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 12-13-2012, 01:44 PM
quincyj34 quincyj34 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 105
quincyj34 is starting off with a positive reputation.
why not a 5.8l

so i have a 93 f150 ext. cab with a 4.9l. i understand that a 4.9l is better than the 5.0 but why dont more people go with the 5.8l. you get more tq capability and you get the same mpg . Or am I going about this the wrong way? the way i see it with the 5.8l there are a ton of performance parts for it including maf so my question here is which is the better engine?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-13-2012, 02:09 PM
Kemicalburns's Avatar
Kemicalburns Kemicalburns is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: OregonCity,OR
Posts: 13,342
Kemicalburns has a very good reputation on FTE.Kemicalburns has a very good reputation on FTE.Kemicalburns has a very good reputation on FTE.Kemicalburns has a very good reputation on FTE.
5.8 wont get the same mileage a 4.9 will. the longevity of the 300-6 is also what makes it a great motor.

Maf was only available on california based rigs in 95 running 5.8 (F150,Bronco) and then obd-II in 96 on the 5.8 for both models.

upgrading to maf on a speed density 92-95 F150/Bronco running the 5.8 is no easy task as most if not all had the E4OD which is computer controlled tranny.
__________________
94 XLT 357/E4OD/Warn HS9500I
6"ProComp Stage II 35x12.5x15 BFG AT's
4.88 gears/Aussie Front/rear open
Edelbrock efi intake JBA shorty,CustomY pipe/exhaust
http://www.supermotors.org/registry/...il.php?id=4158
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-13-2012, 02:26 PM
svp_evo's Avatar
svp_evo svp_evo is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Livermore
Posts: 98
svp_evo is starting off with a positive reputation.
svp*******
MAF conversion is easy enough if you want to spend the cash on a kit like the one from fiveology racing. Its difficult trying to piece it together with used parts from a picknpull. Not to mention a complete headache. If your gonna do the conversion save the pennies and buy the kit. I spent about 4 weeks trying to find parts to low buck it, and in the end i spent the 700 bucks on the kit.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-13-2012, 02:38 PM
83capril's Avatar
83capril 83capril is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: central illinois
Posts: 697
83capril is starting off with a positive reputation.
Just my opinion but the 5.8L is the better engine. Yes the 4.9L is a stout bullet prof engine but it's limited as to what upgrades can be done to it. The 5.8L has more support due to the interchangeability with the 5.0 and the Mustang guys demand for go fast goodies. We could go all day back and forth but it really comes down to what the user wants. I myself have owned both and wouldn't shy from either but the 5.8L is top choice for me .
__________________
2009 Suzuki LTZ400 2004 Mach 1
1993 F250 5.8L 1993 Acclaim 3.0
1992 F250 7.5L 1989 F250 7.3L
1986 Honda ATC 1983 Capri 5.8L
1980 F100 5.0L
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:21 PM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,440
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
Even all stock the 5.8 makes more TQ than the 4.9 and with a cam and exhaust will make lots more and close to double the horsepower, so yeah it's the better motor no question. It would be a mistake to say the 4.9 is superior to the 5.0 as well since it too has the potential to make more TQ and a lot more HP then the 4.9, and when properly equipped(gearing) would have no problems out gunning the 4.9 at any challenge you want to throw at it.. except maybe getting great fuel milage. And that's not to say I don't like the old farm tractor motor it has a ton of potential, it's just too bad nobody ever made a proper cylinder head for it with valves and ports the size of what you find in a 460 head.
__________________
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
  #6  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:50 PM
quincyj34 quincyj34 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 105
quincyj34 is starting off with a positive reputation.
My logic behind all this is best case scenario the 4.9l will get about 16-17 mpg and with the 5.8l you can get about the same with a mild build(ported heads,cam, exhuast, and tune) I believe you will get more hp and tq with the same mpg. There is no doubt that the 4.9l is a beast and has a ton of potential but with out any support like different heads that is all it will be is an engine with a lot of potential.


btw I'm not trying to start a war between the 4.9 guys and 5.8s. Im just trying to get a better understanding of these motors because you would think the 5.8 would be the better truck engine just for the fact it has way more support.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:37 PM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,440
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
All these motors are well built from an integrity point of view, Ford did a good job with the castings and used quality fasteners so they can all go 200-300k without any major issues.. assuming regular maintenance.

As for why you don't see more 5.8's, it's partially because the 5.0 was installed in more F150 trucks while the 5.8 was more common in heavier pickups and vans. Ford also did the motor a major disservice by installing the same old 5.0 sized E7 heads on most production 5.8s so there wasn't much of a power difference(all stock) for the extra fuel it burns. I think if all those 5.8s came from the factory wearing GT40 heads this would be a different conversation and nobody would question which motor was "better".
__________________
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
  #8  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:50 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.
Personally I love the 5.8. If I was wanting a engine for off roading/ constant pulling/ mudding/ forging I would chose the 4.9. But for a daily driver I want the 5.8.

I did a 5.0 to 5.8 swap. and when I did, I upgraded alittle. Went from a 5.0 stock to a 5.8 bored 40 over, 1978 HO heads, small cam for torque (no idea what exactly it is, came with the engine). I have more power and get better mpg than with my 5.0. My mistake was sticking with the SD after my upgrades, so Im in the process of going to a carb. My engine is moody some days, and in the future I want a roller ready (5.8) block to make into a 393 stroker with Ford Racing gt-40 aluminum heads, some kinda cam like a Ford Racing E303, roller rockers, and long tube headers. So my plan is a carb swap with a 770 CFM Holley Truck Avenger Carb, and 351w HEI distributor.

All of these engines are tough, faithful, and durable. And the aftermarket support is great for the 5.0/5.8. For me and my uses I chose the 5.8 over the 4.9 any day.
__________________
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
Old 12-13-2012, 11:50 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks

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
4.9L to 5.8L macdiesel777 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 14 07-27-2014 04:21 PM
Engine swap info ncranchero 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 3 04-24-2014 01:38 PM
Does a 5.4 E250 have better MPG than a 5.8? E150 4.9 1990 1968-2013 Full Size Vans 19 12-12-2012 05:53 AM
96 5.8L flywheel question BigBlueOx Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W) 15 01-05-2010 11:08 AM
4.9 too 5.0/5.8 flywheel swap jonathan89 1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 3 12-09-2005 06:14 AM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 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