10 Things the 2015 Ford F-150 Got Wrong

F-150 FX4 Face II

While there's a lot that the 2015 Ford F-150 — which debuted this week at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit — gets right, there's still room for improvement. Here's what's wrong with the 2015 Ford F-150.

1. Smarter Suspensions

The new F-150 essentially uses a carryover suspension strategy across the board. The same double A-arm (short and long) IFS and live-axle leaf springs set up in back. Yes, the leafs are shorter and lighter (and we're guessing they're going to have to create more combinations with the new powertrains) to help minimize the axle hop problems some of the truck configurations have had. But not offering a coil spring version or airbag setup for a premium sport or luxury ride package is curious. Ford knows better than anyone else that its customers will pay for premium packages that offer a softer ride. One possible explanation, which we heard from another journalist, is that Ford doesn't want to be seen as following anyone else's lead.

2. No Diesel Announcement

That "no copying" theory may explain why Ford was mum about a diesel option for the new F-150. With the Ram EcoDiesel getting all sorts of media attention, Ford probably decided to wait to announce a fifth new powertrain for the F-150 in the form of the five-cylinder baby Power Stroke. That engine will be offered in the new full-size Transit van, which goes on sale in a few months. This delay may be for the better; it will likely take some time for truck enthusiasts to understand how the biggest-selling half-ton pickup truck in the U.S. will offer three V-6 choices and only one V-8.

3. Will Raptor and Tremor Disappear?

According to Automotive News, the new-for-2014 F-150 Tremor will have only one year of production and not be back in 2015 F-150 lineup. The Tremor was the closest thing Ford had to a street-performance truck, with the powerful 3.5-liter V-6 dressed in regular-cab, short-bed garb. The lightweight pickup had some calling it the Lightning Light. Likewise, there was no word about the fate of the SVT Raptor. Ford was loud and clear in not offering any information about whether the high-performance desert off-roader would survive. Given that the 6.2-liter V-8 is going away (the standard engine for Raptor) for the new F-150, we'll keep our fingers crossed for a speed-tuned EcoBoost aluminum Raptor.

4. Outdoor Package

It's been fun to watch Ram's success with its Ford-like trim package strategy, but now that Ford is trying to simplify its trim levels there are a few holes. Not that we're against any truck corporation making big money on luxury pickup trucks, but those premium packages would probably be even more successful if there was a more solid and credible outdoor lifestyle pickup. Such a package would offer features and technology for activities like hunting, fishing, camping and toy hauling. Sure, every truck maker throws a motorcycle or snowmobile in the bed for marketing photography, but give us a trim level with unique technology to communicate that manufacturers understand customers who want big mileage or work-duty durability and great cost of ownership.

5. Not Enough Atlas

As big as this vehicle is for the Ford and the auto industry (and, yes, we think this was the vehicle of show for 2014), the design change could have been more dramatic. We saw the Atlas concept last year, and that was clearly an inspiration for many of the design cues seen in the 2015 F-150, but Ford should have gone further. Let's start with the grille; there's definitely more drama and it's a nice evolution but some have suggested where the 2014 Toyota Tundra chamfered the bottom corners of its grille, all the new F-150 has done is chamfered the top corners. Really? That's the big change? To give it a more angular, chiseled look? We assume this is Ford design language that will spread throughout the F-Series lineup, but we're hopeful that more Atlas, inside and out, will make it into future models.

6. Give us the Numbers

We can be very patient when it comes to releasing horsepower, torque and fuel economy numbers for a completely new lineup of powertrains; however, not providing estimated numbers doesn't make any sense. Yes, Ford has cut out a reported 700 pounds from a comparably equipped 2014 F-150 SuperCrew, but that's just 12 percent of the weight of the actual pickup. It puts the F-150 about 200 or 300 pounds lighter than the current Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra (at least that's what we found during our 2013 Light-Duty Challenge). The F-150 won by a thin margin in that test, and it wasn't for its ride quality or styling. The GM V-8s were similar in mileage when empty and much better when towing than Ford's current-model EcoBoost. Saving weight is good, but we know from carrying 700- and 800-pound loads, the real-world mileage numbers won't move around much. We have no doubt Ford will release these important numbers in tiny pieces over an extended period to get as much media coverage as possible — just like GM did with its new trucks — and we'll be here to share it.

7. Quiet on Safety

Although much at Ford's Detroit display this year was about the new production process upgrades and engineering changes that will occur to the new F-150, little was said about crash-testing, crumple zone safety improvements, or insurance and repair costs. On average, we're guessing truck customers will have had little experience with aluminum construction and repairs. Most people we spoke to assume that aluminum is easier to crumple than steel. But Ford said nothing about crash tests on this revolutionary new pickup. We know Ford is not hiding anything, but we wonder if the company is aware that an education lag might exist when it comes to what people know about aluminum use in vehicles.

8. Production Changeover

This isn't so much something Ford got wrong as it's something it could have handled better. Ford recently announced it expects profits for 2014 to be down due to several factors, one of which is the plant downtime necessary for the new F-150 changeover.It seems like this should be completely predictable since Ford knows what changes have to be made to the existing production process. We've just witnessed the stunningly complicated "ballet" that GM choreographed at three giant plants making full-size pickups. GM was able to keep the supply line fully stocked and didn't seem to miss a beat while making dramatic changes to its production lines. Sure, switching from steel to aluminum is probably a much taller order, but to lose so much product in the pipeline is curious. It will be interesting to see how much the numbers change and where that market-share shift occurs with Ram, Chevy, GMC and Toyota ready to benefit.

9. Pushing Too Far?

From our vantage point, the elephant in the room for the new F-150 is how well an all-new, smaller EcoBoost engine will be received by customers. The new compacted graphite block is familiar to many from the monster Power Stroke in Super Dutys, but at 2.7-liters in size, that will sound more like an inline four-cylinder engine than a relatively powerful, small V-8 replacement engine. We're guessing there has been a great deal of exhaust tuning work done to keep the smallest engine from sounding like a high-revving sewing machine when pushed at or near its gross vehicle weight rating. We give Ford credit for taking this risk and giving new customers exactly what they say they want, which must be much better fuel economy from their full-size pickup. But we don't expect this engine to have anywhere near the take rates the current (larger) EcoBoost enjoys. What additional cost this new EcoBoost engine will carry will be critical as well. It's possible this was a push just outside the zone.

10. Just in Case

Although this isn't directly a criticism of the new F-150, the entire reason for going on the huge diet — using aluminum and doubling down on the EcoBoost technology with an even smaller V-6 option — is that Ford insists its data does not support the need for a smaller, midsize pickup. Whereas GM's Mark Reuss, executive vice president of global product development, insists GM's data sees the market needing a smaller, more efficient and more "parkable" option, Ford may be stretching the bandwidth of the F-150 to accommodate too many truck buyers. Only time will tell which strategy will win out; but we will say it must be nice to be Ford, which can easily pull the trigger on the global Ranger if it needs too.



I will say the first 5 are direct result of going all aluminum.
There is no doubt this vehicle will cost more to produce. How much more we might never know. Ford will raise the prices of this truck but I don't think they can recoup all of the expenses by doing so. The rest will come directly from their profits.
They simply can't afford to improve other aspects of the vehicle because every improvement will lower their margin and F150 being responsible for 90% of their profits every extra expense is impacting the bottom line.

Disagree with #1. Leaf springs is the way to go in order to have the best loaded towing ride.

The higher payload...that is what we want.

I have a car for the car ride.

I think Ford is hanging in their and trying to extract every last bit out of a full size rather than admit that there is room for a competitive midsizer.

It appears Ford has invested alot of cash into this venture and I don't know if it will succeed as well as they are hoping for.

This new F-150 goes against many of the debates I've had regarding a full size truck on this forum.

Here are some of my observations on what is expected from a full size.

1. Minimal changes from model to model. As I've been told the pickup crowd are conservative. This is the most radical change for any pickup ever released.

2. Engine size. A 2.7? Sounds almost Tacoma'ish. From the feedback I've heard mainly large displacement or only a V8 will do.

3. Price. This is one area Ford should present. Really, how mcuh will a new aluminium pickup cost? One of the main reasons I've been told why the US pickup is so successful is due to bang for you buck.

4. How well will this truck go on the farm or construction site?

These are just a few reasons why I find this truck a very radical departure from what has been available in the past.

I've discussed these types of arguments previously and lots try and shoot me down.

How much more radical a departure is this truck. It makes my BT50 appear to be a 'normal' pickup.

Ford has taken a huge risk. More than the new Ram.

Cost will be a decider on this one along with a new idea on what a full size should be.

I still think GM with the refined Colorado/Canyon has made the wiser decision. Not so radical for the conservative.

The last 5 are like Mark said, Ford didn't want to throw out too much at us. I would only lead to confusion. There is a lot to take in as it is.

I do see a problem that using aluminum will make these trucks more expensive because the cost will be passed on to the final consumer. The advantage of the aluminum will be the lighter weight will allow Ford to use smaller more fuel efficient engines in the F-150, but then if you get in an accident it is much easier to straighten metal than aluminum. Any damaged body panels would probably need to be replaced. I do think that full size half ton pickups will become more expensive and out of the reach of many except maybe used. In order to comply with the new fuel standards there will be many changes to pickups and these changes could be very costly. It is too early to judge what any of the negatives will be until this truck has been on the market for a few years. This is a gamble.

#11. No Big Bore V8 Option!
Are you listening Ford?

Ford should stay the course on suspensions. The only thing I'd like to see is a rear independent, or at least a rear coil option for lower payload versions.
I'm 5050 on the diesel.
Raptor was a huge hit, what do you think?? Tremor should come back as Lightning.
Outdoor package? Aren't all trucks outdoors?
Not enough Atlas? Give me a break!
Numbers ALWAYS follow the debut -- Ford shouldn't be held to unreasonable criteria.
I'm quite sure that Ford's safety goals are 5-star across the board.
Production changeover timing is Ford's problem to deal with. I think they'll survive.
Pushing it too far? NEVER!! Crazy has a purpose in achieving great things.
I would withhold comment on a 7/8 scale little brother to the F-150 until MPG numbers surface.

"We give Ford credit for taking this risk and giving new customers exactly what they say they want, which must be much better fuel economy from their full-size pickup."

Are these the same customers that haul air?

I want a truck for capability. Period. Give me the biggest baddest engine to tow more efficiently. Meaning faster up hills,merging onto busy L.A. freeway's in tow. I realize not everybody wants or needs this. I just hope the big 3 doesn't kill their powerful power plants for the sake of truck buyer's that don't need a truck.

They say pound for pound Aluminum is stronger the steel, but the aluminum weighs less so I don't know who they are trying to fool, it could be more ding resistant but I don't believe it is stronger.

Ford should have done more to the front grill. It looks like their super duty. And their engine choices are going backwards for a full size pickup. Say goodbye to the Raptor.

Aluminum, despite being lighter is denser than steel, which accounts fir its tensile strength.

I'm not sure why a f150 "needs" air bags and coil springs. Anybody that has actually tried to use a dodge for actual work quickly realizes that it dosn't work. On paper mabe but in reality not so much. I guess it comes down to what your expectations and intended use will be. I expect my f150 to tow and haul more than my golf clubs. As far as a diesel option, I never did actually understand why someone would want one in a f150. That is what my super duty is for. I would be willing to bet 9 out of 10 diesel dodge 1500's won't ever see a trailer. My ecoboost is more than capable of towing what a half ton should be capable of towing.

It looks like you will still have to mount your front plate off sided if you have a turbo, they should have fixed that.

@frank cook, To say Dodge truck's don't work is stupid at best.
Both the Ram 2500,3500, are class leading for tow haul. 1500 is not a work truck. Why should people sacrifice ride quality in a pick up for capability? Toyota only offers a 1500 so their eggs only go in one basket. That's what makes a 1500 a 1500. Smoother ride than a 2500. Rams 1500 has a class leading ride.
Did you see it spank Ford,Chevy, Toyota in the tow test uphill.
It is built for a 1500 market. Not a Ford 150 trying to be a 250.
I know the contractors like the F150 for capability for less money than a 250.

"I want a truck for capability. Period. Give me the biggest baddest engine to tow more efficiently. Meaning faster up hills,merging onto busy L.A. freeway's in tow. I realize not everybody wants or needs this. I just hope the big 3 doesn't kill their powerful power plants for the sake of truck buyer's that don't need a truck.

Posted by: HEMI V8 | Jan 16, 2014 1:21:28 PM

Sadly HEMI, Ford doesn't care about your purchase. The same people you say haul air also pay big. They have already changed their pickups to suit those very people. You know? The ones with 'disposable' income. Why else would Crew cabs be the biggest seller? What other explaination for 6'5" beds is there? Yes you can still get an eight foot bed in a half ton, but only if you give up taking more than two of your buddies with you. And that is a bit crowded for the middle man. They have to please the new pickup buyer, it has to fit in the driveway. I'm guessing Ford thinks that real truck buyers don't need a half ton and will go big.
I guess they are right, Since they have left you NO SAY in the matter.

@frank cook: Not to call you out on airbags, but how many semi trucks use airbags on their suspension when hauling 80,000 lbs. of trailer? Yes, I know it's not comparable to the type of airbags being used on a Ram 1500, but to say that airbags are inadequate for carrying loads is a bit

Slightly more on topic: I seem to recall a size comparison PUTC did between the NA Ranger, the new T6 Ranger, and the 2011-ish F-150 (which the 2015, huge grille notwithstanding, is the same size as). The T6 Ranger is 2.5 inches wider, 8 inches longer (mostly rear overhang) and about 2.5 inches taller. It also has an inch-longer wheelbase than the old SuperCab Ranger.

Meanwhile, the 2015 F-150 is 5 inches wider, 21 inches longer, 5 inches taller, and has a 18-inch longer wheelbase on a "standard" (SuperCab/6.5' or SuperCrew/5.5') model compared to the T6 Ranger.

So Ford, don't you try to tell me to my face that the T6 Ranger is the "wrong size" for American buyers, or "too close" to the F-150 in size. Don't $hit in my cappuccino and tell me it's nutmeg!

Source for Ranger dimensions is Wikipedia.
Source for 2015 F-150 dimensions is here:

I should add that the Regular Cab/8' wheelbase # looks to be a typo, and should probably be "141.4" instead of "144.1". I read on Edmunds that the new Regular Cab models are 4 inches shorter, and the Regular Cab/6.5' dimensions confirm this.

@Ty: "Yes you can still get an eight foot bed in a half ton, but only if you give up taking more than two of your buddies with you."

If you had done even the slightest modicum of research, you would find that not only has SuperCab/8' bed model been available on every year F-150 since its introduction forty years ago, it will still be available on the new 2015 models. In fact, Ford's really the only ones that offer this config in any quantity anymore; Dodge quit production in 2008, Nissan only made them for about a year, Chevy/GMC just stopped making them in 2013, and Toyota will probably end production within the next few years. So it might be a little cramped, but you can still get a half-ton pickup that seats 6 and has a full 8' bed.

The 6.2 V8 will surely still be the base motor in the F250 fleet model, yes? It just won't be a half ton option.

Regarding aluminum. It is stiffer and more brittle than steel. Various steel alloys can be engineered for greater resistance to shear, or compression. Aluminum is offering the advantage of density and stiffness at lower weight. It's also less affected by corrosion. Ford's move here was bold and smart.

Lastly, the 2.7 boost motor will be very popular.

"Chrysler Communications
What's that saying, "there's more than one way to skin a cat?" And, according to Ram Trucks CEO Reid Bigland, we prefer to do it by continually working to improve our powertrains, and not abandoning steel, and use aluminum "where it makes sense," as we look to improve the Ram pickup truck lineup.

"We want to be able to achieve the highest fuel-economy standards, which we have, without compromising. You just have to work a little harder to get there. That's the key."

To keep the kind of sales numbers Ford is currently enjoying with the F-150, they can't afford to pump all of the increased expense onto the price tag. This means they're going to see a decrease in profits no matter which way they go. Now, with the Colorado/Canyon coming in at a likely significantly lower price tag than the typical (as compared to base) F-150, there's a good chance that F-150 sales will actually drop if the double-C trucks prove more popular than most here expect. I'm not saying the F-150 will lose its top spot as 'most popular vehicle', but rather that the margin will drop from ¾ million to ½ million or so. Those numbers COULD put GM back on top for overall truck sales if it happens, but I'll also acknowledge that I don't expect it.

What I do expect is that GM will prove that there is a demand for smaller trucks and force Ford to re-introduce the Ranger. I also expect that if they both keep the current mid-sized trucks at the current '90s full-size range, they'll die again as quickly as they surge. There are too many factors coming out which will ultimately force all brands to find ways to keep the load and towing capabilities if the ½-tons while reducing their overall 'shadow' and push Class 5s back onto their own platform.

@Tyr: "Yes you can still get an eight foot bed in a half ton, but only if you give up taking more than two of your buddies with you."

You know something? That doesn't bother me. I NEVER take more than two of my 'buddies' with me and one of those is a dog. I couldn't care less if I don't have two more doors and a full extra bench seat. In fact, my dog likes the floor instead of the seat anyway, so I could completely remove the back seat without complaint.

@Road whale, I like my quad cab. I can haul the kids or friends when I want. Then i can lift the seats and put my load flat floor down. I can lock my gear inside when i abandon my vehicle and ride my quad all day. Ford and Chevy only offered a 5.5 bed in 2003. Not enough to haul two quads. So i bought my Dodge.

I really don't see the cusumer cry for a more 'sophisticated' rear suspension in trucks. Just look and the Tahoe/Suburban. Chevy has a live axle coilspring setup vs Expedition, Sequia, and Armada full independant rear suspension and GM owns something like 70% of that market.

I just don't think the average Joe could tell you what the difference is, much less notice it. I also bet most people would opt for the lower price vs an air bag suspension.

"The T6 Ranger is 2.5 inches wider, 8 inches longer (mostly rear overhang) and about 2.5 inches taller. It also has an inch-longer wheelbase than the old SuperCab Ranger.
"Meanwhile, the 2015 F-150 is 5 inches wider, 21 inches longer, 5 inches taller, and has a 18-inch longer wheelbase on a "standard" (SuperCab/6.5' or SuperCrew/5.5') model compared to the T6 Ranger.
"So Ford, don't you try to tell me to my face that the T6 Ranger is the "wrong size" for American buyers, or "too close" to the F-150 in size."

Actually, they're right. The T6 Ranger is just about the same size as the 1990 F-150, which is visibly smaller than the newer model--but by only 10% or so. The T6 Ranger is just too big.

People who really want a mid-sized truck today want one that's only five feet tall, not six. Only five feet wide, not six. Only sixteen feet long, not eighteen. As the GM executive said, "More Parkable". I understand those who don't WANT a mid-sized truck asking for larger, but their desires aren't everyone's desires. I personally know people who would rather have a 1980 Courier than a 2015 F-150.

This truck will be priced beyond the Stratosphere. If Aluminum, as a commodity, gets expensive will the price of this truck climb? Who wants to pay 50K for a truck? Not me.. They're used for work and are generally beat up on. Bring on the midsized. Those will probably be the next rip off so buy them now while they're affordable.

@Hemi: Your Quad Cab is an extended cab with 'fake' 4-door appearance. Half of the utility of that extended area was destroyed by them replacing the rear-hinged doors with front-hinged and putting those ugly conventional door handles on them. It was a totally unnecessary design change just to add a little strength to the roof--that could have been retained by simply putting the brace there and having the back doors latch to the brace instead of the top/bottom of the opening. Simpler, cheaper and far more useful.

That said, I honestly don't need a full 8' bed the way some do, as long as I don't have to worry about an 8' load of folding tables falling out onto the road when they're tied down. Not difficult--I just need at least 6-½' of 'floor' surface which the dropped tailgate can extend even farther. Any extended cab model can give me that, no matter the brand and I certainly don't need the RoadWhale™ size of today's typical full-sized truck. Most people I know who do own trucks almost never carry anyone in the back seat, so to me that full crew cab is a waste of load capacity and money.

just to let you know the lightest f-150 is already as light as an explorer and if the older generation 2.0l ecoboost can hit 20/28 mpg

the all new f-150 with a 2.3l ecoboost base model f-150 should loose only 500 lbs not the 700lbs and should be good for 20/28 mpg 2wd just because of the weight savings alone.

2.7l v-6 ecoboost would be good for at least 600lbs or more becasue itwould be used in crew cabs and get 19/26 mpg 2wd

use the 1.0l 123hp and 170lbs tq as a base and the
2.7l should make 332hp and 459 lbs tq.

take the 2.7l x 123hp = 332hp and 2.7 x 170 = 459lbs tq

Pickuptrucks.com is really scraping for things to put in their 10 things they got wrong article.

I think most truck owners are completely satisfied with the suspension in the f-150. The coil springs in my ram don't offer any noticeably better ride IMO and the truck seems to squat WAY more with any load in the bed or from a trailer.

Number two (diesel engine option) is debatable. I have no desire to buy a 1/2 ton with a diesel engine. It remains to be seen whether or not the market will accept the ecodiesel. If it is successful I'm sure ford will be ready to throw in their baby powerstroke. I don't think many people were expecting the 2015 f-150 to offer a diesel engine.

3. is kind of sad but did anybody really expect them to have a raptor ready for 2015? If they don't have a raptor version within the next year or two I'd be very surprised and THEN I would call it something they did wrong.

4. What do they expect for an outdoor package? Some fancy graphics on the side? They say "Such a package would offer features and technology for activities like hunting, fishing, camping and toy hauling." Shouldn't those features be available on every model? With things like the LED lighting all around, rear camera, tailgate step, bed tiedowns, etc. I think they have it pretty well covered. What more do they want in an outdoor package? An outdoor package sounds kind of gimmicky to me.

5. Not enough atlas? Seriously? The grille (on the xlt) is almost identical to the atlas concept. So is the front bumper, headlights (really the whole front end is very close to the same), taillights, doors. The fenders are very close. The only way I wish it was more like the atlas is the ladder rack built into the top of the cab.

6,7 are nothing

8. I can't comment because I don't know much about it

9. So you think the 2.7 was a bad Idea? that remains to be seen but I'm definitely glad to see it as an option. If it is reliable (we'll see), efficient, and cheap then why would the 2.7 be a bad thing?
10. So they are unhappy that there is no mid-size option. That may be a valid complaint, but what does that have to do with the f-150? You're unhappy that there isn't a greater distinction between the f-150 and a mid-size truck like the new colorado?

still think ford is missing the boat by not bringing the ranger back, preferably with a small diesel option. ford will never put the 5 cyl diesel in the f150 because it's rated lower than the ram 1500 ecodiesel. right now i'm leaning toward the 2015 colorado crew diesel (looks good)!

Wow 5 things they got right and 10 wrong. I see troll fodder here :)

Ford probably needed to better address the suspension. I see another evolution of Ram's suspension addressing it's light payload ratings since they have figured out how to offer coils in the 2500. Maybe the lighter weight will allow different spring rates and damper rates that might allow for a more comfortable ride. (one of my personal complaints with any Ford truck)

I almost doubt the diesel will make it into the F150. It is a much older design than the VM diesel that Ram is using and likely couldn't have enough improvement room to make it a worthwhile long term investment. Even Ram is having 2 diesels around the same size because one is like Ford's, an older cheaper design for the working van and the other is thoroghly modern and has more headroom to make power for the truck.

@howam00 - 4Wheeler maxazine complained about wheel hop and they didn't see a big difference in ride between a leaf set up and a coil set up.

Can you put a picture of gm all terrain concepts beside ford new truck do you thing ford use gm front grill and light???

#11 They got the whole truck wrong!

I think that this whole "Things that Ford got wrong" list is PUTC throwing a bone at the GM and Ram fans who complained that there wasn't a "Worst 10" list.

It looks more like a list of "Ford should of copied Ram".

1. Smarter suspensions - coils aren't necessarily the best way to go. We see exotic and not so exotic cars with adjustable/tunable suspensions.
Why not offer such a feature?

2. No diesel? That is nitpicky since Ford has been touting the EB 3.5 as a diesel replacement since it was released. Ford may want to wait to see how the 3.0 VM Motori diesel pans out. Ford had their hands full with 2 new engines.

3. Will Raptor and Tremor disappear? This truck has a new frame. Ford spent a large amount of R&D on the Raptor. I will be surprised if it does not come back. The Tremor is a parts bin special. New truck equals small parts bin.

4. Outdoor Package? Beebe nailed it. WTF are trucks for?
Special features for outdoorsmen?
Just make the thing reliable with a semblance of ground clearance and how about a air dam delete option?

5. Not Enough Atlas? You serious?
I wasn't a fan of the nose on it just like I'm not sold on the looks of this snout.

6&7 - Yeah right. Did GMC or Ram cough up numbers right off the bat?

8. Product change over and decline in profits? Ford is releasing IIRC 32 new or significantly changed vehicles globally in 2014. That is going to cost money.

9. Pushing too Far? Maybe but V6 engines are over 1/2 of their sales. I do believe that the "truck as a sildenafil substitute" aren't going to like the 2.7 or anything other than the 5.0. The "loud pipes saves lives" types will be buying the 5.0.

10. Just in case? I do think that a small truck will fill a void but I also believe that globalization will mean that the North American pickup will become blended with the global truck.

@ Lou

1. Woohoo inboard pushrod trucks! :P All kiding aside there are strengths and weaknesses for each suspension type. I prefer the comfort and handling of the Ram versus any other 1/2 ton but it comes with lower payload and serious sag when loaded. Progressive rate springs would likely fix both issues for Ram. The leafs (leaves?) in the Ford. GM, Nissan and Toyota allow for more steady hauling of loads and heavier loads at that but they are not as comfortable when empty and they do not handle as well in cornering tests. At least we are getting some various options which I think is cool

2. I completely agree with you. Ford has chosen to go the route of boosted gas engines vs diesel and it seems to be working for them thus far.

3. The Raptor has been a huge sales success and I anticipate a future model

4. There will still be the FX4 and other "off-road" options and likely some kind of marketing promo with Harley or Cabelas or something like there has been in the past.

5. There is about as much concept truck here as any other concept-to-production model from anyone. It looks good (especially the interior) without upsetting the apple cart too much

6-10 I basically agree with what you said. :)

#5 Sort of: Okay now I see it before I didn't see much resemblance with the Tundra but now I see why some may say that as the hood now has a curved slope that leads to a kind of trapezoidal grill surround that is forward of the headlights. The 2014 had a rectangular grill that was even with the headlights.

Even with that above I don't think it looks like a Tundra like some have said because in this photo http://bangshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2015-F150.jpg you can sort of see those 2nd Gen Tundra features http://www.worldcarfans.com/109021116971/2010-toyota-tundra-unveiled-with-all-new-46-liter-v8-engine but the lower part of the grill is even with the front bumper unlike the 2nd Gen Tundra. Now the 3rd Gen Tundra has the bumper even with the lower part of the grill but you would be comparing different Tundra's. I think the look is still Ford going down the road they were already on like the other parts of the truck. Look at the current Super Duty that has a grill forward of the headlights design and the front grill even with the front bumper.

1. No V16! What's up with that?
2. No factory NOS kit! Seriously???

lol just kidding. Seriously, i think the biggest mistakes are.

1. No 4.4 diesel.
2. No 3.0 diesel-electric that Ford makes for the Range Rover.
2. No global plan with factory RHD.

@Mark Willaims,

Re: Outdoor Package

"the Ram Outdoorsman is just a sticker package, without any real substantive assets you couldn’t order off a factory checklist."


@Mark Williams,

Response from the Editor of BOF:

1 - No coil suspension for a luxury package? Oh, I guess the manufacturer that has sold so many luxury trucks that they've had to invent like three luxury packages in the last fifteen years (Lariat, then King Ranch, then Platinum), has no idea what customers want. Here's a thought: Maybe the other manufacturers have added cost without adding perceived value?

2 - No diesel announcement? Gee. Because, you know, having a 2.7 that's going to do everything the 3.2 Dodge diesel does for less money and roughly the same fuel efficiency is a huge mistake.

3 - This is a question!

4 - Are you kidding me? Let's once again revisit the history of Ford's premium trims. They had XLT. Then they added "Eddie Bauer" above XLT. Then they added "Lariat" above Eddie Bauer. Then they added "King Ranch" above Lariat. Then they added "Platinum" above King Ranch. Are we expected to believe that Ford does NOT know how to pry money out of the wallets of the well-heeled truck buyer? They need to take lessons in how to do so from Chrysler?

5 - Not enough Atlas? Because 700lb weight loss all aluminum, new engine and new transmission coming aren't enough?

6 - No numbers? How is this 'wrong'? What consumers will respond to this lack of hard data by rushing out to buy a Silverado?

7 - Safety? You don't know much about selling trucks do you. This is the current F150: http://www.iihs.org/...le/v/ford/f-150 What is Ford going to do? Loudly announce that the new F150 is every bit as safe as the old F150 which has a solid "G" rating from the IIHS? Oooh, that'll pack in the customers!

8 - Changeover? Yeah. Ford should've handled the changeover as well as GM did. Oh, say, how are GM's sales and factory utilization numbers doing as compared to Ford's? Oh yeah, that's right. Much worse. So, um, what was the point again? Ford should have less efficient plant utilization, a less revolutionary product, and a pipeline that is *crammed* with 150 days of inventory for much of the year. Got it. Thanks for the business advice. By the way, what exactly are your credentials on this subject?

9 - Again, this is a question. How can Ford have done 'something wrong' if you cannot even state what it is that they have allegedly done wrong?

10 - And, again, Ford should have copied a company with *less* profit, *lower* margins, *worse* utilization, and *lower* ATPs? Because, I guess, clearly they know what they're doing? What with all the costs of launching two new trucks instead of one. Because that's smarter? Maybe?

This list was lazily written. It's obvious what's going on here. PUTC realizes that people in the comment accuse it of a Ford bias that they think they have to list 5 things right and 10 things wrong. They contradict themselves several times, and some are just thrown out of their ass just to make a complete list. I'll list a couple things PUTC got wrong.

1: The suspension isn't carryover, the rear leafs have been thoroughly changes, and the front spring rates were changes.

2: PUTC contradicts themselves by saying Ford didn't do all these things "Not enought like the Atlas, No diesel... etc, but then says the truck may have gone too far.

3: If Ford can beat the Ram Ecodiesel's mpg with a gas engine, then they don't need a diesel.

4: Ford HAS mentioned crash safety and repairability of bodywork, stating that the high-strength alluminum used is just as safe, and will yield similar repair costs as the previous generation.

5: The issue of switching production to the new F-150 was actually handled well as they will build 2014 model year trucks alongside 2015 trucks.

@frank cook: you would lose a lot of money betting a 1500 Ram diesel will only tow 10% of the time.

That's probably it's biggest asset. The mileage will not come down as much with diesel when towing, vs. gas.

Your Ecoboost barely got better mileage then the Ram in the LD Shootout towing and the Ram Tow Haul puts the truck in 7th gear (more rpm then every one in that competition) and it doesn't run in cylinder deactivation at that point like the GMs that tow in 6th gear run. The tow haul isn't always needed, surely if a 5.3 Chevy with 3.42s can tow in top gear, a Ram can as well, with more torque. (Be it Hemi or diesel.)

If the people tow with Ecodiesels EVERYWHERE with a tow haul that puts it in 7th gear with all that torque on hand at just a few hundred rpm past cruising speed, it's a mistake.
Point is, that diesel will out tow the heck out of the gassers, and it makes it's low end lower then your 3.5, which doesn't have a great rep already.

I've worked a Ram 1500, 2010 quadcab 4x4 Hemi, to be exact.
They just need to bring the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating up. The airbag suspension, not to be confused with an add on airbag, can hold weight fine. Did you happen to see the GMs and most others slow down so much in the autocross in the LD Shootout? The Ford with it's max payload liked some weight in the autocross. Had it been the standard F-150 springs, it would have probably fared as well as most leaf spring trucks (the Nissan wanted more). The braking for the Ford when loaded? Big weight gainer. Maybe the Fords and Chevys look good on paper, and the Rams are more of a conservative rating? I am not saying it's near as much as the trucks with max payload, but those half tons with max payload don't really live up to what they should either.

They added weight, but not GVWR, as in more weight allowed. They finally added 150 pounds of GVWR to the Ecodiesel, the quad and crew ones in 4x4 have 150 pounds more GVWR to it then the Hemis, yet the v-6 truck, about 100 plus pounds lighter engine, has same GVWR. That means the same GVWR on both trucks, means the v-6 holds more weight in the rear. If they are willing to put that much on the rear axle, they need to up it. (the GVWR)

Speaking of the cheap airbags, I put some Air Lift ones on the above truck. $85 worth, and I can hold anything those Supercab 4x4s without the max payload can hold. Comfortably. Without sagging. 700 miles. Two V-8 engine blocks, 2 four speed manual trans, 6 v-8 cylinder heads, clutch sets, rotors, crankshafts, pistons, on and on. It didn't do too bad without them. At least it didn't sit uneven like the 2006 Chevy Ext cab 44 I had did after putting two engine blocks in that. And yeah, it can handle a rough road.

Have you read what some journalists have said about Fords current F-150 suspension? A lot of folks say it's old.

A shorter leaf spring? Less travel, that was one of their good points with the long leaf, as tested in the 2008 LD Shootout. Do people actually drive non Raptor F-150s on rough roads? Did you ever notice Raptors payload ratings? They would bounce all over if they had more spring, considering they are expected to get hammered.

Just because a lot of people are too cheap to get a weight distributing hitch and run around ass end low, which I see happen with Chevys and Fords too, or because you want to constantly work a half ton like an F-250 (because F-250 cost so much and their gassers suck fuel) doesn't mean we all need leaf springs.

There's a pic of the King Ranch interior if anyone is interested. I haven't seen this pic on any other website. Very nice interior!

You will need to scroll through the gallery.

Looks good in picture but here is how it looks in person.

Quote from LA Times from Bruce W. Smith, senior editor of Hard Working Trucks, Equipment World and Total Landscape Care
"The new F-150 can also compete with Ram 1500s on interior space now that it has a wider interior, and competes well with GM 1500 Double Cabs because the new F-150s' rear doors now open backward almost flush with the cab.

But the interior is also where I feel Ford missed the mark on the premium level. While Ford utilizes wood inlays and premium leather seats, there’s still too much hard plastic on the dash and doors for what you pay. The interior just doesn’t give you that “rich” sense when you look forward and to the sides. It’s not as well done as Ram’s Longhorn or Silverado High Country".

There is more and more opinions out there just like that. He isn't the only one.

I will be in Detroit on Tuesday. I will let you guys know on Wednesday if I share his opinion.

I applaud Ford for their efforts but i dont think little turbos are the answer. Those little engines will be working very hard all the time in my opinion and turbos get really hot. All those torture tests and hill climbs were done in cool weather and or short durations even for the 3.5 ecoboost so when the competions V-8s started to catch up the test was over. IN the REAL WORLD my truck has to get to the top and over the other side. And if you step on the gas pedal with a turbo engine the fuel efficency goes out the window. Ford is making things more complex which translates to higher buy in cost and expensive to maintain. I wonder how well a stripped down simplest truck would sell and how light it would be for better fuel efficiency. Hand crank windows, the least amount of airbags possible, no nav junk, just blue tooth to pair a phone. Reduce bed height a bit, that would save some weight. I think there is a big mkt for something simple that lasts like the good ol days. Keep it simple and cost effective ?? might be a big mkt for that. Last time i shopped for a FORD truck there were hardly any XL models available, since they are probably not the profit makers like the plastic chromed out xlts and platinums. that plastic chrome peels right off in our AZ summers, what a joke and get charged thousands of dollars extra for plastic chrome wheel covers, grill and mirrors. no thanks FOrd.

#7 is the big one.

I think people are underestimating this. One the truck has been on the market for a while, and accidents have happened, we'll see the safety and repair cost aspect talked about a LOT and once word of mouth starts going around it will hurt F-150 sales.

Trust me...around here (Kentucky) a lot of trucks are sold based upon farmers talking about their trucks over coffee at McD's early in the morning. If Brand A costs twice as much to repair as Brand B...which do you think they are going to avoid?

Legacy 6 speed automatic.
Don't need a diesel when your budget engine 3.5 V6 coupled to 8/10 speed automatic is substantially cheaper to acquire; and has less running cost.
The 2.7 V6 makes 310hp 330ft-lbs or thereabouts. Excellent mid-range engine. Will outpower the 5.0 at high altitudes 8000+ feet.
Ford doesn't need the 6.2 V8. Too heavy, too long. That would be one foot longer than the 2.7 V6. So expect the Raptor to use a supercharged 5.0, and expect the naturally aspirated 5.0 V8 to be dropped for the '17 model year.

Ford could have spent the money to make Bilstein dampers standard. That would alleviate concerns about the non-leading edge rear leaf springs/ride quality.

Good Afternoon,
I did not like the front grille. Can send it back to factory. The external contours transmit no sense of harmony and robustness. And the headlights have exaggerated dimensions.

Hugs ...

@Gregory J. Sounds good, looking forward to hearing your first-hand perspective

I have a feeling the price of this this thing is either going to be extremely expensive or Ford will have to accept a smaller profit margin to keep the price competitive with with offerings from GM and Chrysler. This may not be a very relevant example but it holds some value in what to expect; a 7x24 Titan Classic all-steel stock trailer retails for around $12-13,500 whereas a similar sized Featherlite all-aluminum model ranges more in the $17,500-19,000 ballpark. That's nearly 35% more expensive aluminum vs. steel. Granted Ford's massive market share could probably let them absorb a small hit in profitability, the price of aluminum needs to become more economical before this pickup can turn the profits of a steel-bodied counterpart.

This truck is the biggest fail I've ever seen!

The comments to this entry are closed.