Why do you want to upgrade to obsolete technology?
Are buggy whip racks next
| LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/ |
|
| Turbo upgrades http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35158 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | drtydzel [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Turbo upgrades |
We have a Variable Vain Turbo in our Jeep's correct? This is the same thing as the Duramax and 6.0L Powerstroke but can we upgrade to a fixed vain turbo like they can to benefit certain types of driving more than others. Also we could get a more efficient turbo this way I believe as far as drive pressures and such let me know what you think about this idea. |
|
| Author: | gmctd [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Variable Vane Technology turbos offer the most efficient use of a turbo for a street vehicle under any conditions from off-idle to towing - the only turbo that exceeds that is the Variable Geometry Turbo, which we have - changes it from a small turbo, needed at low rpm\low exhaust energy to a bigger turbo at operating rpm where more exhaust energy is created by more fuel consumed to supply more combustion events\unit of time - you're talking a larger turbine tuned for max exhaust energy near the end of the track, where most power is needed - off-the-line off-idle spool-up would be non-existant and it would tow like a dog - I don't think too many KJ CRD owners would be willing to accept an improvement like that, eh.......... |
|
| Author: | warp2diesel [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Turbo upgrade from VVT to fixed? |
Why do you want to upgrade to obsolete technology? Are buggy whip racks next
|
|
| Author: | Uffe [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
gmctd wrote: Variable Vane Technology turbos offer the most efficient use of a turbo for a street vehicle under any conditions from off-idle to towing - the only turbo that exceeds that is the Variable Geometry Turbo, which we have - changes it from a small turbo, needed at low rpm\low exhaust energy to a bigger turbo at operating rpm where more exhaust energy is created by more fuel consumed to supply more combustion events\unit of time - you're talking a larger turbine tuned for max exhaust energy near the end of the track, where most power is needed - off-the-line off-idle spool-up would be non-existant and it would tow like a dog - I don't think too many KJ CRD owners would be willing to accept an improvement like that, eh..........
Wait a minute, I had a wastegated turbo on my CRD KJ. It was a 2003 model and it towed just fine, thank you!!! 
|
|
| Author: | DarbyWalters [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Uffe...gmctd is talking about a much larger style turbo without VVT or VGT ability. The other option that would work would be a sequential setup but then you have the added expense and intricacy of a twin turbo setup. A small turbo with a wastegate will still tow just fine since it spools up at lower rpms. |
|
| Author: | drtydzel [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well once I get some twin time under my belt with my 01 powerstroke I am thinking about trying to make a twin set for the little jeep. I would like to break 400-450 foot pounds of torque with the little 2.8L. Im not real sure how realistic these numbers are but with the power we can coax out of a larger engine I dont think its to unrealistic to have a 2.8L making that kind of power. Let me know what you think. O yeah some times old tech is the best tech just think about it. Less moving parts less to break. |
|
| Author: | gmctd [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Never hurts to experiment, but re-inventing the wheel seems wasteful - however, you'll need a up-close-and-personal relationship with somebody at DCJ to coax much more power outta the CRD 2.8L - there's grossly more power available (1 Bar = 2.8L; 2 Bar = 5.7L; 3 Bar = 8.5L, roughly speaking) but we got what's known as Torque Management Request syndrome, along with ESP in the '06's, guaranteed to limit power, even if you installed the turbo from the TITANIC on the little mule - and, Bob installed some kinky stuff in there, also, in order not to pay lip service to the tree huggers |
|
| Author: | Uffe [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
DarbyWalters wrote: Uffe...gmctd is talking about a much larger style turbo without VVT or VGT ability. The other option that would work would be a sequential setup but then you have the added expense and intricacy of a twin turbo setup. A small turbo with a wastegate will still tow just fine since it spools up at lower rpms.
Two turbos sound fine. BMW uses them in their new diesels, small turbo to begin with, big turbo to take the high end RPM (if there is such a thing as high RPM on a diesel engine  )
|
|
| Author: | gmctd [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Correct: - original technology = turbo - slow spool, good for fixed rpm band when matched to exhaust-gas energy in that band - next tech = turbo + popoff valve - slow spool, good for fixed rpm band, less shrapnel - next tech = turbo + built-in wastegate - good for low-rpm spool where exhaust energy is low, mediocre at hi rpm where exhaust energy is high, usually tuned to match vehicle characteristics, but mainly for torque at low-rpm (here's a hint: if you can easily make Boost in Neutral, the turbo is too small for your engine, which will restrict output at hiway rpm) - next (high)tech = turbo + Variable Vane Technology - good for low-rpm spool, better at hi rpm due to variable turbine nozzle A/R - next (super-high)tech = turbo + Variable Geometry Technology - good for low-rpm spool, really good at hi rpm Twin-turbos work fine where oem has not restricted btu output of engine in question - if fuel rates are programmed for 245hp max, adding twin turbos will only impress the wimmin (and the vendor chosen to sell the bling) |
|
| Author: | chadhargis [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm running the InMotion tune which is supposed to be putting out 330ft/lbs, and that's with no turbo upgrades (or any other upgrades for that matter). To me, the limit of the engine is the chassis. The short wheelbase really hurts it when towing unless you do some sort of load distribution hitch. |
|
| Author: | RTStabler51 [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
chadhargis wrote: I'm running the InMotion tune which is supposed to be putting out 330ft/lbs, and that's with no turbo upgrades (or any other upgrades for that matter). To me, the limit of the engine is the chassis. The short wheelbase really hurts it when towing unless you do some sort of load distribution hitch. Is that post F37?
|
|
| Author: | curtis [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Turbo upgrades |
drtydzel wrote: We have a Variable Vain Turbo in our Jeep's correct? This is the same thing as the Duramax and 6.0L Powerstroke but can we upgrade to a fixed vain turbo like they can to benefit certain types of driving more than others. Also we could get a more efficient turbo this way I believe as far as drive pressures and such let me know what you think about this idea.
I have been looking for a Stock Duramax Turbo to fit to my CRD, It's a larger Turbo and it still uses the same Variable vain technology and it is fueled by a CP3 pump like ours, So it might work out. |
|
| Author: | gmctd [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmmph! This thread oughta be in the women's section, talking abut variable vanity - guess it could be worse, tho: anybody ever hear of variable vein turbos? ...................... |
|
| Author: | warp2diesel [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Bigger turbo.... |
...takes more volume to spool up. Unlike the gassers, Diesels are RPM limited by the nature of the beast. It is true with modern technology we can get our 2.8L to rev up to 4,000 in stock mode with out sending all of the rods out the side of the block, but there is a limiting factor on how fast the injectors can fire and make things go. Many Years ago Mercedes got one of their diesels to crank up to 6,000 RPM before the era of the Common Rail, but this took a lot of work and the application was limited to the test track. Gas fuel injected engines of that era were cranking 10,000 on some of the test tracks. With the Quest of the ORT related technology, they all discovered going after TORQUE was more cost effective and produced better results along with better fuel economy. From this school of thought, many of the current production diesel engines evolved including our CRDs. In order to make a larger turbo work well, you would need to have a way to generate more exhaust flow by going to larger ports, larger valves, larger exhaust manifold or very elaborate headers, larger intake, higher flow injectors, and hope the block, rods, and crank are strong enough to handle the extra torque. If you are ready to machine your own crank out of a 4140 forged billet, harden it, temper it, grind it, and balance it, knock your self out  Rods will also need to be machined out of 4140 but you may be able to get away with half-hard and skip the heat treating process.
The best way to convert the 2.8L into a diesel racing engine would be to scrap the ECM and start over from scratch with your own logic using the Bosch logic as a guide line. Then hook up a bunch of sensors and push a test engine to the point of failure 
Before you do all of that, read up on turbochargers and how to hot rod engines, books are a cheaper way to learn than destroying engines. When you have a good sized stack of books you have read and re-read you are ready to go beyond stock. |
|
| Author: | Turbo Tim [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The main reason diesel engines are "RPM" limited is not because of the pistons, rods, etc., it is because of the burn speed of the fuel. Diesel fuel burns slow.... Another problem is the self ignition. To increase the RPM's of the engine, try adding nitrous oxide.... |
|
| Author: | blake1827 [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Turbo Tim wrote: The main reason diesel engines are "RPM" limited is not because of the pistons, rods, etc., it is because of the burn speed of the fuel. Diesel fuel burns slow.... Another problem is the self ignition.
To increase the RPM's of the engine, try adding nitrous oxide.... True, it takes a much longer amount of time for the full combustion of Diesel fuel; (compared to gassers in) it takes time to break down those looooooooong hydrocarbon chains and unleash all those BTU's; Which is why when you hammer the throttle you blow all kinds of partially combusted fuel initially. *Which is another reason why the Diesel's that run @ Le Man's are V12's, giving Rudolf's motor more time to burn the fuel completely. |
|
| Author: | warp2diesel [ Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bigger turbo.... |
warp2diesel wrote: In order to make a larger turbo work well, you would need to have a way to generate more exhaust flow by going to larger ports, larger valves, larger exhaust manifold or very elaborate headers, larger intake, higher flow injectors, and hope the block, rods, and crank are strong enough to handle the extra torque.
Mentioned the extra beef was to handle the EXTRA TORQUE, since higher RPMs is not obtainable to obtain the extra flow for a bigger turbo. |
|
| Author: | Uffe [ Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
blake1827 wrote: *Which is another reason why the Diesel's that run @ Le Man's are V12's, giving Rudolf's motor more time to burn the fuel completely.
V12 doesn't give more time than a straight 4 does it? I mean the crankshafts are rotating at the same speeds thus the four strokes have got the same time if the crank is connected to a straight 4 or a V12. No the V12 gives you smaller quantities of diesel injected (and needed to burn) PER CYLINDER. Which, I suppose, is what you really wanted to say
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|