Like typ4 said. I'll sell you this one for $5K, but it's a long haul from here to there.
The NIGHTMARE TRIP! Will I be asking too much of a IDI Turbo?
- Thread starter fordgirl4by4
- Start date
Like typ4 said. I'll sell you this one for $5K, but it's a long haul from here to there.
I'll second the 460 option. Just need to build a real engine for it. Under $2500 can build you 450+ Hp and 550+ ft/lbs. With some compression and desmogged your MPG should be double digits and you'll be able to keep rolling faster than 30 MPH. Edelbrock high flow water pump has a very nice casting and impeller, completely eliminated my overheating issues. I use one on every 460 I build. Make sure your rad is clean, fan is locking up, and you must have a shroud to keep it cool at lower speeds. Since you have a slushbox run a big stacked plate trans cooler and plumb it to get hot fluid before the trans cooler in the radiator. More ignition timing also reduces operating temp, but don't get into detonation. To get your MPG up above 10 you will need overdrive. I shoot for 2000 RPM or less at highway cruise.
Bottom line is HP and torque is a lot cheaper to get from a 460 than an IDI. If you don't have to pass smog inspection then do the 460 up right as a towing engine. I dislike towing a mere 5000 lbs with my IDI turbo, my 460 handles it way better. I would be looking at converting your Sterling to long pinion and disc brakes, or just use an axle from a newer truck if you find one locally. I've found the big drums on the Sterling to be adequate. Drums do not shed heat fast though, so long descents towing heavy are the reason to upgrade.
Nice, If you stay IDI my torque cam is really good for exactly what you are doing. I can also supply fuel and turbo upgrade options.
fordgirl4by4
Registered User
OH YES!!! I have been very interested in your cam for awhile, just havent had to tear into any of my 6.9's yet they all run great but now I think I will put a cam in this 7.3 DEALERS DIESEL engine while the body is off. (much easier) it ran fine and had BB codes already, I have lots of core injectors, cams,
I have a spare incomplete ATS oem turbo kit too I guess I could upgrade it!
Moneys tight right now after this expensive 5.4mpg trip but next payday is a different story.
Feel free to PM the prices
fordgirl4by4
Registered User
Well a person I know stopped by to chat with me and I told him my story, turns out he used to drive for the school district here way back when. Guess what he drove a IHC bus with a 6.9L NA idi and automatic. He said he pulled the same passes many times with that old bus for Athletic events and field trips fully loaded. He said WITHOUT A DOUBT a 6.9 will live forever doing it!
He said it drank oil like crazy and the school added additional oil reserves (franze or semi type bypass canisters) and put a NON clutch fan on it, but it always made it fine at 100 temps
Of coarse it had a bigger radiator and air brakes, said get gears and drive slower for now then get a air brake rig!
He also said the 7.3 idi sucked and all failed on them, overheating and cracking, I FORGOT about the 7.3 idi cooling issue compared to the 6.9 wich were not prone to overheating due to heads and coolant ports plugged.
Any input? Am i better doing a 6.9 swap Now, I have many
He said it drank oil like crazy and the school added additional oil reserves (franze or semi type bypass canisters) and put a NON clutch fan on it, but it always made it fine at 100 temps
Of coarse it had a bigger radiator and air brakes, said get gears and drive slower for now then get a air brake rig!
He also said the 7.3 idi sucked and all failed on them, overheating and cracking, I FORGOT about the 7.3 idi cooling issue compared to the 6.9 wich were not prone to overheating due to heads and coolant ports plugged.
Any input? Am i better doing a 6.9 swap Now, I have many
stealth13777
Full Access Member
You can modify a 7.3 head to open the coolant ports like the 6.9. Either one of those engines put together like you want would work equally well in my mind. On the 6.9, if you turbo be aware of the smaller head bolts. Mine did this when I hit ten pounds of boost; it's now rebuilt with arp studs. I imagine the bolt was already weak for other reasons, but the 6.9s will blow head gaskets more easily due to smaller bolts versus the 7.3.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You must be registered for see images attach
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fordgirl4by4
Registered User
Oh yes all 6.9 get arp's! I just have a good 7.3 engine sitting on a frame now with no body, running and a few 6.9 ready for all the new parts i've stocked up on, but am lacking studs.
Thinking I better bail on a my Dealer Diesel 7.3 and go 6.9. (I have new NOS rings, bearings, gaskets, engine was .020 over reman Ford with 120,000 on it, bronze guides but there slightly worn)
He stated get a 4 bolt Bus water pump and put ANY fan on it direct or clutch? Ive seen these before but passed them up,
Thinking I better bail on a my Dealer Diesel 7.3 and go 6.9. (I have new NOS rings, bearings, gaskets, engine was .020 over reman Ford with 120,000 on it, bronze guides but there slightly worn)
He stated get a 4 bolt Bus water pump and put ANY fan on it direct or clutch? Ive seen these before but passed them up,
fordgirl4by4
Registered User
few pics I found on the internet, this is two of the passes I need to pull, these are the best road areas, way worst after these tourist locations
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
LCAM-01XA
Full Access Member
Read this thread on Pirate 4x4, pay close attention to what MT4Runner says in post #20: http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/tow-rigs-trailers/2057866-medium-duty-platforms.html#post31514762
PwrSmoke
Full Access Member
This discussion seems to be focusing more on making power than in being reliable when hard at work. Making power is great as long as you realize the cost and the consequences. The higher the power output, the more heat is created and the better the cooling system has to be. Bottom line is, "How much money ya got ta spend." If it's not much, spend it on the durability, reliability and cooling stuff. Do that and you'll be able to work the engine harder, longer. If you later can afford more power mods, the durability, reliability and cooling stuff will have the truck prepped for them. Personally, I think it's better to have a lower power engine that you can run flat out reliably for days on end than to have a more powerful one you have to worry about and back off. Sure, you can have both... if you have enough coin... but often you have to sacrifice a certain about of reliability (in the towing realm here) to get the power. There are guys out there with very powerful trucks who can't use the power when the going gets hard because they can't keep them cool. In the end, they don't get up the hill any faster than the lower power trucks.
In the mid '90s, I found a 100 GPM water pump for my 6.9L to replace the stock 80 GPM. It got damaged in '02 when I hit a deer and I wasn't able to find a 100 GPM replacement. I can't remember much about the 100 GPM unit. I got it from a diesel truck place in Grand Junction, CO. Maybe it was for a bus or something, but I just got a bunch of 6.9/7.3 material from Navistar for a story and all the bus and truck engines from 1982 to the late '80s had the 80 GPM unit. Anyone run into one of these 100 GPM pumps? Might be a help to those with high load situations. I noticed a difference with it!
Beware! Obscene Gasser Comments!
Having built a number of high compression, high output gassers and then put them to use towing in pickups, I would not recommend that to anyone. There is a reason industrial gassers have low compression ratios... combustion temps and pressure. When you increase the static compression and then use a typical "RV" or "Torque" cam, the dynamic compression is so high that eliminating detonation is just about impossible and even if you can somehow control detonation, the high combustion chamber temps are very ******* piston crowns and valves. If you put in a longer duration cam to relieve that dynamic compression a little, then you move the torque band higher and not always in the best spot for a tow rig. I built a 428 FE Ford for a guy that towed very heavy with a mid '70s Ford. This was the mid 1980s. It was initially built with a 9.6:1 CR, an RV cam with duration at the longish end in that class and all the other mods you would expect, Edelbrock intake, big Holley carb, headers, Accel distributor, hot ignition. Ran like a ***** ape solo. Pulled like a Clydesdale when towing. One problem. It pinged towing heavy on hills, even with the highest octane gas and/or best octane booster. And it ran hot. It would have soon destroyed itself. Fattening up the mixture didn't help much and neither did backing off the static timing, recurving the distributor or fooling with spark plug heat ranges. In the end, I had to eat the cost of decompressing the engine to around 8.5:1, installing a shorter duration cam and rejetting and recurving (for the 3rd or 4th time). It didn't run quite as strong but at least it didn't ping and the guy could run the truck as hard as he wanted up the hills without overheating or pinging... and on regular fuel too! He ran the truck about six months on the hi-comp setup and when I pulled the heads, there was already signs of piston erosion from detonation so I was glad I didn't let him run it any longer. This lesson saved me on the next truck FE build (a 390 this time) and that had a more satisfactory initial result. When I reflect on that story today, I would have paid more attention to gearing. This guy towed a monstrous (35 foot IIRC) 5th wheel. I don't remember clearly his gear ratio. It was no lower than 4.10:1 but I think it might have been 3.73:1. A 4.56:1 ratio would definitely lessened the load on the engine. Enough to stop detonation... I don't think so... but in retrospect I should have recommended a drop in ratio or a milder engine at the get-go.
In the mid '90s, I found a 100 GPM water pump for my 6.9L to replace the stock 80 GPM. It got damaged in '02 when I hit a deer and I wasn't able to find a 100 GPM replacement. I can't remember much about the 100 GPM unit. I got it from a diesel truck place in Grand Junction, CO. Maybe it was for a bus or something, but I just got a bunch of 6.9/7.3 material from Navistar for a story and all the bus and truck engines from 1982 to the late '80s had the 80 GPM unit. Anyone run into one of these 100 GPM pumps? Might be a help to those with high load situations. I noticed a difference with it!
Beware! Obscene Gasser Comments!
Having built a number of high compression, high output gassers and then put them to use towing in pickups, I would not recommend that to anyone. There is a reason industrial gassers have low compression ratios... combustion temps and pressure. When you increase the static compression and then use a typical "RV" or "Torque" cam, the dynamic compression is so high that eliminating detonation is just about impossible and even if you can somehow control detonation, the high combustion chamber temps are very ******* piston crowns and valves. If you put in a longer duration cam to relieve that dynamic compression a little, then you move the torque band higher and not always in the best spot for a tow rig. I built a 428 FE Ford for a guy that towed very heavy with a mid '70s Ford. This was the mid 1980s. It was initially built with a 9.6:1 CR, an RV cam with duration at the longish end in that class and all the other mods you would expect, Edelbrock intake, big Holley carb, headers, Accel distributor, hot ignition. Ran like a ***** ape solo. Pulled like a Clydesdale when towing. One problem. It pinged towing heavy on hills, even with the highest octane gas and/or best octane booster. And it ran hot. It would have soon destroyed itself. Fattening up the mixture didn't help much and neither did backing off the static timing, recurving the distributor or fooling with spark plug heat ranges. In the end, I had to eat the cost of decompressing the engine to around 8.5:1, installing a shorter duration cam and rejetting and recurving (for the 3rd or 4th time). It didn't run quite as strong but at least it didn't ping and the guy could run the truck as hard as he wanted up the hills without overheating or pinging... and on regular fuel too! He ran the truck about six months on the hi-comp setup and when I pulled the heads, there was already signs of piston erosion from detonation so I was glad I didn't let him run it any longer. This lesson saved me on the next truck FE build (a 390 this time) and that had a more satisfactory initial result. When I reflect on that story today, I would have paid more attention to gearing. This guy towed a monstrous (35 foot IIRC) 5th wheel. I don't remember clearly his gear ratio. It was no lower than 4.10:1 but I think it might have been 3.73:1. A 4.56:1 ratio would definitely lessened the load on the engine. Enough to stop detonation... I don't think so... but in retrospect I should have recommended a drop in ratio or a milder engine at the get-go.
I personally think you are on the right track now, planning on a larger class of truck. I don't care how big a engine you put in it, a pickup is still a pickup. You are going along and something happens in front of you and you have to jerk the wheel one way or the other, the large truck will jerk that loaded trailer with authority with much less pucker factor. It's more of the weight ratio of the towing vehicle versus what is being towed. A much heavier towing vehicle has much more control and authority that is not as heavy as it is.
And like you said, the heavier truck has all the nice stuff already on it, like large fancy cooling fans, huge radiators, intercooled turbos, air brakes, larger transmissions, etc.
Yes, we have all pulled loads much greater than that is much worse places with a pickup, but it wasn't much fun doing it.
And like you said, the heavier truck has all the nice stuff already on it, like large fancy cooling fans, huge radiators, intercooled turbos, air brakes, larger transmissions, etc.
Yes, we have all pulled loads much greater than that is much worse places with a pickup, but it wasn't much fun doing it.
Last edited:
junk
Full Access Member
Completely agree.
PwrSmoke, it comes down to dynamic compression, quench, chamber design. What was the dynamic compression ratio of that 428 and the quench distance? I'd wager 8.5:1 or more and/or too much quench. Were the chambers cc'd, matched and polished? All rough edges on chambers and pistons smoothed? This all needs to be done to run higher compression on a tow pig. The focus is on dynamic compression ratio, 8:1 to 8.25:1 is the target, how you get can be done in many combinations. Detonation is a sign of a mismatch of some componenets of the build or the build and intended use. There are high tech bandaids too: http://www.jandssafeguard.com/index.html
I'd have to check my build notes but I believe my 460 is roughly 9.7:1 static and 8.3:1 dynamic. Quench is about .020" more than I'd like so it's not as tolerant as I'd like. I run 8* initial with a relatively slow curve on a Duraspark II. At about 12k lbs total combined weight my 460 will hold 65-70 on grades the IDI slows to 30-35 MPH. On some real steep grades up in the hills I'll have to run the 460 flat out but it will hold speed (40-50) up some reasonably long climbs where the IDI has been only marginally faster than walking by the top backing off for fear of EGT before the peak. I don't fault the IDI too much as I built my 460 to make mountains of torque from off idle to redline for the purpose of towing. My IDI is just an old 100k mile engine with a turbo slapped on it. If/when I build my IDI I expect it will perform quite well.
My point is that a 460 based engine can be made to perform plenty well for towing. Saying gas engines can't tow because a smog era 460 that puts out pre-smog small block power levels is a bit of a stretch. With a 545 stroker you can be in the 600-700 HP and torque range with mild manners, broad torque curve and not cost a fortune to build. Maybe the newer diesels can beat that torque more cost effectively but if we're talking IDI vs 385 series, I believe the 385 series is the better performer.
I'd have to check my build notes but I believe my 460 is roughly 9.7:1 static and 8.3:1 dynamic. Quench is about .020" more than I'd like so it's not as tolerant as I'd like. I run 8* initial with a relatively slow curve on a Duraspark II. At about 12k lbs total combined weight my 460 will hold 65-70 on grades the IDI slows to 30-35 MPH. On some real steep grades up in the hills I'll have to run the 460 flat out but it will hold speed (40-50) up some reasonably long climbs where the IDI has been only marginally faster than walking by the top backing off for fear of EGT before the peak. I don't fault the IDI too much as I built my 460 to make mountains of torque from off idle to redline for the purpose of towing. My IDI is just an old 100k mile engine with a turbo slapped on it. If/when I build my IDI I expect it will perform quite well.
My point is that a 460 based engine can be made to perform plenty well for towing. Saying gas engines can't tow because a smog era 460 that puts out pre-smog small block power levels is a bit of a stretch. With a 545 stroker you can be in the 600-700 HP and torque range with mild manners, broad torque curve and not cost a fortune to build. Maybe the newer diesels can beat that torque more cost effectively but if we're talking IDI vs 385 series, I believe the 385 series is the better performer.
fordgirl4by4
Registered User
I've done lots of 429 460 gassers over the years, towed lots with them, MPG sucked and EVENTUALLY all develop exhaust manifold or header issues from turning red hot. Yes they work but I have lots of IDI's now and tons of parts and Turbos for them.
I get 17mpg in my 1990 f350 srw cc zf5 4.10 truck with 4 people and small loads daily, If i'm at are property in Eastern Wa and need to run to town its 31 miles round trip, even further if I need a big box store on a sunday. 460 trucks just cost too much to operate, it was a horrible fuel bill this last run, really cuts into other things and is depressing not being able to pass a gas station. 10mpg in a idi would be great!
I never could get to 9:1 comp with a 460 without detonating towing, tried the 10.7:1 early ones for awhile with a Comp cam 270 to bleed off pressure it worked but only in colder weather, 80+ had starting issues under hot soak conditions. 1994-97 heads are the best compromise and work well
I get 17mpg in my 1990 f350 srw cc zf5 4.10 truck with 4 people and small loads daily, If i'm at are property in Eastern Wa and need to run to town its 31 miles round trip, even further if I need a big box store on a sunday. 460 trucks just cost too much to operate, it was a horrible fuel bill this last run, really cuts into other things and is depressing not being able to pass a gas station. 10mpg in a idi would be great!
I never could get to 9:1 comp with a 460 without detonating towing, tried the 10.7:1 early ones for awhile with a Comp cam 270 to bleed off pressure it worked but only in colder weather, 80+ had starting issues under hot soak conditions. 1994-97 heads are the best compromise and work well
PwrSmoke
Full Access Member
Certainly times have changed and if your 460 is an EFI unit, that definitely changes the experience. Still, even back then, remember it was 1985-ish, I knew about dynamic vs static and the cam duration was long enough, in theory, to avoid detonation. The FE heads weren't the best, certainly not as good as the 385 heads, but quench was part of the equation, though I no longer recall many of the details. I don't disagree with your assertion about high compression engines in towing... in the modern era EFI has been the "great Equalizer"... but I will contend that building such an engine is not for the "toss in a cam, throw on an intake and headers and run 'er" crowd and in my experience, more of these gas/tow/hi-po projects fail than succeed. In other words, these truck make great hotrods but don't always deliver the goods in the towing department. You know enough to make it work. Many don't. Which explains my "A man's gotta know his limitations," stance. Theory vs practice.
The FE truck I mention early was towing at a LOT more the 12K combined... which was part of the trouble... and did a lot of work in the desert, which added to the problem.
My diesel pulled regularly at 18.5K and it worked hard. Only in the most difficult climates did I note temperature issues.. but then, I as the driver, was the "fuse" that could vary the demands to suit the terrain or the climate.
The FE truck I mention early was towing at a LOT more the 12K combined... which was part of the trouble... and did a lot of work in the desert, which added to the problem.
My diesel pulled regularly at 18.5K and it worked hard. Only in the most difficult climates did I note temperature issues.. but then, I as the driver, was the "fuse" that could vary the demands to suit the terrain or the climate.
