The Stovebolt Site Forums The Parking Lot Big Bolts cummins engines

Recently acquired a 53 COE and want to do a 4 door stretch project. Would like to start the process with a new frame and cummin engine and keep engine under the cab. What can you tell me about the various offerings. Would like to be able to cruise at ease around 70 mph but able to kick it up to 80 if needed. Usually will be pulling a trailer around 7000 pounds, but someday might go up to about 10,000.

Any advice on drive trains would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Robert

As far as Cummins engines go, I have a 4 cyl. turboed, two 8.3's and two big ones.I like all of them.For what you are proposing, I would look in a different direction.Go buy an International truck with a 360 or preferably the 466 IH engine and you will have your whole frame/powertrain sorted out.I have a 96 IH 4700 series with a 466 electronic hooked up to a 7 speed trans.It is about250hp. and nice on the road speed wise.An International engine is every bit as good as a Cummins.Just not as much talk about them cause not to many people have agricultural ties anymore, which is where these engines grew up.Jim.

I too think the IH engine and chassis is a better fit for your desired outcome.

While a Dodge truck chassis could work, that's COE has a lot of wind to push, then go 70-80, add a trailer, and you may be disappointed with the lack of power and or poor response.
The 5.9 Cummins engines can be turned up a fair amount reliably and cheaply because of all the Dodge diesel aftermarket goodies available. Still probably not the best option for your working truck.

The other part that may not be so good about using a pickup chassis is the front axle and suspension is just up to the task of holding the engine (some older ones not even that) then you add a big COE body and an extra 2 doors right over the front axle. Not a recipe for success.

The 5.9 Cummins was, and may still be, offered in medium duty trucks, like a Ford f750, and some small Freightliner and Sterling trucks. This setup would offer a sturdy frame, axles, and great hydraulic disc brakes, perhaps even air brakes. Still will have a slight;y underpowered engine, it will probably do the job, but nothing to brag about.

Part of your conversion needs to be serious brakes to stop that big truck and trailer at speed. Stepping up to a medium duty truck chassis, and or axles will solve that.

I have done a few axle conversions and a diesel engine swaps check out my pictures below.

Grigg

We have a 145 school buses with Cummins, Cat, IHC, and the Mercedes engines all of them hooked to the Allison automatic. The older Cummins with out electronics is a good reliable engine, under powered 190hp for a loaded 65 passenger school bus. You are lucky to run 60mph. The 3116 Cats are the same way only slower. Our 466 IHC are trouble free and pull pretty good even though they are 190hp. Now the '08 Cummins will get out and run, its slow getting there, but will hold its own on the road at any speed. Mercedes are very reliable and fuel effecent, the 3126 is Ok but I wouldn't want one.

I would stick with IHC due to the chassis and brakes. You just can't hurt them, and believe me, a school bus driver will hurt anything! The Freightliners would be a good choice with a Cat or Mercedes engine, although they are harder to work on. Anybody with a slight mechanical knowledge can work on a 466. Joe

I think using a modern pickup frame should be fine. Even with my '98 dodge 5.9 cummins I haul around 18,000 lbs without any trouble. The engine has good power and as long as the trailer has brakes there is no problem stopping. However, if you are planing on hauling every day I would probably go for an international chassis as well. The 466 has been around forever and is a great engine. The new 360's aren't bad either so long as you aren't pulling it out of a ford pickup.

AN 8.3L cummin's would do you fine. . .I;m a cummins fan Even I would say the 4700 or 4900 IHC twith the DT-466 backed with the spicer 7 spd is about unstoppable in pulling power and relaibility. . . .
I had 2 4700's and 4900 tandum. . .
Best dump truck's I ever ran way better than Ford,Dodge and Chevy's cobbled together GAS engined gutless wounder's. . .
tho the IHC dumper's with the 345's and 392's even out worked the BIG THREE! a bit slow tho. . .

anywho I think the 466 IHC or the 8.3L cummins either will do you fine if you get the budget the C-7 cat is a great little work horse i'm told as long as they will fit under your cab. . .

basicly your putting a new truck under your old one ? or just a moderen power plant in an OLD cab/chassie ?

Mike

At this stage in the project, not sure which what is the best to go. Original thought is old cab/new chassis. Just lloking for advice from those who may have done it before and which way they would prefer to do it if they did it over.

Thanks,

Robert

I moved this thread over here from the Engine & Driveline Forum where it was originally posted hoping that it would receive more input.

I'm building a late molde chassie and drive line and mounting an old cab on it. . .

I'm Restoring my 62 K-3000 but i'm building clone of it so to speak. . .with a late modle 4x4 dually diesel chassie under the old cab !

Mike

one thing to consider with the 53 COE is the front end is pretty narrow compared to any newer chassis.

What this means is if you use a newer chassis the front axle and wheels will be a good bit to wide.

Also, I hope you use some real tires, about 9R22.5", an AD COE just looks silly with 16 or 19.5 wheels.

Front axles can be narrowed, but to make it easier it bolt back in it would be helpful if you used the original frame (already narrow). If you narrow a front axle to fit, but try to put it back on the new (wide) frame it will create a whole bunch of other problems to solve.

Grigg

I won't comment on the Diesel motors, since I don't know much about them.

I was entertained by Grigg's comment about pushing that big box through the air at 70 to 80. I'd suggest taking that comment to heart. I hauled a COE on a trailer behind my big gas powered pickup a while back.

While I was still easily able to run 70 instead of my usual terrible fuel mileage, it went about 3/4 as far on a gallon as it had with a similar weight but shorter load behind it. That big box sticking up there made a lot of difference!