Drop in diesel engine
Thread Starter
|
Champion
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,096
Likes: 2
From: Iowa
^lol... You read that I said it will be called the ThroughStroke diesel, right?
Uh?
Yeah it might put Iowa back on the map
I just got home from watching fireworks so I'll post on resources tomorrow
Banned Goober Smoocher
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,916
Likes: 1
Though Ford might throw a panty fit as it has the work "Stroke" in it for a name.
Champion
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,717
Likes: 10
From: N/A
Wtf is a panty fit? I believe it's "don't get your panties in a knot" lol
Banned Goober Smoocher
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,916
Likes: 1
Champion
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,065
Likes: 1
From: Renton, WA
Thank you for your comments and thoughts Jigabop. I was waiting for you to join the discussion Maybe they are horribly flawed, but at least I am putting them out there! I think it is high time that SOMEONE makes a replacement easy to use diesel engine for replacing these Dodge V8s! it certainly offers far better fuel economy.
First, there is no supercharger. There is a difference between a blower and a supercharger, they may look the same, but have a different function. The blowers purpose is to push out the old exhaust gases and push fresh air in. A supercharger raises the pressure above atmospheric pressure when the fresh air is pushed into the cylinder, it essentially "packs" it in there. And second, I don't know where you got the idea that 2cycles use far more oil. there is no oil being added to the fuel, and no ports in the cylinder walls. Clarify, please.
Both generate boost pressure. Do you really think they put blowers on dragsters to push exhaust out of the cylinders? they are running a LOT of boost pressure.
difference between a supercharger and a blower is where it sits. a blower completely replaces your intake manifold. a supercharger blows through an existing intake manifold and may be mounted elsewhere other than the intake valley. both are still belt driven though.
blowers usually utilize rotary screw design, where centrifugal superchargers are more like a belt driven turbo.
They may cost alot, I didn't say in concrete either that it HAD to have 2 injectors per cylinder.
Yes I know you inject directly into the cylinder. I'm not that stupid, but I suppose some people are. Somehow Fords EcoBoost manages 4 valves and more than one injector per cylinder...
I see only 1 injector per cylinder...if they had a second, it would be in the manifold...but every diagram I've seen shows only one.
I explained the purpose of two injectors per cylinder above. Go back and read it ALL, and you will see my reasoning for two injectors, which is probably bad reasoning to, but then you can correct me lol
I honestly did not know that about commonrail injectors, much of my training about diesels are coming from the 1970s and 1980s time, so I probably missed alot of extra stuff. Which is the whole reason I posted this here, not so people could attack me, but together we could come up with something that would work.
yes...with computer control and a high pressure line all injectors share...there is no need for multiple injectors...there is a reason a common rail cummins can make 500hp+ with just a programmer from the factory 305hp...
so much electronic control over the injection system means you can control rail pressure, precise injector timing and injector duration with no mechanical limitations...This includes firing the injector multiple times in a single stroke of the piston which is the main reason the newer diesels are so much quieter than the older ones...mechanical direct injection is noisy. electronic multiple fire injection can be just as quiet as a gasoline engine.
Now that's what I want to hear... A flawless idea to correct my flawed ideas. And yes I was thinking to run the IP from the dizzy gear, would work wonderfully, other people have actually done that BTW...
Well if you were using mechanical injection, this would provide precise injection timing for a rotary injection pump like a VE or VP44 only those are for an inline 6...not a v8
Once again, read the whole shebang through and you will see that I already covered that.
Yes, really. The reaonsing behind twin intakes, exhaust, intercoolers, and turbos, is that it can spool a smaller turbo much faster. Now once again I didn't state that in hard concrete; I said that was what I was thinking. Now a single intake, intercooler, and turbo probably would work fine, if the turbo could spool fast enough. That's my problem, is making sure the turbo spools fast enough.
once again, behind the times on technology. VGT's can work miracles.
(Variable Geometry Turbo: turbine vanes closes down to a smaller size to spool like a small turbo, and once spooled they open up to give the top end flow of a larger turbo. They also second as an exhaust brake)
I honestly never heard about head problems with DCs... Now if a cast iron head is better, I'm fine with that. On the other hand I know many people who've had bad block experiences with the Cummins, and bad head gasket stuff with the IDIs... To each engine, its own problems. I want the best configuration possible, and I never had heard about that with the DCs, but since you said it I trust you
yes there were some issues with the 53 blocks, and a few 55 blocks. It was not a material problem though. It was a casting flaw in one of the casts at the Brazil manufacturing plant. The cast had inperfections and caused some of the 53 line of blocks to have thin walls in the water jacket/outer block on the passenger side. It was 1/2 the thickness of what spec called for. Due to that flaw in one of the casts about 1% of the 53 blocks cracked in that thin water jacket.
the flaw caused the outter block wall of the water jacket to be something like 4-5mm thick instead of 11-12mm thick.
So once again, none of my ideas are concrete, everybody put your suggestions out there. Lets get a good idea together, I want to make a go of this, I see a need for it.
And also, why do you call it a abomination? It's not replacing the Cummins, it won't even fit in place of a Cummins. It's place is replacing the gasser engines, for people who don't want to, cannot afford to, or don't have the time to do a Cummins swap. It will allow them to experience the greatness of diesel engines, while solving the complaint of the gassers having poor fuel economy, and makes great bang for the buck. Chances are, someone gets this, theyll want more and end up upgrading to a Cummins.
because you want to turn a gas engine into a diesel. Something that was not originally designed for the stress and duty of being a diesel engine...
like the old 6.2 chevy diesels...abominations...ran ok when they would actually start...horribly underpowered and bad on fuel economy.
the reason I love cummins so much is it was not an over the road designed engine...it was an industrial grade engine that they toned down to an over the road engine...
an over the road engine does not need to be built as overkill as a cummins is, and that is why the cummins engines can tolerate all of the high power mods we do to them and keep going cause it doesn't phase them.
a gasoline engine will bend or break its rods, blow its head(s) off, etc if you tried to push the kind of power we push from these diesels with some bolt on mods and tuning...
the cummins: no sweat. stock 235hp motor can take around 800+hp on a stock bottom end. fyi 800hp+ likely wont register torque on most dynos.... be in the 1500+ range...
I say this to point out...you can build it cheaper like a VW diesel that won't tolerate much modification without a built bottom end, or you can build it like a cummins that will take almost anything you can throw at it and beg for more...
Edit: I removed several of my statements as they were not appropriate/correct. If you saw them in your email ignore them, they are void, I hit the post button by accident...
Maybe they are horribly flawed, but at least I am putting them out there! I think it is high time that SOMEONE makes a replacement easy to use diesel engine for replacing these Dodge V8s! it certainly offers far better fuel economy.First, there is no supercharger. There is a difference between a blower and a supercharger, they may look the same, but have a different function. The blowers purpose is to push out the old exhaust gases and push fresh air in. A supercharger raises the pressure above atmospheric pressure when the fresh air is pushed into the cylinder, it essentially "packs" it in there. And second, I don't know where you got the idea that 2cycles use far more oil. there is no oil being added to the fuel, and no ports in the cylinder walls. Clarify, please.
Both generate boost pressure. Do you really think they put blowers on dragsters to push exhaust out of the cylinders? they are running a LOT of boost pressure.
difference between a supercharger and a blower is where it sits. a blower completely replaces your intake manifold. a supercharger blows through an existing intake manifold and may be mounted elsewhere other than the intake valley. both are still belt driven though.
blowers usually utilize rotary screw design, where centrifugal superchargers are more like a belt driven turbo.
They may cost alot, I didn't say in concrete either that it HAD to have 2 injectors per cylinder.
Yes I know you inject directly into the cylinder. I'm not that stupid, but I suppose some people are. Somehow Fords EcoBoost manages 4 valves and more than one injector per cylinder...
I see only 1 injector per cylinder...if they had a second, it would be in the manifold...but every diagram I've seen shows only one.
I explained the purpose of two injectors per cylinder above. Go back and read it ALL, and you will see my reasoning for two injectors, which is probably bad reasoning to, but then you can correct me lol
I honestly did not know that about commonrail injectors, much of my training about diesels are coming from the 1970s and 1980s time, so I probably missed alot of extra stuff. Which is the whole reason I posted this here, not so people could attack me, but together we could come up with something that would work.
yes...with computer control and a high pressure line all injectors share...there is no need for multiple injectors...there is a reason a common rail cummins can make 500hp+ with just a programmer from the factory 305hp...
so much electronic control over the injection system means you can control rail pressure, precise injector timing and injector duration with no mechanical limitations...This includes firing the injector multiple times in a single stroke of the piston which is the main reason the newer diesels are so much quieter than the older ones...mechanical direct injection is noisy. electronic multiple fire injection can be just as quiet as a gasoline engine.
Now that's what I want to hear... A flawless idea to correct my flawed ideas. And yes I was thinking to run the IP from the dizzy gear, would work wonderfully, other people have actually done that BTW...
Well if you were using mechanical injection, this would provide precise injection timing for a rotary injection pump like a VE or VP44 only those are for an inline 6...not a v8
Once again, read the whole shebang through and you will see that I already covered that.
Yes, really. The reaonsing behind twin intakes, exhaust, intercoolers, and turbos, is that it can spool a smaller turbo much faster. Now once again I didn't state that in hard concrete; I said that was what I was thinking. Now a single intake, intercooler, and turbo probably would work fine, if the turbo could spool fast enough. That's my problem, is making sure the turbo spools fast enough.
once again, behind the times on technology. VGT's can work miracles.
(Variable Geometry Turbo: turbine vanes closes down to a smaller size to spool like a small turbo, and once spooled they open up to give the top end flow of a larger turbo. They also second as an exhaust brake)
I honestly never heard about head problems with DCs... Now if a cast iron head is better, I'm fine with that. On the other hand I know many people who've had bad block experiences with the Cummins, and bad head gasket stuff with the IDIs... To each engine, its own problems. I want the best configuration possible, and I never had heard about that with the DCs, but since you said it I trust you
yes there were some issues with the 53 blocks, and a few 55 blocks. It was not a material problem though. It was a casting flaw in one of the casts at the Brazil manufacturing plant. The cast had inperfections and caused some of the 53 line of blocks to have thin walls in the water jacket/outer block on the passenger side. It was 1/2 the thickness of what spec called for. Due to that flaw in one of the casts about 1% of the 53 blocks cracked in that thin water jacket.
the flaw caused the outter block wall of the water jacket to be something like 4-5mm thick instead of 11-12mm thick.
So once again, none of my ideas are concrete, everybody put your suggestions out there. Lets get a good idea together, I want to make a go of this, I see a need for it.
And also, why do you call it a abomination? It's not replacing the Cummins, it won't even fit in place of a Cummins. It's place is replacing the gasser engines, for people who don't want to, cannot afford to, or don't have the time to do a Cummins swap. It will allow them to experience the greatness of diesel engines, while solving the complaint of the gassers having poor fuel economy, and makes great bang for the buck. Chances are, someone gets this, theyll want more and end up upgrading to a Cummins.
because you want to turn a gas engine into a diesel. Something that was not originally designed for the stress and duty of being a diesel engine...
like the old 6.2 chevy diesels...abominations...ran ok when they would actually start...horribly underpowered and bad on fuel economy.
the reason I love cummins so much is it was not an over the road designed engine...it was an industrial grade engine that they toned down to an over the road engine...
an over the road engine does not need to be built as overkill as a cummins is, and that is why the cummins engines can tolerate all of the high power mods we do to them and keep going cause it doesn't phase them.
a gasoline engine will bend or break its rods, blow its head(s) off, etc if you tried to push the kind of power we push from these diesels with some bolt on mods and tuning...
the cummins: no sweat. stock 235hp motor can take around 800+hp on a stock bottom end. fyi 800hp+ likely wont register torque on most dynos.... be in the 1500+ range...
I say this to point out...you can build it cheaper like a VW diesel that won't tolerate much modification without a built bottom end, or you can build it like a cummins that will take almost anything you can throw at it and beg for more...
Edit: I removed several of my statements as they were not appropriate/correct. If you saw them in your email ignore them, they are void, I hit the post button by accident...
reply inline in red.
Thread Starter
|
Champion
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,096
Likes: 2
From: Iowa
Thank you for your reply Jigabop! I'm almost to the point where I think I might just make a TRUE drop in kit for the Cummins, everything included that is needed, and plug n play wiring harnesses. Whadya think? Seems to me like it would be worth more to people.
