Diesel Place banner

41 - 60 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,149 Posts
Darker blue is higher efficiency. But the efficiency only peaks at 62%.
The lighter blue the more heat you are going to get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #42 (Edited)
@oilpan4
Didn't measure the distance between SC and hood, it is close, but there is no dents in the hood insulation.

Thanks for explaining the charts, i needed that too :)
I think you hit right about the SC power requirement in high boost and revs. As well as with the psi. As you can read below.

--

The machine shop guy was quick. I dropped the parts there 9am yesterday morning, and received a call 11am it is ready to pick up :thumb: the adapter did not need much turning when SC pulley is fitted text labels backside. The pulley is for LSx engine and two opposite bolt holes shoots right up with 6.2 damper, two holes required drilling.


.

Bolted the pulley in. And measured new minimum belt length 1505mm. Found 6-rib 1513 and 1530, of which the 1530 fits. 1525 would be perfect. Fired it up, and belt flew off constantly before i even got to the engine to have a chance to see why. Line up was good, but found out the tensioner was just a degree or two in wrong angle. Bent the bracket to correct angle and luckily found in garage a tensioner roller with belt guides that bolted right on. Belt stays on.




BTW; Noted that the engine runs without the SC belt. engine vacuum forces the SC to spin and let air through.

-

The boost. now we have it :whistle: almost 4psi at idle. 8-10psi at approx 2000 and 13-14psi at over 3000. Trying to drive as easy as you can the pressure would not never drop below 7psi. Rev just a little and you see 10+ psi.

SC belt&rotors whining sound is audible all times, unless idling.
Intake noise from the SC rotors is loud, even idling, a bit annoying. However, my cheapo k&n replica & paper bin air filter setup behind the grille might be a major noise reflector :HiHi:


.

Got to a test drive yesterday evening. The power was not as good as you would expect for such boost. I guess now the SC pulls huge power to make huge pressure. And furthermore, the IP can't deliver fuel for all that available air.

Today i turned the IP injection screw. Actually i turned it all the way to the end. It is now turned ~3/4 turns from the basic setting, and is bottomed out. I also retarded IP timing a bit to save the engine internals under all that boost.

New test drive. Better power. Still the IP can't deliver fuel enough to benefit 14psi. Never got any traces of smoke out on tail pipes. It pulls good, sure, until high revs and boost, it is obviously short on injection. On the other hand with this much mechanically generated pressure, i am sure the efficiency and mileage will suck, so i am not considering an IP modification. Also all that SC and intake noises with today's SC rpms would be irritating in the long run.


I might find a third SC pulley, somewhere in the middle of 6.7 and 9.2". There are a few other size options for the same ATI pulley. I only would need to drill the two holes in the pulley to install. Bad thing is that the ATI pulleys are $140, that's over €200 with cargo and local taxes. Anyone need a slightly used 9.2" pulley with 2 extra holes? :HiHi: Second option would be bigger SC pulley, but it is easier to replace the crank pulley and Eaton pulleys are not complimentary either.

ATI-916163-5 is 8.4". pulley ratio would be 3.0. According to the above mentioned equation that would make 9.9psi.
ATI-916163 has no diameter nor picture listed, as far as i understand it should be the same series and 5% smaller, 8.0". Ratio would be 2.86 and calculated boost 8.7psi.

Please share your opinion for the third pulley.
 

·
respect the DB4 5722....
Joined
·
12,490 Posts
Are you planning to install air temperature gauge to see how hot it is after the charger?
this is where the over-all efficiency of the system will stand out, whether good or bad, be nice to know EGT as well....:popcorn: from some of the searching we have done in the past, the M-112 is still a bit on the small size for our air requirements, better yet would be to try out what dieselpro mentioned earlier about the electric clutch to pop it out of the system at higher rpms.... we have an M-122 on the shelf, but the biggest issue i see with it is the shorter snout making it harder to place for belt alignment....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,149 Posts
The jag snout isn't as common over here.
You can buy a jag snout kit but you will pay almost as much for the jag snout as the cost of a used take off M122 from a pony car.

Running 4psi at idle now might be a good time for that bypass unless you want it to warm up faster during idle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
The jag snout isn't as common over here.
You can buy a jag snout kit but you will pay almost as much for the jag snout as the cost of a used take off M122 from a pony car.

Running 4psi at idle now might be a good time for that bypass unless you want it to warm up faster during idle.
So how I see it, the only senseful solution here is to buy another M112 and twin supercharge. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,441 Posts
But dear, it turns out it's cheaper if I put in 2 superchargers. No, really.
 

·
respect the DB4 5722....
Joined
·
12,490 Posts
So how I see it, the only senseful solution here is to buy another M112 and twin supercharge. :)
now thats enough CFM.....:thumb:, and a bit more noise...:whistle:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #49 (Edited)
Yes, i have to do the intake temp gauge some day soon. Too bad i didn't realize the need when the first 6.7" pulley. That would be good reference data to compare the pulley ratio efficiency. Now the adapter is modified to ATI pulley, and i can't easily go back to read the 6.7 pulley again.

With the 6.7" pulley (2.4 ratio) the engine was acting good. not much difference to normally aspirated, but noticeably better usable power. Good behaving and silent engine.

With 9.2" pulley and 3.3 ratio, engine feels like a poorly tuned race diesel :D
Looking at the oilpan4's fifty shades of blue for m112 power requirement, i can see Eaton is pulling 50-60hp parasitic to generate 14psi above [email protected] ([email protected]). At cruising, 2krpm, crank power loss is ~25hp (8-9psi @ 6600 SC-rpm).

No wonder the feel of pants performance did not increase too much comparing to the first pulley edition. Nevertheless, I think i just had to experiment the boost limits. This is a learning process. I am trying to find the best of both worlds - power and efficiency.

Now running the big ratio pulley with bypass open it feels right. Nice torque all around, as a mild big block down low. The by-pass, as mentioned previously, is a heater core valve. The orifice diameter is about 16mm (5/8"). By-pass-valve open, the pressure is approx 2psi @idle, 5-7psi cruising and 9-10psi max. I suppose this is the correct pressure level to shoot for, with stock IP and M112. The M112 might get too far off out of zone on higher boost levels. As @turbonator says, maybe an M122 would do better for high boost.

I don't think it is efficient to run big pulley and bypass the once pressurized and heated air back to the SC inlet. So i still need a new pulley.
Doing the math, a crank pulley 7.5-8" (~2.7 - 2.9 pulley ratio) should do the aimed psi.

The 9.2" pulley will be stocked on my shelf for the day when i have a new/modified IP for better injection potential, and have maybe an intercooler installed.

I'll do the requested video someday :)
 

·
respect the DB4 5722....
Joined
·
12,490 Posts
Yes, i have to do the intake temp gauge some day soon. Too bad i didn't realize the need when the first 6.7" pulley. That would be good reference data to compare the pulley ratio efficiency. Now the adapter is modified to ATI pulley, and i can't easily go back to read the 6.7 pulley again.

With the 6.7" pulley (2.4 ratio) the engine was acting good. not much difference to normally aspirated, but noticeably better usable power. Good behaving and silent engine.

With 9.2" pulley and 3.3 ratio, engine feels like a poorly tuned race diesel :D
Looking at the oilpan4's fifty shades of blue for m112 power requirement, i can see Eaton is pulling 50-60hp parasitic to generate 14psi above [email protected] ([email protected]). At cruising, 2krpm, crank power loss is ~25hp (8-9psi @ 6600 SC-rpm).

No wonder the feel of pants performance did not increase too much comparing to the first pulley edition. Nevertheless, I think i just had to experiment the boost limits. This is a learning process. I am trying to find the best of both worlds - power and efficiency.

Now running the big ratio pulley with bypass open it feels right. Nice torque all around, as a mild big block down low. The by-pass, as mentioned previously, is a heater core valve. The orifice diameter is about 16mm (5/8"). By-pass-valve open, the pressure is approx 2psi @idle, 5-7psi cruising and 9-10psi max. I suppose this is the correct pressure level to shoot for, with stock IP and M112. The M112 might get too far off out of zone on higher boost levels. As @turbonator says, maybe an M122 would do better for high boost.

I don't think it is efficient to run big pulley and bypass the once pressurized and heated air back to the SC inlet. So i still need a new pulley.
Doing the math, a crank pulley 7.5-8" (~2.7 - 2.9 pulley ratio) should do the aimed psi.

The 9.2" pulley will be stocked on my shelf for the day when i have a new/modified IP for better injection potential, and have maybe an intercooler installed.

I'll do the requested video someday :)
i think the m-112 would be perfect if you ran an electric clutch, and used the m-112 to spool up a large turbo, that was also exhaust driven, like a HT3B holset with a 26-28cm2 exhaust turbine, or an S475 borg warner, you would have an intense set-up that would probably pop your stock engine.... but would be the best of both worlds, and seriously haul ass....:eek:
crazy carl has tried many different versions of this on the cummins, from single turbo to triples spooled by super chargers.......
first attempt https://youtu.be/ER9ddBIseTo

pics
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,149 Posts
I have seen the compressor map for the M122 and because you gave me the information to plot the air flow with the M112 I looks like an M122 feeding air into a 6.2L it would go right across the peak compressor efficiency which is something like 72%. A lot more efficient than the M112.
But the M122 maps I can find don't have compressor RPM listed but its still a pretty good guess. Get the same boost with 10% to 12% less power. The compressor could turn slower, run cooler thus lasting longer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,625 Posts
i think the m-112 would be perfect if you ran an electric clutch, and used the m-112 to spool up a large turbo, that was also exhaust driven, like a HT3B holset with a 26-28cm2 exhaust turbine, or an S475 borg warner, you would have an intense set-up that would probably pop your stock engine.... but would be the best of both worlds, and seriously haul ass....:eek:
crazy carl has tried many different versions of this on the cummins, from single turbo to triples spooled by super chargers.......
first attempt https://youtu.be/ER9ddBIseTo

pics
Well now, if that aint somethin!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaryd

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #53 (Edited)
no big news this time.

I've been driving around with the big 9.2 pulley bypass wide open all times now. drives decent, nice power around 2000rpm, where bypassed pressure is ~5-6. As said before, still, when revs flash up the engine performance lineary bogs down. My solid impression is, the Eaton pulls too much power at high revs/boost to benefit wheel turning power (at least with stock injection pump potential).

The SC noise yet is irritating with this big pulley ratio. Sound might be good to a street racer, not my truck.

I browsed the pulley offering further, and planned to be moderate this time. placed an oder for 4MA018-061 Vortech pulley. It is 7.8" diameter. 1.1" bigger to the first edition 6.7" -- And 1.4" smaller to contemporary.

7.8" crank pulley should do reasonable boost numbers and wheel power. powerful, happy, usable and relatively efficient engine for the rpms it will daily see. that's what i am hoping to experience.




here is my estimation for the M112 power requirement with 7.8" pulley.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
How does the bypass work? Is it just an passage integrated to the blower?

I have taken a lot of motivation from your project and been researching about a 6v71 blower into a 6.2. Research so far tells me there are two reasons why it is a perfect fit
1. It looks cool
2. To not give a ****

Bad boost at low rpm because so poor VE (like 40-50% from the data Ive seen). If you overdrive it then at higher rpm it makes too much heat and take too much power. But I have two plans.

1. Overdrive and a switch to turn it off. Only use it when cruising around town looking like a badass.

2. Add a big ass turbo and when it kicks in at higher rpm it lowers the blowers compression ratio thus making it more eff.. Well less inefficient. And you're even more badass with your turbo-supercharged truck. With 200hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,870 Posts
The classic roots blowers are very inefficient, Old design never originally intended for high boost there are other types of blowers that are much more recent design and more efficient. True many of them have as much of the 'cool' factor.
I think it was mentioned but there was a turbo supercharged Green Mercedes W123 wagon with a OM617. larger elements on the M style pump. but it grenaded not long after it was finished, partially because it was built on a non-turbo engine...and second..they did push a LOT out of it. Somewhere I may still have a lot of pictures of it if I can find them.

Problem is usually past a certain point, power comes at the cost of drive-ability and/or reliability.

Realistically knowing going into it what you will accept in exchange for what you will get. If it can be done cheap enough..neither might really matter...some projects the fun of doing it is enough reward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #56 (Edited)
i received the new pulley 7.8"
This is a smart piece of aluminium; bolt pattern shoots right up to the 6.2 damper. Only 2/4 holes required a slightly bigger drill.

The adapter center ring collar (turned to fit to the old 9.2" pulley) was 2mm too small to center the new pulley. I solved the problem with 1mm steel wire bent to circle to act as a collar sleeve. That was enough to get pulley centered; tightened bolts keep it set. Machine shop €80 saved :clap:

.

.
As the new pulley is 10-groove there is plenty of groove alternatives to line up with a 6-groove belt. Luckily the pulley height offset for belt alignment lines up perfectly setting the belt on the second groove.

.
crank pulleys, the new in the middle

.


With this pulley ratio the engine/blower setup feels excellent.
@1800-2000rpm, cruising 80kmh (50mph) 5psi boost.
High rpm max boost is 8-9psi. [psi estimation with the above mentioned equation corresponds surprisingly well to real boost]

Engine is now very responsive for a diesel. Strong torque for everyday driving. Around every corner i want to accelerate a little more than needed just to feel the torque :whistle: The truck will lay a few meters rubber flooring the pedal. The excessive SC noise is tamed down with this pulley ratio too.

The outcome of the project is pretty much what i was looking for, awesome :thumb:


For an added charger here in Finland you need to have an vehicle inspection, to record the mechanical changes in the local DMV register. For that i need to show a dyno-sheet. I'll try to book the dyno asap. It will be interesting to see the power numbers. I'll publish the result here


@Catrik; the by-pass is a hose with a valve from the pressure box to the charger intake. I did not receive the original Eaton by-pass setup with the charger. Thumbs up for your 6-71 plan. Nice thing when doing a blower is, that you can most of the time still drive the truck with unfinished setup.

.
 

·
respect the DB4 5722....
Joined
·
12,490 Posts
Really looking forward to seeing your dyno-sheet. Would like to compare it with a few we have here from dyno'ing with turbo set-ups.....great project.....J&J.:thumb::thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
Hi,

Sorry for the delay.

I got the truck dynoed. I booked the cheapest dyno place around. This guy promised power and torque curves, but it turned out that he could do only max power. Hope at least this reading is close to accurate.

Vechicle on his dyno needs to run direct gear (3rd in th700) to represent reliable numbers. Hence he needs to slowly accelerate on the rollers, shifter at low-D, until up to 3rd gear, and then give it a go. Hence, only max power numbers are available and the graph is not accurate outside the max point. Which, however was sufficient to write the document for the mentioned, required vehicle inspection.

Max power at wheels is (94kW=) [email protected]



The dyno guy estimated total power-train loss at 50-60hp(?).
That would make ~180-190hp at flexplate.

The result is a bit dissappointment. But more letdown is that i have no comparable data for the ~2000rpm, that's where the most improvement can be felt behind the wheel. +180hp max engine power is decent dumber, but on this setup it does not tell the whole truth, since the feel-of-pants-dyno states the torque curve is definately more impressive than the highest hp reading.

First dyno runs were made the by-pass valve closed, where max boost is approx 9psi. That is where the max power was achieved. Engine did not generate much smoke there.

For reference we did one run the pressure by-pass open where max boost was 5psi. Power was dropped only a 5hp, and visibly more exhaust smoke.

In my reasoning the small difference in runs say
1) injection pump can't deliver fuel enough to benefit high boost
2) blower parasitic energy increase sustantially above 5psi


After the dyno I did the DMV inspection to legally record the mechanical changes in vehicle. Here in Finland, for diesel vehicles, we have a smoke test where the inspector quickly, at idle in neutral, floors the pedal to measure the amount of diesel smoke, to interpret the amount of incomplete combustion (aka K-factor). Max acceptable K-value here is 3.0. The result was excellent for a dinosaur era diesel: 0.9.

Last year inspection, if my memory serves me, without the blower the smoke test K-value was 1.8. This validates the theory that the engine internal combustion now is very clean due to the boosted oxygen available. On the other hand, it proves that the engine could efficently burn a lot more fuel for power. Anyway, now the truck is legally verified to drive around.

I really need to consider to modify the pump or get a pump with more delivery potential. I am sure the hands on IP delivery mods has been discussed on this site. I would appreciate, if you could link me to a topic. Or if you have time to help and write here, please let me know where to get bigger plungers, what size is recommended for the charged DB2 and what other IP modifications should be considered too?

One drawback came up after the dyno run: TCC on the TH700 would constantly cycle on and off now. If i only knew, i would have turned off TCC for the dyno. Now to troubleshoot I did a LED on the TCC signal wire: the tranny is getting TCC command right. So the problem must be inside the tranny. Already replaced the TCC solenoid without a cure. What might have gone bad in tranny TCC circuit at dyno?

Otherwise overall i have been very pleased with the blower 6.2 setup. Nice everyday power, the mileage didn't drop fatally. Didn't measure the mileage, but my wallet says not too much difference to naturally aspirated. I would not turn back to N/A or turbo. I can recommend a blower to 6.x, eventhough (or because :HiHi:) it is a rare solution.


Here is a youtube video link to first dyno runs and on the road. Hope it is any enjoy. On the dead stop acceleration traction is a problem, which you can hear on some scenes, although i am trying to be easy on the pedal. Sorry for my video'd audible sigh sounds :)

dyno (youtube)
on the road (youtube)


Thanks again for all you guy's support and feedback to the project :thumb:
 

·
respect the DB4 5722....
Joined
·
12,490 Posts
nice job buddy,:thumb: kudos to you for all your efforts up til now, you are now addicted....LOL...

so, what is you injection pump currently set to? is it turned wide open, or still at stock setting? you can probably get away with cranking the .290" wide open, and the engine will still survive, but if you go to a .310", it would be strongly suggested by us to also upgrade to fresh head gaskets, installed with head studs, as you will likely blow the old gasket/TTY headbolt combo in short order....

we will help you as best we can from our end here.... if you do turn up your injection pump it is strongly advised to do it from the side access, and not through the top..... thanks again for sharing...J&J......:thumb::thumb:
 
41 - 60 of 79 Posts
Top