2020 Ford Super Duty: Spied

I-8w4k7BL-XL II

The Truck Wars are marching at a fevered pitch across all pickup truck classes as all three heavy-duty truckmakers get ready to come to market with all-new or updated pickups. GM and Ram will offer new three-quarter-ton and one-ton trucks, while Ford will have something more akin to a mid-model refresh for the 2020 model year. Here's what our spy shooters caught recently in Dearborn, Mich.

"This is our first look at the revised Ford F-Series Super Duty. The Super Duty models will undergo some moderate updates when the next-generation 2020 models come out, including updates already seen on the 2018 F-150. These changes are likely to include a new 10-speed automatic transmission and some of Ford's Co-Pilot360 driver safety technology.

"The bigger changes, we're hearing, are under the hood. A new V-8 engine is slated to replace the aging 6.8-liter V-10 gasoline unit (now only available on medium-duty trucks), thereby improving fuel economy. According to our sources, the new engine will be a 7.0-liter V-8 with production slated for Windsor, Ontario. Outside, the front end will sport a new grille and redesigned headlights, while the rear will likely mimic the changes seen on the Ford F-150 with revised taillights, tailgate and a new tailgate latch.

"The 2020 Ford Super Duty is slated to be released in 2019."

SpiedBilde images

 

I-v3dXSZG-XL II

I-2XZgXHN-XL II

I-jVksnM9-XL II

 

Comments

What I find interesting is the aerodynamic kick-up at the rear of the cab roof and the 7.0 [429?] V8.
Posted by: redbloodedxy | Aug 9, 2018 7:59:57 AM

Yeah it looks absolutely terrible. Same with the narrow looking cab. I think Ford is pushing the fuel economy too much by trying to squeeze the cab and reduce drag. The end result is a goofy looking truck with an ugly cab spoiler.

May as well learn to lime the look. You will be looking at a lot of them

Ok, papa. I guess my humor is a bit to subtle for your brittle grey matter. So let me be more blunt. You sir seek your own council much like like the former Senator of South Carolina Ernest Fritz Hollings. I am certain you have enough ring on your tree trunk to know who that is and perhaps why he is the stated example. In case you were asleep for the later half of the 20th century, what that means and why council is the appropriate descriptive word, the implication being of one talking to himself in public and agreeing with himself.Doing a google to find alleged support by quoting a legal descriptive from a school that you have no association with other than possibly a Blue Devils fan has really done you no service other than to further demonstate pomposity.

Oh just in case that wasn't enough to have a Rumpelstiltskin response. The Difference between grey and gray is dialectical.

yup, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UEWFoS-S_Y

@COOF

You write like an idiot. Consider yourself corrected.

Your local junior college probably offers remedial spelling and composition classes, or if needed a GED.

Good luck.

@ fullsize
The Windsor was a good small displacement engine, great power to weight, compact, and versatile.
In the 5.8 (351) combo it suffered due to small ports, inefficient chamber design, poor cylinder full efficiency, and high emissions. The redesigned Explorer P-heads made a huge leap in combustion efficiency, but even when swapped to a 351, there is a high-rpm fill problem. While there are plenty of aftermarket heads, cams, and intakes they alleviate this, it doesn’t solve it. It was an adequate truck engine, but even in Lightning tune, made merely 10 HP more than a 318 Magnum Dodge.
In the displacement world, the 351M rocked all over the 351W.
As far as Gen I vortecs vs LS series, natural evolution of design.
Pretty sad that a small bore 305 (vortec 5000) produced 230 hp, 285 lbs ft, and a speed density 351W produced 210/300. A Magnum 318 was 230/300.
The 351W was never that great. Even at its peak. And it 100% because of the heads.

papajim has met his match.

@TNTGMC et al

The 351W and the 460 had emissions issues.
Ford knew this in the 80s when they launched their modular (later called Triton) design. At the time Engineering wisdom and technology presented that the ideal bore for peak cylinder pressure and low emissions was 90mm. Ford invested heavily in a small bore, narrow spacing, V8 that would fit in front-Wheel drive chassis, and be configurable to a V10. When the first 4.6L engines rolled out they were comparable to the 302 in sedans, but the Fox body was too narrow to fit the mod motor. The SN95 redesign of the Mustang was launched after the it leaked that the Fox based Mustang would be moved to a new FWD Probe replacement platform, and people panicked. The continuation of the 302 was needed as a redesign of the 4.6 Head for Mustangs began. Then, in 1993 the Grand Cherokee with a V8 hit the market. Ford needed a V8 Explorer, but again the 4.6 wouldn’t fit, so the P-series Head was designed to lower emissions in 5.0 Explorers. But, as soon as they hit the market, savy folks saw the potential and put them on roller 5.0HOs and saw significant gains. Suddenly, the Mustang 4.6, is less powerful than the old 302 with the new heads. Then comes the PI heads, etc.
Ford bet big on the OHC Modualr engines and it bit them hard.
The V10 3V is a fantastic heavy truck engine, arguably the best HD truck gasser ever, but it is a fuel pig and large. The 4.6 and 5.4 were never that great, but at the end really sad examples of yesterday’s tech, adopted too soon, and ran too long. They are undersquare engines, like the Toyota 5.7 iFarce, which makes them excellent in steady state, slower in their ability to rev.
Square or oversqare engines have less bore swept area (friction), larger bores for bigger valves and more efficient cylinder filling, and the torque output is a function of the bore area, so big bore, with efficient filling, equals great torque.
Ford has a history of early adaptation of engine design, then changing later. GM has always played the long-game, slowly evolving tech, and shuttering that which isn’t efficient, effective, or necessary. Case in point Northstar.

@James

There is no single engine design (oversquare, undersquare) that will hit all the bases. We should be talking truck engines here.

Truck engines need to hit a high percentage of their max torque before 2000 RPM. This idea is just as important as displacement.

Worrying about high RPM performance in a vehicle that idles as much as a work truck does, or requires the use of 4 bolt mains (or six?) and forged rods and cranks, simply adds unnecessary cost to the production.

All that hi-revving stuff is fine for sports cars and racing engines but economy, durability and other practical considerations are much more important.

It's my opinion that Ford could revive the Windsor engines, with modest updates to the fuel systems, cooling systems and spark control and make some great truck engines.

Geez Papajim got seriously schooled. I looked up that Senator, yikes. The other Senators were sayin he was out to lunch ,his cheese slid off the cracker. One of them said
" he seeks his own council,".

Short and stubby. I like the f450 regular cab.

@ james

The Ford 5.8L (351W) was a reliable and excellent V8 engine that offered an upgrade in truck moving torque over the 5.0L. For its intended application the 5.8L did just fine with non-GT40 style cylinder heads. The old fashioned (poor) cylinder head design you speak of was just as bad or worse in the V8's used by Fords competition in 1988 when the 5.8L speed density was released. Now can you impress me and tell me what 80's and most early 90's factory truck V8 engines didnt "suffer" from "high-rpm fill problems"?? As for high emissions? You ever drive behind a 1987-95 GM TBI truck?? You can almost taste the unburned hydrocarbons!

I agree that Ford should have updated the heads/fuel induction later in the 5.8L's run to make it a more competitive truck engine than even the 240HP/340TQ Lightning version. You compare the Ford 5.8L to a Magnum that came out in 1992 and to a Vortec that came out in 1996, but in 1988 the 5.8L beat GM's 5.7L in TQ (tied in HP) and beat the Dodge 360 in both.

" As far as Gen I vortecs vs LS series, natural evolution of design." Umm NO. Now the 1955-2003 SBC was an evolution of design. The LS engine is a clean sheet design whose evolution dates back to 1997.


@Chingon would they should be scared about is the issues with the seatbelts catching on fire from the current F-150's, that's the latest news coming from the Ford...now with that type of problem, that's a garbage vehicle for sure.

Yawn another Ford the will look like dog %^$&^ on the street corner, and won't last 100,000 miles even being on the pavement with out being broke down.

Yawn another Ford the will look like dog %^$&^ on the street corner, and won't last 100,000 miles even being on the pavement with out being broke down.

The only thing great about a RAM it's cummins Diesel motor , which they don't make. The rest of the truck is crap!

I'm glad they're changing the front end, i called corporate about it and asked them if they could revise it, way too square! I'm glad they listen.



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 | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us