GM Inside News Forum banner

2015 Ford F-150 specs revealed, EcoBoost 2.7L to make 325 hp and 375 lb-ft

19K views 159 replies 56 participants last post by  XCR440SP 
#1 ·
By Seyth Miersma RSS feed Google+

Posted Jul 22nd 2014


Our new man Greg Migliore is in attendance at a Ford media event at the Blue Oval's Dearborn, MI headquarters today, and he's reported in with a handful of the 2015 F-150 stats that we've been dying to know. Ford is slow-playing the news release here, but we can still offer up some interesting output and performance figures after half-year of waiting.

We have all be quite aware that Ford's shift to aluminum construction would save a lot of weight for F-150 models, and the results we're hearing now are duly impressive. For instance: in Super Crew trim, a 2015 F-150 is a whopping 732-pounds lighter than was its closest 2014-model-year equivalent. That's like hauling three middle-aged dudes to your bowling alley's league night for free. Polish your balls, guys.

Ford isn't willing to offer up any actual curb weights just yet, but if we take that 732-pound loss and extrapolate with the 5,128-pound curb weight of the 2014 F-150 Super Crew with the 3.7-liter V6, we can guesstimate that 2015 models will measure out in the 4,400-pound range. That's impressive.

Read More: http://commetsmigtest.sandbox.autoblog.com/2014/07/22/2015-ford-f-150-specs-revealed-ecoboost/
 
See less See more
#11 ·
2014 5.0 V8 SuperCrew: 5,674 lbs
2015 2.7 V6 SuperCrew: 4,942 lbs
Weight savings: 732 lbs
If that's accurate, that is flippin' impressive, I don't care what brand you prefer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SVTKAR3 and guionM
#8 ·
I will need to take a closer look at the 2015 F150. Rather than trade for a new Colorado (no technical info released yet) I might prefer the F150. I am impressed! If Ford can bring a SuperCrew at 4800# or so, why would I want a 7/8ths scale truck that isn't much lighter? What is the speculation on the EPA MPG ratings of the new F150? Does anyone think there will be a CC that can get 27MPG highway?
 
#10 ·
Rather than trade for a new Colorado (no technical info released yet) I might prefer the F150.
No technical info released yet? But Ford has released technical info on the F150?

If Ford can bring a SuperCrew at 4800# or so, why would I want a 7/8ths scale truck that isn't much lighter? What is the speculation on the EPA MPG ratings of the new F150? Does anyone think there will be a CC that can get 27MPG highway?
But yet it's okay to guess and speculate technical info on the F150. Sounds about normal around here today.

If Ford can bring a SuperCrew at 4800# or so, why would I want a 7/8ths scale truck that isn't much lighter?
Are you asking us or being general? Because these conversations about "why would you buy" never get anywhere?


Are you related to any previous GMIers?
 
#20 ·
One thing that no one seems to have considered:

If you have a 5600lb vehicle with a 1500lb payload, you have set it up to ride pretty softly when the bed is empty.

If you have a 4400lb vehicle with a 1500lb payload - it would be considerably tougher to have the empty vehicle give that boulevard ride.

Just saying that one of Ford's primary qualities will have to be sacrificed for the lighter curb weight.
 
#21 ·
So, now ford has to compare trucks with completely different engines to get to this magical 700+ lb weight savings? What a joke! Blowing more smoke, but the average person will believe anything their favorite brand spews out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daryl and SRFCTY
#28 ·
Ford is clearly looking to turbocharged gas engines with lower displacement and fewer cylinders. GM and Chrysler seem a bit less defined, but the Ram does offer a diesel V-6. Maybe a diesel V-8 market in half-tons will become a thing, especially if Nissan does it.
 
#33 ·
I've only had one acct since GMI v 1.0., feeling pretty indaequate right now.
Wonder how much weight Ford would have saved If they had made the truck slightly smaller?
I think the current record holder is the GM B bodies. 1977 model wagon was 871 lbs. lighter than the '76. But there was a ton of downsizing done. And the hood was aluminum.
 
#40 ·
Still waiting to find out about the 3.5L, I still think Ford has a surprise in store there. 2014 F-150 has option code 99T 3.5L EB, 360 HP, 420 torque. 2015 Expedition has same code and numbers are being reported as the same. 2015 F-150 has option code 99G for 3.5L, so there is something different from the current engine.

Also I assume Navigator has the same engine as Expedition. Its being called 380 Horsepower 460 torque on the Lincoln website (premium fuel vs 87 octane rating on Fords). Makes me wonder if they won't up the power slightly and have a regular and premium fuel rating on the F-150 so they can out torque the 6.2L GM and have most torque of any 1/2 ton. I am correct that 6.2L GM is rated on Premium (and I know current 6.2L Ford is).
 
#43 · (Edited)
More details from PUTC:

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.

http://news.pickuptr...owertrains.html
And from the side picture, it's a 4x4 Lariat Crewcab with 6.5' bed.
At 4942 lbs, it's around 350 lbs below a similarly equipped High Country.

 
#44 · (Edited)
Looks like another win win for Ford it will keep Ford on the top spot. How much will it cost though, no mention 2.7 Ecoboosts v6 MPG why?

F-150 could become another world car for Ford to sell globally, if the 2.7 Ecoboost can deliver similar MPG as a 4-pot Toyota Hillux diesel that averages about 32.5 US MPG the F-Series could take on the world, there would not be much point in having a world Ranger for the market outside the US, if the F-Series 2.7 Ecoboost can beat the 4-pot diesel world Ranger MPG and torque of 347 lb/ft.

2.7 Ecoboost v6 sounds very impressive, but why have the MPG numbers been omitted by Ford?
 
#46 · (Edited)
Drip feed, make them wait for it, the video was simply a horsepower race that the diesel was never going to win
and something Ford really needed to show prospective Ecoboost buyers Vs Diesel towing 7,000 lbs up a long grade.

Doodle waving yes, but if I were Ford up against an efficient diesel, I sure as heck wouldn't be showing
a deficit on fuel economy before pulling the diesel's pants down, that's what gasoline buyers want.

Some will judge this as just a publicity stunt but boy, this shows that a 2.7 EB V6 can do the job,
Ford might have just started convincing a lot of owners of older F150s to sign up for a new truck
and that is basically the whole focus of this campaign, not to sway people set on a diesel truck.


By comparison,

T6 Ranger XLT Crew cab 4x4 3.2 Diesel = 4749 lbs (2159 Kg)

'15 F150 Lariat Crew cab 4x4 2.7 V6 EB = 4,942 lbs (2246 Kg)

207 lbs difference......
 
#45 ·
Wow. If Ford used this same formula and build a a mid size truck to compete with the Colorado. Things will get Interesting and will Ford release the eight speed trannys? I need to go and buy stock in Aluminium.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top