While I searched very hard w/o success & still want an I-6 Club Wagon, I've been intrigued by things I've heard about the 5.8 VS the 5.0, since I run a '92 Chateau w/302. Now have a chance at an interesting 5.8 & wonder what members of this forum think 'Mythbusters' style.

The Urban legend is that, at least under certain circumstances, a 5.8 version may actually return better fuel economy than the 5.0! I realize that there were more rear axles ratio choices with the 5.8 & the early models were also divided between AOD trannys on the 5.0, w/E4OD on the 5.8. I presume that some combinations in some driving situations were indeed more economical. Also presume the benefit is for heavier loads & pretty well vanishes for light duty people movers.

So are the E4OD trannys any good relative to the old reliable AOD? Are they involved in fuel mileage? Significantly stronger for towing or trouble prone?

My 1st FORD van was an I-6 w/3 on the tree & often returned MPG in the high 20's. The I-6 was also a relative pleasure to work on compared to the 5.0. I hauled up & down the east coast w/my 2nd FORD Club Wagon w/4.9 I-6 on a C-6.

 

I just shed my 1990 E150 conversion with the 5.8EFI/E4OD drivetrain. I don't know what the ratio was. I do know that it got very poor mileage, like 7-10. It towed fine for me although I did shut off the OD while doing so which effecitvely turns it into a C6. I never had one problem with it. On the plus side, neither the engine or the tranny ever gave me any problems. (Religious maintenance performed).

 

Vans I've owned; '78 Plymouth with 318- 2 bbl./ OD I can't recall, 84 Ford e-150 w/5.8 AOD & 2 barrel carb, '92 e-150 w 5.0- fuel inj. /AOD, '92 e-350 w/ 5.8 / E4OD, and '98 e-350 w/6.8/E4OD. All have averaged 13 miles per gallon. All have given poor mileage at times, 10 mpg. All have given great mileage at times,16-17 mpg. I don't believe you'll find anything different out there. (13 mpg) I believe the 16-17 mpg episodes were flukes of some sort, i.e. gas pump errors/ tail winds etc.. Auto transmissions are theoretically slipping and will give poorer mileage. My wife used to drive a Dodge Omni w 2.2/ carb and a 5 speed stick. She would average 23 mpg. Her father had an Omni w 2.2 fuel injected throttle body/ automatic. He got 28+ mpg!

 

Yes, the I-6 delivers much better gas mileage then the 5.8L. With my 1980 I-6 E-150 shorty I never bothered to measure the MPG because it was so much better then my other vehicle. Probably at least 15 mpg. I think it was a 300/C-6/4.10.

 

I have driven plenty of I-6 vans and wouldn't consider owning one. Any of the V8s are way smoother and return similar or better mileage while making way more power.

I love my 5.0/AODE/3.55 combination. It gets 15 mpg combined and 16~17 highway at 80+ mph cruise. I get about 12 mpg towing.

I primarily use the van to tow and have been very pleased with its performance. It has plenty of power and will effortlessly cruise all day on the interstate at 80+ towing my racecar, all the while getting 12 mpg on level ground. Mountains aren't too difficult but a downshift to 3rd will climb most anything east of the Rockies at 70~75 mph.

The 5.8 does have more torque but doesn't get the mileage of the 5.0. I would only want one if I towed a much heavier load than I do now.

The E4OD is a good transmission but isn't as reliable as the 4R70W (AODE). The 4R70W will work just fine towing anything you could pull with either a 5/5.8 liter.

My van has 256,000+ miles on it. Mostly towing. The engine has been a rock. The transmission I went into at 225,000 miles to replace the intermediate roller clutch that was beginning to fail. I rebuilt it while I was in there. All of the paper and rubber was replaced along with the servo pistons. I upgraded the band servo to the larger unit, replaced the bands, torque converter and all of the solenoids for good measure. I reused the clutches as they looked like new.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT

 

Odd how FORD offered the E4OD with the 300 I-6, 5.8/7.5 V8s & 7.3 diesel-while the 4R70W was a 5.0 exclusive back in '94. You would kind of think that the E4OD could take quite beating mated to those big motor heavy haulers.

Fortunately, I'm not trying to convince you to switch to an I-6.

While I appreciate the value of displacement, if you're mostly towing a race car at 80+, that is certainly not my cup of tea. I'd be more interested in what fuel mileage your Econoline returned not towing & carrying only a modest load, at less than 80.

Do you consider it a myth that FORD offered the I-6 as their highest fuel economy version?

Do you consider it a myth busted, that a 5.8 should never return better fuel economy than a 5.0 under any circumstances?

I trailered cars up & down the east coast behind an '85 Club Wagon with carbed I-6 & C-6 w/o difficulty.

 

my 92 e250 5.8/e4od gets like 5 more miles to the gallon then my 91 5.0 e150.
the e250 has a 373 rear dana 60 axel , bigger tires (265/75/r16) and is heavier. the e150 has a 355 rear axel ratio, aod trans, 235/75r15 tires. both vans are empty (cargo). all driving is done in 1st,2nd,3rd only. i do not use od unless on flyway. 95% of my driving in in the city. the power difference between the 2 small blocks is like night and day. the 250 will smoke the rear tires from the light when i stab the gas. the 150 has an open rear axel (one wheel wonder) and to get the 1 tire to even think about spinning on dry concrete i better have a jack under the axel taking weight off the tire. lol
i will never own a 5.0 again. you could not give me one. i have 3 running efi 5.0`s in the garage on engine stands that are going to find new homes.

 

The I-6/E4OD was primarily a fleet motor combination. It was intended to haul realatively heavy loads around town. The E4OD was used because it was Ford's heavy duty transmission and that was a heavy duty application.

Ha! Well, I have driven plenty of each of these motors and I would only consider the six for down town city hauling. Otherwise, its too trashy and slow. But then Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors because not everybody likes vanilla.

Around town under normal driving is a consistant 15 mpg. Interstate at 70-75 mph is 16~17 with the 3.31 gear. I haven't checked the non-towing highway mileage with the 3.55 gear.

Not exactly a myth, but a miss understanding. Its Ford's low end Fleet motor. Cheap and rugged are its forte. The 300/six has never been known for having particularly good mileage.


It has been my experience that the 5.8 used more fuel under most conditions than the 5.0. In average use, I can't tell much difference between the 5.0 and 5.8. The 5.8 has more torque but that really only become apparant under load (hauling/towing).

I should also point out that the 5.0 without the mass air flow FI system (pre-92) makes less power/torque than the '92+ mass air FI version.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT

 

In my experience ('88 E150 Club wagon XLT 5k pounds empty 302/AOD/3:55 rear gear) vs a '92 E150 cargo (full carpeted floor, and plush walls. 351w/E4OD/3:55 rear gear) The '88 gets 16 at 65mph the '92 would get 17 at 70mph. It was a consistent 17mpg out of the 351, towing an empty trailer it got 14 to 15 and loaded it got 10. The '88 get 16 on the highway (at 65mph) and it gets about 8 with a trailer hooked to it. Even loaded pulling the hills in Pennsylvania/West Virginia towing a loaded 6x8 box trailer, with the back of the van loaded the '92 got about 10 in the mountains and a little more in the flats.


I'm also pretty sure that none of the vans got mass air until '94, if you can find a '96 with a 351 it's mass air as well.

 

The 351 is just a stroked 302. I heard it said once that if you want 302 power and 460 economy get a 351 and I believe it from experience.
The 5.4 is just a stroked 4.6 and it too will do 2-3 miles per gallon less than the 4.6.
I have a 93 302 with the AOD tranny. Has 400,000 miles on it with no rebuilds. Mobil 1 in everything front to back. All the Ford mechanics I talked to over the years said that the 302/AOD set up was the best that Ford ever put in the vans for a balance of economy and reliability.
I would prefer to not have a computerized tranny in my van, but I do have one in my V10 of course.
Now the V10 does do 15 empty at 80 on the highway. My 302 does 15-16 at the same speed and the V10 weighs 1,000 lbs more, figure that out.
I would not consider the step up to a 351 a very significant improvement. The 351 only made 10 more horsepower and very little in the way of torque, so just thought I would give you my two cents.
Andrew.

 

I want to send you a e-mail
dnmallard@yahoo.com
Shakerag

 

Andrew, I don't know who told you this but it's a load of crap. A 302 makes 165hp and 180tq. The 351w (in efi form) makes 215hp and 320ish tq. That's a pretty big difference. The 351w has a longer stroke, but that does not make it a stoked 302. It shares the same design as the 302 and as such many parts will interchange. The crank is a lot stronger in a 351w, the head bolts are larger (1/2 on 351 vs 3/8 or 7/16 in a 302), rod bolts are 5/16 instead of 1/4in. The list goes on. I know for a fact (I've owned both not just speculating with misinformation) that they will get THE SAME mileage and the 351w will do a better job of towing and moving a heavy load. The 302 has NO low end torque compared to a 351w. The 302 was great car engine in the mustang, but even in the crow vic/grand marquis it leaves you hanging. It has to rev too high to make power. I owned a '92 E150 with a 351w and my has an '88 E150 with a 302, both get roughly 16mpg empty on the higway (I could get 17 out of my 351w, never could get that with the 302). The 351w did a better job of towing than the 302 and the mileages again were the same. Towing the 302 will get 10mpg, the 351w will get 10mpg.

 

The '94+ (mass air) 5.0 motors are 190 hp. Big difference. I really can't tell much difference driving my 5.0 and most 5.8s. The 5.8 guys are suprized to find out that my van is a 5.0 and not a 5.8.

The only time I can tell the difference is when towing. Moving from rest and on the steeper climbs, the 5.8 shows that the torque peak is at lower rpm than the 5.0 so it feels a little stronger. Other than that, I wouldn't bother.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT

 

Fun With FORD numbers:

FORD specs for '93 Econoline:
5.0 185 HP @ 3800 rpm 270 Torque @ 2400 rpm
5.8 200 HP @ 3800 rpm 310 Torque @ 2800 rpm

FORD specs for '94 Econoline:
5.0 195 HP @ 4000 rpm 270 Torque @ 3000 rpm
5.8 210 HP @ 3600 rpm 325 Torque @ 2800 rpm

 

Your 88 302 was carburetor fueled and had much less power than a 92 302. The specs above are right and there is very little difference. I have driven both often and there is not enough difference to make me want to buy a little tiny bit bigger engine that really does nothing better than a 302. 351's are thirsty and all the folks I know over the years who had them their first complaint was fuel mileage. All I was trying to say is that I don't believe the trade up to a 351 would be anything but a dissappointment. Especially because the 351 has a computerized transmission that was troublesome in the early ones, and every time you take your foot off the gas the torque converter disengages, unlike the 302 with AOD that stays engaged all the time, much nicer to drive.
Andrew.