[Guest]

Hi,
I'm thinking of taking on a project...a 1989 F-250 XLT with the 7.58L and
Automatic.

I see that it's EFI...don't know if that's good or bad in a vehicle so old.

Were these worthy trucks; or just too old to mess with?

I can't remember whether 1989 was ahead or behind the curve when it came to
electronic engine management and general reliabilty and running quality.

Anyone care to comment?

Chuck

 

[Guest]

c wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm thinking of taking on a project...a 1989 F-250 XLT with the 7.58L and
> Automatic.
>
> I see that it's EFI...don't know if that's good or bad in a vehicle so old.
>
> Were these worthy trucks; or just too old to mess with?
>
> I can't remember whether 1989 was ahead or behind the curve when it came to
> electronic engine management and general reliabilty and running quality.
>
> Anyone care to comment?
>
> Chuck
>
>


Good truck and motor to build on.

--

-----------------
www.thesnoman.com

 

[Guest]

"c" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> Hi,
> I'm thinking of taking on a project...a 1989 F-250 XLT with the 7.58L and
> Automatic.
>
> I see that it's EFI...don't know if that's good or bad in a vehicle so
> old.
>
> Were these worthy trucks; or just too old to mess with?
>
> I can't remember whether 1989 was ahead or behind the curve when it came
> to electronic engine management and general reliabilty and running
> quality.
>
> Anyone care to comment?
>
> Chuck
>

1988 was the first year for the Electronic Port Fuel Injection for the Ford
460/7.5.
Ford started EFI in 1986 with the 302, so by 1988 they had it all sorted
out.
From 88 on, the EFI 460 are a vast improvement over the older carburetor
versions.

 

[Guest]

I had an F350 with 460 & Auto. Very stout combo. Amazing how much
fuel it could use while pulling 12,000#. Never broke anything.

Pete

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:39:31 -0800, "c" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi,
>I'm thinking of taking on a project...a 1989 F-250 XLT with the 7.58L and
>Automatic.
>
>I see that it's EFI...don't know if that's good or bad in a vehicle so old.
>
>Were these worthy trucks; or just too old to mess with?
>
>I can't remember whether 1989 was ahead or behind the curve when it came to
>electronic engine management and general reliabilty and running quality.
>
>Anyone care to comment?
>
>Chuck
>

 

[Guest]

With any older vehicle, especially if the mileage is high, its a lot more
important as to how well it was maintained and operated than even what the
make of the vehicle is. Find out who owned it and how well it was taken
care of, then decide.




"c" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> Hi,
> I'm thinking of taking on a project...a 1989 F-250 XLT with the 7.58L and
> Automatic.
>
> I see that it's EFI...don't know if that's good or bad in a vehicle so
> old.
>
> Were these worthy trucks; or just too old to mess with?
>
> I can't remember whether 1989 was ahead or behind the curve when it came
> to electronic engine management and general reliabilty and running
> quality.
>
> Anyone care to comment?
>
> Chuck
>

 

[Guest]

I can't speak for the '89 7.5 (although I have basically the same engine in
my '77 Lincoln, but carburated), but I did own an '89 F-150 with the 5.0 EFI
for 15 years, and I swear all I ever did was change the oil & put gas in it.
It had 180k miles when I sold it and still ran & drove almost like when it
was new. I frequently regret ever selling that one.

The only engine problems I've had from the Lincoln have been carburator
related. The 460 is a great engine, but man can it burn some gas.........


"c" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> Hi,
> I'm thinking of taking on a project...a 1989 F-250 XLT with the 7.58L and
> Automatic.
>
> I see that it's EFI...don't know if that's good or bad in a vehicle so
old.
>
> Were these worthy trucks; or just too old to mess with?
>
> I can't remember whether 1989 was ahead or behind the curve when it came
to
> electronic engine management and general reliabilty and running quality.
>
> Anyone care to comment?
>
> Chuck
>
>