By on November 24, 2014

2015 Ford F-150

So, how many miles per gallon did the 2015 Ford F-150 gain for the trouble of losing 700 pounds by gaining an aluminum body? How does 22 mpg combined sound?

The 4×2 model with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost delivers 19 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway. The 19/26/22 rating bests the 2008 model with the 4.6-liter V8, which brought a rating of 14/19/16 to the party.

Aside from the 2.7-liter mill, the F-150 can be had with a standard 3.5-liter Ti-VCT V6, 3.5-liter EcoBoost, or 5-liter Ti-VCT V8. Horsepower ranges from 282 for the V6, to 385 for the V8, while torque comes at 253 lb-ft for the former, 420 lb-ft for the 3.5-liter EcoBoost.

As far as towing boats and hay are concerned, the larger EcoBoost 4×2 pulls the most at 12,200 pounds, whereas the 5-liter V8 edges out the EcoBoost with a max payload of 3,300 to 3,270.

Per Ford, new models are being shipped to dealers now, though special orders will be delayed until February.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

222 Comments on “2015 Ford F-150 Pulls 22 MPG Combined, 12,000 Pounds Of Boat...”


  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Big trucks, good

    I miss him on days like today

    • 0 avatar
      Chocolatedeath

      What happened to him anyway? I hope he comes back…just hope BlackDynamite doesnt…

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Funny if there’s one thing Big Trucks never spoke on, it’s big trucks. Or any trucks! Never a “review” or even a mere mention of trucks. The plot thickens?

    • 0 avatar
      I_Like_Pie

      Am so very glad that guy is gone. Epic troll. Every comment thread was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Pedant, aggressive, and ignorant was the theme he forced this blog to be every time he shadowed the doorway.

      However – to truly make the guy go away we need to stop talking about him and forget he ever existed. Wipe him from our memory like he never existed.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        He may have been a troll (I wouldn’t say one way or the other), but he certainly livened things up. I’d rather enjoy lively debate with others while dealing with the occasional troll than throw my comments into a hivemind hugbox.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        I never found him that aggressive or belligerent. He had a schtick, and there was usually a sense of self-parody. I’d usually roll my eyes at his comments but found myself smiling at the same time.

        I saw him brush of some pretty rude attacks from other commenters without getting nasty himself.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        Who?

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

      Maybe he’s off delivering some internets.

      ObTopic: The Ram 1500 diesel combined is only 1mpg higher. I wonder what the Ford’s would be with a comparable oilburner?

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        Probably similar to the Ram or very slightly better..

        The Ram diesel is in another class compared to the 2.7 EB, so it’s not a straight comparison. The 3.6 V6 Ram is more similar (in term of useable power). That one gets 1 MPG less than the 2.7 EB.

        Of course, Ford’s advantage over Ram will be more than 1 MPG once they get a new transmission, but there’s always some new developments down the road.

        The big news is that GM is even further behind. They’re basing their advertising on “best V8 economy,” but their V8 isn’t as good as the competitions’ V6s.

        • 0 avatar
          jrmason

          You likely won’t see a diesel engine in a Ford half ton for quite some time, if ever. Fords diesel program has been an abortion at best for the last 20 years and it is no better today, hence their attempts with the itty witty bitty turbo charged engines. As far as comparing Ram to Ford for fuel economy, you might as well be comparing the fecal deposits of a cat and a lion. Ram is the only manufacture of the big 3 that adheres to the SAE J2807 tow ratings and unlike Ford, their published fuel economy ratings are very consistent with real world driving. The Eco Boost engines may be just fine for a car or medium sized SUV, but a small displacement engine has no buisiness being in a full sized pickup. Speaking from experience, their shortcomings become very evident when put under a load, and the fact they are rating them to tow 12k pounds (in a half ton truck no less) is very misleading. Fords gonna have some disappointed customers when the uneducated buys one to haul their 12k lb GVW 5th wheel camper or toy hauler.

          Remember the old adage, there’s no replacement for displacement?

        • 0 avatar
          dieselone

          I don’t think Ford’s 2.7 is comparable to the Chrysler 3.6, That would be Ford’s standard non-ecoboost 3.5 v6. The 2.7 Ecoboost has 375ft-lbs of torque at 3k rpm. That’s likely more than what the 5.0, Hemi, and GM 5.3 put out at 3k rpm.

          I have a ’14 Ram CC Laramie HEmi/8speed and while overall I like it, the Hemi like most gas v8’s needs some rpm for good towing power, it pulls pretty hard over 4k rpm. The Ecoboost engines pull hard at a diesel like 2-3k rpm, they just use more fuel than a diesel.

  • avatar
    Hank

    Impressive. This brings up a question. Why haven’t Toyota and Nissan been able to produce full size pickups that are reasonably efficient (or large SUVs for that matter)? Chevy, Ford, and Ram have them beat easily. Toyota, especially, should be able to pull it off, but so far hasn’t. A family member of mine has a Tundra I’ve driven a good bit, and it’s a great truck overall, but the fuel consumption compared to a Silverado I also drive is disappointing.

    I don’t expect a crew cab with a V8 to be a Corolla, but a half ton shouldn’t be averaging 11.5-14 in non-towing use in 2014 either. Why aren’t the Japanese bringing their A-game?

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    The new F150 is going to bomb given the massive development costs, huge repair costs (necessitating huge insurance bills), and MARGINAL IMPROVEMENT in fuel economy.

    Seriously, this is going to be a Ford “deadly sin” when the future history books are written.

    From Automotive News (read carefully – real world long-term testing by AN staffers):

    “Bottom line: Use turbochargers in a gasoline truck and you pay the price in fuel economy. Also, in road testing the 2.7-liter F-150, most automotive journalists reported fuel economy in the high teens to low 20s. I got 20.1 mpg this month.

    Ford offers the 2015 F-150 with four engines, but only two offer a direct apples-to-apples fuel economy comparison. Those two engines — the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 and the 5.0-liter V-8 — carry over from last year and are bolted to the same six-speed automatic transmission.

    This is the best yardstick we have on the direct effect of reducing the F-150’s weight by as much as 700 pounds.

    The 2014 F-150 with the 3.5-liter turbo V-6 sported an EPA rating of 16 mpg city/22 highway/18 combined. The 2015 3.5-liter turbo F-150 carries an EPA rating of 17 mpg city/24 highway/20 combined. That’s up 1 mpg in the city and 2 mpg on the highway and in combined driving.

    The 2014 F-150 with the 5.0-liter V-8 showed almost no fuel economy gain. The 2014 model had an EPA rating at 15 mpg city/21 highway/17 combined. The 2015 5.0-liter F-150 gets 1 mpg better on the highway and in combined driving, and has the same 15 mpg city rating.

    The new 2.7-liter engine’s EPA ratings look good on paper, but it has the greatest potential to disappoint buyers.

    It is rated at 19 mpg city/26 highway/22 combined. But using the turbos — as you must do to accelerate normally — erodes fuel economy. The most fuel efficient use of this engine is to cruise at a steady speed with no load in the bed or in a trailer. The EPA needs a better test for turbocharged gasoline engines.”

    http://www.autonews.com/article/20141121/
    BLOG06/141129950/ford-f-150-mpg-for-2015
    -is-a-mixed-bagCSAuthResp=1%3A87355613
    4277311%3A423310%3A17%3A24%3Aapproved
    %3A5B08F419E750B2A1CCE14740FC4709B3&=

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      This isn’t going to be a Ford “deadly sin”. GM is going to aluminium for their trucks too. FCA is on the fence, but they seem to be commited to an aluminium bodied Wrangler.

      Ford needs the 10-speed transmission out ASAP.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      I don’t think it will be as big of a deal as you say. Buyers will record the fuel economy that one time (55mph for 4 hrs through the midwest) and say, “by gosh, it got 23mpg! It must get 23mpg all the time!” — This is basically the case every time you see someone saying that their TDI gets 55mpg. If they actually do check the fuel economy religiously, the truck loyalty/buyer justification kicks in where they say that YMMV or that they’d surely get MUCH worse fuel economy if they didn’t pay for the $1500 Ecoboost upgrade. Insurance, depreciation, consumable replacement don’t even enter the equation when most people are determining what vehicle to buy.

      I’m also pretty convinced that teaching to the test doesn’t hurt a company’s credibility. Samsung had a setting in their phone that would determine when their phones were running benchmark test apps and temporarily overclock the processor for those apps. It did amazing on the standard benchmark tests but much less so when running less popular benchmark tests which was how reviewers found out that the phones had a testbench mode/cheat. Despite this evidence of flat out lying, Samsung doesn’t have a reputation for teaching to the test or ‘spec-stuffing’. People don’t care. They can read the marketing about how big the screen is, how it is the fastest phone on the market, how the camera has the most megapixels, and how it has the longest battery life and feel warm and fuzzy about their purchase. I’d say that vehicle ownership plays out the same way for most people.

    • 0 avatar
      celebrity208

      Don’t forget, there are aerodynamic differences between the 2014 and 2015 trucks. I doubt, the Cd got worse for the 2015 and would wager that it’s better than the 2014. Thus, those MPG improvements are due the combination of assumed aero improvements and weight loss. I posit that the weight loss MPG improvement is lower than what even your analysis suggests.

    • 0 avatar
      Fordson

      We get it.

      Turbos = bad.

      Aluminum = bad.

      New technology = bad.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        YOU obviously don’t get it.

        For the billions Ford spent in completely revamping the F Series and going to both turbo charged motors and, more importantly, aluminum body trucks, WHERE IS THE BENEFIT?

        • 0 avatar
          djoelt1

          Maybe Ford is thinking this is a multigenerational development effort of which they have done step 1. Maybe they will bring AL technology to their other cars after using it on their highest volume vehicle for practice. Maybe they now have a test bed for improving aero and engines further. Maybe stop start technology and light bybridization is next.

          If I were leading Ford, I would put these in play incrementally.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      I disagree.
      1) The attachment strategy of Al will only improve. Right now, Ford is relying on excessive use of riveting. Remove the rivets and your weight savings vastly increase.
      2) All major truck / SUV platforms will be Al
      3) Powertrain updates usually stagger platform changes so TGW’s and C/1000’s don’t spike to the point that we all start dancing and burning piles of Consumer Reports around an effigy of Mark Fields. You’ll see your better fuel economy come in small waves. Why blow all of your load when all you need to do is cop out a modest power train cal revision to beat the competition?
      4) Everyone’s fears (including mine) about corrosion of past Ford product (hoods / lift gates)should be moot due to the new Al substrate Ford is implementing with this launch. It’s probably why there was that long delay with Alcoa that Derek reported on earlier. New substrates and new tooling can be difficult to synchronize.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Objection. Speculation.

        GM is going to do the rivet setup, save about half the weight Ford did, they won’t have to spend 15% of what Ford did in revamping their truck lineup, and they’ll be neck and next with Ford in fuel economy without the massive costs while retaining a more robust, reliable drivetrain.

        Ford pushed way too hard too quickly.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          Retool your plants when you have the money and let the technology catch up.

          Let the lessons learned flow from your lead platform (that will get the engineering attention, since it’s your flagship) to the lesser platforms that won’t get the resources.

          Rivets are heavy. GM can weld Al better. That was my point.

          • 0 avatar
            Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

            Speaking of which, the money to go all-out likely came from Ford’s federal loan. >$5B can go a long way to develop new technology…

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Tres, I misspoke.

            I meant to write that GM can weld aluminum in order to fasten aluminum body panels to future products without having any retooling costs (Ford is spending 390 million per line), without additional equipment, and without factory downtime.

            There was a big article about this in Automotive News.

            GM already has a better, less expensive way to do what it took Ford billions to do.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          Go back and read commenter Madlock in your Automotive News piece.

          And some of these comparisons people make…yeah, the Ram Ecodiesel probably gets better fuel economy than the 2.7 Ecoboost, but it has less performance – it’s doing less work. Test after test, loaded, unloaded, towing, not towing…same result. In comparable configurations, the Ford runs 0-60 in the mid-6s, the Dodge in around 9 seconds. Those are huge differences. Wow – an engine with much lower performance gets better fuel economy! Who knew?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Those who would directly compare diesel and gasoline MPG need to take a science class or six.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            “Those who would directly compare diesel and gasoline MPG need to take a science class or six.”

            For better or worse, Motortrend did just that in a comparison that hit their website today. Acceleration tests, towing, and fuel economy compared across an F150 2.7Ecoboost, Silverado 5.3 V8, and Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel. The Hemi would have been a better comparison in my mind, but apparently the Ecodiesel can be had at a price point very similar to the gasser Ford and Chevy.

            It’s now possible to cross shop gas vs. diesel in half-ton light-duty trims, and customers may do just that. If so, customers may be directly comparing diesel vs. gasoline mpg.

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          You don’t save 700 pounds with no appreciable impact on the combination of acceleration and gas mileage. It’s simply a physical impossibility.

          The equation has only so many elements in it:
          •Weight
          •Power
          •Powerplant efficiency
          •Aerodynamcs

          If all but one stays the same, and that one improves by 15% in one quantum leap, you WILL see change. And with the draconian nature of future fuel shortages and MPG requirements, I can’t say whether Ford will catch hell now from a publicity or image standpoint, but in the end they will prove to have been right.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “The most fuel efficient use of this engine is to cruise at a steady speed with no load…”

      Somebody must have skipped high school to be surprised by that. Is there supposed to be some other truck that gets its best fuel economy by traveling at erratic varying speeds as it carries a maximum payload?

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      If anything the 26 MPG hwy will bring more people into the pick up market that were waiting for more MPG. This coming year will bring record sales and rebates to all pickup truck manufactures. Close friend just bought a GMC Sierra SLE for 24k. It was $10,400 off new and the 0% 60 month financing.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        I think you’re correct. With the giant profit margins on these rigs the stakes are huge.

        Plenty of room for price cuts but these are the products that keep Ford, GM and Chrysler in business.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Ford has had little if any credibility w/ its Ecoboost MPG claims so far.

      So this time is different?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I’m going to repeat myself on this one:

      Everyone if fixating on MPG gains. Ford does deserve the negative scrutiny due to advertising hype. The gains obtained from the aluminum body based on MPG alone are deceiving.

      Where else does one gain from switching to an aluminum bodied Ford?

      If one keeps the comparison only to the 2014 F150 this is how it plays out.
      The previous F150 EB3.5 SuperCrew had a best tow rating of 11,300 with max tow package and 3.73 gears. The same truck with 3.55 could tow 9,600.
      The aluminum F150 in the same configuration with taller 3.55 gears can tow 12,200. Those ratings are SAE rated.

      Ford gained 900 lb over the 2014MY 3.73 truck and 2,600 lb over the 2014MY 3.55 truck.

      Virtually everyone else lost tow capacity going to SAE standards.

      The next point is related to class ratings.
      This table outlines them with examples:
      http://www.dieselhub.com/tech/truck-classifications.html

      Ford now has the option to raise cargo ratings and or tow ratings to the limits outlined by truck class.
      Ford and Ram have had a PR war over the Ram 3500 and F450. Both claimed max cargo and tow ratings. Both claimed “best in class”.
      Ram claimed “best in class”” for Class 3 and so did Ford. Ram looked at Ford’s numbers and found that the F450 pickup actually crossed into the Class 4 ratings. Ford adjusted their numbers to put themselves back into class 3.

      The Ford Super Duty is also going aluminum. In the HD class mpg does not play a huge role in sales or marketing but towing and hauling capacity do. If Ford sheds 700 lb off the HD that means they can add that directly to tow/haul ratings and still stay within Class 3.

      We see that sort of strategy in the commercial truck and trailer market. Every pound saved from curb weight is a pound extra of cargo capacity.

  • avatar
    STRATOS

    I wonder if Ford is playing the gear ratios options game.One set for mileage and another for towing stats.I am not a pickup truck expert but i see a real deficiency in the Japanese trucks’ rear ends. They use such miniscule ring gears.They really could use a Dana rear end.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Ford seems to have narrowed its gear ratio selection for 2015. Now that the Raptor is gone, so is the 4.10 rear. There was a time when you could get a fleet-special 4.2 V6-equipped XL model with 3.08 gears. And before that in the early ’80s you could get a “Mileage Special” 300 I6 with 3-on-the-tree and a 2.73 rear end. Yeesh. 22 MPG, maybe, but absolutely no pulling power whatsoever, even with the torquey six.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I would say it’s enough pulling power for someone that tows a couple jet skis or 20 foot boat a few times a year. I could replace our CUV with a 2.7T crew cab F150 and see similar mileage.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Oh, I think you misunderstood. My last sentence still referred to the 300 I6/2.73, which, according to some Internet users, can get 22 MPG on the highway. I have no doubts that the 2.7 EcoBoost can handle small to moderate towing jobs.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @STRATOS – my understanding is that Ford is not playing the “gear ratio game”. Ford takes a bigger hit when going from 4×2 to 4×4 because the 4×4 trucks use lower gears.
      3.5 NA V6 – 3.55, 3.73
      2.7 EB/5.0 – 3.31, 3.55, 3.73
      3.5 EB V6 – 3.15, 3.31,3.55, 3.73

      Max tow EB 3.5 is obtained with 3.55 gears. In 2014 you needed 3.73 gears.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Using a 2008 F truck in the comparison isn’t as accurate as using the previous year model, a 2014. Why is a 7 year old vehicle used??

    Looking at the data and using the 5 litre V8 the new aluminium F-150 has improved only 1mpg, yes 1mpg.

    This is in what could be the world most expensive vehicle development program.

    You would have thought the improvement would have been significantly better initially with smaller incremental changes in FE as we go along.

    So, don’t expect too much from the aluminium truck.

    This could be an expensive exercise by Ford as Ford’s other Class 2 pickup with 350ftlb of torque is better than 30mpg with a combined FE better than the newer aluminiums highway FE.

    This proves one thing. Engine/drivetrain and aerodynamics would have provided much better results for far less money than this vehicle has given.

    1mpg, very poor indeed.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The drivetrain issue is one that is in flux. Per typical Ford rollouts, engines and tranissions will be changed after the first model year of a new vehicle. The last generation of F150 started with the 4.6L and 5.4L in 2009 and both were discontinued in the F150 by 2011. That truck started with the current 6 speed with the 5.4L, but that transmission had been in the Navigator/Expedition since 2007.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – Duh, V8s are designed to pull a heavy loads. Weight doesn’t dramatically impact their mpg either way. Similar to diesels.

      That’s why the 4.6 V8 was used in the comparison. No one was expecting huge gains from weight (savings) alone. They did play it up that way though. But it does allow smaller engines to handle the task. As if it was a midsize truck.

    • 0 avatar
      cronus

      A 1 MPG combined gain is > 5% improvement, 2 MPG is > 10%. What exactly were you expecting from a 15% weight reduction?

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        With a fleet of multiple thousands of vehicles that averages say 12 mpg, a 1mph improvement in said fleet saves far more fuel than an equivalent fleet of hybrids getting 50mpg, and taking it up to 51.
        Seems I heard that argument being made by GM a few years back, and even if is an argument that protects GM’s cash cows, it is legitimate none the less.

  • avatar
    mike978

    DW is correct, on an apples to apples engine comparison the shedding of all that weight and going to Aluminium has warranted a very small fuel economy improvement.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Seems like a whole lot of reliability questions to be had for a very small improvement in fuel economy that no doubt drops to single digits under even moderate towing.

    Where’s the V8 fuel economy figures, GM is eating their lunch, 6.2L GM has the same FE as the Ford 5.0l seriously? What about all this so called weight savings? They better pull a rabbit out of their rear, or else they’re going to lose the fullsize market as they lost with the Taurus.

    I hope the above figures aren’t for the 8 or 9 speed transmission, because those are miserable numbers if so.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Ford only has the six speed on their trucks right now.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        The new 2015s I thought were going to have the 8 speeds?

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          No. GM has an 8-speed but the 10-speed they are developing with Ford should hit the F150 next year and GM trucks after that. F150s with the 10-speed have been doing testing at GM’s Milford proving grounds.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            It’s eating my comments, but to make short, I’d hope the 10 speed could produce 24 avg, which I believe would make it a worthwhile ecodiesel competitor so long as it was $5k cheaper and one never needed to tow.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            It better.

            I wasn’t expecting the 2015 F150 fuel economy numbers to shoot up a bunch from the 2014 F150. With similar engine/transmission combos, you weren’t going to see transformational changes to fuel economy.

    • 0 avatar

      Past Taurus MIDsize, or CURRENT Taurus FULL size?

      It’s an important distinction on who ate whose lunch when!

      Nobody’s full-size numbers are eating anyone’s 4th meal at this point… duh.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        90s debacle.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Lou_BC
          It’s not often we disagree. But I do believe your interpretation of that article isn’t accurate.

          I do believe the Ram won because it’s suspension was superior. Its drivetrain was superior and it’s engine was superior. It’s FE was superior, by a larger margin that expected. The author stated that the Ram actually achieved better than the EPA figures. This is common with diesels and not so much with gasoline engines.

          You also made another statement regarding the use of pickups. Actually 50% of pickups are sold to business, not used for “business”.

          I do think you’ll find only 20% of pickups are actually work trucks, the other 30% used for business are tax deductions, ie family hacks.

          Your comment is akin to an advertisement of the biggest, fasted, mostest, etc’est. There is more to a vehicle than what you presented. It doesn’t make it the best.

          You know I’m not a Fiat Ram fan. But from what I read the Ram did win fairly and squarely.

          You are sounding like a dedicated Ford fan which I’m dismayed at. Subjective.

          The new F-150 is a nice truck, but it isn’t a big a leap as even the Colorado was in refinement with the US’s current antiquated midsizers.

          I expected a huge leap in refinement from Ford against other full size pickups, like the Ranger was here against our pickups. It’s at best on with the Ranger or second fiddle to the Ram according to that article.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Big Al from Oz – I’m pointing out the fact that the weight loss Ford obtained goes beyond MPG. Everyone is fixated on mpg which tends to be down the list of priorities for truck buyers.

            Ford chose aluminum.

            That is their business case to decide.

            I look at durability and capacity. I personally do not care about 1/4 mile test times per say. I do look at those parameters just in case they have a bearing on my application i.e. wheel hop/traction off the line can give me an idea how the truck will behave on slippery surfaces.

            Ford saves weight and if that ups capacity then that is something I am going to look at. It can make the difference between having to buy a 3/4 ton or buying a 1/2 ton.

            I initially pulled the results of the Motor Trend test for the other site we frequent but those results are just as valid here.

            As I pointed out, the F150 was much cheaper. The Chevy was below 50k as well. The Ram won due to air ride and mpg. I won’t touch air ride in a 1500. I’ve read of too many cases of “limp home” suspension overheat cases in FCA vehicles with air ride. One of the “offroad” magazines got an “overheat” warning as well. That worries me. I don’t want to be 6 hrs from home on a gravel road and have my truck go into “limp home” mode.

            I’ve defended diesels in 1/2 tons as well as defended small trucks.
            I personally would not buy a 2.7 Ecoboost 1/2 ton because that engine is a concern for me.
            With that being said I also won’t buy a Ram Ecodiesel because of the vehicle that engine sits within.
            I am currently more inclined to buying a Tacoma or Colorado next time around………. so what’s your point?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Hummer – as I pointed out earlier, Ford gains in more than just mpg. Towing and cargo capacity can more easily beat the competition.

      Motor Trend did a test between the 2015 F150 EB 2.7, the Ram Ecodiesel and Chevy 5.3. Empirically the Eb 2.7 powered truck killed
      both the Ram and Chevy even though
      they picked the Ram as #1.

      …………………………..Chevy…….Ford………Ram
      PAYLOAD CAPACITY 1,593 lb 1,565 lb 960 lb
      TOWing CAPACITY 9,400 lb 5,000 lb 8,650 lb
      TEST DATA

      ACCELERATION TO MPH, UNLADEN; TOWING 7,000-LB TRAILER
      …….. Chevy…………Ford………….Ram
      0-30 2.3; 5.7 sec ….2.4; 5.0 sec…2.6; 5.2 sec
      0-40 3.5; 8.9……….3.5; 7.5……….4.3; 9.0
      0-50 5.2; 13.6………4.9; 11.5…….6.3; 14.5
      0-60 6.9; 19.5………6.5; 16.2…….8.8; 23.9
      0-70 9.4; —………..8.6; 22.2……..11.8; –
      0-80 12.2; -…………. 11.2; -………16.0; –
      0-90 15.5; -…………..14.2; -……….20.8; –
      ……………Chevy……………………Ford……….Ram
      PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.6; 15.5 3.2; 9.4 5.1; 21.2
      QUARTER MILE
      Chevy empty 15.4 sec @ 89.8 mph;
      loaded 22.0 sec @ 62.3 mph
      Ford empty 15.1 sec @ 92.8 mph;
      loaded 20.7 sec @ 68.0 mph
      Ram empty
      loaded 16.6 sec @ 81.5 mph; 22.2 sec @ 58.7 mph

      DAVIS DAM “FRUSTRATION”**
      Chevy……………Ford………………Ram
      7.6 sec, 665 ft 6.0 sec, 524 ft 9.0 sec, 812 ft
      …………………………… Chevy……Ford……….Ram
      BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 127 ft 127 ft 126 ft
      LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.77 g (avg) 0.75 g (avg) 0.76 g (avg)
      MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.0 sec @ 0.75 g (avg) 28.5 sec @ 0.69 g (avg) 29.0 sec @ 0.56 g (avg)
      TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,500 rpm 1,600 rpm 1,700 rpm
      CONSUMER INFO
      …………………….Chevy…….Ford……….Ram
      BASE PRICE $43,755 $43,305 $46,155
      PRICE AS TESTED$54,550 $46,720 $53,690

      Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1501_comparison_2015_ford_f_150_vs_ram_1500_chevrolet_silverado/#ixzz3K1vqxAKa

      I’m not sure where Motor Trend gets a clear winner out of the Ram diesel.

      Did you notice that the F150 was rated to tow 5,000lbs?

      It towed the same 7,000lb as the Ram and Chevy and bested both.

      The Ram won by having a nicer ride and better mpg but it was 6,970 dollars more – air ride and diesel…..

  • avatar
    heavy handle

    One or two MPG is a big deal, when your base is 15 MPG.

    That being said, it’s always funny to read comments like this: “the EPA tells me I’ll get this much mileage, but when I load the bed up with a ton of manure and drive like an idiot, I get less.”

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Not when both GM and Chrysler both have better FE figures from their already in production models.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      B.S.

      There’s not a single pickup truck buyer who will care about a 1 mpg difference.

      You’re stretching to the point of tearing your alleged objectivity with ridiculous claims like that.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Especially when it requires a smaller engine, turbochargers, and a more costly sheet metal.

        Let’s not forget some of us like our trucks on the heavy s*de, pulling is great, stopping and controlling is better.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        Objectivity? Must not be talking about me.

        According to the article above, the difference is 6 MPG (combined) in the configuration with the minimum useable engine size.

        “The 19/26/22 rating bests the 2008 model with the 4.6-liter V8, which brought a rating of 14/19/16 to the party.”

        That’s pretty substantial if you tend to run your truck unloaded (as most private trucks that I see are).

        Obviously, the weight savings don’t mean much if you are carrying a full load. I’m sure that Ford has done their research and knows how many customers regularly use their truck for hauling cargo.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Just saying but the 4.6 as is all of Fords V8s, poor on fuel economy, the current 5.0l has rather poor fuel economy compared to its competitors, and it in itself should be the benchmark, and probably would wasn’t it still in production still trailing the pack.
          Even so I would be willing to bet the difference in fuel cost from the 5.0 to the 2.7 would be unconsequential for anyone that isn’t doing a 76 month+ payment plan.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          You aren’t recognizing the critical difference between Ford’s alleged fuel economy figures and their real fuel economy figures for the new F Series (which is the entire premise for the Automotive News article I cited above).

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            It’s a truck, you’re gonna get worse mileage if you use it for hauling stuff. Whatever weight you save by using aluminum is cancelled-out by the full load of paving stones in the bed.

            As for what actual mileage some journalist did or didn’t get, there’s not enough data to comment. What was the temperature, did he use premium or regular, did he top-up before and after (at the same pump, preferably), what were the tire pressures, what kind of driving did he do, does he ride the brakes, is he driving truck-style or car-style? Anyone can get worse-than-EPA mileage, especially if they think they need a lead for their article.

            I would love to see a serious instrumented test of pickup MPG, but I haven’t yet. I have heard anecdotally that Ford EB engines can be driven at EPA numbers, but that kind of data is not worth the paper it’s not written on.

        • 0 avatar
          Dan

          The 2008 truck being compared is a carryover from 2004 that was substantially engineered in the last century. Of course it had a bad EPA score, customers at that time didn’t even read EPA scores. In the real world 6 mpg will be nowhere to be seen.

          It isn’t the weight reduction. 300 lbs lighter than a Chevy is a toolbox and a passenger. It’s the huge air dam, tall gearing, skinny tires.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    The first real world tests from the magazines aren’t coming anywhere close to the published EPA numbers. 18.5 combined real world is what’s being reported.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      What do the magazine tests show for the competition? IIRC, 18.5 would be pretty good but the last time I looked was a couple years ago. Something like 14 seemed to be the norm.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        The issue to me isn’t the competition combined – the issue is that they are off over 16% from the EPA cycle on the sticker real world. That’s you get in trouble for faking the numbers territory.

        I checked on Fuelly for giggles and the 2014 Silverado is reporting a real world average of 17.5 MPG combined. That is up over 2 MPG from the 2013 model year, so the GM refresh has had a significant impact on MPG it appears.

        The 2014 Tundra on Fuelly is reporting 14.7 MPG real world (130 reports). The 2015 is reported but it is a single report so I don’t consider that statistically valid.

        The 2014 RAM is reporting 19.1 MPG real world combined on Fuelly.

        You have to take a magazine report with a grain of salt, but as has been written over and over and over again on TTAC, they aren’t very motivated to smear the products they review and bite the hands that feed them.

        So if the MPG world is:

        RAM: 19.1
        2015 F-150: 18.5
        2014 Silverado 1500: 17.5
        2014 Tundra: 14.7

        The F-150 isn’t killing the competition. One other critical point, the MPG figures for the F-150 are for the 2.7L EcoBoost specifically. That means the other engine combinations will only lower the 18.5 figure – all of the other figures for the Ram, Silverado, and Tundra represent all possible engine and transmission combinations in the 1/2 ton configurations they sell.

        So for the Tundra as the simplest example, that includes the 4.7L and the 5.7L engines (I believe they dropped the V6 in 2014 but will happily be corrected).

        That means the Fuelly average, if the 2.7L benchmark is accurate, will only be lower. But there needs to be a lot more data.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        I got 16 being heavy footed on a 03 Tahoe for quite a while, and 16-17 on a 97 extended cab Chevy 5.7. And my 345 scout 4 speed gets 15, so no unless your talking 3/4+ ton trucks, no stock 1/2 should be getting less than 18MPG, 11 years and billions of dollars after that Tahoe.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          What about safety, towing capacity, and all those advancements?

          Why does the 2014 Silverado get around the same ‘real world’ (press observed) fuel economy?

          Don’t get me wrong, I wish I could buy a 1997 Chevy with the bench seat.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        I wrote a nice reply quoting fuellly numbers that got eaten.

        2014 Ram 1/2 ton average 19.1
        2015 F-150 magazine average 18.5
        2014 Silverado average 17.5
        2014 Tundra average 14.6

        The Fuelly averages are every possible engine and driveline combined – so the 4×2 with the smallest possible engine should do better.

        Given this data, being almost 4 MPG off the EPA cycle for a 4 x 2 2.7 EcoBoost is a serious problem for Ford.

  • avatar
    mjz

    This is a disappointingly LOW increase in MPG’s given the much ballyhooed use of aluminum. Add the higher insurance costs and difficulty to repair the aluminum, and the steel bodied RAM and Chevy/GMC seem more appealing. The increased insurance rates alone will undoubtably erase any of the small savings in gas usage.

    • 0 avatar
      Sceptic

      Insurance rate is determined by many factors. Body panel repair cost is just one of those. In my experience aluminum bodied Mercedes Benz(W211 60% alum content) is not any more expensive to insure than your average Camry or Accord.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    New vehicle is significantly lighter, improving fuel efficiency, utility and performance.

    TTAC B&B response: Booo! We hate it! Let’s go back to the good old days of lousy performance, utility and efficiency, when I could get an ice cream cone for a nickel and these damned kids stayed off my lawn.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Another one who failed reading comprehension and/or can’t distinguish between ALLEGED fuel economy and REAL WORLD fuel economy…

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        DW,
        Are you really making the point that a vehicle that weighs 700 pounds less than its predecessor gets worse FE? Do you have real world data to back up your claims?

        Maybe you just have a case of the Mondays? Lighten up, dude.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          Actually, the real world data if you look is combined city-highway for the 2.7 is coming in at 18.5 no where near 22, lower than the Ram Fuelly average and only 1 MPG better than the Silverado Fuelly average.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Another one who can’t figure out that there is no universal definition of “real world”…

        • 0 avatar
          tooloud10

          Exactly. People seem to be comparing “real world” numbers of the new F150 to EPA numbers from the old trucks. None of these vehicles get the mileage listed on the Monroney; why would the new truck be any different?

          Also, LOL at the people not understanding that 26mpg highway EPA numbers for a full-size truck is a game changer.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Not when ram has 29 MPG and real world tests show it possible.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I think diesel mileage claims should be discounted by the ratio of gas price to diesel price.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Doesn’t work that way when people get worked up about euro cars getting 60+ MPG, just trying to keep the playing field level.

          • 0 avatar

            If the Ford real world mileage comes out at 18.5 The ecodiesel at 23.5 (per fuelly) than the cost of fuel between the two would be about identical. So there would be an advantage to the ford as the upfront cost is a little less.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            It’s not a game changer when early reviews are stating it can’t achieve 26 MPG highway in real use and Ram is beating the number.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Earlier I posted some info from motor trend. The EB 2.7 outperformed both the 5.3 Chevy and Ram Ecodiesel.

            If my primary focus was mpg I’d be in a Leaf or a Prius.

    • 0 avatar
      Fordson

      Don’t forget: Booo! I won’t be able to work on it with a chisel-point screwdriver, an 8″ Crescent wrench and a length of baling wire.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        Trucks were so much better when they didn’t handle, rode like skateboards, and wore-out at 100,000 miles!

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          None of those characteristics really apply to trucks, why does a truck need to handle like a Porsche? Where does this standard come from, that wouldn’t sell a single a truck. If we want to start setting ridiculous standards, why aren’t truck driving characteristics used in BMWs, Porsches, etc since those driving dynamics are surely much less accepted since they are outsold by trucks.
          Not sure what you mean by riding like a skateboard, again, it’s meant to tow, if it rides well then it’s towing abilities are weakened.
          What truck built in the United States has ever been impaired with an average life span of 100k miles? Indeed it seems the opposite is true, modern trucks are simply becoming what many euro lux vehicles have always been, over-complicated, overpriced, tries to impress using capabilities that aren’t even needed by typical drivers which makes day to day use worse.
          Even the worst of US trucks can cheaply and reliably do 250k

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Who mentioned Porsche? I’m talking about pickups that would lose the rear end on slippery roads if you didn’t have at least couple hundred pounds of sand bags in the back, and that shook your fillings out over any bump (again, they smoothed-out a little with weight in the back).

            I don’t know what your background is, but I spent summers on my uncle’s farm in the 70s and 80s. 100,000 miles was all you could get out of a working pickup. After that, the engine was worn-out, the frame and bed were rusted, and the rest of the truck was barely holding together. Didn’t matter if it was a Ford or a Chevy (no Dodge truck dealer in that small town back then).

            My cousin still runs that farm, and he now gets 250K from his pickups. Not only that, but he can do a lot of jobs with them that used to be done with tractors. That’s real progress, and ever-improving MPG is just icing on the cake.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            It’s not a car, an obviously the buyers don’t find the same thing you do as a problem. The rear end has to be light, why is this a problem. Older trucks did used to be harsh, but that was solved by making trucks heavier, and the harshest modern truck I’ve driven was an 05 F150, but it wasn’t terrible. Most of the farms around me are still using mostly 80s trucks, with a couple from the 70s, several from the 90s and a few from the early 2000s, many of these trucks are well north of 250k. Rust is a locational issue, I’m in NC and rust is a fairly foreign issue minus the outer banks.

  • avatar
    STRATOS

    How could the highway mileage change so much when weight is hardly a factor .City cycle yes .Any kid knowing basic physics could us.

  • avatar
    JaySeis

    My 2010 4.6 AWD 6 spd auto Adrenalin averages 21-22 on the highway, 17-18 around town. On long highway trips, 22-24. And it’ll tow over 7000. A full size with better economy, payload, tow rating? Sounds like a deal. I might even be tempted to go back to 2WD.

    And diesel bragging rights are hilarious as its like watching Luddites burning 20’s to light their cigars.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Many of our US and Canadian friends might not realise that Ford actually manufacture two Class 2 pickups. One an aluminium truck and the other a high tensile steel truck.

    Now we can look at two slightly differing philosophies of the same vehicle from the one manufacturer. It’s called Ford’s One Car Global Plan???? if you live outs!de of the US and/or China.

    Lets look a them a little closer and see which concept is actually the better of the two. Here are some figures of the what the AVERAGE truck will be, not what has the most power or towing or payload, but AVERAGE;

    1. The Ranger has a combined FE of 27mpg (4×4). The 2.7 EcoBoost achieves 22mpg (4×2).

    2. The 2.7 EcoBoost has a 385ftlb engine. The EcoBoost is 325hp and the diesel Ranger 200hp with the 350ftlb diesel.

    3. The 2015 F-150 is constructed with more expensive aluminium and the Ranger steel.

    4. The 2.7 EcoBoost will tow the same 7 800lbs as the 3.2 Ranger.

    5. The Ranger has roughly a 3 000lb payload and the F-150 is 2 100lbs.

    5. The F-150 offers massive interior space for comfort and the Ranger is the size of a medium/large family sedan.

    6. The F-150 is roughly 800lbs heavier than the Ranger.

    7. 4×4 versions of these trucks would show the Ranger is better off road than the F-150.

    8. The F-150 has a top speed of 98mph vs the Ranger;s 114mph.

    9. The 2.7 litre F-150 is quicker compared to the Ranger’s acceleration.

    10. Cost- The Ranger will be a much cheaper product than the aluminium F-150.

    Maybe GM is moving down the correct path with the Colorado, especially when it arrives in diesel form.

    The current 5.3 V8 Silverado appears to be a bit of a dog.

    Ram with the steel 1500 EcoDiesel seems to be the pick. Ram need to change the front end so it doesn’t look like a Ssyangyong Actyon and give it a bigger payload.

    Well, if you want a real pickup in the US I’d seriously cons!der the Ram EcoDiesel or wait until the Colorado comes out in a diesel. The Colorado will offer the best of all worlds for most pickup owners, with more capability than any current full size truck on offer, including this aluminium wonder truck by Frod.

    I do think this aluminium truck will be an expensive exercise by Ford.

    But they did make the Edsel, didn’t they.

    Oh, by the way I do own a FoMoCo pickup, it’s one of those other Class 2 trucks by Ford and sold by Mazda most guys don’t get who read TTAC. It’s a good truck…….so far.

    I really thought Ford would have done a better job. All that investment and development and the new F-150 has poor steering and a poor suspension. What a shame.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      When was the Ranger certified by the EPA at 27 MPG with 4WD?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @bball40dtw,
        EPA?? What about CAFE mpg, it’s different than EPA.

        It’s a diesel as well. Their FE doesn’t fluctuate (lower generally) like you US EPA figures.

        Your comment is actually a non argument. What’s the much heavier Ram returning? So I’d say my figure is pretty damn good, it’s Australian that’s why.

    • 0 avatar
      Tinn-Can

      The drastically different ways all those figures are computed makes those comparisons laughably unusable…

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Okay, BAFO’s “comeback,” if you can call it that, has now put me solidly in the camp of “intentional troll”. It’s one thing to use faulty/unfair comparisons in your original argument; it’s another to resort to ad hominem attacks when your argument is shot down.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Drzhivago138,
          If I’m attacked there is no rules.

          And I have yet to be proven incorrect on this. As a matter of fact I do think I’m quite correct with the info I have.

          I don’t care if Tresmonos is a Ford engineer as well. As for the other’s they are just like static.

          So, if you have anything different to add constructively, not like your compatriots. Then why do you interfere?

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            “Tresmonos is a Ford engineer”

            Incorrect. Just like your apples to orange to whatever comparison that has no context, whatsoever.

            Your trolling got the best of me. Normally I can ignore your comments.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @SexCpotatoes – the symbol for iron is “Fe” capital “F” small “e”.

            Blogs do not require standardized abbreviations.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – In what fairy tale land is a Ranger a class 2 and have 3,000 lbs payload? You’re talking “static” weight ratings. Meaning the weight it’ll hold before sitting on the snubbers. Not comparable to SAE ratings that account for such things as braking, accelerating, hill climbing, cooling, lug nuts, bearings, axles, bushings, ball joints, u-joints, parking brakes, etc., etc.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        @tresmonos: You mean you actually bought a Lincoln Mark VII diesel? That’s amazing! You should write an article about that!

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          It was the more rare Continental of the same era. It was a costly rendezvous. I sold it then purchased a hole in the water to which I shovel my money into.

          Had I had free indoor storage, I would have kept it. Rust free and mechanically in good shape. I repainted it and was in the process of making the interior nice.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “then purchased a hole in the water to which I shovel my money into”

            I’ve got two of those, a ’79 and a ’83 Seville

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            @Lie2Me, lol I was going to say that my own Bring Out Another Thousand (BOAT) was a 1967 Mustang convertible.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            haha, I traded my land yacht for a sea worthy one. Women seem to enjoy the latter.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            I had no idea Ford made a diesel 4 door Continental. I imagine finding parts for an old BMW diesel is quite an adventure.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Europe has a lot of the Bosch fuel delivery parts. Everything that I required was available. God help you if you crack the head. That was Ford specific – which I never understood the reasoning behind it. You would essentially be grave robbing the other 2000 of your endangered species.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Here we go again, the Very Dumb Comment from DenMike, comes up regularly and is always incorrect

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Robert Ryan – I’m talking about the spin, you and BAFO must partake in. Where am I incorrect about BAFO’s constant apples to oranges? Bring the facts. Or quit.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @DenMike
            You start producing “facts” and we will react to them. I notice some of your arguements have been espoused by UAW officials , no surprise, as there would be a heap of UAW trolls on a U.S. Automotive website

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Robert Ryan – “…I notice some of your arguements have been espoused…”

          If it’s not spin, it’s ad hominem with the both of you. B/c when it comes to facts, you’ve got zero. As always. No I won’t get into a s!de debate that’s nonsense and goes nowhere.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @DenMike,
            You are a paid UAW Troll, that I respect. So your “facts” are PR for the Industry. The tactic is an old Union one, used to deride competition and bolster your industry, that pays you and the Union

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Robert Ryan – You can decide for yourself I’m the King of Zimbabwe if it helps you cope with your case of the sudden stup!ds. But that has nothing to do with me. Or reality. Go back to accusing me of being Pch101 or Mikey or Hummer… How did that work out for ya? Id!ot.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @DenMike

            You start producing “facts” and I will react to them.” Still holds, no I did not call you someone else,. I tend to ignore the vast number of Alia’s you use on PUTC

    • 0 avatar
      wolfinator

      Whoah! The global ranger tops out 16mph higher!? Man, this is a real face-palm for Ford. All those racing F150s are going to be horribly disadvantaged.

      Man, what a bummer that will be at track day.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @wolfinator,
        Ford used a 5litre V8 in a Ranger to try and win the Dakar Rally, last year. The Raptor was way too slow, best finish 41st Do not know if Ford is going to do that this year

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Robert Ryan – The Raptor finished 41st “over all”. 1st in its class. But nice spin.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @DenMike,
            You forgot to add dead stock SUV’s and 2WD Pickups left it for dead. Best finish for a Stock SUV was 16th.
            “Best in Class Raptor” had only ONE competitor in the class a Dodge, they did not finish.
            DenMike, a bit of fantasy as regards it’s “performance “

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    From what I’ve seen, real world fuel economy on the 5.0L is much better. I get 18 mpg mixed on my 5.0L 2013 Extended cab 4×4 and the same 2015 trim combo was getting 21-22 mpg mixed from what some fleet test vehicles were getting. That’s huge.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Really?

      Just buy a six if you drive that sedately.

      Or is this the Ford side speaking?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @BigAl – I have gotten 20.5 mpg (USA) on multiple long trips i.e. 500 miles on the highway with my 2010 SuperCrew and that is with the 5.4 V8. I do have to “try” to get better mpg out of the truck. If I drive like everyone else i tend to be more around the EPA 18 mpg rating. City mph I don’t tend to monitor but I have gotten 16-18 mpg(USA) on some 350-450 km back country trips that ended up 40-50% back country paved highway.
        If I had to replace my truck right now I’d go for a max cargo 2014 Lariat with the 5.0.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Thanks, I’ll continue to sit on my 2004 F150 Heritage. Nothing more satisfying than a truck that is paid for, especially when you don’t have to use it as a daily driver.

    The thing we lose sight of in all of this is that these incremental increases in MPG aren’t really being driven by customers, they’re being driven by CAFE. I’m guessing most of the people who drop big bucks on these trucks could still afford the gas for a NA 3.7 V6.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    I the issue with this new truck, that I feel has not been addressed as of yet is the issue of insurance cost. I could be way wrong, but it is/was my understanding that AL is very costly to repair when compared to steel. If this is true, and as I mentioned it may very ell not be, wouldn’t this warrant an insurance surcharge from your carrier?

    Why would the rate be the same for a GM or Dodge with a steel body as an AL Ford? If there is a premium difference,, my question would be how much? Or more directly assuming the FE figures are accurate will this cut into the perceived savings.

    As an aside. I don’t believe the mpg figures for a minute. Seems to me with a turbo 4 you are going to have to stand on it just about everywhere to get this thing moving. They shed some pounds but we are still talking about some serious girth here. The FE discussion and full size trucks is bizarre, if you want one, be prepared to pay for your choice at the pump. Period. If you want FE, as noted here on this site there are plenty of alternatives available that will deliver a quality motoring experience along with far superior mpg.

  • avatar
    ttacgreg

    The “load it up, weigh it down,or tow stuff and MPG’s will drop” commenters are acting as if this is what all pick up trucks to all day every day.
    Anybody care to guess what percentage of the time the vast majority of pickup trucks run with nothing in their beds, and are used to commute to work and shopping? Anybody care to guess how many pick up trucks are basically fashion statements or something of a boutique purchase?

    • 0 avatar
      jrmason

      Maybe for you city slickers. Out here in the country, a truck gets used for truck duties. Around here, any given truck bed is beat, scratched, and dented and the interior is not much better. A lot of times, crew cabs get bought simply for the storage in the rear. The seats get folded down and left that way.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @ttacgreg – Roughly 1/2 of all pickups sold are actually used as tools of the trade.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    All that cost, effort, and risk for 1-2 mpg? (if you compare the same 3.5 EcoBoost and 5.0 V8 from last year)

    The good news, is that unlike, the Edsel, hundreds of thousands will buy an F-150.

    The bad news is that it will be 100-150k fewer than bought the ‘old’ steel F-150.

    This is a classic example of corporate, no FORD, hubris. Who says history doesn’t repeat itself? See 1996 “new” Taurus.

    It will be a ‘deadly sin’. If GM and Chrysler follow, it will be a ‘deadlier’ sin.

    And to think this happened on the great Mullaly’s watch! I’ve always admired his ability to keep the Ford family in line, and collect $50 million because the govt “didn’t bail Ford out”, even though it’s common knowledge that had the govt not bailed out GM and Chrysler, Ford would have gone under.

    Mr. Mulally is now retired–perhaps he was tired, perhaps he did not want to be the CEO when the F-1Edsel was launched.

    GM and Chysler workers owe him one now.

  • avatar
    turf3

    Too big. Too ugly. Looks like it was designed to conform to a preschooler’s idea of a pickup truck.

    Reduce the size of this absurd behemoth to that of an early 70’s pickup truck, apply current knowledge of aerodynamics, use aluminum extensively in body panels, then we can see some fuel economy improvements.

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      turf3 – you get it. The problem is everyone is “me too” — no one would know how to market such a thing.

      While lots of the B&B are free-market and get the gummint off our backs, those 2025 fuel economy standards may force the genuine kind of changes you speak of.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Personally, I’d love to see a return of the ’97-03 “jellybean” trucks. I think I’m the only one here who loves those for their aesthetics.

        • 0 avatar
          jhefner

          No, you are not alone. Still see a lot of them on the road, and I loved ours.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Only if they improve the crash results.

            http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/f-150/2003

            I say that as an owner of one but that would be unacceptable in a new vehicle.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            Reminds me of where I live, where you can see an 86-91 F-series, a 92-96 F-series, a 97-03 F-series, etc etc on one commute. People around here keep their old trucks until they’re too rusty or start getting too close to 200k. Same goes for older SUVs like Jeep Cherokees.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    It’s great that they got 26 highway MPG with a base model 2WD truck…but nobody except fleets buy base model 2WD trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      Yep in MN, 99.9999999% of all non fleet PU trucks are 4WD and either crew or extended cabs.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        Around here it’s either:

        A. Mid-range V8 2WD, usually with extended cab

        B. Regular cab V8 4WD long bed

        C. Full four door cab V8/diesel 4WD short bed

        D. Full four door cab diesel long bed

        A good 90% of local trucks fit into those four categories, though the regular cab long bed 4x4s are usually older trucks.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Ford embarrassment has only just started with the 1mpg improvement.

    The next one will be the introduction of the global Ranger into NA markets to offset the challenge by the Colorado.

    Why doesn’t TTAC investigate how much Ford has spent on the F-150? Total costs as well not just bits and pieces.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      “Ford embarrassment has only just started”
      .

      So, it’s never stopped you

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – Ford has already spoken on this. They won’t put the Ranger and F-150 together in the same market (again). Been there done that.

      And it’s GM that generally follows Ford’s lead. Not the other way around.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – Here’s the quote from Ford’s (VP of global product development) Raj Nair, in a CarAdvice.com.au interview:

      “The F-150 is a great solution for here [North America] and the Ranger is a great solution for the rest of the world. The Ranger isn’t a compact truck for the rest of the world, it’s *the* truck for the rest of the world.”

      CarAdvice said:

      “Conversely, he noted that the Australian-designed and -engineered Ford Ranger wouldn’t work in the North American market where customers demanded larger vehicles.”

      caradvice.com.au/266622/ford-f150-wanted-australia/

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    I’d say taking 700 lbs out of the previous generation was well worth it. Fuel economy aside, more payload, less wear and tear on the chassis/driveline, better performance(braking/acceleration/handling). And a PU truck that I can run through 20 salty MN winters and it still won’t have a hole in it due from corrosion anywhere. WTF, sign me up for that.

    When these trucks are 12 years old they will be worth thousands more than a comparable GM or Ram truck for the sole reason that the bodies will be as a solid as the day they rolled off the assembly line in 2015.

    If GM and Ram are smart, they’ll get their aluminum bodied trucks on the market sooner rather than later.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    Ford will continue it’s dominance with this new aluminum truck. People states in like MN, will love a truck that isn’t rusty after 20 salty winters.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Here’s one for the so called industry experts on TTAC and Ford apologist’s and employees.

    Alcoa was to have developed and provided Ford with adhesive for the bonding of the F-150. This was supposed to be a revolutionary process to reduce fasteners to a minimum. It is used in aviation, but not with mass production like required in the auto industry.

    Why then are they manufacture using fasteners?

    If this is correct this will have a massive cost blow out and Ford will need to employ additional people, new jigging and tooling, etc for the changes.

    That’s one to chew on guys.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      How do you attach light weight door/hood/panel skins to subframes?

      You weld or you use adhesive.

      How to you attach heavy paneling, subframes, structural components to one other?

      Rivets or welds.

      The only basis you have of your ‘statement’ is what I provided to the discussion. You don’t know the back ground or context so why do you speak about it?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @tresmonos,
        Judging by your comment your are out of your depth here a little.

        You previously made a statement alluding to the huge amount of rivets, etc holding this truck together. This was to reinforce your comment regarding weight.

        Hinges, hydraulic shock mounts, latches, etc aren’t fasteners. Fasteners are what join materials. I thought you would had realised this.

        Alcoa has apparently developed a bonding technique that Ford has exclusive rights to. Here is another fact, other auto manufacturers want Alcoa to give them access to the new bonding techniques.

        If this new bonding technique isn’t satisfactory, then what you stated in one of your previous comments could be true. If Ford is using lots of fasteners something is amiss.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          “Hinges, hydraulic shock mounts, latches, etc aren’t fasteners.”

          If the part is serviceable, it’s usually attached in a serviceable manner (i.e. bolts). Alcoa developed a compound to attach their product together. I’m not going to retype what I explained earlier.

          You’re talking in circles like you always do. You have no body construction knowledge. I have minimal knowledge and am only aware of bench mark studies. You’re talking out of context about something that you know nothing about.

          Please tell me, what other fascinating opinions based on nothing do you contain?

  • avatar
    stuki

    So, in other words, the Alu truck with the pedal powertrain returns mpg similar to a Canondale bicycle, and Ford also sells an alu truck that can tow as much as a steel truck, while using as much fuel as a steel truck…. ? Or am I missing something?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @stuki – yes you are.

      I explained it in an earlier post.

      Truck classes are set by capacity.

      Each weight class has its own CAFE rules and safety regulations.

      Ford looses weight which allows it to increase capacity but not cross into higher truck classes.

      Ford HD’s are also going aluminum. If Ford sheds 700 lb off a F450 or F350 no one will be able to come close in cargo ratings.

      It matters little to most Joe Shmoes who are clueless to their truck’s tow/haul ratings but it matters to anyone who has to use a truck for commercial purposes and is subject to vehicle inspections and weigh scales.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        This is incorrect.

        CAFE requirements are set based upon “footprint” — a size measure — not weight.

        CAFE applies only to light-duty trucks. Medium-duty trucks fall under a different standard.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        I just thought a press release stating that truck A gives mileage X, while completely different truck B can tow Y, may be just a bit light on actual useful information……

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          stuki – Ford is playing a numbers game. I do agree that an apples to oranges comparison is being played out. Ford did the same thing with the 3.5 Ecoboost by comparing numbers to the 5.4 all the while giving the impression that they were going to beat everyone by 15%.

          All one can do is compare the 5.0 V8 and the EB 3.5 2015 model to the 2014 model to see how big a difference the aluminum bod y has made.

          That would be easy to do but most automotive journalists will not bite the teet that feeds them.

  • avatar
    jrmason

    Yep, because Ford needs to use a truck with 19.5 wheels and larger axles and heavier suspension and a $3500 dollar premium over the F350 to competively tow with Ram. What a joke that is, and the fact they’re threatening to sue is an embarrassment to Ford lovers. Gee, I wonder if they will test with their spare tire and radio this time.
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, anybody who has towed anything with an Eco Boost knows the 12k lb rating is a fallacy. I wouldn’t want to tow that kind of weight with a small displacement v6 (in a half ton, no less) on a local route let alone long haul, and you can rest assured the uneducated will be lining up to purchase one to tow their high profile 5th wheel camper.

    • 0 avatar
      dieselone

      That goes for any half-ton. Not all towed weights are created equal. Towing 12k lbs of brincs on a flatbed trailer around town is once thing, but no way would I want to tow 10klb+ 35′ foot box trailer/RV with a 1/2 ton on a 1,000 mile trip.

      I know I wouldn’t want to much more with my ’14 Ram than what my 7k lb boat weighs. You start towing much more on a regular occasion and you’re better off going with a 3/4 ton.

      I have no doubt the Ecoboost v6 has more towing power than most v8’s available, but once you start approaching 10k lbs and over 1k lbs of tongue weight and most 1/2 tons are overloaded no matter what’s under the hood. Particularly 1/2 ton Crew Cabs.

      Looking at Ford’s Website, looks like most loaded up SuperCrews will be in the 1,600-2k lb cargo capacity range. So that is often the limiting factor when trying tow something pushing the max rating.

      That’s why all tow ratings start with “can tow up to”. Lots of things will eat into that rating. People, gear, tongue weight, etc all need to be factored in.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @jrmason – I do know guys who tow 10-12k with the EB 3.5. They say that they have had no problems. Fuel economy sucks under load but they expected that.

    • 0 avatar
      dieselone

      Yeah, I don’t know why many seem toe think the Ecoboost is suppose to defy the laws of physics when towing (Probably the fault of Ford’s marketing deparetment). I know several people with Ecoboost F150’s Most are very happy with them, particularly with the towing performance.

      My ’14 Hemi Ram with the 8 speed gets 8-10mpg towing my 7k lb boat. Pretty much just like my 5.3 Suburban, and 5.4 powered Expedition I had prior. The biggest difference is I don’t have to keep it floored when accelerating or climbing any type of grade;)

      To the Ecoboost’s defense, having so much torque available at low rpm while towing means, you might actually use it, thus it will burn more fuel doing so.

  • avatar
    jrmason

    I suppose if all ones ever towed with is a half ton then they very well could be satisfied with the performance. I guarantee you if they towed with an HD pick up for any length of time they would be white knuckled the next time they got back in their half ton with 10-12k hooked to it. A tow vehicle needs to be heavy to be stable and predictive, and no matter how you slice it a truck with 6 ply tires that rides like a sedan does not fit the bill. I realize most that buy a half ton do not tow on the upper end of their GCWR but there are too many people who see the published numbers and assume the truck is capable of towing loads that heavy on a regular basis. I live on a Lake that booms with tourism in the summer and I can’t tell you how many people I see with large 5th wheel campers or toy haulers hooked to the back of a half ton truck. They’re just not capable of safely hauling heavy loads with such a large profile, yet because the truck says it can tow X amount then it’s off to the races they go.
    I rode with a friend through the Allegeheneys towing a 6k lb boat with his 12 Eco Boost and I was far from impressed. The truck just seemed to be laboring awfully hard for not being anywhere near it’s max GCWR. The trip back was quite windy, and that boat which had a large side profile was blowing him all over the road. And yes, the fuel economy was less than favorable, but that’s to be expected with a small displacement engine with a poor torque curve. I have owned a diesel pick up since the 90’s, so my opinions are obviously biased, but if you need to tow that heavy you need to be stepping up to a 3/4 ton pick up at a minimum For safety reasons. I think anyone who has ever towed with both platforms would agree with me.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Jrmason,
      Very good post. Anything, that on a longish trip makes you feel very uncomfortable driving it ,towing that sort of load, in reality cannot tow that load. It may tow 10,000-12,000lb for a relatively short distance, but when the trailer “starts to wag the dog” , then it is dangerous. A test done elsewhere on a HD Truck waxed lyrical about the load it could tow, but seemed to disregard brake fade, coming off a mountain. In other words it could not actually tow that load.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • forward_look: Power supplied by the highway?? We can’t even have long-range electric trains in ‘Murica.
  • forward_look: So buy a used Leaf. Cheap.
  • Felix Hoenikker: Given the absurd bed height of full sized pickups, any feasible gadget to lower cargo should be...
  • JimZ: Yeah, I’m sure Gwynne Shotwell and SpaceX’s 7,000 other employees do nothing but sit around...
  • JimZ: SpaceX is working so well because it’s run by someone (Gwynne Shotwell) who has discipline and good...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States