Daily Topic - 80/800 vs. II - 10/30 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Brand Specific Tech > International Harvester
Notices

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-29-2001, 10:31 PM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5982
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,288
Post Daily Topic - 80/800 vs. II - 10/30

Scout 80/800 vs II... Bring it <IMG SRC="smilies/bounce.gif" border="0">

Since I already have a running 75 and an undecided 74. I'm sticking with the II's. Also at 6'4" the 80/800 don't offer much leg room. At some point I would love to build an 80/800 but for now it's II's all the way.

Joe
__________________
Was that a comment meant to hurt?
RU Dysfuncational http://thisdysfunctional.org/forum
jdjanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2001, 11:55 PM   #2 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Member # 7134
Location: Keno, Jefferson
Posts: 1,048
Send a message via ICQ to NotQuiteSane
Post

Well,
Marks 800 I just bought will be my first, but i'm leaning towards the 800 more for a trail rig.

the inner tub is all simple angles. easy to fix. less chance of having to deal with emissions ('65 is cutoff here)

now, otoh, the II has all the goodies, power steering, air conditioning, diesel.... good if you spend more time off dirt than on, but also useful off road.

this is a hard one to call. but the 80/800's are growing on me

Joe
__________________
These opinions are [u]mine[/u], [u]mine[/u] I say! Piss off and get your own.

Currently on [url=http://members.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aboutme/nqs%40tigger.tmcom.com/]ebay[/url]: Nothing

[url=http://tigger.tmcom.com/~nqs/blogger.html]As I see it[/url] -- An irregular blog
NotQuiteSane is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-30-2001, 06:49 AM   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4001
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 3,982
Post

There are some major differences between the 80/800 and the II's.

I think that either one can be built into a serious trail rig (obviously) However, the earlier Scouts are visually smaller with the same WB. This would usually translate to a better vehicle off road. However, After evaluating everything that I have done to my 80, I have come to realize that the earlier Scouts are worthless except for the bodies & frame. Even the V-8 ones look like someone at the factory decided to wedge a v-8 in there at the last minute. The motor is pushed all the way to the front adding more weight off center. The battery mount was hastily put in. The engine compartment looks like crap. Also, because they have a narrower body, I don't like the look of full size axles on them so custom or harder to find narrower axles are the only solution.

Now for Scout II's...I don't really know a thing about Scout II's. About the best one I've seen though is 460Scoutawndubs. He took an F250 and put the motor, tranny, t-case, front and rear axles, front coils, radius arms, & the whole nine under his Scout II. It looks like it should have come from the factory that way. I guess, I'll keep reading to hear about the II issues...

Even though my Scout is a PITA, I wouldn't have it any other way--It's definately unique

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Scout Dude ]
__________________
Dysfunctional Rockcrawlers
Scout Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2001, 07:08 AM   #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 14
Location: Brighton, CO
Posts: 3,099
Post

I had an opportunity to buy a scout 800 just 15 min before I bought my scoutII. I chose the scoutII for a couple reasons.

First: is that when I go wheelin' I almost ALWAYS go camping also. and I have a SHIAT load of camping gear.

Second: I have a family,(albeit a small family, Wife,Daughter,Dog) and the extra room will be nice.

Third: I like driving larger vehicles, now I know the scoutII isn't big compared to my blazer, but it's as big as I want to be and still have a "smaller" trail rig.

Fourth: I like style, and I don't think the earlier scouts have much of it. Don't ge me wrong I've seen some sweet looking ones
FOR EXAMPLE:

<IMG width=500 height=329 SRC="http://www.pirate4x4.com/ubb/uploads/funnyrocks.jpg">

But as a stock vehicle I don't think they look good to start with.

and lastly: I like power steering power brakes...and some of those other accessories that come on a scoutII and not the 800/80 series.
Cliffy [JD] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2001, 08:44 AM   #5 (permalink)
R O
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5921
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 1,427
Post

I think the ScoutII's are better built and easier to build and much easier to get parts for but a built 80\800 is hard to beat for coolness factor.
__________________
( /\ |\| /\ |) /\
R O is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2001, 09:44 AM   #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Member # 2071
Location: Helena, MT USA
Posts: 5,211
Send a message via AIM to tsm1mt
Post

The 80/800s have some nice features - fold down windshield, easily removable doors, less rear overhang, narrower body, sawzall friendly wheel wells..

OTOH, you pretty much have to GUT a Scout II to build an 800.

Power steering, wide box, D44s, A/C pump, etc.

You end up with the frame and tub.. and the frames are a bit smaller than the SII setup.

IMO, better to just slap an 80/800 tub on a Scout II frame and save yourself the trouble.

Use one of the FG tilt front clips and no worries about V8 or p/brakes fitting.

There. Done. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">
__________________
-Tom
KE7VUX
tsm1mt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2001, 08:27 PM   #7 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Member # 7626
Location: El Paso
Posts: 23
Post

I have a '76 Scout. I can do the hard trails but is really to big for the extreme stuff. Plus I don't like getting dents. So, I found this 80 down the street acouple month ago. If its still free, I will make a rock buggy out of it. Well, just the front fenders, grill, and hood(cut and narrowed)Everything else is pretty bad. I know a track racer that will make me a tube frame. I just need to come up with time and $$$ and some more time. This is at least two years away.

where is the manufacture date? its not on the vin plate in the engine compartment.
__________________
[url="http://members.aol.com/DORKIEST/scout1.html"]http://members.aol.com/DORKIEST/scout1.html[/url]
ScoutDork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2001, 09:20 AM   #8 (permalink)
Registered User
 
That Mick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Member # 7430
Location: Wright WY
Posts: 1,053
Post

Actually, thats a 800.
Big side windows, nonfolding windshield.
__________________
"I knew that topless lady had something up her sleeve"- John Prine
That Mick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2001, 07:05 PM   #9 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Member # 5181
Location: Corning Ca
Posts: 587
Post

Scout II its the only way for me. There is four of us. <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">
Abba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2001, 07:08 AM   #10 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Member # 3924
Location: golden, co 80401
Posts: 189
Send a message via AIM to scoutman
Post

I am 6' 4" and daily drive and four wheel my 66 800. I find it has enough leg room to get by. Not the best, but better than hepp could ever hope to have. I think the 80/800s have some nice style and class to them. The bodies are real nice. Just my opinion.
__________________
1966 IH Scout 800, 283 ci v-8, MSD box, custom lift, detroits
scoutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2001, 07:29 AM   #11 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4001
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 3,982
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by scoutman:
[QB]I am 6' 4" [...]QB]
How come the rest of you are so damn tall? I feel short...& I'm 6'1"...

O-yea, I didn't mention that...I have plenty of room in my 64 & I even cut and moved the firewall over to fit the Chevy motor. In fact, I fit better in my Scout than my 4-Runner
__________________
Dysfunctional Rockcrawlers
Scout Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2001, 08:45 AM   #12 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5982
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,288
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Scout Dude:
<STRONG>How come the rest of you are so damn tall? I feel short...& I'm 6'1"...
</STRONG>
6'4" 280 lbs. I guess you have to be a man to drive a Scout <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">
__________________
Was that a comment meant to hurt?
RU Dysfuncational http://thisdysfunctional.org/forum
jdjanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2001, 09:16 AM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Member # 2071
Location: Helena, MT USA
Posts: 5,211
Send a message via AIM to tsm1mt
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Scout Dude:
<STRONG>How come the rest of you are so damn tall? I feel short...& I'm 6'1"...

</STRONG>
Feel tall again - I'm just a hair shy of 6', 190lbs.

I smack my head on the soft-top door frames now n' then. ;-)
__________________
-Tom
KE7VUX
tsm1mt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2001, 09:30 AM   #14 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4001
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 3,982
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by tsm1mt:
<STRONG>Feel tall again - I'm just a hair shy of 6', 190lbs.

I smack my head on the soft-top door frames now n' then. ;-)</STRONG>

Okay, I feel tall again...however, I feel skinny now-185lbs..but I just lost 10 over the summer <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">
__________________
Dysfunctional Rockcrawlers
Scout Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.