ddestruel,
First, let me commend you on building quite the F-350. You undoubtedly have spent countless man hours and a load of money on this vehicle, it's very nice.
Second, I tend to agree with you on your views and what you have said about the 5.9L Cummins engine. Cummins has been around for ever and over the years has come out with some good power. Forty years ago (when I was a kid) Cummins was the "accepted" truck engine of the day. As a kid I watched my Dad use Cummins 200s, 220s, 250s, and the big old 262s. Of course as technology has progressed, they have continued building more and more power and here we are today.


>Similar to how in big trucks an I-6 CAT 475HP will out pull
>a Mack V-8 550HP on a hill with less shifting and at a lower
>RPM=less fuel used, but the Mack will run away from the Cat
>once it can wind itself out especially on the flats. The
>Mack can Rev an extra 1000RPMs and maintain power where as
>the Cat requires using a smaller window of power.

My family uses the I-6 Caterpillar 3406E C-15 engines rated at 550 hp. It is true that this engine does it's best work between 1300 and 1700 RPMs, however, it will run up to about 2200 RPM if you want. The problem then is the fuel mileage has now deteriorated to around 4.50 MPG.
The Mack V-8 that you are referring to must be the E9. I do not know of another that Mack makes that is capable of generating that much power. At any rate, this is a new engine and has a max. RPM of 2500. The old Mack V-8s (in the 1970s) were rated 350hp. and turned again, a max. of 2500 RPM. They were coupled with a 5 speed transmission and you pulled them way down to around 1100 or 1200 RPM. before shifting. In the late 70s early 80s, I drove a Kenworth that had a V-8 Caterpillar 3408 rated at 450 hp. While it is true that the V-8s do operate at a higher RPM, I believe you are overstating that the Mack is operating 1000 more RPMs than the Caterpillar. If the Mack engine would stay togther, can you imagine what the fuel mileage would be with this engine working at 3000 RPMs???

Finally, I think that all will agree that it depends on what the gears are that makes the truck "run out" top end. Whether it is a Mack V-8 or a Caterpillar I-6 it depends on the ratio in the rear ends and the transmissions involved.

> Just my .02 but i try not to call any motor a POS since
>each is designed for a purpose. And each driver wants
>something different and drives differently.

Ditto!!!

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-Jul-02 AT 09:11 PM (EST)]I will stand corrected, the old mack in our yard was rebuilt and does run up to about 2800 is where she falls off, i was always told that it was 550, never questioned it because i only used it around town. Your right i am overstating it, also I let the old two stroke Detroits influence my opinion when i wrote that, initially and never thought twice about correcting that exageration.
Thank you for the compliment on the truck, actually it did not cost as much as one might think. I did alot of wheeling and dealing to get parts, money and pieces all together using what old parts i had from the truck as partial leverage. Thank you again though i am proud of it. and good job pickup on my lax use of information.

Dusty

https://www.ford-trucks.com/user_gallery/displaythumbnail.php?&photoid=4039&.jpg
https://www.ford-trucks.com/user_gallery/displaythumbnail.php?&photoid=474&.jpg

Why Buy new when you can build and tailor it cheaper?
F-350 4x4 ext cab Short Bed Green Monster, it is now Sporting a 300HP 715lb/ft Dyno rated 5.9L 12v Cummins diesel w/ NV4500 5spd and custom NP205 ford T-case w/ rear spicer 1410 yoke, Converted to Dana 80 with 3.54 gears using the 41 spline pinion and 1410 U-Joints, Power-Lok equipt Dana 60 front, 33's on 16x8" Outlaw II's. (Used to have)205000 miles, Mass air 460 w/ performance heads and a E40d to 5spd conversion and Doug Thorleys. Old EFI 460 @10 MPG to the 12 V @ 23.2 MPG @ 75 MPH and loving it.
My other toy is a '69 CJ-5 354 Hemi 4 spd 4.88's 32x12.50 MThompsons w/ power-lok 44 rear.