looked at a 2009 XLT supercrew on sunday , anyone have any info on the 292hp motor instead of the 5.4? just going to be a daily driver with some light towing on the weekends - jet skis, atvs, maybe a 20 ft grady white. thanks

 

That's the motor I want, almost the same HP and torque as the 5.4L but better economy and less weight up front. The 2V 4.6L doesn't improve upon the fuel consumption of the 5.4 much but the 3v engine is cleaner burning and more modern.

It might not seem like a big deal now with $2 gas but when it rises over $4 again (and it will) the 3v 4.6L with the 6 speed will be the one to have. The only reason I would get the 5.4L is if the primary use was heavy towing. But the 6 speed has a lower 1st and will work well for most towing needs.

 

Dont for get the 09 will also burn E85 as well if you have a station in the area. So if the gas does jump up the less efficient E85 which here in my area never went above 3 bucks a gallon.

 

They've had the 3v 4.6 in the Mustangs since 2005 so they have most of the bugs worked out of them by now. Granted, it's not quite the same, but I've managed to get 27mpg on an interstate trip in my 07 GT. Overall it's a pretty good motor, just has the same injector tick that the 5.4 does so it's a little noisy.

 

The EPA fuel economy ratings of the 3V 4.6L are the same as the 3V 5.4L with the same drivetrain (trans/axle ratio). I don't know how 320ft-lb is almost 365ft-lb an regular or 390 with E85. Check out the mods people do and how much it costs to get 45 more peak ft-pounds of torque and even more below 3000rpm (5.4L has a broader torque curve than either 4.6L). $630 is a bargain for the 5.4L over 3V 4.6L. The SFE model with 3.15 axle ratio gets 1mpg better.

 

If I were you, I would get the 5.4. Mileage will be the same; I get 17 MPG mixed and 20 MPG Hwy with my 09 5.4 Screw.

Resale value will also be better.

With all that being said, I have heard only good things about the 4.6 3v

 

First of all the two engines are NOT rated the same by the EPA. Regardless of the drivetrain the 3V 4.6L has a higher EPA MPG rating than the 5.4L (both have six speeds, the choice is RWD or 4WD). You are probably thinking of the 2V 4.6L which is inherently less fuel efficient (and less powerful) than the 3V model.

Secondly, the EPA ratings are fantasy because the numbers are based on politically motivated formulas. In the real world the similar engine with 17% more displacement is always going to use more fuel idling and also when lightly loaded. In fact, the larger engine will consume about 12-15% more fuel when idling. Even if the real world fuel economy difference were only 1 MPG on average, that would translate into a 6% savings in annual fuel costs.

Don't even quote the performance figures for running E85 because regular old gasoline achieves more than 30% better economy and I don't know anyone who regularly uses ethanol for that reason. Plus, I don't think I've ever seen it west of the Rockies (although I'm sure it's available somewhere, just not where I go). But who wants to pay the price?

If you actually need that much power then the difference between the two engines would be significant. But those who do not buy the truck primarily to tow large loads long distances really don't need the extra torque or power, especially with the new 6-speed transmission which has a much lower first gear and a gear ratio between the 4-speeds 1st and 2nd gear. Torque to the rear wheels is what matters most and the 6 speed provides it. At high speeds with large loads and/or windage, the peak hp is what determines the maximum speed you will be able to carry on a grade and the 5.4L only has 6% more HP than the 3V 4.6L.

The 3V 4.6L has more power and torque than the most powerful gas engine offered not long ago (unless you wanted one with a supercharger, LOL!). I wonder how people got by.

In summary, the hp of the 3V 4.6L is only 6% less and the torque is only 12% less (which the 6 speed transmission renders relatively moot for most purposes). And don't believe the EPA MPG calculations, real world numbers are what matters. There is no way that two engines with the same basic design are going to get the same MPG when one has 17% more displacement, especially considering the amount of time most people spend idling. The EPA numbers do not account for typical idling and traffic.

I'm not saying the 5.4L is not the choice if the primary purpose is long distance hauling but the advice for everyone to get the biggest engine regardless of the purpose of the truck makes me wonder if anyone understands what makes a good work truck. The bigger engine has advantages but it costs more upfront, costs more to operate and it costs more to work on. I don't know in what world this doesn't matter.

Maybe those who have no debt and have already saved enough for a comfortable retirement don't mind the extra expenses but for most people the extra costs are significant. Over time those extra costs could determine what kind of retirement one might have. I can't imagine the smaller engine having such a big negative impact on ones life.

 

Get the 5.4. I've driven both and the 5.4 just plain drives better. Plus the 5.4 has better resale. When I was looking for my truck I would not even consider a 4.6.

 

They didn't even offer the 3V 4.6L when you were looking for your 2006 F-150.:o

 

5.4l

 

I was wrong. The 4.6L 3V gets 1mpg better on the hghway, same in the city as the 5.4L 3v. Take a look at www.forddirect.com at the window stickers of
some trucks on your local dealer lots. So if one drives all highway, he could see one MPG better.

You get exactly zero MPG when stopped/idling. Idle uses almost the least amount of fuel of any operating conditions (least is decelerating), something like 1% of the fuel used to keep no load than normal acceleration. If you think you could idle your truck for more than a couple minutes and are concerned with fuel costs, shut it off! Since most people use 1000 times more fuel driving than idling, your point has little value. Oh, it should be closer to 17% as it should scale with the engine size of the same design.

However accurate the EPA ratings are to any person's actual driving environment is irrelevant. The important fact is that the same test is executed between every vehicle to compare how vehicles under the same driving conditions. If person A tends to get close to EPA city mileage in one vehicle, he will most likely get close to EPA city in another vehicle because of how he drives. It is very useful for comparing multiple vehicles to each other, not necessarily as an accurate representation of what you will get.

I agree. E85 is not an economical option, but it does have a higher octane rating, burns cleaner (emmisions), and can get more engine power from it.

 

It is never about need. Buying a new truck is not even a need. My point is the value of the 5.4L is great. As I already said, 45ft-lb more peak torque at a lower engine speed. Also, the 5.4L has a broader torque curve so at 2000rpm, the delta between engines is more like 75ft-lbs. Wish I had the engine torque curves to back that up.

Do you know how much a 1995 F-150 weighs vs. a 2009? The 2004 F-150 actually had more weight to move around than the 15ft-lb of torque it added, and the peak torque is 1000rpm higher. So under 4000rpm the 40hp improvement is never utilized. So much for evolution.

Have you ever read on here how some people change increase their axle ratios by 15-30% and actually increased fuel economy? Increasing displacement and power can under certain driving conditions reduce fuel consumption. It won't get into why as there are whole college courses on engine design that can explain it. If you care, you can search for BSFE and BMEP.

I'm not where where you live, but I don't idle much in my 30 mile commute. Some stop lights here and there, but a mix of accelerating and stopping on secondary roads and freeways which use way more fuel than idle.

I already said the costs, $550 up front and on average no extra fuel for the F-150 for the past 13 years for choosing the 5.4L over the 4.6 with the same trans/gearing. If you want to get into the details, the 5.4L has come with the larger rear gear (9.75" vs. 8.8") and stronger transmission up til at least 2008. So, one could have less maintenance costs with the larger engine/trans/gear because he uses a lower percentage of its capacity. I don't know what the 4.6L 3V uses, though. Oh, and the 5.4L should yield half of that up front cost back when he sells it because it is more desirable.

This is not a choice between a V6 and V8. Both V8's of the same engine design trying to move the same amount of weight. I am only discussing the F-150, not any other pickup or vehicle. History has shown that since 1997 the 5.4L gets the same FE as the 4.6L when comparing the same trans gears, axle ratio, and if it has a transfer case or not.

I understand the time value of money. I explained the costs. If one $550 payment (and $300 credit when you sell) affects your retirement so much, then you should probably not be considering a new pickup.

 

Well, I suppose after that I'll throw about the only thing I know out there --> I have NEVER seen a gas station with E85.

 

Just for you Comet

 

[QUOTE=Barritia;3593755]Just for you CometQUOTE]

It's green!