Don't forget 1.6 rockers instead of 1.5s, larger cam core diameter and .875" lifters instead of .843". (Mopar is .903")
Straight 30 weight Havoline conventional
- Thread starter Triple3 in Mo.
- Start date
Partly because Chevron service station owner/operators go ballistic when they find Havoline and Chevron branded products cheaper on
store shelves than they pay their own distributor.
I phoned a friend that owned 2 Esso service stations about a sale on Esso branded oil at Walmart.
I waited 15 minutes for him and we loaded up 3 shopping carts.
1997 was the begining of the tenth generation of F 150's and the 4.9 simply would not fit due to body and frame changes.. Has nothing to do with emissions.
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Very good oils, I miss the days when the Rite Aides here would sell Havoline qts. for $5 for 5...
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Yup. It wouldn't fit in beneath that little, ugly rounded hood. I doubt there was any issue with emissions, there was talk of FMC somehow modifying the newer gen F-150's to fit it but never happened sadly...
BlueOvalFitter
Site Donor 2023
Ford replaced it with the current engine like the one I have in my F150, the 4.2 V6. (Eh!)
Ford Essex V6 engine (Canadian) - Wikipedia
Sorry your'e wrong. They could barely make the 1996 emissions standards with the, new, MAF sensor, OBII, and SFI. Mine has the AIR pump, EGR, MFI and MAP sensor. Before closed loop the exhaust smells like an old 60's carburated engine. It's a dirty engine and Ford knew it wasn't going to make emission standards past 1997.
I don't buy your explanation. Sounds like yours is in bad shape.
Anyone can see that long I-6 is not going to fit into that engine compartment with a shortened hood style like that.
My engine runs fine. Absolutely clean burning when in closed loop, considering an OBDI engine. And gets close to 19 mpg on the highway and is an automatic 4wd with Warren lock outs and mud tires. With 244k unopened miles on the OD it uses NO oil in 5k OCI's. A little search on the web will confirm what I'm saying about Ford's difficulty with passing emissions with the 4.9L. The engineers wanted to give up on this engine long ago but corporate refused.
I'm not bunking what you are saying about the engine compartment. The designers new the 4.9L was short lived which allowed them a fresh design. It wasn't the other way around.
My 95 even had two converters on it from the factory. I had looked into replacing it with a pipe that was available in the aftermarket and just using one but the shop I goto said that state law had changed and now they know how many converters or mufflers are installed on a specific vehicle, they don't smog check in my area but it would've failed the visual inspection if they were so inclined to look under there.
Ford spec'd ALL of their vehicles to be 50 state legal. Mine also had two cats but when I replaced it I went with a 49 state single cat. It was half the price.
If you had used thicker oil you'd still have been driving it now despite selling it in 2005
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Yeah, kind of doubt this. It had more to do with V6 engines in full sized pick-ups going the way of the Dodo in general and the horsepower wars began in earnest and trucks transitioned from work vehicles to grocery getters and dumb things like the "Lightening". The Straight-six only was rated for 150 HP, about the same as a Vulcan powered Taurus, and unless you were well versed in these engines (realizing the torque was 260+-FP) you might be laughing. A friend, and at that time coworker, leased a 96' F-150 with probably one of the last I6 and loved the engine, but hated most of the rest of the truck with repeated warranty trips to the dealer to address massive brake issues. He praised the lord that he only had a heavily incentivized short lease on it and was happy to get out of the truck. QC broke down the final model years as Ford retooled for the complete redesign for 97'.
I highly doubt there was much of an issue complying with late 90s emissions, but okay. Even if Ford made the 4.9L a green machine with zero emissions, please tell me what they were going to put it in. The F-150 and Econoline vans were the last and they weren't selling many full size vans by then. In any case they had a range of V-8's to choose from as well at the Essex 4.2L (eech!) that they were using in the Windstars by then and it does make sense to streamline the engine line-up. The straight-six didn't fit in anything and the 150 HP rating didn't look so great on a window sticker at a dealership lot. Even the Essex was rated for over 200 HP and roughly the same torque...
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Okay, what was Ford gonna put the 4,9L IN then? Even the Essex only lasted a couple of years. It wasn't emissions, it was displacement and naturally aspirated V-6/4-cyl engines were becoming analog girls in a digital (forced air induction turbo) world...
There are plenty of engines that can meet modern emissions but are put to the sword anyways...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The Super Duty and the E-Series? If they could put a V10 Modular in there, it'll take the 4.9L.
But I tend to agree that while emissions may have played a role, perhaps even the primary one (I also had a smog 4.9L with air injection, which was a nightmare on that engine) there were likely other factors such as the engine being insanely long in the tooth at that point and the architecture, while phenomenal from a durability perspective, was not something that lent itself to offering incrementally higher performance going forward, which certainly would have hurt from a marketing perspective.
What happens during open loop with emissions is basically irrelevent and short lived. That's why an engine always has to be in closed loop during a sniiffer test at the emissions station years ago. Most newer engines likely would not pass a tail pipe test during open loop anyway. Like I said, if the engine is in good shape, it will easily pass emissions. My 1987 4.9 easily passed every required tail pipe sniffer test on a dyno from 1988- 2012. After 25 years, it was not required anymore. I still have it and would bet I could still pass a sniffer test today if I was required to. An unfair test because my old engine was held to the same emission standards as all those newer engines at the time..
The 4.9 was not the best engine by Ford but one of the most durable. It was bulky, VERY HEAVY and did not use fuel as efficiently mostly from added vehicle weight compared to the 4.2 V-6 which replaced it. Ford totally changed body designs with a more compact engine compartment and sleeker hood which led to the demise of the old 4.9 engine. It all stems down to sales. Old designs do not sell.
Last edited:
Not sure how your state does it but I've only had my vehicles tested when I lived in Arizona in 1980. Your vehicles age was prorated by the year it was made. Yours may have had to pass 1987 standards.
At the time I had a 1971 Pinto, with all the EPA stuff removed, and a 1958 Ford with the 223 engine. It was a pretty slick set up. They entered your VIN and the computer printed a sheet of what emissions had to pass at what limits. The '58 Ford sheet was blank.
The Pinto failed. I had 30 days to return for a retest at no charge. On the back of the sheet was possible causes for the failures and fixes.
For the '58 Ford they just handed me a sheet with the print out of the emission test results and told me I was good to go.
So on the Pinto I changed the air filter, spark plugs and checked the timing (actually I backed it down from where it ran the best and back to stock) all which were on the possible causes list. I checked off what I had done and signed the back as self mechanic. Took it back and failed again. The lady wrote a note "failed but improved" and let me go. We had to carry that paper in the car.
Back then it was just a revenue/check a box for the state. A way to get 10 dollars from every vehicle owner.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That's the way it was in Ontario too (you couldn't get by with a fail though), back when we had the sniffer, the vehicle's emissions standards were based on the model year of the vehicle, you weren't testing a 1987 Mustang against the 2012 emissions standards.
Something worth mentioning is the TYPE of MILES put on this truck to get it that far.
311,000 Miles in only 12 years is 25,916.6666667 Miles per Year! It stayed warmed up & traveled often. It would be hard to put that many miles on a truck with just "In town" driving. So, I'm sure it experienced plenty of highway journeys & as you may already know that is some of the easiest miles.
The 300 was a massive inline 6 for a truck application so it's design worked well.
I've owned a few of these & they were great other than the completely annoying "Tick" they had from the engine.
311,000 Miles in only 12 years is 25,916.6666667 Miles per Year! It stayed warmed up & traveled often. It would be hard to put that many miles on a truck with just "In town" driving. So, I'm sure it experienced plenty of highway journeys & as you may already know that is some of the easiest miles.
The 300 was a massive inline 6 for a truck application so it's design worked well.
I've owned a few of these & they were great other than the completely annoying "Tick" they had from the engine.