One of my friends put a Dodge Diesel(Cummins) in his Chevy Crewcab Dually
and it looks factory! It really gets the interest where ever he goes.
Dave Shier
Trinidad, Colorado
Lots of Trucks
>From: "Bob KNOTTS" <raknotts@qwest.net>
>Reply-To: "Bob KNOTTS" <raknotts@qwest.net>
>To: "J Forbes" <jforbes2@mindspring.com>, "Old Trucks List"
><oletrucks@autox.team.net>
>Subject: Re: [oletrucks] TF stuff and such - diesels
>Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:54:38 -0700
>
>I've done quite a bit of research on light diesels for pick ups. I lived in
>logging country in Oregon when I was in the 8th grade. This was in 1950,
>and
>51. I think diesels were just getting very popular in log trucks. Abt the
>6.2 and 6.5 engines-they (at least the 6.2) were available in 1/2, 3/4, and
>1 ton Chevy's and GMC pick ups and Suburbans. The 6.2 had a very weak lower
>end- crankshaft, and mainbearings. The 6.5 was quite a bit better. Also,
>the
>6.5 with turbocharging was much more powerful. But neither engine was a
>true
>diesel, as "real" diesels are very HD, and often hit 500,000 miles with
>little unscheduled maintenance. And are built REALLY HD. Keep in mind gas
>engines run around 7-10 to one compression ratio, and diesels run from abt
>16 to 20 to one. I've talked to some diehard 6.2-6.5 fans. They say the
>engines are good, but you have to watch the harmonic balancers. They go out
>of balance, and tear up the engine. My favorite would be the "Dodge" 5.9L
>Cummins diesel. But I looked into having a 92-95 Chevy converted by a good
>shop, and the cost was abt $12,000. Plus the cost of the pick up. I can buy
>a 96-97 Dodge pick up for $13-14,000. I'd much prefer the Chevy (or GMC),
>but the cost is too high. I saw a 57 GMC 370 LCF a couple of years ago in
>which the owner put a Cummins. He said it worked great, but he had a two
>speed rear end. I probably have a photo of it somewhere, plus the owners
>name. He lives in the Spokane WA area. I did contact Cummins, and they told
>me that bell housings were available for GM transmissions. If you went to
>the 4L 80, or whatever GM's HD auto OD tranny is, you'd have a great rig.
>But I think you'd have to be able to do most of the conversion work
>yourself, or have a very capable friend. I think the 5.9 engine weighs at
>least 1000 lbs, and probably more. But the 345 in my 78 Scout weighs I
>think
>745 lbs without accessories. Does anyone know what a GM big block V-8
>weighs? But I recently saw a FXXD 3/4 ton in which a shop had put a
>Cummins, and the owner said it worked great. It also had a gearvendors OD,
>so the slow speed of the diesel (max abt 2500 rpm) wasn't a problem at
>speed. Rest time. Bob K in PHX, AZ.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "J Forbes" <jforbes2@mindspring.com>
>To: "Old Trucks List" <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:02 AM
>Subject: [oletrucks] TF stuff and such - diesels
>
>
> > > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:57:32 -0700
> > > From: mark <ccpanel@jps.net>
> > > Subject: [oletrucks] TF stuff and such
> > >
> > > camper saga again.
> > > you'all know i have an original 55 TF 1t camper with factory? 18"
>wheels.
> > > need another dually one for a spare.
> > > also-its bone stock-what is the rated horsepower and
>where?_(wheels/flywheel)
> > > also... is it the worst type of nsaty to take out teh stock
>235
>and
> > > install a 80's diesel or a 68 caddy 472? if the diesel-which one? i
>have a
> > > chevy factory conversion/or original diesel and another one whih i
>dont
>know
> > > but its in a IH BIG by HUGE box van. i have pics if anyone can help.
> > > http://customclassics.org under the wanted section just click where
>i
>say
> > > diesel on the sale page.
> >
> > The Chevy 6.2 liter diesel would probably be closer to a bolt in, since
> > it uses the same side mounts as the small block Chevy engine. You would
> > need to add an aftermarket crossmember to hold the engine, and if you
> > put an automatic behind it you'll need a trannsmission crossmember also.
> >
> > The 235 was rated at 112 gross horsepower (flywheel) according to the
> > chart in the Chevy data package for the 1955 trucks. Peak torque was
> > 200 ft-lbs at 2000 rpm. Probably similar to the 6.2 diesel :)
> >
> > I think if you go back in the archives a couple years ago you'll find
> > all kinds of discussions of the merits of different diesel engines. I
> > personally would stay away from the diesels, but they do have some
> > advantages for some folks. The GM Oldsmobile 350 (5.7) diesel from the
> > late 70s to about 1981 was not a good engine most of the time, but the
> > 6.2 from 1982 to the late 80s was sort of OK. The newer turbocharged
> > engines are quite a bit better, but they are more expensive and probably
> > harder to install. Keep in mind that all diesels weigh more than gas
> > engines, and the better the diesel, the more it weighs!
> >
> > --
> > Jim
> >
> > Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
> > 59s in AZ
> > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
>oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
_________________________________________________________________
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|