orangefj45
Supporting Vendor
Why 1994?
Builds Cummins R2.8 Conversion build thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter torfab
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I was watching a YouTube video with the cummins rep in it. He mentioned they where targeting 1994 for CA due to OBDII standards. It was 1999 everywhere else. Hope that's wrong. I just drove up Donner summit with my loaded 80 and was struggling! Got 2mpg too. Could use a turbo deisel for sure
Last edited:
orangefj45
Supporting Vendor
Pre 1999 diesel vehicles ( including conversions ) are exempt from CA emissions testing.
Georg @ Valley Hybrids & Cruiser Brothers
Georg @ Valley Hybrids & Cruiser Brothers
That would be rad! This engine seems great if it can make a bit more power. I wonder if they are going to release an inline 6 too
orangefj45
Supporting Vendor
From what I've heard ...... the 2.8 is very tunable so getting more power out of them shouldn't be an issue.
I guess we'll find out about the 6-cylinder version in time.
I guess we'll find out about the 6-cylinder version in time.
This is by far the best swap going for the 40/45/55/60/62/80 rigs. When Nissan & Cummins developed this Engine back in 2012, I almost bought a non-Toyota for the first time in over 30 years with Toyota only rigs. Nissan cancelled the project, so I could stay loyal a while longer.
With this as a crate engine, I may never sell my Fj62.
Please post some MPG #
With this as a crate engine, I may never sell my Fj62.
Please post some MPG #
Yeah I feel you on the mpg... my cummins 3.3 just got 25mpg on last tank. Makes life better!
So you are averaging 20mpg? How big is the tank on a 60 series
You'll get used to it
I love having a 400+ mile range. You might be able to break 500+ with that 2.8.
Cruiserdrew
On the way there
Those of us used to driving 60s and 62s will be ok with the power from this motor. We're already used to dog slow.
However, I don't see the 2.8 pushing a loaded 80 around very effectively. Where's the 4.0 version?
However, I don't see the 2.8 pushing a loaded 80 around very effectively. Where's the 4.0 version?
Those of us used to driving 60s and 62s will be ok with the power from this motor. We're already used to dog slow.
However, I don't see the 2.8 pushing a loaded 80 around very effectively. Where's the 4.0 version?
YAAASS
gregnash
Anal Retentive Analyst
Wow I wish... I am lucky to get 10mpg (90% around town) when I am driving ye' ole 2F. I just hit half a tank with 108miles on my odo and I am pretty sure that is wrong!! LOL
Those of us used to driving 60s and 62s will be ok with the power from this motor. We're already used to dog slow.
However, I don't see the 2.8 pushing a loaded 80 around very effectively. Where's the 4.0 version?
George @ valley hybrids was saying this engine could be pushed a bit. IIFC there is a very similar motor going into the new Colorado which has 100 more HP and much more torque. Seems like this cummins is pretty under-tuned. That being said I would much prefer an inline 6 version. Anybody heard anything from the cummins people?
You'll get used to it
I love having a 400+ mile range. You might be able to break 500+ with that 2.8.
My 3B turbo always gets over 400 miles range and theoretically will go over 500 miles, but that's pushing the tank really low.
This r2.8 should definitely push 500 miles pretty easily. The 3B has way more losses associated with it. Due to timing gears and idi and wicked over built everything.
The jeep liberty had a crd 2.8 made by vm motori that I have been eyeing for awhile. They are starting to show up for pretty cheap and should be very comparable to the cummins. So i am very curious how this cummins will perform in our rigs
At home sick today and did a bit of research on the 2.8 vs the 1hd-ft that came in later 80 series land cruisers. The torque and power numbers seem pretty equivalent. I imagine the 2.8 is much a much lighter engine. The 1HD-ft seems pretty underpowered with all that displacement! How easy is it to tune the toyota power plant for more power? When I do my swap I'd like to get at least 300 torque and better than 200HP. Otherwise its hard to justify the cost of the swap.
So numbers on paper don't tell the full story. A smaller engine can put out A lot of power but is much less efficient in doing so.
The 1hdft will be working less and will be under alot less stress, which allows it to last forever and the mileage will probably be better when towing something as long as you keep your foot out of it.
Top gear put a Toyota prius on a track and had a BMW m3 stay right on its rear bumper. The BMW with around 400hp used less fuel.
The 1hdft will be working less and will be under alot less stress, which allows it to last forever and the mileage will probably be better when towing something as long as you keep your foot out of it.
Top gear put a Toyota prius on a track and had a BMW m3 stay right on its rear bumper. The BMW with around 400hp used less fuel.
Very interesting @Cruising Canuck . I figured that a large displacement motor might be more reliable since its not working as hard. I wonder though with modern tech if the cummins isn't better on fuel.
AussieHJCruza
Supporting Vendor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Threads
- 61
- Messages
- 2,628
- Location
- New South Wales, Australia
- Website
- www.completecruisers.com.au
Equivalent numbers only tell part of the story...where the numbers are delivered is very relevant, especially in a heavy 4x4. I would be pretty certain a 1HD-# delivers its power a lot lower in the rpm range than the R2.8 and I'm not sure that you'll see 300k plus km out of the cummins. Don't get me wrong, it's fantastic to see the aftermarket supporting this sort of thing, and I reckon the cummins will do well, especially with the quality of install here, but I suppose I'm one of those 'no replacement for displacement' types.
Small modern diesels seem to make impressive power, because we're used to big diesels that run low boost and pretty conservative tunes, a 1HD-# runs 12 psi stock, this R2.8 probably runs mid to high 20s. If we boost and fuel a bigger engine accordingly, they'll make power. The Yanmar 6LP-# series, which is basically a marinized 1HD-# with larger fuel pump etc, the 24 valve 6LP makes 315 hp stock, so the 1HD-# are certainly robust enough to put down decent figures.
So, it's not hard to work up a 1HD-# but it's also, like anything, not cheap, and furthermore, a very slippery slope!
For your interest, and apologies for cluttering up the thread, I've only wound up a 1HD-T, but, stock a HDJ80 makes about 75ish rwkw (100hp) 3" exhaust and tune and you're at 85 or so. I got 114 rwkw and 410 rwnm with 3" exhaust, big intercooler, 14 psi of boost and a tune. Then the slope got slippery and it got injectors, fuel pump, airbox and a GTurbo thrown at it, plus a clutch to hold the power, made 154rwkw (205 rwhp) at 3600 rpm and 580 rwnm at 1800 rpm, 25psi, boost, nice conservative tune and the engine seemed to love it. I've sold the truck now, sadly, but she's still going strong.
