Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-07-2010, 10:56 PM
grassman177's Avatar
grassman177 grassman177 is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: leavenworth, kansas
Posts: 9,786
just to chime in, as long as you are pulling a small trailer it would be fine, anything else and it has no balls. that is directly from a good friend that works for ford.
__________________
all is fair in love and grass! Man, it smells like sheet, do you smell that!!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-08-2010, 07:43 AM
Lazer Cut's Avatar
Lazer Cut Lazer Cut is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern, Ohio
Posts: 905
I beg to differ grassman... my uncle is head of Fords service department in Misouri before transfering to a different job. The 5.4 is a great engine but the 4.6 3 valve is a ballsy engine. I pull 3500-4000 all summer. I have a compact skid steer and tilt trailer 5500lbshooked up to it right now with 400 lbs of salt in the bed. It is little lower than level but tows and STOPS the load just fine. Sure its not going to tow this everyday but I tow a 2k # trailer, 800# grandstand, 400# gravely, misc tools and not to mention seed when necessary and few other things and gas... so usually its 3500# and tows it just fine.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-08-2010, 01:21 PM
TXNSLighting's Avatar
TXNSLighting TXNSLighting is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by grassman177 View Post
just to chime in, as long as you are pulling a small trailer it would be fine, anything else and it has no balls. that is directly from a good friend that works for ford.
you got to be thinking of the 2v..Because coming from a guy who OWNS one, it has plenty of balls. Thats for dam sure. Heresay is worth nothing to me, nor should it to anyone else.
__________________
Ryan

Always a lesson, never a failure.

www.meangreenlawncare.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-08-2010, 04:13 PM
360ci 360ci is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 985
If towing weight is under 6K, the 3V 4.6 would be the one I'd go for, as it would make a better daily driver when not towing and get respectable mileage. The 2V is a good engine as well, be it 50hp light on the 3V but it has better torque characteristics, whereas the multi valve engines thrive in higher rpms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TXNSLighting View Post
you got to be thinking of the 2v..Because coming from a guy who OWNS one, it has plenty of balls. Thats for dam sure. Heresay is worth nothing to me, nor should it to anyone else.
Common now, heresay 'evidence' is how I was kept outta jail!
...kidding!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-08-2010, 05:16 PM
TXNSLighting's Avatar
TXNSLighting TXNSLighting is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by 360ci View Post



Common now, heresay 'evidence' is how I was kept outta jail!
...kidding!
hahahahaha!!!

O and i drove a 2v, and boy would i never buy one of those for any kind of towing. That was one gutless truck..
__________________
Ryan

Always a lesson, never a failure.

www.meangreenlawncare.com
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-08-2010, 08:34 PM
360ci 360ci is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXNSLighting View Post
hahahahaha!!!

O and i drove a 2v, and boy would i never buy one of those for any kind of towing. That was one gutless truck..
I don't know why Ford just won't either drop it and make the 3V the base engine, or allow the 6 speed to be optional on the 2V. The 2V would probably be adequate if it had the 6 speed behind it. Besides, the 6 speed gets better mileage anyway (according to the EPA). I'd like to see the 3V 4.6L & 6sp in the Econoline. GM has 6 speeds in their 2500 and 3500 vans. Common Ford!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-08-2010, 11:05 PM
unkownfl's Avatar
unkownfl unkownfl is offline
LawnSite Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Orlando/Windermere
Posts: 3,751
I'm talking about my 09 mustang GT with the 3v and 3.55 rear axle. My LX only got about 8mpg and it damn sure wasn't going down the highway with 4.30's. I find it hard to believe the mileage you are getting in your f-150 to be as good as the mileage I get in my mustang. The EPA and Ford says the truck doesn't get over 20mpg. Who's leg are you trying to pull Texas.
__________________

Last edited by unkownfl; 02-08-2010 at 11:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-09-2010, 10:31 AM
TXNSLighting's Avatar
TXNSLighting TXNSLighting is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkownfl View Post
I'm talking about my 09 mustang GT with the 3v and 3.55 rear axle. My LX only got about 8mpg and it damn sure wasn't going down the highway with 4.30's. I find it hard to believe the mileage you are getting in your f-150 to be as good as the mileage I get in my mustang. The EPA and Ford says the truck doesn't get over 20mpg. Who's leg are you trying to pull Texas.
I have no reason to lie about this, why would i?? Thats stupid and pointless to lie about crap. If it got 18 i would say it got 18. And actually the sticker says my truck is rated for 21 mpg. Im giving a HONEST opinion about MY truck and what it is doing. I expected about 18-19 highway on that trip and was quite shocked when my figures came to 21.6. I checked it twice.
__________________
Ryan

Always a lesson, never a failure.

www.meangreenlawncare.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-09-2010, 04:46 PM
360ci 360ci is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 985
Mileage depends on the driver anyway. If I drive my Durango (EPA rated 11/15 city/hwy) at 55mph, I can break 18mpg with it, which is what the EPA tested vehicles at. Some rolling hills help of course, and unless the engine has some sort of cylinder deactivation, you'll get better mileage NOT using cruise control if you're careful.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-09-2010, 08:35 PM
joed joed is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,106
Thanks for all the feedback fellows. I appreciate it. I'm trying to decided between the f150 with the 3 valve 4.6 or a gmc 1/2 ton with the 4.8 or 5.3 engines. According to Transport Canada's data here in Canada, gm's 4.8 L gets 15.9 litres/100 km in the city, the 5.3 gets 14.4 litres/100 km and the ford 4.6 l gets 14.9 litres/100km in the city. I don't know how to change those numbers to mpg. The 4.8 gm engine only has a 4 speed auto. If it had a 6 speed, the figure would be better. I've always been a GM truck guy so I'm little hesitant to go over to ford. Tough choice but fuel economy is #1 for me. I'm not sure about the 5.3 l engine numbers because I've read a few comments where people with the 5.3 L engine are not getting any where near close to the estimated fuel economy.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:14 AM.

Page generated in 0.10634 seconds with 7 queries