how come... deseal

[curtis73]

That's probably because the common recipe for 12-second diesels starts with a 12-valve cummins. They smoke some from the factory.

A newer common-rail, piezo-injected diesel makes no smoke if running right, and you can barely smell it even standing right beside it. If that's not the case, its not running right, period. Breaking into the 12s can be done with no smoke, but it takes lots of tuning. The secret is to add more boost than fuel, keeping the air more plentiful than the mass of fuel.

AND... by the way, on the emissions front... the new 08 F-series diesel trucks meet ULEV standards, either meeting or beating every ULEV gas subcompact on the market. Source: www.dieselpowermag.com

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by GreyGoose006

how is the soot bad for the engine.
the soot is a byproduct of the engines incomplete combustion of the fuel.
...

the only engines that diesel soot would affect in any way is the engines of the surrounding cars. lol

The soot gets past the rings into the oil, where it remains in a suspension too fine for your filters to strain it out.

What sort of controller do you plan to use Curtis? Factory or otherwise?

[UncleBob]

Originally Posted by curtis73

AND... by the way, on the emissions front... the new 08 F-series diesel trucks meet ULEV standards, either meeting or beating every ULEV gas subcompact on the market. Source: www.dieselpowermag.com

got a direct link? I'm not digging through that entire site to find what you're refering to

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by KiwiBacon

What sort of controller do you plan to use Curtis? Factory or otherwise?

Quadzilla. Like this one: http://www.quadzillapower.com/products/stealth2.html
Alone it will add 215 hp and 415 tq which accounts for 540 hp and knocking squarely on 950 tq at the flywheel. A free-flowing intake is good for another 25+ hp, and a 4" downpipe/big exhaust is worth another 60 or more. Torque numbers jump about 40 lb-ft for the intake and 80-100 for the exhaust. Careful tuning can net even more, as has been demonstrated by actual dyno tests. Diesel power mag did an article with dyno-proven recipes and the quadzilla/intake/exhaust recipe on an LB7 Dmax put a clean 900 lb-ft to the rollers, so that could be 1100 at the flywheel. That article appeared in either the April or May issue, but I can't find it online for a link. The original Quadzilla Stealth (not the stealth2) was capable of a bit more, but it offered too much user-input and guys were modding without paying attention to EGTs. The Stealth2 is a bit more restrictive and saves their butts when stupid owners who don't do aftermarket exhaust ask why their turbo is in a molten puddle.

got a direct link? I'm not digging through that entire site to find what you're refering to

Sure... http://www.dieselpowermag.com/featur.../examples.html

A quote from that link:

Originally Posted by Diesel Power Magazine

"Myth" No. 4: Diesels Will Never Be Clean-Emissions Vehicles
It might shock you to learn that not only are diesels clean, but some (like the '08 Ford F-series) are also considered ultra-low-emissions vehicles.... Can diesels be clean? Yes, but it isn't easy. A lot of work and engineering went into the new emissions-friendly diesels

And as far as power versus torque, its simple math and boost. Another quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel Power Magazine

"MYTH" No. 3: Diesels Have Great Torque But Will Never Be As Powerful As Gas Engines
Everybody know diesels can kick the pants off a gas engine in torque, but what about horsepower? After all, if you have 1,000 lb-ft of torque and the guy next to you has a gas engine with 1,000 lb-ft of torque, you're still going to lose. That's because he probably has 1,000 hp to your 500 hp.
So can diesel engines really be as powerful as their gas counterparts while still having a torque advantage? For this answer, we have to go to the most powerful engines in the gas and diesel worlds-leading us to the light-and-fast world of drag racing and the heavy-and-slow world of tractor pulling. In drag racing, the Pro Modified class is one of the best examples of what a no-limits gas engine can do. With cubic inches in the 700-plus range, racers using naturally aspirated engines and 1,200 hp worth of nitrous oxide are pushing numbers in the 2,500hp range.
Mike Moran, who runs a turbocharged entry in the class, is thought to be in the 3,000hp range. By contrast, Super Stock-class diesel tractors can have up to 640 ci of displacement (that's 11 liters), run up to four turbos, and reach 250 psi of boost in the sled-pulling world. All this pressure adds up to horsepower in the 2,500-3,000hp range, as far as anyone can guess. The engines are roughly the same displacement, and oddly enough, have about the same airflow capability, but each uses its own strengths to the fullest. The gas engines will spin nearly 8,000 rpm despite their size, while diesels use half the rpm and five times more boost to generate similar power numbers. So can diesel compete with gas for all-out power? You bet.

Another note on emission standards. By 2010, the EPA will require nearly zero emissions from vehicles. The 2010 Bluetec from mercedes is already in testing and actually puts out CLEANER air than it ingests. Until it makes it through the air filter, then a new special catalyst, and two particulate scrubbers, its actually cleaner than what goes in. I'll try to find a link for that one as well, but its kinda hush hush. If I hadn't worked as an engineer in the biz I probably wouldn't have been privvy to that information.

[UncleBob]

Originally Posted by curtis73

Sure... http://www.dieselpowermag.com/featur.../examples.html

A quote from that link:

This article doesn't give any details at all. Just vague hand waving. I was hoping for some actual numbers.

And as far as power versus torque, its simple math and boost. Another

That was a rather selective comparison.

If you're going to use diesel engines that rely so heavily on turbo's to make their HP numbers, why don't you compare them to similar turbo-heavy gas engines?

Supra's have gotten well over 1200hp from their little 3.0L engines for example. Or an even smaller engine to use as a measuring stick, busa's are 1.3L that have made over 700hp

I agree that diesels have their advantages, but this skewed way of comparing them to make-believe there's a simple 1:1 ratio between the two for power is plain silly.

Another note on emission standards. By 2010, the EPA will require nearly zero emissions from vehicles. The 2010 Bluetec from mercedes is already in testing and actually puts out CLEANER air than it ingests. Until it makes it through the air filter, then a new special catalyst, and two particulate scrubbers, its actually cleaner than what goes in. I'll try to find a link for that one as well, but its kinda hush hush. If I hadn't worked as an engineer in the biz I probably wouldn't have been privvy to that information.

I'd love to see it. Its been a while, but I used to have the EPA charts for future emission limits, and I don't remember 2010 being "nearly zero emissions" for diesels, but it was quite awhile ago that I looked at it, and my memory could be fuzzy

[GreyGoose006]

Originally Posted by UncleBob

Supra's have gotten well over 1200hp from their little 3.0L engines for example. Or an even smaller engine to use as a measuring stick, busa's are 1.3L that have made over 700hp

I agree that diesels have their advantages, but this skewed way of comparing them to make-believe there's a simple 1:1 ratio between the two for power is plain silly.

yes, this is true, but...

your 'busa with 700 hp and 30 psi of boost is only making about 150lb-ft of torque. definitely not 1400 lb-ft.

what you are ignoring is that power is a function of torque multiplied by revs.
the only reason that a 'busa makes 700 hp is because it revs the piss out of it.
if a diesel engine were to rev to 14,000+ rpms, it would make more power than a gas engine and we would all drive diesels.


curtis's comparison was inacurate.
instead of comparing funnycars and tractor-pull monsters, why not look to lemans for our answer.
there, audi is running a v12 TDI that is winning races over gas engines.\

[curtis73]

Yeah.. every once in a while I go over to epa.gov and try to make sense of their garbled crap, but its not easy. The 2010 standards will be the first to call for no measurable particulates. I forget if they have a size limitation on the particulates or if its across the board. They are also calling for nearly zero measurable HC. Easy for a diesel, tough for a gas. Pretty much everything from what I understand will have to have an intercooled EGR by 2010 to keep NOx in line with the new standards but I forget what the EPA will allow. Last year at SEMA I picked up a brochure from the SAN (Sema action network) booth that listed the 2010 numbers, but that was over a year ago When I get some free time I'll search at SAN and EPA to see what links I can come up with for you all.

I agree... you can't compare diesel to gas 1:1. I wasn't saying that diesel is better, merely that both fuels can offer the same type of output; its just the diesel relies on HD components and tons of boost with fewer RPMs.

I personally think diesel is a bit more universally better for the street, not because I have a fluffy idealistic view of it, but as an engineer and someone who seeks unbiased information on the topic, I just try to be an advocate when the old myths resurface. I also understand that part of it is opinion; like they're too smelly or too noisy. They do have an odor, but I don't find it any more offensive than gasoline exhuast. I find it much less offensive than that rotten egg smell you get from many catalytic converters. My wife actually likes the sulphur smell, but she doesn't count.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by GreyGoose006

curtis's comparison was inacurate.
instead of comparing funnycars and tractor-pull monsters,

Hey, now... hold on there... It wasn't MY comparison, it was Diesel Power Magazine's comparison

[UncleBob]

Originally Posted by GreyGoose006

yes, this is true, but...

your 'busa with 700 hp and 30 psi of boost is only making about 150lb-ft of torque. definitely not 1400 lb-ft.

what you are ignoring is that power is a function of torque multiplied by revs.
the only reason that a 'busa makes 700 hp is because it revs the piss out of it.
if a diesel engine were to rev to 14,000+ rpms, it would make more power than a gas engine and we would all drive diesels.


curtis's comparison was inacurate.
instead of comparing funnycars and tractor-pull monsters, why not look to lemans for our answer.
there, audi is running a v12 TDI that is winning races over gas engines.\

its 350ft/lbs at 11K RPM's btw

And I'm fully aware of how HP is calculated. Thats why its silly to compare a huge cubic gas engine that's naturally asperated with horrible valve flow and relatively low RPM, to a 250psi boosted huge cubic diesel engine with horrible valve flow and low RPM capability. Gas engines shine because they can rev (when you design them for it). Diesels can overcome their valve flow issues with boost

Take a more real day example. A LS2 6.0L gas engine with a turbo vs a 5.9L cummins. Now find me a 5.9L that makes 1500hp. its quite easy to get that out of a LS2, and you don't even have to rev it all that high. Imagine what you could do with a 4 valve per cylinder 6.0L

[UncleBob]

Originally Posted by curtis73

Yeah.. every once in a while I go over to epa.gov and try to make sense of their garbled crap, but its not easy. The 2010 standards will be the first to call for no measurable particulates. I forget if they have a size limitation on the particulates or if its across the board. They are also calling for nearly zero measurable HC. Easy for a diesel, tough for a gas. Pretty much everything from what I understand will have to have an intercooled EGR by 2010 to keep NOx in line with the new standards but I forget what the EPA will allow. Last year at SEMA I picked up a brochure from the SAN (Sema action network) booth that listed the 2010 numbers, but that was over a year ago When I get some free time I'll search at SAN and EPA to see what links I can come up with for you all.

although I don't do any testing with a dyno (grams per mile) I do test often for percentages of emissions. HC has been nearly zero from gas cars for years. Not uncommon at all to see 5 PPM or less

NOx is the big question though. Again, cars have been super clean for quite some time. Even at WOT you rarely see over 40 PPM in modern cars.

As for odor, there's usually something wrong if you smell sulfur. Cars are pretty much odorless (or should be)

[jayjack]

when you said "5" exhuast and 4" downpipe, stock cats, " what exectally is the downpipe and the cats? i have heard of them often but never really knew what they were

[curtis73]

Downpipe is a fancy name for the pipe that goes between the turbine outlet and the cat. Most diesels today have very restrictive downpipes because they are packaged in tight spots near the firewall. As you know if you reduce the restriction to flow after a turbo it has less of a fight spooling up. It just equals more boost faster if you use a larger downpipe.

Saying "cat" is just a shortened form of catalytic converter. So in my example, I would be replacing the factory 3" crimped downpipe with a mandrel bent 4" to the converter, then a big 5" pipe from the converter back to the tailpipe.

[beef_bourito]

why would you use 5" after the cat and 4" before the cat? wouldn't you want to use the same length or slightly smaller because the cat would reduce the exhaust velocity so you can get away with using a smaller pipe. I don't see what you'd get from a larger one. I understand why you'd use smaller pre-turbo and larger post-turbo but not before and after cats.

[curtis73]

Two reasons; both of them centering on the fact that a turbo diesel doesn't need exhaust velocity. Velocity and exhaust tuning is there to help scavenging when during valve overlap. Almost all diesel cams have no overlap, so no scavenging. Also, turbos would negate any scavenging since the exhuast won't pull through the turbo. Any exhaust pulses and velocity would stop at the turbo. Plus, a turbo's job is to force extra air in the cylinder, so scavenging isn't required.

With a turbo (especially diesel) the argument could be made that bigger is better on the exhaust side of things. Just get rid of it.

[UncleBob]

Originally Posted by curtis73

With a turbo (especially diesel) the argument could be made that bigger is better on the exhaust side of things. Just get rid of it.

gas or diesel its the same.

My drag race bike has a 6" pipe off the turbo. Only reason its even that long is a) needed a place to put the WBO2, and b) reduce carbon staining on the motor