By on July 28, 2014

2015-ford-f-150-platinum

The 2015 Ford F-150 will get a price bump, but the upgrade fee for an Ecoboost engine won’t be the most substantial part of the hike.

For 2015, the 3.5L Ecoboost will carry a premium of $1,995, or $100 less than the 2014 model. The all-new 2.7L Ecoboost will carry a premium of just $495.

The breakdown for trim levels looks like this (prices include a $1,195 destination charge:

•XL: $26,615, an increase f $395. The XL, a basic work truck, will come standard as a regular cab with rear-wheel drive and 6.5-foot bed.

•XLT: $31,890, up $395. The base price is quoted for the same RWD/regular cab/6.5 foot bed configuration.

•Lariat:$39,880, or an increase of $895. Its basic spec is an extended cab RWD truck with a 6.5 foot bed.

•King Ranch: $49,460, an increase of $3,515.

•Platinum: $52,155, up $3,055.

Prices will change depending on the bed length, whether 4WD is selected, various option packages and other factors. Ford is also touting higher standard levels of content, and the fact that the XL through Lariat versions, which see only modest price increases, make up 85 percent of their F-150 sales. The King Ranch and Platinum trucks will get steep increases, since they are the profit-rich trim levels, and keeping prices low is likely less critical.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

120 Comments on “Ford Announces 2015 F-150 Pricing...”


  • avatar
    LeadHead

    Little pricier than the Ram, I expected the price to be much higher considering all the problems they had in development along with the more expensive aluminum construction techniques. I wonder if Ford is taking a bigger hit than usual just to keep prices competitive?

    • 0 avatar

      Most likely it’s a mix of them eating some of the costs; building these ridiculous V6 engines with extra parts (blowers) and the higher cost of aluminum.

      RAM is going to have a very good year…

      Amazing how liberalism ruins businesses. The best things America has ever built were big cars with big engines. Now the 300 Million are being demasculinized while the vast majority of the other 6.7 Billion continue to burn biomass, biofuels and fossil fuels – since they mostly can’t afford “clean energy” – yet another LIE.

      • 0 avatar
        jmo

        So, you’d rather have a 6.7L 165bhp V-8 than a 325bhp V-6 turbo? Or….what exactly?

        • 0 avatar
          tuffjuff

          A 6.7l V8 has to make at least 300 HP in a truck.

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            Only when you add in that newfangled fuel injection. Trucks should have carburetors like God intended.

        • 0 avatar
          Z71_Silvy

          What manufacturer has a 165hp, 6.7L V8?

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Ford does in the Super Duty, the diesel. I’m not sure where the above comments are going with any of this though.

          • 0 avatar
            dartman

            The 6.7L diesel in the current Fords are rated at 440hp and 860lb/ft torque. Where did 165hp come from? a brochure from 1983?

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            a brochure from 1983?

            1979 before all that silly electronic ignition and fuel injection destroyed the stone cold reliability of big 1970s v-8 American iron.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @jmo – Less, no, make that zero electronics to fail on your big iron, 70s V8, but a current V8 will still be going strong on the original spark plugs (and still clean) when you’re rebuilding your ’70s V8, with a few tune ups along the way. And I’ll bet you have a dwell meter to set the points, and good with adjusting and rebuilding the carb. As for “stone cold reliability”? Yeah, I guess.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “… and fuel injection destroyed the stone cold reliability of big 1970s v-8 American iron.”

            The thing is that many fuel injection systems in that era WERE unreliable or expensive or bizarre. The EFI system on the Chrysler 318 was so bad that many cars were retro-fitted back to a carburetor.

            Closer to home I have two cars right from the same company from the same model year with two different early ABS systems and the best solution if an expensive and rare part breaks is to convert it to a non-ABS setup.

            However, over time the technology gets figured out. This is pretty much the way automotive advancements have worked since their invention and is major reason why I don’t think that being the first one on the block with an aluminum-body 2.7T F-150 is a great idea.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Not everyone who is critical and/or skeptical of the claims surrounding the Ecoboost (3.5 and upcoming 2.7) in terms of long term reliability & alleged ability to achieve close to the real world fuel efficiency that Ford advertises in a typical pickup truck application is a troglodyte.

            As it stands now, in fact, those of us skeptical of both these claims regarding the Ecoboost Ford motors have been convincingly vindicated, to wit:

            1) Ford has been forced to revise fuel economy figures of their vehicles powered by Ecoboost motors, and,

            2) EVERY single Ecoboost motor has earned Consumer Reports black dot of shame in terms of reliability, with the most reliable version rated as “worse than average,”and every other version rated as “much worse than average.”

            I fully embrace technological progress that moves the bar significantly forward whether it improves fuel economy (fuel injection), reliability, safety (electronic stability control is one of the most important, yet underappreciated, advances in collision prevention in history, IMO), etc., but so far the facts have not supported Ford’s claims regarding the improvements in fuel efficiency in their Ecoboost motors, and to add insult to injury, these motors are problematic reliability wise, thus far.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            p.s. – Despite many who inevitably believe the opposite, and let me know it regularly, I am actually hoping Ford succeeds in transitioning the new F series into a successful, reliable & fuel efficient truck, since I happen to like Ford, and since Ford’s success directly helps the economy in my area in a very tangible, direct way –

            – this despite the fact Ford frustrates me to no end in their latest strategies (2015 Mustang excepted), their seeming inability to launch new products without major problems, their reliability issues, and their penchant to design/implement overcomplicated “solutions” to problems (some that don’t require solutions).

            Ford seems like the Anti-Honda at times.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The F150 is being demasculinized because it has turbocharged engines? My God man…

        • 0 avatar

          How bout an appropriately sized V8 or Diesel/turbodiesel for the job at hand?

          Is that to much to ask or should I just go ask RAM?

          How about a Ram 1500 with a 28mpg diesel???

          Just sayin…

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            They still have the 5.0L. To be quite honest, most jobs 1/2 ton trucks do are perfectly suited for a V6.

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            “appropriately sized V8”

            What does that even mean? Everything is run through the same modeling software there is no reason a v-8 would be more overbuilt than a v-6.

          • 0 avatar

            Yes BBALL, you’re right. They still have the 5.0-L, but now the cost will rise due to the Aluminum construction.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Yup a Ram ecodiesel laramie longhorn 4×4 with a 6ft 4inch bed and 851 lb of capacity.

            I’d rather have an appropriately sized cargo capacity than a V8 or 28 mpg.

            isn’t a truck supposed to do work? or is 1/4 mile times and replacing large BOF cars their only mission parameter?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            BTSR-

            I will agree that the most cost effective way to obtain a truck in the US is by leasing a RAM. If someone must have a V8 on a budget, the RAM is the ticket. In fact, the RAM might be the cheapest way to get a new vehicle with a V8, in the world.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BTSR – Ram should already be outselling the F150, if it just came down to price. And by a wide margin. Ram would be my choice for a diesel, but I know it doesn’t come for cheap.

            But why would anyone be buying a brand new generation, 2015 truck if $400 more is a deal breaker? And will you be reviewing this truck? Or any (BIG) truck???

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            bball, I have to disagree with you.

            The “the most cost effective way to obtain a truck in the US” is to buy a pizza for your buddy with a truck to help you out with whatever you’re doing.

          • 0 avatar
            dartman

            BTSR-

            I’m confused. That Ram 1500 28mpg diesel is one of those “puny” little turbocharged 3.0l V6 Italian “Ecodiesels, making 240hp and 420lb/ft torque. Why is that o.k, but a 3.5l V6 Gas American made “Ecoboost” engine making 365hp and 420lb/ft torque is emasculating? (proper word- “demasculate” only exists in the Urban Dictionary where it contains some contradictory meanings.)

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          He’s just afeared of anything with a BMEP over 150 psi.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        Based on this test mule the future of Ram pickups is unibody and FWD:

        http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/07/spied-future-midsize-ram-pickup.html

      • 0 avatar
        Beerboy12

        the the other 6.7 Billion don’t get to drive full size pickups. what they do get will horrify you. Also, American politics do not apply to the other 6.7 Billion at all.

      • 0 avatar
        dartman

        More silliness. Back when pick-ups were really used for work, the common set-up was a Dodge with a 225 “slant six”, a Ford with a 300c.i I6, or a Chevy/GMC with a 230-292ci I6. Lighter duty versions made do with “3 on the tree” manuals, heavier duty versions had 4 on the floor, “rock crushers” with ultra low 1st gears without synchros. You had to be able to drive a standard or learn how–(I’m looking at you BTSR). These trucks were almost indestructible and stone cold reliable. Comfort was rated on how well the heater worked.

        To base one’s masculinity on the the type, size or power rating of an engine in a vehicle indicates some deep rooted insecurity issues, where one tries to compensate by assigning a personality trait to an inanimate object.

        • 0 avatar
          340-4

          Word.

        • 0 avatar
          old5.0

          This, for the love of God. I’m all for progress (and horsepower), but to listen to people complain, you would think no work was ever accomplished before about 5 years ago. We had several grain haulers when I was kid, but I spent most of my time driving a ’49 Chevy two ton 6103 Loadmaster complete with the old Blue Flame Six. The truck was approaching 45 years old at that point, but the stovebolt would still pull a 10,000 pound load of grain (plus me and the truck itself)down the road at steady 55, and do it several times per day in the heat of summer without overheating. It was kept in good tune, but how much power could it have been making, really? 100 horsepower? Probably not even that much. Ideal? Far from it. But the idea that one of these modern gas V-6’s is somehow inadequate for real work is insane. I would bet that the N/A 3.7 in a new Ford 1/2-ton makes 3x the power and 2-1/2x the torque of that old straight six, if not more.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            I think the problem isn’t the V6 per se, if it fits the needs as a base (XL) product. It’s the turbocharger that adds complexity, possible reliability issues, and doesn’t get the job done because you have to pound hard on the engine to get the same performance of a V8, with losses in efficiency!

        • 0 avatar
          matador

          Amen. I’ll keep my 1995 F-150 with the straight six as long as I can.

          Air conditioning and power steering are really the only comforts that I NEED (100 degrees in the city stinks without A/C, but on the highway, it’s doable without).

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          Dartman, I used to drive my dad’s 66 Suburban with “3 on the tree” and a 283 V8. It passed the test regarding destruction resistance, but it wasn’t stone cold reliable. Took a fair amount of part replacement that, while inexpensive with free labor, would be unacceptable by today’s standards. In comparison, his 2002 Chevy pickup with a 4.8L multiport fuel injection V8 and automatic always starts hot or cold and requires almost nothing except fluid changes. Still low enough to throw stuff over the side of the bed. Too bad the new pickups height and proportions are all wrong for regular cab work trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          Onus

          I got one of those. A 1983 f250 2wd, 300 6, t 18 4 speed. Only 1st and reverse have no syncros. 6.32:1 first gear is nice.

      • 0 avatar
        carguy

        @BTSR: Using a word like “demasculinized” seems to indicate that derive your masculinity from the engine in your truck. Maybe you can downsize to a V6 and make up the rest with AndroGel?

        • 0 avatar
          340-4

          I’m still waiting for the annotated dissertation on how liberalism has ruined the F-150.

          • 0 avatar
            turboprius

            Basically, liberalism ruined the F-150 because rather than using V8 engines, such as the 5.4 Triton, Ford went to using “Ecoboost” engines to help improve fuel efficiency. Stereotypical liberals are like “Oh, environment, I’m helping you by driving my C-Max Energi covered in “Ready for Hillary” and “Boycott Hobby Lobby” stickers.” Oh, and the liberal EPA and CAFE are to blame for removing the manliness of the newer F-150s.

            Note: While I have far right-wing world views (especially for someone my age), I’m a huge supporter of hybrid and electric vehicles. I helped make the Prius article on Conservapedia a normal article.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            340.. You will never get a real answer. The liberalism comment is basically something to state instead actual thought.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “demasculinized” well………. “8” sounds more masculine than “6”.

          Imagine the vitriol if some one puts a “4” in a truck. Only “4”, that definitely does not sound manly.

          Women say size doesn’t matter and Ford’s take rate would indicate the same thing.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            turboprius,
            You appear to be furthering the argument that liberals created CAFE and the EPA to destroy the V8, which can only be saved by the Tea Party.

            In truth, Nixon enacted the EPA and Ford signed CAFE into law. Or are they now considered liberals?

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        BMSR: “Amazing how liberalism ruins businesses.”

        A) If someone needs a V8 engine to be masculine, he has some serious problems. There are even those of us capable of being satisfactorily masculine while driving a minivan.

        B) Toyota made a few $bazillions last year and 99% of it had nothing to do with sedans with big V8 engines, so it seems unlikely that ruination is closely tied to a lack of available excessive V8 horses. I think maybe the guys at VW do OK, too.

      • 0 avatar
        clem151

        “Amazing how liberalism ruins businesses. The best things America has ever built were big cars with big engines. Now the 300 Million are being demasculinized while the vast majority of the other 6.7 Billion continue to burn biomass, biofuels and fossil fuels – since they mostly can’t afford “clean energy” – yet another LIE.”

        Only in America can a technological leap forward be spun as a political issue. WTF man. Have you ever left ‘Merica? Nobody burns more fossil fuels than us on a per capita basis. And nowhere in the world will you find people driving F-150’s as commuters…in other countries people buy trucks to use them as trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          “Nobody burns more fossil fuels than us on a per capita basis.”

          Canada does, though usually for heating.

          • 0 avatar
            Onus

            We are not on the top for sure. We have been moving down the list thanks to things like CAFE.

            EPA has been ruled in court to be able to regulate co2 emissions so its what we got and we will have to deal with it.

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          Yep. And should you find yourself behind one of those “working” trucks you will flashback to LA circa 1984 from the fumes. Our trucks are big, but by world standards they are pretty clean. Come stand behind my Land Cruiser here in Bagram if you don’t believe me.

      • 0 avatar
        koshchei

        You were doing so well in the first two paragraphs and then suddenly went full birther. Needless to say, I’m with you right up until then:

        I don’t agree that big cars with big engines were symbolic of anything (the Seventies weren’t exactly a high point in American history by any measure).

        I don’t think that people are having their masculinity excised by turbochargers.

        Complaining that you’re not allowed to burn dead dinosaurs as inefficiently as people from countries that stone women for learning to read seems a little self-serving. You live in one of the most advanced countries on the planet and benefit from this tremendously. Do you see Pakistan building cars with factory warranties that have 707hp at the back wheels and still get 20mpg? No, then quit your entitled whining.

        • 0 avatar

          SEVEN – hundred-and-SEVEN???

          • 0 avatar
            bumpy ii

            If it had quad turbos, it could have been 909.

          • 0 avatar
            wmba

            ” … building these ridiculous V6 engines with extra parts (blowers) and the higher cost of aluminum.”

            I agree. Why did Dodge saddle the 6.2l with a unnecessary extra parts like a supercharger and intercooler, and even aluminum heads just to make 7oh7 hp?

            It’s not as if Fiatsler didn’t have an existing normally-aspirated 6.2l 730hp engine sitting on shelves over in Italy, ready to mount in F12s. Making a few more to stuff in Dodges should be a piece of cake. You know, instead of force-inducing those mundane two-valve V8s by using unnecessary extra parts.

      • 0 avatar
        petezeiss

        “Now the 300 Million are being demasculinized”

        Too damn late.

      • 0 avatar
        alsorl

        Bts. Dig a little deeper into Fiat before jumping on actual American companies.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        I pity the people who’ve been conned into thinking manhood is something men can buy. I suppose they can start saving up to buy more manhood by burning less fuel.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        The bias in your comment is amusing.
        I own little 4-cylinder deathtraps.
        I don’t feel demasculinized in the slightest.
        Seriously, if someone attaches their sense of gender to the vehicle they own, well, maybe some introspection is called for, if not a shrink.
        Are you aware that one of the Ram’s success stories is the small diesel V6 (A Fiat motor no less – oh the horrors) with with complex (blowers no less)? Shall we call Rams with that motor the socialist, surrender monkey, environmental whacko, gay version? I think so.

  • avatar
    whynot

    Probably a mix of eating the costs themselves and letting the higher trim levels (with the large price increases) subsidize the lower trim levels.

    • 0 avatar
      cronus

      The price of aluminum is about $.90 a pound and the price of steel is about $.40 a pound. What’s that come out to extra per vehicle? I’d guess $600 extra per vehicle. So they are probably eating some but really not too much. The manufacturing cost are higher but spread over as many trucks as they will build it really doesn’t make a difference.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        It seems whether they eat it or not will depend on non-conformance rate. If the new material/tech drops their yield / requires more rework, they could lose more than the price increase. But if they’ve worked out the bugs, they’ll do fine.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Yes but since aluminum is much lighter than steel the cost is not more than double. What I read is that it is costing Ford about $750 more to make the 2015 body out of Aluminum vs the 2014 body out of steel. So yes the base profit margin is getting a bit of a squeeze but selling one KR or Platinum will cover the $250 lower profit of about 10 of the lower end models.

  • avatar
    redliner

    The sweet spot (in terms of truck for the $$$) is probably a highly optioned XLT or lightly optioned Lariat. Anything beyond that is just window dressing and sparklers.

    I know many people worked tirelessly on the new f150, so for their sake, I wish ford all the best.

    • 0 avatar
      jim brewer

      Redliner,the sweet spot is a no option xl. While the xlt isn’t as bad as the higher trim levels it is still bad. 4×4 is a$4500 option. Basic trim is pretty complete.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        @Jim Brewer – are they upgrading the equipment levels on the XL? We’ve got some base model F150s of the current generation here at my fire department for inspectors, and they are pretty spartan. no cruise control and the radio is only am/fm, no aux input, no tape deck, no cd player…

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          The STX is the sweet spot, if it comes back. Technically, not a trim level, but a pkg on the XL. Similar to the Ram Express. Color key’d bumpers and grill surround. Mono chrome otherwise. Plus alloy wheels, tire upgrade, fog lights, running boards, cd/mp3, rubber floor, limo tint and rear slider. And the V8. Looks way better than the XLT for a lot less cash. The Goldielocks of trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            The STX (now a package like it was “back in the day” of 1999, instead of a trim level) is the sweet spot if you prefer monochrome and black plastic over chrome. An optioned-out STX surpasses a base XLT in niceties.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yes I hate chrome on a truck. Mono chrome is the look I’m going for. And color key’d bumpers etc, with silver powder-coat alloys, not black.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I prefer chrome, but only when applied tastefully and in moderation, to evoke the look of, say, a top-of-the-line model from 1975. Monochrome/black is a newer aesthetic that I don’t think works very well on any F-150 before 1997, Lightning excluded.

            And yes, Jim, even a “base model” XL has creature comforts only dreamed of by the Lariat of yesteryear.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Drzhivago138 – This may be the 2015 STX. Sporty, with a purposeful look. Anything more is just bling for the sake of bling.

            blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e201a511d42ed3970c-pi

        • 0 avatar
          jim brewer

          Well, to me a well equipped truck has a strong engine. Check–even at 3.7l. Cloth seats. Check. Ac. Check.at.check.am/FM radio. Check. Decent towing capability.

          $900 for keyless entry and power windows? It only has two, you know.$4500 for awd for a vehicle that has trouble fitting on a jeep trail? Not for me.

  • avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

    What diesel option is available for these again?

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      None right now. F250 and up get the 6.7L diesel torque beast though.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      4.8L diesel option died in 2008. Long live the 4.8L and the ‘twinforce’ monicker that was in place prior to ‘ecoboost.’

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I love the TwinForce monicker. If I could find such a badge, I would replace my EcoBoost badge with that. I think it was killed before anything went into production though. What would all the single turbos be then? OneForce? SingleForce?

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          This was back when the 3.5L SHO was at VP build phase. They had some soft tooled preproduction moulds for the engine’s ‘beauty cover’ that had the logo. IIRC it had some snail shell impeller housing graphic on it. I can’t remember if there was any exterior trim bits. If there was, they would all have already delaminated under a 30W light bulb’s intensity anyway.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Well, I’m just going to have to get the dental floss and hair dryer out because I am sick of looking at that badging on my Lincoln. I already pulled off the appoximately 14 stickers the dealer put on it. I should have made them do it.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            3M adhesive remover + dental floss or safety razor. Just make sure to re-wax the paint after you use the stuff.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Thank you sir.

          • 0 avatar
            LALoser

            Also try CR Laurence plastic razor blades. We use them along with water and wetting agent.

        • 0 avatar

          Neither would be as powerful as TRIFORCE.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Your input polluted my otherwise insightful comment.

          • 0 avatar
            Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

            So does the Ocarina come standard with Lariat or do you have to go to Platinum?

            Incidentally, seems kind of stupid to take all the time and expense to migrate to Al but still don’t have an appropriately-sized diesel for folks who want to tow and haul, and don’t care as much about making a hippo dance?

          • 0 avatar
            dtremit

            @tresmonos BTSR doesn’t believe in controlling pollution.

          • 0 avatar
            koshchei

            Nobody driving one of these would get your Zelda reference.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            @koshchei,
            I picked up what the Dr. was throwin’ down and I drive a 2013 F series.

            Doctor,
            At one time, Ford had Expeditions and Navigators driving around with a 4.8L turbo diesel mill. I assumed it would have migrated to the F150. I was told it was killed due to overruns and marketing (and the push for the 3.5L ecoboost). Marketing at the time also didn’t think the 3.5L ecoboost would sell well and there were massive retooling costs associated with re-PPAP’ing to align with new capacities.

  • avatar
    Tinn-Can

    Dang… we got our 4×4 long bed crew F250 for $26k… It does only seem to get 11mpg though… The chevy equivalent was 9k more so I guess they are trying to play catch up in that regard…

  • avatar
    cbrworm

    Ford is taking a lot of chances with this new truck, they will either revolutionize the truck market, or fail and go back to the old way of doing business.

    Either way, it is not going to make a ford guy buy a chevy, or a dodge (RAM) guy buy a Ford.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @cbrworm – failed “Big 3 minus 1” trucks tend to help out the transplants. Virtually every person I know who owns a vehicle with a Japanese badge credits the domestics for that purchase.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Which is why they consistently outsell every other truck maker no matter how hard you troll, troll, troll your boat.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @carguy – agreed. Does the guy even own a truck from this millennium?

      I doubt he even owns a truck considering he misunderstood the 6.7L 165bhp V-8 comment.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        You realize by responding to the troll you’ve also acknowledged his existence, which means he’s won, right?

        • 0 avatar
          petezeiss

          At some point a troll becomes a pet, I guess.

          I let a few run around the back yard and guess what… no more vole holes.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Drzhivago138 – guys like Z71_Silvy are like a case of jock itch. Every once and a while you have an overwhelming urge to scratch.

          I had a Freudian slip typing out the word “jock”. I typed out “joke”.

          “Joke” itch or “Jock” itch, a good scratch can feel good even though it doesn’t fix the underlying disease.

  • avatar
    jdash1972

    I think Ford had proven that they can build a reliable turbo engine (the very popular 3.5EB) and will sell the hell out of the new 2.7EB especially if it’s only +$500 over the new 3.5 NA. Anyone NOT insecure about their own masculinity (and also not living in their mothers basement) would be perfectly happy with a 6 cylinder engine, or a 3, or a 1 cylinder engine for that matter if it got the job done.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    Hi my name is Steven and I drive a 140 HP 4 CYL wagon This is the small HP support group right ???

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Not unless it’s brown and diesel and a manual trans it’s not…

      • 0 avatar
        koshchei

        …enter DeadWeight to properly explain the rules…

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Thank you, koschei.

          1) Rear wheel drive (or light AWD system, sending no more than 18% of power to front wheels)

          2) Diesel (turbocharging a diesel, unlike a petrol motor, is not only fine, but the only way to fly)

          3) Manual transmission with hydraulic foot operated clutch & 5 or 6 speed gear lever

          4) Durable yet supple whale peni foreskin (with placenta inserts) leather interior trim

          5) Mocha and/or dark’caramel brown exterior paint option

          6) 0-60 time of less than 7.5 seconds/top speed of 150 mph @ 48mpg

          7) Starting MSRP of $12,998 with fully equipped model maxing out @ $16,339, including destination

          8) Factory standard bumper-to-bumper warranty that is 12 years/120,000 miles

          9) Only station wagon or true hatchback configuration

          10) Actual center console mounted, non-electronic hand brake

          11) Saab is preferred…

          12)…or Volvo wagon

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      No, read the comments carefully, the B&B is more obsessed with small cubic inches (turbo or NA) than with small hp.

      I own a 3.5 V6, a 4.6 V8, and a 4.7 V8 – but the order of hp is 4.7 (289 V8 200 hp), 4.6 V8 (230 ish hp), and 3.5 V6 (270 hp).

      I actually appreciate the B&Bs concern for towing with a small turbo 6. The ecoboost sound like they’re great for guys who use their crew cabs to ferry the family around and use the box like a big open air trunk but I’d rather have an 8 for towing personally.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        It really depends on how often someone tows though. Of it is someone like me that has to tow a boat a few miles to put it in the lake, and maybe two it twice a year to bigger water, I’m fine with a CUV. The scale goes up to someone who tows everyday and needs a SuperDuty monster.

        I’ll have to see how this 2.7TT does in real world MPG, because I can see buying this over a CUV based on mileage.

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          There’s a difference between selecting a vehicle based on max expected usage compared to optimizing the number of trips that it handles suitably.

          Need to move a kid’s furniture to/from college once a year? You can rent a truck for that. Tow a boat to/from the lake twice a month? That’s an entirely different ball game.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Definitely. There are so many variables. I’m glad we have such ranging choices these days.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      You’re safe here.

      In 34 years, I’ve only owned one V8, and never anything over 255 HP so far. My current fleet has a 250 HP V6, 199 HP hybrid 4-cyl, and a 107 HP EV.

      I admire a big engine as much as the next guy (??), but I just don’t want to pay for it.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    If the XL through Lariat trims make up 85% of Ford’s sales…

    and…

    the average transaction price of a truck today (led by Ford and GM sales) is $40k…

    then people are optioning up these vehicles something mighty.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    The only real negative to towing with a small turbo V6 is the lack of compression braking. That was the first thing I noticed on a downhill with an EB3.5 F150. My 5.4 will hold well in tow/haul mode.
    I noticed the same exact thing when test driving a much lighter shortbox Ram with the Pentastar but it was worse in the Ram.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      You heard from BAFO yet? I’m kinda worried… He’s supposed to be here by now and remind us how the aluminum F150 is gonna be priced out of reach for the common man. Kings and Senators only he said. Or something like that…

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I wonder if this new aluminum F150 will be as heavily discounted as the previous ones have been?

        OTOH, the F250 and F350 are not discounted nearly as much, maybe because their frames, axles, suspension, brakes and wheels cost much more than that of the F150.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    …steep prices for the King Ranch and Platinum…

    Well, I got excoriated on this site when I grumbled that GM raised the price on the C7 by similar amounts…after all what a first world problem. Well, I ponied up the big bucks for my C7 and rest assured those who want the full zoot F150 will too.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      To be fair to Ford, highest trim level trucks (aka “supervisor” specials) are pretty much crazily priced across the board, from all manufacturers.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    Nice looking truck. I’d wait though. Ford tends to bring the vehicle out then in a couple years drop in the powertrain it should have had. In this case the aluminum body paired with a newer transmission like the Dodges will likely be the sweet spot. If the Dodge diesel sells it’ll probably get a small diesel too. Easier to modify the powertrains to match the competition if they are successful than for the competition to build the Aluminim truck if Ford’s gamble pays off.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    What a waste of effort. After all of that work, my guess is the new F150 will get no better real world MPG than the Toyota Tundra. The problem is those turbo engines suck gas.

    I wonder how these will look in straight black …

    Personally, I like the looks of the new GM pickups … first decent looking Detroit pickup in years. I see a significant number of them on the west coast. I wonder why they don’t sell better elsewhere.

    • 0 avatar
      alsorl

      They are not selling well because they look so close the last model. In fact dealers in Florida are still trying to get rid of the last model. Example my neighbor just purchased a loaded z71 and he States getting over $11,000 off sticker. He Has always been a Ford guy. But with the discounts it was hard to pass up.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    Ford is raising the prices from a little on the base to a lot on high end models. However, that means nothing. What really matters is the pricing and incentives. My bet is they slash the incentives, then they run a big ad campaign trying to convince the public you will save so much gas money that you are better off spending more on a pickup. Will they get away with it? Possible. The Obama administration has packed the FED with money printers. Inflation is running. East and west coast home prices are exploding. Food prices are running. Ford might get away with a price increase.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Jimmyy,
      Before writing falsehoods like: “The Obama administration packed the FED with money printers. Inflation is running”, you should consider checking the facts first.

      1. The Fed is independent; no administration can pack it with money printers
      2. inflation remains quite low, at about 2%.
      3. If we do see inflation crop up, it is a sign the economy is really roaring, and the Fed will continue to taper its easing.

      • 0 avatar
        jimmyy

        Fed governors are nominated by the president, then approved by congress. That is how the game works. A majority of the FED governors are now Obama appointees. That is how the game works.

        And, do you buy the 2% inflation number? I sure don’t. My homes on the east and west coast are skyrocketing in value. Food and energy are moving up fast. This is a real problem. It is possible homes in Metro Detroit are still dirt cheap, so you may not see the inflation in housing. I hear a home in a decent area of metro Detroit can be purchased for less than 400K. You are fortunate. On the east and west coast, that is ghetto money.

        On wall street, all eyes are on the numerous wars breaking out in Europe and the mid East. Not looking good. That printed money would have been well spent on defense. Instead, much of it was wasted on special interests, like unions. This has weakened the US to the point where it is possible a major war in Europe or the Mid East may occur. Thank you Obama.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          jimmyy, “homes on the east and west coast are skyrocketing in value”

          So true! My son in San Diego sold one of his homes there last month to take advantage of the crazy skyrocketing price; bought for $330K five years ago, sold for $610K last month.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            desert cat,
            Interesting: your son bought a house at the beginning of the Obama administration, and then sold it 5 years later for nearly double.

            You must be so pleased with this administration!

  • avatar
    alsorl

    Z71.. I could always just give up and buy boxed wine. It still does the job and it does not make to much thinking to purchase. Kinda like the gm pickups. Just buy the box it will do the job sometimes and you don’t have to think.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • lstanley: I often wonder about the buyer of certain vehicles. Some are pretty obvious, like commuters buying a Camry...
  • jkross22: Ford’s got problems, but marketing won’t solve any of them.
  • mcs: @Art Vandalay: I know the PDP11 well. Actually, the backplanes were wire-wrapped and not the boards. Learned to...
  • lstanley: Just wait until this technology also won’t allow your car to start until the windshield is replaced....
  • N8iveVA: More commercial applications for EV’s and a growing world population?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber