General Discussion     Tech Questions     Parts & Services     Suggestions/Ideas     Help & Website Instructions     Blogs    

1976 LOADSTAR 1700/GAS MOTOR SUGGESTIONS


http://forums.aths.org/Topic149351.aspx
Print Topic | Close Window

By GEOFF - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:30 PM
Last summer I bought a really nice 76 Loadstar 1700 Sundance.  Has an MV404 in it that fails to impress me.  Thinking of making an engine change. 

I want to stick with a gasoline motor just for nostalgia. 

Any suggestions on going with a 549 or rebuilding the MV404 into an MV446????

It's got a T496 5speed tranny with a 2 speed diff ratios 6.50 to 9.04 with a 14" Lipe single plate clutch.  With the MV404 I run about 58mph at 3,200 rpm's.

Obviously not really looking for miles/gallon.  I'm looking for a motor that makes driving this sweet old Loadstar FUN to drive.  Any suggestions??????

I've got a 74 SV392 that I could put in but worry about it not being much different than the MV404.

Thanks in advance!

GEOFF
By Bruce Ohnstad - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:46 PM
When I read the subject line I joking though of saying - 549!  Then I read that you are thinking of it.  that would be fun if you can fit it in there.

be sure to check in at the Redpower . com site.  They have guys that know all the IH engines.

Bruce
By TonyClemens - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:22 AM
I used to drive a '76 1600 with a 345 and then a '79 with a 392. Both good engines with decent power but really drank gas. Can only imagine what a 549 would do on gas but probably a big increase in power.
By RobBalfour - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:52 AM
You can buy a 345 pretty reasonable.They're a reliable engine and it would fit in there good.
By newfie-trucker - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:06 AM
 the 549 works good but it also (of the ones i known) loves gas a lot.. lots of power and torque to move the truck..   do you have pics of your truck?
By junkmandan - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:08 AM
Cure all the negatives with a 6V53 !
By curdog - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:43 AM
Amen Dan!

6V53 and a 6613 behind it. Slam ya fingers in the door and have fun....
By Bill White - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:36 PM
Geff, stay with a 345,392 404. any thing bigger on torque you will need bigger drive train also.

 I had A Sundance when the IH died I installed a 366 Chev. in it worked great.

Bill 
By curdog - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:18 PM
The 6V53 oughta be pretty safe - I don't think it could put a twist in a piece of linguini...... 
By GEOFF - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:40 PM
Hey thanks to you all for the replies!

Bruce, I know what you mean, the 549 idea sounds crazy but it would sure be fun.  I'll see what possible motors might be around.  I understand they're pretty hard to find and parts are getting scarce!

TonyClemens, when you drove the 345 and the 392, what did you think of the difference between the two.  I've got lots of experience with 345 in pickups and also my Loadstar 1600.  Don't have hardly any time in a 392.

RobBalfour, thanks for your suggestion.  Totally agree, 345 is a mighty fine way to go.  But I've got one already and just kinda wanted to expand my horizons a bit.  I always get a kick out of your avatar!

Newfie,  I just might surprise you guys and actually post a pic.  My daughter helped me over a year ago when I posted pic of my Pete 359 and the apple spill incident.  I've got the same daughter looking for a pic of this Loadstar.  By the way, what experiences have you been around with the 549?  I know they drink LOTS of gas but are they pretty impressive with torque.  I've heard you sure don't want to over rev them.  Any additional info would be welcome.

DAN THE MAN, great suggestion of the 6V53.  I was reading about them in Loadstar 1800's in Crismon's IH book, looks like they started putting them in Loadstars in 1964,  says 195hp with darn respectable 446 ft/lbs at only 1,500 rpm's.  There is a LOT to like about your suggestion!!!  If I decide to go diesel, it will definitely be this Detroit.  Don't have any experience with 2 cycle's so it'd sure be a fun education!  What do you think honest miles per gallon would be from a 6V53 say pulling a 26,000lb GVW Loadstar??????

Curdog, tell me more about this transmission that you mentioned.  That would be my next question if I went the Detroit or even the 549 for that matter, how to get more MPH out of less RPM's.  Right now with the MV404 and the T496 transmission I get about 58mph at 3,200rpm's.  Even if I was lucky enough to find a 549 I'd like to find a trans/aux or some system to get 60mph out of 2,000 to 2,400 rpms

Bill White, I know you are the voice of reason.  I've got a 1980 GMC 6000 tandem/tag axle with the 366 in it.  I got that truck years ago, my first flatbed.  That GMC has TOTALLY got my respect, I used to not really care about it, but year after year, it'll sit for a couple months not being run, I'll go over to that baby and it'll start right up.  I even rewarded that old truck with new tires, and new heater core and rebuilt 2speed motor and bearing.  Awesome old truck, long stoke, not too fast but dependable!!  That's a 39,000GVW truck too!  We haul 2 Hysters on it with ease, heavy little suckers, famous for punching holes in the deck!

Thanks again for your suggestions!

GEOFF
By TonyClemens - Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:54 AM
Geoff, both the 345 and 392 were good, tough engines. The 392 had a four barrel carb so it had more power but it also really sucked the gas. Both trucks had the same 5 speed trans and two speed rear axle.
By wayne graham - Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:10 AM
Since Bill said a 366 went right in that means any big block chevy would work. 427 or 454 would make it go real good. Wayne 
By dashby - Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:02 PM
Yep, 454 pass anything but a gas station.  We can put on apprx. 40 gal. of gasoline and 90 gal. LPG.  Need every bit of it if you plan to go far with a load--travel trailer.

Won't use much fuel if you don't start it.
By Dennis Wells AKA Smiley - Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:28 PM
Dean, Fontana 2004?
By curdog - Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:50 PM
Geoff

Fuller made some smaller Roadrangers back in the 70's. RT and RTO6610 ten speed and RT and RTO6613 thirteen speed. Rated at 660 ft lb input. I have seen them behind 555 Cummins, 6V53's, 671's and 427 gassers in factory installations. My cousin had an Aussie International with an 8V53 with one. What a screamer - flat out at 50 mph. I'm pretty sure I saw one behind a 903 once also.

The 13 speed shifts like a 15 speed except there's three in deep reduction and then 10 like a 10 speed. They are all progressive. 

Mike
By wayne graham - Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:42 PM
Dean, You  are right about it being thirsty but so was the 549. I just thought the chevy would be a lot easier to find current parts and still do the job. Curdog, Way back when my neighbor had a tandem with a 427 and that 613 trans. Must say it worked out real nice. Wayne
By Bob McDaniel (Indiana Trucks) - Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:54 PM
  Geoff, 

I have a 1976 Loadstar 1700 with the MV446 and 5 speed and 2 speed rear end that I hauled my 25 Indiana on and pulled a trailer with my 27 Indiana on to Auburn back in 05. I don't drive it much but it was able to do 65 with that load on it and I never need low unless I am just putting around in the yard and want to go real slow. This truck was an implement truck at a IH dealer that closed in 1979 due to a fire and the truck was not used much. Contact me if you want to know more about it and I will look or get pictures for you.

 



By Brocky - Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:32 PM
I have a Cummins 555 with a RT613 bolted to it out in my parts shed. I basically bought it for parts as my 358 Brockway has a 504 Cummins and Spicer 5 by 4 in it.

When it get to work on it I do not know what combo I am going to end up with??
By dashby - Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:57 PM
Dennis,

Your thinking about the 2004 Yukon.  Second tranny in 3,000 miles.  Just pulled into the parking lot at Fontana and no more shift.  Had a travel trailer with nothing to pull it with.  Dennis and friends helped out and we had a great time at the show.

http://forums.aths.org/InstantForum2010/Uploads/Images/5166da4e-6abe-4589-b22b-2580.JPG

Dean
By GEOFF - Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:23 PM
Well I owe you guys again!  I've learned a bunch since posting this question regarding my Loadstar.

Tony Clemens, thanks for more info on 345vs392.  Both good motors, sounds like.

Wayne, bring up a good point about that family of motors.  Have you ever seen hp/torque figures for the 366, 427, and 454 at least in the truck applications.  I searched for 366 numbers and couldn't find much.  One place said 500 ft/lbs torque but I don't think stock. 

Dashby, you said it all regarding these thirsty old gassers, not even with BIG tanks could you go far!  My wife and I still have our 2004 Suburban with the 8.1L, been a great rig so far!  Sorry you had such bad luck, did you get rid of it or did GMC get it all straightened out for you?

Curdog, thanks again for bringing up this 613 Roadranger.  I hadn't known about a small 13 speed before, it would be air shift like it's big brothers right?  Sounds like it would be perfect in many applications.

Bob McDaniel, that's is VERY much like my Loadstar, except I don't have spoke wheels.  Same exact paint scheme, I think IH hit a homer with that paint scheme.  Mine was stored inside most of it's life and we buffed out that thick old IH paint and she still shines beautifully.  SURE WISH MINE HAD THAT 446 THOUGH!!!  I hear pretty good stuff about the 446, might be the route to go for me if I can find the pieces!  The interior of those Sundance versions is pretty plush isn't it, especially for 1976 in a farm truck!  One of the next things I've got to do is paint my frame rails, notice factory has them orange to match the truck.  Maybe over the weekend I'll get some pic's up of mine.  Thanks for sharing yours with us all.

Brocky, thanks for weighing in as well.  What did that triple nickle come out of?  By the way, what was hp/torque numbers on that motor?  My bro in law had one in a Versatile 700 out in Montana, they had a pretty good run out of it.

Well thanks again guys! 

GEOFF
By dashby - Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:06 PM
Geoff,

Thanks for asking--as you can see--don't have much to do but hang out here.

GMC took care of everything.  Problem was that come Sunday AM, the NASCAR folks advised that if we didn't clear their lot, they would park us out on the street.  We picked up the Yukon at Sat. noon.  Asked if I could thank the mechanic--was a kid about 16--looked like 14--they said he could change out a transmission in about 3 hrs.  Needed to be on a side street after dark for him to do his best work--lol.

My info for the C-30 75 Chev. lists the 454 Net Torque @ 3000 RPM = 355 lb-ft.  Mostly use it now to shade the grass.

Dean
By tundra - Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:39 PM
the 366  BBC is only intended as truck application as well as the 427 tall block versions....

...although there was also a 427  light automotive  version....ranged in HP from 325 to over 450..

.....the 454 was only offered assa reguler deck /higher comp / light automotive engine .

...never offered assa real ;;truck engine;;

..

..the ;;tall block;;truck 4 bolt main  big blocks have always been populer ta build large ;;strocker;; engines fer drag race applications
By Wolfcreek_Steve - Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:31 PM
I don't think a 454 is going to be real happy in a medium duty truck, I'd stick with a 427 truck block or the 366. I've seen way to many "car engines" die a quick death when asked to do a truck engines job.

here is a video of a 6v53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr8qShGBZ1s
By glenn akers - Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:48 PM
[quote]Wolfcreek_Steve (1/13/2012)
I don't think a 454 is going to be real happy in a medium duty truck, I'd stick with a 427 truck block or the 366. I've seen way to many "car engines" die a quick death when asked to do a truck engines job.

here is a video of a 6v53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr8qShGBZ1s[/quote]          me also
By Bill White - Friday, January 13, 2012 3:34 AM
GM built 454 tall block engine in the 80'S heavy truck only, for some reason did not go over as well as the 427T engine.

Bill
By wayne graham - Friday, January 13, 2012 7:00 AM
Steve, I agree with you and Glenn of course. I  did not realize that they did not make a tall 454. I still think a 427t with a 613 would work. Is there room in his 1700 for a dt466? Wayne
By Brocky - Friday, January 13, 2012 9:50 AM
Geoff

My triple nickel came out of a Brockway asphalt spreader. The HP is 240 @ 3300 RPM. Do not have the torque numbers right off the top of my head.

Plans are to make it into a roll back or beavertail flat so will not have heavy load. Hopefully when I get a 555 built it will hold up for my show use.
By junkmandan - Friday, January 13, 2012 4:07 PM
Geoff------ 6V53 ought to get 10 mpg at that weight [plus or minus].  Older ratings were 195 HP with 45 MM injectors,From the mid 70s on 50mm injectors gave them 216 HP @2800 ,440 lb.ft.@16-1700 . I had an 1890D 30 years ago ,only ran it at the dragstrip about the same time the Burt Reynolds lookalike picture was taken .then moved a few storage trailers with it .  Ended up selling the engine to repower a Grove T-18 truck crane .
By Bruce Ohnstad - Friday, January 13, 2012 5:19 PM
so a medium-heavy Chevy would have a 427, and the one tons use the 454?  What dates would the 427 be used, and is the 454 just for one tons but not in the mediums?

Bruce
By Bill White - Friday, January 13, 2012 5:43 PM
Bruce, The 427 was from 1967-95 the tall block 454 was in the 80s.

Bill
By tundra - Friday, January 13, 2012 6:03 PM
dunno bought the years of avaliilty

...what little i know [which aint jack ##$]

....the big block chev was introduced in 1965 .....the early versions had a full round oil gally in the rearmost cam galley....

....they were introduced originally assa high performance pass car and light duty truck engine option.....

....they also became the updated big block to replace the old 348/409 that were originally produced fer truck applications .....and later in the late 50;s and early 60;s became the perfomance engine fer light vehicles also

...

the 396/427 share the same block and crank .....jest larger bore on the 427...

...the 366/427 truck engines  also share a coomon block and crank [but have a taller deck heighth] as well as outher mods

......all tall deck truck engines have 4 bolt main caps ...as well as the reg deck high performance 396/427/454/ ........the lowere hp reg deck big blocks retained 2 bolt main caps

.......the 454 hassa cutout in the lowere cyl walls ta allow fer the longer stroke crank

....[454 sharin the same bore as the 427 ...but longer stroke crank]

....the big hp light vehicle big blocks were at 375 on the 396/up to 435 on the 427 and over 450 on the hi per 454[factory underated ratins] usually solid lifter cams /11.5 comp ratio/oval port cyl heads in either closed or open cumbustion chambers

...round 1970 there was also a 402 version [oversize bore 396] .......they were usually still considerd a 396 .....and rumor was that GM was oversizin the bore ta get ridda ther ;;;blem;; blocks that they had layin round .........kinna like chrysler did back then with undersizin crank journals back then and mixin and matchin parts and castins that had originally ;;flunked;;;

....all truck engines [as well as the go fast hi per car engines ] had forged cranks ...rather than cast cranks....[easily seen by the castin flash ] ..

..also easy ta see at initall view  the additional oil port ta allow fer an oil cooler above the  block filter castin...which usually indicates 4 bolt main caps/forged crank


....due ta the fact of the longer 454 crank stroke .......those engines are not internally ballanced...they require an off balance flywheel and harmonic balancer [which is also true of some ford and chrysler poducts also]......which is ther cheap way of balancin the large stroke  engines

...
 ....it;s said that there wassa tall deck 454 ;;truck ;;; engine also

....but ...i aint never seen one

.....but ...whatta i know.......[not much]    as usualle ....lol
By tundra - Friday, January 13, 2012 9:13 PM
way back when ...used ta haveta work on allotta gas burners

...back then allotta people didnt wanna go ta diesel pwr [esp down in ;;spud flats;;]

....most all manufactures hadda buncha losers  in that game

.....gas and diesel versions...

......IH made somea the best gas burners at the time [and some really pos diesel burners also]

.....GM made some good gas burners also.....[but... they made some junk also ...diesel and gas]

course dodge wassent much inta desiel .....in the later years....less it was vendor supplyed

....no different bought ford either[they have marketed there own share of garbage also]
By GEOFF - Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:39 AM
Man where do I start to thank you guys for all the GREAT information.  I'm going to be printing this thread off cuz there is info I want to refer to again and again.

TUNDRA, thanks so much for taking time to include such an extensive bunch of detail!!  You have answered many of my questions.  We all know now that diesels are totally the way to go but back then it wasn't so clear.  And that's what I've been wondering is what DID TURN OUT to be the best quality gas burner truck motors.  A while back in WOT or Old Time Trucks there was a great article on the Ford Super Duty gassers that came out I believe in 1958.  I think these were also great quality truck gas motors.

What was your favorite all time IH gas motor, for medium duty trucks????

Also, would you have access to 366, 427 tall deck truck motor hp/torque ratings??

Dan the Man, Wolf Creek, Glenn Akers,

One thing about how this thread has brought out info, is youve got me HOOKED on that 6V53!!!!!  Probably not for this Loadstar of mine, but I'm going to keep my eye out for the oportunity for another truck with a 6V53 in it.  That video got me pumped!!!  No wonder there were so many deaf farmers and truckers from those screaming Detroits!!  But I LIKE that noise in a hobby truck, that would be SO fun!!  And really respectable numbers from DTMan, hp/torque and potential mpg.  You could have FUN, PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMY all at once.   Gonna keep my eye out!  Thanks again!

GEOFF
By GEOFF - Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:57 AM
We got the heater working in my old Loadstar and I took it up to the next town to pick up my antiquated little Ditchwitch last night.  Had a BLAST coming home, the original IH AM only radio crackling away with some news show, even my high beam indicator works, cab lights lighting up the hood!  AWESOME!!  Might even just keep this truck original, even with the weakish 404 since I learned over on the OldIhc sight that there are not that many Sundance versions out there.  Or keep it original with the 404 right now while I look for a crank etc.. (HARD TO GET) to make it into a 446.

Dashby, thanks for the numbers on the 454.  Also glad GMC took good care of you on the Yukon. 

Bill White, thanks to you too sir for the years of production info.

Wayne, great question regarding the DT466.  I read in Crismons IH book that yes they started putting 210hp turbocharged versions of the DT466 in the Loadstar in 1976 and I'll bet they started garnering the good rep that the 466 has now.  Same time they were putting that diesel version of the 549 gasser that like Tundra said was one of the pos motors that some of the manufacturers were putting out then.

Brocky, I'll bet that 555 will work just fine.  My bro in law, wheat farmers in NE Montana, they get great runs out of less stellar motors than about any one that I know, but the old man there, INSISTS on changing oil about twice as often as most people.  They have gotten great runs out of 903 Cummins in Versatile 900 and the 555 in a Versatile 700 that they sold eventually but they still run the 903 LOTS every year and its a 1973 model.  Never been rebuilt or anything major done to it.  Also an old Ford 7.3L diesel, they got more miles on that 7.3, I think I need to change oil more often!

Bruce, it really is interesting how some motors get great reputations and others you don't hear much about.  I'm glad that my 80GMC 6000 has that 366 in it cuz it may not go too fast but it'll get the job done.

Hope I didn't miss anyone, as you can tell I really appreciate the enlightenment! Thanks!

GEOFF
By chocko - Saturday, January 14, 2012 10:24 AM
Geoff if you like noise you hit the Bonanza with the 6V-53 Detroit. my father had one in a late sixties IH 1890D. For the backhaul to Newark,N.J. almost every week he would load for Dallas and Mavis or Kenosha AutoTransport out of Jeep Toledo with 4 or 5 weapons carriers. almost every time the Ohio Troopers would throw him of Ohio Turnpike for going too slow. Truck could not pull hat off your head. It was still better than the IH DV 550 though. Joe D.
By turbobill - Saturday, January 14, 2012 12:13 PM
Geoff,

Check your throttle linkage. My last International dump with a Red Diamond 406 felt weak and underpowered. While working on the carb one day I decided to see if the throttle was opening all the way. It wasn't because of the wear in the linkage. Once fixed, it was like 3 more cylinders were added.

Your 404 should do as good as job as a 392 or for that matter a RD406. Make sure the timing is correct, throttle opens all the way and if it is a 4 barrel carb, that the secondary side is actuallyy opening when at full throttle. Dual exhaust is another area. These big V8's need to breath, The factory single exhaust systems were restrictive and raised exhaust temperatures as well.

HP/torque for the 366 range from 180 to 200HP, 290 to 310 pounds feet of torque. The 427 ranges from 195 to 230HP, 340 to 360 pounds feet.  All these are SAE net ratings.

If all else fails with your 404, a turbocharger will work nicely.
By Geoff Weeks - Saturday, January 14, 2012 12:32 PM
GEOFF (1/14/2012)
.

What was your favorite all time IH gas motor, for medium duty trucks????

GEOFF


You bring up an intersting part of IHC history. IHC in the 50's had just designed their own light truck motor (Silver diamond series 220, 240) and the older medium and large truck engines were redesigned. The BLD medium duty 6 was re-designed without liners into the 282 and 308 inline six. They redisgned the oiling system to accept a full flow oil filter and changed the block to accept a low mount distributor (down just above oil pan level) so it would fit in the cabover trucks of the day. Prior to this point the medium six had the distributor mounted above the valve cover, an adaptation that had come about when the engine lost its geardriven genny/distributor back in the 30's. 

  The large trucks got a redesign of the RED large six that itself was redesign of the FBx series.

  Almost as soon as the 282-308 came out, IHC came out with the Small V 8 266-304 (and later 345 392) which was placed in the medium trucks.  Very few medium trucks were sold or exist with the base (282 or 308) inline 6. Most got the V-8 and there wasn't much inbetween the small V-8 and the large inline 6 and LV (large V) 8 cyl engines for the heavy truck line. The SV 392 was the std medium truck engine until the smog laws of the '70's

 the heavy trucks had the option of the RD (large inline 6) and the LV (large V-8) and the V-8 diesel (which by most accounts was a disaster).

 So to get to your question about medium truck engines until the 70's your choice was the BD 282 or 308 inline or the V8 in 345 or 392 which most opted for. The MV didn't come about until the 70's by which time diesels were starting to real gain a foothold.

 The 308 was a good engine but too small for medium truck work with the speeds and loads common in the 60's and 70's. It disappiered in the late 60's.

 Kind of like the Big three. Ford had the 300 six as the base engine in the medium line, Chevy the 292 and Dodge the 225-2 but they really pushed their V-8's in those application and not many trucks were built with the six.
By GEOFF - Sunday, January 15, 2012 5:28 PM
Before we let this thread fade into the sunset I wanted to thank you guys for a bunch of great info in the last 3 posts.

Chocko,  great story about your dad!  I was thinking that with 5 weapons carriers he could be grossing maybe 60,000 - 70,000lbs or more so maybe that 6V53 was just a little over taxed!!  That's still pretty funny to get thrown off the turnpike.  One of my pet peeves is the law around here REALLY watches for speeders but ignores the RV with some old fella doing 45 with a string of 10 road rage prone vehicles behind him.  You're so right about that DV550, I don't know what IH was thinking, for that amount of cubic inches to get that poor of power and then poor reliability on top of poor EVERYTHING else, just makes me wonder!  I noticed at the same time they were starting to install DT466's with 210hp and torque around 480ft/lbs finally they had a decent medium motor.

Turbobill,  At long last I get to see some numbers on the GMC 366!  Thanks a million, that engine along with the 427 have such a great reputation that I was anxious to see the torque numbers!  I couldn't find anything on my search so you sure answered my question.  I'll really look at my throttle linkage and make sure I'm getting 100% out of that 404.  I see from Crismons book on IH from later on like 1978 or 79 that they used a 4 barrel on the 404, I wonder how much that helped.  If I really want to turbo it, you know I'll come to you for advice, I guess you didn't get the name Turbobill without having some experience with turbos.

Geoff Weeks, Thanks a ton for taking time to give such a great bunch of info!!!  Hope you are driving safe out there and that winter is being decent to you.  You seem to drive the northern plains a lot and that is no picnic in the winter.  You amaze me with your wide range of expertise on so many subjects!  I really appreciate the info!  Drive safe sir and like Mackdaddy says, "green lights and dry roads!"

GEOFF
By Bill White - Sunday, January 15, 2012 6:40 PM
Geoff, I had a couple of 6V-53's with allison auto and 3 way brownie in dump trucks gross wt was 52,000 and they performed quite well
By kblackav8or - Sunday, January 15, 2012 8:05 PM
If you want to drive and enjoy it more.. here is something that would be easy.  Find an early 90's school bus with a DT-360.  Swap that in.  Would be one of the more inexpensive swaps, they have a Bosch P-pump just like a B-Cummins does so you could turn it up a little if you like.  It probably would sound decent and if you gear it right might even get up into the teens for MPG.  Now it isn't the old gasser with the noisy fan (I remember riding in a lot of those when IML had them as city delivery trucks and tractors) and school buses too but they were never rocket ships and did suck the gas.  I wouldn't put a GM gasser in there.  Just wouldn't be right.  You end up with a diesel with the right pedigree and something that will be useful as well. 
By PZ 1 - Sunday, January 15, 2012 8:53 PM
kblackav8or (1/16/2012)


  Now it isn't the old gasser with the noisy fan (I remember riding in a lot of those when IML had them as city delivery trucks and tractors) and school buses too but they were never rocket ships and did suck the gas. 

 


Noisy fan is right - that was the most memorable thing about them. When you saw a 1960's Loadstar going through the gears, about the only thing you heard was the fan. They must have had it turning some high RPM's.
By turbobill - Monday, January 16, 2012 12:48 AM
GEOFF (1/15/2012)
You're so right about that DV550, I don't know what IH was thinking, for that amount of cubic inches to get that poor of power and then poor reliability on top of poor EVERYTHING else, just makes me wonder!  I noticed at the same time they were starting to install DT466's with 210hp and torque around 480ft/lbs finally they had a decent medium motor.GEOFF


The DV550 was based on the 549 gasoline engine.  Back then, several manufacturers based diesels on existing gasoline engines. These were naturally aspirated.  Some were somewhat successful and others not so much.

If you compare figures, you'll find that everything else being equal, gasoline engines cubic inch for cubic inch, will produce more horsepower and torque than a diesel (side valve engines excepted). The only thing that eventually made diesels competitive with gasoline engines in power was the turbocharger. I believe the only turbocharged gasoline burning/spark ignition large truck engine was a Hall Scott engine in the 1950's.

A DV550 was rated at 210HP@3200RPM.................391lbs/ft@2100RPM (highest rating) while a turbocharged longer stroke variant (DVT573) was rated at 260hp@2600...............578lbs<="" a="">/ft@1800RPM. You'l notice that the HP is produced at a lower RPM indicating much greater torque at that RPM too. Just about all of this gain is due to turbocharging. The increase in displacement is only 4%.

[b]GEOFF (1/15/12)[b]
  I see from Crismons book on IH from later on like 1978 or 79 that they used a 4 barrel on the 404, I wonder how much that helped. GEOFF


Not sure what carburetors the MV engines or the V8 537 used, but the 4 barrels used on the RD501 and V549 had small barrels (as did the 2 barrels used on their smaller variants).

2bbl 404............189HP@3600..............326lbs/ft@2200  (49 state, California slightly less)

4bbl 404............210HP@3600..............336lbs/ft@2800  ('75-'80)   In 1981 slightly lessHP (206), lower torque peak RPM (2200)

.
By may pop - Monday, January 16, 2012 3:35 AM
I wish I would have seen this thread earlier. In 1980 I bought a 77 1700 LoadStar. 404 2 barrel 5 speed T496 2 speed rear axle18 ft. box. I used it to haul feight through out Il.,Wis.,Ind. and Missouri. The first engine started leaking after a year or so. So I stopped at my IH dealer and he said I could get me a NEW one for around 2500.My father in law and I put it in using a large tree hanging over the driveway. It came with a 4 barrell manifold on it with NO governor. I put a Holley 850 double pumper on it. This really changed the motor and the way the truck performed. I would say the MV series is WAY better than the 345-392 engines any day. The second engine had nearly 300k on it when I sold the truck. The only problem was a cracked exhaust manifold. She got 7-8 mpg when it was hot out and empty-11500LBS and 5-6 loaded 24-28000. The big problem was she had hydro vac brakes and was hard to stop when loaded.

Ron
By GEOFF - Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:48 PM
Winter has set in here in Wa State, glad to have a fire in the woodstove, and glad Eddy got the switch done successfully!  This thread is on it's last legs but I'm really thankful for the last posts cuz there is some really useful information that still came out.

Bill White, If that 6V53 handles 52,000 think how much fun it'd be to have one in a 26,000 to 28,000 max Loadstar!!!  Thanks for passing along your experiences. 

KBlack,  thanks for all you do for the organization.  I admire the way that you are coming along on that KW of yours!  Good suggestion that I hadn't thought of, that must be the little brother to the DT466?  I'll do some reading on it.  Fly careful, and thanks for the suggestion. 

PZ1, For some reason I don't remember the fan noise.  I graduated High School in 1980, rode on a lot of IH school busses, what I DO remember is the CLICK CLICK sound as the driver shifted gears.  Outside of the 2 speed rear diff, the trans seemed to make a click sound from gear to neutral then another click from neutral to the next gear.  I remember being facinated by that.  My 1600 Loadstar (1974 model) sounds just like I remember, my 1700 with the T496 sounds different being shifted.

Turbobill, boy was I right when I surmised you might know a thing or two about TURBOCHARGERS!  They really wake a diesel up don't they?!  That DVT573 shows some respectable numbers, never heard much about the durability though.  Really appreciate your hp/ torque ratings for the 4barrel 404 vs the 2 barrel.  Great info!!!  Thanks a million for sharing all of that!

May Pop,  Hey man you hit the nail on the head with your REAL LIFE experience with the Loadstar!  Your Loadstar back then was almost a twin of mine, from 404 to 18' bed to your Tare Wt. mine is 11,200lbs, to the T496 transmission.  The fact that yours went almost 300,000 miles with such good fortune is an INSPIRATION to me.  I always hear about how great the 345 or 392 is but your's is really the first I've heard personal GREAT experience with the 404.  That 404 had a lot of machining and MUST have some good points.  I'm going to REALLY consider your viewpoint of getting a 4 barrel intake and some kind of matching 4 barrell carb to wake my 404 up.

Well thankyou again you all!!  There is enough great info on this thread, thanks to you guys, that I will definitely print it off for future reference.  I was looking for a picture of this Sundance 1700 Loadstar of mine, couldn't find one.  Need to take some and might post on a seperate thread of APPLE HARVEST TRUCK PICTURES from the last few years.  Thanks again!

GEOFF
By Bill White - Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:36 PM




a pair that was online
By kblackav8or - Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:47 PM
The DT 360 was available certainly from the 80's at some point till the mid 90's.  They are pretty similar in size to a 5.9 Cummins and even share the same Bosch injection pump.  They are good solid motors and a bit smaller then a 466.  Somewhere I have a list of dimensions and weights.  I think many were in the 190 hp to low 200's.  They do respond to being turned up and other actions if you need a bit more. 
Here is a link for some tech - On Tuesday it is blacked out due to a protest but should be up in a few days.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navistar_DT_engine


http://forums.aths.org/InstantForum2010/Uploads/Images/d0ecd051-1a17-488c-b671-5d96.jpg
By turbobill - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:43 AM
Some years ago I bought a 66 passenger school bus with a DT360 for a move to Florida. It was 180HP and 399lbs ft of torque@1700RPM. If I recall, it was governed at 2800RPM.

While enroute, blew a tire and went to a truckstop to get it fixed. I ran it across the scales and it weighed 37400 pounds. The bus pulled every Interstate hill in PA at 30MPH on the governor (needed a gear between 3rd and 4th) and averaged 9.3 MPG for the entire 1300 mile trip. Top speed was 63 MPH and I ran it at 55.

Have to say I was more than impressed with the little DT360.
By rubbishman - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:39 PM
According to the IH sales engineering bulletins and other references the DV series was supposed to be a drop in replacement for the large V series gassers, using the same trans, axles, etc as opposed to going with large bore (Cummins) requiring heavy duty componants to handle the torque.

It was repeated a number of times in the SAE journal article on the DV that they were not simply a diesel conversion of the V8's, but they did admit they were machined along the gas engine assmbly line.

Yes they were a POS I drove one in the 70s! The city of LA had a fleet of DV550 COF-1950 refuse rear loaders they converted them all to 1160s left the same Allison MT trans etc ran them a few more years than scrapped them. I thought the 1160 was not much better.

For whatever it's worth.
By GEOFF - Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:24 PM
Thanks for the valuable additions to this thread!

Bill White, AWESOME pics of the Sundance version.  I had never seen one on a tandem axle.  The single driver is an almost twin to mine.  I looked thru my wife's apple harvest pictures and was surprised to find that we had NO pics of this Loadstar 1700 of mine.  I'm not good at posting pics but have just got to get good at it.  My resolve is to take some over the weekend and learn ONCE AND FOR ALL how to post them WITHOUT one of my kid's help!  I want to learn how to post them like you did, where they JUST COME UP without everybody having to click on the code!  Great pics and thanks!

Kevin,  thanks for your info on the DT360.  That IH new paint on that motor is the same color of the REAL IH version 6.9L that I had put in my 75 IH 200 pickup back in 1983.  Seeing that pic makes me want to REpaint the motor in that old pickup.  Thanks again!

Turbobill, there is no more interesting story to me than REAL life experience.  I was sure SURPRISED to hear that the school bus weighed so much!  Was that loaded with your stuff, that COULDN'T be a TARE wt. could it???  9.3mpg with all of that, that is some kind of testimonial!  Especially over 1,300 miles!

Rubbishman, I'm an apple and pear grower out here in Wa State.  I was in a pear marketing meeting today and learned that POS means "point of sale" in marketing terms.  I kinda laughed to myself wondering if anyone else was thinking of the converted gas motors into diesels back in the late 70's very early 80's!!!!  LOL!!  I appreciate you weighing in with your reality check!  Thanks!!

GEOFF
By turbobill - Saturday, January 21, 2012 3:01 AM
It was loaded with lots of parts and tools. Very little houseold stuff. The tare weight of a bus like that is in the 13,000 pound range.

Some years earlier, a friend of mine bought an International bus with a 345 V8 for a move to North Carolina from northern New York. The exhaust pipe came straight out the rear bumper. When he stopped for fuel in lower PA, the heat from the exhaust had melted some parts on the front of the car he was towing.

I also remember him complaining about the fuel mileage.
By Copper - Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:05 PM
I'd rather put a 404 in a GMC than put a 366 in an IH - but maybe that's just me.  We ran several flavors of Loadstars over the years as farm trucks, my favorite being a '69 1700 with a 392/5&2 single axle.  But, right now, I do have a '75 1800 with a 404 4BBL/5&2 single, and it will SPANK any 366 GMC.  I bought the truck used, it has a Weber carb with no governor, and not in the best shape internally (run second to the hottest spark plugs to keep the oil off 'em), but it runs really strong compared to the 366's in the yard.  If you're going to stay gas, I'd say work over the 404 and leave it in there - or put a 466 in it.  Have a neighbor with a matched pair of them with 466's, bought them both new, NICE old trucks.  I'd love to find a twin screw tandem 1800 with a 466 for a grain box truck, I just like those cabs.
By GEOFF - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:02 PM
Copper,

Just wanted to thankyou for sharing your experience.  I'm starting to get more respect for my 404.  It sat outside the other night, about 10 degrees F.  Started right up, even with the automatic choke.  Kinda got my attention!!!  Got more heart than I thought, that old gasser!!  LOL!!

What would be the range of GVW on an 1800 versus a 1700 Loadstar????  I think my 1700 is GVW of 23,600, going by memory right now though.  I know my 1600 is 18,600LBS for sure.

I'll pay attention to your advice about the second to the hottest plugs.  Seems some don't really like Champions, I'll try to stay with Autolite.

Maybe the 4 barrel would make a pretty good difference.  As was said above, I need to totally verify that my throttle linkage is all OK.

I'm right with you man, I like that old Loadstar cab too!!

TurboBill,

Thanks for the TARE wt clarification.  Makes more sense.  I was a little confused about what you were using the old school bus for.

Hilarious story, (not for your buddy) about the exhaust being so hot that it melted some parts on the car he was towing.  That would be MY luck!!  At least all that gasoline these old corn binders suck was making some HEAT!!!!!

Thank you all again!

GEOFF