Popular Mechanics review Circa1999
With the 2015 back to 99 weight levels, the standard V6 backed by a 6 speed auto may be adequate.
I too test drove a used 2005 SWB 4x4 with the 5.4 3v and a new 2006 Scab 4x4 (in2006)with the 5.4 3v and both appeared to be slower than my 2000Scab4x4. Maybe it was because the max torque was higher up in the rpm range. I was unimpressed at any rate.
I too test drove a used 2005 SWB 4x4 with the 5.4 3v and a new 2006 Scab 4x4 (in2006)with the 5.4 3v and both appeared to be slower than my 2000Scab4x4. Maybe it was because the max torque was higher up in the rpm range. I was unimpressed at any rate.
Looks like Popular Mechanics and me were at the track about the same time.
My stock '99 5.4 ran a best of 15.714 (fifteen years ago
)
I don't have any 0 to 60 calculations on the time slips.
Its a short bed regular cab weighing around 3900 lbs.
That extended cab must add some weight.
That was a good read. As for the brakes, I just don't tailgate.
Ain't hit nothing, ...yet.
My stock '99 5.4 ran a best of 15.714 (fifteen years ago
)I don't have any 0 to 60 calculations on the time slips.
Its a short bed regular cab weighing around 3900 lbs.
That extended cab must add some weight.
That was a good read. As for the brakes, I just don't tailgate.
Ain't hit nothing, ...yet.




