Ford F-150 ad knocks Toyota Tundra...but not by name

Wall St Journal - May 1, 2007
..Sales of Ford cars and light trucks...fell by 8% last year and are down by 15% for the first three months of this year. Ford brand sales
in 2006 were one million vehicles behind the brand's sales in 2000.
..Chicago-area resident Scott Young, who had been a loyal Ford customer for more than 30 years, says he has been turned off by bad experiences at dealers and quality problems he has had with Ford vehicles. He says he will likely buy a Honda the next time he shops for a vehicle. "I don't know what they could do to get me to change my mind," Mr. Young said.
Barry Engle, Ford's North American marketing chief, says, "I want it to be cool to buy a Ford again."
Engle's latest hook is a new ad campaign that kicks off today for Ford's the F-150 pickup truck http://doiop.com/Ford_F150 - its best- selling model and one of its most profitable. One of the new commercials talks about safety and the F-150's five-star crash-test rating, which takes a jab at the four-star rating of the Toyota Tundra http://doiop.com/Toyota_Tundra - The ad doesn't specifically name Toyota, but a Ford engineer in the ad says "some of the others didn't do as well."
..Toyota Motor Corp. spokesman Bill Kwong said the company is still studying the four-star rating because internal tests showed that the Tundra deserved five stars.
Sales for the F-series this year are down 14% through March, but [lead] the new Chevrolet Silverado http://doiop.com/Silverado by about 20,000 vehicle sales, Autodata Corp. says. The F-Series has a significant lead over the Tundra, which Toyota redesigned to be more competitive against the pickups of the Big Three. But Toyota is pushing to more than double sales in the segment.
The new F-150 ad illustrates the more aggressive "Us versus Brand X" style that Mr. Engle is pushing at Ford... =========Ford F-150: http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/index.asp Toyota Tundra: http://www.toyota.com/tundra/index.html Chevrolet Silverado: http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 1 May 2007 20:29:59 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell

Ford is not alone here. I recently read that Dodge is still so obsessed with trying to sell gas sucking Hemi SUV's that they are goint to try to push a varible displacement version of it in 2008 promissing the sun, moon and stars with MPG and performance when it reality it creates a vehcle that will not live up to it AND will have a lot more to go wrong with it too. And the even funnier part is that ALL Dodge 4x4 SUV have no way of disconnecting the front wheel from front differentail and driveshaft in 2wd which can bring a 10% or greater drop in MPG especailly in colder weather when fluid/lube is thicker. They are going to spend big $$$ on electronics and controls for this varible displacement thing while adding more to go wrong and still keep front diff spinning in 2wd which they could "fix for likley 100 bucks each or less per vehicle and at todays and tomorrows fuel prices save their owners potentail save them a few thousand bucks on fuel over a 100K plus service life. All other Detriot brands not made by Chysler disconnect the front differentail in one manor or another to minimize the MPG impact in 2wd mode. If Ford (and Detriot) would just get their head out of their arse and start building trucks that people really want with the features and quality they want instead of what Detriot wants to sell them they could get some share back. Toyota did not steal the market, Detriot gave it too them because they have long operated under the theory that you buy theirs because it is american (which is not always true today) or just because of brand name and not for reasons mentioned above. Until Detriot figures this out, the downward spiral will continue along with the desperate tactics to try to convince you to buy theirs. A good product sells it self without hype or rebates. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's in the trucks now, I think. It came out in 2007.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

2008 is going to add a hybrid function too with a starter built into bellhousing in the form of a 20HP electric motor. (just imagine what that will cost to replace) ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

My local Dodge dealers are pushing "Free Hemi" deals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because they will pass anything but a gas station
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Noon-Air wrote:

I have a pal with a pair of restored 'Cudas that says that all the time!
;^)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is true about the gas station part but they are also not the best engine fore a SUV (part of the reason MPG is bad) because in the real world a engine with a 345 HP rating at 5400 RPM and 375 ft lbs of torque @ 4200 RPM looks good on paper but lacks in the real world application because it operates most of the time a a lower RPM and well below its HP and torque peak so MPG suffers as does power output too and when you put you foot in it to get it into ts 4000 RPM + sweet spot to try to feel more HP from it you are dumping fuel fast. It might be a good engine for a sports car but it is a poor choice for a heavy truck that needs a torque peak at a lower RPM for better efficency and overall responce. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you guys get a chance, find you an April copy of Car and Driver. They compared the 5 big trucks in 4-door 4 wheel drive form. The Chevy and the Toyota achieved 12 mpg. The Dodge, Ford, and Nissan all racked up 13 mpg.
I expected the Toyota to be terrible because it has the most horspower. The Chevy, which is EPA Rated for 15 or 16, was a bit of a disappointment.
So while the Hemi didn't match its EPA rating of 14 city, it's still as good as anything else.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not surprised, I guess there was a reason my Tundra was ordered with reg cab, 2wd, 4L V-6, and 6 spd manual trans. I like my 18 mpg on regular gas when the truck is loaded, and 21 mpg when its empty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Do you ever have to pull anything with that 4L V6?
It always disappoints me that they advertise how well their trucks pull a heavy load, but only use their biggest engines to do it. The only time they'll talk about their smaller engines is when they want to brag about fuel economy.
"Noon-Air" wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually I do, frequently. I use if for hauling new HVAC equipment to install, taking the old stuff back to the shop, runs to the dump and scrap yard, pallets of refrigerant, etc. I have never had a problem with not enough power...I run fully loaded most all the time, and even even with 3000lbs of refrigerant on the trailer, no problem. The only side effect of towing a heavy load, is that the fuel economy drops to 15mpg.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jp2express wrote:

Yesterday, I pulled 44 boxes (880 sq/ft) of prefinished oak flooring, several rolls of underlayment, and some other sundries, in a Haulmark cargo trailer, with my 4.0L Tacoma.
Total trailer weight ~ 4200-4400 lbs.
What would you like to know?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Noon-Air and BARRY,
That *is* what I wanted to know!
I have a welding rig set up on an '86 Toyota 1-ton Flatbed. It works, but that 22R certainly won't do any flips for me with all that load! I tip the scale at the scrap yard at 4700 lbs with nothing but my rig.
It's all good, but I wouldn't want to pull a trailer. I fear the truck is about at it's limits as it is.
How about this Tundra setup: 2WD, V6, manual transmission, and suspension upgrade. How would this do with about 2,000 lbs in the bed and an occasional trailer?
"B A R R Y" replied:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I routinely run with the camper shell, all the tools, parts and equipment on board......normally around 1100 lbs in my '05 Tundra. Its rated for a gross payload of 2000lbs, and net payload of 1500lbs(3/4 ton). Its used as an HVAC service truck. Its almost 2 years old and has 60,000 miles on it, and has far exceded all of my expectations. What you describe, is what I am running right now(minus the suspension upgrade)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You just have to take your time. The current crop of product testers (at the car mags) has spent 20 years brainwashing people to think 250 hp is not enough for a family sedan, and 350 is not enough for a pickup. It's just stupid. Don't listen to 'em.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

very true.... think about the big trucks... Peterbuilts are running 530 hp, pulling tractor/trailer rigs with an 80,000lb payload, while in my Tundra, I have *only* 245 hp to pull my tundra with a 2,000lb gross payload, and a trailer carrying up to a 5,000lb payload.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

while I agree the public has been brain washed, your comparing apples to oranges. That big rig has over 1450 pound foot of torque. When I started driving we thought 250 HP was a huge engine, then the 300 hps came out, followed by Cummin's Big Cam 350, and we were pulling 80,000 gross back then as well, more if you were pulling over size over weight. When I was in the service we were pulling M88 tank recovery vehicles behind a diesel V-8 Mack powered M123 series. a whopping 200hp to pull a track vehicle that weighed 70 tons. When the A3 mod came out it got a 300 hp V-8 Cummins. One unit I was in actually had a reo gas powered one, a whopping 160hp. The common engine size in todays trucks is the 410-450 hp Detroit series 60, or same hp Cummins ISM. The big engines areseldomg found in company trucks, the owner ops with money to burn by the big engines. They are faster, but the fuel economy drops like a rock. The cummins and detroits at "tuned" to 435 hp get on average 6.8 mpg. Those 500 hp plus 1650 pound foot of torque engines drop to 6.4 mpg and then only if driven with a light foot. Doesnt sound like much of a difference till you start consider 150,000 miles a year, then it adds up fast.
Whitelightning
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 04 May 2007 03:28:57 GMT, "Whitelightning"

When I started driving a family sedan could have 300 plus HP easily and there was no exhaust emissions and they ran.You could order a Pontiac family sedan with a 421 trpower which was arguably the most powerfully engine ever put in a stock street car. My cousin had one in a Catalinia with a 4 speed and 4.10 gears and that car was down right scarey at times and did not really hook up until 3 gear because the tires could not handle the torque applied to them in first and second. (people that did not drive then really do not know about some of the brutes that detriot made back then. Back then a 220 HP diesel OTR rig was considered kinda top end and there was still a lot of gas OTR rigs around too. Diesel OTR rigs overtook gas ones in HP in later 70's. When you play the torque number, all is not as it seems because 1400 ft lbs of torque at 1400 RPM does same work or makes same HP as 700 ft lbs at 2800 RPM or 350 ft lbs at 5600 RPM. It is all in how you gear it to the load. There was a time that a gas powered triaxle dump truck with a 427 was the truck to have for several years. I drove one for a while in college and they did a fine job. Without doubt a diesel in such a truck could get better MPG but they could not compete HP wise at that time. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the gasoline era, it would have been perfectly normal for a semi to have 100 hp. They managed to get where they needed to go. GMC made semi's with 4-71's in them. I'm not sure how much power that is, but it's not much.
I have a measly Ford 302 automatic with 185 hp. The truck weighs 5000, the payload is about 1600 or so. The allowed trailer weight is a lot, like 7000. I only tow about 5000 with mine. It's extremely safe, because the truck is long and heavy, but it takes me a long time to get up to full crashing speed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.