2015 Ford F-150 Repairs: Digging Deeper

IMG_9614 II

Editor's note: This post was updated on Jan. 30, 2015, to include additional information.

What happens when you take a sledgehammer to the rear quarter of the bed of a brand-new aluminum-bodied Ford F-150? Pretty much the same thing that happens to a "normal" pickup truck — it costs a boatload of money to fix.

According to USA Today, consumer advice website Edmunds.com intentionally damaged a 2015 F-150 to find out the cost of repairs. What the testers didn't do, according to Forbes.com, was compare the cost of repairing a similarly damage to a 2014 model of the same trim and configuration, so there's no way to make a direct comparison.

The concern, of course, is that the cost of a bed repair for an aluminum-bodied pickup will be much higher than a comparably damaged steel-bodied truck. On the surface this seems to make sense given that repair shops — both private and dealer shops — have invested tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade their service and paint departments, as well as pay for the required extra Ford certification for the new pickups. Some of the biggest news to come out of this exercise was that there could be a huge difference in hourly repair rates at some shops, in some cases varying by 100 percent ($60 an hour up to $120 an hour).

Another factor that added to the total repair costs was collateral damage done to a rear taillight, which required complete replacement. Since it was the Lariat trim package and equipped with the Blind Spot Information System (that is used for cross-traffic alert and park assist), the radar-equipped taillight added almost $1,000 to the bill, with the total adding up to just less than $3,000.

We took an unscientific survey of several Southern California repair shops — both private and Ford dealer service centers — and found a pretty wide spread between hourly body panel repair quotes. Naturally, total costs would depend on the extent of the damage, but hourly rates for steel bodies ranged from $45 an hour to $60 an hour, while aluminum rates were always more, especially at dealerships (the highest we found was $90 an hour). Some of the smaller shops told us they didn't distinguish between the two body materials. The bottom line here is that it might be too early to tell where aluminum F-150 repair costs will settle.

Ford representatives say that the front-end and cab of the new 2015 F-150 were completely redesigned and engineered to make access to damaged parts much easier (remember, many of the new modular pieces are connected with adhesives and rivets), making overall costs to replace those parts less expensive, and any impact damage to the back end of the rear-bed panel is probably less than 1 percent of all severe incidents.

Fluctuating hourly repair costs aside, FordParts.com provided a quick parts comparison list (see below) of some of the major body parts of a 2014 versus a 2015 Ford F-150. With the exception of the doors, pricing between the two models is pretty close.

Cars.com images by Mark Williams


Ford F-150 parts list


IMG_9625 II

IMG_0063 II

IMG_0072 II

IMG_0092 II


I have no clue why you Ford fan boys compare the 5.3L GM to the 3.5 Ecobust.

The 3.5 Ecobust is Fords top engine so it must be compared to the GM 6.2L.

The only reason Ford got rid of their 6.2L was because of its horrendous fuel economy.


The 5.3L is totally different for 2013 to 2014 as is the 6.2L. Again do some research. The only thing that is the same is the displacement.

Get your head out of the sand thinking GM's engines haven't changed in years.

The 6.2L Ford has never been remotely close to the fuel mileage as the GM 6.2L.

Keep drinking that kool aide!! And keep driving around your sound machine!!

@ Gregory j. That was a 2014 5.3 they tested in the light duty shootout. They are the exact same as the 15. The ford tested in the light duty shootout has been significantly up dated body and chassis, not power train, since the light duty shootout. The gm 5.3 is the exact same. Nothing has changed from the test. So just by the use of aluminum ford has gained huge on performance with the same old ecoboost. Now the 2.7 is new and it is the competitor to the 5.3 which the 2.7 gets great mpg's while delivering better performance. Those 2 motors are 5.7 hemi competition.

3.5 Eco and the 6.2 gm are in a class of there own and there only competion is each other. They compete well with each other, gm's 420 hp 6.2 and fords 365 hp 3.5 seem to mirror each other's performance.

@ Scott

The 2.7 Ecobust gets good mileage???

How do you figure?? By the lie-o-meter??


Check it out! Even Ward's called out the Ecobust!! The biggest flop in Automotive history is the Ecobust!

Now drink some more Koolaide to try to get over it.

Anything but ecoburst.

They got 23.8 empty in the annual physical test.


And thats good compared to??

You also left out the horrible towing mileage. How convenient!!

Ecoburst.... Compared to all other gas 1/2 tons. The 2.7 got better mpg then the hemi towing. And way better mpg then the hemi empty. Almost equal performance as well. Hemi doesn't even get 17 mpg's empty.

You are wrong. I am averaging 17 Mpg in the city , loaded bed with my RAM 5 speed HEMI.
It's more in the winter, but right now is +2 °C and dry roads In here.

Behold! I have seen with my own eyes the 19 MPG numbers on the new Ram 1500 crew 4x4 with the 5.7 Hemi.
I work with 2 guys that own Ram's - we travel the same distance, same speed about 40-50 miles each way on a mix of 4 lane and 2 lane roads.
At first I didn't believe the 5.7 HEMI was getting 19 MPG!
But now I believe!

You can throw out your stupid MPG numbers everybody lies about you read on some full of it website!


Just like the way Ford lied to you in 2011 when they first introduced the eco-boost I guess you're that gullable to fall for their lies again!

Here's a comparison from a non bias source.

Much different than a pickuptrucks.com report...


I am still skeptical as to whether this new aluminum body F-150 will be as big of a sales hit in the market as Ford predicts. For Ford's sake I would just as soon be wrong, but it is much too early to tell. I drove a C-Max today and I came away more impressed than I thought I would. Very quite, good mpgs, and very good acceleration. I am skeptical but I will withhold judgement on the new F-150, it could be better than I think it is. Ford does seem to have improved their cars and crossover a lot.

Here's a comparison from a non bias source.

Much different than a pickuptrucks.com report...


Posted by: jay | Jan 30, 2015 3:48:05 PM

That new f150 is going to be a hit. The car a driver article kind of comes to the same conclusion that can be drawn from this websites data. 6.2 and the 3.5 are equal for the most part, the ram hemi likes fuel about as much as the tundra and basically it's a competitor to the 2.7 ecoboost.

At Ram we don't make V-6 turbos trucks,and we don't make aluminum truck.We don't need aluminum nor turbo's to become fuel efficient,just great engineering.And the proof well we just can not build enough of them to meet demand of the fastest growing truck company in the world.Bought to you by the men and women who build Ram trucks everyday on the assembly line's

@bravo1 - forgot to add worst durability ratings in the industry and 1/2 ton trucks with the lowest cargo ratings in the industry.

"fastest growing truck company in the world.Bought to you by the men and women who build Ram trucks everyday on the assembly line's."

Ironic that you used "world" in that statement since all of the HD's are Hecho en Mexico along with the Hemi. Oh, I forgot to mention that Italian VM Motori 3.0 that was built for Cadillac.

One must add Financial centre of England, corporate Head Office Netherlands and stock offering NY Stock Exchange.

That covers a lot of the world.

I find it odd how most compare the 3.5 EcoBoost against the smaller V8s, when in fact it should be compared to the 6 litre plus V8s.

The 2.7 EcoBoost is the one that should have comparisons against the smaller V8s.

As for the FE of the EcoBoost and the aluminium body. Like I have stated all along Ford will have it's hands full selling it. I'm not stating that it will be a loss, but it will not produce the fruits that Ford is hoping for.

The 2015 F-150 is a good pickup......so far. But it isn't a leap in what it is primarily designed to do. That is offer a real leap in FE. Most of the FE improvement has been made in the engine/drivetrain.

Again, many are debating trivial issue with the pickups, treating them as if they are operated by a logistics company.

Remember, most pickups are used as cars. The consumer wouldn't care if a pickup can tow/carry and extra few hundred pounds.

So most of the debating is leading to nothing. As most will never use the capabilities argued over. As Jeff S stated, if most can afford to buy a $40k + pickup, they can probably afford the fuel, whether gasoline or diesel.

They just want to drive a big car, an image thing. How else can you explain the rapid rise of FCA Rams?

It's early days yet in the repair of aluminium vehicles. As more and more are bought and driven (having accidents) the cost of repair is going to drop.

Body shops will multiply and competition will reduce cost. But, it will always cost more than steel.

The pricing for the replacement panels could be a little deceiving as well.

How much profit is Ford making on the steel panels vs the aluminium panels.

Time will tell. Fords profits will drop due to the added costs of the aluminium F-150.

The difference in the door prices are because the "16" part numbers are for the crew cabs, and the "18"s are for the super cabs.

Befor they call a ford a can of coke now is true

PUTC did some good investigative reporting here.

Now for the rest of the story.....

"The CEO said Ford has 750 dealers certified to repair the 2015 model but the one chosen by Edmunds was not one of them. Fields said the shop's repair time estimate was double what it should be."


"Based on the video and written story, we would expect it to take less than 10 hours to repair the damage – which would be comparable to a steel vehicle with similar damage – and not the number cited in the story."


But, certain evidence suggests that consumers may just not be as interested in trucks as they once were, given the increased selection of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles on the market, many of which can meet the average consumer’s towing and hauling needs.



The US full size pickup market is large. It has decreased overall gradually. Look at pickups as a percentage of all vehicles sold in the 90s and compare that to todays figures.

Pickups are a car/SUV alternative. If pickups were so needed then you would find most every country globally would use them, like a wheelbarrow. This isn't so.

Yes people do tow with them and carry a load. But the capability of the pickup is rarely realised by the majority of it's owners.

Pickups do have the capability that many argue over on PUTC. But the reality is not many ever use it.

They are a pose, like a Mustang or sports car. Remember people do "race" in their cars as well, to explore their and their vehicles limits.

So, like myself and 75% of pickup owners in the US and Australia, they are toys.

@bravo1 - forgot to add worst durability ratings in the industry and 1/2 ton trucks with the lowest cargo ratings in the industry.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Jan 30, 2015 5:15:28 PM

I don't recall Ram being sued over their engines like Ford has with the Eco burst.

I don't see Ram being sued over MPG claims. Like Ford has.

I don't recall Ram's catching on Fire on the assembly line.

Ford worst ride and wobbly handling with payload. No other truck sag's as much.

Ford my suck is the worst control system in the industry.

Pay a premium for V6 turbo that does NOT deliver.

Ten years to get a new F150 in 2015 and it's a flop. A lot to do about nothing.

I wouldn't call it mopped without turbo spooling.

You guys defending the 2.7 eco-boost are making fools outta yourself cause you don't know, you don't own one, you never drove one!
How do you know?
Ohhh you take the word of the reviews and tests by some expert that has an agenda you don't know about.

To me its simple! When the engine is too small to match the size and heavy weight of the truck you have to "Floor It" everywhere you go and that results in poor MPG.
If you took the Ram Hemi against the F-150 eco-boost and kept 65 mph on a level highway the eco-boost would be running at 2500 rpm's and the Ram Hemi would be at 1500 rpm's ( just above idle speed)
The Hemi engine doesn't have to work as hard at normal speeds and that results in better MPG's.

Why don't you test ride one and find that out for yourself !

Ford would have done better if they kept the 5.4 V8 and tweeked that engine with engine deactivation, direct injection and VVT instead of going smaller and adding a turbo.

Do you guys remember the F-150 with the 5.4 and the 4.6 V8's? The 5.4 was getting BETTER MPG's than the 4.6 cause the bigger engine didn't have to work as hard on the same speed.

In my book simple is better, the internal combustion engine has reached its peak of efficiency, you can't squeeze any more power or better MPG's out of it.
The new Engineers don't even know the basics, they are computer engineers, lets trick the engine what it's not supposed to do with computer programing.
The older mechanics that know those basics are lost now and they have no idea how to repair it, the new mechanics don't even know the basics, they are simply computer programers , if the engine blew up and a rod punched a hole in the block they would still try to fix it by programing it.
It amazes me how they still hook up the scanner when the vehicle comes in for an oil leak.

Iam averaging 17 Mpg US.

I would honestly love to see this test replicated on a Ram and Chevy. I guarrantee they would not hold up the same, and especially the Chevy. The steel is no where near as thick as it should be but of course you loyalists will never admit that.

It could happen only In PUTC test . Nowhere else.

@Big Al

"Your statement is as false as Tom#3's.
It is torque that is turning the wheels, not power. As power is the outcome of rpm and torque."

Wow, Big Al. I think you need to reread what I said again because no where did I say anything about the force or power that moves the wheels.

Also, what I said was 100% correct. The ratios of your drivetrain and tire size dictate what rpm you are at at a certain speed, not the engine. The engine only dictates how much power you have at said rpm. This is what I said and is completely true. If you want me to teach you more about this then I will be happy to oblige. Again, I said nothing in my comment about the force that turns the wheels, and only spoke about the power output of the engine at a certain rpm.

"Your statement is as false as Tom#3's.
It is torque that is turning the wheels, not power. As power is the outcome of rpm and torque."

Al and Tom#3 also conveniently leave out that the Ram has 2 more gears than the F150. At least one of those gears is like a 2nd overdrive.

If what they are trying to say was true, my truck should be way better on gas after I installed headers, a cat back and a free flow airfilter. All of which added power to my truck which per their theory should make it easier to push down the road.

They and many of the evaluators in these tests also don't seem to get how a turbo engine works either. Naturally if you are always mashing the throttle, you will be on boost and consume more fuel. The idea behind the EcoBoost is that you drive light on the throttle and the power is there when you need it. Ram and GM aren't always running cylinder deactivation around town I assure you. 6.2L and 5.7L also ran 8 speed trannies. It keeps getting said that Ford is getting diminishing returns on EcoBoost and aluminum, yet they are still running 2 less gears. I think it is Ram and GM who have reached diminishing returns. There aren't many tricks left for them to pull to try and get more mpg out of larger V8's. Hence why Ram pulled the EcoDiesel out of their hat. Hemi with the 8 speed is maxed out.

Image what the insurance companies will charge for these new f 150's.

Ill stick with my Professional Grade GMC :)
Ford can keep their expensive soda can truck. Oh and the Ecoboost engines sure are enjoying the major reliability problems common on twin turbocharged gas engines.
The 2015 Chevy Silverado 5.3L gets the same Fuel Economy as the 2015 Ford F-150 3.5L Ecoboost; 23 MPG on the highway yet the Silverado has a naturally aspired engine, V8, Bigger engine, More power, Heavier vehicle with no aluminum body, and more interior room than an F-150.
The choice is clear: Chevy/GMC>Ford.

The comments to this entry are closed.