New Ford F150

[srs]

I wondered that too. I doubt it as to do any kind of touch up you have to strip and re-anodize. More than likely it will be alodined, epoxy primed and painted.

Trust me, aluminum can corrode but under similar conditions steel corrodes a whole lot faster.

This question is for all: Will this new Ford be a good/better choice for people who live in states that use a lot of salt to clear the roads in winter? Just wondering. Stanley

 

[s219]

Many other auto manufacturers have used aluminum for years with no ill effects (aluminum hood and roof panels have been especially common). Ford is not really breaking new ground on the F-150 in this case. I wouldn't expect any issues with corrosion, repairability, etc.

 

[crazyal]

Many other auto manufacturers have used aluminum for years with no ill effects (aluminum hood and roof panels have been especially common). Ford is not really breaking new ground on the F-150 in this case. I wouldn't expect any issues with corrosion, repairability, etc.

In most of the country probably not but near the sea and up in the rust belt states I'm not so sure. I have no clue about the modern ones but I did have an older Range Rover and salt used on the roads in the winter was real bad. After 3 years in the salt you could see the panels eating away (I suspect it'll be better now).

The problem was dissimilar metals. How does Ford attach the fenders? Do they use aluminum bolts? Aluminum is a poor choice for a bolt as it's very weak. Do they use steel and have steel to aluminum contact that will corrode very quickly? Do they use some sort of plastic isolation washer? Do they use glue or rivets that will require more work if the panels need to be replaced?

Also how much will this cost? Aluminum is not cheap. I see some places are saying that the MSRP will start around $30k. The base price (just a quick search) shows that the 2014 F150 starts at $24,500. That's a pretty big step if true.

 

[jejeosborne]

I noticed the new 2.7 liter ecoboost will be flex fuel. Interested in seeing the HP and torque curves with both fuels.

 

[fordmantpw]

In most of the country probably not but near the sea and up in the rust belt states I'm not so sure. I have no clue about the modern ones but I did have an older Range Rover and salt used on the roads in the winter was real bad. After 3 years in the salt you could see the panels eating away (I suspect it'll be better now).

The problem was dissimilar metals. How does Ford attach the fenders? Do they use aluminum bolts? Aluminum is a poor choice for a bolt as it's very weak. Do they use steel and have steel to aluminum contact that will corrode very quickly? Do they use some sort of plastic isolation washer? Do they use glue or rivets that will require more work if the panels need to be replaced?

Also how much will this cost? Aluminum is not cheap. I see some places are saying that the MSRP will start around $30k. The base price (just a quick search) shows that the 2014 F150 starts at $24,500. That's a pretty big step if true.

Ford has offered an Aluminum hood on the F150 since '99 I think. Those are sold everywhere, and there are tons of 'em. I'm pretty sure Ford has this figured out, otherwise they wouldn't be betting the farm on a change like this with their bread and butter vehicle.

I would expect a price increase of $500-$1000, no more than that. Pretty much in line with what everyone does with the next new model comes out. It wouldn't surprise me to see Ford keep the MSRP exactly the same, then mid-way through the year, raise the price $500, then the '16 gets another $500 price bump. It's really pretty standard, and look for Ford to do the same. They can't get away with rising prices $5000. The numbers I have found show about a $1000 price increase for Ford to produce the truck in Aluminum. They won't pass all that on to the customer at once.

 

[HHR]

My '07 Ford Freestyle has an aluminum hood with a steel inner layer. It corrodes where the two metals meet and the paint flakes off in big strips. Ford has been using an aluminum lift gate on their Expedition since '03 and every single one I have seen lately has had major corrosion/paint failure. If ford had a reputation for corrosion resistance and paint quality, I may have more confidence (I think Audi has it down with their aluminum A8) but I wouldn't touch a first year "pop can hybrid" F150 with a ten foot pole.

 

[ecamD]

I don't see the hype in this new truck.

Same old leaf spring suspension, same ok but not great 6-speed auto, minor changes in Ecoboost so probably no change in fuel mileage, dropped the Raptor, dropped the big-block V8, etc...

Before anyone jumps on the "they dropped 700 lbs so the EB will now get 30mpg" bandwagon. Think again!

I've driven plenty of miles with my truck empty and with my family adding over 500lbs and it didnt change the fuel mileage at all. It takes a 2000lb pallet of wood pellets in the bed to make a noticeble difference.

 

[D7E]

In most of the country probably not but near the sea and up in the rust belt states I'm not so sure. I have no clue about the modern ones but I did have an older Range Rover and salt used on the roads in the winter was real bad. After 3 years in the salt you could see the panels eating away (I suspect it'll be better now).

I have spent most of my life with land rover defenders and they just lasted for ever , My japanese trucks were far worse to rot .

 

[EddieWalker]

I disagree. I notice a significant decline in mileage with an extra 500 pounds in it. If you ever watch the BBC, there is a show called Top Gear, where they showed clearly that by adding weight to the trunks of three different sedans, the loss of how far they could drive on a tank of fuel. It is also well documented that since fuel requirements become something the government required, all the manufacturers have gone to great lengths to make their vehicles lighter. This is the easiest, cheapest and fastest way to increase mileage. As a result, fatalities have increased. The lighter they make them, the less protection we have, and the number of people dying increases.

Eddie

 

[fordmantpw]

I disagree. I notice a significant decline in mileage with an extra 500 pounds in it. If you ever watch the BBC, there is a show called Top Gear, where they showed clearly that by adding weight to the trunks of three different sedans, the loss of how far they could drive on a tank of fuel. It is also well documented that since fuel requirements become something the government required, all the manufacturers have gone to great lengths to make their vehicles lighter. This is the easiest, cheapest and fastest way to increase mileage. As a result, fatalities have increased. The lighter they make them, the less protection we have, and the number of people dying increases.

Eddie

That's not completely true, Eddie. A lighter vehicle can be just as safe (even safer) than a heavier vehicle. How heavy are cars today compared to the big boats of 40 years ago. Have you seen the Impala vs. Impala crash video? It shows the difference of an old Impala ('69 maybe?) to a newer 2000's model. There is no comparison at all, and I know which vehicle I would rather be in.

Sure, compare a 2k lb car and a 5k lb truck hitting a semi, and there will be a huge difference. Crash each of those vehicles into a brick wall, and the lighter one can be just as safe as the heavier one. Keep in mind, a heavier vehicle has more mass and much more inertia, so there has to be more crumpling of the heavier vehicle to distribute the forces of the crash.

Here are a couple links to the crash video I mentioned (and sorry, it was 2009 Malibu vs 1959 Bel Air):

Crash test Chevrolet 1959 vs Chevrolet 2009 - YouTube
Crash test 1959 Chevy Bel Air collision with Chevy Malibu Car Crashes - YouTube

 

[fordmantpw]

I don't see the hype in this new truck.

Same old leaf spring suspension, same ok but not great 6-speed auto, minor changes in Ecoboost so probably no change in fuel mileage, dropped the Raptor, dropped the big-block V8, etc...

Before anyone jumps on the "they dropped 700 lbs so the EB will now get 30mpg" bandwagon. Think again!

I've driven plenty of miles with my truck empty and with my family adding over 500lbs and it didnt change the fuel mileage at all. It takes a 2000lb pallet of wood pellets in the bed to make a noticeble difference.

You don't like Ford we get it. Why bother posting on a Ford thread. It's obvious you are completely clueless.

Oh, and that $5.9B on your avatar was a LOAN that Ford paid back WITH INTEREST. Get your facts straight troll.

 

[Red Horse]

I don't see the hype in this new truck.

Same old leaf spring suspension, same ok but not great 6-speed auto, minor changes in Ecoboost so probably no change in fuel mileage, dropped the Raptor, dropped the big-block V8, etc...

Before anyone jumps on the "they dropped 700 lbs so the EB will now get 30mpg" bandwagon. Think again!

I've driven plenty of miles with my truck empty and with my family adding over 500lbs and it didnt change the fuel mileage at all. It takes a 2000lb pallet of wood pellets in the bed to make a noticeble difference.

Hmnn-aside from your post comments, your avatar says you are not exactly a Ford man. Too bad Ford didn't consult you before they made their weight reduction move. And I'm headed to the garage now to throw all those tools back in my trunk because for years I've been listening to all the experts that have been saying needless weight hurts mpg.
This is what makes TBN so great-always learning something new!:laughing:

 

[mikehaugen]

I'm no engineer but my guess would be that weight has a substantially larger impact on fuel mileage in the city vs. On the interstate... where I think aerodynamics would be more critical.

 

[daugen]

I'm no engineer but my guess would be that weight has a substantially larger impact on fuel mileage in the city vs. On the interstate... where I think aerodynamics would be more critical.

that makes a lot of sense. All that power needed to overcome inertia and get the vehicle rolling, less weight, less power needed.
Of course like we have all learned from the Ecoboost Ford, whether you keep your foot in 350 hp of V8 or 350hp of V6, might not be much of a difference at the end of the day.

LRR tires can count for 1-2mpg also. You want to run Monster Mudders? Well it's going to cost you.

 

[fordmantpw]

I'm no engineer but my guess would be that weight has a substantially larger impact on fuel mileage in the city vs. On the interstate... where I think aerodynamics would be more critical.

That is correct. However, you do have to get the weight moving, and you do go up hills. Plus, the weight increases the friction component, and that adds to it as well.

The big this is, by decreasing weight, you can decrease the engine size, and size of many components. Decreasing engine size and component size makes things more efficient, and things begin to snowball.

 

[jejeosborne]

I don't see the hype in this new truck.

Same old leaf spring suspension, same ok but not great 6-speed auto, minor changes in Ecoboost so probably no change in fuel mileage, dropped the Raptor, dropped the big-block V8, etc...

Before anyone jumps on the "they dropped 700 lbs so the EB will now get 30mpg" bandwagon. Think again!

I've driven plenty of miles with my truck empty and with my family adding over 500lbs and it didnt change the fuel mileage at all. It takes a 2000lb pallet of wood pellets in the bed to make a noticeble difference.

I guess it all depends on what one expects in a model change.

Yeah it would be nice to see coil suspension but only if they can maintain their great payload capacities. That is likely what neutered the Ram. Hopefully the weight loss will benefit the payload even more. If the new frame is as strong as the current, payload numbers could be crazy high with the 700 lb weight loss.

I consider an entirely new 2.7 ecoboost with start stop to be more than a "minor change in ecoboost". Yes it probably won't be achieving 30 MPG but I would predict it being mid 20's which would make it cheaper to operate than a small diesel getting 30.

I haven't heard of the Raptor being dropped. If so it would just be for a short period I would guess, not that I would consider one anyway. If it stays, hopefully they will finally put the 3.5 ecoboost in rather than the boat anchor 6.2 so it can fly.

The medium block 6.2 wasn't a big seller due to the success of the 3.5 ecoboost.

 

[daugen]

I'm sure Ford could take another thousand pounds out still, if we wanted to pay twice as much for the truck; it would be built like the lunar rover.
But I keep getting hung up on weight of tow vehicle vs weight of what's being towed.
I've driven a tractor trailer and felt an oversize load push me around the curves, almost like power steering.
That's not a comforting feeling and I don't think I want to feel my half ton truck, space age or not, get pushed around by the load behind.
Maybe this can all be absorbed by high tech electronics, sophisticated trailer braking, perhaps just on the wheels on the inner side of the curve.

But they are going to have to do something, because at some point, those five tons back there are
going to scare the heck out of you on a wet road, pulling it with your two ton truck.

 

[fordmantpw]

I'm sure Ford could take another thousand pounds out still, if we wanted to pay twice as much for the truck; it would be built like the lunar rover.
But I keep getting hung up on weight of tow vehicle vs weight of what's being towed.
I've driven a tractor trailer and felt an oversize load push me around the curves, almost like power steering.
That's not a comforting feeling and I don't think I want to feel my half ton truck, space age or not, get pushed around by the load behind.
Maybe this can all be absorbed by high tech electronics, sophisticated trailer braking, perhaps just on the wheels on the inner side of the curve.

But they are going to have to do something, because at some point, those five tons back there are
going to scare the heck out of you on a wet road, pulling it with your two ton truck.

That's one of my concerns as well, and one of the reasons I tow with a 3/4 ton Super Duty even though a 1/2 ton has the towing capacity.

 

[jejeosborne]

That's not completely true, Eddie. A lighter vehicle can be just as safe (even safer) than a heavier vehicle. How heavy are cars today compared to the big boats of 40 years ago. Have you seen the Impala vs. Impala crash video? It shows the difference of an old Impala ('69 maybe?) to a newer 2000's model. There is no comparison at all, and I know which vehicle I would rather be in.

Sure, compare a 2k lb car and a 5k lb truck hitting a semi, and there will be a huge difference. Crash each of those vehicles into a brick wall, and the lighter one can be just as safe as the heavier one. Keep in mind, a heavier vehicle has more mass and much more inertia, so there has to be more crumpling of the heavier vehicle to distribute the forces of the crash.

Here are a couple links to the crash video I mentioned (and sorry, it was 2009 Malibu vs 1959 Bel Air):

Crash test Chevrolet 1959 vs Chevrolet 2009 - YouTube
Crash test 1959 Chevy Bel Air collision with Chevy Malibu Car Crashes - YouTube

I have seen that video before. There is a lot of technology giving the newer vehicle the upper hand. I agree with the kinetic energy a heavy vehicle has to absorb when hitting a fixed object. I would rather be in the heavier vehicle when two vehicles are involved. Moral of the story, don't hit anything but if you do, make sure it is movable.

Since the current model f150 is one of the safest vehicles on the road, I am pretty certain ford would want to maintain that honor. Poor crash tests hurt sales.

 

[jejeosborne]

I'm sure Ford could take another thousand pounds out still, if we wanted to pay twice as much for the truck; it would be built like the lunar rover.
But I keep getting hung up on weight of tow vehicle vs weight of what's being towed.
I've driven a tractor trailer and felt an oversize load push me around the curves, almost like power steering.
That's not a comforting feeling and I don't think I want to feel my half ton truck, space age or not, get pushed around by the load behind.
Maybe this can all be absorbed by high tech electronics, sophisticated trailer braking, perhaps just on the wheels on the inner side of the curve.

But they are going to have to do something, because at some point, those five tons back there are
going to scare the heck out of you on a wet road, pulling it with your two ton truck.

Secure 700 lbs of concrete into the bed. Problem solved.