It was a good review, of a SCab Lariat, but he had three problems with the truck:

1. they got 18MPG on there truck, BAD!
2. they had to get into the pan of the truck to get anything out of it.
3. something about not having auto four wheel drive or something, i'm not sure what he was saying, just that if he had the truck in 4x4 on pavement and went to make a slow sharp turn he claimed that it would damage the truck some how....

anybody got any ideas about this....

 

How is 18 MPG bad?

 

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

Obviously a review we dont need to be concerned with.

 

That's the same thing I was thinking. But, I know there's no way in hell you should be getting 18mpg on a 300hp 5.4L engine. However, the F-150's engine has all ready been dyno'd and is only producing around 235 horsepower. Talk about over-estimating on Ford's part. Unless that's 18mpg highway and not city

 

Ofcourse 235 is at the rear wheels, due to normal drive train loss. The new Hemi actually has less HP at the rear wheels than the new F-150. 18 MPG is obtainable on hwy easily. I think that is quite acceptable for the nearly 3 ton ride with 300 hp.

 

hey whitesnake, let me break this down for you....

the pan is the "box" of the truck, if you put a bag of groceries in the back of the truck, u cannot just reach over the side and get it with your arms, u need to jump up on the tire and hop into the "PAN" of the truck to retrieve your frozen pizza.

The real reason for the post was to deal with the 4x4 issue they raised. y cannot u safely turn on pavement with the 4x4 engaged? Is it like an ATV quad in 4x4 makeing a turn and the whole bike jumping and tires squeeling and so on and so forth?

 

Looks like the 5.4 is indeed putting out the advertised horsepower numbers of 300hp. For an automatic transmission it is normal to lose between 20% to 25% of the horsepower and thus if you dyno you would see approx. 225hp to 240hp at the rear wheels with a motor putting out 300hp at the flywheel.

With a manual transmission you typically lose 15% to 17% of the horsepower from the flywheel to the rear tires…

 

No over estimating at all. All makes rate their horsepower at the flywheel not the rear tires. When you dyno you get the horsepower at the rear wheels, "after" the 20% to 25% losses I mentioned above...

 

The auto 4wd comment is referring to the lack of an option for a feature called ControlTrac (on the Expedition) and AutoTrac (on Chevy's Silverado). It allows you to choose a setting that keeps the truck in 2wd until a sensor detects wheelspin and then sends power to all four wheels. It then goes back to 2wd seemlessly. It's a very useful thing to have in the rain and , of course, snow. I, too, wish it were offered.

18 MPG would be sweet! What's with that complaint?

 

Thanks mxz600, I thought about that, then wondered if they meant modding the engine somehow. Never theard the bed called the pan though.

Gotta go get my frozen pizza out of the oven no joke.

 

18mpg is certainly not bad.

My 2003 Expedition 4x4 gets 18mpg at 70mph - I was quite impressed. Certainly, an F150 could do the same.

 

I've been getting a pretty constant 15.5 mpg out of my Lariat Screw that now has 3k miles on it. Most of my driving is steady cruising on open highway, at 75 mph. Climbing up to 7k feet one direction of my 65 miles commute, and coming back down to 5k feet on the way home. The regular gas we get around here is 86 octane, which Ford says they don't recommend even at the higher altitudes, so I generally use the mid-grade octane of 88, which I figure reduces my mileage a bit. I think the elevation the truck lives at has an awful lot to do with mpg. The injection system accounts for the thinner air, and sends less fuel to the cylinders. You get less power, but also use less gas, whereas at sea level you're getting more gas and power, so probably are getting fewer mpg, but maybe having more fun.

 

At 6'4" tall (and handsome I might add), I can easily reach in the bed of 04 F150's. So this silly "pan" issue doesn’t apply to me.

TheRealist

 

OK, i just saw the show again, a rerun of course, and he said that the truck gets 18L/100kms, remember, were in canada, that works out to 12 dollars do drive 100kms at a gas price of .66cents a liter, well, where i live its .88 cents a liter so it would take me 16 dollars. Oh bye the way, 18L/100km works out to 16MPG.

OK, so anyway the 4X4 problem he had was indeed that there was no auto four wheel drive, but more importantly, the grip he had with the 4X4 system was that when in four wheel drive, it locks the center differential, so when taking a turn, the inside rear wheel will spin, and that is ok on gravel or snow, but on pavement it will do damage, to either your wheel, or drive mechanisms.