Thanks for all the responses thus far. It looks like there will be a market for all three of the engines, judging from this. It is biased towards the 6.2, but I'm not sure this will be the trend with the general public since this is a site for enthusiasts.

I picked 15/20 for the 5.0 because I figured it would need to at least match 4.6 3V economy numbers for Ford to justify stopping production of that engine. Remember this is supposed to be for a 4x4 Screw or Scab, so numbers would likely be higher for a 4x2.

I estimated the EB fuel mileage based on the "up to 20% improvement" that Ford says it will have over a similar output V8. 20% better than 15/20 is 18/24. That said, I personally don't believe the EB will get 18/24 in a truck, especially since (as some of you have pointed out) it is only rated for 22 hwy in a Flex.

Lastly, I came up with 13/18 for the 6.2 for a number of reasons. First of all, I can't see a 400+ hp 6.2L V8 being more fuel efficient than a 5.4 3v. Secondly the Chevy 6.2 (which recommends premium gas) is rated for 12/19, and (I hope I don't get beaten for saying this) historically Ford usually is not any better than GM on fuel economy, sometimes worse.

I actually voted for the 5.0 because it has more power than my current truck and gets even better mileage. Also, if I had 425hp on tap at all times, I doubt I would even get 13/18, and keeping tires on the thing would be an issue . I do have one caveat though; I too would have to see some power curves before buying one. If the 5.0 were to turn out to be a screamer that only starts to make power above 3000 rpm, I would probably go with the 6.2 as well.

 

Yea, sources say the only engine in Fords's lineup that gets worse FE than the 6.2 is the 6.8 V10.

 

Not very reliable at all, it seems.

 

6.2 got my vote. I base this on having bought at least 5 F-150 previously...but I think it's closer to 8 total over the years.

I have found over the years that if you don't get the biggest motor, you will regret it. I used to rationalize the smaller (302 motor vs. 351) as a better choice...I know better know.


besides, it's a truck. They aren't designed to get good MPG. They are designed to do a job. I want the most power available and safety.

 

Ditto the above. Over the years, I've had several also. One of the best was an '89 reg cab SB 4x4. It was a 302 with the 5 speed. I opted for it at the time because I wanted the manual and you had to get the auto with the 351. Plus, at that time, Ford was offering big discounts on the manual trucks. Overall it was a great truck but I always wished I'd gotten the 351 despite the auto. Several trucks later, I had a SB reg. cab F-150 4x4 with the 5.4, auto, and 3.73s. Probably the best 150 I ever owned. Plenty of power all the time and never wanting for more. My only concern with the new engines is how much weight they might add to an already heavy truck and how that's going to affect the payload as the debate over this rages on in the other thread.

 

Given its output what else would you expect? Should it get better mpg than any other Ford engines? Not sure I catch your point.

Couldn't we say that about the 310hp 5.4L now?

 

Great point. My broter in law in Maine has a 2000 F-350 DRW 4x4 Scab. This truck has a snow plow and hydraulic recovery unit that comes out from the back underside of the truck to tow cars. The truck must weigh 8000 lbs as she sits empty. He gets 10 mpg all the time with the 6.8L and factory 4.30's. Poor mileage? I don't think so. I think the 6.2L is significantly smaller truck may surprise us a little. The bad thing about this whole new engine intro is that the 4.6L family is going away and it seems the 6.8L is leaving as well. The V-10 is a fantastic motor.

Tim

 

I voted EB but after looking at the F250's I think I'm leaning towards a 6.4 diesel.

You can buy one for a few thousand more than the F150 and a slighlty used one is much cheaper.

 

With cylinder deactivation, and possibly VCT, I would expect it to get equal mileage to the 5.4 3V, or very close to it. You do realize what the 390 HP Hemi gets for mileage, don't you?

The 3V V10 uses no cylinder deactivation, no VCT, and from what I'm hearing the 6.2 is getting barely better FE.

Hopefully Ford works these issues out before it gets to market.

Times are changing, people want 18-20 MPG HWY at a minimum in their half-ton trucks. "It's a truck" is no longer a decent excuse for atrocious fuel economy.

 

got me the 325 HP Hemi in my driveway right now...and I can tell you firsthand that they get exactly what every other Brand of truck does...15 mpg on a good day, but about 12 mpg on 99% of my city tanks of gas....and that is with a 5 speed

the Hemi is a thirsty beast...and I know a few people with the 09 version and it's not getting great MPG #'s either


btw, my 2006 F-150 can already pull down 18-20 mpg highway, and I have the heaviest configuration F-150 you can buy...even squeezed out 21 mpg one or two times







the words Truck and Gas Mileage should not be used together. I mean, which do you want? A truck that can do a job as designed, or a shell of a vehicle which gets good mpg's?

 

Truck and gas mileage should not be used in the same sentence, why? It's a mantra that has no place in reality, no matter how many times people chant it.

The 2009 Hemi Ram get 5.7 gets 14/20.

There's no reason why the 6.2 shouldn't be able to match that or get very close to it considering just how inefficient the Hemi is indeed known to be. The Hemi now has MDS and VCT just like the 6.2 will.

The compact and mid-size trucks getting no better mileage than the V8 full-size P/Us is a perfect example of the real world application of the "truck and gas mileage not going together" mentality.

If you accept mediocre, you will continue to get it. Ford, at the least, seems to get it, with EB and the new 5.0. Thank God they don't have the mentality of many on this board. They would be doomed for sure.

Here's to Ford, who refuses to settle for "good enough" nowadays.

 

Ford settles for good enough like it's thier job. Like the "new" 5.4. What a disapointment.

I agree that MPG and truck should be used together. The lower end engines should get relatively good MPG, but less so on the top power engines. But if they combine VCT and direct injection into the 6.2, there should be no problems getting 14/20. Heck my truck in my sig has gotten 20 highway.

Mike

 

The "new" 5.4 was supposed to be a temporary stop-gap until the Boss showed up in mid-year '09. Gas prices, and the 6.2's FE, forced the 5.4 to stick around longer than intended.

Now it's holding over for the 5.0 4V which will provide better performance in all situations and better fuel economy.

If you think Ford is still settling for good enough, you just haven't been paying attention...at all.

 

Outstanding statement! Mediocrity is the high end of the measuring stick for some car makers. That's why they are getting taxpayer's money.

The 5.4L must not be a dissappointment to that many people, The F-150 is still the top seller. I think the real dissappointment is going to be the EB 3.5L. The "little engine that could" is going to work itself to death in a p/u truck.

Tim

 

You got me

Mike