2015 Ford F-150: Powertrains First Look

B 2015 Ford F-150 motorcycles snow

By Aaron Bragman

The new aluminum body was only part of the big news Ford released at the 2014 North American International Auto Show in Detroit regarding the new F-150; Ford also announced a new lineup of powertrains.

The success of the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine in the Ford F-150 took everyone by surprise — even Ford. The idea that Americans would embrace a high-tech twin-turbo V-6 engine in a full-size pickup truck for extra money was met largely with skepticism (if not outright derision) by many pundits, but the pundits could not have been more wrong. With V-6 models now accounting for more than half of F-150 light-duty volume, Ford decided to shuffle around the powertrain options for the 2015 model to better accommodate owners seeking a mixture of durability, power and fuel efficiency.

For 2015, Ford sticks with a four-engine lineup. Replacing the standard 3.7-liter V-6 will be Ford's smaller 3.5-liter V-6. While no power or torque numbers (or tow ratings) have been released for the 2015 F-150 yet, the 3.5-liter engine is expected to be less powerful than the 3.7-liter engine it replaces. In the 2014 Ford Explorer, the 3.5-liter V-6 makes 290 horsepower versus the 3.7-liter's 302 hp in the base 2014 F-150. But with the new truck weighing hundreds of pounds less than the outgoing model, thanks to the switch to aluminum construction (Ford told up apples-to-apples crew cab models save 700 pounds), the base engine doesn't need to be as powerful as the old model to achieve the same performance feel or to achieve better fuel economy numbers.

Moving up from the base engine will be an all-new 2.7-liter twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V-6. It is designed to be as powerful as a lighter-duty V-8 engine, according to Ford, and is a response to customers' requests for a midlevel engine that can accommodate moderate towing duties and smaller payloads than a 5.0-liter V-8 or the powerful twin-turbo 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine for the tradeoff of even better fuel economy. From their research, a good number of their customers don't want to pay for capability they won't need; not everyone needs to tow a 10,000-pound trailer or haul cinderblock to a job site. This more moderate 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine is the first of a new family of EcoBoost engines, featuring a compacted graphite block and standard stop-start technology.

Carrying over is the 5.0-liter V-8 Coyote engine, but we'll have to wait to see if it makes any different power numbers. Fans of big V-8 engines will, however, be disappointed to learn that the current truck's top engine choice, the 6.2-liter V-8, is no more. Instead, the top premium engine choice will now be the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6. And if it's going to replace the 6.2-liter in the lineup, we expect that it will likely make more power than the current model's 365 hp and 420 pounds-feet of torque. The torque numbers of the current 3.5-liter EcoBoost are already nearly a match for the 6.2-liter V-8 (420 versus 434), and the same benefit applies here as with the base V-6. With the top-of-the-line Platinum SuperCrew model ringing in at nearly 700 pounds lighter than the outgoing model, one doesn't need as much power to enjoy the same performance.

Stay tuned in the coming months for official news from Ford on power and tow ratings as well as fuel-efficiency improvements for the 2015 Ford F-150.

Photo below of 2014 F-150 EcoBoost engine.

Ford EcoBoost II

 

Comments

The new 2.7L EB will probably make 315hp/365lb ft.

OK what about new transmissions?

Yeah I expect the 2.7 to at least match the last of the 5.4L V8 Triton engines, but with even better performance with a flatter torque curve and more power in the high rpm range.

Dropping the 6.2 motor was a no brainer, given the acceptance of the ecoboost, and because the 6.2 was a low seller in the half ton. Ford's new ecoboost 2.7 is a game changer though, with the potential for some serious FE numbers City/highway.

Not offering a diesel is a curious thing, but the trouble that Ford's had with its oil burners in the FSeries trucks may point to the reason.

Ford's 2015 model will definitely get some looks. They are taking a definite gamble on the US economy remaining on a stable footing. The new and exotic choices Ford made with its volume seller could be a bust if the economy goes south. Ditto for the new Titan.

@papa jim
The Ranger/BT50 3.2 Duratorque going into the Transit are bullet proof engines.

They would have been acceptable. The US variant of the engine is rumoured to be 220hp and 400ftlb.

I think the new 2.7 will do great for people that aren't towing all the time. Even when towing a 2.7 liter engine is probably not going to be as thirsty as most v8s that are literally twice the size. I was really skeptical of the ecoboost, but they have pretty well proven themselves overall. I have only found two reliable stories so far of an ecoboost F-150 that has blown up, and multiple owners I know say they get low 20s on the highway. I would probably opt for the 5.0, but I think the ecoboost will be much more successful than the ecodiesel in sales, especially with its generally great reputation among truck owners so far. They are saying it will get "close" to 30 mpg highway. If they can make it reliable it certainly sounds better to me than paying all the extra costs for the ecodiesel.

While the Transit's 3.2L Duratorq engine seemed like an obvious choice, since Ford invested to federalize it, they have long INSISTED there would be no diesel option. Each of the 4 engines has its place, and a 5th engine for a diesel option might have been too much. In the end, diesel still has its problems in America: Econ savings diminished by fuel price, fuel availability, DEF, winter starting problems, maintenance issues... all for a premium price- that makes it a tougher consideration.

I think no one is kidding themselves that the 2.7L is going to be the engine choice for lifestyle trucks that never see a load. Even at thatThe 3.5EB had a proven and well documented appetite for fuel when it was working hard, cant see this being much different, but I guess I am willing to hold my breath and reserve judgment. I would expect marginally better mileage than an unloaded 5.0l and way worse econ if you beat on it or work it at all. 2.7l is pretty small for a V6 so it is going to need the boost to do anything reasonable, especially in a truck. I expect Ford has done some homework but this may be a little ambitious, I think switching to the 3.5 was a strategic move to push people into the other engines, the 3.7 was pretty successful from what I see, but Ford appears to be putting all their eggs into the ecoboost basket, slapping some anemic car/crossover engine into a fullsize truck seems counter intuitive.

Since Ford could not get the Mileage right on the 2013 Eco boost I believe that the big change for 2014 is more for that than anything else .

No Big V8 Offering? Wow! GM's 6.2 just got my money for my next new truck!

Fords been king forever I'm kinda skeptical about a 2.7l making much power but ford knows what they are doing I'm all for it

@Mr Knowitall
All caused by regulation.

US 40 cetane diesel actually makes it harder for the manufacturers to me current EPA emission regs.

The US is the largest refiner of high cetane diesel it exports, this would alleviate many of the emission problems.

Anti competitive?

An interesting move, going from two V6s and two V8s to three and one. I still think the truck's too big and too blunt to be very economical, but I will grant they're giving it a good go. That same lineup on an about 15% smaller truck would show significant improvement.

@ roadwhale the trucks lost 700lbs in the configuration that most people buy 4x4 crew its about 12% smaller and more areodynamic. weight and wind resistance are the things that hurt the most in the millage arena.

That big grill looks awful, but I guess they all are today. Overall I think this is the best looking new truck.

I wonder why they would limit towing for the 2.7 EB to 8000 lbs as is being reported. If it has more power and torque than my '06 5.4 and is in a significantly lighter truck, why wouldn't it be able to haul as much? I hate these games they play to try to get you to upgrade.

I'll be very interested in the real world economy. I think people who are expecting 30MPG are unrealistic. But if I could get a solid 24-25 in a 4x4 crew cab @ 70MPH I would be ecstatic. I love everything about my current crew cab except the mileage, but it's always been something we've had to accept to get the capability and versatility. Not anymore, apparently.

i find it interesting that the 2.7 block will be a CGI block. It could be that they're planning on running some serious boost.

the 2.7 makes 325/375 from a report. that's great! if it made more torque it would be a huge deal!

if they can get 400/460 out of the 3.5 id be very interested in that. same with the 5.0. 400/400 is ideal for that motor. it would make me more interested if the motors had some outstanding numbers.

if the general can get some more torque out of the 4.3 and 5.3 they will be ok. I have a feeling that both ram and gm will have turbo gasv6 motors installed to compete very soon

I want the 10 Speed Automatic before I Buy it

@Phil
Hey look at a Ram 1500 Ecodiesel, I read in a forum in one test they were averaging 80-85mph and the mpg for the entire trip was 28.2 beat that, furthermore you get 400lbs of torque. BTW you wont sound like a civic when you tow. Diesels are far more dependable and you also get better mpg under load than a gasser. your choice. Fix Or Repair Daily!

@Papa Jim - you said basically everything that I am thinking.

I am surprised by the fact that the 2.7-liter twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V-6 is #2 engine in the pecking order and not the base engine.

@RoadWhale™ - a 700 lb weight loss in a Supercrew 4x4 puts it within 800 lb of a Tacoma double cab 4x4.

If you look at the nose shape, bumper shape, slop of the hood, and the chin spoiler, the whole front end had been changed to be much more aerodynamic.

The mirrors are more rounded and there appears to be more slope to the windshield.


DARN! I just bought a 2013 F-150! should-a waited longer for the 2015 ! But I had to act fast cause my 2011 Tacoma was rusting away and the longer I kept it the more the resale price suffered. But my 2013 F-150 isn't going to have a good resale-trade-in price cause too many were sold at discounts. If I would trade in my full option FX4 right now it would be worth $18K,, and another new F-150 just like it would be double at $36K. I will be the first guy at the Ford Dealer when the 2015 arrives!
What is Chevy and Ram going to do to compete? IF the 2015 F-150 doesn't win Motor Trends truck of the year award the next time I am going to cry foul!

Raminator? Diesels have their limits, they are hard to start in cold climates, not fuel efficient in cold weather and diesel pumps are few and far between, or if a gas station or convienence store only has one diesel pump in 10 fuel lanes there is always a car parked next to the only diesel pump getting gas then you have to wait till that guy walks in and out of the store with a coffee where he won't move his car when he's done pumping gas, ( they now use the same lane and pump for both gas and diesel ) But if you stop at a truck stop for diesel the pump nozzle is too big to fit in your pickup or it pumps out too high pressure that it splashes back out!

@Tom#3
Wow, what a man.

Did you know all diesel receptacles are designed to fit all diesel refuel handsets, even the ones at truckstops.

Hmmm............maybe not in the US???

US diesel is harder to start in cold weather because the US regulators use 40 cetane fuel. Talk to your government on that one. Modern diesels also use new injector technology to form the best spay pattern for cold starts. Variable timing now allows a diesel to 'ingest' some of the exhaust gas to increase the engine temp on a cold start.

You should read up on technology. It really interesting stuff.

So, I wouldn't state all diesels. Maybe the US needs to update and modernise its diesel fuel standards and regulations to match most of the of the world.

@Carilloskis: You're not really contradicting me, you know. That 2.7 barely matches the horsepower of the 5.0 EFI V8 in my 1990 F-150 which still weighs about 500# less than the new model. The thing is that the 5.0 isn't pushing the same RPM that the 2.7 will need for the same output and so despite its age won't be working as hard to maintain speed. My old beast's disadvantage is that it's a 2-speed OD automatic transmission where the 2.7 will have a 6-speed or higher to allow lower rpm once at speed. My V8 runs around 1800-1900 rpm at 65mph when one more gear (like the 3-speed OD also available that year) would have pulled it down to 1400-1500 revs for even better economy. Since I'm already getting 19+mpg with the existing setup, if I kept the same gear ratios all around with the higher OD I could probably achieve 23+mpg even with that old beast.

Why? My old beast is still smaller and lighter than the new one despite being all-steel vs all-aluminum. Aerodynamics are critical especially at speed.

Weight is critical for acceleration. Stability is critical for reliability. We've already heard incessant complaints about automatic transmissions hunting for the best gear in specific power situations--such as climbing hills. Downshifting two gears to get sufficient HP and torque to accelerate is great, but upshifting those same two gears when the system misreads the load change means a lot of back-and-forth shifting while totally missing the gear that would best meet the climbing demand and maintaining speed. It's still one reason why a manual transmission has the advantage. My Wrangler's 6-speed stick lets me drop that two gears to get back up to speed and then upshift a single gear to maintain it on even the steepest hills (road). I don't hunt unless it's to drop one more gear because I waited too long.

That tiny turbocharged 6 is going to be hitting so many different loads so frequently in everyday driving that I honestly don't believe it will hold up over time--on a full-sized truck.

Heres my question. On the current 2014 f-150 window sticker a single cab gets the same mpg ratting as a crew or extended cab with the same engine option yet the weight difference is as much as 700 lbs,how come the mpg is the same ?

I will miss the 6.2 L V8. That is one sweet engine.

@ Roger Preble: because the only models tested are SuperCrews or SuperCabs. EPA mileage tests are very limited in their real-world application, and should be used as benchmarks only.

I drive 2500 to 3500 miles per month. I'm a construction superintendent who visits all my job sites weekly. We are the Nations largest Restoration contractor and have a national account with Ford. When I started with the company, the branches bought whatever they wanted. Ford is the best truck. I've had Ford 350 diesels, F 250 super duty V8. I never would think a 3.5 V6 could cut the mustard, but the twin turbochargers do it. My gas milage went up 4 mpg against my V8 which equates to paying for the turbochargers in one year. Not to mention the silent power that blew my mind. I had a 2004 Corvette but this V6 power in this truck is awesome. My other branches don't seem to take this twin turbocharged Power too seriously. I guess they are old school V8 guys. Ford, keep it up.

Diesel fuel has more btu per ounce of fuel than gas, a diesel will always have potential to make more power. I beleive ford is on the right track with small yet powerful motors, boosted engines need to be built tougher and can last as long or longer than na engines. I give props to ford for being innovative, I personally would take a 5.7 hemi getting 21 hwy to a 3.5 v6 getting 22 hwy but a 2.7 twin turbo @300 hp would be great in the edge for the wife.

I'm glad Ford dropped the old 6.2 it was too heavy, too lazy, and outmoded before it was even introduced, I just wanna know what we're gonna see under the hoods of Raptors, I would love one, 6.2 or not, but if I could have a 2.7 in a Raptor? SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!!
ecoboost is my replacement for your displacement

2011 150 eco boost super crew 6.5 box, trailer max package 7700 gvw 12ish L/100 empty 24-30 L/100 with mt 27ft holiday trailer same pulling power as my 5.9 quad cab 3500 dodge diesel.



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 | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com