GM Inside News Forum banner

Ford 150 regular cab loses quirks, 'copies' K2xx.

12K views 46 replies 21 participants last post by  Klay 
#1 · (Edited)
Since discussion of the new Ford pickup has focused so much on the aluminum aspect, I wanted to point out some of the minor changes made in the regular cab that I think improve the Ford's appeal by making it less 'oddball.' I think the changes are also more in line with K2x styling as well as GM's regular cab philosophy.

First, we'll notice that Ford barely changed the styling of the 150, despite reports of a torpedo-like prototype design straight out of Logan's Run. Apparently it was tested with focus groups and the Joe Sixpacks of America poo pooed it. Too bad in a way that didn't happen, but the minor changes renounce previous oddball Ford practices.

First notice that the 'pucker' rear window, put in place to improve head clearance, has now been mercifully excised. A normal rear pillar and back window, reflecting the rest of industry styling practice, has replaced it. It almost gives the Ford a retro flavor since this kinked rear pillar - where the window extends above the gap in the bed - has been in use since 1997. Suddenly it's 1996! I consider this an enormous improvement.



Secondly, notice how the grille/fascia abandons the tipped backward look Ford has employed since 1997 in favor of a bolt upright, and very tall, grille with relatively flat hood. Here Ford copies the current K2xx - and in particular GMC's take on it, where the grille thrusts forward creating a kind of bullet effect to the fascia.



With the higher hood has come lower bed sides. For the first time since 2002, the Ford's hood height visually matches the bed side height - in a very pleasing if conventional way I might add. Once again, Ford copies GM's practice of keeping the bedsides and hood on a roughly even keel. This is probably the second most important factor in reducing the odd look of Ford relative to the rest of the industry - and indeed even Ford's own 3/4 ton.

Perhaps the biggest embrace of GM truck philosophy by Ford is the reduction in wheelbase of regular cabs owing to a shorter cab length. While the RC 6.5 Ford was pleasing enough in proportion, the long bed, I think ever since '97 but increasingly in 2002, had the most repellant LB regular cab proportions in the industry except the '08 Tundra.



Now I can't tell here, but to me it appears Ford slightly increased the rear overhang on the bed - or it might be just because the cab is shorter. In any case I think this makes the LB Ford proportions leapfrog over Dodge so they are now second only to the K2xx, whose 8ft bed employs longer overhang than the 6.5.

Ford says Supercab and Crewcab wheelbases are staying constant. A 145" wheelbase is 23" longer than the new RC 6.5's 122" wb. So it seems highly unlikely we'd see an 8.5ft bed. This means that Ford, again copying GM, will need a unique wheelbase for the RC in order to get an 8ft bed. Since Dodge and Toyota are still sharing the 8ft RC wheelbase with EC 6.5ft wheelbase, this is a particularly clear cut case of Ford embracing GM's regular cab philosophy.



OK, now I will register my only complaint with Ford's new styling: The retention of the "Irish"* black door frame behind the actual door frame. I would have been thrilled had Ford abandoned this oddest of oddball styling tics. The rest of the industry can afford to make dedicated regular cab doors - and GM could well get away with using regular front doors since the pillars are body color - but Ford I guess thinks this is cheaper? I would be very happy with a right angle where the door edge meets the b pillar - that would likely be even cheaper than forming a Potemkin village kind of door frame into the B pillar.

Any other thoughts on Ford's new styling, especially the regular cab?

*(Irish used completely in jest :-D)
 

Attachments

See less See more
5
#6 ·
Maybe that's because the atlas looked just like the current truck.

I do think that this is the best looking ford in a while, but it in no way looks better than the k2xx. As the article states, ford has taken some styling cues from chevy, some interior cues from ram, and they've made a good looking truck.
 
#11 ·
#7 ·
.........................First notice that the 'pucker' rear window, put in place to improve head clearance has now been mercifully excised. A normal rear pillar and back window, reflecting the rest of industry styling practice, has replaced it. It almost gives the Ford a retro flavor since this kinked rear pillar - where the window extends above the gap in the bed - has been in use since 1997. Suddenly it's 1996! I consider this an enormous improvement.
I suspect that was done as a cost save.......... simpler = cheaper.


Secondly, notice how the grille/fascia abandons the tipped backward look Ford has employed since 1997 in favor of a bolt upright, and very tall, grille with relatively flat hood. Here Ford copies the current K2xx - and in particular GMC's take on it, where the grille thrusts forward creating a kind of bullet effect to the fascia.
Yup, they copied GM or maybe any Super Duty built in the last 15 years.......



With the higher hood has come lower bed sides. For the first time since 2002, the Ford's hood height visually matches the bed side height - in a very pleasing if conventional way I might add. Once again, Ford copies GM's practice of keeping the bedsides and hood on a roughly even keel. This is probably the second most important factor in reducing the odd look of Ford relative to the rest of the industry - and indeed even Ford's own 3/4 ton.
I'm not sure the hood is higher, maybe more squared at the front, (which makes it look higher) also the side windows go lower, which adds to that impression.


Perhaps the biggest embrace of GM truck philosophy by Ford is the reduction in wheelbase of regular cabs owing to a shorter cab length. While the RC 6.5 Ford was pleasing enough in proportion, the long bed, I think ever since '97 but increasingly in 2002, had the most repellant LB regular cab proportions in the industry except the '08 Tundra.

Now I can't tell here, but to me it appears Ford slightly increased the rear overhang on the bed - or it might be just because the cab is shorter. In any case I think this makes the LB Ford proportions leapfrog over Dodge so they are now second only to the K2xx, whose 8ft bed employs longer overhang than the 6.5.
Regular cab trucks are all but commercial/government fleet use, meaning the people driving them are the ones that bought the truck, and their main purpose is utility, these changes certainly cut production costs.

Additionally, we've been told the 8' bed on the Regular Cab has been dropped, further simplifying production/cutting cost(s).



OK, now I will register my only complaint with Ford's new styling: The retention of the "Irish"* black door frame behind the actual door frame. I would have been thrilled had Ford abandoned this oddest of oddball styling tics. The rest of the industry can afford to make dedicated regular cab doors - and GM could well get away with using regular front doors since the pillars are body color - but Ford I guess thinks this is cheaper? I would be very happy with a right angle where the door edge meets the b pillar - that would likely be even cheaper than forming a Potemkin village kind of door frame into the B pillar.

Any other thoughts on Ford's new styling, especially the regular cab?

*(Irish used completely in jest :-D)
Again, Regular Cab trucks are all but commercial/government fleet use.............
 
#14 ·
Regular cab trucks are all but commercial/government fleet use, meaning the people driving them are the ones that bought the truck, and their main purpose is utility, these changes certainly cut production costs.

Additionally, we've been told the 8' bed on the Regular Cab has been dropped, further simplifying production/cutting cost(s).

Again, Regular Cab trucks are all but commercial/government fleet use.............
In my post I've got a picture of an 8ft RC testing. Are you saying that at the 11th hour Ford canned it?

Other makes can make a unique RC door. Why not Ford?

But even if they used the regular door, what's so bad about a normal looking B pillar forming a right angle where the B pillar starts? Far, far better looking than this idea of a faux doorframe growing out of the B pillar. This attachment is the old one, but I think it would work even better on the new one...
 

Attachments

#8 ·
This is one of the oddball things that I have noticed more frequently on GM-themed forums than anywhere else, that being the notion that if anything is in any way similar to what you would find on a GM product then said company must have copied GM. A great example are the multiple 'Mercedes will be using the Camaro Z/28 suspension setup' I've seen on multiple Camaro-themed sites of late. Of course the reality is that other manufacturers and racing teams associated with other manufacturers used these items prior to GM, and even if they hadn't I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Multi-Matic doesn't consider their shock an item that 'belongs' to GM or the Z/28. Regardless, since they have now appeared on a production Camaro, everybody else who might use them is now 'copying GM' whether or not GM has anything to do with the development of the product.

Do people copy GM? Of course, everybody copies and is copied in this industry at some point. Do I think anything listed above is a 'copy' of GM or Dodge in this instance? I think most if not all of these are a stretch.
 
#9 ·
Since discussion of the new Ford pickup has focused so much on the aluminum aspect, I wanted to point out some of the minor changes made in the regular cab that I think improve the Ford's appeal by making it less 'oddball.' I think the changes are also more in line with K2x styling as well as GM's regular cab philosophy.

First, we'll notice that Ford barely changed the styling of the 150, despite reports of a torpedo-like prototype design straight out of Logan's Run. Apparently it was tested with focus groups and the Joe Sixpacks of America poo pooed it. Too bad in a way that didn't happen, but the minor changes renounce previous oddball Ford practices.

First notice that the 'pucker' rear window, put in place to improve head clearance has now been mercifully excised. A normal rear pillar and back window, reflecting the rest of industry styling practice, has replaced it. It almost gives the Ford a retro flavor since this kinked rear pillar - where the window extends above the gap in the bed - has been in use since 1997. Suddenly it's 1996! I consider this an enormous improvement.



Secondly, notice how the grille/fascia abandons the tipped backward look Ford has employed since 1997 in favor of a bolt upright, and very tall, grille with relatively flat hood. Here Ford copies the current K2xx - and in particular GMC's take on it, where the grille thrusts forward creating a kind of bullet effect to the fascia.



With the higher hood has come lower bed sides. For the first time since 2002, the Ford's hood height visually matches the bed side height - in a very pleasing if conventional way I might add. Once again, Ford copies GM's practice of keeping the bedsides and hood on a roughly even keel. This is probably the second most important factor in reducing the odd look of Ford relative to the rest of the industry - and indeed even Ford's own 3/4 ton.

Perhaps the biggest embrace of GM truck philosophy by Ford is the reduction in wheelbase of regular cabs owing to a shorter cab length. While the RC 6.5 Ford was pleasing enough in proportion, the long bed, I think ever since '97 but increasingly in 2002, had the most repellant LB regular cab proportions in the industry except the '08 Tundra.



Now I can't tell here, but to me it appears Ford slightly increased the rear overhang on the bed - or it might be just because the cab is shorter. In any case I think this makes the LB Ford proportions leapfrog over Dodge so they are now second only to the K2xx, whose 8ft bed employs longer overhang than the 6.5.



OK, now I will register my only complaint with Ford's new styling: The retention of the "Irish"* black door frame behind the actual door frame. I would have been thrilled had Ford abandoned this oddest of oddball styling tics. The rest of the industry can afford to make dedicated regular cab doors - and GM could well get away with using regular front doors since the pillars are body color - but Ford I guess thinks this is cheaper? I would be very happy with a right angle where the door edge meets the b pillar - that would likely be even cheaper than forming a Potemkin village kind of door frame into the B pillar.

Any other thoughts on Ford's new styling, especially the regular cab?

*(Irish used completely in jest :-D)
Lets assume everything you hypothesis is correct. Ford copied GM now they have a chance to be #1 in the Truck market? Wait they have been number 1 for 37 Years Straight. Maybe GM needs to copy Ford and add a TTV6 to broaden their appeal to the High Transaction Price Crew Cabs that are overwhelmingly V6EB customers. Can you imagine a GM engine line up with adding a TTV6, it would be #1, NOW that is worth copying!!!!
 
#16 · (Edited)
Maybe it's because Ford sells fewer 150's than GM sells 1500s? The other thing is that GM didn't go so overboard in weight and size, so now Ford finds itself adopting GM practices like a shorter wheelbase regular cab to decrease weight.

No need to get defensive. I'm just pointing out styling changes that I find quite salutary.
 
#13 ·
I'm talking about the "pucker" back window used from '97 on. It was evidently to make it so SC and CC rear passengers would have just that little extra space to tip their heads back. Perhaps because Ford (again copying the K2xx) moved the B pillar two inches forward - the seat's further forward so the 'pucker' was no longer necessary.
 
#19 ·
When the Atlas came out I never thought it looked just like the current truck, so why does a 2015 that looks like the Atlas somehow looks the same as the current truck? Just like the 2014 Chevy has every body panel different than the 2013 and people said they looked the same. The Atlas was conceived before Ford had the chance to look at the 2014 GMs. No time to copy.

I didn't see a link to this "article". Is it just a post on your own blog or someone else's work?
 
#20 ·
It's kind of a circular argument though, since the Atlas looked so much like the '13 - except that they excised some of the quirkier elements - especially the pucker rear window.

Again, I'm pointing out things I *like* about the changes.

To be frank about it, I probably would have nixed the "Torpedo" 150 prototype had I been in the focus group too.
 
#25 ·
The RC length is shorter - similar to the K2x philosophy - so that the wheelbase has decreased 4" on the RC 6.5 to 122". Presumably the 8ft RC prototype posted up thread will have to get a shorter wheelbase as well, since if it kept the 145" wb of the EC 6.5, it would end up with an 8.5 foot bed. It appears that rear overhang on the bed has gone up just a wee bit, although that might be an optical illusion created by the shorter cab length.
 
#29 ·
As much as I would like to jump on the "bash the F-150" bandwagon, I can't. Although, I do not believe Ford has delivered a "moonshot", they did raise the bar. The domestics are making strides to keep their respective customer bases and innovation should not be frowned upon. My problem is, Ford has done all this work and took the high risk/high reward route while Lincoln is close to the bottom of the luxury food chain.

Bravo Ford, you've done it again!
 
#47 ·
Unless Ford is capable of designing and building a vehicle in one year, I don't see how they could have possibly known what the Silverado/sierra would like so they could copy them.

I'm sure ford and gm both know what each other are doing before we there general public find out. But I have a hard time believing they know far enough in advance to actually make a meaningful difference.

The more likely and logical conclusion is that these design themes are known to work better and the fact that there is a lot less you can do to differentiate between trucks as opposed to cars.
 
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