What is the friendliest make,model and year of truck to set up a wood gas unit on with the least fuss n muss to run? I would prefer to steer away from the computer controlled trucks but if it works better than I will run one. Is there an engine size cap to stop at like don’t feed a 454 block or would a big enough tank feed it? What am I going to gain the best success at setting up the simplest?
Wayne has good luck with the Dodge Dakota with a 318ci V8, early 90s models that still use a real distributor but have port injection instead of TBI.
You might get some ideas from reading through this .
Go with the 1992 to 1995 Dodge Dakota or Ram Trucks and the V-10 Ram Truck. It has a OBD1 systems that work great for converting over to wood gas. The computers are wood gas friendly. Other makes and models will work too. But the easiest is the Dodge with it metal intake and Multi port fuel injection systems. This is what the Wayne Keith Gasifier is build on for the easiest approach to Driving On Wood.
I like the 1986-1995 5.0 or 5.8 Fords distributor in front, throttle bodies very easy to hook up wood gas.
You guys all seem to like V-8s or 10’s. Seems like it would be easier to do some sort of inline 6 like a Ford 300 or GM292. Both good torquey engines that get terrible gas mileage. Seem perfect for wood gas to me.
That 25% to 30% drop in horsepower is why the bigger V-8 and V-10 are important. On the V-8 distributor on advancing one peg is 45° advanced one OBD1 computer on Dodge it can correctly move it back into no knock zone on wood gas. This is on the 1992 to 1995 years. The V-10 the computer 1992 to 1995 can do it. The correct advancement makes more horsepower in wood gas.
What about the newer V-10’s? ie. a 1999 model year
Hello Chris and welcome to the DOW.
As far as I know a 1999 V-10 Ram should work well with wood gas.
Hi Chris Stuart, also welcome to the DOW.
You asked about newer V-10’s.
If you meant what about the FORD V-10’s no one has claimed to have done one yet.
No one I know has done any of the OHC Ford Triton V-engines of any size or type yet.
Overhead cam four-cylinder engine have been done a lot successfully. Most all were earlier design freewheeling types, where a stuck down valve will not be piston crashed.
Those who have done interference engines have sweat risk-blood. And some lost.
Thanks for the warm welcome eh. Glad to be here and can’t wait to be energy independent! Look forward to building my own gasifier once I have a good donor vehicle to DOW. I farm and currently drive a 6L Silverado, would like to build something that’s comparable as far as hp and towing ability. Thanks again eh
Do you have a setup on a Ford that you could put pictures of it?
This is my Ranger I drive now. I will try to find pictures of the 93 f-150 5.8 I did 5 or 6 years ago https://forum.driveonwood.com/t/wood-gas-a-98-ranger-questions/3334/83
I liked it when we used to talk in Cubic Inches. Every time some one talks about engines in liters I have to call up a calculator to give a measurement I can understand. 5.8=351. Was that a Cleveland or Windsor?
Windsor is the 5.0 I thought
I don’t know where the 5.0’s are made. Maybe Windsor but for the 351’s Cleveland’s are good, Windsors not so good.
Winsor, Winsor is the name of the plant where those engines were made. Ford made 302W, 351W, 351 Cleveland, 351 modified, all different.
Sorry if I insulted your engine Al. I’ve have known guys that takes such things personal. Of course I never could understand why any one would build a Ford but the guys that did thought those Windsors were maybe good for boat anchors. They didn’t breath for crap and there wasn’t much you could do to the stock heads to improve them. Blah blah blah. Not that they were golden days, but building hot rods and bikes back in the sixties were as close as I came so when someone mentions something vaguely related I get all weak knee’d and misty.
Well if you know what you are doing with a Ford they will perform as good or better than any others. The 427 proved that at Nascar when they were told it was too fast, and dangerous.