Still Built Ford Tough? MotorTrend
October 21, 2014
By: Christian Seabaugh
When I was growing up, Chevrolet trucks were "like a rock" and Ford trucks were always "built Ford tough." While Chevy has since found new roads and runs deep, Ford has stuck to the "built Ford tough" slogan like a magnet to steel, using it for its F-Series truck line for more than 36 years. With the 2015 Ford F-150, the golden child of the F-Series brand, switching from steel to aluminum construction this year, we can't help but wonder -- is the 2015 F-150 still built Ford tough?
There must be an embargo on anything MPG related.....They don't even discuss the elephant in the room which is does this thing have great MPG.......But everything else seems positive......
There must be. I'm confused about the lack of info on curb weight being release from Ford. While it's a secret with Ford, it also isn't apparently. Curb weight for each configuration isn't list on their media site or anything. But Autoblog has it shown in their photos from their first drive story earlier this month. And those numbers are impressive.
Looks nice, but I don't like the interior (mostly the console shifter and the over abundance of buttons) and the grill makes it look really sad.
I wish the Silverado had push button start though, but I am glad there is no console shifter on the Silverado. Not sure what I think of most of the gauges being digital. Low lying sun can make that hard to read. the center stack looks very similar to the current Silverado.
I am sure they will sell a lot of them, I am just not one of those sales.
I still think the longevity of the small engines will be an issue down the road. 5000 lbs is still allot of weight to haul around. Add cargo, people and towing and there could be parts popping.
Being an old codger that grew up when big V-8s were king, I remember people saying the same thing when sixes replaced the eights and the fours replaced the sixes. History has shown that the concern was unfounded. Also, based on the early GM turbo failures, it was predicted that turbos would always be a problem and fail. Chrysler proved that wrong with the 2.2 turbos.
Turbos are great if you always drive your truck unloaded because the engine can take advantage of its small size, but if you use your truck where to carry/tow a significant load, this advantage goes away. I suspect the little turbo engine may in fact be less efficient than a conventional normally asperated truck engine. One thing the turbo does give you is a high MPG EPA rating which is great for advertising, but if you really use your truck, like a truck, I don't think the little turbo engines will have any advantage over a conventional engine.
Given the GM’s New 4.3 Liter V6 EcoTec3 Engine is rated At 18 MPG City, 24 MPG Highway, I would say it seems the Ford 2.7 falls squarely in the same category, not being superior or inferior.
In many ways, its staggering what GM has been able to achieve with its 'pushrod' motors.
So, with a EB 2.7 a four-wheel drive and an extended cab, the Ford weighed in at 4,935 lbs. A similar Chevy 4x4 with a double-cab and a 5.3 is 5,201 lbs, so there's a difference of 266 lbs, give or take some equipment. Considering how heavy the Fords were previously, the weight loss is impressive without a doubt.
At the same time, I don't think the fuel economy numbers are going to be up to the expectations established by the endless hype for these trucks. It's quite possible that the EB 2.7 winds up leading the entry-level V8 class with around an 18 city/24 MPG rating, but it's not going to be the revolutionary numbers the Ford fans have been expecting.
Big props to Ford for taking a risk and getting some weight out of its trucks and offering innovative powerplants, but lets not get carried away. The end result of all this new engineering is an incremental improvement, at best.
The 20% increase in fuel economy is big for a huge vehicle......1-3 MPG may not sound large because you start with lower numbers....Ford like GM,Ram are first making a truck to appeal to the millions of their loyal truck customers.....The benefits of Aluminum not wholly weight savings will become apparent as we move forward....
Those headlights are very distinctive......Not sure I'm a fan of the look yet, need to see it in the wild....But it does something for Ford that GM missed with their 2014 Truck.......It is clearly recognizable as a new MODEL 2015 F150.....Customers want people to recognize that they have a new truck not a mistaken earlier model truck....
It seems like a nice truck, but I can't get past the HIDEOUS headlights. The grille is pretty awkward too. Here's hoping for an MCE with a less 'creative' front end treatment.
Living in the snow belt makes me VERY interested in the aluminum body. Time will tell how that works out - aluminum will rot when attacked by salt too.
I still think the longevity of the small engines will be an issue down the road. 5000 lbs is still allot of weight to haul around. Add cargo, people and towing and there could be parts popping.
Sure, around 100k most V8 engines are really just starting to need service if taken care of properly. Truck owners typically keep their trucks for a long time. I'm sure Ford has put these engines through the ringer, but time takes it's toll.
Welllll...there is the whole Baja 1000 stunt that they pulled. Aluminum stampings of the 2014 body, bone stock 2.7L that's even using a factory air filter and on top of it all: "Aside from a set of lift springs, Fox shocks borrowed from the Raptor, a fuel cell in the bed, a cage, and a set of 35/12.50 R17 prototype BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A tires, the truck is bone stock. It even has the factory transmission cooler."
After finishing, they drove the truck from Mexico back to Michigan finishing with: “When we drove it back, we put a temporary windshield in it because some states have real windshield laws, but structurally, the truck’s fine. It’s ready to go race again.”
Not that this speaks of how long the engine will last, but it does show that it can take a beating and still keep on ticking without an issue.
Well Ford is swinging for the fence, GM should feel ashamed for being so conservative. The GM trucks are great trucks, but they should have pushed farther with the changes.
Ford's huge chance is that they're taking their most profitable vehicles and making them much less profitable. Might they steal some sales from GM? Perhaps...but even then, the offset still might not offset how much more these things cost to make.
And of course, what if these aren't really a home run in a sales sense? What if they don't increase sales enough to offset the increased cost of building them? The profitability that allowed them to take chances elsewhere will be gone, and the margin for error, and thus failure becomes much much smaller.
Ford's taking a huge chance. It might not work out for them....
I like this truck. Every time I see it in pics the headlights remind me of Tahoe/suburban but that is ok as I like the chevs in person. Love the console shift and if fuel economy turns out decent then this is a winner IMO.
I think MPG will likely be very good in the EPA cycle and under light load. The question, just as in the EB 3.5 is how mileage is under heavier loads or a heavy foot. But regardless, it's an impressive truck.
Turbos are great if you always drive your truck unloaded because the engine can take advantage of its small size, but if you use your truck where to carry/tow a significant load, this advantage goes away. I suspect the little turbo engine may in fact be less efficient than a conventional normally asperated truck engine. One thing the turbo does give you is a high MPG EPA rating which is great for advertising, but if you really use your truck, like a truck, I don't think the little turbo engines will have any advantage over a conventional engine.
You should take a look of it's torque chart, or of any turbo engine with direct injection really. It's simply amazing how much torque you can get from them slight off idle and all the way through the power band. Direct injection is the best thing that has happened to turbo'ed engines since intercoolers.
Given the GM’s New 4.3 Liter V6 EcoTec3 Engine is rated At 18 MPG City, 24 MPG Highway, I would say it seems the Ford 2.7 falls squarely in the same category, not being superior or inferior.
In many ways, its staggering what GM has been able to achieve with its 'pushrod' motors.
I'm kind of surprised that Ford stuck with the backwards opening extended cab doors. Wasn't there some roll over test that made GM change theirs?
Does anyone have the breakdown of how the GM trucks are selling by cab configuration? It seemed that in the last generation the crew cab sold much better than the extended, but now it seems more even.
It's hard to tell this one from the old one except for that ugly a$$ Toyota grill and the fugly head lights. EPA ratings may be better, but real world driving will be a let down.
A four door crew cab is going to look pretty much the same. How did you expect them to change that? The bed has the wheels in the same place, you expect different? Same with the front. Show us the same pictures of a Ram 1500 from 10 years ago and the same current model. Different profile? I guess the new Ram is a MCE. Huge difference on profile on the GM's? The biggest change is the square wheel opening that so many hate. Cab looks to have the same profile. Another MCE.
Last week I spent four days driving the new 2015 Ford F 150's three were the XLT's with the Twin Turbo Ecoboost 2.7 V6 and the King Ranch had the Twin Turbo Ecoboost 3.5 V6 which was my most favorite one the whole time to drive. I even got to drive a XLT 4X2 2.7 which was a great pleasure to drive around my hometown in Minnesota it had slightly better steering of all of them, but not by much over the 4X4. The 2.7 really surprised me how great that engine is and its got some pretty good balls when I stepped hard on the throttle IMO the 2.7 EB is all any person would need if you are looking for all around truck for daily driver. The only thing I didn't like on the 4X2 was the fold down counsel I personally like bucket seats with a counsel like a Chevrolet Silverado LTZ or High Country and the GMC Sierra counter parts have, and all the XLT's have column shifters. The interior was really nice although being a GM truck fan I always found that the Ford bucket seats fit me better then the Silverado and Sierra seats do being I'm 6.4 in hight and with my kinda Kim Kardashian back side. Now on to the 3.5 EB King Ranch it had one of Ford's new color called GUARD it's kinda of a gray-green with two tone medium brown taupe type tone on the bottom I really love guard color I'm a big fan of pretty paint with good looking green colors along with reds and burgundy's blue's and tan and taupe and blacks. I would have to say that GM needs to bring back the option of two tone paint colors on the Silverado and Sierra like the F 150's and 250's and 350's and Ram AKA (Dodge Ram) do. I found that the sweet spot for the 3.5 EB was at 1500 to 1700 RPM. I love the fact that the rear seats are heated on the King Ranch,Lariet and Platinum and have great rear heat and air vents. I like the King Ranch brown interior, and One thing is an option new for 2015 is two tone delete for King Ranch and other trim levels. I was also told that the 5.0 V8 will get a power increase to 385. Now with the one Con Is the tail gate is not spring loaded like the GM Trucks have and I don't like their center step that comes out of the gate I like where GM puts theirs and I absolutely hate fords side step that is a good way to scratch you paint on the sides on the bed. Also i find the aluminum vary strong and sturdy the ford reps said the the weight reduction was over 700 lbs more like 730 lbs. I all I was over all impressed with Fords new truck It will be hard for me when I buy a new truck I love the Siverados, Sierra's, F 150's and the Ram trucks no Tundra or Titan for this guy. These ford might convert this GM guy to a new King Ranch F150.
I enjoyed the autoline.tv after hours show discussing the 2.7 v6 turbo with the head engineer.
The build on the engine was a fascinating discussion.
Small compact and relatively lightweight...and inexpensive I believe compared to the more powerful 3.5 turbo
I probably wouldn't go for the 2.7 turbo although those that do should be quite happy with it.
I think the aluminum f150 is about 300 lbs less than the gm truck....whereas for the last decade the gm was 300 lbs less than the ford.
The aluminum construction seems to have paid off with ford being 300 lbs lighter than the gm trucks and about 700 lbs less than the previous generation ford...
People always focus on Ford vs GM vs Ram in trucks....But Ford and GM lesser extent Ram have millions and million's of existing customers driving existing truck's. When they make a new model their number one customer is to get those loyal customers to trade up to a shiny new model!....So how do you get existing customer's to trade in? You need to make a new truck that is significantly upgraded......GM has done that to a lesser extent....They built a great truck that is just an upgrade of existing powertrains and bodies.....Ford has gone over the top with powertrains ,new aluminum bodies and technology that only luxury vehicles had i.e. 360 camera, BLIS, parking assist, cross traffic alert, cruise control lane keeping etc......It will be interesting who wins this battle.....But number one for a new truck is to convert existing customers then conquest.......
A 5.4 3V F150 truck owner comes into a Ford showroom and sees a truck that's oh so much better
in every way compared to their current vehicle, so hopefully they will be open to the idea of trading up.
The 2.7 EB is realistically going tobe 25-30zzzz5 better on economy than the 5.4 - that is compelling.
Well done Ford, know your own buyers and give them what they want.
I'm not sure where you are going with this as you are really talking in a circle.
As you mentioned thicker aluminum can be stronger than thinner steel and still save weight. Last generation GM trucks had skin thin enough that they were rippled straight out of the factory. Tensile strength good, stiffness bad.
You talk about specific modulus, which in other words is stiffness to weight ratio of a material, which again aluminum excels at vs steel. Aluminum can be stiffer than steel but not have as high of tensile strength. Again, consider why they don't use steel in airplane wings.
By your stretch of imagination none should ever fly either. Stuck in a composite/aluminum tube at 36,000 ft., ripping at around 500 MPH, powered by highly flammable fuel, showed into an engine that belches out exhaust so hot that it would melt down a tank, while "landing" at over a 100 miles per hour on a strip of asphalt. Progress can be scary I guess.
All you said here is put a spin on what I said. If this were a test, you would have fail badly.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
GM Inside News Forum
3.5M posts
83.7K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to GM owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about General Motors news, concepts, releases, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!