Could you imagine if the 110 Series was developed out properly? An 8V110 would have been a monster, or even a twin turbo 6-110 would have taken all comers.
My dad ran a 671 in with a five speed and a four speed aux. transmission in a 66 GMC 9500 dump truck up to 1975 and put 650,000 on that truck and changed one blower case and a fuel pump and three clutches. He was very pleased with that truck.
What's interesting on the 2 strokes is the larger the cylinder diameter the quieter they seem to be... or at least the exhaust note is lower and not so tinny sounding. I'd love to hear that engine under load!
This and the truck itself also is very cool especially since it is rare and that it has more displacement than a 6-71 which means it would definitely have more power. These 2 cycle screaming jimmies have unfortunately ended production but they will continue to live for as long as time goes on. I also want to mention that it's a shame this was only produced for a short period of time but there could be reasons for that.
I have worked on the 6-110 series GM Detroit. Marvelous engine that never gave any trouble. 110 cubic inch displacement per cylinder 2 stroke. just like the 71 series only bigger. Usually governed at 2450 rpm high idle.
My guess is that it's more than *just* a turbo. Detroit Diesel two-strokes require a blower to scavenge the exhaust gases, as most people know. I did not see the typical roots-type blower on this engine. Makes me think the thing that looks like a turbocharger is both a turbo and a centrifugal supercharger that is driven off the engine's crankshaft. GM's EMD locomotive engines use an arrangement like that where on lower throttle settings the engine drives the compressor and on higher throttle settings there's enough exhaust gas flow to take over spinning the compressor.
@@seabulls69 I know what you're talking about, but that isn't what this is. You can see the blower housing just below and slightly rear of the turbo housing. I think some of the 110's had that system, but for offroad and on road applications the rpm range varied too much and it would bog too easily. The overridden mechanical turbocharger was much better suited for constant RPM or at least much slower changing RPMs than was found in non-rail applications.
@@kleetus92 I see it. I did find some articles that covered the centrifugal supercharger and it was mounted to the flywheel end of the engine. Upon further examination, the large housing on the front of the turbo in this example is for intake routing as evidenced by the piping coming off the air cleaners coming together in a Y pipe on the left side, which then goes to what I thought might be a pulley. Thanks for getting the gray matter moving.
@@kblackav8or.... IF, it was kept factory original, which I can see that it was not... looking at the exhaust manifold & turbocharger design... the hp rating would have been 349 hp... and a whopping 1080 lbs ft of torque at only 1800 rpm. The bottom end was massively "over-built" (with a future "eye" on further development, had they not failed the initial truck tests with them in 1950 & 1951 using the 1st generation version), and I know for a fact that they had a 6-110X (experimental) that they built up and ran on their in-house dyno cell with a measured 724 hp under full loading for 2 weeks straight (24/7), then tour it down for inspection, and found no issues or abnormal wear. They were tremendous engines, then and now... and were incredibly more reliable than the "EPA" over-burdened truck engines of "today".
@@kblackav8or.... PS; Where & when, exactly.. did you film this? Was it in Idaho, or Washington.. or ?? He couldn't have used a finer looking truck of the era for the conversion, either. The LNT Macks were the best looking trucks (imo) that ever came out of Allentown.
@@kblackav8or.... Thank you for the reply. I was watching a few videos of ATHS meets, yesterday... and found one from that meet, and saw the Mack in the background, but no close up of it.. sadly. Thanks again, and thank you for your coverage of it.
andrew norris..... Extremely "Super Rare"!..... as in, the very first truck conversion with one, that I've actually seen in nearly 56 years around the industry. GM Diesel built 3 trucks as test vehicles using GMC's 950 conventionals, with fabricated extended & raised hoods & matching cabs... 2 were used "in house" at the (then) MI test track & proving grounds, and the 3rd one went on lease to PIE (Pacific Intermountain Express), based in CA. along with a support team from GM Diesel. I was told that Time/DC had converted a small number (15+) of their new (at that time) KW COE's with the redesigned version of the 110, in 1962 to pull their "turnpike doubles" (dbl 40's) between Boston & Albany, NY. on the "Mass. Pike" (I-90). I never was able to actually see the conversions myself, but did hear them from time to time. They were tremendous engines... in power, reliability and longevity and GMD made a Huge mistake in understanding what the trucking industry was needing, and instead... decided to drop the 6-110 in favor of pursuing the series 71 and later development of the series 92.... a Huge miscalculation & mistake on their part.
@@andrewnorris1514.... Thank you for your response, Andrew. Those Were "the days", weren't they?.... at least we got "in" on the last of the good years and times of this Once great country, in so many ways.
Could you imagine if the 110 Series was developed out properly? An 8V110 would have been a monster, or even a twin turbo 6-110 would have taken all comers.
When I worked at a Euclid dealer, the 6-110s were used in the big dump trucks mainly.
My dad ran a 671 in with a five speed and a four speed aux. transmission in a 66 GMC 9500 dump truck up to 1975 and put 650,000 on that truck and changed one blower case and a fuel pump and three clutches. He was very pleased with that truck.
What's interesting on the 2 strokes is the larger the cylinder diameter the quieter they seem to be... or at least the exhaust note is lower and not so tinny sounding. I'd love to hear that engine under load!
Yeah, I'm not a fan of any the 53 series (the sound, I don't own any) ; sounds like an overgrown chainsaw engine to me.
This and the truck itself also is very cool especially since it is rare and that it has more displacement than a 6-71 which means it would definitely have more power. These 2 cycle screaming jimmies have unfortunately ended production but they will continue to live for as long as time goes on. I also want to mention that it's a shame this was only produced for a short period of time but there could be reasons for that.
I love it ! Mack’s are my favorite, I’ve never seen this combination. That 110 has to run better than a 71
Qual a cilindrada??
@@manoelgid4283 660 cubic inches displacement
Around 11.0 liters of displacement
@@manoelgid4283110 cubic inches per cylinder.
@@manoelgid4283110 cubic inches per cylinder so 660 CI
beautiful sounding GM 2 stroke diesel engine in a beautiful truck very nice indeed
I have worked on the 6-110 series GM Detroit. Marvelous engine that never gave any trouble. 110 cubic inch displacement per cylinder 2 stroke. just like the 71 series only bigger. Usually governed at 2450 rpm high idle.
Thats a beast! pure 2 stroke power !
I wish I could have one ride in that beauty!!
That turbo is HUGE!!
My guess is that it's more than *just* a turbo. Detroit Diesel two-strokes require a blower to scavenge the exhaust gases, as most people know. I did not see the typical roots-type blower on this engine. Makes me think the thing that looks like a turbocharger is both a turbo and a centrifugal supercharger that is driven off the engine's crankshaft. GM's EMD locomotive engines use an arrangement like that where on lower throttle settings the engine drives the compressor and on higher throttle settings there's enough exhaust gas flow to take over spinning the compressor.
It has a compound intake
@@seabulls69 I know what you're talking about, but that isn't what this is. You can see the blower housing just below and slightly rear of the turbo housing. I think some of the 110's had that system, but for offroad and on road applications the rpm range varied too much and it would bog too easily. The overridden mechanical turbocharger was much better suited for constant RPM or at least much slower changing RPMs than was found in non-rail applications.
@@kleetus92 I see it. I did find some articles that covered the centrifugal supercharger and it was mounted to the flywheel end of the engine. Upon further examination, the large housing on the front of the turbo in this example is for intake routing as evidenced by the piping coming off the air cleaners coming together in a Y pipe on the left side, which then goes to what I thought might be a pulley. Thanks for getting the gray matter moving.
I didn't know that they put those 6 110s in road trucks I only saw them in equipment.
On road is rare, equipment, fire pumps and the navy
This sounds like a 6v92T built in 1974 before the major Detroit Diesel redesign in 75...
I'm surprised that companies didn't use a 6-110 as a truck engine rather then 71 series. Would of been a good truck engine.
Big power for its day and time
Kevin Oxenham.... easily set up to rival anything in "todays" world of truck engines, as well.
Awesome, such a rarity.
Buzzin' Half-Dozen!
really cool stuff there
Rare engine, rarer truck
Sweet ‼️
Factory set up?
Is it straight 6?
Straight 6 yes
how much power does this make? 400?
I really don't know exactly. I don't think quite that much. I think it was in the 300's.
@@kblackav8or.... IF, it was kept factory original, which I can see that it was not... looking at the exhaust manifold & turbocharger design... the hp rating would have been 349 hp... and a whopping 1080 lbs ft of torque at only 1800 rpm.
The bottom end was massively "over-built" (with a future "eye" on further development, had they not failed the initial truck tests with them in 1950 & 1951 using the 1st generation version), and I know for a fact that they had a 6-110X (experimental) that they built up and ran on their in-house dyno cell with a measured 724 hp under full loading for 2 weeks straight (24/7), then tour it down for inspection, and found no issues or abnormal wear.
They were tremendous engines, then and now... and were incredibly more reliable than the "EPA" over-burdened truck engines of "today".
@@kblackav8or.... PS; Where & when, exactly.. did you film this? Was it in Idaho, or Washington.. or ?? He couldn't have used a finer looking truck of the era for the conversion, either. The LNT Macks were the best looking trucks (imo) that ever came out of Allentown.
@@Romans--bo7br Oregon - ATHS Brooks show August 21
@@kblackav8or.... Thank you for the reply. I was watching a few videos of ATHS meets, yesterday... and found one from that meet, and saw the Mack in the background, but no close up of it.. sadly. Thanks again, and thank you for your coverage of it.
🔥🔥🔥👍💪💯
Qwantwz hp??
Super Rare eh?
andrew norris..... Extremely "Super Rare"!..... as in, the very first truck conversion with one, that I've actually seen in nearly 56 years around the industry. GM Diesel built 3 trucks as test vehicles using GMC's 950 conventionals, with fabricated extended & raised hoods & matching cabs... 2 were used "in house" at the (then) MI test track & proving grounds, and the 3rd one went on lease to PIE (Pacific Intermountain Express), based in CA. along with a support team from GM Diesel.
I was told that Time/DC had converted a small number (15+) of their new (at that time) KW COE's with the redesigned version of the 110, in 1962 to pull their "turnpike doubles" (dbl 40's) between Boston & Albany, NY. on the "Mass. Pike" (I-90). I never was able to actually see the conversions myself, but did hear them from time to time.
They were tremendous engines... in power, reliability and longevity and GMD made a Huge mistake in understanding what the trucking industry was needing, and instead... decided to drop the 6-110 in favor of pursuing the series 71 and later development of the series 92.... a Huge miscalculation & mistake on their part.
@@Romans--bo7br Great Comment ! Ran all kinds of 6,8,and12 Jimmy's. Also ran in and out Milford and Mesa for 0plus yrs. Roll On
@@andrewnorris1514.... Thank you for your response, Andrew. Those Were "the days", weren't they?.... at least we got "in" on the last of the good years and times of this Once great country, in so many ways.
@@Romans--bo7br Great Answer. Generous Motors
@@Romans--bo7br I thought they had some kind of issue because they did not like being revved up and down for truck application