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 > Diesel Performance Tuning

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-24-2008, 02:50 PM
lowriderdog37's Avatar
Unregistered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Viera, FL
Posts: 665
lighten the flywheel?

I am in the middle of my 4-speed conversion ('85 300CD). While I have it out, has anybody tried shaving a few pounds off the flywheel? Any input?

__________________
My Primary Driver - '85 300CD - 4-speed conversion, 2.47 rear, lowered, euro headlights, rebuilding (not restoring so much)

Wife's - '08 Saab Sportcombi Aero

Riding a '03 Yamaha Warrior
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-24-2008, 03:03 PM
bgkast's Avatar
Rollin' on 16s
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 6,528
Why not just use a 616 flywheel? They are lighter than the 617 flywheel by a few pounds. The 617 flywheels are relatively rare so you could probably sell it for more than a 616 flywheel would cost.

Most of the people who have done the manual conversion have used the lighter 240D flywheel with no ill effects.
__________________
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
  #3  
Old 03-24-2008, 03:18 PM
TheDon's Avatar
Ghost of Diesels Past
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,285
I think he means.. a lot lighter
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-24-2008, 03:34 PM
bgkast's Avatar
Rollin' on 16s
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 6,528
The 616 flywheel works fine, but I would not go any lighter.
__________________
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
  #5  
Old 03-24-2008, 03:36 PM
ForcedInduction
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The 616 flywheel is already some 10-odd lbs lighter than the 617 FW. Supposedly, I haven't seen anyone weigh the two yet.

The idle is fine with the 616FW so I bet you could shave more off without problems. There is one video of an engine idling with just the auto flex plate (About 1/4 the normal mass without the torque converter and fluid).

You want some weight or you'll get the engine returning to idle too quickly between shifts and you'll wear out the clutch quicker.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-24-2008, 07:47 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForcedInduction;
You want some weight or you'll get the engine returning to idle too quickly
Does this give anyone the same idea that it gives me?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-24-2008, 10:55 PM
lowriderdog37's Avatar
Unregistered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Viera, FL
Posts: 665
the 616 was for the 240d right? I have that one...and was planning on using it.

I might feel stupid for asking this...but what idea did you have?
__________________
My Primary Driver - '85 300CD - 4-speed conversion, 2.47 rear, lowered, euro headlights, rebuilding (not restoring so much)

Wife's - '08 Saab Sportcombi Aero

Riding a '03 Yamaha Warrior
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-25-2008, 12:25 AM
bgkast's Avatar
Rollin' on 16s
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 6,528
616=240D engine

I think MTU is thinking that a really light flywheel could counter the problem of the engine not returning to idle properly when the injection pump's torque control is over-adjusted or when larger elements are used, but I'm not sure if it is the answer.
__________________
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
  #9  
Old 03-25-2008, 04:35 AM
ForcedInduction
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Part of that problem is fuel delivery (injection), lowering the rotating mass may help but I have this feeling it could make it worse instead...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-25-2008, 07:42 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 357
I wouldn't rush to modify the flywheel on a six cylinder diesel - mainly because the inertia of the whole system is tuned in conjunction with the vibration damper on the nose of the crank to prevent the buildup of damaging torsional vibration. If you change the rotary inertia of the system, you change the resonant frequency of the vibration, and you may move it to a frequency where the vibration damper no longer works to reduce the amplitude of vibration. As the vibration is torsional, and high frequency, you won't feel it, but it causes damage nevertheless. The stress resulting from this torsional vibration is responsible for snapping crankshafts, and this is a big problem in diesel engine development - meddle at your peril.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-25-2008, 09:29 AM
KarTek's Avatar
<- Ryuko of Kill La Kill
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bahama/Eno Twp, NC
Posts: 3,258
Would be nice to see if Fluidamper would make a piece for MB Diesels... May be dreaming though...
__________________
-Evan


Benz Fleet:
1968 UNIMOG 404.114
1998 E300
2008 E63


Non-Benz Fleet:
1992 Aerostar
1993 MR2
2000 F250
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-25-2008, 12:33 PM
Shawn D.'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarTek View Post
Would be nice to see if Fluidamper would make a piece for MB Diesels... May be dreaming though...
I'm sure they would, but as the old saying goes: "Speed is just a question of money -- how fast do you want to go?"

The market for such an item would be, what, three or four people?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-26-2008, 08:13 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgkast;
616=240D engine

I think MTU is thinking that a really light flywheel could counter the problem of the engine not returning to idle properly when the injection pump's torque control is over-adjusted or when larger elements are used, but I'm not sure if it is the answer.
Yep- but I think I'd better put the linkage spring back on first... it's not installed right now. I'll be doing that right after the FLFL comes out. Right now my alda is set so that it returns just fine- while I am looking for ways to increase fuel and still return to idle, there are a few things I should do first before making the flywheel lighter.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-09-2008, 05:59 AM
Gene
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarTek View Post
Would be nice to see if Fluidamper would make a piece for MB Diesels... May be dreaming though...
Ya, keep dreaming. I wouldn't run one on my 7000 rpm big block. They like to come apart. Sicne I dont race anymore, I use oem.

I dont think you want to lighten the flywheel much, if any at all, at a low rpm app like a diesel. Unless its WAY modifed and you need to get rpms coming out of the corners!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-10-2008, 04:05 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: D.C.
Posts: 487
I think we are on to something with RPMs, seeing as we can't get longer pump stroke or bigger elements very easily or cheaply...

I read somewhere (I think VW Vortex?... maybe the link was posted on this board?) about people revving VW 1.6L IDI motors to somewhere north of 6000rpm. This was possible due to the fact that its IDI (bingo! so is the 617) and it has a very square bore to stroke ratio (so does the 617). More RPMs = more horsepower. Seemingly, the old wives tale about the flame front not propogating fast enough to warrant high rpm operation was not true.. I wish I had the link to the discussion, because it was very informative.

We know the 617 has a VERY strong bottom end. What we don't know is whether we need better valve springs to prevent float, and whether the engine is balanced well enough to spin 7000rpm. Also possibly need to set valve lash differently and set timing differently. I'm sure there are other design parameters I am completely overlooking as well, someone please chime in... Oh, btw. the bosch MW pump is only rated for 2500rpm, so this could be a stretch for it....

I don't intend to hijack here, just seemed like maybe a good place to insert this idea fragment because the topic of conversation is relevant to RPMs.

__________________
99 E300 Turbodiesel 100k
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 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page