I would have said power, and i know people are gonna say power because "its a truck if i wanted good gas mileage i would have gotten a small car" speel but I just saw oil hit 100 a barrel the other day and read that there might possibly $4 gallon gas soon so i think mileage is the most important to me and heck if the 4.6l gets what you say/want it to get with those numbers ill be fine with it because shoot I'm only getting about 230hp now and it does the job just fine.
For me, definitely fuel economy. I think these trucks are over powered already.
It's best to provide options. I'm sure there are many others who would prefer the power over economy. The thing that kills me is there are three options (4.2L, 4.6L and 5.4L) for the current F150, but the 4.2L is only rated a couple mpg better that the 5.4! It seems that a V6 should get quantum leap better fuel economy (say 8-10mpg), but that's not the case. If I'm going to give up some power for economy, I want it to be worthwhile.
Dale
__________________ Prior trucks:
1969 Chevrolet C10 350
1976 Ford F250 360
1982 Nissan 2.2 Diesel
1986 Ford Ranger 4x4 2.3
1992 Ford F150 4x4 5.8
1997 Dodge 3500 4x4 5.9 Diesel
Current trucks:
1950 Chevolet 3800 235
1991 Ford Aeromax L-8000 7.8 Diesel
2006 Ford F150 Lariat 4x4 5.4
For me, definitely fuel economy. I think these trucks are over powered already.
It's best to provide options. I'm sure there are many others who would prefer the power over economy. The thing that kills me is there are three options (4.2L, 4.6L and 5.4L) for the current F150, but the 4.2L is only rated a couple mpg better that the 5.4! It seems that a V6 should get quantum leap better fuel economy (say 8-10mpg), but that's not the case. If I'm going to give up some power for economy, I want it to be worthwhile.
Dale
I would assume the milage isn't any better because of the weight of the truck. I don't believe my '88 F150 is anywhere near the weight of a new F150. I think they need to get more creative with using light weight materials. I know, that might compromise crash performance.
__________________ Current Rides: '88 F150 XLT 4X4, RC, LB, 5.0L, 4spd Manual '03 Neon SXT, 2.0L, 5 spd Manual
I remember when 300 HP used to be a lot. I vote for fuel economy. You can still tow with 290 HP. Additional gears would be handy for heavy loads & mountains but I think 290 is enough.
__________________
Chris
2002 F350 6-speed 444 CID. XLT, Heated Seat, 255,000 & counting. 6637 w/ Pete's armor. Cold air set up for 6637
“Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.” Will Rogers
I voted 6.2. Your figures for the 5.4 and 4.6 are very very optimistic, and a bit on the un-realistic side. yeah, your shortbed regular cab 2wd pick up might get those mpg figures when driven like a grandma under good temperature and a decent tailwind going downhill, but in the real world, that's not gonna happen very often.
also; how come the 4.6 gets a big power increase in your scenario almost matching the power of the 5.4; yet the 5.4 gets no power increase? the 4.6 is a short stroke motor, made to rev high, it's not going to make 350lbs of torque n/a anytime soon from the factory, unless ford takes the toyota approach and make you rev it to 5k rpm for that peak torque.
last but not least, the 6.2 figures you quoted are worse gas mileage than the 6.8 v10 and similar power. the 6.8 v10 would prolly get quite a bit better gas mileage in a lighter f150 chassis than in the current superduties.
overall, your poll i think is trying to be another "give us mpg's" thread.
__________________
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.
I would want an F150 for economical daily driving and light hauling. If I wanted power I would go for an F250 that has the load carrying capacity to go with the power. Putting the 6.2 in a half ton truck is all horse and no wagon. I voted for the 5.4 because in real life, I don't think the 4.6 is really all that much more economical.
I said 6.2L power because 10-12 mpg is as good as if not better than the mileage i get now from a much smaller engine. A small engine doesnt meed more MPG, my 302 has to rev so high to move my heavy truck that the mileage is much worse than a larger 351 or 460 would be in the same truck
__________________
Howdy I'm Scott and I'm an adrenaline addict
1990 F150 4X4 XLT Lariat 302 5spd
2000 Ranger 4x2 XLT 244 cid
STG's Minions: Public Relations/Recon Dept.
I drink from a cup called fear!
"Hold on tight cause its gunna be wilder than any 8 second ride"
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
Give me power!! 6.2 Boss Baby!!
