Hot Rods Econoline Pickup swap

New here and have a question that I am sure someone has done before. I am looking at doing a Econoline pickup for a daily driver. not trying to build a drag car but do want to drive it daily.
looking for:
Highway speeds
mid 20's MPG if possible
able to go 100+ miles each day.
has anyone done a swap with a modern 4 or 6 cyl. that did well on miles per gallon?
Always loved these trucks and just want something different to drive to work but not break the bank doing it.

 

Modern swaps don’t happen here.
The current factory straight 6s possibly get 20mpg or better now.
They were capable of driving hundreds of miles daily.
To get 20mpg and drive daily only a restoration is needed. Edit: and conservative driving
Highway speeds? Gear change or update the trans to an OD.
Modern trans are the only “modern” mods the bosses here allow.

 

so you think with a gear change only it would be able to hit 70mph and run it for a few hours wtihout damage to the I6?
Trust me, I am all in if it can be done without modern swap. everything i own so far has it's factory motor and trans.

 

They were used as delivery trucks for years, likely short runs. But a rear gear swap would help keep the revs down.

 

They came with the 170 cid or newer ones had the 200 six, I think if I was going to use an overdrive transmission I would have a 250 six with an overdrive. The 140, 170, 200 and the 250 are the same family of engine. I'm not sure if the 140 was ever used in them...

 

The 300 six is both traditional (released in 1965) and your best choice. My van got 21+ at 60 mph with a 3spd+OD toploader. Lots of speed equipment was made and many back yard hot rodders built their own intakes, exhausts and other upgrades. The full story can be revealed at www.fordsix.com.
There is a reason those engines were used from 1965 to 1997. Rugged, reliable, efficient bulletproof engines. One will drop right in too.

 

While the 300 is a great engine(I own several), I seriously doubt one will "drop right in" to an early Econoline. 200's are commonly used in these.
20 mpg at 70 with 200 cubes and the aero of a barn door is gonna be a tall order......

 

yeah, this is reality, right here.

If you add overdrive, you can probably pull highway speeds on flat ground, with a tailwind, but you're not gonna get 25 mpg doing it in an Econoline pickup. They had steep gearing for a reason--you need to keep the little engine revved to make the thing move.

Figure out what's important to you. Looks, comfort (the Econoline is lacking there, too), mileage, acceleration, RPM at cruising speed, purchase/build cost, etc. Ford built them the way they did for a reason, they knew there were tradeoffs, and they picked the set that would sell the most vehicles.

 

He even asked for mid 20's, not just 20.
Around here diesel has been the choice for fuel economy in heavy & barndoor aerodynamic vehicles since forever. Maybe not so popular over there, where you almost get paid to haul away the gas from the gas stations?

 

Why not just swap in a small Ford or Chevy V8 with AOD and appropriate rearend? Why try to make a donkey win the Derby?

 

You could get a 240 6 in the Falcon Clubwagon starting in 65 or so, also came with a 9" rear.
It's not that hard to put a 289 or 302 in those either.

 

Do a 289 and a C4 and your good to go.

 

My guess is the only way you will get mid 20's with an Econoline van is to lie like a Washington politician.

 

- yep, like driving a brick - plan on upgrading brakes & put in comfy seat, with 3 point seat belt, too

 

Before upgrading the brakes too much I might confirm the 150 pound plus OEM counterweight is still installed out back.

 

The '65 up Econolines came with either a 240 ci or its big bro the 300. Externally they are quintessentially the same engine, and a 300 ci is a common upgrade to the original 240 since everything bolts up.
I used to make regular 180 mile trips between Detroit to Cleveland OH in either my '83 carbed 4-speed 3.00 geared Econoline or my '85 similarly equipped Club Wagon. If I watched my speed and kept it below 60 mph I could knock down 20 mpg either way.
While the early Econoline pickup is not as aerodynamic as my O/T vans it is probably 1500 pounds lighter than my rides so I would say it is also doable. I inserted the caveat about doing 60 mph max since I feel that is a sweet spot in terms of fuel economy vs a comfortable cruise speed.
Since the OP was
"looking for:
Highway speeds
mid 20's MPG if possible"
I thought my opinion was good for a good dose of reality.
If 60 mph is a good enough "highway speeds" you can break into the low 20s, as have others over on the www.fordsix.com website.
Don't expect much better.
As far as going 100 miles per day I would expect you could do that , oh, say, 5.5 years straight, or about 200,000 miles.
As far as "dropping right in" it may take a little hot roddery since the blueovaltrucks.com website says, "Using a mid-engine chassis, the Econoline pickup truck saw no engine intrusion into the cargo bed. Although, in 1965 with the offering of the larger 240 cubic-inch engine there was a slight intrusion into the cargo bed providing clearance for the larger transmission bellhousing. "

 

300, AOD, 9-inch with something 3.73-ish.

Better brakes up front.

Lowering it as much as it can be and remain functional will improve aerodynamics, but keep in mind that it already has the profile of a potting shed.

 

I have a 60 model van , that is very similar to your truck. I rebuilt a 200 cubic inch six stock and added a 3 speed overdrive out of a 1957 Ford. I Put a 4:11 nine inch rear end it it. This combo would do 80mph all day long and had real good acceleration and good gas mileage. I cannot remember the exact mileage, not sure if I ever checked it. I built this rig forty years ago!




Bones

 

On the farm, my '61 (van) was done my a very young version of me in 1983. Took out the 144 C.I., 3 speed and installed the 289, C-4, and 8 inch differential out of a '67 Cougar. My dad welded in the conversion motor mount adapter pipe thingy. With self overhauled engine, cousin Eno rebuilding the trans, and my new paint job, it only took TWO months to complete. The van drove good.

ADDED:

Boneyard51 would later say : And the weight was not a real factor as I was hauling motorcycles and a lot of stuff in mine!

That reminded me, the reason for owning my Econoline was, I stored and hauled my '80 XLS Harley around with it. Good times!

 

Love the Econoline trucks and they can be tricked to run highway speeds w/ OD but mid-20s mileage would be a stretch. I would be darned happy to get 18 out of her, considering my 2017 Lincoln Turbo 2.0L gets 17 in town.

Joe

 

Unless you're gunna stick a race prep engine in why put the large lump of 9" rear in it? Surely there's an 8" or similar that will do the job adequately saving weight and cost. The more the vehicle weighs the more grunt required to move it through the air. Large rear brakes aren't needed on something that's probably front end heavy.

 

My father had a '61 club wagon that came with the 144. It redefined gutless...

 

In the 70's I had a 65 Econoline, fresh 240 inch 3 spd. If I got 16 mpg I was happy. I rebuilt a 289 with a mild cam, Edelbrock intake & a 650 Holley, it ran better & I may have gotten 18 mpg. It was a fun truck, wish I still had it.

 

I had a 1966 Bronco with the 170 and 4.11 gears, it was a total slug. Neat truck, the engine ran great, just no power. I realize that a Bronco is very heavy for a 170, but in retrospect, it was perfect for a 17 year old budding Hot Rodder.

 

Do you plan to use an automatic or manual trans?
I believe there was one year only where a four speed (probably the infamously weak Dagenham) was offered, with a shifter on the column.
That would be a neat setup to use with a better four speed, or three + one overdrive.
As was alluded to in an earlier post, the transmission mount on these is a real odd duck, there's a big eye hook kinda thingy on the top of the transmission from which the trans is suspended. I don't know if they made a C4 housing with this weird mount.

 

I am not sure that they made a C4 with that mount. All of the conversions that I have seen had a fabricated cross member.

 

I don't recall mention of a special Econoline C4 extension housing in the late '60s - early '70s engine swap articles, and I'm sure I would have remembered such a thing.
So highly unlikely they were made. Too bad, it was a quirky, but neat way to make a transmission / motor suspension point.

 

Personally, I don't think it's the right platform no matter what you did to it.
There's a lot better candidates...like... just about all of them.

They used the seats out of these for the Thunderbolt Fairlanes. Why? Because they were lightweight and cheap. Ford skimped on the seats and padding for these jokers, that ought to tell you something.

I like 'em. They're kind of cute and quirky but an hour commute every work day?

 

I mean... The discussion started with an engine swap. Putting a more comfortable seat in should be simpler than most engine swaps, right?