Spied! 2015 Ford F-150 or F-100?

3 Ford.F100.f04.KGP.ed-2384272530-O II

Photos by KGP Photography

We’ve just heard from one of our favorite spy shooters, and they think they’ve seen some of the early prototypes of the next-gen Ford F-150 or something just a touch smaller. We know Ford is pretty smart about doctoring up its test trucks to throw spy photographers off the scent, but our spy might have something here. Here’s what they wrote to us:

We caught a small convoy of heavily camouflaged Ford prototypes running the streets of Dearborn, Mich., possibly revealing one of two things: 1) These are the first prototypes for the 2015 Ford F-150, or 2) perhaps this is our first look at the Ford F-100, a smaller new product.

Caught in both SuperCrew and SuperCab configurations, the prototype trucks hide most of their styling details while also making it difficult to draw size and packaging conclusions. However, as these photos suggest, this truck is smaller than an F-150, pointing to the real possibility of a new, small Ford pickup. Here’s what we’re left with:

Five-Lug Pattern?

One of the prototypes was wearing wheel caps that suggest a lighter-duty, five-lug pattern instead of the F-150's six-lug specification. One prototype’s caps show there are five small protrusions, suggesting five lug nuts in a pentagon pattern.

Diesel Exhaust Set-Up?

The SuperCab prototypes had a split two-tip exhaust, similar to Ford's Power Stroke Super-Duty trucks, suggesting that this may have a smaller diesel engine — possibly the 3.2-liter turbodiesel inline five-cylinder that will be available in the 2014 Ford Transit vans.

Evidence of a Narrower Track?

Viewing the prototype trucks from the rear, it appears the camouflage adds some width, giving a false sense of the trucks’ actual size. The tires appear to sit well within the arches, suggesting a narrower track and smaller overall footprint than an F-150.

The fact that Ford's future truck programs are now moving beyond the mule stage is undeniable. These prototypes were out braving very sketchy weather and road conditions all around Dearborn. The subtle cues that suggest that these trucks are slightly smaller and a bit less robust than a full-fledged F-150 are consistent with reports that an F-100 is in the works. It’ll be around a 9-to-10 scale F-150; it’s also likely to use many new lightweight materials and offer much greater fuel economy. An all-aluminum F-100, with a lighter-duty suspension, wheels and other components, would realize significant fuel-economy gains while satisfying the needs of most truck buyers. And don’t forget a truck like this would greatly help Ford meet the stricter corporate average fuel economy standards in both 2016 and 2025.

2 Ford.F100.e01.KGP.ed-2384271080-O II

4 Ford.F100.f10.KGP.ed-2384273511-O II

5 Ford.F100.d01.KGP.ed-2384270782-O II

1A Ford.F100.e10lugs.KGP.ed-2384814788-O II

Comments

@WhOUbU

"The Explorer Sport Trac never sold because people wanted a crew cab ranger, not an explorer with a bed."

Actually, the (regular) Explorer WAS based on the Ranger and NO different than the Bronco II was, but with 4 doors. Now the Sport Trac had a bed, yes BED and was NO different than the GLOBAL Ranger that everyone is enamoured with and absolutely GAGA over!

"Much like Chevy buyers bought the Silverado crew cab and not the avalanche which was a Tahoe with a bed."

OK, calm down. The Avalanche DID NOT have a separate bed and was severely limited in payload and towing. It was a Tahoe with a BALCONY...

Why did all of you laugh off the Sport Trac, but WORSHIP the global Ranger???

"Imagine if Chevy did away with the crew cab Silverado and made the Avalanche the only crew cab option? The people would be upset and buy something else like what the Ford buyers did."

The Ranger was NEVER a crew cab, 1st of all, but_the_Sport_Trac (again based on the Ranger)... WAS.

You guys don't know what the hell you want AND you expect Ford to drop everything and cater to your every CoNfuSEd desire???


Cannot be a new F100, Ranger or whatever they would call it because the price would be too high. A Fail. That is the problem with all so called small to midsize trucks with today's requirements and tech. Just not enough separation to their big brothers in real savings. I think the Taco is the exception and not the rule. Toyota was not in the larger pickup business in real terms and had a year’s long following before Tundra went big. I would not pay 9/10s the price for a 9/10s the size truck. And I think most Americans feel the same. The first maker to make a truck capable smaller truck with a real price difference will sell them. Anything else will just be a small niche player.

@DenverMike
Correct. The early Sport Tracs were built on the long wheelbase Ranger frames. I had one, and hauled over half ton of crushed stone, or firewood, dozens of times. It was the best truck I have owned as it was very comfortable and quiet, yet I could beat the snot out of it like a truck.

This is the atlas.If ford is going to cut wt by 600 to 700 pds then the 150 will have to be smaller. Look for the f 150 to be about the size of the new global ranger with the atlas look.

It will haul tow and do anything the f150 does now but just in a smaller footprint. The new diesel trucks will be the size the f 150s are now. It just makes semse .chevy big burley square truck. dodge big truck big grill.toyota big ass uglier truck then before.Why not go a different way from everyone else.

better size better mileage smaller engines still out doing everyone else.If you think about it pure brilliance!

These so called spy photos have nothing to gauge size against them with, it's harder to make an assessment.

So are these really spy photos or are they Ford photos. That aspect of the photo is very well done.

I just went out and checked my rear step on my BT50, it exactly the same one that is on this mule. The Ranger uses the same rear step.

The exhaust is a single system with a dual tip.

The cab shape appears very camoflagued, but the front end has a global Ranger grill and has the lines of the global Ranger.

The only thing that has me is the roof line, but its quite heavily disguised.

I would bet this vehicle doesn't have a high aluminium content, due to its smaller size.

The stance of the truck, all dimensions it appear to be similar to one of our base model trucks, ie non Hi Rider or 4x4 Ranger/BT50. This has the trucks sitting lower.

As for the number of wheel nuts, got me, the only reason is that if a NA global Ranger comes onto the market it will be downgraded not to do much work, ie chassis strength (load capacity), tow rating etc.

What other Fords have about a 72"-74" wide axle and has 5 wheel nut? It might offer discs? 5 stud axle will still carry a decent load, the older F trucks used to have 5 wheel nuts.

Also when the sun comes up I'll look under the back of my truck and see if the rear end arrangement is the same. I'll need to know how to use the photobucket.


My previous comment of this vehicle is wrong. This isn't a full size truck. It's a very close sibling to the Global Ranger.


As for the Explore Sport Trac, this vehicle is nothing like one. You can't make a comparison.

Howam00: I also recall that story from Car&Drive, about the Cayanne, and it is also because the Germans do thing differently, on any German vehicle I have ever seen, there are no lug nuts with studs holding on the wheels, but what they use is what I guess they would call wheel bolts, as there are no studs, or lug nuts like we use, but just a big bolt that goes thru the wheel, and is treaded into the hub, it make for a real pain the the a$$ when changing a wheel!

The actual cab itself has got me.

http://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/models/4x2/xl-double-cab-chassis-hi-rider

The Extended cab is definatly a 1997-2003 F-150 with the current trucks bumpers, grill, and lights.

@Big Al from Oz

"These so called spy photos have nothing to gauge size against them with, it's harder to make an assessment."

OK, but then you go on and do a very detailed assessment. Wrong assessment. Is this you bumper?

http://content-mcdn.feed.gr/filesystem/images/20101016/low/newego_LARGE_t_77761_149966.JPG

John,

"The new truck is in development, so it would be easy to make a smaller size while designing and building the full-size."

Yes, but only if Ford was using platform-sharing between the two models, and then the profit margins would be larger on the full-size truck because Ford can command a higher price for the full-size. A midsize based on the F-150 would not be much smaller; platform-sharing does have its limits.

At this point in time, the 2015 full-size design has been approved, the tooling has been ordered, and the assembly plants will start their changeovers in a year or so. If Ford was to build a mid-size truck on the platform of the new F-150, I would think that the company would have said *something* about it by now, even if production of a midsize was a year or two beyond the next-generation F-150 rollout.

I have to wonder where Ford would even build a midsize truck. Dearborn and Kansas City are busy(and in some cases, running overtime) with F-150 production. Setting up a dedicated assembly line, to say nothing of an entire assembly plant, for a single low-volume model like a midsize truck has very high fixed costs that make profitability difficult; doing so also defeats one purpose of platform sharing/flexible manufacturing(building multiple models on the same assembly line with the same tooling). This is one of the many reasons why the Ranger was cancelled.

We shall see ...

For whoever brings a midsize pickup, GM or if this is indeed a T6 Ranger, if they downgrade it to not interfere with half tons, they can keep it.

@DenverMike
You call what I wrote a detailed assessment??

So a rear step bumper, exhaut tip and a grill is a detailed assessment. I hate to see you comprehend anything more detailed then.

Wow, denvermike, really:) Keep trying, I've nutted you out, not hard.

@Glenn

You have very valid points. I'm thinking wishfully for the most part, but my thought process had to do with Nissan when they designed the Titan platform and modified it for the Frontier, Xterra, and previous-gen Pathfinder.

We'll see, I'm very anxious!

@DenverMike
You call what I wrote a detailed assessment??

So a rear step bumper, exhaut tip and a grill is a detailed assessment. I hate to see you comprehend anything more detailed then.

Wow, denvermike, really:) Keep trying, I've nutted you out, not hard.

@DenverMike
You call what I wrote a detailed assessment??

So a rear step bumper, exhaut tip and a grill is a detailed assessment. I hate to see you comprehend anything more detailed then.

Wow, denvermike, really:) Keep trying, I've nutted you out, not hard.

@Big Al from Oz - Yeah OK, I'm nutted...??? Can you answer a simple question?

I'd say (and so have a few others) that it's the obviously the current F-150's rear bumper along with the tail lights, door mirrors, head lights and other clearly visible body parts.

It's not clear what Ford is doing with wheels and suspension from past (or future) generations on what's fairly obvious to be a current F-150 body with padded 'camo'.

Is Ford just F-ing with us? They could have camo'd the body pieces better, no?

@DenverMike
It's obvious this vehicle isn't a styling exercise.

I don't agree with the bumper assessment, though.

I would say it's more like a mechanical assessment.

Hence, the mish mash of components.

@someone @Dan @howam00 @S2H @ Papa Jim @FordTrucks1

I posted photos of the Prototype Mule on my last entry on the "Who sold the most Pickups Thread" @Lou and I concluded that it will be the next F150(Not the Atlas Pickup, reserved for much heavier 3/4 and 1 ton)
Mullaly wants a "One Ford" a F150 based on the current Ranger would make a lot of sense economically. He is replacing the Econoline with the Ford Transit. He has virtually the same sedans being sold in the US/Europe.

@DenverMike

"The Ranger was NEVER a crew cab, 1st of all, but_the_Sport_Trac (again based on the Ranger)... WAS."

EXACTLY! Which is why people are upset. THEY WANTED A CREW CAB RANGER. I'm sorry but there is no confusion in that. No body cared what the Sport Trac was, what it wasnt, what is was based on, etc, etc. They just wanted, and still want, a crew cab ranger.

As far as Ford catering to the "confused" people.....dont they want to make a sale? Isn't that their business? If you dont make what the people want and insist on telling them what they should want, then you deserve to lose out on their money. I'm sorry but last time I checked, Ford was in the business of making products that people will want to buy.

Soooooo...........

I guess it will be the size of a 2006 Toyota Tundra,sad day for Ford and truck guru's alike.....

I guess you only have the American voters to blame,you voted for Obama and he is far left and dislikes vehicles and believes in so-called global warming (proved to be a fraud and no such thing is happening,we have more sea ice now then decades before ect..)Even the Black Chamber of Commerce even says Obama is the worst thing for business,big and small and the worst ever for Black Business..

You have to have a 35 or so mpg truck so size/power/utility/looks/comfort will suffer..

And guess what, with 50 mpg cars 35 mpg trucks revenue from gas tax will shrink,so road pricing and paying for each mile driven is in the future..

So it will cost you ten times more to drive in the future then today with a 17 mpg truck at $5 per gallon !

It will cost you ten times as much to drive a 35 mpg truck as a price per mile and road tolls will be everywhere as the government makes more money on a gallon of gas then the oil companies,and with better fuel mileage road pricing will come into effect !!!

NO,you say ! Several States already are thinking about this today , because their gas tax revenue (money) is down !!

The joke is on you,who insist on better mpg in vehicles,you will suffer as vehicles will shrink and cost more and more to drive with road tolls,price per mile..Obviously you people didnt think clearly before complaining about fuel mileage,you will get better mpg but it will cost you ten fold and push most of you out of your vehicle into public transit or a bicycle..Happy Peddling,you asked for it,loud mouths !!

@WhOUbU

"EXACTLY! Which is why people are upset. THEY WANTED A CREW CAB RANGER. I'm sorry but there is no confusion in that. No body cared what the Sport Trac was, what it wasnt, what is was based on, etc, etc. They just wanted, and still want, a crew cab ranger."

Not only was the Sport Trac a true Ranger under the skin, but was an up to date version and was way better looking than the outdated '93 style of the Ranger. And had something the Ranger has never had... An F-150 V8! And F-150 drivetrain! Try THAT in a Tacoma!

I'm sure just about everyone that was in love with the idea of a crew cab Ranger was smart enough to figured that one out... They sold OK, but not enough warrant a redesign or a new Ranger crew cab. Or a global Ranger. Sport Trac sales told the whole story. Most mid-size buyers were more interested in regular cab Rangers anyways.


"As far as Ford catering to the "confused" people.....dont they want to make a sale? Isn't that their business? If you dont make what the people want and insist on telling them what they should want, then you deserve to lose out on their money. I'm sorry but last time I checked, Ford was in the business of making products that people will want to buy."

In theory, yes. In reality, there's not much money to be made in the mid-size market. Other than fleet sales, it's full of base truck buying cheapskates that really want Sentra, Focus or Corolla type of commuters, but regular cab mid-size trucks are cheaper with rebates. Nissan stopped building regular cab Frontiers just for that reason. Now look at their sales figures. Figures..

If you're already building obscenely profitable full-size trucks, mid-size just cannibalize them. 23% of displaced Ranger buyers stepped up to F-150s, according to Mike Levine. That's not counting Sport Trac cannibalism. That just adds insult to injury.

@Big Al from Oz - I know that rear bumper too well. I see it everyday and not just on my truck. It's the one thing on the back half that hasn't changed since '04.

http://image.truckinweb.com/f/features/8102408+w799+h499+cr1+ar0/0405_05z%2b2004_ford_f150%2brear_bumper_view.jpg

Im pretty sure the reason why people chose the ranger over the sport trac was because the ranger was more capable then a sport trac and made a better utility truck. The sport trac had such a tiny box that you couldnt haul much to begin with. you were better off with a ranger. Besides i belive the sport track was made to compete with the honda ridgeline and not as an alternative to the ranger.

Having problems using my normal address. There was a SEMA article on that other Pickup,
http://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2009/35/spy-photos-ford-ranger-mule

My original post:
This was supposed to be a new US Ford Ranger according to this SEMA websites article.
It looks very similar to the Mystery Pickup being driven around. Either the New Ranger(Unlikely) or the new downsized F150 , more likely.
http://www.sema.org/system/files/images/Ford-Ranger-mule_01_0.jpg
http://www.sema.org/system/files/images/Ford-Ranger-mule_02.jpg
What the article said:
"Ford hasn’t said officially what, if anything, will replace the U.S.-built Ford Ranger when production ends in 2011. But recent spy shots from Brenda Priddy's network of shooters point to a new, globally-produced small pickup taking its place by 2012. Priddy says she hasn't confirmed whether the new truck will carry over the Ranger name or instead use the F-100 designation.
These engineering mules look like facelifted versions of the Mazda BT-50 sold outside the U.S., which shares a common platform with the Thai-built overseas Ford Ranger. But inside sources tell Priddy that the taped and cobbled-together panels hide the mechanicals and running gear of Ford’s next-generation global small pickup.
That new pickup will likely mean that all Ford Ranger models would be built on a single global platform, dubbed "T6." The current overseas Ford Ranger shares only its name with the Ranger built for North America.
The various T6 test trucks spotted by Priddy photographers are configured in both LEFT- and RIGHT-HAND drive versions, are LONGER AND WIDER than the current overseas Ranger, and are powered by diesel and gas engines.
"An industry source says the T6 Ranger for the U.S. will likely be powered by a new 1.6-liter four-cylinder, direct injection turbocharged EcoBoost engine producing at least 175 horsepower and 180 lb-ft," Priddy says. "Ford's 3.0-liter Duratorq TDCi four-cylinder turbodiesel engine, rated at 197 horsepower and 347lb-ft, is expected to be carried over in the new truck for buyers outside the U.S"

Is this site being hacked? Just saw my post disappear

The issue I have is the passenger cab appears to be a different shape.

http://www.pegasus4x4.com/images/ford/ford_ranger_2012_standard_topupcover1.jpg

@Rob
Some weird stuff is going on a PUTC at the moment. I have logged a job with the sites admin.

When I posted under a different name nothing occurred.

Big Al From Oz,
The Prototype looks very much like the Ford Ranger in profile, the rear lights are as big and have a dimilar shape.

@JohnM -

"Im pretty sure the reason why people chose the ranger over the sport trac was because the ranger was more capable then a sport trac and made a better utility truck."

I agree about the tiny bed and utility, but that's the nature of global type mid-size crew/double cabs that everyone is so darn enamoured with. As far as capability goes, you would be wrong...

The Sport Trac had a max payload of 1,430 lbs, a GVWR of 6250 lbs., and a max GCWR of 12,000 lbs. This made the Sport Trac the most capable mid-size pickup, having a greater payload, GVWR and GCWR than the Dodge Dakota, GM's Canyon/Colorado, and Tacoma and of course... the Ranger. Ridgeline? RIDGELINE??? Don't make me LOL

The Ranger had max payload of 1,260 lbs, max GVWR of 5,000 lbs., and a max GCWR of 9,500 lbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer_Sport_Trac

http://autos.yahoo.com/ford/explorer-sport-trac/2010/xlt-4-0l-4x2/specifications.html

http://autos.yahoo.com/ford/explorer-sport-trac/2007/xlt-4-6l-4x2/specifications.html

http://www.new-cars.com/2009/ford/specs/ranger.html#towing

@TRX4 Tom
Where are you? I thought you like to debate full size vs mid size.

Since you been gone for a day DenverMike is making a lot of posts :)

We've been debating him alot more today :)

All I know is if a) next "F150" had 5 lugs, b) no V8 and c) less capability (any of the above) I will finally have to switch...

That of buy a Superduty if they EVER build a new one with a re skin corner to corner..

@TRX4 Tom (aka Tom Terrific) and DenverMike
I know that you (singular) know I know. Get my drift. That means PUTC knows.

You (singular) have been causing havoc on sites with others.

I worked this out over a month ago, when this all started.

If you want to debate, debate like an adult, but stop this multiple posting when you are challenged.

So, you sit on your computer day and night.

I'm waiting for the multi posts.

But it wasn't from Big Al from Oz.

@TRX4 Tom (aka Tom Terrific) and DenverMike
I know that you (singular) know I know. Get my drift. That means PUTC knows.

You (singular) have been causing havoc on sites with others.

I worked this out over a month ago, when this all started.

If you want to debate, debate like an adult, but stop this multiple posting when you are challenged.

So, you sit on your computer day and night.

I'm waiting for the multi posts.

But it wasn't from Big Al from Oz.

If the F-150 shrinks at all then it will get bashed during comparisons. People want a smaller truck but when it comes time to compare they always dock points for it not being roomy enough for their fat @$$.

I really do hope we get a smaller truck from Ford with the Rangers diesel.

@john I cant fathom why they wouldnt go to 5lug. The real difference in capacity between a 5lug and 6lug is so far away from what is even possible w/ a half ton axle is stupid not to save the money and go to a 5lug if they use new axles. Its the reason when Dodge had the 3rd gen Ram w/ the at the time current chrysler 9.25 and dana (44 I think in the front not sure) as a 5 lug but had a very old un-redesigned chrysler 8.25 and dana (again not sure but I think 35) on the dakots but 6 lug. Does anyone really think b/c of that lug the Dakota had more capacity I mean heck there are dana 60s that are 5 lugs.

@moparman
I agree, any 1/2 ton pickup can run a 5 stub hub, and it will take the weight. It used to work.

But on the other side of the coin, what if this vehicle is purely a mechanical testbed. A vehicle they drop and bolt whatever they want into it, like a breadboard in electronics.

Does the Sport Trac have a live axle rear end? If it does and this pickup is the size of a T6 Ranger could they be using it?

Would a Sport Trac rear end work? It would be cheaper and a factory is already manufacturing them.

Just a thought.

@moparman
I agree, any 1/2 ton pickup can run a 5 stub hub, and it will take the weight. It used to work.

But on the other side of the coin, what if this vehicle is purely a mechanical testbed. A vehicle they drop and bolt whatever they want into it, like a breadboard in electronics.

Does the Sport Trac have a live axle rear end? If it does and this pickup is the size of a T6 Ranger could they be using it?

Would a Sport Trac rear end work? It would be cheaper and a factory is already manufacturing them.

Just a thought.

@moparman
I agree, any 1/2 ton pickup can run a 5 stub hub, and it will take the weight. It used to work.

But on the other side of the coin, what if this vehicle is purely a mechanical testbed. A vehicle they drop and bolt whatever they want into it, like a breadboard in electronics.

Does the Sport Trac have a live axle rear end? If it does and this pickup is the size of a T6 Ranger could they be using it?

Would a Sport Trac rear end work? It would be cheaper and a factory is already manufacturing them.

Just a thought.

@moparman
I agree, any 1/2 ton pickup can run a 5 stub hub, and it will take the weight. It used to work.

But on the other side of the coin, what if this vehicle is purely a mechanical testbed. A vehicle they drop and bolt whatever they want into it, like a breadboard in electronics.

Does the Sport Trac have a live axle rear end? If it does and this pickup is the size of a T6 Ranger could they be using it?

Would a Sport Trac rear end work? It would be cheaper and a factory is already manufacturing them.

Just a thought.

It is certainly a T-6 chassis. Look at the rear axle and shocks in comparison to this http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/05/spied-ford-ranger-t6-global-small-pickup.html

yea, I still think its an american Ranger, probably will be toned down a bit so capacities aren't so close to the F-150.

My opinion is these are purely mules for a new engine or transmission option. I believe it is pretty clear that this is an old chassis with some newer bits on the front and rear to make it look like a newer F150. I doubt that Ford is switching back to inboard shocks in the rear. Notice the equipment hooked into the exhaust. I'm guessing they are testing a smaller ecoboost, a diesel, or a new transmission, or a combination of the former. Not to say that they may not be testing this for an F-100, but if that was the case, why test it on old mules? Why not bring over a global ranger chassis, camo it up to look like an F150, so you can get actual numbers on the correct chassis?

@Moparman:

It isn't so much the size of the axle that would require the use of more lugs as it is the size of tire.

@N Miller:

If they were just mules for testing internal parts, why not just use a current F150 body and forego the expense of all of that unnecessary camo. It doesn't add up...

@ Jason H

"If they were just mules for testing internal parts, why not just use a current F150 body and forego the expense of all of that unnecessary camo. It doesn't add up..."

If you look closely, those are current F-150 bodies. They obviously could have skipped the camo and blended in perfectly without anyone ever noticing... And that's it right there! They want to be noticed and grab headlines. That's the whole entire point. OEMs crave attention and this just another stunt.

Here's Ram 'testing' a new grill opening and fog lights

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/08/spied-2013-ram-1500.html

Do you really think they had to camo the entire front end up to the doors??? Otherwise no one would have noticed and no article would be published. And they had a net covering the nose anyways. It's no different than what Ford is doing here.

Ford could be testing new hardware, although they're obviously not going back to inboard shocks or 5 lugs. That's more than likely a full-size, past generation F-150 chassis for whatever reason. It for sure gets people talking though and if it creates a buzz, online or otherwise, it's money well spent and job well done.

@Jason H
They may be using the old chassis to simulate a the lighter projected weight of the new "Atlas" concept. But I agree, it is strange to be using an old chassis period. I'm sure they have plenty of 2004 and newer chassis laying around to test.

Wait, that made me think of something. Didn't the old Harley Davidson pickups that had the 5.4 supercharged motor have dual exhaust tips on one side? Maybe they are testing a supercharged 5.0 to replace the 6.2? Who knows, but it is fun guessing :)

It looks to me like they are just messing with us. In the picture with the two trucks at the stop light the second truck seems to have a narrower track and the rear end sits lower. The bumper looks crooked and the side mirror is crooked. If ford was trying to get people talking they succeeded. I think denvermike is right. They are just trying to draw attention. They did this to confuse people and hint at something new and exciting. I hope they actually have something new and exciting coming. I'm guessing it's a diesel and they want to start some rumors now that dodge has announced a half ton diesel. Or maybe they have nothing and just want to keep us interested. Isn't that exhaust tip the same as the heavy duty diesel exhaust tips? Why do they have the dual tips on the super duty? is it a diesel thing cause I don't recall seeing it on any other ford vehicle? Does the new global ranger diesel have the dual tips? And are we sure that chassis is the t6? If I understand this right they took the bumper, headlights, grille, and side view mirrors off a 2004 or later ford and put them on a 03 or earlier body and then put that body on the t6 chassis? And the supercab is a newer body on the t6 chassis? I'm so confused. If ford is trying to get attention it worked for me.

@rich It is definitely not the current F150 in size.

@Jp correct, or it is it going to be a F100 or new F150, with the Atlas becoming the new 3/4 and 1 ton?



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2014 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com