Good luck to you, van a knockin'.... If you're looking at 7 year old vans, condition is probably more important than 4.6 vs 5.4 (one major engine or trans repair will probably cancel out any difference in gas prices over 100k miles). If I were looking, I'd buy on the basis of condition, service records, etc. more than on engine size.

I am very pleased with my 4.6. I've made some comments elsewhere about the 2001-2003 4.6 Romeo engine having a cylinder head problem. I got new cyl heads at 42k miles on my '02 for a mere $100 deductible in 2006--total cost would have been 4 grand (cough). I bought an extended warranty because 3/36 was the standard on powertrain and everything back then and BOY did I make out well on that.

The 4.6 would still be my choice if mileage was the ultimate goal, but avoid 4.6's in the '01-03 year range--especially if you hear a ticking sound from the rear of the engine (from the wheel well). The problem is that the new PI (power improved) heads had bad cooling passages in the rear of the heads and the exhaust valves would carbon up and stick. There was a TSB out on this and dealers were told to replace cyl heads.

Outside of that, my '02 E150 has been the most economical and most dependable van I've ever owned. The 2-valve 4.6 engines routinely go 200-500k miles in cop cars, taxis, trucks, and Town Car limos. (I had a buddy with a limo company and his mechanics loved the 4.6.) All vans have 2 valve 4.6 and 5.4 engines so the stuck plug problem with F150's is nonexistent. There is the occasional plug spitting problem, but the 4.6 seems less likely to spit out a plug because of less vibration and raw power than the 5.4 (or 6.8 V10).

Best of luck,
George

 

the 4.2 V6 I owned had its ups and downs.
- if you're going to log many hours above 60mph; don't get the V6. Wind resistance is too much for its lack of power. Even my V10 gets noticeably better MPG when I keep it below 70mph, and even better when below 65mph.
- if you're going to log a few hours per day idling; the V6 is probably more economical than the V8

I even pulled a 5,000lb trailer with my V6 and it did the job aptly. (not joyfully, but aptly.)

 

Lacking the perspective and evaluative expertise of a mechanic often leaves me faced with having to determine how well, or likely the seller maintained the vehicle, rather than interpreting the testimony of the vehicle itself.
Though I generally complete all but the most major or specialized repairs on my vehicles, I never recall having known of a breakdown or part failing before it happened. Trying to determine if someone elses ride is about to, is why buying a used vehicle has never been high on my list of interests.

That said, I bought my first "passenger" van yesterday. A 2007 e150 XL with a 4.6 liter engine, which doesn't have all the amenities I wanted,
but appears to run well, is newer than I expected, and I'm comfortable that the price I paid will compensate for a number of potential issues if they arise.

Thanks for all the informative posts! Despite the slow changing nature of vans, alot HAS occurred since 1986, and the opinions shared
helped provide a better understanding of what I was looking for!

 

Congrats, van a knockin'.... Dumb question, but is your '07 the 8 lug 250 "lite" or the last of the 5 lug passenger tired vans? (Even Ford's own materials re the transition are sometimes confusing.) Either one is fine although for my light loads and use, the old 5-lug E150 (mine is an '02) is definitely tough enough. The 8 lug van is definitely a TRUCK. By 2007, the 4.6 got more threads in the spark plug holes (I think '05 was the year they first "fixed" it) so it should be a great motor.

Although amenities are cool, driving a vehicle into old age is often easier and cheaper with less fancy equipment to break on you. (heated and cooled DVD players at each seat give a lot of additional things to fail, for instance).

Have many safe and happy miles in your new van,
George

 

Thanks George!
Yeah, the stock hubcaps reveal 8 plastic shiny lugnuts, and theres 8 genuine, cast carbon steel nuts beneath each. I prefer the five lug myself, and always associated the 8 with the 250 and 350 models.

I suspect its Ford's attempt to suggest their due diligence in light of its advertised 10 passenger capacity. A precautionary, "wheel will never come off unexpectedly" safety measure.

 

Don't the hubcaps have 7 lugs? That was always weird.

My theory was that Ford wanted to upgrade the brakes, etc, on the 5 lug E150, and with the heavy high roof conversions, they would have been cutting their payload down to around 1000 lbs. (My '02's payload is 1600 lbs on a GVW of 7100 lbs and conversion weight of ~5500 lbs.) And with tire size limits in the wheelwells, there is not a larger P rated tire than the P235/75x15 XL's on my van. So with the 8 lug setup (and heavier axles, etc) I'm guessing your curb weight is maybe 5800 lbs(?) and with a GVW of ~8600 lbs, your payload is 2800 lbs or something (just WAG's on the weights). So you can put in 10 200 lb guys and some cargo, whereas the prior setup was good for 10 150 lb passengers and no cargo. Way better safety margin.

You really do have an E250 with the deeper frame and bigger brakes (which the E150 really needed). Plus kicking the GVW up over 8500 lbs took the E150 out of the EPA gas mileage averages for Ford's "light vehicles" fleet.

It's gonna ride a bit harder than the P rated tire versions, but your van is a tough truck for sure. It'll last you a LONG time.

George

 

Seven lugs on the hubcaps. Geezes George, you don't miss a beat!

The engineers probably concluded the 8 lug specs based on your theory, though it seems odd they would even make it available to the e150 class. The Passengers always seem far pricier than the cargo's, far more than what the seats, seatbelts, extra detailing, and carpet would justify. Perhaps enough to offset the costs of the heavier chassis? Couldn't agree more on the brakes.
The last time I rode around on 8 lug wheels was a Chevy g30.
Sharp looking ride, and with a one ton suspension, it handled surprisingly well, but fuelwise it definitely had a drinking problem.

 

Uh, the cost is due to the addition of rear heat/ac, which is not a cheap add on, it also makes a big difference when the temps are not comfortable.

 

First post on this forum...been lurking for a few weeks.

Thanks YoGeorge and van-a () for the info...I enjoy reading articles from people who have experience with these vehicles.

I bought a 2009 e250 (4.6) back in April.

My first Ford, EVER. My first van, EVER.

I'm learning a lot just by reading...

How accurate is the digital MPG readout on the dash? Anyone checked it? Mine has indicated 19.5 mpg on one 75 mile stretch of interstate droning at 65-70 mph...I'm assuming thats about right?

Also, when I bought this van, the Tire Pressure Monitor was reading a low tire, but all of them were fine. The dealer took it in the shop and did something. It shows no warning now, but if it does in the future, how does one reset that indicator? Or is it done with the OBD connection? And if I buy new wheels (same tires) what is involved in swapping the sensors?

Another question: How is the Oil Life percentage reset after an oil change? Same way? OBD?

Last question...what are the preferred oil and oil filter brands?

I dont know what oil is in there now. I think the filter is a Motorcraft but cant go look right now.

Guys...I'm not a 'car guy' but ask me about motorcycles...I'm perfectly at home around bikes.

Thanks!

 

Welcome to the forum. No idea about mileage readouts as my van is an '02. How about filling your tank and checking the mileage against the computer. Again no tire pressure sensors on mine but a lot of tire stores have to have facilities for resetting, etc. I think if you just move yours over to the new wheels you'll be OK.

...and I have no oil life monitor on the van; my wife's Civic (and my '91 BMW 318is) have them. To reset the one on the Civic, you put the trip odometer into oil life mode and lay on the button. Unlikely the OBD is involved.

For oil filters, Motorcraft is generally preferred but I'll use Pure Ones as well. You need a great anti-drainback valve. Avoid Frams and cheap filters in general. For oil, Motorcraft syn blend 5W20 is always the safe way to go and is great oil. You can read a LOT on oil and filters on this forum or Bob is the Oil Guy but in the end, Motorcraft is excellent and economical.

Good luck for many safe miles,
George

 

Thats a great idea!

As soon as I put a full tank of gas in the thing, I'll do that. Only put about 600 miles on it since I bought it...about 8 weeks ago. I ride motorcycles primarily...so a tank of gas in my old pickup used to last me 1-3 months or so...... I only drive a cage less than 4000 miles in a normal year. So this van is effectively semi-retired. It should last me for a couple of decades!

Thanks George.

 

We also have a decent Oil & Lubrication sub-forum here on FTE---its located here: https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/forum70/

It might not be as deep as BTOG's site but a few interesting threads none the less.

 

I was able to make a few comparisons between the mpg readout in the dash and real world mpg measured at the pump....actually several pumps across several states. This is a 2009 E-250 cargo with the 4.6L and 3.73 rears.

The dashboard mpg readout shows about 17.2 or in that range when pulling my small trailer...highway miles of course.

I consistently got about 16 mpg when measured at the pump.

In the mountains, even with downshifting, it seemed to get mileage in the high 16's and then on long flat stretches when speeds were higher it tended to drop a bit to high 15's....15.7....or 15.9...

My average speeds are about 65 pulling the trailer...dropping to 55-60 in some sections, and approaching 75 to 80 only for passing.

Not bad...but I wonder if there is any way to recalibrate the mpg estimate with some type of adjustment thru the OBD software?

 

I don't think there is any way that I've ever seen to recalibrate the gas mileage meter; the miles reading should be absolute based on the odometer (and even if you changed tire size, your calculated mpg should parallel the change in the mileage meter).

I'm guessing that it's hard to make a fuel flow meter that is completely accurate and that is probably the measurement where the mpg readings are inaccurate. I've got an mpg meter in my Subaru Forester and I know it's not totally accurate, but it's useful to me because it is internally consistent, so I figure if I see it up or down 2 mpg in a certain type of driving, it would be up or down 2 mpg in the real world as well.

I'm guessing that gasoline pumps are not all totally accurate either, but over the long haul, everything should even out....

Sounds like you are doing well with your van otherwise and that is the important thing. Mine is running strong after 12 years of its build date (and about 11.5 years of ownership).

George

 

Thanks George.

The error may have something to do with the speedometer error....rather than a calculation error or fuel flow error.

I have noticed the speedometer is about 3-4 mph off when it indicates 70 mph....my trusty gps indicates about 66...so this may account for the discrepancy. (I have not checked the odometer, but assume its off by the same amount)

In other words, the 'optimistic' speedometer reading may also translate to an 'optimistic' miles per gallon calculation.

Hmmmm...