Performance
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
I've been just kind of reading along here and would like to add my own recent decision process which I think was very unbiased. In May when my used 96 was getting me totally aggravated, I decide enough, I'm getting a new truck. I went to Toyota, as I really like Toyotas, I've owned seven of them (1 truck, 6 cars)since 1984. Looked at the Tundra, wasn't interested, too expensive and body and exterior too wimpy, what were they thinking, wasn't impressed. Dodge, no good deals, too bulky don't want a V8, BUT, nice truck, sure it would have worked out otherwise. Chevy/GMC work truck V6 OK, my two neighbors swear to the end with theirs, but I always feel they don't take a hit too good. They always look bent or crinkled up even from some minor damage. Ford, was just right. Again like I said previously, just wanted a V6 work-truck. Totally happy and my son just got his and he loves it. I feel very confident these trucks will do the 10+ year run, so that being said I looked at a 2009 last couple weeks when we bought my son's 2008, same impression, much higher price, great truck. 0-60, I could care less, give me 10 years without a big PITA.
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
A friend of mine got a new 2007 F-150 ex cab short bed new last year with a 5.4 and i got to drive it around and its very comfortable to drive smoth ride,
But after i got on the high way in traffic the truck had no acceleration for lane changes no (Kick me back in my seat) feal comparried to my 96 PUSHROD (302) i get great acceleration.
He gets 14MPG Mixted
I get 16 + MPG Mixted (i pulled 17.5 this week)
I think the big problem here is the Curb Weight on the new trucks these new trucks look good clean inside and out but do we realy need a 1/2 ton truck this big (can we even call it a half ton now)? First the RAM was the biggest then Ford came back with the 2004, then Gm came out with theres, And know the 2 Gen Tundra, I think the new 2009 will be bigger then the new tundra. Its getting Ridiculus to me.
You got my truck curb 4800 lbs with an 13 year old original 302 making better MPG than the new F1's "I cant tow as mutch but still WTF Ford get with it
But after i got on the high way in traffic the truck had no acceleration for lane changes no (Kick me back in my seat) feal comparried to my 96 PUSHROD (302) i get great acceleration.
He gets 14MPG Mixted
I get 16 + MPG Mixted (i pulled 17.5 this week)
I think the big problem here is the Curb Weight on the new trucks these new trucks look good clean inside and out but do we realy need a 1/2 ton truck this big (can we even call it a half ton now)? First the RAM was the biggest then Ford came back with the 2004, then Gm came out with theres, And know the 2 Gen Tundra, I think the new 2009 will be bigger then the new tundra. Its getting Ridiculus to me.
You got my truck curb 4800 lbs with an 13 year old original 302 making better MPG than the new F1's "I cant tow as mutch but still WTF Ford get with it
PI 2V 5.4s feel soooooooo much stronger than any e7 headed 302 truck, yet the more powerful 5.4 3V feels like a turd. After a good tune that changes.
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 4
From: Neenah, Wisconsin
I had a 302 in my 95....and even when the truck was stock it was ALOT slower accelerating than my 07.......i'm gunna say that your wrong on this one....
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
That could just be gearing. What's your 1/4 mile time, I got a 302/E7 truck that does it in 16.2 seconds.
Elder User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: Denver USA
I agree with everything you said. That's why I wont buy a Tundra in its current build. The powertrain is incredible. The brakes are great.
The sheet metal is paper thin. The bumpers are so weak and the chrome job rusts after a few hundred miles. The dash layout is the worst I've ever seen in a vehicle. The radio is to far away and the gauges are set so deep you can't see them. The interior looks cheap with all the plastic. The Paint is ultra thin. The tailgate is a joke. It bounces like a pogo stick and it's because of the cheap three piece riveted frame.
The sheet metal is paper thin. The bumpers are so weak and the chrome job rusts after a few hundred miles. The dash layout is the worst I've ever seen in a vehicle. The radio is to far away and the gauges are set so deep you can't see them. The interior looks cheap with all the plastic. The Paint is ultra thin. The tailgate is a joke. It bounces like a pogo stick and it's because of the cheap three piece riveted frame.
Now had Toyota used the same quality they did on the 1st Gen Tundra (for the most part), with the current 5.7L/6spd powertrain, now that would be a great truck. Simply too bad they decided to throw such a great powertrain in a less than stellar (quality wise) truck.
Depends on the driver for the mpg gain. If they can't keep out of the skinny pedal, then I see there will be no gain in this dept. Either way, think it'll be a good option.
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
From: Central,Texas
Anyway thay are still nice trucks hell thay are like a living room inside "King Ranch"
Junior User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
With an efficient intercooler, I have no doubt that 300 rwhp is a programmer away. It's still no Toyota or GM 6.2, but remember it'll be getting better mileage as well.
The biggest problem with the 5.4 is not that it's down on power, but down on power, with zero mileage advantage over its competitors.
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
...which is exactly what I said.
I don't have a PI 5.4, but I've seen 99-03 2wd SuperCab 5.4s do 15.5-15.8s at the track bone stock. I've also seen them do 14s with bolt ons. The 302 has nothing for them at all, actually the 94-95 Lightning 5.8 with GT40 heads and tubular intake has its work cut out with them. The 5.4s actually make more power... and in reg cab 2wd form with 3.73s will outrun them stock for stock.
That could just be gearing. What's your 1/4 mile time, I got a 302/E7 truck that does it in 16.2 seconds.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Ford Super Duty: 5 Things Owners LOVE, 5 Things They LOATHE!
Joe Kucinski
Every 2026 Ford Truck Engine RANKED from WORST to FIRST!
Michael S. Palmer
The Best F-150 Deal of Every Trim Level (XL through Raptor)
Joe Kucinski
Senior User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
From: Mi
well, here is what i dont get the new f150 weighs in at say 5880, with a v8 and gets lets say 16-17 mpgs, the new flex weighs 4864 and gets 20 mpgs all day long even higer on the highway, my question is the ratio of weight to cylinders is more for the v6 yet gets better gas mileage? does it with 116foot lbs less torque, less cylinders...maybe the 5.4 engine just isnt very efficent, maybe they need to add a 4th valve to the engine to wake it up, or just use the ecoboost 3.5 which will be at 320 hp next year and that might get the f150 to 20 mpgs!
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Ford's FE with EcoBoost will come from tuning magic...
If you doubt this, compare the real world fuel mileage of a Mazda CX-7 (DI, turbo 4) to a Ford Edge (n/a 3.5) sometime. Very similar, Mazda has the wick turned up a bit from the factory and the Edge is heavier.
Elder User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: Denver USA
well, here is what i dont get the new f150 weighs in at say 5880, with a v8 and gets lets say 16-17 mpgs, the new flex weighs 4864 and gets 20 mpgs all day long even higer on the highway, my question is the ratio of weight to cylinders is more for the v6 yet gets better gas mileage? does it with 116foot lbs less torque, less cylinders...maybe the 5.4 engine just isnt very efficent, maybe they need to add a 4th valve to the engine to wake it up, or just use the ecoboost 3.5 which will be at 320 hp next year and that might get the f150 to 20 mpgs!
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix, AZ
Elder User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: Denver USA
Well, considering the '09 F150 is boxy but is the most aerodynamic of all '08 & '09 full size trucks, why couldn't the Flex be aerodynamic and boxy too?