There are three main engine choices in the 2009 Ford F-150 lineup, all of them V8s: a 4.6-liter that makes 248 horsepower and 293 pound-feet of torque, a higher-output 4.6 with 292 hp and 320 lb-ft and a 5.4-liter unit with 320 hp and 390 lb-ft. The base 4.6 is paired to a four-speed automatic transmission, while the high-output 4.6 and 5.4 are mated to a six-speed automatic. The brakes have a soft feel about them, but stopping distances are quite good. In instrumented testing, we stopped a four-wheel-drive Super Crew from 60 mph in an impressive 127 feet.

As expected, buyers have a choice between two- and four-wheel drive on all versions of the F-150. When it comes to working capacity, the F-150 can’t be beat — on paper, at least. Properly equipped, an F-150 with the 5.4-liter V8 can tow up to 11,300 pounds and carry a 3,030-pound payload. In practice, however, the F-150 struggles to keep up with more powerful rivals in towing and hauling tests, particularly when going up grades.

Fuel mileage can be as high as 15 mpg city/21 mpg highway and 17 mpg combined for an F-150 2WD SuperCrew with the SFE (superior fuel economy) package. A more typical 4WD SuperCrew with the 5.4-liter V8 gets EPA estimates of 14/18/15

As a fixed cost of car ownership, automobile insurance currently competes for financial resources with car payments, registration fees, and property taxes. If we were to make insurance a per-mile cost of driving, however, operating costs, which now are dominated by gasoline, would approximately double. Why make such a change? Two reasons are obvious: to enhance affordability and to reduce externalization of accident costs. A third and less obvious reason is suggested by the fact that this change would reduce annual ownership cost by several hundred to several thousand dollars for all drivers and cause operating cost to increase by a similar range in amount. We will see, however, that the insurance increase in operating cost for most drivers would either be greater or less but not the same as the insurance decrease in their ownership cost. An important political question is which groups would spend more for insurance and which would spend less than they do now.

A more fundamental question, however, is which system—fixed cost or operating cost—can more accurately measure and charge for the risk of driving an automobile. Economists generally agree that insurance cost pressure should provide individuals with incentives to control accident risk (Williamson et al., 1967, Vickrey, 1968, Calabresi, 1970). We will consider how well the current system provides this risk control function and whether a change to per-mile charges would do a better job.

Insurance  would be changed to an operating cost if mandated by a one-sentence amendment to insurance rate regulation law, introduced but not enacted several years ago in Pennsylvania (Butler, 1993a, National Organization for Women, 1998) and proposed in other states. The amendment would require companies to convert their price unit—and thus their cost unit—from dollars per vehicle year to cents per vehicle mile. But what would this change mean for women? This question is especially relevant since the system now in use has been defended for several decades as a benefit to women and used to justify resistance to any civil rights measure to prohibit pricing by driver sex (recently by Brown, 1995, but see also Butler, 1995). As a lower mileage group, women might on average spend less for auto insurance, but insurers argue that price classes are already tied to the annual mileage of cars and also to women’s lower accident involvement and better driving records.

More informations, visit http://74.200.250.2/~allidexc/blogs/onlineautoinsurance/auto_insurance_quotes.html