Licensed to kill

13 hours ago, terry said:

I believe that is why you need the water pump housing, water pump and crank hub off the 673 engine, they are all shorter, you said you made the rear mounts, might have them to far one way , moving the engine back into the firewall?    terry

I do not know what is meant by "crank hub".

How much of a hurry are you??. I checked and I do have 2 and I need 1. I do not know the condition of the cores or the fan motors but the boxes are pretty good (need a little hammer/dolly work but not much). Of course I will want to keep the best one for my truck but to be honest, I don't think there os a WHOLE lot of difference in them. I suspect that they both will need new cores and maybe fan motors. I might not have time to play with them before fall now to see what is there. I am talking about the heaters that mount on the passenger side under the dash. I think I also have 2 that mount on the drivers side and attach to the steering column support. Where you wanting one of those as well?. 

Pretty sure I figured out where the problem lies. Not 100% sure HOW it happened or what needs to be done to fix it but at least I see where I have to work. I checked the front mount and compared it to a stock motor that is still in another chassis and found that the one that I installed (the E6) there is a gap of about 1"-2" from the mount to the front cover whereas the old stock one the mount is right up TO the front cover suggesting that the engine needs to go further back on the front mount. This will also require the balancer to go further on the crank or to will run into the rad support when the engine is moved ahead. I will have to pull the rad and lift the front of the motor, remove the balancer and push the mount further onto the cover then pull the engine ahead to bolt up the mount. Of course this means making new trans mounts again but that is pretty much par for the course. 

I will see if I have a good one and let you know. 

Sorry for the delayed response. I was gone to the mountains snowmobiling for the last trip of the season. I will look it over tomorrow and try to get some pics. I DID notice that he floor needs to be cut out a bit to clear the shifter for the main box and that is preventing the cab from moving forward but it looks like it is up against the motor anyways. 

What exactly do you need?

I used the original B61 front motor mount so the front of the engine pretty much HAS to be in the right/stock/original location. Also, I had to mount the rad as far forward as the mounts allow ( I think I may have shimmed it with a couple washers also) to get enough room between the harmonic balancer and the rad support to get a belt on. The original mounting on the model B was so close it was impossible to get the belts off between the balancer and the rad support. I had to move the rad about 3/16" forward to accommodate belt removal/install. I am hoping that the rad location adjustment won't create more issues than fitting the sheet metal. There was mention of water pump issues but I don't recall doing anything in that regard.

12 hours ago, Maddog13407 said:

nothin has to be done with the firewall... an E6 is a 237 is a 673 , is a 676 is a 300 , is a 300+, is a 711. all the same block. only thing needed to change from original engine is the front hub on the crank and the water pump has to be a 2 belt pulley one with short shaft. AND IF your using a double disc clutch it screws everything up. have done a bunch of these and there needs to be NO firewall modification

That was my understanding when I started this project but, even with the throttle linkage removed from the back of the engine block, the firewall is right up against the back of the head and the front cab bolts are an inch or two behind the mounts. 

Same B61 frame. Already made new (custom) trans mounts and had a new driveshaft made and used the original front engine mount from the B61 so the FRONT of the engine is exactly where the original 673 was so the E6 has to be longer 

.....seems to be the most common statement regarding my B61 project. Put the cab back on the chassis for summer storage and found that it doesn't fit. Apparently, the E6 is longer than the 673 (by a fair bit) so I will have to "massage" the firewall to get the cab back on. Not a big deal.....just more work. Since I have to rework the firewall anyway I will redesign it to accept the air to air intake plumbing to the left air cleaner that I am going to install. Looks like the shifter for the main might end up too far back to fit the existing opening in the floor as well so might have to deal with that as well. Still pretty minor "adjustments" compared to when I put a Mercedes diesel/4spd in a 1931 Ford model A. All part of the "fun". 

3 hours ago, EXCHIEF132 said:

Restoring same truck any parts help would be great , need exhaust manifold !

I am building one B61 out of two and have some parts available. Pretty much ALL driveline parts. Pretty sure I have a good exhaust manifold for a 673 NA (1959)

5 hours ago, mowerman said:

Besides you have a lot bigger engine you might not even have to drop any gears most of the time I only had the 237 … Bob 

I will, be VERY disappointed if I ever have to down shift for lack of power. My 2003 Dodge cummins/6spd pulls a local hill that is a mile long @ 6% and I only have to down shift one gear  pulling the same holiday trailer and the Mack has double the torque (1250 vs 600). While the TRUCK is heavier, it is not THAT much heavier. I don't even expect the SOUND of the engine to change let alone having to grab a gear. If am wrong I hope it is not by much. We shall see. I am equally curious about the mileage I can expect. I know that my 3406 CATS at high idle (1000-1200) burn around 1 US gallon per hour. My Mack will be turning 1250 RPM @ 60 MPH with a VERY light load. Of course that does not mean that I can expect to burn 1 gallon per hour so 60 MPG but even if it burns TRIPLE what it should burn at idle sitting still that would be 20 MPG. I don't think 15 MPG should be expecting too much. I dunno. 

22 hours ago, doubleclutchinweasel said:

  Just 'cause you have all those gears doesn't mean you have to use 'em!  But, they're there if you want them.

 

When my uncle ordered a new Pete in 1989 he got it with a 15 speed. I asked why he did not get the 18 and he said that he didn't;r want to shift that much. I told him just because it HAS them diesel;t mean you have to use them all every time, you can just drive it like a 15. He hadn't considered that. The logging trucks that my Dad drove had 10 and 4's. You certainly wouldn't want to go through all of those every time but he could always find the perfect gear for whatever he was doing. I am putting the twin stick 6 in my B61 but am hopeful that it will be a good choice. I will be running a 2.56 rear and only running bobtail or pulling my holiday trailer that weighs 4500lbs dry so, with the E6 350, it should dangle along quite well with only the 5 road speeds. As far as taking your time shifting, I already have to do that in my Model A ford so it should not be too bad. This is all conjecture on my part as I have only driven a 6 Spd once and that was when I drove the 1980 boom truck home. I did NOT like it screaming at 2100RPM but otherwise don't recall it being a killjoy to drive. With my 2.56 gears I will be cruising at 1250RPM @  60MPH in direct. 

23 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

You must get rain there if you have those fat tires on your sprayer there, ours and all the other one's around here have the skinny and tall tires. Nice stainless steel tank too, so much better than the plastic crap ones. 

How much weight you hauling when everything full and loaded? 

As seen in the picture with the truck full of water I am 42 MT (92,000 lbs) so not real heavy. I have upgraded my trailer to a tri-axle with 22.5's as the one in the pic with the 17.5's was always right at max load capacity and hard on tires. Interesting thing about the tires is that I no longer run the ones in the pic. I went bigger (taller AND wider) a few years ago. HUGE difference. My trailer is 12' wide and with the fat tires on I am 15' wide. I still run skinnies for late season (when the crops are tall) Here is a pic I took when I was changing the 600 65R 38's over to the 710 70R 42's that I run now. I had to punt the fenders to get the big tires to fit. 

I dunno, he had to pull ahead once, B+😀. 

8 minutes ago, Vladislav said:

My understanding is those shields were important when seals were not efficient enough. My 1945 Mack truck had hub seals made of leather. Modern stuff wouldn't allow any greas to go out if all was centered well during machining so my guess you will be Ok with what you've done.

That was what I figured as well. Of course the hubs were an oil bath on the original truck but I chose to grease the bearings anyways partly because, even though the seals are new, they were never designed to hold in oil so I didn't know how they would fair as oil bath, and I didn't see the point of oil bath anyway for the few hundred miles this thing will see. 

11 minutes ago, Vladislav said:

For $300 I think you could cut the edge of the drum by an angle grinder. Half an hour or so to cut and 20 minutes to even up the edge.

Being where I am I sure would bring drums to a machine shop. But I doubt it would cost more than US $30 for each drum to cut.

Problem with the angle grinder idea is that it had to be stepped down to go into the back plate so there is 1/2" on the very end that is about 17.5" OD going g into the back plate then it steps up to the big OD of about 18.5" or so. The reason that it took so long is that, being such a large diameter AND having to hold from the inside with the chuck jaws, (and perhaps due to the fact that it is cast) it had to be turned very slow or it would chatter. When I took them in, the machinist estimated 45 minutes for the first one and 30 minutes for the second but was concerned about the aforementioned issues. It ended up taking 2 hours and he rushed as quickly as he could. He felt bad and offered to take the difference out of his salary but it is what it is. I don't expect anyone too work for free or at a loss. 

Truth is I WANTED to stay with the daytons but converting the rear was a no go so I decided to do the front to budds instead. 

3 minutes ago, Freightrain said:

 

 

It basically is just making the old bearing spacing fit the newer hubs.

 

That is all it is. Pretty simple. 

BTW, I forgot to mention, there was what appeared to be a grease shield that was bolted to the backing plate that the original hubs went into. I suspect that it was there so any gease that escaped from the seal would not get on the shoes (at least I think of any other reason for it). I had to eliminate that as the new hub was too big to fit inside it. I contemplated making a new one that would clear the larger hub but decided it wasn't worth the effort.