donalson wrote: i want an old 7.3 IDI ford... find the non turbo models for under $1500 on a regular basis... can't be any slower then the 6.2 diesel suburban I learned to drive in and from what I understand they are awesome for waste oil conversions...
I had one, 91 F350 4dr. The 7.3L is faster than a 6.2/6.5. Mine moved out pretty good for a near 7K lb truck. Plenty of turbo kits for them if you want more. The IDI will pull just about anything, just not as fast as a Powerstroke would.
81cpcamaro wrote:donalson wrote: i want an old 7.3 IDI ford... find the non turbo models for under $1500 on a regular basis... can't be any slower then the 6.2 diesel suburban I learned to drive in and from what I understand they are awesome for waste oil conversions...I had one, 91 F350 4dr. The 7.3L is faster than a 6.2/6.5. Mine moved out pretty good for a near 7K lb truck. Plenty of turbo kits for them if you want more. The IDI will pull just about anything, just not as fast as a Powerstroke would.
Just how bad was the mileage?
I was getting 17-18 mpg in combined driving. I didn't take any trips with it so no highway only mpgs to report, no city only driving either (not much fun in town with a 22ft truck). If you kept the rpms down near 2K, the mileage was better, higher rpms lowered the mpgs.
81cpcamaro wrote: I was getting 17-18 mpg in combined driving. I didn't take any trips with it so no highway only mpgs to report, no city only driving either (not much fun in town with a 22ft truck). If you kept the rpms down near 2K, the mileage was better, higher rpms lowered the mpgs.
So, just like my PSD, but slower... I never could find any decent mileage numbers on any of the boards. 
Thanks!
Ranger50 wrote:81cpcamaro wrote: I was getting 17-18 mpg in combined driving. I didn't take any trips with it so no highway only mpgs to report, no city only driving either (not much fun in town with a 22ft truck). If you kept the rpms down near 2K, the mileage was better, higher rpms lowered the mpgs.So, just like my PSD, but slower... I never could find any decent mileage numbers on any of the boards.
everything i've seen is it'll do better then my father-in-laws 302 powered f150 ex-cab... or any 351w or big block could pull off... but not as good as the slow 6.2L chebby I grew up with
I also read that it varries a lot with the transmission choice... 4spd and 5spd manual options as well as a few slushbox options
Toyman01 wrote:RoadRaceDart wrote: Make it a first Gen Dodge Cummins 4X4 for me.Have you ever driven one? They will beat the ever loving crap out of you. The only thing I have ever driven that rode worse is a bulldozer. That said, I'd love to have one again. Tough as an anvil and reliable as gravity.
Yup! For the same reasons.....and I live where the roads are utter crap too :)
Ranger50 wrote: Just how bad was the mileage?
Are you kidding? 25+?
I had a Grumman P30 step van with a 6.2L that got 22 mpg while dragging around 2000 lbs of stuff in the back. My 7.3L powerstroke F250 consistently got 21 mpg empty with 4.10 gears. My E350 powerstroke van gets 22 with 3.55s. My Dad's duramax is getting 26 mpg with 3.73s, aftermarket exhaust, air intake, chip, AND putting over 600 lb-ft to the wheels.
Show some respect, young paduan
Anyone read the Diesel Power Magazine articles about the first-gen Dodge Cummins? In the end they spent a total of $14k for everything including purchase price, upgrades, and body work. In the end they had taken a stock, rotary-pumped Cummins with 180 hp at 18 mpg and turned it into a 1000-hp (to the wheels) stock assembly making 27 mpg.
Sorry... I think I just jizzed recalling that story.
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/dodge/1203dp_our_972hp_27mpg_1989_dodge_d250_cummins/
ebonyandivory wrote: In reply to DoctorBlade: http://providence.craigslist.org/ctd/3443263533.html http://providence.craigslist.org/cto/3438074216.html http://providence.craigslist.org/cto/3358598958.html
Definitely get that third one there with the 4 speed manual. That thing is very cool...
As far as the MB diesels, you are looking at two distinctly different generations. The one that made the reputation for incredible build quality, superior engineering, reliability, and long-lasting mechanicals (1980's). You are also looking at the generation that took that reputation and crapped all over it and showed us that German engineering isn't always good. Don't buy anything after W124.
In reply to DrBoost: Yeah, back when I was taking a serious look at the mid-to-late 90's E300's I came away with the same impressions you wrote above.
And now that I'm re-examining it all, same thing.
There were quite a few later examples with good prices on Craigslist but I didn't bother posting them here for that very reason.
curtis73 wrote: Are you kidding? 25+? I had a Grumman P30 step van with a 6.2L that got 22 mpg while dragging around 2000 lbs of stuff in the back. My 7.3L powerstroke F250 consistently got 21 mpg empty with 4.10 gears. My E350 powerstroke van gets 22 with 3.55s. My Dad's duramax is getting 26 mpg with 3.73s, aftermarket exhaust, air intake, chip, AND putting over 600 lb-ft to the *wheels*. Show some respect, young paduan
???
All of those are better then my 97 F250 PSD which got 19.5mpg ONCE over the course of 35 gals of diesel. That is the reason I asked the question. I don't need to have an old POS in the driveway if it gets worse then what I already have.
curtis73 wrote: Anyone read the Diesel Power Magazine articles about the first-gen Dodge Cummins? In the end they spent a total of $14k for everything including purchase price, upgrades, and body work. In the end they had taken a stock, rotary-pumped Cummins with 180 hp at 18 mpg and turned it into a 1000-hp (to the wheels) stock assembly making 27 mpg. Sorry... I think I just jizzed recalling that story. http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/dodge/1203dp_our_972hp_27mpg_1989_dodge_d250_cummins/
That truck can be done cheaper if you can do a bunch of it yourself and not putting on parts set to kill. Or using 250hp of dry nitrous on top of a meth kit. I noticed no IC either, which would be better then the meth kit, IMO.
Their mileage is about normal for a Cummins in a pre-94 2wd reg cab. Big difference here is the converter slips nowhere near as bad as a stocker.
In reply to Ranger50:
OK, so whats a good (cheapest) starting point that can haul 2 adults and 3 kids? Keep in mind I do LOVE the earlier Dodge bodystyle. I liked the change way back when and still do now but those old trucks (virtually unchanged for like decades!) do it for me.
That article has me thinking now. That bodystyle with a 5.9 and extended cab?
I've always wondered what a 6.2 Chevy would turn out like if you approached it with that mentality. Mid to upper 20's mpg stock, add modern tuning, and ???
In reply to ebonyandivory:
I have been trying to find a cheap, "good body" SRW crew cab, preferably in diesel, so I am no help. I already have the wife, one kid, dog, and the MIL to haul anywhere. So some space is needed for anything else. Right now, the Avalanche is too small, if it only had a bench front seat.....
I've been peeking around at the diesel vans lately. They're cheap. Vans in general are cheap. I remember hearing that the turbo diesel vans had some cooling issues or something though. Maybe I need a gas one. Do I lift it or lower it? I could totally mount individual seats in the back that are far enough from each other that my kids couldn't reach each other. When I was in highschool I used to "borrow" my moms van and pull the seats out and load up my dirt bike for the weekend. I think I might love vans. I need to start a van thread.
Edit: holy E36 M3, you can buy rows of first class airline seats on eBay! I smell a project.
Right now, my problem with owning a diesel is the cost to benefit ratio. For my Cummins, I've spent far more on engine repairs for the amount of fuel saved. Especially if considering I could have bought a much newer gas truck in better condition than I paid.
With my TDi and the well over 30k miles a year I drive it, I love having a diesel. Plus, the VW is much easier to work on as well as being phenomenally more reliable (the Cummins is lucky to go a year without something breaking). For the maybe 2000 miles a year I drive the truck, the 20 mpg it gets isn't worth it.
It'll be on CL this Monday...
I won't say its replacement won't be another diesel, but I'll say it's unlikely.
My first diesel truck (2000 Chevy K3500) was a bit of a turd in the long run but it was pretty ratty when I got it. I got good at replacing parts. My second diesel truck (1996 Dodge Ram 2500) was rusty but the driveline was solid. The only driveline issues were standard Dodge front end stuff and a water pump in 50k miles, from 217k to 267k. It liked to eat rear U-joints after I lifted it, but thats the price you pay to be awesome. My third diesel truck (2002 Ford F250) has been easy on parts, I did the glow plugs and relay, starter, and rebuilt the oil cooler from 242k to 255k. All those are standard wear items on a Powerstroke and I am driving it daily.
mazdeuce wrote: I've been peeking around at the diesel vans lately. I think I might love vans. I need to start a van thread. Edit: holy E36 M3, you can buy rows of first class airline seats on eBay! I smell a project.
A friend of mine has a mid-2000 Ford E-350 with a turbo diesel. He uses it just for his dirtbikes (he competes all over the eastern U.S.). He can build bikes but he farms out his other work and had a chip, not sure which, into his van. You should've seen his face. I think it was a pretty basic mod, nothing wild but his impression was like "holy E36 M3!"
Can't say I don't LOVE that thing, huge, white paint, black wheels etc.
ebonyandivory wrote: In reply to DrBoost: Yeah, back when I was taking a serious look at the mid-to-late 90's E300's I came away with the same impressions you wrote above. And now that I'm re-examining it all, same thing. There were quite a few later examples with good prices on Craigslist but I didn't bother posting them here for that very reason.
I have a 92 300D. It's been reliable, bit a PITA to work on as far as the oil pump and head gasket. But, when I had the head off at 290K the cross-hatch pattern was still obvious, and the cam still had machine marks on it.
I also had a 93 Dodge with the Cummins. LOVED that truck, wished I still had it. 21 mpg all day long, load it up and get 20 mpg. Sold it with 365K on it, engine still hadn't been opened up.
ebonyandivory wrote: Can't say I don't LOVE that thing, huge, white paint, black wheels etc.
Pretty sure you're not helping. Or you are, depending.
mazdeuce wrote:ebonyandivory wrote: Can't say I don't LOVE that thing, huge, white paint, black wheels etc.Pretty sure you're not helping. Or you are, depending.
Yeah, sorry (that means I'm not sorry btw). His is a 2007 and it was a Hypertech programmer he bought. Says its worth every penny of the $250 it cost.
But the van is still white, is still huge and tall and still has aftermarket black alloy wheels and still looks and sounds intimidating (plus he bought a conversion van bench that folds into a bed just behind the front seats.
I just sold my 2000 Civic LX auto with 275k and bought a 95 E300d. My project car is a 95 E320 wagon with a 3.6 swapped in so I am familiar with the w124.
The diesel isn't a great looker as the clearcoat is not in good shape. However, the car had been very well maintained mechanically and had all the typical gotchas done. The car is great on the highway and I can get nearly 700 miles to a tank (23 gal tank option). It is dog slow to drive and even worse when it is very cold out.
I keep reading about these crazy people from Finland that do unbelievable things to Merc OM606 turbo diesels. Google Mercedes Super Turbo Diesel for info. Apparently, the 98-99 is the holy grail of starting points for these modifications.
Rufledt wrote: what kind of woman is the 'rwd behemoth,' and which is the 'cavernous 4x4'?
The kinda women that you pay EXTRA for in some countries.
I've owned all three of the trucks diesels - dodge cummins, ford 7.3L 'stroke, chevy 6.2, chevy 6.5TD, and Dmax. All of them are great but have their limitations. The 6.0L and 6.4L 'strokes are a different story.
I've also owned a W210 in the form of a 99 E300TD. IMO, the 98-99 TD benz was the last of the good ones. 96-97 was the same minus the turbo, so just as good, but powerless. Parts are expensive and DIY labor can be tough for some of the common failures, but the 99 W210 is the last of the really good ones - build quality, materials quality, NVH, etc. Its a fantastic car up to a well-cared-for 200k or so.
Do yourself one favor if you get one... weld braces from the lower radiator support to a framerail. The lower rad support in the diesels is a ridiculously weak stamped steel thing. The first time you enter a steep driveway or pull in too close to a parking curb it will push the bottom of the radiator back. The best-case scenario is that it will cause the fan to rub the shroud. Worst case scenario is that you'll have to replace the radiator, the fan, and the clutch. Trust me, I did it three times in mine in two years. Until you factor in the $300 radiator, all the parts, and the $45/gallon coolant, it adds up.
mazdeuce wrote: I've been peeking around at the diesel vans lately. They're cheap. Vans in general are cheap.
I snagged a 99 E350 PSD cargo van for dirt cheap with only 98k on the clock. Talk about a custom project waiting to happen... its like a blank canvas. I'm going with a Futon that folds up to the ceiling and built-in 120v air conditioning. Add some shag carpet to the walls and its a fully-functional babe-lair.
You'll need to log in to post.
