Agreed. On both.

I don't think it would sell well enough to focus dollars on building it and marketing it.

At the same time, it'd sure be better on MPG.

Best bet is to stay with what you have now and wait for the next redesign in 2014 or 2015. Guaranteed Ford does everything they can to reduce weight, drag, etc to increase MPG as much as they possibly can, while still trying to maintain enough capabilities to not lose buyers (some would migrate to Super Duty for work purposes if necessary, but others would migrate to competitors too, so it's a fine balancing act to get it just right).

I bet at next years (2012) NAIAS you see the next all-new Fusion and probably a freshening of the Taurus (along with more Escape & C-Max PHEV talk if they haven't hit market by then), and at the 2013 NAIAS you finally hear talk or see prototype's of the next pickup. It's still a massive seller for them, so they'll want to keep quiet for competitive reasons as long as they can. Can't blame them, now that their products are so far superior to everyone else's out there.

 

back to the subject.....15 and 21 is decent for a truck this big......

 

Actually, if you look at the WHOLE PICTURE, these MPG numbers ROCK! In the truck world, towing is king - and you can't tow effectively without low-end torque. So let's ignore Ford's new 6.2 for a moment, and concentrate on the previous half-ton torque champion... the GM 6.2 V8. (Ford's V10 is only available in the F450 and up, so it doesn't apply here.)

The GM 6.2 V8 requires premium fuel to generate 417 lb-ft, at what... something like 4200 RPMs...??? Do you REALLY want to tow there? And what fuel economy does it get? Oh yeah, and that's only available with the 3.42 rear end, right?

Now Ford offers a V6, with more torque across a broader RPM range, a 3.73 rear end if you want it, only needs regular fuel... AND gets better gas mileage on top of it all.

This is quite an accomplishment. Way to go, Ford!

 

...and if you don't like the EcoBoost idea, Ford still has you covered with more HP and torque from their own 6.2 V8.

 

In July, I drove my 2011 Eco with 5,000 mi to start from St. Paul, MN to Yarmouth, NS, CA about 2,000mi. St. Paul to Milwaukee- hills most of the way and at 72mph- I was at 19.9 mpg. Muskegon, MI to London Ont- flat-75 mph- went down to 18.2. London Ont to St. John NB- combination flat 1/2 and mountains 1/2 - 72 mph- got back up to 18.5 OVERALL. Not overly impressive given the hype. I will see what it is on the back trip this month. I am pretty sure the mpg's listed are at the speed limit. I am hoping for better as the engine gets worn in- soon!

 

Get the speed up to 70-75 and yeah your mpg drops....which truck doesn't?
EPA mpg ratings are not done at that speed so why expect the high mpg numbers at high speed?
It's not that difficult....if you want better mpg numbers slow down!

 

I can pull 21 / 22 on the highway in my 4X4 Plat doing 60~66 if I move it up to 70 it drops to 19 / 20 if I am on back road (streets) I can get 24 is on the way home but all street I get about 17.

Previous truck was an 04 F150 4X4 SCREW and it would pull 14.3 no matter what I am VERY HAPPY!

 

TexasJeff- I noted that the Owner's manual suggests using high-test when towing. I haven't towed the trailer (6x12x6 enclosed cargo) but am hoping that the hieght will help me. The the 4.2 Tundra, I got 8-10, with the 5.4 Nissan Armada (higher than the Tundra) I got 10-12. Next yearwill will take the trailer east and see what the F-150 gets. All trips were at 70+ to the wind drag is the critical MPG component.