SPIED: 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty

[fordmantpw]

As always, we shall see. I remain underwhelmed by the actually weight reduction in the new F-150.

 

I never could have guessed!

[NLPRacing]

If the pic in the OP is real, I wonder if that means that when the Expedition merges back with the F150, that the Expedition EL could merge with the F250 and be available with the 6.7L Powerstroke.

[akirby]

As always, we shall see. I remain underwhelmed by the actually weight reduction in the new F-150.

 

It's more than any other mfr has achieved to date, and it's way more than you've accomplished.

[jpd80]

As always, we shall see. I remain underwhelmed by the actually weight reduction in the new F-150.

Underwhelmed because high series models like Platinum adding new extras like 300 lb sun roof?

 

The weight reductions are there in volume selling XL and XLT models, most of which are Super Cabs or Crew cabs.

600 lbs from lighter body and ~100 lbs from chassis lightening.

 

There is every likelihood that Ford will repeat those weight reductions in the new Super Duty, the example I gave is

an apples to apples steel body F150 Vs F250 which lists the weight difference as roughly 850 lbs. The chances are

good that a new alloy body F250 will be much closer to the older '14 F150's weight - and that is good news.

 

Current GM and Ram 2500 trucks use gasoline engines in the 360-380 hp and 380-400 lb ft zone.

A lighter F250 using some F150 gas engines would have a distinct advantage over the competition.

Edited March 26, 2015 by jpd80

[Sevensecondsuv]

Some perspective:

 

Two presidents ago you could buy an F350 with a 145 hp gasoline inline 6. They actually made pretty useful trucks for certain applications (like agriculture applications moving heavy stuff around off road where you need the F-350 chassis but aren't going fast enough to need any significant amount of hp). The big gas and diesel engines barely made 400 torque. Yet somehow all the work got done and all the loads got moved.

 

Now the base engine is nearly 400 hp, the optional engine makes over 800 ft lbs, and we're talking about new smaller engine options. History repeats itself I guess.

[jpvbs]

Ram has an optional 6.4l V8 w/410hp and 430 lb ft.

[RichardJensen]

Yet somehow all the work got done and all the loads got moved.

 

It's worth revisiting a few stats:

http://www.intellichoice.com/1-12-1996-100013731-26/1996-ford-f350-styleside-xl-crew-cab-4dr-extended-specs.html

 

GVWR on the DRW F350 was, per that chart, 10k, and the GCWR was 20k.

 

Max GVWR on the current DRW F350 is 14,000lbs, and GCWR is 35,000lbs.

 

http://www.ford.com/trucks/superduty/specifications/towing/

 

So, while I don't dispute your assertion that cars, generally, have more power than they need, one should also realize that the capacities of today's F150 (17,100 GCWR, 7,850 GVWR) approach those of a 20 year old SRW F350 (19,200, 9,200).

Edited March 26, 2015 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Ram has an optional 6.4l V8 w/410hp and 430 lb ft.

That's correct and the Ram 2500 is similar weight to the current F250 too..

 

Still my point is that GM and Ram both have a gas engine with similar power torque as the new '15 F150's 5.0.

[Sevensecondsuv]

 

It's worth revisiting a few stats:

http://www.intellichoice.com/1-12-1996-100013731-26/1996-ford-f350-styleside-xl-crew-cab-4dr-extended-specs.html

 

GVWR on the DRW F350 was, per that chart, 10k, and the GCWR was 20k.

 

Max GVWR on the current DRW F350 is 14,000lbs, and GCWR is 35,000lbs.

 

http://www.ford.com/trucks/superduty/specifications/towing/

 

So, while I don't dispute your assertion that cars, generally, have more power than they need, one should also realize that the capacities of today's F150 (17,100 GCWR, 7,850 GVWR) approach those of a 20 year old SRW F350 (19,200, 9,200).

That's my point exactly. Trucks just keep getting bigger. Apparently class 1, 2, 3, etc don't have a meaningful definition if todays class 1 can have nearly the same rating as yesterday's class 3.

 

Now with the Ranger gone, Ford's lightest/smallest truck has the capabilities of yesterday's F250 and twice as much horsepower. What hasn't changed much in twenty years is the loads consumers are hauling with their pickup trucks - whether it be a bed full of mulch or the ski boat. Yes there are some with 20,000# car hauler trailers but Ford made 450s and 550s back then too. The bottom line is Ford is selling a lot of people a lot more truck than they need. This is all well and good since consumers seem perfectly happy with it but I see it as somewhat of an unsustainable bubble.

 

The class 1, 2, 3 etc ratings were pretty universally defined for several decades. it's only gotten crazy in the last 15 years or so.

[akirby]

The bottom line is Ford is selling a lot of people a lot more truck than they need.

 

No, customers are demanding a lot more truck than they need and Ford is building what they want. You can't force customers to buy stuff they don't want in a competitive market. The only way people would be willing to take less capability is if they got a substantial savings on initial cost and/or significantly better fuel economy. Colorado and ROW Ranger don't really deliver either of those.

[fordmantpw]

That's correct and the Ram 2500 is similar weight to the current F250 too..

 

Still my point is that GM and Ram both have a gas engine with similar power torque as the new '15 F150's 5.0.

 

Keep in mind that engines in the HD trucks are rated at a specific RPM (I think that's the key) where half tons are rated at max HP and max torque. The 6.2L in the F2/350 is rated at ~20HP and ~40 ft-lbs torque less than it was in the F150. So, comparing the ratings between half and 3/4 ton trucks is really apples to oranges.

 

 

EDIT: I don't think it's a specific RPM in HD trucks, but I do know they are rated different. I can't remember now how or why the numbers are different.

Edited March 26, 2015 by fordmantpw

[Sevensecondsuv]

 

No, customers are demanding a lot more truck than they need and Ford is building what they want. You can't force customers to buy stuff they don't want in a competitive market. The only way people would be willing to take less capability is if they got a substantial savings on initial cost and/or significantly better fuel economy. Colorado and ROW Ranger don't really deliver either of those.

You missed the second half of my quote:

 

This is all well and good since consumers seem perfectly happy with it but I see it as somewhat of an unsustainable bubble.

I don't disagree that it's what consumers want for now. But it has all the makings of an unsustainable bubble. A new F150 4x4 with chrome bumpers starts at $32k for a regular cab. All that tech and capability doesn't come cheap. This is the unsustainable part. Easy credit and the fact that the baby boomer generation is still driving the market is making it possible. Things are going to change when Millenials who came up during the great recession become the majority in the market. Edited March 26, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

You missed the second half of my quote:

 

I don't disagree that it's what consumers want for now. But it has all the makings of an unsustainable bubble. A new F150 4x4 with chrome bumpers starts at $32k for a regular cab. All that tech and capability doesn't come cheap. This is the unsustainable part. Easy credit and the fact that the baby boomer generation is still driving the market is making it possible. Things are going to change when Millenials who came up during the great recession become the majority in the market.

 

Then the mfrs will adjust to what customers are demanding. Continuing to build F150s now doesn't preclude bringing Ranger later. They're not sacrificing the future just to meet current market demands.

 

It's like saying that today people like vanilla and chocolate ice cream but 5 years from now people are going to want Rocky Road. They'll build whatever they want.

 

I think Ford is working on a truly small pickup - smaller than Ranger. That's much more likely to appeal to Millenials than a Ranger.

[jpd80]

I'm not convinced that the growth in large trucks is a bubble, more like a recovery for near death in 2007

when steepling gas prices caused everyone to ditch their lifestyle trucks - equally insane knee jerk reaction.

 

At that time, F Series sales went down to 30,000 a month and Ford was convinced that it was permanent,

also the reason why 2010 refresh were simply engines for F Series and a comb over for Expedition/Navigator.

 

The one thing Ford has proven over the past years is that significant numbers of buyers will pay much higher

ATPs for quality products and why comparing then and now, the cheap trucks are all gone, not coming back.

[Sevensecondsuv]

That's what I'm saying though - those high atp's are the bubble, made possible by boomers hitting retirement age and easy credit for everyone else. Once these buyers stop driving the market, cheap low tech (relatively) trucks will be back. I'm not saying volumes will decrease, just that 1/2 tons will be 1/2 tons again.

 

Also note that low atp doesn't have to equal low quality. It just means things like 400 hp turbo motors, 10 speed transmissions, touch screen systems, 12,000 lb half ton tow ratings and super low nvh get sacrificed. I consider the 20 year old Fords to be super high quality, they're just not refined like the newer ones are.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

You missed the second half of my quote:

 

I don't disagree that it's what consumers want for now. But it has all the makings of an unsustainable bubble. A new F150 4x4 with chrome bumpers starts at $32k for a regular cab. All that tech and capability doesn't come cheap. This is the unsustainable part. Easy credit and the fact that the baby boomer generation is still driving the market is making it possible. Things are going to change when Millenials who came up during the great recession become the majority in the market.

Baby Boomer retirement will last for at least another 10 years or more, who knows what types of trucks we'll have by then

as battery power is becoming cheaper by the year. Things that seen impossible today become possible in a few years time.

Plug in Hybrid trucks could be the next big thing by the time Generation X is due to begin retiring.

 

That's what I'm saying though - those high atp's are the bubble, made possible by boomers hitting retirement age and easy credit for everyone else. Once these buyers stop driving the market, cheap low tech (relatively) trucks will be back. I'm not saying volumes will decrease, just that 1/2 tons will be 1/2 tons again.

 

Also note that low atp doesn't have to equal low quality. It just means things like 400 hp turbo motors, 10 speed transmissions, touch screen systems, 12,000 lb half ton tow ratings and super low nvh get sacrificed. I consider the 20 year old Fords to be super high quality, they're just not refined like the newer ones are.

So a possible bubble has become a definite bubble in an matter of two posts.

 

Forget low cost trucks, every manufacturer wants to maximize ATPs, they won't come down short of a calamity

like the GFC or massive increases in fuel price. By then, affordable plug in hybrid trucks will be the next big thing.

 

There will always be a reason to keep adding tech to vehicles.... it's what keeps us poor.

Edited March 27, 2015 by jpd80

[F250]

That's what I'm saying though - those high atp's are the bubble, made possible by boomers hitting retirement age and easy credit for everyone else. Once these buyers stop driving the market, cheap low tech (relatively) trucks will be back. I'm not saying volumes will decrease, just that 1/2 tons will be 1/2 tons again.

 

Also note that low atp doesn't have to equal low quality. It just means things like 400 hp turbo motors, 10 speed transmissions, touch screen systems, 12,000 lb half ton tow ratings and super low nvh get sacrificed. I consider the 20 year old Fords to be super high quality, they're just not refined like the newer ones are.

 

I can understand where you're coming from but I don't think it'll happen.

20 years ago 70% of F-Series were regular cabs and you could still buy one with a manual transmission and manual locking 4WD hubs. That;s a past that just isn't going to return. How many F-150s today have manual windows and door locks?

 

That said I think I'd like to find or restore a real old 1971 F-100. No computers, even point triggered ignition and carburetor. 300 straight-6 with a 3-speed manual trans would be fine. No air conditioner needed but I would like power steering.

[akirby]

40 years ago 95% were regular cabs. You only saw crew cabs on work trucks and even that was rare. Don't count on finding a 71 in decent shape for less than $3K-$5K. I was looking at 73-79s for awhile before my wife decided we needed a 14 day Mediterranean cruise for our 30th wedding anniversary.

[fordmantpw]

40 years ago 95% were regular cabs. You only saw crew cabs on work trucks and even that was rare. Don't count on finding a 71 in decent shape for less than $3K-$5K. I was looking at 73-79s for awhile before my wife decided we needed a 14 day Mediterranean cruise for our 30th wedding anniversary.

 

I sure hope you have good internet access on that cruise. You won't be able to handle being away from us for 2 weeks!

 

Congrats on 30 years!

[akirby]

For some reason I think I'll be able to survive touring the Italian countryside and cities and sampling some real Italian cuisine.

[fordmantpw]

For some reason I think I'll be able to survive touring the Italian countryside and cities and sampling some real Italian cuisine.

 

And driving real Italian cars.

 

Oh wait, that's stateside.

[akirby]

That's one shore excursion I don't think I'm allowed to take.