2009 Ford Super Duty retrofitted with a 4-53 Detroit (GM) diesel engine

[Milaca]

Move over Studebaker truck, there is another 4-53 powered truck on the road now. Though this engine is newer as it is a 4-53T (turbocharged) version, I assume it is very similar to the 4-53 that Studebaker offered.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/37042/swapping-a-40-year-old-detroit-diesel-into-a-2009-ford-super-duty-takes-so-much-work

[PackardV8]

Technically interesting, but logically inexplicable.

the Power Stroke started blowing black smoke uncharacteristically and, as it turned out, the injectors for cylinders one and two were stuck partially open.

His 6.4 Powerstroke needed a couple of injectors replaced, but instead he spent $10,000 swapping the obsolete 4-53 to make his truck heavier, slower, less powerful, less efficient and noisier?

jack vines

[Milaca]

I thought the same thing Jack. Despite what the article claims, I don't believe that the engine weighs 1000 lbs more than the original engine, but it was still a poor choice of engine.
He should be a candidate for one of those "Real Men of Genius" commercials, like the one shown here:

[PackardV8]

I thought the same thing Jack. Despite what the article claims, I don't believe that the engine weighs 1000 lbs more than the original engine, but it was still a poor choice of engine.]

Although the engine sizes up at just 212 cubic inches, or a hair under 3.5 liters, it weighs around 1,300 pounds on its own thanks to its cast iron construction."The truck weighs 9,200 pounds with the Detroit in it," Park said. "It added 1,000 pounds [over the 6.4-liter]. I went overboard on the soundproofing ... I used lead on the firewall, 16-gauge sheet lead, and that really helped."

The Detroit 4-53 weighs 1220# dry, per the Studebaker Truck Specification Book. The 6.4 weighs no more than 720#, so 500# difference.

jack vines

[Buzzard]

I am with Jack and have only three questions: Why? Why? Why?
Bill

[tsenecal]

I can think of a couple of reasons. It's different, and it sounds cool when it's running. Definitely not an upgrade for power though. If money was no object, I would put the new 2.8 Cummins diesel in my M15A, with an NV5600 transmission.

[firestoper 25]

Ref posts #2 &5 Now guys lets look backwards, in the 50's & 60's G.M. was very successful in getting their two cycle diesel into all the major markets (examples as marine, stationary power, regular & emergency power generation, over the road, mining & material handling markets, etc.).As a result the very different howl of the "jimmy" at full song is a sound you always can recall and this scream was every where you went. In the mid 60's the local canning factory that I drove truck for (15 1/2 at the time and still in high school....the best job in the town to impress the cute area farm girls !) had an old clapped out early 50's five ton GMC straight truck powered by a 6-71 jimmy. With an over flowing full load of peas the 5 speed trans - 2 speed rear end was needed to make time on the field to factory runs. At night the best fun was to take a vice grip and pinch off the fuel return line so on long runs at high speed if everything was just right you could get a SMALL on-off flickering flame out of the exhaust pipe up by the cab door (the driver could see the stack tip in the west coast mirror). So I have no problem understanding WHY someone with time, talent,money and the drive (pun intended) would like to experience the 'screaming jimmy' once again. Sherm / Green Bay / 63R1089

[PackardV8]

Ref posts #2 &5 Now guys lets look backwards, in the 50's & 60's G.M. was very successful in getting their two cycle diesel into all the major markets (examples as marine, stationary power, regular & emergency power generation, over the road, mining & material handling markets, etc.).As a result the very different howl of the "jimmy" at full song is a sound you always can recall and this scream was every where you went. In the mid 60's the local canning factory that I drove truck for (15 1/2 at the time and still in high school....the best job in the town to impress the cute area farm girls !) had an old clapped out early 50's five ton GMC straight truck powered by a 6-71 jimmy. With an over flowing full load of peas the 5 speed trans - 2 speed rear end was needed to make time on the field to factory runs. At night the best fun was to take a vice grip and pinch off the fuel return line so on long runs at high speed if everything was just right you could get a SMALL on-off flickering flame out of the exhaust pipe up by the cab door (the driver could see the stack tip in the west coast mirror). So I have no problem understanding WHY someone with time, talent,money and the drive (pun intended) would like to experience the 'screaming jimmy' once again. Sherm / Green Bay / 63R1089

Agree, but consider a 4-53 is 212 cubic inches and makes only half the screaming of the 426" 6-71 you fondly remember.

It's different, and it sounds cool when it's running.

The engine he's using is the later turbocharged model; the exhaust running through the turbo mutes and homogenizes the exhaust note; not so much "screamin' Jimmy" there any more.

https://www.dieselarmy.com/news/vide...er-brake-dyno/

jack vines

[t walgamuth]

Well, it makes some sense to me, but you know, I am the guy with a five cylinder diesel in my 39 CE. One word....symplicity.

[firestoper 25]

Jack, 1/2 a banana is better than NO banana, just saying........ The 6V-92TI (turbo'd) in our 75' Pierce ladder fire truck was a sound to behold. Sherm / Green Bay / 63R1089

[PackardV8]

Jack, 1/2 a banana is better than NO banana, just saying........ The 6V-92TI (turbo'd) in our 75' Pierce ladder fire truck was a sound to behold. Sherm / Green Bay / 63R1089

Well, yes 552" of two stroke is going to make some noise.

jack vines

[firestoper 25]

Jack you got me thinking last night about our old fire trucks and the 477 &534 gas Ford super duty cab overs were in my mind all night (I was even dreaming about in service / out of service repair issues!). What are your thoughts about the Packard 374 going to 500 and using that in the Studebaker truck line (before the Detroit option time frame)? Wild thought...bring back the Packard truck line for the heavier duty market? I have to ring off and get some morning "cup of Joe". Sherm /Green Bay/ 63R1089

[PackardV8]

What are your thoughts about the Packard 374 going to 500 and using that in the Studebaker truck line (before the Detroit option time frame)? Wild thought...bring back the Packard truck line for the heavier duty market?

The basic Packard V8 engine architecture could easily have been beefed up to be a medium-duty truck engine.

Yes, the Packard V8 had some issues which would have to have been addressed; don't forget the big-block Chevrolet had durability problems the first few years and required significant modification and improvement to become the reliable truck and high-performance engine it eventually became.

jack vines