@Bing
“only managed to cut the weight down by 700#, which is still only 400# lighter than the competition.”
In my book, that’s significant weight savings
Some day, we’ll probably have a full size truck that weighs a mere 1500 pounds, but we’re not there yet
I think the “real” weight savings will come when we drivers lose weight
That includes me
LOL
Some day, we'll probably have a full size truck that weighs a mere 1500 pounds, but we're not there yet.Gee, my full-size '94 is listed at 3750# on my title. I roll across the scrapyard scales as low as 3900 absolute minimum (no spare, empty bed, running on fumes).
(GVWR 6100 for realistic 1900# payload with driver and some tools.)
Seems to me we're headed the wrong direction...;-)
Agree with @insightful , the only reaseason that GM / Chrysler received a bail out was they could not get private financial help they needed from the private sector to continue paying off debtors and they did not have the capital nor the colateral to make competitive products. Ford did and does.
It’s not easy to decide exactly how much weight is save by Ford over their competitors without comparing apples to oranges when each makes so many different model full size PUs with different engine options. The fact is, they are doing different approaches for sales. One is putting their tech into smaller trucks they are going to sell at nearly the same price as their larger while the other is making much lighter larger trucks. Ford does not want to get into the midsize market to cut sales from a product line where I believe, they make more then half their profit from. To them, making an alumnum body F150 is NOT some wild and crazy move but a long term cominttment to staying a sales leader in their most profitable line. Sitting back and doing little in the light of mileage requirements is not an option where they don’t have these small trucks to get their averages low enough.
Weight is huge in determining mileages. One is going small to get lighter , the other is going big and lighter. It should be ok for both, unless toyota / Dodge Does both.
No Wes,the FE series Ford V-8 is history,Bing 700# is worthwhile,db,my Neighbor had a new Colorado and you could hear the axles slapping on a rough road-Kevin
I disagree about Ford having equipment and property to sell while the others did not. It was actually all about timing. Ford sold the farm two years before the banking debacle. There were no restrictions on these types of transactions at that time. But when the banking business was in the depths of the crisis, their funds were frozen. They didn’t loan any money at all, and certainly did not engage in buy/lease back agreements. You guys are ignoring the real problem at the time and focusing on the symptoms.
Automotive Engineering magazine recently had an article on materials used to meet the upcoming tough mileage requirements. It seems everything is on the table and you are going to see some dramatic weight reductions from all manufacturers. Be prepared for multi- materials designs. It will likely make repairs more expensive as we gradually shift away from carbon steel.
The genius of Ford’s move to aluminum is to prove it can be done. Aluminum means “premium” to many (think Rolls Royce). The others are left scrambling…
^Yeah, but they pronounce it wrong!
(Actually, I think the Brits are right, on that one. They totally butcher the word “Jaguar,” though…too many @#$& syllables!!)
@jtsanders
I hear what you are saying and "timing " plays a big part in everything. But some would argue, regardless of how the two companies got there, Ford was better able to weather the storm. Besides, I would say that “planning” and “timing” are interchangable depending upon whether you want to accept responsibility .
@Docnick
It’s a philosophy difference too. The corporate averge for a particular fleet of vehicles can be met in one of two ways. One, increase the mileage of the larger trucks with advanced technology ( Ford) or make your smaller trucks more competitive which brings the overall average down too, GM.
The British cars were built out of ALUMINIUM (their word), and in addition to the Jowett there was another British car and the French Dyna Panhard was a small 2 cylinder front drive car with an aluminum body.
The real pioneers were the 50s Land Rovers with the safari bodies, made entirely out of flat sheet aluminum. We had one on our geological exploration and they held together much better than the Jeep trucks.
Carbon fiber is coming down. We may start seeing carbon fiber in the average commuter car.
@MikeInNH Absolutely; carbon fibre will figure prominently in future cars. It’s already widely used in aerospace.
Carbon Fiber is certainly the way of the future, nano technology is somewhat experimental but looks like a great path, I hate to pull politics into it, but fear vested interests impeding technology.
Not to worry, anything that helps a company meet the strict new CAFE and give it an edge over competitors will be embraced. No way to ‘impede’ carbon.
Actually, Germans also use the word aluminium
So the question is . . . whose word is it?
Gas at 1.96 here today. Considering the wide open spaces and amount of driving done it’s kind of nice to have it that price.
Around here anyway, most SUVs and pickups are a necessity although granted there’s a certain percentage of soccer moms and so on who feel the need for an Expedition on a rather pedestrian commute.
I filled up at the local costco the other day at $2.45. I think I was paying ~ $2.60 in 2000/2001 and factoring in inflation, this is oddly cheap.
Edit
americans also use the word aluminium
My local Costco is down to $2.03 per gallon, according to Gas Buddy!
And, for those who haven’t used that website for awhile, it is nice to see that, in addition to displaying the price & location of each station in a particular town, it now also mentions whether a particular brand of gas is Top Tier.
Gas Buddy is a very handy tool to use for finding the best price, and the best gas.