Is there anyone on here thats owned a '92-'96 F-150? They are my favorite trucks of all time and I would like to purchase one sometime, as a secondary car and I was wondering what they are like to drive, seeing as how I've never driven one.

But I loooooove the way they look, and I like the overall simplicity of the interior, plus its pretty basic compared to my Cadillac, but it still has some nice power options. I've ridden in a few before, and they're pretty comfortable for a truck. Oddly enough, I've always seen myself driving one of these, you know, like it just fits me.

I would love to get a XLT (or Eddie Bauer) Supercab 4x4 with the 351, but either V8 works, as the 4.9 I-6 lacks hp, but has more than enough torque (145hp and 265lb/ft) Either way, gas mileage is gonna be shitty so that doesnt matter so much, but I would like the 34.7 gallon fuel tank (Dual tanks?)

Are they good trucks? They seem like they'd be really good trucks...

You could get a white Bronco like O.J.

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/owlive/img/jun04/bronco_061704_big.jpg

I don't have one, but I've heard they're quite reliable and can take one hell of a beating! You probably won't find a good deal of a Supercab, but the Regular cab's are plentiful. A friend of mine in high school had a 1993 Ford F-150 Regular Cab and it was a fun truck!

If you get one, remember that it doesn't (and probably won't be) in perfect condition. It will most likely have dents, paint chips, and other minor items. You can get very good deals on them if you aren't too particular about specs, just make sure they work! I don't like the cheesy two-tone paint jobs though, try to get one in solid green...

I drove a 78 F-100 for almost 200K miles, an 84 F-150 & still have a 94 F-150. The 78 had the 4.9, 3spd, 84 & 94 have 5.0 AOD. Wouldn't wish that gutless wonder 5.0 on my worst enemy, & the computer controlled trans (in the 94) does what IT wants, when IT wants to, not what I want it to do WHEN I want it to do it: Mat the gas pedal & it MIGHT downshift in about 3-4 seconds. :bigroll: It has no torque, so you are forced to spin it up pretty high to get any acceleration out of it. Then there's the stellar 13 MPG the 94 gets on a good day. :mad: At $2.50/gal, it'll cost nearly $100 to fill the 2 tanks! :eek: Then there's that wonderful dual I-beam suspension: I've NEVER been able to get more than about 25K miles out of a set of tires on ANY of them!

By comparison, my 04 Colorado gets 19-20 MPG, makes more HP & torque from a 3.5l engine, has MUCH MUCH more comfortable interior/seats, & being a 4WD weighs the same as the F-150!

Then there's the whole "spontaneous combustion" problem those trucks with cruise control have... :bomb: not to mention the wonderfully musical power steering pumps.

I understand that most people don't see a vehicle beyond the outside sheetmetal, but if you want one, then be prepared. Inspect it for rusty power steering lines, rusty brake lines (especially between the cab & rear!) & rust in the frame (I've dealt with all in the 94), & if it has cruise control BE SURE IT'S BEEN BACK TO THE DEALER FOR THE RECALL!!!!

Sounds like you had a pretty bad '94. From what I've read in reviews from Carsurvey.org, the lot of these style F-150s are quite nice, but some are total garbage. When you say the 302 makes no torque, are you talking about the '84 or '94? The '94 302 makes comparable power to my 4.9 V8 so I think it would be decent power for a ~4000lb truck, but the '84 302 is around 150hp, so that would be sloooooooooooow!

Speedy, I would prefer the Supercab, but seeing as how this isnt gonna be a daily driver, it wouldn't really matter. And unlike a Caddy or Lincoln, they wont be mint, I wasnt expecting anything like that. And I would try my hardest to avoid two tone paint or any of those funky paint schemes some have.

Just my opinion but here it is. I owned a '93 Eddie Bauer Bronco, bought it new. It had the 302, and the E4OD trans. That trans is crap. It needed to be rebuilt twice in 36,000 miles. And the gas mileage was horrible. I traded it in on a '97 F-150, bought new also, which had the 4.6 motor. It also had a new trans, but I am not sure of it's designation. The 4.6 is a rock solid motor, and the trans is smooth as silk. I put 53,000 miles on it, before trading it in. Never had a problem with it. Also, the gas mileage was around 15 mpg with it. I know that the '97-newer body style is a love it or hate it deal, but I would strongly suggest getting a newer model. Also one thing to consider. The pre '97 F-150's had the twin traction beam front end. This frontend offered zero steering feel, and poor roadability. The '97 newer trucks went with torsion bars and control arms. All the difference in the world. I wish you luck with whatever you choose.

Don

How do these compare to the '94-'01 Ram?


Don and DBartman, you both say that the E40D tranny is crap. I have heard that before too, but would it be a lot better if I got the 5 speed manual? I think that would be awesome, having a V8 and a manual!

Sounds like you had a pretty bad '94. From what I've read in reviews from Carsurvey.org, the lot of these style F-150s are quite nice, but some are total garbage.

Still have the 94. It's Mom's old daily driver & has nearly 160K miles on it. Trans was rebuilt at about 100K miles as something (I think it was part of a piston seal) was found in the pan during regular maintainance. Don't get me wrong, it's not that it's a BAD truck, it's just that there are much MUCH better ones available.

When you say the 302 makes no torque, are you talking about the '84 or '94? The '94 302 makes comparable power to my 4.9 V8 so I think it would be decent power for a ~4000lb truck, but the '84 302 is around 150hp, so that would be sloooooooooooow!

The 302 is a short stroke small bore engine. It's low RPM torque is pitifully inadequite, especially in a 4000 lb truck! The 84 was downright horrible; hit an overpass on the highway, ease into the gas & BOOM it downshifts into 3rd. The 94 isn't quite as bad, but IMHO the miniscule improvement in mileage & power is, again, pitiful given 10 years of "advancement." Both trucks have 3.0 rear gears, which means you're turning about 12-1400 RPM at 60 MPH. In order to get the engine to run where it makes SOME torque, you have to spin it at around 2K RPM & that's way fast plus at that speed wind resistance becomes a BIG factor. In the end, it turned out to be a "loose-loose" situation IMO.

One thing you have GOT TO stop looking at is HP ratings! HP is nothing more than torque over time. TORQUE is what gets you moving! For best efficiency, an engine should be running at or JUST below it's torque peak at highway speed. Both Fords run well below torque peak at highway speed, therefore the engine labors, & being a short stroke compounds the problems.

Remember, horse power is used as an advertising platform & peak HP is usually achieved at high RPMs. Torque is what plants you in the seat & gets you moving. Wish I could take you for a short ride in my bro's Coronet wagon. It makes 590 lb/ft at the crank. This pushes his 4500 lb wagon from 0-60 in about 5 seconds.

Just for your education, look at engine specs, specifically HP AND torque. Any engine you see that makes more HP than torque typically means it's a dog unless you spin the engine hard/fast. This is very typical of turbocharged engines (they are pure dogs until the turbo makes boost & the RPMs come up).

Ummmmm not sure about those years but my man has an '06 F350 and he LOVES IT!

How do these compare to the '94-'01 Ram?


Don and DBartman, you both say that the E40D tranny is crap. I have heard that before too, but would it be a lot better if I got the 5 speed manual? I think that would be awesome, having a V8 and a manual!
If you are going to get the '92-'96 F-150, I strongly suggest a 5-speed. With my Bronco, it was the overdrive unit that went out both times. Both times fixed under warranty. The bill would have been $1,800 otherwise. My Bronco was a sweet truck. I put a Lock Right in the rear (3.55) and some BFG mud tires. That thing would go through anything. The big snowfall of '95, I was driving around with it, going through 2-3 feet of snow. No problem whatsoever. But then there was the tranny. And the gas mileage. Best tank of gas i could get with it was 13.5.

As far as the '94-'01 Dodge Ram, my buddy owns a '94. He ahs the Cummins diesel in it. He bought it new. He still has it, 275,000 miles later. Only thing he has done to it is basic maintainence, and one trammy rebuild. It is a very stout truck. He now lives out in Cali, and I am still in NJ. He says it still looks as it did new. Dodoge has a reputation of building the heaviest duty trucks.

Don

How do these compare to the '94-'01 Ram?

Last truck my father bought was a '00 Ram 150 with 318, A-518 (auto O/D). The 318 had noticably more power & got slightly better MPG, but even he couldn't get the trans to last. Just after it went out of warrenty, the trans took a dump on him, & he managed to make the Ford AOD last 166K+ miles (& any trans guy will tell you these Ford AODs are good for 70-80K miles, max.).

As long as the front end & trans are in good condition & the trans has been rebuilt & updated with the overdrive oiling mods, it should be a good truck. I hear the 360 (5.9) isn't that much better (it does make more torque as it's a longer stroke engine) & the MPG is much worse (I hear 11-13 most of the time).

Still have the 94. It's Mom's old daily driver & has nearly 160K miles on it. Trans was rebuilt at about 100K miles as something (I think it was part of a piston seal) was found in the pan during regular maintainance. Don't get me wrong, it's not that it's a BAD truck, it's just that there are much MUCH better ones available.



The 302 is a short stroke small bore engine. It's low RPM torque is pitifully inadequite, especially in a 4000 lb truck! The 84 was downright horrible; hit an overpass on the highway, ease into the gas & BOOM it downshifts into 3rd. The 94 isn't quite as bad, but IMHO the miniscule improvement in mileage & power is, again, pitiful given 10 years of "advancement." Both trucks have 3.0 rear gears, which means you're turning about 12-1400 RPM at 60 MPH. In order to get the engine to run where it makes SOME torque, you have to spin it at around 2K RPM & that's way fast plus at that speed wind resistance becomes a BIG factor. In the end, it turned out to be a "loose-loose" situation IMO.

One thing you have GOT TO stop looking at is HP ratings! HP is nothing more than torque over time. TORQUE is what gets you moving! For best efficiency, an engine should be running at or JUST below it's torque peak at highway speed. Both Fords run well below torque peak at highway speed, therefore the engine labors, & being a short stroke compounds the problems.

Remember, horse power is used as an advertising platform & peak HP is usually achieved at high RPMs. Torque is what plants you in the seat & gets you moving. Wish I could take you for a short ride in my bro's Coronet wagon. It makes 590 lb/ft at the crank. This pushes his 4500 lb wagon from 0-60 in about 5 seconds.

Just for your education, look at engine specs, specifically HP AND torque. Any engine you see that makes more HP than torque typically means it's a dog unless you spin the engine hard/fast. This is very typical of turbocharged engines (they are pure dogs until the turbo makes boost & the RPMs come up).


I really like the 4.9 I6 :).

If you are going to get the '92-'96 F-150, I strongly suggest a 5-speed. With my Bronco, it was the overdrive unit that went out both times. Both times fixed under warranty. The bill would have been $1,800 otherwise. My Bronco was a sweet truck. I put a Lock Right in the rear (3.55) and some BFG mud tires. That thing would go through anything. The big snowfall of '95, I was driving around with it, going through 2-3 feet of snow. No problem whatsoever. But then there was the tranny. And the gas mileage. Best tank of gas i could get with it was 13.5.

As far as the '94-'01 Dodge Ram, my buddy owns a '94. He ahs the Cummins diesel in it. He bought it new. He still has it, 275,000 miles later. Only thing he has done to it is basic maintainence, and one trammy rebuild. It is a very stout truck. He now lives out in Cali, and I am still in NJ. He says it still looks as it did new. Dodoge has a reputation of building the heaviest duty trucks.

Don

The CTD RAM's are sweet!.

I would personally stay away form '94-'97 tho.... NO part of the front end can be greesed, and they wear thru tires... plus '98-'02 has a better interior.

DBartman, I know that torque is the most important number. Why else would my 4.9 V8 that makes a measly 200hp feel so powerful? The 275lb/ft at 3000rpm really makes it! And just for shits and giggles, I looked up the hp and torque ratings for the '84 302 in the F-150. Its 130hp @3800 rpm, and 222 lb/ft @ 2000 RPM. Pretty pathetic indeed. The '94 302 makes 205hp @4000 and 275 lb/ft @ 3000rpm. It is a short stroke V8, 4.0 inch bore, 3.0 inch stroke. For comparison, my 4.9 V8 makes 200hp @ 4100 RPM and 275lb/ft @ 3000 RPM, and the bore and stroke are the same at 3.62 inches.

The 351 in the '94 F-150s makes 210hp @ 3600 RPM and 325 lb/ft @ 2800 rpm. Thats just a tad more hp, but TONS more torque, its almost like comparing the torque rating of the LT1 I had in my Roadmaster to the 4.9 in my deVille (330 v. 275) but in those cars, you dont feel much difference because of the significant weight difference. (653 lbs) But if you get a 4200lb F-150 Supercab 4x4, the difference will be like night and day.

One of the things I really like about the F-150 is you can get a 34.7 gallon fuel tank, but the biggest the Ram has (atleast in 1500 trim) is a 26.7 gal. tank. And I've never been much of a fan of Chrysler's products, and I dont like the interior on the '94-'97 Rams, I'll have to check out a later model. But I did think they were the coolest trucks ever when "Twister" came out in '96, when I was 9.

The 5.2 (318) in the RAM is a gas hog.... moreso then the Ford... the 5.9 (360) is a gas hog too...but makes good power....

I personally woudln't even bother with either of those, and the automatics were junk....

Which is why I would get a '98-'02 RAM 2500, Cummins Turbo Diesel, 5/6spd manual. extended cab, short bed, 4x4, SLT etc.....

I like the older Ford trucks, I would want the I6 and a manual..... and 4x4....

I dont need anything bigger than a 1500/F150...2500/F250 and bigger is just too much truck.

Can't get a Cummins in a 1500 :).

Oh well...its gonna be F-150 for me than..

Can't get a Powerstroke in an F-150.....

I need no diesels..