First time i seen one as well. Nearest one to me is over 200 miles away.

 

LOL - me neither Barritia to the rescue

 

I used to use e85 every once in awhile in my 03 Sport Trac. The only one I knew of was at a station in Annapolis, MD.

 

There are a lot of gas stations in Metro Detroit with E85. The cost per gallon has fluctuated from about 80% to 100% of 87 Octane E10. Unfortunately, people often get about 60-70% of the fuel economy, so they are using about 50% more fuel to go just as far. It is not cost effective or valuable for most people.

 

It's true that increasing displacement and power can (UNDER CERTAIN DRIVING CONDITIONS) reduce fuel consumption. However, the size and power of the 4.6L is more than enough to already be above that point for NORMAL driving. I'm not sure what your point is here because I have already agreed that the larger engine is the preferred choice if the primary purpose of the vehicle is long distance towing of large loads.

Average drivers use a surprising amount of fuel idling in traffic and warming up their engines and this is where the 3V 4.6L is far more cost effective.

The 3V 4.6L was not offered in earlier model years so i don't know what you're talking about with the "stronger" transmission. In 2009 both the 3V 4.6L and 5.4L come with the six speed transmission.

No, you don't know. It sounds like you are really stretching to try to make the point that a larger engine is going to save you money.

That's debatable and depends upon future fuel prices. I know when gas climbed over $4/gallon the value of vehicles with big blocks was actually lower than those that had smaller engines. I fully expect fuel to make new highs in the future, it's only a question of how long it takes.

You seem unaware that the 3V 4.6L is a different engine than the 2V 4.6L. It makes more power, more torque and is considerably more efficient. We are not discussing the 2V engine!

Time is money (especially if you are running your own business and also if you pay people to drive your trucks and have them serviced/repaired). Why do you think even the stingiest corporations buy new and replace them before reliability starts to add inefficiency to the organization? I am well aware that an individual can save some money buying one or two years old if they have time to look around, negotiate, etc. but that is not what this discussion is about. I was simply saying that one can save a considerable amount of money (both in upfront costs and in operating costs) by buying the 3V 4.6L if they don't need the extra power. And most users don't.

Also, you act as if the $550 is a one time payment. That is only true if the truck is not financed. The actual figure at the Ford Build and Price website is $630. If the truck is financed (and most are) the figure could be even higher. More importantly, you stubbornly pretend that the new 4.6L 3V engine uses the same amount of fuel as the 5.4L which has 17% more displacement. Anyone who believes that is gullible enough to believe anything.

You may realize the time value of money, but many do not. Americans are more in debt now than ever before and I fear many will not have the funds they need to retire with the dignity they expect. Many are surprised to hear their retirement advisors tell them they will not have nearly enough at retirement age. This is often due to wasteful spending (it doesn't matter much whether that wasteful spending is in their owner-operated business or for personal purchases). It does not help to pretend there is not significant cost associated with buying more engine than one may need.

 

Who are you to claim what is "more than enough" for anyone besides yourself?

Neither of us have any data to prove/disprove how much fuel is using idling in traffic. I'll drop it, but know I still disagree.

The 4.6L and 5.4L both used a 4-speed auto from 97-08, but they were not quite the same nor was the size of the rear axle the same (8.8" vs. 9.75"). The torque converts are different in the trans. Even though they appear the same, I do not know if the 6-speed trans and rear axle are the same for the 3V 4.6L in 2009. Since it's been done before, Ford could do it again.

It could, not it will.

While I agree fuel costs are likely to increase again to last summer's levels, we aren't discussing 8-10mpg "big blocks." The 5.4L has a longer stroke than the 4.6L and uses the same block. The relative resale value of less fuel efficient vehicles fell more than the resale value of more fuel efficient vehicles. So your theory would work if the 4.6L and 5.4L got different fuel economy when standardized testing and real owners on here for the last 13 years have proven otherwise. Did you look the window sticker of a a new F-150 with the 5.4L and 3V 4.6L yet? What data do you have to refute that the same driver using the same driving style disproves the EPA's findings?

As I said, it is not a matter of need. It is a matter of value. What facts do you have that the 3V 4.6L will have better reliability than the 5.4L? They are both quite good and the whole modular V8 family has been quite reliable since 1991 when it hit the market.

When was the last time you saw someone pay close to MSRP for a full sized pickup? Invoice price according to KBB is $523 for the 5.4L upgrade over the 4.6L 3V. I guess I was still quoting too high.

What facts do you have to prove otherwise? I've given mine and you clearly have little understanding of engine design. Different intake, cams, valves, heads, etc all play a factor in power and fuel consumption. If the 5.4L were designed to use exactly 17% more fuel under the same driving characteristics. everything would scale by the 17% displacement. So, power of the 5.4L should be 341hp/374ft-lb to get the same specific fuel economy. But it isn't which means Ford changed some things to give more power, a little broader torque curve, and higher specific fuel economy. The term specific means per displacement.

BTW, ever look at the Chrysler 4.7L vs. 5.7L? Very different engine designs, but the 5.7L is actually more fuel efficient by the same 1mpg highway when used in the same vehicle and same trans/gear ratio. Oh wait, Toyota is the same 1mpg better on the highway for its 5.7L over its 4.7lL V8.

I cannot argue with your value system and what you think is "significant cost." I do not consider 0.5mpg average in mixed driving and $523 up front significant when considering spending $30k+ on a new vehicle.

 

I didn't say the 4.6L 3V had more than enough for "anyone", I said it had more than enough for NORMAL driving. Who am I to claim that?

I have over a million miles and have driven trucks professionally that had far less power and more weight than the F-150. I've also driven just about every major iteration of the F-150 since the models of the 1950's which were truely anemic by modern standards. The 2V 4.6L with the 4-speed auto WAS rather anemic but the 3V 4.6L with the six speed was worlds apart and more than adequate for normal driving. Not only does it have more power and torque but the six speed transmission makes much better use of it.

The 5.4L uses the same six speed transmission as the 4.6L 3V. I believe the 5.4L is available with a larger rear axle with higher load capacity (not available with the 4.6L) and I believe the standard axle is the same (but I am not sure). Regardless, this has to do with load capacity, not longevity because they should both last far longer than the first owner will keep the truck.

The 3V 4.6L is a new offering for 2009, it is more efficient and more powerful than the old 2V engine so it can't be compared to the results from the last 13 years. What is it about that that you don't understand?

Of course, but the EPA stickers do not reflect reality. The data comes from a stationary dyno and complex calculations, not from real road tests. The EPA system has been gamed by domestic manufacturers to favor larger engines and, in 2008, the EPA changed the test procedures to further advantage large engines. All the MPG ratings went down in 2008 but smaller engines went down more.

I didn't say one engine was more reliable than the other, I said the smaller engine costs less to repair. It also has more clearance to work on. Both engines should be relatively reliable but it wouldn't surprise me if the newer engine was built on a production line with newer equipment and higher tolerances.

The 4.6L 3V has a bore and stroke of 3.55x3.55. The 5.4L is undersquare at 3.55x4.16. It is long recognized that a slightly oversquare engine has the most efficient combustion chamber geometry. That is why modern engines have moved towards an oversquare configuration. Personally, for a truck engine, I like the fact that the 4.6L is not over or undersquare. But the 5.4L is definitely on the "long" side of combustion chamber efficiency.


I'm not familiar with the specifics of those engines so I won't comment except to say that you sure seem to put a lot of trust in the EPA formulas and test procedures when they are well known to favor larger engines.


In the real world the actual fuel economy difference is more than 0.5 MPG for most people regardless of what the EPA says. Even 1 MPG difference would reduce your fuel bill by over 6% annually and that is very significant in terms of saving for retirement if you drive a typical amount each year. And so is the upfront cost, even if the amount is only $523 (which incidently does not provide the dealer with any profit on the engine upgrade). Ford has a higher margin on the 5.4L engines because it probably only costs $100 or so more to make the larger engine.

Hey, if you are comfortable with your retirement savings and don't mind burning a few more gallons of gas, then by all means, get the bigger engine even if you don't need it. Just don't try to fool yourself or others into thinking there is not a significant cost associated with it.

 

Enough for your normal driving, but enough for mine? How do you know?

Have you driven the new 4.6L 3V back to back with the 5.4L? Do you notice a difference?

The 4R70W used in the 97-03 F-150's appeared to be the same between 4.6L and 5.4L, but the torque converter was different, as you said to handle the additional torque of the 5.4L. Ford's cheap and could do it again. Yet, if someone has the 5.4L and never uses the extra torque, he uses a lower percentage of the capacity, the life of the trans will be longer, all else equal.


For all your experience, you don't have much wisdom.


I cannot make this point any more clear. You do not understand the purpose of the EPA's fuel economy testing and have a skewed understanding of its purpose. Your points may be valid for CAFE, but not for the EPA testing itself.

Sources or guesses?


I rely on the EPA testing, my own experience and that of many others I read on here. It seems you rely on conspiracy theory.

 

The fact that you do not recognize the difference between an engine with 2 valves and one with 3 valves per cylinder pretty much ends our discussion.

It was a pleasure until now, thanks.

 

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Do you even know WHEN I was looking for the truck I have now?

 

Are you on drugs?