Fuel Economy 2009 or 2010 Ford F150 with 4.6L 3 valve engine?

Discussion in 'Trucks and Trailers' started by joed, Feb 1, 2010.

  1. grassman177

    grassman177 LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 9,795

    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.
     
  2. Lazer Cut

    Lazer Cut LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 906

    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
     
  3. TXNSLighting

    TXNSLighting LawnSite Fanatic
    from DFW, TX
    Posts: 6,462

    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.
     
  4. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 991

    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.

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

    TXNSLighting LawnSite Fanatic
    from DFW, TX
    Posts: 6,462

    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..
     
  6. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 991

    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!
     
  7. unkownfl

    unkownfl LawnSite Gold Member
    Posts: 3,838

    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: Feb 8, 2010
  8. TXNSLighting

    TXNSLighting LawnSite Fanatic
    from DFW, TX
    Posts: 6,462

    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.
     
  9. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 991

    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.
     
  10. joed

    joed LawnSite Bronze Member
    Posts: 1,157

    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.
     

Share This Page