2011 F100

[MisterCMK]

Originally Posted by chevenstein I wouldn't buy a new vehicle with an automatic but I've driven some recent automatics for various reasons and found them all to be profoundly irritating (06 E250, 02 Dodge 3/4T van, 07 GMC 1T, various cars). I know that car and light truck automatics have had lockup TCs, overdrive gears, and shared computers with EFI engines for about 20 years but none of those things address my problem: I need the clutch feedback and shifting action to be comfortable operating the vehicle. I drove nothing but farm machinery and heavy trucks until I was about 16 (even the TC equipped equipment had a clutch pedal that disengaged the transmission). By the time I got behind the wheel of something with a car style automatic I was so used to low speed control with the clutch and accelerating and decelerating with manual gear changes that I couldn't and still can't adapt to not doing those things. In short, if someone could make an automatic that was 20% more efficient than a manual and more robust (hah!) I'd still not want to buy a vehicle with it because of my driving habits. I have other requirements in a truck that that I'd pay a lot of money for that also preclude the automatic: I like to be able to pop start my vehicles if I need to, I try to minimize the number of assemblies in a vehicle that I can't work on the internals of myself, when plowing I can put the clutch in and rev the engine to get more hydraulic flow, and aside from heavy truck automatics I have yet to encounter an automatic light truck that's really been worked hard and not been through one, if not two or three replacement transmissions (which calls into question the higher towing capacities). This I agree is changing - Ford is much better at making things now than they were 20 years ago and yes, I know that some of the newer manuals require some fancy tools to preload when reassembling (but they can be improvised). I'm not saying everyone should adopt my preferences, but I strongly disagree with anyone claiming that an automatic is better for truck use in the general case. I'm going to play devils advocate here and say that if you are not comfortable with an automatic because of low-speed control and accelerating/decelerating gear changes, you have no business being on a highway. As far as the hydraulic flow, put the truck in neutral and rev it up. And as far as your comment about not being able to work in it yourself, it looks like it is time to learn a new skill should you ever need to tear down an automatic tranny. They are not rocket science to work on.

[97squarebody]

Originally Posted by FTE Ken

The automatics on the new trucks, with a locking torque converter have none of the mileage disadvantages they had in the past,

Hate to say it but this statement is inaccurate. Pure and simple, even the new autos drop mileage by around 10%. I have been watching this closely for the past year or two. I prefer the manual, partly due to the control it gives but also due to the several thousand in savings upon inital purchase and the difference in fuel mileage. Look up the threads on the manual trans in the 6.4 forum. The general consensus by people who drive them is that there is a significant mileage difference. Of course there are people in the same threads who claim there is no difference (Not pointing any fingers at you Ken) but generally they have no basis for their claim. Most of these claims are rooted back to a salesmen who don't want to stock anything but the most popular options. Kind of like getting a simple low option truck. Afterall, your local salesman would not lie to you to get you into a vehicle right now........

Not trying to start an argument, just writing what my research / careful observation over the past several years has shown.

[Frd67cobra]

Getting back to the original topic....I thoroughly agree with rangerfan. An F-100 that's 9/10th's the size of an F-150 is completely assinine. Ford (as well as the other mfgs.) will have to do some major streamlining and eliminate the ridiculous amount of cab/chassis combinations currently available and prove they can run leaner and produce sensible fuel efficient vehicles that the public will buy. Otherwise they'll get no bailout help from this leery Congress, and a Chapter 11 is a real possibility. I say drop the F-100 and the Bronco concepts (neither will sell enough to make a serious profit). Start BUILDING the Australian Ranger HERE, equipped to meet U.S. emissions.Larger than our current Ranger and available in a crew cab, it should return the small truck crown back to Ford. Drop the Supercab version of the F-150, the Supercrew makes much more sense as it offers 4 real doors and more room for just a few bucks more. More efficient engines are a must, but only so much can be expected until the sheer weight of these trucks is reduced. A 1/2 ton truck weighing over 5,000 lbs. is insane. So is the ability to tow 10,000 lbs. plus. That's what the Super Duty's are for. Time was 1/2 ton trucks weighed in the 3500-4000 lb. range...that's where they belong. Quit loading them up like Lincolns. Price them in the 15-20k range where the average working man can afford them without worrying about making his house payment too. And you auto execs...., you don't help your case much when you come to Congress asking for bailout money arriving in a Gulfstream 5 corporate jet!

[FTE Ken]

Originally Posted by 97squarebody

Hate to say it but this statement is inaccurate. Pure and simple, even the new autos drop mileage by around 10%. I have been watching this closely for the past year or two.

That's not what I see with EPA ratings. The difference My F150 automatic gets slightly over 20 mpg on the highway at 60 mph (18.5 at 85 mph). My F250 is getting 19 mpg on the highway around 70 mph (I don't have different speed trip data on this truck, most of its miles are city).

2008 F150, 4.2L:
manual: 14 city, 20 highway
highway: 14 city, 19 highway

Unfortunately, the EPA site doesn't show the axle ratios for each, and that can account for the difference based on overall final drive ratio.

I prefer the manual, partly due to the control it gives but also due to the several thousand in savings upon inital purchase and the difference in fuel mileage.

I believe this what it ultimately boils down to when many people with manuals are pressed on the issue: economics of the price of the truck.

Look up the threads on the manual trans in the 6.4 forum. The general consensus by people who drive them is that there is a significant mileage difference.

Most people who drive them don't own both, so they can't compare their own driving habits on two different drive trains. I submit that any differences in mileage is not due to manual/automatic but:

1. The manual for the 6.4 has 6 ratios, the automatic has 5.
2. The is a big difference in the drive ratios of each
3. Because many people who buy the manuals do so because they cost less, they are likely to be the type of driver more inclined to go easier on the pedal. I'll bet the same driver with the same driving habits is going to see similar mileage on an automatic.
4. I'm willing to bet there was no hard data in those discussions breaking things down overal by base curb weight, use, and axle ratio. I think if folks did that they'd see the trend has a lot more to do with those factors than anything else.

Of course there are people in the same threads who claim there is no difference (Not pointing any fingers at you Ken) but generally they have no basis for their claim.

Just as folks who claim there is a difference have generally no basis for their claim, other than their opinion and own driving habits... which is usually the same basis folks on both sides make.

Most of these claims are rooted back to a salesmen who don't want to stock anything but the most popular options. Kind of like getting a simple low option truck. Afterall, your local salesman would not lie to you to get you into a vehicle right now........

Not once have I had a salesman talk to me about mileage of either type. Never had one try to tell me the advantages of one over the other. The only thing they've ever asked me is "do you want an automatic or manual?" Then again, I'm not usually there to buy the most stripped truck on the lot.

Not trying to start an argument, just writing what my research / careful observation over the past several years has shown.

A note about my last post about this..... I didn't say there was no difference and I'm not arguing either - this is a debate . I said the mileage disadvantages of the past are gone. Instead of a 10-20% difference, its well under 5% and in many cases there's no difference at all. On the highway, with the torque converter locked, there should be no difference if axle ratio, gear ratio and vehicle configuration are the same because in both cases you have a direct drive. Considering the accelleration and towing advantages the automatic has, I'll take the 1 mpg loss.

[chevenstein]

As my mother would say "boys, boys, boys, take it easy...". I didn't want to start an automatic versus manual debate, I just wanted to point out that there are people out there (me, some people I know) who might buy an F100 if it was done right but who would only buy it with a manual.

[97squarebody]

This is an interesting debate, partly because people are not getting mad and are not making it personal. As to several of the points made: EPA ratings are well known for being all over the board. I am really unsure how they actually generate them. Over the course of several new vehicles I have purchased and been around (friends, and family) there is no rhime or reason for the numbers. The Focus I have beats the highway estimate when I flog the thing with all city driving, generally I am fairly nice and moderate with my driving. On the other hand, several vehicles I've driven couldn't make city estimates on the freeway. The EPA has a dog in this fight, they prefer autos for emissions reasons. Many new cars are drive by wire throttle, autos are the same. This gives them maximum control over what the vehicle is doing at all times. The drivers input is a "suggestion" not a demand. The computer can then follow programing to maintain peak emissions.

For me the economic issue is a benifit not a requirement. I would love to get my hands on a King Ranch with a stick. I will be buying a new F-450 (most likely) in around 2 years. Unfortunately, I cannot get the interior I want with the gear box I want. There are many out there who want and can afford the the options and still want a stick. It is impossible to walk on to a lot and find that. I believe this is due mostly to the dealerships not wanting to stock 2 full lines. Many salesmen will flat out tell you that "I can sell a auto to a stick customer but not a stick to an auto customer" Following this logic the salesmen are going to do their best to force everyone into their box.

Most of the information on fuel mileage that I have has come from this web site. I have been watching what people are reporting on the 6.4 forum very closely. There is a difference. Rarely (I cannot think of a single time, although I am sure there is) do you hear about manuals getting 10 or 12 MPG, yet that is common for the autos.

I have talked to several salesmen about a new truck over the last year or so and all of them have tried to talk me out of the stick. They all try to say that the mileage is the same. Of course one of them was telling me that the F-450 4WD, with 4.88's was going to get 18 mpg. I have not been back to that dealer since. I have only found one dealer in my area that has generally honest salesmen. While shoping for the Sport trac that I recently purchased I was at probably better than 10 dealers to find what I wanted. I almost didn't buy a loaded, Sport trac Limited due to only being avalable in an auto. Again this goes to show that cost is not THE driving factor.

As to the torque converter locking up, yes that is great. I am not sure but I believe that only happens at freeway speed. (could be wrong here on the new trucks) This means it doesn't apply the rest of the time. Additionally, even when locked up, there is significantly more mass in metal and oil in an auto. When I used to race dirt track the common calculation for what that rotating mass was worth was 1 lb of rotating mass was worth around 10 lbs static weight. Think about this, if you add 40 lbs rotating mass (I think this is conservative) you are adding the equivelent of 400 lbs to the bed of the truck. Also on this would be all the fluid being slung around, that has mass to consider.

Lastly, this kind of sums it all up for me, heat. Manual trans do not need a cooler. Autos do. Pure and simple physics. All the heat leaving the cooler in the front of the truck was generated by the engine. The engines are around 1/3 efficent at convering avalable energy to rotation. Take all the heat you vent from that auto, multiply it by 3 and you get the amount of fuel that auto cost you on a trip.

As long as autos need coolers they are wasting energy that would be normally transfered to the drive wheels. Very simple.

[wendell borror]

All I know is I get better mpg with my 4.0 4x4 rangers than whats reported by those here on the forum with auto's or whats posted on the window sticker. I know the auto's rob some hp. When I had my 07 mustang GT with manual tranny at the strip. The guy's with 05-08 manual GT's were turning mid 13's in the 1/4 where as the auto stangs were around 14 flat to high 13's. I don't buy manuals because they get better mpg, even though they seem to, but because I like them. I'm a bit old school, manuals take the bordom out of driving and give you more contol over the vehicles power band. When growing up, trucks, jeeps, sports and race cars had manual trannies, to me, it seems un natural if they don't. We have 4 vehicles and only one is an automatic. It's my wifes mariner, she can drive a manual, but perfers an automatic for her own personal use. However, she seems to allways enjoy driving mine. Sometimes I enjoy driving hers for a change as well.

[FTE Ken]

A few things....

A torque converter has a torque advantage over a manual, especially when starting up with a load. Its why the automatics have higher tow ratings.

Depending on PCM code, the torque converter can lock in 2nd gear and higher, at city speeds. Its actually capable of locking in all gears but with programs I've made for the 6.0L the ride quality is not optimal with a 1st gear lockup.

Yes, the automatics generate heat. But that's not the entire picture. Manuals have fluid as well, and its a lot thicker, so there is loss there as well. An automatic isn't really going to generate much heat once locked up (I have plenty of datalogs to back this up). Its only when its unlocked that it generates heat. Yes, there is some power loss, but with a heavy truck it adds torque so you end up with lower engine load (if you watch data logs you'll see that load is one of the biggest factors in fuel economy).

The torque converter in the F150 is extremely efficient (for an OEM unit), with a stall speed around 1800 rpm. Not only does it do a great job of torque multiplication when its needed at heavier throttle, it also does a very good job at light throttle. The light throttle difference in RPM between lockup and non-lockup varies from as little as 50 rpm to 200 RPM at most.

Considering the fleet mileage standards the automakers have to comply with, and the upcoming 2011 standards, I don't think they'd drop the manual as an F150 option if it was going to make that big of a difference in mileage.

Plus... there is a huge factor that is being overlooked. The drive by wire throttle controls, and variable cam technology gets a lot of power and economy by precisely managing throttle plate position (which does not follow throttle peddle action), cam position and transmission control. It knows when shifts will occur, correlates this with peddle position, anticipated driver demand, acceleration rate, RPM, etc. to control the throttle plate and cam. Efficiencies with the F150 automatics are gained here not directly due to the automatic, but indirectly because the computer is controlling the transmission and can control other variables in relation to it. Without knowing when the shift is going to occur, a lot of cam and throttle calculations go out the window.

Starting with 2008 model years EPA ratings have changed to more accurately reflect current real world driving conditions. See the video here: 2008 Fuel Economy Tests

[joshc_guitar]

PickupTrucks.com - Update 1: Rumors that Ford is Thinking Smaller With New F-100 Pickup Based on the F-150

[74 F100 4x4]

NEW MEMBER HERE!!! As a current F100 (74 hiboy 4x4) and a Ranger owner (94 v6) I would be interested in purchasing a new f100 if it had a solid axle coil over set up like the older ones for 4x4 purposes and a 5 or 6 speed manual transmission. but i have a hard time purchasing BRAND NEW vehilces because they depreciate in value so much.So i would probably wait until it was a few years old so it would be cheaper and they would have the kinks worked out of it.

[fordtruckman80]

I'm a little late,but as a close to last generation F100 owner,I think I should throw in my two cents.I don't like the plans for the new F100.Ever since the F150 was introduced in the 70's,to 1983 when the F100 was discontinued,the F100 has been the exact same size as the F150,except for the differences in weight and suspension.I think that reintroducing it as a small truck is not the best idea.Since this new truck is small,and ford is trying to bring back an old name,I think they should name this new ranger replacement the Courier.

[FTE Ken]

I don't think the Courier name would make people think of quality, unlike the F100 name. The F100, since it would be based on an F150 platform, seems to be a logical name since its essential going to be a light half ton verses a standard half ton (after all, the F150 was introduced as a "heavy half ton"). Also, consider that the F-series is Ford's best selling line, and its natural from a marketing point of view to give it a name which leverages the F-series name. Some people may not know what an F100 is, but they do know what F-series is, whereas many would think of a small, rust prone undersized truck (even for a small truck) when they think of the Courier, if they even know what a Courier is/was.

Ford did very well borrowing the "Ranger" name from the F-series and applying it to the smaller trucks. It was a recognizable brand name and they leveraged that to their advantage even though the Ranger had nothing in common with the F-series. This truck would share a lot more with the F150 than the Ranger did with the F100/F150 when it came out.

[wendell borror]

Ken, for once, I totally agree with you, your right on the money. GEE!!!!, times must be a changing HA HA!!!!

[FTE Ken]

See, there always can be common ground if we search or wait long enough!

[wendell borror]

Yeah you expressed a real understanding of ford marketing. The courier wasn't a bad truck, but it wouldn't excite anyone nor ring a bell with younger drivers. Where as the older drivers will reconize the F-100 and the younger drivers know the reputation of the F series, be it the F-150 or super duty. Like you, I believe F-100 is the perfect name for a new mid sized truck as it will have more in common with the F-150 than the ranger. As the rumors have it, the ranger could be shrinking a tad and only 4 cylinder based to stay a true compact p/u. F-100, 150, and 250 just seems like a natural progression. The mini ranger will be in a league of it's own.