Cummins Conversions Discuss conversions here. For instance, if you want to put a REAL engine in a FORD, this is where you would talk about it!

B3.3T Jeep YJ

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 5, 2009 | 08:24 PM
  #811  
TDIwyse's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 380
Likes: 1
From: Iowa
95Z28A4 would be the best person to answer this as he's working with the QSB version. I think the same engine/tranny adapters are still valid. I'm interested to learn how he integrates the fuel pedal into the equation.

Originally Posted by Frank Horn
I want to install a Cummins 3.3 engine into a 1951 Chevy.
Is it much more difficult to install the QSB3.3T than to install the mechanically injected B3.3T?
I would prefer the QSB3.3T but don't want to get over my head with the electronic hook up problems.
Thanks for your help.
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2009 | 03:52 PM
  #812  
Hulkgreen's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana
I was thinking about going the QSB route ........ The electronics are supposed to be as easy as 12 volt battery and 12 volt Keyed for power and then your ground !!! And then a potentiometer ( which 95Z28 can tell ya exactly what he found to work and its part # ) for the accelerator pedal ( it is a drive by wire system )!!!

I was too impatient and I wanted A/C and Power Steering and I did not want to source the Vacuum Pump !!!

I realize NOW that sounds Greedy like ... " I want my cake and I want to eat it BY MY SELF !!! "

BUT anyway .... I went with a mercedes OM 617 out of a 1984 Mercedes 300 D with 140,000 miles and these engines are known to go in excess of 500,000 !!! They are not the Torque producers of the Cummins at 188 lb/ft but they get about 28 to 30 MPG !! I got EVERYTHING I wanted and I only paid $750 for the whole car ..... SO if I want to figure out the cruise control .... I can GET that TOO ! LOL !!
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2009 | 07:24 PM
  #813  
TDIwyse's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 380
Likes: 1
From: Iowa
Congrats man. Hope that works out well for you. I think everyone should have at least one diesel
Reply
Old Jul 7, 2009 | 04:42 AM
  #814  
95Z28A4's Avatar
Registered User
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 194
Likes: 1
From: Louisiana, U.S.
Originally Posted by Frank Horn
I want to install a Cummins 3.3 engine into a 1951 Chevy.
Is it much more difficult to install the QSB3.3T than to install the mechanically injected B3.3T?
I would prefer the QSB3.3T but don't want to get over my head with the electronic hook up problems.
Thanks for your help.
The QSB3.3T should bolt in similar to a B3.3T. The QSB3.3T is designed to operate with an intercooler, so unlike a B3.3T, intercooler installation is required.

Originally Posted by TDIwyse
95Z28A4 would be the best person to answer this as he's working with the QSB version. I think the same engine/tranny adapters are still valid. I'm interested to learn how he integrates the fuel pedal into the equation.
I'm still in a Process Hazards Analysis study at work. I'm working an 11 hour per day schedule, so I'm not getting much done at home. I recently bought an 8KW generator that I'm converting to natural gas for back-up power during the next hurricane. Since most of the appliances in my house are natural gas, I should be able to run everything in my house (not at the same time, of course) except the central A/C unit.

Last Friday, I ordered the components to build the wiring harness for the QSB3.3T. I also located a 1999 Cherokee (XJ) 3.07 HP Dana 30 with 14K miles that I'm having shipped from Wisconsin. I purchased a fuel pedal from a 2006 Cummins equipped Dodge that I plan to use. I have the pedal, pigtail & bracket. According to Cummins, it should work with the QSB3.3T CM2150 controller.

.
Reply
Old Jul 12, 2009 | 12:45 PM
  #815  
TDIwyse's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 380
Likes: 1
From: Iowa
I removed the VG's from the jeep for the last three tanks to try and see if one or more of the following was happening:

1. Someone was messing with me and adding fuel to my tank to make my mpg's appear better than they were.
2. The fuel pump I was filling at was not calibrated correctly and dispensing more fuel than the meter reported.
3. Something in the drivetrain this Spring had stopped causing power loss (maybe brakes had been dragging?).

My fuel economy immediately sank to ~33 mpg for these three tanks. Although some combination of the possibilities above might still be at work and I'm not controlling the variables properly . . . I've put the goofy looking VG's back on.



Originally Posted by TDIwyse
Filled up again. 38.4mpg. This is crazy. I was expecting ~5-8% improvement in mpg's by running on staight D2 compared to mostly biodiesel based on the studies I've read. It appears the engine will be exceeding this expectation. Here's a chart of my fuel economy/bio% over the last 3 years. The mpg's are a 3 tank running average to reduce the tank-to-tank randomness of the data.
Reply
Old Jul 12, 2009 | 09:53 PM
  #816  
Dangerous Dave's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
From: Shepherd, TX
I'm sorry but what are VGs?
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2009 | 07:25 AM
  #817  
TDIwyse's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 380
Likes: 1
From: Iowa
Vortex Generators. There's more info back on page 51 of this thread (and also earlier on) about them and a link to the Mitsubishi research paper that got me interested in them and also a youtube video of my redneck windtunnel testing . . .

Originally Posted by Dangerous Dave
I'm sorry but what are VGs?
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2009 | 07:37 AM
  #818  
Hulkgreen's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana
Originally Posted by TDIwyse
Vortex Generators. There's more info back on page 51 of this thread (and also earlier on) about them and a link to the Mitsubishi research paper that got me interested in them and also a youtube video of my redneck windtunnel testing . . .


TDI ......

OF COURSE YOU REALIZE ................

YOU CAN'T HIDE ............. REDNECK !!
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 11:48 AM
  #819  
RyanD1981's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TDIwyse
I removed the VG's from the jeep for the last three tanks to try and see if one or more of the following was happening:

My fuel economy immediately sank to ~33 mpg for these three tanks. Although some combination of the possibilities above might still be at work and I'm not controlling the variables properly . . . I've put the goofy looking VG's back on.
TDI, you have a hard top right? Do you suppose you could figure out your Coefficient of Drag with and without the VG's? Have a friend (or the wife, perhaps) with a stop watch and clock how long it takes to slow from 100 kph to 80 kph. Do that with and with out the VG's and see if the time changes. If it takes longer with the VG installed, then you're on to something.
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 01:52 PM
  #820  
TDIwyse's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 380
Likes: 1
From: Iowa
Like in post #99 on page 7?

That was before I tried to optimize their positions using the redneck wind tunnel. I haven't done the roll down tests again.

Filled up on Friday and the mpg's for this tank with the VG's back on returned 36.4.


Originally Posted by RyanD1981
TDI, you have a hard top right? Do you suppose you could figure out your Coefficient of Drag with and without the VG's? Have a friend (or the wife, perhaps) with a stop watch and clock how long it takes to slow from 100 kph to 80 kph. Do that with and with out the VG's and see if the time changes. If it takes longer with the VG installed, then you're on to something.
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 10:14 AM
  #821  
patdaly's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,372
Likes: 172
From: Streator Illinois
Originally Posted by TDIwyse
Like in post #99 on page 7?

That was before I tried to optimize their positions using the redneck wind tunnel. I haven't done the roll down tests again.

Filled up on Friday and the mpg's for this tank with the VG's back on returned 36.4.

TDI, don't know if you have seen these, must be something to it......

http://www.airtabs.ca/index.htm
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 11:35 AM
  #822  
TDIwyse's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 380
Likes: 1
From: Iowa
Yeah, just didn't want to spend the $'s.

Originally Posted by patdaly
TDI, don't know if you have seen these, must be something to it......

http://www.airtabs.ca/index.htm
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 01:10 PM
  #823  
RyanD1981's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TDIwyse
Like in post #99 on page 7?

That was before I tried to optimize their positions using the redneck wind tunnel. I haven't done the roll down tests again.

Filled up on Friday and the mpg's for this tank with the VG's back on returned 36.4.
Yeah, like that. Lot of information to sift through. Let us know when you try again.

Any ideas on how to make these work with a soft top?
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2009 | 06:52 AM
  #824  
TDIwyse's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 380
Likes: 1
From: Iowa
Yeah. And the search engine only lets you do one search every 60 secs. Kind of makes searching the thread difficult.

I'm not familiar with the soft tops so I can't say for sure. But looking at a jeep this morning in the parking lot with a soft top I'd have to say it doesn't look promising.

Originally Posted by RyanD1981
Yeah, like that. Lot of information to sift through. Let us know when you try again.

Any ideas on how to make these work with a soft top?
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2009 | 09:36 AM
  #825  
RyanD1981's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TDIwyse
Yeah. And the search engine only lets you do one search every 60 secs. Kind of makes searching the thread difficult.

I'm not familiar with the soft tops so I can't say for sure. But looking at a jeep this morning in the parking lot with a soft top I'd have to say it doesn't look promising.
Yeah, I believe that. Since this isn't directly diesel related, I'm PM'ing my thoughts on it.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.