- posted
4 years ago
Metal fatigue sucks
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Ye'r getting old... I'm happy if it drives nowadays at any speed ;-)
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
The problem here is that we've got hills , many of them quite steep . I'd like to top Dodd Mountain (on the way home from town) at more that 35 MPH empty ... probably a 5-6% grade and if I'm loaded it's more like 20 MPH . The 2.73's force me down into a lower gear and I'd have to rev higher than I like to top out any faster . 3.42's will put my (stock) torque peak at around 60 MPH , should help with mileage too .
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Put smaller wheels on it - - - - -
My truck has 3.55 gears - but when I put the 16 inch wheels on instead of the factory 14s it had the effect of putting in 3:27s or
3:31s- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Terry Coombs <snag snipped-for-privacy@msn.com on Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:46:32 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Isn't it nice to have friends willing to pay for your repairs?
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
I'll probably put some taller tires on this truck , IIRC it's currently running p235/75 - 15's . Got a great buy on a set of nearly-new Kenda's , the ones that were on it were about worn out so I replaced them .
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
You MAY want to look for something with "shorter legs" if going with bigger tires. And be VERY carefull if modifying the engine to make sure you are increasing the low end torque - not high RPM power.
The old 292 Chevy 6, for instance, had a LOT more low end grunt than a Z28 302 V8 even though the 302 put out a lot more horsepower. A 292 could outpull a lot of 350s. It put out 280 ft lbs at 1600 RPM compared to a stock 1981 350 with at 289 at 1600 -some 350's put out as much as 380 ftlbs at 3200 - which doesn't do much for crawling up a mountain.
Had 4.57 or 514 gears in the old '69 C30 292 and we were licenced for GCVW of 22 tons. I'm sure it was overloaded on occaision, but it was never lacking for power to pull away from a stop. A Cockshutt 1855 with a fulkl load of calcium was well over 12000 lbs - the truck was over 3800 - and the big tri-axle float had to weigh well over 3000 - then throw on a 6 furrow plow - - - - and a 100 gallon saddle tank.
I got it stuck, but never ran out of torque.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
The 292 was a great engine. I had one with a five speed manual transmission in a '73 Chevy Stepvan with an all steel Union City body. It had plenty of torque. and it was in most of our school busses in the mid '60s.
I made two trips to Florida in it, and I hauled a little over 17,000 pounds in those two trips. It weighed 3150 pounds, empty. It had a 30 gallon tank, but there was room for four 30 gallon and one 15 gallon tanks.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
IF I cam it , it will be with a cam designed for low end grunt . The 305 already has a low RPM torque advantage due to it's long stroke ... when I was a boy Dad had a '62 Chevy 3/4 ton p/u with a 235 six . Our friends had a 50-something Ford with a flathead V8 . With similar loads
- say a slide-in camper and pulling a trailer with 2 horses , that Ford would walk away from us on the flat . But once we hit the canyons , we had the advantage . Ours had 4.11's , dunno what the Ford had . My old '58 Chevy 3E Apache had 4.57's ... And a 283 with a .480/288° RV cam and a 2 barrel (otherwise stock). Hill , what hill ? I used that truck to pull stumps , in low range 4x4 and 1st gear it would climb a wall if it had traction .
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Likely either a 3.92 or a 4.27 on an f1 of f100. On an f2 most likely 4.27 - possibly even higher.
Ratios changed when they went to the "Y" block - with 3.73 being common on the F100
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Back up the hill.