I was at the local truck pulls the other night and one of the guys there who works at a local truck shop said that most guys have found that they are unable to get big HP numbers out of the HO engines do to the fact the blocks and other important components of the engine are not as durable as the older engines.

This discussion came up when a Dodge with three turbos was pulling. He said they guy had blown up 3 HO motors trying the same thing before he scrapped the idea and went back to the older motor.

Does this make sense or was he talking crap?

Nope! Thats the same thing that I've heard/read. The HO engines don't seem to like mods. Maybe because the way they have been tweeked to get the extra 10hp/50fttq? The SO motors are said the be the way to go.

Nope! Thats the same thing that I've heard/read. The HO engines don't seem to like mods. Maybe because the way they have been tweeked to get the extra 10hp/50fttq? The SO motors are said the be the way to go.

I don't think he means HO -vs- SO. I think he means 3rd Gen CR -vs- pre common rail engines.

There were a few 500-600 hp CR Cummins at Indy a few weeks ago. Not sure what you mean by big hp.

I meant 1000+ HP.

I do not know all the "codes" for the Cummins motors. I was referring though to the 3rd gen. I assumed the 3rd gen was HO.

So, if the 3rd gen with the common rail system cant handle big HP 1000+ I would assume that we'll continue to see the older engines be the preferred pull engines for Dodge trucks.

Thanks.

There was an HO and an SO 3rd gen in 2003.

Got any specifics about these 1000+hp 3rd gens and what breaks? Amazing they got 1000 hp out of them with this engine only being out for a few years. Is there a 1000 hp Dmax yet?

I do not know if they got an HO up to 1000 or not. It was just the number he used to say that when they tried to get at least 1000 HP, they kept blowing the engines up. The blocks were not as thick in some areas, heads where machined thiner, etc. Said that overall the problem was that the engine was made cheaper, and it showed when trying to crank big numbers out of them, the same way they do with older engines.

I am not aware of a 1000 HP Dmax yet.

gen 2 ETH DEE (AKA HO 6 Speed's) have piston oil squirters
gen 2 ETC (AKA SO 5 speed/automatic) do not until 2002 MY

As well I believe there were some differences in VP-44 factory calibrations, so typically the pump has more reserve than the HO's do. Adding the identical box and comparing an SO/HO typically will net the same HP gain, but the SO seems more responsive because it gains more hp % wise from baseline over an HO

That's about all i can remember right now. There are a few other differences.

I was at the local truck pulls the other night and one of the guys there who works at a local truck shop said that most guys have found that they are unable to get big HP numbers out of the HO engines do to the fact the blocks and other important components of the engine are not as durable as the older engines.

This discussion came up when a Dodge with three turbos was pulling. He said they guy had blown up 3 HO motors trying the same thing before he scrapped the idea and went back to the older motor.

Does this make sense or was he talking crap?

a new common rail dodge running the TST box will blow the shiznit out of a stock turbo. or a B1 or a DZ or an HX 40 for that matter.
Twins are needed to keep things together on a high HP common rail dodge.

The dodges have been nuking turbos like mad on the HPCR CTD's These 'unkillable' turbos were pioneered on the VP44 dodges and the P7100 dodges.... so you might ask why they are blowing up on the common rail motors that are making less power.

The answer is right there..... the HPCR engine does not have as much fuel capacity as the P7100 pumps do.... so we can rule out the amount of fuel being the causative agent in blowing turbos.

What does that leave us?
Only 2 Things.

1. Timing.... the prev engines had no timing controls on the pump (excluding the VP-44 which can vary timing slightly) The HPCR system is really full authority over fuel timing VS RPM.
So in actual fact it is WHEN the last and biggest shot of fuel goes in that is killing the turbos.
That also explains why the new engines feel somewhat 'soft' on the bottom end. Timing is less at part throttle, and ramps up when WOT is commanded. More than likely this is to pass NOX emissions. Just a thought.

2. Cam Timing. In order to compensate for the perception of lack of low end torque, what has been done with the cam timing and the lift/duration?


After that, I'm fresh out of ideas. Better talk to someone else who knows more about the CTD than me.

Well, I think that makes sense to me :)