Ford F100 1963 Camper Special Long Bed F-100 63 Hot Rod Rat Rod Resto Rod on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford bringing production F-150 to Detroit with Atlas styling and Alcoa blast shields

According to a report in Bloomberg, the 2015 Ford F-150 will indeed be showing up at the Detroit Auto Show next month. It will bring attitude with it, not only in the form of sheetmetal inspired by the Atlas concept (pictured) that appeared at the 2013 Detroit show but also in the Alcoa military blast shields among the display being used to showcase the ruggedness of aluminum.
There's been a lot of talk about the F-150 switching to aluminum body panels (although maintaining a steel frame), and for good reason. The lightweight body is expected to shed more than 700 pounds and greatly increase its highway mileage, but production-line issues and possible delays have been a major focus of attention concerning the best-selling vehicle in America for 32 years, meaning Ford has to get it right. F-150 is responsible for a massive portion of the company's global profits and it will come in a year when company profits are already predicted to decline because of new car launches.
When it comes to dings, the Bloomberg story says Ford wants Alcoa to supply some of the military-grade aluminum it uses for blast shields on battlefield vehicles to help it talk up the toughness of aluminum. Reading commentary on the many stories about the F-150 reveals there are many more little questions about the aluminum overhaul, like "How much will it cost to repair and insure?" and "How will companies hang their magnetic signs?" Answers should start coming in a couple of weeks.

Ford investing $500M in engine plant for 2.7L EcoBoost production

Ohio is a hot area for Ford at the moment with the announcement just a few weeks ago that production of the next-generation F-650/F-750 medium-duty trucks would move from Mexico to the Ohio Assembly Plant in Avon Lake, Ohio. Now, Ford is investing $500 million to hire 300 workers at its Lima Engine Plant in Lima, Ohio, to add production of the twin-turbo 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 for the 2015 F-150.
The latest investment will be used to add a new flexible engine assembly system and renovate 700,000 square feet of the plant for machining and assembly areas. The Lima factory already builds Ford's 3.5-liter and 3.7-liter Duratec V6 engines. The plant opened in 1957, and it's on track to build its 40 millionth engine later this year.
Ford claims that the 2.7-liter EcoBoost will offer V8 performance with better efficiency in the F-150. It comes standard with intelligent stop/start that doesn't activate when the truck is towing or in four-wheel drive, and it's made from a combination of compacted graphite iron and aluminum for low weight and high strength. The company says that V6 engines have already proven popular in the F-150 with 57 percent of trucks in 2014 being equipped with either the naturally aspirated 3.7-liter or turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost engines.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.