Best Engine for the Mountains

Mountains? Gearing. Specifically the rear end ratios. 60kg, you're not going to get good fuel economy, so get that thought out your head. Up and downhill, you need something in the 3.90-4.10 gear range and 525 HP or better. And you want minimum an 18 speed with 1850 torque, minimum. The transmission code should be 18918A or if you can find a 20918A would be better because that one will have 46k rears.

 

As Six said, it's in the gearing. The last truck I ran had a 550 Cat, with 3.36 rears and 13 speed. It was fun, until you started climbing two lane mountain roads. Thing was kinda doggish on the hills. My current truck has a 475 Cat, 10 speed, and 3.73 rears. And it pulls the hills better than the old one.

Of the three engine manufacturers you list, Cat would be my first choice. Fuel economy isn't gonna be great anyways, so you might as well have something fun to drive.

 

I spent the Detriot 505 and 515's I think they were. They were company engines. I had a number of them. One early one was mid 90's and ungoverned so the 10 mile mountain upgrade hit at dollar and beyond became a 70 mph elevator ride most of the way to the top loaded.

But mostly rockwell transmissions were what we had. And they were able to keep us moving at better than 40 upgrade most of the time. Im sorry I cannot provide actual gearing from the rears in those tractors. Probably typical company crap designed to save fuel at 65 or something on the flat.

I once put a 350 CAT against a 25% (Give or take a percent as it steepened in the middle) 3 mile grade in vermot. I used the bottom lowest gear loaded upgrade at 80000 plus some pounds hardwood furniture. That pull took a little over a hour and it was about 2 hours before the entire dashboard and all the gauges returned to what I hoped was normal temperatures etc. God I love Kittys. Even the little ones.

Now Mack has a place in my heart. Short gearing in the transmission not very tall legs would be a better word. But you can run upgrade on Townhill south of Breezewood at 45 mph and 80000 with a 350 mack rather than on hands and knees with a 400 cummins big cam at 19 with the same load.

I hate to pick on Cummins. They like to stay at one RPM, similar to ocean going ships. And stay there all day long. But if you buy a cummins get a 700 horse one at least 1800 torque. 2000 or more if you got the money. You will need all of it in the mountain.

Finally but not least, take a mid 60's short mack, probably about 220 horses and not much torque. Load a 40 foot container to the top line. Break a state scales at 135400. Theoratical weight was 165000 or so. I don't have the original bills of lading with that load in front of me to calculate it's true weight. (export turkeymeat to europe in bacon form) The best I could do with that little mack engine was around 29 or so on the shoulder most of the time on 81. crossing I-70 required a bypass on the old Tuscorora bridge near Harpers Ferry. (It took the load, all 5 spans making music at the time the old harpers was weight restricted, I-70 hagerstown not a option and the Tuscorora Bridge historically carried iron ore and lots of it way back when) and bypassing the newmarket scales to Baltimore with a couple of ridges to pull on a couple of out of way state routes. That engine did well, but the truck overall was essentially totaled. I never saw it again after that night.

For me that was probably the smallest engine against the biggest of weights and frankly it should never have happened at all. It goes to show what is possible when you are into your first year in trucking of any kind and know nothing at all as I did back then.

If it's my money and I need to choose a engine, it's going to be either a Detriot or a CAT. But it will need to be 700+ horses and a minimum of 1850 torque. 2000 or better if I can find it for mountain work. Fuel mileage be ######. I'll probably go with a detriot if I can find one rated that high retail brand new.

 

Depends on the driver and how some will drive, some can get a couple of miles per gallon better than some, and then the wind, you will have no hope with that breeze.

 

Paccar 450hp MX with a auto and 2.79 rears is all you need right @Caesar ....


P.S. I’ve got 3.73 rears and with that weight I’d do 3.90 or 4.10...

 

Yes, he would think a Paccar MX would be better than a Cat.

 

Detriots want to work upgrade. They'll sort of get stubborn and do a little more lugging before you must downshift. Cummins is like aunt may on oxygen, you drop half your transmission before you finally hold a speed upgrade. CAT however... just put it on the floor and wait for something to break. If it does. Chances are it wont. If it would... it's going to do it at the Pyro first and burn that up. But you are moving. I am not promising you the moon with cats. They have gone through so many different changes. Always fiddling.

I like the detroits the best because they are like me so hard headed and willing to lug a bit. But yes you do need a minimum of a 500 detriot.

In 2001 with the century and rockwell auto, we turned in 6.8-7 or so. If youre eastbound out of Colorado ahead of a storm front in the springtime with 70+ mph winds off your 7 or 5 oclock eastbound on 70 you will find your fuel mileage truly awesome for a few hours until the front reaches you. Stick your hand out the door and see it's pushing you.

The vermont pull was the more problematic of the things I have done. It was no longer about fuel MILEAGE but actually GALLONS BURNED PER HOUR. I had about 60 or a little less when I dropped and hooked and now I thought that might be enough to get fuel (Single 145 gallon tank, never never again for national OTR work...) I threw down over 30 gallons on that pull. So that's 10 gallons to the mile or 10 gallons every 20 minutes.

 

Your getting one persons opinion,everyone has their favorite. Don't believe that malarkey posted about a wheezing Cummins. You're on the right track with N 14 Cummins or Cat power,you won't look back.