Was A Cummins An Option For An H-63?

[Tony Ingram]

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

[b61fred]

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

[Bollweevil]

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.

[Rob]

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

[other dog]

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

But Joe Mustang is a legendary figure, just like B.C. Fry. They could do anything.

[vanscottbuilders]

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, flywheel

and bellhousing hardware.

It develops a lot more torque, and it does so at a much lower rpm range, making it a lot easier

to 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

[HK Trucking]

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, flywheel

and bellhousing hardware.

It develops a lot more torque, and it does so at a much lower rpm range, making it a lot easier

to 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

I 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?

.

[Rob]

But Joe Mustang is a legendary figure, just like B.C. Fry. They could do anything.

As is Tyrone Malone.

Rob

[GearheadGrrrl]

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.

[Tony Ingram]

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.

[HK Trucking]

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.

[Bollweevil]

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."

[Rob]

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