The eagerly anticipated Ford F-150 has had its 2015 pricing announced, adding only a small amount to the pickup's total cost, despite its weight-saving aluminum body. The XL and XLT entry level models only see a $395 boost over the heavier, current-generation, 2014 truck.

The XL starts at $26,615 while the XLT rings up at $31,890. The increase for Lariat is up a similarly negligible $895, to $39,880. Going up the ladder, meanwhile, the leather-intensive King Ranch sees the biggest jump of the F-150 family, with prices increasing $3,515, to $49,460. Finally, picking up the top-end Platinum trim will cost an extra $3,055, with prices starting at $52,155.

The higher prices are being blamed not only on the aluminum bodies, which trim up to 700 pounds of body fat, but on increased levels of standard equipment. While we were expecting a price hike, the fact that the 2015 F-150's volume trims – Ford spokesman Mike Levine told Reuters that the XL and XLT alone cover 70 percent of F-150 sales – have had less than a $400 increase is hugely impressive.

According to Reuters, dealers are able to place orders for the new trucks today, with sales slated to begin late this year.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 61 Comments
      rmt_1
      • 4 Months Ago
      For what that extra money gets, the 2015 F-150 looks like an even better value than the current model. Comparing the 2015 F-150 to the new GM trucks and the heavily revised Ram trucks, I think the new F-150 will likely increase the F-150's already huge marketshare for pickup trucks.
      merlot066
      • 4 Months Ago
      The weight savings are actually 700lbs The cost increase is little more than an average redesign Ford has already shown the 2.7L EcoBoost out-towing the Chevy 5.3 and the Ram EcoDiesel Bring it on haters...
        merlot066
        • 4 Months Ago
        @merlot066
        That wasn't supposed to be an incoherent, unpunctuated rant. It was a nice bulleted list. Sweet new comment system. Apparently Autoblog should talk to Ford about how to redesign things.
          JaredN
          • 4 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          @merlot66, yup, the Autoblog comment system is still a complete mess. As a web developer, I truly don't understand how they manage to mess this up so badly.
        Apex
        • 4 Months Ago
        @merlot066
        Not a hater, but it did not out tow the GM or Dodge, it towed faster over a stretch - up hill. As for the GM, it was faster 2 out of 3 times. These comparisons are quite frankly getting too specific in sitsuations. All that matters is SAE tow ratings really.
          merlot066
          • 4 Months Ago
          @Apex
          Absolutely, however I'm expecting more than a few "flimsy beer can truck" comments. That was only one small sample of the new F-150s performance but it is a promising start.
        mattjopete
        • 4 Months Ago
        @merlot066
        It didnt out tow the 5.3. It was "seconds behind" Which is almost exactly how far back the EcoDiesel was. Besides, I'd wait to hear some third party proof before spouting all that off. Ford has been known to overstate their towing numbers before.
          muttonchops
          • 4 Months Ago
          @mattjopete
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP3AM6VtfZE It's pretty simple. The Ecodiesel was behind by over 45 seconds on all 3 runs. Not "seconds behind". The 5.3 was bested by the 2.7 on all but the last run when the temperature dropped. You can't and don't fake tests like this. That's why they recorded it and stated how they ensured a fair comparison. If duplicated by another outlet with different results there would be hell to pay. Instead, they just made a great truck and engine that can back up the claims.
          merlot066
          • 4 Months Ago
          @mattjopete
          In the calculated comparison tow up Davis Dam (a road used in SAE testing), the new F150 with the 2.7L EcoBoost was 40+ seconds faster to the top than the Ram (diesel engine and lower/more favorable axle ratio). It was also 5-10 seconds ahead of the 5.3 Silverado in the first two runs and came a few seconds behind when the temperatures went down. I've also never heard of Ford overstating their towing numbers before. Just because they're usually the highest doesn't mean they're overstated.
        jtav2002
        • 4 Months Ago
        @merlot066
        It's Ford marketing. What did you expect the outcome to be? Not saying the 2.7L can't be a good performer but lets wait til independent 3rd parties test the trucks. Good to see Ford marketing is working well on you. Silly naive consumers.
          merlot066
          • 4 Months Ago
          @jtav2002
          The 3.5L EcoBoost fuel economy comparison was slanted marketing (the EcoBoost was more efficient but last stretch was a slow, steady straightaway making the EcoBoost engine look like it could go much further on one gallon of gas), GM designing a braking test that made the old Super Duty dramatically crash through barriers was slanted marketing (meanwhile the Silverado 1500 still had drum brakes standard). There isn't a whole lot to be rigged on the test Ford performed. They took three trucks, equipped them as closely as possible with the engines as the major differentiation (all super crew, all 4x4, Ram had a slightly lower/better axle ratio, Ford and Chevy identical) and drove them up the same hill, three times, with different drivers. After experience with the 3.5L EcoBoost in a Flex and F150 I would expect big things from the 2.7. If you need to wait for a magazine to tell you to be excited for this go right ahead.
          merlot066
          • 4 Months Ago
          @jtav2002
          Wow. Overreaction on aisle 2 (coming from the guy who jumped to the conclusion that I'm naïve for pointing out a strong first showing of the new F-150s capability). I didn't think the business case of the 2.7 needed to be spelled out, however. The 2.7 will probably strike the best balance between "eco" and "boost" out of any EcoBoost engine so far. It offers capability at or beyond what is offered by GM's mid-range V8 and the Ram EcoDiesel while offering exceptional fuel economy (though EPA ratings haven't been released yet) without the $5000 markup and PITA maintenance of a diesel engine. For the majority of pickup owners this is the perfect engine; exceptional mileage for everyday driving, plentiful towing capability when needed, and no outrageous markup. "Drag racing up hills" yeah, it sounds like you know a lot about towing. I'd rather know that I could maintain speed going up a hill in the summer with the A/C on without having to scream along in 3rd gear until the engine overheats. You usually can't hookup a trailer and go hunt for a mountain to climb on an average test drive. My dad is a contractor and tows a trailer about 20% of the time (currently using a 2003 Explorer). If he could get 15-20% better fuel economy choosing the 2.7 vs. the 3.5 and still tow his trailer without trouble, why would he choose the 3.5? If you want the 3.5, fine, but the 2.7 will make a lot of sense for a lot of people. I've seen the truck in person, I've seen the 2.7 in action on a prototype truck. A 3 minute video isn't what is making me excited about this truck. Peacee
      TaekOne
      • 4 Months Ago
      If only I was in the market for a new truck... Good job, Ford.
      Timothy Tibbetts
      • 4 Months Ago
      Waiting to see fuel economy in the new Canyon myself. I traded out my F150 Limited because 12-13 MPG average and 15-16 highway is not as promised. The V6 Ecoboost otherwise was a seriously capable motor but I need a truck and 4 wheel drive, just not all the time but need an upscale interior for occasional cross country trips. They did a great job on this. Up until I saw my fuel numbers, I was in line for this one.
      tenspeeder
      • 4 Months Ago
      Considering how much margin has been built into these trucks and the HUGE discounts they have always offered, its pretty easy to play around with the numbers to 'only' increase it by a few hundred dollars. Will be interesting to see how these sells and at what real world price
        XT6Wagon
        • 4 Months Ago
        @tenspeeder
        Is there anyone here who wouldn't pay $400 to get more standard equipment AND 20% of the weight of their car or truck removed? In the world of supercars they pay tens of thousands to get LESS standard equipment and less than 10% wieght off.
        SloopJohnB
        • 4 Months Ago
        @tenspeeder
        Yes…but there won't be huge discounts for awhile...
      Greg Aryous
      • 4 Months Ago
      The BIG news is the upgrade cost of just $495 for the hot new 2.7 EcoBoost...! This will kill the Ram EcoDiesel n its expensive $5000 upgrade cost ...! Plus the 2.7 EB just spanked the Ram EcoDiesel in 7000 lbs tow challenge...!
        Neez
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Greg Aryous
        Also, spanked is a relative term. Yes, the ecoboost will win against a diesel in a race, it's got more horespower. In fact, even naturally aspirated trucks would win in a race against the ecodiesel. That's not the point of a diesel truck, it just needs to hold a higher gear and maintaining full highway speed going up a grade. Most people towing aren't trying to get to the top the fastest, while burning up massive amounts of fuel. Just maintain comfortable highway speeds.
      JaredN
      • 4 Months Ago
      That is very impressive. I wonder if Ford is eating some of the cost increase?
        carguy1701
        • 4 Months Ago
        @JaredN
        I wouldn't be surprised if they are.
          yonomo200
          • 4 Months Ago
          @carguy1701
          I would bet on it. But I'm sure with the margins they make on those trucks, they can afford to eat some of it.
          JaredN
          • 4 Months Ago
          @carguy1701
          That's what I was thinking. The margins on light duty pickup trucks are so high that they can afford to eat some of that cost.
        XT6Wagon
        • 4 Months Ago
        @JaredN
        They don't have to take money from F-150 sales to put on small SUVs to drive up the fleet MPG anymore. Also aluminum isn't that expensive once you develop the techniques for dealing with it. Modern high strength steels can be even MORE expensive by the time its all said and done.
      carguy1701
      • 4 Months Ago
      Cool. Nice to see that what promises to be one of the most influential vehicles ever built is still affordable.
      SquareFour
      • 4 Months Ago
      While I think this is good news, I also fully realize the price will increase in a one or two years and then again a couple of years after that.
        Dave
        • 4 Months Ago
        @SquareFour
        Good point. Ford may be willing to take a smaller profit margin during the first model year to make sure there are plenty of trucks on the road to convince the doubters.
      Emilio
      • 4 Months Ago
      This is no surprise. The real price increase that I'm looking forward to is the Insurance. That's going to be the kicker.
        JaredN
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Emilio
        We will have to see. How many times to body shops repair body panels these days instead of just remove and replace?
          JaredN
          • 4 Months Ago
          @JaredN
          Audi and Jaguar cars are unibody. The F150 is body-on-frame. Wouldn't panel replacement be easier on the F150 as a result?
          XT6Wagon
          • 4 Months Ago
          @JaredN
          Audi did aluminum bodied cars nearly 15 years ago, and Ford did them with Jaguar over 10 years ago. So this is hardly new.
      Larry Litmanen
      • 4 Months Ago
      "JUST"------really, Just $400 now, just a few hundred last year and the ear before and next year. Few years ago you could have purchased a nicely equipped Civic with auto for 17K before taxes, now 19K for auto + $800 for destination for a BASE CAR. 3K difference in just a few years.
        carguy1701
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Larry Litmanen
        It's called inflation, you dimbulb.
          JaredN
          • 4 Months Ago
          @carguy1701
          Compound interest seems to be beyond most people, unfortunately.
          carguy1701
          • 4 Months Ago
          @carguy1701
          JaredN: True dat.
          Genericbeer
          • 4 Months Ago
          @carguy1701
          JaredN, it's definitely beyond Larry!
        mattjopete
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Larry Litmanen
        Its every year... I remember when you could buy an F-350 dually XLT with a 7.5 and a 5 speed for under 20K .
          JaredN
          • 4 Months Ago
          @mattjopete
          @Larry, that actually isn't much of an increase. 2015 - 2009 : six years. 17% increase over six years, or an increase of about 2% per year. In other words, that is just about the rate of inflation.
          Larry Litmanen
          • 4 Months Ago
          @mattjopete
          I am not talking about long time ago, my bro got a 2008 or 2009 for that price.
      hummer.h1.alpha
      • 4 Months Ago
      The front end looks like a tundra.
    • Load More Comments
    Advertisement
    2015 Ford F-150
    MSRP: $25,420 - $54,680
    2014 Ford F-150
    MSRP: $25,025 - $54,410
    2013 Ford F-150
    MSRP: $24,070 - $53,300