HOHN

Interesting arrival from the company grapevine: pics of the MaxxForce 13L (12.4 in reality) as installed in chassis. I'm told these were acquired from a truck broken down en route to dealer (delivery) in Las Cruces, NM.

pind

Hey Justin.

I don't like to slag anyone's product, but look at what the OEMs do to ANY engine in a class 8 truck. or any truck for that matter, they are getting tougher to work on all the time.

If you think they are jerks for that mess ( they are ), try doing the head on an ISX in a T2000 or a 387 Pete.

Engineers and designers can build anything they like. Then people who work on things ( me ) redesign things on the fly to make them work in the real world.

If you want the BIGGEST loser in the world, try the lower mounting bracket on an ACERT cat, where they relieved the oil cooler body, rather than design the bracket around it. Dirt gets in there, and pinhole later, no more oil cooler. Thin aluminum gives before thick steel.

It's ALL good

Purplezr2

So Maxxforce is the new international motors. Is there a reason that they lost the international name. Is it a joint venture between them and some one else(CAT?)

pind

MAXXFORCE is to IH as powerstroke is to ford, duramax to gm, and POS ( sorry, ACERT ) is to CAT.

Just a cool brand name for something that is fairly mundane.

MAXXFORCE... sounds like it gets better penetration or something. Anyway.....

Purplezr2

I always though that ACERT Just referred to the twin turbo setup that hung off the side.


What is it with mechanic's/farmers not liking engineers. That what I'm going to school for.

HOHN

Mechanics and farmers don't like engineers because we make their lives tougher as far as being easy to work on.

When you're NOT working on an engine, fuel economy and power and reliability matter most.

But when you're turning wrenches, the packaging and engineering that gave you those benefits is now your enemy.

Cummins engineers pretty good engines. But we don't control the chassis. We make the engines buildable and serviceable.

But all that goes at the door when you're putting it in someone else's chassis. Ultimately, the clearance around the engine we build is determined by the manufacturer of the chassis.

Paccar is making packaging tighter because it helps MPG. I personally don't think the new ISX is hard to work on at all when it's on a stand.

But throw that thing in a chassis, and everything changes radically. I'm not really a fan of the T660 chassis fit. It looks like taking off the fuel pump will require taking off the air compressor and half the cold side of the engine because the frame rail is just slightly too close to the engine. The bracketry required for that heavy fuel pump takes up space between the block and pump that you'd need to maneuver. But the bracketry is really, really important. If they had the frame rails with the smaller channel on bottom instead of on top (like some Volvo chassis do), then it wouldn't be a problem.

Fortunately, testing suggest that servicing the Hi pressure fuel pump will be *very* rare

Purplezr2

^^^ make sense, I have worked as a mechanic. I will have my first job as an engineering intern next semester so I guess I will see what that is like. I guess I have always understood things can only be designed certain ways due to restrictions(cost, material, location etc). That said everything is easy to work on when its on an engine stand. HOHN, do you like working for Cummins?

pind

Guys, honesty from 25 years of being a triple ticket tradesman.

These new engines, stock for stock, aren't getting any better economy than the old ones did, I wish they were, so that I could help justify the enormous number of hours I spend to repair simple things, by saying that at least they run better, are more reliable, and easier on fuel. but they just aren't.

The peak of performance from the cummins camp, came from the N14 435/460 engine. Even the 525 engine wasn't bad in that series. Good economy, good power to weight, and reliable as anything. Yes we had a few problems, but such is the nature of the beast.

In the CAT camp, the 3406E 550 was about as good as it got, big power, reasonable economy ( for a CAT product ) but still overweight and overpriced. The C15 with the single turbo was pretty good, then along came ACERT, and it all went by the wayside.

IH has had the DT466 in many forms over the years, proven performer, reliable as sunrise, maintain it, and it will go forever on a sniff of fuel. Just not Class 8 territory.

Detroit, the 60 series. Big power, small displacement, not a good combo, but still a decent performer overall. Nothing outstanding except the diamond seal leaks, and UVCH problems.

The older mechanical turbo diesel from ford / IH, just before the powerstroke, was the peak of their tech. Good economy, power, and longevity. So they just HAD to copy that caterpillar HEUI injection disaster. Its been working on the 466E series, but not well on the 444E.

Look carefully at real world numbers on the older engines, versus the newer engines. Not the dyno numbers, not the projected numbers, but the real-world driven over millions of miles numbers, and see what you come up with.

Oh, and since you are both into engineering, which isn't a bad thing in itself, just remember how to work on things, maybe you guys can tell me how burning more fuel produces LESS emissions. because I'm stupid like that.

1 pound of fuel burned, produces 1 pound of emissions. period. Changing the form, does NOT change the amount of fuel being consumed. And are the emissions any better? Really? Enough to offset the cost of the added engineering and fuel?

Just food for thought.

And if you ever run into a snag, PM me, I might just have a useful answer.

Take it easy guys.

DodgemnLeavem

^^^^^ what he said.. all very true. None of these newer engines are getting
any better economy then they did they burn actually More real world fuel,than they claim. I too cannot wrap mymind around the concept of burning More fuel to do the same job that an older engine did it with is a better thing.. Hmm yes I can you wanna know why??

Its good for the Oil company!!!!!

HOHN

Yes, I like it a lot. It's almost a dream job. Still *work*, mind, you, but a job I can see doing a long time. I never worked harder for less but also enjoyed a job more. Add another 20K to my income and THEN you'd have a dream job, lol!

Cummins is a study in contrasts. They are willing to spend money readily on certain things, others they are the tightest wads in the book.

Office furniture and working environment is pretty lame. Most of the goods are 15+ year old particle board wonders. Cubicle city on each floor.

The laptop I use every day is slow and underperforms. The computer network we rely on so heavily is disjointed and not very effective. My single greatest frustration at work at the poor IT and data tools I'm given to work with.

But when it comes to a supercomputer that runs exotic FEA or CFD work, the money is always there. Our chemical and material labs have ALL the cool stuff. Digital 3d microscopy? Check. $1.5M Zeiss SEM? Got it. Most sophisticated emissions testers and five gas analyzers on the planet? Check and check. Pratt and Whitney supermicrometer accurate to 1/4 micron? Got it.

So Cummins is a study in contrasts-- a marriage of "20 years ago" thinking with cutting edge technology and research. The downside is that there is sometimes a "been there, done that" approach. "Yeah, we looked at turbocompounding 20 years ago and it's not worth the reliability hit." Sure, but have we run the analysis again on this engine with never turbines and gear design? "CGI might make a good block material, but it's not cost effective for company or customer". Maybe, but haven't cutting tools changed in over the years?

So it's hard sometimes to get people to re-examine things because they have already looked at it once and made up their minds.

Then again, I have to look a myself and remark: "there are no new problems, just new engineers."

JH

johnyb59

Completely AGREE!!!!!!!!!

PETEDOCTOR

HOHN
I totally agree with you. Rapidserve and Quickserve are a testament to disjointed, and I would take a factory compound-turbo "CGI" 6.7 and N14 to go please!

cbtumedic

One of the biggest problems with engineers is they design something to go together in a quick manner on the assembly line, however that is only the beginning of the life of the vehicle. When it needs service that item that went in easily on the line will most likely be a royal PITA to get access to in the field. At least that has been my experience as a mechanic.

cbrahs

I think all engineers should have to work in the field and actually work on these things. Only then they will get a better idea of how some of their ideas suck. Have worked on big rings, tractors (farm) and aircraft all my life. The most frustrating engineers are aircraft engineers. Would love to have one of them come out onto the flightline and get the #2 engine cannon plug safety wired on a H model Huey. Have enough room for 1 hand then get a long telescopic mirror in to see how bad you screwed up and have QA cut it and say start over. I was so peeeeeeeved the first time i had to do one, I wanted to kill the dbag that designed it. Could have been so much easier if they could have moved it over about 8 inches.

Purplezr2

As someone that has worked as a mechanic I can see where you guys are coming from. I can truly say that my roomates and I who are all ME majors wonder how some of the guys that are in our classes can be engineers in certain field and they have never picked up a wrench in their lives. I have on the other hand worked as a mechanic, that said I can see the other side of the coin on why things are designed a certain way.