The new F150

[ElFenix]

I was talking more in terms of the outward appearance. The weight thing actually makes it even more confusing, TBQH...why do they feel the need to make such a huge, imposing beast of a truck when they seem to be admitting that the goal is a lighter, more streamlined truck?

Shit, maybe I'm just all kinds of wrong...I'm trying to find dimensions for the previous few gens, and they all seem to have pretty similar ranges...it just boggles the mind to think that this:

is technically no bigger than the 2015 pictured.

that 1997 design was done to try to appeal to car buyers. they thought if they made the outside look like a car, then car buyers (whom they had lost to toyota and honda) would come back, but buy an F150. and they weren't quite right. the car buyers actually wanted the inside of the truck to be more car-like, not the outside. which is why trucks are nicer than cars inside, nowadays.

Ford F150, reg. cab, short box, 2wd dimensions over last three generations:


10th Gen ('95-'03)

Wheelbase--119.9"
Length--202.2"
Width--78.4"


11th Gen ('04-'08)

Wheelbase--126"
Length--211.8"
Width--78.9"



The F150 is the only American pickup that's had such bloat growth. RAM and GM's Siverado/Sierra twins have grown nowhere near as much as the F150.

the F150 starting in 2004 got that large space behind the seats on the regular cab.

 

[TopCat502]

Aluminum gets the headlines but the frame improvements are just as significant IMO

Ford actually increased the use of high-strength steel from 23% to 77% in its F-150 frame -- making the backbone of the truck just as durable as ever. The high-strength, military-grade aluminum can be found throughout the F-150 body, and it will improve dent and ding resistance in addition to helping cut up to 700 pounds of weight from the full-size pickup.

 

[TopCat502]

The Ram with the 3.6L and 8 speed is EPA rated at 25mpg highway.

I don't expect the 2.7L F-150 to be much better.

The Ram 3.0L Diesel has been tested by magazines at 28mpg highway. Ram says it expects an EPA rating of 27.

Here's an educated guess that the 2.7 will yield 26mpg.
http://www.torquenews.com/106/new-27l-ecoboost-v6-will-make-2015-ford-f150-most-efficient-truck-us

Could it match the Dodge diesel at 28mpg when the 9 and 10 speed transmissions come online? The diesel is a $3,000 upcharge while the 2.7 is probably half that (guess) coupled with the 25% higher price of diesel I would take the gas motor over the diesel. The diesel will definitely still have a material advantage in torque though

 

[LTC8K6]

Here's an educated guess that the 2.7 will yield 26mpg.
http://www.torquenews.com/106/new-27l-ecoboost-v6-will-make-2015-ford-f150-most-efficient-truck-us

Could it match the Dodge diesel at 28mpg when the 9 and 10 speed transmissions come online? The diesel is a $3,000 upcharge while the 2.7 is probably half that (guess) coupled with the 25% higher price of diesel I would take the gas motor over the diesel. The diesel will definitely still have a material advantage in torque though

My guess would be that with a 10 speed auto, you'll never see 10th gear. Reviewers have reported never seeing 9th gear in the Cherokee.

I think there are probably few returns past 8 gears. Of course, the F-150 only has 6 right now.

In my 2008 5/6 speed 5.7L Grand Cherokee, top gear is .67/1, in the 2014 8 speed 5.7L Grand Cherokee, top gear is also .67/1, offering no highway mileage improvement, and a slight city improvement due to more gear choices.

 

[chucky2]

The problem with the Ram EcoDiesel vs. F-150 2.7L comparisons is that the only thing we'll initially have to go on is EPA numbers. Which really isn't helpful given the suck that is the EPA testing regime when it comes to real world...the gasser will not hit when driven in typical real world driving, often times coming in far below EPA numbers, and the diesel will either hit at worst, but typically, significantly exceed EPA numbers.

The only thing that will be helpful is someone like MotorTrend or Car and Driver doing a controlled test of both at the same time driven in real world scenario (real acceleration, real cruising speeds ((75 mph on the highway)), etc), doing a back to back run, and posting the numbers up.

Regardless of how the FE numbers come up, I really doubt the 2.7L gasser is going to best a 3.0L diesel in truck duty, unless RAM seriously screwed up...

Chuck

 

[LTC8K6]

The problem with the Ram EcoDiesel vs. F-150 2.7L comparisons is that the only thing we'll initially have to go on is EPA numbers. Which really isn't helpful given the suck that is the EPA testing regime when it comes to real world...the gasser will not hit when driven in typical real world driving, often times coming in far below EPA numbers, and the diesel will either hit at worst, but typically, significantly exceed EPA numbers.

The only thing that will be helpful is someone like MotorTrend or Car and Driver doing a controlled test of both at the same time driven in real world scenario (real acceleration, real cruising speeds ((75 mph on the highway)), etc), doing a back to back run, and posting the numbers up.

Regardless of how the FE numbers come up, I really doubt the 2.7L gasser is going to best a 3.0L diesel in truck duty, unless RAM seriously screwed up...

Chuck

IIRC, MT did a proper test of the Ram diesel to get the 26/28mpg 4WD/RWD highway numbers.

http://wot.motortrend.com/1311_2014_ram_1500_ecodiesel_gets_28_mpg_highway_in_real_mpg_testing.html

I think the diesel will not make economic sense in the Ram over the 3.6L gas engine, except possibly if you tow a lot. And if you tow a lot, are you going to buy a 1500?

 

[skyking]

You have to subtract about 15% from the diesel MPG to allow for higher fuel cost as well, if you want a dollar per mile comparison.

 

[Lounatik]

About the hood height. Yeah, its no fun getting a stepladder to have to check your oil. I'm 5'10 and can barely reach the dipstick on my '12 ecoboost. Pain in the ass for sure. OTOH, the truck is like a Caddy compared to my Titan. Another thing is that if they make this truck any bigger, many people are going to be pissed that they cannot fit it in their garage. I have the max tow pkg with telescoping mirrors and i have to fold one in to squeeze it in my garage. Never had to do that with my Titan.


Peace


Lounatik

 

[chucky2]

IIRC, MT did a proper test of the Ram diesel to get the 26/28mpg 4WD/RWD highway numbers.

http://wot.motortrend.com/1311_2014_ram_1500_ecodiesel_gets_28_mpg_highway_in_real_mpg_testing.html

I think the diesel will not make economic sense in the Ram over the 3.6L gas engine, except possibly if you tow a lot. And if you tow a lot, are you going to buy a 1500?

I know, read it. My point is the test really won't be valid until you can get like mileage trucks and test them at the same time in the same manner. The diesel likely won't make a large difference in $/mi in TCO based on 5-7 years or so, however the other component of diesel you get is performance along with your FE. The driving experience of a 3.6L gasser vs a 3.0L diesel in a full size is going to be fairly large. So for those 5-7 years, you're getting a better driving experience also.

You have to subtract about 15% from the diesel MPG to allow for higher fuel cost as well, if you want a dollar per mile comparison.

I don't subtract anything, I'd just include it in whatever calculation you're using. Generally when those are done it's * and / .

Chuck

 

[TopCat502]

Skyking's math yields the same answer as your method:

yours>28 mpg*.85=23.8 mpg for the diesel motor adjusted for price premium of diesel
his> 28 mpg - (28 mpg * .15)= 23.8 mpg for the diesel motor

Actually here in TX diesel is always at least 20% more expensive than gas.

The 23.8 price adjusted mpg will surely be lower than the 2.7 gas motor using EPA figures. Diesel will only result in lower operating cost if someone tows alot.

 

[LTC8K6]

The 2.7 being a turbo will probably mitigate some of the towing difference. It will have a nice torque band.

 

[15fgdean64]

Meh, I prefer the previous generation.

 

[skyking]

I know, read it. My point is the test really won't be valid until you can get like mileage trucks and test them at the same time in the same manner. The diesel likely won't make a large difference in $/mi in TCO based on 5-7 years or so, however the other component of diesel you get is performance along with your FE. The driving experience of a 3.6L gasser vs a 3.0L diesel in a full size is going to be fairly large. So for those 5-7 years, you're getting a better driving experience also.



I don't subtract anything, I'd just include it in whatever calculation you're using. Generally when those are done it's * and / .

Chuck

Chuck, I am a huge diesel fanboy, but I acknowledge the difference and that is my little mental cheat for figuring the difference. I look at the pump price, make an estimate of that percentage and apply it to my diesel MPG so I can make apples-apples comparison. For example, my Beetle is averaging 48.4 over the last 6000 miles. That is still over 41 MPG gas equivalent. I'm happy with that.
My truck is at 22 and change for the last 12,000 miles (not towing). I'm also pleased with 19MPG gas equivalent for a 3/4 ton truck.
I have 4 diesels in the stable and only one gasser

 

[chucky2]

Ok, I get what you're saying now. That 15% though you continually slide whenever you fill up, right? One day it's 15%, another it's 20%, etc? Or are prices stable enough by you where you can always just assume 15%?

 

[skyking]

No, I adjust it every time but it seems to run close to 15% these days. It is all just mental masturbation anyway, things you do while burning the diesel

 

[chucky2]

I may join your ranks here at some point. My 4.0L Ranger is about to hit 200k. While the 4.0L is a pretty reliable engine, if when it goes, and, depending how much it goes, I may just do a diesel conversion on it if the body isn't completely trashed by then. Lots of ifs, but, the guys that have done them are getting anywhere from 35-40mpg real world. I'm running 31's with a 4.10 gear, 4x4, and the factory 5spd auto, so I know I won't get that...but low 30's high 20's would sure be nice vs. what I get now. What's sad is had I gone immediate diesel conversion when truck was out of 100k warranty, I could have easily recouped the conversion costs by now. Why Ford, why did you not bring over your Euro diesels...

 

[Squeetard]

I'm a gadget freak and the options on the new F-150 are very tempting. GM and Dodge better step up with the toys.

 

[*kjm]

Read this over the weekend.... good read.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-sho...ja-1000-prototype-ford-snuck-in?click=main_sr