Twin turbo e6/e7

[davehummell]

I looked over that engine they had on the stand when I was at the truck show, it's a real shame they didn't get them in their trucks I would have loved to experienced that engine see how it stacked up against their competitors engines. 

[BOBWhite]

It has the same stroke as a 3406 cat but a tad smaller bore. Doesn't look like it has a spacer plate like the cats.

I'd say it wouldn't make as good of power with the intake setup the way it is, probably were developing a tip turbine intercooler system as to why the intake is pointing straight up. 

[Onyx610]

7 minutes ago, BOBWhite said:

It has the same stroke as a 3406 cat but a tad smaller bore. Doesn't look like it has a spacer plate like the cats.

I'd say it wouldn't make as good of power with the intake setup the way it is, probably were developing a tip turbine intercooler system as to why the intake is pointing straight up. 

Would those years be a little late for a tip turbine? I think it’s just the way they clocked the compressor housing for the display. 

[67RModel]

The intake ports on Macks with CMCAC are pointing straight up. the outlet of the CAC runs straight along the top of the engine and turns vertically down into the intake manifold. Even the E7s. And yes by 1978 - 1982 Mack had to have been developing a charge air cooler like we have today. In fact I think they were the first domestic company to offer one. On the E6 engine.

[BOBWhite]

1 minute ago, Onyx610 said:

Would those years be a little late for a tip turbine? I think it’s just the way they clocked the compressor housing for the display. 

1978-1982 was the production years and I think they switched to chassis mounted intercoolers in 1980 or 1981?? (Not sure)

The intake manifold inlet was pointing straight up instead of angled a bit for an intercooler but all mack straight 6's manifold inlets point straight up so forget that.

[Onyx610]

16 minutes ago, BOBWhite said:

It has the same stroke as a 3406 cat but a tad smaller bore. Doesn't look like it has a spacer plate like the cats.

I'd say it wouldn't make as good of power with the intake setup the way it is, probably were developing a tip turbine intercooler system as to why the intake is pointing straight up. 

I see what you mean now, disregard. 

[Onyx610]

BOBWhite, your quite the Cat guy huh?

[BOBWhite]

16 hours ago, Onyx610 said:

BOBWhite, your quite the Cat guy huh?

Nah. We have a 1693 in a IH transtar and a 3208 in an RV but have never done anything major to them. Adept Ape on YouTube the is the cat guy I learned all my information from 

[67RModel]

I have a buddy who rants and raves about a 1693 Caterpillar and how back in the day they were "all that and then some". He was running them in the mid to late 1970s in A model Kenworths. It seems to me looking back in hindsight they were not really all that impressive other than its large size and ability to take as much fuel as your could pump into it (from what I'm told). From what I understand they were a precombustion chamber engine and not able to have jake brakes installed on them for whatever reason. I mean Mack had direct injection I think as far back as 1953 when the Thermodyne 673 was designed. Also Mack had the tip turbine air to air charge cooler in 1971. I dont think Cat had any charge air cooling until the 3406A and it was the water cooled deal. Cat didn't have air to air until the 3406B in the early 80s. Plus Mack engines could have Jakes installed and they even developed their own Dynatard in I think 1971 also. Also, I am told they were very delicate over 1800 rpm. The valves and rocker arms would get wiped out real easy at higher rpms. I think the 1693s are kind of unimpressive on paper compared to contemporary Mack engines. Most of what I typed about the 1693 is what I have been told so I could be wrong with some of it.

Thoughts? 

[BOBWhite]

Our e6 350 could whip our cat 1693. The reason they couldn't have Jake breaks is because they were dual overhead cam with the cams acting on the valves with no rocker arms. Fuel consumption is terrible but they're reliable and torque monsters. 

Some form post said that no one still runs 1693's anymore but our's is still used every year for harvest. 

[67RModel]

Ahhh makes sense with the jakes and overhead cams. Every time I hear one of his stories I wonder "how good could they really have been compared to the competition?" I wanna say their max factory hp rating was 300 but like you said probably had more torque than most other engines of the time due to their larger size.

I also always wonder too about the Allis Chalmers 25000 "Big Al" truck engine. Supposedly they were complete animals. Factory rated at 450hp when everything else was 300 or 350 max. I even think they came with a guarantee to be able to maintain the speed limit on any US highway at legal weight. They were painted purple and an option in Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks. I think Mack also built some F model cabovers with them for power. They are super rare and not much information left on them anymore.

[BOBWhite]

Purple people eaters they called em. Seemed like real good engines I wonder what could have happened. They had a pretty large engine plant for them. 

Our gleaner combine's had allis engines and we never had any problems with em, plenty of power for an L2. 

[67RModel]

From what I have read on other truck and tractor forums is that they were considerably more expensive. It was Allis’s first rodeo at a truck engine and people were hesitant to be a Guinea pig. But I think the biggest downfall was they had no dealer network along the highway system like Cummins and Detroit had. You were forced to find a construction equipment or possibly a tractor dealer that could work on them. I think it was the same engine used in their largest dozer but tweaked for road use. Also maybe used in the AC 220 tractor

[davehummell]

If I remember it correctly couldn't you order that A C engine with 600 hp. I spent many hours working on 1693 engines went to school for them when I worked at Cleveland Brothers. If you were running the upper way west a lot of trucks had brake savers before the transmissions that brake saver really worked way better than a jake. It's a shame Jake brake didn't come up with a set up on the 1693. I paid .17 cents a gallon for fuel when I was getting a load in El Paso. I used to take care of a pete cabover that I finally did an inframe at 1,500,000 miles it still ran to California without any issues but the owner wanted it freshened up. The 1693 was rated at 425 but when I ran my engines I would find out if the owner wanted more you could get about 600 hp without too much fiddling.

[67RModel]

1 hour ago, BOBWhite said:

Some form post said that no one still runs 1693's anymore but our's is still used every year for harvest.

Is your 1693 painted white or is it yellow? I think the early cat truck engines were “Matterhorn White” color. 

[davehummell]

I worked on both colors the 1693 was a 343 with a different governor for a truck and some other changes were done for more hp. The 1693 was my favorite engine.

[67RModel]

7 minutes ago, davehummell said:

If I remember it correctly couldn't you order that A C engine with 600 hp.

All the old literature I have seen on them the highest rating was 450hp. And I think 1250 ft lb 

[davehummell]

You could be right the picture I had hanging on my old roll around was at least 35 plus years ago. I don't think I have ever seen one in person. A few years ago I spied some talk about those engines on some web sight.

[D-Day]

52 minutes ago, davehummell said:

I worked on both colors the 1693 was a 343 with a different governor for a truck and some other changes were done for more hp. The 1693 was my favorite engine.

I also have worked on several of the 343 and 1693 we used them in the big skagit yarders and also 988 cat front loader not uncommon to see 30,000 hours and up with no problems they were great.

[BOBWhite]

1 hour ago, 67RModel said:

Is your 1693 painted white or is it yellow? I think the early cat truck engines were “Matterhorn White” color. 

Ours is a 1970 and its painted Red. Someone somewhere told me that the last 1693's that went into trucks were painted red but I couldn't tell you if that's right or not. 

[Onyx610]

9 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

Nah. We have a 1693 in a IH transtar and a 3208 in an RV but have never done anything major to them. Adept Ape on YouTube the is the cat guy I learned all my information from 

You would like KT3406E on YouTube as well then. Lots of nice builds. 

[D-Day]

1 hour ago, BOBWhite said:

Ours is a 1970 and its painted Red. Someone somewhere told me that the last 1693's that went into trucks were painted red but I couldn't tell you if that's right or not. 

International painted all engines red it was there thing post some pictures of your 1693 if you can I have not seen one in a long time It was a sad day when they expired as for the E-6 mods I would not go there either save it for someone who appreciates it for what it is and move to the E-7

[BOBWhite]

No pictures at the moment but I have a low quality video of it firing up: 

And that makes sense about them being painted red. Wonder if that was done at the IH assembly or the Cat factory. 

 

[D-Day]

That is it nothing else sounds like it thanks we have a 59 international with a 220 cummins and red was the color as well I also remember a TD24 I used a long time ago it was yellow outside but the engine was red it was a great machine similar to a D-8 cat back to the E-6 thing go forward and build a bad E-7 and leave the E-6 to the past

[67RModel]

In the lot parked next to me there arose such a clatter.

I sprang from my bunk to see what was the matter.

When what to my wondering ears should I hear?

but a cold 1693 cat and an 18 gear.