Mercedes diesel swap into Ranger

[Chappy]

cummins . . . .

thats all i got to say . . . put all your HP and torque numbers away

4bt or QSB 4.5 with 350 to 400 lb/ft . . . easy

lets see a gas 4 or 6 do that and lets see a cheap, mild gas 8 do that . . . . sorry not gonna happen

peace

 

[Beanmachine7000]

cummins . . . .

thats all i got to say . . . put all your HP and torque numbers away

4bt or QSB 4.5 with 350 to 400 lb/ft . . . easy

lets see a gas 4 or 6 do that and lets see a cheap, mild gas 8 do that . . . . sorry not gonna happen

peace

For the price of a new QSB 4.5 you could have 2 400hp Small blocks of either flavor... 4BT might be a little cheaper, but then you make the front of your truck awful nose heavy 700+lbs vs 4-500lbs...

 

[Will]

4BT=no. Unless you want to notch your x-member and have an extremely SSLLOOWW truck. Same weight you could have a 400hp, 400ft# 460 V8 instead of maybe a 150hp 300ft# 4BT.

Yeah, the V6 Cummins or whatever it is, I would take that. But like Bean said--not economically viable for anyone.

 

[Ozwynn]

after alot thought and research into a 4btb I decided that a 6.2L is a better candidate for a diesel swap into a ranger and definitely a better choice for my Land Cruiser, plus the 6.2 is common anywhere and I could get 3 of them for 1/2 the cost off a 4bt, that being said I read a write up on Pirate aboutt a guy that did a Mercedes swap into a much lighter vehicle and he said it takes all day to get to 60 kph. but his was non-turbo.


my solution was to trade the Land Cruiser for something that a 351 swap is a direct bolt in. all I need is the engine and computer.

 

[Beanmachine7000]

after alot thought and research into a 4btb I decided that a 6.2L is a better candidate for a diesel swap into a ranger and definitely a better choice for my Land Cruiser, plus the 6.2 is common anywhere and I could get 3 of them for 1/2 the cost off a 4bt, that being said I read a write up on Pirate aboutt a guy that did a Mercedes swap into a much lighter vehicle and he said it takes all day to get to 60 kph. but his was non-turbo.


my solution was to trade the Land Cruiser for something that a 351 swap is a direct bolt in. all I need is the engine and computer.

+1... It looks like a 6.2/6.5, or a small foreign diesel that you could never actually get your hands on is the most feasible swap into an RBV...

 

[AllanD]

all day to get to 60Kph?

sounds like a Mercedes 240.

the EARLY ('78-79) 3.0 L5 Mercedes TurboDiesel makes 120hp@4100rpm and 168ft/lb@2400rpm.
This is the same power as a 2.8 but with more 2.9-like torque characteristics.

the "mid" 1980-85 is 125hp & 181ft/lb
one of these would make any former 2.9 owner happy.

the Late 3.0TD, 1986-87 engine was 150hp & 201ft/lb
This would REALLY make a former 2.9 owner happy.
But it's a six cylinder... so it likely couldn't be made to fit

The 3.5TD engine?
they had a design flaw which led to ovaled bores
And many turn up in junkyards for this reason
(it a problem that can cost $10grand to fix!
it's a six cylinder engine anyway and fitting one in a ranger
based vehicle is likely problematic like the '86-87 engine above.

most diesels and especially turbocharged engines respond
well to taller gears.... they like someting to pull against.
Mercedes typically put 3.07 gears behind them.



Frankly, after all that Diesel is still enough more expensive than
gas to make it false economy and Like I've already posted previously
a 2.3turbo is a bolt in and can EASILY equal the economy of any
small Turbodiesel on cheaper fuel, less frequent oil changes
AND it'll have 5.0 power when you want to romp on it.


AD

 

[Ozwynn]

all day to get to 60Kph?

sounds like a Mercedes 240.

the EARLY ('78-79) 3.0 L5 Mercedes TurboDiesel makes 120hp@4100rpm and 168ft/lb@2400rpm.
This is the same power as a 2.8 but with more 2.9-like torque characteristics.

the "mid" 1980-85 is 125hp & 181ft/lb
one of these would make any former 2.9 owner happy.

the Late 3.0TD, 1986-87 engine was 150hp & 201ft/lb
This would REALLY make a former 2.9 owner happy.
But it's a six cylinder... so it likely couldn't be made to fit

The 3.5TD engine?
they had a design flaw which led to ovaled bores
And many turn up in junkyards for this reason
(it a problem that can cost $10grand to fix!
it's a six cylinder engine anyway and fitting one in a ranger
based vehicle is likely problematic like the '86-87 engine above.

most diesels and especially turbocharged engines respond
well to taller gears.... they like someting to pull against.
Mercedes typically put 3.07 gears behind them.



Frankly, after all that Diesel is still enough more expensive than
gas to make it false economy and Like I've already posted previously
a 2.3turbo is a bolt in and can EASILY equal the economy of any
small Turbodiesel on cheaper fuel, less frequent oil changes
AND it'll have 5.0 power when you want to romp on it.


AD

all this is true enough. thats why I am going 351 with my bronco because the expense involved and the cost of the fuel makes diesel no longer an option.

 

[fastpakr]

I'd be glad to measure the I6 300, as there's one sitting in my driveway.

 

[Ozwynn]

trade for a 302 that needs an intake gasket? I would also need the computer with it. I am reasonably sure that the 300 and 351 are both easy swaps for it, just the 351 only requires a new computer while the 300 requires a wiring harness as well.

 

[bobbywalter]

all day to get to 60Kph?

sounds like a Mercedes 240.

the EARLY ('78-79) 3.0 L5 Mercedes TurboDiesel makes 120hp@4100rpm and 168ft/lb@2400rpm.
This is the same power as a 2.8 but with more 2.9-like torque characteristics.

the "mid" 1980-85 is 125hp & 181ft/lb
one of these would make any former 2.9 owner happy.

the Late 3.0TD, 1986-87 engine was 150hp & 201ft/lb
This would REALLY make a former 2.9 owner happy.
But it's a six cylinder... so it likely couldn't be made to fit

The 3.5TD engine?
they had a design flaw which led to ovaled bores
And many turn up in junkyards for this reason
(it a problem that can cost $10grand to fix!
it's a six cylinder engine anyway and fitting one in a ranger
based vehicle is likely problematic like the '86-87 engine above.

most diesels and especially turbocharged engines respond
well to taller gears.... they like someting to pull against.
Mercedes typically put 3.07 gears behind them.



Frankly, after all that Diesel is still enough more expensive than
gas to make it false economy and Like I've already posted previously
a 2.3turbo is a bolt in and can EASILY equal the economy of any
small Turbodiesel on cheaper fuel, less frequent oil changes
AND it'll have 5.0 power when you want to romp on it.


AD

i cant see that with 4x4's unless they are bone stock.. stock 4 whhezer diesel ranger 4x4's get 35 mpg cruise., the newer ones with balls are similar. the turbo 4cylinder gassers i see run 25 mpg cruise in 4x4's. and fun to drive compared to a 80's pos stock ranger diesel.


a 2.3 4 cyl gasser isnt gonna get 25 mpg in my ride.

my truck has never been capable of better economy then it gets currently, even when it rolled off of the assemblyline.


i would need to know alot more information about the 4x4 intentions and build before i suggested a 4cyl turbo gasser. more importantly whats available and the cost outs.

while the 4bt isnt for me, if i wanted a hotrod small 4x4 with big meats its the easiest choice, you can turn the power up and down easily depending on what you want to do and get better economy then any other setup that could pull the same numbers. way better.



its in whats needed the way i see it.

 

[AllanD]

THE secrets I see to Mileage is a basically stock truck with "reasonably"
sized tires and then geared to get the engine in the heart of it's economy
"happy zone" at your prefered cruisng speed.

Load Range E tires inflated to max pressure helps on the rolling resistance front...

I basically throw away 1.5mpg by taking my 50psi BFG's off the truck
and putting my winter tires (44psi Goodyear RTS) on the truck
BOTH are 235/75-15.

Hey, I routinely get 19-20 with a 4.0 4x4 with 4.10 gears.
I used to routinely get 22-24mpg occasionally 25 and twice 26mpg
with a 2.9 in basically the same truck with the same tires.
(before I swapped a D35 in to replace the TIB)

Think on what I could get with a 2.3Turbo gasser set up the way I think
would work best And when I want to whip the snot out of it it'll really FLY...

Frankly I'd be "happy" with 25mpg in a truck that can run
with an identical truck with a 5.0HO... until the HO runs out of gas

But I doubt I could make myself build another 2wd ranger.
I like parking my truck in my own driveway, not at the bottom
of the hill and walking the last half mile.

I wouldn't want a 2.3T in an "offroad" truck.
But to me 4x4 means the difference between getting home
and calling AAA to get me out of a ditch.

To be blunt most of my actual useage of 4x4 is to AVOID
going "offroad" (probably after being punted by someone in
a semi after I get stuck)

I have rather vivid memories of crossing Iowa (westbound) after
the December 23, 2007 Blizzard and thanking myself for locking the hubs
before I left the big truck stop in Walcott, IA.

I crossed ALL of Iowa with the hubs locked and atleast 200 miles
of it on I-80 with the 4x4 light warming me with it's amber glow.

I needed it again when the dark night of christmas eve turned US26
into a windblown whiteout not more than 15mi west of Scottsbluff
on Christmas eve on that same trip, I crossed the Wyoming border
with the 4x4 light on again And I didn't take the truck out of 4x4
until I was in my brother's driveway in Casper.

On a 2wd you don't have that option

On a 2wd you don't have that option

I don't believe I will willingly own or drive another 2wd Ranger.

AD

 

[David85]

I still don't see what is so scary about the mercedes. I even considered swapping one into my F150 but figured I had too many projects to start another. When it comes to older mechanical diesels, the factory ratings are more suggestive than other engines. As far as reliability goes, they are known to be one of the best engines ever made by any automaker.

Parts are not as expensive as you might think. You just have to shop around like anything else. You have to remember that there are many cars of that era being parted out so spares can be found.

If I ever did another diesel conversion on a ranger or other light vehicle, that would be the engine of choice for me. Saw a local ad a while ago for an engine and tranny for $500 (canadian). Too many projects, not enough time.

 

[Chappy]

you dont have to cut your x member on the 4bt . . . . you get a different position sump. . . . and it is actually cheaper than the 351 cause a good 351 is gonna cost in the neighbor hood of say 1500 to 2000 for the same price i get a brand new - still on the pallat 4b for the same price, oh yea and you need a computer and harness for the 351 so now i got my turbo 4 cyl b. that does just fine on fuel to the tune of about 25 - 27 mpg and i can pull. im not looking for 5.0 power, thats what my 5.0 is for!!! so as stated by someone earlier . . . you build to the application, my application is pulling and fuel economy. personally i plan on adapting a QSB 4.5L commonrail engine into my ranger. and just by doing that its going to be a quick little truck. im looking at about 170 HP and 459 lb-ft of torque. which is more than enough to push the trucks weight plus the 818lb the wet engine weighs. hell the isb 275 5.9L is rated at 275HP and 660 lb ft. thats only 105 HP and 201 lb -ft of difference and the 5.9 weighs in at 1150lbs a 332lb difference. this engine is a very good candidate for a swap for someone who is looking for a good tow rig without having a big truck for less money than buying a fullsize. and a qsb is gonna run around 3 - 4K brand new. my only problem is figureing out the computer. (thats where my inside sources helps out) other than that ill entertain the idea of a 4bt or . . . hell . . . screw it ill put a 6bt in it with a p-pump and call it good, then i can outrun your 5.0 too

 

[MikeInIdaho]

Here's what I've learned about German diesels so far (now that I own two of them)...

Timing the motor and calibrating the IP are the cornerstones of a reliable, solid motor. Combined with clean and operational fuel, coolant and lubrication systems, they'll run well for a very, very long time (provided the rest of the motor is sound). My '82 N/A diesel Rabbit may very well be the slowest, lowest and loudest vehicle on the road, but it's never let me down and has proven itself to be more reliable than vehicles that are 20 years newer.

The OM617 5cyl Turbodiesel is arguably one of the greatest feats of Teutonic automotive engineering to date. It is built like a tank and can handle unreal levels of torture without missing a beat. As others have said, the performance potential on the stock IP is limited to about 140HP without having to crack it open. Adjusting the ALDA and fuel screws (ever so slightly!) help wake these motors up considerably, but can also lead to "heat creep" if not done modestly.

Give them as much room for the unrestricted flow of incoming air and outgoing exhaust and they'll love you for it. Contrary to what others may say, you want absolutely no backpressure at all on a diesel motor, turbo or otherwise.

They all have mechanical clocks on the dash that are amazingly accurate, even after 30+ years.

spend a little money on them and they'll be good to you.

 

[Beanmachine7000]

...and it is actually cheaper than the 351 cause a good 351 is gonna cost in the neighbor hood of say 1500 to 2000 for the same price i get a brand new - still on the pallat 4b for the same price...a qsb is gonna run around 3 - 4K brand new...

I don't know where you are getting your prices... I wish I could find something that cheap... I don't see where you're getting a 4BT new from either, you can only find those in the bread trucks and whatnot... A QSB 3.3T runs about $4500 new... The QSB 4.5 is going to be several thousand more... I don't know who is ripping you off on 351's either... I know of several I could get my hands on right now for little to nothing, heck I know of a running block I could get for free, without intake stuff... Maybe spend $300 and I have a running engine, not $2000... The fact of the matter is, a diesel swap in a RBV just isn't that feasible...

PS... Your Ranger isn't going to like 900+lbs of engine on top of that axle... Another reason why diesel swaps aren't feasible...