Thinking of swapping the ranger for a half ton

[Chapap]

Want something bigger. Ideally (ignoring gas $) I’d get a 92-96 f series with crew cab. No reason. Just like the look. As far as I can tell, crew cabs were only on 2 and 350s back then. I like the straight six engine too, but I think the crew cabs all have some huge engine that gets 9mpg.

I’m currently planning on looking at a 95, ext cab, short bed, manual, 6cyl f150 this weekend. What would yall pick for a $5000 half ton?

 

[Blmpkn]

Squarebody GM

 

[Curious Hound]

Squarebody GM

Blasphemy!

 

[superj]

you are getting bad gas mileage with the I6 in the f150. my 95 short bed f150 with the 300 inline 6, though an automatic transmission, got worse than my extended cab 85 f150 with 302 and auto.

i don't know why but it always bugged me that the six got worse gas mileage. i agree that is a great choice though, for a half ton. maybe the standard transmission will help with the mpg?

 

[Chapap]

you are getting bad gas mileage with the I6 in the f150. my 95 short bed f150 with the 300 inline 6, though an automatic transmission, got worse than my extended cab 85 f150 with 302 and auto.

i don't know why but it always bugged me that the six got worse gas mileage. i agree that is a great choice though, for a half ton. maybe the standard transmission will help with the mpg?

I’ve done a good bit of reading about this era of Ford engines. I forget the specifics, but with a lot of tinkering with gearing, folks have gotten to the upper teens with the 300 and 302. The 460, 490, and diesels can get into the double digits.

 

[superj]

i don't know the gearing on the two i had so maybe that was different too. the extended cab was an 85 f150 with the ho 302 and auto transmission in an xlt lariat. the single cab was the 300 and auto trans in a more base model. i don't know which because it was painted like an eddie bauer and had the stickers on it but had hte rubber floor liner instead of carpet and the vinyl bench seat instead of velour or leather. neither had a tow package and both had over drive on the transmissions with dual tanks so i assume they were set up very similarly.

but the i6 got bad gas mileage

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

So my dad had an 85 F-350 dump with the diesel, 6.9 I think it was. Gearing was way wrong for it, but it was getting 16-18 mpg and improving when he sold it. He then had an 89 and 94 F-350 dump with the 460s. All were 2wd manual with 4.10 limited slip rear. 460s all got 8 mpg around town, 9 on the highway. Of course, they also didn’t care if they were empty or full, fuel economy was the same. I have the 94 now and want to see if I can give it a few tweaks when I put it back together and see if I can pick up a little power/fuel economy. Not really expecting much but we shall see.

My 95 F-150 reg cab 8’ bed has the 300 with a ZF5 out of a F-250 and 3.55 gears. It’s about a solid 12 mpg. Not at all fast, but it will drag anything I hook it to. It has pulled a couple 30-40’ trees out by the roots. The torque this thing produces is impressive. I’ve wanted a crew cab long bed of similar vintage, but really don’t need one right now. Thing is about as reliable as a rock, it has that IDGAF attitude. It has also developed a taste for driveshaft U-joints, think I’ve put a new one in about every 3 years and I’ve done the front axle joints and front driveshaft twice. Not sure if it’s the quality of the joints or if it’s just a mix of stupid power and being in the rusty steel buckle of the rust belt. Maybe a bit of all.

 

[holyford86]

... being in the rusty steel buckle of the rust belt ...

Northern NY has entered the chat

 

[Chapap]

A couple years ago there were a ton more crew cabs for sale. Now I’ve only found two. One is a 460 so that’s out. The other is a dually with 7.3 idi. Very tempting.

 

[Eddo Rogue]

I have an '08 F150. Its been a great truck, although having my ranger is handy sometimes. The F150 seems either too big or too small much of the time. If I had my choice would keep the ranger for small hauls and get a 3/4 or 1 ton to replace the F150 for big stuff/ tow rig.

 

[Roert42]

'92 F-150 single cab, short bed. I6 w/ m5od-R2, 3.55 rear, 2WD. got 18MPG.

Would love to have that truck back.

No interest in extended cab or crew cab, the single cab has plenty of room behind the bench in the full size.




perfect truck would be a '72 F-250, short bed, single cab, I6 manual trans, 3.55 rear, 2WD, dual tanks, Plus those little toolboxes built into the bed sides. with an EFI carb conversion on the 300 and long tube headers. Although that would be hard to get for 5K.

 

[Eddo Rogue]

A lot of guys are running the Flat beds around there on their diesels. I see a lot of cool custom tool box beds too.

 

[Chapap]

'92 F-150 single cab, short bed. I6 w/ m5od-R2, 3.55 rear, 2WD. got 18MPG.

Would love to have that truck back.

No interest in extended cab or crew cab, the single cab has plenty of room behind the bench in the full size.




perfect truck would be a '72 F-250, short bed, single cab, I6 manual trans, 3.55 rear, 2WD, dual tanks, Plus those little toolboxes built into the bed sides. with an EFI carb conversion on the 300 and long tube headers. Although that would be hard to get for 5K.

Any idea if single cab leg room is same as ext? The ranger isn’t.

How’s 1st gear on the manual? Low enough to pull a boat out of a ramp without demolishing the clutch?

 

[Eddo Rogue]

Any idea if single cab leg room is same as ext? The ranger isn’t.

How’s 1st gear on the manual? Low enough to pull a boat out of a ramp without demolishing the clutch?

I would'nt get a manual for a tow rig. I think leg room is the same, you just get more lean back room.

 

[Roert42]

Any idea if single cab leg room is same as ext? The ranger isn’t.

How’s 1st gear on the manual? Low enough to pull a boat out of a ramp without demolishing the clutch?

I never drove a full size of that vintage with an extended cab, but for me there was plenty of leg room. You have more leg room on the single full size then in an extended cab ranger.

First gear with the stock 3.08s was terrible with the 300, either bogging down or doing a burn out. The 3.55 would be fine for dragging a small trailer.