Would you guys consider putting a 4 cylinder in your ride?

Nope !

 

If you're worried about gas mileage you might as well forget the 300 six and build a 302.

 

It'll work but drivability won't be as spiffy as you think it might be. Everything in/on the stock Ranger that moves/rotates is smaller/lighter than the F-100. You have to look at rotating mass and other things that effect inertia, not just the curb weight. 170ft/lbs from a N/A motor isn't going to do you well with the F100. I've driven plenty of Rangers new and old and none of them are a ball of fire. For 1/2 of the price of the Esslinger motor you can do up a very nice stockish 300 six banger or a 289/302 V8 that'll do the job just fine and be kind to you at the pump. Don't think for a minute that a tired Ranger 2.3 is going to get much north of 20-25mpg with everyday driving. The ones I've got experience with are in the low-mid 20's for mileage with the very occasional 26-27mpg bonus out on the open highway. When they get some miles on them they get tired and thirsty just like anything else out there and they too are not cheap to rebuild (the right way).

The last I knew, the N/A Esslinger 200/225hp motors are not pump gas friendly with compression ratios of around 12:1. The 2.0 and 2.5 hydro motors we built a few years ago were making the same power with iron heads and were tempermental in a light boat (and not pump gas friendly either).....nothing you'd want to live with everyday....and they were not mileage kings to say the least....usually running a big Rochester 2-Jet carb or sometimes a small 4 barrel.

You'd be better off with a complete SVO or TurboCoupe EFI motor/turbo and ECU combo....the T-birds were about the same weight (or heavier) than the F100 and that power package moved those cars around just fine and still got decent mileage (low 20's) with a light foot.

That being said....with the right parts and a light foot the 300 inliner won't be too far off the mileage mark if you get the combination right. Small cam, small carb, cleaned up ports, OD trans and 3.0ish gearing should get you into the low 20's for mileage. Same for a 289/302 if you're really careful on parts picking and driving habits.

 

No..No...No...No..

 

Offenhauser

 

yeah the V6 dose not get mention much on here.. v6 would look cool in a tbucket.. i wish i could drive a stick.. i even tried to man up and that only worked for a year.. till it just became unsafe and hurt way to much to drive my last vw bug. i love bugs, but the auto stick is a joke.

my dad has given me a Cadillac 500/trans to use in my project if i can get it running.. it ran when it was put into his 54 ford.. so should be fine.. we will see what kind of millage i get with that damn thing.. if i could drive a stick id go with a 2.3 in a heart beat for my t bucket.. even have one out back.. its front wheel drive tho.. but yeah, for now im planing on the 500 for my tbucket project.

iv not driven a turbo charged 2.3 so maybe it would be ok with a auto? shrugs. i have some webbers i could use already.
chris.

 

what year is your chev in your avatar? 61? my dad has a 60. we put a sb stroker in her and a 4 speed on the floor.. got rid of the strait six and the 3 on the tree ( we all love to hate the three on the tree ). he just retired a few months ago, so im gonna help him this winter get her on the road.. we just have to bolt some disc breaks on her, and some other odd bits etc.. here is a picture of her:


she is not perfect but rust free and worth every cent of the 1200.00 he paid for her.

chris.

 

hahahahaha what gas mileage? I have a 90 Lincoln,last year of the 302 in them and the fuel mileage sucks. I can't remember the weight off the top of my head but I'lll bet it weighs as much as the truck. Looking at the torque curve of this engine it looks like an f150 setup, and it's still a slug, I just tuned it up and I'm still getting 14 mpg

 

Exactly what I was thinking... but I wouldn't be opposed to a snotty Toyota 4 banger Hemi! (Looks like half a Hemi)

 

small block - tall gears and light foot - same result but looks and sounds better!

 

what about a supercharged older 4 cyl? if you supercharge you get a much broader torque curve, anyone can drop in an eight, but it takes some innovation to get lots of horsepower and torque from a 4

 

Yes I would.

 

I would, if it was a light little car like a Chevy II, or lighter.

 

what about doing something way out there, and put in one of the older benz 6s, the diesels? tons of torque and pretty cool, the things are bulletproof, an old German engine has it's own coolness factor,

 

maybe in my kids pedal car.

 

exactly.....im so tired of seeing a sb350 in everything....hotrodding is about useing what you got to build your hotrod...

 

I did more then consider! I don't care what others think, it's my car and my ride. I still have a flathead or two in the wings.

 

i give whats a "Toyota 4 banger Hemi!"
just a datsun on steroids?

chris.

 

I'd use an older GM 2.5 four cylinder, Jeep 2.5 four or even a Toyota 22RE (gasp!) if I wanted a replacement motor for a stock flathead or even an early 60s OHV 6. I've looked at the power specs, most of those old motors were really weak. A newer four cylinder would have the same or more power and get much better mileage. I seen a 2.5 Iron Duke from an S-10 in a 53 Plymouth. Power-wise it wasn't any worse than the 218 that previously inhabited the engine bay. I would not use a 2.3 though in a full-sized truck, even with a turbo it'll be a turd. Those 2.3's just don't have the torque. I did see a 2.9 V-6 in a 65 Ford once. Not sure how well it went down the road though. I don't think there will be much of a mileage difference between a well tuned 300 six and a 2.3. My old 77 F100 had a 3 speed with a 300 and it would average about 22 mpg, best I got was 26 mpg going at a steady 45 mph pace.

 

Do a little research in the car mags from the 70s,during and after the first "energy crisis". Look at the rods built with little mileage motors,and read the articles about squeezing the last mile out of a gallon of gas.All good info for that time,but I'd bet after that first crisis passed,those "hot" rods with little motors weren't worth so much.
It was a sad time,and I hope we don't have to ever line up again, buy gas on only certain days,depending on our tag number,and hope and pray that the station doesn't run out while we're lined up down the street waiting our turn.
The 66 Mercury I drove at the time got about 10mpg,with a 390.I didn't come home from school much in those days,didn't know if I'd be able to buy enough gas for the return trip.
Until we're back to that shit,I'll not put a 4 in the hole where a V8 once was.

 

Used a 2.3 mustang because it was free. the ride is a 45 Willys roadster that weighs almost nothing. did the research and a good running 302 is half the price of a 250 plus HP 2.3. the car ran ok with the 4 put there is no noise like V8's with zoomies.
good luck, as long as it runs and you like it thats that.

 

Ive done it several times. Keep the hood shut and drive.

 

You guys should Google Daimler Dart V8. Small and lightweight!! It's easier on the eyes than a Camry engine too.....

 

does this count

 

I am going with the ford 2.3 turbo and t-5 in my truck... its going to be light... so it should go ok...have been told to put a hood on it though...lol....

Roy....

"if we all built what one person or group thought was correct.... we all would have pretty much the same thing.... doesnt sound like any fun to me..."

 

Not a chance in hell. You may as well buy a Prius.

 

this 33 was built in the 70's when the gas crunch hit, it has a 2.0 pinto in it, i thought it was pretty cool, so im leaving it in, ill let the next guy change it, anybody have good ideas on a muffler to make it not sound like my bug??

 

Why don't you put a six inline!!

 

I've been thinking about a daily driver Model A with a turbo 2.3 and 5-speed.

 

Hell no!!!