Van choice...balance load capacity and MPG

[Treenail]

After doing some research I found that the 2007 and newer E150's have a higher load capacity. Around 3k# if I remember right. That seems like plenty for my build.

But now...I wonder.

I had an '82 E250 years ago, it was probably the best 'thing' that I've ever bought in my life. Served me well and I got every dime of use out of it. The MPG sucked though. That wasn't an issue though since I needed the higher load capacity as a work vehicle for my tree care company. When I used it for a camper I never got anywhere near it's load capacity.

Now, I don't need as much 'work' capacity so I wonder...am I short-changing myself going with an E150?

Is the 5L powerful enough or should I look for the 5.8L like I had in my '82? Again...not hauling heavy loads or needing a hot rod.

An E350 long frame is tempting too. Can't ever have too much cubic space! Since I need a queen bed I have to make the bed bow/stern not athwartships.

Thanks!

Tom

 

[Bikersmurf]

Hey Tom,

How much do you plan to drive it? DD? Weekends? Towing?

Where... 2WD, 4WD?

MPGs haven't improved since the 80s... Likely worse.

Diesel gets better MPGs but theoretically has higher maintenance costs. 6.0s were so bad, that our Ambulance service switched to gassers because of prohibitive maintenance costs.

Astro vans might also suit your needs.

I'm happy with my 7.3 E350 Ambo, it drives super nice, and gets decent MPGs for a 9000 lb rig.

 

[Treenail]

Hey Tom,

How much do you plan to drive it? DD? Weekends? Towing?

Where... 2WD, 4WD?

My daily drive is a 2000 Crown Vic...creature comforts!

Not much towing...mostly for camping or some small tree pruning/removals using a trailer.

MPGs haven't improved since the 80s... Likely worse.

Diesel gets better MPGs but theoretically has higher maintenance costs. 6.0s were so bad, that our Ambulance service switched to gassers because of prohibitive maintenance costs.

I've kind of thought that. My expectation is to be happy with mid-teens MPG. NO diesel!

Astro vans might also suit your needs.

I owned an Astro cargo van. Great work truck and small camper.

Even better was the Safari AWD drive until I got side-swiped.

But...both of them don't have enough square or cubic footage. time to move back up to a full size.

 

[Luinil Explorations]

I doubt you will get high mid teems. Our 89 E150 Sportesmobile gets between 12 and 13 MPG. My suggestion would be a E250 or E350. They have more load capacity and can be converted to 4wd much easier than an E150.

 

[Treenail]

Mid teens would be a treat...I understand.

4WD isn't in my plan.

A second level consideration is one of the Chevy/GMC full size AWD vans though.

 

[Bbasso]

Grab yourself a E350 with the 5.4 Triton motor and you should be happy since you said no diesel... but I personally wouldn't consider a V8 gasser for a camper build Because the interior weight get heavier than you think.
Over the past 4k miles with my 7.3 PSD I'm averaging 20.2 mpg and while I should be driving easier... I'm having way too much fun since the 5 Star Tuning and exhaust.
If you want the most power while getting close or slightly better mpg than the 5.4 consider the 6.8 V10.

 

[boardrider247]

A second level consideration is one of the Chevy/GMC full size AWD vans though.

If you aren't brand loyal (I'm not) and would consider a GM they do better on mpg's. My Awd 1500 with a 5.3L was averaging 17mpg before the lift and bigger tires. Now I'm right at about 15.

I would think if you found a 2wd 2500 with the 5.3l engine and 3.73 gearing you should be able to keep in the mid upper teens.

Honestly I don't have any idea what their cargo capacity is though.

 

[Treenail]

Thanks 'rider...real world experience is what I was hoping to get.

I'm in no hurry to buy the van so I can gather info.

Tom

 

[Mwilliamshs]

I doubt you will get high mid teems. Our 89 E150 Sportesmobile gets between 12 and 13 MPG. My suggestion would be a E250 or E350. They have more load capacity and can be converted to 4wd much easier than an E150.

Got a thread about your rig? I also have an 89 E150

 

[Mwilliamshs]

...MPGs haven't improved since the 80s... Likely worse...

You're kidding right? There was no overdrive automatic in ford vans in 82 (would've been the AOD, came out in vans in 83). No EFI. Piston-style AC compressors were the norm and they were turned by v-belts. Almost no synthetic motor oils, gear lubes, etc...

EPA ratings only go back to 84
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...m&pageno=1&sortBy=Comb&tabView=0&rowLimit=100

1984 E150 base engine, automatic, 14 mpg hwy, 13 combined
2001 E150 base engine, automatic, 19 mpg hwy, 16 combined

That's what, 30% better?

 

[Bikersmurf]

I stand corrected. I was trying to be realistic based on my experience...
4700 lb 1974 Fj40 w/69 350 SBC, 33" tires, mild lift : 17 mpg (us) highway.
5500 lb 1998 Dodge w/ 5.9 Direct port injection, roller rockers, OD, stock height & tires : 17 mpg highway.
Both around the same in town.

30 years newer, all the 'improvements', same MPG as a worn, old, leaky, Quadrajet.

Essentially, my 4700 lb brick (FJ40) gets the same MPGs as a 2001 E150 that's stock and 2WD.

 

[Mwilliamshs]

...Essentially, my 4700 lb brick (FJ40) gets the same MPGs as a 2001 E150 that's stock and 2WD.

What's your stock 2001 E150 weigh? My 89 EB is 5k empty and doesn't have a v8, airbags, carpet, wiring behind the driver's seat except for tail, turn, and reverse lights, etc. Bet it's a comparative light-weight amongst modern E-150s.

 

[Bikersmurf]

I was going based on the EPA ratings and knowing that real world mpg is usually a bit less as others have posted.

2001, E150 weight looks like 4791 lbs. I'm there if the fuel tanks are full... plus it's a lifted 4x4 that's as tall as an E150. I know it's apples to oranges, but most would argue that a 4x4 gets worse mpgs than a 2wd... it's also not in any way aerodynamic, it's quite the opposite.

 

[Mwilliamshs]

...30 years newer, all the 'improvements', same MPG as a worn, old, leaky, Quadrajet...

A (1969 so pre-smog) high compression (good for efficiency) SBC with small spread-bore primary throttle blades (quadrajet) is gonna be pretty darn efficient. Manual trans? OD? Bet it pulls good vacuum with a mild cam and that its cruise speed (due to low gears) isn't beyond the aero envelope (~65 mph or below)

That's all way off topic. My advice to the OP as someone who DD's an EB is this: if you're going to be within 10% of the GVWR every day, bump up. If you're going to overload it occasionally, don't panic. My OE GVWR is 6,200 lbs. I weigh 5-6k constantly and it's never felt like too much. I've weighed 7,500 a couple times and probably will again. That feels like too much and if it was a regular event I'd have an E-250 or 350 instead. I have 3.08:1 axle gears and stock height tires. If I finish my build and I'm ~6,500 lbs I'm not gonna swap axles but I'll be swapping gears (3:73 probably) and checking axle bearings more often for sure. If it's 6,800 or over I'll go FF rear.

 

[Mwilliamshs]

After doing some research I found that the 2007 and newer E150's...Is the 5L powerful enough or should I look for the 5.8L...

Tom, neither the 5.0L (302ci) or the 5.8L (351ci) were offered in the years you mentioned. I'd get the 6.8L V10 if you'll be loaded most of the time or the 5.4L V8 if you'll be cruising lightly loaded more often. The mileage differences aren't that great anyway and nobody ever said, "it's just too powerful". Lots of very very happy v10 owners out there but again, if you'll be less than 80% of GVWR most of the time you'd likely not appreciate the additional power unless you're driving aggressively.