2015 F-150 - First Drive Report

  • Thread starter Slash
  • 348 comments
  • 25,346 views
The Ram
Keef
BtKBZnbCMAACFVE.jpg



Last review I watched, the Ford was walking on everybody.
Click to expand...
The Ram 3500 HD beat the F450 SD in the last pickuptruck.com test at Davis Dam and Eisenhower tunnel.The GM was the best in the 2011 comparison test.The biggest issue with the Ford SD is the poor exhaust braking.
 
RocZX
Click to expand...

That was really interesting! It really shows the horsepower problems with diesels as the RPMs rise. When it comes to extreme weight stump pulling a diesel will win every time but they're simply not good at accelerating quickly. A tool for every purpose. However, I'd like to see the fuel mileage of the two trucks compared because I'd probably lean toward buying the diesel Ram simply because it's a diesel.

Also, the Chevy demonstrates the differences between forced induction and natural aspiration. The temperature fluctuates considerably where that test took place and the turbo engine had an advantage in it, being able to pack the thinner air into the engine. When the air cooled down it switched back to the V8. The reason is because the V8 really is more powerful, but the turbo engine is able to maintain its power no matter the environment unlike the naturally aspirated engine. Also, GM V8s tend to pack a bigger punch than the numbers suggest.

On the surface this really does look like an honest test highlighting the benefits of each engine type. Pretty neat.
 
Keef
Of note is the fact that GM's engine scheme is more cost-effective for the company and neither of their V8s, the 5.3 and 6.2, are lacking in technology. Ford has chosen to go a different route. However, has has heavily innovated in the chassis area, obviously. This truck is saddled with around 700 fewer pounds than GM's trucks. The benefit should be massive.
Click to expand...

The weird thing is, right around 2008/2009, GM was putting together the turbo V6 we have today in the Cadillacs, as well as a small diesel V6 that would have gone in the CTS and probably the Silverado as well. They had the chance to move things forward. Things got hairy, programs got canceled, and now they've fallen behind. Even though they're promising year-on-year updates to be competitive, they did the same thing with the Malibu, and that's had middling results at best. It may be a sales contender, but it is a hollow victory when you're winning on low prices and good content, not engineering expertise.

I'd say give it a year, we'll see that 3.6T in the Silverado, or they'll do it as some kind of special Sierra just to test the waters. We've still got a way to go until the new diesel V8 shows up, but I'm guessing we'll just see another revision based on that 2011 redesign. Otherwise, its more of GM just saying "We've got regular trucks that do regular things, do you really want something that fancy?" And that kind of think can only work for so long...
 
YSSMAN
I'd say give it a year, we'll see that 3.6T in the Silverado, or they'll do it as some kind of special Sierra just to test the waters.
Click to expand...
I'm not up on that engine very well but is it capable of pushing the low-end torque these Ecobooms are capable of? These days it's usually a matter of tuning but the Cadillac application seems more performance-oriented.

We've still got a way to go until the new diesel V8 shows up, but I'm guessing we'll just see another revision based on that 2011 redesign. Otherwise, its more of GM just saying "We've got regular trucks that do regular things, do you really want something that fancy?" And that kind of think can only work for so long...
Click to expand...
I'm kind of surprised it's worked this long. They keep advancing those engines though, slowly but surely, and it's proven pretty cost effective in terms of sticking with the same basic principles. The only problem is that they're not practical for passenger cars. Whereas Ford has the 2.7T which would be perfectly at home in a Fusion as well as an F150, you can't very well get that sort of all-roundedness by stuffing a 5.3 V8 in a Malibu. The V8s are useful in the trucks and performance cars but that's it.
 
That's very interesting that the Ram diesel has that lift off at the start. Mostly due to the low RPM torque of diesel engines. Now back to a diesel in an F-150. In my eyes that is not very cost effective for the range of customers that buy F-150's. However, in commercial cases I think it should at least be an option for those types of customers as they deal with more difficult, heavier things, than a normal consumer will. But with diesel topping $4/GAL. I'm not sure if that's something someone would buy as an everyday car. 30 gallons of diesel is $120; compared to regular gas which for 30 gallons is $103.50 My last word here; Ask yourself "How much am I realistically gonna tow or haul?" (Payload too)

EDIT:
(And for the people who think it's ugly, it's just the movement "forward". So get over it) :P
 
Diesel fuel is actually the same price if not cheaper than 93 octane here in Ohio. The problem with diesel sales isn't the price of fuel in most states, it's the price premium of the car itself. If car companies cared about selling more diesels they'd take a price hit to move them off the floor but they don't so they try to make up for the lower production numbers by charging more. The reason they don't care much is because the perception of diesels is still poor here in the States.

Why the perception is still poor I'm not sure. Propaganda ads will tell you that diesel fuel is hard to find. Really? Seventy-five percent of gas stations here in Dayton have diesel, most of them at the same pump as the gasoline. To boot, you can go way further before you have to "find" a station anyway. Also, people are told that diesel fuel is more expensive than gas and at the moment it simply isn't.

I haven't seen very heavy advertising for the few diesels that are offered either so the good word isn't getting out.
 
Agreed.
Why has diesel fuel been more expensive than gasoline?
On-highway diesel fuel prices have been higher than regular gasoline prices almost continuously since September 2004, a break from the historical pattern of diesel fuel prices usually being lower than gasoline prices except in cold winters when demand for heating oil pushed diesel fuel prices higher. The main reasons why diesel fuel prices have been higher than gasoline prices in recent years are:

  • High worldwide demand for diesel fuel and other distillate fuel oils, especially in Europe, China, India, and the United States, and a tight global refining capacity available to meet demand during the period of high economic growth from 2002 to mid-2008.
  • The transition to less polluting, lower-sulfur diesel fuels in the United States affected diesel fuel production and distribution costs.
  • The Federal excise tax for on-highway diesel fuel of 24.4 cents/gallon is 6 cents per gallon higher the gasoline tax.
Click to expand...
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=9&t=9

My question is, why is the tax on diesel 6 cents higher, that makes no sense to me. I think the government would like us not to use it. These are the only reasons they can come up with on there website. "Due to world demand...". Why are we dependent on the "world", it should depend on domestic usage and production. Think of how many things use gas; lawn mowers, etc. and they say gas is totally fine. Some things just don't add up.

PS: Your lucky there in Ohio.
 
EF12345678
Agreed.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=9&t=9

My question is, why is the tax on diesel 6 cents higher, that makes no sense to me. I think the government would like us not to use it. These are the only reasons they can come up with on there website. "Due to world demand...". Why are we dependent on the "world", it should depend on domestic usage and production. Think of how many things use gas; lawn mowers, etc. and they say gas is totally fine. Some things just don't add up.

PS: Your lucky there in Ohio.
Click to expand...

Think of how many tings use diesel fuel. Millions of pickup trucks, every semi you see on the road, just about all construction equipment, trains, boats and passenger cars are getting more popular with diesel engines as well.

Luckily diesel is a about 10 cents cheaper than regular unleaded gasoline where I live. Last I checked diesel was $3.79 which is the cheapest it has been in a while, I remember when it was over $5/gallon, that was awful.
 
EF12345678
Agreed.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=9&t=9

My question is, why is the tax on diesel 6 cents higher, that makes no sense to me. I think the government would like us not to use it. These are the only reasons they can come up with on there website. "Due to world demand...". Why are we dependent on the "world", it should depend on domestic usage and production. Think of how many things use gas; lawn mowers, etc. and they say gas is totally fine. Some things just don't add up.

PS: Your lucky there in Ohio.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of diesel fuel is used commercially by heavy trucks and equipment. The logic goes that these vehicles put more wear and tear on infrastructure (which they do) so their tax is higher. A problem arises when non-commercial light vehicles need to use the same fuel. Jet fuel is a good example: It's kerosene. It's highly purified kerosene but it's still kerosene. It also averages $5.50 a gallon in the US. Kerosene averages more than a dollar cheaper for a product that simply isn't filtered as thoroughly, but doesn't have to endure FAA regulation and taxes.

A cost/benefit study needs to be done on to see if the increased revenue from selling diesel to more cars at a lower price would offset the extra tax that is levied currently.
Slash
The fact that its a byproduct of gasoline makes me wonder even more.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily a byproduct. Pretty much all petroleum-based fuels come out of the exact same refining tank. Like molten metal, they're created at different temperatures and thus form at different levels of the tank. Equipment is complex these days but the basic components of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc are simply syphoned off the same barrel of crude at different temperatures. After that, additives are added to make what actually gets burned in an engine.
 
Keef
I'm not up on that engine very well but is it capable of pushing the low-end torque these Ecobooms are capable of? These days it's usually a matter of tuning but the Cadillac application seems more performance-oriented.
Click to expand...

That V6 hits peak torque at 3500 RPM and peak BHP at 5750 RPM, so, its a bit peaky compared to what would probably be needed. The Cadillac V6 has more horsepower (420), but the torque is the same (420) as the 3.5L EcoBoost. The Ford hits peak torque at 2500 RPM and peak BHP at 5000 RPM, making it a bit more usable when towing. Nothing that a recalibration of the Cadillac V6 wouldn't be able to do, but, I'm not sure if GM would be willing to make that kind of investment if the current one is "good enough."


Keef
The only problem is that they're not practical for passenger cars. Whereas Ford has the 2.7T which would be perfectly at home in a Fusion as well as an F150, you can't very well get that sort of all-roundedness by stuffing a 5.3 V8 in a Malibu. The V8s are useful in the trucks and performance cars but that's it.
Click to expand...

GM needs an entirely new lineup of a lot of things, and that starts with more turbo everything. They do have their new three and four cylinder engines on the way for models as early as 2016, but, I don't have a clue if they'll be class leading. At this point, it just seems like they're chasing after Ford when necessary, but not going too far out of the box with the higher performance applications. Across the board their powertrains are at best, well, all right. I'm still shocked they haven't cranked up the power in the 1.4T that goes in the Sonic and Cruze, as well as the strong-selling Encore. I'm surprised they haven't shoved the 2.0T in more vehicles. But, that's GM. If they can squeak by on mostly okay stuff, they'll do it. Or, they'll offer something crazy awesome, not market it well, and then drop it due to "lack of interest."
 
Prices for 2015 F150
TruckYeah.Jalopnik
Base prices and configurations have been confirmed, with the highest-trim trucks commanding a $3,000 premium from last year.But every variant has more new features than aluminum construction.

Here's the breakdown of each 2015 Ford F-150 standard trim setups and everynew standard feature for next year. This is not an exhaustive list of toys on these trucks; just what's been added to the base-price configuration for 2015. Prices include $1,195 "destination and delivery" charge, which is unchanged from 2014.

XL (base work truck)
MSRP: $26,615 incl. destination & delivery (up $395 from 2014)
Standard Configuration: Regular cab, rear-wheel drive, 6.5' bed.
New Standard Features For 2015: 4.2" LCD screen in center stack, 2.3" screen in instrument cluster. Telescoping steering wheel, two extra speakers, spotter mirror, extra grab handle.

XLT (slightly nicer work truck, USAToday says it's the best-selling trim)
MSRP: $31,890 incl. destination & delivery (up $395 from 2014)
Standard Configuration: Regular cab, rear-wheel drive, 6.5' bed.
New Standard Features For 2015: Everything from XL plus– BoxLink (adjustable tie-down anchors in bed, reinforcements to cargo box, power tailgate lock.

Lariat (entry-luxury truck)
MSRP: $39,880 incl. destination & delivery (up $895 from 2014)
Standard Configuration: Extended cab, rear-wheel drive, 6.5' bed.
New Standard Features For 2015: Everything from XLT plus– 8" LCD screen in instrument cluster, LED bed lighting, heated and cooled seats, power folding mirrors, rear-view camera.

King Ranch (swanky-cowboy truck)
MSRP: $49,460 incl. destination & delivery (up $3,515 from 2014)
Standard Configuration: Crew cab, rear-wheel drive, 5.5' bed.
New Standard Features For 2015: Everything from Lariat plus– LED headlights and taillights, mirror spotlights, more LED cargo lighting, two 400 watt power inverters (AC plugs) blind-spot indicators, push-button start.

Platinum (modern-fancy truck)
MSRP: $52,155 incl. destination & delivery (up $3,055 from 2014)
Standard Configuration: Crew cab, rear-wheel drive, 5.5' bed.
New Standard Features For 2015: Everything King Ranch got plus– inflatable rear seat belt, multi-contour massaging front seats, real wood interior pieces, heated rear seats, heated steering wheel.

Engines

The 3.7 V6 is being dropped as standard equipment altogether in place of a new 3.5 V6. Upgrading from the new base engine to the premium 3.5 EcoBoost turbocharged V6 will cost an additional $1,995. Moving from the old 3.7 to the EcoBoost in 2014 was $100 more than that.

Going from the new base 3.5 to the also-new 2.7 EcoBoost will be a $495 upgrade. The 6.2 V8 is no longer an option for the F-150.

Naturally, 4x4 and long-bed options will increase base price for all trims.
Click to expand...

TruckYeah.Jalopnik
 
Not an overly glowing review, but, it sounds like they're nearly leaning toward calling the F-150 the best pickup in the segment. I'm not entirely surprised on that front, particularly when the truck is (on paper) leagues ahead of the competition. But, there were some things that stood out:

Car and Driver
For all the toys and gizmos, though, the F-150 doesn’t have it all. There are no adaptive dampers, the six-speed automatic transmission is the same as before, and there’s no sign of a hybrid or diesel powertrain on the horizon. This is the price of the massive upfront investment required to develop an aluminum architecture.
Click to expand...

Again, not a huge surprise. Where the Silverado seemed like a simple upgrade, but packed in a ton of options, it still seems like a smart-ish move despite the futuristic by comparison F-150. The Ram on the other hand has been all about steady progress and growth in the segment, and with them upping the EcoDiesel production by another 10% of sales for 2015, it demonstrates them listening to the market - what a novel concept!

And then there is this...

Car and Driver
Despite aluminum’s cost premium over steel, Ford kept price increases for its F-150 to less than $500 in some cases, but that doesn’t temper the shock of just how expensive full-size trucks have become. We drove a low-spec four-door XLT model with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6, cloth seats, rear-wheel drive, and relatively few creature comforts that carried a sticker price of $42,875. That’s a problem that doesn’t plague just Ford, but the entire full-size-truck segment.
Click to expand...

...And that's exactly why we need the Colorado/Canyon, and why both Ford and FCA should consider giving us some midsize trucks here in the US.

fiat_strada_dupla1.jpg


Hey Fiat! Gib, gib, gib!
 
$43k crew cab with the V6... what am I missing? My dad got a brand new Silverado crew cab for $21k in 2011.
 
Slash
Lol the lightest truck weighs less than a Charger
Click to expand...

A quick Google search shows a '69 Ford F100 weighed 3,060lbs for a cab & chassis model, 3,380 lbs for the flareside and 3,440 lbs for the "styleside." A '69 Charger weighed 3,103 lbs for the base six cylinder and 3,671 lbs for the SE/500 models.

So even in 1969 the lightest Ford 1/2 ton weighed less than a Charger.

Sources: Charger, F100.
 
All the way up into the late 1990s the lightest full sized trucks weighed less than the lightest full size cars, since they were roughly the same size with roughly the same drivetrains, but trucks had about a third of their footprint be air. Full size cars then generally shrank in size (coinciding with the big BoF cars dying out) and trucks gradually got a bit larger.
 
Keef
That was really interesting! It really shows the horsepower problems with diesels as the RPMs rise. When it comes to extreme weight stump pulling a diesel will win every time but they're simply not good at accelerating quickly. A tool for every purpose. However, I'd like to see the fuel mileage of the two trucks compared because I'd probably lean toward buying the diesel Ram simply because it's a diesel.

Also, the Chevy demonstrates the differences between forced induction and natural aspiration. The temperature fluctuates considerably where that test took place and the turbo engine had an advantage in it, being able to pack the thinner air into the engine. When the air cooled down it switched back to the V8. The reason is because the V8 really is more powerful, but the turbo engine is able to maintain its power no matter the environment unlike the naturally aspirated engine. Also, GM V8s tend to pack a bigger punch than the numbers suggest.

On the surface this really does look like an honest test highlighting the benefits of each engine type. Pretty neat.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. my 2500 Ram with the 5.9 i6 TD (1999) isn't meant for speed. A lot of people don't understand how the diesels work and how to drive them. Going over 2,000 RPM just sucks the diesel like no one's business... But 2,000 RPM in its highest gear is at 70 mph (74 with the 2" larger tires I have[much better fuel efficiency too]) and I don't live in Texas by that 80 mph road so there is no reason for speed in a diesel. And that works for both empty, and pulling 2 ton trailer with over 5 tons of wood.

Average mpg is around 18-19 which is not bad for a 15 year old truck. Seeing how all these manufactures claim their fuel mpg though is what irks me. My neighbor just got a new 5.7 hemi Ram and gets 19-21. I find that trucks nowadays have too much stuff that's not needed.

I mean, look at this polka-dot rainbow interior
1112dp_11%2Bthe_stocker%2Binterior_shot.jpg


I don't use it to haul groceries so I couldn't care what cool LCD screens they have in them, but I wonder what the cabin weight of this is to some of the newer production trucks... The console split is something that I don't like from trucks either... wasted space with added weight imo..

And the cost for the same truck as I have now for the new model is around $65k+.... vs. $29k new when my dad bought his.
 
I don't understand how america buys these Trucks with Petrol engines, who gives a crap about HP when torque is literally the only thing that matters.​

A twin turbo 2.5L Diesel would be common sense.

Right now its like have a 2.7L turbo petrol or a 5L V8 but if you want a deisel then 6.2L it is lmao.

And it's not like Ford doesn't have any other Diesel engines that could take from other cars it sells around the world, the 3.2L Turbo Diesel in the International Ranger would be more then enough tbh.

Diesel is better for the enviornment as well when you compare similar sized engines with similar power, the diesel pollutes more at the same MPG but a diesel is roughly 20% more fuel efficient then its petrol equlivent offsetting that.

In UK, cars are tax free if they produce less then 100kg of C02 and the vast majority of cars that are in this zone are diesel.
 
Last edited:
mustafur
I don't understand how america buys these Trucks with Petrol engines, who gives a crap about HP when torque is literally the only thing that matters.

A twin turbo 2.5L Diesel would be common sense.

Right now its like have a 2.7L turbo petrol or a 5L V8 but if you want a deisel then 6.2L it is lmao.

Diesel is better for the enviornment as well when you compare similar sized engines with similar power, the diesel pollutes more at the same MPG but a diesel is roughly 20% more fuel efficient then its petrol equlivent offsetting that.

In UK cars are tax free if they produce less then 100kg of C02 and the vast majority of cars that are in this zone are diesel.
Click to expand...

Thankfully Americans are starting to wake up and realize the benefits of the diesel engine. Dodge offers the new Ram with a 3.0 V6 diesel and that model is selling like hotcakes so I fully expect the GM and Ford trucks with smaller diesel engines (whenever they release) to sell very well too.

Personally, I couldn't own a truck without a diesel engine.
 
peobryant
Thankfully Americans are starting to wake up and realize the benefits of the diesel engine. Dodge offers the new Ram with a 3.0 V6 diesel and that model is selling like hotcakes so I fully expect the GM and Ford trucks with smaller diesel engines (whenever they release) to sell very well too.
Click to expand...

There were development plans back in 08/09 for a V6 diesel for the Silverado, which would have stemmed from the unit that was being developed for the second-generation Cadillac CTS. But, the company nearly collapsed, fuel prices went sky-high, and the project was canned. The GM truck folks have said repeatedly that they don't think they'll do a diesel in the Silverado/Sierra 1500, mostly because they'll be offering that 2.8L unit in the Colorado/Canyon. But, hey... Anything can happen.
 

Similar threads

ProjectWHaT
Ariel Hipercar EV
Replies
9
Views
1K
ProjectWHaT
ProjectWHaT
Famine
Ford RS200 to Return as a Modern “Remaster” to Celebrate 40th Anniversary
Replies
20
Views
5K
CTznOfTime
CTznOfTime
S
Is your car in the game?
2 3
Replies
88
Views
5K
TechnoIsLove
TechnoIsLove
Ryxter88
Ford F-150 SVT Raptor Actually Automatic??
Replies
0
Views
809
Ryxter88
Ryxter88
Kenzel
Ford SVT F-150 Lightning '03
Replies
0
Views
837
Kenzel
Kenzel

Latest Posts

Back