Interesting that the 12V149 was modular from two 6V149's as was DD practice.... however, a "6V149" was never in the books, for sale as a stand-alone engine.... would have put one in my semis if they had them available... even if it would have been "a tad" heavy. lol : ) Would have been nice to hear this one run from start-up to wot.
there is an 8v149 and no highway truck big enough to fit it for width. An 8v149 is as long as a 12v71, but its like 18 inches wider. Mack frames are the most wide frames on the market to fit their V8s. The 149 is too wide and the engine block itself is 5 feet tall won't even fit in a Mack frame. The bottom of a 8v92 block to the top of the block, only comes up to the bottom of the deck of a 149. You still havent put the heads, blower and intake equipment on yet. The 149 exhaust manifolds make the 149 block around 18 inches wider than an 8v92. There is no such thing as a 6v149. The 149 is a giant engine. Hope you get to see one in person and then you'll see it wont fit in a highway truck frame.
@@iBackshift... Hello, and thank you for your reply. Just so you know, I said, what I said with regards to powering a semi with a Series 149.... just to see what kind of responses, if any... that I would get from all the "experts" out there on the internet. I fully realize the futility of anyone trying to accomplish such a physically impossible repowering venture within the confines of any highway type of truck frame and hood or body, in the case of a COE. In reference to the Mack frames, the only models with the forward frame provisions for the E-9 (the earlier V8's did not require frame notching, nor "kick-outs"), were the Cruiseliner (coe) & Superliner (conventional) models. As far as your discussion of the physical attributes of the DD Series 149 engines.... there is NO addition of cylinder heads, nor Roots blowers as you described, while comparing dimensions. Also, with regards to your statement that (quote) "There is no such thing as a 6v149." (end quote).... that is Incorrect. The V12 was of modular construction, just as were the V16 and V20 configurations were. However, the V6 block was never carried "on the books" as being commercially available for mass production for reasons not worth my while in explaining. I am Not going to bother going into all the nuances of the Series 149 versus the undersquare designed series of engines from Detroit Diesel, as it would take far more time and page space on this site, than I care to contribute on here. PS: Just FYI... I have a 4 year degree in Diesel Engine Design & Theory, Specializing in 2 cycle from the mid 1960's and trained directly under P. Nicholas, from GM Diesel Power (later, Detroit Diesel) Research & Development and who was one of the key engineers, in developing the very first 2 cycle GM Diesel Prototype (of which he gifted me, a framed 8"x10" picture of, with himself, one other R&D project engineer and "Boss" Kettering standing next to it in 1937). I also worked with DD in an advisory position on the series 92 engines as well as other "experimental" designs, in the early/mid 1970's. Thanks again for your reply, have a safe new year.
You had a dual 16V149 2100kw genset on your site a while back where two engines shared a common crankshaft and drove a single generator. Any chance there's a video of that one?
AcousticTheory.... I think you're mistaking in your description of the engine you state that was powering a single 2100kw generator, as there was Never a "dual 16V149" that shared a "common crankshaft". The V16 itself was of modular construction, utilizing Two V8 series 149 engines, that were internally joined together, including the crankshafts. All Series Detroits (2 cycle), with configurations greater than 8 cylinders, were of modular construction.
@@Romans--bo7br The engines were not joined to each other directly, but they were connected through the shaft of the generator armature to one another, with the generator being located between the two engines. The generator was made and sold by Stewart and Stevenson, and I have extensive photos but no video.
Interesting that the 12V149 was modular from two 6V149's as was DD practice.... however, a "6V149" was never in the books, for sale as a stand-alone engine.... would have put one in my semis if they had them available... even if it would have been "a tad" heavy. lol : ) Would have been nice to hear this one run from start-up to wot.
Its too big
there is an 8v149 and no highway truck big enough to fit it for width. An 8v149 is as long as a 12v71, but its like 18 inches wider. Mack frames are the most wide frames on the market to fit their V8s. The 149 is too wide and the engine block itself is 5 feet tall won't even fit in a Mack frame. The bottom of a 8v92 block to the top of the block, only comes up to the bottom of the deck of a 149. You still havent put the heads, blower and intake equipment on yet. The 149 exhaust manifolds make the 149 block around 18 inches wider than an 8v92. There is no such thing as a 6v149. The 149 is a giant engine. Hope you get to see one in person and then you'll see it wont fit in a highway truck frame.
@@iBackshift... Hello, and thank you for your reply. Just so you know, I said, what I said with regards to powering a semi with a Series 149.... just to see what kind of responses, if any... that I would get from all the "experts" out there on the internet.
I fully realize the futility of anyone trying to accomplish such a physically impossible repowering venture within the confines of any highway type of truck frame and hood or body, in the case of a COE.
In reference to the Mack frames, the only models with the forward frame provisions for the E-9 (the earlier V8's did not require frame notching, nor "kick-outs"), were the Cruiseliner (coe) & Superliner (conventional) models.
As far as your discussion of the physical attributes of the DD Series 149 engines.... there is NO addition of cylinder heads, nor Roots blowers as you described, while comparing dimensions.
Also, with regards to your statement that (quote) "There is no such thing as a 6v149." (end quote).... that is Incorrect.
The V12 was of modular construction, just as were the V16 and V20 configurations were. However, the V6 block was never carried "on the books" as being commercially available for mass production for reasons not worth my while in explaining.
I am Not going to bother going into all the nuances of the Series 149 versus the undersquare designed series of engines from Detroit Diesel, as it would take far more time and page space on this site, than I care to contribute on here.
PS: Just FYI... I have a 4 year degree in Diesel Engine Design & Theory, Specializing in 2 cycle from the mid 1960's and trained directly under P. Nicholas, from GM Diesel Power (later, Detroit Diesel) Research & Development and who was one of the key engineers, in developing the very first 2 cycle GM Diesel Prototype (of which he gifted me, a framed 8"x10" picture of, with himself, one other R&D project engineer and "Boss" Kettering standing next to it in 1937).
I also worked with DD in an advisory position on the series 92 engines as well as other "experimental" designs, in the early/mid 1970's.
Thanks again for your reply, have a safe new year.
Quietest detroit on earth!
Gonna crank it up so we can see it run?
You had a dual 16V149 2100kw genset on your site a while back where two engines shared a common crankshaft and drove a single generator. Any chance there's a video of that one?
AcousticTheory.... I think you're mistaking in your description of the engine you state that was powering a single 2100kw generator, as there was Never a "dual 16V149" that shared a "common crankshaft".
The V16 itself was of modular construction, utilizing Two V8 series 149 engines, that were internally joined together, including the crankshafts.
All Series Detroits (2 cycle), with configurations greater than 8 cylinders, were of modular construction.
@@Romans--bo7br The engines were not joined to each other directly, but they were connected through the shaft of the generator armature to one another, with the generator being located between the two engines. The generator was made and sold by Stewart and Stevenson, and I have extensive photos but no video.
New version detroit please....
That was a waste of time