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

[Nothing Special]

I choose diesel because I'm a paranoid prepper, and it's by far the most emp proof, SHTF proof setup. I can distill diesel from trash plastics, mechanical injection, the list goes on. But this ain't a prepper thread.

I'm getting close to considering diesel because of the laws going into place mandating electric vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if gas starts getting a lot harder to come by. But I think diesel will be needed for trucks for a long time to come.

But I ain't quite there yet, and this isn't that kind of prepper thread either!

(I do think diesel is a great option for a lot of people in a lot of cases. I might end up putting one in my crew cab at some point. But not for this thought exercise.)

[Ray Cecil]

I'm getting close to considering diesel because of the laws going into place mandating electric vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if gas starts getting a lot harder to come by. But I think diesel will be needed for trucks for a long time to come.

But I ain't quite there yet, and this isn't that kind of prepper thread either!

(I do think diesel is a great option for a lot of people in a lot of cases. I might end up putting one in my crew cab at some point. But not for this thought exercise.)

Diesel will long outlive gasoline. For sure.

I'm looking for an air starter for my 7.3 to harden against EMP or CME.

[85lebaront2]

I'm getting close to considering diesel because of the laws going into place mandating electric vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if gas starts getting a lot harder to come by. But I think diesel will be needed for trucks for a long time to come.

But I ain't quite there yet, and this isn't that kind of prepper thread either!

(I do think diesel is a great option for a lot of people in a lot of cases. I might end up putting one in my crew cab at some point. But not for this thought exercise.)

One of my fellow "lab rats" (what we called ourselves in the NNS laboratory) had two Ford pickups, both of which he pretty well inherited. One was a 1986 F150, 300 six and 4 speed, the other a 1994 F150, 302 and 4R70. He asked me which I thought would be better to use running from Newport News VA to his retirement home he was building in Charlotte County West of Richmond. I said the 1994 as it had an OD trans and the 1986, even running perfectly still was a feedback carb system.

First couple trips he wasn't real happy, 10 mpg o the 1994. I suggested he pull a couple of plugs and see what they looked like, to his surprise they were AC platinum plugs. Having gone through platinum plugs on older Fords, I suggested he get a set of Motorcraft plugs. He wasn't sure but agreed to use them. He called me somewhere beyond Richmond and started singing "I'm a believer". Truck hadn't even burned 1/2 tank running loaded on the interstate.

Point is, 300 is an workhorse, like a Clydesdale, 302 is more of a race horse and is happy cruising. Now if both had been 1994 or 1986, the difference would not have been as great.

[mat in tn]

One of my fellow "lab rats" (what we called ourselves in the NNS laboratory) had two Ford pickups, both of which he pretty well inherited. One was a 1986 F150, 300 six and 4 speed, the other a 1994 F150, 302 and 4R70. He asked me which I thought would be better to use running from Newport News VA to his retirement home he was building in Charlotte County West of Richmond. I said the 1994 as it had an OD trans and the 1986, even running perfectly still was a feedback carb system.

First couple trips he wasn't real happy, 10 mpg o the 1994. I suggested he pull a couple of plugs and see what they looked like, to his surprise they were AC platinum plugs. Having gone through platinum plugs on older Fords, I suggested he get a set of Motorcraft plugs. He wasn't sure but agreed to use them. He called me somewhere beyond Richmond and started singing "I'm a believer". Truck hadn't even burned 1/2 tank running loaded on the interstate.

Point is, 300 is an workhorse, like a Clydesdale, 302 is more of a race horse and is happy cruising. Now if both had been 1994 or 1986, the difference would not have been as great.

I have two examples which I drive regularly. one is the 300 with a c6 and a 3.08 rear gear and 32'tall tires. adding the 32" tall tires makes it more equivalent to having a 2.79. this one does best around town and occasionally I can get 15 mpg. the general expected mpg is 13-13.5 especially if I sit on the highway the absence of od really shows up with a single barrel carb cruising at 2750 rpm.

the other is a 5.0 efi in a 93 flareside with an aod and a 3.73 with stock size tires. it is my best mpg of all so far getting 16 plus in town and it got 19 hwy back in September going to Maine and back. and that was holding 75-8 for most of 2k miles. that is by trying my best to keep it at 2k or below.

[Nothing Special]

I have two examples which I drive regularly. one is the 300 with a c6 and a 3.08 rear gear and 32'tall tires. adding the 32" tall tires makes it more equivalent to having a 2.79. this one does best around town and occasionally I can get 15 mpg. the general expected mpg is 13-13.5 especially if I sit on the highway the absence of od really shows up with a single barrel carb cruising at 2750 rpm.

the other is a 5.0 efi in a 93 flareside with an aod and a 3.73 with stock size tires. it is my best mpg of all so far getting 16 plus in town and it got 19 hwy back in September going to Maine and back. and that was holding 75-8 for most of 2k miles. that is by trying my best to keep it at 2k or below.

A lot of my miles will be driving to and from work. A little over a half mile on suburban streets at each end with about 7 miles of suburban freeway in between.

It also won't be uncommon to do about 80 miles of freeway and/or rural 2-lane highway, going to the cabin or going hunting.

It might occasionally have to pull my folks ~5000 lb travel trailer over about 10 miles of rural 2-lane. And if/when I start working on the crew cab it might have to move it around. But not much towing, and as I said, it doesn't need to do it particularly well.

So I don't really need a workhorse. The cruiser might be a better fit.

I find myself leaning toward a 302 roller cam, maybe with something like GT40 (if I'm remembering that correctly) heads.

In an ideal world I think I'd like something like a ZF5 or NV4500 to get a wider ratio spread (low for towing and high for cruising). And maybe 3.73 or 4.10 gears with a Gear Vendor, or possibly a Ranger overdrive to further extend the range and fill in the wider gaps for when that's desirable.

[ratdude747]

I'd vote for a 300 six and five speed if you want best fuel mileage and towing combination. Maybe add a 3.55-3.73 gear plus a gearvendors OD. A 3.08 and stock 300 six might be a little lame in the towing department. A gearvendors really opens up your diff gear options and let's you tow better.

I daily a 300 (4x2 AOD, 3.08, see my signature)... here's my notes on how it goes:

-Driving around town isn't too terrible performance wise, other than really steep windy hills and the occasion where one has to slow down 15-20mph and gets "stuck" in 2nd gear at 1100RPM for a bit.

-Highway driving isn't too bad either... but if you use cruise and there's a lot of hills/wind (especially over 65mph) you will be downshifting to 3rd a lot. Otherwise, on interstates, if you don't use cruise and speed up in valleys and slow down on peaks it'll do OK... if traffic allows (for me, it's often it's a choice between the 75-80mph hammer lane or the 60mph mind numbing turtle lane) and if your foot/leg/frontal lobe doesn't get sore!

-MPG can be good or can be awful. Rural 55-65mph driving I've gotten as high as 17mpg. Flat low wind 70-75mph freeway driving I've also gotten 16-17 on a couple occasions. But hills/wind on interstates kills it to 14-12mpg... and commuting to work across a small town? 12-10mpg, winter being the worst. I don't have a pure city number but it's probably around 10 right now... choke and fast idle likely to blame.

-Towing: Not super great, but what one would expect from a 1980's stock half ton. OD and cruise do not mix, even on an empty trailer (to be fair, the trailer has a 1700lb dry weight). Decent bit of squat too... but then again, I don't have the towing package (or even aftermarket airbags), so I'm not supposed to tow. MPG suffers a bit, but that's what one would expect. If looking to tow, I'd suggest 3.55's. Heck, I'm tempted to regear to 3.55 just as a drivability improvement (as it was a stock option, and was standard on high-alititude).

[Gary Lewis]

I daily a 300 (4x2 AOD, 3.08, see my signature)... here's my notes on how it goes:

-Driving around town isn't too terrible performance wise, other than really steep windy hills and the occasion where one has to slow down 15-20mph and gets "stuck" in 2nd gear at 1100RPM for a bit.

-Highway driving isn't too bad either... but if you use cruise and there's a lot of hills/wind (especially over 65mph) you will be downshifting to 3rd a lot. Otherwise, on interstates, if you don't use cruise and speed up in valleys and slow down on peaks it'll do OK... if traffic allows (for me, it's often it's a choice between the 75-80mph hammer lane or the 60mph mind numbing turtle lane) and if your foot/leg/frontal lobe doesn't get sore!

-MPG can be good or can be awful. Rural 55-65mph driving I've gotten as high as 17mpg. Flat low wind 70-75mph freeway driving I've also gotten 16-17 on a couple occasions. But hills/wind on interstates kills it to 14-12mpg... and commuting to work across a small town? 12-10mpg, winter being the worst. I don't have a pure city number but it's probably around 10 right now... choke and fast idle likely to blame.

-Towing: Not super great, but what one would expect from a 1980's stock half ton. OD and cruise do not mix, even on an empty trailer (to be fair, the trailer has a 1700lb dry weight). Decent bit of squat too... but then again, I don't have the towing package (or even aftermarket airbags), so I'm not supposed to tow. MPG suffers a bit, but that's what one would expect. If looking to tow, I'd suggest 3.55's. Heck, I'm tempted to regear to 3.55 just as a drivability improvement (as it was a stock option, and was standard on high-alititude).

I've not been able to keep up as I'm on vacation and just spent two days at Disney World. (Or, was that two weeks? Maybe I was too weak? )

Cory kind of outlined the problem - an F150 didn't get the ZF5 and a 351W didn't get the M5OD. So if you want a manual in an F150 then it is either the 300 or 302. I think I could live with either, but I'd want the right gearing - the 300 can handle tall gearing better than the 302 can. And with 3.55 gears, an M5OD, and 31" tires you'd be turning 2000 @ 65 MPH. I think a 300 would be fine with that, but I'm not sure a 302 would? (The "?" was meant to say "I really don't know.")

Then there's the 1st gear to get things rolling. The M5 has a 3.9 gear first gear, so if you were to go to a higher rear end it might be a pain getting things rolling when towing, especially w/a 302.

Given all of that I think I'd lean to a 300 with 3.55 gears.

[Nothing Special]

I've not been able to keep up as I'm on vacation and just spent two days at Disney World. (Or, was that two weeks? Maybe I was too weak? )

Cory kind of outlined the problem - an F150 didn't get the ZF5 and a 351W didn't get the M5OD. So if you want a manual in an F150 then it is either the 300 or 302. I think I could live with either, but I'd want the right gearing - the 300 can handle tall gearing better than the 302 can. And with 3.55 gears, an M5OD, and 31" tires you'd be turning 2000 @ 65 MPH. I think a 300 would be fine with that, but I'm not sure a 302 would? (The "?" was meant to say "I really don't know.")

Then there's the 1st gear to get things rolling. The M5 has a 3.9 gear first gear, so if you were to go to a higher rear end it might be a pain getting things rolling when towing, especially w/a 302.

Given all of that I think I'd lean to a 300 with 3.55 gears.

Gary, I hope you're enjoying your vacation! Lesley and I will be at Walt Disney World again soon as well!

(I know this sounds like I have my mind made up on the 302. I really don't, and I still want more discussion on this if people are willing. But most of the recommendations are coming for the 300, so I'm more taking the other side here to keep the discussion going.)

Keeping in mind that this will be a "project vehicle" (if it ever actually comes to be), there's no problem with an F-150 with a 302 and a ZF5, or a 351 and a Mazda trans, or whatever engine/trans combination I decide on with whatever gears I want.

My concern with the 300 is that I'm afraid the mileage will fall off pretty badly if it's over-taxed, and I'm afraid that it would be overtaxed pretty easily. Now maybe some low axle gears would prevent that, at the expense of empty mileage. But maybe a Gear Vendors would address that. Or maybe a turbo would let it pull a little taller gears.

Also I'm thinking a 300 (at least without a turbo) has a relatively narrow torque curve. It does well down low, but sort of falls on its face as it winds out. So the narrower splits of the Mazda trans might be a better fit for it. (A ZF5 with Gear Vendors would have narrower splits as well, but if a lot of shifting is needed it might be nicer having a lighter-shifting trans.)

The 302 is known as a revver, but on paper at least it has more torque everywhere on its torque curve than a 300 does. Again, I know that's on paper, that lots of people love the 300 as a truck motor, no one ever claims the 302 is a great truck motor and Ford never put the 302 into anything heavier than a standard 3/4 ton while the 300 went into medium-duty trucks. Still, if it has it on paper it can't be all that terrible. And I do have some experience with the 302 in my Bronco, which I wouldn't call a great truck engine, but it isn't terrible.

As a revver the 302 gets into the "don't fear the gear" zone. I hear the mileage doesn't really fall off as you go up to even 4.10 gears. I have 4.10s and 33" tires on my Bronco with an NV3550 (similar to the Mazda 5 speed). It has more than enough low-end torque to get rolling with about a 3000 lb trailer (the heaviest I've ever towed with it). And I'm told I'd get similar if not better mileage if I went to 4.56 gears (pushing a lifted brick through the air with 33" tires).

I think the 302 also has a wider torque band than the 300. It certainly goes higher, and while it doesn't have the reputation for low end that the 300 has, it doesn't completely fall off there either. So a 302 should be able to pull wider gear spreads, which is why I'm thinking a ZF5 might be a good choice there. A significantly lower first gear than the Mazda trans to get things going, but still a good (better?) overdrive ratio for cruising.

[Gary Lewis]

Gary, I hope you're enjoying your vacation! Lesley and I will be at Walt Disney World again soon as well!

(I know this sounds like I have my mind made up on the 302. I really don't, and I still want more discussion on this if people are willing. But most of the recommendations are coming for the 300, so I'm more taking the other side here to keep the discussion going.)

Keeping in mind that this will be a "project vehicle" (if it ever actually comes to be), there's no problem with an F-150 with a 302 and a ZF5, or a 351 and a Mazda trans, or whatever engine/trans combination I decide on with whatever gears I want.

My concern with the 300 is that I'm afraid the mileage will fall off pretty badly if it's over-taxed, and I'm afraid that it would be overtaxed pretty easily. Now maybe some low axle gears would prevent that, at the expense of empty mileage. But maybe a Gear Vendors would address that. Or maybe a turbo would let it pull a little taller gears.

Also I'm thinking a 300 (at least without a turbo) has a relatively narrow torque curve. It does well down low, but sort of falls on its face as it winds out. So the narrower splits of the Mazda trans might be a better fit for it. (A ZF5 with Gear Vendors would have narrower splits as well, but if a lot of shifting is needed it might be nicer having a lighter-shifting trans.)

The 302 is known as a revver, but on paper at least it has more torque everywhere on its torque curve than a 300 does. Again, I know that's on paper, that lots of people love the 300 as a truck motor, no one ever claims the 302 is a great truck motor and Ford never put the 302 into anything heavier than a standard 3/4 ton while the 300 went into medium-duty trucks. Still, if it has it on paper it can't be all that terrible. And I do have some experience with the 302 in my Bronco, which I wouldn't call a great truck engine, but it isn't terrible.

As a revver the 302 gets into the "don't fear the gear" zone. I hear the mileage doesn't really fall off as you go up to even 4.10 gears. I have 4.10s and 33" tires on my Bronco with an NV3550 (similar to the Mazda 5 speed). It has more than enough low-end torque to get rolling with about a 3000 lb trailer (the heaviest I've ever towed with it). And I'm told I'd get similar if not better mileage if I went to 4.56 gears (pushing a lifted brick through the air with 33" tires).

I think the 302 also has a wider torque band than the 300. It certainly goes higher, and while it doesn't have the reputation for low end that the 300 has, it doesn't completely fall off there either. So a 302 should be able to pull wider gear spreads, which is why I'm thinking a ZF5 might be a good choice there. A significantly lower first gear than the Mazda trans to get things going, but still a good (better?) overdrive ratio for cruising.

We did enjoy it, but so did waaaaay too many others. But the kids and grandkids really liked it.

Ok, so it is a project truck and you can change anything. That being the case, why not a 3.5L Ecoboost? It'll do everything you want to do in grand style. We have Blue on this trip as we took a roll-top desk, bicycle, and three totes/boxes of dishes, yearbooks, and keepsakes - plus our own luggage. And the MPG is running about 18 in spite of yesterday cruising at 80 - 85. Plus, at one point we ran 50 MPH on flat ground for a long way and I saw 22 MPG average.

As for towing, I'd much rather tow with it in the F150 than the 460 in the F250. It has all the torque needed and it'll give it to you at basically any RPM - just ask.

But on to your comments. First, I agree about the ZF5 not being fun to shift. I like my ZF5, but you cannot hurry it. So the M5OD might be a better choice.

But I don't know that I can agree that the 302 has a "wider" torque range. In fact, I don't know what that really is as both engines put out some torque in the same range - although you might not get the 300 to the same RPM as the 302. Instead we ought to compare the curves and zero in on the range that will be used. But I've not found charts for both engines, although I did find these #'s for the 302:

1500 rpm = 275#

2000 rpm = 302#

2500 rpm = 315#

3000 rpm = 327#

3500 rpm = 350#

4000 rpm = 362#

4500 rpm = 379#

5000 rpm = 356#

5500 rpm = 348#

6000 rpm = 315# (Redline)

[Nothing Special]

We did enjoy it, but so did waaaaay too many others. But the kids and grandkids really liked it.

Ok, so it is a project truck and you can change anything. That being the case, why not a 3.5L Ecoboost? It'll do everything you want to do in grand style. We have Blue on this trip as we took a roll-top desk, bicycle, and three totes/boxes of dishes, yearbooks, and keepsakes - plus our own luggage. And the MPG is running about 18 in spite of yesterday cruising at 80 - 85. Plus, at one point we ran 50 MPH on flat ground for a long way and I saw 22 MPG average.

As for towing, I'd much rather tow with it in the F150 than the 460 in the F250. It has all the torque needed and it'll give it to you at basically any RPM - just ask.

But on to your comments. First, I agree about the ZF5 not being fun to shift. I like my ZF5, but you cannot hurry it. So the M5OD might be a better choice.

But I don't know that I can agree that the 302 has a "wider" torque range. In fact, I don't know what that really is as both engines put out some torque in the same range - although you might not get the 300 to the same RPM as the 302. Instead we ought to compare the curves and zero in on the range that will be used. But I've not found charts for both engines, although I did find these #'s for the 302:

1500 rpm = 275#

2000 rpm = 302#

2500 rpm = 315#

3000 rpm = 327#

3500 rpm = 350#

4000 rpm = 362#

4500 rpm = 379#

5000 rpm = 356#

5500 rpm = 348#

6000 rpm = 315# (Redline)

I'm not going to go with an EcoBoost. That would be a more complicated swap than I'm up for. I'm going to stick with parts that came out of this vintage truck as they will go in easier. (I have thought about a Chevy LS swap. A little more complicated than '90s Ford parts, but with a lot of aftermarket support. But I think I don't really want to go there either.)

As to torque curves I found where a guy posted the dyno numbers off his 300. Not apples to apples as Gary's 302 numbers were a different source/method. But to compare:

300 302

1500 rpm 275 lb-ft

1800 rpm 224 lb-ft

2000 rpm 228 lb-ft 302 lb-ft

2200 rpm 238 lb-ft

2500 rpm 231 lb-ft 315 lb-ft

2700 rpm 227 lb-ft

3000 rpm 222 lb-ft 350 lb-ft

3400 rpm 200 lb-ft

3500 rpm 195 lb-ft

4000 rpm 362 lb-ft

4500 rpm 379 lb-ft

5000 rpm 356 lb-ft

5500 rpm 348 lb-ft

6000 rpm 315 lb-ft

Taking those numbers at face value, the 302 definitely has a wider torque curve, and has more torque than the 302 everywhere on the curve (which is what I've heard before).

But I do have to question your numbers on the 302. 315 lb-ft at 6000 rpm is 360 hp, which seems incredible (as in not being credible) for a stockish 302.