My 1959 B61T restoration/modification build thread

[Licensed to kill]

That is what I am trying to to but no luck. However you can find it at “Canadianrodder” forum, then search “ project gunsmoke”. Let me know if you find it. 

[wingrider]

Found it...I'll take a look at it.  Appreciate the help!

[Geoff Weeks]

1 hour ago, Joseph Cummings said:

You know when I started somewhere around 1980, we didn't really have Jake Brakes on anything. All the tractors were pretty bare bones ex Chemical Leaman and Matlack, 237, 5 speed, no power steering or AC. The dumps and roll off trucks were all DM600 227 6 speed, 55 rears and bare bones too.

I really never had anything with a Jake until I was working as an O/O for McHugh Brothers and I had to move some stuff I needed their 4 axle Autocar for

The two tractors I had that didn't have them, and were added in the 90's was because (mostly) OW/OD permit loads in some states required some form of "aux braking" when weights got up there.

Some of the guys I ran with had Cat brakesavers and Jakes both. he Brakesaver was a heavy, complex option, but in heavy haul, weight didn't matter much. One of my cabover's weight 22500 alone.

[mowerman]

Just had to add over Jake break use it seems for a while back in the 80s and 90s that was going on but a lot of us were owner ops with all these new kids driving fleet  trucks I really don’t hear much of that anymore. I was never a Jake brake fan at all only when you need it coming down mountains. 

[mowerman]

I understand what designed to keep from burning up your brake liningsand not just listening to the exhaust if that’s your thing go for it

[Joseph Cummings]

4 minutes ago, Geoff Weeks said:

Cat brakesavers and Jakes both.

My buddy bought a brand new 359 Pete that had both. He hauled out of G & R Cat and at first he worked right out of their yard. I drove the truck a couple times when it was older and he told me something was wrong with the brakesaver, so I didn't mess with it. I wasn't going far and the Jake was plenty

[Geoff Weeks]

I never had a Cat with the brakesaver, I have one 3406 powered tractor (Marmon), I remember them prone to oil and air leaks, and heavy.

They used engine oil in a turbine type housing, with an air operated valve directing oil into it. Anytime you had to re-seal the rear engine housing, it was a big job.

 BTW anybody who says "Cat's don't leak oil" are lying. Every engine has it problem points.

[Joseph Cummings]

36 minutes ago, Geoff Weeks said:

I never had a Cat with the brakesaver, I have one 3406 powered tractor (Marmon), I remember them prone to oil and air leaks, and heavy.

They used engine oil in a turbine type housing, with an air operated valve directing oil into it. Anytime you had to re-seal the rear engine housing, it was a big job.

 BTW anybody who says "Cat's don't leak oil" are lying. Every engine has it problem points.

I had one Cat powered truck in my life, 3406E powered Louiville. Damn thing ran so nice until one day I stopped to clean some gunk off the windshield and popped the hood so I could climb up. Saw steam coming out of the dipstick, pulled the stick and the oil looked like cappuccino. Finished up the day and dropped the pan, pressurized the cooling system and it was leaking coolant down the side of #4 liner. Started tearing it down, and there were pits on the camshaft. So the next morning I started pricing parts. After hearing the numbers I said "F" this. And I went out and bought a nicer Louiville with a Cummins for like half the money that I was quoted for parts. It's still here up on the hill and I've been robbing it for parts

[Geoff Weeks]

The older Cat's anyway, were good engines, but when they broke they broke you with them. 855 Cummins were cheap and easy to work on. My two Cabovers had Cummins 855 in them.

Both my Cat and my Cummins went well beyond 1m between overhauls, when under my care. My 1st truck I bought at 500K and ran it until 1.5m before overhaul.

[wingrider]

Does it do any good to up the power a little on this old Thermodyne engine of mine?  No turbo on it, so more fuel would equate to higher temps if I went to far.  Still not certain if that setup will work with my newer style rear end.  

[mattb73lt]

Welcome aboard! You've got the bones of a good project. Talking things out here on a thread, I think is a good idea. Getting other's input on what you want to do is another. There's lots of great knowledge lurking about on these pages. I like this place a lot more than other platforms as it's a smaller community and I think the information given is better and thought out versus mindless input that you're doing it wrong and ruining a classic truck. You're not and it yours to do what you want. I like the Idea of using the original frame and adding your modern pieces to it. That may be an easier route then an entire frame swap regarding mounting the cab, and later, the legalities of registration later. Keep talking and listening, come up with a plan and stick to it. Get it done and tweak it then as you get it on the road. Make good decisions about what you want early in your plan and move forward.

Like I said, this is a good place to build your project and keep it on track and your motivation up. I have a thread here that's about NINE(!!) years old on a truck I've owned for over 25 years. I found the thread invaluable for keeping the restoration going and in the direction I wanted. I ended up with the truck I had dreamed about and am now enjoying the fruits of my labors. Along the way I met a lot of good people, some actually in person, I became friends with and received a lot of good advice. I'm no mechanical novice, but mine was a massive project in scope and cost, and the input I received was invaluable. 

[mowerman]

Yeah,matt  I was thinking the same thing just like you put it seems to keeping that sheet metal on the original frame would be a lot easier although CH frame does sound kind of appealing … bob

[mowerman]

In other words, a whole lot more work to use the CH frame for very little gain… pretty much other guys said… bob

[Joseph Cummings]

25 minutes ago, Geoff Weeks said:

The older Cat's anyway, were good engines, but when they broke they broke you with them. 855 Cummins were cheap and easy to work on. My two Cabovers had Cummins 855 in them.

Both my Cat and my Cummins went well beyond 1m between overhauls, when under my care. My 1st truck I bought at 500K and ran it until 1.5m before overhaul.

Running local I never put any kind of big milage on them. I think that Cat had like 350K when it broke. But I bought it when it was 10 years old, and who knows if the guy was testing and treating the coolant. A lot of my days are spent loading and unloading, running a forklift, taking preloaded trailers that were dropped in my yard to a construction site. Stuff like that keeps me from getting bored.

Some days I just take one of my forklifts out to load someone else's trucks. Although I've really been slowing down now because I'm getting older and I can't work like I did when I was 20 something or even 40 or 50 something

[Licensed to kill]

18 minutes ago, mattb73lt said:

 That may be an easier route then an entire frame swap regarding mounting the cab, and later, the legalities of registration later.  

Different jurisdictions may be different but I don’t see registration as an issue. It will be registered as the plate on the door states. A case in point, years ago I bought a smashed up 2004 dodge single wheel 3500 Cummins (was jack-knifed with a goose neck trailer and smashed the cab/box). Bought a 2004 dodge 1500 with a good body but blown motor, put the body on the 3500 chassis and put it back on the road. Had to register it as a 1500 (as per the vin) and just changed the fuel to “ diesel”. There was no question about the chassis. However, like I said, this may vary by jurisdiction. 

[mattb73lt]

I ran a 1957 END-673 in my B42 for about 10 years before I had an issue with it. It was set for about 180 HP. I did fine for what I wanted. Made lots of trip s with it, one from Connecticut all the way to Colorado with a Model T on the back. It did fine in all those years. A little slow off the line and it did fall off on the hills. That caused a bit of extra shifting. Adding a turbo to it, something I never did, would bring it to a 205 HP. That would be using an original style turbo, a modern one may provide to much boost. The fuel delivery needs to be adjusted as well for the added boost, that's something a shop needs to do unless you know someone able to help you out. For the cost of messing around with an obsolete 673, I would consider looking for a good running 237, ENDT-675. It'd much more supported in the field. Parts, spin on filters are just two minor things on a larger list of benefits. More HP and much more torque are the main things. When my 673 quit, the price to fix it was the same as a great running takeout 237. The B42 was a completely different truck with it.

If you can get it running and on the road with the 673, run it and look for a 237. Parts have become very hard to find for the 673's, so rebuilding and fixing is an issue.

[Mark T]

I've often wondered if anyone ever tried an 8.3 Cummins in a B Model.

[mattb73lt]

5 minutes ago, Licensed to kill said:

Different jurisdictions may be different but I don’t see registration as an issue.

I agree with the differences. It depends on a lot of things, but I like the complete frame swap option for something I'm going to drive. Being able to fix or service it when not at home is a big plus. I did a lot of upgrades to my truck to try to avoid over the road issues. It's great being able to get what you need at a parts counter.

[Joseph Cummings]

44 minutes ago, wingrider said:

Does it do any good to up the power a little on this old Thermodyne engine of mine?

Yeah, same bore and stroke as a maxidyne. No oil sprays to cool the pistons and no turbo, no fire ring liners. but you're not pulling a loaded trailer around and lugging it down low like a Maxidyne with a 5 speed. I wouldn't worry about a turbo, you'll just make some black smoke. Don't forget, when you have a turned up engine, you can always ease up on your right foot if you think you are pushing it too hard

[Geoff Weeks]

I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe the B came with a title, I don't know about the CH frame.

I've only bought one truck on a Bill of Sale, and had that notarized and is no closer to being on the road than the day I bought it. 

 For me, it has to be a special case to buy without a title. The seller has the motivation to look for the title, and the ability to apply for a replacement title.

 I my case it was a very rare truck and incomplete. It had been in a yard that had been closed for 40 years and the owner died.  Not too many Dart oil field trucks survive, and most are parked in a state of decay in a museum outdoors somewhere.

I took a chance I could register it when the time came.

[wingrider]

Geoff, you are correct, there is no title for the B, and no title for the CH chassis.  MN has a very small loop hole that will hopefully allow me to get a title for the B.  I know it worked for a couple fellas in the past on these old cars/trucks.

3 hours ago, Joseph Cummings said:

Yeah, same bore and stroke as a maxidyne. No oil sprays to cool the pistons and no turbo, no fire ring liners. but you're not pulling a loaded trailer around and lugging it down low like a Maxidyne with a 5 speed. I wouldn't worry about a turbo, you'll just make some black smoke. Don't forget, when you have a turned up engine, you can always ease up on your right foot if you think you are pushing it too hard

I totally agree with you about the right foot!  I watch the pyro gauge on my Dodge, and know when to get out of it.

[Geoff Weeks]

My experience is different, if the pump is set too high, by the time you see it on the pyro and back out, the heat is already in the engine, and you have to keep backing out to try and keep the heat down. 

So you start up the hill, pyro and temp start to rise, and you have to keep backing down until you are below where you would be if you didn't over-fuel from the get-go.

The idea of limiting to a safe level, is you don't get the heat into the engine to begin with. The only time the correct setting of the pump to begin with struggles is at high altitude, 10,000'+

 Playing with pick-up is different than pulling with a load.

[wingrider]

I know they are apples and oranges in comparison, but to a small extent, I am guessing they act slightly similar…of course these are 50+ years apart, and I don’t have any experience with the older diesels except in tractors, which is again a different animal.  

[Geoff Weeks]

Once I was pulling over the Big Horn mts in Wyoming, 45 min foot to the floor, 25 mph and never let up, try doing that, "controlling" the pyro with your foot!  Then I had to come down the other side, jake a popping the whole way down.

[wingrider]

Awesome!  Can’t like anything more today, but will tomorrow.

Edited November 28 by wingrider