The mileage is calculated very differently now. Back in 80, the 15 was much closer than the 21 on the highway.
yep... the epa calculations are/were so far off.. when they revised the way they did them, a lot of japanese cars went down... the prius lost something like 10mpg or so...
also, back in 1980, the emissions restrictions weren't anywhere as bad as they are now.
having had one of those 302 w/ a C6 f150s before, I can tell you the only time mine got 21mpg was on the back of a flatbed cause I didn't have a spare wheel/tire with me...
__________________
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.
Well that's part of the problem. Truck designs havn't changed with the times.
With a little time in the wind tunnel, trucks wouldn't have to be flying bricks.
Look at how OTR tractors have changed.
They have tested and changed them due to this. Look at the mirrors. The tailgate on the 2009 is a result of this as well. The windshield angle is further slopped. The problem is when they went with this all the way such as the 1997-2003 design many people didn't like it.
__________________
Ken Payne
Gone Fishing...
LACK OF PLANNING ON YOUR PART DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY ON MY PART.
2006 Roush F150 Project: Roush Supercharger, Troyer & My Tuning, 9lb pulley, Level 10 Trans, E-Fans, Oil Separator, Brandmotion GPS, BlueConnect Hands-Free Phone & iPod Direct Connect, Black Headlights & Taillights, Retrax Retractable Tonneau & more.
2004 F250 King Ranch Crewcab 4x4 6.0L PSD project: DP-Tuner Tuning and MBRP Stainless Dual Exhaust.
2000 Ranger Supercab XLT 3.0 V6 project: Bright Box, Mac Intake, Tonneau, my tuning.
RIP: 1967 & 1975 F100, looking for a 66 F100
They have tested and changed them due to this. Look at the mirrors. The tailgate on the 2009 is a result of this as well. The windshield angle is further slopped. The problem is when they went with this all the way such as the 1997-2003 design many people didn't like it.
yep. all the more reason to bring back the ranchero... or that falcon from australia... Man that'd be a fun car/truck
__________________
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.
They have tested and changed them due to this. Look at the mirrors. The tailgate on the 2009 is a result of this as well. The windshield angle is further slopped. The problem is when they went with this all the way such as the 1997-2003 design many people didn't like it.
I happen to think that the older trucks looked better, but this clip from Utube was the eye opener for me....
It would seem that theres more to auto safety than ABS, ESP, and airbags. To be fair, the 04 F150 looks nicer (subjective) but is also MUCH stronger in the same crash test. I have also seen plenty of 1980-1996 fords in wrecks, and I still feel safe in my old 86's.
Boxed frames have advantages and drawbacks, but corrosion resistance is what will determine the life expectancy of any truck where I live, and boxed frames are at a disadvantage in that area. Both my trucks flex a lot as they were designed to (back then ford's spin was that flex was a good thing) and they held up just fine.
Very interesting videos. I'd like to see the results of the 78 hitting an immovable object. It doesn't seem to suffer much damage at all from the escort.
a 1980s passenger car will be a lot softer and will absorb a lot more of the impact than a wall... without crumple zones, that old truck would have had the passenger area crushed to bits and pieces and likely the doors wouldn't open afterwards to get the occupants out..
Quote:
Originally Posted by dascro
Very interesting videos. I'd like to see the results of the 78 hitting an immovable object. It doesn't seem to suffer much damage at all from the escort.
I'd hate to see a 6000lb 04+ supercrew hit a 70s/80s escort...
__________________
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.
Very interesting videos. I'd like to see the results of the 78 hitting an immovable object. It doesn't seem to suffer much damage at all from the escort.
People who see videos of the 78 will often falsely conclude that means its a safe truck. That's a huge problem actually. If you take a look at some of the old 1930s and 1940s test films the vehicles could often roll over, smack into things, etc. without a dent. Great for keeping the value of the vehicle high... not good for crashes. Instead of slowing down the impact and spreading the force over a few hundred milliseconds vehicles which do not give hit the passenger with all the force almost instantly. Often they die from internal injuries as a result. You want the passenger cage to be very stiff to prevent it from collapsing on the passenger but the rest of the vehicle needs to be able to crumble to spread the impact force over time instead of instantly.
__________________
Ken Payne
Gone Fishing...
LACK OF PLANNING ON YOUR PART DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY ON MY PART.
2006 Roush F150 Project: Roush Supercharger, Troyer & My Tuning, 9lb pulley, Level 10 Trans, E-Fans, Oil Separator, Brandmotion GPS, BlueConnect Hands-Free Phone & iPod Direct Connect, Black Headlights & Taillights, Retrax Retractable Tonneau & more.
2004 F250 King Ranch Crewcab 4x4 6.0L PSD project: DP-Tuner Tuning and MBRP Stainless Dual Exhaust.
2000 Ranger Supercab XLT 3.0 V6 project: Bright Box, Mac Intake, Tonneau, my tuning.
RIP: 1967 & 1975 F100, looking for a 66 F100
Im still impressed by the 2004 an up 150s. Ive seen several wrecks with those trucks an not one person got hurt. The trucks were rolled an hit by the side an yet the cab remained intact while the rest off the vehicle was totalled. Kudos to ford on the 2004 an up 150s. They haved saved many peoples lives. Kens description fits this to a t.
People who see videos of the 78 will often falsely conclude that means its a safe truck. That's a huge problem actually. If you take a look at some of the old 1930s and 1940s test films the vehicles could often roll over, smack into things, etc. without a dent. Great for keeping the value of the vehicle high... not good for crashes. Instead of slowing down the impact and spreading the force over a few hundred milliseconds vehicles which do not give hit the passenger with all the force almost instantly. Often they die from internal injuries as a result. You want the passenger cage to be very stiff to prevent it from collapsing on the passenger but the rest of the vehicle needs to be able to crumble to spread the impact force over time instead of instantly.
Thats true. it would be interesting to see how the 78 compared to a 04 in situation we could directly compare just to see how far technology has come. I remember watching a commercial for an old studebaker probably from the 40s or 50s and they did roll it over and it had very little damage.
One thing I found interesting is that I assume that video would have a 78 escort. It makes me think that they didn't understand crash safety very well back then. One vehicle is compleletly collapsed and the other is barely dented. Not much consistancy. Maybe it was whoever had the bigger vehicle got to live?
Very interesting videos. I'd like to see the results of the 78 hitting an immovable object. It doesn't seem to suffer much damage at all from the escort.
I agree, but so far I was not able to find any such video, in the 70s crash tests were not the same anyway. There are still similarities between the two crash tests though. For one thing it is an offset collision instead of a full frontal contact, and there is not much kinetic energy left after the collision, but since there is still some, the truck keeps moving, and we can assume that the damage would have probably reached the door if this were a true immovable object impact. I believe this truck predates the era of so called "crush zones" as well, tey it still absorbers energy in much the same way.
The conclusion I make from these examples, is that newer trucks are not automatically stronger or safer, if we were to compare the 2001 to the 1978. I have seen other collisions between 1970s fords and newer vehicles, and the the other vehicles rarely fare well.....I will still admit that the 04 is better than the 1978 though.
[quote=David85]
The conclusion I make from these examples, is that newer trucks are not automatically stronger or safer, if we were to compare the 2001 to the 1978. I have seen other collisions between 1970s fords and newer vehicles, and the the other vehicles rarely fare well.....I will still admit that the 04 is better than the 1978 though.
this goes back to what Ken was saying, yes, the older ones are more like tanks, and probably look like they're getting less damaged. the newer ones are supposed to get damaged in the front, and often will look quite demolished, but that will soften the impact for the passenger. So yes, to the untrained eye, the old ones will "fair better" than the newer vehicles by just looking at them.
__________________
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 just find it ammusing that in '79 when they were marketing the 1980 F-150 they advertised an EPA of 15/21 mpg's with a payload of 2,440lbs w/ 3spd auto and a 302. Now in 2008, almost 30 years later, the trucks have double the plastic, towing and payload has barely incresed, and the new ones are rated at 14/17 mpg's.
What exactly is it that's amusing????
A 160HP truck gets about the same MPG as a 250HP truck?? (you can't compare the 302 with a 5.4.....you have to use the 4.6)
If memory serves, my '81 351 F-150 got single digit MPG with a whopping 185HP.
How exactly do you increase payload in a 1/2 ton???
Raise the GVW??? Then it becomes a 3/4 ton.
Have to show me the tow ratings you write of......1/2 tons of today have much higher tow ratings (GCVWR) than the 80's 1/2 tons.
Last edited by DOHCmarauder : 02-04-2008 at 03:58 PM.
trucks are work horses. the bigger the stronger the better. these two items will add weight every time.
want a lighter truck? get one without a fully boxed frame. get one will bend and twist with the challenges that come before it. have you ever seen the new tundra frame under stress?
Have you??? (and no, the Ford produced video of an EMPTY bed is not proof)
Have you seen a 3/4-1 ton frame flex??? (I have, I own an F-250)
Seen a jumbo jet wing flex??
Quote:
Originally Posted by richtor
the reason the f150 will not bend or break is the very reason its so heavy!
Really? Why do the 3/4 ton trucks and even the OTR tractors "bend"???
Have you??? (and no, the Ford produced video of an EMPTY bed is not proof)
what about the ones where they simply hung some weights from a corner of the frame? it doesn't get anymore simple than that. either it flexes or it doesn't.
__________________
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.
what about the ones where they simply hung some weights from a corner of the frame? it doesn't get anymore simple than that. either it flexes or it doesn't.
Do that test on a C-channel F-250......heck, try to open the tailgate on my 250 if it's parked off camber.
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
