RichardJensen Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 BTW: Here's a most wonderfully unrealistic caveat from the gov't's fuel economy website: Range on a tank and refueling costs assume 100% of fuel in tank will be used before refueling. Good luck with that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 BTW: Here's a most wonderfully unrealistic caveat from the gov't's fuel economy website: Good luck with that! I've coasted into a gas station before, but it's not an experience I care to repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 My Maverick had a busted gas gauge. I quickly figured out it's range after being stuck at 3am on a Michigan expressway! lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) If advertising expenditure was the only reason the award is given, then why does Ford agree to participate? Why wouldn't Ford refuse to give them vehicles for evaluation, and completely exclude them from corporate media events? Edited December 3, 2014 by ironhorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 If advertising expenditure was the only reason the award is given, then why does Ford agree to participate? Why wouldn't Ford refuse to give them vehicles for evaluation, and completely exclude them from corporate media events? Because they don't want negative press. Apparently, they no longer see the value of purchasing this sort of positive press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 So going into a "fixed" competition, and losing to inferior vehicles based on shakedowns from Motor Trend ad staff is worse than just refusing to participate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 valid point, but a no show would have led to even worse scrutiny and perception...ie...were they afraid?..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 valid point, but a no show would have led to even worse scrutiny and perception...ie...were they afraid?..... So going into a "fixed" competition, and losing to inferior vehicles based on shakedowns from Motor Trend ad staff is worse than just refusing to participate? Yes. No point in giving MT gas to pour on the fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 If Motor Trend COY or TOY is meaningless, inconsequential and has no bearing on sales, it shouldn't matter if Ford participates or not...you can't have it both ways. It would blow the whole thing up if Ford told Motor Trend to go pound sand...that would be great...only a big player like Ford, GM or Toyota could pull it off ,imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 If Motor Trend COY or TOY is meaningless, inconsequential and has no bearing on sales, it shouldn't matter if Ford participates or not...you can't have it both ways. It would blow the whole thing up if Ford told Motor Trend to go pound sand...that would be great...only a big player like Ford, GM or Toyota could pull it off ,imo. 1 - It doesn't cost Ford anything to participate, it costs them something to win. 2 - Why would Ford refuse to participate? On principle? It would be a big hassle to refuse to participate, they'd have to answer questions from the press, etc. 3 - Why would Ford want to blow up the awards? There's no business benefit for Ford in blowing up MT's revenue generator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Why would anyone participate in a "shakedown"? It doesn't make sense. I always heard that the MT award was bought, but perhaps if makers continue to participate...it might not be as bogus as described here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 what about JD Powers and the like....its part of the "game"..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Why would anyone participate in a "shakedown"? It doesn't make sense. I always heard that the MT award was bought, but perhaps if makers continue to participate...it might not be as bogus as described here. It's not a shakedown. Motor Trend isn't demanding ad buys from *every* participant and then giving the award to the company that spends the most. All a manufacturer has to do to participate is make a vehicle available through the press fleet. It is quite literally more difficult for them NOT to participate than for them to participate. However, Motor Trend will also request a marketing plan from Ford's ad agency, with estimates of royalty revenue from other media and, I believe, a very strong commitment to ad buys in Motor Trend. According to Pete D., this award is negotiated. They don't simply take the best marketing plan that they get; they give other manufacturers an opportunity to resubmit--within limits of course. And the winner of that process is the winner of the TOTY award. Don't kid yourself. The award is totally rigged. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 what about JD Powers and the like....its part of the "game"..... JDP is a bit more reliable--even though they let manufacturers advertise the results of their surveys. Manufacturers will actually pay for the highly detailed reports of JDP surveys. Nobody's paying MT anything for the raw data behind their "_OTY" awards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Who really reads general issue car magazines anymore? Maybe older people at doctor office waiting rooms. Younger target buyers do not, they are on smart phones. MT has been watered down since the late 70's, mostly written like ad copy. Boooooring. Only some 'tire kicking' shoppers will be impressed by MT awards at Auto Shows, but true word of mouth sells. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 What makes it a "very big gamble"? Well they are going back into a market segment that has been vacated by others on a mass produced vehicle. A plant was converted and maybe I am wrong this is a new platform yes? It is not a cheap gamble and may not payoff. Sorry don't know how to multi-quote on this damn site! To Richard's point I agree that the conversion to aluminum and plant upgrades is very expensive but they sell 60-70K F150's a month-the same cannot be said with the GM mid size trucks. Maybe Ford's game is bigger because they are risking more? 10 years ago I would not of felt as confident if Jacques Nasser and his crew were taking this challenge on! Personally I like their mid size truck way better than their full size product and think it will be moderately successful. And I know the argument about cost and completely agree with realty that comes along with leveraging 500K+ units opposed to 150K. But people still buy them because not everyone needs or wants a full size truck. I would like Ford to come back into this segment as well-think their is talk of it? At the end of the day their is no getting around the new EPA requirements. Like I said before, I could care less about this award and to me what is important is that this is the best full size truck in the industry today-and I am not just talking sales numbers because truly that is not indicative of the best vehicle (and if you think so then what is your explanation on the Camry). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Oh. By gamble you implied there was some chance of them winning the bet. This is just a stupid business decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) I wonder if the editors of Motor Trend have been known to stop and ask the captain when entering the cabin of 747 – “…are you sure this aluminum is strong and reliable enough to lift the 900,000 lbs. of aircraft on takeoff, and not fold up on itself during landing?” All of sudden a bunch of automotive journalists have a PhD in Metallurgy to rationalize their personal taste in trucks. Edited December 3, 2014 by Kev-Mo 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 That depends on whether the 747 was up for Airplane Of The Year and whether Boeing opened up their wallets to MT. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) I don't get it. :do what: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-03/ford-s-new-f-150-loses-truck-of-year-award-to-chevy.html If MT were that desperate to give a Ford second place to remove suspicion or make up for it, why didn't they just go ahead and give it to the F-150? Edited December 4, 2014 by zipnzap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I think they're just pissed at Ford in general and took another shot at F150 by making it 3rd behind Transit. When this is how you describe your TOTY winner, you're really stretching... “The Colorado is a very honest, right-sized pickup,” he said. “It’s also very handsome, which means a lot in that market.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Handsome? Pfft on what planet? It's not bad looking, but far from handsome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Handsome? Pfft on what planet? It's not bad looking, but far from handsome You don't like grey plastic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) According to Pete D., this award is negotiated. They don't simply take the best marketing plan that they get; they give other manufacturers an opportunity to resubmit--within limits of course. And the winner of that process is the winner of the TOTY award. Don't kid yourself. The award is totally rigged. This is nothing new. Read Jim Wangers excellent book, Glory Days - When Horsepower and Passion Ruled Detroit. In 1968 the Pontiac GTO was up for the award, but the Motor Trend testers really loved the new Dodge Charger (and it should have won). But Pontiac "negotiated" to win the award. Next year, the Pontiac Grand Prix was all-new, and a significant car, as it started the "intermediate" personal luxury class. But it was felt that giving Pontiac the award twice in a row would look bad, so it was given to the Plymouth Road Runner, even though it was not new that year (it had debuted for 1968). Edited December 4, 2014 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 More reason for Ford to expose it and refuse to participate...if you condone it,you agree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.