903 Cummins performance - In the Day

They should have got hold of the boys on the Central Coast..
They would have shown em how to get em revving..

chocs

so is cummins still building the 903? whale

Fascinating stuff, its interesting how markets follow completely different trends. I Israel Cummins V8s never got any love, possibly because of the terrible reputation the 903's predecessor, the VT gained. Those were fitted into 20 specially designed Autocars which pulled potash roadtrains from the Dead Sea to other parts of the country. They were available as 400, 430 and 460 hp versions and were so prone to failures even in the lower hp rating that the operator replaced all of them with 335s after only two years! After that no one in Israel would touch a big Cummins V8 with a 20 feet pole. Then we had 555s in D-Series English Fords (assembled in Israel) and Dodges and those were crap also. The Mack V8 had a better reputation but really the straight 6 Cummins was king. I posted below some pics of the VT. Where it did work was in the Israeli "Super Shermans" (it replaced the Ford GAA they came with) but like was mentioned above, a tank engine is judged by the number of hours it runs...





Obviously Cummins improved the big V8s sufficiently if they succeeded under Aussie conditions.

Newto lets not forget all the V10 MANs thst were repowered by VT 903s.

People who used to drive MAN V10s in Israel said they never felt they had the advertised power (450 and 550 hp), and that they did not seem like a huge improvement over the DM800 Macks (with 350hp V8 and Duplex g/boxes) they were supposed to replace in IDF service... It is quite telling that the IDF kept (and keeps) the DMs in reserve to this day... The MANs (well, really Austrian

Standen, I drove an 8V71T this harvest, and both the owner and I reckon it is maybe?? 10hp better than a n/a 903. Also, to your question, an old interstate driver told me years ago, that a 290 Cummins will give a 350 GM a hell of a fright, he said it won't quite beat it, but it will give it a fright! I believe his statement to be very accurate. During harvest i was quite aware of a mates 335 leaving me for dead! And, as a comparison, a good 290 will really put the pressure on a 903, there isn't much in it. The 903 is a beautifully smooth engine to drive, not to mention the sound!!!

I remember someone telling me years ago how his 1976 K125 with a 903T (rated@350hp) wasn't as quite as fast accelerating as an 8V71T, but it would out-pull it on a hill. I also remembering him saying it would also out-pull an NTC350 in the hills as well. He was never one to let the truth stand in the way of a good story and, comparing the torque ratings of each engine at that time makes me think the 903T 350 would probably trail the field? The book I have here says (dated July 1976) that the 903T developed 1092nm@1700rpm, the 8V71T developed 1308nm@1600rpm and the NTC350 developed 1365nm@1500rpm, whatever the nm's are in ft/lbs, but I do recall the 8V71T being 960ft/lbs.

Hi, If I could put my little bit in about 903 Cummins engines. We ran a Ford Louisville with a n/a 903 and 10 spd roadranger on Sydney container work from the early 90s until the end of 2005 (I still have it although its a garden ornament at the moment ). After an accident in it around 2000 we got a Kenworth S2 with a silver 6v92 Detroit and 13 spd which I ran for about 18 months until we decided to rebuild the Louisville. From memory there wasn't very much difference in performance or economy. The only difference was you had to work the GM a bit more than the 903. I was a bit sorry to see the S2 go as it was a good truck to drive as well as a good looker. The S2 was the truck that crashed into the baddies car in the Mission Impossible movie with Tom Cruise that was filmed in Sydney. We had to cut the rollcage out of the cab before we could register it.