New member from Northern Sask, F-150 the economical choice?

[ecomodded]

Unreal, on that list even the 4 cylinder's got 17-18 mpg city and 21 -23 mpg hwy. What a advancement in burning gas quickly with modern technology.

I think the engineers studied at the center for wasting fuel.

[Saskwatchian]

I am going to go test drive some F150s this weekend and a CX-5 (and probably a few other vehicles) when I go south before the long weekend.

The last Ranger sold a couple days ago so I won't get to drive it at the same time as the 1/2 tons.

I am going to give the 3.7L engine a shot and see how it feels empty and with a quad in the back. Probably do the same with the 5.0 and ecoboost.

The big problem with the 3.7 (if it doesn't feel underpowered) is the lack of a LS/locking differential option. Other than the dismal fuel economy of my current ride open differentials are one of its major pitfalls.


I have always owned body on frame vehicles (other than briefly owning a lifted Jeep Grand Cherokees) so am really not sure what I will think of the CX-5 when I get to test it. Who knows, maybe I will love it and thoughts of trucks will disappear. I am also concerned I will break stuff and it will be more expensive to fix.

If I got the Mazda I don't think I would change anything on it for fuel efficiency, but if I got the truck there are so many things to try.


EDIT:
[RANT]I wish everyone would agree on one efficiency measurement. MPGs are stupidly confusing here in Canada since the older people and manufacturers tend to use imperial gallons, but not always, while the younger crowd tends to use US gallons, unless they grew up on a farm...

I like my L/100km nice and unambiguous.[/RANT]

[UltArc]

Just a note, your 4x4 is more fuel efficient than the awd, as awd is not contollable. It just goes. I would suggest 4x2, to save weight of a transfer case and other gear, but if you need or feel more secure, get 4x4 way before you get awd. The ecoboost seems like a great suggestion, even before modifying. I want an eco boost in the Mustang, personally. But twin turbos on a truck sounds good, too.

[Fastskiguy]

I second ECOBOOST! (or third ecoboost?)

[Fastskiguy]

Naw, seriously, I started off yearning for a ford fiesta but my wife said no way you're getting an F-150. I thought I could break her over time....like water on stone. 15 months later I had to raise the white flag (she's obviously tougher than me)....and bought an F-150. Got the 3.7l super cab 2WD and with only 700 miles on the odometer I can get a solid 23mpg on the highway, 18-19 to work and back (5 miles, 7 stoplights, 45mph max speed, cold engine both ways). I think I'll be able to do better as she breaks in. Over 300HP, it'll wind out to 7000RPM and let out a beautiful sound, pull 6000#'s, haul stuff, and it really drives nicely. It's not gonna get you 40mpg...but I think it's the best option in trucks. The 3.7L engine isn't available in 4WD Supercrew...you've gotta go super cab or 2wd (sorry) but if you really need 4WD and Supercrew then the ecoboost got me the same mileage during test drives in town....as long as you don't spin up the turbos.

[Saskwatchian]

I guess I never updated this after my test drive.

I took three 4x4 XLT supercabs for a spin last week. One with each engine.

I started out with the 3.7 and was unimpressed. I could probably get used to it but it had sort of a cheep feel. Couldn't hold its gear on some hills I had never had to shift on before (despite the less powerful engine in my current Explorer)

I coulden't help but feel like I was driving a big stiff frame with small engine and they should have softened the suspension to reflect the low payload and tow rating. The thing bounced all over the place on washboard gravel and was way too stiff for the brief stint on a rolling quad trail.


I took the 5.0 on the same circuit. I smiled the whole time.

Felt great, sounded great, seemed more planted with a bit more weight in the front. I know it has the worst fuel economy rating but it just felt like a truck should (in my opinion)


Last I took the ecoboost for a spin. and spin it did. The ecoboost can have a "holly poop" feel to it. The thing just felt like it wanted to go fast. 160km/h / 100mph felt like it was just starting to wind up.

But it just didn't really feel right. It felt oddly overgeared/geared too tall. A glaring omission on the instrument cluster was the lack of a boost gage. I was really interested in where and when the turbos would kick in but never got to.

My guess is it is either "eco" or "boost" with these things. I don't think Ford wants us to know how much time it is really in "boost"


I went through the process of getting approved for financing for the 5L but need to try out the CX-5 before I make a decision.

I am going to test a CX-5 in 1 week and before I even start the engine I am going to see how a 36" unicycle and a thermarest fit in the back...

I have high hopes for the CX-5. If it looks like a good fit after the test drive I am definitely going that direction.

It would be nice to have a proper truck so I wouldn't have to always borrow my dads when I am hauling/towing but if I keep my current driving habits (over 60,000km/year) then the CX-5 could save me over $20,000 in 5 years over the F-150 and pay for itself in fuel savings in less than 7 years compared to using my current bomber.

[Fastskiguy]

I think those 6 speed transmissions just feel that way when you get on them or going up hills. You literally have to downshift from 6th to 2nd or 3rd if you punch it at 40mph so it takes a second to make the jump. I think they're doing it because you can roll along at 40mph in 6th at about 1000rpm getting dang near 30mpg on a flat road. But it definitely feels different than a regular 4 speed and it's going to shift more. With the GM truck you have to engage all 8 cylinders (because you've been cruising along with 4 deactivated, right?) and then downshift 3-4 gears so it feels even more sluggish...despite > 300hp. At least that's my take on them.

But I don't know, saving $4K per year in gas......that's a pretty good reason to avoid the truck if you can.

[PR03]

Can you wait a year or so?

Cummins and Nissan are teaming up to make a super fuel efficient Titan.

Check it out

I'm also from Sask, southeast (Yorkton)

google

news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/05/cummins-feds-developing-four-cylinder-diesel-for-nissan-titan.html]Update 2: Cummins, Feds Developing Four-Cylinder Diesel for Nissan Titan - PickupTrucks.com News[/url]

I can't post ink cause I'm still new here.

[Saskwatchian]

Thanks PR03

My sister lived in Yorkton for a while, nice place, an upgrade from living in Regina anyway.

I had seen the article about the Cummins Nissan. It looks promising but I am not holding my breath.

I wish I could wait but it's to the point where my current vehicle isn't worth keeping any more.

Tailpipe is gone, transmission has issues, engine is not running properly, needs new brakes, shocks are blown (again), it won't hold an alignment, burns more gas than a 1/2 ton and is about 2 inches too short to sleep in anyway.

I like going on long trips. it is looking like New Mexico is a possibility this fall but I don't trust my vehicle to get there or back anymore.

Right now I am really hopping that a CX-5 will work for me. I need to know the internal dimensions to know if it is a good fit but that kind of fuel economy with AWD and a *suposedly* fun drive is pretty alluring. If I could get the european diesel model I would be all smiles but don't think I can wait another year or two.

[MGTFguy]

Hi
I bought my F150 just a year ago and now have 26,000 km on it. I did a lot of shopping before buying, and had a similar wish list to yours. I settled on a super cab 4x4 3.7l v6. The ecoboost did not have the highest rated economy, in spite of Ford's advertising. The ecoboost was amazing to drive, but you cant make horsepower without burning fuel. I wonder if the real world reveals any interesting facts. Did you know that the gas powered TURBO beetle gets MUCH better economy than it's normally aspirated sister.

I am very pleased with my truck, and the comments about the 6 speed transmission are right on the mark, it is different and takes some getting used to, but is very likely a key factor in good economy.

My lifetime average is 12.1 l/100km (19.7 Mpg-us)
I just did a 1900 km trip and got 9.86 l/100 (24.2 mpg-us) on the last fill-up (1020km) this was mostly highway driving with 200 km of gravel roads. Almost all on cruise, highway speeds 115km/hr

I consistently get in the mid 11's l/100km driving IN TOWN

The truck is very sensitive to hills, and the cruise is too aggressive for optimal fuel economy. I can pick up 10% by driving carefully without the cruise.

It tows a trailer well and my last trailering trip was a couple of hundred km to deliver an antique car to a new home. 12.5 l/100 km pulling the trailer (5000 lbs)

So did I buy the right combination?
I am not sure and I have to admit the ecoboost is very appealing. I love turbo cars (I have had a number of turbo Audi's).

Is there any one out there with a year of mixed driving in an ecoboost 150 that can share detailed results? The information I can find is spotty.

PS
I bought a 2000 Honda Insight in need of some TLC a month after the F150. WOW I love that little car, I do a 20 km drive each way every day, and if the traffic is light, and I work at it I can get my mileage as good as 2.5 l/100km (95.3 MPG-us)