Re: Ford E350 Econoline vs. LCF


"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:9q9v439mhu2lo3c590eoues1j9brmifg46@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 19 May 2007 22:50:06 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
<gunner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> quickly quoth:

On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:17:58 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:51:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
<gunner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> quickly quoth:

Ive been offered a 1989 Ford E350 van..1 ton, looooong *** with a
5.8 liter engine.

You couldn't afford the gas, Gunner.


Thats what Im wondering about.

Hell, it cost me $89.10 to fill up with regular this week, and my old
F-150 gets 18mpg (ideal), 14mpg haulin' ass around town like I usually
do with all my tools and a little Burke mill in the back. <sigh>

Ideally, I'd like to get a super-shortbed LCF like a Ford or Isuzu.
I'd toss a flatbed with side toolboxes on it. Anyone here running one
of these babies? I see them all over and wondered what the quirks and
maintenance costs were. The local Ford dealer doesn't even talk about
them, let alone stock 'em. I may go back to the dealership I bought
my pickemup from, Bill Fell Ford in Fairfield, CA. He saved me $3500
over the best price I could get from the dealer in LoCal. I'll
probably talk to him in July when I'm down that way. If I do get one
from him, I'll bring it down to show you (and fill that puppy up
again, this time with a higher tonnage than last time. <g>

I have a 1987 Nissan UD, with an 18' box and the larger, naturally aspirated
six cylinder. Body rot was my biggest problem, although the newer ones are
supposed to have that problem solved ( I live near salt water). It's easy to
drive, and the ride is better than similar size domestic trucks. I got about
13 mpg initially, probably 11 now. 17,600 GVW, brakes are great, even fully
loaded. Acceleration is OK, but top speed is about 64 mph. I would seriously
consider a four cylinder shorter bed version if I was in the market for a
truck.


.