it lives - part 2

PoweredByDodge · October 2005

after 2 years of killing myself and months of "but i THOUGHT it was done" ... truck's done. (mechanically).

took a die grinder to the cylinder heads after drill pressing out the holes with a metric industrial bit that came out to around 2/3 of an inch diameter.

... no leaks... anywhere.

only current obstacle - the damn speedometer cable is messed up. do i care? no.

whole thing is rustproofed/undercoated, motor looks like a purple shining million dollar hunk of metal, and its all just plain pretty...

test drive coming by the end of the week (up till now i've been checking tranny and drivetrain by having the rear end jacked up 1 inch off the ground and letting the tires spin in free air. --- its safer than the alternative of actually driving a vehicle that you're nto confident is put togetehr properly.)

photos of the engine compartment and undercarriage very soon too - i'll put em in this thread.

to do list -
-- get original steel plain wheels (i have the hubcaps already)
-- fix stupid speedometer thingy (its actually the little plastic gear that goes in the tranny that's the problem - all the teeth are **** -- speedo itself is fine).
-- body and paint (next summer - or when $$ permits -- i'm looking at a $10-15k paint job... i want it stripped down to metal, beed blasted, lead filled, blocked down, and then painted - just like from the factory 20 years ago).

...... now i can get on with my damn life.

PolkThug · October 2005

What year and what engine is it?

faster100 · October 2005

your putting that kinda dough into the paint? Its a modern truck isnt it, Just wondering, seems like alot unless it was a 50's pick up or something.. is it gonna be a show truck.

audiobliss · October 2005

Haha!! I don't get the feeling it's going to be a show truck! But that most definitely is a lot of money to drop in the paint job. Why do you want to spend so much on it? I'm surprised you can even find somebody who will fill all the holes with lead.

I've forgotten, but what kind of truck is it? (Dodge, but what year....?)

In my personal opinion, none of the Dodge pick-ups (save for the last few years) are nice enough/look good enough to drop that kind of dough for.

MacLeod · October 2005

Glad to hear it Vin. Now you can get back to more important things like keeping us in line around here!

PoweredByDodge · October 2005

1988 dodge w-150 power wagon

4wd converted to 2wd with solid front axle.

every part is brand new or rebuilt oem quality -- i have over 16,500 in the truck right now... that includes the 4,000 purchase price.

I will have 30 grand in it with the paint and body work. it is worth it.

and yes it will be both a show truck and a summer driver.. i intend to drive the **** out of it but keep it in the condition i have worked so hard to attain.

i will own it till "they plant me" (read as: die), and i will run over small pets with it.

'90 318 roller cam block with hydro roller lifters.
'83 318 cop cylinder heads
eddy intake
727 torqueflite (circa late 70's)
3.90 chrysler corporate rear end...

lots o other goodies... its worth it.

its an animal.

exalted512 · October 2005

it was 4wd and you converted it to 2wd???? why?
-Cody

hellohello · October 2005

"i will run over small pets with it."

Nice. Glad you didnt give up on her, and it doesnt sound like the kind of truck ud really pay attention to a speedometer with anyway, espcially with the statement quoted above.

Jstas · October 2005

exalted512 wrote:

it was 4wd and you converted it to 2wd???? why?
-Cody

Cause he's not a hick?

Cause 4 wheel drive is unecessary for paved roads?

I'll bet that it's because that extra axle is heavy as hell and all that weight is unsprung weight. It also means no more super heavy transfer case, extra driveshaft and big, heavy front hubs. Pull 4 wheel drive out of a 4x4 can often save you close to 1,000 pounds. Also, less weight and less powertrain components to rotate means less power used in getting the vehicle moving and keeping it moving. Less weight, less parasitic draw, more power is available to use the truck. That improves gas mileage. Also, 4x4's usually have heavy duty axles in the rear and they can usually handle more power and take more abuse than a non-heavy duty axle. Plus, 4x4 real axles will usually have a pretty low final drive ratio so it's easy to get a favorable gear ratio in the 3rd member that will allow the vehicle to run like a scalded dog. Besides, it's a Dodge and most likely had a Dana 60 or a Dana 40. Both of which are coveted by drag racers for thier crazy amounts of strength. The only other stock axle that can compete with a Dana 60 in strength is the venerable Ford 9 inch and the 9 inch HD. There are many people out there that conider the 9 inch to be the big daddy of stock axles. Besides, it was such a good design that Toyota and Nissan copied it for thier trucks. Not the newer ones though.

Performance wise though, a 5,000 pound truck with 300 horses will run a 1/4 mile roughly a second faster than a truck that weighs 6,000 pounds with 300 horses provided everything else is the same.

Jstas · October 2005

hellohello wrote:

"i will run over small pets with it."

Nice. Glad you didnt give up on her, and it doesnt sound like the kind of truck ud really pay attention to a speedometer with anyway, espcially with the statement quoted above.

Nah, he'll need the speedometer to get an idea of how fast I'll be moving when I blow his doors off! :eek:

:cool:

amulford · October 2005

Jstas wrote:

Nah, he'll need the speedometer to get an idea of how fast I'll be moving when I blow his doors off! :eek: :cool:

Don't make me get the beemer out and smoke your ****... :cool:

Jstas · October 2005

amulford wrote:

Don't make me get the beemer out and smoke your ****... :cool:

The last time you rode in the truck, I was behaving. The only BMWs I have encountered and been unable to outrun are the new M3's and the M5's. Everything else is handily dispensed with.

PolkThug · October 2005

Jstas wrote:

The last time you rode in the truck, I was behaving. The only BMWs I have encountered and been unable to outrun are the new M3's and the M5's. Everything else is handily dispensed with.

So YOU'RE the guy that pulls his pickup truck up next to my BMW and starts revvin' the engine!

exalted512 · October 2005

Jstas wrote:

Cause he's not a hick?

Cause 4 wheel drive is unecessary for paved roads?

I'll bet that it's because that extra axle is heavy as hell and all that weight is unsprung weight. It also means no more super heavy transfer case, extra driveshaft and big, heavy front hubs. Pull 4 wheel drive out of a 4x4 can often save you close to 1,000 pounds. Also, less weight and less powertrain components to rotate means less power used in getting the vehicle moving and keeping it moving. Less weight, less parasitic draw, more power is available to use the truck. That improves gas mileage. Also, 4x4's usually have heavy duty axles in the rear and they can usually handle more power and take more abuse than a non-heavy duty axle. Plus, 4x4 real axles will usually have a pretty low final drive ratio so it's easy to get a favorable gear ratio in the 3rd member that will allow the vehicle to run like a scalded dog. Besides, it's a Dodge and most likely had a Dana 60 or a Dana 40. Both of which are coveted by drag racers for thier crazy amounts of strength. The only other stock axle that can compete with a Dana 60 in strength is the venerable Ford 9 inch and the 9 inch HD. There are many people out there that conider the 9 inch to be the big daddy of stock axles. Besides, it was such a good design that Toyota and Nissan copied it for thier trucks. Not the newer ones though.

Performance wise though, a 5,000 pound truck with 300 horses will run a 1/4 mile roughly a second faster than a truck that weighs 6,000 pounds with 300 horses provided everything else is the same.

so only hicks have 4wd??

he lives in new york, during the winter i think 4wd would be quite valuable. While it makes sense that hed take it off to make it faster, why didnt he buy a 2wd in the first place. IFS would give him a lot better handling that a SFA. BTW, as far as rear axle strength goes, you cant beat a gm14 bolt.
-Cody

Jstas · October 2005

exalted512 wrote:

so only hicks have 4wd??

he lives in new york, during the winter i think 4wd would be quite valuable. While it makes sense that hed take it off to make it faster, why didnt he buy a 2wd in the first place. IFS would give him a lot better handling that a SFA. BTW, as far as rear axle strength goes, you cant beat a gm14 bolt.
-Cody

No, you don't have to be a hick to use 4 wheel drive. Yes, he lives in NY where 4 wheel drive came in handy...if you live out in the sticks where roads aren't plowed as readily. But Vinnie lives in the suburbs of Buffalo and snow removal is pretty efficient there. Hell, it's pretty efficient here. I have never owned a 4 wheel drive vehicle in my life and I have always had a RWD vehicle and have been able to navigate snow, mud, camping trails and so on without issue. That is besides the point though.

You asked, I just gave answers. Didn't say the were the correct ones though!

exalted512 · October 2005

yea, it snowed down here last winter...a whole 6"!!! i have a friend i was following and he had 4wd and was using it and i was in my old truck. he hit a patch of black ice and went off in the ditch and i was following right behind him and didnt have any problems...lol. While he was getting out of the ditch another car hit it and went into the ditch right next to him...dont know what that adds to anything, but a weird experience
-Cody

MacLeod · October 2005

Jstas wrote:

Cause he's not a hick?

Cause 4 wheel drive is unecessary for paved roads?

And just how necessary is that super charger under your hood there my brother?

4x4's are cool, I just cant afford one.

audiobliss · October 2005

:eek:

Your Ram isn't a 4x4?! Well.....*sigh*....it just isn't cool anymore...

MacLeod · October 2005

No, a 4x4 wouldve been $3000 more.....and to be honest I really couldnt afford the 4x2 either but Ive never let something as simple as not having enough money to stop me from buying stuff!

audiobliss · October 2005

well...then why didn't you get a 4x4...?

MacLeod · October 2005

Because my irresponsibility has its limits.

audiobliss · October 2005

Well, that's a plus. I'm afriad mine doesn't!

:D

Jstas · October 2005

MacLeod wrote:

And just how necessary is that super charger under your hood there my brother?

4x4's are cool, I just cant afford one.

Superchargers aren't just for going fast. They are used on trucks to increase power for hauling and lessen the effects of elevation changes on the engines of trucks that carry heavy loads. Of course, many modern trucks use turbo chargers instead of superchargers now but both accomplish the same task.

As far as how necessary it is on my truck, well, since compression tops out at a "lofty" 8.2:1, the engine would not be able to run properly without the 8 psi or boost to raise the effective compression ratio up to about 10:1. Running without the supercharger, the engine will ping like crazy and tear itself apart unless the computer dials back ignition timing and makes the fuel/air mixture super rich.

amulford · October 2005

Just out of curiosity, what's the absolute top end, John? I mean, flat out floored after around two miles w/ no load...

Jstas · October 2005

Electronically limited to 149 MPH. But there is more. Not a whole lot but it's there. I think that without the rev limiter and a good tailwind, it'd be able to just touch a buck sixty. I've only had it up to about 130-135 but at that point, it was still pulling hard. I had to let off because of road conditions.

PoweredByDodge · October 2005

with a final drive of 1 to 1 on the torqueflite and a 3.91 spicer/dana 60 - ya - i'll be lucky to break 90 mph

hellohello · October 2005

not a speed racer huh? lol

neomagus00 · October 2005

Jstas wrote:

As far as how necessary it is on my truck, well, since compression tops out at a "lofty" 8.2:1, the engine would not be able to run properly without the 8 psi or boost to raise the effective compression ratio up to about 10:1. Running without the supercharger, the engine will ping like crazy and tear itself apart unless the computer dials back ignition timing and makes the fuel/air mixture super rich.

shouldn't it be the other way round? if you pack less air into the same volume, why would it detonate?

Jstas · October 2005

Because the timing and ignition advance are calibrated for the higher compression of a boosted engine and to run on premium fuel. If the extra compression from the boost is not there, the engine, tuned for 10:1 compression, is now running at 8.2:1 compression and the ignition is firing too soon and the fuel/air mixture is igniting and the flame front is contacting the piston before the piston reaches top dead center. That is knocking.

neomagus00 · October 2005

hmm... excuse my persistence, but i'm trying to get this quite clear in my head (which is admittedly mildly cloudy at the moment)... assuming everything else is held the same, running a richer mixture (i.e. the one you get with 8.2:1 worth of air but 10:1 worth of fuel) should delay detonation, should it not? or is it that a richer mixture burns faster in the cylinder, which causes the same timing to ignite the wavefront which then hits the piston sooner than expected?

Jstas · October 2005

Um, 8.2:1 and 10:1 are compression ratios, not fuel mixture ratios. Completely different numbers.

it lives - part 2

Comments