Diesel vs 283 in Model A PU for MPG???

I used to bang a girl that worked at a burger joint. I'd make her take a shower before we would do the deed. I couldn't imagine my junk smellin like a french fry. I hated the smell of fry oil then and I still hate it now.sorry>>>>.

 

I didn't say it was the cause for the outrageous prices, it's a big cause of the difference in price between gas and diesel.

 

That is hilarious.

A guy in town runs his Dodge diesel on fry oil. Says that fat people follow him around town....hahaha

 

Diesel, diesel, DIESEL!!! MB's are very cool. Do something different. Also don't know how well your planned wire wheels would hold up with a Chevy small block. Be unique, be cool, be demented---go with the diesel. Forget the bio or vege diesel---don't want to screw up your injection system. Keep the mill/tranny stock and ....enjoy!

 

Just for shits and grins I got on my trustee computer. For all you math experts out there I did a little cyphering. If the 283 were to get 22mpgs in 1000 miles it would cosume 45.4 gallons of fuel at 3.25 a gallon at a price of 147.55. If the diesel got 28mpgs in 1000 miles it would cosume 35.7 gallons of fuel at 4.10 a gallon at a price of 146.37. This would make driving a guttless piece of non tradtional crap a huge money savings of $1.18. Mileage figures may vary but please. And once again this is just my opinion and I could be wrong>>>>.

 

they did make a front mount years ago for your application - 265 or 57-283 w/front mounting
It was a plate that utilized the orig 2 frt holes on either side of the c/shaft-ushaped under the crank and came up on the sides and extended out to the sides and I believe that it sat on the old f/head ford mounts and used the f/head insulators .....for an early ford installation. I used that mount when I put a 265 in my 32 chev sedan back in about 63
ron

 

go with the diesel! I had a 300TD with the turbo (5 banger) and it had tons of torque, you could fry the tires with that setup.

 

diesel

 

"There's more to life than gas milage."

 

Use the M-B;think outside the box. I'm doing a '41 IHC with a Mazda turbo diesel and screw those who don't like it.

 

Thanks for all your input on this subject. I apoligize to all you "traditional" guys. Didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers. I love all the hamb cars. I drive my '27 with a flathead which I built back in 2003.









and I own 17 other projects at my shop. It's just that I believe in working with what I got and I picked up this good running MB for $250. Also I don't plan on running "french fry" grease. Straight diesel. The MB was doing better than 30 MPG. I would think this PU should do at least that and probably better. This engine just needs a hot wire to start. No computor. I think this engine will clean up nicely and already has an air conditioner compressor mounted. The motor mount brackets on the engine will make for a very simple motor mount installation. If down the road it doesn't meet my expectations, all I need is to redo the engine and trans mounts and the SBC is a cinch to drop in.

Didn't expect to be called an asshole over this. Guess what I really wanted to know is what kind of MPG could I expect from a stock early 283 with an overdrive and an S-10 rearend. And Yes, I do have two of the early front SBC mounts to mount the SBC to the flathead frame. Could also fabricate some mounts off the bellhousing to the frame as in the early chevy bellhousings.

My shop truck is a 2005 Colorado and I just thought this Model A with the diesel would do better gas miliage and as far as I'm concerned I think it would be a lot "cooler" to drive this than my Colorado. Thanks, Joe.

 

Joe,
If the "ass-hole" thing was me, that was not what I was calling you. I was refering to myself as an ass-hole cuz I was being sarcastic about "traditional" hotrods with 350/350's and fuzzy dice. I appreciate your attempt to be unique and original with a diesel engine.

MBZ's are built like tanks, and if memmory serves, the 190 tips the scales at 3400-3500 lbs. Your rod should be a good 7-800 lbs lighter, so 33-35 mpg would not be out of line.

 

Thanks, Feel better already. And like I said, I will probably try out the MB and if I don't like it, at least the PU will be "dailed in". Converting it back will be a snap. Have some nice red '35 wire wheels with new old Phillups bias ply white wall tires I bought a while back. Figure to run some early ford drums in front and some ford adapters out back on the S-10 rear--or redrill the axles?? Joe.

 

Nice looking 27! Send us some of the buy one and get 5 free fireworks, I know you'll do the right thing with the truck. remember a little 104 behind the ears>>>>.

 

I like your approach, but the numbers are flawed IMO. The MB diesels pulled 28 mpg in heavy cars. I think the same engine in a lightweight little truck would be good for at least 32 mpg (maybe better). To go 1000 miles you would use 31.25 gallons of fuel at $4.10 costing $128.13. Saving $19.42 or $0.01942 per mile. So you can see this argument really means nothing. In fuel costs it'll probably be a wash. Perhaps it'll lean in favor of the diesel.

But it really comes down to the guy that's building the truck. If he likes it, why do any of us really care?

 

The diesels with the mech. pumps will run bio or vegi with no problems or effects to the injection system, it is the hpcr systems that dont like it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlov_t4fjg

(how do you embed this???)

 

when you are in the editor, on top of the text box is all the little icons for shit you can add or for changing font etc...

all the way at the right is what looks like a film reel...

now, cut the end off the youtube link, like so mVlov_t4fjg

then highlight that and click on the reel icon, and it puts the tags around the video that show it here in the post...

 

What caught my eye was that extended-cab action you've got goin' on...
Nicely done!