By on July 24, 2014

15F150SnowPlow_01_HR

From Jalopnik‘s Andrew Collins comes the discovery that Ford’s “weight savings” between the 2014 F-150 Lariat and the 2015 Lariat isn’t entirely a fair comparison.

As Collins reports, Ford confirmed that the two trucks were not quite the same. The 2014 had a 5.0L V8, while the 2015 had the all-new 2.7L Ecoboost V6.

Collins writes

Their defense; the new 2.7 is meant to be comparable to a “mid-range V8,” which the 5.0 is (the 2.7 is just 5 lb-ft of torque shy of the 5.0’s output, but the V8 makes 35 more horsepower). They’ve also been suggesting that the 2015 V8 (and 3.5 EcoBoost) may get a power bump, for what it’s worth.

But the fact remains; a 2015 F-150 5.0 Lariat SuperCrew V8 exists, and that would have been a more direct comparison against the outgoing truck.

As I maintained earlier this week, a lot of this stuff isn’t worth much, until we see a full table of engine specs, curb weights, towing and payload capacities and fuel economy figures. For now, we’re getting carefully packaged tidbits of info from Ford PR.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

58 Comments on “Ford Loads The Scales With Apples And Oranges...”


  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    Why didn’t they just use the 5.0L? It doesn’t weight much more than the 2.7EB. Between 20 and 30 pounds.

    Edit: The drop from 5.0 to 5.0 is 707 lbs. Maybe they didn’t want to bring up the Hellcat.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      Because Ford Marketing Company. The ’14 F150s were around 400lbs heavier than a comparably equipped GM truck. Instead of saying their new trucks are 300lbs lighter than their main competition, they compare to the ’14 model that was basically heaviest in the class with the Tundra. Thus, they can scream “700lbs lighter!!” from the rooftops. To the layperson who doesn’t dig into the specs, they would assume that the weight of a steel ’14 F150 was basically the same weight as a ’14 Silverado and thus the ’15 F150 must be 700lbs lighter than a ’14 Silverado. That is pretty much how Ford marketing operates: they milk every last ounce out of it rather than doing what is a direct comparison. That sort of marketing drives me up the wall.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        That’s some incredibly twisted logic.

        I propose a much more benign idea: Ford is trumpeting weight savings, and “saved 700lbs over last model” is a bigger and more impressive number than “saved 300lbs over nearest cometitor”. I don’t think there’s really any reason to suspect any sort of “A assumes B and then based on B assumes C and then….”

        • 0 avatar
          Quentin

          It isn’t twisted logic; it is marketing. What you don’t say is just as important as what you do say. If you tell some random truck buyer that the F150 lost 700lbs and then ask how much lighter the F150 is versus a Silverado, that person will guess 600 or 700lbs. Considering the mess that it is to actually do an apples to apples comparison of truck specs between available engine options, tow packages, trimlines, final drive ratios, 2WD/4WD, most people aren’t going to have the slightest idea how the trucks truly compare. Smart marketing, but I don’t have to like it.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I agree with Quentin. Ford marketing at its finest. Ford did the same thing with the 3.5 Ecoboost when it was released. IIRC they claimed a 20-25% improvement in fuel economy. The itsy-bitsy fine print at the bottom of the page was “when compared to the 5.4”.

            It is better for Ford to keep the comparisons “in house” because we all know how well those Howie Long attack adds worked for GM.

            A fanboy is not going to cross-shop and a guy in the market for a new truck might not think 400 lbs difference between a 1500 5.3 with cylinder deactivation is a big deal.

            Why give the competition any free press unless it is obviously bad press.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            The other aspect of it is that Ford truck buyers do tend to drive Ford trucks, so if the guy familiar with driving a Ford truck hears that the new Ford truck is 700 lbs lighter, performs better, etc., odds are he’ll be excited and motivated to buy the new one.

            With as many F-150s they sell, they aren’t exactly desperate for conquests.

        • 0 avatar
          TheyBeRollin

          The elephant in the room is that almost nobody cross-shops Ford and GM. Both camps just move to newer trucks in the same line, so comparing them to anything but themselves would be like comparing an orange to a potato (either literally or internet usage).

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @TheyBeRollin – brand loyalty is not as big as what it used to be. Loyalty has clearly become tied to durability. A person with a durable vehicle will tend to stay with that brand.

            I’ve always cross-shopped Ford and GM. Way back when i.e. the 80’s, Dodge did not have a credible truck. That changed in 1994.
            I looked at them several times but sh!tty salesmen or sh!tty durability ratings have always pushed me away.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        They still could have said the same thing with the 5.0L though. Mike Levine who does communication for Ford says the lightest F150 will be below 4500 lbs. I also don’t expect Ford to wait until the next generation F150 to find other ways to cut weight.

      • 0 avatar

        That’s just the same as how the F-Series claims to be the best-selling truck marque, when really it’s just the best-selling truck *under one brand.* When you lump the Silverado and Sierra together (which *are* the same truck), it’s about even, with either company having a slight edge each month. But I hardly see how that type of half-truth marketing is unique to Ford.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Kyree S. Williams – GM does have 2X the opportunity to sell you a truck, so Ford does have a valid claim. And we can assume most GMC pickup buyers would jump over to Chevy if GMC or the Sierra went away. But we’d be wrong. Studies by GM show otherwise.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The 5.0 may take the place of the 6.2, it’s sounding like. And unless the “improved” 5.0 is banned from the stripper regular-cab shorty with 3.73 gears and limited slip, this 2-seater could put the old Lightning to shame.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The 2015 Expedition is close to Lightning 0-60 times. Low 6s.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        That’s pretty excellent for a vehicle that size. It’s faster than my M to 60.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        So we’d be talking 0-60 in the low 5s and 13s in the 1/4 mi if it could get any traction?

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        No way. Even the single cab F150 Tremor doesn’t come anywhere near the Lightning and the Expedition is the same powertrain burdened with another 800 pounds.

        The Lightning ran in the 13s.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Car & Driver said they got as low as 6.3 seconds. Realistically it will probably be closer to 7.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          And MotorTrend did sub 6s with the Tremor. They also had the last F150 Lightning doing 1/4 miles about .7 seconds faster than the Tremor 4×4.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            Both magazines do “rolling starts” in their 0 to 60 times, negating the first 18 inches of travel if you read the fine print (I may be a touch off on the inches if you want to be really pedantic).

            If you don’t think that makes a big difference in 0 to 60 times, think again. Anyone who has done drag racing will tell you – most races are won and lost in the RT (which doesn’t matter in this case) and the first 60 feet – after that it’s pretty darn simple – pedal to floor.

            Tossing the first 18 inches in the trash can and doing a “rolling start” 0 to 60 can cut as much as a 1/2 second off of a 0 (well not really zero) to 60 roll.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Fair enough. That still makes the Expedition way faster than I ever would have imagined. So using a similar test the new Expedition is only about a second slower to 60 than a supercharged V8 sport truck that is often considered to be the gold standard of that genre.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            C&D runs a 5-60 test that leaves out that cheating roll, it also leaves out the brake torqued launch to cover up the turbo lag.

            The 5100 lb 2WD Tremor ran a 6.4, the last two (5800 and 6000 lb) 4WD crew cabs ran 7.2. The 6000+ lb Expedition should run about the same.

            The last Lightning they tested did it in 5.7. Not. Even. Close.

    • 0 avatar
      mikeg216

      The 6.2 was already discontinued in non raptor f150

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    “Have you weighed a Ford… lately?!”

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    All that picture makes me want is an old straight six 1/2 ton pickup truck with sold axle 4×4 and a plow on it.

    USA USA USA USA USA!!!!

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Yep, an old 1/2-ton can do a great job plowing…for about an hour a year. Any more than that and you’d be better off with a 3/4-ton. Since it’s got an SFA anyway, the ride wouldn’t be much worse, and you wouldn’t have to listen to your oil pan dragging on the ground after the 1/2-ton’s front springs give out.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        The crew at the local hospital (grew up in Defiance Ohio) used to plow all parking lots with 1/2 ton straight six Chevys of various years until the straight six was dropped by GM. They usually kept the trucks several years and kept those trucks running constantly during three maintenance shifts during storms.

      • 0 avatar
        mikeg216

        You do realize that even a one ton chevy uses a ifs, properly setup there is no reason why you can’t plow with a half ton, that’s what helper Springs timbrens and air bags are for. Even a poly v plow only weighs 500 lbs, we get get over a hundred inches a year here. Plenty around, matter of fact ford will have an upgraded electric system to handle the draw of a modern plow as shown above for 2015

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @PrincipalDan – and a vinyl bench seat, 3 on the tree and brown in colour………..

  • avatar
    Sigivald

    Call Mr. Plow, that’s my name, that name again is Mr. Plow!

  • avatar
    TW5

    What’s the problem?

    Equivalency is how you evaluate vehicle efficiency from an engineering standpoint. I read an interesting SAE article a while back about the benefits of downspeeding and lightweighting. Fascinating read, constructed around the theoretical constant of engine power and vehicle performance.

    Comparing the 5.0L to the new 2.7L Ecoboost is apples to apples. The peak horsepower and torque figures are abstract and mostly irrelevant.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @TW5 – I don’t imagine or can’t imagine too many cross-shoppers between a 5.0 and a 2.7.

      I’d never consider one versus the other.

      Truth be told, the only two engines I’d consider are the 5.0 and EB 3.5 with a definite lean towards the 5.0.

  • avatar
    jfbramfeld

    Unless you have a particulaly bad driveway, I can’t imagine that anyone cares how much their truck, or any personal vehicle for that matter, weighs. All we care about is mpgs, acceleration, load capacity, durability and cost. Would I buy a truck that was 2,000 lbs lighter if it got 10% worse mileage? Marketing any magnitude of weight reduction is a red herring.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      Some of us are concerned about cornering and braking, which are directly correlated with weight or lack there of. So is fuel efficiency and acceleration for that matter. Colin Chapman had it right (though he usually went to excess) – “just add lightness”. It’s like magic, adding lightness makes everything better.

      Some of the numbers above truly bring home how silly overpowered American trucks are though. Seriously, 0-60 times faster than a Ferrari from 25 years ago? In a TRUCK? Really? What a colossal waste of resources. $10/gal gas cannot come soon enough to put a halt to this foolishness. Imagine if we could just live with the entirely adequate acceleration of an ’80s truck, how much more fuel efficient it could be. For that matter, my family’s last non-turbo diesel Suburban was faster than something like that had any need of being. And it towed a gigantic travel trailer pretty effortlessly.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Want some cheese with your whine?

        Trucks don’t have a need to carve corners or come to a stop in corvette time. You sound butthurt that your euro microcars get outran in 0-60 times with farmer johns pick-em-up truck.

        Losing weights fine and all, but honestly, you can’t have too much power.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        krodes1, I agree regarding the merits of reduced mass. However, compared to the 80s model the 2015 pickup truck has a smaller but more flexible engine with a higher redline and transmission with a wider spread of gear ratios. You can get the new truck to score some impressive acceleration numbers when you rev the hell out of the engine, but most drivers don’t drive a pickup like that. In real life the 2015 model still has significantly better fuel efficiency than the 80s model. The GM and Chrysler V8s also have cylinder deactivation so they can run on 4 cylinders under light load.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          If they had performance numbers similar to what was considered entirely adequate then, they would be even MORE economical. There is a ridiculous size and speed war going on in this segment. It is stupid that at 6’2″ tall I cannot easily reach over the side of most current “1/2 ton” pickups and pick something up off the floor of the bed.

          • 0 avatar
            Drewlssix

            How much do you figure? Modern trucks perform so well due to their efficient motors 6 to 9 gear transmissions improved aero and the combined effect of hundreds of details. How much mpg should we expect from hobbling our vehicles? Dropping a 160hp lump under the hood and beating it like a mule won’t likely reward you with fantastic mileage. I just don’t see how you can consider trucks getting high teens to low twenties as wasteful while considering single digit numbers from cast iron 4 speed relics virtuous. Haven’t we seen from the rampant downsizing in the passenger car world that such a tactic is foolish?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @krhodes1 – I rarely do any full throttle 0-60s in my fullsize truck, but that’s not the reason to have the power on tap. It’s not a truck built for speed anyways. Zero to 60s just illustrate how it’ll perform work. And if mpg is a priority, fwy gears (ring/pinion) in 2.73 range would fix that. That’s would be very high for a factory truck, but it’s what my ’90 Mustang GT came with originally. Even 2.42s would motivate a lightweight pickup with a V8 quite nicely.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I prefer not being able to reach small items in my bed. No else can either. And they can’t see them either. Thieve can’t see (or imagine) I’ve got $1,000+ in tools and equipment back there, when I park away from the cluster of cars/trucks. Plus I prefer that style of trucks, vs the low sides of the 1st gen Tundras. A step right there would be nice, and the ’15 F-150s have it. And I can carry more boxed stuff within the bed, before needing a tarp/net. More firewood, etc. More hookers out to the desert. You get the picture…

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            “If they had performance numbers similar to what was considered entirely adequate then, they would be even MORE economical. There is a ridiculous size and speed war going on in this segment.”

            And your metrosexual clown car would be even MORE economical if they took the turbocharger and some of those extra cylinders off, if it’s wasteful for us then surely you don’t need to be going that fast either.

            The government banning european and gay looking cars can’t come soon enough to put a halt to this foolishness. 2.3L Fox bodies and Cimarrons zigged adequately in the 80s so there’s no reason you can’t just live with handling like that now. 195mm tires on 13 inch wheels and all.

            See how ridiculous you sound?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @jfbramfeld – all of the pickup brands are moving towards SAE towing standards. Ford has always tried to claim top dog bragging rights. If Ford did not drop the weight of their trucks they’d take a big hit in SAE J2807 compliance.

        Another advantage to lighter weight is the ability to boost cargo capacity if there were no changes made to the suspension.

        Ram is also looking at aluminum but that is out to 2018. Their trucks have taken a huge hit with the advent of coil springs on all four corners.

        A full bling Ram Laramie Longhorn Ecodiesel crewcab long box 4×4 has a load capacity of 859 lbs. The shorter box is 881 lbs.

        If Ram drops 400 lb of body weight they could in theory give that truck a more respectable 1,259 lb of capacity.

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    Typical Ford deception. They love lying to people.

    And there is no doubt in my money that the 2014 truck had extra weight in it. Ford probably didn’t complete the ’15 truck either making it lighter.

    This 2015 beer can F150 is going to do untold damage to the F-Series. This will be far worse than the 6.0 disaster.

    • 0 avatar
      Drewlssix

      It only matters to ford if it’s disaster is worse than the current silverado disaster.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Z71_Silvy – GM must know something you don’t, since they’re now scrambling to do “beer can” pickups of their own. And is soon scrapping the brand new, and not so improved generation of GM fullsize, in the shortest generation of trucks in history.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Z71_Silvy – GM was looking at aluminum trucks a year before Ford. Bankruptcy and Great Recession killed those plans for GM. They will now have to be #2 at the aluminum banquet table followed by Ram.

        The old saying “Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” applies to you in spades.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Why do you people always bring up GM in an article about Ford?

      Stay on task!

  • avatar
    redav

    So, this article is about how this article doesn’t mean anything until we get more information?

  • avatar
    mcarr

    I will still maintain that the weight numbers they’re stating now, will not be the numbers when we see the production models. GM was touting a 500 lbs weight savings right up until a few months before the dealers got them. Turned out to be a 250-300 weight savings.

    A crew-cab Lariat that’s under 5,000 lbs? I’m not sure I believe that one.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      It hardly matters if it’s 5,000 or 6,000 lbs. What’s important is if weight savings is dramatic at the pump, net payload and performance. Never mind rust protection.

      • 0 avatar
        Z71_Silvy

        Right, because Ford has never had corrosion problems with aluminium hoods…

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Z71_Silvy – other brands run aluminum hoods as well as Ford. Rock chips removing paint which bares metal will be a point of corrosion.

          The only corrosion problem I see here are from your posts.

          It is unfortunate to see free speech corroded by a lack of intellect.

          • 0 avatar
            Z71_Silvy

            I love when you blind Ford cheerleaders justify Ford’s lack of doing anything right with “well, other manufacturers do it too!!!)

            And rock chips on the underside of Mustang hoods?? Because that is where they were corroding.

            You’re right though, there certainly is a lack of intellect….but not on my part.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Dear Sylvester,
            Given that you are so smart and know so much about how terrible Ford is, why don’t you short the stock?

            Then you can truly profit from your insight, rather than waste time with us fools.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Rocket: Looks like the next Mondeo wagon will be coming Stateside as an Outback competitor. I could certainly do...
  • millmech: Looks like Chrysler used a longer-lasting leather than most.
  • slavuta: ajla, I went to Hyundai/Kia USA sites where looked at the engine specs. And 3.3 turbo and non-turbo are also...
  • Jeff S: When the Australian Government stopped subsidizing GM then GM pulled out of Australia. There are valid...
  • Greg Hamilton: Slavuta, How do you think the seven-speed, dual-clutch automatic transmission will hold up? A similar...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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