200hp Cummins?

[Wannabe]

Looking at a unit that uses an 18K Freightliner chassis with a 200hp Cummins @ 520# of torque (believe it's a 6.7) and Allison 1000. The MH is 28+ feet and probably would weigh in close to the 18K ready to go. Is this rig going to have any power? How will I do pulling a 3K toad? Thanks for any help!

[94-Newmar]

Go give it a drive! I would imagine you'd be able to 'feel' how well it's going to tow 3k after driving it without the toad.

[Wannabe]

My problem is it's 450 miles away. I was just trying to get an idea before driving all that way, but nothing wrong with your suggestion.

[94-Newmar]

A simple 450 mile drive would be much appreciated rather than getting stuck with something that can't do the job you need it to do! Grab the family and take a road trip. hehe Keep us posted on what you find out!

[ua40j]

Not knowing what year, I can only give you a couple points of reference. The Allison 1000 is limited to about 620ft/lbs of torque, so your 200hp engine with it's 520ft/lb rating is well matched. But there is room for upgrading if it can be upgraded. New injectors or an ECM flash could be possible. And there is always the Banks upgrades.

Larger coaches typically run between 80lbs of weight per HP and 90lbs per HP. For example, my coach is 32K with a 350hp engine and 1050lbs of torque. So, I'm running around 91lbs/hp. The torque makes it snappy in first and second gear....but that's it. It definitely doesn't take off like my Impala SS. But it's not supposed to.

I've seen some folks reference a 100lbs/hp as minimum. But I don't know where that comes from.

I would think that one should get the most HP for the money. So if this coach is financially 'the one', then I think you'll be happy with it's performance as long as it is mechanically sound.

Another thing, these coaches are well known for great fuel economy. So even if it turns out to be a dog, you'll be money ahead at the pump.

[Gary RVRoamer]

A 200 hp Cummins is more likely a 5.9L engine than a 6.7L, which was introduced just recently. Same basic engine, but a smaller displacement in the 5.9L. It was typically made available is 190 and 230 hp versions, but could be tuned for most any hp rating they wanted it to have.

200 HP at low rpms in the diesel is going to equal or exceed what a larger gas engine produced at low rpms, so it ought to be ok. Not fast, but ok.

[Wannabe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary RVRoamer A 200 hp Cummins is more likely a 5.9L engine than a 6.7L, which was introduced just recently. 200 HP at low rpms in the diesel is going to equal or exceed what a larger gas engine produced at low rpms, so it ought to be ok. Not fast, but ok.

I just looked at the Freightliner web page and it's a 6.7L ISB with 520# of torque. It would be a 2011 model. Wonder if this engine has a jake brake?

[J Walker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabe I just looked at the Freightliner web page and it's a 6.7L ISB with 520# of torque. It would be a 2011 model. Wonder if this engine has a jake brake?

It has a lot more HP than 200 if it is a 6.7L. Also the 1000 transmission won't be enough to handle it. The new ISB 6.7 engines have variable boosters that are used to restrict the air intake instead of having an exhaust brake.

[Gary RVRoamer]

OK, I've got this figured out. Wannabe is looking at a rig on the new MC-L chassis, which is 18,000 lb and uses a 200 HP version of the Cummins 6.7L and a 6 speed Allison 1000MH transmission. See the brochure & spec sheet here:
http://freightlinerchassis.com/docum...4813000000.pdf

With an 18,000 lb coach and 3000 lb toad, 200 hp in a low-revving diesel & 6 speed tranny ought to work fine.

Damon, Gulfstream, Winnebago/Itasca, and Triple E are building coaches on the MC-L chassis. Which one are you looking at?

[Wannabe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary RVRoamer With an 18,000 lb coach and 3000 lb toad, 200 hp in a low-revving diesel & 6 speed tranny ought to work fine. Damon, Gulfstream, Winnebago/Itasca, and Triple E are building coaches on the MC-L chassis. Which one are you looking at?

I'm looking at the 2806 Avanti by Damon and just about talked myself into it. I believe the 200hp is just tuned down; and, if the trans will take it, probably has a lot of potential. Only negatives are the width of the bed and the TPO roof, but at least the A/C has a condensation drain instead of spilling on the roof. Can't find anyone that has one and hate to pioneer, but the Freightliner, Cummins, and Allison help a lot.

[J Walker]

Gary wins the prize for figuring out which MH Wanabe is looking at. It is a big step in another direction and probably quite good. I have looked at the Avanti pictures and specs and it is interesting. It is a big downsize and living and storage space are reduced from the conventional DPs. The reason to consider the Avanti is less fuel consumption. Aerodynamics and reduced weight will really help. If it seems big enough to suit you go for it. Check out the fuel tanks. I recall that there was limited capacity limiting cruising range. You want a large cruising range with diesel since you can't fill up just anywhere especially with a big rig. A TPO roof is considered a step up from EPDM and a definite plus. I will add that the Avanti being smaller isn't priced low at all.

[RustyJC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Walker The new ISB 6.7 engines have variable boosters that are used to restrict the air intake instead of having an exhaust brake.

Don't know about the MH application of this engine, but the 2011 6.7L Dodge Ram version I have on order has a VGT (variable geometry turbo) Holset turbocharger that incorporates the exhaust brake function - when exhaust braking is called for, the VGT moves to minimum flow position to restrict exhaust flow. It's controlled by the engine's ECM via an exhaust brake selector button on the dash and integrates with the 6-speed 68RFE automatic transmission's downshifting schedule when in the tow/haul mode. The 6.7L in the Dodge HD pickup is rated 350 BHP & 650 ft-lb torque, so a 200 BHP rating would barely have the engine stressed.

Rusty

[Wannabe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Walker Check out the fuel tanks. I recall that there was limited capacity limiting cruising range. You want a large cruising range with diesel since you can't fill up just anywhere especially with a big rig. A TPO roof is considered a step up from EPDM and a definite plus. I will add that the Avanti being smaller isn't priced low at all.

I first looked at the Avanti in 2009 when it was on the workhorse 16K chassis, had the noisy International MaxForce diesel, and had a 40 gallon fuel tank (for both engine and generator). CCC was low, Damon had tried to quiet the engine with only fair success, and I couldn't see anyway to overcome the fuel tank.
The 2011 model has a 2K higher GVWR chassis, a lot quieter diesel, and a 60 gallon fuel tank. I'm impressed that Damon reacted that fast, but they seem determined to have the Avanti work. If I didn't have two RV's now, I would jump on it especially before the urea requirement kicks in. Sigh, just too many toys and not enough time!

[J Walker]

Wannabe, You are right that the Avanti attracts a lot of attention. I like the forward thinking and making changes that make sense. Being bold enough to downsize is good. I especially like the aerodynamic improvements. I own a Damon DP and for ten years it has been trouble free, but Damon's record in the past on QA has been spotty. Things may have already turned around with Thor in charge. It takes time to tell.