Ford's switch for the F150 with a slow ramp up in production hurt them.

Look for that to improve next year.

@Scott. Sorry buddy, it's the square wheelwells. People just like 'em. I sure do.

ok here we go, I'm gonna get it out of the way

Big al will blame it all on aluminum

Big al will say ford needs to bring the ranger to us

Big al will say ford needs a diesel

Big al will mispell Ford purposely as Frod, not sure what this is about but must be some aussie thing?

Ford wish, he didn't switch to aluminium. It didn't improve anything and did few things worse. What a waste of customers money.

the switch to aluminum was nothing shy of a marketing gimmick, shaved off only 400lbs and netted negligible mpg, and boosted body repair costs by double.. I mean its nice to have a truck you can make more off of when you recycle it..but that's really all you get.

Ford wish haters be learn English so can understand. Why be mad so?

Congrats to the bailoutbaby.

Its strategy is working at least short term but then again there has never been a GM long term strategy.

Its both surprising and not. Surprising in that people would still choose a socialist, and non cutting edge design/features/tech. Not in that people have short memories, and not leading in cutting edge features/tech/innovation have kept costs low, production high and bugs down.

I wish the article went more into from who the market share was taken and how much. Ford with the most to lose was probably the biggest loser here.

Ford market share has been dropping like a rock. Fuel sucking V6's with beer can bodies don't seem to be winning people over.

2013 Ford 39.9%

2014 Ford 36.5%

2015 Ford 35.7%

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160208/OEM/302089949/countering-chevys-silverado-surge

You guys cry about the repair costs of aluminum... Anything new is always expensive. Once GM and yes even RAM goes with aluminum, the repair costs goes down as repair shops ramp up aluminum repair tooling and experience.

Haha agreed bugspray.

It is surprising to me that the Silverado is doing so well considering that 5.3 liter engine. I just wasn't very impressed with performance and heard to many first hand accounts of them burning oil with relatively low miles even from people that really baby their trucks. Fuel economy is pretty good though. I think Ford's mistake was ignoring the ranger. But even though their market share has dropped slightly their profits are up sharply. So not really a mistake from a business standpoint. Aluminum wasn't a mistake. It was an inevitable next step and gm and ram will be there before long. I see a lot more advantages than disadvantages to aluminum. Its not like you have to make body repairs everyday. I've had two small repairs in twenty years with multiple trucks used on the farm. Most of my trucks go their whole life without body damage. You can debate aluminum all day, but in the real world there doesn't seem to be any real complaints yet.

Imagine what they could have done with round wheel wells...

When are we going to see the 2015 sales breakdown between 1/2 tons and HD trucks?

@roadram Not any more. They dropped the fiat and Alfa plan. Now are going to spend big on Ram and Jeep.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/27/fiat-chrysler-fca-jeep-ram-production-plan-sergio-marchionne/79398746/#

The GMT K2XX trucks were slow to be accepted in the market after the poor GMT900 trucks. That is where GM lost market share. They traditionally sold more 1/2 ton pickups and for a few years Ford was outselling them there.

I suspect a return to traditional sales patterns and low fuel prices are what is helping GM full sized trucks since people still perceive V8's to be worse on fuel.

I do think that because Ford kept their 1/2 tons looking too much like the last gen trucks, it has affected sales more than the change to aluminum. The market is also accustomed to deep discounts and we have seen (at least in USA) Ford scale back discounts.

Not leading edge technology? Lousy performance and fuel economy? Huh? Check out the Texas Truck Showdown results here on pickups .com. The reason GM has gained market share is obvious. They are making a better, more capable truck than the others are currently making. You might not like square wheel wells, but really, you'd trade that off for sub par overall performance?

I suspect this surge in GM sales will eventually stall just like the prior surges when the new owners discover how much time their nice ride is spending in the shop and how much it is costing them. Then once again they'll tun to the competition until the pain is far enough in the past that they'll give it another go. Just look at the history of GM trucks and this cycle is very clear.

@Lou_BC, I disagree. I think that most (not all) pickup owners are aware that the GM trucks are getting the best fuel economy right now. I think that the low fuel prices are helping trucks like Toyota and Ram. It's not like a lot of us have tons of money to burn in this "great" economy. Fortunately (for everybody) it sounds like fuel prices will stay down for a while.

The thing with the new Fords is they have all this new technology, but for what? More expense to consumers and worse mpg the the big ol V8 trucks with steel bodies.

Beebe:
I thought the same about the 5.3L until the recent max haul comparison was posted on this site. The 5.3 along with the eight speed transmission performed beautifully and was clearly the best overall value. Looking at the numbers, the GMs were much more efficient than the competitors in actually getting power delivered to the wheels. That's probably why they were superior to the competitors in this particular test. If memory serves, the same results happened in the heavy duty comparisons. The 6.6/Allison combination for some reason delivered power to the ground more effectively than the competitors. Not sure why this is true, but the results don't lie. Disclaimer: My everyday driver is a Crewmax Tundra.

I do find this article interesting, and I will not discuss the past with Frod's less than anticipated performance from their Aluminum Vunder Trux. Yet Ford want to give you more of them with the SuperDutys!

This is because it is history and again my little anti fans, history has shown me to be more accurate than most any phan boi crystal balling.

As the numbers of full size pickups unwind this year who will lose the most? And why?

First we must look at what is coming in the pickup world and what is occurring now.

Midsize pickups seem to be gaining traction. Why? Midsize pickups are now offerering the refinement, comfort and performance most would ever want from a pickup.

Remember 75% of all pickups owned are not haulers and towers. Even then out of the remaining 25% only a small part of them are ever used to their limits.

The actual working pickups do have some serious competition in the form of those adopted Euro style vans. These vehicles are great work vehicles and can be a great alternative to a pickup. Even the tiny vans are very useful and very cheap in comparison to a pickup for an operator to use in business.

Next we do have the new pickups that have come on line and are becoming more entrenched in the segment.

Nissan with the Titan, both the 1/2 ton and XD will give Nissan a larger slice of the market, then add the next Navara/Frontier into the mix and you will see Nissan rise. Not to the levels of the Big Three or even Toyota, but enough to take the shine out of Big Three numbers.

Ford will take the biggest hit. Ford has already taken a bit of a hit, and that is with it's 1/2 ton pickups. The aluminium Frod can't be sold at the levels Ford wants unless they are priced competitively to it's competitors.

When the aluminium Ford SuperDutys hit the showrooms they will also take a hit. By then the Horse Float set will have taken to the XD Titan. Ford's share of the HD market is proportionally larger than it's competitors. Also the average HD buyer is more conservative than the average daily driving 1/2 owner. So, how many of the more "radical" aluminiumised HDs will Ford sell? I'd expect negative numbers, greater than the oppostion.

Ram really needs to do more than just a grille and tailgate change. Drivetrain and a new body style is needed to keep the interest in the Ram alive. We are already seeing the flatlining of Ram sales.

GM, well GM overall seems to be the winner, but it will also feel the effects of Nissan to a degree.

Nissan will not sell in huge numbers, but the numbers from Nissan will be sufficient enough to stop the increase in sales by the other manufacturers.

Add to this a declining pickup market in 2016 that will magnify the impact of Nissan and we will see by this time next year a decline overall in 1/2 ton and HD numbers by the Big Three.

Ford's move to aluminium was courageous, but I do believe it was not warranted.

The money Ford invested into aluminium would of been better spent investing into powerplants, drive trains, etc.

Lou,
Are you in ten years from now going to still use the excuse that the takeup of GMs pickups was slow initially??

I can see it in 2026 a Lou BC comment;

"Ford isn't doing that bad look at how long it took the GMT K2XX to gain traction."

Lou you are flogging a dead horse now or flogging something else.

We can debate all day as to why the GM twins are outselling Ford and in turn increasing market share. There are those who are brand loyalists and won't switch brands no matter what, but I believe that group is small. The reality is we now have so much information available that we can research our next vehicle purchase thanks to none biased testing provided by websites like PUTC. So the only thing left is the test drive and that is where GM is bringing home the bacon. The GM truck is more refined compared to it closest competition.

Where Did Frod Go Wrong?

Engines.
Ford went down the "make a little engine perform like a big engine".

GM went down the "make a big engine perform like a small engine".

Which was the better move?

Obiously making the big engine perform like a small.

Having a small engine perform like a big engine will always give you big engine FE. Whereas making a big engine perform like a small engine will offer a far greater chance of smaller fuel usage.

The best option is diesel of course. Why?

A diesel offers small engine horsepower with big engine torque giving small engine FE.

So there you have it. The EcoThirst is has been proven along with the move to aluminium by Ford as not the best possible solutions in countering CAFE in a bang for buck senario.

I can't help but to wonder IF Ford didn't change the F-150 for 2015, keeping the 2015 the same as the 2014 how their sales would be better or worse.

@roadram and Johnny Doe:

It's obvious that FCA's problem is Sergio. He should be sent packing right now.

'Remember 75% of all pickups owned are not haulers and towers. Even then out of the remaining 25% only a small part of them are ever used to their limits."

REMEMBER BARFo HAS NEVER POSTED PROOF OF THIS.

"The actual working pickups do have some serious competition in the form of those adopted Euro style vans.'

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Citation required.........

Yes I see loggers, ranchers, miners, prospectors, surveyors and all sorts of rural workers flocking to the Eurovans! "sarc"

They have their place and that is for the most part urban delivery and urban worksites. i.e. plumbers, electricians who have multiple small bits and pieces to keep organized or delivery services. EMS likes van conversions because they are shorter than regular pickups.

Big al may be right in that I've have not heard many people talk about the F150 being alum (I also don't know anyone that seriously works a F150) but i have a few friends that are ford guys and work in construction and they don't want a alum s/d truck at all!! One is very close to switching to GM, his wife has 2003 yukon that is in the shop far less than his 2011 f250 6.7... He didn't mind to much while he had a warranty but that is up now and he is sick of constant problems.

@mike
Are you getting the 5.3 confused with the 6.2? In the max towing test the 5.3 did worse than the ecoboost in every performance category by quite a bit. It was between 1/2 and 1 second slower in every quarter mile and 0-60 test. It got slightly worse towing MPG and slightly better unloaded mpg. And with the 8 speed it is more expensive than the ecoboost. The chevy LTZ in that test was about $1000 dollars more than the f150 Lariat. The 6.2 did very well in all performance and MPG but it was another $2000 more than the chevy. I think we were all surprised that the GM 5.3 did better than the hemi and tundra, but to say it was clearly the best value based on that test is just wrong. Also most of those GM trucks are being sold with a 6 speed, which makes for a fair drop in performance. I don't think the Chevy is a bad truck, I'm just surprised it does so well when it clearly has inferior performance.

"By then the Horse Float set will have taken to the XD Titan."

Yup....... people too stupid to understand GVW, Tare weight, tongue and pin weight but want a "Cummins" to feel like a trucker will flock to them.

once again........ ha ha ha ha ha

@ Lou_BC I agree Euro vans just can't replace trucks for a good bit of jobs they are used for. That's one thing I don't get about Big Al.

You guy are ALL f'ekn LAME, GET A F'ken LIFE 'TARDS

The vans can't do some things but a lot of guys would be better off with them. I see a lot of guys pulling around trailers all day with thier pickups for work. It's like why don't they just get a van to carry all thier tools instead of dragging a trailer all over the place.

"The money Ford invested into aluminium would of been better spent investing into powerplants, drive trains, etc."

REALLY?

They already have new diesel and gas engines on the market or just coming on-line as well as hybrid systems that are on par with Toyota.

Ford is playing the long game with aluminum bodies. They built based upon the premise that fuel was expensive but it isn't going to stay cheap in the long term.

SKEETER,
Where Did Frod Go Wrong?

Engines.
Ford went down the "make a little engine perform like a big engine".

GM went down the "make a big engine perform like a small engine".

Which was the better move?

Obiously making the big engine perform like a small.

Having a small engine perform like a big engine will always give you big engine FE. Whereas making a big engine perform like a small engine will offer a far greater chance of smaller fuel usage.

The best option is diesel of course. Why?

A diesel offers small engine horsepower with big engine torque giving small engine FE.

So there you have it. The EcoThirst is has been proven along with the move to aluminium by Ford as not the best possible solutions in countering CAFE in a bang for buck senario.

SKEETER,
Where Did Frod Go Wrong?

Engines.
Ford went down the "make a little engine perform like a big engine".

GM went down the "make a big engine perform like a small engine".

Which was the better move?

Obiously making the big engine perform like a small.

Having a small engine perform like a big engine will always give you big engine FE. Whereas making a big engine perform like a small engine will offer a far greater chance of smaller fuel usage.

The best option is diesel of course. Why?

A diesel offers small engine horsepower with big engine torque giving small engine FE.

So there you have it. The EcoThirst is has been proven along with the move to aluminium by Ford as not the best possible solutions in countering CAFE in a bang for buck senario.

SKEETER,
Where Did Frod Go Wrong?

Engines.
Ford went down the "make a little engine perform like a big engine".

GM went down the "make a big engine perform like a small engine".

Which was the better move?

Obiously making the big engine perform like a small.

Having a small engine perform like a big engine will always give you big engine FE. Whereas making a big engine perform like a small engine will offer a far greater chance of smaller fuel usage.

The best option is diesel of course. Why?

A diesel offers small engine horsepower with big engine torque giving small engine FE.

So there you have it. The EcoThirst is has been proven along with the move to aluminium by Ford as not the best possible solutions in countering CAFE in a bang for buck senario.

@skeeter
I live in a farming community where nearly everyone has a truck and a lot of them are exclusively used for work. The only person I heard complain about the f150 being made of aluminum ended up buying one about a month ago. I think it's because he thought the frame was made of aluminum that he complained. That was months before he bought his. I now know 5 people with the aluminum truck including my dad and none of them will admit they have any complaints. My dad's biggest complaint is that he only gets 21-23 mpg highway. I get about 18-19 highway with my 5.0 ford v8. Around here aluminum semi grain beds are considered vastly superior to steel in most cases. I have aluminum bodied impact guns, bare aluminum irrigation pipe all over the farm. In most industrial applications where it can be replaced with steel aluminum is seen as superior to steel. But when it comes to the sheet metal on a truck, most people really don't seem to care.

@BARFo - in 2026 GM will have their own aluminum trucks on the market. One of the GM fans once posted a link to a story that stated that GM would of beat Ford to market with an aluminum pickup but the 2008 melt down killed that plan.

FCA will be dead by 2026 if they cannot find a partner.

roadram - well said.

BARFo looks at too much Kangaroo crap, because most of the stuff that comes out of his mouth is CRAP!

@bebee you don't need to convince me ford needs to convince their own customers i don't drive fords some of my friends do and they are the ones complaining. My GMC runs great with no complaints.

@lou
I think you have your posts mixed up i didn't post that.

I agree with everything beebe said. I also farm and live in a small rural community where the pickup truck is the standard mode of transportation whether personal or work use. Aluminum is the "better" material in almost all situations except for the main frame of equipment on a farm. I'm rather tired of rusted thin sheet metal, I hope the aluminum helps fix this issue. I am a Dodge guy but we also own a 2014 GMC my wife drives. I like the looks, including the traditional GM square wheelwells. But, I hate the interior. It is much smaller than the Ram or Ford especially. The front bucket seats are horrible as they are lumpy and measure an inch narrower than the Ford or Ram. Leg room sucks in both the front and back. The other day, we tried to trade the GMC for a new Ford. Just not enough incentives yet to do it, maybe later this fall.

@roadram Hopefully now FAC has a good chance as Sergio noticed the foreign car lineup make over wasn't working, and switched to updated Ram and Jeep as they make the bills for now. I hope that make it, I rather try a Ram then another POS Ford truck.

SKEETER - this site needs a SECURE LOG IN.

Look at the name used.

They posted under Lou_CB.

I suspect this surge in GM sales will eventually stall just like the prior surges when the new owners discover how much time their nice ride is spending in the shop and how much it is costing them. Then once again they'll tun to the competition until the pain is far enough in the past that they'll give it another go. Just look at the history of GM trucks and this cycle is very clear.
Posted by: Dale | Feb 10,
/QUOTE

HAHAHA you Frod clowns jealousy is hillarious..

MY 08 Silvy biggest fix was 160$ for a silly air bag sensor,,no other isues,,
Wouldnt care for any other make if it was free

Funny BARFO wants everything to have a diesel yet says 75% don't use their trucks to tow or haul. Makes no sense.

Show me some cost analysis where it pays off for the normal 10-15k/yr daily driver to buy a diesel.

Also, GM is selling a ton of trucks due to the substantial cash on the hood, great financing and in the basement lease options. this is where I don't think Ford has been as competitive besides the end of the year sale.

Buy what you like, they all have their shortcomings.

GM sales will stall once the 15 models are gone. 16 models have 40000 less miles on the warranty.

I just wasn't very impressed with performance and heard to many first hand accounts of them burning oil with relatively low miles even from people that really baby their trucks.

Posted by: Beebe | Feb 10, 2016 10:03:22 AM

------

BS - You're always try to float this idea that you've seen a lot of guys with the new 5.3 that burn oil yet there's very little evidence outside of a few random threads throughout the internet that support your claim.

The fact that GM has sold well over 1 million 2014+ trucks with the new 5.3 means there should be hundreds of threads with guys reporting the that they're burning a quart per 1000 miles. Where's your evidence?

By your logic, that must mean the EcoBoost should be on the verge of a national recall due to multiple design defects. Considering when I google "EcoBoost timing chain" I get several dozen threads, each 20+ pages long, with guys reporting that they need new timing chains and 4 new cam phasers. Some guys have had their timing chains replaced more than once due to stretch. Some needed them before the warranty expired and even more after it expired. Then there's the equally common misfire and stalling issues... several TSB's later and the issue remains.