You obviously are not looking at the people who don't tow all of the time. Think how many people there are that tow a car trailer a few times a year or a travel trailer a few times a year but otherwise do not have a trailer hooked up or are unloaded most of the time. These people are not going to want to spend the money on a Super Duty as the vehicles is more than what they need.

 

Last time I checked, all companies are having problems with every class of truck sales. Not soley limited to the domestics or Ford in general.

Guy needs to practice what he preaches.

Like others have stated, federally regulated safety equipment and emissions crap have hurt both the weight and efficiency of the newer trucks. Put all these items on an '80s model truck/motor and it would be just about as heavy but even less powerful and less efficient than what we have today.

Not saying 25mpgs in a 1/2 ton isn't possible, just think it'll take a few more years to get there.

Yup, and what Falcon can tow 7K+ lbs with and 8ft bed?

And does that 85 F250 have the required safety equipment and emissions requirements that trucks do today?

Wasn't the 4.2L killed in the F150 for the '09+ models, being it was less efficient than the 4.6L 2V & 3V motors?

+1

 

But...it can't get 22 MPGs....at least in a manner recognized by the EPA!

An automatic V6 is rated at 14/19, while a manual tranny is 14/20.

Everyone wants to see 25 MPGs, but when they say that...they are looking for an EPA 25 MPG highway. Sure, I can get over 20 in my truck...but certainly not all the time. Ford can't even use those numbers, because they are meaningless. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?

Yours = 14/20

People want: 20/25.

Muuuch harder to do!

 

Harder to do, but still possible I think.

I guess we'll see in the years to come. The time will come when they manufacturers will have to do something because people will stop buying them

 

Care to elaborate?

I'm not sure people will EVER stop needing capable vehicles for work and/or play. I just can't see a future where NOBODY ever tows a trailer, hauls things, or takes their vehicles off of a paved road.

There was an interesting article I read a few months ago, about the "death of the midsize SUV". It was talking about how cars like the Explorer, Blazer, Durango, etc. where a dying breed, as they were not powerful enough to tow heavy loads, and thus weren't economical anymore to own. Those NOT needing a towing machine have been opting to "crossovers", which are just as roomy, without the truck based driveline. Large SUVs and pickups, however, were predicted to soldier on, even in the face of high oil prices, as there will always be people who NEED the capacity.

Now, especially since oil is back down again, I'm not sure what you mean when you say people will stop buying them. They may not buy so many of them, which is what's happening now, but I don't understand why you feel they'd ever go away.

 

Actually...now that you mention it....

2001 F-150





2004






Which one do you prefer? the heavier cab....or the lighter one?

 

Ouch!!!

 

That was an issue that seem to be isolated to the Supercab models (lack of a B-pillar allowed the cab to "accordion" too easily). Dumb design, but if you've got a RC or S'Crew 97-03 you're much better off.

 

So back to the OP's performance question. In the 01, less horsepower would have been better, right? Sorry, couldn't resist....

 

Well yeah, everyone knows, speed kills, so he wouldn't have been going that fast. They were obviously going for 0-60 times. On a treadmill. And it got 25mpg.

 

I always questioned this test. I was in an accident with my '02 F150 Scab back in 8/06. Basically broadsided a dang S10 Blazer while traveling between 40-45mph (damn idiot did an illegal left hand turn in front of me). Here are a couple pics of the damage.

Now of course there was $16.5K worth of damage (including labor), which the insurance company ended up fixing, when the truck only KBB'd at $17K. Trucks frame was slightly tweaked due where the tow hooks made contact, which they ended up replacing the entire frame. Truck was in the shop 2 months (10/06), which 2 months (12/06) after I got it back, I traded it for my '06 F150 and got $16K for my trade.

Had just put the rubber on the truck, but couldn't swap to my '06, since the '06 had 18's and the '02 had 17's.

 

You hit a moveable object.....crash tests are designed to mimick hitting a bridge piling, large tree, concrete barrier, ect. Hitting another vehicle is rarely as fatal or damaging as hitting a solid, imoveable, hard object.

 

True and I understand that point. Test for the most severe situation, even though the majority of accidents don't include hitting the above mentioned objects.

Can anyone tell us how this F150 stacked up against the competition at the time of release (was a 1997 model release in 1996)?

 

but I thought them chebby S10 blazers were "like a rock"? no?

 

Not quite. But they work well as demo cars....