Ok lets stir the pot a little. Make no mistake I am a Ford man, but I am not a blind loyalist so here goes. Between my brother and I our company has a 97 powerstroke, a 2000 chevy with a 6.0 vortec and a brand new Ford with a V/10. We bought them all new. All three trucks are heavy duty 3/4 ton with automatics and 3:73 gears. The chevy will run and hide from the fords with a 10,000 trailer load. And it gets about the same fuel milage as the powerstroke and way better than the V/10 loaded or empty. Why can't Ford make engines that don't suck fuel. I have had 2 f.i. 351's in F-150 4x4 with c6 and 355 gears and couldn't sqeeze 11 out of either of them running 60 on cruise with the tailgate down. I used to get 13 out of 360 highboys with 4:10 gears or even better than that I had a 57 F-350 with a 312 T-bird engine and 5:13 gears that would consistently get 13. My 96 F-150 with 302 and overdrive gets 14 or 15 while my buddies with similiar chevys with 350 motors can get closer to 20. After all these years and technology and they can't seem to get it. Makes you wonder doesn't it

 

whats the beef chief? i just got 15.3 MPG with my 2002 F250 extended cab, V10<----- auto, with 3.73's 4X4, with a 700 pound four wheeler in the back. oh, average speed 75-80 mph.

 

oh by the way, each truck has a different story...

my friends chebby 2000 5.3 liter vortec, auto, 3.73's extended cab short box got about 12 MPG on the highway. so then he traded for a 6.0 chebby, newer, 3/4 ton extended cab short box, and got about EIGHT MPG.

my old truck, 2000 dodge, when stock- 318, 5 speed, 3.55 gears, extended cab short box 4x4 only got 15 when i babied it. so i think my ford showed the dodge up when it came to power AND fuel economy.

willowbilly- you wouldnt happen to be a guy being paid by a chebby website to stir the pot up on this wonderful ford website would ya?

not bashing you just stating the information i have... and wondering what website you are from

"if i wanted fuel economy id buy a compact car"
Me

 

MY E150 with a 351, auto and 3.55 rear gets 15 mpg mixed driving.

 

To get an accurate fuel milage , you need to keep track over several tank fulls. The milage on one tank full can be very misleading unless you fill up at the same pump and do it the exact same way. Just the angle which the truck sets may make a gallon or two difference in how much you get in. There are also extremes in identical vehicles. I knew two guys who both bought new identical chevys once and one got 8 while the other got 20.( The Ford guys remember the 8, the Chevy guys the 20.) They even traded trucks and it didn't change. I love my Fords and will always drive them. I curently own 6 including a 23 t-bucket , 64 custom 2door post, 88 Grand Marquious(20 mpg, butt ugly), 68 F-250(240/auto-10mpg?), 72 F-250(300/4spd-16mpg), 96 F-150 2wd( 13-15 mpg). I have owned at least a half a dozen 67-76 3/4 ton 4x4 s with 4;10 gears and 360 4speed. Every one of them would run 12-14 mpg out of a sorry a--ed 360. Why then can only a few 351 efi motors do any better and most of them worse? If I was buying a new truck and fuel milage was my only criteria, I would most likely end some where out side the blue oval corral. I love my Fords and defend them as the best trucks made(the older ones anyway), but I still try to not live with my head stuck in the sand. My all time favorites: The 72 f-250 that I still have(since 1985), 68 F-250 4x4 ( after I chucked the tired 360 for a 332) 57 F-350 with 312 and 5:13 gears. I like my 96 F-150 and can tolerate the 14mpg average it delivers but it rides a little rough for a half ton. I haven't had much personal experience with the Triton's, the V/10 we have is the first one I have been around and it is only a few weeks old. Well I could go on and on but I think I will go find a chevy site and tell them what a pile of crap my 70 Chevelle SS was. More later

 

Just one other fact. We run our company trucks about 40,000 per year. Most of those miles are pulling a trailer. Chevy 6.0-11 mpg and Ford V/10-7mpg. Do the math, Just rounding off that is around $3000 a year difference. OUCH!! A big sting to stay loyal, but I still drive a Ford ( but then I don't actually pay for the fuel either) Later

 

I just got back from a 400 mile road trip with my 93F-250 4X4 with a 460. I got 13.5 mpg at 70mph. I think the 5 speed really helps milage on any vehicle. I never got lower than 10 with the big block. My cousin has an automatic same year as mine and he gets about 2mpg lower overall than mine.

 

Your logic about 6.0 and the v-10 is puzzling. The V10 is going to use more fuel biger engine more fuel. When you pull trailers your going to use more gas its the nature of the beast. sure maybe the vortecs use less gas. Why didnt you guys buy the fords with the disels i wouldnt buy a gasser for heavy towin they use more gas just the nature. so my only sugestion is that you either get some disels or you stop complaining about fuel milage. Also do you keep the vehicales maintained well?

 

We, we had a 1-ton Chevy that we used for our work truck. It had the gas motor. We traded it for a brand new Dodge with the Cummins, and now the money we save on fuel alone is paying the extra cost of the brand new diesel powered truck. We are saving over $400 a month just because we have a diesel instead of a gasser now....so we are not spending any more total money per month, and yet we have a brand new 4x4 dually diesel now. We should have done this a long time ago! If you are doing any work with a truck on a regular basis, diesel is the way to go.

You are right, Chevy gassers do better on gas than Ford gassers. But look at the bright side...at least you don't drive a Dodge gasser...holy smoke those things are awful on fuel.

 

I realize a 5 speed would be better and if I had my way the trucks for towing would be set up with 5 speed and 4:10 gears. The 460 was a great engine and we have put over 250,000 miles on them with no major problems. The diesel on the other hand started routinely needing expensive repairs at 125,000. A few weeks ago as I was rolling out of Port townsend Washington to head up the Alcan it died and I coasted into the Ford garage. The cam sensor was out(it lost the first one at 75,000). I also had to replace the fuel pump as it was leaking. It also needed injector seals and the timing cover was leaking anti-freeze. A few months ago it was the filter housing that needed replaced, before that the vacuum pump. It now has 160,000 after the Alaska trip. We could have replaced everything under the hood of a 460 truck for what this diesel has nickel and dimed out of us in the last 25,000. That is why we didn't buy another diesel(plus the fact that it such a pig around the jobsites). As for the v-10 using more fuel because it's bigger would be logical if it made more power than the 6.0, it doesn't. Usually the big engines actually get better milage when towing heavy loads. So engine size isn't so much the issue as the power to fuel consumption ratio. I realize it's possible that we have an exceptional 6.0 and a lemon V-10, that's why I was hoping to get objective feed back from some one else with a mixed small fleet, and not just blindly brand loyal owners defending their trucks. It is my brother's company and he buys whatever he can get the best deal on. When he bought the Chevy, Ford wouldn't deal. This time around he got the Ford 6,000 cheaper than the best deal on a chevy and Dodge would only come off list a few hundred.
I remain a Ford man

 

John we do keep our vehicles maintained and we didn't buy a diesel due to the excessive cost of maintainence on the last two WXboy Thanks for the civilized response. If I was buying the truck it would have been a Cummins with a 6 speed ( but the dually 4x4 is way too tall when you have to work out of the back a lot) These trucks have proved themselves to be the most powerful and efficient tow vehicles. I haven't got to talk with anyone that has the new ford diesel. Most people I know wouldn't buy a first year engine.
And for the Ford loyalists, I thank you for alowing me to use your forum. And please don't take offense so easily. Consider it a compliment that I have owned or had at my disposal hundreds of trucks over the years and still consider myself a ford man. (but I sure did like that 54 Dodge 5 window with the 383/ torqflite)

 

diesels are nice but when a injector pump goes out its like a $1000 bucks for a new one. You can buy alot of gas for a grand

 

A lot of oil field companies have stopped using light duty diesels for just this reason. Whereas gasoline may cost more per mile, the diesels cost more overall (when you include the cost of the motor option (huge) and repairs/downtime).
Don't forget how much gas you can buy for the simple cost of the engine option

In keeping with the topic:
1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee limited (318ci auto)- ~15-16 mpg, ~11-12 mpg towing 4000 pounds (hardly feels the trailer, give them credit, it has power)
1996 Dodge 3/4 ton (8.0 litre v10 auto) ~ 8 mpg, this thing is a pig, doesn't seem to matter a whole lot if you are towing or running dry, the mileage is crappy, so is the power (in my opinion, if the thing only gets 8 mpg, I should be able to light up the tires for blocks on end. Sadly, I could not, waste of money)
1999 Dodge 3/4 ton (5.9 litre diesel 5 speed) ~ 16 mpg, good power, love the engine, the guys always claimed powerstrokes got 18 mpg, but no offence, diesels are supposed to be inline 6, not v8, so Ford was never a diesel option for me.
1981 F150 (1973 351 cleveland, C6, 3.08 9 inch) ~ 9 - 10 mpg on a good day. Love the motor, fun to drive, didn't tow well however, wasn't setup that way. But hey, it's a Cleveland, nuff sed
1988 F150 (302 EFI, extended cab, auto) ~10-11 mpg Never understood this one, back in the late '80s early 90's Fords were known for bad gas mileage in almost their entire lineup of engines and I guess mine was no different. Loved the truck, loved the motor, for a 302 she had a lot of get up and go (on a side note, I hated the rear wheel anti-lock, talk about useless)
1972 GMC 1500 (1973 454, t400, 3.08 12 bolt) ~10-11 mpg This thing got about the same gas mileage as my '88 Ford did, where I expected this thing to chug back gas, the Ford had no excuse (Side note, this truck was a half ton, rear leaf spring suspension(!!) and factory tilt steering (o.k., it had what amounted to a bus sized steering wheel, but you could lower it
1991 Chevrolet 1500 (6.2 diesel, extended cab short box) ~17-20 mpg with advanced timing and bad EGR Can't complain, mileage is decent, power is not, diesel is cheap, what the heck. 340000 kms on it (~209k miles) motor is strong, body is good, transmission is new (r700
1987 Ford F150 (351w 4v H-O on propane) ~don't even want to guess... when it's empty, it gets filled, end of story I will however say that it needs filling often, and when I see the receipts I must assume the proper bent over position...

Nothing beats Fords of this era (~87-91) for toughness. They can take a punishing like no other truck on the road and keep coming back for more, so even if the fuel costs are higher, repairs are lower, they are cheaper to run.

 

Alfalfa, Thanks for your feedback. It always takes me a while to warm up to Fords new body styles. I had a new F-350 cab and chassis ordered in 1979. When the 80 models came in they were so dam ugly I cancelled my order and forfieted my deposit. In 87 they started to look better and I ordered the first 351 efi. It was a screamer but as I mentioned it barely made 11 on a good day. I was working at a garage that was all Ford guys when the new F-150s came out for 97. We all hated them and thought they looked like a shameless copy of a Toyota, so we dubbed them T-150. I still think the 96 is a better looking truck but I wouldn't mind having a Harley Davidson supercharged F-150. Then the new F-250s came out and they looked like some kind of pathetic attempt at copying a Dodge. The ford dealers were clammoring to buy up all the 97 4 door units from each other. Now I have started getting used to them( I still think the 97 is a much nicer looking F-250/F-350)
I can remember when a lot of my relatives on the ranch were driving the 454 chevys. 8-9 miles per gallon, towing or empty, any speed, head wind or tailwind, up hill or down. It's a good thing this isn' a chevy site or I would have all sorts of p.o.ed guys telling me how their 454 gets 15.
I had one chevy diesel. It was a 85 1/2 4x4 suburban with a 6.5 conversion. It was a replacement for the 6.2 and was done at a dealership with everything new. It got about 14 (3:42 gears, 700 R-4) and I am sure my 300-6 would out pull it. I was in a bind for a rig to drive out of Alaska and got it off a buddy. Well I only need to have one chevy every ten years or so to remind me that I just don't get along very well with them. I started driving Fords because they had better bodys and not really for their engines, but after many years and a shot at about every motor I came to the conclusion that the only two engines I would consider was a 300-6 or a 460, because most of the V-8s sucked gas anyway so you might as well have the big one. Usually the 460 was no worse on gas than the 351. I moved to East Texas a couple years ago and had to change my thinking on the 300 a little. They don't like to be pushed hard and down here every one drives pretty fast so most people I've talked to only average around 15. I like my 96 F-150 302 AOD and it will get 151/2 on the highway running 75, but then so would a 72 shortbed 302/C-4 I used to have. That's 24 years of technology. My Dad had an 89 with a 5 speed and it would get close to 17.
One final note, I read that you would have to drive a diesel 100,000 miles for the fuel savings to start overcoming the extra initial cost and the more expensive oil changes and filters. I don't think any repairs were factored in.

 

My 85 Bronco II with the carb'd 2.8 V6 gets 18.5 with 3.45 gears and a 5 speed, my 67 390 4V gets 8-10 depending on how rowdy I drive it. The 67 got 10.5 with the 352 2V.
Don't feel so bad about milage when my little 171 6 only manages 18. (But it does have 230K miles on it, so I guess it's excused.)