Van choice...balance load capacity and MPG

[Stumpalump]

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.

I think all the Ford modular engines would be fine in a van. A 4.6 if he can find one would be great. I had one in a 98 F150. He is not going to have a winch, lift or big tires to push. The nice thing about the V10 is that it does not drink much extra if you drive fast enough to keep up with all the small cars. I pull a trailer to the dunes in Cali and if I go 65 and baby it I get 11mpg and only drops 1/2 mile per gallon when I drive at traffic speeds of 75-80 mph. We have 75mph limit and is why I left the 3:73 gears in it. 4:10 gears are supposed to knock off a half MPG but it may be more at close to 80. 2wd would be great with 3:55 gears out here but like I said we can drive at 80. If you buy one with 4:10 and run small tires your going to suck fuel with any engine. I'd look at the gears in any you find and throw everthing that goes in it on a scale. A pound saved here and there adds up. I saw a guy this weekend throw 4 large bundles of pre packaged and store bought firewood on the ground because he did not want the weight on his trip home.

 

[Mwilliamshs]

I disagree with the 4.6 in a vehicle the size of a van. Too little torque which is offset by deeper gearing which causes higher rpm which consumes fuel that would be unnecessary with a more appropriate engine. I've had the 4.6 in mustangs and trucks and a single cab 2wd F150 commuter was fine but a crew cab full of folks was a dog.

I also disagree with the drastic the impact of weight on mpg you suggest. Yes, every pound counts, but one marked advantage of a vans is that it doesn't matter much what's in them, mpg is pretty darn steady. Weight does have a greater impact on stop-and-go driving than steady-speed highway travel. Getting extra pounds going from a stop repeatedly does take more fuel but keeping things moving along really doesn't until you hit large grades. The aerodynamic penalty of a van will nearly always overcome any weight. Worse case scenario is a very heavy, under-powered van that requires lots of fuel to get moving then pays the aerodynamic penalty on the highway and doesn't have the power to hold higher gears (OD) with the torque converter locked.

If ya gotta move 5k of van, might as well move 2k of cargo. My van gets almost exactly the same mileage (within .02 mpg) with just me and a small toolbox in it as it does with me, several toolboxes, camping gear, 2 dirtbikes, a 54 qt cooler full of grub, and my buddy riding shotgun. Done both on a couple lengthy trips to and from the exact same places and gotten repeatable data. However, throw an extra dirtbike on the hitch hauler or try to drive too slow for top gear or so fast that you're always accelerating and the mileage goes right out the window.

 

[Treenail]

Thanks...this is what I've been thinking. My folks had a 302 in their van and Dad said it was underpowered a bit too often. This was a late 80's E150 so I don't know how to compare with the current vehicles. I'll have to see what is on the market. I don't think I'll go for the V10. Towing a trailer or camping setup for more than two isn't in the plan.

When my camper vehicles have been packed and ready to go I've never felt underpowered. The few times I've gone up mountain passes I just drive a little slower, so what.

Now I'm going to have to decide on the direction I want to go with this van.

Tom

 

[villageidiot327]

I have a 4.6 in a e150. It's no problem. I had one also 8 years ago in another e150, drove the wheels off that thing. I had driven a 4.6 with 3.73 gears and it was great. I don't think ya can go terribly wrong, just get the best example of whatever it is you fancy.

 

[Vannibal Smith]

I've got a 5.4L e-350, and get between 14 and 15 mpg. My buddy has the same Van but v10, and gets between 10 and 11 mpg. I'm very satisfied with the power of the 5.4, even when carrying weight, and wouldn't trade it for the loss of mpg in the v10 if I were buying another one. My same buddy had the 4.6 before he bought his v10, and it was ok, but even after regearing it, still went with a bigger engine when he replaced it. I would say go with the 5.4, it's sounds like your looking to balance power and mpg.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Petrolburner]

I got 13.5 mpg pretty steady on a trip from Oregon to Baja and back. I have the Weldtec 4" lift, stock sized tires, 5.4l V8, 3.55 gears and 2 people, 2 dirtbikes and camping gear as well as a rear hitch basket. I want to change the rear gears to get the motor up into the powerband. It downshifts and unlocks the torque converter too often.

 

[Shocker]

My 1992 E350 RB with the 460 and E40D got 13mpg fully loaded with 10 people.

 

[Mwilliamshs]

I got 13.5 mpg pretty steady on a trip from Oregon to Baja and back. I have the Weldtec 4" lift, stock sized tires, 5.4l V8, 3.55 gears and 2 people, 2 dirtbikes and camping gear as well as a rear hitch basket. I want to change the rear gears to get the motor up into the powerband. It downshifts and unlocks the torque converter too often.

At what speed?

 

[Kneeboarder1025]

What experience does anybody have with the inline 6 cylinder and how they compare to the V8's? I'm asking because my parents had a '93 E150 with the Inline 6 cylinder, auto (which was the HD transmission that the 3/4 and 1 tons had) and got 14-17 MPG's - Main hauling was a 20 Ft. Inboard Ski Brendella. Felt a bit lacking on rolling hills but great low-end. Have no experience w/ the V8's. Have heard (from truck owners) that the they preferred the inline 6 to the 302. Will likely be getting a van for our growing family, will be towing the same boat ( I boat it from my parents). I think I want a 7.3, but wanted to know what the best gas options were.

 

[occasionaldirt]

The EPA rates 1974 Fj40's with 1969 GM 350 engines? I wonder what a calculator would say after a 65-75mph 'highway' trip?

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.

 

[tgreening]

RE the 302 v8 vs the 300 straight 6. It depends what you're after. The 6 is a great torquey motor down low. The 8 would probably do you better in the highway. Six runs forever, the 8 maybe not quite so much, but I doubt either would disappoint there. I like the 6 for something that will pull and see maybe some off-road duty. The 8 if it's mainly a highway runner. I'd take the 7.3 in a heartbeat over either.

 

[Mwilliamshs]

I really like my inline 6. It's not speedy but it's certainly steady. With even decent maintenance they're 300k mi engines. With stock size tires, 3.08 gears, and a C6 auto, I pull 17+mpg on the highway without trying. With just a couple mods and light-pedaling, I expect to break 20. I've hauled over 1k lbs and towed over gvwr without struggling. More power would only make things happen faster uphill and increase maintenance cost considerably. It's my favorite engine I've ever owned.

 

[derjack]

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.

mpg not improved since the 80s? That's really an us centric pov!
In the 80s in Europe we drove Ford transits, VW bully T3 ... Transits with v6 and loaded have been surely @ 14-18l/km and T3 with gas engines from min 13-16l/km. With very low speeds like on us highways.
A VW T6 with an 2l tdi engine (150hp, 400nm - more than my 7.3 IDI N/A! , both @wheels). You can drive that rig at highway speed with 8 likes per km easy! That's half the gas with double the power.

Similar to Mercedes sprinter, Ford transit, Iveco etc.

These bands are way more efficient than Econolines and Chevy's. Due to engine size and transmission and weight.

Though the US has just a third of the gas price than Europe, so actually from a fingers POV it doesn't matter.

 

[350outrage]

In my opinion, you will end up loading that van heavier, and needing more torque than you think you will. About 2 days after finishing your build, you'll decide to Bump up the tire size "just a little", and go dry camp somewhere, (probably at high elevation). You'll start loading the 65qt YETI, water jugs, food boxes, camping gear, and people. When climbing in the Mountains, you will wish you had the biggest motor made in that thing, and screw the gas mpg! If this will be your DD, then the gas mpg might be more important. But for RV and chores, you need performance (POWAH!). This is my third van, and I spec'd it new with the v-10 for these reasons. It got 13 mpg until I modded it with 4wd, a lot bigger tires, and 4.10 gears. Now it gets 12. It loves to go 75-80, and still gets 12 regardless of interior load. Heavy trailers will pull mpg down. No regrets. It pulls most hills w/o dumping out of overdrive. I smile a lot while driving it. ;-)

 

[Petrolburner]

At what speed?

60-75 mainly. Because of my really low axle gear ratio, it drove better at 77 mph than 60.