I agree that the new front ends are gaudy. And the new dually fenders look like someone welded a pair of cheap trailer fenders to the side of the truck.

I have no skin in the game on the manual vs automatic debate, as I am a disabled Vet and have to stay with the auto for that reason.

Things I would like to see include lower bedside toolboxes like they used to offer in the 60's and 70's. Also, bed and tailgate trim NOT being a crucial part (if it gets knocked off, no holes remain for plastic parts to snap into).

And if we're talking about wishes for the next cab redesign- QUIT thinking the tops of the doors need to curve up to the roofline. Some of us get SNOW, and it is a pain in the butt to open the door and have an avalanche fill up the seat...

Dreamland wishes- A return of the Excursion, and a Bronco- complete with removable top.

 

+1

+1

 

I must be one of the few who love the new front ends!!! To me its a bold in your face look!!!

I say NO NO and....NOOOO to the IFS front end!!! In a 1/2 ton...ok, but NOT in a heavy duty truck!!!

I work for GM and the SFA is one of the reasons for buying my 11 F250, that and it still looks like a real truck!!

 

THe front ends on the newer trucks are fugly IMHO. I prefer the 05-07 look the best.

 

Hopefully not any time soon. Just makes all of our trucks one generation older lol

 

Despite all the flaming you have received for your comment, I get your point. The 7.3 had enough torque to move any of the loads you will be legally hauling behind any of these trucks. My stock 6.0 had plenty of power for my tastes. IMO, if the load is so heavy that you can't pull it with 250-300hp and 500-600 lb-ft torque, then you definitely won't be able to handle or stop it safely with a pickup truck even with trailer brakes. However, if Ford wants to stay competitive in the market that has been created, they have to play the numbers game. Personally, I would rather see the manufacturers offering diesel engines that produced 250hp and 500lb-ft, but got really good fuel economy. But thats just me.


I hope the next Super Duty comes with a fully boxed frame. Hopefully the overall truck is lighter for some fuel savings. I would prefer to keep the SFA. I'd also like to see the next design have more room in the engine bay so the cab doesn't have to be pulled for all major repairs. My main hope is that they get all the bugs sorted out of the 6.7 so that I'll feel confident purchasing one without having to calculate the specific gravity of my fuel and taste-testing it weekly. Cummins is looking pretty appealing, but I can help but think that I would always regret buying a Dodge. (ok, "Ram")

 

I think real rocker panels underneath the bottom of the doors would be nice on the next cab too. I'm not crazy about all the road spray landing right on the crack underneath the doors. I want to ditch my running boards on my Ex but I'm afraid grime will accumulate at the bottom of the doors. And I don't think mud flaps would look great.

I would love to see a new Ex but with fuel prices I don't see if happening because it can't tow fifth wheels and wouldn't be touted as the ideal work truck. I don't see a full-size Bronco happening either, but I would run out and buy a jeep-like four wheel drive mid-size SUV with a short wheelbase and good fuel economy (hint small ecoboost).

 

I'm curious if the next redesign (2014?) will be all new or still keep the same cab. Also, will the V10 finally get a 6 speed auto? The F650 V10 is getting it, why not the 550. I'd love to see a 5.0 Ecoboost with 500+ # of torque (lower RPM truck version). There are no foreseeable diesels in my future. I need reliability, and low maintenance costs.

 

For petes sake if they can come up with an auto .xmis. that can handle that kind of tor/hp certainly engineers can come up with a manual that can handle it.There are many manuals avaliable in medium to light heavey duty trucks that are already doing the job every day. As far as "economical sense" is concernd ,as I said before a stroke of the pen takes care of that.

 

AMEN,DITTOand AMEN again!

 

A manual transmission in a medium duty truck is NOT the same thing as the transmission for a pickup.

 

No kiding?

 

I have a few ideas:

A larger fuel tank. Gas powered motor homes get 75 gallon tanks, my buddies 1500 Suburban has a 44 gallon tank, yet a gas Super Duty which is rated higher than either of them only gets a 35 gallon tank. I would like to see 45 to 50 gallons.

Towing Package. There was a time when ordering a trailer / camper / towing package included heavier springs and such. Then they started making them standard, but now even with the tow package there are only 3 leaf springs instead of 5 as in the past. I want to be able to order a truck so it can tow its rated load without having to install air bags, I an willing to accept that it won't ride as smoothly.

Tow ratings. Why is it that an F-250 is a big step up from an F-150 in towing a hauling ratings, but a SRW F-350 is rated no higher than the 250? Now that the DRW F-350's are rated up to 30k GCVWR, I think SRW F-350's need to be given a higher GCVWR in the 25-26k range.

I'm ready to buy a new truck, but I don't want a Chevy, so I'm waiting for Ford to come out with a model that is actually rated to tow my 40' toyhauler that I'm pulling with my current SWR F-350, and I see lots of similar setups on the road. I know someone will say I should just go with a DRW for that size trailer, but a DRW just won't work for my other uses for my truck.

And lastly, if they can just double the power and mileage, that would be great too!!! Ha!

 

Because they're identical trucks. Same frame, engine, trans, axles, same gearing, same springs, same everything. You can't just slap a higher number than it already has on it without changing something. Ford can either 1) de-rate the F250 GVWR like they do, or 2) build them differently to make the GVWR/ recommended GCWR differ more. GCWR is a WAG from Ford, it's not legally limiting on you. It seems to be based on the drivetrain mainly, the rear axle has a limited weight carrying ability, a maximum ring gear capacity, and only holds so much oil, so there's a maximum trailer weight you can pull before it eventually either bends, shatters, or overheats. Solution: bigger axle. Result: D80 in DRW. It's more than just two more tires back there that change the DRW line up, just like the CC's are more than just a missing truck bed.

 

Of course they can. But does Ford (and GM) think it makes sense to invest the $$ to do so only to sell a small percentage of them? Apparently not.