• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

TUCKER 1642

Don't think so dds...

Cummins made a V6 version of the 555 V8 they had back in the early 80's. The V configuration diesel had a renasance back then...I have seen several over the years, the last in a timber jack skidder if I remeber right. It would have about 425 cubic inch displacement if I did the math right. Parts for it may be available, but not an often seen engine IMHO...

Quick search yeilded very little other than it does exist. E bay has manuals for it. Maybe dirived from the 504 V8 they made as well. Very uncommon Cummins though....

Regards, Kirk
 
Last edited:
those i know about, but a 425 v6 under the hood of a tucker in the early 80's? that would be a tight fit if not impossable. the thing would have to be a monster like the old toro flow gm motors.
 
From what I could find the displacement was in the 370 cubic inch range, maybe 365 same as the 6.0 Ford Power Stroke. This made it harder to search as they are newish and on the net. These older Cummins V6's aren't. But they made several versions, a marine version too...Google it. They are related to the 555 or tripple nickel V8 engine that was NOT a good engine for various reasons. Cummins dropped all of the V series engines from there line up at some point, in the late 80's I am thinking....I am sure there were reasons's for them to do so. Beware.

Regards, Kirk
 
Tucker did indeed offer a V-6 Cummins option, but I believe it was only available in the heavy-duty versions. That would be the 1700 and 2700 series machines. So the Tucker listed on Craigslist is most likely a 1742.

The engine itself was the V-378 (normally aspirated) or VT-378 (turbocharged).

As Don and Kirk have said, the Cummins 6BT replaced the 378 engines and has been extremely popular, whereas the 378 seems to be somewhat rare.

I did a quick Craigslist wide search and found one marine version for sale in New England but that was it. There were two pages worth of 6BT's 6BT's for sale.

I took a quick look at the photos of the Tucker in the Craigslist ad and it looks like the rear carriers were installed backwards. The carriers on a long track Tucker are asymmetrical. That is to say the journal (which mounts on the axle) is closer to one end. The "long" end of the carrier is positioned away from the center of the machine.

A 1700 series machine has a slightly longer wheelbase than a 1600, but on a 1600 series machine I'd bet if you turned sharply the grousers on the front carriers would hit the grousers on the rear carrier; Not good!
 
Blackfoot Tucker said:
Tucker did indeed offer a V-6 Cummins option, but I believe it was only available in the heavy-duty versions. That would be the 1700 and 2700 series machines. So the Tucker listed on Craigslist is most likely a 1742.

The engine itself was the V-378 (normally aspirated) or VT-378 (turbocharged).

As Don and Kirk have said, the Cummins 6BT replaced the 378 engines and has been extremely popular, whereas the 378 seems to be somewhat rare.

I did a quick Craigslist wide search and found one marine version for sale in New England but that was it. There were two pages worth of 6BT's 6BT's for s
I took a quick look at the photos of the Tucker in the Craigslist ad and it looks like the rear carriers were installed backwards. The carriers on a long track Tucker are asymmetrical. That is to say the journal (which mounts on the axle) is closer to one end. The "long" end of the carrier is positioned away from the center of the machine.

A 1700 series machine has a slightly longer wheelbase than a 1600, but on a 1600 series machine I'd bet if you turned sharply the grousers on the front carriers would hit the grousers on the rear carrier; Not good!
Click to expand...
Good eye on the carriers. what diferentials are on the 1700s?
 
We had some experience with these Cummin's V6's and 8's used on windmachines for frost protection in citrus and other crops. They tended to produce allot of vibration that, ultimately, rendered them less than desirable. Also, they were pretty noisey. They, too, were introduced in the early 1980's and were not used very long. Hard to find one today that is still in service though other engines used during that time are still working.
 
i'm kind of suprised tucker and other snow cat manufactures never used the gm 8.2 fuel pincher i still see a lot of them on the road they seemed to be a good motor for the money i also have worked on alot of 3208 cat engines they seem to fill about the same void but are a lot more expensive i think also a bit heavy'r .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top