namic? since they had the swoopiest shape to the body, were they relatively fuel efficient? I am in the market for a full-size truck and I really am gonna need to find an extended cab truck that can give me returns of combined 17MPG minimum. I am kind of partial to Fords, won't consider Government Motors vehicles. FYI used Toyota's go for near new money around here too so save that suggestion.
are 97-03 F-150's the most fuel efficient/aerodyna
- Thread starter dwcopple
- Start date
- Status
Your not going to get good mileage out of a truck unless you go for a 2014 or newer model year.
That vintage Ford with the 5.4 and in 4X4 figure 10-15.
That vintage Ford with the 5.4 and in 4X4 figure 10-15.
On my 2000 F150 extended cab lariat with 3.55's I'd get 17-18 on the highway regularly. But I had the oversize tires so it could be off by 1mpg.
What looks aerodynamic often isn’t. Some of the most aerodynamically efficient designs are the modern angular designs.
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
My 96' Chevy Silverado with the 5.7L V8 got 15 mpg city, 17.5 mpg highway, about 16 mpg combined. If you can get away with it maybe a 4.3L V6 can squeak out almost 17 mpg.
Not really. All full sizes were about the same then, with the Ram a little behind the others.
The '97-'03 F-150s got slightly better MPG than their predecessors, but that was probably from going to the 4.2 V6 and Modular V8s from the 4.9 I6 and SBFs as much as it was the styling changes.
A Silverado of the same era or a Tundra will get about the same fuel economy. A Ram with a 3.9, 5.2, or 5.9 Magnum will be worse. A 4.7L Ram might get close though.
To get 17 MPG combined, forget 4WD. Even with 2WD, 17 MPG combined will still be pushing it for an extended cab. A manual will help out. Ford built a fair number of 4.2/5-speed/Super Cab/2WD trucks...many in XLT trim so you get things like power windows/locks and nice cloth.
I knew one old man in his 80s with a 2002 5.4, auto, 2WD, Super Cab long bed Lariat. He claimed to get 23 MPG out of that truck, but he lived out in the country and drove like an old man in his 80s. I bet that truck never saw 3K RPM while he had it.
One of my roommates in college had a 1998 4.6, auto, 2WD, regular cab long bed. That truck got 15 MPG all the time, but it was driven like the gas pedal was an on/off switch, it got oil changes with conventional and whatever cheap "pro" filter every 10-20K mi, and the CEL was on for years.
Truly a YMMV situation. I think a 4.2 with a stick is your best bet.
The '97-'03 F-150s got slightly better MPG than their predecessors, but that was probably from going to the 4.2 V6 and Modular V8s from the 4.9 I6 and SBFs as much as it was the styling changes.
A Silverado of the same era or a Tundra will get about the same fuel economy. A Ram with a 3.9, 5.2, or 5.9 Magnum will be worse. A 4.7L Ram might get close though.
To get 17 MPG combined, forget 4WD. Even with 2WD, 17 MPG combined will still be pushing it for an extended cab. A manual will help out. Ford built a fair number of 4.2/5-speed/Super Cab/2WD trucks...many in XLT trim so you get things like power windows/locks and nice cloth.
I knew one old man in his 80s with a 2002 5.4, auto, 2WD, Super Cab long bed Lariat. He claimed to get 23 MPG out of that truck, but he lived out in the country and drove like an old man in his 80s. I bet that truck never saw 3K RPM while he had it.
One of my roommates in college had a 1998 4.6, auto, 2WD, regular cab long bed. That truck got 15 MPG all the time, but it was driven like the gas pedal was an on/off switch, it got oil changes with conventional and whatever cheap "pro" filter every 10-20K mi, and the CEL was on for years.
Truly a YMMV situation. I think a 4.2 with a stick is your best bet.
Originally Posted By: dwcopple
namic? since they had the swoopiest shape to the body, were they relatively fuel efficient? I am in the market for a full-size truck and I really am gonna need to find an extended cab truck that can give me returns of combined 17MPG minimum. I am kind of partial to Fords, won't consider Government Motors vehicles. FYI used Toyota's go for near new money around here too so save that suggestion.
Since you brought up Government Motors, I will inform you on something I bet you don't know.
FORD took 15.9 BILLION dollars in secret money. Google it
If safety matters, the 97'-03's did poorly in crash test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5EmJBaGeQ
namic? since they had the swoopiest shape to the body, were they relatively fuel efficient? I am in the market for a full-size truck and I really am gonna need to find an extended cab truck that can give me returns of combined 17MPG minimum. I am kind of partial to Fords, won't consider Government Motors vehicles. FYI used Toyota's go for near new money around here too so save that suggestion.
Since you brought up Government Motors, I will inform you on something I bet you don't know.
FORD took 15.9 BILLION dollars in secret money. Google it
If safety matters, the 97'-03's did poorly in crash test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5EmJBaGeQ
As said above, to get anywhere even close to 17mpg you're gonna be with a 4x2.
My '07 F-150 S/C 4x4 has 3.73's. I get 14 around town, 17 on the highway at 64mph with cruise on.
Hitching up my travel trailer I get 9-11 mpg.
I've had a few 4 cyl Rangers (the newest was an '07) with manual transmissions and I'd get like 23 city to 32-33 highway with those.
My '07 F-150 S/C 4x4 has 3.73's. I get 14 around town, 17 on the highway at 64mph with cruise on.
Hitching up my travel trailer I get 9-11 mpg.
I've had a few 4 cyl Rangers (the newest was an '07) with manual transmissions and I'd get like 23 city to 32-33 highway with those.
I have a '99 F-150 W/T V6 4x2 AT. Some thoughts:
On a 3200 mile trip from Washington State to Oaxaca the best mileage it got was 16 mpg with just me and about 1 suitcase worth of cargo. I blame it on the ladder rack, maybe it would have gotten 19 without it. Before you blame me, in a 1999 Cherokee 4.0 AT I got 22 mpg on many legs and 23 mpg on 2 legs of the same trip in the same weather.
I find the trucks to be downright ugly, as if they were Rangers from the ugly years [1993-1997] bloated from feeding on too much hay and not enough salt.
But... They are extremely well designed function-wise. Roomy cab, even on standard cab model, excellent-comfortable-goes-down-the-road-dead-straight-without-pulling-or-tiring-you-out [totally opposite of twin-I-beam] suspension, well balanced, lots of intelligent features. The vinyl bench seat that has only one recline angle is exactly the ideal angle for me, it was the most comfortable road trip I have ever had, in any vehicle. I arrived nicely rested.
On a 3200 mile trip from Washington State to Oaxaca the best mileage it got was 16 mpg with just me and about 1 suitcase worth of cargo. I blame it on the ladder rack, maybe it would have gotten 19 without it. Before you blame me, in a 1999 Cherokee 4.0 AT I got 22 mpg on many legs and 23 mpg on 2 legs of the same trip in the same weather.
I find the trucks to be downright ugly, as if they were Rangers from the ugly years [1993-1997] bloated from feeding on too much hay and not enough salt.
But... They are extremely well designed function-wise. Roomy cab, even on standard cab model, excellent-comfortable-goes-down-the-road-dead-straight-without-pulling-or-tiring-you-out [totally opposite of twin-I-beam] suspension, well balanced, lots of intelligent features. The vinyl bench seat that has only one recline angle is exactly the ideal angle for me, it was the most comfortable road trip I have ever had, in any vehicle. I arrived nicely rested.
Oh, I forgot, they fall apart when they crash. The death rate for 1997-2003 Ford trucks is over 100:1,000,000 while for 2004+ is less than 40:1,000,000. That is why they quit making them so soon, the previous generation of F-150 was built for 17 years, the succeeding generation for 11 years.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Not really. All full sizes were about the same then, with the Ram a little behind the others.
The '97-'03 F-150s got slightly better MPG than their predecessors, but that was probably from going to the 4.2 V6 and Modular V8s from the 4.9 I6 and SBFs as much as it was the styling changes.
A Silverado of the same era or a Tundra will get about the same fuel economy. A Ram with a 3.9, 5.2, or 5.9 Magnum will be worse. A 4.7L Ram might get close though.
To get 17 MPG combined, forget 4WD. Even with 2WD, 17 MPG combined will still be pushing it for an extended cab. A manual will help out. Ford built a fair number of 4.2/5-speed/Super Cab/2WD trucks...many in XLT trim so you get things like power windows/locks and nice cloth.
Exactly. I have a 98 extended cab XLT and around town is about 11 - 13 MPG, and while I only have limited freeway driving, the one time I checked it was just over 17 MPG. (This pretty much matches what the OBD2 gizmo is reporting.)
This was driving about 65 MPG with light traffic. I have the 3.55 rear end and the 4.6 engine with about 110K miles on it. Drives great, nice to drive, but MPG isn't it's strong point.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSear...amp;srchtyp=ymm
FWIW, I think it's interesting that supposedly the 5 speed manual gets one MPG WORSE than the automatic.
Not really. All full sizes were about the same then, with the Ram a little behind the others.
The '97-'03 F-150s got slightly better MPG than their predecessors, but that was probably from going to the 4.2 V6 and Modular V8s from the 4.9 I6 and SBFs as much as it was the styling changes.
A Silverado of the same era or a Tundra will get about the same fuel economy. A Ram with a 3.9, 5.2, or 5.9 Magnum will be worse. A 4.7L Ram might get close though.
To get 17 MPG combined, forget 4WD. Even with 2WD, 17 MPG combined will still be pushing it for an extended cab. A manual will help out. Ford built a fair number of 4.2/5-speed/Super Cab/2WD trucks...many in XLT trim so you get things like power windows/locks and nice cloth.
Exactly. I have a 98 extended cab XLT and around town is about 11 - 13 MPG, and while I only have limited freeway driving, the one time I checked it was just over 17 MPG. (This pretty much matches what the OBD2 gizmo is reporting.)
This was driving about 65 MPG with light traffic. I have the 3.55 rear end and the 4.6 engine with about 110K miles on it. Drives great, nice to drive, but MPG isn't it's strong point.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSear...amp;srchtyp=ymm
FWIW, I think it's interesting that supposedly the 5 speed manual gets one MPG WORSE than the automatic.
Last edited:
I owned two F150's of that vintage. Long story short, they look aeroish, but they are still full size trucks. They also were not optimized nearly to the extent current trucks are. Look at the air dam/bumper height on one of these versus a new truck - they are way higher and as a result, allow more air under the truck and increasing drag.
The first one I owned was a '97 F150 4x2 Supercab Flareside with the 4.6, auto, 3.08 gearing, and small tires (P235/70/16). On average, that truck got 17 mpg (years of data and 163,000 miles to back it up). It could break 20 and got as high as 22 mpg. You had to keep your foot out of it and cruise on the freeway.
The second was a '99 F150 4x4 Supercab Flareside with the 4.6, auto, 3.55 gearing, and P245/75/16 tires. On average, this truck got 15.5 mpg (over many years and 193,000 miles). It would not break 20 mpg, and 19 MPG was hard to get.
Add a 5.4 to those, and watch the MPG fall some more.
I enjoyed driving both those trucks. Throw out winter, and the 97 is one I wish I could get back.
Also, the life cycle on truck body styles has shortened considerably - the introduction of the 2004-2008 F150 wasn't only due to the poor crash ratings. Note that style only lasted 5 model years, and it has decent crash ratings. The next style was from 2009-2014(6 years) and now we have all aluminum bodies...
The first one I owned was a '97 F150 4x2 Supercab Flareside with the 4.6, auto, 3.08 gearing, and small tires (P235/70/16). On average, that truck got 17 mpg (years of data and 163,000 miles to back it up). It could break 20 and got as high as 22 mpg. You had to keep your foot out of it and cruise on the freeway.
The second was a '99 F150 4x4 Supercab Flareside with the 4.6, auto, 3.55 gearing, and P245/75/16 tires. On average, this truck got 15.5 mpg (over many years and 193,000 miles). It would not break 20 mpg, and 19 MPG was hard to get.
Add a 5.4 to those, and watch the MPG fall some more.
I enjoyed driving both those trucks. Throw out winter, and the 97 is one I wish I could get back.
Also, the life cycle on truck body styles has shortened considerably - the introduction of the 2004-2008 F150 wasn't only due to the poor crash ratings. Note that style only lasted 5 model years, and it has decent crash ratings. The next style was from 2009-2014(6 years) and now we have all aluminum bodies...
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
The second was a '99 F150 4x4 Supercab Flareside with the 4.6, auto, 3.55 gearing, and P245/75/16 tires. On average, this truck got 15.5 mpg (over many years and 193,000 miles). It would not break 20 mpg, and 19 MPG was hard to get.
Add a 5.4 to those, and watch the MPG fall some more.
I think that is the case with my 98 - having the 3.55 gears. Even so it really doesn't have that much power but it will take off pretty good "off the line." My Grand Marquis has the same 4.6 engine and same tranny (4R70W). The Mercury is much more responsive and gets much better MPG. Of course I realize that is an apples and oranges comparison considering the Mercury is lighter, lower to the ground and smaller tires and different rear end.
The second was a '99 F150 4x4 Supercab Flareside with the 4.6, auto, 3.55 gearing, and P245/75/16 tires. On average, this truck got 15.5 mpg (over many years and 193,000 miles). It would not break 20 mpg, and 19 MPG was hard to get.
Add a 5.4 to those, and watch the MPG fall some more.
I think that is the case with my 98 - having the 3.55 gears. Even so it really doesn't have that much power but it will take off pretty good "off the line." My Grand Marquis has the same 4.6 engine and same tranny (4R70W). The Mercury is much more responsive and gets much better MPG. Of course I realize that is an apples and oranges comparison considering the Mercury is lighter, lower to the ground and smaller tires and different rear end.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Our Expedition (same platform) will get 18.5Mpg with the cruise set on perfectly flat ground with no wind, LOL! Deviate from that, and she'll head towards 10 FAST.
Great truck though. Has been incredibly reliable.
Great truck though. Has been incredibly reliable.
my 2000 chevy ext cab 4x4 avg 20mpg on trios from nj to florida. 5.3 engine.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
That generation of F-150's were definitively the ugliest trucks made, and collapsed like a cheap Chinese car in crash tests.
You're not going to get significant aerodynamics in a pickup truck, no matter what it looks like.
IIRC, it was the extended cab that had the collapse issue due to there being no door pillar. The other models did much better.
The '04+ body style was still a massive improvement regardless, but the IIHS video you see is intentionally of the worst version of that truck in terms of structural integrity.
And the looks thing is entirely personal opinion. I thought the cross-eyed GM trucks were the ugliest but some people like 'em
Edit: Just looked it up and it was the Super Cab (with no door pillar) that was tested.
That generation of F-150's were definitively the ugliest trucks made, and collapsed like a cheap Chinese car in crash tests.
You're not going to get significant aerodynamics in a pickup truck, no matter what it looks like.
IIRC, it was the extended cab that had the collapse issue due to there being no door pillar. The other models did much better.
The '04+ body style was still a massive improvement regardless, but the IIHS video you see is intentionally of the worst version of that truck in terms of structural integrity.
And the looks thing is entirely personal opinion. I thought the cross-eyed GM trucks were the ugliest but some people like 'em
Edit: Just looked it up and it was the Super Cab (with no door pillar) that was tested.
As for looks, I don't think these F-150s were the best looking trucks ever, but I think configured right, they could look awesome. The long bed looked awkward, but with a short bed they looked good. To me, a 1997-98 XLT Super Cab 2WD in black, dark blue, or emerald green is a really awesome looking truck. A white XL long bed of any year, not so much.
But that's all subjective anyway.
I think the problem with the body folding happened when Ford added the fourth door to the Super Cab. That body originally only had three doors. All of the crash test videos and such from the IIHS were of four door Super Cabs.
My cousin had a 1998 with the three door Super Cab. A guy who was working for him borrowed the truck, got drunk, and crashed it into a guardrail on the interstate, pretty much impailing the truck on the guardrail. His speed was around 70 MPH, and he walked away (well, he got arressted, but he didn't get injured bad). Some of that was because he was drunk I'm sure, so he just flopped around when he crashed it, but I would also guess the 3 door Super Cab was a lot stronger and less prone to fold.
But that's all subjective anyway.
I think the problem with the body folding happened when Ford added the fourth door to the Super Cab. That body originally only had three doors. All of the crash test videos and such from the IIHS were of four door Super Cabs.
My cousin had a 1998 with the three door Super Cab. A guy who was working for him borrowed the truck, got drunk, and crashed it into a guardrail on the interstate, pretty much impailing the truck on the guardrail. His speed was around 70 MPH, and he walked away (well, he got arressted, but he didn't get injured bad). Some of that was because he was drunk I'm sure, so he just flopped around when he crashed it, but I would also guess the 3 door Super Cab was a lot stronger and less prone to fold.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The videos (if anybody cares) of the Expedition (same platform) and the F-150 SuperCab:
Expedition:
97-03 F-150 SuperCab:
2004 F-150:
And for reference, a 2001 Dodge RAM:
And a 2003 GM/Chevrolet:
Expedition:
97-03 F-150 SuperCab:
2004 F-150:
And for reference, a 2001 Dodge RAM:
And a 2003 GM/Chevrolet:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
