Well? is 5k too heavy, or is 8k too heavy?
I know most all would say lighter is better, but in your opinion, what is a "good" range to shoot for?

RElevance:
Still considering using that cucv as a trail rig, but that think would not be light when I was done... I *think* I could keep it under 5k, is that too heavy?

Most Jeeps: 3600-4200
Most Cruziers: 4200-5100

I don't know about the rest exactly.

Mike Shaffers' top ten ARCA competion rig is 2500??

My little Isuzu weighs 4680 ready for the trail. But it's balance at nearly 50/50 so that helps a lot. I've seen p/u with all the weight on the front end not do very well. :eek:

Do you want to lumber along in a log skidder with every possible tool and spare part you could possibly need on board ?
or...
Do you want to bonzi over things and land like a dirtbike ?

I've gone both routes and I'm really liking the light weight aspect, it takes less traction to get up and over things and landing softly is very easy to take.

5500-6000 is what I call heavy, 3800-4200 (trail ready) is what I'd shoot for. Of course it depends on the axles/drive train you choose. I like big, heavy iron drivelines D-60s,454 mill and 465 trans. I trimmed everything else down to the min., and it still weighs between 4200 and 4300 lbs.

One big point is the ft/rear ratio...put as much of the heavy stuff way back and low and it will handle as good as possible.

If I cut up the cucv, I would move the 6.2L back on the frame, all body would be gone and replaced with just tube, and the frame (it is a long bed) would be cut WAY down and made into a 4 link rear w/ quater eliptical rear suspension...

I still think I could get it down under 5k pounds, but no real way to know until I get into it...

Oh yeah, would be 6.2L, TH400, 208, 60 front, 14 bolt rear (both shaved), 42's on beadlocked rims...

Alternative is Toy frame, 60's, 4.3L, TH350, dual Toy cases, all tube body, 42's...

REally theonly part heavier is the BG frame, and the 6.2L


Anyone know how much a 4.3L weights vs a 6.2L diesel?

Put the winch behind the cab, maybe put the radiator back there also...You might be better off with a lighter frame to start with tho. (like a 1/2 ton or S-10)

A few pics of Larry's rig, used to be a 1977 (I think), he bought it brand new, now sports 42's 1-tons full hydro steering etc., this thing goes almost anywhere, won't win any show awards though. :smokin: I will have to find out how much it weighs, when he takes the doors off to wheel there isn't much left.

http://www.coloradok5.com/ejs2001/larry1.jpg

http://www.coloradok5.com/ejs2001/larry2.jpg

http://www.coloradok5.com/ejs2001/larry3.jpg

Originally posted by DRM
Anyone know how much a 4.3L weights vs a 6.2L diesel?

Chevy V6-90 229, 4.3 425lbs


Displacement 379 cu. in. (6.2 liters)
Engine weight (dry) 650 lbs


Here is an interesting chart. http://www.241computers.com/ford/eweight.html
And here is where I got the weight of the 6.2L http://www.qsl.net/ke6myk/greentruck/truck2/specs.html

Originally posted by Paul Gagnon


Chevy V6-90 229, 4.3 425lbs



I thought the 4.3 was a 262.

Originally posted by convertiyota


I thought the 4.3 was a 262.


Yes 4.3 = 262 cu.in.
Jay

Originally posted by Paul Gagnon

Chevy V6-90 229, 4.3 425lbs


Displacement 379 cu. in. (6.2 liters)
Engine weight (dry) 650 lbs

Wow... only 200 lbs?

Man... not near as bad as I thought after all... hmmm....

Originally posted by dirtrod
Put the winch behind the cab, maybe put the radiator back there also...You might be better off with a lighter frame to start with tho. (like a 1/2 ton or S-10)

Lighter frame would be nice, but remember I would basically be removing half of the frame anyway - so that is a LOT of weight gone...

Winch would stay up front, radiator too, but I could always move the engine back, or extend the front of the frame a little to offset the weight better...

Originally posted by convertiyota


I thought the 4.3 was a 262.

The 229 & 4.3 are both based on the same block. So, that was 229, 4.3 the same way one would say 305, 350 :)

TEX

P.S. I have a friend with a '72 3/4 ton Chevy mud racer. Full body, 38X12.50 TSL's on aluminum rims. 44 front, Eaton rear, leafs at all 4 corners, brakes at all 4. 383 SBC with aluminum heads, TH400/Rockwell T-case. With him in the cab, it weighed ~4,500 lbs when he rolled over the scales for NMRO checkin at the Jamboree Nationals. Hack the body off & remove a section of frame & I'll bet you'd lose at LEAST a thousand lbs. Now granted, you'd have a heavier engine, heavier tires, heavier front axle, a winch, and spare parts. But, cut down to 100-110" wheelbase with no body, I'll bet you could still keep it under 5k. 8k would be a true pig (and taxing on the tow rig BTW).

PPS. My tow rig weighs 5,591 - 2002 GMC 2500HD 4x4, 9.25" IFS front, 10.5" FF rear, X-cab, shortbed, full body, full amenities. My truck is probably at least 800 lbs heavier than that military, both in full-body form.

Hey TEX, what do most of the mud boggers down there weigh in at? What is the best way to have the weight distributed?

Anyone, know what stock early bronco weighs?

Thanks,
Chad

hell david its going to weigh in with in about 300 lbs of what the toy would, so what does it matter. buy it or give me the # of the guy.

Originally posted by gunracer1
hell david its going to weigh in with in about 300 lbs of what the toy would, so what does it matter. buy it or give me the # of the guy.

You know what, you nailed it right on with that comment :D

Shouldn't be much difference either way, so what does it matter?

Besides, I can always pul the 6.2 later and go 350, and I was checking and I can do the 203/205 doubler setup for under $1k... gets me where my Toyota dual cases would be, but stronger :p

Originally posted by clc900
Hey TEX, what do most of the mud boggers down there weigh in at? What is the best way to have the weight distributed?

Anyone, know what stock early bronco weighs?

Thanks,
Chad

Kinda tough to say. We normally don't have any scales available. Last time I've been to a race that had a scale I had my '78 CJ5 on 38's & 38.5's. Mine weighed 3,940 with a bunch of last week's mud still underneath. I was definitely the pig of the party. Some of the Super Stockers on full-width axles were coming in under 3k (flatfenders with small-blocks & one with a 427 FE). I'd say the average Jeep on 38.5" Boggers will be 3-3,500 at most. That with a full body & just a single seat. Mini-trucks are typically a bit more, say 3,500-4k. Full-sizes more still. Do have one friend with a '78 Chevy shortbed, full-body & leaf springs, with an iron-head 454 who says his truck checks in at 4,200 minus driver. Still has factory glass, minus front inner fenderwells, aftermarket disk brakes, 1/2 ton running gear, 38.5X11's on carbon fibers.

Really don't know what an EB weighs stock. Seems to be a pretty good-sized vehicle for a mud racing platform though. 'Bit more wheelbase than a CJ w/o a lot more weight.

TEX

Originally posted by DRM


Lighter frame would be nice, but remember I would basically be removing half of the frame anyway - so that is a LOT of weight gone...

Winch would stay up front, radiator too, but I could always move the engine back, or extend the front of the frame a little to offset the weight better...
Most of the weight is in the body on a GM. 2 reasonably strong guys' can move a stripped K5 frame with out much problems. A 1 ton frame has taller rails so more weight even when you cut it down. Hell make a hybrid. Drop a Toy cab on the cut down frame. Loose the width. A toy cab would weigh half as much as the full size cab.
I have had to lift the body off the rear of my K5 to replace some sheetmetal I had to lift a LOT before the body came free. The suspension came up a good 6 inches with the weight transfer to the front.
Guy on CK5 just dropped a fiberglass body on a K5 frame and instant 4 inches of lift when it shed 1500lb. K5 is pretty close to the same weight as a short bed truck. You remove the back seat, carpet, hard top and a K5 is probably lighter than a short bed. So when you shead the bed, and go with a Toy cab your probably going to loose about the same weight. I'm guessing you could proably get it close to 4k not counting tires and wheels if you went to a lighter cab and were very carefull with the bed you make for it. You will need some weight in the bed just don't go overboard.

Originally posted by DRM

Besides, I can always pul the 6.2 later and go 350, and I was checking and I can do the 203/205 doubler setup for under $1k... gets me where my Toyota dual cases would be, but stronger :p

I thought that you wanted this thing to be light. There is nothing light about a 203/205 Doubler! :eek:

Personally I don't see why you are so into this CUCV. The front axle and the transmission are the only things worth a damn, and I thought that you already had a front Dana 60.

Originally posted by DRM


Wow... only 200 lbs?

Man... not near as bad as I thought after all... hmmm....

The difference could be more than that. I'm not sure if those weights are for a bare engine assembly or fully dressed with all accessories.

Originally posted by TEX


The 229 & 4.3 are both based on the same block. So, that was 229, 4.3 the same way one would say 305, 350 :)

Yup. :)


PPS. My tow rig weighs 5,591 - 2002 GMC 2500HD 4x4, 9.25" IFS front, 10.5" FF rear, X-cab, shortbed, full body, full amenities. My truck is probably at least 800 lbs heavier than that military, both in full-body form.

I don't know if there would be that much of a diference in weight between the two. I would figure 3-400 lbs difference at the most, the CUCV may not be any lighter at all.

For a reference, my friend's '78 F250 regular cab, regular box weighs around 6600lbs with a 429, 435, 205, 60, 60 and 38" Swampers. My Explorer weighs 4700lbs. I cannot see the CUCV being lighter than my Explorer.

I saw comments about putting a Toy cab on the cucv - I would actually be building a full tube buggy on top of the front part of the frame...


As far as "why" build the cucv - yes, I already have another front 60, but it needs converting to 3/4 ton brakes, and also needs either one more drive flange or a set of lockouts. I also still need to round up a rear 60, get gears, locker, brakes, etc... i.e. - more $$$

The biggest benefit of the cucv I see is that it is a currently running and driving vehicle - I cam just make the body and suspension mods I want (like I would do to the other one too) and I am done.

Originally posted by Dirty Harry


I thought that you wanted this thing to be light. There is nothing light about a 203/205 Doubler! :eek:

Personally I don't see why you are so into this CUCV. The front axle and the transmission are the only things worth a damn, and I thought that you already had a front Dana 60.
Yeah it's heavy but it has a few things going for it. The weight is as low and center as you can get. So good for the Center of gravity. The problem is weight up high where it makes it more prone to laying over. The gain in gears far offsets the weight the minor weight you gains.
Problem with taking the bed off is you loose weight that helps with traction. That extra weight will help where it's located and allow for a real light bed.