Edumacate Me: Ford F150 with the I-6 Engine

"Thunderface" (thunderface) 01/05/2015 at 11:10 • Filed to: ford f150, straight-6 engine

2

21

Does anyone on this wonderful website have experience with an 8th or 9th (1987-91; 1992-97) Ford F150 with the 4.9L straight six engine?

If so, any pros and cons of said truck would be greatly appreciated, as I am considering getting one.

What I do know is !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Ford's 300 cubic inch straight 6 engine, nicknamed the "Big Six", was introduced in 1965. It was originally based on the smaller 240 ci six cylinder, but with a longer stroke. The Ford 300 and later 4.9L I-6 (Ford converted to metric in 1983) earned an incredible reputation of strength and reliability over the course of 41 years of service. The engine is known for being a rugged, dependable workhorse, and is considered by many to be one of the best engine's produced for a pickup. The fact that it produced torque extremely low in the operating range contributed to its popularity, and most examples suggest that the engine's longevity is unmatched by any rival. Ford's 300 ci was not limited to F-Series pickups - it was used in a variety of vehicles and equipment, including agricultural/construction equipment, tractors, heavy duty dump/utility trucks, generators, and delivery trucks.

fun fact: the Ford 4.9L (300 ci) I-6 had higher hp and tq ratings when it was introduced in 1965 then it it when it ceased production in 1996.

PS9 > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 11:12

1

4.9L Straight six? Damn, whats next a 427 I4?

Thunderface > PS9 01/05/2015 at 11:13

0

I know lol

Jcarr > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 11:16

1

A neighbor of mine had a '96 with the I-6 and a stick and he drove it forever with very little trouble. Good, solid engine from what I've seen.

Jcarr > PS9 01/05/2015 at 11:17

0

Cummins ISB?

wabbalosthiskey > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 11:17

1

fun fact: the Ford 4.9L (300 ci) I-6 had higher hp and tq ratings when it was introduced in 1965 then it it when it ceased production in 1996.

Horsepower was also measured differently in 1965 then it is today also, which is why by comparison today's engines actually make so much more. In reality the 1996 version probably made as much or more power than the one from 1965.

That truck paired with a manual transmission is just about indestructible. It won't be the fastest thing around, but super reliable.

Jake, Yes, wearing khakis > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 11:18

1

Had a 91 with that engine. It was great. That thing took beating after beating.
The only issue you may have would depend on if you have an auto or manual. The auto E4OD that they put in all f150s back then had the tendency to be very temperamental. If you can get a manual do it, if not then id still get it.
Best part of that engine was that they had timing gears rather than a belt or a chain. Genius design.

Agrajag > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 11:19

1

I know they are supposed to be one of the most reliable engines. That this is actually a Ford part not a coffee can.

And lastly, they rust like mad but parts are easily found as there a millions of these in junkyards.

jdb12 > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 11:21

2

Steering is loose compared to newer vehicles, this is normal. Fantastic towing/hauling truck.

Get the auto, the manual has an INTERNAL slave cylinder. This means you remove the tranny for any repair, and while you are there, you might as well replace clutch, pressure plate as well, $$$!

Auto usually use tranny fluid, but 10$ buys a lot of fluid!

You can beat a 4.9 and it comes back for more. Run out of oil, antifreeze? Add some more, and off you go!

Pretty good mpg for truck as well.

The engine is awesome, just yotube the turbo 4.9 Maverick. Guy just replaced valve springs, put a dumptruck turbo on it and runs 11s!

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 11:30

1

I have a '93 with 211k miles and counting...runs great with no signs of slowing down. You're not going to get great mpg (I'm averaging 14mpg about 50-50 mixed city and highway) but you'll never really have to worry about getting stranded. The only thing I had an issue with it is the tranny, the manual is from Mazda and was used in the ranger as well, so it was not a very heavy duty one. I replaced it with one from an F250 once it went. It's a simple engine that was overbuilt to be as reliable as possible...rather thick sidewalls, maxed out injectors, large head, and gear driven timing are some examples. most of the issues (if not all of them) you'll run into if you buy one will be on the rest of the truck...rotted brake lines, worn out bushings, the typical old vehicle issues

PS9 > Jcarr 01/05/2015 at 11:37

1

Hellcat dart? Hellcat dart!

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 11:39

1

Its the only engine choice where the timing is done by gears as opposed to chains in those generations of the F-Series.

The downside, relatively thirsty engine (Aren't they all though), and slow compared to the 302 or 351 Windsors.

Make sure you get at least a 3.73 or 4.10 gearing, and it will be all right.

However (And I know I'll get flack for this), do NOT get the Mazda M5OD 5 speed manual in the F-150. You will kill your rated towing capacity, as it's not as durable as the ZF boxes in the 3/4 ton trucks, nor as durable as the E4OD autobox. The E4OD is the transmission to get in the 9th Generation F-150 (Unless you can find a ZF swap, or are willing to do it yourself).

Source: I have a 1995 F-150. 351W, 3.55 TractionLok, E4OD, 95K miles.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Jake, Yes, wearing khakis 01/05/2015 at 11:41

1

I'd still take the E4OD over the Mazda M5OD in an F-150.

All things considered, I'd rather have the ZF S5 box in one of those trucks.

MultiplaOrgasms > PS9 01/05/2015 at 12:01

0

Torque, torque and more torque. Nuff said.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 01/05/2015 at 12:02

1

I went the ZF swap route with mine...idk what Ford was thinking with that Mazda tranny. When you see the ZF sitting next to the M5OD, the ZF is probably twice the diameter. My next project is to find a full float rear with 4.10 gearing that I can put in it (not a fan of the 3.08 that's in it)

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 01/05/2015 at 12:08

1

I currently am running the semi-float 3.55 TractionLok, which needs a fluid change within the next 5K miles (will have 100K on the clock then).

I've debated rebuilding it with a Mustang Torsen (my 8.8 is a 31 spline output), and a 3.73 ring gear (as it's my tow vehicle). Or just saying "Screw it all!" and buying a 250 diesel.

Filmont > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 12:32

0

I once towed a 1999 GrandAm on a full car trailer (approx. 2,000lbs trailer weight only) with one of those. It was the XL model so it had a radio AND speakers in it! I may have probably was over its towing capacity. The bumper mounted ball dropped a foot or two with all the weight. The I-6 with a 5-spd handled it fairly well. Didn't win any launches from a stop and the front in was a "little" squirrely, but buy one. Love one. Treat it oh so nice!

BigBlock440 > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 12:35

1

Used 2 as farm trucks. One felt like it was running on 3 cylinders (and it probably was, the other 3 were probably filled with oil and had fouled plugs), smoked terribly, etc. It ran like that for years, gradually losing power. It spit a spark plug at one point, not sure how, but it screwed back in like nothing happened. Another time heard a pop, saw the temperature gauge climbing, got back to the barn and there was smoke pouring out from under the hood. Still not sure what the pop was, but it ignited the oil/grease that was on the top of the engine. Sprayed the fire down with water, no discernible effects. The other truck didn't really have any engine problems until a radiator hose blew and the radiator was refilled with water in the summer. Someone forgot about it and winter came. All the freeze plugs blew out. Every time we changed one and refilled the radiator, we'd find another plug that leaked. The truck never ran again after that, eventually the plugs got too hard to reach. Both trucks we way overloaded (in the fields), ran the temperature gauge in the red all the time, really beat them, but they lasted for years. Not a whole lot of power for road use, but in the fields they were fine.

TL,DR: one engine had oil issues and was kinda shit, the other was a tank and was killed by human stupidity and water changing states.

Birddog > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 12:53

1

I worked at a shop that had a 93 with an auto behind it. When I left that shop it had 340,000 miles on it and was still going.

It will take you anywhere as long as you don't want to get there fast.

Roundbadge > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 13:50

1

A roommate of mine had an I-6 F150 with a manual. He claimed it sounded awesome without a muffler.

He missed a few monthly payments, then reported it stolen when it got reposessed, then moved out and stuck me with a bunch of bills....so I couldn't say anything about the longevity. I'm given to think that it should be tremendous, though.

MM54 > Thunderface 01/05/2015 at 17:28

1

My dad has a 96 F250 with this engine and a 5-speed (with a binary clutch, something's wrong but it works for him so whatever). Torque for days. We've put over a ton of gravel in the back of that truck and it has no problem pulling it right along. Blew the head gasket once, but that was at like 160-170k miles and may have been due to a waterpump failure. I think he's past 200k on it now.

Plus, it's a comically large I6. I like it, and if the body weren't so rusty, I'd be trying to buy it off him in a few months.

Corey > Thunderface 01/06/2015 at 01:35

1

Had a '94 with an auto, 2 wheel drive. I replaced the radiator twice, heater core three times, and the starter once.

Sold it in 2011 at 275k mi. The guy I sold it to still drives it. I see him around town now and then. If you can get a good price, buy it and don't look back.