Building Power
 

Hey guys. I have been looking at buying a 300d or similar for a project car. I build performance light/medium duty trucks for a living, but want something a little different/cheaper as a toy. There are a few '84-'86 300d's for sale around here for $500-$2000. Whats better, the auto or manual? I am more of a manual guy for reliability, but autos are nice for the track (boosted launch, etc). Any issues with either? Availability of upgrades? How much power can you get out of one of these motors (dyno proven)? What has to be done to beef them up? As in do they need o-rings/fire-rings, head studs, stronger rods, pistons, etc.?

I obviously dont know much about these cars/motors, but was thinking of approaching it similarly a ’94-’97 12v cummins. Intake/exhaust upgrades, airwerks 200 or 300 series turbo (maybe compounds?), intercooler, fuel pump, head studs, internal injection pump mods (need to learn more about the pump) injectors, maybe water/meth injection, gauges, clutch/trans upgrades, cam, valve springs, and so on. How does this sound for this motor? What about the rest of the car? Where is a good place to find parts? Any other info? Thanks! :D

I also put one too many m's in my user name (oops!) Any way to fix that??

Mike

Be prepared to spend about $5000 in parts to even touch 300hp. If you want power, a MB definitely isn't the cheap way. No upgrades exist except a single source for the injection pump (in Finland), everything else you will have to make or adapt from something else.

ALL 300D's are automatic. If you want manual you'll have to convert one. Those that are manual from the factory are non-turbo.
The 82-85 300D/CD/TD is good for 140hp before needing a different injection pump and can be pumped up to 300hp with enough money.
The 87 300D/TD is good for 175hp before needing a new IP. They are known to be good to 300hp with bone stock internals and 500hp with custom-made rods.

Ha, nother truck guy! LOL, theres not a whole lot we can do to them without going all out. The Bosch MW-pump on these is crap for performance. The only decent option is to send a euro M-pump to Myna Diesel in Finland. I have sent an e-mail to CDS to inquire if they can do anything.

The Fin's have got the OM617 5cyl over 400hp iirc EDIT: SEE ABOVE POST ;)

Good mods are to get it in perfect running condition stock, then max out what little pump adustments are avalible, add an intercooler and a VVT turbo and go!

Thanks for the replies. When I said cheap, I mean cheaper than buying another $20,000 electronic diesel truck, and putting another $15-20,000 into it. I am up to the challenge of finding more fuel in the MB. I just want to be sure that the motor and trans can be built to hold up. What kind of trans is it? Does it have a lock-up T.C.? Where can the custom rods be found? Are rods the only real weak link? What does it take to blow a head gasket? What is the big difference between the '82-'85, and the '87's you talked about? Thanks again.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Welcome from another truck guy... :)

Here's a short translation from MB into "truck" Diesel:

OM617: 5 cyl, 3l, iron head. Non-crossflow iron head. Legendary reliability but tough to get a lot of power out of due to limitations of flow and fuel. Has an inline M or MW pump.

OM603: 6 cyl 3/3.5l, Aluminum crossflow head. More modern design but watch out for 3.5l engines known to bend rods. Also watch out for early aluminum heads which can crack if overheated. Has an inline M pump with 5.5mm elements. Design is similar to a 12 valve Cummins. Easier to build more power with this one.

OM606 Turbo: '98/'99 E300. Evolutionary design similar to OM603. Has a 24 valve head. Much like a 24 valve Cummins but pump is still inline with 7mm elements and is electronically controlled. Elements are compatible with M pumps. This engine has the most power potential.

As for performance parts, it's pretty much either fab your own or get them from Europe. The engines respond to the same tweaks as the Cummins for the most part but I haven't seen many people changing injectors but rather investing mostly in performance pumps and improved induction/exhaust systems.

Rods
 

If you get serious with a 603, we have the connecting rods about ready. Not a cheap date, but less than aftermarket Cummins rods.

4340 Steel:D

Although I think the stock rods will be fine past 300, but 300 is lame:P

Starting to learn a little bit now. So, the 617 is maybe the most solid motor, just harder to get power out of? I just don’t want a motor that is going to have known problems before I start playing with it (cracked head, bent rods). I assume the 617 would probably be the least expensive too. What cars have the 617? What type of injectors are used? Is is something that would easily be edm'ed, or honed?

Don, are you on every diesel related forum known to man? LOL! It's cool you're working on rods.

Mike

It has 6mm elements. Good for around 200hp on a 6 cylinder and 160's in a 5. Myna uses 7mm elements.

The 617 is a strong engine but severely limited by airflow. OM606 engines can make 500hp with a single turbo, maybe even more if you figure out some compounds, but the 617 won't make much more than 350hp without very high boost pressures to push past the 2 valves.

From Antti A. at Myna-

I'd be curious about those rods. I think they would fit the OM606 too.

To get Antti A's estimate out of a 617 what needs to be done besides a Myna pump, intercooler, and VNT? Are we talking custom connecting rods, head work (don't know what could really be done with the limited space), stronger fasteners, custom crank, custom cam?

My wants are less ambitious than 380hp but it would be nice to know what needs to be done besides the standard formula.

Somebody has got to have gotten a little out of hand with one of these 617's and blown a few things up. I'de like to learn from their mistakes! There are several cars around here with 617's for sale for a pretty good price. The newer motors would be nice to make a little more power with, but the cars cost so much more.....

Mike

I'm working on mine but hopefully I don't blow it up in the process! :D

Something no one has mentioned and is likely a big factor when comparing to your experience with Cummins, is that all the engines mentioned here are IDI. This equates to less power across the board.

Very true, about 15% through pumping and heat conduction losses.

The 603's are the way to go here. Cheap, and will make an easy 300hp with very little effort. Porting, cam, turbo, perhaps some propane... :D

Ok, lets leave propane as a last resort. How can you "cheaply make 300 hp (or even 200 hp without the extra fuel?

Never said it would be cheap. Said the engines are cheap. 60hp can be had with a turbo and intercooler, perhaps some head work. The rest of the factory parts will support it. 300 hp will require a fabbed intake, air to water IC, a cam, and porting/welding the heads.

These are NOT gas engines. "60hp can be had with a turbo and intercooler" is false. The engine will not make more than 175hp, no matter what you do to it, until the injection pump is upgraded first.

Wrong. The IP will support more than that.

Yes, you are wrong. You've made it abundantly clear, on this and many other forums, that you're completely clueless about how diesels operate. Your previous post supports that.

Really, how so?

We're all waiting..

You will continue to do so for quite some time. I will not allow you to draw me into your troll game as you have done elsewhere.

So in other words, it can be done, you just have a problem with me....


Thanks for playing.

Half and half. You are playing a game and no matter what I disprove you with, you'll come up with something even more far-fetched just to goad me into playing that game.

Try it. Prove something to someone... :D

Could you please describe the process of adjusting the IP so that this is achievable?

We're all waiting..

Thanks for playing.

WTF!!

I have been running into more and more threads where these two go at it. It's very annoying.

This feature should be used to report anyone's- not just goatmans- posts that people consider trolling.
I have no horse in this race, but if there is a 617 that makes over 175 HP with the stock MW fuel injection pump (and no propane) we'd all love to see the dyno.

As it just was.

If you would please keep up with the discussion instead of simply trying to be combative, you will notice the 300/175 hp figures were in reference to the OM603.

If you're waiting for FI to answer, don't hold your breath..

INAPPROPRIATE
B.C.

i dont think anyone is loosing any sleep over this or holding their breath, iv gotten some very valuable and good info from forced and its obvious that he knows what he is talking about.

Yet he can't answer several simple questions....


Perhaps because he already knows I've built, fabricated, and tuned my own electronically fuel injected, 700hp NA Pontiac GTO and have forgotten more about making hp than he'll ever know.

Fuel comes in, it gets burned, it goes out. Before anyone starts rambling about how different diesels are......


INAPPROPRIATE
B.C.

How many of you have made an attempt to increase the volume of fuel to your injectors and how?


Let's start there.

If you adj your rack and play with the alda, the IP can deliver more fuel than the engine can handle with the stock intake, turbo and exhaust. It pretty much does that already w/o those adjustments. With them, it's possible to make any turbo'd 617, 602 or 603 smoke worse than a semi on a very cold winter morning, overloaded with 80k lbs of freight, when taking off in low up a 7% grade.

ALDA only controls fuel before boost builds. You can even remove alda and you'll just have a tad more power before boost, but top end doesn't change.


Yes, you can make these engines smoke,but not produce much power, as all the smoke will be at low engine speeds. Once the boost builds up the stock IP can't give enough fuel.

Deni,
I don't agree 100%. With stock turbo you can get also smoke with maxed out IP. In any case a stock IP is limited in "end of injection" before max. quantity.
In other words it rather smokes because the duration of injection is too long than it provides too much fuel quantity.
Let's assume you provide enough air and the stock IP delivers 75 ccm/1000revs of fuel (+50%) because it is maxed out it will smoke. I.e. the same quantity with "Myna"-elements it will not smoke (or much less).

Tom

What I understand from your post, correct if I'm wrong, is that the stock turbo can provide the needed amount of air (boost increased) but because the injection time is too long the fuel will not burn completely, hence the black smoke?

To tell the truth my car smokes when I use low quality very high sulfur diesel, or when I also use lpg. But in both cases the smoke is only when the boost is increasing. At max boost there it is not smoking, almost :P.

Deni,

maybe I did not express myself well.
Air and fuel must be increased together to get more power.
I think the stock turbo is o.k. for the stock IP set within the normal range where the duration of injection and the use of the first 60% of plunger travel from BTDC is respected.
Maxing out the IP means increasing the duration of injection by using more than 60% of the plunger travel. This leads to black smoke in first step. Providing more fuel within the specs of the IP (by using larger elements) will also lead to black smoke later but then because the stock turbo does not provide enough air.
I made the experience with all stock maxing out the IP until smoke.
Then I swapped the elements (6 mm Holly MW) still with stock turbo. I could get more power with the same "amount" of smoke.
Now I am changing the turbo and exhaust + intercooler...
Finally I will swap the elements again (6.5 mm Holly MW)

Tom

Why is this inappropriate?

They said it was an insult. I call it fact...

Guys, I was asking what has been done to increase the volume fuel fuel to the IP. I've figured out a way to get more fuel in and out of the IP, just wanted to know if anyone else has thought about the supply side of the fuel equasion and what they've done about it.

It doesn't require adjusting the timing at all.

So what have you done? Or is it a secret?

how does increasing the volume of fuel TO the IP make a difference? There is always a surplus of fuel being pumped through the system.

It is not my intention to jump in here, but on the subject of degrees of injection for a given element travel, I have tried raising the barrels on a NA 616 MW, in an effort to use a portion of the IP cam that is further from the cam center. My goal was to increase the element travel while maintaining the same degrees of IP cam rotation.

As foundation for this experiment, I read in a 603 manual (I think), that one of the changes that they made for that year was to change the pre-delivery height. I think they decreased it, but I would have to find it again to be sure. Since my barrel/elements have over 200K I did not want to lower them because of a possible ridge that may have formed over time.

With only the EGT gauge as an indicator, I was able to retard the start of injection timing to 20* (or less) BTDC and have lower EGTs ( about 50* lower, with a slower rate of increase), and just about eliminate smoke where it would at the stock barrel height.

The first time I shimmed the barrels up .007" ea. The idle was smoother, and after playing with the timing was able to get it to pull stronger and rev higher.

I then added an additional .007" making each barrel .014" higher than stock. I again saw a EGT drop, but not as much as before. The engine seemed to run flat, as if not to have a identifiable power band, regardless of start of injection timing. Also I could hear it want to rattle when I spooled it up.

I then remove the shims to see if I noticed a difference with the barrels at the stock height. I really need to get an engine on a dyno, but my butt and ears say that the first set of .007" shims produced the best "sense" of power increase.

It is my thinking that by raising the barrel .014", I was using a faster part of the IP cam which was creating a spiky delivery signal to the injector, as apposed to using the bottom of the cam (stock) would create a gradual pressure signal (a pressure ramp-up curve).

I think cutting the collars on the delivery valves has a similar surge affect, as (with the collars cut) the delivery valve will close sooner, maintaining a higher residual line pressure, which would change the pressure ramp-up curve, for the next injection, to more of a surge or spike.

This theoretical pressure surge or spike could be causing the injector pintle to jump up instead of gradually opening, which could affect the atomization of the injected fuel, which could be why I was hearing a rattle when I put the fuel to it with the .014" shims.

As you have made elements, I am interested to what your thoughts are on the effect the rate of delivery, (the pressure curve) has on the atomization quality of the injected fuel. I am guessing that the Injectors are intended for a specific rate of pressure increase to operate properly. There for, when going to larger elements, would it be adventitious to try using a lower portion of the IP cam to create a smoother more gradual pressure increase?

Haven't done anything. For the third time, I'm asking what all/any of you have done, once you've reached the point where the IP can't be adjusted anymore.

You say you've figured out a way to get more fuel in and out of the IP. Hence my question.

What have you done to get more fuel...?

Larger elements!


OM616:

Be careful!
The plunger position over cam rotation angle curve is important (starting from BDC measuring the plunger position after each let's say 5 deg turn of the IP cam shaft).
I have to think about what you did in detail but the book says clearly that in any case the end of injection has to be just a little bit before the travel speed of the plunger is maximum.
Looking at this curve it is like a stretched "S" near the middle of the "S" you have the highest speed of the plunger. This zone is the "sweet" spot for injection. BUT it is also the zone where you have the biggest forces. Therefore BOSCH says that end of injection has to end (0.3 mm) before the max. speed point which is at 4 mm plunger travel from BDC for M pumps with 7 mm total stroke and ~5 mm for MW pumps with total stroke of 8 mm.
Btw. this is the ~ 60% I speak of before.
You need low plunger speed at the beginning to get the fuel into the barrel (and to avoid erosion (correct word?) between plunger edge and inlet bore edge when the effective stroke starts).
During the effective stroke the speed raises fast to provide good atomisation. Going further: with an IP maxed out you push end of injection beyond the max. speed point that means you are still within effective stroke but after passing the max. speed point (what is stressing the IP according to BOSCH) the plunger speed decreases resulting in inefficiency (like a racer slowing down before finishing the race).
This convinced me to go for larger elements. Providing the required fuel (stock + xx%) well before the sweet spot.

Commenting your last sentence:
Without thinking in detail I would say when you are within the effective stroke the pressure raise should be fast and short. Look at the common rails, they want to open the injector even faster than an spring can react (besides multiple injection,..). But all this can be modified with DV, pop pressure and nozzle. Important (in my opinion) is to create a short hard pressure peak coming from the IP and being smooth when filling the barrel and starting the effective stroke. This is the basic for the calculation of elements!

Tom

How about the rest of the system that was designed to supply a stock amount of fuel to a stock motor +-%?