Jump to content

zero

Toyota Advanced Member
  • Content count

    6,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zero

  1. zero

    Lake superior

    We go there often. It is "Grand Marais", not "Grand Marias." Easy for me to remember since it is also my last name that also gets spelled wrong a lot. "Big Swamp" in French. We go there for a whitefish get-together every year and we own land not too far away in Paradise. When we go to Grand Marais, we often camp at Blind Sucker campground. We do "photo-ops" by the sign every time we are there. I assume you camped at the Lake Superior campground. Gets pretty crowded there - and as you mentioned . . windy. Blind Sucker is just down the road and one of our favorite places.
  2. zero

    Carlb

    My 17' Glastron with a 105 horse Chrysler outboard, at full throttle - got around 1 gallon per mile as I figure it. We used to camp on an Adirondack Island for a week at a time. Boat access only. 6 miles round trip. One day my son wanted me to do the entire trip full throttle. So, we did and my tanks are 6 gallons each. One round trip started with a full tank and we got back with a near-empty tank. I replaced the engine with a 60s era 55 horse 4-stroke-cycle engine and get MUCH better fuel mileage. Pretty neat outboard, based on the old Crosley car engine tipped sideways.
  3. zero

    Carlb

    I know a guy in the Michigan UP that has four Toyota micro-minis. A Sunrader, two Dolphins, and a Winnebago. All 20-21 footers and all four-cylinder. He claims his Winnebago, 22RE and auto trans, does much better then the rest for fuel mileage but never gave me any real figures. He thinks it is more aerodynamic. Maybe it is? There very well indeed may be anomalies out there. My problem is - whenever I've heard of one close enough for me to check out - the claims were never true. Not even once. I'm not talking about just Toyota RVs. I'm talking diesel pickups, my dad's 1972 Buick Skylark, etc. My dad claimed 20 MPG with a 350 V8 and he was not a liar. I got the car when he died and drove for awhile. It got around 11-12 MPG at best. In that case, I'm sure - due to that Buick's huge gas tank, and the fact that all his suburban trips were maybe a mile apart - a tank lasted a long time. That long-time frame likely gave my dad the "feeling" of getting 20 MPG. I am NOT saying that is your case. I am simply saying - that after 50 years of hearing fuel-mileage claims that did not pan out - I tend to believe things when I actually witness them. Or, read them in a controlled test. I will also note that I bragged up my 1992 Dodge diesel truck for years because it could get 21 MPG on the highway if I kept it at 60 MPH or less. That for a 4WD, extended-cab truck with a long-bed. THEN - I discovered with a GPS that my speedometer and odometer were both off by quite a bit. I found out that the little speedometer transmission used by Dodge caused the "pleasant" error. I got the correct ratio gearbox made, put it in, and my fuel mileage dropped to 18.5 MPG. Kind of depressing. I felt like I ruined the truck. I will note that the absolute highest fuel-mileage test I have ever read (for a "full-size" Toyota RV) was with a 1986 Winnebago 19 footer. I will also note that weight has very little effect on fuel-mileage if checking long-trip highway mileage. This road-test done by Motorhome Magazine was done in 1986. They tested a new Winnebago 319RB with a 22RE and auto trans. Also stated to have a 3.9 to 1 rear instead of the usual 4.1 to 1. A steady trip, altitude of 900 feet, flat highway, temp of 75 degrees F, and max speed of 55 MPH yielded 18.5 with overdrive "on", and 19.5 MPG with overdrive "off." Weight of the RV with no passengers or cargo was 4860 lbs. This report on a 1984 Mirage is NOT from a magazine but is well written. - 1984 Mirage - Purchase Price $12,255 new in September 1983 - Dimensions 17.5' long, 8.5' tall, 7'-8" wide (at rear) - weight 3600 pounds empty - 1983 Toyota C&C chassis (no a/c, no power steering) - Engine 2.4L-L4 w/carburetor, rated 96hp with California emissions - Transmission 4 speed stick shift - Fuel economy 20.1 mpg averaged over an entire 3 week trip with two adults. - Sold in May 2007 for $7,600 with 107,000 miles To average 20 mpg on trips we had to limit top speed to 57 mph. Going 65-70 mph didn't buy us any time because of stopping more often for gas. At higher cruising speeds it would get under 15 mpg. And with such a small fuel tank, we had to stop every 3 hours or run the risk of running out of gas.
  4. zero

    Carlb

    There were many controlled fuel-mileage road-tests done by various camper and RV magazines. Just about all show figures around 13-15 MPG for a 20-21 footer with an automatic trans and 2.4 engine. A few with standard shift up in the 16-18 MPG range and all those tests were at 55-60 MPH. My point being that if anyone is actually getting (not just reporting) a highway average of 17-18 MPG with a non-lockup automatic trans, it is an anomaly. Certainly not the norm.
  5. zero

    Carlb

    Are you talking about just Toyota-based micro-mini motorhomes - or any motorome that is small (under 7000 GVWR) and has 14-20 MPG potential? Toyotas in the USA ceased in the USA around 1994 when Toyota stopped selling the Hilux truck in the USA. After that - there are other small RVs of similar size and fuel-mileage potential. French based Winnebago LeSharo, Phasar, and Centuri. VW based Winnebago Rialta. Chevy Astrovan-based Allegro, Establishment-Aerolite or Provan. Probably the most common of the newest ones are the VW-based Rialtas and they are NOT cheap. Note I did not count the newest Sprinter-van-based RVs or the Ford Transist-van-based RVs simply because they cost so much and are fairly new. Here's a article published in 1979 that discusses the many small micro-minis at that time. I think it is fair to say that the class-C micro-mini was started by the alliance between Toyota and Chinook in 1972 with their "Round Tripper." At least if not the first, it was the first time an auto-company struck a deal and had input in a small motorhome design for sale in the USA. Round trippers and Chinooks had tops that folded down that made them pretty fuel efficient and are one of the few Toyota motorhomes rated for trailer-towing. They were made up through 1979. Here's a list of Toyota micro-minis I know of. Belair, Blue Marlin, Bonanza Travelers, Cal Camper, Chinook, Coachman, Cobra-Daytona, Conquest, Dolphin, Durango, Encore, Enterprise, Escaper, Granville, GULF STREAM, Heritage, Huntsman, Itasca, Keystone, Little Chief, Little Gypsy, Mirage, MRV, Muskeet, New Horizon, New World, Odyssey , Okanagan, , Perris Valley, Pilgrim, Pontex, R.B.R., Roll-A-Long, Royal Hawaiian , Sand Pak , Sandtana, Seabreeze, Shasta , Sterner , Sunland, Sun Line, Sunrader, Travelmaster, Travette, TRT, Vader, and Winnebago
  6. Some say altruism is a paradox. At least one philosophy prof. I know. He says if you know you are being altruistic, then you are being self-serving, to make yourself feel better. So according to that "logic", I guess a person cannot win. Screwed if you do, and screwed if you don't.
  7. Those Hengs vents warn they are not correct for OEM replacements. A little too small. If it was mine - I'd just make an adapter plate. A cheap way is to just cut one out of a flat galvanized sheet metal (any heating supply sells square sheets). Cut it out with a hand-held circular saw and a metal-cutting blade, like a Diablo. Or, if there is room - just cut the hole out a bit and put in a 26" square vent.
  8. I originally came here looking for some first-hand, hopefully accurate into, on Toyota RVs. That was back when I'd never owned one yet. Also after hearing all the plus-20 MPG myths for years. I had gone from Chevy camper van, to a K5 Chalet camper van, to a small Champion Class A, to some smaller rigs. Small "foreign" vehicles has fascinated me since the late 50s when they were not "cool." That includes mini-trucks, cars, and RVs. I have worked my entire adult life as either a mechanic, electrician, builder, and records-researcher. The latter after I broke my neck and could not do much hard physical work for a few years. My point being I am technical minded and that often causes arguments in certain forums. I will note that I moderate two forums (high tech) and my experience is - in higher-tech forums - hard feelings are arguments are rare. People post facts back forth and back them up best then can. The get called on them; some are shown to be wrong, but arguments are rare. I find that is NOT the case with forums that are less tech-orientated like this one. That is not a complaint. Just one person's observation and take on things.
  9. Nothing witty here. Just kind of interesting "chronicles" of two peoples's attempts to use some 1600 watt generators with roof-top AC units. One with Champion, and the other with Honda.
  10. zero

    And on and on and on...

    I'm curious to see how you do with fuel mileage and engine cooling. I had a Chevy K5 Blazer with a Chalet (Chinook) motorhome body with a pop-up roof. The original 350 gas engine ran fine but got around 9 MPG. Sometimes I could stretch it to 10 MPG. Note that was with a TH350 trans (no lockup, no overdrive), but had a low 3.08 axle-ratio. I then stuck in a 379 turbo-diesel along with a 700R4 (lock-up converter and OD), along with 3.73 axles. I had high hopes of getting 20 MPG but my absolute best was 15 MPG, and 13-14 MPG was more common. It weighed around 5500 lbs.
  11. zero

    Saw this parked

    Kind of dry reading - but here is an article on micro-mini overloading where the president of Dolphin chimes in. I did not go back and read it all and I'm not sure if this is the one where Mr. Mertes of Dolphin mentions the tag-axle. I get a kick out of the comment about the "fools hanging motorcycles on the back and towing boats" with their Toyota RVs. 1985 Trailer Life magazine Besides the four-page article, I also included a few "mini" camper ads from the same magazine.
  12. zero

    Saw this parked

    The president of Dolphin was interviewed and was asked about the models with tag axles, just when Dolphin was ceasing production. He said that the company that was providing Dolphin with those tax-axles had cut their weight-rating in half. With the lowered rating, and all the added weight of the tax-axle itself - there was very little net-gain in useful GVWR so Dolphin dropped it. So, true or not - that is the word straight from "the horse's mouth."
  13. zero

    Getting ready to sell our toy!

    My F250 diesel developed a sort of odd vibration when I downshifted under load and then started kind of making a "hum" when the engine was idling in neutral. Drove it that way for quite awhile and then - it just stopped when pulling away from a stop-sign. Just like it had popped into neutral. At first I thought the driveshaft fell off - or transfercase was in neutral - so I stuck it into 4WD and still no go. No noise, no leaks, just no go. Towed it home and stuck gauges in the trans and all pressures were perfect. Finally pulled it all apart and I found a solid-steel shaft inside the transmission that had literally just snapped into two pieces. All I can figure is - it had stress cracks for a long time and started to oscillate and finally just let go. Kind of strange. Now? $2000 in HD parts later and I have a new problem that I guess I am going to learn to live with. Once in awhile - only when the truck is first started in the morning and maybe driven less then a mile - I come to a red light or stop sign and NO stop; That is - the torque-converter stays locked. It shook me up the first time it happened. Truck was cold enough the engine was at fast-idle and even with me standing on the brake pedal - it almost pushed me through a red-light until I just turned the key off. When I restarted it was fine. Still does it once in awhile but now I am ready to just shift to neutral if it sticks. Note it has a brand new OEM solenoid pack, along with a new torque-converter, so who the heck knows? Here are some photos of the shaft that broke.
  14. zero

    Getting ready to sell our toy!

    Have you ever check MPGs on an empty highway cruise? Just curious. I've been driving and working on Ford-Internation Harvester diesels since they came out. It is very difficult to get a concept of actual fuel mileage because so many people fantasize over their figures. Your's sound close to my actual experience. My first was a 1983 F250 with a 6.9 IDI diesel (same basic engine as the 7.3). C6 trans, 4WD, extended cab, longbed, and 4.10 axles. Got 9-11 MPG no matter what I did or how I drove. This while others were claiming up to 30 MPG. Next was my 1994 F250 with a 7.3 IDI turbo-diesel, extended cab, 4WD, long-bed, E40D trans, and 4.10 axles. 17 MPG empty at 60 MPH in New York. 18 MPG in Michigan (flatter and lower altitude). Note that Motor Trend tested a new at the time 2009 F250, 4WD, with the 6.4 twin-turbo diesel. 4 door, short box, and 3.73 axles. It got a highway average when empty of 12.7 MPG at 60-65 MPH. They then hooked a boat to it with a total weight (truck, boat and trailer) of 14,000 lbs. Got highway average @ 60-65 of 11.7 MPG. Going by what the 2009 6.4 tested at, you are doing pretty good. I find accurate MPG figures rare enough with lighter rigs that the EPA also rates. Much harder to find on heavier trucks that are exempt from EPA testing. Here are some figures from my 7.3 indirect-injected, turbo. 4WD, longbed, extended cab, auto trans with OD and lockup, 4.10 axles, gooseneck 1200 mile trip in Canada with a heavily loaded, high-roof slide-on camper - 12.4 MPG and 60-65 MPH most of the time 1400 mile trip pulling an empty flatbed equipment trailer that weighs 4200 lbs. - 13.1 MPG 1600 mile trip with same trailer and a Kia Sportage 4WD on it - 12.4 MPG average for the trip 1400 mile trip with an overloaded U-Haul box-trailer, 6' X 12' - 12.8 MPG
  15. zero

    Rear brakes sticking

    I likely have the same Raybestos picture book. NAPA used to print them out every year for dealers. I have stacks of them and that's what I'm going by with my comments. I went back as far as 1955 for all Ford trucks and 11" is the smallest I found for a F100. F250 is 12", etc. Ford Ranger is the only one I see with 10" brakes but maybe I'm missing something. My oldest book goes back to 1939. A 1939 Ford F1 truck uses Raybestos 228PG shoes in front (11" X 2") and Raybestos 55PG in back (11" X 1.75"). Ford DID use some 10" brakes in 1/2 ton vans. Pretty much the same brakes as were used in 60s Ford Mustangs. 10" X 1 3/4". Toyota is 10" X 2 3/16" so maybe they could be made to fit, but with less surface area.
  16. zero

    Rear brakes sticking

    I don't think any Ford full-size truck ever used 10" brakes like the Toyota dually. None that I can think of. Ford F100 was 11" and up. Ford Ranger did have 10" brakes but much narrower then the Toyota brakes shoes. So I assume Ranger shoes might be made to fit but not have the proper surface area. Note that the same brake shoes for a Toyota dually are also used on some Volkswagen busses. The air-cooled ones from the 60s and 70s. The VW part # even crosses over to a Toyota #. Also on a Nissan D21 truck, and also on a mid-80s Merkur car. Also -on the subject of Ford, the brake shoes used in a 60s Mustang are very close in size.
  17. zero

    Rear brakes sticking

    There HAS to be. If the rear-axle moves up and down, something has to flex.
  18. zero

    Rear brakes sticking

    My 1995 Chevy Astrovan did the same thing. I worked over 40 years as a mechanic and it was the first time I saw such a thing happen. Flexible rubber hoses to both front brake calipers got deteriorated internally so they acted like one-way check-valves.
  19. zero

    Rear brakes sticking

    04495-35100 changed to 04495-35180 , 04495-35141 and 04495-35100, numbers you linked to for four cylinder and V6 Toyota trucks, all cross to the same thing on the global parts interchange (global meaning parts numbers all over the world, not just USA). Used 1985-2001 in Dyna 150, Toyota HiAce and Toyota HiLux Surf and pickup 127 mm (5") radius, 56 mm (2.2") wide, 6 mm thick. Crosses with Toyota #s 04495-2602004495-35141, 04495-35180, 04497-26020, 04497-26030, 04497-35041, 04497-35070 04495-35071, 04495-35080, 04495-35081, 04495-35090, 04495-35100, 04495-35101, 04495-35120, 04495-35121, 04495-35122, 04495-35140, , 04495-26021, 04495-26040, 04495-26150, 04495-35031, 04495-35041, 04495-35050, 04495-35051, 04495-35052
  20. zero

    Rear brakes sticking

    I put new brakes in my 1988 with the factory installed dually and a 22RE. Also put brakes in the rear of a 1987 dually box-truck. Also put brakes in the rear of a U-Haul V6 box truck. Parts were the same for all three. My comments about the "3W" were for a 1987 with a 22RE. I also included later model codes for V6 trucks that do not have "3W." The point is not the "3W" for all trucks. Just about using the model code, whatever it is IF available. I have not found variations in brake parts for any of the full-floating dually rears, regardless of year or engine in the OEM truck it came from (if not just an update that was stand-alone).
  21. zero

    Getting ready to sell our toy!

    Even with no trailer in back, fuel is still often an "adventure." At least where I go in the Michigan UP. Hard to find diesel to start with, and when I do - pretty hard to tell if it's a big-rig pump or an automotive pump. My Dodge can handle fuel from a big-rig pump, but my Ford cannot.
  22. zero

    Rear brakes sticking

    If I open the hood on my 1988, the tag is on the upper part of the firewall, facing me - on a metal tag. Here is what my 88 tag looks like;
  23. zero

    Rear brakes sticking

    Some parts examples for a 1987 model code 3W at the end, with dual rear wheels..
  24. zero

    Rear brakes sticking

    The model code, not the VIN is the sole determining factor to get correct parts. Not always used by parts databases though. Some Toyota databases will start with a VIN and then narrow things down with the model code. You have a HD cab & chassis DLX truck with a model code that ends in "3W." It gets confusing since parts databases do not use one agreed to standard to show the correct truck chassis. I don't know what your model code is for your 1987. Might be the same for an 88, but you'll have to look at your own code-tag. Here are some examples of the other years. A 1978 Toyota motorhome uses a RN28L-KRA3(W) cab & chassis. A 1983 motorhome uses a RN44L KRA 3W or a RN44 KDA 3W. A 1985 uses a RN55L-KREA 3W or a RN55L-KDEA 3W. A 1988 uses a RN55L-KREA3W or RN55L-KRTEA3W or RN75L-KRTEA3W or RN55L-SRA3W or RN55L-SRTEA3W or RN75L,-PDTEA3W A 1990 uses a VZN85L-TRSREA6 or VZN85L-TWSREA6 or VZN95L-TWSREA6 or VZN85L-TRMREA6 or VZN85L-TWMREA6 or VZN95L-TWMREA6
×