AD #1670 – F-150 SuperCrew vs. SuperCab, First Look: Scion iA & iM, PSA Outperforms Renault

July 31st, 2015 at 11:52am

Runtime: 9:20

- F-150 Extended Cab Struggles in Small Overlap Test
- First Look: Scion iA & iM
- FCA Earnings Show Why it Needs a Partner
- PSA Outperforms Renault
- Apple CarPlay Demo

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Hyundai, Bridgestone and Dow Automotive Systems.

»Subscribe to Podcast | iTunes | RSS | Listen on Phone Stitcher | YouTube

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com

50 Comments to “AD #1670 – F-150 SuperCrew vs. SuperCab, First Look: Scion iA & iM, PSA Outperforms Renault”

  1. Bradley Says:

    Wow!

    It goes to show that Big Business will always do the minimum.

    That is very disappointing that FORD doesn’t have consistent design among its cab styles for the F-150. One would think it would be cheaper to have one design, as opposed to multiple designs.

    “Let’s only make the crew cab safe enough to pass the test…they’ll only test the crew cab…” *wink* *wink*

  2. G.A.Branigan Says:

    The Honda’s iphone interface is nice,but how does it do with an android phone?

  3. Chuck Grenci Says:

    Apple CarPlay appears simple, but still, what was lacking in that report; oh yeah, driving. No matter how simple these ‘enhancements’ are, they continue to be distractions. And in my opinion, to a higher degree than the old stand-by systems to control radio and a/c.

  4. Jon M Says:

    I can see GM capitalizing on IIHS’s review of the Ford–despite it’s other ratings for Ford trucks. They are almost certain to add to or increase air time for their anti-aluminum truck advertisement. You know, the one that GM will run until they start selling aluminum constructed Silverados/Sierras!

  5. Lisk Says:

    I hope GM is smart enough to wait or schedule a test of their other body styles before they claim a safer truck.

  6. Lex Says:

    Can Apple Car Play be download into an iPad Mini for use in older vehicles without a touch screen?

  7. HtG Says:

    6 You have to buy a special cable.

  8. HtG Says:

    Is the Scion iA explained by the refusal of US Mazda dealers to retail the Mazda 2? This is one weird car.

  9. pedro fernandez Says:

    From all the reviews I’ve read, the new Mazda 2 is a much improved car, I bet they Scion just got too heavy for that power plant. After all, one of the best virtues of the Mazda is how light it is.

  10. HtG Says:

    The Scion is the Mazda, no? (even if the iA looks like a bear shaver from the front)

  11. GM Veteran Says:

    I’m confused. How do the financial numbers at FCA strongly indicate the need for a partner? Their numbers look awfully good to me! The EBIT or Operating Profit are usually the best numbers to look at for a true indicator of how the company performed. The Net Profit is only what’s left after they pay some elective bills and taxes. They produced great revenue and EBIT numbers and paid down a ton of debt. Seems like they are pretty healthy to me. There is no indication that adding a partner would positively impact their Net Profit margin.

  12. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Here’s the Mazda 2 that we don’t get:

    http://www.cnet.com/products/2016-mazda-mazda2/

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    11 FCA’s success is the result of selling pickups, GC’s, and big rear drive cars, helped by cheap gas. When fuel costs increase dramatically, which they will, FCA will need to depend more on efficient vehicles. They will need a partner, JV, or something. They are not doing too well with their smaller vehicles.

  14. David Sprowl Says:

    Kit is right. FCA appears to be in the unenviable position of low to no developmental dollars to start developing propulsion systems that can achieve the 54.5 MPG mark. Now just 3 short cycles away.

  15. Rob Says:

    Apple car play; So let the cell phone manufacturers develop the software it actually works? I have been saying for a long time the OE’s should partner with them since that technology changes too fast for the big auto makers.
    So much more intuitive, for me typically goes like this.
    Me: Call home…
    Car; Call Dave?
    Me; No call home.
    Car; Who would you like to call?
    Me; CALL HOME!
    Car; Please say, Call or text.
    Me: Oh nevermind.
    Car; call home?
    Me; Yes!
    Car; goodbye.

  16. Puremoose Says:

    Scion! Horsepower sells cars..
    Now get it Right!
    Give us some horsepower..

  17. Kit Gerhart Says:

    14 No developmental money and, even more than GM and Ford, they are dependent on big, thirsty vehicles for sales.

  18. HtG Says:

    NSFW Siri satire

    there is a car involved, so On Topic

    NSFW

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yLuqCXXutY

  19. John McElroy Says:

    #11. Here are some comparisons that show FCA is really not doing all that well financially compared to other OEMs the same size.
    Revenue Profit
    FCA $32 B $365 M
    PSA $31.7B $790 M
    Nissan $24 B $1.3 B
    Renault $24 B $1.6 B

    If FCA had the same profit as Renault, it would have posted a $2 billion profit.

  20. HtG Says:

    If FCA can make Alfa Romeo into a high margin brand, then will Ferrari and Maserati combine with it to offset poor performance in other parts of the company? Looking at you Punto.

    What’s Sergio’s game? Hostile takeover? Who?

  21. G.A.Branigan Says:

    @ #15,Rob: EXACTLY how my galaxy 4 works in my chebby…despite the downloaded contacts etc.My Blueant s4 worked tons better then the unit in my nox.Go figure….

  22. Drew Says:

    To #1 Bradley – the IIHS small overlap test is a very violent test (rigid barrier that impacts so far outboard, it misses the structure on nearly all RWD vehicles). There is huge test-to-test variability. The real world occurrence of small overlap impacts to rigid objects is a very rare, so no one should put too much emphasis on it.

    I suppose Ford could only fully test and verify one configuration in time to support launch. Given the mass/weight difference between the different cab styles, incremental tests/verifications were needed to assure the SuperCrew actions weren’t too stiff in other cab styles for other crash modes.

    Kudos to Ford for 1st focusing on the high volume configuration and implementing it ASAP instead of delaying it when the other cab styles were complete.

  23. Kit Gerhart Says:

    15, 21 Yep, the phone tech, including voice recognition just keeps getting better, with devices often being replaced at 2 year intervals, or shorter. Meanwhile, the average age of cars is 13 years, or whatever.

    To the extent that we need any of this “infotainment” stuff, integrating phones is the way to go. When today’s new cars are 12 years old, people will be laughing at even the better of today’s systems.

  24. Bradley Says:

    #22

    I agree, a lot of IIHS testing is unrealistic.

    I find it very surprising still that Ford cannot/will not produce uniform products. I would bet all Tacomas share the same mechanism for structural rigidity to pass collision tests. Same for the Tundra…

    Yes the cab styles from Extended to Crew-Cab are different, but the parts required to handle a frontal collision should be identical.

    Clearly, they are not in the case of the F-150.

  25. HtG Says:

    IIHS represents the insurers who have to pay out for losses and injuries. If they want to test cars for vulnerabilities that cost them money, why not? It’s not like they aren’t analyzing all the other categories of risk.

    But I’m not so chuffed about what accident protection measures have done to cars. They’re mostly ponderous ‘two baggers’ out there if you ask me. Check out how wide the new Miata is, nothing like the original even if it is as lightweight.

  26. HtG Says:

    23 One thing I expect to see continuing is that the millions of devices which lead the way in terms of processing efficiency and speed will lower costs enough for speedy computing to get into cars. Carcos can’t do the volume to support the cutting edge stuff. But lower level sensors and microcontrollers are where the action is now; so hundreds of chips in the car and in the infrastructure around the cars will be the landscape our vehicles inhabit. The suppliers in the auto industry are closest to it. I don’t know how anyone can keep up with all the developments. I can’t.

    But if anyone would like a little sample, the purchase a security company that happened this week, here’s about two minutes from Sansa Security who were just purchased by ARM, a central designer of the kinds of computers we’re talking about here. Soon it won’t be just me blabbering on a car industry comment board.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJawHrupn8

  27. Kit Gerhart Says:

    22 Real world small overlap crashes normally involve two vehicles meeting, but the test uses a hard barrier to reduce test-to-test variability. I’m sure car companies design for the test, but it would be relevent to real world crashes.

  28. Kit Gerhart Says:

    25 Surprisingly to me, the new Miata is only about 2 inches wider than the early ones, 68 vs 66 inches. It’s narrower than a Prius by about an inch :-)

  29. Drew Says:

    The biggest expense to insurance companies is property damage, much more than bodily injury. So, IIHS devised a test in the name of safety, but is really designed to get OEMs to add outboard beans to reduce physical damage. Their ruse results in heavier, costly, and less fuel efficient vehicles. Shame on David Zuby.

  30. HtG Says:

    28 only 2″ wider? To my eye it looked like more.

  31. Kit Gerhart Says:

    That surprised me to, but I found a couple sites agreeing on the width. Even the new, wider one is 3 inches narrower than a ’96 Corvette, and 8 inches narrower than such “sporty” cars as a Challenger.

  32. HtG Says:

    I bet IIHS can’t wait to offset crash the MX5.

  33. merv Says:

    that apple car play is just amazing

  34. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I want to see the android version.

  35. HtG Says:

    I’d go with Google’s map function over Apple’s. Anyone know how well the Apple app works? I don’t bother with the one on my iPhone.

  36. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I’m curious about apple maps. I use an android phone, but a Mac. I need the Yosemite OS on my Mac to get apple maps. I’ll probably load Yosemite in the next few days.

  37. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Actually, I always used yahoo maps with Windows or Mac, but yahoo maps was recently shut down. Does that date my tech savvy, or lack thereof?

  38. HtG Says:

    I guess no one is tech savvy today. You want tech savvy? A guy I know from high school does quantum computing research at an international maker of machines for business. That’s tech savvy.

  39. HtG Says:

    Smartest person I ever met.

  40. HtG Says:

    His father had an E-type convertible and drove a Camaro.

  41. C-Tech Says:

    Shortly after getting today’s show I heard a Ford Truck commercial touting their gov’t. 5 star safety rating for all their F-150′s.

  42. HtG Says:

    Uh oh, Sergio.

    Did you guys see the piece in MT about possible tax stuff by FCA in Australia? It’s claimed the company reduced its tax bills by playing around with transfer pricing. How does this compare to the recent ALD report on the company’s poor profits? Hmmmmmm, you wonder how DeLorenzo is going to take it.

    http://wot.motortrend.com/1507_fca_australia_scandal_widens_as_former_ceo_points_fingers.html

  43. FSTFWRD Says:

    #15 Rob Love it, so true!!

    Here is another good laugh: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a16656/infotainment-overload-ezra-dyer/?src=nl&mag=pop&list=nl_pnl_news&date=073115

    Some day soon, manufactures will wake up.

  44. G.A.Branigan Says:

    @ 43: I didn’t understand a word in that article.

  45. C-Tech Says:

    @ #43 Great article, I concur!

  46. stas peterson Says:

    I notice a tendency to disparage anything and everything that FCA and Sergio Marchionne have accomplished. Futhermore there is a totally America-centered viewpoin. NAFTA product was updated while European product lanquished on purpose. Now there are complaints when the attention is turned elsewhere, by necessity. The entire North American factories ensemble have been thoroughly invested in and updated, which are also full of brand new machine and robotic tools. Seldom has Chrysler had as modern a set of facilities, with which to manufacture its products.

    to the Fiat Chrysler alliance. There are new green field factories in the USA, Mexico, China, India, Turkey, Serbia, and a gargantuan one in Pernambuco Brazil. Meanwhile existing facilities in Italy, the US and Canada have been thoroughly gutted and modernized too. In NAFTA only Brampton and Warren truck still need upadating, all others have been modernized.

    Old truisms are repeated even if longer true. Four or five years ago the engineering staffs had been and decimated. As Mr. Sheaves observed, the extensive new and young staffing was untrained and ill-experienced. Five years later Chrysler now has a young 5-year experienced engineering, perhaps missing only a handful of fully experienced senior staff like Mr. Sheaves. Yet the myths from yesteryear persist.

    New or completely competitive designs now exist throughout the product lines. LX, modernized by Daimler for 300/Charger; and then updated for Maserati, is fully world class competitive, even if somewhat marginally heavy. CUSW took a competitive, premium AR C-EVO compact platform and renewed and extended it to a flexible, C and D class competitive platform. Updating the SCSS, and modernizing it to the SUSW platform, makes it more than equal to its competitors for B and C class vehicles. Light van, Doblo & Ducato, and RAM pickup truck designs are fully worldwide competitive; and even innovative, Rams are sporting smooth riding, rear coil springs.

    Complaints that FCA doesn’t have CUVs and SUVs for Chrysler/Dodge, are belied by the presence of their Jeeps premium equivalent products.

    Jeep IS THE originator and THE SUV/CUV leader. Its only questionable for the necessity to offer its own redundant competitors. Sergio has removed redundancy in compact and midsize sedans, and is doing so in Minivans, so why duplicate CUVS/SUVs now?

    The most modern axles and a brand new factory to produce them now exist and the work has been given to a world class axles supplier. Similarly Chrysler selected a world leader in transmissions ZF, and has acquired their products and licensed their designs, for it entire line up of vehicles. If the transmissions are good enough for Rolls, Audi and and BMW they are good enough for Chrysler, Jeeps and Dodges. Yes, there are “teething problems” with the programming the innovative 9-speed, but that will be and is being rectified.

    Half a decade ago Chrysler had a hodgepodge of antiquated and never fully developed engine platforms. They are all gone. Their replacements, (and the new factories to build them), New Hemi, ThunderShark/ Hurricane, Cummins ISB, VM Motori, and PentaStar are not only modern, they are measured and comparable to the best engines produced by any manufacturers any where. The only comparative antique is the FIRE (for which a replacement has been announced but as yet not unveiled), and even that sports the industry leading MultiAir infinitely variable valve lift and control technology. An innovative TwinAir small MultiAir equipped engine is used overseas, and is the perfect generator for coming PHEV and EREV, designs. Its Multiair valve control prepares FCA for the introduction of and advent of HCCI designs, and makes FCA a possible leader in introducing such theoretically optimum fuel economy ICE/Diesel engines.

    CAFE targets have not been ignored either. Already some RAM pickups meet the 2025 CAFE targets. Others will follow, as PHEVs and E-REV PHEVs are introduced when battery technology advances enough to make them price competitive.

    If there are shortfalls in some projected development accounts, products will simply be delayed. It has been done before, is being done today, and will occur tomorrow. The difference is that almost all of FCA’s products lines are now world class competitive, and can stand the delay.

    It’s unlike trying to compete with an non-competitive, under-developed and obsolescent Mitsu platform as a Sebring offering.

    In reality, there are only a handful of products remaining that need a thorough renewal now. The domestic Minivans, the Punto, the Compass/Patriot and the Sienna come to mind. And all have replacements designed, paid for, and are about ready for industrialization and introduction. Brazil could use some small car First World designs which Fiat already has in its inventory.

    In short, I think the glass is more than half full. FCA is profitable everywhere except for recently in Latin America during its current downturn, but that has pretty much run its course.

  47. FSTFWRD Says:

    @44 G.A.Branigan Says:

    @ 43: I didn’t understand a word in that article.

    Really?? I didn’t think it was a very hard read. Or do you just not agree?
    I guess with the proliferation of cell phones and their apps., the future will/should be like Apple “Car Play”. Just let your phone display on the screen of the car for the people who really need that. I don’t, I just like to drive the old school way. Cheers.

  48. C-Tech Says:

    @ #46 Very eloquently said, I concur and have learned something.

  49. Rob Says:

    @43 Great article and I totally agree. Just Radio and Nav is pleanty for an infotainment system. I have CUE now and my 1 year older Cruise had better Voice command recognition than CUE.

  50. Brett Says:

    The auto mfgs would be wise to simply concentrate on exporting the smart-phone’s presentation layer to the infotainment screen and let those manufacturers throw money into that competition.