they made a 1998 ranger that was strictly battery powered.... after 2-3 years the batteries had to be replaced. ford took almost all of them back and recycled them, but there are still a couple around.
__________________
drive trane parts may strand you, but suspension parts can kill you.
if you cant pay cash for it, you cant afford it.
One point that I dont see mentioned here is that back in 1991 when Ford started rolling out the 4.6 and later the 5.4 they were touting how much better fuel ecconomy was going to be over the old 5.0 and 5.8. They have never gotten better mileage and have proven that they should have invested in the pushrod technology like GM did. It is no secret that the best gas engines in full size trucks in the last ten years have been the GM LS series.
they made a 1998 ranger that was strictly battery powered.... after 2-3 years the batteries had to be replaced. ford took almost all of them back and recycled them, but there are still a couple around.
Yep. It could barely do 60 miles to the charge on a good day, but thats what happens when you use lead acid batteries, There were plans to use hyrdide batteries, but they were scrapped when the zero emmision mandate california was struck down.
Lithium batteries that are avalable today could have driven the same heavy truck over 400 miles. Recent advances in some versions of this chemistry could push it beyond 1000 miles.
Quote:
=jasongt06]One point that I dont see mentioned here is that back in 1991 when Ford started rolling out the 4.6 and later the 5.4 they were touting how much better fuel ecconomy was going to be over the old 5.0 and 5.8. They have never gotten better mileage and have proven that they should have invested in the pushrod technology like GM did. It is no secret that the best gas engines in full size trucks in the last ten years have been the GM LS series.
I agree, fuel economy has not improved enough to offset the increaced complexity and cost of the newer trucks. Unfortunately, the EPA estimates are often too optimistic, and not many motorists are able to replicate those numbers in the real world.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
One other point on the whole EPA mileage debate: the US EPA has changed the way they calculate the mileage numbers at least twice since the late 70's to better reflect how people drive in the real world. The latest change was about a 10% drop in highway figures. EPA MPG figures are only valid when comparing similar vehicles tested using the same simulations. I have never owned a vehicle that I didn't regularly beat the quoted mileage on, but I like to see how far I can stretch a gallon of gas, it's a game for me.
One other thing, the GM V8's don't actually seem to get any better milage in the real world than anyone else. Even with the variable displacement system. Looks great on the EPA tests, but comparison tests tell a different story, and so do the owners I know.
Seems to me that fuel mileage has more to do with the way it's driven than the fancy technology GM and chrysler are trying...
Constantly put your foot in it and cruise over 70 MPH on the highway, your mileage is gonna suck...
I've noticed when I anticipate stops, coast as long as I can, use the gas and brake as little as possible, and keep my speed below 70 I can always get waay above the EPA figures.
__________________
Tom,
Current truck - 2007 F150 Screw 4x4
Previous Fords:
2005 Mustang 4.0 auto
2003 F150 4x4 r/c auto
One other point on the whole EPA mileage debate: the US EPA has changed the way they calculate the mileage numbers at least twice since the late 70's to better reflect how people drive in the real world. The latest change was about a 10% drop in highway figures. EPA MPG figures are only valid when comparing similar vehicles tested using the same simulations. I have never owned a vehicle that I didn't regularly beat the quoted mileage on, but I like to see how far I can stretch a gallon of gas, it's a game for me.
One other thing, the GM V8's don't actually seem to get any better milage in the real world than anyone else. Even with the variable displacement system. Looks great on the EPA tests, but comparison tests tell a different story, and so do the owners I know.
It would not suprise me in the least if most engines are designed for good results on the EPA tests above all else.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
fords diesel in the f150 better perform cause reading this article http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news...elsfromgm.html
on the diesel that gm is developing looks like theres about to be some serious competition. They're touting possibly 29mpg on the highway with 310hp and 520ft/lbs. GM does seem to do well with gas mileage though, look at the corvette, doesn't even get hit with a gas-guzzler tax and gets roughly 26-28mpg highway, doubt the gt500 could even come close.
Why does a f150 need a 8Klb tow rating? Who actually trys something that foolish? What Ford needs to do is make the F150 a 1/2 Ton truck again. After all, 80%+ of them are macho commuter vehicles. Then they could trim off 1500 Lbs of fat off it, and get 30MPG.
Why does a 1/2 ton truck need to weigh 6K lbs????
__________________
93 F One Fiddy- 5.0/AOD/3.55 230K OEM
93 F Two Fiddy Scab- 7.3/ZF5/4.10/Sidewinder II,94 Turbo pump,G Inj's, Velvet Ride, Turbo Bumper, Alcoa's
85 F Two Fiddy-6.9/C6/3.54/ Holley Red, Racor, Soup Bowl,AutoJet 3",Ride Rite Rear
Sorry Tom, a smaller engine will get better fuel mileage overall. You are not only climbing hills, there are also times when you are going downhill, as well as flatland running. Even the 4.2 lite V-6 does not have to downshift for any of the later two senarios, and further, if it only takes 40-60 ho for your truck, then the V-6 would produce that just fine. heck, even a 4-cylinder would work fine.
then explain the pisspoor gas mileage rangers get... those guys aren't far behind us.
I got 14.53 on one tank and 14.86 on another just last month, I check it whenever i remember to at the pump... this is all city driving, a crewcab 4x4. my 1987 F150 5.0 reg cab 2wd got 12mpg in the city, weighed about 1300 lbs less, and was so slow it could barely spin the tires in the wet. to the person commenting about 1980s halfton trucks getting 30mpg... i donno what you're smoking, but they got slightly worse than we're getting now, and they had half the truck... look at the payload and tow ratings between the two...
__________________
2000 Excursion Limited 4x4 V10 - soon to not be stock anymore.
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs - Gone
2004 mach1 mustang, holding the garage floor in place.
Why does a f150 need a 8Klb tow rating? Who actually trys something that foolish?
I do!!!
My wife recently broke down in Cleveland, OH in my old Blazer. She was towing a motorcycle, and broke down 450 miles from home. I rented a trailer, drove out there, loaded the bike in the bed, and hauled it all home. Total weight was over 7,000 lbs.
If I wanted a "truck" that weighs 1500 lbs less and gets MARGINALLY better mileage, I would buy a Ridgeline. I needed more. That's why I bought my F150.
__________________
Tom,
Current truck - 2007 F150 Screw 4x4
Previous Fords:
2005 Mustang 4.0 auto
2003 F150 4x4 r/c auto
My wife recently broke down in Cleveland, OH in my old Blazer. She was towing a motorcycle, and broke down 450 miles from home. I rented a trailer, drove out there, loaded the bike in the bed, and hauled it all home. Total weight was over 7,000 lbs.
If I wanted a "truck" that weighs 1500 lbs less and gets MARGINALLY better mileage, I would buy a Ridgeline. I needed more. That's why I bought my F150.
totally agreed. some of us need to tow that boat, car, 6-7 people, etc... don't need a crew cab dually diesel for that... If you don't need that kinda tow rating and payload, just get a ranger.
__________________
2000 Excursion Limited 4x4 V10 - soon to not be stock anymore.
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs - Gone
2004 mach1 mustang, holding the garage floor in place.
For the price you pay for a f150, and the few peeps that actually use them as trucks, why wouldn't you want a 250? Heavier Driveline, brakes, ect,ect. For virtually the same money.
__________________
93 F One Fiddy- 5.0/AOD/3.55 230K OEM
93 F Two Fiddy Scab- 7.3/ZF5/4.10/Sidewinder II,94 Turbo pump,G Inj's, Velvet Ride, Turbo Bumper, Alcoa's
85 F Two Fiddy-6.9/C6/3.54/ Holley Red, Racor, Soup Bowl,AutoJet 3",Ride Rite Rear
Yes, that's true, and if I were to tow that much regularly, I'd buy an F-250. I like my F150 because it gets better gas mileage than a 250, it rides better than a 250, it was cheaper to buy than a 250........
I tow that much maybe a few times a year, so my F150 fits me perfect.
__________________
Tom,
Current truck - 2007 F150 Screw 4x4
Previous Fords:
2005 Mustang 4.0 auto
2003 F150 4x4 r/c auto
I bought my F150 because I need to be able to pull a 8-9k trailer occasionally, and the 5.4 F250 is only rated to tow 100lbs. more than my 150. The V10 F250 uses too much gas in daily driving, and the 6.4 is too expensive for the amount of pulling I will do. Plus, I just like the F150 better for my needs.
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
totally agreed. some of us need to tow that boat, car, 6-7 people, etc... don't need a crew cab dually diesel for that... If you don't need that kinda tow rating and payload, just get a ranger.
