yes i did and it got 20 or better doing 75 all the way to colorado.

 

Well, to begin with, these are towing "recommendations". Second of all, beside the engine(and tranny in the M5OD's case). the rest of the truck is the same. Same brakes and everything. Second of all, any 5 liter engine can tow more then the 2000lbs that the 300 is rated for safely.

It has been said time and time again. these number are pulled out of the air. The only thing that makes sense is the lesser rating for a manual tranny. Mainly because it does take more experience to tow with a manual without killing it.

But aside from that, any of these engine will tow at 5k+ safely.

And i get 18 mpg loaded 1000+lbs driving in the dallas area. Sticking to the highways and easy on the throttle is key.

 

agreed, the 300, even the 302 will tow MUCH more than the recommended numbers produced by ford, and i never thought about that, the warranty of the trucks probably had a big influence on the numbers they put out too keep warranty claims down

the 300 will tow 3 ton i know that for a fact, it will also to a 23' fifth wheel camper trailer AND a small flatbed with a quad or two behind the camper, that has to be a fair bit higher than the rating suggests

and i can see them rating the manual tranny lower than the auto so people dont kill the tranny but in fact the manual will eat about 15-20% less torque than the auto will, so it should tow more, driven properly anyway, it probably wont last as long though, but thats why you get a zf 5 speed, then you are set...stupid mazda trannys always seem to get torn up by the ole 300

 

AND... no one has mentioned it yet, but the 300 is a naturally balanced motor. The 5.0 and 5.8 need balancers on them, but the 300 design is naturally balanced which goes a long way towards promoting it's efficiency and longevity.

 

Automatic transmissions are not just rated higher because there isnt a clutch involved-but the torque converter has a torque multiplication factor of at least 2:1 at converter stall speed . So a first gear ratio of an automatic with 2.72 first gear with the converter ratio of x2 =5.48 to 1 first gear ratio.

Much lower than the 3.93 first ratio of the M5R2 F150 manual tranny.

I agree with you guys-I think that most of these manufacturer Trailering Ratings are based not just on constant speed pulling capabilites-but on what the powertrain can get moving from a stop to a rolling start. Low torque of the engine and first gear ratios , final gearing and torque converters figure in these ratings.

Something else that has to be considered when a manufacturer assigns these Trailering Ratings.That is the width of the power curve of an engine. And HP and TQ figures into the width of the power curve/band. An engine with a narrow power curve/band will not pull as well as one with the same TQ but wider power curve. A narrow power curve will cause the driver to have to down shift more to maintain speed when pulling up hills. I suspect this power curve concern is the reason that Ford says that the truck 5.0 can pull more than the 4.9.

If I remember correctly-the power band is the engine speed between the torque peak and the horsepower peak-the sweet spot.

 

I was saving that one for later, but oh well.

Iv towed much more with my 300 M5OD combo, some where around 8k with out any problems. It does feel like your driving semi. Its slow and you shift at low rpms, but it just keeps pulling.

And the Mazda is an ok tranny, the biggest problem is that people let them run out of fluid.

 

Yes, the auto does have torque multiplication, but with a manual you can manipulate the engine RPM's, which is great because the 300 is such a low torque engine.

 

the torque converter thing is a good point, but im willing to bet an M5 will move just as much as an auto because of the clutch...i know in the big rigs the clutch vs. an auto a clutch will move better, of course this is a highly multiplied scale vs. our little trucks, same concept though

and even with the torque converters multiplication, the zf 5 speed has a similar first gear i believe its in the 5:1 area and it has a clutch

problem is its a light-medium duty tranny behind a heavy duty motor, for DD use and light/occasional towing its a great tranny, good shift points for that, but for extended heavy pulling the M5 is not a great choice, the zf will hold up much better under those conditions, and is just as good for DD, you have one less shift to make because you can skip first (granny gear) and then it takes off faster from stop lights than the M5 will in first...and the zf 5th gear seems to be better on mpg AND power than the M5s 5th...all i can say is I WANT ONE

 

Harmonic balancers are on straight six engines also-arent they??

I have heard that a straight six has natural balance-but I have a question:

Why do straight sixes sound like they are going to explode when they are at 4k RPM??? A truck straight six will not sound like a V8 at high RPM. And dont seem as happy at high RPM. Probably the long crank and less firing impulses per RPM is the reason that straight sixes dont sound as good at high RPM. (But I do have a Honda motorcyle that is a CBX ,that is a straight six, and it will sing at 9K RPM, a beautiful song!!)

But then-most truck straight sixes are made for low RPM service.

 

Just throwing this out there but my first truck was a 1984 f-150 with a 4 speed and 2.47 gears.Wish i still had the rear end tag in case no one believes me but this thing was a pig,it would tow anything i hooked up to it but i don't know why they felt the need to throw in overdrive cause it sure as hell couldn't hold it,even with 265s.I had to haul a 18ft landscape trailer with this everyday and it hated me for it,but my 81 f100 with a 302 and 2.73s would tow it with ease and you gotta figure the automatic is gonna have more drivetrain loss than the 4 speed. And I think that is why i think i hate the almighty 300.Although I would own another one but this time it is gonna have 4.10s and a good ole c6 or atleast the gears p.s. wtf was ford thinking putting in such a high gear 3.1 would of been sufficient enough

 

i dont think sixers have balancers on them, i cant remember though, not something i have looked at...the big rig diesel sixers have balncers but they are much larger and their motor mounts are directly under the engine rather than on the sides and the spin even lower rpm than a 300 so its probably less stable

the jeep 4.0L inline 6 will wind up much higher than the 300 also...im thinking its got a lot to do with the heavy *** rotating assembly of the 300 and 4" stroke x 4" bore just screams low RPM and it does scream at high RPM lol

 

At last! Finally, someone confirms this for me! To date, I've been the only one I've ever known to have an F-series with a 2.47 rear end ratio.

I had (still have, but it's now a rolling shed) an '81 F-100, 2x4 with the tranny you're talking about--a cast iron case, 4spd over-drive.

And this truck's rear end ratio was either 2.41 or 2.47--I couldn't remember which, but I'll go with your memory of 2.47.

And I've always thought the exact same thing--WTF was Ford thinking putting in such a high rear end ratio???

IIRC, it was turning only 1,800 RPM at 75 mph.

At the time, I checked, and the then-current Corvette (C-4, I think, when I had this truck licensed?) had a lower (numerically higher) rear end ratio than did my F-100....

But the 300 still pulled it--you just couldn't stay in overdrive in a lot of situations which you would have wanted to. The rear end was just mad high.

The engine felt positively imprisoned by this rear end ratio. I remember that when I got my '88 F-150 4.9 2.4 with the M5OD and a 3.55 rear, it felt like a sports car in comparison! The '88 with the 3.55 had MUCH better acceleration (better than my friend's '88 F-250 4x4 w/351, with 4.10's--obviously, a much heavier truck, of course) and actually went down the highway with way less drama than the '81 with the 2.47, because you could just stick it in 5th and forget about it. It could climb hills and accelerate in 5th, no problem! (I realize the '88, being EFI, also had a slight advantage over the carbed '81, but again, the difference between the 2.47 and 3.55 rears was night and day.)

Thanks for confirming that I was not the only one to have the experience of owning a Ford with a 2.47 rear end ratio. And I too felt that no one would even believe me--I must remember to snag the tag off of that truck before I junk it.

But just to be clear, I LOVE the 4.9! So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. It's too reliable, and too good at it's job (truck power) for me not to love it! It's quiet, powerful, smooth and (relatively) efficient. Plus ABSOLUTELY BULLET PROOF. And it will go 300,000+ miles. I've heard of them with 450,000 miles on them, never having been rebuilt. LOL

Big Six

 

This is not correct.
In order for the vehicle to qualify for the government money, the dealership is required to pour liquid glass into the oil. Run it until it seizes.

The dealership I work for took in a F150 4X4 with 300K on the clock. They poured in the liquid glass and it ran for 10 Minutes before it caught fire, they put the fire out and it ran another 5 Min before it caught fire again. This time it stopped running and nobody restarted it. Nobody knows if it ever seized or not.

None of the others lasted more then 5 minutes or so. Lots of smoke, steam and coolant.

 

well, that is another testament to the 300.

I knew that alot of dealerships put a silica based liquid into the oil, but for some reason alot of other dealerships just drained various fluids and ran it till dead. And i was under the impression that the program only requires the power train to be destroyed, no matter the means. But i could be wrong as i havent researched it much.

 

Only the engines. The rest of the drive-line is safe. The dealerships are required by the government to use the liquid glass. I am sure that maybe some tried other methods but as it was described to me by the owner of the dealership I work for, if you don't do it the way the government wants, you don't get paid.
The government also supplied the liquid glass. Maybe somebody jumped the gun.

Another oft debated thing is that many people think these vehicles had to go to the scrapper complete. This too turned out to be untrue.
I got a fuel tank (need the pump), starter, and Alternator off of that 4X4. One of our mechanics, I am a part time driver, had his wife out there, pumping the gas out of them until both his fuel tanks and a couple of 5 gallon cans were full.
I also scored some interior parts.....I don't need them but they were easy to grab, and who knows?