By on January 8, 2017

2018 ford f-150

Being on top doesn’t mean a company can take its customer base for granted. Not satisfied with basking in the goodwill generated by the F-150’s best-selling status, Ford Motor Company has unveiled a refreshed 2018 model and a host of new hardware upgrades.

While the upcoming F-150 sports an evolutionary facelift, it’s what’s under the hood that stands to tempt a new range of buyers.

The most obvious change to the updated model is its new face, now featuring two broad chrome bars splitting the grille horizontally, eating into headlight territory in the process. Filling the gulfs within the grille is a helping of egg-crate bars, while the headlights and bumper see their own design alterations. If you really feel the need to stand out, those bars come body-colored in Lariat trim — at least, in Sport Package guise.

Those changes also find their way to the rear, where a sculpted tailgate and revised taillights continue the theme of renewal. New wheel designs are on tap, ranging from 17 to 22-inches.

2018 ford f-150

Under the hood, Ford has ditched the base 3.5-liter V6 in favor of a new direct-injection 3.3-liter V6, which should make the same 282 horsepower and 253 lb-ft of torque as its predecessor. Meanwhile, those diesel rumors of the past several years proved entirely correct. For 2018, Ford will offer a 3.0-liter Power Stroke turbodiesel V6.

Though the Blue Oval hasn’t released power figures just yet, the motor is likely based on the Lion V6 used by Jaguar Land Rover. In the automaker’s Range Rover line, that td6 engine makes 254 hp and 440 lb-ft. Knowing Ford’s competitive streak when it comes to pickups, there’s no chance that the new diesel’s output would ever undercut that of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ Ram EcoDiesel. Still, that shouldn’t be a concern. Even if unchanged from its European applications, the mill’s horsepower and torque already tops the Ram’s.

Ford has chosen to spread the upgrades around to its existing engines. The 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 now sports the same dual port and direct fuel-injection system as its larger EcoBoost sibling, along with the next-generation turbo V6’s friction-reducing upgrades. Expect modest increases in horsepower and torque, as well as fuel economy. Meanwhile, the stalwart 5.0-liter V8 gains an unspecified power boost.

Helping the model achieve greater gas mileage across its lineup is an expanded availability of the 10-speed automatic transmission jointly developed by Ford and General Motors. While some Ford aficionados might disapprove, a start/stop system becomes standard on all trims.

On the tech front, the 2018s adopt a segment-first adaptive cruise control with stop-and-go capability. Pre-Collision Assist and Pedestrian Detection systems also come aboard for the ride, potentially reducing metal-on-metal and metal-on-flesh encounters and easily making this the safest Ford pickup to date.

The upgraded trucks should begin rolling into dealer lots this fall.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

84 Comments on “NAIAS 2017: 2018 Ford F-150 Shows Off New Face, Diesel and Gas V6 Engines...”


  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    You guys failed to mention, there isn’t just one new facia for the truck, there are several, and depend on trim line.

    I’m not talking about the difference between black, chrome or body color on the same grille, they are unique and some versions even have an “open” grille, as in no bar running from headlight to headlight.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      that’s little different from today. the current model has different grilles for:

      -XL
      -XLT/Lariat/King Ranch
      -XLT Sport
      -Raptor
      -Limited/Platinum

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Actually, mine is an XLT with chrome package which packs a unique grill from the XLT. Think there are multiple grills on some of the other trims as well. Yeah, it’s overkill but I do prefer mine to the standard XLT so…

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          AFAICT from browsing the ’17 brochure, right now there are 8 unique grilles:

          -Black “three-bar nostriled” grille, standard on XL and XL Sport

          -Chrome “three-bar nostriled” grille, standard on XLT

          -“Three-bar wide” grille, standard on Lariat and King Ranch

          -Black billeted grille, standard on STX, XLT Sport and Lariat Sport

          -Chrome billeted grille, standard on XLT or Lariat w/ Chrome package

          -Raptor grille

          -Platinum grille

          -Limited grille

          Lemme know if I missed any.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    From the outside, this is a nice evolution of the 2015 body. I’d want a headache rack to protect the edges of that rear glass.

    Five engine options for the F-150 seems a bit excessive. It’s The base engine keeps loosing displacement. It is now a 3.3 liter, normally aspirated, D.I.

    I know that they’re trying to game the fuel mileage, but a diesel with a displacement closer to 4 liters would be my choice on a vehicle that is this bulky. Will the 3.0 diesel be available on the XL and XLT trims?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      OldandSlow – I would suspect that the diesel will be available in all trims. There would be some market for a reg cab XL trim diesel. The NA 3.3 V6 on the other hand most likely won’t be available in crewcab 4×4 configurations due to the weight that needs to be moved around.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Just extrapolating from the current engine offering restrictions from Ford and Ram, we can assume:

        -The diesel will be offered in RCLB and all SuperCab and SuperCrew models regardless of bed, but not the RCSB. There’s just (apparently) not enough buyers who want a RCSB and also a diesel. Alternatively, Ford could make a RCSB diesel just to one-up Ram, even if it costs them money.

        -The 3.3 V6 will be offered in the same configs as the current NA 3.5: any Regular Cabs, SuperCab/6.5′, SuperCrew/5.5′, with 4×2 or 4×4 for all.

        (It’s the 2.7 EB that’s restricted by the drivetrain–you can get it in any Regular Cab and/or any 4×2, but not a SuperCab/8′ 4×4 or SuperCrew/6.5′ 4×4.)

  • avatar
    shedkept

    IHMO, the TD6 engine will prove better than anything Ford has currently.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      If they, unlike Ram, have room to spec it with the big (36gal) fuel tank, then at least as far as range is concerned. Otherwise, the new, light, F150s, don’t really benefit from more weight under the hood than necessary. Unless the diesel really rocks, my money’s still on the 2.7 for light duty use. That’s the FiST of trucks, for better or for worse.

      Now, if they could only allow adaptive cruise in normal trim lines without bucket seats………

      5 different engines, yet still no manual for the 5.0, is still an insult to hard working America. Trump should tweet about it. Then maybe Ford would come to their senses.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    As the owner of a current gen 2.7 the fact that they have added port injection worries me a bit as one who wants to keep this truck long term. I haven’t been aware of any issues but still. I cant see not needing a truck anytime in the near future, but I certainly want this to last until my kids are out and I can return to regular cab ownership. Haven’t heard of many issues on the 3.5 though so guess I’ll keep my fingers crossed.

    • 0 avatar
      Mike N.

      Well, adding port injection helps reduce the carbon buildup on the intake valves that seem to effect some direct injection engines (it was an issue in my ’07 GTI). I think it was Toyota that developed this technology, the fuel from the port injection washes away the carbon blowback coming out of the intake values from in the engine in a direct injection setup.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        AFAIK (and I might not be correct here) dual injection also helps curb particulate generation by using port injection in the cases where DI creates the most PM.

        it’s no coincidence that 2017 is the beginning of phase-in for the Tier 3 EPA standards which now define limits for particulate emissions of gas engines.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          I hope irt is more geared for emissions and less for carbon buildup. It really is the only thing I sweat on the truck but again, I haven’t heard it was an issue on the 2.7 or 3.5

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            all DI engines, gas or diesel, will have *some* crud on the valve necks. the oil which lubricates the valve guides eventually seeps its way down there. the only pics I’ve seen of an Ecoboost engine intake online has some fuzzy crud just above the valve heads.

            the real disasters were older VW/Audi GDI engines, supposedly due to inadequate oil separation in the PCV system.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Yeah. I try to run good oil and change it often fwiw, but I think I’m going to add a catch can. But yeah, these motors don’t seem to be big offenders like the vw ones for sure.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            “the oil which lubricates the valve guides eventually seeps its way down there.”

            I think the larger culprit is PCV dumping oil vapors into the intake tract. I know that on LFX Impalas, people have found a surprising amount of motor oil pooling in their intake tubes. Turbo motors with higher cylinder pressures tend to be the worst offenders in terms of elevated crank case pressure, VAG 2.0Ts come to mind as particularly bad. A lot of it comes down to PCV design.

            Some have resorted to using PCV catch-cans, if I had a non-secondary port injected DI motor, I think I’d be inclined to install one of those. Then again at this point there are many many DI motors running around (Honda K24 comes to mind) that do not seem to suffer from excessive valve build up. I seem to recall reading manufacturers manipulating their variable valve timing systems to allow for fuel in the combustion chamber to back wash the valves a bit.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    Along the lines of what Big Al just said, I’d been eyeing an F-150XL with the 2.7, but because I have fears of intake buildup on DI engines, I decided not to.

    Now that they’ve added the port injection, I may just have to whip out the old X-Plan and pay a visit to a dealer.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      You’ll be waiting forever if you go down that road. I mean you have the injection now, but a new trans behind it. I monitor it and worry a bit, but the Frontier it replaced had DI as does most stuff. I was more worried about a new truck with a new motor. Only issue so far has been a dash rattle. But yeah, I’d feel better with the new set up and given the choice between the 2 I’d prefer the new. But the 2.7 has been stellar thus far as has the rest of the truck.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “but the Frontier it replaced had DI as does most stuff”

        Wait, what? Didn’t you have a Frontier with the good old VQ40?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          You are right…it was the timing chain guides that caused one to sweat on that but it wasn’t direct injection. I think they had worked out the big issues with the chain and the radiator dumping coolant into the trans when I got mine and I had no real issue with it other than crap fuel economy (Crap MPG is relative though, it replaced an FZJ80) but the F150 does substantially better at the pump in exchange for the VQ40’s simplicity.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Also mine was an S and I got to where I wanted something nicer but had I purchased an SV when I got mine I may still have it. I do love the F150 though.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I test drove a new ’16 SV crew cab 4wd automatic, and really rather liked it. Rode/drove substantially more refined than the Pro-4X Xterra that I had looked at prior, owing to the non-AT tires and longer wheelbase I’m sure. 6spd+VQ40 is a ton of fun, even just bombing around town. If the price was right I would totally jump at either option (Frontier or Xterra), although neither one is particularly good for bulky child seats in the back row (a criteria I will soon need to keep in mind).

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Cause the Powerstroke has been such a reliable stalwart…

    I have no idea why anyone would buy a Ford Diesel. From the 6.0 on, they are just expensive garbage.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Lol, the 6.0L wasn’t a Ford diesel. It was a Navistar unit and Ford ended their relationship with that company over the issues with it and the immediate successor (6.4L? I can’t remember).

      The Ford-designed and built 6.7L used currently has been just fine. The 3.0L V-6 they’re about to put in the F-150 is already in use in other vehicles here and around the world, and aren’t generally known for major issues.

      But, I guess that since the Olds 350 Diesel was such a pig, you wouldn’t consider a new Duramax? Whaaaa? That makes as much sense as what you said. Because nobody ever improves and corrects earlier flaws. Once a failure, always a failure.

      • 0 avatar
        mason

        “The Ford-designed and built 6.7L used currently has been just fine”

        I’ve yet to come across anybody that actually works these engines hard that would agree with you. I actually know of a couple of guys that have jumped ship on Ford all together due to issues with the 6.7. They are all hotshotters too.

        They do seem to be OK for light duty use.

        • 0 avatar
          VW4motion

          Mason, my brother in-law has a fleet of F250-350’s all with Powerstroke engines. Honestly he states it’s the best trucks he has owned over the past 25 years. Engines, transmissions, all have been bullet proof. He puts 60 to 80k/year on the trucks. All weather climate in Illinois.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            there’s always one person to claim he “knows someone” who has had nothing but bad luck with something.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Even the trouble prone 6.0 Powerstroke? Somethings not adding up…

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            it really depends. he didn’t specify how new the trucks were. even then, however, I still see plenty of Sick point Oh trucks on the road. I think by ’05 or so they had been worked out and were more or less OK so long as they weren’t modded.

            could have been “bulletproofed” too, though.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Maybe, I can’t remember the specifics on what went wrong with them. I do remember the general attitude in the mid 00s was 7.3 = good, 6.0 = bad.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            “there’s always one person to claim he “knows someone” who has had nothing but bad luck with something.”

            The key here is getting out in the world and seeing first hand encounters vs relying on the internet for one’s supposed experience.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            You can buy a 6.0 locally for easily 1/3 less than a GM or Dodge of the same year in comparable condition.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            I briefly considered buying a 6.0 truck when I was looking a few years ago, but after talking to a friend who is a diesel mechanic I learned there is a very good reason so many got dumped on the market with just over 100,000 miles.

            I guess you can get a good deal on one, just make sure you know a mechanic who knows how to do a cab lift.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            I’m actually a fan of Ford trucks for the most part. The 6R140 IMO is a better trans than the Allison, the truck itself is durable as well as the Dana/Sterling axles. I’m just not sold on the 6.7 for vocational use.

          • 0 avatar
            VW4motion

            All the F250-350 are less that 6 year’s old.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I had a conversation once with a former HD mechanic who worked for a Ford dealer. He stated that most of the 6.0 issues were due to inadequate oil flow to the turbo. It was an easy fix with aftermarket lines. IIRC the heads didn’t have enough head bolts which meant the engine didn’t have a high tolerance for aftermarket fidgeting and did effect durability under heavy use. He had one and fixed the oiling problem, put in better head bolts and claims he has never had a problem.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        the 6.0 had a litany of problems in the first couple of years; injector failures, turbo failures, FICM failures, EGR failure due to leaking/clogged EGR coolers, and weak head gaskets from the 4-bolt per cylinder design.

        the 6.4 had problems with bad calibrations causing the infamous flames out the tailpipe and “oil growth” (not Navistar’s fault AFAIK) Also, water pump cavitation would eventually erode the front cover dumping coolant into the cranckase.

        the 6.7 goes back to six head bolts around each cylinder like the 7.3 Powerstroke, and I’m not aware of any widespread, endemic problems. I’m sure some people here and there have had to have warranty work. The “Powerstrokehelp” guy on YouTube made a good business fixing and selling rebuilt 6.0s and 6.4s, but it took him quite a while to get his hands on a grenaded 6.7.

        • 0 avatar
          mason

          Radiator and turbo base coolant seal, turbo coolant inlet fitting, and water pump are common failure points. The EGR cooler is known to plug off in under 100k miles and Ford undersized the turbo on the gen 1 6.7 which leads to premature failure when ran hard consistently (turbo over speed). Every repair is labor intensive on these engines and beyond the average DIY.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Ford had the later 6.0s sorted and I do have to recommend them if you must have an older truck and a diesel. Tons of torque, pre-emissions and good fuel economy. Can you beat a Super Duty truck?

            By now any reputable Power Stroke specialists know them inside/out and backwards if there’s an issue of any sort.

            I don’t know anyone that’s blown a head gasket (that’s the only reason to lift the cab off, other than a damaged engine) on a 6.0 that didn’t abuse it, run a super hot tuner or both.

            Head gaskets don’t just pop unexpectedly on a diesel. Plenty of obvious warning signs have to be completely ignored for a prolonged period.

            But as a rule, I can’t recommend diesels over the V10, 6.2 V8, 6.4 Hemi, etc, alternatives. Fine if the diesel is leased and under warranty. They just cost too damn much up front and unscheduled maintenance is absolute murder. Even scheduled servicing kills!

            Take the gasoline option and run! Drive the ballz off it for years and have a new (rebuilt) one installed (parts/labor/everything) for the price of stinkin’ injectors on a modern diesel!

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I agree with DM. Unless you are towing over 15K, I don’t get why someone would go for the diesel truck. The annual servicing costs basically wipe out the fuel economy savings unless you’re putting on commercial driver miles and the upfront cost of the diesel means you can rebuild the gasser engine and transmission and still come out ahead.

            The light duty diesels make even less sense to me. Spend thousands more to enjoy more maintenance, slower acceleration, and decreased payload. Just get the V8 and put gas in it.

            People seem to really *hate* having a vehicle that revs over 4000.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            why should how high my engine revs be anywhere on my list of major concerns? the only people who care are S2000 and rotary [email protected] who think their engine’s redline makes up for its laundry list of shortcomings.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Because when you don’t know any better you tend to believe what you read on the internet from people with similar agendas.

            Kinda like this statement: “Take the gasoline option and run! Drive the ballz off it for years and have a new (rebuilt) one installed (parts/labor/everything) for the price of stinkin’ injectors on a modern diesel!”

            A reman 6.8 v10 long block through Jasper is north of $4k, with labor, shipping, fluids, etc. It is easy to surmise one could quickly approach $6k to get the truck back on the road. Not to mention the untold amount of time your truck is down which hurts those that actually use them.
            I do not know what Ford injectors run but can tell you from experience a set of Bosch injectors can be had for a 6.7 Cummins for around $2600. DIY job that can be done in an afternoon.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Why would your gas engine truck be down an “untold amount of time”? Just to replace the engine?? If you can DIY diesel injectors, surely you can swap/install a gas engine in an afternoon. Are you kidding me??

            It just makes no sense to get the diesel pickup unless you absolutely have to the 1st to make it to the top of the grade, pulling your toy hauler. No matter the pickup/trailer combo, gas or diesel, I’ll set the cruise for 50 mph and let the crazies fly past me like I’m standing still, with 20K 5th wheels going up the grade, wide open throttle and spewing soot. I don’t get it, what’s the point??

            My love of diesels ended with DEF, full emissions. I started out, mid ’80s with the infamous 5.7 Olds, loved it, understood its special needs (aftermarket big truck fuel filter, water separater), moved on to the GM 6.2, Dodge 5.9, Ford 6.9, 7.3, etc.

            But my 1st gas big block was by the late ’90s. They were basically giving the truck away for free, with a tired, massive blow-by engine, thrashed body XL Ford with 280K miles (ex AAA). Put in a rebuilt and shockingly that ’97 460/7.5 V8 did the job just fine, no diesel necessary! Whaaaaat??? I was kind of amazed, then I removed the stock restrictor plate!

            Pulling 5th wheels up steep grades was never a problem. GAS V8s/V10s just take lots more rpm to do the job, which takes some getting used to, disconcerting if you come from diesels like me.

            Do folks that insist on diesel pickups just not know any better??

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            You can try convincing yourself all you want but at the end of the day the gas engines don’t hold up to vocational use like a diesel will. I’m not talking light duty use either like you obviously are.
            I’ve seen all makes struggle to hold up to daily life at 30k GVW and make it much past 100k without experiencing some type of engine related failure. The Warranty speaks for itself, with gas engines only warrantied for 100k while the diesel in the same truck is warranted for 250k miles (Ford 6.8 v10 vs 6.7 powerstroke)

            You can be as biased as you want but it doesn’t make your opinion anything but that.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “It is easy to surmise one could quickly approach $6k to get the truck back on the road”

            Which is still less than the diesel engine price.

            And yes, I’m not talking about “vocational” use. If you’re a commercial driver towing over 15K+ everyday, by all means get the diesel- that is what they are for. I’m talking more about the people that use their HD truck as a daily driver except for the 10 weekends a year they tow their Jayco 5th wheel or two horses.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Ajla, I’m not sure why you worry about what other people buy so much. If you can get behind spending tens of thousands on a sports car that sits in storage more often than it gets driven, along with extra insurance, registration, and maintenance then surely you can understand that some people simply choose a diesel option because they prefer it.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Sorry, I didn’t know this thread was just about the commercial use of diesels. But like I said, commercial trucks are de-tuned for longevity/reliability.

            And gas engines are increasingly offered for commercial medium duty trucks, including the RAM 4500/5500 and up to the F-750 (V10), where they never were before, (since big blocks) as demand is rapidly DECREASING for diesels in this class.

            Fleet owners of medium duty trucks are increasingly fed up with diesels, their downtime, and all the expenses involved from day one, even if diesel engines outlast gas. But as cetane is systematically removed from diesel fuel, along with its lubricity, the jury is still out on the “longevity” angle.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “some people simply choose a diesel option because they prefer it.”

            It is one thing when someone buys a diesel both eyes open because they want one. It is another thing to buy a diesel mostly unaware of the increased maintenance because you think it is a necessity to tow your 11k trailer a handful of times.

            I don’t think many private / light-duty use HD buyers even consider the gas option and I’m not sure why.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Lots of fleets shifted to gassers in MD applications when the first round of emissions came through but in constant heavy engine load conditions they realized the reliability just wasn’t there. Many companies here locally, including All Crane, Crane & Shovel, United Rentals, and CSX to name a few are slowly reverting back to diesel as they replace their tired rigs. I suppose replacing engines every 100-150k along with a constant 4mpg didn’t save the bean counters as much money as they originally anticipated.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s tough for smaller fleets and owner-operators to do side by side comparisons, gas vs diesel, all things equal, but I’m still seeing fleets/utilities embracing the gas option and not looking back.

            Individuals can only stick to what they know from past experience, wives tales and common opinion. They don’t really let you hook up your trailer/5th wheel on the test drive and hammer it up Loveland Pass.

            The very thought of replacing an engine is extremely stressful to most folks. Replacing injectors or a HPFP, (heaven forbid) is what I call stress!!

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            “I don’t think many private / light-duty use HD buyers even consider the gas option and I’m not sure why.”

            Again, I think you are assuming an awful lot. Do you see the vast numbers of half ton trucks hauling over sized campers and toyhaulers during the summer months? They are more prevalent than ever, and that is largely in part to people choosing comfort and trim packages over capability. You can get a blinged out half ton for about the same price as a stripped down diesel. Many people fear diesels (especially modern diesels) and it is human nature to avoid what we don’t understand. The ones that do buy them generally (not always) have a pretty good reason even if you tend to disagree with their choice.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Where do you see people towing toyhaulers with a half-ton? That kind of thing would be insane. I definitely do not advocate towing & hauling over weight.

            Pretty much what I see is bumper pulling half-tons and full-whack diesel HDs. There are some likely overloaded half-tons and CUVs, but it isn’t pervasive. Granted I “camp” at relatively fancy places these days, but I’ve seen maybe 5 gas HDs in the past year so there definitely doesn’t appear to be any “fear” of diesels when it comes to private purchase HDs.

            Anyway, I like my gasser, my dad likes his Cummins and he get to enjoy a nearly 10K “safety margin” and spending my inheritance at every service interval.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            I see it happening more often every year. I live just off Lake Erie in an area that is filled with state parks and campgrounds and it never fails to see some dim wit make the front page or news channel at least once a year in his wadded up truck/camper because he didn’t have an adequate TV.

            My 13 RAM service intervals:

            3 gallons 15w40 and Donaldson ELF 7349 @15k miles = $75.00

            Fleetguard air filter AF27684 @ 30k miles = $28.00

            Racor PFF54529 f/w separator @ 30k miles = $56.00

            Fleetguard FS53000 fuel filter @ 15k miles = $65.00

            If $140 every 15k miles is going to break you, you probably shouldn’t be buying any kind of truck. Period. Diesel fuel filters have become inherently more expensive than gassers due to high fuel pressures and ultra fine micron ratings but the cost is more than offset by the double oil change intervals, lack of plugs, wires, and coils (that Ford loves to eat) and 4-5 mpg less while towing heavy loads. The whole “maintenance intervals blows my inheritance” is an uneducated statement at best when you look at the big picture. I’m really curious, what gasser truck do you own and how do you use it?

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Well, my statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek but my father goes to the RAM dealer for service, so it’s a decent spot more expensive than a DIY. He also follows the 15K *or* every six (or 12 etc.) months guideline in the manual. He’s getting into his mid 60s now so I don’t think he’ll be breaking out the wrenches and lives too far away from me for me to do it.

            I have a Class B with the Chevy 6.0L so it only gets used for trips/vacations. And, admittedly the Express chassis brings its own challenges. I actually don’t have use for a truck in my daily life so I’ll probably always stick to dedicated RVs. It’s annoying no one makes cars anymore with a 5K-7K towing capacity.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        I agree John, and you know I am a Ford fan, but they don’t get a pass because they didn’t build it. Ford diesels need to be good to erase those wretched motors fro buyers memories. They put that pile in their truck so they own it.

        Having said all that I have often wondered if the 6.0 would make a decent motor if you used it in a lighter duty role but I just couldn’t pull the trigger. I do think the aftermarket has made them workable though.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        The 6.0 diesel was a fine engine. But because Ford only cares about looking good on paper rather than reliability, they essentially put their own tune on the engine pushing power levels far beyond what it was designed for. In Navistar applications, the VT365 put out much less power.

        The 6.7 is marginally better. A Ford diesel is a recipe for disaster.

        • 0 avatar
          mason

          Agree and disagree. Even though there were some serious design flaws with the 6.0 they did survive much better under the hood of a Navistar truck, and often loaded much heavier to boot. Alot of that had to do with the lower rated engines in vocational use.

          I wish the manufacturers offered the same lower horsepower ratings in the pickup trucks as they do in the chassis cab trucks. I went after the HO Cummins because that is the only way you can get the MD Aisin trans in a SRW but would gladly have skipped on the “high output” option.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Commercial trucks are always de-tuned for reliability, vs “retail” private pickup trucks with the same base engine. As a rule, salaried operators drive them into the ground and never look back. WOT from every light! Fleet owners want longevity/reliability over speed/power.

          All-new emissions for an all-new engine was a nightmare for Ford and Navistar. Navistar was more to blame for the early 6.0 disaster.

    • 0 avatar
      VW4motion

      87, you’re drinking to much anti-Ford kool-aid. Research the Powerstroke before posting.

      • 0 avatar
        87 Morgan

        VW…I see too many in the shop, be-backs, pissed off owners etc. I am not anti Ford. Just Anti Ford diesel. Honestly, at this point I think I am anti all of the diesels: Duramax, Cummins, Powerstroke offer a poor long term value prop VS a gas engine. Too much maintenance, too expensive to fix, Urea injection, gas MPG is inching closer to diesel MPG so and so forth.

        I have plenty of experience dealing with used Ford diesel trucks on a day to day basis; albeit not from an ownership standpoint just the consequences of owning one. I have owned one myself and would never own one again. I had a 7.3 and a 5.9 24 valve 03 cummins + 2 VW TDI. So, in the grand scheme I have owned more diesels than most here on this site I would bet.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      All I know of the 6.0 is that a friend of mine had what I believe to be the perfect truck built from one that had blown up… Ford body, Cummins motor, Allison Trans. He then sold it for the real perfect rig. Again blown up Ford 6.0, Cummins motor swap with the stick. He drove it from Alaska to Louisville with the heaviest drop in camper I’ve seen and later towed another blown up 6.0 halfway across the country. He was a fan of the 6.7 incidentally.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      I doubt the Ford 6.7 is systemically worse than any of the others. And much of the issues with the HD diesels, have been due to them being driven too light to heat up. The smaller, Euro inspired “eco-diesels” (eco as in recycling the soot through peoples lungs) for halftons, are much more appropriately sized for hauling air, than any of the HDs ever were.

  • avatar
    dwford

    The diesel better be rated at over 30mpg highway. Really no excuse given the aluminum body, 10 speed tranny, start/stop tech etc.

    • 0 avatar
      bts

      Decreasing weight and start-stop tech helps the most in the city when accelerating and stopped at lights. The ten speed should help highway if geared properly. Improving aerodynamics will help the most and Ford doesn’t seem too interested in this.

      The next Ram will be interesting. They might have rear seats that fold into the floor like the Pacifica/Caravan and will focus more on aero.

  • avatar
    VW4motion

    Ford once again years ahead of GM.

  • avatar
    Krivka

    Right. They use aluminum. That’s it.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Very appealing truck. It’s overkill for my nearly-nonexistent hauling needs and limited driveway space, but an CrewMax XLT w/ 2.7 ecoboost and the available-in-theory-but-not-on-ford’s-website FX4 package would be a worthy alternative to my 4Runner. In Bronze Fire paint. I’d have to give up some interior features and pay a bit more on the sticker but the acceleration is really impressive and it doesn’t drink any more fuel.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      A bit pedantic but CrewMax is Toyota. Ford is SuperCrew. A shortbox F150 crew is going to be 19 feet long. The 4Runner will literally run circles around it.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        You’re right, it is SuperCrew. The corporate lawyers guarding those names won’t think it’s trivial, so correct away.

        You’re very right about the length too. I briefly considered the F150 in this configuration before choosing the 4Runner and the length was the biggest determining factor. Even with the short box its larger than I want for our driveway and trail maneuverability.

  • avatar
    vent-L-8

    That bar across the grill seems very Chevrolet to me.

  • avatar
    brn

    With the NA 3.5L slipping away, put that NA 3.3L in some other vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Methinks this’ll replace the 3.5 across the board.

      We know the power (same as the old), but what’s the MPG? I suppose those numbers have yet to be tested.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Or, for those who want a light duty trail truck to keep “forever”, get the 3.5 before the DI complexioneering get you….. The reg cab short bed (or even long bed) 4×4 3.5, is going to become a classic at some point, as it drives so much nicer in the tight and loose, than any other nose heavy F150.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Nice whip antenna.

    And the looks are less cartoonish but still quite bad. Ford still proving they cannot design a vehicle that is both cohesive and attractive.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Oh and remember this?

      “Reached for comment, Ford spokesman Mike Levine sent us the following statement: “We do not speculate about future products. While diesel is a solution, it is not the solution. EcoBoost offers the ideal combination of performance and fuel economy that over 60 percent of F-150 customers are choosing.”

      Amazing how dishonest this company is. That was from a little over a year ago.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @EBFlex
        He also ran a Pickup blog, that had an obvious Ford bias, in fact many commented on the fact. He later left that and joined Ford’s PR Team

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          Oh I’m aware. PUTC for Ford is like CNN for Hillary.

          As for the refreshed F150, I hope Ford fixed their amazing incompetence and actually have tail lights that illuminate to the rear of the “truck” rather than the side where they are useless. How the current F150 with the gimmicky “premium” tail lights meets any federal standard for rear lighting is beyond me. Two little dots on each side is nowhere near adequate.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    I’m glad to see the front end get a restyle. The current one is ugly.

  • avatar
    madman2k

    Looks good.

    Hopefully they fixed the design of the door latches – some of the 2015+ F150 doors get looser with time and no longer line up or close all the way, allowing wind noise into the cabin and grime into the door jam.

    Mine is included, unfortunately – been to the dealer to have them adjusted once and it needs it again a few months later.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Imagefont: Fact: if you drive off road 500 miles over the life of a vehicle (your ownership, well over 100,000...
  • Inside Looking Out: “132,101 deaths” That’s not true. I heard on TV that there are 120 million...
  • Steve S.: I was there. A lot of stupid ideas were hyped because the companies had “.com” in their names....
  • mcs: “Just seems like the wrong tool for any sort of sustained time at the track.” Maybe you’re...
  • Lie2me: Look at this ’76 @ $21,900 https://classiccars.com/listin gs/view/1360590/1976-cadill...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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