New guy with old stuff
 

I have been looking at posts on this site off and on for awhile now. It's very cool to see the different approaches people take to get better mpg. I've tried the best I could on my own to get good mpg on my cars, but I want to get a little more extreme. I have a '01 Jetta 1.8t for the daily (wife's car), and a bunch of classic cars. I want to know if there are anyone on here that have tried things to get better mpg on old cars. I know I could go out and buy a 3 cylinder Metro and go from there, but I like old cars. I used to own an '87 CRX Si, and a '95 Civic Si hatch and they did decent on mpg, but they weren't for me.With old cars I don't have car payments, I do all of my own work, I get to teach my kids how to work on cars, the value usually appreciates, and I get more enjoyment out of them.

My next project is going to be a '50 Chevy 2dr Fleetline. Right now I'm looking at swapping the 216 with a 3OTT to a 250 with a 5 speed and a Nova rearend. This might get a GM TBI and a megasquirt conversion too. I think I can get mid to high 20's out of this swap, but if there are better ideas for better mpg and drive-ability, I'm all ears! I was thinking a little bit about modern engine swaps too. Something like the Colorado 5 cylinder with a 5 speed, or maybe even the Colorado 4 cylinder. i want to be able to do 75-80 mph TOP SPEED (could be higher), and I want to get max mpg. Anyone done anything like this?

Before anyone tells me this is a bad idea....I know it won't win any contests. It's not aerodynamic, it's heavy, it costs a lot to maintain and work on, etc... I know. Right now the engine is already cracked, and it's getting a swap either way. The rearend and trans have to go because of the torque tube, so I have a blank slate.

I'm looking forward to hearing ideas, and letting everyone know how my project goes. This fleetline will end up being my daily... except for when I'm riding the old Cb450.

That sounds like a cool idea cant wait to see some pics of your project. I love the idea of modern tech into old school cars. Do you have a plan for fuel econ goals? Or is 20mpg your goal?

A 4 cylinder and manual transmission would give all the power you need and have a better chance at hitting your mpg goal.

Welcome aboard, and as a person who loves the old school, you get bonus points! With a decent amount of room under the hood ( at least lengthwise ), I would look into a couple of things.

Since you are not out for killer speed, and maximum economy, the key would be maximum bottom end torque and nothing torques better than diesel. To keep it 6 cylinders and kind of small, a Mercedes 3.5L inline 6 turbo diesel or the 3.0l twin cam diesel out of the 300 would fit nicely. Going bigger, the 5.9 Cummins would do great, but they are kind of loud in mechanically injected form; the common rail units are pretty quiet. Either way, it'll move that boat down the highway and do 30 mpg or better with a stick and some tall gears.

Gas engine wise, the Atlas engine is not bad, but with all that valve area not great on bottom end torque. You want to cruise, and 2 valves per cylinder and smaller ports will get the job done. Either that or cam those engines differently so that the power is more biased to the bottom end.

That later model 250 inline 6 with EFI is a good start in keeping with the old school flavor, but I don't like the cylinder head. Sissell can do some things with that one, or if you feel like spending some money, get one of those Sissell aluminum heads, a bottom end torque style cam and multipoint EFI. Has a modern fast burn chamber, so that will help with the mpg. Smooth and silky power with some duals running Smiths out the back.

Out of the box thinking: GM 4.8L LS motor, all stock, 5 speed OD, truck intake manifold and EFI, tall gears in the back, carefully tuned. These iron motors can be bought for no money with a lot of life left in 'em and since they do great in the trucks they came out of, your Fleetline will be easy.

I think a realistic goal would be about 25 mpg. If I could get 30mpg without sacrificing a ton (drastic weight reduction, no accessories, unattractive exterior mods, etc..) then I would be even happier. I was trying to see if anyone had swapped a 4 cylinder into an old car, but I haven't seen it yet. I saw an old mustang online where a guy swapped in a souped up 2.3t and claims around 30 mpg and tons of power. I just don't know how much I believe when it comes to his mpg claim. If it's true, then he's got one of the coolest mustangs out there.

I was thinking about an LS swap too. The 5.3/4.8 engines are cheap and easy to find, and there is a lot of aftermarket support for them. I have heard of trucks getting low 20's on the hwy with them, but I could spend less money with the 250 swap and have the same mpg if not more (I would think the 250 with a worked head and TBI would get a little more).

The Atlas motor (4, 5, and 6 cylinder) all look very appealing. They have great power, but looking at the mpg numbers for the vehicles they came out of, I'm not impressed. I would like to know what modern engine (preferrably GM) have decent power and great mileage.

I like the idea of the Mercedes diesel... Kind of reminds me of a car I saw online. It was an old '50 chevy fleetline (hmmm...) and the original owner had made a bunch of mods and installed a 4 cylinder perkins diesel. He claimed 35-40 mpg (must be nice!). I talked to the guy who was selling it a couple years back and it was COMPLETELY rusted out. I doubt it performs very well, and parts are probably tough, but it's soooo cool! I would love to build something comparable with maybe a more modern diesel,and a 5 speed trans (well anything with a good OD).

There's an Edsel here with a turbo 2.3. If you are happy with low 20s then you can put just about anything in there.

A 6cyl. '65 Mustang comes to mind. I had a notchback 3spd. manual that returned
30mpg. stock at 55mph.

With the right gearing, an early Nova might do well also.

as larry said,
it's all about the gearing.
A 7 speed auto with the right rear end and you are off the the races.
I would love to see a VW TDI in a classic. THe tdi gets great reviews and should be able to move a lead sled along at a reasonable pace.
SO much aftermarket for the tdi also.

Has anyone taken a VW TDI motor and mounted it to be rear wheel drive and maybe even installed it into something a little older? lol. That is a cool engine, but everyone knows it too. The MB engine seems to be a lot easier to find but I think parts would be $$. Which MB engine would be a good choice?

There have been rear drive TDI conversions. If you go to TDIClub.com a guy put one in a Jeep Liberty.

The engines that I was thinking about are the MB OM606 ( twin cam, 24 valves, non turbo or turbo I6), the OM 612 ( the 5 cylinder they used in the Sprinter vans ), OM603 ( sohc, 12 valve, mechanical injection 6 cylinder ), or the infamous OM617 ( 5 cylinder, IDI, turbo or non turbo ).

You mentioned Perkins diesels. Parts are not that bad to get for those things since there are a lot of boats and industrial equipment still running them, and people know how to get more power out of them.

Or, if you like the noise, you could put a baby Detroit Diesel in ( 4-53, 3-53 ) with a T5 5 speed like this guy did in his Ford pickup :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZWgrTde348

or this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kko2xd8nk4E

Aw heck, why not? It'll only piss off the neighbors!

And they get near 30 mpg with them.

After looking at some TDI swaps, I don't think I'll be going that route. It looks like a VERY difficult swap, and the mpg is comparable to the MB anyways (at least in the some of the swaps I looked at). This could be something I can research and do down the road (maybe), but for now I want something a little easier. Those Detroits are LOUD. I like the mpg they get, but it's not practical for a car that is driven daily and usually with kids. Right now I'm still looking for more gas options. I like to see what others have done. That way I won't be disappointed with mpg figures after the swap is said and done.

GM's 3.5 v6 is a very reliable motor, I have had it in a 88 corsica, and now my 07 malibu, easy to work on and if you can find one with a Manuel trans it would ne even better on gas. You could find one cheap and should be able to squeeze some decent mpgs

Ps. I know you said you don't want a bunch of weight reduction, another option is swapping old parts with newer lightweight parts, for every 100 lbs loss you can gain 1-2% efficacy. My malibu weighs 3297 lbs and I'm averaging 29 mpg with the 3.5 v6 auto. You might be able to get a rough estimate if you can figure out your chassis weight and the motor and trans weight. Of course there will be quit a bit of variation with the aerodynamic properties of your 50s Chevy.

I love your idea of old and new, and am excited to see how it turns out, no matter what you decide

Ps. I know you said you don't want a bunch of weight reduction, another option is swapping old parts with newer lightweight parts, for every 100 lbs loss you can gain 1-2% efficacy. My malibu weighs 3297 lbs and I'm averaging 29 mpg with the 3.5 v6 auto. You might be able to get a rough estimate if you can figure out your chassis weight and the motor and trans weight. Of course there will be quit a bit of variation with the aerodynamic properties of your 50s Chevy.

I love your idea of old and new, and am excited to see how it turns out, no matter what you decide

I'll have to look into the 3.5 v6. I was liking the idea of the Atlas engines (any one of them), and they seem to have decent MPG and great power. I think with a little tuning and a 5 speed, they should do pretty well in the '50. I haven't weighed the car yet, but from the research I've done, these cars weighed about 3300 lbs. It should get a little lighter when switching from the stovebolt engine/trans/torque tube setup to a modern driveline. That and maybe an aluminum driveshaft, lighter wheels with skinny LRR tires, and an aluminum radiator. This car won't have power windows or AC or anything. I want the interior to be close to stock except maybe a recover in a more durable vinyl (tuck n roll).

Any progress?

I had a thread going similar to this last fall. I opted to start with the old 235 and am in the throws of installing a Nova rear-end. I picked up a couple of 50's 3spd+OD transmissions so I can keep the 3 OTT shifter. I plan my freeway rpm's to be at 2,000. This will give me flexibility in case I want a different engine/trans later on.

The GM 8.5" diff's can have 2.24, 2.56, 2.73, 3.08, 3.42, 3.73 or 4.10/4.11:1 ratios; I currently have a 2.24, 2.56 & 2.73 but I might have to jump up to a 3.42. If you have questions on how to get a later rear-end into your Chev. let me know; also jump over to CT, they know.

if you are building one up ya can do it anyway you wanna
build me one .

little bitty engine . lots of gears
5 speed main box and a 2 0r 3 speed axle.. an electric would be OK but id rather have a manual auxiliary.

i doubt one can find a 3 speed aux. small and light enough , but
they have some electric 2 -speed that are light weight , or used too.

it might not accelerate fast but think of the fun shifting 15 forward gears ,

keep that little power plant wound up to peak torque with WOT and row your way to the next stoplight with the gear lever

I would use the GM 4 cylinder 3.0 (lots of them in marine applications) Iron Duke engine with a 5 speed and decent rear end gearing, say around 3 to 1 with a .75-80 OD 5th.

I put a 73 Nissan Z car engine in a 720 Pickup frame, with a 49 Plymouth businessmans coupe body, sectioned and channeled, with a 4 speed and it weighed 2350 when I fininshed, about 3200 stock.

regards
Mech

Excess gears = higher drivetrain losses.

I like the 3.5v6 I have in the Impala, but only way it would work would do FWD conversion. I'm a KISS guy, find a crashed Camero (just realized my son's name is Camero plus a N on the end) or Firebird V6 5 spd and swap that in, or S-10 4 cy and 5 spd would be easy if that's enough power.

I would suggest you go out and look at a Camaro emblem; then get back to us on that.

Fuel Economy Advantage of 2-Speed Axles
Chapman, L., "Fuel Economy Advantage of 2-Speed Axles," SAE Technical Paper 831798, 1983,

data showing the fuel-saving capability of a two-speed versus a single speed axle
The two-speed axle with ratios straddling the ratio of the single speed provided substantial fuel savings when used as a transmission range extender at highway speeds.

I'd like to know what the Colorado/Canyon four cylinder with five speed manual transmission would do in a vehicle that's 700 lbs lighter than my Canyon and has less frontal area. Then add a grille block, belly pan, and LRR tires.

This isn't a medium duty truck.

the data applies *i think * if you are running a 50CC scooter or a a big mill. l

THINK FRANK .. think outside the box do not be a NEGATIVE input ,, select your lanuage and be a positive input


more gear selections does not increase the *drag* from gears the the power runs from engine to 1st gear set . to second gear set .. straight..

if i have 5 or 6 or 8 selections in 1st set and 3 -4-5
selections in the auxiliary many combinations so as to select the gear that will allow the ensy tensy power plant to operate at MAXIMUM FUEL EFFICIENCY WOT / Max torque through all ranges
gear drag is only on THOSE selected ..

i wish i could find the elegant display of that power flow through gear sets
no much more if i have a 8x4 than if i have the 5x2 ...

sad to say i never have found any much good gear sets
save on the big rigs

good gear set will allow one to be FULL THROTTLE top gear top speed and not get no added speed save on the down grade

i want a good aero body with about 1 L power plant and a lot of gears .. all you modern slackers would want somekinda automatic..
i want aero body 1 Liter displacement turbocharged .. LOTS gear combinations available {manual]
with the top gear combination at or about the theoretical drag vs power out put

I have thought about it!

ALL the gears are ALWAYS meshing. Lots of spinning shafts, bearings, and gears are gonna equal more parasitic losses whether only one particular gearset is xferring power at that moment or not. And where do you find this dinky light-duty multiple speed rear axle? Heavier transmissions and axles are well known to absorb (waste) more power.

I also believe you can spend too much time shifting. Even in my 5-speed car I can skip shift almost always. Clutching and shifting is a necessary evil. Early editions of my car had a "High MPG" transmission option- it was a 4 speed vs the standard 5! The way I skip shift, a three speed trans would be totally adequate and probably have lower parasitic losses besides.

Those look really fun to drive.

Although not sure if they'd fit in the OP's Fleetline.