What is the best engine to have in a 76 deuce?

[mudguppy]

... The 5.9 ISB is probably the smallest to consider for an upgrade. That's roughly a 350 c.i. engine. You need low end torque. ...

it seems as though you are implying that the 5.9 wouldn't be a large upgrade from the MF. if that's the case, then apparently you don't have much experience with a 5.9.

... Personally, I'm going to swap in an 8.3L Cummins in as soon as I can this coming year. The 8.3L is right at 500 c.i.d. with more hp or torque than one would ever need in this truck. ...

this won't be as easy as you believe it to be. while i haven't measured a 6ct, i can tell you that the 6bt is not much smaller than the MF. in fact, i will be doing some sheet metal changes just to fit the radiator and intercooler up front. personally, i don't see an 6ct fitting. and even if you get it in, you won't have enough room for adaquate radiator cooling. ...and intercooling will almost be out of the question unless it goes in the bed.

oh, and you can get as much power out of a 5.9 as you can the 8.3; although all the concepts in power mods are the same on the 8.3, the parts reliability is not the same.

and if you were dead-set on putting in a medium duty motor, i'd go w/ a DT466 - it's much more proven and reliable at both stock and hi-HP levels than the 6ct.

 

[Wildchild467]

I have a chance to get a 6.7 cummins mated to a 6 speed allison for not a lot of money. allthough i would rather have a manual over an automatic, i wonder what transmission i would use. i believe it is tunable between 200 and 400 horse. Im not sure on what manual transmission i would use though. i just worry about blowing up a transfer case or something...what do you guys think?

 

[Cryogen]

I have a 6.7 cummins in my pickup truck and I love it. On stock fuel people are getting in the 500 hp range. new turbo and upgraded fuel components and the sky is the limit. 40% of the rotating assembly is the same as a 5.9, and you can bolt the 12valve heads up. It cranks up and starts like a gas engine,

Only downside is the fuel system is really sensitive to water, and the fuel components are really expensive.

 

[Unforgiven]

it seems as though you are implying that the 5.9 wouldn't be a large upgrade from the MF. if that's the case, then apparently you don't have much experience with a 5.9.




this won't be as easy as you believe it to be. while i haven't measured a 6ct, i can tell you that the 6bt is not much smaller than the MF. in fact, i will be doing some sheet metal changes just to fit the radiator and intercooler up front. personally, i don't see an 6ct fitting. and even if you get it in, you won't have enough room for adaquate radiator cooling. ...and intercooling will almost be out of the question unless it goes in the bed.

oh, and you can get as much power out of a 5.9 as you can the 8.3; although all the concepts in power mods are the same on the 8.3, the parts reliability is not the same.

and if you were dead-set on putting in a medium duty motor, i'd go w/ a DT466 - it's much more proven and reliable at both stock and hi-HP levels than the 6ct.

That's the problem with reading pages on a blog. Sometimes the "context" that would be apparent in verbal communication is lost in print.

What I was trying to convey was that torque is a direct function of displacement. Yes, a turbo adds to torque after it spools up. But low RPM torque is really a function of displacement. I am not trying to poo poo the 5.9. It would have been my engine of choice if I hadn't serendipidously run across a "fresh" 8.3 with only 12,000 miles on it attached to an Allison 3560 auto tranny. The salvage yard only wanted $1000 for everything. So I had them slice off the entire front end of the truck (1994 CCC garbage truck). It's still sitting in the back of my Deuce waiting for me to figure out how to get it out. It has a rear-of-cab mounted radiator & intercooler. I even have the power steering setup & garbage truck crank-mounted hydraulic pump.

Yes, 8.3 is WAY big for the Deuce if you try to put the intercooler & bigger radiator up front. But I'm going to mimick the garbage truck & install all that rear of the cab. But the physical dimensions of the engine are almost identical to the multifuel. It's the intercooler & radiator that are the problem. But like I said, a creative mind can overcome these obstacles. That's the fun for me anyway.

 

[ranchhopper]

This is what is going in the bobbed deuce Im working on now.I am useing a new spicer OD five speed from a five ton and I made an adapter plate to use a jackshaft from a five ton to bolt up to the stock flange on the deuce transfer case.I was going to use this engine in a five ton but thought it would be more of a challenge to put it in a bobbed deuce.I just welded all the risers on the deuce to raise the cab and fenders three inches for better clearance of the engine and make the lines of the 105 bed and cab cleaner.

 

[emr]

Actually it is the engine that comes with it, for al the reasons doghead said and much much more... randy

 

[mudguppy]

torque is not a function of displacement.


i'm glad you got a good score on an 8.3. good luck.

 

[mudguppy]

This is what is going in the bobbed deuce Im working on now.I am useing a new spicer OD five speed from a five ton and I made an adapter plate to use a jackshaft from a five ton to bolt up to the stock flange on the deuce transfer case. ....

that looks like a sweet set-up, ranch'!!!

 

[Unforgiven]

Yes, torque is a function of displacement. There may be more or less torque based on the throw of the crank journals and the length of the connecting rods. But, the bulk of displacement comes from piston diameter. And large diameter pistons produce more torque compared to small diameter pistons.

I'm not trying to get into a peeing contest. I'm simply stating the obvious ... cubic inches relate to piston size which relates to torque. I personally would never put a 4 cylinder diesel in the Deuce in place of the multifuel unless those were really big pistons in the 4 cylinder.

 

[nhdiesel]

Actually for most engines, and generally speaking, you got that backwards. Torque is usually increased dramatically by increasing STROKE. That way the pistons have more leverage on the crankshaft. Compare different engine styles and you'll see that. Long strokes are usually low revving, high torque engines. Sportbikes have a very short stroke, but a large bore compared to the stroke (some even being "over square", the term when the bore is larger than the stroke) and they have a lot of HP but very little torque. Another example are Formula 1 engines. They can rev WAY past 10k RPMs, have very high HP numbers, but very low torque...and they have large bores, short stroke.

The old Jeep 258 engines were high torque, low revving engines. then Jeep went to the 4.0, with a larger bore and shorter stroke, and lost torque, but gained HP. If you want a nice torque engine, use the 4.0 block with a 258 crank for a "stroker" engine.

The best torque engines produced are inline engines with smaller bores but long stroke. You can gain torque by shrinking the bore and increasing the stroke, with the result of the same displacement but more torque. In fact, for a good example of that, compare the Ford 300 c.i. I-6. They made more torque than the 302 V-8, which was slightly larger.

Jim

 

[m16ty]

I think what mudguppy is trying to say is just because a engine has more CID doesn't necessarily mean it has more torque. Torque accually has more to do with stroke than it does with bore. When you try and compare a 1960 engine (multifuel) with any modern engine there are a bunch of factors that affect torque, of which CID is only a small part of.

 

[Unforgiven]

Yes, stroker engines produce more torque compared to NON-stroker versions of the same engine. Stroker engines have LESS c.i.d. than the non-stroker version. Example a 400 chevy small block turns into a 377 c.i.d. giving quicker revs & torque. But in that case the trade off is the crank is under heavy stress. The pistons are also under more stress because of more lateral force.

But torque is simply a force applied over a moment arm. You may be able to increase torque by the stroker method. But an easier (& in my opinion more engine-friendly) way is to increase the force. How? By increasing the surface area over which the exploded fuel acts. A larger area for the same pressure means a larger force. And it goes as the square of the radius. So a small increase in diameter of the piston has a noticeable effect on torque.

Compare a small block Chevy 283 to a 305 to a 327 to a 350 to a 400 to a Big Block 454 to bored out 700's

There is a direct relationship between displacement and torque. This is true of diesel engines as well.

Modern methods of getting more bang in a smaller package have much to do with balanced motors from the factory, less internal friction, turbo settings, & computer-controlled fuel & spark timings.

Still, that does not negate the basic physics that larger pistons produce more torque "easier" for comparing similar technology engines.

I'm sure a Ferarri engine produces a bunch of torque. But it should for what it costs. I doubt if anyone is planning that swap into the Deuce.

In a low-budget Army truck I maintain that small displacement engines just don't sound right. To keep it reliable I think a reasonable sized engine should be used.

The 5.9 is fine. Just get the transmission with it when you buy it.

 

[supermechanic]

mudguppy hit it dead-on in an earlier post
dt 466 international
best (In my view) midsize truck engine built in the last twenty years
get one from a former state highway truck and you will have low miles to boot ( what has 6 wheels and sleeps two?)
the ones near me are equipped with full flow front hydraulics, allison 4 speed ( 600 series, I think), and are sold at 10 years, usually some where around 50,000 miles on the clock.
Torque is a function of cylinder pressure multiplied by crank angle.(straight forward physics, no mystery here.)

 

[OPCOM]

If I were going to build for the highway, (what else in Texas?) I'd put in a Chevrolet 454 or if I had more $ to spend a 500 Cadillac.