By on March 19, 2010

If there are two words that can’t be left out of any discussion of 2010 auto sales numbers, they are “incentives” and “fleet.” With a fleet sales binge well underway, and Toyota recall-triggered incentive wars raging with no end in sight, the spring Truck month rituals have been bounteous. And with sales of full-sized trucks through February trending flat and fragmented, they had to be. But will they make a difference?

GMC and Chevy have seen the fizz go out of their full-sized sales, and are piling on the rebates, and finance deals to move the metal.

Note that the biggest spiffs are reserved for Sierra, which is off nearly six percent this year. And that’s compared to the apocalyptic 2009 numbers.

Chevy is even focusing its Toyota-poaching offers at truck and full-sized SUV buyers… and not Chevy’s main volume (i.e. Camry) competitor, the Malibu.

But the biggest incentives in Detroit come from Chrysler, whose Dodge (or not) Ram is down 26 percent on the year to date. In addition to matching GM and Ford’s zero-percent and cash-back offers, Ram has revived its mystifying “Free Hemi upgrade” incentive. Perhaps it helps Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne sleep at night, as it’s a less obvious way of “buying market share,” a practice he loudly derides in polite company.

But most mystifying of all of this year’s Truck Month incentive-fests, was Ford’s. F-series has been running away from the competition in terms of volume, and Ford’s fleet mix indicates that at least some truck profit has already been sacrificed. But with Toyota leaning hard on car sales with finance and cash deals, every last truck sale is that much more important.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

41 Comments on “February Sales Snapshot: Truck Month Headed For A Letdown?...”


  • avatar
    Mr Carpenter

    The law of unintended consequences is going to slam Government Motors and Crapster – and how.

    Toyota still has enough money in the bank to see that “incentivized” Toyotas roll out of factories for more than long enough to see GM and Chrysler die due to withered sales.

    Want to play hardball? Don’t bet against the guys who speak softly and carry a big baseball bat (filled with gold).

  • avatar
    mistrernee

    What about little trucks?

    TTAC needs more compact (mid-size) truck stuff!

    • 0 avatar
      ReGZ_93

      Little trucks don’t sell.

    • 0 avatar
      mistrernee

      Sure they do, just not in the ridiculous amounts that the F-series and Silverado do.

      If the Ranger could tow more than a lawn mower when equipped with a manual transmission I might just be forced to buy one.

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      “Sure they do, just not in the ridiculous amounts that the F-series and Silverado do.

      If the Ranger could tow more than a lawn mower when equipped with a manual transmission I might just be forced to buy one.”

      .

      Little trucks would sell, if the Detroit 3 had one that was world class. Kuzak is right, many of us use little trucks as commuters, and light utility. He can’t afford right now to redo Ranger to that standard, but I’d be driving it right now, if he could.

      And yes, that tinkertoy Mazda manual in Ranger is a joke. “Light utility” means the vehicle has to tow something more than just its own curb weight. 4,000 pounds would be nice. That Mazda tranny musta come out of a subcompact or something. I’ve had a couple Rangers so-equipped and they were slipping at 30k, and I don’t even tow or haul much if ever.

      They built a massive beast of an F-Series, and have no step-down segment from that beast. Stupid.

  • avatar
    mrh1965

    Well if the Ford ad copy that is posted here is indicative of their February incentives.. I mean, can’t blame them for wanting to move out the 09′s left on the lot.

  • avatar
    pgcooldad

    The cost of the Mexican built Hemi vs the base 4.7L V8 are the same. They are also matching zero % financing.

    So how can $2500 be more than Ford’s $4500?

  • avatar
    mtr2car1

    I think this is one part of the market that Ford knows they can go in for the kill – they’ve upped their monthly and year to date penetration of the above totals by 10 points in Feb and 8 points overall.

    Not only are they taking it from Ram, but Chevy/GMC saw their Feb. total drop by 3 points and 4 points for the year.

    Expect to see the money on the hood continue for a while.

  • avatar
    Odomeater

    All those incentives and still Tundra sales are anemic anyway. And Titan must be a joke.

  • avatar
    crash sled

    “But most mystifying of all of this year’s Truck Month incentive-fests, was Ford’s. F-series has been running away from the competition in terms of volume, and Ford’s fleet mix indicates that at least some truck profit has already been sacrificed. But with Toyota leaning hard on car sales with finance and cash deals, every last truck sale is that much more important.”

    .

    I wouldn’t say Ford is running away with anything, because this market is still truckageddon. Hard to remember those heady days of 2006, when Billy was bragging how he was gonna move 900,000 F-Series. Will they sell 1/3 that total this year? How many fleet sales in that number?

    Be nice to have a nice little efficient V6 available in that F-Series about now, eh Billy? With maybe that 6-speed auto to go along behind it?

    Or maybe a redone Ranger, selling like hotcakes? Heck, your $1B palladium speculation fiasco mighta got most of it paid for even. Or maybe peel off a couple billion off your and your daddy’s Jaguar safari. That would have you sitting pretty in this market and segment, wouldn’t it?

    What could have been… what could have been.

  • avatar
    Mungooz

    Seems to me the numbers show that the Silverado/Sierra (which is one vehicle with different fenders) outsells the F-150 on a regular basis. I’m sure the Siverado & Sierra roll off the same assembly line. If the F150 & F250 are combined in the F-series total, that is two completely different vehicles lumped together to inflate the F150 totals. Anyone else agree with this?

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    As should have been mentioned above, that is an old Ford truck ad, there is no 0% for anything longer than 36 months on 2010 models (and a ridiculously small number of people finance for only 36 months).

    Also, while I’m sure some of the F-series sales are fleet, a ton of them are retail. Fleets still aren’t buying like they did back when construction companies still had work. The housing crash put a stop to almost every construction companies vehicle purchases, and while things are starting to pick up in a few places, they aren’t back to full tear yet.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Crash sled, the reason ford dropped the V6 from their fullsized trucks offerings was because not many people that buy fullsized trucks get a V6. They sold in such small numbers that it wasn’t worth offering a V6 anymore.
    Put much of a load behind or in the back of a 6 cylinder truck and it will use more gas than a V8 because it has to work harder.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Plus, at the same time the V6 was removed, the base V8 was tweaked so that it got the same fuel economy as the outgoing 6, but with more power, so you get more, and it costs you nothing.

      The Ecoboost V6 is also rolling out into the F150 for the 2011 model year, which will offer both more power and more fuel economy.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Regarding the “free” HEMI: This just makes sure there are plenty in the ‘yards for years to come, helping make swaps into our old Mopars that much more affordable…

      The V6 thing? You know, judging from how most people use their trucks, you would think that the idea of a “F-100″ would make sense…figure slightly smaller, 1000 pounds less curb weight, lighter-duty construction with modest but still usable tow ratings, a small(er) engine available and good gas mileage. Logically that would make sense. I asked my friend who is a truck guy (and actually tows stuff) and he said that it would be a recipe for failure. Part of the package is image and “bigger and stronger” is just ingrained into truck culture. Which is why the Ecoboost, as good as an engine that it is, will not find a receptive audience with most truck buyers. I also suspect that the EB engine when pushed is going to make its economy advantage disappear…

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      Plus, at the same time the V6 was removed, the base V8 was tweaked so that it got the same fuel economy as the outgoing 6, but with more power, so you get more, and it costs you nothing.”

      .

      Nullo, the 5.4 costs nothing because it’s worth nothing. For going on 20 years now, the only way you could “tweak” that ancient 5.4L and equally ancient 4R75 tranny is with an 8-lb sledgehammer and an acetylene torch. They are relics. They were on drafting boards in the 50′s, or maybe before. Their architecture is beyond ancient. It’s something you’d dig up on an archeological expedition from the stone age.

      Yes, the V6 sucked, and they probably made an intelligent decision in canning it, because it makes no sense producing 2-pigs, and you might as well produce only one. But the 5.4L sucks just as hard as the old V6 (particularly Ford’s 3.0 and 4.0 geriatrics). I drive like I have an eggshell under my foot, and the MOST I could ever get out of my 2006 F-150 is 16 MPG (Ford lied on those EPA ratings, big time). Most get 12-14 MPG real world, or less. When ambient temperature it at or near zero degrees, with the wrong fuel blend, I could almost literally WATCH the fuel gage drop. You haven’t lived until you fill the 35 gallon tank on your F-150 commuter, and it totals up to $150….. for a tank of gas that you’ll be refilling before the week is out. Ford is stupid, as they all were, just Ford was stupider I believe.

      That 5.4 makes 270Hp or so, and the new V6′s make that, with far better fuel economy. Chevy had a next gen V6 developed and in mass production at least 7-8 years ago, but Ford barely managed to squeak a few into Edge when it debuted. Stupid. They should have had that new V6 platformed and in F-150 fully TEN years ago, with the 6-speed right along behind it.

      To offer only a beast, with no step down offering, was a huge blunder. A redone Ranger or a revised F-150 powertrain could have provided this. Ford ignored this for far too long.

      And the new V6 isn’t a step down in tow/haul capability, when you get right down to it. The new 6-speed will certainly handle the load, and was developed to eventually contain Super Duty requirements, as I recall. Put turbo on the V6, and you make up the torque requirement. I guess Aston Martin needed that product development money more than Ford’s flagship platform, though.

    • 0 avatar
      trk2

      Crash, your post is filled with misinformation. Null was talking about the 4.6L as a replacement for the 6 cylinder, not the 5.4L. Note that the 5.4L was a newly designed engine introduced in 1997 developed from the 4.6L which is only 4 years older. So your whole ‘ancient technology’ argument is moot. The 5.4L engine makes 310hp, but who cares because you buy truck engines on torque, which the 5.4L makes 365ft/lbs. And the 4R75 was discontinued in 2008…

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      trk, Nullo was talking about the F-150 “base” engine, which as we all (should) know for the F-150 is the ancient 5.4L, and its roots are ancient, no matter which string of Latin genus you go back through, 4.6 or any of the other of Ford’s family of V8′s (and the 4.6 is junk too, by the way).

      But the 5.4 is a pig, and has been forever, no matter how much lipstick they put on it (and Ford Powertrain has done a marvelous lipsticking job all along, I’d agree, and they certainly weren’t the problem here.). Ford knew all this, just as we all knew it. They ignored the problem. They continued to force that ancient architecture into their flagship platform. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

      I shopped for a Ranger in 2008, and they did their usual and elbowed me over to the same F-150 I then had, and it still had the 4R75 piece of junk in it. That 6R should have been in that rig 10 years ago. No excuse for this failure to invest in powertrain. None.

      “Who cares”, you ask? The customers care. I care, which is why I abandoned Ford, and the ancient 5.4 and 4R75.

      Who cares about the customers though? Let ‘em eat cake. We got Land Rover to worry about.

      Fine they’re getting around to scrapping out this junk, but their failure to do so in a timely fashion is part of what drove them to insolvency. Heck, I’ve listened to senior Ford chiefs explain to me the litany of their powertrain failures. They know it, and probably all along, but the dummies who ran that outfit ignored them.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Crash –

      The base F150 engine is the 4.6 2 valve. The midrange is the 4.6 2 valve, and the top is the 5.4 3-valve (at least until the new 6.2 and Ecoboost 6 work their way through the lineup).

      The 5.4 is a very good engine, plenty of power, good economy, and as reliable as old faithful. Plus, it has a ridiculous amount of modding potential, it’s basically the same design used in the Shelby GT500 where it makes over 540hp.

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      Nullo, it’s been at least 5 years since I reviewed Ford’s first program paper for the “Boss” family of V8′s that you’re mentioning here, and that program had been in the works quite some time before I got a look at it.

      In other words, Ford knew that 5.4 was junk even then, and even when they were running out of cash they were investing in scrapping it out. I disagree with you that the 5.4 is some sort of star… it’s just not a quality platform, it’s only been a lipsticked pig, and the massive push toward Boss only confirms that observation. They can’t afford anything these days, but they’re still making that investment. That tells us something, because I guarantee you that Mullaly would’ve axed that engine family if the 5.4 is what you’re claiming. It’s not.

      And by the way, try finding anything but the 5.4 in an F-150… anywhere. You can’t. I’ve had to walk around aimlessly in lots looking for them, but they’re rare. The 5.4 is their “base”, and no matter what your marketing brochure says, reality says something other than that. And their other engines suck anyway, as fuel economy is no better with anything else they offer, and everything else is likely worse.

      I notice Ford has backed away from the “Boss” label for that engine, and it’s too bad they’re being such politically correct wimps. When I first saw that name, and I’m not even close to being an auto enthusiast, I felt a distinct stirring in my loins. That name has impact… it’s legendary.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Crash –

      That last set of comments just proves how out of touch you really are. I have at least 50 trucks on my lot right now with the 4.6 liter engines. The 4.6 liter is the standard engine in every trim except for FX4 and Lariat.

      There isn’t a huge push to replace the 5.4, the 6.2 liter is simply being introduced as an answer to the Dodge Hemi and the GM 6.2, a big horsepower engine for those who want to pay the premium for special models with it.

      Currently the Ford 4.6 3V makes 15 ft/lbs more torque (and only 10 less hp) at 600 rpms lower than the Chevy 4.8, and gets better fuel economy, 15/21 vs. 14/19, both 2WD crew cabs.

      The Ford 5.4 make 30 ft/lbs more torque (and only 5 less hp) at 500 less RPMs than the Chevy 5.3, and gets only marginally less fuel economy, 14/20 vs 15/21 for the Chevy.

      To get the GM 6.2 liter you have to all the way up to the big-buck GMC Sierra Denali, and yes, you get a lot of power, but you also get dismal fuel economy, only 13/19 in 2wd mode.

      The Ford 5.4 is a modern 3 valve per cylinder SOHC engine vs GMs antiquated pushrod 2 valve per cylinder model. It makes more usable torque, which is what matters in trucks, and makes it a lower RPM for better usability.

      The 4.6 liter 3valve is also a great engine, and we sell tons of trucks with it, so I’m not sure where you live that you can’t seen to find one.

    • 0 avatar

      Crash said he walked around aimlessly unable to find 5.6L, not the 4.6L. That you have 50 trucks with 4.6L does not contradict his testimonial in any way. Although certainly I would call around instead of walking aimlessly, if I really wanted to buy something.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo


      Crash Sled:

      And by the way, try finding anything but the 5.4 in an F-150… anywhere. You can’t. I’ve had to walk around aimlessly in lots looking for them, but they’re rare.

      Pete – I take that to mean he was unable to find anything other than the 5.4 (which given that the 4.6 is the only other option, means he wasn’t able to find that). The 5.6 is Nissan’s engine, btw.

    • 0 avatar

      You are right, my bad. That’s what Crash probably meant.

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      Nullo, no offense, but you can save the superfluous bowtie vs blue oval salesman rap. That’s not what this is about, but it is what spun me on my heels and out of a nearly 20 year Ford truck relationship 2 years ago… well that and that junk 5.4 and equally junk 4R75, that is.

      It doesn’t matter what mix of F-150 beasts you have on your lot collecting dust today… because right now, the powertrain mix in the fleet anchored into your cement corral is skewed, towards whatever production makes manufacturing sense during truckageddon… you remember truckageddon, don’t you? If you need a reminder, take a look at the volumes at the top of this post. Ford is fighting for survival right now, because of stupid decisions made with this and other powertrains.

      What matters in determining the “base” powertrain for that platform was what they were pushing 2 years ago, as they careened towards this precipice, but still with fairly robust sales… and it was that very same 5.4 and 4R75. That was their strategic plan. I’ll go you even one better, they were all 4×4, with full tow package. You couldn’t pull anything but that, and this went on for some years. Maybe your region wasn’t like that, but this one sure was. You can’t approach your customers like that… you’re doomed if you do, especially without a V6 or Ranger to work with underneath it. Check the above sales. That production mix firmly indicated to me that Ford’s supplier agreements and labor agreements were effed up… and they HAD to take and push that content, even though it was junk, because they were hamstrung. That 5.4 was their base powertrain, no matter what your sales brochures say.

      That Boss isn’t coming in to supplement that current V8 family, it’s coming in to replace it. I’m surprised you’re not able to intuit this, even without inside dope, because it’s just common sense. Ford isn’t investing some billions of dollars in a new V8 family just to offer it on a couple thousand premium vehicles… the Boss is the next thing. If they wanted to do what you’re saying, they’d offer the 6.8 from that same existing junk 5.4 family, if they were following your plan of simply upping torque on a few vehicles. You make no sense here. The dollar investment commitments involved don’t support your position. Are you sure you’re hip to Ford’s product development cycle? Most salesmen aren’t, and you’re not acting like you are.

      But getting back to your bowtie vs blue oval argument, the fuel economy differential between that 5.4 and Chevy isn’t “marginal” real world, because the 5.4 is horrible. I defy you to pull 15 MPG with that rig… those Ford guys are lying through their teeth on that. Howie is laughing at both that and the man step, and he’s right. He’s got the edge there, not to mention Chevy had a next gen V6 warmed up at least a 1/2 decade before Ford, the Duramax blew away PowerStroke for some years and forced Ford to abandon it, and the Allison 6-speed blew away Ford’s cruddy swapshift lipstick on a pig 5R110 (which cost them a bundle to develop for 2003.25 Super Duty, and that new tranny was still a pig).

      Chevy invested in powertrain , Ford didn’t, which is why they’re stuck with that same crap, ’til the Boss comes on. This is what’s killing them. Like I say, I can believe you, or I can believe a number of Ford chief engineers, which you’d be smart to believe as well, because they’ve been proven right. I predicted then that the Boss would be cancelled as too costly, but they told me to “watch”. Well, they were proven right. It’s coming, and coming big.

      This isn’t a salesroom, and I hope you don’t really believe some of the rap you’re laying down here, else you are the one who’s “out of touch”. And given the coming purge of salesmen and dealerships, that’s not a good place to be, Nullo. The carnage is coming to a theater near you. Ford’s stupidity has knock on consequences that are forthcoming.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Wow Crash, are you just another one of P71′s aliases? I am getting a lot of Ford hate from you even when the numbers clearly go against everything you are saying.

      Fuel Economy – Tests are done by the EPA, same set of rules for everybody, and I know plenty of people getting the advertised mileage on their F150s, so, yeah, your argument is full of feces there.

      Base Engine – Who cares what the base engine was two years ago? (although, for the record, it was the 4.6 V8 or the 4.2 V6 depending on trim). The base engine is the standard that comes with whatever trim level you select. I’m not sure what random hole you live in, but I can pull up inventory for any Ford dealer nationwide, and I’m seeing plenty of 4.6 V8 trucks on all of those lots. 4×2 vs 4×4 depends on market, here in the land of no snow ever we have anywhere from a 90/10 to a 50/50 mix of 2 wheel drive to 4 wheel drive depending on cab style and trim level, up north the mix might be skewed more towards the 4x4s.

      Tranny – The new transmission in the 2011+ super duty trucks blows away the GM Allison. More robust 1 piece housing, live drive PTO, less drivetrain loss, lighter, easier to maintain, and cost savings as the same tranny will be used in both gas and diesel models.

      Sales Numbers – This is the big one, how can you say Ford is doing everything wrong when the numbers up top clearly show that Ford is outselling everyone (including Chevy and GMC combined, and all import brands combined) and has a bigger year over year growth than anyone else? Add to that that Ford isn’t running 0% for 60 months like Chevy, GMC, and Toyota are, and the quality and desirability of the Ford trucks becomes incredibly clear.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      @NulloModo:
      There isn’t a huge push to replace the 5.4, the 6.2 liter is simply being introduced as an answer to the Dodge Hemi and the GM 6.2, a big horsepower engine for those who want to pay the premium for special models with it.

      Why not? Given Ford Powertrain’s recent enhancements, keeping the Modular V8 family around sounds like a waste of time and money.

      Crown Vic, Town Car, and Grand Marquis are dead.

      Give the F150 the newer 3.7L as the base motor, the Ecoboost 3.5L (or a detuned 5.0L) as the middle offering, and the 6.2L as the top engine. Navigator gets the 6.2L. Sport Trac gets 3.7L and Ecoboost 3.5L. Mustang gets the 3.7L and 5.0L. Put the 6.2L in the GT500, and the Unibody Explorer gets the same engines as the Flex.

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      Nullo, you’re still waxing salesman. Cut it out, man! This ain’t the place for the salesman rap.

      And this ain’t “hate”, either. I take my information directly out of Ford material. They were the ones who told me, years ago, directly, where they were weak in comparison to their competition. They were the ones who pointed out to me, directly, the weakness in their own powertrain lineup. Like I say, don’t believe me, but you’d do well to listen to centuries of Ford Powertrain experience, guys who know where the bodies are buried (but can only say it in soundproofed rooms, away from certain bonehead directors, uninterested in more Powertrain “whining”).

      Fuel economy isn’t done by the EPA, by the way. You should know better than to make a noob statement like that. It’s self certification, and those guys have rigged that F-150 cert, and I can confirm this from personal experience driving it. So can dozens of other guys I’ve talked to, so we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. Let’s let Ford’s Boss introduction serve as proof that they know they have a junk engine family on their hands, for fuel economy among other reasons, and they wouldn’t be making that massive investment if 5.4 was the wonder you’re claiming.

      You ask “Who cares” what the base engine was 2 years ago? How about the 1/2M per year who’ve moved away from that rig since then? How many of them, as I did, made their decision based upon that junk engine and transmission? A lot, would be the answer.

      Yes, the 6R will be an improvement when it comes in, in 2011, fully 10 years late. Don’t get me started on that tranny though. Ford is paying at least $200 a copy license fee to ZF and Bosch, last I checked. PLUS they had to pay to NorthAmericanize and tool up the thing, all by their lonesome. Another Billy blunder.

      There is no “cost savings” associated with the 6R’s introduction, by the way, and you should know better than making that claim. That tranny is at least double the cost of the existing 5R. It was nearly TRIPLE when I was looking at it years ago, and I’ll give them credit for economizing since then. Oh and the “less drivetrain loss” you mention is through the use of frickin sewing machine oil for crisakes. The Germans were clever enough to do that, Ford wasn’t, which is why they have to pay the licensing fee to them.

      And the “one piece housing” you mention as a feature was actually a blunder. If they’d engineered that thing with an adapter up front, so they’d only have to redo the bell coupling on each model, they could have used the same back case across most of their truck fleet, and likely saved billions over the next 20 years. The fools ignored our suggestion and made each platform unique, and now have to design and manufacture a separate casing for each. Billy strikes again.

      Look, Ford’s powertrain investment was squelched for too long. There’s no getting around it, and no matter your current bowtie vs. blue oval victory lap, the butcher’s bill for those mistakes is coming. Meanwhile, we can at least say goodbye to the junk 5.4, the junk 4R75, the junk 5R110 and the junk PowerStroke. Well some day we’ll say goodbye, that is, hopefully Ford isn’t insolvent before then. Maybe someday they’ll even put a next gen V6 in that F-150?

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Crash –

      The EPA does do testing on fuel economy, they just can’t test every powertrain combination of every vehicle every year, so yes, some do get self-certified. However, given that the F-150 has been not only the best selling truck, but the best selling vehicle in the USA for years, I’d put money on the EPA having taken a few of them into their labs over the years.

      If you were driving a pre-2008 model, you might have had issue not living up to fuel economy statements, because nobody’s vehicles lived up to them. The revisions in testing post-2008 have made them much more accurate overall.

      The 5.4 liter has never been a junk engine, it has just lagged a bit in HP from time to time. And if you dropped Ford for something else because of it, so be it, according to the sales numbers you are in the minority.

      Will engines based on the new 6.2 eventually replace older designs? Sure they will. However, just because Ford is bringing out a new engine doesn’t mean the old engines are bad or uncompetitive. Ford simply doesn’t have anything in the lineup the likes of the Dodge Hemi or the GM 6.2 liter, so it makes sense to add a new engine to the top of the lineup to compete with them. The Super Duty makes the most sense for it, since the 6.8 liter V10 is a gas hog, though it makes a ton of power, and the 5.4 liter is a bit underpowered for a 3/4 ton or above truck.

      The new super-duty transmission with absolutely result in cost savings. Unifying the same transmission between gas and diesels will help a lot, plus, Ford is going to sell the new unit to bus companies and other heavy duty vehicle builders, so it will be a very nice profit machine.

      Finally, it isn’t ‘salesman crap’ it’s facts. The 5.4 makes more torque than the GM 5.3, and the 4.6 3V makes more torque than the GM 4.8. The F-series trucks regularly outsell all of the competitors because they have a reputation as quality vehicles that are well engineered and are up to any job at hand. If all that mattered in a truck were horsepower then Dodge and Toyota would be running the show, but when it comes to overall quality of the build, from the frame to the features to the drive quality, nothing comes close to the Ford, and the sales numbers support it.

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    Let’s see… annualized sales would now be…

    Nissan: 18k

    Toyota: 56k

    GM: 351k

    Ford: 363k

    Dodge: 121k

    Somehow I don’t think Toyota is really the one to worry about here. This is still a GM/Ford slobberknocker.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    “GMC and Chevy have seen the fizz go out of their full-sized sales, and are piling on the rebates and finance deals to move the metal.”

    Really? Everyone I talk to who has shopped a new truck says different. GM scaled back production quite awhile ago, just look at the inventory sitting on any Chevy/GMC dealer lot. People that qualify for the finance deals actaully have to have good credit and a job. I know the values of used trucks is strong right now which tells me they aren’t giving the new ones away.

  • avatar
    JSF22

    It isn’t just the domestics and Toyota whoring up the market. Every other rental car at the Fort Myers airport is either a new Sonata or Sorento.

  • avatar
    trk2

    The base F150 engine is the 4.6L 2V. The 4.6 3V and 5.4 3V are optional engines. The Ford Modular V8′s (4.6 and 5.4) were a brand new engine designed in the 90′s. The modular engines did not build off the 302 or 351 they replaced or any other Ford engine.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    The modular engine may be a a bit old, but is hardly ancient. It is unnecessarily complex, like a lot of engines today, because ford should have made a pushrod engine and kept refining it like gm did.
    Overhead cam engines have no place in a truck. The name of the game for a truck engine is torque and pushrod engines have it all over OHC engines in that regard.
    That being said, I would hardly call the modular engines junk. Many of the crown vic police cars around here are turned in with over 200k on the clock, and still running well. And everyone knows that police cars take a lot of abuse.
    I know someone with an old 90′s crowen vic police cruiser with 332k on it, and the engine runs as quiet as when it was new. The rear main seal is shot, but with that many miles that is nothing.
    The 5.4 is based on the 4.6 mod design and will probably run just as long.
    BTW the last engines ford made that were designed in the 50′s were the 292/312 Y block and the FE series big blocks.

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      M’man, what you’re saying then is that the 5.4 is complex, is inferior as to torque, in addition to being inferior in terms of fuel economy, as Howie reminds us incessantly (and given my experience with F-150, I have no reason to doubt him). It’s simply a deficient platform, then.

      Now, fine that it lasts, and I agree those 4.6 Crown Vics are running long, and I generally tell the young kids to go buy one if they’re looking for a cheap driver, for that very reason. But, it’s not what you put in your flagship platform. Certainly not if you don’t also offer a step down powertrain, or a Ranger type stepdown. That’s where Ford screwed the canine.

      And about that junk 4R75… well, enough.

  • avatar

    There has been a lot of talk about macho testosterone dripping truck advertising. From reading these posts, I must say it fits the target group just fine. Carry on.

    (Disclosure: While living in the US, poster had a subscription on a 5.4 Eddie Bauer Expedition, black with tan leather, a new one every two years. It hauled a 30ft race boat just fine. Was never in the shop, except when a certain former family member drove it into something. Usually left more damage in the something than in the truck. The boat had a marinized Chevy BB 454, aka Mercury Racing HP 525 EFI, so consider me on both sides of the fence.)

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      There has been a lot of talk about macho testosterone dripping truck advertising. From reading these posts, I must say it fits the target group just fine. Carry on.

      .

      Well, Bertel, if you check the numbers above, the target group ain’t gettin’ fitted nary at all. ;-)

      I do note, from scoping out the 2011 Super Duty, that I detect an ever so slight movement back from the massive exterior they’ve been hammering for so long. Subtle, but I believe it’s there.

      When Toyota showed up with that T-100, the D3 lined up to kick sand in that wimp’s face, just like in that old back of the magazine advertisement. They swelled up, and Toyota finally swelled up right along with them.

      I think it was a mistake to put those truck exteriors on growth hormone, though. It had nothing to do with function, and in fact detracted from function. And just like all drugs, the steriod injections became addictive, and they all competed like bodybuilders, until the market crashed, and the blood dope testers showed up.

      Be nice to see them move back into functional usage and work that market discretely. The steroid truck era has been just as baroque as the pre-baby boomer car era that one of the Niedermayers mentioned in another post.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    “The Ford 5.4 is a modern 3 valve per cylinder SOHC engine vs GMs antiquated pushrod 2 valve per cylinder model. It makes more usable torque, which is what matters in trucks, and makes it a lower RPM for better usability”.

    You sell Fords so at least we know you have no bias….LOL

    On the boating forum I visit where people actually use their PU trucks and SUV’s to pull things the biggest gripe about the 5.4 Ford V8 is it’s lack of power. In fact one long time Ford owner sold his 5.4 F150 and bought a new Dodge soley because of that motor.

    Sorry but the 5.3 in my 2007 LTZ Tahoe will tow circles around any 5.4 Ford Expedition and get better mileage doing it.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Crash…….I was not laughing at ford’s tailgate step. I thought that it was stupid of chevy to make fun of a feature that they don’t even have. Can’t they come up with anything better than that for a commercial?
    As I get older the arthritis in my legs gets worse, making it harder for me to climb in and out of the bed of my trucks, and it mnakes me wish that dodge had that feature also!

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      M’man, the man-step is practically a necessity for many of us, I’d agree. I could barely swing my bones up into my F-150′s bed, and my hunting dogs couldn’t barely jump up into it, and they’re olympic athletes. Howie is making fun of Ford, but Chevy is just as stupid in swelling up their rigs.

      But if you’re going to push for 900,000 yearly sales, way beyond what a non-pushed market would likely accept, and sell to an aging population, with a truck jacked up to the moon, the man-steps are the kinds of pig lipstick that you have to build in.

      And now, truckageddon has chased off those fringe buyers. I bet Chevy/Ram/Ford are sorry now that they listened to all those square-glasses Design geeks who told them to put the exteriors of those vehicles on steriods. The people who NEED trucks and use them, don’t like to have to get a stepladder to reach into the box. Those trucks are less usable, but they look real cool and tough in somebody’s marketing material, I’m sure.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    http://forums.caranddriver.com/showthread.php?p=1597053


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India