are 97-03 F-150's the most fuel efficient/aerodyna

Status
Not open for further replies.
I always chuckle at what some people call ugly and some think are good looking. That really is a subjective thing.

Funny story (slightly offtopic) - my college age daughter sometimes drives the truck to work at a local restaurant. She told me most of the teenage/early 20's boys (pardon me, young men) were impressed that she had an F150. They kept telling her "that's so cool." I never thought any truck was "cool" much less a 17 year old F150 with faded paint. LOL!
 
I had three 10th gen F150's

1997 Lariat Supercab 4.6 auto 2wd 3.55 non-LS diff - got about 15mpg all the time, driven hard. Very hard. Super reliable, but extremely under powered.

1999 Lariat Supercab 5.4 auto 2wd 3.55 LS-diff - Keep in mind, that 99' was the first year for PI heads on 5.4 engines. 99' was also the only year for aluminum intake manifolds on PI head 5.4's. Whether they flow better than the 00'+ plastic intake manifolds was always debatable. Compared to the 97' 4.6 F150 I had previously, the 5.4 threw the F150 around effortlessly. Burnouts, doughuts, and powerslides were just a throttle blip away. Ah, I was so young and stupid. LOL. Having a limited slip diff no doubt helped too. When it was stock, fuel economy was around 18 highway and 16 in town. After I lifted it with 33" Super Swampers, it dropped to about 13 in town, 15 highway.

2001 Lariat Supercrew 5.4 4x4 3.55 LS - Compared to the previous two trucks, this one was underpowered and you could 'feel the weight' of the truck as you drove it. It fell in between the 97 4.6 and 99' 5.4 as far as passing power and acceleration. Granted, it had the weight of a crew cab, transfer case, front diff, etc. to haul around too. Fuel economy was dismal - 13 on the highway, and about 11 in town. And that was at stock height with factory-sized tires.

I've been debating selling the ol' diesel and getting back into a 99-03 F150 Supercab. To me, it represents the best "cheap" all around truck to buy right now. They're old enough that finding a good one for under $3k is easy, but not so old that good ones are hard to find (i.e. 9th gen 92-96 F150s). They're also not plauged with the problematic cam phasers and two-piece spark plugs of the 04'+ models. Sure, the 2v 5.4 is only rated at 260hp, and doesn't put out much more without serious mods, but is about as reliable and easy to work on as an engine can get. When it's not spitting spark plugs, lol.
 
The 4x4's had better crash test ratings than 2WD 97-03 F150 / Expedition because there is a torsion bar mount that connects the left and right frame rails together. It is welded in and it is heavy steel. I have a 2WD 97 and put a front mount class 3 hitch to hopefully achieve the same crash worthiness. I will never know unless it is wrecked, but the 2WD 97-03 F150's that have been wrecked with a front mount hitch seem to do better from what the junkyard guy tells me. I know its not empirical data, but its FWIW
 
well shoot, that stinks. I guess I may just look for a $1000 beater then, (should've NEVER sold my old one, live & learn) and keep it with PLPD coverage.
 
My 01 sierra c3 gets 20+ at 60mph with cruise set. It's awd.
My 99 z71 got about the same.
My 04 ram hemi quad cab would routinely get 20mpg with 4wd engaged in the highway.
I've got not data for Ford trucks. I haven't had one for a DF in a few years.
My 04 ram didn't have mds either.
 
02 SuperCrew 5.4L 3.73s LT265/70R17E Firestone Transforce ATs and I get 13mpg in town. I had X Radial LT Michelins prior and on long trips I could get 18mpg but that was when the speed limit was 60-65.
 
You would need a wind tunnel to know how aerodynamic a vehicle is. Just because a vehicle looks like it has good aerodynamics doesn't mean the aerodynamics were actually good.

The other thing to remember is that if you put a top over the bed, you will always change the aerodynamics in the process. Also, having a stepside bed is probably a disadvantage over one with flat sides.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top