Don't Worry, Mom - I've Got a Truck - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

Don't Worry, Mom - I've Got a Truck - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

No surprise, but the 2015 Ford F-150 made easy, very stable work of slicing through miles of fast desert winds and gusts

Read the full story here

g_k1

When leaving Palm Springs for the LA area the most direct route is highway 111 (Palm Canyon Drive) to I-10. However, locals refer to the "corner" the route goes around near the freeway as "windy point," and I watched my MGB windshield be ruined in a few seconds while driving (west) around that ridge/outcrop. It's generally safer to take Indian Avenue to I-10; you still hit the wind, but not at a "choke point" that seems to make it worse. Just my two cents - I lived there for years, and the winds can be amazing.

bohio

Not even 17 mpg, and this truck's EPA rating for "City" driving is 18 mpg. Is it just me, or are most of the Edmunds staff apologists for the Ford F150? Heck, I wonder if an abysmal Nissan Armada would equal the F150 fuel "economy". And said Armada would have "bulldozed" just as easily through a windstorm. Eye rolling...

vvk

Southern California seems like a dangerous place to live.

bankerdanny

"I'll accept whistling mirrors and a thirsty V6 as a small price for the satisfaction of peaceful, buffeting-free bulldozing through a desert windstorm."

You could have gotten that stability from the Ram, plus 50% better fuel economy for about the same price as the F-150

longtimelurker

The Ram is much less powerful, though. The Tacoma is getting only slightly better fuel economy than the F150, and it's gutless.

Choice is good.

bankerdanny

Not so much less that you would notice the difference unless towing max payloads through the Rockies is a regular task for you.

longtimelurker

A one-second difference from 0-60? I probably would not notice the difference in everyday driving. A 2.3-second difference? Pretty sure I would notice the difference within maybe a couple blocks from my house, with no trailer, nothing in the bed. That's a huge difference that will show up in everyday driving. Yes, these are trucks and not sportscars...but that's like a 15 car-length difference.

Checked dynos briefly - the Ram, rated at 240/420, hp/tq., pulled 215/367. The 2.7 Ford, rated at 325/375, pulled 287/342, and that over a much wider powerband.

bankerdanny

Probably 90% of the ~30 cars I have owned in my life have been slower to 60 than the F-150. My current daily driver is faster (barely), but I can count on 1 hand the number of times in the past 12 months that I have felt the need to use full throttle from a stop light.

0-60 is a mostly meaningless number in the context of every day driving. Even my '72 MGB-GT, which probably can't break 12 seconds in a 0-60 sprint at this stage of its life rarely feels under powered, even in Chicago's cut throat traffic.

longtimelurker

bankerdanny said:

Probably 90% of the ~30 cars I have owned in my life have been slower to 60 than the F-150. My current daily driver is faster (barely), but I can count on 1 hand the number of times in the past 12 months that I have felt the need to use full throttle from a stop light.

0-60 is a mostly meaningless number in the context of every day driving. Even my '72 MGB-GT, which probably can't break 12 seconds in a 0-60 sprint at this stage of its life rarely feels under powered, even in Chicago's cut throat traffic.

You're right...powerband width and engine flexibility is a lot more important...both the RAM diesel and the Ecoboost Ford start making good torque at around 1800 rpm...but the Ford holds it out to 5k, while the RAM is basically done at 3500.

ballsonchin

I just did a 1000 mile road trip from oregon to the bay area california and I averaged 18 at the end. That was a lot of 75 mph and 3 days of city driving. I have no complaints about the 2.7 and if your buying a truck for MPG then well..... you'll never be happy.

bohio

18 mpg, as in you achieved the "City" EPA fuel economy rating. Not the "Combined", and their "Highway" number doesn't even merit mention, because it's unachievable. Almost everybody I know who drives a truck, including commercial operators, takes MPG into account. It's not about getting the same MPG as a Prius; it's about getting fuel economy that meets the owner's expectations. My 2016 Ram EcoDiesel Crew Cab (6'4" bed) is approaching 3k total miles, so it's early in the life of a truck I expect to keep 10 years (as I did my 2006 Xterra). So far, in a mix of muddy dirt roads, town, backroads, and highway driving, my Ram has averaged 24 MPG. (24.07 to be exact, i.e 112.5 gallons over 2,708 miles as of 3 days ago...) At my local 'Irving' fuel station (in Tilton, NH), diesel is $0.05 per gallon more than regular unleaded. Five cents more per gallon, at present, for 30% better fuel economy. I'll take that.

I regularly haul five of us in the truck, and passing power is adequate. Sure, I could have purchased a Ram 2500 with the Cummins 6.7 and a beastly 880 ft. lbs of torque, but it would have cost $10k more, for extra power that I would likely never use unless I decide to buy draft horses and a trailer to pull them around in.

One of the things I like about the Ram is that it has enough technology, but not a ridiculous/bewildering amount. The interior layout (mine featuring the BigHorn package) is good. It's a mature product, and despite having driven Honda/Nissan/Toyota vehicles for decades up to now, the Ram makes sense to me as the driver. They have this thing pretty much dialed in. (No, not a pun aimed at the transmission's rotary selector...)