Jump to content

zero

Toyota Advanced Member
  • Posts

    6,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by zero

  1. I realize this is kind of esoteric and only of interest to 70s truck owners.  But - I just discovered something kind of neat.

    When I did my first 5 speed swap into a 1978 Toyota Chinook, I did what I thought was logical.  I used what Toyota used OEM at that time.  That means a W50 Aisin  five-speed.  This is almost a bolt-in swap.  It requires moving the hole in the floor 3" back for the shifter.  It also requires some mods to the rear-trans-cross-member to fit the 5 speed rear-mount, OR just use an OEM cross-member from a truck that had a 5 speed OEM.  One slight drawback to the swap.  The W50 has a higher 1st gear then the original 4 speed so it will be a little harder starting in 1st unless you also happen to change the rear-axle ratio.

    Note that before I did my first swap, I checked a chart at Marlin Crawler who many regard as the "go to place" for Toyota truck info and performance.  Marlin's chart says no other 5 speed trans will fit the older trucks because it requires a shorter transmission then most newer ones use.  

    Now - to my surprise.  I recently picked up a 1988 Toyota truck trans, Aisin model G54.  Marlin says it is too long to fit into a 1978 truck.  Marlin says the 1978 trans is 20.8" and the 1988 trans I have is 25.5" long.  Well, guess what? I just found out, by accident, that the 1988 trans is NOT longer and is actually a better fit into a 1978 truck then the original 5 speed is.  Not only is the G54 exactly the same length as the original four speed, it also has the shifter in the same place.  So, no mods at all if you get a 1978 cross-member for a 5 speed.  Even better, the G54 has a nice low 1st gear. Even lower then the original 4 speed has. Had I known this, I'd never bothered with a W50.  So much for trusting info on Net; even from places like Marlin Crawler.

    One added comment.  Somebody recently claimed they could not swap cross-members on their Toyota Chinooks because they were welded in. I just finished a 1978 for a friend.  The cross-member was bolted in with his four-speed. I got a cross-member for a 1978 five-speed truck shipped to me for $55 total.  All went in just fine.

  2. Tire-chains here in northern Michigan are illegal on a public highway.  That surprised me after using chains for many years in New York.  Some roads in New York require them after a certain date.  To be technical, tire-chains are allowed in Michigan as long as no part of any of the chains ever touches the roadway.  So - it seems that if there was a solid layer of ice everywhere you drove and no part of any chain ever touched the road-surface - you'd be okay.  Here is my old turbo-diesel 4WD RV that I guess would get me arrested in Michigan.

    100_1247.jpg

  3. Hopefully if you have any left-hand studs they are marked with an "L" in the middle.  All mine were on my 1969 Dodge.  I say "were" because I changed them to RH threaded studs and nuts.

    Note that if you have a 1985, it likely did not come new with the FF dually. It was added later.   So your rear axle might be newer then your model year.

  4. I want to know why some Tuffy devotees call it the Tuffy setup when many of these little Toyota motorhomes came brand new with single super-wide L60-14" Firestones on the back, along with Gabriel Hijacker air-shocks.  But in your case Derek - perhaps you are being droll.

  5. Nice looking rig. I had a friend who had one like that with a 318 V8. In Florida, on flat highways - it got 12 MPG @ 70 MPH, 13 MPG @ 60 MPH, and 16 MPG @ 50 MPH according to his reports.  Not sure I believe them but if true, not much different then many Toyotas.  I would love to build one like your's but based on a 1st gen 5.9 Cummins diesel with a 5 speed manual trans. 

  6. 21 hours ago, Donnie said:

    Hello team, I'm just wondering if anyone has any concerns about their deep cycle battery getting blasted with too many amps after boondocking for 3 or 4 days & running it down to the limit.

    Then starting the engine & heading for home..  I haven't clamped a meter on it yet as the thought just occurred to me.. So I thought I'd get some opinions.

    I'm not sure if the isolator has the ability to control what the regulator is telling the alternator to produce.. I'm running a diode style & not a solenoid type...& as you know they are potted & I'm  not able to get inside..   I haven't decided if the voltage regulator is reading the truck battery or the coach battery.............I'll drag out the meter when it stops raining & start checking

    Anyone with this concern or any ideas on this matter............ I'd like your opinion............  TIA,   donnie

    I don't think it is possible to overcharge with an automotive alternator.  Cell voltage for your deep-cycle battery is not supposed to exceed 2.45 volts per cell when doing a rapid charge.  That comes to 14.7 volts. I doubt the regulator in your alternator ever exceeds 14.2 volts.  Main complaint with auto-alternators and large deep-cycle batteries is they get slightly undercharged, not overcharged.

    As far as your isolator and how it actually works?  I have to admit ignorance here.   The internally regulated Nippo alternator on Toyotas often uses a "remote voltage sensing" wire.  That is supposed to get hooked to the 4th terminal on the isolator called the "exciter" terminal. I know for a fact that it does not "excite" anything with the usual-tech meaning of the word.  So what the heck does it do?  As I said, I do not really know.   I mention this since I wonder if the 4th terminal allows the alternator to sense charge-voltage at the output of the isolator and therefore, compensate for the .7 voltage drop.  Easy to verify with a voltmeter.

  7. The floor looks surprisingly flat.   Most Chinooks I've see up close has some pretty bad floor "slump" towards the sides where the frame supports are. Not an easy fix.  Chinook floor is made of honeycomb Vericell.

    5 lug semi-floating rear is more then enough for a stock Chinook. Main thing to check is the condition of the rear wheel bearings.  They are just sealed single ball-bearings that get no outside lube from anywhere.

    I've got a 6 lug full-floater in my 1978 Chinook, but it certainly did not need it.  I just happened to have had an extra FF rear and figured I stick it in and get the benefit of the extra stability of four wheels and the rear stablizer bar.  Nice to have but not sure I'd ever go through that amount of work again on something as light as a Chinook.

    So it seems your floor is flat.   How about your roof?  They tend to get pretty bad too.  Especially if they've been parked somewhere where snow sits on the roof.

  8. If the old isolator you are replacing a three-terminal or a four-terminal like the new one? It makes a difference.  You only have three wires in the photo that go anywhere.  That has me thinking you only had a three-terminal isolator and are trying to replace with a four-terminal. If so, you have to add an 4th wire that gets energized when the ignition is on.

  9. Looks really good Fred.  That's the way I did mine (with seven leafs).  Or is it "leaves?"    Toyota trucks use an odd-ball leaf width and there is not much around to use to beef them up.  Getting new spring-stacks and then  adding pre-arched Toyota leafs is the way to go.

    Mine is dirtier but looks pretty much the same as your's.  Look at the stack that was on the 1987 box truck I scrapped.

    100_0930.jpg

    DSCF5078.JPG

    springs on 87 dually toyota_2.jpg

  10. For sale near where my son lives in Colorado. If it was $5000, I'd own it already.  Price is a little steep for me. Neat rig though.  Had more "get up and go" then any of our Toyota motorhomes and somewhat better fuel mileage too (according to published road-tests).

    Image8.jpg

    00F0F_7LT7IYll8mK_1200x900.jpg

    00h0h_5PvRGdGY3Tv_1200x900.jpg

    00N0N_8puT3k6BUM6_1200x900.jpg

    00O0O_2yzVm5PPnTC_1200x900.jpg

    00P0P_aBjSjmLfsKa_1200x900.jpg

  11. No "challenge" here.  Just reporting my first Harbor Freight generator problem.  Not an inverter generator, either.  We had to take a trip down "south" to Traverse City, Michigan.  They have a real, walk-in Harbor Freight store there.  THAT is a big deal to me since it is the such only store I've ever seen.  They had their Predator 8750 watt (surge) genset for sale for $530.   Looks like a great bargain to me.   It is heavy!  Anyway, got it home.  Decided to run it for half a day on gasoline and then convert it to propane.   So that's what I did.   Makes perfect AC power at 122 volts.   A DC power port makes 13.5 volts.   I then checked charge voltage to the cranking battery is it was 16.2 volts.  WAY too high.  It would burn up that little motorcycle battery pretty fast.  So I called HF tech. Seems they have no better tech info then I do on this generator.  They offered to just swap me a different generator.  That would mean a 300 mile round-trip for me. No thanks.  So they said they'd look into it.  Got back to me late yesterday after probably calling someone in China.  They say I need a new AVR and it will take 10 weeks to get one to me.   THAT is quite a wait.   But - it's not like I cannot use the genset without it.  All I have to do is start it and then unhook the battery.  So we'll see.  I bet very few people who buy these things even think to check battery charge voltage.  So for all I know, every other generator in the store has the same problem.  Maybe that's why a 10 week wait. Maybe they have to come up with a revised regulator.   I am installing this as permanent backup power for my house.

    hf generator.jpg

  12. I know this. It does not matter if a vehicle complies with regs when built if those regs get more restrictive later. When I first moved to New York in 1979, seat-belts were not required anywhere in the vehicle if it did not come with them new.  Early 80s, new law came into effect and we had to install a lot of new seat-belts in vehicles that never had them before.

    I put new seat-belts in the back of my Minicruiser this spring because I had two kids who were riding with us this summer.  My Minicruiser had them when new, but someone had cut them off.  I will say that here in Michigan, I've never been checked.  Heck, I never even had a cop look at me cross-eyed yet.  Boy am I glad to be out of the police-state of NY.  My son had just gotten out of the service and we took a ride virtually in the middle of nowhere in the New York Adirondacks.  Some state cop was hidden on the side of a deserted road -  decided it looked like my son was not wearing a seat-belt and pulled us over.  Gave my son a ticket and it was over $50.  Hey, nice "welcome home from the military."   He was a Colorado resident and did not hang around to fight the ticket. I would have.  Two people's word against the cop's and yes - I would of lied and said he'd had it on.   

    Michigan is the first place I've ever lived where restrictive laws have actually gotten repealed. Like the motorcycle helmet law. In fact, one of the politicians who helped get rid of that law just got killed on his motorcycle. Ironically, he WAS wearing a helmet.

  13. I am just stating the facts.  I've come across many a Toyota RV with passenger-tires and no big problems with tires.  Are HD tires better? I assume so. I've got 185R-14C in D-range on my 1988 Minicruiser.   I also have a new set of the same tires sitting in my basement brand new collecting dust.  I was originally going to put them on my Chinook this winter - but not sure. I think it is more then fine with the 195/75-14" tires that are on it now.

    The only difference between the D-range tires and the passenger-tires - that I am aware of - how rugged the sidewalls are. Load range is not any different if I'm running 44 PSI in either (or even a lower 32 PSI). 

    Now - if I had a vehicle that kept blowing out sidewalls - then yeah - I'd really want a tire with a higher rating.

  14. 1 hour ago, TDH4L said:

    Thanks for that info. Do you know where the rear seat belts attached to on you Chinook?

    Yes, there is a steel bar-support under the floor and the seat-belts attach to that steel bar.  I remember very well since I had one heck of a time getting them out of that rusty 1977 Chinook I scrapped.

  15. I am well aware of the many tires that have both single and dual ratings.  That does not mean that those with no such marking are somehow disallowed for duals.  Considering my el-cheapo tires are rated 1400 lbs. each - four of them comes to 5600 lbs.  Even if I derate by 10%, that is still 5000 lbs.    The highest rear-axle allowed weight on any Toyota is only 4400 lbs. so I fail to see any problem.

  16. 33 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

    Think back to riding in the back of the schoolbus! :)

    We did not have any school buses when I was a kid.  I know now though that many areas are adopted rule to mandate kids wearing seat-belts.  It was bad enough getting stuck behind the buses when no kids were messing with them.  At least in NY. Here in MI it is much better.  

    I also know in NY, rear seat belts for kids in our RV was required. Not sure about MI. I DID know at one time, but have forgotten.

  17. Just now, zulandio said:

    That's on a Chinook though not as heavy as newer toy homes. The back 195/75/14 tires I replaced on my 86 New World had certainly been touching. The writing from one tire was imprinted on the other. 

    Newer homes should have the bigger tires no question in my mind. 

    In that photo - the Chinook is loaded with a of stuff right now and the tires only have 32 PSI in them.  I don't know what you mean by "bigger tires" in "newer" RVs.  Bigger how?   The 185R-14C in D range greatly exceed any weight any Toyota RV can have legally.

×
×
  • Create New...