[AllAlaskan]

EDIT: thought you were talking aboug the GM diesel, so i had to edit it

Im curios to see how well they actually do.

[blaster]

Quote:       Originally Posted by AllAlaskan

No Cummins are there own compony just like International or Yamaha or Honda. They are not produced by GM. http://www.cummins.com/cmi/index.jsp...&newsInfo=true They are there own compony that dodge has a contract with to produce them Diesel engines, which I believe 2010 is the last year of the contract with Cummins and Dodge. I heard a rumor that Dodge may be signing a Contract with Caterpiller for there nexr line of Diesels. I would have to look it up to be sure.... I will try to find out and leave a comment or edit this post to answer that. Also a side comment I believe GM gets there diesels from a compony known as Navstar and even use trannys frm a diffrent compony called Allison. Ford on the other hand has produced there own and are redisgning a new Engine that uses an exhaust that instead of flowing to the outside of the engine and rapping around it dips down into the valley of the engine and then goes strait into the turbo..... Beware the Scorpion! 2011 Ford Super Duty gets all-new 6.7-liter diesel V8 — Autoblog ^ thats the new Power stroke Scorpion. GM is also designing a smaller Diesel engine much similer to this design GM delays innovative new diesel truck engine

Navistar makes engines for Ford and International Harvester. the Allison transmission is made by a GM subsudary which also made marine transmissions for GM Detroit Diesel engines

[AllAlaskan]

Quote:       Originally Posted by blaster

Navistar makes engines for Ford and International Harvester. the Allison transmission is made by a GM subsudary which also made marine transmissions for GM Detroit Diesel engines

Navstar has International listed but not ford that I see
Navistar


Allison, I do not see any where it says they are owned or managed by GM
Allison Transmission

Correct me if Im wrong, im not being a smart alleck lol, just not seeing on there websites where it says that.

[blaster]

back on the 4x4 subject, heres one that I used to own. the running gear is 1 1/4 ton Kaiser military Jeep. the engine is a Chevy V6 hooked to a Turbo 400 tranny, we fabricated the chassis from 4"x1/4" box tubing and the deck is 1" tube and angle iron.

[AllAlaskan]

Quote:       Originally Posted by blaster

back on the 4x4 subject, heres one that I used to own. the running gear is 1 1/4 ton Kaiser military Jeep. the engine is a Chevy V6 hooked to a Turbo 400 tranny, we fabricated the chassis from 4"x1/4" box tubing and the deck is 1" tube and angle iron.

what size v6 did you have in that? Im assuming it was the 4.3L out of a S10 or blazer cause those are some monster tires for a v6 lol. WHat kind of gearing did you have also?

[blaster]

Quote:       Originally Posted by AllAlaskan

Navstar has International listed but not ford that I see Navistar Allison, I do not see any where it says they are owned or managed by GM Allison Transmission Correct me if Im wrong, im not being a smart alleck lol, just not seeing on there websites where it says that.

I could be wrong about who owns what but I am sure the old 6.9 ford diesels were made by navistar and I also was told that the 7.3 s were too. since ford no longer uses those engines, that is probably why they are not listed by Navistar. as for the Allison tranny, I know that factory new Detroit Diesels (GM) came with Allison marine gears hooked to the back of them. at one time the company name was Detroit Diesel Allison. that was cast on the rocker arm covers of Detroit Diesel 53, 71 and 92 series engines. it is possible that Allison is now a completely an independent company. it has been a few years since I have seen a new Allison marine gear and Detroit has discontinued those model engines. the way corperate america buys and sells each other, it is hard to keep track of who is who.

[blaster]

Quote:       Originally Posted by AllAlaskan

what size v6 did you have in that? Im assuming it was the 4.3L out of a S10 or blazer cause those are some monster tires for a v6 lol. WHat kind of gearing did you have also?

It has been several years since we built that swamp buggy and I am bad about rembering numbers off the to of my head, but as I remember, the engine was a 225cid v6 that I got out of a junked small car of some sort. swamp buggys are built for lightness and fuel economy. as for the gear ratio, the stock Dana gears that Kaiser used in the military vehicle were low enough that we didn't need to change them or add a gear reduction to use those tires. the military tires were about the same diameter. in fact we cut the hubs out of the stock wheels and had steel rolled to make new rims that the stock hubs were welded into. they are about as big as you can use with an automatic tranny though. a buddy put taller tires on his buggy a couple of years ago and found he had to either add on a gear reduction, change ring gears (he uses WWII Dodge M-39 running gear) or go to a manual tranny. for him the best route was to go back to the manual tranny.

[BattleRifleG3]

That swamp buggy is pretty neat. I'm guessing a swamp buggy is something that actually drives in a swamp? Is it expected to float too? I would absolutely love a semi-amphibious vehicle that could explore rivers, semi-amphibious meaning it won't drown but it doesn't need to cross a lake either. These would be rivers and creeks of the shallow variety. The deeper variety can be explored by these vehicles known as boats.

[jerry]

The Samauri is a cool vehicle. I'm keeping this '88 while my son pays it off for himself.
Playing in the snow earlier this winter

You Tube

You Tube

[blaster]

Quote:       Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

That swamp buggy is pretty neat. I'm guessing a swamp buggy is something that actually drives in a swamp? Is it expected to float too? I would absolutely love a semi-amphibious vehicle that could explore rivers, semi-amphibious meaning it won't drown but it doesn't need to cross a lake either. These would be rivers and creeks of the shallow variety. The deeper variety can be explored by these vehicles known as boats.

they won't float but can drive thru high water and deep mud. some can even run when the engine is submerged by the use of snorkels for the air intakes and exhaust.

[AllAlaskan]

Quote:       Originally Posted by blaster

they won't float but can drive thru high water and deep mud. some can even run when the engine is submerged by the use of snorkels for the air intakes and exhaust.

Sounds like you had a pretty cool set up there

[dog party]

I'd call for a small diesel for this application too. Motor size would have to be determined by vehicle weight/size.

Staying as small as a Suzuki Sami, you could swap in a VW TDI motor (and even go grease-car). That's a proven conversion with quick swap kits on the market currently. Very good system if the Suzuki Sami is a large enough tub for your needs.

I would also think a TDI would swap into a Subbie BRAT too. I still miss my 86 BRAT.

I currently have a Jeep KJ Liberty with the 2.8 common rail diesel motor in it. It's a GREAT (after making some adjustments to the factory "settings"). Unfortunately, it was only available for 2 years, so parts are a bit hard to come by. I love the size of the KJ tub...right now my perfect "buggy" would be to take this motor and body and put it on a custom chassis.

Anyway, good luck with your project. It sounds like a BLAST!

[dog party]

Oh, BTW...on the other topic...the Ford Powerstroke motor was made by International (Navistar) (7.3, 6.0, & 6.4 L Power Stroke Specs) starting in 1994 and continuing through the 7.3, 6.0, & 6.4 liter motors until the 2010 model year. Ford is now making the Powerstroke inhouse as the 6.7liter (beginning in model year 2011).

[AllAlaskan]

See this is what I want to do to my explorer ( OR ger a ranger and do to it) is swap in a 4bt into it lift it around 5-6 inches and throw on some 35s.

Here is a link to a Explorer some one did a Diesel swap into.
The Ranger Station

[ottawa rogue]

the current GM diesel known as the duramax is in fact an Isuzu diesel.
the powerstroke engines and the earlier 6.9 and 7.3 IDI ford diesels are Navistar(international). the 7.3 PS is the T444e in international speak,
and the 6.0 is the VT365.
the 6.7l powerstroke AKA Scorpion is a Ford design with nothing in common with the earlier powerstrokes.
i don't have a clue what Dodge is gonna do after the Cummins contract expires, but i don't think it'll be a domestic diesel.
they're owned by Fiat now, and Fiat has it's own line of diesels under the Iveco name.
look for the next Ram to be fueled by spaghetti

as far as Cummins goes, it's a seperate company from the big 3.
personally, i don't think much of the newer cummins engines, i have to work on far too many of them. the engines themselves are ok, but the fuel injection systems are pure crap. give me a Cat anyday.

G3, sorry for the hijack. i would'nt look for a diesel for one reason, weight.
diesel engines are HEAVY. the 4BT cummins which has been brought up weighs in excess of 800 lbs, that might throw your low weight idea out of the window. coupled with the fact that your drivetrain is gonna have to be heavy duty to cope with the torque output of even a small diesel.
i'd look for a big 4 cyl. the subaru boxer engines have a pretty good rep.
or maybe a v-6 from a FWD car, leave the transaxle bolted on and turn it north and south instead of east and west. voila, instant transfer case.
course, if you are looking for a low range, that's not gonna work out too good.
another option if you're looking for torque is a straight six setup from a pickup truck.
it'll be a little heavier, but it'll pull stumps.
all of the big 3 had them. but the most comon one you'll find in a boneyard these days is probably the 300 ford(4.9l). they even made them in 4x4 configuration, so you could probably got to a yard and pull a drivetrain from a truck and have everything you need
sorry for the book guys

[BattleRifleG3]

I think this is all good knowledge and discussion - that's the point of brainstorming.

Then you have to start whittling the ideas into the end result. Here's some of my whittling thoughts:
1a.) The Jeep Lower 40 has a completely stock suspension with drastic body mods for clearance, and probably longer axles. The body mods allow it to clear the 40" tires without a suspension lift. That's more body mod than I'm looking for, but some of it is over the top for styling.
1b.) The Arctic Trucks have some lift to their suspension, but they build out the fenders and have a significantly wider track so it doesn't change the balance that much. I'm not up to that level of fender building and am not looking for something that wide.
1c.) I am open to using wider axles. Example would be half ton axles on a small (Ie Ranger, S10) chassis.

2a.) For body mods, I should clarify - I'm perfectly willing to cut and reconstruct fenders. But I'd like to keep stock headlights and I don't want to cut away to clear a larger engine. So I think that's what I'll eventually run into. In other words, there needs to be enough space between the firewall and the internals of the headlights.
2b.) If I can come up with all the clearance I need in the fenders, I will eventually run into the frame. That's where longer axles may come in. I do need to be able to turn the wheels all the way (ie as the front axle was originally intended.)

3a.) Here's a design scenario, see if you agree or disagree: Start with an S10 Blazer 2dr and start upsizing the tires. What's the first thing you run into? I'm guessing fenders? Ok, you can enlarge them a little bit. Then what do you hit - the frame? At stock height, I'm assuming the frame hits somewhere between 9 and 10 o'clock on the tire. So lift 2-3". That's about as much suspension lift as I think I could tolerate in this project. Is that about right, or will I be hitting something else, like the headlight internals? So if I do the 2-3" suspension lift and clear out the fenders as far as needed, what size am I up to? With an S10 Blazer's weight, I would probably need tires on the large end, say 37ish. I doubt that will work, and it would barely satisfy my goals. But I like the body style.
3b.) Jeep TJ - The fenders seem much more conducive to upsizing tires and adding a little bit of lift without being too extremely different. Problem is I don't want to lift something with a panhard rod which would then be at an angle. If I used a non-triangulated 4-link, I would need to either use a stock suspension or move the frame mount for the panhard rod downward.
3c.) Jeep CJ - The attraction of this one is light weight and 4 wheel leaf springs without panhard rod (YJ has leaf springs AND panhard rod.) So I might be able to get away with smaller tires (ie 35s) and still have the ratio I want. But I don't want to lift much to get there. So the question would be how large can I get with 3" lift or less suspension lift?
3d.) Suzuki - Very tempting, but I don't think the front end has enough room to clear my kind of wheels without major lift. Possibly the latest frame based model (ie Chevy Tracker / Suziki Grand Vitara). The Samurai on 35s was really neat and looked like it had excellent wheel to weight ratio, but the wheels are too far from the frame for my tastes. Though I prefer the Suzuki body style over the Jeep, I suspect a CJ would let me use larger wheels with less lift.
3e.) A Subaru is very tempting, but none of the modern Subaru mods I've seen allow the size of tires I'd want, and clearing away fender means clearing away unibody structure. I think Subaru would do great to offer a vehicle with even larger tires, 2 doors, and a low range to go up against Jeep and Suzuki, but alas no.

4a.) Ok, so my ideal vehicle is 66-70" wide, 3000-3500lb, clears 37-40" tires with zero lift, has a streamlined body, and gets 20mpg. Yeah right. In order to get that, I would need a car's body with the wheelwells blown up, a frame that was particularly thin at the front for tire clearance, and axles & tranny that would seem to be undersized. Ok, the wheels in my head are turning. Run the frame rails straight from front to rear, as thin as needed to clear the tires. Bend 45 degrees up, 90 degrees down, and 45 degrees up again to clear the axles (bend in this case probably means cut and weld.) So what I've done is turned a unibody into a body-on-frame. The frame wouldn't have to be particularly heavy gage tubing, but would have to compensate for the structural loss. The piece accross the front could double as a bumper or bumper mount. I used to think I wanted a double triangulated 4 link or a 3 link, but I think 4 leaf springs may be my preference after all. I used to think I could get away with a shorter frame and elliptic springs, while cantilevering the front end, but that wouldn't let me clear away the fenders like I want to and still have strength. The big question here would be what car to use for the body?
4b.) Powertrain - If I wasn't using the engine that came with the frame, I would lean towards a 4cyl diesel or a large 4cyl gas engine, say out of a Camry or Accord. I thought about turning it 90 degrees as was suggested, but it would need a limited slip differential, and I'm not sure how many FWD cars have them. Only one I would guess would be Chevy Impala in the police version, but that's more engine than I want. Since the shifter would be re-oriented, this configuration would require an auto, which I wouldn't rule out, but I strongly prefer a manual. One idea is a simple hybrid powertrain. That has the potential to skyrocket the weight, but it has a number of practical advantages.

5.) Application - The objective is a vehicle that can cover the widest range of terrain in North America without being crammed into a niche. Wheel to weight ratio is for sand/snow/mud, low CofG is for hillsides, good fuel economy is for range and flexibility, and ground clearance is for obstacles and water.

Back to the wheel/weight ratio and diameter vs width, I can concede somewhat that width can add to the effect I want. But it doesn't help to drive over obstacles of a significant size. Ie a 40" tire will have an easier time driving over a 10" rock than a 30" tire.

[SimpleMan]

this is from a ford explorer forum that i am a member of. they are pretty capable offroad vehicles with a little modification.

this is a lift/max tire size chart
http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/...d.php?t=153710

this is a write up of how to fit 33" tires on an X. the same results are available from a comercially manufactured 4" suspension lift, but that costs around $2k, this is under $300.
http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/...d.php?t=238214

i dont know the price of a lift for a blazer, but would assume something like the above method would work on one. i believe they also have torsion bars for the front suspension.

[ottawa rogue]

G3, here's a little more food for thought. you can easily get a limited slip diff for a FWD transaxle for as little as $500.
google OBX, it's a chinese knockoff of a torsen diff. i've talked to some guys who are running 400+ horses through them.

if you are going with the S-10, try to find one from the mid to late 80's
with the 2.5 4 banger. the iron duke was a tough engine.

now you need to decide if you want to go with a IFS for the front, or use a straight front axle
sounds like an interesting project.

[ottawa rogue]

after rereading your last post, i thought i'd mention that most transaxles (even the manuals) are cable shifted nowadays, so you could put the shifter anywhere you'd like

[BattleRifleG3]

If I can get a limited slip diff for a FWD axle, that would be great. Think they're out there for my '05 Elantra? Would have really helped out this winter.

IFS vs axle would depend on the platform. The drawback I see to IFS is more complicated lifting and/or U-joint wear, and more difficult to widen the track width.

Based on the Explorer table above and chart I found from a lift kit manufacturer for S10 Blazers, both would need about a 6" lift to fit 35s, whether suspension or suspension + body. Just found the same value for a Jeep Cherokee. More than I had in mind. Jeep TJs and CJs can do it with 4" suspension lift minimum (more recommended) using stock axles.