Print Page | Close Window

AC 301 or Cummins??

Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Other Topics
Forum Name: Pulling Forum
Forum Description: Forum dedicated to Tractor and Garden Pulling
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=75163
Printed Date: 25 Apr 2024 at 8:02pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: AC 301 or Cummins??
Posted By: KevinON
Subject: AC 301 or Cummins??
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2013 at 4:20pm
Just curious to know what you guys would build if building an orange tractor for a light pro stock class? We can build component chassis', so would you build a 301, hogged out to about 360, or would you go with a 5.9 Cummins. Our cube limit is currently 401 for alky and diesel, but I could see that changing to only 370 for the alcohols. Thanks for the thoughts....



Replies:
Posted By: O.P.S. Heads
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2013 at 5:52pm
Is there a turbocharger limit? Are you limited to one turbo on the diesels?


Posted By: DougG
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2013 at 6:56pm
Mmmm i luv them 301,s, Cummins have alot more parts readily avaliable but id try to make an AC work! Wonder how much reliable horse power you could get out of each


Posted By: AaronSEIA
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2013 at 10:12pm
I've seen roger McKimm take down some big cubes with his twin turboed 301.  I like the 5.9 in a pulling truck.  Myself, I'd play with the 301.
AaronSEIA


Posted By: KGood
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 6:23am
My opinion is an Allis needs an Allis motor. 


Posted By: cornbinder
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 6:40am
it all depends what you want to do I guess. if you wanna stay true to all orange build the 301. if it doesn't matter, run the 12-v cummins with a p pump. you can get 400 h.p. from a p pump 12 valv with only simple bolt ons. 35 psi with a stock hx35 turbo, 16* timing, fuel plate ,and pump tuning will get you 350-400 and still run stock head bolts. I did all these mods to my 95 dodge and it was way to fun!!!

-------------
D-19 gas w/f-sold
185-d yr round cab
95 mustang gt 5.0
86 mustang 5.0 coupe
3 99 f-250 7.3 4x4's
96 f-250 7.3 4x4



Posted By: KevinON
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 7:27am
I would likely run alcohol. We are not limited to turbo size, but can only run one. I guess I was wondering more about air flow capacity of either head. We have to run the original cast head. Thanks!


Posted By: Bob C IL
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 7:35am
It all has to do with cost on my opinion..... I started with 301 the went to cummins. 301 all you have that can be stock is block and crank. Rods need hardend, pump drive needs machined, 301 cubed, needs bigger valves, Lazard injectors, ect, ect, ect. Cummins are everywhere.... Throw in a stock block, few adjustments to the p pump, adjust the waistgate and go play.. MY HEART IS IN ALLIS BUT MY BILLFOLD IS STUCK WITH CUMMINS!!!!


Posted By: 2wise4agm
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 8:49am
I have to agree with bob c. Most of the pulls around here require block and head to be made my same manufacture of the tractor. But if there were more pulls that allowed it my 190 would have a cummins. 20 years newer technology, tougher everything, and way better parts availability.


Posted By: KevinON
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 8:57am
We can run component chassis, so we can use the Cummins easy. Agco used the Cummins, so it follows heritage lines...


Posted By: Bob C IL
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 9:00am
Same with us cummins is the legal replacement for the AC motor


Posted By: Bob C IL
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 9:03am
Kevin.... Cummins has a natural gas or propane 5.9


Posted By: O.P.S. Heads
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 9:36am
That is correct. In the diesel category The 301 Allis will do anything the Cummins will do.... But it will cost more for sure. I thought the original post was for a diesel application.

Going alky would make the cost between a Cummins and the Allis 301 closer together I would think. You would have to buy a ignition system, turbo, fuel system, pistons, conn rods,(I assume they use aluminum rods in an alky Cummins) That would all be the same cost between the two engines. You would have to bore the block in a 301, but you would have to convert the head on a Cummins to spark plugs. I would guess the cost for each of those would be similar - offset.


Posted By: wi50
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 10:17am
I've done some cylinder head work on 5.9 Cummins for the LLSS class, alky burner.  There's some videos of it on youtube and the tractor runs around doing well in the country for a fairley fresh setup.  I've done a little head work and lots of expermenting on the 301 Allis head.  I've got cutaways of both heads here and the CNG head for the Cummins is same as diesel with a slight difference in the plug hole vs injector hole. 
 
The Cummins head sucks, but the Allis head is much worse.  I'd run the Cummins hands down compared to the Allis, and if you want to run on methanol then deffinatly the Cummins.  The Allis is not going to carry fuel in the port near as well as the Cummins will, and in sheer airflow capacity the Cummins will win. 
 
The Cummins is going to be less costly in the end and a tougher product.  The cylinder head parts fo the Cummins are going to be off the shelf parts used from another application, the Allis are going to be special order.  The Cummins block is stronger, the crank has some counterweight and it's easy to get one counterweighted. It will also have more value in the end if and when you chose to sell parts.


-------------
"see what happens when you have no practical experience doing something...... you end up playing with calculators and looking stupid on the internet"


Posted By: KevinON
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 11:13am
Thanks guys.... I have been looking for a cng or lp Cummins head..


Posted By: Bob C IL
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 11:18am
Alldermans in Chicago pulls them out of city busses..


Posted By: KevinON
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 12:27pm
Thanks, Bob C. IL.   What club do you run with??


Posted By: Bob C IL
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 1:33pm
Illiniana pullers ass. Outlaw class


Posted By: wi50
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 2:02pm
The major hurdle with the 301 is going to be the cylinder head.  Think about it for a minute.  It's 6 cyl with a siamesed exhaust port.  When the exhaust valve opens the cylinder is under pressure, this creates a sonic wave, the reason an engine is verry loud without the exhaust manifold on. WIth the fireing order of a 6 cyl and the siamesed exhaust port there is some overlap of exhaust events twards the tail end of one cylinder and the start of the other cylinder shareing the port. Also when that cylinder is closeing and the other cylinder is opening, generateing that sonic wave, the closing cylinder is on overlap, or the intake cycle is starting. This sonic wave is going to cause problems which escilate with RPM 
 
On an methanol burning engine, you are going to be opening the exhaust valve earlier and  for a longer period of time than on the diesel, makeing the problem of the siamesed exhaust port worse.  What you will find is that the Allis will rev so high and hit the end, you will have tuneing issues getting the cylinders balanced.  There's solutions to the problem, but it's going to be $$$$$.
 
The Cummins will not have this problem. You can make the Allis run, but it's going to take some expensive custom partsWink


-------------
"see what happens when you have no practical experience doing something...... you end up playing with calculators and looking stupid on the internet"


Posted By: O.P.S. Heads
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2013 at 2:43pm
Learn me up Marty: Are aluminum conn rods used on a LLSS alky burner? Too bad somebody doesn't make a 301 head that would do the job as good as a Cummins.


Posted By: Hudsonator
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 7:13pm
Do 426 heads suck as bad as the 301?
 
 


-------------
There isn't much a WC can't do.

WD's just do it better.


Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 7:51pm
No, but they still aren't as good as a late model IH or Deere cylinder head.


Posted By: wi50
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 8:32pm
I'm going to side track this thread, but as long as we are on the subject of heads I'd like to share a project that I've been on for a while that I now feel comfortable with.  Hopefully a few of you will find it interesting.
 
 
The above picture shows a raw unmachined casting above an original, the improved combustion chamber compared to the original, you can see some of the improvements to the ports in the pic.
 
 
I'm in the process of haveing a friend write the program for finish machining.  Hole locations, spark plug holes, surfaceing etc. The port developement is done, the patterns are made and I have the first castings.  Machining won't take to long and then I'll put in common off the shelf valve guides and seats, leaving it up to the end user to decide what they want for valvetrain.
 
Should have finish machined castings available shortly for those building this winter....when I port the Minne heads it gets pretty involved and I still can't get much air through them with that original chamber design, the original port sucks badly and involves filling, cutting the casting apart and building a new port out of epoxy to get decent port design, then the valve is shrouded by the chamber and the chambers are fairley thin and don't hold up well.
 
These new heads circulate water, have room for over 2.5" intake valve if you think you can feed it, they have a split intake port, much improved and an improved exhaust port.  The chamber lends to a a good discharge area around the intake valve and funnels the exhaust into the port.  Also good for flame travel and should eliminate detonation.  Heads use OEM bolt patterns, manifolds, rocker arms, stands etc will fit.
 
I've got some peliminary flow tests, the originals won't move much air, after many days in the shop and a pile of money I get them to flow about double their original form, I don't want to post any numbers yet but the tests on the prototype went into the mid 400 CFM range for intake flow at .800" lift.
 
So if you want to throw the Cummins and the Allis under the bus there may just be some mean Molines comeing...... if the shortblocks hold
 


-------------
"see what happens when you have no practical experience doing something...... you end up playing with calculators and looking stupid on the internet"


Posted By: O.P.S. Heads
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 9:33pm
Nice work. Cool stuff for sure.


Posted By: Hudsonator
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 9:45pm
Lovin' that new MM chamber!
 
An astute MM man is gonna notice how slim that spark plug slit is.


-------------
There isn't much a WC can't do.

WD's just do it better.


Posted By: wi50
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 9:54pm
It must just be my awesome photography skills (or lack of lighting) but the plug pockets are the same width in the new as in the old.

-------------
"see what happens when you have no practical experience doing something...... you end up playing with calculators and looking stupid on the internet"


Posted By: O.P.S. Heads
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 9:57pm
You guys know about this stuff and I don't so that's why I am asking the question: With the 226 engine having no combustion chamber in the head and the performance being pretty good compared to the Farmall's and others with combustion chambers, is a well shaped combustion chamber in a head (like the photos of the prototype) better than a head with no combustion chamber at all for an application like this? I assume it is since your new heads are not flat, but how come?

Maybe the question I am asking is if someone was to make a head for a spark plug Allis Chalmers, would a better performing head have a combustion chamber or not?

Thanks for the info and photos. Even has a water jacket. Not easy to do.


Posted By: Hudsonator
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 10:28pm
The stock MM head is a classic example of extreme valve shrouding.  The W-Allis head is a classic example of zero valve shrouding.
 
While the Allis head might seem perfect in terms of shrouding from an intake point of view, its not.  The trick is to contour the chamber (even just a little) to accomdate the natural "plume" emerging from the valve's edge.
 
From an exhaust perspective, you want to reverse the situation and find the right chamber shape to "funnel" the exhaust gases out more efficiently without restriction. 
 
Airflow around the Allis' valves into and out-of the chamber is kinda "confused". Definately not laminar - or even close.  But!, the piston head shape can help that situation - hence the heart shaped M&W Allis pistons.  Jaguar did the same thing back in the day, shaped the chamber in the piston rather than the head (it was flat like an Allis).
 
The MM head is gorgeous - a nice "soft" chamber design that impedes detonation and I'm sure meets the airflow demands at design.
 
Wi50 - did you wet flow or smoke that head to come up with your chamber radius?


-------------
There isn't much a WC can't do.

WD's just do it better.


Posted By: O.P.S. Heads
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 11:03pm
Make sense. Thanks for the explanation in a format I could understand.


Posted By: Hudsonator
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 11:22pm
Originally posted by wi50 wi50 wrote:

It must just be my awesome photography skills (or lack of lighting) but the plug pockets are the same width in the new as in the old.
 
We'll blame it on the five-o-clock shadow that old head is sporting.  Yeah, that's the ticket!
 
How about a picture from the other side of the head?


-------------
There isn't much a WC can't do.

WD's just do it better.


Posted By: Hudsonator
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2013 at 11:29pm
Originally posted by O.P.S. Heads O.P.S. Heads wrote:

Make sense. Thanks for the explanation in a format I could understand.
Thanks - you've certainly helped me understand some diesel principles that I did not know.  Glad to have been able to return the favor.

-------------
There isn't much a WC can't do.

WD's just do it better.


Posted By: wi50
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2013 at 12:15pm
A chamber will help flow more air than a flat surface.  Well, a properly designed chamber anyway.  Those old Moline heads shroud the valve, not a good example.  The flat heads like the Allis you mention have no shrouding, but once the air is discharged around the intake valve, it slows rapidly.
 
Turn on the garden hose sometime, put your hand over the stream of water out away from the hose, as you move your hand closer to the end of the hose, the water flow will tend to "back up" in the hose, the closer you move your hand to the end of the hose, the higher the water pressure will get at the discharge.  Air is no different. 
 
That chamber can help keep the air speed up, further away from the valve and help the flow.  If you tested the flow, then milled the chamber off to the point of haveing a flat head, it would flow less air.
 
Every orfice (meaning port or valve curtain area) have a coefficent of flow, every inlet and outlet have a coeffieicent of flow.  Take a flat plate, make a hole with 1 square inch of area in it, the hole can be round, square, or any shape so long as the area is equill to 1 square inch.  Put it on the airflow bench and pull a negative pressure under it, say the standard 28" H2O and see how much air that plate will flow.  It depends on the envrorment that day and it depends on the edges of the plate, how sharp of an edge is on that orfice.  Anyway just say it flows 85 CFM of air.  Put a rolled edge on the inlet and it will flow more air, put a rolled edge on the outlet and it will flow more air yet.  Put a tube on the inlet and outlet with a large radiused end on the tube like a tuba or horn shape and it will flow more yet. 
 
Typically you want to see a certain amount of flow or air density for a given area in a port, just say 100 CFM per square inch, or 120 CFM per square inch when the valve is at maximun lift.  To large of a port and it's to slow of air speed, or has dead areas, to small and the air speed gets to high, and even though the flow bench shows XXX flow, the small area will hinder the performance of the engine.
 
They say about 142 to 146 CFM per saueare inch of area is optimum for a valve curtain area.  Meaning that a valve seat area X it's lift is the curtain area.  Thers some verry well designed heads that can flow more than this yet, but look at our old tractor heads, they will not come anywhere near this, those ports are just to kinked around, sized wrong, sharp corners, etc.
 
These Moline heads are pretty good, but one can't start with a clean slate and make a perfect part, there's still a lot of compromises to make to get the head bolts in, the manifolds to fit, keep stock appearance and dimensions for the bolt on accesories.  I'd like to make one for an Allis sometime, but the market just isn't there.  The cost of development and pattern costs is verry high.  There's aftermarket Farmall 450 heads available, but they really aren't any improvement over the originals other than the fact that they are available and reasonably priced.  I can sell these Moline heads fairley reasonable, but it takes a lot of time and money in the R&D and pattern work that I need to add a fee to every one made.


-------------
"see what happens when you have no practical experience doing something...... you end up playing with calculators and looking stupid on the internet"


Posted By: EricSWPA
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2013 at 11:39am
Its a shame there isn't more of a market for the all is stuff


Posted By: NickT(Ky)
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2013 at 8:41pm
I thought you could use snowmobile spark plugs in the 5.9 diesel head where the the injectors go? Or at least I was told that by a local pulling legend around here who has been pulling molines for 50 years. Has a cummins alky in his now.


Posted By: Acllss puller
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2020 at 6:48pm
I’m running carillo rods in mine with no issues know of several doing this .


Posted By: Acllss puller
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2020 at 6:50pm
Lol seen one done by somebody on here lol ???? Know of one on a tractor too runs tough !!!



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net