AD #2515 – Europe Approves Tesla Model 3, Geely Reveals Volvo-Based CUV, Aluminum Ford F-150 is Paying Off

January 22nd, 2019 at 11:41am

Audio-only version:

Listen to “AD #2515 – Europe Approves Tesla Model 3, Geely Reveals Volvo-Based CUV, Aluminum Ford F-150 is Paying Off” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 7:27

0:29 Ghosn Bail Request Rejected Again
0:46 Europe Approves Tesla Model 3
1:06 Geely Reveals CUV Based on Volvo Architecture
2:19 The Many Uses of Dimmable Glass Tech.
3:41 VW Starts Sales of Performance GTI TCR
4:25 Karma Automotive Partners with Pininfarina
5:10 Aluminum Ford F-150 is Paying Off
6:03 Details of Ford & VW Alliance

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

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

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

35 Comments to “AD #2515 – Europe Approves Tesla Model 3, Geely Reveals Volvo-Based CUV, Aluminum Ford F-150 is Paying Off”

  1. Buzzerd Says:

    I don’t see how they can tie the use of aluminum with sales, maybe I’m wrong but I would think almost every buyer doesn’t care what the truck is made of just what the end result is.

  2. ChuckGrenci Says:

    I was thinking similar Buzzerd; when you’re the p/u leader for so many years I don’t see their conclusion, though it certainly wasn’t the wrong way to go. Chevy’s ad by puncturing the bed is also credible but just didn’t sway too many sales. It seems Ram’s head-on attach to make a better p/u worked for them; probably taking some Chevy and Ford sales.

  3. Buzzerd Says:

    @2 I would think Ram is stealing sales for sure. I’ve owned many chevy trucks but I think Ram really nailed it. It looks like it’s still the bean counters vs the truck guys at GM.

  4. Drew Says:

    Farley either flunked Auto Business 101 or is taxed with delivering a hallow party line. If two OEMs can reduce the weight of a vehicle without adversely impacting customer attributes… the OEM that does it with lower cost has a stronger technical foundation. Ford simply cannot be weight and package efficient without premium materials. GM is the rock star in this aspect (Honda and Hyundai/Kia have similar technical excellence).

    Ford F-Series profits come from a richer trim mix, which was an advantage GM enjoyed in the 80s and early 90s. Starting in the mid 90s, Ford strategically focused on expanding the F-Series appeal… Lightning, Nite, more capacity of super cabs, then crew cabs, Harley, King Ranch, then Limited, Raptor, Platinum, etc. Aluminum’s contribution the F-Series profit can only be assessed relative to the cost of CAFE compliance… not revenue, Jim.

  5. Lambo2015 Says:

    I was thinking the same thing about the Ford Truck sales. Doubt the choice of aluminum had anything to do with sales and was more about Chevy needing a refresh and got a bad one at that. Plus as always pointed out if you combine the Chevy and GMC sales(Essentially same truck and are both GM) the disparity was not that dramatic.
    Currently the Dodge is the best truck for the money IMO, the new design is attractive, it has the best ride quality and is on par or has minor differences in all the categories that trucks are judged on. Hasn’t been able to hold the value as well as GM and Ford but they could close that gap.

  6. Kit Gerhart Says:

    The show said Ford gets $2000 more per truck than the others. Apparently that cancels out the higher materials and/or manufacturing cost.

    As far as these current big pickups, Ram is my favorite, at least in appearance, and appearance of the interior, from photos I’ve seen. The manufacturers don’t care about me, though, because I’m not buying any of them.

  7. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I’m surprised they haven’t made a Hellcat version of the Ram pickup. Maybe they are waiting for demand to drop for the truck, or for the other Hellcat applications, which may be stretching engine production capability.

  8. Drew Says:

    With regard to truck sales, GM’s sales are distributed over 4 nameplates, covering 2 segments. It’ll be interesting to see how well F-Series maintains its sales margin over Chevy and Ram after the Ranger is up to full effect.

  9. Lambo2015 Says:

    I would also like to see a cost comparison of a repair bill from a damaged bed Ford vs Chevy. I’m guessing that may be reflected in insurance rates.

  10. Drew Says:

    After you get past the gee-whiz factor of the large Tesla-like tablet in the new Ram, I like the exterior styling of the old Ram by a wide margin. The new one lacks personality (bodyside curves are too feminine, chrome tack-ons, Tundra-like face). Just my opinion.

  11. ArtG Says:

    9. The aluminum F-150 is among the less expensive trucks to insure because Ford did its homework and designed the truck to be easier to repair after a collision. An entry level F-150 is actually cheaper to insure than a Chevrolet Colorado. Source:

  12. Drew Says:

    @11 Separately, congrats on your retirement.


    I don’t see where Ford is getting at conflating the use of aluminum with sales. The F150 is an attractive vehicle, rides nice, huge quiet interior, decent fuel economy, and has a ton of features for the money. That formula is what is winning them sales. The use of aluminum is only a part of that total formula.

  14. Lambo2015 Says:

    #11 Maybe when it comes to repairing the truck as a whole it might be cheaper, however “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.” That quote was from Wards.

  15. Lambo2015 Says:

    Continuation of #14 the repair cost increase was attributed to the increase cost of parts not labor so the aluminum truck is probably just as easy to repair but would cost more for the aluminum pieces.

  16. Drew Says:

    @15 High tech LED headlamps and taillamps are very expensive…. likewise for the radar sensors and all the fancy outside mirror content (power fold, repeater and puddle lamps, etc). Those repair costs have nothing to do with aluminum.

  17. MaxC Says:

    The Ford/VW marriage is going to produce a mid-size pickup that will take the place of the Ranger and go into production in 2022? Will this be elsewhere besides North America? If not, the current Ranger that is just now hitting showroom floors is going to have a very short production run.

  18. Lambo2015 Says:

    #16 The cost of material was aluminum body panels and had nothing to do with sensors lights or other items, it was strictly due to the fact that they cost more and received more damage than the steel body panels. The comparison was done on a 2014 steel bodied Ford F150 and a 2015 Aluminum bodied F150. They were ran into a barrier at the same speed and in the same manner. The cost comparison was just on body repair and is not to be confused with any other factors.

  19. Bishop Says:

  20. Kit Gerhart Says:

    17 Maybe the new FordsWagen will be a little more like an actual replacement for the old Ranger. I see one of those about every day, with a regular a cab, non-turbo 4 cylinder, and manual transmission. The new extended/crew cab only, 2.3 turbo only, automatic only Ranger doesn’t compete very directly with the old one. Probably the real competition for the old Ranger would be another old Ranger, S-10, or an older Tacoma.


    20) I owned a Amarok for a while. The current Amarok is about the size of the new ford ranger. I wonder if the co-development will leave us with 1 ranger for the US market and 1 for the rest of world. We would get the passenger/comfort model and the ROW would get a more commercial use focused model with heavier duty axles and frames (like the amarok currently has). Just something that seems to make the most sense for this partnership to me.

  22. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I’m wondering if the Ford and VW versions of these vehicles will use the same engines, or if they’ll use engines that go with the badge. That would probably be the biggest deal with US bound pickups. Most Ranger buyers in the US probably wouldn’t want a VW engine, like most F-150 buyers probably wouldn’t want a Chevy V8 in their trucks.

  23. Drew Says:

    @21. Your vision parallels Toyota’s approach. They use two very similar, but regulatory unique pickups… Tacoma and HiLux.

  24. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I remember Toyota briefly selling the HiLux, with that name, in the US, probably in the early ’70s. Then, they just called it Toyota pickup for a while, before the Tacoma name, for the North America-specific truck.

  25. G.A.Branigan Says:

    Not being brand loyal,I like all 3 of the oem’s 1/2 ton trucks. However,if I were to buy one as it stands right now,it would be another Ram,hands down. More value for the buck,imho,and as a prospective buyer,my opinion counts ;}>

  26. Kit Gerhart Says:

    25 Checking the web site, it looks like “crew cab” is the only way they sell the new Ram. I wonder if that will change. A regular cab version with the Hellcat engine would be an ideal sequel to the Dodge Ram SRT-10 a few years ago with the Viper engine.

  27. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Yeah, things like that make no sense at all, but neither do pickup trucks in general, the way most are (not) used.

  28. joe Says:

    “But Ford says that the decision to go with aluminum has proved to be a very profitable one.”
    I would not expect Ford to say anything differently no matter if true or not.

  29. DonWagner1239 Says:

    23 and 24: I had a 1970 Toyota HiLux. Was in the process of building a house in the Ozark Hills of Missouri (southwest of St. Louis) and wanted a small pickup that I could use to drive to work (McDonnell Douglass, St. Louis airport) economically, and could use it to carry small DIY items like paint and wallpaper supplies, windows, doors, lumber, and even a small load of gravel once (1,900 lbs. net!). Put 140,000 miles on it between Missouri and Michigan (dream job to work for a car company, LOL). Had many mechanical issues over the years, body, engine and transmission. At that time I test drove a Ford Falcon (just for the gas mileage for my commute) and the competing Datsun pickup. Toyota was uglier, but I liked the mechanicals better, although would be pretty mild today. Engine was a 1.9 liter with a blazing 108 bhp. I think the transmission was a 4 speed. Put a fiberglass top on the bed, 14″chrome steel wheels with G-70 radials (bolt pattern same as GM midsize), moved the park/turn signals to the bumper, big-rig side mirrors, AMFM radio and speakers upgrade, and vinyl white stripes down the sides. Another bad side: rusted badly the body panels front inner fenders to cab sheet metal. YouTube has videos if curious about what one looks like. Also, story at the time was rugged because of the terrible Japanese roads.
    As for the current pickup choices, would love a Ram 1500 since the deals advertised are so good (odd with all the awards and acclaim), but way too big for my driveway. The Ford Ranger would be nice since there is a club-cab style available. My real desire would be the Jeep Gladiator, but probably too extremely expensive.

  30. DonWagner1239 Says:

    Now that I see it, I should have gone with Douglas.

  31. Kit Gerhart Says:

    28 Interesting. I remember the early Japanese imports, both cars and pickups, being bad with rust. My sister had an early ’70s Dodge Colt, (Mitsu) and her friend had an early ’70s Corolla. Both rusted worse than the domestics of the time, though they were bad compared with today’s cars.

  32. Don B. Says:

    We saw this glass tinting trick 20 years ago on a Ford Probe concept car. When is it going to put it into production??

  33. Lambo2015 Says:

    31 Its a solution to a problem that no one really asked for. Seems like a very expensive solution to something that currently is being resolved with very cheap window tint. The sunroof I could see that being of biggest interest especially as they have grown in size with some almost full glass roofs. Last I heard that tinting was running about $100 per sqft so it would could make for an expensive sunroof.

  34. Lambo2015 Says:

    #25 I also like all three brands of domestic trucks and shopped around last July. I knew I would most likely keep it 20 years like I did my last one. For that reason the Ford was out as I am skeptical of eco-boost engine lasting 20 years with over 250k miles without a turbo replacement. Yea I could have gotten the 5.0L but the pricing was not attractive at all.
    Chevy’s small V8 5.3L has 40 less HP and also did not have much incentives.
    So looking at the Ram the 5.7L Hemi had the same HP as the Ford but with 10 more ft-lbs of TQ a better ride and was offered well equipped big horn addition crew-cab 4×4 stickered at $42,600. I was able to lease for 2 years with only a grand down for $199 a month. At the end of the lease the buy out is $25,400 so I can buy it at the end of the lease and basically only paid $31,200 for the truck. GM and Ford offered no deal even close to that. They had deals that knocked off 3 to 4k off the sticker but that would still be $6000 more than the Ram. Just my personal experience but certainly made it hard to justify any other brand.

  35. Kit Gerhart Says:

    33 Is your truck the “old” one, and did you lease it after the new one hit the market? If so, that probably helped with the deal. That 2 year lease for $199/month, and the buyout price at the end, sounds like a very good deal. If you plan to buy it at the end, you shouldn’t need to worry about going over the mileage stated on the lease.