Cool Trucks

[Centurian]

My 1990 C350 Originally built by Centurion Coach builders for Ford, But I had to redo everything sheetmetal they touched, Ended up putting a factory '96 Bronco rear clip on it, then a 4" suspension lift and 37" goodyear M/T's 460 CI eng auto overdrive trans, It has the rear seat andmatching cap, But I got the fiberglass tonneau cover and Bulkhead ass. from Cali and like it alot better this way. Great truck and I Love it.

[Hardware02]

Originally Posted by Centurian

My 1990 C350 Originally built by Centurion Coach builders for Ford, But I had to redo everything sheetmetal they touched, Ended up putting a factory '96 Bronco rear clip on it, then a 4" suspension lift and 37" goodyear M/T's 460 CI eng auto overdrive trans, It has the rear seat andmatching cap, But I got the fiberglass tonneau cover and Bulkhead ass. from Cali and like it alot better this way. Great truck and I Love it.

A Ford Avalanche! Niiiice! LOL

[ddavidv]

Originally Posted by Centurian

At first, I was .
But then, after figuring it out (the Bronco part) I was .
Oddly cool. You should submit an article about that to True Blue Fords magazine. They'd eat that up.

[Centurian]

Originally Posted by ddavidv

At first, I was .
But then, after figuring it out (the Bronco part) I was .
Oddly cool. You should submit an article about that to True Blue Fords magazine. They'd eat that up.

I didn't know about True Blue Fords, I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the tip.

[moosnutz]

Originally Posted by DakarNick

5 mpg?

What was HP and torque?

Averaged about 13 MPG with mix of city and highway. With the camper on the back..... a little less.

Power was 330HP @ 4,200 and torque was 450 lbs/ft @ 3,200 - most of which was on tap way below that. Pulled nicely. And sounded GREAT.

The 496 was originally built for marine applications & the motor boat guys were getting peak HP at about 650 @ 6500 and 585 lbs/ft @ 5,200! The truck motor could easily get 50-75 HP with a simple good computer tune and cold air intake. SWEET.

[moosnutz]

Originally Posted by crosscountry

but is it cool?

Anything that's got 496 cubic inches is cool.

[moosnutz]

Originally Posted by broncobowsher

That is a rare beast!

I got a friend who has ~'01 Superduty Lariet Powerstroke full loaded except it has the 6-speed manual and manual transfer case. Apparently orded by a rancher who was doing well, but just didn't like that automatic stuff. He has a list of friends who want that truck if he ever decides to sell it.

Well optioned big modern trucks with stick shifts are hard to find and sought after by many.

Totally agree! They just don't make them anymore. I was giggling like a 6-yr old girl when I got to the dealer to pick up the truck. Wish I still had it...

[DakarNick]

Originally Posted by moosnutz

Averaged about 13 MPG with mix of city and highway. With the camper on the back..... a little less.

Power was 330HP @ 4,200 and torque was 450 lbs/ft @ 3,200 - most of which was on tap way below that. Pulled nicely. And sounded GREAT.

The 496 was originally built for marine applications & the motor boat guys were getting peak HP at about 650 @ 6500 and 585 lbs/ft @ 5,200! The truck motor could easily get 50-75 HP with a simple good computer tune and cold air intake. SWEET.

Thanks! I was curious. OK numbers I guess, for its time. But gas engines always seem to have too much displacement for too little power. A 496 ci putting down 330 hp and 450 lb/ft? A modern 5.4L gasser can do that!

My '08 Cummins is 350 hp at 3000 rpm and 650 lb/ft at 1500 rpm out of 409 cubic inches and six cylinders AND gets 20 mpg. A 496 (8.1L) with those numbers makes .9 lb/ft torque and .67 hp per cubic inch. A 6.7L Cummins (409 ci) makes 1.59 lb/ft torque and .86 hp per cubic inch AND it gets 32% better mileage (with 87 less cubic inches)! That is 108.3 lb/ft per cylinder! The 496 is only 56.3 lb/ft per cylinder.

The new 6.7s are 350 hp and 800 lb/ft. Imagine what a 496 ci Cummins would put down. 800 ft/lbs at 409 cubic inches is 1.96 lb/ft per cubic inch. Theoretically, at 496 cubic inches it would make 972 lb/ft of torque! My 6.7 makes the equivalent torque of your 496, 450 lb/ft at 1050 rpm!

But anyway, they're just stinky, clunky, noisy diesels And yeah, I'm a number nerd.

[CodyY]

Originally Posted by DakarNick

Thanks! I was curious. OK numbers I guess, for its time. But gas engines always seem to have too much displacement for too little power. A 496 ci putting down 330 hp and 450 lb/ft? A modern 5.4L gasser can do that!

My '08 Cummins is 350 hp at 3000 rpm and 650 lb/ft at 1500 rpm out of 409 cubic inches and six cylinders AND gets 20 mpg. A 496 (8.1L) with those numbers makes .9 lb/ft torque and .67 hp per cubic inch. A 6.7L Cummins (409 ci) makes 1.59 lb/ft torque and .86 hp per cubic inch AND it gets 32% better mileage (with 87 less cubic inches)! That is 108.3 lb/ft per cylinder! The 496 is only 56.3 lb/ft per cylinder.

The new 6.7s are 350 hp and 800 lb/ft. Imagine what a 496 ci Cummins would put down. 800 ft/lbs at 409 cubic inches is 1.96 lb/ft per cubic inch. Theoretically, at 496 cubic inches it would make 972 lb/ft of torque! My 6.7 makes the equivalent torque of your 496, 450 lb/ft at 1050 rpm!

But anyway, they're just stinky, clunky, noisy diesels And yeah, I'm a number nerd.

This 04 5.9 puts 550hp/1000 lbft to the ground.

What's your point?

[Gummee!]

There's one of them '4-door Broncos' up the road from me. I keep meaning to stop in and ask if its a shrunk truck or a stretched Bronco.

Guess they're shrunk trucks.

M

[DakarNick]

Originally Posted by CodyY

This 04 5.9 puts 550hp/1000 lbft to the ground.

What's your point?

That diesels put down a lot more power per cubic inch than any gasser can stock or slightly modified. I love diesels, especially Cummins, did you take something different from my post?

My next diesel will be a 16L Volvo.

Nice truck, but why did you get the girl mirrors?

[Nailhead]

Originally Posted by DakarNick

Thanks! I was curious. OK numbers I guess, for its time. But gas engines always seem to have too much displacement for too little power. A 496 ci putting down 330 hp and 450 lb/ft? A modern 5.4L gasser can do that!

My '08 Cummins is 350 hp at 3000 rpm and 650 lb/ft at 1500 rpm out of 409 cubic inches and six cylinders AND gets 20 mpg. A 496 (8.1L) with those numbers makes .9 lb/ft torque and .67 hp per cubic inch. A 6.7L Cummins (409 ci) makes 1.59 lb/ft torque and .86 hp per cubic inch AND it gets 32% better mileage (with 87 less cubic inches)! That is 108.3 lb/ft per cylinder! The 496 is only 56.3 lb/ft per cylinder.

The new 6.7s are 350 hp and 800 lb/ft. Imagine what a 496 ci Cummins would put down. 800 ft/lbs at 409 cubic inches is 1.96 lb/ft per cubic inch. Theoretically, at 496 cubic inches it would make 972 lb/ft of torque! My 6.7 makes the equivalent torque of your 496, 450 lb/ft at 1050 rpm!

But anyway, they're just stinky, clunky, noisy diesels And yeah, I'm a number nerd.

That's an apple/orange comparison between two different combustion processes which renders all the numerical fun kind of pointless.

[moosnutz]

Originally Posted by DakarNick

Thanks! I was curious. OK numbers I guess, for its time. But gas engines always seem to have too much displacement for too little power. A 496 ci putting down 330 hp and 450 lb/ft? A modern 5.4L gasser can do that!

My '08 Cummins is 350 hp at 3000 rpm and 650 lb/ft at 1500 rpm out of 409 cubic inches and six cylinders AND gets 20 mpg. A 496 (8.1L) with those numbers makes .9 lb/ft torque and .67 hp per cubic inch. A 6.7L Cummins (409 ci) makes 1.59 lb/ft torque and .86 hp per cubic inch AND it gets 32% better mileage (with 87 less cubic inches)! That is 108.3 lb/ft per cylinder! The 496 is only 56.3 lb/ft per cylinder.

The new 6.7s are 350 hp and 800 lb/ft. Imagine what a 496 ci Cummins would put down. 800 ft/lbs at 409 cubic inches is 1.96 lb/ft per cubic inch. Theoretically, at 496 cubic inches it would make 972 lb/ft of torque! My 6.7 makes the equivalent torque of your 496, 450 lb/ft at 1050 rpm!

But anyway, they're just stinky, clunky, noisy diesels And yeah, I'm a number nerd.

The 496 is a totally antiquated design at this point - & has been discontinued from the GM lineup for some time. The new generation gassers are MUCH stronger and more efficient. Something about a huge V8, though - calls to the lizard brain in special kind of way.

A diesel is obviously a different beast entirely. I was tempted, but never crossed to, the dark side of oil-burning madness. The Cummins-powered Dodge would be my weapon of choice though, if I were to go there - but I'm sort of partial to the older 5.9L version (05-07). The Cummins is a no bullshit motor.

Come to think of it, the HEMI Ram Power Wagon is a great package. 4.56 gears, locked at both ends, swaybar disconnect, compliant springs in back, HEMI powerplant and a decent winch as standard. What's not to love?! Except the price, I guess.

[NoahDL88]

My new-ish toy.

Still learning the ins and outs of it, mostly that the front locker is more of a flip-over switch and I end up on the side.

[ducnek]

Originally Posted by NoahDL88

My new-ish toy.

Still learning the ins and outs of it, mostly that the front locker is more of a flip-over switch and I end up on the side.

OMG-OMG-OMG

More Pics!