Hot Rod Forum banner

Need help picking out an engine

2K views 22 replies 12 participants last post by  Silver Shaddow 
#1 ·
Hello all,

I am building a 1940 ford tudor. I am trying to lay things out on paper so I will know where I am headed. I first thought about putting in a 350 but that was a year ago when fuel was $2.00/gal. Now I am thinking about a diesel. Could anyone offer some suggestion into an economical engine (good mpg, dependable, easy to work on, etc.)? This car will be a daily driver (not to worried about HP).

Thanks in advance
 
#2 ·
diesel??????

Well diesel is a lot more the gas here in my little town, yea you may get a little more per gallon depending on what you are doing with it, but it's gonna get in the deep parts of your pockets at fill up time. I would suggest going with a straight 6. From my expierience those engines can really produce good HP and torque and still get 20-25+ MPG hwy/ 15-18 mpg in town. Atleast my wagoneer did, and she'd eat some mud too!! :mwink: Look and the 144cid engine in the old Falcon's, it was only rated at 90HP but it pulled those old sleds around OK, and still got nearly 30MPG. Just my thoughts, good luck.
 
#3 ·
Diesel motor will destroy the value if you sell....plus they stink!...Do you really want to show up at a cruise like that :D



Seriously, Magoo built a diesel 32 roadster for a guy who owned a trucking company and maybe wanted to be "different". The car failed to sell on ebay after the guy had it for a long time and wanted to sell it.. who would want it?
 
#4 ·
Locate a 305 Chevy engine with a factory roller cam. Build it with the correct components like a small camshaft aimed at high mileage and high torque, a good set of heads, small tube headers, a good ignition system, a edelbrock performer intake and a Q-jet carb, get the compression ratio around 9.5:1 and the quench distance around .045, tune it correctly, use a 700R4 transmission with some 3.42 rear gears, and you`ll find it has good power, excellant throttle response, and likely over 20 MPG.
 
#5 ·
The same could be said for the 302" Ford. Don't try to reinvent the wheel. I'd buy a COMPLETE from fan to fuel pump later 302" Mustang engine with AOD or 5-speed, drop it in using one of the aftermarket wiring harnesses and that will be as good as you could ever hope to do shadetree.

thnx, jack vines
 
#6 ·
I agree with all about the diesel, love my old Powerstroke but not in a '40 tudor..........gives me shivers!!! How bout a 231" Buick V-6 if a sbc doesn't suit you. They can be economical and theres quite a bit of go fast stuff out there if you want to play.
 
#7 ·
If you want mileage, forget all about the big capacity cast iron pushrod V8 dinosaurs.

Start looking at late model Japanese all aluminum V6's. Half the engine weight and probably similar power, and it will have four camshafts and 24 valves, electronic fuel injection, and rev as smooth as silk, and probably already have a six speed gearbox already fitted to it.

Fuel efficiency comes from light vehicle weight, appropriate gearing, and an efficient fuel injected engine.

A diesel may give you more miles per gallon, bit maybe not more miles per dollar.
 
#8 ·
Start looking at late model Japanese all aluminum V6's.
Can you put a carburetors on 'em.. ? ... A distributor? Huh? :confused:

If you want mileage, forget all about the big capacity cast iron pushrod V8 dinosaurs.
Hows abouts a cast aluminum LS7 V-8.. with push rods. A dinosour. A relic.

A 27+ MPG 505HP monster with a perfectly smooth idle. Shucks, it's an American V8. Sorry 'bout that.

...and you'd need an ECM. and... and...

Keep it simple YET efficient. It's all up to the builder.

Every time I think of diesel, I think of black smoke pouring into somebody's window as they speed off to efficiency land.
 
#9 ·
Yes I agree an LS7 wonder motor, or even a "little" LS1 would be good too.

But if you are truly chasing mileage, why do you need 500 horsepower ?

In a light vehicle 200 to 250 horsepower should be more than enough.

And no. Carbs and distributors are a backward step. Once you have fitted a really good fully tunable aftermarket engine management system, and tuned it with a laptop computer yourself, nobody would fit a carb to a road car EVER again.

Been there done that.
 
#10 ·
Wow! Didn't expect so many replies so quickly. Thank you all for the suggestions. The diesel i was thinking about would was either a VW or an Isuzu diesel. But after all your suggestion I am now thinking about a LS1 or Jap. V-6. Someone commented about carb and dist aren't the way to go. Are computers and fuel injection the way to go. In cars now i see that they control way to much (Ex. If a sensor goes bad or reads wrong everything changes or stops working all together and get that stupid dummy light). Hate that dummy light.

Once again thank you all for your response.
 
#12 ·
Since I like fords I would say find a wrecked Mustang and pull the 302 tranny and rearend out and put under your car. The old 6 cylinders get pretty good mileage. The 250 in my maverick got 20+ mpg and I drove it hard. Some guys on the maverick site are claiming 25+mpg with a well tuned one and light right foot
 
#13 ·
Agree, a carb and distributor is no way to improve fuel mileage, but they don't exist for late Japanese V6s anyway. However, not one hot rodder in ten thousand would be capable of transplanting a late-model EFI, crank-trigger Japanese V6 into his car. There aren't any aftermarket wiring harnesses, or info on where to go to defeat the anti-theft devices. One local rod shop spent literally months and thousands trying to get a late Nissan V6 to run in an old Datsun pickup. They planned ahead enough to get all the OEM harness, but the computer thought it had been stolen and activated the anti-theft system, so the engine wouldn't start. Nissan wouldn't talk to them and there was no aftermarket support for the stock system.

thnx, jack vines
 
#14 ·
Electronic fuel injection completely cuts the fuel on closed throttle overun, a carb cannot do that.
Fuel injection can run closed loop, so that an oxygen sensor in the tailpipe constantly adjusts the air fuel mixture during steady freeway cruise, for best economy. A carb cannot do that either.
Fuel injection sprays an extremely fine fuel mist which creates much cleaner burning, and smoother running below full engine operating temperature. The choke on a carb dribbles in extra raw fuel into a stone cold engine to stop it from stalling. Extremely wasteful of fuel.
A carb has many different internal fuel and air circuits to tune, idle, main system, transition holes, power system, air corrector jets, accelerator pump, and so on. Some of these may be non adjustable on your particular carb. No matter how good you are, a carb can never be perfect. And it can never be set right for all induction air and engine operating temperatures. Fuel injection can change the air/fuel mixture to suit induction air, and engine operating temperature, a carb cannot.
Electronic injection is far more flexible and easier to adjust, a few computer key strokes and you can change absolutely anything, even while the engine is running. There are no cars manufactured anywhere in the world today with a carb. And that should tell you something.

A mechanical distributor has only centrifugal and vacuum advance/retard and these can only generate a very limited range of ignition timing settings. Electronic engine management can have ANY sort of weird experimental characteristics you need to program into it without any limitations at all. Vastly more flexible, and it is not subject to gradual wear or long term change like a mechanical system is.

Modern engines are pretty good, and electronics and computers are an important part of that. Carbs and points type ignition is for restorations only these days, or non performance street application.

If you are really serious about fuel economy, forget the old technology.
 
#15 ·
Packard V8 said:
There aren't any aftermarket wiring harnesses, or info on where to go to defeat the anti-theft devices. One local rod shop spent literally months and thousands trying to get a late Nissan V6 to run in an old Datsun pickup. They planned ahead enough to get all the OEM harness, but the computer thought it had been stolen and activated the anti-theft system, so the engine wouldn't start. Nissan wouldn't talk to them and there was no aftermarket support for the stock system.

thnx, jack vines
Two practical ways to do something like this.

initially You transplant EVERYTHING, engine, transmission, and engine management computer plus complete original wiring loom into your rod. The only problem with doing that is the factory management will very likely not be tunable, but it will pas smog test and be legal.

The other way is to ditch everything, just fit the basic bare engine with the original fuel injectors. You then buy an aftermarket engine management system which will include loom and all the new engine sensors. That then plugs into a laptop and you can program it to suit the engine. If you then decide for example, to fit headers and a cam, (or maybe a turbo), you can quickly reprogram the whole system to suit.

That is what I did, and the engine started and ran well very first attempt. These standard kits will fit absolutely anything from a small single cylinder engine to a vastly huge V16.

You go through the program menus and tell it how many cylinders, what the capacity of each cylinder is, how many ignition coils there are, the capacity of each fuel injector, and so on. Just go through and answer all the questions it asks.
It is as simple as that. The instruction book will give some examples of how to initially map the fuel and ignition timing with examples, and the engine will start and run first go.

This is the one I used:
http://www.qualityonelooms.com.au/index_files/Autronic.htm

And there are plenty of other similar systems both cheaper and more expensive.
 
#17 ·
oldschoolboy said:
Hello all,

I am building a 1940 ford tudor. I am trying to lay things out on paper so I will know where I am headed. I first thought about putting in a 350 but that was a year ago when fuel was $2.00/gal. Now I am thinking about a diesel. Could anyone offer some suggestion into an economical engine (good mpg, dependable, easy to work on, etc.)? This car will be a daily driver (not to worried about HP).

Thanks in advance
Forget the Diesel for at least a couple reasons.

First, diesel fuel is more expensive per gallon the mileage improvement a diesel engine delivers over gas. The only place where diesel mileage shines is the same place gas engines shine, that's on long uninterrupted hauls.

Second, diesels are very noisy, your Ford would be irritatingly loud in the passenger compartment.

Third, for their size, diesels are heavy. The front structure including suspension would have to be substantially beefed up to support an engine with anything more than miserly power. Plus anything that looks like handling is lost with 70 percent of the vehicle weight on the front tires.

Fourth, diesel parts are un-Godly expensive. You can by a lot of gasoline for what a replacement injector would cost ya.

Fifth, diesels engines like ethanol for fuel, are way over hyped for the goodness neither really delivers.

Sixth, put a 302 or a 289 in there, they fit like they were made for it and will easily deliver well into the 20 mpg range when built correctly. Fuel injection really delivers the goods, if you're starting from scratch buy a complete late model donor car (Mustang) and transfer all the goodies needed into the Tudor. Just GOOGLE it there's a number of sites dedicated to putting late model electronic fuelie's into older cars and trucks. These new cars are a system, to get good mileage with plenty of power you not only need the engine and its systems but the trans with OD and rear axle ratio as well.

Bogie
 
#18 ·
Why not a turbo V6 as long as you have a light foot you can achieve reasonable gas mileage and then let the boost loose when you want? This combo would definitely turn some heads don't you think? With the availability of aftermarket turbo setups this really wouldn't even be that hard to do. I think for a gas/weight conscious hot rod it would be a swap to look into
 
#19 ·
A turbo is the very last thing you want to have on a high gas mileage engine. The required lower compression ratio, and a relatively restrictive exhaust turbine, guarantee inefficient small throttle fuel economy.

For best fuel economy you need:

Low vehicle weight
High compression ratio
Low vehicle weight
A free flowing exhaust system
Low vehicle weight
Electronic fuel injection (very important)
A very light foot on the gas
 
#21 ·
If you want fuel mileage you need to have an engine that can deliver maybe 20Hp very efficiently at very light throttle.

That is a lot easier to do with a very small capacity 100Hp motor, than a large displacement 800Hp motor.

The big motor is going to have far more ring friction and higher pumping losses, and far worse combustion efficiency, whatever else you do.

Forget it guys, $10.00 gasoline is already what Europeans are paying now. The days of the 500Hp street car for the average Joe are gone forever.
 
#22 ·
Nobody mentioned areodynamics??


or lack of :D



I had a 83 pontiac 6000 new. It had an inline iron 4cyl 2.5 with a lockup auto & OD, and a 2.39 gear. That car was Ok on power considering the drivetrain, for what it was meant for.

Aero: I bought a large TV and put it in the trunk, and had the short decklid propped up. It really did not stick up much at all. Anyways, I got on the highway and as I tried to get up to cruising speed, I honestly thought there was something real wrong with the car :rolleyes: I could barely get to the minimum posted speed.

Old cars do better in wind tunnel tests if they are put in the tunnel BACKWARDS! :D Chrysler had a huge promo on just that when the Airflow came out in 1934. He hired a well know stunt driver and he drove a "regular" mopar 4 dr sedan cross country going backwards to prove the point.
 
#23 ·
F&J said:
Nobody mentioned areodynamics??
In most places these days, strictly enforced speed limits restrict you to speeds below maybe 60 MPH, and if you are driving for economy, maybe even a lot less than that for most of the time.

At low speeds, with constant stop go suburban driving, and frequent (gentle) acceleration, vehicle weight is FAR more important than frontal area or aerodynamic drag.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top