Ford 2015 f150 to get 27mpg

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Toyota's had a useful-sized pickup since at least 1968. (The 'Stout' - I owned one in the mid-'70s.) What they haven't had until fairly recently is a bloated equivalent to the American "full-sized"* pickup. The strange thing is that I have friends who own these "full-sized" trucks, yet I can haul as much or more than they ever do, and go places they don't even think of going.

So if the goal is really to improve fuel economy, it would seem more sensible to simply build smaller, and spend some money marketing that.

It's not about actual usability for some; it's about image. An 80s Toyota is just not seen as "macho"... although Marty McFly would disagree.

Personally, if I can throw in a couple mountain bikes or a table saw, I'm happy. I'd be fine with an old 'yota, VW or S10; it just happened that my truck found me, not the other way around.

[cosmick]

Sorry, false. I can prove the 31, you can't prove 21, because it never was.

[2000mc]

Where does the 31 figure come from?
Fueleconomy.gov puts an '84 at 22mpg

[cosmick]

S-10 at 34 MPG
http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/6yexg6apn8q9uv.jpg

[oil pan 4]

They might as well make the frame out of aluminum since about 96% of people who buy them drive use them as a car (east coast thing). Then when they do haul something about 90% of the remaining 4% are hauling something that could be done with a car and a trailer.

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

They might as well make the frame out of aluminum since about 96% of people who buy them drive use them as a car (east coast thing). Then when they do haul something about 90% of the remaining 4% are hauling something that could be done with a car and a trailer.

Well, I think you are spot on!

Remember there are 3 levels of the same full size truck, 150, 250, 350. I would imagine that the 150 has become more of a 'consumer vehicle' and the 250 & 350 are 'commercial vehicles'.

With that said, they see an opportunity to increase corporate epa mpg on the best selling vehicle they have. While protecting profit margins, which are needed to support the production of the small vehicles that are not as profitable.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by mcrews

Well, I think you are spot on!

Remember there are 3 levels of the same full size truck, 150, 250, 350. I would imagine that the 150 has become more of a 'consumer vehicle' and the 250 & 350 are 'commercial vehicles'.

With that said, they see an opportunity to increase corporate epa mpg on the best selling vehicle they have. While protecting profit margins, which are needed to support the production of the small vehicles that are not as profitable.

Valid point, though you might be surprised at the number of students in Tallahassee who drive F250's and 350's 1.5 miles to school, back and forth every day.

Culturally, even those trucks are consumer vehicles around here.

Very exciting though.

[2000mc]

maybe i know alot of the 10% of the 4%, or maybe its a midwest thing. trucks might appear more under utilized than they are,for example my dad commutes in his 1500, when most people see him, he could just as well be driving a car. this weekend hes off pulling about as big of a camper that it can handle. has a flatbed for hauling his skidsteer, small tractor, other cars, construction materials, scrap steel, trees, landscaping materials. quads with a smaller trailer. he considered a 2500, but the 1500s are capable enough for what he does, costs less upfront and gets better mileage.

[Hersbird]

That Chevy s10 ad is the old pre 1984 standard, to be fair you need to compare apples to apples and the epa has the 1984 version adjusted to the current standard and it's not that great. Especially if you compare the capability, and performance of this new 2015 F150.
I also think one vehicle that can do many things has a certain appeal. Yeah a trailer can haul things but what about tow a boat or camper? What about hunting? What about more crash protection? Many are 6 passenger with lots of room for luggage and dogs. Etc, etc. Just because you see them commuting doesn't mean that's the only thing they do.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by cosmick

Sorry, false. I can prove the 31, you can't prove 21, because it never was.

I linked my source, which you seem to have ignored. Here it is:


Apparently, by "GM," you meant Chevrolet, not GMC. I understand that it is mostly a matter of badging, but their EPA ratings differ. Here is just the Chevrolet pickup's ratings:

Originally Posted by 2000mc

Where does the 31 figure come from?
Fueleconomy.gov puts an '84 at 22mpg

Originally Posted by cosmick

S-10 at 34 MPG
http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/6yexg6apn8q9uv.jpg

Is that for the 1986 S-10? The S-10 was what you called full-sized? How does the 2.8L engine prove the fuel efficiency of a 2.8L diesel from three years previous?

I am not trying to argue or insult. Had the EPA said 31 MPG, I would have posted that to support you. In these forums, members expect people to support claims. Instead of asking for your source, I looked it up. If you can support the 1983 6.2L diesel being rated 31 MPG, I will happily delete all of my responses. If you start your own thread about the 1983 31 MPG 6.2L diesel, I will move my messages there, and we can clean up this thread.