I'd be changing the fuel filter because they are much less hassle than swapping a fuel pump. (Working at a used car business was educational in that respect. I'd cut open fuel filters for fun with a pipe cutter after replacing dead pumps and of course the filter. Lots of rust and indeterminate gunk...)

I pull all the bed bolts on any brand pickup I own, slather them with anti-seize, and reinstall. I've not had to replace any of my personal in-tank fuel pumps so far but it's common enough I refuse to fight with bed bolts in the process. Only takes a few minutes but I'm not in the Rust Belt.

I don't buy new trucks (mostly thanks to Ford) but when I buy any used vehicle it gets filters, all of them, fresh fluids, fresh serpentine belt (and an tensioner inspection to make sure da bearing spins smoothly) and fresh coolant.

 

I had the bearings seize up on several of the tensioner/idler pulleys last winter, which of course snapped the serpentine belt. I blame it on 2 weeks worth of sub-zero temperatures trying to get the best of my truck. It was only about 4 degrees so there was no way I was tackling that job myself! Cost me near $500 but I'm not losing any fingers to frostbite.

 

The 4.2L V6 is a throwback, which is exactly why many of us like it. If it were aluminum block and heads, 24-valve, 4 cams, etc., it definitely would be more exciting but also a lot more maintenance/expensive problems. However, if I were to buy a new F-150 today, it would be the 2.7L Eco-Boost.

 

+1! Very well stated, sir!
I can see my spark plugs! I can remove my spark plugs whenever "I" choose to, not have them spit out or break partially off in the head! And, I didn't have to spend a lot of extra $$$ for just 20 more HP! (4.2 V6 HP vs 4.6 V8 HP)
I do like the modular engines, but in other vehicles, such as the Crown Vic. And, I like the modular engines if I were to need a dependable V8 work truck. But, mine is NOT a work truck and that's why I like the 4.2 V6 in it. It fits my needs.

 

I agree 100%! It's a simple engine using 30 year old technology, which means there's less exotic components there to break. Every time I read in these forums of someone having what are considered to be "normal" issues with the 5.4; i.e. spark plugs breaking, cam phasers, timing chain tensioners, I appreciate the simplicity of my V6 even more! This motor was derived from the old 3.8 liter that was developed in the early 80's for the Thunderbird/Cougar. The technology is 30 years old, and therefore much more proven. Before I bought mine I test drove a similar 2wd XL model with the 4.6/automatic. Seat of the pants feel, there wasn't much of a difference. I personally know a few people that have the 4.6, and they love it. One guy I know has over 160k on his 2004 and has had no problems with it whatsoever. He says most of the complex issues were limited to 5.4-3valve. For me I'll keep my V6 because I know I can get another 100-150k out of it.
As for the new ones, agreed on the 2.7. Real powerhouse and with the block made of compact-graphite iron, it should last a long time.

 

I thought I'd get the advantages of simplicity and durability from my 4.2 until it hydro-locked like so many others. Meanwhile my 4.6s and many others just rack up the miles. All engines wear out like any other disposable consumer good but the V8s aren't given to surprise demise by hydro-locking. My 4.2 only had 220K on it which is young for a modern engine.

Best recent V8 for maintenance access I've worked on is the the small block Chevrolet. (I have no "brand loyalty" since inanimate objects exist to serve me and not the other way round.)