Jump to content

zero

Toyota Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    6,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zero

  1. Must be add-on dually kit. I have no idea where the 3.5 liter V6 claim comes from.
  2. Nice upgrade with the 5 speed trans too.
  3. This thing is SO bad, even I did not buy it. I WAS going to buy it and scrap it. Decided too much work for too little gain. Nothing much work taking except maybe the 20R engine and some door hardware. I've never seen a RBR Mark 5 before. Probably a cute little rig at one time. 1979 motorhome on a 1978 truck. Nice day to be in a country junkyard though. Had a whole bunch of sandhill cranes watching me.
  4. zero

    REAL bad RBR Mark 5 from 1979

    How are your crank-up door motors Fred? I come across quite a few people with old Toyotas with windows that won't roll up. Both of mine were bad on my 78 when I got it. I am tempted to go back and maybe buy both doors for parts, the dash, carburetor, and the distributor. 1978 is the first year for breakerless ignition and I don't mind having spares if cheap. I just stripped a 1977 Chinook and that had points. The engine supposedly ran fine when this thing came into the yard 16 years ago. I'd be tempted to salvage it but I already have three spare 20Rs that I will likely never have a use for.
  5. zero

    Dometic generator DMC-45 need part

    I worked on one Dometic RV generator and that had a very common Tecumseh engine. If that is what you have, parts should be easy to get unless Dometic made a few changes. Post a photo of what you need. I might even have in some of my old Tecumseh/Lauson/Power Products parts.
  6. Looks like one heck of a deal for someone who wants a V6. If it was a few hundred miles closer, I'd buy it just to resell it. NOT a scam. I spoke to the sellers. Pretty low price unless I am missing something here.
  7. The 3.9 in the Dodge van I had was the same as used in the Dakota. I always heard they were gas-hogs but never owned one. The van was a conversion but with a standard roof (not raised). Also did not have a full-floating rear although it was 3/4 ton. Only had 15" tires too. It showed up here in Michigan from Texas and had zero rust. I bought it thinking of making a camper out of it. But after several "test" runs on a flat highway at 55 MPH and only getting 18 MPG, I gave up on the idea. Note the van was empty too. I took the electric bed out of the back and it had no cargo in it. Nice running rig and kind of drove like a 318. I was hoping for at least the same MPGs as my Dodge Grand Caravan AWD. but nope. So, I sold it. "Still better then my 1979 Chevy van with a 350 that was only a 1/2 ton rig and never got better then 11 MPG.
  8. Back in the early 70s when pickup truck was not as common as today - Hertz Ford pickups had 300 sixes. I rented them often and they were assume. 2WD, standard cab and lots of power (on a relative scale). Seemed to have much more snot that Chevys HD 292 straight-six. If you want to compare a 6000 lb. Ford pickup with a 6000 lb. Toyota RV, I think that Ford needs to have a 4.1 to 1 rear-axle ratio and that is unlikely. Mine has a 3.33 axle-ratio. I have no idea why the 4.3 GM does so well in some RVs. I drove a 1995 AWD Astrovan for years with a Vortec 4.3 and absolute best highway mileage was 18 MPG. Granted, that was at 65 MPH. I also just sold a 1995 Dodge 3/4 ton van with a 3.9 V6. That was only 2WD and absolute best mileage was 18 MPG (kind of disappointing). Many Winnebago Lesharos and Phasars have been converted to Buick 3.8s or Dodge 3.8s. Reports are they get 15 MPG on the highway as opposed to the 14 MPG they originally got with 2.2 liter gas engines. They weigh around 6000 lbs. and have roofs as high as many Winnebagos. Single 14" tires in back though. I love the Dodge/Chrysler 3.8 V6. My 1998 Dodge AWD Grand Caravan has 300,000 miles and runs like new. Does not burn a drop of oil and never had any major repairs. Gets 21-22 MPG with a full load and feels like it has all the power my Chevy Astrovan AWD did with the 4.3. It might just be because it is more aerodynamic.
  9. One other thing I didn't see mentioned. Automatic trans needs 7-9 horsepower to run (that's loss). I suspect there are more 2.4s around with manual trans then 3 liter V6s. Another factor when comparing.
  10. Torque is twisting force. I.e. it the rotational twisting power of the engine's flywheel to send power to the drive-wheels. Torque is what keeps you going at a certain speed without fighting the gas pedal. Horsepower is a number made from torque and math. I can't speak from your experience, but I also don't get it. I still own a 1995 Ford F150 with the 300 cubic-inch straight six. I also used to have the older 240 cubic inch version in my 1966 F100. I also had a 1995 Toyota pickup for a long time with a 2.4 engine. I suspect when it comes to hill-climbing, the 1995 F150 4WD I have right now would beat that 2WD Toyota I had. A typical 80s-90s Ford F150 with 2WD weighs around 4500 lbs. and has 265 pound-feet of max torque at a low 2000 RPM. A typical 80s-90s Toyota 2WD truck weighs around 2800 lbs. and has 140 pound-feet of max torque at 3600 RPM. So the Ford has 16.9 lbs. of truck per 1 pound-foot of torque. The Toyota has 20 lbs. of truck per 1 pound-foot of torque. I think you are kind of comparing "apples to oranges." I Toyota truck with a Ford 300 six would go like h*ll.
  11. zero

    Small inverter *&^%$#

    Ever seen an inverter built into the dashboard OEM of a car? I just drive older rigs, but this is news to me. No fan either! Built into the dashboard of my 2004 Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe I just got.
  12. Made a type. Obviously, the 3 liter @ 2500 RPM makes 6 pound-feet more torque. At 3000 RPM, the 2.4 beats the 3 in torque.
  13. Here is a dyno comparison of the 2.4 to the 3 liter when running at 2500 RPM which I think is a pretty normal engine speed for general driving. 2.4 makes more torque at lower RPMs. 2.4 four- makes 54 horsepower and 102 pound-feet of torque @ 2500 RPM. 3 liter V6 - makes 66 horsepower and 108 pound-feet of torque @ 2500 RPM (less then the 22RE). 2.4 four- makes 65 horsepower and 115 pound-feet of torque @ 3000 RPM. 3 liter V6 - makes 82 horsepower and 112 pound-feet of torque @ 3000 RPM (less then the 22RE). 2.4 four- makes 72 horsepower and 115 pound-feet of torque @ 3200 RPM. 3 liter V6 - makes 90 horsepower and 118 pound-feet of torque @ 3200 RPM
  14. I think what counts is actual road-tests and not max power stats from running on Dynos. That being said, dyno tests show this: 1988 - 22RE made 114 max HP @ 4800 RPM, and 140 lbs. max TQ @ 3600 RPM. 1988 3VZ made 145 max HP @ 4800 RPM and 180 lbs. max TQ @ 3400 RPM. That HP means little to me. That extra 40 lbs. of torque at a slightly lower RPM likely makes a nice difference though. What I do NOT know is how they compare in "normal" driving when the engine is only running around 2400-2600 RPM. I suspect, or hope, not many here drive their RVs around at over 4000 RPM.
  15. I agree that the 3 liter, generally speaking, is not as well designed nor as durable as a 20R or 22R or 22RE. The 3 liter has a timing belt to deal with, a poorly engineering valve-train, and a history of head-gasket problems from them moving too much. I don't want an engine that needs lubricated head-gaskets because of excessive movement. 3 liter Toyota and 2.5 liter Subarus are known for that problem. That all said - the Toyota four-cylinder engines certainly were durable when compared to other engines of the time. But now? Plenty of other makes of small engines just as good or better. Some are lower-tech also. I find it kind of frustrating that a 4.3 liter GM V6 often gets better fuel-mileage then a Toyota four-banger pulling the same weight and pushing against the same wind resistance. Yet, the 4.3 is pretty much based on a engine that came out in 1955.
  16. Here are some more road tests. Note how the heavier Chevy with the biggest engine beats them all in speed and fuel mileage. Pop-up roof I suspect helps a lot. Good old fashioned pushrod engine too. 1979 19’ Odyssey on Toyota. 2.2 engine and four speed manual . Weight 4770 lbs. 7' 6"high. 0-60 MPH = 32 seconds. 40-60 MPH = 19 seconds. 1978 Trotwood, Toyota . 2.2 engine and four speed manual, 3470 lbs, 0-30 MPH – 5.5 seconds, 0-60 MPH – 21 seconds, 40-60 MPH – 12 seconds. 1978 Galavan 400 on Datsun chassis. 2.2 engine, 4 speed manual trans. Weight – 3730 lbs. 0-30 MPH – 5.7 seconds, 0-60 MPH – 20.5 seconds, 40-60 MPH – 11.5 seconds. 1978 Galavan 400 ,Toyota chassis. 2.2 engine and four speed manual 16’ long, weight– 4000 lbs. 6' 8" high. 0-30 MPH – 5.7 seconds, 0-60 MPH – 20.5 seconds, 40-60 MPH – 11.5 seconds 1977 Dolphin RV on Toyota chassis. 16’4” long. 4 speed manual trans. 2.2 engine and four speed manual. 4000 lbs. 8’4” high 0-60 MPH = 37 seconds, 40-60 MPH = 19 seconds 1979 Sand Pak, Toyota chassis. 2.2 engine and four speed manual. 9' high. 4500 lbs. 0-60 MPH=32 seconds, 40-60 MPH=18 seconds 1990 Provan Tiger, 4.3 V6, auto trans. Pop-up roof. 6' 10" high. Weight = 5400 lbs. Aver. fuel-mileage @ 60 MPH - 15.8 MPG 0-60 MPH=15.1 seconds, 40-60 MPH=8.6 seconds
  17. Not the ones with pop-up roofs like the Chinooks.
  18. Many old cars had remote mixture and remote timing adjustment (20s-30s). From the tests I've read - fuel injection that is computer controlled keeps the air-fuel ratio correct when altitude changes, but does not offset the loss of power. All engines, regardless if carbed or electronically injected - lose 3% power for ever 1000 feet of altitude unless they are supercharged. With a mechanical or exhaust-driven supercharger, the loss is only 1%. It is the reason why many early turbochargers were sold as "altitude compensators." I saw a recent test on a new 306 horsepower 3.5 liter Toyota car that made 306 HP at sea-level. It dropped 245 HP at 6700 feet, and dropped to 215 HP at 9900 feet. That engine has variable valve timing, electronic direct injection, a very high 10.5 to 1 compression ratio, etc. and still had all that power loss.
  19. I drove a 1981 diesel Chevy Chevette with a 1.8 liter for years (just got rid of it last year). Also a 1991 VW Jetta 1.6 liter diesel. Neither had turbos. I still have my 1985 Isuzu 2.2 diesel mini-truck with 4WD also with no turbo. Your Mercedes is a rocket-ship compared to some of the diesels I've had. But when comparing one turbo-diesel to another, it is amazing how different then can be. My 1992 5.9 liter turbo-intercooled Cummins has much more power then my 1994 7.3 liter turbo diesel Ford and the 5.9 gets better fuel mileage too. Even odder - the Dodge has 3.50 axle whereas the Ford has 4.10 axles - yet the Dodge pulls much better with a load.
  20. I love the Chinook and it is fun to drive and has plenty of power (as compared to the Minicruiser). It can also get 22 MPG. But . . having a bathroom with us with the Minicruiser is a huge asset. I kind of like the power steering too. Using the Chinook makes us feel like a bunch of hippies "roughing it" in our VW van, on the way to Woodstock. Using the Minicruiser makes us feel like we have a small, comfortable home with us. We are planning on driving out to the southwest next year from Michigan and I still haven't decided which one we are going to drive. In the mean time (this winter) I'm thinking of finding a way to build a small bathroom in the Chinook. We'll see. If I could find a way to get 18 MPG with the Minicruiser and do 65 MPH with it - it would be my #1 choice. I don't think that is possible however, unless I stick a turbo-diesel into it.
  21. Here is a comparison of the 3 liter V6, 21 foot Winnebago - compared to a 17 foot Dolphin with a 2.2 liter four-cylinder Dolphin 2.2 liter straigh 4 - 0-60 MPH in 37 seconds. 40-60 MPH in 19 seconds. Fuel economy average - 15.1 MPG Winnebago 3 liter V6 - 0-60 MPH in 23.3 seconds. 40-60 MPH in 13.1 seconds. Fuel economy average - 12.7 MPG
  22. Trailer Life magazine did a road-test on a new 1990 Winnebago 21 footer with the 3 liter V6. Fuel mileage for a near 4000 mile trip no faster then 60 MPH came up with 12.7 MPG average. Had the highest tankful with 15 MPG and the lowest tankful at 10.6 MPG. The driver said when climbing a 6% grade - it could just maintain 50 MPH at a 4000 foot altitude. On flat ground - 0-60 MPH in 23.3 seconds. 40-60 MPH in 13.1 seconds. The driver also noted that at 55-60 MPH on a flat-highway it seemed to cruise well. But at 65 MPH he said the pedal was pushed near to the floor all the time.
  23. zero

    Small inverter *&^%$#

    Not possible in my case. I never park/camp for more then one night at a time and then drive with lots of charge going on. Once home, my Toyota RV is plugged into a 10 amp dual-output battery maintainer. So even if the inverter was left on - it would not matter. Never going to happen though. It has a pretty bright light that comes on when "on." Hard not to notice.
  24. zero

    Door lock for the camper door

    OK, I found the info on my old computer. The OEM Keeler lock used on Toyota Chinooks was first replaced with a Bargman L300, by Airstream. Those kits are no longer available - except used on Ebay or maybe old-stock somewhere. The Bargman L300 then got replaced with a Trimark # 33677-01-K and THAT is still available new. I suggest you hunt up a new Trimark on Ebay. I got one new for $30 a while back.
  25. zero

    Door lock for the camper door

    The original lock-set is a Keeler and the same exact lock assembly was also used in 1977-78 Airstreams. Airstream sells an adapter kit to retrofit a newer type lock that works fine in a Chinook. I posed the info and Airstream part #s here before. I can't recall where they are on my own hard-drive right now.
×