Half-ton vs One-ton MPG (F-150 vs Superduty MPG)

[GARETT0439]

Its a question I would expect there to be more information on: What is the efficiency difference between a one ton and half ton truck? Myself, along with many others I am sure, are considering whether they make do pushing the max weight rating of say an F-150, or to take the loss of efficiency and go with a F-250 or F-350. The EPA doesn't require Ford to publish MPG ratings for their Superduty trucks- and I have scoured the web looking for an answer. I am leaning toward an F-350 for our next expedition vehicle due to the strength and articulation of a straight axle in the front, and that I would be pushing the payload of a half ton. However, if say the one ton got 13 MPG vs the half ton getting 20 mpg, it would definitely affect my decision. To keep it apples to apples I think an appropriate comparison would be the 5.0 Coyote gas V8 F-150 vs 6.2 Boss gas V8 F-350. To my knowledge there is absolutely no even remotely scientific comparison between these two vehicles as far as I have found. Or for any other manufacturer's half ton vs one ton trucks. Does anyone know of any data available?
(Btw I already have a car and trailers, I need a truck)

[Piotrsko]

Not sure what the 350 gets as a gasser for fuel mileage, not hauling stuff. Hauling stuff, I think is like 13, which by defination has to reduce fuel economy because you're accelerating mass...

They make 150's that legally do a ton? I have seen a ton in a 150 and it's a ticket appearance if I ever saw one

[aerohead]

I did a search for ' Ford f-350 real fuel economy.'
I looked at fuelly.com's website, and for the 2023 Ford, the gasoline-powered 350 was averaging 12.3-mpg, and the diesel-powered variants were getting from the 17s, to a high of 18.1-mpg, depending on engine.

[GARETT0439]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Not sure what the 350 gets as a gasser for fuel mileage, not hauling stuff. Hauling stuff, I think is like 13, which by defination has to reduce fuel economy because you're accelerating mass...

They make 150's that legally do a ton? I have seen a ton in a 150 and it's a ticket appearance if I ever saw one

Yes the max cargo weight of a new F-150 can be up to 2856 lb. The problem I have is the max cargo weight of the supercab 4x4 version I want tops out at 1848 lb, which a slide in camper will be bumping up very close to if not exceeding with gear and liquids. The same configuration(supercab 4x4 non dually) F-350 has a max cargo weight of 3861 lb.

The heavier truck is definitely going to get worse city mileage due to weight, and I can accept that loss because I feel that the extra weight is useful in my case because I am utilizing that extra beef they put in the frame and axles by hauling and offroading with a huge slide in camper. However I would like to see where the hwy mpg differs from the F-150 because imo thats less weight and more how the two trucks differ in aero and focus on efficiency in the design. I have a feeling that because the Superduty arent advertised with MPG consequentially not as much focus has been put on efficiency in the design.

[redpoint5]

You buy the size of truck needed to do the work required. The MPG falls where it may.

[freebeard]

What happened to 1/4-ton trucks???

https://electrek.co › 2023 › 05 › 30 › arcimoto-muv-unveiled-modular-three-wheeled-electric-utility-vehicle
Arcimoto MUV unveiled as 3-wheeled 75 mph utility vehicle - Electrek
6 days agoThe fairly small-format vehicle has a payload of 500 pounds (226 kg) yet is nimble and narrow enough for the tightest of work environments. Its dual-motor front-wheel drive with a single seat...

:

cdn.arcimoto.com/wp/20230525095230/muv_studio_driver_side-1536x1025.jpg

What? You want doors? Fine...

i.pinimg.com/originals/56/b6/09/56b60999673d01401d8bc3a6b0e57677.jpg

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

It's easier to compare a F-150 to a Ranger, as they have a more similar payload. But as you have an actual need for the F-350, trying to downsize may not be so worth at all.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

What happened to 1/4-ton trucks???

I don't know what relevance the ton class has anymore, if it ever had relevance.

I've easily put over a ton in my "3/4 ton" truck. Put a yard of rock in the bed, and then had a 1 ton trailer with 3 yards of bark dust attached. I easily had 1.5 tons or more added weight on the rear axle.

That reminds me, I still want to create a swimming pool in the bed this summer. By my estimate, assuming 1ft depth, that's around 1 ton of water, plus humans.

[freebeard]

My 1961 panel van had '3/4-ton' rear axles, and weighed about as much as a Beetle, or 1 ton or less.

The most weight it had in it was [at least I'd paid for] 2/3 of a cord of wood. According to USFS:

https://www.fs.usda.gov › Internet › FSE_DOCUMENTS › stelprdb5328581.pdf
Measuring your firewood - US Forest Service
Measuring your firewood A standard, full cord of wood is a volume of 128 cubic feet, measured as a pile 8 feet long, 4 feet high and 4 feet wide. A full cord can weigh up to 5,000 pounds. Small Pickup -- 1/4 ton With or without racks this truck bed holds approximately 1/2 (one-half) cord of wood.

That certainly gave it a nice stance! The 1100lb FUV has a 500lb payload (plus the driver).

[GARETT0439]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You buy the size of truck needed to do the work required. The MPG falls where it may.

In this case the load depends on the vehicle, not the other way around. I have enough tools/toys I would always like to bring, if I had the space, to more than fill a 6x6 deuce and a half and get 4 MPG but I won't accept that mileage. I would rather pack light and get as far as I can in my FWD Chevy Volt with a moto trailer and get triple digit MPG.

So as you can see there's more to it than that. The MPG number fall where I choose them to fall. Then I fill the GVWR with what I can. As I mentioned above some of the variables I am considering are articulation, axle strength, weight, payload, max tire size, and of course perhaps the most important for me personally- efficiency.