Toyota diesel turbo question
hurr...@agresearch.cri.nz
a Surf (4Runner) which is not turbo but I want to beef up the power. Seems to
me the simplest way is to add a turbo. Kits are available for around $400.
My concern is that the motor and drivetrain will be under greater load. Also
I have noted that the turbo engine is usually running at 20:1 compression
ratio and the non-turbo 22:1. Will the extra compression affect the running?
Will I have to have the diesel pump re-timed?
Any comments appreciated.
Geoff H
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The above is a personal opinion and does not reflect the
official view of AgResearch Ltd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Webmasher
If your Toyota does NOT smoke under full throttle now you will gain
nothing from the turbo as the engine is running at or near 100% output
now. Smoke point for a pre-chamber diesel is about 95% or so. I dont
know how reliable the Toyota diesel would be with a turbocharger and
you must keep in mind if the engine was designed without the charger
then most likely the internals of the engine are not going to tolerate
the higher output or heat and most likely the dropped compression for
the turbo-diesel is one reason. with a constant ratio of 20:1 boosting
to like 7 PSI would be about the same effect of 22:1 compression.
Another thing to keep in mind is the fact most turbo diesels use oil
coolres, internal piston cooling jets diffrent bearings and oil pumps
to tolerate the higher loads.
Timing will become more of an issue with the turbo engine and here is
a rule of thumb
advanced timing = more fuel injected before injection cut off
more noise, slightly easier starting cold, hotter exaust valves faster
combustion and resulting stress on head gaskets Black smoking,
slightly higher output
Retarded timing = less injected fuel, quieter running due to
cumbustion lag, difficult to start cold, blue smoking cold due to
lagged combustion (not oil smoke) cooler running engine, lower output
If the engine was not turbocharged or available as a turbo I would not
add one because of the stress placed on an already over-stressed
engine not to mention you will have no boost to fuel control, things
can get out of hand very quickly.
I turbo charged an Olds 5.7 diesel however I also used the boost fuel
comp for the pump, and had to switch to 9/16 studs for both heads and
main caps as I would need to replace head gaskets every 15,000 miles
because they would crack at the seal rings.
In short if you have limited experience dont fix it if the engine
still runs, because it may not after a few thousand miles...
Z
DJ
hurr...@AgResearch.cri.nz Did take chiesel to stone and scribe:
>Has anyone had experience from adding a turbo to a Toyota 2.4 diesel. I have
>a Surf (4Runner) which is not turbo but I want to beef up the power. Seems to
>me the simplest way is to add a turbo. Kits are available for around $400.
Yeah it would be an idea but these engines are notoriously unreliable
when boosted(I have seen many blow heads)for a little bit more outlay
you could fit a 3L(2.8litre)which would increase your hp and be more
reliable than a aftermarket turbo on that engine.....
>My concern is that the motor and drivetrain will be under greater load. Also
>I have noted that the turbo engine is usually running at 20:1 compression
>ratio and the non-turbo 22:1. Will the extra compression affect the running?
>Will I have to have the diesel pump re-timed?
I think it should be able to handle a low boost turbo if you really
want to boost it..
Investigate thicker head gaskets as this will lower your compression
--
Cheers DJ
I am a Diesel Mechanic :O)>
these are what I work on and drive...
'84 Nissan Patrol 3.3d 4x4
'89 toyota Hiace 2.4d 4x4
'90 Toyota Hiace 2.8d 4X4
'91 Toyota Landcruiser 4.2d HZJ75 troopy 4X4
'93 Toyota Hiace 3.0d EFI Turbo (1KZTE) AWD
'94 Toyota Hiace 3.0d EFI Turbo (1KZTE) AWD
And my Car '90 Subaru Legacy GT 'wagon 2l petrol turbo intercooled
AWD,ABS...
Willem-Jan Markerink
hurr...@AgResearch.cri.nz wrote:
>Has anyone had experience from adding a turbo to a Toyota 2.4 diesel. I
have
>a Surf (4Runner) which is not turbo but I want to beef up the power.
Seems to
>me the simplest way is to add a turbo. Kits are available for around $400.
>
Also
>I have noted that the turbo engine is usually running at 20:1 compression
>ratio and the non-turbo 22:1. Will the extra compression affect the
running?
>Will I have to have the diesel pump re-timed?
>
>
>Geoff H
Hi Geoff,
For discussions about turbo'ing Toyota diesels, I strongly recommend you
subscribe to the Diesel Toyota Land Cruiser Mailinglist, see the link on my
homepage:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm
(posted & mailed)
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
an...@eskom.co.za
> hurr...@AgResearch.cri.nz wrote:
> >Has anyone had experience from adding a turbo to a Toyota 2.4 diesel. I
> have
> >a Surf (4Runner) which is not turbo but I want to beef up the power.
> Seems to
> >me the simplest way is to add a turbo. Kits are available for around
$400.
>
> >
> >My concern is that the motor and drivetrain will be under greater load.
> Also
> >I have noted that the turbo engine is usually running at 20:1 compression
> >ratio and the non-turbo 22:1. Will the extra compression affect the
> running?
> >Will I have to have the diesel pump re-timed?
> >
> >Any comments appreciated.
> >
> >Geoff H
Hi Geoff,
The turbo convertion on the 2,4 diesel Toyota Hilux 4x4 was done by two
companies in SA and both were Toyota sanctioned, i.e. no loss of warranty if
done by these two companies. (Alpine Developments and Roger Taylor
Convertions - unfortunately neither have websites). When the 2,8 diesel
appeared in SA Toyota actually offered the turbo convertion as an option,
but they did not do the work, it is sub-contracted to Alpine Developments.
The same has now happened with the 3,0 diesel that was launched a few months
ago.
This leads me to believe that a turbo on the Toyota is quite acceptable.
Cheers
Willem-Jan Markerink
Huh?
Does the 3.0L "1KZ" come without turbo in SA?
The one in the xxJ-90/95, aka PradoII?
Or are you talking about a successor of the 2.8L "3L" engine for Hilux?
(I think I saw "5L" somewhere in the recent past)
an...@eskom.co.za
Willem-Jan Markerink <w.j.ma...@a1.nl> wrote in message
news:7r3tq2$fpc$9...@news.a1.nl...
Hell, I have no idea what you are talking about here? :-) ANyway, I am not
sure about the Prado.
> Or are you talking about a successor of the 2.8L "3L" engine for Hilux?
> (I think I saw "5L" somewhere in the recent past)
Yes, I mean the 3L diesel Hilux. A 5L? We in South Africa can only dream
.... *sigh*
an...@eskom.co.za
Webmasher <re...@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:37d45059....@news.iaxs.net...
> On Mon, 06 Sep 99 19:12:45 GMT, hurr...@AgResearch.cri.nz wrote:
>
> >Has anyone had experience from adding a turbo to a Toyota 2.4 diesel. I
have
> >a Surf (4Runner) which is not turbo but I want to beef up the power.
Seems to
> >me the simplest way is to add a turbo. Kits are available for around
$400.
> >
> >My concern is that the motor and drivetrain will be under greater load.
Also
> >I have noted that the turbo engine is usually running at 20:1 compression
> >ratio and the non-turbo 22:1. Will the extra compression affect the
running?
> >Will I have to have the diesel pump re-timed?
> >
> >Any comments appreciated.
> >
> >Geoff H
> >
I am positive the Toyota 2,4L diesel can easily handle the turbo or Toyota
SA would not have sanctioned the conversion. I must however as that they
only sanctioned two companies to do the convertion because of the fact that
adding a turbo is definatley not just a bolt-on issue. BTW, the Toyota
sanctioned turbo convertion on the current 3L diesel cost about R12000,00 or
US$2000,00. Would you guys consider that expensive or cheap?
--
Andre
http://www.lantic.co.za/~maritza/
BRING IT HOME BOKKE
Willem-Jan Markerink
>
>Willem-Jan Markerink <w.j.ma...@a1.nl> wrote in message
>news:7r3tq2$fpc$9...@news.a1.nl...
>> In article <7r3gke$28t5$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>, an...@eskom.co.za
>wrote:
>> >> In article <7r178i$efi$1...@news.akl.netlink.net.nz>,
>> >> >Has anyone had experience from adding a turbo to a Toyota 2.4
diesel.
>> I
>> >> have
>> >> >a Surf (4Runner) which is not turbo but I want to beef up the power.
>> >> Seems to
>> >> >me the simplest way is to add a turbo. Kits are available for around
>> >$400.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >My concern is that the motor and drivetrain will be under greater
>load.
>> >> Also
>> >> >I have noted that the turbo engine is usually running at 20:1
>> compression
>> >> >ratio and the non-turbo 22:1. Will the extra compression affect the
>> >> running?
>> >> >Will I have to have the diesel pump re-timed?
>> >> >
>> >> >Any comments appreciated.
>> >> >
>> >> >Geoff H
>> >
Nonono, I was already afraid of that: "3L" is the Toyota engine code for
the 2.8 liter Hilux engine, and so is "5L" I believe (although I am not
sure about displacement of that one).
IOW: 3L is not equal to 3.0L....8-))
But since you mentioned both 2.8L and 3L, I thought you meant 3.0 liter
with the latter, while AFAIK only the current "1KZ-T(E)" has that
displacement....and that one is turbo-only too AFAIK (either mechanical (T)
or electronic (TE), and even available with intercooler (TE)). So a 3.0L
*without* turbo raises my curiosity....:-))
Willem-Jan Markerink
re...@newsgroup.com (Webmasher) wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Sep 99 19:12:45 GMT, hurr...@AgResearch.cri.nz wrote:
>
>>Has anyone had experience from adding a turbo to a Toyota 2.4 diesel. I
have
>>a Surf (4Runner) which is not turbo but I want to beef up the power.
Seems to
>>me the simplest way is to add a turbo. Kits are available for around
$400.
>>
>>My concern is that the motor and drivetrain will be under greater load.
Also
>>I have noted that the turbo engine is usually running at 20:1 compression
>>ratio and the non-turbo 22:1. Will the extra compression affect the
running?
>>Will I have to have the diesel pump re-timed?
>>
>>Any comments appreciated.
>>
>>Geoff H
>>
>>Disclaimer: The above is a personal opinion and does not reflect the
>> official view of AgResearch Ltd.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>If your Toyota does NOT smoke under full throttle now you will gain
>nothing from the turbo as the engine is running at or near 100% output
>now. Smoke point for a pre-chamber diesel is about 95% or so. I dont
>know how reliable the Toyota diesel would be with a turbocharger and
>you must keep in mind if the engine was designed without the charger
>then most likely the internals of the engine are not going to tolerate
>the higher output or heat and most likely the dropped compression for
>the turbo-diesel is one reason. with a constant ratio of 20:1 boosting
>to like 7 PSI would be about the same effect of 22:1 compression.
>Another thing to keep in mind is the fact most turbo diesels use oil
>coolres, internal piston cooling jets diffrent bearings and oil pumps
>to tolerate the higher loads.
>Timing will become more of an issue with the turbo engine and here is
>a rule of thumb
Many Toyota diesels already have piston-bottom oil cooling....wouldn't
surprise me if this one had it already too....note that there *is* a
factory turbo version of this engine (2L-T).
Further note that no one mounts a turbo without tweaking the fuel pump at
least a bit....the purpose isn't more air-only, but more air to compensate
more fuel (without that extra air it would indeed start smoking, and not
improve performance one silly bit).
>If the engine was not turbocharged or available as a turbo I would not
>add one because of the stress placed on an already over-stressed
>engine not to mention you will have no boost to fuel control, things
>can get out of hand very quickly.
>
>I turbo charged an Olds 5.7 diesel however I also used the boost fuel
>comp for the pump, and had to switch to 9/16 studs for both heads and
>main caps as I would need to replace head gaskets every 15,000 miles
>because they would crack at the seal rings.
You just picked the absolute most pathetic diesel engine ever seen on this
planet. Even without any mod's it would desintegrate within a *very* short
time.
It is also THE evil machine that wrecked the reputation for all diesels
after it....if you see a yank duck when he hears 'diesel', it is because of
this crappy engine.
Many people wouldn't even want it as a boat anchor.
Too light, it would float.
Willem-Jan Markerink
>
>Webmasher <re...@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:37d45059....@news.iaxs.net...
>> more noise, slightly easier starting cold, hotter exaust valves faster
>> combustion and resulting stress on head gaskets Black smoking,
>> slightly higher output
>>
>> Retarded timing = less injected fuel, quieter running due to
>> cumbustion lag, difficult to start cold, blue smoking cold due to
>> lagged combustion (not oil smoke) cooler running engine, lower output
>>
>> add one because of the stress placed on an already over-stressed
>> engine not to mention you will have no boost to fuel control, things
>> can get out of hand very quickly.
>>
>> I turbo charged an Olds 5.7 diesel however I also used the boost fuel
>> comp for the pump, and had to switch to 9/16 studs for both heads and
>> main caps as I would need to replace head gaskets every 15,000 miles
>> because they would crack at the seal rings.
>>
>> still runs, because it may not after a few thousand miles...
>
>I am positive the Toyota 2,4L diesel can easily handle the turbo or Toyota
>SA would not have sanctioned the conversion. I must however as that they
>only sanctioned two companies to do the convertion because of the fact
that
>adding a turbo is definatley not just a bolt-on issue. BTW, the Toyota
>sanctioned turbo convertion on the current 3L diesel cost about R12000,00
or
>US$2000,00. Would you guys consider that expensive or cheap?
Including labor I think it is decent....a factory Toyota turbo as
replacement part could cost easily more....aftermarket companies often
undercut them by 50%, and AFAIK, the 2L-T (official Toyota turbo-version)
is a good 'customer' for those replacements parts....I think it was one of
the first my shop started business with (they now do similar
'warranty-approved' turbo conversions of the 4.2L 1HZ as well as
intercoolers on 4.2 1HD-(F)T )
If you want more info you could contact this shop....they also make kits
for 3L (outside of Europe), and ship around the world (even to down
under!). Let me know if you want their address.
F450
Nonono, I was already afraid of that: "3L" is the Toyota engine code for
the 2.8 liter Hilux engine, and so is "5L" I believe (although I am not
sure about displacement of that one).
The hell with the Toyota Diesel, just go get your self a Power Stroke!
Right Chris;-)
Webmasher
Markerink) wrote:
>You just picked the absolute most pathetic diesel engine ever seen on this
>planet. Even without any mod's it would desintegrate within a *very* short
>time.
>It is also THE evil machine that wrecked the reputation for all diesels
>after it....if you see a yank duck when he hears 'diesel', it is because of
>this crappy engine.
>
>Many people wouldn't even want it as a boat anchor.
>Too light, it would float.
>
>
>--
>Bye,
>
>Willem-Jan Markerink
>
>
> The desire to understand
>is sometimes far less intelligent than
> the inability to understand
Too short lived? How about 173,000 miles with no troubles after stud
conversions. Starts at -30F on one battery and leaks NO oil....
Please read your closing line at the top
an...@eskom.co.za
> In article <7r408p$2hr7$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>, an...@eskom.co.za
wrote:
> >
> >Willem-Jan Markerink <w.j.ma...@a1.nl> wrote in message
> >news:7r3tq2$fpc$9...@news.a1.nl...
> >> In article <7r3gke$28t5$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>, an...@eskom.co.za
> >wrote:
> >> >> In article <7r178i$efi$1...@news.akl.netlink.net.nz>,
> >> >> >Has anyone had experience from adding a turbo to a Toyota 2.4
> diesel.
> >> I
> >> >> have
> >> >> >a Surf (4Runner) which is not turbo but I want to beef up the
power.
> >> >> Seems to
> >> >> >me the simplest way is to add a turbo. Kits are available for
around
> >> >$400.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My concern is that the motor and drivetrain will be under greater
> >load.
> >> >> Also
> >> >> >I have noted that the turbo engine is usually running at 20:1
> >> compression
> >> >> >ratio and the non-turbo 22:1. Will the extra compression affect
the
> >> >> running?
> >> >> >Will I have to have the diesel pump re-timed?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Any comments appreciated.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Geoff H
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The turbo convertion on the 2,4 diesel Toyota Hilux 4x4 was done by
two
> >> >companies in SA and both were Toyota sanctioned, i.e. no loss of
> warranty
> >> if
> >> >done by these two companies. (Alpine Developments and Roger Taylor
> >> >Convertions - unfortunately neither have websites). When the 2,8
> diesel
> >> >appeared in SA Toyota actually offered the turbo convertion as an
> option,
> >> >but they did not do the work, it is sub-contracted to Alpine
> >Developments.
> >> >The same has now happened with the 3,0 diesel that was launched a few
> >> months
> >> >ago.
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >> Does the 3.0L "1KZ" come without turbo in SA?
> >> The one in the xxJ-90/95, aka PradoII?
> >
> not
> >sure about the Prado.
> >
> >> Or are you talking about a successor of the 2.8L "3L" engine for Hilux?
> >> (I think I saw "5L" somewhere in the recent past)
> >
> >Yes, I mean the 3L diesel Hilux. A 5L? We in South Africa can only
> dream
> >..... *sigh*
>
> the 2.8 liter Hilux engine, and so is "5L" I believe (although I am not
> sure about displacement of that one).
>
>
> But since you mentioned both 2.8L and 3L, I thought you meant 3.0 liter
> with the latter, while AFAIK only the current "1KZ-T(E)" has that
> displacement....and that one is turbo-only too AFAIK (either mechanical
(T)
> or electronic (TE), and even available with intercooler (TE)). So a 3.0L
> *without* turbo raises my curiosity....:-))
Okay, I see what you mean. Both the 2,8 liter and 3,0 liter diesel engine
are available here without a turbo. The new Hilux 3.0 liter turbo was
introduced about six months ago. It does not have a turbo as standard, but
as an optional extra. Like I said, in SA we are always sucking on the hind
teat. For instance our Hulux still had the solid front axle till April
1999.
Cheers
DJ
(Willem-Jan Markerink) Did take chiesel to stone and scribe:
Stuff Trashed
>
>Nonono, I was already afraid of that: "3L" is the Toyota engine code for
>the 2.8 liter Hilux engine, and so is "5L" I believe (although I am not
>sure about displacement of that one).
>
>IOW: 3L is not equal to 3.0L....8-))
>
>But since you mentioned both 2.8L and 3L, I thought you meant 3.0 liter
>with the latter, while AFAIK only the current "1KZ-T(E)" has that
>displacement....and that one is turbo-only too AFAIK (either mechanical (T)
>or electronic (TE), and even available with intercooler (TE)). So a 3.0L
>*without* turbo raises my curiosity....:-))
Ok here it is
3L designates the 2.8 litre OHC 4 cylinder engine....
5L designates the new 3litre ohc 4 cylinder engine...
1Kzte is the 3 litre turbo EFIed diesel engine these also can come
with an intercooler as well....
there is A SAFARI TURBOS kit with intercooler for the 2L(2.4 litre)the
3L(2.8 Litre) and the just released in the Hilux 5L(3 litre) the 5L
turboed is still not as powerful as the 1KZTE as the EFI is more
efficient and is able to supply the correct amount of diesel over a
wider range of boost....
Willem-Jan Markerink
>> not
>> >sure about the Prado.
>> >
>> >> Or are you talking about a successor of the 2.8L "3L" engine for
Hilux?
>> >> (I think I saw "5L" somewhere in the recent past)
>> >
>> >Yes, I mean the 3L diesel Hilux. A 5L? We in South Africa can only
>> dream
>> >..... *sigh*
>>
>> the 2.8 liter Hilux engine, and so is "5L" I believe (although I am not
>> sure about displacement of that one).
>>
>> IOW: 3L is not equal to 3.0L....8-))
>>
>> But since you mentioned both 2.8L and 3L, I thought you meant 3.0 liter
>> with the latter, while AFAIK only the current "1KZ-T(E)" has that
>> displacement....and that one is turbo-only too AFAIK (either mechanical
>(T)
>> or electronic (TE), and even available with intercooler (TE)). So a 3.0L
>> *without* turbo raises my curiosity....:-))
>
>are available here without a turbo. The new Hilux 3.0 liter turbo was
>introduced about six months ago. It does not have a turbo as standard,
but
>as an optional extra. Like I said, in SA we are always sucking on the
hind
>teat. For instance our Hulux still had the solid front axle till April
>1999.
In most parts of the world, that would be considered sucking on the front
teat....:-))
Much better than IFS for serious off-roading!
I guess this non-turbo 3.0L is the "5L" then....don't think there was a
"4L".
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
an...@eskom.co.za
I personally consider it sucking on the front teat myself and I would not
swop my solid front axled Hilux for the new on at all. I was at a "test"
between the new and the old and Toyota went to great lenths to point out
that the new Hilux was as good off-road and way better on-road than the old
one. The then went to prove it by driving them both through an obstacle
course. When the Toyota Marketing guy sasked if there were any tests we
wanted to see to convince us that the new was at least as good as the old, I
said: " Would you please be so kind as to chuck 800kg's of equipment on
them both and then do the obstacle course again?" The ahemed quite a bit
and never really answered the question, nor did they do it. :-))
> I guess this non-turbo 3.0L is the "5L" then....don't think there was a
> "4L".
Could be. As I am not really into the diesels I don't know.
hurr...@agresearch.cri.nz
I'm wanting to fit a turbo to a Toyota 2L (2.4 litre) motor.
In NZ the cost of a 3L motor (used) would lighten my pocket by about $4k. So
I'm not about to spend that on an old ute which is only worth a few more than
that.
The cost of a used turbo, pipes and manifold is about $400 so is worth a go if
it is easy to fit. Since about 99% of the imported Surfs have the 2L-T motor
as standard it seems that the motor would handle the boost (except that the
comp ratio is higher).
Has anyone out there retro fitted a factory booster to a 2L motor. If so I
would love to hear from you. I need to know if there are any technical
problems I should be aware of. (eg pump retiming, boost setting etc)
Cheers GH
Willem-Jan Markerink
re...@newsgroup.com (Webmasher) wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Sep 99 23:01:42 GMT, w.j.ma...@a1.nl (Willem-Jan
>Markerink) wrote:
>
>>You just picked the absolute most pathetic diesel engine ever seen on
this
>>planet. Even without any mod's it would desintegrate within a *very*
short
>>time.
>>It is also THE evil machine that wrecked the reputation for all diesels
>>after it....if you see a yank duck when he hears 'diesel', it is because
of
>>this crappy engine.
>>
>>Many people wouldn't even want it as a boat anchor.
>>Too light, it would float.
>>
>
>conversions. Starts at -30F on one battery and leaks NO oil....
>
>Please read your closing line at the top
Dear Sir, there is one sacred rule in diesel engineering:
One shall NOT take a gas-guzzler, and convert it to diesel.
And exactly THAT is what they did with the 5.7L Oldsmobile.
And exactly THAT is what I mean with 'too light'.
Or: how else would only the US market suffer from the myth that diesels are
crap, where everywhere else they have the best reputation of the two?
No, that Old's wasn't exported in any significant number, probably none at
all, and for a very good reason.
Btw, my original opinion is kid's stuff compared of what the editor of the
TLC-FAQ thinks about it. While I speak of anchors, he speaks of burying
all of them in a deep mine shaft.
Webmasher
Markerink) wrote:
Your entitled to your opinion on the matter and I never said they were
GOOD engines. I worked for Onan Corp from 88 to 91 so I have a feel
for what is good and what is not.... Many engines came through the
7400 bldg doors and many never made it out in one piece.
Closing this thread as it is going nowhere
Vogt Family
> Dear Sir, there is one sacred rule in diesel engineering:
>
> One shall NOT take a gas-guzzler, and convert it to diesel.
>
> And exactly THAT is what they did with the 5.7L Oldsmobile.
>
> And exactly THAT is what I mean with 'too light'.
Don't be so quick about that...the diesel that we know today as the 7.3
"Powerstroke" evolved from a gas motor a long, long time ago...prior to
'83 or '82 when it was first introduced in Ford trucks as the 6.9
non-turbo.
Also the Mercedes shares a lot of stuff with its gas sibling.
Birken
F450
Don't be so quick about that...the diesel that we know today as the 7.3
"Powerstroke" evolved from a gas motor a long, long time ago...prior to
'83 or '82 when it was first introduced in Ford trucks as the 6.9
non-turbo.
Also the Mercedes shares a lot of stuff with its gas sibling.
When you prove it, I will believe. It is just an old wifes tail usually by
people with a different brand of diesel and made much more convincing by the
GM Olds 350 Abortion, that any one would try such a thing.
It was designed and built for severe diesel operation, in the castings,
crank, rods, pistons, etc.
Show me any kind of proof that IHC ever did something like the Oldsmobile 350
Diesel.
Willem-Jan Markerink
>Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>> Dear Sir, there is one sacred rule in diesel engineering:
>>
>> One shall NOT take a gas-guzzler, and convert it to diesel.
>>
>> And exactly THAT is what they did with the 5.7L Oldsmobile.
>>
>> And exactly THAT is what I mean with 'too light'.
>
>"Powerstroke" evolved from a gas motor a long, long time ago...prior to
>'83 or '82 when it was first introduced in Ford trucks as the 6.9
>non-turbo.
>
>Also the Mercedes shares a lot of stuff with its gas sibling.
>
Odd.
You need about twice the compression with a diesel.
Nice trick doing that without redesigning the engine, and/or seriously affecting
the life-span of the engine.
F450
>> Dear Sir, there is one sacred rule in diesel engineering:
>>
>> One shall NOT take a gas-guzzler, and convert it to diesel.
>>
>> And exactly THAT is what they did with the 5.7L Oldsmobile.
>>
>> And exactly THAT is what I mean with 'too light'.
>
>Don't be so quick about that...the diesel that we know today as the 7.3
>"Powerstroke" evolved from a gas motor a long, long time ago...prior to
>'83 or '82 when it was first introduced in Ford trucks as the 6.9
>non-turbo.
>
>Also the Mercedes shares a lot of stuff with its gas sibling.
>
>Birken
Odd.
You need about twice the compression with a diesel.
Nice trick doing that without redesigning the engine, and/or seriously affecting
the life-span of the engine.
People are still sold on ANY V-8 diesel is made from a gasser, I wonder if
Cummins V-8 diesel is really a converted gasser? What about Cats V-8?
Didn't even Rudolph Diesel design his engine based on a gasser block?
Willem-Jan Markerink
Does Cummins make a V8 at all?
Both 3.9 and 5.9L are inline 6....
>Didn't even Rudolph Diesel design his engine based on a gasser block?
That's not a time where gasoline engines had a particular 'lean' design
anyway....solid cast-iron blocks all the way....and neither gasoline nor
diesel were expected to haul ass in those days....keeping them running was
already a miracle on its own....;-))
F450
F450
OK, if found one of Cummins (must be made from a gasser) V-8 engines, the
V903 Series. Picture is at the top of this page.
F450
On Sat, 11 Sep 99 09:46:34 GMT, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>People are still sold on ANY V-8 diesel is made from a gasser, I wonder if
>Cummins V-8 diesel is really a converted gasser? What about Cats V-8?
Does Cummins make a V8 at all?
Both 3.9 and 5.9L are inline 6....
More info Cummins even makes (must be made from a gasser) V12 and V16
Locomotive engines. I thought real diesels were only inline 6.
sbest
>Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>> Dear Sir, there is one sacred rule in diesel engineering:
>>
>> One shall NOT take a gas-guzzler, and convert it to diesel.
>>
>> And exactly THAT is what they did with the 5.7L Oldsmobile.
>>
>> And exactly THAT is what I mean with 'too light'.
>
>Don't be so quick about that...the diesel that we know today as the 7.3
>"Powerstroke" evolved from a gas motor a long, long time ago...prior to
>'83 or '82 when it was first introduced in Ford trucks as the 6.9
>non-turbo.
>
>Also the Mercedes shares a lot of stuff with its gas sibling.
>
>Birken
Birken is right, the IH diesel is from a gasoline powered ancestor.
Interesting enough this summer I saw a IH tractor from the 50's that was
designed to start on gasoline (with a carb) then switch over and run on
diesel.
The venerable VW Rabbit diesel is another gasoline conversion.
Steve Best, Nova Scotia,
4x4 van website:
http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest
F450
Birken is right, the IH diesel is from a gasoline powered ancestor.
Interesting enough this summer I saw a IH tractor from the 50's that was
designed to start on gasoline (with a carb) then switch over and run on
diesel.
Well geez, being from the 50's and still running I would say it was built for
the severe requirements of diesel operation.
Now what if I were to take a diesel and convert it to a gasser?
The Raddle Diesel is an ancestor of the gasoline engine as well so what is
your point.
Cummins makes natural gas engines, hmm, you had better check them a little
closer too.
Webmasher
Markerink) wrote:
>In article <abfcnzriefcnzarg...@news1.banet.net>,
> "F450" <no_sp...@spam.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 10 Sep 99 23:55:29 GMT, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>>
>> >> Dear Sir, there is one sacred rule in diesel engineering:
>> >>
>> >> One shall NOT take a gas-guzzler, and convert it to diesel.
>> >>
>> >> And exactly THAT is what they did with the 5.7L Oldsmobile.
>> >>
>> >> And exactly THAT is what I mean with 'too light'.
>> >
>> >Don't be so quick about that...the diesel that we know today as the 7.3
>> >"Powerstroke" evolved from a gas motor a long, long time ago...prior to
>> >'83 or '82 when it was first introduced in Ford trucks as the 6.9
>> >non-turbo.
>> >
>> >Also the Mercedes shares a lot of stuff with its gas sibling.
>> >
>> >Birken
>>
>> Odd.
>> You need about twice the compression with a diesel.
>> Nice trick doing that without redesigning the engine, and/or seriously
>affecting
>> the life-span of the engine.
>>
>>
>>
>>People are still sold on ANY V-8 diesel is made from a gasser, I wonder if
>>Cummins V-8 diesel is really a converted gasser? What about Cats V-8?
>
>Does Cummins make a V8 at all?
>Both 3.9 and 5.9L are inline 6....
>
>>Didn't even Rudolph Diesel design his engine based on a gasser block?
>
>That's not a time where gasoline engines had a particular 'lean' design
>anyway....solid cast-iron blocks all the way....and neither gasoline nor
>diesel were expected to haul ass in those days....keeping them running was
>already a miracle on its own....;-))
Yes Cummins makes both large V-8 and V-16 diesels for the 500KW to 2.5
MW generators. Drop me your email and I will send you a picture of one
of these sporting 4 turbochargers, 2 each in a staged configuration to
produce 125+ PSI boost pressure. Cat has a 16 and 32 Cyl bent engine
that runs on natural gas for large generators.
Cummins produced a V-6 diesel in the late 60's early 70's but these
are rare finds
Webmasher
<no_sp...@spam.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:58:51 -0700, Vogt Family wrote:
>
> Don't be so quick about that...the diesel that we know today as the 7.3
> "Powerstroke" evolved from a gas motor a long, long time ago...prior to
> '83 or '82 when it was first introduced in Ford trucks as the 6.9
> non-turbo.
>
> Also the Mercedes shares a lot of stuff with its gas sibling.
>
>When you prove it, I will believe. It is just an old wifes tail usually by
>people with a different brand of diesel and made much more convincing by the
>GM Olds 350 Abortion, that any one would try such a thing.
>It was designed and built for severe diesel operation, in the castings,
>crank, rods, pistons, etc.
>
>Show me any kind of proof that IHC ever did something like the Oldsmobile 350
>Diesel.
>
They did and you can find it on the International "Navistar" page the
6.9 started life as the old IHC 345 then grew out rather quickly, the
engine was "dieseled" in about 1982 or so after some casting changes.
The 6.9 and 7.3 are both available as gasious fueled engines today
from International as new engines.
First Olds 350D was a gas conversion the second one after 1981 was
redesigned and the number of failures dropped like a rock. The engine
was retooled again in 1984 to complement the new 4.3 V-6 diesel
however GM recieved a court order to stop production car diesel
engines in 1986 and must support all warrenty claims.
If Roger Smith did not run GM during the dark days the 350 diesel
would most likely be a very sturdy engine however companys get
destroyed with the "bean counters" take over and try to shed as much
as they can to improve the bottom line.
Willem-Jan Markerink
re...@newsgroup.com (Webmasher) wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:24:08 -0400 (EDT), "F450"
><no_sp...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:58:51 -0700, Vogt Family wrote:
>>
>> Don't be so quick about that...the diesel that we know today as the 7.3
>> "Powerstroke" evolved from a gas motor a long, long time ago...prior to
>> '83 or '82 when it was first introduced in Ford trucks as the 6.9
>> non-turbo.
>>
>> Also the Mercedes shares a lot of stuff with its gas sibling.
>>
>>When you prove it, I will believe. It is just an old wifes tail usually
by
>>people with a different brand of diesel and made much more convincing by
the
>>GM Olds 350 Abortion, that any one would try such a thing.
>>It was designed and built for severe diesel operation, in the castings,
>>crank, rods, pistons, etc.
>>
>>Show me any kind of proof that IHC ever did something like the Oldsmobile
350
>>Diesel.
>>
>
>
>They did and you can find it on the International "Navistar" page the
>6.9 started life as the old IHC 345 then grew out rather quickly, the
>engine was "dieseled" in about 1982 or so after some casting changes.
Yeah right, that's the whole issue, cq what the first 5.7 lacks, and what I
mean with 'converting a gasguzzler'. You simply can't do that without
reinforcing the block.
>The 6.9 and 7.3 are both available as gasious fueled engines today
>from International as new engines.
The other way around is easy, including conversions to natural gas....many
city-coaches in Europe are going that way.
>First Olds 350D was a gas conversion the second one after 1981 was
>redesigned and the number of failures dropped like a rock. The engine
>was retooled again in 1984 to complement the new 4.3 V-6 diesel
>however GM recieved a court order to stop production car diesel
>engines in 1986 and must support all warrenty claims.
Where did that court order come from?
What reasons/dispute?
F450
>They did and you can find it on the International "Navistar" page the
>6.9 started life as the old IHC 345 then grew out rather quickly, the
>engine was "dieseled" in about 1982 or so after some casting changes.
I would like to see that URL:
Yeah right, that's the whole issue, cq what the first 5.7 lacks, and what I
mean with 'converting a gasguzzler'. You simply can't do that without
reinforcing the block.
That was the main point, not that International made gasser, but whether they
made diesels right.
>The 6.9 and 7.3 are both available as gasious fueled engines today
>from International as new engines.
The other way around is easy, including conversions to natural gas....many
city-coaches in Europe are going that way.
Sure you can never over stress a diesel by converting to gas.
>First Olds 350D was a gas conversion the second one after 1981 was
>redesigned and the number of failures dropped like a rock. The engine
>was retooled again in 1984 to complement the new 4.3 V-6 diesel
>however GM recieved a court order to stop production car diesel
>engines in 1986 and must support all warrenty claims.
Where did that court order come from?
What reasons/dispute?
Probably all of the failures is the reason they were ordered to stop
production.
Take care Mr. Dundee;-)
