backtop


Print 156 comment(s) - last by chappymn.. on Feb 12 at 3:36 PM

Ford's new F-150 also brings with it a new 2.7-liter EcoBoost six-cylinder engine

Well, it looks as though all the reports were true: the 2015 Ford F-150 has gone on a massive, and we do mean MASSIVE diet. You can thank increasingly stringent federal regulations for Ford’s decision to start call up Jenny Craig, but the end result is a much lighter vehicle with vastly improved fuel economy.
 
In what is an incredible feat for what is the best-selling vehicle in America (for 37 straight years), Ford says that a whopping 95 percent of the F-150’s body is made from “high-strength, military-grade, aluminum alloys”. The use of aluminum accounts for 70 percent of the 700-pound weight reduction. Ford is also making greater use of high-strength steel for the truck’s underlying ladder frame. Ford says that the steel is rated for up to 70,000 psi, making it even stronger than its competition’s heavy-duty truck frames.
 
When it comes to powertrains, the 2015 Ford F-150 has a mix of old and new. The 5.0-liter V8 and 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 are largely carryovers from the previous generation model. However, there is a brand new 2.7-liter V6 that will enter the fray in the base model truck. Like we previously reported, this engine will be available with start-stop technology to further boost fuel economy in city driving.

 
Fans of the 6.2-liter V8 will need a moment of silence… that engine has been kicked to the curb in favor of the very popular 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 engine option.
 
As for the styling of the truck, it looks remarkably similar to the Atlas concept that debuted at the Detroit Auto Show last year. With that said, the styling isn’t surprising in the least, but that chrome strip going across the back of the tailgate is quite garish.
 
“F-150 is well-known for being Built Ford Tough. Now, it is both tough and smart,” said Ford Motor Company COO Mark Fields. “The all-new F-150 redefines the future of trucks, and it is yet another example of our One Ford plan producing vehicles that serve customers with a commitment to the very best quality, fuel efficiency, safety, smart design and value.”

 
When it comes to technology, the new F-150 doesn’t disappoint. Just a few of the highlights include:
  • 360-degree “bird’s-eye” camera to make parking and navigating narrow trailer easier
  • Available LED headlights
  • LED spotlights on the side mirrors along with LED lighting in the cargo box
  • Lane Assist
  • Adaptive Cruise Control
  • Collision Mitigation System
  • Blind Spot Information System
  • Second-row inflatable seat belts
  • The instrument panel has been replaced with an 8”, driver-customizable “productivity screen”
  • Remote tailgate locking/unlocking/release
“For F-150, the impressive lineup of tech-savvy features is all about maximizing productivity at work and play,” said Pete Reyes, Ford F-150 chief engineer. “Every new technology and feature we added to the vehicle is aimed at helping our customers do more with their trucks.” 

 
The 2015 F-150 will go on sale later this year; pricing and fuel efficiency number (which we expect will see a huge improvement) should be available in the coming months.

Sources: Ford [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's next, a paper mache truck?
By PaFromFL on 1/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By marvdmartian on 1/13/2014 10:28:19 AM , Rating: 5
The big whiners will be the people who can't stick their magnetic "Support the (whatever)" bows on their tailgates any more. LOL


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By GotThumbs on 1/16/2014 1:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually my beef is no diesel option again this year.

It seems only Dodge Ram 1500, Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan are getting the clue that many drivers want a diesel powered truck that's not a Heavy Duty version.

I was wanting a mid-duty diesel powered truck a couple of years ago...but had to go with a Dodge Ram 3500 to get the Cummins diesel. I get an average of 26 mpg on my daily work commute. Only issue is fuel quality.

Anyone looking at getting a diesel...make sure you add a quality dual-filter system. Dodge Ram Cummins injectors see 30,000 psi. Leaky injectors can be an issue. Thats why the 2014 model comes with an upgraded dual-fuel filter setup standard.

~Best wishes on keeping what you earned.


By SilthDraeth on 1/20/2014 8:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying that the F250, and F350 that have diesel are in a different class than the Dodge Ram 3500?


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 11:58:24 AM , Rating: 5
Ease to dent depends on the thickness of the sheet metal doesn't it? I've been using the same aluminum road bicycle for 14 years without a dent on it.

PS aluminum frames are lighter and stiffer than any steel framed bike, which is also relevant to cars.


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By 91TTZ on 1/13/2014 3:13:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
PS aluminum frames are lighter and stiffer than any steel framed bike, which is also relevant to cars.


This isn't true. There are alloys of steel that have a strength to weight ratio that is better than most aluminum alloys. Also, when it comes to stiffness, steel is favorable to aluminum since its modulus of elasticity is much higher. In addition, aluminum tends to suffer from metal fatigue whereas steel's fatigue limit is much higher. So you end up having to build the aluminum part much stronger than the steel part in order to work around its fatigue problems.


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 6:48:49 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't stronger better in a truck? Its the same with bikes by the way, you can only go so light with the aluminum before you will get cracks. The end product is still lighter than the old steel(CHROMOLY) frames, plus the added bonus of no more corrosion on the inside of the tubes. Steel might be better for things where weight isn't critical, like building, but for cars, bikes, and planes I don't think its much of a debate. I haven't seen too many tour de france riders asking for all steel rims. Of course there might be a quick jump to carbon fiber instead.


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By 91TTZ on 1/14/2014 10:56:48 AM , Rating: 3
What I mean is that the strength isn't a type of strength that can always be relied upon. Materials have a fatigue strength and an ultimate strength.

If you were to compare a steel bar and an aluminum bar, you might find that a "high performance" aluminum bar is "stronger" than the steel bar. In other words it might be able to take more load before it permanently bends.

But when you put them to use in repetitive stress situations you'll find that the aluminum bar really can't take that much before permanent damage occurs while the steel bar may be able to take an almost unlimited amount of cycles as long as you don't cross a certain threshold.

Take a look at these curves which compare aluminum and steel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:S-N_curves.PNG

You can see the steel piece has a limit where as long as you stay under that limit its service life is almost unlimited. On the other hand the aluminum piece has no such limit and its service life is proportionate to the stress it takes. You wouldn't want to make suspension pieces out of aluminum because they'd eventually crack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By Argon18 on 1/13/2014 12:18:22 PM , Rating: 5
"Why waste expensive, energy intensive, easy-to-dent aluminum on a work truck? "

No, wrong. If aluminum was as "expensive" and "energy intensive" as you claim, why is it used for cola and beer cans then? And easy to dent? Huh? Steel dents much more readily than aluminum. You don't understand the properties of these metals at all, do you.

"Curb weight mostly affects gas mileage during acceleration and deceleration. A modest regenerative braking system with a smallish battery could increase efficiency and boost the low end torque."

No, wrong. What is "gas mileage during braking?" That's a nonsense phrase, fuel use while braking has no relation to curb weight. Besides that, regenerative braking is more of a gimmick than anything else. It reclaims such a tiny percentage of the braking energy, it's pointless. Not to mention the expense and electronic complexity it adds to what is supposed to be a simple and rugged utility vehicle. Tradesman use their vehicles for far longer than the 3 to 5 years that a residential consumer does. Do you really expect them to replace $thousand dollar battery packs on a regular basis, just to have some gimmick "hybrid" badge on the tail gate? That's laughable, at best.

Using a 6 cylinder turbo-diesel engine would yield far more fuel economy improvements. It would provide more torque than the biggest V8, while providing 30% or better fuel economy gains.


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By Solandri on 1/13/2014 2:08:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No, wrong. If aluminum was as "expensive" and "energy intensive" as you claim, why is it used for cola and beer cans then?

Cans aren't exactly structurally critical. The aluminum used in cans is very thin, so there's not much of it. It's about 1 cent worth of aluminum.

OP is correct that aluminum is very energy-intensive and (relatively) expensive. It's only an affordable building material because our energy prices are so cheap.

quote:
And easy to dent? Huh? Steel dents much more readily than aluminum. You don't understand the properties of these metals at all, do you.

Correct. While you need more aluminum to achieve the same strength as steel, it still ends up weighing less. Or put another way, for the same strength as steel, an equivalent aluminum structure will be thicker/larger, but weigh less.

Very roughly speaking, you need about twice the volume of aluminum to match steel's strength. And the aluminum needed to match steel's strength will cost about 2x as much as steel. (For the same volume of material, aluminum costs about 4x as much as steel.)

quote:
Besides that, regenerative braking is more of a gimmick than anything else. It reclaims such a tiny percentage of the braking energy, it's pointless.

Regenerative braking captures about 30%-35% of the energy which would be lost. It is not pointless, especially in stop-and-go traffic where nearly all the energy losses are due to braking instead of air resistance (the reason why hybrid city MPG comes close to or exceeds highway MPG).

quote:
Not to mention the expense and electronic complexity it adds to what is supposed to be a simple and rugged utility vehicle. Tradesman use their vehicles for far longer than the 3 to 5 years that a residential consumer does.

Yeah, but that's what the automakers gotta do to meet the new CAFE requirements. According to the people who won that vote, meeting government benchmarks takes priority over common sense or what the market demands.

I think CAFE needs to be revamped. It's currently two categories - cars and light trucks. Originally the cars were passenger vehicles, and light trucks were work vehicles. With the advent of SUVs and minivans however, that line is getting blurred. CAFE should either be changed to passenger vehicles and work trucks, or a third category "work trucks" added so the MPG requirements can better reflect realistic priorities.


By zephyrprime on 1/13/2014 2:34:44 PM , Rating: 3
Cans are a disposable item with low profit so they are very sensitive to component prices. More so than vehicles.

According to here: http://www.metalprices.com/p/AluminumFreeChart
http://www.metalprices.com/p/SteelBenchmarkerFreeC...

Steel is half the price per pound versus aluminum. According to here, http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-alloys-den... steel is nearly 3x the density of aluminum. So, double the volume of steel in aluminum would yield about about cost increase of about 1.33x, not 8x as you claim.


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By Concillian on 1/13/2014 3:57:36 PM , Rating: 6
quote:
Correct. While you need more aluminum to achieve the same strength as steel, it still ends up weighing less. Or put another way, for the same strength as steel, an equivalent aluminum structure will be thicker/larger, but weigh less.

Very roughly speaking, you need about twice the volume of aluminum to match steel's strength. And the aluminum needed to match steel's strength will cost about 2x as much as steel. (For the same volume of material, aluminum costs about 4x as much as steel.)


The Materials Engineer in me feels a need to expound on this. Generally you are correct, but it's very general. I'm sure many understand, but for the benefit of those who don't: aluminum and steel can't really be directly compared, they have some properties that are very different in good ways and others that are different in bad ways relative to one another:

Aluminum is stiffer, AND can hold higher shape ratios. An example of a high shape ratio is a hollow pole with a very thin wall vs. a low shape ratio would have a thicker wall and smaller "through hole. A thinner wall is more practical for aluminum than steel. In this way chassis stiffening supports and such can actually be MUCH MUCH lighter than the ratio of material densities would indicate.

In general, a stiff chassis will yield a better ride quality, so aluminum chassis can yield perceived improvements in quality beyond weight improvement if the stiffness is exploited. This depends on design though. Obviously there are trade-offs the engineers must consider.

Beverage cans and soup cans are an excellent example of shape ratios in the real world. Both can withstand being stood on... Even jumped on if the beverage can is full of pressurized soda, but the economics dictate one be made of steel and one aluminum... why? Because the beverage can have a very thin wall, since it's partially propped up by the pressure of the carbonated liquid. Steel would be used if it could be, but it can't hold such a thin wall shape as well as aluminum can. The soup can doesn't have the benefit of internal pressurization, so the can wall needs to be stronger, and therefore thicker. This shape ratio is achievable with steel... So it's made of steel, which, even though it must be ribbed for strength and coated for food safety, is cheaper at that volume of material used.

Body paneling can potentially be made thinner with aluminum for holding the same shape, this is another area where the weight ratio in practice is probably much different than the density ratio. It can probably also hold bolder "crease" shapes that allow for unique styling opportunities in the panels.

Steel is much more ductile. The practical result of this is that it takes more energy to "tear" or "rip apart" steel than aluminum. This makes it an EXCELLENT material for "crumple zones" where you want to dissipate energy. These areas will not likely be designed with another material for quite some time.

Aluminum will also eventually "wear out". Steel has a weight limit under which you can repeatedly load and unload and it will never change shape permanently. Aluminum has no such limit, but it can be "overbuilt" so typical loading will take billions of cycles to produce an appreciable change to shape. This is especially true if you can use larger overall dimensions of aluminum than steel to take advantage of the better shape ratios mentioned earlier. Obviously this makes steel the material of choice for springs, and you won't see it replaced as a spring material any time soon.


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By Jaybus on 1/13/2014 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Aluminum will also eventually "wear out"

Yes, and that is my fear. Will Ford "overbuild" sufficiently, or will they overbuild as little as possible to save more weight, and in so doing reduce the useful lifetime of a truck. Will future models become structurally unsafe to drive far sooner than previous models?


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By freaqie on 1/13/2014 9:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
we can assume they will else they would be shooting their FORD TOUGH marketing in the foot so hard thye would be in serious trouble.

another good reason is corrosion,
Aluminium doesn;t really corrode, (it does oxidize but forms an inpenetrable layer so it's only the utmost outer layer)
so even when dented the body won't suffer further damage from corrosion related problems which could defenitally increase the possible lifespan of these vehicles.

so we get better mileage, and better performance (both acceleration improved and banking decreased).
if the price hike isn't too much this is defenitally an improvement!


By zephyrprime on 1/14/2014 2:44:16 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, corrosion probably destroys more vehicles than shape changes from high usage by a factor of 10000x. All these arguments about strength are pointless when rust is the real killer of auto bodies.


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By 91TTZ on 1/13/2014 2:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Steel dents much more readily than aluminum. You don't understand the properties of these metals at all, do you.


No, steel does not dent much more readily than aluminum. Steel is more resilient than aluminum. It springs back into shape better. You see plenty of steel springs, but you don't see many aluminum springs. Also, aluminum is much softer than steel.


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 6:50:14 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I haven't seen any dents in any of my cars springing back.


RE: What's next, a paper mache truck?
By 91TTZ on 1/14/2014 11:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
You only get the dent when you exceed the limit in which the material permanently deforms. I'm not sure that aluminum would hold up better.


The government
By flyingpants1 on 1/13/2014 12:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can thank increasingly stringent federal regulations for Ford’s decision to start call up Jenny Craig, but the end result is a much lighter vehicle with vastly improved fuel economy.


The government is mandating better cars NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.




RE: The government
By Solandri on 1/13/2014 2:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
Aluminum is a finicky material to work with. Methods of welding it were only devised in the last 20 years, and still aren't as good as steel welds (the reason most aluminum panels on planes are riveted or glued).

For a low-stress passenger vehicle, this isn't much of a problem. For a work truck whose bed will frequently be loaded close to maximum weight capacity, this is almost certainly a change for the worse.


RE: The government
By EricMartello on 1/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: The government
By pandemonium on 1/14/2014 4:17:58 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
mythical environmental problem


Seriously, how does this notion still exist? I suppose we'll have another resurgence of people that believe the Moon landing was faked, even though it's been done twice now, by two independent governments.

Do the world you live in a favor and read outside of Fox News articles: http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp


RE: The government
By ebakke on 1/14/2014 11:06:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do the world you live in a favor and read outside of Fox News articles
Man this gets old. You likely get head nods and "uh huh!"s from fellow liberals when you characterize anyone with with any opinions different from yours as a Fox News watching, old, white, male, Republican, god-fearing, global-warming "denying" dolt. But when you bring Fox News into a discussion where it doesn't already exist purely in an attempt to insult someone else - you immediately alienate half of the populace to whatever else it is you had to say. Not exactly the most effective decision when you're trying to coax another person into modifying his/her world view to more closely align with yours. Instead all you're doing is helping both sides dig their heels in more.

Accusing someone of not critically thinking for themselves and only being spoon fed information from Fox News is just intellectual laziness.


RE: The government
By pandemonium on 1/15/2014 4:48:08 AM , Rating: 3
Really? And I'm wrong, how?

I'm for the facts here. Advocating global warming as some political liberal agenda is magnitudes more lazy than your notion of me looking for cited studies that provide the truth.

Prove me wrong here.

I'm confused how you can say I'm guilty of intellectual laziness when I'm the one actually looking into the issue and raising questions with facts and studies instead of just accepting typical non-sense spouted by useless media...

That's some kind of special you got there.


RE: The government
By EricMartello on 1/14/2014 9:52:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Seriously, how does this notion still exist? I suppose we'll have another resurgence of people that believe the Moon landing was faked, even though it's been done twice now, by two independent governments.

Do the world you live in a favor and read outside of Fox News articles: http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp


There is no scientific evidence to support the wild and wacky theories surrounding "global warming" or "climate change". Take the simple fact that they had to rename it to 'maintain credibility' - if the methodologies being employed by the astrologists/climatologists had any scientific basis they would not have needed to broaden the scope to a point where "no matter what happens we'll always be right".

You can say there's going to be a 50% chance of rain tomorrow and a 50% chance of no rain - you will ALWAYS be right. That doesn't make your statement scientifically sound in any way. The fact that you've gone "all in" on believing something that's made up shows that you're really not making any effort to understand the mechanics behind the lies you're being fed.

All of the lol-worthy theories spawning from the climatology ilk are based on computer simulations - the same computer simulations that fail to predict weather patterns occurring within the next few days, let alone the next century or two.

Simulations do not equal science, and a lot of the conclusions of deviant climate shifts are a result of fraudulently transposing regional/localized data as if the data encompasses the entire planet.

Thanks for the laugh at linking to a site called "justfacts", as if it is so desperate that pass off left-wing spin and propaganda as "fact". Some random blog, activist website or tenured professors with an agenda and a desire to keep collecting their paycheck and taxpayer-funded grants are highly invalid sources of information for any matter.

Do yourself a favor and start getting your information from Fox News. They actually make an effort to vet what they report on for factual accuracy, and they are the only mainstream news outlet that practices actual journalism - i.e. maintaining healthy skepticism and QUESTIONING the powers that be.


RE: The government
By pandemonium on 1/15/2014 5:20:58 AM , Rating: 3
My assumptions of your ignorance were correct.

You didn't read the link. If you had, you would've seen the cited studies within and the compelling information. I know it's a lot, but really, at least read the headings and look at the pretty graphs. I won't go so far as to ask you to check the cited sources; I can understand that's asking too much.

You made fun of the URL's name as if you're 12, then possibly TL;DR'd, assumed I'm some hippy liberal and went about your compelling response repeating typical, conservative garbage.

If you can't even retort with a valid counter against what was provided, you're not adding to the discussion. You're just fulfilling your destiny as a lemming for the ignorance propaganda machine developed for the elite to maintain their hold on their profits.

Give yourself a pat on the back for being a tool.

No, all of the models aren't based "on computer simulations - the same computer simulations that fail to predict weather patterns occurring within the next few days, let alone the next century or two." They're based on particle physics and in depth research made in the field, compiled en masse, and extrapolated over years of study with high scrutiny. Yeah, you may not understand all of it, but if you at least spent the time to read into it, you wouldn't dismiss the evidence so blatantly.

Let's try this one more time, then I'll have to chalk this up to intentional ignorance.

Wiki has this fairly well outlined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

No, this isn't pseudo science, it's fact. Ice ages are fact. What causes them isn't fully understood because it's very complex. We're barely able to predict tomorrow's weather - as you stated - so understanding the details of all of the effects to a fine detail isn't possible today.

The fact of the matter is: we know that having more carbon composites increases the temperature of the planet. What we don't know is how much man has affected it directly. We do know we're affecting it, but not by how much exactly because of the current stage of the Milankovitch cycle that we're in.

Read the last 3 sentences at least 20 times before you hit that reply button.


RE: The government
By EricMartello on 1/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: The government
By pandemonium on 1/16/2014 2:13:50 AM , Rating: 3
Presented with evidence and you rebuttal with nothing substantiated but your own beliefs - again.

Congratulations on proving exactly what you are.


RE: The government
By EricMartello on 1/16/2014 9:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Presented with evidence and you rebuttal with nothing substantiated but your own beliefs - again.


The guy citing dogma as "evidence" is claiming the person he lost an argument to is perpetuating some kind of belief system. That's rich.

quote:
Congratulations on proving exactly what you are.


Which is that I'm right...


RE: The government
By pandemonium on 1/17/2014 3:04:47 AM , Rating: 2
I've provided sources and attempted several times at explaining. You've provided vague rants on how you believe me to be dogmatic.

quote:
Which is that I'm right...


You're delusional and probably need psychiatric help.


RE: The government
By EricMartello on 1/19/2014 11:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
You can't explain a myth, bro. The only options are for you to wake up and accept the reality that there is no such thing as man-induced global warming or continue publicly humiliating yourself saying things like "particle physics proves climate change is real, check this chart". lol


RE: The government
By JediJeb on 1/17/2014 4:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, how does this notion still exist? I suppose we'll have another resurgence of people that believe the Moon landing was faked, even though it's been done twice now, by two independent governments.


Who was the second to independent government to land on the moon?

If you are counting China, then you are doing a major disservice to Russia.

In the link you provided, it plainly shows evidence that the Earth was warmer than it is now during the Medieval Warm Period by quite a bit even using the graph with the lowest numbers. Who was burning fossil fuels at enormous rates back then to cause that? If the Little Ice Age had not occurred between then and now where would our global temperatures be right now? Would the Earth have warmed naturally by now to the point we no longer would have ice caps? Also what is normal, a condition of slow warming, a condition of slow cooling, or rock steady temperatures for eons?

One quote that is a footnote for one of those graphs listed in that link drives home to me just how much of a guess global warming is:

quote:
* Sources of uncertainty in surface temperature data involve "very incomplete" temperature records in the earlier years,


I happen to be a scientist and don't believe the hype, and so do most of the other scientists I know. The assumption that all scientist agree on global warming is a farce, as I know more that don't agree with it than do. The problem is if you don't agree you don't get a voice in serious public discussions. What is really confounding is when some crackpot that is called a Climatologist spouts off something that totally defies the laws of physics and chemistry, but since he is a Climatologist it much be true if it pertains to the Climate.


RE: The government
By EricMartello on 1/19/2014 11:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I happen to be a scientist and don't believe the hype, and so do most of the other scientists I know. The assumption that all scientist agree on global warming is a farce, as I know more that don't agree with it than do. The problem is if you don't agree you don't get a voice in serious public discussions.


If good scientists remain silent, it undermines legitimate science in general. Fewer people seem to understand that science is a process for objectively deciphering the workings of our universe rather than a cudgel used to smash a political agenda down the publics' collective throat.


RE: The government
By KCjoker on 1/13/2014 6:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
It's not better at all for what many people buy trucks for.


Bit bling...
By jabber on 1/13/2014 5:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
...for a builder or gardener?

What does a proper worker/tradesman drive?




RE: Bit bling...
By FITCamaro on 1/13/2014 7:27:23 AM , Rating: 5
A 1995 F150, 1500 series, or Ram.


RE: Bit bling...
By FaaR on 1/13/2014 11:02:15 AM , Rating: 1
1995, because they never built them better since. ...Of course. *rolleyes*


RE: Bit bling...
By troysavary on 1/14/2014 8:46:55 AM , Rating: 4
I think the 1995 was meant to imply that work trucks tend to be driven until they fall apart.


RE: Bit bling...
By JediJeb on 1/17/2014 5:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
1996 was the last F150 Model I really liked which is why I haven't gotten rid of mine yet. Yea we drive them till they fall apart, then put them back together and drive them some more :)


RE: Bit bling...
By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 11:51:16 AM , Rating: 1
Gardners drive 10-15 year old Toyota pickups. :) Cheap and functional beating out posh and sophisticated.


RE: Bit bling...
By stm1185 on 1/13/2014 9:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
I sold my 2001 F-150 XLT to a landscaper. Bed Liner and AC are the biggest requirements IMO.


RE: Bit bling...
By Argon18 on 1/13/2014 12:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sprinter. The Sprinter is the perfect trademan's vehicle. Used ones can be had cheap too. More cargo room than a pickup, fully enclosed to lock/secure your stuff, and the economy and longevity of a diesel engine.


RE: Bit bling...
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 12:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What does a proper worker/tradesman drive?
You do realize there's more than one model of F150 right? You got the Work Truck all the way to the pictured Platinum. All that said, I wish there was more info on the 2.7L. Sometime in the next 5 years I'm going to replace my truck and I won't need a heavy duty anymore.


RE: Bit bling...
By AssBall on 1/13/2014 3:31:58 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed, and in the same boat. If the 2.7 EcoBoost comes in the 4x4 it would suit my needs just fine.


RE: Bit bling...
By Jaybus on 1/13/2014 5:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
I had the same thought when I bought my 2011. The 3.5 Ecoboost would have suited my needs. But at the time, the 3.5 Ecoboost was $3,000 more than the 5.0 V8. Sure, it gets slightly better fuel economy, but the purchase price is higher. For 2014, the 3.5 Ecoboost is only $1,100 more, so probably worth it. But who knows what the 2.7 will cost? If it's thousands more than the 3.5, then it won't be worth it.


RE: Bit bling...
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 7:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it's thousands more than the 3.5, then it won't be worth it.
The 2.7L is the new base engine so it won't be more, it will be less. I'm interested in power/torque but, more importantly, payload and towing capacities with that engine. If it's good then, I'll pick up a used one in a few years. If not, then I'll pick up a used 3.5L instead.


Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By stm1185 on 1/13/2014 1:07:56 AM , Rating: 3
Luckily I dont buy the Platinum model. Maybe it appeals to Texas Oilmen or something.




RE: Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By therealnickdanger on 1/13/2014 9:04:32 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree that the rear looks ridiculous. The front is a bit extreme, but at least it works with the rest of the lines. Maybe I can put my 2004 tailgate on the new one? :P


RE: Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By ebakke on 1/13/2014 11:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
I admittedly haven't seen one in person or seen any pictures other than those in this article, but if the tailgate cladding is really chrome, I foresee problems with blinding reflections for those driving behind one of these at night.

And yeah, the first thing I thought of with the front end is: "Jeez, that looks like a Tundra"


RE: Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 1:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
Some of you guys are blind. This looks nothing like a Tundra.


RE: Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By ebakke on 1/13/2014 1:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
You really don't think the front ends resemble one another? Maybe it's just me... :-/
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/15FordF150_01.j...
http://www.toyota.com/content/vehicle-landing/2014... (particularly the one on the right)


RE: Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By therealnickdanger on 1/13/2014 2:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
If anything, the Tundra looks less like the F-150 and looks more like the rest of the Ford lineup (Fusion, Taurus, etc.). I really like the 2004-2008 F-series (I'm biased), but I think Ford's styling peaked with the 2009-2014 models. To each his own.


RE: Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By stm1185 on 1/13/2014 9:09:21 PM , Rating: 1
I love the new styling, just not the tailgate. On the Ford site's preview they have an XLT in this awesome dark grey metallic for the 360 view. Perfection!


RE: Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By JediJeb on 1/17/2014 6:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly I think the F150 styling peaked at 1979, then leveled off until 1996 then went to crap after that.

Any of those old models I would have taken straight from the showroom, out through the field and up through the woods banging and bashing it all the way. These new ones are too pretty and expensive to even think of such a thing. Where are the real trucks these days :)


RE: Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By Samus on 1/13/2014 1:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Texas gets their own editions of the F150. Some of them like the King Ranch can be ridiculous.


RE: Oh gawd that tailgate wtf Ford.
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 3:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
You can get the King Ranch elsewhere but the Platinum is the highest trim now.


So if we want a V8...
By Totally on 1/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: So if we want a V8...
By GreenEnvt on 1/13/2014 6:36:37 AM , Rating: 5
The 5.0L V8 is still there, as mentioned above in the article.


RE: So if we want a V8...
By EricMartello on 1/13/2014 5:37:39 PM , Rating: 3
The 5.0 is underpowered compared to what's available in competing models, bro. Small displacement turbo engines replacing larger displacement NA engines do not provide the same driving experience even if both engines have similar power and torque ratings. The lack of a competitive V8 option puts the F150 at a distinct disadvantage.


RE: So if we want a V8...
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 7:29:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The lack of a competitive V8 option puts the F150 at a distinct disadvantage.
Yet it is the best selling vehicle for the last 37 years AND the take rate on the turbo is so high, Ford canned the 6.2L. What you say flies into the face of reality. The 5.0L and 3.5L have PLENTY of power to two and haul and more than get the job done. Try talking to someone that actually OWNS one of these vehicles instead of dreaming sh!t up (shouldn't be hard, nearly 60,000 of them are sold every month).


RE: So if we want a V8...
By Kazinji on 1/14/2014 8:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yes we know your a ford fan boy. I have talked to ppl that have owned the v6 ecoboost and aren't impressed with towing. Mileage is pure crap while towing. Larger engines get better mileage. So whats the point of having it. To say you have better mileage unloaded.

Unless they are making some kind of hybrid system with the 2.7l it seems underpowered for anything.


RE: So if we want a V8...
By Spuke on 1/14/2014 2:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not a fanboy asswipe. And who cares about fuel economy when you're towing? It's sucks and that's just the way it is. I prefer the turbo's because they don't lose power at higher elevations (at least very little unlike NA motors). Very important where I live. And, no, they don't suck while towing. They're excellent and actual owners of these trucks LOVE them. You don't know anyone with one you're just spreading FUD. You probably work for GM. Like I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Chevy and RAM make good trucks. No one would buy them if they didn't. I've got family and friends with all 3 and everyone's happy with them. I prefer the Ecoboost for the above mentioned reasons. I don't need to crap on someone's elses choice in order to feel good about mine. I'm not the only person capable of a good choice, unlike yourself.


RE: So if we want a V8...
By EricMartello on 1/14/2014 10:13:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yet it is the best selling vehicle for the last 37 years AND the take rate on the turbo is so high, Ford canned the 6.2L.


Considering all the options available for trucks, including Fords, scrapping the 6.2L was definitely not a "lack of sales" issue so much as it was an attempt to gain more favorable standing with the flawed CAFE standards. It's more of a marketing/political move...kinda like the whole turbo engine revival thing going on right now, with manufacturers talking about turbos like they are some new tech that was just invented when they've been around forever.

quote:
What you say flies into the face of reality. The 5.0L and 3.5L have PLENTY of power to two and haul and more than get the job done. Try talking to someone that actually OWNS one of these vehicles instead of dreaming sh!t up (shouldn't be hard, nearly 60,000 of them are sold every month).


Please quote the part where I said that you COULDN'T two something with the 5.0L or turbo V6? Go ahead, I'll wait...ok I won't because I didn't say that.

What I did say is that driving a large displacement NA V8 is a different (read: better) experience than driving a smaller displacement turbo engine that has the same power/torque ratings as the V8.

The V8 is always going to be smoother with power delivery, so there's that. It's not going to need to spool up, which means low speed maneuvering - i.e. backing up a trailer - is going to be easier with a V8 than the V6.

Now before you say "But derp, what a durpa but da turbo diesel!" Not the same thing - diesel engines are typically large displacement and already have high low-end torque off-idle. Plus, they have a longer stroke compared to their gasoline counterparts so even if the gas and diesel engines are NA and of equal displacement, the diesel will produce 40-50% more torque over its powerband while also producing 40-50% less horsepower.

quote:
Not a fanboy asswipe. And who cares about fuel economy when you're towing? It's sucks and that's just the way it is. I prefer the turbo's because they don't lose power at higher elevations (at least very little unlike NA motors).


Well, if you're using your truck for work and you are paying for the fuel driving to and from a jobsite, you will probably at least gloss over the fuel costs...but most prioritize the ability to get the job done over a few MPG difference. Physics is pretty consistent in that moving a given mass requires a certain amount of energy and there's really no way around that fact.

You're overstating the effects of elevation on NA engines. Yes, they do lose some power due to the lower air density at high elevations but not do the point that they can no longer perform their rated tasks. A side benefit of high elevations is that you can use a lower octane fuel, so if you have a vehicle designed for 89 or 93 octane and you're 5-6K above sea level, you can go with 87 and be just fine - with an NA engine that is. Also, airplanes...many piston aircraft in the air that do not use forced induction and work just fine.


RE: So if we want a V8...
By JediJeb on 1/17/2014 6:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I did say is that driving a large displacement NA V8 is a different (read: better) experience than driving a smaller displacement turbo engine that has the same power/torque ratings as the V8. The V8 is always going to be smoother with power delivery, so there's that. It's not going to need to spool up, which means low speed maneuvering - i.e. backing up a trailer - is going to be easier with a V8 than the V6.


These are reasons I dread the day I have to give up my I6 for something else. They don't sound as sweet as a V8, but for plain out durability and simplicity they are great.


By 91TTZ on 1/13/2014 3:22:18 PM , Rating: 3
The weight advantages of aluminum aren't as good as claimed by Ford. High strength structural steels often have strength-to-weight and stiffness ratios that exceed aluminum's. While some alloys of aluminum look favorable to steel on paper, when you actually have to work with the material you find that you can't use aluminum for prolonged duty since it fatigues easily. As a result, you need to use more of the material to work around the low fatigue limit. The end result is that certain steels are just more practical to use.




By Spuke on 1/13/2014 4:01:57 PM , Rating: 3
It doesn't matter. THIS truck weighs 700 lbs LESS due to that aluminum. Why is this up for debate? I can understand that the old fellas don't want a less capable truck but that's not going to happen here. This is Ford's BEST SELLING VEHICLE ! They ARE going to tread lightly here. They're not going to do something stupid here. Remember when they changed the body years ago and they were so careful not to piss people off that they sold TWO trucks (one with the old look and one with the new) side by side? Remember that?


By 91TTZ on 1/13/2014 4:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
THIS truck weighs 700 lbs LESS due to that aluminum.


It's very doubtful that aluminum itself accounts for the weight savings of 700 lbs. More likely, Ford set a goal to reduce weight and aluminum was a part of that weight reduction. But if they didn't use aluminum they still could have reduced weight. As I explained in my post, other automakers have already made the switch to aluminum and have switched back to steel to reduce weight.


By Spuke on 1/13/2014 7:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The use of aluminum accounts for 70 percent of the 700-pound weight reduction.
Read the article.


By JediJeb on 1/17/2014 6:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're not going to do something stupid here. Remember when they changed the body years ago and they were so careful not to piss people off that they sold TWO trucks (one with the old look and one with the new) side by side? Remember that?


I remember that, but it wasn't the reason they sold the 96 model for the second year alongside the 97 model. The reason they sold both was because it took them two years to retool all of their plants and they didn't want to lose half of their production volume while shut down for retooling. They simply retooled in stages over a two year period. (I had family working in the Ford plant those years)


ugly
By bostonford87 on 1/13/2014 5:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
this is the ugliest truck ive ever seen. all of the ridiculous options that are offered on this truck couldnt be anymore unnecessary. this is why trucks are becoming more expensive. the exterior completely changed my opinion on good looks. i work with 350s and 550s and so as far, as far as this newly redsigned rugged and powerful truck goes, its not impressing me. who actually buys a truck like this so it can be run in harsh environments and do rugged work.




RE: ugly
By ebakke on 1/13/2014 6:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
who actually buys a truck like this so it can be run in harsh environments and do rugged work.
Nobody. Literally nobody buys an F150 Platinum for harsh environments and rugged work.


RE: ugly
By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 6:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
Like someone already said they buy an old pickup that they don't mind beating up.


RE: ugly
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 7:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like someone already said they buy an old pickup that they don't mind beating up.
Or they buy the Work Truck model. Plenty of fleets out there with new trucks in them.


Ford aluminum truck
By Richard875yh5 on 1/13/2014 5:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take the Chevy truck over the aluminum Ford any day of the year. I think Ford made a major mistake.




RE: Ford aluminum truck
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/13/2014 6:05:42 PM , Rating: 3
Excellent reasoning there. Please tell us more...


RE: Ford aluminum truck
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 7:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll take the Chevy truck over the aluminum Ford any day of the year. I think Ford made a major mistake.
Meanwhile Ford will sell another 60,000 of these next month. Chevy makes a GREAT truck but sales don't lie.


Hilarious...
By SAN-Man on 1/13/2014 5:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
All the arm chair engineers on this site need to stuff it.

So let me get this right, Ford, who has been building cars and trucks for over a century doesn't know what they are doing - but a bunch of people on a very crappy technology blog do? Riiiight.

I am glad to see a materials engineer responded and provided some FACTS based on EXPERIENCE.

And for those who don't like aluminum... all those high performance engines you love - well they have aluminum alloy heads, BLOCKs, and many other parts - and they are literally CONTAINING HIGH PRESSURE EXPLOSIONS on a second by second basis any time the engine is running.

Let's face it - if any of you critics actually knew a damn thing about car design and manufacturing, you would be working for Ford and not posting on this forum.

Sod off.




RE: Hilarious...
By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 6:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, the highest stress point(rotor head) on the H53 helicopter(40,000 lbs ish)is made of aluminum, so I think it can handle your trips to Home Depot.


RE: Hilarious...
By Dr K on 1/16/2014 3:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
Materials engineer here... I'd just like to point out that there are literally hundreds of aluminum alloys and hundreds of steel alloys all with unique combinations of properties. Trying to compare them without specifics is like saying vegetable is better than meat. I could easily provide an example of an aluminum alloy that is far superior in specific strength to a steel alloy and vice versa just by selecting alloys that prove my point. Aluminum alloys for example have tensile strengths ranging from 10 ksi to over 100 ksi. Further, the way a component is processed/formed and any subsequent heat treatment has a HUGE effect on the properties of any metal part. Processing can dramatically increase the ultimate strength of a given alloy, often trading higher strength for lower ductility. Lastly, the design also has an enormous effect on the apparent properties of a component, e.g., how easily a panel is dented will arguably depend as much or more on the thickness and shape of the panel as it will on the material it is made from.

Aluminum alloys are roughly 1/3 the density of steel alloys, which can certainly provide a big opportunity for weight savings. There are always trade-offs when selecting materials -- price, tensile strength, density, corrosion resistance, fatigue strength, etc. etc. -- which make materials substitutions more challenging than you might guess.


So gas mileage will be...
By Spookster on 1/13/2014 1:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
3 gallons to the mile instead of 4?




interesting
By Concerned2000 on 1/15/2014 6:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
I’m actually looking forward to seeing tow ratings for the 2.7L. What I plan to tow is beyond the abilities of the base 6 cyl, but well below the 5.0 or 3.5’s capabilities. It looks like the 2.7L will fit the bill nicely, with the benefit of better gas mileage to and from work.

I just wonder if the improvements in gas mileage going from the 2014 3.5L to the 2015 2.7L will be enough to offset the cost difference between them. I bet a LOT of potential purchasers are going to be getting out calculators when the 2015 MPG figures come out.

As for the aluminum: Lack of corrosion is a HUGE benefit. What is the first thing that usually goes on a truck body making it unusable without repair? The bed, and it’s almost always from corrosion. That’s why bed liners are so popular. With an aluminum bed, there little need for that. There is also a cost & energy savings in production because you don’t have to galvanize panels, or make them of three layers (like the current steel-plastic-steel sandwich), or undercoat them. You don’t even have to paint areas that are covered by panels (inside doors) if that’s easier / cheaper. All that will offset the cost of the aluminum.




excellent
By zephyrprime on 1/16/2014 3:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
I applaud Ford for their ambitious engineering efforts.




towing
By talikarni on 1/18/2014 6:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
Still is only able to tow half the amount (safely and with enough power) than their competitors using V8s and same mileage or less than the V8s with cylinder deactivation.




It is easy to lose some pounds when you're so fat
By BZDTemp on 1/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: It is easy to lose some pounds when you're so fat
By tbake on 1/13/2014 6:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
What is short sighted and egotistical is your maniacal ideology that you have a clue what people drive their "fat" vehicles for. Get a life. Hug a tree. Save a whale. Pffft.


By Bad-Karma on 1/13/2014 8:55:30 AM , Rating: 2
Who are you to tell me or someone else what we are allowed to drive?

If I want to drive 125 up and down my driveway all day in a Kenworth W900, cover myself in green jello, puffing on a big fat cigar, reading porno mags, all the while singing zippity-do-da at the top of my lungs, then that is I will do. And I dare you to try and stop me.


By FITCamaro on 1/13/2014 9:17:57 AM , Rating: 3
Well you can be ticketed for Careless Driving. What you drive and how you drive are two different things.

And if you have a driveway that you can get up to 125 mph on, more power to you.


By Bad-Karma on 1/13/2014 9:54:10 AM , Rating: 2
I live on 230 acres. And the drive is almost a mile to the main road. So 125 might be possible..... Be right back, got to go try it.


By Captain Awesome on 1/13/2014 10:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
If your driveway's paved you should be able to get up to 125mph. If it's not, you might die trying... :(


By troysavary on 1/14/2014 8:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
The green Jello might save him.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 12:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
Not in a kenworth


RE: It is easy to lose some pounds when you're so fat
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 1:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I live on 230 acres.
Nice! I have 2.5 but wish I had 2500. LOL!


By LSUJester on 1/13/2014 1:50:16 PM , Rating: 3
I live on .25 acres, I can barely get my lawn mower to full speed. :(


By Spuke on 1/13/2014 4:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
My last house was .18 acre. I feel your pain man.


By BZDTemp on 1/14/2014 12:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Hey I'm not telling anyone what they are allowed to drive just as I am not gonna tell you what to do with jello (green or not). But driving a truck instead of car if one never needs a truck for it's right purpose is not okay and a ton of people does that.

There is loads of trucks which is never used for anything more demanding than grocery shopping so that means the people driving those could easily drive something 2000 pounds lighter (or even lighter than that). If they did so in would change things, save oil, lower oil prices, save the US money, send less money going to the OPEC nations, cause less pollution... and also those pretending to work for a living by driving a truck would need to find some other way to look cool. The later would then mean a stronger image for those that do work for a living.


By Spuke on 1/14/2014 2:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hey I'm not telling anyone what they are allowed to drive just as I am not gonna tell you what to do with jello (green or not).
And then you go on to say they're not. LOL!


By ebakke on 1/13/2014 11:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
Can you make sure to provide your contact information somewhere in this thread? I have a new vehicle purchase coming up and I'd like to make sure it's "appropriate" before I go doing anything short sighted, egotistical, or that you generally deem unacceptable for others.

Snarkiness aside - I drive my truck for "truck reasons" about 30% of the time and I drive it in a manner that could be also be accomplished with a car the other 70%. Are you honestly trying to tell me that I shouldn't own the truck? And that I should... buy another vehicle to use during the 70%? Or not have the truck, only have the car, and rent a truck once a week? Your view of other's purchases is quite simplistic for a person who characterizes others as short-sighted.


By weskurtz0081 on 1/13/2014 1:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
This part I can agree with (mostly), but just because you see someone driving a truck without anything in it doesn't mean they don't need a truck. Hell, I spend much of my weekend time at our family ranch but live in the city. A truck for me would be very useful but I can't really justify owning two vehicles for different tasks.

That being said, I also wasn't rich enough to pay for the terrible gas mileage a few years ago so I bought a car and borrow a truck when I need it, but with mileage improvements I will probably move back to a truck in the future.


By inperfectdarkness on 1/13/2014 6:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
Convince ford to bring the ranger back to the states--as a crew cab--and we'll talk.


By domboy on 1/13/2014 8:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Convince ford to bring the ranger back to the states--as a crew cab--and we'll talk.


And not the ranger they used to sell here, but the "non-US" Ranger. I'd buy one... you can even get those with a diesel (I'll take a diesel with a manual transmission please). So much nicer a truck than the Ranger we had the last few years it was sold here. The rest of the world gets the sensible trucks, and we get the monster trucks instead.


By inperfectdarkness on 1/13/2014 11:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Lots of compact pickups don't come here. Mitsubishi L200 is another one that I'd own in a heartbeat (also comes in Diesel).


By JediJeb on 1/17/2014 6:28:02 PM , Rating: 2
I am still sad when I think that I sold my 88 Ranger a couple years ago :(


By DamonZ on 1/13/2014 7:40:53 AM , Rating: 3
I will second this, with a little data to back it up.

I have a 29ft trailer I have to tow, and a tractor I haul around. Because the trailer weighs a little over 7,000lbs I have to step up to the diesel Super Duty line to tow it safely. I would rather have a light-duty rated for towing 7500lbs, but that isn't an option.

So the next time you see a Super Duty rolling down the highway without a trailer, keep in mind they might be on the way to pick up the trailer, or need to tow more than a light-duty can handle.

That being said, about half the time I am driving the truck it is because I am moving something I can't fit in a car. I would really like something that is in the mid-weight category, there isn't anything between a 3.5L Eco and a 6.7L Super Duty engine. Something in a 4.0L Diesel would be great. I would rather not fire up my 7,000lb pickup to haul my 600lb 4-wheeler. But I need a vehicle that can cover all the bases.

Any word on the towing and cargo capacity of this new F-150? It sounds like it has a very strong frame, did Ford publish any solid numbers on it?


By BZDTemp on 1/13/2014 8:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
I am all for those actually needing a Truck also having one, but for everyone that actually need a Truck there is loads of people that drives one because they want either pretend or imagine them self needing one.

A Truck is for moving stuff and of course sometimes that means going empty somewhere to get at the stuff that is to be moved, but if those people that never carry anything bigger than their grocery shopping drove something smaller lots could be achieved. Like for instance:

A. Less oil used so less money send out of the country.
B. Less pollution meaning better health for people and less damage to nature.
C. Lower oil prices because of lower demand.
D. More room in parking lots because cars take up less space.


By flyingpants1 on 1/13/2014 12:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
I HAVE A RIGHT TO PUMP UNLIMITED POISON GAS INTO THE AIR

YOU CAN'T STOP ME, FASCIST


By Spuke on 1/13/2014 1:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any word on the towing and cargo capacity of this new F-150? It sounds like it has a very strong frame, did Ford publish any solid numbers on it?
The 2011 and newer F150's can be easily tow your 7000 lb trailer with the right configuration. Either the Eco-boost or the 5.0L V8 combo although I'd go turbo if you're doing lots of higher elevation stuff. Get the extended cab with the long bed (8 ft box) with the max trailer tow and heavy duty payload packages. That will get you over 11,000 lb towing and a 2700 lb payload capacity. I see people towing 5th wheels all the time with this configuration of truck.


By Spuke on 1/13/2014 1:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I HAVE A RIGHT TO PUMP UNLIMITED POISON GAS INTO THE AIR
What you mention is illegal, buying whatever truck you want is not.


By BZDTemp on 1/14/2014 12:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah okay lib fascist. Did SUV bashing go out of style?


Last time I checked the F150 was a truck and since that is the topic then go figure.

People have a right to drive whatever they want just as I have a right to speak my mind. Preferably without being called a "lib facist" which I am certainly not - in fact I think you'll find liberal and facist to be two very different things.

Regardless. Do tell why it is fine to unnecessary pollute the world we all share?

I'm sure you want your kids to grow up in a world that is a good place to live just as you'll want their kids to inherit a world that is a good place to live. How is it wrong to consider ones actions and handle accordingly rather than only think of what is best right now?


By Spuke on 1/14/2014 2:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do tell why it is fine to unnecessary pollute the world we all share?
It's not polluted where I live and neither is it in many other places. Pickups have to meet the same emissions standards as cars in the US. So, if they're emissions legal then they don't pollute anymore than a car does and contributes to cleaner air. If trucks were so damn illegal, the EPA wouldn't allow them to be sold much like many of the really polluting diesels that the EU loves to drive around in (that's causes heart problems that the EU is just discovering BTW). I'll take my clean truck.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 5:54:02 PM , Rating: 1
Give me a call when you move to a fully "carbon neutral" lifestyle. Until then please shut up.


By pandemonium on 1/15/2014 5:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
Give me a call when you and the community you live in move to a fully "carbon full" lifestyle. Oh wait, you won't be able to because you'll probably have pneumonia.

At least you'll be happy with your pneumonia! :)


By therealnickdanger on 1/13/2014 9:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
A: The vast majority of the dollars you and I spend at the pump stays in the country and supports hundreds of thousands of local and national jobs - not to mention the additional taxes that (often) support building highway infrastructure. It's not like the $3/gal at the pump goes directly to an international despot.
B: Less pollution is a good goal, but America doesn't currently have an air pollution problem. Of course, this varies depending upon what city you measure, when you measure it, and by what standard you measure.
C: Demand doesn't affect the price of gas nearly as much as exploratory costs, R&D, production, fees, fines, and taxes. Oil is also used in many other industries. Fewer cars or trucks on the road wouldn't affect prices the way you think. Look at other countries with fewer cars - smaller cars with fewer trucks - and they have some of the highest fuel prices anywhere.
D: If parking lots were empty the majority of the time, they would just make them smaller, resulting in just as few open parking spots. Derp.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 12:08:57 PM , Rating: 1
One of the major reasons that the US has less of a pollution problem now is that we have sent all of our factories overseas. I don't think this really counts as going green.


By therealnickdanger on 1/13/2014 3:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well that simply isn't true. We've hardly sent all our factories overseas. In the last 13 years, we've only lost 9% of our refineries, yet production has increased year over year. Newer and better technology provides more efficient production. Many of the gasoline cost spikes we consumers experience are the direct result of large refineries being take offline for updates and maintenance. When they go back online, they are capable of greater production. This is why every "peak oil" doom scenario never occurs, the models consistently fail to account for innovation and new reserve discoveries.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=121...
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capprod_a_(na)...


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 3:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
Uhuh, and they always seem to be taken offline when doing so would spike gas prices the most. hmmm possible profit motive?


By Spuke on 1/13/2014 4:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
The timing does seem to be shady IMO.


By japlha on 1/13/2014 11:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
loads of people that drives one because they want either pretend or imagine them self needing one.

So what? If people want to pretend to need a truck when they actually don't need one then what business is that of yours?

You cannot tell people how they ought to live. We can only educate people and hope people make good decisions that promote well-being for all. If not, and this leads us into destroying our environment and causing the extinction of our species then so be it.

Realize that there are even more fanatical people than you that can take this to another level. For example, why do we even need cars, airplanes, oil or electricity? Let's go back living in caves and hunting animals. If we did that then:

A. No oil is used and no money is sent out of the country.
B. No pollution so better health for people and no damage to nature.
C. No demand for oil. Oil becomes a useless substance
D. Parking becomes irrelevant because cars no longer exist.

How's your paradise sounding now?


By sixteenornumber on 1/13/2014 8:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
you're prob 1 in 20,000 that actually use your truck. Although it can't tow nearly as much i find it to be hilarious that the Bedford Rascal pickup is rated to carry almost 30% more than the F150.


By ebakke on 1/13/2014 11:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
Are you talking about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Carry#Bedford_...

If so, the payload is 575kg or ~1268lbs.
The configuration with the lowest payload in the '12 model year is 1510lbs. The max is 2060lbs.


By MrBungle123 on 1/13/2014 11:22:58 AM , Rating: 3
There are more reasons to own a truck than having to tow/haul things constantly.

I live in the mountains of Oregon, it snows here, there are steep hills in the residential areas and they don't always keep the roads plowed and graveled in the winter. I need a competent 4x4 with more ground clearance than a car. I rarely haul anything of consequence but during the summer I enjoy camping/fishing and having a bed makes those things much easier. I only have the space for one vehicle so I need something that can do all of this and be my daily driver I have found that for me a truck works best... granted mine is small one (its a tacoma) but still, if someone wants to use a Crew Cab Dually F350 Diesel 4x4 to buy groceries who am I to judge?

Most of the people hating on people that drive a truck probably live a lifestyle that makes having a small car or no car possible, get out of the city sometime and realize that no everyone lives like you do.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 12:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
I drove probably 400,000 miles all over the US in the last 5 years. I have seen which vehicles do well in the snow and which don't. I can tell you almost every SUV or 4X4 pickup I saw that slid off the road ended up flipping over and almost every car I saw stayed on it wheels. Owning that type of vehicle for snow country is a bad idea in my opinion. Buy something like a audi quatro or subaru.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 12:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to get stuck in the snow drive a front wheel drive minivan. :)


By ebakke on 1/13/2014 12:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm impressed that you were able to tell while driving by a rolled truck/SUV whether or not it was 2 or 4 wheel drive. And sliding off the road has more to do with lack of breaking ability and/or too great of speed for the conditions, not too much traction or too high of a center of gravity.

Your experience tells me more about the individuals' driving abilities and less about the vehicles themselves.


By Spookster on 1/13/2014 1:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
Being from an area where snow driving is common I can attest that what he says is very true. I see 4wd trucks and SUVs sitting in ditches just as much or more than cars and minivans. People buy 4wd trucks/SUVs thinking it makes them invincible on snow/ice covered roads. Although they may have better traction when starting forward and driving what they fail to realize is that it does NOTHING to help them stop. Now they just have a vehicle twice as hard to stop because it's so much heavier. So now when they haul ass up to a stop sign or a red light they slide off into the ditch and flip over trying to avoid sliding into the intersection or the 2wd vehicle in front of them.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 2:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Basically you can slide the road in any vehicle, the difference is whether you have a high center of gravity and flip or a low center of gravity and just keep sliding. I saw a Acura hatchback/wagon thingy with all the latest AWD, stability control, and abs, go sliding off the interstate, but he at least stayed on his wheels.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 2:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
eh, slide off the road


By ebakke on 1/13/2014 3:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
I follow you. To the MrBungle123's point, though, that Acura never would've made it to the interstate in many parts of the country simply because it doesn't have the ground clearance that a truck or full sized SUV does.

To each their own. I'll take the added ground clearance and visibility of a truck over the lower center of gravity of a car any day of the week. I'll drive differently in each, for sure, and simply accept the increased possibility of tipping in the truck.


By Spuke on 1/13/2014 1:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can tell you almost every SUV or 4X4 pickup I saw that slid off the road ended up flipping over and almost every car I saw stayed on it wheels.
People tend to get overly confident in these vehicles. That has to do with driver skill (or lack of it). Nothing to do with the truck.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 12:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some of us drive trucks because we need to, other just because we can, and you and your ilk are not going to take that away.


Incorrect Ford has gone through all this re-engineering to meet the new federal requirements for fuel economy. So it would seem that it can be taken away.


RE: It is easy to lose some pounds when you're so fat
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 1:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it would seem that it can be taken away.
WTF are taking about? Trucks still exist. Nothing was taken away. Seriously, trucks will never be abolished. It's just not going to happen. Get over it and move on.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 3:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not against trucks, I'm against wasting gas. If Ford, GM, and Dodge can make fuel efficient trucks more power to them. There has been a big push by all three to increase their mileage and advertise this as a sales feature.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 3:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
GM is even bringing back a light duty truck with a 4cyl diesel, which is perfect for people who like trucks but don't have need of a large towing capacity. I specifically bought a Tacoma over an F150 because of mileage and I'm sure I'm not the only one.


RE: It is easy to lose some pounds when you're so fat
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 4:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I specifically bought a Tacoma over an F150 because of mileage and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I've looked at the two for years and never saw an appreciable difference in advertised fuel economy. When I ask people what their mpg is, their reports are not much better than the 1/2 tons. And you pay more money for the smaller truck to boot. Even without comparing stickers, there are TONS of deals on 1/2 tons that more than make up the few bucks you might save in gas. And you get a more capable truck in the process. Maybe you hypermile your truck I don't know but reports in the real world say otherwise.

I would REALLY like the smaller trucks to get better mpg and hopefully the new Colorado will finally make them worthwhile to buy. It would a great vehicle for those that need some utility but don't want the 1/2 ton size. When we got our first horse, I first looked at Tacoma's (I really didn't like trucks or SUV's back then and didn't want a big truck). Given their tow rating, they should've worked fine but the general consensus from the owners was that they sucked when towing near their limit and required some mods to make them more capable. Well, I could get a 1/2 ton for much less than a Tacoma with mods back then so I sucked it up and got the 1/2 ton. Turns out they're not so bad to live with. I still wouldn't daily drive one (don't know why my wife liked it so much) but I actually like them now.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 7:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
The current light duty F150's pretty much match my mileage but back in 2005 the Tacoma was significantly better. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2015 F150 actually does better than my Tacoma.


By Spuke on 1/13/2014 7:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a little excited about this new 2.7L turbo. This might just work as a replacement to my current truck.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 7:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
It takes a very long time for nature to make oil, so I'm pretty sure it can be wasted. Were using oil thats been stored for millions of years.


By Spuke on 1/13/2014 11:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just stfu you stupid braindead libtard terrorist and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.
LMAO!! These people are just rife with extra large ego's! Do what I tell you to damn it!! How dare you go against my wishes! LOL! I am so happy that your average person is not an extremist nor do they bow to such people.


By Captain Awesome on 1/13/2014 11:00:19 AM , Rating: 1
I agree, why can't The People's Republic of America just decide on one car for everyone to drive in and then ban everything else. If you actually need a truck to tow stuff and put things in, the government will have selected the one best model for that too, and you can buy one if the DMV approves your application.

It's a fact that we have a limited amount of oil, and have never powered an engine with any other type of fuel, and we never will.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 12:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
No, you just put a heavy tax on fuel as the cost goes up people will only drive gas guzzlers if they really need them.
This has been Europe's very effective solution.


RE: It is easy to lose some pounds when you're so fat
By Spuke on 1/13/2014 1:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This has been Europe's very effective solution.
Solution for what? Removing choice? Forcing people to do what you want them to do? I think it's hilarious how "you people" promote freedom from oppression in places like Africa and the Middle East while attempting to restrict it at home. We're not the EU. Who says we have to do things their way? And why would we follow the "lead" of a failed state. Germany and France are going to bail out most of Europe. What kind of hit is that going to take on their economy in the future? What kind of example is that to follow? Sure our economy isn't the greatest but at least we can fix it on our own and have time to do so. No bail outs needed. Maybe they should be following our example (without the ridiculous government spending) not the other way around.


By Jeffk464 on 1/13/2014 3:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
No, I promote keeping our nose out of other countries affairs. It costs us a lot in both dollars and lives and just gains us the anger of those countries.


RE: It is easy to lose some pounds when you're so fat
By 91TTZ on 1/13/2014 3:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't sound like a fair "solution". It almost sounds like a false choice to me. You allow people to make a "choice" but one "choice" has an artificially imposed penalty attached to it.


By Spuke on 1/13/2014 11:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
It makes perfect sense if you're an extremist.


Well,
By StormyKnight on 1/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: Well,
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/13/2014 1:46:56 AM , Rating: 4
LOLWUT?

The vehicle was just announced at midnight; all other information (which we've been reporting on for the past two years) has been speculation. Nothing was confirmed until just under two hours ago including the final look, features of the vehicle, and the percentage of aluminum.


RE: Well,
By 91TTZ on 1/13/2014 8:06:18 AM , Rating: 3
You're supposed to report the news before it happens. Give me tonight's lottery numbers.


RE: Well,
By FITCamaro on 1/13/2014 9:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
1-2-3-4-5-6


RE: Well,
By Bad-Karma on 1/13/2014 9:46:52 AM , Rating: 6
Damn, now I have to change the combination on my luggage.


RE: Well,
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/13/2014 10:02:05 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Well,
By StormyKnight on 1/14/2014 11:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
LOLWUT? No, it was announced a few weeks ago THAT WAS NOT SPECULATION:
http://www.freep.com/article/20131226/BUSINESS0102...

http://www.motorweek.org/auto_news/this_just_in/fo...

http://bizmology.hoovers.com/2013/12/27/ford-goes-...

http://beta.slashdot.org/story/196103

http://triblive.com/business/headlines/5237435-74/...

Do you need proof that this has been common knowledge for weeks and not just at midnight yesterday?

Oh wait, here's an announcement that isn't SPECULATION from last July!!! WOW!!!!

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527...


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki