Driving the 2015 F150

[Mustangfan2003]

So last night a local Ford dealer had a test drive event with the new F150.  Despite the cold I decided to check it out.  You had two options.  You could drive the 2.7 or the 3.5 Ecoboost.  I decided to go with the 2.7 since it's the engine since it's the one getting the most hype now.  I ended up driving a Green Crew Cab 2wd XLT.  When I climbed in the start/stop system had already turned off the engine but once you put it in gear and pushed the accelerator it started smoothly.  I would say better than the system Volvo is using now.  I do wished I had more time with it.  I was pretty much driving about a quarter mile to a Target and then turning around back to the dealer.  It is a very big vehicle but it doesn't feel as big as it looks to me.  The engine was pretty quiet but you could still tell it was a V6.  I would still like to also drive the V8 and the NA V6 to compare. 



The truck I drove

[68_427]

I bet you take videos in portrait too you scrub.

[SVT666]

Turn the fucking phone!

[mzziaz]

Jeez, tough crowd

[AutobahnSHO]

[Mustangfan2003]

Fuck you guys. 

[Mustangfan2003]

And one more thing, I can see why this place is almost dead.   Post anything about a new car and either nobody or only a couple of people post but post anything political and then everyone comes out.   I can talk about that bullshit in other places. 

[MX793]

Was there noticeable turbo lag with the 2.7?

Based on some of the magazine tests, the motor sounds pretty impressive for one notch over the base motor.  One of the mags didn't see less than 20 mpg in their entire time with the truck, which is a heck of a lot better than the old, similarly powerful 5.4L V8 got.

[FoMoJo]

Didn't know it had a stop/start system.  Under normal driving, does it start when you let the brake off or when you press the accelerator?

[ifcar]

How does it look in person? Especially with normal-sized wheels like these two, it looks a little awkward in pictures. The red one looks like an off-brand diecast car model.

[hotrodalex]

How does it look in person? Especially with normal-sized wheels like these two, it looks a little awkward in pictures. The red one looks like an off-brand diecast car model.

Yeah the crazy ones at Sema looked really cool but the regular ones seem kinda meh.

[GoCougs]

C&D has a four-way comparo in the Feb edition - Silverado vs. F150 vs. Ram vs. Tundra.

In pertinent part, my prediction came true that Ford's "up to 700 lbs weight savings" was spin. Outfitted virtually identically (cab config, bed length, and even wheel/tire size) as tested the F150 weighed but ~70 lbs less, and that can probably be attributed to the smaller 6sp AT (Silverado is rocking GM's new 8sp).

The Silverado was a bit quicker (passing, 1/4 mile) and got the same as-tested mpg. And of course it will sound better, won't have lag and won't ever need maintenance costs of $3,000+ in new turbos over its life.

It's good to innovate and push boundaries, but it's gotta count for something. Ford had to have spend a TON of development dollars in the Ecoboost and AL body, and here it is, not any better performing than a warmed over eight-year-old platform (albeit with a derivative of the new LT1).

[MexicoCityM3]

And one more thing, I can see why this place is almost dead.   Post anything about a new car and either nobody or only a couple of people post but post anything political and then everyone comes out.   I can talk about that bullshit in other places. 

Yeah I agree with you. Nice but maybe too brief review. Thanks for it.

[MX793]

C&D has a four-way comparo in the Feb edition - Silverado vs. F150 vs. Ram vs. Tundra.

In pertinent part, my prediction came true that Ford's "up to 700 lbs weight savings" was spin. Outfitted virtually identically (cab config, bed length, and even wheel/tire size) as tested the F150 weighed but ~70 lbs less, and that can probably be attributed to the smaller 6sp AT (Silverado is rocking GM's new 8sp).

The Silverado was a bit quicker (passing, 1/4 mile) and got the same as-tested mpg. And of course it will sound better, won't have lag and won't ever need maintenance costs of $3,000+ in new turbos over its life.

It's good to innovate and push boundaries, but it's gotta count for something. Ford had to have spend a TON of development dollars in the Ecoboost and AL body, and here it is, not any better performing than a warmed over eight-year-old platform (albeit with a derivative of the new LT1).

Not sure where you're getting only a 70 lbs savings from.  C&D's top of the line, 2013 EB3.5 4x4 SuperCrew weighed in at 6029 lbs.  The equivalent top trim 2015 EB3.5 4x4 SuperCrew they recently tested came in at 5577 lbs.  A bit short of 700 lbs, but a far cry from a mere 70.

[TBR]

Not sure where you're getting only a 70 lbs savings from.  C&D's top of the line, 2013 EB3.5 4x4 SuperCrew weighed in at 6029 lbs.  The equivalent top trim 2015 EB3.5 4x4 SuperCrew they recently tested came in at 5577 lbs.  A bit short of 700 lbs, but a far cry from a mere 70.

I think he's talking about relative to the Silverado?

[Soup DeVille]

He means only ~70 lbs from a comparably equipped (steel and V8) Chevy.

[GoCougs]

Yes, that was my point - vs. its stiffest competition.

[shp4man]

I haven't even seen one yet and I work at a Ford dealer. The whole aluminum body thing is interesting, like the old Land Rovers.

[MX793]

He means only ~70 lbs from a comparably equipped (steel and V8) Chevy.

Yeah, well, the old F-150 was the heaviest tank in the class.

[Soup DeVille]

Yeah, well, the old F-150 was the heaviest tank in the class.

Which would argue that there was considerable weight to be shed by redesigning the steel body, and that the switch to aluminium was unnecessary.

I'm cool with that, as I think the corrosion resistance will mean better used trucks in ten years: but that might not help Ford too much.

[MX793]

Which would argue that there was considerable weight to be shed by redesigning the steel body, and that the switch to aluminium was unnecessary.

I'm cool with that, as I think the corrosion resistance will mean better used trucks in ten years: but that might not help Ford too much.

If it results in better resale, it may improve new vehicle sales and fleet leases

[GoCougs]

He means only ~70 lbs from a comparably equipped (steel and V8) Chevy.

And GM hasn't yet moved to its new high strength steel (i.e., lighter) chassis...

[SVT666]

And GM hasn't yet moved to its new high strength steel (i.e., lighter) chassis...

I would never buy a truck with a high strength steel chassis.  The problem with high strength steel is it cannot be repaired.  It has to be cut out and replaced.  Insurance rates will be high on a truck with a chassis like that.

[SVT666]

Which would argue that there was considerable weight to be shed by redesigning the steel body, and that the switch to aluminium was unnecessary.

I'm cool with that, as I think the corrosion resistance will mean better used trucks in ten years: but that might not help Ford too much.

The F-150 is far and away the best half ton in NVH, wind noise, and road noise.  All that comes at a weight penalty.    Go drive an F-150 back to back to back with a Silverado and Ram and the F-150 feels like a Rolls in comparison.  Of course the extra weight didn't result in much better towing and payload over the Chevy, but the isolation from the outside is dramatically better.  If that's what you want or not is personal taste.

[GoCougs]

I would never buy a truck with a high strength steel chassis.  The problem with high strength steel is it cannot be repaired.  It has to be cut out and replaced.  Insurance rates will be high on a truck with a chassis like that.

Sure HSS can be repaired - many if not the majority of cars these days use some measure of HSS. Much like AL or carbon fiber it's just done differently (albeit probably more expensive to do so).

Repairability is a bit of a diversion - by and large if you've damaged the chassis on a newish vehicle to the point it needs welding it's likely already totaled (and as chassis design advances the less repairable they will become at the expense of safety and performance).

Cost to repair a car has never been a huge factor on insurance rates, unless it's insane like an F40. Liability and medical claims are WAY more of a factor. But all in all, even if it was, my hunch is a good portion of the market would pay more insurance in exchange for vehicle that was safer, better performing and had better mpg.

[SVT666]

Sure HSS can be repaired - many if not the majority of cars these days use some measure of HSS. Much like AL or carbon fiber it's just done differently (albeit probably more expensive to do so).

Repairability is a bit of a diversion - by and large if you've damaged the chassis on a newish vehicle to the point it needs welding it's likely already totaled (and as chassis design advances the less repairable they will become at the expense of safety and performance).

Cost to repair a car has never been a huge factor on insurance rates, unless it's insane like an F40. Liability and medical claims are WAY more of a factor. But all in all, even if it was, my hunch is a good portion of the market would pay more insurance in exchange for vehicle that was safer, better performing and had better mpg.

HSS, once bent, cannot be straightened and keep structural integrity.  Bends in high strength steel will result in cracks due to the very low alloy content.  I like HSS in A-pillars, etc, but not in the parts of the chassis that are most likely to bend or get damaged in a typical traffic collision. 

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Yes, that was my point - vs. its stiffest competition.

I didn't realize the F-150 requires premium fuel! As in C&D 350 mile trip the 420hp Silverado returned the same 16 mpg as the 365hp Ecoboost F-150. 

[12,000 RPM]

HSS, once bent, cannot be straightened and keep structural integrity.  Bends in high strength steel will result in cracks due to the very low alloy content.  I like HSS in A-pillars, etc, but not in the parts of the chassis that are most likely to bend or get damaged in a typical traffic collision.

I dont think they use HSS in crumple zones

[Soup DeVille]

The F-150 is far and away the best half ton in NVH, wind noise, and road noise.  All that comes at a weight penalty.    Go drive an F-150 back to back to back with a Silverado and Ram and the F-150 feels like a Rolls in comparison.  Of course the extra weight didn't result in much better towing and payload over the Chevy, but the isolation from the outside is dramatically better.  If that's what you want or not is personal taste.

I have. At least for the last generation, its a marginal difference. If i wanted a Rolls Royce, I'd buy one. Ok, I'd buy an early '80s Corniche for 10 grand; and have no idea why I would want one but anyways.

There's not enough of a difference to make a purchase decision on there.  Though i would buy the Ford for a few other reasons. 

[GoCougs]

HSS, once bent, cannot be straightened and keep structural integrity.  Bends in high strength steel will result in cracks due to the very low alloy content.  I like HSS in A-pillars, etc, but not in the parts of the chassis that are most likely to bend or get damaged in a typical traffic collision. 

HSS can be repaired, lots of cars have it, and if you damage the chassis/frame/unitbody to that extent it's probably gonna be totaled anyway. But I repeat myself.

In sum total my hunch is a pickup made predominantly with HSS won't be any more expensive to repair than a pickup made of AL and regular steel.