Double Dingo's 1965 3/4 Ton "Crusty Biscuit"

[DoubleDingo]

I know I looked at least at 100 or more of those before I finally found a 4.11. And I counted the spins 4 or 5 times to confirm before I started wrenching to pull it. I just about had to open a car door and spank it right there in the Pull A Part that day.

I had no idea the 4.11s were so rare. Over on Stovebolt, one of the guys is a racer and said the racers are the main reason for the 4.11s being unavailable. They were already rare, but with the racers grabbing every 4.11 3rd member they could find so they could go roundy-round with a nearly indestructible HO52/HO72 rear end, it made them even more scarce. I searched many trucks back in the late 80s/early 90s and only found 4.5 turn axles. When I found a 3.5 turn axle I bought that sucker. That's the '68 Dana 60 I've mentioned before. It has 3.54s, a truly great highway gear, but too high of a ratio for what I am doing with Crusty.

 

[DoubleDingo]

Today I got my 2G adapter plate for the Aussie Speed intake manifold. He had a heck of a time getting the aluminum. He provided a bell crank setup for it, too. Pretty cool! The plate will allow for mounting the carb sideways, forward-facing, and rearward-facing. Sideways is best for even distribution of fuel/air mixture, and I will be mounting it with the adjustment screws facing the driver's side fender. One plus of the Aussie intake, it is designed to mount a square-bore carb, so if I later decide to run the Q-Jet, all I need is a spread-bore to square-bore adapter. I want to give the 2G a chance first. With the enhancements this 292 is getting, I think it will breathe nearly as much as the 283 the 2G came off of. But, we'll see once the 292 is finished. Lots of work ahead to finish the 292.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[78C10BigTen]

Today I got my 2G adapter plate for the Aussie Speed intake manifold. He had a heck of a time getting the aluminum. He provided a bell crank setup for it, too. Pretty cool! The plate will allow for mounting the carb sideways, forward-facing, and rearward-facing. Sideways is best for even distribution of fuel/air mixture, and I will be mounting it with the adjustment screws facing the driver's side fender. One plus of the Aussie intake, it is designed to mount a square-bore carb, so if I later decide to run the Q-Jet, all I need is a spread-bore to square-bore adapter. I want to give the 2G a chance first. With the enhancements this 292 is getting, I think it will breathe nearly as much as the 283 the 2G came off of. But, we'll see once the 292 is finished. Lots of work ahead to finish the 292.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

I love to see you hoppin up a straight 6!!!! Much love! Plus learning a few things reading though.

 

[DoubleDingo]

I love to see you hoppin up a straight 6!!!! Much love! Plus learning a few things reading though.

I think it will be a nice runner once I get it done. It will have in the ballpark of 300 lb/ft across the entire rpm range.

Have even thought of finding a 250 to modify with a turbo setup.

 

[HotRodPC]

I had no idea the 4.11s were so rare. Over on Stovebolt, one of the guys is a racer and said the racers are the main reason for the lack of 4.11s being available. They were already rare, but with the racers grabbing every 4.11 3rd member they could find so they could go roundy-round with a nearly indestructible HO52/HO72 rear end, it made them even more scarce. I searched many trucks back in the late 80s/early 90s and only found 4.5 turn axles. When I found a 3.5 turn axle I bought that sucker. That's the '68 Dana 60 I've mentioned before. It has 3.54s, a truly great highway gear, but too high of a ratio for what I am doing with Crusty.

I'm not even sure that's it, it's just that most of those 3/4 and 1 tons in the 60's come with 4.56's. it's like it was the standard gear ratio. Like I said, the 4.11 I found was in an ambulance and that was probably special ordered chassis.

 

[DoubleDingo]

I'm not even sure that's it, it's just that most of those 3/4 and 1 tons in the 60's come with 4.56's. it's like it was the standard gear ratio. Like I said, the 4.11 I found was in an ambulance and that was probably special ordered chassis.

Don't forget about the 5.14 ratios, would need a double overdrive with that ratio

 

[HotRodPC]

Don't forget about the 5.14 ratios, would need a double overdrive with that ratio

That came in this axle? I was pretty sure the only 2 options were 4.11 and 4.56 for this one.

 

[DoubleDingo]

That came in this axle? I was pretty sure the only 2 options were 4.11 and 4.56 for this one.

5.14, 4.57, 4.11. 5.14 was in the 1 tons, and the HO72 axle. HO52 and HO72 are basically the same except for the hubs and brakes. The housings are identical, the bearings are the same for each one. The 3rd member can be swapped to either one, and I believe the axle shafts can too.

I saw a '66 C30 at a gas station a few months ago, what I noticed immediately was the 9 foot flat bed. I commented on his truck, it wasn't great but it was straight and done well. That's when he told me about the 5.14 gears he just swapped out for 4.11. That is similar to me going to 3.54 from 4.57 back in '91, what a huge difference. After he topped off, he got on it and was out of there. Meanwhile, my 4.57 geared truck was slow going...lol...

 

[mcarlo86]

Yes sir. Not sure if it will classify as a hot 292, but definitely a very warm 292. Found a '66 292 with 155k on it according to the PO. Compression was high in all the cylinders. Was going to swap it in 2019, but I procrastinated, and that actually paid off, because I wanted to add some power goodies to the engine. I have been collecting parts for it. It will have a lump ported head with 1.94/1.60 valves, the ductile iron dual exhaust, along with the Aussie Speed intake, this 292 should breathe really well. I keep getting hit with other projects, but soon I will tear down the engine to check the cylinder bores. Hoping they are good, and if they check out, hone and re-ring. If not, bore it out. If I have to bore it, I will get some Ross pistons for to up the compression. I am leaning that way anyhow, and may do it, but it's about $700 I don't have right now. Although it may be money well-spent if I wait and do a full overhaul. I'll talk to the machinist to see what his timeline would be to prep the block for new parts. If it will take him months like it did the head, then I will have to weigh my options.

I have heard of people using special rods in 292’s so you can use pistons out of a 250. They are lighter and evidently doing that allows the 292 to handle more RPM’s.

 

[DoubleDingo]

I have heard of people using special rods in 292’s so you can use pistons out of a 250. They are lighter and evidently doing that allows the 292 to handle more RPM’s.

I'll be staying with the stock rods, the engine won't be revved over 4,500, and that will be very rare.

 

[DoubleDingo]

I have heard of people using special rods in 292’s so you can use pistons out of a 250. They are lighter and evidently doing that allows the 292 to handle more RPM’s.

My main goal is to help the engine breathe better by improving the cylinder head, intake and exhaust system. I want to cruise the highway with minimal throttle input for maximum vacuum at cruising speeds.

Yeah I am weird, or different, depending on how one looks at it. I think outside the box and approach things from different angles than most. I could be one of the swap in the LS and be done with it guys. Or big block or nothing guys. But I like different, and this 292 was a factory option, it just didn't come with the upgrades I am putting on it or doing to it. I bet if they came factory being able to breather better, they'd be a more popular engine. I know of a few members on here that really like the 292 and 250. I still haven't driven a 292-powered-vehicle, but if my Jeep Cherokee with the 4.0 is anywhere close to what the 292 will be like, I believe the truck will be fun to drive and somewhat efficient, too.

 

[mcarlo86]

My main goal is to help the engine breathe better by improving the cylinder head, intake and exhaust system. I want to cruise the highway with minimal throttle input for maximum vacuum at cruising speeds.

Yeah I am weird, or different, depending on how one looks at it. I think outside the box and approach things from different angles than most. I could be one of the swap in the LS and be done with it guys. Or big block or nothing guys. But I like different, and this 292 was a factory option, it just didn't come with the upgrades I am putting on it or doing to it. I bet if they came factory being able to breather better, they'd be a more popular engine. I know of a few members on here that really like the 292 and 250. I still haven't driven a 292-powered-vehicle, but if my Jeep Cherokee with the 4.0 is anywhere close to what the 292 will be like, I believe the truck will be fun to drive and somewhat efficient, too.

I totally get it. We have had a couple C50 trucks with 292's and a few pickups with 250's in them over the years. I'm really excited to hear how your project turns out and I think you are definitely on the right track. The torque curve of a 292 is awesome and will make a great engine in Crusty Biscuit. I am curious if improving the breathing will help any with fuel economy. Our 292s usually didn't get any better mileage than the V8 trucks, but the 250's seemed to be better on fuel. The 250's don't have the off-idle torque of the 292, but they do handle cruising rpms over 3000 better. I mentioned the different rods and pistons because I have seen guys take the rod bearings out of a 292 trying to run them at modern highway speeds. Going with the 4.11 gears vs the 4.56's will definitely help you in that department too! Building an I6 like you are doing is on my bucket list for sure!

 

[DoubleDingo]

I totally get it. We have had a couple C50 trucks with 292's and a few pickups with 250's in them over the years. I'm really excited to hear how your project turns out and I think you are definitely on the right track. The torque curve of a 292 is awesome and will make a great engine in Crusty Biscuit. I am curious if improving the breathing will help any with fuel economy. Our 292s usually didn't get any better mileage than the V8 trucks, but the 250's seemed to be better on fuel. The 250's don't have the off-idle torque of the 292, but they do handle cruising rpms over 3000 better. I mentioned the different rods and pistons because I have seen guys take the rod bearings out of a 292 trying to run them at modern highway speeds. Going with the 4.11 gears vs the 4.56's will definitely help you in that department too! Building an I6 like you are doing is on my bucket list for sure!

I am after economy, and what you said about the 292 is what I have heard elsewhere, that they are not economical. I mean, if it can get 12 it will match the current setup, but would have a better torque curve than the tire 305/350 that's currently in it. The numbers say it's a 350/305/265, but it's a dog, so I truly think it's a 305.

I updated my spreadsheets to show only the 4.11 gears and the rpms at various speeds in and out of overdrive. Granted this setup will have a Ranger gear splitter overdrive with 27% reduction, so I will have gears in between gears. I have two tire size options to keep the Load Range E tires on the truck. The *31.6 tire image would be the current tire size of LT265/75r16. The *30.5 tire image would be the LT245/75r16. If I went with LT235/85r16, it is only one tenth of an inch taller than current tires, so it would be very close.

Having driven my Jeep on the open road for nearly 2 decades, I have got accustomed to the rpm ranges for headwinds, steep grades, etc. I setup the gear ratios in the Jeep to be nearly the same as stock from the factory, so it would turn the same rpms down the road while running bigger tires. 3,000 rpms at 70 in Drive is fine with me, and is what the Jeep turns at 70. That was my goal with Crusty as well. In overdrive, the rpms are around 2,200 in the Jeep, and the spreadsheet images reflect that pretty closely for Crusty. You may think Crusty Biscuit is heavier than the Jeep, but it's actually lighter by a couple hundred pounds, and both are wheeled-bricks going down the road...lol... I am just hoping the 292 gets better than the 6-8 mpgs I've heard they get.

Current tire size (LT265/75r16 or LT235/85r16 spreadsheet image.....

You must be registered for see images attach

LT245/75r16 spreadsheet image.....

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[mcarlo86]

I am after economy, and what you said about the 292 is what I have heard elsewhere, that they are not economical. I mean, if it can get 12 it will match the current setup, but would have a better torque curve than the tire 305/350 that's currently in it. The numbers say it's a 350/305/265, but it's a dog, so I truly think it's a 305.

I updated my spreadsheets to show only the 4.11 gears and the rpms at various speeds in and out of overdrive. Granted this setup will have a Ranger gear splitter overdrive with 27% reduction, so I will have gears in between gears. I have two tire size options to keep the Load Range E tires on the truck. The *31.6 tire image would be the current tire size of LT265/75r16. The *30.5 tire image would be the LT245/75r16. If I went with LT235/85r16, it is only one tenth of an inch taller than current tires, so it would be very close.

Having driven my Jeep on the open road for nearly 2 decades, I have got accustomed to the rpm ranges for headwinds, steep grades, etc. I setup the gear ratios in the Jeep to be nearly the same as stock from the factory, so it would turn the same rpms down the road while running bigger tires. 3,000 rpms at 70 in Drive is fine with me, and is what the Jeep turns at 70. That was my goal with Crusty as well. In overdrive, the rpms are around 2,200 in the Jeep, and the spreadsheet images reflect that pretty closely for Crusty. You may think Crusty Biscuit is heavier than the Jeep, but it's actually lighter by a couple hundred pounds, and both are wheeled-bricks going down the road...lol... I am just hoping the 292 gets better than the 6-8 mpgs I've heard they get.

Current tire size (LT265/75r16 or LT235/85r16 spreadsheet image.....

You must be registered for see images attach

LT245/75r16 spreadsheet image.....

You must be registered for see images attach

You will be fine with the OD with either tire size choice with the 292 torque curve. If you didn't have the OD, the 292 probably wouldn't be your friend over 65 mph. . I would think you will get better than 12 mpg if with the OD. I'm excited to hear how it does since I have never seen a 292 in front of an overdrive transmission in person! I think it will be right at home!

 

[DoubleDingo]

Pop checked over the 4.11 3rd member. Backlash was out of spec. Adjusted that, got it to 0.0065, book said 0.003 to 0.012 was good, and 0.005 to 0.008 was preferred. Checked the wear pattern, it was good. Recommended replacing the pinion seal, which I wanted to do anyhow. It's nearly ready to go back in service!