Which engine in the 1981 Crew Cab?

[Mark Nixon]

Okay, as you can see by the poll, I have 3 engine choices listed that I can attach a 1999 NV4500 5 speed to, and install it in the 1981 Crew Cab I recently acquired.
I have the logistics to install each engine mostly figured out (due to previous installs), so my transmission choice can be put behind any one of them with hardly any differentiation of the actual mounts.
All 3 power plants mentioned run equally well, each one is worthy of installing, though the Commonrail does entail a bit more wiring, sensor and exhaust work.

Keep in mind, regardless of the engine, 1STGEN Cummins engine mounts/isolators, and the stock crossmember moved rearward are the STANDARD, so setting it down into the truck is equal in difficulty for each engine!

Personally, I think the Commonrail would show some creativity to get installed and working properly, but I know most folks prefer the mechanical injection engines, with the P-pumper being very easy to get nice horsepower numbers from, but since this is 1stgen.org, I expect that the VE engine will get favorite spot, due to familiarity and simplicity.

Think of this not as what I should do, but what you would do personally, given the options at hand.

Mark.

[JustinRhodes]

My vote is for the common rail.

The reason for this is because out of all the Cummins swapped crew cabs, most have a 12v. It would be cool, and different in my opinion to have a common rail crew cab.

With whatever you pick though, I'm sure it will be a cool project.

[dazedandconfused]

I vote common rail.

[oldestof11]

With EFILive tune, you can have WAY more towing power, better mileage, and better driveability than anything else you put in. The commonrail going into a truck that weighs slightly less with the towing you do will be better overall.

The only sad fact of that year is the injectors being expensive to replace and I do believe the 04.5 and later ones had valve seat issues. Or is it the 03-04 that had them???

I voted CR.

[cmann250]

I voted CR. I've never seen one in a truck of that vintage. Cool project Mark

[PToombs]

Traitorous bastards! I hope you all get wiring gremlins!
A common rail is just wrong, and the wiring sure won't be that easy either. I've worked on enough of them to know that it doesn't take much to screw up the way it runs with a wire problem. On the other hand, you have close to 300hp without any mods done.
I'd do a 12v just because it's an easier install overall. Why waste time trying to wire it when you can be driving it?

[Tacoclaw]

Common rail.

Oldest, Mark won't even mess with the fuel screw on a VE truck. What makes you think he's going to touch EFI live?

Pete, this is 1sten.org, we all have wiring problems.

[AHineman]

VE all the way.

[PToombs]

Pete, this is 1sten.org, we all have wiring problems.

Wanna bet? Not even self inflicted!

Right on Hineman!

[1990]

Common rail for sure!

[cmann250]

Pete, this is 1sten.org, we all have wiring problems.

I haven't had any since I debadged all traces of "DODGE". I just have Ram and Cummins badges I read in another thread that Mark already has the CR running, out of the truck

[oldestof11]

Oldest, Mark won't even mess with the fuel screw on a VE truck. What makes you think he's going to touch EFI live?

Because it won't smoke on the low end with more fuel.

[AHineman]

Common Rails sound like crap and cost too much to work on.

[Mark Nixon]

Contrary to what some apparently believe, my '91 flatbed has both a 3200 spring and the fuel screw turned in significantly.
And, wouldn't you know, it ROLLS SMOKE if you get on the skinny pedal hard.

For the record, as some folks know, I DON'T consider this a 1stgen, but rather a Cummins conversion using a Dodge body and parts.

Mark.

[Philip]

Of the 3 engines listed. I would drop the common rail in. Wiring isn't much of an issue. Painless makes a kit for the 2003 to 2005 model engines.

http://www.painlessperformance.com/webc ... ield=60250