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
  #1  
Old 07-15-2011, 06:12 PM
strokin'_tatsch's Avatar
strokin'_tatsch strokin'_tatsch is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,436
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
4.9L vs 5.0L discussion

I'm starting this thread for one reason. I see A LOT of people every single day on here trying to say the 4.9L is better than the 5.0L in a truck.. It keeps making me wonder why that is.. So let's have a discussion about it.

I should say before I start this out that I have nothing against the 4.9L. It's a good little engine and is reliable. The 5.0 is also very reliable. I've seen both engines go over 300k miles and still run good. So, lets get this DISCUSSION started shall we? Lets say that again... This is a DISCUSSION. Let's not get into any pi$$ing matches, just a fun discussion.

Here is my thoughts to start this off. Everyone keeps saying the 4.9L is better than a 5.0L b/c it has more low end torque. I want you guys to sit back, think, and answer this question to yourself and to us if you feel like it. What is it that torque is doing for you and how does that make it better than the 5.0L? Should be a simple question right? Just b/c the 5.0 likes to rev doesn't make it a bad engine for a truck.

Discuss... I'll be back later.
__________________
Travis- Death Row Diesel Inmate #7
1995 F-250 RC 2wd PSD ZF5- because race truck
2000 F-250 SC LB 4x4 ZF6- 4" TB, 6637, TW and Gearhead tunes, 160/100s, Driven Diesel in tank mods, pre/post pump filters, and RR w/ bowl delete
1994 F-150 4x4

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-15-2011, 06:24 PM
bigred1992's Avatar
bigred1992 bigred1992 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 148
bigred1992 is starting off with a positive reputation.
My 92 has a 5.0 in it, close to 200k miles. I think that they are both good engines with advantages and disadvantages. Around my neck of the woods you find a lot of 3/4 tons with the 4.9 because of the torque. That engine essentially is a miniature cummins 6 cyl. But of the other hand, it's still a 6 cyl. Personally, I feel that 8cyl are a lot smoother, especially in downshifts. What really grabs my goat is that people think that the 5.0 is not as heavy duty as the 4.9. You can do just as much with the 5.0 as long as you are careful. And on the highway I think the 5.0 would outdo the 4.9 on a long haul. At any rate, these are both good engines, and I think that they are just made for different driving habits.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-15-2011, 06:29 PM
lew52's Avatar
lew52 lew52 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,555
lew52 has a very good reputation on FTE.lew52 has a very good reputation on FTE.lew52 has a very good reputation on FTE.lew52 has a very good reputation on FTE.
I have had both , but i will take the 5.0 over the 4.9 any day of the week , like i said before , the 4.9 won't get out of its own way , ....Lew
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-15-2011, 06:32 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.
OK....

I've owned a 4.9, 5.0 and currently own a 5.8, all with auto trans. Out of all 3, the 4.9/auto felt more "alive".

The 4.9s pistons run straight up and down rather than at an angle so theoretically you should have less cylinder wall wear. Provided you practice proper maintenance of course.

I like the fact that the 4.9 has timing gears rather than a chain, but not really a huge issue.

Basically, you have pros and cons to each engine, and any other engine for that matter and all have a place in these trucks. I don't think any one engine can be called better than the other because they all excel in some area that another won't so it all depends on the owners preference I suppose.

If you like your 302, good for you. If you don't like a 302, don't buy a truck with one in it. Now THAT seems simple enough.
__________________
Kevin G, West Virginia

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

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-15-2011, 08:46 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.
Ive owned both ,the 302 would out run and get better miliege but would not pull like the 300 but I use my 150 like a 1ton
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-15-2011, 08:54 PM
BIGskinny BIGskinny is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 403
BIGskinny is starting off with a positive reputation.
My buddy had an 86 f1 with a 300 granny 4 speed. We beat the living hell out of that truck. It was a daily driver mud truck work truck all the above. Had 33in tsl boggers around it. Never missed a beat. Road hard put up wet bout every day for two years almost the. He broke down and bout a 94 300 trans lost OD then he bought a chevy.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-15-2011, 08:59 PM
strokin'_tatsch's Avatar
strokin'_tatsch strokin'_tatsch is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,436
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
Well, this hasn't quite gone where I was hoping. Maybe someone will bite eventually. We've all had our experiences and our buddies experiences.. Heck I've pulled with a 302 and a 300 and the 302 would whip the 300 in ever situation we put it in, but the 302 was geared in it's power band, didn't have stock 3.08s in it. Those gears are fine for a 300, not for a 302. The 302 had 4.10's w/ 31" tires and had no problem pulling, but none of my experiences matter right now.

My original question has yet to be answered.. lol
__________________
Travis- Death Row Diesel Inmate #7
1995 F-250 RC 2wd PSD ZF5- because race truck
2000 F-250 SC LB 4x4 ZF6- 4" TB, 6637, TW and Gearhead tunes, 160/100s, Driven Diesel in tank mods, pre/post pump filters, and RR w/ bowl delete
1994 F-150 4x4

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-15-2011, 09:48 PM
bigred1992's Avatar
bigred1992 bigred1992 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 148
bigred1992 is starting off with a positive reputation.
My 302 has the 3.55 and seems to do ok with it. Maybe someday if money and time permit I'll look into an upgrade
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-15-2011, 09:49 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.
For a all out work truck with the right gears the 300 hands down for dd pickup and light towing 302 that anwser
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-15-2011, 09:54 PM
bigred1992's Avatar
bigred1992 bigred1992 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 148
bigred1992 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I tow some pretty heavy stuff with my 302. I agree that the 300 is more of a hoss for daily work, but on the highway I would prefer the V8. And by heavy I mean that with the extra heavy springs on the back I pull a lot of hay trailers and stock trailers that are probably meant for 3/4 ton trucks
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-15-2011, 10:42 PM
flat4vw's Avatar
flat4vw flat4vw is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 162
flat4vw is starting off with a positive reputation.
Here is the answer you want to hear: The 4.9 is not NEARLY as incredible as the internet has made it out to be. It is a great engine. It is remarkably reliable. And it has a powerband very low in the rev range, which is a good compliment to the needs of an older generation pickup truck. But it is not a powerhouse. It is not more powerful than a 5.0, a 5.8, a big block, or a B-series Cummins, or any of the other outrageous claims people make about it.

It does not have more torque than a truck 5.0 of the same generation, although many will claim that. It does produce similar peak torque numbers, at a lower rev range, but that's about it.

The 4.9's reputation gets overblown because simple reliability isn't that exciting. So the engine's other characteristics get exploited and exaggerated. Also - the engine has cachet. Chevrolet nor Dodge have a competitive 6 cylinder. The 4.9 is a serious player in these older 1/2 & 3/4 ton trucks, unlike the wheezy Dodge slant six and later 3.9 V6, or the embarrassing 4.3 GM. Lastly, I think a lot of people like its uniqueness. It is somewhat more interesting, or at least a more intriguing, than your average, run-of-the-mill late model American pickup truck engine.

That's as honest as I can be. For what it's worth, I am a huge 4.9 fan. Bought my first one about 7 years ago and just bought another one for fun. I love it, but it is the slowest vehicle I have ever driven - thank god for good gearing, otherwise I don't think it would drive uphill.
__________________
1988 F150 300/ZF5/4x4 Reg Cab Long Beg (newest project)
1984 frame/1987 body F150 351/C6/4x4 Reg Cab Short Bed (hack job)
2002 Mustang GT (daily driver)
1995 F150 300/M5OD/2wd Reg Cab Short Bed (now my brother's, 200k miles running strong)
1999 Land Rover Discovery II (girlfriend's junk)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-15-2011, 10:48 PM
SideWinder4.9l's Avatar
SideWinder4.9l SideWinder4.9l is offline
Skipper of the KY Chapter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Eastern Ky
Posts: 8,430
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
After owning a 351w/AOD/2.73 gears, a 300/E4OD/3.08, 300/5 speed M5OD/3.08.......I like my 300/5 speed the best....

Dads truck, '92 F-150, 302/M5/3.55's....Well...Up to 35-40-ish MPH....I like my truck better....After I hit 4th...Mines a dog...

Dad's pulls like a SOB up until 5th....

But overall, given some fun engine work, a 3.55 or a 3.73 rear gear....Thats what would make a awesome all around truck....

And for the record, dad and I get EXACTLY the same mileage....
__________________
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
  #13  
Old 07-15-2011, 11:09 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.
The 4.9 does not make more torque than the 5.0 but at 2000 rpm it makes double the tq of the 5.0 at 3000 its the opposite
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-15-2011, 11:19 PM
85e150six4mtod 85e150six4mtod is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,021
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangergirl94 View Post
The 4.9 does not make more torque than the 5.0 but at 2000 rpm it makes double the tq of the 5.0 at 3000 its the opposite
No it doesn't.

http://jastrauss.fastmail.fm/1990_p16.jpg

260 @ 2000 for the 300; 265 @ 3000 for the 302.

I'm sorry to say, but your post is the kind of BS that flat4vw is talking about in the prior thread.

I had one for 18 years. I was driving from my SIL's house to my MIL's house once, with my SIL driving along side with her '86 Toyota 4 cylinder 5 speed. I floored the six and reved it to the max in 1st and 2nd. I was ahead of her for sure. When we got there, I told her I had run it as fast as it would go. She said she hadn't noticed....

As per prior posts, good engines both, drive what you like.

This topic has been beaten like a rented mule repeatedly, and it continues to be beaten on in the six forums.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-15-2011, 11:27 PM
Brettboat Brettboat is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 192
Brettboat is starting off with a positive reputation.
4.9 makes a great work truck engine, that's about it. For a mud truck or rock truck, I'd rather have a 302 or 351. You can only do soo much to a 4.9. I think someone on here did alot of stuff to his 300... turbo, chip, long tube headers, exhaust, valves, etc. But still, a V8 design has alot more potential for "high performance" applications imo.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 11:27 PM
 
 
 
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
1988 F-150 2WD to 4X4 Conversion BS51993 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 3 08-06-2014 10:55 AM
oil & fuel filter cap removal; a third option bbender85 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel 4 03-07-2014 01:55 PM
97 4.6 converted to PI intake and maybe heads question and suggestions chloichina 1997 - 2003 F150 5 06-26-2013 03:28 PM
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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 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