58 Apache Bagged Cummins

[RADustin]

Originally Posted by joedoh

so 34" might be a block/head measurement but couldnt possibly be an overall.

It's in plain text above. The engine is not 40" long.

the OAL of the cummins is 34.25". The alt sits next to the block, the furest protrusion is the water pump.

the 40" includes an adapter that is not used for the dodge based cummins.

so yes, you speak with no real experience. I understand you have read a few forum posts and this makes you an expert. But unfortunately, you don't actually know.

whitedog76 actually had the correct number, yet you talked him away from it. He even posted pictures showing his confusion, and you still talked him down from his belief.

[mongocanfly]

cummings 6bt specs....
http://www.cumminshub.com/12v.html

[mongocanfly]

cummings 4bt specs......
http://www.cumminshub.com/4bt.html

[whitedog76]

The 34" May not be realistic, but I don't think it's far off.

The bath-tub sized firewall recess looks to be a little much though too.

The front of those motors are a little busy, the later ones even worse.

For argument sake. Here's one in a 48 Ford and one going into an IH Scout.

[joedoh]

34 inches isnt far off, its 6" off according to the specs.

Originally Posted by whitedog76

For argument sake.

I dont understand your argument I guess, every single 6bt swap you yourself has shown has needed the firewall modded. I showed pictures of what a 6BT in a TF needed from a guy who actually did it and you dont think its accurate. I guess keep your opinion, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

[RADustin]

the adapter plate has no bearing on firewall depth, or overall engine length.

[joedoh]

Originally Posted by RADustin

the adapter plate has no bearing on firewall depth, or overall engine length.

it sure does when it hits the firewall. unless you carve it out, which has been my point.

[RADustin]

I would typically refer to that area as the transmission tunnel.

Man you should quit being an engineer and argue in court. You seem better at that.

[joedoh]

I have done a stint as a patent engineer, which requires some legal training.

the point is, that for anyone who wants to install one of these engines, I say plan for 40" plus the fan, you say plan for 34.29" total. of the two of us, who would get thanked after the install? even if you showed them the drawing that shows the 34.29" spec?

I laid on a cummins and got my measurement. I wouldnt say it if I hadnt

[joedoh]

you forgot the part that attaches to the trans. the cummins is 3 feet tall, its long stroke means the crank will be higher than a 235. even mounting a shallow trans mount that RAD says they make, can you see any situation not having to plan for it? so is it 34 inches long? or 34 inches PLUS the trans mount? because an LS is measured to where the bellhousing mounts. so is a 235.

and yes, you did say without the fan. there seems to be some confusion but that 55 TF I posed a picture of has a fan and a big firewall bulge, that isnt built bigger than it needs to be. I just dont see how thats disputable?

[joedoh]

Originally Posted by RADustin

I prefer to report the actual numbers and let the user decide how to fluff them. As an engineer I would assume you would appreciate precision.

nope. nope nope. being technically correct is the best kind of correct, but what you are describing is, if someone asked how long an engine was and you gave them a dimension, and then they found out they needed the extra for the trans mount because the cummins mounts higher in the engine compartment to clear the front suspension, you saying "well you just asked how long the ENGINE was". wont be a lot of solace. in reverse, they will be losing 5 inches of footwell they thought they could keep.

in the same vein, I did shipping layout work for china containers and if I gave a dimension I knew wouldnt possibly fit because it was exactly the correct answer, it would be revealed as they loaded the container and it would be my last day on the job.

[RADustin]

Originally Posted by joedoh

nope. nope nope. being technically correct is the best kind of correct, but what you are describing is, if someone asked how long an engine was and you gave them a dimension, and then they found out they needed the extra for the trans mount because the cummins mounts higher in the engine compartment to clear the front suspension, you saying "well you just asked how long the ENGINE was". wont be a lot of solace. in reverse, they will be losing 5 inches of footwell they thought they could keep.

in the same vein, I did shipping layout work for china containers and if I gave a dimension I knew wouldnt possibly fit because it was exactly the correct answer, it would be revealed as they loaded the container and it would be my last day on the job.

man you're something else. It's ok to be wrong. It really is. 'technically correct' vs correct. That's a new one.

so you take a dimension which is known(fact) and add your opinion on to it(some amount of fluff), and label it as 'technically correct'.

in your 'technically correct' answer you assume the cummins will interfere with the front suspension and assumed this will cause it to move up. You assumed a different oil pan arrangement can't be fitted. What if these aren't valid assumptions? Maybe the bare number with no safety factor was just fine and the user can see how to best apply margin? oh man, riveting.

the best part is you then argue that your 'technically correct' value, shot from the hip while 'laying over the top' is more correct than an engineered drawing.

thats epic. I will have to share this with co-workers and friends. They will get a kick out of it.

he wasn't wrong, he was technically correct. Did you try this argument in college? I bet the instructors loved it.

when I took my PE, if I would have failed I guess I could have petitioned the board on being technically correct. They would have still giving me my license right?

wow. Enjoy your time bud. I now understand all of your posting.

[whitedog76]

Man, I was just trying to say that I thought it was possible...

I didn't see where the large firewall recess was necessary, but I like how the builder in question handled it. Top notch hot rodding.

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...=640042&page=9

[RADustin]

Originally Posted by whitedog76

I didn't see where the large firewall recess was necessary, but I like how the builder in question handled it. Top notch hot rodding.

this is one of the issues of using a late model frame.

He kept the stock engine mount to front wheel centerline dims intact. Which lead to the engine being shifted back a little far and a deeper firewall recess.

had he scooted the engine further forward obviously the firewall wouldn't need to be so deep. but that would be more frame modifications....

ton of ways to skin the cat, pick one and make it work...

[joedoh]

Originally Posted by RADustin

man you're something else. It's ok to be wrong. It really is. 'technically correct' vs correct. That's a new one.

its a quote from futurama haha

Originally Posted by RADustin

the best part is you then argue that your 'technically correct' value, shot from the hip while 'laying over the top' is more correct than an engineered drawing.

when I was a newbie I worked a project for ECS on a bizjet cabin stretch. we had lots of engineers working on it, and lots of guys leading it each with 10-20 years in the business doing thermo, crunching numbers, modeling it in V5, measuring emissivity of cabin parts to determine how long it would take to get to max temp, and how long it would take the vapor system to cool it down. they spent a couple months on the equation, it was massive. we went to a hot airfield, measured the humidity and temperatures through the whole test. the equation wasnt even close. the reason why it wasnt close is because doing everything in a theoretical environment couldnt capture what was actually happen in the real world. the guys with all the experience shrugged and said "this is why we test".

I remembered that all through my career, to look beyond what the print shows. at my last job I was responsible for setting up an airflow lab using CFD modeling, the machines, the employees, everything. and the very first project we did was determine the offset, the difference between the modeling result and what could be expected in a real world test. because marketing would run with the CFD results if we let them.

the print can be extremely detailed and your model can have lots of hours in it, but at some point you have to lay on the engine and take some measurements, go to the body and take some measurements. this is what a test looks like, what has been missed will be apparent. you keep saying that the measurement is what you show on the print, but as a guy who crawled around on a cummins measuring where things fit and what needed done to put it in a new chassis, I can tell you that the trans adapter would be almost as tall as the original 235 valve cover when mounted high enough in the chassis to not interfere with the suspension. your solidworks models are lined up on the crank it looks like, if you raised the cummins I bet that would be the result. no matter if that adapter is 1.5 inches thick or 5 inches thick, it will be there.

Originally Posted by RADustin

thats epic. I will have to share this with co-workers and friends. They will get a kick out of it.

I bet more than a few of them have seen futurama. I have been (and still am) pretty successful in my engineering career, so your opinion (or your friends and coworkers) doesnt really mean anything to me. I have tried to pay you proper respect for being an engineer, I havent tried to be insulting. be sure when you show them my comments you show them yours, when you are belligerent and unyielding and insulting. I have known a few engineers like this, its not uncommon, but that is your problem, and theirs, in the real world. this is just a screen I have to read, like a print.

[whitedog76]

Solutions to a problem...

[Dieselwrencher]

Holly cow! What a mess going on here. I can tell you from real world experience, plan on about 36" when trying to lay out a small engine bay to fit a 5.9 in. Yes, one can be put in dang near anything. It's just how much work do you want to do to get it in there.

The comparison of the 5.9 to a 5.3 is so bogus. Take that truck intake off the LS and the height is squat compared to the cummins. I have each setting near each other and can provide a pic of both setting on their oil pans if you'd like.

[RADustin]

yep the LS can be made tiny. The dmax is fully dressed as well in those snips with the mouthpiece and everything hanging up. Cummins is by far the tallest.

[Dieselwrencher]

Yes sir, I can vouch for that.