http://inlandempire.craigslist.org/car/769726774.html
It could be a good deal for someone wanting a 60 series. However it is a 11.1 liter and it has 600 thousand on it and is missing the ecm & injection pump! I wouldn't spend a fortune on it, but if the price were right. Also it's gonna cost a bit to ship from CA. FWIW ;D BK ;D
Perhaps an 11.1 would not be all that bad given fuel costs.
The ECM could be a stopper. Unless you have access to one, they are over $1500 and that is exchange as I recall.
If you are going to use this in a bus ;D you will almost assuredly need a shallow pan conversion and that is another $1500 as I recall (I have the part numbers needed on my bus project pages).
Jim
In some instances smaller is not always better. I only get 8 MPG at 65 MPH from my 11.1 Series 60 that is 350 HP. BK reports thjat a charter operator with two Dinas is getting 9 to 10 MPG, but I believe those Dinas have the 400 HP 12.7.
I suspect I might get better mileage from the bigger engine, but I will never know.
My uncle had a Dodge Dakota when the crew cab first came out. The V8 got better mileage than the V6 because the V6 was overworked.
It seems that there are some general rules about engine size and efficiency. They may be accurate most of the time, but not always. I have had and heard about vehicles that did noticeably better or worse than the rules would predict. I do not know what the explanation is. I'm sure that the smaller-engine-must-work-harder thing may be right sometimes, but for the most part it seems that that "time and chance happeneth to them all."
If the smaller engine has total revolutions that are 12 % greater than the larger DD, then the displacement for a given distance will be about the same.
There are an awful lot of factors that make up fuel economy. For example, an engine with larger cylinders, but fewer of them will have less surface area in the cylinders for a given volume and will be more efficient. If the RPM of both engines is similar, then it should be possible for the more efficient one to get better fuel mileage.
Then, there's fuel timing, valve timing, temperature, oil viscosity, gear ratios, tire sizes and pressures and weight that get thrown into the mix. The two stroke gets pretty efficient in the middle of it's power band, but the four stroke has a big edge on light loads.
For what it's worth.
Tom Caffrey
Ahoy, Lin, All,
The DD60 -11 liter, as I recall, was touted as the first vehicle engine to go below the 'magic' specific fuel consumption level of 0.3 lbs/hp/hr -- maybe like 2.97 or such. The larger DD60's are just a bit above -- 0.30x. My Cummins M-11 is best at about 0.315 lbs/hp/hr. NOT quite as efficient, but still pretty good. I expect some of our other members will have more refined info.
Enjoy /s/ Bob
Belfert...does your 11.1 60 series DD have ceramic roller over camshaft?
Thanks.
Sojourn for Christ, Jerry
A question about the CARB certification how does that work I heard you destroy the engine after the certification expires or rebuild it to the current CARB certifications and start over again can you guys from CA explain how this works. A thousand bucks is not a bad price but why was it removed is it because the certification has expired thanks
Quote from: Sojourner on July 28, 2008, 05:09:27 AM
Belfert...does your 11.1 60 series DD have ceramic roller over camshaft?
No idea on that one.