Pilothouse Top Speed

[59bisquik]

14 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Sounds like things are running well, and yes these engines do seem to like cruising at 2500 versus almost 300 rpm.

I have been told by those in the know that the Industrial engines , are cammed for lower rpm torque use. Now this may be specific to applications too, I really don't know.

Sounds like you are having fun with her?

Are you driving on the Interstate? If so, how did it go at 65 mph?

I love to drive her and do every chance I get. Where I live its rural highways and interstates, so it gets plenty of 55+ MPH use. At 65, she does just fine and has plenty of power, I just don't like to wind her up that much. With all new and lowered suspension, it handles and rides nice. I just need to get my R10 installed before my upcoming Vegas trip. 65-70 would be nice on the interstate if you stay in the slow lane, I just wanna be able to get the RPM's down a bit!

Currently, I have 3.73's and the tires are 27.6" tall.

Edited November 24, 2016 by 59bisquik

[55 Fargo]

1 minute ago, 59bisquik said:

I love to drive her and do every chance I get. Where I live its rural highways and interstates, so it gets plenty of 55+ MPH use. At 65, she does just fine and has plenty of power, I just don't like to wind her up that much. With all new and lowered suspension, it handles and rides nice. I just need to get my R10 installed before my upcoming Vegas trip. 65-70 is nice on the interstate if you stay in the slow lane, I just wanna be able to get the RPM's down a bit!

Love it, sounds good, I remember driving in So Cal when the nation wide speed limit was 55 MPH, times have changed...

[pflaming]

I have the 3:73 and 28" tires and I cruse at 60 / 65. It's my belief that an engine runs smoothly at whatever speed it is driven the most. Whenever I'm on an open road, I push it to 70+ for a mile or two just to keep that option available. I need to research at what RPM's these engines ran in the grain harvesters. We had an old Massy Harris self propel and it had a Mopar in it. We would run 8-10 hours a day when harvesting and the engine never ran hot.  A grain field is very hot, hotter at ground level.  

My daughter in Indianapolis still wants the truck so will drive it out in a couple of years. 66 will be my route. 

[Jeff Balazs]

On 11/23/2016 at 8:25 PM, 59bisquik said:

I love to drive her and do every chance I get. Where I live its rural highways and interstates, so it gets plenty of 55+ MPH use. At 65, she does just fine and has plenty of power, I just don't like to wind her up that much. With all new and lowered suspension, it handles and rides nice. I just need to get my R10 installed before my upcoming Vegas trip. 65-70 would be nice on the interstate if you stay in the slow lane, I just wanna be able to get the RPM's down a bit!

Currently, I have 3.73's and the tires are 27.6" tall.

I will be following your progress on this. Getting the final ratio just right on one of these trucks is an interesting task. I just wonder if taller tires wouldn't get you pretty close to perfect? My 3/4 ton has a 3.55 rear axle and 19" tall tires and it seems a bit too high for optimum crusiing. In other words at 65 it is not to loud and does fine on level grade .....but when a hill is involved it is a bit hard to keep the rev's and speed up. Just seems like it would be happier turning a few more revs for a given speed.

With the kind of power we have available to us and the lack of aerodynamics....optimizing this is a much smaller target than I initially thought it would be.

Jeff

[55 Fargo]

3 hours ago, Jeff Balazs said:

I will be following your progress on this. Getting the final ratio just right on one of these trucks is an interesting task. I just wonder if taller tires wouldn't get you pretty close to perfect? My 3/4 ton has a 3.55 rear axle and 19" tall tires and it seems a bit too high for optimum crusiing. In other words at 65 it is not to loud and does fine on level grade .....but when a hill is involved it is a bit hard to keep the rev's and speed up. Just seems like it would be happier turning a few more revs for a given speed.

With the kind of power we have available to us and the lack of aerodynamics....optimizing this is a much smaller target than I initially thought it would be.

Jeff

I don't think he would have any issues with a 3.73 and the R10, and his tire aspect sounds about right.

I don't think your issue is with the 3.55s Jeff, but the weight of your truck, your HP and torque would be a mitigating factor.

Your truck with a souped 250-265 would have a whole lot more grunt than your current engine, that is your limiting factor HP and displacement....

[59bisquik]

Well I ran the numbers and here is what I came up with the RPM's with and without the OD unit. I think the standard car came with a 3.90 and the R10 but not sure of tire height. This chart is going off of my setup with 3.73's and 27.6" tires. I wonder how the HP/TQ and lack of aerodynamics will all work together.

SPEED	1.0	0.7
55	2497	1748
60	2725	1906
65	2952	2066
70	3179	2225
75	3406	2384

[Jeff Balazs]

What I was trying to get at is that maybe just a taller tire would get it closer to that elusive optimum place. I kinda doubt that an OD is going to be super useful with the gearing he has..........but I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

 

[55 Fargo]

1 minute ago, Jeff Balazs said:

What I was trying to get at is that maybe just a taller tire would get it closer to that elusive optimum place. I kinda doubt that an OD is going to be super useful with the gearing he has..........but I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

 

Well if you look at the RPM difference at speeds over 60 mph, you will see this engine will be spinning a lot less, but still be in the powerband.

Why the heck would he want to spin at 3000 RPM when he could spin at 2200 RPM and faster????

[59bisquik]

I think 2200 looks much better the 3000 also, but the question is do I have the torque to pull it off? I think on flat ground it would, hilly terrain and such might be another story.

I guess I will just have to toss it in and give it a shot.

Just for thought, I did rebuild the chart with the stock 4.10 gears and the 27.6" tires.

SPEED	1.0	0.7
55	2745	1922
60	2995	2096
65	3244	2271
70	3494	2446
75	3743	2620

[Jeff Balazs]

Well I don't think the power band is really as broad as all that. If you look at the RPM's in that first chart at 65mph a difference of 900 between 1/1 and OD is huge. I just do not think these trucks have the power to weight ratio to comfortably overcome that much of a difference. A drop in RPM's of half of that in my opinion is probably closer to a workable solution.

Jeff

[55 Fargo]

8 hours ago, Jeff Balazs said:

Well I don't think the power band is really as broad as all that. If you look at the RPM's in that first chart at 65mph a difference of 900 between 1/1 and OD is huge. I just do not think these trucks have the power to weight ratio to comfortably overcome that much of a difference. A drop in RPM's of half of that in my opinion is probably closer to a workable solution.

Jeff

Yes I would tend to agree, when shifting from 1:1 to .07:1 @60 mph you would be below 2000 rpm, on a level highway and not much wind okay, but inclines higher winds not as good.

The other trans a lot of members use, " oh hang on is gotta be that ole T5", some have .86 for the overdrive reduction that type of gearing would or should work well.

These engines develop max torque at fairly low rpm 1400-1600 rpm, so the important thing is torque pushing you along too. Now when these engines are modified with a cam with higher lift and duration, multi carbs split exhaust the powerband and torque curves can be much different, but of course there is more horsepower too.

I do believe 3.73 gears are great choice, 3.55 liveable, and 3.23 like mine can cause issues on hills and in windy conditions, certainly I would not entertain and overdrive trans with my current gears. But I am running a 228, stock engine except dual carbs/exhaust and she has miles, now same engine rebuilt, shaved head, a much hotter cam, would give it a lot more thrust. Of course I would not do this, as if I am going to spend money would do it on a 265 engine, again no, "replacement for displacement".

Jeff, George Asche has a fairly heavy 4 door Plymouth with a heated up 230, and that car moves real quick, inspite of it's weight and all of the stuff George keeps in the trunk. He makes beasts out of these engines...

[Jeff Balazs]

My comments here were simply meant to remind people that there are some inherent limitations to what can and can't be accomplished with a relatively stock truck. I believe there is a much finer line between lowering revs at speed and being able to maintain that speed than what we may all expect.

Jeff

 

 

[Todd B]

Jeff just give up, I once knew a guy who always had to get the word in!!!!!!! 

[Todd B]

Sorry typo,  get the last word in!!!!!

[55 Fargo]

Last Word??? or final Opinion.....LOL

We will always have our differing ideas and what suits or own particular situation.

I know Jeff is not 100% happy with his trucks power and performance on occasion, and I can certainly relate.

I do believe in his case and mine, we both need more HP, to deal with modern high speed traffic, hills road conditions etc.

Some or a lot of guys and maybe Todd you are in this category, slow drives, small 2 lane highways city/urban streets only or what have you.

The there are those who want to drive daily or very often, on freeways and interstates etc, a sucked out engine struggling to get to 60 mph or to hold that speed becomes a dangerous vessel.

Now this is not to cause an argument, but different strokes for different folks and many on here are okay driving 50-55 mph to get ice creams or Sonic burgers on a Sunday.

To each there own, but in many cases and mine included my tired old 228 doesn't have enough power for a modern high traffic Interstate......

 

[Jeff Balazs]

I have always had a deep appreciation for the stories of John Henry and the Little Engine that Could. You may ask yourself what this has to do with how fast an old Pilothouse truck can go. It is simple really..... never give up and you can beat or at least match technological advances.......and the little engine can and will get the job done.

So given the obvious limitations of power, weight and shape along with a limited budget how does one get the best out of one of these trucks? After more than a year of daily use I am convinced the answer lies in fine tuning the gearing.

Jeff

[55 Fargo]

35 minutes ago, Jeff Balazs said:

I have always had a deep appreciation for the stories of John Henry and the Little Engine that Could. You may ask yourself what this has to do with how fast an old Pilothouse truck can go. It is simple really..... never give up and you can beat or at least match technological advances.......and the little engine can and will get the job done.

So given the obvious limitations of power, weight and shape along with a limited budget how does one get the best out of one of these trucks? After more than a year of daily use I am convinced the answer lies in fine tuning the gearing.

Jeff

Keep on "chugging" Thomas..........LOL

[Jeff Balazs]

47 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Keep on "chugging" Thomas..........LOL

Don't know any Thomas..........other than the doubting one.

What I do know is that when I decided to go with a 3.55 rear axle it was a mistake. I thought the extra displacement of my 230 would handle it. I now know that the useful power band of these engines is not broad enough to handle that kind of drop in revs at speed and still have any sort of reserve. I can only imagine what having a 3.23 in it's place must be like.

I do believe a decent balance can be achieved in all this. And while I agree some extra power would be nice I still feel like the real answer lies in having the correct gearing available. What "correct" is will vary some from truck to truck but it will be obvious once you have found it.

Jeff

[55 Fargo]

34 minutes ago, Jeff Balazs said:

Don't know any Thomas..........other than the doubting one.

What I do know is that when I decided to go with a 3.55 rear axle it was a mistake. I thought the extra displacement of my 230 would handle it. I now know that the useful power band of these engines is not broad enough to handle that kind of drop in revs at speed and still have any sort of reserve. I can only imagine what having a 3.23 in it's place must be like.

I do believe a decent balance can be achieved in all this. And while I agree some extra power would be nice I still feel like the real answer lies in having the correct gearing available. What "correct" is will vary some from truck to truck but it will be obvious once you have found it.

Jeff

Well Jeff meet "Thomas"

Yes 3.23 is a bit too high, for sure, others use closer to 3.0 and do not mind Reg Evans for one.

Now the difference between my truck and yours is this, weight mine is a 108 wb truck, so most likely a 1000 lbs lighter.

Next I have a long block engine, not a deal breaker as it is rated at 110hp, add in the dual carbs and exhaust, and maybe 115-120 hp.

So now there you have a much lighter truck modified, should make up for the less than optimal gearing, with my current gearing, having 150-200hp would be much nicer.

So without merging on to beating a dead horse, think not much more can be stated...

Edited November 27, 2016 by Rockwood

[Jeff Balazs]

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

So without merging on to beating a dead horse, think not much more can be stated...

 

Reg has a long block too. And we don't all have that option available. 

What we are really talking about here is how a relatively original truck can be expected to perform in modern driving conditions. If you go back to the OP's original posting I believe that is what he is actually trying to assess. I think we all know that trying to drive at speed without any mods is going to be tough at best. Getting a realistic handle on how much needs to be done to achieve this is something worth a real ongoing discussion. Dead horses or not.

Jeff

[55 Fargo]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Balazs said:

Reg has a long block too. And we don't all have that option available. 

What we are really talking about here is how a relatively original truck can be expected to perform in modern driving conditions. If you go back to the OP's original posting I believe that is what he is actually trying to assess. I think we all know that trying to drive at speed without any mods is going to be tough at best. Getting a realistic handle on how much needs to be done to achieve this is something worth a real ongoing discussion. Dead horses or not.

Jeff

Yes , with a stock little 218 or 230, or in Canadian built trucks, some were 218,228, then 250 all long blocks. But I agree some type of gearing change is what will allow these old trucks the ability to run with the "big dogs" somewhat.

Without arguing there will be some who will have 4.11 rear ends and 31 inch tall tires who can drive at 60 mph and be comfortable, so be it.

Its not just a problem of getting 1 of these trucks to 70 mph, but how long does it take to get there, and what hazards do they create at the same time.

I am glad you are moving toward an acceptable gain to where you need to be Jeff, and I commend you for using your truck as a daily driver. I would use mine as one too, but a few things are an issues, I live on a filthy gravel road 3 miles from pavement, so when raining or snowing, the truck would be destroyed.

Winter weather, salt snow and slush, not a good combo, then it will be cold like you have never seen my friend unless you lived in ND or Montana.

Just today, my 24 mile commute to work, thick dense fog, and I mean thick, temps at around 25f, high moisture, wet highways that are glare ice. I had to drive my Hemi ram at 30 mph at times, not a fun drive.....PS you met Thomas the train.....LOL

[Jeff Balazs]

The only weather we have here that can be a factor is heat. But we do have lots of hills and steep grades. And these really come into play when you add in mixed slow and fast traffic and the fact that most cars today have plenty of excess power. I can't ever see one of these L6 engines ever having enough power to keep pace without giving some serious thought to the available gear selection and final gearing. And I am not at all convinced that anyone has found the optimum arrangement. At least in my own situation I keep thinking how nice it would be to have a full synchro close ratio 4 speed with the right spread.

Jeff 

[dpollo]

I think we have all discovered what  " Job Rated " was intended to mean,

[Dodgeb4ya]

I wouldn't want to drive my old trucks in much of Seattle everyday traffic. The people are nuts.

I could have a Cummins  for power and they still would tail gate me at 70!

I'm happy with the stock drive train and once in awhile drives at a max of 60.

You may as well install the cab and bed on a new Dodge truck chassis to drive and be safe.

Not my way of thinkin.

 

[Dave72dt]

I didn't respond at first to this post simply because it didn't fit the specifications in the OP.  I fully expect my truck to be capable of 70, 80 or more with little difficulty.  My frame is mostly original but the suspension, drivetrain and aerodynamics have all been changed.  Probably a safer truck than it was, definitely more powerful and better handling and more comfortable than it was in 1952.  Even though it should be able to match traffic flow patterns of the new cars and truck, it does nothing to prevent the tailgaters, texters, speeders, drunks, druggies or a Uhaul with an unbalanced and overloaded trailer on the road with me from doing something stupid.

It seems every time a manufacturer comes out with some kind of technology to compensate for driver's poor choices, the drivers get that much poorer.  ABS, stability control, air bags, proximitry braking.  Seattle doesn't have an exclusive on drivers that are nuts.  They're EVERYWHERE!