Buying a 6,000 lb. brick and complaining about the fuel economy is like marrying a fat woman and complaining about the grocery bills. You had to know what you were getting. Besides I bought my truck to haul and tow with, not save gas. I ride the motorcycle when I want to save gas, 48 MPG!
Yeah, I ride a bike too. (60mpg BMW) It's great when the weather is nice and whatever I need to haul fits in the saddle bags, but it's kinda tough bringing home 4x8 sheets of plywood. I also drive a 35mpg Volkswagen much more frequently than I drive the F150. I figure with the miles I currently put on the F150 (about 9-10,000/yr.), I won't need to replace it for 20 years. Too bad for Ford's bottom line, since I won't be in the market again until 2026.
If the truck got better fuel economy, it would be my daily driver and I would triple the mileage per year. Which would put me back in the market for a new F150 in 2013.
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
1992 Ford F150 4.9
2006 Ford F150 Lariat 4x4 5.4
Aberdale, my pathetic 4.2 gets consistently BETTER mpg than the EPA posted mileage . I don't know what your problem is, putting 4.2 owners down. You must be jealous of the 4.2 mileage, or you wouldn't have gone to the trouble of trying to justify why you didn't buy one. Drive your truck, enjoy it, and try not to be so condescending to other Ford owners. It is boring listening to people who think they know it all, and boring people get tuned out.
__________________ BigBlueMacDaddy (Big George)
1977 F350 Blue/white CrewCab & 2007 F150 Black R/Cab, 4.2L Auto JOIN THE DELAWARE CHAPTER,CLICK HERE
Aberdale, my pathetic 4.2 gets consistently BETTER mpg than the EPA posted mileage . I don't know what your problem is, putting 4.2 owners down.
Hey Big George, glad to hear that you're getting better than EPA mileage with your 4.2. So far, you're the only one to comment that has. If you can't tell by my posts, fuel economy is very important to me because I log quite a few miles. I know how much I spend annually on fuel, and it's a real eye opener if you take the time to track it.
My point isn't a reflection on 4.2 owners. Sorry if you took my post personally. It wasn't meant that way. It's a general comment on why Ford (nor any of the other OEMs for that matter) can build a 6 cylinder full size pickup that gets fairly decent fuel economy. Personally, I believe fuel economy in the low teens on a 6 cylinder 1/2 ton truck stinks. (and until your post, everyone has admitted their 4.2 cannot do better than that) And both the 4.6 and 5.4 can easily meet or exceed that.
My 1 ton 1950 Chevrolet gets almost 20 mpg. No, it doesn't have emission controls, nor is it computer controlled. And about the only option it has is a radio and heater. But it's doing it with stock 1950 (actually 1930's) technology, a carburetor, and 4.11 gears. By 2006, wouldn't we expect better? I really like driving my F150 and would like it to be my daily driver. but at 18-20mpg, it will sit in the garage unless I need to haul something.
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
1992 Ford F150 4.9
2006 Ford F150 Lariat 4x4 5.4
With all of the development going on with direct injection, diesels, and hybrid technology, I think we may only be 5-10 years away from a 28-35mpg F150. When that happens, all of these 14-18mpg slugs we're currently driving won't be worth much more than scrap price.
A law was just passed that by 2020 every car/truck must get at least 35mpg...
I believe that's a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) target. Which states that the average fuel economy for all vehicles across all product lines meet the requirement. So we could still see 20mpg vehicles as long as the manufacturer is selling an equal number of 50mpg vehicles.
It's a step in the right direction, although I'm not a big fan of government mandated requirements. I would much rather see the vehicle manufacturers achieve this goal through competition with other manufacturers in meeting consumer demand.
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
1992 Ford F150 4.9
2006 Ford F150 Lariat 4x4 5.4
I believe that's a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) target. Which states that the average fuel economy for all vehicles across all product lines meet the requirement. So we could still see 20mpg vehicles as long as the manufacturer is selling an equal number of 50mpg vehicles.
It's a step in the right direction, although I'm not a big fan of government mandated requirements. I would much rather see the vehicle manufacturers achieve this goal through competition with other manufacturers in meeting consumer demand.
Dale
I see. Thanks for the clarification. I agree...the gov't already is involved in absolutely everything enough.
I was getting 16.5 w/BFG. w/55000 miles changed to GY.silent armors.getting 13.5 now.. f150 5.4L 04..still love the tires..
Are you saying the tires caused the loss of 3 mpg wow I to have the GY silent armors and seem to have lost about 2 mpg but I figured its due to the cold winter weather as I got them in Dec. and milage drops in the winter anyone else notice a milage drop with this tire
Love the tire and the tracktion in snow is good for an all season tire
Monitoring these forums since my dad owns an 06 150 4.6L. The 4.6L is a great engine and you don't have to worry about the spark plugs lol. Anyways in AZ gets 19mpg!! Probably because avg speed is 50mph city and 80mph highway
I think these engines are an improvement over earlier engines, not pre-emissions though. My great-grandpa was an engineer designing engines for GM in the 1960s, actually longer than that. There were several cars that got great gas mileage, the big hits were unleaded gasoline, and emissions controls, both changed tech and engines forever. While leaded to unleaded wasn't that bad, emissions was. 1985 was a bad year. You can't have both worlds, as much as the govt and enviromentalists want. The engine needs air, fuel and the ability to exhaust to run. You constrict anyone of those and the others have to compensate. Since our atmosphere is limited permanetly in its ratio of O2 fuel is the only thing that can change. If you a choke an engine with restrictive exhaust components that add the lack of breathing, not to mention extra weight you will get less mpg. I think the manufacturers have done OK in bringing up the level of mpgs and emissions. I wouldn't want to be in there position lol.
I personally like hte 5.4L and 4.6L, my 300 has a bad torque curve for speed, great for flat midwest, bad for mtns in AZ. But it is a good engine and with the 3.55s does okay in the mtns, not like todays generation though. The 302 isn't a truck engine it does okay with an empty truck, and the 351 is great, but sucks gas, and doesn't show that much power for it. Towing with a 351 is not like towing with a 5.4, with the 5.4 it feels as if I have more power (usuable at speeds I want).
I think the 5.4L is almost a better engine (gasp) but I have seen them perform (5.4 pulling 7K in mtns in f250 at 5K at 50mph) Friends asked ford techs they say its okay, my friends have 180ishK on it at it still runs great I really like the 4.6L, because my dad doesn't tow and this engine, I liked when I did landscaping and that was in the truck I drove most often The 4.6l (because that is what I know more) has tons of power even at 10,000 plus feet. You can go 80mph with loaded down bed (even with water too) for camping, up mtn passes!! I mean my dad goes "whoops getting up to 90 when he is climbing a mtn pass, (I've done it too)
The power is there, towing its different but for normal truck driving, its (4.6L) awesome. It seems in these newer gens the trannies and engines have an awesomly usable torque band, sure they rev at 4k or 5K and make a bit more noise, but they pull from idle all the way up (and don't complain) and still will last a long time. My dad owned the older gen like mine, and he tells me all the time he is amazed at the power these new trucks have (I know he lets me drive his often, and I've driven them loaded down in landscaping), just the useability of torque and the ability for them to run at high speeds even under load or without turning much rpms which is important in AZ where speeds are 85 (unofficially). The fact that Ford has a better torque band is awesome and what Toyota and some others don't want you to know
P.S. (Don't read into this non-pollution stuff above, I still support land conservation, and don't want to pollute everything... just want to see reasonable mechanical standards and levels and think the govt should stay out, let the competition duke it out and you will see better mpg and emissions all free enterprise style.
Later,
Paul
(We also had a 87-96 vs current gen in our forum, and I posted the same but with more details. So now you know someone defended these new-fangaled space ships for ya
__________________
94 F150 XLT, Reg cab, Cranberry, 4.9L 300ci, I6, M50D, 2.73, Bone Stock, except for radio.
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
You had to know what you were getting. Besides I bought my truck to haul and tow with, not save gas. I ride the motorcycle when I want to save gas, 48 MPG! 
