Steel bed versus aluminum bed

[dogg rescue]

I have always been a Chevy guy, but Ford should have a rebuttal ad that shows what a rust bucket the Chevy will look like in 10 years!

[kscarbel2]

 

[RowdyRebel]

Let's see a Chevy do this:

[41chevy]

On 6/12/2016 at 10:49 PM, kscarbel2 said:

 

Like the copied FORD Station Wagon Dual tail gate, not impressed with having to unload the truck if you get a flat.

[1965]

On 6/17/2016 at 11:06 PM, RowdyRebel said:

Let's see a Chevy do this:

Want see a chevy like that; with the front tires all bowed out; also rear springs wouldn't be so weak; where the bed is rubbing the tires

[kscarbel2]

F-150 sales undented by Chevy attack ad

Automotive News  /  July 11, 2016

The Chevrolet Silverado grabbed its biggest piece of the U.S. full-size pickup market since January in the first month of its blistering ad campaign attacking the Ford F-150's aluminum body as too flimsy.

But the F-150 emerged from the fray looking no worse for wear. Ford said F-150 sales soared 40 percent in June from a year earlier, and segment share for the full F-series line jumped to the highest level in 17 months. Ford normally doesn't report F-150-only numbers but did so for June to argue that the Chevy ads didn't hurt it.

It's an intense battle between two longtime archrivals in which both sides act like they're winning, though Chevy's campaign clearly didn't deter the tens of thousands who bought an F-150 last month.

"I love this truck," said Alan Monroe, an accountant in southern Illinois who bought an F-150 Lariat a few weeks after Chevy started airing the commercials in heavy rotation. The ads, launched June 8, show a load of concrete landscaping blocks and the corner of a toolbox gashing the F-150's bed, while the Silverado's steel box sustains lesser dings and scratches.

Monroe, 55, who traded in a Ram 1500, said he researched Chevy's claims online and came away reassured. His Caribou-colored F-150 includes a $495 spray-in bedliner, a popular protective coating that wasn't on the trucks Chevy's marketers abused.

"When somebody's trying that hard to prove something, there's probably not a whole lot of truth in it," Monroe said. Besides, he added, "98 percent of the time, the heaviest thing that will be in it will be my golf clubs."

Although Silverado sales dropped 3.7 percent in June amid a 9.7 percent gain for the segment, Chevy deems the campaign a success. A spokesman, Jim Cain, said about 10 percent of Silverado buyers in June previously owned an F-150, the most in five years.

The year-over-year sales comparison doesn't tell the whole story, Cain said. He said Ford's results from June 2015 were hampered by the slow rollout of the redesigned F-150 while GM had a big month, setting up an easier comparison for Ford. Including the Super Duty, which is soon to be replaced by a redesigned version, total F-series sales rose 29 percent in June.

It was the first time in four years that either nameplate posted higher sales in June than in May.

The pickups' month-over-month share gains came at the expense of the Ram and Toyota Tundra.

The Silverado accounted for 26.7 percent of full-size pickup sales last month. That was up from 25.1 percent in May but down from 30.4 percent in June 2015, which was the highest of any month since early 2010.

The F series' share rose from 32.5 percent a year ago and 37.5 percent in May to 38.1 percent in June. Ford started shipping the aluminum-bodied F-150 in December 2014, but production only reached full speed in June 2015, and it took several more months for inventories to reach normal levels.

Ford offered smaller discounts on the F series last month than Chevy did on the Silverado, according to Autodata. It said average incentive spending climbed to $5,110 for the Silverado, $1,220 more than for the F series, even as Ford's discounts nearly tripled from a year ago. But Cain cited J.D. Power data that calculated Silverado incentives as $4,115 vs. a slightly higher $4,183 for the F series.

'Stronger validation'

Cain said the Chevy campaign has worked on its target audience of retail pickup buyers, noting that the Silverado's share of the retail full-size pickup market rose 1.9 percentage points from May, to 27.7 percent, also citing J.D. Power data. Power data supplied by GM showed that the F-150's retail share fell 0.7 percentage points to 34.5 percent, though Ford said retail sales volume was up 41 percent from a year ago.

Sandor Piszar, Chevrolet's truck marketing director, said the retail gain was significant: "Retail market share tells you how well you are doing with individual truck customers and small business owners. ... It means you have people's attention and clearly separated your truck from the competition. When conquest sales spike at the same time, it's an even stronger validation."

Fleet buyers, who might order several dozen pickups at a time, are paying close attention as well, said Steve Hill, GM's head of U.S. sales. Hill told Automotive News last month that he has heard positive feedback on the campaign from fleet customers, who typically put a premium on durability and cost and wouldn't want to spend hundreds of dollars per truck on bedliners.

Tough enough?

But Ford said that fleet sales of the F-150 surged 40 percent in June and that the campaign -- particularly notable for taking direct aim at the F-150's carefully crafted image as being "Built Ford Tough" -- has not deterred orders from business and government customers. The F series is the U.S. auto industry's top-selling fleet vehicle.

"Fleet is a profitable business for Ford, and we're very happy with our balance on all the components of fleet," Ford spokesman Mike Levine said.

Levine cited customers such as Terracon, a Kansas-based consulting engineering company that has bought more than 100 F-150s this year. In a video Ford posted online June 30, Terracon employees laud the truck's durability and performance under strenuous conditions. All of Terracon's F-150s in the video appear to have bedliners.

"We'll typically haul augers, large water pumps, big generators, bags of concrete, concrete cylinders, soil samples -- light loads, heavy loads, it performs the same," Jason Sander, manager of Terracon's Cincinnati office, says in the video. "We're able to do everything we want to do using that truck. It has not let us down."

June marked the third time in the past four months that Ford sold more than 70,000 F-series pickups and the vehicle's highest share of full-size pickup sales since January 2015, when dealers were selling down discounted inventory of the outgoing F-150.

Ford has not directly responded to Chevy with any ads of its own. Though automakers rarely run commercials disparaging specific rivals so overtly, Mark LaNeve, Ford Motor Co.'s vice president for U.S. marketing, sales and service, brushed off such gamesmanship as nothing unusual in a segment that's as competitive as it is lucrative.

"We're the clear market leader," LaNeve said on a July 1 conference call. "They're going to try things. They tried this, and the numbers speak for themselves."

 

Pickup share

Ford, Chevy both gained U.S. full-size pickup share in June.
	Ford F series	Chevrolet Silverado
Jan.	36.30%	26.70%
Feb.	36.40%	25.80%
March	37%	24%
April	36.50%	25.80%
May	37.50%	25.10%
June	38.10%	26.70%

.

 

[Dirtymilkman]

What happens when GMC sales totals are added to Chevrolet's?  Ford also said the main reason for not bringing the ranger to the U.S. is because it'll take away from f series sales numbers. Are the numbers that important?  

[RedBullDog]

50 minutes ago, Dirtymilkman said:

What happens when GMC sales totals are added to Chevrolet's?  Ford also said the main reason for not bringing the ranger to the U.S. is because it'll take away from f series sales numbers. Are the numbers that important?  

Most of the idea, I think, for Ford is that they already make the F series and a lightly equipped 150 going for the same sales price as a Ranger makes them more money.  They don't have factory, tooling, and marketing costs just to make the Ranger. Most of the Rangers being sold at the end were V6 autos, which something similar is available in the 150.  People moaned about the ranger being "too small" and not enough capacity to haul and tow, cause they didn't use their brain and just buy the half ton in the first place, so that didn't help either. 

I would like to see a new Ranger, but keep it simple and keep the cost down. I have an 87 model with a 4 cylinder and a manual trans that is true to what a compact pickup should be.  It does OK on gas and can haul light bulky stuff in the bed.  It doesn't need a 250 hp engine or need to tow campers and boats.  

Also, EPA fuel economy figures are calculated differently for full size vs compact pickups if I'm not mistaken.  Ford may be trying to manipulate the CAFE standards numbers.    

[m16ty]

I never understood why they always show 1/2 ton pickups in the work truck ads. If you are buying a work truck, you need 3/4 ton minimum. I guess the ads are actually aimed at homeowners that the most they will ever haul is garbage to the dump. It works with them because they think they are buying a actual work truck, they aren't. They are buying a modern day El Camino, a car with a bed.

 

[kscarbel2]

5 hours ago, RedBullDog said:

Most of the idea, I think, for Ford is that they already make the F series and a lightly equipped 150 going for the same sales price as a Ranger makes them more money.  They don't have factory, tooling, and marketing costs just to make the Ranger. Most of the Rangers being sold at the end were V6 autos, which something similar is available in the 150.  People moaned about the ranger being "too small" and not enough capacity to haul and tow, cause they didn't use their brain and just buy the half ton in the first place, so that didn't help either. 

I would like to see a new Ranger, but keep it simple and keep the cost down. I have an 87 model with a 4 cylinder and a manual trans that is true to what a compact pickup should be.  It does OK on gas and can haul light bulky stuff in the bed.  It doesn't need a 250 hp engine or need to tow campers and boats.  

Also, EPA fuel economy figures are calculated differently for full size vs compact pickups if I'm not mistaken.  Ford may be trying to manipulate the CAFE standards numbers.    

I never heard a Ranger buyer "bemoan" the truck for being smaller than a full-size F-150. They purposely bought the Ranger because they didn't want/need a full-size truck.

As for towing, of course a smaller truck has a lower towing capacity. But that said, the Ranger could easily pull most bass boats and other.

That all said, the Ranger has "grown up". Designed by superb engineers at Ford Australia, the global Ford Ranger does it all.

[RedBullDog]

I know of a few "moaners." A friend of mine has a ranger too, and as he has gotten fatter he grumbles about the size of the interior, as does his wife who has gone the same direction.  I said don't blame the truck, it didn't know you were going to grow again.

[Dirtymilkman]

I looked at a new Colorado with a diesel. Great engine, great truck and great mileage. Price......crazy. Why won't they make a 2wd manual diesel without every option? The only way to get the diesel is to buy a loaded one. Same with the Chevy Cruze diesel. My buddy has one and loves it but he had to get it with leather and everything. 

[kscarbel2]

4 hours ago, Dirtymilkman said:

I looked at a new Colorado with a diesel. Great engine, great truck and great mileage. Price......crazy. Why won't they make a 2wd manual diesel without every option? The only way to get the diesel is to buy a loaded one. Same with the Chevy Cruze diesel. My buddy has one and loves it but he had to get it with leather and everything. 

The price is ridiculous. GM is making you pay a premium. The engine is fine......not cutting-edge tech but certainly quite acceptable. But given that GM's labor costs in Thailand (where the motor is produced) is very low by US/UAW levels, GM is clearly trying to earn a tidy profit.

As you discovered, the diesel is only available on mid-level LT and high trim levels, and they force several options upon you. (http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/44932-review-2016-gmc-canyon-diesel-4x4-crew-cab/#comment-331084)

All this weighed in, I'd rather buy a global Ford Ranger. But Ford's US pricing is yet unknown, and no doubt they'll aim to price-match GM so as to enhance their profits.

I drove a Ford Everest last week, the SUV variant of the global Ranger. Simply brilliant. It's a man's SUV (body-on-frame, ect.). 

[bulldogboy]

So, has Ford made a decision yet that they will build the Ranger/Everest at the Wayne plant? Re: the "work truck", a guy I know had a fairly new F-150 that he used in his business. Recently,

he was hit head-on by a drunk driver that swerved into the truck's lane. Fortunately, the only injury was to the drunk driver. The F-150's cab was pushed back into the body but the air bags

did not deploy, I'm not sure if anyone is looking into that. Anyway, he went to several Ford dealerships looking for a basic F-150 work truck. No one had one but there were plenty of

"Lariats", "Harleys", and "King Ranches" but no basic trucks. He was told he could order one with an eight week delivery time. For a guy who works by himself that might be a problem.

The local Chevy dealer had two work trucks in stock so he had to buy one. I'm a Ford guy but it's a shame that they don't try to accommodate the people who need a "Built Tough" truck.

I understand higher profits, catering to the country club set, and all but still, help the working guy, too.

                           bulldogboy

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by bulldogboy

[kscarbel2]

Basic work truck-spec units have to be ordered nowadays.

[41chevy]

11 hours ago, bulldogboy said:

So, has Ford made a decision yet that they will build the Ranger/Everest at the Wayne plant? Re: the "work truck", a guy I know had a fairly new F-150 that he used in his business. Recently,

he was hit head-on by a drunk driver that swerved into the truck's lane. Fortunately, the only injury was to the drunk driver. The F-150's cab was pushed back into the body but the air bags

did not deploy, I'm not sure if anyone is looking into that. Anyway, he went to several Ford dealerships looking for a basic F-150 work truck. No one had one but there were plenty of

"Lariats", "Harleys", and "King Ranches" but no basic trucks. He was told he could order one with an eight week delivery time. For a guy would works by himself that might be a problem.

The local Chevy dealer had two work trucks in stock so he had to buy one. I'm a Ford guy but it's a shame that they don't try to accommodate the people who need a "Built Tough" truck.

I understand higher profits, catering to the country club set, and all but still, help the working guy, too.

                           bulldogboy

 

My 1988 Dodge Ram was a basic work truck,no frills just vinyl and rubber interior. Options were a N.P. heavy duty manual trans with creeper low and PTO, heavy duty cooling and charging systems,twin fuel tanks and stainless steel exhaust. Basic radio,PS, PB no AC or power windows...a basic work truck. Looked for a new basic replacement for 5 years and never could find one.No manufacturer makes a basic truck. With the move to Va. I just replaced it with a left over 2015 Ram 5500 Chassis with options the I'll probably never use.   Paul

Edited July 13, 2016 by 41chevy

[m16ty]

I never was a fan of all the bells and whistles. I was shopping for a 2015 Chevy 2500, crew cab, 4X4. Price went from mid-30s to over 70K. All they had on the lot was 50K and up. I told them I didn't need all that crap. They ended up finding me one in the upper 30s without all that useless stuff that doesn't do a darned thing to help it haul a load down the road. 

At least Chevy does have a WT (stands for work truck) trim package offering. 

[m16ty]

On 6/12/2016 at 4:27 PM, dogg rescue said:

I have always been a Chevy guy, but Ford should have a rebuttal ad that shows what a rust bucket the Chevy will look like in 10 years!

The corrosion properties of the aluminum Ford should not be overlooked. Aluminum will also corrode, just not as back as steel. 

Around here we don't get much snow but the state has gotten into the habit of dumping loads of salt and brine water on the roads when there is forcasted  the slightest chance of snow, without regard to the damage they are doing to the vehicles that drive through it. Most people don't care as they trade every 3-4 years anyway but for people like me that keep them for 10+ years, I'd like for my truck not to fall apart around me.

[kscarbel2]

1 hour ago, m16ty said:

I never was a fan of all the bells and whistles. I was shopping for a 2015 Chevy 2500, crew cab, 4X4. Price went from mid-30s to over 70K. All they had on the lot was 50K and up. I told them I didn't need all that crap. They ended up finding me one in the upper 30s without all that useless stuff that doesn't do a darned thing to help it haul a load down the road. 

At least Chevy does have a WT (stands for work truck) trim package offering. 

Using a Tennessee zip code:

Ram 2500 Tradesman 4x4 crew cab short bed   5.7L        6-spd auto                       MSRP $30,824 with cash-back incentives

Ram 2500 Tradesman 4x4 crew cab short bed   6.7L ISB  6-spd manual or auto     MSRP $40,420 with cash-back incentives

F-250 XL Super-Duty 4x4 crew cab short bed      6.2L        6-spd auto                       MSRP $38,780

F-250 XL Super-Duty 4x4 crew cab short bed      6.7L        6-spd auto                       MSRP $47,260 [ridiculous]

Chevy 2500HD 4x4 crew cab short bed                6.0L        6-spd auto                       MSRP $38,890 (includes $2,000 incentive)

I regret that Ford and GM no longer offer a standard duty 3/4 ton truck. Not everyone wants are needs the mass. The 1997-1999 Ford F-250 (7,700 GVW), a variant of the then-new F-150, was all many people need.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Boyer Ford in Minneapolis is one of the old Ford truck only dealers and always stocks lots of work trucks with long beds in plain ol' XL and XLT trim.

[m16ty]

21 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

Using a Tennessee zip code:

Ram 2500 Tradesman 4x4 crew cab short bed   5.7L        6-spd auto                       MSRP $30,824 with cash-back incentives

Ram 2500 Tradesman 4x4 crew cab short bed   6.7L ISB  6-spd manual or auto     MSRP $40,420 with cash-back incentives

F-250 XL Super-Duty 4x4 crew cab short bed      6.2L        6-spd auto                       MSRP $38,780

F-250 XL Super-Duty 4x4 crew cab short bed      6.7L        6-spd auto                       MSRP $47,260 [ridiculous]

Chevy 2500HD 4x4 crew cab short bed                6.0L        6-spd auto                       MSRP $38,890 (includes $2,000 incentive)

I regret that Ford and GM no longer offer a standard duty 3/4 ton truck. Not everyone wants are needs the mass. The 1997-1999 Ford F-250 (7,700 GVW), a variant of the then-new F-150, was all many people need.

The Chevy listed is basically what I got. I think the sale price was $36K and change, was right at $40K by the time you added TTL. 

Even though my previous truck was a '98 Dodge Cummins and I liked it, I didn't even price a Dodge when I was shopping. My Dad had a Dodge Gasser and I wasn't impressed and the new diesels have too much emissions and electronics crap on them nowadays for my taste in a pickup. Lets face it, not many people buy a Dodge for the styling or the great body, they buy it for the Cummins engine.

I'm not brand loyal, I've owned them all. After doing much research on all the brands, I decided that the Chevy was this best suit for me at the time, all things considered. While there is no denying that the powertrain and other moving parts are leaps and bounds better as far as longevity is concerned, they don't build the rest of the truck nearly as tough as they used to.

[kscarbel2]

15 minutes ago, m16ty said:

The Chevy listed is basically what I got. I think the sale price was $36K and change, was right at $40K by the time you added TTL. 

Even though my previous truck was a '98 Dodge Cummins and I liked it, I didn't even price a Dodge when I was shopping. My Dad had a Dodge Gasser and I wasn't impressed and the new diesels have too much emissions and electronics crap on them nowadays for my taste in a pickup. Lets face it, not many people buy a Dodge for the styling or the great body, they buy it for the Cummins engine.

I'm not brand loyal, I've owned them all. After doing much research on all the brands, I decided that the Chevy was this best suit for me at the time, all things considered. While there is no denying that the powertrain and other moving parts are leaps and bounds better as far as longevity is concerned, they don't build the rest of the truck nearly as tough as they used to.

It's shocking that, at a time when fuel efficiency is a priority goal, the full-size pickups have the aerodynamics of.......a brick. And, I don't particularly want to drive a "brick".

The second generation 1994-2002 Dodge pickups had a much smaller "nose" than today. It actually looked aerodynamic.....and proportional. But the grilles of today's trucks are absurdly huge, larger than many people's flat screen TVs. Personally, I don't care for it.

At the end of the day, my position remains that If one could buy a Ford F-Series pickup with the Dodge's Cummins 6.7L ISB and Chevy/GMC's Allison 1000 transmission, and Dana axles, you'd have a nice truck......a keeper.

[Dirtymilkman]

Give me a 5.9 Cummins with an Allison in a new Chevy. We got fed up with the solid front axles and rebuilding them every 70,000 miles  

[m16ty]

On July 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM, kscarbel2 said:

 

.

At the end of the day, my position remains that If one could buy a Ford F-Series pickup with the Dodge's Cummins 6.7L ISB and Chevy/GMC's Allison 1000 transmission, and Dana axles, you'd have a nice truck......a keeper.

I think we have a winner.

 

The IFS is the only down side I had with the Chevy. I have found straight axles to be much less problematic than IFS. Lots more moving parts on a IFS truck to wear out and break.

 

as far as the big front ends, I think it may have something to do with trying to stuff bigger radiators in them. They've got them running awfully hot these days ( my Chevy runs at 210). It used to be that fuel mileage was paramount, now fuel mileage takes a back seat to emissions.

 

While we are griping, what really bugs me are all the different tire sizes these days. My truck has 17" and the wife's Suburban has 20". What happened to the good old days where you just had small, medium, and large (14,15, & 16). I guess Chevy started screwing with that years ago with the 16.5. I once spent a couple of hours trying to get a spare tire mounted on a wheel I found, I finally realized I was trying mount a 16" tire on a 16.5" wheel. I threw the wheel in the scrap iron pile so to not run into that mistake again.