> there is a reason they have 36 gallon tanks. personally I think you'll
> do better gas mileage wise with the auto, unless you stay up on your
> progressive shifting every single time you go out. You'll definitely do
> better at resale time, or at trade in.
Its odd.. my wifes 2002 Ford Escape 3.0L gets 26 mpg on the highway.
"Sticker" says that too.
The window sticker on the new 150 says 23..I can live with that. My
motorcycle only gets 31 !
>Why 4x4?
Need it for moose hunting in the Fall..sometimes we have to cross a stream
or mud holes and we're WAAAYY out in the bush so don't want to get stuck..
Got the 3.73 Limited Slip rear end too..same reason
Joe - 16 Jul 2007 01:24 GMT
>> there is a reason they have 36 gallon tanks. personally I think you'll
>> do better gas mileage wise with the auto, unless you stay up on your
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> or mud holes and we're WAAAYY out in the bush so don't want to get stuck..
> Got the 3.73 Limited Slip rear end too..same reason
I'm not following this too well, so when you mention the 150 above, you may
be talking about something I'm not familiar with. The EPA estimate for 2007
F150 with 5.4 automatic was 14/18. This was revised to 12/16 in the new
system. The V6 manual tranny 2wD is only rated for 19 on the highway, even
with the old system.
Magazines like Car and Driver and Road and Track have been getting about 14
mpg with these new 5.4's. So it might get a little more on the highway, but
it's hard to see how it could improve that much. I certainly don't get that
with the older 5.4. Mine only has 16 valves, so there are fewer holes for
gasoline to go through on mine.
Rudy - 17 Jul 2007 06:12 GMT
> I'm not following this too well, so when you mention the 150 above, you
> may be talking about something I'm not familiar with. The EPA estimate
> for 2007 F150 with 5.4 automatic was 14/18. This was revised to 12/16 in
> the new system. The V6 manual tranny 2wD is only rated for 19 on the
> highway, even with the old system.
I have the window sticker bright here. It says:
2007 F-150 4X4 5.4L Eng /Flex fuel/8 cyl/Fuel Inj/catalyst/4sp auto trans
CITY 16 mpg HIGHWAY 23 mpg
Its the like the GM "85" ethanol optional engine but I'll be running the
normal 87 octane gas
It is the 24 valve engine.
> Magazines like Car and Driver and Road and Track have been getting about
> 14 mpg with these new 5.4's. So it might get a little more on the
> highway, but it's hard to see how it could improve that much. I certainly
> don't get that with the older 5.4. Mine only has 16 valves, so there are
> fewer holes for gasoline to go through on mine.
My Name Is Nobody - 16 Jul 2007 06:07 GMT
>> there is a reason they have 36 gallon tanks. personally I think you'll
>> do better gas mileage wise with the auto, unless you stay up on your
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> or mud holes and we're WAAAYY out in the bush so don't want to get stuck..
> Got the 3.73 Limited Slip rear end too..same reason
GOOD PLAN.
I will never again buy a truck that does not have a Limited Slip/locking
rear end and 4X4.
To me, there is no down side. My first 4X4 was a 1982 Ford F-150 Stepside,
a half a dozen Ford 4X4's and a few million miles later, and it proves to be
the only way to go for me.
Mind you I actually use my trucks off the pavement. Just had to lock the
front end up on an old 1988 F-250 460 5-spd 4.10/1 limited slip farm truck
Saturday. A young hand dropped the front right tire into 2 foot across
augured hole, sat it on the axel, the limited slip rear and empty bed
couldn't pull it out on its own. I once got a 4X4 Bronco with a Detroit
locker in the rear stuck, berried up to the frame in a soggy pasture, when
the mud is many feet deep, mud tires just dig down to more mud...
I even ordered 4X4 (and 4.30/1 Limited Slip dually rear-end) on my 2005
F-450 and it has saved having to be pulled out 4 times already. Stuck, lock
the front axle, drive out. I have even pulled a stuck 4x4 tractor out of
the mud with it once too. :-)
The real question is why not 4X4?