• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

1978 Tucker for sale in Alaska

Frankenburb

New member
Hey Tucker Guys,
I am thinking about buying this guy. The owner says it runs great but 1 of the drive sprockets needs replaced and the rubber on the tracks is starting to rot. Just wondering what you guys think of the price. The owner does not seem to want to budge off of $5k. Also, how do these things do in deep snow? Thanks in advance :smile:
http://anchorage.craigslist.org/rvs/2119947272.html
 

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Dang thing looks like a short bus on tracks. Would make a great transporter for skiing.
 

Blackfoot Tucker

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
That looks like a factory wide cab machine. In addition to the width of the cab they are somewhat longer as well.

Bill Guthrie has one for sale also. Here's a link to his website with some photos:
http://www.snotrans.com/tucker_snocat.html

I've never seen a wide cab in person. I'm not sure how desirable that model is in the marketplace. as they are quite rare. The rubber belts can be purchased from Tucker, or from other suppliers. You can also purchase the belting from many sources and do the "punching" (of holes) yourself. If it runs well and all it needs is new belts $5K seems way cheap.

Tuckers are notorious for rust. The vast majority of the body panels are straight and relatively easy to replicate. The big exception is the windshield frame. That would be much more challenging.

The Diesel engine is a 2-stroke and it's generally considered to be very reliable. The downside is it is very noisy.
 

Snowtrac Nome

member formerly known as dds
GOLD Site Supporter
i talked with him last year and seemed like a good machine for the money but weight was an issue for me 8000 pounds would cost a fortune to ship it to nome plus permitting to run it on public land the detroits are good little motors be careful with starting fluid it will hydro lock a detroit and bend the rods also they are known for leaks like a harley they will start when cold and run reliably they do use lots of fuel and make lots of noise but are quite powerful for their weight and are also reliable
 

Blackfoot Tucker

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Slight thread hijack - two stroke diesel?

Really? Neat.



Iain

I'm reasonably sure Tucker was using Detroit Diesel 4-53 engines in those days. That is a two stroke Diesel and the nomenclature is as follows:
4= Number of cylinders
53= Cubic inches per cylinder

Some other popular Detroit Diesel engines include the 6V-71 and 8V-92. Those use the same basic nomenclature, however the "V" indicates the block's cylinder arrangement is in a V as opposed to an inline arrangement.
 

Snowtrac Nome

member formerly known as dds
GOLD Site Supporter
the military used a lot of 4-53 and 6-v 53's and recently now 71 series in bradlys and upgraded 113's and the king of 2 strokes 8v92's in their hemmt and hett trucks the 2 cycle detroit family of engines were a modular engine sharing many parts a 12 v would use 4 6 cylinder heads the v series went up to 16 cylinder and inlines up to 6 cylinders and as small as a 2 cylinder they also have a roots blower which the the engine will not run with out it the later versions had turbo chargers and blowers turbo's were used like an altitude compensator to give steady preformance in all conditions i saw a generator once that had 4 turbos on it also if the detroit looks like a locomotice engine that didn't eat it's wheaties thats because emd was the parrent company to detroit diesel
 

Briarpatch

Member
Wow! That is one big snowcat! I see it has the 6 boggies/long track. I have a long track 1644 that weighs in at 6200 lbs. I think with that much additional weight it may not be very good in the deep powder that we get here in the west.
 

aksnocat

Member
That one dates back to the late construction phase of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. It was owned originally by Frontier Trucking based on the paint. I'd bet it's a 1743 with a supercharged 4-53 Detroit. If I remember right, they weigh about 8200 pounds. The Detroit motor is a heavy one especially compared to the Chrysler gas motors. The latticework frame on the big 'cat is taller than the gas 'cats too.

The body on these is a good 2 1/2 feet wider than my '77 1742. My 1742 is silly tight for three in the cab (about 4 inches between the bucket seats) but the big 1743s could easily seat three across the front, though there were only two buckets. I think Tucker considers these a 12-passenger - two in front and ten in back in two facing rows. As I recall the spec plate says you can carry 3500 pounds in the cab.

It also looks to have what Tucker referred to as "tundra tracks". These ran the steel grouser (really just a solid bar with the integrated tire guides) on the inside of the track belts with a just a backing plate on the outside as compared with the standard steel grousers which run outside the belts and have the backing plates to the inside. They had NO traction elements and were designed to be able to run in minimal snow conditions with little or no ground disturbance. They were used on North Slope, which is generally flat and they were run in established tracks where traction was not really needed.

I owned two of these machines for about a year, although I never had a chance to run them in the snow. I can't imagine they'd climb hills well at all, especially when compared to a snow track-equipped one.

One thing to note about these tracks is that the track belting uses a different bolt spacing than the standard snow track both on the grouser and between grousers, so "standard" belts bought from vendors like FallLine won't have the right hole spacing and may not be long enough.

If you had a line on snow tracks, the price sounds in the ballpark to me... but it's probably not the kind of thing you'd buy as a hobby sno-cat. It's big and heavy and not terribly capable in it's present form unless you have a bunch of people or cargo to haul on established, flat terrain.
 

Frankenburb

New member
Thanks for all the info guys! It is nice to join a site and be able to feel comfortable asking "newbie" questions. Maybe I would be better off sticking with my little Bombardier Muskeg for now. Thanks again fellas!:biggrin:
 

Blackfoot Tucker

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
That one dates back to the late construction phase of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. It was owned originally by Frontier Trucking based on the paint. I'd bet it's a 1743 with a supercharged 4-53 Detroit. If I remember right, they weigh about 8200 pounds. The Detroit motor is a heavy one especially compared to the Chrysler gas motors. The latticework frame on the big 'cat is taller than the gas 'cats too.

The body on these is a good 2 1/2 feet wider than my '77 1742. My 1742 is silly tight for three in the cab (about 4 inches between the bucket seats) but the big 1743s could easily seat three across the front, though there were only two buckets. I think Tucker considers these a 12-passenger - two in front and ten in back in two facing rows. As I recall the spec plate says you can carry 3500 pounds in the cab.

It also looks to have what Tucker referred to as "tundra tracks". These ran the steel grouser (really just a solid bar with the integrated tire guides) on the inside of the track belts with a just a backing plate on the outside as compared with the standard steel grousers which run outside the belts and have the backing plates to the inside. They had NO traction elements and were designed to be able to run in minimal snow conditions with little or no ground disturbance. They were used on North Slope, which is generally flat and they were run in established tracks where traction was not really needed.

I owned two of these machines for about a year, although I never had a chance to run them in the snow. I can't imagine they'd climb hills well at all, especially when compared to a snow track-equipped one.

One thing to note about these tracks is that the track belting uses a different bolt spacing than the standard snow track both on the grouser and between grousers, so "standard" belts bought from vendors like FallLine won't have the right hole spacing and may not be long enough.

If you had a line on snow tracks, the price sounds in the ballpark to me... but it's probably not the kind of thing you'd buy as a hobby sno-cat. It's big and heavy and not terribly capable in it's present form unless you have a bunch of people or cargo to haul on established, flat terrain.

Outstanding post!

Thanks for all the information and history.
 
Top