• Jun 16, 2009
2009 Ford F-150 SFE - Click above for high-res image gallery

Back in the summer of 2008, fuel prices hit their highest peak in U.S. history and automakers responded with a raft of new cars and trucks designed to eke out as many miles from a single gallon of fuel as possible. Not surprisingly, Ford followed this tack when it introduced its latest F-150 pickup truck for the '09 model year, which launched with an optional SFE (Superior Fuel Economy, if you must know) edition that featured a number of fuel-saving tweaks and the Blue Oval's long-running three-valve 4.6-liter V8 engine.

After just one year on the market, PickupTrucks.com reports that Ford will drop the SFE model for 2010. The good news for those interested in fuel efficient full-size trucks is that Ford will continue to offer a two-wheel-drive, four-door version of its popular pickup with an SFE-matching 15/21 mpg rating, so it would seem the SFE is disappearing in name only. As far as we're aware, General Motors will continue to offer a competing model that matches the ex-SFE's 15/21 mileage rating and carries an XFE badge, though Ford's truck can tow 500 lbs. more, doesn't require a tonneau cover, and the chin spoiler can remain on when going off road.



[Source: PickupTrucks.com]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 18 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      Actually, the 4.6L 3 valve engine was new to the F-150 lineup for 2009. The 4.6L 2 valve engine is the one that's been around for quite some time now.
      • 5 Years Ago
      • 5 Years Ago
      "it would seem the SFE is disappearing in name only."

      Good. Like the concept, hate the sticker. Now if I could find any 2wd models on the lots in Michigan. Everyone only carries 4 wd Crew Cabs, while Chevy dealers often have Crew Cab 2wd models on the lot.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Could this go along with their possible revival of the F-100? The fact is, if they want to make a truck that is not a gas-hog and has enough power to be worth buying, they probably need some kind of super electric motor. A petrol-powered truck is always going to need A LOT of fuel to put out enough torque to tow heavy equipment and haul heavy loads. In the long run, we do need to be more fuel efficient, but if you have heavy work to do right now, you have to buy a gas-guzzling pick-up. Perhaps the Ranger and the rumored F-100 will be the fuel-efficient models for those who just want to drive a truck.

      http://www.gearite.com
      • 5 Years Ago
      Sipping Fuel Earnestly
      • 5 Years Ago
      That's fine, as long as the actual option is still there.
      That said, I think that the "EcoBoost" name should be changed back to "TwinForce" as the old name was more accurate in the description of the engine and the engine isn't exactly the most fuel economical to begin with (though it is certainly more fuel economical than a comparable nat-asp V8). Of course, this may change if Ford does go through with the small displacement EcoBoost I4s.
      • 5 Years Ago
      So 15/21 is fuel efficient. I used to get that in my HEMI Ram.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Could this go along with their possible revival of the F-100?
        • 5 Years Ago
        +1 Yaroukh
        • 5 Years Ago
        is this something like "did he die?" on youtube? :)
      • 5 Years Ago
      Guy in Chevy to the guy in the Ford: "what? go off road?! Gimme a sec, i gotta take off my chin spoiler."
      • 5 Years Ago
      Hey...maybe the 'EcoBoost' name can go away too.

      "though Ford's truck can tow 500 lbs. more, doesn't require a tonneau cover, and the chin spoiler can remain on when going off road."

      Yeah...and the Chevy gets the same mileage with a 5.3 V8 as Ford does with a 4.6. The good 'ol pushrod is more efficient.

      And we all know how inflated Ford's (false) capability figures are when it comes to the F-150...
        • 5 Years Ago
        There are just too many "Matt's" on AutoBlog.

        @Matt(bad) - Shut Up.

        @Matt(good) - I totally agree.

        @mozee - If he didn't troll the hell out of every Ford post, then who would we argue with?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Wow - do you have to troll EVERY article about Ford with your comments?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Matt, you are a moron. Ford hasn't even implemented a Cylinder deactivation system and matches the same mileage.

        Look at a dyno graph. The Ford 3 valve 4.6L makes more low end torque than the Vortec 5300 even though it is smaller in displacement by 700 cc's. I'd say that's fairly embarassing myself.

        The Ford 5.4 makes up to 390 ft/lbs of torque at 3500 rpms while the GM Vortec 5300 struggles to make 338 ft/lbs at a sky high 4400 rpms.

        Did GM consult Honda on how to generate torque?

        Douche...
        • 5 Years Ago
        Sigh, there are times you just HATE having the same name as somebody else.

        I loves me a GM, but sorry, Ford has this particular fight won, and won good.

        Go away, TrollMatt D:
        • 5 Years Ago
        Ford likes to quote power with E85, hence 390ft-lbs from the 5.4. otherwise 365ft-lbs
        Care to explain on how the 4.6 3 valve increased its torque from 300ft-lbs to 315ft-lbs [in explorer from '08 to '09], and no change in power.

        The '09 GM 5.3 with E85 is 350ft-lbs@4400, and VCT was added for '10 [Better late then never for GM]
        http://www.mechadyne-int.com/vva-reference/papers/the-impact-of-variable-valve-actuation-on-engine-performance-and-emissions.pdf
        • 5 Years Ago
        Jake:

        When a truck really struggles to pull a 6500 pound load up a hill (little more than HALF it's stated capacity), then you have a problem.

        Ford simply overrates their truck...putting their customers and other drivers at risk.
    • Load More Comments