Nothing earthshaking here except that I bought a 2002 E150 mild conversion (factory windows) with a 4.6 brand new in February, 2003. (It was a leftover and I got it cheep.) I previously had a 1996 Savana "van from hell" with a 350 and was nervous about an engine as small as a 4.6.

After 108,000 miles, I am confessing that this is the first AND ONLY vehicle in which I have kept a notebook and tracked EVERY SINGLE fillup from day one. In calculating gas mileage over 108,000 miles, I am still barely over 16 mpg, at 16.03 mpg. I will note that at 61,000 miles on the clock my overall average was 16.25 mpg, which I will attribute to less ethanol in the gas as well as a slightly higher proportion of freeway driving. I have another daily driver, but still use the van for everything from local trips to the grocery store to 300 mile weekend trips when I need to bring bicycles and stuff.

This van has seen my son thru most of his Boy Scout years (he is now 24 and a college grad), moved a TON of furniture and stuff, and has safely taken me through all kinds of weather and all kinds of road and some off-road conditions. The only modification was an Eaton Posi that I put in 3 months after I bought it, and with the stock Michelin LTX M/S tires, I have never been stuck or even close to stuck in Michigan snow or mud...

I love my van. It is the last big van I will buy (it is the fourth I have owned since 1986) but while I have it, I enjoy it and it is ridiculously dependable and the seats are super comfy for me. (Actually another mod I made was to lose the cheap *** conversion seats and put in a pair of OEM Ford cloth captain's chairs that I bought from a converter.)

I may end up buying a new Transit or Transit Connect in a few years, but for now, I am completely satisfied with my van. It has burned 6,736 gallons of gas. With an average of $3ish per gallon, that is about 20 grand in gas, but there are a lot of vehicles that would depreciate far more than that in 10 years. And would have given me a lot more crap than my van, which has NEVER stranded me. This might be a boring post, but sometimes the best thing in life is a boring vehicle that does its job day after day, year after year, with no drama. Thanks, Ford.

George

 

That's really great to hear George, I hope to have a vehicle that treats me as well as your van has you.

 

The 4.6 is a great engine for mileage, it's like the 302, but they just don't feel powerful in the heavy vans, I like the 5.4, but it's like the 351, powerful, but thirsty, I'd love to have a E-150 cargo with the 4.6 in it.
You couldn't give me a transit!

 

Couldn't really ask for more than that, but it also sounds like what the buyer of a new E-150 should be able to expect for the 1st "108,000 miles".

Econoline's 'Office' certainly can be "super comfy" even if front passengers complain. And I've yet to see any "conversion seats" that beat the "OEM Ford cloth captain's chairs".

If I'm not mistaken, your MPG is consistant w/EPA estimates? Think a similar E150 conversion with 5.0 drivetrain might fall under 14 MPG.

How does the 5.0 compare to the 4.6 in situations like; accelerating to pass, towing substantial trailer up hill, OD hunting while trailing & 1/4 mile?

 

I have not had a basis to compare the 4.6 directly with the old 302 (5.0) although I have owned two of the latter.

First was a 1973 302 in an E200 Turtle Top flatnose conversion van. From what I recall, it moved around OK, really. 3.25 rear axle as I recall, and no catalysts as the van didn't have to meet heavy smog requirements. Maybe 200 hp rating? Probably 4200 lbs? This one ran OK but the van was much lighter than my 2002.

The second was a smogger 302 in a 1978 LTD II, which was about a 4000 lb car, and I think the 2 barrel 302 was rated at something like 135 hp. And I think it had Ford's LONG rear end gearing (maybe 2.75) in an attempt to make the EPA ratings better. Pretty weak kneed engine.

I think a big disadvantage of the 302 is the 4x3 bore/stroke dimensions, whereas the 4.6 is 3.55" square, roughly. Between the modern port injection and inherent efficiency of the newer design, I would say this engine has a lot more guts than the 302's I've had. And my 1973 van got 12-13 mpg, city or road--but was lacking an OD. I think the LTD II got 15-16 mpg, just about what my E-150 gets, with the latter having a LOT more weight and frontal area.

For an irrelevant comparison, I also had a 1978 F100 pickup with a 300 inch six and a 4 speed overdrive trans AND a 2.75 rear axle, for an overall final drive of 2.19 or something. This truck could easily crack 20 mpg on the freeway, but was SLOW and really should have had a 3.25 or 3.5 rear axle. Only 3600 lbs.

For more perspective, I had a 1996 Savana with a 350 and 4L60E which got probably 15-16 mpg on the road. From a performance/mileage compromise standpoint it was really decent, but was the Van from Hell in terms of reliability. I LIKED that drivetrain until I went through 7 valve bodies, 3 transmissions, 2 fuel pumps, alternator, starter, intake manifold gaskets dissolving via DexCool....all in 66k miles.

My 2002 E150 has a 3.55 rear axle and the 4R70W trans, which is the best mileage van drivetrain I've owned. Lack of guts compared to my 1996 Savana, but lightly loaded, it is just fine, and the mileage compromise is where I want to be.

What was the question again?

The 4.6 is a great engine,
George

 

I got a rental F-150, had 1500 miles on it, a 2000 with a 4.6, compare that to my 99 heavier E-350 with the 5.4, you still have a large power difference, as well as MPG advantage of the 4.6, as long as you aren't towing.
You would have needed to get behind the wheel of an 88 T-Bird with the 5.0/302, that thing would fly, and pull hills without downshifting, they came a long way before being retired. The Explorers got the 5.0's that were in abundance when the Mustangs went to the 4.6, making them valuable finds in the junkyards for those building a smallblock sleeper.

 

Actually, when I had an '86 GMC G2500 with a 305 (pathetic engine) circa 1990 I swapped with a friend who needed the van and had his ~87ish 5.0 Mustang for a few days. That car rocked and I bet that was the engine you had in your T-Bird. (The Mustang had a stick.) So yeah, I know.

And about a month ago I test drove a BOSS 302 Mustang...holy cow, Ford can sure do a cool V8 these days!

Of course, in my long term perspective, I also had two 426 Hemi Mopars, two 390 2-seat AMX's, and some other muscle cars.... And stuff like Olds 98's with a 455. Nothing like the big blocks from the old days, but boy did those suckers use gas...

George

 

Perhaps the new cars are nothing like them, but that Boss 302 you test drove was far quicker than any of the old muscle cars you mentioned. Technology has done wonders for cars...

Old vs New - Chevrolet Camaro, Ford Mustang, and Dodge Challenger - Motor Trend

 

Goes w/o saying compare apples to apples.

"How does the 5.0 compare to the 4.6" in this case the best comparison would be a '96 E150 5.0L vs. an as similar as possible '97 E150 4.6L & 2nd best would be any '92-'96 E150 5.0L vs. an as similar as possible '97-'03 E150.

1970's vintage Econoline, LTD, F100 & '96 Savana, not so much.

 

I know performance numbers from the old and new days and agree with you with the exception that my '70 Hemi Cuda had a 12.5:1 Ramchargers built Hemi with a crossram, a full manual B&M Torqueflite, 12" slicks, etc.

Of course it wasn't too street driveable, had no chokes on the carbs, etc....

The new hotrods are amazing in that they will start in the winter, run day in and day out, get twice the mileage of the oldies, and actually stop and turn corners. And the BOSS 302 sounds SO good. But so did my Hemi Cuda, which would spin up to 7500 rpm.

And I still love my van for what it is.

George

 

Well, all you need to do is find some road tests of those vans Or start your own thread asking this question.

Second best might be looking at HP and torque curves of the engines you are comparing, then at EPA numbers, and make your conjectures. I believe it was 2000-2001 that the van got the PI, performance improved, version of the 4.6, which increased the power from like 195-235, I believe. So that would be a significant step for the 4.6. I'm in Michigan, so even thinking about any van from the 90's is pretty much out of the question as they are mostly piles of iron oxide by now. As is most any other Ford with an old 302 in it.

George

 

My rpms and gas mileage just loafs along up the hills. I think its the down hills where the gas pours out past the gas cap while running the 460 cui E-350 super duty.

 

Interesting suggestion. Don't recall ever seeing any traditional "road tests of those vans". Like R&T acceleration, shift point graphs. Can anybody help fill this "need"? No "need" to start another thread. Things are slow enough in FTE 'Full Size Van' section the enthusiasts will see it here.

My "conjectures" having seen the "HP torque curves" & "EPA numbers" always suggested that the 4.6 was both more powerful & returned better MPG than 302.

FYI: For '98 FORD specs listed the 4.6 at 215 hp, by '05 it had made "a significant step...which increased the power" to 225 hp. Apparently "the PI, performance improved, version of the 4.6" added just 10 hp. The '96 5.0L spec was 199 hp.

Know what you mean about the Rust Belt. Your post had struck me that "even thinking about any van from the (70's was) pretty much out of the question".

 

Yikes, this thread reminds me why I don't want gasser van.


I'm getting around 16-18mpg with my '85 extended E350 van, 6.9 Diesel and 3 speed tranny with 4.10's (I keep it at 55 on the highway tho).


And the van is 7000lbs according to the scrap yard scales.

 

Diesel vans inside (for me) sound like rappers on a broken stereo, LOL. Just busting your ***** John!!! Having used diesels in Europe I got fed up with them. And don't give me this crap about new diesels -- my friend just bought a brand-new 2013 Passat Tdi SEL. Although it hasn't started smelling yet, the engine don't sound much different from the old Ivecos (for those who know what they are).

George -- I share your feelings having owned personally and at the job these vans. It's just hard to find faults with them. Even mpg for the size and lack of headaches, that's not bad when all things considered.

I agree on parts -- buying pads for $ 8 saves a lot of money for gas. Parts are ridiculously cheap. My bicycle pads cost more than van's for Christ' sakes. And that's the most common repair.