Hybrid Engine in '67 Mustang?

[smkealey]

Okay...this is my first post on this site and I'm not your typical car enthusiast. I don't live in my garage (yet) and every time I read about "trannys" on this site...I can't help but picture a bunch of transvestites out for a joy ride in the back seat of whichever 'stang is being discussed. So bare with me.

My 15 yo son and I just purchased a 69 fastback to restore. Neither one of us have any real experience although back in the 80 (my neo-hippy days) I did quite a bit of work on the Ford Maverick that belonged to the "artist formerly known as my wife". Also replaced the clutch on an old VW stationwagon during that same time although I have to admit that I don't remember process very well (again...neo-hippy days). So this project will certainly be an interesting one. We both agree that even if it takes us 10 years to "get er done"...we're in it for the long haul.

In an attempt to be the effective father I try to be, I have tried to balance fun and extravegance with wisdom and conservation. As a result, my son has shifted his interest in restoring the car to "customizing" it. I know some of you are starting to think of what curse words you can throw at me right about now, but that's okay...you've got yours and I've got mine.

Lately we've been wondering if we could put some type of diesel engine the car and use the SVO kits that are available to fuel the car. I don't encourage him to be concerned about how fast the car can go or how fast he can go from 0 to 60, so having a true muscle car isn't as appealing to him as having what looks like a muscle car, but is secretly and environmentally friendly (not to mention economical) means of transportation. WE live in a rural setting and the ride into town is about 15 minutes or more each way...so fuel efficientcy would be nice.

This thread seemed like the right place to post this question. So...what do you think? Is it possible to put a diesel engine in the 69 fastback? I'd like to put something on the "newer" side in it. We have to break everything down anyway...so, while we're at that point...might as well consider the options.

 

[Rusty67]

In all honesty, I think you would have a WAY easier time building a roller block 302 with fuel injection to get good gas milage then you would by using a diesel motor. Regular production cars in the use don't really use diesel setups. If you were living in Europe it would be a great option tho. The other thing is that diesel motors tend to be torque monsters.

Put an overdrive auto trans or a T5 stick shift trans in there to gain an overdrive gear, run 3.27:1 gears and EFI all together should get you decent milage and a FUN car as well. It wont be the fastest out there but it will run great.

You might want to start a seperate gas milage thread to learn how to get the most out of it. Also, the 5.0 section might help you figure out how to make the EFI equipment get better milage.

 

[Edbert]

A couple of things come to mind when reading your post...
1.) Welcome!
2.) If you plan on it taking it ten years it will take 20.
3.) Do not underestimate the cost or scope of ANY restomod project.
4.) Deisel is no more "green" than gasoline.
5.) Deisel is no more economic than gasoline.
6.) If fuel economy is a concern don't overlook the I6 with after market EFI.
7.) Good luck with your project, keep us up to date with reports and pictures!

 

[Sicarius428]

Actually Diesel releases less carbon than gasoline so ya, it is a tad better for the environment but doens't look or smell like it will. Diesel does get better gas mileage than gasoline but the price of diesel can be just as expensive if not more depending on the area. The issue I see with diesel motors is that in America they are geared towards heavy trucks. I don't think you will find a "drop in" option that will work well for your application. As stated before, an EFI, 5 speed 302 roller block is not a bad option if you are looking for decent power and efficiency. My 5.0 probably has about 300 rwhp which is more than I need out of it and it gets about 20 mpg. Granted it is no LS motor that can get 28 on the freeway but technology has proven that you can have a good compromise.
Kevin

 

[SadbutTrue]

Reading a recent Road & Track last night (the one with the blue ZR1 Vette on the cover), I noticed that five cars in a row mentioned in stories in the mag -- BMW M3, Audi S4, Lexus IS, Dodge Caliber SRT-4, and Mazdaspeed 3 -- get mileage about the same as my '65 C code 289 with an AFB carb, T-5, and 3.55's, about 15/21. Granted, we're talking cars with 300-400 hp that weigh between 3300 and 4000 lbs., that run 12.5 to 14.5 in the quarter and are speed limited to about 155 mph. But on fuel economy alone, a 40 year old carbureted 289 (with overdrive) gives up nothing to these new models.

Honestly, I'd bet that a 65/66 with an EFI, roller 5.0 with some conservative engine mods, a t-5, 3.00s in back, skinny tires, better ignition, etc could probably crush most of those high end cars in highway mileage (not the Vettes though.. the LS series V8s, combined with the T-56's absurdly tall 6th gear have been known to hit 30 mpg without trouble). Until the recent spike in gas prices, Americans didn't really care how much gas they used.. hence most development went into more power instead of mileage.

Engine mods here equal something along the lines of performer series aluminum heads/intake/cam, 500-600 cfm 2 barrel carb (which, if you keep the secondaries shut, is smaller than a 2 barrel), and a set of 1 1/2" headers going to 2 1/4" pipe. All of these should give you more efficient combustion and shouldn't use any more actual gas... which should give you better mileage. Edelbrock advertises the whole Performer line as being able to give better economy than stock.

 

[danny clemens]

I'm sure that you could put a diesel engine in it but what's it gonna cost. I doubt if the fuel savings would ever make up for the cost of the switch.

 

[smkealey]

Thanks for the responses. I will certainly have to investigate some of the options you guys have mentioned; but I want to clarify one thing about he diesel idea. When I say I am planning to use SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) as fuel I think the economical and envirnomental issues become much more pertinant. If you're not familiar with SVO, take a look at this site: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html#guide

Now I'm just scratching the surface of this whole concept and I haven't the slightest clue what a "roller block" engine is...I understand the 302 part. I'm gonnal have to chew on that info for a bit. So...thanks for the input. I'd still like somebody out there to tell me that this might work.

Thanks again.

 

[Sicarius428]

The roller block is the latest generation of the 302. It's commonly refered to as the 5.0 or HO and the biggest difference is that it uses a roller cam.
Kevin

 

[GOvert]

An Electric conversion would be easier and about $6000-.
http://evconvert.com

 

[Rusty67]

Not all 5.0s are roller blocks. I think all of the HO 5.0s are tho.

 

[D.Hearne]

I haven't the slightest clue what a "roller block" engine is...I understand the 302 part. I'm gonnal have to chew on that info for a bit.
Thanks again.

"Roller Motor" = those late model pushrod V8's & V6's that use a roller cam to operate the valve train. These cams use roller tipped lifters to follow the cam profile. The older "flat tappet" cams have a basically flat faced lifter (cam follower) that's actually slightly convex on the bottom and it rides one side of the cam lobe and this induces a spinning motion on the lifter as it rides up and down the cam lobe. This reduces the friction between the lobe and lifter, but not completely. The two parts have a shorter life span than a roller lifter/cam lobe. The Roller blocks are cast with different lifter bores to accomodate the taller roller lifters and lifter retainer hardware. The roller lifters have to be kept from spinning in the bores and keep the roller tips from twisting on the cam lobes. The one down side of roller cammed pushrod engines is the pushrod tips wear a bit faster than flat tappet pushrods. The flat tappet rods spin with the lifters and this reduces the wear at the rocker arm ends. Heavy duty diesel engines have used roller cams for many, many years due to the increased longetivity of the valvetrain parts.

 

[D.Hearne]

The roller block is the latest generation of the 302. It's commonly refered to as the 5.0 or HO and the biggest difference is that it uses a roller cam.
Kevin

The std base 5.0's had roller cams as well, starting with the 86 model year. The cam was a smaller grind refered to by Ford as the "base" roller. The pickup/van 5.0's had roller blocks with flat tappet cams starting with that year as well, and got the base roller cams in 1992. They got a cam upgrade to the F4TE cam in 1994.

 

[Edbert]

Oh...I saw "SVO" and thought you meant the turbocharged 4-banger (previous version of SVT)...LOL...guess I'm just old.

 

[Rusty67]

Oh...I saw "SVO" and thought you meant the turbocharged 4-banger (previous version of SVT)...LOL...guess I'm just old.

Thats where my mind went with it and I'm only 25. I was confused too =-)

 

[Loup-garou]

I agree with those here that recommend a more modern engine and flex-fuel capability. Like it or not, the U.S. Government is pushing ethanol-blended fuels into the mainstream. I think it's crazy to use food crops for fuel production, but there is promising research into using junk plants such as switchgrass instead of corn. Hey, maybe they'll find a way to turn kudzu into motor fuel! But I digress...

Consider finding a flex-fuel Ranger pickup and swapping the engine, transmission, wiring and ECU. There are companies that make bellhousings which mate the Duratec engines to T5/Tremec transmissions - check out the kit car sites - especially those dealing with the Caterham... the Duratec is a popular choice (and easy to find).

Want something with a bit more zing than an I-4? Check out the Duratec 30 - that 3.0L V6 started out as a Porsche design, which Ford purchased. The cylinder heads were also tweaked by Cosworth, IIRC. There are some interesting swaps out there involving that engine, including one top-notch example involving a late-'80s Merkur.

Another possibility is the 4.0 SOHC V6 that can be found under the hood of many Explorers and Mountaineers. Good hp/torque and decent fuel economy, too.

Best of luck with this project.

 

[65ShelbyClone]

Oh...I saw "SVO" and thought you meant the turbocharged 4-banger (previous version of SVT)...LOL...guess I'm just old.

Nah, I immediately think SVO Mustang as well and have to tell myself this is in the context of diesels. Try punching in "SVO" in Ebay and see what happens.

 

[68FBJJZ109]

What about running a Turbo Bio diesel car.... their is a man named John Goodwin doing some very interesting things with Hydrogen Injected (multi Fuel though mainly bio diesel) vehicles. He has some very impressive MPG and HP ratings.