Possible Unibody F-150 for 2014?
#31
11-15-2010, 11:15 AM
Yes we are because if a fella wants to pull huge loads with a half ton truck, then the 8200 lb package should be more widely available throughout the trim lines.
As stated already and many times before, some F-150's are so blinged out that they have very little towing and payload capabilities.
Why do these trucks need to weigh 6000lbs? A 1000 lb diet would greatly improve economy. As long as the SD is available, the F-150 doesn't have to be all things to all people.
It's within the automakers ability to find the medium.
As stated already and many times before, some F-150's are so blinged out that they have very little towing and payload capabilities.
Why do these trucks need to weigh 6000lbs? A 1000 lb diet would greatly improve economy. As long as the SD is available, the F-150 doesn't have to be all things to all people.
It's within the automakers ability to find the medium.
For all intensive purposes this is a light duty truck. You may want to push the limits but don't assume you're in the majority.
#32
11-15-2010, 01:07 PM
Well you may think the F150 would benefit from being 1000lbs lighter but have you ever pulled an 8k trailer with a 5k vehicle? I have not, but I pulled a 6500lb trailer with a ~4500 vehicle and it wasn't confidence inspiring. You really don't want your tow vehicle to be that much lighter than your load. I realize super duty dualies are pulling 3-4x their weight but they are setup for it (5th wheel/etc), and even then I probably wouldn't do it.
For all intensive purposes this is a light duty truck. You may want to push the limits but don't assume you're in the majority.
For all intensive purposes this is a light duty truck. You may want to push the limits but don't assume you're in the majority.
#33
11-15-2010, 01:27 PM
Yes we are because if a fella wants to pull huge loads with a half ton truck, then the 8200 lb package should be more widely available throughout the trim lines.
As stated already and many times before, some F-150's are so blinged out that they have very little towing and payload capabilities.
Why do these trucks need to weigh 6000lbs? A 1000 lb diet would greatly improve economy. As long as the SD is available, the F-150 doesn't have to be all things to all people.
It's within the automakers ability to find the medium.
As stated already and many times before, some F-150's are so blinged out that they have very little towing and payload capabilities.
Why do these trucks need to weigh 6000lbs? A 1000 lb diet would greatly improve economy. As long as the SD is available, the F-150 doesn't have to be all things to all people.
It's within the automakers ability to find the medium.
Being blinged out is only a small part of the problem. Its primarily the heavy frame. Penalty for being the stiffest and strongest. The other manufactures have the bling too, but they are lighter.
Your suggesting we all go to SD and have horrible mpg every time we get in and drive? Thats a solution for some.
#34
11-15-2010, 02:06 PM
Being blinged out is only a small part of the problem. Its primarily the heavy frame. Penalty for being the stiffest and strongest. The other manufactures have the bling too, but they are lighter.
Your suggesting we all go to SD and have horrible mpg every time we get in and drive? Thats a solution for some.
Your suggesting we all go to SD and have horrible mpg every time we get in and drive? Thats a solution for some.
#35
11-15-2010, 03:43 PM
Being blinged out is only a small part of the problem. Its primarily the heavy frame. Penalty for being the stiffest and strongest. The other manufactures have the bling too, but they are lighter.
Your suggesting we all go to SD and have horrible mpg every time we get in and drive? Thats a solution for some.
Your suggesting we all go to SD and have horrible mpg every time we get in and drive? Thats a solution for some.
#36
11-15-2010, 06:44 PM
No, it's the opinion it of itself that I didnt' like, it's the overgeneralization that you have to back up that opinion is what I don't like.
You think I am overgeneralizing this and I am not. I simply state as I see it. Yes, I live in West Texas...Yes 90% of the people here do NOT use their KR's and Platinum's for hard work. And since I have never lived anywhere other than West Texas, YES I am making the generalization based upon how I see it. I don't understand why you are still being overly defensive on the subject. I have acknowledged that some people do in fact use their 50K+ trucks for hard work. And you are a prime example of that. So why not let it go?
If you don't like it because it's blingy that's fine, I have no problem with that what so ever. It's that the impression that you gave that it was office types that have it, that if you are buying those types of vehicles that you should be looking at a different class of vehicle.
Which is here
and
Now as to this comment:
You are limited to the farmers/ranchers out in West Texas and yet you are applying that experience to everywhere. The demographics are much different in West Texas versus Northeast Texas and Middle Tennessee(which are the two places that I live in).
As to do you need a King Ranch or Platinum, that is actually a relative term in this case also determined by demographics. One place that I live in(middle Tennessee) expects business to have the nicer vehicles. If they don't, 9 times out of 10 they wonder about the financial viability of doing business with them. Now is true? Not in of itself no. However, is there a "need"? I could argue that a need exists more in this case then you would like to think.
Ok good I'm glad you said this. I can point out to you what your misunderstanding here. My whole point when we got way the hell off topic on Luxury was that the King Ranch and Platinum are UNNECESSARY, As stated by another commenter Ford already has an 11 model line-up, And it has been stated by many others, That the Lariat (Top dog 10 years ago) is more than enough Luxury for your average Joe. The Lariat would Impress ANYONE in the business field in Tennessee I'm sure...So my logic is there is NO point in going any higher. America has to much of taste for Luxury, We are spoiled on it and that's one reason many other country's hate us.
I don't care if you think it's blingy or not, that is fine, I have zero problem with that. It's the overgeneralizations that you make surrounding other people that I don't like.
As stated I'm not overgeneralizing ****. Your just taking it that way, and Ive already told I was sorry that you got offended about but I'm not going to apologize for it again. You feel that I am overgeneralizing and being a *****. I feel that your taking everything I say out of context.
This is on par with people damning people that drive auto trannys over a manual and saying that they do that because they are either A. handicapped in some way or B. They are incapable of driving manuals. I am neither and I still prefer an auto.
I never damned anyone who drive's an Auto. I do in fact drive a 5-speed right now, But guess what? My new truck will be an Auto...Not just because it has to be...But because I WANT it to be.
As to the unibody and the direction that takes. Aesthetically I'm not attracted to them, but that might change as styling matures on those. Are they capable or not, that depends even that matures and changes to a degree. That is all speculation at this point. Fun speculation, but still speculation.
Only time will tell.
There is a guy in the 6.0 forum that is predicting that even the 250s and 350s will go this way as well. I don't see that as impossible either.
You think I am overgeneralizing this and I am not. I simply state as I see it. Yes, I live in West Texas...Yes 90% of the people here do NOT use their KR's and Platinum's for hard work. And since I have never lived anywhere other than West Texas, YES I am making the generalization based upon how I see it. I don't understand why you are still being overly defensive on the subject. I have acknowledged that some people do in fact use their 50K+ trucks for hard work. And you are a prime example of that. So why not let it go?
If you don't like it because it's blingy that's fine, I have no problem with that what so ever. It's that the impression that you gave that it was office types that have it, that if you are buying those types of vehicles that you should be looking at a different class of vehicle.
Which is here
and
Now as to this comment:
You are limited to the farmers/ranchers out in West Texas and yet you are applying that experience to everywhere. The demographics are much different in West Texas versus Northeast Texas and Middle Tennessee(which are the two places that I live in).
As to do you need a King Ranch or Platinum, that is actually a relative term in this case also determined by demographics. One place that I live in(middle Tennessee) expects business to have the nicer vehicles. If they don't, 9 times out of 10 they wonder about the financial viability of doing business with them. Now is true? Not in of itself no. However, is there a "need"? I could argue that a need exists more in this case then you would like to think.
Ok good I'm glad you said this. I can point out to you what your misunderstanding here. My whole point when we got way the hell off topic on Luxury was that the King Ranch and Platinum are UNNECESSARY, As stated by another commenter Ford already has an 11 model line-up, And it has been stated by many others, That the Lariat (Top dog 10 years ago) is more than enough Luxury for your average Joe. The Lariat would Impress ANYONE in the business field in Tennessee I'm sure...So my logic is there is NO point in going any higher. America has to much of taste for Luxury, We are spoiled on it and that's one reason many other country's hate us.
I don't care if you think it's blingy or not, that is fine, I have zero problem with that. It's the overgeneralizations that you make surrounding other people that I don't like.
As stated I'm not overgeneralizing ****. Your just taking it that way, and Ive already told I was sorry that you got offended about but I'm not going to apologize for it again. You feel that I am overgeneralizing and being a *****. I feel that your taking everything I say out of context.
This is on par with people damning people that drive auto trannys over a manual and saying that they do that because they are either A. handicapped in some way or B. They are incapable of driving manuals. I am neither and I still prefer an auto.
I never damned anyone who drive's an Auto. I do in fact drive a 5-speed right now, But guess what? My new truck will be an Auto...Not just because it has to be...But because I WANT it to be.
As to the unibody and the direction that takes. Aesthetically I'm not attracted to them, but that might change as styling matures on those. Are they capable or not, that depends even that matures and changes to a degree. That is all speculation at this point. Fun speculation, but still speculation.
Only time will tell.
There is a guy in the 6.0 forum that is predicting that even the 250s and 350s will go this way as well. I don't see that as impossible either.
This is one thing I hate about the internet. If you don't talk to people face to face it gets misconstrued what you are trying to say.
#37
11-15-2010, 06:55 PM
Absolutely correct. You don't have inflictions that you would normally have and you also have to be very explicit in what you say. To the point of typing out "novels" which is the prime reason why most of my posts tend to be on the wordy side. Not often will some say I'm trying to pad my post count with just 10 character posts(I believe that's the min. to post here).
#38
11-15-2010, 06:58 PM
Absolutely correct. You don't have inflictions that you would normally have and you also have to be very explicit in what you say. To the point of typing out "novels" which is the prime reason why most of my posts tend to be on the wordy side. Not often will some say I'm trying to pad my post count with just 10 character posts(I believe that's the min. to post here).
#39
11-15-2010, 08:46 PM
I am not going to worry about this. Pickuptrucks.com didn't say what their source of info was. Last time they didn't mention unibody. They said they would improve aerodynamics and use of light high strength steel. I am not going to worry until I see spy pics of the truck. Whatever Ford does they will not disappoint.
#40
11-16-2010, 02:55 PM
Ford knows its market, and turning the F-150 into another crossover is not going to happen.
Instead, we might see some models to address the fact that the F-150 is ending up the "one size fits all model":
For example I can see the Ranger being tanked with the F-100 replacing it. For a lot of people, having a midsize truck the size of a Dakota is just the perfect size with a 750-1000 pound payload capacity and 5000 pounds for towing. Add an EcoBoost V-6, and perhaps a small V8 and that is enough truck for a lot of people.
Of course, the SDs will stay pretty much the same, except get better engines. Ford is not going to restyle the SDs too much, as these are not really vehicles for fickle consumers looking to find a dash color that matches the highlights on their hair.
Instead, we might see some models to address the fact that the F-150 is ending up the "one size fits all model":
For example I can see the Ranger being tanked with the F-100 replacing it. For a lot of people, having a midsize truck the size of a Dakota is just the perfect size with a 750-1000 pound payload capacity and 5000 pounds for towing. Add an EcoBoost V-6, and perhaps a small V8 and that is enough truck for a lot of people.
Of course, the SDs will stay pretty much the same, except get better engines. Ford is not going to restyle the SDs too much, as these are not really vehicles for fickle consumers looking to find a dash color that matches the highlights on their hair.
#41
11-17-2010, 09:28 AM
Cargo Master
The payloads on these over-rated 1/2 tons today all expire well before the tow capacity. A unibody may get these outrageous numbers in check, but the days of a true truck for work will be done. Probably a strategic move that will push the sales of the Superduty up through the roof.
Go ahead, Ford. I'll buy my last F-150 just before the order banks close, thank you.
#42
11-17-2010, 09:45 AM
Elder User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#43
11-17-2010, 10:32 AM
Well a cute, empty bed, junk box grocery getter is a great description of what 90% of people do with 1/2 ton pickups today, a minivan or SUV could do the job just as well but no... people gotta have that 6000lb monstrosity. Everybody knows trucks are the best selling vehicle in north america and that the manufacturers are under the gun to reduce fleet emissions, but there's only so much you can do towards that goal with fuel sipping econo boxes if nobody is buying them. So there's no way around it, the vehicle that sells most volume has to go on a diet, and it's very likely is will get a significant payload/towing derating in the process simply because the bulk of those buying it don't need it. Ford already has a complete line of trucks to address the needs of heavy haulers so this moves makes too much sense not to happen.. eventually.
#45
11-17-2010, 04:04 PM
Yeah, you shaved all the chrome off that uni-body. Sweet!!! Seriously, folks, the pickups in Australia are genuine unibody vehicles. They are called Utes and car based. Ford and Holden both manufacture them down under. I am not sure what they are offered for larger capacity trucks, though. Maybe some else can chime in on that.