Yeah a cummins swap would be eaiser but everyone has one and this thing has tons of power stock. A few modification and I could get the ft/lbs of torque over 2000.

 

You're all dumb, the 3116 has 800ft lbs of torque, not 1800, the 3116 will get better mileage than the 5.9, and it is way more reliable engine than the 5.9 especially the early years of them, my dad's 35,000 lbs Peterbilt service truck got 11mpg and would pull a 9% incline mountain pass going 45mph, that's a 6.6l engine from the 90's the Cummins his new service truck has in it is a 12 liter Cummins and it'll only pull the same pass going 39mph and it averages around 6mpg, and not to mention his 3116 lasted 570,000 miles and the Cummins in his last one lasted 280,000

 

9 year old thread!

 

Well, lets see here. This is a fine example of how NOT to start out on a Forum. This thread is almost 12 years old, yet here you are, bumping it up. And then you start off with calling us all Dumb. Yeah, that's a real good way to win friends. Of course, I suspect this will be your ONLY post here. Just another drive-by poster, that contributes absolutely nothing to the site.

You should check your math.

 

Unless that 3116 has mods they were only rated 175-300hp and 420-860 ft lbs, should be marked on the engine spec tag somewhere on the motor. It is only a 6.6l after all in a commercial application, they tend to de-rate them for longevity.

 

Yeah! Don't know where i got 9 from.

 

Wow I feel dumb for not seeing how old this thread was.