Cummins C Modle 8.3 In B?

[Arcticmack]

Hey all

I was wondering if anyone has thought about a cummins 8.3 engine in a B, I know that it will fit and will bolt up to the trans and can get either a push or pull clutch single disk,

Its a newer engine will have to do something for the I/C but Im sure something could be done

the one Im thinking about is the Mechanical one so no computer crap, just wondering if anyone has done or thought about this as a viable swap. Also the HP rating can be adjusted so as to not hurt the tranny cause the one I know of is about 250 Hp. I know thats not too much for the quad box if drivin and cared for right. I know its a smaller engine than the Thermo, but its got more power and torque than the Thermo, Case of newer vs,old, I have these engines at work on Garbage trucks that gross 60000 so I know it can handle the weight of a 3 axle dumper, especially with a quad box for gears.

any thoughts?????

[Rob]

Hey all

I was wondering if anyone has thought about a cummins 8.3 engine in a B, I know that it will fit and will bolt up to the trans and can get either a push or pull clutch single disk,

Its a newer engine will have to do something for the I/C but Im sure something could be done

the one Im thinking about is the Mechanical one so no computer crap, just wondering if anyone has done or thought about this as a viable swap. Also the HP rating can be adjusted so as to not hurt the tranny cause the one I know of is about 250 Hp. I know thats not too much for the quad box if drivin and cared for right. I know its a smaller engine than the Thermo, but its got more power and torque than the Thermo, Case of newer vs,old, I have these engines at work on Garbage trucks that gross 60000 so I know it can handle the weight of a 3 axle dumper, especially with a quad box for gears.

any thoughts?????

I have a couple of those engines on gensets and they work well. I don't think they are as well fitted to this duty as the old Detroit two stroke, but they do fine. Mine are set about 300 horsepower at 1800 rpm, and have never really presented problems other than the mechanical injection pumps have needed worked with.

I've recommended to a few folks this engine fitted to the B series chassis as I believe it will work well. Finding an SAE #1 flywheel housing seems to be a little difficult in the used market in my area as SAE #2 is very common. The only drawback to this engine that I've seen is that it does not have a lot of low end grunt such as the larger engines do. This would not be a problem as it is much stronger than the Thermodyne series engines in the early days were anyhow.

For an engine that will be run pretty much at a constant rpm, I think this engine is a good choice as they will provide a long service life. They are quite common in farm tractor usage and set to about 275 horsepower, (usually). They last alright until they, (owners) get to playing with the pump. It is then that the weakness of the lower end shows up. If kept to about 325-350 horsepower and worked easily, they last fine.

Personally I like a DT series Navistar engine. You can readily get 300 horsepower out of the 466 with about the same reliability as the Cummins, but a full out of chassis rebuild can be done for less than $3000.00. While I've not had any experience with rebuilding the C8.3, (505 cubic inches), they cost considerably more. The cost of initial acquisition up front is more expensive I've seen also with the Cummins.

With any of the newer engines the torque rise is what breaks things. A driver with an easy foot from a stop, using easy acceleration will have no problems.

Rob

[Arcticmack]

I have a couple of those engines on gensets and they work well. I don't think they are as well fitted to this duty as the old Detroit two stroke, but they do fine. Mine are set about 300 horsepower at 1800 rpm, and have never really presented problems other than the mechanical injection pumps have needed worked with.

I've recommended to a few folks this engine fitted to the B series chassis as I believe it will work well. Finding an SAE #1 flywheel housing seems to be a little difficult in the used market in my area as SAE #2 is very common. The only drawback to this engine that I've seen is that it does not have a lot of low end grunt such as the larger engines do. This would not be a problem as it is much stronger than the Thermodyne series engines in the early days were anyhow.

For an engine that will be run pretty much at a constant rpm, I think this engine is a good choice as they will provide a long service life. They are quite common in farm tractor usage and set to about 275 horsepower, (usually). They last alright until they, (owners) get to playing with the pump. It is then that the weakness of the lower end shows up. If kept to about 325-350 horsepower and worked easily, they last fine.

Personally I like a DT series Navistar engine. You can readily get 300 horsepower out of the 466 with about the same reliability as the Cummins, but a full out of chassis rebuild can be done for less than $3000.00. While I've not had any experience with rebuilding the C8.3, (505 cubic inches), they cost considerably more. The cost of initial acquisition up front is more expensive I've seen also with the Cummins.

With any of the newer engines the torque rise is what breaks things. A driver with an easy foot from a stop, using easy acceleration will have no problems.

Rob

Thank you Rob, thats what I was thinking as well you say a number # 1 bell??? I thought a #2 was in order for the mack?? please more details on this if you would...

In all the OTR driving Ive done over the years and Hauling heavy up to the North slope on the Haul road to Prudoe Bay, Ive never shock loaded a trans or broken any part of the drive train. anyways I do think the cummins would be a good choice but I hadnt thought of a dt466 I would like to know more of this as a swap, I will have to do my homework on this engine I know of it just dont know about it. Mine is a 1958 thermo, Has Horrible blowby although this is on some bad fuel last time I had her running, it does have a miss but seems to clear up some and dont smoke once warmed its not a compleate miss I think its hitting but not as hard as the rest on number 4 if I remember correctly, also after sitting a few nights during the summer with weather at about mid 60's to high 70's ALl i gotta do is turn the key and not hardly any any cranking its running mind you thats with old fuel I drained what i could out of the tanks and put in new and did the other start up things.. so not sure what to think about this as the blow by is so bad, It has been sitting for years till I got ahold of it. I cant do anything with it as of yet, I didnt get my shop compleated this past year, so its sitting inside a shell at about -30 below shivering and waiting for the weather to warm up so I can work on her... lol I havent found a rebuild kit that has new pistons that fit the Con rods that this engine is supposed to have,(ie. the 1.6" wrist pin)so dont know what to do there either other than get maxidyne conrods.?

[Rob]

Thank you Rob, thats what I was thinking as well you say a number # 1 bell??? I thought a #2 was in order for the mack?? please more details on this if you would...

In all the OTR driving Ive done over the years and Hauling heavy up to the North slope on the Haul road to Prudoe Bay, Ive never shock loaded a trans or broken any part of the drive train. anyways I do think the cummins would be a good choice but I hadnt thought of a dt466 I would like to know more of this as a swap, I will have to do my homework on this engine I know of it just dont know about it. Mine is a 1958 thermo, Has Horrible blowby although this is on some bad fuel last time I had her running, it does have a miss but seems to clear up some and dont smoke once warmed its not a compleate miss I think its hitting but not as hard as the rest on number 4 if I remember correctly, also after sitting a few nights during the summer with weather at about mid 60's to high 70's ALl i gotta do is turn the key and not hardly any any cranking its running mind you thats with old fuel I drained what i could out of the tanks and put in new and did the other start up things.. so not sure what to think about this as the blow by is so bad, It has been sitting for years till I got ahold of it. I cant do anything with it as of yet, I didnt get my shop compleated this past year, so its sitting inside a shell at about -30 below shivering and waiting for the weather to warm up so I can work on her... lol I havent found a rebuild kit that has new pistons that fit the Con rods that this engine is supposed to have,(ie. the 1.6" wrist pin)so dont know what to do there either other than get maxidyne conrods.?

Hi, yes a #1 flywheel housing is what you would need to mate the original trans to a newer engine. Mack most times used this size behind their diesel engines. The bolt circle will be about 20-7/8 inches, there will be 12 bolts, and they will be 7/16-14 t.p.i. A #2 flywheel housing will have a 17-5/8inch bolt circle, 12 bolts, and they will be 3/8-16t.p.i.

Parts for the old "Thermodyne" series of engines are getting scarce. I understand you can change the rods, and score the heads with using new pistons and such, rebuild them. It's not too cost prohibitive but still would run in excess of $3000.00. Parts like this are not on the shelf neither. All the rebuild kits I've seen available are vendored by FP Diesel, (Federal-Mogul) and state for "Maxidyne" converted engines. I assume this means the rods and heads but have no actual "hands on experience". I've not seen a set of rings in a long time as a lot of the older "Thermodyne" series engines used a "keystone" ring in the compression grooves and those are long ago obsolete.

I have a friend that converted an old B-61 to an RD-450 IH engine years ago and ran the truck in farm sprayer application for at least a dozen years. When the engine was just plain worn out and parts virtually non existent, we replaced the engine with a fresh 1979 DT-466 with the pump turned up 20% that yielded right at 300 horsepower at 1700rpm, and 760 ft. pounds torque at 1430rpm, (if memory serves). This truck is still used and after I repainted it, still looks good. The plus side is the engine looks like it belongs there.

It was tough to find the flywheel housing #1 size for that engine in this area. One was eventually acquired, but after a seven speed Spicer from a 1997 International 4900 series was installed onto the #2 housing. The flywheel housing is still around, (I think). The original Mack Duplex transmission was never reinstalled as "anybody" could now operate the truck as the newer transmission is syncronized except in low gear, so it stayed that way.

Rob

[theakerstwo]

I always thought the 8.3 would be good in a B modeal. Like Rob said the death of them is guys wanting them to pull with the big bores and you can set the fuel up on them easy but you will pay in the end.Also the quad box was used in the R models with the ENDT673C which was a 250 hp engine. I dont thing the c model will hurt that trans.If i can find the photos i will post them were i installed a air/air cooler on my B model and it did not look that bad and did make some more power over the tip turbin. glenn

[Arcticmack]

Hi, yes a #1 flywheel housing is what you would need to mate the original trans to a newer engine. Mack most times used this size behind their diesel engines. The bolt circle will be about 20-7/8 inches, there will be 12 bolts, and they will be 7/16-14 t.p.i. A #2 flywheel housing will have a 17-5/8inch bolt circle, 12 bolts, and they will be 3/8-16t.p.i.

Parts for the old "Thermodyne" series of engines are getting scarce. I understand you can change the rods, and score the heads with using new pistons and such, rebuild them. It's not too cost prohibitive but still would run in excess of $3000.00. Parts like this are not on the shelf neither. All the rebuild kits I've seen available are vendored by FP Diesel, (Federal-Mogul) and state for "Maxidyne" converted engines. I assume this means the rods and heads but have no actual "hands on experience". I've not seen a set of rings in a long time as a lot of the older "Thermodyne" series engines used a "keystone" ring in the compression grooves and those are long ago obsolete.

I have a friend that converted an old B-61 to an RD-450 IH engine years ago and ran the truck in farm sprayer application for at least a dozen years. When the engine was just plain worn out and parts virtually non existent, we replaced the engine with a fresh 1979 DT-466 with the pump turned up 20% that yielded right at 300 horsepower at 1700rpm, and 760 ft. pounds torque at 1430rpm, (if memory serves). This truck is still used and after I repainted it, still looks good. The plus side is the engine looks like it belongs there.

It was tough to find the flywheel housing #1 size for that engine in this area. One was eventually acquired, but after a seven speed Spicer from a 1997 International 4900 series was installed onto the #2 housing. The flywheel housing is still around, (I think). The original Mack Duplex transmission was never reinstalled as "anybody" could now operate the truck as the newer transmission is syncronized except in low gear, so it stayed that way.

Rob

once again Rob I thank you for such a wealth of information, I guess Ill be taking out my Old Thermo and find me a IHdt466, Ill retain the quad box As I like that part of the truck its what makes a Mack B a Mack B. Besides its damn fun to drive, I learned on a set of sticks and so am keeping them if I can. now I just gotta find a engine lol.

[Arcticmack]

I always thought the 8.3 would be good in a B modeal. Like Rob said the death of them is guys wanting them to pull with the big bores and you can set the fuel up on them easy but you will pay in the end.Also the quad box was used in the R models with the ENDT673C which was a 250 hp engine. I dont thing the c model will hurt that trans.If i can find the photos i will post them were i installed a air/air cooler on my B model and it did not look that bad and did make some more power over the tip turbin. glenn

HI Glenn yeah I know these are smaller engines I had thought of putting in a L10 cummins but thats just too much for the old dog, we can never expect our old dogs to pull with the big bores but we can out haul them with longevity. Im just looking for something thats a lot easier to get parts for etc, and thank you for your information as well.

[57 bcr]

Hey all

I was wondering if anyone has thought about a cummins 8.3 engine in a B, I know that it will fit and will bolt up to the trans and can get either a push or pull clutch single disk,

Its a newer engine will have to do something for the I/C but Im sure something could be done

the one Im thinking about is the Mechanical one so no computer crap, just wondering if anyone has done or thought about this as a viable swap. Also the HP rating can be adjusted so as to not hurt the tranny cause the one I know of is about 250 Hp. I know thats not too much for the quad box if drivin and cared for right. I know its a smaller engine than the Thermo, but its got more power and torque than the Thermo, Case of newer vs,old, I have these engines at work on Garbage trucks that gross 60000 so I know it can handle the weight of a 3 axle dumper, especially with a quad box for gears.

any thoughts?????

Why not replace it with a 237 Maxidyne? Seems like an easy answer to me.They are plentiful.Parts are available.Best of all,it says MACK on it(and it means it)!!!!