Allison pulling branding rights for the GM 10L1000

[fantastic]

That didn't last long.

 

[Exhaustgases]

FYI, the most commonly-sold (i.e., the budget choices that people actually bought rather than the loss-leader strippers that were sold in very low numbers) low-priced GM vehicles in 1960 (the midpoint of the '50s and '60s range you cited) were the Biscayne and Corvair 700 models, priced in the $2,200-$2,400 range, which equates to $22,000-$24,000 in today's dollars.

The most common budget models (not the strippers) from GM today are the Trax and Blazer, which are priced in the range of----- wait for it ------ $23,500-$24,500.

So, note that:

1) Commonly sold budget options from GM cost the same (and even a bit lower) in today's dollars as they did in 1960, but provide light-years more value in terms of safety, performance, and economy.

2) There was only one sub-$2K vehicle from GM in 1960, the loss-leading stripper model Corvair 500 (which wasn't a big seller), and it cost $1,984, which is just a hair under $22,000 in today's dollars.

The base/stripper 2026 Trax starts at $21,600, so cheaper than that Corvair 500 despite being a marvel at every level compared to that stripped-down, tin can of a Corvair (no carpet, radio, arm rests, passenger visor-- not even turn signals!).

I do agree, however, that GMs myriad problems with basic things like transmissions, torque converters, cams, cam chains, etc. are beyond ridiculous.

Just understand that the idea that people in 1960 were getting cheaper cars than today is not true. Cars are generally cheaper today (and much better in terms of value, and probably even reliability-- despite the current problems).

A relative turned down a brand new 69 Camaro for $2200. at the local dealer, he wanted 100 off that price.

1957 trucks brand new for around 1800 or so.

1800 ? and what was a union wage then? I'm thinking 3 or 4 per hour, so 1800 / 3 = 600
So a pickup now is what? 80,000. 80,000 / 40= 2000 using 40 as the union wage so we see how much more it is now.

No need for saying its this dollars now vs then, its all about the ratio. And shows the true adjustment for then and now dollars.

So then with a 40 per hour wage the truck should be $24,000. for a truck now. To keep an even ratio

Oh looks like average aircraft workers wage in 1957 was closer to $2.68 per hour? So?

 

[Jim Rogers]

Base Camaro MSRP (I6 and V8) were either side of $2,800 in 1969. In today's dollars, that's $24,900.

Base 2025 Camaro MSRP (1LS and 1LT) are either side of $26,000 today, so pretty close.

At $2,200, the offer your relative got was a 19% discount, equivalent to getting an offer of $21,000 on a leftover, stripper 2025 Camaro. I'll bet you could probably get a deal like that today on a leftover 2025 model.

The $100 discount your relative asked for is equivalent today to a $900 discount. So, if a dealer offered you a low-end, 4-cyl, leftover 25 Camaro (that you may not have been particularly interested in) for $21K, and you countered with a "$20K or I walk" offer, that wouldn't be totally nuts.

So, as is almost always the case for any car in any year, the 1969 Camaros were priced pretty similarly to today's Camaro-- if you adjust the nominal dollars for inflation.

You do correctly point out one exception, though-- trucks. An $1,800 truck in 1957 would be about $21,000 in today's dollars. Lowest MSRP for a Chevy truck today is $37K, so not all that close.

However, trucks have really changed since those days. In 1957, base trucks were truly utilitarian and not as commonly used as daily drivers as they are today.

A truck today is a totally different beast than from those days, so I'm not sure the prices are comparable.

 

[Jim Rogers]

1800 ? and what was a union wage then? I'm thinking 3 or 4 per hour, so 1800 / 3 = 600
So a pickup now is what? 80,000. 80,000 / 40= 2000 using 40 as the union wage so we see how much more it is now.

No need for saying its this dollars now vs then, its all about the ratio. And shows the true adjustment for then and now dollars.

So then with a 40 per hour wage the truck should be $24,000. for a truck now. To keep an even ratio

Oh looks like average aircraft workers wage in 1957 was closer to $2.68 per hour? So?

You're making a subtle but important error as you're cherry-picking a high-end $80,000 truck of today-- a product that was simply not in existence in 1957.

In that 1957 time period, pickup trucks were decidedly not life-style luxury vehicles like the $80K models of today are.

The Cameo versions (the first iteration of a lifestyle truck) were in just being introduced in 1957, but even they were not big sellers and not commonly used by city dwellers.

Thus, unlike today where trucks are the #1 sellers for all the American makes, in 1957 pickups were crude, utilitarian, not commonly used in the city, and far from the #1 sellers.

The F-150 didn't become Ford's #1 seller until 1977, the C/K didn't become Chevy's best seller until the '80s. In 1957, trucks were pretty low sellers, mostly going to farmers for agricultural use and utility work in the city. They were uncomfortable and impractical for daily-driver use, and few buyers used them for that purpose.

So, to compare the cost of an $80K luxury/lifestyle truck of today to pretty much any model of truck in 1957 is a false comparison.

As far as wages, that $2.68/hr aircraft workers wage comes out to $31/hr today (and a quick check shows the range to have been $24-$30/hr, so I think you're bit high in your estimate).

The average wage of an equivalent skilled-trade worker (e.g., machinist, welder) today? Another quick check shows that to be $22-$35/hr.

So, in 1957, the average skilled tradesman made a bit less than today's counterpart and was paying a bit more for the cars that 1) existed, and 2) were commonly purchased in that era.

Of course, you can make the argument that the ratio is far different, but the case only exists if you make invalid comparisons using vehicles that didn't exist in 1957.

Keep your parameters in the realm of reality, and you'll see that the cost/wage ratio is a bit better today than in 1957 (and 1960 and 1969).

The bottom line:

Workers today have slightly higher earnings than they did in the past, common vehicle prices are a bit cheaper than they were in the past, and the vehicles you get for that lower price today are far better in every way than those from the past.

The fact that the luxury pickup market was created in the first place and are today's best-sellers is in fact indicative of the continuous improvement in the U.S. price/wage ratio you appealed to in an attempt to make your case, not a cause for despair for the plight of the worker or basis of criticism of auto makers.

Cheer up! Things are better than you realize! America works!

 

[Exhaustgases]

just deleted we got too far off topic.

 

[Jim Rogers]

just deleted we got too far off topic.

You seem like an honest guy, so I want to respect your point of view. In furtherance of that, let me re-post what you deleted:

You are the one that found the problem. There are no normal inexpensive pickup trucks or cars any place, nor are they allowed in this country any more. So yeah not everyone wants or needs a luxury pickup. So that means I am right on with what I posted.
Its just too bad all you think you are millionaires don't just suddenly become broke. Hmm maybe with the advent of their hope for digital currency that will happen. Then you all will be talking a different tune.

and say that 1) the point you're trying to make is does have some merit, and 2) we can bring the discussion back to topic.

1) While I stand by my analysis that budget options exist that are priced near-identically to budget option of the past, and skilled-trade income are also near identical to the past, I also understand that my argument is fairly narrow while you might be making a broader point that is supportable.

So, let's steelman your point:

While I might be correct that the budget end of the market has been priced consistently over many decades, that point neglects to account for the fact that the average transaction cost of a new vehicle has also more than doubled over that period. That means that the budget end, while still in existence, has been highly compressed.

Furthermore, disparities in income among the different income quintiles indicates that, while skilled trade work income has remained consistent, it's fallen behind average income, meaning that car buying options are far more limited today than they were in the past.

2) My more narrow argument did not fully address your broader point as to the utility of today's (more expensive) trucks. So, let's steelman that point as well (and bring us back to topic):

The evolution of the pickup truck from a low-cost utilitarian vehicle 70 years ago to today's high-cost luxury/performance vehicle whose main customers are mostly urban peacocks (who want to signal status with their luxury trucks while generally doing nothing more work related than bringing home a couple of bags of mulch from Home Depot) has basically made a mockery of the whole concept of the pickup truck, much to the detriment of working class people who still need low-cost, work-centric vehicles.

The distortion of the truck market by an influx of customers with more money than brains has had a real negative influence on the number, cost, and utility of the models the carmakers produce. The result is that workers who need an honest truck are being squeezed, and that's a valid problem.

Add to that the fact that when an average tradesman is able to cough up enough scratch to buy one of those overpriced behemoths, per this thread, they can't even count on having a transmission that can get them reliably past 50K miles. Ridiculous!

As you can see, I don't believe your points are completely without merit, and a good-faith analysis of your points can yield solid arguments. I think my counterarguments do paint a more realistic (and positive) picture of the current state of the car/truck market, and that, generally speaking, the free market will work to create the best overall outcome.

But it wouldn't be fair of me to say that the points you are making have no basis in fact, and hopefully I've remedied any impression that I think you are totally wrong. I think you are being overly pessimistic and overlooking some important positives, but I agree that the negatives you point out also exist and are real.

 

[johnmyster]

The ZF is now poised to be the next respectable transmission in that space if Ram can build a half decent truck around it.

If the aftermarket figures out a ZF retrofit for my truck it will be tempting.

I take back what I said about the ZF.

Now shopping for a unicorn 2014-2018 Ram 2500/3500 Megacab 4x4 with G56 manual...or perhaps the aisin/HO...with rambox. Or a rust-free unicorn 2006/2007 Duramax LBZ like the one in which I had the transmission built and then 1000 miles later lost in a wreck. Or maybe a 2017/2018 L5p...the years that still had the Allison 6 speed. Or maybe I convert to Ford and find my "dream" 2015/2016 truck and deal with the CP4 and over-complex cooling systems.

 

[02SE]

I take back what I said about the ZF.

Now shopping for a unicorn 2014-2018 Ram 2500/3500 Megacab 4x4 with G56 manual...or perhaps the aisin/HO...with rambox. Or a rust-free unicorn 2006/2007 Duramax LBZ like the one in which I had the transmission built and then 1000 miles later lost in a wreck. Or maybe a 2017/2018 L5p...the years that still had the Allison 6 speed. Or maybe I convert to Ford and find my "dream" 2015/2016 truck and deal with the CP4 and over-complex cooling systems.

I'm still hanging on to our 2017 HO, Aisin, CP3, Dually. It did a fine job towing at 36+k GCVW, with a very effective exhaust brake. I've considered one of the newer, more powerful pickups, but I just keep hearing of issues with them.

If I really need more power, I can tune up the current truck, while keeping the emissions intact.

 

[64bawagon]

I have a feeling that when production was slowed at Flint assy due to transmission shortages a month or two ago that got some folks attention. The HD trucks have been the cash cow for some time now and with the closure of Factory one and brightdrop shutting down GM has a lot of EV expenses to make up. Supposedly the Transmission plant had to slow roll some new units in order to catch up on the huge backlog of service parts needed. In the GM culture a good idea is one that costs nothing and a bad idea is a good idea that costs money. Mary is supposed to tour Flint assy soon so I am sure she will make it all okay. (sarcasm intentional)

I shudder to think how this transmission is going to go behind the new 8.3L Duramax. Towing numbers are rumored to go up and the potential exists for a lot more power or at the very least enough to beat Ford. I can for sure see it as being a weak link.

 

[Owen Lucas]

doesn't jeep slap dana on their vehicles for bragging as well

It would be an improvement to slap a Rustoleum badge on Jeeps right now. Might gain some customers back?

 

[4wd]

doesn't jeep slap dana on their vehicles for bragging as well

No Dana icons on mine - but 210 & 220 axles underneath …

 

[4wd]

about time. i drove one of our 2025 2509hd 6.6L L8T-10L1000 combos and i hate it. the L8T works perfectly with the 6L90. the 10 speed revs the engine higher consistency versus the 6L90.

6 speed would have been a great place for them and Ford to lock it in and focus on quality … I didn’t ask for 10 speeds … perhaps CAFE did …
Trailer mode was helpful at times anyway …

 

[Hohn]

So GM cares?

They were just using "Allison" for advertising bragging, correct?

I must assume GM was not paying Allison a dime, correct?

GM drops the name usage, and loses how many customers?

Given the kool aid drinker that is a typical buyer, they will lose exactly zero customers.

Unimpeded by logic or rationality, Ford buyers always buy Fords. GM buyers always buy GM, Toyota guys buy toyota, etc etc..


The brand loyalty among trucks is absurd to the point of toxic. “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”