diesel ranger convertions?

[AllanD]

Yes, it is.

Thus the "4" in "4BT"

It's basically a 4cyl version of the earlier Dodge Cummins 235hp engine.

It's a heavy little bitch.

I think one would be "interesting" in an F-150 or possibly an F250 to
replace a Ford 4.9

But I'm pretty much convinced that it's too heavy for a ranger.

It weighs within two Cheeseburgers and a large order of fries
what a 460 V8 weighs.

IF a 4BT was 250lbs lighter I'd be interested fr a Ranger.

Frankly I think I could get better gas mileage from what many here are gonna consider a bizarre combination.

a roller cam 5.8 backed by a Mazda trans (and pray you don't get traction)
and 3.27 gears.

My brother managed 21mpg ONCE with his non-roller 5.8 powered 4.10 geared F250
I honestly believe that with 3/4 the frontal area and a TON less weight that a Ranger could do better particularly if the truck was geared to let the engine putter along at 1600-1700rpm cruising down the interstate.

Hey, gus with 5.0 Explorers often get 22mpg....

AD

 

[COMP]

is there any weight that can be droped ??

 

[wahlstrom1]

I'm workin on a 4bt swap, collecting parts right now. I'm already SAS'd and will be running a full fiberglass front clip (fenders and hood), building an aluminum front bumper, and bed-mounting the batteries in an effort to loose weight up front. The 4.0L/5.0L weigh 450-500lbs, so by not building a heavy bumper and winch mount up front I should about break even on weight.

-andrew

 

[AllanD]

is there any weight that can be droped ??

Unfortunatly no.

AD

 

[bobbywalter]

huh? no way to reduce weight??? use an industrial 3.3 with phoenix parts.

the 4bt works great in rangers if you can take its harsh attributes. the 3.3 is a much better choice if you even think you would want a 4 popper.

 

[bobbywalter]

I wouldn't spend a huge amount of effort on a waste cooking oil conversion. It's not diesel. I wouldn't put that through my injection pump. If you screw up your pump and injectors it will take a long time to get your money from that repair back. Making actual diesel fuel out of vegetable oil is a different thing. But I think Homeland Security will follow you home after you purchase the chemicals.

And with gas 80% the price of diesel. That goes a long way toward offsetting the worthhwile of a conversion. A 25mpg diesel costs the same to run as a 20mpg gasser.

This is the best diesel conversion.

My solution was a thousand-dollar 35mpg gas shitbox. I still have my trucks, but when I don't need a truck I can zoom around for cheap.

if we were hippies.....the phrase would be...we are smokin out of the same bag dooood.



here is the link to a good read. read it all.

http://www.dieseltruckresource.com/dev/showthread.php?t=112807


i myself am just gonna try my 6.5. if its good its good. if its not then i will have to lift my escort and put a tdi vw engine in it all i can do.

then i will likely go to a 6.0/6.2 for my ranger.

 

[AllanD]

That presumes that you aren't arrested by DEA agents for attempting to buy the chemicals in th first place, because several of the chemicals needed are chemicals
used in "other" chemical activities.

I've had a good ammount of grief simply trying to buy a 5gallon pail
of fairly pure Sodium Hydroxide (Lye)

apparrently it's used in several drug making endevours.

And when you make Bio-Diesel you'd be lucky to avoid your neighbors
calling in to report you as a meth lab.

Shit.. I have a friend who had the Police, DEA, HazMat and
the fire department show up at his house when he was just outside
making a "Full Mash" batch of homebrewed beer.

Oddly since then all the rose bushes in the yard of the nosy neighbor
who called it in have died.... along with every other green thing.


AD

 

[Captain Ledd]

Most people don't realize just how heavy diesels really are. I have came across ONE, a 2.8L 4cyl by International with 275 lb ft and 130 HP or so, and only weighs ~480lbs. But I think they've discontinued it, not sure if he can still import it. It's about the only truely feasible one for a small truck like the Ranger/S-10 and such. Not saying that other ones won't be able to work.

Stephen Cahill
OBW Canada LTD.
902 229 3778

It's on the order of $6000+ but that was a brand new engine with everything, alternator, P/S pump, A/C, flywheel/flexplate, etc. Literally bolt it in. But I'm pretty sure he has access to remanufactured Volvo diesels and a few others used in small cars/light truck overseas in Europe and Asia (some South America too I think).

Just about any diesel in the U.S. except for the VW diesels aren't really suited for automotive use in the sense of a small truck or car.

The Isuzu diesels looked pretty good, but again are meant for industrial applications, and are often N/A engines with sickenengly low HP for their size/weight.

 

[bobbywalter]

Most people don't realize just how heavy diesels really are. I have came across ONE, a 2.8L 4cyl by International with 275 lb ft and 130 HP or so, and only weighs ~480lbs. But I think they've discontinued it, not sure if he can still import it. It's about the only truely feasible one for a small truck like the Ranger/S-10 and such. Not saying that other ones won't be able to work.

Stephen Cahill
OBW Canada LTD.
902 229 3778

It's on the order of $6000+ but that was a brand new engine with everything, alternator, P/S pump, A/C, flywheel/flexplate, etc. Literally bolt it in. But I'm pretty sure he has access to remanufactured Volvo diesels and a few others used in small cars/light truck overseas in Europe and Asia (some South America too I think).

Just about any diesel in the U.S. except for the VW diesels aren't really suited for automotive use in the sense of a small truck or car.

The Isuzu diesels looked pretty good, but again are meant for industrial applications, and are often N/A engines with sickenengly low HP for their size/weight.

ya lost me...the 3.3 is pretty killer and not much more then a 4.0
bout the same as a 5.0....the 6.5 is only 700#...that aint shit for a ranger.


if i were to spend 6k plus it would be on a gep 6.5.....its a killer powerplant and will pull decent economy and sound good and be smooth doing it too.

 

[Captain Ledd]

Now.. I've looked ALL over Cummins site and Cummins engines and I've never heard of this engine. I've only found stuff about 9 liters and above (save for the 6 and 4BT). As far as I knew Cummins smaller diesels were all contracted out to VM Motori in Italy.

I'm not going to tell you what will and won't work, I still think a constant 700 lb engine and all of it's adjoining components in the front of a light pickup is going to be interesting.

*edit, allright, so I did find them now in the Agricultural section. Still uber heavy for their displacement and power output. My internet will hardly load anything tonight apparently. hope to look around into this more in a few days maybe.

 

[bobbywalter]

here is the link to a good read. read it all.

http://www.dieseltruckresource.com/dev/showthread.php?t=112807



here is his pic deal. at least he has taken pics and had time to report this..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10201173@N06

 

[bobbywalter]

i find it hystericle someone could even think 700#s long term would hurt a ranger...you will have to pardon my experience. ya see my truck weighs 5400 pounds these days. i have worked on big block swaps and run the roads with big block rangers home in detroit.


more hysteria is knocking an engine for acceptable power levels that would smoke any non 4.0 truck in a race, yet get nearly double the economy, or more then double cost per mile wise running wmo like most of us swappers do when the engine has no weight penalty over its replacement, but is just percieved low power to weight.


where the fawk do you get low power to weight dude? that damn thing turned up within its safe limits spanks any oem ranger offering.

i dunno, i think its crazy to knock the lil bastard 3.3...

maybe i am crazy.


keep in mind that thing has been running the roads for years.

 

[Captain Ledd]

I'm not talking about hurting the Ranger, I'm talking about driving it. Steering and braking. plus the transmission weight, oil, coolant, etc. Driving it in the snow would be a chore, a panic stop might also make it do some interesting things. These are my concerns, I've mentioned them, I never told you to heed them.

I'm not knocking the 3.3. The 3.3 wouldn't hurt the ranger at all, as it's marginally heavier than an all cast iron 302 (as you had mentioned). An engine beating a 2.3 or a 3.0 wouldn't take much. My comments about the issues regarding weight were directed toward the 6.5 swap. No ill will has been about the 3.3 at all, relax about that. As far as I'm concerned that was a pretty neat and doable swap.

My perception of weight vs power is the weight of a big block or in some cases more than a big block and still HP slightly less or equal to that of a 4cyl gasser. Yes you can tune them up to staggering numbers but I shake my head at the things like doubling or close to tripling the HP and doubling the torque. I think that if that was a safe and good idea the manufacturer would have put the numbers a little higher in the first place. Again, my own opinion, don't take it as an insult.

It is still my very personal opinion that dropping a 700lb+ engine (and comparatively sized drivetrain to handle the torque) would make driving, except for in a straight line, a pain in the ass.

WVO, I still personally disagree with that too. Take a bunch of oil with a whole bunch of food junk in it and run it through my engine. And the exhaust smells like what was cooked in it! weee! that to me sounds bad. junk from that food is still being dumped into the engine. I wouldn't take gasoline full of dirt and grime and dissolved stuff, dump it in my tank, turn around and say "well I've got a big filter" and call it good.

Maybe I'm crazy. These engines are meant for industrial use like sitting on a platform, driving generators, pumps, tractors and such, and not being lugged around literally all day (thus the high weight - tractors don't count as they are really low speed and need weight, like filling the tires with stuff) and have their limitations in an automotive application, even the Isuzu ones I mentioned. The International one I suggested is meant for small trucks and is literally designed for use in a vehicle.

And yet again as in my previous post, I'm not saying it can't be made to work. I never knocked the 3.3. Hope that clears up all the misunderstandings.

 

[pickup]

Run with a 2.9? you are kidding right?

The Mitsubishi turbo diesel has a whopping 86hp and there isn't all that much room to "turn it up" to have a prayer with keeping up with a 2.9.

Frankly I've driven a 2.3Turbo-Diesel (factory installed in a Mitsubishi)
and wasn't that impressed.
It was kinda "Breathy" compared to the 80HP I was getting from
my all cast iron gear driven injector pump Nissan.
that was the engine I wanted to add a turbo to...

While I owned a 1982 SR-5 Toyota Diesel (62hp)
I test drove a toyota turbo-Diesel(2L-T engine 93hp!) being sold
by a friend of a friend and agreed to buy it,
but at the last minute the owner sold it to a friend of his.
IF I had gotten that truck you'd have never heard of me
because my NOT buying it led directly to getting my Ranger supercab.

while some diesels feel "unstoppable" because of their low end torque
Horsepower is horsepower and whoever has more is the winner.

But the Mitsubishi 4D55 Turbo-diesel only cranks out 129ft/lb

The Little diesels also don't make the 170ft/lb you'd get from a 2.9
so they'd lose there too.

the 355ft/lb of a 130hp Cummins 4BT is another matter,
but that's a 3.9liter turbodiesel.
but the 4BT weighs in at 745lbs...


AD

Umm, maybe before calling me a liar, you should maybe get some facts first.
#1- I reworked the injection pump myself. Mods included faster advance ring, bored inj., a couple heavier springs etc.
#2-Injectors were honed and larger delivery valves and springs installed.
#3-Turbo waste-gate blocked off, 3" straight exhaust.
#4-Intercooler added

I put it on a wheel dyno at the local Cummins shop. 184 RWHP @ 228 FT.lbs/Torque. 98.6 mph/14.7 sec. at local timed track. Run with a 2.9? Ya, I'd say I'm pretty safe in that assumption!
I'm pretty sure some done up 2.9's would leave me smokin at the gate. I'll never say I'm the fastest period, but I'm probably faster than any stock 2.9 that you put $42.00 into (which is what it cost me + 1 day)

 

[AllanD]

Umm, maybe before calling me a liar, you should maybe get some facts first.
#1- I reworked the injection pump myself. Mods included faster advance ring, bored inj., a couple heavier springs etc.
#2-Injectors were honed and larger delivery valves and springs installed.
#3-Turbo waste-gate blocked off, 3" straight exhaust.
#4-Intercooler added

I put it on a wheel dyno at the local Cummins shop. 184 RWHP @ 228 FT.lbs/Torque. 98.6 mph/14.7 sec. at local timed track. Run with a 2.9? Ya, I'd say I'm pretty safe in that assumption!
I'm pretty sure some done up 2.9's would leave me smokin at the gate. I'll never say I'm the fastest period, but I'm probably faster than any stock 2.9 that you put $42.00 into (which is what it cost me + 1 day)

Ya know, I wasn't calling you a liar before, but with your obvious penchant for exaggeration I will now.




The only way I'd believe 100hp over stock on a 2.3liter
mitsubishi turbo diesel is if I were watching the dyno run with god
almighty certifying the dyno calibration.


OR I could watch the truck run in the quarter.

Your claims are way too much to take at face value out of the clear blue sky.

Atleast try to be believable.


AD