While I understand that many off-roaders are very annoyed by decisions to close trails and limit access of off-road vehicles to certain wilderness areas, I can only be relieved.I have no aversion to driving vehicles for sport, and I can see the fun in it, but I do have a problem with driving very heavy vehicles in delicate ecosystems. When I see a ton-weight Jeep crashing through undergrowth, into streams, and along beaches, all I can see is the destruction of natural habitats, which will have lastingeffects on the ecosystem, such as erosion, water pollution, and the wrecking of plants that are integral to how well an area thrives. It islike driving a four-wheeler through a china shop. I say that a remedy to this situation is to stay on the trails and off wilderness that has yet to be driven, especially anywhere with water, whether it bethe coast or a river, as they tend to be more fragile. You could also drive in places that have already been damaged, like quarries, or stick to manmade tracks and such. That wouldnot impact the environment as much. There are probably manyoff-roaders who feel that the full experience of off-roading cannot be attained unless it is actually inthe wild, but I think that there are better ways to experience nature than sitting inside a vehicle, which rather defeats the point of being there inthe first place.
San Jose, CA
You make some good points, and we should always be careful of where we wheel. However, Wilderness is a Federal land designation that doesn’t allow motorized recreation, and we respect that by staying out of it. We agree that for the most part we should stay on trails and existing 4x4 areas. However, there are certain legal open areas that allow for new trails and are designed to be used in this manner. For instance, most trails we show are on private land that may not even have virgin growth on it and which is slated for development or other use. Yes, erosion can be harmful, but it is as natural a process as humans themselves and has been happening for 4.6 billion years.
But Wait! DED ID
I saw the DED flathead-six engine photo in the Oct. ’10 issue (Supersonic DED), and for anyone trying to find parts for this engine or trying to identify some of the early engine swaps, here is some information on the photo and early Willys engine swaps.
Willys F-6 161 Hurricane
The engine in the photois an F-6 161 Hurricane engine produced by Willys from 1952 to 1955(the later L-226 motor was called the Super Hurricane).It was found inmany 2WD wagons but was used most in the Willys Aero. It is the same design as the F-head 134 four motor with the intake valves in the head and the exhaust in the block (uses many of the same parts). It was a great running motor with 90 hp and bolted right up to the T-90 transmission. As Willys started all yearly productions in midyear, a few of these engines were actually installed in the ’50 Jeepsters sold in 1951 and it was the same cubic inch as the Lightning L-6 161 engine.
The Lightning six (flathead 1948-1951) found its way into many a Jeep, as it was a 9.42:1 compression motor with 70 hp and there was a 191ci version. Very smooth and lots of get-up-and-go.
The Supersonic six was a Studebaker flathead motor that looked like the Lightning six except the carb and manifold were on the opposite side. These engines found their way into many Willys as conversions because Studebaker also used the T-90 transmission and many of the samedivetrainand overdrive parts, so you see many Supersonic six motors in Willys.
The first V-8 swaps in Jeeps were also Studebaker V-8 engines because they bolted right upto the transmission with little problem. Except for the driver-side exhaust manifold, they fit right into flatfender Jeeps, so many barn finds have this motor under the hood.
West Coast Willys #1
Thanks, Walt. Now all we have to do is figure out who owns said jeep and how to resurrect it and drive it home.