BD-240 exhaust manifold

An awful lot of conjecture & speculation again.

The 269-282-308 are totally different engines with virtually no compatible/interchangeable parts!

So here are some facts (both manifolds,both engine families/series);

SD 220,240- BD 264
<Source MT-97 Fig.12-4>
Intake Manifold
SD 220
125874R1

SD 240
For BELOW eng. sn 118159;
125874R1
For eng. sn 118159 & UP;
124481R1

SD 240 LPG
125874R1

BD 264
141778R1

Exhaust Manifold
SD 220
For BELOW eng. sn 261932'
79129R11
For eng. sn 261932 & UP'
125889R11

SD 240
79129R11

SD 240 LPG
123656R1

BD 264
79129R11

98573HA Pilot,Intake manifold (2 req'd) SD 220 & SD 240 BELOW eng. sn 118159
124482R1 Pilot,Intake manifold (2 req'd) SD 240 eng. sn 118159 & UP & BD 264


Intake/Exhaust Manifold Gasket
69752R1
Manifold to manifold gasket
69751R1


UB 220,240,264
<Source PU-57B Industrial engine parts manual>
Intake
305617R92 For Velocity (Hoof) Governor
305618R92 For Mechanical Governor

Exhaust
220326R11 For gas engines
220364R1 For LNG/LPG engines

Intake/Exhaust Manifold Gasket
69752R1
Manifold to manifold gasket
69751R1
No pn listed for intake man. pilot. Omitted? misprint?

I have a link or a filed copy if anyone wants to see the above book. There's a few "interesting" things in it. The link is from Pettibone (the fork lift mfr.) archives so when in a junk yard and you see a larger old Pettibone fork lift...


BG 241/265
<Source MT-118>
Intake
236477R2
Exhaust
220326R11 Gas eng.
220364R1 LPG eng.

124482R1 Pilot,Intake manifold 2 req'd

Intake/Exhaust Manifold Gasket
69752R1
Manifold to manifold gasket
69751R1


By the numbers, the above are the same as late BD240/264. Googled 79129R11 and it was apparently superseded by 220326R11. The BG's production ended in 1968 so...

BD 269,282,308

<Source MT-98 for models R 170 - R 184>
Intake Manifold;
113150HA BD 269
84260R1 BD 282
125931R1 BD 308

Exhaust Manifold;
103226HA Gas eng.
120893R1 LPG eng.

Pilot,Intake manifold (2 req'd)
98573HA BD 269
98327HA BD 282 BELOW eng. sn 18926 Except 18068,18480,18875,18876
84716R1 BD 282 eng. sn 18926 & UP and 18068,18480,18875,18876
120545H BD 308

Intake/Exhaust Manifold Gasket
103227HA
Manifold to manifold gasket
61499HA

(So there are all the numbers,do what you want with them)

Did a search for "International C263 exhaust manifold" since the 240 used the same one in trucks as the 264.
.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=in ... ld&start=0

Most I looked at have an offset outlet and there are adapters listed as well,doesn't seem to be a direct replacement. Not a tractor guy,so I'll say no more.

Here's the article I found with the picture of the dual exhaust/ dual carb on the 283. It was located on binder planet. It also has more pictures of the engine.

http://www.binderplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58894&highlight=283

Here's the article I found with the picture of the dual exhaust/ dual carb on the 283. It was located on binder planet. It also has more pictures of the engine.

http://www.binderplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58894&highlight=283

yea, that is from Australia, they made the 283 from BD-220-240-264 engine family, so,,,,,Scotso, again you fail to take into account foreign application when you choose to chastise all of us in your adorable way,

and,,,,,you proved my point of different sized ports/manifolds from 220 to 240-264, so,,,,,,I don't think I was An awful lot of conjecture & speculation again. :o

but please do feel free to belittle us some more

Here's the article I found with the picture of the dual exhaust/ dual carb on the 283. It was located on binder planet. It also has more pictures of the engine.

http://www.binderplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58894&highlight=283

yea, that is from Australia, they made the 283 from BD-220-240-264 engine family, so,,,,,Scotso, again you fail to take into account foreign application when you choose to chastise all of us in your adorable way,

If the truck is U.S. built and that's it's location there's NO REASON to get into something from another country,so why should I account for it???

and,,,,,you proved my point of different sized ports/manifolds from 220 to 240-264, so,,,,,,I don't think I was An awful lot of conjecture & speculation again. :o

Don't see where I disputed the port issue,I'd say the info reaffirms there's a difference with some,not all.

but please do feel free to belittle us some more :t0201:

OH so it's OK for you people to censure/chastise me and MY POV but I'm not allowed? Pretty damned hypocritical isn't it? Just last week someone wrote about opinions and how we're all free to express them but,I guess that only applies to certain people.
I do what I do here as a favor (for better want of a term) and spend A LOT of time on some things. I think that's about to change.
Another reason I do it is because I like IH trucks and think they're some of the finest ever built.
And don't anyone tell me to "lighten up",when it comes to business I'm always serious, so it's not going to happen. I had a large and loyal customer following in my day because I never pulled any punches with them and I do the same here.

Guys, I was basically asking a question to learn some information, usually when no body else can help on a wide range of info, Scott gets it done.
Scott, I appreciate all your time, effort, and experience, all the info you provide helps everyone on this site.
happy holidays

I've been doing some digging lately to satisfy my curiosity-

C= Ag gasoline or LP gas engine
D= Ag diesel engine

According to what I've found so far, which could change with better information-
All these engines had the same bore spacing
All these engines had the same rod and main bearing sizes
All 4.39" stroke engines were governed to 1800 to 2600 rpm
No ag engines had tilt valve heads
At least the 4.39" stroke and maybe all ag engines had higher deck heights than the truck engines

To me, this gives some clues to the development of the Australian engine.

Dean

no Scottso, it's not the fact that you work hard for the information, everyone including me value and appreciate what you do,

it's how even though you have

Flaming is for children!

these posts you make, the first sentence out of the gate is a flame,,,,,or a dig, or whatever An awful lot of conjecture & speculation again.

if you don't think it is,,,,,,,well,,,,,,,,,,OK. it sure comes off that way, that's all,

I hope you don't take your ball & go home just because I responded to your flame with a return flame,,,,,,,,,that would be sad.

Sorry to react to your taunt, have a good day.

I've been doing some digging lately to satisfy my curiosity-

DSC00950 (2).JPG

C= Ag gasoline or LP gas engine
D= Ag diesel engine

According to what I've found so far, which could change with better information-
All these engines had the same bore spacing
All these engines had the same rod and main bearing sizes
All 4.39" stroke engines were governed to 1800 to 2600 rpm
No ag engines had tilt valve heads
At least the 4.39" stroke and maybe all ag engines had higher deck heights than the truck engines

To me, this gives some clues to the development of the Australian engine.

Dean

Interesting, where did you find that info?

[/quote]Interesting, where did you find that info?[/quote]

Some of it came from Binder Planet archives, some from Red Power magazine forum, some from Pulloff.com and some from engine parts supplier's websites.
I started here- http://oldihc.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/ ... cations-2/

Dean

Also, what engines were used in what ag models, and bore and stroke in most instances, can be found at http://www.tractordata.com

An online ag parts book can be found at- http://partstore.caseih.com/us/parts-se ... #epc::home

I would also be interested in any information anyone has available on valve sizes or piston compression heights.

Dean

Edit- I see an error in the chart I made. The decimal equivalent for 3 9/16 should be 3.5625.