Aluminum F150??? 2015 revealed.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Honest question. Can you buy any car now with out AC or electric windows? Last car I got with manual windows and locks was my 2001 Focus. I wanted a yellow one and A/C was a must. It just happened that the only Yellow one in stock in all of SE Michigan at the time ( needed a new car so couldn't order one) was manual locks and windows. At the time I thought that was cool, but by the time I got rid of it I wish I'd had power windows, locks and mirrors, it was a pain without.

We got one of our shop trucks sans power windows and door locks.

My Step dad bought a new Kia without AC.

so yes

Vigo wrote: Kinda surprised how we got 3 pages and almost no discussion about the 2.7 ecoboost. Supposedly it might get rated up there with the the 3.0 ram, 'close to 30' mpg hwy. I want to know how it drives. But honestly, i kind of hope it doesnt get rated high enough to steal the EcoDiesel Ram's thunder. The ecodiesel ram needs time to sink in and get some momentum going for small diesels in half-ton (or smaller!) pickups. I feel like a 28+hwy mpg 2.7 Ford would be ill-gotten gains if it stifles enthusiasm for small diesels in pickups.

Too late.

I am a hardcore ford guy and after dealing with the ones at work (2013/2014 model F150s and F250s) I am not particularly favoring Ford either. The LS/LQ engines are very attractive and the interiors in all but the King Ranch favor the Chevy.

Given most everything on a vehicle is sub contracted I don't really have much brand loyalty.

Vigo wrote: Kinda surprised how we got 3 pages and almost no discussion about the 2.7 ecoboost. Supposedly it might get rated up there with the the 3.0 ram, 'close to 30' mpg hwy. I want to know how it drives. But honestly, i kind of hope it doesnt get rated high enough to steal the EcoDiesel Ram's thunder. The ecodiesel ram needs time to sink in and get some momentum going for small diesels in half-ton (or smaller!) pickups. I feel like a 28+hwy mpg 2.7 Ford would be ill-gotten gains if it stifles enthusiasm for small diesels in pickups.

Wait, so you're hoping the 2.7 is not too good, so that the diesel in the Ram can be successful? Who cares what kind of ignition the engine has if it delivers a good combo of torque, fuel economy, and power? And I guarantee that the 2.7 will be significantly cheaper than the Ecodiesel.

I swear, the diesel thing is like a religion with some of you guys.

In reply to Flight Service:

Same as the ford guys I work with. Two are buying dodges and one a Chev. Of the dodge guys, one would prefer the Chev, but the price difference is $8k.

Flight Service wrote: Too late.

How exactly does that "stifle enthusiasm for small diesels in pickups" ? I think you misunderstood my point.

Wait, so you're hoping the 2.7 is not too good, so that the diesel in the Ram can be successful? Who cares what kind of ignition the engine has if it delivers a good combo of torque, fuel economy, and power? And I guarantee that the 2.7 will be significantly cheaper than the Ecodiesel.

I like choices. I like that a half ton diesel EXISTS. What's it to you if the 2.7 is rated 26 or 27? You wouldn't buy it? I'm certainly not hoping it will be as TERRIBLE as the mere 25mpg hwy of Dodge's v6 option. The horror! Don't take things out of proportion.

It might prove to be a good truck to gut and make a racer of.

N Sperlo wrote: I'm pulling for the 2.7 just to spite you.

Cheaper fuel + no DEF wharrgarbl + similar fuel economy = turbo DI gas engine wins.

It's not about the toooorrrrque anymore either - DI gas engines can make the same torque for a given displacement. DI is allowing the kind of cylinder pressures required without detonation or excessive NOx, and it doesn't require an emissions train that almost leaves no room for a muffler to do it. Ain't techonology grand?

To be fair, the reason why diesel engines have generally been able to make so much torque when modified is because they were built ridiculously heavy. With better engine management they can now be built lighter and revved higher so that they can have more usable powerbands without breaking at low rpm. But if you built a gas motor to be 'detonation proof' by making every moving part weigh 50 lbs you'd be able to make ridiculous torque and be rpm limited just like an old diesel. I dont think the torque ability has much to do with gas vs diesel to begin with. But, i'm open to learning something new.

It doesn't - Diesels were traditionally built heavier-duty because of the clangity-hammery way that they ran, and gasoline engines, with their more refined and mannerly combustion, didn't require such nonsense Notable exceptions being outliers like old Audi turbo engines, which were built with remarkably diesel-like stoutness to their bottom ends. I don't think anyone in the history of the world has bent a 10-valve Turbo connecting rod. Some people say that such an engine is good for 500+lb/ft but I protest that it is impossible to actually move enough air into the engine to make that much torque.

But the times, they a-change, and today you will find 2-liter gasoline engines that make more torque than 2-liter diesel engines. Granted, it's shifted higher up in the range, but that's another case of because they can do that, as opposed to how diesels can't due to the limitations of combustion. If they wanted to, they could make a 110hp monster torque engine, but why? There are much cheaper ways of making so little power...

The 100 percent increase in compression might have something to do with the extra torque.

With diesel running about $.50 a gal more than gas I am pretty much over my desire to own a small diesel truck.

I dunno... I feel that there is room in the market for both a small turbo diesel and a small turbo gas engine. There might be some buyer overlap but more choices is certainly not a bad thing. I'm just happy that someone is trying both, even if they don't become wildly successful. Competition breeds innovation and the full size truck market is ultra competitive.

I used to be a diehard Ford guy. Like retarded fanboi diehard. Then for whatever reason, I bought a Dodge. Granted it was a 2005 Magnum RT but I was impressed. Then I bought a 2011 Ram. It was a basic truck - single cab, 2wd with a Hemi. I was blown away. Now I have a new Wrangler. I guess I don't really have a brand preference now.

That being said, I'd like a crew cab, 4x4, 2.7T, XLT in green please

Wally wrote: With diesel running about $.50 a gal more than gas I am pretty much over my desire to own a small diesel truck.

Exactly. The old reasons to own a diesel as I see them were: 1. better cost b/c mileage 2. torque 3. Fuel availability in unimproved areas (foreign use / overlanding / etc)

The calculations I ran recently with local fuel prices tell me that I would have to drive 30,000 miles per year to break even on a financed truck with a $2,500 upcharge for diesel. Not happening.

We covered the shrinking torque gap.

The ability to run crap fuel in a diesel to get by in ultra remote places has been gone for some time. Especially with the DEF requirements now, US market diesels are harder to get fuel for then gas. In today's world any place you can drive to will have some source for regular unleaded.

I agree that engine tech is just on the cusp of a high-mileage truck revolution. The outgoing 150s were the first model in, what, 20 years to offer a notable mileage improvement over the outgoing trucks? Now the new model will again boost mileage. In ten years I suspect we will look back at the 2015s and wonder how we lived with such pitiful mileage, like we do now with the late 70s / early eighties trucks. The technology coming on line now is as big a game changer as fuel injection was over carb and, like that, it will take a few years to reach its potential.

Any guesses on HP/TQ/economy for the 2.7? I read that they claim HP/TQ of a mid-range v8, so that puts us where, about 300hp/330tq? Is that possible? I based those ##'s off GM's 5.3. Economy for 2wd, 20/26?, 4wd 18/24?

I didn't like it last night, but saw that dark grey one, and it looked much better. I love that they reduced the weight so dramatically, but I'll add to those who believe that they are just getting bigger and bigger- wishing they would make a ranger about the size of a '96 F150 with this 2.7.

I saw a quote of 300HP on the 2.7 but I don't remember where, or if it was speculation or a Ford comment.

mad_machine wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote:

theenico wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: Hmm... I do hate TPMS, but that sure as hell isn't Ford's fault.

Not sure if sarcasm or not. The whole Ford/Firestone debacle is what got the ball rolling on federally mandated TPMS for everyone.

Something else probably would have come along to make that happen anyhow. And not fer nuthin, but that whole thing was about 5% Ford, 25% Firestone, and 75% idiots driving overloaded vehicles at too-high speeds with too-low tire pressures. And I'm being generous to the idiots.

I -still- see idiots driving around in explorers with the sidewalls on the tyres all chewed up from driving underinflated. Question with the new truck.. is it the same size as the outgoing 150? I wonder if Ford continues to make a bigger truck, they might return a smaller ranger to our shores?

Back when the whole issue was happening, I used to get a kick out of seeing pictures of rolled Explorers with tires other than Firestones on them. I blame Ford for specifying 27psi on the tire placard in the door jamb. Combine that with the typically inattentive driver who rarely checks their pressures and voila! Firestone gets thrown under the bus by Ford in front of Congress.

The Ecoboost 3.5 has 365 hp and 420 ft lbs in the F150. A bit less torque in the Taurus SHO. Supposedly because the trans can't handle that torque output. Mpg from Fueleconomy.gov is at 16/22.

The Ecoboost 2.7 with a full liter less of displacement? My guess would be 300 hp and 350 ft lbs. I predict mpg will come in at 18/26-27. If they hit 30 mpg I'll be amazed.

Vigo wrote:

Flight Service wrote: Too late.

How exactly does that "stifle enthusiasm for small diesels in pickups" ? I think you misunderstood my point.

I believe you are right, my bad.

Xceler8x wrote: The Ecoboost 3.5 has 365 hp and 420 ft lbs in the F150. A bit less torque in the Taurus SHO. Supposedly because the trans can't handle that torque output.

The transmission/transfer case can hold the torque, its just the differences between the two's packaging. Transverse vs Longitudinal mounting often means the only thing in common is the long block.

so the body work is aluminum to prevent rust. when i lived up north, if the truck wasnt riotted off the fraame, the frame was rotted in half.

also, what about galvanic action making grounds/body bolts/etc that much more fragile?

and im shocked by upper 20's out of a truck. i remmeber my stripper 97 dakota 6cyl 5 speed 3.08 truck barely breaking 21 and getting super excited. my tweaked s10 got 30 a couple of times and i thought that was record worthy.

Dusterbd13 wrote: so the body work is aluminum to prevent rust. when i lived up north, if the truck wasnt riotted off the fraame, the frame was rotted in half. also, what about galvanic action making grounds/body bolts/etc that much more fragile? and im shocked by upper 20's out of a truck. i remmeber my stripper 97 dakota 6cyl 5 speed 3.08 truck barely breaking 21 and getting super excited. my tweaked s10 got 30 a couple of times and i thought that was record worthy.

The goal of the aluminum body panels is weight savings, not corrosion resistance. Good point about the galvanic action, I would hope they have dealt with that.

I'm also skeptical about the mileage. EPA numbers and real-world numbers rarely seem to coincide, especially in trucks.

Tom_Spangler wrote: I'm also skeptical about the mileage. EPA numbers and real-world numbers rarely seem to coincide, especially in trucks.

I think this has a lot to do with the "low" speeds seen in the EPA tests vs. typical highway cruising at 65-75mph. The large CdA of a truck is going to make the difference between 55mph and 75mph HUGE.

yamaha wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: The Ecoboost 3.5 has 365 hp and 420 ft lbs in the F150. A bit less torque in the Taurus SHO. Supposedly because the trans can't handle that torque output.

The transmission/transfer case can hold the torque, its just the differences between the two's packaging. Transverse vs Longitudinal mounting often means the only thing in common is the long block.

???

The trans in the SHO is totally different than the one in the F150. To the point where one is more torque limted than the other. I know that for sure.

ProDarwin wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote: I'm also skeptical about the mileage. EPA numbers and real-world numbers rarely seem to coincide, especially in trucks.

I think this has a lot to do with the "low" speeds seen in the EPA tests vs. typical highway cruising at 65-75mph. The large CdA of a truck is going to make the difference between 55mph and 75mph HUGE.

FWIW, the new sticker calculation is based off 5 different tests, one of which goes up to 80mph. Totally insane driver, but still, 80mph.

Or I should say should be based on 5 different tests.

Either way, way, way. way closer than the Euro test is in predicting real world fuel economy.

In reply to alfadriver:

But, the sho's have held up to alot more torque than stock.....hence why I don't believe the trans is why the torque rating on the sho is lower.

They have had some transfer case(or whatever they're using in the awd setup) failures with some abused cars, but no transmission issues I've caught wind of yet.