g'day all, does anyone know if it is possable to fit a CAT truck engine into a 40 series???? if not what would be a good strong diesel transplant to replace the petrol 2F??
cheers, ads
Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
Caterpilla engines
Moderators: toaddog, TWISTY, V8Patrol, Moderators
Caterpilla engines
went there dressed up, came back messed up
81 FJ40 hardtop - Lexus 1UZ-FE conversion underway
81 FJ40 hardtop - Lexus 1UZ-FE conversion underway
up2nogood wrote:Joises, a 3208 is a biiiiiiig lump of iron!
Yeah and only pumps out a whopping 210HP
You want a big HP Diesel thats reliable.
Here you go- http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm
has anyone considered a 2 stroke diesel? 6v53 or 453 detroit? ive often wondered about these, the 6v53 works out at 318 cubic inches and they use them in ferret armoured vehicles, cranes and motor homes...
Any reason why theyd be no good?
Any reason why theyd be no good?
There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots
They're a fair lump of iron as well.
And, as was mentioned before, the rev range is only up to around 1900RPM.
They sound fat though.
You still hear some of them in the articulated front end loaders at the tip.
I reckon the smallest vehicle you'd want to fit one to would be an F series Ford. Even then it would be a 250 or bigger.
And, as was mentioned before, the rev range is only up to around 1900RPM.
They sound fat though.
You still hear some of them in the articulated front end loaders at the tip.
I reckon the smallest vehicle you'd want to fit one to would be an F series Ford. Even then it would be a 250 or bigger.
but at 1900RPM isnt a two stroke comparable to a 4 stroke at 3800RPM ?
detroit make some nice 2 stroke diesels, have never really thaught them ideal for a cruiser tho due to thier size
http://www.arsco.com/detroit_diesel.htm
detroit make some nice 2 stroke diesels, have never really thaught them ideal for a cruiser tho due to thier size
http://www.arsco.com/detroit_diesel.htm
Shadow wrote:but at 1900RPM isnt a two stroke comparable to a 4 stroke at 3800RPM ?
detroit make some nice 2 stroke diesels, have never really thaught them ideal for a cruiser tho due to thier size
http://www.arsco.com/detroit_diesel.htm
Thats like saying an 8 cyl at 1900 rpm is comparable to a 4 cyl at 3800 rpm. What is your point?
To understand the problem with a low rev range, you need to consider the vehicle speed range (between min and max revs) in each gear. When you do this a 2 stroke at 1900 rpm is same as 4 stroke at 1900 rpm (nothing to do with with time between cyl power strokes)
Last edited by Bush65 on Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
John
Ooooh, I like that 12V92TTA!
Would only fit in our Road Boss tho.
The two sroke advantage was on power production, not rotating speed. For instance, all two strokes are supercharged to make 'em run. A consequence of this is extra power.
The 12V I refer to above is supercharged with twin turbochargers fitted.
They still produce great power, but they are not as efficient as the current electronically fuel injected 12 and 14 litre six cylinder engines from Cat, Cummins, Detroit, etc.
Would only fit in our Road Boss tho.
The two sroke advantage was on power production, not rotating speed. For instance, all two strokes are supercharged to make 'em run. A consequence of this is extra power.
The 12V I refer to above is supercharged with twin turbochargers fitted.
They still produce great power, but they are not as efficient as the current electronically fuel injected 12 and 14 litre six cylinder engines from Cat, Cummins, Detroit, etc.
To cope with that small a rev range you'd need a really wide ratio box - like standard low gears going upto something like 2:1 overdrive in top otherwise top speed would be like 80ks 
I'd have thought little detroits like 453's and such would rev a bit harder though, that capacity works out to around 3.5 litres, not exactly huge, then just turbo it to get some good power.
Probably still a big heavy motor though.
I'd have thought little detroits like 453's and such would rev a bit harder though, that capacity works out to around 3.5 litres, not exactly huge, then just turbo it to get some good power.
Probably still a big heavy motor though.
There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots
Bush65 wrote:To understand the problem with a low rev range, you need to consider the vehicle speed range (between min and max revs) in each gear. When you do this a 2 stroke at 1900 rpm is same as 4 stroke at 1900 rpm (nothing to do with with time between cyl power strokes)
You know i have allways found this amuzing. You here guys all the time saying that they did an engine swap and after pulling out there 4cyl and fitting a V8 they had dropped from 4000RPM at 100 to 3500RPM at 100. Revs is revs changing a motor isnt going to change how hard the engine revs at a certain speed. All its going to do is change the amount of usable power/tourqe at given Rev ranges.
bit of info:
cummins m11 will produce around 350-400 horses in standard trim
rev range is from 600-2400 (though they dont like high revs)
11 litres of direct injection turbocharged 6 iron
The other engines I have regularly dealt with are caterpillar 3406e (14 litres, 450 horsepower) and they wil rev to 2100
The difference between these engines and say a cruiser engine is that these will produce torque of levels miles above what you use. Also they will last if treated properly consistently over 1.5 million kms, thats producing 75% of power+ most of the time.
They are very big and heavy engines (out of 80 tonne rated road trains), and practically useless for standard passenger sized vehicles.
This is why you see 3208 caterpillar engines regularly in commercial fishing boats, yet never see landcruiser engines.
cummins m11 will produce around 350-400 horses in standard trim
rev range is from 600-2400 (though they dont like high revs)
11 litres of direct injection turbocharged 6 iron
The other engines I have regularly dealt with are caterpillar 3406e (14 litres, 450 horsepower) and they wil rev to 2100
The difference between these engines and say a cruiser engine is that these will produce torque of levels miles above what you use. Also they will last if treated properly consistently over 1.5 million kms, thats producing 75% of power+ most of the time.
They are very big and heavy engines (out of 80 tonne rated road trains), and practically useless for standard passenger sized vehicles.
This is why you see 3208 caterpillar engines regularly in commercial fishing boats, yet never see landcruiser engines.
The old 6vs ect are rubbish compared to todays Diesels ,
havn,t driven many smaller ones but we did have a couple of 6ton isuzus
They where running a 6 cylinder diesel and an allison 5 speed auto ,
These combos are still BIG heavy setups , BUt they where a bit amazing
You could easily blow most of the traffic of at the lights without really trying - they tared at about the 5 ton mark if i remember correct,
So they'd go pretty figgen hard in a 2 1/2 tonne package !
havn,t driven many smaller ones but we did have a couple of 6ton isuzus
They where running a 6 cylinder diesel and an allison 5 speed auto ,
These combos are still BIG heavy setups , BUt they where a bit amazing
You could easily blow most of the traffic of at the lights without really trying - they tared at about the 5 ton mark if i remember correct,
So they'd go pretty figgen hard in a 2 1/2 tonne package !
Theres a bloke in Geelong with a 453 Detroit in his F100, sounds serious, don't know what it pulls like. Those Detroits are very old technology and oil burning lumps of shite. The 3208 is a great motor in the hands of the right people, seen a 3208 turbo in a f350 when I was liviing in Canada, buckets of torque and really hammered. Cat motors are in a league of their own if you have the right bloke working on it, I'd rather have one of them than a GM V8. Would love to have one in the GQ! Hmmmm reality check!
RUFF wrote:
You know i have allways found this amuzing. You here guys all the time saying that they did an engine swap and after pulling out there 4cyl and fitting a V8 they had dropped from 4000RPM at 100 to 3500RPM at 100. Revs is revs changing a motor isnt going to change how hard the engine revs at a certain speed. All its going to do is change the amount of usable power/tourqe at given Rev ranges.
I think your calculations are wrong. When I changed the 3f (6 cyl) to a V8 my tacho reading was 25% low, not the 12.5% you indicate above.
(Then I got the adapter from marks and I was back where I started... surprise surprise
)73 Series Middy Cruiser 308 VN V8 OME 2in Susp lift 2in Body lift 35in Pro Comp X-Terrains
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests