(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

O.T. opinions,comments on 4.2 V6 vs 4.9 straight 6

B

bradley martin

Well-known Member
How does the Ford 4.2 litre V6 compare to the 4.9 l (300 ci) it replaced. I have had 4 pickups w/ the 300 tied to a 5 speed manual and have been quite satisfied w/ performance and durability for what I use a pickup for. Any comments appreciated as I am looking to replace my current one (road salt, rust through).
 
They don't.

4.2 is a stroked 3.8 Mustag motor. Only difference is the crank and pistons. No low end torque, all the power is in RPMs.

I have one in a 98 full size van that can not hold speed on a moderate grade empty. Barely holds speed on flat ground loaded.

Get a V8.....
 
(quoted from post at 20:54:45 09/19/12) How does the Ford 4.2 litre V6 compare to the 4.9 l (300 ci) it replaced. I have had 4 pickups w/ the 300 tied to a 5 speed manual and have been quite satisfied w/ performance and durability for what I use a pickup for. Any comments appreciated as I am looking to replace my current one (road salt, rust through).
Click to expand...
he V6 dimensions better fit transverse mounting , but still fit longitudinal uses, so one engine fits more applications = cost savings. Common machine tooling with other currently produced engines =cost savings. Lighter weight = cost savings. The answer is ALWAYS the same......follow the money. Why do people even bother to ask????!!!!!!
 
I haven't personally owned a 4.2, but know some who have. In June of 2011 I traveled from Northern Michigan to North Carolina to buy a 1996 F150 4x4 with the 4.9 and a 5 speed. Reason I went that far was the rust issue, and I like that engine trans combo. I have had 4 previous 4.9's and obviously prefer them. Not sure what my next one will be if I can't find another with a decent body.
 
Just know of one V6 where I drink coffee, I have never drove it or rode in it. He drives it to work 50 miles one way. Says gets good mileage,better than 20. It is 4X4 Extended cab. Everybody here thinks you should get the Eco-boost V6. V8 power and better gas mileage than a regular V6. Also on the Eco-boost you need to gear them as fast as you can get them. Something like 3.31. They have amazing low end torque. 3.73 just makes them use more gas.
 
other than 2 cid different than the v-8, the 300cid that got fuel-injected ran supurb for torque, power.. wished ford would have keep it,but like always, a company can screwed up a good meal..
 
My son has a '98 2wd with the 4.2 and standard and I have a 2002 4wd extended cab with a 5.4 and automatic, and he only gets slightly better mileage than I do, but I have tons of power. I pull loaded grain wagons and hay wagons with mine, but I would never do that with his if it were mine. I would not go back to a 4.2 myself. If I was buying new I think I would get an ecoboost. I have friends with them and they love them, better gas mileage than a V6 and better power than a V8.
 
I absolutely loved the 2001 f150 I had with a 4.2. Got right at 20 MPG and pulled any load I put behind it. Never would win a race, but got me there every time.

Low end torque or high end torque are both torque, and they both get the job done.

Ford discontinued the 4.9 because of mileage and emissions regulations that could not be met with the old design.
 

hummm....
"Ford discontinued the 4.9 because of mileage and emissions regulations that could not be met with the old design."
...and YOU know that........exactly how?
In-line to a V changes mileage & emissions???????? Come on !!!!!
 
(quoted from post at 20:15:28 09/19/12)
hummm....
"Ford discontinued the 4.9 because of mileage and emissions regulations that could not be met with the old design."
...and YOU know that........exactly how?
In-line to a V changes mileage & emissions???????? Come on !!!!!
Click to expand...

I did read an article that was in car rag, they interviewed someone from Ford management and ask about 4.9 being discontinued. The guy said they did that because to meet emissions and mileage standards, lack of sales and the weight of the engine. Now way of knowing if he was telling the truth.

I would be more inclined to believe that they did it to cut weight in an effort to get batter mileage and the fact that GM and Morpar had both gone over to V6 engines. Average buyer don't know much about a vehicle anymore. If GM, Mopar, Nission and Toyota are all sell V6 engines logic follows that it's a better design and more moderen.....but that's just a guess.

Rick
 
Hands down, the 4.9 was one of the best workhorses Ford ever built. Within limits, of course. By design an inline engine will develop more low end toque than a V-engine. I hated to see them discontinued also. I have owned more six cylinder Fords than V-8s. When I worked at a dealership, a company from out of state brought an F-150 in with a 4.2 engine. (They worked on power lines or some such). The truck had over 200,000 miles on it and they swore that it had never been tuned up! 'Course it ran like had never been tuned up too. A good tune up and she was back "on the road again"
 
I had a early 90s F-150 with the 4.9 Liter 6 cyl. It got 18 MPG. The best I ever got was 19 and I was real soft on accelerations and I never would speed with it. That truck had 2 gas tanks in it. 37 gallon capacity total. I ran the pizz out of that thing.
That truck became a rust heap and I sold it in 2003 for cheap.
 
(quoted from post at 23:40:44 09/19/12)
(quoted from post at 20:15:28 09/19/12)
hummm....
"Ford discontinued the 4.9 because of mileage and emissions regulations that could not be met with the old design."
...and YOU know that........exactly how?
In-line to a V changes mileage & emissions???????? Come on !!!!!
Click to expand...

I did read an article that was in car rag, they interviewed someone from Ford management and ask about 4.9 being discontinued. The guy said they did that because to meet emissions and mileage standards, lack of sales and the weight of the engine. Now way of knowing if he was telling the truth.

I would be more inclined to believe that they did it to cut weight in an effort to get batter mileage and the fact that GM and Morpar had both gone over to V6 engines. Average buyer don't know much about a vehicle anymore. If GM, Mopar, Nission and Toyota are all sell V6 engines logic follows that it's a better design and more moderen.....but that's just a guess.

Rick
Click to expand...
he primary reason for moving from inline to V configuration is packaging........it fits the front wheel drive transverse mounting much better than the long inline engine (Yes, I know the PU isn't FWD, but same basic engine used in multitude of Ford cars). Side benefits for many, including 4.2L Ford V6s (and those first Buick V6s & first Chevy truck V6s) is that by compromising the design of a proper included V-angle, they were able to use existing V8 tooling (major cost factor), but sacrificed balance/vibration to obtain this cost benefit. When manufacturer starts from scratch, with a clean sheet of paper & an all new factory/tooling, etc. they design a V6 with the proper 60 degree V configuration for optimum balance/vibration characteristics, but still not as ideal as inline in that regard. Like most things in life, compromise/trade-offs are the name of the game. Torque is largely a factor of geometry (long stroke & long rod), which could be achieved with any inline or V configuration. However, long stroke & long rod designs make the package larger, not in best interest of compact size or weight. Nothing is ever simple.
 
I've had both - still have the V6. Wish it were the small V8.
3 or 4 times a year I pull a 5000# trailer - runs good on level ground. I CANNOT get better than 18.6 mpg.

And had a close call with the leaking intake manifold gasket problem at 65,000 miles. Ford split the cost 50/50.
 
Coming from a Ford Parts Manager.. Me.

If you live in Flat country a 4.2 will treat you
OK if you treat it OK.. But you would do much
better in mileage & performace with a small V8.
Personally I am not fond of this engine, I've
never been fond of the 3.8 engine family. I
know of some that Run & Run & some that Don't.
 
how do they explain the inline 5 and 6 cyl in the Gm suvs? lol Never try to outguess auto engineers . They are from another planet I think.
 
Please do not take a differeing opinion personally!

The 4.9 could not meet emissions and economy regulations.

New chevy inlines are different designs.
 
And those are a new design design too. Chevy doesn't produce the old 292 I6 either. Their I6 was the base engine in the Trailblazer helping ad production numbers to the engine. Ford always used a V6 as the base engine in the Explorer.

Ford went to the 4.2 V6 because they could use it in both FWD (vans) and RWD applications. If they built a new I6 to meet new EPA and CAFE standards they could have only used it in pickups, the lower volume making the engine more expensive - the end driving up the cost their base truck.

The Ford 390 was a great workhorse engine. It was dropped in the late 70s because it couldn't meet emissions or fuel mileage requirements either. The Windsor engines were dropped in the late 1990s and early 2000s for the same reason.

That being said the 2V 4.6 V8 is a much better engine than the 4.2 V6 in both mileage and durability.
 
The 4.2 V6 is a light duty engine for light duty trucks. The 4.9 I6 was a low powered heavy duty engine in a light duty truck. If you drive your pickup like a car and only occassionally haul a load the 4.2 will get better fuel mileage and last well over 200K - as long as its not a 1997 model. As long as you have a good radiator the 4.9 can take being abused and used hard much better.

The biggest problem with the 4.9 I6 is the MD50 (5 speed) transmission that is behind most of them. My company had 16 of the these - 8 failed with less than 50K on the clock.
 
And not many Ford techs are fond of the 3.8 engine family either! Can you say, "Not another d@##ned head gasket job today!" ?
 
Sounds like your company had a lot of people who didn't know how to use a clutch...
Ford has used the M50D in most if not all of their light trucks now for probably 25 plus years. I'm on my third one now... one in an F150 and two Rangers. Once Ranger gave some slave cylinder trouble but that's been the only complaint in half a million miles between them....

Rod
 
It's going to be real hard to follow the 300 six that is a lot of the problem the 4.2 has. The old 300 (or 4.9) six was one of the best light TRUCK engines ever made plenty of low end torque and they'd run longer than most folks would care to drive 'em. Post on here the other day, yes and actual tractor post, had some one asking how come the new tractors have smaller engines that turn faster? Think about a John Deere A- what that was about 35 HP? and it was 327 cubic inches and ran at about 1200 RPM. Betcha a new 35 HP tractor is about 100 cubic inches and probably makes PTO speed at about 3000 RPMs. My major concern about the 4.2 and the new Eco-boost is the ability of the selling dealers to be able to service the darn thing. I know the dealer that sold me my F-150 couldn't make the 4.6 V8 run right and Ford was not inclined or able to make it actually run on all 8 cylinders. It finally got fixed when I crawled under the hood and learned how to change injectors, amazing how much better they run when you actually get fuel to each cylinder!
 
(quoted from post at 06:50:54 09/20/12) The 4.2 V6 is a light duty engine for light duty trucks. The 4.9 I6 was a low powered heavy duty engine in a light duty truck. If you drive your pickup like a car and only occassionally haul a load the 4.2 will get better fuel mileage and last well over 200K - as long as its not a 1997 model. As long as you have a good radiator the 4.9 can take being abused and used hard much better.

The biggest problem with the 4.9 I6 is the MD50 (5 speed) transmission that is behind most of them. My company had 16 of the these - 8 failed with less than 50K on the clock.
Click to expand...
OOT, People are still ragging on the MD50 X/MIS. I put nearly 200000 miles on one and sometimes it was worked hard.Really hard.Not a single problem,not even aleak.
As far as the 300 CI six is concerned very few gas fueled straight 6's could take the abuse this engine took with the 292 GM a very close second. I loved them both.
 
Bradly, we must sit down and weep together.
I think I will get a very basic truck 2 door with 8 foot box with eco boost and 6 speed, maybe trailer package so the FORD TRANS doesn't crash and burn in normal Ford Fashion in the first few years.
Later Bob
 
I have a 96 with 230000 Km one clutch an that's all, trans is still good, shift up and keep the revs low then it will not over heat. Likes to run around 15 to 18 hundred. Too bad she is rusted out so bad.
Later Bob
 
Biggest problem with the M5OD was the driver. They don't take ruff shifting and gear slamming at all. Drive em nice and they last a long time.

Rick
 
They didn't have clutch problems. The clutch lasted longer than the transmission. The MD50 was a Mazda built transmission that had bad habit of losing first then second gear.
 
Most Ranges have a Mitsubishi 5 speed transmission from the mid 1980s on. They are pretty good tranmissions as long as you don't wait to long to replace the input bearing when it goes bad.
 
I went from an '85 F-150 w/ 300-6 and automatic regular cab 2wd to a new 2000 F-150 4.2L w/ manual trans. and 3.55 gearing. The worst decision I ever made! The 2000 had noticebly more top end power, however the '85 would pull all day long. The '85 was all around much more truck as well. I say find a nice clean truck with the 300-6.
 
Thank the lord . Those were an expensive motor to work on . timing issues, vale issues . broken head bolts . Last one I had in shop for burned intake valve ended up close to 4200 parts and labor .
 
Thanks people for all your comments. I guess I will continue to be patient and hope to find that low mileage, no salt, cream puff from '94,'95 or '96.!!!!
 
...and they lose those gears because of the jackrabbits in the seat. If you don't fully clutch them those transmissions don't fully syncronize and over time they get harder and harder to shift.

I can assure you, most Rangers, or at least the fwd models have the M50D. I'm talking 90's vintage and newer. We've had a 92, 98 and now and 07 all with the same transmission.

Rod
 
getting rid of the 300 was the worst move ford ever made, the engine was around for decades in one form or another had good low end touque and decent gas milage durability was great ive drove these engines in everything from a 1/2 ton pickup to a 2 ton f600, it was fords best engine, maybe the 289 v8 was close, the v-6 ive drove was a gutless wonder, guess some 20 something designer thinks he's improving something by replacing the 300, but it didnt work , simple law of physics, a inline configured engine will always without exception out torque a v configured engine of the same displacement, which is why the vast majority of heavy trucks on the road have inline 6 cylinder engines , even then the rules apply drive a big truck with say a v8 cat engine, then drive the same size truck with say a 3406 cat, no comparison! ive drove both,running against a hill with a load, and the inline 6, 3406 will just run off and leave the v-8, never understood why the car makers cant figure that one out?
 
I have had fantastic luck with the old 4.9 fuel injected and carburated. The 4.9 has been gone for some time and I was looking for a clean used F150, 4.9, 5 speed, short box, with air. I wasnt having much luck finding one but I did find a super super clean 1996 f150 that had never been out of arizona untill I bought it. Its a 5.0, long bed with an automatic trans. The 4.9 will kick the snot out of the 5.0 and burn less gas doing it!
 
dont buy those newer crap trucks the 300 straight 6 will last forever and they are a powerhouse im sure you wont get nothing from the v6 like the straight 6 has. i have 3 straight 6s one running on 5 cyls.
 

The 4.9 was available in 3/4 and 1 ton trucks....guess where the 4.2 can't be found lol.

That says something right there.

To me, to only reason to get a 4.2 powered F-150 is to get a 5-speed manual, especially in the last few years of manual F-150 production, 4.2 2wd was the only way to get a stick.

I had a 4.2 in a Freestar van, had the mandatory 4-speed auto had NEVER gave more than 20 MPG.


I sort of kicked myself several years ago, had a chance to buy a 1996 F150 300 5-speed 4x4 (manual hubs and shifter) reg cab 8 foot, WITH A/C and Tach, off lease in 1999 and next to no km's on it. I passed on it...I'd likely still be driving that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top