I didnt know know cummins made a v8 turbo diesel. Interestingly enough its made for the military in tracked tactical vehicles(tanks). And that motor makes some seroius hp. I know this statement will cause an all out war with the dodge guys, but if the i6 design is so superior to the v8,then why would they choose to put v8 in tracked military vehicles (I'm instigating again, aint I).opcorn: But seriously, i thought this was an interesting find. Sorry if this has ben posted before. http://www.cummins.com/na/pages/en/products/military/v903.cfm http://www.babcockdisposals.co.uk/WebRoot/Store/Shops/BabcockSupportServices/Products/B0000000040774/B0000000040774.jpeg V903 Series: A versatile, capable performer, this compact V8 is ideally suited to continued development of tracked tactical vehicles. Cummins advanced engine research, leading to the demonstration of very high specific ratings, is transferred to the V903. The Cummins V903 Series ranges from 295 to 825 horsepower. During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the Cummins V903 diesel (shown) powered over 2,500 Coalition vehicles (including the Multiple Launch Rocket System and every Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the theater) during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
Ah yes, the 903. My experience with them is in OTR and agriculture applications, where it is for the most part not a very desireable powerplant. Most OTR guys from back in the day of those motors didn't like them a whole lot. Why? I honestly can't give reasons but have heard many times that it wasn't as good as a small or big cam Cummins when the 903 has come up in conversations. But, what I do remember was that durability had come up more than once, it didn't last as long as the I6's. The 903 was also used in large 8 wheel articulating tractors. Steiger and Versatile used them. I have a an 855 Versatile myself and am glad it has a Big Cam in it, and not the 903. I hear it doesn't deliver the torque like the Big Cam does in identical tractors and the 903 uses more fuel. I have also noticed that tractors with the 903 generally resale for a lesser value than those equipped with small & big cam Cummins, L10's, and a few assorted I6 Cats. As far as the military using it, I don't know. The military did a lot of goofy things over the years that many people find odd. I can think of several in the GM M1008's.
back in the day-- I worked on them. They did not produce the H\P at low RPM but they did ok on the all out pull. they were disliked most for the amount of smoke that they produced at cold starts. CALL THE FIRE DEPT. Most people that did like them were also drivers used to driving the old 318's or 8\92. The life expectancy was also considerability shorter than that of the big cams. Fuel milage never seemed to get past the 4.0 - 4.5 range, but that was years ago. I am actually suprised to see that it is still in production.
903 I can't remember the specs, but the 903 was a dog, but the VT903 was a powerhouse!! Seems like the VT had 1 or 2 turbos and some of the big fellows back in the 70's would blow your mud flaps off with the VT.
The only v903 I ever worked on was in the oilfield. They converted the engine into a huge high psi producing compressor. They changed the standard pistons over to three stage pistons to obtain the high pressure for running tubing down producing gas wells to blow out wax or sand when the well slowed down in production. The v903 was mounted on the deck of the truck(which also carried a huge drum of flex tubing) and was driven on the crank pulley from a splitter box mounted on the main drive shaft. The used a multi grooved belt(v-belt serpintine) like is used in a lot of agriculture apps. It was quite an interesting set up.
The Coast Guard still uses them in the 41 footer. That boat is a workhorse and I havent really ever heard anything bad about them in the marine field...Now the 92 series Detroits, dont get me started.
Yep, spent many long hours on 41's and working on those 903's. The original 41's had naturally aspirated engines and the later models had turbos. The aluminum boats were a huge improvement over the old 40' steel utb, like being in a cadillac compared to a model t. (I don't even want to think about the wooden or steel 30' boats.) The 41 did suck the fuel however and carried 500 gallons of fuel. We had to install a pump at the base in Charleston because it took hours to fill the tanks with the old gravity feed system that served the old boats so well. Some times we couldn't completely refuel the boat before having to get underway on the next call. Seems strange that the 41's are now being replaced with the 47' boats. My main training was on Detroits and I had just a limited amount of training for Cummins mostly in the PT fuel systems. We also had some V8-300M Cummins in the 31' boats used at the schools in Va. The rest of those boats had 8V53 Detroits. The 2 strokes ran circles around the Cummins and lasted a lot longer. Twice in the 2 years that I was there I ordered complete 300M engines whereas all the Detroits were original. Plus the Detroits could lose several cylinders and still run. I've been stranded by more Cummins powered boats than I care to think about. Including one that threw a rod through the side of the block knocking the alternator off the other engine. I wa hearing noises and had lifted the engine cover to see what was going on just in time to actually see the side ot the engine explode and the rod hit the alternator. This happened on a dark night and in no time we started losing our batteries. When the base lost contact they sent another boat to search for us. We were still underway but had no lights or radios, I had put the remaining engine on manual and the other boat escorted us back to the base. That plastic 40 was pulled from the water the next day and scrapped as we had just received our brand new 41 from Baltimore. On the other hand I can't recall ever having a Detroit go down that I couldn't get running again and back to port and the dock. I carried spare injectors for the Detroits in my tool box and have had to replace locked injectors while drifting in the open ocean. Water in the fuel would cause the rack in an injector to seize and lock the throttle in position...would take about 30 minutes to find the bad one, replace it, and run the rack. I was pretty good at running a rack and did it by feel as sometimes at night it was easier than using a dial indicator and rubber band. That all seems so long ago now but I remember them like yesterday. OT
OK guys here's an ole W-4 Bosn talking. I really liked the 40 UTB, especially the 40477, 40572, and the 40478. That was the best work boat ever built. (6-71's) The 41 UTB was not a work boat. It was somewhere to hide from the weather. Rode like KK and would kill a crew in a heatbeat with those small rudders in a heavy sea and the lack of a flared bow for sea keeping. I tested the original 42046 that had 8-71's in it. It ran good. The production models, as you guys know were Turboed 903's. I had two 41's at the station and never saw more than 2500 hrs out of a engine. That was due mostly to a flawed design in the sea chest. I heard the 903's in the over the road truck fleet really did good. Cummins also made VT370M which was a 375hp V-8 that showed up in 30ft UTB's. 28kt boat. So much torque at 2800 rpm the boat would lean to the starboard side. When cummins quite making them, 6-71's went in. That was a pig boat. Some places experimented with differant combo's. Cape Charles Station put two 454's in with Outdrives. That was a mover. The old 30's still live in Sea Tow Service. There is one 40 footer down here in commercial service. Saw it about a month ago. Was going to stop to see which one it was, it was gone. Oh well, so much for the past. The 47 MLB is a direct result of the accidents that took place with 41ft UTB and the lack of crew training and responsibility when operating them. Now, instead of flipping them or pitchpolling, they just hit buoys in the day time and run them aground. I like my Cummins and the noise it makes. I can hear the drone of twin engines at 68 mph. Only an Inline engine can do that. Sorry did not want to make this a boat form. I did talk about the topic, however. Dave
