2015 F-150 - First Drive Report

  • Thread starter Slash
  • 348 comments
  • 23,360 views
Lord, that front is ugly.

Also, are we going back to the 80s where we have to have large stickers and signs with the car's name or "turbo" or whatever plastered all over again? Count me out of that craze.
 
Crash
Lord, that front is ugly.

Also, are we going back to the 80s where we have to have large stickers and signs with the car's name or "turbo" or whatever plastered all over again? Count me out of that craze.
Click to expand...
It sells well enough that it wouldn't surprise me. I see almost as many Raptors as normal F150s. People love the Raptor, and this one is no exception (minus the fact that everyone hates it's not V8 powered).
 
If they can't offer a V8 in a car all about being excessive everywhere then it's a sad day.

I honestly couldn't care less about turbos. They've been over here in everything for most of my life, but the V8 is special.
 
Altough the V6 will probably prove to be a spectacular engine, Ford needs to do a Ecoboost V8. Then slap it in this thing out of anything else.
 
R1600Turbo
When it goes on sale and tuners start tuning them to over 500hp, people will get over it.
Click to expand...

Can't tune the V8 sound into though. I'd rather have 250 V8 horses than any amount of turbo 4 or 6 horses, especially if you have to work it harder and make it rev.
 
VXR
Can't tune the V8 sound into though. I'd rather have 250 V8 horses than any amount of turbo 4 or 6 horses, especially if you have to work it harder and make it rev.
Click to expand...
That's what turbos are for. In any case for those like you that won't buy one without a v8, someone else will. No loss to Ford.
 
VXR
Can't tune the V8 sound into though. I'd rather have 250 V8 horses than any amount of turbo 4 or 6 horses, especially if you have to work it harder and make it rev.
Click to expand...
Yup, I entirely agree.
 
Crash
Found a good article on Car and Driver from Dec 2014 discussing the impacts of aluminum to the chassis production and to the final vehicle.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/in-dep...esented-in-an-alloy-of-facts-and-perspective/
Click to expand...
Funny how they go straight to Ram and shove it down their throats....

You try to tow anything up 6 tons and you'll get almost single digit mpg stats with this.... In a diesel, expect a drop in two , maybe four.

I see commercials with people towing only a super light open trailer with two dirt-bikes on the back. Quotes like "The truck pulls so good, I almost can't even feel it" really annoys me... Try pulling a 1 and 1/2 ton trailer, with four tons of split oak wood with this, and see if you can't even feel it.

And those are conservative numbers too...
 



Found this as something to compare to.

We've come a long way safety wise, but structurally I am amazed how little physical damage the old one took. Now I know that directly correlates to the passengers inside, but still. When it comes to low speed impacts the old ones are easier to fix :lol:
 
Slash
We've come a long way safety wise, but structurally I am amazed how little physical damage the old one took.
Click to expand...
I'm not - an old pickup like that is essentially a body sitting on top of two massive girders. While a big tough ladder chassis will ultimately come off second best to a big concrete block, it still deforms a relatively small amount - and the only bodywork that'll really suffer is that small area at the front.

As you note though, the passengers will be less well off. No airbags for a start (will that even have seatbelts?), but because the body does so little to absorb accident forces, the deceleration is much more sudden for passengers. I expect it has only has rudimentary steering column and pedal deformation too (if at all), so you've got a bunch of solid metal bits only too happy to be shoved at your chest and shins too.

Worth noting that those small overlap tests for the new car are exceedingly tough, though. That's no excuse for not passing them, but when you're putting three tons or so of pickup through a very small section of its frontal area, it's certainly a struggle.

small-overlap-overhead.jpg

Pretty scary stuff - the test is effectively designed to peel the side of the car off by sending forces through the wheel well and door frame. Misses most of the crash structure, misses the engine and ancillaries which absorb some force, and in a truck, I expect it misses the frame rails too.
 
homeforsummer
I'm not - an old pickup like that is essentially a body sitting on top of two massive girders. While a big tough ladder chassis will ultimately come off second best to a big concrete block, it still deforms a relatively small amount - and the only bodywork that'll really suffer is that small area at the front.

As you note though, the passengers will be less well off. No airbags for a start (will that even have seatbelts?), but because the body does so little to absorb accident forces, the deceleration is much more sudden for passengers. I expect it has only has rudimentary steering column and pedal deformation too (if at all), so you've got a bunch of solid metal bits only too happy to be shoved at your chest and shins too.

Worth noting that those small overlap tests for the new car are exceedingly tough, though. That's no excuse for not passing them, but when you're putting three tons or so of pickup through a very small section of its frontal area, it's certainly a struggle.

small-overlap-overhead.jpg

Pretty scary stuff - the test is effectively designed to peel the side of the car off by sending forces through the wheel well and door frame. Misses most of the crash structure, misses the engine and ancillaries which absorb some force, and in a truck, I expect it misses the frame rails too.
Click to expand...
I think it's a tradeoff from an enthusiasts standpoint though. You risk safety for the ease of driving an older vehicle and low speed impacts are easier to repair. But absolutely new vehicles tend to be safer for the passengers. Seatbelts were mandated in the US around 1966 so it does have belts but they didn't come with airbags until around 87 or so. Everything inside wise is very basic.

Interior pic for reference.

79_interior-best.jpg


Tests have come very far. We simply didn't have the technology back then that we do now. There will always be a charm in owning an older one and I myself will attest that they are tanks but at a risk. Like I mentioned, it's a tradeoff. I've seen a 79 roll over 6 times with only a few dents in the roof, flipped over and drive it home.

It's all down to what you're willing to risk. It's something overlooked by those who do own the older vehicles; there is, and even I fell for it, the misconceptions that tanks like these are actually safer, and maybe to an extent at low speeds that might be true but in typical traffic it's not the case.
 
Slash
I think it's a tradeoff from an enthusiasts standpoint though.
Click to expand...
Of this I am aware - if I was perpetually worried about accidents, I wouldn't drive a small, airbag-less, ABS-less roadster built in 1992. However, I love driving it, and I like to think I have my wits about me, so hopefully risk is minimised.

However, nobody is immune. A PR friend owns a series 4 Alfa Romeo Spider, from a similar period to my Mazda (though realistically, as a car derived from a 1960s vehicle, it's probably even less safe). He was telling me that the other week he came very close indeed to having a big accident on the motorway when traffic suddenly came to a halt. In his old car with old-tech brakes, he managed to stop a matter of inches from the car in front. Had he not managed that, it could have been quite nasty. He's quite glad that as an automotive PR, his daily driver is something very safe and very modern.

If money were not an issue for me, I'd absolutely drive a brand new car day to day, and save the characterful, less safe vehicle for occasional fun drives.
 
I'd prefer an older car to daily and with aftermarket being so available, at least for what I'm into, it's very easy to upgrade the braking and other systems up to modern standards. I think braking is my biggest concern, over anything else.
 
Slash
I'd prefer an older car to daily
Click to expand...
Each to their own, of course - but I will point out that I used to have exactly the same attitude until I started driving brand new vehicles! Much easier to keep your resolve when you don't know what you're missing ;)
 
homeforsummer
Each to their own, of course - but I will point out that I used to have exactly the same attitude until I started driving brand new vehicles! Much easier to keep your resolve when you don't know what you're missing ;)
Click to expand...
I've been in enough brand new cars to know they aren't for me :lol: Something about them old turds just makes me happy :lol:
 
Slash
I'd prefer an older car to daily and with aftermarket being so available, at least for what I'm into, it's very easy to upgrade the braking and other systems up to modern standards. I think braking is my biggest concern, over anything else.
Click to expand...
I would steer clear of a newer Malibu then.

 

Latest Posts

Back