Ford 2015 f150 to get 27mpg
 

I wish they had done this 10 years ago so I could afford it now :) I'm thinking this truck would be awesome to have in 2025 lol. I wonder if they have plans for a Manual trans model. I doubt it...

About time, RAM already makes a 3.0liter turbo diesel that gets 28mpg on the highway.

Edit: the weight saving is encouraging though. Other manufacturers will have to follow suit.

I'd like to see a small 4x4 (like 2.5L) Toyota Diesel with a manual trans. That would be heaven.

These still are not official numbers, just like before an iPhone just guesses. The fact they still haven't released the number makes me wonder, they were actually pushing for 30mpg highway, if they end up 27 that is kind of a disappointment.

Wouldn't hardly call this progress, since my '88 Toyota 4WD averages 28 :-)

Didn't know toyo had a full size pickup in 88???

The new full size Toyota is actually about the worst MPG on the market. They never used to care because the sales of all their good MPG trucks offset their bad ones. Ford sells so many F150s they have to worry more about CAFE standards. But the new CAFE agreement seems to put the Tundra out there by itself because of it's size and the smaller trucks don't help their larger size light truck average. Seems to me the 2015 Tundra needs a 18 MPG combined EPA rating to meet the standards. Even the 2wd V6 doesn't make it let alone the 5.7 4x4 which they sell the most of.

Oh, I see the penalty is $55 per truck per MPG over so they probably just tack $300 on to the price of a $40,000 truck and don't worry about it.

This is really a bold AND smart move.
1. F150 is a huge brand w tremendous loyalty.
2. Truck buyers want ,heavy & strong'
3. Ford can reinvent the market
4 most profitable vehicle in their line so they have margin to work with

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.


*A bit of double-speak that always reminds me of the marketers who refer to fat women as "full-figured".

My sister never shared my skinny genes and Mom always referred to her as "athletic." When my sister was not around, I asked "what sport?!"

I waste time on dating sites and see many aggressively defensive statements about women not being wide, my mind is just too narrow, and me not being man enough for them anyway. They often show pictures of heavier women with muscular men.

What are they doing to win over a guy who spends hours in the gym?

I guess that the moral of the story is, do you get better fuel economy with a 120-pound girlfriend, compared a 330-pound young lady that I know?

Maybe everybody should just ignore me...

Also those older smaller pickups had a lower bed height that made it easier to climb into and to lift and load heavy items into.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxK3vFNyYxQ

lol @ toyota quality.

regards
mech

Interesting :eek: take on fibbing....... :thumbup:
I would think honesty would be a better policy.... :rolleyes:

So bottom line.....a corolla w/o a trunk lid counts as a useful sized truck.

TRUTH!

I'm 6'2" and some modern trucks I can't reach over the side and touch the bed floor. You MUST climb up into the bed to do anything. And now they offer flip-down steps in the tailgate as a solution. How about not making it so stupidly huge in the first place instead?!!

I had an old Mazda truck (pre Ranger twins) that I could not just reach into, but actually step into the bed from the side.

I once had a new '94 Chevy W/T1500 RCLB 4.3L / auto / 3.73:1 that peaked as high as 26 MPG stock, and it should have done 27 with a 3.42:1, so I can believe Ford could get there, IF they'd get rid of all the extra frontal area they've added since about '83.

That's nothing. The '83 GM fullsize with 6.2L diesel was rated as high as 31 MPG, and I personally saw one do 35 MPG.

In 1983, Volkswagon had a 42-MPG diesel pickup.
The Chevrolet C-10 6.2L 2WD was 21 MPG on diesel, while the 4.1L gas was only 17.
The C-20 with 6.2L diesel 2WD was 23 MPG.
The GMC Caballero 5.7L diesel got 22 MPG.
The C-15 with 6.2L diesel got 23 MPG.
C-25 with 6.2L got 23 MPG.

Then it showed 4WD with similar mileage, vans, and that was pretty much it. I did not find any GMC truck higher than 23 MPG, and that is the old system. Is there some conversion factor between old and new EPA? Divide by two? :)

Document Display | NSCEP | US EPA

Around here diesel is 20% more than gas. That makes 27 mpg on gas equal to almost 34mpg when you compare it to diesel factoring in the additional cost per gallon (cost per mile).

A lot of the older smaller trucks got decent mileage, but they would never pass todays crash requirements. The Ranger beats 30 consistently. It weighs a little over 2800 pounds. Most of the Japanese imports were under 2500 in the 70s and 80s.

regards
mech

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. :thumbup:

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moderators, you have my permission to delete this argument.
 

http://filmforte.files.wordpress.com...lkin-to-me.png

I linked my source, which you seem to have ignored. Here it is:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.cg...5C9100MVZ7.TIF

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:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1410885526

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.

1500s are also a big step in efficiency, for someone that actually utilizes a truck, a capable 1500 vs a 2500 is as big of a step as going from that 1500 to a car
(my examples are limited as most 2500 trucks aren't rated)
2005 2500 silverado 2wd 6.0L auto comb mpg 11 or 9.1g/100mi
2005 1500 silverado 2wd 6.0L auto comb mpg 15 or 6.7g/100mi
2005 1500 silverado 2wd 5.3L auto comb mpg 16 or 6.2g/100mi
2005 cobalt 2.2L auto comb mpg 24 or 4.2 g/100mi
2005 aveo 1.6L auto comb mpg 26 or 3.8g/100mi

But it does mean that upwards of 95% of their use is wasteful. Designing one tool to do a multitude of jobs means that it most likely won't do any of those jobs very well. IOW, it'd be much more efficient to buy a small car (or motorcycle, &c) for the driving to work, and use the truck only when it's really needed. (Which is what I do, with Insight & Toyota pickup.)

The Toyota is perfectly capable of towing a reasonable-sized boat. Sure, if you ego is such that you think your boat has to be about half the size of the Queen Mary, you need something larger to tow it, but IMHO psychological counseling would be a better investment :-) Camping? Well, I can put everything I need to camp in a backpack, and carry it in the Insight. I don't do hunting (too much like work), but I do hike, bike, & ride horses in suitable places for hunting, and have no problem getting there. As I said earlier, the Toyota will go places most 'full-sized' truck owners won't dream of going, if only because they're afraid of scratching their paint.

I think your 95% is just randomly pulled out of thin air. I just scanned the area around me and count 100 vehicles, 7 which are full sized pickups and I live in "truck country". 3 of those pickups are being used in work and actually have large contractor trailers hooked up. I know a lot of truck owners and don't know many who don't use the capability a good portion of their use. I used to have a 2500 Chevy myself that just sat there most of the year so I finally sold it, my slide in camper, and my boat. Now my weekends suck LOL! I do have a 5x8 utility trailer. And hunting truck is more about not putting a bunch of blood in the back of mamma's minivan. I learned that lesson the hard way, but bouncing around and empty utility trailer up in the woods on iced narrow roads is no fun either. Maybe in California a truck is some kind of status symbol, but around here people aren't just out blowing money on something they don't need.

Also I think more people would but a Tacoma if they in their common form 4x4 v6 didn't get pretty much the same mileage as the 2014 v6 ecoboost F150 while ultimately costing about the same after rebates.

I don't know about any GM 2.8L diesel, but that god awful 2.8L POS gas engine they put in everything was also in a Camaro with a 5-speed manual I used to have. It would get up to 29mpg on the highway. Put the 2.8L POS in a boxy truck and I would expect it to get quite a few little less MPGs.

Now if you are talking 6.2L and 6.5L diesel engines in an S-10 then yeah they can get right about 30mpg.
Only problem is GM never put a that diesel in production S-10, so there would be no EPA rating.
There is at least one person over on the dieselplace.com/forum that has built a diesel powered S-10 and they are claiming to get something like 28 to 30 mpg.

I said people buying truck and using them like a car is an east coast thing.
In newmexico and texas I see people using half tons to pull bob cats or loaded way down being used as welding/service trucks. Then 1tonns being used in place of tractor trailers hauling cow trailers packed with well over 10k of extremely rare hamburg and hay trailers loaded way past 20,000lb of gross trailer weight.

East coast is where I saw countless half tons with pristine condition, linerless pickup beds and trailer hitches that have never seen a hitch installed.

Will that 27MPG have to be "scaled-BACK" like the C-Max 42MPG was?

To an extent, yes. I was tempted to say 99%, but thought I'd be conservative. I'm going by what I see around me, and I do live about as far from the East Coast as you can get without running into California.

Slight digression: I see a lot of those 'contractor trailers' nowadays, and most of the time they're being pulled by a newish pickup with an empty bed, which seems to defeat the purpose of having a truck in the first place. Is it just that the bed's so high up it's not really usable any more? And FWIW, I worked construction for years, using a '78 Datsun and the aforementioned '68 Toyota.

Tent plus canoe or kayak, maybe a sailboard. Weekends get interesting again :-)

Tarp :-)

So that's why you need the pickup, for that sort of road. (Though as I said, most of the pickup owners I know wouldn't take their trucks on that sort of road for fear of scratching the paint.) What you probably don't need it for is the daily commute to work. It's a matter of using the right tool for the job, rather than trying to drive screws with a sledgehammer :-)

The back of the truck is empty because everything not locked is stolen

Let me know how other potential drivers of the vehicle feel about the tarp, I think it's really only an option w/ vehicles <$2k. I've seen a guy try and fail at this, leaving a bloody carpet. What volume of blood does a tarp hold?

Commuting to work in a truck is almost never the best fuel effiecient option, but if their commute is short enough, an additional vehicle wont make financial sense

I can say from experience, it'll take something more solid and less porous than a tarp. I'm assuming blood will flow similarly to urine, like when I hauled sheep in the Odyssey. A double layer of new tarp didn't stop it. Now there's a lovely smell whenever it gets hot in the sun (I live in Texas...).