Tony Ingram Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I'm wanting to put a later model Cummins in my H-63. Wasn't sure if it was an option as far as getting mounts for it if I do it or am I going to have to fabricate them? I've got the old 673 running good but I found out pulling my fifth wheel over to the coast I need "MORE" power. Thanx Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
b61fred Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 hi, as far as i know the h model didn't have any other engine but macks. I think a cummins would be hard to fit in, does the engine sit on a 10 deg. tilt or straight up? The cummins engine is about a foot longer than the mack engines.Fred Quote 15 gears...no waiting! Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36576 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollweevil Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I really don't know about it being an option. Joe Mustang had a 1693 Cat in his H 63 and ran it every day. It was featured as truck of the month on this site at one time. Anything that you could spoon a 1693 into would not be a problem for an 855 Cummins. These days you can buy a running truck for what you can buy a takeout engine. A 427 Mack mechanical engine might be a good option. Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36578 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I really don't know about it being an option. Joe Mustang had a 1693 Cat in his H 63 and ran it every day. It was featured as truck of the month on this site at one time. Anything that you could spoon a 1693 into would not be a problem for an 855 Cummins. These days you can buy a running truck for what you can buy a takeout engine. A 427 Mack mechanical engine might be a good option.I've got a couple 1693TA's. One in a truck, and one on the floor. It is a big engine. If Joe got that into a H-63, he did some modification(s) to make it fit. Also beefed up the front suspension as the 1693TA weighs in at 3550# before ancillary components are bolted on. The original Mack engine less than 2200# fully dressed. Sure would have been fun to operate.I agree that a 1693 is quite a bit larger than an 855 Cummins.Rob Quote Plodding along with no job nor practical application for my existence, but still trying to fix what's broke. Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36581 Share on other sites More sharing options...
other dog Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I've got a couple 1693TA's. One in a truck, and one on the floor. It is a big engine. If Joe got that into a H-63, he did some modification(s) to make it fit. Also beefed up the front suspension as the 1693TA weighs in at 3550# before ancillary components are bolted on. The original Mack engine less than 2200# fully dressed. Sure would have been fun to operate.I agree that a 1693 is quite a bit larger than an 855 Cummins.RobBut Joe Mustang is a legendary figure, just like B.C. Fry. They could do anything. Quote Producer of poorly photo-chopped pictures since 1999. Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36589 Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanscottbuilders Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Tony,Before you go the Cummins route - consider a Mack 237 Maxidyne,or the 250, 285 or 300 hp versions.Physically, the engines are basically the same size as the 673 that you have,although the intercooler apparatus on the 285/300's will eat up some additional room, up in the area under the doghouse, where you don't have much room to spare.The 237 would be almost ideal, as you could use your existing transmission and clutch, flywheeland bellhousing hardware.It develops a lot more torque, and it does so at a much lower rpm range, making it a lot easierto drive, especially for high traffic or "stop & go" situations. Acceleration should be much improved,and pulling power would be very different.The 237 is readily available, and all of the parts are easy to come by. And, best of all - it says Mack on it! Very few people would even know that you changed it.Congratulations on getting the old girl running!Paul Van Scott Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36590 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK Trucking Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Tony,Before you go the Cummins route - consider a Mack 237 Maxidyne,or the 250, 285 or 300 hp versions.Physically, the engines are basically the same size as the 673 that you have,although the intercooler apparatus on the 285/300's will eat up some additional room, up in the area under the doghouse, where you don't have much room to spare.The 237 would be almost ideal, as you could use your existing transmission and clutch, flywheeland bellhousing hardware.It develops a lot more torque, and it does so at a much lower rpm range, making it a lot easierto drive, especially for high traffic or "stop & go" situations. Acceleration should be much improved,and pulling power would be very different.The 237 is readily available, and all of the parts are easy to come by. And, best of all - it says Mack on it! Very few people would even know that you changed it.Congratulations on getting the old girl running!Paul Van ScottI agree on swapping in a 237 or 285 Maxidyne. Easy swap and easy power!But:If a Cummins is really necessary, then why not just find a KTA 1150 @ 650 HP and jam it in there?. Quote "If You Can't Shift It Smoothly, You Shouldn't Be Driving It" Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36593 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 But Joe Mustang is a legendary figure, just like B.C. Fry. They could do anything.As is Tyrone Malone.Rob Quote Plodding along with no job nor practical application for my existence, but still trying to fix what's broke. Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36601 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearheadGrrrl Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 From what I've read, Joe Mustang had to raise the floor on the right side of the H model to clear the 1693. The joke was that the floor modification had the fringe benefit of eliminating all the passenger seat legroom so Joe's wife wouldn't ride with him. Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36673 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Ingram Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 Thanks for all of the help. I contacted the Mack musuem and found out that Mack engines were the only motors put in H-63's. I figured cummins engines are more plentiful out here than Macks but a 300 Maxidyne would sure be nice to put in there. It's been great cruising along Hwy 1 by the ocean in the old girl. When I get home in a few weeks she's starting to come apart and the real work starts. Just trying to get some ideas. Wasn't too sure how hard the mods would be for a cummins. I'll keep searching for a Maxidyne in the meantime. Now if I find a 300 can I still run my triplex or is it not beefy enough. My fifth wheel is about 8,000 lbs. not much weight. Got tired of being honked at and flipped off by motor homes climbing a couple of grades on the way. It's not gonna happen again, I'll be telling them who's #1 next time. Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36679 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK Trucking Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Thanks for all of the help. I contacted the Mack musuem and found out that Mack engines were the only motors put in H-63's. I figured cummins engines are more plentiful out here than Macks but a 300 Maxidyne would sure be nice to put in there. It's been great cruising along Hwy 1 by the ocean in the old girl. When I get home in a few weeks she's starting to come apart and the real work starts. Just trying to get some ideas. Wasn't too sure how hard the mods would be for a cummins. I'll keep searching for a Maxidyne in the meantime. Now if I find a 300 can I still run my triplex or is it not beefy enough. My fifth wheel is about 8,000 lbs. not much weight. Got tired of being honked at and flipped off by motor homes climbing a couple of grades on the way. It's not gonna happen again, I'll be telling them who's #1 next time.We've discussed that here before, and as I said previously, in the past I have transplanted a 237 Maxidyne and a 285 (300) Maxidyne into trucks that had the TRQ7220 quadruplex.The TRQ7220 is the same as your TRT 72/720/7220 triplex with the exception that your triplex does not have "lo lo".You probably have the old "push type" clutch in that truck, so you'll have to use the flywheel & clutch from your present engine.Worked just fine, but like anything else, if you drive it respectfully and shift it smoothly it will hold up, and if you beat the !@##$ out of it it'll break.You'll basically be running "empty" anyhow with 8000 lbs back there. Quote "If You Can't Shift It Smoothly, You Shouldn't Be Driving It" Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36681 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollweevil Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Once again, if you are buying a take out engine, plus paying a core charge. It makes more sense to buy a running truck. When the new CARB laws go into effect there will be thousands of good rigs available all around you. Many owners of older rigs will not take the option to re-power. Make a big long list of every thing you would like to change, and start looking for something that has it all. That is , unless you are planning on keeping it box stock original. I have often thought, that I would like to have a motor home constructed from an LJ or LT. That I could start up the Grape Vine, or Tehachapi, key up the mike and say " OK boys, lead, follow, or just get the hell out of the way." Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36683 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 From what I've read, Joe Mustang had to raise the floor on the right side of the H model to clear the 1693. The joke was that the floor modification had the fringe benefit of eliminating all the passenger seat legroom so Joe's wife wouldn't ride with him.Here is a photo of a 1693TA sitting on my trailer, and the 1693TA in my RL755L. This engine is just about 3900#, (as shown) and measures 63 inches from the floor to the top of the turbocharger with the oil pan touching the floor. The bracket at the back of the engine on the trailer supports the p/s pump reservoir and what was the rear cowling of the fire truck this engine is from. It would not be required in another application like this. An inline Mack engine measures about 38" tall.I can just imagine the "affection" I would receive if I built a truck to exclude Momma from my activities.Rob Quote Plodding along with no job nor practical application for my existence, but still trying to fix what's broke. Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/9601-was-a-cummins-an-option-for-an-h-63/#findComment-36693 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.