Copied from Blue Oval News.

 

thats weird

 

That's no MPG increase from last year on the 5.4. I thought the engine was reworked for bettereffieciency and the 6 speed tranny was to add .6 MPG's? I guess not.

No wonder they waited so long to release any numbers. I can't wait to see the HP increase.

 

2008 ratings on the 5.4 are 13/17 on both 2WD and 4WD. The '09 at 14/20 and 14/18 is definitely better, particularly 2WD on the freeway.

I was thinking it a bit weird that the 2V 4.6 ratings are lower than the 3V 4.6 and 5.4 both, but that's because it still has a 4 speed trans.

Definitely better, but buyers aren't gonna go flocking to them for a 1-2 mpg increase.

George

 

George, I agree with you 100%, however, buyers aren't flocking anywhere right now except to the econoboxes.

I feel that if a full size truck buyer in general moves to a different name plate just to save 1-2 MPG's then he / she needs to educate themselves on the important facts such as:

At what RPM does each engine produce most of it's torque / HP?

The fact that Ford is still using conventional engines vs engine management systems.

I view an engine management system as just one more very expensive item to diagnos and repair and considering that Ford's powertrain warranty program is weaker than GM / Chrysler, that could be an issue for us.

Tim

 

OK I see the 1 MPG gain on the 4X4 model. That's not going to sell these trucks in these times. They still have the worst HP and worst MPG's. These 09's are going on the sit on the lots just like the 08's are now.

Sure they have torque but Toyota has tons more Power and gets better MPG's too.

I guess I'll be waiting for the Ecoboost since Ford can't make a silk purse out of this sows ear engine.

 

I went to fuel home.stat-usa.gov * Home Page and compared the "big 4" models and the fuel mileage ratings were essentially the same for all of them equipped the same way. The 5.4 Ford FFV, the 5.3 Chevy FFV and the Hemi Dodge were rated at 14/20 and a combined 16. The 5.7 Toyota and 6.0 Chevy had a 14/18 and a combined 16. They get ugly with E-85 and the Chevy 6.2 ratings are less than all the others by at least 1 MPG.

 

The Fords are still selling a lot better than the other makes/models, so yes they are sitting, but not like many of the others. Worst HP, I could care less, the lb-ft is where it's at and it'll compete in that dept. Actually the mpgs are right on par with the other makes/models mid to large displacement motors, so you can't claim the worst mpgs. Also, mpgs never sold these trucks in the first place, so people will like the extra 1 mpg, but that's not what most trucks will be bought for.

Go to som Toyota forums, you'll notice the truthfully honest owners are claiming similar and worse mpgs than the F150. While those cheerleaders, like we have here, claim numbers off the wall that would be hard to replicate.

Wow, doing some research, who would have thunk, rather than just speculating.

 

With the higher EPA ratings that are equal to Chevy I would actually consider a Ford now. Osbornk, Im curious how you like your truck as this is exactly like I would want except in a 2wd XL work truck. Are you satisfied with the power and fuel mileage? Most people are driving extended cabs ect which are heavier so Im curious how the 5.4 is in a reg cab. I think the 2wd would weigh about 300 lbs less. Thanks.

 

Hate to break it to you, but out of the big 4, we got the lowest amount of torque too. We beat out the titan, but at 3000+whatever trucks they sold this year, it's not exactly something to brag about... especially since it's a design dating what, 2004 now?

Yeah, it's at low rpm, whupdeedoo. At least they made sure we stayed there, with 3.31 gears... the little advantage we had on low end torque is wiped out by Ford's inability to recognize that mod motors perform their best with 4.xx+ gears, and the impact on MPG is insignificant.

 

The 4R75E in the 2008 F150 had a 2.84 first gear, and with a 4.10 axle, that gives a total first gear ratio of 11.644.

The 6 speed trans (at least in '08 Expedition spec) has a first gear ratio of 4.17. So with a 3.31 rear axle, the total first gear ratio is 13.802.

I think the 3.31 will be just fine with the new 6 speed--in fact, first gear is just like the 4R75E with a 4.86 rear axle...I think that'll be enough, don't you, really?

George

 

I think my truck is great. I had a hard time finding a regular cab. When I did find it, they had two exactly alike except for the color (silver & Black). The truck has almost every option available. With the shorter wheelbase, it has a very short turning radius and with the 4X4 and LS, it will go anywhere. It rides very well for a truck (my wife prefers it to my Town Car) and in local running I get around 14 MPH (sometimes 13 and sometimes 15). On the highway, I get about 18 at 70-75 and if I baby it at around 60, I can top 20. I get 11 MPG pulling a 25' travel trailer. I got it as a a leftover and paid $22,549 with a stiker of a little over $31,000 (invoice less $5,000 rebate). I get about 1-2 MPG better than my cousin's 05 Screw 4X2 with a 4.6. I think it is a weight thing.

 

unfortunately, with 3.33 1st and 4.30 rear gears, a tundra is still better geared than a ford... and gears don't work only in 1st gear. Usually the weak point on these trucks especially when towing is merging speed on the freeway... If you're stuck in a 1:1 ratio gear on the freeway (like most people tow in 3rd now), only thing you got going as far as torque multiplication is your rear end gears...

Gears wake up a mod motor like nothing else.

 

also not uncommon for the 5.4 to get better mpg than the 4.6, especially in the heavier models. A 6000lb supercrew is not what that 4.6 was made for...

 

actually youll be able to get 3.73s giving a deeper first and second gear then the tundra and there is no 1:1 gear in the 6spd 4th is 1.14 and 3rd is 1.53