• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

1100 cube bigblock swap

  • Thread starter Thread starter xoxbxfx
  • Start date Start date Feb 6, 2007
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3

68FBJJZ109

Member
May 2, 2005
357
0
17
Easton, PA
Mar 2, 2007
#41
  • Mar 2, 2007
  • #41
Those pictures are a bit deceiving, Ford uses v-8 diesel where dodge uses a I-6, naturally the piston sizes are connecting rods will be smaller, seeing there are eight cylinders to spread the motors displacement versus six. Not that i really know anything about diesels.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Mar 2, 2007
#42
  • Mar 2, 2007
  • #42
The CTD only has 24% more dislacement per cylinder than the 6.0 PSD, yet the rods are at least 100% bigger......

I'm not even sure where the limits of the stock longblock is. I bet not many people DO know or have what it takes to collapse one of those things! I do know that 1800lbs of torque isn't enough.
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Mar 2, 2007
#43
  • Mar 2, 2007
  • #43
Triple post?!?! what the heck?
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Mar 2, 2007
#44
  • Mar 2, 2007
  • #44
Double post...
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Mar 2, 2007
#45
  • Mar 2, 2007
  • #45
65ShelbyClone said:
The CTD only has 24% more dislacement per cylinder than the 6.0 PSD, yet the rods are at least 100% bigger......

I'm not even sure where the limits of the stock longblock is. I bet not many people DO know or have what it takes to collapse one of those things! I do know that 1800lbs of torque isn't enough.
Click to expand...
So the pic is of 6.0 PSD rods?
Or are those 7.3 PSD?

I have heard of several 6.0s biting the dust...
I can't recall ever hearing about a 7.3. Could be wrong though.
The fact that it is lighter parts and still so strong is just a testament to the better engineering of the 7.3 IMO. There is a point where parts become too big and heavy. The size of that rod bearing just means the crank journals create alot more heat and parasitic loss.

Dave
 

biggyfan1

Member
Mar 10, 2006
186
1
18
High Desert CA
Mar 2, 2007
#46
  • Mar 2, 2007
  • #46
what about the new twin turbo ford is coming out with? i believe ford owns international who makes there diesel's right now. and now it will be CAT who makes there motors. i was told ford owns the small motor division of CAT. like i said i was over hearing some guys talking so it might just be BS. my dad has the new dodge mega cab and my brother has a new F350 and it really seems like the F350 puls the 39 foot trailer easyer. but i to hear lots of bad news about that 6.0 ford. the new one will be 6.4 and they might even make a 4.4 in an F150.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Mar 2, 2007
#47
  • Mar 2, 2007
  • #47
ratio411 said:
So the pic is of 6.0 PSD rods?
Or are those 7.3 PSD?

(cut) There is a point where parts become too big and heavy. The size of that rod bearing just means the crank journals create alot more heat and parasitic loss.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the pic is of PSD 6.0 rod. Regarding heat and friction.....these things don't spin any higher than 3600rpm. That's how everything in the CTD can get away with being so big and not hurting service life.

biggyfan1 said:
what about the new twin turbo ford is coming out with? i believe ford owns international who makes there diesel's right now. and now it will be CAT who makes there motors. i was told ford owns the small motor division of CAT. like i said i was over hearing some guys talking so it might just be BS. my dad has the new dodge mega cab and my brother has a new F350 and it really seems like the F350 puls the 39 foot trailer easyer. but i to hear lots of bad news about that 6.0 ford. the new one will be 6.4 and they might even make a 4.4 in an F150.
Click to expand...

Ford doesn't own either of those manufacturers or their divisions. If Ford owned International, a subsidiary of Navistar, Ford wouldn't be in hot water with Navistar right now. AFAIK, CAT won't build special diesels for Ford for this very reason.
 

xoxbxfx

Founding Member
May 9, 2001
3,959
0
0
Southlake, TX
Mar 3, 2007
#48
  • Mar 3, 2007
  • #48
65ShelbyClone said:
The CTD only has 24% more dislacement per cylinder than the 6.0 PSD, yet the rods are at least 100% bigger......

I'm not even sure where the limits of the stock longblock is. I bet not many people DO know or have what it takes to collapse one of those things! I do know that 1800lbs of torque isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Those 12v guys are running numbers Im jealous of...but I have seen guys running 3rd gen HPCR motors (03+ trucks) and running 720rwhp and over 2000ftlbs


biggyfan1 said:
what about the new twin turbo ford is coming out with? i believe ford owns international who makes there diesel's right now. and now it will be CAT who makes there motors. i was told ford owns the small motor division of CAT. like i said i was over hearing some guys talking so it might just be BS. my dad has the new dodge mega cab and my brother has a new F350 and it really seems like the F350 puls the 39 foot trailer easyer. but i to hear lots of bad news about that 6.0 ford. the new one will be 6.4 and they might even make a 4.4 in an F150.
Click to expand...

Ford doesnt own anything... I wouldnt count to much on that new motor from International because right now Ford is in a HUGE lawsuit due to the high cost of warranty costs of the 6.0. Its amazing that ford has been planning this law suit and kept Navistar as their new engine producer for their 08 truck. I thought it was funny because Navistar haulted production on their new motors but the courts stepped in and forced Ford to pay for the motors and Navi to produce/ship the motors. Like little kids right now when its funny because FORD is the one to blame on the warranty costs of the 6.0.

The same 6.0's used in diesel marine applications are running great with no problems, its the ones in Fords trucks that have the problems. Ford had to monkey with the injection system, computer and some other junk and thats the cause of their problems....that and a crappy VGT
 

Red Barchetta

Founding Member
Mar 7, 2002
761
0
17
Behind the Orange Curtain
Mar 4, 2007
#49
  • Mar 4, 2007
  • #49
Not the same engine, but here's a comparison of a 1400 c.i. Maybach V-12 tank engine and what I pulled out of my '68's 302.

If anyone saw the Discovery/Military Channel special on the Panther Tank, this is one of the piston/con rod's out of that engine.

And in case anyone wonders why the 302 piston looks weird, it's because that's the one that came apart on me, putting a nice hole in the side of my block. The skirts are gone and the connecting rod is actually twisted a few degrees in the piston.
 

Attachments

  • top.webp
    55.7 KB · Views: 143
  • sidebyside.webp
    44.4 KB · Views: 163

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Mar 4, 2007
#50
  • Mar 4, 2007
  • #50
Dang, that looks like about a 6" piston.
 
L

LocomotiveBreth

New Member
Mar 11, 2007
1
0
0
Texas
Mar 11, 2007
#51
  • Mar 11, 2007
  • #51
The most recent video I posted is located here.

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/tank engine mustang/0.htm

In its current natrually aspirated form it making around 900 HP and 1300 Ft. Lbs. with over 1000 Ft. Lbs. available from 1600 to 4200 rpm. It is thirsty though, just idling and bumping the throttle it is drinking about 1 gallon of alcohol per minute.

These engines are capable of making over 3000 HP with boost and alky, using stock cranks, rods, and cams.
 

xoxbxfx

Founding Member
May 9, 2001
3,959
0
0
Southlake, TX
Mar 12, 2007
#52
  • Mar 12, 2007
  • #52
LocomotiveBreth said:
The most recent video I posted is located here.

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/tank engine mustang/0.htm

In its current natrually aspirated form it making around 900 HP and 1300 Ft. Lbs. with over 1000 Ft. Lbs. available from 1600 to 4200 rpm. It is thirsty though, just idling and bumping the throttle it is drinking about 1 gallon of alcohol per minute.

These engines are capable of making over 3000 HP with boost and alky, using stock cranks, rods, and cams.
Click to expand...

your car?
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Greetings from a guy who needs help with a foxbody.
  • thefonztm
  • Mar 21, 2026
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
16
Views
490
The Welcome Wagon Mar 22, 2026
Noobz347
A Fox Quest! Find Vanilla Ice's 5oh
  • Noobz347
  • Jul 22, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
906
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 18, 2025
FastDriver
1
Engine Motor swap from a 2003 Explorer
  • 1996mustang new
  • Oct 9, 2025
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
619
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Oct 16, 2025
squeak93
J
Fox body - godzilla, coyote, or 408w stroker - Best route for budget build?
  • jaygee15
  • Jan 27, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 30, 2025
2000xp8
0
V6 to V8 Swap info
  • 02_2v_Curtis
  • Jan 11, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
768
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Jan 11, 2026
02_2v_Curtis
0
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?