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
  #181  
Old 08-01-2011, 08:43 AM
strokin'_tatsch's Avatar
strokin'_tatsch strokin'_tatsch is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,519
strokin'_tatsch is a splendid one to beholdstrokin'_tatsch is a splendid one to beholdstrokin'_tatsch is a splendid one to beholdstrokin'_tatsch is a splendid one to beholdstrokin'_tatsch is a splendid one to beholdstrokin'_tatsch is a splendid one to beholdstrokin'_tatsch is a splendid one to beholdstrokin'_tatsch is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1800joedaddy View Post
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?

Welcome to the discussion Joe! Nice to see you somewhere other than PSA or PSN. lol
__________________
Travis- Death Row Diesel Inmate #7
1995 F-250 RC PSD- because race truck
2000 F-250 SC LB 4x4 ZF6- 4" TB, 6637, TW and Gearhead tunes, 160/100s, Driven Diesel full fuel system, S365..
1994 F-150 4x4

Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 08-01-2011, 12:40 PM
oleman oleman is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 173
oleman is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowtie_Schmowtie View Post
Quite a few manufacturers made straight 8 flatheads back in the day. Buick, Chrysler, Lincoln, Packard, Deusenberg, Cord, etc. I don't think there is a single American car company that hasn't made a straight six at some point in its history.

I've always wondered how one would perform in one of our trucks...not to mention how it would SOUND... if it could even be shoehorned in, that is... those suckers are looong. Back in the day, it wasn't uncommon to have hoods that were longer than the passenger compartments.

I know where I can get several of them, but the cost of rebuilding them would be prohibitive. I have to say, though...the thought of an old '30s straight 8 crackling through straight pipe stacks is tantalizing...

Anyway, as far as reliability goes, someone made a comment earlier about the cylinder orientation of a straight six contributing less to wear than a V engine. I believe this to be absolutely true. In a V engine, there is more friction between the pistons and outboard cylinder walls because the pistons are constantly "laying down" in the cylinders. Basically they are resting their weight on one part of the cylinders more than anywhere else. In a "true" straight six ("true" meaning 90 degrees to the ground), the pistons are standing up in the cylinders and not tending to rest themselves on any one surface of the cylinders themselves. I think there is inherently more balance in an inline six as well, which aids in longevity.

Of course, there are many things that contribute to the overall reliability of an engine other than its cylinder arrangement. Make no mistake... there have been some crummy sixes made over the years. Some, like the Jeep OHC 230 Tornado, were too advanced for their time and didn't fare well as a result. But consider this...why has the inline six been the overwhelming configuration in the OTR truck industry for decades upon decades?

There must be something to that.
The last of the inline 8's were from GM in the Pontiac and the Buick until around 54. I had a pontiac I-8 in 67 in a desert buggy in southern cal. It ran great with plenty of power for what was.
The buick was special because it was the only I-8 of modern overhead valve design. My neighbors had a 52 Buick I-8 with the no shift automatic xmission in 59. It ran fine with deceant mileage but it was no power house.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 08-03-2011, 09:19 AM
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.
I always wanted to drive an inline 8. I always imagined they made diesel-like power, never revving much past three grand, making gobs of torque.

My dad say his father had a straight 8 in an old car. I don't recal what car. The man used it to plow snow with. Dad said that thing was a real torque monster.
__________________
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
  #184  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:46 PM
Giulio Giulio is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10
Giulio is starting off with a positive reputation.
Hey guys, I am deciding in whether to buy an I6 or a 302. I like the 4.9 because of its reliability and towing capabilities, but who doesnt love speed, which the 302 provides. Now after reading the whole thread, I just have a few questions. The 1996 F150 had the most torque and HP for both engines.And idk why ford dropped a lousy gear in the 4.9, however, if you had a 96 efi reg cab short box with both 3:55 or 3:73 gears, would the I6 would be better for highway when passing and pulling a trailer than a 302? Because vehicles respond wayy different between a 2.89 and a 3:73.

And considering its an obd2 setup, the tuning wise on both engines can benefit it than a carb setup.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 12-31-2012, 11:20 AM
DPDISXR4Ti DPDISXR4Ti is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 944
DPDISXR4Ti is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giulio View Post
Hey guys, I am deciding in whether to buy an I6 or a 302. I like the 4.9 because of its reliability and towing capabilities
I just towed a very light load (~2500 lbs) 260 miles with a 4.9 & M5R2 & 2.73. It performed well enough, but didn't like hills of any length - I was scrambling for the slow lane a couple times as I downshifted to 4th - even 3rd a couple times when I lost my momentum.

I don't have a frame of reference to compare to a 5.0, only a 5.8, which I once towed with and had no such issues.

I will say the 4.9 ran flawlessly and very cool for the whole trip despite the load and heavy traffic at times. My fan is electric and manually triggered and I never had to flip it on. I do have a new rad - picked one up a few months ago on eBay for ridiculously short dollars.

Relative to your OBD2 comment, does anyone actually tune these PCM's and if so, were any realistic gains achieved? I would think that since they were a "one year wonder" nobody would have bothered. Keep in mind too, if you have a '96, you may be subject to emissions testing that you'll escape with a pre-'96 vehicle.
__________________
Brad
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:52 PM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,560
Conanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud of
Ok here's another example. I towed the 04 ranger we have home on a u-haul dolly with my truck.. a 5.0/AOD/3.55 combo, so that's a 5000lb ext cab 4x4 hauling a 3500lb or so vehicle. I put the trans in D and keep it to about 100km/h(60mph) the whole way and the truck had no problem whatsoever getting up to or maintaining speed, I didn't encounter any big hills but those I did it climbed without losing more than about 5km/h, or in other words I wasn't holding up traffic.
__________________
Paul (Conan) O'Brien

1990 5.0HO AOD XLT X-Cab F150 3.55LS, 1994 3.0L 5-sp x-cab Ranger 3.45, 2004 3.0L 5-sp X-cab Ranger Edge 4.10, 2004 2.5L 5-spd Subaru Legacy
1996 Kawasaki ZX11D, 2004 Honda 599, 2008 Kawasaki KLR650
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 12-31-2012, 04:08 PM
Giulio Giulio is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10
Giulio is starting off with a positive reputation.
Oh wow that's pretty good. The only thing that's bugging me is that if a newer gen (92-96) I6 was equipped with a 3:55 or 3:73 gear, auto or manual, how it is pulling a trailer. Because no offence but the old I6 but those had a lower HP rating compared to the new ones and most had a 4 speed with a 3.08 gear. No wonder its Guna struggle up a hill.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 12-31-2012, 05:25 PM
DPDISXR4Ti DPDISXR4Ti is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 944
DPDISXR4Ti is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giulio View Post
Oh wow that's pretty good. The only thing that's bugging me is that if a newer gen (92-96) I6 was equipped with a 3:55 or 3:73 gear, auto or manual, how it is pulling a trailer. Because no offence but the old I6 but those had a lower HP rating compared to the new ones and most had a 4 speed with a 3.08 gear. No wonder its Guna struggle up a hill.
I'm pretty sure that the '87 - '91's are rated at the same HP as the later trucks. I also believe that the '92 - '96 2WD trucks got the 3.08, same as my '91 (scratch my previous comment that I have a 2.73, it's a 3.08). I think it's only the 4WD trucks that got a 3.55 unless custom spec'd.

Regardless, I'd rather have the taller gear for unloaded highway travel. If I'm pulling a load and have to down-shift on a hill, so be it.
__________________
Brad
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 01-01-2013, 12:45 AM
SCRebel's Avatar
SCRebel SCRebel is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conway, South Carolina
Posts: 1,293
SCRebel is starting off with a positive reputation.
For me: If I was 4x4ing, mudding, or towing alot I would want a 4.9. For city driving or alot of hwy with occasional towing/4x4ing I would choose a 5.0.
__________________
Carolina Man
SCV Member, Camp Litchfield #132

1989 F150 XLT Lariat, Super Cab, Shortbed, 4x4, AOD transmission, 351w EFI, 1979 Dana 44 Solid Axle Swap, 3G 130A Swap, 8" lift, 35*12.5*R15 BFG AT's, 4.56 gearing. AKA: The Grey Goose
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 01-01-2013, 08:40 AM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,560
Conanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud of
The 4.9 is available with all the same gear ratios as the other engines so you will find 4.9 trucks with 3.55s or even 4.10s, it's just that because of the way Ford marketed and packaged options the higher gear ratios(3.31 and 3.08) were more common in these trucks and Ford even produced a special high milage package with 2.73 gears... which unfortunately reduced towing capacity to zero and made the truck useless for everything except commuting.... so I'm not sure of the logic there.

As for towing on the highway.. horsepower rules, the 4.9 doesn't make any so it's not gonna do well at passing or accelerating whereas the 5.0 loves to spool so you just got to let it do it's thing and not drive it like a diesel.
__________________
Paul (Conan) O'Brien

1990 5.0HO AOD XLT X-Cab F150 3.55LS, 1994 3.0L 5-sp x-cab Ranger 3.45, 2004 3.0L 5-sp X-cab Ranger Edge 4.10, 2004 2.5L 5-spd Subaru Legacy
1996 Kawasaki ZX11D, 2004 Honda 599, 2008 Kawasaki KLR650
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 01-01-2013, 12:54 PM
IDIDieselJohn's Avatar
IDIDieselJohn IDIDieselJohn is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 7,828
IDIDieselJohn has a very good reputation on FTE.IDIDieselJohn has a very good reputation on FTE.IDIDieselJohn has a very good reputation on FTE.IDIDieselJohn has a very good reputation on FTE.
Thats one thing alot of people hate about the 300 and think there sluggish, Ford put the worst ever gearing behind them. Now I can see them doing that and getting away with it simply because the 300 with all it's low end power, can handle the really tall gears, that no other small V8 can, but still.


I prefer the 300 over the 302 any day, simply because the 300 is a TRUCK engine. Not a high revving 302. The 300 will outlive by far any 302 in a truck any day, I know not alot of people care about that, they like feeling the power, but for me, I keep my vehicles for ever, I want something that will last, and no ow me any money.



And personally for gearing, i've driven many gear combos on 300's, and I think the best gears with a 300 standard, 5spd or 4, would be 3.55 and for autos, 3.08 are fine.


My '89 2wd F150 has 2.73's with the C6, and i've towed a Buick on a dolly with it, pretty sluggish off the line, but once the load was moving, it wasn't half bad.


And my '94 4x4 5spd F150, has 3.08's and quite frankly, it needs something abit lower in gears. One of my past parts truck was a 5 speed 300 with 3.55 and I have to say, that one drove nice, had nice all around power in all gears, and pretty much didn't need any rev taking off from a stop to keep up with traffic.



I've never driven a 5 spd 300 with 2.73's, and really, just thinking about that burns my clutch! Wonder what's the highway RPM's on those. Mine with 3.08's revs at 1700RPM at 100km/h (62mph).



As for the discussion of witch engine is better......I say it all depends on what you do with your truck.


300 is superior to the 302 for towing in my opinion, not all power wise, but in longevity and durability.


And the 302 is much superior to the 300 for performance and get up and go.
__________________

1990 Ford F250 4x4, ZF5, L/S 4.10, N/A 7.3L Diesel, 568,808km/377,497 miles, still on the original clutch!
1989 Ford F150 300-6, C6, 2.73, 152,000km/95,000 miles.
1987 Ford E350 26ft. Motorhome, N/A 6.9L Diesel, C6, 3.54, 289,000km/180,000 miles.
1985 Ford E350 Ext Van, 6.9L Diesel, C6, 4.11, 677,000km/425k miles
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 01-01-2013, 06:25 PM
Freightrain's Avatar
Freightrain Freightrain is offline
Shiftoholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 6,992
Freightrain has a good reputation on FTE.Freightrain has a good reputation on FTE.Freightrain has a good reputation on FTE.
The problem is everyone compares apples to oranges and complains one way or the other.

You would need to see two trucks, same set up(but different motors) to see if one did better then the other. Can't compare a '85 302/automatic 3.31 gears to a '96 300/5spd/3.73 and say one does better then the other. Well, duh.

Personally I like my 302, plain and simple. Does what I need it to do and that is all that counts.

I drove a buddy's '83 300/4spd and it was SCARY on the highway due to the fact it would barely keep 65 mph and would NOT accelerate to pass AT ALL!! Stuck in the slow lane Period! BUT, likely that truck was not meant/built for that. Around town it would drag stuff fine. They've changed ALOT through the years.
__________________
*signature delete option*
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 01-01-2013, 10:39 PM
SCRebel's Avatar
SCRebel SCRebel is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conway, South Carolina
Posts: 1,293
SCRebel is starting off with a positive reputation.
I got 295,000 mile out of my 302. It needed valve seals and the rings were wore (smoked only when reved hard where it was sucking oil buy the rings) it still ran good and only burnt 1 quart every 5,000 miles.

With that said my 302 in my lifted supercab 4x4 just wasnt enough for me, so I swapped in a 351w and I get 2 mpg better and more power.
__________________
Carolina Man
SCV Member, Camp Litchfield #132

1989 F150 XLT Lariat, Super Cab, Shortbed, 4x4, AOD transmission, 351w EFI, 1979 Dana 44 Solid Axle Swap, 3G 130A Swap, 8" lift, 35*12.5*R15 BFG AT's, 4.56 gearing. AKA: The Grey Goose
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 01-01-2013, 11:24 PM
rangergirl94's Avatar
rangergirl94 rangergirl94 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Geneva,Ohio
Posts: 656
rangergirl94 is starting off with a positive reputation.
i have 3.55 gears a 300 and I put a zf in it it gets 20 mpg and can pull anything I had a 302 before and loved it to but my step dads 302 is gutless idk y
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 01-02-2013, 03:07 AM
Bdox's Avatar
Bdox Bdox is offline
Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lake Tahoe, Nevada
Posts: 28,110
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
A nicely tuned 300 will do everything better than a 302 with poor tuning, bad valve seats, timing poorly adjusted etc. Swap the sentence to say a good 302 will out do a bad 300. You will be right again.

Older 300 motors are known for carb problems.
__________________
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
Old 01-02-2013, 03:07 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
5.0L vs 5.3L 640 CI Aluminum FORD 2009 - 2014 F150 7 11-11-2014 05:05 PM
why not a 5.8l quincyj34 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 7 12-14-2012 12:50 AM
Performance: 3.5L vs 5.0L seminaryranger EcoBoost (all engine sizes) 63 11-06-2012 09:54 AM
Got to drive all the 2011 F-150 engines and this is my review! 640 CI Aluminum FORD 2009 - 2014 F150 38 01-18-2011 05:53 PM
Best place to buy rebuilt engines? Proxymatic Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W) 4 07-02-2008 12:08 AM


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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 PM.


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