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 am disappointed. I fully expected to be shocked with the first application of an independent rear suspension in a pickup truck. They could have easily pulled it from the Expedition which seems to tow just fine. Oh well, there's always 2019...


1. Disagree completely. Airbags are notoriously unreliable, and coil springs are pricey. You can do a lot with a leaf pack and shock tuning.

2. No diesel because they're not going to be CAFE compliant after 2016 without expensive exhaust systems...what's the ROI for Ford?

3. Of COURSE the Raptor will disappear. It's incompatible with new fuel economy reqs. Enjoy it while you can.

Also, what's a Tremor? ;)

4. Aren't all trucks by their very nature compatible with the outdoors?

5. The trend has been to be evolutionary in terms of design, hasn't it? Wonder why...

6. Not available yet I'd guess.

7. As Tesla has shown with the Model S, you can get 5 stars with aluminum. As for repair costs on aluminum body parts, agree completely.

8. Aluminum supplier problems and Ford's recent history of botched launches might explain the delay...

9. If the 2.7L EB engine is a feature-add, it's going to flop. If it's a standard engine offered on specific models to raise Ford's fleet fuel economy rating (my guess), it will be fine.

10. A Ranger would be nice, but there's more money in trying to make an F150 for everyone.


11. Ford made a bold decision to use copious amounts of aluminum, but GM managed to save weight just using steel. Why didn't Ford stay more conventional?

12. Where's the "big" motor that headlines the line-up? For decades, it's been about the biggest engine and the biggest towing/payload ratings. Dropping the 6.2L means that either a) Ford thinks they can sell trucks by bragging about fuel economy or b) The big EcoBoost can be tweaked to generate even more power.

Either way, I say "risky." Consumers aren't exactly in love with the EcoBoost (the take rate is high, but sentiments are mediocre), and bigger numbers have sold trucks for a long, long time.

13. Are tow ratings going to be J2807 compatible?

14. Is the new truck going to cost the same as the current model? What about incentives - will Ford still be offering $7-10k off sticker come August 2015?

Ford made a lot of mistakes on the launch, but the important ones didn't make your list. :)

- GM did not lose a significant amount of weight. They also have a smaller cab.

- At the unveiling Ford said it would use J2807

- Questions are not mistakes.

This article is seriously worthless. Did GM or Dodge hire you to write it? This truck hit almost everything on the nose. The numbers will be there before they go and sell another 100 plus thousand and continue to dominate the truck market lol. I wish I would have saved the time and not read this article lol.

This article is the biggest fail I have ever seen.

Love the look and features of the new F150! I would have liked to see a diesel option as well. Maybe even two. A small one and one around 4.5 liters. If you need more, go Super Duty. Nice effort Ford!

@ Jason Lancaster

1. I do agree with you as they don't have to go the route of air springs if they don't want to but air springs work for the Ram guys who have it and big rigs that use it as well.
4. While all trucks are outdoors their are packages that can make things for hunting, fishing and tailgating standard features on an outdoors model.
9. The 2.7L V6 will be fine mid range engine as it will make more power and have better FE than the 4.6L Tundra which has terrible FE for an engine it's size and their are many of threads on Tundra forums of Tundra owners saying they have got buyers remorse after buying the 4.6L as you lose a lot of power but do not gain much FE not getting the 5.7L.
11. I have mentioned the GM weight loss in a previous article but article but I also mentioned it was less than Ford which is why Ford went the route they did. GM also plans to do more weight reduction in the future.
12. How about option C they updated their powertrain and the 5.0 makes around the same power as the 5.7L iforce.
13. Much like you I hope so.
15. I wouldn't think so but with fleet sales like what Ford has I wouldn't be surprised.

Also as I mentioned in other articles the Larger cooling system I said would be on the new F150 is http://blog.caranddriver.com/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-2015-ford-f-150/. It wasn't a dig at Ford when I said the current gen EB's cooling system wasn't 100% ideal. That is probably the Best News and I don't no why it wasn't mentioned as what are people going to bash the EB about as the big problem will be gone?

Honestly I think ford went with aluminum not only because it is lighter, but because it can be much more sturdy than steel. They could have made steel panels weak and thin like chevy and ram, or they could use aluminum, save weight, and have thicker, sturdier panels. The only disadvantage is the increased cost. The body panels on a chevy are so weak it is ridiculous. I have a lot of experience working with aluminum in tools and parts, and a moderate amount of experience welding it (it's not nearly as difficult as people say). From what I have read a couple journalists say the body panels on the 2015 actually feel much more sturdy and are much thicker than on a typical automobile. I am surprised that they aren't saving more weight by switching to aluminum. As some have said the chevy was already a lot lighter than the ford. The way I see it you can use really thin steel to save weight and sacrifice durability, or use aluminum and save more weight, INCREASE durability, and deal with a higher price. I think it will give ford trucks a better reputation for toughness. My only worry is what a new f-150 will cost vs. a chevy.

Your comment is straight out of the Ford's how to Bull$hit the Consumer handbook of diesel vs gasoline engines.

You forgot to mention the additional costs of the aluminium body.

All isn't as it appears. I read the study done for Ford lead by a professor at an UK university.

The recommendation to Ford was to adopt turbo gas engines. Why? Because the INITIAL outlay would make it easier to market the vehicle.

It even recommended that Ford's Euro region tranfer from diesel to gasoline. Look at the 3 cylinder Eco Boost, 2 litre 4 Eco Boost.

The study found that diesel would be the best option. The study was done in 2004. I have tried finding the study on the web and have yet to come across it. I should have saved it.

Ford has made a conscious decision to go primarily down the gasoline path.

Sort of like the Ford Global One Plan. A One Plan when you don't have a One Plan.

The F-150 and the Chinese Escort blows that out of the water. Seems the One Plan is for everyone outside of the US and China.

A couple of things to consider.

1. Ford's CEO Alan Mulally, was the former CEO of Boeing Aircraft, he has a lot of experience and knowledge working with aluminum. He stated in one interview regarding the 2015 F!50, that the F150 is the first of many aluminum bodied vehicles Ford will be producing very cost effectively.

2. Ford is using stamped military grade aluminum alloys from Alcoa, not cast aluminum structures. There is a tremendous savings and much much greater durability in stamping aluminum alloys rather than using cast aluminum. Alcoa Military grade aluminum alloys are extremely dent, fracture, corrosive and thermal shock resistant.

3. If you notice the ecoboost engines follow the same structural design as that of a diesel engine. The new 2.7 ecoboost even uses the same graphite iron in it's block as does the 6.7 powerstroke. So basically you get a gas engine built like a diesel engine and performs like a turbo diesel engine without the emissions problems associated with diesel engines.

@Delbert - preliminary studies are showing that DI turbo engines emit just as much particulate (if not more) than a diesel.

Diesels have many types of emissions issues and have to use DEF, and EB does not. Ram was having problems with DEF sensors.

Military grade aluminium? There is no need for military grade aluminium to be used on a F-150 as there is no such thing.

The aluminium that was referred to was for the bed of the pickup. This form of aluminium would be unworkable in other parts of the vehicle. It just to brittle to bend.

Contrary to the impression I'm putting across about the F-150 I think it will not be as cheap as it could be.

The cost of manufacturing a 2.7 or 3.5 Eco Boost would be quite similar. So the reason for the 2.7 is purely emissions/CAFE related.

The F-150 would have to be one of the most revolutionary concepts going into practice for any vehicle.

The only problem is, will this become an Edsel.

I hope Ford has done their homework as I can see different strategies in how to manage CAFE.

I think GM so far is on a better track.

I think the new Titan will be larger than the F-150 and the new Navara/Frontier will be slightly larger as well.

The Chinese are making a pickup that is slightly larger than my BT50 which is the size of the US Colorado. This Chinese truck is also powered by a Cummins and it has an 8' bed.

Maybe Ram has the right formula that will appeal to the consumer. The F-150 might prove to be to radical.

Have a read of the link below, it would be of interest to many readers of PUTC.


When people compare a DI Turbo engine to a diesel they forget to mention not having the high compression ratio.

My Take on the new F150's problems:
[1] Chrysler builds in RHD and offers diesels in their range of Jeeps outside NA. Chrysler is LOOKING at offering RHD and Euro V compliant diesels for their HD Pickups.

[2] As an Off Road vehicle the Raptor was overlooked by Ford when entering a car in the Dakar. Two South African developed 5 Litre Rangers were entered instead. (Update Robby Gordon and his "Gordini" are out of the event. BJ Baldwin in his SCORE Chevrolet Colorado was out earlier.

[3] The F150 needs a "Halo" engine. The 3.5 Ecoboost eats fuel under load and the 2.7 does sounds anemic.

[4] The Aluminium chassis COULD BE A problem. A Case of wait and see.

@Robert Ryan - Ford DOES need a "halo" engine and the EB 3.5 does not cut it purely on exhaust note alone. I just heard an EB 3.5 today with aftermarket exhaust and it sounded like some snot nosed kid's tuner car.
A "halo" engine would have to be the 5.0 with a supercharger or a twin turbo setup. Rumour is the next Shelby Mustang will be using a 5.0 as the 5.4 based engine won't fit under the hood.

It isn't an aluminum chassis, just body cladding.

Thanks for the Dakar update. I'm not surprised that Gordon is out.

Another good link about aluminium in the transport industry.

Remember it was put together by a body representing the aluminium industry.


Call the engine & the truck all the names you want. I own an ecoboost it gets the job done. Where did Ram put al in their truck? In the front control arms. So the fanboy logic isn't holding up here - ram uses it in a very high stress critical area the think it's great but ford stamps an al body all hell breaks loose, calling the truck crap, fail etc. my f150 is rated up there with the 84 f250 I had. What's the current f250 rated for? Where the f350 used to be... It's called progress. Why buy a 250 when a 150 still gets the job done? There are tons of things people ride, fly, haul & camp in everyday made from al there hasn't been mass hysteria over that. The refreshes from the other companies have been much to be desired. Ram won the king of beats thing. Congrats for beating a truck with a core design that's 15 years old. Good job finally catching up! With the lighter weight the power to weight ratio changes considerably when you lose 700 lbs. the new f150 with the. 5.0 will have the same numbers as the current 6.2 truck & burn less fuel doing it. This is a huge step no doubt & a bold move but the whole industry got caught with their pants down. You're not going to win everybody over & the diehards won't change their mind no matter how far they have to bury their head in the sand but the fact of the matter if if you want to keep trucks on the market so they aren't killed over CAFE stds them they are going to push hard to innovate. Well folks this is innovation, progress, the new thing, whatever you get the mouth breathers to understand things are a changin.

Hence the new US Colorado!


Ford DOES need a "halo" engine and the EB 3.5 does not cut it purely on exhaust note alone. I just heard an EB 3.5 today with aftermarket exhaust and it sounded like some snot nosed kid's tuner car.
A "halo" engine would have to be the 5.0 with a supercharger or a twin turbo setup.
Posted by: Lou_BC | Jan 17, 2014 11:28:03 PM




Australia will come to the rescue again, for the US muscle car set. Australia has developed a supercharged 5 litre Coyote V8.

So long as the NHRA disqualify it from drag racing, like they did to the McGee top fuel Hemi slayer we had.



The Australian supercharged Coyote is a Miami engine.

It actually weighs less than a normally aspirated Coyote. I don't know how it will go for FE.


@Big al,

"I have told this story before, but it appears that it is time to repeat myself.

Contrary to the popular sport of blaming everything on those dastardly villains in Glendora with the devious minds, the real reason the McGee Quad-Cam engine fell off the NHRA circuit was because Chris and Phil McGee just flat ran out of funds to continue their project. At the time that this happened the engine was somewhat protected by being 'grandfathered' into the NHRA game. They (NHRA) had allowed it to compete at national events for seven years, as I recall, so if the McGee Brothers had wanted to continue on there would have been potential legal implications if the NHRA had suddenly banned it.

In truth, the pressure to banish the engine came more from the racers. Fuel car racers circulated a petition among themselves at Columbus the year before the ban, calling for it to be ruled illegal based on a number of untrue speculations (too expensive, too hard to service, etc., etc.). Fear of the unknown was the real culprit. That petition was signed by all in attendance except Kenny Bernstein and Jim Head. We (the McGee team) held a show-and-tell session for representatives from NHRA where we disproved all of the unjust claims. The petition died, but the seed of fear among the masses had been planted. When the McGees dropped off the circuit the following year and stopped running the car, the quad-cam engine was quietly legislated out of competition with the printing of the next rulebook. With it went the projects from others like Sainty, Benjamin, and Schubeck.

Interestingly enough, the cost for a complete McGee quad-cam engine was within a couple of hundred dollars of a then state-of-the-art Keith Black late model Hemi. When the supposed "twice as much" cost claim arose, the brothers had yet to put a price on their engine. They had to sit down and figure out the price of building one for sale. What many people failed to realize was that the McGee engine at that time used many of the same internal components as the KB 426 engine. Because of that, there was also none of the rumored complaints from the manufacturers.

The history of our sport is fascinating. It is even better when it is accurate."

Henry Walther

" NHRA acknowledged the debt modern drag racers owe to Chrysler engineers. While Chrysler did not invent hemispherical-head engines, they did make numerous contributions to the state of the art, bringing the Hemi into the mainstream and then to the top of NASCAR and drag racing."

@RoadWhale™/Vulpine/DWFields - Do you just keep changing your username when you humiliate yourself enough???

The F-150 and F-series are the most profitable cars in the world. I think they can absorb a the few extra dollars switching to aluminum bodies, 10 speed trannys, etc. Increased sales/market share will more than make up the difference.

The dudes you know that "would rather have a 1980 Courier than a 2015 F-150" may represent a million truck buyers, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't also rather pay 1980 prices.

The price gap between the 2015 F-150 and 2015 Colorado/Canyon, may not be as much as you think. Or nonexistent. The extra cab Colorado/Canyon will be the forced base truck. And it'll compete head to head with the regular cab F-150 and the crew cab (or double cab) Colorado/Canyon will compete with the super cab F-150s. Before rebates, the price gap won't be much. But Ford can afford give out much deeper rebates and incentives.

With the Colorado/Canyon, buyers will wonder why they had to have such a narrow, cramped truck. That's the only biggest difference. Especially with the light weight of the new F-150. And the C/C's lack of capacity, including cab/bed volume and towing/payload. And lack of V8. At least the old Colorado/Canyon had the 5.3.

Here's another version not written by a McGee family member.

The McGee story is half true according to this version of the story.


Why is it that a company can absorb those costs and yet not absorb the additional cost of a diesel?

I suppose like usual it doesn't fit into your paradigms.

I wonder if you're HemiV8. The way HemiV8 promotes Chrysler is over the top. His Ford fire stories???

No one would buy a Ram because of your HemiV8 persona. I find it hard for anyone to try and destroy a product like the HemiV8 persona of yours does.

And you complain about Vulpine?? At least he lets it be known who he is. Not like your HemiV8 persona.

Here is another review I found on the Fiat Doblo. It's a little diesel pickup that get's nearly 50mpg with 250ftlb of torque and 103hp.

I think it's the closest vehicle globally to fit what you want. Maybe the can call it a Fiat Petite Ram Mignon :) Mignon in French means cute. Lots of people associate mignon with meat.


@BAF0 - An OEM can absorb the cost of a diesel if that's the only engine they offer. And that the truck continues to sell despite this standard-equipment "upgrade". Many American consumers would completely avoid an all-diesel line of cars or light trucks. For those that have to have a diesel though, they must pay substantially more. It's not a simple change/swap on the assembly line. The truck frame is different. So are the tank/filler/fuel system, ECMs, emissions, exhaust, cooling/intercooler, front spring rates, instrument cluster, etc.

The F-150's aluminum body isn't "optional equipment". It's standard and therefor easily absorbed. If Ford had to sell a steel body and an optional aluminum body side by side, both would get real expensive to produce.

Power windows/locks/mirrors/seats are not anywhere cheaper to build than the manual stuff, but they're becoming standard equipment and OEMs gladly absorb the costs because it's so expensive to build cars both ways.

But to infer that HEMIV8 and I are the same person is beyond insane. We agree on about zero. He's insane. Now so are you.

BAFO is just part of Dunning–Kruger effect.


LMAO HEMI V8 top of Nascar? Naw Dodge packed their bags and left Nascar. It's sad Ford and the dodges had bigger engines in the early days and still got their a@# hand to them buy GM cars.


I am sure ford can get asgood MPG with the smallazz 2.7 ecoboost or get close to the ecodiesel (unloaded) because. Fully loaded truck forget about thos (28MPG) highway.

@Johny doe,


"427CI Mystery Big-Block Chevy Engine 1963
Tom McIntyre, Burbank, CA
Sometimes the most innocent-appearing engines hide a rich, secretive past if you bother to look a little deeper. The prototype for the now-famous Mark IV big-block Chevy was the Mark II that debuted in February 1963 when GM bolted its revolutionary powerplant into Junior Johnson's '63 NASCAR stock car (among several others) for the Daytona 500. The story goes that 50 engines were built to take on the 421 Pontiacs, 427 Fords, and 426ci Max Wedge Mopars. Johnson won the pole and was leading the race when the engine expired. Eventually, all the other Mark II-powered Chevrolets retired as well for various reasons." :(

I like most everything about the new F 150....alumium surely help with weight and rust....love the styling....interior etc

My main dislike is all the v6 turbos.....they are not much better on fuel than compettions v8s....v8s should always be offered..non turbo.....Ford needs to improve its truck 5.0 and get it better on fuel than the other brands....5.7 on up..I dont care if ecoboost has 75 more hp than the v8 of Fords....the other brands will match it and have simple tech not all this sophistcated ecoboost tech....

At the end of day..its realiabity that will be final judge of these pickups...love the idea of lighter alumium of the truck...but like the competitons simplier v8 engine package over ecoboost....

@Johnny Slow

I don't really interact with you.

I think you guys that are old school full size spam boi's are in for a shock.

Myself and a few other's have been debating for a couple of years or so now where US pickup's are heading.

Maybe you guys should look as well.

Because, Johnny Slow, once you leave high school and finally get enough money for a pickup it will be a completely different pickup market.

That's only a couple of years from now.

So go back to work and earn your pocket money or finish your homework.

I don't understand why so many people complain about the ecoboost MPG. According to fuelly.com the ecoboost averages 1 to 2 MPG better overall than the 5.0 V8 while having significantly better performance. Yeah it doesn't get great MPG while towing heavy loads, but it's really not much worse than the 5.0 according to most. Since most truck owners only tow a small percentage of the time, the towing MPG doesn't matter much anyway. The ecoboost isn't for people that are towing heavy loads all the time, but it sure is nice for those like me that need that capability 10 or 20 days a year. The ecoboost really does get good MPG (according to MOST owners) if you aren't hot rodding it all the time, and has tons of power when you need it. The ONLY valid complaint I see for the ecoboost is doubts about longevity, but so far it seems to be doing good. With over 400,000 ecoboosts on the road it has proven to be pretty reliable for the first 50,000 to 100,000 miles. I am still hesitant to pull the trigger on an ecoboost until there are a lot with over 200,000 miles, but most engines that prove unreliable would have a lot more blown engines by now. I've been checking the f-150 forums quite often, and I've only heard of a few blown ecoboosts, and zero bad turbos. And very few people that regret getting one.

@ Beebe - those who complain about the EB 3.5's mpg are missing the obvious. It is a 5.0 sized engine (weight and dimensions almost identical) but has been shown to either outperform or hold its own against bigger V8's. It also is designed to have similar performance as smaller diesels.

The rival fanboys need to realize that the EB 3.5 is at the beginning of its development cycle. Ford already has the evolution of this engine planned out. Barring any unforeseen advancements from the competition, it will gain power and mpg over time to keep pace with the competition.

Ford can save a tremendous amount of money having a small compact engine. They do not need to engineer a truck to fit a larger and heavier engine. The 2015 Ford has a lighter frame partially because of this. The Ecoboost line of engines "test" better for EPA emissions and MPG ratings than bigger engines.

Ford doesn't need the 6.2 for heavier towing and they do not need a small diesel either. The EB 3.5 was designed to replace both. They care more about their bottom line than return on investment for consumers but with that being said, they will try not screw up durability because that will hurt them badly.

@Johnny Doe - how much time did you spend mining the net for that little gem?
When one talks about adult education/training a variation of what you quote is the starting point for anyone on their journey.
- People start out at the point where they "don't know that they do not know anything". That is referred to as being "unconsciously incompetent".
- We then move to the realization that "we know that we do not know anything" or being consciously incompetent".

At that point we can then strive to learn and improve.

As we learn we get to a level of being "consciously competent". We have to think about what we are doing because we haven't quite mastered what we are learning.

Finally we get to a level of being "unconsciously competent". We've so completely integrated what we have learned that we do not need to consciously think about the skills we perform.

Big Al functions at the top 2 levels because he research's and quotes that information as well as provides information from his own experience.
Since he comes from a different culture and has the eyes of an "outsider". His commentary bothers those who are too familiar with the world that surrounds them. If one assumes that they do not need to learn anything new, they most likely are stuck at the first level. It also may be a case of being trapped by the paradigm that they live within.

Stay with talking trucks because there are a few bloggers on this site that can easily pick apart any attempts at back alley psychology.

Anyone want to respond to this Ram troll on F150online?


I really think Chevrolet's next move will be to offer composite beds across the board. They were ahead of their time with the 800 composite beds.

@ Nick
I would post this on the f150 forum but I don't want to create an account.
I would tell that guy I felt similar back in 09 when I switched from Ford to the newly redesigned Ram. I kept telling people they were overlooking Ram and that they had really improved their trucks. Then when my truck hit 60,000 miles the problems started coming, and coming, and coming. Ridiculous problems that i've never had before like a random crack in the radiator (had to get a new radiator), a bad ignition switch, consuming oil at a rapid rate and a loud "hemi tick" that bothers me all the time. A bad sensor that would make the needle jump and the truck shutter at high speeds. Other problems too that just show the truck was poorly designed. It really is like a ticking time bomb and I'm just waiting for a major engine problem with the sounds it makes and the oil it consumes. And i'm just past 100,000 miles. Went from "best truck I ever owned" to "worst truck I ever owned" within about 25,000 miles. Can't wait to get back to ford later this year. Probably down to the '15 or a '14 depending on the price difference. I also don't think ram has any exclusive features that I want other than possibly the 8 speed. Don't want the diesel, don't want the inferior coil springs or airbags, don't want the hemi-5.0 is probably going to prove to be superior as far as longevity and has plenty of power.

Beebe, If you're going back to a Ford later this year you should probably consider signing up. If you don't post it, I'll post it later. This Ram guy just signed up. Thanks.

I 'm not certain where you got your ratings, but the prototype 2.7 Ecoboost was running 325HP 350lb+. The area under the curve in torque is greater than the 5.0, but I think the 5.0 would will a drag race. The 2.7 liter is also running a higher combustion pressure level than the 3.5 liter so expect more HP per liter.

@Hemi V8,
I have talked to Chris Mcgee and the problem was the potential for the Cammer engines to become very expensive compared to the KB's at the time. I also have talked to Gary Beck(over the phone) through a mutual friend and he said the engine had a lot of power. Gary was working a real estate office in California as as a Manager. Now very much retired.
Stan Sainty built a 3 valve engine, thought it handled nitro better than the 4 valve Mcgee engine. Again enormous power but very hard to have it tuned, needed a lot more tuning and Stan did not have the resources to get it right. He built everything except the tires and blower in his small engineering business in Wentworthville, Sydney.


The pickup truck market is exhausted for the next 3-4 years, the majority of the trucks out there are newer trucks 2011-2013 and people are going to keep those trucks for 5 years. Ford is playing it smart knowing the 2014-2015 sales won't be as strong as the 2011 to 2013 sales.


Agree, basically. The best opportunities for half ton truck buyers during the next several years will take the form of creampuff 2-3 yr old CPO'd Rams, Tundras and Chevys. Trucks built by the Big 3 during the last five years are heavily depreciated after a couple of years, but they still hold huge value for the used buyer. In my area a doublecab Ram or Tundra is cheap if it has more than 35k miles, even if it's in great shape.

I mention all this because it will really impact the New market, and there simply has not been enough economic growth in North America to create enough new demand to support so many new models.

Imagine what GM's new mid sizers will do if they're priced right.

The comments to this entry are closed.