View Poll Results: Which engine would you choose?
5.0 V8 (base): 350 hp/370tq, mpg: 15/20
16
28.07%
3.5 Ecoboost (+$1000): 365 hp/380tq, mpg: 18/24
16
28.07%
6.2 V8 (+$1000): 425hp/425tq, mpg: 13/18
25
43.86%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll
Another future engine poll
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
[/B]
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
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
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Pretty much every 09 review describes the 5.4 as adequate. I think its ok when empty. Its due to the trucks being soooo heavy. 6 speed helps no doubt. But I have over 175,000 miles on my 04 and regularly drive 4 others w/5.4's and while I don't think they're gutless, I have never thought.. wow this thing hauls. And for what were paying... I need a bit more of that. opinions will vary.
I think if you drove all the other makes, you'd agree more motivation would be nice. Not in exchange for the things that make the F150 the best. But in addition to those things.
I think if you drove all the other makes, you'd agree more motivation would be nice. Not in exchange for the things that make the F150 the best. But in addition to those things.
MMNC (SS)(Ret)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 11,602
Likes: 146
From: SE Georgia
What do you want?
To get good MPG #'s i think the only viable alternative would be to downsize the F-150 and it lose 1,500 lbs roughly. We all know that won't happen
I am not accepting mediocrity. I understand the reality and physics of Truck mileage. 13/18 or 14/20 mpg ratings are great IMO...and to expect better with 300, 350, 400 hp...well you are plainly not planted in reality...especially when you factor weight and brick aerodynamics into the equation.
HP or MPG...you can call it accepting mediocrity, but you cannot have high HP and still have decent MPG's. The two do not mesh.
The only instance you see this combo is in small, lightweight cars. Not in a 6,000 lb truck. Now if Ford were to lighten up the F-150 back to 1990's weights...well I think we'd see MPG's in the Mid-20's, and upper teens city MPG
The only instance you see this combo is in small, lightweight cars. Not in a 6,000 lb truck. Now if Ford were to lighten up the F-150 back to 1990's weights...well I think we'd see MPG's in the Mid-20's, and upper teens city MPG
To get good MPG #'s i think the only viable alternative would be to downsize the F-150 and it lose 1,500 lbs roughly. We all know that won't happen
I am not accepting mediocrity. I understand the reality and physics of Truck mileage. 13/18 or 14/20 mpg ratings are great IMO...and to expect better with 300, 350, 400 hp...well you are plainly not planted in reality...especially when you factor weight and brick aerodynamics into the equation.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,000
Likes: 1,516
From: Maine, Virginia
All things considered (IMO), the 5.4l is an engine that if properly maintained will easily roll 200k - 300K miles. That's impressive for a gasser. However, the main complaint seems to be the HP/TQ that the engine produces vs the MPG's that it provides. Admittedly the competetion has engines in the same size (class) that have significantly more power and similar mpg's. I'm not certain of thier endurance, but, I'm comfortable in saying that the I-Force engines will last every bit as long as the Tritons.
Tim
Tim
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
The 4x4 is rated for 13/18.
A very well kept secret about the Ram's highway fuel mileage is that the MDS only works to a certain speed. The '07 and '08 Ram's MDS quit working above something like 60-65mph. I drove a used '07 Ram for a day when I was having my truck serviced last year. At lower speeds I could hear the MDS kick in (previous owner had put exhaust on it). However, on the interstate it never kicked in, as I was doing about 75mph. As a result, I ended up getting a less than 15mpg, when it was rated for 17.
I know they supposedly improved this on the new Ram, but I am pretty sure the new MDS won't work above 70mph. The problem is how many of you actually stay below 70mph on the interstate? I think this is why most Rams never get the advertised fuel mileage.
Hopefully if Ford uses MDS on the 6.2 it will be more practical than this.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
14/20 is for the 4x2 '09 Ram with Hemi.
The 4x4 is rated for 13/18.
A very well kept secret about the Ram's highway fuel mileage is that the MDS only works to a certain speed. The '07 and '08 Ram's MDS quit working above something like 60-65mph. I drove a used '07 Ram for a day when I was having my truck serviced last year. At lower speeds I could hear the MDS kick in (previous owner had put exhaust on it). However, on the interstate it never kicked in, as I was doing about 75mph. As a result, I ended up getting a less than 15mpg, when it was rated for 17.
I know they supposedly improved this on the new Ram, but I am pretty sure the new MDS won't work above 70mph. The problem is how many of you actually stay below 70mph on the interstate? I think this is why most Rams never get the advertised fuel mileage.
Hopefully if Ford uses MDS on the 6.2 it will be more practical than this.
The 4x4 is rated for 13/18.
A very well kept secret about the Ram's highway fuel mileage is that the MDS only works to a certain speed. The '07 and '08 Ram's MDS quit working above something like 60-65mph. I drove a used '07 Ram for a day when I was having my truck serviced last year. At lower speeds I could hear the MDS kick in (previous owner had put exhaust on it). However, on the interstate it never kicked in, as I was doing about 75mph. As a result, I ended up getting a less than 15mpg, when it was rated for 17.
I know they supposedly improved this on the new Ram, but I am pretty sure the new MDS won't work above 70mph. The problem is how many of you actually stay below 70mph on the interstate? I think this is why most Rams never get the advertised fuel mileage.
Hopefully if Ford uses MDS on the 6.2 it will be more practical than this.
I read that the Hemi Rams on avg get 1.5mpg less than an equivalent f150 so your statement about the MDS could be true for the 09's also. I cant say i even noticed the MDS cut in on the Ram i test drove but what i do know is the performance increase was nothing to get excited about. To give up so much that the Ford offers to gain that tiny little bit of extra performance is crazy in my eyes.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
The only reason I was able to easily detect it on the one I drove was because it had aftermarket exhaust, which made the change in tone easy to detect. It actually had a very distinct drone when it kicked in and was a little unnerving. However, like you said, it is hard to detect on truck with stock exhaust.
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
In the real world I bet the 6.2 would get more like 12 city and 14 hwy....on a GOOD day.
My GM 6.0. averaged about 12.5 hwy or city. I travel 75 to 85 mph hwy. Thats why I
am so happy with the 5.4, it beats the 6.0 by about 2 mpg and it has the same HP/Tq.
Again, I think the best compromise for power and mileage would be an engine in the 5.5 to 5.7 range. Example: I-force
My GM 6.0. averaged about 12.5 hwy or city. I travel 75 to 85 mph hwy. Thats why I
am so happy with the 5.4, it beats the 6.0 by about 2 mpg and it has the same HP/Tq.
Again, I think the best compromise for power and mileage would be an engine in the 5.5 to 5.7 range. Example: I-force
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
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
Super Moderator
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,308
Likes: 42
From: SW Virginia
I hope you're wrong. It is possible to have decent power and mileage. My Denali in my sig is the 380 hp 6.2. Going to FL at Thanksgiving, we averaged just over 20 MPG. Same coming back. This was setting the cruise at 70-75 depending upon traffic congestion, etc. I think that Ford could probably get decent numbers with the 6 speed auto. and the 6.2 if they try.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
I hope you're wrong. It is possible to have decent power and mileage. My Denali in my sig is the 380 hp 6.2. Going to FL at Thanksgiving, we averaged just over 20 MPG. Same coming back. This was setting the cruise at 70-75 depending upon traffic congestion, etc. I think that Ford could probably get decent numbers with the 6 speed auto. and the 6.2 if they try.
Super Moderator
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,308
Likes: 42
From: SW Virginia
I think one of the biggest advantages is the 6 speed auto. The '06 Denalis had the 4 speed and didn't do that well. But then again, it's a different engine. It does pretty well around town also - 15-17 for what it is.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Gee, that's impressive. I hate to say it, but historically it has seemed to me that GM has generally been one step ahead in the fuel mileage game. My dad and grandfather both had 1997 extended cab Z71's, and both of them got close to 20mpg on the highway. That was with the most modern version of the 350 GM ever produced, but still based on architecture that had been around for a long time.
Super Moderator
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,308
Likes: 42
From: SW Virginia
Yeah. I'm optomistic about the new Ford engines though. Our '03 Expy can get around 18-19 on interstate trips if you baby it just right. The 6 speed in the Denali does make a difference. The 6.2, at least in the '07 Denali, doesn't have the active fuel management like the 6.0 or the 5.3. Only problem I've seen out of the 6 speed so far is that it shifts constantly.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
GMC Yukon/Yukon Denali Real World MPG - CarSpace Automotive Forums
Super Moderator
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,308
Likes: 42
From: SW Virginia
I only about halfway trust the onboard computer when it gives me my average MPG. On our trip this year, I hand calculated most of the time. My trips like that tend to be easier to get good mileage. When we go to FL, I leave around 8 or 9 at night. The kids and wife fall asleep and that generally allows me to be able to drive until I have to fill up again instead of the constant pee breaks when they're all awake. That in itself saves me on the MPGs.