jalopnik.com— UPDATED! Ford's not pleased with the Chevy truck super bowl ad that implies Ford trucks aren't built tough enough to survive the Mayan apocalypse. How upset are they?
Feb 5, 2012View in Crawl 4
My wife's immediate reaction was that there won't be any Twinkies there. I thought she was crazy -- those preservatives will survive nuclear fallout. And she told me that they'd filed Chapter 11. Say it aint so!
so they should have to make a $7 million dollars commercial to "hope" they can rebute the blatant lie chevy put on the air in violation of the law?
I love the commercial. it was hilarious. it was a good commercial. they went over the line with one word. FORD. they specifically targets ford and with false data.
but the sheeple in this country tend to believe what they see on TV. Ford is right to be pissed.
I have owned chevy and ford products. While I will NEVER own a GM product ever again (My get metro gets a pass as its a suzuki with a gm nameplate) not because their products are better or worse than ford (about the same in my book) but because of the politics of electric cars IE GM is directly responsible for why we are not driving usable affordable electric cars today. twice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"GM is directly responsible for why we are not driving usable affordable electric cars today"
Uhhh... what? You're going to have to elaborate on that one. I know all about the EV1, but please explain how the development of the Volt resulted in you not being able to drive "usable affordable electric cars." The development of the Volt started long before GM needed a bailout (read: government-assisted bankruptcy). Don't blame GM for poor decisions of politicians. Besides, the old GM doesn't exist anymore and its old leaders are gone. It's literally a new company now after coming out of bankruptcy reorganization.
Easy. the EV1 was a mediocre car at best. it was a bleeding edge prototype with top notch hand made everything.
but it showed something special. it showed how CHEAP an electric car could be. (it was $80,000 each EV1 which if you understand PROTOTYPE HAND MADE CARS you will realize is insanely cheap)
Go ask chevy what the first hand made Camaro Prototype cost. I bet its a lot more than $80k
anyway what was special about the EV1 and ALL I cared about was the battery.
you see everything you need to make an electric car is both off the shelf and incredibly CHEAP. that tends to happen with largely "solid state" components. They "scale" very rapidly and economies of scale kick in at VERY low numbers compared to more normal type products.
the hard part with an electric car is THE BATTERIES. without the batteries you have nothing.
there are 3 critical aspects to a viable electric car battery
#1 how expensive is it?
#2 how long will it last?
#3 how far can I go per charge?
You have lead acid batteries. VERY cheap but they don't last very long and you can't go very far per charge. (30-40 miles max) and they are crazy heavy.
Lithium is the future but its still quite a ways away from being truly VIABLE. they are CRAZY expensive they last longer than Lithium but not nearly long enough to make them cheaper than gasoline. The only real bonus to lithium is range per charge but this usually suffers as they "shrink" the pack to make it more affordable.
The winner is NIMH. thats right. Nickle Metal Hydride. like the AA's you use in your camera or cd player etc..
They are VERY cheap (the battery pack GM helped develop was $4500 FULL retail no subsidies or tax breaks and that was over 10 years ago)
They last LONGER than a gasoline engine. they are rated for 250,000 miles to 80% SOC (state of charge) Toyota actually tested one to 300,000 miles with "ZERO" measurable degradation in the battery before they gave up and said it really was that good and they used it in the RAV4EV.
and while the range is not as good as lithium for the price the range is "good enough" the EV1 could go 160 miles on a charge the more appropriate RAV4EV could go 80-110 miles on a charge and it cost less than $2 to charge.
THAT was the trick. that battery alone made electric cars viable and GM knew it which is why they killed the EV1 killed the E95 NIMH packs by selling the controlling patent to Chevron got the gov to help with the $100,000 hummer tax (and a month later GM bought Hummer) and bought the CAR Board in California to kill the 0% emissions requirement to useless AGAINST the wishes of the people.
that was the second time.
When Automobiles first game out electrics were more common than gas. they went 30mph for over 60 miles (back then you really could not GO faster than that on our roads)
GM bought that and killed it too. that was the first time.
The reason is simple really. Gasoline cars are far more profitable than electric cars.
orders of magnitude more profitable.
The volt is quite literally a SLAP IN THE FACE to anyone aware of this history. its a big giant GM "f**k YOU" to the american people.
if they had made the VOLT 12 years ago working TOWARD an EV1 type car today fine.
but they MADE a viable usable electric car over 10 years ago and they intentionally and purposely DEVOLVED to a nearly USELESS "volt" today.
NO ONE who buys a volt save maybe a cab driver will save one PENNY driving a volt. your better off buying a $14k 40mpg gas car financially.
its old leaders might be gone but its "objectives" are the same. SCREW the public out of every penny they can and NEVER give them something that actually empowers them if at all humanly possible.
Electric cars are GOOD for joe public BAD for corporate america. this and ONLY this is why you don't see many for sale.
they do NOT want to sell them. only political (slight) and public (slightly more) pressure is causing them to give us anything.
they know they MUST go greener so they are trying to figure out a way to "go greener" without removing the ANAL PROVE up america's ass.
A blatant lie? They implied Fords wouldn't be tough enough to survive an apocalypse. How does one prove or disprove that? More specifically, what law did they violate?
Ford should just respond with an ad about how GM couldn't even survive the recent recession without bankrupcy and a Government bailout, so there's no way they stand any chance with any supernatural calamity.
Yes, although that was Ford Credit, which makes it a bit different than the manufacturing arm of an automobile manufacturer built on an unsustainable cost structure.
Depending on who you talk to, that still counts and those people aren't going to buy a car from _____ because they're super principled and would rather buy a car from a foreign auto company that received government money than a domestic one.
"I see more 80s-90s chevys on the road than I do fords.".you don't get out much do you.I drove semi for 15 years and saw more chevys on the road with the hood up while ford trucks where just traveling on the hi ways.Just saying
PS. Chevy makes great cars,nothing more.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Check out the company fleets. Most any company. They are mostly Fords, and there is a reason for that. Fords hold up much better than Chevrolets in fleet use. It has always been like that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Nope, they have a guy who checks the odometers and changes the oil on time. Other than that you the operator are on your own.
Most companies keep maintenance records and those records influence what they buy next time around. And most fleet owners buy Fords because they need less maintenance over the long haul.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Depends on where you live. In my home town it was a lot of older chevys. Then I got a summer job I had in college, that sent me all over the mid west, I noticed that some areas had a lot of Fords other Chevy's. Not a lot of Dodges though...
Throwing my two cents in, I've owned/driven both a Ford Ranger and a Chevy S-10. Both were used and older models, and driven hard once purchased. The Ford seemed to have issues on a less regular basis, maybe once every year, but whenever it had an issue it was a "call the tow truck, put it in the shop, be without it for a week or two" issue. The S-10 on the other hand seemed to have an issue once every six months, but when it did it was usually a "I'll have to drive it to the shop on my off day" issue, or something I could fix myself even with limited vehicle repair knowledge.
Rangers (and Escapes for that matter) are part of a joint venture with Mazda. By the same token, the current GM small pickups are just rebranded Isuzus. You can't use any of those as indicators of the performance of Ford or GM.
they did not say their trucks are better for surviving 2012. they said the other guy (dave) did not BECAUSE he was driving a ford. thats what they did wrong. If they would have simply said dave was not driving a chevy it would have been fine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Wow, did people really do that? I'd like to see a link to an article talking about people driving their car into the ocean, because that would be insane. I feel like they wouldn't get very far, because the sand would be tough to drive on. Maybe they drove in a rocky part of the ocean in the northwest, or maybe they launched themselves off a dock or something.
The more I think about this, the less I believe someone actually tried to drive into the ocean because of a commercial. Did you just make that story up to prove a point?
did anyone? probably not "actually" but there lawyers felt the need to UPDATE the commercial to include that disclaimer (the original airing did not have the disclaimer)
when I saw the change I had assumed some dimwit tried it :-)
These people are pretty smart so I am guessing they figured someone might.
I mean you get farmers disabling MULTIPLE levels of safety interlocks and they SUING when they shred their hands for which those safeties were made to prevent.
The head of Ford trucks must think everyone is stupid when he offers, as evidence of durability/reliability, that there of the trucks still on the road with 250k miles, more of them are Fords than any other make.
This is more likely because Ford was selling more trucks than anyone else and doesn't prove that their vehicles are more reliable. If Ford's have a 50% failure rate at 250k miles, and Chevy's have a 25% failure rate at 250k miles, Chevy makes the more durable truck, even though, if Ford sold 3x the number of trucks Chevy did, then there will still be more +250k Chevy trucks on the road then there are Fords.
It pisses me off when marketing guys tell s things that we would have to be stupid to believe.
They basically did last season here in the U.S. on the American version on the History Channel when they compared the Heavy Duty editions from Chevrolet,Dodge,and Ford.
A video of a unimog in action and why I say it would be the truck to have after the apocalypse.
It's the honey badger of trucks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPmpKeOvUxw
The the OM924LA presently found in the unimog is a low rpm engine that makes most of it power below 2200 rpm this means it's designed for a long service life.
That injector pump you consider a failure point probably would outlast a geo's chassis.
Even the engines used in earlier models such as the M180 gasoline and OM352 diesel are insanely reliable.
attention Ford, this just in...who gives a crap? If your customers are really so absent minded that they won't buy your trucks because it might not survive the apocalypse, than you need better customers. Just let GM do what they want to, and come up with your own come back commercial against Ford. I guarantee a very large amount of people will want to watch your ad just as much, even though it wasn't during the super bowl.
I hate censorship, but Ford does have a legitimate claim, only because the commercial said the word "Ford". If they would have left "Ford" out, there would be no basis for the complaint.
I guess I am more curious 'How they drove through all that rubble without getting a flat?' lol
Would have thought it still funny and avoided offending any particular brand if they just would have said, "he was driving the competition." or he wasn't driving a Chevy. Just felt dumb and wrong to say he didn't make it because he was driving a Ford.But everyone has got their opinions on what is the better vehicle.
FORD all the way! they dont need no stinkin dirty bailout money to stay in business like chevy does reaching into ur pockets without permission! RA'AR!!!!1Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Honestly won't believe if GM will air this commercial again after the super bowl. Wait and see if networks actually will re-air this commercial over the next couple of weeks.
It's a cute ad. Both companies will milk it for all the free publicity they can get. Nothing like a good controversy to get them both on the evening news. It just like coke v. pepsi, they both win when the public perceives there are only two choices. In reality pickup trucks and cola are commodities, but they will convince some of the public to buy into this "rivalry." Good marketing.
You too? I have owned three Chevrolets and they were, individually and collectively the worst waste of American iron I ever owned out of the 26 vehicles I have owned to date.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I bought an '08 Suburban with 27k miles on it, I put over 9 thousand dollars in to it before I gave up and traded it in for a brand new F150, best purchase of my life. Now I have an F150 parked side by side with a 1992 Ranger that has been as loyal to me as my dog!
The only thing you could bitch about it the fact the marketing message is too convoluted, most likely exactly to forestall legal wranglings that would have had a basis if they just went with "Dave drove a Ford."
How do we get people distracted from the fact that the Volt was a failure?
Hey, lets use some more of that government money and make a commercial trashing our competition!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
What would you expect; now that GM is obama motors. Put out a for crap product (volt) and trash the opposition, just like obama. GM's goal to make $10B annually (which is OK with liberals (obscene profits) since it is obama's child, is based on not paying federal taxes for years to come, which is also OK with liberals. I thought liberals were supposed to be against corporate welfare? Typical liberal tactics, be devisive, trash opponents, screw the public, put out for crap products and tell people they are the best.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
My father-in-law's Chevy Silverado 2500 towed an 18-wheeler 3/4's of a mile to a truck stop... truck and trailer with a load! And no problems either, the 2500 rolled without foot on the gas even!
Every brand has issues, nobody can say any brand is better than any other in terms of reliability (Toyota has had the most recalls of any brand for the last 3 years straight keep in mind... so that may be your exclusion)
For Chevy to claim that their trucks out last a Ford, when there's NO PROOF that they do, is misleading advertising and childish. Sounds like they are playing the reugnicon game of lying.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Too bad you missed the point. If their is no proof that they do, why lie about it? Most people would have gotten that, but perhaps you are a bit slow.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Never underestimate a Redneck Fanboy and his love of Ford or Chevy. I guess you also believe that those were real frogs falling out of the sky and that that was a video from the future showing the end of the world.
on the contrary from a mileage perspective there is actually proof that Ford's outlast Chevy's. there are more fords with over 250k on the ticker on the road. that "is" proof.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
my 88 Cherokee - My first ever vehicle when I was 16. I still have it I still drive it. 497,000 and still going. original EVERYTHING except the engine. I replaced that with another used engine at 485.000 miles. it ran perfectly find but it was cheaper to replace it with my spare engine than to fix all the leaks :-)
at 200k or so I went 4 wheeling and somehow managed to get 1.5 quarts of "MUD" in the crank. trashed every bushing bearing and seal in it. leaked from EVERYWHERE. eventually just got to expensive to keep feeding it a quart of oil PER DAY.
but right to the day I removed it ran like a top great compression still got 24mpg out of it.
And there is a guy in Texas with now over 1 MILLION miles on his 80's Chevy. Actually driven mileage, on actual roads, not test roads.
However, your claim is FALSE. Because there is "more fords on the road with higher mileage so they are better and more reliable" is irrelevant (if even true or proven), because you don't take into account USER ERROR. Road accidents, rollovers, hitting dear, natural disasters, arson, hazardous weather, failure to properly maintain with oil changes or other types of unforeseen incidents etc etc. can take a vehicle out of commission and off the road.
A friend of mine rolled and totaled a Chevy S10, does that mean Ford Rangers are better? NO, he drove off the roadside at 70 mph over a steep roadside. Any ford would have flipped just the same.
So, # of one brand on the road longer doesn't scientifically prove anything.
No, I only meant that just because there is more than one brand of cars on the road at a given time does not show any ounce of proof that the brand is any BETTER in terms of build quality or reliability.
Basing "better brand" on that alone is false science. There are factors that the cars cannot dictate or control.
kaegroFeb 6, 2012
Megatrons head, frogs raining from the sky, a UFO and Twinkies? Those Chevy writers are AWESOME!!!!!
jrsouthFeb 6, 2012
You forgot flaming Big Boy.
phriend2spinFeb 6, 2012
That wasn't Megatron just a random robot.
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
you also missed the flying saucer from the last indiana jones movie.
ford should quit whining. i thought it was pretty funny and i loved all the stuff they snuck into the background of the shoot.
xwhyFeb 6, 2012
My wife's immediate reaction was that there won't be any Twinkies there. I thought she was crazy -- those preservatives will survive nuclear fallout. And she told me that they'd filed Chapter 11. Say it aint so!
jrsouthFeb 10, 2012
Somebody better figure out something then. ASAP. We need our Twinkies.
crom99Feb 6, 2012
Instead of whining that a rival poo-poo'ed your product in a commercial, why not make a better commercial as a rebuttal? Compete, you lazy bastards.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
so they should have to make a $7 million dollars commercial to "hope" they can rebute the blatant lie chevy put on the air in violation of the law?
I love the commercial. it was hilarious. it was a good commercial. they went over the line with one word. FORD. they specifically targets ford and with false data.
but the sheeple in this country tend to believe what they see on TV. Ford is right to be pissed.
I have owned chevy and ford products. While I will NEVER own a GM product ever again (My get metro gets a pass as its a suzuki with a gm nameplate) not because their products are better or worse than ford (about the same in my book) but because of the politics of electric cars IE GM is directly responsible for why we are not driving usable affordable electric cars today. twice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crom99Feb 6, 2012
"GM is directly responsible for why we are not driving usable affordable electric cars today"
Uhhh... what? You're going to have to elaborate on that one. I know all about the EV1, but please explain how the development of the Volt resulted in you not being able to drive "usable affordable electric cars." The development of the Volt started long before GM needed a bailout (read: government-assisted bankruptcy). Don't blame GM for poor decisions of politicians. Besides, the old GM doesn't exist anymore and its old leaders are gone. It's literally a new company now after coming out of bankruptcy reorganization.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
Easy. the EV1 was a mediocre car at best. it was a bleeding edge prototype with top notch hand made everything.
but it showed something special. it showed how CHEAP an electric car could be. (it was $80,000 each EV1 which if you understand PROTOTYPE HAND MADE CARS you will realize is insanely cheap)
Go ask chevy what the first hand made Camaro Prototype cost. I bet its a lot more than $80k
anyway what was special about the EV1 and ALL I cared about was the battery.
you see everything you need to make an electric car is both off the shelf and incredibly CHEAP. that tends to happen with largely "solid state" components. They "scale" very rapidly and economies of scale kick in at VERY low numbers compared to more normal type products.
the hard part with an electric car is THE BATTERIES. without the batteries you have nothing.
there are 3 critical aspects to a viable electric car battery
#1 how expensive is it?
#2 how long will it last?
#3 how far can I go per charge?
You have lead acid batteries. VERY cheap but they don't last very long and you can't go very far per charge. (30-40 miles max) and they are crazy heavy.
Lithium is the future but its still quite a ways away from being truly VIABLE. they are CRAZY expensive they last longer than Lithium but not nearly long enough to make them cheaper than gasoline. The only real bonus to lithium is range per charge but this usually suffers as they "shrink" the pack to make it more affordable.
The winner is NIMH. thats right. Nickle Metal Hydride. like the AA's you use in your camera or cd player etc..
They are VERY cheap (the battery pack GM helped develop was $4500 FULL retail no subsidies or tax breaks and that was over 10 years ago)
They last LONGER than a gasoline engine. they are rated for 250,000 miles to 80% SOC (state of charge) Toyota actually tested one to 300,000 miles with "ZERO" measurable degradation in the battery before they gave up and said it really was that good and they used it in the RAV4EV.
and while the range is not as good as lithium for the price the range is "good enough" the EV1 could go 160 miles on a charge the more appropriate RAV4EV could go 80-110 miles on a charge and it cost less than $2 to charge.
THAT was the trick. that battery alone made electric cars viable and GM knew it which is why they killed the EV1 killed the E95 NIMH packs by selling the controlling patent to Chevron got the gov to help with the $100,000 hummer tax (and a month later GM bought Hummer) and bought the CAR Board in California to kill the 0% emissions requirement to useless AGAINST the wishes of the people.
that was the second time.
When Automobiles first game out electrics were more common than gas. they went 30mph for over 60 miles (back then you really could not GO faster than that on our roads)
GM bought that and killed it too. that was the first time.
The reason is simple really. Gasoline cars are far more profitable than electric cars.
orders of magnitude more profitable.
The volt is quite literally a SLAP IN THE FACE to anyone aware of this history. its a big giant GM "f**k YOU" to the american people.
if they had made the VOLT 12 years ago working TOWARD an EV1 type car today fine.
but they MADE a viable usable electric car over 10 years ago and they intentionally and purposely DEVOLVED to a nearly USELESS "volt" today.
NO ONE who buys a volt save maybe a cab driver will save one PENNY driving a volt. your better off buying a $14k 40mpg gas car financially.
its old leaders might be gone but its "objectives" are the same. SCREW the public out of every penny they can and NEVER give them something that actually empowers them if at all humanly possible.
Electric cars are GOOD for joe public BAD for corporate america. this and ONLY this is why you don't see many for sale.
they do NOT want to sell them. only political (slight) and public (slightly more) pressure is causing them to give us anything.
they know they MUST go greener so they are trying to figure out a way to "go greener" without removing the ANAL PROVE up america's ass.
HYDROGEN is the answer.
Hydrogen cars can very simply be described.
A Hydrogen car is an ELECTRIC CAR where the CONSUMER FRIENDLY battery has been removed and replaced with a CORPORATE friendly Fuel Cell.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
You sure like caps and typos.
Hey, um, did you sue them for assault for literally slapping you in the face, or what?
nerysFeb 6, 2012
you want to keep sucking GM dick up the ass go right ahead. I intend to fight.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
Dude you're the one taking a bitch-slapping lying down. Spread your legs and think of America.
neondistractionFeb 6, 2012
A blatant lie? They implied Fords wouldn't be tough enough to survive an apocalypse. How does one prove or disprove that? More specifically, what law did they violate?
nerysFeb 6, 2012
did you even read the article? they site the issue AND site the violation in law. go RTFA
xwhyFeb 5, 2012
I don't always live through apocalypses, but when I do, I want to do it in a GM truck.
barackalypseFeb 6, 2012
Ford should just respond with an ad about how GM couldn't even survive the recent recession without bankrupcy and a Government bailout, so there's no way they stand any chance with any supernatural calamity.
aanrFeb 6, 2012
I think Ford had a commercial where they poked fun at GM taking a bailout and they were convinced some how to not run it. Maybe they will now.
wizwearincFeb 6, 2012
haha you should actually send that in to ford
http://www.wizwearinc.com
crom99Feb 6, 2012
Ford couldn't have survived either. When credit dried up, they had to turn to the government for a loan.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2010/12/report-ford-took-federal-funds-too.html
barackalypseFeb 6, 2012
Yes, although that was Ford Credit, which makes it a bit different than the manufacturing arm of an automobile manufacturer built on an unsustainable cost structure.
crom99Feb 6, 2012
Depending on who you talk to, that still counts and those people aren't going to buy a car from _____ because they're super principled and would rather buy a car from a foreign auto company that received government money than a domestic one.
maquereautinFeb 5, 2012
I see more 80s-90s chevys on the road than I do fords. Just saying.
ka5p3rFeb 6, 2012
"I see more 80s-90s chevys on the road than I do fords.".you don't get out much do you.I drove semi for 15 years and saw more chevys on the road with the hood up while ford trucks where just traveling on the hi ways.Just saying
PS. Chevy makes great cars,nothing more.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
benjie25Feb 6, 2012
That's about all you see. Either 80s-90s Chevys, or current year Chevys, no 5 year old Chevys. /sarc
miklkitFeb 6, 2012
Check out the company fleets. Most any company. They are mostly Fords, and there is a reason for that. Fords hold up much better than Chevrolets in fleet use. It has always been like that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallFeb 6, 2012
That's because fleets only use them for four years and have mechanics on hand to repair them constantly.
For anyone who is not a mechanic and wants to keep a car four years, they might want to make a different choice...
miklkitFeb 6, 2012
Nope, they have a guy who checks the odometers and changes the oil on time. Other than that you the operator are on your own.
Most companies keep maintenance records and those records influence what they buy next time around. And most fleet owners buy Fords because they need less maintenance over the long haul.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adml_shakeFeb 6, 2012
Depends on where you live. In my home town it was a lot of older chevys. Then I got a summer job I had in college, that sent me all over the mid west, I noticed that some areas had a lot of Fords other Chevy's. Not a lot of Dodges though...
dragularFeb 6, 2012
Throwing my two cents in, I've owned/driven both a Ford Ranger and a Chevy S-10. Both were used and older models, and driven hard once purchased. The Ford seemed to have issues on a less regular basis, maybe once every year, but whenever it had an issue it was a "call the tow truck, put it in the shop, be without it for a week or two" issue. The S-10 on the other hand seemed to have an issue once every six months, but when it did it was usually a "I'll have to drive it to the shop on my off day" issue, or something I could fix myself even with limited vehicle repair knowledge.
hydianFeb 6, 2012
Rangers (and Escapes for that matter) are part of a joint venture with Mazda. By the same token, the current GM small pickups are just rebranded Isuzus. You can't use any of those as indicators of the performance of Ford or GM.
bille3Feb 5, 2012
I loved it. Too bad Ford.
charlesdkraussFeb 6, 2012
What a bunch of pussies.
anglosaxongalFeb 6, 2012
I HATE Ford! They almost killed me with a recall item and then slapped me in the face by refusing to pay for the fixing! DEMONS!
FPSmotoFeb 6, 2012
I LOVE Ford! They fixed a recall item for me and then gladly paid for it. ANGELS!
anglosaxongalFeb 6, 2012
Thanks for the warning. I avoid satanists too.
knm123Feb 6, 2012
I just watched it, it took me a second to get it, but i don't see nothing wrong with it.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
they did not say their trucks are better for surviving 2012. they said the other guy (dave) did not BECAUSE he was driving a ford. thats what they did wrong. If they would have simply said dave was not driving a chevy it would have been fine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallFeb 6, 2012
They did nothing wrong. The whole thing was fantasy and only idiots would complain about something said in a made-up world.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
really. ever wonder why the original TIBERON commercials had they disclaimer do not drive your car into the ocean?
because some MORONS did just that. Drove the damned cars into the ocean.
jonpaul333Feb 6, 2012
Wow, did people really do that? I'd like to see a link to an article talking about people driving their car into the ocean, because that would be insane. I feel like they wouldn't get very far, because the sand would be tough to drive on. Maybe they drove in a rocky part of the ocean in the northwest, or maybe they launched themselves off a dock or something.
The more I think about this, the less I believe someone actually tried to drive into the ocean because of a commercial. Did you just make that story up to prove a point?
nerysFeb 6, 2012
did anyone? probably not "actually" but there lawyers felt the need to UPDATE the commercial to include that disclaimer (the original airing did not have the disclaimer)
when I saw the change I had assumed some dimwit tried it :-)
These people are pretty smart so I am guessing they figured someone might.
I mean you get farmers disabling MULTIPLE levels of safety interlocks and they SUING when they shred their hands for which those safeties were made to prevent.
its a pretty dumb world out their :-)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
Ok, but someone DID actually try to buy a harrier jumpjet with thousands of Pepsi points and a large check. Commercials are dangerous.
mbraynardFeb 6, 2012
The head of Ford trucks must think everyone is stupid when he offers, as evidence of durability/reliability, that there of the trucks still on the road with 250k miles, more of them are Fords than any other make.
This is more likely because Ford was selling more trucks than anyone else and doesn't prove that their vehicles are more reliable. If Ford's have a 50% failure rate at 250k miles, and Chevy's have a 25% failure rate at 250k miles, Chevy makes the more durable truck, even though, if Ford sold 3x the number of trucks Chevy did, then there will still be more +250k Chevy trucks on the road then there are Fords.
It pisses me off when marketing guys tell s things that we would have to be stupid to believe.
aanrFeb 6, 2012
Booo f**king hoooo.....
StonnaFeb 6, 2012
f**k commercials
jvdiggnFeb 6, 2012
kind of reminds me of i am legend, but that was a Ford mustang.
protogenxlFeb 6, 2012
Both need to put their money where their mouth is and have Top Gear do a independent durability test.
daoneFeb 6, 2012
They basically did last season here in the U.S. on the American version on the History Channel when they compared the Heavy Duty editions from Chevrolet,Dodge,and Ford.
nitoriFeb 6, 2012
The truck most likely to still work after an apocalypse is the unimog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unimog
karlstephens491Feb 6, 2012
No Sir, I say the Toyota Hiace is a more likely candidate as you can't kill 'em
http://200hiace.forumotion.net/t731-killing-a-toyota-by-top-gear
nerysFeb 6, 2012
Oddly enough the most likely ICE powered vehicle to run in consumer hands after an apocalypse is a geo metro or similarly insanely "simple" cars.
IE easy to fix EASY to "rig" easy to keep going and they sip gas.
what happens the next morning when those chevies run out of gas :-) hehehe
nitoriFeb 6, 2012
A unimog is simple and could run on biodiesel.
A video of a unimog in action and why I say it would be the truck to have after the apocalypse.
It's the honey badger of trucks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPmpKeOvUxw
nerysFeb 6, 2012
yep. till that injector pump fails. good luck replacing it.
nitoriFeb 7, 2012
The the OM924LA presently found in the unimog is a low rpm engine that makes most of it power below 2200 rpm this means it's designed for a long service life.
That injector pump you consider a failure point probably would outlast a geo's chassis.
Even the engines used in earlier models such as the M180 gasoline and OM352 diesel are insanely reliable.
nerysFeb 7, 2012
thats a good point good injector pumps DO tend to last 200-300k though I have 250k on my original geo everything and its fine.
the problem is "IF IT DOES" fail you can't just goto the store and buy a new one in a SHTF scenario.
with the geo I could probably "FIND" another fuel pump in a hulk somewhere and adapt it to work.
and I could keep SEVERAL spare engines trannies and common parts AND several spare GEO's for the price of the unimog's injector pump :-) hehe
I do fully admit though unimogs kick ass.
phearthis85Feb 6, 2012
attention Ford, this just in...who gives a crap? If your customers are really so absent minded that they won't buy your trucks because it might not survive the apocalypse, than you need better customers. Just let GM do what they want to, and come up with your own come back commercial against Ford. I guarantee a very large amount of people will want to watch your ad just as much, even though it wasn't during the super bowl.
terryallisonFeb 6, 2012
I hate censorship, but Ford does have a legitimate claim, only because the commercial said the word "Ford". If they would have left "Ford" out, there would be no basis for the complaint.
I guess I am more curious 'How they drove through all that rubble without getting a flat?' lol
daoneFeb 6, 2012
Would have thought it still funny and avoided offending any particular brand if they just would have said, "he was driving the competition." or he wasn't driving a Chevy. Just felt dumb and wrong to say he didn't make it because he was driving a Ford.But everyone has got their opinions on what is the better vehicle.
terryallisonFeb 6, 2012
Exactly! Well said my friend!
publikjohn9Feb 6, 2012
I thought the commercial was great, but GM will not convince me to buy their products, I'm a Mopar guy!
akronFeb 6, 2012
I like it. I want Twinkies now.
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
they filed for chapter 11. a sad day. maybe if they open a store in nk that fat guy will give em lots of cash.
jaketyson85Feb 6, 2012
FORD all the way! they dont need no stinkin dirty bailout money to stay in business like chevy does reaching into ur pockets without permission! RA'AR!!!!1Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crom99Feb 6, 2012
Actually, Ford received a ton of money in 2008 when credit dried up.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2010/12/report-ford-took-federal-funds-too.html
abcotechnology2000Feb 6, 2012
That is advertising at its finest.. Well done
ferretmanFeb 6, 2012
Too bad for Ford....it's a great commercial.
daoneFeb 6, 2012
Honestly won't believe if GM will air this commercial again after the super bowl. Wait and see if networks actually will re-air this commercial over the next couple of weeks.
karlstephens491Feb 6, 2012
It's not like either of them are as tough as a Toyota Hiace as proven by Top Gear (UK, not the US version) - http://200hiace.forumotion.net/t731-killing-a-toyota-by-top-gear
4Herp2Derp0Feb 6, 2012
GO PATRIOTS!!
neondistractionFeb 6, 2012
Yeah, how's that working out for ya?
craig1958Feb 6, 2012
It's a cute ad. Both companies will milk it for all the free publicity they can get. Nothing like a good controversy to get them both on the evening news. It just like coke v. pepsi, they both win when the public perceives there are only two choices. In reality pickup trucks and cola are commodities, but they will convince some of the public to buy into this "rivalry." Good marketing.
wizwearincFeb 6, 2012
whether or not its right it was still creative
hawkstar90Feb 6, 2012
I would still never buy a GM product, they are all crap.
miklkitFeb 6, 2012
You too? I have owned three Chevrolets and they were, individually and collectively the worst waste of American iron I ever owned out of the 26 vehicles I have owned to date.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thubanFeb 6, 2012
It is a pity their product is not as good as their advertising.
hawkstar90Feb 6, 2012
I bought an '08 Suburban with 27k miles on it, I put over 9 thousand dollars in to it before I gave up and traded it in for a brand new F150, best purchase of my life. Now I have an F150 parked side by side with a 1992 Ranger that has been as loyal to me as my dog!
crom99Feb 6, 2012
They must have been old vehicles. Their cars have been consistently rated high for the last few years.
miklkitFeb 7, 2012
On the other hand, last time I looked Ford was rated higher than Toyota.
alanselvamFeb 7, 2012
testing comment
anglosaxongalFeb 6, 2012
LMAO! Now we're getting a good idea of who we're talking to on the internet.....
ninhFeb 6, 2012
The only thing you could bitch about it the fact the marketing message is too convoluted, most likely exactly to forestall legal wranglings that would have had a basis if they just went with "Dave drove a Ford."
sleestakslayerFeb 6, 2012
How do we get people distracted from the fact that the Volt was a failure?
Hey, lets use some more of that government money and make a commercial trashing our competition!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crom99Feb 6, 2012
Would you say the Prius was a failure? Because the Volt sold more in its first year than the Prius. Remember, it's only been out for a year.
monvalleyFeb 6, 2012
What would you expect; now that GM is obama motors. Put out a for crap product (volt) and trash the opposition, just like obama. GM's goal to make $10B annually (which is OK with liberals (obscene profits) since it is obama's child, is based on not paying federal taxes for years to come, which is also OK with liberals. I thought liberals were supposed to be against corporate welfare? Typical liberal tactics, be devisive, trash opponents, screw the public, put out for crap products and tell people they are the best.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crom99Feb 6, 2012
"...be devisive, trash opponents..."
And you're not doing exactly what you're complaining the other team is doing?
obitrentkenobiFeb 6, 2012
My father-in-law's Chevy Silverado 2500 towed an 18-wheeler 3/4's of a mile to a truck stop... truck and trailer with a load! And no problems either, the 2500 rolled without foot on the gas even!
Every brand has issues, nobody can say any brand is better than any other in terms of reliability (Toyota has had the most recalls of any brand for the last 3 years straight keep in mind... so that may be your exclusion)
But in terms of engineering under the hood and use of better OEM parts, it's Chevy baby!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rayvrFeb 6, 2012
For Chevy to claim that their trucks out last a Ford, when there's NO PROOF that they do, is misleading advertising and childish. Sounds like they are playing the reugnicon game of lying.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aanrFeb 6, 2012
And there is no proof that they don't. Too bad you missed the humor in the commercial.
rayvrFeb 6, 2012
Too bad you missed the point. If their is no proof that they do, why lie about it? Most people would have gotten that, but perhaps you are a bit slow.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aanrFeb 6, 2012
Never underestimate a Redneck Fanboy and his love of Ford or Chevy. I guess you also believe that those were real frogs falling out of the sky and that that was a video from the future showing the end of the world.
rayvrFeb 6, 2012
Naah, but I'm sure you did!
nerysFeb 6, 2012
on the contrary from a mileage perspective there is actually proof that Ford's outlast Chevy's. there are more fords with over 250k on the ticker on the road. that "is" proof.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aanrFeb 6, 2012
And there are a lot of Toyotas with 500k + miles on them....
nerysFeb 6, 2012
my 88 Cherokee - My first ever vehicle when I was 16. I still have it I still drive it. 497,000 and still going. original EVERYTHING except the engine. I replaced that with another used engine at 485.000 miles. it ran perfectly find but it was cheaper to replace it with my spare engine than to fix all the leaks :-)
at 200k or so I went 4 wheeling and somehow managed to get 1.5 quarts of "MUD" in the crank. trashed every bushing bearing and seal in it. leaked from EVERYWHERE. eventually just got to expensive to keep feeding it a quart of oil PER DAY.
but right to the day I removed it ran like a top great compression still got 24mpg out of it.
the I6 is nearly indestructibleComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
thats an AMC cherokee BTW not a chrysler. chrysler ruined it after that. though CURRENT jeeps are getting better from what I hear.
obitrentkenobiFeb 6, 2012
And there is a guy in Texas with now over 1 MILLION miles on his 80's Chevy. Actually driven mileage, on actual roads, not test roads.
However, your claim is FALSE. Because there is "more fords on the road with higher mileage so they are better and more reliable" is irrelevant (if even true or proven), because you don't take into account USER ERROR. Road accidents, rollovers, hitting dear, natural disasters, arson, hazardous weather, failure to properly maintain with oil changes or other types of unforeseen incidents etc etc. can take a vehicle out of commission and off the road.
A friend of mine rolled and totaled a Chevy S10, does that mean Ford Rangers are better? NO, he drove off the roadside at 70 mph over a steep roadside. Any ford would have flipped just the same.
So, # of one brand on the road longer doesn't scientifically prove anything.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
yet that is what chevy tried to claim in their commercial to the DIRECT detriment of ford.
all they had to do was the exact same commercial but instead of saying dave drove a ford say dave did not drive a chevy and all would have been well.
miklkitFeb 7, 2012
So you are saying that Chevrolet drivers are better drivers than Ford drivers and that is why they last longer?
obitrentkenobiFeb 8, 2012
No, I only meant that just because there is more than one brand of cars on the road at a given time does not show any ounce of proof that the brand is any BETTER in terms of build quality or reliability.
Basing "better brand" on that alone is false science. There are factors that the cars cannot dictate or control.
crom99Feb 6, 2012
Read the article. They cite that Chevy beats Ford in durability. Ford, however, cites their longevity and is why they take issue with the commercial.