Article Comments - 2008 F-450 Super Duty Full Test

146 messages, Last post on Oct 26, 2009 at 7:20 AM

You are in the Ford F-Series Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Ford F-450 Super Duty, Truck

Article comments for Full Test: 2008 Ford F-450 Super Duty - For those hauling heavy loads — whether it's an extended horse trailer, a part-time home for recreation in remote areas or even a pair of hobby cars — your steed has arrived. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 3 of 15: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; ...; 15; Prev; Next; Last

#19 of 146 Re: My new f-450 [floorz] by 08mistake Jul 20, 2007 (6:02 pm)
Replying to: floorz (May 07, 2007 9:11 am) This truck does suck fuel....not to mention no power power to pull a 32ft fifth wheel. No help from the Ford dealer or Ford Engineers as of yet! I take it back in on Monday....will be interesting to see what they come up with. How ever they do know that I will be taking it back to the dino to see what improvement they have or haven't made on Hp and torque. Fuel is about 9.9mpg at best!
#20 of 146 Re: Gas Mileage - 2008 Super Duty [luken] by 08mistake Jul 26, 2007 (5:18 pm)
Replying to: luken (May 14, 2007 10:35 am) Any improvement with fuel economy? Still working on the issues with our truck. It has been at the dealership all week. I will keep you posted as to any improvements when it comes back. Replies to this message: floorz (Jul 27, 2007 6:27 am) charlie890 (Oct 25, 2008 7:45 am) seamule (Apr 23, 2008 6:11 pm)
#21 of 146 Re: Gas Mileage - 2008 Super Duty [08mistake] by floorz Jul 27, 2007 (6:27 am)
Replying to: 08mistake (Jul 26, 2007 5:18 pm) I have about 8000mi on my f450 and have noticed only a slight increase in fuel economey. On a recent trip keeping speeds under 75mph the best I could do was about 9mpg. around town I get about 9.9. Towing my boat still gets about 5 to 6mpg. I still love this truck but come on ford, what's up with this mileage? I would love to be able to put a chip on it to increase mileage but we know ford's stance on that one. Keep us posted on what your dealer comes up with. Replies to this message: charlie890 (Oct 25, 2008 7:45 am)
#22 of 146 What Rear end do you have? the 4.88 LS? by mschmal Jul 29, 2007 (6:18 am)
Check your window sticker. Most of the F-450s are shipping with the 4.88 LS rear end as it is standard. This is a commercial truck ratio and offers towing power beyond any other factory pickup's wildest dreams. AND it sacrafices fuel econ to get it. If you do have a 4.88, you might want to get a price on swapping in a 4.10. Mark. Replies to this message: floorz (Jul 30, 2007 4:32 am)
#23 of 146 Re: What Rear end do you have? the 4.88 LS? [mschmal] by floorz Jul 30, 2007 (4:32 am)
Replying to: mschmal (Jul 29, 2007 6:18 am) Mark, I have the 4.88. Before I spent money on a new rear end I would want to see some true mileage figures with the 4.1 axle. Do you know of any? As I stated in an earlier post, I tow a 14,000lb boat. The 4.88 axle is the only way to get the tow package on this truck, brakes etc. jb
#24 of 146 Thoughts on towing. by mschmal Jul 30, 2007 (10:40 am)
If you are considering an F-450 with available 5th wheel towing of 24,000 pounds and a GCWR of 33,000 pounds!!! You need to understand that you buying a COMMERCIAL vehicle. This is a truck for peeps who cannot meet their towing needs with a lesser truck. An F-350 Diesel DRW 4x4 Crew Cab offers 17,700 pounds of Fifth wheel towing with the TowBoss 4.3 LS rear and 15,200 pounds of fifth wheel towing with the 4.1 rear. Granted it is recommended that you do not exceed 85% of a truck's GCWR on a regular basis; however, if you purchased an F-450 to tow 14,000 pounds of boat a couple of times per year then I can't help but wonder if you would think it a good idea to take a bazooka rabbit hunting. Replies to this message: floorz (Jul 30, 2007 2:49 pm)
#25 of 146 Re: Thoughts on towing. [mschmal] by floorz Jul 30, 2007 (2:49 pm)
Replying to: mschmal (Jul 30, 2007 10:40 am) Just out of curosity, how did you come to the conclusion that I only tow my boat a couple of times a year? Also, towing a boat trailer has nothing to do with fifth wheel towing. Thanks for the hunting advice though.... Who are you and why are you so defensive about the poor fuel economey of this truck? Do you own one or just offer sarcastic advice???
#26 of 146 Not quite. by mschmal Jul 31, 2007 (10:23 am)
People are comparing the Fuel Econ of the F-450 to other pickups that they owned or drove. That is unfair. The F-450 is a commercial vehicle. Why don't you ask a guy with a dump body or a cube van what kind of fuel econ he is getting because those are more comparable trucks. My post was for people in general who may be looking to buy a truck. It is very easy to get the idea that you need an F-450 from some sales man looking for a fat commission. However, a real sales person will work with you to match the truck you buy to your needs. If you only conventional tow, and don't fifth wheel tow, you really don't need a F-450 at all as the F-450 only gives you 1,000 more pounds of conventional towing vs the F-350 DRW. That extra 1,000 pounds is from having the 4.88 super tall rear end. If you purchased a F-450 because the F-350 was not enough truck to meet your towing needs then I feel you have no right to complain. F-450 is the only factory built pickup in its class. Your other choice would be nothing. If the F-350 is enough truck to meet your needs but you purchased the F-450 anyway then why are you mad at Ford? Mark Replies to this message: losman54 (Aug 15, 2007 6:34 am) mnjtrans (Aug 27, 2007 1:09 pm) mschmal (Aug 28, 2007 3:18 pm) losman54 (Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm)
#27 of 146 Re: Not quite. [mschmal] by losman54 Aug 15, 2007 (6:34 am)
Replying to: mschmal (Jul 31, 2007 10:23 am) Isn't the only difference between the F350 and the F450 the rear axle ratio and the weight it can tow. The engine and the transmission are the same, so assuming that you can change the rear to that of the F350 why shouldn't you assume to get more than 9 MPG. I love the look of the truck and the specs, but the truck doesn't work. I'm trying to find a reason to buy the truck because I have a 5th wheel (16K) but the people who have this truck don't have great reviews. Read what the guy who put his F450 on the dyno and the results! My 2002 duramax has way more power at less revs. People who own this truck like the looks but they're living with the problems...which is fine if you have nothing else to do. I can live to getting 9-10 MPG while towing but not getting more than that when you're not is unacceptable to me. I will continue to look at the F450 to see if it settles down, but if I had to pull the trigger today ...for me and what I need, the duramax 3500HD looks like it is going to get my money.
#28 of 146 Dyno HP. by mschmal Aug 15, 2007 (2:45 pm)
Rear wheel HP is not how HP figures are calculated by manufacturer. Unless you put your duramx on a dyno you have no idea what the rear wheel hp is. See below for the SAE rating. hp (SAE) In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse after the American Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended manufacturers use hp (SAE) to indicate the net power of the engine, given that particular car's complete engine installation. It measures engine power at the flywheel, not counting drivetrain losses. Starting in 1971 automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower (as defined by standard J1349). This reflected the rated power of the engine in as-installed trim, with all accessories and standard intake and exhaust systems. By 1972, US carmakers quoted power exclusively in SAE net hp. The change was meant to 'deflate' power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies, as well as to obfuscate the power losses caused by emissions-control equipment. SAE net ratings, while more accurate than gross ratings, still represent the engine's power at the flywheel. Contrary to some reports, it does not measure power at the drive wheels. Because SAE gross ratings were applied liberally, at best, there is no precise conversion from gross to net. Comparison of gross and net ratings for unchanged engines shows a variance of anywhere from 40 to 150 horsepower. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, for example, in 1971 carried a 425 hp gross rating (often considered to be understated) and a net rating of 375 hp. [edit] SAE-certified horsepower In 2005, the Society of Automotive Engineers introduced a new test procedure for engine horsepower and torque.[6] The procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified". Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, often with surprising results. The rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 hp (328 kW) to 469 hp (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 hp (157 kW) to 190 hp (142 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 hp (373 kW) to 505 hp (377 kW). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE-certified_horsepower Mark