One for the screamer buffs

Cam in them or as anchors???

As far as I know there has never been an inline 6/53.
I heard Detroit dropped the 8V53 because its power rating was pretty much the same as a 6V71 or 6/71.
8V53's were popular as boat engines as well.

This is what I heard, although more in reference to 6v92s. 8v53s seem to have less in common with the rest of the 53s than anything else in the line up - the manual pretty much makes an exception in almost everything for the 8v53. Well maybe I exaggerate but quite a bit.

I'd be very confident in saying no 6-53 in line was ever built by detroit. Likewise a 6-92. Which I find a mildly surprising as the 6-71 certainly had its place, so why didn't they offer the 92 as inline? And the 53 for that matter too? And was the 110 only a 6 cyl inline?

Could you build a 6-92 from a 6-71 core using 6-92 components? Maybe the blower would be the issue, although this could be partially compensated for the right turbo? Also maybe the head wouldn't flow enough, might be hard to correct, plus the crank bearings...

Wedgy
Gudday M8

RE: Could you build a 6-92 from a 6-71 core

Guess n U could
wiff time n munee on your side


the earl eye 8V-92 had much the same block az a 8V-71 they made the holes biggr so the 92 series liner kits would slide in
thiz earl eye V: had problems of not enuff meat around the liners n twaz hard to keep the oil n water seperated
the L8R Silver 92 series had more meat around the liners to prevent thiz problem

with the screemers it was possable to join the blocks to gether or add motors to a drive to get more HP
16,24,32 or more cylinders wiff the added bonus of sweet muzic

LOL





















LOL

cya

I've got a couple of GM 671s in allis HD19 dozers ( 1 is ramped up to 230hp) the next series allis chalmers HD20 ( 1950-53?) used the 6-110 GM along with I think some scrapers & as previously mentioned rail cars

IF
we had one 6/71 built for standard use in ,,,say,,,,a dozer,

Then another 6/71 built for standard use in ,,,,,say,,,,,,a truck,

The dozer horse power would be on a continuous rating ,therefore would be lower

than the truck horse power which would be on an intermittent rating .........................

Would that be right...????????????
................Billy..................

Check out the angle on steering uni, I'm guessing it'd be a bit notchy-



Billy, the motors Kenny has are the old 2 valve motors, they are lower horsepower.
The constant load motors they usually have a higher horsepower.
As in boats, the power ratings are a lot higher.

The torque converters in the old allis dozers help give the GMs some extra low down grunt

...g'day bigcam .. have you ever seen those ancient mid 1960's "T" buckets that had huge horsepower and absolute shite steering (steering column straight through the floor!) ...bloody death traps if ever there was one....

...that fancy V16 has about the same crap steering geometry attached !! : : :

BC,
I found this interesting.

www.frontierpower.com/library/makingsense.htm
............Billy...............

Bit off topic I know, but harking back to the 110 series engines, a bit of research finds them confined to the 6 cylinder engine (ICBW). Maybe it was a case of simply trying to narrow the range a bit.
Didn't Detroit's do the same with the series 60's? I see they have enlarged the series 60 out to 14 litre, discontinuing the 12.7 and 11 litre engines (was the 8.2 the same family??)
As a general question, these days what seems to be the most popular engine specced in new vehicles ordered in OZ? In US sourced vehicles I mean. Cat, Cummins or Detroit?
Dave_64