Slick 60's

well too many hills here and a 2.3 would need a dog team to get my truck up them. but its too hot most of the year for that.

at one point i was going to replace my 292 with a 300 6 but decided that i would just use the spare 292 i had , which i ended up doing and have been very happy with. probably i have the only 66 with a y block.

the only thing i could do without a lot of work to increase mileage would be the addition of a separate overdrive gear like a dana or gear vendor type but then the cost of those takes a long time to make up for in gas.

so i really dont care, its a truck, it does its job and if i want to use less gas i drive my car, a 1964 rambler.

If it is underpowered, you may not increase mileage at all and it could actually drop. The pinto is about 1500lbs lighter at least which means you will probably need to change the rear gear just so it will be able to move the truck. And that means higher rpm, combined with far worse aerodynamics, both of which do not help fuel economy.
I'd leave it as it currently sits or simply increase the efficiency of the current engine.
It's a full size truck. You're not going to get stellar mileage no matter what you do but guys do manage to get 15 - 20 mpg with "old tech" which is decent but it is not going to happen with a purely stock engine and drivetrain.

Don't confuse small engines with good mileage. You will be so underpowered your foot will be in it all the time.

We had a Ranger at work that was the bottom of the line truck with the smallest 4 cyl/5 speed. My 1/2 ton got beer mileage because the Ranger was so underpowered it worked harder to do anything. It wouldn't pull a hill on the highway in 5th, you had to downshift to maintain 55. We kept taking it back to the dealer and they found nothing wrong, it was that big of a dog.

My 352 gets 17 going down the highway. It really likes the 5 speed behind it. Y-blocks also like the 5 speed.

Smaller doesn't automatically make mileage. I think the Pinto engine in a full size truck would be awful to drive.

SPark

LM14 wrote: Y-blocks also like the 5 speed.

unfortunately for the 4x4 there is only the heavy clark 251 vo 5 speed od from the bigger trucks that can be bolted up. if i was able to find one though i would install it.

I probably wouldn't mess with the 240, but a transmission with more gears might help. From what I have read, you probably have picked all of the "low hanging fruit". I don't think you could get a Pogue's carburetor or anything like that to work on modern fuel, either. I have a somewhat similar setup to what you have, but with a 300 and my average mileage got up to about 19 mpg. I couldn't get much more out of it without spending a fortune.

Dan

i have given this lots of thought
need at least a 10' flatbed so as to still have 8' of usable hauling space.

http://driveonwood.com/

[quote="ICEMAN6166"]well too many hills here and a 2.3 would need a dog team to get my truck up them. but its too hot most of the year for that.
In my case that dog team is named Holset


at one point i was going to replace my 292 with a 300 6 but decided that i would just use the spare 292 i had , which i ended up doing and have been very happy with. probably i have the only 66 with a y block.

Eh, probably not, Brian

Paul

I'm an old VW guy, and quite a few of my brethren opted to swap a 2.3 into their camper busses. A bay window Westfalia ('68-'79) weighs around 3500 lbs, more with gear and a few lazy hippie friends. Those busses would do 65 uphill with no complaint. Quite a departure from the stock air-cooled motors.

Most of those 2.3's were stock with exception of a header and a Weber, and done on a modest budget. Bear in mind, you can build a 2.3 to make some absurd power, so it's not outside the realm of possibility to build a motor that finds a happy medium.

Personally, I'd build a 300 with total longetivity in mind: I'd pay for exacting machine work, and opt for a forged crank, forged pistons, steel timing gears, roller rockers, mild port work, bigger valves, stock grind cam, Clifford goodies, small 4 bbl, and back it with a zf-5 and a 9" with something around 2.75-3.00 gears. Something that could cruise all day long, make useful power when needed, and still have enough get-up to make me smile when I cracked it open.

I know it's been done to death, but there's a reason for it!

Dream scenario would be a nice little diesel that would run down the road well, and make the mileage..

I have a 4 cyl Isuzu diesel that would make a great little power plant.

Can I change my answer to " small diesel powered by cooking oil"?

Dan

Multiple answers ARE allowed ! hahahah
Oregoon, I have a bit of a personal and family background with VW's. I also owned an 1980 mustang with a 2.3.. I would have loved to see and ride in the van with that conversion. My Dad knew someone that had put a v8 midengine in a bug.. Dad said he had to jack the body of the car up to get the engine in or out? Must have been a riot.

I used to have a VW powered sandrail I got street legal..so much fun I miss it. And if I had a huge building to store more stuff in I would build a wicked full on Baja bug.

That 2.3 conversion is getting more popular by the minute. Vanagons, Jeeps, MGs, Hot Rodders, even Toyota folks... They can be found in all sorts of platforms, with varying displacements. The current configuration powers the world's most popular car (according to registrations), the Ford Focus.

Anyway, I think you could build one that would power a Slick with no trouble, though I wonder if you'd gain much in the mileage department. There are always those pesky weight-to-power and fuel-to-power equations to contend with. Still, I think it's be neat to see it done. Here's an ad from Brazil for a '79 F100 Dupla with a 2.3. Pretty cool! http://carro.mercadolivre.com.br/MLB-56 ... -dupla-_JM

It seems quite a few Brazilian Fords came with 2.3 4-bangers: http://carro.mercadolivre.com.br/MLB-56 ... 0-1976-_JM

Another: http://carro.mercadolivre.com.br/MLB-56 ... -f-100-_JM

Man, those grilles are awful!

The Duratech 2.3 put out around 200 factory horsepower; most of the popular conversions are based on the old heavy Lima (Pinto) design. They are easily capable of 400 wheel hp. Fuel economy is not their forte compared with newer designs (read electronic controlled), but they are robust as hell, especially with some minor bottom end strengthening!
Fuel economy, probably hard to beat a 4BT with plenty of boost for a light truck; it would just take a bunch of miles for the conversion to pay for itself.
Paul

I toyed with the idea of a 4bt in my '84 Landcruiser, but as you mentioned, the cost-benefit analysis is daunting. My Landy got 11-13 mpg in daily driving, and it inhaled fuel when in the woods. Living in Portland, I had to keep the smog controls and godawful Aisin carb, whereas my best friend--who lived in rural Linn County, OR--desmogged his '83 FJ60, installed a Weber Progressive and a Man-A-Fre header and obtained 7 more mpg and a lot more grunt.

The work-around here in DEQ-country was a diesel swap, or a Canadian half-cut diesel conversion. As I mentioned, the former is a hell of hit to the pocket book, and the latter isn't cheap either, since initial cost and transport considerations involve an International border and a lot of driving.

I ended up trading the FJ for diesel Mercedes and putting my hobby-efforts into a smog-exempt '66 Suburban, which I then sold to put a down-payment on a house.

For our Slicks, I think the stock motors are a good fit and offer a wide variety of economy and torque options, though I fantasize about a Navistar DT466-powered '66 F350 Crew Cab 4x4. However, that too would decimate my savings account.

Yeah, the DT 466 is on my short list for the crew ramp truck, but probably will never happen for the same reasons you mentioned. I can feed a LOT of fuel to a big-inch 385 for the cost of THAT conversion.
Paul

DT466 is a bit heavy for the front of an f350
better suited to an f500 or f600

international scouts used nissan turbo diesels for a few years, though they are a few less hp than a 223 6

early cummins 6bt would be my choice

the slicks with diesels used a dagenham, almost bought one, got there too late but another member has it and i rode in it at ss4 and was quite impressed.

I messed with the idea of using a 5 speed and diesel engine out of a mercedes. I have never heard of anyone doing it, however. I know you can get the whole car for about 2k if you look.

Dan

4x4 Lab is making an adpater to mate 4 and 5 banger MBZ Diesels (OM616 and OM617) to Chevy and Toyota trannies. Haven't seen many yet, but it's a cool idea given the availability of Benz Oil-burners. Here in Oregon, you can find them for around $1000. If it's only a 2wd truck, I'd just use the stock transmission. They're expensive to rebuild but very robust units. I've had several W123 cars, and the last one ran really well with 500K on it. Never had the head off or the transmission out, though both were getting tired. Everything else was falling apart, but it went down the road with dignity and it's as safe a tractor as I've ever driven.

The downside of the Benz diesels is the prechamber injection. While indirect injection lends itself admirably to the task at hand (small displacement, ease of service, economy and long life), they're no great shakes in the power department. Even the turbo versions are slow to wind-up and make about 180 ft/lbs at best.

Still, in a stock '81 300D which weighs 3500 lbs, I got 27 mpg regardless of where or how I drove it. If you're not looking to set any Slick '60s speed records, it'd be a great swap. God knows I've thought about it.

Here's a little eye-candy for your entertainment. This guy isn't messing around: http://www.seriestrek.com/109.html

Wow talk about a bolt together car. Looks like it will be a great cruiser.