Geoff Weeks

They were an updated Buda 844, and like the Buda they were based on, put out high Hp but would bankrupt you with repairs. Added to that, there wasn't the dealer network to support them.

Three spoke used to be common on trailers, but that is the 1st I've seen on a drive axle. There were some aluminum spokes made,never seen them in person. I wonder if those were aluminum?

Is it possible that they are mixing up Radial and Tubeless? I have run into that before, people who see radial and thing it must be tubeless, and if they see bias ply think it must be tube type. Both are false assumptions You can have bias tubeless and radial tube type. I have a whole set of tube type radials.

The above is from Winda-BOTO's tire specs. The 12.00R24 is TT (Tube Type) it would say TL (tubeless) in the 3rd column if it were tubeless. Either your tire supplier has no idea what they are talking about, or they are ordering 12x 24.5 (I don't think there is even a tire that size) tubeless which are not the same. If they can't read a tire catalog or don't know the difference, it is time to find a dealer that knows their trade. Please Have them show you, so your can show me, where they are finding tubeless 12R24 tires! To the best of my knowledge there are no tubeless 24" tires made for highway service.

Back in the 90"s company I hauled for took down a 200 ton bridge crane built in 1926, Hauled back to the Mfg and it was shortened and re installed in Norfolk & Southern yard . It was all rivet construction. Built like railroad rolling stock. Big Fishbelly girders.

I did also, but was not going to say something is impossible in another country, in another part of the world. Here, at least, it is permissible to put a tube in a tubeless tire but not the other way around. Tubes are often used in tubeless tires on motorcycles and older sports cars with true spoke wheels. Until recently, 24 TT were the main tire used in the middle east, down under and many other places around the world. Were only popular in the eastern seaboard around NY/NJ where the added weight could be utilized. About 10 years ago, I saw a brand new trailer being delivered with 24" TT hub pilot wheels on it. Must have been going to a mine somewhere.

On the spec sheet those are listed as TT or tube type. They still will not install them?

I can see why you say that. However I think if I blow the pic up I can detect the wrap around windshield of a "drivers Cab" Autocar.

I'm interested in what Cruiseliner is finding in 24" tubeless? Some military 20" can be used with a tube or a tubeless on a bolt together rim with an O ring seal at the parting line. However I can find no 24" tires like that.

Heat and pressure are on the top of the piston longer at lower speed. Simple as that. When the volume increases (piston goes down) temp drops. ( gas law) since we're talking about an enclosed space, it comes down to volume increase, pressure decrease= temp decrease. Time at peak pressure/peak temp is less. At low speed the pressure rises faster than the piston can move, resulting in high pressure and heat on the piston. If you are in the operating range of the engine egt shouldn't be high.

Not if it is on spokes, 24" tube type is all that will go on those. If you have or can find a spec sheet on those 24" tubeless or a link to them on the .net I'd be interested in looking them over. https://s7d1.scene7.com/is/content/bridgestone/Bridgestone-Truck-Tire-DataBookpdf-1 For example, the above tire data book lists 11R24 and 12R24 but they are tube type for"flat based rims". I can find no data on tubeless 24" truck tires on the .net.

Once I was pulling over the Big Horn mts in Wyoming, 45 min foot to the floor, 25 mph and never let up, try doing that, "controlling" the pyro with your foot! Then I had to come down the other side, jake a popping the whole way down.

Almost all tire failures are casing failure, not cap failures. I've had them on virgin casing and on capped casings. In all my time I have had ONE cap failure, it threw a 4x6" section of tread off the casing. Just about all aircraft are landing on capped tires. Casing failure can be caused by abuse, running low on air, over loaded, and yes time. I used to get three tread lives off my casing, one virgin, and two caps. A few times I tried 3 caps (4 total) but found they would fail prematurely and it wasn't worth it. If I didn't get three full treads worth of life, I felt cheated and wouldn't use that tire again. I had one casing blow apart sitting still in the yard, and it was a virgin casing!

I'd be VERY surprised you can buy 24 tubeless truck tires. You can buy 24.5" tubeless truck tires, they are NOT the same, and do NOT go on the same rims. What holds the lock ring on a tube type lock ring wheel, is the bead going over and pushing the lock ring deeper in the groove. Even if you got the 24.5" tire with a tube on it, on a 24" lock ring wheel, the bead diameter is half an inch too large, There may be some off road tires that are made in 24" sizes that I guess could be tubeless, but I know of no on road tubeless 24" tires, only tube type.

My experience is different, if the pump is set too high, by the time you see it on the pyro and back out, the heat is already in the engine, and you have to keep backing out to try and keep the heat down. So you start up the hill, pyro and temp start to rise, and you have to keep backing down until you are below where you would be if you didn't over-fuel from the get-go. The idea of limiting to a safe level, is you don't get the heat into the engine to begin with. The only time the correct setting of the pump to begin with struggles is at high altitude, 10,000'+ Playing with pick-up is different than pulling with a load.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe the B came with a title, I don't know about the CH frame. I've only bought one truck on a Bill of Sale, and had that notarized and is no closer to being on the road than the day I bought it. For me, it has to be a special case to buy without a title. The seller has the motivation to look for the title, and the ability to apply for a replacement title. I my case it was a very rare truck and incomplete. It had been in a yard that had been closed for 40 years and the owner died. Not too many Dart oil field trucks survive, and most are parked in a state of decay in a museum outdoors somewhere. I took a chance I could register it when the time came.

The older Cat's anyway, were good engines, but when they broke they broke you with them. 855 Cummins were cheap and easy to work on. My two Cabovers had Cummins 855 in them. Both my Cat and my Cummins went well beyond 1m between overhauls, when under my care. My 1st truck I bought at 500K and ran it until 1.5m before overhaul.

I never had a Cat with the brakesaver, I have one 3406 powered tractor (Marmon), I remember them prone to oil and air leaks, and heavy. They used engine oil in a turbine type housing, with an air operated valve directing oil into it. Anytime you had to re-seal the rear engine housing, it was a big job. BTW anybody who says "Cat's don't leak oil" are lying. Every engine has it problem points.

The two tractors I had that didn't have them, and were added in the 90's was because (mostly) OW/OD permit loads in some states required some form of "aux braking" when weights got up there. Some of the guys I ran with had Cat brakesavers and Jakes both. he Brakesaver was a heavy, complex option, but in heavy haul, weight didn't matter much. One of my cabover's weight 22500 alone.

Oh, I used mine a lot, descending grades, slowing to exit, etc. Years ago, I was in Boomtown, at night when I heard a 6-71 with jakes descending from Truckee. An ancient Freightliner cabover (round headlight) pull in next to me. His was also muffled, but no mistaking a 6-71 with a jake. Not something heard anymore.

Oh boy, one of "those boys". All my semi's had Jakes, either came with them or I added them, BUT all had mufflers. They were for holding the truck back at speed when descending, often with permit loads, not to make noise. Never had a problem even in "no Jake brake towns". Changing engine to be able to make noise, seams like buying a house so you can burn it to have a cook out!

I'll freely admit I like old stuff old. My advice to you is since this is your first "at bat" with a semi sized/type vehicle that if the original engine can be made runable, then go with that, at least at 1st. There are many reasons, but top of the list is it fits and doesn't require any changes. 2nd it lets you get a feel for the truck. No point wrestling a 3406 into the truck to find you can't cool it. I modified every semi I ever owned, but only after putting some seat time in to find what works and what could be improved. You can always come back later and make changes. I know of more than one vehicle that has never been finished because the owner keeps making changes to his original project, some because the original plan was not practical others because he wanted to make it "better" without ever finding out if it was good enough already. My take on Super Singles is: they can cut a very little rolling resistance on a loaded truck that puts 100,000 miles or more a year on, but have serious drawbacks that I found outweighed the benefits many time over. duels allow the same rim/tire front to back. Duels allow you to "limp"off the road when one fails tires are much cheaper rims are much cheaper duels are much easier to handle, change and lift/postion. If loaded when you have a blow-out on a Super Single it most times take the rim with it before you can get stopped. Now your looking at a $1500 or more tire change before including the road service call. SS are too big, heavy and expensive to carry as a spare. Given all the above, I ran duels, but more than that, they look right on an old truck, SS are a new thing.

Trans and rear need to be considered together. Total overall ratio is what is important. If it is a hobby truck, then start ability under load is not a big deal. It looks to have some form of front loader rear gear, so not likely hard to find other ratios. 4.10 with a .73 on 20" rubber will top out at 80 easy. 3.91 a bit faster. 3.70 or there abouts with a .83 OD will do the same If the trans is direct in top you want 3.54 or less for the rear. going to 11 x24.5 shift the numbers a little but not much Trucks, and old trucks in general should have duels not SS in my opinion, but that is just an opinion.

I had a small cam SAE #1 that had 3/8" bolt holes, but I doubt it was as old as 1953? Came off a CPL 150 small cam engine.

from the ad 'CLUTCH HOUSING FORCED LUBE ALUM' which I believe would make it for a late model RTLO series? As far as cross shaft, they are OEM not an Eaton part, as each mfg had their own linkage . I would think your original and fork should fit if reuseable. That is the idea behind the SAE spec. To bad Glenn is no longer with us to answer these questions. The following are just guesses subject to correction: The RTLO used taper roller bearings on the counter shaft, the earlier ones used plain rollers, I think the taper rollers had lube fed to them from the pump, early ones could have a pump or not, mainly for an oil cooler circuit. I think the SAE spec sets up the distances and the different clutch assmeblies conform to those distances? In otherword a window is in the spec and how the clutch designer meets that window is up to them? It would seam the pull design allows for more compact design and allows the yoke to be placed slight closer to the flywheel, where as the push has to ride on the front bearing retainer so has to be (slightly) closer to the transmission. Likely why we see more pull clutches in multiple disks and push in more single disk clutches? I thought the reason you were looking to stay with push is so you can use what you have now? Double disk pull will make finding clutch parts easier as they have almost taken over. If it were I (I like spending your time and money!) I would buy the used iron nodal with the lower holes missing and bore the boss from the dimensions from the Eaton .pdf, and fit your cross shaft and yoke. you have all the info to locate the holes, getting them true is the issue and that comes down to the machinist's skill and what tool they have. Not me! but you seam to have access to what is needed. It seams Mack used the nodal mount so mounts and isolators should be "off the shelf" items and you may have scrounge the frame brackets and re drill the frame, but will end up with something that is more or less stock. If at a later date you decide you need a multi disk pull the same clutch housing could take a top shaft and yoke. Aluminum makes machining easy, but may not be as strong in a nodal mount as iron. May be why they are harder to find? Just spit-balling, it seams you have to machine a clutch housing and keep the same clutch, or replace the flywheel with one for that engine that is made to accept a pull clutch and install a new linkage. Both are do able (assuming part can be had) and both are viable for long term use. I don't think one is better than the other, but I never wore a clutch out even heavy hauling, I used 14" double disk organic. For hauling your race trailer I don't see you wearing out a clutch either!