OM606 Turbo Selection for Truck application
OM606 Turbo Selection for Truck application
As my truck is a manual, I'm looking for something that is able to start contributing some air as early as possible, 1200rpm would be great. The He221 seems popular, and the compressor map seems like it would work well, however I haven't been able to choose (or understand) which exhaust housing would work best. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on turbine maps for this. They offer a 5, 5.5, 6, 7 and 8.5cm? to my knowledge, and for ~500$ new it's a very attractive option. 7cm seems popular, however I'm leaning towards the 5 or 5.5 to help with spool down low (I can only ever seem to find the 5.5 so that is likely what i would go with). I almost never exceed 4000rpm, so I'm ok if exhaust back pressure is non ideal at that RPM or higher.
I'm looking for some experience on the he221w exhaust housing size as well as if there might be a different commercially available turbos for this application. I was considering the variable geometry gt23v for awhile, however i heard there were multiple variants with large differences in efficiency. I'm open to compound setups (heard the R2S might work), however I'd prefer it be as bolt on as possible (have a variety of other projects going on, including one on the house that I need this truck to work for, so less downtime is huge).
(I recognize i'm trying to use this engine a little bit different than it was intended, however it's very close to an ideal setup so if I can get a better turbo match for the application I think it will work great)
thanks for the help!
build thread for those curious (https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/white-l...p.1003338/). Had it on this forum but then lost all my photos with the photobucket debacle.
X Double Dot
04-30-2020, 11:20 AM #1I put a 606 in a Toyota Truck with a manual transmission back in 2017. I've been using the stock turbo and Baldur's ECU for the time being but have been looking to upgrade the turbo for a variety of reasons. There is a ton of information regarding turbos for these engines, however they seem focused on people using them in cars and for higher rpm power gains.
As my truck is a manual, I'm looking for something that is able to start contributing some air as early as possible, 1200rpm would be great. The He221 seems popular, and the compressor map seems like it would work well, however I haven't been able to choose (or understand) which exhaust housing would work best. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on turbine maps for this. They offer a 5, 5.5, 6, 7 and 8.5cm? to my knowledge, and for ~500$ new it's a very attractive option. 7cm seems popular, however I'm leaning towards the 5 or 5.5 to help with spool down low (I can only ever seem to find the 5.5 so that is likely what i would go with). I almost never exceed 4000rpm, so I'm ok if exhaust back pressure is non ideal at that RPM or higher.
I'm looking for some experience on the he221w exhaust housing size as well as if there might be a different commercially available turbos for this application. I was considering the variable geometry gt23v for awhile, however i heard there were multiple variants with large differences in efficiency. I'm open to compound setups (heard the R2S might work), however I'd prefer it be as bolt on as possible (have a variety of other projects going on, including one on the house that I need this truck to work for, so less downtime is huge).
(I recognize i'm trying to use this engine a little bit different than it was intended, however it's very close to an ideal setup so if I can get a better turbo match for the application I think it will work great)
thanks for the help!
build thread for those curious (https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/white-l...p.1003338/). Had it on this forum but then lost all my photos with the photobucket debacle.
(04-30-2020, 11:46 AM)wiseman89 I still havent got my build on the road yet with my BW S300 turbo.It could be my relative newness on the turbo stuff, but the s200 seems a little large for what I'm trying to do. I'm estimating ~6lb/min at at 1.5PR at 1200rpm (ideal goal), which seems off the map for the S200. Also the whole map seems pushed much further to the right with 56lb/min vs the 37lb/min of the he221 which i'm already debating might be too large.
But im guessing for you a S200 would work fine. These newer SXE turbos are supposed to be more efficient than the old holset design.
X Double Dot
04-30-2020, 12:08 PM #3(04-30-2020, 11:46 AM)wiseman89 I still havent got my build on the road yet with my BW S300 turbo.It could be my relative newness on the turbo stuff, but the s200 seems a little large for what I'm trying to do. I'm estimating ~6lb/min at at 1.5PR at 1200rpm (ideal goal), which seems off the map for the S200. Also the whole map seems pushed much further to the right with 56lb/min vs the 37lb/min of the he221 which i'm already debating might be too large.
But im guessing for you a S200 would work fine. These newer SXE turbos are supposed to be more efficient than the old holset design.
50harleyrider
04-30-2020, 06:54 PM #4Look at my threads. I finally settled on the om648 vgt turbo. I'm only after 200 hp too. You'll be happy with it especially since you already have the DSL1 like me. It comes on nicely at 1200 rpm too. I can send you my tune and help you with turbo control. Baldur has or will have the control capability to use the electronic controller that comes on the turbo so hopefully you won't have to go with the vacuum controller like I did. I plan to convert back at some time but am happy right now with the vacuum control. Frans can provide you a rebuilt cassette for the turbo for a reasonable price if you buy a worn used one with slop. I'm positive it will be what you're looking for especially with a manual. What motor mounts did you use? Your original thread looks like the stock W210 ones. Heard they won't hold up. I'm trying to find new 24v oe cummins ones but they must be gold.$$$$.
(04-30-2020, 06:54 PM)50harleyrider Look at my threads. I finally settled on the om648 vgt turbo. I'm only after 200 hp too. You'll be happy with it especially since you already have the DSL1 like me. It comes on nicely at 1200 rpm too. I can send you my tune and help you with turbo control. Baldur has or will have the control capability to use the electronic controller that comes on the turbo so hopefully you won't have to go with the vacuum controller like I did. I plan to convert back at some time but am happy right now with the vacuum control. Frans can provide you a rebuilt cassette for the turbo for a reasonable price if you buy a worn used one with slop. I'm positive it will be what you're looking for especially with a manual. What motor mounts did you use? Your original thread looks like the stock W210 ones. Heard they won't hold up. I'm trying to find new 24v oe cummins ones but they must be gold.$$$$.yeah i remember tracking yours. I love the idea of a vgt, but I have to wonder if there is something out there with newer technology that might work even better. I was also a little lost on what gt23v model I needed to look for, as I heard some of the older ones were significantly less efficient.
"You'll make big improvements simply going to a later generation VNT turbo. The early VNT (A series) have terrible vane shapes and quite poor turbine efficiency. This slows spoolup and means more drive pressure across the range.
Going to a GTB or GTC of similar size will help hugely" - quote from forum regarding the om648 turbo on a landcruiser om606.
have you been able to find a compressor map for one? or even better, could you send me a log file with a full rpm sweep so I can see how the boost comes in?
X Double Dot
05-01-2020, 06:58 AM #5(04-30-2020, 06:54 PM)50harleyrider Look at my threads. I finally settled on the om648 vgt turbo. I'm only after 200 hp too. You'll be happy with it especially since you already have the DSL1 like me. It comes on nicely at 1200 rpm too. I can send you my tune and help you with turbo control. Baldur has or will have the control capability to use the electronic controller that comes on the turbo so hopefully you won't have to go with the vacuum controller like I did. I plan to convert back at some time but am happy right now with the vacuum control. Frans can provide you a rebuilt cassette for the turbo for a reasonable price if you buy a worn used one with slop. I'm positive it will be what you're looking for especially with a manual. What motor mounts did you use? Your original thread looks like the stock W210 ones. Heard they won't hold up. I'm trying to find new 24v oe cummins ones but they must be gold.$$$$.yeah i remember tracking yours. I love the idea of a vgt, but I have to wonder if there is something out there with newer technology that might work even better. I was also a little lost on what gt23v model I needed to look for, as I heard some of the older ones were significantly less efficient.
"You'll make big improvements simply going to a later generation VNT turbo. The early VNT (A series) have terrible vane shapes and quite poor turbine efficiency. This slows spoolup and means more drive pressure across the range.
Going to a GTB or GTC of similar size will help hugely" - quote from forum regarding the om648 turbo on a landcruiser om606.
have you been able to find a compressor map for one? or even better, could you send me a log file with a full rpm sweep so I can see how the boost comes in?
(04-30-2020, 06:54 PM)50harleyrider Look at my threads. I finally settled on the om648 vgt turbo. I'm only after 200 hp too. You'll be happy with it especially since you already have the DSL1 like me. It comes on nicely at 1200 rpm too. I can send you my tune and help you with turbo control. Baldur has or will have the control capability to use the electronic controller that comes on the turbo so hopefully you won't have to go with the vacuum controller like I did. I plan to convert back at some time but am happy right now with the vacuum control. Frans can provide you a rebuilt cassette for the turbo for a reasonable price if you buy a worn used one with slop. I'm positive it will be what you're looking for especially with a manual. What motor mounts did you use? Your original thread looks like the stock W210 ones. Heard they won't hold up. I'm trying to find new 24v oe cummins ones but they must be gold.$$$$.Forgot to mention the mounts I used initially were from a 12v 5.9 cummins (anchor 2710). They were way too stiff for a motor half the weight. I switched to the anchor 2469 mounts which are similar in design but meant for a lighter engine and this helped significantly. Hindsight being 20/20 I would have used the oe mercedes mounts
X Double Dot
05-01-2020, 08:34 AM #6(04-30-2020, 06:54 PM)50harleyrider Look at my threads. I finally settled on the om648 vgt turbo. I'm only after 200 hp too. You'll be happy with it especially since you already have the DSL1 like me. It comes on nicely at 1200 rpm too. I can send you my tune and help you with turbo control. Baldur has or will have the control capability to use the electronic controller that comes on the turbo so hopefully you won't have to go with the vacuum controller like I did. I plan to convert back at some time but am happy right now with the vacuum control. Frans can provide you a rebuilt cassette for the turbo for a reasonable price if you buy a worn used one with slop. I'm positive it will be what you're looking for especially with a manual. What motor mounts did you use? Your original thread looks like the stock W210 ones. Heard they won't hold up. I'm trying to find new 24v oe cummins ones but they must be gold.$$$$.Forgot to mention the mounts I used initially were from a 12v 5.9 cummins (anchor 2710). They were way too stiff for a motor half the weight. I switched to the anchor 2469 mounts which are similar in design but meant for a lighter engine and this helped significantly. Hindsight being 20/20 I would have used the oe mercedes mounts
50harleyrider
05-06-2020, 10:46 AM #7That's interesting. I too thought about going to the original w210 mounts. One of the converters on here, zeeman discouraged that in a 4x4 application though. I'm in the process of a motor mount change to help with the stiffness and lack of vibration isolation I'm finding with the massive 24v cummins mounts. They are super expensive also and I agree with you made for an engine weight 2.5 x the 606 (1100 vs 450). I'm also trying to kill drone in the 2000RPM range and am having some success with a 1/4 wave Helmholtz type resonator. I don't notice any spooling issues with the 648 turbo. huge step up from the kkk WG oe one. 3" exhaust helped also. I'll get you a log as soon as I get these issues resolved.
Hey thanks for your original thread... it was likely the single largest factor in my decision to embark on my conversion. Your work and documentation along the way were truly inspirational.
If I could just add another perspective... I have a newer geometry VNT turbo on my OM606 w/DSL1 conversion. I have the GT2056V off a 2008 E320CDI. I believe mine has the updated vane geometry and it originally had the electronic vane controller- although I converted it to the vacuum actuator since Baldur didn't have the electronic controls worked out at the time.
I'm generally pretty happy with the turbo. It spools up extremely quickly and can easily produce more than 30 PSI of boost. My complaint, which might not be a factor for you, is that the exhaust side is a bit too restrictive at RPM levels the OM606 should easily tolerate. I understand from your other post that you typically stay under 4000 RPM. At that exhaust volume, the 2056V may be a perfect fit. In my case, my OEM automatic transmission controller wants to shift at 4800 RPM (@ WOT). And, while the OM606 can handle that RPM, this smaller turbo's exhaust side creates enough back pressure that the OM606 valves begin to "float" , before reaching my shift points. My exhaust is essentially a full 3" with very little back pressure- so I'm quite certain the restriction is the 2056V exhaust housing. And, in addition to back pressure, I also believe the restrictive exhaust housing flow is contributing to higher EGT's than I'd like. I tow heavy quite a bit so both of these factors are a concern for me... but may not be an issue for you where your main goal is quick efficient spool-up at low RPM.
I have since purchased a GT2359V from an OM613 which I plan to install but haven't gotten to. I'm pretty sure the 2359V will do 3 things. I'm pretty sure it will spool up a little bit slower, which I'm fine with... but I'm really hopeful that it will cure the valve float and high EGT problems. One thing is certain though. I don't regret going to VNT vs staying with a conventional turbo. IMHO- I doubt you'll get the same response down low AND flow up high from a conventional turbo as you would from a VNT.... but I'm far from being an expert.
Hi Brian-
Hey thanks for your original thread... it was likely the single largest factor in my decision to embark on my conversion. Your work and documentation along the way were truly inspirational.
If I could just add another perspective... I have a newer geometry VNT turbo on my OM606 w/DSL1 conversion. I have the GT2056V off a 2008 E320CDI. I believe mine has the updated vane geometry and it originally had the electronic vane controller- although I converted it to the vacuum actuator since Baldur didn't have the electronic controls worked out at the time.
I'm generally pretty happy with the turbo. It spools up extremely quickly and can easily produce more than 30 PSI of boost. My complaint, which might not be a factor for you, is that the exhaust side is a bit too restrictive at RPM levels the OM606 should easily tolerate. I understand from your other post that you typically stay under 4000 RPM. At that exhaust volume, the 2056V may be a perfect fit. In my case, my OEM automatic transmission controller wants to shift at 4800 RPM (@ WOT). And, while the OM606 can handle that RPM, this smaller turbo's exhaust side creates enough back pressure that the OM606 valves begin to "float" , before reaching my shift points. My exhaust is essentially a full 3" with very little back pressure- so I'm quite certain the restriction is the 2056V exhaust housing. And, in addition to back pressure, I also believe the restrictive exhaust housing flow is contributing to higher EGT's than I'd like. I tow heavy quite a bit so both of these factors are a concern for me... but may not be an issue for you where your main goal is quick efficient spool-up at low RPM.
I have since purchased a GT2359V from an OM613 which I plan to install but haven't gotten to. I'm pretty sure the 2359V will do 3 things. I'm pretty sure it will spool up a little bit slower, which I'm fine with... but I'm really hopeful that it will cure the valve float and high EGT problems. One thing is certain though. I don't regret going to VNT vs staying with a conventional turbo. IMHO- I doubt you'll get the same response down low AND flow up high from a conventional turbo as you would from a VNT.... but I'm far from being an expert.
(05-07-2020, 09:39 AM)jav1 Hi Brian-Jav,
Hey thanks for your original thread... it was likely the single largest factor in my decision to embark on my conversion. Your work and documentation along the way were truly inspirational.
If I could just add another perspective... I have a newer geometry VNT turbo on my OM606 w/DSL1 conversion. I have the GT2056V off a 2008 E320CDI. I believe mine has the updated vane geometry and it originally had the electronic vane controller- although I converted it to the vacuum actuator since Baldur didn't have the electronic controls worked out at the time.
I'm generally pretty happy with the turbo. It spools up extremely quickly and can easily produce more than 30 PSI of boost. My complaint, which might not be a factor for you, is that the exhaust side is a bit too restrictive at RPM levels the OM606 should easily tolerate. I understand from your other post that you typically stay under 4000 RPM. At that exhaust volume, the 2056V may be a perfect fit. In my case, my OEM automatic transmission controller wants to shift at 4800 RPM (@ WOT). And, while the OM606 can handle that RPM, this smaller turbo's exhaust side creates enough back pressure that the OM606 valves begin to "float" , before reaching my shift points. My exhaust is essentially a full 3" with very little back pressure- so I'm quite certain the restriction is the 2056V exhaust housing. And, in addition to back pressure, I also believe the restrictive exhaust housing flow is contributing to higher EGT's than I'd like. I tow heavy quite a bit so both of these factors are a concern for me... but may not be an issue for you where your main goal is quick efficient spool-up at low RPM.
I have since purchased a GT2359V from an OM613 which I plan to install but haven't gotten to. I'm pretty sure the 2359V will do 3 things. I'm pretty sure it will spool up a little bit slower, which I'm fine with... but I'm really hopeful that it will cure the valve float and high EGT problems. One thing is certain though. I don't regret going to VNT vs staying with a conventional turbo. IMHO- I doubt you'll get the same response down low AND flow up high from a conventional turbo as you would from a VNT.... but I'm far from being an expert.
thanks for the kind words, glad my struggles helped someone, and thanks for returning the favor on your turbo experience. I've actually been going through a bunch of the tdi forums and they've led me to researching the GTB2056 and GTB2260vk as options so I'm glad to hear your experience with the 2056. It may be hard to do a direct comparison unless you can lock up your torque converter, but how low in the rpm range is it able to build >10psi of boost? Also do you have a build thread? i'd love to see how you mounted it up, there are so many variations of these gtb turbos for different OEMs I'm still trying to make sense of what model would mount up with the least hassle.
Did you consider the GTB2260vk at all? I know the gt2359v seems to be a tried and true upgrade over the oe kkk, but I can't help but think the newer gtb tech would perform better.
X Double Dot
05-12-2020, 08:40 PM #10(05-07-2020, 09:39 AM)jav1 Hi Brian-Jav,
Hey thanks for your original thread... it was likely the single largest factor in my decision to embark on my conversion. Your work and documentation along the way were truly inspirational.
If I could just add another perspective... I have a newer geometry VNT turbo on my OM606 w/DSL1 conversion. I have the GT2056V off a 2008 E320CDI. I believe mine has the updated vane geometry and it originally had the electronic vane controller- although I converted it to the vacuum actuator since Baldur didn't have the electronic controls worked out at the time.
I'm generally pretty happy with the turbo. It spools up extremely quickly and can easily produce more than 30 PSI of boost. My complaint, which might not be a factor for you, is that the exhaust side is a bit too restrictive at RPM levels the OM606 should easily tolerate. I understand from your other post that you typically stay under 4000 RPM. At that exhaust volume, the 2056V may be a perfect fit. In my case, my OEM automatic transmission controller wants to shift at 4800 RPM (@ WOT). And, while the OM606 can handle that RPM, this smaller turbo's exhaust side creates enough back pressure that the OM606 valves begin to "float" , before reaching my shift points. My exhaust is essentially a full 3" with very little back pressure- so I'm quite certain the restriction is the 2056V exhaust housing. And, in addition to back pressure, I also believe the restrictive exhaust housing flow is contributing to higher EGT's than I'd like. I tow heavy quite a bit so both of these factors are a concern for me... but may not be an issue for you where your main goal is quick efficient spool-up at low RPM.
I have since purchased a GT2359V from an OM613 which I plan to install but haven't gotten to. I'm pretty sure the 2359V will do 3 things. I'm pretty sure it will spool up a little bit slower, which I'm fine with... but I'm really hopeful that it will cure the valve float and high EGT problems. One thing is certain though. I don't regret going to VNT vs staying with a conventional turbo. IMHO- I doubt you'll get the same response down low AND flow up high from a conventional turbo as you would from a VNT.... but I'm far from being an expert.
thanks for the kind words, glad my struggles helped someone, and thanks for returning the favor on your turbo experience. I've actually been going through a bunch of the tdi forums and they've led me to researching the GTB2056 and GTB2260vk as options so I'm glad to hear your experience with the 2056. It may be hard to do a direct comparison unless you can lock up your torque converter, but how low in the rpm range is it able to build >10psi of boost? Also do you have a build thread? i'd love to see how you mounted it up, there are so many variations of these gtb turbos for different OEMs I'm still trying to make sense of what model would mount up with the least hassle.
Did you consider the GTB2260vk at all? I know the gt2359v seems to be a tried and true upgrade over the oe kkk, but I can't help but think the newer gtb tech would perform better.
Usually i build pumps as hobby and quite often people ask for turbos ... well it depeds a lot on what power level one is after.
As it is explained in this tread above, any BW of this days beat any Holset crap by far. One good turbo for 606 with a 150CC pump is S257SX. Plug and play and results are very nice. Of course its a fit for street veicles.
GT2359V works very well for pumps of 100cc, this turbine hold compressors until 62mm. Its plug and play too.
Of course as a Vgt it does not have enough escape area above 3k so one has to buit in a dump solution , usually i recoment EGR port with EGR valve spring swapped by a na intake valve.
Other turbo that fits is 2260 from N57 engine, also good results same problem with exaust flow.
2056/ 2256 from 642 do not worth the assle. Only 2260 does as a roll bearing solution.
When using a vgt just keep in mind that they were developed for EGR ingestion control, and euro 6 engine can ingest 60% off exaust gas.
Regards
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
Hy,
Usually i build pumps as hobby and quite often people ask for turbos ... well it depeds a lot on what power level one is after.
As it is explained in this tread above, any BW of this days beat any Holset crap by far. One good turbo for 606 with a 150CC pump is S257SX. Plug and play and results are very nice. Of course its a fit for street veicles.
GT2359V works very well for pumps of 100cc, this turbine hold compressors until 62mm. Its plug and play too.
Of course as a Vgt it does not have enough escape area above 3k so one has to buit in a dump solution , usually i recoment EGR port with EGR valve spring swapped by a na intake valve.
Other turbo that fits is 2260 from N57 engine, also good results same problem with exaust flow.
2056/ 2256 from 642 do not worth the assle. Only 2260 does as a roll bearing solution.
When using a vgt just keep in mind that they were developed for EGR ingestion control, and euro 6 engine can ingest 60% off exaust gas.
Regards
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
And yeah- tough to do a good comparison. Best I can do is- I can start in and hold 2nd gear from a stop. When I do this, within 1 second my RPM is upto 1600 RPM and boost is over 20 PSI. There's a good puff of black smoke but in 1 second I go from 750 -1600 RPM. I don't even know if the smoke limit table is pulling fuel in that 1 second span. I can tell you the VNT feels night and day different to the original KKK and under 4200 RPM the truck feels fantastic.
I do have some pics but not many. I'm busy and lack the time/patience to document as you did.
Also- I struck out finding maps for OE VNT turbo's. I struggled to find a GT2359 off of a OM648 so when I saw an ad in Europe for " Good Turbo with Bad actuator off a 3.0 Mercedes Turbo diesel"- I bought it on the spot hoping it was the 2359. When it arrived and I got the numbers off it is when I realized it was the newer smaller VNT of the V6 Turbo diesel. I figured I had it so I tried it. All in all, I'm still using it and don't feel pressed to change it but above 4200 RPM, it is a problem. I don't operate there unless I'm towing heavy and encounter a long hill- which does happen but otherwise, I do like it.
Sorry, no build thread. I did have to modify the turbo by welding on the matching 606 exhaust flange and clocking it but it mounts just like the om606 and om648 turbo.
And yeah- tough to do a good comparison. Best I can do is- I can start in and hold 2nd gear from a stop. When I do this, within 1 second my RPM is upto 1600 RPM and boost is over 20 PSI. There's a good puff of black smoke but in 1 second I go from 750 -1600 RPM. I don't even know if the smoke limit table is pulling fuel in that 1 second span. I can tell you the VNT feels night and day different to the original KKK and under 4200 RPM the truck feels fantastic.
I do have some pics but not many. I'm busy and lack the time/patience to document as you did.
Also- I struck out finding maps for OE VNT turbo's. I struggled to find a GT2359 off of a OM648 so when I saw an ad in Europe for " Good Turbo with Bad actuator off a 3.0 Mercedes Turbo diesel"- I bought it on the spot hoping it was the 2359. When it arrived and I got the numbers off it is when I realized it was the newer smaller VNT of the V6 Turbo diesel. I figured I had it so I tried it. All in all, I'm still using it and don't feel pressed to change it but above 4200 RPM, it is a problem. I don't operate there unless I'm towing heavy and encounter a long hill- which does happen but otherwise, I do like it.
(05-13-2020, 08:10 AM)jav1 Sorry, no build thread. I did have to modify the turbo by welding on the matching 606 exhaust flange and clocking it but it mounts just like the om606 and om648 turbo.
And yeah- tough to do a good comparison. Best I can do is- I can start in and hold 2nd gear from a stop. When I do this, within 1 second my RPM is upto 1600 RPM and boost is over 20 PSI. There's a good puff of black smoke but in 1 second I go from 750 -1600 RPM. I don't even know if the smoke limit table is pulling fuel in that 1 second span. I can tell you the VNT feels night and day different to the original KKK and under 4200 RPM the truck feels fantastic.
I do have some pics but not many. I'm busy and lack the time/patience to document as you did.
Also- I struck out finding maps for OE VNT turbo's. I struggled to find a GT2359 off of a OM648 so when I saw an ad in Europe for " Good Turbo with Bad actuator off a 3.0 Mercedes Turbo diesel"- I bought it on the spot hoping it was the 2359. When it arrived and I got the numbers off it is when I realized it was the newer smaller VNT of the V6 Turbo diesel. I figured I had it so I tried it. All in all, I'm still using it and don't feel pressed to change it but above 4200 RPM, it is a problem. I don't operate there unless I'm towing heavy and encounter a long hill- which does happen but otherwise, I do like it.
thanks for the info, from what you are describing it really sounds like the GTB2056V or GTB2060V is what i'm looking for. I'm certainly never over 4k for any extended period of time, only once in a blue moon when I'm slow to shift out of 1st. What sort of high egts are you seeing? I run between 6-800F on the highway with moderate grades with the truck unloaded.
Barrote,
when you suggest the 2056/2256 are not worth the hassle, is that because they don't have a high max power potential? or something else? I was also curious about your comment on these having too much back pressure above 3k. As they were put on 3.2L diesels in some cases, should they not have been designed for this? Or are you suggesting that the EGR port bleeds off some of that back pressure into the intake? My existing setup has the egr port on the manifold capped, with no room to route a 90 fitting to use it as a bypass. My plan would just be to vary the vane geometry to keep the back pressure down as needed at the cost of efficiency. I think this would be OK for my application because I think I spend so little time above 3k.
I don't have the time now, but I'll try to post a table for all these various garret turbos with references on what actuator, cooling, modifications etc are needed. Having a hard time keeping track of which turbo and from what OE application would work best.
X Double Dot
05-13-2020, 09:45 AM #13(05-13-2020, 08:10 AM)jav1 Sorry, no build thread. I did have to modify the turbo by welding on the matching 606 exhaust flange and clocking it but it mounts just like the om606 and om648 turbo.
And yeah- tough to do a good comparison. Best I can do is- I can start in and hold 2nd gear from a stop. When I do this, within 1 second my RPM is upto 1600 RPM and boost is over 20 PSI. There's a good puff of black smoke but in 1 second I go from 750 -1600 RPM. I don't even know if the smoke limit table is pulling fuel in that 1 second span. I can tell you the VNT feels night and day different to the original KKK and under 4200 RPM the truck feels fantastic.
I do have some pics but not many. I'm busy and lack the time/patience to document as you did.
Also- I struck out finding maps for OE VNT turbo's. I struggled to find a GT2359 off of a OM648 so when I saw an ad in Europe for " Good Turbo with Bad actuator off a 3.0 Mercedes Turbo diesel"- I bought it on the spot hoping it was the 2359. When it arrived and I got the numbers off it is when I realized it was the newer smaller VNT of the V6 Turbo diesel. I figured I had it so I tried it. All in all, I'm still using it and don't feel pressed to change it but above 4200 RPM, it is a problem. I don't operate there unless I'm towing heavy and encounter a long hill- which does happen but otherwise, I do like it.
thanks for the info, from what you are describing it really sounds like the GTB2056V or GTB2060V is what i'm looking for. I'm certainly never over 4k for any extended period of time, only once in a blue moon when I'm slow to shift out of 1st. What sort of high egts are you seeing? I run between 6-800F on the highway with moderate grades with the truck unloaded.
Barrote,
when you suggest the 2056/2256 are not worth the hassle, is that because they don't have a high max power potential? or something else? I was also curious about your comment on these having too much back pressure above 3k. As they were put on 3.2L diesels in some cases, should they not have been designed for this? Or are you suggesting that the EGR port bleeds off some of that back pressure into the intake? My existing setup has the egr port on the manifold capped, with no room to route a 90 fitting to use it as a bypass. My plan would just be to vary the vane geometry to keep the back pressure down as needed at the cost of efficiency. I think this would be OK for my application because I think I spend so little time above 3k.
I don't have the time now, but I'll try to post a table for all these various garret turbos with references on what actuator, cooling, modifications etc are needed. Having a hard time keeping track of which turbo and from what OE application would work best.
If I do a WOT pull in second gear, unloaded on flat ground I can easily hit 30 PSI of boost and EGT climbs to about 1500 but only for a moment until I back off the throttle. I've even cut max fueling by about 10% in my tune. Pulling a heavy trailer is where I really have to be careful and it's different than I thought. Say I'm pulling an 8000# trailer on the highway at 65 with OD off. I may be turning 2500 RPM 10 PSI of boost 900 EGT. I see an incline and speed up to hit it with some momentum. Boost climbs to 20PSI , EGT climbs to 1100 and RPM climbs to 3000. A little way up the hill, speed and RPM starts to drop and EGT stays steady. While I'm still in third gear, I can control the throttle and add power and boost and balance the EGT right at 1250 (which is my max safe #). Th problem is IF at that moment, my transmission downshifts to second WITH THE SAME throttle position- RPM's jump to 4000 and EGT immediately spikes to above 1400 despite not adding any fuel. I have to back off the throttle to control EGT and then I loose even more speed despite being in a lower gear.
I would have thought that at the same throttle setting, being in a lower gear at higher RPM would "load" the engine less than being in a higher gear and lower RPM and thus produce lower EGT. That is NOT the case. Higher RPM seems to have a larger impact on EGT , than fueling and engine load. I've tried pulling the same hill at the same speed and the same load in both 2nd and 3rd gear. EGT is always higher in 2nd gear than in 3rd.
My truck is quite a bit heavier than yours at close to 6000 pounds. Unloaded on the highway on flat ground I'm around 700-800 degrees and 4-6 psi of boost. If I hit an incline (unloaded) boost rises to about 10 PSI and EGT climbs closer to 900-1000.
If I do a WOT pull in second gear, unloaded on flat ground I can easily hit 30 PSI of boost and EGT climbs to about 1500 but only for a moment until I back off the throttle. I've even cut max fueling by about 10% in my tune. Pulling a heavy trailer is where I really have to be careful and it's different than I thought. Say I'm pulling an 8000# trailer on the highway at 65 with OD off. I may be turning 2500 RPM 10 PSI of boost 900 EGT. I see an incline and speed up to hit it with some momentum. Boost climbs to 20PSI , EGT climbs to 1100 and RPM climbs to 3000. A little way up the hill, speed and RPM starts to drop and EGT stays steady. While I'm still in third gear, I can control the throttle and add power and boost and balance the EGT right at 1250 (which is my max safe #). Th problem is IF at that moment, my transmission downshifts to second WITH THE SAME throttle position- RPM's jump to 4000 and EGT immediately spikes to above 1400 despite not adding any fuel. I have to back off the throttle to control EGT and then I loose even more speed despite being in a lower gear.
I would have thought that at the same throttle setting, being in a lower gear at higher RPM would "load" the engine less than being in a higher gear and lower RPM and thus produce lower EGT. That is NOT the case. Higher RPM seems to have a larger impact on EGT , than fueling and engine load. I've tried pulling the same hill at the same speed and the same load in both 2nd and 3rd gear. EGT is always higher in 2nd gear than in 3rd.
what sort of fueling are you running at your 2nd and 3rd gear rpms? I guess the way my map is tuned, and I think the "stock" DSL1 is tuned, is that for a given throttle position fueling stays the same for a wide range of rpm. Maybe yours has more fueling in the higher rpm cells? it could also be a combination of what you said, the higher backpressure and that you are falling off the compressor map and the intake air temp is going up a bit? I think VE for these engines is in the 2000's (this might be based on the stock turbo on them), but I do imagine that it's getting less air/stroke for a given boost pressure at 4500 than at 2500rpm, which I think would explain higher egts.
I know it's not actual fueling but maybe it's worth comparing if you still have a 6cc pump. My dsl1 settings are as follows, 100% throttle is 83ul, which is a rack position of 1970 (for 2500-4000rpm). I'm almost never in this area of the map for more than 5 seconds or so as egts head towards 1400F w/ ~23psi and it's normally time to shift anyways. 90% is 73ul which is a rack position of 1770 and that seems to be fine with 20-23psi of boost and egts in the 1200F range.
X Double Dot
05-13-2020, 12:21 PM #15what is the max boost you are running with that turbo? When I was towing with the truck I was pushing the oe kkk to 23psi at ~2500rpm (probably 70ul of fuel) and this seemed to get me up steep highway grades, so I'm hoping that if I go with the garret 2056 i'd be able to at least match that performance/flow. btw...if your 2056 is in good shape still and you are looking to offset ($) your gt23v purchase maybe you'd be interested in selling it to me (if you don't already have other plans for it).
what sort of fueling are you running at your 2nd and 3rd gear rpms? I guess the way my map is tuned, and I think the "stock" DSL1 is tuned, is that for a given throttle position fueling stays the same for a wide range of rpm. Maybe yours has more fueling in the higher rpm cells? it could also be a combination of what you said, the higher backpressure and that you are falling off the compressor map and the intake air temp is going up a bit? I think VE for these engines is in the 2000's (this might be based on the stock turbo on them), but I do imagine that it's getting less air/stroke for a given boost pressure at 4500 than at 2500rpm, which I think would explain higher egts.
I know it's not actual fueling but maybe it's worth comparing if you still have a 6cc pump. My dsl1 settings are as follows, 100% throttle is 83ul, which is a rack position of 1970 (for 2500-4000rpm). I'm almost never in this area of the map for more than 5 seconds or so as egts head towards 1400F w/ ~23psi and it's normally time to shift anyways. 90% is 73ul which is a rack position of 1770 and that seems to be fine with 20-23psi of boost and egts in the 1200F range.
As to VE- you might have a point but I can't imagine VE to be so different at 2500 vs 3500 RPM given the same boost? I would understand a 5% reduction in efficiency but I don't "think" it would be more than that on a boosted 4 valve engine?? I'm seeing 20% + increases in EGT.
My fuel map is like yours, fuel request at 50% throttle is 58.7 (table value) and it's the same from 2000 -4500 RPM. I'm not sure how to correlate the table values of delivered fuel (in ul) but- this is what confused me and caused me to really think about what might be happening at the thermocouple. This lead me to suspect the turbo exhaust restriction as possibly contributing to the higher EGT?
In my mind- going a constant speed with the same load- IF - 50% throttle @ 2500 RPM & 3500 RPM produces:
- the exact same fuel delivery per the fuel request table at both RPM points,
AND - the same exact boost request per the Boost target table at both RPM points,
then the a couple things logically follow:
1: The engine must be under "less" load (less torque demanded) at higher RPM by virtue of being in a lower gear-
2: There must be more exhaust flow across the EGT due to the higher RPM.
So why then is the EGT significantly higher at the same fuel and boost?
a: It could be the intake air spends less time in the intercooler (due to the higher flow) and thus "cools" off less.
b: I could be the higher exhaust flow across the thermocouple is backing up due to the smallish turbo exhaust section and saturating the probe (increasing the time (duty cycle) the probe sits in the hot pulsed exhaust gases versus the cooling pulses that occur between combustion events) ?
I've read a lot people see significant reduction in EGT by going to a free flowing exhaust and I think that's because the exhaust velocity and the cooling pulses help "cool" the probe. I know my exhaust is very free flowing so this leads me to suspect the turbo?
How did you get to 100% fueling = 83ul of fuel? I do still have the stock (6mm) pump.
BTW- I've not made any plans for the turbo and I may be willing to part with it once I install the 2359 but I don't know when I'll have time to do it OR if I will like it better than the 2056.
Since EMAP pressures are related to boost pressures, I've intentionally set my max boost to about 26 psi (2750 mbar max boost request) to try to keep EMAP away from the valve float pressures.
As to VE- you might have a point but I can't imagine VE to be so different at 2500 vs 3500 RPM given the same boost? I would understand a 5% reduction in efficiency but I don't "think" it would be more than that on a boosted 4 valve engine?? I'm seeing 20% + increases in EGT.
My fuel map is like yours, fuel request at 50% throttle is 58.7 (table value) and it's the same from 2000 -4500 RPM. I'm not sure how to correlate the table values of delivered fuel (in ul) but- this is what confused me and caused me to really think about what might be happening at the thermocouple. This lead me to suspect the turbo exhaust restriction as possibly contributing to the higher EGT?
In my mind- going a constant speed with the same load- IF - 50% throttle @ 2500 RPM & 3500 RPM produces:
- the exact same fuel delivery per the fuel request table at both RPM points,
AND - the same exact boost request per the Boost target table at both RPM points,
then the a couple things logically follow:
1: The engine must be under "less" load (less torque demanded) at higher RPM by virtue of being in a lower gear-
2: There must be more exhaust flow across the EGT due to the higher RPM.
So why then is the EGT significantly higher at the same fuel and boost?
a: It could be the intake air spends less time in the intercooler (due to the higher flow) and thus "cools" off less.
b: I could be the higher exhaust flow across the thermocouple is backing up due to the smallish turbo exhaust section and saturating the probe (increasing the time (duty cycle) the probe sits in the hot pulsed exhaust gases versus the cooling pulses that occur between combustion events) ?
I've read a lot people see significant reduction in EGT by going to a free flowing exhaust and I think that's because the exhaust velocity and the cooling pulses help "cool" the probe. I know my exhaust is very free flowing so this leads me to suspect the turbo?
How did you get to 100% fueling = 83ul of fuel? I do still have the stock (6mm) pump.
BTW- I've not made any plans for the turbo and I may be willing to part with it once I install the 2359 but I don't know when I'll have time to do it OR if I will like it better than the 2056.
(05-14-2020, 08:01 AM)jav1 How did you get to 100% fueling = 83ul of fuel? I do still have the stock (6mm) pump.
83ul is just what is in my fueling table for 100% throttle pedal position. What max fueling and/or rack position are you commanding?
to your comments on the higher egts, yea i've always been curious as well if the higher flowrate, at presumably the same temperature has something to do with it. I wouldn't necessarily think so. that would have to mean that something is cooling off your probe pretty quickly. As long as it isn't right on the ID of the manifold I wouldn't think this would be the case.
Will be very interested to hear how the gta2359 compares with respect to spool as well as egt/performance at higher rpm. Hopefully you will keep us posted on what you find
X Double Dot
05-14-2020, 10:21 PM #17(05-14-2020, 08:01 AM)jav1 How did you get to 100% fueling = 83ul of fuel? I do still have the stock (6mm) pump.
83ul is just what is in my fueling table for 100% throttle pedal position. What max fueling and/or rack position are you commanding?
to your comments on the higher egts, yea i've always been curious as well if the higher flowrate, at presumably the same temperature has something to do with it. I wouldn't necessarily think so. that would have to mean that something is cooling off your probe pretty quickly. As long as it isn't right on the ID of the manifold I wouldn't think this would be the case.
Will be very interested to hear how the gta2359 compares with respect to spool as well as egt/performance at higher rpm. Hopefully you will keep us posted on what you find
50harleyrider
05-15-2020, 06:23 AM #18The egt is for sure helped by a free flowing exhaust with the GTA2359VK I am currently running. I have found back pressure increases for the different mufflers, exhaust sizes, types are insignificant with the higher egt's I have experienced changing exhaust componemts. This leads me to believe that tiny increases in back pressure probably affect egt's significantly and we should focus on exhaust components more and really dissect the influence they have on egt and why. When I straight pipe mine during my frustrating attempts to kill drone, I couldn't force my egt's much past 1100F under full load up long grades of 6-7% which btw are easy to find in WV. I hope you guys try the electronic actuator if and when you install the 2359, so boost control is tightened up to a point where egt's can be better controlled than the vacuum actuator I am running. It would be a good idea to upgrade to a tube header exhaust manifold like the guys running the big Holsets are doing if you're up to it. At any rate, you won't be disappointed with the 2359 performance wise. Cheers.
(05-14-2020, 10:21 PM)X Double Dot(05-14-2020, 08:01 AM)jav1 How did you get to 100% fueling = 83ul of fuel? I do still have the stock (6mm) pump.
83ul is just what is in my fueling table for 100% throttle pedal position. What max fueling and/or rack position are you commanding?
to your comments on the higher egts, yea i've always been curious as well if the higher flowrate, at presumably the same temperature has something to do with it. I wouldn't necessarily think so. that would have to mean that something is cooling off your probe pretty quickly. As long as it isn't right on the ID of the manifold I wouldn't think this would be the case.
Will be very interested to hear how the gta2359 compares with respect to spool as well as egt/performance at higher rpm. Hopefully you will keep us posted on what you find
help me out here Brian... I'm always learning new things and sometimes I "think" I understand something and I really don't.
So... are you saying that in your "fuel request table", where the left most column is labelled "effthrottle %" and the top most row is labelled "enginespeed (RPM)", number in the table squares represents ul of fuel?? I didn't think so. I thought the values were duty cycle or % of full rack position?
(05-14-2020, 10:21 PM)X Double Dot(05-14-2020, 08:01 AM)jav1 How did you get to 100% fueling = 83ul of fuel? I do still have the stock (6mm) pump.
83ul is just what is in my fueling table for 100% throttle pedal position. What max fueling and/or rack position are you commanding?
to your comments on the higher egts, yea i've always been curious as well if the higher flowrate, at presumably the same temperature has something to do with it. I wouldn't necessarily think so. that would have to mean that something is cooling off your probe pretty quickly. As long as it isn't right on the ID of the manifold I wouldn't think this would be the case.
Will be very interested to hear how the gta2359 compares with respect to spool as well as egt/performance at higher rpm. Hopefully you will keep us posted on what you find
help me out here Brian... I'm always learning new things and sometimes I "think" I understand something and I really don't.
So... are you saying that in your "fuel request table", where the left most column is labelled "effthrottle %" and the top most row is labelled "enginespeed (RPM)", number in the table squares represents ul of fuel?? I didn't think so. I thought the values were duty cycle or % of full rack position?
(05-15-2020, 07:33 AM)jav1 help me out here Brian... I'm always learning new things and sometimes I "think" I understand something and I really don't.
So... are you saying that in your "fuel request table", where the left most column is labelled "effthrottle %" and the top most row is labelled "enginespeed (RPM)", number in the table squares represents ul of fuel?? I didn't think so. I thought the values were duty cycle or % of full rack position?
fwiw...I didn't know this
meant "rolls eyes" so hopefully that last post didn't come across as snarky to the comment on the table, I think they were Baldurs estimate on ul of fuel. In reality you're right, the "ul" in the fuel table corresponds to a "rack position request table" which has a %duty cycle table (and a pid loop) to drive the solenoid to that rack position. So there are 2 tables that effectively adjust fueling and 3rd table that helps the rack know what duty cycle it should need to get to that rack position.
X Double Dot
05-15-2020, 08:11 AM #20(05-15-2020, 07:33 AM)jav1 help me out here Brian... I'm always learning new things and sometimes I "think" I understand something and I really don't.
So... are you saying that in your "fuel request table", where the left most column is labelled "effthrottle %" and the top most row is labelled "enginespeed (RPM)", number in the table squares represents ul of fuel?? I didn't think so. I thought the values were duty cycle or % of full rack position?
fwiw...I didn't know this
meant "rolls eyes" so hopefully that last post didn't come across as snarky to the comment on the table, I think they were Baldurs estimate on ul of fuel. In reality you're right, the "ul" in the fuel table corresponds to a "rack position request table" which has a %duty cycle table (and a pid loop) to drive the solenoid to that rack position. So there are 2 tables that effectively adjust fueling and 3rd table that helps the rack know what duty cycle it should need to get to that rack position.
On the table thing - that helps because in the table I referenced - "fuel request table"-, which is the main one I've played with to tune my fueling, I have values from 50-90 in my top values row which corresponds to- 100% throttle position. I'm still not 100% understanding the relationships between "ALL" the tables and it doesn't help that being rather new, I struggle to find certain things as referenced because the names used don't always match up perfectly nor are they all under the same "tab" in the software.
For example- I can't find a "rack position request table" under the tables tab... BUT- I do find a "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" under the rack control paramters tab... which I surmise is the table you are referring to but, not knowing all the tabs inside and out- I second guess things when the names used don't match up with the software names 100%?
In my pea brain from what I gleaned from Baldur- the "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" parameter defines how the fuel injection rack moves in response to fuel request values (0-100%). That parameter should have a max value of 2100 according to Baldur, as that 2100 number represents (approximately) the "full- bottomed out" rack travel value on most stock 606 pumps. But now- if that parameter establishes the relationship between rack command value and fuel request values, I don't understand why the parameter has correlations from 0.0 - 250 when my maximum fuel request value is 100??? In my tune- I set "simple rack position request f..." values at 260,740,920,1390,2100,2100,2100,2100. with the first 2100 value represented at 100 and all values above 100-250 still having the 2100 rack command value. Is that right? I think so but I'm not 100%??? Does this parameter suggest we could have fuel request value up to 250 in the fuel request table?? I'm sure Baldur has a good reason for doing this but not knowing what he knows, it causes me to question if I really understand how to fully use all of the controllers capabilities or if I'm doing it right?
No - I didn't take it as snarky at all... I didn't know the "roll eyes" thing either so ignorance is bliss?
On the table thing - that helps because in the table I referenced - "fuel request table"-, which is the main one I've played with to tune my fueling, I have values from 50-90 in my top values row which corresponds to- 100% throttle position. I'm still not 100% understanding the relationships between "ALL" the tables and it doesn't help that being rather new, I struggle to find certain things as referenced because the names used don't always match up perfectly nor are they all under the same "tab" in the software.
For example- I can't find a "rack position request table" under the tables tab... BUT- I do find a "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" under the rack control paramters tab... which I surmise is the table you are referring to but, not knowing all the tabs inside and out- I second guess things when the names used don't match up with the software names 100%?
In my pea brain from what I gleaned from Baldur- the "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" parameter defines how the fuel injection rack moves in response to fuel request values (0-100%). That parameter should have a max value of 2100 according to Baldur, as that 2100 number represents (approximately) the "full- bottomed out" rack travel value on most stock 606 pumps. But now- if that parameter establishes the relationship between rack command value and fuel request values, I don't understand why the parameter has correlations from 0.0 - 250 when my maximum fuel request value is 100??? In my tune- I set "simple rack position request f..." values at 260,740,920,1390,2100,2100,2100,2100. with the first 2100 value represented at 100 and all values above 100-250 still having the 2100 rack command value. Is that right? I think so but I'm not 100%??? Does this parameter suggest we could have fuel request value up to 250 in the fuel request table?? I'm sure Baldur has a good reason for doing this but not knowing what he knows, it causes me to question if I really understand how to fully use all of the controllers capabilities or if I'm doing it right?
(05-15-2020, 06:23 AM)50harleyrider The egt is for sure helped by a free flowing exhaust with the GTA2359VK I am currently running. I have found back pressure increases for the different mufflers, exhaust sizes, types are insignificant with the higher egt's I have experienced changing exhaust componemts. This leads me to believe that tiny increases in back pressure probably affect egt's significantly and we should focus on exhaust components more and really dissect the influence they have on egt and why. When I straight pipe mine during my frustrating attempts to kill drone, I couldn't force my egt's much past 1100F under full load up long grades of 6-7% which btw are easy to find in WV. I hope you guys try the electronic actuator if and when you install the 2359, so boost control is tightened up to a point where egt's can be better controlled than the vacuum actuator I am running. It would be a good idea to upgrade to a tube header exhaust manifold like the guys running the big Holsets are doing if you're up to it. At any rate, you won't be disappointed with the 2359 performance wise. Cheers.
good to know. I am curious on the electric actuator, how did you source a connector for it? was it anything special? Also were there certain versions of the gt2359v with actuators that the dsl1 can control and others that can't?
lastly...let me know when you're able to get a boost curve or some numbers to compare with :-) I'm mainly interested in what boost it can build at 12, 15, 18 rpm.
Where in Wv are you located? I'm over in Southwest VA for reference
X Double Dot
05-15-2020, 09:11 AM #22(05-15-2020, 06:23 AM)50harleyrider The egt is for sure helped by a free flowing exhaust with the GTA2359VK I am currently running. I have found back pressure increases for the different mufflers, exhaust sizes, types are insignificant with the higher egt's I have experienced changing exhaust componemts. This leads me to believe that tiny increases in back pressure probably affect egt's significantly and we should focus on exhaust components more and really dissect the influence they have on egt and why. When I straight pipe mine during my frustrating attempts to kill drone, I couldn't force my egt's much past 1100F under full load up long grades of 6-7% which btw are easy to find in WV. I hope you guys try the electronic actuator if and when you install the 2359, so boost control is tightened up to a point where egt's can be better controlled than the vacuum actuator I am running. It would be a good idea to upgrade to a tube header exhaust manifold like the guys running the big Holsets are doing if you're up to it. At any rate, you won't be disappointed with the 2359 performance wise. Cheers.
good to know. I am curious on the electric actuator, how did you source a connector for it? was it anything special? Also were there certain versions of the gt2359v with actuators that the dsl1 can control and others that can't?
lastly...let me know when you're able to get a boost curve or some numbers to compare with :-) I'm mainly interested in what boost it can build at 12, 15, 18 rpm.
Where in Wv are you located? I'm over in Southwest VA for reference
(05-15-2020, 08:52 AM)jav1 No - I didn't take it as snarky at all... I didn't know the "roll eyes" thing either so ignorance is bliss?
On the table thing - that helps because in the table I referenced - "fuel request table"-, which is the main one I've played with to tune my fueling, I have values from 50-90 in my top values row which corresponds to- 100% throttle position. I'm still not 100% understanding the relationships between "ALL" the tables and it doesn't help that being rather new, I struggle to find certain things as referenced because the names used don't always match up perfectly nor are they all under the same "tab" in the software.
For example- I can't find a "rack position request table" under the tables tab... BUT- I do find a "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" under the rack control paramters tab... which I surmise is the table you are referring to but, not knowing all the tabs inside and out- I second guess things when the names used don't match up with the software names 100%?
In my pea brain from what I gleaned from Baldur- the "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" parameter defines how the fuel injection rack moves in response to fuel request values (0-100%). That parameter should have a max value of 2100 according to Baldur, as that 2100 number represents (approximately) the "full- bottomed out" rack travel value on most stock 606 pumps. But now- if that parameter establishes the relationship between rack command value and fuel request values, I don't understand why the parameter has correlations from 0.0 - 250 when my maximum fuel request value is 100??? In my tune- I set "simple rack position request f..." values at 260,740,920,1390,2100,2100,2100,2100. with the first 2100 value represented at 100 and all values above 100-250 still having the 2100 rack command value. Is that right? I think so but I'm not 100%??? Does this parameter suggest we could have fuel request value up to 250 in the fuel request table?? I'm sure Baldur has a good reason for doing this but not knowing what he knows, it causes me to question if I really understand how to fully use all of the controllers capabilities or if I'm doing it right?
yeah you've got the right table, just 0-100% throttle is the Y column, X is rpm, and the table values are a made up value that is probably a close estimation to ul fuel/stroke. I ended up using the 2d version, so instead of "simple rack position request" i've been using the "Pump Characteristic map" which is the same thing, it just allows you to scale it by engine speed. I did this because it seemed like as pump speed reduced, so did the amount of fuel i was actually getting for a given ul fuel request.
I'm not entirely sure why the simple rack position request goes to 250, but I imagine it is built in for larger element pumps, so if someone had a 250ul pump (assuming ours is 100ul) they would have up to 250ul in their fuel request tables instead of up to 100ul like us, and they could easily rescale the values in the rack position table (instead of 260,740,920,1390,2100,2100,2100,2100, they would use 260,267,407,628,996,1364,1732,2100 if their pump could actually put out up to 250ul. this is all assuming it is to keep some sort of reference between ul and rack position). So currently the way your table is setup, a value of 100ul and 250ul in the fuel request table will net the same exact pump position/fueling. It's all for scaling. Regardless though the way you have it setup sounds correct.
Interesting that he said 2100 for full rack position, i thought the stock configs had 2300 in there. regardless i'm running 1950-2000 as my max at the moment until i can get a larger/better turbo in there.
X Double Dot
05-15-2020, 10:25 AM #23(05-15-2020, 08:52 AM)jav1 No - I didn't take it as snarky at all... I didn't know the "roll eyes" thing either so ignorance is bliss?
On the table thing - that helps because in the table I referenced - "fuel request table"-, which is the main one I've played with to tune my fueling, I have values from 50-90 in my top values row which corresponds to- 100% throttle position. I'm still not 100% understanding the relationships between "ALL" the tables and it doesn't help that being rather new, I struggle to find certain things as referenced because the names used don't always match up perfectly nor are they all under the same "tab" in the software.
For example- I can't find a "rack position request table" under the tables tab... BUT- I do find a "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" under the rack control paramters tab... which I surmise is the table you are referring to but, not knowing all the tabs inside and out- I second guess things when the names used don't match up with the software names 100%?
In my pea brain from what I gleaned from Baldur- the "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" parameter defines how the fuel injection rack moves in response to fuel request values (0-100%). That parameter should have a max value of 2100 according to Baldur, as that 2100 number represents (approximately) the "full- bottomed out" rack travel value on most stock 606 pumps. But now- if that parameter establishes the relationship between rack command value and fuel request values, I don't understand why the parameter has correlations from 0.0 - 250 when my maximum fuel request value is 100??? In my tune- I set "simple rack position request f..." values at 260,740,920,1390,2100,2100,2100,2100. with the first 2100 value represented at 100 and all values above 100-250 still having the 2100 rack command value. Is that right? I think so but I'm not 100%??? Does this parameter suggest we could have fuel request value up to 250 in the fuel request table?? I'm sure Baldur has a good reason for doing this but not knowing what he knows, it causes me to question if I really understand how to fully use all of the controllers capabilities or if I'm doing it right?
yeah you've got the right table, just 0-100% throttle is the Y column, X is rpm, and the table values are a made up value that is probably a close estimation to ul fuel/stroke. I ended up using the 2d version, so instead of "simple rack position request" i've been using the "Pump Characteristic map" which is the same thing, it just allows you to scale it by engine speed. I did this because it seemed like as pump speed reduced, so did the amount of fuel i was actually getting for a given ul fuel request.
I'm not entirely sure why the simple rack position request goes to 250, but I imagine it is built in for larger element pumps, so if someone had a 250ul pump (assuming ours is 100ul) they would have up to 250ul in their fuel request tables instead of up to 100ul like us, and they could easily rescale the values in the rack position table (instead of 260,740,920,1390,2100,2100,2100,2100, they would use 260,267,407,628,996,1364,1732,2100 if their pump could actually put out up to 250ul. this is all assuming it is to keep some sort of reference between ul and rack position). So currently the way your table is setup, a value of 100ul and 250ul in the fuel request table will net the same exact pump position/fueling. It's all for scaling. Regardless though the way you have it setup sounds correct.
Interesting that he said 2100 for full rack position, i thought the stock configs had 2300 in there. regardless i'm running 1950-2000 as my max at the moment until i can get a larger/better turbo in there.
Richard- yes- your data was one of my references on the relationship between exhaust flow and EGT. I had read it elsewhere as well so it was good to get your confirmation.
I have an email from him that kept as reference. You might be right about the 2300 but he did recommend lowering mine to 2100 and I believe it was because 2300 might not work on all pumps but 2100 seemed to be a more universal #.
Richard- yes- your data was one of my references on the relationship between exhaust flow and EGT. I had read it elsewhere as well so it was good to get your confirmation.
50harleyrider
05-17-2020, 06:23 AM #25i'm in Charleston,wv, We should meet sometime and compare rides. You must be in the Bristol area? I can't wait to start fine tuning but first I have to get motor mounts and drone diminished so I can stand to drive it lol. Jav1 and I have compared notes for a couple years now. I haven't tried the electronic actuator yet. Probably need to source the harness connection from a junk yard 05-06 cdi. Baldur will help us out with the wiring interface to the DSL1. He's great standing by his ecu. The fueling and boost tables can be confusing. Better call Baldur. Saul can't help us.
(05-15-2020, 08:52 AM)jav1 No - I didn't take it as snarky at all... I didn't know the "roll eyes" thing either so ignorance is bliss?
On the table thing - that helps because in the table I referenced - "fuel request table"-, which is the main one I've played with to tune my fueling, I have values from 50-90 in my top values row which corresponds to- 100% throttle position. I'm still not 100% understanding the relationships between "ALL" the tables and it doesn't help that being rather new, I struggle to find certain things as referenced because the names used don't always match up perfectly nor are they all under the same "tab" in the software.
For example- I can't find a "rack position request table" under the tables tab... BUT- I do find a "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" under the rack control paramters tab... which I surmise is the table you are referring to but, not knowing all the tabs inside and out- I second guess things when the names used don't match up with the software names 100%?
In my pea brain from what I gleaned from Baldur- the "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" parameter defines how the fuel injection rack moves in response to fuel request values (0-100%). That parameter should have a max value of 2100 according to Baldur, as that 2100 number represents (approximately) the "full- bottomed out" rack travel value on most stock 606 pumps. But now- if that parameter establishes the relationship between rack command value and fuel request values, I don't understand why the parameter has correlations from 0.0 - 250 when my maximum fuel request value is 100??? In my tune- I set "simple rack position request f..." values at 260,740,920,1390,2100,2100,2100,2100. with the first 2100 value represented at 100 and all values above 100-250 still having the 2100 rack command value. Is that right? I think so but I'm not 100%??? Does this parameter suggest we could have fuel request value up to 250 in the fuel request table?? I'm sure Baldur has a good reason for doing this but not knowing what he knows, it causes me to question if I really understand how to fully use all of the controllers capabilities or if I'm doing it right?
I should explain that due to differences from pump to pump and controller to controller the rack position sensing can vary slightly in its reported range. The injection pump will make a sound when it hits full travel and the range from the stop position to full travel is generally from 290-340 for stop and 2100-2200 for full travel, with slight variations from pump temperature which is why I recommend doing the final calibration of this with everything well warmed up.
The fuel request can go all the way past 600 but with the standard map numbers above 100 won't make any difference, since the pump goes to full rack at 100. When setting up calibrations for 7.5 or 8mm pumps I make use of numbers higher than 100.
Baldur Gislason
(05-15-2020, 08:52 AM)jav1 No - I didn't take it as snarky at all... I didn't know the "roll eyes" thing either so ignorance is bliss?
On the table thing - that helps because in the table I referenced - "fuel request table"-, which is the main one I've played with to tune my fueling, I have values from 50-90 in my top values row which corresponds to- 100% throttle position. I'm still not 100% understanding the relationships between "ALL" the tables and it doesn't help that being rather new, I struggle to find certain things as referenced because the names used don't always match up perfectly nor are they all under the same "tab" in the software.
For example- I can't find a "rack position request table" under the tables tab... BUT- I do find a "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" under the rack control paramters tab... which I surmise is the table you are referring to but, not knowing all the tabs inside and out- I second guess things when the names used don't match up with the software names 100%?
In my pea brain from what I gleaned from Baldur- the "simple rack position request f (fuelrequest)" parameter defines how the fuel injection rack moves in response to fuel request values (0-100%). That parameter should have a max value of 2100 according to Baldur, as that 2100 number represents (approximately) the "full- bottomed out" rack travel value on most stock 606 pumps. But now- if that parameter establishes the relationship between rack command value and fuel request values, I don't understand why the parameter has correlations from 0.0 - 250 when my maximum fuel request value is 100??? In my tune- I set "simple rack position request f..." values at 260,740,920,1390,2100,2100,2100,2100. with the first 2100 value represented at 100 and all values above 100-250 still having the 2100 rack command value. Is that right? I think so but I'm not 100%??? Does this parameter suggest we could have fuel request value up to 250 in the fuel request table?? I'm sure Baldur has a good reason for doing this but not knowing what he knows, it causes me to question if I really understand how to fully use all of the controllers capabilities or if I'm doing it right?
I should explain that due to differences from pump to pump and controller to controller the rack position sensing can vary slightly in its reported range. The injection pump will make a sound when it hits full travel and the range from the stop position to full travel is generally from 290-340 for stop and 2100-2200 for full travel, with slight variations from pump temperature which is why I recommend doing the final calibration of this with everything well warmed up.
The fuel request can go all the way past 600 but with the standard map numbers above 100 won't make any difference, since the pump goes to full rack at 100. When setting up calibrations for 7.5 or 8mm pumps I make use of numbers higher than 100.
Baldur Gislason
@ 50harleyrider, actually in Roanoke Virginia, if you're ever out this way let me know. my truck will likely be down for prechamber inspections and possibly this turbo upfit in the coming weeks. As for junkyards with om648 donor parts in them...maybe i need to look harder but I feel like that would be a unicorn at any place near me.
X Double Dot
05-19-2020, 06:40 AM #27@ baldur, thanks! makes sense.
@ 50harleyrider, actually in Roanoke Virginia, if you're ever out this way let me know. my truck will likely be down for prechamber inspections and possibly this turbo upfit in the coming weeks. As for junkyards with om648 donor parts in them...maybe i need to look harder but I feel like that would be a unicorn at any place near me.
50harleyrider
05-19-2020, 01:29 PM #28I usually find parts in the internet. have had best results at car-part.com. I usually search for a specific part for a year and model of car and call them to see if they have the whole car. if I'm lucky, I talk to them before they strip them and only have parts on the shelf-wiring harnesses and connections especially. I just sold a nice manual 05 passat tdi to a guy in Roanoke. No interstate access-sucks. Curious what are your symptoms for prechamber problems? I guess that's a weakness in these engines. I always have to glow prestart to save my battery and starter-they're stubborn engines but otherwise awesome.
50harleyrider I usually find parts in the internet. have had best results at car-part.com. I usually search for a specific part for a year and model of car and call them to see if they have the whole car. if I'm lucky, I talk to them before they strip them and only have parts on the shelf-wiring harnesses and connections especially. I just sold a nice manual 05 passat tdi to a guy in Roanoke. No interstate access-sucks. Curious what are your symptoms for prechamber problems? I guess that's a weakness in these engines. I always have to glow prestart to save my battery and starter-they're stubborn engines but otherwise awesome.I have found that there seem to be a lot of the OM 648 engines in salvage yards. They don't seem to hold up well. I found more parts in the UK and the money exchange is in our favor right now. Shipping is not that bad either, their prices make up for it. Car-part.com is a great source as you state.
50harleyrider I usually find parts in the internet. have had best results at car-part.com. I usually search for a specific part for a year and model of car and call them to see if they have the whole car. if I'm lucky, I talk to them before they strip them and only have parts on the shelf-wiring harnesses and connections especially. I just sold a nice manual 05 passat tdi to a guy in Roanoke. No interstate access-sucks. Curious what are your symptoms for prechamber problems? I guess that's a weakness in these engines. I always have to glow prestart to save my battery and starter-they're stubborn engines but otherwise awesome.I have found that there seem to be a lot of the OM 648 engines in salvage yards. They don't seem to hold up well. I found more parts in the UK and the money exchange is in our favor right now. Shipping is not that bad either, their prices make up for it. Car-part.com is a great source as you state.
(05-19-2020, 05:44 PM)zeeman50harleyrider I usually find parts in the internet. have had best results at car-part.com. I usually search for a specific part for a year and model of car and call them to see if they have the whole car. if I'm lucky, I talk to them before they strip them and only have parts on the shelf-wiring harnesses and connections especially. I just sold a nice manual 05 passat tdi to a guy in Roanoke. No interstate access-sucks. Curious what are your symptoms for prechamber problems? I guess that's a weakness in these engines. I always have to glow prestart to save my battery and starter-they're stubborn engines but otherwise awesome.I have found that there seem to be a lot of the OM 648 engines in salvage yards. They don't seem to hold up well. I found more parts in the UK and the money exchange is in our favor right now. Shipping is not that bad either, their prices make up for it. Car-part.com is a great source as you state.
thanks for the info guys. no om648s donors in the yards near me, but maybe they'll ship...too many house projects to spend 6 hours in the car.
I've got some plots of the om606 speed curves overlaid on a gtb2260vk compressor map that I'd like to post and confirm I'm looking at it right, does anyone know how to upload a photo? Every time I try the "new attachment" with a jpg/PNG it gives me an error "please choose a valid file" and "There was a problem moving the uploaded file to it's destination"
X Double Dot
05-21-2020, 08:57 PM #30(05-19-2020, 05:44 PM)zeeman50harleyrider I usually find parts in the internet. have had best results at car-part.com. I usually search for a specific part for a year and model of car and call them to see if they have the whole car. if I'm lucky, I talk to them before they strip them and only have parts on the shelf-wiring harnesses and connections especially. I just sold a nice manual 05 passat tdi to a guy in Roanoke. No interstate access-sucks. Curious what are your symptoms for prechamber problems? I guess that's a weakness in these engines. I always have to glow prestart to save my battery and starter-they're stubborn engines but otherwise awesome.I have found that there seem to be a lot of the OM 648 engines in salvage yards. They don't seem to hold up well. I found more parts in the UK and the money exchange is in our favor right now. Shipping is not that bad either, their prices make up for it. Car-part.com is a great source as you state.
thanks for the info guys. no om648s donors in the yards near me, but maybe they'll ship...too many house projects to spend 6 hours in the car.
I've got some plots of the om606 speed curves overlaid on a gtb2260vk compressor map that I'd like to post and confirm I'm looking at it right, does anyone know how to upload a photo? Every time I try the "new attachment" with a jpg/PNG it gives me an error "please choose a valid file" and "There was a problem moving the uploaded file to it's destination"
V = basically that its a variable geometry turbo
K = electric actuator
L = water cooled center housing
R = ball bearing.
a "VKLR" would be cool, but I certainly do no need the ball bearing aspect OR the extra water cooling complications (not to say I wouldn't do it). I'm mainly interested in which options I can easily source off ebay <1000$ used and which can be modified within reason to fit (I can cut and weld, but i'd rather not have to add another 200$ in adapter plates to get something to bolt up)
What i'm unsure of is
1. which model cars to look for these from,
2. which housings are easiest to modify/fabricate to an om606 stock manifold mount as well as exhaust pipe
3. which cars came with actuators the DSL1 can communicate with
4. Are there any combinations to stay away from
thanks for the help!
X Double Dot
10-09-2020, 09:00 AM #31I wanted to add an update to this since it's been a few months as well as get some advice. I'm looking for a gtb or gtd turbo in either the 2260 or 2060 size. What i've found is there are an enormous amount of variations with these as well as how they are listed on ebay, v, vzk, vk, vklr. Stealing from a vw forum i've deduced
V = basically that its a variable geometry turbo
K = electric actuator
L = water cooled center housing
R = ball bearing.
a "VKLR" would be cool, but I certainly do no need the ball bearing aspect OR the extra water cooling complications (not to say I wouldn't do it). I'm mainly interested in which options I can easily source off ebay <1000$ used and which can be modified within reason to fit (I can cut and weld, but i'd rather not have to add another 200$ in adapter plates to get something to bolt up)
What i'm unsure of is
1. which model cars to look for these from,
2. which housings are easiest to modify/fabricate to an om606 stock manifold mount as well as exhaust pipe
3. which cars came with actuators the DSL1 can communicate with
4. Are there any combinations to stay away from
thanks for the help!
What is the above mentioned "GT2359" off of?
GTB2260 turbos have been common in north america since ~2007 on Mercedes and BMW 3L diesels. They get into boost well under 2000rpm, the BMW version has a VBand turbine inlet that would be the easiest to make an adapter for. So I think that's your best bet for a good deal on a modern Garrett VNT turbo capable of maybe 300hp. The compressor flows about as much as the HE221, but the VNT makes it spool very fast and its not going to be too restrictive at higher rpm.
The later generations GTB/C/D supposedly have a much higher, ~+25% improvment, efficiency from the turbine so I think thats makes them much less likely to have back backpressure/EGT issues at higher RPM compared to similar a size GTA / GT.
With a compound setup you could run a GT17 VNT in front of an 35-40lb/min turbo. Would be a pretty cool 250hp setup with super fast spool. You might even be able to find a GTB1756 with a K14 flange and bolt it right to the manifold. Honestly if you're on stock elements and are fine with 200hp, then a GTB1756 would work well for spool. Back pressure would be higher, but that's not an issue if you're not running up above 4000 often. Plus you would have really good exhaust braking capability.
If you're still running the R150, then you will really want to limit boost&fuel at low rpm. 15psi enough for +300lb-ft and enough to break things if you're not careful. 200hp /300lb-ft seems like plenty to get a little yota down the road. If didn't already have a 7.5mm 603 pump, then I would stick with the stock 606 pump and a 2260. I'm at 5-10k elevation, so a little larger turbo would be helpful. More HP is just more problems and my FJ60 has enough problems as it is.
The HE221W is a cheap, reliable option. However, as you already pointed out that the 37lb/min compressor is a bit too big to spool very well. To really spool well at that low RPM then you're going to want ~25lb/min compressor range. Something like the GT17 maybe HX20.
What is the above mentioned "GT2359" off of?
GTB2260 turbos have been common in north america since ~2007 on Mercedes and BMW 3L diesels. They get into boost well under 2000rpm, the BMW version has a VBand turbine inlet that would be the easiest to make an adapter for. So I think that's your best bet for a good deal on a modern Garrett VNT turbo capable of maybe 300hp. The compressor flows about as much as the HE221, but the VNT makes it spool very fast and its not going to be too restrictive at higher rpm.
The later generations GTB/C/D supposedly have a much higher, ~+25% improvment, efficiency from the turbine so I think thats makes them much less likely to have back backpressure/EGT issues at higher RPM compared to similar a size GTA / GT.
With a compound setup you could run a GT17 VNT in front of an 35-40lb/min turbo. Would be a pretty cool 250hp setup with super fast spool. You might even be able to find a GTB1756 with a K14 flange and bolt it right to the manifold. Honestly if you're on stock elements and are fine with 200hp, then a GTB1756 would work well for spool. Back pressure would be higher, but that's not an issue if you're not running up above 4000 often. Plus you would have really good exhaust braking capability.
If you're still running the R150, then you will really want to limit boost&fuel at low rpm. 15psi enough for +300lb-ft and enough to break things if you're not careful. 200hp /300lb-ft seems like plenty to get a little yota down the road. If didn't already have a 7.5mm 603 pump, then I would stick with the stock 606 pump and a 2260. I'm at 5-10k elevation, so a little larger turbo would be helpful. More HP is just more problems and my FJ60 has enough problems as it is.
(04-30-2020, 11:46 AM)wiseman89 I still havent got my build on the road yet with my BW S300 turbo.
But im guessing for you a S200 would work fine. These newer SXE turbos are supposed to be more efficient than the old holset design.
The smallest s200 is a 56lb/min compressor on a 70mm turbine. A ~450hp turbo that would struggle to build any boost below ~2500rpm. Good turbo if you want to push 35psi all the way to 5000rpm. Not a good turbo to boost at 1200rpm.
(04-30-2020, 11:46 AM)wiseman89 I still havent got my build on the road yet with my BW S300 turbo.
But im guessing for you a S200 would work fine. These newer SXE turbos are supposed to be more efficient than the old holset design.
The smallest s200 is a 56lb/min compressor on a 70mm turbine. A ~450hp turbo that would struggle to build any boost below ~2500rpm. Good turbo if you want to push 35psi all the way to 5000rpm. Not a good turbo to boost at 1200rpm.
50harleyrider
10-11-2020, 09:04 PM #36If you want 1200 rpm boost, take my advice. KISS unless your racing. I found out today that a fresh battery makes a big difference too. Baldur has the logic to make the electronic actuated units feasible with DSL1. I lost mine when I converted to vacuum which is working quite well now that I have my tune right. Everyone needs to shake with a MB turbo diesel-too much fun.
21 Guest(s)
21 Guest(s)