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
  #91  
Old 07-18-2011, 04:21 PM
strokin'_tatsch's Avatar
strokin'_tatsch strokin'_tatsch is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,507
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 slow3v View Post
I'm just glad I manage to muster 16-18MPG city/highway mix (about 50/50) with my 4.9/5spd/3.55
That's better than mine used to get.. Mine used to get 14mpg... That's it.. 14.. Never got better. That was a regular cab, shorty, 4x4, 300/5 speed/3.55's. My donor truck got 19 mpg with the 302 in it, but it was driven by my grandfather, so the go pedal didn't go very far. I wouldn't count that as a good comparison. 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
  #92  
Old 07-18-2011, 04:37 PM
im2tall33's Avatar
im2tall33 im2tall33 is offline
ID CHAPTER LDR
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Coeur d alene, Id
Posts: 21,459
im2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputation
hmm.. well like it has been mentioned there is no way this debate or discussion can or will be settled..both are great engines..how ever i love the 300 more than the 302 in a truck...but it depends on personal preference.. the best mileage i have seen or recorded in a 5.0 truck is 17mpgs..in my 92 flarside i had i would consitantly get 23 mpgs on the highway...

to each his own....me its a 300 in a "work" truck..
__________________
Micah Munroe BIG BSer#2and Slackmaster #19
Click to join the Idaho Chapter]
1994 F-150 4x4 300-6 5spd w/ 33 12.50 cooper stt tires
1981 Ford Bronco 300-6 aka Billy the Bucking Bronco

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGKEN View Post
Micah...the man...the myth...the legend!!!

Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-18-2011, 05:19 PM
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.
All I know is I think the 351W is better suited than either for a truck.
__________________
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
  #94  
Old 07-18-2011, 05:50 PM
im2tall33's Avatar
im2tall33 im2tall33 is offline
ID CHAPTER LDR
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Coeur d alene, Id
Posts: 21,459
im2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputation
i would agree with that statement texasguy..

how ever i do like the fuel mileage out of the 300 more lol
__________________
Micah Munroe BIG BSer#2and Slackmaster #19
Click to join the Idaho Chapter]
1994 F-150 4x4 300-6 5spd w/ 33 12.50 cooper stt tires
1981 Ford Bronco 300-6 aka Billy the Bucking Bronco

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGKEN View Post
Micah...the man...the myth...the legend!!!

Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-18-2011, 06:05 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by im2tall33 View Post
i would agree with that statement texasguy..

how ever i do like the fuel mileage out of the 300 more lol
I get 12 in town and 16-17 highway.

In my 87 F150 with the 4.9/auto, single cab, 2wd longbed I got about the same, maybe 13 in town which I could get now if I drove like I had any sense. Now I have a F250, SC Longbed 4wd with the 351/auto.
__________________
Kevin G, West Virginia

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

Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-18-2011, 06:34 PM
Bowtie_Schmowtie's Avatar
Bowtie_Schmowtie Bowtie_Schmowtie is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Western N.C.
Posts: 738
Bowtie_Schmowtie is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strokin'_tatsch View Post
I drove a 300/6 yesterday. 1989 f-150 2wd regular cab short bed 5 speed and around 190k miles.
I would suspect that any gasser with 190K miles would tend to be a little tired.


It would seem to me that a 4.9 with a 3.08 is not geared properly, so it should be geared properly as is being suggested for those who doubt the 302.

I own a 4.9 and I agree that it has its drawbacks. I still love it though. The 300 is simply not made to turn the same RPMs as a V8, so it will have a completely different powerband. If other folks don't like that, then they don't have to get one. It'll leave more of them for those of us who like them.

Deal?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Gervais View Post
Wes, don't judge man. My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.


'78 John "Icepick"...'73 F100 Custom "Eddie" 360 2V, 3 in the floor...'90 F150 XLT Lariat "Bruce" 4.9 EFI, 5 in the floor
North Carolina Chapter Member
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-18-2011, 07:29 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.
Im just curious how come the trucks with a 4.9 always got taller gearing every 302 I ever seen had 3.55
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-18-2011, 07:39 PM
strokin'_tatsch's Avatar
strokin'_tatsch strokin'_tatsch is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,507
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 Bowtie_Schmowtie View Post
I would suspect that any gasser with 190K miles would tend to be a little tired.


It would seem to me that a 4.9 with a 3.08 is not geared properly, so it should be geared properly as is being suggested for those who doubt the 302.

I own a 4.9 and I agree that it has its drawbacks. I still love it though. The 300 is simply not made to turn the same RPMs as a V8, so it will have a completely different powerband. If other folks don't like that, then they don't have to get one. It'll leave more of them for those of us who like them.

Deal?
It's not tired. The 300 has no problem going 250-300k miles most of the time. Plus, my 302 had 203k miles when I rebuilt it. The 302 ran better IMO and it still had great cross hatching in the cylinders. The 300 should wear better being a straight 6. So I'd say the one I drove isn't too tired.. I feel like 3.08s are alright for the 300 being that it keeps them at LOW rpms where their power band is. That's just me. 3.55's would be better and we will be swapping that truck to 3.55's in the near future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rangergirl94 View Post
Im just curious how come the trucks with a 4.9 always got taller gearing every 302 I ever seen had 3.55
My truck had 3.55's with the 4.9L. It wasn't much better than the one I drove last weekend with 3.08's. I've also seen quite a few 302s with 3.08s too. They were just mixed and matched.
__________________
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
  #99  
Old 07-18-2011, 08:27 PM
rikard rikard is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Reading Mass
Posts: 1,183
rikard is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
I love my EFI 300 for its reliability, low end power band, and ease of maintenance. With 3.08s I'm able to cruise at a good clip on the highway but the Mazda 1st and reverse suck. My old 94 had 3.55s and it was good but really didn't move any faster than my current truck and it didn't have the long legs on the highway.
I have had several 302s in carb and EFI mostly in cars. My 83 F150 had the 302 2v AOD and 3.55s. I did adapt a Quadrajet for it and it had 218k on it when retired. It did not have the low end torque of the 300 or 351 but it hauled a 4500 lb trailer OK and it had no trouble with 305s or 318s that challenged it at stoplights.
I never had any trouble getting power out of the 289/302 and considered it one of Fords better ideas.
302 or 300 ?
Blonds or Brunettes ?
I'll take both
regards
rikard
__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter
and those who matter don't mind."
- Dr. Seuss"
Nelly Belle 1995 Black F150 4x2 SC XLT 300 5 Spd 250k miles
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-18-2011, 08:45 PM
slow3v's Avatar
slow3v slow3v is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Endwell, NY
Posts: 46
slow3v is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strokin'_tatsch View Post
That's better than mine used to get.. Mine used to get 14mpg... That's it.. 14.. Never got better. That was a regular cab, shorty, 4x4, 300/5 speed/3.55's. My donor truck got 19 mpg with the 302 in it, but it was driven by my grandfather, so the go pedal didn't go very far. I wouldn't count that as a good comparison. LOL
Wow! Yeah mines identical; single cab 4x4, 6ft box. It's only got 119k mi on her though and she just had a fresh tuneup.

I don't really drive it hard either on a daily basis. Usually shift @ 2k.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 07-18-2011, 09:28 PM
strokin'_tatsch's Avatar
strokin'_tatsch strokin'_tatsch is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,507
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 slow3v View Post
Wow! Yeah mines identical; single cab 4x4, 6ft box. It's only got 119k mi on her though and she just had a fresh tuneup.

I don't really drive it hard either on a daily basis. Usually shift @ 2k.
Yeah, we changed the cap/rotor, plugs, wires, coil, etc. Basically did a good tune up on mine to see if mileage would come up... It didn't. LOL. Maybe it's the hills around here or something. It was always floored trying to get up hills. Sometimes I'd have to downshift to 3rd gear to get up them. haha
__________________
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
  #102  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:33 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 think what most ppl are over looking is the relability of the 300, the majority of them run 250k to 300k with no major problems. yeah you may have a 302 last that long every once in a blue moon but not very likely....i ve seen alot more 302's blow up than 300's and i want my truck motor to do work thats why i bought a truck if i wanted a bunch of horsepower i would of bought a dam supersnake mustang lol... bottom line 300= great worker, problem free motor
__________________

91 F-150 300 I6 E4OD 250,000k
Member of Pennsylvania Chapter of Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:35 AM
slow3v's Avatar
slow3v slow3v is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Endwell, NY
Posts: 46
slow3v is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strokin'_tatsch View Post
Yeah, we changed the cap/rotor, plugs, wires, coil, etc. Basically did a good tune up on mine to see if mileage would come up... It didn't. LOL. Maybe it's the hills around here or something. It was always floored trying to get up hills. Sometimes I'd have to downshift to 3rd gear to get up them. haha
Ah haha yeah that may be why. I've never had to floor it up a hill. I can usually make it up pretty steep ones in 3rd or 4th at part throttle, even maintaining 55-60 or just barely accelerating up some of the larger ones. Odd too, because I live in a generally hilly area too - I'm in a valley.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-19-2011, 01:09 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangergirl94 View Post
Im just curious how come the trucks with a 4.9 always got taller gearing every 302 I ever seen had 3.55
The 4.9 generally got taller numerically lower gears to keep the RPMs down.

Not every 302 got 3.55 gears. Many got 3.08 and 3.30. They were mix and matched like Stash said. I have no idea why Ford did that though.

In my opinion Ford should have never put anything worse than 3.55 in a 302 truck. Mine has 3.55 now and it is ok and would be better if I had stock tires instead of the 31s.
__________________
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
  #105  
Old 07-19-2011, 01:15 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.
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.
__________________
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
Old 07-19-2011, 01:15 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 (all engine sizes) 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 - 2014 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 09:56 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