What if I wanted a cheap, stupid-fast truck?

kanaric wrote:

pres589 wrote: Pre-runner-ish? 2WD Comanche w/ some V8.

AMC 360/390/401 Comanche. Regardless Comanche seems to be the most awesome option.

iirc a stock 4.0 Comanche weighs slightly less than 3000lbs

MrChaos wrote:

kanaric wrote:

pres589 wrote: Pre-runner-ish? 2WD Comanche w/ some V8.

AMC 360/390/401 Comanche. Regardless Comanche seems to be the most awesome option.

iirc a stock 4.0 Comanche weighs slightly less than 3000lbs

And if you wanted more power or something a little different, you can stroke these with a 258 crank and rods. Works out to 4.6 and makes mad torques. There was a guy on pirate4x4 building KOH jeeps with 4.6s and lots of turbo. It wouldn't be as cheap as dropping a sbc in a s-10 but it would be way more awesome.

TTB Ranger + 5.0 + T5 + 8.8 + spool. Fast and pre-runner-ish (which was a piece of the puzzle in the OP no?)

Bobzilla wrote: My best friend had one. 92 318 reg cab shortbed with the auto. We were door to door in my 2.2/5spd Sonoma (2000) to 70mph when we both let off. Repeated this 3 times. Same result. That thing was a turd stock. Ran out of air around 3500 but wouldn't shift until 4500.

Well that's why. They didn't up the power to 230hp until 93. The older bodies are good because they're lighter, not because of the engines. My great uncle had one as a parts runner, 318, shortbed, looked like it had been lowered and didn't sound stock, and it went like stink on the back roads. Then he replaced it with a high mile 3.9 4by and went all sad.

He still refuses to sell me the little mitsu he uses now.

ebonyandivory wrote: TTB Ranger + 5.0 + T5 + 8.8 + spool. Fast and pre-runner-ish (which was a piece of the puzzle in the OP no?)

main issue is the ttb portion because to make them strong you have to spend $$$$$.

You say "pre-runner-ish". Is it ever going to see offroad duty?

Because if so, S10's suck balls. They're basically g-body's.

HiTempguy wrote: You say "pre-runner-ish". Is it ever going to see offroad duty? Because if so, S10's suck balls. They're basically g-body's.

Agree 100%. To make an S-10 good offroad, you must frist remove the Front axle and install a solid one.. then it'll work better.

MrChaos wrote:

ebonyandivory wrote: TTB Ranger + 5.0 + T5 + 8.8 + spool. Fast and pre-runner-ish (which was a piece of the puzzle in the OP no?)

main issue is the ttb portion because to make them strong you have to spend $$$$$.

So not true. The Dana 28 was kinda wimpy but the later Dana 35 by all accounts (4Wheel & Off-Road and Four Wheeler magazine etc.) was a very strong-in-stock-form axle.

"The TTB suspension is extremely durable in stock form, but wheel travel and articulation traits are somewhat lacking. These things really come to life when modified."

"The Ford Twin-Traction-Beam (TTB) suspension was a unique, but simple approach to combining the ride & handling qualities of independent suspension with the legendary durability of a straight beam axle. It was built by Ford, in conjunction with Dana using the same technologies used in the Dana-Spicer straight axle. This includes items such as U-jointed axle shafts, fully adjustable/serviceable wheel bearings and standard locking 4WD hubs in both automatic (mechanical) and manually engaged versions. A large number of parts are even interchangeable between the two axle types. "

2wd TTB is very different from the 4x4 TTB.. Suggest 2wd for prerunner.

HiTempguy wrote: You say "pre-runner-ish". Is it ever going to see offroad duty? Because if so, S10's suck balls. They're basically g-body's.

Yes it will, and a goal here is power first, then long travel kit later OR available used with suspension already done and awaiting power (hence the Hardbody and Ranger seeming like good options).

As far as severity of use, local gravel/dirt roads with stock suspension, pine barrens (DEEP sand) and yumps with long travel bits.

Yeah, the pre-runner part is why I suggested a Comanche and not an S-10 or Mazda B2x00 as a starting point, because of the strength / suspension issues as others have noted.

A few ideas, use your imagination:

Gladiator http://asheville.craigslist.org/cto/4615898107.html

K5 http://nh.craigslist.org/cto/4624440321.html

Ranger http://ocala.craigslist.org/cto/4603564350.html

JFX001 wrote: Ranger http://ocala.craigslist.org/cto/4603564350.html

That's my formula (except I mentioned 4x4. OP recently mentioned "DEEP" sand)!!!

In reply to ebonyandivory:

I'd give him $5 for it! $10 even
I like 2wd. Deep sand just means keep your speed up.

I had a V8 S10. 5.3 truck, T56, all in a gardener's old 87 shortbed. Wicked fast doesn't even begin to describe it. I bought it for $2000, sold the parts individually and made my money back... while keeping the T56. The way I see it, I abused the berkeley out of that truck and made $750.

4th gear would roast the tires on the highway. Imagine doing 70... sideways.... with a cloud of smoke behind you...

A few thousand in upgrades would have proper traction and an axle that would handle it.

Turbo-Lima Ranger. Got an engine I'd like to get started on now and that is the plan...

NONACK wrote:

HiTempguy wrote: You say "pre-runner-ish". Is it ever going to see offroad duty? Because if so, S10's suck balls. They're basically g-body's.

Yes it will, and a goal here is power first, then long travel kit later OR available used with suspension already done and awaiting power (hence the Hardbody and Ranger seeming like good options). As far as severity of use, local gravel/dirt roads with stock suspension, pine barrens (DEEP sand) and yumps with long travel bits.

man, you're all over the place these days, lol.

my suggestion would be an XJ Cherokee with the HO 4.0. It's pretty quick in the first place, has off-road ability that is pretty much unmatched, and there's a lot that can be done to make it faster. Plus you get the enclosed rear end and it weighs about what a Comanche weighs, but with less rear overhang (IIRC).

NONACK wrote: In reply to ebonyandivory: I like 2wd. Deep sand just means keep your speed up.

Ever drive in even non-deep sand in a 2wd rwd truck?

Sounds possible to never slow down or stop or back up. It's not. But since you have a bed, you can keep your shovel and a weeks worth of water and camping gear back there!

I'll second the XJ suggestion as well. Just look at JeepSpeed. Those guys FLY. I wanted to buy an XJ with a SBC swapped in. Advanced Adapters and possibly Novak Enterprises make it possible.

While were on the subject (kinda), a 4.3 Vortec in a Samurai has been done many times. Lightning Conversions can help with that!

ebonyandivory wrote:

MrChaos wrote:

ebonyandivory wrote: TTB Ranger + 5.0 + T5 + 8.8 + spool. Fast and pre-runner-ish (which was a piece of the puzzle in the OP no?)

main issue is the ttb portion because to make them strong you have to spend $$$$$.

So not true. The Dana 28 was kinda wimpy but the later Dana 35 by all accounts (4Wheel & Off-Road and Four Wheeler magazine etc.) was a very strong-in-stock-form axle. "The TTB suspension is extremely durable in stock form, but wheel travel and articulation traits are somewhat lacking. These things really come to life when modified." "The Ford Twin-Traction-Beam (TTB) suspension was a unique, but simple approach to combining the ride & handling qualities of independent suspension with the legendary durability of a straight beam axle. It was built by Ford, in conjunction with Dana using the same technologies used in the Dana-Spicer straight axle. This includes items such as U-jointed axle shafts, fully adjustable/serviceable wheel bearings and standard locking 4WD hubs in both automatic (mechanical) and manually engaged versions. A large number of parts are even interchangeable between the two axle types. "

Is this a different Dana 35 than the one that XJ Cherokee guys break when wheeling on measly 33" tires?

In reply to Swank Force One:

front d35 not a rear one

I would say they are about equal as front axles but the D30 has more aftermarket being a solid axle

and the 2 ttb rigs that have run King of the Hammers have been ttb d44/ttb d50 hybrid based rigs

patgizz wrote: v8 but prefer the nicer sonoma vs s10. stay boxy for better looks and less weight. then drop rear via springs and blocks, add zq8 sway bar. drop front via spindles and 1 coil cut, add zq8 sway bar and tubular upper circle track arms. align, add sticky 17's on soft 8's, have fun. or buy a 4.3 truck, skip v8 and add turbo. or don't bother as a shortbed regular cab 4.3 is pretty quick anyway. look up "glued to the ground" in the dictionary and there may be a picture of my old sonoma.

Haha,I think your definition of "glued to the ground" and mine differ regardless of what dictionary you wanna look it up in.

I had a 327 powered S10 back shortly after tires went from wood to rubber...fun but glued to the ground it wasn't.

Definitely plenty of upgrades for s10's

I still think the full size 1973-198? Chevrolet is cheap, fast, and parts are easy to buy/find.

Grizz wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: My best friend had one. 92 318 reg cab shortbed with the auto. We were door to door in my 2.2/5spd Sonoma (2000) to 70mph when we both let off. Repeated this 3 times. Same result. That thing was a turd stock. Ran out of air around 3500 but wouldn't shift until 4500.

Well that's why. They didn't up the power to 230hp until 93. The older bodies are good because they're lighter, not because of the engines. My great uncle had one as a parts runner, 318, shortbed, looked like it had been lowered and didn't sound stock, and it went like stink on the back roads. Then he replaced it with a high mile 3.9 4by and went all sad. He still refuses to sell me the little mitsu he uses now.

Something was wrong with Bob's buddy's Dak. '92 was the first year for the Magnum 318. '91 still had the TBI setup. My wife's cousin ordered a 2WD 318 standard cab stort bed Dak in '93. Ran 14.7 in the quarter on the stock Goodyear Invictas it came with. Only change to it was he dropped the tailgate down before running. Sadly after some poor decisions one night he wrapped it around a tree. He walked away, but the Dak didn't.

My '96 still pulls hard but I haven't run it at the track. Not sure the NV3500 will appreciate it too much.

In reply to Swank Force One:

Umm, well it's a TTB Dana 35 in the front of theFord and a Dana 30 in the front of the XJ so its not the same.

But you're asking a guy (me) who has rock crawled three lifted XJ's with 34" Super Swampers and never broke anything. But then again suppose I could break a Dana 60 if I drove like an idiot.

Take a minute and see how many guys do amazing things with Rangers, Explorers, XJ's, YJ's, TJ's and the like without breakage before you condemn it.