Full Size Trucks With 6 Cylinder Engines

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: Dualie
I-6 or V-8 if your actually BUY a full size truck to do TRUCK STUFF...

Torque is what gets the Job done. leave the V-6 for the imports

the ford 300 C.I. I-6 has a torque curve that looks like a table top. the fuel injected version was one of the best little gas motors ever I don't know why they never got the respect they deserved. The little Mazda 5spd they backed them up with was less than desirable but that's another thread

The 300 CI I6 was great, but 2 things eventually killed it:
I6 engines are hard to stuff under the hood of a truck. With increasing crash requirements, some cars and trucks had to lose the longitudinal I6.

Also, smog tests became too tough for the 300 CI to pass, because a large bore engine has a harder time controlling combustion. Having EFI, EGR, AIR, and a bunch of other stuff just couldn't get the pollution down to levels acceptable after 1996.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Originally Posted By: Dualie
I-6 or V-8 if your actually BUY a full size truck to do TRUCK STUFF...

Torque is what gets the Job done. leave the V-6 for the imports

the ford 300 C.I. I-6 has a torque curve that looks like a table top. the fuel injected version was one of the best little gas motors ever I don't know why they never got the respect they deserved. The little Mazda 5spd they backed them up with was less than desirable but that's another thread

The 300 CI I6 was great, but 2 things eventually killed it:
I6 engines are hard to stuff under the hood of a truck. With increasing crash requirements, some cars and trucks had to lose the longitudinal I6.

Also, smog tests became too tough for the 300 CI to pass, because a large bore engine has a harder time controlling combustion. Having EFI, EGR, AIR, and a bunch of other stuff just couldn't get the pollution down to levels acceptable after 1996.


The 302 (same bore) faired just fine until 2002......

The LSx engines have almost a 4" bore. The "Hurricane" (original design of the mod motor) was also set to have a 4" bore, and the reincarnation of it, known as the BOSS, set to debut later this year in the F-series trucks have a 4" bore.....

 

[01rangerxl]

I think the main thing that killed the 4.9L was that it wouldn't fit under the hood of a '97+ F-150.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I think the main thing that killed the 4.9L was that it wouldn't fit under the hood of a '97+ F-150.


Bingo. It is one long (and tall) SOB.

Ford was also trying to transition everything to the money-saving "modular" family, something the 'ol 300 I6 tractor engine wasn't part of

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I think the main thing that killed the 4.9L was that it wouldn't fit under the hood of a '97+ F-150.


Bingo. It is one long (and tall) SOB.

Ford was also trying to transition everything to the money-saving "modular" family, something the 'ol 300 I6 tractor engine wasn't part of

But then again, neither was the Canadian Essex 4.2 V6. Part of the Modular family that is...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I think the main thing that killed the 4.9L was that it wouldn't fit under the hood of a '97+ F-150.


Bingo. It is one long (and tall) SOB.

Ford was also trying to transition everything to the money-saving "modular" family, something the 'ol 300 I6 tractor engine wasn't part of

But then again, neither was the Canadian Essex 4.2 V6. Part of the Modular family that is...


True enough. Ford is odd sometimes

 

[65cuda]

The construction company the son in law's dad works for have been replacing their work trucks with Chevy's with the 6 cyl. He said that they have been happy with it over the Fords with the v8.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I think the main thing that killed the 4.9L was that it wouldn't fit under the hood of a '97+ F-150.


Yep, I could see that with the F150. OTOH, what I don't understand with GM is, if they could drop an I6 into the GM T360 chassis (Trailblazer), you'd think there would be room to spare in a large p/up. A shame too. The Atlas/Vortec 4.2L I6 is a smooth and powerful mofo. Not to mention reliable and easy from a maintenance standpoint. Not the most fuel efficient, but what is in this class. An award winning and supossed world class engine and the only chassis it ever saw was the T360.

Joel

 

[onion]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

I believe it was 265 or 270lb-ft. But there was no real curve. It just made full torque from idle to 4K, at which point it promptly fell on its face. At least that's what it felt like

Yours would rev to 4k? My nasty old 1985 300I6 pulls great up to 3500. It'll go to 4000, but it's a waste of time.

But it'll idle up hill in 3rd gear.

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Originally Posted By: Dualie
I-6 or V-8 if your actually BUY a full size truck to do TRUCK STUFF...

Torque is what gets the Job done. leave the V-6 for the imports

the ford 300 C.I. I-6 has a torque curve that looks like a table top. the fuel injected version was one of the best little gas motors ever I don't know why they never got the respect they deserved. The little Mazda 5spd they backed them up with was less than desirable but that's another thread

The 300 CI I6 was great, but 2 things eventually killed it:
I6 engines are hard to stuff under the hood of a truck. With increasing crash requirements, some cars and trucks had to lose the longitudinal I6.

Also, smog tests became too tough for the 300 CI to pass, because a large bore engine has a harder time controlling combustion. Having EFI, EGR, AIR, and a bunch of other stuff just couldn't get the pollution down to levels acceptable after 1996.


I'm told the the mid 80's 300 I-6's would barely pass smog checks even when new. Mine passed several years ago with 240k miles on it (I've since moved to a state where nobody cares about such things). This required several bottles of alcohol dumped into an almost-empty fuel tank... and so much timing advance that the truck was barely drivable. But HC and CO were well under acceptable limits.

 

[cousincletus]

I have seen Ford inline sixes with main bearing problems (from the late 1980's). I never really cared for it. It's a six cylinder that gets less mpg than a GM V-8.

 

[labman]

I know 20 years ago UPS ran nothing but sixes and had to convert their trucks to V-6's.

 

[twentynine]

Comming in late on this thread. but here goes:

Owned a full size 1998 Dodge 1500 single cab with the 3.9l V-6, 3.55 gears. Gas mileage was not very good, best I ever seen was about 17.5 - 18 mpg on the highway.

Power-- Trailer towing, nearest I can remember i think it was rated to tow 3500#. The boat, motor, trailer I had was bumping that number. You could forget interstate speeds in excess of 65mph and gas mileage dropped to about 10 mpg. Hauling--- You could haul basicly what ever fit in the back with in reason of course. I am not fixing to tell you I hauled a bed full of wet sand but 1/2 cord of firewood wasn't a stretch.

Over the years that I had the truck I tried just a few things to get me a little bit more HP. Most of them were inaffective. Underdrive pulley on the crankshaft, seen a very slight difference, maybe. Cold air intake, sounded great but not much else. Polished throttle body lots of work no help.

In the end the tranny gave out first, I had it rebuilt, traded the truck in on an '04 quad cab Hemi, with 3.92 gears.

All aspects of performance are better, mileage, ride, towing. Naturally the quad-cab Hemi cost way whole lot more than the plain jane V-6. However for what service I needed out of a pick up the V-8 Hemi serves me better.

 

[Steve S]

The 300 CI 6 was probably one of the best engines ever on the market I had a 79 ford p/u with one and loved it. I did not need more power .If I towed a heavy trailer it may have not faired well. At work the company had E350 vans and weighed close to 8,000 lbs loads. Around town the vans with small blocks were fine but over the road the big block vans were nicer seeming to be unloaded where the small blocks would have to drop a gear going up grades and both engines would get the same mpgs city and highway due to the load. Iwould go for the small V8 cause as mentioned the never 6 cyls are too small.

 

[Ben99GT]

The 300 I6 was a reliable engine with good low speed torque, but they really were pretty gutless once off of the line.

The GM 4.3 and Ford 4.2 would walk all over the 4.9 in nearly every scenario.

It would have been interesting had Ford kept the inline 6 and added a more modern top end package though.

 

[1sttruck]

The Ford 4.9 has pretty humble HP but decent torque. It seems best when matched with an axle geared low enough to take advantage of the low rpm torque, and a tranny with enough speeds to move it along up to whatever speed is desired. This is the opposite of what most people want, which is high hp regardless of rpms needed to produce it. As an example my 3/4 ton Dodge with a Cummins diesel only has 235 hp. When used in comercial applications Cummins seems to keep the hp modest, say 250 hp for a high output engine, but bumps the torque up more than is found in the pickups.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Dualie
I-6 or V-8 if your actually BUY a full size truck to do TRUCK STUFF...

Torque is what gets the Job done. leave the V-6 for the imports

the ford 300 C.I. I-6 has a torque curve that looks like a table top. the fuel injected version was one of the best little gas motors ever I don't know why they never got the respect they deserved. The little Mazda 5spd they backed them up with was less than desirable but that's another thread
The 4.3l V6 is a 350 v8 with 2 cyl lopped off.

Plenty of torque for towing and using a truck as a truck. MY 1996 2wd chevy had more engine than either my 1990 302 v8 or 1994 351 v8.

And it got great MPG doing it. Empty I can get 25mpg with it and loaded never below 15mpg.

I sure wish I kept that truck.

The guy I sold it to just passed 250k last year and its still as nice as it was when I sold it @ 100k.

Take care, bill

 

[demarpaint]

I've had 4 of the Ford 300 I6 engines and IMO they were the best 6 cyl engine made for a small truck, if it was a 6 cyl you were after. They had plenty of power, the only regret I had with my current 88 E-150 was the 3.55 Limited Slip rear. I should have ordered it with the 3.73 Limited Slip, and it would have been perfect.

The low rpm high torque engine is perfect for a truck. It won't win any races, but that isn't what it was designed for. The Mazda 5 speed tranny had it's issues, but I've been very lucky with mine. Those engines were built to last, shame they don't make them anymore.

 

[Throckmorton]

Wouldn't a truck like today's V6 Nissan Frontier actually be closer to the size, power, and torque of a 1980's F-150?

It's my impression that pickups have been getting much larger over the years. I assume that the beds have been getting slightly larger as well, but I can't be sure because I've never owned a pickup. Even the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra look huge to me.

Speaking of straight sixes, has anyone had a truck with a 4.2L GM Vortec I-6?

 

[OVERKILL]

My old landlord had an Astro with the 4.3L. He also owned a 23ft cabin cruiser. That van WOULD NOT pull that boat out up the ramp out of the lake. But my 4.0L Explorer would.

The 300 I6 in my F-250 (backed with 4.11's as mentioned earlier) would tow twice the weight that van would tow. It wasn't fast, but it would tow the [censored] out of the world.

The GM 4.3L seems to be great for a light duty truck. But making it do any WORK is a completely different story. I have a fair bit of experience with this because I have a client that runs a trailer park and they had a 1500 Sierra with the 4.3L as well. Like the van, great for ripping around, got great gas mileage and plenty of getup and go on the road. Just don't throw a boat behind it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: cousincletus
I have seen Ford inline sixes with main bearing problems (from the late 1980's). I never really cared for it. It's a six cylinder that gets less mpg than a GM V-8.



They have SEVEN main bearings. They basically have a bulletproof bottom-end. An SBC has FIVE.

It was produced right up to the early 2000's for use in Industrial applications and is still very popular for running agricultural equipment such as pumps.

It was lower HP, but had an extremely flat torque curve. And really, GM's 305 made equally anemic HP figures (in the 80's) but would barely get out of its own way. Remember, the 305 "HO" was like 165HP....