By on December 5, 2014

2015 Ford F-150

Losing 700 pounds may not be enough in the fuel economy for the 2015 Ford F-150, as plans are being made to add hybridization to the mix.

Detroit Free Press reports global product development boss Raj Nair stated the automaker was “working very hard” on the hybrid system for the F-150, but that it was too soon to go into detail on when it would hit showrooms or how the system functioned.

Regarding diesel, Nair said that fuel prices — already falling below $2/gallon in a few spots in the United States — are making such a thing tough to bring about, that even a hybrid system would pay for itself long before a diesel F-150 could. That said, if the demand is there, Nair believes Ford could tap into its diesel portfolio to make that model happen.

Speaking of fuel prices, truck marketing chief Doug Scott said he didn’t think sales of EcoBoost models would be dampened by cheap fuel, citing customers’ choice to buy an EcoBoost F-150 for the performance as well as fuel economy.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

40 Comments on “Nair: Ford Hard At Work On F-150 Hybrid...”


  • avatar
    balreadysaid

    How obvious is it that the 2.7 isnt what they expected? I really am disgusted that ford couldnt have built the 2.7 to be less performance oriented and more efficient. With already having the 3.5 eco, performance of both arent far apart. Whats the point of doing that. I understand that the towing difference between the two is quite different. But when the colorado is able to tow 7k lbs. With a natural aspirated 3.6 being 100ft lbs less. The 2.7 turbo should have been Engineered for lower revs and more efficiency for a city mileage rating higher than what it has produced so far in EPA testing. I will put my money on the N/A engines being equipped with the electric hybrid setup. But I will also put my money on this not coming out till late 2017 coupled with 10 speed transmission. The figures they produce better be ground shattering compared to the competition. Ford owners are sort of being left hanging out to dry when a v8 Chevrolet’s real world mileage is the same or better than the 2.7l which isnt even really out yet. RAM’s lineup seems to be superior in efficiency even with the diesel left out of the equation (real world). How long have those engines already been out? The 8 speed has been around since late 2012 and were in late 2014. So Ford is really behind IMHO. I am a Ford guy through and through. RAM doesnt impress me with the design, and Chevrolet is also something that just doesnt fit what i want. Ford has loyal customers and they might not really suffer with sales loss with the profit per sales on the new trucks. I really am not impressed with what they are doing though.

    • 0 avatar

      “Isn’t what they expected”? You mean, isn’t what the media hyped it to be? Ecoboost isn’t meant to be a more fuel efficient 6 cyl, it’s meant to replace a less efficient v8. The 3.5 gets superior mileage to the 5.4 it replaced. I don’t think the engineers expected the motor to perform differently than it is.

      The reason no one makes a reasonable truck is because the market is full of people who “need” far more truck than they need. The current NA V6 offered in any of the big companies is on par with most v8s in the 90s, yet no one will buy this because of their manly “need” of more power. Evidently no one did any work with their trucks for the first 100 years of production, because most of them had 200 hp or less.

      Most folks who would be good with a 200 hp basic truck only buy used ones, so there isn’t real demand to the manufactures. The 2.7 was designed as a very good motor. It’s more redundant of the 5.0 than the 3.5, but Ford knows they can’t drop the v8 because of perceptions. I consider the 2.7 to be an educational campaign. If people get stock axles and don’t drive like most pickup drivers, I think it’ll perform pretty well for fuel economy when not being used as a truck (99% of the time for most buyers)

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      It’s not out yet, but you’re claiming to know “real world” numbers? For what it’s worth, Motor Trend finds that the 2.7 EB beats the pants off-of the V8 Chevy. Loaded, empty, mileage, performance, handling: the Chevy is worse in every category, by a very significant margin. The Ram diesel is even better, but lots of people don’t want a diesel, for very sensible reasons.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      The mileage may not be what WE expected, but Ford obviously designed the 2.7 to be a real work engine, not a fuel economy special. The capability stats war is raging too hard for any automaker to come out with a weak kneed version of their full size truck.

      As per usual Ford, though, they hedged in the launch, saving the 10 speed auto and hybrid for down the road.

      • 0 avatar
        greaseyknight

        Per Tresemodos, this is done intentionally to keep favorable reliabilty ratings. You don’t introduce a brand new truck and powertrain at the exact same time. There’s always teething issues, and its best to spread those out. Ford’s been doing this for a long time, a new 6 was introduced in the last year of the F-1’s in ’52, and the new V8 wasn’t introduced till ’54.

  • avatar
    mikeg216

    Diesel electric like a locomotive? 35 mpg? Ten speed automatic? Yes please!

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Why would you want a locomotive drivetrain in your pickup truck? Doesn’t that make about as much sense as wanting a pickup truck drivetrain in a locomotive?

      • 0 avatar
        JustPassinThru

        Actually, it would have its advantages.

        One would be that power could be delivered to every wheel, without the complex typical 4×4 driveline. Another would be that the engine could be positioned anywhere convenient – with no worries about driveline vibration.

        It’s never been done before because of the expense and complexities, especially of having an infinitely-variable throttle (a diesel locomotive has an eight-position [“notch”] throttle).

        If they can pull it off, more power to them.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Ford should produce a 2015 earth green, dimpled-golf ball pattern, milspec aluminum body panel, plug in F-Series, with waxed (i.e. hairless, smooth) truck nuts hanging off a standard rear hitch.

    Call it the “Modern ‘Scrodozer.’

  • avatar
    1998S90

    I hope this is the hydraulic hybrid I read about a couple of years ago. After having spent 3k to replace the battery in my daughter’s civic after only 80,000 miles, I refuse to buy another electric hybrid.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      You shouldn’t use the Civic hybrid as an example of battery longevity. Honda hasn’t seem to gotten than right compared to Toyota and Ford. There are plenty of Escape and Prius taxis running around with 200K+ miles and their original batteries.

      Also, if you would have purchased a Ford hybrid, the battery replacement would have been in warranty.

  • avatar
    carguy67

    I’m always confused/bemused when manufacturers pull out the stops to get a bit better mileage from a machine with the aerodynamics of a barn door. But, design a ‘slippery’ pickup and no drugstore cowboy worth his Stetson would buy it.

    • 0 avatar
      petezeiss

      I don’t know if we’re thinking of the same contradiction, but what flummoxes me is the ever taller, locomotive-like front clip while the A-pillar is more angled and the roof lower.

      It’s like Urus up top, Union Pacific on the bottom.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        It made a lot more sense, aesthetically, when it was the jellybean model. But from what I understand that thing had no crumple zones, except for the cab being one big one. Some of this ridiculousness has to be attributable to crumple zones, I just know it.

        • 0 avatar
          petezeiss

          I guess. It must be regulatory because I can’t see customer focus groups telling manufacturers:

          “We want a pickup that looks like a shipping container with a caboose cupola on top. And make sure to rake the cupola.”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s pointless to make the front end jellybean. Too much turbulence under it, in the bed area, behind it. And huge mirrors.

            An almost straight up grill, windshield, back window and tailgate make better use of over all length.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            “An almost straight up grill, windshield, back window and tailgate make better use of over all length.”

            Something a hood length long enough to hold a Cummins diesel, despite the hood only housing a measly V6, sure negates rather effectively….

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It has nothing to do with the engine length.

            With rounded and aero bumpers and lights, followed by the wheel well that’s right up against the cab, the front clip (including the hood) can’t get much shorter.

            If there’s room for a straight-6 or even a V-12, so be it.

  • avatar
    Brett Woods

    50 mpg. What’s the holdup?

  • avatar
    AmcEthan

    ill just stick with my gas hog 92 ram. much more fun to drive and is much more of a truck than this tonka toy.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    So it will probably have a $5,000 premium all so you can save $6 a month at the filling station?

    And the added bonus will be a $3k to $5k battery pack to replace after a few years?

    How do I get my name on the waiting list?

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      You don’t. It’s designed to be sold to government agencies that pay for it with other people’s money. IOW they’re the trucks your guns will be hauled away in, to be auctioned off to Mexican drug cartels. Who will recoup the cost of those by upping drug prices. So, in essence, the hybrid drivetrains will be funded by junkies.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Your battery pack replacement meme is a myth. Hybrid batteries typically last a very long time.

      But I agree on the payback problem.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      “So it will probably have a $5,000 premium all so you can save $6 a month at the filling station?”

      If that’s how it works out, Ford won’t bring it to market.

      But a commercial truck doing maybe 20K/year, with lots of idling or low-mpg city driving could see its fuel bill cut by a quite a bit, possibly a third, maybe even a half. If they can bring the option in for $5K, it could be a bargain, especially if the maintenance intervals can be increased because the engine doesn’t run much of the time the vehicle is “running.”

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Ford has realised the new 2015 isn’t a big a hit as it thought.

    Ram just bettered it (marginally) in the Motor Trend review and the Colorado received the Truck of the Year Award.

    Ford marketing will be hard at work delivering snippets of informantion to test the consumer and to ward off any perception that Ford has stopped developing the “lacklustre” aluminium pickup.

    I wonder if they will revise anything with the new aluminium HDs that are coming?

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The last time GM tried the hybrid truck thing, it got 20/20/20 mpg, and sales were rather underwhelming. I wonder how Ford thinks they can do better.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Which manufacturer has had success with hybrids in general?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      This is what I was wondering, GM has had TWO generations of Hybrid trucks, how many people have ever even seen one? Especially the GMT800 Silverado hybrid.

      Ford seems to be throwing a lot of money at bad for a hybrid system that a competitor, with more funds, failed at getting success.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Well you have to keep in mind that since the GM hybrids were introduced the landscape has changed dramatically thanks to the CAFE standards that are looming. Ford really doesn’t have an option but to offer a hybrid pickup, sooner or later. Ford realizes that the F series is their cash cow and they would rather get out head of the game rather than wait until the last minute.

        The other ting to consider is that the GM hybrids came out when the average consumer didn’t care too much about MPG and they did not have a payback period thanks to the steep premium they charged for it and the mediocre mpg improvement, like all of GM’s hybrids to date. .

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “even a hybrid system would pay for itself long before a diesel F-150 could”

    There’s something wrong with this.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    No surprise here, Ford said they were working on it years ago they even had explored a partnership with Toyota to do so. However it turned out that there wasn’t any real value in it to Ford since they would have had to foot most of the bill and they are doing quite well in the development of hybrid tech. It would have just turned out to be a gift to Toyota since they can’t afford to go there with tier minimal full size truck volume in the US the only place there would be any market for it.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Art Vandelay: I’d say that’s Sammy before he joined Van Halen. I like Sammy Hagar. I like Van Halen. But...
  • Mike Beranek: One of the joys of my life was when my teenager got into Rush. Totally surprising, and through no...
  • Mike Beranek: I’m just surprised that a 58 yo puts himself in the Boomer range. Only 4 years older than me, but...
  • Daniel J: Good review. This is my issue with these 8 and 10 speed transmissions. Everyone knocks Mazda on their 6...
  • Daniel J: Our CX-5 is 95 percent of my Mazda 6. Our roads are getting so bad, and the 19 inch wheels on my Mazda 6,...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber