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 4 of 16: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; ...; 16; Prev; Next; Last

#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
#29 of 146 F450 by losman54 Aug 16, 2007 (5:40 pm)
Does anybody out there own a F450, and use it to tow more that 12,000 pounds and want to share their towing experiences? And especially anyone who has switched from a duramax to the F450? thx Replies to this message: cshorty (Aug 20, 2007 2:05 pm) donk5 (Aug 30, 2007 7:50 am) shellade (Jun 25, 2008 9:03 am) losman54 (Jun 25, 2008 9:27 am) and 7 more...
#30 of 146 Re: Article Comments - 2008 F-450 Super Duty Full Test [KarenS] by losman54 Aug 16, 2007 (6:00 pm)
Replying to: KarenS (Apr 12, 2007 7:36 am) I read the article and I was not impressed. With all the hype Ford is putting out there regarding this truck I would expected better performance when towing the 11 mile stretch. I have a 16k 5th wheel that I pulled form NJ to upper MI with my 2500HD duramax with Banks six gun tuner, monster exhaust and exhaust brake for those hills going across PA and I got 9-12 MPG's! And I never went below speeds of 55 MPH and most of the trip across OH were at 65-70 MPH. PS: I also put Firstone air bags in the rear. 2002 2500HD with 108,000 miles But - I do like the looks of the truck, maybe I can switch out the engine and tranny or maybe the GM and Ford will merge and comes out with the prefect truck.
#31 of 146 Re: 08 Not so great!~ [08mistake] by losman54 Aug 16, 2007 (6:30 pm)
Replying to: 08mistake (Jul 20, 2007 5:43 pm) I have a 2002 2500HD with 108,000 miles and prior to the improvements that I've made to my truck with Banks Power I had them out it on a dyno and got the following. 220 HP 3043 RPM and 404 ft-lbs torque 2494 RPM I can't wait to see what it puts out now after the Banks Power improvments.
#32 of 146 Re: F450 [losman54] by cshorty Aug 20, 2007 (2:05 pm)
Replying to: losman54 (Aug 16, 2007 5:40 pm) I have a F450 and tow a 16,000 5th wheel living quarter 4 horse trailer. So fare I have had nothing but trouble with mine. At about 30 to 40 mph it starts to buck, in order to get it stopped I have to slam my foot to the floor or brake. I have the 4.10 rear end they told me to order for better mileage(mileage is not over 7). I ran it in tow haul like they told me to do at dealers. I have talked to people who have gotten rid of there 2005 to 2007 F350 because of the bucking issues. I was told by a friend the way to get around this is to not us tow haul unless going down hill for the compression. So I'm driving it out of tow haul and that seems to work. Pulling the hills out of tow haul it sounds like it is going to blowup but no bucking, although it still does this when in tow haul coming down a steep hill. My point, this is a new truck I bought to haul with and I will probably have to blow it up before Ford will do anything about it. I have already done what they said would fix it and its the same. My other complaint is the mileage 5 to 7 hauling is not good mileage. I like the looks of the F450 and the way it turns, but everything else sucks. I have a Ford rep coming out to drive it, because I want them to take it back. If any one out there is having the bucking problem I would like to hear from you. Replies to this message: donk5 (Aug 30, 2007 7:50 am) shellade (Jun 25, 2008 9:03 am) losman54 (Jun 25, 2008 9:27 am) shellade (Jun 25, 2008 10:21 am) and 6 more... shellade (Jun 25, 2008 11:09 am) and 1 more...
#33 of 146 Re: Not quite. [mschmal]...Not at 6 mpg by mnjtrans Aug 27, 2007 (1:09 pm)
Replying to: mschmal (Jul 31, 2007 10:23 am) Although I appreciate the point you are making about it being a commercial vehicle I have talked to a number of truckers that say that they get 12 to 15 mpg out of their semis so there is no reason that I get 6 MPG!!!! Out of my 450 with a 4.3 ratio. I tow a 3 car hauler and now understand why everybody else uses a dodge…when its time for a second truck I would look much deeper into the competition before signing up for a 6mpg diesel truck. Replies to this message: mschmal (Aug 28, 2007 3:18 pm) losman54 (Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm)
#34 of 146 Re: Not quite. [mschmal]...Not at 6 mpg [mnjtrans] by mschmal Aug 28, 2007 (3:18 pm)
Replying to: mnjtrans (Aug 27, 2007 1:09 pm) Try keeping the RPMs under 2,000. Mark. Replies to this message: losman54 (Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm)