Engines today are so much better than years ago. A 4.3L Fuel injected 6 cylinder develops 190 HP, where the 7.4L in Ole nose makes about 250 HP. The 4.3 will go 500k miles easy with good maintenance, where as the 7.4L might make 150k with similar care.

Not that I would but if I did, change engines, a Junkyard 4.3L with say 100K on it costs about $800 and changing the stuff that might show wear and to make it reliable about $200. So for $1000 and a lot of fun labor, Voila! If I drove as many miles per year as say MWrench I might consider it.

Driving 10,000 a year and gas at $2.50 a gallon and an increase of 7mpg to 10mpg would pay for the cost not including the labor in one year.

My Safari van had a 4.3 and got about 15 mpg average, it was a conversion, weighed about 6000 pounds, I did drive it pretty fast and pulled a bass boat that weighed 3300 pounds a lot of the time hardly noticed the boat was there. Nose weighs 12,300, curious if the 4.3 would handle that load and what the mileage might be; any guesses? Nose pulls a 3000 pound Miata and dolly.

Our class A gets 7.5 to 8mpg. 454 400 turbo 456 gear 19.5 tires. 15000 lb. Our class C about 10-11 mpg at 65 mph. 350, 400 turbo 410 gear 16" tires, around 10,000 lb. I think you will find lack of power and torque with a 4.3. and do you drive anywhere close to 10g a year? Remember that 4.3 has an overdrive tranny. If I were to swap it would be with a late modlle.LS motor with a 4l80 trans. and gear change about 10- 15% higher. I know that cabin fever with this covid makes you think these things. Fire the nose up and take a trip for a week or 2 down south. Swapping is a 2 week job that will take 3months. That's in heated building with plenty of energy. Thinking of you. .
Craig


Any luck on your sons truck?

I still believe there's no replacement for displacement. A friend with a newer version of my boat, 1970 versus 1968, repowered to 8.1 L fuel injection engines. I have 5.7 L aka 350's with carbs. At 30mph he is burning the same 1.1 mpg that I burn at 10 mph, ain't technology wonderful. Driving a billboard 8'x12' down the highway is similar in fuel consumption to driving a boat except downhill only happens on rivers.

Doorman, you are such a practical person always make one see the brass ring.. Yes the truck runs great now! It was the crankshaft sensor! Never again will I pull the starter on a Silverado. Only two bolts but that thing is hard to snake out of its home. Crankshaft sensor is behind it.

Tim, great comparison. makes sense, heard that story from other folks too. The bass boat burns a gallon in 2.5 miles at WOT, have a friend with the same engine except fuel injected he burns a bit less, but his is also a bit slower.

My 33 Regal's OEM 454 got 6.5 mpg at 60mph. The fuel injection mod raised it to a bit over 7. When I repowered with the 454 HO it went to about 8.

The compression ratio of the original was 8.0 to 1. On the HO it is 9.5 to 1.

If you want to achive higher efficiency, these two go hand in hand. Modern engines with turbochargers are effectively raising compression and charge density at the same time, with fuel injection to meter fuel properly.

I think in your case I would be tempted to change pistons or install heads with smaller chambers to raise compression to around 9.5. Any higher may be flirting with preignition/detonation. Fuel injection to complete the job.

With extra power you could probably get away with changing axle ratio or an overdrive trans or Gear Vendor box.

Turbocharging would be really great but it might be tricky to retrofit.

Many options. OTOH, fill it up with cheap gas and drive it for more fun!

quote:

Many options. OTOH, fill it up with cheap gas and drive it for more fun!

Both you and Doorman, so practical and probably so correct!!!

quote:

Turbocharging would be really great but it might be tricky to retrofit.

Yes...Bet with two turbo chargers on the little 4.3L Engine it would develop that extra 60HP! Still might accelerate a bit sluggish at low RPM.

Still fantasizing about heading south on cheap gas!!!

Or install a used Ford 3.0 Powerstroke V8 diesel that has 265hp and 440 ft lbs of torque (better than the 454) acted to a used 10 speed tranny and get mileage on the 20 mpg range (it is rated at 30 mpg in the 6,000lb F-150). Of course you would have to find a burned or wrecked truck and take all the computers and harnesses. Salvage like these are best found through insurance companies and auctions where you get the whole vehicle. A couple of thousand $$ might be enough. The swap would not be difficult and you would join the Barth Diesel Club!

quote:

The swap would not be difficult and you would join the Barth Diesel Club!

That 350 you have in the 22ft GN would be fine, but with fuel injection and a bit higher compression model heads, longer life, more HP than my 454 and probably improved gas mileage too!

Gm guy from the word go, would have a heart attack if I stuck a ford engine on a GM chassis even a diesel!

Ya know, with our dwindling Barth owner-ship and Steve south with nothing to do all day. A good thing would be for him to do is search Florida for abandon and unused Barth's.

Perhaps if we found a few and did enough work on them to make them reliable and nice to look at we could sell them at a reasonable price and interest some of the younger crowd in owning and enjoying one too.

If ole Nose did not consume so much of my time, I have considered buying and flipping one. The problem seems to be it cost so much to update and the market price does not cover the expenditure.

I really like Ole Nose, but they seem to be less desirable then other models of the same age. They also tend to sell for less, with a cool paint job maybe they would appeal to younger folks.

Hey, wadiya mean nothing to do? Working on the Monarch now! Then the VW, the airplane, and then the boats.

Sadly, as with old boats and cars, the only people that seem interested are those that are even older than they are. I am not sure there will ever be much of a market for old RVs.

My father's boat is a 1927 38 ft Matthews, top of the line in its day. It is now 93 years old. Still seaworthy, with a diesel engine, new autopilot and GPS, and radar. He would be lucky to get $10,000 if he sold it. I suspect he could get more by parting it out for engine and instruments.

Flipping boats and RVs would be very hard to break even. I think old airplanes are a bit more likely to draw a good price but never a goldmine.

Today there seem to be fewer people who appreciate old items, fewer yet with the time, money and skills to maintain them.

We are all dinosaurs here. Just remember though, dinosaurs ruled the planet for millions of years!

I can sympathize with the Euro owners. They are only appreciated by a limited number of people. My wife thinks they are butt ugly. I see them as classic retro but certainly not stylish. But hey, who ever said dinosaurs are pretty?

I have always said the best thing about Barths are the people who own them. (fellow dinosaurs!)

Have Barth, will tinker

When Ben Franklin's adage "A penny saved ..." is applied to us not outlaying a few hundred thousand our Barths' financial "return" is arguably the best yielding holdings we have.

quote:

We are all dinosaurs here

I am reminded regularly that I am old (82) but this silver hair is a crown. And our generation comes from a time when real quality was appreciated. I'll take my Regal any day instead of these stick and stapled things. BTW, I'll have to update my pic. I think I was about 70 then.
Jim

Airplanes were at a premium in the late 80's and 90's due to our wonderful legal system, with government allowing idiots that crashed their private aircraft to sue the manufacturer. Insurance companies would not cover them anymore and most either stopped making small private aircraft or went out of business. My old Cessna 140 I sold in the late 70's for 3k, went for over 10k years later, anyone that wanted a aircraft had to buy older units.

I wonder if RV manufacturers were able to be sued for making crap, if the older Barth's would increase in price?

Old classic cars if they are in GREAT shape, restored or a legitimate survivor and rare bring a bunch of money, but are limited to the very rich and most of them are getting on in age too.

Very few of the old cars are clean enough and original to be worth much.

Yeah, Cessna stopped producing single engine planes for years from late 80's on due to unlimited liabilty concerns. When Congress finally limited their liability to 19 years they went back into production.

The short supply helped prices for the old ones some but more because the new ones are so unbelievably expensive.

My 1968 Cessna 172 sold new for $14,300. I bought it 30 years old for $30,000. It is worth about $40,000 now at 50 years old! Not surprising when the new ones, which are nearly identical except for the instrument panels, go for over $200,000! Hard to believe. Only thing I ever owned that did not depreciate in value!

As for motorhomes, it is too bad that the garbage companies did not get sued out of business.