2011 info weariness
#16
10-04-2010, 05:38 AM
Anybody else getting tired of Ford dragging out the release of the info on the 2011 trucks? At first I could understand they were trying to get the excitement built up. But now it is getting old. I'm losing interest. Yes I want a 2011 F-150, and it is good that the 3.5 is making @ or near 400 in both hp and tq, but it is all useless info until I know mpg. Some people have put estimates out that the 3.5 will get 3-4 mpg more than the 5.0 with our gas prices they way they are it would have a payback rate of less than 30k miles, but we don't know since the real numbers haven't been put out.
Ford also seems interested in keep the American buyers in the dark as far as pricing on these. Yes I can get the base price, but I don't want to buy a base vehicle. I can go to the dealership and waste their time getting a price quote, but that is pointless since I am still trying to decide which trim level and which options I want to buy. A perfect example I read a person order the FX2 with luxury package, 20's, navi, and the 3.5 total cost was 44K. I don't see the logic, for me, in buying that truck, since I can get base a KR with the same options plus the wheels, navi, and 3.5 for a couple thousand less. Until the actual prices come out my opinions can't be confirmed or refuted.
Anybody else getting tired of being told to wait? The launch is supposed to be in about a month, but we still don't know prices or economy numbers.
Ford also seems interested in keep the American buyers in the dark as far as pricing on these. Yes I can get the base price, but I don't want to buy a base vehicle. I can go to the dealership and waste their time getting a price quote, but that is pointless since I am still trying to decide which trim level and which options I want to buy. A perfect example I read a person order the FX2 with luxury package, 20's, navi, and the 3.5 total cost was 44K. I don't see the logic, for me, in buying that truck, since I can get base a KR with the same options plus the wheels, navi, and 3.5 for a couple thousand less. Until the actual prices come out my opinions can't be confirmed or refuted.
Anybody else getting tired of being told to wait? The launch is supposed to be in about a month, but we still don't know prices or economy numbers.
As for mileage, who knows. It's a truck with a turbo v6, how bad can it be? "eco" boost.... It's not worse than mine lol!
#17
10-04-2010, 05:47 PM
Well on October 3rd I went in and treated it as if I was going to order a truck. They pulled the 2011 year build book out and I built both a loaded fx4 and lariat.. Every option and cost was listed and a breakdown was given. Even D,X and invoice was listed.. The salesperson then printed me off three huge documents. First, the "National Discount Packages" packet, second a price list and finally a full build book with every code and option, roughly 100 pages. Everything given to me is what they have in they're computer.
As for mileage, who knows. It's a truck with a turbo v6, how bad can it be? "eco" boost.... It's not worse than mine lol!
As for mileage, who knows. It's a truck with a turbo v6, how bad can it be? "eco" boost.... It's not worse than mine lol!
#18
10-04-2010, 07:55 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 1,553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'11 info dragged out to keep attention off '12?
I'm still willing to bet you'll be looking at perhaps 17mpg city for the EB. It's unfortunate. With the official HP finally out, and it being a good chunk lower than what was expected, you'd have hoped they did that to eek out some more MPG from the engine. Yet you continue to hear the standard "about 20% better than 2010 5.4" response from Ford to this day. Ah well. ::shrug::
#19
10-05-2010, 07:29 AM
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still willing to bet you'll be looking at perhaps 17mpg city for the EB. It's unfortunate. With the official HP finally out, and it being a good chunk lower than what was expected, you'd have hoped they did that to eek out some more MPG from the engine. Yet you continue to hear the standard "about 20% better than 2010 5.4" response from Ford to this day. Ah well. ::shrug::
#20
10-05-2010, 07:34 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember right, the 2010 5.4L in an FX4 SCrew was rated at 14/18 MPG. So technically 17mpg in the city is 20% better than the 5.4L. It would put the Ecoboost at 17/22 MPG. I would say that's improvement.
I know, there's all those owners out there that are probably saying "I get 22MPG in my 5.4L now." I'm talking EPA ratings. Apples to apples. Who knows, the Ecoboost may be capable of achieving more, despite what EPA ratings say.
I know, there's all those owners out there that are probably saying "I get 22MPG in my 5.4L now." I'm talking EPA ratings. Apples to apples. Who knows, the Ecoboost may be capable of achieving more, despite what EPA ratings say.
#21
10-05-2010, 09:38 AM
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said my car is listed as getting 17 city and 21 hwy. I normally get just over 21 with mostly city driving and when I go on long trips I get in the upper 20's. I was starting to get annoyed that my mileage wasn't higher then I found my window sticker and saw what it was rated at.
#22
10-05-2010, 09:44 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at the tx state fair a few days ago, and talked to some of the Ford reps about the new motors. I was told the EPA numbers would be out before the end of the year. Likely sometime in November. One of the guys I talk to said he had been to proving grounds and was saying he thought the ecoboost was capable of 26mpg, and the normal asperated 3.7L V6 would be about 2mpg less at 24mpg. I am still finding that a little bit of a stretch to think a truck the size of the F150 being able to hit 26 mpg, but if these number are close.
That might explain why the EPA numbers are the last numbers Ford wants to put out there, since it would cost Ford a lot more money in terms of rebates to dump the remaining 2010 product, if everyone knew that waiting a few months for the 2011 would be so much more attractive in terms of fuel savings.
If the real world normal mileage were 15mpg on a 2010 vs the real world 20mpg on a 2011. That would save the consumer a couple grand in fuel cost over the first 35-40,000 miles. Ford may want to avoid people doing the math and having to rebate the 2010s that much more to get them cleared off the lots.
I did see a sign on one of the 2011 F150s that stated it had best in class fuel economy. If I remember right I think the highest rated full size truck is a GM that was rated at 22mpg. So whenever they do release the EPA numbers, I have a feeling they will be pretty good.
That might explain why the EPA numbers are the last numbers Ford wants to put out there, since it would cost Ford a lot more money in terms of rebates to dump the remaining 2010 product, if everyone knew that waiting a few months for the 2011 would be so much more attractive in terms of fuel savings.
If the real world normal mileage were 15mpg on a 2010 vs the real world 20mpg on a 2011. That would save the consumer a couple grand in fuel cost over the first 35-40,000 miles. Ford may want to avoid people doing the math and having to rebate the 2010s that much more to get them cleared off the lots.
I did see a sign on one of the 2011 F150s that stated it had best in class fuel economy. If I remember right I think the highest rated full size truck is a GM that was rated at 22mpg. So whenever they do release the EPA numbers, I have a feeling they will be pretty good.
#23
10-05-2010, 12:57 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rowlett, TX
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still willing to bet you'll be looking at perhaps 17mpg city for the EB. It's unfortunate. With the official HP finally out, and it being a good chunk lower than what was expected, you'd have hoped they did that to eek out some more MPG from the engine. Yet you continue to hear the standard "about 20% better than 2010 5.4" response from Ford to this day. Ah well. ::shrug::
I guarantee the truck will average better than 17mpg city, unless you're ******* the crap out of it all day.
Even my very brief (maybe 2.5 miles) drive at low speed and fairly hard on the throttle most of the time netted me 18.X mpg on the lie-o-meter.
#24
10-05-2010, 02:49 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said my car is listed as getting 17 city and 21 hwy. I normally get just over 21 with mostly city driving and when I go on long trips I get in the upper 20's. I was starting to get annoyed that my mileage wasn't higher then I found my window sticker and saw what it was rated at.
Ford will probably come out with a SFE version of the F150 like they did in 2009. The Ecoboost will be the only engine available with a 3.15 differential gear ratio. Not only that, but transmission's 6th gear is a bit different than the rest of the line up as well (0.63 for EB and 0.69 for the rest of the line up). I bet this set up in a 2wd truck will net MPGs higher than 22MPG on the freeway. My estimate of 17/22 was for a SCrew FX4, which would come with a 3.73 gear ratio, 4wd, and is all around a heavier truck than some others in the line up.
It'd be nice to know how the EB F150s for the economy drive were set up, gear ratio-wise.
#25
10-05-2010, 08:35 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Roanoke, Texas
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#26
10-05-2010, 09:57 PM
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#27
10-06-2010, 11:38 AM
Ford has said from day one that Job one on these trucks would be in November.