I want GREAT fuel economy..............hello, hello, anybody listening?
In a full sized truck, with all the Emissions crap, ULSD, burning extra clean and lean >it ain't gonna happen.
And for the few extra mpg they (may) get...one little problem like a few bad Injectors etc will set you back BIG $$$. That's after the warrantee of course.
Really, what Ford needs to do with the new F150s, make a better gas mileage to remain on the top of half ton market. With little more power will be plus, but my vote would be to improve the gas mileage from 15 mpg in average into 20-25 mpg in average. I'm hoping the smaller diesel engine will be the answer. I wouldn't worry too much about more power, if I need incredible power for pulling or etc, there's a SuperDuty to do the work. Half ton is perfect for my need and along with majority of us. Improved gas mileage on F150s will save Ford as a company overall and go easy on our wallets thus we can enjoy driving our F150s on roads.
__________________
2002 F150 Supercrew Lariat FX4
Black Beauty
After thinking about it the number was +3 MPG, I believe if I did my math right that's 14% improvement and If I do my math right from what I've seen over the last year Diesel is running about 10-15% higher than gas in the state of Indiana. So for me I would by it for saving at the pump.
I do not understand way a 2007 F150 4x4 gets 18 HWY, a 1995 F150 4x4 17. This was on the Window sticker and not real numbers. I also recall that when I looked at F150 with my dad in 88 that the miles was 16 but can not confirm that and since it was 20 years ago I could be out of my mind.
I rember when they said they were droping the 5.8 that it was to improve gas mileage. At lest that was what my dealer told me. He also said that their would be a front will drive only F150 in the next few years. So take it for what it worth.
__________________
Andy
Ford Trucks forever
1995 F150 4x4 - lost in my divorce -
2003 Excursion 4x4 - had to sell missing
2008 F150 - Good truck needs 4x4 on it
Hell, my 85 and 93 IDI's get 18MPG. So with all the new technology, they're moving backwards???
It's shamefull.
yeah, you know when i think about it....my 85 bronco i had got 17 mpg...351 Windsor in that with a 3speed auto...
__________________ Pennsylvania Chapter: Enjoying our little part of the world 2007 F150 XLT super cab, chrome package, 18" Chrome Clad Wheels, 5" Step Bar, 3.73 LS, 5.4 FFV 4x4
2002 Harley Davidson V-Rod --to many mods--
2006 Polaris 700CC Sportsman --to many mods--
Hell, my 85 and 93 IDI's get 18MPG. So with all the new technology, they're moving backwards???
It's shamefull.
A bit off topic but still on the mark...I just installed a new Natural Gas Hot Water Heater that will cost much more money to operate then the 12 year old one I just took out, and it was the best EFF Raiting I could find.
So yes...seems things are getting worse with all this new fangeled technology we now have.
A bit off topic but still on the mark...I just installed a new Natural Gas Hot Water Heater that will cost much more money to operate then the 12 year old one I just took out, and it was the best EFF Raiting I could find.
So yes...seems things are getting worse with all this new fangeled technology we now have.
to many fingers in the pot now a days...everyone wants more money spent on fuel so they get a higher dividend.....
NOT COOL!!!!
__________________ Pennsylvania Chapter: Enjoying our little part of the world 2007 F150 XLT super cab, chrome package, 18" Chrome Clad Wheels, 5" Step Bar, 3.73 LS, 5.4 FFV 4x4
2002 Harley Davidson V-Rod --to many mods--
2006 Polaris 700CC Sportsman --to many mods--
Good grief, my 11 year old (off brand) 3/4 ton pickup gets better mileage? And its a gas burner, gas is 20 to 30 cents cheaper than diesel and it has all the power I need. Guess what: I will keep it.
Something else to think about. Ford recenlty introduced the LCF commercial truck. Has a 4.5L V6 powerstroke engine GVWR up to 19,000 pounds.
__________________
Cancer survivor.
Proud member of the SNL club, #24.
3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population
Last edited by 1979 Ford : 04-06-2007 at 01:00 PM.
I do not understand way a 2007 F150 4x4 gets 18 HWY, a 1995 F150 4x4 17.
C'mon fellas. To everyone who posted a comment similar to this.
If you want the HP then you gotta pay at the pump. The 5.8L was rated for like 225HP? or something? Was not near as clean as the 3V 5.4L nor could it compete in the power department. It is pushing around a truck that weighs more than the circa 1995+ trucks did.
My 82 XLT with a 120 HP 300 c.i. six and 3 speed C6 auto did 24 mpg on the open road. Then again it was a dog for acceleration. Couldn't pull the furr off of a mouses' back. And Certainly Nothing that anyone now would be interested in buying. If they were interested in buying one, GM, Ford DCX would build that truck! Simple.
Car & Drive or Road & Track one of them I do not remember had an article about the efficiency of engines and the weights of vehicle. Basically to make it short. Gas internal combustion engines today are around 30 - 40% more efficient than they were in the 70's and also cars weigh considerably more than they did back then too. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like the original mini weighed 1200 pounds and the modern day one ways between 2-3k pounds. My complaint is no company makes a bare bones economy anything. I had a 1988 Mitsubishi pickup 2.0L 4 cyl manual tranny factory a/c. manual everything no power steering no power assist brakes. It got 22 or so mpg and i could towe 5k pounds with it at interstate speeds. I hauled over 2k pounds of compost in the bed 5-6 times every summer. The truck had a lil over 100k miles with no major problems minor stuff replaced the water pump a couple other odd lil things like that but nothing major.I sold it for 2k bucks a few years back and regret it ever since. A ranger equipped the same way costs around 15k bucks!!! Theres no reason ford shouldn't make a truck like my old Mitsu and sell it for $8k.
All that being said I still love my 97 f150 4x4 4.6 with 208k miles.
__________________
'97 4x4 4.6 191k miles
March 20th 2006
No reason? $6 billion loss would be a good start. Wages, pension and healthcare costs are about $3,500 per vehicle today. Raw materials, safety regs, emmission standards are all more expensive today. Do you really think it should be possible for them to sell a better product for the same price as a Mitsi of 20 years ago?
Well im not asking for the same price since it was about $1,100.00 NEW. But I have studied economics a good bit (with a former Reagan administration economist) and I believe for ford could sell a ranger as I am describing with out taking a loss for $8k. With out getting into personal beliefs about how our economy is horribly skrewed up. I will just leave it at there is a market for what I am asking for. And even if you are right Blackstock and ford wold be taking a loss selling a stripped ranger for 8k, they would sell millions more of them than they are now and their profits in other departments would make up for it. The sheer volume they would sell would make up for a 2-3k dollar loss on an 8k dollar ranger. Ford needs to take a lesson from Toyota, the toy is not unionized pays their employees half as much, and their employees are far more satisfied with their company and their working environment than most ford employees. Obviously I am not speaking for all and don't want to offend anybody these are just facts that have been published.
__________________
'97 4x4 4.6 191k miles
March 20th 2006
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
