Well let me tell you, I worked as a mechanic 1970’s-80’s on 3 fleets (1) Ford (1)GM (1) IH Believe me I would rather mess with 2 bolts at 150k-200k miles than camshafts, valves coming apart destroying pistons, transmissions, and accessory drives falling off in the GM stuff, some of this with in 50k miles. IH trucks were pretty good, but over all the Fords ran the most miles with less major problems. I was trained by GM early 70’s. The joke was GM was easier to work on for a reason.
2 Likes
Interesting indeed G.K.
My current daily driver 2005 Toyota Camery four cylinder has lower crankcase crankshaft gear driven opposing counter balance shafts that large inline four cylinders really need.
At Idle is sounds just like that Saab V-4. The Toyota is not nearly as snappy to drive. But a great cruiser. Quiet. A great radio. Good AC. And gets better fuel mileage that the old Saab.
It was the reversed engine 99’s and later 9000’s the did become popular here. The first of only three factory turbo charged engines systems I worked on that could go an honest 200,000 miles plus.
The earlier Saab 2-stroked charcoal gassed makes your post very on-topic. I did not know this.
Regards
Steve Unruh
3 Likes
I agree Al F.
IHC and AMC get ignored too much by the Chevy <-> Ford warring guys. Dodge had to spend decades to shoulder their way up to notice.
And as I’ve told many, many VW air-cooled fanatics it isn’t how easy it is to work on, or whole engine R&R. It is the engine systems that actually need the least amount of working on.
Difficult dissemble can always be compensated for by special-made tools and techniques.
Why my long Ford front timing cover off; this is how I’ve learned to do this explaining.
Ha! It was actually hard for me to commit to buying this 2017 GMC cutaway van. I wanted the Ford to be a better decision. Those 30-failures prone cam follower fingers in the V-10, just kept saying No.
Overiding . . .
Far distant memories of still 60’s failing GM nylon timing gears. 70’s bore wear from cheapening the block castings. The 70’s, early 80’s dirty trick of outspending AMC and IHC on emissions patents and then big-money lobbing the Federal Gov’Mint for the more aggressive Regulations that finally sunk little sisters AMC and IHC. Big-fish GM alway on the look out to eat up any and all little fish.
Then the 90’s GM failures in stupid shrinking plastic Vee engine intake heat isolator spacer gaskets. Coolant into the oils. The 90’s, 34 variations Quad-fours too overly complex SOHC and DODC failures engines in base Mom and Pop vehicles. Too many of their early 2000’s V-6’s screwed over too many family and friends. Too many early 2000’s V-8 cold running loose piston slappers and oils pumper explained away, as normal. Not.
Then 2008/09. Oh . . . how the Mighty have fallen.
It is the climbing up, striving to be truly better that gets my will-buy, will-use support.
Hey! That’s woodgasing!
Steve Unruh
1 Like
I agree Steve, I hate GM’s harsh tactics, and getting away with problems for years, never having to answer. Don’t get me started on the bailout. 
1 Like
I was wrong about the later 9000’s Saab models. Ha! It was 900 series/
For those heads scratching read here:
Some pretty good at-the-time comparison reviews in this article.
Saab, later GM acquired and GM’edifed with their Eco-Tech engine. I worked on those in the early 2000’s. OK cars, but not the vim and vigor of the earlier. Then the automotive division sold? To the Chinese?
S.U.
Sorry to say there’s nothing left of Saab, the small car factory with innovative solutions, it’s just gone. (Only Saab aircraft/aerospace/weapons? left)
As for you thats genuine technical interested, you should read about Per Gillbrand, engineer and inventor, worked at Saab, had really interesting ideas, if i remember correctly he “invented” the knock-sensor, by using a industrial application used to monitor noise in heavy bearings.
He was also alot involved in the use of turbo on standard passenger cars.
Im sorry i don’t know if there’s any proper translated, or in english documentarys about him.
As for the balace-shafts, i’ve always seen them as something unnecessary, where forced to use, but it have evolved alot, into something that actually gains power in proper engineered engines, not only make them less “shaky” for comfort. As for the v4, i’ve not noticed much difference, the times i’ve stripped the fiber gears driving the, ofcourse alternator, fan and waterpump stop’s, but not more vibrations.
Anyway my engine, the one in the pic is alot modified, among all it’s got a turned down flywheel, and a mean camshaft, and still don’t shake and jump at idle either, wich seems odd, a four cylinder v-engine…?
4 Likes
I’d like to build a motorcycle around that little Saab engine. What was their HP rating and how much could it be easily improved?
This is interesting SteveU. I once called myself an engine builder and thought since I was returning parts to finely measured spec that I was blueprinting as well. This guy showed me the errors in my way of thinking.
I enjoy the eternal battle of engine fan boys and am in the Chevy camp just because it’s human nature to pick a team to root for, but any of them look just like the clear plastic visible V-8 toy I got when I was ten years old. If you have built one push rod V-? engine you have pretty much built them all. Yeah team.
Also a really good video on multi-carb set ups that most car guys don’t really understand.
4 Likes
The little Saab engine, a German Ford from the beginning later built under license by Saab, is 65hp originally, 68hp with later 2 port carb.
As for easy tuning, heads, intake, valves, better ignition, camshaft i guess around 80hp.
I’ve seen them in motorcycles, of wich one was a hill-climb monster with turbo and nitrous, i don’t know if it worked well…
As for mine little v4 it should develope around 140-160hp due to acceleration tests, top speed, acceleration uphill.
But in that one I’ve mounted the crank from Ford Taunus v4, (1,7liters instead of original 1,5) piston’s and connecting rod’s from Ford Granada 2,8v6 (93mm instead of 90mm)
Alot of work on the heads, bigger valves, stiffer springs, ligther valve lifters and retainers.
Lightened flywheel, camshaft reshaped to a rallye/racing profile. Electronic ignition from a Volvo police car, and much more, crazy stuff if im looking back at it, but it has been a fun little car. (And i admit; I’ve blown this engine up, maybe three times, the bolts in connecting rods big-end tend to stretch due to the rpm’s, and then the fun is over. 
6 Likes
Holy crap Goran. You’re getting an old man excited. 160 HP motorcycle. That sounds just like my ticket to Valhalla. I don’t think you allowed to make that trip on a hospital bed.
5 Likes
Yes TomH this has been one of my points:
For woodgas engine performance you only need pushrod activated two valves per cylinder engines. Torque masters engines.
Cue the music:
Of, course. Of course. Use your SOHC engines if that is what fits the actual vehicle you’ll be using.
Some you can even get to decide; better to go with the timing belt version? Or the long timing chain version.
Isuzu Rodeos and Honda Passport V-6’s.
Many Toyota engines series. First chain. Then belt. Back to chains.
Others, too.
S.U.
4 Likes
First chance I get, I’m putting a Ford I6 or a more Cody Friendly I4 in this Mazda truck. Maybe if I can find an old Bronco that had the 5 speed.
I heard the 300CI I6 has the same bolt pattern as the 302 V8 when it comes to the bell housing. This could also work, some guys offer bell housing kits for the 302 to the Mazda 5 speeds since they sold these transmissions to Ford for decades.
3 Likes
Kevin mentioned something about drags at Argos and naturally I had to think of a way to get an edge. First I thought, maybe sneak a shot of nitrous in there and then I wondered if injecting some pure oxygen with the WG would provide a boost of power and be able to replace shifting to hybrid gasoline for added acceleration power.
2 Likes
A little oxygen could only help as long as it is still a 1 to 1 ratio. Add it before the air mix valve.
Bob
1 Like
This is where I get a bit confused Bob. Gasolines ideal ratio is determined to the 14 to 1. Personally I considered that a little lean but altering the amount of fuel will change that. More fuel you drop down to perhaps 12 to 1. A little rich but safer. The amount of air added by boost increases pressure but does not alter that ratio. a higher percentage of oxygen should increase combustion speed but does it change the one to one ratio?
3 Likes
Cody my wifes older brother had an early 90’s Ford F150 with the factory fuel injected 300 (5.0L) I6. It was a manual transmission made by Mazda (Toyo Koyo). He said it shifted fine and got him xx mpg. He cursed that transmission because it vertical cases seams leaked. And he was unwilling to have that transmission R&Red; cases split, and resealed.
Ha! He always felt I was holding back info on some kind of super-duper mechanics secret stop leak. Nope. Split the cases. Super clean and be sure and use the proper gear oil rated sealer. NOT just any 'ol RTV.
Man, remember your Mazda pickup doesn’t lack an engine. It lacks a weatherproof cab.
Regards
Steve Unruh
4 Likes
Ha! Ha! TomH, I like guys like you with secret sauce solutions.
All’s I’ve ever had to do was set to race them, past their running out of that secret sauce. Or the credit limit patience of the secret sauce supplier.
Seriously. Woodgas fuel gas components are simple easy fuel gases to completely combust up in the engine. Woodgassed engines do not in genral lack for oxygen. High altitude engines being an exception.
They first off lack mostly for a high enough compression ratio to fully utilized woodgases potential.
And most woodgased engines cannot be wide enough spread active advanced, and quick retarded ignition timing to fully utilized woodages full power potential.
Third thing: most woodgasifier cannot quickly on-demand supply the quick needed amounts of good woodgas for drag racing, hills climbing and such things.
Long up grades a challenge using up your char beds faster than they it can internally self-replenish.
You keep thinking like a gasoline man Tom.
So’kay. Diesel guys are worse.
Regards
Steve Unruh
Post scrip add.
A fellow does not have to go big $'s to learn this stuff on multicylinder engines.
Just use a 5500-8500 watt electric generator.
Work that. Modifying to get your best comparable to gasoline electrical wattage out of it.
S.U.
3 Likes
Gee, thanks, I guess. I’m usually accused of not being able to think at all.
1 Like
Ya but the WAYNE K burn tube has larger charbed than an imbert, Should be good for wide OPEN for wood gas 200 too 400 feet easy, it takes more than that pull up on a freeway ramp in traffic, Though im just blowing smoke,I caint afford too be brakeing any truck parts 300 miles from my junk yard buddys. Probbly wont brake nothing burning wood gas 30 % less power than gasoline anyway. Then it would be back too the bank too HP the tranny if anything.
3 Likes
I thought you were talking about wood gas 1 to 1 ratio. Gasoline yes adding oxygen maybe 12 to 1.
Bob
1 Like
I was talking about wood gas Bob. As usual I woke up about 3:30 am with my brain buzzing. I think you work out a lot of stuff when you are asleep and wake up with some answers which seem to quickly fade. Anyway I woke up this morning with a sort of minor epiphany thanks to SteveU’s statement that I keep thinking like a gasoline man. He was right and I realized that wood gas is an imaginary horse I keep beating trying to make it liquid fuel. Some things I’ve never been able to adapt my thinking to. Since some time in the 1970’s I was assured that the metric system was far easier and more sensible than the imperial system. I can break down an inch into as many fractions as you could want in a flash but cannot convert an inch into centimeters. I can understand propane because it is delivered as a liquid and must be converted to a gas before it goes into an intake manifold. When I started building for wood gas I was unable to understand why I could not build a better gas by injecting other chemicals into the reaction. Finally, kind of got around that. This one may be harder. I still want to atomize methanol in the wood gas stream. Anyway, you have done me a service SU. Much appreciated.
5 Likes