With its unprecedented shift to an aluminum body for the next Ford F-150, the Blue Oval appeared to be pivoting towards a serious improvement in fuel economy. But with the release of the official EPA figures, the newest truck appears to offer only modest improvements.
Ford’s own release stresses a comparison between the new truck and the 2008 model equipped with the now obsolete 4.6L V8 engine. One could make the argument that Ford is attempting to show how a returning customer might see significant gains from his old, V8 truck versus a brand new Ecoboost V6 rig. But Ford also didn’t compare the figures to the outgoing 2014 model, which is the typical convention.
That may be because the gains, on paper, are modest at best. Of the two carry-over engines, the 3.5L Ecoboost now returns 17/24/20 mpg (city/highway/combined), versus 16/22/18 mpg for the 2014 model. The 5.0L now gets 15/22/18 mpg versus 15/21/17 mpg. And the Ecoboost engines are notorious for doing well on standard EPA tests, while delivering lower results in real world driving.
If Ford’s past product rollouts are any indication, we will see incremental improvements over the next few years. A 10-speed automatic, due within the next 1-2 years, is sure to add further improvements in fuel economy. A new V6 diesel engine, set to compete with the Ram 1500 and its 28 mpg highway rating, is also said to be in the works.
This doesn’t sound like good news at all, I thought you were returning from L.A. with some exciting Ford news, Derek
Everyone if fixating on MPG gains. Ford does deserve the negative scrutiny due to advertising hype. The gains obtained from the aluminum body based on MPG alone are deceiving.
Where else does one gain from switching to an aluminum bodied Ford?
If one keeps the comparison only to the 2014 F150 this is how it plays out.
The previous F150 EB3.5 SuperCrew had a best tow rating of 11,300 with max tow package and 3.73 gears. The same truck with 3.55 could tow 9,600.
The aluminum F150 in the same configuration with taller 3.55 gears can tow 12,200. Those ratings are SAE rated.
Ford gained 900 lb over the 2014MY 3.73 truck and 2,600 lb over the 2014MY 3.55 truck.
Virtually everyone else lost tow capacity going to SAE standards.
The next point is related to class ratings.
This table outlines them with examples:
http://www.dieselhub.com/tech/truck-classifications.html
Ford now has the option to raise cargo ratings and or tow ratings to the limits outlined by truck class.
Ford and Ram have had a PR war over the Ram 3500 and F450. Both claimed max cargo and tow ratings. Both claimed “best in class”.
Ram claimed “best in class”” for Class 3 and so did Ford. Ram looked at Ford’s numbers and found that the F450 pickup actually crossed into the Class 4 ratings. Ford adjusted their numbers to put themselves back into class 3.
The Ford Super Duty is also going aluminum. In the HD class mpg does not play a huge role in sales or marketing but towing and hauling capacity do. If Ford sheds 700 lb off the HD that means they can add that directly to tow/haul ratings and still stay within Class 3.
We see that sort of strategy in the commercial truck and trailer market. Every pound saved from curb weight is a pound extra of cargo capacity.
That F450 only made it to class 3 if you deleted a bunch of stuff like the radio, spare tire etc.
Ram did not lose any capacity using SAE ratings and gained in a couple models.
@Deadweight – but how does one weld aluminum to steel?
The whole dissimilar metal electrolysis issue raises its head.
@Flipper35 – I know a guy who works for a company that has a Ram 3500 towing 30k. He has driven that truck and says it is creepy.
The Ram HD’s have good capacity but the 1500’s were laughable to begin with.
As far as I’m concerned it is just advertising hyperbole. I wouldn’t remotely consider buying a pickup to tow 30K.
@Flipper35 – Ram 1500 cargo and tow specs were woefully low to begin with.
I’d rather go with the biggest truck possible to tow 30k. I would not consider ANY pickup for that kind of load.
I know a fellow who works for a company with a HD Ram 3500 towing 30k. He has the commercial licencing to drive it and says it is unnerving to drive as opposed to a larger commercial tractor.
Odd – these posts showed up 1 day later.
While Ford has to spend 360 million per factory to allow for aluminum panel assembly, GM can do the same thing at NO additional cost and with no retooling:
As Ford spends big, GM joins aluminum with simple welds
‘Great leap’ may eliminate need to retool
Richard Truett
Automotive News
November 24, 2014 – 12:01 am ET
DETROIT — “General Motors is adding more lightweight aluminum to its vehicles. But unlike Ford Motor Co., GM is not spending hundreds of millions of dollars to retool its assembly plants for the metal.
Instead of joining aluminum parts with rivets and industrial adhesive — as Ford does to assemble the redesigned 2015 F-150 — GM is rolling out a new welding system.
GM’s system spot welds aluminum sheet, such as doors, hoods and tailgates, on existing production lines with the same robots and welding guns used for steel.
Ford, on the other hand, spent $359 million and lost 10 weeks of production this fall when it converted its Dearborn, Mich., F-150 plant from steel to aluminum for the 2015 model. Early next year, Ford plans to make the same expensive switch at its Kansas City, Mo., truck plant.”
http://www.autonews.com/article/20141124/OEM06/311249975/0?cciid=internal-anhome-mostright&CSAuthResp=1%3A473556215419817%3A423310%3A17%3A24%3Aapproved%3A25B6A1A0AAF45A20617E5C315A095A07&=
Yes building the most fuel efficient pickup outside of a diesel pickup deserves such scrutiny. Yes 375 ft/lb torque and 26mpg hwy is so poor compared to other full size pickups. The lack of critical thinking and bias is a disease on this site. A toyota tacoma with a 2.7L 4 cylinder and 180 ft/lb torque get less mpg then the 2.7L ecoboost. And don’t even looking into crash test rating vs, Ford and GM and other foreign brands. I would not put my dead grandmother in a tacoma.
Spambot ate my post…
@Deadweight – how can GM weld aluminum to steel?
Dissimilar metals and electrolysis for example.
If it was that simple why didn’t Ford and Alcoa think of it?
Why doesn’t the rest of the auto and air line industry do it?
BTW there is the problem of stamping aluminum alloy. That was well documented as being Ford’s Achilles heel in the whole process.
This site is getting worse everyday. Took over 12 hours for my post to come up. Terrible network administrators. Lazy servers.
“Terrible network administrators. Lazy servers.”
Nah, just Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
Hard to get better highway mileage pushing a barn door down the road, no matter what it’s made of. City mileage increases are about in the ratio of 5700lbs/5200 lbs, the actual weight saving rather than the dream.
Um, comparing it to the 2008 model shows Ford is really desperate to create the impression that this all-new beer can truck has significant fuel economy improvements, when in reality, the improvements over the 2014 are rather miniscule to justify the immense expense of retooling two factories.
If you’re driving a 6-7 year old truck and are on the fence about trading in, then such figures may be convincing.
I’d imagine Ford is well aware of the average ownership duration for its trucks
Sources at third party consulting firms suggested to me that this is the likely reason behind the 08 vs ’15 comparison.
My father has had his ’06 for 6-1/2 years now. His father always traded vehicles every 8 years. He’ll probably be looking at a ’14 when the time comes to trade in, if only because you shouldn’t buy the first two years of any new model.
The problem is that they can’t compare the 2.7T to any previous engine. It’s dumb that they threw out engines from the 2008 F150, unless they are playing to current F150 owners. I don’t know how these numbers were released and in what context.
Appealing to current customers is exactly what they’re doing.
If you compare the 2008 model line and engine spread, the 2.7T falls roughly in the same place (respectively) as the old 4.6L did. Its not the lowest offering (4.2L vs. 3.5L N/A), nor is it the higher end offering (5.4L vs. 5.0L/3.5TT).
I can imagine that if a shopper has the 4.6L mill in thier 2008 model year, they did so intentionally to have the power of the V8 but with the perceived extra economy of only displacing 4.6 liters. Now, the 2.7T falls into that category. It’s more power and more efficient than the 3.5L N/A but its not quite as powerful as the 5.0L or 3.5TT.
Natural demographic comparisons-
4.2 -> 3.5 N/A
4.6 -> 2.7T (maaaayyyybeee 5.0)
5.4 -> 5.0L/3.5TT
@bballs,
There is a great comparison. The Coyote V8s.
It the same to 1mpg gain in FE.
You can stop being a Ford apologist and become a real person;)
Ford used the older figures to sweeten the dismal benefits gained from this massive investment.
Seriously, what did you expect a carryover engine and transmission would do in a truck that reduced weight 10%-15%? Did you expect a 30% increase in fuel economy from the V8? I’ve been saying for months that the 2.7T wouldn’t beat the Ram EcoDiesel in fuel economy.
@bball,
You can’t get any more scientific than that.
Same engine, different platform = 1mpg.
Not so good.
Yes. And that is about 6%. The 5.0L engined regular cab truck lost the least amount of weight.
Ford screwed up.
It’s not difficult to see this.
First, they went the route of forced induction, which turned off a not so insignificant % of the pickup truck demographic, and in actuality, turned every one of Ford’s turbocharged motors into either a less than average reliability or much less than average reliability mill (per Consumer Reports).
Then, Ford spent billions in going full Al body panel construct, on a duty cycle pickup, where there is absolutely no doubt repairs will be much more expensive (Ford Dealers are so worried about this that they’ve asked Ford to help subsidize new body shop equipment & body shop training now mandated by Ford).
Now, Ford is so desperate to represent the best case scenario for fuel economy that they’re comparing 2008 Ford F Series models to the 2015, rather than comparing the most recent gen 2014 F Series to the new gen.
So, Ford spent billions going all Aluminum in, reduced gross vehicle weight dramatically, at huge expense, with now much more expensive purchase, to insure and repair All Aluminum bodies, over-promising and under-achieving turbo mills, and they literally have squat to show for it.
Some, like tresmonos are claiming Ford is in a position to see more dramatic fuel economy gains when new transmissions and fastener systems are rolled out – paint me skeptical.
This will be a textbook case of not betting the farm on the biggest revenue generator by trying to revolutionize that product IMO.
The F Series provides Ford with between 75% and 88% of its global products.’You don’t revolutionize such products unless you have a royal flush in terms of proven technological improvement that will assure the stated goals can be axhieved, which Ford didn’t have.
GM & Chrysler can now do what Ford should have done: roll out efficient diesels, use more economical high tensile strength steel, be less aggressive reducing vehicle weight versus concentrating on aerodynamics and transmissions, etc.
If I and those sharing my opinion are correct, Ford will now have to compete with GM & RAM with a product that was MUCH MORE expensive to develop, is more expensive to build, yet yields no significant advantages, which means GM & RAM can murder Ford’s margins.
Yeah, they really turned people off with those Ecoboost engines. Now, what was the percentage of F150 buyers taking the 3.5TT for 2014? Just under 50%, you say? And that’s with a choice of the 3.7, the 3.5TT, the Coyote V8 and the 6.2L – four engines.
The Ecoboost V6 is far and away the most popular engine choice for the F150, and with the addition of the 2.7TT (and the deletion of the 6.2, which was killed off because the 3.5 filled its role better), that will only increase.
Did you cut and paste paragraph 3 of your comment from something written back in 2011, when people were still actually making those predictions?
You’re stiff-arming reality here, my man.
Perception vs reality. When the base is 22mpg, a 1-2mpg increase is actually not insignificant. In fact, it’s a far more significant jump than a 1-2mpg increase on a vehicle that is at, say, 30 or 40mpg.
Yes, some of these really are ~10% improvement.
Sweet Jesus, is that ever true.
The difference between 13 and 11 in my F250 depending on how I drive it *adds up real damned fast*.
Also, that said, well over 20 highway?
My old Toyota compact with a 22RE didn’t get over 20 or 21…
Um, comparing it to the 2008 model shows Ford is really desperate to create the impression that this all-new beer can truck has significant fuel economy improvements, when in reality, the improvements over the 2014 are rather miniscule to justify the immense expense of retooling two factories. All that for 1 or 2 MPG? They probably could have achieved that with just making the front end more aerodynamic, instead of the brick on wheels it is.
Agree RE: desperation. Is the most recent time you sold this model 2008, so you have no more recent data to use for comparison? No? Then quit it!
Even if the returns are not incredible, Kudos to Ford for trying. These marginal increases, and new technology that will undoubtedly be added later will all make a difference. 2 or 3 product cycles from now you could see a big gain and we all win. That being said, I hope fuel prices skyrocket and people just stop buying these things. There are way too many trucks on the road.
“Kudos to Ford for trying” seems like the automotive equivalent to those “Participant” trophies handed out in YAFL. At this level, effort is essentially meaningless without actual, immediately demonstrable benefits.
Never mind 2-3 product cycles from now; for the billions invested to fundamentally alter its core product line – resulting in a (arguably) more fragile and (inarguably) more complex vehicle – Ford should have done much, much better.
The fact that Ford failed to yield any significant MPG improvements out of the gate is yet another Blue Oval blunder in my eyes, this time from the very earliest stages of product planning and development. That doesn’t bode well for the company’s overall health, relevance, or feasibility.
I recall articles saying how GM and Ram were going to be years behind as this would, out of the gate, be a large improvement. Well it seems since the full benefit will wait on updated transmissions and engines that GM and Ram are not that far behind if they launch a fully optimised vehicle, with Al chassis, updated transmissions and engines.
Both GM and Ram are ahead on transmissions. They have 8-speeds available in all or some trucks while Ford has to wait for the 10-speed to come out.
The issue with the 10 speed transmissions is the diminishing returns in improvements as more speeds are added. Will the further fragmentation of gear ratio enable enough of an improvement in engine efficiency to offset the added weight and friction over an 8 speed? Ford and GM seem to be betting it will, but I doubt it’ll be much. Certainly not as much as the jump from 4 to 6 speeds or 6 to 8 for that matter.
danio-
No, I don’t think it will be a huge improvement over the 8-speed Chrysler has. It should be a good jump over the six Ford has right now. The Hemi in the RAM eeks out an extra 2 MPG on the highway with the 8-speed over the 6-speed. Is it unreasonable to think that the 10-speed will give the 5.0L a combined rating more than 20 MPG? It’s at 18 right now.
A new transmission won’t be the holy grail for Ford many here claim.
Anything Ford can improve by way of 4 more gears can be matched/exceeded by GM and RAM without having to recoup billions of dollars by going to all aluminum body panel route, retooling factories, paying more for raw materials, forcing dealers to buy new body shop equipment, etc.
GM & RAM can now even use Ford’s mistakes as a free real world test case, and go the direction of more lightweight steel (having more tensile strength than aluminum), more efficient powertrain, and improved drag coefficients.
Look at the RAM that Matt Gasnier is now touring the country with: THAT is progress (combined 26 or 27 with 30+ on the highway).
Ford is in deep feces.
I’m not claiming a transmission will be the holy grail. GM will be using the same transmission, just built in a GM plant. They are behind because Ram has 8-speeds in everything while GM has it on the 6.2L now.
Based on sales of the Ram EcoDiesel, Ford needs a diesel hooked up to the 10-speed. It seems like people will buy it and pay the premium. There has also been talk about a hybrid F150, but I’ve heard that isn’t happening anytime soon, if at all.
I thought you’d see 10%-15% increases across the board, and it’s ended up 6%-11%. I also never expected the 2.7T to beat the EcoDiesel in the RAM, especially with two fewer gears and diesel’s advantage on the highway.
Can you name another non diesel full size pickup that gets better MPG with that much torque ? Not to memention that can tow as much as the 2.7 ecoboost ? Ford has blundered their way over 30 years as being the best selling pickup in America. Nissan and Toyota are a joke when it comes to building pickups. There v6 models don’t get 26mpg hwy.
SayMyName, the problem with marginal fuel economy improvements is that each 5% to 10% improvement costs more and saves less money at the pump. However, in terms of less gasoline consumed, small improvements in the sales leader are more significant than a dramatic 30% improvement in the efficiency of every hybrid Ford makes. There is also a strong CAFE related business case for making the marginal improvement in profitable high volume vehicles first.
Why is it that Ford offers great ride & drive but worse MPG than its competitors? It feels like the mid-Seventies.
How did we get to “worse MPG”?
Go to the EPA MPG site (fueleconomy.gov), run a report on 2015 full-sized pickups and see what you get. The best is the Diesel Ram 1500, followed by the 2.7 EB F150, followed by the Pentastar Ram 1500. You gotta scroll way down to see some GM full-sized trucks.
In other words, the new F150 is the second best overall, and the best non-diesel. That’s the exact opposite of “worse MPG than its competitors,” and it’s only going to get better as Ford introduces better transmissions.
I know people are disappointed that it’s only slightly better than the competition, but let’s get real. It’s not a Focus, and it won’t get Focus mileage.
Bomber.. can you explain how Ford has worse MPG then its competitors ? not a person issue, but actually facts.
Ford F-150 2WD 2.7L – 19/26/22
Chevy Silverado 2WD 4.3L – 18/24/20
Ram 1500 2WD 3.6L – 17/25/20
19 is higher than 18 or 17.
26 is higher than 24 or 25.
22 is higher than 20.
The premise of your question is wrong.
you answered my question.
Anyone who believes Ford’s official claims on fuel economy, as real life testing of the new F150 is thus far showing, is gullible & naive.
It’s almost as if Ford doesn’t have a recent history of dramatically overstating fuel efficiency, right?
Besides, Consumer Reports is about to buy a new F150 with plans to reciew the vehicle in their typical comprehensive manner, with a focus on nailing down actual fuel economy.
Then we’ll see the reality versus Ford marketing BS:
“Of course, Ford is quoting the maximum fuel economy for the truck: a standard-cab two-wheel drive model. And Ford isn’t the only truckmaker working to improve fuel economy.”
“So, the F-150 with its new high-tech engine comes out ahead according to Ford’s CLAIMS, BARELY. BUT we found Ford’s older turbocharged six-cylinder COULDN’T live up to its EPA mileage claims. So we’ll let you know how the truck actually performs (along with the Chevrolet Colorado) as soon as we have a chance to buy one to test.”
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/11/2015-ford-f-150-fuel-economy-tops-competition/index.htm
Like tresmonos said in the F-150 article, the 2015 F-150 is the first product of Ford’s AL program, not the end product. The technology that was developed will continue to cascade down through other product lines, and additional improvements like the 10 speed transmission are still waiting in the wings.
Downsizing, aerodynamics, and use of high strength steel and plastics were the low hanging fruit when the effort to save gas started back in the 1970s; followed by fuel injection, better engine management, and LRR tires. All of the low hanging fruit is gone now; it is going to take major technology investments to raise the bar higher.
And I think that is the point of Derek’s article. It is too early to say if Ford’s AL program will pay off; this is only the beginning. A lot of people poo-pooed Ford’s groundbreaking work in aerodynamics in the early 1980s; and we all know how that turned out.
@jhefner,
I do think the comment by Derek “incremental improvements” is an indication that aluminium isn’t as good as it’s been slated.
As engineers don’t you think the initial improvement should have been the greatest, followed by incremental improvements as they fine tune the vehicle.
I do think Ford was influenced heavily by Alcoa on this one and it isn’t going to pan out as expected.
There will be improvements, but not significant.
The improvements that you describe would have been better done now. Aero, engine/drivetrain improvements can be done with a steel vehicle, cheaper and with better gains in FE.
This F-150 appears to have a “cut and paste” of the Ranger suspension. For the money invested don’t you think the suspension should have been markedly better along with the steering.
The 2.7 if one looks at it’s construction would see that it will not be as durable as Ford’s previous engines. What is Ford’s life cycle for this engine 200k, if you are lucky?
Look at the engineering concepts here and not just the associated hype. From an engineering perspective this could of been done cheaper and had produced better results.
Ford will lose some F Series sales with this truck and it’s much more expensive to produce. At the end of the day Ford’s bottom line will show this.
BAFO;
Ford’s goal was to shed 700 lbs from the weight of the vehicle. If the 2015 F-150 weighs 700 lbs less than the 2014 model with similiar trim; then they suceeded in their goal for 2015. What that 700 pound reduction gives in terms of fuel savings is obviously open to debate; but once again, they could switch over more of the truck over to AL, or apply the same changes to other Ford vehicles, and obtain similiar weight gains. That is the incremental part; I think going with body panels was a smart move because they are not load bearing members like the frame and they tend to rust anyway, so it was a low risk, high gain move (i.e. less rust as well as weight loss.)
I think you miss-understood what I was trying to say. Yes, the easy aero, engine and drive train improvements have already been made on the steel pickup. There is no more low hanging fruit; it will take more drastic measures like active aero, start/stop, cylinder deactivation, 8+ speed transmissions, and yes AL to continue to improve fuel economy.
I am not going to debate you regarding drive trains and suspensions; you obviously have your strong opinion, and I am not going to change it. (Plus that is not what this article is about.) But the marketplace has voted with their sales regarding their choices to date, and will do the same with their decision to incorporate more AL. Alot of this is dueling marketing/opinions; we will see how it all shakes out in sales.
@Hef,
It wasn’t Ford’s goal to reach a 700lb reduction in weight. That’s what eventuated. Ford would have attempted to reduce the weight as much as possible.
The F-150 started out as the heaviest pickup as well. Those 700lbs is from their heaviest pickup.
So what does a single cab work truck drop in weight? 450lbs?
@BAFO – “…an indication that aluminum isn’t as good as it’s been stated…”
Stated by whom?
Not that there aren’t other technologies to focus on, that’ll net quicker, easier, faster results, but now is the time to change over to aluminum. The new generation was eminent, and the next generation wouldn’t be scheduled till around 2025. That would be about too late. That’s why GM is scrambling to get their aluminum trucks in by 2018. That’s crazy short for fullsize generation.
But your 10 Billion dollar estimate is ridiculous. Yes even for you!
BAFO, besides a personal biased impression of Ford engines only lasting 200k miles and the 2.7 ecoboost having less then durable construction. Where did you find actual data besides this blog on how long things last? I have to tell you that Ford’s F150 to F350’s can be found with 250 to 350 k miles on them and still keep running. I know many people that use Ford trucks for there construction including snow plowing that swear my there Ford trucks. Including other brands domestic and foreign that would not last half as long as a Ford F150 to F350 for real world use.
BAFO , besides a person biased opinion and this blog. Where do you find information that Ford engine last 200k miles if your lucky. Or that the 2.7 has less then durable build quality? I know many people that state other brands foreign and domestic would not last half as long as a Ford pickup, including F150 to F350. Yes in real world use, plowing snow and towing work trailers.
How is 11% marginal? And if the ecoboost does more poorly in real life, the comparison between two ecoboosts is still valid.
+10000
Most people don’t know math. With same engine and similar drag the 15% weightsaving yielding 11% savings are good.
And since are eciboosy, the real world mileage diffetence should be similar regardless.
Even these modest gains should be suspect, as Ford has long since lost the right to be trusted with their fuel economy numbers.
We’ll know how well these truck really do on gas when they’re tested by independent journalists.
It’s not exclusive to Ford, to be fair. Hyundai/Kia twins did a mighty fine job of cooking the books for a long time, too. I’m sure it goes deeper than just those two manufacturers. If you think otherwise, you’re lying to yourself.
Why should they be suspect? If it’s the same drivetrain, and it has 10% less mass to accelerate, that’s roughly the amount of city mpg gain you’d expect (a bit less probably, as you’re not ALWAYS accelerating in the city test, but it is the biggest factor). Are you suggesting they have the engine doing some other kind of work when nobody is looking?
Geez, I wish you guys would decide: is it “remarkable fuel economy improvement” or “just a marginal improvement”? How can you have two completely different takes on the exact same thing on the same flippin’ page of the website, for cryin’ out loud?
Too big and bulbous. Ford is trying to tell Americans we can have our cake and eat it. It doesn’t work that way.
When GM downsized the first big cars, part of their success was the better MPG, of course. But the trim dimensions also changed buyer psychology. I don’t see that happening here.
I’m not confident because, as Autoextremist says, F-Series IS the Franchise. Blow this like GM did and there will be big trouble ahead.
Right now my plan is to hold F stock until end of Jan 2016, unless Fields is a stuttering, blustery mess before then (very unlikely).
If you accept the traditional definition of an American engineer as someone who can design a disposable beer can that will last 10 000 years but is unable to design a car that will last more than 10, I would say this design (which a poster above likened to a beer can) is a step in the right direction.
Aluminium doesn’t rust does it?
So this vehicle will (or at least its body work) will last longer.
Technically-speaking, aluminum corrodes/oxidizes rather than rusts.
Expose aluminum to salt spray, and it will disintegrate.
“http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T5tsC8dGZxE/ULtMn6zSibI/AAAAAAAAF1I/0eEgVtpGbqc/s1600/wheels.JPG”
Like some steels, aluminum forms a layer of oxidation; that oxidation then protects the remainder of the metal from further oxidation. It will not continue to corrode until it disappears. I have spent half of my life along the Texas Gulf Coast, and I can assure you that all of the AL mag wheels, signs, and light poles are not disintegrating and collasping around us. Nor did the components on my 35 year old bicycle.
There are some light poles along I-10 at the Butte La Rose exit that are covered with a solid layer of rust. That is not a failure to maintain, but by design; the layer of rust protects the remainder of the poles from rusting. Clean that layer off, and they will rust again. They are located in the Atchafalaya Basin, so if they were going to continue to rust until they fell, it would be happening right now.
Thanks Jhefner, that’s how I thought it worked hence the comment about 10 000 year old beer cans, the aluminium oxide layer doesn’t let more oxygen in to corrode the substrate of pure metal.
SCE to AUX I believe the US navy is building ships from aluminium nowadays and the Brits have been doing it for years so if aluminium disintegrates when subjected to salt water………
The S.S. United States was also built with an aluminum superstructure on top of a steel hull to lower the center of gravity and hence rolling in heavy seas. After years of sitting up in Philadephia, it is rusting at the steel/aluminum joint because the rubber between them has rotted away.
Ahhh Jhefner but that’s not rust, that’s electrolysis, How old is that ship by the way 60?
I also believe that it was exceptionally quick (Blue Riband holder for years) as well as fairly fuel efficient.
Andrewwallen;
Yes, she is 62 years old. She was built to take the Blue Riband, so she was outfitted with the same steam turbine powerplants as the Essex class aircraft carriers. Fast she was indeed, but far, far far from fuel efficient; one reason why it is doubtful she will ever steam again.
“After years of sitting up in Philadephia, it is rusting at the steel/aluminum joint because the rubber between them has rotted away.”
Galvanic corrosion.
Ford has has trouble with it for years. While I don’t doubt they took significant steps to mitigate it, it’s still a concern. Any bit of iron contamination can accelerate corrosion.
This puzzles me, why doesn’t the aluminium cylinder head on a steel engine block or aluminium wheel on a steel body galvanically corrode? The bolted connections must be very low impedance electrically speaking.
“This puzzles me, why doesn’t the aluminium cylinder head on a steel engine block or aluminium wheel on a steel body galvanically corrode? The bolted connections must be very low impedance electrically speaking.”
They most certainly do. Careful choices in materials helps slow things down, but it still happens to varying degrees. Especially aluminum rims on steel hubs or drums where there is no gasket.
At this stage, any new improvements won’t set the world on fire.
It was ultra silly to believe there was to be a huge dramatic FE improvement. Marketing is as marketing does.
But it’s something that had to be done, if not now, eventually. Remember the 1st aluminum beer can? Now it’s just a beer can.
The engineers were told “Moar MPGs!”, but the designers were told “Moar Grill!”. Turns out you can’t have both.
Yesss…and no. Ford went with the smaller grill and seperate headlights with the 1997-2003 F Series “Taurus Truck”; we know how well that went over with manly man truck crowd; as did the alligator Kenworths.
It is easier to see what Ford is doing when you look at a model of one, where you can look at it from above as well as the front and side. Yeah sure, you have that massive grill; but like one on semis nowdays, it is not a flat surface.
Not only is it curved upwards to direct air over the hood, it is also rounded when looking at it from above, with the headlights themselves pulled further back on the outside edges. The end result is the nose is more of a flattened quarter sphere rather than a flat plain, though the effect is subtile. Either way, you have the same frontal area; the idea is to make the stagnant flat frontal area as small as possible.
They have also increased the slope of the windshield, and added flush glass. The end effect is a masculine but smooth front end. You can see the transistion faily well in a overhead view of my Ford timeline, which starts with the blunt nose of a 1980-86 Bronco and ends with today’s models.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/75105572@N08/14684150485/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/75105572@N08/14683847882/
This reminds me of the rollout of GM’s Hybrid pickups and SUVs a few years ago, which provided single digit EPA rating improvements, when many buyers were expected much larger increases. This buyer disappointment together with hybrid sticker shock led to very poor sales of the hybrid versions, and a huge loss for GM on their hybrid ROI and tooling investment. Aluminum is going to cost Ford a lot more to use that steel, and the question is whether buyers will be willing to pay a higher price for what is perceived as disappointing improvement in fuel economy, with the possibility that some/all of the fuel savings will be spent on higher insurance premiums to cover the higher price of aluminum collision damage. Those future 10 speed gearboxes and diesel engines will also not be free, so unless fuel prices start to climb again the payback to both consumers and Ford might be very unattractive.
An MPG is not an MPG- a single digit can be a lot of gas if you’re starting at a low enough number. Going from 10 to 11 mpg saves as much gas over a given distance as going from 30 to 41 mpg.
Interesting that the base 3.5 V6 F150 gets 25 mpg highway – same as the 3.6 V6 Ram. It doesn’t seem like the weight savings have translated into much of an edge over the competition.
The previous F150 was the heaviest of all the half tons.
I do know this new F-150 will have many stating their facts from either side of the fence.
The guys against will ask were did the benefit come from with all that money invested.
The pro guys will state how the technology is for the future.
Well, if it ain’t broke why fix it.
Ford could had spent the money and really made a striking vehicle. They could have started with the steering, suspension, drivetrains, engine choices, etc.
What will be a total embarrassment for Ford is when they need to bring in the Ranger to offset the Colorado.
Now that’s what I’m predicting. This new F Series will take Ford from number one and position where Ram currently is.
Apprehension it’s called.
A rough rule of thumb is that adding an additional 100 lbs will reduce fuel economy by about 1%. (The math also works in reverse.)
The most obvious ways to improve fuel economy are:
-improved aerodynamics
-improved efficiency
-power reduction
-better gearing
-weight reduction
Aerodynamic improvement opportunities are limited for a vehicle that is inherently shaped like a brick that is dragging an anti-spoiler behind it.
The 100 mpg fuel injector is not here. Improvements to efficiency are incremental and about as current as can be expected. In this case, Ford has opted for turbos, while GM is favoring cylinder deactivation as workarounds, but internal combustion engines are inherently low-efficiency powerplants — most of the energy never makes it to the wheels.
The consumer does not want power reduction. This would be the easiest way to get results were it not for the fact that consumers would reject it.
The multigear transmissions are obviously a priority for the industry.
That leaves weight reduction as the low-hanging fruit. Weight reductions can’t occur in a vacuum, as removing the weight can’t come at the expense of safety or NVH.
So there aren’t a lot of options here. But as the numbers suggest, the tree with the low-hanging fruit doesn’t bear much fruit. If Ford is achieving a 10% gain, that’s about to be expected if the weight reduction is made in tandem with other improvements.
Going forward, we will see CAFE cut into the more apparent marketing realms of authority. It will be interesting (in my opinion).
If these regulations work as intended, then the OEMs should increase the price of gas guzzlers (since their production volumes will be indirectly capped by the regulations), which should motivate some consumers to buy more fuel-efficient lower-cost alternatives.
Presumably, the automakers will design those alternatives and encourage some of their customers to buy them. If the automakers are smart, then those alternatives won’t feel like a sacrifice.
CAFE 2025 specifies 23mpg combined for fullsize pickup trucks. The 2015 Ford F-150 2.7 Ecoboost returns 22mpg combined in 2WD trim. Install start-stop and eco-friendly A/C. You’re CAFE 2025 compliant a decade early.
The gains are substantial, if you know how to evaluate them, and this is a big first step towards fleet compliance. The additional technologies, like 10-speed manual and diesel engines will be utilized to make the 4wd versions CAFE compliant.
I also wish the absurd expense of retooling factories to build aluminum trucks were not necessary, but alas, people have to commute to their law practices in a 4wd living room with a 6-foot bed.
The fuel economy numbers for CAFE are higher than the advertised numbers on the window sticker. If the CAFE standard was a threat to new pickup truck sales, the CAFE standard would have to change. The pickup truck is too important to real America to allow government to outlaw it. The standard would change to match reality, but possibly in the form of subtle details that hide the change.
There is one low-hanging fruit … Frontal area!
The current pickup trucks are all too high to be practical. You can’t just toss something into the bed and then reach in and grab it; you have to climb up first. Loading and unloading a motorcycle from the bed is perilous, even using a ramp; at some point you have to step up or down alongside the bike and it’s too big a step.
The styling trends towards wanting bigger and bigger wheels causes the axle centerline to move up, and then those bigger wheels require more torque to turn, so the diff has to be bigger, and then people expect a car-like ride plus very high load capacity, which requires extra suspension travel (more clearance above the axle) if you want both, and it all adds up to a very high bed floor.
And, of course, there is the objective of wanting to make the truck look as big and bulky and tough as possible.
Park any 2008-onward F150 beside, say, a 1967 F150. I’ve been looking for a photo online showing both, but haven’t found one yet.
‘Course, a sensibly-sized F150 could be a Ranger, and we all know what happened to those.
Frontal area on *ANY* truck is NOT defined by the area of the nose; it is defined by the area of the cab. Looking at historic trends:
1948-1952 F Series — 76 inches wide, 75.64 inches tall
1953-1956 F Series — 76 inches wide, 75.64 inches tall
…
1997-2003 F Series — 78.4 inches wide, 73.4 inches tall
2003-2008 F Series — 78.9 inches wide, 73.5–76.1 in tall
2009-20011 F Series — 78.9-79.2 inches wide, 74.3–76.7 inches tall.
So trucks have gotten 2-3 inches widder and maybe and inch taller in 60 years; most of that width is probably the mirrors. THAT is your frontal area.
Ford learned with the 1997-2003 F Series, and Kenworth with the T-1 “alligators” that truck buyers do not want a tiny rounded nose. But don’t you think for one minute they have not been paying close attention to aerodynamics; there are a lot of minor details going on.
Oh, and the Ford Ranger?
1983–2012 Ranger — 66.9 inches wide. Wikipedia does not list the height, but that gives you some idea of how much smaller in frontal area it was; not a whole lot.
DW, BAFO, and now you are sounding as silly as the guy who insisted that aluminum will dissolve in contact with salt water. But haters are going to hate.
And I am working on a Ford timeline in miniture where you can see 110 years of automotive evolution at once. It is not perfect because not all the diecast makers created their cars to exact 1:64 scale; but overall it works. I can already see that SUVs have grown back up to the height of cars from 1930s-1955, before the influence of the jet age resulted in lower and longer cars. But nowdays, we have traction control and ABS to help keep them from rolling over.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/75105572@N08/14882190448/
In city driving weight is the biggest determinant of gas mileage, not aerodynamics. I expect the lighter weight Ford trucks will get better real world mileage than others in head-to-head urban driving. With traffic getting worse by the day, one cannot compare your real world mileage in 2008 with today. A buyer of a new Ford pickup may not note an increase in mileage, but other trucks would yield worse in traffic numbers.
My auto commute went from 25 min to 40 min in the last 5 years and my mileage (same CUV) went from 17.5 to 16.
A story about Ford’s F-150 fuel economy feature’s a picture of a Ram’s vehicle information center?
Ford has bet their entire future on turbocharged engines.They do not want bad public perceptions of benefits from such engines.This aluminum thing has many benefits ,such as acceleration ,handling and city mileage.They should be straight with the public,and avoid confusion.If all your driving is highway ,you are not going to benefit from this weight reduction
I’m surprised city mileage didn’t increase a bit more, having to accelerate that much less mass. I’m guessing the V8 was probably getting like 14.5 before and now is getting 15.4 and the lack of a sticker change is due to rounding. Real world fuel economy should be up.
And, for those complaining about fuel consumption under boost…with a lighter weight, you won’t need to get on the boost as much for a given level of acceleration, again helping real-world mpg.
My 99 5.3l Silverado avgs 19.5mpg If I was in the market I sure wouldn’t be buying this Ford for better mpg, probably wouldn’t be buying any new truck for the mpg.
I’m surprised how flat-footed GM, Ford, Toyota, and Nissan look without having a small diesel offering.
The Ram 3.0 V6 diesel is the sweetest truck drivetrain available right now (in a steel truck, no less), and the others are just playing catch-up.
A 2004 f-150 gets 14 mpg the new one gets 22 mpg, that’s huge! That’s an extra 270 miles of range or $35 every time you fill up.
Put another way, if you drive 30k miles a year for the life of the note (60mos), that’s a savings of $12k, using today’s price of fuel.
Consumer Reports is both less than impressed with the new F150’s fuel economy (noting Ford quoted mpg figures for a standard-cab two-wheel drive model), and also voicing skepticism over the real world fuel economy – which they will report on once they buy and test one.
Essentially, if Ford is to be believed, their standard cab, two wheel drive 2.7 liter does 1 mpg better than the competition. Period.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/11/2015-ford-f-150-fuel-economy-tops-competition/index.htm
So in summary, you’re upset because Ford engineers haven’t figured out how to violate the laws of physics.
I worry for Ford’s well being given that the F Series generates 75% to 88% of their global profit, and is therefore a make it or break it product for Ford, and because Ford spent billions going to all aluminum bodies and turbocharged mills (yet to be proven reliable), and spent 360 million in retooling costs per factory where aluminum body panel construction/assembly is to take place…
…yet there is marginal “official” improvement in fuel economy compared to competitors for all that expense and effort, which means GM and RAM will be able to absolutely pile on the incentives relative to the new F Series, and undermine Ford’s profitability on its bread and butter vehicle.
By the way, Consumer Reports is both less than impressed with the new F150’s fuel economy (noting Ford quoted mpg figures for a standard-cab two-wheel drive model), and also voicing skepticism over the real world fuel economy – which they will report on once they buy and test one.
Essentially, if Ford is to be believed, their standard cab, two wheel drive 2.7 liter does 1 mpg better than the competition. Period.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/11/2015-ford-f-150-fuel-economy-tops-competition/index.htm
And more bad news for Ford.
GM can fasten aluminum panels at no additional costs, not having to retool its plants as Ford has to do:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20141124/OEM06/311249975/0?focus=
internal-anhomemostright&COAuthOred=1%3A473556215419817%
3A423310%3A17%3A24%3Aapproved%3A25B6A1A0AAF
Richard Truett
Automotive News
November 24, 2014 – 12:01 am ET
DETROIT — “General Motors is adding more lightweight aluminum to its vehicles. But unlike Ford Motor Co., GM is not spending hundreds of millions of dollars to retool its assembly plants for the metal.
Instead of joining aluminum parts with rivets and industrial adhesive — as Ford does to assemble the redesigned 2015 F-150 — GM is rolling out a new welding system.
GM’s system spot welds aluminum sheet, such as doors, hoods and tailgates, on existing production lines with the same robots and welding guns used for steel.
Ford, on the other hand, spent $359 million and lost 10 weeks of production this fall when it converted its Dearborn, Mich., F-150 plant from steel to aluminum for the 2015 model. Early next year, Ford plans to make the same expensive switch at its Kansas City, Mo., truck plant.”
WHat I wonder about is where you guys get the impression that 80% of Ford profits come from one product in essentially one market. Pretty much like over at FCA where supposedly only RAM and maybe a Jeep drive all profits. These are huge companies with a global footprint. If Ford USA went down tomorrow, the rest of Ford could carry the torch and still produce and develop cars and still be one of the major makes of the world.
As Europe is slowly coming back and should have a much better year next year, I wonder if this meme will go on.
That came from a Morgan Stanley report a few years ago. They were an analyst’s estimate, not directly from Ford. The number has been used by every news outlet that prints anything about the F-series so it has become fact. It also was printed at a time where only Ford’s US operations were making any money. They weren’t making any money on cars at that time either.
Regardless of what the exact percentage is, Ford is more dependent on the F-series (F150, Super Duty, Navigator, Expedition), than other car makers are on any product line. But to be fair, that is a huge product line with tons of permutations.
The rise of the CUV has also helped Ford’s global profitablity.
Thanks for the clarification bball. And those things are those things. In Brazilian makes, due to the oscillating nature of the exchange rate and the writing off of investments, results have not been good over the last few years. On paper. In reality, it’s not hard to understand why we are going from an installed capacity of a little under 4 million a couple years back to around 6.6 in a couple of year (maybe even 7.3 if they build to full extension).
I realize that you have this OCD thing about Ford, but it would help if you’d learn just a wee bit about science.
The fuel economy improvements are necessary because of CAFE compliance and marketplace demands for fuel economy.
Weight reduction is the only feasible way to achieve those gains in the short run without alienating the customer (since reductions in power output will not be tolerated by the consumer.)
The laws of physics dictate the benefits of a given amount of weight reduction.
It’s that simple. I’m sorry that removing a few hundred pounds from the vehicle doesn’t cut fuel consumption in half or by some amount that pleases you, but engineers have to obey the laws of physics, even as some posters on the internet defy the laws of logic.
Have you ever heard of…
Aerodynamics?
Drag coefficient?
Parasitic drivetrain losses?
etc? For starters?
Aerodynamics won’t help much here. A truck is a brick that drags a bed behind it that is inherently bad for fuel economy.
If you think that the automakers are deliberately increasing the thermal inefficiency or drivetrain losses that are inherent to the technology, then you’re even more nuts than I had thought. They aren’t in a position to just magically reduce those inefficiencies — there is no 100 mpg fuel injector hidden in some warehouse at Area 51.
Weight reduction is the most obvious way to improve fuel economy without reducing performance. There aren’t very many ways to reduce the weight for a given size of vehicle.
The gains that Ford has made are on par with what should expect for that amount of weight reduction. Physics are what they are.
Twice yesterday I tried explaning that like their semi brethern, Ford trucks are a lot more aerodynamic than they look, and twice the spam filter shot me down.
Ford was a pioneer in automotive aerodynamics 30 years ago; I can’t believe you all still think they haven’t figured out how in 30 years how to make a truck more slippery without making it look like a Taurus.
Everyone is working parasitic losses, 6+ speed transmissions, start/stop, cylinder deactiviation, you name it.
Well, that worked, so let me push my luck one more time — there is more to aerodynamics nowdays than the pointy Taurus shape, vehicle noses are more rounded in three dimensions, they are basically shaped like a flattened quarter of a sphere. That is why the headlights are pulled so far back.
Ford realized that truck buyers did not go for the rounded “Taurus truck” of 1997-2003; so they are rounding the nose in more subtile ways. That nose and grill are not as flat as they look.
The performance gains are the most dramatic (including payload etc), if it’s drama you’re after. And it usually is. Acceleration, braking, cornering are greatly impacted by weight, even if fuel consumption isn’t. Just reducing the weight of a Mustang GT or Boss 302 by 300 lbs would have killer effect. Again, not so much in fuel consumption.
I am coming to the conclusion that there is very little difference between Ford and GM.
I’m still confused about why everyone is hung up on fuel economy being the driving force behind the weight savings. Even Ford’s PR videos state that the weight savings has been transferred to payload capacity increases. I have yet to read anything that FORD promotes that says that this new truck will have substantial MPG increases over the previous generation.
I think most of the B&B jumped to a huge conclusion in thinking that Ford was aiming solely for improved fuel efficiency. I personally believe that the slight increase was incidental.
Yep, moving the bar up, going forward have nothing to do with it, it seems. Sigh.
HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH HA AH HA!!!!!
Now that Ford’s billions all-in on aluminum gambit failed its primary purpose, IT’S SUDDENLY ABOUT OTHER METRICS!
HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH HA AH HA!!!!!
Put Edsel vanity plates on it (while trying to discount it to keep up with Silverados & RAMs, which will inevitably mean losing money for Ford and bleeding cash.
As much of a gamble as this has been, I would certainly think that the collective group of marketing powers that research demographics and new technology reception are a metric shit-ton smarter than anyone behind an open web message board username.
By extension, I also defintely don’t think that a risk this large would have been taken if they didn’t know exactly what direction they were headed or how well it would be received when it got there. This is not the platform to take risks with, and I’m positive that they know that.
It’s never as simple as it seems DW, and primary purposes are just that, primary. After primary there are secondary, tertiary and on an on. Companies such as Ford never do something for just one reason.
Why do I get the feeling that DeadWeight isn’t unbiased?
Seriously, I think this may turn out to be a massive Ford FU
FU as in F__k Up or F__k U?
I do believe that PR hacks were the ones that turned the whole 2015 F150 transition into some sort of quantum leap surrounding mpg.
As others have stated – we don’t want to loose performance i.e. power to get better mpg. Ford cannot shrink the “footprint” since CAFE is square foot footprint based AND we like BIG trucks.
Ford had the heaviest truck.
What other choice did they have?
Cue Big Al and the global Ranger BUT…….. remember my footprint comment.
The overall market for trucks will go down over a period of time as they get more expensive and more complex to meet the new federal guidelines. Manufacturers will continue to make money from their trucks but the percentage of the profit will go down as will the percentage of the market. It would not surprise me if the overall sales of F series trucks decrease by 100k over the next 5 years, but GM and Ram will decrease as well as they have to spend more money developing and producing trucks that meet the federal guidelines. I don’t think you can just single Ford out on this without looking at the entire truck segment and the potential effect of the new regulations on the cost and demand for trucks in the future. This would be an interesting topic for Cain to write about.
I just read Motor Trend’s comparo of the new F-150 against Silverado and RAM. What a lot of the so-called B&B here don’t realize is that the AL F-150 is still a heavy beast –4900 pounds according to MT’s numbers. Repeat, 4900 pounds.
It’s not a Fiesta. It’s TWO Fiestas.
So, coupled with the fact that it has the aerodynamics of a brick, why aren’t you celebrating the fuel economy this kind of monster gets?
Also, I suspect that it’s slightly (or very) overengineered, Ford no doubt wanting to quiet the skeptics about the durability of the aluminum body. This is Gen 1; the engineers will find more fat to squeeze out of the organism as they learn more.