GM, Ford and Chrysler sell more pickups than do they anything else,
more than two million a year in good times.
..the sales data reported May 1 that pickup trucks have hit the skids
is seriously bad news... Without these reliable profit generators, the
business model for domestic auto producers in North American doesn't
work. Passenger cars, under ferocious foreign assault, are a breakeven
proposition at best and sales of formerly lucrative SUVs are falling
faster than Spider-Man without his web.
For General Motors...the drop is a cruel blow to its plans to turn
around North American operations - and may force it to scale back its
assumptions about the business going forward. Despite incentives of up
to $2,000 per unit, Silverado sales fell 7.2 percent in April.
Ford is fighting to protect the F-series with a new advertising
campaign touting its durability in crash tests. But the collapse in the
showroom digs an even deeper hole for the automaker. F-series sales are
down 13.7 percent so far in 2007. At up-for-sale Chrysler, meanwhile,
Dodge Ram sales are holding steady but only thanks to incentives that
climb as high as $5,000 per vehicle...
On May 2, 4:40 pm, Nomen Nescio <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
So -- when does this fall off in sales translate to salesmen actually
wanting to sell a truck?? Would seem to me that if your sales are in
the toilet, you'd do something to generate sales -- but I guess
Detroit hasn't figured that out yet.
I'm in the market for a plain jane truck. Went to three Ford dealers
yesterday -- same tired old shit -- every truck on the lot is loaded
up with junk that I don't want. If I want leather seats, hot and cold
running water, and power everything, I'll buy a luxury car. I want
an F-150, small V8, auto, AM/FM/CD, pwr steering and brakes, 8-foot
bed -- impossible. Of course, if I want a King Ranch diesel Crew Cab
with every possible option, goddam if there's not a dozen of them on
Then there's the sales people -- they won't listen to you -- just
keep trying to push you into something that's more and more expensive
all the while giving out the "got to talk to the sales manager"
Of course, Chevy, GMC, Dodge, Toyota, and Nissan are no different.
I don't know where you are, but last year when I was shopping for a
pick-up for my farm none of the Ford dealers had any trouble finding a
stripped work truck. I just looked at the inventory of the closest
Ford dealer and he has many in stock. If you really want a Ford, go to
www.fordvehicles.com and build an F-150 like you want and then search
the local inventory for a close match. I just input your request into
the website and one dealer had over 200 close matches. They had over
100 exact matches. Price before taxes and taxes, but after rebates was
less than $17K.
On 4 May 2007 03:15:33 -0700, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
I know were you are coming from. When I bought a new truck in 2000
even then I had a hard time finding a plain jane truck and it is even
harder today. I breifly was looking at some 2006 models from GM that
were 10K off sticker to replace mine but nothing out there had what I
wanted. Most of all I hate that "push and pray" 4x4 drive select
button that has mostly become the defacto standard (for 07 it is now
"twist and pray") I suspect I will keep mine for several more years
unless they start building real plain jane work P/U's again. I buy
them to do work, not to impress anyone or as a daily driver to replace
a car and when it is not making money or doing a task that it is
truely needed for it is parked and I am driving around in a 4 cyl
using less than 1/2 the fuel too.
No I am not, your are! I like MANUALLY controlled transfer cases not
servo controlled one or studiply designed 4x4 systems that have no
abilty to disconnect front axle differentail (like Dodge) to save a
few buck making them and cost consumer a few thousands bucks in extra
fuel costs over life of vehicle. If shifting a Tcase manually or maybe
even having to engage hubs (like I did for many years) is too much for
you then get a 2wd. Given todays fuel market there is no logic excuse
to not disconnect front differentail and drive shaft in 2wd. None! It
is strictly a profit thing and nothin more. Dodge could have had
lockout hubs easily added to the new AAM axle they started using in
2003 on HD pickups but it was cheaper to leave them off and use the
bastard hub/bearing design that they use instead and let consumer pay
for folly unknowingly. Make no mistake it is costing you MPG and more
than you think. I could always tell when my hubs or diff was not
disconnected in 2wd because it did not roll/coast as well but on a
Dodge it is "normal" to have it drag all the time so you do not know
any better other than wonder why your MPG sucks at times.
Every late model Dodge Ram 4X4 I've seen has a transfer case
shift lever. No servo.
Axle disconnects are unreliable and can leave you stranded.
They also leave the differential gears spinning inside the
differential case causing wear. Real lock out hubs might be a
good compromise, but they also can fail leaving you
I've never owned anything but manually shifted transfer cases.
Another one of your opinions.
Again, opinion. And as for "unknowingly," you think it's some
deep dark secret?
It's not costing me anything.
Funny, my friend just returned from a trip to Colorado in his 04
ram 2500 diesel, pulling a trailer with 4 passengers, he averaged
20 mpg not to mention 30 cents a gallon cheaper for diesel fuel
Same trip when he had a 2000 Ram 2500 gas 5.9, he'd get at best
11 mpg and be wheezing up the mountains... don't forget, the
2000 had front axle disconnect.
Post something factual, not your usual anti-Dodge/diesel snobbery
that is totally based on emotion instead of fact.
As for your "thousands extra in fuel costs," check what the
going rate is to repair late model Ford lock outs and get back to
But that doesn't mean that they don't exist. My buddies Ford has a switch
on the dash and IIRC, Tom L also has a switch for the 4WD on his DODGE.
I would say the opinion of many.
Then what is the real reason?
It doesn't have to be a deap dark secret for people not to be aware of it.
Is this the best that you can do? You are comparing apples to oranges here.
At least if the two trucks had the same engine you could actually be making
a point but here....
What does this particular post have to do with diesels?
What makes you think that they are going to fail? How much is a replacement
rear axle bearing for a late model Dodge 2500? How much will it cost to
repair / replace a transfer case and due to that cost, should we all be
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
Ask the Chevy guys who've had the wax motor fail in cold temps.
Or the Dodge/Chevy guys who've had the vacuum switch on the
Or the Chevy guys who've had a battery leak and the acid ate up
the disconnect pot.
I made two statements there, which one would you like clarified?
Never said otherwise.
I'm happy for both of them.
Could be, but they all haven't chimed in here...
If you wan the real reason, ask the engineer, not some washed up
has been lawn mower guy.
If a purchaser is unaware of a particular aspect of the truck
they're buying, it's their fault for not doing their homework.
As does Snoman, frequently, which also happens to be who I was
Friend got the same mpg on his trip as I did with my 97 4X4 CTD
pulling my car to Carlisle. Plenty of fault to find with that
Not a thing. What do you suppose I meant by "anti-Dodge/diesel?"
Because it's a known pattern failure.
There are no "axle bearings" in a late model Dodge 2500 rear axle
It costs what it costs.
Not "all" just the ones who can't pony up to the pump.
But transfer case wear wasn't one of Snoman's objections, good
thing you were here to think of it for him.
Well, they are a compromise and since I've serviced far more of
them than your 5 trucks, hardly a fantasy.
The AAM axles without lock outs or a disengagement mechanism are
also a compromise, buy I'm not about to discount them based
solely on Snojobs say so.
Anyone who is serious about fuel mileage doesn't buy a 3/4 ton
truck and expect to get it.
No trick. A Dodge 2500 doesn't have axle bearings, it has wheel
Me thinks you don't know as much about this stuff as you think
And this gets then stuck....how??? It might stop the front axle from
engaging but that is not going to get them stuck, unless of course the rear
axle isn't working either.
But that is what you have implied.
Why would they?
Ah, I see. It is not whether he is correct or not that matters, just your
dislike of the guy. The point is that it is not the engineers designing
this crap, it is the accountants determining how to make a few extra pennies
of extra profit by cutting back on the engineers designs that makes these
Oh, back to the right wing buyer beware huh? The problem with that way of
thinking is that it allows for a "fuckem if you can" mentality which then
results in your hated "big government".
So I guess that you are the same as you accuse him of being then.
Not enough information here.
While he may be anti-diesel, I just don't see the anti-dodge part of it.
Really??? What is the frequency of failure.
Ok, the rear hub assembly but I think that you knew that. The point is that
parts fail sometimes and sometimes they are expensive and Ford does not have
an exclusive on that one.
Then the same goes for the Fords front locking hubs and I'm unaware of a
high failure rate here.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
You're right, no one buys a 4X4 because it might afford them
better traction. A functioning front drive axle has nothing to
do with stuck or unstuck.
Since the axle disconnects in discussion here only disengage the
outer right axle stub from the inner right axle shaft, the left
axle stays engaged with the differential pinion gears, that means
that when the vehicle is moving and 4X4 is not engaged, the
differential pinion gears are still spinning inside the
Lock out hubs, I wish I could give you a count of the number of
lock out hubs I've replaced during my years in GM and Ford
dealerships, but I just never kept a record. I can tell you that
in the nine years that I owned my F-150, I replaced the lock out
hubs three times because they would corrode from the winter road
salt so badly that they'd either leak or you couldn't
engage/disengage them anymore. Wasn't unusual to spend an hour
drilling out the allen bolts that held them together to perform a
brake job/bearing pack only to find that they'd still not come
apart due to rot and had to be removed destructively.
Then there's the auto hubs that were used on the Bronco II
/Ranger/Explorer chassis that would fail and when they did, the
customer would be in fear of driving the vehicle in for service
and have it towed.
The auto locking hubs used on the GM K-5 and K-10 chassis were
just plain useless.
Anyone who actually depends on their 4 wheel drive working when
it's needed instead of buying it as a penis extension can
certainly appreciate the simplicity and reliability of not having
an added failure point as part of their front drive axle.
The only 'implications' in this thread are Snojerk's assertions
that he has some sort of inside information as to why Dodge chose
to do something the way they did or the reasons a consumer might
choose one version over another.
Ask them. I wouldn't pretend to answer for the millions of other
4X4 owners out there.
I don't dislike the guy (or Snoman for that matter), never met
either of them. But Snoman does give a disproportionate share of
flat out wrong information, and in this case, there is no chance
that he's anywhere near the position of knowing the real reasons
of why a particular design choice was made.
Should I reply with; back to the left wing buyers' poor choices
are the fault of everyone else except themselves?
Sorry, I fail to see the connection between "big government" and
why Dodge Ram trucks don't have front axle disconnects or lock
out hubs and frankly, if were a matter of "big government" to
begin with, then they would have them in the interest of
emissions and energy conservation.
(and just between you and me; that is starting to look a bit like
a lunatic rant)
Not necessarily. Apples to Oranges isn't the same as talking out
of ones ass.
What more information would you like?
Maybe you're not as familiar with his posts as I am.
Impossible to know the total, but that doesn't discount the fact
that it's well known about in the repair industry.
There is no "rear hub assembly" either.
But if that part is eliminated, then the real possibility exists
that the deletion of that part wasn't strictly based on shaving
pennies off the cost of an axle assembly.
Just because you're unaware doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Are you serious? 4x4 front drive axel/hub assembly failures are nearly
NONEXISTENT. Do you have any data indicating they fail any more often than
rear axle assemblies??? What the heck are you talking about???
You vast experience with ONE F-150?
Since when did trucklet parts (Bronco II/Ranger/Explorer GM K-5 and K-10)
enter in to this discussion.
How many 3/4 & 1-ton (real trucks) lock out hubs have you seen fail? You
know damn well not too many.
You have a Penis fixation too? The more you rave about a nonexistent
problem the sillier you look.
Well your position is questionable at best when you lump it together with
your asinine assertion that lock out hub don't function exactly as designed,
with nearly zero failures for well over 100,000 miles in 99% of all new 4x4
and in this case, there is no chance
Actually bean counters have been directing engineering choices in Detroit
for way too long, he is not far off...
No but you are the one making the silly assertion. Provide you proof. You
have been called show your hand!
If this high failure rate is anything other than a figment of your
imagination, you should be able to easily provide all sorts of links to
information about these extensive failures. Otherwise, you are simply
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.