Scott,

Try the Mack E9. 998 cubes of brute force and ignorance in one tidy package. And, they got pretty decent fuel economy when tuned right. We have a couple in mid 80's cabovers up this way, and man, they work good.

 

I have absolutely NO experience with those at all except for one acquaintance who has, (or had, I dunno if he's still got it or not), a V8 Mack in a Superliner. Hauled a dirt trailer with it and as I recall he couldn't keep rod bearings in it. But again, I know nothing about those engines or this guy's driving habits or maintenance... nuttin'!

 

HEHE, Kind of like the audacity of turning up a B series Cummins in a Dodge?

Sorry, had to do it, we seem to find all the Cowboys to haul our stuff, really nice guys, and only ever had 1 lose a machine ( thankfully it was used coming back for rebuild! ), but boy do they like their Coal rolling.

 

Well, I don't exactly unnerstand ALL of that either. I can see getting some more power from the 5.9/6.7's. But once you have it so that you can crest a hill while pulling 20,000 pounds of trailer without downshifting, how much more do you need? With that said, I guess I can understand trying to get 1000hp out of them too, if it's a hobby kind of thing. Or if someone is into pulling sleds. But to do it to a daily driver... no, I don't get it. It reaches a point where reliability goes down the tubes because you're stuffing so much power to the wheels that it's inevitable that something's gonna break. And to me, reliability and longevity with adequate power is what it's all about. What good is 1000HP if it only lasts 20 or 30 thousand miles?

 

-----------------------------
Well Scott, you and I will just have to "agree to disagree" on the issue of more horespower/torque etc. on trucks referred to as "daily drivers" because I am DEFINITELY in that group you are referring to with my 1996 Dodge CTD.

No offense, but IMHO your assessment about the "reliability" is a little off too. My 1996 has been at or near 900 H.P. for awhile now. Before this last upgrade, I had over 60,000 miles on that engine with approximately 200+ drag race launches and I don't know how many dyno runs. Well over 50-60 though. I can give you a list of many of my friends with Dodge CTD Pickups that are at or above 1,000 H.P. with good reliabilty also. One person that comes to mind, is Tim Barber, from "TRE Diesel", one of our vendors here.
Tim has a 2006 with over 1,000 H.P., he daily drives that truck and has well over 30,000 miles! I know more, but I think you see my point. And the Ford PSD's along with the Chevy Duramax Diesels are the same way. There is a guy by the name of Dustin Millard who "daily drives" his Duramax all over the country to dyno events and he is WAY over 1,000 H.P. I would say that engine has close to or above 50,000 miles! Just because you build a Cummins 5.9, Ford PSD or Chevy Duramax to make high horespower, that doesn't mean the "reliability" has to be bad. IF the engine is built and set-up right, they should last a long time. Will they go as long as a "pure stock" engine? NO! But they can and are reliable for me and alot of other diesel owners all across the U.S. You said you "don't get it", but for alot of us it is a hobby or challenge to build or have built a diesel engine that can run like that.

It is much like you hating the V-8 diesels and many others swearing by them.
Each of has to make our choices with these trucks and all I can say is a truck with 800-900 H.P. is more fun to drive than one that has 500-600!

 

Well that's ok, we can disagree and still be friends... (we CAN, right?)

I guess this guy just didn't set it up right:https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...d.php?t=295172


Fun, yes. But I can't afford it!

 

---------------------------------------
Sure,..were still friends,...I just disagree with you about the "reliability" issue of "built" diesel engines!

On the issue of David's engine in his Dodge CTD CR Truck, I don't really know all the history on THAT engine that let go other than what he posted there Scott. David is a friend of mine and I know he had another engine he ran pretty dang hard and I think that motor held up well other than some minor issues. Like me, he drag races, dynos and generally beats the heck out of his truck. He was pretty well ahead of me in horespower, so maybe he had gotten to that "ragged edge line" of where the Cummins 5.9 will stay together. I can tell you,.....it is a fine line! One other thing I forgot to say is there are Cummins 5.9 "FULL RACE" sled pulling trucks and drag trucks that are WAY north of 1,500 H.P. and the sled pullers/drag racers will run those engines all summmer long putting around 30-50 passes on those engines!
Now granted, they are NOT "daily drivers" but the fact that those engines can put down that kind of power and LAST for that many passes is truly amazing to me Scott!

 

He broke the block into pieces if I remember correctly, didn't he?
When I went to Cat school, the engineers had a 3208 they were playing with, trying to see the highest HP they could get out of it. They managed to get 1300hp by after-cooling it with seawater, but could only get a little over 100 hours out of it before it self-destructed. This was in the very early 80's, so 1300 was a LOT of HP! They tried the same thing with a small block in-line 6 and achieved almost the same HP but managed to keep it together for 150 hours before they dropped a valve. Interesting stuff for a kid right outta high school!

 

[QUOTE=chaikwa;3068121]He broke the block into pieces if I remember correctly, didn't he?
--------------------
Yes Scott,.. David broke the block. BUT, they are still not sure really what was the EXACT cause. Here is David's reply from the thread. This is post #60
on page #4:

__________________________________________________ _____________
Quote by Big Swole:

"As for the total and complete cause, we still really don't know.

There are so many opinions about it.

Jeff kinda thinks the actual cylinder let go first due to high cylinder pressures with my ssr settings... Sticking the piston and pulling the rod cap off.. Then when the crank came back round it caught and bent the rod and broke the crank...

But he also conceeds it could have been the crank first..

But then there are those that say the rod bolts may have been the culprit...


Since I had two seperate tranny breakages ( one turbine hub stripped and twisted input & then the other broken input a few weeks later) that allowed the motor to free rev until the rail pressure subsided.. They think with the extra weight of the monotherms that it could have weakined the crank and/or rod bolts...


Its really very hard to tell the exact cause..."
__________________________________________________ _____________

I can tell you from experience of seeing several of the Cummins 5.9 and 6.7 Engines letting go it is darn hard to sometimes tell why they fail like they do.
Looking back, David would probably have gone with some stronger billet rods/crank if he had to do it all over again. But,....that may not have
done it either.