Aluminum trucks coming. Big industry bet - what will consumers say?

I will be going to the big LA Auto Show in a couple of weeks. It will be interesting how big a deal Ford will make out of the new aluminum parts. Or if they minimize it, and just focus on lighter weight and other improvements.
 
N801BH said:
Mike..... Question....

Back 30 + years ago a few of my buddies owned junk yards ( now called recycling centers).. To sell to a scrap buyer they had to strip the car, separate all the different products and then crush them..... Lately I see cars/trucks stuffed on flatbed semi's with everything still attached to the wreck..... Back then they had a crusher that made cubes about 3foot square.... Nowadays, All I see are wrecks pancaked flat about 2 feet tall, and there are still rubber tires on the crushed rims, glass, interiors etc. etc...

Whats the deal :dunno::dunno:..

I am assuming you guys are going to have to strip off aluminum stuff and sell it it that way ???:dunno:
Click to expand...

I thought these days they were chipped into little bits and the steel yanked out with big magnets. Part of the single-stream recycling thing.

The nice bit is that I can just throw any cores I have into the bin, regardless of what they are. Even a trashed aluminum transmission without disassembling (a real PITA if all you're doing is throwing it away).
 
Jimmy cooper said:
My nephew was a general manager for a Honda dealer in the 80s, reported on lots and lots of new Saturn owners coming in, begging him or his sales people to somehow get them out of this awful car they had purchased recently.owners reported bad build, rattles, lots of cabin air noise etc. like so many ill designed Detroit cars ,GM was its own worst enemy. The unions did not design the Saturn, GM Did. The Saturn was a barking dog.
Click to expand...

Yep. I guess that's why there was a shortage on them. :rolleyes2:

Up until GM decided it wanted to do their typical thing and just rebadge everyting made out of GM parts. The Union was all for that. They didn't like the flexibility the Saturn group had with minimal union involvement. And after they became just another GM vehhicle, they went where the rest of GM should have.
 
I find the advances in technology exciting. We should remember that GM light trucks for example didn't change significantly from 1973 to 1987. Now the market has accelerated to major changes every few years and significant minor changes in-between.

IMO this comes down to a bet on fuel prices. All of this added complexity is in pursuit of fuel economy. As long as fuel prices stay high or go higher the total cost will still favor a new fuel efficient vehicle and people will trade in older less efficient vehicles. However, if fuel prices fall I expect the technology will become an impediment to long term valuations. You have turbo charged high HP to displacement engines, autos with 6-8 gears, aluminum bodies, etc. all expensive things to repair out of warranty.

As an example of what can happen the diesel 3/4-1 ton diesel market IMO has taken technology too far. You have trucks on the lot with sticker prices over $70K. Lots of highly stressed and very expensive components. 30,000 psi. fuel systems. Lots of expensive and finicky emissions, etc. IMO they have outpaced the demand and the result is the older diesels are retaining their value very well even with lots of years and miles and the newer ones are depreciating rapidly, because the secondary market is apprehensive about owning one out of warranty.
 
N801BH said:
Wow... 90 cents a lb for mixed scrap..... I figured it would be 1/4 that...

As for the "yank your chain fee".... Henning will pay for that with Hydrogen stock shares...:D
Click to expand...


It's actually 1/10th of that :)
 
Alexb2000 said:
As an example of what can happen the diesel 3/4-1 ton diesel market IMO has taken technology too far. You have trucks on the lot with sticker prices over $70K. Lots of highly stressed and very expensive components. 30,000 psi. fuel systems. Lots of expensive and finicky emissions, etc. IMO they have outpaced the demand and the result is the older diesels are retaining their value very well even with lots of years and miles and the newer ones are depreciating rapidly, because the secondary market is apprehensive about owning one out of warranty.
Click to expand...

A good explanation that ties in to my strong sales of diesel engines for Ford and Dodge (demand for the Duramax is nil, but then again, GM never was much of a contender in this space).
 
I think Ford should have designed and built a 1/2 ton diesel like Dodge did. A pick up that gets an honest 28 mpg is a market hit.
 
Direct C51 said:
It's actually 1/10th of that :)
Click to expand...

N801BH said:
hmmm.

Agreed.... missed it by one decimal point...:redface:
Click to expand...

I got an earful from a lady who called today wanting to sell me a 1997 Cavalier that had been previously wrecked and now had a bad engine when I offered her $100 and I would pay for the tow (~$60 cost). When she finally ran out of steam and allowed me to ask what she thought she could get for it, "...at least $500!" was her response.

But they don't want to hear the lesson about supply/demand and that all other Cavalier/Sunfire owners are doing the same as her when the car develops a fatal fault. No one wants to spend money on the car, therefore no demand, so no reason to invest in the car as supply.

Cores/Cats/Crush/Scrap on that car would give me a gross revenue of about $300-ish. Cost me about $75 in direct/indirect costs to process, $60 for the tow. $300-100-75-60=$70 profit. So you guys now see that I need to have demand for the parts to make the bigger bucks, AND offer more to invest in that car's supply.

But it's always fun to deal with customers who think that their non-running bent up beater is still worth 60-80% of KBB or Edmonds.

However, I will occasionally cars that lose me money because they actually will increase my profits.
 
Geico266 said:
I think Ford should have designed and built a 1/2 ton diesel like Dodge did. A pick up that gets an honest 28 mpg is a market hit.
Click to expand...

They kinda sorta took a step in the general direction with the 3.7L gasoline equipped truck.
 
Alexb2000 said:
As an example of what can happen the diesel 3/4-1 ton diesel market IMO has taken technology too far. You have trucks on the lot with sticker prices over $70K. Lots of highly stressed and very expensive components. 30,000 psi. fuel systems. Lots of expensive and finicky emissions, etc. IMO they have outpaced the demand and the result is the older diesels are retaining their value very well even with lots of years and miles and the newer ones are depreciating rapidly, because the secondary market is apprehensive about owning one out of warranty.
Click to expand...

Exactly :yes:

I have a 1999 Dodge Diesel that is amazing when towing. It is semi-retired and I use it for heavy hauling. 300,000 miles on it and it is still worth $10,000. Long haul drivers love them for durability and mileage over the new stuff.

IMHO, the Dodge 1/2 ton diesel will be a huge hit once they get a few years on the carbon fiber block concept. It is not a Cummins engine, and I want to see a few years of service records.
 
Last edited:
AggieMike88 said:
A good explanation that ties in to my strong sales of diesel engines for Ford and Dodge (demand for the Duramax is nil, but then again, GM never was much of a contender in this space).
Click to expand...

I believe you are seeing demand generated by the mouth breather market:

Guy in a sweaty wife beater walks into a performance shop with his tax return.

"I want one of them little boxes that will add 400HP to the engine without even lifting the hood."

Counter guy's response:

"Hell yes brother, Cummins didn't want you to enjoy all that power, plus over 30 MPG, with no effect on reliability because those engineers are a bunch of sceerd little "p"s. Man up and hammer down."

Next week…

Mike, do you have any low mileage common rail 5.9's?
 
Alexb2000 said:
I believe you are seeing demand generated by the mouth breather market:

Guy in a sweaty wife beater walks into a performance shop with his tax return.

"I want one of them little boxes that will add 400HP to the engine without even lifting the hood."

Counter guy's response:

"Hell yes brother, Cummins didn't want you to enjoy all that power, plus over 30 MPG, with no effect on reliability because those engineers are a bunch of sceerd little "p"s. Man up and hammer down."

Next week…

Mike, do you have any low mileage common rail 5.9's?
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl:.....:lol:....:thumbsup:
 
No thanks Aluminum. The laws of physics prevail. I'll keep my 7000 lb work truck and the Mrs. 5000 lb SUV. If they want to increase fuel mileage, lower the speed limit to 55 mph. Fatalities will decrease too.
 
RV10flyer said:
No thanks Aluminum. The laws of physics prevail. I'll keep my 7000 lb work truck and the Mrs. 5000 lb SUV. If they want to increase fuel mileage, lower the speed limit to 55 mph. Fatalities will decrease too.
Click to expand...

I believe Sammy Hagar answered this question definitively in 1984.:)
 
Alexb2000 said:
I believe you are seeing demand generated by the mouth breather market:

Guy in a sweaty wife beater walks into a performance shop with his tax return.

"I want one of them little boxes that will add 400HP to the engine without even lifting the hood."

Counter guy's response:

"Hell yes brother, Cummins didn't want you to enjoy all that power, plus over 30 MPG, with no effect on reliability because those engineers are a bunch of sceerd little "p"s. Man up and hammer down."

Next week…

Mike, do you have any low mileage common rail 5.9's?
Click to expand...



They are amazing trucks, but not that amazing. You do have to lift the hood to install chips to get the 400 HP. Takes a couple of hours, but they are a joy to work on. The power & torque increase is amazing. :D
 
Pretty simple really....Ford makes 80-90% of their profit from F Series. AL is the next step for all manufacturers....like it or not.

With CAFE standards...they can possibly drop Focus or Fiesta(sub compacts)models that don't make them much profit at all....by gaining an improvement in MPG with their bread and butter.

It's all about CAFE...auto manufacturers hate sub compacts....but they are a necessary evil to get them into compliance.
 
Last edited:
RV10flyer said:
No thanks Aluminum. The laws of physics prevail. I'll keep my 7000 lb work truck and the Mrs. 5000 lb SUV. If they want to increase fuel mileage, lower the speed limit to 55 mph. Fatalities will decrease too.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Why not 35? That'd save more.

55 may have been a rational idea for the crowded northeast... but I doubt it. Everywhere else? No way.

I contend the 55 mph limit did not save lives at all, but it sure wasted time.

TEFLONSEAN said:
Would be best selling car in America too if gas was 9 bucks a gallon!!;)
Click to expand...

Yep. Mostly tax.
 
Henning said:
The success will come down to purchase and insurance premium vs. rust and fuel costs. These days rust isn't the issue it was 2 decades ago, so that is almost a moot point.
Click to expand...

You haven't been to Minnesota recently, have you?!
 
LDJones said:
You haven't been to Minnesota recently, have you?!
Click to expand...

Well, it's not as bad I should say, most cars make it 5 years now even in harsh climates, and don't think aluminum wont have problems, especially bolted to steel frames. Salty slush is not friendly at all there.

Like I said, I'm interested to see how they dealt with these issues.
 
I am pretty sure the crash tests on the aluminum trucks are as good or better than the ones they are replacing. ;) It's not a Smart car version of a pick up truck.:rofl:

RV10flyer said:
No thanks Aluminum. The laws of physics prevail. I'll keep my 7000 lb work truck and the Mrs. 5000 lb SUV. If they want to increase fuel mileage, lower the speed limit to 55 mph. Fatalities will decrease too.
Click to expand...
 
N747JB said:
I am pretty sure the crash tests on the aluminum trucks are as good or better than the ones they are replacing. ;) It's not a Smart car version of a pick up truck.:rofl:
Click to expand...

We could only wish it was! 35mpg and bounces off of semis.
 
We bought two matched Saturn L300 coupes in 2001. Best cars I ever owned. Look like new due to copolymer panels. Run like tops - English engines. We don't drive them much anymore and she has a Saturn Aura she drives. I'm in my 8000 pound Duramax most of the time - no Aluminum don't cha know. Gonna sell the 3 Saturns probably and get something else for her. I'll stick to my truck - so if you see some old geezer in a big truck driving like he stole it, that's probably me.
As an old truck builder I am watching Ford with interest. I give them a thumbs up for having balls. In our insane legal system even changing the tissue dispenser can cost you the company in litigation.
 
RJM62 said:
I think we have to wait for safety data and collision repair costs to know whether Ford made the right move. In terms of weight and corrosion resistance, aluminum makes sense. But higher repair costs (or injuries) and the resulting higher insurance costs would be a turn off for all but brand loyalists.

As an aside, I often wonder why other companies never copied Saturn's polymer panels. They had the weight and corrosion advantages, but also had enough resiliency (at least when new) to resist impacts that would have deformed metal panels.

Rich
Click to expand...

Mercedes did with the SMART series. I never understood why Saturn didn't continue the Fiero.
 
ron22 said:
Honda made the Gen 1 Insight with an aluminum body. Other then a higher cost to fix I have never heard of a problem because of it.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. I saw a ton of old Insights in Hawaii still running, most bodies in very good conditions.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
My nephew was a general manager for a Honda dealer in the 80s, reported on lots and lots of new Saturn owners coming in, begging him or his sales people to somehow get them out of this awful car they had purchased recently.owners reported bad build, rattles, lots of cabin air noise etc. like so many ill designed Detroit cars ,GM was its own worst enemy. The unions did not design the Saturn, GM Did. The Saturn was a barking dog.
Click to expand...

I applaud your nephew's foresight, since the first SL sedans didn't hit dealers' lots until late 1990 as '91 models.

My extended family owned several first-gen Saturns, and in 1997 I willfully and knowingly traded a dead-reliable 1992 Accord coupe for a lightly used - and equally reliable - '94 SL2 "Homecoming" car. Hell, I didn't even have the benefit of the 'no hassle' dealer sales experience.

My SL2 was assembled just fine for what it was (and ask those who know me, I am extremely A.R. about matters like material quality and fit-and-finish) and it served me extremely well through 100,000 miles with only scheduled maintenance. Without question, the Accord was the better car, but the Saturn was easily the best U.S. domestic -branded subcompact you could buy for several years.
 
flightwriter said:
I applaud your nephew's foresight, since the first SL sedans didn't hit dealers' lots until late 1990 as '91 models.

My extended family owned several first-gen Saturns, and in 1997 I willfully and knowingly traded a dead-reliable 1992 Accord coupe for a lightly used - and equally reliable - '94 SL2 "Homecoming" car. Hell, I didn't even have the benefit of the 'no hassle' dealer sales experience.

My SL2 was assembled just fine for what it was (and ask those who know me, I am extremely A.R. about matters like material quality and fit-and-finish) and it served me extremely well through 100,000 miles with only scheduled maintenance. Without question, the Accord was the better car, but the Saturn was easily the best U.S. domestic -branded subcompact you could buy for several years.
Click to expand...
The date may have been wrong but the Saturn was and is a dog. Lousy cars. Another Detroit screwup. General Motors and Chrysler built many losers and they are all gone thank god. It's why both toyota and Honda are still big sellers. They refused to build junk. The Saturn was never the best anything you could buy, ever.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
The date may have been wrong but the Saturn was and is a dog. Lousy cars. Another Detroit screwup. General Motors and Chrysler built many losers and they are all gone thank god. It's why both toyota and Honda are still big sellers. They refused to build junk. The Saturn was never the best anything you could buy, ever.
Click to expand...

Saturn built good cars. Resentment within the union and other divisions of GM is what killed it.

In 2004, GM and the United Auto Workers dissolved their unique labor contract for the Spring Hill manufacturing plant, allowing Saturn operations to be integrated with the rest of GM.
Click to expand...

And that signaled the end of it. Because they then became nothing more than another rebadged GM vehicle.

For 2005, Saturn began selling the Relay, a minivan and the first Saturn based on similar models from other GM brands.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Fiero - Pontiac. Always was, from the start.
Click to expand...

?

Fiero started out with a Chevy Chevette front end mated to a Chevy Citation front power unit/transaxle slapped into the back.

With the total re-design (can't remember when), Pontiac had a winner but the car seemed to be on the way out by then. Too little too late.
 
Bill Jennings said:
?

Fiero started out with a Chevy Chevette front end mated to a Chevy Citation front power unit/transaxle slapped into the back.

With the total re-design (can't remember when), Pontiac had a winner but the car seemed to be on the way out by then. Too little too late.
Click to expand...

zactly. Fiero had nothing to do with anything at Saturn. Saturn was setup and configured as a clean sheet company, with a clean sheet set of designs. The fact it used plastic body panels didn't mean anything at Saturn. The division was intended as a financial cost exercise for GM, and that made a lot of folks in middle mgmt angry.
 
docmirror said:
zactly. Fiero had nothing to do with anything at Saturn. Saturn was setup and configured as a clean sheet company, with a clean sheet set of designs. The fact it used plastic body panels didn't mean anything at Saturn. The division was intended as a financial cost exercise for GM, and that made a lot of folks in middle mgmt angry.
Click to expand...

What?!? The Fiero was the proof of concept car that GM designed using the '"Space Frame" with pop on panel design. The Fiero being successful in longevity was what green lighted the entire Saturn division of General Motors. General Motors could have easily continued that body and chassis with a better engine. The reason it didn't happen is because GM didn't want people to associate Saturn with GM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top