1. Home
  2. Ford Trucks
  3. Re: 4.9 6 cylinder's average MPG??

Re: 4.9 6 cylinder's average MPG??

hey all;

I'm sorry to bother, but would i be better off with the 5.0 for commuting? i will be driving about 70 miles a day, probably in overdrive. would the

302 give me better mileage? I juse love those trucks, they drive great, and if i can afford to drive one daily, i'd like to.

thanks! TB

> > Hi all, > > > > looking at buying either a 4.9 6 cylinder auto or 5 speed f150 2wd, anyone > > have this motor or can give me a ball park MPG average for this motor? I > > need a fullsize truck that gets decent mileage and i've always liked the > > 92-96 model F 150's. > > > > Thanks > > TB > > > > > > The Ford 4.9L 300Cid, they run forever, get poor to really poor gas mileage, > are outstanding for LOW RPM Torque, Suck on the highway power side. > > I had a 1982 stepside F-150 4.9L 300Cid 4-speed 3.00 Locking rear end 4X4. > It got 12 MPG empty (4600lbs) , full, over full, City or Highway. That > Engine went 270000 miles, It was running when I took it out, I still have > the original in my barn. > I transplanted a 1992 EFI 4.9L 300Cid into the same truck, and that new > motor got the same 12 MPG :-( A good friend still drives this truck, as a > daily driver, it has to have over 350000 miles on it by now. > > When I bought the truck in the first place the way I convinced myself that I > could live with the less responsive power was by living with the better gas > mileage. That never happened. If I had it to do again I would have gotten > a V-8. > > My 82 Bronco 302 4-speed 3.55 Detroit Locker 4X4, got 16 MPG with a 2 barrel > carburetor. after a new 302 with some extensive performance

modifications,

it got 12-14 MPG. > My 88 F-250 460EFI 5-Speed 4.10 Locking 4x4 gets 12 MPG empty (6800lbs), and > more in the neighborhood of 8-10 while towing 9000-12,500 pound trailers. > Man it sure is fun to see the look on the new truck owners face when this > big long old (Long Since Paid For) truck launches off the green light and > they can't keep up :-) They can't catch me till I stop at the gas station > :-( > > Good Luck > >
Reply to
Trailblazer
Loading thread data ...

If you're mainly going to commute, get a base Ranger 5 speed, with the 4 duratech engine.

Last tank gave me 31 MPG, although I usually just get 25-27 in town.

And, 143 horses in nothing to complain about.

Plasyd

Reply to
Plasyd

he said he was looking for a truck.

Reply to
jim donovan

Yea, they got a lot of low rpm torque. Myself, I think it depends on the use, which engine is best. For a work truck, I'd go with the 300. It will haul or pull anything nearly. As one mentioned, it's also very easy to work on in general. I can rebuild the YF 1 barrel carbs in about 20 min...A six is also pretty smooth if it's running well. But if the truck will strictly be a street cruiser, I'd go with the small V8. It'll rev higher, and will sound better also...:) A 302 mufflered right has a nice throaty sound...Also the 351 is a good truck engine..Better than the 302 really from what I've heard, but I never had a 351 in a truck. My present truck is a 1968 F-250. It was built a work truck, and has the 300, a T-18, and the dana 60 4.10 rear which is limited slip. I have a utility bed and camper shell on it. The 300 is a pretty good engine for that particular truck. We once had a 73 f-100 with a 302 and a column 3 speed. It was a fun street truck. We had it dueled out, and it sounded and ran good. But I bet my 68 with the 300 would drag it down the street screaming, if I hooked chains together... I got that 300 torque at low rpm's, and the t-18 granny gear...:) But the 73 with the 302 was geared better for the highway. I hear many that call the 302 totally wimpy for a truck, but I don't think it was

*that* bad...I kind of liked it myself. The one we had got pretty good MPG with it's small 2 barrel. MK
Reply to
Mark Keith

I had a '84 F150 with a 4.9 carburated engine. Maybe 18 mpg on the highway,

Good low end torque, you could put a 1,000 lbs in the bed and you would never know it was there.

But weak on top end, 73 mph was max speed on level ground.

Reply to
emcook

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.