At first I am really disappointed at my mpg's but I have to put things into perspective. Now I want some input and personal experience to get a better perspective. Here is my truck spec.

99 F-150 SC 4x2 XLT Styleside
4.2l V-6 w/ K&N 3.55 rear
HellWig EZ-990's
Wrangler AP's
Glasstite Targa cap

Empty it weighs in at 4600 lbs. So at normal driving it is about 4750 lbs. But I do use this truck for deliveries, and business right now being good, I am almost always lowriding. Lets say that on my heavy deliveries, the truck weighs in at 6200 lbs. I also use this truck for my daily use, pick up/drop off sister at school, to and from college, to the mall with buds, errands upon errands, and heavy deliveries on stop and go conditions. As far as driving habits go, I am light on the pedal, rarely go beyond 3000 rpm's and cruise between 65-70 mph. I usually stick to the freeway and my delivery runs are atleast 100 miles roundtrip. My recent worse mpg was 15.99. And I usually get 16.5-18 mpg's. Is this acceptable?

Leo dC

 

Youre MPG's are actually quite good IMHO.
I wish my truck did that good.
I rarely go over 2500rpm unless a Chevy or Ricer is involed.
For the ricer sometimes 3500rpm is required. hehe

------------------
99 XLT 5.4L reg cab 4x2 120" Wheelbase 4 wheel disc brakes/ABS 5 star larait style wheels Toreador Red/Silver 3.55 gears 255/70/16 OWL Delta toolbox
Eclipse 5340 cd player
Memphis ARCS50 component speakers w/tweeters mounted flush in the door panels (excellent sound)powered by a Sherwood 35x2 RMS amp
Jensen 50x2 RMS for the 2 Audiobahn AWC10 subs
Looking for reasonably priced used running boards
regcab54@sc.rr.com in Columbia SC

 

Good_Guy,

I think you are doing fine with the 4.2 and a load. I have always thought that getting the smaller engine make no difference since the engine works harder than the bigger engines with poor mileage to begin with. That is not always the case. Sometimes I get 10mpg and sometimes I get 17mpg, regardless of load/driving conditions. Once I even got 20mpg. I have written all off as "the truck owning experience". If I get a new truck anytime soon, I am getting the biggest engine and cab available. It's the only way to go. You gotta pay to play!

------------------
seacrow a.k.a. Jason
Sarasota/Bradenton Florida '99 XLT S/C 4.6Romeo, Auto, 3.55 LS, Oxford White, Dark Graphite int., Tow Package, Orlando appearance package (Body color honeycomb grill, mirrors, and Lariat wheels) ARE Hard tonneau cover, Ventvisors and bug guard all painted to match. Back Country black nerfs

www.geocities.com/seacrow_too/seacrow_too.html

98 Explorer XLT SOHC 4.0 V-6, moonroof, 3in1 Stereo, leather

71 GMC 350 4bbl. automatic, PS, uplevel trim

89 Dodge Van, fancy steering wheel cover, radio doesn't work
GO BUCS!!!!!!!!!

 

I live in San Francisco Bay Area and noticed that when I use non-MTBE gas, I gained about 0.5 mpg over fuel with MTBE.

Also, I found that my factory odomemter reads about 7% too slow.

In mixed driving, I rarely got over 16 mpg (indicated on the slow reading odometer) with MTBE laced fuel from Shell, and usually got 15.5 to 15.8 mpg.

Switching to better fuel and adjusting for the odometer error, I get close to 17 mpg.

------------------
1999 XLT S/C, 4.2 V-6, auto, 3.55 rear, dark torreador red/harvest gold, bed liner, Sony 10 disc CD, Edelbrock IAS, K&N filter, soon to Superchip

 

Me too! I think I will go ahead and assume the same Odo so I can get mine up there too.

485!

[This message has been edited by cphilip (edited 12-20-1999).]

 

Cphilip - I verified my odometer was off by multiple trips on a 3 mile odometer test strip. It registered 6.7% slow every time. It was a relief to me, since I was tired of hearing about all those V-8s getting better mileage than my V-6!

Why is my odo off? I really don't know, but I have a theory: As an incentive for buying the V-6, Ford gave me the 255/70/16 tires and aluminum wheels. I think my computer is programmed for the 235 tires.

------------------
1999 XLT S/C, 4.2 V-6, auto, 3.55 rear, dark torreador red/harvest gold, bed liner, Sony 10 disc CD, Edelbrock IAS, K&N filter, soon to Superchip

 

Good_Guy, you're moving between 5,000 and 6,000 lbs and your worst mileage has been 16 mpg??? You're doing damned good!!! I get 11 to 14 mpg with a 5.4L 4x4 SC empty! I think your mileage is as good as some of the guys with the 4.2L get empty. You're doing it with a good sized load.

 

Good_Guy,

I would be happy if I was getting that kind of mileage on a full size truck.

I know a couple of guys that have Ranger's w/4.0 and S10's w/4.3 that get about the same mileage that you are getting. One of them is even turning in his Ranger (Lease) for a 2000 F150 w/V6 because of the small difference in mileage.

 

Talk about putting a smile on my face. I guess its all in the perspective. My mpg's are very crappy when compared to a Civic, but way great when compared to an Excursion. I guess I shouldn't complain much, seems others are having worse mpg's than mine. Although I am very envious of those people that claim 21 easy on a V-8, especially Chevy/GMC owners. By the way, to those living in the SF Bay Area, where do you got the non-MTBE fuel. I like getting as much mpg's as I can, and also don't want to contribute with the poisoning of Lake Tahoe (traced back to the usage of MTBE).

Leo dC

 

Leo, those Chevy/GMC guys... Do you really believe them when they say they're driving the best trucks ever made??? Of course not! So why believe them when they say they are getting 21 mpg?

 

Leo - Chevron has reportedly removed the MTBE from their Bay Area fuel. All I know for sure is I get 0.2 to 0.5 mpg better with Chevron than I had with Shell. By the way, I had experimented with Shell premium and got no better mileage than with regular.

I think your mileage is as good as any full sized truck supercab with automatic. My friend's dad has an XLT SC 5 speed V-6 and gets about 19 highway, lightly loaded. Anyone consistently getting over 20+mpg in a full size truck drives downhill with a tailwind. Pre '97 F150's rarely get over 16 mpg in my experience.

My '92 Ranger Sport long bed 4.0 liter 5 speed got 19-20 mpg, with a best of 22 -23 on I-5, so I would guess a supercab Ranger auto with 4.0 liter would get about 17 or so - about the same as a much heavier F150.

BTW, my '92 Ranger would run rings around my 4.2 liter F150, even though the new truck is supposed to have 30 more horsepower. That little 4.0 had good low end power, and you didn't have to make it scream if you were in a hurry. My bet is that if you could transplant that old 175 hp 4.0 liter into a new F150, it would run better than the 4.2 but get worse mileage.

------------------
1999 XLT S/C, 4.2 V-6, auto, 3.55 rear, dark torreador red/harvest gold, bed liner, Sony 10 disc CD, Edelbrock IAS, K&N filter, soon to Superchip

 

Id say your MPGS are good. When you start hittin 14 or lower, thats bad.

 

I called and spoke to a petrolium engineer last month. I asked him about oxiginated fuel. Either they add methanol or MBTE to oxiginate fuel. The mileage loss is caused by the fuel having less enery per gallon.
Gas: 128,000 BTU/gallon
MTBE: 95,000 BTU/gallon
Methanol: 75,000 BTU/gallon
I think he said they will use up to 20% of either. Methanol will cause the most mpg loss. In the fall (Chicago) my truck loses 2-3 mpg due to winter blend oxiginated fuel. Methanol is the most common around here.

------------------
97 XLT S/C Long Bed 2wd, 4.6 Romeo, 4R70W Trans., 3.55 LS, 181,000 miles

 

There were debates on the usage of MTBE. It seems now everyone knowledgable enough knows that MTBE decreases mileage. But it is supposably evironmentally friendly. The debate is that it is also poisoning lakes and streams and the decrease in mpg's causes people to buy more gas per mile. A one mpg loss calculates to 25 miles for us F-150 drivers. Anybody know why we still have MTBE?

Leo dC