Ford Bet on Aluminum Trucks, but Is Still Looking for Payoff

[marksboss]

We really need to let the aluminum "bet" play out. Ford is not alone using all aluminum bodies or even frame structures. Look at Audi, Acura (NSX), BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, and even Cadillac-they all use it to great success. The more widespread aluminum is eventually used the cost of production will eventually come down as new and innovative production processes come to light. Think economies of scale. In the long run this is a winner with aluminum being the most abundant metal in the earths crust.

 

The payoffs will not be immediate but Ford needs to stay the course and keep expanding aluminum use as it can and where it makes sense. After all, it's going to take 5-7 years for all these GM, Dodge, and Toyota's to succumb to the inevitable death by rust! Keep referring to your GM & Dodge driving friends as "Rusty" and they'll eventually get the hint.

 

As for GM's hodge-podge use of various lightweight materials I have to laugh. That falls in line with the same kind of reactionary and haphazard engineering GM is famous for. I applaud Ford, they took a clean sheet approach and the result is a well thought out and well engineered product.

 

I live up here in the rust belt so the corrosion is a real world issue and it's a value proposition for myself and others like me. As long as Ford keeps building with aluminum I'll keep buying.

Edited March 3, 2018 by marksboss

[ANTAUS]

The benefit I saw myself, for why the F150 used aluminum panels, is because in their respective segments, Fords are usually the porkers. So I'm not throwing the "Oh its stronger than steel", or "Oh no issues with rust", I'm just like "Well, Ford makes the heaviest porkers in EACH segment, so this should HELP"...Honestly, look at the 4000+Lbs Fusion and MKZ, 4600+lbs MKX, Explorers Etc. If they can shed a few hundred pounds so be it, especially when Joe Blow and Bertha add another 600lbs once they climb into it.

[jpd80]

The benefit I saw myself, for why the F150 used aluminum panels, is because in their respective segments, Fords are usually the porkers. So I'm not throwing the "Oh its stronger than steel", or "Oh no issues with rust", I'm just like "Well, Ford makes the heaviest porkers in EACH segment, so this should HELP"...Honestly, look at the 4000+Lbs Fusion and MKZ, 4600+lbs MKX, Explorers Etc. If they can shed a few hundred pounds so be it, especially when Joe Blow and Bertha add another 600lbs once they climb into it.

In that respect, the weight is only important if it results in an unfavorable CAFE position

or the.actual fuel economy is seen as unacceptable by potential buyers.

 

That's the reason why Ford wanted to cut weight in the heaviest versions of F150, so it could

continue building those cash cows without fear of CAFE intrusion.

 

So where does that leave Ford in relation to the competition?

 

While the next gen GM trucks will have similar features, weight and 10-speed autos, I don't see them

having the same "wow" moment as the aluminum F150, nor the impact of 3.5 EB + 10AT on performance,

towing and fuel economy.....all of that has been already achieved by F150, so what's left for Silverado / Sierra

except to be seen as a me too or fast follower product....

[tbone]

 

That's the sensible approach. Aluminum is a good choice for certain parts of a pickup truck, such as hood, wheels, tailgate, etc. Ford went overboard with aluminum use in F-150. Especially for the bed. The article in the OP is correct. Compared to the costs of using aluminum so extensively, the benefits to Ford and to F-150 customers are not as much as Ford originally expected.

 

Good news is that Ford may have learned their lesson. New 2019 Ranger (my next truck!) uses aluminum appropriately and sparingly.

I would actually prefer you by a Colorado, since you are a constant fanboy for Chevy with many arbitrary statements based on conjecture.

 

Do you go on GMInsider and espouse how Ford is doing everything right and GM sucks?

 

I own one of these aluminum trucks and I do appreciate the aluminum intensive body because I know it wont rust like the steel bodied trucks here in the Midwest. In the end the customer decides if a product is successful, and so far, it looks like we know which company is doing it right.

[tbone]

 

 

Carbon Fiber isn't exactly the strongest material in the world when it comes to wear and tear. its light and its strong, but long term usage and exposure gives me pause. Just look at Fiberglass...if the resin isn't up to snuff, its a shit show and CF is done similarly.

Case in point, my very expensive Lightspeed glide plate on my motocross bike looked awesome when it was new, however after a summer of riding, it now shows wear and tear from rocks and other normal abuses at the track.

 

Im not dissing GMC on their box material, as I think CF is a cool material. Im just interested to see how it handles the abuse, with consideration of my personal experience.

[tbone]

 

GMC's CarbonPro bed seems promising. It uses a composite carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic (CFRTP) material GM developed in collaboration with Teijin. The composite structure should make it well suited to repeated loads and heavy duty use, as a pickup truck bed is likely to encounter. http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2011/Dec/1208_teijin.html

 

Main downside to CF composite is cost. Much more expensive than steel or aluminum. GM did the right thing to make it an optional feature on 2019 Sierra (not standard), and only on the top level Denali model. It will be interesting to see how much the CarbonPro bed option costs, and how popular it is.

 

GM pioneered a factory installed composite bed for full-size pickups (not carbon fiber but urethane-based structurally reinforced reaction-injection molded plastic) in 2001. This product was a $850 option on 2001 Silverado called Pro-Tec. It was a flop. I guess GM learned from the mistakes they made with ProTec when they designed CarbonPro. http://wardsauto.com/news-analysis/composite-box-rebirth

If this bed is truly CFRTP, this would be similar to what Husqvarna uses in the subframe of their motocross bikes. It is more plastic than anything and is not what you would consider traditional carbon fiber weave. That is more of a marketing gimmick than anything and will actually be disappointing.

[jpd80]

rperez817, on 03 Mar 2018 - 05:59 AM, said:

 

GMC's CarbonPro bed seems promising. It uses a composite carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic (CFRTP) material GM developed in collaboration with Teijin. The composite structure should make it well suited to repeated loads and heavy duty use, as a pickup truck bed is likely to encounter. http://media.gm.com/...208_teijin.html

 

Main downside to CF composite is cost. Much more expensive than steel or aluminum. GM did the right thing to make it an optional feature on 2019 Sierra (not standard), and only on the top level Denali model. It will be interesting to see how much the CarbonPro bed option costs, and how popular it is.

 

GM pioneered a factory installed composite bed for full-size pickups (not carbon fiber but urethane-based structurally reinforced reaction-injection molded plastic) in 2001. This product was a $850 option on 2001 Silverado called Pro-Tec. It was a flop. I guess GM learned from the mistakes they made with ProTec when they designed CarbonPro. http://wardsauto.com...ite-box-rebirth

 

Quick question, do you think that,

a composite carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic (CFRTP) is the same as

a urethane-based structurally reinforced reaction-injection molded plastic?

 

I think they are pretty much the same thing...

 

and advantage over a spray in bed liner on an aluminum body truck? well, that remains to be seen

as GM now has to convince its buyers of the merits over a regular steel bed that it has been supporting.

 

But still as we've seen with Ford marketing, some features can be well marketed so now it's all up to GM.

 

Aluminum body construction as some unseen advantages, some sub assembly can be carried out at the

stamping plant which takes pressure off the body shops, that actually speeds up the assembly process.

 

Also the glue and rivet process makes the body shops a much quieter and cleaner place to work but I

would defer to our resident electrical / maintenance expert for appraisal of rivet packs on robots versus

welding robots......plenty of real world experience after three years in service.

Edited March 3, 2018 by jpd80

[ice-capades]

It'll be interesting to see what the tariff impact is on Ford's aluminum use and the pressure on future vehicle prices. From what I've seen online, Canada is the largest supplier to the U.S. for both steel and aluminum.

[jpd80]

I'm hoping that common sense prevails here and that the US doesn't shoot itself in the foot with tariffs,

not getting political here, just hoping that cool heads see the big picture without creating collateral damage

in areas this is supposed to help...

[rperez817]

Quick question, do you think that,

a composite carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic (CFRTP) is the same as

a urethane-based structurally reinforced reaction-injection molded plastic?

 

I think they are pretty much the same thing...

 

and advantage over a spray in bed liner on an aluminum body truck? well, that remains to be seen

as GM now has to convince its buyers of the merits over a regular steel bed that it has been supporting.

 

But still as we've seen with Ford marketing, some features can be well marketed so now it's all up to GM.

 

Good question jpd80 sir. CFRTP used in GMC CarbonPro and SRIM plastic used in Pro-Tec are indeed similar. They're both composite materials with a matrix component and a reinforcement component. Both use fiber meshes for the reinforcement component. Main difference is that the carbon fiber reinforcement materials in CarbonPro allow better tensile strength for the composite compared to the reinforcement agents used in Pro-Tec. GM's collaboration with Teijin and almost 20 years of technological progress since Pro-Tec first came out have been advantageous here.

 

You are correct sir that GM's marketing approach for CarbonPro will determine its success. That includes helping dealers provide customers with accurate information about it. GM really messed up with marketing Pro-Tec 17 years ago. As mentioned earlier they learned their lesson. One thing GM is doing right is positioning CarbonPro as a high tech option on their luxury truck only (Sierra Denali) at launch.

Edited March 3, 2018 by rperez817

[fordtech1]

So if the tariffs actually materialize. The AL is 10% and steel is 25%. How close would the cost be with the addition 15% over AL? Would that make the difference minuscule?

[fuzzymoomoo]

I'm hoping that common sense prevails here and that the US doesn't shoot itself in the foot with tariffs,

not getting political here, just hoping that cool heads see the big picture without creating collateral damage

in areas this is supposed to help...

lol common sense

[fordmantpw]

CAFE and fuel economy were not the only drivers for Al and I would call them minor compared to the real driver: payload. The previous truck was dangerously low on payload on fully loaded models. By dropping 700 lbs, payload went up by the same, which is a huge deal for trucks. In the Super Duty, the Al allowed them to put more weight where it belongs: in the frame and mechanical components. Thats what makes a Ford truck a Ford truck, and what sets it apart from the rest. Yes, its heavy, but its Built Ford Tough. I personally think that is more than just a marketing slogan.

[blksn8k2]

CAFE and fuel economy were not the only drivers for Al and I would call them minor compared to the real driver: payload. The previous truck was dangerously low on payload on fully loaded models. By dropping 700 lbs, payload went up by the same, which is a huge deal for trucks. In the Super Duty, the Al allowed them to put more weight where it belongs: in the frame and mechanical components. Thats what makes a Ford truck a Ford truck, and what sets it apart from the rest. Yes, its heavy, but its Built Ford Tough. I personally think that is more than just a marketing slogan.

 

Exactly. Ford is the leader in light truck technology which includes powertrains and that is confirmed by consumer choice.

[SoonerLS]

It'll be interesting to see what the tariff impact is on Ford's aluminum use and the pressure on future vehicle prices. From what I've seen online, Canada is the largest supplier to the U.S. for both steel and aluminum.

I haven't seen any details of the tariffs, but I would be surprised if Canadian imports were included.

 

ETA: In light of Harley's post below, I stand corrected, at least on the Canadian steel part.

Edited March 3, 2018 by SoonerLS

[Harley Lover]

I'm hoping that common sense prevails here and that the US doesn't shoot itself in the foot with tariffs,

not getting political here, just hoping that cool heads see the big picture without creating collateral damage

in areas this is supposed to help...

 

It's doubtful you will find much deep analysis of the tariff issue, here's a summary:

 

 

 

Unhappy Canada Vows Retaliation For Steel Tariffs – NAFTA, Steel, Tariffs and An Introduction To Liu Zhongtian…

 

Why is President Trump doing the Steel and Aluminum tariffs ahead of the NAFTA withdrawal? Perhaps, the administration is using Steel and Aluminum to draw attention to the NAFTA fatal flaw.

 

Earlier today Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland stated:

Quote:

“Should restrictions be imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum products, Canada will take responsive measures to defend its trade interests and workers,” Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a statement, calling any trade restrictions“absolutely unacceptable.”

The key word in that statement from Freeland is “products”. Why? because Canada doesn’t make raw Steel. (Top 40 List) The Canadians, like the Mexicans, import their raw steel from China. Canada then fabricates products from the Chinese steel. This nuanced point is almost always lost on people who discuss trade. This point of origination is also the fatal flaw within NAFTA.

 

In essence Canada is a brokerage for Chinese manufactured material, and NAFTA is the access trade-door exploited by China for entry into the U.S. market. Canada doesn’t manufacture steel, they purchase steel and manufacture ‘products’. A considerable difference.

 

President Trump is using the steel example to highlight the NAFTA flaw and awaken people to the larger hidden issues within the heavily manipulated North American Free Trade Agreement.

 

There’s always that vocal group of GOPe Wall Street defenders, the professional political and purchased republicans, who attempt to hide the NAFTA flaw. So for those who are dismissive, and for the purpose of intellectual honesty, allow me to introduce the example of Chinese Billionaire Mr. Liu Zhongtian.

 

Mr. Liu Zhongtian is one of the Chinese billionaires who are extremely skilled at exploiting the NAFTA loophole, generating profit and hiding the reality of NAFTA from the American people. Mr. Liu is not alone, he is simply one of many – Mr. Liu is also the Deputy Secretary of China’s communist party.

 

Mr. Liu has imported over one million metric tonnes of aluminum ingots into Mexico, that’s over 6% of the world supply, and he stores them there in order to avoid tariffs from the United States.

 

Chinese billionaire Liu Zohgtian uses Mexico’s NAFTA backdoor access to avoid any U.S. tariff.

 

It was discovered two years ago after a California aluminum executive sent a pilot over San José Iturbide, a city in central Mexico, the Wall Street Journal reported in an investigative piece Friday.

 

Trade representative Jeff Henderson believes Chinese billionaire Liu Zhongtian, an aluminum magnate, routed merchandise through Mexico to avoid paying US tariffs.

 

Liu controls China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd, the world’s second largest aluminum producer in its category. His current fortune is estimated at $3.2 billion according to Forbes.

 

Aluminum manufacturers receive subsidies in China. This means Chinese companies could be able to sell aluminum at a lower price than American firms.

 

The United States protected domestic trade by enforcing tariffs, which have to be paid when aluminum is imported.

 

Bringing in merchandise through Mexico would enable a Chinese manufacturer such as Zhongwang to avoid paying those tariffs. In its current form NAFTA is an exploited doorway into the coveted U.S. market. Asian economic interests, large multinational corporations, invested in Mexico and Canada as a way to work around any direct trade deals with the U.S.

 

By shipping parts to Mexico and/or Canada; and by deploying satellite manufacturing and assembly facilities in Canada and/or Mexico; China, Asia and to a lesser extent EU corporations exploited a loophole. Through a process of building, assembling or manufacturing their products in Mexico/Canada those foreign corporations can skirt U.S. trade tariffs and direct U.S. trade agreements. The finished foreign products entered the U.S. under NAFTA rules.

 

Why deal with the U.S. when you can just deal with Mexico, and use NAFTA rules to ship your product directly into the U.S. market?

 

This exploitative approach, a backdoor to the U.S. market, was the primary reason for massive foreign investment in Canada and Mexico; it was also the primary reason why candidate Donald Trump, now President Donald Trump, wanted to shut down that loophole and renegotiate NAFTA.

 

This loophole was the primary reason for U.S. manufacturers to relocate operations to Mexico. Corporations within the U.S. Auto-Sector could enhance profits by building in Mexico or Canada using parts imported from Asia/China. The labor factor was not as big a part of the overall cost consideration as cheaper parts and imported raw materials.

 

If you understand the reason why U.S. companies benefited from those moves, you can begin to understand if the U.S. was going to remain inside NAFTA President Trump would have remained engaged in TPP.

 

As soon as President Trump withdrew from TPP the problem with the Canada and Mexico loophole grew. All corporations from TPP nations would now have an option to exploit the same NAFTA loophole.

 

Why ship directly to the U.S., or manufacturer inside the U.S., when you could just assemble in Mexico and Canada and use NAFTA to bring your products to the ultimate goal, the massive U.S. market?

 

From the POTUS Trump position, NAFTA always came down to two options:

 

Option #1 – renegotiate the NAFTA trade agreement to eliminate the loopholes. That would require Canada and Mexico to agree to very specific rules put into the agreement by the U.S. that would remove the ability of third-party nations to exploit the current trade loophole. Essentially the U.S. rules would be structured around removing any profit motive with regard to building in Canada or Mexico and shipping into the U.S.

 

Canada and Mexico would have to agree to those rules; the goal of the rules would be to stop third-party nations from exploiting NAFTA. The problem in this option is the exploitation of NAFTA currently benefits Canada and Mexico. It is against their interests to remove it. Knowing it was against their interests President Trump never thought it was likely Canada or Mexico would ever agree. But he was willing to explore and find out.

 

Option #2 – Exit NAFTA. And subsequently deal with Canada and Mexico individually with structured trade agreements about their imports. Canada and Mexico could do as they please, but each U.S. bi-lateral trade agreement would be written with language removing the aforementioned cost-benefit-analysis to third-party countries (same as in option #1.)

 

All nuanced trade-sector issues put aside, the larger issue is always how third-party nations will seek to gain access to the U.S. market through Canada and Mexico. [it is the NAFTA exploitation loophole which has severely damaged the U.S. manufacturing base.]

 

This is not direct ‘protectionism’, it is simply smart and fair trade.

 

Unfortunately, the U.S. CoC, funded by massive multinational corporations, is spending hundreds of millions on lobbying congress to keep the NAFTA loophole open.

 

The U.S. has to look upstream, deep into the trade agreements made by Mexico and Canada with third-parties, because it is possible for other nations to skirt direct trade with the U.S. and move their products through Canada and Mexico into the U.S.

 

I avoid politics like the plague in forums, but this topic is so nuanced, it seems reasonable to get the details in front of this community.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Harley Lover

[J-150]

The steel mills in Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie would disagree with importation argument.

[Harley Lover]

The steel mills in Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie would disagree with importation argument.

 

Those mills are inconsequential in the context of global output. See the top 40 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steel_producers

 

That list come from the World Steel Association.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Harley Lover

[jpd80]

Seven out of the top ten iron ore mines are in Australia, we export most of it to China, Japan and Korea

The reason the Aussie iron ore is so popular is because it's high grade and comes from low cost mines with world's best practices.

 

Now that there's talks of tariffs and retaliation, I think t's going to get harder for business to get low cost resources

like Steel and Aluminum. So sad when we actually had a glut of both a few years back, I remember that there were ships

loaded with aluminum around the globe sitting there as floating storage because there was no room to store their cargo

at regular destinations.

Edited March 3, 2018 by jpd80

[probowler]

 

Farley said as much. Said the hybrid would arrive in 2020.

 

 

That too would've technically resulted in a lower F-series marketshare. Ford truck sales would've gained, but not F-series.

 

I still think the ranger name was misused here. 3/4 F150 = F100 not Ranger.

 

Right truck, right name, and it would only have INCREASED "F-Series marketshare"

 

Not only that, but if Ford ever did want to offer a truly compact pickup truck again... they would still have the Ranger name available.

[jpd80]

Respectfully disagree

T6 Ranger may be the size of Explorer Sport Trac but globally, every small truck has grown in size,

competitors like Colorado, Hilux /Tacoma, Mitsubishi Triton, Nissan Navara have all grown in size.

 

There is no sound business case for a compact truck and if there was, a Transit Connect pick up would suffice.

Ford will not be revisiting a sub $20K pick up, those days are gone...

Edited March 4, 2018 by jpd80

[Footballfan]

New generation lightweight steel, I feel will eventually replace a lot of aluminum applications in autos. It is supposed to be as light or lighter that aluminum, but cost less and be stronger. Remember that in the 1980s and early 1990s, GM was working a lot with composites in many vehicles including Saturn, the Fiero, the dustbuster vans, and most of the F-cars and ended up abandoning those materials by the mid-1990s.

[twintornados]

New generation lightweight steel, I feel will eventually replace a lot of aluminum applications in autos. It is supposed to be as light or lighter that aluminum, but cost less and be stronger. Remember that in the 1980s and early 1990s, GM was working a lot with composites in many vehicles including Saturn, the Fiero, the dustbuster vans, and most of the F-cars and ended up abandoning those materials by the mid-1990s.

.

It wasn't because of the materials they were making them with.

[jpd80]

CAFE and fuel economy were not the only drivers for Al and I would call them minor compared to the real driver: payload. The previous truck was dangerously low on payload on fully loaded models. By dropping 700 lbs, payload went up by the same, which is a huge deal for trucks. In the Super Duty, the Al allowed them to put more weight where it belongs: in the frame and mechanical components. Thats what makes a Ford truck a Ford truck, and what sets it apart from the rest. Yes, its heavy, but its Built Ford Tough. I personally think that is more than just a marketing slogan.

The drop in weight in high series F150 4x4 crew cans was significantly less than the often quoted 700 lbs

and depending on newer options like moon roofs, the change could be as little as 300 lbs.

 

While I get what you say with increased payload, the reason was actually that Ford wanted to continue

building as many those lifestyle trucks as buyers wanted.without running foul of CAFE.

 

CAFE requires Ford to test the heaviest versions of its trucks and use that data for for all 4x4 crew cabs.

Payload is more important in work trucks like XL and XLT but trailer down force is also important for retail buyers who tow.

Edited March 4, 2018 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

On the subject of aluminum, I remember in the 60's early 70's in the bulk transport world, aluminum frames were the hot item for tandem tractors. Today, I don't think anyone offers such a thing. 120,000 lb steel frames and good design took the place of aluminum. Some of those aluminum frames were like 1/2" thick. Don't remember what they had for inserts but for sure remember those 1/2"thick flanges.

 

And the aluminum used by Ford today is i'm sure far more sophisticated than the aluminum used in heavy vehicles 40 years ago. I guess we should thank the military spec builders for that progress right?

 

But I'm sure we will soon be hearing Howie Long spouting about the superiority of GM's new lightweight composite Silverados. heaven forebid that they mention aluminum.