V4 petrol to diesel - is it worth it?

[carshalton mk1]

Mr Mpuk - thay was quick! - my plate looks quite different - though its the same as one of the photies in the Haynes manual

I was going to try to post a nice digital piccy but its too dark now to get a decent one

the topline reads:

SERIAL NUMBER/MODEL: [BC05MT64960] [DDX]

none of which seems to say 130, 150 or 175...the only thing I can think is that the 60 at the end of the serial number refers to 'V60' which is the old ID numbers according to the manual - but thats a bit tenuous - any ideas???

Carsahlton mk1

[madmark]

what year is it?????? and what body is is it?????? ci travelhome???????

[carshalton mk1]

Hi madmark

you may have seen that I've started a new post on the subject, as its an entirely different question to the one about diesel engines - however, just in case:

Its a twin wheeled camper: date of first registration was September 1973. It looks quite a bit like Baconsdozen's camper only the overhanging bit over the roof is a bit more angular (and its got red trim, not beige but I don't suppose that matters)

Carshalton Mk1

[MRspivvy]

If it was mine I would put the diesel in it, no question. It'd probably pull better than the V4 despite being a diesel, and a lot more reliable too, having no balance shaft bearings to worry about and less propensity to eat its headgaskets every couple of weeks

[24vtranny]

i second that di is much better,the v 4 is only good for one thing.a boat acchor.

[MRspivvy]

and another thing, if you were only getting 17mpg out of the V4 you would be pretty much doubling your mpg if you fitted a Di. Mk3/4/5 di powered transits with over 300,000 miles on the clock are not uncommon. if you planned to fit a york diesel I would say no it isnt worth it.

[madmark]

there is plenty of di,s out there ,i would go for the trusty 89-91 engine, these to me were the best on fuel! most transits do around 350 to the tanks. i had a swb 1990 and got 575miles out of a tank this i have never beaten! and no the guage want stuck!

[baconsdozen]

The titsy witsy problem with the flat front seems to have been forgotten.

[Terry]

Hi Carshalton mk 1,
Suggest you seriously consider Fred's offer of a diesel front & then the DI conversion.
The V4 engines were a disaster all olong, they were particularly prone to head gasket failiures (I had 1 in a Corsair and found checking the water AT LEAST everyday was absolutely NECESSARY)
They have an hexagonal drive pin from the oil pump up to the bottom of the distributor, this is prone to failing too !
They had 'fibre' timing wheels instead of steel, they used to fail quite frequently as well !
Being an 'odd' cylinder layout they are inherently badly balanced to the point Ford deemed it necessary to have a contra-rotating balance shaft above the crankshaft. (hence the timing wheels as opposed to a chain... belts came along later )
You say you were getting up to about 17 mpg, you were doing well !
most trannies with the V4 struggled to get 15mpg.
Sticking with the V4 may keep the originality but it will be an uphill struggle, as parts are getting hard to come by now too.

[MRspivvy]

I also think it'd be worth more when coming to sell it if its got a Di in it. people get scared off by coachbuilts with petrol engines

[baconsdozen]

I'm going to be the odd one out and defend the V4.The engine is unbalanced,any V4 layout has to be,the internal balance shaft didn't work too well in balancing vibrations out but the automotive world is full of things that didn't quite work out.The overheating problems were mainly caused by using the tiny V4 in monster Zephyrs with the rad lower than the cylinder heads,faulty maintenance and poor servicing was responsible for a lot of other failures.The fibre wheels broke up especially when overheating had been a problem and at high mileages,early drive belts on a lot of OHC engines were just as big disaster usually putting valves through the pistons when they failed.The oil pump/dizzy drives used to fail on both V4 and V6's but not as often as people seem to think.Some of the problems were addressed in later engines although fair to say none of the problems were totally cured.
I had a lot of V4 transits some from almost new and drove a lot more.I could get mpg figures of less than 15 by caning the things (and people forget how fast the early transits seemed when new compared to the other vans of that era) but I get 25mpg from my Mk1 motorhome although it has overdrive and a modified engine.
The engine isn't the best in the world but its the only one that fits in an unmodified Mk1 with the rad where its supposed to be (unless one fits the equally flawed cologne V4).It had faults sure but we now all have the benefit of hindsight and 40 years of improved technology to help us rubbish what went before.In another 40 years people will ridicule our current crop of engines and probably laugh at the very idea of using fossil fuels in the first place.
Finally if anyones got any V4 bits they don't want,yes please.

[carshalton mk1]

Well now- thanks for all the advice - for now I'm gong to stick to the petrol, as I won't be using the van much this year (we had our first baby 2 weeks ago and its looking like we won't be getting out and about as much as usual this summer!) so the cost of conversion probably won't outwiegh the MPG improvement...good to know it can be done when we come to use it more regularly though.

Baconsdozen - one final question - as your van looks like its much the same as mine - can I ask what tyre pressures you use (assuming yours has twin rear wheels like mine?)

[baconsdozen]

Hello
I run 36 psi all round seems to work best.Best of luck with your Mk1,at least keeping it standard it will hold its value.