GM Inside News Forum banner

2015 F-150 Can Save How Much in Fuel Costs!?!

17K views 103 replies 34 participants last post by  jpd80 
#1 ·
Ford's Lightweight F-150 Can Save Americans How Much in Fuel Costs!?!
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/19/fords-lightweight-f-150-can-save-americans-how-muc.aspx

By Maxx Chatsko | More Articles | Save For Later
January 19, 2014 | Comments (6)

Remember that time when tough new Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards ran big trucks out of the auto market? Me neither.

That was a concern when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued the new standards in summer 2012, however. Many derided the ambitious targets, which call for the average automaker's fleet to achieve 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, as unrealistic or impossible to meet. After the 2014 North American International Auto Show, you have to wonder if executives and engineers at Ford (NYSE: F ) were laughing to themselves as they developed the lightweight 2015 Ford F-150.
Among other enhancements, such as 360 degree-view cameras and LED box lights, the latest F150 will sport a military-grade aluminum body to drop its curb weight by 500-700 pounds. It is the first pickup truck to feature an exclusively aluminum design. Dropping a few pant sizes alone would lead to better fuel economy, but the lower weight also allows Ford to swap out its familiar 6.2-liter V8 for a smaller, more efficient 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 engine without sacrificing much power.

Aluminum designs are trending throughout the industry -- and they can deliver spectacular improvements in efficiency and fuel economy -- but the new Ford F-150 just cranked up the heat on the competition when it comes to meeting the new CAFE standards. Let's take a look at how the truck could decrease American fuel consumption and take a peek at next-generation auto designs being pursued by Ford, General Motors (NYSE: GM ) , and Magna International (NYSE: MGA ) .

The only CAFE that makes you lose weight
Gasoline consumption has been on the decline since peaking in 2007, thanks to a slew of compounding factors, including the painful spike in commodities in 2008, the recession, shifting transportation habits, and increased use of ethanol blendstocks. Now it is largely up to improving fuel economy -- and America's best-selling vehicle -- to continue the trend.

Source: EIA.gov.

Rectangle Slope Plot Font Parallel


How can the 2015 F-150 do its part? The EPA states that each 100 pounds of weight in your car reduces fuel economy by 1%-2%, which means the new truck line will gain an extra 1-3 mpg, depending on model (see below). That equates to a maximum increase of more than 20%! Meanwhile, the option to include a 3.5-liter V6 or 2.7-liter V6 EcoBoost engine over the 5-liter V8 or 3.5-liter V6 would lead to further gains.

While EcoBoost engines can lead to a 20% boost in fuel economy, the variety of buyer options for the pickup makes it difficult to quantify effectively. Additionally, we can assume the biggest advantages would be felt with the least efficient models and that some models, well, just shouldn't get an EcoBoost engine. Nonetheless, let's conservatively assume efficient engines double the advantages from dropping weight to settle at an overall average improvement in fuel economy of 2-6 mpg.

With that in mind, how does the improved efficiency stack up across the lineup?

F-150 Model(s)

XL, STX, XLT

2014 MPG 17 City, 23 Hwy

2015 MPG 19-23 City, 25-29 Hwy


LARIAT, FX2, King Ranch, Platinum

2014 15 City, 21 Hwy

2015 17-21 City, 23-27 Hwy

Source: Ford for 2014 model fuel economy, author calculations.


What would that mean for your bank account? Assuming you drive 15,000 miles annually and gasoline costs $3.50 per gallon, each new model would save you about $175-$525 every year compared to 2014 models. That's an extra $875-$2,625 in your pocket over the first five years of ownership.

see the rest of the article at the link
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/19/fords-lightweight-f-150-can-save-americans-how-muc.aspx
 
See less See more
1
#4 ·
The Free Ford marketing machine is in play. Can you imagine how much "Free" press they will be showered with from non auto rags when they actually have a F150 to sample later this year. You can't buy the kind of "press" Ford is just starting to get with the new 2015 F150.
 
#5 ·
Why does this "Free" Press matter? People want to be associated with an innovative company! So even if your not in the market for a Ford F150, this casts a favorable "Halo" over the whole Brand and all Ford Vehicles...
 
#18 ·
XL, STX, XLT

2014 MPG 17 City, 23 Hwy

2015 MPG 19-23 City, 25-29 Hwy



If it's 29 Ford may have something. If it's 25, why all the fuss? I'm thinking it will be more like 24 Hwy.
 
#22 ·
You honestly think that Ford did all this to gain 1mpg.

Really???

Bball, we can be assured that whether this thread is a "love fest" or not, you will come in every 2-3 posts to complain about said opinion.

No matter what anyone says, going all aluminum in the body, for a truck, is revolutionary. It garners attention because it casts a light of innovation and daring on the company. The press likes that. So, get used to it, there is going to be article after article on this truck. When the fervor dies down, Ford will release another snippet of information to stoke the flames all over again.

What this highlights, more than anything, is just how pathetic GM's marketing is. This is what GM fans should be mad at.............. not at Ford for doing it so well.
 
#24 ·
In all of the Ford literature, the fuel economy gains will come from the dropped weight + more efficiency in the engines.............. all of the engines. That this author did not pick up on this, should be no surprise. Most automotive journalists................... shall we say............... suck.

You keep insisting that they are exactly the same, and that the F150 is evolutionary and not revolutionary. The rest of the world disagrees with you. They feel an all aluminum body in a truck, which is historically one of the most traditional and conservative segments, is revolutionary. You can continue to argue that everyone else is wrong, and you are right. At the end of the day it just paints you as someone very angry........... for some reason.

Again, and I have said it before, all of the Big 2.5 trucks are fantastic vehicles. You can go wrong with none of them. If GM has done nothing to highlight why someone on the fence should buy their truck (other than coddles your bruised tailbone), then that is their problem. That is something you should be angry about. At what point does GM marketing get a clue??
 
#28 · (Edited)
....At what point does GM marketing get a clue??
Dunno. We're still waiting. Haven't seen it yet.

The truck segment is huge, and makes a lot of money. I can see the need to advertise, but most of GM's seem to be, "Look, we've got trucks."

Really? We had no idea. Good thing you told us. And I don't care how catchy a song you use to advertise, I'm not giving up tens of thousands of Dollars for that.
 
#25 ·
Im not angry, just upset that all this praise gets heaped upon something that IMHO, doesnt deserve it.

Yes, going to aluminum is a HUGE step forward but its nothing new. For this class, yes, its new but its not like its ground breaking. We've already seen Ford have insane amounts of issues with recent launches (Escape, MKS (??), Focus and Fiesta) and then they throw this huge curveball in their most important launch of all. They have already had issues with it in preproduction when they are running a very tiny fraction of the material from suppliers.

The BODY is revolutionary, the truck is not. There is nothing that paints the truck as a complete revolutionary piece that will change how the rest of the companies operate.


This author:

Maxx wrote for the Foolish Blogging Network in 2012 before joining Fool.com in 2013, where he uses his bioprocess engineering degree to analyze the emerging bioeconomy. He's also Editor-in-Chief of the SynBioBeta Blog, an organization dedicated to nurturing stable growth for startups in the synthetic biology industry.
Yikes. lol



GM improved their V6 base truck combined MPG by 15%. Despite ALL the news GM put out about it you know what stuck?? Oh, god, its got the 4.3 in it so its just an improved version. There is this mentality that GM doesnt innovate in the press and its rediculous how much of that sticks because people dont research for themselves.
 
#26 · (Edited)
Getting a few mpg better is nice. But if we are talking about saving costs (and I believe we are) you have to include the cost differential of the truck itself. Replacing steel with aluminum costs a good deal of money. Are we spending thousands more for a truck that saves hundreds in fuel?

This is a big reason why a lot of hybrid cars and trucks haven't sold well. The same model of vehicle with a "regular" powertrain isn't really that much worse on gas to make the expensive hybrid system worth the cost. This is also a reason why the Prius has sold so well; there is no non-hybrid Prius to compare it to.

Mind you, it may still work, just on the publicity. Just being able to say, "We are lighter"...."We get better gas mileage" could be worth it (publicity-wise) even if it really doesn't work out economically. Perception trumps reality.

And of course, most car companies might have to go that way anyways in spite of the costs, due to that big CAFE increase on the horizon.
 
#32 · (Edited)
Agreed and agreed.

GM seems to market to the heart side of things lately and it's obvious the market doesn't care. Give them a flashy commercial with cutouts, voice overs and huge claims that appeal to the 14 y/o male that purchases these vehicles.

What would that mean for your bank account? Assuming you drive 15,000 miles annually and gasoline costs $3.50 per gallon, each new model would save you about $175-$525 every year compared to 2014 models. That's an extra $875-$2,625 in your pocket over the first five years of ownership.
Where are all the Volt detractors to tell me that buying at $30k truck to save $175-525 in fuel every year isnt worth it?
 
#29 ·
LOL.................... exactly. :D

You summed it up perfectly.

My Mom, who knows nothing about cars/trucks.............. short of where to put the key, watched the "a man and his tailbone," commercial. I told her nothing. At the end, she said "oh, that was about a truck.............. I had no idea. Why didn't they talk about the truck??" She thought it was about dirt bikes at first. LOL
 
#30 · (Edited)
How difficult could it be?

#1 -- Tell me, why is your product better than your competitor's product. Why should I choose yours?

#2 -- There is no #2, go back to #1.

"Like a rock" "Chevy Strong" GMC is "Professional grade". What does any of that nonsense actually mean that will tell me that your product is a better choice for my money?
 
#31 ·
I'd like to know why we cannot have a discussion about Ford trucks without the GM whiners coming in kicking and screaming about other's opinions.

Here's an idea...if you do not like Ford or their trucks, how about not coming into a thread about Ford trucks?

Does it really "upset" you that others may actually like a truck not made by GM and would like to compliment it and discuss it?
 
#33 · (Edited)
On a GM forum? How's the pay as the new found sheriff of Ford defense these days? The psychology of how your tune has changed since your truck model was relegated to last generation is fascinating.

The simple point that save from the aluminum which may finally give the f150 the weight advantage that GM has had for over a decade. The two trucks evolutions are similar, their receptions however couldn't be more opposite.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 
#45 ·
It's not just the weight savings that is impressive with what Ford did. It's the features this truck will have that the new GM twins SHOULD have had at launch. I mean, when you have a supposedly all-new truck, one should expect all-new features that are leaps and bounds over the previous model, right? I thought GM had taken a step in the right direction, until I saw that Ford got a running start and took a jump so big it would win a gold medal at the Summer Olympics. This new F-150 just didn't barely pass the GM twins, it left them so far in the dust that it was embarrassing. Are you really telling me that Ford engineers are that much more advanced in design and think outside the box then what GM engineers do? It sure seems like it.
 
#52 ·
I think the premise of this article compares the 2014 F150 vs. the 2015 F150. We are having the "discussion" about what wonders aluminum will provide. Most of us should be sensible enough to not believe that dropping up to 700 lbs will allow for a 5 mpg increase in highway mileage. I'm basing that on the EPA rated 2wd, 3.5EB truck that Ford themselves advertised. To get all the way up to 27 will be a hefty effort. They may come close, but I don't see it happening. So for anyone to think 29 is possible is reaching really far out there.
 
#56 ·
Mchicha, GM is notoriously for not saying a thing about it.

Again.................... this all falls back on GM marketing. Or, lack thereof.

You want to be pissed because nobody talks about how the GM twins were lighter than the F150.................... blame GM marketing.
You want to be pissed because everyone is talking about aluminum and HSS with the new F150 when GM has aluminum parts and HSS also................... blame GM marketing.
You want to be pissed because everyone is talking about features with the new F150 that may not be all that new???................. blame GM marketing.

Instead of features and examples, we get bruised tailbones in commercials that the uninformed don't even know are truck commercials. As I have said many times, they are all great trucks. Ford will get the publicity for being the first truck maker to go aluminum in the body (as in almost all)....................... AND THEY WILL CAPITALIZE ON THAT. This is called marketing, and it is something that GM fans can only dream about.
 
#61 ·
The amount of problems you'll experience with the ecoboost will never offset the thirteen dollars you save per year in fuel, as opposed to buying a much more manly and reliable V8 that gets maybe 1 mpg less.
 
#65 ·
Generally the Russians were in the "better is the enemy of good enough" school of thought, but they were freakishly good with titanium because they invested a decade and a whole shipyard to getting it right, plus they had a ton of ore and needed to find something to be good at compared to the western Navys. The Alpha class had a liquid metal reactor, was immune to MAD, could top 40 Kts, and looked really cool.
 
#98 · (Edited)
"How can the 2015 F-150 do its part? The EPA states that each 100 pounds of weight in your car reduces fuel economy by 1%-2%, which means the new truck line will gain an extra 1-3 mpg, depending on model (see below). That equates to a maximum increase of more than 20%! Meanwhile, the option to include a 3.5-liter V6 or 2.7-liter V6 EcoBoost engine over the 5-liter V8 or 3.5-liter V6 would lead to further gains.

While EcoBoost engines can lead to a 20% boost in fuel economy, the variety of buyer options for the pickup makes it difficult to quantify effectively. Additionally, we can assume the biggest advantages would be felt with the least efficient models and that some models, well, just shouldn't get an EcoBoost engine. Nonetheless, let's conservatively assume efficient engines double the advantages from dropping weight to settle at an overall average improvement in fuel economy of 2-6 mpg.

With that in mind, how does the improved efficiency stack up across the lineup?

F-150 Model(s)

XL, STX, XLT

2014 MPG 17 City, 23 Hwy

2015 MPG 19-23 City, 25-29 Hwy


LARIAT, FX2, King Ranch, Platinum

2014 15 City, 21 Hwy

2015 17-21 City, 23-27 Hwy"

Motley Fool Crue's arithmetic looks off to me. If every extra 100lbs means 1-2% worse economy, then wouldn't every fewer 100lbs improve it by that same margin? Let's take it right down the middle. Lets call it 600lbs x 1.5% improvement/100lbs. That gives you 9% - Where is he getting "maximum increase of 20%!" when it would appear even with the high 2%/100lbs and using the 700lbs loss, you get to 14%.

And the "20%" figure for EB improvement in 'economy' is taken apparently from the wikipedia page on Ecoboost. But the thing about the 20% is it is explicitly 'padded' with the notion that the EB makes *power* more 'efficiently.'

"EcoBoost is a family of turbocharged, direct injected petrol engines produced by the Ford Motor Company and co-developed by FEV engineering.[3]

Engines equipped with EcoBoost technology are designed to deliver power and torque consistent with larger engine displacement, naturally aspirated engines while achieving approximately 20% better fuel efficiency and 15% reduced greenhouse emissions than these same engines. Relative to the power output and fuel efficiency of hybrid and diesel technologies, Ford sees EcoBoost as an affordable and versatile alternative and intends to use it extensively in future vehicle applications.[4]"

So you don't base the 20% on the same size engine now with turbo and direct injection. We have to take something like the coyote V8 Ford and compare it to the EB 3.5.

I was under the impression that the 3.7 V6 is NOT direct injected. So I could see a 10% additional improvement to the 10% from weight loss IF it is going to a new standard 3.5 V6 that indeed is direct injected. But does anyone know if they are going to have DI on the 3.5? I see in the Explorer they still use regular injection on the 290hp 3.5L. Is there any reason to think DI is going to be added?

And in the case of the 3.5 ecoboost, we would expect a similar 10% improvement due only to weight loss, since we *already have* DI baked into the results.

A 4wd 3.5 EB is rated 15/21, so you'd go to 15 + 1.5, and round up to 17mpg city, 21 + 2.1 = 23mpg highway. Both figures are only 1mpg better than a 325 V8 Silvy.

I haven't heard anything about the Coyote getting DI, and in this case the comparison is more favorable to Chevy.

For a 14/19mpg 4wd coyote V8, that would mean 15.4mpg. Even if we fudged it a little and went to 15.5 so we could round up, that only brings you to 16mpg - same as the "Heavy Chevy" Silvy. For the highway mileage you'd have 19 + 1.9 = 21mpg. That's actually 1mpg *fewer* than the 325 ecotec 4wd.

Now the EB 2.7 is another animal. I think it's kind of a CAFE 'ringer' and if we use 1.5%/100lbs x 700lbs to get to 10% from weight loss and tack on 10% for direct injection vs. the current V6 you get 17 + (17 x .20 = 3.4) or 20.4mpg. Highway of 23mpg + (23 x .20 = 4.6) = 27.6, round up to 28mpg.

This seems in line with the projections we were hearing from Ford at the Detroit show.

Fuel savings are good, but if you are talking 1mpg better in a 3.5eb 4wd vs comparable Chevy 4wd....

12000/17mpg = 705 x $4 = $2820

12000/16mpg = 750 x $4 = $3000. $180 per year - and each fill up is about $100.

You are getting about 50 cents of savings per day that way. Not exactly a kings ransom there. The standard V6 would have a similar 1mpg advantage over the 2wd 262 V6 from Chevy. Even for a base/V6 buyer who is pinching every penny, $180 is kinda chump change, particularly if there is even the slightest premium to be paid for the aluminum body.
 
#100 ·
Anyone who buys a new vehicle regardless of what it is to save a few bucks on fuel is a fool

Run the numbers on anything and you are better off staying with what you have assuming it doesn't cost you heaps in repairs every year

You will buy a new vehicle based on how you feel about it , it's looks it's power and how many seats it has or how many things you can fit in it or tow with it

Then you bring in brand loyalty

F/E is a factor for many but not the deciding factor when buying a new vehicle

Funnily enough , and this will surprise many on this forum I know

Buying a new car is an emotional decision
 
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