2017 Ford F-150 News

[kscarbel2]

 

[kscarbel2]

 

[mowerman]

well im a ford man myself got 3 of them thanks for sharing....was very interesting...bob

[Mike]

Our family has been Ford buyers since 1957.  First Ford was a 55 Fairlane with a 312 Thunderbird engine, 1st engine that I helped my dad rebuild. Almost bought a new 2016 Lariuat 4x4, yesterday with the 6.2 engine . I just don't have the extra room.

[storkmack]

I am partial to Dodges and now Rams, but I bought the wife a 15' Ford Expedition XL with the Eco-Boost.   Runs real strong, but the mileage is right around 15 MPG +/- 1MPG. On the other hand, my Ram Ecodiesel does 25 MPG  + /- 1 MPG.  I like both vehicles, but if had to buy another truck right now, the only thing holding me to a Ram would be the mileage.  The Ford is just a damn nice, solid vehicle.  

[kscarbel2]

3 minutes ago, storkmack said:

I am partial to Dodges and now Rams, but I bought the wife a 15' Ford Expedition XL with the Eco-Boost.   Runs real strong, but the mileage is right around 15 MPG +/- 1MPG. On the other hand, my Ram Ecodiesel does 25 MPG  + /- 1 MPG.  I like both vehicles, but if had to buy another truck right now, the only thing holding me to a Ram would be the mileage.  The Ford is just a damn nice, solid vehicle.  

The problem with EcoBoost is the lack of "eco". Ford is to be admired for incorporating every cutting edge technology available today into their Ecoboost engines. However, with that name, many are disappointed at the mediocre fuel economy they're witnessing in real world driving.

When Ford starts installing its global market V-6 (and V-8?) diesels in the F-150 and Expedition that it sells to Land Rover (Ranger Rover), you'll have an interesting new option.

 

[mowerman]

17 hours ago, Mike said:

Our family has been Ford buyers since 1957.  First Ford was a 55 Fairlane with a 312 Thunderbird engine, 1st engine that I helped my dad rebuild. Almost bought a new 2016 Lariuat 4x4, yesterday with the 6.2 engine . I just don't have the extra room.

ya baby like to have that 55 now...not much time for another antique these days....i also had a 55   4 door back around 1976 really liked it...bob

[Mike]

1 hour ago, mowerman said:

ya baby like to have that 55 now...not much time for another antique these days....i also had a 55   4 door back around 1976 really liked it...bob

If I can think of it i'll try to find a photo of it. I'll be having to take a picture of a photo in hopes of it coming out ok.

[mowerman]

Excellent thanks

[carlotpilot]

a friend of mine was telling me today about an incident with his brother and a ford sales woman .seems he was trying out a new ford 450 and she was along for the ride .she was explaining the heated and cooled seats to him cool seats in summer and heated in winter . she was wearing a  hilliary for pres button so he asked her if this was a trump truck .she took offence at that and said hell no .he said well it can`t be a hilliary truck or it would blow smoke up your ass all 12 months of the year . the fellow said that reaction was well worth the 2 mile walk back to his car

[m16ty]

From what I've heard, the new aluminum body doesn't hold up too well in a work truck.

I like the aluminum from a corrosion aspect but it seems they didn't use a heavy enough gauge and/or braced it well enough.

[mowerman]

Don't go by that TV ad ford puts thier truck Thu a rigorous test and I don't think the bed is as weak as Chevy claims bob

[m16ty]

I know of a couple of people that own AL Fords and I wasn't impressed with the strength of materials.

Of course I own a 2015 Chevy and it's steel bed is pretty light also. Two days after I got it, I had a cooler in the back and had to get on the brakes hard. It bent the front of the bed almost into the cab. It bent so easily I pulled it back out (as good as I could) by hand. It's still not perfect but when I added the toolbox it covered it up. I guess the bottom line is they don't build anything like they used to.

[mowerman]

Lol.. boy you said it.ive owned both. Chevy's fords the new models are both pretty sharp but let's face it thier both set up now for comfort,quiet,and has milage mainly.bob

[kscarbel2]

 

 

[kscarbel2]

 

[Dirtymilkman]

The ecoboost mileage is not good. For the complexity of the motors and expense of parts they're not worth it. The two we had would average 15 overall. We could get 23 on the highway, around town driving was around 11-13. We have one new 1/2 ton Chevy 4wd with the 5.3, overall so far is 17+ Highway driving is 23 city is 17. It feels almost as powerful as the Eco.

[Red Horse]

19 hours ago, Dirtymilkman said:

The ecoboost mileage is not good. For the complexity of the motors and expense of parts they're not worth it. The two we had would average 15 overall. We could get 23 on the highway, around town driving was around 11-13. We have one new 1/2 ton Chevy 4wd with the 5.3, overall so far is 17+ Highway driving is 23 city is 17. It feels almost as powerful as the Eco.

Just out of curiosity...."expense of parts"???  With two trucks in your fleet what were the issues?  As the owner of a Taurus SHO I have to say in the back of my mind when I ordered it I thought..."hope I'm not buying issues-two turbos etc".  Well 83,000 miles later never been back to dealer.  It consistently gives around 25.3 hiway, 22-mixed.  

Granted, it a 4000 lb+ car not a truck.  I think the biggest issue with Ecoboost vehicles is people like to keep their foot in it! I myself? I see the RPM's drop and I use a little less pressure on the pedal-it usually makes the grade without a downshift-nothing like low end torque-its a "237"!

[kscarbel2]

Ford threw all the latest technology into a pot and stirred. The result is the Ecoboost range. They proved a smaller engine can equate to a larger engine (Though one can expect shorter engine life from the busier smaller engine, a point Ford never comments on).

Though the 3.5L Ecoboost V-6 engine, for example, has the power of the 5.0L V-8, they also have the fuel consumption of the V-8 as well, rather than that of a V-6. Performance is better, under certain conditions, thanks of course to turbocharging.

But unless you drive an Ecoboost fitted truck as if there were a Faberge egg under the accelerator pedal, you want discover a world of "eco".

[Dirtymilkman]

A local construction company here buys 2500 Chevy HD with 6.0. They run them 200,000-300,000 miles then auction them off. They like the simplicity and how cheap parts are. Not a lot of sensors, no turbos, no lag and no shuddering. Their bigger trucks were all powerstrokes but now they're just buying v10s because of upfront cost and maintenance costs. There are times simpler is better. 

[1965]

7 minutes ago, Dirtymilkman said:

A local construction company here buys 2500 Chevy HD with 6.0. They run them 200,000-300,000 miles then auction them off. They like the simplicity and how cheap parts are. Not a lot of sensors, no turbos, no lag and no shuddering. Their bigger trucks were all powerstrokes but now they're just buying v10s because of upfront cost and maintenance costs. There are times simpler is better. 

i bought a diesel pick-up in 06 when diesel was cheaper than gas & bought for power & fuel economy but if had to do it tomorrow I'd buy gas; lots of extra money & hard to justify; got to put lots of miles on 1 to justify in my opion

[kscarbel2]

.

 

[kscarbel2]

.

 

[kscarbel2]

 

[m16ty]

I've been a diesel fan for years. When I bought a new truck last year (2015 Chevy 2500 6.0) I went with gas.

There's just too much crap on modern diesels and you've got to deal with the DEF. The engine base may run 100s of thousands of miles but all the electronics and such will have to be serviced much sooner, at great cost.

It used to be that if you bought a diesel and drove it long enough, you'd finally save money over a gas engine due to fuel economy and cheaper price of diesel. Now I don't think you'd ever get ahead cost wise.