turbo 152 Scout 80/800

[twistedaxle]

Originally Posted by scorp1us

Reminds me of an old joke:
Army guy (PFC) walks into a bathroom with a Marine Sergeant taking a piss.
Sgt leaves the stall and heads to the door.
PFC says to the Sgt , "In the army they teach us to wash our hands after taking a piss".
"In they Marines they teach us not to piss on our hands" and walks out.

By the time you can join the Navy, somebody's already taught you not to piss on your hands.

Maybe because you find when you pull into port, girls don't like that.

[Four Paws]

Originally Posted by urbex

That's just it - in my mind, a daily driver needs interstate speeds, especially seeing as how this would also serve as a parts chaser, and those good deals are often a ways down the freeway...Thing is, I like the old Scouts. I'm willing to give up some at the gas pump to drive something fun, has useful utility, and something you don't see every day. Even though that '64 was a gutless wonder, was ugly in the paint department, needed new seats in a bad way, was loud, and had horrible vibrations, I still had more fun driving that thing around than even my current Z. My only real complaint in it was the lack of ability to take it down the freeway safely.

So, are you opposed to an engine swap? 4.3/4L60E with 4.27 gears and 31's would be a nice combo. Good mileage, good power, good all around DD.

[pineneedle]

To get back to the 152 turbo question, let me say from my experiences (stated in an earlier post) that the 80 with the turbo option was easily able to cruise at freeway speeds. By freeway speeds, I mean 65-70. Of course is was a new machine, not a 55 yr. old one. However, my opinion is this: if you want to stay with the old iron, and if you bring the rest of the running gear up to good (brakes, steering, suspension, etc), you would be very happy with the 152 turbo. I realize that the transplantation of a new, alien engine would probably perform better, all things considered, but you could keep your Scout I-H and be very pleased with it. Of course, if you could find one of the turbo-chargers they used, you would also need to fabricate the exhaust pieces they used. As I recall, from the turbo back it was a 3 in. pipe. The connection from the turbo to the carb intake was just rubber hose. Pineneedle

[spreader]

A few pics of OEM International turbo. All I need is the "three bolt" exhaust manifold.I have the wedge to flip the manifold. I can fab the heat shield(s)

[Mark Pietz]

Originally Posted by twistedaxle

By the time you can join the Navy, somebody's already taught you not to piss on your hands.

Maybe because you find when you pull into port, girls don't like that.

Is this another way of saying that the Navy had higher standards for its recruits?

(not wanting to start an inter-service war here, but wasn't it Eleanor Roosevelt who said that sailors had clean bodies and dirty minds?)

USN 1971-1973
VSM, VCM, CAR

[Mark Pietz]

Originally Posted by pineneedle

To get back to the 152 turbo question, let me say from my experiences (stated in an earlier post) that the 80 with the turbo option was easily able to cruise at freeway speeds. By freeway speeds, I mean 65-70. Of course is was a new machine, not a 55 yr. old one. However, my opinion is this: if you want to stay with the old iron, and if you bring the rest of the running gear up to good (brakes, steering, suspension, etc), you would be very happy with the 152 turbo. I realize that the transplantation of a new, alien engine would probably perform better, all things considered, but you could keep your Scout I-H and be very pleased with it. Of course, if you could find one of the turbo-chargers they used, you would also need to fabricate the exhaust pieces they used. As I recall, from the turbo back it was a 3 in. pipe. The connection from the turbo to the carb intake was just rubber hose. Pineneedle

The exhaust piping was 2 1/2", and the turbo to intake was a special fabric reinforced hose, but a good modern equivalent is gas tank filler hose.

Ditto on the brakes. Earlies were terrible.

[pineneedle]

Well, my memory of my little Scout, now nearly a half-century old, appears to be mistaken about the size of the exhaust. However, I guarantee you that there was nothing special about the hose connecting the turbo to the carb. It was a reinforced rubber radiator type hose. How do I know? Like a said, I bought one of the very first ones off the line. Within months the hose had split rendering the turbo useless until I found the split. The split, incidentally, was caused by the vibrations of the turbo perched as it was atop the engine. Thereafter, I replaced the hose with annoying frequency. Pineneedle

[pineneedle]

As a final addendum, one last story is germane. My turbo Scout was a continuous headache, quite different from my previous '63, which was a gem. So I wrote a letter to the president of I-H and detailed my experiences and unhappiness with their product. He responded, informing me that the St. Louis Zone Manager and Karl Roedel of Roedel Bros. I-H would be taking me out to lunch to talk about the problem. It was a great lunch, made even more pleasant by the revelation that I-H was going to install a spanking new 196 in my Scout at no expense. I dropped off the turbo Scout and two days later picked her up with a brand new motor complete with factory warranty. Those were the days of customer service. By the way, that rig, with the 196, was a great truck. Pineneedle

[Mark Pietz]

I have one of the old, original hoses here. Assuming it is original. Does it look like yours? Regular rubber isn't good for passing fuel, so this was a "special" material. And I'm finding time again to work on my "196T" project. I've actually cast the new intake elbow.

[pineneedle]

Mark, it has been 45 years since I owned that little truck, so my memory of detail is a little vague. The hose does look to be the same length and size. I do remember that after several of mine cracked, the replacements seemed to be better. All things considered, I liked the 196 they gave me a whole lot better. Pineneedle