Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
Yes you are right K for 4X4.
Looking through some of my old books, Off road Australia June 1978 has a test of the Overlander, the Wagon was 1542 KG. Turning circle 16 M.
She has high and low range and price around $18000 mark.
It has the Chevy Blazer wagon K10 test as well in it and price around $20000 it is a full import through South Pacific Auto Imports.
It has a 400ci 8.5:1 comp with 130 KW @ 3600 - 394 NM @ 2800.
3.7 diff, T400 auto and Permanently 4WD.
2200kg
Turning Circle 9.45M
Wheelbase 2705mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
The old Ford 300ci 6 cyl was a good 4X4 and towing thing.
A dude I know had a around 1972-3 F100 with the 300ci and a 1981 F100 with the 5.8L in it and he flogged both of them hard and he said that the 300 6 cyl was the better engine, it was his old mans F100's. he could not kill that 300ci.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
If the 292 Chev engine is spruced up a bit they are great as well. We all know how the 202 improved from a slug to a decent engine in an XU1, or even with minor work and decent carb and exhaust that they go OK. Do the same to a 292 (compression, cam and breathing) and they are a good thing. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
I am sure the 292 are a good torque engine for a truck done the right way but never a race engine like the good old 202 XU-1
look at the Valiant Hemi 245 they used in the Dodge trucks.
I don't think they ever used the 265 in the trucks but the 245 they used is a low compression thing like all trucks were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,124
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
318 was a common truck motor too in Dodge trucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
Yes 318 was but what is so good about it to say a 302Windsor or a 307Chev or a 308.
The 245 was to be a truck engine from the beginning and the 265 was not intended to be a so.
We had the low compression 308 holden engine in Bedford truck.
Them old slant 6 went well in the trucks.
The thing is with the 6 cyl is the torque in relation to how the cranks index points work in favour to it's design.
Why do they use low compression engines in petrol trucks ? I think for 2 reasons 1 cheaper to run and they are not chasing HP but only torque as you only have a small carby as well as it's not meant to rev high. I think they use a different cam as well to the car's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,124
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
The only petrol powered trucks in Australia that were any good were Internationals with either a 345 or 392 V8 or Dodge with the 318. The 6 cylinder ones were not worth a pinch of s***. They all got yanked out and replaced with a Perkins diesel.
America is the home of petrol trucks. Big V8's like 454 Chevs and 392 and bigger Inter V8's.
They ran a lot of Chrysler side valve 6 cylinders on machines like headers in Australia during the 60's and early 70's. They were a massive fire hazard though.
A 6 cylinder petrol just doesn't have the balls in a truck. Unlike a 6 cylinder diesel. But you are talking big capacity diesels. Perkins commonly were 354 cubic inch and they were babies. Cummins 14 litre is now a baby for power output too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
I drove a dodge truck with a slant 6 and I could not believe how well it went, it would just kill the gutless diesel rubbish and was fun to drive as the diesel were just a pain to drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,124
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
Righto. Slant 6 is better than a 318 or 354 Perkins. Yep run with that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
quote:
Originally posted by wbute
Righto. Slant 6 is better than a 318 or 354 Perkins. Yep run with that one.
It was only a AT4 575 I am on about and I was just saying how impressed I was with the slant 6 how it went for a 6 cyl petrol. I never said the 318 could not hose it off now did I, as I was impressed with the slant 6. 354 Perkins or 361 Cummins are fine for a diesel and the more weight. If you gear up the slant or 318 they were fast and good top end around about 90 MPH can be done, diesel will not do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
