79jasper
Chickenhawk
Those sound better then the 24v. My old boss had one with a six speed. It was fun rowing gears with the windows down and having the sounds bounce of buildings.
why you can throw stupid power easily at a cummins and have to work at a IDI......
- Thread starter towcat
- Start date
Those sound better then the 24v. My old boss had one with a six speed. It was fun rowing gears with the windows down and having the sounds bounce of buildings.
79jasper
Chickenhawk
Common rail...
Dave 001
Full Access Member
Thanks.
Goofyexponent
Mentally Unstable..
I plan on going with a mid 1990's 12 valve with a P7100, and cramming that into my 1994 F250 CCLB 2wd. I don't know whether to back it with a 5 speed for mechanical simplicity, or an automatic for comfort.
5" bullhaulers with the smallest muffler I can find, an HX40 turbo and some big downpiping with a good intercooler for me...WITH cowl induction intake.! I mean let's be honnest, this thing is only going to be used to cruise around in...maybe haul the odd trailer (maybe a camper if I want one) and the odd little bit of stuff in the bed. It's goign to be a summer truck only. It will NEVER see salt.
I have been getting screwed around lately on my ei benefits and work (who wants to work for $11.50 an hour, when I can make $30) so looks like I will be heading west to drive a quad wagon. Money will NOT be a road block for me if my application gets accepted.
5" bullhaulers with the smallest muffler I can find, an HX40 turbo and some big downpiping with a good intercooler for me...WITH cowl induction intake.! I mean let's be honnest, this thing is only going to be used to cruise around in...maybe haul the odd trailer (maybe a camper if I want one) and the odd little bit of stuff in the bed. It's goign to be a summer truck only. It will NEVER see salt.
I have been getting screwed around lately on my ei benefits and work (who wants to work for $11.50 an hour, when I can make $30) so looks like I will be heading west to drive a quad wagon. Money will NOT be a road block for me if my application gets accepted.
Black dawg
Registered User
the 6bt is a stout engine, but I am betting if they came with an injection pump that would only support 100cc of fuel, they would not be the go to engine of diesel addicts everywhere.
even the earlier 6bt ( with the rotary pump), the one that most people ignore, is capable of more power than anybody NEEDS in a pickup.
even the earlier 6bt ( with the rotary pump), the one that most people ignore, is capable of more power than anybody NEEDS in a pickup.
82F100SWB
Full Access Member
Yes, even a VE engine with just a set of injectors and a turbo upgrade can put down 400+ with ease. My stock as far as I know other than IP adjustments and 3200 spring 92 has put down 307/702 on the rollers, tuned to run clean as it is absolutely out of turbo, and still has a stock exhaust, just straightpiped. I can assure you, that is enough power to do pretty much whatever you want with a pickup rather quickly.
As for the comment on fuel mileage, my Cummins did average almost but not quite double the fuel mileage that my idi did, considerably better by any means however. In normal day to day running around driving, the idi did 14-15, where as the Cummins was 22-24 on average, straight highway, the IDI was 17-18, where as the Cummins was 26-27, all of these numbers are on the 4.546L Imperial gallon rather than the US gallon. Strangely, my 96 F250's PSD nearly matches the IDI's day to day mileage, but the highway mileage is 22-24 on average and it has hit 26 on more than a few occasions both for myself and the previous owner.
My personal best for all three trucks was as follows, 22.3 for the IDI, 26.7 for the PSD, and for the Cummins, 28.8. I have very accurate mileage records as I used to use my trucks for work, and bill out mileage to the company until they finally supplied a company truck, and I used to average 6-7K miles a month.
Just to add for discussion, my now monster off road toy used to be stock, it's bone stock but edelbrock carbed 460, with the T19, 3.55 gears and 238/85's, which is exactly the same as my idi was, averaged 13-15 running around, and at my nominal 55mph criuse speed on the highway, 17-18, with a personal best of 19.5. In it's current configuration, it averages 25-30 gallons a year...
As for the comment on fuel mileage, my Cummins did average almost but not quite double the fuel mileage that my idi did, considerably better by any means however. In normal day to day running around driving, the idi did 14-15, where as the Cummins was 22-24 on average, straight highway, the IDI was 17-18, where as the Cummins was 26-27, all of these numbers are on the 4.546L Imperial gallon rather than the US gallon. Strangely, my 96 F250's PSD nearly matches the IDI's day to day mileage, but the highway mileage is 22-24 on average and it has hit 26 on more than a few occasions both for myself and the previous owner.
My personal best for all three trucks was as follows, 22.3 for the IDI, 26.7 for the PSD, and for the Cummins, 28.8. I have very accurate mileage records as I used to use my trucks for work, and bill out mileage to the company until they finally supplied a company truck, and I used to average 6-7K miles a month.
Just to add for discussion, my now monster off road toy used to be stock, it's bone stock but edelbrock carbed 460, with the T19, 3.55 gears and 238/85's, which is exactly the same as my idi was, averaged 13-15 running around, and at my nominal 55mph criuse speed on the highway, 17-18, with a personal best of 19.5. In it's current configuration, it averages 25-30 gallons a year...
DesertBen44
Full Access Member
I agree with all the above posts, if you want something you can modify the hell out of and put down crazy power and go around blowing smoke and annoying the general public, the IDI is not for you!
IDI's pros are cheap (cheap) CHEAP, reliable as all hell, my N/A has towed anything I have ever hooked to it no problem (mostly just 1 car haulers with a car), and when your engine actually does go ahead and die, a replacement can be had for a few hundred bucks! Cummins cant compare in that aspect. Did i mention cheap? You can buy 2-3 idi trucks for the price of 1 cummins
I believe this is why this forum sees so much arguement with respect to "im trying to get a 400 hp idi", because for the amount of work involved and what you end up getting out of it, many believe you might as well start off with a different truck!
as far as mileage goes, I have only seen a cummins do a mpg or 2 better then the idi does, but then again my idi seems to be the MPG king on the highway now that its straight piped.
Guy at work claims he gets 28-30 in his 12 valve, but has nothing to back it up. With any large diesel truck I pretty much call BS on anyone who claims to get more then around 23 mpg ** WITHOUT PROOF**, unless were talking about an old GM 6.2. If mileage is what you want, ditch the IDI, ditch the cummins, and go straight to GM! Lighter truck + the 6.2 = win.
Sorry about the rant, just wanted to state the obvious.
IDI's pros are cheap (cheap) CHEAP, reliable as all hell, my N/A has towed anything I have ever hooked to it no problem (mostly just 1 car haulers with a car), and when your engine actually does go ahead and die, a replacement can be had for a few hundred bucks! Cummins cant compare in that aspect. Did i mention cheap? You can buy 2-3 idi trucks for the price of 1 cummins
I believe this is why this forum sees so much arguement with respect to "im trying to get a 400 hp idi", because for the amount of work involved and what you end up getting out of it, many believe you might as well start off with a different truck!
as far as mileage goes, I have only seen a cummins do a mpg or 2 better then the idi does, but then again my idi seems to be the MPG king on the highway now that its straight piped.
Guy at work claims he gets 28-30 in his 12 valve, but has nothing to back it up. With any large diesel truck I pretty much call BS on anyone who claims to get more then around 23 mpg ** WITHOUT PROOF**, unless were talking about an old GM 6.2. If mileage is what you want, ditch the IDI, ditch the cummins, and go straight to GM! Lighter truck + the 6.2 = win.
Sorry about the rant, just wanted to state the obvious.
DesertBen44
Full Access Member
Also thankyou for the comparison towcat! I have never seen a cummins apart that must be some seriously beefy innards!!
How are you planning to run the cowl induction? IIRC it's not really practical to do a cowl intake on the starboard side of the engine compartment due to other stuff being in the way, and if you did it on the port side, you'd have a pretty long pipe to get from there to the turbo on the starboard side.
Back to the original topic, I'm very curious to find out how a Speedy Sleeve installs. Hopefully I'll get the opportunity to find out in the next few days
Kevin 007
Full-floater
Lighter truck + 6.2 and the fact that GM offered an OD automatic in 82!!! And the only american auto company to offer a diesel in a half ton; to this day!!!! You would think that someone would offer that again. Im not a chevy guy but I like the 6.2 for "what it is" Not a huge workhorse but will do well MPG wise.
I don't remember the source of this, but here's a better example...comparing conrods on the 6.2l/6.5l, the 7.3l PSD, and a 6BT
You must be registered for see images attach
IIRC Dodge briefly offered a small straight-6 Mitsubishi turbo diesel in their half-ton trucks in the late '70's. I've seen a couple floating around Fleabay, but they're rare as hens' teeth!
When IH designed the Sick Leaker, they also made a 4.5l V6 version that was originally supposed to go into the F-150 (and IIRC the Expedition as well), but the souring relationship between Navistar and Ford killed that...but the engine still found its way into the LCF trucks. It's not a powerhouse, but it'll do the job
Shame it didn't make it into the F-150...
Kevin 007
Full-floater
True!! I forgot all about that old Mitsu 6. Never did get a chance to tinker with one....yet!!!
Sw1tchfoot
Full Access Member
What I see often is people comparing apples to oranges. I like both the IDI and Cummins, but people very often do not compare things evenly. They may have big tires on one truck, different gear ratios, singe/extended/crew. The little things sometimes make a big difference. The Cummins also handles a lack of maintenance better so than the IDI.
The Dodges are all relatively the same, with economical gear ratios while the Fords are all over the board. An IDI will provide similar fuel efficieny to a Cummins; both in a single cab truck with 3.07/3.08 gears if driven acceptably. You get to the heavier, larger vehicles and the IDI doesn't have enough power out of the box to keep the engine in an efficient range so MPG suffers..
The Dodges are all relatively the same, with economical gear ratios while the Fords are all over the board. An IDI will provide similar fuel efficieny to a Cummins; both in a single cab truck with 3.07/3.08 gears if driven acceptably. You get to the heavier, larger vehicles and the IDI doesn't have enough power out of the box to keep the engine in an efficient range so MPG suffers..
Last edited:
FordGuy100
Registered User
I don't remember the source of this, but here's a better example...comparing conrods on the 6.2l/6.5l, the 7.3l PSD, and a 6BT
You must be registered for see images attach
IIRC Dodge briefly offered a small straight-6 Mitsubishi turbo diesel in their half-ton trucks in the late '70's. I've seen a couple floating around Fleabay, but they're rare as hens' teeth!
When IH designed the Sick Leaker, they also made a 4.5l V6 version that was originally supposed to go into the F-150 (and IIRC the Expedition as well), but the souring relationship between Navistar and Ford killed that...but the engine still found its way into the LCF trucks. It's not a powerhouse, but it'll do the job
We have to remember that, each connecting rod has to absorb a certain amount of energy per stroke. The cummins rods will have to be beefier as the engine with 6 cylinders has less cylinders to distribute the load of the power being created vs a 8 cylinder engine.
I wonder what 6 cummins roads vs 8 IDI roads weigh vs each other. Not saying weight has anything to do with it, but it will give you an idea.
BigRigTech
Diesel junky
3208's are hand grenades, we go through a couple a year on the ditch bush cutter's at work...They usually spin a bearing - they are known for that. The 5.9 is a good little engine but it has it's flaws too...the early heads with 9mm were prone to cracking from the injector hole to the valve seat. I just replaced one in a cash customers 91 W250...He blew a HG and the head was junk when I had it tested. He bought the 92 engine I used to own and I replaced a bunch of stuff on that and installed it. He picked it up Saturday night and handed me $4400 for the used engine, new parts, labour and machine shop work. Cummins are not cheap to work on either if it's a dealer only item. I'm putting a 99 7.3PSD in my 92 this spring. The 7.3PSD is old enough now that used stuff is everywhere's and new stuff is reasonable in price.
You must be registered for see images attach
Similar threads
