One probably getting scrapped. Thought I might rob it for a future swap in the '04.
Thxs
Bill in ks
Bill -
Yes, if it's a Grumman Metro city transit.
Be careful, tho - it could be a 6V71 mated to a V-730. If that's the case, you'll go slower when you step on the throttle - that powertrain's gutless and then some.
OTOH, if it's a 6V92TA, hot rod time!!
Rear axle will probably be a 5:36, good for 55 mph @ 2100 rpm.
FWIW & HTH. . .
;)
There are a few 4106 donors around here so I can find the right diff.
How do you I'd a 6v71. Vs. 6v92 ?
Thxs
Bill in ks
Look on the front camshaft pulley it will be embossed there or the engine serial number
good luck
Presence of a turbo for the 6V92.
happy coaching!
buswarrior
6v92 is a sweet upgrade. Better fuel mileage and runs the same over a mountain pass as it does at sea level. Mine is the 8v71, my father's is the 6v92 and I have hundreds of miles driving both. If I had the money the 6v92 would be in my bus asap. It is that good.
If my memory serves (no guarantee of that, though), a Flx of that vintage could also have been an 8V71 - particularly if it was a 40-footer.
That was early in the 870/Metro model. They had a new design with the powerplant/rear end on an A-frame. Many cities (Washington DC comes to mind, I think Chicago and New York were the other two biggies) had major fleet defects with the A-frame cracking. They re-engineered, and may have fixed the problem by 1980, but I'm not sure. I bought a fleet in 1983, and I do know they had fixed the A-frame by then. We still breathed a sigh of relief when Flxible was the high bidder.
Arthur
The front block on the top surface by the head will have a cast in 92 also. Otherwise, the 6V-71 and 92 look exactly the same on the outside, as compared to the 8V-92 that has a big vibration damper on the front of the engine compared to the 8V-71. Good Luck, TomC