+- STD (https://www.superturbodiesel.com/std)
+-- Forum: Tuning (https://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Engine (https://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: CDI conversion? (/showthread.php?tid=986)
CDI conversion? - W116Lorinser - 01-02-2010
what is needed to do a full cdi conversion in our cars..
would the cdi fit in our engine bay and would there need be alot of customizing?
RE: CDI conversion? - Kozuka - 01-02-2010
Main problem me thinks, would be the 5 control boxes from hell and all there associated electronics. Eg. the electronic interlock, are all linked together and have a verification code. So you would have to take a whole cdi car and take all of the electronics over to whatever car you're going to put it in.
RE: CDI conversion? - CID Vicious - 01-02-2010
In other words, you'd probably rather take everything you own, stuff it all in your home, douse it with gas, light it on fire, and commit suicide by running inside. Sounds like it's cheaper, easier to accomplish and would have a better likely outcome
. It'd better be for a wagon or coupe, and a clean one, too, to make it worth something when it's done. Barring 'just happening upon' a free/near free CDI I can only imagine how expensive it would be, and even if you had one you wanted to give me for free...Well, at that point, I might just see what could be done, but I'd probably sell it off for a less involved motor with better power returns. And that whole mess of electronics and computers and wiring would more or less ruin one of the best W123 traits - it's rock-solid mechanical simplicity.
Frankly, a Duramax conversion would probably be cheaper, easier, and there's no way in hell a CDI motor would ever touch the potential power output of a D-Max. Even if you could, you'd just be shredding (very expensive) transmission parts. Yeah, the 722.6 is good for a lot of lb-ft, but a DMax is good for even more
Code Years Power@rpm Torque@rpm
? ? 200 bhp (150 kW) @2200 520 lb·ft (705 N·m) @1450
? ? 275 bhp (205 kW) @2200 860 lb·ft (1,166 N·m) @1450
LYA 2009?- 215 bhp (160 kW) @2200 560 lb·ft (759 N·m) @1450
LYB 2009?- 230 bhp (170 kW) @2200 660 lb·ft (895 N·m) @1450
LYC 2009?- 260 bhp (190 kW) @2200 660 lb·ft (895 N·m) @1450
LYD 2009?- 260 bhp (190 kW) @2200 835 lb·ft (1,132 N·m) @1450
LQF 2009?- 300 bhp (220 kW) @2200 860 lb·ft (1,166 N·m) @1450
Not that it'd be any easier than a CDI, but that new diesel Bimmer everyone's talking about, I'd probably go for that motor between the two, considering the prolific stock output, probably the same wiring nightmare...although, I don't know, I like the idea of driving a Bimmer, but I don't like the idea of paying to keep one running. I still haven't heard of a 'rock solid, dead-reliable' Bimmer.
The reason the DMax is mentioned is mostly to illustrate the cost/value ratio of a swap like this, which isn't much frankly. More power, reliability, and mpg could be had from a more pedestrian motor for far less headache. If the CDI was some kind of 'sleeper' motor like a Mitsubishi turbo 2.0l, where it's just adjust XYZ and add boost for all the power you'd want, I'd say go for it, but that isn't the impression I have of these motors. You'd spend a lot of money and time just to get it in and working, and then even more to mod it for more power. You end up with an old Benz that's still an old Benz throughout, just with the complexity and cost of a new one, all without the resale value.
A more likely swap is a OM60X five speed, much easier to accomplish and probably just as much tuner potential. Plus, they're not brand new Benz parts, you know, so they're not carved from solid gold billet.
This is probably the one area Benz could have learned a thing from Chrysler - It has AMG, but what it doesn't have is the 'dealer step-up' option - you could buy a Neon SRT-4 and have it modified at a dealer for up to I think 350hp and still have it qualify for it's warranty. They did a similar thing for other enthusiast cars like the Omni GLH and of course their halcyon days before the gas crunch. Picture being able to roll up to the Benz stealership, swipe your card and walk out in an hour or two with XX more hp and XXX more lb-ft from your CDI, and when something goes wrong they have to honor the warranty, or at the very least it's nothing a dealership or trained technician wouldn't be familiar with.
After all, the real bottleneck in these Benz motors seems to be Benz itself, it's like they cockblocked the tuning process wherever they could, and the modern Benzes do this for certain - Toyota is notorious for this as well, their ECUs were more or less uncrackable and it kept so many good motors from finding an audience - the 'banger in the last MR2 would make serious power with a turbo, right before it exploded on the dyno because they couldn't remap the engine. I see Jeemu with his motor, and I don't get the impression that ICE motors are a mystery at all to this guy (who pulls their own head on a late model Benz? Scary!), and even he seems like he's fighting an 'invisible hand' that keeps the power from increasing, even though it should on paper.
On the other hand, there's a company that's cracked every Ford ECU out there, and I don't see Ford complaining about how this affects the Mustang and other enthusiast cars. As a matter of fact, it's likely one of the reasons they (and Honda, and other brands) get flocked to by enthusiasts, while others are avoided.
Hell, Benz won't even dish on the OM617 race motor and that thing is a relic. Like there's anything so super-special done to that IDI motor that Audi is just going to sweep in and beat them in a diesel race today because of it (well, actually, they pretty much already do, don't they?) or that probably didn't get pilfered in 1982 during some corporate espionage.
Oh well, rant over, sorry guys but that's whatcha git from me before the caffeine hits
RE: CDI conversion? - lars - 01-02-2010
Are there any carmanufacturer out there, that has a modern CR diesel engine that is somewhere near swappable into an older chassi/boat?
I guess all cars after 2000 have databuses going between all black boxes which makes this impossible, or?
RE: CDI conversion? - CID Vicious - 01-02-2010
Why does it have to be Common Rail? A mechanical injection pump, from a swapper's perspective, is like running a carb on a gas motor - easy peasy, run a few wires and set up your fuel supply, fab up your mounts and you're done. ANY common rail diesel is going to be A) more expensive to obtain than an IDI or DI diesel, B) much harder to swap, C) more prone to failure (all it takes is a misfiring sensor), and D) would only make as much power as a mechanical IP diesel anyway. Essentially it's no different than a late model EFI gas motor, and go down to the local car show and ask swappers whether they'd rather have to swap a simple carb motor in or an EFI car with all of the factory computers, sensors, and a wiring harness splice, and then have to troubleshoot the motor when one of the sensors doesn't feel like talking to the ECU and you have to figure out which one.
What are your needs for this chassis and/or boat? Target power and torque? Size requirements?
If you can fit it, the 6BT Cummins is the power/price king as far as I know. Power is limited by your budget, not the engine design itself. Oh, and as a side note pertaining to my above rant, one of the hot setups is taking a 24v Cummins and retrofitting the non-CR injection pump - best of both worlds. Also gets third tier fuel economy for a truck diesel - the D-Max's are supposedly the most efficient on the market from what I've seen, unless you know about the Isuzu NPR, which is easily the most fuel efficient larger diesel I'm aware of. The Cummins is far from a thirsty pig considering the work it can do, though.
CR motors are out of my price range, out of consideration for complexity purposes (I don't own a shop and don't feel like pretending I do), and one of the reasons I run a W123 is to keep it simple and easy to wrench on. So I'll only recommend what I'd get for myself. Someone else might know the later CR motors better and be comfortable with them, and budget considerations aside a CR diesel might be the best option once installed, but I wouldn't want to do the swap myself. I'm sure I could live with a little more smoke and less oohs and aahs when I pop the engine lid. YMMV.
RE: CDI conversion? - lars - 01-03-2010
[quote='CID Vicious' pid='9327' dateline='1262487654']
Why does it have to be Common Rail? A mechanical injection pump, from a swapper's perspective, is like running a carb on a gas motor - easy peasy, run a few wires and set up your fuel supply, fab up your mounts and you're done. ANY common rail diesel is going to be A) more expensive to obtain than an IDI or DI diesel, B) much harder to swap, C) more prone to failure (all it takes is a misfiring sensor), and D) would only make as much power as a mechanical IP diesel anyway. Essentially it's no different than a late model EFI gas motor, and go down to the local car show and ask swappers whether they'd rather have to swap a simple carb motor in or an EFI car with all of the factory computers, sensors, and a wiring harness splice, and then have to troubleshoot the motor when one of the sensors doesn't feel like talking to the ECU and you have to figure out which one.
I was thinking about, if you could bring a complete engine with wireloom and black boxes. -connect 12volts and soup in and return. Then Crank it up. I did that ten years ago with a bmw M5 engine in my old 3series. It worked wery well.
It does not HAVE to be CR, but I just thought it was the most efficient. Is a good DI almost as efficient, but pollutes a bit more than a CR? Then I guess DI is maybe the way to go. Many of the DI`s also have those databuses and immobilizers. A mechanical DI like some VW guys have done sounds sweet.
What are your needs for this chassis and/or boat? Target power and torque? Size requirements?
I am looking at a way to make the new subaru CR boxer diesel work as a standalone. To fit it in a small plane. Maybe remove CR system and swap in a DI pump like u explained on Dmax??
RE: CDI conversion? - CID Vicious - 01-03-2010
I'm not saying the late model conversion can't be done, but it's not for the faint of heart.
The M series from the early 90's are relatively simple compared a 2000+ motor. OBD0 vs OBDII is a big jump. But, if you're comfortable with the swap, go for it. The CDI is a comparative nightmare but MB has to make it so, they've been one of the world's most desirable cars to steal for 50 years or more - some manufacturers keep things neat and tidy, like Honda, fairly easy to work with.
It might be possible to run a mechanical IP on that new Subie diesel, but there might not be a provision for it. The Cummins variants are updates on the same basic motor (like moving from a 2bbl 350 to 4bbl, to TPI, same basic motor but different induction systems) so it's fairly doable. The DMax might not have a provision for a MIP either, I've only seen them retrofitted to the 24v Cummins.
I wouldn't be surprised to see those Subies becoming very popular for swaps - picture an older 911 with one. Er, maybe a later wasserboxer - forgot about the aircooled bit for a second. Perfect for old VW transporters though - anything to make that thing get out of it's own way.
Assuming there's a way to drive the pump, there's lots of four cylinder IPs to choose from in a lot of different applications.
For efficiency purposes, believe it or not you can gain MPG by going with a larger diesel motor. My 616 spins at fairly elevated speeds on the highway - with a bigger torque rating at lower rpms, IE from a larger motor, you could go with longer gears and cruise without having to use so much throttle (in my case, damn near all of it). I'm positive a DMax (though it's CR and thus more efficient, but also 6.6l) would actually net a significant improvement in mpg. Hot Rod or Car Craft recently had a SN95 Mustang running a DMax, not only wicked quarter mile times but 38mpg highway. Get it into OD and ride that fat torque curve, same way the fourth generation F-Bodies and C5/C6 Corvette can get 28mpg highway - low revs and lots of torque down low. A smaller motor has to rev higher to do the same amount of work.
RE: CDI conversion? - ForcedInduction - 01-03-2010
The 2.8L VM Motori engine used in the Jeep Liberty has been a popular retrofit to other Jeeps and gets about 25mpg in those 4x4 bricks. Putting one in an MB shouldn't be very difficult, just expensive.
RE: CDI conversion? - HoleshotHolset - 01-07-2010
(01-03-2010, 06:41 AM)CID Vicious Hot Rod or Car Craft recently had a SN95 Mustang running a DMax, not only wicked quarter mile times but 38mpg highway.
It's really hard to compare apples:oranges...but that fuel economy figure seems really inflated. You're still feeding a 6.6L V8...even with numerically low ring pinion and OD ratio. That's close to what a much lighter and way more aerodynamic 1.9L TDI with an automatic turns in for economy figures...
~22mpg is about all you could expect out of a 2wd 2500 Chevy with the same engine - so they've nearly doubled that just by going with a lighter chassis and maybe different ratios? Hrmmm....
Folks have to put forth some effort to get a Liberty CRD (2.8L) to get 32-33mpg on the highway...
Cheers,
Matt
RE: CDI conversion? - benztek - 01-07-2010
Unfortunately Kozuka is right on this one. Other than it being a complete nightmare fabrication wise, you would have to have a complete donor car. You would have to get engine, CDI control module, TCU, shifter, and the EZS to get it to work. Unless someone has a standalone unit! This has long been a dream of mine but even with my access to SCN coding there is no way to do it that I know of.
RE: CDI conversion? - Kiwibacon - 01-07-2010
(01-03-2010, 06:41 AM)CID Vicious The DMax might not have a provision for a MIP either, I've only seen them retrofitted to the 24v Cummins.
There's a video somewhere on the net of a Dmax that's fitted to a ferguson 35 pulling tractor. It has a mechanical injection pump installed between the cylinder banks at the front.
Aren't there standalone controllers for the d-max engine?
RE: CDI conversion? - CID Vicious - 01-07-2010
You don't have to rev the 6.6 like you would a 1.9l, the Mustang is far more aerodynamic and it weighs probably 2k lbs less than the truck the D-Max came out of. Overdrive and a taller set of gears than you'd need to make a 4.6l do it's thing.
That motor, in that car, in overdrive on the highway, is practically idling. And I'm just saying 'practically' to sound plausible. A 1.9l TDI, on the other hand, is not. The 1.9l is actually overburdened (what does a Jetta TDI weigh in at now, 3400lbs? They were overweight for a 'compact' two generations ago, and have only wolfed down more ho-ho's since!), thus it could get better mileage in a smaller car. The DMax in the Mustang is hardly being asked to do any of the work it's capable of to move that little philly down the road.
It's not just the displacement, it's how you use it. There are quite a few four cylinder cars that don't get the 28mpg that a Corvette is capable of getting. Why? No off idle torque, so the gearing has to compensate, and you're running the motor at a higher RPM range. And with a 3.46 or better final drive it's not just running dog gears to compensate, either.
Look at any offerings for old-school performance intakes for pushrod V8s - do you want idle-5500rpm, 1500-6500rpm, or 2500rpm-6500rpm+? That's where the motor wakes up. Almost all small motors are in the last category, second at best.
So, smart guy, why doesn't VW buid a bigger TDI and get more MPG with it? Well, for a long time in Europe and elsewhere there were extra taxes that had/have to be paid for motors in excess of 2 and then 3 liters. Also, the TDI platform was laid out in the 80's, back when a Jetta weighed in at a sprightly 2300lbs. Since they've already spent the R&D money (and the new R&D money goes to emissions, which is funny - if you want to reduce overall emissions, you'd want to reduce the amount of fuel that people need to burn to get things done, wouldn't you think?), and since it's not seen as inadequate by either the press or their customers, what incentive do they have?
Plus, I don't know if you've realized it, but the biggest profiteers these days are the oil companies, and frankly there's a lot of payola and worse going on behind the scenes. We had cars that got high 30's in the early 90's, earlier even (the old 'wet paper bag' Civics with the CVCC got over 40 highway). Now it's some kind of 'achievement' to post mileage numbers that haven't changed since before I entered Junior High. Even the V8 cars were doing well, a 94-96 Impala SS was rated at about 26 highway. You'd think a new G8 - weighs less (though only slightly), available six speed, near 20 years of refinement later - would beat that. Nope. How about a 400E? 4.2l, DOHC, 2.24 rear gears, five hundred pounds less weight...NOPE. Rated at 22mpg.
No off-idle torque.
Hell, a Fit barely cracks thirty mpg - my four speed base model Civic got better than that stuffed to the brim with literally everything I could fit in the damn thing (moved from Florida to NY), so it's not just weight. Four speed - no overdrive! Same displacement motor, 20 years of Honda evolution (maybe Chevy evolution is measured in a different unit ;-) ), less mpg. Why, if it's not just weight, displacement, or aero? Gee, those side curtain airbags sure are gas-guzzlers!
Hell, GM had the whole deal with Isuzu, did that NPR motor ever find it's way into a Silverado 1500 so they could give the finger to the automotive press and nay-sayers 'round the globe with a full-sized truck with all the requisite pulling power that got over 30mpg? Nope. Somehow the NPR box trucks (hmm...Box Truck...sounds aerodynamic!) get that figure, though.
Take it from Krusty the Klown - when the big boys are dumping money at your door, it's hard to look away, but real easy to look the other way.
"They backed up a dump-truck full of money to my front door...I'm not made out of stone!"
RE: CDI conversion? - Kiwibacon - 01-07-2010
(01-07-2010, 03:40 PM)CID Vicious Hell, GM had the whole deal with Isuzu, did that NPR motor ever find it's way into a Silverado 1500 so they could give the finger to the automotive press and nay-sayers 'round the globe with a full-sized truck with all the requisite pulling power that got over 30mpg? Nope. Somehow the NPR box trucks (hmm...Box Truck...sounds aerodynamic!) get that figure, though.
I have the NPR motor in my 4wd (rangerover) and it's been in there for 17 years with almost 250,000km.
It averages around 10km/l, that's what 24 MPG US?
Some guys who've swapped this engine into lower 2wd vehicles (better aero, less weight, less drivetrain drag) are reporting over 30MPG US on a trip. But I haven't heard of anyone getting that with an NPR.
The landrover discovery diesels could do 12 km/l, that's about 27 MPG US, they used a smaller diesel (2.5 litre) which has less internal friction so can return better mpg when the going is good.
A landrover freelander diesel owner told me down to 6L/100km (16km/l) on a good run, that's about 38 US MPG.
Over here we can buy a new Hyundai i30 diesel which uses under 5 litres/100km (less than the VW Golfs because all the VW's are now DSG). When babied on the open road owners are reporting short term best figures of about 3 litres per 100km.
That's 33 km/l. 93 MPG UK and 75 MPG US. These are "one night stand" mpg, not averages.
No secret, just a car that's the polar opposite of what is sold in the US. Small engine (1.6) common rail diesel with a manual gearbox and good aerodynamics. It's about 1.4 ton so not that light.
RE: CDI conversion? - CID Vicious - 01-07-2010
I hadn't heard solid figures on the NPR truck yet but heard plenty about the pickups. 24mpg with that big box on wheels, especially with any kind of load, is impressive.
Gee, wonder if anyone in the US or elsewhere would like the utility of a full sized 2wd pickup with mileage that beats quite a few sedans out there? Is there such a market? Maybe one or two...million.
As far as the apple to orange ratio goes, we're talking about taking a late model engine and full harness and retrofitting it to a W123. As far as I'm concerned, there's a logo's worth of difference in the two swaps - I'm assuming the guy wants a Benz motor because it'll be 'easier', being the same brand...hah! All you might (and I do mean might) save on is the motor mounts, which get a big whoop-dee-friggin'-do from my perspective. If it isn't a FWD car then mounts really aren't that hard. If a band saw, a welder, and some steel stock, coupled with an eyeball or two and a tape measure, really scare the crap out of you...then why even consider a swap like this?
Hell, the D-Max will be easier, mostly because middle easterners haven't been stealing them and putting them on boats headed for lands without DMVs for decades. MB will make swapping their drivetrains into other vehicles a nightmare as long as that is the case, and I can actually understand why, but that doesn't make me choose such a setup for a swap that I'd want to do. The fact that there are MIP swaps and stand alone controllers available for the swap would be enough for me to say DMax<CDI for this. Especially if you want 'real' power out of the swap, not just to impress fellow Benz heads.
If the motor just slip right in like it was made to (Honda swaps make everyone think these deals are always 'just that easy'), if it didn't take an entire donor system from a very expensive car or some very expensive aftermarket controllers to make it run, and if the D-Max wouldn't deliver more, with less effort, for less money, I'd say it was apples and oranges. But in this case there is ZERO benefit to keeping the car 'all MB' other than to say it's all Benz. And you know what? Of all of the Benz heads that might pat you on the back for making such a swap, how many are going to pony up the money to pay you what you'd have into it? One guy, and if he only hadn't lost his job, or just hadn't bought X car, he'd totally get it.
I forget, what's the formula for calculating the true cost of any project - initial investment, parts, tools, labor, + 10% for error...then double said figure to find out what you'll really be paying?
Meanwhile (all with roughly the same potential) you have the OM617, the 606, 603, four and five cylinder TDI motors, and others that will deliver all of the benefits of a CDI without the headache and cost. There's your apples to apples. You'll swap in a 606/5 speed and tune to Finnish standards, and blow it up or sell it before you'll get the CDI in and running a stock tune. Do you want to do it to do it, or do you want a cool custom car that's a bargain compared to even a used CDI?
I ask because some people have the Everest, 'because it's there' thing going on, and that's fine, great even, but that doesn't mean someone should be under the false impression that such a thing is easy, or even particularly worthwhile, aside from the 'well, you didn't do it' factor. One guy's freezing to death halfway up a mountain that he'll be lucky to get off of alive (much less still having a NOSE!), meanwhile his 'doubting Thomas' buddy was back at the same bar, getting drunk and having a good time with the ladies. I don't think I need to tell you which I'd rather be ;-).
RE: CDI conversion? - 400Eric - 01-08-2010
(01-07-2010, 03:40 PM)CID Vicious That motor, in that car, in overdrive on the highway, is practically idling. And I'm just saying 'practically' to sound plausible. A 1.9l TDI, on the other hand, is not. The 1.9l is actually overburdened (what does a Jetta TDI weigh in at now, 3400lbs? They were overweight for a 'compact' two generations ago, and have only wolfed down more ho-ho's since!), thus it could get better mileage in a smaller car. The DMax in the Mustang is hardly being asked to do any of the work it's capable of to move that little philly down the road.
It's not just the displacement, it's how you use it. There are quite a few four cylinder cars that don't get the 28mpg that a Corvette is capable of getting. Why? No off idle torque, so the gearing has to compensate, and you're running the motor at a higher RPM range. And with a 3.46 or better final drive it's not just running dog gears to compensate, either.
Look at any offerings for old-school performance intakes for pushrod V8s - do you want idle-5500rpm, 1500-6500rpm, or 2500rpm-6500rpm+? That's where the motor wakes up. Almost all small motors are in the last category, second at best.
So, smart guy, why doesn't VW buid a bigger TDI and get more MPG with it? Well, for a long time in Europe and elsewhere there were extra taxes that had/have to be paid for motors in excess of 2 and then 3 liters. Also, the TDI platform was laid out in the 80's, back when a Jetta weighed in at a sprightly 2300lbs. Since they've already spent the R&D money (and the new R&D money goes to emissions, which is funny - if you want to reduce overall emissions, you'd want to reduce the amount of fuel that people need to burn to get things done, wouldn't you think?), and since it's not seen as inadequate by either the press or their customers, what incentive do they have?
Plus, I don't know if you've realized it, but the biggest profiteers these days are the oil companies, and frankly there's a lot of payola and worse going on behind the scenes. We had cars that got high 30's in the early 90's, earlier even (the old 'wet paper bag' Civics with the CVCC got over 40 highway). Now it's some kind of 'achievement' to post mileage numbers that haven't changed since before I entered Junior High. Even the V8 cars were doing well, a 94-96 Impala SS was rated at about 26 highway. You'd think a new G8 - weighs less (though only slightly), available six speed, near 20 years of refinement later - would beat that. Nope. How about a 400E? 4.2l, DOHC, 2.24 rear gears, five hundred pounds less weight...NOPE. Rated at 22mpg.
No off-idle torque.
Hell, a Fit barely cracks thirty mpg - my four speed base model Civic got better than that stuffed to the brim with literally everything I could fit in the damn thing (moved from Florida to NY), so it's not just weight. Four speed - no overdrive! Same displacement motor, 20 years of Honda evolution (maybe Chevy evolution is measured in a different unit ;-) ), less mpg. Why, if it's not just weight, displacement, or aero? Gee, those side curtain airbags sure are gas-guzzlers!
Hell, GM had the whole deal with Isuzu, did that NPR motor ever find it's way into a Silverado 1500 so they could give the finger to the automotive press and nay-sayers 'round the globe with a full-sized truck with all the requisite pulling power that got over 30mpg? Nope. Somehow the NPR box trucks (hmm...Box Truck...sounds aerodynamic!) get that figure, though.
Take it from Krusty the Klown - when the big boys are dumping money at your door, it's hard to look away, but real easy to look the other way.
"They backed up a dump-truck full of money to my front door...I'm not made out of stone!"
You spoke of the EPA highway ratings which are crazy inaccurate but I wanted to clarify that it was the M103 3.0 300E that only got 22MPG (18/22) according to them. The 400E got 24 (18/24) and the Imp SS got 25 (17/25), not the 26 you stated but what really matters are the 16 MPG (Imp) and 20 MPG (400E) real world, driven by real guys, average MPG numbers that Car & Driver got.
Why did the M103 3.0 car do so poorly? Two reasons: 1) 3.07s vs. 2.24s. Like you observed, the small engine revving higher vs. the bigger engine revving lower thing (not that the 4.2 is big, but it is quite a bit bigger than the 3.0) and 2) CIS-E always on and always squirting fuel injection vs. LH sequential only squirts at the right time fuel injection.
Also, they changed the testing methodology at the EPA not too long ago to try to get the ratings more "real world" accurate after being ridiculed for years from all sides that the ratings weren't even remotely accurate. (Which they weren't.) This has resulted in newer cars getting ratings that are poorer than what they would have gotten under the old system. This is why, for example, the new G8 doesn't fair as well as it should when compared against the Impala SS which was rated under the old system.
Another reason that the 1.9 TDI doesn't get any bigger is because it has already been taken too far as it is. That engine's bore centers and basic architecture go all the way back to the original 70s Rabbit gas and diesel engines. I've read recently in the new Diesel Power mag that just came out that the 1.9 TDI's replacement is about to come out. It will be a 2.0 liter for starters but I'll bet it has the potential to go fairly bigger. (If it's really true that it is an "all new" engine, they may instead have just raised the deck height yet again to lengthen the stroke yet again on an engine that is already too "strokey" as it is, even for a diesel, and called it "all new" like they almost always do.) Now as for why didn't they just add more cylinders like they did for their pricier cars? It's because they want you to spend more money for those pricier cars and you are less likely to do that if you can get the "good" engine in the cheaper, lighter car which would then be able to outrun the bigger, heavier, pricier car.
Regards, Eric
RE: CDI conversion? - CID Vicious - 01-08-2010
The thing about the observed mileage is who's driving. If you're using the Imp to it's potential, you'll return mileage in the teens, as you would in City driving. Cruising it like Gramps in a Caprice, you'd be able to get that mileage. Pay to play.
VW is probably just like GM, bean counters have more sway than they should. The TDI is falling behind what other companies are starting to offer (that Subaru boxer diesel looks pretty good, for instance), they might actually revamp it, or they might just add some deck height like you said. I know they have a 5 cylinder TDI over in Europe, and the newer Jetta/Golfs run a 5 cylinder gasser, so...?
The basic architecture of those two cars didn't change much until generation 5, to give you a clue. Just slap a new body and a nicer interior on the same old chassis, no one will notice
. It was good for what it was - the Cobalt SS-T is being called the best handling FWD production car ever, and it's a simple strut/beam rear like the Golf/Jetta - but gee, I wonder if there's something better on the market, maybe with an H on the hood?The general buying public are true dolts and the car companies know this. I just saw some ghetto looking woman buying a whatever-that-Chrysler-version-of-an-Intrepid-is-called, and the guy basically detailed it, threw some chrome rims and a polished muffler on there, I'm sure it had a "bitchin'" stereo...the woman is probably paying 4-5 grand for a car I won't be surprised to see stuck at the roadside at any point, all because it kinda-sorta looks like the POS American boat her daddy used to drive. That's the buying public. If it weren't so, we wouldn't be modifiers and hot rodders, learning the esoteric secrets of these vehicles if not to find some way to NOT be one of those people.
Eh, rant over, saw this this morning, and it just pisses me off. They already charge you 20 bucks for a piece of shit that they have a whole 25 cents invested in(made by a six year old with a gun to his/her head) by the time it's on the shelf, and if it doesn't sell, don't donate it, don't even just throw it away, no, pay a contractor to destroy all of the unsold clothing and then dump it somewhere.
Grrrrrrr...........
RE: CDI conversion? - Kiwibacon - 01-08-2010
(01-08-2010, 06:48 AM)400Eric Another reason that the 1.9 TDI doesn't get any bigger is because it has already been taken too far as it is. That engine's bore centers and basic architecture go all the way back to the original 70s Rabbit gas and diesel engines. I've read recently in the new Diesel Power mag that just came out that the 1.9 TDI's replacement is about to come out. It will be a 2.0 liter for starters but I'll bet it has the potential to go fairly bigger. (If it's really true that it is an "all new" engine, they may instead have just raised the deck height yet again to lengthen the stroke yet again on an engine that is already too "strokey" as it is, even for a diesel, and called it "all new" like they almost always do.) Now as for why didn't they just add more cylinders like they did for their pricier cars? It's because they want you to spend more money for those pricier cars and you are less likely to do that if you can get the "good" engine in the cheaper, lighter car which would then be able to outrun the bigger, heavier, pricier car.
Regards, Eric
The 2.0 TDi has been out for years. I get to drive one occasionally. But my current favourite diesel ever is the V6 3.0 TDi.
The reason for four cylinders. Fewer cylinders means less heat loss and less internal friction. Both translate into better efficiency and better fuel economy.
Shame cars are getting bigger and heavier.
RE: CDI conversion? - JB3 - 01-08-2010
why couldnt you use an early CRD 4cyl sprinter work van as a donor vehicle? Plenty of those around and the older ones are starting to get damaged and rusted enough that you can get them fairly cheap.
RE: CDI conversion? - ForcedInduction - 01-08-2010
There is no reason 4-bangers have to be ~2L. If you look at the diesel pickups all of them are over 3.0L per four. I wouldn't mind a 3.3L Duramini!
dropnosky, the only sprinters in the USA use the 2.7L CDI or 3.0L V6 Bluetec and weren't available until 2001.
RE: CDI conversion? - 400Eric - 01-09-2010
(01-08-2010, 03:06 PM)CID Vicious The thing about the observed mileage is who's driving. If you're using the Imp to it's potential, you'll return mileage in the teens, as you would in City driving. Cruising it like Gramps in a Caprice, you'd be able to get that mileage. Pay to play.The thing I find hilarious is that VW ran an ad in several car magazines back in the 70s right after they brought out the Rabbit talking about how the domestic car companies: "Just slap a new body and a nicer interior on the same old chassis" and call it "all new" and how they (VW) doesn't do that. They claimed that when they claim a car is "all new", it really is. In the ad a barely disguised maverick body is being replaced with a barely disguised Granada body. This was at the time when the Rabbit really was all new so the ad was in fact true at the time, but it hasn't been true since then. Damn liars, all of them.
VW is probably just like GM, bean counters have more sway than they should. The TDI is falling behind what other companies are starting to offer (that Subaru boxer diesel looks pretty good, for instance), they might actually revamp it, or they might just add some deck height like you said. I know they have a 5 cylinder TDI over in Europe, and the newer Jetta/Golfs run a 5 cylinder gasser, so...?
The basic architecture of those two cars didn't change much until generation 5, to give you a clue. Just slap a new body and a nicer interior on the same old chassis, no one will notice
The general buying public are true dolts and the car companies know this. I just saw some ghetto looking woman buying a whatever-that-Chrysler-version-of-an-Intrepid-is-called, and the guy basically detailed it, threw some chrome rims and a polished muffler on there, I'm sure it had a "bitchin'" stereo...the woman is probably paying 4-5 grand for a car I won't be surprised to see stuck at the roadside at any point, all because it kinda-sorta looks like the POS American boat her daddy used to drive. That's the buying public. If it weren't so, we wouldn't be modifiers and hot rodders, learning the esoteric secrets of these vehicles if not to find some way to NOT be one of those people.
Eh, rant over, saw this this morning, and it just pisses me off. They already charge you 20 bucks for a piece of shit that they have a whole 25 cents invested in(made by a six year old with a gun to his/her head) by the time it's on the shelf, and if it doesn't sell, don't donate it, don't even just throw it away, no, pay a contractor to destroy all of the unsold clothing and then dump it somewhere.
Grrrrrrr...........
My two and a half year old daughter loves Dora. She would have loved to have had that top. That's just immoral.
Regards, Eric
(01-08-2010, 04:24 PM)Kiwibacon The 2.0 TDi has been out for years. I get to drive one occasionally. But my current favourite diesel ever is the V6 3.0 TDi.
I have the issue now: Feb. 2010 Diesel Power magazine, page 42. The headline says "This 2.0L could change diesel engines forever." The word "could" made me think it wasn't out yet. But in the body of the article it says it's powering the 09 and newer Jetta here. It's a common rail, direct injected, four valve per cylinder engine with a compacted graphite-iron block.
I agree that cars are too big and heavy. I do like a big engine though. A small car with a big engine is cool. Kind of like a petite chick with big cans.
Regards, Eric