I will have to double check the paper work, I'm pretty sure it's a 98 or I guess I could look under the hood. So I made a bad buy? The mpg is great. Trans was rebuilt 7k ago. Is there a way to tell if it's had a head gasket? This van will see no heavy loads that's what my chevy 2500HD is for.

 

@TwoStrokeTom: I would make sure cooling system is flushed and working well. Head over to the Engine Forum for more tips and info on what you are up against.

 

You sure?

EPA for some reason does not seem to list the 4.6 on E250 MPG comparisons for '98. But in their MPG ratings for the E150 the 4.2 & 4.6 estimates are the same. That is 13 city, 15 combined, 18 hiway.

 

Most Ford Truck Enthusiasts would've pinned down the model year & motor type before buying an Econoline. Especially considering that an "inline 6" & a '98 model represent such important differences. 1997 was the year for major updates. Not only did the traditional 300/I6, 302/5.0 liter & 351/5.8 liter motors get replaced by the 4.2, 4.6 & 5.4, but Econoline got a new dash.

By all means "double check the paper work" but be sure to compare it w/the sticker inside the door jam to confirm the VIN & manufacture date.

The Ford 300 cu in I6 motors earned many diehard fans, while Ford's 4.2 V6 motors have many harsh critics. Since it remains unclear what you've bought it's hard to say if you "made a bad buy?".

Let's hope "the paper work" at least matches your E250 & you don't need Judge Judy to resolve a title issue.

 

My E150 is an '02 and I am certain the ratings were slightly better for the 4.6. Also, my '02 would have the PI (power improved) heads which did notch up the HP a bit from '98 whereas I don't think the 4.2 changed. Although it's not a torquer, the 4.6 has somewhat more than the 4.2. Having driven a 300 six about 90k miles in my old pickup, I remember the low rpm torque fondly but know that the 4.6 would kick its butt. (My old '78 F100--also bought new--was about 3600 lbs and my van is about 5400.)

Agree that the OP needs to sort out what he's got and confirm that it's legitmate, etc. The year has to appear on the title and if the VIN matches the title, he's rockin'. Would be a 4.2 if it is known to be a six cylinder engine and is a '98 van. Good luck with the new/old van in any case, twostroke, and welcome to the forum. Nice bunch of folks.

George

 

NEVER compare a carburetor inline to an injected one, even those without mechanical knowledge can see the flaw, the cylinders furthest from it got the least amount of fuel, multiple carburation was the only answer back then yet it was impossible to truly balance them. The 4.6 is a gutless wimp, BTW a friend with his 95 300/c6 combo traveling with another in a 2001 5.4 hightop got one MPG less on the HWY, they were running 70-75 MPH. I got my hands on a 4.6 F-150 SWB, made me miss my 92 Dakota ext cab with a 5.2, no comparison to old iron, but I'm happy with the 5.4 in my one ton ext van, even weighing 8000 lbs, you feel it jump with the throttle, yet fill ups are disheartening.

 

Maples: my 4.6 in my 7000 lbs '97 Hightop was no wimpy, believe me. Yes, it did shift around in going uphill, but the PCM was nicely tuned, at least for me that I like to give it a kick in the pants going uphill.

Highway cruising was smooth, no games, no drama. Got 17-18 mpg going 65-70 mph. This engine is smooth, quiet, like any engine in the doghouse should be.

For anything over that, I could see the 4.6 lacking, but for an "emtpy" gas can 4.6 is fine, actually is well matched.

I have driven many vans -- yes, the 5.4 has the low-end torque, while 4.6 is torquey at higher rpm, like 3800-4000.

 

I well understand the diff between carbs and port injection. The injected 300 had 150 hp at 3400 rpm and 260 ft lbs of torque (at 2000 rpm); my '02 4.6 has 225 hp at 4800 rpm and 281 ft lbs of torque at 3500 rpm. So the 4.6 does have to spin faster, but it CAN spin faster. I also remember driving a loaded 12 foot Hertz truck with a 300 way back when, and was impressed that the engine could move it around at all. But the 300 falls on its face over 3500 rpm when the 4.6 is just beginning to move.

But 225 hp will kick the butt of 150 hp any day if the gearing puts both engines in their optimum ranges. My van needs to rev a bit when working hard, but there is nothing at all wrong with that--it is part of the design spec. The 4.6 feels gutless off idle, but when it starts revving, there is some power there. The new 3.7 Duratec in the big F150's is REALLY gonna have to rev. (Torque peak at 4k, hp peak at 6500...) But it's got a 6 speed trans behind it which will allow the motor to rev.

And in terms of old iron, I'm an old muscle car guy who has owned 2 426 hemi cars, 2 390 2-seat AMX's, 2 Corvettes, a '68 Olds 442, and a couple big Oldsmobiles with 455's, so yes, I remember torque But to really get the hemis going, they needed some RPM's too, to take advantage of 8 open carb barrels.

George

 

Yes, my 4.6 wasn't the strongest off the line, especially since I replaced my 351W with it. The biggest thing I noticed is how much more refined the Mod motor was in comparison to the old iron.

It really comes down to matching chassis, engine and usage. 4.2 on a 250 is really not a good combo, 4.6 in a E-150, with very light to no towing is quite sufficient.

It's like going into the field of battle with hand-pistols. Likewise, it's like using tanks in hand-to-hand combat.

 

Thing is, low RPM is where high mileage exists, when you rev it, it goes down significantly, that's why I liked the 300. Now I feel the 5.0 and 4.6 belong in the same category, as the 5.8 and 5.4, the first pair are great car engines, the second belong in trucks and vans, as they are less aerodynamic and require more power to get moving. I have a friend with 1 95 van 4.9, 2 91/95 vans 5.0, and 1 96 5.8, he will tell you the 302 gets no better than the 351 in combination city/hwy, and his 4.9 when newer got what the 302 does and it doesn't have overdrive, imagine that. He does no towing, only hauling is the extra weight of the wheelchair lift, now his 4.9 hauled wheelchairs and equipment for quad rugby ling distances, at 360,000 miles, it needs some work, but maint only, nothing major.
I well revved the 4.6 in the F-150 I had, was not impressed, my 5.2 with my 22' pontoon behind it felt more powerful, I expected more out of it, and when I blew the doors off of one from a 40 MPH punch, me with a 1/2 pallet of bricks in the bed, tell me when they produce 225 HP, my 5.2 was rated at 212 HP.
Muscle cars, what happened to those days, Ford kept up, everyone else gave up, until the new Camaro and Challenger, both over priced, with dealer gouging and still behind the Ford Mustang. Remember Ford cramming the 429 in the Mustang, had to spread the strut towers and still wasn't room to change plugs without jacking up the engine, their comeback is the 600+ HP supercharged 5.4, has only the Corvette to compete with in the American industry, yet in 2 different classes.

 

Funny. For me to "compare a carburetor inline to an injected one" is an extremely interesting & worthwhile endeavour. Put a lot of miles on an '85 XLT Club Wagon w/straight 6 & C6. Had a '70 Econoline before that w/straight 6 & 3 on the tree. It's completely valid to "compare a carburetor inline to an injected one". Have searched for years to find a '92 & up Chateau w/FI straight 6 & sliding side door. Some have claimed to get 20 MPG w/FI straight 6 & OD.

IMO it might be better to "NEVER compare a...92 Dakota ext cab (or Camaro, Challenger, Corvette for that matter) with" any FORD truck in an Econoline van enthusiast thread. At least not favorably.

As to the question of MPG estimates for E-150 w/4.2 vs. 4.6 motors, EPA figures are interesting. For '97 & '98 the figures are the same: 13 city 15 combined 18 hiway. Then in '99 the V6 nudged ahead 13/14/17, but just 1 measely MPG over the 4.6's city 12/14/17. For '00 the 4.6 nudged ahead of the V6 by 1 measely MPG hiway. Note EPA rounds to whole numbers, so the difference may be minimal.


Wonder what TwostrokeTom found under the hood?

 

I never owned the 302, but having owned both the 351 and 4.6, and been around several of them for decades, unless you're hauling 3000 lbs on a 250 chassis or towing 5k pounds, 351 does worse in mileage than 4.6. Combined 11or 12 to 14. I did a lot of work on both engines, although the 351 didn't care what you did to it -- it kept the same MPG.

I also disagree with the blanket statement that the 4.6 is for cars, not vans. I say, depends what kind of van and what kind of usage. For some time, I also drove the 4.6 on a 4WD Expedition, although not a rice-burner, was fine for riding around.

 

As I said, he drives both, juggling between the two, a 5.0 and 5.8, mileage is miniscule between the two. I had the 4.6 in a SWB F-150, empty I was none to impressed with it, and if I based my opinion on truck buying from my experience, the truck had 3000 miles on it, poor handling, very little brakes, in fact fluid mysteriously disappearing from the master cylinder, etc, dad bought a used Chevy after taking it around the block. I stuck with Ford as their vans can't be beat, a friend swears by them, I've had a few trucks through the years, 300, 360, 351/400, a 73 van with a 302 and my 99 E-350 ext with a 5.4. The modular engines rev faster, and like higher RPM's, the 4.6 and smaller doesn't belong in anything more than a regular roof E-150, or it's seriously underpowered. When an engine struggles to hold a speed, it's not efficient, mine has the 3.55 gears causing this issue, and it's a modded 5.4, I can't imagine a 4.6 in a hightop.

 

twostroketom, what did you find out? Please bring us back on topic here!!! Also, to answer an above guess of you pulling a trailer, the way i always set up my dirt bike vans was one bench behind the front seats, then 2 or 3 bikes wedged inside the van behind, no trailer ever used. Is this the way you're doing things? I found this a great way to travel, simple, secure, less tires to blow out, etc. and you can roll the bikes out and the sleeping bags in the night before races. Works really great with an ez-up behind the van too. Anyway, let us know what you found out.
Also, what kind of mpg were you getting with your 460, and what year, fuel injected or not? Just curious since i just bought one to pull my camper. If i was still racing enduros, i'd be real happy with it, except for the 12-13 mpg i get.