1992 7.4 Oil?

[Erik the Awful]

Just for you man,read it and weep.

300 hp / 666 lb/ft / 1695 lbs

If I want torque, I'll stick with playing with my big block Cadillacs.

365 hp / 535 lb/ft / 595 lbs

Have you ever put hands on a 6V53? They're massive. You might be able to tweak the blower, but you're going to need it just overcome the additional weight of your frame. You're also going to need bigger brakes, stronger steering components, etc.

 

[Scooterwrench]

300 hp / 666 lb/ft / 1695 lbs

If I want torque, I'll stick with playing with my big block Cadillacs.

365 hp / 535 lb/ft / 595 lbs

Have you ever put hands on a 6V53? They're massive. You might be able to tweak the blower, but you're going to need it just overcome the additional weight of your frame. You're also going to need bigger brakes, stronger steering components, etc.

Yeah those old 68-70 472's were pretty stout. Throw some ported 500 heads on it,pour some CAM 2 in it and hang the f*** on.

6V53TT all aluminum,look it up. Some come in 400hp versions right out of the box.
If I were to run that motor my problem is gonna be building a drivetrain that can withstand it and a frame that won't turn into an instant corkscrew. I'm building a daily driver,street truck with as much cool factor as I can get without sacrificing dependability so I'm going to shoot for something a little tamer. Probably won't run a turbo and work the ports and blower for just a leettle more.

Seems you're wanting to shoot for big HP. If you're 1/4 mile racing you're not getting into the HP until you're at the end of the track,it's the torque that got you there. An engine that makes massive torque at the starting line is going to hand you your ass before your fast revving HP monster gets off the line.

 

[Scooterwrench]

If it's flat tappet look through this thread, I'm leaning towards the valvoline VR1 for mine but I'd like to find a 5w30 for winter.

I don't know how cold it gets where you are but the VR1 10w-30 should be light enough especially in a 454.

 

[Scooterwrench]

Your comment about dropping a Detroit Diesel into your truck reminded me of this video:

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Super sanitary machine. And starting at ~ the 3:15 mark there's that unmistakable siren song...

Riding around in something like that would turn everyday errands into making memories
that would stay with you a long, long time. Nice.

Think a 4L80-E could withstand one of these?

 

[454cid]

Think a 4L80-E could withstand one of these?

Read the Detroit section of the 4btswaps forum. Or maybe a transmission section. It's my understanding that the GM transmissions dont generate enough fluid pressure at commercial diesel rpms so they slip and burn up.

 

[Scooterwrench]

Read the Detroit section of the 4btswaps forum. Or maybe a transmission section. It's my understanding that the GM transmissions dont generate enough fluid pressure at commercial diesel rpms so they slip and burn up.

Thanks for that,it was enlightening. May have to use my Allison,probably gonna need some weight farther back anyway.

 

[Pinger]

Mazda has a finger in the 2T pie also...

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Scooterwrench]

Mazda has a finger in the 2T pie also...

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

It don't count,still has a valvetrain.

 

[Road Trip]

Yeah those old 68-70 472's were pretty stout. Throw some ported 500 heads on it,pour some CAM 2 in it and hang the f*** on.

6V53TT all aluminum,look it up. Some come in 400hp versions right out of the box.
If I were to run that motor my problem is gonna be building a drivetrain that can withstand it and a frame that won't turn into an instant corkscrew. I'm building a daily driver,street truck with as much cool factor as I can get without sacrificing dependability so I'm going to shoot for something a little tamer. Probably won't run a turbo and work the ports and blower for just a leettle more.

Seems you're wanting to shoot for big HP. If you're 1/4 mile racing you're not getting into the HP until you're at the end of the track,it's the torque that got you there. An engine that makes massive torque at the starting line is going to hand you your ass before your fast revving HP monster gets off the line.

Although it would be far-fetched to actually get one of these to work in a truck,
nevertheless I wanted to share the following -- the big brother V12 version really
sings a snappy song:

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

We are so used to today's high output/low rpm diesels that it's easy to think that
they can only work in that mode. And I realize that a 2-stroke sounds like a 4-stroke
revving twice as fast. And that a V12 sounds the same as a V8 with it's crank spinning
50% faster. So the rpm at the flywheel doesn't really match the promise of the sound track.

Nevertheless, the sound track is cool & unique. And it's throttle response is impressive. And finally,
it's 100% mechanical. No spark ignition, no computer, no closed loop, no sensors, no electrical.
(Even more so with the ones equipped with the compressed air starter. :0)

Fun thread!

PS: I always liked the poppers on top of the exhaust on the old trucks, ever since I was a kid...

 

[Pinger]

The valve gear is the problem when it comes to scaling down 2T. Fine when it's a huge ship engine turning 80-100rpm (to suit the prop without a reduction gearbox - no reverse gear required either - just stop the engine and reverse its direction) but not so good at the engine speeds required for road transportation. Not merely a case of running the camshaft at twice the speed it would turn in a 4T, but managing valve acceleration/deceleration when a valve has to open and close in around 130-170 crankshaft degrees. That's a 4T cam profile and a real limitation on a 2T. Which is why using ports controlled by the piston offers more scope and if homogenously charged, uni-flow scavenging is still required and best achieved by opposed piston engines - or split cylinder engines to avoid pairing of crankshafts.

2T in sizes larger than outboard motors have invariably been diesels as air lost to the exhaust port carries no fuel and is even beneficial to scavenging efficiency and turbo cooling but is one of the reasons that 2T has a poor rep. Data for 'air work' - the energy required to scavenge the cylinder is hard to come by (though blower data isn't) and what does exist compares 2T and 4T and finds in favour of the 4T. This is misleading though on two counts. One, the comparison is at full load and for road use that isn't all the time and the air work for 2T at low loads reduces significantly. Secondly, the air supplied for the diesel is typically of a volume greater than the cylinder's (by a factor of 1.2 typically). Were it homogenously charged not only would excess air be unnecessary, the actual delivery ratio in terms of cylinder volumes would be closer to 0.65-0.7 which is not much more than half of what the diesel requires.
I don't doubt that over the years engineers have glanced at the data and quickly concluded that the 4T was preferable but if considering homogenous charging (and we should as direct injection of fuel for spark ignition fails to properly atomise the fuel and with diesel, slow combustion will be a limiting factor in rpm and hence power) they should have thought it through more thoroughly. And, heeded the warnings that 4T was always going to struggle when NOx emissions were legislated against.