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

Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #196  
Old 01-02-2013, 05:25 PM
garrett_8 garrett_8 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield missouri
Posts: 197
garrett_8 is starting off with a positive reputation.
after reading most of this thread what have i gathered


if you have a 300 straight 6 there is no way in hell a 302 is or will ever be better


if you own a 302 you like it plenty but each engine has its own niche
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 01-02-2013, 07:08 PM
strokin'_tatsch's Avatar
strokin'_tatsch strokin'_tatsch is online now
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,528
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 garrett_8 View Post
after reading most of this thread what have i gathered


if you have a 300 straight 6 there is no way in hell a 302 is or will ever be better


if you own a 302 you like it plenty but each engine has its own niche
I had a straight 6 and everything under the sun was better, including 302's. A 302 in a bigger truck would run away and leave me from a stop and running down the highway whether there was a load or no load. Plain and simple, the 300-6 is an ok engine as far as reliability goes.. They don't have enough power to tear themselves up. They will get the job done, just get it done slower. Sorry, but my truck would lose speed going uphill without a load and it's a regular cab, 5 speed, and at the time had 3.55s. I can't stand having to floor it just to make it up a hill.
__________________
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
  #198  
Old 01-02-2013, 09:15 PM
pfogle's Avatar
pfogle pfogle is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oak Harbor, OH
Posts: 8,122
pfogle has a good reputation on FTE.pfogle has a good reputation on FTE.pfogle has a good reputation on FTE.
patfogle DaPocky
If you were having problems like that you had something wrong with it. I have one in my '96 and when it's running right (not right now) it will run as well as any 302 I've ever owned, and that's with the 2.73:1 rear end.
__________________
1996 F150 Regular cab, SWB, 4.9. 5speed.
- Curiosity is the root of learning. Be curious, and in turn share what you know with the curious.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 01-02-2013, 09:37 PM
Jhouse85 Jhouse85 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 67
Jhouse85 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Back when I drove concrete mixers (before I decided to start my pump business) I used to work for a readymix company.

When I first started work there I was assigned the "new guy mixer" It was an old piece of **** powered by a 300 i6. It was a single axle mixer that could hold 8 yards legally. (they always threw in 9 yards anyway). I was amazed the 300 i6 could move the 20k lb truck empty not to mention the 9 yards of concrete (36k lbs).

No question though, when it was loaded up and weighed in around 56-58k... I had trouble on some of the hills leading to the job sites. Must have been some crazy gears in that old truck but I was mightily impressed with the 300 i6
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 01-03-2013, 01:00 AM
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.
Mine will pass traffic in 5th very easy but I love my 300 after swapping 3.55 in it
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 01-03-2013, 03:49 AM
Andrew James Andrew James is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 213
Andrew James is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strokin'_tatsch View Post
I had a straight 6 and everything under the sun was better, including 302's. A 302 in a bigger truck would run away and leave me from a stop and running down the highway whether there was a load or no load. Plain and simple, the 300-6 is an ok engine as far as reliability goes.. They don't have enough power to tear themselves up. They will get the job done, just get it done slower. Sorry, but my truck would lose speed going uphill without a load and it's a regular cab, 5 speed, and at the time had 3.55s. I can't stand having to floor it just to make it up a hill.
You must have had an anemic 300. As you can see from my sig, I have experience with the 300, 302, 351W. I loved my 302, but I spent money on it to whoop on the 351w rig. I like my 351w rig but its stock and good cruiser. Airplane gears in the rear and my 300 I6 F160 with 31s was fun. 20 mpg, had plenty of power and we have a couple STEEP mountains that would require a downshift but the big one right in the middle of town requires you to do a sharp 180 turn so you are forced to slow down to a least 25mph and I still chug up their fine in 4th.

My 89 Bronco had a carbed 300 and it pushed 40s around all day with 3:08 gears. I just put the EFI 300 in it and I could have just as easily put a 351w in for all the work I did but I prefer a 300 I6 for a truck motor. If you want a truck, then might as well get a truck motor.
__________________
1978 Ford Bronco XLT 6.6/C6/NP205
1996 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer 5.8/E4OD/BW1356
1987 Nissan D21 2.4/5speed
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:03 PM
CSJohnson CSJohnson is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2
CSJohnson is starting off with a positive reputation.
Wheel Spin

So I understand that if I wanted to crawl over a steep hill the 4.9l is what you want. It produces almost the same torque as the 5.0l but it does it at 400 less rpm. So wheel spin is really not an issue when you need traction. Now, if I am in a deep mud hole sporting some big super swampers, is the 4.9l going to have the hp (for wheel spin)to clean out the treads and get me out of the hole. The reason I ask is because I had a Jeep with the infamous 4.2l torque monster in it. I never met a hill that I couldn't crawl over, but in a mude hole, it acted kind of like the little engine that could. I even had 456 gears w 33/12.50 procomp tires. My new toy is a 89 150 4x4 on 35/12.50's with the 5.0l in it. I love it because its standard with that super low 1st gear. Putting a crank kit in it right now but I got a 351w in the barn that will eventually be a stroked power plant. I want to try my hand at tractor pulling.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 03-14-2014, 01:05 PM
Bdox's Avatar
Bdox Bdox is offline
Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lake Tahoe, Nevada
Posts: 28,179
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
Hi CS and welcome aboard.

You sort of answer your own question. You can't really just compare the 4.9 and the 5.0, you need to compare the vehicles. Tires, gear ratios, transmissions, vehicle weights and any individual problems and/or modifications all have to be considered. Generalizing does not always give you the answer.

I do know that a lot of these older trucks are driving around, perhaps just in occasional use so the owners are not so fussy about how well they are running. Or worse they don't even realize that the truck is not running right. Then they form their opinion about that "engine" based on their old shabby "plow truck" or trash hauler. So I think it is best to try out the vehicle you are considering and determine if it will do what you want it to.
__________________
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
  #204  
Old 03-14-2014, 02:08 PM
snowdog79's Avatar
snowdog79 snowdog79 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 755
snowdog79 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I've had both, and I always get a kick out of guys that put down the 302 as not being a good truck engine. I had no issues pulling a 6k flybridge boat and trailer combo with my '93 Bronco EB through the hills of NH. But would it have been suitable in my '69 F600 dump truck (10k empty, 22.6k legal)? No. Was the 300/6 suitable? Absolutely. The lower RPM torque peak (and flatter curve) of the long-stroke 300 is what separates the two. Which is why Ford used the 300 in many trucks up through the medium duty lines and industrial applications, not to mention the usually longer service life of the inline 6 configuration. The 302 is a fine light-duty (originally car) motor for a truck, the 300 is a truck engine.
__________________
Current Ford Trucks: 94 F250 SC, 4x4/IDIT/5M
Previous:69 F600 300/5+2, 77 F250 4x2/351M/C6, 78 F150 SC 4x2/300/3M, 79 F150 4x4/400/T18, 85 Bronco II XLT 4x4/2.8/a, 89 F150 4x4/300/4M, 93 EB Bronco 5.0, 00 F150 7700 SC 4x4/5.4, 00 Ranger SC 4x4/4.0, 01 F350 CC 4x4 DRW PSD, 03 Explorer 4.6/AWD,07 F150 Screw 4x4/5.4, 94 EB Bronco 5.8
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 08-01-2014, 11:20 PM
BigSix1 BigSix1 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Northeast
Posts: 614
BigSix1 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.BigSix1 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Bump--enjoying the thread!
__________________
1972 F-100, 240-I6, 2x4, ("restified")
1981 F-100, 300-I6, 4 spd manual with O.D., 2x4 (currently functioning as a shed)
1988 F-150 300-I6, 5 spd. Mazda, 2x4 (R. I. P.)
1997 F-250 H.D.S.C., 460, 5 spd. ZF, 4x4 ( BIG Mistake...)
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 08-02-2014, 01:42 PM
1995F150XLT4x4's Avatar
1995F150XLT4x4 1995F150XLT4x4 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 113
1995F150XLT4x4 is starting off with a positive reputation.
4.9l is a solid little engine. I've owned one and boy could it work!

I've never owned a 5.0, currently own a 5.8, and though these engines are pretty similar I technically can't say anything about the 5.0.
__________________
"Truck" - '95 F-150 XLT / 351W E4OD / 3.55LS / 3" lift on 33s - daily driver
"Papa" - '77 F-150 Reg cab shortbed / cammed 400M, headers, holley 4bbl
"Bubba" - '79 F-250 longbed / 460 / work in progress
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 08-22-2014, 10:49 AM
rlacan71 rlacan71 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 24
rlacan71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Funny I'm in the market for a new ( to me ) truck and there are currently 5 near me on craigslist in my price range. One is a 351....then there are two 4.9 and 2 5.0.

I read every post ...all 14 pages.

Thanks ......I think Muddy waters...

Leaning towards the 4.9 atm based on sheer durability and possibly slightly better MPG. 5.0 is a super close second since this truck will be a daily driver and I will basically treat it like a car 95 percent of the time and 5 percent will be snow days, Depo runs , times I just need to move sheit around and 3 or 4 times a year Ill be filling it up with computers to recycle from my job. The 351 is prolly no longer in the discussion due to lower MPG.

However If I can financially swing keeping my POS Sentra on the road as well as a truck then that opens up a buttload of other options.

Bleh
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 08-22-2014, 10:55 AM
rlacan71 rlacan71 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 24
rlacan71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Forgot to mention my criteria above...

4X4
Automatic....to my shame I've never learned standard and i'm an old dog now
8ft bed

Be nice to find and ext cab but apparently they are rare in these parts. I found 2 and both were rusted to sheit.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 08-22-2014, 11:28 AM
Bdox's Avatar
Bdox Bdox is offline
Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lake Tahoe, Nevada
Posts: 28,179
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
None of those options are famous for gas mileage.
__________________
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
  #210  
Old 08-22-2014, 02:41 PM
rlacan71 rlacan71 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 24
rlacan71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdox View Post
None of those options are famous for gas mileage.
True.

Good thing my day job is only 3 miles away and my night job is 8 miles away. I've read here and a few other places of the 4.9 getting a steady 16 combined....and some cases even better. I can live with that.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 02:41 PM
 
 
 
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


Participate In The Forums

Create new posts and participate in discussions. It's free!

Sign Up »





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 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. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup