2015 F-150: Ford Reveals Two Powertrains

Ford_DavisDam_4 II

By Aaron Bragman

We've been hearing about new all-aluminum 2015 Ford F-150 since the beginning of the year when it was revealed at the 2014 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, but details on the truck's engines have been kept under wraps. Ford is now slowly beginning to peel back the layers of secrecy surrounding two of the F-150's powertrains, releasing some (but not all) specifications for the standard 3.5-liter V-6 engine and the brand-new turbocharged 2.7-liter EcoBoost motor.

The new standard V-6 will provide 283 horsepower and 255 pounds-feet of torque, enabling the base 2015 F-150 to tow 7,600 pounds and carry a payload of 1,910 pounds. This is a best-in-class tow rating for V-6 light-duty pickups, according to Ford. But the more interesting power option comes in the form of the new turbocharged 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6, which is rated at 325 hp and 375 pounds-feet of torque. It's as powerful as most other truckmakers' midrange V-8 engines and enables an F-150 equipped with the 2.7-liter engine to pull 8,500 pounds and haul a payload of up to 2,250 pounds. The company believes that this is likely to be its volume engine, comprising fully half of its expected engine mix. It makes sense, Ford said, given that 85 percent of F-150 buyers tow less than 8,500 pounds and carry a payload less than 2,000 pounds.

Ford demonstrated the efficacy of the new 2.7-liter motor through a comparison with three competitors: the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado with its midrange 5.3-liter V-8, the 2014 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel with its 3.0-liter turbo-diesel V-6 and the 2015 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 (an unusual choice) featuring a 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine.

The company showed a video at a special news conference at the company's headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., that showed the 2.7-liter-equipped 2015 F-150 out-performing the Ram EcoDiesel up the Davis Dam run in northern Arizona, and besting the Chevy in two out of three runs up the same steep grade while towing a 7,000-pound enclosed trailer. The Toyota was included as a demonstration of what the an engine of comparable displacement can achieve — the 2.7-liter EcoBoost produces 166 more hp and 195 pounds-feet more torque than the big four-cylinder in the Toyota.

Sadly, no fuel economy numbers were made available by Ford; those are likely being reserved for yet another press conference in the near future. Ford did, however, demonstrate something that the public has been asking to see for months — a direct weight comparison between the outgoing truck and the new one. Ford had two F-150 Lariat models on display, one a 2014 crew cab with the 5.0-liter V-8, and the other a comparably equipped 2015 model with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6. Both trucks were rolled onto electric scales, with the 2014 model weighing in at 5,674 pounds, while the new 2015 model totaled just 4,942 pounds, a difference of 732 pounds. Ford spokesman Mike Levine said that even if the 2015 had been equipped with a comparable 5.0-liter V-8, the difference would have been just 25 pounds less.

Stay tuned for more F-150 news and specs (hopefully including some fuel economy ratings) as the year progresses.

To see the video and the press release, click here.

Images from manufacturer

 

F150Forum_5018_HR II

15F150-2.7L-EcoBoost_02_HR (1) II

 

Comments

why? Because you are a Ford troll. An ex UAW Ford worker, maybe?

you are full of $hit, and a troll.

What's occurred here since the GFC is that car prices have dropped, even on 4x4 pickups.

My BT50 I bought last year was recommended at $51k, I paid $46k.

Now we even have 4x4 Navara dual cab diesels going for $38k driveaway. This is covers rego, 3 party insurance, delivery and other on roads, just jump in an driveaway.

This means they are selling this mid spec Navara for about $36k, down from about $45k.

You can get the D22 with a diesel in twin cab 4x4 mid spec for $32 driveaway.

We aren't paying what we used to for vehicles, even though the list prices are a lot higher.

Using Carilloski's conversion the D22 would cost about $24k in the US and the D40 Navara $30k with the diesel.

So I would assume this Chev Colorado would be around $35k for the top of the line diesel in the US. Up to $40k for the 6' bed and similar to the TRD Taco.

The $55k pickups that Alex talks about are not common unless you buy a fully optioned V6 Navara and that would be driveaway.

Some do pay that much, but they didn't deal well when purchasing.

It's more of a buyers market at the moment for us.

@DiM and Tom Lemon
I didn't start this debate on costs. Pickups are cheaper on a dollar vs dollar comparison, but you have to realise that all isn't as it appears.

That's why I tried and discuss this with Alex. I don't know why you are offended. Maybe you should look around the world and actually see what it going on instead of sticking your heads in the sand and living in the past.

When this issue has raised its head in the past, some of you guys try and shoot me down. Why? Because you possibly feel threatened. Remember I didn't raise this discussion, but I will respond, with links as always.

Fuel is too expensive these days and likely to get more so. The old ways of thinking are changing.

@BigT

Fuel is expensive compared to where, exactly? In most parts of the world it's far more expensive per gallon than anywhere in the US.

The old ways ARE changing. Today the US is world's leading exporter of energy.

Al, why would a vehicle cost 25% more there? Less volume?

Some of you guys that are just spewing MPG or FE numbers are not looking at the big picture. Most that are concerned with getting the best FE they can do so to save money. If your reason is to save money then you need to look at cost per mile, NOT mpg. The cost of diesel is not the same as gasoline and in most areas it is more so the cost per mile of a 28 mpg diesel is not the same as the cost per mile of a 28 mpg gaser. In my area diesel is $.50-.60 cents higher per gallon in my area, but all areas are different depending on where you are. For those that would like to see how much the difference would be for them in their are then I will link the calculator below. Just input the numbers for the prices in you area, mpg differences and how much you drive. Don't forget to click the box that the engine you are comparing yours to is a diesel or it will not go off of the different diesel fuel price. For some it may be worth it, but for others it may not be a big enough difference to loose the power.

http://www.mpghead.com/

Great big retard from dumb f^%k land is back and already starting arguments and only claiming he is right. Hey big retard from dumb f$%k land how bout you go back to where you been the past two or so weeks and stay there!

mackintire, you must have been a way some where other than here in the USA, because Ford F150 only offers in the engine compartment, for 2014 the 3.7 gas V6, the Ecobust 3.5 V6 as option and last the 5.0 V8 option. no 6.2 or V10. The writting on the wall at Ford as i read it, is that in a year or two, Ford will no longer offer a V8 in the F150 line up.

johnny doe considered yourself warned, name calling and fowl language is not tolerated on this site. Consider yourself warned as your IP address has been recorded.

I applaud Ford for trying the turbos and weigh reductions. Lets wait and see what happens.

I still thing long term the normally aspirated motors from the big three are the best choices when all factors are considered.

I don't doubt the block strength of the 2.7 and I bet the new 3.5 Turbo that should be coming in a few years will have this block.

Ford should offer a better powertrain warranty. The base engine sounds gutless in the torque department but I suppose the weight reduction helps it "feel" more like 300lbs of torque.

GM trucks still have true truck engines and they are have a lot of room in the HP department to grow.

The 6.2 is a corvette motor but has truck cam and its a beast, drove one in crew cab 4x4 and its a way mid 5 sec 0-60 monster, with the 8 speed its going to get near the 5.3 in FE, had it at 13k offer sticker but not having the 8 speed, I punted.

The 3.6 Ram/Jeep motor is a sweet one, in a Wrangler 2 door it really scoots, mine with 3.73's, posi pulls hard.

The eco-diesel is a good lil motor but not worth the coin, the 3.6 or Hemi are better choices unless you do your own Bio-D.

The turbo fords are gonna need 89+ Octane to run the best, turbos never run right on 87, especially under load and towing, the 3.5, 3.6, 4.3, 5.0, 5.3, 5.7's all will run fine and cool at 87 octane and all have lower underhood temps and will be more consistent in performance over the Turbo 2.7./3.5's.

Good luck to Ford on the production and costs on the Aluminum, I am not a Ford fan by any means and the Ecoboosts have been overblown but I hope they at least got the frame/cab portion of this redesign right.

Yeah what ever you say fake Lead Modeator that can't even spell moderator right dumb a$$. You are probably big retard from dumb f%^k land.

Since Ford is full of data with its test in Arizona against the Ram and GM products, why didn't they show what the Fuel Economy was using the on board Fuel measuring system, that gives actual and average MPG data. I guarantee that new Ford F-150 Turbo in the test got lousy MPG, especially with the accelerator pressed hard all the way up that hill.

I know how bad the MPG is on Ecoboost's as I drive a 2014 Ford Fusion with 1.5 Turbo Four Cylinder. Under hard acceleration in that vehicle, the Instant MPG drops to 5 MPG.

eco boosts don't need to rev high! this will be just like the bigger one. the 3.73 gears with a small v6 and the low end torque the turbos provide will make this feel exactly like the current one. if you want more gear than have it installed! if you can afford a new truck today you can afford a gear swap!

my egoboost gets 12mpg while towing 16 ft dual axle landscape trailer in the hills with a few tractors on it. the right gearing makes the difference with the amount of weight you tow. turbos are sensitive to pedal input if you know how to run one you can get ok mileage. id rather have a gasoline powered engine. they just have less issues right now. if you can get one with turbos why wouldn't you want an eco blast? its a step down from a diesel but its just as fun once the whistle blows.

@Wake up - Ford's statement is incredibly broad and vague. A large number of 1/2 ton trucks rarely see more weight than that of 4-5 passengers and cargo is confined to clothing or sports gear for those 4-5. That would most likely be 1,300 lb or less.

Ram is gaining market share with a 1/2 ton that is at best 1,733 lbs in a plain jane reg cab long box 4x2 with 5.7. If you get a fleet queen Pentastar then that goes up to 1,907.
If one goes to a crew 4x4 then the best is 1,460.

Ford can go up to 3,140 lb in a reg cab 4x2 5.0 or EB3.5.
Crew cab 2,310.

GM is at 2,088 for the 4.3 4x2 base truck. Their crew 4x2 sits at 1,933 with 4.3 and 4x2. The 5.3 with 4x2 is 2,007. 4x4 drops to 1,957.

Most buyers either do not pay attention to cargo or don't carry much. At a quick glance Ram has the lowest overall average with GM in the middle and Ford with the best.

One does need to pay attention to these numbers to keep oneself out of trouble. Any accessories rapidly drop the ratings.

PUTC's infamous 495 lb capacity Ram Laramie 4x4 with a stated capacity of 881 lb has caused an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance among the Ram Jihadists.

Ram is gaining market share because people do not realize that you have to move into a 3/4 ton Ram to compete directly with 1/2 ton trucks offered by Ford or GM.

Those same people do not realize how easy it is to reach a 1,300 lb cargo limit (average for Ram). An average family of 4 with 2 pre-teens is close to 600lbs. Add a medium sized dog and light luggage and you are at 900lbs. 400 lb left over for everything else including tongue weight kills it.

1/2 ton crewcab trucks for the most part ARE SUV's with a balcony. You can tow, or haul, or carry passengers but not all at the same time if you happen to have a Goat head on the hood.

internet authorities have been contacted Posted by: Moderator

You sir are a idiot.

The ecoboost motors are almost like a small diesel.They make a lot of torque at very low rpm's . Most who comment on how bad the turbo motors are have never driven one.

We use one to pull a 18 ft racing trailer .3 karts a big generator on wheels 6 sets of tires and a full tool box not to mention all the other stuff you will need on race weekend.

Towing on the interstate we usually see 12 to 13 mpg. The guys who usually go with us have a 5.3 chevy gets about 9 towing.

Hilly terrain the ecoboost is about 11 with the chevy at 6 .It is just opposite from what most people expect. The ecoboost is never spooling up or turning high rpms it just chugs along while the chevy is screaming at high rpm's.On long grades we usually have to slow down for the chevy to keep up. Not downing the chevy but the ecoboost just grunts and goes while the chevy is reving its guts out.

This new ford engine will be a good every day driver and a once in a while tow vehicle.It will not be the choice of people who tow every weekend. I do expect the new ford and new motor to be around 25 mpg's on the rd and 19 around town driving.

I've had 3 diesel trucks and they really didn't get any better fuel economy then the ecoboost does. Factor in the up keep for a diesel and you can't go wrong with a ecoboost.Now if you are towing big cars and big big trailers of course a diesel is the way to go.No one would expect a gas 6'r to out do a diesel like that.

Towing a trailer I really don't care about fuel economy really I want something that will go when I hit a hill or long grade and the ecoboost does.The gaser's from gm and dodge just can't keep up in all reality while the little 6 that could just keeps on a goin.

What ford said is not the reality ,,,,gm and dodge nothing to be worry ,,,,

dans comment is the truth about eco boost! they don't run at redline at all. mine runs close to 1100 rpm cruising around town. and from light to light I wouldn't want any other truck, I just like the power. smooth, quiet, and fast.

with 3.73 gear and small v6 with good amount of low end like the 3.5 this truck will be a step up from what currently available for sure! magine if you could get a 5 or 6 speed man tran in reg cab

ford should just put cylinder deactivation on the v10 with small turbos. I would be all about it. my current v10 is a perfect work truck and I wouldn't want any other motor in it. it guzzles gas but gives me a reason to charge more LOL

@ Lou BC,

Ram quack quack quack, Ram quack quack, Ram quack quack quack.

Who the hell out there carries 3100 pounds in a half ton pick up truck? Only an idiot that is who.

Ford loves to post those huge numbers but we all know Ford is full crap. Their magic spring dust has run its course. People have caught on to the bogus ratings used by Ford and Chevy/GMC.

The fact is anyone needing to carry one and half tons of cargo needs to have a 3/4 ton or even a 1 ton truck not a 1/2 ton truck.

It seems the last one still trying to play the huge bogus cargo rating is Ford as even Chevy/GMC has started to back it off.

Did Ford solve the carbon problem on the EcoBoost?

What about engine/transmission temperatures towing uphill over a long duration (mountain pass)?

What about engine braking?

What about ride comfort (suspension)?

What about cabin noise?

The carbon problem was (as indicated earlier) mostly corrected by a new PCV valve, you can purchase an aftermarket catchcan if you want to completely fix the issue.
I'll definitely be buying one for my 2015 Colorado with the 3.6 liter.

There's a 3 port catchcan available for the EB series ford engines but to install it requires you to drill into the turbo casing. "Yikes!" Evidently it solves the oil ingest issue 100%. This is the option for the guy who says I want the issue 100% resolved. BTW.. Both Ford and Chevy's motors are known to have this issue. Both manufacturers have made modifications to resolve it. I have no clue is RAM had/fixed these issue but I'd get they also had them as it is a function of high efficiency engine to have this issue in the EGR system.

Engine tranny temperatures should no longer be an issue if you are towing within the SAE rated guidelines for the 2015 F150.

As far as I am aware the Ecoboost gas engines do not have significant engine braking force. Only the large diesel engines in the 3/4 ton and large have jake brakes.

Ride comfort? I have no clue what you are comparing against or what year?

Cabin noise: same as above.

My comment on the 6.2 liter were posted because of the comments asking about a Eco-boost 5.0 liter, which is not going to occur. The 6.2 is schedule to displace the current V10 but not until it receives direct injection.

To the gentlemen who commented to me on the engine lineup for the current 2014 lineup. Congratulations on your captain obvious post. The comments here refer to the upcoming 2015 engine lineup as does ALL the other comments in this thread, did you read the article on the NEW and UPCOMING 2.7 ecoboost engine?

IMO Ford has undersized their EB motors on more than one occasion. The 1.5 liter EB motor in the Fusion is an example of this and although that combination may actually work once they get the 9 speed transmission out in 2017-2018 or give the Fusion a 400lb diet whichever comes first.

I would have sized the engine lineup at 1.8 liter and 2.3 liter (both being ecoboost) so 200HP and 285HP.... but Ford does what Ford wants.


Modern Ecoboost systems can adjust their timing to compensate for changes in octane. I think going from 87-93 gives you 6-13 more HP and an unknown qty of torque, but it is NOT required for the safety of the engine.

I'm not sure what to think about this motor. My gut says that the 3.5 Ecoboost is popular because of its actual good performance numbers with the possibility of good fuel economy. That isn't what this engine does.

I'm of the opinion that 1/2 ton pickups are really turning into 4 door cars. This engine really supports that notion. I don't think you will ever see Ford advertise the fuel economy of this engine setup while trailering, because I suspect it is abysmal. But in essence it accomplishes the goals of many midsize pickups and light duty full sizes that really don't tow or carry big loads. And let's be honest, that's most of the people that own trucks. On paper, it looks like a good strategy.

Back to my opinion. In reality, I think 3/4 tons and 1 tons are the real work trucks of the future. 1/2 tons will have more capability than ever, but for the most part, they'll be passenger vehicles. The engines, transmissions, interiors and suspensions will reflect this.

I am still trying to understand the Video of the 2015 F150 against the Ram Ecodiesel and Chevy 5.3.

I get that it crushed the Ram 3 out of 3 times, but why did it lose the last race, was it heat soak?

Does this mean its performance after 9 miles fall off somewhat or was this an ECU tune issue, boost timing were scaled back after the torture tests?

These sort of things make me shy away from turbos in general, I know many can/will chime in on how great their ecoboosts are, we all know there were problems with them for years, not all but quite a lot of them had strange issues.

Given that these are not production ready, we can take away that they might have cooked the tune on the Ford to try to shame the others and or they had ecu issues that caused the last race loss, would have been better to see a much longer run.

While I think Ford sucks, I am interested to see how the handling, braking, ride, NVH are on this new much lighter vehicle.

Since when is towing a drag race? Just what we need on the highways a bunch of people who see these bogus videos and think they can go balls to walls up steep grades and you know what happens on the down side, they think the can go even faster.

Sorry but Ford is the master of the bogus testing videos.

The only reason they showed the Ford losing the last run was to try and trick people into thinking they were being fair in their bogus fixed video.

Face the facts that Ford is going to running at maxed RPM and we all know that high rpm engines do not last as long as low rpm engines.

"I applaud Ford for trying the turbos and weigh reductions. Lets wait and see what happens."

It quite obvious the current Ecoboost is a success and is changing the way people see trucks, it's quite OBVIOUS.

"Face the facts that Ford is going to running at maxed RPM and we all know that high rpm engines do not last as long as low rpm engines."

Really! Tell that to NASCAR.

@Mr Obvious

It is obvious from both posts that you don't know what you are talking about.

@Ram Big Horn 1500

"Who the hell out there carries 3100 pounds in a half ton pick up truck? Only an idiot that is who."

Fleets do, which is why that is a fleet truck. The biggest full size truck fleet in the country, AT&T, utilizes a lot those Ford fleet trucks with big payload like this one ---> https://southeast.knapheide.com/images/uploads/ATTKap-Ford_0008.jpg . They are cheaper on insurance and fuel than the gas equivalent 250/2500s. They don't really need the big motors in the 250/2500 since they don't tow much so a small V6 or V8 would be ideal. Other companies down here in the Texas oilfields also use the hell out of those trucks too. They are not dumb enough to go by old archaic term such as "half ton" like most of the public does and usually call them by their model designation. They utilize a truck based on it's specs, not some old term that should have died out in the 60s. The only idiot here are those that still go by those terms and actually believe they really apply to the trucks specs literally.

Going by your terms a Ram/Ford/GM "one ton" today can haul up to 5,000lbs, a Ram/Ford/GM "three-quarter ton" can haul up to 4,000lbs, so why would it be a shocker given that those trucks advanced in their specs that a "Half ton" wouldn't have advanced either? Just because one brand chooses to keep their payload of their 1500 model truck low for rider comfort does not me the rest do.

I really can't wait until what is happening in the fleet world where people don't use terms like "half ton", "three quarter ton", or "one ton" gets applied to the rest of the public. We might have to wait until the old dinosaurs that were actually around when these terms literally applied to trucks to go extinct before we finally get rid of them.

@Ram Big Horn

"Face the facts that Ford is going to running at maxed RPM and we all know that high rpm engines do not last as long as low rpm engines."

Hmmm, although this is generally true, does this mean the Hemi will not last as long as the 3.5L Ecoboost since the 3.5L Ecoboost is the low end powered engine by a large margin from those two? I am just placing your logic to other scenarios here. Not bashing the Hemi at all.

The Ram Apologists/Jihadists are spamming and whining.

They are sounding alike.

Ram 1500/2500 has the lowest cargo capacities for those classes of trucks.

Has it affected sales?

No.

Someone had to replace the Crown Victoria.

Naturally no fuel economy figures are given especially when towing. Just ask any owner with any eco-boost how well it does when pulling a load, many very angry Ford owners out there.

Its rather obvious...... the fuel mileage of the 2.7EB is clearly less than the Ram Ecodiesel otherwise Ford would have been already bragging about superior mileage.

The only question that remains is..... how much worse is it?

All these dummies talking about how much fuel the ecoboost uses. I know probably 10 people in my community that have an ecoboost. Every one of them raves about it. Every one. And they say it gets at least as good MPG as any other truck they've ever owned while also being more powerful. People that are towing all the time don't have an ecoboost, they have a superduty, so towing MPG is almost irrelevant to 90 percent of f150 owners. Towing MPG isn't great, but it's not abysmal and it's definitely not the 9 mpg stated above.

Ecoboost engines use more fuel while towing, like every other engine. The difference is it has more torque and horsepower than most medium size engines. The video versus the ecodiesel showed why horsepower is important. It walked away from the diesel while being short on torque.

GUTLESS

GLORYLESS

GOING TO BE A POS LIKE THE CURRENT ECO BOAST

NOTHING BUT JUNK

FORD F-150

The 2 turbo's one on each engine bank bother me making me think suppose one of the two turbos fail forcing the engine to become unbalanced?
The turbo's are NOT covered under the ESP Warranty.
More complicated the engine I sense more problems.

I knew before I bought a pickup that gas mileage would be bad cause I need and use a pickup to its full capability and I have to pay the price of higher fuel costs, but please don't lie to me by telling me the eco-boost can do the same job by getting better gas mileage.
I have owned past F-150's , 2003-2005-2009 all with the 5.4 V8 and have loved them. My current 2013 F-150 isn't the same truck it feels cheap and generic compared to the past models, I just miss the 5.4 engine.
I just don't feel the new F-150 as a real truck anymore, its too smooth-too quiet, can't feel the road, the steering feels loose.
The new F-150 is only designed to have that luxury car feel at the same time they took away the toughness. I want my pickup to ride rough, I want to hear the tire noise, I want a pickup to feel solid, rigid.
Ford need to offer a heavy duty and light duty version of the F-150 and let the consumer pick and choose what one they want.
The new 2015 with the 2.7 EB doesn't excite me! Its for a driver that wears panties.
Ford is going the wrong way and they will lose market share in the pickup truck market.
Always loved the F-150 and it makes me sad seeing how Ford ruined the long tradition and legacy of the F-150.

@beebe - agreed. I know few guys with them. I says same mpg as al the other trucks he's owned and great power. The other says great mpg empty and same as other trucks when loaded.

@ Lou lost in BC: and the Ram 2500 6.4 can carry more then a Chevy 6.0 same configuration, of course maybe you can't find the specs for it? Like Sandman?

They will up the payload so you can stop crying.

@Tom#3

"The 2 turbo's one on each engine bank bother me making me think suppose one of the two turbos fail forcing the engine to become unbalanced?"


Why did you make this comment again? Did you not understand how a parallel twin turbo set up works when I explained it the last time? Apparently not by this comment. You are getting as bad as the other Tom about his octane rants even though I clearly explained how ignition timing and valve/cam timing works.

Maybe you need to reread it to refresh you memory. It's the 16th post from the bottom. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/07/ram-ecodiesels-set-brisk-sales-pace.html#more

@@Mohamed TRX-Tom - "They will up the payload"

When?

Is that like being promised a bevy of virgins when jihadists go to heaven as fallen soldiers in the "holy" Ram war?

How long has coils been in the 1500?

I've heard the ""They will up the payload" in relation to them too...............

I thought air bags were the great gift from the "Ram gods"........

""They will up the payload"

Its been several thousand years and some are still waiting for their messiah.

@Mohamed TRX-Tom - was I talking about 3/4 tons?

Did all of you Ram Jihadists have a meeting to discuss the "party line" ???????????????

Yup, our 1/2 ton can't compete so lets offer up the Ram 2500.

Everyone that has seen reviews on the Ecodiesel knows its all about Mpg and nothing else. The thing that makes my laugh is no matter what you think, say, or excuse you use. That little 2.7 still beat the Chevy 5.3 volume engine 2 out 3 times with a 7000lb. trailer behind it. LMFAO!!!!!

TRX-Tom -

Ram 2500 (6.4) Tradesman 4x2 8 ft. box

...cargo 3,972 lb (212 lb advantage)

Chevy (6.0) 2500 4x2 8ft box

....cargo 3,760 lb

Ram 2500 (6.4) crewcab 6.4 box 4x2

... cargo 2,724lb

Chevy 2500 crew 6.5 box 4x2

... cargo 3,388 lb. (664 lb advantage)

This is the pattern throughout the Ram lineup - you add accessories and change configurations and you loose cargo capacity.

This is some really impressive engineering work by Ford and it is nice to see a full sized half ton that is lighter in weight and more fuel efficient yet can still tow and haul just like the previous model.

Next questions are how will they do on fuel economy and reliability?

Here's a sample of the current maximum towing capacities for the full range of 2015 Ram trucks:

Ram 1500 V-6 with 3.6-liter gasoline Pentastar: unsurpassed 7,600 pounds
Ram 1500 V-6 with 3.0-liter EcoDiesel: best-in-class 9,200 pounds
Ram 1500 V-8 with 5.7-liter gasoline Hemi: 10,650 pounds
Ram 2500 V-8 with 6.4-liter gasoline Hemi: 16,300 pounds
Ram 2500 with 6.7-liter Cummins diesel: best-in-class 17,970 pounds
Ram 3500 V-8 with 6.4-liter gasoline Hemi: 16,420 pounds
Ram 3500 with 6.7-liter Cummins diesel: best-in-class 30,000 pounds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpKZ29jrHro

FORD IS NOT CERTIFIED J2807 RAM HAD ALREADY BEEN PREPARING FOR YEARS. FORD NOT SO MUCH. : (

@  Ramhadist Muhammad Al-Hemi V8

Those are for 2015 models that aren't even out yet. What about the current 2014 models?

I'm a little old school when it comes to pick up engines & the small size bothers me.
The Turbo's can give anything an edge, but for how long.
As I understand it, the Eco Boost is comprable to a V8 on fuel milage when it is not towing.
The fuel milage drops like a rock when you hook on some weight on it.

If these engines have to run premium fuel, then that takes
away an advantage.
Replacement cost of a failed Turbo is going to be a big exspense.

I also have to think that these engines are going to work harder to move the same weight as a V8.


Ford may have it figuired out, I'll just have to wait & see.

@ Duh -ever stop to think (doesn't happen in the Ram Jihad camp) instead of designing for the lowest common denominator like Ram, everyone else engineers their trucks for the heaviest truck and sets the bar at that level across the board?

It makes more sense to engineer for the heaviest truck and to set the lower curb weight trucks to that level because the plain trucks are more likely to be used for work. That allows tolerance for overload.

There is a reason why I seldom see Ram 1500 trucks as fleet trucks.
They don't have the ratings to be of much use to anyone.

You would think Ford could have changed the look of the 2015's more then just the front end. They look exactly the same from the side, the Wheel Wells are exact right down to the fender lip. We've had this look since 2004, its time for something different.

Reducing weight and increasing payload is a big deal to me. I much rather tow with a more agile and comfortable vehicle than a 3/4 ton.

I have owned numerous Chevy and GMC trucks, and I can say this is not a winner until proven. 2006 Silverado with 345,000 miles is a winner in my book. Not a truck that has not proved itself. Besides, that 2.7 will not tow what my Chevy will tow.

Aluminum doesn't rust? Well, after seeing a lot of corroded aircraft parts getting repaired in an environment where you fly near salt water, well gee.

A 3.5 non turbo to make less power then a Ram 3.6, (and less per inch, not just the total amount) but yet rated to tow more than Ram? Maybe that's where the new 3.92 Ford gears come to play? Let's see, that will be near 500-600 pounds lighter then a Pentastar Ram, and Chevy learned their 4.3 didn't have enough guts to out do Ram with more power with their 6 speed, so Ford thinks they will (for the stupid people that that believe Ford really can do it) Well, I wonder what rpm they get that whopping power at? 2013 tech, and less power per inch then 2009 tech Pentastar! Yup, just like the Ford 6.2! Behind! Lol, Ford can't get it done without a turbo! So they bank on Ecoboosts, while the 1.6s and 3.5s have plenty of issues! Lol, "Let's sell as many as we can before the public finds out the truth!" It's like the 5.4 spark plugs, but different!

Pssst: wanna gamble? Buy a Ford boost and get crappy mileage whenever you drive in a easy flat place....



The comments to this entry are closed.