User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 12:47:11 PM EDT
[#1]
People are yanking the old motors to refresh them with the better heads and intake offered on the later model 5.0 powered Ford Explorers/Mercury Mountaineer.
My Notchback has about 140k or so on the clock, with the original engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 12:48:26 PM EDT
[#2]
They are pretty much bullet-proof, in my experience. I own 2 currently. 94 F150 5.0 with 175k, 93 Mustang 5.0 230k. I wouldn't hesitate to drive either one from Miami to Seattle and back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 12:55:11 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Fords known for being shit? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:00:15 PM EDT
[#4]
they are pretty hard to kill up until about 450hp or so, at which point they like to become 2 (ea) 2.5L 4 cylinder engines.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:01:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:06:01 PM EDT
[#6]
I still have a 96 with the 5.0 and 138K miles on it. It still runs strong. Other than a tendency of eating oxygen sensors about eight years ago, it's never given me problems.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:07:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Every 302 I have had (5) has been as reliable as a hammer
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:13:09 PM EDT
[#8]
I've never known them to be unreliable. All of the failures I see are from abuse and neglect.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:17:29 PM EDT
[#9]
If you get crazy with the power adders u crack them between the head bolt and water passage
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:18:34 PM EDT
[#10]
OP you have no idea what you're talking about. The 302 is one of the best small blocks every.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:19:35 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. Came to post this. Most reliable engine Ford ever built. I have 170k on mine and I work it hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:21:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Pretty solid engines with decent economy for the times. Not real powerhouses but nothing was in the days of 250 hp 454 big blocks.
 Capable of making decent power with minor bolt on mods and I knew of more than a few old five ohs that surpassed 250k without issue. Still a pretty healthy market for NOS and aftermarket parts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:22:04 PM EDT
[#13]
302 was a great engine.
The 351 (5.8) was a pig on gas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:23:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:25:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. Probably so it wouldn't get confused with the big six. The 302 makes nearly no torque and isn't much of a truck engine. If I ever need to replace my 300, I'll swap in nothing smaller than the 351. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:28:01 PM EDT
[#16]
302/351 always seemed reliable with decent maintenance, but if given the choice I'd take a 300 six for truck use.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:30:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. 13mpg all day, baby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:31:55 PM EDT
[#18]
The 302 is a great engine
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:33:57 PM EDT
[#19]
My fathers 95 F-150 has the 5.8 Windsor and while it absolutely chugs gas it's got 190k on it and still runs well and hauls ass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:35:56 PM EDT
[#20]
My 96 bronco had 290k on the original 5.8 engine when I sold it. I still see it around and I'm certain it has well over 300k.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:36:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
302 was a great engine. The 351 (5.8) was a pig on gas. My stock 302 got 14MPG in a lifted 4x4, same truck 5.8L with a bunch of goodies. 14MPG. My 302 made it to 200k. With about 30k of those miles being my highschool years. It saw heavy abuse. Was still running but number 8 was dead and the oil was a milkshake. The EFI 5.0 was always a shitty truck engine. Ford was drunk when they matched the intake sizing and cam profiles of the 302. The intake had huge runners, making it very weak in the low end of the power curve. The cam was stupid small killing any power potential the little engine had. It was very soft down low, almost felt like you were about to start getting after it at 3k, and the fell flat on its face just below 4k. The 351 had the same cam a smaller intake and pulled like a truck should. With a simple cam and Y pipe swap they make excellent power. If I ever get another with a 5.0 the 5.8 swap will be done asap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:43:41 PM EDT
[#22]
I own an 86 F150 302 4x4 with 120k. Awesome truck. Would not hesitate to drive it to New York and back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:45:53 PM EDT
[#23]
My 1993 F-150 had just under 200k miles on it when I got rid of it. Had the stock 302 and never had motor issues as a college truck.
Not a ton of power, but I had a 5-speed so it was ok pulling a light boat and general running around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:46:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably so it wouldn't get confused with the big six. The 302 makes nearly no torque and isn't much of a truck engine. If I ever need to replace my 300, I'll swap in nothing smaller than the 351. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. Probably so it wouldn't get confused with the big six. The 302 makes nearly no torque and isn't much of a truck engine. If I ever need to replace my 300, I'll swap in nothing smaller than the 351. lol Didn't realize we were talking about the 300 I6. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:51:59 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fords known for being shit? Yes. I second this. Yes. Ferds are shit. My 1993 1/2 Chevy work truck had 315k on the original 350 engine when I sold it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:52:42 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
I've been keeping an eye on CL for Ford F150s in the 89ish-96 body style. It seems like a lot of them have rebuilt or replaced engines at less than 150k miles. As a former Chevy fan I know for a fact that the SBC 5.0/5.7 engines lasted a hell of a lot longer than 150k. Is this just coincidence, or are those Fords known for being shit? The Ford 302 has one of the longest production runs of engines Ford every made, and began it's production run with the 1968 car models. It's durable, reliable, and simple (compared to newer stuff.) Depending on configuration, power output can be anything from mundane to pretty impressive. I have a 1991 F150 with one of the mundane 195HP configurations in it that is just shy of 200K miles on the clock. Last time I did a compression check, at about 160K, none of the cylinders were below factory spec., and it still uses no oil at 200K. Keep it full of water, and change the oil regularly, and it shouldn't be any sort of problems. Treat it like crap and don't maintain it, and it will let you know. Then again ,that can pretty much be said of ANY engine. Maintenance---it's the golden word. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:53:22 PM EDT
[#27]
My dad needed a pickup to pull a 22' travel trailer.
1987 300 I 6 = Really slow, I don't why it's rated so well, he even changed the rear end gears - didn't help 1990 302 V8 = still too slow but a little better - 180 hp? 1997 360 magnum Dodge SST just right I still have the 1990 F150 Lariat 195k and it still runs fine and doesn't burn oil but I've always had pan and valve cover gasket leaks. The dealer changed the valve cover and I changed the valve cover and pan gaskets later. Trans rebuilt, 3 starters, 3 alts, 2 u-joints, 3 ICMs, tie rod ends and now the fuel pump is making noise in the front tank. Pretty good for a 25 yo. pickup. ETA for pic 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:55:42 PM EDT
[#28]
The were fine. Get rid of the shitty exhaust manifolds that usually cracked by 100k and replace with shorty headers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:56:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Came to post this. Most reliable engine Ford ever built. I have 170k on mine and I work it hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. Came to post this. Most reliable engine Ford ever built. I have 170k on mine and I work it hard. I would actually prefer that, but I haven't found one in 4x4 and extended cab (or whatever ford called it at the time). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:59:06 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. 4.94889 ETA: I miss my baby.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:00:22 PM EDT
[#31]
The 302 is a great engine. The 351W/5.8L is basically a 302 with a taller deck. The 4.9L is a good engine too. It's the transmissions of that era that suck. The T5 was weak and the AOD sucked ass. The C4 was a solid tranny. I'd venture to guess that if a 4.9/5.0/5.8 doesn't make it to 200k, it was heavily abused.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:03:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 302 is a great engine. The 351W/5.8L is basically a 302 with a taller deck. The 4.9L is a good engine too. It's the transmissions of that era that suck. The T5 was weak and the AOD sucked ass. The C4 was a solid tranny. I'd venture to guess that if a 4.9/5.0/5.8 doesn't make it to 200k, it was heavily abused. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile +1 Oil changes are all those motors need. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:03:47 PM EDT
[#33]
The 302 / 5.0 is a great, reliable engine. They're not very powerful, but they still get the job done and should easily last to 200k+ if maintained.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:04:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 4.933 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. 4.933 WHat they called 5.0 was a 308v8. The 4.9 in question is a 300 I6.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:06:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Motors are solid, but the electronics were garbage. Electric cooling fans, but the fan controller would always shit the bed and overheat in traffic. Slushboxes tend to grenade around 150k because Ford tuned them for soft, cushy shifts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:07:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. This. Round up for a cooler sounding number. Most people think they are 2 different engines. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:10:25 PM EDT
[#37]
The 5.0 pushrod motor is an amazing engine.
The best years are 87-92 as they came from the factory with forged pistons. I've seen factory stock 5.0 Mustangs handle upwards of a 200 hp shot of nitrous like it was nothing. The Explorer 5.0 engines had "GT40P heads and GT40 intakes" and are an easy way to make cheap horsepower. Heads, cam, intake swaps are a snap, and they are very healthy little engines, and a stroked SBF being a 5.0 or 5.8 can be bad mammajammas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:24:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Round up for a cooler sounding number. Most people think they are 2 different engines. LOL Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. This. Round up for a cooler sounding number. Most people think they are 2 different engines. LOL No, it's because Ford already had a 4.9L I6 and offering a 4.9L V8 as an option in the same vehicle would be confusing for both customers and dealers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:27:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are pretty much bullet-proof, in my experience. I own 2 currently. 94 F150 5.0 with 175k, 93 Mustang 5.0 230k. I wouldn't hesitate to drive either one from Miami to Seattle and back. there is no passenger vehicle with 230 K i would drive to Seattle and back and not have a plan to break down. Even if the engine could do it, A LOT of shit can still break. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:30:23 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've never known them to be unreliable. All of the failures I see are from abuse and neglect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:31:32 PM EDT
[#41]
302s were tough as nails.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:43:11 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol Didn't realize we were talking about the 300 I6. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. Probably so it wouldn't get confused with the big six. The 302 makes nearly no torque and isn't much of a truck engine. If I ever need to replace my 300, I'll swap in nothing smaller than the 351. lol Didn't realize we were talking about the 300 I6. Edit I ment to write that exact same thing. Thought you quoted me. Typo on my part. Was talking about the 302 V8. I would taken the big six over the 302 though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:45:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is no passenger vehicle with 230 K i would drive to Seattle and back and not have a plan to break down. Even if the engine could do it, A LOT of shit can still break. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They are pretty much bullet-proof, in my experience. I own 2 currently. 94 F150 5.0 with 175k, 93 Mustang 5.0 230k. I wouldn't hesitate to drive either one from Miami to Seattle and back. there is no passenger vehicle with 230 K i would drive to Seattle and back and not have a plan to break down. Even if the engine could do it, A LOT of shit can still break. Ah ya big sissy. I drove my 91 from Cali to Va for 4 months, back to Cali and then to Alaska and back two years later. Only broke one brake line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:55:13 PM EDT
[#44]
My first truck was a '96 F-150 5.0 4x4 with the super duty 5-speed. Never had a bit of trouble from the engine. It ran long and strong. Hell, I drove it with no coolant without knowing for like a month and still didn't have any issues.
I broke just about every part in the driveline and suspension at some point, but that's because I was a dumb teenager with a (very) lifted truck. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 3:34:44 PM EDT
[#45]
91 Bronco with the 351. 220k. Still going like a beast. Drinks gas like one, too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 3:38:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
4.94889 ETA: I miss my baby.... <a href="http://s4.photobucket.com/user/grey50beast/media/SMDC0133.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y115/grey50beast/SMDC0133.jpg</a> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. The 5.0 was actually a 4.9 by displacement. Ford just decided to round it up for whatever reason. 4.94889 ETA: I miss my baby.... <a href="http://s4.photobucket.com/user/grey50beast/media/SMDC0133.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y115/grey50beast/SMDC0133.jpg</a> With the ragtop down so your hair can blow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 3:44:36 PM EDT
[#47]
I am not sure why it happened, but I had a 1967 Mustang with a 302 that the camshaft broke in half. Weirdest thing I ever saw, it ran on half the engine (obviously the front with the cam driven distributor).
Now that I think about it, I think it was a mega high mileage engine and the front cam bearing was worn to the point there was enough flex under load to snap it. Put a loper cam in it and ran it another few years and sold it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 3:51:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is no passenger vehicle with 230 K i would drive to Seattle and back and not have a plan to break down. Even if the engine could do it, A LOT of shit can still break. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They are pretty much bullet-proof, in my experience. I own 2 currently. 94 F150 5.0 with 175k, 93 Mustang 5.0 230k. I wouldn't hesitate to drive either one from Miami to Seattle and back. there is no passenger vehicle with 230 K i would drive to Seattle and back and not have a plan to break down. Even if the engine could do it, A LOT of shit can still break. I had a 1991 Mustang that was an ex-AZ DPS car. I drove it all over Europe when I was stationed there. It would cruise at 120mph for hours at a time. The only spare part I carried was an ignition module because (as someone else already noted) the electronics of that era weren't very reliable and the ignition modules on those cars would shit the bed without warning. It had 160k on it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 3:51:58 PM EDT
[#49]
'95 Bronco with the 5.8, 249k.. and still goin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 3:57:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not the 4.9? Old reliable pig. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
