Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Outbehindthebarn

Do the 4 valves run better than the 2 valves?

Recommended Posts

The Mustang H model has a 1693TA and I had it dyno'd showing 495hp at the driver. It has a modified pump and turbo on it. I have never driven an engine that is as smooth running yet sounds like ball bearings on the tops of the pistons. It has tremendous torque and it seem like the heavier and harder the pull the more grunt I get from it. Just love driving it.

The more it rattles the harder it will pull!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drove a Sterling with a C12 rated at 425hp, but I didn't dare refer to it as a 425 or 4 1/2. It just didn't seem right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolling back the clock where I worked I started out with Cummins in COEs (Transtar, KW, Ford W's) which ran well, then Macks (R, U and F's) with 237s then the Ford Louisville with Cummins then Cat. The company was licensed for 78,000 and we routinely were over that. Company paid for the overweights before drivers became liable! The one thing I've not heard anybody say is the longevity of the engines. We were overhauling the 237's at 250,000 to 300,000, the Cats at 700,000 to 800,000, but many of the Cummins were well over 1,000,000 miles and still trucking when they were sold to buy new. I love the way the 2v Macks would pull and run but they were small engines that Mack got a lot of power out of but when dogged (no pun intended) they wore out quickly. I was young then and loved the Macks but when the Fords with power steering came along, the Macks and for that matter all the COE's without power steering became just a memory! Although many drivers were loyal to the Macks because they were the best driving on the open road, very stable, you knew what they were going to do, just point them straight and go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot one other thing that from the company's stand point, the Macks were expensive. They could buy a Ford 9000 with a Cat for about 10,000 to 12,000 less than a Mack. When you have around 200 tractors and 3,000 trailers, that difference was huge!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only getting 250-300K out of a 237,what kind of abuse and neglect were they seeing?I've seen many go 500-700K and at times nearly a mil without an overhaul!CATS were a true high miler also.Cumaparts while a good engine had nowhere near the longevity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very true about the 8-71! We had some at Colonial that had 305 hp? it was long ago, but the CCC with the R-700 cab and CCC frame and the long nose Internationals had 348 hp on the valve cover! When I asked a mac. from Bruce Diesel he told me that the piston as well as the injector where diff. then the standard 8-71 (Bruce diesel was on RT 17 at the time and did a lot of our work at Sand & Stone) they became Atlantic DDA and now S & S

BULLHUSK

There's a spec sheet online but I've read this stuff so many times I have much of it memorized. The 8V71 w/ C65 injectors was rated at 318 hp @ 60 degrees F and 304 hp @ 85 degrees F. There was also an 8V71TT rated at 305 hp but that was the Fuel Squeezer version, governed at around 1900 rpm. I don't know how common they would be in vocational applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had an 82 cruiseliner also with 350 2 valve real strong engine,,,next one was a U model,,,with a 4 valve 300 seemed to do alrite but nothing like the 350.i thought the 4 valve would make up for the 50 less horsepower but it didnt..and it sounded like shit.lol.bob

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran a 350 2valve, it will out pull an e7 427 any day

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 237's we had were serviced very well as were the rest, but all the trucks had to work very hard and were hot seated. They ran night and day. The 237's pulled great and were about equal to the NTC290's and 300's in pulling, but none could compare to the Cat's. We all have our stories and experiences and no 2 will be the same, but for me the facts are the Cummins outlasted all of them. The Cats were the most fun to drive and felt like endless power, although they had problems with oil coolers leaking antifreeze into the oil and lost a few engines because of it. I have a friend who drives for UPS with a CH and an E7, and it has around 1.3 million miles on the engine untouched, so that does speak to Mack's longevity. It may be possible that our Macks wore out prematurely because they had 5sps and you had to take them to the governor to shift and then they lugged in the next gear. All the Cats and Cummins had 9 or 10 spds. The 237's when they got to around 250,000 300,000 had blowby rolling out the breathers. That is one of the reasons they left Mack because of the initial cost of the truck and short service life of the engine. They used to have their own shop and did full rebuilds. They could rebuild cheaper than buying one from Mack. Cummins or Cat, but still cost a lot not to mention the downtime. They kept a rebuilt engine of each instock and would swap a bad one out, but still the truck was out of service about a week. Toward the end of the last of the Mack F's they started outfiting a few with NTC290's and 10spds to get more service life out of the trucks that weren't that old and they were fun to drive! They usually kept a truck for 10 years, but those days are over as they are now all Penske leased Cascadia's and get rid of them at 500,000 and have all DD15's or DD13's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 237's we had were serviced very well as were the rest, but all the trucks had to work very hard and were hot seated. They ran night and day. The 237's pulled great and were about equal to the NTC290's and 300's in pulling, but none could compare to the Cat's. We all have our stories and experiences and no 2 will be the same, but for me the facts are the Cummins outlasted all of them. The Cats were the most fun to drive and felt like endless power, although they had problems with oil coolers leaking antifreeze into the oil and lost a few engines because of it. I have a friend who drives for UPS with a CH and an E7, and it has around 1.3 million miles on the engine untouched, so that does speak to Mack's longevity. It may be possible that our Macks wore out prematurely because they had 5sps and you had to take them to the governor to shift and then they lugged in the next gear. All the Cats and Cummins had 9 or 10 spds. The 237's when they got to around 250,000 300,000 had blowby rolling out the breathers. That is one of the reasons they left Mack because of the initial cost of the truck and short service life of the engine. They used to have their own shop and did full rebuilds. They could rebuild cheaper than buying one from Mack. Cummins or Cat, but still cost a lot not to mention the downtime. They kept a rebuilt engine of each instock and would swap a bad one out, but still the truck was out of service about a week. Toward the end of the last of the Mack F's they started outfiting a few with NTC290's and 10spds to get more service life out of the trucks that weren't that old and they were fun to drive! They usually kept a truck for 10 years, but those days are over as they are now all Penske leased Cascadia's and get rid of them at 500,000 and have all DD15's or DD13's.

all very interesting I have read about problems with the early maxidynes that had the wrong bolts fitted to the crank bearings and one operator who ran only Mack complained to Mack Australia about this and when Mack Australia wouldnt come to the party they were the last Macks they bought after years of buying Macks and lots of them

In Australia on heavy work Cats have bearing changed at 400,000 km they pull like a train but the bottom ends arent real strong Big Cam Cummins seam to go over the 1 millon km fairly commonly as do the older Mack motors

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we ALL have stories. As for my case, I DO know the difference between an A model cat and a B model cat. Both trucks had similar trannys. Mack had 3.85 and the cat had 3.90 ratio same size tires. The Mack had a lot more get up and go. Like I said earlier, on a long pull, say like I88 from the NY Thruway down to Binghamton, NY. Then the cat would pull past the mack. But never did get away from it.

Yes its a common mistake that all 3406 cats are considered to be 425 hp. Just like folks will tell you that an 8V71 Detroit is automatically a 318 hp. We have several 8V71's and none of em are 318 hp.

True that, like not all 6-71s are 238s , something a lot of people seem to assume.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...