View Poll Results: Which is better in stock form, 390 or 400?
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll
Which is better?
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 892
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Which is better?
I know everybody here is going to be a little bias toward the FE motors, but I was wondering what engine you think is better in stock form? 390 or 400
Last edited by deisele75; May 12, 2005 at 11:38 PM.
FE "Freakin Expensive"
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,461
Likes: 4
From: Smith Mountain Lake, VA
I know there has been a hell of alot of FE's built by ford....and they were fords bread and butter from the late 50's into the 70's as a production motor...
And the 400 was NOT a Bread and Butter motor....But they can also be "built" to run like a raped ape!!
But with all the FE parts out there in the bone yards that are still good parts or need to be rebuilt...Its pretty easy to figure out which motor to use..Unless you allready have a 400 in the Truck and want to do a swap...which I wouldnt do..just to have the 390..... JMHO...
Russ
And the 400 was NOT a Bread and Butter motor....But they can also be "built" to run like a raped ape!!
But with all the FE parts out there in the bone yards that are still good parts or need to be rebuilt...Its pretty easy to figure out which motor to use..Unless you allready have a 400 in the Truck and want to do a swap...which I wouldnt do..just to have the 390..... JMHO...
Russ
Fleet Owner
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 26,007
Likes: 575
From: Brentwood,CA
the 351m and 400 replaced the fe engines for better fuel economy i think the 400's are worthless they really can't be rebuilt too many times and there is not a huge aftermarket for them and all the parts of a 400 are not as big aand robust as a fe and for stock power a 390 will out tow that 400 the 400 reved a little higher than the fe but it was also lighter
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
I've got one of each.
My 400 is in a '69 F250 4x4 with a 4spd granny. I have 3.73s with 35's. It also has a posi in rear.
My 390 is in a '75 F250 4X4 with a C6. I have 4.10s with 35s. It does not have posi in rear.
The 69 is my brush beater/wood hauler (has camper special overloads in rear) She doesn't hardly squaty with a bid laod in the rear. The 75 is my cruiser/tower.
Both motors are stock with 2bbls. Even with 2bbls, the 390 out pulls the 400 no problem. However, as mentioned aboved, the 400 is nice for wrapping up the RPMs in the mud holes.
Really, when it comes down to it, they are hard to compare to one another. They each come from their own decades.
I'll still vote thou.....
390!
Mike
My 400 is in a '69 F250 4x4 with a 4spd granny. I have 3.73s with 35's. It also has a posi in rear.
My 390 is in a '75 F250 4X4 with a C6. I have 4.10s with 35s. It does not have posi in rear.
The 69 is my brush beater/wood hauler (has camper special overloads in rear) She doesn't hardly squaty with a bid laod in the rear. The 75 is my cruiser/tower.
Both motors are stock with 2bbls. Even with 2bbls, the 390 out pulls the 400 no problem. However, as mentioned aboved, the 400 is nice for wrapping up the RPMs in the mud holes.
Really, when it comes down to it, they are hard to compare to one another. They each come from their own decades.
I'll still vote thou.....
390!
Mike
Junior User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Texas
and the 400 was all smogged up too... but like stated before...they can be "BUILT"...to run awesome.....but with low compression....and just all the otehr crap on them.....dont get me wrong i would gladly own one.....but the 390 well.....it was made a lot longer..........and im not shure about "stock numbers"...but imho....a 390 will out pull and spank a 400.....
76 drag
76 drag
Cargo Master
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,574
Likes: 4
From: Golden, CO
Biased? (Lisa Kudro style) Well Yeaaahhh!!!!
One of my old girlfriends had a 400M in a sedan, it outlasted several of her boyfriends. One of the guys she married
told me that it had over 250K when it gave up the ghost. Not a bad motor, just not an FE.
One of my old girlfriends had a 400M in a sedan, it outlasted several of her boyfriends. One of the guys she married
told me that it had over 250K when it gave up the ghost. Not a bad motor, just not an FE.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 892
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Trending Topics
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,600
Likes: 4
From: Iowa
There's another thread like this over in the 351M / 400 forum.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/s...d.php?t=374655
The results are interesting, 4 for 390, 3 for 400, at the time of my posting here. Go take a look.
-cough- vote -cough-
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/s...d.php?t=374655
The results are interesting, 4 for 390, 3 for 400, at the time of my posting here. Go take a look.
-cough- vote -cough-
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Senior User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
From: Fort Nelson B.C.
I had a '78 Bronco with a 400. I had my Dad's '76 f-150 with a 460 and now my '71 f-250 with a 390.
That is the order they were owned and that is the order they performed, from worst to best.
I don't know how Ford figured the 400 was gonna replace the 390 for power, mileage, or what ever because it sucked in all those departments. The bronco never really revved any higher and definitely didn't pull better. Mileage...well I got 10 mpg on the highway running 31's and 3.55 gears. My '71 runs about 11 mpg with 35's and 4.10 gears.
400-390..no comparison if you have owned both.
That is the order they were owned and that is the order they performed, from worst to best.
I don't know how Ford figured the 400 was gonna replace the 390 for power, mileage, or what ever because it sucked in all those departments. The bronco never really revved any higher and definitely didn't pull better. Mileage...well I got 10 mpg on the highway running 31's and 3.55 gears. My '71 runs about 11 mpg with 35's and 4.10 gears.
400-390..no comparison if you have owned both.