The New 2009 F-150

ipEAGLE · January 12, 2008

Feel free to move this... I am a huge ford fan and they hit it out of the park with this new model, much better than the new ram.

UNTFan23 · January 12, 2008

Keep in mind gas is predicted to hit $3.50/gal this spring and $4.00/gal this summer.

ShopMeanGreen · January 12, 2008

How come it's not Mean Green?

fan19740 · January 12, 2008

Great football topic!

ipEAGLE · January 12, 2008

Great football topic!

Buy it in August at BILL UTTER FORD!!!

(they are one of our sponsors... does that make it better? Its a win win situation!)

Cr1028 · January 12, 2008

You can't truly "tailgate" without a truck.

yyz28 · January 13, 2008

Looks just like their current Superduty trucks - only with a black grille and not a silver one.

...and the Ford MOD motor is a POS compared to the LSx/Vortec Chevy/GM motors and the Chrystler/Dodge Hemi. (assuming you are going Gas and not Disel)

FirefightnRick · January 13, 2008

Keep in mind gas is predicted to hit $3.50/gal this spring and $4.00/gal this summer.

Order it with the optional 3.55 gear ratio and don't drive in a hurry all the time and you too could get 19 MPG as I have in my 2005 my last two longest trips to New Orleans last March and Arkansas last September.

yyz28

...and the Ford MOD motor is a POS compared to the LSx/Vortec Chevy/GM motors and the Chrystler/Dodge Hemi. (assuming you are going Gas and not Disel)

Why is it a POS? I'm curious?

Rick

UNTFan23 · January 13, 2008

Order it with the optional 3.55 gear ratio and don't drive in a hurry all the time and you too could get 19 MPG as I have in my 2005 my last two longest trips to New Orleans last March and Arkansas last September.
Rick

What's your gas bill like Rick. $300 ... $400 a month? Mine might be $100 to $125 a month with me getting 30/36 mpg. Trips to DFW from NW Ark are generally under $100 for a round trip.

ipEAGLE · January 13, 2008

Looks just like their current Superduty trucks - only with a black grille and not a silver one.
...and the Ford MOD motor is a POS compared to the LSx/Vortec Chevy/GM motors and the Chrystler/Dodge Hemi. (assuming you are going Gas and not Disel)

I guess you didn't get the memo my good man... a 6.2 BOSS Engine with 400 Hp will be available on the new F-150'S.

ipEAGLE · January 13, 2008

Looks just like their current Superduty trucks - only with a black grille and not a silver one.
...and the Ford MOD motor is a POS compared to the LSx/Vortec Chevy/GM motors and the Chrystler/Dodge Hemi. (assuming you are going Gas and not Disel)

I guess you didn't get the memo my good man... a 6.2 BOSS Engine with 400 Hp will be available on the new F-150'S.

Cr1028 · January 13, 2008

What's your gas bill like Rick. $300 ... $400 a month? Mine might be $100 to $125 a month with me getting 30/36 mpg. Trips to DFW from NW Ark are generally under $100 for a round trip.

You won't get that kind of mileage in any truck, compact or full-size.

UNTFan23 · January 13, 2008

You won't get that kind of mileage in any truck, compact or full-size.

True. I no longer drive a truck cause I was wanting something more fuel efficient since I figured the price per gallon would continue to climb.

FirefightnRick · January 14, 2008

What's your gas bill like Rick. $300 ... $400 a month? Mine might be $100 to $125 a month with me getting 30/36 mpg. Trips to DFW from NW Ark are generally under $100 for a round trip.

First off know that I've served 8 years now on a Technical Rescue team who's main objective is vehicle extrication and I didn't purchase my '05 F-150 for gas mileage as I doubt anyone purchases a truck for that. I purchased it for SAFETY and SAFETY only.

I stewed over this decision for quite some time and know that if I could afford to get it to pass inspection and insured I'd drive a military half-track every day. I was going to get the F-250 or F-350 but getting either of those without the diesel is worthless and I wasn't going to pull anything that needs it. The '97 thru '03 F-150's were/are death traps and are some of the worlds poorest rated crash tested vehicles on the road. Not just in trucks, but for all vehicles. Because of this, Ford responded and completely reversed that role and by coming out with a F-150 in '04 that was so well built that it set the industry crash test standard that year. In '05(mine) the F-150 was the heaviest half ton pickup on the market at a little over 7200 lbs and I got the 4 wheel drive which added another 150 lbs. The heavier box frame(Dodge has a smaller box frame than the Ford, and chevy was still using a "C" channel and rated lower than the Dodge and Ford) not only raised the safety rating but the extra weight makes it a nice stiff yet smooth ride. In fact it's the nicest riding truck I've ever ridden in, better than my '84 Silverado. I let ADLER and Mr. VeryGreen drive it up to Arkansas and they both were impressed with the smoothness of how it drove. But for me, and considering my line of work the proof is in the real live crashes and so far I have worked two that impressed me even beyond what the IIHS crash tests showed. The most impressive of the two was a really bad roll over of a '05 F-150 4 door crewcab, eastbound I-30 just past the Beach St. exit. Witnesses stated the the truck left the road, went up the enbankment and rolled over at least 3 times. The driver who was not wearing a seatbelt and intoxicated was ejected and lying underneith the truck and FUBARed as you can only imagine. But his passenger was standing outside the truck smoking a cigarette and didn't have a scratch on him as he had his seatbelt on. But what was the most impressive of this wreck was that even though the bed was crushed in pretty bad on three sides and every inch of the panels, including the roof were dented in from multiple rolls, all four doors opened and closed as if nothing had happened at all. The structural integrity of the cab was perfect. And to me this is where Ford misses their opportunity with their adds. Don't show some stupid commercial of a guy driving it through the mud or trying to stop a cargo plane down a runway. Go to the wrecking yards, show the photos of real wrecks and interview the survivors and talk to the firefighters who train on how to tear these things up in order to extricate someone out of them. This is where I have learned the most about which cars and trucks are built well and the ones who are not.

With all of that said, to answer your question Sean, in comparing your mileage your getting (36 mpg) to mine (17 mpg) and considering the miles I drive annually I'm spending $1040 more a year. However, I don't even consider the vast cargo advantage my truck gives me over a compact car(passenger comfort, cargo and a 10,000 lb towing capacity). I consider how much safety I would be giving up for my kids and family to merely save $20 a week.

Rick

Edited January 14, 2008 by FirefightnRick

PerryG2480 · January 14, 2008

Preach it, Rick. Definitely a Ford faithful right here.

yyz28 · January 14, 2008

The modular motor design is underpowered per cubic inch, and they are a nightmare to rebuild. No current V8 has had more recalls and or serivce bulllt. than that engine. Inheriant in the flaws is the OHC setup which adds a huge amount of complexity and expense to the engine that is simply foolish in an engine that is designed to be a workhorse. Part of what makes a truck truly valuable over time is the ability to beat the motor into the ground, but still have a machine that with a rebuilt motor can keep going. Mod motor costs nearly twice in the aftermarket what an LSx Motor costs.

...then compare performance. To match GM's performance, Ford has to rely on superchargers to keep up with the power GM motors make Natually Aspirated. ...no quicker way to reduce the longivity of an engine than to put forced induction on it.

...Ford hasn't put out a V8 worth it's salt since they abandoned the 5.0 in 1995.

...ipEAGLE gets excited about the 400HP 6.2L Boss motor. ...GM was getting 405HP out of 5.7L in their current engine lineup starting in 1999. GM was making 420 out of their 6.0L in 2004, and is making 436 out of it's 6.2L today. ...before any modification. ...AND the Dyno proves that GM underrates its motors, and Ford Overrates theirs.

I'm not saying that if you go buy an F150, and drive it for a few years and then get a new one that they aren't good trucks. ...but pound for pound, GM just makes a better engine, especially if you're inclined to turn a wrench or two yourself. IMHO.

FirefightnRick · January 15, 2008

The modular motor design is underpowered per cubic inch, and they are a nightmare to rebuild. No current V8 has had more recalls and or serivce bulllt. than that engine. Inheriant in the flaws is the OHC setup which adds a huge amount of complexity and expense to the engine that is simply foolish in an engine that is designed to be a workhorse. Part of what makes a truck truly valuable over time is the ability to beat the motor into the ground, but still have a machine that with a rebuilt motor can keep going. Mod motor costs nearly twice in the aftermarket what an LSx Motor costs.
...then compare performance. To match GM's performance, Ford has to rely on superchargers to keep up with the power GM motors make Natually Aspirated. ...no quicker way to reduce the longivity of an engine than to put forced induction on it.
...Ford hasn't put out a V8 worth it's salt since they abandoned the 5.0 in 1995.
...ipEAGLE gets excited about the 400HP 6.2L Boss motor. ...GM was getting 405HP out of 5.7L in their current engine lineup starting in 1999. GM was making 420 out of their 6.0L in 2004, and is making 436 out of it's 6.2L today. ...before any modification. ...AND the Dyno proves that GM underrates its motors, and Ford Overrates theirs.
I'm not saying that if you go buy an F150, and drive it for a few years and then get a new one that they aren't good trucks. ...but pound for pound, GM just makes a better engine, especially if you're inclined to turn a wrench or two yourself. IMHO.

Yeah, I guess your right, IF your inclined to because your a professional mechanic and are in the business or something like that? For others who do and are not mechanics this may be restated as tweaking or messing with their engines in an attempt to push out more and more power like so many people seem to do with late model vehicles. This would explain the ever growing late model after market parts industry. I'm guessing most people who it bothers that their engine is underpowered per cubic inch :rolleyes: is gonna increase it regardless of what type of engine they buy I suppose so that they can romp on it and show off how much fuel they can waste in their truck? Who cares that gas is nearing $4.00 per gallon, right?

As for the two late model Ford 5.4's I own I couldn't be any more happier as the wifes 2000 Expedition has 160K miles on it and does nothing but reliably perform as it should and gets better than expected mileage despite that she does not take very good care of it at all. You want to talk about testing a motor? Let a woman that never checks for anything drive it for 8 years and get back with me on that. And of course my 300 HP 5.4 '05 has exceeded all my expectations. It does not surprise me at all that the 150 has been the most sold truck the past 30 years and that it continues to get a high consumer rating. Is it the quickest or most powerfull off the line? No, but that doesn't seem to affect it's sales as most consumers seem to be more concerned for comfort, durability and ride? For me it was safety, because like I said earlier, I'd drive a tank if I could get away with it.

Rick

Edited January 15, 2008 by FirefightnRick

yyz28 · January 17, 2008

Yeah, I guess your right, IF your inclined to because your a professional mechanic and are in the business or something like that? For others who do and are not mechanics this may be restated as tweaking or messing with their engines in an attempt to push out more and more power like so many people seem to do with late model vehicles. This would explain the ever growing late model after market parts industry. I'm guessing most people who it bothers that their engine is underpowered per cubic inch is gonna increase it regardless of what type of engine they buy I suppose so that they can romp on it and show off how much fuel they can waste in their truck? Who cares that gas is nearing $4.00 per gallon, right?
As for the two late model Ford 5.4's I own I couldn't be any more happier as the wifes 2000 Expedition has 160K miles on it and does nothing but reliably perform as it should and gets better than expected mileage despite that she does not take very good care of it at all. You want to talk about testing a motor? Let a woman that never checks for anything drive it for 8 years and get back with me on that. And of course my 300 HP 5.4 '05 has exceeded all my expectations. It does not surprise me at all that the 150 has been the most sold truck the past 30 years and that it continues to get a high consumer rating. Is it the quickest or most powerfull off the line? No, but that doesn't seem to affect it's sales as most consumers seem to be more concerned for comfort, durability and ride? For me it was safety, because like I said earlier, I'd drive a tank if I could get away with it.
Rick

Again, I never said the Ford isn't reliable, but it simply isn't as good an engine by all measures of engines (hp per cube, cost to rebuild, mean time to rebuild, operating range, efficiency, etc...) as the current Chevy and Ford motors, and from an Enthusiests' standpoint (When I'm not at Fouts, I'm at the Dragstrip) they aren't as open for modification based on both complexity and cost.

...PLENTY of people can push an 8 year old car to 160K miles and have it keep ticking without a motor rebuild. I've had 3 cars in my lifetime do that (All GM products) - I wasn't speaking to that point.

Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge vs. Toyota is just personal preference when it comes do the average driver. They are all safe. They all have enough power. They all ride well. It's all about which one you like the looks of and which one has cup holders in a better spot for your use.

...and you know what I do when Gas is $4.00 a gallon? I build a bigger engine. Rumpity Rumpity.

(this might be a good time to point out that your Ford had to Jumpstart my Buick at one of the football games this year 'cause we ran down the battery! LOL!)

FirefightnRick · January 17, 2008

(this might be a good time to point out that your Ford had to Jumpstart my Buick at one of the football games this year 'cause we ran down the battery! LOL!)

LOL!!!! That's right, forgot about that one. Since your on a roll about wrench turning I have to ask have you any experience with or knowledge about with the Ford 289? I'm thinking about either rebuilding mine or installing a fresh 302. I know there's weight advantages. But there just doesn't seem to be a lot out there in trying to squeeze out 300 HP from that engine. I know it can be done, I've just never seen it or been around anyone who has.

Rick

yyz28 · January 17, 2008

LOL!!!! That's right, forgot about that one. Since your on a roll about wrench turning I have to ask have you any experience with or knowledge about with the Ford 289? I'm thinking about either rebuilding mine or installing a fresh 302. I know there's weight advantages. But there just doesn't seem to be a lot out there in trying to squeeze out 300 HP from that engine. I know it can be done, I've just never seen it or been around anyone who has.
Rick

The 302 is a better enginge from a standpoint of being able to get power from them, but both are solid motors and if rebuilt properly can go FOREVER. Last time I played with Ford Small Blocks and was shopping the two, the 302 was a less expensive proposition because there were so many of them floating around and the aftermarket is insane for that engine.

What is it in? A truck? The only time I'm a hardass about keeping the 289 is if it is in a Mustang that is SUPPOSED to have a 289. Otherwise, all things being equal, more displacement ALWAYS = More power.

Classic Ford vs. Chevy guys really crack me up. Pound for Pound the Chevy Small Blocks (Gen 1 & 2) and Ford Small Blocks (Gen 1) that you see in most cars until the mid 90's are all solid and cube for cube will make the same power. It's all about the weight & strength of the rotating mass and the heads & cam package being right. They were all great engines. Ford Windsor 351 is a badass, and I know lots of 302 guys that have put stroker kits on their motors to push them to 347. 302 based 347 is a BAD ASS motor, and can be built real cheap.

...302's are also GREAT supercharger motors too!

Bottom line - the 289 you have now is a good motor. If the block is still good (have a machine shop look it over to be sure) there is no reason you can't rebuild it and get the same longevity you'd get with a new 302. ...once you get past reliablity and longevity, assuming they are equal, it's all about performance at that point. Lots of guys getting 300+ HP from the 302, most who want much more than that go with a stroked 302 (347) and a streetable GT40 heads/cam package. That's 350HP easy.

LongJim · January 17, 2008

Very interesting thread this is turning into. I had the Windsor 351 in a 1969 Merc Cougar XR7. BAD ASS is right. Even stock that thing would fry asphalt and breathe fire. I miss the old Ford I6 that they put in their F150's forever. I had the last (1996) model year 150 with that engine, and except for the mileage, that was the sweetest motor in any vehicle I've ever had. The 7.3 PS in my 1996 F250 is a great motor, too. What's in common with them all? You CAN'T GET 'EM ANY MORE! :angry:

yyz28 · January 17, 2008

Very interesting thread this is turning into. I had the Windsor 351 in a 1969 Merc Cougar XR7. BAD ASS is right. Even stock that thing would fry asphalt and breathe fire. I miss the old Ford I6 that they put in their F150's forever. I had the last (1996) model year 150 with that engine, and except for the mileage, that was the sweetest motor in any vehicle I've ever had. The 7.3 PS in my 1996 F250 is a great motor, too. What's in common with them all? You CAN'T GET 'EM ANY MORE!

Ford and GM both have had some great Inline 6's. GM's current one (Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier) is a torquemonster. 275 hp, 295 lb ft stock.

The PS was a good engine. Dodge and Ford always had GM beat in the Diesel dept, until recently. All the Big 3 have good Diesels now.

The Windsor was a great motor. Was a great answer to the Chevy 350, and performed every bit as well (still does) with equal heads and cam. It never enjoyed the aftermarket the Chevy engines did however, and as such isn't nearly as popular as the Chevy Small Blocks, even to this day. But as more purists come about and this hobby grows such that it is, fewer and fewer people are putting Chevy engines into classic Fords because classic Ford motors are starting to see some factory support and an aftermarket.

...remember, GM has ALWAYS had GM Performance Parts, and you have always been able to buy the engine you need for your project anytime straight from the factory. The windsor wasn't available from Ford for years.

The current power revolution is a direct result of the Gen III and Gen IV Small Block GM (Chevy) motors being churned out by the General since 1997. THese motors are refined, but not a total redo. They are lifter and pushrod engines that are making huge power and really prove that the "antiquanted" pushrod motor is every bit as capable of making big power as the overhead cam motors do today.

I currently own a 2000 Z28 Camaro, that had a 346ci LS1 stock. I have rebuilt several LSX motors and built a few new ones from the ground up. The car currently has a 540HP forged 346ci LS6 under the hood. Naturally asperated - no nitrous, no super or turbo charger. I'm making 540HP with pushrods and less than 350 cubes, and I'm not giving up any reliability or longevity that you give up when you put forced induction on a motor. It's all about the heads/cam combo. I also have a 1991 RS Camaro with a carb'ed 383. ...that's my daily driver.

I've torn more cars apart and put more back together than I can even count at this point. ...and it isn't what I do for a living. LOL! I'm a garage monkey.

With the new Camaro coming out next year, the Mustang getting a fresh look and probably a fresh power plant, and the Dodge Challenger slated for late 2008, the Muscle Car wars are back - $4.00 gas be dammed.

LongJim · January 17, 2008

Ford and GM both have had some great Inline 6's. GM's current one (Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier) is a torquemonster. 275 hp, 295 lb ft stock.

Yep. Looked long and hard at a TB to pull my camper last go round. Needed (wanted )a lot more torque, though. Daily driver mileage sucks on those vehicles, but that 6 is a good engine for sure.

The PS was a good engine. Dodge and Ford always had GM beat in the Diesel dept, until recently. All the Big 3 have good Diesels now.

I agree. I would definitely consider the new GM if I was in the market right now, but I love the PS too. I'd probably love the Dodge if I could stomach the appearance. Never have liked their trucks, for whatever reason. The Cummins is a great engine, though, and smooth as silk since its a six!

FirefightnRick · January 17, 2008

z,

My 289 is in a '66 Mustang. It's the 200 horse with a 2 barrel Holley(I didn't put that on there). I wished it was a 'K' code 289, but it's not and have thought about for years making it into one?

Rick

yyz28 · January 17, 2008

z,
My 289 is in a '66 Mustang. It's the 200 horse with a 2 barrel Holley(I didn't put that on there). I wished it was a 'K' code 289, but it's not and have thought about for years making it into one?
Rick

Oh, man... I dunno. I have a hard time taking the 289 out of the 'Stang. Depends on what you want out of the car. For "Restoration" the 289 is the way to go, maybe just a stronger heads/cam/intake/carb combo.

...if it isn't really a restoration cantidate and you want a nice "driver" with some giddy-up (punny, right?) the 302 is hard to beat. A buddy of mine had a '65 that was not restored, but looked nice and was a driver - certainly not garage-kept perfect, but a nice car - and we put a 302 in it when his 289 went south due to availablity and cost, but that was probably 10 years ago now. Purists will say 289, no matter what, but I'm a believer in the application.

What color is your '66? ...and is it a 'Vert, Fastback or Coupe?