What's a good drive train for good mileage daily driver?

[Ray Cecil]

JUST SAYIN....

[Gary Lewis]

Good point about the torque at 6K.  Not very credible.

It would be nice to fine a place that gives credible numbers for both engines.

And I agree that the EB would be a more difficult swap.  But I love mine.  On the trip yesterday there were times people thought they could cut in front of me.  In Sport mode it keeps the turbos spooled and you have power NOW.  

[Ray Cecil]

AGAIN.....JUST SAYIN...

[Nothing Special]

Impressive, but not really germane.  I'm not looking for a 517 hp engine.  I'm looking for good mileage and driveability in an engine that would be a reasonable project to put in a '90s F-150.

One thing I got out of this video is that no turbo systems are available for a 300, so it would be a roll-yer-own project.  That is probably outside the scope of what I'm willing to take on here, so I'm now leaning pretty hard away from a turbo 300.

[Ford F834]

Hi Bob,
 
I have a few more tidbits for your data table. As I’m sure you are aware, I own a  300… but I don’t necessarily advocate it for what you are wanting. I am just going to toss some observations out there that may help you to decide.
 
For efficiency, my 4x4 F150 gets about 17mpg on the highway and 15-ish mixed driving. I have 3.00 gears a close ratio diesel T19 transmission and 235/85R16 tires. That 17mpg starts to fall off to 15-ish again if I drive faster than ~65mph. I would say that my combo is happiest about 62mph. Towing a 5,000 lb. travel trailer I get 10mpg all day long pretty much no matter what I do, and it is very slow on any kind of grade.
 
Please excuse the bow tie profanity, but I also have a 2000 Chevy Tahoe Z71. It was the last year of the 350 engine and was the only year that got individual cylinder fuel injection. This vehicle gets almost identical highway and mixed driving mpg compared to the 300 (I have never towed with it). I will say that it has considerably more punch than the 300, and hits 75+mph effortlessly. There is no denying that the more modern fuel injection technology and overdrive win hands down at least for light work and cruising. By comparison the 300 is a slow ox. Slow to accelerate and a lower (comfortable) top speed. The 300 is capable of things I wouldn’t attempt with the Tahoe’s drive train (especially the transmission) and I prefer the 300 off-pavement… but the EFI 350 gets around quicker for commuting and errands. If that is your primary use, you may be happier with a EFI 302 or 351. This is not a recommendation against a 300 (which is my favored Ford gas engine of this era), but an acknowledgement that a tractor isn’t ideal or every occasion.
 
As a guy who has owned a manual 4x4 with a GVOD unit, I do not recommend it. It is awkward and clunky to use, and the minimum speed limitation is a real drag in stop and go driving. It drops out of overdrive when you are slowing down with the clutch in. It’s easy to forget what you are doing with the push pull switch which messes up your shift timing if you forget to push the switch in after the speed limiter knocks it into direct drive below 25mph. I will probably still use the GVOD when I rebuild my crew cab, but only because I have it. I wouldn’t pay what they cost (even used) over other methods of achieving the same final drive ratio. Granted, this was with 4.10’s and a T19 so I was actually using the overdrive in my shift sequence at about 40 mph in 4th, so I was shifting in and out of overdrive between traffic lights. Still, after having owned one my preference would be an axle ratio and transmission that gave me the gear spread that I wanted. Keep in mind, too, that the Ranger OD option won’t work with an integral bellhousing transmission, so you are basically turning a 4 speed into a 5 speed. A 5 speed will be smoother to operate than an aux OD, and with any luck you might find a truck that already has it.
 
Just as a side bar, the 1980-1991 Supercab slatted rear windows can actually be replaced with 92+ single piece rear windows and trim. I have read that it is a tight fit, but that it works without too much trouble if you find a Bullnose or Bricknose that you like but cannot stomach the rear window design.

[Ray Cecil]

Gearvendors control units have 2 modes. Auto and Manual. I keep mine in manual and have a floor switch. Its very easy to use and shifts 10x faster than the C6. Sounds like Bob might have a different setup than I do. Yes, its expensive, but is super easy to install Id rather have 2X the gears and just hit that floor switch whenever od is needed. I don't use the OD running unloaded through town until I am in 3rd gear and just cruising. It does have a speed sensor that tie into your mechanical speedo cable and will kick out of OD below 20mph for safety......so you don't forget its engaged and try putting it in reverse.....

Whatever you do, I hope you have fun doing it. Glad Im not concerned about fuel mileage anymore.

[Nothing Special]

Ford F834 wrote

....  For efficiency, my 4x4 F150 gets about 17mpg on the highway and 15-ish mixed driving....

I feel like those sort of numbers ought to be possible with a 302, again, likely with better heads and maybe long tube headers.  There's a guy on FTE who has a lifted F-150 with a 351 built like that.  I think he's around 15 mpg.  With an unlifted truck and a 302 I think I could do better.

Ford F834 wrote

.... but the EFI 350 gets around quicker for commuting and errands. If that is your primary use, you may be happier with a EFI 302 or 351. This is not a recommendation against a 300 (which is my favored Ford gas engine of this era), but an acknowledgement that a tractor isn’t ideal or every occasion....

This is what's leaning me toward a 302.  Not that I've decided against the 300 yet (I don't need to make any decision for a few months at least).  But my gut says I should be able to get about the same mileage with a little better driveability (for what I need) out of the 302.  But if others think otherwise I'm happy to hear why!
 

Ford F834 wrote

.... Just as a side bar, the 1980-1991 Supercab slatted rear windows can actually be replaced with 92+ single piece rear windows and trim. I have read that it is a tight fit, but that it works without too much trouble if you find a Bullnose or Bricknose that you like but cannot stomach the rear window design.

Good to know.  But given that a solid body is a requirement I'm probably more likely to find a '92-'96 anyway.

Ray Cecil wrote

Gearvendors control units have 2 modes. Auto and Manual. I keep mine in manual and have a floor switch. Its very easy to use and shifts 10x faster than the C6. Sounds like Bob might have a different setup than I do. Yes, its expensive, but is super easy to install Id rather have 2X the gears and just hit that floor switch whenever od is needed. I don't use the OD running unloaded through town until I am in 3rd gear and just cruising. It does have a speed sensor that tie into your mechanical speedo cable and will kick out of OD below 20mph for safety......so you don't forget its engaged and try putting it in reverse.....

Whatever you do, I hope you have fun doing it. Glad Im not concerned about fuel mileage anymore.

 My understanding is that the Gear Vendors has a hydraulic clutch in it, and that if the input rpm isn't high enough the hydraulic pressure could be too low so the clutch might slip, or not stay engaged, which could damage the unit.  If I heard that correctly that's the reason for it kicking out at lower speeds.

And thanks, I think it will be fun!  I can't really say that I'm all that concerned about fuel economy either (I am still looking at 25+ year old technology that any truck off the showroom floor would beat!).  But I don't need to be commuting in an F-250HD crew cab with a 460, auto trans and 4.10 gears either!

[Gary Lewis]

Since I get 13 with Big Blue I’d sure hope a 351W in a lighter truck, even if lifted, should get 15. And unless you are pushing it I’d think a 302 could easily beat that.

[Nothing Special]

It would be nice to be at least 20 mpg on the freeway at 60~65 mph, and ~15 mpg in my day-to-day driving (which is mostly short 55 mph freeway trips).  I don't know how realistic that is, but it would be nice!

[81-F150-Explorer]

grumpin wrote

I’ve never owned a 300 six, but I would like too. I’ve heard them called slow or lazy, but I’m a torque fan.

Slow, yes in stock form. Lazy? Never. :)

15 years ago my 300 would get 21 MPG easy.  But it is geared for best economy at 55MPH max. So the sweet spot for my truck is 1800 RPM at 55 MPH.

The fuel is not what it was 15 years ago, so I get 18 MPG now at 55mph.

My advise ....

I would figure out how fast you drive on your average commute, (55MPH/65/70MPH) etc, then gear toward that MPH with your preferred drivetrain, so the sweet spot RPM for your engine aligns with that MPH.

[JimJam300]

Why not a smaller truck like a 4cyl Lima Ranger or 22RE Toyota? Either one can easily get 20+ mpg with the right spec.

From what I've been seeing on the FordSix forums, you can still get good fuel economy while greatly increasing horsepower on the 300. I'm shooting for 200+ whp on my Bronco and even with a T19 the users there assured me I should get at least 18mpg highway. No turbo, just full bolt ons and aftermarket EFI. From what I've heard, an M5OD shifts pretty slick in comparison to a ZF5 and first gear will be more usable in every day situations.

[Nothing Special]

Why not?  Just that I don't really like them.  I'm sure it's a character flaw, but I just can't deal with regularly driving a truck I don't like.  I did it for six years combined between my '08 F-250 and my '02 F-350.  I was so happy to get back into a truck I like with my '97!  I'm sticking with what I know I like.

As far as the ZF5 not being a great shifting trans, I've never driven one, but the two worst shifting transmissions I've ever had the displeasure of fighting with were the ZF6 that came in my '08 F-250 and the new ZF6 that the dealer put in to try to fix it.  I'm am NOT a fan of ZF transmissions.  That said, since I haven't driven a ZF5 I don't know that it's as bad as the ZF6s I had, so if I were to drive one and think it was acceptable I might go with one in my next project truck.  But I'm probably more likely to put an NV4500 in it, or possibly an aftermarket Tremec.

On the not so useable 1st gear, that only matters if you can't start in 2nd.  With what I think is a wider torque curve on a 302 I'm thinking that with the fairly low gears that a 302 will like it will be able to start in 2nd and comfortably go up through the remaining three gears.  1st would be used only when starting on a steep hill, or the rare times I'm pulling a too-heavy trailer.  I spent 13 years and 181K miles in an '85 F-250 with a 351, NP435 and 3.54 gears.  That worked pretty well, but with 3.73 gears to make 2nd a little lower and an overdrive to make the 3.73 gears a lot taller I'd have loved that setup.

Related, one of the few regrets I have with my Bronco's current configuration is the NV3550 trans.  The gears are way too close together.  I start in 1st, then shift to 3rd, and then to 5th.  I'd much rather have an "unusable" 1st gear to use when I want a granny gear than have two gears in the middle of the pattern that aren't usable.

[JimJam300]

What axle ratio is on your Bronco? The M5OD gear spread is very similar to the NV3550.

[Nothing Special]

4.10.  And generally I like that gearing with the 33" tires and the stockish 302.  Lower gears would give me batter off-the-line performance (which it doesn't really need) and a better crawl ratio (which is always good for my use), but it would make it more "buzzy" on the highway.

I certainly wouldn't want it any taller with the 33" tires.  But 3.73 gears with 29" tires would be about the same effective gearing, which is why I'm thinking in that range for this theoretical truck.

[Nothing Special]

Nothing Special wrote

....  I need to get a "new" truck.  Maybe I fix up the current one after it's no longer a daily driver.  But getting the new truck is the first step....

So now I'm spit-balling a SuperCab short bed as my next truck, and I'm thinking about what drive train I want....

Keep in mind that this is all spit-balling right now.  I might end up sticking with a crew cab (which will likely need a 351).  Or I might go a completely different direction entirely....

Well, it ended up being another direction entirely!

I've already shared the back story about thinking about getting another truck and restoring my '97 F-250HD CCSB.  I was thinking that might start late this summer.

But then my son was in an accident.  All of the people were fine, but his car was totaled.  We loaned him my truck for a couple days so he could get to and from work.  But he really needed something for more than a couple days as the insurance got worked out and he could then work through his options.  So we decided maybe I should get that "another" truck sooner rather than later.

Lesley vetoed the idea of a SuperCab.  She (probably realistically!) doesn't have confidence that I'll get the restoration completed very quickly, and (definitely realistically) pointed out that we really need to have a truck now that we can put another couple of adults in, and possible soon would be able to put car seats in (both sons are fairly newly married, we're not in too big of a hurry for grandkids, but it'll probably happen).

I had an '08 F-250 crew cab and an '02 F-350 crew cab.  That was more than enough to convince me that I'll never own a Ford pickup newer than '97 again.  And I don't like complicated controls (I refuse to have a vehicle where I need to take off my gloves to work a touch screen to adjust the HVAC).

So some quick research and shopping landed a 2007 Dodge 2500 in my driveway!  It's an automatic trans of course , and it's the 6.7L Cummins, which I think I'm going to think is a good thing.  It's not perfect by any means, but I think it'll be a good bridge for the next several years, after which either I'll have restored my '97 or turned it into a pile of scrap metal and have bought another old Ford!

[grumpin]

Looks like a nice truck!

[Gary Lewis]

Well, my 2015 doesn't require taking the gloves off to run the HVAC, but I do understand what you are saying as the nav system sure does - I seriously dislike it.

But the Cummins is a good engine and it should tow nicely.  And the crewcab works very well for grandkids - I know.  

[Nothing Special]

Thanks!  I think this truck will work out well for me.

On the touch screen, Lesley's 2018 Jeep Renegade is like many newer vehicles, where lots of things are controlled through the touch screen.  On the Renegade the HVAC is one of those things.  But whether the HVAC goes through the touch screen or not, a touch screen is just something I don't like in a vehicle.  Sure it means that I don't have a nav system, or a backup camera, or etc, etc, etc.  But I'm used to not having all of that, and I'm fine with it.  And frankly, I don't really want to get used to having all of that if I'm going to be moving back into my '97 F-250HD at some point!  So simple was good, and a 2007 Dodge is still pretty simple.

(continuing topics on the Dodge in the "what have you done..." thread)

[Gary Lewis]

Our 2015 GLK has a touchscreen, but it also has a joy stick so you don't have to use the touchscreen.  And my 2011 Murano had the same thing.

But apparently on my 2015 one of Ford's Better Ideas was to force you to use the touchscreen on some things, like panning across the map screen.  Or zooming in/out.  Etc, etc, etc.  HORRIBLE!  Such a huge step backwards.  

If I had to go look for a new pickup, or any vehicle for that matter, that would be a deal breaker.