Extreme4x4 Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 LOL...................... I can get 12.5 at 75mph. Like you, I would be ecstatic if I could get 17.5mpg at 75. I guess the problem that I have with the constant harping on mileage, is...................... what did you expect?? Did you honestly expect every EB F150 to get 20mpg at 75mph?? Do you honestly expect other trucks to get 20mpg at 75mph?? Does the EPA say you will get that?? First off, the EPA says nothing of the sort. Ford says nothing of the sort. So, we have to conclude that your expectations are unrealistic. Am I saying that noone gets that....................... no. Not even close. However, I am saying that your expectations, which are what you are basing your dissatisfaction on, are pretty ridiculous. How do I come to this conclusion??? Show me any truck that gets their EPA highway mileage rating at 75mph. Just one. You can't, because at the end of the day, a truck is still a truck, and everyones truck is a brick on tires. Thus, I suggest that you get rid of your truck, and buy the one that will deliver what you expect. Unfortunately, I do not know if that truck exists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Gotcha. So my response should of been...OK. Nope. You used facts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 LOL...................... I can get 12.5 at 75mph. Like you, I would be ecstatic if I could get 17.5mpg at 75. I guess the problem that I have with the constant harping on mileage, is...................... what did you expect?? Did you honestly expect every EB F150 to get 20mpg at 75mph?? Do you honestly expect other trucks to get 20mpg at 75mph?? Does the EPA say you will get that?? First off, the EPA says nothing of the sort. Ford says nothing of the sort. So, we have to conclude that your expectations are unrealistic. Am I saying that noone gets that....................... no. Not even close. However, I am saying that your expectations, which are what you are basing your dissatisfaction on, are pretty ridiculous. How do I come to this conclusion??? Show me any truck that gets their EPA highway mileage rating at 75mph. Just one. You can't, because at the end of the day, a truck is still a truck, and everyones truck is a brick on tires. Thus, I suggest that you get rid of your truck, and buy the one that will deliver what you expect. Unfortunately, I do not know if that truck exists. Exactly. I don't get all the whining about fuel mileage at 75 mph in a truck. My wife's Expedition only gets about 16 mpg at 75 mph. But when I slow down and go the speed limit, it gets much better. Last year on a trip from Galveston back to North Texas, we got almost 24 mpg because we were caught in a heavy traffic where it was hard to go over 60 mph and we had a steady tail wind. On the trip down, with a head wind and going 70 to 75 mph, we got about 15 to 16 mpg. The slower you drive these "bricks", the better the gas mileage. The faster you go, the more it consumes. It ain't rocket science... The V10 in my motorhome gets about 6 mpg at 65 and I can almost get 7 mpg if I slow down to 60. Of course that's with the generator running and Expedition in tow. I've really been tempted to get the Banks PowerPack and/or Gear Vendors overdrive, but I would hate to spend that much money only to get maybe a 1/2 mpg difference. If I could get it up to 8 mpg or more, I would be ecstatic! Nope. You used facts! Does that guy remind you of "P"? I think he's from Minnesota too...:shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Exactly. I don't get all the whining about fuel mileage at 75 mph in a truck. My wife's Expedition only gets about 16 mpg at 75 mph. But when I slow down and go the speed limit, it gets much better. Last year on a trip from Galveston back to North Texas, we got almost 24 mpg because we were caught in a heavy traffic where it was hard to go over 60 mph and we had a steady tail wind. On the trip down, with a head wind and going 70 to 75 mph, we got about 15 to 16 mpg. The slower you drive these "bricks", the better the gas mileage. The faster you go, the more it consumes. It ain't rocket science... The V10 in my motorhome gets about 6 mpg at 65 and I can almost get 7 mpg if I slow down to 60. Of course that's with the generator running and Expedition in tow. I've really been tempted to get the Banks PowerPack and/or Gear Vendors overdrive, but I would hate to spend that much money only to get maybe a 1/2 mpg difference. If I could get it up to 8 mpg or more, I would be ecstatic! But when you are talking about going from miserable to miserable + .5 MPG, that difference is rather large Of course, aren't the Gear Vendors several thousand $? That's a high price to pay for minimal fuel economy. And with that load, will it have enough power to stay in the highest gear? Does that guy remind you of "P"? I think he's from Minnesota too...:shades: To his credit, I don't think he is QUITE as bad as "P"...not yet anyway. Wait...aren't you originally from Minnesota? Is that why you left...to get away from the "P"'s of the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I can't believe there are 6 pages about an "award" from Motor Crap magazine. How was the 2012 eligible anyway? The new engines came out in 2011. What a joke... But when you are talking about going from miserable to miserable + .5 MPG, that difference is rather large Of course, aren't the Gear Vendors several thousand $? That's a high price to pay for minimal fuel economy. And with that load, will it have enough power to stay in the highest gear? The Gear Vendors are crazy expensive, but with the Banks, it might have enough power to stay in overdrive at 60 mph and get maybe 7.5 mpg. Not hardly worth it. I wish Ford would build an F53 with the 6.7 Scorpion and 6 speed auto, that would be nice. To his credit, I don't think he is QUITE as bad as "P"...not yet anyway. Wait...aren't you originally from Minnesota? Is that why you left...to get away from the "P"'s of the world? He's getting there, it's as if he posts just to get his post count up. "P" was from Cottage Grove, I remember that because I have family that live there as well and it's a pretty small town. I bet my nephew knows who "P" is and has probably beat him up once or twice. I was born in Minnesota, but my parents moved us to Texas when I was 8. We go back up there fairly often and I still punish myself by being a Vikings & Twins fan. Come to think of it, didn't the Twins beat a certain red bird team in the World Series in 1987? I still have a "Homer Hankie" from that series and an unused Wheaties box autographed by the entire 1987 World Champion team. Oh well, hopefully the Rangers can avoid being the Buffalo Bills of baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 LOL...................... I can get 12.5 at 75mph. Like you, I would be ecstatic if I could get 17.5mpg at 75. I guess the problem that I have with the constant harping on mileage, is...................... what did you expect?? Did you honestly expect every EB F150 to get 20mpg at 75mph?? Do you honestly expect other trucks to get 20mpg at 75mph?? Does the EPA say you will get that?? First off, the EPA says nothing of the sort. Ford says nothing of the sort. So, we have to conclude that your expectations are unrealistic. Am I saying that noone gets that....................... no. Not even close. However, I am saying that your expectations, which are what you are basing your dissatisfaction on, are pretty ridiculous. How do I come to this conclusion??? Show me any truck that gets their EPA highway mileage rating at 75mph. Just one. You can't, because at the end of the day, a truck is still a truck, and everyones truck is a brick on tires. Thus, I suggest that you get rid of your truck, and buy the one that will deliver what you expect. Unfortunately, I do not know if that truck exists. If this was directed at me, you totals missed my point...... I think 17-18mpg for my truck at 75mph is reasonable.... If fact my truck gets more or less what Ford says it will get. What I am trying to point out is that these claims people post on the internet of 20+mpg at 75mph in one of these trucks is complete bull $hit.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I can't believe there are 6 pages about an "award" from Motor Crap magazine. How was the 2012 eligible anyway? The new engines came out in 2011. What a joke... Agreed! I don't like MT, even when Ford does win. Most of this thread isn't about the original post anway though (that's a shocker!). The Gear Vendors are crazy expensive, but with the Banks, it might have enough power to stay in overdrive at 60 mph and get maybe 7.5 mpg. Not hardly worth it. I wish Ford would build an F53 with the 6.7 Scorpion and 6 speed auto, that would be nice. Yeah, that would be great to see it with the 6.7. I bet the MPG would be nearly double what you are seeing now. Or at least 50% better. He's getting there, it's as if he posts just to get his post count up. "P" was from Cottage Grove, I remember that because I have family that live there as well and it's a pretty small town. I bet my nephew knows who "P" is and has probably beat him up once or twice. Ha ha...that's funny! Your niece may have beat him up too! I was born in Minnesota, but my parents moved us to Texas when I was 8. We go back up there fairly often and I still punish myself by being a Vikings & Twins fan. Come to think of it, didn't the Twins beat a certain red bird team in the World Series in 1987? I still have a "Homer Hankie" from that series and an unused Wheaties box autographed by the entire 1987 World Champion team. Oh well, hopefully the Rangers can avoid being the Buffalo Bills of baseball. Yeah, I'm still hurt about the '87 WS. It just never should have happened...the Cards had them where they wanted them but couldn't close the door! I remember the homer hankies well...and the dam metrodome! Not sure if you still follow the Twins or not, but Joe Crede, the 3rd baseman from the '09 team (I think it was '09) is from my area. He is married to one of my classmates from school. He's a great guy, was sad to see the back injuries end his career. Looks like the Angels are going to really give the Rangers a run for their money next year. Signed one from my team and one from your team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) If this was directed at me, you totals missed my point...... I think 17-18mpg for my truck at 75mph is reasonable.... If fact my truck gets more or less what Ford says it will get. What I am trying to point out is that these claims people post on the internet of 20+mpg at 75mph in one of these trucks is complete bull $hit.... Is every truck going to get 20+ MPG at 75 MPH all of the time? Absolutely not! Is it possible? Sure. Could it happen for a few people? Yep. You don't know the conditions or how they drive, or the exact details of their truck. Maybe they got one that is better than average. To say it is never going to happen is what's BS! Edited December 15, 2011 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Is every truck going to get 20+ MPG at 75 MPH all of the time? Absolutely not! Is it possible? Sure. Could it happen for a few people? Yep. You don't know the conditions or how they drive, or the exact details of their truck. Maybe they got one that is better than average. To say it is never going to happy is what's BS! The only way would be to go down hill at 75mph....... It is complete BS.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 The only way would be to go down hill at 75mph....... It is complete BS.... You earned this, so here goes: Ok. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 What a thread. Not to get into a pissing match with all of you but are not the trucks rated with the highest geared rear end and best platform? IE: Reg cab ect with the lightest weight? Here is a post from a gal who has a reg cab short bed 5 liter that was getting 22mpg at 70. I had my Reg Cab, Short Bed XLT, F150 for a week now. Had 1000 miles when we went to Sarasota, 160 miles away. Got almost 22 mpg with A/C, cruise at 70mph. Around town with A/C I get between 17 and 18 mpg. This truck is awsome! Runs as good as my 67 mustang s-code She went on to say the truck had 3.55 gears. I thought this was darn good mileage and believable to boot. Too bad the Eb is not offered in this truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I could not edit the above post for some reason but she went on to say it was a 2wd truck as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 What a thread. Not to get into a pissing match with all of you but are not the trucks rated with the highest geared rear end and best platform? IE: Reg cab ect with the lightest weight? Here is a post from a gal who has a reg cab short bed 5 liter that was getting 22mpg at 70. She went on to say the truck had 3.55 gears. I thought this was darn good mileage and believable to boot. Too bad the Eb is not offered in this truck. I believe it's a weighted average of anticipated configurations/rear ends. They test all configurations & average them out based on product mix (e.g. reg. cab may account for 10%, supercab 60%, Screw 30%, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 What a thread. Not to get into a pissing match with all of you but are not the trucks rated with the highest geared rear end and best platform? IE: Reg cab ect with the lightest weight? Here is a post from a gal who has a reg cab short bed 5 liter that was getting 22mpg at 70. She went on to say the truck had 3.55 gears. I thought this was darn good mileage and believable to boot. Too bad the Eb is not offered in this truck. That was 70 and not 75 mph. Therefore, it sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) I don't have the numbers handy, but doesn't Ford sell a lot more EB F150's than 6.2's? How was that a mistake to offer consumers more choices? I'm not saying that 'choice' is the mistake...I'm saying that by offering the 6.2, FGord is forced to compare the EB to engines that it probably shouldn't be compared to (capability wise). I think the EB would have been better suited as the top engine of the F-150 lineup...then it really could go head to head with the top engines from the other manufactures. Anything that he doesn't agree with is a mistake regardless of the facts. Pot meet the fucking kettle. God you're such a dick. You want to talk about facts when the ONLY "facts" you have EVER provided to counter one of my arguments is a link to a Wikipedia article? You are such a hypocrite. YOU are the one that attacks people when they propose an idea that YOU don't agree with...while at the same time not offering ONE SHRED of information to counter the proposal. Hell, you can't even support the statement you made that I quoted above. You're a pathetic, arrogant person who needs to spout off on the internet to feel tough. What a thread. Not to get into a pissing match with all of you but are not the trucks rated with the highest geared rear end and best platform? IE: Reg cab ect with the lightest weight? It is my understanding that only one rear gear is required to be tested per engine. So, the EB is tested with the 3.15 gear as that has the best chance of delivering the highest fuel mnileage from that engine. The 5.0 would be a 3.31 (I believe), so that gear is tested so Ford can publish the highest possible rating for the 5.0. I haven't looked into this, so I can say for sure that this is how the EPA runs the tests. But that is my understanding. It would be interesting to find out though! Edited December 16, 2011 by Boss444 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I'm not saying that 'choice' is the mistake...I'm saying that by offering the 6.2, FGord is forced to compare the EB to engines that it probably shouldn't be compared to (capability wise). I think the EB would have been better suited as the top engine of the F-150 lineup...then it really could go head to head with the top engines from the other manufactures. What engine is it bad to compare the EB too? It trumps or matches ALL other competitors' engines in fuel economy. It trumps ALL other competitors' engines in tow ratings. I fail to see anything bad here. PS: Resorting to name-calling doesn't help your case. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Ok 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) What engine is it bad to compare the EB too? It trumps or matches ALL other competitors' engines in fuel economy. It trumps ALL other competitors' engines in tow ratings. I fail to see anything bad here. It's not bad to compare it to any engine. But if the EB was the top engine in the F-150 lineup, then Ford could easily compare it to the top engines from the competitors thus making the fuel economy claims 'more' truthful. PS: Resorting to name-calling doesn't help your case. Nothing can help my case in his eyes. No matter how I explain myself, no matter how many times I say things like "I believe" or "I think", no matter if I use facts from the manufacturer itself, if he doesn't like my argument (for whatever ignorant reason) he will attack me (and others) by making snide comments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. He gets off on insulting people. I'm sick and tired of it. We;re all here to shoot the shit and talk about things that we love...automobiles. The whole reason for internet forums is to express opinions. So it's pretty childish to jump all over people when they're expressing their opinions on how to differentiate Lincoln or their take on EB F-150s for no reason. Yeah...he got to me. I probably shouldn't have sunk to his level of childishness, but behavior like that pisses me off. And then his lackeys come in and vote me down. How cute! Whew...ok........Thorazine kicking in...blood pressure falling... Edited December 16, 2011 by Boss444 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 It's not bad to compare it to any engine. But if the EB was the top engine in the F-150 lineup, then Ford could easily compare it to the top engines from the competitors thus making the fuel economy claims 'more' truthful. What fuel economy claims aren't truthful? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 You ignore every piece of "information" that people give you if it doesn't agree with your opinions or desires. And I don't "attack" opinions. The problem is you don't know the difference between an 'opinion" and an incorrectly stated fact. "I like Rangers" is an opinion. "There is a big market for small pickups" is not an opinion - it's an incorrect fact based on historical sales volume. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Would it be possible to just lock this thread? It's become pointless. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 What fuel economy claims aren't truthful? I didn't say they weren't 'truthful'........I think the truth is being stretched. But that depends directly on what yard stick you are comparing the EB to (5.3, 6.2, 5.7, 5.0) I believe (and I'm sure I'll catch flack for this because people don't want to hear it"), that the engine MOST cross shopped with the EB is, in fact, the 5.0. I would also bet, that the biggest thing buyers are looking for with regards to fuel, is the RAW fuel economy numbers. What's printed on the sticker. With that in mind, the EB gets 1 MPG better than the 5.0. Now let's be clear, I'm addressing this issue as a way to prevent Ford from having the proverbial egg on their face. For all the hype surrounding the fuel economy with the EB engine, people go out and check it out (sorry...I don't have a link for that statement). They like it, and they buy it (again...no link). Then, after 5K-10K miles, they become disappointed much like sranger did because they paid extra for an engine that's getting roughly the same mileage as the 5.0. Then they go on the internet and tell their friends that it's not getting the mileage they expected. Look at how the Mustang manual became a huge issue. If I were at Ford, I would have not offered the 6.2 in the F-150 and billed the EB as the top engine for the F-150 lineup. Would it have worked better than what Ford did? We will never know...it's just another viewpoint. That's all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 You ignore every piece of "information" that people give you if it doesn't agree with your opinions or desires.\ Patently false. And I don't "attack" opinions. The problem is you don't know the difference between an 'opinion" and an incorrectly stated fact. Patently false. "I like Rangers" is an opinion. "There is a big market for small pickups" is not an opinion - it's an incorrect fact based on historical sales volume. What I said in the Ranger thread was: I think there is a real market for a smaller 4-door pickup t5hat can tow 5-6K pounds, haul a small load in the box, etc. Spelling error included. Do you see what is at the beginning of that sentence? And YOU have made many statements like your second example (we saw that in the Lincoln thread). Again....you can do it, but no one else can. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I think there is a real market for a smaller 4-door pickup t5hat can tow 5-6K pounds, haul a small load in the box, etc. They had one - it was cancelled due to slow sales when the small pickup market was a lot bigger than it is right now. What changed? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 1324008853[/url]' post='751200']They had one - it was cancelled due to slow sales when the small pickup market was a lot bigger than it is right now. What changed? 2 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.