Hello. I am fairly new to this forum and would like for anyone who is interested in following along my unique build to subscribe to this thread.

I am going to build a 1954 F100 and turn it into an economical daily driver with still over 275 and getting 25+ MPH. (275 to wheels)

Here is where I'm headed and would like anyone who has expericence with the lightening of their truck to go ahead and speak up! I will be posting pictures as they come along and are pertinent to this thread and my build.

Now, for the curious... here is where I am planning on going with this.

1954 Ford F100, frame boxed for strength and safety.

Mustang II front with air ride (I know I'm trying to lighten but it has to look good too)

8" rear end with 3.23:1 -3.73:1 gears depending on where the boost kicks in.

1987 2.3 turbo coupe motor with a switch to a T3/T4 hybrid with internal wastegate and several mods to get air moving through as best as possible below 3500 rpm. I want the boost to not really kick in until 3200-3500. The reasoning for this is that of course, in everyday driving, I don't need the extra HP unless I've got some urge to be a kid again and let the pedal hit the floor.

Computer programmed for mileage savings and for running on low grade 87 pump gas.

T-5 Transmission

Hood, all 4 fenders, and running boards fiberglass to save a TON of weight... almost literally. I would do the cab in fiberglass as well but I don't have an extra 6 grand sitting around to spend on a truck I'm going to try and build for under 10K.

Also, I'm going to use larger rims with lower profile tires to reduce unsprung weight also allow the truck to virtually "coast" for further when in neutral. Lighter rolling mass.

Other things I'm going to do which may appear like they will not do anything but, I think every bit of weight I save on this build will help, I'm going to chop the top, shave drip rails, monoleaf, no bumpers, etc...

This is my first build of an F100. I have wanted to do one of these for SO long, I can't wait until this week gets under way and we get the frame to the media blasters to get started on this beauty! The truck itself is from Oklahoma and is covered in rust... but only surface rust! I have only found 2 spots of cancer on it and of course the floor boards are shot. It's got a numbers matching 239 and 3 speed... Appears to be a Dana 44 (not sure because I have never seen one before) It's still got the factory radio! All the glass is shot but it doesn't matter because I'm going to chop the top anyhow and it would be useless then anyhow.

I will post pictures throughout this build and hope you all enjoy of course throw your ideas out there to share with me. I would love to hear what you have to say.

Enjoy,

J.

 

You have some lofty goals, but I'm not sure how practical some aspects of it are.

Fiberglass fenders and hood weigh as much or more than their steel counterparts. I have all 4 fenders in 'glas, and there is an insignificant difference. I've seen the hoods and to make them rigid at high temps, they are also very stout. You can buy lightweight "racing grade" fiberglass pieces, but they flop around in the wind and are not practical for the street. I also have 'glas running boards and they save about 5 lbs apiece.

I really question how the truck is going to perform with that 2.3 and turbo. I think you would be better off with a high-torque/low RPM larger engine with high compression and a tall (low #) rear axle. Having a torque converter might help the 4-banger get up to RPM, but the trans would have to have OD and lock-up or mileage would be gone.

Note that there are several people here and on other forums with early cars getting 20+ mpg with flathead V8's and OD, but these aren't trucks. The frontal area and totally non-aerodynamic shape of the trucks is very hard to overcome, especially if you plan to go over 55 mph. The front end is not at all conducive to clean air flow.

The B-W OD trans was a factory option on your truck, and combined with the flatty you could get to 20 mpg, maybe a little more, for very little money. Don't dismiss it as a possibility! Good luck!

 

J.
I applaud your ambition, but have you ever driven a T Bird Turbo Coup? I owned and drove one for 2 years and it was very disapointing, and that car was built for that engine. Tbird 3100 lbs with 5spd. I ended up trading it for a F150

 

You might be sucessful, but it's really iffy the way you are going about it. My 56 Panel (not an aerodynamic shape in anyones eye) averaged 27+ MPG on regular gas at 80+ (sometimes very +) MPH cross country with the AC on, and still has enough power to pull our enclosed race car trailer and be way fun to drive.
Here's how to do it a lot cheaper and easier: engine stock c**vy 400 with Edelbrock 4 BBL carb and headers, transmission Tremec T56 6 speed double OD with 0.50 6th gear (the real secret), rear Ford 9" with 3.70 gears. The frame is not boxed (way overkill for 275 HP in your plans, safety from what?), front suspension is reversed eye slipper springs and 2" dropped beam axle. Rear springs are also reversed eye lowering springs.
Big beefy radial tires on chromed steel wheels. You can see pictures in my gallery of her just the way we drove her home.
Going higher on the rear gear ratio to a 3.0 would still allow me to smoke the tires at will but increase the fuel ecomomy by 2-3 MPG but would sacrifice towing capacity.

PS with turbo boost coming on that high you'll get beaten away from the stoplites by a 6 year old on a tricycle. Turbo motors have no torque until the boost kicks in and at that RM you'll be going in and out of boost at cruising speed, so evry time the turbo starts to spool up it will be like someone is operating the throttle up and down, NOT a fun way to drive.
(We race a turboed Solstice, and have driven a number of different turboed cars with significant turbo lag) Turbos are not like positive drive superchargers, they do not produce boost linearly with RPM but are proportional to accelleration, giving higher boost with rapid throttle opening, then the boost drops off as you reach steady throttle cruising speed.

 

What he says is true... that stock the turbo coupes were QUITE dissappointing. However Ive ridden in a few that with a few upgrades (larger turbo, modified ignition, good exhaust set up etc.) that were in desperate need of "oh***** bars" I will be subscribing to this simply because Ive never seen anyone wanna put a turbo coupe motor in a truck as old and heavy as yours is. It will make for interesting reading to see how you come along and what all gets changed along the way.

ALBUQ is correct about the fiberglass pieces being negligable in weight savings vs the stock steel. In cases where Ive replaced the front of a 66 chevy and a few other cobbled together race cars back in my younger years (chevy monza ford maveric etc.) the fiberglass front ends and hoods while nifty... weren't what I thought in terms of "saving weight".

Seems to me for the motor you'r using, along w/the possible 3:73 gear set, you'r best bet is to try to improve the aerodynamics of the vehicle itself.
Good luck w/that and as I said I'll be subscribing to this thread to see how this project comes along as well as eagerly anticipating the final numbers.

 

Thank you for this advice! This is great! You just saved me a TON of extra work and $$$ by knowing this! I was going to go with the heavy duty fiberglass because I know how flimsy racing sheet is.



Ok, this is going to be my daily driver. I am going to miles on this truck. 15K a year just for local runs. I'm not even going on the freeway with this truck. Ever. I have a small collection of Fords and if ever driving on the free/highway, I take the safest possible car I have (F250) because have you seen the idiots they give drivers license's to? Man, just scares me. Also, the 239 package is just alot of weight and is carbed. I have 4 other cars that are carbed. I'm getting old. So is tuning those dang things! haha I will however keep it in mind! It turns over still so I know it just needs a little freshening up.

thanx again!

 

The only reason that I've decided to use this motor is this: fuel injected, quiet, easy for me to work on, part are readily available at any auto parts store, and also... I've never seen it done. It will have mods done to it. (I never leave anything stock) I would go into details about the mods but I'm sure when it gets to that time in this thread, I will add all the details. i.e. stainless header, stainless downtube, underdrive pulleys, what computer mods and a/f adjustments I'm doing.

I really don't like my Turbo Coupe for the reason that Ford didn't do what they could to them until 1988. And even then it was a weak attempt at that. So, I wound up with this motor due to the fact that my 87 T/C now sport 545 cu. in. of N20 injected power... needless to say, it isn't as slow as it was from the factory.

cheers.

 

I would LOVE to do that except for 1 tintsy wintsy problem...

I am even having a hard enough time using the GM rotors and Calipers supplied with the Mustang II front kit. I think I have what they call, "issues"? I have 14 Fords... this will honestly be the first Ford I've ever owned that has anything other than Ford or specifically Ford designed aftermarket parts on. I'm seriously trying to find a kit that is Ford rotors and calipers. Not that I don't like Chebby but I am Ford fan first. I have access to a 55 chevy second series 3100... but aren't the parts hard to find to put a 460 BBF in a Chevy?

 

A 351 W or better yet a Ford Modular with the T-56 (used in Mustang Cobras and Vipers as well as GM products if that makes you feel better) would give similar results. Today many of the parts used on various manufacturers products came from the same suppliers or a company other than the badged one, so although the calipers were designed to be used on chevys they were likely made by someone else, especially in aftermarket applications like the IFS they likely didn't come off a GM parts shelf any more than the IFS suspension parts would even fit on a production MII.

 

I applaud your effort. Making a 54 pickup a fuel saver is going to be a challenge. As others have mentioned the truck is aerodynamically challenged so getting it as low as possible and chopping the top should help some. I think you would be better off using a fuel injected SBF or SBC or even an old aluminum block Buick V8 built in the early 60s (I forget the displacement, 215 perhaps and very lightweight). I don't know how much a one-piece fiberglass front end weighs but it might be lighter than the steel counterpart. You definitely do not need the full frame boxed. Just box to the firewall for a MII suspension. Tall skinny tires should improve mileage better than short low profile ones. An automatic (although a little heavier than the T5) would allow you to run a much taller rear gear. I'm running a 2.26 with a TH350. The 3:23 is about as tall as you can go with the T5 (although a 3:00 might work).

I raced one of those turbo coupes when they first came out with my stock 350 powered 57 Chevy. He never did catch up...

 

Hahahaha, I love it! I knew that any mention of the I-4 Turbo setup would raise a few eyebrows but I didn't think that EVERYONE was a V or Y 8 fan! I do have a 4.6 quad cam motor and a T56 transmission I was considering putting in but I'm sure it's been done. Ultimately, I don't even want people to hear that the dang thing is running. I want it as quiet as a Prius! I will consider the SBF idea... or mod motor idea... but I want people to walk away confused when I pop the hood. If I don't like it, I can always stuff my 331 twin turbo motor in there and laugh as fill it with 112 and do wheelies all the way down the track. I've done that. I want something sneaky... something that is not a crossbreed, not a truck everyone sees.

Keep posting ideas. I like that it's got this kind of response already!

*Tires, no getting around this... already bought and paid for... rear are 24x9.5 with a 295/35/24 front are 20x8.5 with a 265/35/20 BFG's G Force's.

The truck will be as close to the ground as it can get without having air ride in the back. Front will have air ride.

Ok, few questions here... why not box the frame past the cab? I have been reading that the frame was designed for a little flex but since I'm going with a Mustang front and a mono leaf rear don't I want the stiffness of the frame being boxed?

** Also, before I made a mistake in my statement... I DO have a GM part in one of my motors (chevy rod end size and rod length on one of my stroker motors). I know that GM doesn't manufacture the aftermarket parts for the kits 99% of the time but couldn't they just label it as Great Material instead of GM hahahahaha

 

I saw your post and was drawn to it even though I am an 81 driver.

Low profile tires will not aid in your goal, sorry just the way it is. With the width you choose you have more rolling resistance as well at wind resistance at speed. I remember the efforts of making a Pantera faster in the 80's (I own a 1971), the biggest issues holding back speed was the front tire width and the big spoiler they put on it.

I would love to do a similar project with a late 40's/Early 50's Ford, but my choice would be buying a Crown Vic and moving all the running gear to the Pickup. The Vic's can get great mileage on the open road and are very quiet in stock form. You would also end up with a lighter rig than the Vic aiding in your quest.

As for your frame...why box it? You certainly are not going 4 wheeling, nor does it sound like you are going to haul a load, so boxing not only wastes your time but adds unnecessary weight. I don't think you can flex that stock frame on the street with a Turbo Coupe engine even with a 6000 rpm clutch dump and wrinkle walls.

Kenny

 

It's just stated that way for maintainance/replacement part purposes. Would be hard pressed to find a parts house listing wheel bearings for a Height IFS for example.
The frame was designed to flex, the cab and all the front sheetmetal is suspended above it to handle the rough terrain work trucks saw in the 50s without tearing itself apart. The basic frame is way strong enough to handle 500 HP for street use. Boxing the front is done mostly for ease of mounting the IFS and carrying it back to the firewall is done to spread the load and IMHO as much for esthetics as any other reason. Monos, especially on the rear have not gotten very good reviews from those that have tried them. Why not go with 4 link or trailing arm instead since you're bagging the front?

 

AX, I have been reading all over the site and have seen that the mono isn't really a good decision like you stated. Will probably wind up going with a 4 link kit from F100central (I think that's where I saw it) Looks like it will be my best choice.

 

I would go with a skinnier tire but the reason I originally bought these was of course for the cool factor (IMHO) for a street driven truck. I have always been in favor of the idea that the lower profile tire with a tall rim resulted in less mass for the drivetrain to spin. Am I wrong in this assumtion? I know that having more tire to the ground is rolling resistance but don't I want all that mass to have to spin from a 'tall' tire. I was thinking that since I'm going to be driving this most around town in stop and go traffic and since most of use of gasoline come from accellerating from a dead stop, this is where I was trying to go. Now, if I wanted to go with a total gas saver (loosing some cool points in the process) I'd have gone with some 17's with a short tire and fairly narrow. But ya still have to look cool even when trying to save gas.