When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm not a big fan of engine stand cookers, but this one is done pretty good...
a little cheaper alternative maybe
later
John
Hi John,
Which welding board did this come from? I belong to the Welding Web board and they have a forum for project threads. They seem to have a lot of project pictures. This guy seems to have documented everything he does.
The only thing I see wrong with this cooker is that about the cheapest you can get engine stands is from HF for $40.00. By the time you invest $80.00 in two of them and make the necessary modifications it would be easier to just fab the whole thing. Yours looks a whole lot cleaner than this guy's rig. Even at today's prices that $80.00 will go a long way toward buying the steel you need to do it right. Of course I suppose if you have two stands around that you don't need, it could be a reasonable alternative. I like your's better.
John, is the one you have for frames only or is that one designed to hold a car body, too?
Havi... mine is a frame rotisserie.... don't know if you have the clearance for a body... but probably do... the only difference is the metalwork to connect to the body vs a frame... you'd have to fab up some kind of crossbar that attaches to the body and then bolt it to the rotisserie crossbar....
dave,
I agree on the design and cost.... just offering an alternative I found... I think I found it on the Miller site
Thanks, John. After thinking about it for awhile, I will need both rotisseries for all my projects. But as you mentioned, the clearance needed for a frame is less than a car body....this I can incorporate into the design, which I hope will cost less.
after thinking about it a while and looking at some pics... the upright on the cooker is drilled about every two inches up to about 6'... so you could raise the cross arm to a dangerous height if you wanted to... then the only restriction you'd have twisting the body would be ceiling height.. I guess.
the frame is about 6' wide with the cab mounts and runningboard mounts so a cab/body wouldn't be any wider.. just a little more cumbersome to handle...
after thinking about it a while and looking at some pics... the upright on the cooker is drilled about every two inches up to about 6'... so you could raise the cross arm to a dangerous height if you wanted to... then the only restriction you'd have twisting the body would be ceiling height.. I guess.
the frame is about 6' wide with the cab mounts and runningboard mounts so a cab/body wouldn't be any wider.. just a little more cumbersome to handle...
later
John
John,
How did you manage to remove the weld seam baed from inside the box tibe so you cound slide the the larger tube over the smaller one? That has been a major stumbling block for me in using telescoping designs with the square tube. Going one size lower in wall thickness results in a sloppy fit in my experiences.
Dave, I'm not sure if a seamless box tube is available or not, but that's one solution. Engine hoists use a seamless tube, but I believe they are specially made, or specially ordered. Otherwise, a quick grind to relief the Outside of the inner tube might allow clearance. Just hope the seam weld isn't too big. In replacing my engine hoist "slider", the tube's seam isn't any more than a 1/16" sticking out from the inside. As for the radius of the ID of the outer tube, I just ground a 1/4" radius down the outer edges of the inner tube. But if seamless box tube is available, I'd say it would be great. My .02.
John, for the frame width, I was considering the 78 F150 frame, 79 Bronco frame, IH frames, etc... The running board supports do make the old ones wider for sure. Good point on that, thanks.
A "big" bridgeport mill with a die grinder type bit would be handy for the ground relief, lol.
John,
How did you manage to remove the weld seam baed from inside the box tibe so you cound slide the the larger tube over the smaller one? That has been a major stumbling block for me in using telescoping designs with the square tube. Going one size lower in wall thickness results in a sloppy fit in my experiences.
Dave
DAVE....
several methods... I have some die grinder carbide burrs with a long shaft.... about 6" of reach... so you can work it from both ends... I've also got a narrow width air belt sander... looks like a piston with a 3/8" wide belt and the third and favorite is a file...
several methods... I have some die grinder carbide burrs with a long shaft.... about 6" of reach... so you can work it from both ends... I've also got a narrow width air belt sander... looks like a piston with a 3/8" wide belt and the third and favorite is a file...
later
John
I have one of those little belt sanders and it will only go in about four inches and the files aren't much better I have been trying to come up with some kind of an inside cutter on something like a shaper so I can do it quickly. Sometimes I need to do a piece two feet long and I have yet to come up with anything for that.
Hi Havi, if you look in my gallery entitled seat belts, the last picture shows my frame on a rottiserie I built this summer. My frame is now painted and almost assembled and I'm planning to put the body of my panel on it soon. I used 3/16th material, 3 " , 2 1/2" and 2" square tubing that allows movement without any deburring of seams in the tubing. I was going to create another gallery with drawings and dimensions. I planned it by taking ideas from several I've seen on the internet. I tried posting the picture but I'm out of practise.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.