Full Size Truck that Does decent at the Pump.

[GeneK]

My 2011 5.0 Mustang is rated at 17/26 (Manual Trans) and gets 22 mpg City. 25-28 mpg in mixed driving and 30.0 mpg @ 65 mph on a recent trip despite optional 3.55 Gears.

I need to add a truck to my Fleet (My old F100 is on its last legs and I sometimes need to haul heavy stuff)). EPA rates the 2011 F150 3.7L at 17/23 mpg. However Ford offers the 3.7L in all three body styles (Regular, Supercab and Supercrew) with 3.55 or 3.73 in RCab and 3.73 in SCab and SCrew. Due to the way EPA does the test (They use the most common combo) its not broken down by Cab or Gear Ratio. So my assumption is that a Supercab with 3.73 was used for the test (As I suspect Ford projects that to be the most common 3.7L with the low sales of regular cabs these days).

Im considering the Regular Cab XL with 3.7L and 3.55. Its about 370 lb lighter and has taller gears. Im assuming that would mean roughly a 18/24 mpg rating if it was tested. I saw a test of the Regular Cab 3.7L (STX) with optional 3.73 and Heavy 18" Wheels and the journalist averaged 21.4 mpg in a 147.3 mile mixed route (City, Small Town, Rural Highway and Freeway) compared to 18.3 in a Chevy and 18.9 in a Ram.

With 0-60 unladen of 7.8 seconds (with full tank and two 175 lb occupants), 11.3 seconds pulling a 2300 lb Cement Mixer and 12.0 seconds with 1200 lb in the bed up a 7% Grade from the 3.7L I dont think i really need the 5.0 to handle my needs.

Is this kind of performance and fuel mileage out of a full-size V6 truck possible or am I just whistlin' Dixie?

[theclencher]

Tightwads have fleets of new vehicles?

[theholycow]

I guess being a tightwad pays off eventually!

As far as performance is concerned there's no need to ask, just test-drive. Most people will say that a V6 full size truck is a terrible idea, although I've heard from a GM owner who says his 5 speed full size with the 4.1 V6 is fine and a couple with automatics who don't seem to mind. Anyway it's totally subjective and the 0-60 numbers may not tell the whole story.

Do check on a Ford truck forum to try to find real world fuel economy. Of course it may be tough to gauge how all the wannabe-racers' results compare to the results you'd get, since the V8 may accomplish their driving more efficiently while a V6 might be more efficient for you.

I wouldn't buy a brand new V6 full size for hauling stuff economically. I'd probably get a used V6 compact pickup and a trailer for bigger loads; that will haul everything that the full size would without a trailer, and then some. For those times you're on the road without the trailer you can carry accessories that let you safely haul loads that normally wouldn't fit in the smaller bed (tailgate extenders, hitch-mounted long load supporters, hitch hauler, ladder racks), and you can upgrade the suspension if necessary.

[dieselmech]

I've driven the eco boost v6 f-150. It will do 90% of all towing/hauling/etc that the average joe will need. It has more hp and torque than a lot of older v-8's which were "fine" back then.
Do you really think 0-60 means ANYTHING in a pick up? Seriously? Anytime a "journalist" compares 0-60 or 1/4 mile of a truck it is laughable, moreso when they praise a truck because it beat another by .7 or whatever.

Truck use;
1) Start and idle reliably
2) Drive to work in traffic and back
3) Haul the 2x4's and plywood home from hardware store
4) Haul the grocery's and kids bikes around
5) Some weekends haul a 4 wheeler/dirtbike/boat.

Don't give me that crap about "this truck will tow 11,000lb's and this one will only tow 10,500lb's".
Where in the above scenario do you see 500-1000lb's towing capacity making the difference in a persons life?
How about 0-60 in 7.5 or 7.0seconds?

People get too wound up in the "my dick is bigger than yours" mentality. That's why we have 400hp and 800lb ft diesel engines in pick ups now.
I see guys all the time with programmers on their new trucks. "Now it's got 700hp!!" I always laugh and ask, did you ever require full throttle before you modded it? The answer is ALWAYS no.

If your looking for a full size truck with enough power and the best possible milage? Go with the eco boost. Drive all three (ford dodge chev, stay away from the tundra) and then pick the one that you like best.
Personally, I don't like the chev, the dodge is ok as a diesel, for gassers, the ford is it hands down.

Oh, and that other 10% that the v-6 turbo won't satisfy? They should be going 3/4 or 1 ton anyway if their loading their trucks that much. (bigger brakes,suspension,steering,etc)

[trollbait]

If new is preferred, how long can you wait to get a replacement?
Ford is going to offer the 3.5 Ecoboost in the 2011 F150. It will be at the higher end of the price spread, but may rival your Mustang in power and fuel economy.

Mahindra's diesel received emission certification from the EPA not too long ago. Which, I believe, was the final hold up. It's midsized, close to the Tacoma in fact. Likely closer is size to the your F100 than the new F150. Their site is claiming a 30mpg highway, but I hadn't seen any official numbers yet.

The only true compact for the past several years was the Ranger, and 2011 is it's last year. The 4.0L is the only V6 available. While rated for towing 3 tons, its economy is about the same as the 5.0 in the F150. I had the 3.0L in a 4x2 with 4x4 sized tires and suspension. The class III hitch was rated 3500, and the truck higher. I averaged 22 mpg with automatic. That's with FASing at lights and EOCing (wouldn't recommend) on a couple of stretches. The manual will do better, and seems easy enough to find. I've seen claims that the 3L Vulcan got better mileage at around 3000rpm on Ranger sites. I don't see how, and testing it wasn't possible with the auto.

[theholycow]

I think that mid-size Mahindra is still going to be equipped and rated for very heavy work though, right? So if you're hauling heavy stuff that doesn't take up much space (rocks, bricks, roofing shingles) it's as capable as a full size, but you'll feel the limit if you haul stuff that doesn't fit in the slightly smaller bed of a mid-size.

Will it have enough width between the wheels to stack plywood flat on the bed floor?

[Jay2TheRescue]

The Mihandra sounds decent, but I'm unsure of a vehicle made in India.

[GasSavers_Erik]

Depending on how often you need to haul heavy stuff, your Mustang should be able to pull a trailer quite well and you already know that it is capable of good mpg. You could likely get a bolt on hidden hitch for less than $500 and a medium sized new trailer with brakes for less than $2.5K (a used one for about $1K).

I love using my trailers for my occasional hauling needs.

[dieselmech]

Mahindra, pffft! They've been saying "next year" for what 4-5 years now?
I guess it depends on what you want the truck for. If a trailer behind a mustang will suit you, then you don't need a truck. If you WANT a truck and WANT the best possible milage, get a ecoboost f-150. If you can wait a year or two, there's a real good possibility a ranger or f-100 replacement is coming.Also (again they've been saying for a couple of years but still) dodge has finally built and tested a v-6 diesel for the 1/2 ton market to join both ford and gm. None are for sale yet, but if fuel prices keep going up it could be the incentive they need. Well, not could be, it IS the reason all three are waiting. Emissions are able to be passed, it's just the market isn't there for a 1/2 ton diesel with a $5000 mark up for the diesel engine.

1) trailer for mustang
2) eco f-150

[GeneK]

3.5L Ecoboost:
1. Worse fuel mileage rating than the 3.7L
2. Cost $2,050 (Required $300 Longbed + its a $1750 Option)
3. I dont need 11,300 lb trailer towing capacity.

3.7L
1. 302 bhp and its no cost
2. 5500 lb tow rating with 3.55 or 6,000 lb with $50 3.73 Upgrade,
3. Best fuel mileage rating of any full size truck (Better than a lot of compacts)

Who am I kidding I will likely end up buying a used 4.6L.

PS By heavy I meant 1000+ lb payload or 5000 lb utility trailer. I didnt mean a 14'000 lb fiver.