Recent FORD E-Series brochures don't list "a 3.50 rear ratio" for anything. Nor does '99 version.

For 6.8L V10 FORD shows 3.73, 4.10 & 4.56 axle ratios.

Not adhering to such widely published facts about FORD Full Size Vans reflects poorly on comparing efficiency w/that of "old gas tractor engines".

The "old gas tractor engines" were not efficient. They were low horse power, for decades few could even reach 30 HP.

Adding "multiple carbs" rarely increases MPG. High Milers commonly use smaller carbs.

FI is more efficient than carbs, HP/HP, all other things equal.

 

now back to the 6cyl. vrs. 5.4 v8.....shouldn't the higher hp v8 be able to turn the axles the same rpms as the 6 cyl using the same gears and rear as the 6 used ???

 

The thing is...the 5.4 makes max torque at a much higher rpm than the 4.9 six does ...another consideration is that the I-6 is an undersquare engine and the V-8 is a square or slightly oversquare engine...they are as different mechanically too ..the 5.4 is an OHC style and the I-6 is pushrod ....same with Diesels, an I-6 makes the max Torque lower rpm than a similar size V-8's...Torque is what spins wheels ... Not HP .....Undersquare inline engines make more torque than V designs ...and we all understand Diesel vs. Gas arguments ...sorry for Pontificating

 

i'm old and still a c i d and hp man...still can't figure out tire sizes and if i ever do , they'll change the formula the next day.........so, how many c i did my '81 strait 6 have and what was the h p......and what is the same for my '08 5.4 v8 ???.....trying to translate this to even newer van/truck powertrains for the future.....and by the way the new ford 5 speed auto tranny seems to cover my original question....thoughts????

 

4.9 was a 300 ...5.4 converts to like 330 (3.29.5)

 

OK, you crawl under my 99 E-350 with me and I'll show it to you, because I had the cover off during a fluid change! Maybe you should get your head out of books and under some of these vehicles, you might learn something! It's a 3.55 not 3.50, but whats 5 tenths, people get the meaning.

 

that e-350 must be great for hijacking...

 

Sorry, all have the 3.55 gears in them, usually a standard.

 

I like the gears in the 5 speed overdrive, gives the option for taller gears in the rear without killing take off, but they don't option anything higher than the 3.55 gears. I don't see the 5 speed in the V-8's tho, I can't understand why.

 

With rumors FORD may monitor online forums, maybe FORD "might learn something" from all your alternatives to what they published?

And "You might learn something" too. Q: What's the difference between 3.55 & 3.50? A: Hate to break it to you - 5 hundreths. NOT "5 tenths"!

Last time "the 3.55 gears" appear in FORD ad specs was 2010. But that ratio was only listed for 6.0L V8 Diesel.

Can anybody fact check this. 2010, 11 & 12 brochures all show 3.73 as "standard" NOT 3.55 ratio. Are such widely distributed FORD advertising specs correct, or all wrong as maples seems to suggest?

You're welcome to my efforts to put my head in FORD books & volunteering to post what FORD says. Knock yourself out trying to attack my "crawl under some of these vehicles" time.

IMO; Having owned Econolines continuously since mid 70's & DIYing virtually all repairs/rebuilds, while accumulating over half a million miles satisfies the prerequisite.

 

CW, it's awesome that you know so much about Ford vans from having driven them and worked on them. That being the case, I don't think anyone would mind at all if you were to share these experiences with us. We can look up shop manuals online all day if we wanted to, but what we really come here for is other people's experience. You might want to lighten up a little and contribute to the attempts at jokes that have been made- I used to hate when people told me this, but it really only takes two muscles to smile. Give it a shot!

Speaking for other people? Yes. Sometimes FTE users are pretty sociable and share opinions with each other.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five tenths, five thousandths, does it really make any difference meaningful enough to affect MPG the way the OP asked? Seems like we've gotten pretty far away from post No. 1 at this point.

A simple "Maples, I disagree" would suffice.

See? No insults necessary and we actually had a two-way discussion.

 

7t7, afraid you'd crashed & done a Face Plant into keyboard.

You mean "Give it a shot!" like that?

Chat about any little thing that can/does go wrong w/Econolines all you like. No harm in interjecting, or using, FORD's own terms/specs in "two-way discussion"? Especially on a thread asking the Q: "am I missing something??"

At this late date your "Five tenths, five thousandths, does it really make any difference meaningful enough to affect MPG" smacks more of "insults" than "attempts at jokes" or "two-way discussion". It's rude to FORD's chosen range of axle ratios.

YES - "does it ("Five tenths" = 0.50) really make any difference meaningful enough to affect MPG"? Have you been following the ball?

Does the 0.37 between 2012 FORD E-Series 3.73 & 4.10 ratios "really make any difference meaningful enough to affect MPG"?

IMO it's a safe bet FORD believes "5 tenths" makes a meaningful enough difference to affect MPG. And that says something fundamental about axle ratios. Something you still appear to be missing.

My FORD experience includes putting together a modest collection of FORD Econoline literature over many years that I volunteer to share here. If you dislike my contributions don't read them & don't whine about them. Good luck trying to look up a lot of this online all day.

 

Yet on just about every forum I'm a member of they get the point, 3.50 being common before, changing to 3.55, seeing as the ratio's go 3.50 (3.55), 3.73. 3.90, 4.10, and 4.68, I could be off on the 3.90 by a few hundredths, but I'm sure those who "know" what I'm talking about, can figure it out. It is NOT that big of a deal as we aren't discussing specifics for the use of building an axle, ever done one of those, I have, you match the gears using the numbers stamped into them, instead of what you read in a book! Ah the likes of keyboard mechanics, they talk big, type fast, but if given tools and sent into a junkyard with a specific request, well, they'd be lost!
He doesn't want to be civil, doesn't want to make friends, he wants to be the Websters dictionary of Econoline vans because he's the manual authority, ain't he special.

 

I am a terrible person. I have insulted an axle.

They have feelings too!!

SO, since a credible point about the effect of R/A ratios on MPG was brought up, anyone have a rough idea what kinds of numbers we might be talking about?

I'm just going to throw something out there, my guess is 0.05:1 makes a difference of about 0.15 MPG. Thoughts? Go ahead, rip me a new one.

 

I have a heated keyboard. It feels very nice at this hour, really helps quiet the voices in my head down to whispers. THE TOASTER IS TELLING ME TO POST STUFF ON FTE AND IT WON'T STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. What's the worst that could happen, I'm wrong and you're out the 30 seconds it took you to type a post? Once again, lighten up. You're acting as if someone made a death threat or something.

True. However, ONCE will suffice. Let's keep it moving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then, I paid $2.43 for a gallon of gasoline today. With prices like that I got to thinking. I have a 2.73 R/A, with 4.9 and manual shift, I get about 15MPG. Would it go up or down with a 3.5-whatever?

In OD, I run about 1800 RPM going 60MPH, I think this might be a tad below the powerband for the big 6. 4th gear is about 2250RPM.

So the 2.73 is about as good as it gets with the 8.5" pumpkins, I have quite a big range of gear ratios to choose from and can go to either end of the powerband.