In reply to Powar: Would that make it a Cheviban instead of a Dajiban?
In reply to Powar: Would that make it a Cheviban instead of a Dajiban?
doc_speeder wrote: I love these things. What power train options did this vintage Dodge van have?
For the '90s until they were replaced by the Sprinter, they would have had a 3.9 (smallblock based odd fire V6), 318, or 360, with the Magnum versions of these engines being the most common. Earlier ones had a big block option, and I don't see any reason you couldn't swap one over with the OEM parts (other than emissions reasons, if applicable).
windsordeluxe wrote: In reply to Powar: Would that make it a Cheviban instead of a Dajiban?
I suspect the correct way to render it in katakana would get back-translated as Sebiban or Shabiban.
I like the idea of a Chevy full size van. Because ls power.
singleslammer wrote: I like the idea of a Chevy full size van. Because ls power.
Or even better... Duramax.
In reply to singleslammer:
Is there room in the GM van dogouse for a turbo, or would it need to be rear mounted?
singleslammer wrote: How many motorcycles can fit in the back of one of those? I might have found my company vehicle as well!
At least two, fairly comfortably. Same for any full size van. Get an extended box and you can keep at least one row of seats in there, too.
If I can cram two bikes (safely!) into the back of an Aerostar, and full size van can do it.
In reply to alex:
Good to know. Two inside and two or more on a trailer sounds like a winner.
I think the big reason the dodges are the most popular is because of the big three Americans, the Dodges are the only uni-body vans and those have "better" suspension geometry front and back.
Either way, I fully support this effort and would join you were it not for the SWMBO leaving me if I ever brought one home.
moparman76_69 wrote: retired USAF and USN vans.
Hence my recommendation for the color scheme.
In reply to McTinkerson:
So our choices are then better suspension or better motor? The old dodge does look cool though and none will ever be fast or handle well.
15x8 and 15x10 are the wheel sizes you want for that look. 275 60 tires for the rear 225 70 matches the diameter and slight "stretch" at the front iirc, although most american vanners run a 245 60 and that will give you a raked look. 295 50 I have also seen run on the rear its a closer diameter to the front 245s. Probably want flares if you do that.
Disclaimer: my experience is with 78-95 chevy vans
Google pictures is your friend ex: "275/60R15 15x10" and such
Appleseed wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
Love that look.
I just now learned this is a thing, and now I want one. Throw a mattress in back and I could sleep in it at 2-day autocrosses.
I think my Shabiban will wear a set of Mach 5 steel wheels.
Gasoline wrote: This! 1967 Dodge A100 TRUCK RUNS AND DRIVES - $3500 (OBO Hayden, AL)
never know why cabover pickups never took off.. All the utlity of a full size pickup with less length
mad_machine wrote:Gasoline wrote: This! 1967 Dodge A100 TRUCK RUNS AND DRIVES - $3500 (OBO Hayden, AL)never know why cabover pickups never took off.. All the utlity of a full size pickup with less length
Something about safety or some E36 M3. Buncha pansie-ass E36 M3.....
so one thing you need to do is go on youtube and search "d van gp"
In reply to McTinkerson:
I've never been in a dodge van or truck, but the Chevy truck/van double wishbone IFS of that era is pretty damn good by truck standards, and if the van is similar to the truck, on easily adjustable torsion bars. They're all leaf springs in the back, so IDK how that matters any. Ading power to a GM is wayyy cheaper and easier, at least here. I think they only use Dodge because its what's available, not necessarily because its the best.
Though if you wanted some bozowahtevertheberkeleytheycallit grade camber, the swing axle ford van probably can't be beat.
Gasoline wrote: All the utlity of a full size pickup with less length
Isn't that the opposite of what most full size truck buyers are looking for?
Travis_K wrote:Gasoline wrote: All the utlity of a full size pickup with less lengthIsn't that the opposite of what most full size truck buyers are looking for?
Yes. Witness SUVs vs. wagons. The same room with worse handling an MPGs because maybe someday you might drive on a dirt driveway to get to soccer practice.
Our local on site damage repair company rocks this van. Rear is a de-arched leaf with an addition of a set of load leveler assist leafs (keeps it low but assists on heavy loads) the Front i cant remember if he cut coils or had a local company make him coils. Maybe he had cut coils and was switching? I Forget.
Anyhow neat van. And since all these vans could be had with a 4.3, 5.3, 6.0, gas motors you can build em to the moon.
We have a 2002 Express 1500 with the 5.7L engine at home. Love it. MPG is lacking but for what it can haul and its people moving capacity i guess i cant complain too much
Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to McTinkerson: I've never been in a dodge van or truck, but the Chevy truck/van double wishbone IFS of that era is pretty damn good by truck standards, and if the van is similar to the truck, on easily adjustable torsion bars. They're all leaf springs in the back, so IDK how that matters any. Ading power to a GM is wayyy cheaper and easier, at least here. I think they only use Dodge because its what's available, not necessarily because its the best. Though if you wanted some bozowahtevertheberkeleytheycallit grade camber, the swing axle ford van probably can't be beat.
Good point, I think the only benefit to the dodge then is unibody vs body on frame which really only affects looks with the frame rails being visible on the GM & Ford without a body drop.
You'll need to log in to post.
