The Stick Six (300) Was a F150 Favorite of mine for so many reasons , Sad that its all gone. Everyones talking mileage now and FORD has only V8 auto's for the entire F 150 line. Not smart

Looks Good but they Should have had updated power and Diesel option, 310 hp won"t do it in todays market.

 

The only manual I would ever have in a truck would be Fords old 4 speed tranny. With 3 forward gears an reverse. Most off the time 2 shifts an you were done. But when they upped the tranny to 5 gears. Way to much shifting for me. These automatics shift so much smoother then they used to. You actually get better milaege with autos then manuals. My guess is Dodge will drop the manuals too. Frankly I have never seen amaul Ford anything on the lot for a long time. Yeh manuls were the thing you wanted in a truck years ago but anymore that isnt the case. I think different now.

 

There you go with the numbers again, them numbers don't mean much. What matters is real world performance. Everything on paper is just that. Thenm new motors don't have the low end power like the old 300. Take the GM engine used in the Canyon. Peak power is at 4500.

From reading on message boards I'm begining to see who Ford is marketing to. And I see why there going under.

 

Really? A5.4L has 85% of it's max torque at 1000rpm. That's just over 310lb/ft at 1000rpm with a flat curve up to peak torque of 365lb/ft. That will out-pull a 300 I-6 anyday.

 

2009 is not for me, it looks like an 88-91 f-150 with the raised hood over the headlights the sloped raised roof on the 2007 f-250's are a way better looking.

Also, the front marker light would look better separated from the jigsaw looking headlight unit and the rear tailights are they red headlights?

 

When was the last time you saw a 5.4 in a industrial application? To do so takes real world power and stamina. Appearntly the 5.4 doesn't have that or you'd see them in industrial equipment. The 300-6 was put in everything industrial. From forklifts, swathers, even tractors. If you stuck a 5.4 in a industrial application it would not last 100 hours.

 

You are so utterly without fact. The 5.4L makes over 80% of its peak torque by the time it hits 1000 RPM. No 351W, 302, 300 ever came even close to that claim. Take a look at the sales numbers of the various models of Fords, the actual specs of the engines, the real world towing and payload capabilities. Horsepower, torque and low-end torque --- it kills them in all categories. Maybe you don't know much about the 3 valve engines (or nothing at all), what that does for performance and what the variable cam timing does for the torque curve.

I think its time for you to get some facts, and maybe actually try driving a 2004-2008 F150 with 10K behind it (I have) because you're about to get seriously schooled. I suggest you stop digging before the hole gets any deeper.

 

Ford Lover here and it looks like $#%$&^* could we have any more Plasitc on a
F-150. Its to clean for me

"Its like a truck version of a Towncar"

Hay i'm old school

The last good F-150 for me in the 9th Generation (92-96)

 

I like the 09. One thing I noticed is how different it looks depending on trim level and even just the color. The first few pictures of it in blue did nothing for me. Actually, my first reaction wasn't favorable; but the other colors (silver in my opinion) look sharp. The interior is sweet (although I can agree with some posters about there being a lot of plastic). The platinum edition steering wheel wrap looks great. Sync will be a nice feature. Mildly concerned about the power, but the F250 and up offer the V10 if you need reliable grunt, and have shares in an oil company. I have to wonder if the new tranny won't make that 310 hp feel stronger than what it is(?). Should help with MPG's at least.

 

Ken, at the risk of getting on your bad side, I'll give you a little history from 1993 when ford had their 7.3 (non powerstroke) diesel turbocharged.

In that year, ford was the last one to offer a non turbo diesel in their trucks, the powerstroke diesel was not yet ready, so they asked Advanced Turbo Systems INC to supply a turbo kit for the factory upgrade of the 7.3 (minor internal upgrades were done at the tooling stage of the engine). ATS had been making turbo systems for ford diesels since the mid 80s, and dyno tests confirmed that 250 Hp was possible out of diesels that were rated at 160-180 Hp.

Now for some reason, ford did not want the older (and more affordable) 7.3 to out power the new powerstroke that was on the horizon, so they put a smaller downpipe in the turbo pack than ATS intended, and didn't change the fuel flow rates enough to take full advantage of the higher boost potential. The turbo IDI was rated at a mere 190 Hp (N/A was 180), while the new powerstrokes were at 215 Hp in their first year. The IDI turbo was sold for only a year.

Off the record, the 7.3L IDI diesel is capable of over 250 Hp, and can deliver that reliably, same with the older 6.9L. But ford had a new engine that they wanted to sell, and it would have been an embarrassment if the old "obsolete" diesel outperformed the all new one.

I ask you to consider what an old 302 or 351 can do for the same build cost of a high tech aluminum head mitli-valve modular V8. Isn't it interesting that factory headers were never offered on the older iron V8s? (at least not in trucks)

 

ROTLFLOL!

 

Apples to oranges. Sure, you can build practically any motor to put out more power. But this isn't an "off the record comparison." A factory 351w F150 is not going to touch a factory 5.4 F150. Build it up -- and do the same for the 5.4l -- and the 5.4L still wins. Your reasoning would be somewhat valid when the 5.4/4.6 were first introduced. I remember all the Mustang magazines downplaying the modulars when they were introduced. But since they have been making ever more power from the factory and aftermarket support is huge.

Besides... the 94.5 Powerstroke 7.3l also had a small restrictive down-pipe and was underfueled. I sold a lot of downpipes and tuners for the 94.5-97 7.3L Powerstrokes. I suspect it may have had more to do with longevity testing, warranty and EGT than anything else.

The point of this is you cannot successfully compare a stock 80s truck to a stock 2000s truck in capability, power output, torque... the 2000s trucks win --- every time. Just because its a truck doesn't mean you you have to drive a stripped down model. If I'm hauling a load I want capability and features. Having more features doesn't make a truck any less capable. I'm looking for a used Super Duty which will eventually pull a recreational trailer. Who wants to drive 1000 miles in a stripped down truck? A nice sound system, nice seats, etc... take nothing away from the truck's ability to get the load there and they make the trip a lot more pleasant.

Having owned several, there is nothing wrong with an older truck. But likewise, there is nothing wrong with a newer truck... especially when it comes to capability and features.

 

I was not trying to compare stock for stock, in that sense I agree with you completely. My point is that the older engines are capable of much more than ford allowed them to put out. But instead of upgrading a current engine they make a completely new one, with a little less handicap built into it, like a more free flowing exhaust for example. Dodge for example, was able to hold onto its share of the diesel truck market just by upgrading their cummins as better technology came along, how many diesels did ford go through since the 6.9L?

I just can't shake the feeling that these new trucks have more to do with marketing psychology than actual technological advances. Is 1 MPG improvement really the best that ford can do????? Its a little hard for me to swallow, but it its true, than I can't justify the cost of a new truck if all I really get is a nice interior (and I admit it is really nice).

 

You can fill yourself full of it and run up the 5.4 all you want. My question remains unanswered. When is the last time you saw a 5.4 in an industrial application. I'd never put 10K LBS behind a new 1/2 ton. Primarly because a auto would never handle that much weight for an extended period of time without building heat.

 

The 5.4 is a truck engine, not industrial...And does the auto tranny comment only apply to 1/2 tons?

Tim