New Ford F150

[fordmantpw]

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.

Agreed, all the way around!

 

[aczlan]

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

That's on my list of things to do for our RTV500 this summer. It has enough power to move a loaded haywagon around, but it doesn't have quite enough weight to have enough traction for my taste. Planning on sides and a concrete block that will sit inside them

Aaron Z

 

[daugen]

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

hmmm, add weight when you need it, leave it off when you don't.
Like adding water to the hull of a wakeboard boat...
but I want all my fuel economy, and more...

 

[ecamD]

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.

I don't hate Ford, I buy whats best when I'm shopping. Although Fords have left me stranded where Dodge and GM haven't yet...

And show me the report of Ford paying it back! Get YOUR facts straight!

 

[Code54]

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.

I have to agree. I run a ¾ ton diesel just because it tows a little better. In my case, I much rather fork out a few hundred dollars in fuel each year for the extra safety the extra size of the truck affords. I do think it is great Ford is trying something different and hope it makes all manufactures up their game a bit. I am personally not real big on small engines in trucks but if it works and other don't mind I think it is great to have more choices.

 

[ecamD]

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.

It's not the coil springs that cause the low payload, it's that low GVWR they put on their trucks. The 2500's got coil springs and its payload beats the leaf spring F150. It will be nice to see the new specs of the F150 but most dont need a 1/2 ton truck that can haul 4000 lbs in the bed.
The 2.7 Ecoboost is NOT what I meant by minor change obviously. It was in relation to the 3.5l which so far sounds unchanged. Dropping 700lbs in a 5500 lb truck is not going to gain much.

I like the Ecoboost 3.5l but feel it should perform MUCH better than the other old age V8's when in fact it matches the performance yet returns slightly better fuel mileage. Although those that tow often are reporting rpthe same overall as the V8's.

 

[fordmantpw]

I don't hate Ford, I buy whats best when I'm shopping. Although Fords have left me stranded where Dodge and GM haven't yet...

And show me the report of Ford paying it back! Get YOUR facts straight!

Well, the loans were available to everyone, not just Ford (Nissan, Tesla, et el). Maybe they haven't paid it back in full yet, but they ARE paying them back, with interest! Since the original statement is yours, where's the proof it hasn't been paid back. And where's the proof that's a bad thing. It's a LOAN!

Ford Gets $5.9 Billion Government Loan | Fox News

 

[fordmantpw]

It's not the coil springs that cause the low payload, it's that low GVWR they put on their trucks. The 2500's got coil springs and its payload beats the leaf spring F150. It will be nice to see the new specs of the F150 but most dont need a 1/2 ton truck that can haul 4000 lbs in the bed.
The 2.7 Ecoboost is NOT what I meant by minor change obviously. It was in relation to the 3.5l which so far sounds unchanged. Dropping 700lbs in a 5500 lb truck is not going to gain much.

I like the Ecoboost 3.5l but feel it should perform MUCH better than the other old age V8's when in fact it matches the performance yet returns slightly better fuel mileage. Although those that tow often are reporting rpthe same overall as the V8's.

Well, I would hope the 2500's coils can beat the F150's payload. The 2500 is a class above the 150. And if you don't think a 12-13% weight loss is going to make any difference, I think you will be surprised. I've heard to expect a 3 MPG improvement for the same engines in the '15 vs. the '14.

 

[ecamD]

Well, I would hope the 2500's coils can beat the F150's payload. The 2500 is a class above the 150.

Point being its not the coils that make the Ram 1500 have a low payload. It was stated that coil springs "neutered the RAM's payload".

 

[ecamD]

Well, the loans were available to everyone, not just Ford (Nissan, Tesla, et el). Maybe they haven't paid it back in full yet, but they ARE paying them back, with interest! Since the original statement is yours, where's the proof it hasn't been paid back. And where's the proof that's a bad thing. It's a LOAN!

Ford Gets $5.9 Billion Government Loan | Fox News

See my link above, it clearly states Ford has NOT even begun to pay it back even with record profits...

 

[fordmantpw]

See my link above, it clearly states Ford has NOT even begun to pay it back even with record profits...

What link? And what were the terms of the loan? When does it need to be paid back by to be within the terms of the loan? That's what matters.

 

[ecamD]

What link? And what were the terms of the loan? When does it need to be paid back by to be within the terms of the loan? That's what matters.

Automakers' Report Card: Who Still Owes Taxpayers Money? The Answer Might Surprise You - Forbes

Of course your not going to get specifics but this article is over a year old so that first $577 million should have been paid already...

 

[fordmantpw]

Automakers' Report Card: Who Still Owes Taxpayers Money? The Answer Might Surprise You - Forbes

Of course your not going to get specifics but this article is over a year old so that first $577 million should have been paid already...

So, sounds to me like Ford is on the up and up (assuming they have started paying it back, which I'm sure they have).

So, if you were Ford, and had 2 loans, when at 4% and one at 10%, which one would you pay off first? Wouldn't you pay off the 10% loan first? That's what they are doing, since the fed loan is at a lower rate. Makes perfect sense, and Ford is following the terms of the loan. Why do you have a problem with that?

 

[aczlan]

It's not the coil springs that cause the low payload, it's that low GVWR they put on their trucks. The 2500's got coil springs and its payload beats the leaf spring F150.

Point being its not the coils that make the Ram 1500 have a low payload. It was stated that coil springs "neutered the RAM's payload".

Really? Lets compare apples to apples.
2014 3/4 ton truck, 4x4, Regular Cab, 8' Bed, Diesel, 10,000 GVWR package.
Ford F250 (137" WB) payload = 2709#. Source: http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/14FLRVTTgde_Sep9.pdf (Page 10)
Dodge 2500 (140" WB) payload = 2004.7#. Source: http://www.rambodybuilder.com/2014/docs/ram/hdramcg.pdf (Page 5).

2014 3/4 ton truck, 4x4, Crew Cab, 8' Bed, Diesel, 10,000 GVWR package.
Ford F250 (172.4" WB) payload = 1591#. Source: http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/14FLRVTTgde_Sep9.pdf (Page 10)
Dodge 2500 (169.5" WB) payload = 1004.5#. Source: http://www.rambodybuilder.com/2014/docs/ram/hdramcg.pdf (Page 5).
Looks like the Ford with leaf springs beats the Dodge with coil springs by 500# or 700#.

Aaron Z

 

[fordmantpw]

Really? Lets compare apples to apples.
2014 3/4 ton truck, 4x4, Regular Cab, 8' Bed, Diesel, 10,000 GVWR package.
Ford F250 (137" WB) payload = 2709#. Source: http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/14FLRVTTgde_Sep9.pdf (Page 10)
Dodge 2500 (140" WB) payload = 2004.7#. Source: http://www.rambodybuilder.com/2014/docs/ram/hdramcg.pdf (Page 5).

2014 3/4 ton truck, 4x4, Crew Cab, 8' Bed, Diesel, 10,000 GVWR package.
Ford F250 (172.4" WB) payload = 1591#. Source: http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/14FLRVTTgde_Sep9.pdf (Page 10)
Dodge 2500 (169.5" WB) payload = 1004.5#. Source: http://www.rambodybuilder.com/2014/docs/ram/hdramcg.pdf (Page 5).
Looks like the Ford with leaf springs beats the Dodge with coil springs by 500# or 700#.

Aaron Z

Oh man, you're not going to use facts, are you?

 

[jejeosborne]

It's not the coil springs that cause the low payload, it's that low GVWR they put on their trucks. The 2500's got coil springs and its payload beats the leaf spring F150. It will be nice to see the new specs of the F150 but most dont need a 1/2 ton truck that can haul 4000 lbs in the bed.
The 2.7 Ecoboost is NOT what I meant by minor change obviously. It was in relation to the 3.5l which so far sounds unchanged. Dropping 700lbs in a 5500 lb truck is not going to gain much.

I like the Ecoboost 3.5l but feel it should perform MUCH better than the other old age V8's when in fact it matches the performance yet returns slightly better fuel mileage. Although those that tow often are reporting rpthe same overall as the V8's.

If it's not the coil suspension, what is it? Weak frame? I assumed it would be the suspension since the year they switched, the payload went down. Do you know why it is low then because I'm just guessing?

I am glad they left the 3.5 ecoboost alone. It is already a good performing engine and easy to tune in another 50 HP for a couple hundred bucks. Leave well enough alone.

What V8 engine do you feel the 3.5 liter ecoboost matches in performance?

 

[ecamD]

Once again, its not the coils that lead to a lower payload. Compare the old leaf spring RAM 2500 to the new coil spring Ram. The payload increased.

Comparing a Ford to a Ram proves nothing. The over-rated Ford numbers didn't change. The Ram 2500 increased in payload from leaf springs to coils, so once again the coil spring suspension does not "nueter" payload capacities...

Compare Apples-to-Apples!

 

[ecamD]

If it's not the coil suspension, what is it? Weak frame? I assumed it would be the suspension since the year they switched, the payload went down. Do you know why it is low then because I'm just guessing?

I am glad they left the 3.5 ecoboost alone. It is already a good performing engine and easy to tune in another 50 HP for a couple hundred bucks. Leave well enough alone.

What V8 engine do you feel the 3.5 liter ecoboost matches in performance?

The year they changed to coils the base weight increased but the GVWR stayed the same 6800lbs, that's the reason for the lower payload in the 1500's. That is a big problem they need to change, I don't need a an 8500lb GVWR 1/2 ton but 7200-7500 is good. I wonder if they don't want to compete with the 3/4 ton trucks...

Performance wise, the Ecoboost matches the Tundra 5.7l, GM 6.2l and RAM 5.7l well but with all the technology stuffed in that truck it should do better than match or slightly beat. There's just too much to go wrong for the benefit. It's still early though, I think the Ecoboost will develop nicely.
My buddies already gone through way too many trips to the Ford dealer with his 2011 Ecoboost for stalling, shuddering from a stop, harsh shifts, poor performance, etc...

Yet our older simpler trucks pull just as well and are within 10-15% of his fuel mileage.

 

[Topkicker]

Got the skinny on why Ford is using more aluminum and shedding weight. It's the same reason GM (which most here know I work for) is bringing back a smaller truck. Mark Ruess (our N American president) admits GM is taking a risk w the 3 size truck strategy across 2 brands (Chevy/GMC). GM believes smaller pickups will offer customers a greater number of options and help us meet new federal emission standards. Ford's strategy is to use a vast number of aluminum parts on their F-Series to shed weight to meet the same fuel economy targets. In short, both GM and Ford are taking risks to keep in compliance with the Government emission laws. All this was discussed at the plant yesterday. I hope both strategies work for each company. GM and Ford both depend heavily on their truck segment to compete with the 13 plus foreign auto brands being sold on U.S. soil. I think the 15 F-150 in the pics looks good. Ford trucks are kinda known for there large grills. Like the way it looks or not, you KNOW it's a Ford truck at a glance. No different w Chevy truck grills having a solid bar with a gold Bow-Tie. You KNOW it's a Silverado. There is HUGE brand loyalty to both GM and Ford. Always have been. Always will be. It's seen everyday on this forum.

 

[aczlan]

Once again, its not the coils that lead to a lower payload. Compare the old leaf spring RAM 2500 to the new coil spring Ram. The payload increased.
Comparing a Ford to a Ram proves nothing. The over-rated Ford numbers didn't change.
The Ram 2500 increased in payload from leaf springs to coils, so once again the coil spring suspension does not "nueter" payload capacities...
Compare Apples-to-Apples!

Should I add in Chevy who rates their 3/4 tons as high or higher than Ford does? (I didn't include them above because they didn't have a regular cab long bed Diesel listed).
As for numbers going up, Fords numbers went up from 2013 to 2014. The 2013 F250 long bed regular cab had a payload of 2,629# and the Crew Cab had a payload of 1499# (source: http://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/13flrv&tt_superdtypu.pdf, page 4)
How much more apples to apples can you get than comparing two trucks with the same bed size, cab size, GVWR and almost the same wheelbase (within 3-4 inches).
If two of the three brands of 3/4 ton truck have a higher payload capacity year after year, one might begin to suspect that the brand with the low capacity doesn't trust their trucks...

Aaron Z