I sure hope it was just the pre chambers that were screwed with. Because I can get a good set of inclined injectors, prechambers, and lock rings.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
83 300CD- sanden, dual p/f condensers, 160a alternator, ect
91 300TD- 722.6, #22 head, 3.5L IP, w140 manifolds, ect

Wait, I'm sorry. Does the head decide if you have "inclined injection" or the prechambers and injectors? In other words, will I have inclined injection using this late head but having the old style prechamber setup?

__________________
83 300CD- sanden, dual p/f condensers, 160a alternator, ect
91 300TD- 722.6, #22 head, 3.5L IP, w140 manifolds, ect

Prechambers determine firing angle. Injectors fire straight. I'm pretty sure the prechamber pocket in the head isn't different between #14 and later castings other than accommodating the shoulder of the prechamber.

Sixto
MB-less

the inclined injectors must be an advantage somehow. is there a noticeable difference in power or fuel mileage? smoother idle?

__________________
83 300CD- sanden, dual p/f condensers, 160a alternator, ect
91 300TD- 722.6, #22 head, 3.5L IP, w140 manifolds, ect

According to http://www.startekinfo.com/StarTek/outside/12264/Program/Engine/602_603/07.1-0010.pdf,

* Improved cold start
* More favourable air/fuel blending as a result of shorter glow plug in combination with recess and concave in the ball pin
* Particle reduction and improvement in hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.

I hear inclined injection bends rods

Sixto
MB-less

are you serious about bending rods?!?! there is some really cool info in that document! if you were me, would you try to find the later prechambers or would you be perfectly happy with the older prechambers and good injectors? i do want to get that 3.5L IP for MOAR LOW RPM TORQUE

__________________
83 300CD- sanden, dual p/f condensers, 160a alternator, ect
91 300TD- 722.6, #22 head, 3.5L IP, w140 manifolds, ect

Here's more info on the changes for the 3.5:

http://eva2.homeip.net/mb91/1990-1991_turbodiesels.pdf

The angled injection worked so well the 350s didn't need a catalyst, whereas the 300 did.

-J

__________________
1991 350SDL. 230,000 miles (new motor @ 150,000). Blown head gasket

Tesla Model 3. 205,000 miles. Been to 48 states!
Past: A fleet of VW TDIs.... including a V10,a Dieselgate Passat, and 2 ECOdiesels.
2014 Cadillac ELR
2013 Fiat 500E.

do you think the steeper cam profile in the 3.5's IP helped at all?

__________________
83 300CD- sanden, dual p/f condensers, 160a alternator, ect
91 300TD- 722.6, #22 head, 3.5L IP, w140 manifolds, ect

Fuel is fuel. I'm unconvinced the 3.5 IP can deliver more fuel at low rpm in a way that will produce more torque in a 3.0. The fuel demands of a 3.0 at 4800rpm vs a 3.5 at 4300rpm suggests a 3.0 IP is more than capable. Both IPs have the same 5.5(?)mm elements so one can't outflow the other beyond the higher rpm capability of the 3.0 IP. Back off the full load stop of your 3.0 IP then consider whether a 3.5 IP is necessary.

Sixto
MB-less

i think it was gsxr that played around with the 3.5 IP on his 3.0 block. there are a couple of people that have and reported it really got out of the hole quicker. max rpm limit is a few hundred rpm less but they said they couldn't feel any difference up top in the rpm range. the elements are the same between the two but the 3.5 does use a different cam for a more aggressive and quicker delivery. i think it would be really interesting to try it as i really like all that torque off the line. don't care too much about holding it at the rev limiter for power unless i have a superpump that makes s ton of power and even then, i'd love to pull past some ricers at 3k

__________________
83 300CD- sanden, dual p/f condensers, 160a alternator, ect
91 300TD- 722.6, #22 head, 3.5L IP, w140 manifolds, ect

Hmm... I wasn't aware gsxr ever had a 3.5 IP in his garage let alone his car. Leaving rev range on the table is very un-gsxr-like How is a steeper IP cam profile different from advancing IP timing? Has anyone shared dyno results of 3.5 vs 3.0 IP on a 3.0? It might be time to move this sidebar to the Diesel Performance forum.

Sixto
MB-less

OM603 semi-super pump testing, fitted with Bosch 6.0mm elements

i am VERY interested in using the 3.5L pump myself. read through and tell me what you think. not as many 3.5 pumps as the 3.0 pumps so not many care to play with them.

__________________
83 300CD- sanden, dual p/f condensers, 160a alternator, ect
91 300TD- 722.6, #22 head, 3.5L IP, w140 manifolds, ect

view post #12 on that ^^^

__________________
83 300CD- sanden, dual p/f condensers, 160a alternator, ect
91 300TD- 722.6, #22 head, 3.5L IP, w140 manifolds, ect

Correct. I never tried a 3.5L pump, and leaving revs on the table would not be acceptable in my garage, lol. You can adjust the pump to fix the rev issue but I'm not sure how the different cam profile affects power. Myna did not (would not?) use the 3.5 pumps back in the day, I wonder what Goran has to say about them.

__________________
Dave
Boise, ID
Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!

Oops, I miss read. My bad. Then someone else must have used it in their 3.0 and had good off the line torque?

__________________
83 300CD- sanden, dual p/f condensers, 160a alternator, ect
91 300TD- 722.6, #22 head, 3.5L IP, w140 manifolds, ect