I know you guys probably get this quite a bit, but I'm looking to buy a used Ford. Although I am considering the 300 six in a F-150, and a Ranger, I'd love a diesel. My grandfather had many Ford Diesels, and they always got the job done. What I was considering would be a 6.9 or a 7.3 non powerstroke in a F-250 or 350, because I can get them for fairly cheap. I know diesels are supposed to be good in terms of fuel mileage, but wherever I look, I can't find the approx. mileage a 6.9 or non PS 7.3 would get. I'm not sure which gears I'd be getting, but I think I'd be better off with the 3.55s, because I wouldn't use the truck for extreme hauling (although my grandfather always had the 4.10s). Anyways, thanks alot guys.

 

4.10 gears are very good for long haul towing up to about 55 mph, without an overdrive top gear, they can be a real drag when running empty.

And thats the real limiter of the 6.9 powered trucks, no overdrive. By the time it was overbored into the 7.3, the manual and automatics both had overdrives, so 4.10 gears would still work well for mild towing and running empty.

For MPG, its VERY subjective. It really depends a lot on the condition of the truck and how its driven. I live on Vancouver Island, so theres not much flat road like in the plains, my average is 15 mpg with lots of freeway towing (not heavy) and many long shallow hills.

Running empty in cool, damp conditions, with the canopy off, and I have seen 20+ mpg.

To be honest, trying to cruise at 55 mph, is like pulling teath, so chances are, I could do better for MPG, most of my miles are at 70+ mph though.

 

Thanks a bunch. You're lucky to live on Vancouver island! It's beautiful! I really appreciate the information though, thanks.

 

It sure is nice out here, but so far this summer really sucked, I wish you folks back east would stop hoggin' the heat!

As a side note, the 3.08 gears that my truck has are not avalable OEM, (except with a rareD60 semi-floater, which is junk) but they are fairly cheap aftermarket though, and its one way of making an older 6.9 powered truck run nicely on the highway without a tranny swap, and breaking the bank.

The only real disadvantage is felt at, or below 25 KPH, after that, you feel no difference in power, and with a C6. I could comforably use 2nd gear at 90KPH, for a better final drive ratio than with 4.10 gears in direct (3rd) drive. Overall the drivability much better.

Oh, and the ranger was actually avalable with a diesel in the mid 80s....

 

Yeah, I've seen the diesel rangers. I think it was a Perkins in them? Somebody told me they were trouble before, but I'm not sure what to beleive. Thanks for the tips anyway

 

I believe the perkins was from 83-84 had 59 Hp and was nearly impossible to wreck. Its actually a commercial duty engine with heavy internals like big conrods and the likes, which is one reason why its so underpowered. The other reason is that its N/A.

The later 2.3 Turbo was a mitsubishi (4d55T) was offered from 85-87 and had 86 Hp. Its a light duty engine with an aluminuim head and a belt driven timing set (perkins is all gears). We have one of these in an 87 ranger 4x4 (converted).

The only real trouble that you might have with either of these engines, is finding parts, but so far I've found everything I needed.

 

Is it a real slouch? When I asked my uncle's friend about the diesel rangers, he told me they were slow as hell and he had trouble with them (I think he just couldn't find parts).

 

I can't speak for the perkins, but the 2.3 tubo is satisfactory.

The engine is fresh, since I found a fried conrod in it, and it moves quite well. It has very little bottom end, and top end is limited by the wastegate, so its all midrange, and it is partly to blame for killing the stock two piece driveshaft. I had to swap a stronger one from a 98-02 ranger.

Around town, the truck is lots of fun to drive, plenty of torque and even some high end to play with, my sis (its her truck) likes to leave it in 4wd when its raining, because the back end kicks out so easily. The turbo sounds sounds very nice.

Top speed is about 80 mph (again, long shallow hills at high speed) where it runs out of torque, but it has a strong head bolt set, and I do know that many in the far east have cranked up the numbers on this paticular engine. Its only a matter of time before I tamper with the wastegate (its just about broken it ).

For parts, to make a lonng story short, I can still find every part I might need for this engine, but it did take some effort.

One thing about the 2.3 is that it has a lot of externally routed lines and covers, and is prone to oil leaks, most of my time was spent tracking them down, so it can be finicky that way.

The donor engine had 260 000 ks on it, and if it wasn't for the shredded #1 conrod bearing (oil was let to leak out), it would have be good to go for at least as far again, the rest of the bearings had almost no wear.

 

nice, thanks alot for the info, my choices are gonna be easier now!