I-6 or V-8

[mcmahonjr]

I was back home a few weeks ago and well I was at the bar with friends. My one friend is a Ford guy and my other friend is a Dodge guy. I sat back and watch those two go at it over I-6 or V-8. Which one is better? Any ways they drank more and forgot about it. But I still want to know why Cummins uses a I-6 and ford and GM us a V-8. All the big diesels have I-6. :confused:

[TTLS]

A v8 is just two inline 4's working in a "V" configuration. At TDC when ingnition occurs, the rod is perpendicular or nearly so, to the crankshaft on both designs. V engines can develop higher RPM's, and more HP as a result. I don't think it's as much of an issue as the inline crowd would like you to think.

Just my $0.02.

[bora]

I think this is a non-issue for a diesel. But
for a high revving gasoline powered engine, the I6 is smoother than a V6 and revs better too.

A V8 is easier to package in then an I6 since it is shorter and only marginally wider.

[Amianthus]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes.

This was taken from another site (The TDR), and pretty well sums up any reason you may want to know about the "V" vs. "I" configuration.

"To really understand the reason why a V8 engine was ever even designed, you have to go back to 1932. Ford was the first maker of a V-configuration engine (flathead)*. If you do a little research, the ONLY reason for this was to be able to fit 8 cylinders where 4 used to be! The hoods on pre-1932 Ford cars & trucks were the same length as the post-1932 ones. The competition also had 8-cylinder engines, but were of an in-line configuration. Just look at the old "straight-8" Buick, Olds, etc. They were VERY long and required very long hoods. Fine for a high $ luxury car, but too much $ for an everyday car. Also, the V8 saved weight in the block, crankshaft, connecting rod, and intake manifold areas. So the concept of a V8 was NOT due performance al all. It was due to the necessity to fit a more powerful engine into a small package. Through the years, most heavy duty gas and diesel engines have remained of an in-line design. In the 1970's, V8 diesels had a brief popular period. But manufacturers went back to the in-line design for a number of reasons, including superior torque curves, engine longevity, less moving parts, etc. Now, most of the V-configuration heavy duty engines are that way due to space considerations, just like the first ones were (a 12 or 24 cylinder engine would be WAY too long if it were an in-line). If you look at the rest of the Navistar engine line, they're all in-line 6 cylinder engines also. But the Powerstroke is still a V8. I would suspect this is due to a number of reasons, but overall physical size and cost are probably the two main reasons why it has remained as Ford's diesel engine of choice. As you move up the line to the heavier Ford trucks (F650), the V8 dissappears and your back to a choice of Cat or Cummins, both being in-line 6 cylinders."

*-(Actually, Cadillac had the first V-8)

The above being stated, TTLS is right on the high revving part, but wrong on the HP part. Despite what some on this board would have you believe, just turning more RPM doesn't get more horsepower. You must have force to accompany it.

You guys have at your disposal 5000 RPM to make 300 HP. Whereas the comparably rated Cummins ISB has 2600 RPM to make 300 HP. That means that the Cummins must generate more force to achieve the same amount of HP. I-6's typically don't rev as high as V-8's. It's part of the drawback to the design. There's a ton of rotational mass, bearing surface, etc. But the power is there nonetheless. I-6's WILL generate higher torque (force) per RPM than a V-8 will. That's the advantage to the design. It is the torque (force) on the truck that you are feeling when you are accellerating.

Now let me step into my flame suit...

There...

FLAME ON!!!

[mcmahonjr]

Thank you for your replys. If it no big deal if it is a V or I then why do all the semi's us I-6? I have friends that drive truck and farm and all there diesels are I-6 or I-4. Higher rpm should not matter in a diesel because diesels dont achive them (3500 or so vs gas 6000 or higher).

[SoCalDMAX]

Ahhh, our buddy checks in... No flames here!

I'd guess that the quote you gave covered most of the reasons for the inception of the V-8 and dominance of the I-6, along with possibly some other factors I'm not aware of.

I've always been told that an I-6, gas or diesel, produced more torque than a 4 cyl, V-6 or V-8 for it's displacement. I do remember that the I-6 version of a lot of mfr's gasser engines are the ones to get. I'm not sure this is true as a blanket statement. There are probably notable exceptions.

I ran across an engineering study on the web, I believe they were studying 3rd order harmonics or something. IIRC, they ranked the engines in order of smoothest, least crank stress, so forth.

IIRC, an opposed (boxer) 12, boxer 6, V-12, boxer 4, inline 6, (I don't recall whether V-6 or V-8 was next) but an inline 4 was the worst. It wasn't until Mitsubishi came up with the counterrotating balance shaft and everyone copied it that 4 cyls became widespread and didn't rattle themselves apart.

Since reliability and power are paramount, it seems only logical that I-6s are used in big rigs.

Personally, I have NO complaints with a 32 valve, high revving, turbocharged V-8 with an easily tunable ECM... ;)

In the next few yrs as the mfrs go toe to toe in the diesel wars, they're all gonna get more powerful and quieter. The decision to buy one over another may come down to brand loyalty, interior options or even seat comfort.

Regards, Steve

[Amianthus]

Let make one thing perfectly clear. The I-6 that I have in my Dodge is WAY overkill for use in a pickup.

Likewise the Powerstroke and the Duramax are overkill for a pickup also (just not as much as mine :D ). Odds are, we will all grow old before these engine wear out. The Dmax and Powerstroke are good engines for the application they were intended for (pickup trucks and light service vehicles). Light duty useage (don't get your undies in a wad on this, it's just the way engines are classified). The Cummins I-6 is intended for medium-heavy use and just happens to fit inside a pickup.

As for manufacturer wars, SoCalDmax is right on. Power has been the object of choice in the past. That seems to no longer be the issue. Now it has to do with creature comforts, and attention to detail. I like my Dodge (and swear by it), but the Chevy is a tough ride to beat for comfort.

[TTLS]

The above being stated, TTLS is right on the high revving part, but wrong on the HP part. Despite what some on this board would have you believe, just turning more RPM doesn't get more horsepower. You must have force to accompany it.


Amianthus,

You were reading too much into my statement, or took what I was saying too literally. Of course you need force to go with the RPM's in order to make horsepower. After all, horsepower only describes force applied over an amount of time.

There is no denying the fact that an inline engine due to the size of the pistons and the length of the connecting rods will develop lots of torque especially at lower RPM's. Physics tells us that.

No flames here. ;)

[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: TTLS ]</p>

[Colorado Kid]

My gosh, no wonder all those guys at TDR think we have to rev to the moon to get our trucks moving, even Amianthus thinks we can turn 5000 RPM. On my 2002 peak HP is at 3000 RPM, and peak torque at 1800 RPM, with more than 500 LB-FT from 1400 RPM to 3000 RPM. Not proved on a chassis DYNO, just stock quote from GM Powertrain.

Having driven various Cummins 5.9's and a couple Duramaxes the Duramax just always feels like the bigger motor, from letting the clutch out at idle to running against the governor. I haven't driven them at sea-level, but up here the CUmmins is weaker off-boost, takes longer to build boost and runs out of revs as soon as the boost hits except on long upgrades in higher gears. The Automatic doesn't drop out of boost when shifting, but is really slow to get rolling from idle stop compared with a D/A.

In my opinion Class 8 trucks and farm tractors have I-6's because long, tall and heavy are not really a problem in those applications, and narrow is fairly important (for improved accessibility with tilt hood and for steering clearance with 22.5 wheels in the case of trucks, row visibility in farm tractors). In pickup trucks lighter wieght and shorter length become more important (but not ALL IMPORTANT) thus 2 of the big 3 use only V configurations.

All design is an endless series of compromises, and each alternative has a different set. All three current engines have acceptible combinations of Durability, Efficiency, Power, Weight, Cost and Packageability (among other things). Different design teams chose to emphasize different attributes, and each customer is free to choose the final product he or she likes best.

[Amianthus]

Colorado Kid, I wasn't trying to point out where the peaks were. Obviously they are somewhere below red-line. What I was getting at is that a "V" configuration can out rev an "I" configutaion of similar specifications. BTW, I'm not all the guys on the TDR, just one.

As for building slow boost, the Dmax has boost almost instantly due to the common rail. The Cummins doesn't have the amount of fuel on tap that the Dmax does at idle because of that. The Cummins has to rev up to get the pump to push more fuel. The guys at Edge were impressed at the throttle response of the test Dmax they had. That and if you were driving an auto equipped Dodge, you will never get the full experience of the power the Cummins has. D/C shoulda stepped up with a better auto for the Cummins. The few Dmax's I've encountered are nice, but not what I would consider earthshaking. They seemed to me to be more civilized than snort. JMHO.

But I totally agree, that the application decides the configuration of the pickup. If you want a smoother ride, go with IFS. If you want simplicity, go with the I-6. If you want to carry several people, go with the Crew Cab. It's all in the desired end product.

[SID6FIVE]

THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION I CAN THINK OF IS THAT AN INLINE 6 HAS SEVEN MAIN BEARINGS TO SUPPORT THE CRANKSHAFT WHILE A V-8 HAS FIVE...ALL ELSE BEING SIMILAR-SUCH AS HORSEPOWER AND TORQUE RATINGS,DISPLACEMENT,AMOUNT OF IRON THE BLOCK HAS,ETC...IE:I'VE SEEN V-8 DIESELS WITH RODS THROUGH THE SIDES VERSUS I-6'S WITH HOPELESSLY SCORED CYLINDERS(SIMILAR APPLICATIONS)-JUS' MY 2 CENTS WORTH...APPLES TO ORANGES...INSANE MUMBLING...

[hoot]

So why doesn't somebody build a V8 that has the bore and stroke of the Cummins :D ?

[afp]

Here's my take,

Guys used to rave about how great their 4.0 liter Jeep and 300 CI Ford straight sixes were. They'd talk about how smooth and torquey they were. However, the 302 Ford and 350 Chevy (and 5.3) always got better mileage and had more power. The Jeep guys accepted my 350 (and 5.3) had more power (after all, it was bigger), but were always ticked when I got better mileage as well.

A V-8 has two more firing pulses per "engine cycle" (by that I mean two revolutions of the crank) than does a straight six. I think those extra firing pulses create more torque and HP. In many classes of drag racing (like Competition Eliminator), it doesn't matter if you run a six or eight, just as long as you meet the power to weight ratio for your class. Almost without exception, V-8s dominate those classes. Yes, parts are more readily available for V-8s, but given most of these motors are almost entirely custom made, an inline six is as viable as a V-8 in terms of ability to be built. If the inlines were better than the V-8s, these crazy racers would be using them exclusively were the rules allowed.

Diesels are a slighly different breed, but the principals still apply. V-8s typically are shorter, lighter, and have more cubic inches (per a given engine weight) than straight sixes. Many straight sixes have longer strokes than comparable V-8s and that is an advantage for a diesel. Of course, it is no problem to make a long stroke V-8.

I think it boils down to this. Auto guys got in the habit of building V-8s for power applications, and all the R&D and experience went that direction so it is more cost effective to get max power out of the V-8. Big truck diesels have a long history of inline sixes, and that is where the R&D and experience went for that application. Why swim upstream with something unproven?

Light airplane engines are another example. Due to government regs and other factors having little bearing on performance and reliability, 30s technology engines were the most common style. There were much better designs out there, but you just didn't see them.

Obviously, there are some good inline six gas motors there (the new six Chevy has in the Trailblazer is an example--it doesn't even feel like a straight six). There are also good V-8 Diesel motors out there.

Especially with diesels, I think it is primarily a matter of what the industry got used to vs one being radically superior/inferior to the other.

Personally, I like V-8s. However, I understand my preference may not be the best choice for every application.

Blaine

[ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: afp ]</p>

[csimo]

This whole thing about a straight six being better than a V-8 is just stupid. Neither is inherently better!

Remeber that the most powerful Cummins engines are all "V" designs. The popular ISB isn't even a Cummins design.

No, the "large" diesel engines are not all or even mostly inlines, the are "V" designs. Most all diesel powered ships use extremely large "V" engines.

Why are most over the road diesel engines straight sixes? Mostly becuase they are very old designs that the engineering costs have been paid for in decades past. Now that the US Government and the EPA are getting into their business like they do automobiles will force the manufacturers to change their designs. Will they go to "V" designs? I doubt it because that will cause a change in the trucking industry and they don't like change.

Which is better? Neither. There are good diesel engines, and bad ones.

[Amianthus]

Originally posted by csimo:
"Remeber that the most powerful Cummins engines are all "V" designs. The popular ISB isn't even a Cummins design."

Really? Who's design is it then?

[csimo]

The entire "B" series engines were designed by Duetz AG and licensed to Cummins. I believe Duetz still builds a nearly identical engine.

For the International guys looking for ammunition against some of the Cummins claims look here, it's an interesting read:

http://www.internationaldelivers.com/school_bus/236.html

Interesting tidbits:

Who's the largest diesel engine manufacturer in the world?

Measured in $$$$$ = Caterpillar

Measured in units = Volkswagen

Very close behind are PSA Group of Peugeot and Citroen, and Isuzu. Motornet says that Isuzu may become the largest diesel engine manufacturer in both volume and money by the end of 2003.

Who makes the largest diesel engine in the world? MAN. They make a ships propulsion engine that has a bore of 980mm, stroke of 2400mm, 14 cylinders, and 108640 BHP (two stroke).

[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: csimo ]</p>

[Bart Timothy]

Interesting; I was under the impression that the B series Cummins was designed in a joint venture between Cummins and Case during the early '80s.

[Breck]

"Why are most over the road diesel engines straight sixes? Mostly becuase they are very old designs that the engineering costs have been paid for in decades past. Now that the US Government and the EPA are getting into their business like they do automobiles will force the manufacturers to change their designs. Will they go to "V" designs? I doubt it because that will cause a change in the trucking industry and they don't like change." -this statement in absurd.

Why did so many semi's have v-8's in the 60's and 70's and then go back to "old" engineered I-6's? The new I-6's are nothing like what you are refering to as old designs other than the configuration.

Here is an interesting item: What do most (new)Case/IH tractors have for engines? Give you a clue, it starts with a C.

At least we all can agree on what type of fuel to use? ;)

[CareyWeber]

I don't one should say that all heavy trucks use I-6. Cummins, Cat, Detroit, and Mack all make and use V-8's (and V-6, 12, and 16s).

I think not wanting to change has more to do with it (Lots of already paid for R&D). All bussinesses are manage based on the bottom line.

Carey

[Big O]

My .02 as far as comparing power, i.e. hp and torque. I had a '96 Dodge 3500 Xcab, 4x4, Cummins--nothing negative to say about it. Great engine.

See sig for current truck. I love it. Ride much better than ANY OTHER TRUCK! I have pulled the SAME LOADS down the SAME ROADS with the Chevy that I did with the Dodge. Beyond ANY DOUBT the Chevy has more torque and more hp--it just flat PULLS BETTER THAN ANY!!! As for the Ford, had a '92--JUNK! With 30,000# I can IDLE down my driveway in 3rd gear WITHOUT touching the excelerator. The same load, same gear, without the excelerator WAS NOT possible with the Cummins! The ONLY question now is, WILL THE DURAMAX HOLD UP OVER TIME AS WELL AS THE CUMMINS?? TIME WILL TELL, I hope so! :D :D

[Amianthus]

csimo, I don't think that's quite right.

Here's what I found on the Cummins history.

"The Cummins B series (3.9L 4 cylinder and 5.9L six cylinder) diesel was developed in the early 1980's as a joint venture between Cummins and Case tractor. Cummins was to provide the engine expertise, Case the production volume. In 1984, an active step van/ bread truck repower program for the Ford E350 and GM P30 chassis was successfully promoted by Cummins.

As B production capacity expanded, Cummins began actively seeking a major OEM entry for the 6B 5.9L engine in a pickup truck chassis. The 6B was seen by Dodge as a possibility for the aging Ram 250 and 350 which had no diesel option. In late 1986, Dodge and Cummins reached an agreement to target the 1988 model year for the ram diesel. Cumins accepted the engineering challenge of mating the engine to the existing Dodge Ram chassis. As unseen technical problems surfaced, the introduction was rescheduled for the 1989 model.

The first year forecast was for less than 8,000 Dodge diesel pickups, with sales expected to grow by 3,000 trucks each following year. Ram diesel sales for 1989 surpassed 16,000 trucks and the numbers have continued to grow.

Cummins data indicates that the life of the B engine in a medium duty truck is slightly over 300,000 miles. Estimated engine life in the pickup is unknown because few engines have failed or worn out, and there are numerous reports of over 800,000 miles."

There are rumors that this may be a copy design from John Deere. But I don't think that's the case.

As for the article you posted on the T444e, I read that article to be a joke. Not because I think the T444e is a bad engine, but because there are alot of assumptions, suppositions, and "it's possible" claims made by him on the performance abilities of the engine. Everything he has to say about the t444e can be summed up very simply. The engine is capable of more than in published. But International won't say that it WILL perform any better than published.

Back to the topic at hand. The inline design is a more durable, more powerful design for a given engine size. However, they are typically heavier, longer, and slower turning than a "V" design of similar displacement. Ever see that MAN engine? It's an inline design for a reason (of course I think it red-lines at 50 RPM). Ever see a Fairbanks Morse? It's a 12 cylinder inline engine used for all kinds of applications. It's an inline. Ever see a locomotive engine? It's a "V" design due to space limitations. It's all based on the end application. Straight 8's were super powerful engines for the day they were created in. But the sheer size prohibited application in most vehicles. So they weren't used that much at all.
That gets back to the reason that the "V" configuration came to be. Size restrictions. That and you can fit more displacement in a smaller area, hence you can get more power from the bigger displacement engine. You get higher revving, more displacement, and lighter. At the sacrifice of efficiency and durability. Again, it's all in what the end application is to be.

[FightinTXag]

You can't make a blanket statement about V engines being less efficient and durable than their I counterparts. You can point to shining examples and ****-poor examples in both configurations running on gasoline and/or diesel.

There are entirely too may variables in engine design and production quality that have enormous effects on durability and efficiency. I think good design and quality production is what nets a durable and efficient engine regardless of configuration.

One thing you can't argue though, is that V motors always sound better! tongue.gif

[csimo]

Amianthus,

No disrespect to you personally, but nearly everything you posted is wrong.

I know very well what Cummins says. I know very well that their "history" is incomplete and misleading. I'm sorry you take a marketing hype as gospel.

Why would you say: "As for the article you posted on the T444e, I read that article to be a joke."? Why is what Cummins says to you is the truth, but International is a "joke" to you? Do you think that Cummins is more honest than International or any other company? I imagine that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it does point out that Cummins is misleading in some of their hype.

Then you go on to say: "The inline design is a more durable, more powerful design for a given engine size. However, they are typically heavier, longer, and slower turning than a "V" design of similar displacement." Wow, what a mouthful. If inline engines are "more durable" why are ALL of the largest and most powerful diesel engines in the world of "V" design? Why would every diesel engine manufacturer in the world pick the "V" design for their most powerful and demanding engines if an inline is "more durable", and "more powerful"? That just doesn't make sense.

You said: "Ever see that MAN engine? It's an inline design for a reason". I've seen many MAN engines. The top of the line MAN diesel is a V-12 engine. MAN makes V-8's, V-10's and V-12's. MAN is just like your beloved Cummins, their top of the line, most powerful, and most durable engines are "V" designs. Why would they do that if an inline engine would be better?

You said: "Ever see a Fairbanks Morse? It's a 12 cylinder inline engine used for all kinds of applications. It's an inline." Yes I've seen many FM/ALCO engines. Not to be repetitive, but if you called them and said "I need your most powerful, most reliable, and most durable diesel engine you make regardless of size" they would tell you to buy a FM/ALCO 251 V-18 engine.

Isn't it strange that every example you posted turned out to be exactly opposite of what you thought?

I have nothing against Cummins. I think Cummins makes decent engines. Cummins has fallen somewhat behind many of the leading edge manufacturers and will be playing catch-up for several years, but their reputation and low price will keep them in the over-the-road trucks for some time.

I also believe that for our relatively small diesel engines for pickup trucks the difference between an inline and V design engine is not enough to talk about. When it comes to serious power then you talk about V design engines 100% of the time.

[mcmahonjr]

I remember reading a thread a while back and the subject was engine options. The thread talked about haveing differnt engine mfr. in pickups(CAT CUMMINS, Detroit, ect) Most everyone said they would want a Cat. Does CAT make a V engine. The question to me is why CAT and not DMAX? I am just asking because I dont know the answer. Do the members still think this CAT or DMAX

[csimo]

Yes sir Cat makes some BIG V engines. I believe their biggest is a V-18 of nearly 10,000 BHP.

Cat vs. Duramax? You can't compare the two. Caterpillar doesn't make engines suitable for our trucks. I am NOT an expert on the Cat line, so please excuse the absence of specifics.

If you were to get a Cat engine comparible in power to the Duramax 6600 or the Cummins ISB the Cat engine would weigh maybe twice as much. We don't have the axle capacity for such engines and they wouldn't have the drivability characteristics that people would expect in a pickup truck. The Cat engines are true heavy duty diesel engines (despite any BS from GM, Isuzu, Ford, International, Dodge or Cummins our engines are medium duty at best).

[Amianthus]

(Didn't take it personally, no worries)
I won't say that everything they print is gospel. I won't disagree that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Even if it wasn't designed as a joint venture between Case and Cummins, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
However, you can't tell me that the information that was posted on the t444e was somehow unbiased. He seems to make claims on 4 years of operating the engine. Great. Wonderful. That's still got nothing to do with the rating of the engine. I have no doubt it will do more, but that's not it's rating.

As for the MAN engine. This is the engine I was talking about.

(I can't link to it. But it's the K98MC-C. http://www.manbw.dk/)

If the "V" was sooo much better, why is this motor an inline design?

Same with any other large engine. It's an inline for a reason. When size is not a consideration, inline is preferred. Once again, it all depends on the end application. So what I said about large engines was true. I won't disagree that the "V" configuration has it's advantages. And because of the fact that you can put more displacement in a smaller area, they can make alot of power. Or if you have a genset that needs to turn at 3600 RPM without a gear box, the "V" would be the way to go. But you have tradeoffs that were discussed earlier.

I guess I shoulda never threw in the Cummins statement at the beginning and just left it to the topic at hand. I should used John Deere I-6 or Cat I-6 as examples. As for Cummins being archaic, C'mon. You know that's completely wrong and inflammitory. Cummins has been using common rail in Europe for years. They also have designs in Europe that we can only hope to get here (so do other manufacturer's). The diesel industry is so far advanced in Europe as compared to here it's sad. Thank the tree huggers for that (I digress). But don't tell me that they have somehow fallen behind. That would be the same thing as me telling you that the Dmax is not as efficient as the ISB because you need 2 more cylinders and .7L of displacement to make the power of the ISB (300 HP 660 ft-lbs from the factory). We both know that's crap.

I'm convinced that you are determined to continue to believe that "V" configurations are the only way to make power. Fine. I can't tell you otherwise. No amount of comparison is gonna sway you. I don't know what else can be said. Of course, the same argument could be made on my view of the inline design. But I'm right and you're wrong. tongue.gif I think we've both beaten this thing to death.

Fighting TXag, I guess I shoulda picked my words better. I completely understand that there are several variables that come into play when comparing engines. It all comes down to the end application. But tell me, If you have a V-4 diesel against an I-4 diesel of the same injection type, cam, aspiration, displacement, et al, which would you buy? How about an I-8 against a V-8?

So mcmahonjr, did this or did this not answer your question? :D

(BTW, I am fully aware that none of this is personal. I'd be stupid if I took it that way.)

[mcmahonjr]

I would like to thank you for all your responses to my questions. From what I have read is that if you have room most mfr use "I" but if it is tight you us "V". Both types of engines seem to perform the same + or - a few things. Is that it in a nut-shell.

What I ment by the Cat question was that if CAT offerd an engine that would work in pickups (I could not find a truck engine that Cat makes that is not in a "I" configuration) as Cummins does would people buy it or if GM offerd the DMax or the CAT as engine choose which one would you buy?

I am asking the question to see how much of the "I" and "V" debate is a brand thing GM V-8 and D**** I-6.

[csimo]

I think CAT engines are great engines, but I wouldn't want one in my truck unless there were a NEW engine designed for our trucks.

#1 Even the smallest CAT truck engine weighs nearly twice as much as our engines.

#2 We would lose alot of drivability that we have come to expect. The CAT engines are not designed for the performance we have grown used to.

I'm NOT cutting down CAT engines at all, but they are not designed for such light duty applications as pickup trucks. Some large pusher motorhomes, and busses are the smallest practical application for CAT engines.

[Amianthus]

And that I totally agree with. We have a Cat 3126B in one of our firetrucks and it screams. Although, I'm not really crazy about the heui injection system, it still screams down the road. But, due to the sheer size and weight, it's not practical for a pickup.

I'm sure it can be made to work, but the truck would have to suffer major redesign to accomodate it.

[Colorado Kid]

mcmahonjr said: "(I could not find a truck engine that Cat makes that is not in a "I" configuration)"

I suggest then that you check this link.
http://www.caterpillar.com/cgi-bin/equipment_family.cgi?family=Off+Highway+Trucks&rgnid=NACD&prdgrpid=470

Every engine listed on that page is installed in a truck (of the off-highway variety) and has a V configuration. The 797 uses a 3524 which is a 103.6 Liter (6,316 cubic inches) :eek: V-24. An I-24 would sure be long! Each cylinder has just slightly more displacement than the entire engine of my '91. It's rated at 3211 Flywheel HP (net), but the max operating wieght of the truck is over 1.3 million pounds, so it better be powerful!

[mcmahonjr]

Colorado Kid those are not the trucks I am talking about. I was talking about Truck engins as in semi, 18 wheelers, not mine trucks. Try looking at these. I did not look at every one but the one I did look at were all "I"

http://www.caterpillar.com/products/engines_n_power_systems/spec_sheet_library/truck_engines/truck_engines.html

I under stand that the current Cat engins would not work as well as what is being used now, BUT if they did build one for LIGHT DUTY or MED DUTY like what Cummins has in the D**** would you buy a "I" or stick with the V-8 DMax?

[mcmahonjr]

I was thinking about those Marine engines, dont they turn a generator which powers the eletric engins to move the ship? I belive this also goes for some of those Off the Hwy Trucks (haveing electric engines powered by these V-12 -V-18) to move them? This would mean that more or less stress is put on the engine? (Like driveing) :confused: