Megacab!

Leave the camo on and still outsell the others 2 to 1. Great job Ford!!

The biggest POS you can buy the new 2017 Super Duty. YAY!
Built Ford Dumb!

Not for sale yet johnny blowhard.

It shouldn't be hard to offer a "leap" forward considering the age the current Ford HD platforms.

Hopefully this leap forward isn't just the transfer of existing infotainment and passive safety. I do hope there is some real engineering improvements in the vehicles capabilities and performance.

This is where Ford's new aluminium wonder truck fell short. Yes it is highly blinged, but where it counts it didn't live up to expectations, ie, FE, refinement. It was only competitive with it's older competition, abeit, at the top.

Ford has to maintain its adaptation to aluminium, not because it wants to, but it took a gamble and must try to reduce the costs.

If Ford can't reduce costs enough, it will be not as competitive where it counts, that's the hip pocket.

Toyota needs to build a hd pickup with a hino diesel and put these 'domestic' companies out of business.

Toyota could build one but putting the big three out of business will never happen, just look at the Tundra. You can stop dreaming those crazy dreams now.

@America bails out Chrysler HD Pickups are not used as work vehicles outside NA, or sold in 99% of other countries. Used in very limited numbers as a RV towers in Australia and New Zealand. So they are pretty rare.

I don't think that's a mega cab, the camo throws us off.

Forgot to attach this link, if you look at this picture and the camo version above you'll see what I mean. http://www.transportelatino.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/duty5.jpg

Mega-supreme-ulta-superior cab!

@Robert I know that. but here in America they are used for work vehicles and I don't see them going away any time soon.

Big al have you actually driven a 2015 f150. No probably not. I do everyday. It gets 20 mpgs and pulls my car trailer very well. The refinement is better than my 2012. It rides better than gm twins. Not quite as quiet but also better there than the 2012. The only half ton out there that is probably all around as good as the ecoboost if not better is the 6.2l gm. That is a beast with good mpgs.

It looks smaller and more compact, I do like how they are making it more square and also a little beefier looking, wonder what engine and transmission is in it cause at the end of the day that's all that matters lol if it can get the job done an get it done right every time.

Don't mean to bash the truck but there was no effort put into that front lower bumper just a thin piece of chrome or plastic depending on which trim, come on Ford.

Excited to see how much they have lightened the super duty up. Using light weight materials equals better performance and capabilities. Probably a power bump out of the 6.7 as well.

Nice exposed hitch from 1990...

I'm guessing close to 1000 pounds weight loss. Big al is totally clueless. Has he even seen the new f150? I just drove all the new half tons this last week with my dad. He's not brand loyal at all but after driving them all he is totally set on purchasing the f150 now. Best bang for your buck, and they finally have some competitive rebates. I gave up waiting and bought a used f150 of the previous generation.

bobsled,
I don't where I stated any different than more or less what you have stated.

What I stated was the new aluminium F-150 should of been a better pickup than what is produced. This doesn't state it's poor.

It is competitive, nothing more or nothing less.

@BIgAL, just keep watching Ford over the next several months, so we can all remember what you said

nitro,
When I see the changes you speak of, I'll view the new Ford pickup differently.

As I've stated all along, it not because the new aluminium pickup is a bad pickup. I just is only competitive.

For Ford to reduce prices to become more competitive means Ford isn't going to make a profit.

So, yes there is potential for the new F-150 to sell better via better incentives. For this to occur Ford will lose money.

You Ford boys better hope that Ford builds a better Super Duty then they offer now. My company F350 King Ranch is sitting in a transmission shop in Sandusky Ohio with transmission and transfer case problems. $6900 last year and now $3400 this year, my company just told me to price out a new truck but do not include Ford.

Ford is only just beginning to drop their incentives to the SAME levels as GM and Ram. Have gm and ram not been making money? Ford has been making record profits on their trucks. As for aluminum, when you actually go drive the trucks the aluminum makes almost no difference. At the end of the day what matters to shoppers is the comfort of the truck, the looks, the price, the perceived reliability. All of those things have improved over the previous model. People that are actually out shopping probably hardly give a second thought to the aluminum body. Helping my dad shop for a truck he wants the f150 because he likes the looks of it, he likes the interior layout, and he likes those powerful ecoboost engines that get competitive fuel economy to the gm and ram gas engines.

@BigAl - aluminum will be LESS of a gamble in HD trucks since most buy these beasts based upon capacity. We have seen both Ram and Ford hit the class limits for pickups so the only way to stay in the HD pickup class and not cross into commercial weight classes is through weight reduction. An 800 lb tare weight reduction flipped into an 800 lb capacity increase is much more important in the HD class than that of the 1/2 ton class.

Lou,
I disagree with you logic.

I do agree many HDs are bought on capability..........but at a cost.

If HDs are pushing up in price too much, why not buy a cab chassis Transit HD? It will do the same for work in many cases. And please don't tell me about the thousand or so HDs that are used in BC for Forestry. I'm talking the total market.

Also, how many of the lighter HDs are bought to tow a large trailer once in a while?

I'd say 1/3 of HDs are bought as SUVs, this is maybe where the added cost of aluminium will be attractive. But, then why spend more on a aluminium HD if a steel one will do the job?

Ford is finding this out with the aluminium F-150. People are not flocking to them.

Big Al from Oz - vans are used for different purposes. Vans tend to be used in urban environments where cargo needs to be safe from the elements and safe from pilfering. I don't see cargo vans used in back-country environments nor do I see them used when there is a need to carry oversized, bulky, irregularly shaped components.

Are there thousands of them used in BC Forestry?
Um, well... yes.
The company my brother works for buys 100's of pickups at a time. Small contractors ALL run HD's. BC Forest Service (government) buys/leases thousands of pickups. All of Fire Suppresion crews I see are in HD pickups with "slide-in" utility bodies. You can then look at reforestation companies (tree planters) and they all run HD's.

You then can branch out to ranching, mining, construction etcetera. Most fleets are running mostly HD's with some LD's in the mix.

@BigAl - if (according to you) 1/3 of HD's are purchased as SUV's then 2/3 of them are work vehicles. That means capacity is a very important factor in purchasing. Ford or any HD maker is going to aim for the majority of the market.

"Pickup as SUV" buyers tend to buy based on the credibility instilled into a product by legitimate users.

That applies to any pickup, performance car, or specialized utility vehicle.

We use hd's..... Vans wouldn't cut it either. We already bump up close to the fawr on our 550's and 5500's with our bumpers and hydraulic winches on the front. So a weight reduction to increase capacities will be a welcomed addition.

Lou,
Who said van???????

Lou,
For work not play, since you like to consider all pickups working vehicles. This will do what 75% of what lighter HDs do for work.

Is this a van or a truck????

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NDc4WDY0MA==/z/EXUAAOSwPYZU7oAJ/$_75.JPG

Scott,
Do you think that an aluminium truck is made to increase payload???

Get real. It's about FE, or was supposed to be.

You Phord Phans really are a poor as the Mopar boi's with your logic.

Lou considers the world like the BC bush, full of red neck liberals and forestry/mines.

Maybe you guys should visit a city where 80% of the population live and work.

Al
Hd's aren't EPA rated and don't need to be.

Scott,
Better go to the EPA site.

Learn a little before your spread your non wisdom fantasies on the net and make a fool of yourself.

At bafo
What does this window sticker say?
http://m.inventory.ford.com/services/inventory/WindowSticker.pdf?vin=1FT8W3DT8GEA49502

Also old wise one Al
Epa's ratings in the future on hd's is based on a "work factor" ie capacity, towing capabilities and if it has 4x4. The more capacity and the more towing capacity the less stringent the fuel economy needed according to future standards.
Ford get more capacity and towing with aluminum.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf
EPA has established standards for this segment in the form of a set of target standard curves, based on a “work factor” that combines a vehicle’s payload, towing capabilities, and whether or not it has 4-wheel drive. The standards will phase in with increasing stringency in each model year from 2014 to 2018. The EPA standards adopted for 2018 (including a separate standard to control air conditioning system leakage) represent an average per-vehicle reduction in GHG emissions of 17 percent for diesel vehicles and 12 percent for gasoline vehicles, compared to a common baseline.

Awesome Truck. Looking forward to driving one!

@Big Al - You were the one that made the comments about, "And please don't tell me about the thousand or so HDs that are used in BC for Forestry. I'm talking the total market."
In BC, what's the difference?
You don't live and work here...... I DO!

You mentioned the 1/3 as SUV buyers and I mentioned the 2/3 that work. Canada is resource based and my comments about BC apply to the rest of the country's resource sector reasonably well. I see first hand what both sides of the equation use their trucks for. I travel to large urban centres often enough to know what happens there too.

I'm sure those from the USA would say my generalizations are more on the mark than yours.

As far as the "1/3 HD as SUV" buyer or even 1/2 ton trucks, I keep mentioning capacity and capability because it is a safety issue. people can buy what ever the "H-E- double hockey sticks" they want but at least be aware of that machine's capabilities when you try to use them. That applies to vans, pickups or even cars.

Transit van or Transit chassis cab, so what?
Same difference.
A van based unit in BC or Canada or the USA traditionally is used as A VAN. Ambulances are a prime example of chassis cab van units.
If you want a flat deck (tray) then HD chassis cab pickups or class 4/5/6 commercial based units are traditionally used.

You mention costs of HD's. Well, ANY pickup CAN/MAY cost a fortune but that is based on the whims of the buyers. You can get plain HD's or 1/2 ton pickups at a lower cost than Euro based van/chassis cab units.

I don't really want to quote DIM but in this case he has a valid point when he says we have a choice between our full sized pickups and that of vans or even small pickups.

We traditionally prefer pickups for work and play.
Vans not so much.
Chassis vans........ ROTFLMFAO.

Will the DPF regeneration method in the 2017 be changed putting a 9th injector downstream of the engine in the exhaust?

@Greg,

Go check out Laura Buick GMC, worth the drive after that Super Duty gets fixed and trade that Furd. They have the best no haggle prices around, was eyeing a GMC Denali 3500 Dually Long Bed they were coming 12k off sticker, can get a loaded Denali 3500 for around 53k or get a Ram 3500 Megacab!

You Ford boys better hope that Ford builds a better Super Duty then they offer now. My company F350 King Ranch is sitting in a transmission shop in Sandusky Ohio with transmission and transfer case problems. $6900 last year and now $3400 this year, my company just told me to price out a new truck but do not include Ford.

Posted by: Greg | Aug 24, 2015 9:33:17 AM

I haven't owned anything with all this camera tech yet. For now I love it. I think it will reduce accidents. I have seen lots of trucks with beat up bumpers from using braille to guess at the hitch on the trailer. Also like the lighting on the side mirrors. Comes in handy when you are out away from city lights.

@HEMI V8, Baby let's ride!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipCfkk-wQ0g

Scottie, or DiM or Awlone or one of those phord phans,
Read and weep.

Why do you insist to make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

Here is link that you didn't know (?) or are to embarrassed to admit your façade. Why do you speak as a 'whip' on pickup when you don't have a clue.

What grade are you in and does daddy own a Phord?

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf

Al
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/which_tested.shtml

Al
http://blog.caranddriver.com/what-new-mpg-standards-will-mean-for-heavy-duty-pickups-and-vans/
The new proposed standards—which are not yet set into law.

Also most already meet proposed had rules if they had to be rated!

BAFNJ is a t roll

Wonder where Al went after he posted the PROPOSED regulations from 2011 that he thinks is law...... In his mind his believed slam dunk regulations it says 2014-2018 models will have to meet the standard while all the HD trucks along with fuel economy.gov says right on there website and question an answer that 8500 GVW (3/4 ton and above) don't have to have an spa rating.... All the while his link to proposed regulation states that there regulations are based on capacity, tow rating, and if it is 4x4..... So Ford will be well positioned if they light weight there trucks as it will increase capacity which will lessen there Fuel economy requirements versus a heavier truck that has lesser capacities. Says it right in his link that of course Al should realize I posted the same link above quoting the capacity and tow capacity portion of how fuel economy will be rated. Ford is building and working towards this regulation by switching to aluminum in there HD's even though its not official LAW after 4 years that this has been a proposal by the EPA...... More capacity all around in the HD segment will mean less stringent fuel economy regulations. So yes Al the switch to Aluminum is about fuel economy in the HD segment as they can continue offering higher HP engines that provide superior performance do to lessen fuel economy standards. Americans will choose performance and capability over economy with in reason with there pickup truck purchases.

I expect Al to come in with his typical childish attempted insults like he usually does and real surprised he hasn't let the childish insults fly after I posted the fuel economy.gov link I posted stating there are no EPA standards for 3/4 ton and above.

Capabilities are very important in HD trucks, hope they get competitive with RAM. They should get better mileage with the 10-speed tranny and weight savings, though. Ford pickups tend be better built then RAM's too. GM isn't on par in HD's with Ford and RAM.

Another remarkable detail is that Ford has a specific design language for their HD's. Hopefully, they will bring the international Ranger too.

What is specific design language and why is that remarkable