2024 F-150 Reveal Thread

[DeluxeStang]

9 hours ago, akirby said:

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

It looks like Ford's getting rid of area 51 across their lineup, it's gone with the newer mavericks and I believe the BS. I have no idea why, it's a fantastic and extremely popular color what was loved by just about everyone. My only guess is because it's a relatively complex color, that shifts a lot with the lighting, maybe that made it more expensive to keep producing or something. Beyond cost, it would make no sense to drop it. 

[Deanh]

4 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

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.

...great of you want an electric Transit....plethora of those in inventories....DOH! Houston, we have a problem.............

[akirby]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

It looks like Ford's getting rid of area 51 across their lineup, it's gone with the newer mavericks and I believe the BS. I have no idea why, it's a fantastic and extremely popular color what was loved by just about everyone. My only guess is because it's a relatively complex color, that shifts a lot with the lighting, maybe that made it more expensive to keep producing or something. Beyond cost, it would make no sense to drop it. 

Azure grey was a good replacement,  slightly lighter shade of the same color but it looks like they dropped that too.  And they dropped Race Red?  How long was that around?  I’m guessing at least 15 years.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

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. 

Agree larger displacement isn’t always more reliable, especially when comparing dissimilar engines or from different manufacturers, but I was referring to engines with similar performance so that a naturally-aspirated V8 is compared to turbo V6, or naturally-aspirated V6 is comparable to turbo I-4.  That was how Ford originally compared EcoBoost technology to NA options.

[SoonerLS]

59 minutes ago, akirby said:

And they dropped Race Red?  How long was that around?  I’m guessing at least 15 years.

Well, I know it has been around for at least ten years...

[SoonerLS]

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

I didn't see this new tailgate on build and price either.  Does it work via a button up top? 

In the TFL video I posted on the first page of this thread, Andrei shows how the tailgate works. As noted above, it's a separate button/handle in with the tailgate handle. 

[SoonerLS]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

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

We can hope.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Agree larger displacement isn’t always more reliable, especially when comparing dissimilar engines or from different manufacturers, but I was referring to engines with similar performance so that a naturally-aspirated V8 is compared to turbo V6, or naturally-aspirated V6 is comparable to turbo I-4.  That was how Ford originally compared EcoBoost technology to NA options.

Even then, Ford's ecoboost engines are outlasting most NA v8s from their rivals. From a longevity standpoint, I have way more faith in Ford's 2.7 than I do in most hemis. 

[akirby]

42 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

Well, I know it has been around for at least ten years...

Debuted in 2011 so 14 years.  I had a love hate relationship with Race Red.  On certain trucks it looked great and on some it had an orange tint that I hated.  Probably the lighting.  Still made my top 3 but I went with magnetic instead.

[akirby]

The golf cart is Race Red….

[SoonerLS]

34 minutes ago, akirby said:

Debuted in 2011 so 14 years.  I had a love hate relationship with Race Red.  On certain trucks it looked great and on some it had an orange tint that I hated.  Probably the lighting.  Still made my top 3 but I went with magnetic instead.

I've seen it look slightly orange in pictures, but I've never seen my truck look anything but red in person.

[twintornados]

Curious ... did I miss the XL fleet option F150?

[akirby]

9 hours ago, twintornados said:

Curious ... did I miss the XL fleet option F150?

It’s just the base XL.  SXT is the retail version.

[akirby]

18 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 

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

The big issue with early ecoboosts is improper head cooling which forced them to run rich to keep temps down.  My 2013 fusion 2.0L left soot all over the exhaust outlets.

 

Our 3.5 edge and my 3.0 fusion got around 17 mpg.  My 2013 fusion 2.0eb got around 20-21.  Our 2.0eb Nautilus gets 23 easily, sometimes a lot higher.  Part of that is the transmission but a lot is in the cooling and other advancements.  
 

Also - my 3.5eb f150 with 470 lb/ft can get 26 mpg on my 45 minute commute.

[akirby]

On 9/12/2023 at 8:56 PM, jasonj80 said:

Also 90% simplification of ordering is going to be difficult for some customers as they are paying for features they don't want because they are now standard or in a package and they only want one thing. 

I know people say they don’t want to pay for extra stuff they don’t want but I don’t think it actually impacts sales that much if those are the only choices.  They’ll either live without that one feature or pony up for the package.  I really wanted auto hvac and memory seats on my F150 but the only way to get it was to upgrade to a Lariat and at that time the price difference in a loaded XLT and a base Lariat was almost $10k (because of incentives).  
 

I also think they’re making more things standard.  If I was in charge I would only have 2 versions of STX, XLT, Lariat and Platinum and one version of XL, Tremor, Raptor and KR with maybe a couple of stand alone options like moonroofs.

 

The big benefit for consumers is being able to find what you want in stock more easily.  When we bought our MKX in 2016 even on the Reserve models there were 3 optional packages we wanted - Climate, Technology and Driver assistance.  Not a single in stock Nautilus Reserve (and there were tons of them in 2016) within 200 miles had all 3 in the right color.  We didn’t want to wait so we did without driver assistance.  

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

The big issue with early ecoboosts is improper head cooling which forced them to run rich to keep temps down.  My 2013 fusion 2.0L left soot all over the exhaust outlets.

 

Our 3.5 edge and my 3.0 fusion got around 17 mpg.  My 2013 fusion 2.0eb got around 20-21.  Our 2.0eb Nautilus gets 23 easily, sometimes a lot higher.  Part of that is the transmission but a lot is in the cooling and other advancements.  
 

Also - my 3.5eb f150 with 470 lb/ft can get 26 mpg on my 45 minute commute.

 

Going on my experiences-my '13 SHO would only get about 17 MPG around town and best highway mileage was about 25 MPG. 

 

My Bronco with the 2.7L and 3.27 gears gets about 20 MPG with my around town driving...which is great-I actually think that is best I've gotten out of any car outside of the Fusion Hybrid I barely put 2500 miles on. But not being in AWD all the time and the 10 speed transmission help with that. The highway mileage stays at 20 MPG from the few long distance trips I've taken, but that boils down to its brick like aerodynamics. 

 

My wife gets about 23 MPG with her around town driving with her Escape. 

My parents noted (when we lived out of state) that their 2013 Escape would get better MPGs if they stayed under 75 with it, showing that highway mileage is really affected by aerodynamics also. 

[92merc]

On my 2013 Escape with 2.0EB, we never got advertised MPG.  Mixed driving was 22mpg at best.  Winter it could drop to 17mpg.  Got 30mpg once with a 30 mph tailwind.  Outside of that, never broke 23mpg.

 

New to me 2020 Escape with 2.0EB and new 8 speed, I'm running 27.1mpg in same mixed driving.  Don't have a full tank spent on it yet.  But I'd say it's markedly better.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

My parents noted (when we lived out of state) that their 2013 Escape would get better MPGs if they stayed under 75 with it, showing that highway mileage is really affected by aerodynamics also. 

It’s a double whammy with higher drag and higher rpm.

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

My parents noted (when we lived out of state) that their 2013 Escape would get better MPGs if they stayed under 75 with it, showing that highway mileage is really affected by aerodynamics also. 

Speed is indeed very important, but drivers also value their time, otherwise we would still have 55 MPH speed limits.  Unless engines are oversized and over-geared like in old days, you could slow down well below 55 MPH and still gain some additional MPG.

 

It’s interesting to note that hypermiling at very slow steady speeds with very small engines can result in incredibly high fuel economy.  Even with BEVs, distance per charge records have been set at speeds below 30 MPH.  Same would apply to ICE except engines are too large to drive that slowly and remain efficient.  If driver plans to go slow to save fuel, and doesn’t “need” a lot of power for other reasons, buying smallest engine is my choice.  That’s where the discontinued  3.3L V6 would have had most value.

[Deanh]

37 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Speed is indeed very important, but drivers also value their time, otherwise we would still have 55 MPH speed limits.  Unless engines are oversized and over-geared like in old days, you could slow down well below 55 MPH and still gain some additional MPG.

 

It’s interesting to note that hypermiling at very slow steady speeds with very small engines can result in incredibly high fuel economy.  Even with BEVs, distance per charge records have been set at speeds below 30 MPH.  Same would apply to ICE except engines are too large to drive that slowly and remain efficient.  If driver plans to go slow to save fuel, and doesn’t “need” a lot of power for other reasons, buying smallest engine is my choice.  That’s where the discontinued  3.3L V6 would have had most value.

heres something interesting...my Bronco Raptor is sitting at 16.1 combined...my 2 dr stick shift is 17.6......big engine loping vs a smaller working harder ?.....both are a hoot to drive though...and neithers driven with kid gloves.

[akirby]

40 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Speed is indeed very important, but drivers also value their time, otherwise we would still have 55 MPH speed limits.  Unless engines are oversized and over-geared like in old days, you could slow down well below 55 MPH and still gain some additional MPG.

 

It’s interesting to note that hypermiling at very slow steady speeds with very small engines can result in incredibly high fuel economy.  Even with BEVs, distance per charge records have been set at speeds below 30 MPH.  Same would apply to ICE except engines are too large to drive that slowly and remain efficient.  If driver plans to go slow to save fuel, and doesn’t “need” a lot of power for other reasons, buying smallest engine is my choice.  That’s where the discontinued  3.3L V6 would have had most value.

At slower speeds the 2.7 turbo probably uses less fuel than the 3.3.  Because of the low end torque of the ecoboost my truck can cruise at 1100 rpm even going uphill.  The 3.3 would need higher rpm to get the same power as the 2.7L.

[Rick73]

28 minutes ago, akirby said:

At slower speeds the 2.7 turbo probably uses less fuel than the 3.3.  Because of the low end torque of the ecoboost my truck can cruise at 1100 rpm even going uphill.  The 3.3 would need higher rpm to get the same power as the 2.7L.

Maybe, but it’s not really about keeping RPMs low for sake of low RPMs.  Agree a 2.7L EB would likely get as good or better MPG as NA 3.3L V6, but running engine at 1,100 RPM is not ideal either.  If vehicle speed is going to be that slow, I think it would be more efficient to reduce engine displacement considerably and increase RPM accordingly.  The lowest BSFC for most engines today, including EcoBoost, is way north of 1,100 RPM.  I’d have to look up data, but I think +/- 2,500 RPM is hard to beat provided engine displacement is ideal to minimize fuel consumption.  My point is that if driver can live with smaller engine, it’s usually the most fuel efficient (unless driving really fast, or towing, etc.).

[silvrsvt]

13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 I’d have to look up data, but I think +/- 2,500 RPM is hard to beat provided engine displacement is ideal to minimize fuel consumption.  My point is that if driver can live with smaller engine, it’s usually the most fuel efficient (unless driving really fast, or towing, etc.).

 

How is that case when overdrive keeps the engine around 1000-1200 RPM while at speed?

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Maybe, but it’s not really about keeping RPMs low for sake of low RPMs.  Agree a 2.7L EB would likely get as good or better MPG as NA 3.3L V6, but running engine at 1,100 RPM is not ideal either.  If vehicle speed is going to be that slow, I think it would be more efficient to reduce engine displacement considerably and increase RPM accordingly.  The lowest BSFC for most engines today, including EcoBoost, is way north of 1,100 RPM.  I’d have to look up data, but I think +/- 2,500 RPM is hard to beat provided engine displacement is ideal to minimize fuel consumption.  My point is that if driver can live with smaller engine, it’s usually the most fuel efficient (unless driving really fast, or towing, etc.).

BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption - had to look that one up) is a measure of efficiency.  So while it MAY (and I emphasize MAY) be more efficient at 2500 rpm it still burns way less fuel at 1100 rpm.  It’s like saying a Maverick gets 30 mpg compared to a F150 at 22.  But if it takes 2 trips to carry a load in a Maverick vs 1 for the F150 the F150 uses less fuel.

[Rick73]

8 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

How is that case when overdrive keeps the engine around 1000-1200 RPM while at speed?

Did you see the part where I stated “provided engine displacement is ideal to minimize fuel consumption”?

 

To answer your question without getting into details, it’s for same reason cylinder deactivation or displacement on demand saves fuel.  If you could simply gear engines to operate as efficiently in 1,000~1,200 RPM range (or even slower) then cylinder deactivation wouldn’t add much value.  However, even with the added friction of greater number of moving parts, it’s still more efficient to operate a V8 as a 4 cylinder at higher RPMs than it is to pull the load as a V8 at extremely low RPMs.  At least for now.  That could change in theory some day but I doubt it will since ICE R&D is being cut back.

 

None of this really matters since 3.3L is gone, and buyers who prefer NA engines are essentially left with 5.0L V8.  I’m not counting 5.2L.