I've actually seen that a couple of times and one of them was towed into my shop like that. The guy got pissed off when I charged him my minimum labor charge. I think at the time it was $16.60.
Years ago, we sold batteries to K-Mart. There was a small dual terminal battery that had a spacer under the battery to give you more height if need beI've actually seen that a couple of times and one of them was towed into my shop like that. The guy got pissed off when I charged him my minimum labor charge. I think at the time it was $16.60.
Them's fightin words Fletch!!(I've happily driven many Ford vehicles--and still do--but I stopped believing in Santa 4 years ago)
View attachment 59381
Well see, that's just it. They really were great then. Now? Meh. Back in 92 you had the awesome 4.9 straight 6. Incredible engine especially with a manual. I owned one. Would get an HONEST 27 mpg on highway running 70 to 80 mph, the very nice 302 nice engine but WAY thirstier than the 4.9 and then the of course the 351. Lots of torque, great performance, and the mighty 460 V8. Mic drop now.30 year old F-150
Sigh... I knew you would have something to say about it.Well see, that's just it. They really were great then. Now? Meh. Back in 92 you had the awesome 4.9 straight 6. Incredible engine especially with a manual. I owned one. Would get an HONEST 27 mpg on highway running 70 to 80 mph, the very nice 302 nice engine but WAY thirstier than the 4.9 and then the of course the 351. Lots of torque, great performance, and the mighty 460 V8. Mic drop now.
Yep. 93 Flareside is my daily driver.Well see, that's just it. They really were great then. Now? Meh. Back in 92 you had the awesome 4.9 straight 6. Incredible engine especially with a manual. I owned one. Would get an HONEST 27 mpg on highway running 70 to 80 mph, the very nice 302 nice engine but WAY thirstier than the 4.9 and then the of course the 351. Lots of torque, great performance, and the mighty 460 V8. Mic drop now.
I had both 92 and 95 F-150 King Cabs with the 4.9 (300) and 5 speed. Both work horses and comfortable too. Never had to do anything but maintenance on either. I think you're mixing up the 302 and the 4.9 as far as MPG though. I got 18 on the hwy. with both 4.9s. My uncle had one with the 302 and got low 20s with most of his driving around town.Well see, that's just it. They really were great then. Now? Meh. Back in 92 you had the awesome 4.9 straight 6. Incredible engine especially with a manual. I owned one. Would get an HONEST 27 mpg on highway running 70 to 80 mph, the very nice 302 nice engine but WAY thirstier than the 4.9 and then the of course the 351. Lots of torque, great performance, and the mighty 460 V8. Mic drop now.
Nope not mixing up anything. I owned a 4.9 with 4spd manual F150 2wd and no lie it would consistently pull 25+ on highway. I traded it for a 302 powered F150 2wd but with auto. (BWT I bought both brand new). The 302 V8 was a gas hog in comparison to the 6 cyl. Never returning more than 18 or so. No matter how gently driven (and that 18 was VERY rare to achieve). I sure appreciated the dual tanks on that one Typically could not even get 200 miles out of one tank, so on our many trips to MN that second tank came in very handy.I had both 92 and 95 F-150 King Cabs with the 4.9 (300) and 5 speed. Both work horses and comfortable too. Never had to do anything but maintenance on either. I think you're mixing up the 302 and the 4.9 as far as MPG though. I got 18 on the hwy. with both 4.9s. My uncle had one with the 302 and got low 20s with most of his driving around town.