PDA

View Full Version : All you ford guys....your advice is needed



timex69
08-31-2008, 08:59 PM
Hey
I started a thread on here about 5 months ago looking for advice on what 1/4 ton truck to go with and after alot of looking around and test driving I settled on a 99 ford ranger 3.0 automatic. Its been extremely reliable the whole time ive owned it. But it sure has its downfalls. Acceleration is fair at best...it has a top speed of 143 km/hr and thats on a very long straight away and it only gets 22 mpg speed limit highway driving...cut that nearly in half when you put a 12 foot enclosed trailer with any load on it.

So the other day I decided that if im getting the same if not worse milage then the half tons I may as well buy a half ton and I think I've narrowed down what im looking for . A 89-96 Ford f150. I believe 97 was the year they changed the front ends to the more "modern" look but I prefer the old look better (not 100% sure if those years are right so correct me if im wrong. Im also looking for it to be a 4x4 and standard. Im going to be doing some offroading, towing and mostly highway driving.

What motor would I be best to go with... The 300 Series V6 or the 302. I asked a few F150 owners and they said the 6 cylinder is a really tough motor but can be gutless but never herd much about the 302. Basicly id just like all of your opinions on these trucks and motor options.

P.S Telling me to just buy a chev wont be helpful because i already own one lol

hancadam
08-31-2008, 09:03 PM
300 Straight six is a beast and runs forever. I had a 78 and 79 F-150, both had 302's with the c-6 transmissions. I had good luck with both of them.

PS: I have a Chevy now. I love Ford and Chevy both though.

fabiodriven
08-31-2008, 09:11 PM
I'm not sure he has the option of a 300 inline 6 for the years he's looking at. Although the 300 6 is a good motor, the 302 is far superior-

When you think aobut it, they both have the same amount of cubic inches, hence they use just about the same amount of fuel, only the 300 6 is kinda wimpy at best and even a 2 barrell 302 can crank. The fuel injected truck 302's are severly limited by their intake manifold. They really wont rev beyond 45 hundred RPM, but if you get an intake of a 5.0 mustang, you're in business! While you're at it, you may even be able to use that same mustang's headers! Now you're talkin!

Maybe I got a little carried away, but the amount of gas you're gonna save with that six-popper isn't worth the power and reliablity of a 302. They're killer engines.

Nick_R_23
08-31-2008, 09:15 PM
My friends have both the 6 cyl and the 302. I think the 302 get slightly worse gas mileage but I definately would take it over the 6 cyl.

-Nick :TrikesOwn

fabiodriven
08-31-2008, 09:17 PM
My friends have both the 6 cyl and the 302. I think the 302 get slightly worse gas mileage but I definately would take it over the 6 cyl.

-Nick :TrikesOwn

Yeah, the difference in gas mileage isn't even worht it.

timex69
08-31-2008, 09:29 PM
Okay guys....then ill be looking for the 302. it never crossed my mind to swap parts from the 302 mustangs but hey..great idea. Any common failures with these trucks in general..tranny problems or anything major i should know about

firehart
08-31-2008, 09:29 PM
I think it would depend on the type of driving you are going to do. My dad's 90 F-150 4x4 with a straight six and five speed got better mileage than my 89 f-150 2WD with a 302 and AOD. But he only drives around 50MPH. I actually prefer the old 300 six. My newer 95 F-150 that I have now is a 4x4 extended cab with the 5.7 (351 Windsor) motor. Its a nice driving truck but I doubt it gets over 12 or 13 mpg.

firehart
08-31-2008, 09:35 PM
My 89 ws a great truck. The worse thing was those dang electric pumps in the gas tanks. The 302s were hard on water pumps also. I put 100,000 miles on my 89 f-150 but I went through 4 water pumps.

Mosh
08-31-2008, 09:37 PM
I hate Fords,But I have to wrench on them.....My job...

Get the in line 6.They dont have the Power of the 302,but they are iron horses.
The 302 has a problem with loosing the rear main seal,and the thrust bearing in the crank is weak.

The only problem with the 6,is the oil pans rot out and are a PITA to change.Not too bad,but you definately want a rack todo the job.So check the pan.If there is any bubbles in the pan,it will be leaking soon.

I do know of one that got 550,000 miles on it with no internal work.

timex69
08-31-2008, 09:44 PM
firehart
theyre was a 95 with the 351 windsor in it at the local mud track today and man could it throw mud. It was lifted with a mean set of tires on it too. I also seen an older mid 80's i think it was truck with a 351 cleveland in it. Both were awesome machines.


i think as far as bang for the buck goes ill be looking for a 302 std 4x4. I like power and from what im reading the 300 series I6 were tough as nails but kind of a dog. The 302 seems like the most economical choice as well as there seems to be quite a few performance hop ups.

I dont think i'd be getting a truck with a 351 due to the fuel milage....I googled what was said about the milage and 12-13 mpg is pretty accurate. I like power but dont feel like paying that much for it.


Anyone got any pics of an older f150 thats king cab with a short box. All I can find in king cab has the long box aswell and thats not the look im going for.

cody2
08-31-2008, 10:21 PM
I'm not sure he has the option of a 300 inline 6 for the years he's looking at. Although the 300 6 is a good motor, the 302 is far superior-

When you think aobut it, they both have the same amount of cubic inches, hence they use just about the same amount of fuel, only the 300 6 is kinda wimpy at best and even a 2 barrell 302 can crank. The fuel injected truck 302's are severly limited by their intake manifold. They really wont rev beyond 45 hundred RPM, but if you get an intake of a 5.0 mustang, you're in business! While you're at it, you may even be able to use that same mustang's headers! Now you're talkin!

Maybe I got a little carried away, but the amount of gas you're gonna save with that six-popper isn't worth the power and reliablity of a 302. They're killer engines.

Exactly, take the 302 with a 'stang intake. I drove my friends truck with the 300 6 cyl in it and i found it gutless, i dont think it would go much faster top speed then your ranger anyways.

pickleweasel_00
08-31-2008, 11:44 PM
Go with the 5.8 engine (351). It has alot more torque for pulling. I've have a 96 F250 and an 89 Bronco, both with the 351 and think a 302 is better suited for a car. On the other hand, the F250 does like it's gas...

brapp
09-01-2008, 12:43 AM
find a 4bt cummins motor with a 6 speed and build one awesoem milage and cant beat the sound of a 4 cyl diesel!

honda_atc200es
09-01-2008, 01:16 AM
i think the 96 f-150 has the 4.0 sohc (reguar pushrod would have more mpg, but the power would be about 30hp lower) v6, gas milage is like 18 so i guess that wouldnt be the best choice, but it sure has enough power to pull a trailer without the worse mpg of a v8

fabiodriven
09-01-2008, 09:48 AM
i think the 96 f-150 has the 4.0 sohc (reguar pushrod would have more mpg, but the power would be about 30hp lower) v6, gas milage is like 18 so i guess that wouldnt be the best choice, but it sure has enough power to pull a trailer without the worse mpg of a v8

THose motors are garbage, no offense.

200x Basket
09-01-2008, 10:46 AM
for mileage and power i would get a 2000 or newer chevy with the 5.3L. I hade 218,000 miles and got 22 mpg with mine. I towed my race car for 100,000 of those miles. no trouble EVER.

now i am also a ford man but the 302 is old school and can not compare to the newer ls based motors in stock form. for the $$$ to upgrade the 302 you could have a newer more efficient vehicle.

you make your choice but the 95 model ford will be WAY outclassed by a 2000 chevy.

carscomefirst
09-01-2008, 11:37 AM
I've owned my 96 f150 4x4 since it was new. It has a 302 5speed with 3:55 gears. I felt from day one that it was under powered. The 302 is a car engine and not suitable for a truck, in my opinion. Gas mileage blows, 10 mpg city 15 mpg hwy. If you can, go with the 351. Don't get me wrong I love my truck but, if I had it to do again I would've gotten a 351.

200x Basket
09-01-2008, 12:14 PM
there you go, actual data from a owner. you will not be happy with your current options.

honda_atc200es
09-01-2008, 01:33 PM
THose motors are garbage, no offense.

none taken, just speaking from my expirience :) i pull a trailer with it from Ny to florida, no problems at all, 190,000 miles and running strong. personally i like the sohc's for the 5 speed auto

SYKO
09-01-2008, 02:23 PM
ok im going to chime in here... I own a 1997 ford f-150....and I regulary get 26 mph +!! over 20 in town! why??? I dont know? it just does! in fact I drive it more then all my other vehicles becouse it gets such good gas mileage!

its a 4.6 2wd ex cab lariat... now what my contribute to the great mileage is lightwheight 18 inch lightning wheels with good year gsr-a tires (very little rolling resistence) all fluids including rear end fluids changed out to full synthetic, the normal K&N filter and a decent flowmaster muffler.... thats pretty much it, oh and its lowered.

This truck hands down has been the best truck Ive ever owned! the gas mileage makes it just that much better! im kicking 165K right now on it and it dosnt miss a beat!


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e306/southgacustoms/100_4406.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e306/southgacustoms/100_1733.jpg

200x Basket
09-01-2008, 03:05 PM
yes but you have a 4.6 not the 302.

the 4.6 is also weak sauce though. sorry :(

ford really stepped back up in 05 or so.

timex69
09-01-2008, 03:09 PM
Thanks for all the opinions guys. Mabe i should get test drive a 300 series, a 302 and a 351 then make my choice. I just graduated from trucking school with my 10 wheeler license, got a good job and decided its time to get a real truck. Ive always decided against getting a bigger truck and bought small cars or truck trying to do the economical thing. Ive always liked the older fords and decided its time I got what i wanted. Mabe the 351 is in my best interest but the only thing stopping me is the fuel milage because of my commute distance. Ill have to do some shopping around.

MTS
09-01-2008, 04:17 PM
Guess ill put my 2 cents in, I had a 92 ranger with the 3.0 v6 5 speed, over 550 Thouasand kms on it when i got ride of it, Ran fine, just the rest of the truck was falling arpart (Wasnt to nice to it at 16,,,lmao) i had some other crap in between, Bout 6 months ago picked up a 01 half ton Chev, ext cab, 2wd 4.8L with 3:42's in the rear n a g80 diff, has just bout 200 thousand on it, I can not belive how good on gas this thing is on the highway or in town, and it still lays rubber!! No sure on the exact numbers, but ill get 800k outa a tank on the highway, Dosnt pull quite as hard as the 5.3, But still not too shabby, and way better milage, Will put it to the test towing this winter with the sleds on a trailer,
Just something else to think about.

SYKO
09-01-2008, 04:56 PM
yes but you have a 4.6 not the 302.

the 4.6 is also weak sauce though. sorry :(

ford really stepped back up in 05 or so.


hmm... not true. I tow often with my truck and it works great, has hauld many large loads great distances with out any trouble or felt weak at doign so. And with a load I have had great mileage... truth hurts its a damn fine truck and is great at what it is.. not boasting just saying the truth.

200x Basket
09-01-2008, 05:37 PM
ok, it is a good looking truck and nicely decorated. i will conceed that :)

i am sure it will tow just fine but even you have to admit there are better tow trucks.

the 1st years of the 4.6 were very weak compared to later years. i think it was 2002 when ford improved the head design and made more power. they have kept improving since then. they are still behind though when it comes to power and efficeny compared to the LSX engines.

SYKO
09-01-2008, 05:41 PM
oh yea there ar better tow trucks im not a retard, hell I sold a 7.3 TD superduty and bought this truck so I know exactly what a good tow vehicle is... But did I need the superduty? no it was a waste! This truck will always be able to tow what I need it to tow and get great mileage to boot! I know there are vast improvements on any motor as years progress, but sometimes a motor left the way it is and taken care of will be just as good... never the less im sure no one can argue with 26 mph + on the high way.

200x Basket
09-01-2008, 05:46 PM
1997 ford
Standard Engine 4.6L 220 hp V8
Horsepower 220 @ 4750 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 265 @ 4000 RPM


2008 4.6L

4.6L 248 hp V8

honda_atc200es
09-01-2008, 05:55 PM
yes he understands newer motors make more power, thats just common sense, what he is trying to say is that he is happy with what he has, it has treated him well and gets the job done, the OP wanted an older style truck i would imagine not just for looks but for price as well, there will always be improvements on what you already have, the trick is learning to stick with what works just fine

SYKO
09-01-2008, 05:58 PM
1997 ford
Standard Engine 4.6L 220 hp V8
Horsepower 220 @ 4750 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 265 @ 4000 RPM


2008 4.6L

4.6L 248 hp V8


ok so what point are you trying to make... OOOOooooo the newer motor makes more power, big friggin deal duh... like I said before its a great truck with great mileage and I wouldnt have anything else... Ive driven newer fords/ chevys and dodges and yes most have way more power, but their getting less then 15 mph, so F that! SO when you think your baddass hauling down the interstate at 80mph with your load and you pass me... keep an eye out im sure you'll see me again as I pass by the exit while your filling back up.:p


Also Xbasket I know you know your Sh1t when it comes to motors and cars just as I do, so I dont see yout point your trying to drive into my head with your HP figures.

200x Basket
09-01-2008, 06:07 PM
just trying to point the guy in the right direction if he wants the power and economy. a old ford 302 is not the right direction..

here is the 2000 model 5.3l chevy. i got 22 mpg out of mine

5.3L 285 hp V8
HP 285 @ 5200 RPM
TQ 325 @ 4000 RPM

sorry but it kills the ford

J.D.
09-02-2008, 05:38 PM
Damn, the mis-information here in this post.

A 351 Windsor IS NOT a 5.7, it's a 5.8 liter.

A 1996 Ford F150 did not have a 4.0 SOHC V6, it had a 300(4.9 liter) inline 6. And to my knowledge to date, F150 has not had a SOHC v6. They had a 4.2 liter V6 based off the 3.8 V6.

Now, for my two cents on your new truck, I'm going to have to agree with 200Xbasket. I'm a Ford lover myself, but when it comes down to power, and fuel economy, go with Chevy. I've got a 2000 Silverado Z71 5.3, I'm getting right at 20MPG with oversize tires. I've got a buddy with a 2003 Supercrew F150 w/ 5.4 and 4WD, he struggles to get 16 and is usually in the 15's somewhere. Old 302's will be worse, and the inline 6's are even worse in my experience for fuel mileage because they are so sackless you have to hold them to the floor everywhere you go just to make it. Good luck on your decision.

honda_atc200es
09-02-2008, 06:23 PM
Damn, the mis-information here in this post.

A 351 Windsor IS NOT a 5.7, it's a 5.8 liter.

A 1996 Ford F150 did not have a 4.0 SOHC V6, it had a 300(4.9 liter) inline 6. And to my knowledge to date, F150 has not had a SOHC v6. They had a 4.2 liter V6 based off the 3.8 V6.

Now, for my two cents on your new truck, I'm going to have to agree with 200Xbasket. I'm a Ford lover myself, but when it comes down to power, and fuel economy, go with Chevy. I've got a 2000 Silverado Z71 5.3, I'm getting right at 20MPG with oversize tires. I've got a buddy with a 2003 Supercrew F150 w/ 5.4 and 4WD, he struggles to get 16 and is usually in the 15's somewhere. Old 302's will be worse, and the inline 6's are even worse in my experience for fuel mileage because they are so sackless you have to hold them to the floor everywhere you go just to make it. Good luck on your decision.

oops that was a mistake on my part i ment the ranger, which probably wouldnt be an ideal towing truck in retrospect

Erics350x
09-02-2008, 07:34 PM
The power window's, fuel pumps, and auto tranny's in that era sucked 7$$. Oh, and like all Ford the power steering pumps are crap.

TrailerRider
09-02-2008, 08:30 PM
300 vs 302 Gas Milage (http://www.fullsizebronco.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121194&highlight=300+302)

300 vs 302 Engine Power (http://www.fullsizebronco.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67442&highlight=300+302)

Full Size Bronco (http://www.fullsizebronco.com), the authority on the subjects (far as I am conserned)

brapp
09-02-2008, 11:06 PM
dont even get me started on the serrign colums in the trucks that have the e40d trannys

200x Basket
09-02-2008, 11:11 PM
jsut so you know that i am not a hater. i own and daily drive a 96 ranger. it is jsut beater transportation and that is how i treat it. i give it gas and oil and it takes me to work.