I'd suggest looking into a first gen Dakota as well, mostly just because it might be easier to find what you're looking for. The capacity is pretty damn close to the full size, and the 3.9 is gutless but wont die.
I imagine there's more v6 dakotas around then 300 Fords anymore.
My dad had an '86 F-150 short bed 4wd with a 4-speed OD and a fiberglass cap. It got 21mpg mixed cycle. I had a 91 4wd long bed with a 5-speed. It maxed at 17 if it was lucky. Both ran okay. The 3.08:1 gearset in my truck killed it.
Probably not what y'all want to hear, but having lived with a 300 I6...
300 I6? Not for me, thanks. I lived with one for several years in a work van. What a gas guzzling, slow, pig. Yes it's tough, yes it's long lived, yes it will keep running without oil, but it's a tractor engine. There is a reason Ford abandoned it. The 4.2L V6 is a much better all around engine, is within 5 ft-lb of torque, and more HP to boot. It will also go over 300K miles, tow more than it should, and get better fuel economy than the 300 while doing it. I'd shop a little newer.
RoughandReady wrote: Did they all get gear drive? I've seen chains for sale.
Dont confuse the 240/300 "big six" truck (and some full size cars) engines with the 144/170/200/250 falcon/mustang/whatever engine. Totally different.
Your time with one has left you with your thoughts on it, but allow me to counter point...
Toyman01 said: Probably not what y'all want to hear, but having lived with a 300 I6... 300 I6? Not for me, thanks.
Lets agree to disagree.
I lived with one for several years in a work van. What a gas guzzling,
What year, OD, carb or EFI? Vans have worse aero than trucks. I was getting 20 highway out of a 5k+lb, 20', 4x4 pickup. That's pretty solid for a gas truck.
slow, pig.
Not sure about you, But mine never left me wanting something faster.
Yes it's tough, yes it's long lived, yes it will keep running without oil, but it's a tractor engine.
Thank you, I take the tractor part as a compliment.
There is a reason Ford abandoned it.
Yeah, new emissions regulations.
The 4.2L V6 is a much better all around engine, is within 5 ft-lb of torque, and more HP to boot.
TQ, at what RPM? HP is a matter of revs, and the 300 doesn't need to rev.
It will also go over 300K miles, tow more than it should, and get better fuel economy than the 300 while doing it. I'd shop a little newer.
EPA ratings matched under the old guidelines, revised the 300 has better highway.
End of the day truck vs. van is not a direct comparison, and there are a lot of variables.
lastly, nothing personal, no hard feeling, just I liked my truck and my wife is a barista and brought me a big pumpkin latte at 8pm so I can't sleep.
In reply to neon4891:
No biggie. I like my truck too, but I wouldn't go shopping for another one now. It's got a 460 under the hood. Yes it will snatch the world off the hinges, yes it's probably got more torque at 1200 rpm than a 300 or a 4.2 at any rpm, but it also gets 13 mpg. I still love the truck.
The van in question was a 94. Couldn't begin to tell you if it was carbed or EFI or what gear it had. By the time I was done with it it had over 250K on it. It ran fine until the end. It was slow, got about 13mpg and I was glad to see it go.
The 4.2 that replaced it preformed better and so have all the ones that followed. They had more usable power over the entire RPM range, and got better fuel economy. My current van is a 2002 with 370K on it. It's loaded to the gills and I regularly average 17-18 mpg and occasionally see 19-20. When it dies, I'll replace it with another just like it.
If I had a 300 powered truck, that I liked, there is no why I would sell it to buy a 4.2 truck, just like I wouldn't sell my 460 truck to buy a 4.2 truck. But, if I didn't have a truck, I'd be shopping something newer than a 300 I6 or a 460 big block. It's a personal preference thing, you honestly can't go wrong with any of them. They are all as reliable as gravity.
Grizz wrote: I'd suggest looking into a first gen Dakota as well, mostly just because it might be easier to find what you're looking for. The capacity is pretty damn close to the full size, and the 3.9 is gutless but wont die. I imagine there's more v6 dakotas around then 300 Fords anymore.
I took apart a 3.9 3 weeks ago with a special two piece crank design.
Ford didn't abandon the 300 for emissions reasons(a new head would fix that), they abandoned it because its huge and wouldn't fit in the redesigned trucks. That and Ford management was hell bent that pushrods would not be able to keep up developmentally with OHC at the time. Hence all those E36 M3tastic OHC V8s.
Then Ford of Australia said "You'll not be using this mate?" The best one they made was the FG Falcon XR6 Turbo. It put out 362 hp and 393 ft lbs with short bursts up to 432 ft lbs.
In reply to Xceler8x:
The Australian 6 was a development of the small six(which was abandoned by 1984), not the big six TOTALLY different motors.
The LS head on the Ford six is pretty cool. I just wonder why he didn't do it as two 3 cylinder heads rather than a long 6 cylinder head. That would be a lot easier to do and as evidenced by the old GMC 'Twin Six' setup not a bad idea at all.
I always liked the 300 six, it's not really fast it's not really good on gas either. I had a 1992 E250 with 300 six as a work truck for three years and it was slow but good, only issue I recall is it threw the belts once. 
Did I mention it was an Armored van for doing bank drops and probably doubled it's own weight with all the lexan and bullet resistant plates,
In reply to LopRacer:
That's what I love abut all those old design low speed, torque everywhere motors, they seemingly don't have a weight limit. IIRC they used the 300 in DUMP TRUCKS with a special heavy duty exhaust manifold as it pretty much spent its whole life between 3000 and 4000 RPM. I've hauled loads probably just as heavy as the K1500 the 4.3 I deemed unkillable resided in, it just went along with it.
The 4.2L V6 is a much better all around engine, is within 5 ft-lb of torque, and more HP to boot. It will also go over 300K miles, tow more than it should, and get better fuel economy than the 300 while doing it. I'd shop a little newer.
That is a majorly underappreciated motor. I went from no interest in 97-04 f150s to thinking they were the best half-ton of the era once i discovered how good of a motor the 4.2 was.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to LopRacer: That's what I love abut all those old design low speed, torque everywhere motors, they seemingly don't have a weight limit. IIRC they used the 300 in DUMP TRUCKS with a special heavy duty exhaust manifold as it pretty much spent its whole life between 3000 and 4000 RPM. I've hauled loads probably just as heavy as the K1500 the 4.3 I deemed unkillable resided in, it just went along with it.
Seen the 300 in F-700 railroad trucks complete w/ the track wheels F&R. Did a double take first time I seen one.
You'll need to log in to post.
