Looking at an E-250 with a 4.6 Flex Fuel engine

[Shel_B]

I've been looking at Ford vans to use as a camper and came across a 2014 E-250 with a 4.6 Flex Fuel engine. I'm going to take a look at it this week. However, I'm unfamiliar with the flex fuel engines. Are they prone to problems? What questions should I ask about the engine and the fuel system? Am I better off skipping the flex fuel feature and sticking with a plain ol' gas engine?

On the face of it, this van has all the boxes checked except that I know nothing about the flex fuel system.

 

[fantastic]

I've been looking at Ford vans to use as a camper and came across a 2014 E-250 with a 4.6 Flex Fuel engine. I'm going to take a look at it this week. However, I'm unfamiliar with the flex fuel engines. Are they prone to problems? What questions should I ask about the engine and the fuel system? Am I better off skipping the flex fuel feature and sticking with a plain ol' gas engine?

On the face of it, this van has all the boxes checked except that I know nothing about the flex fuel system.

Don't know much either but I'd opt for the Flex Fuel. I know GM puts some different valves in their flex fuel engines when that transition was happening since ethanol is more corrosive. They may do a few more mods to make the engines compatible that I'm not aware of. I do have some experience w/an ancient 1998 E-150 I did a quick n dirty "Camper" build. LOL The round green bag by the porta potti was a pop-up shower tent.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

With Ford, the engine is mechanically the same. The fuel system is slightly different to handle the ethanol.

As far as reliability, you won't find a more reliable modern Ford powertrain than a 4.6L paried with a 4R70/75 transmission.

 

[We're Metals]

Flex Fuel System? Its just a reinforced fuel system that (is basically the same as any other) can handle high ethanol content.

We had many 4.6L's in our fleet. They were "reliable" but gutless and honestly still had more problems than comparable chevrolets. One guys opinion.

Is this another @Shel_B thread where you say you're going to do something then never do it?

 

[emmett442]

I concur that the 4.6 is barely adequate for full sized truck/van use. They'll get the job done, but aren't pleasant in doing so. Especially in an exceptionally heave brick like a conversion van, they have to be pushed and revved up to overcome the slightest resistance (hills on the hwy, for instance) making for an uncomfortable drive and fuel consumption similar to larger/more powerful engines. Also, if you are a DIY guy, their large external size makes them relatively painful to work with.

That said, there's no difference internally between flex and non-flex engines. Changes are fuel system, larger injectors, programming, etc.

 

[Cujet]

The 4.6L engine is among the most long lived and reliable engines ever made. The flex fuel designation has no bearing on the engine itself. As mentioned above, the software can adjust for ethanol content.

The engine in the van is very likely to be the 225HP version, which has the superb later style cylinder heads for better torque and HP. While the engine is not in the same HP class as the competition's much larger LS series of engines, it is very capable of powering that van anywhere, anytime, without ever wearing out, regardless of how much load you place on it.

I know of a fleet of delivery service vans with that engine and it's 5.4L variant (same engine longer stroke) with 900K miles of abuse, zero failures in the fleet.

 

[BrendanC]

very smooth running engines, but absolutely gutless. the 4.6/5.4 powered vehicles we have are not driven much as they simply can’t get out of their own way unloaded much less towing. chevrolet express 6.0/6l90 all day long for me.

 

[Delta]

Had driven one at my last place of employment. It hauled all kinds of tools and such we needed. It was severely underpowered, and consumed oil due to frequently needing to be driven hard. Took it through the Adirondacks on 84 and it would hardly pull those mountains.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Ford definitely dropped the ball on gearing. These engines do have power, but they need to be wound out to do it. But the axle gearing is set up for a pushrod v8

 

[tvaughn]

As a side note, when our family had a Budget Rental franchise in the 2000s, I loved flat-footing those 4.6 E-250 cargo vans everywhere. Very tough engines, On-Trac (amongst others) would rent them often and go way beyond the OCI, and they just kept on going.

 

[D60]

Yes, gearing is abysmal.

Even on a 2wd van I'd go 4.56 to overcome the ridiculous wind profile. You HAVE TO spin 3500+ to do anything resembling acceleration.

Never understood concerns about "fuel economy." You're driving a brick down the road. Truly, what's 1 to 2 mpg matter when you're talking low teens anyway? Are you truly eating steak at 14mpg and ramen at 12mpg? (Incidentally, 14mpg may be optimistic no matter what, depending on use case)

Spin it fast, work it hard. Run quality oil (I'd use 5W-30 minimum) and change the oil every ~5k. The 2Vs are a bit more forgiving on OCI, so you might be able to go longer.

 

[D60]

AFAIK all 6.2s were flex fuel and there's seemingly zero impact on reliability. Although I've never run anything but regular pump gas in my '11 F350.

On my '07 4.6 (not flex fuel) I've done so little to the engine during ownership from 185k to 240k. The biggest thing was it randomly spitting a single plug. I put in a new plug and torqued to ~28ft lbs. Done

Even the 2Vs should get a timing set somewhere along the way as PM. But most people ignore it and run 'em until something catastrophic happens.

Finally, the belt routing uses about 37 idler pulleys (perhaps slight exaggeration). I always go through and replace them at first. If you have metal pulleys keep them and press in new bearings, including the tensioner pulley. By '14 Ford may have gone to mostly plastic pulleys, however.

Even FTM mentions the belt drive as one thing to look at when shopping (he was speaking 5.4 3V but the belt routing is similar)

 

[panthermike]

As mentioned, 4.6 is a legendarily reliable motor, albeit no powerhouse. The 4.6 in my Vic has required very little although is making some timing chain noise, at 193k now.

Years ago I drove an E150 or 250 for parts delivery. It had the 4.6 and I don't remember feeling like it was horrible, just adequate. After a while, they switched me to an Express with a 6.0, that sucker felt like a rocket in comparison.

 

[Shel_B]

As mentioned, 4.6 is a legendarily reliable motor, albeit no powerhouse. The 4.6 in my Vic has required very little although is making some timing chain noise, at 193k now.

Years ago I drove an E150 or 250 for parts delivery. It had the 4.6 and I don't remember feeling like it was horrible, just adequate. After a while, they switched me to an Express with a 6.0, that sucker felt like a rocket in comparison.

Adequate was my feeling as well. Plans for the vehicle are such that it might be inadequate, or at least less enjoyable to drive, with the 4.6 engine. There was another van available with the 5.4 liter engine, and that felt a lot better, and I was about ready to make an offer on it until I checked the van's history. It was in an accident, and while seemingly not serious, I decided to pass on it.

I'll be looking at the 5.4 in the future. There was one with a 7.3 Powerstroke, and as much as I love that engine (had two of 'em in F-350 trucks) I'm not sure I want to go with an older Diesel at this time.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[addyguy]

Rented a moving van with a 4.6 10 years ago. Had to drive it foot to the floor most of the time.
Engine started making a bit of noise, checked the oil - none showing on d/s.
Added almost a gallon of cheap 5W-30, engine went silent, and kept motoring on.

 

[RAR]

Back 10 years ago I rented a Penske box truck based on the Ford E450 van body. That one had a V10 engine so I expected a bit better performance (albeit in the mountains of Arizona, I didn’t expect much to be honest).

To my surprise, even when empty, the van/truck was a slug. Not very impressed with it. Granted, it’s a heavier box truck but still, it moved with glacier speed.

Later on, I did buy a Ford E350 with the 5.4 (not the 3 valve, trouble prone engine) and that was an excellent van. I was able to tow a Crown Victoria across the state on a U-Haul flatbed trailer with no problem. Sold it to an electrician for his business fleet.

I’m thinking the bigger engine is a better choice.

 

[vwmaniaman]

Shel, you will be ahead to buy a used Roadtrek on the Dodge or Chevy chassis or a Pleasureway class B camper. They are both reliable and everything fits right. We have a 93 Roadtrek with the 5.2 Magnum that has had one problem in our 115k miles of travel and that was a crankshaft position sensor that was intermittent. We have taken it to Yellowstone about 5 times and Glacier once and all over Wyoming.

 

[ripcord]

Man, y'all must be a bunch of total lead footed street racers or something. The only E series I've driven in the past decade had a 4.2 V6 and it had plenty of power, even towing a trailer with a few thousand pounds of pipe. I rarely use more than a quarter throttle in our 5.4L Expedition.