Jump to content

345 vs 392 pulling power in 10 wheeler


acem

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2023 at 8:17 AM, acem said:

How much were you hauling?

I'd be grossing around 40,000 lb (18,009 kg).

I know you've got steep grades there Mike.

I don't know the % grade on mine but it's steep, has a tight curve at the bottom (can't get a running start) and is probably a half a mile long.

........Forestry roads built to highway specs, generally, but sometimes the grades down to one in ten  in certain areas...Don't have my text books  handy...can not remember grade %   Ace...this due to old age and diminishing cognitive   facilities.....:(

However, we loaded those trucks up because of ''off highway '' situations...and at times would have six cube or more of wet river run  on board, which would tare out at around 19 tons gross....and those 392  's would shift that load  without difficulty , via the Allison trans...but not at great speeds due to the terrain and the fact of the gravelling was the initial 'work ' on that new road.. The carriage way 's  had a big grader to shape the road, prior to gravel...but   the road's were always ''soft''    which sucked up the horse power as well...

The petrol engines really surprised, in fact...but the feul consumption was horrendous at times. I imagine, today  in the great US of A...buying a ''gas pot '' 6x4 , to use on the highway, would require   careful study of overall operating costs......vis a vis   the diesel equivalent.....??

Good luck , Ace   !!!

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dad had a 1600 with the 345, 5/2 and as you said it did ok on the level but slowed way down on the hills. I'm talking 15-20 mph uphill with 150 square bales on it slow. We found a 1700 up above West Plains that had been hit in the side, but the 392 was still good so we swapped it. It helped the truck quite a bit, but we still weren't setting any land-speed records. We ran it like that for a while, then it chucked a rod and he shoe-horned a big cam Cummins in it someway or other. I got to drive it once or twice (this was after I left home) before he sold it and all the rest of the hay and dirt farming stuff in 2011.

As far as your friend's truck, would he let you try it for a load or two to see how it'd do? Then you'll know for sure and if the 345 won't handle it you could always drop the 392 in, or a diesel of some description. Then again, depending on the rear end a diesel might not help you much.

Mac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may have already seen this, but there's an auction in mid Missouri on December 2nd that lists several trucks. It might be worth looking at, and then again the distance might make it not worth it. 

Mac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2023 at 6:34 PM, jeeper61 said:

Here's another from the east 

image.thumb.png.4c39da0c8975f0f8f66e349a62cd2f4a.png

What separates that from a Kodiak or TopKick ? It almost looks like the same cab, but I would say from the picture that it does have enough cove at the body line below the window. The Kodiak and TopKick use a modified pickup cab in the square body era. Later a modified van cab. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vtfireman85 said:

What separates that from a Kodiak or TopKick ? It almost looks like the same cab, but I would say from the picture that it does have enough cove at the body line below the window. The Kodiak and TopKick use a modified pickup cab in the square body era. Later a modified van cab. 

the kodiak,brigadier,bruin and others used the truck only 9500 cab from 1966. the other lines used the pickup based cab. iI can't remember ever seeing a chevy meduim truck with that cab but back until mid 70s you could get GM trucks in either body style. this was the c 65 or 6500 and c70 / 7500 line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dale560 said:

the kodiak,brigadier,bruin and others used the truck only 9500 cab from 1966. the other lines used the pickup based cab. iI can't remember ever seeing a chevy meduim truck with that cab but back until mid 70s you could get GM trucks in either body style. this was the c 65 or 6500 and c70 / 7500 line.

Our TopKick 7000 uses the modified pickup cab. Doors would interchange, but the floor is different, no transmission tunnel. The C65 we had used the same. 
both have forward hinge hoods

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, vtfireman85 said:

Our TopKick 7000 uses the modified pickup cab. Doors would interchange, but the floor is different, no transmission tunnel. The C65 we had used the same. 
both have forward hinge hoods 

Yep that’s right no tunnel on truck cabs. Here are different pics of the various gm trucks available at same time.

32D5807F-236D-4B18-9C1E-21232BBAEFC1.png

444857CA-F063-4E38-B9FD-12B385AFB2C3.png

B61C3881-96E1-49C1-BAEF-3E449074707D.png

4AA7E2AE-2B22-4B1C-898F-5970E18B6EE3.png

FA88373E-FD94-4D27-A4DB-0F3231A8F8C7.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dale560 said:

Yep that’s right no tunnel on truck cabs. Here are different pics of the various gm trucks available at same time.

32D5807F-236D-4B18-9C1E-21232BBAEFC1.png

444857CA-F063-4E38-B9FD-12B385AFB2C3.png

B61C3881-96E1-49C1-BAEF-3E449074707D.png

4AA7E2AE-2B22-4B1C-898F-5970E18B6EE3.png

FA88373E-FD94-4D27-A4DB-0F3231A8F8C7.png

Those look older than the one in the ad. 
this is a 76’ in white, and an 89’ chassis in red. has deep coves on the doors and cowl skirts. I would have expected a 79 like the ad to have the same cab, but it looks different, maybe even like the ones you posted I think of the ones you posted as 60’s, early 70’s. 

IMG_2734.png

IMG_7254.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vtfireman85 said:

Our TopKick 7000 uses the modified pickup cab. Doors would interchange, but the floor is different, no transmission tunnel. The C65 we had used the same. 
both have forward hinge hoods

I used new pickup doors on my C60. I found a new old stock floor mat on Ebay and found the door sill plates for the earlier PUs, which had essentially flat floors,  were close enough. Door openings slightly smaller so had to be bent a bit.

After market chrome sills rusted out now and the mat is getting tired. Rockers are going but hey, it's a '79.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jeeper61 said:

That 79 Burin has the same door as this truck

And the cab has the same vent on the side of the cowl 

image.png.601c00b97e97a3d3fe4fb5c7bd16de57.png

That is the gm HJ cab. As far as I know it was only used on gm trucks and not Chevy. GM was like Ford back then they had two body styles of medium trucks. I am pretty sure they just doubled in the  , 6000 and 7000 ranges.  The smaller medium duty used pickup cabs and they were available also up to the 6 and seven ranges. The 6 ,7,8,9 ranges used this type cab. In their sometime they quit using numbers and went to names for the big trucks. Ford did the same thing you could get an  f 600,700 or a LN (Louisville)  series 600 700 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MacAR said:

You may have already seen this, but there's an auction in mid Missouri on December 2nd that lists several trucks. It might be worth looking at, and then again the distance might make it not worth it. 

Mac

Can you post or pm me a link to the auction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Found this chart. GVW HP and grade.

According to it on a 5 to 6% slope I'm going to go slow no matter what engine I have in it. Doing the math shows not much difference with a DT466.

A 345 or 392 in a 10 wheeler running 40,000 lbs puts  me in about the same speed as my 9370 pulling 80,000. 

Now if I had the 350 Cummins in a 10 wheeler running 40,000 lbs I could go up a lot faster!

s-l1600 (7).webp

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Acem, my comments probably won't help you but I have drove 3 vintage tandems over the years and the 1st pic is from an old 59 BCF180 model I still own. 345 V-8 but I think it's a 4 barrel Holley carb.  Not as powerful as the 68 Loadstar 1800 with 392 which had good power (truck burnt up- long story). The 78 Loadstar had the next size up for a V8 ( 404?) and the best power (sold it, darn). This engine is the 2nd pic.

BCF180b.jpg

1978IntlLoadstarengine 222a.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2023 at 7:21 PM, dale560 said:

That is the gm HJ cab. As far as I know it was only used on gm trucks and not Chevy. GM was like Ford back then they had two body styles of medium trucks. I am pretty sure they just doubled in the  , 6000 and 7000 ranges.  The smaller medium duty used pickup cabs and they were available also up to the 6 and seven ranges. The 6 ,7,8,9 ranges used this type cab. In their sometime they quit using numbers and went to names for the big trucks. Ford did the same thing you could get an  f 600,700 or a LN (Louisville)  series 600 700 

I do not have pictures of them but my Father in law has many of these old chevy and GMC trucks in use yet. One Long Hood GMC 9000, a Chevy C90 with the HJ Cab, Short hood GMC HJ cab, a 1969~ C60, and late 1970's GMC 7000 with the pickup style cab. I myself have one of those LN700 Fords which is way nicer than working on the F700 fords of that vintage. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, td9bcf180 said:

Well, Acem, my comments probably won't help you but I have drove 3 vintage tandems over the years and the 1st pic is from an old 59 BCF180 model I still own. 345 V-8 but I think it's a 4 barrel Holley carb.  Not as powerful as the 68 Loadstar 1800 with 392 which had good power (truck burnt up- long story). The 78 Loadstar had the next size up for a V8 ( 404?) and the best power (sold it, darn). This engine is the 2nd pic.

BCF180b.jpg

1978IntlLoadstarengine 222a.jpg

How does the 404 compare to the 392?

Power and fuel economy?

They are about the same size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...