Five Things the 2015 F-150 Got Right

1 Saving Weight II

1. Reducing Weight

This had to be done. Half-ton pickup trucks have been attempting to outpace and outperform each other in towing and payload for so long it's started to get a little crazy. Aluminum and other composite materials have been around for a long time, but the issue has always been cost. When using large amounts of these lighter materials, the issue becomes who has the raw materials and how much it costs. That question is still up in the air, but we like the direction Ford is headed with this.

 

 

2 Powertrains II

2. Exploring Powertrains

If we hear one more person tell us that truck buyers don't want anything but big V-8s and more turbo-diesels, things are going to get ugly. Ford seems to be the first truck maker willing to accept that young truck buyers are not like their parents when thinking about pickups. It will be interesting to see what the take rate is on the smaller EcoBoost V-6 and who the buyers turn out to be. Not even Ford is expecting the smaller EcoBoost to take off like the bigger 3.5-liter twin-turbo, but we like that Ford is willing to experiment. Remember, Ford already has a baby Power Stroke slated for the coming Transit van that could slot right in.

 

 

A 2015 Ford F-150 Centerstack 2 II

3. Pushing Technology

Yes, half-ton pickups are getting quite expensive at the upper trim levels, and Ford is probably the best at serving those customers with King Ranch and Platinum trims. Even the Lariat is being stuffed with more high-tech systems. An all-new wiring harness was needed to deal with all the possible safety options, park assist, lane mitigation assist, blindspot sensors and segment-first towing electronics. There's also a new 8-inch information screen.

 

 

4 F-150 Frame 15 II

4. Rebuilt Frame

Ford redesigned the frame to take full advantage of the towing targets it needs to meet as well as provide additional cabin space. It was the right thing to do. Thanks to ridiculously smart software programs that didn't exist five years ago, Ford was able to custom build and construct a new frame that is stronger, thicker, wider and weighs less than the frame it's replacing. A good part of the midsection is made of 70,000 pounds per-square-inch high-strength steel — some heavy-duty pickups don't have frames that strong.

 

 

3a Bed Cleat II

5. Bed Tech

Ford may have switched to making its beds out of completely different material but what hasn't changed is how truck buyers use their beds. What Ford did right was come up with several advancements to make the beds easier for people to use. We especially like the backup camera light for nighttowing, the removable tiedown cleats plated inside the bed and the remote-controlled (from the key fob) tailgate release. The multiscreen backup camera will be a standout feature for those who tow.

 

Comments

Great Job Ford! The new GM's are already looking old.

Great job Ford still looking like 2004 talk about old looking jeez lol

I agree with all five. I would also add that they did the design right. Glad it is so similar to the atlas concept, which was a home run for popularity. Although my favorite grille is the one they haven't shown many pictures of.

Is there anything PUT does not like on Fords?? Seems more and more like that is an advertisement site for potential Ford buyers

@GIJOE, I have to agree with Silverado, Sierra and others they published 5 or 10 Things They Got WRONG!!! And in Videos keep saying "Although this trucks aren't perfect this and that" giving off Negative Vibes.

In my Opinion its a POS Design and all talk. Where are the specs. for Payload, Towing and MPGs. Regardless The General kicks ass!!!

Btw, is it true Ford motor company bought Pickuptruck.com?

@GIJOE
When the new GM trucks were revealed they had the same article. 5 things they did right. Then later they had a 5 things they didn't do right. Give it time, but I don't think I could find 5 things they didn't do right on the f-150 that are worth mentioning. All I can think of is the lack of an upgraded transmission and you could say the lack of a diesel option but that remains to be seen. It's funny everyone thinks PUT.COM is biased because the f-150 makes so much news, but if you read articles on edmunds, autoblog, motortrend, automotive news, etc. you will find they talk up the F-150 just as much. Are they ALL biased, or is Ford just making a lot of good news? Autoblog calls it "competitive, if not class-leading" "built ford tough, indeed" "hardly any half-measures". Truck trend talks about the "cool features" "industry-leading" "stalwart" "huge step forward" "a cabin on-par with a luxury car". The f-150 has a huge reputation that is consistently above that of ram, GM, and Toyota not only among truck buyers but among automotive journalists too. That is a fact.

Will Ford offer a modern 4x4 system with an auto setting?

1 article on the new GMC Canyon, and 9 articles in 24 hours, on the new F150 by Mark Williams. It isn't too hard to figure out which truck this website favors. Is Mike back pulling strings behind the curtain?
Anyway, just when you thought the front end couldn't get any uglier, Ford proved it could.

@John
I think they started offering that in 2012 or something. I could be wrong though.

@John

If you look at the interior pictures, you can see the 4A (4auto) on the 4X4 selector.

It has nothing to do with being biased, Ford just build the best truck, period! GM misarable failed with the 2014 model and the 2007-2013 model is a piece of junk, I'll just keep driving my 2000 Silverado for another while.

woopud,
What did GM fail with? Feel free to mention anything. I haven't had a chance to drive one yet, but I see a pretty good damn pickup truck. It has everything you can ask for and does it well and comfortably.
Everybody around you thinks otherwise. The truck keeps getting awards and recognition left and right

@Bob, they did have some more gm news last week. I think it was something about the new trucks being recalled. Hey ain't that gm news??

@Gregory J,

Are you seriously saying that the GM interiors are up to par? They continued the POS. AFM engines that burn oil like crazy. I like my old Silverado but anything after 2006 you cannot compare with Ford and Ram.

I wonder, is the 'improved lighter frame gonna pretzel like the new much ;lighter 1980 pickups?, Ford Fools, don't shoot yourself in the other foot.

Have you been inside new Silverado? I have. I haven't had a chance to drive it but the interior was on par with what Ram and Ford are offering. Very comfortable, well laid out, spacious. Very well put together. Are you one of those that cry about no console shifter?

I drive an 09 with 5.3L. I have no oil burning issues. Neither do my friends that drive similar trucks. I change oil in my truck myself so I will notice if there is something wrong. The truck runs like a champ.

Did anyone think one day we would see a full size pu with a 2.7 L / 164 Cubic inch V-6 under the hood? I'm guessing around 300-325 HP. Torque around 375. ??
My 2011 EcoBoost hauls ass, and I'm thinking the smaller engine with less weight will do well. I remember the days of 200 HP in a V-8 and we thought that was cool.

I'm not crazy about the grille. Or the dash. I'll have to see it person.

Just reading the GM fan boys comments is hysterical. You know you are doing right the more the people that down right hate you talk trash and turn to name calling.

PUT.com, keep it up. You are pissing Johnny Doe and AllAmerican off with every new truck article, and their comments are entertaining.

I read a couple of derogatory comments about the 2.7 Eco Boost. Ram will be coming out with a Turbo 2.7 Pentastar as well.

Actually looking at the figures a 2.3 four cylinder Eco Boost would work as well with 310hp and 315ftlb of torque.

Ford had to create this vehicle, it had no choice due to regulations.

It seems the most abundant resources we have globally are gradually being locked out of manufacturing, ie, coal, steel, etc.

Bauxite is quite abundant, but nowhere's as near as iron ore.

I do think a 3.2 Duratorque would be an advantage with this vehicle. When you consider the lengths Ford has gone to improve FE a diesel would have made this a much better truck and tow vehicle.

I'm skeptical of a Raptor version of this unless it is extensively reworked.

Hence my view regarding the Ranger.

I am a Ram guy but I must say I'm impressed. Ford had raised the bar with the wieght savings and GM and Ram will have to follow suite. All brands will be better after they go on a massive diet. In the end we all win.

to all the people talking about quality this and that on the ford... do you hear yourselves talking? have you EVER been in another current model truck of any other manufacturer? they are CHEAP, made with cheap parts and they STill dont have an answer to fix the ecoboosts problems with condensation in the intercooler and now they wanna release another one!!???!!! wow some people are just gullible!

Time to add my critique. First off, I see styling cues from GM, Toyota and Ram. The nose in particular, has little bit of a "Tundra" look to it. The hood and nose also seem to have a little bit of a "Ram look to it as well", especially the hood. For the sides, the way the sheet metal has a curve to it with the door handles being the top of the curve reminds me a little of the GM trucks. It still manages to retain a Ford look to it.

On the interior, it definitely looks better that what it's replacing. Again, I see that they followed in GM's footsteps with the design of the dash and it still looks somewhat like the Atlas concept.

The thing that caught my attention the most is the power train options. A 2.7l Ecoboost is definitely a surprise. If it proves to be a capable and durable base engine, it could be a game changer, because combined with the Aluminum body, it provides the opportunity for a substantial MPG increase. If someone had told me a year ago that Ford would be offering a base engine less than 3.0l in their trucks, I would have laughed and told them they were dreaming.

The thing that most people don't realize when it comes to MPG wars is that MPG doesn't increase by magic. Something has got to give, in the case of Ford it is lighter trucks and smaller displacement turbocharged engines. While both Chrylser's 3.6l and GM's 4.3l are decent engines, they are still larger displacement V6's. I think they can only do so much to increase the MPGs of those engines, like add DI, 8 or 9 speed tranny, etc, but sooner or latter either weight has to be taken off the truck or downsize the powertrain. GM guys know about this all too well. Back in the day trucks mostly came with either the 5.0l or 5.7l, now unless you get the 6.2, you are stuck with a 5.3 which is closer to the 5.0 in displacement than the 5.7. 15 years ago Ram had a 5.9 as it's V8, now it is a 5.7. Since modern engines outperform their predecessors, it's not an issue.

I think a few years down the road we only see large displacement diesels, maybe a few V8s here and there. I think V8s will be around for awhile with GM and Ram, but eventually it will get to the point where they have squeezed every last MPG out and have to try smaller displacement V6's.

So the price of aluminum will drive the price up, and Ford already offers the highest incentives, whats next, more incentives?

@BAFO: It's not like you wouldn't say something derogatory yourself?

Last time you told us Ram 3.2 Pentastar would be turbo'd, now you say 2.7 (which doesn't exist yet while the 3.2 is already a non turbo engine) You got alot of hot air. I wouldn't say it won't ever happen, Just not in 3 years.

As it is now, 3.5ecoboost are recommended to run premium fuel for real towing, now to make a 2.3 make the numbers you suggest, it's gonna be, harder on a 2.3 then the 3.5, the engine must work harder, so bring on premium that is 60-70 cents more expensive, almost as spendy as diesel, which by the way, is still 25% more expensive here in alot of places. We are all waiting for the price to drop as you suggest it will, lol.

Why would Ford use the 3.2, less power then the VM Motori 3.0, while being bigger. Not cutting edge, it just happes to be in the inventory.

I have a camera for hooking up the hitch on my 2010 Tacoma, it is standard back then!

That frame looks pretty low to the ground! Breakover angle must really be low.

@ Big AL

While the 3.2L Duratorq engine with it's 200 hp and 350 lb-ft of torque may be a fuel saver, it would be very slow for people in the US's standards. We are not used to things that are that slow here and the fuel prices are not that bad for a lot of people here to make such a downgrade in power for fuel economy. Case in point is how many people opt for more powerful and fuel thirsty upgraded engines over the fuel saving base engines even though most don't need the capability of the premium engine. Most people in half tons don't tow more than 5,000lbs which is a lot less than what all manufacturers base V6(besides Tundra) are capable of yet the mid level or premium engines largely out sell the base here in the States. Put the average American half ton truck buyer in truck with a 200hp/350lb-ft 3.2L Duratorg (28 mpg hwy) that does 0-60 in 11 seconds then put them in a 320hp/350lb-ft 2.7L Ecoboost (24 mpg) hwy that does 0-60 in 8 seconds and I will bet that they will pick the Ecobbost 8 to 1. Especially since diesel is about $.50 higher then regular gas which would require the diesel to get at least 4 mpg better just to have the same fuel expenses. Even if it were 5 mpg difference then that would only be about a $100 in extra fuel savings for the diesel, and I am willing to bet most American will gladly spend the slightly extra money for more power. Things maybe different over there though.

@TRX 4 Tom "Someday the people that own a Ford are going to want an automobile"-John Dodge

"Last time you told us Ram 3.2 Pentastar would be turbo'd, now you say 2.7 (which doesn't exist yet while the 3.2 is already a non turbo engine) You got alot of hot air. I wouldn't say it won't ever happen, Just not in 3 years."

Well, numpty, it already is turbo'd and sits in a Maserati. They are even using Fiat's Multi Air technology with it.

What a moron.

@ALL1
I didn't state the 3.2 is 200hp and 350ftlb of torque.

I stated the US variant is 220hp and 400ftlb of torque.

A 220hp 400ftlb diesel will perform quite well. I don't see too many instances where you need to do 0-60 times in less than 8 or 9 seconds.

It'll tow as well as a 5 litre V8. We also pay more for diesel like you guys do in the US. Gasoline powered pickups have all but died. Only the little 2WD utes have gasoline 4's in them. If you want power and work you buy a diesel.

Go out and have a drive of a diesel Ram. You'll know where I'm coming from.

@ TRX 4 Tom

I am unsure where you are getting your info, but 91 octane is not recommended when towing. It just states that for best overall performance, 91 octane is recommended because it bumps up the power as with all variable valve timing engines that can adjust timing. Using 87 octane will get you the advertised 365 hp/420 lb-ft and using 91 octane will get you 385 hp/430 lb-ft of torque. It also states that the added performance will be noticed when towing or in hot weather which is where you might have gotten confused.

This is what the F-150 Owner's manuals says verbatim:

3.5L V6 EcoBoost™ engine
Your vehicle is designed to run on regular fuel with an octane rating of 87 or higher. For best overall performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel will be most noticeable in hot weather or in severe duty applications such as towing a trailer.


Which is not much different than what the Ram owner's manual says about the Hemi accept that super unleaded 89 octane is recommended for optimum performance. The 3.6L and 4.7L in the Rams owners manual states 87 octane and the 5.7L Hemi states.......

5.7L Engine
This engine is designed to meet all emissions
regulations and provide satisfactory fuel economy and performance when using high quality unleaded gasoline having an octane range of 87 to 89. The manufacturer recommends the use of 89 octane for optimum performance. The use of premium gasoline is not recommended, as it will not provide any benefit over regular gasoline in these engines.

Honestly the new F150 isn't as revolutionary as the Ford guys are making it out to be it has a rolled steel frame, weight reduction, more EB engines and one less V8 and kind of Atlas inspired front. I like the weight savings, 360 degree camera and automatic parallel parking. The last 2 things were the only things I had not read it was going to have, a class first and something new and not an improvement on where they were already headed like the GMT's you guys bash. All of a sudden everybody says it has a slight resemblance to Ram http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/10/chief-ford-designer-talks-next-f-150-design.html.

All in all it is a good step forward in the direction they are headed but so are the GMT's. Honestly the new Tundra is the only one that didn't really progress as the both the F150 and GMT's have a new interior, exterior, weight reduction http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/18/us-autos-gm-trucks-idUSBRE96H13D20130718 (props to Ford getting more), rolled steel frame, suspension change and updated powertrains that fit the direction they were headed with direct injected, high compression OHV engines for GM and Ford less displacement engines. Both will receive the same tranny that was not available at either launch that the Ford guys gave GM a hard time about. Which ever you are a fan of you should be happy as both made solid improvements.

@TRX4 Tom impersonator troll
The Maserati runs a 410hp V6, 3.0 litre Pentastar. Sorry.

The 3.2 Pentastar I talked about is a supercharged variant.

From what I can recollect the a blown (turbo/supercharged) Pentastar will have problems being larger than 3.2 litres. The cylinder wall won't cope with the load.

http://performancedrive.com.au/2014-maserati-quattroporte-getting-turbo-pentastar-v6-report/

@ Big AL

Go drive an Ecoboost 3.5L and you will know where I am coming from. Best of both worlds of the higher horsepower of a gaser while also having the the low end torque of a diesel. Not saying the Ram Ecodiesel is bad at all because it has it's place in the market (when it finally comes out), but I am not willing to sacrifice my power for fuel economy. Also, this 2.7L will have low end torque just like a diesel as well without sacrificing the low horsepower diesels usually have because of their low engines speeds.

Also, you are comparing Ausie mentality to the American way of life. They are not and never will be the same. I am not saying either is bad, but they are not the same. Most of us have a young Ricki Bobby in us that says "I wanna go Fast". Besides, with all the fast food we eat, we can't help but have a heavy foot.

@ Gregory L. I did test drive the new sierra sly all terrain and actually enjoyed the handling it offered, and thought its was a much improved platform and should sell well to many people. i test drove it back to back with an fx4 luxury appearance pkg, ecoboost to get a good base line comparison. the ecotech in the gm tried to deliver good fuel economy the ford you have to stay out of the boost and that requires a conscious effort on the part of the driver, i was able to get both treks to active the same mpg on my test drives when i had driven the ecoboost before i was encouraged to be hard on it and the mpgs where not as good, the ecotech needs a lot more input to get off the line in 5.3 form, the interior in both trucks was comparable in terms of quality and fit and finish. there where some issues i had with the way GM packaged the trucks, first you cannot get the all terrain sly with appearance pkg and AC seats, test driving on a triple digit day proved that the f150 cooled my posterior and kept me from sticking to the seat, out of the 5 vehicles i drove that day including my own , all with black leather and only 2 of the 3 f 150s having cooled seats, the GM was by far the most uncomfortable., second being from arizona i like to see how well air gets to the back seat, as the former owner of GMT 400s and GMT 800 trucks I was shocked to see no rear seat air vents like my GMT 800 trucks and current 2010 Raptor have when ordered with center consoles. In my book the trucks where so close that that was the deal breaker. there where some silly things on the new GMs that i still don't get, relocating the 4x4 controls to the left side on the 800s then on both sides in the 900s depending on which trim level then back to left on the '14s when it was originally on the right in the 400s and is that way for all the other trucks , the offset steering wheel that showed up on the 800s with the relocation of 4x4 controls. Also GMs bumper steps don't make sense to me as they are about 4" lower than the top of the bumper and when compared to the Ford bed step don't even come close in functionality the stake pocket as a handle s smart though on the raptor i don't have the step so i step on my bumper and grab the inside of the bed to pull my self up. I like many on this forum thought the bed step was stupid until i was getting in and out of the raptors bed on a regular basis.

Interesting Article about the new F150 and Australian use posted on the Car Advice site.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/266622/ford-f150-wanted-australia/

One thing they continue to do right is the swoop-down front door windows. Not only are they stylish and in the commercial truck and big rig tradition, but they functionally drop the mirrors down where they're not creating a blind spot for you, across the intersection. There's no shame if the other pickup OEMs follow this lead.

The clamshell/suicide rear doors on the Super Cabs are a great convenience feature. I've seen crew cabs converted using SC hardware.

I'm curious to see how the 2.7 compares to the 5.3! The only negatives are no diesel option for those who want one and only a 6 speed, but that's temporary. I wonder if the 2015 Expedition will share much from the new F150. I suspect the 2016 Super Duty will look like the 2015 F150 on steroids.

@ALL1
I know you like your Eco Boost and it will deliver good acceleration. I don't dispute that.

But it's a big call to state that the Eco Boost will deliver better torque down low in comparison to a diesel.

Sorry, 'just ain't goin happen'.

You have to remember I buy to what I require more so than wanting to be the fastest on the block. I grew out of that over 30 years ago.

My main requirement is to sit on cruise at 80-90mph for hours on end. A gas engine could never deliver the FE I get.

Gasoline engine are good for short trips. Diesels are good for work and longer distance driving.

If you were to put 4 000 to 5 000lbs or even 7 000lbs behind both of our trucks and sit on 65mph I will sit on your tail through hill and dale and use half the fuel you will use.

That's where a diesel will shine. Also off roading diesels are superior. This is when the low down torque also is a great advantage over any gasoline engine.

It comes down to what you want from your vehicle. I'm happy to only be able to go 114mph and go 0-60mph in 10 seconds, I really don't need to go any faster.

I leave that to the V8 ute guys who are just boy racers.

@ALL1
Here's an interesting link. You can see why I'm a diesel fan. It's from a reputable source.

The direction the US is heading in might not best the cheapest route. In the end it will cost the consumer.

Hybrids, EVs and gasoline engines might not be the future.

Economic commonsense will eventually overtake subsidisation. There is only so much money. With the current US policy the US can only survive with cheap fuel.

The technologies in this truck are advanced and as fantastic as this truck is, it really highlights waste due to regulation.

Cars are just tools, like a shovel. A shovel can be made of steel or aluminium. A steel one will be cheaper and get the job done as well as a aluminium shovel.

Other than the oh-ah factor of this truck, what are we gaining? We already have this technology and it is more advanced in aviation.

http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21584436-automotive-technology-electric-and-hybrid-cars-are-being-given-run-their

The 5 reasons really boil down to two: use of Alloy for the sheet metal, and new engine choices.

For the doubters, the 2.7 turbo will shine in Interstate highway driving and boulevard use. It's hard to imagine it having the grunt to perform off road or in hauling. For a lot of truck buyers that will suffice.

The dig PUTC editors made about big V8s sounds personal. I drive a pickup that weighs about five thousand pounds. A 400 cubic inch (gasoline) V8 is not overdoing it in a truck that size.

The concerns we hear about FE are overdone. Gas prices have remained fairly constant since 2009. World production is up, geo-political factors have eased. US energy production is up despite the best efforts of Washington to hamper it.

Alternatives to ethanol/gas blends already exist that are domestically available and utilize established science. Taxpayers (voters) will have to demand more from their public servants to make it happen.

Five Things the 2015 F-150 Got Wrong article is missing.


@ Big Al

Your second to the last post proves that you do not get Americans. You are still applying Ausie mentality to the American way of life. It is not about being a boy racer or the fastest kid on the block as you put it. That is why you don't get it so please stop applying your mentality to us.

I have also driven plenty of diesels from a big Cummins Signature 600 all the way down to a 2.2L VW diesel. I drove a 99 Ram 2500 5.9L Cummins which is where I also worked at the time. I am not saying small diesels are bad or arguing any of their pros over a gaser. I am just saying their cons and lack of get up an go is why they will be surpassed by most American drivers. It is just reality and the way it is here. I fully understand that things over in Australia are totally different and will not even try to apply American mentality to the Ausie way of life. A small 3.0L diesel with less than 300 hp will not work here. In order for it to work then it would have to be over at least 300 hp or close to it in a smaller than a full size truck vehicle. Small diesels may very well work in a smaller vehicle, but not in a full size. It would take something like a midsize 4.0L diesel or better yet the Cummins 5.0L for a full size truck. Why, because that is our expectations here. Most will choose more get up and go power rather than having to drive something slower than their expectations. If you don't believe me then look at all the truck sales where people opted for the more powerful/less fuel efficient premium engine over the the less powerful/more fuel efficient base engine even though the base engine would engine would have fit their needs just fine.

Also, while I understand that a small diesel like the 3.0L Ecodiesel gets its peak torque a little lower than the Ecoboost by 500 rpm(which is not a lot), it also has over 125 hp deficit in comparison. That is why I said the Ecoboost is the best of both worlds power wise and a happy median of low end torque like a diesel, and the higher horsepower of a gaser. It also has a broader engine speed range so it can hold that peak torque through more rpms which why the Ecoboost is above 90% of it's 420 lb-ft between 1,700 rpm and 5,250 rpm. The draw back in the comparison is not power, it is fuel economy which is what a small diesel does best. Like I said earlier, Americans will opt for more power over fuel economy. If that weren't the case then there would be a lot more people driving hybrids, small diesels, or smaller vehicles like over there.

Again, Please do not mix up Australian culture to American culture, they are not the same.

I wonder how much the use of aluminum actually saves? The main benefit I can see is that ten year from now you won't be able to see through the rocker panels the way you can on every American pickup that has spent ten years in Minnesota. On the other hand, what will the cost of repairing these things be after a crash. Insurance shock might eventually be a bigger turnoff than sales price.

To me, the 2015 F150 doesn't even pass the engineering 'laugh test.' Just like the Chevy & GMC HD, and Ford's archaic looking Stupid Duty, the 2015 F150's front grille has gotten laughably huge in size. Not only that, but Ford went against its 'new' design language where they had stated that would take a more minimalistic approach to not using the huge head lights and tail lights that have become the norm. Lastly, to say this new truck is pushing technology is equally comical. Yes, it has a 90% aluminum body, and a large list of electronic gizmos, but at the end of the day Ford is still utilizing an archaic leaf sprung rear suspension. Not only that, but they shortened the leafs by 6 inches. Ford marketing claims that shortening the leaf springs 6 inches creates a better ride, but they are full of it. Longer leaf springs provide a better ride. They allow for more rebound travel to improve ride, and better suspension articulation in off road situations as well. The Ford crowd will eat up the marketing BS though, taking it as gospel. The more I think about it, I think GMC got it right with their Sierra 1500 and Canyon from an appearance standpoint. There is enough old school in the truck to keep it looking right, but enough new school and futuristic design to it such that it is something fresh and new. Hopefully when RAM redesigns their trucks they shy away from making their grilles any larger, and keep their class leading ride.

A post on the 5 Things Wrong is coming...

I'm going to disagree with Mark on two specific points:

* Powertrains: While I agree that Ford is making a strong move towards smaller yet stronger engines, I personally believe the 2.7L EcoBoost 6 is too small for such a large truck. That engine will almost constantly be running in the low-to-mid boost on the highway and at high boost in town just to get up to speed. Sure, the thing is rated at almost 200 hp which is the same rated horsepower of the 5.0EFI in my '90 F-150, but that V8 isn't straining to haul that 4600 pound body around, either. My old truck is still 400 pounds lighter than the '15 model. It's also as much as two feet shorter than the '15 despite being an 8' long-bed model. My bet is that the 2.7 is going to prove insufficient in the long term on the F-150 but would be a perfect engine for a smaller truck about the size of the '90 Ranger.

* Electronics (Pushing Technology): I'll agree that the vision systems et-al are a necessity for any truck--especially one this large. However, they're still basing it on the Sync/MFT system which has proven buggy and difficult to use--honestly adding to driver distraction rather than reducing it. But I can't blame Ford exclusively for this because Synch/MFT are built through a partnership with Microsoft, who really doesn't understand how to make technology easy to use. Yes, they make the most popular operating systems (or license to them when you speak of Android) but they all assume a technologically-savvy operator who understands how to use nested menus to arrive at the desired function. When you're driving, you simply can't take your eyes off the road long enough to do that safely.

@ALL1
Why do I have to understand Americans. I'm actually one of you.

Most everyone in my family drive a 4 cylinder in the US, except my nephew who has an Escalade. All the vehicles are small to medium. Most vehicles in America are small to medium. Pickups and some SUVs are the only large vehicles.

I'm discounting a very few of the older people I see driving around in old 'road whales'.

My sister and myself in Australia out of our families that live globally have the largest vehicles, maybe not the most expensive as as a cousin of mine in France drives a 7 Series.

I think maybe you should understand Americans. Maybe my perception of Americans might be more accurate than yours.

Or more accurately my view of humans is more accurate. Americans are no different if that is what you are trying to allude too in your comment.

You want to believe that your concept of America is correct.

Some, actually many in the US like their large pickups, I have never denied that. But a reasonable and competitive alternative American's will accept. Or, you would still all be driving large V8 cars with very few small vehicles.

I think you have to start to look at what is driving American's to drive very large vehicles that most don't really need.

You will find that my comment on 'boy racers' is more accurate than you want to believe. Most want to think they are better than the next. Cars are a classic way of showing this. Homes are another way.

How many people do you know try and justify living in a palacial home when retired? Just in case someone visits once a year? Just like a justifying a pickup you will state I need to go to Home Depot to pickup up a sheet of plywood, or I might tow a trailer to justify your decisions. The same mentality is global. Another classic for owning a V8 (Eco Boost) pickup is I need the power so I can merge with traffic on highway ramps. Well, believe it or not the US isn't the only country with on/off ramps.

The reality is most will buy a vehicle they don't need. Why? I did it.

ALL1, I travel around the world, people are not really different from country to country. We all try and pick out differences and state that they are inferior to make ourselves feel more secure and better about our positions.

I see that when debating the attributes of a global midsize that can tow 7 800lbs to a full size that can tow roughly a similar weight. Which vehicle is better?

Americans, Australians, Canadians all drive large vehicles. Why? Fuel is cheap enough. Our infrastructure can support these vehicles. And the vehicles themselves are cheap enough.

If a vehicle is to large to drive efficiently because of infrastructure/financial constraints large vehicles will not sell.

Small vehicles will sell when infrastructure/finances dictate. Sort of like Euro countries. They don't want smaller vehicles. They can only drive what they can support.

America and Australia will survive with small vehicles like they drive in France. But we don't need to. That's the way our our infrastructure and finances have panned out.

Do we need larger vehicles? No. We want them.


It seems like the new F150 will be a home run for Ford IF insurance costs do not go out of sight. I'll bet State Farm's underwriters are crunching numbers now.

I really, really, like the styling. I like the new load bed-maybe with aluminum I won't need line-x???? (Gravel and river rock are death to beds.)

What did they get wrong?? Replacing the 3.7L with a smaller engine. That 3.7 has worked out really well. It would have been excellent in the lighter truck. I am sure there is a sales strategy reason in there somewhere.

I hope the "multi-contour seats result in a supportive, comfortable seat in all the trim levels.

@Big Al: No impersonator here, my phone had it on there, I just hadn't added it to my laptop. So for you, I just added it.

Mark Williams can vouch that my email address is the same one.

If you want to call me a troll, well, anybody could call anybody a troll, a lot of folks do on here, when they get their feelings hurt, (ie, butt hurt) or they see something they don't like or never thought of. Simple name calling. Whatever. Or maybe they flat out get proven wrong?

Who's the NUMPTY? Who's the moron? You're the one name calling. Maybe you should check what you write before you write it.

So is that your GUESS they will build a 3.0 for trucks? Sounds like a GUESS. It's no big news that thinner bores aren't recommended for big power, sure, I can bore my 340 Dodge .060" over, and have a thinner wall, and it will flex some. A stiffer cylinder wall will make more power then the 10 extra cubic inches.

People like ALL1 don't get it you should run the higher octane in that Ecoboost when you tow, and when it breaks, oh, you should have been using the EXPENSIVE 91 octane.

As far as pentastars, I would want the combo to give me the best ratio of stroke to bore, so it can lower the rpm of the torque in part. Maybe a stroked 3.6?

I agree the person towing with a diesel will like the mileage better then gas. Not sure diesel is right for everybody. Some folks want or need a truck for the bed size, yet won't tow much. The gasser might be best for them, if the load isn't that heavy.

I am very surprised the Ram sight only lets a person build a 3.55 and 3.92 geared Ecodiesel. Crazy thing is, I can get a 3.21 geared Pentastar 3.6, with torque at a much higher rpm then the diesel. I can get the diesel with 3.55 and3.92, which will tow great. The max torque is real close to the highway running speed. So, that being said, I am surprised they don't 3.21 gear it, also knowing they have the 8 speed gears to move it. It would work good with small tires.

At least in a 4x2. Knowing a 4x2 can stand to have smaller tire, because it doesn't need as much clearance. Something like a 245/70 17. Especially a 4x2 single cab.

Truck tires have gotten wider, some for looks, some for the sake of the autocross tests on these challenges and shootouts. A narrow tire will get better mileage.

As for larger vehicles, if you want a truck that is narrow, have at it, and let US the people BUYING make decisions on what works for us. Not ever body wants to be packed in like sardines, and a lot of folks have more people riding with them then you. We don't all want traybacks, flatbeds are available here, but not everybody wants them.



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