El Kabong

Yeah, but that's for your basic 4-cylinder Malibu.... something high end like a Corvette one would think the purchaser would be more attune to the needs of the engine during the break in period. I'm pretty sure that hi-po engines like the LT4 have some pretty intricate break-in recommendations. A quick Google search of a '15 Corvette Owner's Manual would probably confirm that. But I'm tired.

Why? Composite leaf springs are more durable than steel, they never rust, and they're "programmable" when they're built. I would prefer a composite spring in a truck. In some cases composites are vulnerable to structural failure due to seemingly superficial nicks and that kinda thing (ask any hockey fan whose seen a stick blow up during a slapshot attempt). Don't think it would happen here, but truck leafs are more exposed than a Corvette's.

No no, not BUTTERED chicken. That's something else entirely.

I like butter chicken.

Ya, but you're usually wrong so I'm feeling pretty good about this.

Pretty bold prediction there. I expect that you will be wrong. Again.

There's a neat blurb in this link about longitudinal composite leafs. The tech is progressing... http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-leaf-springs-saving-weight-in-production-suspension-systems

No apologies necessary, at least as far as I'm concerned. It's possible that the modernization of those plants was necessary. I don't know how old they were before they were redone. The only firsthand frames of reference I have for that are Oshawa #1, #2, Flex, Truck, and (minus the paint shop) Bowling Green. If the body shop robots were that old then I can see your point. But I also know that body shop robots are pretty durable. I do not expect to see the weight losses out of the GM trucks that Ford saw either, because GM has probably pushed the existing body and frame tech close to the limit. A loss of, say, 300-400 pounds is feasible, which would put a pimped-out Denali at about 5,200 pounds. More than acceptable, considering the class of vehicle. I would go so far as to say that they may skip right past aluminum and go to pre-preg carbon fibre for stuff like hoods. If they stick with rear leafs I could see those going composite too. Both of these items have been proven on the Corvette, the springs for several decades.

He's probably just ticked off at me. I hear I have that effect on some folks

Where are you getting your information from regarding GM's use of aluminum in their current trucks? Because it is wrong-o. Without having anything in front of me to disprove him I held off on doing so. My best guess is that he got it from a news report on GM's upcoming plans. But as far as I know a magnet will stick onto nearly everything on my old man's Silverado.

Or, they could do what I did: get a Ram EcoDiesel. ...which underlies a point I made a couple of days ago when a certain someone had a complete breakdown and said that he posted responses to my stuff to counter my "negative PR campaign" against Ford: I really don't take this posting stuff terribly seriously. I mean, I DO believe what I write, and there's some thought that goes into it. But anyone who thinks that what I write-what ANYONE writes-in a car forum has any real-world weight is probably a nutter. I think GM has the better trucks. But I think Ram has the best for the most important demographic: me. But for some, holding onto the delusion that their posts matter is paramount... and it leads to some truly amusing/creepy behaviour. Put it this way: a Psych major could probably write a pretty neat thesis about the behaviour of forum posters.

Question: whose fault is it that a vendor is unable to produce a component? The answer: everyone's. The vendor, obviously, because they literally couldn't deliver the goods. But the procurement guys should have seen this coming as well. The frame is a critical component, but the technology involved in making it hasn't changed much in fifteen years. My guess is that they had to cut costs because of the cost of the program. And cheating out on the vendors was the way to go. And it's not just the frame: another poster said he thought the interior quality was lacking as well. As an OLD GM owner, I can believe that. And unless you know something about the GM trucks I don't, I'm pretty sure they aren't half-aluminum in the body, yet.

Trust me, it IS hurting Alberta. I told my buddies the real estate market was gonna go for a crap the day after OPEC announced the taps would stay open. They just laughed. I'm fairly confident my job is ok. But I have cut down on my debt in the previous year, just in case. Any newer oil sands operations are in serious trouble.

LOL@stalker up to his old tricks ...dayum, man. Stop being such a creeper... ...it's not like you're able to do any better there than here anyways :D

Perhaps you missed it in all the posting going on, but at no point did I say that Ford was going to go belly-up over this. Even in the comparo I posted I took care to point out that the Ford won by three points. All I said was that this is an enormous screwup for Ford, which will cost them. It is. It has. And it continues to.

Because it bears repeating in regards to certain folks, both in this thread and elsewhere:

...except when it's 10-15% cheaper than gas, regardless of price. Sheesh :D

GM and Ram are both gaining market share. They are both making money. They are doing it more or less in line with expectations, or perhaps a little better. This is because they didn't screw up.

If your internal objectives include being down eight percent year-over-year, massive vendor supply issues, and not actually getting much better mileage... then yes. They're dancing in the streets.

If they are serious about improving, they will improve.

Nonsense. This thread is about how GM is going to learn from Ford's massive screwups.

It may be poor spending, but it's suckered GM and maybe FCA to do it as well. If GM screws up their supply chain as badly as Ford has, and the trucks deliver next to nothing in mileage gains like Ford has, I will gladly concede your point. But they won't. They have watched. They have learned. And they will continue to capitalize. It's like the Omega chassis. They saw what worked and what didn't as far as the competition went, and applied the lessons to a platform that integrated aluminum both uniquely and efficiently. Folks: it's not like GM is new to the watch-and-learn-and-improve game. It's not something unique to trucks, or to their rivalry with Ford.

Still an awful analogy. Still poor spending by Ford. Time does not change facts. But ignoring them makes them worse.

Ford has no worries AS LONG AS they have money in their pockets. I have no argument with this. But this truck has taken a fair bit of money. And it has been put behind schedule in earnin it back. And this has helped the competition. That is the extent of my argument as far as financial stuff goes. Deep coffers can help, but mistakes are mistakes. Terrible analogy. Fighter jets are incredibly maintenance-intensive, airframes included.

That's tomorrow tho. Today it's still pretty noisy