I agree 100%



Both are capable trucks. The real question is how honest you are with youself about what your truck needs are.

 

If I purchased according to my needs, I'd be driving an old Ford Courier!
But, you are correct!
I'm just starting to get used to driving the F150 as opposed to the 250......I still miss the Big boy at times, but for everyday commuting, weekend towing (boat, 4 wheelers, etc) life is easier in the New truck!

 

I live in the Pacific NW. It is a BIG truck market. I would take a guess however that 75% of the big F250's and F350's do not get used to their full capabilities.

That said, for Logging, Industrial, Landscapeing, ALL i see are FORDS SUPERDUTYS. NO Chevs or GMC's. Just a few Dodges.

My 2004 F250 was an amizingly capable truck. But as far as everyday manners, my new F150 is tough to beat.

 

A variety of things, I guess. The F-150 has received a plethora of changes over the years that indicate to me, a shift in the target market from construction workers to office dads.

They switched to IFS, a weaker system than either the TTB or monobeam setup, but also arguably the most comfortable, and provides the most "car-like" ride.

They ditched the manual transmission in the F-150 earlier than the Super Duty, arguably due to a changing demographic that largely decided they had no use for it, as the Super Duty guys did.

Emphasis on smaller, lighter, for fuel economy. They pursue fuel economy in the Super Duty line too, but not to the same extent as the F-150, if their marketing is to be believed.

The creature comforts of the F-150 appear to have more in common with a Cadillac or Mercedes-Benz than an F-350.

I'm sure the F-150 holds up just fine to the use and abuse by its target market; a group of people who, in my experience, don't work them very hard, if at all. However, I don't believe that they would stand up to the use and abuse that the Super Duty is used for; even if you assume they stay within the tow/haul limits. I've been a farmer, a logger, a welder, a carpenter, an excavator, and a number of other things. I've seen the abuse that vehicles can get put through. And frankly, I don't see any way that the F-150s can hold up in those environments.

 

I'm curious about what Ford is doing with the Super Duty beds. I'm sure GM will buy one early on and do the F150 bed test on it.

 

Anyone remember when Chevy was testing plastic beds? We had a bunch of test trucks they gave us with plastic beds back in the 90's at work. Both Ford and Chev use the oilsand mines up here for testing their trucks. They didn't work out so good and never made it past testing...

 

Yup, that's certainly true. But what's the failure rate when operated within stated limits? We see FAR more balljoint issues on the Super Duty forum than the F150 forum, and the same could be said for steering components. The F150s can have issues with the IWE system, but the Super Duty has lots of issues with lockout hubs, failed needle bearings in the hubs, and axle U-joint issues. I can't think of a single failure in the Super Duty front end that takes less than double the time to complete in an F150. Shocks maybe?

Of course they do...the F150 GVWR range means that it's fuel economy is measured and regulated by the EPA. That means MPG numbers on the window stickers as well as CAFE. You can't talk numbers on the Super Duty because there isn't a measuring stick for them.

Yup, I'd agree with that. Not so much my working-class XLT model though. The '17 Super Duty is getting the exact same cab, and you can bet the Cadillac and M-B-esque luxury features will be in the high end trims. But what does that matter for an XL work truck?

Lots of people do though. @MisterCMK's business just purchased a used fleet F150 with over 100,000 miles on it. Another guy in the F150 forum picked up an '11 F150 that was fleet owned with over 160,000 miles on it. If I remember right he had to sell the rack system on the back shortly after he bought it.

I'm your "average Joe consumer" though, and I represent what you think the overwhelming majority of F150 buyers are. Lots of fleets would disagree with you about how they hold up.

 

Neither system is perfect, and I'm not trying to argue that they are. Within the stated limits, they both tend to perform admirably, but they also both go down from time to time due to one failure or another. That's just the nature of anything mechanical.

As long as they're kept within their stated operating limitations, I would have to guess (because I have no actual data) that the failure rate is roughly the same between both systems.

But then, if you just look at the two system side by side, and ignore the stated operating limits, that's where the differences really become apparent. The monobeam is stronger, more capable off-road, ride quality isn't as good, turning radius is worse. There may well be some other practical differences I'm not thinking of.


Even if there was an advertised fuel economy for the Super Duty lineup, in my experience fuel economy tends to matter more, on average, to people who buy trucks for personal use than people who buy trucks for a business.

I'm not surprised that they're bringing the same modern amenities in to the new Super Duty, it was bound to happen sooner or later. I was referring to the current line-up of trucks, though, and the current ones don't offer the same features.

Obviously it wouldn't matter in a base model XL of either caliber. I don't have any hard numbers to go on, and it would be interesting to see, but I would venture a guess that more XL package Super Duties are sold than F-150's. I may be wrong though.

It needs to be remembered that just because a vehicle is a "fleet vehicle," doesn't mean it's working hard. Think of a construction company, for example. Nearly all construction companies have at least a few company vehicles, right? And nearly all of them have one that's reserved for the boss man to drive around in, and it's nearly always (100% of the time, in my personal experience) a half ton. It doesn't actually get used for work a whole lot, not nearly as much as the rest of the trucks in the fleet do.

There are also whole fleets of vehicles out there where none of them are working very hard. For example, meter readers. They sure have a fleet of vehicles at their disposal, but none of them get used for anything other than driving around picking up RF frequencies for the meters on your house.

Just because you bought a fleet vehicle doesn't automatically mean that it was a work horse in its previous life.

I'm not trying to say that the F-150's don't hold up, period. They obviously do, in their own arena. But when you start introducing them to a game dominated by 250's and 350's, that's when they're going to start failing on you. Tow/haul limits notwithstanding, in my experience the half-ton class of pickups can't hold up to the use and abuse the bigger trucks are built for, and subjected to.

 

No, but Toyota has been using a composite bed in the Tacoma for the last 6 years. It's kind of nice because you don't need a liner. I've put tons of crap in mine; even loaded 2200 lbs of concrete plus another 600 lbs of "stuff" in one load. I'm glad it had supersprings, but the bed was fine.

 

GM actually sold those trucks to the public. I saw a few on the road around here. They were easy to spot because chevrolet was molded in raised relief on the tailgate. They did not do well. Many people complained about the box deforming when a tool box or headache rack was mounted.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...-63475/#/enter

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...ering-pro-tec/

My 2001 SuperCrew had SMC (sheet molded composite) bed sides, but was steel inside. I rembember the bed side taking some good thumps and never a mark. The SMC was a molded plastic outerskin with fiberglass reinforcement layed on the backside.

 

So they did eventually make it to market then. When we tested them in the 90's they were a dismal failure.