Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Tractor Talk Discussion Forum

Bring back the '83 Ford!

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
e

04-18-2008 22:13:51




Report to Moderator

I was searching around Youtube tonight and ran across this ad from back in the day for an '83 ford 1/2 ton straight six. They were advertising the mileage being 20 city 30 highway! I didn't think that was too bad. Sure the new ones have more get up and go and creature comforts, but it would be nice to own something that simple that gets that type of mileage :)




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
RN

04-20-2008 02:44:04




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
Have a couple dodge D150s 82, 84. the 82 miser has 2.93 rear end and 4th/high is not usable going uphill with load. 84 has a 3.54 rear end , otherwise same slant six and 4 speed with 4th as overdrive. 4th gear is usable from 45 instead or getting to 55 and shift like early one. Mileage is about the same , low geared rear easier to take off with light trailer in back. Gave up on trailer on early one, put 14 inch tires on back to help a bit. Was a fair work truck if you figured it was more of a 3speed instead of usable 4 speed. 15- 20 mpg depend on town or 55 hiway cruise. 91 ford E250 has 300 6 and c6 tranny for general hauling and ligh trailer towing- the e4od tranny spit out fluid going to Chicago couple years back- heard its known to happen to others. RN

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
495man

04-19-2008 09:20:14




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
I see it says with the optional 4-speed O/D manual...
aka geared HIGH....the t-18 4-speed "granny low" was a much better choice for towing and hauling.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Kentb of SWMO

04-19-2008 08:20:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
No truck is going to get very good milage because they have the aerodynamics of a BRICK. To make a truck useful as a truck it has to be geared right. A 2.73 rear gear and a four speed trans with 4 overdrive IS NOT truck gears. I hate to break this to our government but powerfulk as they MIGHT be they CAN NOT legislate PHYSICS.

Kent



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
B-maniac

04-19-2008 21:00:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to Kentb of SWMO, 04-19-2008 08:20:47  
Aerodynamics on a 55-65 mph vehicle is tripping over dollars to pick up pennies. It's a marketing ploy and worst of all , it worked. Put 40mpg mechanicals in a brick or a rounded off turd and they will both get 40 mpg...



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Wesley Stephens

04-19-2008 07:11:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
I had a hand-me-down 82 F-100 with the 3.8 V-6 and 3 spd. It would get about 17, but the bearings gave out and I put a 302 in it. I also had an 84 F-150 with a 302 and an automatic and it would get about 16 with a 4 bbl. That 82 was just too light to do anything with. I have a 2005 F-150 now with the V-6 and I have hauled a 175 Massey Ferguson on a very heavy trailer with no problems. I have also pulled 6 newly baled 1200 lb. rolls of hay behind it on multiple occasions. It will get 18-19 on the highway and is much more powerful and is built sturdier than the 80's model trucks, not to mention much superior brakes.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
PJBROWN VT

04-19-2008 06:39:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
we had a chevy c-10 2 wheel drive with a small 6 in it. It had a car transmission in it 4 speed on the floor ... The thing was gear so high you couldn't do much with it. They called it a transporter not a truck. I guess it was made for transporting light things not as a work truck. I always wanted to know what would happen if someone put a V8 in that truck with the high speed rear end and transmission. It might of went 200 MPH!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
PJBROWN VT

04-19-2008 06:36:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
we had a chevy c-10 2 wheel drive with a small 6 in it. It had a car transmission in it 4 speed on the floor ... The thing was gear so high you couldn't do much with it. They called it a transporter not a truck. I guess it was made for transporting light things not as a work truck. I always wanted to know what would happen if someone put a V8 in that truck with the high speed rear end and transmission. It might of went 200 MPH!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jdemaris

04-19-2008 05:08:00




Report to Moderator
 That is just plain silly . . . in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
Those figures are just plain rediculous. I had several - they never got anywhere near that good mileage. I also had a few with the smaller version of the 300 engine - the 240. No better on fuel, just less power. 21 MPG was the high limit with any of them and 14-16 MPG "around town."

My father-in-law, a retired Ford engineer, buys a new 1/2 ton truck every two years up until Ford stopped making the 300 six. He still has his 1995 F150. He has records of every drop of fuel he's ever used since the late 1950s - and all in flat highway areas of Michigan. The best fuel mileage he ever recorded with a 1/2 truck and 300 six was 21 MPG. His overall fuel mileage average for his 1995 with the 300 is 13 MPG. He also had many Ford Explorers - all with 4 liter engines and 5 speed manual transmissions. Best mileage ever was 24.5 MPG, with 21.5 being the usual highway mileage. He DID get 31 MPG with a 1960 Ford Falcon - on a few long highway trips - but that's a far cry from a 1/2 ton truck with a 300 c.i. engine.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Texasmark

04-19-2008 06:14:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: That is just plain silly . . . in reply to jdemaris, 04-19-2008 05:08:00  
Hey jd. I was in the service when a buddy bought the first of those Falcons. Had the small 6 of 85 hp as I recall (brake hp) with the little 13" tires, 2 door, unibody, and column stick shift. I don't think he even had a radio in it.

It was a basic car but no doubt as to it's quality. Ford really outdid themselves on that one in designing a quality product to fit the low income driver. Really tight and just felt good and secure. He got 30 miles to a gallon when he took it easy. Will never forget that. At the time I couldn't believe his numbers.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jose bagge

04-19-2008 04:15:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
I bought a new F-150 in '84, and you have to remember what those trucks were like:
300 ci 6, 3 speed w/ OD, 2.73 rear, 197/75-15 tires (VW Bug size). It DID get great gas mileage- and it was great for hauling a couple of sheets of plywood, or the trash to the dump. But with that trans and those gears, it wasn't pulling squat. It was $5999 new- bought it from a female sales lady named Shelby.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MarkB_MI

04-19-2008 03:35:06




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
There is no way that a full-size pickup can get that kind of mileage.

I had a nice 1980 1/2 ton Chevy with a 250 six and a granny four speed. As I recall, it would get around 18 mpg on highway driving back when the speed limit was 55 mph.

I later had an '88 Chevy with a 350 and overdrive automatic. About 18 mpg highway at 55 mph.

Pickups have gotten bigger and more powerful since then, but mileage has stayed about the same.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
fergienewbee

04-19-2008 02:10:53




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
I've driven Ford 300 sixes for longer than I can remember. All seemed good for 240,000 miles plus. On hunting trips, I averaged around 18-20 mpg mostly I-80 miles. Driving a '91 right now.

Larry



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Tom 43

04-19-2008 00:08:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
I am afraid you are seeing the past through rose colored glasses. There was nothing simple about 1983 vehicles as they were controlled by a multitude of computer controlled and electro-mechanical emission devices.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jose bagge

04-19-2008 04:23:00




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to Tom 43, 04-19-2008 00:08:08  
actually, that may have been the last of the simple ones to work with.It was still carburated (thru 85, I think), and the most complex thing I had to deal with was grinding down the sides of a 1/4" drive socket to paper-thin so that I could swap out the ignition module ( pretty common on all Fords of that generation). BUT- I put 3 clutches in it over a 100,000 mile lifetime because of that OD trans and the 2.73 rear. 1st gear was good for about 35mph- freaking Bonneville gears!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Old Iron

04-18-2008 22:50:04




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  

e said: (quoted from post at 22:13:51 04/18/08) I was searching around Youtube tonight and ran across this ad from back in the day for an '83 ford 1/2 ton straight six. They were advertising the mileage being 20 city 30 highway! I didn't think that was too bad. Sure the new ones have more get up and go and creature comforts, but it would be nice to own something that simple that gets that type of mileage :)


I once owned a 1983 Ford 1/2 ton straight six (300 CID), and it didn't get anywhere close to that MPG.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
john in la

04-19-2008 00:28:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to Old Iron, 04-18-2008 22:50:04  
I have to agree with you Old Iron.
I have a 1981 F150 300 6 cyl with 3 on the tree parked out back right now because I wanted a newer truck that got better mileage. If I remember correct it got about 15 mpg.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RobMD

04-18-2008 22:39:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
30 mpg highway is a little extreme.

My 1989 F150 with 3.07 gears and 5 speed manual behind the 4.9L straight-six got about 21 on the highway and 16 on the backroads.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
e

04-18-2008 22:14:40




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:13:51  
Here's the video



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
T-Rev

04-18-2008 22:48:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to e, 04-18-2008 22:14:40  
I'd be at the dealers lot first thing Monday morning!
NO ONE needs a 300 hp half ton pickup. And 95% of the heavy duty owners could get by with a 1500.

At work we put 30,000 miles a year on stripped down company F-250's, and 90% of it is highway driving. Thats for highway construction. This is the case for most company, construction, or farm pickups in America. 90% of the time empty or just hauling small tools or other stuff you could use a Ranger for. If you can prove to me that you need a modern HD pickup, then I'll prove that someone did the exact same thing in 1965 with a 6 cylinder F100. An F100 that was about half as powerful or sturdy as a new F150.
Remember when you could get a 3500 six cylinder Chevy in the 90's?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jose bagge

04-19-2008 04:18:56




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to T-Rev, 04-18-2008 22:48:22  
yep, we had a CREW CAB 3/4 ton chevy with a six in it....and you used to be able to get a Dump Truck with the 292 ci 6 in it as well!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Texasmark

04-19-2008 06:20:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to jose bagge, 04-19-2008 04:18:56  
Yeah, I remember those inline 6 Chevy days. They had a smaller 6 also didn't they, like 242 or something close to the later 250. Pulling the loads you are talking about worked their bazzuis off.....course that was back when in Texas, the speed limit was 60 so it didn't matter that much.

I don't remember whether or not their 6's had OHV's from day 1 or not. I do remember people talking about their "babbit" engine bearings being soft, but that is what they are today aren't they; tin plating over a copper race?

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jose bagge

04-19-2008 14:42:57




Report to Moderator
 Re: Bring back the '83 Ford! in reply to Texasmark, 04-19-2008 06:20:38  
based on that late 6 cyl bock, they had a 194 ci, 230, 250 and a 292. Used to race in a 6cyl oval track class with some wildly modified 250 ci chevies, 240 fords and 258 AMCs...



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


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. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 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