great truck it is the first ford i purchased in 46 years. everything is great except 13.1 mpg is this normal for a ford.

 

I work with a guy that just bought a new chevy 2500 HD with the same hp numbers as the Ford, and his mileage is 10.5. Bottom line with any manufacturer: if you have horses you have to feed them. Plus, the new ford is considerably heavier than the older model. It is frustrating that they cannot come up with a truck that will make 20+ miles per gallon isn't it? I don't know about you, but I don't need to tow 9500 lbs, and I don't need to go from 0-60 in 6 seconds. What I could use is a comfortable, nice riding pickup truck that makes good gas mileage. As far as I know there is no such truck. I have heard people saying that they make 20 mpg and more, but I have an opinion about those people...... liars. My buddy has an 03 Chevy 4X2 extended with the 5.3, and we were pulling our bass boats to Bull Shoals, and since he is a chevy man, and I am a ford man we had to be comparing them all the way down to the lake. If you are not familiar with Bull Shoals, it is in southern Missouri, and there are lots of steep hills to fight on your way. My 2000 f 150 with the 5.4 and 3:30 gears against his Silverado 1500 with the 5.3 and 3:73 gears could NOT keep up with me on the hills. Gas mileage was fairly close with him making 11.5, and mine making 11.8. Our boats are nearly identical in weight for those wondering. I can also tell you that my roughly 3000 pound bass boat will destroy my truck, or any other 1/2 ton truck if you are pulling it in the steep hills like we were on this trip. I had to keep the pedal mashed to the floor all the way up the steep hills to maintain the speed limit. My friends Chevrolet would not maintain the speed limit on the hills. If a person has to tow something this heavy with any regularity he needs a super duty with the diesel.

 

But; Ford does make a 20+ MPG truck.
The 2.3L Ford Ranger gets 23 city/26 highway.
My 1994 Ranger averaged 25 city/29 highway.

On my 2004 F-150 Supercab XLT, I went with the 4.6L instead of the larger engine. My overall mileage in 1,100 miles has averaged 16.9 MPG. I expect this to continue improving over the next several thousand miles. Don't know if I'll hit that magic 20 MPG, but at least 19 MPG looks like a good bet.

 

If you re-read my post you will see that I said I could use a comfortable, nice riding pickup that makes good gas mileage. For me, a Ranger is NOT in this category. Rangers are good little trucks, but far from comfortable for me. I had a 97 lariat with the 4.6, and it was a really nice truck, but the gas mileage was far from the 20+ that I mentioned. All around driving with that truck gave me 16 mpg, only .5 mpg better than the truck that I have today with the 5.4. And the 5.4 will run rings around the 4.6 that I had. Gas mileage will vary from individual to individual and for my style of driving, none of the full size trucks in the half ton range are going to give me the 20+mpg. Period. If Ford had not cut the V6 diesel that they were talking about at one time for the F150, that would have been the one truck capable of doing what I said. I absolutely believe that most people don't use their trucks for trucks, but for passenger cars, and the manufacturers would do well to provide a light duty, full size people hauler that will give good/decent fuel economy. Most people don't need a truck that will tow 9500 pounds, and if they do need to tow that much, they would be a fool to not purchase a Super Duty. Don't get me wrong, I am not a socialist/liberal that thinks we shouldn't have what we want, not at all, I am just saying that the manufacturers are all trying to "one-up" each other in pursuit of selling the most trucks and cars. And in doing so they are alienating a market that in my opinion would benefit from having a more fuel efficient vehicle.

 

Unfortunately fuel efficiency doesn't sell vehicles. Let the gas prices get to 2.00 gal consistently and maybe that will change. Everyone crys when gas goes up .10 but apparently its still affordable enough for the car market to be driven by power, towing and hauling numbers.

I agree with you, why do we need a 1/2 ton truck with 3/4 ton capacity.

FWIW, its not a 1/2 ton anymore. 97-03 f150s used to be classed by GVWR brake size, in the vin it was xFT 'R' or xFT 'Z' for the 150, or xFT 'P' for the 250 LD or 7700 like I have. I was noticeing that the new F150 is xFT 'P' like my 3/4 ton rated truck is. So great, a 1/2 ton can pull haul and tow more, but its not really a 1/2 ton anymore.

Think about why people are buying trucks for personal use. There are no more large cars, we need trucks to haul stuff and people. But you don't see any dodge or ford commercials with a Manly Man saying "Argh my truck gets 22 MPG!" do you? It just doesn't sell, like 5 speeds.

 

Does anyone else wish that the manufacturers of full-size light-duty trucks would install smaller displacement diesel engines in their trucks? Good fuel mileage would be realized along with durability. The current diesel engines used by Ford, GM, and Chrysler offer way more power than I require.

 

gtucke: I hope my new 2 wheel drive gets better milage than yours! Still 14 would be 5 more than I get now. Old 350 chev.

 

We get what we get driving this big of a vehicle around. Everything else is just
“ENTRY LEVEL”.