Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Diesel Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-12-2006, 10:58 AM
derherr65's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 305
Variable turbos, which is the best?

What's the best variable turbo for a 617?
Holset he300 - Variable, water cooled, 100-300HP, wastegated.
Garret GT2359V - variable, 200HP, from MB 320CDI.
Garrett gt1749V - variable, 150HP, volkswagen.
dodge? TBO352 - variable, 175HP, 1987 dodge
Garrett GT2062V - variable, 160HP, volvo
Other???
Jeep liberty? Is this a variable? For $100? http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MakeTrack=true
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well.
1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26)
1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears.
1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL!
2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-12-2006, 05:08 PM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Just curious, why do you want a variable vane turbo? The Ford Powerstroke has had trouble with theirs and it might be a Garret. That might be why the 6.0L Powerstroke which was introduced in mid 03 is being replaced by a MY 08 in mid year of 07. The 6.4 has sequential turbos instead of a variable vane unit.
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-12-2006, 05:43 PM
Rudolphrocks's Avatar
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rockford, MI
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim View Post
Just curious, why do you want a variable vane turbo? The Ford Powerstroke has had trouble with theirs and it might be a Garret. That might be why the 6.0L Powerstroke which was introduced in mid 03 is being replaced by a MY 08 in mid year of 07. The 6.4 has sequential turbos instead of a variable vane unit.
i think (not often) that this is due more to the new ultra low sulfur laws than a prblem
__________________
I like cars.

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-12-2006, 05:52 PM
derherr65's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 305
Variable vane turbos will provide boost without excessibe heat over a much wider range than normal turbos. In other words if you have a turbo vehicle that doesn't "get up and go" until 2500rpm the same size variable turbo will "get up and go" at 1500rpm while still giving the same boost and no more heat at 3500rpm.

Porsche, Mercedes, Volvo, several semi companies and most foreign makers(all those diesel models europe gets that we don't) seem to have no trouble with them. I suspect it's another Ford problem, not Garrett.

Personally I believe the new 6.4 engine is for more power to combat the new pollution crap and also due to lost faith in the 6.0 by many formerly loyal Ford owners.

Sequential turbos require very complicated plumbing, quite a bit of space, and enough valves that computer control is almost mandatory. My vehicle is not computerized. I'd like to keep it that way. Not to mention I don't have a lot of spare space under the hood.
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well.
1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26)
1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears.
1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL!
2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-12-2006, 06:01 PM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolphrocks View Post
i think (not often) that this is due more to the new ultra low sulfur laws than a prblem
According to wiki: Although the engines have been plagued by problems, Ford still sells 250,000 or more each year at a $5,300 premium over the gasoline engine options in its Super Duty trucks. The problems include leaky fuel injectors, oil leaks, and broken turbochargers. There have been 77 technical service bullitens related to the engine since its introduction.

I don't see what ULSD has to do with it since Ford had problems before ULSD came about.
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-12-2006, 06:01 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 482
what do you predict the overall cost of this mod to be? It would be AWESOME to make torque at 1500rpm in the 617... Think: taller gears + low-end power = higher speed at lower rpms = fuel efficiency?? In the right combination? could this maybe contribute to greatly increased engine life?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-12-2006, 06:24 PM
ForcedInduction
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
For a 617, a GT22V is minimum.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-12-2006, 06:39 PM
derherr65's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 305
Well... that's a little hard to figure. It depends on the parts, your skill, and so on. A variable turbo is $400-2000. An intercooler 100-700. Then you have some pipe, connections, fittings, $150-$1000. You'd have to have an EGT guage and probably a boost guage $150. So if you're skilled(welding and machining) and using used parts, and lucky, $800. If new parts, and bolt on fittings only, $4000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForcedInduction View Post
For a 617, a GT22V is minimum.
Why is that? I would have thought a turbo that could support 150HP(GT17V) would be enough.
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well.
1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26)
1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears.
1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL!
2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-12-2006, 06:54 PM
ForcedInduction
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by derherr65 View Post
Why is that? I would have thought a turbo that could support 150HP(GT17V) would be enough.
You can't just go by the HP statement. A TDI is FAR more efficient than a 617.

Since there is no wategate ALL the exhaust has to flow through the turbine. A GT17 is perfect for the 1.9L TDI, but too small for a 3.0L OM617.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-12-2006, 07:15 PM
derherr65's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 305
Ok, good to know, and thanks.
The stock is a T3-45? T3-50?
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well.
1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26)
1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears.
1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL!
2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends)

Last edited by derherr65; 10-12-2006 at 08:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-12-2006, 11:30 PM
derherr65's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 305
Stock is a T3-45. After hours of compressor map comparison, I think a Garrett GT2052, 52mm, 50trim, .51a/r is almost an exact match. A GT2056, GT2252, or GT2259 would all out flow the stock T3-45, or even a T3-50. So a variable based on the GT22 looks to be ideal for a little more power. I can't find a map for a GT23, but it probably would also work.
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well.
1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26)
1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears.
1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL!
2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-13-2006, 12:06 AM
derherr65's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 305
We're getting screwed. Europeans have diesels running GT22Vs coming out their A$s.

GT2256V, unless otherwise noted.
2000+ bmw 330d - 184HP 2.9L D
2003+ bmw X5 2.9L D(gt2260V)
2001+ chrysler Grand Cherokee 2.7L D
2002+ FORD Ranger 2.8L D
2002+ Range Rover Td6 2.9L D
2000+ mercedes E270 CDI 2.7L D
2001+ mercedes C270 2.7L D
2000+ mercedes M270 2.7L D
2002+ AUDI A6 TDI - 150HP 2.5L D
1998+ nissan trade 3.0L(gt2252V)
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well.
1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26)
1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears.
1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL!
2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-13-2006, 12:21 AM
greasybenz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 2,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim View Post
According to wiki: Although the engines have been plagued by problems, Ford still sells 250,000 or more each year at a $5,300 premium over the gasoline engine options in its Super Duty trucks. The problems include leaky fuel injectors, oil leaks, and broken turbochargers. There have been 77 technical service bullitens related to the engine since its introduction.

I don't see what ULSD has to do with it since Ford had problems before ULSD came about.
this is only with the early 6.0L engines. Ive read numerous forums about the early 6.0's having to go into the dealer every week problem after problem to the point that ford didnt want to fix the engine anymore and bought back the truck.

The later 6.0L (like my moms) has most of the problems fixed and we havent had any trouble pulling our sea ray boat on B100!
__________________
Current:
05 E320 CDI
07 GL320 CDI
08 Sprinter
05 Dodge Cummins
01 Dodge Cummins

Previous
2004 E55 AMG
2002 C32 AMG (#2)
1995 E300
1978 300D
1987 300D
2002 C32 AMG(blown motor :[
1981 300SD
1983 300SD
1987 300SDL
2002 Jetta TDI
1996 S420
1995 S500
1993 190E 2.6
1992 190E 2.3
1985 190E 2.3 5-Speed
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-13-2006, 12:47 AM
derherr65's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 305
Some calculations, based on turbo map 72-78% island

For those of you that are curious: As compared to a T3-45
GT2052 06% more air flow, 01% more pressure, 2% less efficient.
GT2056 29% more air flow, 03% more pressure, 4% more efficient.
GT2252 38% more air flow, 05% more pressure, 4% more efficient.
GT2259 38% more air flow, 10% more pressure, 2% more efficient.
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well.
1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26)
1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears.
1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL!
2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page