Slant Six Forum
https://www.slantsix.org/forum/

D150 and towing
https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46982		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  supton [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:08 am ]
Post subject:  D150 and towing
Been looking around, not quite sure... From what I've read, the mid 1980's D150's were rated at 2,000lb towing with a 6, and 5,000lb with the 318. Is that straight up the difference between the engines? Or is it brakes and suspension that got updated on the V8's also?

I'm trying to justify getting a D150, an 80's version, under the impression that I could always tow my car to the shop in case I need to drop it off. The additional cost of gas (since a D150 will burn more fuel than my car does, driving the D150 costs me more per day) would be offset by savings of not getting a rental. [Of course this ignores the fact that I'd need a car dolly... which would likely be a rental... let's continue to ignore that fact for now. :oops: ]

I did read that the D150 Miser's seem to have weak leaf springs; they certainly came with tall rear gears (low numerical number, like 3.23:1) for the mpg's. I'm not sure if the non-Miser's tended to come with slightly deeper gearing or not.

Thanks.
Author:  The Moffittman [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:34 am ]
Post subject: 
Supton,

I've had many D-150's and W-150's over the years... I'd have to say, regardless of rating, you need the v-8 to tow... which almost brings me to my next point. I currently own a '86 W-150, with a 318... I love this truck, but it has been the worst of all of them maintenance wise so far... In my mind, you'd honestly be better off with one made before lean burn, and brain boxes... My truck used to jump timing, run like crap and be completely underpowered... I traced it back to the brain box. After replacing the $100+ unit three or four times for the same reasons, I finally switched to good ol' mid seventies electronic ignition.. no problems since, runs like a champ... still completely anemic... but runs smooth.. Also, Chrysler's build quality in my truck is.... dubious at best. (I know, Blaspheme!) I bought my truck in solid unmolested #2 condition, and I have collected over seven instrument clusters and have gone through countless electrical bits and in-dash voltage regulators just to keep all of my gauges working (and I'm a clean all connections with scotch-brite kinda guy). However, the completely knackered out, and rusted through mid seventies versions I've owned have been dead-nuts reliable, and all were able to tow my New Yorker, Satellite, Sport Fury, construction trailers, and my '63 Riviera up a pretty good grade and still maintain 55mph. I'm sure a lot of this difference is made up by not dragging a front axle and transfer case.. But this '86 is just a dog, and chokes when pulling the wife's '63 Valiant. So, if you're going to justify it... in my mind, go find a clean seventies example.. most of my 318s pulled about 17 mpg with conservative driving.. Most importantly, if you're going to justify it... You've probably already done so. Who doesn't want another toy?
Author:  supton [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Interesting stuff. I do hear you; but getting rust-free up here is problematic in the least. Kinda take what I can find, or travel a long ways...

After thinking about it, in order to tow, I'd need that dolly, which I don't have, and it's like that a dolly rental has to be up there too. Doesn't quite make sense. Just trying to get out having my wife follow me around, to pick me up / drop me off, when dealing with the car.

Everyone wants another toy. I just don't want to be foolish about it.
Author:  The Moffittman [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:42 am ]
Post subject: 
I take it that the car is your daily driver? If so, good on you. Good on your wife also for understanding, not all are as lucky as we... Having a truck is something I can no longer do without. I was forced at one point in my life to sell all of my cars, and I chose my '86 as my only go anywhere, do/haul anything daily driver. Until that point, I'd always thrown whatever ridiculous item I needed to move into the trunk (washer, dryer, christmas trees, kitchen table)... At any rate. That truck has become family, and I use it constantly. Truth be told, I didn't need it before I had it though, and if you realize that. Then you're a step ahead of the game. Good luck
Matt
Author:  supton [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, my VW is my daily driver. At 90 miles roundtrip, I do appreciate its 40+mpg. 8) Wifey is good at pickup me up / dropping me off; the kids like the car ride too. At least if it's a local place.

But, even then: once it's dropped off, I'm immobile until I get it back. Wife has her own car because, well, she needs a car too. Stay at home or not, she's got to drop off / pick up kids, run around on errands, and other stuff. Yadda yadda yadda. We all know how nice it is to have a spare vehicle, moreso when it does stuff like move big heavy objects around.

I just haven't figured out how to fully justify it. The few grand it would cost (one to buy, at least; another for say winter tires and whatever repair it might need; and then spare money in case of another repair) would seemingly be justified either on a new car, or the rental while w/o wheels. As much as I dislike burning vacation time for when the car is in the shop, that is seemingly more frugal.
Author:  Jeb [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:20 am ]
Post subject: 
I wouldn't necessarily say that you need the V-8 to tow. My D-150 pulled home a trailer with an 88 F-250 sitting on it. It's also towed numerous boats and countless bee trailers (my dad is a bee keeper). It's torquier than the 3.9 in my Dakota, which doesn't like it if the RPM's fall below 2000.

It does pretty good towing, especially with 4000 pounds of bee trailer behind it. Of course I don't spend much time over 60 MPH since I get my best mileage below that speed. It hauled home my Dad's Datsun 210 when it had a tire rod end failure and I was able to run 55-60 all the way home.

My only limiting factor is the crappy springs I have under my truck, which are pathetic.

All of this towing was done while my truck still had the Lean Burn and a wheezy 1 barrel. I'm wrapping up my 2 barrel swap so it should be a pleasant surprise when I hook a trailer to it again.
Author:  supton [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Really? That's at least promising. What rear gearing do you have?

Interesting stuff. I thought I read that the slant's replacement had more torque; but I guess that's really more upper end torque. Obviously neither is a powerhouse.
Author:  Reed [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Gearing will play a big part of how well a slant six truck can haul. The lean burn systems are poo, but can easily be replaced with noncomputerized ignition and carburetion (provided local laws permit it). Aside from the lean burn systems, there is nothing inherently bad about 80s era Chrysler products. Well, maybe some poor electrical components, but I have had numerous 80s era Dodge vans and have had no abnormal quality or wear issues.

Slant sixes were put in big dump trucks and other utility vehicles in the 60s, so it is entirely possible for a slant six to move around a large load. The key is the transmission and rear axle gearing. I wouldn't hesitate to use a slant six powered truck for towing, provided the truck had a rear axle gear ratio of 3.5 or numerically higher. A four speed transmission would be a big help, or, if you want to use an automatic, the 904T with the numerically higher first and second gear ratios would be a good choice.

However, I would not expect to spend much time above 55 or so with a slant six powered truck hauling with these kinds of gears hauling a big load.
Author:  The Moffittman [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Thank you Reed, you are more direct and correct than I..

My troubles with my truck have indeed been limited to the doo-doo-squirt lean burn, and electricity... also a complaint with vacuum controlled heater and front axle, but my truck itself will drive to the moon and back with no gauges, and intermittent heat and 4WD (both retrofitted and fixed now.) Like I said, I do love my truck... and your gearing comments are spot on.. My life has been made more difficult recently with towing, because VA's interstates have finally gone to 70 mph. You should never tow at this speed, but at some point, going much slower than that will make you, me, everybody a hazard of a different kind and the byways take twice as long.

Matt
Author:  supton [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:13 am ]
Post subject: 
I wasn't too sure on the differences between A833OD and the later 904; 3.09:1 versus 2.74:1 with a torque convertor. At least the A833OD has overdrive to better deal with the unloaded case; I'm guessing 3.91 would make a good gear for the stick (or even deeper, that fourth gear does a lot!) but the auto is badly hurt by only having three gears. I'm guessing 3.55 for the 904, as a compromise? I get the sense that these trucks were not typically deep geared from the factory, as most buyers were not buying six's for their pulling power.

I do have emissions laws to contend with. One of the reasons why I want a slant six is to avoid the dreaded "check engine light" and OBDII scanning. I don't think they do much more than to check that the cat is still there, here in NH--I don't think they go looking at any other system (EGR, computer feedback carb, etc). So I'm pretty sure I could swap stuff around--except our boneyards might be a bit more sparse on vintage parts.

Eh, the goal would not be a serious hauler. Just enough umph that it could be used, if necessary; but still get (hopefully) close-ish to that magical 20mpg... Preferably no less than 15, unloaded, and without being obnoxious (high revs) in doing so.
Author:  Reed [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:18 am ]
Post subject: 
If you are looking for a slant six powered 80s era vehicle, be sure to check out the rear axle ratio before you buy. By the 80s, slant sixes were mostly put in trucks and vans. To keep up with CAFE and other fuel economy regulations, Chrysler was putting terribly high gear ratios in the rear axle. For example, I have a 1983 Dodge van that has a 318 with a 2.7 rear gear ratio. Dodge diplomats from this era even got 2.2 rear gear ratios! Great for light throttle highway cruising (on long flat stretches) but terrible for in town driving and hauling.

Other gear ratios were available with different packages or by request. These tall rear gears were one reason for the switch to the the wide-ratio gearsets in the 904T automatic transmissions. My brother has a 1983 Dodge van powered by a 225. It has a 3.2 gear ratio in the rear axle. I have run both 904s and 904Ts in the van and the wide ratio gearset really makes a difference in acceleration. For a daily driver and light hauler, a 3.2 gear ratio is actually a pretty good all around choice. My brother's van can get mid to high teens in MPG if it is driven conservatively. For anything more than occasional hauling with a three speed transmission, I think you would definitely want 3.5 gears or numerically higher.
Author:  Jeb [ Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Really? That's at least promising. What rear gearing do you have?
I have 3.25's with a 727 lockup trans.
Quote:
Interesting stuff. I thought I read that the slant's replacement had more torque; but I guess that's really more upper end torque. Obviously neither is a powerhouse.
The 3.9 is rated for more torque, and it really does start to pull once you get above 2500 RPM. My Dakota has 3.55 gears and a 5 speed, and it will run like a scalded dog when you need it to. It's my go-fast truck, whereas the 150 is my towing truck.

Just goes to show you what a difference that long stroke the 225 has can make.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/