2024 F-150 Reveal Thread

[akirby]

Disappointed in the colors.  No red on tremor?  No azure grey or Area 51?

[silvrsvt]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

Disappointed in the colors.  No red on tremor?  No azure grey or Area 51?

 

I know Area 51 has been dropped on the Bronco, maybe it is across the whole lineup?

[SoonerLS]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

Disappointed in the colors.  No red on tremor?  No azure grey or Area 51?

It sure seems like they've de-contented the F-150 in the functional areas (no NA V6, no Max Payload, lowered max towing, no SC long bed), yet they've raised the base price a pretty hefty amount. 

[Rick73]

38 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The XL comes standard with the 5.0, otherwise its an option.

 

Couple other comments-so this whole push about making Hybrids was nothing more then the press making a mountain out of a molehill(so far)-Ford said they wanted to increase Powerboost 3.5L sales from 10% to 20% take rate, but the Powerboost 3.5L is only on the 3 highest trim levels also, so I guess we won't see a Maverick hybrid availability issue either. 

The standard XL comes with 2.7L EB.   The Build and Price shows standard STX and XLT also with 2.7L EB, and V8 a $1,370 option.  The V8 would be my choice if I needed a truck since the price seems reasonable.

 

No new hybrid is a disappointment, at least to me.  Even though I don’t need a truck,  new hybrid technology would have been interesting to see.  Apparently press did blow hybrid rumors out of proportion.

[akirby]

48 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

no Max Payload, lowered max towing, no SC long bed

Maybe that’s going to be the rumored F-200.

[akirby]

19 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

No new hybrid is a disappointment, at least to me.  Even though I don’t need a truck,  new hybrid technology would have been interesting to see.  Apparently press did blow hybrid rumors out of proportion.

We haven’t seen everything yet.  Ford likes to dribble out the new stuff over a few months.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

The standard XL comes with 2.7L EB.   The Build and Price shows standard STX and XLT also with 2.7L EB, and V8 a $1,370 option.  The V8 would be my choice if I needed a truck since the price seems reasonable.

 

You sure about that? It mentions the 2.7L EB on the main page (might be typo or leftover from 2023MY?), but go to the build and price and its not there.

 

 

I just had another thought-with the 3.3L going away on the F-150, I wonder if that engine is going away-to the best my knowledge, only the Explorer HEV uses it. If the Ranger/Bronco are getting a 2.3L Powerboost hybrid down the road, it would make sense to share it with the Explorer, since the packaging would fit. 

 

 

[akirby]

Won’t let me post a pic but the 2.7 is standard on STX and some XL and XLTs.  5.0 is standard on tremor and lariat and some xl and XLT models depending on wheelbase.

[fordmantpw]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Disappointed in the colors.  No red on tremor?  No azure grey or Area 51?

 

Ford's colors are severely lacking IMO.  

[Bob Rosadini]

11 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

I agree; I think getting rid of the NA V6 is a mistake, but calling the 2.7 unreliable is just dumb.

Agree on both points.  There are plenty of people however who have no use for what they view as an overly complicated engine.  "Turbos are one more thing that can go wrong...etc etc".  Proponents of the 2.7 will I'm sure argue that 3.7 sales must have been low so what is the big deal? 

But I see it as one more base that Ford had covered.

 

[silvrsvt]

The other thing is that 2.7L Ecoboost actually gets better MPGs then the 3.3L does too. I'm sure that was part of the reason why Ford got rid of it because of meeting CAFE. 

[Deanh]

12 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

It seems like very few people bought the 3.3, and if it was anything like the 3.5/3.7 duratecs, then it was a reliable, but underpowered engine for truck duty. Power figures of 300 hp or so aren't bad in a crossover or sedan. But for a large, heavy truck that's asked to haul and tow things around frequently, I could see how it could struggle.

 

The 2.7 is a rocketship by comparison, if they can switch to it without massively increasing the price, then that's a pretty big win. 

seems to me Ford is quite content turning their backs on Commercial buyers...and Id say thats across their entire lineup....theres a REAL shortage of what would be considered commercial units...Transits, Transit Connects F-series work trucks, chassis etc...has to be a ligitimate reason, but that could literally bite them in the a$$ down the road as we cant supply product so they go down to Chevy and Ram who seem to have selection....wont mention the Ranger supercab literally going away...

Edited September 13, 2023 by Deanh

[Bob Rosadini]

17 minutes ago, Deanh said:

seems to me Ford is quite content turning their backs on Commercial buyers...and Id say thats across their entire lineup....theres a REAL shortage of what would be considered commercial units...Transits, Transit Connects F-series work trucks, chassis etc...has to be a ligitimate reason, but that could literally bite them in the a$$ down the road as we cant supply product so they go down to Chevy and Ram who seem to have selection....wont mention the Ranger supercab literally going away...

Dean

You must be mistaken.  We have a Ford Pro organization that is focused on commercial business...which apparently is defined as ..
florists, beauty supply delivery,  light package delivery etc. 

 

Must be as I have yet to see an add that clearly indicates a connection with a broad definition of "commercial".  for example they run an add with an  F-150 and some guy who may have some connection to a trade.  Ever see a 550, 650 or 750 at least in the background?  NO- at least I haven't.  It is almost like anything that smacks of "medium duty" is ignored.  Think Mr Kanis knows what a "shuttle door " is?  I doubt it.

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

You sure about that? It mentions the 2.7L EB on the main page (might be typo or leftover from 2023MY?), but go to the build and price and its not there.

That’s what I get from Ford page, and also from various magazine articles.  The 2.7L EB I believe (IIRC) was below the 5.0L V8 previously, so it makes sense it would be the standard engine; with 5.0 as an option, not to mention it gets better MPG than V8 so it helps with fuel economy average also.

 

[akirby]

8 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

That’s what I get from Ford page, and also from various magazine articles.  The 2.7L EB I believe (IIRC) was below the 5.0L V8 previously, so it makes sense it would be the standard engine; with 5.0 as an option, not to mention it gets better MPG than V8 so it helps with fuel economy average also.

 

As I mentioned above it depends on wheelbase.

 

[Bob Rosadini]

I believe this is a good summary from the Order Guide. 

MODEL/SERIES/AVAILABILITY ● XL, STX, XLT, Lariat, King Ranch®, Platinum and Raptor™

 

 MECHANICAL  New/Changed — None  Deleted — 3.3L V6 PFDI engine 

 

EXTERIOR  New/Changed — None  New Colors — Darkened Bronze Metallic — Shelter Green ● Deleted Paint Colors — Race Red — Stone Gray Metallic — Azure Gray Metallic Tri-Coat 

 

INTERIOR/COMFORT  New Interior Colors — None 

 

FUNCTIONAL  New/Changed — None 

 

SAFETY/SECURITY  New/Changed — None 

 

FORD CO-PILOT360™ TECHNOLOGY  New/Changed — None ● Deleted — None 

 

PACKAGES  New/Changed — Mobile Office Pkg (50M) — Tow/Haul Pkg (53T)  

 

Deleted — XL Chrome Appearance Pkg — STX Appearance Pkg — XLT Chrome Appearance Pkg — XLT Sport Appearance Pkg — Trailer Tow Pkg — Max Trailer Tow Pkg — 2.7L V6 EcoBoost Payload Pkg — 360 Degree Camera Pkg — King Ranch Chrome Appearance Pkg — King Ranch Monochromatic Paint Package — Platinum Black Appearance Pkg — Moonroof & Tailgate — Blue Interior Pkg — Raptor Exterior Graphic Pkg — Raptor Carbon Fiber Pkg — Raptor 37 Performance Pkg 

 

OTHER ● Changed — None PACKAGES/OPTIONS DELETED ● Deleted — None ● Interior — None 2024 F-150® R

 

 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Agree on both points.  There are plenty of people however who have no use for what they view as an overly complicated engine.  "Turbos are one more thing that can go wrong...etc etc".  Proponents of the 2.7 will I'm sure argue that 3.7 sales must have been low so what is the big deal? 

But I see it as one more base that Ford had covered.

 

Do you actually know a retail buyer that opted for the 3.3?  If they don’t want turbos I’d bet 95% are going V8 anyway.  I bet Explorer switches to an I4 turbo for the hybrid and they finally kill the cyclone v6 (not duratec).

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

We haven’t seen everything yet.  Ford likes to dribble out the new stuff over a few months.

I hope you’re correct, because the present hybrid is more about adding power than fuel economy, and it would be interesting to see if Ford could develop a hybrid optimized more for economy than power.  Such a powertrain could also be useful in other vehicles like Transit and large SUVs.

 

Motor Trend said it well.  For efficiency versus power, in my opinion  it would likely need to be somewhat similar to Maverick, including an Atkinson engine and a hybrid transmission with at least 100 kW of power instead of present 35 kW.  I know neither exists, so would be new and require considerable investment.

 

“There is one hybrid truck that gets 33 mpg on the highway and 42 mpg city, and that's the Ford Maverick. While other hybrid pickups like the F-150 and Tundra are focused mainly on providing additional power and torque, the battery system and hybrid setup that comes standard in the Maverick is the only one that prioritizes efficiency.”

[silvrsvt]

11 minutes ago, akirby said:

 I bet Explorer switches to an I4 turbo for the hybrid and they finally kill the cyclone v6 (not duratec).

 

With the all-new Duratec 35, Ford sticks with the established Duratec name – the engine was known internally as Cyclone – but it owes nothing else to the previous Duratec architecture, Tom McCarthy, Ford manager-V-6 engine programs, says.

 

https://www.wardsauto.com/news-analysis/ford-motor-co-duratec-35-35l-dohc-v-6

 

Yeah its confusing, just say Ecoboost 3.5L and that makes more sense

 

 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Agree on both points.  There are plenty of people however who have no use for what they view as an overly complicated engine.  "Turbos are one more thing that can go wrong...etc etc".  Proponents of the 2.7 will I'm sure argue that 3.7 sales must have been low so what is the big deal? 

But I see it as one more base that Ford had covered.

It’s a choice some people prefer whether it makes sense to others or not.  I’m one of those buyers who normally gets the base engine because “it’s good enough”.  If I needed more power, I would choose displacement over turbos because I deem it less complicated, more reliable, and larger-engine fuel-economy-penalty would not offset turbo-related repairs if they were needed.  I look at added cost for fuel similar to insurance that would pay for a turbo replacement or some other issue.  I drive vehicles for many years and most miles are often past warranty period.  I prefer to spend a bit more on gas monthly than possibly face thousands in repairs.

[Bob Rosadini]

8 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

It’s a choice some people prefer whether it makes sense to others or not.  I’m one of those buyers who normally gets the base engine because “it’s good enough”.  If I needed more power, I would choose displacement over turbos because I deem it less complicated, more reliable, and larger-engine fuel-economy-penalty would not offset turbo-related repairs if they were needed.  I look at added cost for fuel similar to insurance that would pay for a turbo replacement or some other issue.  I drive vehicles for many years and most miles are often past warranty period.  I prefer to spend a bit more on gas monthly than possibly face thousands in repairs.

 

R-73

You are guy I'm talking about.  And to AK's point, no I don't know anyone who has one (3.7).  But If I were a business that did NOT need big power, high GVW but something with an 8' bed, I probably would buy it.  Looking at it from another perspective, I'm that same guy and would I want to put an 18 year old kid...Or an older Jerk! ..in a vehicle that he loved to put his foot into?  

As someone posted I believe on BON, "Ecoboost was misnamed...should have been "Eco or Boost"?

[rmc523]

I like the new face better, with the more integrated headlights.

 

I haven't had a chance to peruse all of the articles, so forgive me if it's covered....

 

So it looks like the regular tailgate step is still an option (or standard on some trims), plus this access version.  The pop out step is also an option.  I didn't see this new tailgate on build and price either.  Does it work via a button up top?  I'm glad they didn't put an extra door handle on it like the patent drawings showed.

 

[Rick73]

10 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

As someone posted I believe on BON, "Ecoboost was misnamed...should have been "Eco or Boost"?

Originally EcoBoost had potential to save considerable fuel, but I think it fell short in practice because drivers use “boost” a lot more often than anticipated.  Comparing a V6 EB to a NA V8, fuel savings is less today than originally estimated in large part because the V8 has improved and is less wasteful.  When towing, it’s possible V8 could be more efficient than EB based on reports I’ve seen.  Improvements like 10-speed transmission, higher compression ratio, etc. have narrowed the gap between options so that V8 doesn’t cost that much more to fuel.

[T-dubz]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

I like the new face better, with the more integrated headlights.

 

I haven't had a chance to peruse all of the articles, so forgive me if it's covered....

 

So it looks like the regular tailgate step is still an option (or standard on some trims), plus this access version.  The pop out step is also an option.  I didn't see this new tailgate on build and price either.  Does it work via a button up top?  I'm glad they didn't put an extra door handle on it like the patent drawings showed.

 

There’s a button in the regular tailgate handle that opens it. There’s a TFL video that shows how it works.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

It’s a choice some people prefer whether it makes sense to others or not.  I’m one of those buyers who normally gets the base engine because “it’s good enough”.  If I needed more power, I would choose displacement over turbos because I deem it less complicated, more reliable, and larger-engine fuel-economy-penalty would not offset turbo-related repairs if they were needed.  I look at added cost for fuel similar to insurance that would pay for a turbo replacement or some other issue.  I drive vehicles for many years and most miles are often past warranty period.  I prefer to spend a bit more on gas monthly than possibly face thousands in repairs.

Larger displacement doesn't always equate to better reliability. We rented a 2020 Tahoe with the 5.3 a few years back, it was terrible compared to our 2017 explorer with the NA duratec 3.5 v6. Despite having almost two liters of additional displacement, and two additional cylinders, it had terrible low end acceleration and engine issues near the end of our vacation. 

 

Even in NA form, the 2011-19 explorers are very peppy, you tap the gas and it's like "Yeah, I'm ready to fly" the first gear is very short in those cars as well, almost too short, so that helps in making it very responsive at low speeds. With the Tahoe, you'd have to plant the gas pedal to get it up to 35-40 in a reasonable amount of time. It was slow, unreliable, the CEL came on, first time I've had a rental do that, and just a terrible all around car. 

 

I came away from the experience stunned that someone could spend 15k more on that shitbox than an explorer when literally everything about it was worse, literally everything. If the BOF explorers drove or rode anything like the Tahoe/suburbans did, then thank God ford switched to unibody, night and day experiences.