- Thread starter
- #181
Now that's damn funny!
Builds Splurge Overkill - FJ60 build
- Thread starter isbj60
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Now that's damn funny!
I will call you next time I need my house towed. 
You wouldn't want to go overboard
- Thread starter
- #184
I decided to do a bit of test fitting to see what i can be working on hood-wise while i wait for more drivetrain parts. some interferences needed to go right off the bat. got to love oil soaked dirt!
The first attempt quickly revealed the front axle needed to go. The differential kept the oil pan from getting low enough to tuck the engine in. Therefore a complete rearrangement of the shop was in order since it wouldn't be moving after that step. The next test fit wasn't much better.
The first attempt quickly revealed the front axle needed to go. The differential kept the oil pan from getting low enough to tuck the engine in. Therefore a complete rearrangement of the shop was in order since it wouldn't be moving after that step. The next test fit wasn't much better.
- Thread starter
- #185
I just couldn't get the harmonic damper (which appears to be fluid filled, btw!) to clear the sheet metal. Time for more interference removal. It is amazing how sturdy the front fenders are...
Next test fit revealed a little more trimming is required in the tunnel area
As well as the cowl
The fit so far:
That hose in front of the engine isn't for coolant, btw. That is the suction line for the hydraulic pump!
A shot from underneath:
And across the hood line:
Next test fit revealed a little more trimming is required in the tunnel area
As well as the cowl
The fit so far:
That hose in front of the engine isn't for coolant, btw. That is the suction line for the hydraulic pump!
A shot from underneath:
And across the hood line:
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #186
Obviously. I will want to lower it a bit more and level it out some. The good news is the dipstick is so long I think I can make it accessible from the driver's seat!
Some label plates. Interestingly, cummins' literature has the engine at 8.9 liters, but the data plate says 8.8.
The alternator:
I got a lot of good expensive accessories with this motor, and everything seems very optimally laid out. I am most pleased!
Some label plates. Interestingly, cummins' literature has the engine at 8.9 liters, but the data plate says 8.8.
The alternator:
I got a lot of good expensive accessories with this motor, and everything seems very optimally laid out. I am most pleased!
That front xmember looks like it will cut and paste easy enough. Damn, so crazy it just might work 
. Subscribed.
. Subscribed.
Wow, the FJ60 engine bay does have decent room to allow a bunch of different engines to fit inside so that gives me a perspective of how big this cummins really is. It's enormous! It will be impressive to see how you get everything to fit. I thought I remember you talking about making a new frame for this anyways. You're still planning that right?
spotcruiser
Geezer
Looks like a direct bolt-in, Kev.
That is a massive engine! Boots is right, the engine bay is way big on the FJ60 and that engine makes it look way small. You got some serious fab to do. Did I read that right, 215 horses and 400 ft/lbs torque? 538 cubes?
IF you manage to get it in there is there going to be any room for exhaust, steering, coolant lines etc? will it simultaneously fit under the hood and the oil pan clear over the axle?
- Thread starter
- #192
Yes, this is getting a new frame. and the front end will get significant work, too. The core support will go byebye and I will use the bare minimum nescessary to support the lights, grill, intercooler, and ac condenser. the radiator (multiple if necessary) will be remote mounted somewhere. I am thinking of putting a large one where the gas tank is currently, and using whatever space I can get my hands on to create fuel storage. Using the right kind of skid plates I think I can protect it well. If I go with my tube frame idea i had earlier, I would use the tubes themselves for fluid conveyance to minimize the number of lines getting in the way.
Looks like a direct bolt-in, Kev.
Just a walk in the park!
215 cubic millimeters of fuel per stroke at rated horsepower, and 400 rated horsepower at 2000 RPM. 538 cubic inches. From the fuel rate and power numbers you can guesstimate at fuel economy with any given pedal position and load. There are 6 pistons and it is a 4 stroke motor, so each revolution will have 3 strokes-worth of fuel. Guess at the amount of effort (pedal position) your combination might need at a given speed and how fast it is turning over and you can get a rough idea of MPG. I ran the numbers for 202 cubic millimeters (found on the web for the previous version engine), 1300 rpm at 70 MPH, 42" tires and with 40% pedal got 13-14 mpg. I don't think I will need that much pedal to cruise. Wide open at the same speed nets a whopping 5-6 mpg!
When. Not if. The frame is just there for a frame of reference, no pun intended. In fact, since i discovered the fenders will support themselves without the aid of the front body mounts, the front part of the frame is going to be cut off to aid in further planning. The side of the engine where the steering is doesn't protrude any farther than a v-8. This thing is tall, but not terribly wide compared to a big block. I am going to try using the frame's normally dead space to move fluids around. The front axle gets positioned wherever it needs to be to clear the pan. If it is outlandishly far forward, the pan will get modified to move the sump over to one side for better clearance. I will enlarge the stock "bubble" on the top of the hood, too, if needs be. It will fit. Exhaust will probably be the biggest challenge, but interestingly the connection to the turbo is only 3".
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Threads
- 44
- Messages
- 2,144
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
- Website
- www.kindredspiritscsg.com
I thought the 6BT was a big motor, but compared to the 8.3 its like I have room to sit in my engine bay.
This is going to be a very interesting project to watch for sure.
The 550ft-lbs of torque available at idle would definitely help out with some crawling if the rocks don't crack under the truck.
Do you have a guesstimate on the final weight?
This is going to be a very interesting project to watch for sure.
The 550ft-lbs of torque available at idle would definitely help out with some crawling if the rocks don't crack under the truck.
Do you have a guesstimate on the final weight?
- Thread starter
- #194
I thought the 6BT was a big motor, but compared to the 8.3 its like I have room to sit in my engine bay.
This is going to be a very interesting project to watch for sure.
The 550ft-lbs of torque available at idle would definitely help out with some crawling if the rocks don't crack under the truck.
Do you have a guesstimate on the final weight?
I think Mace is right, I will probably push 9500#. That is well within the capacities of all the drivetrain components, though. I've driven a tractor bobtail once, in that configuration it was probably 13k or so. Power numbers similar to my engine. It could scoot along surprisingly quickly!
Now THIS is my style of overkill! Subscribed, good luck with the build!
- Thread starter
- #196
Now THIS is my style of overkill! Subscribed, good luck with the build!
Thanks!
Found a great deal on some new hydraulic fans. The pictures will do the talking. Came from a Monaco rv dealer that closed up shop. Need to do some research on the specifics of the motor. All of these are new.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #197
Found some info on the motors.
http://www.sauer-danfoss.com/stellent/groups/publications/documents/product_literature/bln-10168.pdf
They are a bi-directional gear motor, 0.66cubic inches per rev, 4000 rpm max, 3625 psi rated pressure.
http://www.sauer-danfoss.com/stellent/groups/publications/documents/product_literature/bln-10168.pdf
They are a bi-directional gear motor, 0.66cubic inches per rev, 4000 rpm max, 3625 psi rated pressure.
So the torque is roughly double the HP correct? So using the numbers you have there, it will be around the 800 ft/lb mark. That's pretty strong. I don't think I would even mess with tuning or a reflash.
- Thread starter
- #199
Triple for this engine. 1200 ft-lb. given what the EPA is doing, tuners and reflashes will be going the way of the dodo. Another reason I chose a really big engine for my desired power instead of using a 5.9.
