OM606.962+holset HE351VE VGT+Myna Pump
OM606.962+holset HE351VE VGT+Myna Pump
12-07-2010, 12:27 PM
#101
This post was last modified: 12-07-2010, 12:27 PM by willbhere4u.
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
12-07-2010, 12:27 PM #101I could beat a 500hp mercedes in my 250hp lotus!
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
12-07-2010, 02:06 PM
#102
(12-07-2010, 10:24 AM)ForcedInduction(12-07-2010, 10:04 AM)Captain America horse power is what makes the skin peel off your face at speedThats actually torque too.
Technically yes but at that rpm the poor gsxr isn't making much at all ... haha not that it ever did
(12-07-2010, 10:24 AM)ForcedInduction Horsepower is nothing more than math for torque over time.
The GSXR is faster on the high end because it makes its power in the 11krpm range while the Buell is mid-9krpm peak power. Its the same way a 3.0L car engine makes only (for example) 200hp yet a 3.0L F1 makes over 900hp and a 1.3L Geo makes 80hp while a 1.3L RX-7 makes 145hp. RPM. Ditto with many Finns revving their engines over 6000rpm to make inflated power numbers.
Yeah GSXRs only make power over 10k, under that they are useless. The Buell is just a torque monster with a flat line of beauty
If I could revv my Buell to 18k i'd make all kinds of ponies!
This post was last modified: 12-07-2010, 02:11 PM by Captain America.
1982 300D Turbo ... 3,6xxlbs, No fan, No AC, Hood Stack, No ALDA, No rear bumper and stuffed front, A/W Intercooled, Injectors by Greezer and HUGE Pre-Chambers with help from OM616 & Simpler=Better, Fuel Cranked up, 60 Trim Compressor wheel, EGT, EMP, Boost 50" Rigid Radius bar on roof Aux tank for a total of 48 Gal Of Diesel! Odyssey PC-1750 Battery in trunk, 27"x8.5"/R14 Maxxis BigHorn Mud Terrains, In June '14 issue of Off Road Mag
AX15 Jeep Trans swap in progress....
Captain America
12-07-2010, 02:06 PM #102(12-07-2010, 10:24 AM)ForcedInduction(12-07-2010, 10:04 AM)Captain America horse power is what makes the skin peel off your face at speedThats actually torque too.
Technically yes but at that rpm the poor gsxr isn't making much at all ... haha not that it ever did
(12-07-2010, 10:24 AM)ForcedInduction Horsepower is nothing more than math for torque over time.
The GSXR is faster on the high end because it makes its power in the 11krpm range while the Buell is mid-9krpm peak power. Its the same way a 3.0L car engine makes only (for example) 200hp yet a 3.0L F1 makes over 900hp and a 1.3L Geo makes 80hp while a 1.3L RX-7 makes 145hp. RPM. Ditto with many Finns revving their engines over 6000rpm to make inflated power numbers.
Yeah GSXRs only make power over 10k, under that they are useless. The Buell is just a torque monster with a flat line of beauty
If I could revv my Buell to 18k i'd make all kinds of ponies!
1982 300D Turbo ... 3,6xxlbs, No fan, No AC, Hood Stack, No ALDA, No rear bumper and stuffed front, A/W Intercooled, Injectors by Greezer and HUGE Pre-Chambers with help from OM616 & Simpler=Better, Fuel Cranked up, 60 Trim Compressor wheel, EGT, EMP, Boost 50" Rigid Radius bar on roof Aux tank for a total of 48 Gal Of Diesel! Odyssey PC-1750 Battery in trunk, 27"x8.5"/R14 Maxxis BigHorn Mud Terrains, In June '14 issue of Off Road Mag
AX15 Jeep Trans swap in progress....
12-07-2010, 02:19 PM
#103
It's also why we need a transmission, to bring the RPM back down to where there's enough torque to turn the wheels.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
Yep, pull the governor off and you get instant "free" HP, but it kills the engine quicker.
It's also why we need a transmission, to bring the RPM back down to where there's enough torque to turn the wheels.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
12-07-2010, 02:21 PM
#104
Okay, so you guys first want infinite tq at almost no revs at all, thus making practically no horsepower (but it doesn't matter, a bus engine sure is faster than F1 engine on same chassis). Then you complain that a merc bottom end won't hold up that tq..
(12-06-2010, 06:54 PM)ForcedInduction Thats been the case for a long time, but most Finns don't pick up on it. Watch a bunch of their drag race videos; You'll notice the 400hp engines are usually faster than the 500hp ones. Why? The 400hp cars get "on power" quicker because they have more torque low in the RPM range and their turbo spools up quicker.Seriously, you watched a video and that's all the truth? How do you know how much power those cars had? In real life the 500hp cars are faster. Come and see. Doesn't matter if there's not infinite tq low down. Use gears, that's what they are for.
Why did MB make N/A 250d and 300d? They don't have any tq at all, not low down nor in the upper revs.
Some want a car that is like a N/A 300d as daily driver, but when on revs, makes 500hp if needed. The N/A has enough tq to move a passenger car nicely. I wouldn't put that to a bus, nor a bus engine to my car.
Now here's another opinion, which is as over-exaggerated as the others.
Okay, so you guys first want infinite tq at almost no revs at all, thus making practically no horsepower (but it doesn't matter, a bus engine sure is faster than F1 engine on same chassis). Then you complain that a merc bottom end won't hold up that tq..
(12-06-2010, 06:54 PM)ForcedInduction Thats been the case for a long time, but most Finns don't pick up on it. Watch a bunch of their drag race videos; You'll notice the 400hp engines are usually faster than the 500hp ones. Why? The 400hp cars get "on power" quicker because they have more torque low in the RPM range and their turbo spools up quicker.Seriously, you watched a video and that's all the truth? How do you know how much power those cars had? In real life the 500hp cars are faster. Come and see. Doesn't matter if there's not infinite tq low down. Use gears, that's what they are for.
Why did MB make N/A 250d and 300d? They don't have any tq at all, not low down nor in the upper revs.
Some want a car that is like a N/A 300d as daily driver, but when on revs, makes 500hp if needed. The N/A has enough tq to move a passenger car nicely. I wouldn't put that to a bus, nor a bus engine to my car.
12-07-2010, 03:50 PM
#105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7EL1hK1JIs
This post was last modified: 12-07-2010, 03:51 PM by willbhere4u.
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
12-07-2010, 03:50 PM #105#8500 dodge doing a 12 second pass with the a bus engine! With an engine that cant rev past 4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7EL1hK1JIs
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
12-07-2010, 04:12 PM
#106
(12-07-2010, 02:21 PM)muuris Okay, so you guys first want infinite tq at almost no revs at all, thus making practically no horsepower (but it doesn't matter, a bus engine sure is faster than F1 engine on same chassis). Then you complain that a merc bottom end won't hold up that tq..
No, we want an engine where the torque curve is shifted lower down in the RPM range, so it comes on quicker. Not necessarily one with more torque, just one with a better spread of the existing torque.
The fact is, unless you're racing at 5Krpm, there's no NEED for the torque to be up there. It's nice, it's fun, but I'd rather have it at the low-end so I can floor it at 2K and be putting enough power to the ground to pass that rice-rocket that's doing 30 with the subwoofers rattling the windows, instead of having 500HP way up at 5K where i'll never see it anywheres but the dyno.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
(12-07-2010, 02:21 PM)muuris Okay, so you guys first want infinite tq at almost no revs at all, thus making practically no horsepower (but it doesn't matter, a bus engine sure is faster than F1 engine on same chassis). Then you complain that a merc bottom end won't hold up that tq..
No, we want an engine where the torque curve is shifted lower down in the RPM range, so it comes on quicker. Not necessarily one with more torque, just one with a better spread of the existing torque.
The fact is, unless you're racing at 5Krpm, there's no NEED for the torque to be up there. It's nice, it's fun, but I'd rather have it at the low-end so I can floor it at 2K and be putting enough power to the ground to pass that rice-rocket that's doing 30 with the subwoofers rattling the windows, instead of having 500HP way up at 5K where i'll never see it anywheres but the dyno.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
12-07-2010, 04:26 PM
#107
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
12-07-2010, 04:26 PM #107I agree having power every where in the power band is important for a DD
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
12-07-2010, 04:30 PM
#108
(12-07-2010, 04:12 PM)300D50 The fact is, unless you're racing at 5Krpm, there's no NEED for the torque to be up there. It's nice, it's fun, but I'd rather have it at the low-end so I can floor it at 2K and be putting enough power to the ground to pass that rice-rocket that's doing 30 with the subwoofers rattling the windows, instead of having 500HP way up at 5K where i'll never see it anywheres but the dyno.Why gasoline engines rev higher? Because they rev. So why not diesel? What is the broplem if diesel make power high rpm?
What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
(12-07-2010, 04:12 PM)300D50 The fact is, unless you're racing at 5Krpm, there's no NEED for the torque to be up there. It's nice, it's fun, but I'd rather have it at the low-end so I can floor it at 2K and be putting enough power to the ground to pass that rice-rocket that's doing 30 with the subwoofers rattling the windows, instead of having 500HP way up at 5K where i'll never see it anywheres but the dyno.Why gasoline engines rev higher? Because they rev. So why not diesel? What is the broplem if diesel make power high rpm?
What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
12-07-2010, 04:39 PM
#109
but they where trying to make a lot of power from 3k rpm up to 6k instad of peaking we want some power down low!
This would be our ideal power range!
120hp at 1250rpm
250hp at 2000rpm
450hp at 3000rpm
500hp at 4000rpm
600hp at 5000rpm
550hp at 6000rpm
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
12-07-2010, 04:39 PM #109There's no problem with that
but they where trying to make a lot of power from 3k rpm up to 6k instad of peaking we want some power down low!
This would be our ideal power range!
120hp at 1250rpm
250hp at 2000rpm
450hp at 3000rpm
500hp at 4000rpm
600hp at 5000rpm
550hp at 6000rpm
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
12-07-2010, 04:50 PM
#110
(12-07-2010, 04:30 PM)jeemu Why gasoline engines rev higher? Because they rev. So why not diesel? What is the broplem if diesel make power high rpm?
What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
A gasoline engine revs higher by design, because they have to offset the lower torque values that come from burning a less energy dense fuel.
There is no problem with a diesel running at a higher rpm, it's just that most non-benz diesels top out at ~ 2400ish. These things already rev more than fast enough to replace a gasoline engine of the same displacement.
I'm not saying it's not a nice thing to have high-end torque and hp, it's just that most people would like more torque on the low end to get up to speed quicker, in trade for less absolute maximum high-end Hp that they won't see in day to day use.
Unless the speed limits in Finland are ~ 300kph, or the car is taken to the track daily for speed trials/drag racing/drift competition, then it's just pissing money down the drain in an ever twirling spiral till the head studs break.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
(12-07-2010, 04:30 PM)jeemu Why gasoline engines rev higher? Because they rev. So why not diesel? What is the broplem if diesel make power high rpm?
What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
A gasoline engine revs higher by design, because they have to offset the lower torque values that come from burning a less energy dense fuel.
There is no problem with a diesel running at a higher rpm, it's just that most non-benz diesels top out at ~ 2400ish. These things already rev more than fast enough to replace a gasoline engine of the same displacement.
I'm not saying it's not a nice thing to have high-end torque and hp, it's just that most people would like more torque on the low end to get up to speed quicker, in trade for less absolute maximum high-end Hp that they won't see in day to day use.
Unless the speed limits in Finland are ~ 300kph, or the car is taken to the track daily for speed trials/drag racing/drift competition, then it's just pissing money down the drain in an ever twirling spiral till the head studs break.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
12-07-2010, 04:58 PM
#111
(12-07-2010, 04:50 PM)300D50Yes i understand that. Ewery people has differend needs.(12-07-2010, 04:30 PM)jeemu Why gasoline engines rev higher? Because they rev. So why not diesel? What is the broplem if diesel make power high rpm?
What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
A gasoline engine revs higher by design, because they have to offset the lower torque values that come from burning a less energy dense fuel.
There is no problem with a diesel running at a higher rpm, it's just that most non-benz diesels top out at ~ 2400ish. These things already rev more than fast enough to replace a gasoline engine of the same displacement.
I'm not saying it's not a nice thing to have high-end torque and hp, it's just that most people would like more torque on the low end to get up to speed quicker, in trade for less absolute maximum high-end Hp that they won't see in day to day use.
Unless the speed limits in Finland are ~ 300kph, or the car is taken to the track daily for speed trials/drag racing/drift competition, then it's just pissing money down the drain in an ever twirling spiral till the head studs break.
I think at name of the forum have a mean of something.
SUPERTURBODIESEL.com. All what here is to read is how Finnish rev their engine and plaaplaa plaa.
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
(12-07-2010, 04:50 PM)300D50Yes i understand that. Ewery people has differend needs.(12-07-2010, 04:30 PM)jeemu Why gasoline engines rev higher? Because they rev. So why not diesel? What is the broplem if diesel make power high rpm?
What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
A gasoline engine revs higher by design, because they have to offset the lower torque values that come from burning a less energy dense fuel.
There is no problem with a diesel running at a higher rpm, it's just that most non-benz diesels top out at ~ 2400ish. These things already rev more than fast enough to replace a gasoline engine of the same displacement.
I'm not saying it's not a nice thing to have high-end torque and hp, it's just that most people would like more torque on the low end to get up to speed quicker, in trade for less absolute maximum high-end Hp that they won't see in day to day use.
Unless the speed limits in Finland are ~ 300kph, or the car is taken to the track daily for speed trials/drag racing/drift competition, then it's just pissing money down the drain in an ever twirling spiral till the head studs break.
I think at name of the forum have a mean of something.
SUPERTURBODIESEL.com. All what here is to read is how Finnish rev their engine and plaaplaa plaa.
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
12-07-2010, 05:18 PM
#112
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
Then what was the reason for asking why a gasoline engine revs higher if you already know the answer?
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
12-07-2010, 05:41 PM
#113
As a collective we can take ALL of the information and use it to build a good reliable motor and the information gathered will help you make some good choices as to how you can achieve your desired goals.
I for one like to see our Finnish brothers push the envelope and see how much power they can make. If they could rev it to 8000 then good for them if they can figure out how to keep it together.
It is not about wasting money, for me it is to see if I can do it. I probably have spent more money on fittings than some have spent on their entire projects. I do it fo myself and don't really care what anyone thinks...if I did I wouldn't post pics of what I have done for fear I might not like what I hear.
Give these guys a break and learn from their triumphs and mistakes.
1982 300SD: 304,xxx Super M-pump with 7.5mm elements, 265 Nozzles, GT35 water cooled turbo, M90 Supercharger, A/W Intercooler, Serpentine drive belt, 3" SS exhaust with Magnaflow muffler, 240 breather, AEM dry Filter, Manual Boost Control, EGT / Boost / EMP gauges....Moved on to other projects
1995 F-350 7.3L PSD: 230,xxx 6.0 IC, DIY Stage 1 Injectors, 17* hpop, Tony Wildman Chip, John Wood Trans, 6.4L TC, 3" down pipe, 4" straight exhaust, 310 HP on wheel dyno - 8500# dually: 0-60 in 6.98
Suzuki Samurai: VW 1.9L TD, Trackick doubler transfer case (made by me) 5.8:1 transfer case gears, YJ springs front and rear with rear missing links, wheel base extended 14", diffs welded, some day a VNT.
Rudolf_Diesel
12-07-2010, 05:41 PM #113All I can say is that if you meet your power goals then you are successful. Everyone has different goals and it doesn't make it wrong to get a power curve that is higher than what YOU want.
As a collective we can take ALL of the information and use it to build a good reliable motor and the information gathered will help you make some good choices as to how you can achieve your desired goals.
I for one like to see our Finnish brothers push the envelope and see how much power they can make. If they could rev it to 8000 then good for them if they can figure out how to keep it together.
It is not about wasting money, for me it is to see if I can do it. I probably have spent more money on fittings than some have spent on their entire projects. I do it fo myself and don't really care what anyone thinks...if I did I wouldn't post pics of what I have done for fear I might not like what I hear.
Give these guys a break and learn from their triumphs and mistakes.
1982 300SD: 304,xxx Super M-pump with 7.5mm elements, 265 Nozzles, GT35 water cooled turbo, M90 Supercharger, A/W Intercooler, Serpentine drive belt, 3" SS exhaust with Magnaflow muffler, 240 breather, AEM dry Filter, Manual Boost Control, EGT / Boost / EMP gauges....Moved on to other projects
1995 F-350 7.3L PSD: 230,xxx 6.0 IC, DIY Stage 1 Injectors, 17* hpop, Tony Wildman Chip, John Wood Trans, 6.4L TC, 3" down pipe, 4" straight exhaust, 310 HP on wheel dyno - 8500# dually: 0-60 in 6.98
Suzuki Samurai: VW 1.9L TD, Trackick doubler transfer case (made by me) 5.8:1 transfer case gears, YJ springs front and rear with rear missing links, wheel base extended 14", diffs welded, some day a VNT.
12-07-2010, 05:43 PM
#114
For everyone that's a different answer. For me I own a sport bike with a 14k rpm redline and I want a diesel car that pulls like a train from 2k-5100(what I understand to be the theoretical max rpm based on diesels slower flame front).
Also Audi doesn't rev the R10 past 5k and I figure those guys know what they are doing.
Quote curtesy of http://www.mulsannescorner.com/juhaAudiR10.html
Quote:Now, there isn't really anything radical in the Audi R10-engine, but it is done with the most modern existing diesel-technology. It utilizes the third generation Bosch piezo-actuated injectors capable of handling 2000 bar injection pressure, an aluminum crank case (MB has an aluminum diesel in production), catalytic soot filters, and variable-geometry turbine vanes. It utilizes partly synthetic GTL-diesel fuel (Gas-To-Liquids) with setane number close to 70. This means a short ignition lag, which in turn means fast burning and the possibility to control maximum cylinder pressure with a clever injection. Traditionally the Achilles heel of the tuned turbo diesels has been the head bolts which have yielded under the maximum cylinder pressures. With a high setane number one can make the maximum cylinder pressure peak wider and lower.
The operational rev band of the R10 is an impressive 3000–5000 rpm. Tom Kristensen, "The best band is 3000–5000 and you can go even a bit over." Tom continued to say that the band is quite narrow, but if you think about it, it is actually 40 % of the total band, which is much, much more than in many race engines. He is probably used to the very driveable FSI-engine. The race tuned turbo diesels usually have a relatively low compression ratio and a high boost. This easily produces an engine which is not as driveable at part load. Tom may have noticed this and interprets it as a narrow band. It may be a tricky band but not a narrow one.
It appears that the restrictor does not limit the engine power. With a stochiometric ratio the engine could produce about 800 ps. Yes, of course, diesels require air excess. However, the maximum allowed boost seems to be the real limiter. Audi tells that the top power of the R10 is about 650 hp. To get this power at about 5000 rpm and 2940 mbars requires a very high volumetric ratio i.e. excellent cylinder fill. In practice, the R10 must have a very efficient intercooling system to get the required air mass into the cylinder.
The maximum torque is above 1100 Nm (810 lb-ft). The R8 generated about 700 Nm (520 lb-ft). If the R10 works as turbo-diesels tend to, the maximum torque is constant 3000–4000 rpm, above which there is almost a constant power band (diminishing torque). The Audi engineers have calculated that the R10 could do one ore lap with a tank full at the Le Mans Sarthe track. This would mean that the R10 is about 5 % more efficient fuel burner than the R8 FSI over the track. The Sarthe is about 80 % WOT (Wide Open Throttle) so the difference is not that enormous. At tracks with a higher part load percentage (Sebring, Road Atlanta) the difference is going to be bigger.
It's all about finding a balance. Do you want to pull stumps(or get on power out of turns without down shifting), or have a 1000 rpm powerband at the top of the rev range.
For everyone that's a different answer. For me I own a sport bike with a 14k rpm redline and I want a diesel car that pulls like a train from 2k-5100(what I understand to be the theoretical max rpm based on diesels slower flame front).
Also Audi doesn't rev the R10 past 5k and I figure those guys know what they are doing.
Quote curtesy of http://www.mulsannescorner.com/juhaAudiR10.html
Quote:Now, there isn't really anything radical in the Audi R10-engine, but it is done with the most modern existing diesel-technology. It utilizes the third generation Bosch piezo-actuated injectors capable of handling 2000 bar injection pressure, an aluminum crank case (MB has an aluminum diesel in production), catalytic soot filters, and variable-geometry turbine vanes. It utilizes partly synthetic GTL-diesel fuel (Gas-To-Liquids) with setane number close to 70. This means a short ignition lag, which in turn means fast burning and the possibility to control maximum cylinder pressure with a clever injection. Traditionally the Achilles heel of the tuned turbo diesels has been the head bolts which have yielded under the maximum cylinder pressures. With a high setane number one can make the maximum cylinder pressure peak wider and lower.
The operational rev band of the R10 is an impressive 3000–5000 rpm. Tom Kristensen, "The best band is 3000–5000 and you can go even a bit over." Tom continued to say that the band is quite narrow, but if you think about it, it is actually 40 % of the total band, which is much, much more than in many race engines. He is probably used to the very driveable FSI-engine. The race tuned turbo diesels usually have a relatively low compression ratio and a high boost. This easily produces an engine which is not as driveable at part load. Tom may have noticed this and interprets it as a narrow band. It may be a tricky band but not a narrow one.
It appears that the restrictor does not limit the engine power. With a stochiometric ratio the engine could produce about 800 ps. Yes, of course, diesels require air excess. However, the maximum allowed boost seems to be the real limiter. Audi tells that the top power of the R10 is about 650 hp. To get this power at about 5000 rpm and 2940 mbars requires a very high volumetric ratio i.e. excellent cylinder fill. In practice, the R10 must have a very efficient intercooling system to get the required air mass into the cylinder.
The maximum torque is above 1100 Nm (810 lb-ft). The R8 generated about 700 Nm (520 lb-ft). If the R10 works as turbo-diesels tend to, the maximum torque is constant 3000–4000 rpm, above which there is almost a constant power band (diminishing torque). The Audi engineers have calculated that the R10 could do one ore lap with a tank full at the Le Mans Sarthe track. This would mean that the R10 is about 5 % more efficient fuel burner than the R8 FSI over the track. The Sarthe is about 80 % WOT (Wide Open Throttle) so the difference is not that enormous. At tracks with a higher part load percentage (Sebring, Road Atlanta) the difference is going to be bigger.
12-07-2010, 05:58 PM
#115
I'm one to dig for reasons behind, and give my own reasons, so it can sometimes come across harsh. Add a slight language/customs barrier, and it gets even more muddled up.
Looking back, the "pissing down the drain" comment wasn't the best way to describe my thoughts on the matter, I was trying to state that for most of us, trying to get an insane amount of HP and high revs would be a futile waste for what we expect from our cars. It'd be like having a solid gold toilet, or a ruby studded feather duster.
That being said, I've dropped well over 4 grand into my swap over the past 3 years, and it's never seen pavement, so I'm not one to talk about pissing money away...
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
I'm not trying to piss in anyone's dew, just going back and forth in what I think is a good discussion. I know everyone has their own viewpoint, but it's fun to toot your own horn every once in a while.
I'm one to dig for reasons behind, and give my own reasons, so it can sometimes come across harsh. Add a slight language/customs barrier, and it gets even more muddled up.
Looking back, the "pissing down the drain" comment wasn't the best way to describe my thoughts on the matter, I was trying to state that for most of us, trying to get an insane amount of HP and high revs would be a futile waste for what we expect from our cars. It'd be like having a solid gold toilet, or a ruby studded feather duster.
That being said, I've dropped well over 4 grand into my swap over the past 3 years, and it's never seen pavement, so I'm not one to talk about pissing money away...
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
12-08-2010, 01:57 PM
#116
(12-07-2010, 05:43 PM)Geezer I want a diesel car that pulls like a train from 2k-5100(what I understand to be the theoretical max rpm based on diesels slower flame front).Those R10 guys don't have prechambers. It makes a difference. Jeemu has proven you can get max power to 6000rpms on OM60x.
Also Audi doesn't rev the R10 past 5k and I figure those guys know what they are doing.
(12-07-2010, 04:50 PM)300D50 Unless the speed limits in Finland are ~ 300kph, or the car is taken to the track daily for speed trials/drag racing/drift competition, then it's just pissing money down the drain in an ever twirling spiral till the head studs break.Yeah. Then it is a total waste of money doing anything other than oil change to OM615-617 engines, why not just buy a new 2-litre VW diesel which has a lot nicer tq curve and consumes way less.
But seriously, Rudolf said it. It's to see if one can do it. Also, hobbies aren't to be rationalized.
It's normal to rev the engine past 3000rpm in daily drive. I've had N/A W123, it needed to be revved in order to just keep up with traffic. Successful overtaking was more due to surprise than torque
This post was last modified: 12-08-2010, 01:59 PM by muuris.
(12-07-2010, 05:43 PM)Geezer I want a diesel car that pulls like a train from 2k-5100(what I understand to be the theoretical max rpm based on diesels slower flame front).Those R10 guys don't have prechambers. It makes a difference. Jeemu has proven you can get max power to 6000rpms on OM60x.
Also Audi doesn't rev the R10 past 5k and I figure those guys know what they are doing.
(12-07-2010, 04:50 PM)300D50 Unless the speed limits in Finland are ~ 300kph, or the car is taken to the track daily for speed trials/drag racing/drift competition, then it's just pissing money down the drain in an ever twirling spiral till the head studs break.Yeah. Then it is a total waste of money doing anything other than oil change to OM615-617 engines, why not just buy a new 2-litre VW diesel which has a lot nicer tq curve and consumes way less.
But seriously, Rudolf said it. It's to see if one can do it. Also, hobbies aren't to be rationalized.
It's normal to rev the engine past 3000rpm in daily drive. I've had N/A W123, it needed to be revved in order to just keep up with traffic. Successful overtaking was more due to surprise than torque
12-08-2010, 02:14 PM
#117
(12-07-2010, 05:41 PM)Rudolf_Diesel Give these guys a break and learn from their triumphs and mistakes.
I agree, the testing the Finnish guys does is a great source of information.
And to you guys who are so obsessed with low end torque, why don't you put on a supercharger and gear it up until you push the crank out of your car. Than we can learn something from your low end torque testing instead of listening to your constant complaining about the high end testing that Jeemu and Muuris does.
Muuris can you show us some dyno charts from your 606 he351v? and do you have a dyno chart with the Master Power MP58-R2 on your 606?
(12-07-2010, 05:41 PM)Rudolf_Diesel Give these guys a break and learn from their triumphs and mistakes.
I agree, the testing the Finnish guys does is a great source of information.
And to you guys who are so obsessed with low end torque, why don't you put on a supercharger and gear it up until you push the crank out of your car. Than we can learn something from your low end torque testing instead of listening to your constant complaining about the high end testing that Jeemu and Muuris does.
Muuris can you show us some dyno charts from your 606 he351v? and do you have a dyno chart with the Master Power MP58-R2 on your 606?
12-08-2010, 03:48 PM
#118
(12-08-2010, 02:14 PM)erling66 And to you guys who are so obsessed with low end torque, why don't you put on a supercharger and gear it up until you push the crank out of your car.
Is that any different than pushing it out at 6K rpm?
The idea isn't to make 10billion N-m of torque at stall, but to add some pep where it counts for our applications. I'm after low-end torque because my engine's going in a compact truck, where top speed isn't the goal, and being able to haul around a full beds worth of crap at 55 without winding the engine up is.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
(12-08-2010, 02:14 PM)erling66 And to you guys who are so obsessed with low end torque, why don't you put on a supercharger and gear it up until you push the crank out of your car.
Is that any different than pushing it out at 6K rpm?
The idea isn't to make 10billion N-m of torque at stall, but to add some pep where it counts for our applications. I'm after low-end torque because my engine's going in a compact truck, where top speed isn't the goal, and being able to haul around a full beds worth of crap at 55 without winding the engine up is.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
12-08-2010, 04:20 PM
#119
http://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/tq-v...-2048.html
This thread has been hijacked to all hell. I don't even know that I can clean it up. Please continue the hp vs torque discussion here :
http://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/tq-v...-2048.html
12-08-2010, 04:21 PM
#120
(12-08-2010, 02:14 PM)erling66(12-07-2010, 05:41 PM)Rudolf_Diesel Give these guys a break and learn from their triumphs and mistakes.
I agree, the testing the Finnish guys does is a great source of information.
And to you guys who are so obsessed with low end torque, why don't you put on a supercharger and gear it up until you push the crank out of your car. Than we can learn something from your low end torque testing instead of listening to your constant complaining about the high end testing that Jeemu and Muuris does.
Muuris can you show us some dyno charts from your 606 he351v? and do you have a dyno chart with the Master Power MP58-R2 on your 606?
I'm not against any thing I love seeing the videos of these monster they build in europe they are incredible!
VGT are better for low end torque and Holsets are better for top end power
I vote duel charge VGT off the line and switch to Holdset at the top of the of the power band and you can have the best of both worlds!
HP-weight ratio is more important than HP#'s
This post was last modified: 12-08-2010, 04:22 PM by willbhere4u.
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
12-08-2010, 04:21 PM #120(12-08-2010, 02:14 PM)erling66(12-07-2010, 05:41 PM)Rudolf_Diesel Give these guys a break and learn from their triumphs and mistakes.
I agree, the testing the Finnish guys does is a great source of information.
And to you guys who are so obsessed with low end torque, why don't you put on a supercharger and gear it up until you push the crank out of your car. Than we can learn something from your low end torque testing instead of listening to your constant complaining about the high end testing that Jeemu and Muuris does.
Muuris can you show us some dyno charts from your 606 he351v? and do you have a dyno chart with the Master Power MP58-R2 on your 606?
I'm not against any thing I love seeing the videos of these monster they build in europe they are incredible!
VGT are better for low end torque and Holsets are better for top end power
I vote duel charge VGT off the line and switch to Holdset at the top of the of the power band and you can have the best of both worlds!
HP-weight ratio is more important than HP#'s
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
12-11-2010, 09:54 AM
#121
(12-07-2010, 02:06 PM)Captain America If I could revv my Buell to 18k i'd make all kinds of ponies!
And a dyno graph further emphasizes the point about horsepower's math-only base, EVERY engine has exactly the same horsepower and torque at 5252rpm!
Quote:Why gasoline engines rev higher? What is the broplem if diesel make power high rpm?Geezer got it correct; Flame front velocity, g@soline burns much faster.
What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
At 6000rpm your piston velocity is only 16.8Meters/second, yet a stock small block Chevy has 17.7MPS@6000rpm (and goes to 23.6MPS in modified 8000rpm SBC engines).
So Jemmu, why cant your superturbo's pistons move as fast as a stock 'merican pushrod all-iron antique?
Quote:I vote duel charge VGT off the line and switch to Holdset at the top of the of the power band and you can have the best of both worlds!Thats why R2S is becoming popular in stock cars (BMW, Mercedes, VW) and compounds are popular in pickups.
This post was last modified: 12-11-2010, 09:55 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
12-11-2010, 09:54 AM
#121
(12-07-2010, 02:06 PM)Captain America If I could revv my Buell to 18k i'd make all kinds of ponies!
And a dyno graph further emphasizes the point about horsepower's math-only base, EVERY engine has exactly the same horsepower and torque at 5252rpm!
Quote:Why gasoline engines rev higher? What is the broplem if diesel make power high rpm?Geezer got it correct; Flame front velocity, g@soline burns much faster.
What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
At 6000rpm your piston velocity is only 16.8Meters/second, yet a stock small block Chevy has 17.7MPS@6000rpm (and goes to 23.6MPS in modified 8000rpm SBC engines).
So Jemmu, why cant your superturbo's pistons move as fast as a stock 'merican pushrod all-iron antique?
Quote:I vote duel charge VGT off the line and switch to Holdset at the top of the of the power band and you can have the best of both worlds!Thats why R2S is becoming popular in stock cars (BMW, Mercedes, VW) and compounds are popular in pickups.
12-11-2010, 07:59 PM
#122
Mb 1984 w201 om603 swap.
Mb 1986 w201 190E 2.3-16v
Mb 2004 w203 C230k
George3soccer
12-11-2010, 07:59 PM #122That is with the stock 606/605 piston, if you did modify with lighter, newer rods and piston's you could probably get that 16.8m/s higher.
Mb 1984 w201 om603 swap.
Mb 1986 w201 190E 2.3-16v
Mb 2004 w203 C230k
12-12-2010, 06:46 AM
#123
(12-11-2010, 07:59 PM)George3soccer That is with the stock 606/605 piston, if you did modify with lighter, newer rods and piston's you could probably get that 16.8m/s higher.
Won't matter, its not mass thats the problem. Spinning the engine faster only means the flame front can't keep up and no more power is made, possibly even less.
This post was last modified: 12-12-2010, 06:48 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
12-12-2010, 06:46 AM
#123
(12-11-2010, 07:59 PM)George3soccer That is with the stock 606/605 piston, if you did modify with lighter, newer rods and piston's you could probably get that 16.8m/s higher.
Won't matter, its not mass thats the problem. Spinning the engine faster only means the flame front can't keep up and no more power is made, possibly even less.
12-12-2010, 10:11 AM
#125
(12-12-2010, 08:54 AM)muuris But we've already seen that Jeemu's engine makes max power at 6000rpms. So the flame front problem isn't yet present at those rpms with the modifications made.
He just said...
Quote:What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
ForcedInduction
12-12-2010, 10:11 AM
#125
(12-12-2010, 08:54 AM)muuris But we've already seen that Jeemu's engine makes max power at 6000rpms. So the flame front problem isn't yet present at those rpms with the modifications made.
He just said...
Quote:What is the problem our engines because they give maxs power at 6000rpm?
12-13-2010, 09:41 AM
#127
ForcedInduction
12-13-2010, 09:41 AM
#127
Nothing wrong with power up high, its just not practical to flog the piss out of a non-race car just to make decent power or to get the turbo to make any boost.
12-13-2010, 10:19 AM
#128
To me it's rather personal preference, and if the way you run your motor will work with your application.
So be it, leave the ones that beat the piss out of there motor to make large numbers up high in the rev range. Because I will be one of those guys. Who wouldn't want to take a om motor to 6k regularly?
And to those, who are not fond of this practice on these motor's, start your own thread's some do already, and start making some progress of down low TQ, and your motors built specifically for your applications.
And leave these guys from across the pond alone, if anything encouragement would be the best thing. Because I sure as hell want to heard updates from these guys on how these motor's survive.
Edit: This thread got hijacked seriously, because of this easy arguments.
This post was last modified: 12-13-2010, 10:20 AM by George3soccer.
Mb 1984 w201 om603 swap.
Mb 1986 w201 190E 2.3-16v
Mb 2004 w203 C230k
George3soccer
12-13-2010, 10:19 AM #128Well theoretically, if these motors run forever (for quite some time). Why not run them up high for the time being you will own the motor. Most definitely the motor will survive what you do to it for the amount of time you will play around with it. Sooner or later the motor will be tossed aside better bigger better projects will arise, or it will be time for a more drastic measure possibly better rebuild not sure.
To me it's rather personal preference, and if the way you run your motor will work with your application.
So be it, leave the ones that beat the piss out of there motor to make large numbers up high in the rev range. Because I will be one of those guys. Who wouldn't want to take a om motor to 6k regularly?
And to those, who are not fond of this practice on these motor's, start your own thread's some do already, and start making some progress of down low TQ, and your motors built specifically for your applications.
And leave these guys from across the pond alone, if anything encouragement would be the best thing. Because I sure as hell want to heard updates from these guys on how these motor's survive.
Edit: This thread got hijacked seriously, because of this easy arguments.
Mb 1984 w201 om603 swap.
Mb 1986 w201 190E 2.3-16v
Mb 2004 w203 C230k
01-03-2011, 02:05 PM
#129
It is an Audrinoboard + a cheap LCD screen.
OM606, HE351VE, myna 7mm, 3",
I wonder that i can make 1.9 Bar Boost almost 30 PSI at 5000 RPM, at only 90,000 TURBO RPM, What is max RPM on this turbo. ?
If i rev the engine to 6000 RPM i need around 110,000 Rigth.
Attached Files
Image(s)1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
Just got my homemade Boost / Turbo RPM meter to Work.
It is an Audrinoboard + a cheap LCD screen.
OM606, HE351VE, myna 7mm, 3",
I wonder that i can make 1.9 Bar Boost almost 30 PSI at 5000 RPM, at only 90,000 TURBO RPM, What is max RPM on this turbo. ?
If i rev the engine to 6000 RPM i need around 110,000 Rigth.
Attached Files
Image(s)1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
01-04-2011, 12:08 PM
#131
(01-03-2011, 04:53 PM)ForcedInduction 90k is the service limit, should be fine to 120k though.Thanks OK it seams i am far from the limits on this Turbo. and dont even have a external wastegate.
1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
(01-03-2011, 04:53 PM)ForcedInduction 90k is the service limit, should be fine to 120k though.Thanks OK it seams i am far from the limits on this Turbo. and dont even have a external wastegate.
1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
01-04-2011, 04:00 PM
#132
Here is a capture from a road test with one.
See even stock the turbo has a EMP:boost ratio better than 1:1! (21psi:29psi)
This post was last modified: 01-04-2011, 04:14 PM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
01-04-2011, 04:00 PM
#132
Yep, even the larger 451 turbos are spun up to 100k rpm stock.
Here is a capture from a road test with one.
See even stock the turbo has a EMP:boost ratio better than 1:1! (21psi:29psi)
01-05-2011, 01:55 PM
#133
I will try to find the Error, so maby it spins faster ?
Get back when i find out.
1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
UPS maby there is a software issue it seams to max out on 90909 RPM every time.
I will try to find the Error, so maby it spins faster ?
Get back when i find out.
1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
01-23-2011, 10:59 AM
#134
(01-05-2011, 01:55 PM)olefejer UPS maby there is a software issue it seams to max out on 90909 RPM every time.
I will try to find the Error, so maby it spins faster ?
Get back when i find out.
Im pretty interested in your RPM gauge. Are you using the stock HE351VE shaft speed sensor?
01-23-2011, 11:14 AM
#135
(01-23-2011, 10:59 AM)Aero83Yes it is the stock sensor, 2 wire the one wire to ground on the arduino board.(01-05-2011, 01:55 PM)olefejer UPS maby there is a software issue it seams to max out on 90909 RPM every time.
I will try to find the Error, so maby it spins faster ?
Get back when i find out.
Im pretty interested in your RPM gauge. Are you using the stock HE351VE shaft speed sensor?
And the other wire directly to an digital pin.
And then counting emery time the pin go high
And it is working i have had it to 103,000 RPM now. motor at 5200 RPM Boost 1.9 Bar
1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
(01-23-2011, 10:59 AM)Aero83Yes it is the stock sensor, 2 wire the one wire to ground on the arduino board.(01-05-2011, 01:55 PM)olefejer UPS maby there is a software issue it seams to max out on 90909 RPM every time.
I will try to find the Error, so maby it spins faster ?
Get back when i find out.
Im pretty interested in your RPM gauge. Are you using the stock HE351VE shaft speed sensor?
And the other wire directly to an digital pin.
And then counting emery time the pin go high
And it is working i have had it to 103,000 RPM now. motor at 5200 RPM Boost 1.9 Bar
1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
01-23-2011, 11:17 AM
#136
(01-23-2011, 11:14 AM)olefejer(01-23-2011, 10:59 AM)Aero83Yes it is the stock sensor, 2 wire the one wire to ground on the arduino board.(01-05-2011, 01:55 PM)olefejer UPS maby there is a software issue it seams to max out on 90909 RPM every time.
I will try to find the Error, so maby it spins faster ?
Get back when i find out.
Im pretty interested in your RPM gauge. Are you using the stock HE351VE shaft speed sensor?
And the other wire directly to an digital pin.
And then counting emery time the pin go high
And it is working i have had it to 103,000 RPM now. motor at 5200 RPM Boost 1.9 Bar
I haven't worked with an arduino yet. Does the digital pin have an internal pullup or does it require one?
Do you know what kind of sensor it actually is?
(01-23-2011, 11:14 AM)olefejer(01-23-2011, 10:59 AM)Aero83Yes it is the stock sensor, 2 wire the one wire to ground on the arduino board.(01-05-2011, 01:55 PM)olefejer UPS maby there is a software issue it seams to max out on 90909 RPM every time.
I will try to find the Error, so maby it spins faster ?
Get back when i find out.
Im pretty interested in your RPM gauge. Are you using the stock HE351VE shaft speed sensor?
And the other wire directly to an digital pin.
And then counting emery time the pin go high
And it is working i have had it to 103,000 RPM now. motor at 5200 RPM Boost 1.9 Bar
I haven't worked with an arduino yet. Does the digital pin have an internal pullup or does it require one?
Do you know what kind of sensor it actually is?
01-23-2011, 11:27 AM
#137
(01-23-2011, 11:17 AM)Aero83Yes the arduino has internal pullup.(01-23-2011, 11:14 AM)olefejer(01-23-2011, 10:59 AM)Aero83 Im pretty interested in your RPM gauge. Are you using the stock HE351VE shaft speed sensor?Yes it is the stock sensor, 2 wire the one wire to ground on the arduino board.
And the other wire directly to an digital pin.
And then counting emery time the pin go high
And it is working i have had it to 103,000 RPM now. motor at 5200 RPM Boost 1.9 Bar
I haven't worked with an arduino yet. Does the digital pin have an internal pullup or does it require one?
Do you know what kind of sensor it actually is?
Iam pretty shure it is an inductive one, so only metal has to go by it. and the magnet is in the sensor. i actually just connected it and was quite chocked it worked :-)
You can see the code here.
http://pastebin.com/VtDinRrp
1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
(01-23-2011, 11:17 AM)Aero83Yes the arduino has internal pullup.(01-23-2011, 11:14 AM)olefejer(01-23-2011, 10:59 AM)Aero83 Im pretty interested in your RPM gauge. Are you using the stock HE351VE shaft speed sensor?Yes it is the stock sensor, 2 wire the one wire to ground on the arduino board.
And the other wire directly to an digital pin.
And then counting emery time the pin go high
And it is working i have had it to 103,000 RPM now. motor at 5200 RPM Boost 1.9 Bar
I haven't worked with an arduino yet. Does the digital pin have an internal pullup or does it require one?
Do you know what kind of sensor it actually is?
Iam pretty shure it is an inductive one, so only metal has to go by it. and the magnet is in the sensor. i actually just connected it and was quite chocked it worked :-)
You can see the code here.
http://pastebin.com/VtDinRrp
1996 MB SL320 Now OM606 7 mm pump elements (myna), KKD manifold, HE341VE, 3,5" downpipe, 3" exhaust, big IC, 722.6 gearbox controller, also controls (Turbo VNT, EGT, BOOST, EGP.)
01-23-2011, 12:05 PM
#138
This post was last modified: 01-23-2011, 12:06 PM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
01-23-2011, 12:05 PM
#138
Its just a hall effect sensor like used on the crankshaft pin. The turbo shaft has a flat on it which breaks the signal. Some turbos do the same except they use the compressor wheel's blades instead (My HE341Ve used this).
01-23-2011, 02:30 PM
#139
(01-23-2011, 12:05 PM)ForcedInduction Its just a hall effect sensor like used on the crankshaft pin. The turbo shaft has a flat on it which breaks the signal. Some turbos do the same except they use the compressor wheel's blades instead (My HE341Ve used this).I just pulled the sensor out of my spare turbo and you can see the flat on the shaft through the hole.
Someone had told me there wasn't anything on the shaft.
(01-23-2011, 12:05 PM)ForcedInduction Its just a hall effect sensor like used on the crankshaft pin. The turbo shaft has a flat on it which breaks the signal. Some turbos do the same except they use the compressor wheel's blades instead (My HE341Ve used this).I just pulled the sensor out of my spare turbo and you can see the flat on the shaft through the hole.
Someone had told me there wasn't anything on the shaft.
01-23-2011, 10:37 PM
#141
The clamping diodes in the AVR on the arduino board might handle it for a bit, but you really should look into a preconditioning circuit. I know the megasquirt guys use them for their vr sensor inputs, not much to them.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
Better be careful, at 100Krpm, you could be generating some pretty high voltage spikes from a VR sensor.
The clamping diodes in the AVR on the arduino board might handle it for a bit, but you really should look into a preconditioning circuit. I know the megasquirt guys use them for their vr sensor inputs, not much to them.
1990 Power Ram 50 V6 SOHC 24V 6g72
I can be wrong, don't take everything I say as verbatim, please fact-check first.
My posts are my personal opinions and thoughts, unless otherwise noted.
01-24-2011, 01:51 AM
#142
-Jesse
80 300sd hy35, front mount intercooler, w115 intake, rack limiter removed, Alda removed, full load turned up, boost, ebp, trans, pyro, egr delete, 3.5" exhaust, e-fan, 16x8 rims with, 245/50 tires, lowered, bilstien 5100's, 12" front brakes, 2.65:1 diff.
97 f250 psd 4x4, crawler
70 f250 390
83 Volvo 242, lots of mods
66 Volvo amazon
10 mistsubishi fuso service truck.
I was having issues with my vr signal doing that with megasquirt on my Volvo. It would do weird stuff around 9000rpm. I changed a few things in the conditioning circuit and it cleaned it up.
-Jesse
80 300sd hy35, front mount intercooler, w115 intake, rack limiter removed, Alda removed, full load turned up, boost, ebp, trans, pyro, egr delete, 3.5" exhaust, e-fan, 16x8 rims with, 245/50 tires, lowered, bilstien 5100's, 12" front brakes, 2.65:1 diff.
97 f250 psd 4x4, crawler
70 f250 390
83 Volvo 242, lots of mods
66 Volvo amazon
10 mistsubishi fuso service truck.
11-12-2017, 04:04 PM
#143
(01-13-2010, 05:05 PM)tomnik Hi,
ad 2) I can send you photos of a water/air IC (AMG off a 600 bi-turbo) I will use after long research for good quality and small dimensions.
ad 4) I welded an adapter plate directly to the turbo after cutting away the turbo's original flange
Tom (Germany)
Tomnik can you please provide a part numver for that intercooler if you read this? Thank you, Karl
atypicalguy
11-12-2017, 04:04 PM #143(01-13-2010, 05:05 PM)tomnik Hi,
ad 2) I can send you photos of a water/air IC (AMG off a 600 bi-turbo) I will use after long research for good quality and small dimensions.
ad 4) I welded an adapter plate directly to the turbo after cutting away the turbo's original flange
Tom (Germany)
Tomnik can you please provide a part numver for that intercooler if you read this? Thank you, Karl
Users browsing this thread:
17 Guest(s)
17 Guest(s)
Users browsing this thread:
17 Guest(s)
17 Guest(s)