Ford Unveils New Aluminum 2017 Super Duty Pickup

by Aaron Cole

Updated: December 31st, 2020 Published: September 24th, 2015

ford unveils new aluminum 2017 super duty pickup

Ford on Thursday rolled out its newest Super Duty truck — 350 pounds lighter than the outgoing model — complete with aluminum-alloy body, high-strength steel frame and new 6-speed transmission for its V-8 engine.

According to Ford, the truck’s frame is up to 24 times stiffer than the outgoing frame, and the company reportedly used high-strength, military-grade aluminum alloys — which are separate from civilian grade because they use more of it before 9 a.m. than we’ll use all day. Or something.

The Super Duty truck can be fitted with either a 6.7-liter V-8 turbocharged diesel, a 6.8-liter V-10 gasoline or 6.2-liter V-8 gasoline engine, with the latter being mated to a new TorqShift-G six-speed transmission.

The Super Duty will reportedly come with up to seven cameras for better visibility around the truck, including a cargo-light mounted camera for easier gooseneck trailer hitch coupling; a combination, bird’s eye camera for nearby objects; and an available trailer camera from the factory to improve visibility when towing.

New driver assist technologies including blind-spot monitoring and steering assist will be available on the new truck. According to Ford, steering assist will help owners more easily navigate slow-speed maneuvers and will limit the truck’s sensitivity at high speeds.

Ford says that all three cab configurations — SuperCab, Regular Cab and CrewCab — would be longer than the previous generation, although exact dimensions weren’t specified. Five trims — XL, XLT, Lariat, King Ranch and Platinum — will be available in the new Super Duty.

Ford said the 2017 Super Duty models would go on sale next year, but didn’t specify pricing.

We will have a full review of the previous Super Duty next week.

#2017 #Aluminum #Ford #SuperDuty #Trucks

Aaron Cole

More by Aaron Cole

Comments

Join the conversation

15 of 137 comments

Vulpine on Sep 25, 2015

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw that image was the 1982 Ford Futura. That is now the ugliest pickup truck in the WORLD!

Like Reply
- See 11 previous
- Drzhivago138 on Sep 25, 2015
  
  When I look at all those holes in the Platinum grille, I immediately think "1965 F-Series." Hey, maybe it's a 50th anniversary edition!
  
  Like
- DenverMike on Sep 25, 2015
  
  No matter the truck, half will hate the looks, half will like it. Ok none will LOVE it, but good thing it's a truck, where looks take a minor role. Although the 82' Futura was the most handsome midsize car until then.
  
  Like
- CJinSD on Sep 25, 2015
  
  @DenverMike The only people that hated the looks of the '94 Dodge pickup were brand loyalists of Ford and GM that were green with envy.
  
  Like
- DenverMike on Sep 25, 2015
  
  @CJinSD Seriously, the '94 Dodge doesn't count. That can't happen again. And it was contrasted by a severely outdated Dodge from the early '70s.
  
  Like
- Turf3 on Sep 25, 2015
  
  @DenverMike Are you seriously saying the 1982 Ford Futura was better looking than: 1964 Chevelle 1966 Chevelle 1970 Chevelle 1965 GTO 1969 Ford Galaxie 1969 Barracuda 1975 Dodge Dart 1970 AMC javelin ????? Whatchu been smokin'?
  
  Like
- Drzhivago138 on Sep 25, 2015
  
  @turf3 It's his opinion. It's subjective. And several of the cars you mentioned weren't midsizers anyway.
  
  Like
- DenverMike on Sep 25, 2015
  
  @turf3 First I think of those as Hot/Sexy Muscle cars from another generation and as far removed from the Futura and the like, as possible. Meaning it had handsome looks that it's contemporaries lacked, and still looking mid/late "70s.
  
  Like
- Matador on Sep 25, 2015
  
  @DenverMike I'll get shot for saying this, but the Dodges of the 1980s seemed pretty good to me. The revised character lines made them look a little like the GM trucks of the era, and the interior was really well laid out. By 1993, it was an obsolete design. But, my 1986 Dodge doesn't seem any worse than the other 1986 options. The 1994 was really a game changer, though. I think the new RAM trucks (Except for the Rebel) look pretty good, though....
  
  Like
- DenverMike on Sep 25, 2015
  
  @DenverMike And second, if you wanna know what I'm smokin', come to CO and try some.
  
  Like
- Drzhivago138 on Sep 25, 2015
  
  @DenverMike The revised '81s (which were the first to be called Rams, IIRC) were a much-needed aesthetic improvement over the vintage-1972 Fuselage trucks. But the bullnose Fords will always be my favorite "old" truck.
  
  Like
- Vulpine on Sep 26, 2015
  
  @DenverMike If you say so, DM. But personally I think the Mustang looked better and the Firebird better yet. Trucks? The Nissan over all others in '82 but I ended up buying a Mitsubishi in '83.
  
  Like
- DenverMike on Sep 27, 2015
  
  @Vulpine Of the ''80 to '82 'anything' (mainstream/everyday) the Mustang, Camaro had to the best looking out there. At least to my "80's child" eyes. I still think so. But I was talking midsize sedans. The Fox platform was ahead of everyone else, looks-wise, first showing up for the '78 MY.
  
  Like
Mopar4wd on Sep 25, 2015

I love the 94 Dodge (I'm biased) I do think Fords design has gone down hill I really liked the previous f-150 and the original Super Duties (1998) but the new ones seem pretty ugly. Like their trying to out ugly the Tundra. I know it's subjective but hey almost everything in the comment section of a blog is subjective.

Like Reply
- DenverMike on Sep 25, 2015
  
  The '94+ Cummins equipped Dodge trucks may never die, the way it's looking. Same with the previous gen w/Cummins, but I've got a '98 gasoline Dodge extra cab I'm hording (bad trans) and now I know why. I has a prefect rust-free body and it's parts will be worth something in no time.
  
  Like

Recent Comments

28-Cars-Later 2018 Toyota Auris: Pads front and back, K&N air filter and four tires @ 30K, US made Goodyears already seem inferior to JDM spec tires it came with. 36K on the clock.2004 Volvo C70: Somewhere between $6,5 to $8 in it all told, car was $3500 but with a wrecked fender, damaged hood, cracked glass headlight, and broken power window motor. Headlight was $80 from a yard, we bought a $100 door literally for the power window assembly, bodywork with fender was roughly a grand, brakes/pads, timing belt/coolant and pre-inspection was a grand. Roof later broke, parts/labor after two repair trips was probably about $1200-1500 my cost. Four 16in Cooper tires $62 apiece in 2022 from Wal Mart of all places, battery in 2021 $200, 6qts tranny fluid @ 20 is $120, maybe $200 in labor last year for tranny fluid change, oil change, and tire install. Car otherwise perfect, 43K on the clock found at 38.5K.1993 Volvo 244: Battery $65, four 15in Cooper tires @ $55 apiece, 4 alum 940 wheels @ roughly $45 apiece with shipping. Fixes for random leaks in power steering and fuel lines, don't remember. Needs rear door and further body work, rear door from yard in Gettysburg was $250 in 2022 (runs and drives fine, looks OK, I'm just a perfectionist). TMU, driven maybe 500 miles since re-acquisition in 2021.
1995 SC I never hated these. Typical GM though. They put the wrong engine in it to start with, fixed it, and then killed it. I say that as a big fan of the aluminum 5.3, but for how they were marketing this it should have gotten the Corvette Motor at the start. Would be a nice cruiser though even with the little motor. The 5.3 without the convertible in a package meant to be used as a truck would have been great in my mind, but I suspect they'd have sold about 7 of them.
Rochester I'd rather have a slow-as-mud Plymouth Prowler than this thing. At least the Prowler looked cool.
Kcflyer Don't understand the appeal of this engine combo at all.
Dave M. This and the HHR were GM's "retro" failures. Not sure what they were smoking....