Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vintage Diesel/Daily Driver

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vintage Diesel/Daily Driver

    Just thinking here and somewhat in response to the post by Jonas regarding his less than perfect new diesel Dodge.

    A new truck undoubtedly costs a lot of money, usually now in the 30's K. With a bit of planning and ingenuity a conversion and upgrades can be done for 1/2 of that.

    From what I see the new trucks are plagued with complex problems far beyond the scope of the home mechanic to troubleshoot or repair. On a conversion restification you can literally know every single bolt and widget from bumper to bumper. As mentioned previously the drivetrain systems, and they are now systems rather than simple power transmission, are intentionally made so complex now that you simply cannot get a handle on it. With a diesel conversion the simplicity is surely awe inspiring.

    I had to cut a lot of steel to build my truck so far. Found that the '67 vintage Town Wagon doors, 2/3 the size of late 70's to mid 80's Dodge doors, weighed TWICE AS MUCH! Same goes for frame crossmembers. Not only that but in working it you soon see that it is much higher quality steel in the older iron. That means that if you do it right and start with a good base vehicle or parts you'll have a far more durable chassis drivetrain to go many miles.

    It's not hard to add some nice creature comforts to the conversion: power steering, power disc brakes, tilt wheel, cruise control, A/C, super comfortable adjustable or electric seats, sound system, sophisticated gauge & monitoring displays, hi-tech driving lights, jaw dropping beautiful interior with console and storage, tinted glass, and even a sun roof if you want. That is one may approach the luxury of a present day vehicle in a machine that is indescribably more sound and stable and reliable and which you understand intimately.

    Need an ego fix? I've never owned a newer vehicle that's gotten the comments, thumbs up, waves, and impromptu conversations as my old TW! Pure envy is seen dripping from the eyes of those with a mechanical bent and mine never was much to look at. That is these can be as much of a status symbol, and even more so, than a brand new vehicle! Somehow they engender smiles and laughter and happiness from folks where the newest truck might just cause unfriendly and begrudging admission of supposed superiority.

    Seems that it might be wise to consider driving your #1 rig a couple of years longer, paying ridiculous dealer or pro service prices, paying sky high insurance and licensing fees, and biting the bullet when the "System is down...." That is until you can build or have built a custom designed diesel rig that answers all of your personal needs in a mechanical or transportation sense and which will then save you countless dollars of needless expense. Vintage restorations are an investment that can appreciate in value considerably! Can that be said of the newest truck on the lot? Even if the cost of restoration is equal or slightly more than a brand new truck you're still way ahead of the game!

    Something to think about.......

    JimmieD

  • #2
    I would agree with just about everything you listed JimmieD. My '97 F350 crewcab diesel is a great truck, but I sold my '79 F250 crewcab to get it and took on a $450.00 month truck payment to do so. I thought about doing a 6BT Cummins swap before going newer and now in hindsight, I really wished I would've. It would've given me a truck more stylish and worth far more than I have now. And I would've had an extra 10K or so in the bank to spend on that WC 53 I've been wanting.

    The only thing I would disagree on is your comment about the quality of steel these days compared to yesteryear. The old steel is heavy duty and strong, but only because it is so thick. The steels they are using in cars and trucks these days is of a far better quality due to advancements in metal alloys and metal processing. The problem you see with metal in todays vehicles is that it is too thin and designed for weight savings not durability.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sorry about your buyer's remorse there! I'm sure you've got a good truck there regardless.

      On the steel issue I speak from observation in actually working with the steel. What I find is that the color of sparks, a good indicator of the exact material you're dealing with, is different. Also the time and effort required to work the metals is different. These things indicate to me that the steel itself, as its metallurgy, is actually superior in the older 60's vintage trucks than in the later 70's to 90's.

      Using a 4" hand grinder with the same disc attached I found that the 60's metal took more time to grind, cut or finish than the later stuff. The disc would dive right into the later, but would ride the surface of the early metal. Brighter colored sparks as more blue/white told me it was harder on the old trucks than on the newer which sparked yellow/orange. MIG welder adjustment had to be made depending on the metal, with older requiring a bit more heat. Also I had measured the frame metal thickness on my '67 and compared it to my '77 and '78 and found it identical but the later being of apparently lower quality.

      Current metallurgy might be different but based only on what I have personally experienced there is a deficit up to at least 1990. Not trying to pick a fight at all, but only sharing what I have experienced here on this latest project.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think a next truck I would like to get would be a 1989-1993 Cummins powered Dodge. That series of truck has a lot of merits.
        Power Wagon Advertiser monthly magazine, editor & publisher.


        Why is it that the inside of old truck cabs smell so good?

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, Gordon, if I was in the market for a newer truck that is precisely what I would look for! Tomorrow's much sought after classic to be sure....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JimmieD
            .... Not trying to pick a fight at all, but only sharing what I have experienced here on this latest project.
            Heck, it that what these forums are for, the sharing of info... not the picking or fights... ;^)

            Comment


            • #7
              Regarding the 89-93's Cummins trucks, I like the lockout hubs, no front axle disconnect, leaf springs, absence of the late model ball joint issues.

              I am told they ride a lot worse than the 94 and up trucks, but..... hey, they are trucks. I think a diesel powered truck from that era would be very.... um....... truckish, in the spirit of the first Power Wagons.
              Power Wagon Advertiser monthly magazine, editor & publisher.


              Why is it that the inside of old truck cabs smell so good?

              Comment


              • #8
                Wow, it's late here, even later in Iowa, Looks like Gordon is burning the midnight oil!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tech Tim
                  Wow, it's late here, even later in Iowa, Looks like Gordon is burning the midnight oil!
                  I have to be to the printer in the morning. I think I am going to go take my third shower of the day, to stay awake....
                  Power Wagon Advertiser monthly magazine, editor & publisher.


                  Why is it that the inside of old truck cabs smell so good?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wow! good luck...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      My '90 1 ton Power Ram is currently up for sale with a potential buyer coming today. I have to say that it is a very nice truck to drive with all the creature comforts of p/s, power discs, cruise, tilt wheel etc. yet a very capable 4X4. Locking hubs and an NP205 for the 4X drive. The ride is very firm and you know it's a 1 ton but on the highway it's not too harsh, just nice and stable and in touch with the road. If it was a Cummins I wouldn't even consider selling it and if circumstances were different I wouldn't sell it anyway, gasser or not. And yes, Gordon, it is reminiscent of a real Power Wagon of yesteryear in many ways.
                      Last edited by JimmieD; 10-06-2006, 05:58 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I ordered a '98-'03 clutch slave cylinder for the conversion, like $100 'worth'. It arrived yesterday and my jaw dropped. ALL PLASTIC! WHAT!?! The parts guy, a buddy, looked it up and it is a styrene type plastic, as in much the same stuff that the model car kits were made out of when I was a kid. It had the retainer strap to hold the plunger in until install and even with that in place the pushrod was wobbly and flimsy. The plastic mounting ears looked pitiful and the whole thing was a joke for $100. It came with no fittings: just an injection molded plastic tube, a steel plunger rod and some rubber cups all for a pair of Ben Franklins.

                        I elected to modify the trans some: grind down a reinforcement rib, drill and tap the case so I could mount the original solid CAST STEEL '67 hydraulic slave in its place. Absolutely no comparison between the two and for me, no question on which one I want on my truck: VINTAGE QUALITY!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JimmieD
                          I ordered a '98-'03 clutch slave cylinder for the conversion, like $100 'worth'. It arrived yesterday and my jaw dropped. ALL PLASTIC! WHAT!?! The parts guy, a buddy, looked it up and it is a styrene type plastic, as in much the same stuff that the model car kits were made out of when I was a kid. It had the retainer strap to hold the plunger in until install and even with that in place the pushrod was wobbly and flimsy. The plastic mounting ears looked pitiful and the whole thing was a joke for $100. It came with no fittings: just an injection molded plastic tube, a steel plunger rod and some rubber cups all for a pair of Ben Franklins.

                          I elected to modify the trans some: grind down a reinforcement rib, drill and tap the case so I could mount the original solid CAST STEEL '67 hydraulic slave in its place. Absolutely no comparison between the two and for me, no question on which one I want on my truck: VINTAGE QUALITY!
                          It is my understanding that the slave and master are serviced as one, and connected together. Is that correct? Or it is some kind of quick disconnect, no-bleed deal?
                          Power Wagon Advertiser monthly magazine, editor & publisher.


                          Why is it that the inside of old truck cabs smell so good?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Quick disco, no-bleed, no quality, Gordon! And model car kit styrene plastic. Truly pathetic....and must cost about 6 bucks to manufacture in Siam or Bangladesh etc.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JimmieD
                              Quick disco, no-bleed, no quality, Gordon! And model car kit styrene plastic. Truly pathetic....and must cost about 6 bucks to manufacture in Siam or Bangladesh etc.
                              At my day job we make high speed beverage packaging equipment. You should see the beautiful stainless steel castings. It would be nice if we had stainless hydraulic cylinder castings.
                              Power Wagon Advertiser monthly magazine, editor & publisher.


                              Why is it that the inside of old truck cabs smell so good?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X