Considering a new Ford Truck

Every bit of "curving" of edges they can come up with helps a little bit getting it through the wind. and getting it through the wind easier saves money. I didn't like the look of the second generation S-10 Blazers, but they got better fuel economy, everything else being the same ie 4.3, throttle body injection, gear ratios etc. The difference was in the body shape.. Given a choice between the 4.9 six banger and the 5.0 V-8, the 5.0 blows the

4.9 out of the water on fuel economy.. that said, the 4.9 will pull the 5.0 backwards, it has more torque. In most cases the 5.0 is more than enough power to do the job in local driving situations.. I don't think the V-6 in a work truck is worth a tinkers damn, for an urban cowboy Cadillac maybe, but not a work truck.

Whitelightning

The more squared off body style was available in the F150 through the 1996 model year, and even later in the F250 line. The six cylinder engine change occurred with the introduction of the 1997 F150.

While I agree with Whitelightnin' about the 4.9 (300) six being the better workhorse, it won't stand up to the 5.0's of the '95/'95 model years that had the factory mass air flow upgrade. "Dem wuz sum tuff-azz 5.0's".

Later,

Spdloader

I'm pretty sure the 5.0 will blow the doors off the 4.9 too. I'm wanting to know how the 4.2 stacks up to the 4.9.

I'm currently driving a '95 Bronco with the 5.8L. It is my preference to keep the V8, either the 5.0 or the 5.8, but I need a work truck and if my budget constrains me to the 6 cylinder, then I need to know how the 4.9 and

4.2 compare to one another. I don't need freeway manners, but I understand that this is mainly what I get from the V8.

I know all about square corners vs. bar-of-soap shapes, and the relative affect on aerodynamics. I like square, and can see my way to buying the gas needed to support that preference. All I want to know is how much better or worse the I6 is compared to the V6. I have anecdotal information that the V6 sucks, if that is true, then I have to confine my search for those years offerings to the V8 models.

If fuel economy is not a consideration, then the 4.9 is the way to go. Its got gobs and gobs of bottom end torque. The only weak point might be the rear main seal. It doesnt crack heads, it doesnt throw rods. There were some issues with exhaust manifolds, better designed better flowing ones are available aftermarket such as offered by Clifford Research.. If you can keep your foot out of it, and keep the speed down if on the highway the fuel economy is livable. Get it up over 75, or have a heavy foot off the line and it guzzles. Let it cruse at 65 and its respectable for what it is. The things are like the old GM 292s, and the Chrylser slant 6, they run for ever if you take care of them.

Whitelightning

Jeff, I was responding to the following quotes:

"I think I want a '94 through "97 or '98 with a V8 motor, but my budget may limit the options to a 6 cyl motor."

...and:

"Since I prefer the square lines of the '95 over the worn-bar-of-soap lines of later models, the V6 becomes another reason to avoid the later trucks."

Since you said you preferred the squared lines of the earlier truck, it seemed a moot point to even consider the smaller V-6, so, it appeared to me you didn't know that '96 was the last year of the engine choices you mentioned unless you went for the F250, and the '97 was the first year of the V-6 that you were wanting to know about.

It's obvious to me now that you do, and I was just tryin' to help.

Spdloader

All this is just my observation, take it for what it's worth. I've known several people to have the same old head gasket problems that the 3.8 had. The 4.2 is basically the same old 3.8. I know a lot of people who swore that Ford fixed the design of the head gasket, but I've personally seen and heard of several premature failures.

On the other hand, the 4.9 is bulletproof. It's not fancy, it's not good on top end, you won't pass too many people at 70 on the interstate, but it'll last forever and pull anything.

In a truck that's used as a truck, I'd much rather have a 4.9 than a 5.0

Just my opinion,

CJB

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:27:11 +0000, Jeff Strickland rearranged some electrons to form:

The difference in price between the V6 and a V8 on a 10-year-old truck isn't going to be all that great, only a couple hundred dollars or so.

Thanks. I have trouble with the 75 ceiling, but I haven't a heavy foot otherwises. Since I'll carry loads on occasion, I think I'll prefer the torque. Sounds like I have to take the I6 from pre '96, or the V8 of '96 and later.

Sorry. If anybody stood up and proclaimed that the 4.2L V6 was a decent motor, then I could take the later worn-soap models if the price was right. If the price was right AND the options were limited to the later truck with the V6, then I think I'd have to take a pass on the later models.

I can get over ugly lines if there is a good reason ...

Really! Can you help me out with that one? I would have thought that the V8, even the 5.0, would surpass the I6. H don't think I've heard anybody state your position before.

PS Thanks on the part you posted about the 4.2. That's what I was thinking was lurking around in the back of my mind.

Having owned both, I'd never buy another 300 six. The 5.0 outperforms it and gets better mileage. My 300 four speed got 17 on the highway empty. At least it had two tanks:)

Al

I believe since 99+ the 4.2 and 3.8 motor head gasket issues are finally resolved. The main issue was the composite material head gasket would fail near the rear coolant passage on the heads, allowing coolant to come into contact with the fire ring. As the coolant aged and the corrosion additives wear out, the fire ring would be corroded until the ring failed.

In 99 or 98, Ford went to a Multi-Layer Steel head gasket. This required a much smoother deck and head surface but does not have the coolant passage failure areas. Felpro has a Permatorque version of this MLS gasket that has a coating on it that helps it seal properly on older, not quite as smooth decks.

The inline 6 is going to pull better than the 4.2, but it's going to have lower fuel economy almost all the time. If pulling is the important part, I'd get the inline 6 and a manual 5 speed. If fuel economy is required, and pulling a full load isn't, then the 4.2 will be one of the better options.

Sure. The issue to me is torque and durability. The 302 tends to develop intake gasket leaks at the rear of the intake. This is a PITA to fix considering all the junk on a fuel injected engine. Also, I've had worse rear main leaks on 302's subjected to hard work than I've experienced with

300's. Lastly, while the 302 is a fine engine, it won't outlast an average 300.

I agree that the 300 is a gas hog, and that it's not gonna pass too many people at 70 on the interstate, but for grunt work, I prefer it.

CJB