Gavril D15

No it doesn't need it, It would be a nice setup to have, however that's not a factory option. A long bed would have been what the overwhelming majority of trucks of this period would have had, And some 8 lug wheels are needed as there aren't any proper wheels for the D-25 or SRW D-35's.

 

I have to admit, The body side molding has completely changed the look of the truck, I like.

 

@gabester @Nadeox1 @tdev

I noticed there is no thread for Gavril Roamer in the "Content Created By BeamNG" section

 

Sigh, it doesn't really matter.

 

Is it too late to add suggestions to this large thread? Well anyway...

I would love to see a bed liner, inner wheel well guards (on the rear wheels), thicker standard tires (225/75/17 seems too thin and visibly looks too thin, 255 or 265 should be good.)
and I've bet you've seen this alot but a crew cab that doesn't look tacked on wouldn't be that bad either.

 

i would like a crew cab, a long bed, and a crew cab long bed, a Utility box (what the school districts in America use), a flatbed for the dually, wood stakes to put on the side of the bed, the 3-link available on the extended frame as well as the full frame (the crew cab long bed)

 

its nice to want is int it

 

I've been here a while, and I've made multiple variations of V8's for this truck. However, I still find issues with the out-of-the-box motor. Firstly, it is definitely down on power. The 5.5L V8 can barely tow the new caravan up to 50-60 MPH without being floored, completely out of line with a real SUV. Secondly, if you look at the motor specs for an of-the-period engine from similar real vehicles, this engine is down up to 70 ftlbs of torque which is really quite a bit. It also strikes me as odd that the 3500 and 2500 equivalents still use a 5.5L V8 when that motor is usually configured for 1500's, this also means that these supposed heavy duty vehicles also struggle to tow even 8500 lb loads when the real vehicles can easily pull several thousand pounds more.

 

I noticed this to. They seem to be very high revving for the time period (88-94) where low revs and high torque were common.

4.1L I6 in the Gavril is 167hp/213lbsft when the 1990 GM 4.3L V6 made 160hp/235lbsft. This one isn't to bad but I think an I6 made for a truck could do with a little more torque.

4.5L V8 215hp/232lbsft compared to 1990 GM 5.0L V8 175hp/270lbsft. The 4.5L makes peak power way the hell up at 5500RPM! The 1990 DOHC Toyota 1UZ-FE made peak HP at 5600RPM. The 5.0L made peak HP at just 4000RPM.

5.5L V8 238hp/268lbsft compared to the 5.7L 210hp/300lbsft. But again, the 5.5L is making that power at 5300rpm whereas the 5.7L was making it at just 4000rpm.

Also consider GM offered a 7.4L V8 as well during this period that 230hp@3600rpm and 385lbsft @ just 1600RPM. Those are ahead of the Cummins of the day which was still 70hp behind (but 15lbsft torque ahead).

The engines need the power curve shifted for more low end torque and less high end power and a torque monster 6.9L descendant from the Barstow (or something like that, you get the idea) would also help.

A diesel with optional turbo would be a really cool engine to round out the chart as well.

 

Chevrolet also sold these trucks later on with 8.1's and Ford did a 460 cui = 7.5 l
--- Post updated ---
One last thing I noticed is that these transmissions have extremely tall gearing for trucks. The 4 speed can reach 200 mph with enough power and the 6 speed will do 245. It's and immense difference to the real vehicles that are revving much higher to achieve the same speeds.

 

From the creator, behold;

http://beamng.com/threads/gavril-d15.33/page-16#post-157153

http://beamng.com/threads/4-5l-v8-too-much-power.7449/#post-97139

Seriously though, I agree that both V8s need more torque below 5000 rpm for their displacement.

The power also shouldn't still be rising around the 5800 rpm mark for early, basic versions. This is assuming the engines are trademark safe Modular V8s, bearing in mind the facts from the 2 posts linked above.

Wild card? The Gavril V8 is actually a Caddy HT or a really early Mopar PowerTech.

The 4 and 6-speed autos now share ratios with Ford transmissions which fuels the Modular suspicion. (Strongly appreciate the ratios BTW. Finally, a 1:1 3rd gear in the 4-speed like in reality. Fun fact, Ford's 6R is based on a ZF design.)

Based on this assumption, this also makes for some interesting observations in all the Gavrils relative to the evolution of the real engine and others:

• The Marshal has a true dual exhaust system VS the D15 which in the case of the IRL Panther platforms, was good for a handful of torque and quite a bit of peak power in the older 4.6 motors.

• Regarding the Mid-late 90's Roamer/Van/Cabster, IRL the newer 4.6 Modulars have better ratings. It's rather easy to mod in better values for the Van/Cab as it uses separate definition files.

• The larger 5.5 is available nearly a decade earlier than the real Triton 5.4 and is also stuffed into the Marshal for glorious effect. (Still not quite as potent as a LT1 B-body though.)

• For even higher torque needs fueled by petrol, even after the game's 5.5 is powered up like it should be, the real equivalents were V10s and the occasional sporty supercharged edition after the OHVs were phased out. A V10 requires mesh work so for basic applications like the Cabster, I'd suggest a V8 enlarged to the largest possible size for the block, sorta like the 5.8 in a GT500 but maybe SOHC and not supercharged. Low rev limit but a lot more low-mid range torque.

• The 6-speed is very advanced for the 90's medium/heavy duty variants. To go with the flow, the ETK I-Series could have a 5-speed auto while the 800 and K-Series go straight to the newer turbo motors (e.g. N20/55 to B48/58) and the 2nd gen, wider ratio version of the trademark safe ZF 8-speed, among others. (The 200BX already effectively uses a SR20 in a North-American model rather than a KA24.)

• On the other hand, the 6-speed would fit decently in newer face lift variants of any of the Body-on-frame Gavrils. (A luxury modern badge-engineered Roamer with IRS and ESC, hmm....)

 

Yall should add a camper to the D-15 not a "camper shell". I'm talking about a camper people go camping in maybe a small one that can extend like for off-road camping.

 

I always saw the 5.5 as more of an LT1.

 

I dunno if someone already suggest this yet, but...



It would be lovely to see a rear mounted spare tire option for the short bed version in the future.

 

At one point previously, some months ago, I'd questioned @gabester's decision as far as cab & bed configurations went. He'd said there would be no dev-made long bed, because that would require more frame lengths than the dev team was willing to put up with, so I wondered why they didn't just shorten the extended cab so a hypothetical regular cab/long bed could use the extended cab/short bed frame. For this I'd used the argument that real-life manufacturers did this for the same reason (fewer frames to deal with).

However, after some light research, I've discovered I was wrong about this. Ford did do this with the 1997-2003 F-series (RC/LB, EC/SB, and half-ton crew cabs, presumably with their own super-short bed, all shared a frame), but neither GM nor Dodge did the same thing during the same period (the most relevant period due to being the same one the D-series is supposed to have been built during), due to the fact that sharing frames between RC/LB and EC/SB variants gives you literally only a foot and a half to work with for the cab extension. The predictable result is a back seat that's completely useless as anything other than storage space. Earlier Fords didn't do this, and later ones also may not have; I'd have to put out actual effort to figure that out. Nevertheless, gabester's decision to avoid this frame-sharing is much sounder than I realized and I hereby publicly correct myself.

Furthermore, SUVs don't always or even often share frames with the pickup trucks they're related to. GM did this through the 90s (except that the C/K Blazers had their own frame which was even shorter than the RC/SB version of the relevant pickup truck), but stopped doing it in 2000; Ford never really did it, and Dodge, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't had a full-size, body-on-frame SUV since the Ramcharger - the Durango being closer to the Dakota in terms of size and styling, although the Dakota actually came closer to the Ram than you'd think). The designs are presumably related, but the wheelbases are different, even if only slightly (i.e. Expedition to F150).

 

The Dakota got the nickname the mini ram anf is used among a few demolition derby drivers for the compact pickup class. They are nose heavy frames for sure and literally a mini replica of their larger brothers. It's axtually not all that commonly used of a truck. Probabl6 because the fford 2.3 liter is easier to find and some places don't allow v8s im their compact classes which many dakotas came with 318s and 360s.

 

Right? First time I'd ever heard a topper called a camper shell was when I logged into BeamNG. Lol

 

I always thought that it was a "canopy", and LEER, one of the U.S.A.'s leading producer of these things, refers to them as "bed caps". It's possible to camp in these things (and I've spent a night in one on occasion), but it's definitely not something you'd want to sleep in for more than a weekend. There is absolutely no insulation, so you'd better have a sleeping bag if you're planning one camping in the D-series!

 

high stall torque converter fixes d35 d15 4.5 v8 d25 5.5 v8 d35 5.5 v8 4.10 diffs
and heavy duty torque converter
--- Post updated ---

ah the ramcharger the reliable 440 cui v8 truck is some how called midsize by my freinds
my the broncos the small one

 

I always called it a "truck cap" never a "camper shell" so I was really confused when that came out.