Hey chlyn001, glad to hear your happy with the truck, aside from the poor fuel economy. What are you getting when your not pulling the trailer? Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, my little trailer is 1k lb. and there has been a 2mpg hit when towing it. Without the trailer I was seeing 20-22 mpg this past summer. I towed the trailer once this summer and got 18mpg. Right now, with the oncoming cold, I'm seeing about 18mpg average, no trailer. Your trailer doesn't weight all that much more than mours, so I would think that your mpg hit might be 3 maybe 4. I think that you should be doing better than 12mpg pulling that trailer.

As for driving in the snow, it's been my experience that with the light rear of a pick up, driving in the snow is a little tougher than doing so with a car. I'd try to stay out of the deep stuff when ever you can help it.

 

My usual mileage is around 20 I suppose. If I'm gunning it around town, I won't get even 15, but I have gotten over 23 going "downstream" on the Mississippi River valley I94 freeway from St.Cloud, MN to Minneapolis for 60 or 70 miles, but of course that's without the travel trailer. I'm kinda with you as regards the need for a wind breaker or something on the roof, but otherwise, looking at other posts regarding mileage when towing using other variants of trucks, all towing is liable to make good mileage difficult, but maybe especially if you're going over 60 and the trailer you're towing is bulky. I was just reading some recent posts elsewhere in this F-150 Forum where a guy was getting only 6.9 mpgs with an EcoBoost, but he was towing an RV weighing 7K at 75 mph. Next summer, if I don't see something on the market that will work, I am going to do something makeshift just to see if I can raise the mpgs a bit from the 12mpg I got on my trip. With gas prices as high as they have been lately, maybe I'll just have to start thinking about keeping my RV instate. Seems any savings you get by not renting a room while on the road just goes in the gas tank.

 

Filled up this past Saturday. 18.88 on my calculator. 18.8 on the onboard display. Little bit of lead food killed my mpgs this tank. I've got to try to ease up if I'm going to see improvements. Easier said than done.

 

Winter blend is out too though, don't forget about that.

 

chlyn001,

I'm a mod on a couple of camping websites. One of the things most people neglect to take into account when towing units like those R-Pods is that they are wider than your truck and considerably taller. They look at the shape of the r-pod and think that it will tow easily and not affect mileage as much as a Hybrid or regular Travel Trailer. It just isn't so. At least not that I've seen. The only Travel trailers that truly tow easier are the Airstreams, but then they are a few bucks more than an R-Pod.

The wind resistance is the killer on the highway, not the weight as much.
I have a Hybrid Travel trailer that weighs in about 6500 lbs and I get 10 to 12 depending on the hills.
I don't think the wind breaker on the roof will work for you unless you have a cap and it's placed at the end of the cap.. The cab is too far forward. And that doesn't reduce the drag from the R-pod being wider than the truck.
Oh and I have one of the 5.4's with a 3.73 rear.

 

Filled up again tonight. 20.24 old school math. 19.9 on the lie-o-meter. Went about 427mi on just over 3/4 of a tank.

I was pretty surprized to see this mileage on this tank. For the first 75-100mi I was seeing poor numbers on the lie-o-meter. I had done some more aggressive driving than I usually do. My wife kept making fun of me when I would force a downshift, saying that it was going to hurt my mpg. I'm obviously pretty obsessed and she calls me out on it. She's right though. I was seeing 16-17mpg for the first 100mi. After that I mellowed out and over the rest of the tank I was able to average out to a pretty decent number.

The truck can boogie too. I was in the wrong lane at one point today and to get in the right lane and get to my on ramp I had to jab the throttle pretty hard. It was the first time I've heard a chirp on the 1-2 upshift. It's kind of wierd how at times the PCM will let me tap into the power and other times it wont.

 

Dear witton:

I have enjoyed reading your post on 3.7 liter f-150. I am a tundra owner with the 5.7 and enough power to tow the earth. I am a former owner of a 1996 f-150 with the 4.9. It was a decent truck I kept for 175,000 miles. Since then I have owned two Tundra's.

I have been thinking about my next truck and am considering going back to ford. While walking the dogs this summer I ran into the general manager for our local ford dealership. He recommended the 3.7 motor. I politely told him that I needed a v-8 because of four wheel drive etc. That got me interested in looking into this motor.

I am intrigued by the fuel economy and power. I don't remember longing for more power from my old straight six. I don't really ever tow more than 6,000 lbs. I would need 4x4 and extra cab which they make.

You may have addressed this but after having the truck for some time, are you longing for more power or are you still impressed with its pick up? I realize it won't be like my current truck but I am only getting about 15mpg. If I averaged 18 it would be the best I have ever had.

It appears the ecoboost owners are not getting that great of mileage.

 

forestertundra, I've got to be honest with you. If you are currently driving a 5.7 Tundra, the 3.7 would feel slow to you. You could probably get a pretty consistant 18mpg with it, but you'd have to drive pretty conservative to do so. This 3.7 has considerably more get up and go than the '94 F150 that I purchased new in '95. I did long for power with the '94 but I was in my early 20s. I've had a couple fast F150s, so I understand where this V6 fits in. There isn't the V8 torque. I don't "long" for power so much. I'm not 20s anymore. I do sometimes wish that I could get a little more torque out of this V6. It's rare though and I also realize that that would burn more fuel.

I think that there are a lot of people here getting some pretty good mpg with the 5.0. I would have been more likely to get a 5.0, if I wasn't concerned that gas prices could, necessarily skyrocket, at any given time. I'd prefer the higher torque of a V8 but reason tells me that I've got to compromise with this V6. The 3.7 has adequate power. It's a high revving motor so it makes some noise when you push it, but it goes pretty good for what it is. An EcoBoost would have been nice too, but I wanted a small truck. I looked into the Ranger, the Colorado, the Tacoma and the Frontier. None had the power or fuel economy that could compare to the 3.7 F150. I got the regular cab short bed because I wanted a small truck, and you can't get the EB in a regular cab short bed.

I would think that if you were interested in getting out of a Tundra to get back into an F150, the EcoBoost would be your best option. I understand that many people aren't seeing the EPA estimated fuel economy numbers. Some are though, and I'll bet that it's mostly driving habits that allow them to do so. The EcoBoost should easily give you a consistant 18mpg, if driven conservatively.

I would suggest to you, and anyone who might be thinking of changing vehicles to get better fuel economy, to try something first. Try driving more mellow for a tank of two. See if you can raise that 15mpg to 17. Maybe you could do better than that. If you can adjust your driving habits, you can get decent mpg with a 3.7, or an EcoBoost, or a 5.0. Any vehicle that is driven aggressively is going to get worse mpg than one that is driven conservatively.

 

MPG for my last three tanks on my 4.2L has been 17.75 mpg average. That is probably 50% highway 50% city so Im definitely happy with it. If you don't use your truck for a lot of towing or to haul heavy things on a regular basis I would say go with the V6 and you'll be fine. Otherwise go with the V8. Appreciate your reporting Wittom

 

From everything I read, a 5.0 is going to be the best mileage consistently. Most of the owners on here are reporting very high averages and numerous with 4x4's are even seeing 18-20 highway

 

I think you might be on to something. I am waiting to see more real world mpgs for both the 5.0 & 3.7L.

 

Thanks Witton for your insights. I drive the tundra very easy, have synthetics in all areas etc. One thing that really hurts me was when I switched from P rated tires to BF Goodrich all terrains. That took at least one mile to the gallon. Tires are 60lbs a piece.

I could probably live with the less power as I don't crave it. However, since I am a forester I spend a decent amount of time off road. I do remember my straight six f-150 would get bogged down in mud holes. That when 381 ponies come in handy.

Maybe the 5.0 with a 3:55 rear end would be the trick. I would be tickled to average 18 mpg. I was at the Toyota dealer the other day and noticed a brand new tacoma 4x4 four cylinder 5 speed manual that had an EPA estimate of 18-20. That blew my mind. That is a very small truck, not even an extra cab. That tells me how far ahead ford is with their new motors.

 

Exactly, My 5.4 3V I just took of my heavy 20s for winter I was monitoring my mpg as usual and today the truck was reading 22-25 on the highway at 65. Theses new 5.0's can equal that if you drive conservatively like many of us do. The 2wd 3.55 5.0 are going to be the fuel mileage winners, I have 3.55's on my 2wd '04 and I'll gladly take the great mpg's over faster off the line power.

 

It's too bad there isn't something that did both. Unfortunately any engine is going to burn more fuel to take off faster. Especially when that vehicle weighs over 5k lbs.

Eventually we're all going to be forced, by extraordinarily high fuel prices, to buy and drive small, underwhelming vehicles. It's just a matter of time. Some people continue to say that they are going to pay what it takes to drive a less efficeint vehicle, no matter how high gas prices go. They are going to reach the point when the sound of their stomach grumbling is louder than the sweet sounds of that powerful V8 under the hood. We currently have some good choices for the transition to forced efficency.

I think that now, we should take a little more time to figure out what we want and need our trucks to do. That's what I've done and I've concluded that this 3.7 does the trick for me.

 

I agree, I'm only 20 in college and what not. I plan to keep mien and then when I graduate college I'll buy a camry, fusion esqe car (idk what will be out in a few years) and keep my truck as my toy. Having a commmuter car makes sense, my dad does that. 2009 camry and now a 2011 camry and a 2004.5 Cummins as his baby. That's the way to go