DV-800

[DR.EVIL]

On 2/18/2020 at 3:37 PM, Rusty shackleford said:

I thought the 6.0 was

What's REALLY sad is Navistar made both the 6.0 and 6.4.  I did see a ranking of best pickup diesel engines years ago. The 5.9 & 6.7 Cummins were lumped together as #1, the 7.3L PSD was #2, 6.0L was #3, and 6.4L once deleted was #4.  That left the 6.5, 6.6, 6.2, etc GM's fighting for last place.  Think this article was before the 6.7L ALL Ford engine was in production.  It sure had it's share of problems at first.

[DR.EVIL]

1 hour ago, 856 Custom said:

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

Lots of trucks from my era of driving.  Company I drove for had several IH S2200's with 238 Detroits and 10-speeds. Used in town local delivery of truck load freight for Farmall.  They had a couple S2200's with 6V92TTA's, 307 hp and 9-speeds, my buddy drove one. Normally got between 5&6 mpg, while the RoadBoss 2's with 903's and 6 spd Spicers were getting 4 mpg in the same use, mostly running from Davenport to Chicago. Couple trucks had 290 Cummins and 10-speeds, very tired older trucks. Mostly did local delivery. They had two White Commanders, tilt cab version of the RoadBoss, 350 Cummins and 10-speeds, and several TransStar's with same engine/transmissions.  They all got better mpg than the 903 powered trucks but not quite as good as the V6 Detroits.  Company had one TransStar with 8V92TTA & 9 speed, 475 hp. I did my first runs in that truck. It took a while to get there but it would run right up to 75 mph,  and about 3-3/4 mpg normally. 

Have to compare engine and transmission both in a truck with it's usage. Like my tire and rim loads to FARMALL, full 45 ft trailer was 104 16x38 rims or wheels and around 16,000# gross with pallets. Tires like 18.4x38 6 & 8 ply were 18,000 to 20,000#. My little 903 powered RoadBoss would run right up against the governor, 2500 rpm & 67 mph and 4 mpg. The Silver 92 powered S2200's would creep up to 70 and about 5 to 5-1/4 mpg.  Only a couple tractors had any aero improvements at all, all 13-1/2 ft tall and 8 ft wide trailers. They caught a LOT of wind.

[856 Custom]

13 minutes ago, DOCTOR EVIL said:

Lots of trucks from my era of driving.  Company I drove for had several IH S2200's with 238 Detroits and 10-speeds. Used in town local delivery of truck load freight for Farmall.  They had a couple S2200's with 6V92TTA's, 307 hp and 9-speeds, my buddy drove one. Normally got between 5&6 mpg, while the RoadBoss 2's with 903's and 6 spd Spicers were getting 4 mpg in the same use, mostly running from Davenport to Chicago. Couple trucks had 290 Cummins and 10-speeds, very tired older trucks. Mostly did local delivery. They had two White Commanders, tilt cab version of the RoadBoss, 350 Cummins and 10-speeds, and several TransStar's with same engine/transmissions.  They all got better mpg than the 903 powered trucks but not quite as good as the V6 Detroits.  Company had one TransStar with 8V92TTA & 9 speed, 475 hp. I did my first runs in that truck. It took a while to get there but it would run right up to 75 mph,  and about 3-3/4 mpg normally. 

Have to compare engine and transmission both in a truck with it's usage. Like my tire and rim loads to FARMALL, full 45 ft trailer was 104 16x38 rims or wheels and around 16,000# gross with pallets. Tires like 18.4x38 6 & 8 ply were 18,000 to 20,000#. My little 903 powered RoadBoss would run right up against the governor, 2500 rpm & 67 mph and 4 mpg. The Silver 92 powered S2200's would creep up to 70 and about 5 to 5-1/4 mpg.  Only a couple tractors had any aero improvements at all, all 13-1/2 ft tall and 8 ft wide trailers. They caught a LOT of wind.

That Road Boss you drove have air assist steering by chance? That was about a joke and a half. I only drove that truck twice to deliver some pool water and that was enough. Although I'd drive it way quicker than the 1990:Volvo he had. Ugly, and a overall POS imo.

[jass1660]

It was always fun killing those old Detroits and watching the black smoke come out the air filter....as they were running backwards. 

[EquipmentJunkie]

7 hours ago, J-Mech said:

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.) 

Correct, I should have specified Tier-2 for marine applications.  (Some 71-series engines had to undergo major mods to be compliant) 

Marine applications carried on for a number of years after over-the-road trucks and buses were finished.  OTR applications were probably done for Detroit Diesels roughly around '90-92-ish.  I believe that fire apparatus was granted an extension, as well.

[ZG6E]

4 hours ago, DOCTOR EVIL said:

What's REALLY sad is Navistar made both the 6.0 and 6.4.  I did see a ranking of best pickup diesel engines years ago. The 5.9 & 6.7 Cummins were lumped together as #1, the 7.3L PSD was #2, 6.0L was #3, and 6.4L once deleted was #4.  That left the 6.5, 6.6, 6.2, etc GM's fighting for last place.  Think this article was before the 6.7L ALL Ford engine was in production.  It sure had it's share of problems at first.

That's pretty laughable that anyone would rank the 6.0 and 6.4 ahead of the duramax.

[Gearclash]

17 minutes ago, ZachGrant said:

That's pretty laughable that anyone would rank the 6.0 and 6.4 ahead of the duramax.

Very very laughable.

 

[dale560]

They always say the 6.0 and 6.4 are not that bad of engine in a Navistar application. The ford pickup application is more ford programming and computer programming. Variable vane turbochargers and egr coolers are what was the downfall of the engine. I would agree the duramax , Allison combo should be the top of the list. 

[dale560]

One thing that is forgotten is Detroit 6/71 4/53 and variants were the cummins cdc b ,c series of the day. The same engines were used in pt boats and all sorts of military equipment in ww2 all the way up until 1983 no other company was able to produce a engine to replace them in many applications. Ihc , Deere and ford had better small 4 cylinder diesels but the Detroit series was the go to engine for aftermarket suppliers. Cummins didn’t have a engine until 83 others couldn’t make enough for themselves. Perkins and Waukesha were other US aftermarket suppliers 

[ZG6E]

26 minutes ago, dale560 said:

They always say the 6.0 and 6.4 are not that bad of engine in a Navistar application. The ford pickup application is more ford programming and computer programming. Variable vane turbochargers and egr coolers are what was the downfall of the engine. I would agree the duramax , Allison combo should be the top of the list. 

I've got a 6.4 in an IH truck body. It's only got 73k on it but I still feel like I'm on borrowed time. The problem with the navistar variant is finding someone that's able to tune and delete them. When you do find someone they are bookoo bucks because they use a different ecm than Ford pickups

[dale560]

47 minutes ago, ZachGrant said:

I've got a 6.4 in an IH truck body. It's only got 73k on it but I still feel like I'm on borrowed time. The problem with the navistar variant is finding someone that's able to tune and delete them. When you do find someone they are bookoo bucks because they use a different ecm than Ford pickups

Never been around those newer diesels much. They say the later ones have the better egr cooler so it doesn’t plug and burst. The engine itself is a very durable engine. It’s the turbo and egr system that was the downfall. Every other mfg has problems with same thing also.  Remember reading a article in one of the diesel magazines once. This was about warranty on those engines. They were all chipped and tuned. If a star burn pattern was on top of piston no warranty for engine. 

[db1486]

3 hours ago, ZachGrant said:

That's pretty laughable that anyone would rank the 6.0 and 6.4 ahead of the duramax.

X2 the people making that list must really hate GM. I would put the duramax up near the top imo

[Big Bud guy]

On 2/18/2020 at 6:47 PM, J-Mech said:

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

That is not true.  Wagner started production in the mid 50s before Steiger did and used Cummins engines all the way up to 300 hp.  And Big Buds started with Cummins engines from the get go starting at 280 hp all the way up to 525 hp by the mid 70s.  

The only reason the Big Bud 747 used the 16V92 was because it was the only engine that would fit in the frame and yet still put out 700+ hp.  The Big Bud Series 3 400 used Detroit’s but cummins was an option.  And most of the 400s I’ve seen have been switched out for cummins 855s.

[Gearclash]

1 hour ago, Big Bud guy said:

That is not true.  Wagner started production in the mid 50s before Steiger did and used Cummins engines all the way up to 300 hp.  And Big Buds started with Cummins engines from the get go starting at 280 hp all the way up to 525 hp by the mid 70s.  

The only reason the Big Bud 747 used the 16V92 was because it was the only engine that would fit in the frame and yet still put out 700+ hp.  The Big Bud Series 3 400 used Detroit’s but cummins was an option.  And most of the 400s I’ve seen have been switched out for cummins 855s.

Just curious, was the Cummins 1710 available when Big Bud built the 747?  Seems the 1710 would have been about the same performance as the 16V-71, as best I can recall off the top of my head.

[J-Mech]

13 hours ago, Big Bud guy said:

The only reason the Big Bud 747 used the 16V92 was because it was the only engine that would fit in the frame and yet still put out 700+ hp.  

The 747 is actually the tractor I was referring to, as I am certain it was the model he was talking about.  Yeah, the Detroit was the only one that fit in the frame and still made the HP they wanted.  I'm aware that Cat and Cummins were both making engines at the time, but GM was building the big diesels faster than either the other two could crank them out, and cheaper.  I'm sure Cat snd Cummins both had a motor at the time making big horses, but not a practical one.  

You mentioned Wagner building tractors using Cummins engines.... how many?  Every Wagner I've seen in that era had Detroits, and so did the Deere tractors built by Wagner.  

The simple truth is GM held a dominant position in the diesel market at the time.  

[jimw]

 Those old Detroit’s were better engines than people give them credit for. In a generator or boat, or truck in cold weather for that matter  nothing starts like they do.back in the 50s and 60s i would bet cat and Cummins were pretty cold blooded. A old construction guy said they ran all Detroit’s because they could sit in the dust all day and just keep going. I’m not a expert by any means but have to say the 238 and  couple of8v71s and one 6-53 I’ve been around we’re very dependable. And yes I think they were also cheaper? Just add oil and go

[dale560]

41 minutes ago, jimw said:

 Those old Detroit’s were better engines than people give them credit for. In a generator or boat, or truck in cold weather for that matter  nothing starts like they do.back in the 50s and 60s i would bet cat and Cummins were pretty cold blooded. A old construction guy said they ran all Detroit’s because they could sit in the dust all day and just keep going. I’m not a expert by any means but have to say the 238 and  couple of8v71s and one 6-53 I’ve been around we’re very dependable. And yes I think they were also cheaper? Just add oil and go

You don’t know how many old guys talk about that. Old terex Scraper with a Detroit engine. Guys from Detroit dealer show up on job site with parts. Overhaul motor out in open. Start in morning scraper running again at night. 

[Big Bud guy]

1 hour ago, jimw said:

 Those old Detroit’s were better engines than people give them credit for. In a generator or boat, or truck in cold weather for that matter  nothing starts like they do.back in the 50s and 60s i would bet cat and Cummins were pretty cold blooded. 

I have a 8V92 and it is just as cold blooded as any Cat or Cummins engine we have of that era.  Not bashing 2 cycle Detroits as they served a purpose but they were not the gold standard in diesels engines.  

[Big Bud guy]

1 hour ago, J-Mech said:

 

You mentioned Wagner building tractors using Cummins engines.... how many?  Every Wagner I've seen in that era had Detroits, and so did the Deere tractors built by Wagner.  

The simple truth is GM held a dominant position in the diesel market at the time.  

I don't know were you are getting your info or what books you read but the JD Wagners using Detroits is way off.  They used Cummins engines 225 hp N855 and 280 hp NT855 for the WA 14 and 17.  I don't how many Wagners you have seen or what models you are thinking of but they built for agriculture the TR6, TR9, TR14, TR 24, WA4, WA6, WA9, WA14, WA17, and WA24.  Out of all of them only the WA4 used a Detroit.  

[Big Bud guy]

2 hours ago, Gearclash said:

Just curious, was the Cummins 1710 available when Big Bud built the 747?  Seems the 1710 would have been about the same performance as the 16V-71, as best I can recall off the top of my head.

I don't know but from what I am able to gather they only went up to 800 hp.  I know the 747 was opened up to over 900 hp once it was delivered to their first owners.  The two 740s built a decade later had almost as much horsepower and used inline 6 engines.  

[J-Mech]

32 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

I don't know were you are getting your info or what books you read but the JD Wagners using Detroits is way off.

Well, I tell you what.... you have me questioning what I remember reading.  I went looking for my book, and I can't find it.  I think my grandad has it.  I do know I was just watching a video from a show local to me just a day or so ago... large JD 4wd plowing and it had a Detroit.  I'm sure my book said the Waggoner JD's were built with Detroits.  I guess I'm going to have to get it back and see if I am remembering wrong or what.  I don't usually forget what I've read.... and I focus pretty hard on knowing before I spill info.  When I get the book back and see, I will reference it either way.  Whether I'm wrong or right. 

[dale560]

8010/20 jd had Detroit. They were not Wagner tractors. Jd even used Detroit’s in some of their industrial equipment scrapers and such

[IH OAK]

14 hours ago, J-Mech said:

The 747 is actually the tractor I was referring to, as I am certain it was the model he was talking about.  Yeah, the Detroit was the only one that fit in the frame and still made the HP they wanted.  I'm aware that Cat and Cummins were both making engines at the time, but GM was building the big diesels faster than either the other two could crank them out, and cheaper.  I'm sure Cat snd Cummins both had a motor at the time making big horses, but not a practical one.  

 

Sort of a joke. How about a R-4360 four row Radial? About the same size but 3000-5000 HP(in a Fighter). The Main problem is cooling as they are air cooled.

[IH OAK]

Just now, IH OAK said:

Sort of a joke. How about a R-4360 Radial? About the same size but 3000-5000 HP(in a Fighter). The Main problem is cooling as they are air cooled.

But they are gassers. 

[Big Bud guy]

2 hours ago, dale560 said:

8010/20 jd had Detroit. They were not Wagner tractors. Jd even used Detroit’s in some of their industrial equipment scrapers and such

 Their hay cubers used 6-71s.  And maybe I heard it wrong but I thought their top line forage chopper in the 70s used a Detroit too.  There is one connection between then 8010/20 series and Wagner.  And that is the engineer who designed the 8010 formerly worked at Wagner.