Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

[slayer]

I am looking into buying a 1997 Ford Expedition, and unlike most of them with the optional 5.4 engine, this one has the standard 4.6 engine. Could anyone tell me the differences between the 2 as in horsepower and torque? I am going to be towing a 5000 pound camper with heavey tongue weight and I know the 5.4 is strong, but have no experience with the 4.6. Any info would be appreciated. My 1993 Dodge Dakota is a little long in the tooth, but the 318 magnum has 230 horsepower and is very strong. I would think the Expedition is heavier than my Dakota, so the horsepower and torque of the 4.6 has me a little concerned? Thanks-Jack.

[ApeDosMil]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

It probably won't make it out the driveway. Or won't make it back to the driveway [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[slayer]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

That bad bro? I have never owned a Ford of any kind before, are they that unreliable. I want it to be tough and strong, my Dakota has been both. Jack.

[MBreinin]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

They are plenty reliable. The modular 4.6 is built for fleet duty and can easily see 300,000+ miles with regular maintenance. I have a Crown Vic, it is a '99 PI. The motors are not that strong, however, 230 HP in the Vickie IIRC. I don't know how it would do pulling a huge load behind an already heavy and underpowered vehicle. My suggestion for heaving towing is simple, POWERSTROKE DIESEL. I think you have to step up to an Excursion though for it...I am not sure as I have never considered an SUV.

Mike

[slayer]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.......... My Dakotas 318 has 230 horses and 270 pounds of torque, but I know the Expedtion is kinda heavey bro. Ya man, my brother has a new F350 with the deizel, awsome power!! Maybe I should get an F250 or 350 with the V10 as the deisels are very expensive, even used. I am also looking into a E350 4x4 van with a 6.9 deisel engine, bad news is it only has 2 seats, would it be hard to add 2 seats or a bench? If that 1997 Expedition had the 5.4, I would be all over it. Is the 4.6 a better engine? Thanks-Jack.

[Firebird V]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

Adding seats to the Van would not be hard at all. You might even be able to score a nice set at a junkyard with all the brackets. If you have a drill and some wrenches you can do it.

Edit:

Make sure you get the seat belts and the mounting hardware too if you go this route.

[Cleveland Metal]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

I've driven some expeditions with 4.6's in them, for a motor that is really 266CI, they're pretty peppy. Not sure I'd tow with it though.

My biggest peeve is that the transmission in them are iffy. It will either have a 4R70W (AODE) or a the 5.4 versions are likely to have a E4OD or 4R100 in the later units. Even as a ford guy, I'm not a fan of the longetivity of those transmissions. I run a 4R70W in my Mustang, and yeah it runs around 500hp, but I had to do so much to the trans to make it live under those conditions it was hilarious.

The E4ODs and 4R100s are such a sluggish feeling unit it bums me out. Weird they put the E4ODs in the Lightning Pickups.

why don't you look at Yukons/Tahoes? The pre 2000s have the 5.7 liter (classic GM 350)and the post have the 5.3 and that is a fair unit still. They run the 4L60 transmissions in them and those are a solid piece other than a few quirks.

I race a Mustang and love the 302, but drive a Yukon for a daily driver. I love it and find it really reliable... I really am not a fan of the Ford trucks at all. Buying a truck? Get a GM.

[Chuckracer]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

Most of the motorcycle race team guys I know that are pulling heavy trailers all around the country are using GM, and the vast majority are running deisels. I think it's a must if pulling is a priority.

[slayer]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

Thanks for the great info fellas, I was thinking of a Yukon/Tahoe or a Suburban actually. I deffinately want a 3/4 ton if I get one. I am seriously thinking of the Van also. How is the reliablity of the 6.9 Deisel? Thanks for the seats answers bro. Jack.

[Model 88]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

The 4.6 is not a bad engine just very underpowered in a heavy vechile.The 5.4 is a better choice as it has more torque to get you moving.I would personally get a F250 or F350 with the Powerstroke.The hell with a gas motor for towing.The PS with pull your trailer with ease and push you back into the seat unloaded [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. The V10 is a good motor for towing but the 8-10 miles a gallon really sucks.And it not much better unloaded.

The older 6.9s are not bad but need to be a turbo model otherwise it will be a pig.The E350 4x4 is not stock from Ford.The are converted by a company called http://www.quigley4x4.com/

[Chuckracer]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

I don't think you can get the Duramax in an SUV or Surbuban platform.

[Model 88]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

No Duramax in the in SUVs or Vans just the 6.0L (366)or the 8.1(502).

[MBreinin]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

Of course, if you really want a Diesel..there is but ONE option.

Cummins.

You are already a Mopar guy. Go for an extended cab Ram with a Cummins and you can tow until Armageddon is upon us.

Mike

[MetalGrasshopper]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

Go diesel.

[AK47]

Re: Ford Engines-1997-Expedition

Mopar all the way.
I test drove a new Ram with a diesel and at 30 mph I stabbed the gas and it broke the back tires loose. Chevy allways made a crappy diesel, the Ford diesels are very good too lots of upgrades you can do to those.

The mopar diesel is rated at 555+ ftlbs torque and over 500+ horsepower. You will have the resale also. Never go with a Gas V10 your just throwing money away its just a status symbol thing they suck for pulling compared to a diesel.