I agree that fullsize trucks are not the best choice on trails. In fact if we are counting bikes and atvs, they are not even in the running. My point about the Tundra having an advantage was specific to my situation, where I do end up taking my truck off-road in some tight spots. Not to compete with atvs, but to get to my hobbies.
To say the tundra is not the better off-road truck is not entirely accurate. With a good driver and chains, I'll take the Tundra over any other full size on trails. Deep snow on an open lake? Whichever has the most clearance - Dodge, I think?
The tundra does come with a skid plate. The lack of limited slip is pretty dumb, however.
It would be nice to have a "mother ship" as you put it... to get the gear in the area. Then have an ATV to get in those hard-to-reach areas, then have a fast truck to cruise to town that night, 6 fullsize seats to haul people, then have a 30 mpg vehicle to drive to work on Monday. But, since we are all non-lottery winners we have to make some compromises.
That's why I say "Remember there is no perfect truck"
The problem that with this discussion is that everybody has their own needs for a truck, and therefore everybody is right and nobody is wrong. For some it's stop-light racing and trying to look cool. For some it's a family vehicle to tow the boat and haul the kids. I would guess that a lot of the people here could get away with a sedan and a trailer. Take a look at who's driving pick-ups. What is in the bed and has it ever been off-road other than on the grass at the family picnic. Look at how many have those tonneau covers... says something about what is being hauled in trucks.
I'm not bashing anyone. All of those people have every right to own a truck. But for some to say that brand X is no good because it's too small or too slow or whatever is ridiculous. If you don't have enough power, then you are either over-loaded or you don't know how to drive. If you can't go fast enough, then you're trying to drive too fast. If it's too small, then you've got too much stuff.
Take the fastest, baddest, biggest, meanest truck you can find and I'll have an application where it will loose to a 1985 4-cyl Ford Ranger.
your last few statements made sense to me and I agree with them. My point about skidpad rating is that it's way down the list. Most get a truck for hauling, towing, etc., but skidpad if generally not considered. Not that it's not important, but I think most here would agree that it's behind a bunch of things on their lists of importance.
cdean, Don't agree with you on the incrementalism thing. Ford didn't know that better heads, intake would result in more horsepower/mileage? I think they knew - I think everyone knows that. I think they wanted to keep the power/mileage near the 350 at 250 horse. When Chevy's new engines came out Ford's improved. I really don't think it takes 4 years to figure head/intake/exhaust stuff. Just like GM and the different cam which gives 15 horse and 10 ft. lbs. torque more. Just trying to one up the other guy, but that's just my opinion...
You say that 4 years ago Ford couldn't make a 5.4 put out 260 hp, because they didn't know how. That's funny because the '96 Cobra put out 305 hp with a 4.6. Sure seems like they knew how, they just didn't need to.
Bigsnag, oK, modify my statement slightly. 4 years ago, Ford didn't know how to put a 260 hp 5.4 that COSTS reasonable and wouldn't be burned out in 100K miles under truck duty.
So they could get 305 hp out of a 4.6 that they put in a Cobra, which they know will get absolutely flogged and abused all of it's life, but you still don't think they could get even 260 hp out of an engine that has basically 50 more cubes?? Come on, admit it. You were wrong. They had the technology. They had (and still have) NO reason to put it all out on the table. Why should they? They're still out selling everyone else, including Chevy's newest, most technologically advanced truck ever.
The bad, new, and radically different Silverado expierenced it's best sales month in March. Since then, Chevy has suffered many setbacks and as half the year has completed, GM COMBINED sales figures are behind Ford by @ 60grand.
It awes me that after listening to GM fans about how this was going to be "The Year of the Truck"--that it still gets resoundly BEATEN by the ole' blue oval.
I was trying to say that a quality rating taken immediately after the purchase is a strong reflection of the buyers emphasis on quality at the time of purchase. As I stated, only if in that short time frame, the vehicle does not match expectations, will complaints come out.
The big issue I have with all the focus on the J.D. Powers results is those individuals that quote the data seem to feel that being #1 is so much better than anyone else. Like why would anyone buy a truck that wasn't #1 in the survey.
The answer is that all of the brands have acceptable quality and reliability. Otherwise they wouldn't sell trucks. Now the guy that does have problems or past problems with a brand won't believe this. Only the big3 make greater than 1/2 ton trucks, which is what all of the tradesmen, commercial, and government agencies typically use. These trucks are not better nor worse than the 1/2 ton models from the big3. If these trucks were always in the shop getting fixed or broke down on the road waiting for a big3 tow truck to pick them up, well then no one would get much work done. Taxes would have to go up to pay for the constant repair costs and the Tundra owner couldn't get a service man to come to his house and fix his refrigerator.
Survey data is just one piece of data to use in selecting a truck, it is not the answer.
You think that being #1 is all important. A difference of 60k trucks is about a 1% difference in total sales (I don't have the exact numbers). This is not a resounding loss for GM. The fact that the sales numbers are so close says that both brands are good trucks. And this has been true for many years.
Some of Fords sales are because they can advertise that they are #1. There are some individuals who will buy Ford primarily for that reason. Just like if GM didn't have both Chevy and GMC trucks, they would have lower sales. Because some buyers want to buy a truck from a "truck only" dealer.
BTW, any change in sales ranking can't happen in a short time. Maybe 20% of us buy a new truck each year, and of those, maybe only 25% of us seriously consider a different brand (i.e., spend hours talking, inspecting and driving other brands). And since one brand is not head-and-shoulders above the others, very few buyers actually change brands in a single year. And over several years, the manufacturers can react to any minor shift in buying trends to stay competitive. To repeat my point, sales are so close between Ford and GM year after year to prove that they are competitively matched.
Ahh Roc, yes, Ford is still winning this year and building their lead. I wouldn't say 'resoundingly'!
Ford still has 3 models of truck that are 10 years newer in design in the Superduty class. The C/K is not an eye catcher like the F & D big rigs. I will concede after the the NEW GM HD's come out and GM still gets beat, with an all new lineup across the board.
I still don't follow your logic regarding differential emphasis on initial quality. Why would a Tundra buyer be more likely to have a different emphasis on quality than a GM buyer?
As far as it being an early test of quality... that's why they call it an initial quality award. What is being measured is the initial build quality and assembly. Do the parts all fit together... Did the buttons fall off the first time you used them... etc
The Tundra was #1.
I agree that #1 in JD Power is not the "end-all" award. I agree that the margin between the Tundra and other trucks is not clear with JD Power's award. I also agree that the Tundra is not the right truck for a lot of buyers.
My point of all this was to try to explain the difference between JD Power's Award and the other awards (motor trend truck of the year, etc). Some of us were confusing opinions versus data.
Bigsnag, No, sorry, i don't think I'm wrong, i think i'm just not communicating exactly what I'm talking about. I also just don't buy into the fact ANY manufacturer would hold back performance potential just as a tease. THE MORE IT PERFORMS, THE BIGGER THE ADVANTAGE, WHY NOT HAVE THE BIGGEST ADVANGATE?
I've been in product engineering my whole life, and I can tell you this, engineering is a big daily trade-off. You always know what you can do, BUT, there is always that deadline. It doesn't move. So in this case, there are always technical issues that arise from having say the 210 hp engine vs the 260 hp engine. The problem is figuring out how many of those issues you can confidently tackle by the deadline. And there is not one single day that goes by where you don't have to decide "do I spend 5 hours and work on this prob more, or do I just go with this other solution that I know will work, but won't be quite as good."
THis is how the product engineering environment works, hypothetical situation:
If I worked at Ford, say I was working on this engine. I knew I could get 190hp, but I had an idea on how to get 210 and another idea to get 240. My boss and marketing are interested and they ALWAYS WANT THE MOST POSSIBLE. so they tell me "Let us know what it would cost and how long it would take to develop 250 hp." I say OK. I work, research, try different things, do some tests. I come back to them 4 weeks later. I tell them, I know I can get 210 hp, I know it will meet emissions and I can easily have it ready for production by August 1st. Now the 240 hp version, we will have to develop this ----- first, which will require more engineers and some new equipment if we are going to get prototypes in time to test and qualify and be factory ready by August. I also found a way to do 260 hp, but I would have to change this part of the head which could seriously affect the valve train, so we need to spend a LOT of time studying this to make sure this change doesn't compromise the reliability.
Then marketing will say, "OK, since we have to be in production by August, we will just go with the 210 hp this year. In the meantime, we will test the 240 hp version and get it ready for next year. We will also set up a small team to research the 260 hp engine, and hopefully the design will be in line for production in 3 years.
Thats the way it goes. In all products: computers, cars, watches, toasters, TVs...everything.
Not trying to be condescending toward you or Ford, just trying to get across why I think the development pans out as is.
And to answer your other question, why they could develop a 300 hp 4.6, well thats easy. Its called the SVT team. They have a dedicated team of engineers that work on NOTHING but getting that engine to super high performance. Cost and time are NOT as much a factor to them, because it is a high end product. They can do individual engineering tweaks and changes to the engine because it is a low volume, special made engine that won't be made on their normal high volume lines. This also means quality control, inventory control, product test, and qualification is MUCH easier to do and control since the volume is low.
Different emphasis on quality comes from different buying criteria which partly influenced by advertising. Ford is #1 in sales, Dodge is Different, Chevy is Like a Rock. These are the clear examples, and I'm not sure what the main one is for Tundra, but I am sure that the quality message is a primary reason for choosing Tundra. Although everyone wants good and equal quality, other buyers are willing to settle for less in order to get other things. Like a bigger back seat, or many, many other differences between the brands. Consciously or un-consciously, they place lower emphasis on quality because they place higher emphasis on something else.
Even if Tundra buyers put more emphasis on quality than the other fullsize truck buyers (which I doubt), that would not explain why the Tundra would score higher in JD Power's Award. As I pointed out before, they would consequently score lower if an equal number of defects are experienced. The statistical term for it is "Recall Bias", people will have a greater tendency to remember incidents that are important to them.
Guess we will just have to have our own opinions on this, but if you had a survey of reasons for buying different trucks, I'm sure that quality would be in the top 2-3 reasons for Tundra, but significantly lower for the other brands. Furthermore, if I was taking a post-purchase survey and asked to rate quality from 1 to 10, my answer would be different for the different brands and based on the buying decision factors. That what I would recall. The few individuals with problems will skew the averages slightly.
I think everyone has there own quality opinion about certain companies. You probably don't hold Hyuandai in the same catagory as BMW and I think that's what can throw off "initial quality" survays. The only thing I would be willing to believe is independent survayers survaing all these trucks within a resonable time period. Toyota does push quality (again my opinion) more than Chevy and Ford. I've had salespeople tell me Toyota quality blah, blah, blah, whereas I don't get that at GM. But still it's initial quality. Who cares about initial quality? I care about long term, so it holds little weight for me...
If you truly think that companies don't hold back, you are truly a sheltered human being. You even mentioned computers. Do you honestly think that AMD or Intel don't have the technology to produce chips that are faster than what they currently are releasing?? Why is it that AMD switches to a new type of chip, the Athlon, then they release them in a stepwise fashion, as far as speed is concerned. 650 today, 750, next month, 1 gigahertz in 3 months. Incrementalism is a well known marketing tactic. Of course you don't engineer things in that manner. That would be ridiculous. Most people would rather concede that they were wrong rather than admit that they are naive.
This past November Intel had a chip that was 850 MHZ. They were using it down at Purdue (college in indiana in case you dont know). Kinda a top secret thing.
Oh, I have know doubt about things like that. I'm going so far as to say that they have faster, less secret, more easily produced, less expensive chips that are even based upon current platforms, that they will NOT release, except in a step-wise fashion. Why would they release the 1 gigahertz chip right now, if the fastest thing going is a 650? Would they sell a 1 gig chip for $300 before they get everyone to buy the 650 at the same price? Of course these numbers aren't accurate as several chips currently on the market are faster than 650, but my point is still the same. If Ford can be number one in sales with a 230 hp version, why would they release a 300 hp version. They realize that the vast majority of buyers won't switch brands just because of hp, so they bump it up as they need to so they don't run the risk of losing buyers. I am a victim of this stuff. You can't help it. I have a '98 5.4L. I have an AMD K6-2 450. It was outdated by the time I got it plugged in. The tactic of incrementalism is not up for debate. It is a fact. It happens. All the time. In every marketplace.
Maybe Henry Ford should have put the 300 HP 5.4 in the first model T, he would have kicked everyones [non-permissible content removed]. Most advancements are done a little bit at a time. You can almost always find a way to get 10 more HP our of an engine, but you need to make and sell something today - buy the tooling to produce - set up the plant and build the engine. It takes time - used to be years between design and build, today it is shorter, but still 12-18 months. Don't forget the Government has regulations to comply with. Emissions testing - that alone can take months to complete.
If Ford developed an engine tomorrow that made 600 hp and got 50 mpg, believe me it wouldn't be in a car until they had milked every intermediate engine for all it was worth. I know this is being facetious, but I'm just demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.
say Tundra buyers place more emphasis on quality? What else would they say? They are certainly not buying their trucks for maximum cargo area or load capacity. Big three buyers are often looking for just that, so those features would head their lists, and Toyota buyers list "quality". If you love your vehicle and its brand, a minor problem that is quickly fixed on warranty does not cause you to say the truck is junk. If your neighbor has a truck you hate, and it has the same problem, it's junk. Years ago I had a friend who loved Fords, when my ten year old Buick blew a radiator hose he commented on the quality of the brand. He traded every two years, and among his five new Fords, he replaced one engine and two transmissions, but that was just freak chance. Oh well.
Bigsnag, have i been condescending? Zbill and Ryan have both said exactly what i'm trying to say. PLEASE reread my post--you are not understanding what I'm saying.
Why don't they just plop out the 600 hp 5.4 right now? No one would buy anything but Ford, right?
@!@!@ You dont' just s**t an engine in a day.
The chip industry is the PERFECT example. They've been able to making 1500 Mhz chips for some time now. But are they in the market? No. Why do you ask? Because they are not efficient. Because the manufacturing is so complex and they are not tooled for high production--Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc have not developed the chipset motherboards and linking technologies to incorporate them yet. Some shortage in a part or engineering change could delay it. But next year, you can bet your booty, PRICES COME DOWN--because manufacturing has been refined, technology is FULLY DEVELOPED, and the 'pipeline' is in place. BUt today, if someone wanted to build 500,000 computers with 1 Ghz chips--they would all cost $8000 and no one would buy them. EXACTLY MY POINT. dont' you think that if one company could offer a chip to the market that is twice as fast as the world right now--they would make a 98% market share instead of their 40% current? That is sheltered.
Please reread my examples. I understand the marketing side of products because I deal with marketing EVERY DAY. If you are in marketing and you do this, please cite examples. I don't offer hearsay, nor do i listen to it.
And I think you are being very naive to think that engineers can just come up with huge horsepowers on a snap and immediately put them into production.
I'm in the business, I'm telling you, it doesn't happen that way. Just because a special team (i.e. Special Vehicle Team)of engineers at Ford can build a 300 hp 4.6, doesn't mean they can easily qualify and ramp up 50X production numbers of a new engine that will
I don't work at Ford, so maybe they can magically do that, but nobody else in the world can.
So I will go to bed knowing I'm right, you'll go to bed knowing you're right, and we're all happy.
Incrementalism happens because of development time. Not consumer teases. I NEVER SAID that it doesn't play a part in it. A perfect example of the situation is engineering has a 200 hp engine, and next year they will have tested and approved a 220 hp engine, but it will not be close to the end of the year, and it may be a deadline crunch. Marketing (in all products) could make the decision that since this product is late in development for next year, why don't we just wait until 2 years, make it 240 hp, then advertise that we jumped from 200 to 240! It still all hinges on development time, testing time, production ramp ups. That is the fullest extent I can give to the accuracy of Bigsnag's argument.
I'm not saying the world revolves around engineers, But, they make the whole thing possible in the first place, and the go or no-go starts there.
Sometimes I think marketing has more to do with the changes in HP then engineering. I can hear them in the marketing meeting "Just print the brochure to say 240 even though we all know it only produces 180, most customers don't have access to a dyno so what the hell"
I already discussed market share. Even if Ford dropped out that 600 hp 5.4, they would not sell 100% of trucks. As a matter of fact they would sell more, but not many more. It would not be worth their time and effort to tool up for a 600 hp engine. What I am saying does not imply that they couldn't produce that engine, it just says that marketing suggests that they don't need to do such a thing, YET. You were the one who came out and said that there was no way that they even knew how to make a 5.4 produce more than 235 hp in '96. When presented with facts you get mad. I never said you were being condescending. Guilty conscience??
That ford or chevy engineers dont pop out the biggest engine they can the first yr is all because of $$$. Im sure they could put a bigger engine than the 5.4L. Their accountants pretty much decide based on the rate of return what we be done and what wont be. The main reason that the 260 HP (or whatever just an example) engine isnt built right away is because it will not provide the highest rate of return for the company. I am in an engineering economics class this summer. I know it doesnt make me an expert BUT it has opened my eyes as how to these companies run. Accountants pretty much run everything. They decide if a project (like the silverado SS) will be done or not. Its not being built NOT BECAUSE CHEVY CANT DO IT but because the rate of return for chevy wont be high enough.
Can you actually believe fords motto??? Quality is job #1??? Thats totally wrong all BS its $$$.
Does this make sense??? If you need more clarification let me know.
If Toyota owners put more emphasis on quality, that would penalize them in the JD Power's Award.
I also agree that initial quality is not as important as long-term, but I'm not aware of any long-term DATA. The initial quality is just an indication of how well the assembly went and how well the plant operates.
Tim - where are the recent sales #'s just out of curiousity?
bigsnag, You really need to read my post, try slowly. I'm sorry if my background makes me communicate this unclearly to outsiders. I didn't mean Ford was clueless to how to make the highpower engine. IF YOU READ MY LONG POST, I EXPLAIN THAT. They couldn't put it place economically at the time. The SVT Mustang engine is that power because IT HAS 40 ENGINEERS PER PROJECT, as opposed to the regular production stuff which is about 5 engineers per project.
Sorry if I didn't make this clear before.
to your market share theory, I just don't agree with it because what I have seen is that as soon as a 'better' product is cost effective as the previous version, it is put in place as fast as possible. I quoted examples. you can't convince me anything less. where are these facts that make me mad?
Guilty conscience? hardly. just wondered why you were taking the tones you were. I think i understand now, though. Don't expect someone to admit they're wrong when they've given proof they aren't.
Very true, Ryan. I know I've pointed out all technical issues, but as I stated in my general statement in my last post, it's all determined by the cost effectiveness.
Cdean, I was under the impression your ORIGINAL feelings were that the Technology wasn't available. Now you're saying it's cost effectiveness that dictate the changes.
If we can look at this from an abstract(?) view. Not releasing your best right away is making SOME people want/need to trade up sooner then they normally would. How many people do you think would have kept their 235 hP 5.4's longer if it wasn't for the NEW AND IMPROVED 260 hp. If Ford had been unseated in sales and it was determined that it was because of lack of performance you bet we would have seen some monster motors like right NOW.
Take the Lincoln Navigator for instance. Ford felt that in order to compete with upscale SUV's they needed to have the hottest motor going. They slapped some 7 year old DOHC 4 Valve heads on the 5.4 and made 300 horsepower. That "technology" was there for a while. Ford's going with a 3 valve head for the 5.4 in a year or two. Why? small steps to keep the sales flow going IMHO.
If people know there is going to be a giant increase or improvement the next year I believe it will cause people to wait. If it's a "little" improvement a blow out deal might justify buying the "old" unit. I know I waited about 6 months because Ford's V10 went from 275 hP to 310hp.
I'm still around...just don't have as much time to spend here this time of year. My job gets a little hectic in the warmer months. I did find the time to lease two more tracts of land for hunting. I picked up 60 acres in Chatham County and another 250 acres near Henderson(in case your looking at a NC map as you read this!). Even bought a 4-wheeler..yeah, it's a Honda...to be specific, a Rancher ES 4x4. Everyone, let the bashing begin!!!
Please don't tell me to get a real truck to haul it. My Tundra does fine. LOL
If Toyota's goal was to compete with Chevy in total sales, I would agree that they got blown away. However, this is not the case. Their target goal was 100,000 units which they acheived. You can look at it another way...it is 100,000 trucks that the big 3 did not sell due to the Tundra being available. That 100,000 units would put GM ahead of Ford wouldn't it?
I would never buy a Tundra...or a Dodge...just my opinion...but the fact remains Toyota sold or are on their way to sell 100,000 units
I think you answered your own question when people compare trucks its the F150 or Tundra cause Toyota designed the Tundra to look like the F150. Interior and exterior almost similar between the two. After all why not copy the truck that's the No. 1 seller. Toyota's intent was to capture the market share that they were losing when Tacoma owners needed something bigger they would have to go to a big three where now they can buy a Tundra...
They are identical basically from the moment i sat in one. I just posed the question to make people think. I kinda didnt finish my earlier thought but you got the point. They cant even make a "unique" looking truck.
I made my points about JD Power because people were lumping it with the other awards. It is fundamentally different. It is a measure of the trucks initial quality. For instance, if someone were to buy a blue chevy silverado and it doesn't move forward when they put it in gear and step on the gas while at dunkin donuts, then they would score that on their JD Power survey. Not an opinion. It means a lot more than some writer for motor trend who drives them all and picks one. That is an opinion.
I think most Tundra owners considered all 3 before purchase. I think buying a truck based on looks is a pretty shallow concept.
Tim -
Thanks for the sales info. I never doubted it, just wanted to know where I could find it for future reference. I don't think Toyota will ever be in the top #2 in sales... but, then again, I don't really care.
I didnt choose my truck on looks if thats what you are implying. I actually kinda like the older body style for looks better. I pass a 98 Pewter Z71 every sunday and im like damn thats a nice truck.
Did you or did you not say: "Basically, I'm saying they simply could NOT get 260 hp out of the 5.4 until this year."??? That is a direct quote from your post. I have read your posts. You have given no examples other than what I gave, which were abstractions about the computer industry in general, among others. I think Ryan was saying what I was saying. It all comes down to the dollar. They are trying to maximize both volume of sales and profit margin per sale. Putting a 500 hp motor into a truck would accomplish the first goal, but would definitely be at the expense of the second. Mod made a good point and he used a real world example. The Navigator engine. It is clear that Ford now has the technology to make a durable 300 hp out of the 5.4. Actually they have had it since late '98 ('99 model Navigators). SO, now that it is three years later and they have had plenty of time to "tool-up", are those 4 valve heads going to be on the 2001 F-150's? No!! In fact, they are waiting to switch to 3V heads until 2003. Then they are "saving" the 4V heads till later. It will take just as much time, energy, and money to "tool-up" for the new 3V heads as it would for 4V so it is CLEAR, that they ARE, without a doubt, using incrementalism. Is that a good enough real-world example??? Does that prove my point? Will you admit you were wrong??? Do you need to re-read this post, slowly?
Comments
To say the tundra is not the better off-road truck is not entirely accurate. With a good driver and chains, I'll take the Tundra over any other full size on trails. Deep snow on an open lake? Whichever has the most clearance - Dodge, I think?
The tundra does come with a skid plate. The lack of limited slip is pretty dumb, however.
It would be nice to have a "mother ship" as you put it... to get the gear in the area. Then have an ATV to get in those hard-to-reach areas, then have a fast truck to cruise to town that night, 6 fullsize seats to haul people, then have a 30 mpg vehicle to drive to work on Monday. But, since we are all non-lottery winners we have to make some compromises.
That's why I say "Remember there is no perfect truck"
I'm not bashing anyone. All of those people have every right to own a truck. But for some to say that brand X is no good because it's too small or too slow or whatever is ridiculous. If you don't have enough power, then you are either over-loaded or you don't know how to drive. If you can't go fast enough, then you're trying to drive too fast. If it's too small, then you've got too much stuff.
Take the fastest, baddest, biggest, meanest truck you can find and I'll have an application where it will loose to a 1985 4-cyl Ford Ranger.
Remember... There is no perfect truck
cdean,
Don't agree with you on the incrementalism thing. Ford didn't know that better heads, intake would result in more horsepower/mileage? I think they knew - I think everyone knows that. I think they wanted to keep the power/mileage near the 350 at 250 horse. When Chevy's new engines came out Ford's improved. I really don't think it takes 4 years to figure head/intake/exhaust stuff. Just like GM and the different cam which gives 15 horse and 10 ft. lbs. torque more. Just trying to one up the other guy, but that's just my opinion...
oK, modify my statement slightly. 4 years ago, Ford didn't know how to put a 260 hp 5.4 that COSTS reasonable and wouldn't be burned out in 100K miles under truck duty.
It awes me that after listening to GM fans about how this was going to be "The Year of the Truck"--that it still gets resoundly BEATEN by the ole' blue oval.
cdean, When will you concede??
LOL!!!!
Roc
The big issue I have with all the focus on the J.D. Powers results is those individuals that quote the data seem to feel that being #1 is so much better than anyone else. Like why would anyone buy a truck that wasn't #1 in the survey.
The answer is that all of the brands have acceptable quality and reliability. Otherwise they wouldn't sell trucks. Now the guy that does have problems or past problems with a brand won't believe this. Only the big3 make greater than 1/2 ton trucks, which is what all of the tradesmen, commercial, and government agencies typically use. These trucks are not better nor worse than the 1/2 ton models from the big3. If these trucks were always in the shop getting fixed or broke down on the road waiting for a big3 tow truck to pick them up, well then no one would get much work done. Taxes would have to go up to pay for the constant repair costs and the Tundra owner couldn't get a service man to come to his house and fix his refrigerator.
Survey data is just one piece of data to use in selecting a truck, it is not the answer.
You think that being #1 is all important. A difference of 60k trucks is about a 1% difference in total sales (I don't have the exact numbers). This is not a resounding loss for GM. The fact that the sales numbers are so close says that both brands are good trucks. And this has been true for many years.
Some of Fords sales are because they can advertise that they are #1. There are some individuals who will buy Ford primarily for that reason. Just like if GM didn't have both Chevy and GMC trucks, they would have lower sales. Because some buyers want to buy a truck from a "truck only" dealer.
BTW, any change in sales ranking can't happen in a short time. Maybe 20% of us buy a new truck each year, and of those, maybe only 25% of us seriously consider a different brand (i.e., spend hours talking, inspecting and driving other brands). And since one brand is not head-and-shoulders above the others, very few buyers actually change brands in a single year. And over several years, the manufacturers can react to any minor shift in buying trends to stay competitive. To repeat my point, sales are so close between Ford and GM year after year to prove that they are competitively matched.
Ford still has 3 models of truck that are 10 years newer in design in the Superduty class. The C/K is not an eye catcher like the F & D big rigs. I will concede after the the NEW GM HD's come out and GM still gets beat, with an all new lineup across the board.
read: loophole tillnext year buddy!
As far as it being an early test of quality... that's why they call it an initial quality award. What is being measured is the initial build quality and assembly. Do the parts all fit together... Did the buttons fall off the first time you used them... etc
The Tundra was #1.
I agree that #1 in JD Power is not the "end-all" award. I agree that the margin between the Tundra and other trucks is not clear with JD Power's award. I also agree that the Tundra is not the right truck for a lot of buyers.
My point of all this was to try to explain the difference between JD Power's Award and the other awards (motor trend truck of the year, etc). Some of us were confusing opinions versus data.
No, sorry, i don't think I'm wrong, i think i'm just not communicating exactly what I'm talking about. I also just don't buy into the fact ANY manufacturer would hold back performance potential just as a tease. THE MORE IT PERFORMS, THE BIGGER THE ADVANTAGE, WHY NOT HAVE THE BIGGEST ADVANGATE?
I've been in product engineering my whole life, and I can tell you this, engineering is a big daily trade-off. You always know what you can do, BUT, there is always that deadline. It doesn't move. So in this case, there are always technical issues that arise from having say the 210 hp engine vs the 260 hp engine. The problem is figuring out how many of those issues you can confidently tackle by the deadline. And there is not one single day that goes by where you don't have to decide "do I spend 5 hours and work on this prob more, or do I just go with this other solution that I know will work, but won't be quite as good."
THis is how the product engineering environment works, hypothetical situation:
If I worked at Ford, say I was working on this engine. I knew I could get 190hp, but I had an idea on how to get 210 and another idea to get 240. My boss and marketing are interested and they ALWAYS WANT THE MOST POSSIBLE. so they tell me "Let us know what it would cost and how long it would take to develop 250 hp." I say OK. I work, research, try different things, do some tests. I come back to them 4 weeks later. I tell them, I know I can get 210 hp, I know it will meet emissions and I can easily have it ready for production by August 1st. Now the 240 hp version, we will have to develop this ----- first, which will require more engineers and some new equipment if we are going to get prototypes in time to test and qualify and be factory ready by August. I also found a way to do 260 hp, but I would have to change this part of the head which could seriously affect the valve train, so we need to spend a LOT of time studying this to make sure this change doesn't compromise the reliability.
Then marketing will say, "OK, since we have to be in production by August, we will just go with the 210 hp this year. In the meantime, we will test the 240 hp version and get it ready for next year. We will also set up a small team to research the 260 hp engine, and hopefully the design will be in line for production in 3 years.
Thats the way it goes. In all products: computers, cars, watches, toasters, TVs...everything.
Not trying to be condescending toward you or Ford, just trying to get across why I think the development pans out as is.
And to answer your other question, why they could develop a 300 hp 4.6, well thats easy. Its called the SVT team. They have a dedicated team of engineers that work on NOTHING but getting that engine to super high performance. Cost and time are NOT as much a factor to them, because it is a high end product. They can do individual engineering tweaks and changes to the engine because it is a low volume, special made engine that won't be made on their normal high volume lines. This also means quality control, inventory control, product test, and qualification is MUCH easier to do and control since the volume is low.
Ryan
LOL
Babbling is Ryans department...I have been skipping over all this crud...
too long to hear Toy owners babble about crud..
- Tim
Harry
Zbill and Ryan have both said exactly what i'm trying to say. PLEASE reread my post--you are not understanding what I'm saying.
Why don't they just plop out the 600 hp 5.4 right now? No one would buy anything but Ford, right?
@!@!@ You dont' just s**t an engine in a day.
The chip industry is the PERFECT example. They've been able to making 1500 Mhz chips for some time now. But are they in the market? No. Why do you ask? Because they are not efficient. Because the manufacturing is so complex and they are not tooled for high production--Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc have not developed the chipset motherboards and linking technologies to incorporate them yet. Some shortage in a part or engineering change could delay it. But next year, you can bet your booty, PRICES COME DOWN--because manufacturing has been refined, technology is FULLY DEVELOPED, and the 'pipeline' is in place. BUt today, if someone wanted to build 500,000 computers with 1 Ghz chips--they would all cost $8000 and no one would buy them. EXACTLY MY POINT. dont' you think that if one company could offer a chip to the market that is twice as fast as the world right now--they would make a 98% market share instead of their 40% current? That is sheltered.
Please reread my examples. I understand the marketing side of products because I deal with marketing EVERY DAY. If you are in marketing and you do this, please cite examples. I don't offer hearsay, nor do i listen to it.
And I think you are being very naive to think that engineers can just come up with huge horsepowers on a snap and immediately put them into production.
I'm in the business, I'm telling you, it doesn't happen that way. Just because a special team (i.e. Special Vehicle Team)of engineers at Ford can build a 300 hp 4.6, doesn't mean they can easily qualify and ramp up 50X production numbers of a new engine that will
I don't work at Ford, so maybe they can magically do that, but nobody else in the world can.
So I will go to bed knowing I'm right, you'll go to bed knowing you're right, and we're all happy.
I'm not saying the world revolves around engineers, But, they make the whole thing possible in the first place, and the go or no-go starts there.
Can you actually believe fords motto??? Quality is job #1??? Thats totally wrong all BS its $$$.
Does this make sense??? If you need more clarification let me know.
Ryan
The sales numbers are darn right pathetic...
- Tim
Dean
If Toyota owners put more emphasis on quality, that would penalize them in the JD Power's Award.
I also agree that initial quality is not as important as long-term, but I'm not aware of any long-term DATA. The initial quality is just an indication of how well the assembly went and how well the plant operates.
Tim - where are the recent sales #'s just out of curiousity?
You really need to read my post, try slowly. I'm sorry if my background makes me communicate this unclearly to outsiders. I didn't mean Ford was clueless to how to make the highpower engine. IF YOU READ MY LONG POST, I EXPLAIN THAT. They couldn't put it place economically at the time. The SVT Mustang engine is that power because IT HAS 40 ENGINEERS PER PROJECT, as opposed to the regular production stuff which is about 5 engineers per project.
Sorry if I didn't make this clear before.
to your market share theory, I just don't agree with it because what I have seen is that as soon as a 'better' product is cost effective as the previous version, it is put in place as fast as possible. I quoted examples. you can't convince me anything less. where are these facts that make me mad?
Guilty conscience? hardly. just wondered why you were taking the tones you were. I think i understand now, though. Don't expect someone to admit they're wrong when they've given proof they aren't.
Sampson why do you keep talking about the JD power survey??? Its a survey (peoples OPINIONS). It means very little.
Ryan
Wow!..look at the awesome stats for the T100 as well!!...some months are 7!!..even as low as 1 made per month.....wow..what a company...
Now look at real sales figures...
http://www.ai-online.com/stats/chevrolet.htm
http://www.ai-online.com/stats/ford.htm
This site is amusing.....they list the Tundra and the T100 as the same truck.....as they should be..
http://www.ai-online.com/stats/2000FullSizePickup-na.htm
June 99...8,011 Tundras and 52,296 for Silverado, and 81,275 for F Series...
The awesome Toy just blows the domestics away....DOHH!
Any more Doubt?
- Tim
- Tim
Cdean, I was under the impression your ORIGINAL feelings were that the Technology wasn't available. Now you're saying it's cost effectiveness that dictate the changes.
If we can look at this from an abstract(?) view. Not releasing your best right away is making SOME people want/need to trade up sooner then they normally would. How many people do you think would have kept their 235 hP 5.4's longer if it wasn't for the NEW AND IMPROVED 260 hp. If Ford had been unseated in sales and it was determined that it was because of lack of performance you bet we would have seen some monster motors like right NOW.
Take the Lincoln Navigator for instance. Ford felt that in order to compete with upscale SUV's they needed to have the hottest motor going. They slapped some 7 year old DOHC 4 Valve heads on the 5.4 and made 300 horsepower. That "technology" was there for a while. Ford's going with a 3 valve head for the 5.4 in a year or two. Why? small steps to keep the sales flow going IMHO.
I know I waited about 6 months because Ford's V10 went from 275 hP to 310hp.
Dean
Please don't tell me to get a real truck to haul it. My Tundra does fine. LOL
I would never buy a Tundra...or a Dodge...just my opinion...but the fact remains Toyota sold or are on their way to sell 100,000 units
Dean
Ryan
I think most Tundra owners considered all 3 before purchase. I think buying a truck based on looks is a pretty shallow concept.
Tim -
Thanks for the sales info. I never doubted it, just wanted to know where I could find it for future reference. I don't think Toyota will ever be in the top #2 in sales... but, then again, I don't really care.
Ryan
some months 1 T100 sold??....in the entire country!?....why make them?
TP,
I'll have to stop on by if in NC some time....that is IF you think a Silverado could make it??
LOL
- Tim
"Basically, I'm saying they simply could NOT get
260 hp out of the 5.4 until this year."???
That is a direct quote from your post. I have read your posts. You have given no examples other than what I gave, which were abstractions about the computer industry in general, among others. I think Ryan was saying what I was saying. It all comes down to the dollar. They are trying to maximize both volume of sales and profit margin per sale. Putting a 500 hp motor into a truck would accomplish the first goal, but would definitely be at the expense of the second. Mod made a good point and he used a real world example. The Navigator engine. It is clear that Ford now has the technology to make a durable 300 hp out of the 5.4. Actually they have had it since late '98 ('99 model Navigators). SO, now that it is three years later and they have had plenty of time to "tool-up", are those 4 valve heads going to be on the 2001 F-150's? No!! In fact, they are waiting to switch to 3V heads until 2003. Then they are "saving" the 4V heads till later. It will take just as much time, energy, and money to "tool-up" for the new 3V heads as it would for 4V so it is CLEAR, that they ARE, without a doubt, using incrementalism. Is that a good enough real-world example??? Does that prove my point? Will you admit you were wrong??? Do you need to re-read this post, slowly?