You do realize that almost everything you touch on a daily basis has used oil in a direct or indirect way right? The keyboard you typed this post on was made with byproducts of oil, the energy it uses was probably produced with oil, the manufacturing plant it was made in used oil to lubricate the robotics throughout the plant, the boat that shipped it from overseas used oil to get it here, and the truck that took it from the port to the store used oil, as well as the store that sold it, even the shelf it was sitting on at some point had something to do with oil. It's a proven fact that the entire world depends on oil, no matter what. it does not matter where it comes from, it is still a necessity in everyone's life whether you believe it or not.

Sorry, that was my rant for the day, i am done now!

 

There is no way that any F-150 will ever achieve the mpg's of a 4 cylinder Ranger. But, the 4x2 F-150 with a 3.7L is rated at the same mpg's as a Ranger with the 4.0L. Since Ford decided not to update the Ranger platform for North American use, does it make sense to continue offer a smaller truck that gets the same or marginally better mileage than it's larger sibling? IMHO, no.

If all I wanted a small truck that would get 27 mpg's and Ford din't offer what I needed, then I would find a car maker that did. I wouldn't have a bought a 5000 lb F-150.

F150, I'm not meaning to flame you and I hope you didn't take it that way. In fact, I sympathize with you a little. But, you made the choice to buy the heavier truck and now your clearly unhappy based on numerous posts that you've made concerning your mileage.

Perhaps it's time for a trip to the dealer to see if something is wrong. The 3.7L is rated at 23 in a 4x2 truck. It's getting 30 mpg's in the mustang body. If your only getting 15 then something isn't right.

 

Whoa, everyone take it easy.

The OP's truck has <300 miles on it. He is still in the break in period, fuel economy should improve over time.

According to the window sticker, most drivers will attain between 14 and 20 MPG city and 19 to 27 MPG Hwy and a combined 19 MPG overall. The EPA rates it 17/23.

Right now, the OP is around 15 MPG. I would think this will increase slightly after some miles are on the truck.

I know some are comparing this truck to the Ranger but you can't. The Ranger is ancient and the F150 is light years ahead.

Best of luck with the truck and I hope it brings more happiness to you soon.

 

In the past, with relatively cheap gas and absent the prospect of imminent onerous regulation, I would tend to agree with you about fuel economy. However, fuel economy is way more than just a "bonus factor" these days--it is becoming a primary consideration. Not THE primary consideration, but certainly one of them.

So the question becomes, who has the vehicle that I need with the best fuel economy? If I buy a truck expecting to get at least CLOSE to the window sticker and I'm suddenly stuck at the low end, I'm going to be disappointed. If that's the way the game is played, then why not buy the half-ton with a window sticker that has better fuel economy numbers?

In my case, I presently drive a late-model, 6-cylinder Nissan Frontier. The window sticker fuel economy is identical to the 5.0 F-150 (14/19, avg. 16). However, I'm CONSISTENTLY getting 17-18mpg (winter) and 18-19mpg (summer) as averages in mixed driving. I haven't heard any 2011 F-150 owner report averages anywhere close to that high, and I was seeing those numbers from the get-go. I'd really, really like to buy a F-150, but if I dump $40k into a new truck and suddenly get 15, that's going to cost me some money for as much as I drive. With the prospect of being taxed to death, raising my kids in world that costs more, and holding on to a job in an increasingly tough economy, every dollar that goes out the door these days gets noticed.



JKG

 

Which is precisely why this country needs an energy policy that recognizes that, rather than attempts to run from it.


JKG

 

Man, I wish my 2000 Frontier V6 got anywhere near 18 MPG. I'm lucky to see 15 or so.

I agree with most of your statement about the current economy, etc. However, a Ford F150 is a much more capable truck than a Nissan Frontier (remember I have a Frontier) and most folks would expect a hit in fuel economy.

I'd rather have an F-150 getting 17-18 than a Frontier getting 19-20. Maybe that's just me. 1-2 MPG over the course of a year isn't going to be noticeable.

 

There's a big difference between the first and second generation Frontiers in both size and capability. The second generations are really just slightly smaller full-size trucks. When I purchased the Frontier in 2006, there is zero chance that I would have considered a first-generation Frontier or Tacoma, for the same reason that I did not consider a Ranger--just too small.

By the numbers for towing or hauling, the F-150 isn't really that much more capable than the second-generation (2005+) Frontiers, depending on engine, cab, and axle configurations. One area where the F-150 is better is in space, which is why I'm interested in it. My kids are a little cramped in the rear seat of the (crew cab) Frontier, and squeezing adults back there for any length of time would be even worse. Just can't beat the room in the F-150 SuperCrew. Plus, there are times when the larger bed (even the 5.5' box) would come in handy. If I take a road trip with the family, we pretty much fill up the cab AND the bed of the Frontier.

In my case, it appears that I could be giving up 2+mpg going from the Frontier to the F-150. At best, that could translate to hundreds of dollars or more per year depending on miles driven and fuel prices. However, there are plenty of second generation Frontier owners who are reporting mileage in the low teens, so who knows. I've never measured below 16.5mpg in my Frontier, and that was almost all city driving during a stretch of single-digit temperatures. Some Frontier guys claim they can't get to 16mpg unloaded on the highway. It will be interesting to see the F-150 economy numbers over time.

On the other hand, I am in no way expecting even the EcoBoost to turn some of the rumored 25+mpg numbers. The EcoBoost that I drove a couple weeks ago seemed to hit at or BELOW the EPA numbers on the live fuel economy display, but it was a dealer test drive, which really isn't adequate to evaluate anything. I suspect that it will get marginally better economy than the 5.0, at an increased expense--worth it for those who need the additional power, but I'm not sure if there's enough value there for the rest of us.


JKG