Not to reopen a debate that seems to be finished if not resolved, but... Members may find the following site instructive although the same information may be found at the Catapillar or John Deere sites. http://www.lugger.com/
If you look at the L1066 engine for instance, you will see that it can produce 125 HP using anywhere from 1 to 2.7 gph depending on degree of boost and intercooling or, put another way, anywhere fron 90 to 125 HP on one gph. Look at flywheel HP, propeller HP only tells how much HP a std. propeller absorbs at various RPM's. not engine output. IMHO this shows that HP gains are possible, up to a point, with additional boost and charge cooling without additional fuel.

Not Agian

(Although this does back up my statements further)

__________________
green 85 300SD 200K miles "Das Schlepper Frog" With a OM603 TBO360 turbo ( To be intercooled someday )( Kalifornistani emissons )
white 79 300SD 200K'ish miles "Farfegnugen" (RIP - cracked crank)
desert storm primer 63 T-bird "The Undead" (long term hibernation)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/fe-graphs/sig692a.png

All the same displacement, 4 valve engine, all turbocharged, 2 w/ intercooling. HP is HP and GPM is GPM.

Yeah the more you pump them the faster they blow. Take a NA 3208 for example that puts out what maybe 250hp? Vs the pumped 3208 that puts down oh about 435 I think. Which one has the bad rep?

As MTU knows usually they will make 3-4 different stages you can get and engine, depending on the aplication. The fishing boat wants and engine that they can run tens of thousands of hours on cheaply. The guy with the 61ft Viking wants to go 40+ knots and couldn't care less about fuel burn or cost.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

That the high output engine won't last as long or makes its HP at a different RPM is not in question. The fact is it makes the same HP with less fuel by virtue of more boost & more intercooling. I thought that was what we were discussing not longevity... or fishing.

wait a minute - Yeah! The 3208 - the one in the industry known as the 'throw-away' diesel!

bnc

gallons per hour for a heavy duty motor like that is a very rough estimate. it cant be compared to our cars where it is very easy to measure the mpg. those figures in the first post really mean nothing to this argument.

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Tom, Of course these are not "rough estimates" if they were, they would have armed watermen at their door. I dare say they are much more accurate than the EPA garbage on the window stickers. They may even be SAE certified in the case of Cataplliar's numbers.
MTU,
Of course I read the information before I posted. Thanks for the explanation for members not familar with marine diesels. And thanks from me because I think I can rest my case... Changing the parameters of a given engine (degree of boost, charge cooling, nozzles, pump settings, timing, RPM range, valves per cyl) result in different output ranges. I think we are in agreement up to this point? I am going on to say is that one of the output ranges results in the same HP with a lower fuel burn, or more HP with the same burn; then more HP is being produced with the same fuel. Why is that so difficult to accept.
Put another way, if you can increase your specific burn by intaking hot air from your engine room/compartment or operating with a dirty air cleaner then it follows that cooling the intake or freeing the induction system will decrease specific fuel burn.
Even my dog knows that there is no such thing as a standard propeller in the real world but these pdhp curves, or propeller law curves, are arrived at by plotting the power a standard (typical, theoritical you pick the word) propeller would absorb to indicate that the engine output curve does not fall below this level at any point in the operating range (overload). In reality, depending on transmission selected and countless other factors any of hunderds of propeller combinations could end up being used on a given vessel.
No I won't take what you are saying as an insult because you don't know anything about me or my background. I have however exclusively maintained the engines in 3 diesel cars and 2 diesel boats over the last 35 years. I have spent over 50 years, man & boy, on the water; 35 with a diesel power, w/ 6 years as an inshore lobsterman. True I never had 1500 hp engines or anything close to it; but, to quote my wife, "you don't have to know what is under the hood to be a good driver"

I guess I need to add more fuel to the flames without increasing boost

This statement is not true.

An increase in boost or/and decrease in intake charge temp puts more air in the cylinder for the fuel to work on.


You can just add an intercooler and get more power. Here is a dyno result of an engine with no fuel tweak.



http://www.dencodiesel.com/toyota%20hdj79%20series.jpg




Now if you want to tweak fuel you can get alot more than just intercooling alone



http://www.dencodiesel.com/TOYOTA%20HDJ79%20WITH%20MODULE%20JPEG.jpg

I have already found a scientificly conducted test that held all other variables constant and increased boost and showed a corisponding increase in power output

http://powerlab.mech.okayama-u.ac.jp/~esd/comodia2004/A6_1_022.pdf


Q.E.D.

This debate is done, put a fork in it.

__________________
green 85 300SD 200K miles "Das Schlepper Frog" With a OM603 TBO360 turbo ( To be intercooled someday )( Kalifornistani emissons )
white 79 300SD 200K'ish miles "Farfegnugen" (RIP - cracked crank)
desert storm primer 63 T-bird "The Undead" (long term hibernation)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/fe-graphs/sig692a.png

Although I have learned a little about propellers, fishing, and spelling from MTU, I have learned nothing about diesel engines which was not just an intractable opinion. Thanks for the links and information Clark.

Bravo Clark I see you havn't given up banging your drum yet. Every freaken diesel tunner must be wrong! Please by all means write a book and start cashing in on this discovery.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

MTU, I am enjoying this discussion with you and I hope you take any little "digs" in the spirit they are meant; that is, to enliven the discussion not to insult.
Not to belabor this particular engine, but considering for a moment, only the first two configurations not the pleasure boat model which by virtue of its different cylinder head (among other things) is mechanically different.
Of the first two models, one turbocharged and one TI. Looking at only the continuous duty ratings for instance to minimize longevity issues, not that that is what we are discussing; the turbo only version produces 123 hp using 2.7 GPH and the turbo/intercooled version produces 140 hp burning 1.8 GPM.
I guess my point is that these figures seem to me to indicate that more hp can be produced without more fuel (up to a point) and if it takes intercooling, turbo boost, or even injection system & valve arrangement changes; as long as no more fuel is required, I think my argument holds.
How about some facts, specs, to the contrary? I think I already know what you think.

I see no reason to terminate this discussion on this forum until everyone has said what they have to say. No one is forcing anyone to read this thread. But then, as a newcomer, I am not familar with the "rules". This is a diesel discussion and it does have bearing on many other discussions here.

Okay, Time to lay the smack down.

If you would do the math based on the dyno results of just adding an intercooler its almost a 3% increase.

Now this is a total sign of desperation on your part, you trash talk me once and then do it again before I have a chance to respond. You first state its not possible to get more power with out adding more fuel on all diesel engines. When confronted with dyno results and a paper on a scientific test you now say its may work on other engines but not a mercedes.


Ring the bell, school is now in session

In your fourth post of this thread you said "If it was or is a simple as adding boost or intercooling to any engine to make more HP you have made the discovery of the century". I cannot take credit for this discovery. For one I didn't discover it, and another the discovery is over 100 years old. In 1882 Sir Dugald Clerk discovered that the thermal efficiency was based on compression ratio. It has been tested and confirmed several times on several different engines running several different combustion cycles. It doesn't take a genious to see that a turbo does some of the work compressing the air and recovers some of the energy to power the work done. The turbo becomes part of the combustion cycle of the piston. The more boost it produces the greater the over all compression ratio of the total cycle. The greater the over all compression ratio the greater the thermal efficiency. The greater the thermal efficiency the greater the amount of power you can extract from the same amount of fuel. This is a fundamental principle of thermodynamics and has been proven time and time again mathematically, scientifically, and in the real world.

I have done computer simulations. I have found scientific tests. I have found dyno tests. They all agree with what I have stated. Your turn, lets see a computer simulation, a scientific test, and even a dyno that disproves it.

I may not spell or type very well, but I have my thermodynamics down pat.

__________________
green 85 300SD 200K miles "Das Schlepper Frog" With a OM603 TBO360 turbo ( To be intercooled someday )( Kalifornistani emissons )
white 79 300SD 200K'ish miles "Farfegnugen" (RIP - cracked crank)
desert storm primer 63 T-bird "The Undead" (long term hibernation)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/fe-graphs/sig692a.png

HP and torque can vary 3% in one session, even more likely in the time it takes to add an intercooler. Even a 1 minute stop (heat soaking) between runs can make 1-2HP diference.