U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-24-2011, 07:14 AM
PDD
 
Location: The Sand Hills of NC
8,776 posts, read 14,142,640 times
Reputation: 11850

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12GO View Post
If Dodge is to build these again, they will sell them!!! The "modern" steering and brakes alone would be all 99 percent would ask for!!! Plus the new style from 4.7 baby v8 up to the 426hp Hemi, add in optional a/c, and it's the truck guys would want!
If Ford ever got the Cummins diesel in their 250-350 Pickup or van lineup.
GM and Dodge might just as well stop producing trucks.

Just in case you don't already know, GM no longer makes any Medium Duty trucks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-24-2011, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Earth
4,227 posts, read 20,289,944 times
Reputation: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12GO View Post
And the 84 to 93 years were good to turn into V8 powered rides when the work was done or just for fun work!
Yes! Very true. I actually also had a small blocked V8 S-10. I didn't include it in my list of "former S-10's" because I figured it didn't really count since it was modified with an engine/trans from another vehicle. But all else was stock. It was a good truck for what it was. Very solid and reliable. And yes it was fast too!

Of interest I learned the base model S-10's from the 80's weighed in at 2500 lbs. When you added a typical sbc V8 conversion, it added 200 lbs to the nose. My truck was indeed a base model, born with a 1.9 liter Izusu engine and 4 speed and no other options, not even a cigg lighter. The only aluminum part on the 355 that was in it was the intake; all else was iron. Truck weighed 2690 w/o a driver and 7 gallons of fuel. Also truck was all steel too.

Sold the truck to build an engine for my Chevelle. Wished I had both of those back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2011, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Indiana
1,306 posts, read 2,571,952 times
Reputation: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDD View Post
If Ford ever got the Cummins diesel in their 250-350 Pickup or van lineup.
GM and Dodge might just as well stop producing trucks.

Just in case you don't already know, GM no longer makes any Medium Duty trucks.
Maybe an old 5.9 but you can keep the 6.7, I'd take a 6.6 over a 6.7 any day of the week.

A Super Duty with the Duramax/Allison combo would be the better option I would think. Of course I'm a GM guy and I don't mind the IFS on GM's HD's so I don't care either way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 05:38 AM
 
Location: Pikesville, MD
5,229 posts, read 11,487,380 times
Reputation: 4846
Quote:
Originally Posted by 73-79 ford fan View Post
Oh no but keep in mind that these older vehicles are best suited to those of us that maintain them ourselves. I can assure you that a 1967 thru 1979 Ford f series pickup is the strongest by far when it comes to pure brute strength. The pickups they make today cannot hold a candle to these as far as the strength of the frame and body and drivetrain and abuse goes. I like the GM pickups from the 60s and 70s but their frames are much weaker.
I have to agree. Over the yeas I've come to the conclusion that the Fords were toughest, but not so prettty GMS were not so tough, but the best lookers, and Dodges tended to straddle the middle. Engines were a different story, but longetivity usually was up to the owner, not the brand.

My dad had a '72 Ford half tone with a 302 in it that he got from teh forest service. Had 200k miles on it when he got it, and he put another 150k on it. That thing never missed a beat, and it hauled all sorts of stuff. We pulled a trailer back from North Bend, Washinton down to the house in Belfair, WA, with a '57 Dodge ramp truck on the trailer, and a Triumph TR3 on the ramp truck. The tongue of the trailer had negative weight on it, so in order to keep the rear of the Ford down, we put a load of gravel in the bed.... Wasn't fast but it towed the whole way home...

I can only hope my '94 Chevy truck is anywhere near as durable and useful as that old Ford.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 05:50 AM
 
Location: South Jersey
7,780 posts, read 17,786,405 times
Reputation: 2295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63 View Post
I have to agree. Over the yeas I've come to the conclusion that the Fords were toughest, but not so prettty GMS were not so tough, but the best lookers, and Dodges tended to straddle the middle. Engines were a different story, but longetivity usually was up to the owner, not the brand.

My dad had a '72 Ford half tone with a 302 in it that he got from teh forest service. Had 200k miles on it when he got it, and he put another 150k on it. That thing never missed a beat, and it hauled all sorts of stuff. We pulled a trailer back from North Bend, Washinton down to the house in Belfair, WA, with a '57 Dodge ramp truck on the trailer, and a Triumph TR3 on the ramp truck. The tongue of the trailer had negative weight on it, so in order to keep the rear of the Ford down, we put a load of gravel in the bed.... Wasn't fast but it towed the whole way home...

I can only hope my '94 Chevy truck is anywhere near as durable and useful as that old Ford.
My Dad and I towed a 65 El Camino show car on a trailer to maryland from Philly way back when with a 77 F100 wiyth a 302 2 bbl with no power steering or brakes and a 3 on the tree. Oh and it had 175k miles on it.. It was crazy reliable
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 10:20 AM
 
14,777 posts, read 34,507,040 times
Reputation: 14278
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDD View Post
I was just pointing out to those who claim the Japanese could not produce a heavy duty pickup that the engines are already available.

The Medium Duty Isuzu trucks already run the Duromax V-8 Diesel.
I just wanted to point out in the little back and forth you guy's were having that GM owned as much as 49% of Isuzu from 1971-2006 (this made them the largest shareholder by far and the controlling entity).

One of the joint ventures they did was create DMAX Ltd., the company that makes the Duramax diesel. GM owns 60% of the company and Isuzu owns 40%. GM therefore owns all the rights and designs to the Duramax engine, though it was co-developed. DMAX provides engines to both GM and Isuzu.

When GM started divesting it's interest in Isuzu in 2006, this was the death knell for GM's medium duty operations that were largely dependent on the Isuzu developed W-series. The Isuzu and GM variants literally rolled down the same assembly line. GM also produced the C-series, that was it's own internally developed product that slotted above the W-series.

Isuzu got to keep the W-series and its production, buying Duramax's from DMAX Ltd. GM tried to sell what was left of the medium duty operation for sometime (Navistar was the main interested party), but eventually just closed up shop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 07:57 PM
 
2,024 posts, read 4,472,189 times
Reputation: 1991
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
I have to disagree. A lot of the 1970's era trucks had C-channel frames that would flex like hell in off-camber situations. Many of the newer trucks now have full-boxed frames that are strong and rigid. The earlier trucks (1950's-1960's) had very beefy frames, but had the weight that went with it. For absolute tough, the 1946-1968 (1971 for export models) one-ton civilian Dodge Power Wagon was an absolute tank. Of course, its flathead 6-cylinder engine was good for about 55 mph maximum flat-out and they got about 8-10 mpg on a good day, the steering wheel could break your thumbs if you hit a rock with the front wheel, and you had to have linebacker's calves to use the brakes--but there has never been a tougher 4WD pickup built since.

Like this:



I always thought that if Dodge would build this truck with modern brakes, steering, transmission, and the Cummins diesel, they would probably sell a lot of them to people who really need a hard core 4WD pickup. Even the funky cab--an outdated relic from the 1939 Dodge 2WD truck even back when the Power Wagon came out in 1946--would be neat. Will never happen, of course. (One of the reasons that Dodge quit building it was that the dies to stamp out the cab components were completely worn out by 1971.)
Now jazzlover, I can assure you that the highboy Ford 3/4 ton 4x4 from 1967 thru early 1977 frames are almost the same as the two wheel drive f350 frames up to 1979 which are almost like a medium duty truck piece as far as stregnth goes on their own. Any problems that you had with these I would say would be due to owner ignorance because these trucks are just incredibly strong. Put it this way, a 1967 thru 1972 f250 with a 390 FE and C6 auto or NP 435 manual and Dana 60 rear. Where is the weakness in that drivetrain? How about a 1976 Ford f350 Super camper special with a 460 (best truck engine ever in my opinion) a C6 auto, Dana 70 rear, there is no weakness with these is my point and look at the late 70s Ford f350 4x4 chassis also for stregnth.

http://www.nwauctionservice.com/imag...d%20Pickup.JPG
1969 Ford Ranger F-250 4x4 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/unclegal/2981465833/in/set-72157608470465055 - broken link)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-margie/4918462612/ (broken link)

Last edited by 73-79 ford fan; 04-25-2011 at 08:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:11 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,099,702 times
Reputation: 9065
Quote:
Originally Posted by 73-79 ford fan View Post
Now jazzlover, I can assure you that the highboy Ford 3/4 ton 4x4 from 1967 thru early 1977 frames are almost the same as the two wheel drive f350 frames up to 1979 which are almost like a medium duty truck piece as far as stregnth goes on their own. Any problems that you had with these I would say would be due to owner ignorance because these trucks are just incredibly strong. Put it this way, a 1967 thru 1972 f250 with a 390 FE and C6 auto or NP 435 manual and Dana 60 rear. Where is the weakness in that drivetrain? How about a 1976 Ford f350 Super camper special with a 460 (best truck engine ever in my opinion) a C6 auto, Dana 70 rear, there is no weakness with these is my point and look at the late 70s Ford f350 4x4 chassis also for stregnth.

http://www.nwauctionservice.com/imag...d%20Pickup.JPG
1969 Ford Ranger F-250 4x4 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/unclegal/2981465833/in/set-72157608470465055 - broken link)
1979 Ford F-350 Custom 4x4 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-margie/4918462612/ - broken link)
I have a lot of familiarity with the old "high-boy" 4WD Ford trucks. First, their frames were nothing exceptional. In hard, off-road use they would flex. I would regularly see trucks with a dent in the back of the cab where frame flex would allow the cargo box to smack the back of the cab. In fact, it was rare NOT to see one with that dent. Understand, where I live, these trucks were used for their intended purpose of hauling heavy loads over badly rutted, rocky, muddy roads. They weren't "Main Street" four-wheelers.

Also, the venerable 390 V8 was not available as a factory option in the 4WD trucks. The '67's and '68's offered the 352 V8 (a good engine) as the V8 option. From '69 'til '74 or '75, the 360 V8 was the largest option. It was a "hybrid" design with a combination of 302 and 390 parts and was a piece of junk. They had an almost 100% failure of valve guides by 30,000 miles, along with other issues. In many cases, they got worse fuel economy than the larger 390 V8. If you see a 1970's-era Ford 4WD pickup with a 390 V8 in it, it's because, somewhere along the line, someone replaced the POS 360 with the 390. Also, a one-ton 4WD Ford was not factory-available in the "high-boy" era of the Ford 4WD line. If you see one, it's an aftermarket conversion. It also wasn't until around 1973 that one could get power steering in the Ford 4WD trucks (by comparison, Dodge offered it starting in 1956!). Until the 1978 model year, the power steering option that was available was a linkage power steering unit that wasn't particularly effective. Driving a high-boy 4WD with manual steering was not for anyone with frail upper body strength--they were beasts to steer, and the steering wheel spokes could break your thumbs if you had them inside the spokes if you hit a rock with the front wheels.

Also, the "high-boy" Ford 4WD wasn't built after 1977. The 1978 and 1979 models had a different suspension and transfer case design that lowered the body of the truck considerably. Also, the 360 V8 was replaced with the 351 V8 and 400 V8 options. Both were OK engines, but strangled with emission controls that destroyed their fuel economy and performance. The 460 V8 was never available in the '78 or '79 4WD's as a factory option--if one has it, someone added it later. At least the '78's and '79's added integral power steering, a far better unit than the earlier linkage power steering. Of course, GM had offered integral power steering since the late 1960's, so Ford was playing catchup there. So, too, were they on disc front brakes. GM had offered them on 4WD's since the late '60's, Ford didn't get around to it until the mid-'70's. Ditto for automatic transmissions--they didn't offer one in the 4WD trucks until 1973 (again, Dodge started offering them in 1956!).

Unlike you, I lived through all of this at the time driving these trucks. Also, a fellow who owned a ranch near ours, who also worked at the local Ford dealership, allowed Ford to use his ranch for high-altitude and off-road testing of the Ford trucks and Broncos during the 1970's. Several of Ford's 1970's era sales brochures for the pickups and Broncos used photos taken on his ranch of those 4WD's in action. So, a lot of what I talk about is from firsthand knowledge. On our ranch, after using Ford 4WD's for a short period, we went to GM 4WD products, which consistently performed better off-road and were much easier and more comfortable to drive. Even our Ford salesman, rancher neighbor admitted to us that, in the 1970's, "Ford was behind the times with their 4WD's."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 03:06 PM
PDD
 
Location: The Sand Hills of NC
8,776 posts, read 14,142,640 times
Reputation: 11850
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
From '69 'til '74 or '75, the 360 V8 was the largest option. It was a "hybrid" design with a combination of 302 and 390 parts and was a piece of junk.
OK the 360 (actually 361) was not a hybrid combination of a 302 (small block) and the 390 (FE big block)
The 361 shares some parts with the 352 but none with the 302 small block

The 361CI was a truck only (FT) engine with a 4.05 bore the same as than the more common 390 FE
The 361 used a steel crank rather than the more common cast crank used in the 352.

It may well have been a piece of junk but not because it contained some 302 parts.

If you going to spit out a lot of facts please make sure they are correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 06:50 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,099,702 times
Reputation: 9065
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDD View Post
OK the 360 (actually 361) was not a hybrid combination of a 302 (small block) and the 390 (FE big block)
The 361 shares some parts with the 352 but none with the 302 small block

The 361CI was a truck only (FT) engine with a 4.05 bore the same as than the more common 390 FE
The 361 used a steel crank rather than the more common cast crank used in the 352.

It may well have been a piece of junk but not because it contained some 302 parts.

If you going to spit out a lot of facts please make sure they are correct.
I was told by my mechanic at the time--who specialized in Ford 4WD truck repair and modification (he made many 360 to 390 or 428, 429 engine replacements in Ford 4WD's) that the very troublesome valve guides in the 360 came from the 302 (interestingly, a lot of 302's at the time were suffering similar valve guide failures). That is where I got that information--I apologize if that information was incorrect, but the reliability issue with 360 was real--I personally had 3 of them have the same valve guide failure before 30,000 miles (one went through three sets of valve guides in 23,000 miles). The 361 used in medium trucks did not seem to have the reliability and durability problems that the 360 had--particularly in the valve train. The 352 was very reliable, too--I had friends who had those go well over 100,000 miles without any major problems. Same with the 390.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top