Structural Adhesive used in New F150

jasonlisan wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Fordlover wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
...fact is the F-150 is going to cost you more all around, upfront, fuel and insurance...

Don

Don, you are confusing your opinion with real facts, which aren't the same thing. More than what? not buying one and just walking?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.autonews.com/article/20150730/RETAIL05/150729842/ford-f-150-aluminum-repairs-cost-more-than-steel-iihs-says&ved=0CC0QFjAAahUKEwimsaXMv-fHAhVH0oAKHYirAmY&usg=AFQjCNEQzt0N2Xt6mxS4Hkjqq6li4dROXg&sig2=Hk9M8cf0SrEa47YSanGZzw

Tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that repairing body damage on the aluminum-bodied 2015 Ford F-150 took longer and cost 26 percent more than on the 2014 F-150 made of steel.

Last I knew 30 MPG (ED EPA rating) will cost you less in fuel then 23 mpg (the EB EPA rating).

If the total cost only went up by 400 over the steel body it's because Ford is eating the cost difference. That won't last for long.

Don

Insurance on my F-150 is cheaper than my F-350! Not apples to apples, not sure if there is a price difference from an 2014 F-150 to a 2015 F-150.

The problem with the above is it does represent the actual costs to the consumer.

1. Insurance cost increases to the consumer have just not materialized. Add to the fact as more dealers and shops become more efficient at these repairs the cost variance will tighten.

2. Fuel cost differentials between diesel and gasoline still favor gasoline in many parts of the country. So any blanket statement about net fuel costs are just not accurate. In fact the actual net cost difference is a push in many areas.

3. Base price increase was nominal and consistent with industry increases. So now we "know" Fords all in costs and they are just eating it. Or maybe they are run efficiently and can produce at lower costs. Just because you do not like the fact you cannot just discard it because it does not fit your analysis.

Don, you have been a very big proponent of Rams philosophy of different trucks for different roles. For example the low payload in the ED but that is fine because if you want to tow heavier you step up to the 2500 or 3500. But you keep trying to pigeonhole the eb as a direct comparison to the ED based solely on MPG claims. Maybe Fords philosophy is an all around truck that can tow or haul more weight but still get decent mpg.