Jump to content

Modern big cube inline six gasser


sandhiller
 Share

Recommended Posts

As mentioned, packaging under the hood becomes a problem right quick. The Cummins B series is about as much block length as is practical to fit under a hood. Even designing around gasoline parameters  I doubt much more than the 6.7 that the Cummins has is possible. Turbo charging the gas will get big hp numbers of course, but the reality is that turbo charging gassers forces some unhappy compromises.  When I pulled my MX170 from CT to NW IA my ‘99 Cummins ran right around 9 mpg. It is supposed to be putting out 295 hp and 627 ft/lbs of torque. I can’t imagine what kind of mileage a turbo charged gasser of similar displacement and output would have pulling the same load. Well I can guess. Local guy I know bought a round baler out of state and trailered it home with his Ecoboost Ford.  Said he was running 70mph and he paid for it at right around 3 mpg. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPS has both CNG and LNG Cummins/Westport engines in Freightliner Mack and Kenworth, under powdered poor fuel efficiency refueling nightmares can’t get them warm enough in winter, but hey Obama pretty much paid for our fueling stations and being “green” so our company don’t care.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people tried the dual fuel systems and really got much improved fuel mileage. CNG with diesel was what I was looking at. Created a much cleaner burn. More CNG less diesel with same power but Way too expensive for tanks and computer system!! My opinion though. Really wanted to try one. ?Jesse

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EquipmentJunkie said:

Ford had an Australian-built "Barra" inline six. I think it was a 4.0 liter.  It made great power with a turbo.  Sadly, it was discontinued a few years ago.

As I understand it that engine was the basic Falcon 250 cid (4.1 litre here) block.  It progressed from there to

Alloy cross flow head with Weber double choke carb, then to an optional injected version

Alloy cross flow single ohc multipoint injection

Alloy dohc multi point injection

Alloy dohc variable valve timing multipoint

Not sure when in there the factory turbos were added.

A while back someone posted a thread on one of those doing about 1200 hp - didn't come from a Ford showroom like that

In taxis they were good for around 400,000 km.  Not sure how the big horsepower ones  would go in pickups for towing but you could get them in a ute with a tow bar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, EquipmentJunkie said:

Ford had an Australian-built "Barra" inline six. I think it was a 4.0 liter.  It made great power with a turbo.  Sadly, it was discontinued a few years ago.

An inline-6 is an inherently balanced engine.  I have said for years, "Name me a truly bad inline-6 engine, gas or diesel.".  Some inline-6 engines may be so-so, but I don't believe that any are truly bad.

Mercedes is returning to an inline-6 gas with their M256 engine.  It isn't big, but not real small either at 3.0 liters.

Mate had one (Ford turbo 6) that was somewhat tuned up.... good for 1000hp de-tuned to 800hp so it was drivable. Sold it after an apprentice with a LS1 powered Holden challenged him to a drag race one morning after work (4pm-2am shift ) wiped the floor with him and reckoned doing 276kph (172mph) at 2:30 in the morning in the middle of Perth probably wasn't the best idea......... 

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

11 hours ago, kal said:

The only thing about all electric is they still have to generate electricity somewhere to charge them plus dealing with old batteries. Another thing is training for EMS about these systems. 

And with the increased generating capacity comes the necessity of a huge distribution infrastructure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not sold on the 10spd trannie and 7.3 gasser, my neighbor has several 6.2 fords for his business and says they are really thirsty - from what i am hearing on the 7.3 its way worse under load but then again the diesels arent perfect. 4.5mpg at 20K lbs on the 7.3 and 9 on a diesel so do the math. 

Again on any of the diesel costs you are going to have to keep it long life/miles to come out in the pocket. 

the six cylinders I have owned have been good/torquey but HORRIBLE fuel consumption and they were stock units from ford and jeep

the 300 six empty was 14 empty, 8 loaded - our 460 got 12/7 and would run circles around the sixer so not much benefit there 

im not sold on my 2016 6.7 either, im tolerating it, will see how it does me over the long haul as I keep everything as long as feasibly possible. 

i can tell you something is quirky about it, one day i get in it and it seems more powerful and gets way better fuel mileage, next time i start it, it gets crappy mileage and sounds different - no chk engine light but something is outa kilter ( kilter being a technical term ) 

its my daily driver - it doesnt sit a lot nor am i an idle junkie - gets to pull mediocre loads at least once a month 

one day the boost will run up around 30 next day the boost runs up around 25 when i give it the FULL ONIONs - like i said quirky 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, searcyfarms said:

im not sold on the 10spd trannie and 7.3 gasser, my neighbor has several 6.2 fords for his business and says they are really thirsty - from what i am hearing on the 7.3 its way worse under load but then again the diesels arent perfect. 4.5mpg at 20K lbs on the 7.3 and 9 on a diesel so do the math. 

Again on any of the diesel costs you are going to have to keep it long life/miles to come out in the pocket. 

the six cylinders I have owned have been good/torquey but HORRIBLE fuel consumption and they were stock units from ford and jeep

the 300 six empty was 14 empty, 8 loaded - our 460 got 12/7 and would run circles around the sixer so not much benefit there 

im not sold on my 2016 6.7 either, im tolerating it, will see how it does me over the long haul as I keep everything as long as feasibly possible. 

i can tell you something is quirky about it, one day i get in it and it seems more powerful and gets way better fuel mileage, next time i start it, it gets crappy mileage and sounds different - no chk engine light but something is outa kilter ( kilter being a technical term ) 

its my daily driver - it doesnt sit a lot nor am i an idle junkie - gets to pull mediocre loads at least once a month 

one day the boost will run up around 30 next day the boost runs up around 25 when i give it the FULL ONIONs - like i said quirky 

You have ECM issues. Hard to convince people to fix them and not cheap either. Sometimes putting a controller in them makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE, but most of the time if you can get a different ecm you are way better off. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My nephew works for a big construction company that buys the ram 4500 gas rigs by the dozen, he told me that they barely pull the flat bed loaded with tools, much less a trailer with a skid steer. The ram diesel option is 11 grand, i know it will take a lot of fuel savings to pay for, but the resale value makes up most of the cost. Look at the second gen cummins prices compared to the gas rigs a 2003 to 2007 5.9 dodge with 200,000 miles still brings 18,000 and up a gas rig equipped similar won't bring 6,000.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, searcyfarms said:

im not sold on the 10spd trannie and 7.3 gasser, my neighbor has several 6.2 fords for his business and says they are really thirsty - from what i am hearing on the 7.3 its way worse under load but then again the diesels arent perfect. 4.5mpg at 20K lbs on the 7.3 and 9 on a diesel so do the math. 

Again on any of the diesel costs you are going to have to keep it long life/miles to come out in the pocket. 

the six cylinders I have owned have been good/torquey but HORRIBLE fuel consumption and they were stock units from ford and jeep

the 300 six empty was 14 empty, 8 loaded - our 460 got 12/7 and would run circles around the sixer so not much benefit there 

im not sold on my 2016 6.7 either, im tolerating it, will see how it does me over the long haul as I keep everything as long as feasibly possible. 

i can tell you something is quirky about it, one day i get in it and it seems more powerful and gets way better fuel mileage, next time i start it, it gets crappy mileage and sounds different - no chk engine light but something is outa kilter ( kilter being a technical term ) 

its my daily driver - it doesnt sit a lot nor am i an idle junkie - gets to pull mediocre loads at least once a month 

one day the boost will run up around 30 next day the boost runs up around 25 when i give it the FULL ONIONs - like i said quirky 

 

41 minutes ago, Lazy WP said:

You have ECM issues. Hard to convince people to fix them and not cheap either. Sometimes putting a controller in them makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE, but most of the time if you can get a different ecm you are way better off. 

I'm with Nick on this one, he beat me to the punch, i think it points to ECM also. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much wore out two Ford 300-6's. The '78 the truck rusted out around the engine and transmission. The '87, first year EFI on the 300-6, truck didn't rust as bad, but with 3.55 gears and the direct 4th gear of the NP-435 trans, you try to run anything over 65 mph and your looking at 2800-3000 rpm and 11-12 mpg. My 7.3 diesel with 3.55 gears and taller tires and a .8:1 overdrive would almost get 20 mpg at 67-68 mph, 2000 rpm. I actually averaged over 20 mpg three months straight, 10,000 miles total after I put my 255-85-R-16 Firestone Wilderness AT tires on,  right about 33" tall, cruised 72 mph @2000 rpm. And I could tow grossing 16,000-17,000# at that rpm and about 16 mpg. It's hard to say which truck pushed the most air around. I actually found the F250 diesel with air conditioning got better mpg with the AC ON and windows closed, the two trucks with 300-6's didn't have AC.

MR. PLOW and I have a mutual friend who used to work for Waukesha Engines, a Division of Dresser now.  I have a piston for one of their "Small engines" that dwarfs the pistons in a JD D. Late D's were 6-3/4" bore, this piston I have is 8-3/4", it was from an in-line 6 if I remember correctly, Imagine an in-line 4 with that bore and about 10-11" stroke?  Those huge engines ran what I thought were high RPM too, 2500-2600 rpm. Maybe not a light duty truck engine but a medium duty?

  IH played with a carburated 466 engine, spark plugs where the injectors went. They meant them to run on ethanol, that farmers produced in their on-farm stills. The problem turned out to be how to carry enough fuel on the tractor to keep the same amount of run time as the diesel tractor. The ethanol engine burned over twice as many gallons per hour as the diesel.  At least the IH diesel had a cross flow head which none of the automotive 6's had.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TP from Central PA said:

I like my EFI'ed 250 and 292 GM's(pre-72)...............The EFI, big intake, HEI, and all the basics of everything else rates up there for me.  If they had a cross flow head you could really get something done with them.  

The Pontiac I6 overhead cam engine had a Quadrajet 4  barrel version rated at around ?? HP.  I worked with a guy that had one. I can't remember exactually but it could been a flow through I6. It never caught on in that era of big power/cube V/8's so it never made it past the smog engine cut.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DOCTOR EVIL said:

, Imagine an in-line 4 with that bore and about 10-11" stroke?

In my opinion the only hope to have a big inch gasser that has a fuel economy that can approach that of a diesel would be to go with a naturally aspirated big bore 4 cylinder block.  Fewer larger cylinders would get the CID up where it needs to be and still fit under a hood,  and fewer larger cylinders is also more thermally efficient.  The problem is the motoring public will never accept it.  Too much NVH.

The other hope for decent energy efficiency would be to build an E85 optimized turbo charged engine.  But who wants to own that in today's fickle political scene?

 

As mader656 said, I will run my Cummins 5.9 for as long as absolutely possible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DOCTOR EVIL said:

IH played with a carburated 466 engine, spark plugs where the injectors went. They meant them to run on ethanol, that farmers produced in their on-farm stills. The problem turned out to be how to carry enough fuel on the tractor to keep the same amount of run time as the diesel tractor. The ethanol engine burned over twice as many gallons per hour as the diesel.  At least the IH diesel had a cross flow head which none of the automotive 6's had.

Knowing the difference between ethanol and regular gas, I wonder how one would run? And were they using a turbo? I’ve thought a giant cube 466 on gas could make the 4020s take notice at the track....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As wonderful as everyone says the Ford 300-6 is I'm not one of them. If you gear them to pull, the milage stinks. If you gear them for milage they won't pull a wet noodle out of a chickens behind. And STILL may not get good milage. Fuel injection helped them a lot. But it helped the 302,351 and 460 a lot more. I've been getting into straight 6/8 engines lately. 270/302 Jimmys,292 Chev,BOP 8's,Hudsons,,Packards what have you. Thing is they had pretty well maxed out the platform by early 50's.Even Studebaker had s V-8 by '53(?). Yes the Aussies,Brits and Japanese carried on but in  smaller vehicles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exSW said:

As wonderful as everyone says the Ford 300-6 is I'm not one of them. If you gear them to pull, the milage stinks. If you gear them for milage they won't pull a wet noodle out of a chickens behind. And STILL may not get good milage. Fuel injection helped them a lot. But it helped the 302,351 and 460 a lot more. I've been getting into straight 6/8 engines lately. 270/302 Jimmys,292 Chev,BOP 8's,Hudsons,,Packards what have you. Thing is they had pretty well maxed out the platform by early 50's.Even Studebaker had s V-8 by '53(?). Yes the Aussies,Brits and Japanese carried on but in  smaller vehicles.

I would like to sit behind a straight 8 sometime. Have heard they were very smooth and powerful (for their time). But have no personal experience with them. 

Back in teh day when a big long hood was a luxury symbol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sandhiller said:

I would like to sit behind a straight 8 sometime. Have heard they were very smooth and powerful (for their time). But have no personal experience with them. 

Back in teh day when a big long hood was a luxury symbol. 

My Grandad and Dad ran straight 8 Buick Roadmasters in the early 50's. Brother had a late 30's staight eight Buick coupe for a while. Cool cars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, exSW said:

My Grandad and Dad ran straight 8 Buick Roadmasters in the early 50's. Brother had a late 30's staight eight Buick coupe for a while. Cool cars.

When I first started driving dump trucks in the early 70's, one of the guys I hauled for had a Unit shovel with a straight 8 flat head Chrysler engine. Really smooth and a sound all it's own. The buick's engine compartment was narrow, hence the straight 8. When they went to V-8's. they were made different so they fit in there, had a unique sound too.

DWF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, exSW said:

My Grandad and Dad ran straight 8 Buick Roadmasters in the early 50's. Brother had a late 30's staight eight Buick coupe for a while. Cool cars.

My Grandpa, Mom's Dad had a '48 Buick, 4-door. Drove that thing till 1963 when he bought a '63 Chevy Biscayne.  He parked the Buick back in the sheep lot. A tree limb fell on it, but no dents. It's hard to believe GRANDMA drove it with the manual transmission,  but she was a better driver than Grandpa.

   After Grandma and Grandpa died, a guy kept calling my folks asking what was going to happen to the old cars in the sheep lot, the '63 Biscayne, a '67 C-10, a '73 Nova 4-door, and the car he REALLY wanted, the '48 Buick.  Dad snooped around, found the titles and the guy got the cars he wanted.  I remember Dad saying the Buick only had one flat tire.  The pickup and two Chevy cars went straight to the auto shredder.

  • Like 2
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...