no... 300 I6's were the best combo of power and reliability and fuel mileage.. they made GREAT power down low got 3-6 mpg better than a 302 or 351W in the same setup.... and they were as reliable as a horse and buggy...

and i have to say... i'll never own a 300 I6 unless its in a work truck... just purely cause i love speed so much... so thats why the modded 351W is sitting in my Flaresides engine bay....

 

I owned two of them will never have another. I will give you the reliability and very easy to maintain and work on too. But, Ford likes to gear them too high and they lose the power. When geared low, the lose the MPG's.

 

"Best combo" totally depends how you weight the 3 of them. MPG would have a 90% weighing to win that.

 

The best MPG's I ever got with my last 300 (1986 F-150 4x4) running 3.08.1 axles was 18 on the highway. This truck was a dog and had no pulling power but she never cost me a nickel either.

My sister an an '03 Trailblazer with the I-6 and she gets at best 17 on the highway. My '04 Expy with the 4.6L gets 20 with 3.73's.

 

I think his comparo of the two is pretty legit. I mean yeah the Ecoboost makes ton's more power and ton's more torque at any RPM than the old 300I6
But I think the point he was making was the in a way the 300 was ''in essence'' the Ecoboost of its day. It only seems different now because back then the 300 was listed as the ''base'' engine in the F-150. While the Ecoboost today is listed only under the 6.2L V8.

I'm not taking sides here, just stating it how I see it.

 

Great choice! I too decided on a 5.0L Scab 4x4. Only difference is I can't decide if I want to fork over the extra cash for an FX4 or if I should just go with an XLT. Personally I really don't like the extra chrome on the XLT, I much perfer the body color matched bumpers and blacked out head and tail lights on the FX4.

Come to think of it, I'll probably just go ahead and get the FX4, Its only a few grand price difference between the two and since I plan on keeping this truck for many years I might as well get what I want right?

Anyway I look forward to seeing pic's of your new truck!

 

Well, you guys know a lot more about engines and Ford history than I do. I'm just a consumer, I take my vehicle to the dealer for maintenance by the manual and rarely even look under the hood, I wouldn't have a clue what to do with all those wires and tubes anyway. My frequently reminds me that it always costs more when I try to fix something myself rather than take it to the pros. I bought my 2001 F350 Lariat with 7.3 diesel because diesel was cheaper, it hauled my snowmobile trailer easily and the truck got better mileage. I was happy with that one but it got old so I sold that and bought the 2005 King Ranch diesel with the promise of the new "improved" engine. Well diesel got expensive ($1 more than gas here) and that engine blew it's head gasket at 37,000 miles costing me $4700 to fix. So I sold it last year and have been using a Chevy to haul my stuff the past year (comfortable truck but just doesn't feel "familiar" to my Ford blood). So when the ecoboost came out I decided to take the plunge and have ordered the "pseudo-diesel". Here's to hoping Ford got it right.

 

Are you touched in the head? Read below, what 640 CI Aluminum FORD said.

I never said the 300 and the Ecoboost made the same level of power. The 300 was introduced in 1965.

I think you're just looking for a fight or something. I won't host your passive aggresive desire to start conflict on an internet forum.




You're spot on! I wasn't saying the 300 and the Ecoboost made the same power. I was simply saying the Ecoboost is as the 300 once was, for it's time.



Good day all!

 

You had the 6.uh oh!! The 04 and 05 engines were problematic for sure.

 

Your a piece of work, you really are. You started the fight. YOU took my humorous look at your stmt and you started calling me names. Give it up already. I obviously embarrarsed you. Its ok, its happened to me too. Time heals all wounds. 640 CI Aluminum FORD is entitled to his opionion. As we all are. Fair enough. That doesn't change mine.

I never said that you said they made the same power. I said that to use the two in the same sentence is unfortunate. The EB is a azz kicking techno wizzard machine. Due to its advanced technology it gets class leading power, and class leading mileage. You could NEVER say that about the 300 I6. Not in 1965, not in 1985 and not in 1996. It was tourqey for its size and given its HP. Thats it. Nothing more or less. Somehow that makes it the EB of 1965... give me a break. The 300 was never the "power machine" of the lineup. It was the least powerful of the lineup.

Today the EB is the big boy for most of the lineup. If you don't get that difference, than thats fine. We will agree to disagree. But I don't think you can be suprised to make that stmt and be challenged...

 

I apologize for not being civil. I felt you were mocking me. I still think you were but that isn't the point.

My point was simple. The 300 was a gasoline fired 6-cylinder that pulled down like a diesel. The Ecoboost V6 is a gasolien fired 6-cylinder that pulls down like a diesel.

You don't see my point, and that's fine. We can disagree.

Have a good night!

 

Like Scorpion67 said europe is all over small diesels. You can buy a crew cab ranger with V6 diesel and sounds like everybody likes them. Europe do everthing in diesel and make very little emissions. Ford stop excursion for replacement of Expedition EL with diesl V6, what happen to that? I would sure like a crew cab ranger/F150 with V6 diesel.

 

I have been following the Ford light-duty diesel craze over the past few years and while I do understand the initial cost of the diesel engine is greater than the gas engine, the diesel is a far better choice for the long term. As a civil engineer, I tend to crunch numbers out of habit, so being curious, I did some simple math to compare costs. Bear with me...

According to ford's website, the 2011 f150 4x4 gets 16city/21hwy mpg. While I don't have a reference for the articles, I have seen multiple times where they claim the light duty diesel will give a 20% increase in fuel economy. This puts the diesel getting 19.2city/25.2hwy mpg. I live in north Texas where current fuel prices are $2.90 for gas and $3.20 for diesel. Considering those prices, let's compare over a 60,000 mile period with slightly above the city mileage.

Gas f150 - Using 17 mpg...
3530 gallons used = $10,237
Oil change every 3000 miles, roughly $40 per visit = $800
Total cost over 60,000 miles = $11, 037

Diesel f150 - Using 21 mpg...
2858 gallons used = $9,145
Oil change every 10,000 miles, roughly $100 per visit = $600
Emissions additives, roughly $100 per oil change = $600
Total cost over 60,000 miles = $10,345

While this is strictly considering fuel and oil costs, the difference is almost $700 less in favor of the diesel. Again, I know the diesel engine costs more initially, but the numbers don't lie. People complain about how high diesel prices are, but what they don't realize is that in the long run, they are paying more to fuel a gas engine. With a diesel, people will not only benefit from the fuel cost, but the emission footprint is far better...and having the additional 100+ ft-lb of torque would be nice!

I currently own a 99 f150 with a 5.4L V8 which gets average 11 mpg as I mostly drive in the city. During the summer, I tow a wakeboarding boat which weighs around 5000 lbs and during winters I haul the 4 wheelers to the deerlease on a 16 foot trailer. (towing the boat I get around 7 mpg >: l ) While it would be nice to have an f250, it would not be as practical for me as having a light duty diesel truck. If I were pulling larger loads, however, I would need the extra support and power of a super duty.

All that being said, I feel a light duty diesel truck could be very beneficial to the guys in the middle, like me. Extra power when you need it, better fuel economy overall, better for the environment, and cheaper ownership cost. I say let's build 'em!!

 

Very good now look at the cost of the gas f150 the new ones i.e. ecoboost gets its oil changed every 10000 miles just like the diesel you mentioned. Now that would lower the cost of maintain the engine would it not? Plus keep it equal, if you just create an average for the fuel economy don't fudge the numbers to favor the diesel. That would be 18.5 for gas and 22.2 (still better). That is 9405.41 for gas and 8646.65 for diesel. Plus the part you did not even bring up. The diesel engine cost up front that is going to be $5000- or more then the gas engines. So there goes your savings sir. And then some.

 

First off, I didn't fudge numbers. There's a bigger difference between the city and highway mpg on the diesesl so it was a fair comparison. But yes I could have taken an average. I feel like most people drive in the city which is why I chose lower numbers. I also did not know the ecoboost is a 10,000 mile oil change so thanks for pointing that out. Second, did you not read the whole thread? I specifically mentioned the fact that "a diesel costs more initially"...twice actually. My point was that people think since the fuel is more expensive, it's a waste of money when it really comes out close to the same.