By on February 3, 2015

red 2015 ford f150 supercrew 4x4 fx4

The stupid beer can analogies are already tired. Yes, the body of the 2015 Ford F150 is aluminum, but it’s not that important. If they didn’t make a big deal about it, you’d never know. It also fails to make the F150 the lightweight Jesus of pickups.

red 2015 ford f150 supercrew 4x4 fx4

 

Ford has been crowing about the weight savings that come from using an aluminum body, but that alone won’t keep the F150 on top. While it’s highly likely the F150 will crack 40 years as the best-selling single model, its competitors have sharpened their daggers lately.

The F150 remains as the F150 has always been – a good truck, sold aggressively, with some weak spots. The areas most in need of improvement have been attended to. That means a better interior, noticeably careful assembly quality, and thoroughly re-imagined powertrain lineup.

2015 ford f150 ecoboost badge

The base engine for is the 3.5 liter V6. It’s just as solidly unremarkable here as it was in the Lincoln MKZ. With 282 hp and 253 lb-ft of torque, the 3.5 is completely overshadowed by a pair of optional EcoBoost V6 choices. The 2.7 liter EcoBoost is the short-money option, costing you $795 to bump up to 325 hp and 375 lb-ft of torque. Spend $1,995 and you’ll get the 3.5 liter EcoBoost. Its 365 hp is just 20 hp shy of the 5.0 liter V8’s 385 hp, but its 420 lb-ft of fat turbo torque will be noticeably stronger and more flexible than the V8’s 387 lb-ft.  Ford prices the V8 right in between the turbo sixes, at $1,595. Either EcoBoost is a hell of an engine, and if you crack a window, you’ll hear the turbos spool.

2015_ford_f150_15

With the window up, you won’t hear much at all. It’s quiet inside, but the interior of the F150 is still plagued by the same kind of nonsense that’s afflicted the Mustang for a decade. Rock-hard door panels, tons of greasy-looking, cheap-feeling plastic, and bunch of buttons vomited on the panel. Compared to the MyFordTouch system, though, the HVAC buttons are a paragon of usability. With MFT, there’s a touchscreen with icons that are too tiny, so skip it and be safer on the road. SYNC3 can’t arrive soon enough.

Button-aggro aside, the new F150 is very comfortable to drive. The quiet environment is a pleasant start, the seats are supportive, with enough adjustments to dial in some personalization, and this thing is solid. Even though it’s a pickup, the steering is a tick slow off-center and numb. The EcoBoost 3.5 is ballsy. Very ballsy. Light the tires up like a sports car ballsy. If the underwhelming interior is Bad Mustang, the Truck Nutz are Good Mustang.

2015_ford_f150_14

It’s an open secret that pickups look more useful than they often turn out to be. That’s especially true with the 5 1/2 foot bed my F150 had. It’s fine for a weekend warrior, and it keeps the total length down so you’re not trying to turn the Nimitz around in the convenience store parking lot, but it’s a compromise. The SuperCrew is standard with a 6 1/2 foot bed, so you save $315 with the shorter bed. It’s best to think of the SuperCrew F150s as an Expedition with a bed in place of the 3rd row, versus a super-utilitarian pickup. The bed does have LED, the new BoxLink system with adjustable locking tie-downs, and handy D-rings. If you’re going to torture your F150 with real work, get a stripped-down XL, not this $50,000 SuperCrew. The pickup truck arms race leads to some absurdity. There’s a staircase built into the tailgate, which is ridiculous and kind of cumbersome to use. There’s cool stuff, too, like the optional ramps and remote tailgate release.

2015_ford_f150_11

The F150 is the truck that does just about everything well. Rams have better interiors and the GM twins are quiet and refined with somewhat better ergonomics – not to mention the small-block V8. The T’s – Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra – remain non-players, though I’m eager to get my hands on the new Titan. Even with the huge investment to go aluminum for the body, the F150 isn’t a featherweight, but it does wind up strong in every category. The engineering has obviously been obsessed over. The driving experience is tidy and disciplined, and while it doesn’t lead the class in interior quality, there’s been energy put into making it better. Bottom line: The F150 is solid, it has show-stand looks and is comfortable to drive. The interior is a disappointment, and the price can jump into “holy crap!” territory really quickly. The F150 feels light on its feet and is a lot more refined than it used to be. It’s also the most forward-thinking pickup you can buy right now.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

204 Comments on “Capsule Review: 2015 Ford F150 XLT SuperCrew...”


  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I just can’t get over the front clip. I see that “finger” protruding into the lighting stack out of the grille and just can’t understand what the designer was going for.

    • 0 avatar
      zamoti

      To me, it looks like they’re trying to create a line (bar more likely) across the front grille giving the appearance of some sort of bull bar. Not sure why they’re trying to up the Tonka chunky factor since it’s already dialed up to 13 (eleven plus two testicles).

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      I think this truck looks a lot better in the wild. It doesn’t photograph all that well.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      Agreed, saw a new F150 out and about a few days ago and that extra bit of trim cutting into the lights just does not look good.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      I think the idea is to make the headlights look stacked, which makes the front end look taller. The manufacturers have apparently learned that it’s absolutely impossible to put in too much cartoon macho for buyers.

      That said, this is the best-looking F-150 configuration you can get. Sport Appearance relieves you of all the annoying blingy chrome, and those rims are nice, simple, and just the right size.

      • 0 avatar
        Sloomis

        “this is the best-looking F-150 configuration you can get.”

        Totally. I’m surprised how much I like the looks. Every other version I’ve seen has been utterly hideous.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Saw this at the auto show over the weekend — way too overdone.

          The best F-150 looks, IMHO, was the generation before last. Clean, without the Tonka-truck blingage.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    “There’s a staircase built into the tailgate, which is ridiculous and kind of cumbersome to use”

    Rumor has it that GM and Ram are working on an elevator so that the average guy can get stuff in and out of the bed

    /sarcasm

    Where does this absurdity end?

    • 0 avatar

      How about a Super Duty with an attached forklift?

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      I like the GM solution of putting a step in the bumper much more. Simple and easy, without having to set up the rube goldberg staircase and banister before climbing in. Ain’t nobody got time fo dat.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        You beat me to it Danio. I went to the NAIAS with a few Ford engineers and they like the GM solution better too. It’s simple, thoughtful engineering.

        I think GM used to run commercials making fun of the “man-step” on the back of the F150.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          Not to mention, the step in the bumper is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper to manufacture.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The bumper step is brilliant in every way.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            The GM Twins are just way better trucks than th F Series, from powertrain, to fit & finish, to reliability.

            I’m hearing from “people” in the field that some are claiming that they’re buying the F Series over the GM Twins more many reasons having nothing to do with the fact that the F Series is as good (they concede that it isn’t).

            It is mind-boggling that anyone would pay anywhere close to 50k for this hideous, clapped together lump.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            “The GM Twins are just way better trucks than th F Series, from powertrain, to fit & finish, to reliability.”

            Strongly disagree there, the GM trucks are ergonomically terrible. Bunker dashboard, B pillar jammed against your shoulder, the usual GM programming where it’s in 6th gear by the end of your driveway with dead throttle through the first 2/3 of the pedal. Simply unpleasant to drive.

            I don’t know about reliability and nobody could disagree with you on the interior fit and finish.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Except that the bottom of the step sticks out past the top edge of the bumper.

            I like the idea a lot, but I feel the botched the execution a tad…

            Maybe just trim the step part and make it deeper? So that if you drew the line of the bumper over the whole it would be continuous?

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          GM made fun of Ford’s “man step” until it turned out it was actually increasing sales of said step. FWIW, the bumper step is better because it can be used regardless of the position of the tailgate.

        • 0 avatar
          4part

          I have a tailgate step but many times, while unloading stuff (step closed up), it snags on the step’s plastic cover and rips it off. I wish FORD would re-engineer the cover for their tailgate step so it did interfere with unloading the bed…

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        How about something like a hinged half-gate that would give you easier access while still keeping a majority of you loads secure?

      • 0 avatar
        Hank

        This is why I used to love that my ’75 IH 1-ton was a stepside. Hopping up to grab tools, baling wire, or a bucket of feed was was too easy. The Chevy steps in the bumpers basically brought back stepside functionality without the bed-size loss.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        The GM step in the bumper is nice for a quick solution to tossing something in the bed. But its not much help for having to repeatedly climb up and down with the tailgate open, like when loading things in the bed.

        Nearly every time I use a truck I find myself having to climb up on the tailgate, not the side of the bed. The staircase would be a great solution to help with moving furniture or loading lumber, etc.

        • 0 avatar
          4part

          I have a tailgate step but many times, while unloading stuff (step closed up), it snags on the step’s plastic cover and rips it off. I wish FORD would re-engineer the cover for their tailgate step so it did interfere with unloading the bed…

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      All I know is, if somebody slips on that staircase and their leg gets caught in that space between the tailgate and the step as the full weight of their upper body goes backwards, that somebody is not going to have a good day!

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      That “staircase” is really handy. Makes getting in and out of the box much easier for those of us who are arthritically challenged. It also makes a good place to set a ramp which also aids in loading and unloaded.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    FFS.

    Talk about a bullish!t review.

    5o FARKING THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR THIS TURD.

    “The engineering has obviously been obsessed over. The driving experience is tidy and disciplined, and while it doesn’t lead the class in interior quality, there’s been energy put into making it better.”

    Really?

    That interior is LAUGHABLY CHEAP. Interior plastics by Playskoolz. This is engineering that’s been obsessed over? That is engineering Mitsubishi circa-1993.

    Look at that RIDICULOUS SHORT BED WITH RIDICULOUS BUNK BED LADDER DANGLING OF OF IT.

    The ecoboost motors are great? They get sh!tty mileage in the real world and are plagued by serious reliability issues according to Consumer Reports.

    Also, what happened to Ford’s NEARLY SINGULAR CLAIM of lightweight, full-size trucks due to the aluminum body panels, leading to AWESOME fuel economy? Ford is downplaying this since it hasn’t panned out the way they claimed it would (it’s obvious).

    This review is very non-specific on particulars, downplays the major shortcomings of this ugly brick, and overplays its barely competitive features.

    WTF.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      I would love to write up a review of a press fleet F series. I want to know if the ditch moulding lines up. Does the Al body have the same orange peel that plagues DTP and KCAP? Body fit and finish would be increasingly interesting to compare to a 2014 MY steel truck – or better yet, a half model year truck built at KCAP.

      Does the XL cab still ‘boom’ under ecoboost thrust? Did they carry over sound screen windshields for lower trim levels? Can you still get plastic floors without sacrificing MFT / Sync and getting a hideous XL fascia? GIMME MY FREE CONTENT

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Tres-

        As far as the fit and finish goes, the Al trucks seemed better than the steel trucks on the same lots. That’s only from me going over trucks at dealerships. The early Al trucks could be significantly “massaged” like the early 2012 Foci and 2011 Explorers were.

        I’ll get the answers to the other questions for you.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Winston admits that the plastics are cheap, yet claims that the fit & finish are much improved.

        Let us all take a look at the subject interior, center stack section, and observe thus vaunted “fit & finish” on this 50k rig:

        https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2015_ford_f150_14.jpg

        As Dr. Lecter would ask: “Tell me Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming?”

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I’ve found the fit and finish to be much better on the new truck. The last one wasn’t exactly great though. The materials are fine for a truck, but they are nothing transformative.

    • 0 avatar
      Hank

      Sheesh. This is why they sell decaf.

    • 0 avatar
      DinosaurWine

      You should read a little deeper into the Consumer Reports reliability review. If you did, you’d see the EB F150 was dinged for audio system reliability and that the 3.5 was no less reliable than the 5.0. And while you’re there, check the reliability results for the Silverado/Sierra – CR rates them as “Much worse than average.”

      I’ve got friends who run both the GM trucks and F150s in oilfield applications and the F150s are hands down the more reliable truck for them, so I’m guessing that has something to do with the F150’s fleet adoption rate. Of course, that’s not surprising since GM’s truck barely competed with the last generation F150 when it was released and now GM is furiously trying to play catch up.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        You lie.

        CR has an index that breaks down reliability by system, i.e. “Engine,”Transmission,” “Suspension,” etc.

        Not a single ecoboost motor, as of the latest edition of the CR Annual Guide (2015) gets better than a “worse than average” rating, while nearly every ecoboost motor gets a “much worse than average” reliability rating.

        Your and others’ “it’s all MyFordTouch’s fault!” meme is really overplayed, disingenuous & tired.

        • 0 avatar
          DinosaurWine

          You’re not just wrong, you’re hilariously wrong.

          The 2015 F150 hasn’t been rated by them yet, but for both ’13 and ’14 the EB was rated above average in the Engine Major, Engine Minor, and Engine Cooling categories. The idea that a mechanically identical engine is going to score worse than average in its fourth year of production is idiotic. You may have moved the goalposts by talking about the EB in other Ford applications but those are irrelevant.

          But you didn’t respond to my other point – that the GM twins (and the Ram for that matter) score much worse than average, as denoted by that solid black dot.

          • 0 avatar
            N8iveVA

            Don’t bother, it’s very obvious he has an ax to grind and is unable to be objective. Maybe an F150 ran over his puppy once.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            An F150 towing a Cadillac.

          • 0 avatar
            BrunoT

            I have an F150 5.0, you need to go to a F150 owners forum. Plenty of ecoboost problem threads, not too much about the V8.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I was talking to a manager for a small Forest Resource company and the very first EB 3.5 F150 they bought had some issues that resulted in the intercooler being replaced under warranty. They have NOT had any issues with their subsequent F150 EB purchases.
            The large Forestry company my brother works for has gone to purchasing based on reliability data and best price. They have a huge fleet of GM 3/4 ton pickups and Ford 150’s. Both have held up well.
            Reliability data has indicated that the EB 3.5 has improved over the years. True Delta does indicate that the 5.0 is less problematic than the EB 3.5.

            GM has had its share of teething problems with their new model which is typical for almost all new releases.

          • 0 avatar
            ponchoman49

            Out in the real world most Ecoboost owners I have spoke with have had either engine failure around 60-70K miles, poor mileage results that are way less than the sticker, drive-ability issues, oil consumption issues and the famous carbon build up issue which is made worse by the fact that this engine is force fed by twin turbos that even Ford admits have a limited shelf life and are expensive to replace.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @ponchoman49 – wow, totally opposite to what I’ve seen.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            My assistant, Nguyen, has a 2013 F150 4-door 4×4 Ecoboost and is seriously rethinking his decision of buying it based on the owner-sites he visits.

            As!de from the fact that he can’t keep up with me going up US82 with a load, his fuel economy is worse than my 5.7L V8 and he gets a puff of blue smoke out of the exhaust every time he starts it cold.

            The dealer told him it’s nothing to worry about. But I’m thinking, a new vehicle should not emit a puff of blue smoke when it is started.

            He may opt to trade it for a 2015 F150 V8, if the dealer can ever get one in.

            Our local dealer got ONE 2015 F150 in and it didn’t have a V8. The waiting list is long for the 2015s.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            The V8 in the Tundra is rock solid.

            The V8s in the GM Twins are very reliable.

            The Ford V8 is good, too.

            The ecoboost in the F Series is a Ford designed measure to game the EPA fuel economy loop test. NO ONE gets anything close to the official EPA numbers in the real world, and they suffer decreased reliability and durability as salt in the wound.

            Pickups were meant to have V8s or diesels (such as the 3.0 liter in the RAM).

            If there’s one thing that the “domestics” are good/competitive at manufacturing, it’s powerful, efficient, durable V8s. Why stray from that winning recipe?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            DW, “The V8 in the Tundra is rock solid.”

            I concur! I love my 5.7L, all-aluminum 32-valve, DOHC V8.

          • 0 avatar
            gsp

            The F150 5.4V8 is not reliable. Look up rotting exhaust manifolds and noisy valves. Two major issues Ford is not covering under recalls. The manifolds are a $2500+ fix and the valves may or may not be fixable at all by some accounts.

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    I goaded Jackie DiMarco about the Tonka Truck / Fisher Price plastics of the P415. Looks like Pete Reyes only updated this to 2010 Taurus interior standards. The upmarket trim probably has the fake leather ‘toupee’ dash pad with contrast stitching that may as well be in-die thread.

    C’mon, Ford. No STX, either.

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    I don’t like the interiors in the RAMs I have driven. There, I said it. I don’t understand the love it seems to get. They are certainly much better than the were, but I wouldn’t choose the RAM because of the interior. I honestly perfer the egronomics and buttons/switches of both the Ford and GM trucks.

    I guess I’m in the minority.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      The RAM interior is nice if you don’t abuse it. The IP has elements to it that feel thin and the finish wouldn’t handle a coworker sitting cross legged with their steel toes on. But besides that, the tactile quality and fit is superb. The question is if all of that is necessary or practical in a truck? It probably isn’t for someone who uses their truck for truck things.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I’ve had a few RAM rentals and have driven friends’ newer RAMs with 50k+ miles. My 1998 Dodge Ram with 180K miles interior was holding up better. It was also made with sub-Playskool level plastic though.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “The question is if all of that is necessary or practical in a truck? It probably isn’t for someone who uses their truck for truck things.”

        Depends on which trim you get. A friend of mine recently picked up a Ram Tradesman and it’s pretty utilitarian inside, but still has a good amount of feautres. I actually much prefer the vinyl seats in his truck to the “premium” cloth in the mid-level trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        My F250 (07, XLT) has pretty cheap plastics.

        But it doesn’t bother me, because “is working truck”.

        And I like that I can, say, pull the dash in about 5 minutes [after doing it a few times]; makes it easier to change a bulb or custom-wire things.

        (This matters because I like my GPS hardwired, and my dash cam, and my extra charger plugs…)

        (I also didn’t buy it new.

        But then again, the person who did, bought it as an agricultural work truck, guessing from the dust I cleaned out of it, and the fact it was sold and maintained in Umatilla.)

      • 0 avatar
        bikephil

        What kind of man (unless he’s a queer) who wears steel toed boots would sit cross legged in a truck??

    • 0 avatar
      formula m

      I agree

  • avatar
    thornmark

    >>The ecoboost motors are great? They get sh!tty mileage in the real world and are plagued by serious reliability issues according to Consumer Reports.<<

    The "E" car was the Edsel.

    The "E" motors are the Ecoboosts.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    The biggest criticism I have about this truck is the cost of the tail lamp modules, around 1000 each if you read the repair article on another site where they hit it with the sledge hammer. That’s a ridiculous cost adding measure that adds little value for the consumer.

    I like it more than the other trucks of today but will hold off on final judgement until the 10 speed is out

  • avatar
    LectroByte

    Y’all are missing the bigger picture for flyover country, if you want a new full sized truck that ainn’t going to get you subjected to Fiat jokes, or Government Motors Obama jobkes, then it’s a Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      But what will protect me from the Found On Road Dead etc. memes?

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      From what I’ve seen in flyover country, the ram ecodiesel is the truck with the most buzz, while the ecoboost is panned for its poor towing. The f150 is a good truck for guys like me who wouldn’t use it for actual work.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        What is preferred for actual work in your experience?

        • 0 avatar
          nickoo

          3/4 tons and up, nearly all Dodge with Cummins or GM models. I hardly ever see super duties out on the farm, could be a regional thing.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Thx

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            Possibly regional?

            I say this because the SuperDuty I bought used was plainly used as an eastern Oregon farm truck, from the CarFax data.

            (Fleet White XLT, bought and serviced in Umatilla? Lots of interior dust inside the plastics? Gotta be a farm truck.)

          • 0 avatar
            BrunoT

            A lot of us do real “work” in trucks, but don’t need the heavy duty payload, with the poor fuel economy, high price, and rougher ride. My truck is covered inside with a coating of dust after a week. The “cheaper” interiors do tend to clean up easier and with less visable damage. The bed is filthy after a day. But even an F150 is overkill for the trailer I have to tow full of gear. 3500 lbs still requires a truck. Just not such a big one. Even when I have to haul a tractor/backhoe, it’s still only about 4500 lbs, well within the abilities of a light duty truck. I had a Silverado 2500 HD and unloaded it was just brutal. Its gas engine also got 10 mpg.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Most likely is a regional thing. I see a mixed bag of work trucks and most are HD’s. Fleets tend to go with gasser GM’s or Fords. Cummins sells a lot of trucks for FCA.

      • 0 avatar
        mikeg216

        You mean the eco boost with 12,200 towing? It’s a regional thing here in Ohio it’s 60% ford 30% Dodge 10% Chevy /gmc

        • 0 avatar
          nickoo

          Sorry, should have said towing mpg.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            The Ecoboost runs circles around the V8’s when towing. That performance comes with a price. I’ll take the low end grunt of a twin turbo V6 when towing something heavy enough to sit on at least a tandem axle trailer any day over a 5.0 or 5.3 V8. Fuel economy be damned, it isn’t worth a ship with any gas motor regardless.

      • 0 avatar
        LectroByte

        Well, the highway dept. just bought a crapload of F-250 SD’s to replace a bunch of old Dodges. Not sure on the engine, though, I only saw ’em behind the chain link fence.

  • avatar
    Dan

    I test drove one of these last month, XLT with the V8, and had mixed feelings.

    Ford got a lot right. It’s ergonomically outstanding for a big guy, enormous in every direction with a window line down around your elbows. GM could take a lot of notes. The flat rear floor is just as good an idea as it was 7 years ago. The V8 sounds great when you get on it and you can really feel that it’s not hauling 6,000 lbs anymore. It’s dead quiet on the road.

    And they got a lot wrong. The truck I looked at had a $46,375 sticker, which considering the feature content (302A and nothing else, ie. cloth bench, crap radio, no nav, no FX4) was absurd in and of itself.

    The interior is cheap, flexy plastic, especially the door panels and sunglass holder/light assy behind the rear view.

    Ford had a decade to copy the great roll down window in the Tundra yet the one they put in is literally the size of a cat door.

    Between the weight loss in the aluminum bed and the needlessly stiff springs, the back end never really settles down. A $45,000 family car with a 5 foot bed doesn’t make the slightest pretense of being a work truck, yet it needs a 1900 pound payload rating? Know many families with fork lifts in the garage? Dodge showed how it was done years ago and again, Ford was too proud to learn from them.

    At the end of the day I didn’t see anything worth paying the new model premium for, or waiting a year for that premium to wear off, so I bought a Ram Express instead. An all new truck should wow and this didn’t.

    • 0 avatar
      DinosaurWine

      Honestly, if the Ram’s payload is enough for you, why even buy a truck? Unless you’re carrying Styrofoam or bubble wrap around most of us need more than 200 lbs of payload when carrying passengers and fuel.

      I’d gladly take stiff springs and capability over a smooth ride because I bought a pickup truck. If you want a smooth ride and can do without the capability buy an Expedition or Durango; it will be much easier to park.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        GVWR is 6900. Curb is 5500ish. 200 pound payload? How fat is your wife?

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        I don’t understand what exactly is limiting the 1500 Rams payload, the easy answer is the coils with the already heavy setup. I believe it has to be in the drivetrain or the setup used for the rear.

        The 2500 Ram uses coils, granted they’re progressive but similar coils could easily be made for 1500. Hell my H2 has standard coil rear (or optional airbags) and I have a 2200 payload, it rides fine though I don’t think (or remember) that the coils are progressive.
        Putting progressive coils would solve everything if that was the limiting factor, so I don’t believe that’s it.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Hummer – it most likely has to do with frame strength and how the coils focus load. The last Motor Trend test stated that most 1/2 ton pickup owners carry no more than 1k and only tow 7k. That statement smelled a lot like a Ram PR since they mentioned the fact that the F450 could only tow 30K with a 117 lb driver.
          Up until 2014 Ford had 3 different frame strengths for the F150. Max tow and max load had separate frames and so did the supercrew.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        With 4 passengers you’re still able to carry 1,350 lbs of payload on a 4×2 Quad Cab SLT. It seems that the 3.6L versions can carry more payload than some 5.7L trucks.

        Hint of the day: You want towing and payload? Skip Crew Cabs.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @SC5door – or you could buy a Ford crew or GM crew. You have a 2,300 lb option with Ford and a 2k option with GM. Even the new Colorado crew 4×4 has a 1,500 lb rating.

          Ram obviously has one chassis for all of their 1500’s. The more sh!t you put on that chassis the less capacity you have left over.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Fun for me to read this after I spent a weekend pickup shopping for a truck to tow my new 28′ Airstream. On the upper trim levels, the aluminum body panels save about 400 lbs. over the equivalent ’14 version. The IP layout of the new Ford truck struck me as “random.” I drove a ’14 Lariat with the Ecoboost engine and wondered for whom the seats were designed. I’m 6’4″, 220 lbs. and hardly have a fat butt. Nevertheless, I felt like my butt was resting on the side bolsters of the seats, suspended over the center section. Ultimately, I decided I couldn’t handle being in these seats for hours at a time. I did not find the driving characteristics of the ’14 truck markedly different from the same version of the ’15 truck with the same powertrain. The steering is very light, the suspension firm but not punishing. The throttle response is a little erratic, typical of what one would expect from a turbocharged engine.

    The Chevy seats (Silverado LTZ) were instantly comfortable. The 6.2 engine with the six-speed (2014) is super-smooth; with the eight-speed (2015), it’s even better and the extra gears fill some gaps that are apparent in the six-speed transmission between 2d and 3d especially. Unlike the Ecoboost, the throttle response is linear and predictable. Because it is lower than the Ford, the Chevy feels more “planted” when you drive it. On that score, even at my height, I would install side steps on the Ford. On the Chevy, I would not feel the need to.

    I don’t understand people yucking it up about the Ford having some sort of step to get in the bed. The fact is, at the height of the bed, people shorter than I am (which is most people) are going to want/need some sort of assistance to get in the bed. The Chevy cornerstep is elegant: simple and it does the job. I’m sure it’s also patented, so the Ford folks are stuck with the Rube Goldberg contraption that produces a step from the tailgate. Elegant and simple it isn’t, but it’s better than nothing.

    It’s also worth mentioning that the maximum cargo capacity of any Chevy 1500 crew cab is 1900 lbs. (with the max trailer tow package). By contrast, the F-150 can be rated up to about 2500 lbs. in the crew cab version. There’s the benefit of the aluminum body.

    The biggest advantage of the 3.5 Ecoboost over the 6.2 is that, like most turbocharged engines, it has a very fat torque curve and reaches max torque (420 lb.-ft) at about 2400 rpm. So, if you’re pulling a lot of weight up a big hill, there probably will be less engine noise. The 3.5 does seem to use a little more fuel than the 6.2 at maximum load.

    I would have bought the Chevy, but I would be pushing the cargo capacity to the limit (or over); and the truck didn’t have trailer tow mirrors. I’m not fond of the little add-ons and the dealer didn’t seem interested in ordering a pair from GM and having his mechanic install them.

    So, I’m still looking.

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      Dodge ram ecodiesel?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Nickoo – the ecodiesel is a decent engine hamstrung by a car masquerading as a truck. The best capacity you can get with a 4×4 crew Ram ecodiesel is 1,190lb cargo and 7,750 tow. 10% tongue weight minus 20% weight distribution hitch yields 620lb on the truck. You have 570lb left over for family and gear.
        You go up in trim levels and you might as well buy a SUV.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “I would have bought the Chevy, but I would be pushing the cargo capacity to the limit (or over);”

      If your cargo plus the tongue weight is more than a ton, a 2500 series is probably the truck for you.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Amen.

        If you’re at or very close to the limit, you want a bigger truck.

        (This coming from the guy that ran a Toyota light pickup at about twice rated payload, with overload springs, for almost 20 years.

        Of course, I got rid of it because a wheel bearing failed catastrophically, so…)

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      @ Bruce DC……..A 28 foot Airstream ! Nice, So impressive to see them rolling down the .highway. My advice ? Finish the package off with a Chevy or a GMC that works for you.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        I hear ya, Mikey! Was at a Chevy dealer and, just for grins, drove a 2500 Duramax, with wife in the shotgun seat. After, I swear, less than 200 meters on the road, wife says “No f-in’ way am I riding in this truck!” In fairness, the diesel was a symphony of noises: clatter, rumble and occasional whistle. I was expected it to be quieter inside. Also, the mass of the truck was palpable. I’ve driven reasonably big trucks (not semis) in my younger days; so it didn’t really bother me, although I noticed it.
        The other thing I didn’t like was the cab’s high beltline. I felt like I was looking thru a gun slit windshield.

        Maybe the gas engine will work. I don’t really need the towing power of the diesel, and the gas engine will be quieter when it’s not pulling a grade.

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      “I don’t understand people yucking it up about the Ford having some sort of step to get in the bed.”

      I agree….the tailgate step works great for me. I found the corner bumper step on the GM too cumbersome with Winter boots on, but the Ford tailgate step has lots of room for big pontoon feet….and the Stripper Pole to boot!

    • 0 avatar
      mikeg216

      Have you tried the f-150 with the payload and towing pack with the 5.0? #12,200 towing and nice tow mirrors and beefy 7 lug axles

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        We must pour out a 40 for the departure of the wonky and distinctive 7-lug wheels on the Heavy-Duty Payload Package, now replaced with “HD 6-lug” rims.
        I’ll pour out two because a ’98 F-250 light duty (the predecessor to the HD F-150) was my first vehicle and I have fond memories of her.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        They’re not yet building the max payload package on the ’15s.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Maybe not, but Ford’s Build and Price shows either 17″ steel (XL) or 18″ aluminum (XLT/Lariat) “Heavy-Duty Payload Package Wheels” as the only available ones with the HD payload package, and they’re both 6-lug.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      “I don’t understand people yucking it up about the Ford having some sort of step to get in the bed.”

      True fact. I sit on the tailgate of my F250 half the time to get in, and I’m not short.

      I do, however, have doubts about the specifics of the setup Ford chose here – I’d have to try it to make a final decision.

      The fold-out bumper and side steps on the aftermarket do not make me uneasy, however.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    Funny they still put all that pretty paint in the bed. Why not skip that and just spray in a a rubber bedliner. Best money I ever spent on my current PU was having that done.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Checking the configurations available at Ford’s website and I see you could get a XLT regular cab, short box with the 5.0 V8 for a little more than $30,000. Sounds like a nice place to start to make your own Lightning. :) (FYI can’t get the 3.5 ecobost in a regular cab for any price.)

  • avatar
    dwford

    Everyone obsesses about the MSRP, when everyone also knows that NO ONE pays MSRP. My Sierra SLE sticker for $45k, what did I pay? $35k. Relax on the MSRP hyperventilating.

    I chose the Sierra rather than buy the lame duck 2014 F150 or wait for a 2015. I like the styling of the Sierra better, most of where you touch is soft touch inside, and the buttons are easy to figure out. The transmission sucks around town, and I’m sure it will need work before the 100k warranty it up, and the Intellilink system hates my iPhone. I’m sure I will crash one day just trying to get it to play some music. And the bumper step is a much simpler solution that the Ford tailgate step. Though I wouldn’t mind something to grab onto on the edge of the bed.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    At mid-30s out the door for an XLT with the 2.7TT (or 5.0) and not much else, this truck is a good value. It’s got more refinement than the bargain-basement versions of the Ram and better powertrains than any Chevy except those with the expensive 6.2. (Not to mention I personally find the Chevy interior to look hideous, but YMMV.)

    When you start adding options, all of these trucks just get ridiculous. There is no way the difference in production cost between a volume-configured XLT and a loaded King Ranch or Platinum is more than about $10,000. But the price difference is $25,000 or more. Loaded pickups (and BOF SUVs) are one of the most cynical ripoff games in the automotive marketplace.

    • 0 avatar
      Firestorm 500

      And yet people buy them like there’s no tomorrow.

      Plain Janes just sit on the lot.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        Well I suppose it’s good that my plain Jane would be special ordered, then.

        Like a Ram 1500 Express standard bed 4×4 with a Hemi, 3.92 rear axle ratio, and anti-slip rear differential!

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      If it’s consensual, how can it be a ripoff? The basic 4wd crew with cloth/carpet/pwr group pushes $40k, or about what a leather/Nav minivan goes for.

      But when tons of consumers are jumping on the fully loaded luxo pickups instead, plus every available option and dealer pimpt-out bolt ons, more pwr to them.

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        It’s smart pricing on Ford’s part. Make people pay $40k for a cloth/carpet/”Rental Car Spec” truck and they feel like they’re being ripped off.

        Making the $5-10k jump for much greater refinement/toys is easily justifiable. The pricing scheme makes it a bad value to get an XLT (or similar).

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Those consumers should just know that they’re paying for profit and not for any actual cost to manufacture.

        Additional cost of a 3.5TT over the basic 3.5: a few $thousand

        Additional cost of the sunroof: about $1000

        Additional cost of a bunch of power-accessory motors: about $1000

        Additional cost of limited-slip diff: a few $hundred

        Additional cost of blingier trim: a few $hundred

        Additional cost of leather: a few $hundred

        Additional cost of heavier springs: a few bucks

        Additional cost of fancier software for the MFT unit and the BCM: $0

        I’m leaving out a few things but you get the picture. I feel like a $60k OTD light-duty pickup (that is, the bonkers fully loaded one) should be an insult to any consumer’s intelligence when a reasonably equipped version of the same body (crew cab short bed 4×4) goes OTD for $35k.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          “…consumers should just know..”

          Seriously? Should consumers know of the wild profit margins of $60K decked out 3-series BMWs???

          If it’s worth it to consumer, that’s all that matters. But if it’s a $60K Tundra, profits are still very slim, so is that a better deal for consumers because of thin profits?

          And if it’s really a $60K F-150, “out-the-door”, what was the original MSRP? $75K? Can you pile on the options that high???

          No, $60K MSRP would be around $47K OTD.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            You keep saying people can get $10k+ discounts, and I keep failing to see any evidence of it. Advertised prices and prices on transaction aggregators all say expected discounts are around $4-$6k depending on options on all trim levels from midrange up. $60k OTD would be $65k MSRP, which corresponds to a Platinum with all the goodies.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            The most I can option up an F-150 (at least for the 12345 zip code) is $64K.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            You’d have to try really hard not to find $12K+ OFF luxo pickups.

            Of course that’s when you’re actually looking for a truck, checking specific dealer ads or driving by. Rows at a time, not just “one at this price” (loss leader). They’re serious about dumping them before they get old. It doesn’t take too many luxo F-150s to tie up a million dollars.

            sandersonford.com/New-Car-Sales.aspx

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DenverMike,
            If you can find a “luxo” pickup with $12 000 on the hood, doesn’t that indicate that something is amiss?

            That’s around 25% discount. Hmmmm……..25%.

            This indicates that the US pickup market is not competitive enough.

            Why not just knock $8 000 off the price to start with as the recommended retail price.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – There’s nothing stopping OEMs from knocking 25% OFF the Titan, Tundra, Frontier, Ridgeline, Tacoma, Colorado/Canyon too. Except maybe profitability, or lack thereof. Just be glad we get it. Sorry you don’t. You would love it!

            Although German luxury cars are about as profitable the US D3 fullsize pickups, but why no 25% rebates/love from them???

  • avatar
    srh

    I’ll echo the sentiments on the 5.5 foot bed. I had a raptor which I loved, but the inability to load the bed with lumber eventually caused me to trade it in. Heck, I have a couple bicycles that couldn’t easily fit in the Raptor bed.

    I thought the tailgate step was stupid too, until I had it. I’m a taller guy, so have never had trouble getting into the bed. But getting in carrying a 120 pound tank of propane is a lot easier with the step than without. Now I love it. I’m not sure where the ‘cumbersome’ comment comes from. It’s trivially easy to use.

    For me the problem with the F-150 comes in when you price it against a Superduty. I sold my Raptor for $50K (losing a very reasonable $4K after a year and 15,000 fun-filled miles) and for $52K OTD I ended up in a 6.7L F-350 Lariat CC LB 4×4 blah blah blah. People ask why I needed the F-350, and the fact is I seldom do, except that the price premium over the F-150 is very small and a few weekends per year it comes in really handy (like last weekend when I had 4,000 pounds of gravel in the bed).

    I’m sure the city MPG of the F-150 shames the F-350, but on the highway I’d be surprised if it gets a whole lot better than my 18MPG.

    • 0 avatar
      Shawnski

      I came to a similar conclusion configuring a reg cab F150 vs F250 2wd. Modest $37k trucks. The F250 looks better, has the 6.2, camper lights, and did I mention better looking?

  • avatar
    mnm4ever

    I will never understand the whining from the “real truck” crowd. You guys can still get your long beds and plastic floors and seats, so why constantly harp on the availability of more options? Outside of fleet sales, almost everyone buying a truck these days wants a crew cab with a car-like interior, that’s why the resale value on crew cabs is so much higher than regular or even extended cabs. The market has spoken, loud and clear.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Comparing the interior from the now oldest Ram to the two newer trucks and there outgoing designs, it’s quite obvious everyone else is playing catch up. If Ram can pull this off again with the redesign and keep their low prices, I’m pretty sure the truck market is going to be a totally different place in 5 years, Ford and chevy may still retain their sales positions but the prices and standard content is going to be drastically different.

    As is now both Ford and Chevy are overpriced and finding a dealer to actually get a reasonable price on the new trucks is a hassle.
    No one is challenging Rams Express 5.7 that dealers are offering for 21k before working on the price.
    Chevy has almost given up the 3/4 segment and one could say the same about the ~12 year old F250 design. Ram offers 3 engines 3 axle ratios 3 or 4 transmissions including a manual, has a Mega can in lieu of an extended cab, and a very affordable tradesman trim. A tradesman trim with 4 full doors, 4WD, 6.4L can be had for low $30s. And as much as I hate cyclinder deactivation many are able to report ~17MPG on the highway on the 6.4, extremely respectable in a gas 3/4.
    GM should never had cancelled the 8.1, with cyclinder deactivation a 4.05L 4 cyclinder would have been able to do amazing things.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      RAM continues to steal market share from both Ford & GM each & every year.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        You must live somewhere with cheap-ass Ram trucks, I specced out a Ram Express 1500 4×4 regular cab with a Hemi and a handful of other options and it came out to over $30k even with incentives..

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          4×4 adds about 4k, look on cars.com

          Specifically if you want to see what I see use zip 27520 and expand to a 100 mile radius.

          I’m not sure what 4×4 adds to the 3/4 trucks but it must be practically nothing because finding a 2WD Ram 3/4 is hard.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            And yet for some reason, 2WD 1 ton dually trucks are quite plentiful…I suppose there are a lot of guys who want a dually for towing but don’t need 4 wheel drive, even here in the northeast.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Even here in MN, which I consider an early adopter of the “Ya gotta have the four-wheel-drive, ya know” mindset, you can still see the occasional 4×2 one-ton dually. Mostly because those are the most likely to be highway-only tow-rigs.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Ah jeez, I heard lots of ya knows when I was watchin that new show there Fargo.

      • 0 avatar
        LectroByte

        Each and every year? Exaggerate much? Got any numbers to back that up? FCA had a good year last year, but so did Ford and GM, and Ford and GM seem to be more consistent year to year than FCA.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          RAM is selling & stealing market share because in many respects, the RAM is better than either the Ford or GM competing vehicles, with a better warranty, at a better price.

          From Police Departments to other fleet users, and down to the individual consumer, people are noticing that RAM (and many of FCA’s products) are betternfinished, built & priced than the Ford or GM equivalent.

          Chrysler sells a 30k 300 that shames any Cadillac (including 80k “Cadillacs” in terms od ride quality, refinement, motor/transmission combination, interior room,presence, etc.

          The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better vehicle at 35k or 45k than anything built by Ford/Lincoln or GM at 30k more.

          • 0 avatar
            mikeg216

            We’ll agree on this, Dodge is better at selling the truck that people need, Ford sells the truck people think they want.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Hummer – I do agree that GM has screwed up when it comes to HD’s. I rarely ever saw anyone driving a Dodge/Ram truck. It was always Ford or GM with the odd Dodge. It has reversed to where most HD’s are Ford or Ram. GM has always had the better diesel drivetrain. The GMT900 cabs really hurt them. My brother did not have a lot of good things to say about those cabs and bodies.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        ” GM has always had the better diesel drivetrain.”

        Than Ford/International, yes. Cummins, no.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @danio3834 – Cummins isn’t the whole drivetrain.
          Where did Dodge get that reputation for crappy transmissions?
          I do know guys who have had less than stellar reliability with the Cummins. In some respects that is an unfair comment because their problems stemmed from emissions and fuel injection systems.

          Most refer to the Cummins as a diamond stuck in a turd.

          Ram hasn’t had a real good transmission until the Aisin in the HD and ZF 8 speed in the 1500.

          • 0 avatar
            rpn453

            Was there something wrong with the NV4500 and NV5600?

            Those old slushboxes they used certainly were terrible in every way. Any man who purchased a HD Dodge with one of those instead of learning how to operate a clutch should be ashamed of himself.

  • avatar
    turf3

    Absurdly oversized. Remember when a pickup truck was about the same height as a normal height man? The other day I was reminded of this when a guy drove up in a truck about 20 years old at the gas station.

    I don’t know nor do I care how much of it is increased ride height and how much is body design, but the ever-increasing height of 2WD standard pickups is absurd. Look at the load-in height of a 1963 Chevrolet vs. this monstrosity. If it’s not 4WD, increased ride height isn’t gaining you anything anyway. And don’t try to tell me trucks have to be 7′ tall because of crash regulations; how come, then, a Toyota Camry doesn’t have to be 7′ tall?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I’m pretty sure the 2WD trucks are high for cost reasons, remember the old GMT400 used different driveline components, the 4wd rims didn’t even work on the 2wd trucks, the 1st generation S10 also used a different frame for 2WD and 4WD. So I assume cost is the reason for the tall 2WD trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        I’ve often wondered why the trucks ride as high as they do. From what I can tell, it’s a combination of:

        * There’s a lot more suspension travel
        * The frame is much, much thicker, I assume in pursuit of MOAR TOWING!
        * Bling rims (ergo, taller sides and bigger wheel-wells)

        The frame seems to be the worst offender; it forces the bed higher, requires the use of bigger wheels and then dictates the taller styling.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          I believe another factor is that the frames used to be the crash device, whereas now the cabs have a lot of safety designed into them. So now the cab sits ontop of the frame rather than hugging the frame.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        I know the new Chevies (so presumably the Fords and Dodges too) have no dimensional differences between 4×2 and 4×4 models. It used to be 4x4s were jacked-up 4x2s, but now 4x2s are 4x4s with the front diff removed.

        But hey, a GMT400 1500 4×4 is only 2 inches lower than a K2 1500 4×4. Ford is the worst offender when it comes to height increase.

        The higher suspension and the body-on-top-of-frame on HD pickups (particularly egregious offenders) is good for one thing, though: when you’re towing a particularly heavy load, the back end squats down to “normal” height. Who puts that much in their half-ton, though?

        • 0 avatar
          turf3

          I did a quick calculation of what the load-in height for a sensible truck could be.

          9″ tire height
          7.5″ half of a 15″ wheel (steel, please)
          2.5″ half the guesstimated diameter of the axle housing
          8″ suspension travel from neutral to bump
          6″ frame depth
          1″ depth of corrugations in bed floor

          Total: 34.0″.

          I also estimated the same dimension to avoid contact with the differential center housing to the undersize of the bed, but it looks like it’s the axle housing against the underside of the frame that drives.

          I bet none of the current trucks has this low of a load-in height.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Even the 4x4s are taller than they were. People like towering over others, and they like huge rims and tires. Both add height. Too bad if your garage at work has 6’4″ clearance… but who am I kidding; except for my gender, I’m about as far from the pickup target audience as you can get.

  • avatar
    beefmalone

    There are tow ratings on paper & those in the real world. In the real world, those V6s are maxed out running 100% to achieve that rating and actually pulling something up/down hills is a nightmare compared to the V8. If you don’t pull anything they’re fine, but with any real weightt hooked up it’s a whole different story.

    Furthermore, actually repairing the aluminum beds is going to wind up being a huge PITA compared to good ol’ steel bodies. Plus, if you actually have need to get yourself in/out of the bed then you would appreciate the step especially those with bad knees, large guts, or vertical challenges.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      “those V6s are maxed out running 100% to achieve that rating and actually pulling something up/down hills is a nightmare compared to the V8.”

      Every time I see something like this I know the writer hasn’t ever driven a vehicle with the 3.5TT engine.

      It stands out most for its effortlessness, because the torque comes on so low in the rev range. Although the V8 does the job just fine it feels like it’s working a lot harder.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      @beefmalone – Go on You Tube and check out the tow tests posted by The Fast Lane Truck. Compare how the F150 Ecoboost does to everyone else’s V8 climbing up I70 out of Denver with a pretty substantial load behind it. I’ll save you some time, it spanks all of them. The only negative i can see w/Ecoboost engines is that real world long term durability hasn’t been proven one way or another yet.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        The whole “itty bitty” V6 versus big beefy” V8 schtick is getting old.
        The TTDI 3.5 Ecoboost is designed to handle the forced induction and that forced induction makes it perform similarly to a much larger V8. Some claim that the 2.7 EB should be compared to 5-6 litre engines and the EB3.5 should be compared to 6 litre or larger engines.
        I’m sure someone out there has the formulas and can do the math.

      • 0 avatar
        formula m

        They film and test in Colorado well above sea level. Forced induction has a huge advantage at altitude and should over match almost any NA engine under those conditions. The Ford engines are higher strung motors and are a little more likely to suffer failures due to higher temperatures, pressure and number of additional components needed to perform the way it does.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I really don’t like linking to pickuptrucks.com, but here ya go:

      http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-ford-f-150-repairs-digging-deeper.html

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        I don’t think that “replacement costs for body panels and doors” is a close match for ‘repairing the bed”.

        If I understand the concern, it’s that things that were repairable on a steel bed might lead to a bed replacement with the aluminum bed.

        (I have no idea if that is a reasonable concern or not.)

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Here’s an interesting data point for you. Ram sells a 3/4 ton with a 6.4 liter gas engine rated at 410 hp/ 420 lb.-ft. of torque at, IIRC 4100 rpm. What they don’t tell you is that the RAM engine control module limits the amount of time the engine is allowed to spin over 4500 rpm. (Redline is about 6,000.) So, if you’re pulling a big load up a long grade which the truck can’t manage in second gear, when it shifts down to first, RPMs will gradually drop to 4300 and stay there for the rest of the climb. And, in fairness to RAM, most folks will say that long periods at 5,000 rpm or higher takes a lot of life out of your engine.

      Turbocharging avoids the need for that.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I wanted to take the aluminium F-150 for a spin when in the States over Christmas, but that opportunity never arose.

    I still hold the same line regarding the F-150. It’s a good truck on par with the Ram or Chev.

    It is an expensive exercise by Ford and this article was written quite poorly.

    The 2015 F-150 isn’t a leap in any area. Whatever FE advantage it was supposed to gain seemed to have been evapourated some where in the process.

    So what it’s made of aluminium. It seems many are awe struck by this and ladders to get into the bed.

    This truck was not a leap in the segment it represents. It might have made improvement on itself, but it never leaped a generation in front of the other trucks but made itself slightly more competitive except for pricing due to the expensive material used to save FE.

    I wouldn’t buy one for a couple of years until we find out how durable the body is put together. Will it rattle and shake apart?

    Simple things little coil rear end or the use of longer leaves, diesel option, better drivetrain, decent interior, etc would have made this a very good pickup.

    Nope, a relatively poor effort on Fords part. They could have done better. It’s pretty bad when every review regarding the Colorado/Canyon state that they are far in front of the compeititon, with a steel body and yet Ford in some cases are beaten by a diesel Ram in the reviews.

    Ford should win most every review, especially after all the bullsh!t hype they threw at us. Where is the great FE improvement?

    • 0 avatar
      Winston Braithwaite

      “This article was written quite poorly…”

      Hey, where’s yours?

      The offer has been made more than once for content submissions.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Big Al – it was easy for the Colorado to jump far ahead of the competition since the small truck market in the USA was all but dead. Toyota Tacoma was selling on reputation not modern design.

      The 1/2 ton market and the HD market are considerably more competitive markets. All of the low hanging fruit has been picked and any gains are going to be tougher to achieve.

      You keep mentioning that Car Trend test. It was a poor report. The Ram Ecodiesel won because they thought the air ride was more car like and they were concerned about the future costs related to the aluminum body.

      Ford needed to lighten their truck. It was considerably heavier than their main competitor GM.

      From what I’ve seen so far, Ford HAS won “most every review”.

      With that being said, I’m not going to go out and buy one if I had to replace my current truck. I’m not an early adopter. I’d be more inclined to buy a Chevy if I wanted a new pickup or I’d try to find a left over 2014 F150.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    So what do the ‘typical’ 4wd crew cab short bed mid-trim level fullsizers go for? I went camping in Michigan several times (at a civilized, RV-heavy place) and it seemed like 75% of the other campers were younger families with a pull out 20 ft trailer and some newer domestic crew cab. $35k? 30k? I test drove a Tundra crewmax in the fall and actually found it extremely reasonable and well behaved to drive for something so large: less jittery and ‘trucky’ than my old 4Runner. Of course parallel parking would be a different story. The leg room in the full- 4 doors is just epic, it’d be a perfect camping companion with a group of friends. Although for me personally, a BOF SUV makes more sense unless you have one of the goose-neck type RV trailers. I use covered storage more often than I do mulch-hauling. I’d rather just have a cheap trailer for hauling the really dirty/bulky stuff.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Ford.com’s Build and Price says an XLT SuperCrew/5.5′ bed 4×4 with the base NA 3.5 V6 is $40,620 before any options, but my closest “big” Ford dealership is offering $6500 discounts. FWIW, said model F-150 can pull 7,100 lbs. and/or haul 1,600, and carry six people.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Because no one else has said it:

    The name of this model is F-150. With a dash. It’s right there on the side of the pickup with a badge the size of your head.

    “F150” is/was a Ferrari model.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Is the dash still on the badge?

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Okay, now I just feel stupid. It’s been out for 6 months now and I’ve never noticed that!

        I won’t delete my comment, though, because 1. I won’t try to conceal my stupidity, and 2. my point still stands, even if the evidence I gave was faulty. The name of the model is “F-150”.

        But oh man, I was so sure of it! I guess being used to seeing it on almost every single F-Series going back to 1973 kinda skews your perception.

        I really do like the new badge, though. It reminds me not only of the 83-86 models with the drop-down “F” (which, I now realize, didn’t have a dash either), but also the lines in the new one’s “XLT” bar echoing the chrome stripes on the 92-96 badge.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          Interesting. I searched the trademark database and Ford only has F-150 registered, not F150. I may have missed something, but someone may have screwed up on the trademarks. Maybe it’s just not in the database yet?

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          “The new “F-150” logo uses a font called “Bold Leadership” and features seven notable elements, including an open F letter that signifies a lighter, more efficient truck and a hyphen delete that stands for efficiency.”

          http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/gallery/ford-creates-new-badge-for-f-150-pickup-truck_1.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            There you go. On the website and all literature, it’s still referred to an an “F-150”, but the badge omits the dash because “efficency of the message”.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Does anyone else read that marketing speak and just want to puke?

  • avatar
    donutguy

    I’ve never owned a pickup, but I like this one. If I bought one, I’d get 4 wheel drive and skip all the other options.

    I’d have a nice pickup with A/C and wouldn’t be afraid to get it dirty or wouldn’t be to upset if it got dinged up.

  • avatar
    RS

    The aluminum body is brilliant. Buyers in the rust belt appreciate it. 10-15 years down the road, when GM rockers are just a memory, these Ford’s will be highly sought after in the used market. Their values will reflect that too. Hopefully Ram and GM will make aluminum bodies soon.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Even ASSuming Ford got the Aluminum body panels “right,” it’s moot since the motors & transmissions will die long before then.

    • 0 avatar
      ponchoman49

      You are aware that aluminum corrodes when exposed to road salt correct? And that it is costing more money to make and repair. Also it will take a shop that specializes in aluminum repair to fix these after collision. Couple that with higher purchase prices, gas consumption that is equal to Chevy and Dodges V8’s and higher maintenance costs and it’s doubtful these will be so highly sought after in the long run.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      @ RS I totally agree about the new aluminum bodied Fords – being a MN resident. And BTW the rockers on my 2004 GMC HD are rock solid as is the rest of the truck. But I did see a Chevy in the parking lot of the grocery store today of the same vintage that were rusted beyond belief. Swiss cheese comes to mind

      @Ponchoman – My 1995 Triton aluminum snowmobile trailer which never gets washed during the winter is as solid as the day I bought it. There is not one bit of corrosion on it anywhere. The wood deck has been replaced once & needs it again and the steel torsion axle is looking pretty tough, but the aluminum frame appears like it will last pretty much indefinitely.

      • 0 avatar
        RS

        @Carlson Fan – The trailer is a perfect example – and it’s not painted. Some paint bubbling will be welcome vs the rotted door bottoms and wheel wells on steel trucks. Not many make the investment to refurbish and maintain older trucks with rust rotted bodies. These aluminum Ford’s will be different. BTW, I’m in MN too…and drive a 2014 Ram.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    I wonder if Ford has fixed the F-150’s cabin shudder issue yet. Every single previous gen I have sat in has the famous cabin shudder when you slam the car door shut and I don’t mean slam as in yank the crap out of it. The Silverado and Ram do not exhibit this. Doesn’t say much about the structural integrity of these.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      I know what you mean about the shudder, but I don’t think the F-150’s the only one — it’s common to BOF vehicles. The last Ram 1500 I rented did it too, as has every Panther I’ve ever ridden in.

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    Well might as well punch the comments to 200…


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Giskard: Unlike other cars an electric car is likely to “know” it’s plugged in. My i3s, for...
  • Lie2me: I agree, or at least greatly reduce the amount of salt used. Here in southern Wisconsin I appreciate that...
  • Featherston: +1, ajla – You’ve hit the nail on the head. I think up-engined FWDers skew “bad in...
  • Lie2me: Really? That explains why they use so much salt on the road toward the end of winter
  • ToddAtlasF1: And that’s why you shouldn’t be dependent on people who have no interest in your well-being.

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