Extended Cab 4dr, 4x4 5.4 Gas V8, Fully Loaded, 1 Owner No Accidents, Extra Nice on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Rising aluminum costs cut into Ford's profit

When Ford reports fourth-quarter results on Wednesday afternoon, it is expected to fret that rising metals costs have cut into profits, even as rivals say they have the problem under control. Aluminum prices have risen 20 percent in the last year and nearly 11 percent since Dec. 11. Steel prices have risen just over 9 percent in the last year. Ford uses more aluminum in its vehicles than its rivals. Aluminum is lighter but far more expensive than steel, closing at $2,229 per tonne on Tuesday. U.S. steel futures closed at $677 per ton (0.91 metric tonnes). Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is weighing whether to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, which could push prices even higher. Ford gave a disappointing earnings estimate for 2017 and 2018 last week, saying the higher costs for steel, aluminum and other metals, as well as currency volatility, could cost the company $1.6 billion in 2018. Ford shares took a dive after the announcement. Ford Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks told analysts at a conference in Detroit last week that while the company benefited from low commodity prices in 2016, rising steel prices were now the main cause of higher costs, followed by aluminum. Shanks said the automaker at times relies on foreign currencies as a "natural hedge" for some commodities but those are now going in the opposite direction, so they are not working. A Ford spokesman added that the automaker also uses a mix of contracts, hedges and indexed buying. Industry analysts point to the spike in aluminum versus steel prices as a plausible reason for Ford's problems, especially since it uses far more of the expensive metal than other major automakers. "When you look at Ford in the context of the other automakers, aluminum drives a lot of their volume and I think that is the cause" of their rising costs, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting at auto consultancy LMC Automotive. Other major automakers say rising commodity costs are not much of a problem. At last week's Detroit auto show, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne reiterated its earnings guidance for 2018 and held forth on a number of topics, but did not mention metals prices. General Motors Co gave a well-received profit outlook last week and did not mention the subject. "We view changes in raw material costs as something that is manageable," a GM spokesman said in an email.

2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 vs. 2019 Ram 1500 vs. 2018 Ford F-150: How they compare

The full-size pickup truck market is seriously hot right now. Both Ram and Chevrolet have introduced completely redesigned trucks, the 2019 Ram 1500 and the 2019 Chevy Silverado, and as the companies slowly roll each one out, more and more information comes to light. We've put together this comparison post to help you keep track of all the features and specifications of each of these new models, along with the updated 2018 Ford F-150. Among the stats we'll take a look at are engines, power, fuel economy, trim levels, weight and more. Weight savings Both the 2019 Ram 1500 and 2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 have gone on a diet for the new model year, similar to the one the F-150 went on in 2015. The Silverado is the weight-loss leader, having shed 450 pounds when comparing quad-cab V8 models. The Ram 1500 lost 225 pounds compared to the current truck. Both trucks achieve their weight loss in part due to the use of aluminum parts. On the Silverado, the hood, doors, and tailgate are aluminum, while on the Ram, just the hood and tailgate are aluminum on the body. Compare that to the F-150, which uses aluminum for all exterior body panels for a total weight loss of up to 732 pounds, which makes the aluminum-intensive F-150 the weight-loss leader. View 160 Photos Engines and transmissions There's only a bit of overlap in powertrains on the Ram 1500 and Chevy Silverado. Each has a V8 for the top engine. The Ram's is a 5.7-liter Hemi V8 making 395 horsepower and 410 pound-feet of torque. The Silverado will once again use a 6.2-liter V8 as its range topper with the same 420 horsepower and 460 pound-feet of torque as the current model. Both of these V8s boast some extra fuel saving technology. The Chevy's 6.2-liter (and some 5.3-liters) comes with the company's latest cylinder deactivation system that can shut off any or nearly all of the eight cylinders. The Ram's V8 boasts an optional 48-volt mild-hybrid system that, in addition to likely helping fuel economy, can provide up to 130 pound-feet of torque right off the line. With the Ram, fuel economy sees an improvement of 2 mpg in the city and combined ratings for 17 and 19 respectively. Highway fuel economy improves by 1 mpg to 23 with two-wheel drive and 22 with four-wheel drive. The Silverado's 6.2-liter V8 only improves city fuel economy by 1 mpg to 16, and actually loses 1 mpg on the highway. The new 5.3-liter engine with the fancy cylinder deactivation does see an improvement over the simpler version.

Moon landing anniversary: How Detroit automakers won the space race

America's industrial might — automakers included — determined the outcome of the 20th centuryÂ’s biggest events. The “Arsenal of Democracy” won World War II, and then the Cold War. And our factories flew us to the moon. Apollo was a Cold War program. You can draw a direct line from Nazi V-2 rockets to ICBMs to the Saturn V. The space race was a proxy war — which beats a real war. It was a healthy outlet for technology and testosterone that would otherwise be used for darker purposes. (People protested, and still do, that money for space should go to problems here on Earth, but more likely the military-industrial complex would've just bought more bombs with it.) As long as we and the Soviet Union were launching rockets into space, we were not lobbing them at each other. JFKÂ’s challenge to “go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” put American industry back on a war footing. We were galvanized to beat the Russians, to demonstrate technological dominance. (A lack of similar unifying purpose is why we havenÂ’t been to the moon since, or Mars.) NASA says more than 400,000 Americans, from scientists to seamstresses, toiled on the moon program, working for government or for 20,000 contractors. Antagonism was diverted into something inspirational. The Big Three automakers were some of the biggest companies in the moon program, which might surprise a lot of people today. Note to a new generation who marveled when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster out into the solar system: Sure, that was neat, but just know that Detroit beat Elon Musk to space by more than half a century. This high point in human history was brought to you by Ford ItÂ’s hard to imagine in this era of Sony-LG-Samsung, but Ford used to make TVs. And other consumer appliances. Or rather Philco, the radio, TV and transistor pioneer that Ford bought in 1961 — the year Gagarin and Alan Shepard flew in space. Ted Ryan, FordÂ’s archives and heritage brand manager, just wrote a Medium article on the central role Philco-Ford played in manned spaceflight. And nothingÂ’s more central than Mission Control in Houston, the famous console-filled room we all know from TV and movies. What we didn't know was, that was Ford. Ford built that. In 1953, Ryan notes, Philco invented a transistor that was key to the development of (what were then regarded as) high-speed computers, so naturally Philco became a contractor for NASA and the military.