I was on the highway to a truck/tractor pull thing, and i was doing 2500 rpms at 65. 3.08's and a C6.

 

black4.2 said:

"All depends on the application..Tow alot, don't buy a v6 or for that matter a v8..I would go for the 4.9 for that. Works just like a diesel, but altleast it might get better fuel economy..if it comes to daily commuting, I'd want the v6. I never like taking my 4.9 over 65...."

My 7.3 gets the same milage as my 4.9 (roughly)
I average 16mpg on either of them. Of course they both have c6 tranny's and so milage isn't that good to begin with.
The big difference is when towing 8,000lbs the diesel milage doesn't change, or if it does it's only 1-2mpg. The worst I've gotten was 13mpg. I've gotten as low as 8mpg hauling heavy loads with the inline.
Whats the milage like on a 4.2?

dp

 

First of all..The 4.2l towing 8,000lbs....thats dangerous...but I think maybe the last time i towed a heavy load..it managed 14ish

 

I towed that much with my dad's 4.2 Supercab Shortbed with a 5spd. It was because my truck got a flat and he was closer than he was to the house to get another truck. It towed it fine even though i didn't take it over 55 and it was only for a couple miles.

The springs suck we had to reposition the load so the truck would get off the bump stops, while my truck only sat down about an inch. I still prefer towing with my 300 cause i don't have to use the throttle to get rolling, i was worried about the slippage it took the 4.2 to get the load moving. eventhough it has 3.55's

DT

 

I had a very hard time seeing the good ol 300 six being replaced with a smaller displacement V6 at first. I have gained a great deal of respect for the little 4.2 over the past couple years. My uncle has a 98 F150 LWB 2wd 5 speed 3.55 ls with the 4.2 liter engine. I drove it when he first got it I was impressed with the power from 1500 RPMs and up. It turned on really quick once you got it rolling, and it got up to 100 mph in nothing flat. It felt a bit doggy on the low end, but came to life in a real hurry once you got it up in the powerband. I think the 4.0 V6s in the Rangers and Explorers are also impressive in upper RPM performance. The only V6 I would be afraid of would be the old GMC 305 V6 that they used in the early 60s. Those were a mammoth of their own breed. I don't know the bore and stroke of that engine, but I have heard the pistons were close to the size of a large coffee can and the stroke was more the 4.5". I understand they weren't capable of high RPMs and the torque output was absolutely insane...more than some of the big block V8s of the era. My uncle's 4.2 has well over 200k of trouble free service on the clock and it runs just as strong as the day he got it new. He hauls a lot of weight in the back for his job as a carpenter, it handles the load fine. I still like my 300 more because it has tons of usable power at low RPMs. I don't normally go much faster than 60-65 (2400 @ 60 and 2800 @ 65) on the freeway, the lack of overdrive really hurts the gas mileage. I get around 10-12 mpg with a 4 speed, 4.10 gears, and 33 inch mudders. I don't like going much over 75 because of the high RPMs and the big tires don't do very well at higher speeds. But I can hook up to just about anything and drag it where ever I want.

 

Pkman82, the Chevy 305 had a larger bore with a shorter stroke than the 300 Ford. Both bore AND stroke could not be larger in the 305 Chev six than the 300 Ford six-because it has the same number of cylinders. Displacement is Bore X Stroke, and the engines are 5 cubic inches apart.

Its torque peak was advertised as being even lower than the 300's was, from breathing tune. I understand around 16-1800 rpm. Maximum torque output was similar. Had to be-near same displacement. Heard it was a good engine, but have never seen one. If they made a V6 like that I'd buy it, but a 300 six has such a proven record of durability that I wish they'd reintroduce it, with tuning that emphasized low speed torque above all, but with, say, variable valve timing to give it around 1000 more rpm. That would be a pickup engine.

Or, better yet, modify one like mine and offer it for sale. That motor would be used for work rather than cruising by those who know truck motors.

V6's these days are high HP, smaller displacement motors. Things have sure changed from the old days, when a six was straight and a torquer.

 

That's a good point 309, I guess I didn't exactly have my facts straight on the 305. Go figure it was a Chevy guy telling me it was badest 6 popper ever used in a pickup. Typical of most GM nuts they think their stuff is superior to everything else. I have stomped out a few 305 SBC V8s with my built 300 Ford with ease. I have seen a 305 V6, they're huge...when I first saw it I thought it was a V8; at closer inspection I discovered it was a 6 banger. I didn't know they were that close in performance numbers. I'll still stick with what I know still works, I am sure it was good but it couldn't have been that great, they didn't build them for very long. I like inliners better for strength, reliability, and longivity.

 

I used to drive a old inline six Ford pickup at a place I used to work...had a hydraulic box on the back and used to deliver mulch and dirt and bark in it...I swear me and the other guy I worked with actually tried to kill that truck...I mean we drove it hard...it would NOT DIE...it earned my respect

sounded like a tank though...haha

 

I agree. I have owned a 76 f150 with a 300 I6, (Back when I was young and dumb). That I6 took a serious beating. I am a little weary of the v6 bottom end.

 

I think most mechanics have long forgotten what the bottom end of the 300 looks like. Leaking gaskets and rod knock? ~Please~! I periodically test drive the new trucks so I can remind myself how much I enjoy not making a payment every month. Ford should really look at a new straight six base engine. If they made one around 4.2-4.5 liters, with a pushrod valvetrain it would be the bomb! Consider the things that make the straight six so great - smooth revving, flat and simple gasket mating surfaces, well supported crankshafts. Easier to work on! With a more efficient head, a smaller version of the 300 would be an uber-reliable and efficient workhorse! It suprises me that a company would completely retire a design with such a long reaching and reliable history. Why not update it like the chevy 350? It was a good design. The 4.2 will not likely touch the 300's reputation for hundreds of thousands of miles of reliability.

 

330,000+miles on a 1987 ford E-150 automatic 300i6 extended van, Work truck since the day we got it back before I was born, I was born in 88 Ive seen my dad pull up in that van since I was just a little runt now I drive it from time to time. Its close to 20 yrs old on the original engine and trany nothing wrong except the idle gear all that means is when its cold u have to weight a little bit for it to go into gear from there on everythings just as good as it was back when it only had 100,000 on it, still has alot of power for being a 300i and the most exspensive repair was a new rear end at around 300,000 and the things that are exspected to be replaced in time like the altenator and water pump. My dad still to this day loads it up like when it was new with the *** end sunk with all the weight and we also pull are 22 ft boat thats pretty heavy and ill tell u what those 300s can pull just about anything. Thats all I have to say Id take the 300i over any v6 that went into a truck.

 

I wish my 2000 F-150 had the 4.9.
-Matt

 

I dont think you could fit the 300 into the new cab forward body since 97. If you did it would be a pain to work on.
4.2 wasnt intended to be the workhorse that 300 was. Its an urban truck owners engine, for light hauling and lots of empty travels in between. Many people today dont use a truck for full time truck business. Its for that occasional load you dont want to try to squeeze into your sedan or SUV. Who wants to toss a load of dirty greasy junk into thier SUV?
It also makes a good general delivery truck as well. If you want a stump puller get a stump puller and stop fooling yourself into thinking your bottom of the line cheapest truck on the lot is going to be Big Rig Jr.

 

I had a 1996 E150 with the 300 and now have a 06 with the 4.2. the 300I got 15mpg no matter what I did to it....I drove to southern Mexico and guess what, it got 15mpg all the way...flatlands, mountains, 70mph headwinds in Mexico, 70mph tailwinds in mexico. It loved to go 70mph...period..no faster or it drank oil and it was new. When it had 55,000 miles the head gasket took a dump. Do you know how much ford charges for a head gasket in an E150????....about $150 dollars and the labor charge????about $2200 dollars because they had to pull the engine and suspension...ouch...I traded it in. My 06 feels pretty strong on the low end. I know it peaks at 3400 rpm, but still feels strong at the low end. I would like to see the torque curve across the rpm range.

 

Your 4.2 feels "strong" on the low end because your automatic transmission masks some of the torque deficiency of the motor at low speeds starting from a dead stop. Try a stick shift 4.2 and see how "strong" your low end feels then.

Here's a hint: It won't. You'll have to burn the clutch pretty good to get any load moving with the 4.2.

A better test with an automatic is to see how well it holds speed on a hill in overdrive at low rpm's. The 4.2 doesn't do so well there either, needing to downshift sooner than any comparable truck motor I've driven. So much for "low end" with the 4.2.