Ford's Switch to Aluminum F-150 Increases Costs $500 a Truck

IMG_0091 II

By Tim Esterdahl

For some time, the story on the new 2015 Ford F-150 has been how much more expensive aluminum is to use instead of steel. Its usage has been labeled a dangerous gamble that could bankrupt the truckmaker. However, Forbes magazine reports that the cost difference between the two may be as little as an additional $500 per pickup truck.

Forbes reporter Joann Muller looked at the costs involved in the new F-150's production, speaking with Ford insiders, suppliers and "multiple metal and automotive experts." She learned that Ford did a lot of research when calculating overall costs to make the materials switch.

Ford uses a thicker sheet of aluminum - roughly 1.7 times thicker — to keep the truck as strong or stronger then when it had steel body panels. Materials are priced by the pound, so Ford's costs per truck are likely to be a bit higher than those of a luxury sports car such as a Jaguar.

A 2015 F-150 uses 855 pounds of aluminum sheeting for each truck versus 1,455 pounds of steel, according to Forbes. Looking at current market pricing conditions, the aluminum's total cost is $2.19 per pound. In comparison, steel costs about 55 cents per pound.

Although this seems like a big difference, when you figure out the net savings on a per truck basis, the weight being saved by using aluminum is about 400 pounds or just $725 per truck. For Ford to hit the 700-pound weight-savings mark, the additional weight savings comes from smaller, lighter parts in the frame and powertrain. But how do we get down to the added cost per truck of just $500?

Whenever vehicle body panels are stamped about a third of the material becomes scrap. When Ford had looked at using aluminum in its Jaguar/Land Rover ownership, this was an obstacle because it was a substantial amount of money to throw away. It works financially to have that much waste on a low-production vehicle where a premium price is charged, but with a mass-production vehicle where pricing in a competitive segment is critical to survival, the business case never worked out.

Then along came Alan Mulally from Boeing. He pointed out that Ford could collect the scrap, sell it back to the suppliers, recycle it and then use it again. This strategy allowed Ford to move forward on aluminum. Back to the math.

When selling aluminum scrap back to the suppliers, Ford nets around $1 per pound. This adds up to a savings of $280 per truck. Subtracting the savings from the cost per truck, the result is less than $500.

Now, when you sell as many trucks as Ford does, $500 per truck seems like it would add up quickly. However, that isn't really the case, and Ford hedged its aluminum bet in two other ways.

First, pricing on the some new F-150s start around $400 more than the model they replace, with other year-over-year pricing much higher than that due to new content and more advanced technologies. Ford has said this $400 price increase on select models covers the new equipment only and not the added cost of the aluminum. However, with the new equipment comes more profit, which offsets the aluminum upcharge.

Second, the average transaction price of a truck nowadays is north of $40,000, but a good number of these trucks typically come with new equipment and configured with the premium trim packages. By upselling these more profitable packages and features on essentially the same truck body; Ford is potentially able to offset the $500 of added cost with even more profit.

Additionally, if current transaction price trends continue, the $500 increase per truck in material costs is likely to be further minimized. Maybe more problematic, however (at least in the short term), is the eight to 10 weeks Ford had to shut down its two F-150 assembly plants in Dearborn, Mich., and Kansas City, Mo., to make the switch to aluminum. This will likely create a 90,000 unit shortfall at the end a full year of production. That many F-150s is not a minor problem, but in year two, three, four or beyond, when the factories are running at full production (and quite possibly with three shifts), this single-year loss is likely to be a distant logistical and financial memory. photos by Mark Williams


IMG_0042 II


Ford manufacturing video below with some good production line footage: 



I think this cost study data is gonna be given some long hard thinking by the likes of there competition, ie. GM & Ram. A serious mfg process change is under way and in time, we'll see if it's followed and used a a model for others. Always pros & cons, time will tell.

I see a time in the far future (30 years or so) when car restorers will be using glue and back-plating to replace corroded wheel wells and other common rust-through locations with aircraft-style rivets to back up the glue--just like airplanes have done for the last 80+ years. Welding will fall back to being more of an art than a skill outside of heavy industry.

Alan Mulally was the force behind moving from steel to aluminum - he is a genius for that while other executives are just padding their golden parachutes.

'this single-year loss is likely to be a distant logistical and financial memory.' - I second that conclusion.

To me this has been the most amzing thing about the new f150. Usually aluminum commands a much greater price. But this explanation makes sense. Gm and ram are way behind already. I'm guessing gm has been preparing for aluminum for a while now. But the way ram executives talk its like they were caught with their pants down. They've been saying pretty ridiculous things when confronted with questions about aluminum.

Who would want a glass roof like that? I don't get it on any car, I'd hate to be in a hail storm with a roof like that. A small sunroof is okay but still not my thing.

GM said they are going to use a welding process over a year ago. i wonder if they will elaborate more on this process they plan to build with in the near future. I think they should have a 2018 aluminum body truck by then. I really am curious to hear what GM has to say about there process. One will be better than the other for corrosion resistance, and one will hold together longer. I wonder if GM can easily top ford or if ford will reign supreme?


"$500 is Ford cost. Customer cost is going to be $ 2000."

Is there a source to this claim or are you just throwing out a number with nothing backing it up?

Couple of things Ed:

Then vs. Than: Then is used to transition in time: I went to the store then to the beach. Than is used for comparison: I would rather go to the beach than the store.

Second, the Kansas City plant has not been shut down. That won't happen of a couple months.

Finally, whoever thought that Ford didn't seriously consider all the math before finally pulling the trigger on aluminum is daft. They're not going to risk their biggest money-maker in a time where there's so much economic uncertainty. They need their money-maker to make money. The way I see it? Short-term loss (in the form of shutting plants down and the learning curve of aluminum), long-term gain.

Bold moves indeed.

Johnny Doe is correct.

Aluminum does not add much to cost to the consumer.

XL and XLT see a $395 increase to customers.
Lariat sees a $895 increase to customers.

3.5 EcoBoost engine cost dropped $100.
2.7 EB costs only $495 over the base, compared to $4500 Ecodiesel Ram which runs on fuel that is $.60 per gallon more + cost of DEF.

XL and XLT are like 70% of sales, so customers aren't going to see big increases. If you add every new option and luxury packages, you'll pay more, but this has nothing to do with aluminum.

Ford and GM are on the right track as GM has also been talking up more aluminum and turbos and both Ford and GM will have the new 10 speed.

That's some seriously flawed math right there. Those costs per pound are raw material cost, not finished goods. Aluminum processing is more expensive than steel. And that whole "savings" on scrap doesn't make sense either, they mixed their math. 855*2.19-280*1=1592 in total Al cost. 1455*0.55-480*0.15=728 That's a total of $864 more for the aluminum, not $500 (72% more than Forbes claims). That's still just sheet good level cost. Stamping aluminum is more expensive. And if the CEO was the only one who realized they should separate their scrap then I should be running FORD tomorrow because every single shop or plant I've ever been to has been doing that since the dawn of time. Finally, that 1.7 factor does NOT mean "roughly 1.7 times thicker". A 1.7 factor means they are using exactly 2.0 times thicker. The reason, Al is generally 1/3 the weight and 1/2 the strength of mild steel (eg A569). In order to get the same strength you need double the thickness and this gets you a 1.7 factor (steel vs Al) weight savings.

The biggest question mark in all this is whether Novelis and Alcoa can keep them supplied and keep the cost where it's at. 500k F-150s = 213k tons of Al per year. US Al production for the last 12 months is only 400k tons. They say they can but as soon as other Al consumers decide they are willing to pay higher prices for aluminum in order to get it because they can't use anything else, will FORD take the loss of higher cost material or the lost sales of not being able to meet demand.

Finally, take a guess where all this aluminum is going to come from?

I think this is a stupid idea. I'm not a ford fan at all. I think there unreliable and very cheaply made. Now with this all aluminum weight reduction the back end of the truck is going to be super light now. So when it snows or the roads are icy or wet your back end will be all over the place while driving. That's not safe at all. You don't have to worry about me buying 1 of these I like the tundra there reliable and toyota actually stands behind there products unlike ford.

Coolest sun roof ever.....sign me up!!!

The material costs of the vehicle pales in comparison with the items which many have to come find life without unimaginable. 25 years ago things like 4x4, extended cabs, power locks power windows and auto trannys were luxuries in the truck world. Now they are all practically standard or at least in VERY high demand. Any one of them raises the price of the vehicle beyond that of an aluminum vs steel body. Throw on top of all that things like safety cages, crumple zones, ABS, sunroofs, moonroofs, glass roofs, cameras, leather, heated seat, bed lights, power everything, entertainment systems, massive stereos, touch screens, parking assist, blind spot monitoring, adaptive cruise control... the list of "gingerbread" is endless and all of it serves to drive up the price, weight, safety, capabilities and "niceness" of the vehicle. Higher prices mean more profits for the manufacturers and until sales fall because of price (which has yet to happen) the manufacturers can and will continue to increase the price of the vehicle as it is in their business and competitive interests to do so. Especially if they can gain some market advantage over the competition with such improvements. Today your daddy's truck would be laughed at in every way except for its look and ease at which it could be worked on. It would haul less, go slower, pollute more, be less comfortable, be far less safe, and a lot less "nice" and userfriendly. Welcome to the future. Lead follow or go out of business. GM and Chrysler know all about going out of business.

Fords problem will be making enough trucks for the customers wanting to buy one. Average purchase price will be much higher than $500. I'm guessing rebates/incentives will be scarce. Next year at this time the discussion will be how high will F150 market share go.

Comparing specific types of steel to analogous types of aluminum alloy is a valid comparison. Unless you specify the types involved, a tough case to make.

In the current scene where gas prices are headed down...?

@johny doe
$500 is Ford cost. Customer cost is going to be $ 2000.

Posted by: Beast | Nov 17, 2014 10:08:25 AM

Even if it's $2,000 it's still cheaper then $3,000 plus for a small diesel and you get your return on your investment faster. That's how some people buy their vehicles. I personally don't buy that way. If I want something I buy it. I say offer diesels and midsize trucks for the people that don't care what the numbers are. If a company can make a profit on it and keep buyers happen then offer the choice.

I just has to laugh and point it out Big Al was wrong though. He's been telling us till his was blue in the face, spreading wrong info. That diesels would return you're investment fast then Al. body truck would.

ANOTHER F150 positive review....

The "problem" wont be price.

We have seen survived and asked for (by demanding new and cooler stuff) price increase after price increase through the years.

The "problem" wont be demand.

The F series is the bestselling truck in America 36 years straight.

The "problem" will not be strength or dents.

Aluminum is plenty strong and the its gonna be thick.

The "problem" COULD be "teething" issues.

These are common with the introduction of new things. These SHOULD be few and minor and taken care of quickly and effectively but if they are not (like GMs Cobalt ignition switch) it COULD be very bad. Because of issues like these I wouldn't rush out and be the first to buy ANYTHING from ANYONE but that's just me.

The "problem" WILL be making enough trucks quickly enough while doing it properly.

The 2015 F150s need to roll off the line just as fast as the 2014s used to at both plants. This simply isn't going to happen for some time if it can happen. The expectation is that it will reach such speeds again without hurting quality but its going to take time and that time is going to hurt.

Great article.

Except Forbes only looked at some very basic costs.

Material costs is not total costs involved.

So, how much did Ford spent in design and development? Re-tooling? Re-training? Additional jobs? Additional cost in different manufacturing techniques, ie, time?

The material costs will be the cheaper part of the price equation. I'd bet my balls that the F truck will cost a lot more than $1 000 per vehicle at the factory to produce.

If Ford spent $10 billion on developing the F truck it will need to sell 2 million trucks to equal the $500 additional cost in aluminium.

I would not use the Forbes article as cosher if I were to buy Ford shares. You'd lose a lot of money.

The only way to know is by looking at the average transaction cost and bottom line from Ford.

If Ford has poor profits, then the money isn't being made to cover the costs of operations. Simple.

Ford is introducing multiple new vehicles globally and they have anticipated reduced revenues due to it. As Clint has pointed out, teething problems come with change.

Is it a gamble to change?


To win requires taking chances.

GM looked at aluminum before Ford but bankruptcy scuttled their plans.

So, how much did Ford spent in design and development? Re-tooling? Re-training? Additional jobs? Additional cost in different manufacturing techniques, ie, time?
Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Nov 17, 2014 2:14:24 PM

You saying they don't have to deal with the same problems/costs with every redesign? Bahaha boy you're funny.

I expect some "teething" issues when I take delivery of my new 2015 F-150 next month but I am confident that Ford will honor the warranty and take care of those problems.
Many of the past F-150 changes the first year of the new models were the best, like in 2009, 2004, and 1997.
My gut feeling is Ford can't afford to make a bad first impression on this gamble.
The first customers will be the lucky ones they will be treated like gold!

Ford decision to move towards aluminium is a monumental change. The cost involved are quite significant.

The F Series represents a massive portion of Ford's bottom line. Even with the newer vehicles coming on line I do believe the F Series has consumed a massive portion of all of Ford's outgoings.

As I pointed out this article only discusses the cost of materials.

I don't believe that the weight of drivetrain components will reduce by that much. The reduction of these components would have been the same with a conventional steel truck.

Designing drivetrains is around the torque driven and not so much the weight.

The new chassis on the F-150 is no ordinary chassis and will cost more to manufacture. It might use less material, but to arrive at this the techniques employed in it manufacture had been altered considerably. This is due to the variance in the metal thickness along the it's length.

No. This article is less than half of the story.

Ford has taken a huge gamble. I do think the Ranger might end up being the best of the two pickups for the consumer.

What Ford has done is allowed us to look at two different vehicles by the one manufacturer that are exceptionally comparable in capability.

The Ranger will be a much cheaper vehicle with better FE to do the same work.

I love the philosophy of this argument.

Awe look at Big Al he can't admit he was wrong just ignoring me! Face it Al diesel loses here buddy ole pal from Aussie land!

Sounds like Obama math to me. I agree with Big Al, outside the extra cost of the aluminum, Ford needs to recoup the millions (billions?) spent on development, equipment, training, etc. I do think GM and Ram will be able to offer more competitive pricing. If they don't, then they will certainly be raking in more profit per truck. If the aluminum only results in a 400lb decrease (about even with the current Silverado), that means they are taking 300lbs out of the frame, suspension, and drive train- no thank you!

Aluminum tends to be bridle and can fracture unlike steel. People who actually use their pickup trucks to haul things will find this out if they by a Ford beer can with a coke can engine

"Aluminum tends to be bridle and can fracture unlike steel. People who actually use their pickup trucks to haul things will find this out if they by a Ford beer can with a coke can engine"

- Wow, moron supreme. Learn how to spell first. It's brittle, not bridle. People who actually Use their trucks like trucks have been buying Ford's for years. Why? Exactly what you said is a main reason. Ford didn't go to tinfoil bodies until 2009. Up until that point, they were pre 1998 Chevy 'Like A Rock' sturdy in the body department. The Chevy (or gm) body metal went to crap in 1999. In 2007 it became not even metal, but tinfoil. Which is a huge reason the Chevrolet faithful dumped Chevy. Never mind that Chevy's looks tanked in 2003 in order to save GMC and never recovered. Never mind that Chevy interiors have been garbage compared to GMC since the Denali trim.

I'll take thick and sturdy aluminum all day long over tinfoil steel. And unlike Chevrolet's, Ford and even Dodge, Toyota and Nissan don't play second fiddle. Chevrolet bows at the GM-GMC throne. It's GMC's you know what.... And truck guys hate that.

With all the uncertainty of the future of trucks. I am glad I am buying a new one with a good old fashioned large displacement cast iron V8 block and steel body Ram. This will take me well into the future. If Ram has to neuter their trucks like Ford I will rebuild my old one. Aluminum is for beer cans. Glue is for models.

I will rebuild my old one.

Posted by: HEMI V8 | Nov 17, 2014 4:05:11 PM

Same here, brother! Just rebuild your old one and keep it 20 years while everyone else is buying new stuff that won't last as long.

Won't last as long? Reliability reports basically prove anything made by Fiat won't last as long.

@Big Al--In the long run Ford will do well, it will be more of working out the bugs in the short term. I would stay away from most auto stocks because your return on investment is lower than other stocks and the domestic manufacturers are too reliant on trucks for most of their profits which could change if fuel prices go up and the economy goes south. My investment adviser does invest in Toyota and Mercedes which I can see Toyota. I still think that xenoy would be better for fenders, doors, and hoods. I do think you will see many types of lighter materials used in cars, suvs, cuvs, and trucks in the future.

@Big Al, mark49 - truth be told, ANY major change costs billions of dollars. Ford obviously feels that the long term gains made by switching over are worth it.
There are obvious reasons why Ford changed the F series to aluminum. CAFE is the most obvious but amortizing the cost and working out the bugs on their most profitable volume seller is the best way to go. Lessons learned can then work their way through the rest of Ford's line-up.
Imagine an aluminum Mustang? or aluminum hybrid?

I bet Ford already has!

@Lou BC--I could easily see an all aluminum Mustang. I bet it would do very well in the market.

@Johnny Doe

Yes, Big Al is back peddling. This $500 plus another $495 for a 2.7L Ecoboost is A LOT less than the under-powered $4000 plus 3.0L Ecodiesel. Sure, it gets less fuel mileage when towing, but as Big Al stated "nobody tows with 1/2 ton trucks anymore" so FE when towing or loaded would be a moot point in his arguments since it is as rare as he claims. I think he is just mad because Ford went with aluminum and not a diesel option in the F150 so he is going to make is arguments against anything that is not his believe tiny under-powered for FE and might as well be in a car diesel. Good luck getting him to admit he was incorrect though. I would not hold your breath on it.

Aluminum has been used on diff brands of cars for years. It's not new! Many 18 wheeler dump trucks have had the dump beds made of aluminum for years! So can be done to make them strong.
These changes are being made in part to meet the gov fuel standards. Are the other mfg's gonna be able to meet those mandated standards in the future?
To the stupid comment about "to light and will slide in snow". Ever hear of 4 wheel drive???
AS far as recouping costs, I'd guess because being the number one seller for a long time, a good bet they can recover with volume sales. Normal business model

I agree that the initial costs to switch to aluminum were probably relatively large. But they have been preparing for this for years. That is why gm and ram are so far behind imo. No way they could do what ford has done without years of planning, preparation, and savings. They better hope the benefits of aluminum aren't evident to consumers.

Despite the large initial cost, there is no reason to believe ford can't stay competitive in price in the long run. The hard part for ford in switching to aluminum is already over. They may take a hit in profits the first year, but no reason to believe the cost to consumers is going to rise greatly.

"Then along came Alan Mulally from Boeing. He pointed out that Ford could collect the scrap, sell it back to the suppliers, recycle it and then use it again. This strategy allowed Ford to move forward on aluminum."
I have a hard time believing it was that simple. No one working on the analysis at Ford before Mulally came along thought about recycling scrap?

@Ron--Honda and Toyota have been reselling scrap steel from manufacturing as part of their zero waste initiatives so recycling waste materials from automotive manufacturing is nothing new. Toyota in Georgetown, KY and Honda in Marysville, OH have been zero waste plants for a number of years. Ford recycling waste aluminum is just a smart business practice.

I don't think there's going to be a big issue with the aluminium body for the F150. It's just a new type of skin on a pickup with the benefit of weight reduction. The true test that really makes a pickup is still going to be the frame, suspension, engine, transmission, etc. which is nothing new for Ford. With the preliminary FE numbers I've seen so far, there's not a lot of benefits to convince me to buy the new F150 over the other pickups. The only reason I would buy one is because I'm in the market for a new pickup and the F150 is one of them that I like.

Ram Man and Hemi V8 would still be "driving" and "rebuilding" their horse drawn wagons while we all did circles around them in Model T's if this were an earlier time.

Hey Hemi stay off those aluminum airplanes held together with glue and rivits. I hear its only good magic that keeps them in the sky.

GLUE has been a major component of manufacturing of ALL makes and ALL models of vehicles for over a decade.

At this point the "Ramtards" are beyond tarded. They are Ram Jihadists.

Thumbing their noses at progress that even their favored manufacturer WILL adopt (and be behind on when they do) while they drive vehicles relying on glue with aluminum hoods and major engine components made of aluminum (Pentastar V6 bock and all the heads for every engine Fiat makes).

The "Costs" are unavoidable with the CAFE coming. Ford is just leading the way and thankfully has enough hard earned (not taxpayer) funds to do it.

I acknowledge greatness. The 3.0 Ecodiesel is a good engine and for some it makes sense. The V6 Pentastar is a very good engine and was the right move after seeing Ford's V6 success. Rams interiors are currently top notch. Rams rear suspension is probably the best out there right now. Ram is still relevant and competitive and will continue to be so but its also still third and occasionally 2nd and will continue to be so. The current F150 is VERY long in the tooth and has been losing ground and rightly so although its still competitive. The 2015 F150 is a game changer. That doesn't mean Ram is going to die... again. It doesn't mean GM is gonna die... again. That rising from the dead thing with "free" money must be hard for you Fiat/GM guys. It means they have a lot of catching up to do... again. Not as much catching up as they had to do back in 1980 through 94 but some catching up.

Why don't the lying italians tell the truth for once, they can't afford aluminum. From a recent article it may be well into 2020's before a 1500 redesign. It stated they are being supported 100% by trucks, and they sell roughly half as many as Ford. Spinning off Ferrari will buy them a year maybe. Which will be good for Ferrari, get out from under fiats bad name.

Aluminum is strong and not brittle. Many industries use it and those industries see alot more abuse then what 90% of pickups do. These are glued together in pieces. Paper thin aluminum and carbon fiber that is glued together can and does make a extremely tough product that can take a crazy amount of abuse.

Gm will easily be able to dive into aluminum pickups as you only have to look at the new corvette to see they have the tech.

Ram could too but I don't think they have the current resources due to there parent company takes all there profits overseas to shore up there business. So they prolly don't have the capital for this venture as well as factory capacity to shut down to convert

Whats going to be interesting is when ford does the aluminum for the superduty..... 1 factory makes them I believe. Shut it down for a change over is going to hurt.... That is where I believe the ohio f650 plant comes in.... They ditched the cummins for the power stroke in that line so I am thinking They could get a line up and running building superduties in aluminum and then switch the kentucky plant over.

Still awaiting official fuel economy numbers but Motor Trend's 2.7L EB 150 truck review shows mpg a bit lackluster - 16.6/21.5/18.5 for city/hwy/combined.


EVERYONE will have catching up to do with regards to the multitudes of innovations, features and tech the 2015 F150 is bringing to the game. In addition to being the first with the what will become standard aluminum body Ford LEADS in small displacement, DE, turbos and all the new ancillary items on the way (LED headlamps, trailer hitch light, 360 degree camera for a truck, parking assist...)

The Ford/GM 10spd auto tranny that is coming will erase Ram's current advantage with its 8spd. Ram may lead in small displacement 1/2 ton diesel development and rear suspension but neither will carry it. Ram has catching up to do. GM has more catching up to do. Toyota has even more than GM and the Titan... Well if all it gets is a Cummins V8, and a new body and interior well then it wont fare any better than the latest rather tame and underwhelming overhauls of GM and especially the Toyota Tundra. Both of which made themselves exactly no more relevant than their previous models were. I still have yet to see an article about the Titan other all new engine offerings besides a very expensive way bigger/more powerful than it needs to be diesel in a half ton truck. Nothing about suspensions (front or rear), V6(s), gas V8(s), weight saving measures... nothing. If Nissan doesn't bring more to the game other than "bigger" and Cummins it will continue to be what it is now... A solid big good truck at a cut rate price no one really wants likes or buys because it isn't cool, class leading, great or relevant.

FCA is going to do that with Jeep Wrangler first. It will be like Land Rover Defender.
RAM customers did't ask about aluminium cabin.

Ram customers didn't ask for and 8 speed. they didn't ask for the 6.7 cumminsdiesel, they didn't ask for the 6.4 hemi, etc etc etc. But they got them cause they asked for more capability, better economy. Before VM diesel in Ram the customers were asking for a cummins in a half ton..... Did they get it??? Nope!!!!!

The same garbage was said about the 3.5 ecoboost as nobody wants them but when they have sold over 500,000 thousand of them in a few short years its kind of hard to argue that nobody wants them. Ford customers have asked for more capability and better economy..... In 2015 for the halfton segment a little 3.5 6 cylinder gas has the highest tow capacity and a small displacement v8 gas engine has the highest cargo capacity as verified by standardized test adminstered by the society of automotive engineers.

2015 3.5 ecoboost gains 1 mpg. 2.7 sfe gets 28 highway. 5.0 gets a a slight bump in mpg as well.

Ford answered there customers in delivering the most capable 1/2 ton made with good fuel economy. The next part for ford is easy.... Add more gears for 16 and they will have a sfe version that going to get 30. 2017 give the customers a diesel thats in the transit and with more gears they will be at 33+. They just did the hardest part first.... The rest is easy as its just putting in a different tranny and motors on the assembly line. Hardest part is done for Ford. I can guarantee that ram is going to have a fleet of f150's in there possession reverse engineering it.

Where does ram go from here at this point to increase the MPG's for the gov't mandates???? They already have a small underpowered and slow diesel.... Are they going to put a smaller less powered diesel with less capability to meet the gov't requirements??? They already have a low coefficient of drag so there isn't alot of improvement there.

Aluminum for the Entry Level and Midsized cars I can see, but for Truck Guys who are all about doing some serious Off-Roading, how will the Body Integrity of Aluminum hold up in comparison to that of High Strength Steel?; Weight Savings and Fuel Economy is one thing behind this idea, but for Long Term ownership and years of abuse on such a Lightweight body, only time will tell if any of this will make since for a Full Sized Pick Up Truck.

I have asked for 8 speed and 6.4 HEMI with MDS. I have asked for Multilink Rear Coil Spring Suspension on the truck. I have asked for small diesel 12 years ago, but I am not going to buy it anymore in this climate I am living in.
I got almost everything I asked for from RAM.
I am asking for 8 speed for RAM 2500 HEMI 6.4 MDS and I am asking for start stop system with electromotor integrated in to the trany with super capacitors and Belt Starter Generator.
I couldn't care less about aluminium cabin. That's not technology in my point of view.

Posted by: Beast | Nov 17, 2014 8:48:12 PM

You didn't ask for a 8 speed until it was out in the half ton. You didn't ask for a coil suspension until it came out in the half ton
You didn't ask for the 6.4 until you saw it in the challenger.
Lets not kid ourselves cause I guarantee you if you saw a 6.2 hellcat in a truck you would say you asked for that.
And have you seen the fast lane truck vid of the 6.4 on the hill.... Not sure why you asked for one of those after that video??? And all ram engineers answer was its a factory detune so it doesn't hurt itself all the while a 6.0 chevy blows its doors off up hill for any length of time.

You asked for better capability, performance and better economy is all.

And what do you think hybrids or electric going to cost and how much it kills capacity for peanuts in mileage change lot more then aluminum which increases capabilities. If you don't have a need for a 3/4 ton then don't get one. Chevy already has a hybrid pickup so ram would just copy them.

Ford already has all the class leading towing and payload capacity in its trophy case according to SAE. Once the superduty goes to aluminum its even going to be worse for the competition.

If aluminum wasn't worth it the trucking industry wouldn't use it. Car makers are just late to the game and it will become standard and you will have aluminum truck if you stay with Ram next decade or so. They don't have a choice unless they go plastic and or composites.

aluminum will do just fine offroad and on road. They have had many aluminum trucks out there in consumer hands for several years in the mines and other work enviroments and they did fine. Consumers didn't know they were aluminum so they worked them just like a steel truck. They raced a stock 2015 with a 2014 aluminum body in baja and drove it back to michigan afterwards.

Don't think the rainy day ecoboost thing is a problem of any sorts anymore. Think they got the 1% of the 360,000 fixed that had the problem fixed or have a TSB for it. Anything else???


Ram targets fleets for more growth

The comments to this entry are closed.