makes right around $14,000 per truck in profit (after rebates and buying down interest rates) while Ford was averaging right around $4000 less with the larger rebates but they didn’t buy the rate down quite as much. So GM had gross profits right around $560M versus Ford’s gross profit of $465M. That’s right around an $95M advantage for GM.
And the bottom line in any business is profit. Yes, you need to have good market share, but the top dog doesn’t always make the most profit as it usually costs them more to get that profit.
Just some more Facts;
Barclays analyst call GM new truck launch Least successful in 15 years!!
Ref AutoBlog article here; http://m.autoblog.com/2014/02/27/barclays-says-gm-truck-launch-least-successful-in-15-years/?post=1&icid=autoblog_river_article
So you basically read the title? Did you read the rest of the article?
Yes, GM hasn’t sold as many as previous launches. But in the article they stipulate that has largely to do with GM offering a lot smaller rebates/discounts compared to Ford and Ram. It then goes on to praise GM for the quality of the truck in it’s reduced noise, vibration, ride and handling and that GM has profited between $4000 and $5000 more on each truck compared to past launches. Plus GM is planning on upping the ante with better deals in March which will surely put pressure on Ford.
And they finished the article by saying that increase in profit definitely didn’t sound like a failure to them.
Financial results 4-qtr N America ops ;
GM earned $1.4B
Ford earned $1.7B
GM had higher revenue n sales…
Ford is the more efficient n profitable company… Just the facts!!!
Guys, it’s time you all settle down and stop this back and forth nonsense. The fact is, a GM fanatic will not buy Ford, and vice versa. And please also stop inventing numbers to try prove a point. Depac, there are lots of unknown that could make your assumption of a 95m profit advantage to GM totally off. I’ll list a few
1) a higher transaction price of $4,000 per truck doesn’t necessarily mean GM is clearing $4000 more in profit per truck, far from it. If GM sells lots of high end LTZs, while Ford sells a boatload of XLTs, that will see GM with higher transaction prices, but not necessarily $4,000 more profit per unit.
2) Ford’s present cost per unit, to build their “old” truck, having recover all their R&D money many years now, would be significantly less than GM’s present cost to build their new truck, so it’s very possible Ford can offer more discount per truck and still have a higher net profit per unit.
3) If your assumptions are correct, why the hell would GM be now “giving away” their trucks with these rediculous discounts they just announced? Offering the new truck at dealer invoice? Why not stay pat and make more money?
My take, GM is worried
That’s my point… GM is worried…!!
Once they start deep discounts… How do you turn it off n still keep sales up?
Plus with these deep discounts the
Net price on full size trucks will be right next to pricing on new CnC midsize trucks which could sabotage their launch…!
What can GM do…?
This idea that a company Should be at the front of innovation and be the leader in bringing products to market is completely overblown!
Look at what has happened to apple, they spend all this time and money developing the I phone, pod, pad, ect! They lead the industry in this technology and are first to the market.
Then what happened other tech companies took their products copied it made a few changes and now call it their own products!
What works in this day and time is let other companies bring new ideas to market, monitor how the public reacts to it and then use the new technology and call it you own! It happens all the time! Samsung has done it over and over again!
Lastly consumer’s don’t care who’s first, most don’t even keep track of it! People like us do but we are less than 5% of the buyers!
There a tons of “early adopters” who must have the latest n greatest… Just look at the lines of them hours before an Apple store opens with the latest “I”-product comes out n they pay top dollar…!
Same can be seen when the new 2015 aluminum F150 arrives this Fall…
You talking about a new version, I was referring to products that completely new to market! Never been done before!
There is no incentive for companies to come to market first, the government’s won’t allow one company to keep all of their innovation to themselves as what happened to Samsung!
They copied apple and 5 or 6 years later they get fined a few hundred million which is nothing when you consider they have made billions with the technology they stole from apple!
So the moral of the story is wait until another company does all the hard work wait and see if the public likes it then copy it and make billions and worry about the repercussions later!