What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

AMG's newest engine

Hey,

the only thing I know (was one guy of the dieselpage already did it) is that you have to change the oil pan when installing the p400 in a NBS truck.
Concerning our old bodystyle trucks:

some say yes, it bolts right into the truck, some say no, you have to change the pan.


.... ?
 
It should fit fine. If it comes too close to the diff I would lift the truck a bit rather than mod the pan, bu tthats just me :D
 
MaxPF said:
Such as? Pretty much everything you need to know is in this thread. Buy it, add good marine injectors, a high flow IP, and some turbowheeze and you're good to go :D
Click to expand...

Since I'm still mulling over the idea of a diesel conversion, I'm just looking at all the options.

From an efficiency standpoint, I wonder what this thing would be like compared to a 6BT, in terms of power and fuel economy, if they were tested in similar vehicles... :thinking:
 
My money would be on the 6500 making better mpg and the 6BT obviously making more power.

I'm a big fan of both engines but the Cummins is just a big, heavy bitch. I wouldn't run it in a Chevy without boxing the frame after what some folks have run into with theirs.

If I wanted all out towing performance I'd go with a Cummins but for general "torquey and good mpg alternative to a built small block" the AMG engine seems awesome as it's a lot closer to a bolt in and OEM equipment.
 
AJMBLAZER said:
My money would be on the 6500 making better mpg and the 6BT obviously making more power.
Click to expand...

I guess, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around certain concepts... Maybe not.

Here's my thinking:

For a given displacement, and a given power level, an engine (gas, diesel or whatever) will burn "X" amount of fuel.

Now, obviously, certain engine designs will be more efficient than others. By efficient, I mean, making the most power with a given amount of fuel.

So, that being said, if we're talking naturally aspirated engines, and the Cummins makes more power with LESS displacement (5.9L) than say, a 6.2L or 6.5L, then it HAS to be more efficient, correct? And given that it makes more power with less displacement, would it not stand to reason that it should make the SAME power as a 6.2/6.5 using LESS fuel, hence getting better fuel economy than either of the GM/Detroit diesels?

AJMBLAZER said:
I'm a big fan of both engines but the Cummins is just a big, heavy bitch. I wouldn't run it in a Chevy without boxing the frame after what some folks have run into with theirs.

If I wanted all out towing performance I'd go with a Cummins but for general "torquey and good mpg alternative to a built small block" the AMG engine seems awesome as it's a lot closer to a bolt in and OEM equipment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right now a Cummins swap isn't really being considered because of the level of fabrication involved. But still, I am wanting to build the K5 to be my end-all, be-all daily-driver, and fuel economy AND power are part of that equation.

(thinking...)

Are all the numbers we consider when we say "Cummins" assuming that the engine is turbo-charged??

BTW, just realized that I may have started a hijack... not my intent... :wink1:



Edit: To clarify, I could theoretically drop a 4cyl gas engine into my K5. Chevy still sells a 181ci 4cyl that has the same bellhousing pattern as the straight sixes and V8s. With enough boost, I could get it to the power levels of my existing 350, but it would more than likely consume the same amount of fuel while going down the road (the same level of fuel should be required to maintain the same level of power as the 350). Now, the 181ci wouldn't last long under those conditions, but I'm strictly talking fuel consumption and power here, from an efficiency point of view.
 
You're assuming things again like in your diesel thread. Remember diesels here.

The 6.2L is an excellent economy motor. It was designed to make 80's carbed small block power while getting much better mileage. It excels at this. 20-25mpg on the freeway out of a fullsize 4x4 truck is awesome (assuming a stockish half ton with OD of course) and even higher has been done.
The 6.5L was basically taking the 6.2L and trying to play "let's compete with Dodge and Ford's dump truck engines but start with what we already have". Bad idea in my opinion but not sure what GM would have done otherwise. It makes decent power though. The Optimizer, P400, new AMG engines etc are better engines than the GM 6.5's but it seems to be more reliability and strength than more power.

The Cummins is a bus/dump truck/generator/oil rig/tractor/whatever motor someone shoved into a truck because it could be made to fit. It makes torque and goes. Now if this low rpm torque monster happens to push a 1 ton 4x4 along at freeway speeds getting 18mpg then awesome...but it won't ever get the great mpg of a 6.2/6.5...
...just like they won't easily and reliably make the power of a 5.9L Cummins.

I generally assume naturally aspirated for 6.2L's and 6.5L's because I'm satisfied with mine's performance. Cummins are always turbo'd. Don't think Dodge has ever sold them NA.
 
Size doesn't = power remember. All about design too.

ESPECIALLY with diesels. My 6.2L has like 21:1 compression...22:1...?
 
AJMBLAZER said:
Size doesn't = power remember. All about design too.

ESPECIALLY with diesels. My 6.2L has like 21:1 compression...22:1...?
Click to expand...

6.2 is 22.5:1 compression.
Dodge did sell N/A in the early years.
When AJM was talking more power, he didn't specify:
It has more torque at the low end, which is what you want in towing, it only make more power by using more fuel.
The 6.2 can't get that much fuel in it without blowing it up, so the cummins is not more efficient, it's just built stronger.
Your logic doesn't work here when you compare displacement.
I have seen 2.0 litre engines run 2000HP, any idea how much feul they use to get those numbers, and any idea how many miles their lifespan is?
too much and not enough respectively.
Now 2 things contribute to the cummins strength and both come from the I6 configuration: long stroke and low RPM's.
For driving I would take a V8 anyday. For work truck/ towing I would stick with the I6.
 
The thing to know about diesel is this: More fuel, more power. The 6BT can make more power because it can more easily deal with the stresses of pouring more fuel into it (and the requisite air of course)

It isn't about efficiency, it's about durability...and being able to cram enough fuel into the thing. The injection pumps for the 6.2 and the 6.5 limit the max fuel you can stuff into it. The design itself limits the amount of boost and fuel it'll survive with.

You can have great fuel economy, or you can have astounding power...but not generaly both.

Even the brand new diesel pick-ups, from all three have been getting worse and worse fuel economy as the big 3 have turned up the fuel and boost to try and win the hp/tq race.

I'll take adequate to good power and great economy over tire melting tq and mediocre fuel economy any day. That is what I want from my diesel, what other's want is their business. Hell, some of the new diesels get nearly as bad fuel economy as a fuel injected big block...

Rene
 
Don't forget all the emissions crap they have now.
 
imiceman44 said:
Your logic doesn't work here when you compare displacement.
I have seen 2.0 litre engines run 2000HP, any idea how much feul they use to get those numbers, and any idea how many miles their lifespan is?
too much and not enough respectively.
Click to expand...

Um... that's what I said... Your logic is the same as mine.

It will take "X" amount of fuel to support "Y" horsepower, regardless of displacement. Yeah, I know you could probably make an engine much smaller than 2.0L hit those numbers if you could spin it fast enough.

And durability was never part of my question. I know the 2.0L won't survive long under those conditions... It was about comparing the differences in design between a 6.2/6.5 and 6BT. I understand what's being said regarding more fuel=more power in a diesel, but that holds true for gas motors too.

Now, having said that... How would a 6BT compare if it were just a 6B--with no turbo? In N/A form, would the power levels be more comparable with the 6.2L V8?

I may need to start another thread... this is veering off the main topic of the thread... :doah:
 
With the vacuum pump no longer being in the same position as my CUCVs I wonder how tough this swap would be for my trucks 1028 or 1009?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom