All camo'ed up, it looks pretty similar to last gen. I hope they are hiding some big improvements.

Anyways, I won't be too excited until I start seeing spy shots of an F100/Ranger prototype..... (very unlikely at this point). In the meantime, I'll keep waiting for the midsize replacements.

It looks like the whole truck is lower-like about 3 inches lower-probably for higher MPG. Easier to use the bed, easier to load the bed, that would be a very good thing. I do not see the "Atlas" in this. I wonder if the Atlas was really the next gen F250??

People who buy 8' beds are not much worried about off-roading. as long as it can manage a job site's dirt "roads" it is good to go.

Come on 2015 Super Duty!!! Ford should put 4'' pistons in the Power Stroke, making it 7.0L.

I am thankful that they put on that camo to cover up all of that ugliness. RAM has this beat by a mile and it hasn't even hit the market yet.

That thing got bigger wheel well gaps then the chevy and gmc you could carry Mexicans into the US in them wheel well gaps.

I know it's all cladded up pretty good, but could this be the end of the dippy dip on the front doors?
Also, tires and wheels are way wrong on this.

Those doors do NOT look rear-hinged to me, though I admit the gap between front and rear door windows is rather small.

Where is Lou? I would like to read his comments as well.

The cab looks the same, with the same clam shell doors. Thier is a lot of padding on the Roof, I suspect maybe the ladder try rack that we saw on the Atlas.

Looks like the hood has a little more slope to it, glad they didn't go bigger and higher like GM with the rediculously square nose.

I looks funny with these small wheels and it doesn't look any different from current truck.
That article that was pulled after a day comes back to mind, where some douche from Ford said that F150 won't change much with it's next redesign. So far it looks like it's true.

I actually saw the new F150/Ranger in Kingman, Arizona last week, all camouflaged. The reason I think it might have been a Ranger because it was a crew cab and it looked much smaller then this truck. 2015 Mustang was leading it, all camoued up as well.
I wish I was fast enough to take some pics!

This looks to be a 2-wheel drive version to my eyes. I am more curious about the long discussed weight savings and the aero mods.

As I have long noted the only way to get significantly better highway miles isn't from infinte speed tranys but from improved aero. Ford's task is to balance the increased aero without making it look "girly" or "like a unibody car." I suspect since most of the truck makers are already at or above the incremental CAFE requirements that the changes will be modest and with a refresh in 2018 there might be a few more power train tweaks to bump everything by 1 again.

I think the only major change might be Ford dropping the 6.2 from the lineup since it is the biggest gas hog and the ecoboost is seriously under tuned. They can easily get figures that beat the 6.2 with likely improved mpg's so why bother.

Looks like it will have some more caracter lines instead of slab sided. Thier is a nice bulge running down the side of the truck about six inches from the bottom.

looks like a stripper contractor version with the small tires on it.

It's not terribly good looking covered in camo. Here's hoping for an improvement when the camo gets lost...

It looks very "Droopy", is, I guess, the best way to sum it up.

Yes! Great to see that my favorite cab/bed config won't be going away anytime soon, unlike SOME other companies I can mention...*coughChevycoughhack*
The sloped windows are definitely reminiscent of the current Tundra as well as the new Silverados, but I suppose 11 years will be enough for the Kenworth-style "daylight door".

@Toycrusher: I think the reason it looks "droopy" is because this particular model is a 2WD (so the body "droops" over the front wheels), and the camo sheets are drooping over the body.

Appears to be a black Canvas in the rear wheel wells where the suspension would normally be visible. I'm betting this truck is getting Coils.

That camo is hiding the dip in the front doors, but I am sure Ford will keep this look. Hopefully the Supercab will adopt front hinged doors, tho that is a moot point to me, since I always buy SuperCrew models. I will not comment much tho, because there is too much camo to know for sure what Ford has up their sleeves, but I am sure it will be good. Ford better do it right, because I am looking to sell my lifted and supercharged 05 so I can turn my 11 Ecoboost into my mudding/hunting truck, and buy a new 15. I personally would love to see Ecoboost grow to the 3.7 block. As much as I love my 3.5, a little extra displacement can only be good. Also, as much as I love the 6.2, it is a little overkill. How about enlarging that Coyote to something like a 5.5 or 5.6 Liter for their premium F-150 engine, and keep the beastly 6.2 for Super Duty. In any case, I will be watching diligently for more spy photos to see what my future truck will look like. Keep em' coming PUT.com. I am busting at the seems here. 15 is going to be a good year for Ford, because I am also looking to trade my 06 Mustang GT w/ Vortech V3 supercharger and 6 speed tremec TKO manual trans (installed by me) for an IRS Mustang if it is as sweet as I anticipate it to be.

@MatthewJohn
Will you toss me some of your extra vehicles?

@CDN Mark,
It will depend on the sales of the Colorado.

@ Johnny....I will be fair with the price......the Mustang has just 18k miles on it, and the 05 F150 has 168k.....I have been tossing numbers around in my head as to what my asking price will be.

@MatthewJohn
That's OK. Don't work too hard, I'm waiting to see the next F150 just like you.

Rear hinged doors suck, I've hated them on both trucks I've had with them. The front hinged doors on the Quad Cab Ram (and now the GM twins) is just a better design. However, I think more buyers are going the full crew can route these days anyways, so maybe it's not such a big deal.

That said, I'm really curious to see what Ford has up their sleeve here. They almost always seem to set the trends in this segment.

@A L: I disagree--because front-hinged back doors on an extended cab almost ruins the purpose of having an extended cab--easy access to the area behind the seat.

I for one do NOT like the idea of having to climb out of the cab, take that 'step' to the back, open a door and then walk back and forth AROUND that door to move things between front and back. If you just happen to be at the side of the road, every time you step around that door, you're stepping into the path of traffic, risking your own life with each trip.

Now, I do know the reasoning behind front-hinging the rear doors--safety regulations pretty much demanded a stiffer body in the event of a side collision. However, by simply putting a pillar there and having the latch for both front AND back doors on it would have satisfied the need while still keeping the so-called 'suicide door' configuration.

@Brian: No canvas there. I zoomed in on the images and could clearly see framing components, though not much in the way of suspension. I think you're right about the coils, though.

"Yes! Great to see that my favorite cab/bed config won't be going away anytime soon, unlike SOME other companies I can mention..."

I agree with David. I'm glad the 8' bed SuperCab F-150 is coming back.

Also these wheels look pretty nice for a work truck.

I hope they ditch the 7 lug wheels from the HD Payload Package. This one here has 6 lugs, but it may be a non-heavy duty 8' bed.

Pickups overall have to get longer and/or wider to meet CAFE footprint.

You wills see more twin cabs and extra cabs with longer beds.

It's the same length and you still cannot find any 8' beds on the Ford lots. Ram and Chevy discontinued their 8' bed extended cabs. However, CAFE standards is another matter and a failed program and can be repealed. It may be possible in 2016+.

Why the Government's CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/07/cafe-standards-should-be-repealed

@Dave
That's an interesting discussion paper. Changes have been made to CAFE since 2001 when it was written.

I've read a little on CAFE and from my understanding the larger the footprint the bigger the engine in a 'commercial' vehicle in the US.

These vehicles can be a CUV, SUV, pickup, van, LDT, MDT and LDT. This covers a large range of vehicles. Also, I heard they are looking at delineating between vehicle types ie, more commercial to less commercial (recreational) style vehicles. So they might be looking at the difference between vehicles for work and play.

That's why midsizers like the Colorado will have to have the twin cabs with a 6' bed. Or for a V8 to be 'legit' an extra cab or twin cab with a small V8.

I mentioned in another article that the Ram with the 6.5' bed, 8spd and Pentastar is what to expect in the future with your pickups and the costs incurred will be significant. This Ram still doesn't meet what is needed in a few years time.

I really think the Big 3, UAW and US government should look at the policies governing and regulating your vehicle industry and market.

I've been put down for these views in the past but the best thing the US can do is remove CAFE, remove the Chicken Tax and align to the UNECE. This will allow for pickups without as much expense in design and manufacture with unnecessary technology like shutters, variable suspension, exotic materials, etc. Someone is going to pay for this stuff.

Some of this is necessary, but it would be better to build pickups that had the same capabilities as 20 years ago with the new engines, including diesel. This would reduce fuel usage and reduce emissions while still having more or less the same.

That's why I'm of the opinion that something has to change or the Big 3 will need bailouts again, pickups are great, but protecting them from competition, then strangling them from within is a really bad policy. It might have some short term gain, but in the longer term it spells disaster for them.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that it just looks like they put padding and camo on a current gen truck with some different wheels. It's a smart move on Ford's part to keep the Spy Photographers busy taking pictures of their vehicles so there is more hype for Ford. To me this doesn't look like anything new, just a marketing ploy which works to their advantage. The new GM's are out right now, so of course Ford is going to entice people to want to wait for the new F-150. No doubt the new F-150 will be an improvement over the current one, but knowing Ford they are not going to give too much away..

Here is some interesting information on how screwed up the EPA and CAFE are. It tells how the EPA screws diesel over gas when estimating fuel usage. How the PT Cruiser under CAFE was a car, but for MPG figures under the EPA it was a truck.

This rest of this article is on Wikipedia under, Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

SUVs and minivans created due to original mandate[edit source | editbeta]

The definitions for cars and trucks are not the same for fuel economy and emission standards. For example, a Chrysler PT Cruiser is defined as a car for emissions purposes and a truck for fuel economy purposes.[12] Under the current light truck fuel economy rules, the PT Cruiser will have a higher fuel economy target (28.05 mpg beginning in 2011) than it would if it were classified as a passenger car.[75]

CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but legendary former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca developed the idea of marketing the minivan as a station wagon alternative, while certifying it in the separate truck category to allow compliance with less-strict emissions standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the promotion of the SUV.[76][77] This trend has reversed itself since the crossover has eroded SUV sales - during the mid-2000s, SUVs must conform with emission standards and a crossover is defined as a car for fuel economy purposes.

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and California disagreed with the NHTSA statement in the 2008-2011 Light Truck standard which claimed preemption of the state greenhouse gas regulations, on the basis that fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions are one and the same. The EPA[78] claims, contrary to NHTSA, that the use of alternative fuels allows greenhouse gas emissions to be controlled somewhat independently of fuel efficiency.

Calculations of MPG overestimated[edit source | editbeta]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laboratory measurements of MPG have consistently overestimated fuel economy of gasoline vehicles and underestimated diesel vehicles.[79]

John DeCicco, the automotive expert for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), estimated that this results in about 20% higher actual consumption than measured CAFE goals.[80] Starting with 2008-model vehicles, the EPA has adopted a new protocol for estimating the MPG figures presented to consumers.

The new protocol includes driving cycles more closely representative of today's traffic and road conditions, as well as increased air conditioner usage.[81] This change does not affect how the EPA calculates CAFE ratings; the new protocol changes only the mileage estimates provided for consumer information.[82][83]
NHTSA spends one-third of one percent of its budget on CAFE, or $0.014 per U.S. citizen.[84][85]

Though the 2014 RAM and GM Trucks have top rated Fuel Economy at this point, the 2015 F-150 may beat both by 2 to 3 mpg based on the Technology of the new Engines and overal weight reduction. Though I'am not a fan of Ford, I can already see this coming.

If one looks at the grill, it has huge bars in it like the Atlas or Super Duty. I hope not as I think that all of that plastic chrome is ugly.
Sure is one long truck.

@ MatthewJohn, Here is what happened to my 89 5.0 mustang.
Recalled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKX2ghR2eGg

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:IGNITION
Recall number: 96V071000
Recall date: 04/25/1996

Problem Summary:
THE IGNITION SWITCH COULD EXPERIENCE AN INTERNAL SHORT CIRCUIT.

Consequence:
THIS CONDITION COULD CAUSE OVERHEATING, SMOKE, AND POSSIBLY FIRE IN THE STEERING COLUMN AREA OF THE VEHICLE.

Corrective Action:
DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE IGNITION SWITCH.

The manufacturer first notified owners of this recall on 06/07/1996.

This recall affects vehicles manufactured between 08/01/1987 and 09/30/1992.

@PorscheV8 - you left out the part about being too stupid to put "All Perils" insurance on it.

@Lou, Your right. One needs all the insurance you can get while driving those Furds. lol House insurance as well.

I can't believe you drove a car without insurance.

Check out the latest Car and Driver Mag for a great Comparo test between the Ram, Ford and Chevy. The Chevrolet smokes them both.

Was unable to find that comparison. Doesn't exist.

Why don't you pick up the latest issue of the magazine, that is where it exists

I will and I doubt it "smokes" them both, whatever that means.

I read it. It's in the September edition of the C&D mag and I wouldn't say Ford and Ram got smoked. C&D said Ford still had best powertrain and best shifting transmission. Fuel economy was the same out of all 3: 13 mpg. They said Ford's interior looked old, but had the best ergonomics and the roomiest rear seats. They mentioned the Laramie Long Horner interior being silly. Exterior: tied, they all got 7's. They liked the bumper step on the Chevy and the interior. The GM butt buzzer package worked but they would NOT pay anything for it. Chevy's "MFT" system worked but was slower than Ford and Ram. Ford was the worst riding. 1) Chevy LTZ Z71 2) F-150 Lariat 3) Ram Laramie Long Horn

They also said the Ford had body panels that flop all over the place when doors are shut, same with the hood, and the grill moved around when the hood was shut.

When the final scores were tallied the Chevy did smoke the other two, that's a FACT.

Anyone that thinks a twin turbo turd v6 is a better choice than a real v8 for the long haul is an idiot. The Chevy required the LOWEST octane of the group, 87, while the dodge needed 89 and the ford need 91.

@Truth About Trucks,

The TT V6 from Ford does not require 91. You are just a GM TROLL named Johnny DOE or maybe even Bob. LMAO!!

@Truth About Trucks,

The TT V6 from Ford does not require 91. You are just a GM TROLL named Johnny DOE or maybe even Bob. LMAO!!

Posted by: Frank | Aug 13, 2013 1:25:19 PM

The statment above is like the pot calling the kettle black. Nice try Frankie Troll!

It is you Bob. Wow, too much of a giveaway. Still like to troll I see. Hahahah lol!