GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 138 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,421 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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?

Full article available at link.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,408 Posts
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......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,408 Posts
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.
Guess you don't know that you can get a column or floor shifter in the F150........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
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.

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2015-ford-f-150-first-drive/#photo-2991827
 

·
Super Moderator
2011 Chevrolet Camaro SS - 6M w/LS3
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,449 Posts
I still think the longevity of the small engines will be an issue down the road.
Moreover, many of Ford's Ecoboost powered vehicles (including 3.5L F-150) have rated below average on reliability surveys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,408 Posts
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....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,408 Posts
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.
Curious what do you consider down the road.....100,000 miles, 300,000 miles, a number of years?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,040 Posts
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
2011 Chevrolet Camaro SS - 6M w/LS3
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
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....
Compared to the expectations set by Ford and the automotive media, 18/24 will be a huge disappointment. And when you look at the big picture, those numbers don't push the envelope of the full-sized truck segment, especially when you can get a RAM that exceeds those figures in two configurations. Yes, I get that this somewhat an apples-to-oranges comparison in terms of it being TT V6 vs. NA V6 vs. V6 diesel, but it's absolutely true that the highest FE numbers get all the love from the media and are taken seriously by the car (and truck)-buying public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ekseubert

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,947 Posts
I still think the longevity of the small engines will be an issue down the road.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
Compared to the expectations set by Ford and the automotive media, 18/24 will be a huge disappointment. And when you look at the big picture, those numbers don't push the envelope of the full-sized truck segment, especially when you can get a RAM that exceeds those figures in two configurations. Yes, I get that this somewhat an apples-to-oranges comparison in terms of it being TT V6 vs. NA V6 vs. V6 diesel, but it's absolutely true that the highest FE numbers get all the love from the media and are taken seriously by the car (and truck)-buying public.
TTV6 vs NAV6 is meaningless.
The TTV6 vs the EcoDiesel is more apples to apples, but only if you take a cost of operating into account. The EcoDiesel and 2.7EB are going to be similarly powerful and the EcoDiesel will get more miles per gallon, but when Diesel costs 15-20 cents more per gallon what is the bottom line? My guess it'll be in the same ballpark.
 
1 - 20 of 138 Posts
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