Ford Hoping to Steal Thunder With 2015 Ford F-150

2013 Ford F-150_KR II

With much of the attention on GM and the debut of its important half-ton pickup trucks, Automotive News cites an unnamed source inside Ford that is saying when the 2015 Ford F-150 comes around, there will be some game-changing technology under the hood that could offer as much as 15 to 20 percent more fuel economy. 

The story says Ford will be looking at every aspect of the truck to shave off as much weight as possible, which means components like the brakes, frame, axles and other heavier chassis components are likely to go on a diet. Whether they can squeeze as much as 750 or 900 pounds from a full-size pickup is likely to have some truck experts quite skeptical. We'll see. 

Additiionally, there are reports coming out of Detroit, reported by Automotive News, that Ford may show its 2015 F-150 at the North American International Auto Show in January in an attempt to steal a little bit of GM's thunder with the recently debuted pickup truck sibliings and the coming new Corvette. It probably cannot be overstated how competitive Ford and GM can be, especially when they're trying to break through the clutter of the sights and sounds of the most important domestic auto show.  

It should be noted that little has been heard about the Ford and Toyota partnership for full-size pickup hybrid technology that was struck two years ago. No doubt more will be heard as the both companies get closer to the stair-stepped EPA regulartion that will require better city, highway and combined fuel-economy numbers from full-size pickups. 

In the meantime, it looks like Ford has a strong-looking baby Power Stroke (sitting inside the coming Transit commercial van and derived from the global Ranger powerplant) that could work quite well. Some early reports have the unofficial horsepower/torque numbers in the 200/400 range. 

2014 Transit 3.2L PSD II



Ok Mark. That's about the tenth hint you've dropped on the baby powerstroke. What do you know?

I would love to see a baby Powerstroke F150 offered, especially if the F150 lost ~700lbs on average.

ford has became the "look at me dad" kid of the crowd.. surely gets peeps attention .. but has gotten boring now...

I wonder if we're going to see something from the Ford and Toyota partnership; somewhere along the lines of the hybrid pickup truck powertrain making it to market earlier than anticipated.

My 2010 TRX4 will out brake, out haul, and be much more safe to ride in then the 2015 F150. Oh yeah and my trannymission gear ratio's will stomp the Ford in all ways! BAA BAA RAM!

Ford has been making a habit of this lately. Biggest one yet had been squashing the 560HP ZL1 news with the 660HP Shelby announcement.

I'd *love* to see an F150 diesel, and with all the other diesel products coming out, it seems very possible.

Still, the diesel option on the F150 would be pricey and could steal some sales from the big trucks...not sure it makes a lot of sense. I guess we'll have to wait and see!

I think the reason that they are not bringing the Global Ranger to North America is the future F150 will be lighter and a bit smaller in dimension. Therefore there is no need for the Ranger. Hope to see the baby Power Stroke in the F150.

GM has been making a habbit out of not updating quickly enough. GM should have refreshed their trucks 2 years ago and done an all new truck in 2014 like Ford.

But wheen you wait, the other guys come in and steals your thunder. What I am reading is that GM's trucks will be evolutionary and Ford's will be revolutionary. They say GM will not beat Ford with its evolutionary design unless Ford has some sort of quality problem in 2014.

When and if the government sells its shares of GM, the new owner should get an all new management team so this doeesn't keep happening to GM.

Sick of these 'teases'.

"GM Committed To 2010 Light-Duty Diesel Even If Buyer's Aren't
Posted by Mike Levine | January 20, 2009"

torque news, diesel power mag, motortrend, and you too, have been used by the OEM's to stir up interest/controversity/hope for a 1/2 ton diesel. Every time one of the big three burps these sources jump on it like it was the second coming. Yet the last 1/2 ton diesel offering was way back in 1998. That gave them a decade before the collapse and bailouts. I get that it takes time to design a product, but really, ten years isn't enough? If it takes that long to bring a new product to market then they shouldn't BE in that business. It's all about $. Quote from Ford exc. in 2009

"a diesel F-150 would mean less profit from diesel Super Dutys and gasoline F-150's."

Fact is that NONE of the oem's want to bring a 1/2 ton diesel to market. It's not that they can't.
Until you see 1/2 ton diesels on the lot for sale, it's so much vaporware. All of them are waiting for somebody else to blink. Right now it looks like that might just be Ram. And if Sergio really does put the 3.0l Motari diesel engine in the Ram 1500 then you can be sure that GM and Ford will follow, I don't think they will have a choice. What will be telling is just how fast it will happen.

My prediction: One of the big three will put a diesel motor in a 1/2 ton. ( I'm betting on Ram) and then within ONE year both of the other two will have them for sale also. One year or less, not ten or fifteen years. Any of the big three could have put one out at any time. The business case they use to justify not doing it is simple, yet wrong-headed thinking. To wit: While a diesel 1/2 should sell well and make the company more money overall. Making a baby diesel will lower profit PER UNIT. Especially on the most profitable units, which are? ( drum roll ) Big diesel pickups, 3/4, 1 ton and larger.

This horrible thought process took hold in the 80's and drove most of what you now see in the business world.

Anyone remember who Gordon Gecko was?

Ford will just reveal the looks of the new truck with a few spec teases. I highly doubt they will talk about any engines that far in advance.

Just surfed around different sites regarding 3.2 Duratorque production and found that South Africa is the only country that is ramping up production by only 31 000 engines a year for the US market.

With an increase that low I can't see it being a viable proposition for Ford to slot this engine into the F-150.

Maybe F-150 production from Thailand or Europe could be in the pipeline in the future. Thailand would be the cheapest country to produce these engines.

The quoted power/torque figure seem a bit odd. If this engine is putting out 400ftlbs of torque I would assume the engine would be at least 220hp.

It's always nice to see somebody using your name here. I guess I must have pissed you off?


Ford is coming out with an all-new truck? Ha! I'll believe it when I see it!! All I have seen lately are some simple grille changes and dash/interior changes. All of their trucks have looked the same for years now. No thanks. I'll stick to my 2012 Ram.

I doubt we will see the I-5 find its way into the F150. It would be a good fit but as previously pointed out on other threads, we North Americans are power hungry. A V6 diesel would be a better fit. All of the European SUV's in NA have V6 diesel options that provide similar performance to their gasser counterparts with 20-30% mpg advantage at a $3,500 average price premium. That price would be more than premium gasser options like the 6.2 Ford or GM and be well below HD diesel prices.

If Ford does anything "Revolutionary" then they would need to introduce a diesel, and/or a good hybrid, and/or the rumoured magnesium frame (that may be monocoque). Mike Levine dropped a few hints about that frame when he was PUTC Editor.

@TRX Tom - "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".
Except on PUTC ;)

I love big butts and I cannot lie!!!!

I almost forgot...

I love RAM trucks and their loyal owners and I cannot lie.

Why are they so focused on mpg ?

I really dont care most trucks got between 12-16 average mpg since the 70's (and probably before that as well)

My current truck gets 15 ish mpg on average and its great,I drive alot but I dont find it hard on gas.It has a V-8 with lots of pick up and go,I just dont want a fullsize with a 6 cyl I just cannot stand the sound of a 6 cyl engine.And I dont care if my truck gets 28 mpg because my wifes car gets that and I dont find a huge difference between a vehicle getting 15 mpg and 28 mpg.If you find that you cannot afford $1 a day more to drive a real vehicle I guess you shouldnt drive at all,stop complaining like a bunch of babies about mpg,I want mph not mpg for the love of God...

Is there any precedence for a weight reduction of 900 lbs? That is an *enormous* projected weight reduction. Even dropping 300 lbs is a lot, but as much as triple that?

I am wondering if anything similar has happened before, or if this is just a boast/prediction with little else to support it.

Fuel economy is the #1 reason buyers switch brands.

I own two vans and i live in one of them down by the river. I have nothing better to do than give the perception i am the almighty know all of pickups. I have soo much free time to post on here because im on unemployment and holding out for a management position.

I don't understand why everybody wants diesels. Maybe they're not good at math. I just left Florida to head for Michigan and saw one station with gas for 2.97 and diesel for 4.09! The least difference I saw was .62 cents. When you add the cost for the diesel option, there is no way you can save the difference. Why don't people get this.

"According to some, Ford will have plenty of MPG-sipping options for buyers in the next few years."

If a new Ranger isn't among the options, then I'm not interested.

Lou: yes I am power hungry, but not a speed demon! I would love to see a reg cab 6.5'bed F-150 with the baby diesels in it, expecialy if they have aready proven it overseas!, just emagine a 4500lb 4X4 F-150 (with weight savings) and a 6,8 or 10 speed tranny! even with just 200hp, but 350-400lbft of sweet glorious torque! now that would be nice! wether it is a Ram with a small VM, or a Chevy/GMC with a baby Dura-Max! that would be worth waiting for to trade this EB on! something to pull my Airsteam up through the mnts, without effort, and at safe speeds! and get great mpg too! smething like that could get around 25cty30hyw? and loaded or towing at 18-20? that would be the best in my book!

I'm going to strongly doubt some of that conjecture--unless you're saying the F-150 will become the new Ranger (or vice versa).

Taking weight off of safety-essential components like brakes, running gear, frame, etc. means that while you may be saving gas, you're practically guaranteeing breakage in components when you most need them. You're pushing for shorter life span of critical components which will greatly increase cost of ownership. The only way you can effectively reduce weight on a full-sized truck is to physically downsize it. At 66% of the current size, you could save as much as 25% of the weight if not more and realize a 25% or more fuel savings due to less wind resistance (due to frontal size) and overall weight. Simply reducing the NEED for massive V8s could realize enormous savings and even if you did keep them, the lighter body and aerodynamics would realize less load on the engine for better economy.

By the way, this argument is just as true for GM and RAM as it is for Ford. At least the grill pictured above isn't quite so, "Hey, look at me! I'm a Big Rig Wannabe!"

I think TY makes a good point about the diesels. I think all of them are more or less ready to offer one they just don't want to be the first because in the long run they would make less money. Maybe they made some kind of secret deal with each other not to release a small diesel?

I did a little math about MPG. If your fuel averaged 3.50 per gallon and you drove 100,000 miles a jump from 16 to 20 MPG would save you 4,370 dollars. A jump from 20 to 24 MPG would save you 2,916 dollars. Take that for what you will but I do think a lot of people overestimate how much money they save with a small increase in MPG. That's quite a jump in MPG with really not a huge amount of money saved, especially if you don't drive a ton. If you shop around and buy at the right time you can easily save that much money from a rebate. If you are spending over 35,000 on a truck and you don't drive it a ridiculous amount then MPG should probably be low on your list of priorities.

With that information I would definitely choose a truck with reliability and power over one with fuel economy. 2 or 3 mpg means very little in actual money savings.

I don't know why guys are spazzing out about this. You can keep strength, but lose weight with lighter but stronger materials. There are also other ways.

If you like oldschool pickups and want to keep driving your 10 year old pickup, that is fine. But you need to accept the fact that the new models will built differently to borrow from Chevy, stronger, more capable, smarter.

People always fear change. You have nothing to fear but fear itself.

I don't know why guys are spazzing out about this. You can keep strength, but lose weight with lighter but stronger materials. There are also other ways.

If you like oldschool pickups and want to keep driving your 10 year old pickup, that is fine. But you need to accept the fact that the new models will be built differently and to borrow from Chevy - will be stronger, more capable, smarter.

People always fear change. You have nothing to fear but fear itself.

@TRX Tom - so you and your truck somehow traveled to the future so you could do a side by side comparison with the 2015 F150? Seems like there's much better things to be done with time travel than that!

Here's a question for y'all: Why is Ford hyping a new truck that won't be seen for 2 YEARS to compete with a truck coming out in only 6 months?

@Lou-Does that management position include herding goats? Oh I forgot they want to be called sheep. Sheep is more appropriate. The sheep need a new shepherd they are wandering aimlessly in the pasture. GUTLESS, GLORYLESS, and full of SPAM.

Only 6 months is a little opptimistic. They "start production" in the second quarter of next year with other cabs and styles starting production later in the year. Ford will start up their 2014 before GM and make a short run. Then it will be onto the 2015.

@ ():
Let's start with the fact that you've made it quite obvious that your wife drives a lot more than you do; there is no way you would be driving the same miles as she at only $1 more per day. In fact, again by your own words, you drive barely more than half as much as she does. It's no wonder you're not complaining. How about you two swapping vehicles for a week and see what happens to your wallet keeping that truck filled up?

Secondly, despite all the opposition, our planet IS running out of crude oil; the cost of finding, drilling and pumping crude has gone so high that it has become economical to mine and process tar for its oil content. Next thing you know, the LaBrea Tar Pits will be a national resource for its oil content rather than its fossil records.

Let's also look at the fact that gasoline prices are 10X what they were 50 years ago and almost 5X what they were a mere 10 years ago. That means your '70s vintage truck (assumption based on your description of truck gas mileage) now costs about 8X more to fill up the tanks than it did when you bought it. Not everybody can afford to spend nearly $100 per tank of gas; especially not when they used to spend a mere $10 or $15 do do so within their lifetimes.

A simple example: I used to drive a car that got me to work and back--a 60 mile round trip-- for $1 per day--using 4 gallons of gas. That same trip today would cost me over $13 using the same car with no other changes. However, when your car gets double the gas mileage, it cuts that cost in half--a still exhorbitant $6.50 per day, but over a 5-day work week that becomes $32.50 instead of $65. That remaining $32.50 pays for a decent meal at a decent restaurant.

Now, imagine if I were commuting more than twice as far per day as I did a mere 10 years ago at today's gas prices. Unless you're making a very high hourly wage or have a good salary in the 6-digit range, you're almost spending more money than you make just to drive to work!

Do you really still wonder why mpg is so important today?

@Jason: Don't you mean, "Lighter, stronger AND MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE materials"?

You do realize that today's cars and trucks cost as much as a brand-new house only 50 years ago, don't you? If we keep going with more exotic materials, soon enough nobody will be able to afford to drive anything.

Ford can't just use fairy dust to up mpg ratings like they do with their tottering numbers. Looks like they will actually change something.

@Lou, Jeff S and anyone interested
After reading this cut and paste from a research paper I now understand the hierarchal structure of the Fiat Fanbois on this site. Interesting read.

It appears Fiat boys are a breeding flock of sheep, not all are rams as some are ewes:)

Dominance Effects
If multiple rams are used in a breeding flock, it is likely that a dominance hierarchy will
develop. In some situations, this may have serious management implications. For example, the
dominant ram may be genetically inferior, in which case the lambs which result would be likely
to be of inferior quality. Another potentially serious problem that may occur is when the
dominant ram is infertile or sub-fertile. The could easily cause a drastic decrease in lambing
Mature rams will almost always dominate over yearling rams. All other things being
equal, larger rams will tend to dominate smaller rams. Sometimes smaller rams are more
aggressive, however, and may breed more ewes.
Rams will normally display agonistic (fighting) behavior when introduced into the ewe
flock. In some cases this can result in injury or exhaustion. Rams will tend to fight longer if
they are evenly matched. Fewer problems may occur when three rams are used instead of two.
It has been observed that subordinate rams may exhibit considerable sniffing/Flehmen
activity with ewes in early estrus while giving way to dominant males for mating during peak

It's called inflation. Believe what you want, but you're not in the market for one anyway. You hate full-sizes. You can be grouped into the fanboys that are not in the market for anything but just want discredit them.

@Big Al from Oz - that sums it up rather well. A bunch of subordinate male sheep trying to move up the pecking order.

@sandman4x4 - I share the same views, I want enough power to do the job safely. A small diesel would be great but too many use the gas pedal like a light switch - full power on or full power off. Those types would complain too much and probably kill the deal. That is what happened to the original F450. Too many people didn't like the speed limited original so Ford bastardized it into a glorified F350 so those idiots could pull their 19K fiver at 85 mph.
Too many equate speed with power to do the job.

Motor Trend's Truck of the Year will steal Ford's and Chevy's thunder.


Wow, it's 2012 and we're talking about 2015 truck.
Ford must be liking those 2014 Silverados and Sierras since they are so desperate to "steal the thunder".

@beebee - Your math is spot on. It's ridiculous to give up 5,000 lbs of towing capacity for an extra 2mpg highway. It would take around a million miles to accumulate any significant cost savings, and all that savings would be wasted by the fact that you would have to contract out any heaving towing to a more capable truck.

The 56mpg CAFE figure is the biggest stupidity of them all. Set realistic targets, 40mpg for all cars, 30 mpg for trucks. Fuel economy increases above those levels have no real monetary value for anyone but fleet operators.

We started talking about it in 2010.

Why should Ford wait? The 2014 Silverado and 2015 F-150 are less than a year apart.

GM fans must be pretty worried since they want Ford to stop talking.

Just when GM thinks they have all the answers, Ford changes the question.

Paul, they are not less then a year apart. Chevy goes on sale spring/summer of '13 , Ford fall of '14 if everything goes according to plan.
Chevy fans are not worried. They've just seen their truck. Ford is worrying since they feel the need to "steal the thunder" IMO

The 2.7 liter V6 Eco-boost is supposed to be a replacement for the 3.7 liter V6.

It's assumed that it will have approx 300HP and 300lbs of torque and add another 1-2 Mpg to the F150.

Greg, If GM was smart they would have updated as they went along. If you're not worried why do you concern yourself with Ford's motives? You say they are desperate. No, Ford is always staying ahead of the game, unlike Government Motors.

@toycrusher - the CAFE 56 mpg number once filtered towards real world mpg is less than that. Typical government rules are very convoluted. The mpg number seen on a typical window sticker is much less than the goverment standard that is used to base CAFE. I tried once to read through some explanations and basically gave up in frustration.

@Gregory J - "Ford is worried". Yes, if they are paying attention to what is going around them. Ford is just protecting their own interests. If they can take the wind out of the sails (sales) of GMC by preemptive strikes, then that is what they will do.
You ever notice that when there is GM or Ram news on this site, multiple Ford news tidbits (even minor news) surfaces almost immediately. Ford's PR team is at the top of their game.
Ford has clawed #1 truck sales from GMC in reference to "combined" sales. They may claim number 1 "brand", but they prefer to be #1 cumulatively. A market shift of a few percentage points can make the difference between making money and loosing money. Billions of dollars are literally at stake.

@wa2be & Lou: obviously somebody likes playing around and posting in my name. I never said my 2010 Ram 1500 could out tow or carry more then a Ford. But I did point out that the Ram out braked the Ford in Motor Trends truck of the year. By a good amount. it seems some folks on here are so obsessed with how fast the Ecoboost will get their X amount of weight to 60 mph, or through the 1/4 mile. It's nice stuff to know, but aren't there other things, like braking? Turning diameter? Ford and GM are both behind Ram on that. Toyota Tundras turn the smallest diameter, thanks to the fact that they let it turn further from lock to lock, ie, slower ratio, but more turning. I also pointed out the Ram did a good job stopping with a load in the bed, unlike the Chevy and Tundra, in the last shootout. The Ford did good, better then the Ram, but hey, it was a single cab truck vs. a quad cab! It should have.Or maybe it was that I pointed out the Ford in that 30 K shootout jacked up the autocross with 1,000 pounds in the bed. Good thing their payload ratings are so high! I will take a lower payload rating in a truck that will handle it better!

I did say my 2010 Ram is safer then a current Ford in some ways, such as a head on accident. All a person has to do is look up the details on IIHS tests. I also said the ford did great in a side impact test, and I didn't say the Ford roof was stronger (it is)) but I DID SAY the Ram roof was weaker. That's what I said.

I have no idea how the Ram will compare to the 2015 Ford, cause duh, we don't know anything about a truck that's not here. But I do believe the ram gets a total redsign then? That will get the GM and Ford fellers wound up here.

However, I did say the new Rams 8 speed is a better set of gear ratios. With say a 3.21 gear ratio it will get the same loaded down truck moving easier then the Tundra or almost as easy as a Ford with 3.73s will. While at the same time having a numerically better gear for highway cruising. The Ram lost points on the 2008 light duty shootout offroad event due to not enough low gear in 1st gear to slow it while rolling down the hill, now it's differant. Oh, by the way, all but the Ram and the Titan scrapped ass in that offroad event, the Tundra has a low frame and crossmember, and the crossmembers of the GM and Ford. It also lost out in other parts of that shootout due to the the second gear being so numerically low, and not as close to first gear. Or, if you want to tow heavier, you can get the 8 speed with 3.55s and have alot more gear then any 3.73 geared Ford yet highway rpm in 8th gear alot lower. Not as much change in RPM per shift, so you might need only 300 rpm more instead of say downshifting and needing say 500 more rpm in the 6 speed trucks. The 8 speed is alot smoother. It must be good, sales of Chargers and Chrysler 300s are going up.

I have also said in the past the current Ram 5 or 6 speed, whatever you call it, same since 2003 or so, is lacking compared to Ford, GM, and especially Tundras 6 speed. One thing it does do with the two close 2nd gears is if I need a bit more power, it can go from the 1.5 third to the 1.67 2nd, or vice versa, if I don't need all that much power, it can use the 1.5 gear instead.

Gotta laugh at those that thing all that matters is how fast their Ecoboost will make it up the hill, or the GM folks with how good the mileage is. (While the current 5.3 power sucks!)

The comments to this entry are closed.