RichardJensen Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 It s good milage for the V8 power, but kind of disappointing for me. I know it s a heavy truck, but I have owned 1/2 tons in the past that got better.... Not everyone who wants a 1/2 ton needs to tow more than 10,000lb..... It is definitely time for a F100 or somthing a little smaller than the current F150..... FYI: The highway number would be c. 29MPG under the pre '86 EPA rating, and c. 24MPG under the pre '08 EPA rating system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The 4WD numbers on the EB? Those are 15/21 (16/22 is for 2WD). That's about the same numbers as my V8 Sport Trac and it's ratings were pre 2008. I think that is pretty impressive for a vehicle as big and heavy as the F-150 is. However, I also agree that 1/2 ton pickup capabilities and size are out of control and need to be scaled back. Instead of spending big money on light weight materials just make the damned things smaller. Ford has the SD for those who need that kind of capability. If Ford is so concerned about a smaller truck (Ranger or F-100) eating into F-150 sales then why doesn't that same logic apply to F-150 vs SD? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atvman Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 There are exactly zero V8 powered trucks that can match it for power and fuel economy. However, I'm still a little disappointed by the numbers. Motortrend, autoblog, pickuptrucks.com, and many other sources were predicting higher numbers, at least on the highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Not everyone who wants a 1/2 ton needs to tow more than 10,000lb..... Then buy the 3.7L V6 and get a couple more MPG than the EB. It is definitely time for a F100 or somthing a little smaller than the current F150..... I agree. I think the current half-tons have gotten too big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Absolutely. The current F150 is too big. I wish the F-150 was small like it was back in the day. Cue for Richard Jensen to provide real world dimensions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Absolutely. The current F150 is too big. I wish the F-150 was small like it was back in the day. Cue for Richard Jensen to provide real world dimensions. Basing off a 1996 F150 Rcab Shortbed and a 2010 F150 Rcab Shortbed, there is a huge difference in weight, not so much in dimensions though. A 1996 had a width of 79", which the 2010 is 78.9" A 1996 had a wheelbase of 116.8" wheelbase, the 2010 has a 126" wheelbase The 1996 overall length was 197.1", the 2010 has a 213.1" length The 1996 height is 74.6", the 2010 is 74.6" So truly there isn't much difference in dimensions from what I've seen, but today's truck is about 16" longer due to the added legroom people demand nowdays. The huge difference is the weight increase due to the fully-boxed frame, EPA equipment, safety equipment and all the dang bells/whistles that come in trucks today that weren't on these older trucks. Edited January 10, 2011 by V8-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 Basing off a 1996 F150 Rcab Shortbed and a 2010 F150 Rcab Shortbed, there is a huge difference in weight, not so much in dimensions though. A 1996 had a width of 79", which the 2010 is 78.9" A 1996 had a wheelbase of 116.8" wheelbase, the 2010 has a 126" wheelbase The 1996 overall length was 197.1", the 2010 has a 213.1" length The 1996 height is 74.6", the 2010 is 74.6" So truly there isn't much difference in dimensions from what I've seen, but today's truck is about 16" longer due to the added legroom people demand nowdays. The huge difference is the weight increase due to the fully-boxed frame, EPA equipment, safety equipment and all the dang bells/whistles that come in trucks today that weren't on these older trucks. I have to disagree on the difference in length being only attributed to added legroom. The interior dimensions haven't changed all that much. Again, comparing regular cab shortbeds, as you did: (head, hip, leg, shoulder) (all in inches) '96 F150 - 40.3, 62.2, 41.1, 64.8 '11 F150 - 41.0, 60.5, 41.4, 64.8 I do notice, though, that the '11 appears to have quite a bit more space behind the seats than the '96 did. Maybe it's that and a longer hood? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Absolutely. The current F150 is too big. I wish the F-150 was small like it was back in the day. Cue for Richard Jensen to provide real world dimensions. A big factor, perceptually, is the box depth. I had to change a tire back in '96 or '97 on my car. Friend of mine came over with a brand new F150, and lifted the floor jack out of the truck over the side of the bed. You can't do that with today's F150s unless you're an NBA center. -- Also, I think a big difference in length *is* the space behind the seats of the standard cab. Heck. I hate sitting in older standard cab trucks because there's zero recline to the seats. Edited January 10, 2011 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 A big factor, perceptually, is the box depth. I had to change a tire back in '96 or '97 on my car. Friend of mine came over with a brand new F150, and lifted the floor jack out of the truck over the side of the bed. You can't do that with today's F150s unless you're an NBA center. -- Also, I think a big difference in length *is* the space behind the seats of the standard cab. Heck. I hate sitting in older standard cab trucks because there's zero recline to the seats. Must agree on these two points. My '81 F150 and '85 Ranger had practically no room behind the seat. Today's trucks at least give you a little wiggle room. Remember the old access door/cab for the Rcab F150 that debuted on the 04 F150 I believe. At least a good 6" or so behind the seat of a RCab now. And yes, the box height does make the trucks look much bigger today. But I'm only 6' and I can reach into the box just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I'm only 6' and I can reach into the box just fine. To lift a 2-ton floor jack over it, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 To lift a 2-ton floor jack over it, though? 2 tons...someones been working out....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 To lift a 2-ton floor jack over it, though? Yes. Again, I admit the bed rails are high, but I can still reach in and grab practically any object in the bed, unless it is dead center in the bed. Maybe I have long arms for being 6', I don't know. People have stated the box height is an issue, but from my personal experience with owning a 2006 F150, I have yet to find this an issue. I actually like the deeper box, in both looks and functionality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 The price of the GMT900 hybrids is stratospheric compared to the regular gas models. Maybe with all the new development in batteries and local production it's time to look at a hybrid pick up again. I really think there's a lot of potential for using the truck to obviate the need for a generator on a construction site (no need to buy one, no need to haul one around). My city runs a huge fleet of F-150's, and they spend all their time in city traffic, they'd really benefit with something like this if it could nab 30mpg city - not unreasonable with the Escape getting 34mpg city. If they're building gas, electric and hybrid Focuses all out of the same plant, it'd be great to see them get as much flexibility out of Kentucky, but I guess that might be a ways off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 FYI: The highway number would be c. 29MPG under the pre '86 EPA rating, and c. 24MPG under the pre '08 EPA rating system I realize that. I was just hoping for ( more than expecting ) better MPG numbers. I realize that the Ecoboost is a great engine and I very well might get one. I just wish the truck was lighter.... Then buy the 3.7L V6 and get a couple more MPG than the EB. I agree. I think the current half-tons have gotten too big. I would absolutely love to get the 3.7L V6, but Ford decided that I cannot get one with 4x4 and the Crew Cab or the Lariat edition.... ( I have no idea why???? ) I am a big baby and I like a nice interior, lots of electrical gadgets and heated/cooled leather seats... A big factor, perceptually, is the box depth. I had to change a tire back in '96 or '97 on my car. Friend of mine came over with a brand new F150, and lifted the floor jack out of the truck over the side of the bed. You can't do that with today's F150s unless you're an NBA center. -- Also, I think a big difference in length *is* the space behind the seats of the standard cab. Heck. I hate sitting in older standard cab trucks because there's zero recline to the seats. I think you are right here. The height of the sides has gotten ridiculous lately.... I also think the truck would look a little better with shorter sides.... I do wish that F150 could go on a diet..... I know that a lot of the weight has to do with safety, but damn I want to have my cake and eat it too.... Of course, every time I get annoyed with the F150, I take a test drive and forget why I was irritated with it.... People can believe me or not, but I think the F150 is the best riding, quietest, smoothest, and most comfortable vehicle I have ever driven..... Period.... If Gas was around $2/gal I would get a Raptor....... I LOVE THAT TRUCK..... P.S. Does anyone know when the Eco Boost F150 be release for sale??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 You can't get the 3.7L with 4x4? Really? No 3.7L with FX4, I can understand, but not with 4x4? Weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 You can't get the 3.7L with 4x4? Really? No 3.7L with FX4, I can understand, but not with 4x4? Weird. You can get the 3.7L with 4x4, just not with 4x4 AND SuperCrew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Ah. That's not surprising.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) You can get the 3.7L with 4x4, just not with 4x4 AND SuperCrew. If memory serves me correctly the Screw has never been offered with the 6, in 4WD or 2WD form. If I remember correctly, the 97-03 Screws were only available with the 5.4L. Then for the 04-08 models you could get either the 4.6L or the 5.4L. Couldn't say the motor options for Screw on the 09+, but figure those are 4.6L 3V & 5.4L (09/10), and 5.0L, 6.2L & 3.5L EB for the 2011+ models. Edited January 12, 2011 by V8-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If memory serves me correctly the Screw has never been offered with the 6, in 4WD or 2WD form. If I remember correctly, the 97-03 Screws were only available with the 5.4L. Then for the 04-08 models you could get either the 4.6L or the 5.4L. Couldn't say the motor options for Screw on the 09+, but figure those are 4.6L 3V & 5.4L (09/10), and 5.0L, 6.2L & 3.5L EB for the 2011+ models. I think you are correct, BUT the '11 F150 SuperCrew IS available with the 3.7L, only not in 4x4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I think you are correct, BUT the '11 F150 SuperCrew IS available with the 3.7L, only not in 4x4. I really think they should offer the 3.7L in the SC and 4x4. Lets face it the 300hp 3.7L is more powerful that the previous 5-6 year old V8s. Heck my 2000 5.4L was only 260hp if memory serves me right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PWR Kid Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) - Your 2000 was much lighter - TQ. Your 5.4 still had 350ft/lbs down low. Edited January 13, 2011 by PWR Kid 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netvandal Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Maybe with all the new development in batteries and local production it's time to look at a hybrid pick up again. I really think there's a lot of potential for using the truck to obviate the need for a generator on a construction site (no need to buy one, no need to haul one around). My city runs a huge fleet of F-150's, and they spend all their time in city traffic, they'd really benefit with something like this if it could nab 30mpg city - not unreasonable with the Escape getting 34mpg city. If they're building gas, electric and hybrid Focuses all out of the same plant, it'd be great to see them get as much flexibility out of Kentucky, but I guess that might be a ways off. I think the future for trucks is in hydraulic hybrid technology, not battery based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I think you are correct, BUT the '11 F150 SuperCrew IS available with the 3.7L, only not in 4x4. Thanks this I did not know. It's wise, IMO, to offer this combo. It may not be a quick beast, but surely will get the job done if my old '81 F150 4.9L could do the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Thanks this I did not know. It's wise, IMO, to offer this combo. It may not be a quick beast, but surely will get the job done if my old '81 F150 4.9L could do the job. Agreed! I think it would do fine in a SuperCrew 4x4 as well for those that want to haul a little, but not a lot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Agreed! I think it would do fine in a SuperCrew 4x4 as well for those that want to haul a little, but not a lot. I have a feeling the 3.7L is not available in the 4x4 SCrew due to the fuel economy possibly being the same or maybe even worse than the 5.0L. In other words, why offer something that has no advantages and only disadvantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.