weight of supra sunsport 86 with trailer

[jbousman88]

Anyone know the actual weight of a 86 supra sunsport with trailer and all for towing?

[Jetlink]

Has it had the water logged foam and wood removed in a cap off restoration?

[jbousman88]

floor and stringers are only a 6 yrs old and foam was removed from a previous repair.

[Jetlink]

Probably just over 3,000 pounds on the boat empty and maybe 800 pounds on the trailer on the light end of things. Just a ball park to get you close. You asking for towing purposes?

[korey]

I have access to the scales at a rock quarry so I rolled my 86 Saltare and 2014 F150 Crew cab 4x4 across the scales coming home one day last summer. I was able to take the truck straight back after dumping the boat to get a number to subtract out.

Fully loaded for a weekend at the lake - minus ~25 gallons of fuel - the entire rig weighs 11,500lbs. and the truck alone was 5700lbs. That leaves the boat on the factory tandem trailer weighing in at a portly 5800lbs. Mine is all original and certainly a little heavy due to waterlogged foam and [hopefully not too much due to] stringers. FWIW, she sits pretty normal in the water and stringers seem respectable from exterior inspection so she's not THAT waterlogged... My saltare also has a big block, not sure about your sunsport. There is a lot of steel there...

[ckracing]

For reference - waterlogged foam weighs a bunch. My '86 Sunsport lost ~400 lbs. after stringer and floor replacement. 351W.

[wotan2525]

I have access to the scales at a rock quarry so I rolled my 86 Saltare and 2014 F150 Crew cab 4x4 across the scales coming home one day last summer. I was able to take the truck straight back after dumping the boat to get a number to subtract out.

Fully loaded for a weekend at the lake - minus ~25 gallons of fuel - the entire rig weighs 11,500lbs. and the truck alone was 5700lbs. That leaves the boat on the factory tandem trailer weighing in at a portly 5800lbs. Mine is all original and certainly a little heavy due to waterlogged foam and [hopefully not too much due to] stringers. FWIW, she sits pretty normal in the water and stringers seem respectable from exterior inspection so she's not THAT waterlogged... My saltare also has a big block, not sure about your sunsport. There is a lot of steel there...

I've always guesstimated that my boat + trailer is in the 6000 - 6500 range. Nobody ever believes me until they hook their truck up to it. My trailer seems like they must have stashed lead in it somewhere. Glad to hear that you've somewhat confirmed that.

[Jetlink]

For reference - waterlogged foam weighs a bunch. My '86 Sunsport lost ~400 lbs. after stringer and floor replacement. 351W.

My Comp lost more than that last winter. If I am not mistaken, I think I lost closer to 800 pounds of saturated foam, mulch and other water logged materials. Who knew that Supra was ahead of their time when they built these boats with "factory ballast" before it was cool?

[korey]

Same here! The Truck that I owned when I bought the saltare was a beater 91 F250 4x4 M/T with a 351 and I was unpleasantly surprised when it struggled with my new acquisition! Even this is pretty close to the factory rating of my newish F150 (7700#)!

My Nautique 2001 lost 650lb when i did stringers and floor, but it had an extra plywood floor in it... Really effed up the wakeboarding wake!

[wotan2525]

Same here! The Truck that I owned when I bought the saltare was a beater 91 F250 4x4 M/T with a 351 and I was unpleasantly surprised when it struggled with my new acquisition! Even this is pretty close to the factory rating of my newish F150 (7700#)!


My first tow vehicle was a 92 F250 two-wheeler. I let it dig itself into the ground at a gravel launch so bad one time that the bed was completely under water. After that I had to sell it and buy a 4x4. My 77 F250 w/ a 460 has never had a problem. ;)

[cadunkle]

Towing my Saltare is the reason I built a 550+ ft/lbs 460 for my truck, sucked with the stock 351w.

[wotan2525]

Towing my Saltare is the reason I built a 550+ ft/lbs 460 for my truck, sucked with the stock 351w.

Threadjack time.... what kind of MPG do you get out of your 460? I can't afford to drive mine any further than the boat launch!!

[crystal waters]

Anyone know the actual weight of a 86 supra sunsport with trailer and all for towing?

The dry weight of your boat is noted as 2950 lbs from the factory.
trailer not included.
You fuel capacity is 37 US Gallons.

[cadunkle]

Threadjack time.... what kind of MPG do you get out of your 460? I can't afford to drive mine any further than the boat launch!!

460, ZF5, 3.55:1 gears. lifted 4" of 35" tires, 6000 lbs truck. 12.5 MPG unloaded at 70 MPH and a hair over 10 MPG towing the Saltare at 70 MPH. I think it's pretty good MPG consider the power and truck. Funny the truck burns about 6 GPH pulling the boat and the boat burns about 6 GPH pulling me. Anyhow, I've since got a diesel truck, still have the 460 truck though. Same truck but not lifted, 6.9 turbo, and a C6 slushbox no overdrive. Gets 10.8-11 MPG towing but cost per mile has been about the same since diesel has cost more than 93 octane. These days with diesel being cheaper than 93 octane I think the 460 truck may cost more to drive. That will probably change this year as I've got a ZF5 for the diesel so I'll have overdrive and no torque converter slip.

I prefer towing with the 460 than the diesel though, 460 truck has way more torque. Built it for max torque and it shows. Have broke several motor mounts, none since going to solid mounts though, and have broken several ZF5 trans cases. Either crack the front half from pushing the countershaft away from the main or rip the trans mount straight off the tailhousing. Weak aluminum cases. Can hold speed up steep grades passing big rigs and such. My diesel I gotta drive by the pyro pulling grades, halfway up it's slow down or melt pistons.

[korey]

10MPG is not a hell of a lot worse than I get with my nearly new 5.0 coyote engine! My trailer is unhappy at 70, and I usually tow at 77 though...

[cadunkle]

But does it make 550 ft/lbs from off idle through 4500 RPM? ;) I've found smaller engines tend to give a a bit better MPG with a light load but working an engine hard, barring any gross inefficiencies, they'll burn about the same GPH to do the same work. I recall GPH mentioned here by a 351w Saltare guy was comparable to a 454.

Gotta wind my diesel out while the 460 happily shifts at 2000 RPM and scoots on past. Diesel is getting there with a bigger pump, but now it makes more smoke than power. Needs more turbo...

[wotan2525]

460, ZF5, 3.55:1 gears. lifted 4" of 35" tires, 6000 lbs truck. 12.5 MPG unloaded at 70 MPH and a hair over 10 MPG towing the Saltare at 70 MPH. I think it's pretty good MPG consider the power and truck. Funny the truck burns about 6 GPH pulling the boat and the boat burns about 6 GPH pulling me. Anyhow, I've since got a diesel truck, still have the 460 truck though. Same truck but not lifted, 6.9 turbo, and a C6 slushbox no overdrive. Gets 10.8-11 MPG towing but cost per mile has been about the same since diesel has cost more than 93 octane. These days with diesel being cheaper than 93 octane I think the 460 truck may cost more to drive. That will probably change this year as I've got a ZF5 for the diesel so I'll have overdrive and no torque converter slip.

Ughhh! This is depressing. I get 4-6mpg out of my 460 w/ a C6, 33" tires and 4:10 gears.

[cadunkle]

You got the deck stacked against you. No overdrive, torque converter slip, screaming with 4.10:1 gears, and in a 70s or 80s truck if stock it'll have retarded cam timing and various smog BS all robbing power and efficiency. Just a freshening up with a straight up timing set would help but really you need to get rid of the grand chasm pistons and bump the compression ratio, more efficient cam, some port cleanup on the exhaust side at minimum along with headers and it'll make a world of difference in both power and BSFC. Throw in a ZF5 and 3.55:1 gears, which you'd then have the torque down low to pull, and you'd double your MPG while improving acceleration too.

I understand they make a 460 to velvet drive bellhousing... If my 454 in the Saltare ever give sup the ghost I'm building a 460 for it. Maybe stroke to 545 and really do the mountain of torque thing while shooting for minimum fuel consumption. I like building big engines that are efficient torque monsters... Fun.

[wotan2525]

You got the deck stacked against you. No overdrive, torque converter slip, screaming with 4.10:1 gears, and in a 70s or 80s truck if stock it'll have retarded cam timing and various smog BS all robbing power and efficiency. Just a freshening up with a straight up timing set would help but really you need to get rid of the grand chasm pistons and bump the compression ratio, more efficient cam, some port cleanup on the exhaust side at minimum along with headers and it'll make a world of difference in both power and BSFC. Throw in a ZF5 and 3.55:1 gears, which you'd then have the torque down low to pull, and you'd double your MPG while improving acceleration too.


The 460 is out of a 70-71 Continental (I'm pretty sure.) I don't think it has any smog stuff on it, but it might have some bad/inefficient cam timing. It's probably just tired and past it's lifespan. If the engine ever needs to come out of this truck, it will be a crate engine going back in. I'd love to put in a Coyote or an Ecoboost, but Ford hasn't done us any favors with the electronics packages required to run those engines (they've basically made it impossible.) As much blasphemy as it is, I could honestly see putting a SBC in this truck. The aftermarket is just waaaaay more robust for those engines.

A manual tranny isn't an option as the girlfriend doesn't trust her clutch foot on a steep launch ramp.

[cadunkle]

Should have good heads then, D0VE. Those will support north of 700 HP with good port work, have better chambers, more quench pad, and stud rockers. They are what you want for keeping it on a budget with iron heads. If it is a 72-ish engine though, the heads will be D2VE... The one year abortion. D2VE are the absolute worst 385 series heads and should not be run under any circumstances. The chambers are huge, low compression, no quench pad so even with low compression they detonate easily. Casting number will be around the center of head near exhaust ports. If D2VE that explains the poor performance. Block will be a D1VE internal balance with thick main webs which can be drilled for 4 bolt mains. These are the more desirable blocks. If it's a 72 instead of a 71 or earlier it will also be down well over 150 HP and 200 ft/lbs compared to the earlier engines. The early engines would be around 10.5:1 compression and require 91+ octane to run anything resembling a decent or efficient timing curve. Depending on wear it could be under a grand to freshen yours up and do a few upgrades. If you're running 87 with a timing curve to not destroy itself that would explain the low MPG.

SBF would likely be easier and cheaper to swap than SBC as depending on year it was a factory option and more or less the same as a SBC. Not sure the appeal of a small block though, be it expensive new tiny engine or a common 302/351w/350. Small engine, less power, shorter life, same fuel consumption under load. In building several 385 series engines I haven't found parts availability to be an issue. Cost is more than a SBF/SBC but comparable or only slightly more than BBC. 385 series is a far superior design to BBC. What are you interested in for a 460 that isn't available or is prohibitively expensive compared to SBF/SBC/BBC? Regarding the new engines, for the money you spend on the engine and the time to make it work in an older truck, you could build a fairly stout 545 putting down 700+ ft/lbs at any RPM with good manners, E4OD+gearvendors for relatively efficient highway cruise at better MPG than it currently gets, and after fuel you'd still be money ahead after 100k miles vs swapping one of those new engines in.

If MPG or $/mile after the build is the goal then it may be worth the expense to go with a 7.3 powerstroke swap (that hurts to say, I'm an all mechanical guy with an IDI) they are expensive but fairly reliable and offer pretty good MPG. Stout enough to hop up with a tune but cost a fortune if you want big boy power. Heck, a Cummins swap (Gah!) would make more sense than one of the new small gas engines and is arguably superior to the 7.3 powerstroke. Dollar per ft/lb a 385 series is cheaper, but won't offer the efficiency of a DI diesel. How long it'll take to reach ROI takes some math and a few assumptions on fuel prices.