Drew Dowdell

Shoot, I'm on my phone so there isn't a way to make a link hot but just guessing I would think the last gen Limited has similar or slightly less equipment than the new gen Platinums. 6029lbs is what the weight is. I'm not sure what Platinum weight you're looking at for comparison. http://m.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-ford-f-150-limited-ecoboost-v-6-test-review-less-is-more-page-2 (Don't look at their mpg either.. Lol) I'm chalking it up to lazy reporting in the articles I've found. Reporting a 2012 SuperCab Platinum 4x4 at 5585 and I'm thinking "that can't be right"

Well, even the marketing team at Ford was careful enough to make the 700 lb weight loss claim an "up to" type. CR, when weighing two comparable middle of the range GM and Ford half-ton crewcabs chucked a figure of around 400 lbs that the Ford has an advantage on weight. While mass is key to driving dynamics and has a lot of benefits overall, FE for a still heavy vehicle is probably still more affected by powertrain and gearing, which Ford didn't completely overhaul in 2015. GM did have a new engine range, but the 8 speed just became more available just recently. MT's test of the 5.3 with the 6-speed in the comparo, it chugged fuel, but the Ram won partly because even though it was slower, it had the 'feeling of being fast'. So quite a bit of rthetoric and hype in magazine tests is just what it is, pandering to the fears and likes of the audience to get controversial results and sell dead-tree and online subscriptions. By no means however, am I giving pity points to the F150. But the GMC Denali's performance is only against a comparably equipped Platinum, not the full range of trucks. All of their test chug fuel... whether it's the GM V8s or the Ford Ecoboosts or the Ram Hemis.... As long as they are being tested the same at the same time, it isn't an issue. I am perfectly willing to admit that my driving is atypical. I get the vehicle on the PA Turnpike or I-80, point the nose due east or due west as my needs dictate, get it to 70mph and then press the cruise control button. This is a 250 mile to 350 mile trip I do multiple times a month. I always rent the biggest SUV I can get, and I've had them all. There is simply no fuel economy advantage to selecting an Ecoboost powered vehicle over a GM V8 (The Hemi does fall behind a bit even with the 8-speed), and the Ecoboosts require premium to return their promised results. It's simple. Show me the numbers of something I can buy today that show a clear Ford advantage over a GM that matches the hype. You can show me a lower cost to operate, a power advantage that manifests itself in faster acceleration of 1 second or more.... something.. anything that you can point to without an asterisk and fine print. Asking for that isn't bias.

I'm not knocking the effort. I'm looking at the numbers and asking where the results are. This effort was supposed to beat everyone else in the game. It hasn't.

If eight-speeds and cylinder deactivation were the primary cause for the fuel economy gain, then why isn't the Ram HEMI doing that well with fuel economy even with lower power? You also can't talk about the extra gears when comparing the GM 5.3 to the Ford 2.7, they both have 6-speed autos and again, the observed fuel economy results are the same in spite of the Ford's "added lightness" and the New-Gen engine. The guy in the Edmunds test just barely got 23mpg in an F-150 2.7EB while trying really hard.... I get 22mpg out of a Suburban at 70mph across Pennsylvania every other month! GM has been running cylinder deactivation in its trucks since 2005, not exactly new tech there! Since you seem to want to play the "just wait till next year!! I'll show you!" card - GM has Dynamic Skip Fire coming where the V8 can run on as few as 2 cylinders, and as you like to point out, they are going aluminum as well.... and getting the 10-speed. But future product doesn't matter today. And the results today are that the hype surrounding the F-150's weight loss and the Ecoboost's efficiency aren't reflected in the real world results. You can't blame 8-speed transmissions and Cylinder Deactivation at GM for that. 2.7TT v. 5.3 EcoTech = same real world fuel economy, both with 6-speed autos 3.5TT v. 6.2 EcoTech = same real world fuel economy, same acceleration unless towing and then the 6.2 wins... and the 6.2 costs less per mile to fuel. (Selecting the Max Towing package further improves both the highway fuel economy* and acceleration on the GM) And yet, in both cases, the GM truck is heavier..... So I just don't see the huge advantage you're trying to sell me on if I go with the Ford. *It's a lower final drive ratio, but that also allows the engine to stay in 4-cylinder mode longer.

Again, I'm not knocking the effort. I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results. I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model.

What is "amazing" to me is how there is only a 1mpg penalty to move from the GM 5.3 to the 6.2 even though there is a big jump in power. I'm sure a lot of that is the doing of the 8-speed, the 5.3 isn't hooked up to the 8-speeds yet. Plants re-tool all the time, but the Ford effort for Aluminum was a huge cost, many times over the normal retooling process. The High Country and Platinum both had sun roofs. Weights are listed with a dry tank, but even if you want to include the difference in weight of each tank full, that would still mean there is only a difference of 144lbs (the difference in dry weight between a 26g tank and 36g tank is marginal) A console shifter is nothing but a giant waste of space in a truck (and I'd argue the same for cars too, score for Lincoln on this one). Give me a column mount or the Ram's rotary dial. The giant and deep storage capacity of the Silverado's center console is tough to beat. As for my negative experiences - I didn't have any, nor did I say I did. I got the EPA stated fuel economy in a perfectly capable SUV which matches my experience in an SUV from the competition. What I don't buy is the marketing hype around Ecoboost in the trucks being so much better.... because that hasn't been my experience. Nor has the hype matched the experience at Edmunds, Motor Trend, Car & Driver, or Automotive News...... so it's not just me.

Of course, being the "king" it has to drink premium just to get the same observed fuel economy. I take a 3+ mpg hit when I fuel an Expedition with regular. I expect that's the same with the F-150. And even at today's low gas prices, the Chevy is cheaper per mile to fuel. I'm not the only one unconvinced by the claimed fuel economy of the Fords. Automotive News: Edmunds could only get the EPA rated fuel economy of 23 mpg highway from the 2.7 Ecoboost (and that's the new gen engine remember) when going down hill, with a strong tail wind, and keeping the speed strictly at 65mph or below: I usually beat EPA highway in nearly every vehicle I drive, but given the results by others in this field, I guess I should be happy that I simply matched the EPA rating of the Expedition EL... even though it took premium fuel to do it and the EPA's rating is based on regular. In Suburbans, I meet or beat the EPA rating every time. So yeah, I have reason to remain skeptical of the virtues of Ecoboost in these big trucks. I do believe turbocharged DI engines have their place, but so far, that place is in vehicles of significantly lower mass.

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter. (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size) Huh? So simply mentioning the mpg advantage (as well as the performance correction) right after someone else claimed the GMC 'gave the boots to the Ford V6'.....somehow required a qualification on your part? You never felt the need to qualify or correct the 'boot' remark? Why is that? That seems like the a better placement of your suggestion to 'not get carried away on.' Yes... because after spending how many billions on a new body material, and how many millions on building and marketing Ecoboost, a 1mpg increase in highway economy over the traditional setup isn't "amazing". Imagine if Toyota had spend billions to build and market the Prius as fantastic and amazing new technology, then after all of that, it got 1 mpg better on the highway than the Camry. We're told that the Ecoboost offers a great advantage in towing too? It's 1.4 seconds behind the V8 when towing the same weight. That's one-mississippi, two mississ..... behind. And even then, I don't know where MT got those fuel economy numbers, but they say the V8 in a steel body gets better city, highway, and combined fuel economy over the turbo-V6 in an aluminum body? In another comparison test where Car and Driver compared the Chevrolet Silverado High Country 6.2 and F-150 Platinum 3.5EB - their powertrain and chassis scores are basically even, observed MPG is identical (though the Ford is taking premium fuel verses the Chevy's regular).... and in that comparison, another stat shows up. The aluminum body, V6 Ford is only 81 lbs lighter than the steel body, V8 Chevy. They also give the "Fun to Drive" crown to the Chevy. For all of that money and time spent on the new technology at Ford, I am not amazed. Not even a little bit. Now, I like the F-150, I think it's a great truck... I just don't think it's "amazing" compared to its closest competition given all of the money they spent to get there.

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter. (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size) Although, apparently MT sees different specs than I see on the respective brand websites:

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter. (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size)

Flexibility.

Move on..

Never mind mind the fact that his excuse is based of the assumption that gas prices will always be low, when they surely will not be this low always. What will the excuse be when gas goes up again? While they won't always be low, they will stay relatively low for the next 3 to 5 years. China's growth is scaling back and lots of new oil production came online in North America. Saudi Arabia is in crisis mode, pumping as much as they can to keep the lights on because the price per barrel is so low. So, he's most likely right that prices will stay low.... still... a bunch of people buying trucks that take premium that they are uninformed about is a potential customer relations issue.

Has Tesla Sunk Itself With the Model X? http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/has-tesla-sunk-itself-with-the-model-x-column He has some valid points. Elon's ego may be the biggest single danger to Tesla.

You're hooked up to the local Taco Bell? Lots of wind propellant coming out of there, *whew* In some parts of the country, you can select which company provides the power to your house. I selected a wind generation company that is half a cent per KWh cheaper than the default coal generation and I'm guaranteed that fixed price for 2 years.

So if 50 miles of electric driving means buying gas 4 times a year. Couldn't a 150 mile range mean never needing gas? If I had a short commute, which I actually do, I would rather have a pure electric car and never need gas. If the goal is zero emissions, no trips to the gas station, then a pure EV is the end game. The people who only fill up 4 times a year only do so because the gas engine runs from time to time to keep things moving and make sure fresh gasoline cycles through. Gas starts to go bad after 6 months or so. Aside from the programming to cycle the engine, there is no technical reason those people couldn't go an entire year without filling up with gas.

I've never really had the interior room issues you keep seeing. The Passat has great interior room, but the interior quality isn't there. It starts at $22,4 and feels it... even if you buy the $32k model.

Cadillac already has average transaction prices above BMW and Audi... so it's not like they have that far to go.

I'm told that the D6 platform can support FWD/AWD/RWD.

Which is a noble cause in its own right. And cleaner air tho. Especially for cyclists because we breath the $hit that comes out of tailpipes. Well I don't like the exterior as much as I thought I would, but a Canadian (good guy too! hint: finger lickin' chicken little) reviewer said the dashboard was made of peanut butter. So I became jelly that he was driving it. We frequently have air quality issues in my city due to the geography here.

Well, I can say this - I *really* love the new Sierra and Silverado face. I was lukewarm to the '15s as they were handsome, but didn't move the line forward enough for me. To my eyes, the new GM trucks make the GM 2015s and the competitors look quite obsolete... the Ram and Tundra most of all. It's the first time in recent memory that I can remember liking both the GMC and the Chevrolet full size truck models of the same year. I tended to flip from one to the other.

I like the idea of using fewer fossil fuels. I'm interested in the Volt for that reason... plus I have a wind energy supplier for my house electric.

Is there another round of platform weight loss for next year then? Always looking to reduce, but why, does it need it? It was the implication from your post that the addition of 10-speeds and "added lightness" would contribute to further improvements in the F-150's performance. If there isn't any significant additional weight loss coming, then it can't help performance over the current model now can it?

Is there another round of platform weight loss for next year then?