I know the F-Series shared a lot of parts from 1980-1996. Do you think the 92-96 trucks are significantly better and improved than the 87-91 models? Why or why not? Are the new trucks through 1996 really any better than the 1980-1986 models?

 

Fuel injection was a big improvement. Overdrive was a big improvement with teething pains.

 

Well both of them were EFI. And until 96 they didn't make a signifigant changes. The E4OD was also inproved in the 92-96. But other than the front end style there's not too much different about those trucks.

 

I few differences I have noted between my 89 and my 93 F Series are:
Steering column/emergency brake bracket
Radiator support
Minor structural differences under the cab
Not sure why but my 93 F350 rides like a Lincoln compared to my 89 F150.
DannyP

 

I was interested in your comment about "riding like a Lincoln"--my previous vehicle was a 1988 Lincoln Town Car, which rode beautifully. I now drive a 1988 F150 XLT 4x2, 302, AOD, 3.55LS extended cab (my first truck), and while it does come in handy for moving, hauling, etc., I am amazed how poor the ride is--it bumps along the road, feels most road uneveness, etc. The truck is in very good shape, shocks are relatively new, tire pressure is always consistent with the door sticker at 35 front, 41 rear psi.
After a year, I am still getting used to the "truck feel", but still puzzle about why the ride has to be so much worse.
I have a friend who drives a 2002 Dodge truck, and it really does drive like my old Lincoln--not sure what the difference is.
Frank.

 

41 psi in the rear seems a bit high to me, thats probably why you feel every bump along the road. I've never run my tires over 32 psi. Depending on the type of tire that you use, the tire inflation will be a bit different for each. Check with a tire shop the carries those tires and they should be able to tell you what to inflate them at.

It just seems to me that 41 psi is way too much. Is there uneven wear on the tires? (mainly in the middle compared to the outerside tread)

 

Thanks for your reply. The tire wear seems even at this point (light truck tire). 41 psi is on the door decal for the rear. I asked a tire shop, and they indicated that I could run the rears at 35 psi, same as is specified for the front, if the truck box is empty and "air up" to 41 when carrying a load, or continue to run at 41--they said it was my choice. I was reluctant to deviate from the factory recommendation.
From time to time I have considered dropping the rear to 35, as I think the front of the truck is probably heavier due to the engine, so if 35 is good enough for the front, maybe 35 is good enough for the rear, unless I am carrying a heavy load. What do you all think?
Thanks for any advice.
Frank.

 

Running the rears at 35 will smooth out the ride a bit when empty. Dont forget to air them back up when you are carrying a load. I notice a difference in the ride when I have my rears aired up to max and when I have them at 10psi below max when empty.

 

I have always been puzzled as to why it rides so rough. It has the quad shocks in the front so I assumed it may have a stiffer rate spring too. It's the roughest riding 1/2 ton I have ever rode in. Even 1 ton trucks with tires inflated to 80psi ride better. My F350 wears 35/12.5-16.5 so I figure they help smooth the ride out to a certain degree.
DannyP

 

You are comparing totally different suspensions. If i remember correctly, Dodge uses a torsion bar setup while the Fords use I beam. The difference between the F-150 and 350 is the stabilizer bar in the front and larger springs. Always thought the F-150 could use more heavy duty springs. My truck use to ride alot better but the front springs are shot, and the new shocks are not helping.

 

My 87 250 rides like a tank, but it was ordered with the 350 suspension for the diesels, so that makes sence why it rides so rough in the front, but am begining to think that the rear is gettin soft, rides smoother when i hit a bump in the rear than with the front, and the air pressure is higher in the rear than the front, by almost 20 psi!!

 

There are many factors that affect ride quality, including springs, shocks, tires, tire pressure, weight and wheelbase.

My 93 F350 crewcab rides fairly nice, but thats mostly because its really long, and really heavy (6997lbs unloaded). It doesn't ride like a Lincoln, but its not unpleasant where I'd not drive it long distances. I live in NJ, and its been to Ohio, Boston, DC, etc. Unless its really humid out, its my daily driver. I don't have air conditioning, so thats why I tossed in that caveat there. But not for long, I have a complete AC system ready to go in, I just need "a round tuit" to enjoy comfort.

Having commercial tires, my fronts are inflated to 50psi, and the rears to 70psi, and I'll bump the rears up to 90psi if I have a full load. Mine's also 2wd rather than 4wd, so the stance is slightly lower (the 2wd's of this vintage have a slight rake to them), and of course there is less unsprung mass in the front than a solid axle or even the 4WD TTB setup. Less unsprung mass means the tires track the road better, resulting in a nicer ride quality.

With the weights these trucks come in at, its not *that* much of a difference, but every little bit helps, yanno?

Eventually my truck will have bags front and rear, not to lift or "mow weeds" but rather to soften the ride even more, yet still retain the load carrying capacity I ask her to do on occasion.

It *is* convienent driving back from Home Depot with two pallets of patio bricks in the back

 

My apologies, I sidetracked, I meant to suggest a particular year range of trucks.

The trucks are similar enough that either would be fine, depending which nose you prefer. Some like the older, flat face nose, some like the slightly aero nose like the 92-96 trucks. Me, I didn't care one way or another, a truck is a truck is a truck. I wanted a used, rust-free crewcab, and I wasn't very picky. It could have been pink! Well, maybe not pink.

If you are a DIY type of guy, I'd strongly suggest staying away from the ODBII trucks, only because troubleshooting them are a real pain in the ****. Anything that goes wrong with sensors or the EFI, results in the ODBII computer really pitching a fit that might leave you stranded. Not that its not a reliable system, of course it is, until you start modifying things.

Also, a lot of state inspections require ODB-II connections to be made if the vehicle supports it, so the state as part of your inspection monitor the ECM during the dyno test as well as download all the codes. This is a good way of getting snagged for a more "interesting" cam than stock, for example.

The data stream of the ODB-I trucks is so lame that no state will be attaching to it, and its also a lot more forgiving as to what you do with the engine internals.

Anyway, good luck in selecting a truck. I looked at 71 used trucks, and test drove about 3/4 of them before I selected this one. I chose it because of how straight and rust free the body is (well, was, cancer is just starting), and how clean the interior is. I wanted to upgrade the powertrain anyway to a twin-turbo configuration, so whatever engine it came with was irrelevent. I just didn't want to drive around with a nasty, tornup, smelly interior or have to spend the next 4 years cutting and welding rust patches. And, I have a crewcab fetish. And, I live in NJ where clean used crewcabs of this vintage are just scarce.

 

I know it it picky, but i like the 92-96 much better because the dashboard, which is what you see the most if you are driving it, looks so much better. I really hate the chrome and fake wood in the earler trucks. My 1988 Ranger had that hideous fake walnut burl with chromed plastic trim (and velour seats).

Jim

 

mine has the black all around, no chrome in the interior. i like the older body style better than the newer ones of the 92-96. and i have a 4bbl on mine, the onlything that resembles a computer in my truck is my cdplayer and my amp!