Newbie Post

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

BGhouse - 19 Apr 2007 14:17 GMT

Been lurking a bit whilst surveying the market for a used vehicle. Didn't
plan on buying anything at this point in time, but a driver who lost
control of her vehicle in a late spring snow last Wednesday forced that
decision upon me. [@#$%!]

And so I started the hunt for something with which I could tow. Something
good in snow. Been driving Jeep Cherokees for `25 yrs, and I figured a
change was in order. Ended up with a bit of a slightly irrational
atraction to the F150s. Irrational because I really ought to be looking
for something that provides a little better milage. I do need to tow, but
I don't really need anything bigger than a Ranger. That rational voice
tried to calm my building lust for the F150 ...

I pick up a 2002 F150 5.4l supercab FX4 today.

I looked for a 4.6, I really did. And I could have waited a couple of
weeks, but this one fell into my lap and I couldn't resist.

Any hints, tips, cautions, conventional wisdom about this truck are
welcome. Otherwise, I plan to lurk a bit, get a feel for the group, maybe
learn something.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Jeff Strickland - 19 Apr 2007 21:33 GMT

> Been lurking a bit whilst surveying the market for a used vehicle. Didn't
> plan on buying anything at this point in time, but a driver who lost
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> welcome. Otherwise, I plan to lurk a bit, get a feel for the group, maybe
> learn something.

My instinct is that the F150 and the Ranger are going to give pretty much
the same fuel mileage. I haven't any hard numbers, but my guess is that the
F150 won't cost more than about $100 per year more than the Ranger. That
works out to $8.33 per month. I actually think the difference in operating
costs will be less than that.

Having said that, you did get the 4X4, and the Ranger would likely have been
2WD. This might make your operating cost a bit higher. I think that either
way, the F150 will serve you better and the cost will be worth it.

Reply to this Message

BGhouse - 20 Apr 2007 13:11 GMT

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> sed:

>> Been lurking a bit whilst surveying the market for a used vehicle.
>> Didn't plan on buying anything at this point in time, but a driver
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> the Ranger. That works out to $8.33 per month. I actually think the
> difference in operating costs will be less than that.

Interesting. I haven't found any milage estimates either, but I'd assume
that the lighter vehicle, would do a bit better.

> Having said that, you did get the 4X4, and the Ranger would likely
> have been 2WD.

Nah, I wouldn't have bought 2WD. I live in snow country, and I like the
added traction of 4WD.

> This might make your operating cost a bit higher. I think that either
> way, the F150 will serve you better and the cost will be worth it.

I think so too. I sure am enjoying the hell outta driving it!

Signature

Reply to this Message

Jeff Strickland - 21 Apr 2007 19:04 GMT

> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> sed:
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> I think so too. I sure am enjoying the hell outta driving it!

So, you would have bought a 4X4 of either truck? That makes the discussion a
bit easier, although still heavily a hearsay one.

I think that at the end of the day, your F150 won't drive you to the Poor
House appreciably quicker than the Ranger. Youi need to drive one or the
other, so the discussion is only the difference in consumption. If your F150
is delivering 15mpg, then I think you are getting about as good as you are
gonna find in a truck. I'd compare any additional fuel cost against the
added functionality you will most definitely enjoy as compared to the
Ranger.

Reply to this Message

BGhouse - 22 Apr 2007 02:39 GMT

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> sed:

> "BGhouse" <wjghouse@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> sed:
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> fuel cost against the added functionality you will most definitely
> enjoy as compared to the Ranger.

Good points. I am appreciating this truck more and more everyday.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Jeff Strickland - 22 Apr 2007 03:19 GMT

> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> sed:
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Good points. I am appreciating this truck more and more everyday.

And you just got it.

Reply to this Message

Joe - 20 Apr 2007 04:45 GMT

Well, you probably already know this, but the length of the truck will make
it much more capable of dealing with a trailer dynamically. It's more
difficult to push around on the road than a Cherokee is, simply because the
wheelbase is considerably longer.

don't feel bad about the mileage. Last week, Car and Driver tried all the
full size pickups, all brand new 2007 models. The Chevy and Dodge got 12
mpg. The Toyota, Nissan, and Ford got 13. No kidding.

Your 2002 5.4 will probably beat them all, but of course not by much.

Reply to this Message

BGhouse - 22 Apr 2007 02:35 GMT

"Joe" <Joe@dontspam.net> sed:

>> Been lurking a bit whilst surveying the market for a used vehicle.
>> Didn't plan on buying anything at this point in time, but a driver
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> more difficult to push around on the road than a Cherokee is, simply
> because the wheelbase is considerably longer.

Hadn't considered that. Makes sense. Still getting used to parking.
Where I'm used to whipping into a parking place, I'm not yet sure how
close the hard parts of my truck are getting to other's sides. And the
turning radius makes it a bit trickier

> don't feel bad about the mileage. Last week, Car and Driver tried all
> the full size pickups, all brand new 2007 models. The Chevy and Dodge
> got 12 mpg. The Toyota, Nissan, and Ford got 13. No kidding.
>
> Your 2002 5.4 will probably beat them all, but of course not by much.

Guess I guess I'll just have to revel in all that engine brings to my
table <g>

Signature

Reply to this Message