ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Fluff > Shiny things
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 250 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 08-21-2012, 09:54 PM   #2521
Centurian
Adventurer
 
Centurian's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Elizabethtown
Oddometer: 24
169 pages and 2521 replys and not one of these showed up?


My 1990 C350 Originally built by Centurion Coach builders for Ford, But I had to redo everything sheetmetal they touched, Ended up putting a factory '96 Bronco rear clip on it, then a 4" suspension lift and 37" goodyear M/T's 460 CI eng auto overdrive trans, It has the rear seat andmatching cap, But I got the fiberglass tonneau cover and Bulkhead ass. from Cali and like it alot better this way. Great truck and I Love it.
Centurian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 01:37 AM   #2522
Hardware02
Beastly Adventurer
 
Hardware02's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: The Rock
Oddometer: 3,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurian View Post

My 1990 C350 Originally built by Centurion Coach builders for Ford, But I had to redo everything sheetmetal they touched, Ended up putting a factory '96 Bronco rear clip on it, then a 4" suspension lift and 37" goodyear M/T's 460 CI eng auto overdrive trans, It has the rear seat andmatching cap, But I got the fiberglass tonneau cover and Bulkhead ass. from Cali and like it alot better this way. Great truck and I Love it.
A Ford Avalanche! Niiiice! LOL
__________________
"These instructions are at our present level of
knowledge. Legal requirements do not exist.
Technical issues subject to change."
Hardware02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 03:55 AM   #2523
ddavidv
Thrifty not cheap
 
ddavidv's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Elizabethtown, PA
Oddometer: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurian View Post
At first, I was .
But then, after figuring it out (the Bronco part) I was .
Oddly cool. You should submit an article about that to True Blue Fords magazine. They'd eat that up.
__________________
'04 Wee Strom
'89 KLR 650 (sold)

KLR Chronicles, list of my Ride Reports in PA/MD:
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showt...2#post18782262
ddavidv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 08:50 AM   #2524
Centurian
Adventurer
 
Centurian's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Elizabethtown
Oddometer: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavidv View Post
At first, I was .
But then, after figuring it out (the Bronco part) I was .
Oddly cool. You should submit an article about that to True Blue Fords magazine. They'd eat that up.

I didn't know about True Blue Fords, I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the tip.
Centurian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 07:24 PM   #2525
moosnutz
meow meow
 
moosnutz's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: el Chupacabra's lair
Oddometer: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by DakarNick View Post
5 mpg?

What was HP and torque?
Averaged about 13 MPG with mix of city and highway. With the camper on the back..... a little less.

Power was 330HP @ 4,200 and torque was 450 lbs/ft @ 3,200 - most of which was on tap way below that. Pulled nicely. And sounded GREAT.

The 496 was originally built for marine applications & the motor boat guys were getting peak HP at about 650 @ 6500 and 585 lbs/ft @ 5,200! The truck motor could easily get 50-75 HP with a simple good computer tune and cold air intake. SWEET.

moosnutz screwed with this post 08-22-2012 at 07:45 PM
moosnutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 07:29 PM   #2526
moosnutz
meow meow
 
moosnutz's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: el Chupacabra's lair
Oddometer: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry View Post
but is it cool?
Anything that's got 496 cubic inches is cool.
moosnutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 07:36 PM   #2527
moosnutz
meow meow
 
moosnutz's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: el Chupacabra's lair
Oddometer: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncobowsher View Post
That is a rare beast!

I got a friend who has ~'01 Superduty Lariet Powerstroke full loaded except it has the 6-speed manual and manual transfer case. Apparently orded by a rancher who was doing well, but just didn't like that automatic stuff. He has a list of friends who want that truck if he ever decides to sell it.

Well optioned big modern trucks with stick shifts are hard to find and sought after by many.
Totally agree! They just don't make them anymore. I was giggling like a 6-yr old girl when I got to the dealer to pick up the truck. Wish I still had it...
moosnutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 07:49 PM   #2528
DakarNick
Swabee
 
DakarNick's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Parker, Colorado
Oddometer: 6,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosnutz View Post
Averaged about 13 MPG with mix of city and highway. With the camper on the back..... a little less.

Power was 330HP @ 4,200 and torque was 450 lbs/ft @ 3,200 - most of which was on tap way below that. Pulled nicely. And sounded GREAT.

The 496 was originally built for marine applications & the motor boat guys were getting peak HP at about 650 @ 6500 and 585 lbs/ft @ 5,200! The truck motor could easily get 50-75 HP with a simple good computer tune and cold air intake. SWEET.
Thanks! I was curious. OK numbers I guess, for its time. But gas engines always seem to have too much displacement for too little power. A 496 ci putting down 330 hp and 450 lb/ft? A modern 5.4L gasser can do that!

My '08 Cummins is 350 hp at 3000 rpm and 650 lb/ft at 1500 rpm out of 409 cubic inches and six cylinders AND gets 20 mpg. A 496 (8.1L) with those numbers makes .9 lb/ft torque and .67 hp per cubic inch. A 6.7L Cummins (409 ci) makes 1.59 lb/ft torque and .86 hp per cubic inch AND it gets 32% better mileage (with 87 less cubic inches)! That is 108.3 lb/ft per cylinder! The 496 is only 56.3 lb/ft per cylinder.

The new 6.7s are 350 hp and 800 lb/ft. Imagine what a 496 ci Cummins would put down. 800 ft/lbs at 409 cubic inches is 1.96 lb/ft per cubic inch. Theoretically, at 496 cubic inches it would make 972 lb/ft of torque! My 6.7 makes the equivalent torque of your 496, 450 lb/ft at 1050 rpm!

But anyway, they're just stinky, clunky, noisy diesels And yeah, I'm a number nerd.
__________________
'06 KTM 950 Adventure S
'12 Ram 2500, Cummins, 6-speed auto, Laramie Longhorn, RamBox
Must be part of your super-secret double-naught spy work with your low-level FEMA clearance and (snicker) Texas Security License, yes?

DakarNick screwed with this post 08-22-2012 at 08:22 PM
DakarNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 05:06 AM   #2529
CodyY
ADVenture Capitalist
 
CodyY's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Oddometer: 9,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by DakarNick View Post
Thanks! I was curious. OK numbers I guess, for its time. But gas engines always seem to have too much displacement for too little power. A 496 ci putting down 330 hp and 450 lb/ft? A modern 5.4L gasser can do that!

My '08 Cummins is 350 hp at 3000 rpm and 650 lb/ft at 1500 rpm out of 409 cubic inches and six cylinders AND gets 20 mpg. A 496 (8.1L) with those numbers makes .9 lb/ft torque and .67 hp per cubic inch. A 6.7L Cummins (409 ci) makes 1.59 lb/ft torque and .86 hp per cubic inch AND it gets 32% better mileage (with 87 less cubic inches)! That is 108.3 lb/ft per cylinder! The 496 is only 56.3 lb/ft per cylinder.

The new 6.7s are 350 hp and 800 lb/ft. Imagine what a 496 ci Cummins would put down. 800 ft/lbs at 409 cubic inches is 1.96 lb/ft per cubic inch. Theoretically, at 496 cubic inches it would make 972 lb/ft of torque! My 6.7 makes the equivalent torque of your 496, 450 lb/ft at 1050 rpm!

But anyway, they're just stinky, clunky, noisy diesels And yeah, I'm a number nerd.



This 04 5.9 puts 550hp/1000 lbft to the ground.

What's your point?
__________________
Not an ACTUAL motorcyclist

CodyY screwed with this post 08-23-2012 at 06:19 AM
CodyY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 05:56 AM   #2530
Gummee!
That's MR. Toothless
 
Gummee!'s Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: NoVA for now...
Oddometer: 27,695
There's one of them '4-door Broncos' up the road from me. I keep meaning to stop in and ask if its a shrunk truck or a stretched Bronco.

Guess they're shrunk trucks.

M
__________________
I'm a cyclist that rides motos, not a moto rider that rides bicycles.
Gummee! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 06:50 AM   #2531
DakarNick
Swabee
 
DakarNick's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Parker, Colorado
Oddometer: 6,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by CodyY View Post
This 04 5.9 puts 550hp/1000 lbft to the ground.

What's your point?
That diesels put down a lot more power per cubic inch than any gasser can stock or slightly modified. I love diesels, especially Cummins, did you take something different from my post?

My next diesel will be a 16L Volvo.

Nice truck, but why did you get the girl mirrors?
__________________
'06 KTM 950 Adventure S
'12 Ram 2500, Cummins, 6-speed auto, Laramie Longhorn, RamBox
Must be part of your super-secret double-naught spy work with your low-level FEMA clearance and (snicker) Texas Security License, yes?

DakarNick screwed with this post 08-23-2012 at 06:59 AM
DakarNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 07:40 AM   #2532
Nailhead
Painting by numbers
 
Nailhead's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Longmont, CO
Oddometer: 6,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by DakarNick View Post
Thanks! I was curious. OK numbers I guess, for its time. But gas engines always seem to have too much displacement for too little power. A 496 ci putting down 330 hp and 450 lb/ft? A modern 5.4L gasser can do that!

My '08 Cummins is 350 hp at 3000 rpm and 650 lb/ft at 1500 rpm out of 409 cubic inches and six cylinders AND gets 20 mpg. A 496 (8.1L) with those numbers makes .9 lb/ft torque and .67 hp per cubic inch. A 6.7L Cummins (409 ci) makes 1.59 lb/ft torque and .86 hp per cubic inch AND it gets 32% better mileage (with 87 less cubic inches)! That is 108.3 lb/ft per cylinder! The 496 is only 56.3 lb/ft per cylinder.

The new 6.7s are 350 hp and 800 lb/ft. Imagine what a 496 ci Cummins would put down. 800 ft/lbs at 409 cubic inches is 1.96 lb/ft per cubic inch. Theoretically, at 496 cubic inches it would make 972 lb/ft of torque! My 6.7 makes the equivalent torque of your 496, 450 lb/ft at 1050 rpm!

But anyway, they're just stinky, clunky, noisy diesels And yeah, I'm a number nerd.
That's an apple/orange comparison between two different combustion processes which renders all the numerical fun kind of pointless.
__________________
-Chris


'7? Benelli 650S, '80 BMW R100 RS, '07 KTM 990 Adventure
Nailhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 09:07 AM   #2533
moosnutz
meow meow
 
moosnutz's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: el Chupacabra's lair
Oddometer: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by DakarNick View Post
Thanks! I was curious. OK numbers I guess, for its time. But gas engines always seem to have too much displacement for too little power. A 496 ci putting down 330 hp and 450 lb/ft? A modern 5.4L gasser can do that!

My '08 Cummins is 350 hp at 3000 rpm and 650 lb/ft at 1500 rpm out of 409 cubic inches and six cylinders AND gets 20 mpg. A 496 (8.1L) with those numbers makes .9 lb/ft torque and .67 hp per cubic inch. A 6.7L Cummins (409 ci) makes 1.59 lb/ft torque and .86 hp per cubic inch AND it gets 32% better mileage (with 87 less cubic inches)! That is 108.3 lb/ft per cylinder! The 496 is only 56.3 lb/ft per cylinder.

The new 6.7s are 350 hp and 800 lb/ft. Imagine what a 496 ci Cummins would put down. 800 ft/lbs at 409 cubic inches is 1.96 lb/ft per cubic inch. Theoretically, at 496 cubic inches it would make 972 lb/ft of torque! My 6.7 makes the equivalent torque of your 496, 450 lb/ft at 1050 rpm!

But anyway, they're just stinky, clunky, noisy diesels And yeah, I'm a number nerd.

The 496 is a totally antiquated design at this point - & has been discontinued from the GM lineup for some time. The new generation gassers are MUCH stronger and more efficient. Something about a huge V8, though - calls to the lizard brain in special kind of way.

A diesel is obviously a different beast entirely. I was tempted, but never crossed to, the dark side of oil-burning madness. The Cummins-powered Dodge would be my weapon of choice though, if I were to go there - but I'm sort of partial to the older 5.9L version (05-07). The Cummins is a no bullshit motor.

Come to think of it, the HEMI Ram Power Wagon is a great package. 4.56 gears, locked at both ends, swaybar disconnect, compliant springs in back, HEMI powerplant and a decent winch as standard. What's not to love?! Except the price, I guess.
moosnutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 09:41 AM   #2534
NoahDL88
Vroom Vroom
 
NoahDL88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Bremerton, Wa
Oddometer: 928


My new-ish toy.

Still learning the ins and outs of it, mostly that the front locker is more of a flip-over switch and I end up on the side.
__________________
Ride more, Type less.
NoahDL88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 10:09 AM   #2535
ducnek
Misadventurer
 
ducnek's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Rooster Poot Tennessee
Oddometer: 987
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahDL88 View Post


My new-ish toy.

Still learning the ins and outs of it, mostly that the front locker is more of a flip-over switch and I end up on the side.

OMG-OMG-OMG

More Pics!
__________________
Calmer than you are.
ducnek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 03:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014