Mack with Detroit Diesel 6 / 110 engine 

Yeah, I'm not a fan of any the 53 series (the sound, I don't own any) ; sounds like an overgrown chainsaw engine to me.

Qual a cilindrada??

@@manoelgid4283 660 cubic inches displacement Around 11.0 liters of displacement

​@@manoelgid4283110 cubic inches per cylinder.

@@manoelgid4283110 cubic inches per cylinder so 660 CI

My guess is that it's more than *just* a turbo. Detroit Diesel two-strokes require a blower to scavenge the exhaust gases, as most people know. I did not see the typical roots-type blower on this engine. Makes me think the thing that looks like a turbocharger is both a turbo and a centrifugal supercharger that is driven off the engine's crankshaft. GM's EMD locomotive engines use an arrangement like that where on lower throttle settings the engine drives the compressor and on higher throttle settings there's enough exhaust gas flow to take over spinning the compressor.

It has a compound intake

@@seabulls69 I know what you're talking about, but that isn't what this is. You can see the blower housing just below and slightly rear of the turbo housing. I think some of the 110's had that system, but for offroad and on road applications the rpm range varied too much and it would bog too easily. The overridden mechanical turbocharger was much better suited for constant RPM or at least much slower changing RPMs than was found in non-rail applications.

@@kleetus92 I see it. I did find some articles that covered the centrifugal supercharger and it was mounted to the flywheel end of the engine. Upon further examination, the large housing on the front of the turbo in this example is for intake routing as evidenced by the piping coming off the air cleaners coming together in a Y pipe on the left side, which then goes to what I thought might be a pulley. Thanks for getting the gray matter moving.

On road is rare, equipment, fire pumps and the navy

Kevin Oxenham.... easily set up to rival anything in "todays" world of truck engines, as well.

Straight 6 yes

I really don't know exactly. I don't think quite that much. I think it was in the 300's.

@@kblackav8or.... IF, it was kept factory original, which I can see that it was not... looking at the exhaust manifold & turbocharger design... the hp rating would have been 349 hp... and a whopping 1080 lbs ft of torque at only 1800 rpm. The bottom end was massively "over-built" (with a future "eye" on further development, had they not failed the initial truck tests with them in 1950 & 1951 using the 1st generation version), and I know for a fact that they had a 6-110X (experimental) that they built up and ran on their in-house dyno cell with a measured 724 hp under full loading for 2 weeks straight (24/7), then tour it down for inspection, and found no issues or abnormal wear. They were tremendous engines, then and now... and were incredibly more reliable than the "EPA" over-burdened truck engines of "today".

@@kblackav8or.... PS; Where & when, exactly.. did you film this? Was it in Idaho, or Washington.. or ?? He couldn't have used a finer looking truck of the era for the conversion, either. The LNT Macks were the best looking trucks (imo) that ever came out of Allentown.

@@Romans--bo7br Oregon - ATHS Brooks show August 21

@@kblackav8or.... Thank you for the reply. I was watching a few videos of ATHS meets, yesterday... and found one from that meet, and saw the Mack in the background, but no close up of it.. sadly. Thanks again, and thank you for your coverage of it.

andrew norris..... Extremely "Super Rare"!..... as in, the very first truck conversion with one, that I've actually seen in nearly 56 years around the industry. GM Diesel built 3 trucks as test vehicles using GMC's 950 conventionals, with fabricated extended & raised hoods & matching cabs... 2 were used "in house" at the (then) MI test track & proving grounds, and the 3rd one went on lease to PIE (Pacific Intermountain Express), based in CA. along with a support team from GM Diesel. I was told that Time/DC had converted a small number (15+) of their new (at that time) KW COE's with the redesigned version of the 110, in 1962 to pull their "turnpike doubles" (dbl 40's) between Boston & Albany, NY. on the "Mass. Pike" (I-90). I never was able to actually see the conversions myself, but did hear them from time to time. They were tremendous engines... in power, reliability and longevity and GMD made a Huge mistake in understanding what the trucking industry was needing, and instead... decided to drop the 6-110 in favor of pursuing the series 71 and later development of the series 92.... a Huge miscalculation & mistake on their part.

@@Romans--bo7br Great Comment ! Ran all kinds of 6,8,and12 Jimmy's. Also ran in and out Milford and Mesa for 0plus yrs. Roll On

@@andrewnorris1514.... Thank you for your response, Andrew. Those Were "the days", weren't they?.... at least we got "in" on the last of the good years and times of this Once great country, in so many ways.

@@Romans--bo7br Great Answer. Generous Motors

@@Romans--bo7br I thought they had some kind of issue because they did not like being revved up and down for truck application