Ford Videos Aim to Prove Toughness of 2015 F-150


To say that Ford's public relations folks have a rough road ahead of them is to undersell the reality. It's one thing to upgrade one of the most popular work tools on the planet and quite another to make it out of a completely new metal.

Can you imagine what it must have been like when the first guy suggested that he make the next-generation hammer with a plastic or fiberglass handle instead of wood? His peers had to think he was crazy. Nevertheless, today's hammers are made out of just about any material and come in a variety of shapes and sizes. But at one point they all had to prove their value and function, and now that the 2015 Ford F-150 will be made with a huge amount of aluminum, Ford is trying everything it can to spread the word that it has done its homework with this new F-150. These 10 testing videos are just the start.

To its credit, Ford is trying to counteract a problem of perception by releasing these videos with real images of actual tests and the engineers who conducted those tests. Although certainly promotional, these aren't just mini commercials; these are the actual engineers in charge of the various aspects of the truck talking about their small piece of the new F-150.

We recently spoke with everyone involved in developing the 2015 F-150, from the chief engineer down to the guy who tests the buttons. We'll be sharing what we learned soon.

Manufacturer images, videos


The Torture Rack


Silver Creek Trail


Power Hop Hill


55-Gallon Drum Drop


Wet Corrosion Bath


Davis Dam Punishment


Gravel Road Mayhem


EcoBoost Thermal Shock


Rock-a-Bye Driveline


Frame Twisting Fun




@Big Al

You yourself are making assumptions as well. You don't know how much the new F150 will cost. You don't have a clue of what CAFE fleet average Ford has to meet either. Remember, they will not have to meet as strict of a mileage number as other manufacturers because of the large percentage of big trucks they sell in comparison to their fleet as a whole.

A company that sells more small cars or trucks will be hit harder by the CAFE regulations because they will have the meet a higher fleet mileage number. So by the CAFE standards it would be more advantages for them to make bigger trucks more fuel efficient than to just make more of even smaller trucks because that would mean they would have to meet an even higher fleet average. By 2025 a large truck will have to hit 30mpg while a compact truck will have to hit 44mpg so selling more compact trucks and cars would raise a fleet average by quit a bit. Ford is sitting pretty good with this since they sell a much greater amount of big trucks than smaller cars, and don't have a midsize truck raisin their fleet average.

So don't act all high and mighty like you are "smarter then thou" when you don't know all the facts either because you don't know what fleet average each individual manufacturer has to meet. Also, just because you state your opinion (that YOU ONLY think is a fact) does not make it a fact so quit talking as if the assumptions you make are facts and anything anyone else says isn't. Whether those assumptions have some thought behind them or not can be debated, but they are still assumptions. NOT FACT!

It's funny, you used to tell me to get off my high horse yet you seem to always be on one. You also used to tell me that I believed in some kind of "pecking order" yet you are the one putting everyone into your own little "tiers" or classes. Read your post in the mirror the next time you decide to "label" someone or say they are doing something that you yourself do.

Torture testing is important to any car company. It exposes the weak links in the products they are testing. These tests are inaccurate in displaying component durability. These are "controlled environments" which are regulated by Ford. Guess what Gm and RAM do the same. The real testing takes place in the Real World. From the oil platforms of North Dakota where the temperatures sink to a bone chilling negative forty degrees for weeks on end. Or in the deserts of Arizona or Death Valley where it is way north of one hundred degrees all day...and everything in between. The world is full of unforgiving terrain and environments...these are the places where the true tests are. These tests never stop...ever. Driving in the rural parts of Nebraska and Wyoming for years, I have had more than my fair share of rough miles. So I have to ask...If steel has worked well for so many years, why change it? Don't mess with something that works. Steel all the way. How many aluminum bridges do you see? Yeah, I thought so...

I just do not understand the whole "we'll have to see if aluminum works for a body" line of thought. Aluminum has been used for body panels in autos for decades. Land Rover, Audi, Jaguar, etc. How about aluminum boats like the jet driven ones they use on rivers out here that have to withstand submerged object impacts like rocks and logs? Airliners? Ford has had aluminum hoods on the F150 since '04 along with aluminum lower control arms, so it's not like a brand new material for them or almost any manufacturer as most autos have aluminum incorporated somewhere into the chassis, at least.

The hype over aluminum is somewhat comical since Jaguar and the Rover Company (eventually Land Rover) both started making aluminum body on steel frame vehicles in 1945 and 1947 respectively. It's neither innovative or new, but the materials are well proven.

I was worried about the cost of the new f-150, but I read an article recently that said the increase in cost due to the aluminum use in the new truck is only $700 per truck. I'd pay an extra $700 in a heartbeat if it's a better truck. i've been talking to some people lately (pretty typical truck buyers) and not many people seem concerned about it being aluminum. Most people say they care more about MPG. If the new f-150 significantly improves MPG, then it will definitely sell better than the current generation f-150 in my opinion. Most people are going to expect the new truck to be better than the old, so if it's not too expensive it should sell better.

The point of these tests is to simulate wear over a long period of time in a fraction of the actual time it takes in the real world. That way they can make changes and improvements before they release a new vehicle. I'm glad they do testing in the real world, but that takes a long time. This controlled testing by ford obviously would have a lot of value for improving the quality of a new design when it is released. There certainly can be no 100 percent replacement for real-world testing though, which ford obviously does as well. Actually they do many of the tests in both the real world and in the controlled environments combined. When the 2011 ecoboost came out they ran an engine through the controlled thermal shock tests and other controlled durability testing and then they put that engine in a truck and ran it nonstop towing around a racetrack at full throttle for 24 hours, drove it cross country to do log-pulling stunts, then I think they took it to davis dam for uphill towing, and then ran it (the same engine) in the baja cross-country race.

Ford are the leaders in the truck industry. They know what they're doing and I have no doubt this will be a success. Just the thickness alone will come out so much sturdier than the so call high strength steel. Which is like tin foil really and prone to quick rust through. Dodge however isn't far behind and the Ford needs to keep that in mind. With Chevrolet being overtaken (and I don't think that was a one month fluke), Dodge will put the pedal to the floor. GM has too many other problems to worry about right now and their GMC truck is the queen of the company. Sad to see Chevrolet fall. An all aluminum or composite Silverado CK would have been neat. You will however see Dodge will some serious innovation now.

The problem with the so called "torture" tests is that they can only mimic so much of what goes on in the real world. For example, the who issue of the Ecoboost going into limp mode from humidity building up in the air cooler was never discovered during testing. That is more of a normal driving issue, however it wasn't discovered, because Ford wasn't testing normal driving in various conditions. They were too focused on "extreme" tests.

In the same way running an engine at 24 hours at WOT, is a good test, but it doesn't test how it will be abused in day to day driving such as towing in stop and go traffic on a daily basis. Wear and tear happens over time, not all at once. The thermal shock test is good, but what can match 10 years of thermal cycles on a daily basis? Obviously they can't test a truck for 10 years before releasing it, but I just think they need to come up with tests that more or less imitate real world driving scenarios, not tests that are meant to impress people.

It seems like a lot of people hold the notion that Ram doesn't test their trucks as well as Ford or GM or that they are using the Ecodiesel instead of making lighter trucks. I'm sure a lot is going on behind the scenes in preparing their next gen trucks. A lot of what is going on is the other truck makers are more than happy to sit back and let Ford be the aluminum and small displacement V6 guinea pig. On thing about the new F150s is that unless the aluminum saves a significant amount of weight, then even with the new ecoboost, fuel economy isn't going to be significantly improved. I highly doubt that even with the saved weight they will get it to match the FE of the ecodiesel. If that is indeed the case, it shows that strategy can be more important than innovation.

hemi monster
The problem with condensation in the intercooler was relatively minor and easily fixed for most ecoboost owners. I just read an article that the NHTSA is not going to make them do a recall citing that they found a simple and effective fix for the problem and that it was not a dangerous problem (has led to zero accidents that they are aware of). Obviously they can't make the truck perfect and avoid every little issue that could arise, but I think the torture testing is pretty impressive and thorough.

So how would you improve on their tests? we already know they do real world testing, plus these tests are all to simulate real-world testing or go beyond what would ever happen in the real world.

Like for example:"Seven-channel input: Ford built a special torture rack that violently twists and shakes the truck seven ways – simultaneously – for five days, simulating the equivalent of 225,000 miles. This testing isn't random. After running a fully instrumented truck through durability courses, engineers recorded the forces the road surface put on various vehicle components. Those forces are replicated in seven channels – four up and down, two side to side and one lengthwise down the center. The frame and body are stressed to see how well the truck performs in situations that might bend the frame."

How can you more closely replicate real-world conditions than that?

Then there's the thermal shock. - "F-150 engines are first placed in a special cell and hooked to equipment, called a dynamometer, which simulates pulling a heavy trailer at full throttle up a steep grade. Next, thermal shock testing takes engines from the coldest polar vortex to extreme heat in just seconds. The engine coolant and oil are quick-cooled to minus 20 degrees in as little as 20 seconds, then the engine runs at maximum power while coolant and oil temperatures stabilize, first at 230 degrees and then at 270 degrees, before being chilled again. THIS PROCESS IS RUN 350 TIMES OVER MORE THAN 400 HOURS to prove the durability of the engine block, seals, gaskets, cylinder heads and liners."

- Do you really think that is an insufficient way of testing thermal shock to an engine??

How can any open-minded person see these tests and not have greater trust in the reliability of the truck?

You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that I don't necessarily ignore the tests. I just don't attach a whole lot of meaning to them. All the truck makers do the same kind of tests whether they make videos or not. The videos Ford released are meant to impress. Could you honestly say that GM and Ram don't do the same kind of tests? They both do just as many tests. It's been this way for many years, the only thing that has changed is they have improved their testing procedures.

I do have an increased expectation of reliability in any of the trucks now more than ever. That is mainly because I know that more and more attention has gone into making trucks reliablie and long lasting. We can sit here and debate all day long about the best way to test trucks, but at then end of the day we will still each go out and drive or buy our preferred brand. We have no control over what automakers do with there testing. Do you really think someone like HEMI V8 would come here and watch all those video, the say "oh Ram doesn't have those videos anywhere, so now I will go buy a Ford" Of course he wouldn't, neither would anyone else here. And that is my point, the tests may impress, but at then end of the day, the have little or no influence over me.

hemi monster
I wouldn't just assume that ram and gm do as much testing as ford. What these videos do for me is show that ford is doing plenty of good testing of their trucks, while the question remains for Ram and less so for GM. Since ram and GM aren't showing as much for what they do for testing, one can wonder if they really do test as thoroughly. I for one do not believe ram tests their trucks to this level since they have no evidence of it and my experience from my ram indicates that they don't. I'm still waiting on those videos of the ram testing that you mentioned earlier, or even just a statement from a ram engineer on what they do to test their trucks.

I'll start by agreeing and saying that yes the tests appear impressive. What it seems like your saying is that because you're Ram hasn't held up to your expectations, you believe they didn't test it thoroughly enough. Well, since I own a Ram as well, I can also comment on how it has held up. Now that it is 4 years old, yes there are some interior trim that hasn't held up as well as I would like it to, but mechanically it is in top shape. Compared to how poorly my old early 90's F350 held up, the difference is like night and day. Trucks nowadays are going to hold up much better, just because they put so much more effort into them.

With that in mind, I would ask you again, what makes you think that GM and Ram don't do as much testing as Ford? Lack of testing videos is not proof of anything. It would be like me saying that since Ford hasn't released any testing videos of the new Superduty Chassis, it doesn't exist and they're not developing it. I see F150's several years old that have been used as worktrucks and they don't like like they held up that well. It's all a matter of how the truck is used.

Wow the RAM boys are such cry babies. I like Ford but if Ram or Chevy does something better great, more power to them . I'm not insecure about my brand so I don't bash other brands . If Ford screws up I'll say so, but to constantly do nothing but whine about other brands is really a cry for getting mental health services .

I don't see why these tests would be seen as a bad thing. Do they catch every issue that may arise from 10 years of real world driving? No, but if it catches at least some so they can be fixed at the factory then it is worth it. What people may not understand is that although some issues may slip through the cracks in these tests, how many were caught and fixed?

Take the CAC issue in the Ecoboost. It did not happen to every truck and only happen to certain ones in certain environments. The amount of trucks it effected was very low compared to the amount sold. Part off the issue exacerbating the problem was the new EPA regulations forcing truck makes to make their vehicles go into "limp mode" for a certain amount of time(30 seconds) if it detects more than one misfire in a sequence in order to save the emissions systems. Without this EPA regulation, the Ecoboost would just have a breif misfire and go on it's way. A small weep hole at a certain spot in the CAC like some previous year model cars with turbocharger on them would make this a non even because positive pressure would clear the CAC of any condensation buildup, but due to new EPA regulations a weep hole is no longer allowed.

All these videos are is good marketing on Fords part. They know consumers generally don't trust anything that is new so they do things like this. They also know that quality is number one on most buyers list when making a buying decision. Of course no amount of testing or videos is good enough for some. They have a predetermined mindset to look at everything else besides what their brand does as negative. They will look for reasons to validate that mindset. A persons attitude towards something is 100% effected by their perception of it. If they perceive things in a negative way from the get go then they will look for things to confirm what they already think. No amount of factual date will sway these people because they will look for something bad in every case and only focus on that to fit what they already want to think. Same goes for those that perceive things positively. Rarely are there people in the middle who truly look at things with an unbiased mind. So as I said the videos are just good marketing on Fords part and it is not their fault that the other makes marketing departments do not use tests like these to their full potential. It is not like you would say "Ford, don't use these videos as marketing because none of your competitors are smart enough to".

torture tests?? That wasn't torture, that was just another day on a ranch in the sandhills of Nebraska.

If you have ever been there then you'd understand, they do this kind of stuff every day there!!.......FORD, RAM, and GM!

They get the job done!

Well said John, I'am a RAM guy but Ford and GM still make good trucks!

They get the job done!

Your second paragraph is exactly my issue. Ford have to produce an expensive aluminium vehicle to meet regulatory requirements.

So, I my mind the F-150 will become even more of an SUV. Have a look at cab configurations on all pickups.

Look at Ram and their payloads. Pickups are becoming more and more SUVs, a family truckster and daily driver.

Good marketing for Ford, but that's all. Like I keep saying both GM and Ram have released similar videos in the past. If I could find them all I would post links. Just because other brand's marketing depts don't have such videos available right here right now doesn't mean they aren't doing the exact same thing behind closed doors. It also don't mean that they aren't doing their job right as far as marketing is concerned. I watched those videos because they're interesting to watch, not because I would let those videos affect my perception. BTW, these videos don't prove anything or provide factual data to the consumer. All they do is provide a cinematic depiction of the tests that Ford uses.

If by chances there were the exact same torture tests done on different trucks then that would mean something. Being able to compare really matters much more than seeing how one truck performs under such conditions.

For example, unrelated to the F150 tests, here a frame twist test on the Superduty VS the Ram HD. The thing about the video is it isn't produced by Ford. Therefore it is an example of a video that doesn't show Ford excelling at a certain test. The reason I reference such a video is not to bash Ford but to point out that the Ford videos are obviously going to put Ford in a positive light. Nothing wrong with that, but I will not make truck buying decisions off of such videos.

Frame twist test:

The reason that pickups are moving away from their traditional roles to more of a family hauler is because that is what the consumer wants and demands. 15 years ago you couldn't find a 1/2 crew cab except in very rare cases. I think GM was the first one to start making them in '99. Today just about all new truck purchase besides work trucks are crew cabs and sometimes extended cabs. Customers have different needs than in the past.

That is why I always harp on the payload issue, I don't think it's as significant as people make it out to be, because half the people out there driving trucks are not using the truck for anything specific, much less ever hauling anything significant.

All Guts

All Glory

All best in class Ram!

@hemi monster aka other hemi's
Have I ever stated that pickups are not wanted as a non working SUV?

Again, if you want to debate me, make a response that is relevant to my argument.

Like ALL1's comment you are stating the obvious and what I've been stating since I've come to PUTC.

Why would I argue the views I have put forward for years.

Why do you think everything I say is some type of attempt to argue with you. If I agree with something you say, that means we are having a discussion, not a debate. A debate is when we disagree. I'm stating the obvious because the obvious hasn't been address too much on this article. People keep telling us their awe and wows regarding the videos, but that is what I've been saying since yesterday is the problem. Those videos are just promotional and advertising.

I view anyone who calls me BAFO as an adversary.

My name is Big Al, from Alan.

My naming convention is not based on an engine, product or an acronym. I'm a person, human, I don't want to be aligned to a machine, etc.

If you study my comments and blogs, you will actually see when I'm addressed as BAFO my response is generally disrespectful.

If you study my comments and blogs, you will actually see when I'm addressed as BAFO my response is generally disrespectful.

@Big Al from Oz
I've said it before, I have nothing personal against your, I really don't. Okay so now that I'm calling you what you would like to be called, how about lets have a reasonable discussion/debate. Like I said before, I agree with you on how 1/2 tons are used and regarding payload. The area I don't agree is that 1/2 tons are going to become obsolete. That is because consumers what them even more than ever. If that ever ceases to be the case, people will still need work trucks.

Lets say a family has 5 people and they are in the market for either a SUV or a pickup, given that they can get a full sized crew cab pickup, it might be a reasonable option if they value the utility of a pickup over the SUV, even if that involves only going to Home Depot to buy plants or appliances. When the new GM mid-sizes come out we will see if people consider them a feasible alternative to full sizes or not. Remember what Ford said awhile back when asked why they didn't have any plans for a US Ranger? They said something to the effect of consumers should just get the F150 because the feel it's a one-sized fits all kind of deal.

This is precisely why I come here and make a big issue about articles like these. Seemingly guys want their trucks to be "bullet-proof" and "torture tested". The actual truth of the matter is that the only way a truck will come close to being used like that is if it's used as a work truck.

So what I have a hard time wrapping my head around is that the whole Aluminum/Ecoboost deal is all focused in on the consumer who is driving the truck for pleasure rather than work. Anyone who used a truck for work understands that fuel economy and rapid depreciation is all part of a work truck. Thus the truck will be torn apart after a few years of hard work. Toughness and durability are a basic assumption of the work truck owner, but it only needs to be that way for the 5 or so short years that he owns the work truck.

For non-work truck owners, the actual durability isn't as important because any truck nowadays should last at least 15-20 years if used lightly. That goes for pretty much every other vehicle out there. I have heard it said that a car making it to 200k nowadays is nothing special whereas in the past it was a feat for only the most reliable makes/models. So for those type of consumers, it's not really about actual durability. It's more of a matter of perceived durability and the image they want. That's why I am so fussy about it. Fanboys will go on all day about which brand is better due to what they see in videos and review, but who really plans to abuse their brand new $50k truck like that?

I hope all the pickup formulae between Ford, GM and Fiat/Ram work.

If they don't you can kiss full size 1/2 ton trucks goodbye.

If you spent the time learning instead of dreaming or probably sitting on your smart phone you would expand your mind.

Many of you guys who blog on this site don't know what effects your vehicle regulations will have on your vehicles.

This is evident by some of the uneducated comments I read.

Ford will sell aluminium pickups, but how many?

If you think you are so clever you tell me what implications and impacts will occur with Class 3 and under vehicles regarding CAFE, let alone EPA? Then explain to me the impact on Class 3 and over vehicles regarding your vehicle regulations?

You can't because you don't have a clue, and like many on this site you tend to eat up this marketing hype, from any manufacturer.

Look at the previous article and what do you see? I even provided a link for cutaways and cab chassis variants of the Transits.

Tell me about the footprint of the Transit? Then look at the engine configurations.

This will end up becoming US Fords work truck, not aluminium pickups.

Aluminium pickups will be mainly SUV style vehicles. Some will be used for normal SUV type activities. Pickups are already nearly all SUVs. 50% are private sales and a huge part of the business sales of pickups are used as SUVs.

Read, research then comment.

I've stated many of you don't like my comments because it goes against your paradigms. Or what you discuss in class at high school.

But I think I'm spot on in my assessment.

Oh, I'd even bet the Transit will come with a 2.7 Eco Boost as well.

I have never stated full size 1/2 ton pickups will become obsolete. I do think when some of you guys read something, actually read the written word and don't try and place spin on a comment, especially from me.

A family might WANT a SUV or pickup, but will it be affordable to the current audience?

The family pickup will become much more expensive. This will translate into reduced sales.

As for the testing of vehicles, all vehicles are tested and you will probably find many of the issues with recalls is due to a change in the design to reduce costs.

Engineering is generally quite good, it's when the bean counters come in and try to get to involved in engineering is when problems arise.

It's the same even with model sharing. The Ranger had an issue with its shifter and the Mazda didn't. Both the 'same' vehicles, but Ford I suppose engineered a cheaper shifter.

The same with the suspensions, Mazda has a stiffer suspension and Ford want a more plush ride. The Ranger has had a number of sagging springs in comparison to the Mazda.

The same with towbars. The Ranger towbar is almost unusable off road in comparison to the BT50. The basic engineering of the two vehicles is identical, but Mazda and Ford bean counters are different.

Generation V8 will not be so prevalent either in a decade, so this talk of V8 power only will be the realm of the very few.

Many will be impressed with the V8, but not many will be able to afford to own one.

I read a comment regarding the vans and the comment suggested that an antique chassis van with a V8 with part time 4x4 is a better vehicle than the AWD Merc Sprinter van. It's those uneducated comments that make me laugh.

It's comment like this that highlight the fear some have with something different.

The very notion that using a V8 or even a gasoline or diesel engine will make a superior vehicle is just nonsense. Or the size of a vehicle makes a vehicle superior. These comments aren't to be taken as an anti V8 or anti full size.

In a decade you will see less full size half ton pickups and far less V8s, more diesels and V6's.

You will see a lot more Americanised Euro/Asian commercial vehicles. Why? Because they already meet CAFE. Why re-invent the wheel.

Well, I have been saying for quite some time now that the cost of improving your mpgs will rise. UNECE is the best model to retain most of what you have, CAFE will strangle your trucks.

There will unfortunately be more technology required, forcing up prices more and more.

The rising cost of US pickups might gradually make them a work truck again. People might opt for smaller affordable CUVs/SUVs.

Read this link.

This has been what I've been talking about for the past year. All I get from some of you guys is $hit (not Jeff S).

Open your market and let mid sizer compete and adopt UNECE regs like most of us do and you will still have full size trucks.

Not as many because midsizers will take sales away. Irrespective of what DenverMike/Greg Baird states midsizer will sell more.

But you will still have your V8 pickups.

Read and weep.

@Big Al from Oz
I agree with some of what you're saying. However, I'm not ready to jump on any boat and say what engines will be the most popular in the future. Here's the thing, over the past 15 years or so, I have been watching for the demise of the V8 in full-sized pickups. It hasn't happened yet. The reason for that is that V8's have been improved by leaps and bounds to produce excellent MPG numbers compared to old ones. As long as that type of innovation continues, I don't think we will see the demise of which anytime soon. GM especially better be hoping for that because their whole strategy with their current pickups relies on the use of effiencent V8's instead of the Ford strategy.

In general, in the auto industry, I have not seen what I expected with powertrains in general. I expected to see the demise of the V6 in sedans and small cars. On the contrary, many cars still have those. Take for example the new '15 Chrysler 200, which is considered a mid-sized car. It will have the 3.6l as an option and is expected to make 30 or more mpgs on the highway. The 8 and 9 speed trannys can help make those kind of numbers. As long as those type of powertrains can be made more and more efficient, then there is no reason to get rid of them.

So getting back to trucks, for full sized trucks they basically have 3 options, V8's, diesels or V6's. Which will be the clear winner? That's not for me to say. What I will point out is that even Ford, given their current strategy will still be offering the 5.0l in their '15 trucks. For what reason, I don't know, but there has to be some sort of business case for it.

Lastly to address what you said about Euro/Asian vehicles, I agree that we will see a lot more of them. The main thing stopping them right now is that they have to be made to fit the American paradigm. If you look at the global Colorado, it would have never worked here if they used that kind of styling so they had to make it look like the full size GM trucks before attempting to sell it here. The Euro vans have been slow to catch on. I see alot more fleets with Econolines or GM vans than Promasters or Sprinters. I think it's a styling issue people can't get past. Whatever the reason may be, that is a consideration that has to be taken into account before importing those type of vehicles here no matter how fuel efficient they may be. Unless the meet the expectations of the American public, people aren't going to like or buy them.

I've been saying your protectionist CAFE/EPA/Design Regs/Taxes protecting you full sizers will be the end of your trucks as you know it. Or you will end up with F-250/350 sized half ton pickups, like Lou had alluded too, costing lots more to purchase and operate.

In the shorter term, diesels will get you guys out of trouble. Maybe you will end up with unitary constructed utes, styled like road whales with turbo 4s and V6s.

It is odd. To the mid size detractors. The world outside of the US will still have traditional styled pickups, maybe 9/10ths the size but with a full chassis.

I can't see a full chassis not being used here. Why? Because we need traybacks and the UNECE regulations allow for this.

You might not like the UNECE regulations. Why? Because some think its un American. But they will allow for your full size trucks and yes they will have to compete against our mid sizers.

But having half the number of full sizers is better than none.

Detroit, UAW, Energy, Government have to sit and look at where they want the US to head. I do think the Canadian will hopefully see the light first.

What a pitiful mess, sorry.

@Big Al from Oz
The problem with diesel is that they cost the consumer. They cost more to operate, diesel fuel is generally more expensive, and the required emissions equipment negates some of the advatages in terms of fuel economy. Don't get me wrong, I like diesels. It's just that I can't see it becoming a mainstream thing in the near future. Americans have an addiction to big vehicles and many will drive a full-sized truck just because they want that feeling of power. Those that have weened themselves off that have already downsized. That means the only people left driving full-sized trucks are people who really need them or people who could care less about fuel economy. When fuel economy is the goal of the government but not the goal of a certain group of individual consumers, then it is not advantageous for people to go out and by a diesel, especially if the premium is $2000 or more. In HD trucks it is getting close to being a $10,000 premium.

I don't necessarily highlight this, but at the moment there are multiple post being made under my name.

My last comment was--- Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Apr 12, 2014 5:08:54 PM

Some of the others prior to that are also not posted by me, even though they have my name.

It appears someone doesn't want to discuss what we are discussing.

@Big Al from Oz
Well you already know my position on the issues that we are discussing. If someone is using your name then they must be trying to stir up some kind of debate. I've already digressed enough from the subject of the article, so I suppose we should just leave it at that. This type of debate can go on for hours and it's not worth it if someone is going to be stealing your name.

@Hemi Monster,
Well said on diesels costing the consumer. The GM communications guy who posts here actually said it best when he said look at "cost per mile", not mile per gallon. This is what guys like BAFO either refuse to understand or understand and just want to troll on.

Then why is the Colorado coming out in a diesel? Maybe this GM guru is incorrect? Maybe the Colorado isn't a GM?

Costs per mile? Without taking into account all of the factors that affect vehicle design.

He sounds like a marketing type, doesn't it?

It's getting old hearing BAFO talk about the end of full-size trucks when they are increasing in sales, and it is the market for mid-size trucks that has been on constant decline.

Who does BAFO think he is fooling or is he a troll?

BAFO must be a troll because 98% of this website is for reporting on full-size trucks AND he doesn't even live in the United States!

The steel drum drop test in the bed hits home to me cause I haul run of the mine coal in my F-150, this type of coal is mixed with big and small lumps of coal and depending how high the payloader dumps the scoop of coal into my bed some big lumps of coal hit my bed with a hard force!
I always have confidence in my F-150 and always wave the payload operator on to dump the full scoop in my bed, sometimes I see him shake his head "NO" and I wave him on to dump it all in my bed!
Also these tests show the off-road toughness of the F-150.
I heard the new 2.7 EcoBoost will have similar HP and Torque numbers as the old 5.4 V8
One thing I question with the aluminum body if insurance rates will increase cause of the added cost to body shop repair.

The end?

Hmmm..........another one of those who can't comprehend.

I suppose you live in the Ozarks or Blue Ridge Mountains, with your very, very close family. Is there schooling in those places?

Or, so you can comprehend. "ist thur scollin dare".

Can you even get a 5.0L ecoboost V8 anymore??

More and more people are buying a pickup truck with no intension of hauling anything and demanding a smooth and quiet ride. That's why Ram went with the coil springs.
But,,, These tests show how tough the F-150 is.
I see you guys with the bed covers and bed liners on your pickups and that drives me crazy thinking WHY did you buy a pickup truck for??
OK ! You tow, I will give you that, but there are plenty of full size SUV's that can tow the same!
My 2013 F-150 has NO bedliner and no bed cover cause I am always hauling with it. You would be frightened if you see that pretty paint scratched and peeled off in my bed, dents on my tailgate.
You're not a tough guy just because you drive a pickup, you are a tough guy when you shovel off a ton of coal, shale, ashes, rocks, bricks off your pickup.
Not only do I impress all the women with my toughness I impress the women's daddy!

Ford is the bees knees. I dream about them every night. The only truck better than a Ford is a classic Ford. GM fanboys can take a hike. I am through with GM.

Oh whatever, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of!

your a tough guy if you drive a truck with or without bed liner.

My dad drives a truck with bed liner and he is one tough guy.

And another thing, were not here to talk about what girls do and don't like, were here to talk trucks.

@ Tom, shut up you anti - Chevrolet, Ford ,Dodge idiot. Typical GMC troll from GMC Inside news. The same 5-10 GM controlled Buick-GMC clowns posting over and over and over again. Ford is bringing the heat. Dodge will be bringing the heat! Toyota and Nissan will be bringing the heat! Chevrolet via GM-GMC is a joke. Of course, you little boys like that don't you.


"Good marketing for Ford, but that's all."

Yes, so why are you so mad about it? Because someone might buy a Ford because of them? Because someone might have a perception that Ford does more testing than others? I don't get what the big stink is abot here. Are you trying to save people from thinking all these things?

Yeah, I get a chuckle at some Ram commercials when they state a bunch of specs as if it were one truck when in actuality they are from three truck configurations. I also get a chuckle when GM compares the 5.3L to the Ecoboost in fuel economy only yet forgets to mention that it is closer to the 6.2L in its pulling power. That is just marketing and you will never save all those who are stupid enough to fall for such things without doing their research. You just have to chuckle at it like I do with some of the other rands marketing departments do the same.

All this is is journalist(PUTC) covering what Ford has released to the media through their Ford Media website. It is just to show some of the testing they do to the public. What you think of it is just that"what you think of it" and other may come away with different opinions on the videos. This is just like the Ram payload thing in the Power Wagon. You don't see it as bad thing that Ram lowered the payload in the Power Wagon for better comfort while I do think it is a bad thing. It is just a difference in opinions that may or may not be influenced by the bias for certain brands.

By the way, this is what Ford released on their site four days ago and is what PUTC is referencing. It gives you a little more info on each test than what PUTC has provided. -

Will all you ignorant fools just shut up and enjoy the fact that each truck brand builds unique products so that we the customer can buy the brand that best fits our needs! I am pretty sure I grew out of the 'My Dad can beat up your dad' mentality a long time ago!!! It is very apparent from some of the comments on here that far too many of you have not! All you do with your stupid, negative comments is give truck owners a bad name. I would love to own any one of the big three trucks right now!
On another note, Did anyone else notice the 35" BFG all-terrain mounted under the bed in "The Torture Rack" video? The awesome SVT raptor will live on with the all aluminium F150! Cant wait to see it!

I have already made my point abundantly clear. If you can't understand what I'm saying then I don't know what else I can tell you. Think of it this way, Ford links and Ford sponsored references are interesting, but it's the same as when people come here and spam the comments section with allpar links. It doesn't contribute to the discussion. I like third party references that are "brand neutral"

The comments to this entry are closed.