Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 1987 - 1996 Ford F-150, F-250, F-350 and larger pickups - including the 1997 heavy-duty F250/F350+ trucks

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #166  
Old 07-27-2011, 01:44 AM
TexasGuy001 TexasGuy001 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 9,381
TexasGuy001 has a very good reputation on FTE.TexasGuy001 has a very good reputation on FTE.TexasGuy001 has a very good reputation on FTE.TexasGuy001 has a very good reputation on FTE.
This might help settle some of this discussion.

Lets take two 95 F150s. Both are essentially stock regular cab with tool boxes full of junk and have over 250,000 miles on the original drivetrain, but have been taken care of and maintained. The 4.9 is an XL 5 speed and a short bed. The 5.0 is an XLT long bed and automatic. Both have 31 10.50 tires and the better of Ford's gears.

On a 0-80 run the 5.0 beat the 4.9 by a few car lengths. From 0-50 or so the 4.9 was out in front by a couple car lenghts. Around 55-60 the 5.0 began to pass the 4.9. Around 65 or so, the 5.0 was out in front of the 4.9. We made two passes and the results were the same. This was not using OD.
__________________
2002 Ford Ranger Extended Cab Flareside 3.0 V6 Automatic 3.73
1965 Mustang 302 T5
Fix It Up Don't %$@# It Up
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 07-27-2011, 01:50 AM
SideWinder4.9l's Avatar
SideWinder4.9l SideWinder4.9l is offline
Skipper of the KY Chapter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Eastern Ky
Posts: 8,463
SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.SideWinder4.9l has a spectacular reputation.
Wesley R. Cole
Quote:
Originally Posted by quaddriver View Post
nuh uh, he is referring to the 'small block' 6 vs the big one, there are such animals. the 144/170/200/250 had a 4" or less bore spacing and a short deck (7.something inches) while the 240/300 had a 4+" spacing and a 10.1" deck, making it longer, way taller and about 200+lbs heavier.
*Palm-to-face*.....UGH.....You win....My bad...

And Texasguy...You are 110% correct, I mean PERFECTLY on target....
__________________
Wesley-KY Chapter Leader
1992 F-150 Michelle-300I6 w/ 5 Speed
Hurst Short Throw Shifter & Not enough gear!

19.31 E/T @ 68.78mph in a 1/4 mile
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 07-27-2011, 08:03 AM
quaddriver quaddriver is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cook Forest PA
Posts: 2,252
quaddriver has a very good reputation on FTE.quaddriver has a very good reputation on FTE.quaddriver has a very good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGuy001 View Post
This might help settle some of this discussion.

Lets take two 95 F150s. Both are essentially stock regular cab with tool boxes full of junk and have over 250,000 miles on the original drivetrain, but have been taken care of and maintained. The 4.9 is an XL 5 speed and a short bed. The 5.0 is an XLT long bed and automatic. Both have 31 10.50 tires and the better of Ford's gears.

On a 0-80 run the 5.0 beat the 4.9 by a few car lengths. From 0-50 or so the 4.9 was out in front by a couple car lenghts. Around 55-60 the 5.0 began to pass the 4.9. Around 65 or so, the 5.0 was out in front of the 4.9. We made two passes and the results were the same. This was not using OD.
what you are saying is that at lower speeds when torque counts for more, the lower effective gearing of the M5OD shows up the AODE really light 1st and 2nd, but once you get over 50mph where HP comes into play (hp is simply the speed at which work can be done) the 5.0 shines. I can believe it.
__________________
QuadDriver...

Go Fast, run over sh......stuff
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 07-27-2011, 12:58 PM
6CylBill's Avatar
6CylBill 6CylBill is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 7,021
6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGuy001 View Post
I also see it like this. You guys know how 2 trucks can be identicle with all the same specs but one runs better from day one? Well if someone gets the better running I6 and really likes it thats great. Maybe someone else gets the other truck and never much cares for it.
From the years of research I've done, it seems there are either very good running 300's and the not so hot running 300's. Strange.


I like my 300. However, if gasoline was cheap, I would be all about the big block V8's.

Since gasoline is NOT cheap, I personally feel that a 300 is a great truck engine.

Just slow.

In it's powerband, the 300 can MOVE - but falls on it's face shortly after!
__________________
Rise and rise again..

until Lambs become Lions
Add me on FaceBook! https://www.facebook.com/bill.holsinger.5?ref=tn_tnmn
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 07-27-2011, 01:22 PM
Bdox's Avatar
Bdox Bdox is offline
Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lake Tahoe, Nevada
Posts: 28,085
Bdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputation
The last few years of the carburated 300's were problematic. Trying to meet emission at the cost of performance. 1985 & 86.
__________________
Bruce

corporations are not persons
.
corporations are not persons. corporations are not persons.corporations are not persons. corporations are not persons. corporations are not persons.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 07-27-2011, 01:29 PM
Grubbworm's Avatar
Grubbworm Grubbworm is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 2,935
Grubbworm has a great reputation on FTE.Grubbworm has a great reputation on FTE.Grubbworm has a great reputation on FTE.Grubbworm has a great reputation on FTE.Grubbworm has a great reputation on FTE.Grubbworm has a great reputation on FTE.
theGrubbworms JoEllen Grubbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdox View Post
The last few years of the carburated 300's were problematic. Trying to meet emission at the cost of performance. 1985 & 86.
I have only had one real issue with my carburetor, I had it rebuilt by a garage that did not do a quality job on it. They ended up having to take it to the dealership to get it set properly, but the job was still sub-par. Subsequently, I took it to a very good quality emissions, computer, carburetor shop some years later for a proper rebuild, and have not had any problems since.
__________________
Dave's
1985 Ford F-150 4x2 (pictures),
4.9L 300 I6 / TOD 4spd / 8.8-3.08
Troubleshooting help, for anyone that needs it.
Reward good advice with a note by clicking the left red "Add to Reputation"
button right of the word "permalink" top right of the poster's message.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 07-27-2011, 01:49 PM
85e150six4mtod 85e150six4mtod is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,141
85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation
To clear up a couple things:

From Bowtie_Schmowtie:

"Ever wonder why they never put the 300 in cars?"

The 240 was installed in full size cars in the '60s. So you could upgrade your stripper Custom to a 300 if you'd like. But the factory upgraded you to a V8.

From Bdox:

"Is there a non-electronic five speed trans that works with an older 300 4x4?"

Answer: Automatic, no. Manual, yes. Mazda M5OD or ZF. Info here:

Domestic Truck Tranny Guide

From quaddriver:

"the I6 does not suffer from 2 rods connecting at each crankpin journal like a V8 does (a win) and the I6 has **7** - count them **7** main bearings AND it does not like revving over 4000rpm. (a major win)"

Two rods on a crankpin--why is that a problem? Can you point to crankshaft failures in V-engines because of this? I don't think so. Seven (7) main bearings an advantage? No. More bearings, more friction. The 240/300 has seven vs. the previous in-lines four bearings. Seven are needed due to the length of the six cylinder's crank to control crank flex and harmonic vibrations. A V8 doesn't need and can't accomodate 7 bearings. Seven is an advantage over four bearing sixes, but not over V8s or even V6s. Not revving over 4000 an advantage? Wider powerbands are better. Besides, many "truck" V8s don't turn much faster than that anyway. My 300 didn't like much over 3500 btw.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 07-27-2011, 02:02 PM
KevinGnWV's Avatar
KevinGnWV KevinGnWV is offline
The village idiot.
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southern WV
Posts: 1,126
KevinGnWV has a good reputation on FTE.KevinGnWV has a good reputation on FTE.KevinGnWV has a good reputation on FTE.
You know...A lot of the answers here have been based on the "facts" that each individual has come to believe as the Gospel. Whether these facts were based on what someone has been told, or learned over the years, or if the said facts were looked up somewhere either in a book or online...doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if the said facts are actually "FACTS" or not. Because it still falls back on opinion as to whether these facts are advantageous in any way or not.

It's like comparing a sports drink to beer. Which is better? After a long hot day I might NEED a sports drink. But I'm gonna have a beer

It's been said many times already. It's not a question of which is the best, it's whats best for YOU and what you like as an individual.
__________________
Kevin G, West Virginia

1994 Mazda B4000 ExtCab.
4X4 SE, 5 Spd.

Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 07-27-2011, 02:04 PM
85e150six4mtod 85e150six4mtod is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,141
85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation
"It's been said many times already. It's not a question of which is the best, it's whats best for YOU and what you like as an individual."

I would go with "fact" on that one!
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:14 PM
6CylBill's Avatar
6CylBill 6CylBill is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 7,021
6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 85e150six4mtod View Post
"It's been said many times already. It's not a question of which is the best, it's whats best for YOU and what you like as an individual."

I would go with "fact" on that one!
Yup, Kevin said it!

I am curious, though. Why is there so much competition / debate on the 300 and 302? It's all part of the same team. As long as nobody bashes my Inline Six, I don't say anything negative in return. Frankly, I think they're all great engines.

I just wonder why BOTH sides of the debates are so willing to throw in on these discussions and debates.
__________________
Rise and rise again..

until Lambs become Lions
Add me on FaceBook! https://www.facebook.com/bill.holsinger.5?ref=tn_tnmn
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:59 PM
quaddriver quaddriver is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cook Forest PA
Posts: 2,252
quaddriver has a very good reputation on FTE.quaddriver has a very good reputation on FTE.quaddriver has a very good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 85e150six4mtod View Post
Two rods on a crankpin--why is that a problem? Can you point to crankshaft failures in V-engines because of this? I don't think so. Seven (7) main bearings an advantage? No. More bearings, more friction. The 240/300 has seven vs. the previous in-lines four bearings. Seven are needed due to the length of the six cylinder's crank to control crank flex and harmonic vibrations. A V8 doesn't need and can't accomodate 7 bearings. Seven is an advantage over four bearing sixes, but not over V8s or even V6s. Not revving over 4000 an advantage? Wider powerbands are better. Besides, many "truck" V8s don't turn much faster than that anyway. My 300 didn't like much over 3500 btw.
You are confusing what might be a 'problem' vs what might be better. Can I point to crankshaft failures in V engines due to crankpin sharing or almost sharing? yes. V6's firing at 120.

Since the shared crankpin dictates what portion of the cycle the siamesed cylinder is in, there will be stresses put on rod bearings - more so than anything else - not present in an I-configuration. It is better. Get used to that.

Second, since an engine converts linear motion to rotational motion, that torque number is exerted across every main bearing. Torque/7 begats a lower number than Torque/5. Lower numbers = less wear. Always have, always will. It is even more highlighted by the fact that the I6 from ford has a big massive rod and a big massive piston compared to its 5L V-brother.

While the differences are harder to see in personal light duty use vehicles, in more severe service usage such as large trucks, the I6 lasts longer than the V8 in the bottom end. The I6 was a non-frivolous engine choice for all Ford trucks. Mundane service trucks (such as delivery) In the F and E series were more often specced with the 4.9 vs the 5.0 or 5.8 simply because of the longevity and economy. How many people brag of 300K 300's. More than those with V8's?

The 300I6 found great service in industrial stationary engines. V-somethings cannot say that. This is exacerbated by the fact that the 5L V8 was specifically designed to be light duty. It does not stack up to the 4.9L. It should really have never been offered in the trucks - and I say this despite having owned 2 of them.

Ford could have pushed the I6 up to 180-200hp without stressing it, making the 5.8 be the entry V8 choice.
__________________
QuadDriver...

Go Fast, run over sh......stuff
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 07-31-2011, 10:54 PM
1800joedaddy's Avatar
1800joedaddy 1800joedaddy is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gridley Ks
Posts: 284
1800joedaddy is starting off with a positive reputation.
I hate to be the #'s guy but lets give this a quick think.

Both are within 1% Cubic Inch Displacement, but 1 having 25% less valves to intake and exhaust gases. Also the stroke of said engine is 25% longer with the same bore.

Do I need to draw a map?

The 4.9 is nearly perfect for slow steady pulling w/o downshifting. The 5.0 stomp it's @ss downshifting. I'm a diesel guy so I love the idea of cruising uphill in the same gear I'm flatlanding in.

Which is better???? The real question here is which driver are you???? The tortoise or the hare? Both are perfectly capable of winning the race just within different parameters.

My ? is... what is the realistic load limit to pull for both?
__________________
85'/91' 4wd F350 RCLB 6.9
96' 4wd F250 ECSB 460 auto (DD)
96' 4wd conversion F250 ECSB PSD auto (DD)
2000' 4wd conversion F350 CCSB PSD auto

Last edited by 1800joedaddy; 08-01-2011 at 07:30 AM. Reason: changed a 7 into a 2, my bad
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 07-31-2011, 11:37 PM
Bdox's Avatar
Bdox Bdox is offline
Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lake Tahoe, Nevada
Posts: 28,085
Bdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputation
I appreciate your thoughts, but get your numbers right.
__________________
Bruce

corporations are not persons
.
corporations are not persons. corporations are not persons.corporations are not persons. corporations are not persons. corporations are not persons.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 08-01-2011, 12:17 AM
ravens fan's Avatar
ravens fan ravens fan is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Curwensville,PA
Posts: 397
ravens fan is starting off with a positive reputation.
i agree with your comment joedaddy... its all what u like..my 300 still impresses me climbing over a decent hill without ever shifting..... now sometimes i like driving my dads 4.6(which is comparable to the 5.0 power wise) and just flooring it hearin that v8 scream lol
__________________

91 F-150 300 I6 E4OD 250,000k
Member of Pennsylvania Chapter of Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 08-01-2011, 07:31 AM
1800joedaddy's Avatar
1800joedaddy 1800joedaddy is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gridley Ks
Posts: 284
1800joedaddy is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdox View Post
I appreciate your thoughts, but get your numbers right.
Thanks for pointing that out
__________________
85'/91' 4wd F350 RCLB 6.9
96' 4wd F250 ECSB 460 auto (DD)
96' 4wd conversion F250 ECSB PSD auto (DD)
2000' 4wd conversion F350 CCSB PSD auto
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 07:31 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks

Tags
1988, 300, 49, 49l, 50, downshifting, engine, f150, ford, hits, inline, lariat, powerband, straight, swap, truck

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why not a 5.8l quincyj34 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 7 12-13-2012 11:50 PM
Performance: 3.5L vs 5.0L seminaryranger EcoBoost (3.5L, 2.0L) 63 11-06-2012 08:54 AM
Got to drive all the 2011 F-150 engines and this is my review! 640 CI Aluminum FORD 2009+ F150 38 01-18-2011 04:53 PM
Food for thoughts: 4.9 vs other motors? shop.keeper 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 63 10-15-2009 10:51 PM
Best place to buy rebuilt engines? Proxymatic Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W) 4 07-01-2008 11:08 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup