Thinking of upgrading want your thoughts

[MrWicked]

40 hp upgrade is alot

[mikracer]

Theres quite a few people running 3.73's with 285's. With the V10, you should be fine. You'll obviously lose some low end grunt since the 3.73 is a taller gear. You'll theoretically get better gas mileage on the freeway...

[Viva]

I had a '97 E-250 SMB with the 5.4 (just as background). Now I have a '98 E-350 with V-10 (albeit it's a cutaway).

I believe, as was said above, that 1999 was the first year for rear disc brakes. Both my '97 and now my '98 have rear drums.

Apparently 1998 was a transition year for the transmission with the V-10 (and maybe 5.4?). Meaning it could be the E4OD or the 4R100. They both have the same code in the VIN since they are just an evolution of the same transmission (4R100 is slightly more electronic is how it was explained to me). In order to tell on my '98 I had to look at the code on the trans itself.

My '97 had the E4OD; '98 has the 4R100.

In case you don't end up going newer, I had the "new" (2014 in my case) front end put on (take-off by Quadvan) and it turned my rig from a marginal stopper into a solid "stale green lights no longer strike fear into my heart) rig. I had been thinking maybe I should upgrade to rear discs, but a knowlegable forumite suggested the upgraded front end as a better option and I couldn't be happier. (My main desire was better brakes, but the front end has additional benefits too.)

For me, just based on specs, I don't think I would "bother" to upgrade to a 2003, unless it was more desirable to me as an individual van (irrespective of the year). Then too, only going on year, I'd have to go through my whole "bringing a vehicle up to my standards mechanically" routine, which is not cheap. What i mean is, I wouldn't do that particular upgrade just to have a 2003 vs. a 1997 - just me though.

OTOH, going to a 2009 or newer might be nice as you get the new dash, front end etc. (presuming you like them). Plus the transmission upgrade of 2005.

These decisions can be tough!

[reelchef67]

My 2002 rb e250 is 5.4 4R70w tran and four wheel discs

[MrWicked]

well the van sold but still good info for later...

i think some didnt hear i pull a 14k trailer so 3.73 with 285 is not a good thing and will not get better MPG because you lugging the engine ... remember the V10 likes rpm.....

carring run 456 in his and pulls a bigger trailer and gets 12mpg or better....

ill up grade if the price is right...

really want a diesel and might think about up grading to a dually 4x4 then i could up grade to a 5th wheel trailer...

this forum has great info.....

for now ill just run my lifted 97 and maybe think about getting a programmer.....

for me personally i hate the blue interior the refective glass and then the paint on graffics on the side... but might just get a 1/2 wrap to cover them.....

thanks again for all the great info....

[carringb]

carring run 456 in his and pulls a bigger trailer and gets 12mpg or better....

Not when I'm towing though... just to be clear. Still single digits once I hook up a full-profile trailer (weight, however, does not seem to affect MPGs hardly at all)

[MrWicked]

well i used the van for this weekends trip to and i got less then 6mpg pulling the trailer

and up some short steep hiles at 30 mph

[derJack]

Hi,

If mileage is secondary, so it seems otherwise a diesel would be good, AND you want to pull, keep looking for the amount of torgue you will have AT THE WHEELS!

Besides the 5r100 trans of later models, you can calculate the torgue at wheels. The three size is important as the differential! Could be that the older model has more power than the newer with a longer axle!
See this: [url]http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html[url] not exactly what I mean but it makes my point clearer I guess.

Eg: I have 4.09 with 315/75-16 ~ 35". That is pretty exactly 3.54 with 245/75-16. With the same tires this would have a lot power. If you put NM in the calculation, than you got me