What Engine for 4x4 SuperCrew
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 3
From: Linn, MO
If someone only drives 70mph on the highway unloaded for every tank of the truck's life, yes 2 gallons per fill up would be wasted picking the 5.4L. However, that driver should not drive a 3 ton pickup as any number of 40+mpg vehicles serve the same purpose. Practically, most people who buy trucks and even drive a mix of city/highway would likely see less than 0.5mpg difference unloaded, and no difference or better FE towing/hauling.
Now, to figure actual fuel costs, using the data from fueleconomy.gov. This is using the combined numbers:
5.4 L
6.7 gallons per 100 miles
4.6L
6.2 gallons per 100 miles
If a person drives 15000 miles per year the total fuel usage is:
5.4L: 1005 gallons
4.6L: 930 gallons
That is a difference of 75 gallons per year.
Now, at $2.559 / gallon, that is a difference of $192/year, or about $16/month. If gas goes back up to $4.00/gallon, that goes up to $300/year, or $25/month.
So, that is $16-25/month that you are throwing away by buying the 5.4 over the 4.6 if you don't need it. It may not seem like a lot, but for someone buying a new truck and adding that (plus the higher insurance cost of a larger engine, plus higher registration fee due to the larger engine) to the truck payment may be a big difference.
That is my opinion. I won't argue against the 5.4 for a person who is planning to tow or frequently carry large loads, but for everyday driving and the occasional light load in the bed, the 4.6 is more than capable and a less expensive option. If you want a hot-rod truck to bark the tires off the line and race other trucks, then get the 5.4 and slap a supercharger on it.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,514
Likes: 0
From: Southern, CA
Then why don't we all drive 12L engines with 1000 lb-ft of torque? We would all be getting 50 MPG or something crazy like that in the city.
The original poster wants a truck, so those 40+ mpg vehicles don't fit his needs. And he doesn't tow, so the 'no difference or better FE towing/hauling' argument means nothing.
Now, to figure actual fuel costs, using the data from fueleconomy.gov. This is using the combined numbers:
5.4 L
6.7 gallons per 100 miles
4.6L
6.2 gallons per 100 miles
If a person drives 15000 miles per year the total fuel usage is:
5.4L: 1005 gallons
4.6L: 930 gallons
That is a difference of 75 gallons per year.
Now, at $2.559 / gallon, that is a difference of $192/year, or about $16/month. If gas goes back up to $4.00/gallon, that goes up to $300/year, or $25/month.
So, that is $16-25/month that you are throwing away by buying the 5.4 over the 4.6 if you don't need it. It may not seem like a lot, but for someone buying a new truck and adding that (plus the higher insurance cost of a larger engine, plus higher registration fee due to the larger engine) to the truck payment may be a big difference.
That is my opinion. I won't argue against the 5.4 for a person who is planning to tow or frequently carry large loads, but for everyday driving and the occasional light load in the bed, the 4.6 is more than capable and a less expensive option. If you want a hot-rod truck to bark the tires off the line and race other trucks, then get the 5.4 and slap a supercharger on it.
The original poster wants a truck, so those 40+ mpg vehicles don't fit his needs. And he doesn't tow, so the 'no difference or better FE towing/hauling' argument means nothing.
Now, to figure actual fuel costs, using the data from fueleconomy.gov. This is using the combined numbers:
5.4 L
6.7 gallons per 100 miles
4.6L
6.2 gallons per 100 miles
If a person drives 15000 miles per year the total fuel usage is:
5.4L: 1005 gallons
4.6L: 930 gallons
That is a difference of 75 gallons per year.
Now, at $2.559 / gallon, that is a difference of $192/year, or about $16/month. If gas goes back up to $4.00/gallon, that goes up to $300/year, or $25/month.
So, that is $16-25/month that you are throwing away by buying the 5.4 over the 4.6 if you don't need it. It may not seem like a lot, but for someone buying a new truck and adding that (plus the higher insurance cost of a larger engine, plus higher registration fee due to the larger engine) to the truck payment may be a big difference.
That is my opinion. I won't argue against the 5.4 for a person who is planning to tow or frequently carry large loads, but for everyday driving and the occasional light load in the bed, the 4.6 is more than capable and a less expensive option. If you want a hot-rod truck to bark the tires off the line and race other trucks, then get the 5.4 and slap a supercharger on it.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 3
From: Linn, MO
One thing you forgot to mention is resale value...the 5.4 (for better or worse) is the perceived engine of choice for most buyers...and a dealer is going to allow for that by giving you less at trade in time. That difference would offset some of the operating cost differences in your analysis above. Cheers
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,358
Likes: 1
From: Commerce Twp, MI
fordmantpw,
You are well versed in spreadsheets, but you are skewing the numbers since the EPA uses whole numbers. EPA combined of 16 vs. 15 has a high truncation error (for every vehicle). The numbers are based on 55% city driving and 45% highway, then truncated (not rounded). If you used the actual values of 15.8mpg for the 5.4L and 16.25 for the 4.6L, you'd find one would only use an extra 26.3 gallons over the course of that 15k miles which is a whopping $105/yr or less than $9/mo at $4/gallon of fuel. Is that your worse case, $9 a month when someone is willing to spend $600/mo on a $30k+ truck, 1.5% higher payment? Value = 5.4L has it. Has since 1997. Cash for clunkers (which is based on the flawed EPA combined ratings) is the only valid argument for choosing the 4.6L over the 5.4L, when available in desired trim level.
Need vs. want. Discuss.
One does not need a pickup if not towing or hauling things in their pickup bed. Most mid-sized and larger sedans can carry 5 adults and luggage.
You are well versed in spreadsheets, but you are skewing the numbers since the EPA uses whole numbers. EPA combined of 16 vs. 15 has a high truncation error (for every vehicle). The numbers are based on 55% city driving and 45% highway, then truncated (not rounded). If you used the actual values of 15.8mpg for the 5.4L and 16.25 for the 4.6L, you'd find one would only use an extra 26.3 gallons over the course of that 15k miles which is a whopping $105/yr or less than $9/mo at $4/gallon of fuel. Is that your worse case, $9 a month when someone is willing to spend $600/mo on a $30k+ truck, 1.5% higher payment? Value = 5.4L has it. Has since 1997. Cash for clunkers (which is based on the flawed EPA combined ratings) is the only valid argument for choosing the 4.6L over the 5.4L, when available in desired trim level.
The original poster wants a truck, so those 40+ mpg vehicles don't fit his needs. And he doesn't tow, so the 'no difference or better FE towing/hauling' argument means nothing.
One does not need a pickup if not towing or hauling things in their pickup bed. Most mid-sized and larger sedans can carry 5 adults and luggage.
Last edited by APT; Jun 23, 2009 at 03:42 PM.
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Let me see a picture of that. Sounds like the 4cyl ranger could get that, but not an F-150 even if it has the SFE package. Ford did not advertise the heck out of the 21mpg for no reason.
"SFE trucks are estimated to achieve 15/21 mpg thanks to 18-inch aluminum wheels with low-rolling-resistance tires, which help reduce friction between road surfaces and the truck, and a tall 3.15 rear axle, instead of the standard 3.31, for efficient highway cruising.
The SFE F-150 competes directly with General Motors' recently announced 2009 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra XFE half-ton pickups. The Ford and GM rigs are rated the same 15/21 mpg, but Ford says its SFE F-150 has several notable distinctions compared with the XFE twins. The SFE F-150 tows 500 pounds more, doesn't require a tonneau cover for improved aerodynamics and doesn't require removal of the front chin spoiler if the truck is taken off-road."
http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/new...announced.html
This website shows a best of 20mph highway.
http://www.carsdirect.com/ford/f150/specs
I can appreciate you not wanting to jump on the 5.4 bandwagon but unless cash for clunkers is a huge deal to you, the 5.4 seems like a pretty obvious choice. Little cost upfront and better resale as most people believe the 5.4 is necessary to consider the truck a "real" truck.
Don't get me wrong, the 4.6 3V sounds great with the new tranny but I have yet to drive one, therefor other than on paper I cannot say how good it is, but sounds promising, maybe not too much on a 4wd screw, but on a smaller model for sure.
"SFE trucks are estimated to achieve 15/21 mpg thanks to 18-inch aluminum wheels with low-rolling-resistance tires, which help reduce friction between road surfaces and the truck, and a tall 3.15 rear axle, instead of the standard 3.31, for efficient highway cruising.
The SFE F-150 competes directly with General Motors' recently announced 2009 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra XFE half-ton pickups. The Ford and GM rigs are rated the same 15/21 mpg, but Ford says its SFE F-150 has several notable distinctions compared with the XFE twins. The SFE F-150 tows 500 pounds more, doesn't require a tonneau cover for improved aerodynamics and doesn't require removal of the front chin spoiler if the truck is taken off-road."
http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/new...announced.html
This website shows a best of 20mph highway.
http://www.carsdirect.com/ford/f150/specs
I can appreciate you not wanting to jump on the 5.4 bandwagon but unless cash for clunkers is a huge deal to you, the 5.4 seems like a pretty obvious choice. Little cost upfront and better resale as most people believe the 5.4 is necessary to consider the truck a "real" truck.
Don't get me wrong, the 4.6 3V sounds great with the new tranny but I have yet to drive one, therefor other than on paper I cannot say how good it is, but sounds promising, maybe not too much on a 4wd screw, but on a smaller model for sure.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 3
From: Linn, MO
fordmantpw,
You are well versed in spreadsheets, but you are skewing the numbers since the EPA uses whole numbers. EPA combined of 16 vs. 15 has a high truncation error (for every vehicle). The numbers are based on 55% city driving and 45% highway, then truncated (not rounded). If you used the actual values of 15.8mpg for the 5.4L and 16.25 for the 4.6L, you'd find one would only use an extra 26.3 gallons over the course of that 15k miles which is a whopping $105/yr or less than $9/mo at $4/gallon of fuel. Is that your worse case, $9 a month when someone is willing to spend $600/mo on a $30k+ truck, 1.5% higher payment? Value = 5.4L has it. Has since 1997. Cash for clunkers (which is based on the flawed EPA combined ratings) is the only valid argument for choosing the 4.6L over the 5.4L, when available in desired trim level.
You are well versed in spreadsheets, but you are skewing the numbers since the EPA uses whole numbers. EPA combined of 16 vs. 15 has a high truncation error (for every vehicle). The numbers are based on 55% city driving and 45% highway, then truncated (not rounded). If you used the actual values of 15.8mpg for the 5.4L and 16.25 for the 4.6L, you'd find one would only use an extra 26.3 gallons over the course of that 15k miles which is a whopping $105/yr or less than $9/mo at $4/gallon of fuel. Is that your worse case, $9 a month when someone is willing to spend $600/mo on a $30k+ truck, 1.5% higher payment? Value = 5.4L has it. Has since 1997. Cash for clunkers (which is based on the flawed EPA combined ratings) is the only valid argument for choosing the 4.6L over the 5.4L, when available in desired trim level.
Yes, it does use 55% city and 45% highway. I don't have any hard numbers otherwise for these two engines, so we have to use what we have from the epa.
And a mid-size or large sedan won't help with an occasional move or trip to Home Depot. You don't need a 5.4 for that, but you do need a truck.
Basically, all I'm saying is that there are tradeoffs to buying the 5.4. The 5.4 is a great engine, and is worth it if really using the truck as a truck. The original poster wanted opinions and I'm just making a point...the 5.4 is overkill for a truck used as an everyday driver and the occasional trip to Home Depot or to haul home a new couch.
Were we comparing the previous generation 4.6 (2V), I would say 5.4 all the way. The economy was actually better on the 5.4 then, and the power difference was much greater.
Now, if you want an FX4 or up trim level...you don't have a choice so it's all a moot point!
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
From: Chester, Va
Interesting Reading that is your reasons support your opinions.
I believe the fuel economy based on 55%/45% should be calculated per 100 miles. 55 miles per city mpg + 45 miles per highway mpg, then add the two gallon calculations together and then divide that into 100. I don't believe multipling the % mileage by the mpg then adding them together is correct.
Fuel Economy 302 5.4L 3V 4.6L 3V
City 14 14 14
Highway 18 18 19
55% City + 45% Highway Combined 15.56 15.56 15.88
55% City + 45% Highway
Miles Gals of Gas
55 3.93 3.93 3.93
45 2.50 2.50 2.37
100 6.43 6.43 6.30
1000 64.29 64.29 62.97
I normally drive per year 7500 482.14 482.14 472.27
Cost of Gas for 1 year normal driving
$3.00 $1,446.43 $1,446.43 $1,416.82
Per my calculations I save $30 per year with the 4.6L 3V over the 5.4L or my existing 302. Even if I drive 15000 miles I'll only save $60 per year.
Another item of interest to add to my decision making information. I had been using the window sticker cost of gas, $1900 - $1781, which is a difference of $119 per year for 15000 miles or ~$60 for me.
Roger
When I typed this the columns were aligned, but once posted the columns are not, but edit mode they are aligned.
I believe the fuel economy based on 55%/45% should be calculated per 100 miles. 55 miles per city mpg + 45 miles per highway mpg, then add the two gallon calculations together and then divide that into 100. I don't believe multipling the % mileage by the mpg then adding them together is correct.
Fuel Economy 302 5.4L 3V 4.6L 3V
City 14 14 14
Highway 18 18 19
55% City + 45% Highway Combined 15.56 15.56 15.88
55% City + 45% Highway
Miles Gals of Gas
55 3.93 3.93 3.93
45 2.50 2.50 2.37
100 6.43 6.43 6.30
1000 64.29 64.29 62.97
I normally drive per year 7500 482.14 482.14 472.27
Cost of Gas for 1 year normal driving
$3.00 $1,446.43 $1,446.43 $1,416.82
Per my calculations I save $30 per year with the 4.6L 3V over the 5.4L or my existing 302. Even if I drive 15000 miles I'll only save $60 per year.
Another item of interest to add to my decision making information. I had been using the window sticker cost of gas, $1900 - $1781, which is a difference of $119 per year for 15000 miles or ~$60 for me.
Roger
When I typed this the columns were aligned, but once posted the columns are not, but edit mode they are aligned.
Last edited by RMS05; Jun 23, 2009 at 09:19 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 3
From: Linn, MO
Interesting Reading that is your reasons support your opinions.
I believe the fuel economy based on 55%/45% should be calculated per 100 miles. 55 miles per city mpg + 45 miles per highway mpg, then add the two gallon calculations together and then divide that into 100. I don't believe multipling the % mileage by the mpg then adding them together is correct.
Fuel Economy 302 5.4L 3V 4.6L 3V
City 14 14 14
Highway 18 18 19
55% City + 45% Highway Combined 15.56 15.56 15.88
55% City + 45% Highway
Miles Gals of Gas
55 3.93 3.93 3.93
45 2.50 2.50 2.37
100 6.43 6.43 6.30
1000 64.29 64.29 62.97
I normally drive per year 7500 482.14 482.14 472.27
Cost of Gas for 1 year normal driving
$3.00 $1,446.43 $1,446.43 $1,416.82
Per my calculations I save $30 per year with the 4.6L 3V over the 5.4L or my existing 302. Even if I drive 15000 miles I'll only save $60 per year.
Another item of interest to add to my decision making information. I had been using the window sticker cost of gas, $1900 - $1781, which is a difference of $119 per year for 15000 miles or ~$60 for me.
Roger
When I typed this the columns were aligned, but once posted the columns are not, but edit mode they are aligned.
I believe the fuel economy based on 55%/45% should be calculated per 100 miles. 55 miles per city mpg + 45 miles per highway mpg, then add the two gallon calculations together and then divide that into 100. I don't believe multipling the % mileage by the mpg then adding them together is correct.
Fuel Economy 302 5.4L 3V 4.6L 3V
City 14 14 14
Highway 18 18 19
55% City + 45% Highway Combined 15.56 15.56 15.88
55% City + 45% Highway
Miles Gals of Gas
55 3.93 3.93 3.93
45 2.50 2.50 2.37
100 6.43 6.43 6.30
1000 64.29 64.29 62.97
I normally drive per year 7500 482.14 482.14 472.27
Cost of Gas for 1 year normal driving
$3.00 $1,446.43 $1,446.43 $1,416.82
Per my calculations I save $30 per year with the 4.6L 3V over the 5.4L or my existing 302. Even if I drive 15000 miles I'll only save $60 per year.
Another item of interest to add to my decision making information. I had been using the window sticker cost of gas, $1900 - $1781, which is a difference of $119 per year for 15000 miles or ~$60 for me.
Roger
When I typed this the columns were aligned, but once posted the columns are not, but edit mode they are aligned.
Couple things to remember. The rating for the 302 is the old EPA standard. Probably take 4 mpg off that number to get the new rating.
The numbers on the sticker are rounded numbers. Best to go to fueleconomy.gov to get gallons per 100 miles as it is a bit more accurate than the whole number for mpg.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
From: Chester, Va
Thanks for the tip on the fueleconomy website. Using this numbers the table looks like this:
Fuel Economy 302 5.4L 3V 4.6L 3V
City 14 14.08 14.08
Highway 18 17.857 18.868
55% City + 45% Highway Combined 15.56 15.56 15.90
55% City + 45% Highway Gals of Gas
55 3.93 3.91 3.91
45 2.50 2.52 2.38
100 6.43 6.43 6.29
1000 64.29 64.26 62.91
5000 321.43 321.31 314.56
7500 482.14 481.97 471.84
Cost of Gas for 1 year normal driving
$3.00 $1,446.43 $1,445.91 $1,415.53
Not much different in real dollars. Just nice to have the most accurate information.
I know the ratings have changed over the years, but my 1994 does get 14+ mpg in my regular driving and got about 17 on the highway when I drove it there.
Roger
Fuel Economy 302 5.4L 3V 4.6L 3V
City 14 14.08 14.08
Highway 18 17.857 18.868
55% City + 45% Highway Combined 15.56 15.56 15.90
55% City + 45% Highway Gals of Gas
55 3.93 3.91 3.91
45 2.50 2.52 2.38
100 6.43 6.43 6.29
1000 64.29 64.26 62.91
5000 321.43 321.31 314.56
7500 482.14 481.97 471.84
Cost of Gas for 1 year normal driving
$3.00 $1,446.43 $1,445.91 $1,415.53
Not much different in real dollars. Just nice to have the most accurate information.
I know the ratings have changed over the years, but my 1994 does get 14+ mpg in my regular driving and got about 17 on the highway when I drove it there.
Roger
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,358
Likes: 1
From: Commerce Twp, MI
Where are you getting the 15.8 and 16.25? I'm not seeing them on the fueleconomy.gov site. I was using the gallons per 100 miles, which rounds numbers to the tenth. Not whole MPG numbers as that does skew it. As far as I know, it could be 14.6 for the 5.4 and 16.4 for the 4.6. Right? Actually, using 6.2 and 6.7 gallons / 100 miles, it comes out to 16.12 for the 4.6 and 14.93 for the 5.4. Much greater difference than your "skewed" numbers.
Yes, it does use 55% city and 45% highway. I don't have any hard numbers otherwise for these two engines, so we have to use what we have from the epa.
Yes, it does use 55% city and 45% highway. I don't have any hard numbers otherwise for these two engines, so we have to use what we have from the epa.
www.fueleconomy.gov lists all 3 numbers, EPA city, EPA highway and the combined. The city and highway numbers could be rounded or truncated.
As already mentioned for the 4x4 trucks:
engine city/highway/combined
5.4L = 14/18/15
4.6L 6-spd = 14/19/16
You used the EPA combined for your gallons per 100m, which is truncated to a whole number.
RMS05 is correct. Using my method is not accurate either. Gallons per fixed number of miles is accurate, and shows even less variance between the 2 engines, under 20 gallons different if your driving habits match the EPA at 55% city and 45% highway.
Okay, anyone know why the 5.4L has EPA combined of 15mpg? As RMS05 pointed out in one of his tables (forums don't like tables - screenshots work better), it would be 15.56 vs. 15.88. Maybe the 5.4L is lower than 14.0mpg city and they are using the actual of say 13.723407?
The 4.6L 3v serves as a means only to get people to pay more for the 5.4L (more profit). The cost between the engines alone 2 has to be less than $50, probably closer to $5.
One cannot use another country's fuel economy rating as a comparison to another. The EPA driving cycle is different than the European drive cycle and I do not know what Canada uses. Also, the Imperial gallon unit of measure is about 20% larger than the US gallon.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 3
From: Linn, MO
www.fueleconomy.gov lists all 3 numbers, EPA city, EPA highway and the combined. The city and highway numbers could be rounded or truncated.
As already mentioned for the 4x4 trucks:
engine city/highway/combined
5.4L = 14/18/15
4.6L 6-spd = 14/19/16
You used the EPA combined for your gallons per 100m, which is truncated to a whole number.
RMS05 is correct. Using my method is not accurate either. Gallons per fixed number of miles is accurate, and shows even less variance between the 2 engines, under 20 gallons different if your driving habits match the EPA at 55% city and 45% highway.
Okay, anyone know why the 5.4L has EPA combined of 15mpg? As RMS05 pointed out in one of his tables (forums don't like tables - screenshots work better), it would be 15.56 vs. 15.88. Maybe the 5.4L is lower than 14.0mpg city and they are using the actual of say 13.723407?
The 4.6L 3v serves as a means only to get people to pay more for the 5.4L (more profit). The cost between the engines alone 2 has to be less than $50, probably closer to $5.
One cannot use another country's fuel economy rating as a comparison to another. The EPA driving cycle is different than the European drive cycle and I do not know what Canada uses. Also, the Imperial gallon unit of measure is about 20% larger than the US gallon.
As already mentioned for the 4x4 trucks:
engine city/highway/combined
5.4L = 14/18/15
4.6L 6-spd = 14/19/16
You used the EPA combined for your gallons per 100m, which is truncated to a whole number.
RMS05 is correct. Using my method is not accurate either. Gallons per fixed number of miles is accurate, and shows even less variance between the 2 engines, under 20 gallons different if your driving habits match the EPA at 55% city and 45% highway.
Okay, anyone know why the 5.4L has EPA combined of 15mpg? As RMS05 pointed out in one of his tables (forums don't like tables - screenshots work better), it would be 15.56 vs. 15.88. Maybe the 5.4L is lower than 14.0mpg city and they are using the actual of say 13.723407?
The 4.6L 3v serves as a means only to get people to pay more for the 5.4L (more profit). The cost between the engines alone 2 has to be less than $50, probably closer to $5.
One cannot use another country's fuel economy rating as a comparison to another. The EPA driving cycle is different than the European drive cycle and I do not know what Canada uses. Also, the Imperial gallon unit of measure is about 20% larger than the US gallon.
At any rate, RMS05, let us know what you decide. No matter what you get, I'm sure you will love it.
