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 ShopForum > Technical Information and Support > Diesel Discussion > Diesel Performance Tuning

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 11-11-2006, 08:12 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by midenginev8 View Post
not saying its just you, its not. there are several others.
but it seems that many members of this forum really try to discorage others from enguaging in any kind of project that may possibly make the car a better performer.
Now its been made clear that these engines are very durable, its been made clear that that almost all diesel powerplants are making some seroius power with modifications.
Now why are other people, many MB owners themselfs saying its a bad idea to do something untraditional with a luxury car?
Imo if it has potental use it, or waste it. Im a motivated person who much like the engineers who devoloped these cars. beleaves, that if it can be better, make it better.

Or maybe im the only one that is willing to sacrafice some unneeded reliablity for enough fun factor to make you actully want to drive the car for its life? These cars are well known to go 500K now if i had to give up as much as half that to make it enjoyable for that period then im fine with it.
I was commenting on the adding of a intercooler or upping the boost WITHOUT adding more fuel only. I am all for adding HP and doing what you'd like to the car- it's your car after all. Connclark has a history of saying you can add HP by increasing boost- and it is perhaps true in gasser theory- to the tune of about 1.5%- or three HP, max. I was saying dont bother upping the boost or adding a intercooler without adding fuel if you are expecting a real HP gain- which means you have to adjust the IP. See post # 47's butt-o-meter findings...lol

Last edited by MTUpower; 11-11-2006 at 08:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-11-2006, 08:15 PM
ForcedInduction
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Looks like I will stick to 10psi for now.

I made a simple valve to bypass the boost controller from inside the cab. Using my built-in Butt-O-Meter™, I cannot tell any difference when I switch from 10 to 14.5psi or vice versa during a WOT acceleration. No smoke at 10psi without the ALDA and I still average 13.8sec 0-60 when I'm easy on the clutch.

Just thought I'd pass along my findings.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-12-2006, 07:08 PM
jef d's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Westchester NY
Posts: 229
Do you know what kind of fuel economy from both settings ??
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-12-2006, 08:56 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Annapolis, Md.
Posts: 556
Good job! I would use your existing cold air plumbing that was next to the headlight and radiator and route the air over the intercooler. Also, I do not know how long the small filter for venting the crankcase will last before it gets kind of clogged and begins to push oil past the rings. I would come up with something more ventilating. Just seems like better insurance for your motor.
__________________
-disav

99 E300 TURBODIESEL Astral Silver 282K - AMG brakes, suspension, monoblocks, speedo & interior - Full Load Maxed on IP by custom Speed Tuning USA Chip - T3/T4 Garrett - EGR/MAF delete
98 E300 TURBODIESEL Alexandrite Green on black leather 289K
95 E300 DIESEL Green Queen 267K SOLD
84 300D 216k SOLD
87 300D 299K #22 head - intercooler - full load adj. - 8sec 0-60mph - SOLD
76 300D 214K SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-12-2006, 09:08 PM
bgkast's Avatar
Rollin' on 16s
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 6,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdisav View Post
Also, I do not know how long the small filter for venting the crankcase will last before it gets kind of clogged and begins to push oil past the rings. I would come up with something more ventilating. Just seems like better insurance for your motor.
I don't think there is much danger in pushing oil past the rings. I bet that filter will eventually become soaked with oil from the blow by gasses and drip.

Try a search on ebay for oil separator... I got one for an airplane for around $20.
__________________
1979 240D- 316K miles - VGT Turbo, Intercooler, Stick Shift, Many Other Mods - Daily Driver

1982 300SD - 232K miles - Wife's Daily Driver

1986 560SL - Wife's red speed machine
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-13-2006, 01:13 PM
ConnClark's Avatar
Power User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTUpower View Post
I was commenting on the adding of a intercooler or upping the boost WITHOUT adding more fuel only. I am all for adding HP and doing what you'd like to the car- it's your car after all. Connclark has a history of saying you can add HP by increasing boost- and it is perhaps true in gasser theory- to the tune of about 1.5%- or three HP, max. I was saying dont bother upping the boost or adding a intercooler without adding fuel if you are expecting a real HP gain- which means you have to adjust the IP. See post # 47's butt-o-meter findings...lol

It holds true in a diesel

Go here and plug in 1.27 for gamma and use the defaults for the rest of the settings. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/diesel.html You should get a thermal efficiency of 42.467% . Now lets say you upped the boost or cooled the intake charge enough to raise gamma .03 to 1.3. Thermal efficiency rises to 45.872% .

To calculate the percentage of power gain
(45.872/42.467 - 1)x 100 = 8.017%


It also holds true experimentally

"As the boost pressure increase, the rate of heat release is resemble to the injection rate and becomes sharper and combustion improves and also the brake thermal efficiency becomes better. The high boost and lean diesel combustion results in low smoke, ISCO and ISTHC without the ISNOx increase and gives good thermal efficiency."
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsmeb/48/4/648/_pdf


If you want to argue that it doesn't hold for prechamber engines here is a few tests done by NACA in the 30's . (Note the Fuel consumption lb/hp per hour part of the graphs (lower = more power per same amount of fuel))
Attached Thumbnails
My Intercooler set up on my 300SD-naca_report_577.jpg   My Intercooler set up on my 300SD-naca_tn_569.jpg  
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-13-2006, 08:26 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark View Post
It holds true in a diesel

Go here and plug in 1.27 for gamma and use the defaults for the rest of the settings. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/diesel.html You should get a thermal efficiency of 42.467% . Now lets say you upped the boost or cooled the intake charge enough to raise gamma .03 to 1.3. Thermal efficiency rises to 45.872% .

To calculate the percentage of power gain
(45.872/42.467 - 1)x 100 = 8.017%


It also holds true experimentally

"As the boost pressure increase, the rate of heat release is resemble to the injection rate and becomes sharper and combustion improves and also the brake thermal efficiency becomes better. The high boost and lean diesel combustion results in low smoke, ISCO and ISTHC without the ISNOx increase and gives good thermal efficiency."
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsmeb/48/4/648/_pdf


If you want to argue that it doesn't hold for prechamber engines here is a few tests done by NACA in the 30's . (Note the Fuel consumption lb/hp per hour part of the graphs (lower = more power per same amount of fuel))
Great- Thanks. I think somewhere in there it proves bumblebees can't fly also. Folks- in the real world, just adding boost will make nearly no difference.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-13-2006, 09:48 PM
Shawn D.'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTUpower View Post
I think somewhere in there it proves bumblebees can't fly also.
Nah, that's a urban legend based on inadequate and way outdated understanding of aerodynamics. Just as regular incompressible flow theory can't adequately explain or model supersonic flow, it can't adequately explain or model small-scale vortex flow (which is the regime the bumblebee operates in). Us aero folks know how to break the "sound barrier" and fly at supersonic speeds, and we know how the bumblebee flies.
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 05:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2011 Pelican Parts - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page