1979 Ford F150 over 24mpg, 2003 F150 almost half of that...
 

Several years back I built a 1979 Ford F150 shortbed stepside (aerodyamic disaster but they look great) into a commuter for a 224 mile a day trip.

I don't know if anybody went to Ford Truck Enthiust or the old Ford Muscle but I had some write ups there about what was done and worked, and didn't work.

The truck was a F100 shortbed stepside with the Free Wheelin' (cosmetic) package, AC, PS, PB, radio delete, 302, SROD (3 speed overdrive) and 3.00 gears with a traction loc (limited slip) with white spoke steel wagon wheels and I think 235/70/15 tires on it.

When I got it with almost 150,000, it got right at 18mpg at 65, so I'm assuming they could do 20 or better at a constant 55 that was the law when they were new.

I rebuilt the engine using a stock aluminum Ford dual plane intake, a 480cfm Autolite carb (1.08), roller cam and rockers (later model block), 9.5 compression, Jacobs Mileage Master spark box and Ultra Coil, Mallory distributor, small tube tri-y headers and 2.5 pipes into walker dynomax mufflers. The engine itself was balanced and blueprinted. I forgot the exact cam specs but it was a custom grind that would have been fairly close to a 260 High Energy.

I used a Ford Taurus electric fan and a manual controller (unless the AC was on, then it was automatic). The heads had a full port and polish and slightly bigger valves, basicly just cleaned up decent but stock castings.

The only aero mods were a tonneau cover over the bed, just a canvas one. It averaged 24.3 in over 80K miles. About 90 percent highway with the cruise set at 62.

Not that it matters, but it ran a 14.8 in the quarter which kinda surprised me with the gears and the SROD. I loved that truck.

Anyway, my 2003 F150 supercab 2x4 with a 4.6, automatic an 3.55 gears can barely get half of that mileage on the highway, 14ish. It's rated for 20 and has never gotten close. It's a much bigger and heavier truck, but still. Slightly smaller more modern engine and much better aerodynamics. For whatever reason, there don't seem to be much you can do with this generation truck to get much better results.

I've thought about a Ranger but I still haul and pull a lot of stuff. Bigger stuff then a Ranger will haul/pull safely (if at all). If I didn't ride a scoot alot the 2003 would be hard for me to run daily.

Welcome to the board! Sounds like you had a great truck, like a sleeper! Would love to see pics.

Check out BamZipPow's T-100 and Diesel Dave has some pretty cool stuff going on too.

We can blame both the heavier weight, mostly from nanny-state mandated safety features, and the automatic transmission, for that mileage decreasement. Well, nowadays even with a manual transmission it could still have some bad results, since currently manual transmissions are not so geared in the most efficient way...

Welcome, Uriah. You're just down the road from me, I live in Anderson County.

I always knew the full size trucks, at least the lower-spec ones like the 150, could hit decent numbers. It's all down to the driver, how it's equipped and how it's driven.

I think a fair portion of what's holding you back is that 4.6. I don't know why but for some reason it isn't any great shakes as a mileage motor. I certainly never hear anyone bragging about his mileage from a 4.6, at any rate.

There's lots of room underneath that truck for sneaky aero improvements that won't show from above.

My father has a standard cab heritage f150 (2004 with 2003 styling). When I've used it I notice that it is very sensitive to speed. Keep it around 60mph and mileage is dramatically better. I got almost 18 (17.8) pulling an open trailer over a 100 mile trip with this technique. At the time the truck had no aero improvers i.e. tonneau cover. The 4.6 isn't an ideal economy motor, but can be coaxed into fairly efficient operation. A scanguage would be almost a necessity to get best results in my opinion.

Uriah's Heap muahaha.

In my experience, the modular v8s need to be revved to get better fuel economy when towing.

They just don't have the low end grunt and you end up wasting more fuel with a lot of throttle input, more fuel burnt, but no more result.

They don't lug well.

Buddy LC has a 2000 supercab shortbed 4x4 f150 with the 5.4, I think 3.55 gears and an automatic as well. Taller tires on stock 16 inch rims, and it pulls a consistant 19 plus. Granted LC don't drive real fast, I think 60 would be pushing it for him, but still. That baffles the hell out of me. Says it does better then the 4x4 supercab dakota he replaced it with, think it had the 5.2 automatic in it.

The older Crown Vics/Town Cars seemed to get pretty decent mpg for what they were, if not exactly powerhouses. The 4.6 ones anyway. Hell, even the old 5.0 Mustangs with a 5 speed and 3.08 gears would surprise you.

My dad has a F-150 and loaned it to me while I had my AC fixed.

I do not know what his friend did while he drove the truck, but the charger and OBD-II port were dead, I could not use my Ultragauge on it.

I just remember paying eighty dollars to fill up. I felt like the worst hypermiler ever.

Yeah, but how far did you git? That's a fair ways past 400-miles/city worth of diesel for my 8k/lb pickup truck. (true, but just messin' with ya).

.