2015 Ford F-150 unveiled

The Big 3 are not really interested in selling trucks in Australia as the market is so tiny and it's half a planet away. Total Australian population is approx 23 million while the US has 318 million and Canada has 35 million or close to 350 million total. In other words, 15 times as many trucks/vehicles are sold in NA not even including Mexico and Central America sales with their over 100 million population. Australia's truck/vehicle market is like a nothing market compared to NA.

I'd sat in meetings in the past where this topic was discussed and very quickly dismissed. Less than 7% of the yearly sales even could be possible if they'd cornered the entire Australian truck/vehicle market! Never would happen! One member on this forum lives in a very foggy dream world!

gijoecam wrote:
I'm not too concerned about the aluminum... I mean, GM made cars by Rubbermade for decades!

Just Damn! That hurts...........................:E

jus2shy wrote:
. . .
As for highway fuel economy, I'm under the impression that aerodynamic drag is a bigger factor than weight, since an object in motion tends to want to stay in motion. However it looks like Ford is pulling the same stops that RAM did employing active aerodynamic shutters in the grille. Ford has always had a superior rear cab shape in my eyes as well, only truck maker to actually sculpt the back of the cab to try to direct air more strategically.
. . .

I agree wind resistance is a big factor when it comes to fuel economy. But, a reduction in weight, at some point, will have a noticeable affect on MPG's.

FWIW, I've loaded 750 - 1000 lbs. of gear in my 5.7 Tundra numerous times. I've always noticed a 1 - 2 mpg drop in fuel economy when doing so. The load was below the bed rails, so wind resistance was not an issue.

I can't imagine a 13-14% (700 lb.) reduction in a 1/2 ton truck's empty weight not having a "noticeable" affect on fuel economy. In other words, if Ford is unable to show at least 1 - 2 mpg of EPA gas mileage improvement (with everything else being equal), then I can't see how Ford can justify using aluminum. If the average consumer saw a steel 2014 3.5 Ecoboost and a mostly aluminum 2015 3.5 Ecoboost on the lot and they both had the same EPA window stick numbers, IMO no amount of marketing hype is gonna convince them the aluminum is worth the risk of change.

jus2shy wrote:
The problem with the 700lbs number is that I keep hearing that's the most heavily optioned vehicle that loses that much weight. Average weight loss across the line seems like it'll be a bit smaller. I'm sure most of the magazines will be taking the trucks to the scale and comparing them to similar previous model trucks to see how true Ford's statement is on the trucks and just how far that applies.

As for highway fuel economy, I'm under the impression that aerodynamic drag is a bigger factor than weight, since an object in motion tends to want to stay in motion. However it looks like Ford is pulling the same stops that RAM did employing active aerodynamic shutters in the grille. Ford has always had a superior rear cab shape in my eyes as well, only truck maker to actually sculpt the back of the cab to try to direct air more strategically.

As to the LED argument, in 2010 Ford switched from a mechanical fan drive to an e-fan setup. Again, this was because the mechanical fan always had parasitic drag but an e-fan could be turned on only when needed, removing the parasitic drag from the crankshaft. All trucks have a smart charging system now a days that helps keep engine drag low when the power isn't really needed. Saving drag on the alternator will also save fuel. It's all these little improvements that add up to the bigger picture of fuel economy savings. Personally, I am really curious how that Ecoboost 2.7 will work in the real world and if it will eclipse the Ecodiesel or not. This stuff is always fun to watch :).

Actually, since the weight loss is tied mostly to the cab/bed sheetmetal, options will hardly affect the weight loss # between similarly equipped '14 models vs. '15. Crewcabs are probably the most popular cab configuration, and they are the ones that will see the ~700 lb. loss. Regular cabs and supercabs will see less weight loss that's true.

It will not spin any faster then the 3.5 or any other boosted engine.
less rpm as a average for work done,compared to a NA engine.

jerem0621 wrote:
I'm sold too. Can't wait to test drive one. That new 2.7 is interesting. Found some speculation that it will probably be in the 330 hp range with 360-370 ish lb ft of tq. That's more hp than my old 99 6.8 V10 and nearly as much tq.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

And at what RPM's is that 2.7 going to be spinning to get that HP and torque.

That 2.7 in a fullsize truck will only be pulling a small boat.

The problem with the 700lbs number is that I keep hearing that's the most heavily optioned vehicle that loses that much weight. Average weight loss across the line seems like it'll be a bit smaller. I'm sure most of the magazines will be taking the trucks to the scale and comparing them to similar previous model trucks to see how true Ford's statement is on the trucks and just how far that applies.

As for highway fuel economy, I'm under the impression that aerodynamic drag is a bigger factor than weight, since an object in motion tends to want to stay in motion. However it looks like Ford is pulling the same stops that RAM did employing active aerodynamic shutters in the grille. Ford has always had a superior rear cab shape in my eyes as well, only truck maker to actually sculpt the back of the cab to try to direct air more strategically.

As to the LED argument, in 2010 Ford switched from a mechanical fan drive to an e-fan setup. Again, this was because the mechanical fan always had parasitic drag but an e-fan could be turned on only when needed, removing the parasitic drag from the crankshaft. All trucks have a smart charging system now a days that helps keep engine drag low when the power isn't really needed. Saving drag on the alternator will also save fuel. It's all these little improvements that add up to the bigger picture of fuel economy savings. Personally, I am really curious how that Ecoboost 2.7 will work in the real world and if it will eclipse the Ecodiesel or not. This stuff is always fun to watch :).

Bionic Man wrote:
I read a report somewhere that the LED lights light up so much faster that they believe accidents will be reduced because it will allow drivers more time to react (brake lights coming on faster). Wish I still had the article.

In regards to the aluminum, it was almost like Chevy saw that coming. Have been advertising about their steel truck for a while - think about the Silverado commercial with the submarine.

LED's light up virtually instantly while other bulbs take about 1/10 sec. This does not sound like much but if the guy behind you is going 60mph (88 ft/sec) that gives him 8.8 more feet to stop in after the brake lights come on. Think about how much energy the brakes can take out in 8.8ft. On a 5,500lb vehicle that could equate to 88 horsepower for one second. If there are 10 cars in a line the back car gets an extra 88ft to stop in. That could be huge.

The mostly steel 2014 F150 3.5 Ecoboost is EPA rated at 16/22. What's the chance mileage (with the 3.5 Ecoboost) will increase with 700 lbs. less weight to haul around with the aluminum-skinned 2015 F150?

Hearing rumors the aluminum-skinned 2015 F150 2.7 Ecoboost (with 300++ HP, 330++ lb. ft. torque) is expected to get 25-26 mpg highway.

I'm not too concerned about the aluminum... I mean, GM made cars by Rubbermade for decades!