I really like the side mirrors. The overall look of the truck is nice, it hasn't grown on me 100% yet. For a work truck the interior seems to have a ton of tech which is nice. I'm still very much attached to my 06 XLT but hey maybe its time for a change. Can't wait to get a good look at an FX4 or King Ranch

i bet u that f-150 base model will get 19-26 mpg because it will be lighter then the ford explorer that uses the same engine.

the 2.7l ecoboost will get the almost the same 18-19 city and 25-26 highway mpg because this engine will be lighter then the 3.5l v6 NONE-turbo in base truck but make more hp and a lot of torque. as long as you don't use all that hp tq.

I'm not sold on the 2.7 yet. It just seems way too small. Don't get me wrong I've been a ford guy my whole life but 2.7 scares me. Although it maybe good for the weekend warrior types who don't really work their truck. I'm leaning on a 5.0. I like the 3.5 eco my bro-in law has it and its done great but I love the sound of a v-8 with after market exhaust haha

A huge ford fan myself, I'm not crazy about the top design of the center stack; although function over fashion, I'll get over it.

if you take a truck from 20 mpg to 25 mpg a 5 mpg improvement you will save 3500 dollars per 100,000 miles you drive

so even if it cost 3500 dollars per 100,000 miles drive i would still like to see my money go to ford, maintenance, insurance instead of big oil

fleet owners know how to do math. should be a big hit

the 2.7l ecoboost is the same as the diesel engine 3.5l ecoboost was different in the metals but the new 2.7l use the same metal

so if you're a diesel fan guy well its just a oxymoron not to be a fan of the new 2.7l ecoboost (turbo, direct injection, metals are all the same)

only difference i can find in the new diesel thats not even out yet and 2.7l ecoboost is the new diesel has a exhaust brake and diesel is a higher compression ratio and uses more metal

difference in price comes from massive injectors to inject a much higher compression, uses a lot of metal to handle high compression, larger turbos, million sensors to make sure nothing is knocking in the engine, exhaust system,

if the 2.7l feels to small or scary then the later arrival of the 2.3l fourbanger is real going to scare u.

yes 2.3l is coming should be more powerful than the 3.5l base none-turbo and get 20-28 mpg

the estimates I've seen on the 2.7L are in line with the last 4.6L 3V they sold & no one really questioned that engine. I owned an STX scab with that motoe, it was fine for the truck it was in & what I did. Upgraded to a crew cab eco for more room & can pull dad's trailers now too.

I'm not a mechanic by any means but I would think that the 4.6 didn't have to work as hard as the 2.7 would. I don't doubt their power its the durability that I'm worried about. I'm sure the engineers at Ford know what their doing but I'll hold off on it until I see it in action.

I'm not sure I could tolerate a 2.7L ecobuzz for very long.

Just because its a base model doesn't mean its a work truck, for some like me this XL has everything they need. For me this LX has everything I need and I will be using it as my daily driver and for toing my yard trailer to the dump and commuting to work.

I would like to hear from Ford about what diesel offerings they will make with the aluminium F-150. I still see the 3.2 as the prime candidate.

The 2.7 Eco Boost should do okay in this truck. Like any turbo gasoline engine it will chew up fuel as the right foot is used.

I still think it will cost an extra few thousand for an aluminium truck over a the more conventional steel trucks.

Ford still should have released the Ranger in the US. I don't think this truck will be as popular as the current F-150.

Maybe GM will be one up with the new Colorado/Canyon.

The front end is hideous and the bed is small, but it will quickly load up and max out the load capacity of the truck.

The current and future costs of pickups and even considering it's FE it is clear why the smaller Transit Connects, Nissan/Chev vans are picking up in sales.

The costs worry me with this truck.

Ford put a 2.7L in the current f150 with the new aluminum body panels and new frame, and enter it into the BAJA 1000 race. The engine completed the race with no problems, after finishing the crew installed a plexiglass window and drive home. NO OTHER PICK-UP MANUFACTURE TO DATE HAS TAKEN A CHANCE ON ENTERING THERE NEWLY DESIGN POWETRAINS IN TOUGH RACES SUCH AS THE BAJA OTHER THAN FORD, FIRST THE 3.5l ECOBOOST AND NOW THE 2.7l ECOBOOST. FROM A ENGINEERING PERPECTIVE THIS ONE OF THE BEST REAL WORLD WAYS OF TESTING A PICK-UP TRUCK DURABILITY.

I saw they did that with a 3.5 eco where is the source that they did the baja trip with the 2.7

nvm i found it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoNi2S37uQQ

2.7l ecoboost baja 1000

That looks great for an XL work truck. I'm sure the 2.7 will be great. I expect it to have similar torque to the 5.4 3 valve, but coming in at a low-rpm, and similar horse power, but it will feel much more lively. With the lighter body, it's not going to require much throttle input to get it going, and I'm sure the fuel economy will be exceptional for a non-hybrid gasoline engine. This probably sits in replacement of the 4.6 V8, but I think in reality it will be a 5.4/5.3 killer. Exciting times in the pickup truck world!

It may be a good truck (still too early to say) but that is a face only a Mother could love! And what's with the overload of buttons on the interior? It looks like Fisher Price had a clearance sell!

I think I'm going Chevy this next time around after 2 F150's. Seems like too many possible gremlins and not much to offer in way of change from previous truck.

@PUTC

What's the base WT engine? Did I miss that? Also, are alloy wheels on the WT package?

papa, I would bet that what they are showing here is the XL plus package they have now, which is chrome bumpers, nicer radio, cloth seats and alum. wheels, and when you get that package your are able to get fog lights!

Ugly grill just like the Super Duty. A glove box that is worthless for storage. A dash that looks like the old one. The same design side windows. Mirrors that are still too small to tow any wide trailers. And the truck looks like the truck it is replacing except for the aluminum body. I would like to know what the big deal is about this pickup? A few more MPG for a higher cost? It sure does not take much to excite a Ford boy, that is for sure. I saw one unhappy Ford pickup owner heading to bike week in Daytona. Truck was loaded on a flat bed with his trailer and bike being towed behind, headed to a local South Carolina Ford dealer. And yes, it had a Ecoboost name plate on the door.

The XL is the most basic model right? Fog lights and steering wheel controls? That's not too shabby for a base truck! I'm beginning to like it.

wooopud; all part of the XL Plus Package! it is the only way to get a cloth seat by the way! and you have to take the chrome bumpers with it! I know, at least for a 2012 F-150. Also if you still build one on-line.

This is the 3rd incarnation of this platform for Ford. I think it is going to be a spectacular truck.

Ford is borrowing a page from Apple and I think its great. Build a good platform and incrementally upgrade it until you have squeezed all you can out of it. This update has everything the GM intro didn't

First it started with a well liked platform, then it moved the needle with an all aluminum body and a new eco boost.

By contrast the GM introduction was "hey everybody we caught up!" They did not have a platform to start with that people even liked and from there they did nothing revolutionary. The engines are all rehashed, the trans (until the 8 speed) is the same. I have not been able to come up with anything compelling about the new GM trucks.

The new Ford with its continued evolution of a very good platform sprinkled with significant upgrades, the aluminum body, the new ecoboost and an evolutionary update of the interior is fantastic. It doesn't look like they tried too hard (like the GM twins) but that they balanced a recognizable style with enough new stuff to make it an extremely significant update while still being identified as an F150. About mid life of the new new truck I'll be replacing my current 2012 F150 EB with one of them and I'm looking forward to it.

@woopud
Looking at how this truck is blinged appears to be identical to the Ranger XL entry model here in Australia.

They also come with power windows, A/C, trailer sway, plus all of the other traction and stability controls and all of the connectivity (MP3, Bluetooth, etc).

Base model isn't what base model was a decade ago.

Look at all the exposed wiring underneath, one thing I've always disliked about Fords. They don’t even try to tuck it up high to keep it from getting snagged on something IF you go off-road.

@Mark - Well done. Please keep these work trim articles coming! I really like seeing these machines in their most basic form. Strip away all the extraneous add-ons and nonsense of overpriced, over-engineered "trim" items, and you get closer to seeing the parts of a truck that REALLY matter.

Nice truck. I like trucks that have everything I need and nothing I don't.

Could be my next garden truck-that or the 2015 Canyon ext cab.

Looking forward to getting the MPG estimates and power ratings of the new base 3.5 and the 2.7 turbo. Love my Tundra, hate the MPG.

Is the searing wheel centered with the seat? If not, game over!

@mark williams
Awesome thanks. I've been asking to see some interior pictures of this truck.

What are those black plastic 2 by 4's doing as part of the grill?
Too much F250 wannabee styling here for me. The '41 ford PU looks way cooler than the 2015, as does the '55.

@Beebe,

You are pretty easily amused, dude!

Interior shots of an XL F150 get you off???

Gimme ten bucks and I'll show you pictures of an old Essex V6 4.2L from a 2004 F150. Doesn't leak or smoke--original radiator. Limited time only.

@Silverado_Driver

Ford squeezing the last juice from an old truck platform gets you off.

Seriously, do the words Mustang, Fairlane, Pinto, Thunderbird, Econoline, Ranger, Taurus mean anything to you?

Dearborn humped each of the above-referenced platforms worse than the high school whore at a country dance.

Have you ever met Beebe??? You guys are probably related.

Pretty nice looking for a work truck!

I have to agree with @Silverado_Driver. Ford has taken evolutionary steps to changing the F150 platform. It shares similarities to the 11th Gen and 12 Gen trucks but has seen big changes in everything else.

Ford's strategy has been to come out with a newer body and then change the drivetrains.
That sort of approach makes change more acceptable to loyal fans as well as new buyers. Our brain is hardwired to look for familiarities which is based on primal survival instincts. We are more accepting of change if it looks familiar.

GMC tried to evolve from the GMT900 platform but was hamstrung by bankruptcy. They made key changes but on the outside the Silverado looks more like a retro truck based from the late '80's. The Sierra looks like an evolution of its immediate predecessor. Choosing the same displacements gives the impression that the engines are just rehashed SBC's.

GMC should of took the chances that Ram and Ford did but chose to be conservative. That was most likely forced upon them by a lack of funds. Sales tend to reflect that fact.

What I find surprising is the fact that conservative truck buyers are accepting these new changes. Ram sales have not been hurt by coil springs or air ride and Ford sales have not been hurt by V6 engines.

GMC goes traditional and gets sacked in the market place.......... who who'da thunk it??????????

Fords basic truck looks better then a blinged out chevy. Now that's sad.

@papa jim
No it doesn't "get me off." How old are you cause that sounds like something a teenage kid would say? I've seen pictures galore of the upper trim models. i've been asking since day one to see some pictures of the lower trim models because there is a good chance that is what my next truck will be come this fall. So I thank Mr. Williams for finally providing me with some interior pictures of a truck I might be buying. Of course it isn't the most amazing interior I've ever seen, but I've been very curious to see what it is like. Make sense?

@papa jim
Please stop being such an ass. This thread was going great until you chimed in.

Did they do staggered shocks on the rear? I noticed that the pick of the drivers rear shock has it mounted rearward instead of forward of the axle. What is the benefit of this? Are they both rearward or staggered?

@ Lou_BC
I think I disagree with you I think in the long run going the most high tech you can will probably hurt you. Ram did start/stop, active suspension, active grill shutters with an 8-speed to the OHV 5.7L Hemi Ram to go from 14cty/20hwy to 15cty/22hwy. Now the half a liter bigger OHV EcoTec 6.2L used VVT, cylinder deactivation, direct injection and higher compression ratio to go from 13cty/18/hwy to 15cty/21hwy. As for Ford they much like Toyota in they are a OHC company and OHC engines have a couple of problems 1. A OHC over 5.0L is too big for fuel economy reasons. 2. Adding technology to a OHC become more expensive than adding it to a OHV engine. Examples of those are the 5.7L iforce and 6.2L Boss engines which probably can't be updated with the technology used by the OHV V8 engines above due to price as that technology on a OHC V8 is only found in things like Mercedes http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/07/m152-20110721.html not a $38,000 pickup. Just because some companies did a lot of high tech things doesn't mean it is THE future it just mean it was their future because they didn't have another way to advance their powertrain for the price of the vehicle they are selling so that left them with the Ecoboost strategy and all the things Ram did versus scrapping the Hemi for a new OHV V8 and Ford scrapping their OHC V8's for OHV V8's so they run a simple larger displacement.

You can do high tech fancy engineering or you can use solid no thrills engineering that netted a bigger gain in mpg. I believe in the long run the simplest way is the best way.

A little off topic but I believe their will be ZR1 Corvette for this generation because the Z06 has Eaton's new 1.7L TVS the last ZR1 had a 2.3L just like what the 5.8L Shelby GT500 received. The ZL1 has the 1.9L TVS while the ZRL has the 2.3L which means to me one day their may be a return of the ZR1 with a larger supercharger that could make around 700hp http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/13/2015-chevy-corvette-z06-detroit-2014/.

Two things I noticed in the pictures: I like those XL wheels better than I like the current XLT-FX4 wheels. The rear leaf spring shackles seem like they are molded into the frame. For 40 years Ford has been using the same rear shackles that were riveted on the frame that always seemed to rust out. I have seen many 2003 F-150's with rusted shackles, but the older ones can be replaced, but the new ones can't

@AD

You made some comments that require some citation to be taken seriously.

for example: Why is a 5.0L OHC engine less economical than a 5.0 pushrod engine? The air/fuel mixture flowing through the heads isn't impacted at sensible engine speeds by the number or location of camshafts. Cup engines in NASCAR are turning over 9000 rpms on some tracks--cam location doesn't seem to matter that much. Valve lift, valve size, valve springs are big factors here.

Modifying an OHC engine: Why is this a factor? Your extended remarks never really explained that.

Not really disagreeing, but want to understand your point better.

silveradodriver: IMHO there are more differences in the new Chevy than that new Ford, other than the bodies being made out of alum, the bodies on the new Ford look very similar to the old truck in my driveway, where as the Chevy in my drive looks nothing like the new one! and NONE of the parts are the same except for a handful of bolts! With that said they are both fine trucks, it is just I have had better luck with Chevy's than my Ford.

At about 165c.i.d. it's not that much smaller than the basic I-6 from the '50s which only put out about 95 hp. Considering the 2.7 is an EcoBoost with almost twice the horsepower, it should be sufficient for basic work-truck utility and might just slow down some of these hooning employees who like to use every pony the truck offers--with no care about the gas mileage. For a light-duty work truck, that engine may just be the perfect option.

@AD: I have to agree with PapaJim here; your argument seems to make no sense. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that your discussion is unclear as to WHY OHC is worse.

As I remember, OHC was designed to give solid valve control as compared to the old hydraulic lifters--preventing valve float. This allowed an engine to achieve very high RPMs without losing power through still-open valves. Since smaller engines are built to run at higher RPMs and pushrods off the main cam can get bent as well as generating more parasitic drag, the OHC was the solution to both problems. Now with VVT, the OHC is somewhat independent of main cam rotation allowing for better efficiency through optimizing valve timing for the needed performance level. It's all highly technical and computer controlled today.

The wheels, sidestep, fog lights and some interior details must be optional in the XL trim.

I said 5.0L or bigger is too big for a OHC as you cannot add fuel saving technology to them because of price we do not have a OHC over 5.0L that can get 15cty/21hwy. 15cty/21hwy is what GM's 6.2L OHV V8 gets and also what Ford's 5.0L OHC V8 gets without the significant weight cut that has come to Ford and will be coming to GM and the power difference between the 2 is huge. If fuel economy is the focus going forward than large over 5.0L OHC V8 engines which cost more are at a disadvantage as only companies like Mercedes will add start/stop, cylinder deactivation, direct injection, high compression and then pair it to a 8-speed or better tranny. It is probably cheaper to do the Ecoboost strategy than to do what Mercedes did http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/07/m152-20110721.html. The Hemi is OHV but due to design I don't think they can add direct injection and the higher compression so they did other things like active grille shutters, start/stop and Active Suspension to lower ride height at hwy speeds. That got the 5.7L Hemi Ram to 15/22 when GM's 1/2 a liter larger 6.2L is now at 15/21 with way more power. If GM offered a EcoTec 5.7L V8 it would propbably have the same 15/22 as the 5.7L Hemi Ram if not better with around the same power. Now due to FE reasons Ford will not offer a V8 over 5.0L in the F150 and Toyota and Nissan will to make some decisions about the futures of the 5.7L iforce and 5.6L Endurance V8's as they get the worst FE in the segment around 13/18 and maybe the reasons why they went for a 5.0L V8 diesel as their gas 5.0L+ V8's may be going bye-bye for 2016 or later. I am not saying OHV is worse I am saying it is better. You guys think because I own a Supercharged large OHC I am saying it is better when I am doing the opposite. For years @ PUTC GM was ridiculed for their larger OHV V8's but they are probably going to win that battle.

Screaming Buster, Yes they are using staggered shocks on this new model. It is to reduce axle wrap/hop from the long leaf springs.

Lou BC, I think the problem is that GM could have gone 'traditional' but instead they did the 'usual'.