Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 2/13/2020 at 10:00 PM, WisIHCFarmer said:

Obviously a work in progress, he said he's only about half done, even if it's in and running

IMG-20200213-WA0050.jpg

IMG-20200213-WA0049.jpg

Definitely better than the 6.4. The 6.4 is the worst engine Ford ever made.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2019 at 10:36 AM, ST-470 said:

Detroit Diesel and good do not go together. They are loud, leak oil & have no torque curve -yuk.

 

Why is there a Detroit in big Bud??? Also Steigers got them from the git go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IH OAK said:

Why is there a Detroit in big Bud??? Also Steigers got them from the git go.

Because they were the only company in the 60's and 70's with motors big enough to make the kind of horsepower needed.  They were literally the best option back then.  At the time Cummins and Cat were not in that market. 

 

You ever even run the rack on even a small Detroit 2 stroke??? How about a set of twins?  Or maybe a V12?  Kid, you have no idea what you're talking about.  In the right application, a Detroit is a great engine.  A pickup isn't one. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, J-Mech said:

 

You ever even run the rack on even a small Detroit 2 stroke??? How about a set of twins?  Or maybe a V12?  Kid, you have no idea what you're talking about.  In the right application, a Detroit is a great engine.  A pickup isn't one. 

in fact I have. we have a P&H excavator with a Detroit in it. BTW I would NEVER disgrace a Ford by putting a GM in it.

 

15 hours ago, J-Mech said:

Said the inexperienced teen.... quoting something he once heard. 

Says my Very experienced diesel mechanic friend who knows.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2020 at 12:37 PM, J-Mech said:

This is how wide a DV800 is:

20200213_112058.thumb.jpg.ef07197fcd8721df21f70de4e51150ff.jpg

 

It's over 4' long from the bell housing to the front of the fan.  It's over 3.5' tall not counting the air filter housing.  That is just from the bottom of the pan to the top of the turbo. 

20200213_112156.thumb.jpg.e990441b4f8fc410ced9791a563a2fa0.jpg

 

Then there is the whole problem of keeping it cool.  Because, it's gotta have a radiator.  Then, on both the DV800 and a DT466, the bell housing is a #1 (IIRC) which is about 22" in diameter.

You want to put a semi engine in a pickup. 

How wide is it and how tall without the turbo? also is it ext. water pump ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, IH OAK said:

in fact I have. we have a P&H excavator with a Detroit in it. BTW I would NEVER disgrace a Ford by putting a GM in it.

 

Says my Very experienced diesel mechanic friend who knows.

You have ran the rack on a Detroit?  I find that very difficult to believe.... 

You're diesel mechanic friend apparently never worked on the 6.0's.  They were so bad in fact, Ford and Navistar fought about it in court.

Nuff said by me in this thread.  I've got 3 teen boys at home who already know everything.  I don't need to argue with a kid here too. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, J-Mech said:

You have ran the rack on a Detroit?  I find that very difficult to believe. 

You diesel mechanic friend apparently never worked on the 6.0's.  They were do bad Ford and Navistar fought about it in court.

Nuff said by me in this thread.  I've got 3 teen boys at home who already know everything.  I don't need to argue with a kid here too. 

Teen girls aren’t much better....

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2020 at 3:36 PM, IH OAK said:

Why is there a Detroit in big Bud??? Also Steigers got them from the git go.

Because they were the cheapest most readily available. The 16V-71 is basically 2) 8V-71's bolted together, relatively cheap to throw together vs buying a similar hp engine from Cummins or Cat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2020 at 1:02 PM, J-Mech said:

 

The difference between us older people and the younger guys now is we didn't have the internet to get on and tell others our big dreams.  We shared them with our buddies, dads, grandad's, uncles and family friends.  They laughed at us back then too.... and if we ever attempted to see those dreams through, most of them never got finished and we eventually realized that the men we knew who laughed at us were right.  But at least the whole internet didn't make fun of us..... just them.  And they were usually pretty onery enough about it. 

Honestly, I don't care who laughs at me because I have friends in low places, friend with tractors, and friends who have my back.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2020 at 12:20 AM, ST-470 said:

Because they were the cheapest most readily available. The 16V-71 is basically 2) 8V-71's bolted together, relatively cheap to throw together vs buying a similar hp engine from Cummins or Cat.

Detroits are two-stroke and every cyl. makes power on every stroke. Also the inneficciency of 2-strokes is gone because of the supercharger and injection vs. carboration.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IH OAK said:

Detroits are two-stroke and every cyl. makes power on every stroke. Also the inneficciency of 2-strokes is gone because of the supercharger and injection vs. carboration.

What the heck are you talking about?  Inefficiency gone because of the supercharger?  A 2 stroke Detroit won't run without the supercharger.  They can't breathe without it.  They aren't made anything like a little weed eater 2 stroke engine.  They (weed eaters) are force fed also, just in a different manner.

Injection vs carburetion?  Are you comparing a gas to a diesel? Or are you confused about how a diesel engine gets fuel? 

ALL 2 stroke engines are not as efficient as a 4 stroke.  They make a lot of power, but they burn a lot of fuel, and don't burn/use it very efficiently. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful full of “always” and “never”. The most fuel efficient diesels I know are the huge 2 strokes like the Wartsila-Sultzers that powers container ships. Otherwise, it is safe to say that 2 strokes and also superchargers (as opposed to turbochargers) are relatively inefficient. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2-cycle Detroit Diesels are impressive engines for what they are.  You got a lot of power per pound.  My father always hated them as a mechanic.  As a kid, I could tell what engine was under a truck's hood by looking at how oily front axle was when sitting in the opposite lane at a traffic light.  When the light would turn green, my ears would always have my answer.

I suspect that they would still be built today if those 2-cycles would have been able to meet Tier-3 emission standards.  They were great for high-rpm, constant load applications like gen sets and marine power.

How did the saying go..."Detroit Diesels were the most efficient means known to man for turning diesel fuel into noise and smoke"?

By the way, thanks for the photos of the DT-466 in that Super Duty, WisIHCFarmer.  The sight of it almost caused me to tear up!  Just kidding...but I'd love to see some video of it posted once it is out driving.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, EquipmentJunkie said:

I suspect that they would still be built today if those 2-cycles would have been able to meet Tier-3 emission standards. 

Are you joking?  Tier 3? Dude, they couldn't pass the first level of diesel emissions for over the road trucks back in the 90's.  That's why they were phased out in favor of the Detroit 60 series. (A four stroke engine.)

And they were good for more that just high RPM constant load applications.  The 2 stroke Detroits were used almost exclusively in city transit busses until they had to go to 4 stroke engines. (Emission standards.)  They were a lot more durable to the constant stop and go than most 4 stroke diesels at the time.  They were also used heavily in oilfield applications such as drilling rigs, pumping units, pulling units, spudders, ect.  Several of those applications, such as pulling units and spudders, they were constantly going from idle to WOT while in service.  You just couldn't get an engine more able to handle the abuse, and make enough power found in a cubic inch displacement of similar size in a 4 stroke design.

The 2 strokes were, and still are, the king for power per cubic inch and durability.  But.... they sure we're thirsty! Horribly thirsty engines. Which stands to reason.  I mean, they do inject twice as much fuel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't remember my boss complaining about the Detroit's using any more fuel than the 855s back in the day when I drove milk truck. He had 1978 -79 Brigadier's with 238s, and a 78 Road Boss with a 6V92, and 77 LTL 9000 with a 318, and we had several 9300s with '88 NT 855s @ 350hp. Wasn't until he got the first 1993 9400s with N-14s he commented on the fuel savings. He did buy a 84 Freightliner cab-over because the one driver liked cab-overs and the boss liked that too because he could buy those cheaper than a conventional. It had a 3406 and it drank fuel compared to the 855s and he didn't like that. It didn't stay long

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...