Forum Discussion
85 Replies
ScottG wrote:
Terryallan wrote:
ScottG wrote:
What one generation wants is meaningless to the next generation. People used to always want a big block gas engine in tow vehicles. Now very few do.
Maybe people want more towing ability without having to buy a $60,000 truck or live with its harsher ride. It is definitely a price point.
I still want a big motor in my TV. Problem is. No body makes one. About the largest thing you can get is a little 6.2. 379CI. Not a big motor by any standards. I'd love to have a 460CI (7.5L) motor in my F150. If I had my choice.
Ah but check out the numbers of those little 6.2's. They blow the old big blocks (454, 460) out of the water with torque, HP and fuel efficiency.
You'd be taking a step backwards.
But compare their numbers at typical towing RPMs and the big block will always come out on top. These modern small blocks require 4K+ RPM to make good figures.- Where the heck is ITGAL anyway :H After all he stated it was only a ad campaign from Dodge, err Ram or what ever name he wants to call them.
mich800 wrote:
It's interesting you thought I placed $0 benefit. In my post I simply asked (indirectly) whether there was more "value" (or benefit) in the $30,000 truck or the $45,000 truck. That's the whole point: value/benefit is in the eyes of the beholder.
The problem with your analysis is you ascribe $0 benefit only cost to the buyer beyond what you determined required or the same. The two trucks in the example are not the same other that what you listed. Why is one option "emotional" while the other is some profound critical thinking. That is just not how consumers operate.
Probably the easiest way for me to clarify is to compare the field of psychology to engineering. Both use critical thinking. However, one field is mostly grey, and the other mostly black & white.
No engineering formula can determine the overall fate of a truck on the open market. There is much more to the average consumer's decision-making process then a simple, black and white, cost/benefit analysis.
I attempted to explain I believe there is "grey side" of the issue that is very hard to quantify. For most, there's a significant emotional aspect to the critical thinking process. How do you quantify, place a value, or apply cost/benefit on perception or emotion?
IMO, it would be a marketing company's ultimate dream to have the accuracy and control of their product that an engineer has.otrfun wrote:
Those caught up in the cost/benefit debate loop ignore the realworld of emotional response. I ask you this. There are two, new 1/2 ton pickups on a lot, same make, color, and year. They both have the same drivetrain configuration, MPG, payload, and tow specs. One truck costs $30,000, the other, $45,000 (which has all the fancy trim, interior, and wheels). Which one would you buy? The price difference of $15,000 will buy the average 1/2 ton owner 4 years worth of gas!! The $45,000 truck will haul, pull the same, and have to stop at the same gas stations as the $30,000 truck. Why would anyone buy the $45,000 truck? For those caught up in the intellectual minutia of cost/benefit, how do you quantify this emotional part?
IMO, the AVERAGE person who will buy this truck won't put as much weight on the price of diesel and all the other hoopla mentioned that goes with owning a diesel. All these numbers being thrown around, again ignore one key element, the emotional pull of a product. Assuming the worst case scenario and the Ecodiesel breaks even in terms of cost/benefit, then it still has a big chance of success. Why? Two reasons. One, the "perceived" longevity and economy of a diesel engine to the AVERAGE buyer, and two, the experience of driving a turbo-charged, 24 valve, DOHC, 3.0 liter engine, that has more torque (at HALF the RPM) than a 5.7 Hemi. This same experience is a huge part of the Ecoboost's success. How do you quantify a visceral experience like that with numbers?
Nothing is a given for the Ecodiesel. Success or failure. However, to continually leave out the emotional perspective of a vehicle purchase misses a huge part of the picture. There's a reason many leave it out. All you have to do is watch one episode of Dr. Phil to know why--lol!!
The problem with your analysis is you ascribe $0 benefit only cost to the buyer beyond what you determined required or the same. The two trucks in the example are not the same other that what you listed. Why is one option "emotional" while the other is some profound critical thinking. That is just not how consumers operate.Me Again wrote:
Terryallan wrote:
ScottG wrote:
What one generation wants is meaningless to the next generation. People used to always want a big block gas engine in tow vehicles. Now very few do.
Maybe people want more towing ability without having to buy a $60,000 truck or live with its harsher ride. It is definitely a price point.
I still want a big motor in my TV. Problem is. No body makes one. About the largest thing you can get is a little 6.2. 379CI. Not a big motor by any standards. I'd love to have a 460CI (7.5L) motor in my F150. If I had my choice.
That would put the front axle over weight! Chris
So you are saying the front axles on a 79 Lincoln Continental, or a 1973 F100, were stronger, and could carry more weight than the axle on a 2014 F150? OR would you not think they would put the necessary axle in it.- Big cylinders are impossible to reconcile with current and future EPA limits,thats why Ford went V10 ,even that has no life beyond 2018 (so far).
ScottG wrote:
Terryallan wrote:
ScottG wrote:
What one generation wants is meaningless to the next generation. People used to always want a big block gas engine in tow vehicles. Now very few do.
Maybe people want more towing ability without having to buy a $60,000 truck or live with its harsher ride. It is definitely a price point.
I still want a big motor in my TV. Problem is. No body makes one. About the largest thing you can get is a little 6.2. 379CI. Not a big motor by any standards. I'd love to have a 460CI (7.5L) motor in my F150. If I had my choice.
Ah but check out the numbers of those little 6.2's. They blow the old big blocks (454, 460) out of the water with torque, HP and fuel efficiency.
You'd be taking a step backwards.
With todays advances in engines. Just think what a 460 could do.Me Again wrote:
They tried that, it's called an 8.1 liter GM and it didn't hold up in the market. People that wanted that kind of power bought diesels.
Scott, what if they built a true RAT motor to the same tunes that they are doing with these mouse motors? Chris- Scott, what if they built a true RAT motor to the same tunes that they are doing with these mouse motors? Chris
Terryallan wrote:
ScottG wrote:
What one generation wants is meaningless to the next generation. People used to always want a big block gas engine in tow vehicles. Now very few do.
Maybe people want more towing ability without having to buy a $60,000 truck or live with its harsher ride. It is definitely a price point.
I still want a big motor in my TV. Problem is. No body makes one. About the largest thing you can get is a little 6.2. 379CI. Not a big motor by any standards. I'd love to have a 460CI (7.5L) motor in my F150. If I had my choice.
Ah but check out the numbers of those little 6.2's. They blow the old big blocks (454, 460) out of the water with torque, HP and fuel efficiency.
You'd be taking a step backwards.
