1. Home
  2. ⏣ General Metalworking
  3. Metal fatigue sucks

Metal fatigue sucks

  And repairing it pays well . I've got a bush hog deck in the shop that has some fatigue issues , the area where the gearbox mounts is (was ...) all busted up , I've cut out both layers and am going to weld new steel in - there is ~ 3/4 inch overlap so the joins won't be right on top of each other . I spent most of the morning machining those pieces of plate for the gear box mount . The deck skirt is all beat up , I get to use my five-bucks-at-a-yard-sale porta-power unit to straighten it out . I'll also be repairing (second time) the "stump-jumper" disc that the blades mount to . I'll be checking with the owner , but plan to also grind out and re-weld several spots where there are small cracks starting in some of the weldments . I don't know how old this thing is , but I do know it gets used hard and the owner is happy enough with it to spend a few hundred bucks repairing the damage . And since I'm planning on spending some money on my truck , I'm more than happy to take his !   Got a 3.42 gearset sittin' here awaiting install ... 2.73's just don't cut it up here . I may decide I don't need a cam/headers/manifold to be happy with the way it drives after I get it geared down some .
Reply to
Terry Coombs
Loading thread data ...
<snip>

Ye'r getting old... I'm happy if it drives nowadays at any speed ;-)

Reply to
Leon Fisk

  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 .
Reply to
Terry Coombs

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
Reply to
Clare Snyder

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?

Reply to
pyotr filipivich

  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 .
Reply to
Terry Coombs

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.

Reply to
Clare Snyder

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.

Reply to
Michael Terrell

  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 .

Reply to
Terry Coombs

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

Reply to
Clare Snyder

Back up the hill.

Reply to
David Lesher

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.