2015 F-150 - First Drive Report

[mustafur]

I'm actually quite astonished it has taken this long for gasoline trucks to get their fuel efficiency this high. My 23 year old dually with a 5.9L Cummins Turbo Diesel gets 25mpg at 65mph on the highway and that thing is basically a brick going down the road. Plus, the EcoBoost in the current F-150 isn't get very close to the advertised mileage numbers in the real world so it will be interesting to see if this new engine will.

Because Cancer Fuel.

 

[Tornado]

If an FC had an Ecoboost it would probably pull 35

 

[Adamgp]

Because the truck's engine is more than twice as big and the truck itself is twice as heavy. The drag coefficient is twice as bad. The frontal area is twice as large (probably more). But it gets the same gas mileage. That is insane.

Technology is amazing, ain't it?

Plus, rotaries suck down the juice faster than me at an open bar.

 

[Keef]

If an FC had an Ecoboost it would probably pull 35

And be actually fast.

 

[Slash]

I know this is an older model F150, but this is kind of proof that you can make an economic full size half ton. This one has a Cummins 4BT (4 cylinder) turbo diesel and the owner says he averages about 30mpg. It also has around the same amount of power that the famous 300ci (4.9L) Inline 6 had, which everyone loves.

This was done with a much older body style which is less aerodynamic (and maybe even heavier) F250. There is absolutely NO reason why they can't get the MPG's and power they need out of these trucks with a similar setup as this, only brand new (possibly doing even better). Just an example of really where I personally think the base model trucks should be headed.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

*crackle*

@Omnis to Thread 3 for salt duty, @Omnis to Thread 3.

*crackle*

 

[mustafur]

I know this is an older model F150, but this is kind of proof that you can make an economic full size half ton. This one has a Cummins 4BT (4 cylinder) turbo diesel and the owner says he averages about 30mpg. It also has around the same amount of power that the famous 300ci (4.9L) Inline 6 had, which everyone loves.

This was done with a much older body style which is less aerodynamic (and maybe even heavier) F250. There is absolutely NO reason why they can't get the MPG's and power they need out of these trucks with a similar setup as this, only brand new (possibly doing even better). Just an example of really where I personally think the base model trucks should be headed.

I would say weight is probably a big Factor, currrent F series even the 150 would likely be significantly heavier with the added electronics and safety gear etc.

 

[Slash]

What's the new one weigh? That F250 in the picture is roughly 5,500.

 

[Parker]

According to the Google a '14 F-150 weighs between 4,685 lbs - 6113 lbs depending on trim and cab models. A '14 F-250 weighs between 5,940 lbs - 7,300 lbs depending on trim, cab and engine models.

30mpg is fairly easy to achieve with older trucks, especially with the 4BT or 6BT Cummins. My truck gets 25mpg and that is a dually with 3.54 gears. There are plenty of people who have swapped the 3.07 gears found in the '89 - early '91 non intercooled, automatic trucks into either the '91.5 - '93 trucks with the A518 overdrive automatic tranny or any year with the 5 speed manual and they've achieved 28-30mpg with little to no tuning.

The 4BT in a lighter vehicle like a Ranger or Ramcharger can get mid 30's with ease as well.

 

[Slash]

Exactly what I'm saying. Imagine what a modern revision would be able to do. They'd easily meet the current MPG regulations.

I did recently hear that Ford was exploring light duty Diesel engine options as well as other engine configurations.

 

[Omnis]

I know this is an older model F150, but this is kind of proof that you can make an economic full size half ton. This one has a Cummins 4BT (4 cylinder) turbo diesel and the owner says he averages about 30mpg. It also has around the same amount of power that the famous 300ci (4.9L) Inline 6 had, which everyone loves.

This was done with a much older body style which is less aerodynamic (and maybe even heavier) F250. There is absolutely NO reason why they can't get the MPG's and power they need out of these trucks with a similar setup as this, only brand new (possibly doing even better). Just an example of really where I personally think the base model trucks should be headed.

*crackle*

@Omnis to Thread 3 for salt duty, @Omnis to Thread 3.

*crackle*

Try making that **** box pass emissions.

 

[Slash]

Try making that **** box pass emissions.

Don't live in an emissions controlled state and its no problem haha. But that's not the point.

 

[Joel]

Don't live in an emissions controlled state and its no problem haha. But that's not the point.

It's exactly the point. You can't sell new cars that don't pass emissions.

"Why can't new Fords get good gas mileage like these old clunkers?"
"Because they have to pass emissions"
"Yeah but that's not the point".

Do you think Ford is purposely making their trucks thirstier for the lulz? Not to mention that you're comparing mileage for a 4 cylinder diesel to trucks with V6 or V8 gas engines standard. Of course the diesel will get better mileage, we may as well ask why other cars don't have as much torque as a Model S.

It's a ridiculous comparison. My dad's VW Touareg TDI gets ~30mpg, why can't they make all SUV's that fuel efficient? Maybe there's an argument that trucks should start having 4 and 6 cylinder turbodiesels but Americans don't seem to want it. Dudebros like their V8's and that's the way it is.

 

[Slash]

You completely missed what I was saying. I was using the old truck as an example that with the right configuration a truck can have power while still retaining gas mileage even in a full size. A base model truck should get a small 4 cylinder diesel instead of this Ecoboost junk. I was simply stating I think that's the direction they should go since that configuration has been proven to work, and with modem tech could potentially work even better. Everyone whines and complains about trucks and fuel economy well bam theirs your answer.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, its pretty simple, at least with Ford.

All the design, engineering and marketing budget has been spent on the EcoBoost program(s), and its absolutely working. They're getting the EPA figures they want, the engines are selling well at a modest premium, and they seem to be reasonably reliable for the most part. So, why would they be bringing over their diesel lineup from Europe when they would need to be significantly re-engineered to meet US emissions regulations, particularly when there isn't a significant benefit to doing so?

The market will need to shake out quite a bit more in diesel's favor before Ford even considers it an option on the quarter-ton F-150. Ram sells quite a few of their EcoDiesels in their 1500, and I'm willing to be GM will sell quite a few with the Colorado/Canyon, but "quite a few" doesn't make financial sense if it isn't an absolute guarantee that its what people want. Considering the average reviews of the F-150 at launch, they'll need to add more interesting things to the mix to make it a better option, but, I don't think diesel is it.

 

[Slash]

Unfortunately their EPA figures aren't what it actually gets in the real world.

 

[Tornado]

They're getting the EPA figures they want

But at what cost?

 

[niky]

You completely missed what I was saying. I was using the old truck as an example that with the right configuration a truck can have power while still retaining gas mileage even in a full size. A base model truck should get a small 4 cylinder diesel instead of this Ecoboost junk. I was simply stating I think that's the direction they should go since that configuration has been proven to work, and with modem tech could potentially work even better. Everyone whines and complains about trucks and fuel economy well bam theirs your answer.

You can't use an old truck as an example. It won't pass emissions. It won't meet safety requirements. And it won't meet market requirements.

Unfortunately their EPA figures aren't what it actually gets in the real world.

And guess what? What the owner of that truck gets is not what it'd get on the EPA test, either.

Just because I get 36 MPG out of the V6 Explorer on the highway doesn't mean it's better than the Traverse, which is only EPA rated to 23... they both have the same EPA rating.

Considering the size of that engine, and the aero of that truck, it'd be maxed out at 30 mpg. Most modern trucks will hit that number with ease. Even with gasoline engines.

-

While I do agree that smaller diesels in base trucks would be great... and the 200 horsepower Cummins 2.8 is a lovely thing... these motors are expensive. And that's before you add extra particulate filters and urea injection, which means more plumbing, more cost, and more weight. I'd be surprised if such a motor as that or even Ford's 3.2 five-cylinder would be anywhere near as cheap as the V6 or Ecoboost, which both give more power over the range.

While they're much more economical in heavy Asian traffic, the advantage is not that great in freer-flowing American traffic.

 

[Slash]

You can't use an old truck as an example. It won't pass emissions. It won't meet safety requirements. And it won't meet market requirements.

Again that's not the point. The point is that a full size can get by with a smaller engine while getting good MPG's.

 

[niky]

Again that's not the point. The point is that a full size can get by with a smaller engine while getting good MPG's.

Define full-size. Define smaller.

Global pick-ups already get by with smaller engines... but those engines are rapidly growing in power and/or size (and, consequentially, fuel consumption) as the pick-ups get bigger.

I'd be glad to see good diesels in American pick-ups... but downsized diesels, just like downsized gasoline engines, lose some of their fuel efficiency when you ask them to make more power.

 

[Slash]

Define full-size. Define smaller.

Global pick-ups already get by with smaller engines... but those engines are rapidly growing in power and/or size (and, consequentially, fuel consumption) as the pick-ups get bigger.

I'd be glad to see good diesels in American pick-ups... but downsized diesels, just like downsized gasoline engines, lose some of their fuel efficiency when you ask them to make more power.

Fullsize: F150-Up, regular or extended cab, 6 foot or 8 foot box.
Small truck: Colorado, Ranger, Titan, etc.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Fullsize: F150-Up, regular or extended cab, 6 foot or 8 foot box.
Small truck: Colorado, Ranger, Titan, etc.

Titan is full size. Frontier is small. (well, used to be)

 

[Slash]

Titan is full size. Frontier is small. (well, used to be)

Dur. Maybe that's what I was thinking of. I knew one of them was the smaller one.

 

[niky]

Don't expect anything smaller than a 4-5 liter diesel (which isn't small, and isn't going to be much better in terms of economy than the EcoBoost V6 (if it is, at all)) in something like the F150 or Titan.

 

[Tornado]

Isn't the Titan the one to get the 5 liter Cummins that Chevrolet, and later Chrysler, didn't want?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Isn't the Titan the one to get the 5 liter Cummins that Chevrolet, and later Chrysler, didn't want?

Yes. Toyota is supposedly getting it too. It's no record breaker but it's not bad either.

 

[YSSMAN]

Again that's not the point. The point is that a full size can get by with a smaller engine while getting good MPG's.

Thing is, the F-150 you mentioned earlier is only slightly larger than the new Colorado/Canyon. Both of which are getting the diesel this year. Adding another 500-800lbs for a comparable full-size pickup to the smaller ones, fuel savings would likely be negligible. Of course, it depends on your application, here. I believe the only smaller diesel that Ford has available is that I5 unit in the Transit, and GM is working on getting the 2.8L I4 certified for the smaller trucks. The Ford diesel could work in the F-150, but, I don't know if it'd really be all that much better than the 2.7L EcoBoost. But, the 2.8L Duramax in a Silverado? Nope. To small of an engine in too big of a truck, in its current form. Until Chevrolet cuts out 500+ lbs, it won't work.

 

[RocZX]

The new Raptor

Edit

 

[CodeRedR51]

I like it more than the last one.

 

[Slash]

I like it more than the last one.

I've been thinking the same way. I just don't like the engine.


But yay they brought the lettered tailgate back.