Find Reviews by Make:
With an aluminum body on a steel frame, a la Spen King Range Rover, the new F-150 is up to seven hundred pounds lighter than its predecessor.
A new 2.7L EcoBoost V-6 joins the existing 3.5L V-6, 3.5L Ecoboost, and Coyote five-liter. With “the power of some V8s,” the small-displacement V-6 will enable the F-150 to tow up to 8,000 pounds.
New upscale-ish features include LED headlights and tails, an eight-inch dashboard screen, and a 360-degree camera system.
259 Comments on “NAIAS 2014: New 2015 Ford F-150 Uses Aluminum Body To Save 700 Pounds, Features 2.7L EcoBoost Six...”
Read all comments
I think it looks ridiculous, but I predict sales will be unaffected. 2.7L GTDI is an interesting approach, meant to take the gasoline fuel economy crown no doubt. I’d be surprised if it beats the mileage of the diesel Ram 1500.
Agreed. They will sell plenty of these, but not to me. I want lighter AND smaller, not just lighter.
Jimal writes: “I want lighter AND smaller, not just lighter.”
In what way is your lack of need for a full size pickup relevant to this discussion about a full size pickup?
How about the potential that Ford will lose sales to a smaller pair of trucks introduced by GM? “Adding lightness” isn’t enough if somebody else makes what people really want.
It’s relevant because the full size pick up is no longer full size but rather super size. Compare the F 150 of today to the one 13 years ago.
Somehow we’ve wound up in a world where every car class has grown. The weird thing is people will bitch about how small a midsize sedan and below is today when a midsize is as large as a full size used to be. I personally miss my compact 93 LX but it seems cramped and frail compared to my 13.
Ion, exactly–people are already predicting failure of the new 200 because it’s too small, while it may be more right-sized than its competitors.
It has to be bigger when it has 10 inch wide/deep door panels and a 18 inch wide center console
I don’t even need to write a response. Thanks guys!
Some people will be surprised I’m saying this… but… why?
The (possible) low weight of the base F150 is the final nail in the coffin for the return of the Ranger. The global compact pick-up class has grown into a global midsized pick-up class over the past decade. Equipped with engines that would actually interest the US market, the Ranger weighs about as much as the upcoming base F150, yet the F150 will be more capable and more useful.
To make the Ranger much lighter than that would mean making it much more expensive. Which would invalidate one of the few other reasons to bring it in… (though the diesels won’t be cheap…)
@Niky
Hi.
I do believe you are correct with your assumption on the Ranger being an actual replacement vehicle.
But is a Prado a replacement for a 200 Series Land Crusier? That’s how I view the argument.
Some customers will migrate between the two size vehicles.
Pickups in the US and Australia are more and more becoming SUVs. Not everyone in the US or Australia drive large SUVs, there are quite a few midsize SUVs around.
In Australia over the past 3 years we started to receive pickups that are good enough to be a SUV replacement in refinement and safety.
Since then our pickup sales have increased by 72%. That’s a significant number and illustrates how good and competitive the newer midsizers are against SUVs.
We even have people orignaly looking at Landcruisers’ migrating into Rangers, Amaroks, BT50s, Dmax’s, etc.
The US doesn’t have exposure to these vehicles yet. So many of the comments on this site regarding these newer and better vehicles is mostly ill informed based on less refined vehicles like the Taco. You just can’t compare the refinement of my BT50 with a Taco.
It’s like comparing a Camry with a BMW.
I think we’ll see how well the Chev Colorado goes. It seems to be a very nice vehicle.
Yup. The Ford 3-bar grille makes a Redneck-Anime return. That technology is going to be enough to make a LOT of haters overlook it and judging by comments around the intarwebz, there is a nearly equal amount of lovers as haters of this new design.
Me? I say bring back the understatement of the 2005 truck. A clean and well maintained example still looks fairly expensive even today.
Agreed, the 92 and 05 are by far still the most handsome and classic Ford truck styles. I hope people like this enough to drive down the prices on a leftover STX 4×4 that I’ve been considering for some time now.
Agree on the ’05. A very classic style.
+1,000!
Call me old school, but my favorite was the ’87-’91 F-Series. I just like that squared look, even since I was a kid, I’ve always wanted one…. ideally a F-350 XLT Lariat white on blue 2 tone, 460 V8 with a 5 speed, 4X4, single cab (I don’t like the extended cab’s quarter window treatment)and the interior in blue with a velour bench seat.
“I don’t like the extended cab’s quarter window treatment”
The vertical divider? I don’t mind it, but the ’92-96s without it do look cleaner.
Anyone notice how much that grill looks like the GMC Sierra 3-bar grill?
While I agree about the looks, they’ll sell tons of them–in V8 versions. I’ll bet almost anything that the smallest V-6 version won’t sell even 5% of total sales for the F-150; it’s not enough engine for the size of the truck and the ‘expected’ capacities.
That 2.7L EcoBoost seems a perfect engine for a much more compact, ’80s Ranger-sized truck where it could push and even break that 30mpg barrier.
That’s what people said about the 3.5 EcoBoost, and now it’s got a 40 percent take rate. Today’s base 3.7 NA V6 is about another 10%-15%. The majority of F-150s sold today are V6 models.
I think the 2.7 will have a great take rate once people learn that it has the torque curve of the old 300 six and more than twice the MPG.
You’re assuming that the typical buyer understands figures that we discuss on a daily basis. They don’t. They buy based on what they think they can afford and by the seat of their pants. They buy what “feels good” to them. Those people who will buy these trucks for dedicated purposes–for example most of the utility-type service companies–will appreciate these trucks for their economy, but the people actually driving the trucks will probably hate them for their relative lack of performance and choose to buy something else as their personal truck. Those drivers are also much more likely to ride that EcoBoost turbo and kill whatever economy they would otherwise attain with more sensible driving. About the only way to prevent that will be to install a governor, which will make those drivers try all the harder to get around it.
Yes, I am fully aware that the V6 has cracked the 50% market, but that doesn’t mean this smaller V6 EcoBoost will come close to the sales of the larger one. I fully expect fleet sales to be the biggest market for the smaller engine until it’s put into a smaller pickup truck.
If you look at the figures other than the “2.7” then the motor is more than enough. Most people don’t use the “expected” or real capacities of today’s trucks. It may bring back the daily driver suburban lifestyle pick-up!
“I’ll bet almost anything that the smallest V-6 version won’t sell even 5% of total sales for the F-150”
But then again 5% of total sales on the F-150 is still more than 40,000
“I think it looks ridiculous, but I predict sales will be unaffected.”
Yes, and yes.
I’m just wondering where they hired the cartoonist who designed the front grille.
For Christ sake could they make that front end uglier
Lemme correct something…
A new 2.7l ecoboost V6 joins the existing…. …with the power of a V6 and fuel economy of a V8.
“For Christ sake could they make that front end uglier”
Well, Toyota managed to with the Tundra, but this Ford is indeed pretty garish. I wonder if designers have just run out of ideas for full-size truck styling or if they honestly think that splashing as much fake chrome on front-ends that look like demented robots is attractive.
It spreads to the interior too, with the typical chunky-blocky fake-metal interior meme that looks like a spaceship dashboard from a 1980s sci-fi film.
There’s too much “styling” going on for what should just be a comfortable and capable vehicle.
“There’s too much “styling” going on for what should just be a comfortable and capable vehicle.”
THIS x10
Dear manufactures, lower the top of the front end, and raise the bottom of the front end.
This is the most garish version. I really like the look of the FX4 version. The lower trims don’t have nearly the same amount of chrome.
I’ll wait till I see the STX in white. They act like it’s a penalty for lots less chrome and color-key’d trim in its place. And 22″ chrome wheels are ghetto. It’s just a simulator wheel-cover anyways.
Ford is claiming that the ginormous ce ter console is to allow a place for technically oriented do tractors to work on their laptops, blueprints & technical equipment whilst in the field, but Larry “that STD-riddled contractor dude” on F150forums says that it allows 47% more ass surface area for banging’ hoes & skanks post-Miller time.
Hey, you gotta give the “STD-riddled contractor dudes” what they want.
“We’re crab people now.”
So we live and die by the crab now?
Crab people, crab people.
“For Christ sake could they make that front end uglier”
Yes, make it look like the new Chevy pickups (particularly LTZ, with black grill). Okay, not uglier. Equally so.
I certainly have not applauded GMs iteration.
Hummer is consistent.
It’s easy to be consistent when you’re dead.
What’s that suppose to mean?
Sorry. I was talking about the brand, not you personally.
I don’t understand why Ford is going to utilize a “rivet” system, and use 40% more rivets than laser welds of conventional construction otherwise would have called for, at that, and none of the material I’ve yet read on this subject matter adequately explains this move.
I’m all ears, though.
Maybe Mulally is using his Boeing experience with rivets and aluminum construction. Just a guess.
The reason is because rivets and adhesive use is actually faster and stronger in the modern age. My father in law is a body shop tech. He’s been using rivets and adhesives for ages when completely redoing cars involved in some pretty horrific collisions. In every case, the repair is stronger and less likely to rust vs a traditional weld. Ford is moving into the 21st century. This truck won’t be perfect, but it’s a HUGE leap forward in terms of tech and how it’s applied in the construction of a half ton pickup truck.
Rivets and adhesive might also be a strategy to reduce rust, which accelerates when two dissimilar metals are joined together. The adhesive has to serve as a barrier to keep the metals from touching. The weak point will be where the likely-aluminum rivets meet the steel.
Rivets and adhesive may be stronger than body shop quality welding, but the reason ship building switched from Titanic-style riveted hulls to seam welded hulls is because it was cheaper and faster, with more leak resistance and greater durability. The early riveted hulls needed a lot of maintenance due to rust out around the softer metal rivets.
@Lorenzo
Dissimilar metals and galvanic corrosion will be an issue.
We have these problems in the aviation industry. But much of our technology will be transferred across.
Just drilling a hole for a rivet will set up stress and fracturing can (will) occur. Intergranular corrosion sets in eventually. This destroys the original properties of the metal.
Modern alloy airliners in the US fly for around 25 to 30 years.
I do think people who buy these vehicles will have to follow the owner’s manual on maintenance a little closer.
Ford will highlight how to maintain these vehicles.
Aluminium will be effective, if not more costly than steel.
Cars have been using higher and higher tensile steel in their vehicles. This is also more prone to corrosion (rust).
High tensile steel currently used in automotive manufacture is far more prone to corrosion than earlier sheet metal used in cars that was alloyed with lower contents of carbon. This made it easier for the metal to be formed into fanstic shapes. Earlier automotive sheet metal had a lower carbon content than mild steel.
If you look at and modern vehicle the more radical shapes are of plastic. Steel now is used is used where shaping is ‘marginal’. Straighter lines, more gradual radii and angular folds.
High tensile aluminium is more prone to fracture when bends are formed with small radii. High tensile steel can be bent with tighter radii.
As auto manufacturers’ become better acquainted with aluminium better shapes will evolve.
My ’03 S10 had bonded door hinges and in Alaska, Chevy had a positive anchor kit to install. Seems at -35 to -50 something the bond would fracture and fail after a few cycles of the door. Bummer, huh?
I believe all transportation uses of aluminum use rivets and adhesive, and have for decades. Aircraft and commercial trucks undergo far more stress than a pickup truck and the rivet and adhesive systems seem to hold together very well for long periods of time.
Get into the cab of a 25 year old Peterbilt with over 2 million miles and you will be surprised how well the cab is holding together. Everything else may be pretty rough, but the aluminum cab structure is doing fine.
I’s sure a somebody with metallurgical expertise will chime in, but basically thin gauge aluminum is very hard to weld because it deforms and weakens easily. Rivets and adhesives are faster, easier, cheaper, and proven in mass production.
and an article about GM’s solution
http://wardsauto.com/auto-makers/general-motors-says-solved-hurdle-spot-welding-aluminum
Did anyone mention that aluminum is soft and dents easily?
A friend w/ an A8 long turned in her prestige lease after 2 months because of all the dents that were appearing from other drivers’ doors.xxxxxxxxxx
A truck would have to be more rugged it would seem.
Another article said that the aluminum panels will be stronger and more dent-resistant than steel.
Low-strength, construction steel isn’t exactly stronger than many aluminum alloys. If that’s what was used in body panels, you don’t lose much if anything going to aluminum.
The difference you can’t hide is stiffness. Unless they are made of thicker gauge, aluminum body panels will flex more when pressed or hit. In some cases, that actually could reduce denting.
I guess the 360-degree camera is needed as the driver now can’t see over the massive grille, either.
They already have it on the Raptor. But yes, thats the reason.
They have a front and rear view camera on the Raptor, this will be a true 360 view deal.
Even better I suppose. The front cam comes in handy while rock crawling with, er I mean parking, a Raptor.
That camera is for mall-crawling.
Not a big fan of this grill or the tailgate treatment, but this is probably the Titanium trim, so I’m sure other trims will have different grill designs. Very curious about gas mileage and towing/hauling capabilities. At 700lbs lighter, we are down to the weight of something like a Dodge Charger which is rated at 18/27 for the v6 awd. This is launching with the 6 speed automatics, but in a year or 2 it’ll get the new 9/10 speed transmission developed with GM so mileage should improve even further.
Yeah, thats the Platinum trim. They were shooting for 30 MPG, so we’ll see. And yes, the 10 speed will be out soon.
Weight has little effect on hwy mpg; rather, it most affects city mpg. If they are shooting for 30 mpg hwy, they need to tackle aerodynamics and gear ratios.
I’m curious to see what the fuel economy will be like, too.
I figure “up to 700 lbs” would be 700 lbs from the largest version. Regular cab/regular box reduction might be more like 400-500lbs, which is still pretty significant.
That and the smaller engine should make for pretty good fuel economy around town if you have a light foot.
Well, pretty good for a fullsize pickup truck.
I expect in-town mileage to be pretty rotten with that tiny engine; you’ll need to put your foot even more into it just to get moving, especially if you’re carrying a load of more than a hundred pounds or so (not counting driver).
Have you driven any modern DI turbo engine? You keep saying things like this and they’re just not true. These engines are strongest at low rpm.
To make the power necessary for them to be strong, boost and accompanying fuel is needed, increasing fuel consumption.
The greatest gains of the smaller engine will be under light load conditions where the power from boost isn’t needed, letting the engine run under low or no boost, effectively as a small naturally aspirated engine.
Wait for the diesel then…
I hate to get behind people with a light foot who are trying to hypermile.
Then feel free to tailgate. I could use some free bodywork back there, anyway.
Now, for your information, I pay attention to who’s behind me and I don’t dawdle when it would hold up traffic or keep a line of cars from getting through the green light.
But when the light ahead is red, I’m lifting my foot right away and coasting in. Sometimes, often even, I won’t have to fully stop. Now, if you want tailgate for a while, then pull out, roar past me towards the red, hit the brakes and pull to a full stop for it…. well, go for it. It doesn’t bother me.
Watching that battery meter instead of the road will cause you to have to do free bodywork to someone else’s car.
Firestorm 500,
That’s how I drive every car I own, battery meter or not. That way I use less gas and get more miles out of my brakes.
And, if I see the light is red, it must be because I’m looking ar the road, not some meter on the dash, yes?
Yikes….that’s ugly. I hope that’s a bad fan rendering because it looks like they just reskinned the tailgate and put an uglier grill treatment on the front. I’d prefer something closer to the Atlas concept.
Is it just me, or do the F-150 and the Canyon look like they came from the same design team???
If you actually use a truck for a living then the aesthetics of the exterior matter very little to you. The greater concern is the ugly dash. That’s something you have to look at every moment it’s moving. Seems to me the F-150 and the Canyon are in heated competition for the 2014 “Ugliest dash award.” They both look like the same box in different trim.
It is not just you.
This will be the tipping point where loyalty and reality are given the ultimate litmus test.
Disagree with the others here so far. I think the front end looks great! It’s unique, strongly styled… in the same way they’ve chosen not to go bland in their sedans/cars, I think this slightly polarizing styling statement is a strong move. Everyone lamented the “same old… same old” approach GM came out with, non-newsmaking drivetrains, and bland slab styling. On the contrary, here comes Ford out swinging with a 2.7T with 8,000lb. capacity and 700lbs. lower weight. This will be everything 90% of occasional “truck” use truck buyers will ever need. Well done Ford.
The problem with polarizing styling is that, although it generates buzz in the short term, if it is too “unique” looking no one buys it (see Acura TL). I have no doubt that it will still be a great performing truck, I just don’t like the look of it…but maybe it’ll look better in person. Based on the advance pix, I think the GMC Sierra (not Silverado with that gawd awful quad headlight grill) looks better.
Hope Ford didn’t shoot themselves in the foot…
The same thing was said about the 2009+ trucks with the ginormous chrome grille. “Too outlandish…” they said. “It’ll never sell well…” they said.
“They” were wrong.
If you look at common automotive themes these days, “daring” and “edgy” are the new design language. Sure, some manufacturers are more keen on using it to its hairy extremes but the folks that design vehicles like this (not referring to the niche market supercars that are completely ridiculously styled sometimes), know well more what the buying public wants and have shelled out MILLIONS of dollars in market research to confirm before a pen ever hit paper (electronically speaking now).
The recent memory “misses” such as the Pontiac Aztek and the other misfits didn’t start as bread and butter platforms. They were experiments. This truck, and others like it- fall into a completely different category.
“folks that design vehicles like this (not referring to the niche market supercars that are completely ridiculously styled sometimes), know well more what the buying public wants and have shelled out MILLIONS of dollars in market research to confirm before a pen ever hit paper”
All my logic says this must be true, too big of an investment on the part of the manufacturer to make stupid mistakes with design.
Then I see the Nissan Crosscabriolet and wonder if Nissan market research asked even one person if they would buy it
Again, the CrossCabriolet can be thrown in there with the Aztek as a misfit. It was an experiment, not even based on a “bread and butter” type vehicle. The Murano has never been a stellar seller. The Altima pretty much carries Nissan these days.
I don’t think the exterior styling will matter much. Ford has made some ugly design departures in the past without any detriment. There is a large swath of their buyers that will continue to buy Ford trucks no matter what they look like.
I completely agree with you. Outside, I think it looks fantastic.
Inside though, the only thing that bothers my eyeballs is the tacked on wing vents. Maybe it is just the contrast between colors but they just look like afterthoughts.
The problem is that the new grill is anything BUT unique. Other than the cocked upper corners and extra height, it’s almost a twin to the GMC Sierra’s 3-bar grill.
“We gave our stylists a mandate of 25% carryover from our own old truck, 25% looking like Chevy and Dodge’s trucks, 25% looking like a big rig, and 25% looking like a Transformer. I think we hit the target on the head! Our male product testing has shown the new F-150 to be 14.9% manlier-looking than the old truck. We tried polling women, but they sprayed us with mace and ran away.”
Time to buy stock in Alcoa
I just googled Alcoa and this was a news item from yesterday:
“Alcoa and a subsidiary of the the U.S. aluminum giant, will pay $384 million to the U.S. government for engaging in corrupt practices.”
“Alcoa and a subsidiary of the the U.S. aluminum giant, will pay $384 million to the U.S. government for failing to meet special interests of incumbent politicians.” — fixed it
I think the use of aluminum to lighten the overall weight is a good idea. Now they need to take the next step and offer a fuel efficient, small displacement diesel engine paired with an efficient transmission.
I did a while ago and it was up a solid 12%. Then the bribery news came and it dropped 5% or so, but is now picking back up again. It think it’s a good one to hang onto as they also increased their supply relationship with Boeing last year. That and the Ford contract will positively affect their earnings.
I’m actually pleasently surprised that Ford is -as other poster has mentioned- entering the 21st century. They are the world’s leader for pickup trucks, if they wish to maintain that lead, they have to lead in technology. They are not complacent.
Will this mean that it will be totally pain free? Of course not. The leading edge is the bleeding edge. But they are still going for it. I say thumbs up for Ford.
On the other hand, I’m glad that Jack is back writing again.
I see the American Design Studio is back to the Chrome Electric Shaver grill.
This interest me. When I buy a car, espicially something truck-based/utility I want it to last forever. An aluminum body is a interesting proposal. My only concern would be with the smaller boosted engines for long-term longevity. I guess the verdict is still out on the current F-150 eco-boost.
I climbed under my 06′ Liberty yesterday to check for rust and paint the underside. I had a few minor spots coming up on the surface, mostly along with body seems. I guess that’s not too bad for a 8yo vehicle that’s seen a little bit of road salt. Took two cans of semi-flat Rust-oleum “stops rust” paint to all the underside. Diff, suspension arms, body, etc. I try to do that about every year.
The more effort they put into re-styling and re-chroming full size pickups, the more I like the 2005 F150 and 2008 Tundra. As usual, the upper level luxo Titanium trim is a little too pretty & dandy for my tastes, but if you want to show off your buying power, it looks the part.
Looks great to me. Ford is being bold here and will be awarded by selling a metric sh!t ton of these every day…not because of styling, but because of the numbers. The RAM diesel has fans now but when it comes time to buy one the math likely won’t work as well (a $4k engine upgrade, then $0.50 more per gallon at the pump, and probably little/no discounting or even dealer markups) vs. the F150. If you’re concerned about the weight loss and towing strength, then Ford can gladly update you to a heavy duty version. I think they’re covering the bases quite nicely by giving you a full size truck that will probably have fuel economy similar to the Colorado, perfect for the vast majority of 1500 buyers who don’t need 10k lbs of towing power.
I am by no means the person who truck designers market to, and will never own a truck of any sort, dont like them, etc. But I will say that given the Atlas concept, this new Truck is a bit of a styling let down. I think the tailgait looks goofy and the remainder of the truck just looks like a warmed over 2013. I like what they have done with weight, engine options are always nice, but seems like a styling let down as I was expecting something much closer to the Atlas concept. My 2 cents.
Why does every pickup have to look like and be the size of a super duty?
Because Penis.
Because it always works out well when we men are thinking with those.
I think the US pickup phenomenon is as much about safety as it is about dong.
Half the time I see one of these monsters in my RVM the driver is female, often with brood.
If you purposely build a vehicle the driver can’t see out of front or back, you’ve negated the safety of other drivers.
360* camera bro!
Word. I thought “Hey, it’s an article about the F-150, but they’re leading with a pic of the 350 for some reason.”
This is ridiculous. Just when I was continuing to laud Ford for not following the garishness of GMC. The previous F-150, IMHO, was a solidly handsome vehicle regardless of most people’s personal design proclivities.
And I’m no aero engineer, but it seems to me that a good design direction might be to start minimizing the mostly-hollow front ends of these pickups, making them a little pointier, and not continuing to make them bigger and squarer.
Still holding onto my 1996-2004 body-style Ford truck because of the Godzilla size of everything that has come after it. My Brother-in-Law’s early 2000s Super Duty diesel Crew Cab 4×4 looks reasonably sized compared to these monsters and his wears 35s.
Your frontal area, a big component of the drag equation, is set by the cab cross-section, not the nose cross-section. A big, blunt nose probably helps with aero at the end of the day. They’ve added active air shutters in the grille to help the airflow over the nose at highway speeds (where aero plays a big role in overall efficiency… the weight reduction will pay dividends in city and suburban driving). All that improves the Cd, the other big portion of the drag equation. Also, think of an airfoil. The front is always pretty large relative to the tail. From everything I’ve seen, it appears that the way the air leaves the vehicle is more important than how the nose is shaped.
I’m an aerospace engineer by education, but I’m 8 years out of practice and all of my education was on airplanes… we never really touched automobiles. It’s hard to guess the nuances of aero, especially when the shapes are all practically the same when viewed from afar, without having some sort of CFD model/simulation.
I seem to recall that the Trident D5 ballistic missile had a smallish, flat disc at the end of an extension probe that deployed from the blunt end of the missile post-launch, supposedly because it provided the same/similar aerodynamic benefit as the pointy nose cone we’re used to seeing but took up less room in the launch tube.
A wing needs that for lift–a different drag component but one nonetheless. If you pay more attention to the body of the plane, every single one tapers to a rounded nose and the faster ones down to a pointed nose. Believe it or not, how that air passes over that “square” cab is a critical part of determining the drag coefficient. As such, I still point out that the majority of OTR tractors have a much more tapered nose than they used to. Not only does it help for aerodynamics, but it improves driver visibility as well.
My old man was an aero engineer and pilot, so I grew up with a strong “little boy” interest in it (never really translated to my academic life, though). And you’re very correct — notably with pickups, the air departing from the back is the bigger element (akin to burbling behind an airfoil). Plus you have the underbody airflow, which can’t be very well managed on a pickup without impeding other capabilities, like ground clearance or suspension travel.
I guess at some point it just doesn’t matter…however, I wonder the same about some of the large SUVs that are based on pickups — they do have a little bit of a boattail on them and have lower Cd’s than their pickup counterparts. I suspect they could potentially have more aero work done, but with vertical rear glass it’s just never going to be terribly effective.
If you want to see one of the ultimate applications of aviation aerodynamics to cars, look up the Dymaxion (if you haven’t already)
The Dymaxion car is a perfect example of why sacrificing everything else in the name of aerodynamics isn’t the way to go either. It didn’t handle with a damn, of the three that were built one was in a terrible accident killing, I think, two of the occupants. All funding was pulled ending the project
Is Ford using the SAE tow rating method on the new 2.7L like they claimed they would do on all new truck engines, or are they still using internal numbers?
It’s very doubtful that they’re using SAE J2807 towing numbers as the other 2 of the Big 3 aren’t either. None of them want to pull the trigger first.
Ford announced at NAIAS that all 2015 F-150 tow ratings will be calculated using SAE J2807.
Good on them. Hopefully the rest follow suit in short order.
Good tech, bad styling. Tailgate on the “Plutonium” edition is downright awful.
If you buy the base model, it will say “El Cheapo”.
Ford continues to double down on turbocharged engines for trucks. The 3.5 liter ecoboost actually uses more fuel under heavy load (i.e. towing) than the 5 liter V-8. Like owners of other ecoboost-powered Ford products, owners of ecoboost-powered F-150s pretty consistently report disappointing fuel economy results in normal use.
In addition, there is some problem with the ecoboost intercooler that produces condensation or something like that in the intake charge, with obvious serious problems for the engine. Several of the True Delta owners report this, and you can find reports of it pretty easily on other forums. Apparently it causes dramatic loss of power and, often, engine shutdown. The problem is, apparently, that unlike applications of this engine in cars where it is not heavily in the boost mode for long period, using it in a truck where high power must be developed for a sustained period, brings out these unexpected problems.
Not sure if Ford has really found a solution to the problem that actually works.
I have similar concerns, the EB in such a heavy truck is a classic example of “no replacement for displacement” IMO. Personally I would prefer some sort of user configurable cylinder deactivation over turbo anything, turbo to me feels like something I want in my Gran Turismo car, not the one in the driveway (or in my case parking lot).
@28-Cars-Later:
However every diesel engined vehicle you can buy now has a turbo. I remember when that was not so for diesel cars — think old Mercedes 200D and the like — and as a result they were completely gutless.
Time to recalibrate your feelings about turbocharged engines and what they’re good for.
I’ll be ready for a work truck with a turbo gasoline engine as soon as it is offered on the 3/4 and 1-ton trucks.
It is hard for me to buy into all the “these new truck engines are better than the old ways and have no durability compromises!!!” talk when the gas options for the HD line keeps their naturally aspirated, port injected, iron block, big displacement, 2v designs.
I have to agree with Neil; you just don’t see a non-turbo-diesel road truck any more. Ford’s problem may have more to do with intake turbulence–perhaps caused by excessive atmospheric moisture–than the turbo units themselves. Even a full-on jet engine can get turbine stall if it hits turbulent air.
@NeilM, Vulpine
Diesel is another kettle of fish altogether. While not an expert on the subject, from what I understand a turbo is almost needed on a diesel in order for it to have any pickup. I’m referring more to using turbo on a small gas engine as a crutch. Ajla makes a good point, the HD line still offers a conventional engine for a reason.
@28-Cars-Later:
But it’s really not different. Yes, those old naturally aspirated diesels hardly made any power — around 60 HP for the 60’s era M-B 200D, depending on the exact model year. Then turbocharging massively improved the power and torque.
Current developments in gas engines are comparable. Use a small engine for good economy, then force charge it for power and torque when conditions call for that. Sort of the have your cake and eat it too plan.
On the other hand I do have some durability reservations about passenger car-derived aluminum block diesels, such as the Italian VM engine used in the 2014 RAM, when applied to truck duty. Hauling around a 3500 lb car is one thing, a 5500+ lb truck another.
The cylinder block on the VM engine is Compacted Graphite Iron or CGI.
Given the probably large number of people who buy an F-150 as a daily driver and use the towing capacity to pull a boat or RV 4 or 5 times a year, this may not be a big issue in the market.
Just checking TrueDelta for 2013 3.5 Turbo V6 (which I assume is ecoboost) and 25/60/15 (city/sub/hwy) mileage was reported at 14.1 mpg, all highway was 21.0. I’m not sure what “sub” means on truedelta but it sounds like city driving with a few less stops, so roughly 85/15 city/hwy mileage just cracked 14. I can’t get any mileage for a 2013 5.0/6spd/4WD, but the 2013 5.0/6spd/2WD at 20/20/30/30 (traf/city/sub/hwy) reports 18.5. Even if the weight of 4WD drops it 2 mpg, its still superior to what the Turbo V6 reported. Even if they were equal at say 15 in similar conditions, why turn down a V8? I just don’t understand it, its a giant truck not a grocery getter. If you could have your cake and eat it too I’m all for it, but you can’t.
http://www.truedelta.com/Ford-F-150/mpg-87
As someone who owns a 5000 pound vehicle with the 3.5EB, I will say it really depends on what you use it for. My wife keeps our of the boost quite a bit and averages almost 23 MPG now. When I towed a power boat a few hundred miles, I averaged 16.5 MPG. The 2.7EB should be good for those who do not tow often, and won’t be a problem when you do tow. Just don’t expect to get posted MPG numbers while towing.
Perhaps the data I quickly gathered was inaccurate, but personally I’m not too concerned about my mileage if I am occasionally towing. I’m more concerned if I’m going to DD the 3.5 truck empty and it returns 16mpg or less as suggested by True Delta, then it becomes why not the V8 and be done with it.
Oh you don’t have to tell me. If Ford wouldn’t have left the Navi and Expedition back in 2004, I would have bought one of those instead. And updated Navigator or Expedition with the 5.0 would have been purchased over the MKT. An Expedition on this F150 platform, with the 5.0, will be my next car purchase.
“Even if they were equal at say 15 in similar conditions, why turn down a V8?”
Because the turbo V6 has better power characteristics for a truck. More grunt down low, less revving for the same result.
In any case, I think someone getting 14.1 mpg out of one of these trucks must be flooring it from every light. 16-17 in mixed driving is more believable.
DC Bruce:
You got it mostly correct, except for the fact that it is sustained periods of low boost during which water condenses and accumulates inside the intercooler. This problem is exacerbated by high atmospheric humidity – the intercooler is working so efficiently that it lowers the charge air temperature enough that it can’t hold the same amount of moisture, and thus the water condenses out. If the vehicle is driven for a long enough period at low boost, a significant amount of liquid water can build up inside the intercooler.
And then, when the driver attempts to pass another vehicle, or starts to pull a hill, the sudden and sustained high-boost condition sweeps all of the accumulated water out of the intercooler and right into the intake, causing multiple misfires and can even cause a hydrolock condition in the worst case.
Ford’s fix (at least for the pickups) is (no joke) an air deflector which effectively reduces the size of the intercooler, along with a software fix. I don’t know how well the fix works.
Well enough for me so far. It lack of power happened to my wife once. I took it in and the Lincoln dealer went through four TSBs and fixed them all. That procedure was done as well as some transmission work. I don’t know if the intercooler issue was the problem, but no problems since.
The current pickup fashion is to make the front as vertical and large an area as possible. Who does not want a chromy billboard on the front of their vehicle? Since the manufacturers are now trying to get better efficiency out of these things, would a curvier, more tapered front end not improve highway mpg’s?
I don’t get pickup truck chic. Looks as if semi trucks are the inspiration for their drivers. Mmmmmm, right, I always wanted to drive an over sized heavy freight hauler in my fantasies, because crippled handling capabilities, resource hungry, over weight, difficult to park and maneuver in traffic vehicles are so sexy!!!
Ever notice how even the Big Rigs have more tapered noses? The grills on those things are MUCH smaller than they used to be.
Well, not exactly . . .
If you’ve noticed them in the past five years, grill openings and radiator cross-sectional areas have actually increased, in an effort to meet the stringent new emissions requirements.
And the off-highway/construction trucks usually have much larger radiators and corresponding grilles.
The realities are that none of our opinions matter because none of us were going to buy a new one anyway. Also, the fronts of trucks are huge now because of truck buyers’ preferences and contrary to popular belief, big up front and smaller in the back is the most aerodynamic design. Think of how a rain drop looks when falling. Also the blockiness on the outer edges of the front and rears helps smooth the air flow. It all seems contradictory to logic but its true. Obviously tear shaped would be the most efficient design but I’m pretty sure that would tank any truck maker.
Good theory except for one thing. Falling water drops are spherical, not tear shaped.
Darn, time for a new theory.
Actually, falling ones are not spherical. The surface tension of water means they form in a sphere but then as they are falling, they become the shape of a mushroom top (flat part facing towards the ground) due to air resistance. By the way, these are not theories but they are facts.
Ford is trying to do everything in one vehicle. They want a full size
truck, that is lightweight, has good fuel consumption numbers, and has
a dinky little engine (with concomitantly smaller tranny). I predict
there will be problems with this truck. If it were not for the idiotic
CAFE regulations, we could have full size trucks, with full size engines
and trannys, that could haul respectable loads, and are made from steel.
The biggest problem, of course, is that the Detroit 3, and their Japanese
bretheren do not have the balls to tell the Feds where to put their
CAFE regulations. Why, after all, do we now need CAFE? We are awash
in petroleum.
Well put.
I’d suggest that we are “awash in petroleum” because of improved overall vehicle efficiency.
Partly, I would credit it more to the fracking revolution.
Thanks i wont mind having a aluminum body on my pickup.
I don’t see anywhere that it says this isn’t being matted to the ford / zf 6 speed connected to all the other f150 engines.
I live in the rust belt and body rust is the problem I’m having with keeping a 24 year old f250 on the road after 2 decades of road salt.
The engine has 360,000 on it and its 2nd transmission but other than little wear and tear stuff it doesn’t do half bad.
On the thought of tiny engine on big tranny–I might point out that in many cases they use a smaller torque converter for a quicker grab. However, in a V6-powered Camaro I ran into the issue of burning out THREE torque converters in the course of 150,000 miles for an average of only 50,000 miles between major transmission jobs. Now, I’ll accept that offering many more gear ratios might reduce the stress on the torque converter, any slip such as an icy patch or the ubiquitous white stripe at a traffic light could have the wheels spin and then hit that torque converter HARD when they find grip again. That’s what ate the Camaro’s transmission and likely will affect these new ones as well.
Saying we don’t have to conserve oil because we have a lot of it is selfish and shortsighted. Eventually it’ll run out for someone.
Well, there is also that small problem that the US is still dependent on oil imports and is expected to remain so.
No, we’re almost to the point of being a net exporter of oil.
No, we aren’t. Look at the net import data; the number isn’t zero or even close to zero.
We’re walking the line of being a net exporter of petroleum products, BY VALUE. That means we refine and export certain high-value fossil fuels. Often from crude that was imported.
The petroleum products we burn in our cars (refined from light, sweet crude) is almost all imported, albeit often refined here.
We also produce and export natural gas, but rarely burn that in our cars.
So, saying “we’re a net exporter of oil” is sort of technically true, but glosses over the fact that what you put in your car tank does not come from the US.
Customers want increased fuel efficiency…on an anecdotal level, how much fuel a new vehicle uses is one of the first questions people ask when a friend or relative shows up with a new car or truck.
Now if only they had taken 700 pounds off of the new Mustang…
Beat me to it. I very well might have waited for the 2015 instead of taking their massive rebates on a leftover ’13.
Honda develops technology to weld steel and aluminium together
http://www.eurekamagazine.co.uk/design-engineering-news/honda-develops-technology-to-weld-steel-and-aluminium-together/44776/#sthash.FEuhbCgi.dpuf
Some food for thought…
By making the F150 look more F250 & F350ish, this widens the gap between the Transit Connect and opens a slot for the return of the Ranger!
I wonder why Ford made the chrome tailgate insert look so much like Toyota’s stylized T they use on their truck advertising.
I don’t know why it took so long for mainstream automakers to embrace aluminum, I’m hoping this is the beginning of a trend. It seems like such a common sense solution. All of the ridiculous technology used to eek out a few more mpg, it seems like we could have been there decades ago.
How about making the car lighter, handle better, accelerate better, stop better AND be less likely to have corrosion issues?
We all know aluminum is more expensive than steel, but it’s a whole lot less than some other technologies (like hybrids)
“We all know aluminum is more expensive than steel, but it’s a whole lot less than some other technologies (like hybrids)”
The F150 almost had both
“I don’t know why it took so long for mainstream automakers to embrace aluminum”
It costs more, and it’s harder to repair after a wreck.
You can thank CAFE for the move towards aluminum. There are times when government regulation inspires innovation, and the new CAFE rules are forcing automakers to find ways to improve fuel economy in all segments.
I’m not going to thank CAFE for anything except creating the SUV as a popular form of transportation in the United States.
I happen to think better fuel economy is what many consumers want in a vehicle, so the automakers are trying to outdo each other in the truck segment. That would have happened anyway.
What CAFE does is create a ridiculous bureaucratic boondoggle and line the pockets of billionaires like Elon Musk who sell ridiculous CAFE credits to automakers. So the consumer has to pay more in order for the automaker to pay for this ridiculous tax.
I understand that you are one to place your own political ideology above pesky things such as facts.
But the fact is that the new version of CAFE forces automakers to find ways to improve fuel economy within each segment.
Under the old CAFE, it was possible to offset the gas guzzlers with entirely different models, such as getting the PT Cruiser classified as a truck so that Chrysler could sell more RAMs. But that trick won’t work anymore. And that will mean more aluminum, more start-stop systems, more hybrids and diesels, and more cylinder deactivation.
So how come other countries are able to get cars with good fuel economy, despite not having a CAFE system?
And you’re the one that brought up politics (like you always do)into a discussion about aluminum.
“So how come other countries are able to get cars with good fuel economy, despite not having a CAFE system?”
Most of the rest of the world taxes the s**t out of motor fuel, particularly gasoline. I can just imagine what your response would be if the government replaced CAFE with a gas tax that raised the price to $6-9 per gallon.
And the Europeans are moving toward their own version of CAFE, except with even higher mileage requirements. When they talk about requirements based upon greenhouse gas emissions, what they’re talking about are fuel economy mandates.
“And you’re the one that brought up politics (like you always do)into a discussion about aluminum.”
You asked why there was this move to lighten vehicles, and I answered your question — it’s for CAFE compliance.
If you weren’t interested in knowing the truth, then why did you bother asking?
@Pch101
Another one of you disillusions.
Wow, don’t you ever give up.
Not all countries tax the $hit out of fuel.
EPA, CAFE, tariffs are all trade barriers.
Really, you can be a dingaling.
Why does the US have 40 cetane diesel? This fuel makes it harder for manufacturers to meet EPA emissions.
The US is the largest refiner of high cetane diesel.
Why don’t your diesel standards change to make it easier for manufacturers meet diesel emission targets?
I bet you’ll come out with a creative comment that like you usually do of little truth.
Oh, so CAFE was just passed this year, that’s why Ford is using aluminum?
How about this crazy idea that consumers don’t like spending more money than they have to at the pump and will buy their vehicles accordingly? Even if there was no CAFE, I’m guessing most people still would like to save money at the pump. Maybe automakers see rising gas prices as a new reality and are adapting their product line?
You don’t need a government agency to promote that logic. Some people think bureaucrats are the only way any progress takes place.
The new CAFE rules were made effective in 2011, and are being implemented in stages.
The new rules are based upon a footprint system that forces improvements in each individual segment. It will no longer be possible to comply simply by selling smaller trucks; the large trucks also have to be made more efficient.
You may not be aware of these changes, but the automakers obviously are.
So how come only Ford is using aluminum for their trucks, I thought CAFE forced Ford to do this?
Does CAFE not apply to other truckmakers?
As I implied above, not everyone is taking the same approach in order to comply.
Ford is relying upon turbos and aggressive weight savings.
GM is relying on cylinder deactivation and its own weight reduction program.
Chrysler is hoping to use diesels.
The point remains that CAFE compliance is driving these changes, like it or not. The Germans have been happy to pay the fines, but the domestics don’t intend to do that.
The Germans, to some extent, can get away with paying fines instead of meeting the standards.
If GM or Ford decide to pay the fines instead of improving fuel economy, they run the risk of Congress saying that this shows that the law isn’t stringent enough.
The federal government will overlook a relatively small number of high-end cars that do not meet the standards. (The government probably appreciates the extra revenue from the penalties.)
It’s different if Ford and GM are each pumping out 700,000+ vehicles annually that prevent them from meeting the standards.
“If GM or Ford decide to pay the fines instead of improving fuel economy, they run the risk of Congress saying that this shows that the law isn’t stringent enough.”
That’s a good point. I would assume that the potential for bad PR and the amount of the fines themselves are also factors. (The fines are based upon sales volumes, which necessarily punishes the higher volume automakers more than the smaller ones.)
I look at it another way, one of the Detroit three should pay the fine and generate a controversy, really ruffle some feathers. Then have Sergio/Mary/Alan do a 60 Minutes interview and explain how CAFE distorts the industry and how gov’t creates unrealistic rules for the automakers to follow, finish off your talking points on how trucks/Detroit/US Jobs/whatever is a national security issue and Detroit should be exempt from the fines/laws on those grounds. Wag the dog a bit and see what might come of it. The American people are useful to manipulate, especially when its anything related to the “heartland”. Nothing more “American” than a pickup truck (*cough cough* except when it’s assembled in Mexico).
“I look at it another way, one of the Detroit three should pay the fine and generate a controversy, really ruffle some feathers”
Marchionne already ruffled feathers when he effectively flipped NHTSA the bird with his response to the Jeep fuel tank recall. (You can bet that other automakers were quietly applauding him.)
It should be remembered that these regulations exist as a byproduct of negotiations between the feds and the automakers.
While I’m sure that the automakers would prefer to not be regulated, they can deal with the current rules since they participated in deciding what they would be. If the rules were impossible to follow, then they would have probably agreed to something else.
I wasn’t aware the rules were a result of a negotiation. Was this always the case even going back to the 70s? The reason I ask is because I believe the reason Cadillac was pummeled in the 80s was because of CAFE/mileage requirements.
“While I’m sure that the automakers would prefer to not be regulated, they can deal with the current rules since they participated in deciding what they would be. If the rules were impossible to follow, then they would have probably agreed to something else.”
Yes, this is an important note. Automakers don’t really have a big problem with regulations as long as they aren’t so unreasonable as to jeopardize their business. Tech mandates? Sure we can sell you that.
It theoretically doesn’t penalize an automaker by requiring them to meet regulations in this day and age, as long as all the automakers have to meet the same rules. They just pass the cost on to the consumer, it becomes a fixed cost.
Congress may pass laws and the president may sign them, but the details are left to the agencies that oversee them. The devil is in those details.
NHTSA, the EPA, etc. will have “comment periods”, during which all of us (including you and me and the guy who flips burgers at your local McDonald’s) can chime in if they want to.
And the automakers will go further than that. They and their lobbyists will talk to the officials and haggle over the details. (You can bet that they know each other and take each other’s phone calls.) Ultimately, they will probably get at least some of what they want and something that they can comply with.
When the president holds a news conference and announces to the world that cars will get 50 bazillion MPG by 2025 or whatever, the agencies in charge have to figure out how to turn that broader (unrealistic) initiative into specific policy. And one way that they do that is by redefining how one measures and calculates “MPG” so that everyone can live with the result. The feds are fully aware that the MPG figures on your car’s window sticker and the MPG figures calculated for compliance purposes are very different — they aren’t dumb, they’re just trying to make the rules work.
“Tech mandates? Sure we can sell you that.”
Ford’s been particularly clever with this.
A six-cylinder motor instead of the traditional 8? That’s not a handicap, that’s “Eco-Boost.”
Taking weight out of the truck? Not an environmental or regulatory burden, it’s forward thinking material for the space age. And the truck looks angry enough that you don’t need to feel green about it if you don’t want to.
Turning lemons into lemonade. One must give credit where it’s due.
Pch101: And the truck looks angry enough that you don’t need to feel green about it if you don’t want to.
It’s garish and it’s over-the-top, but it somehow works, especially for the intended audience. Much like GM’s “chrome barges” of the mid-1950s.
People buying these aren’t looking for subtlety or tame styling.
@Pch101
You can thank CAFE for gradually making pickups more expensive than need be.
They will be out of reach for the average struggler sooner rather than later.
Look at the price of the Pentastar, shuttered, 8spd, etc Ram. This Ford will be no different.
What do you expect a stripper aluminium pickup will cost?
More than a diesel Colorado, built mainly using steel and can do most of what a full size 12 ton can do? And still it will achieve be FE.
Look at everything in it’s entirety.
Full size pickups will cost an arm and a leg, due to CAFE and other protectionist measures.
This has been my argument, not anti American.
When Americans start demanding diesels in every vehicle out there, we’ll have them. If that happens, expect 1/2 tons to come close to, or exceed the FE of midsizers. No big deal.
You say Aluminum is no big advancement, and that’s true. It’s also not crazy expensive (or rare), especially when done on a grand, mass production scale. And on thee most profitable vehicle on the planet.
When Americans demand diesels and are willing to pay for the premium, then they’ll be here in greater numbers. The main issue prohibiting thier lack of popularization is the costs associated with making them emissions compliant. Consumers not only have to want them, they have to be willing to pay.
The F-150 will get a smaller diesel engine, it just won’t be Al’s beloved I5 Powerstroke.
We don’t have the infrastructure in place to service and fuel diesels if everything switched over from gasoline.
I’d love to hear your twisted theory on how CAFE is protectionism. I’m sure others here would enjoy the laugh too.
Fact is that historically CAFE has hurt the US automakers much more than any of the foreign mfgs. When it was enacted it had zero effect on the likes of Honda and Toyota, all of their cars meet or exceeded the standard because all they sold were small cars and small trucks. The US mfgs on the other hand had full lines and many of their best sellers were those larger vehicles that are harder to meet the standard with. It is one of the reasons that for many years the norm was to sell their smaller vehicles at or near cost so they could make the money on the larger vehicles w/o having it taken away by the govt in the form of fines.
“I’m sure others here would enjoy the laugh too.”
I dunno, it went from being amusing to dull about 4,000 posts ago.
Here’s his position in a nutshell: He thinks that the US would be flooded with import diesel compact pickups were it not for the evil US government and the more evil UAW. The fact that his position doesn’t have any grounding in reality doesn’t prevent him from repeating it ad nauseum (which is why I scroll past it.)
@Scoutdude
How can a foreign manufacturer be any different than a US manufacturer when they ALL must meet CAFE?
You comment really doesn’t add up.
@Pch101 or is it your genetic sibbling DiM
Where have I stated the comment you made.
I spend my time correcting the misinformation you disseminate on a regular frequency.
From what it appears I’m not the only one who thinks you speak with a forked tongue.
You’d be better at selling used cars.
Ford embraced aluminum in a big way a long time ago, they just didn’t talk about it as much then. Many Ford vehicles of the last 20 years have used many aluminum body, structural and chassis components.
As for corrostion resistance, my experience indicates aluminum panels actually fare worse, especially in vulnerable hem-seam areas. Mustangs, Explorers, Expeditions etc. from the mid 2000s are notorious for their bubbling hoods. The unfortunate thing with aluminum panels is they basically require replacement as they’re difficult to effectively repair.
Even the last few years of Panther had aluminum hoods.
Hopefully since Ford experimented with aluminum before going whole hog on an aluminum F150 they have already anticipated and rectified the problems.
The last few years? They had Al hoods in 1992.
Thanks for the correction. I knew the 2003 up had them I didn’t know Ford went that far that early.
If you really want a laugh search YouTube for Chevy dealership training videos circa 1991 for the Caprice. GM speculates to the salesmen what the new Crown Vic might be like.
Damn, I wish I could find that. The closest thing I could find was a promotional video for the 1991 Caprice that felt like an AARP advertisement.
Right on for the Aluminum composite hood starting in ’92. Do you know how much dealer replacement hoods were in ’90s? $1500-1800. For the hood, which you couldn’t really get anywhere else but from the dealer. Unless you stole one.
So look for the hoods and tailgates of these new aluminum-bodied trucks to be meth addict caviar. Take a hammer to a window, pop the hood, remove 4 bolts and you’ve got a $2-3000 hood to sell on Craigslist or to a body shop.
That Caprice piece is all kinds of messed up. They even do the salesman handoff trick: start with the friendly, relatable old guy to get you interested, then bring in the slick younger guy in a suit to bamboozle you with the 4-square. And it’s a bit sad that Chevy’s pitch was basically “You’re not wealthy enough for a REAL luxury car, but we put leather seats in a cop car for your fixed-income ass.”
The last few years of Panthers went to steel hoods as a cost cutting measure. They went to an aluminum front suspension cross member in 03 and even had aluminum lower control arms at that point too. However they only made it for a couple of years before the bean counters made them go back to steel.
Fortunately or un-fortunately (depending on how you look at it) the CAFE compliance bean counters are now overriding the accounting dept bean counters.
Almost everything I hear about the Pathners after the late 90s makes me sad. I guess growing up so close to the Wixom plant does that.
Those panels look terrible when they oxidize/corrode.
We all know aluminum has been used in different components over time, I’m just amazed that now is the first time a mainstream automaker has used aluminum for most of the sheetmetal.
Regarding corrossion, it obviously has to be done right, but when was the last time you saw an rusted aluminum can?
I can’t say I’ve ever seen a rusted aluminum anything, as rust is a term used for iron oxide.
However, I could probably find an oxidized aluminum can in my scrap heap if I wanted to. Some aluminum panels are designed or treated better to mitigate some of the effects of corrosion, but the fact remains they are as or more vulnerable to corrosion than steel, especially when the use of dissimilar metals are taken into account.
Well, that was my point regarding doing it “right”. I don’t know what Ford did wrong early on, but it sounds more like a paint problem. I’ve seen countless cars with peeling factory paint, but I never thought to blame it on the steel underneath. The few aluminum cars I have seen have not had the issue you’re talking about.
How long did it take automakers to basically stop making disposable cars that rusted after a few short years?
I like my chances a lot better with aluminum than steel when it comes to corrosion.
“I like my chances a lot better with aluminum than steel when it comes to corrosion.”
I have no idea why. Aluminum is less corrosion resistant than steel, especially in environments where the aluminum oxide film on the surface can be frequently disturbed or when used with strong electrolytes like road salt and water. Add in the opportunity for galvanic corrosion when used with steel as there will almost certainly be on the F-150 and there’s a great recipe for corrosion.
I’m certain Ford went to great lengths to mitigate the above circumstances as much as possible, but make no mistake about it, Ford didn’t choose aluminum for it’s durability or corrosion resistance over steel. They did it to save weight.
I’ve never had a piece of aluminum crumble in my hands because it was exposed to water. I’ve had that happen to steel from rust.
To say aluminum would fare no better in the elements than steel is just plain ignorant. Do you know how often aluminum is purposely used because it holds up under those conditions?
I don’t know why you want to keep insisting aluminum is some ticking time bomb when it comes to corosion compared to steel. It’s like you know nothing about the metal.
You want to write the material off because you saw some hoods bubbling? Do you need examples of steel cars that have bubbling under the paint?
Here come the straw men. I didn’t state that aluminum body panels were a ticking time bomb, or write them off as a material to be used for automotive purposes at all.
This is an area of the industry in which I work and am intimately familiar with from a quality perspective. If you care to research anything I’ve stated, you’ll see that they’re all valid concerns when using aluminum components in automobiles. I thought you might be interested to know some factual information, but apparently you just want to argue from a unicorn fallacy standpoint. “Because you’ve never seen it, it ain’t true”.
My 1971 MGB had an aluminum hood. It never corroded and always looked good.
Too bad you can’t say the same thing about the electrical system.
I can imagine the wiring diagram from hell. Melted together.
I first thought ugly. Well this Platinum still is.
I suggest everyone go on ford’s website and checkout the pictures of the XLT, the one you’ll see on the streets the most. Doesn’t look to bad and losses the gaudy grill and a less “in your face” design. It also gets regular halogen headlights.
When i get a real job I’m going to get a extended cab, 8ft bed, 4×4, tiny ecoboost version of these. It will never rust which is my main problem with my current ford trucks. They are rusting away on me. Frame rust isn’t usually an issue.
@Onus
It’s a pity the US variant of the 3.2 diesel going into the US Transit wasn’t available with 220hp and 400ftlb of torque.
That would work well.
We get the 8.8, 3.73 E Locker as standard on our Rangers/BT50s, I wonder if this new F-150 will have them standard.
Even all of our 2WD Rangers/BT50s get them (except the entry model).
This would and should be of interest to the 4x4ers.
Al-
There will be a diesel eventually.
I will take the 3.2 for sure. I love diesels but for now the little v6 will work.
Are you me? Seriously, the SuperCab/8′ bed combination has been my favorite config since, well, ever. It’s definitely the most useful, with a full 8′ bed and enough space for 5-6 people (extended cabs have about as much rear legroom as a compact or even midsize car). And now Ford is the only one still offering the model in any quantity–Chevy, GMC, and Ram all “replaced” them with an available crew cab/6.5′ box; Toyota is still making them but only to try to compete with the HD market and it’ll probably get the ax within the next few years, and Nissan only made them for, what, two years and the chances are slim it’ll ever return.
We must be the same person. I agree on all points and i didn’t even know the other brands didn’t make this configuration. They used to be super popular. It’s my preferred configuration. If i can’t that i’ll stick with the regular cab and the long box.
Maybe I wasn’t clear–all of them _did_, but none of them _do_anymore save FoMoCo. As for the regular cab; that is the pickup truck in its purest form, yes, but its utility is stymied somewhat by a lack of a true, one-piece bench seat. Toyota was the last to drop the one-piece bench for the current setup of a fold-down console flanked by two buckets in 2006, on the last of their “7/8 scale” Tundras. Ford last had the bench on the 2004 Heritage Edition F-150’s.
EDIT: Never mind, I reread your comment and it renders a portion of mine moot. Ignore it as you like, but I’m keeping it up for posterity’s sake.
PRO: Seven-hundred pounds is no small feat to have lopped off of a full-sized truck
CON: Aluminum repairs are going to be expensive for people who use their trucks as…you know, trucks.
PRO: Ford didn’t use that same basic bodyshell a third time in a row, and I was afraid they would
CON: The entire design just looks crude and umaginative to me, and I don’t particularly like it….
QUESTION: Is that technically a three-spoke or a four-spoke steering wheel…?
I wonder if that much less weight will affect crash results, not being as firmly planted you’ll get pushed around a bit more.
Additionally it HAS to affect the feel of the truck as far as payload, towing, and stopping whatever may be.
Less weight over rear wheels… Ehhhh..
I really like the fibreglass box sides on my ’03 FX4. They don’t rust, and if you crack it, just slap on some kitty hair and sand er down!
It is a stepside?
I know those have fiberglass, wasn’t sure if regular beds did as well.
Flareside, it’s a crew.
Yeah, my Raptor’s hood and front fenders are f-glass/composite…very easy to repair. I was a little reluctant about it in the severe cold up here but no issues thus far.
I am dissapointed about the displacement size Ford chose for the smaller ecoboost V6.
Where is my factory ute bed? It’s all aluminum anyway, so why asleep at the wheel, Ford?
I like the tailgate but the front is too Dodge…. excuse me RAM like.
The front end of the Ram is refined and sophisticated next to this thing.
Personally, if you want to improve FE, the easiest way is to make the vehicle aerodynamic.
This vehicle goes against most arguments I have had regarding the US pickup market.
1. How much will it cost?
2. CAFE is forcing the size of these vehicles to be larger.
3. Will the vehicle be durable enough?
4. This also highlights how much different US design regs are. I have been stating this for some time. Would it be smarter to have diesel regs that help a country? Rather than regulations that impede?
5. Most everyone I debate try and tell me or display how conservative the average US pickup truck buyer is and will not want a midsize pickup. Well this vehicle is very radical. Will it sell as well as Ford would like?
Is this vehicle’s construction advanced? Aluminium has been used for decades.
All aluminium will do is make this expensive. Which is another argument I debate with others’.
It seems the future of pickups will be for the more well heeled.
Not the strugglers.
@BAFO – Relax. Just another nail in the midsizers coffin. Even though they’re not usually cross shopped, small trucks are held to the standard of full-size trucks. Unfortunately.
Now small truck OEMs are gonna have to step up their game, while they keep losing the battle against everything they compete with. Like remaining solvent. .
Big Al-
You can still get any of the Big 3 trucks for the price of a midsized sedan. The content might not compare, but the gap is closing. For just over $30K, you can get a damn nice F150 XLT SuperCrew with a V8. Don’t even get me started on RAM lease deals, they are unbelievably good.
@bball40dtw
Yes, I don’t disagree with current trends. How much longer will interest rates make what you have as attractive as it is?
I’m looking a couple of years ahead when CAFE really bites. That’s what this F-150 is all about.
Ram has the $27k, shuttered, Pentastar, 8spd, etc. This truck tows less and carries less than the new Colorado/Canyon. This is the near future of pickups.
It’s FE is about 24mpg. A diesel Colorado will have at least 30mpg and can do more and probably will be cheaper.
I would think this aluminium Ford will cost much more than the existing F-150.
I don’t know if CAFE is the best option offering to best for the consumer.
All moves in the right direction.
Aluminum – Saves weight and 10-15 year old trucks won’t be rusted and should look good much longer than the current trucks (If the paint stays on over time). Should help residuals.
A little lower height at the bed – it’s only an inch, but 1/2 ton trucks are too tall – especially Fords. If you gotta add steps or wish you had steps, it’s too tall. It would be interesting to see how heights compare to 70’s/80’s 1/2 tons.
Smaller motors – This along with the weight savings makes the lower end XL 2WD Reg Cab/Ext Cab trucks more effective Ranger replacements. Sure they are larger, but if fuel savings are realized, not many will look back. They certainly make the low end vehicles a lot nicer.
Styling – I was hoping for some more improvements to the traditional garden shed aerodynamics, but it looks like those are minimal. Was hoping for lower overall heights at the door sills and bed than what they did. I don’t really need as width change (as that would impact 3 across seating in all cab versions, just 3-5″ lower all the way around with more clearance on the lower ends (like Jeep) to save ground clearance. Maybe next time.
Unibody? – It’s time has come for 1/2 tons. Leave the frame on the 3/4 tons. They probably have their hands full just trying to get the aluminum to work. That will be the next opportunity to save more weight.
Plastic body panels? – Are they dead to the Auto industry now?
Don’t you know that all automotive advancement is a result of CAFE that was passed by the US 1975? Every bit of technology is a result of that.
If it wasn’t for CAFE, Americans would be lining up to buy cars and trucks that got 10mpg so they could spend $600 a month in gas. They like throwing money down the drain, that’s why we had to pass CAFE in order to curb our appetite to give money to oil companies.
Disregard the fact that CAFE created all sorts of FAR worse distortions. Before CAFE, how many moms though they needed a Suburban to take their kids to school?
You sure like to push your agenda in a distorted way.
Just put it out straight.
How many suburbans were sold as family DDs in 1974? Not very many.
The government had no place to tell consumers what they should and should not have, what is wrong with spending $600 a month if one desires to do so?
And your kidding your own self, fuel injection existed before 75, as did turbos and small cars.
CAFE created the mindset of fullsize SUVs and fullsize pickups as Daily drivers for the masses, in fact that may be the best thing cafe did.
Can’t buy a 455 Oldsmobile no more? Well damn I can at least get the 454 in the old c10
“Before CAFE, how many moms though they needed a Suburban to take their kids to school?”
Many drivers have discovered that they like to have a higher seating position. Tall boxy vehicles make the aggressive feel more powerful, and the insecure feel safer.
You can probably blame Toyota et. al. for this, when the mini truck boom made trucks that were desirable to young suburbanites, and Chrysler for the minivan that made sitting upright appealing for families. Now there is a large segment of the population that wouldn’t even dream of driving a conventional car; sitting that close to the ground doesn’t seem right to them.
Taller vehicles can also be easier to enter and exit (although the biggest SUVs and pickups are so high off the ground that this advantage disappears).
As the country’s population ages, many people find that they prefer to simply “step in” to the vehicle, as opposed to “stepping down.” They also like not having to bend over too far to get into the vehicle.
I’m amazed at how many older friends and relatives are switching from passenger cars to small CUVs (Escape, CR-V, etc.) for that reason.
In addition to that, studies find that drivers will tend to choose higher speeds when sitting in higher positions. A drivers’ perception of the road is different when the height is elevated.
The government can impose technological improvements on cars, but it can’t force consumers to like an entire segment of vehicle.
If people didn’t like SUVs, crossovers, etc., then they wouldn’t buy them. I’m not a fan of trucks as pleasure vehicles, but there are obviously many vehicle buyers who feel differently.
The new Escape, CR-V, etc., are handy vehicles that offer a good blend of room, comfort and economy.
I personally don’t care for the high seating position or the handling that necessarily comes from having a high center of gravity. But it would appear that I’m part of a minority who cares about such things, and that minority is shrinking.
The direction Ford seems to be heading in is the opposite direction GM seems to be.
Look at it this way. Ford is really trying to corner the full size market. Is GM?
What is GMs goal? Maybe GM’s financial position has left them to come up with a more radical idea. A more affordable idea so people can still have a pickup. Really how much will this F-150 cost. Is the delayed Transit the new work truck for Ford.
Toyota is also heading in the same direction as GM. I think we are seeing two different philosophies on tackling pickup sales. Or even 3 differing philosophies.
CAFE is a bitch. After years on insular regulation, tariffs and policies has left the US pickup market as it currently stands.
Here’s some food for thought.
1. What Ford’s one plan? A one plan when you don’t have a one plan. Ford is concentrating on trying to maintain the image of a ‘normal’ full size truck, hence this new F-150.
2. What are GM and Toyota doing? Well I think GM has placed a lot of faith in the new Colorado/Canyon. Marginal changes to both Toyota’s and GM’s existing full size formula indicates this. What is to become of GM and Toyota full size pickups?
Toyota is primarily a midsize manufacturer of pickups. Will the current Tundra be the last? The new Hilux/Taco will be a screamer then.
3. Then you have Nissan with the ISV V8 Cummins coming up. Another take on the full size truck. Nissan has also tested extensively the Titan with the ISF 2.8 Cummins and this isn’t mentioned too often.
Is the US pickup market fragmenting with the manufacturers making big bets on which direction will become dominant?
Ford’s plan is real simple. By not offering a mid-size they can concentrate their marketing/R&D budgets to one truck. Roughly half of would be ranger buyers may go to the competition but the other half would buy a F150. Ford doesn’t want to risk splitting any sales with the Ranger and possibly lose the opportunity to claim the number one spot. Bragging rights are everything in the truck segment.
GM has a different strategy. They know the Sierra isn’t going anywhere and the Silverado by itself will never outsell the F150. Since they are not going to have the bragging rights, they might as well try the three truck strategy. I doubt GM ever wanted to be out of the midsize segment. After the 2009 bankruptcy, FS trucks received priority and MS trucks were let to rot. Now with 15 straight profitable quarters they are going to come back kicking ass and taking names. The older Colo/Canyon stood no chance with their dinosaur engines and transmissions. If priced correctly the new ones are going to be a huge factor in the PU segment. GM has increased prices on their FS trucks. They can keep the prices higher to allow room for the MS trucks. Their biggest problem will be discounts on the Ram. The Ram is already cheaper after discounts than what the Colo/Canyon will be. A year from now it will be much worse.
Truck buyers are a spoiled bunch which is currently evident. The superior GM trucks stand no chance against a heavily discounted Ram and F150. Truecar data: Average discount on MSRP per sale: F Series – 16.5%, Ram – 17.5%, Silverado – 4.5% and Sierra 5.5%. GM will likely benefit once the new F150 will no longer be heavily discounted. In addition high cost of aluminium will not give Ford room for massive discounts, which sell trucks more than any advanced tech, MPG gain or refinement. GM was smart to make the new MS trucks the same size as full size trucks were 12 years ago. With the 2.5L I4 and nearly 30 MPG highway they are going to sell a boatload of them. I cant believe a lot of FS truck buyers don’t find their trucks a PITA for everyday driving. At this rate the 2024 F150 will look like this
http://www.macktrucks.com/assets/mack/mack3/images/heros/granite/Gran_hero_axleforwarddump.jpg
You can almost park a 2002 F150 in the cab of a 2015 F150.
Toyota will continue to do their thing. The Tundra has an an artificial ceiling set at 130,000 trucks a year. It will continue to stay around that level irrespective of how much the truck segment grows on contracts. The Tacoma will continue as the segment leader and if the Colo/Canyon get closer Toyota will finally update the Taco enough to stay above the rest.
The Titan is dead and the diesel may only delay the inevitable. 15,000 sales in 2013 is less than the Ridgeline and the discontinued Avalanche.
The new F150 looks hideous. The Colorado has to be the cleanest design yet. I never used to be a truck guy but the Colorado is making me taking a serious look. The red one shown with a black plastic grill is the truck of my dreams. Even the base truck looks nice.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/1018/medium/IMG_0416.JPG
You left out the HD stuff.
@alluster
R&D for one truck??? Is the Ranger going to not exist in the future?
It looks hideous. Ford will sell millions though, and make sure we all know it.
For me it would look better the size of the new GM mid-sizers, or Tacoma. To make a bigger truck, then design it to look like an angry brick is too much.
Ford hasn’t thoroughly redesigned a truck since the 2004 model. Not enough of a difference, except for the aluminum.
Look deeper. The look is evolutionary, but there are big changes on this model.
All quite legitimate comments …
Here’s MY take … UNBIASED .
I sell New FORDS and Pre-Owned ” Other Brands ” .
The proof in the Proverbial Pudding isn’t how a truck drives when its new , but in 5 , 10 or 20 years . Period .
Usually , we ( sales teams ) don’t have anybody come into the store ON THE SAME DAY a vehicle is unveiled , Until today .
Today 4 guys came in , 2 with Dodges , 1 with a BOWTIE and an older fellow ( 70’s ) wanting info on the 2015 F150 .
Is is UGLY ? NO … It’s DIFFERENT .
For a reason … Don’t think that Ford isn’t planning ahead
with an eye to dropping in a small DIESEL in an F150 .
That’s what I would be doing .
Can’t wait to see how big the engine bay is when they show up .
Bet me , Buckaroos , That you’ll see a DIESEL in an F150 in 2015 .
EcoBoost DIESEL ?
Maybe . NO , Probably .
Why set the table if you aren’t going to eat ?
This F150 is THE ” Set – Up ” for the Diesel .
Just saying .
Vince
It’s going to happen, just not for the 2015. 3.0L V6 diesel within a few years. It won’t happen until the 10 speed hits.
@bball40dtw
The Lion diesel is an expensive engine. Can’t see that happening.
My beloved 3.2 will be the engine. Manufacturers’ are moving away from having many different engines. I own one in a pickup and it is a very good engine. A little noisy at idle, but all direct injected engines are like this.
Why have two very different engines that are equivalent in performance? One is cheap to make the other not?
Ford Racing in Sth Africa has done a lot of work with the 3.2 as well. The Lion hasn’t had the same amount of developemnt work.
Sth Africa also has a free trade deal with the US and will be supplying the 3.2 for the US market.
I’m not speculating Al, I’m just telling you what I’ve be told from those in Dearborn and Livonia.
@bball40dtw
Thanks for your insight.
I’d love the 3.2 as well Al. I’m surprised that wasn’t the choice as well. The Cleveland engine plant has supposedly been making blocks recently that have the same makeup as the Lion blocks, compacted graphite iron. People have been speculating that there would be the larger V8 Lion would be in the F150. Last week was the first I’ve heard that the 3.0L V6 was happening. I corroborated it with multiple sources too. I’m hoping Derek or someone else in the media can eventually can get info from some higher ups to roll with a story.
In a few years emissions standards will have moved up making diesel less feasible, unless there are some big improvements and cost management of emissions controls. The time to get a diesel on the market is now.
+2.7 V-6: I hope this proliferates into other cars. I miss all the small displacement V6s that have largely been supplanted by 4s with sixes getting progressively bigger and less refined than their small displacement cousins.
– if ever a pickup was designed as a vehicluar c*ck extender, this was it. what a ridiculous looking truck.
“I miss all the small displacement V6s that have largely been supplanted by 4s with sixes getting progressively bigger and less refined than their small displacement cousins.”
Good luck with that. The 4 is cheaper to build, more fuel-efficient, and cheaper to warranty. The only reason the 2.7T is a six is because right now a four-cylinder full-size pickup would cause too much controversy. Ford has a 2.5L EcoBoost 4 in the pipeline which will provide over 300 hp and 330 lb-ft. Give it five to seven years and that will be the F-150’s base engine, replacing both the 2.7T and the 3.5 NA V6es.
How have sixes gotten bigger?
4.2 is gone, and the biggest I can think of is 4.3, which isn’t exactly widely used or that big tbh.
@Hummer – I didn’t specify but I was referring to OHC sixes. Yes, there used to be many big pushrod sixes out there (the Jeep 4.0, GM and Fords 3.8 liter models, and the 4.2 Ford and 4.3 Chevy you reference). OTOH, if you look back 10 years ago, 3.2 was just about the biggest OHC six you saw, with the majority being in the 2.5-3.0 range. Pretty much the only big (more than 3.2L) OHC sixes were BMW’s pre-V8 3.5-3.8 liter engines from the 80s and Porsche’s air cooled models.
Not to nitpick, but there were quite a few OHC 3.5L V6 engines available 10 years ago. Chrysler used an OHC 3.7L V6 at the time too.
Should’ve said 10 year ish…I’m more refering to early 2000s (haven’t gotten used to it being 2014 yet). I think the change really started when Nissan started putting the VQ35 in everything in 2003 (Altima, Maxima/I30, G35, and 350z). Before that, you had the Chrysler 3.5 and 3.7, the Honda 3.5 that was only in the Acura RL, and the Oldsmobile 3.5. Otherwise, Toyota was all 3.0L in the cars and 3.4 in trucks, Honda/Acura was 3.0 or 3.2, Nissan was 3.3 in the trucks and the VQ was VQ30 spec in the Maxima/I30, BMW, Mercedes, and Audi were no bigger than 3.2, Volvo was 3.2, Ford/Mazda only had a 3.0L (except for the Explorer/Ranger 4.0L which was more like a pushrod engine than any of the other OHC sixes), etc. There were also many smaller than 3.0 liter sixes out there. 2.8L was a pretty common displacement.
I guess at Ford nothing says tuff like a big in your face plastic chrome grill. They have actually managd to make the new F150 more garish and cartoon like than their SD trucks. At this rate the next F150 will have an integrated ladder in the grill so you can climb up the front of it to open the damn hood. But I guess they are giving their customers what they want based on sales.
Really not that impressed with it and I’m sure GM is breathing a sigh of relief after getting their eyes on this monstrosity. I’m sure it will continue to sell well but there is definitely nothing ground breaking with this truck from a styling standpoint.
Like the aluminum and I suspect we’ll see more of this from the other truck manufacturers. As a snowmobiler I can tell you aluminum rivet construction will take a lot of abuse so if they did it right I doubt they’ll have any issues from a durability standpoint.
I think the 2015 looks great. It looks like a ford should . I see a 2015 STX 3.7 ltr supercab in my future to replace my 1999 XLT V6 which has been the most reliable vehicle I have ever owned.
I actually like it, both inside and out and I am surprised at all the comments on the center console. Are people suggesting they instead offer the minivan style gap with captain’s chair arrangement?
IMO, the 2.7L seems a little small, and Ford seems to be chasing the duty cycle of the ranger customer. I doubt the price point will drive people to this, more than the effort to pry SUV customers into (luxury) trucks unless they can make significant mileage improvements. Beating The RAM 25 mpg baseline is a good start.
On the mainstream 3.0 V6, I am expecting some pricing gimmickry to offset subpar mileage improvements in an effort to and get back the truck of the year thing they lost.
The truck is not big…Your mind is small.
In what dimension is the truck not BIG? It weighs 5000 pounds, it’s a minimum of 18 feet long, it stands OVER 6 feet tall. It measures right around 6 feet wide. No matter how you look at it, it’s BIG–bigger than almost every ½-ton pickup truck model before it.
Yes, it’s big–from a certain point of view. From the point of view of a farmer who drives a dual-wheeled, 4WD tractor or a ’78 Ford L700 grain truck multiple times a year, it’s pretty small. And it wouldn’t be getting any bigger if that’s not what some people wanted.
But frankly, I’d like it if the global Ranger was introduced. Barely longer than the old compact model, and just the right size for 75% of what the F-150 can do. C’mon, Ford, GM did it and so can you!
With all of the cool car stuff going on, the interest for us I think is the truck market. Where is the customer going to go? Ford says if they can get enough MPG out of the F-150, they can make the midsized truck like the Colorado/Canyon a niche vehicle. I can see it. Think about it, the Mazda5 is no more than a less roomy and capable minivan with the same highway MPG as a Honda Ody, and the sales are less than 20K a year. If F-150 has the same effect on smaller trucks, the Colorado/Canyon may be a huge bust.
But then there’s the argument that the full sized trucks have gotten too big and while a full sized Honda Ody has more day to day advantages than a Mazda5, the Colorado/Canyon will offer most families the amount of functionality they require at a lower physical footprint and cost.
The determining factor is going to be price. Is GM going to be able to bring their midsized trucks in at a low enough pricepoint to make them relevant. How much more will an F-150 equipped with a drivetrain that gets close to the same as the GM midsized cost and will the customer pay it?
I know one thing. If the Mazda5 sales when compared to the Honda Ody are of any indication at all, the customer won’t see the reduced physical size of a midsized truck as a benefit, and if that doesn’t worry GM, it ought to.
My prediction: The first two years of sales for the GM midsized will be OK, maybe even what GM expects. Then once all the folks wanting a midsized have bought them, the sales will tank.
Maybe someone beat me to it, but what happens when one of these burns? Aluminum melts at a lower temp than steel. I guess there will be molten blobs of aluminum on the road. How will rescuers deal with soft bodied F150s due to the heat? I wouldn’t want molten aluminum falling on me!
Most car engines are all aluminum long blocks with composite (read fancy smancy plastic) intake manifolds, and even a few have composite oil pans. Saturn other GM products, among others, use composite body panels and have for years. Aluminum structure probably isn’t a big concern.
detlump, Ford is using Military Grade Aluminum for the new F150 — the same stuff that the HUMMV and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle are made of.
It’s good stuff and it ain’t cheap. It’s an aluminum alloy one grade higher than Aircraft Aluminum.
So how easy is to remove that aluminum tailgate sell it for some cash and buy some dope?