GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,421 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Aluminum Goes Platinum.
MotorTrend
November 3, 2014
By: Jason Udy


The first thing I noticed when the Ford rep gave us a walk-around tour of the all-new 2015 Ford F-150 Platinum 4x4 SuperCrew was its upscale feel — inside and out. And it should. After all this is the top-of-the-line model with nearly every option box checked. Our tester rang the register at $61,195 (including $1,195 destination). That's lots of coin for a half-ton pickup, but it's also quite a bit of truck.

Our Platinum SuperCrew tester was fitted with Ford's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 rated 365 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque. Now that the low volume 6.2-liter V-8 is restricted to the Super Duty pickup line, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost becomes the top engine in the 2015 Ford F-150. The engine is mated to a six-speed automatic transmission. The automatic four-wheel-drive system features a two-speed transfer case. It is also equipped with premium features new to the pickup segment -- more on those features later.

Full article available at link.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,408 Posts
So much technology, luxury and size.....This is the new Lincoln Town Car.....
You certainly won't be off roading or putting these to hard work with all this fluff.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,906 Posts
A very nice truck.
 

·
Super Moderator
2011 Chevrolet Camaro SS - 6M w/LS3
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
From the linked article:

Ford promises better fuel economy for the new lighter truck and while official EPA estimates haven’t been revealed we can compare our 2012 F-150 long term tester’s observed fuel economy to our RealMPG testing of the 2015 F-150. The 2012 F-150 Lariat was driven in real world conditions including towing, steep grades, and by lead-footed journalists, while our RealMPG testing is conducted on public roads under controlled conditions.

While not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, it does give us a good indication of the fuel efficiency difference between the old and new models. The 2012 Ford F-150 Lariat 4x4 SuperCrew is EPA-rated 15/21/17 mpg city/highway/combined. Over the course of 30,207 miles, we observed a combined average fuel economy of 14.4 mpg. In our RealMPG testing, the 2015 Ford F-150 Platinum 4x4 SuperCrew achieved a combined fuel economy rating of 16.8 mpg. That’s 2.4 mpg better than the 330-pound heavier 2012 model. The 2015 F-150 also achieved 14.8/19.9 mpg city/highway in RealMPG testing. Those numbers are lower that the EPA’s rating for the 2012 model.
You Ford fans were ready to lynch me a while back when I said that the overall of fuel efficiency of the aluminum F-150 wouldn't be ground-breaking, and at last, some real-world figures are showing this to be true. Yes, a 16.7% improvement compared to a somewhat lesser-equipped 2012 model is worthwhile, but it's not the 20+ MPG panacea some of you people were predicting with this engine. And my guess is, the EB 2.7 will probably get similarly EPA-rated mileage (within 1 MPG C/H) to the Pentastar V6 RAM, but in the real world will probably get the 18 MPG or so that RAM seems to get in mixed driving.

Of course, Ford has the Ecoboost magic dust and will continue its genius marketing campaign to great effect, so I have no doubt that these trucks will continue Ford's dominance of the full-sized segment.

And before you Ford guys try starting a flame a war, I'm in no way disparaging the new F-150. By all accounts, it is the truck to beat in the segment and offers a ridiculous amount of content, much of which is not even available in other trucks. While I'm not a fan of the Platinum's grille, the rest of the truck is very handsome, inside and out. My comments above have more to do with the expectations held by many of the Ford faithful who seemed to believe that the Al F-150 was gonna be a stone's throw from 30 MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
And a quick comparison to Motor Trend's Real MPG rating for the 2014 GMC Sierra Crew Cab 6.2L vs. this 2015 Ford F-150 Crew Cab 3.5L Ecoboost:

GMC 15/20/17
Ford (from this test) 14.8/19.9/16.8

The Sierra's numbers are probably rounded, but still, after all the aluminum weight loss and the V6/twin turbo technology, in their Real MPG testing (which should be apples to apples here), it only matches the 6.2L Sierra. The Sierra is quicker too, and the 2015 version of this truck received a little bump upwards in EPA MPG, so the 2014 number here could possible be a little lower than a comparable 2015.

http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear..._truck_of_the_year_contenders/gmc_sierra.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
From the linked article:



You Ford fans were ready to lynch me a while back when I said that the overall of fuel efficiency of the aluminum F-150 wouldn't be ground-breaking, and at last, some real-world figures are showing this to be true. Yes, a 16.7% improvement compared to a somewhat lesser-equipped 2012 model is worthwhile, but it's not the 20+ MPG panacea some of you people were predicting with this engine. And my guess is, the EB 2.7 will probably get similarly EPA-rated mileage (within 1 MPG C/H) to the Pentastar V6 RAM, but in the real world will probably get the 18 MPG or so that RAM seems to get in mixed driving.

Of course, Ford has the Ecoboost magic dust and will continue its genius marketing campaign to great effect, so I have no doubt that these trucks will continue Ford's dominance of the full-sized segment.

And before you Ford guys try starting a flame a war, I'm in no way disparaging the new F-150. By all accounts, it is the truck to beat in the segment and offers a ridiculous amount of content, much of which is not even available in other trucks. While I'm not a fan of the Platinum's grille, the rest of the truck is very handsome, inside and out. My comments above have more to do with the expectations held by many of the Ford faithful who seemed to believe that the Al F-150 was gonna be a stone's throw from 30 MPG.
But they're just comparing the famous MT "economy test loop" with a long term tester of 30,000 miles. It looks more like the same '15 EB will actually make the EPA rating of the '14 EB in 'real world' testing.

The 30mpg expectation is of the 165cid EB - this one is the 'big' EB which people loved for the power.

Wouldn't think 5200lb vehicle with the same PT would 'blow away' a 5500lb vehicle in economy anyway.

I'd also be interested to see the 'out the door' curb weight of a Platinum '15 vs. a lower trim '14. Luxury means weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
At 61k, I think we've hit peak premium pickup. I have a hard time justifying this truck at 61k. 51k yes, 55k maybe, 61k, no
I think they're just getting started. Look at the 'super super' ponycars like the $75K Z28. USA income disparity is at 100 year old levels and climbing fast. Wouldn't be surprised to see income disparity at 'Feudalism' levels in twenty years.

And I would be surprised if the fancy-pants pickups weren't selling for "S class" money by the end of this decade.
 

·
Registered
2020 Chevrolet Equinox LT AWD
Joined
·
13,473 Posts
It's a nice truck over all. 61K though, ouch. I'm still not a fan of the in you face front end. And all the pundits/naysayers want to scourge GM for their design, good Lord get over it. I think the GM duo look much better than this, yeah it looks all trucky and all but still. Mileage is respectable but no where near what the dreamers were fantasizing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,316 Posts
Nice looking truck! $61k - yikes! But in a day where Tahoe's/Surbaban's get close to $80K I shouldn't be surprised.

I wonder if not issuing EPA numbers yet is on purpose? This gives Ford the benefit of great reviews without the official mpg numbers. If the actual EPA MPG isn't as spectacular as the Ford marketing, then the initial round of reviews is building up great goodwill without the beat down they will get if mpg's don't match the hype. I bet it is on purpose as Ford has a fantastic marketing department.

Though by everything I read it sounds like a great truck (not that I expected anything otherwise), but this one truck is really going to live or die by its official EPA MPG. Of course "die" is relative. "Die" means they will not steal sales from GM/Dodge - just remain flat with demand to the outgoing truck (though GM/Chrysler would die to have those flat numbers), but if the mpg is great then Ford will be stealing a lot of volume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,354 Posts
I agree. Styling is VERY subjective. I find nothing attractive about this thing.

And I still say collision repair is going to be this truck's Achilles Heel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,408 Posts
Nice looking truck! $61k - yikes! But in a day where Tahoe's/Surbaban's get close to $80K I shouldn't be surprised.

I wonder if not issuing EPA numbers yet is on purpose? This gives Ford the benefit of great reviews without the official mpg numbers. If the actual EPA MPG isn't as spectacular as the Ford marketing, then the initial round of reviews is building up great goodwill without the beat down they will get if mpg's don't match the hype. I bet it is on purpose as Ford has a fantastic marketing department.
Everyone and everyone magazines,customers, competitors are waiting on these MPG.....and you actual believe that Ford can some how keep that on the down low.....you must believe in conspiracy theories....

And no matter what the official EPA numbers are Ford is going to shout how great they are, they can spin better than most PR dept......
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top