Where is the Cummins engine??? 6.4?

[MackE7]

"Wasn't there a marine version of the 6.5?"

Yeah... it was a boat anchor ! LOL. Sorry, couldn't resist.

"If that sucker would last in marine application I'd bet the 6.0 would also. Was the 7.3 ever used in marine application?"

The 7.3 is used in some LD marine applications. Mercury makes a drive with one.

It doesn't matter if these engines were or weren't used in marine applications. The thing is that none of these engines will stand up and be trouble free like the Cummins 5.9.

The issues the 6L has are ridiculous as is its torque curve. The 7.3 was an OK engine. I don't know why Ford doesn't get Navistar to build a good I6 and stop making these stupid complicated, trouble prone engines. And don't tell me it is emissions because the 5.9 makes very similar power and doesn't use EGR, VGT, etc. And furthermore there are now lots of engines using EGR and VGT and they aren't having problems with EBVs, EGR valves and all that other stuff. Have you looked under the hood of a 6L truck ? It is full from fenderwell to fenderwell. How is one ever going to keep that engine running for the next 15 years with all that stuff under there ? You and I might not run these trucks for 15 years, but if we want some resale value when we sell them, someone better want to run them for 15 years.

[superf350]

[ QUOTE ]
"Wasn't there a marine version of the 6.5?"

Yeah... it was a boat anchor ! LOL. Sorry, couldn't resist.

"If that sucker would last in marine application I'd bet the 6.0 would also. Was the 7.3 ever used in marine application?"

The 7.3 is used in some LD marine applications. Mercury makes a drive with one.

It doesn't matter if these engines were or weren't used in marine applications. The thing is that none of these engines will stand up and be trouble free like the Cummins 5.9.

The issues the 6L has are ridiculous as is its torque curve. The 7.3 was an OK engine. I don't know why Ford doesn't get Navistar to build a good I6 and stop making these stupid complicated, trouble prone engines. And don't tell me it is emissions because the 5.9 makes very similar power and doesn't use EGR, VGT, etc. And furthermore there are now lots of engines using EGR and VGT and they aren't having problems with EBVs, EGR valves and all that other stuff. Have you looked under the hood of a 6L truck ? It is full from fenderwell to fenderwell. How is one ever going to keep that engine running for the next 15 years with all that stuff under there ? You and I might not run these trucks for 15 years, but if we want some resale value when we sell them, someone better want to run them for 15 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen the torque curve on the 6.0? Granted I haven't seen the stock curve but I got to compare my wife's 03 6.0 to my 2000 7.3 and the 6.0 had a far better torque curve than my 7.3. It made more torque at a lower rpm and held it longer than the 7.3. I'm not sure if J&D performance still has those dyno runs saved or not but the next time I venture up their way I will ask for a copy and post it. Now the 6.0 is only what 3 years old so the jury is still out on how long it will last. I guess if it don't I can always fall back on my 6.9! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]

[teamroper60]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you seen the torque curve on the 6.0? Granted I haven't seen the stock curve but I got to compare my wife's 03 6.0 to my 2000 7.3 and the 6.0 had a far better torque curve than my 7.3. It made more torque at a lower rpm and held it longer than the 7.3. I'm not sure if J&D performance still has those dyno runs saved or not but the next time I venture up their way I will ask for a copy and post it. Now the 6.0 is only what 3 years old so the jury is still out on how long it will last. I guess if it don't I can always fall back on my 6.9! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Super,

Here was the stock torque and hp curves as they stood in 03 for the 6.0, Cummins and D-Max.

[superf350]

Thanks! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[560TURBO]

Boy oh boy do I have to make a posting on this. I have never read so much bs in my life, and over what??? Diesel power! Gimme a break. They are all good engines no matter how you look at it.

Now for the V-8 diesels, lets look at power generators, quarry trucks, bulldozers, etc... What do they each have in these monsters... yes V-design engines Quarry trucks V12 cummins mostly with about or over 2000HP and Komatsu has a V12 with 2200 HP and the generators by cat use V12. Next time you look at road construction, what do most of those scrapers have V8 cats, because they last what they do. Now these are huge scrapers. Everything has an application. The I6's are great for working on and create great power. They are cheaper to manufacture and like I said in the previous sentence, easier to work on. They is the big reason you see OTR applications with I6's over V design. The locomotive trains use V design diesels. That is 6000HP of V HP in your face. Now the largest diesel is an I6 which is great, but when you are using that big of parts how easy is it to use a V. I love them both, I6 and V's.

But for Navistar, they are soley building engines for the truck market, not the ag tractor market, not the boating market, crawler market, etc, but simply the trucking market. They have been building diesels longer than cummins, and mony other diesel manufacturers, so stuff that in your pipes and smoke it. Nothing agaisnt cummins or others, just to those who may not know otherwise.

Here are some of IH famous I6 diesels and V diesels...
I6 diesels...
D282-Farmall 560, 706, TD9 crawlers
D310-German IH 706, 756,
D361-Farmall 806, 1206 turbo
D429-International 4100, 4156
D817-International 4300, TD20-24
D407-IH 856, 1256, 1456,
D414-IH 966, 1066, 1086, 1486
D436-IH 1466, 1566, 1586
D358-IH 886, 826, 786
D466***-IH 5288, 5488, 4366, 4386, 7288,7488, IH paystars, and other binders etc,

D570-currently in the 7000 series trucks

Vdesigns....

6.9 liter
7.3 liter
6.0 jury is still out
DVT573-quarry trucks and IH construction equipment
DVT800-IH tractors

DV550 All you can say what you want on these V, but go to redpowermagazine and they will tell you differently

[MackE7]

"But for Navistar, they are soley building engines for the truck market, not the ag tractor market, not the boating market, crawler market, etc, but simply the trucking market."

Not true. Detroit Diesel rebrands the 466 as a Series 40 engine. I think it is used in Terex construction equipment.

[Mwheeler]

[ QUOTE ]
Cummins practically owns a lot of the market with the 5.9. It has proven to be a very tough, versatile engine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy now, John Deere Power Tech Engines have the Cummins well taken care of.....

[Sparkydm]

If your post is correct, it's not being done by Navistar. I read a
post where the 5.9 was developed for an industial application,
not for a vehicle. I've never followed up to verify it one way or the other. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shrug.gif[/img]

[teamg]

Hey 560 Turbo, not trying to nit pick , but a 1486 has a 436 in it. That is a good list though. The 466 was used in 35 and 3788's also. The 436 was used in alot of Axial-Flows combines also and in 986's. Don't forget about the DT-360 that was used in early 886's and I think 766's as well. To me that would make a good pick-up motor, but I guess size would hold that application back. Also certain Agco tractor models in the mid-90's used DT's in them. Not for sure, but they had non IH heads I have been told. I don't know if that is fact or not. A.W.T.

[MackE7]

"The 436 was used in alot of Axial-Flows combines also and in 986's."

I don't think so. As far as I know, the 1440 through 1480 were released with the 466 and the 1480 specifically was under powered. Case upgraded to the Cummins 8.3 when it became the 1688. Proves my point...

[teamg]

I am pretty sure 1440's and 1460's had 436's and the 1480 had a 466. Also CIH went with the CDC 8.3 in 89 or 90 in the 1640-60-80. And they also had a recall on those motors. I think a main bearing problem and lube problems. We had a 90 1660 that was rebuilt at 200 hours on the CIH update recall and then at about 2850 hours it locked it's guts up on my sister-inlaw idling, waiting on me to get back from the elevator while we were cutting soybeans. Spun a main. The CIH reman had a bigger oil pump and drive. So much for the longevity legacy all the Cummins guys talk about. We have only puked one DT in 30 some odd years of having them. A 3588 we had one time blew up. The cam had to do with that. The tractor was nine years old and CIH payed for the cam and other things because this tractor was not updated with a newer style cam, so we were told. I guess that would be the difference between a 466B and a C, or between a A and a B. Don't know for sure. I am not knocking Cummins, but I don't think CIH tractors were better for having CDC motors than if they would have still used IH DT motors. We like the 5.9 that is in our CIH MX-100 and the 855's that are in our Steiger ST-280 and our Versatile 895. Maintaining your motors is the name of game. By the way MackE7, the reason they went to Cummins was because of the joint venture with them on the CDC motor manufacturing. In-house versus buying them from IH. I don't know about the 1480 being underpowered, but our 1440 could have used a turn on the screw,it did not have a turbo. I think the 60 might have had one, I know a 80 did. A 60 might have been a 466 too, I can't say for sure, we never had one. A.W.T.

[Dr.Evil]

Early 886's had the non-turbo D-360 in them, then in about 1977 FARMALL put the D358 Nuess engine back in them. The Melrose Pk plant had their hands full making enough 400-series engines to meet demands. 786's used the exact same engine (D358) with the Bosch pump turned down a bit. 986 used the non-turbo D436. 1086 = DT-414; 1486 & 1586 = DT436; 3388 = DT-436; 3588/3788 = DT466. 5488 finally used the DTI-466.
From what I've heard C/IH still makes "Under-powered" Combines. Friend has a pair of C/IH 2388's with Cummins power. Has the C-8.3 I think still, but in 200-225 BPA corn needs more HP. But then like He says, the steering tires on these 2388's are the same size as the drive tires on the first couple combines He had.
As far as tractor engines are concerned, I think Navistar's own VT-365 or T444-E would be O-K, much better torque rise than Ford's PSD. Governed RPM is lower, torque is higher. Couple years ago Wife & I were snooping around Barnes & Noble, and I leafed thru a book on Deere. Had pic's of the prototype 3010/4010. 3010 had a V-4 and 4010 had a V-6. Only reason they went back to in-line engines was because the tractors still had mounted cornpickers attached to them. Heads/Valve Covers got in the way.
Way I view this V verses inline engine debate is it's foolish. Plenty of in-line diesels have blown up. My favorite was an 855 Cummins that broke a wrist pin. Only thing holding the engine together was the top deck surface of the block & the cyl. head. Rod flailed around and sawed the engine almost in two. Plus there's plenty of V-6 & V-8, V-12, & V-16 cyl. diesels running every day in severe applications. And the reason they're used is because of "PACKAGING", They FIT, and they make more HP in a lesser space than an equivalent in-line.
Far as servicability, the new Cummins in the Dodge doesn't look that much easier to work on than the new PSD.... And neither one looks near as easy as My old 7.3. If GM, Ford, & D-C would build these trucks so the service Tech's and/or Owners could work on them, tilt front ends, etc. I'd buy a new one in a heartbeat. I priced a new Navistar/IH 4400 with the high torque 466 a year ago, but the darned thing was an inch too tall to fit in My garage [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shrug.gif[/img]

[greyf150]

[ QUOTE ]
The only problem with the 6L is that it doesn't make any torque below 2000 RPM.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this may be true in Ford Truck applications, In MDT apps they peak at 1400.

<font color="blue"> VT365 </font>

[BigDaddyT]

[ QUOTE ]

Far as servicability, the new Cummins in the Dodge doesn't look that much easier to work on than the new PSD.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont know about that. It took me several minutes to locate the valve cover on the 6.0. There was so much stuff on top I had to really look to find a hole. I was looking for the epa badge. Took about 10 minutes in all to find it.

The cummins was designed for ag use. It was a joint venture between case and cummins. Cummins designed the engine and case supplied the application. Was it called consolidated?

[superf350]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Far as servicability, the new Cummins in the Dodge doesn't look that much easier to work on than the new PSD.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont know about that. It took me several minutes to locate the valve cover on the 6.0. There was so much stuff on top I had to really look to find a hole. I was looking for the epa badge. Took about 10 minutes in all to find it.

The cummins was designed for ag use. It was a joint venture between case and cummins. Cummins designed the engine and case supplied the application. Was it called consolidated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. The valve covers are easy to find, I just wouldn't want to have to take them bad boys off! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif[/img] It is a nightmare under there, especially when I can go out an pop the hood on the mustang and 6.9 and there is all kinds of room. I was actually suprised how much room there was under the hood of the mustang. Looks like Ford could shove a V10 in there with ease! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif[/img]