williamsven

it may make it to the papers, maybe.
i will be doing the swap in my garage bay, on time-lapse photography. the end result will be AMAZING !

I am aiming to beat THIS for mpg. ( my goal is 50-100 MPG with varied inputs of propane, grease , perhaps a twee bit of steam down the line )

http://www.carpages.co.uk/toyota/toy...n_07_10_02.asp

My donor body is a flawless 1984 COROLLA FASTBACK WAGON. 79,000 miles, and a bad gas engine. (anybody need a good 84 toyota fwd gas carbonator ? ill let it go cheap.. )

my motor to be put in is a low LOW miles as -new japan toyota 1.8 non turbo diesel.

PLEASE FOLKS !!!!! GIVE ME YOUR .02 CENTS..

PLEASE FOLKS !!!!! GIVE ME YOUR .02 CENTS..


what do I need to look for before i find it or realize i need it ?


I already own a Datsun SD22 720 Truck, i run mostly on grease, and a Cummins 4BT3.9 in a chevy dually 1 ton. this will be my third daily driver diesel.
i know my way around basics for most diesels, and i know everything about gas engines. ive done larger scale drivetrain swaps similar before, but never on a car this small. There is little to no room for error on this small scale. everything looks to match up. i know there will be wiring, cooling system re route, exhaust work, perhaps CV shaft building. motor mounts appear to mostly bolt up. anyone care to join me in the building of this car via tech consulting in this thread? it shall be a long thread, as this is a total swap and grease conversion.

dannomite

Maybe I am missing something. Are you planning on swapping the 4bt into the datsun?

williamsven

are the 3 pics toyota coming up clearly ?
i have a body thats a clean 84 corolla fastback wagon to put my diesel / greasel motor in.

my dasun is a truck i drive daily. my 4bt3.9 is my dually 1 ton service truck.
this build is a car , aiming for MPG in a class of its own. not power, MPG ...
i revised my post to try to be a bit clearer. this isnt a truck swap, its a car swap. is the link showing the MPG race winner working for yalls ?

dannomite

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a fun project. I will keep my eye on it. I do have a question though. Why not put a turbo on the engine? If the goal is efficiency and milieage then it would stand to reason that the increase in volumetric efficiency from a turbo would be of great benefit. Diesels are alredy very efficient but when they are turbo they are even better. There is my Canadian $0.02.

williamsven

i live in texas. ive been a mechanic for over 10+ years.
they are the vampires of auto world. toooo many ways to die.
ive learned to hate turbos for many reasons.
in the summer, far too much heat. they are expensive as hell to rebuild, properly, budget rebuilds are junk. they cause the engine grief.
blow a turbo seal you can loose all your oil out the tail pipe in 5 seconds.

this car weighs under 2000 lbs. i dont need the torque of the turbo. im going to be aiming for highway economy.. read some threads in the ecomodder.com forum. if i had a big 4x4, a turbo would be more attractive. this isnt my direction here.

they use 51% of the engines oil "starve the engine feed the turbo" corky bell - cartech engineering, author of maximum boost.

added stress, added cost, added fuel sucking, not enough room under the engine bay. thought it through long before i got this drivetrain. If i want more power, im adding a propane carb for power on demand, not a turbo. they are just, evil.

no room for an intercooler in this car.

I once owned a 87 Volvo 740 turbo that the turbo seized up totally.. driving around with the turbo locked up the car got 43+ mpg. slow as hell, but major mpg increase. if you have a turbo, you will use it. more power great, but, im a leadfoot. if i want to get there fast, ill take my goldwing or my gas car.

my Cummins 4BT3.9 has a turbo, but its a BIG RIG turbo. thing is HUGE, its cheap to rebuild, ( you can fit a family of asians in side the turbo ) and the cummins was made to have the turbo on it. its way beef'ier than the lil toyota 1.8 i got.
long term economy , reliability, turbos dont belong in cars. you can do more with just experienced engine tuning. . my .02.

mastacox

50-100mpg is a WIDE range of fuel economies (at what speed by the way?). It should be pretty easy to hit 50mpg with just the diesel in there, maybe even 55, but beyond that will take more than just the engine swap.

williamsven

yes, its a long road, and a long list of modifications for long term variance in mpg.
true 100mpg would not be an exact term. granted, if i got it up to 100 on the liquid fuel ( svo ) getting pumped into the motor, im not including how many gallons of propane + whatever else it takes to get into that range.
how do you figure out MPG on 3 gallons of propane mixed into every 100 gallons of liquid fuel. ?
long term goal, at operating temp, you add propane to get to a sweet spot, you add can steam to add volume displacement. its far from a simple mix. you can put your eye out and go home crying.
i know its reaching, but ive seen it done a couple times.
at this point im more shopping for advice on my gauges and build tweaking.
trying to see what i should put in my build while i have it in pieces.
and i think peak economy is at something like 50-60 miles per hour. on the majority of cars.
they got 66 MPG on a stock motor, in a race. with a turbo, and getting on it, not smooth pavement.
i think with proper mods, on slick pavement, with hard racing tires, flat faced rims, ( see ecomodder.com ) , and conservative driving, 100 isnt too much to ask.
ive seen my Datsun SD22 get 65mpg ! and it outweighs this corolla by a longshot !

mastacox

Well when you start getting into additional combustible additives, you need to transition to an energy per mile measurement, rather than miles per gallon. It is possible to convert an energy/mile measurement to equivalent miles per gallon.

100mpg is the "holy grail" of autos, but it will be pretty tough to achieve with a naturally aspirated diesel and boxy car (adding propane but not counting it in your energy balance is cheating ).

That's correct, I just wanted to make sure you weren't thinking 75mph.

Keep in mind that a turbo increases the efficiency of an engine. So while they may theoretically reduce reliability (I'm not convinced of this), they do get better mileage than naturally aspirated.

You might achieve 100mpg in just diesel, but unless you take into account the energy you're adding with propane and/or other stuff, it doesn't count.

I've seen my 4Runner get infinite miles per gallon, but that was while coasting down hill with no fuel being used. Let's just say I'm doubtful you'll get better than 60mpg average in "real world" driving conditions. Probably more like 50, since you're basically inventing the Toyota version of a VW Golf TDI.

dannomite

Probably more like 50, since you're basically inventing the Toyota version of a VW Golf TDI.

Minus the T(turbo) and the DI (direct injection)

Lumpy

I'm subscribing to this...really wanna see where it goes.

dannomite

It should be noted that while you have some valid concerns about turbos, they are not "evil". You say that all the oil can come out the tailpipe in 5 seconds. Yes, this could happen. I have never seen a turbo seal catastrophically fail all of the sudden. There is always a warning, starting with the engine using oil and there not being a visable leak on the engine. If you treat the turbo as being part of the routine maintainance then if will not fail this way. I have owned close to a dozen diesels, some turbo some n/a. The turbo engined vehicles were always more efficient and had better road manners than the n/a vehicles. Between the different vehicles I put on somewhere in the neighbehood of one million miles on the engines three quarters of that on the turbo engines and I never once had a problem with a turbo. As far as I am concerned the problem with turbo failures is occasionally caused by poor design, but usually by either lack of maintenance or people asking more of the turbo than it was meant to give. i.e. increasing fueling and boost for power when the turbo was not intended for the task. My $0.02.

williamsven

Ive been doing this for ten years.
">

comments should always be taken cum grano salis . “evil” is just an opinion I have formed. It’s a viewpoint, nothing more. Everyone has a freedom and right to set up performance, torque, mpg, etc, etc, how they see fit. I have had a few turbos I loved in the past.

I just usually see the worst end of many sticks. I will tell you one turbo story I remember ..a customers 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo, equip with the crappier mitsu turbo ( two were avail on that car, the Gar, and the Mitsu dsm ) . .he had 275 k miles, and I was doing a full in depth inspection. . he had ZERO turbo play / ZERO wear in it.. he was a commuter, I asked, how, what do you do to keep it so new? .. he said full synthetic oil change every 4 or 5 k. that’s about the only positive turbo story I recall. No turbo timer, no other mods. Just syn regularly.
So.. anyways.. in the years, and years, and years, and years, of experience I have..( I mostly do emergency roadsides nowdays, screwing tourists pays more on the hours. .) Sometimes, im in the middle of nowhere, and I have to improvise to say the least. Sometimes, im doing work referred to me from a dealer or another shop. I have 97.4 % of my experience with gas motors, but personally, for my own fleet, I prefer diesels. Long term reliability, and lots of flex for fuel digestion. All the customers drained fluids go straight into my fuel tanks. I just opted no turbo on this project because in my own experience, long term, its not as reliable in my climate, ( think record heat and not enough oil cooling on earth to save it ) and the mpg would be slightly less. If I was aiming for more power, or running a mostly propane mix.. it might be more of a benefit, but.. not this time.
My choices of N/A aspiration on this project are far just too long to sum up in one paragraph. It’s my decades of experience. If someone wants to use them, that’s their given right. They are a mod that’s within reason. I’ve even contemplated at times putting a turbo the size of a full grown pitbull on my Cummins 4BT3.9…
So.. anways.. On MPG increase with a turbo, I have to disagree. I have seen several turbo cars that with the turbo disconnected or locked up.. the mpg went up exponentially.
Ive never seen ones mpg increase with it. I don’t know anyone on earth that has that sort of willpower with the right foot.

rjfortuna

Subscribed.

xxxtreme22r

In regards to the turbo/engine oil concern, couldn't you design a separate sump for just the turbo alone and use an electric oil pump and separate oil cooler/filter?

williamsven

Facts –
Oil circulation is resistance drag on an engine. – some ford 4.6 or 5.7 L V8’s get a SIGNIFIGANTLY lower mpg with thicker weight oil. ( thinner is more economical, but the engine MUST be made with tolerances that are set up for that thin oil )

In the ecomodder forum, it has been experienced that all of the sub compact hypermiled cars get something like 4-7% more mpg without the alternator. Akin to a lacking power steering percentage increase in mpg.

If your voltage demand is low ( as in a diesel that relies nothing on spark and only mechanical, and you only need a bit of voltage to start it, and to run creature features… you might exist with just a solar panel on the roof and no accy )

Economy and low drag is the goal with this car. . not power , by any means !
If you wanted to make a separate oil system, a separate pump, filter, etc, for the turbos oil supply.. ( I think I skipped this chapter in corky bells book ) , but I guess you could, but that would be a massive increase in weight and drag, both from the increased alternator drag, and the separate system of oil to keep cool. If your planning on mixing them, that kills the purpose.. . the turbo is usually what usually increases the ph acidity of the oil faster.
. granted, it might slightly limit the added wear and tear that a turbo does to an engine. . but I doubt it would be worth while. You would be better off just with regular synthetic oil changes and a massive RV sized oil cooler ( in a hot climate anyway )


And for the folks that think 45-55 is the most mpg I can get with this project, .. please.. go read some threads in ecomodder. The record on a Honda insight with major hypermiling mods, was like 250 MPG !

Blown2001Runner

I think this potential, 100mpg will be hard, but I think you can get 75mpg.

my father has a 2006 VW TDI bug, its a butt ugly car, but driving sane @ 60mph will get him around 55mpg. Dont forget its a modern car with tons of saftey/emmissions on it, I want to say a touch over 3000 lbs, but dont hold me too that.

Will you be doing any weight reduction? Aerodynamic improvments?
Look under a dodge viper and they have plates that try to make the bottom of the car as smooth as possible, take the rear bumpers off, and just leave the bumper covers.

You could get very creative with this project. I think it will be kick ass!!

Keep posting!

mastacox

I doubt the alternator takes that much power. You need about 20hp to maintain speed at 60 mph. 4% of that is 600W, or about 50 Amps on a 12V system (7% is 1043W, 87 amps). If all you're running is the engine's ECU and related ignition system, you'll only be pulling about 10-15 amps, which equates to 1% of the total power being dissipated, and probably not statistically significant when compared to all of the uncertainties in the measurement of MPG.

That might be possible, but the fact is if you are dissipating a very small amount of electrical power, the alternator will only have a very small amount of mechanical drag. The more power you're dissipating, the more drag it generates.

I get that, but you should keep in mind that you're minimizing the amount of power being dissipated, and as long as you keep power dissipation low any diesel engine would fit the bill.

The fact is that you'll probably get about 50-60mpg in "real world" conditions. Hyper-miling is a PITA, and prone to wide variations in efficiency.

stormin94

I think the aerodynamics of the Corolla will be the deciding factor. I bet the highest it will go is around 75-80 verifiable MPG. No offense, but I think there are better vehicles to try this on. Maybe an Opel GT? It's extremely light (around 1800lbs), and very aerodynamic, and fairly inexpensive.


You're probably going to have to spend a long time fine tuning it to try to get a few more MPG out of it. Have you thought about gearing? Tires? etc.?

It's a neat project, reguardless of whether you hit the magical 100MPG mark.

aviator

Sounds like an interesting debate here... subscribed

rjfortuna

I concur with Aviator. I've been lurking watching this thread for a while. Interesting.