Truck Question

[Trickymissfit]

My cousin showed me a pic of the new Colorados they are coming out with. Apparently they are going to put a diesel in that truck.

about two weeks prior to the auto show I got photos via email from the head guy at Chevy. He hinted that there would be all new engines in it. I later get another email concerning the engine options. I'm not sure if the 3.6 engine is a redesigned Cadillac CTS engine or something different. The four banger is the same one we use today. The diesel looks like it has. 250 ft.lb. of torque. There will be a ZR-2 option again (maybe a different name). Think all fuel systems are now direct port injection. I had a ZR-2 for several years, and really liked that truck. Sucked gas like it was going out of style (3.77:1 gears), but for hunting and fishing it was near perfect for me. Actually liked it better than the full sized truck I bought to replace it with.
gary

 

[Trickymissfit]

I'm glad I missed this thread.

Chrysler-Fiat = JUNK.

The Cummins is ok, just ok. The newer ones with electronic injection and common rail suffer from poor mileage issues that gets worse as the miles accumulate.

The underpinning are all junk, from the axle tubes to the suspension components

Older Dodge trucks with the earlier Cummins and mechanical injection (Bpsch) are fine. The 727 Torquflite is a bomb waiting to go off. The only older Dodge thats worth anything longevity wise is one with a New Process Manual box, but don't expect miracles from thr suspension because it's junk and the frames are junk too.

I won't buy anything made by Obama Motors, NOTHING. If they want to give me a vehicle, thats dandy. Far as I'm concerned, to repay what the government screwed the citizens out of with the GM Bailout, GM should give every citizen a new car, no charge.

Until that occurs, they can KMA.

That leaves Ford and the imports and there isn't an import truck thats heavy enough to tow my triple axle gooseneck, so that Leaves Ford, but not anything post 7.3 because Ford royally screwed up the engine with their divorice from Navistar but thats another story for another time.

Lets just say the the company I work for supplies 80% of the material that Chjrysler and their second tier suppliers/stampers, form into suspension parts, axle housings and drive assemblies and Chrysler and now Fiat-Chrysler will buy anything so long as it's grey and appears to be steel.

I want a bit more quality under my butt, especially considering the prices today.

being as your on the Obama Motors band wagon let me add a couple thoughts.

* Certainly Ford didn't take a Government loan; or did they? The tax payer actually gave them several sets of tax credits that they didn't have to think about ever paying back.

* that Ford you rave about doesn't meet Federal specs to qualify as a U.S. built truck. To be exact it doesn't come close! At one time less than 40% of a Ford anything was built in the N. America, and of that 40%, much of that was outsourced from the USA. Basically the only thing they did was assemble components they bought. It was so bad that Toyota mocked them in commercials! The Fed threatened to take the made in USA label from them, so they increased their content by taking back product lines from Asia. Ford found a loop hole in the content sheet, and simply called it N. American production (they at onetime claimed a 75% N. American content), but when you an investigation you soon learned they moved about 2/3rds of the Asian stuff to Latin America. On the otherhand G.M. calls N. American content as U.S. and Canada, and separates Mexican content (as it should be). But Ford is doing better. At one time about 37% was built by Ford, and the rest was who knows where. Now they are claiming about 67% N. American content. G.M. claims about 63% U.S. and Canada content. Looks great on paper anyway. The main reason you see Canadian content in all cars and trucks is due to the Canadian content laws, which is also illegal in the NAFTA treaty.

* give Toyota credit for at least going beyond an assembly plant, and actually opening a couple feeder plants for it. Next problem is that with the exception of the blocks and heads, your looking at Asian content again (another loop hole)
glt

 

[Outlaw6.0]

About $5.9billion in 2009-ish (Running from memory) as a tax credit from the DOE to re-tool several plants across the US to build hybrid technology/vehicles. With another ~$10billion footed by Ford themselves. Fuel economy/efficiency is federally mandated... One should at least be capable of seeing a reason (other than shoddy business practice) for lobbying & receiving a tax credit as a legitimate investment, should they choose to do so.

It is also true that Ford's CEO lobbied in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. As the big 3 share an approximate 80% overlap in suppliers, it would be safe to assume that the decline of your suppliers would lead to a decline in your business... kinda hard to sell stuff you don't have; or is it?

Ford's CEO also lobbied Congress for a "line of credit" for $9billion "just in case". Whether or not it was approved, I cannot say as there was no funding provided under the "bailout" at any point.

So; are they perfect? Nope, none of them are. Were they in a better position then? Yup. Are they still? I tend to think so. Although I do have to say Fiat errr.. Dodge is making a dern hard push on the market.

The future will tell the rest of story.


t

 

[SidecarFlip]

I never argue with Gary because we know each other....lol

Every 'domestic' automotive product has foreign content. Hell, even my 97 Powerstroker has a wiring harness 'Hencho Mexico'.

So don't single out Ford for content, they all have it. It's a matter of labor cost versus profit Gary, you and I both know that.

If profit versus build cost wasn't an issue, there would be no second and third tier suppliers. It would all be done 'in house'. It's not.

The point of my post was really that I'm pretty well versed on whats under the sheetmetal in as much as I work for a major supplier, probably 60 million in material for Fiat-Chrysler alone. Ford is even more and GM is behind Ford and Chrysler.

In order of revelance as far as before the build quality as it pertains to materials of the ferrous nature, this is the order...

Honda
Nissan
Kubota (yes we supply Kubota with material for fabrication here in this country)
Ford
GM
Fiat-Chrysler

From what I see, GM didn't learn anything other than it got a bunch of money from you and I. Nothing has changed as far as GM procurement. GM is still riding on their laurels.

I already discussed Chrysler and Ford.

Honda and Nissan are very particular. They actually come to the plants and inspect their materials prior to shipment, thats common.

Ford, GM and C-F never come and inspect. Ford does demand pre-delivery Certification and QS documentation prior to physical delivery (except frame rails). GM and C-F don't.

Kubota comes and inspects. FYI, all the wheels on Kubota tractors, that material came from our plants, 100%. All the lighter gage flat plate for implement fabrication comes from ue as well. Kubota imports the tractors minus any implement, wheels and tires. The tractors are outfitted in Georgia at their plant.

All the frames that Ford uses under the F Series, custom chassis and vocational builds, all come from our plant in Michigan. We run Ford frame rails 24/7/365.

I could tell more but most of it is proprietary information.

I don't want to play the Ford versus GM versus Chrysler game. Buy what you want to, it's your money.

I'm just giving a bit of insight as to what I see occuring and how that impacts overall quality, not wihat the manufacturer tells you but what actually is.

Having said that, you will never find a Chrysler-Fiat product or a GM (post Obama) in my driveway.

 

[Trickymissfit]

About $5.9billion in 2009-ish (Running from memory) as a tax credit from the DOE to re-tool several plants across the US to build hybrid technology/vehicles. With another ~$10billion footed by Ford themselves. Fuel economy/efficiency is federally mandated... One should at least be capable of seeing a reason (other than shoddy business practice) for lobbying & receiving a tax credit as a legitimate investment, should they choose to do so.

** I have not looked at Ford Hybrids in the last year, but all that tooling money went to Asia. Last Fusion I looked had about a 20% N. American content. There were actually three different sets of tax credits, but two of them are very well hidden. I didn't know about them till a buddy of mine dug up the data and put it in my face.

It is also true that Ford's CEO lobbied in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. As the big 3 share an approximate 80% overlap in suppliers, it would be safe to assume that the decline of your suppliers would lead to a decline in your business... kinda hard to sell stuff you don't have; or is it?

** most people fail to realize that it was not the Big Three in this issue, but the 3.2 million jobs that would be lost elsewhere. All the big companies use a similar feeder network. This covers everything from tires to paint & glass.

Ford's CEO also lobbied Congress for a "line of credit" for $9billion "just in case". Whether or not it was approved, I cannot say as there was no funding provided under the "bailout" at any point.

** problem Ford had was that it was setting on $35 billion in petty cash reserves at that time. What hurt Ford and helped the other two was that the Fed mandated a new contractual agreement for the other two. Pretty much a reduction of 20% of the labor package. This pretty much put GM on par with the hourly cost at Toyota (within a couple dollars). I think Chrysler is another couple dollars cheaper yet. The one advantage that GM has is that the UAW has been more than willing to accommodate their needs. Where as Ford has met a lot of resistance, but is still getting some movement. Don't get much news inside Chrysler anymore, so I can't say much. Three or four years ago I passed inside info that Ford was in deep trouble with their 3/4 and 1 ton packages, and folks laughed at me. Those birds came to roost about two years ago. Navistar and Ford split over massive warranty costs, and Navistar said it was their baby and not their problem. Then Ford had (still has) a serious problem with the transmission they are using (a Ford design) behind diesels. We're looking a several billion alone in warranty costs. To be exact the most recent warranty cost per unit figures show that GM and Toyota are very close to each other at slightly over $300 a unit. Chrysler is about $356 a unit, and Ford is over $550 a unit. Still fantastic when compared to the $1100 they were showing in the early 2000 era. By the way, Honda is number one. Not by a lot, but still number one.

So; are they perfect? Nope, none of them are. Were they in a better position then? Yup. Are they still? I tend to think so. Although I do have to say Fiat errr.. Dodge is making a dern hard push on the market.

The future will tell the rest of story.


t

The Chrysler deal will be interesting. The new Viper was pretty much all designed in Italy, and although it looks like the old one it's vastly different inside. The new Dart is pretty much an Alfa Romero built over here (reskinned and a couple inches wider). I don't see much influence in their truck lines, but who knows. Be interesting.
gary

 

[Outlaw6.0]

Interesting data Gary. Can you post a link to that? I'm not finding those #'s, I don't know which is right or which is wrong (so go easy on me) but according to Warranty Week:

"During the recession, the OEMs made fewer cars, but they also made better cars. Every year, they set aside less per vehicle, and a smaller percentage of revenue, to cover warranty expenses. Honda and GM slipped back a little in 2012, but for the others this is a continuing trend.
Now, here is the biggest surprise of all. We took the accrual rates per vehicle for all eight OEMs, and for the four European and two Japanese OEMs we converted those figures into U.S. dollars. Once we did that, we realized that Ford had the second-lowest accrual rate per vehicle, and that GM and Fiat were almost in a tie for third."





So the biggest nuggets of news here are that
1) all of the European OEMs plus Ford and Toyota managed to successfully reduce their warranty expense rates in their most recent fiscal years.
2) Honda is back over $250 per vehicle for the first time in five years, though it still has the lowest vehicle warranty expense rate in the world,
**3) Ford has the second-lowest vehicle warranty expense rate in the world.
4) Fiat once again has its warranty expenses under control, and
5) Toyota is now fifth out of eight, after holding second place from fiscal 2002 to 2006, but continues to recover from the massive recalls of 2009 and 2010.


Now, working in "business", I know how VERY easy it is to skew numbers in any particular favor you wish. That's why I posted what I believed to be true. Your numbers are different & it makes me curious. Both your report & mine show the Big 2 bringing accrual down substantially, it really is win-win for us as the consumer.


t

 

[Trickymissfit]

Interesting data Gary. Can you post a link to that? I'm not finding those #'s, I don't know which is right or which is wrong (so go easy on me) but according to Warranty Week:

"During the recession, the OEMs made fewer cars, but they also made better cars. Every year, they set aside less per vehicle, and a smaller percentage of revenue, to cover warranty expenses. Honda and GM slipped back a little in 2012, but for the others this is a continuing trend.
Now, here is the biggest surprise of all. We took the accrual rates per vehicle for all eight OEMs, and for the four European and two Japanese OEMs we converted those figures into U.S. dollars. Once we did that, we realized that Ford had the second-lowest accrual rate per vehicle, and that GM and Fiat were almost in a tie for third."


View attachment 29949


So the biggest nuggets of news here are that
1) all of the European OEMs plus Ford and Toyota managed to successfully reduce their warranty expense rates in their most recent fiscal years.
2) Honda is back over $250 per vehicle for the first time in five years, though it still has the lowest vehicle warranty expense rate in the world,
**3) Ford has the second-lowest vehicle warranty expense rate in the world.
4) Fiat once again has its warranty expenses under control, and
5) Toyota is now fifth out of eight, after holding second place from fiscal 2002 to 2006, but continues to recover from the massive recalls of 2009 and 2010.


Now, working in "business", I know how VERY easy it is to skew numbers in any particular favor you wish. That's why I posted what I believed to be true. Your numbers are different & it makes me curious. Both your report & mine show the Big 2 bringing accrual down substantially, it really is win-win for us as the consumer.


t

the warranty data was published about two weeks ago, and is for 2013 models. First saw it on MSN, and it later was published on the front page of the new paper.
I used to have access to Wards Auto News, but don't think they track warranty costs anymore as they have not published it in the last few years. They used to do it monthly (even though it's published weekly). Wards is a trade paper that is hard to get a subscription to. How I got one, I'm not sure but was delivered to me weekly at work.

As for the tax credits, I was with you and your thoughts. But got the first hint of the other two from a financial advisor who was heavily invested in Ford Motor Company. It was later confirmed by a fellow I know who makes race car parts for Ford Racing. Now the exact numbers are all over the place, and I've heard everything from the $5.9 billion out to $31 billion in tax credits. Probably somewhere in the middle.

One thing you learn from financial reports and the Big Three; is that there little to be learned. GM and Chrysler rarely release intricate financial data on their product lines. Ford is in the boat, and you might as well consider that data as private. Sitting in on product planning meetings you pick up bits and pieces in the hall way.
A stock holder's report is about as generic as it can get, and the board meetings are even more generic. Yet trust me a 12th floor meeting can often be a blood bath!! But on the otherhand we'll never be invited. Yet I've been in product planning meetings that ended with a fist fight!

I worked for a company that did a ton of business with Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes, GM, Mitsubishi, Navistar, CAT, Cummins, Detroit diesel, TACOM, and several others. Surprisingly Ford and Mercedes are the big money winners these days. Twenty years ago it was Navistar, and then Ford moved into the top money spot. This was taken over by Mercedes Benz. GM was never a top money contender, and it didn't make a lot of sense. We are a 15.5% REIT company day in and day out. Could be a 22% company without too much effort, but probably no longer competitive. I remember when they hit the 18%+ mark and went into a panic mode! Things are that competitive. When you establish those numbers you find away to reduce sales cost to the end user.

gary

 

[Outlaw6.0]

..., and I've heard everything from the $5.9 billion out to $31 billion in tax credits. Probably somewhere in the middle.

** you're probably right about that.

..... Yet I've been in product planning meetings that ended with a fist fight!

**That's insane! Yet, hilarious at the same time; I would like to have seen that.

..

gary

Thanks for the info Gary & the pleasant discussion.



t

 

[SidecarFlip]

Chrysler-Fiat still blows.......

 

[Outlaw6.0]

Chrysler-Fiat still blows.......

Lol! But hey, at least they're cheap & i'm pretty sure they have a Walmart edition.


t

 

[Old Rooster]

They all break!
I am not brand person and go for the best for what I can afford at the time of need.
I drive a 98 chevy 4x4 but wish it had the ground clearance the fords have and better gas milage but it gets me where I need to go.
I looked at the prices for a new Silverado recently and I refuse to pay 60,000.00 for a truck.
Fords are just as expensive!
If everybody stopped buying new trucks for a while the prices would come down, I think.
But that Silverado sure did look nice.