Idi performance???
Postmaster
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,594
Likes: 2
From: Southern Oregon USA
im not sure because i dont have one but i would think a 6.9 or 7.3 can pull anything the old cummins or dmax or powerstroke can pull wouldnt it and thats all that matters is if you can pull what you need pulled thier are blue ovals and izuzus out there makin as much power as them cummins too theres just a lot more cummins with big power
Jason
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 21,285
Likes: 15
From: Nutter Fort, WV
IDI Crankcase differences
Cylinder bore - 6.9 = 4.00" 420 Cu.In.
Cylinder bore - 7.3 = 4.11" 445 Cu.In.
Stroke for both - 4.18"
5.9 Cummins
The engine displaces 359 cubic inches (5883 cc) with a
4.02-inch (102.1 mm) bore
4.72-inch (119.9 mm) stroke
Notice the longer stroke on the Cummins, that longer stroke makes it easier to make more torque at lower RPM's.
Combustion gasses have longer to push on the piston and since the stroke is longer the side offset is greater so the gasses have more leverage on the crank at mid stroke.
Cylinder bore - 6.9 = 4.00" 420 Cu.In.
Cylinder bore - 7.3 = 4.11" 445 Cu.In.
Stroke for both - 4.18"
5.9 Cummins
The engine displaces 359 cubic inches (5883 cc) with a
4.02-inch (102.1 mm) bore
4.72-inch (119.9 mm) stroke
Notice the longer stroke on the Cummins, that longer stroke makes it easier to make more torque at lower RPM's.
Combustion gasses have longer to push on the piston and since the stroke is longer the side offset is greater so the gasses have more leverage on the crank at mid stroke.
Moderator
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 56,966
Likes: 2,728
From: Virginia
An inline design is also stronger on the bottom end, because it does not have shared journals on the crankshaft like a v8. Each piston rod has it's own journal with a main bearing on each side of it.
Postmaster
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,724
Likes: 0
From: Clarksburg WV
I don't see many ditching the 302 to go with a 2.3 because of the stouter bottom end components. They can make great power for their displacement, but the best reasoning for using them is to meet a weight or class displacement requirement.
The 347 I originally built for my Bronco (budget, home brewed stroker, near stock bottom end with offset ground crank) made well north of 400 hp on a stock '69 block. I never had any worries of grenading the bottom end or block, even spinning it to 7500 RPM. Guess I was just lucky
Jason
The 347 I originally built for my Bronco (budget, home brewed stroker, near stock bottom end with offset ground crank) made well north of 400 hp on a stock '69 block. I never had any worries of grenading the bottom end or block, even spinning it to 7500 RPM. Guess I was just lucky
Jason
I do know that a 302 block will go "splitsville" at a certain hp figure without a girdle, I just can't remember what it is.Duh, no average joe would swap a 302 for a 2.3 for the reason you said because, well...that would just be stupid, and a lot of unnecessary work.
But, I know guys that have put **** tons of power through a completely stock 2.3 turbo and not hurt anything in it. I personally know a guy that pitched a 351W to swap in a 200,000 mile 2.3 Turbo, all stock. He applied 20+ psi to the 2.3 and ran 10's. That's pretty good for a red-headed step child engine.
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Wow I've missed a lot. This is all great info thanks to everybody. I just gotta get the truck here. Ha. Few more weeks...
I gotta get rid of the bronco because the rust gods are reclaiming it.
I'd love a Cummins but I couldn't deal with the inferior build quality of Chrysler products. It's a shame that the only two good things about the truck, Cummins engine and Infinity stereo, chrysler did no engineering on. I love em but, sorry.
I wanna stick with the IDI concept and the Ricardo combustion.
Hopefully my friend with the truck and I will come to terms on a price so I can get rolling. Thanks a lot.
I gotta get rid of the bronco because the rust gods are reclaiming it.
I'd love a Cummins but I couldn't deal with the inferior build quality of Chrysler products. It's a shame that the only two good things about the truck, Cummins engine and Infinity stereo, chrysler did no engineering on. I love em but, sorry.
I wanna stick with the IDI concept and the Ricardo combustion.
Hopefully my friend with the truck and I will come to terms on a price so I can get rolling. Thanks a lot.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
techningeer
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
8
Jun 28, 2013 12:30 PM
parkerparkerm
1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
17
Jun 2, 2013 10:59 PM
lio45
Pre-Power Stroke Diesel (7.3L IDI & 6.9L)
10
Aug 3, 2012 03:52 PM
