Evan, middle of October! Then I hope to have bench numbers also.
It should be more than just a replacement.
Do you want to stay with your 606 IP or you jump to 603?
All the larger elements will need adjustment on the IP.
A 606 IP "under control" with laptop on the passenger seat would be perfect.

Tom

Tom, I replied here in another thread so I don't mess up this thread with unrelated information:

OM606 ST Project - The Fueling Side of the Equasion

__________________
-Evan


Benz Fleet:
1968 UNIMOG 404.114
1998 E300
2008 E63


Non-Benz Fleet:
1992 Aerostar
1993 MR2
2000 F250

So what was the answer to his question? Can the 240d get more real seat of the pants performance?

Does the port/polish of the head, opening up of the exhaust make a difference in a 240d?

__________________

2006 Jetta TDI DSG 320k miles
1997 Ford F150 325k miles 4.2L V6 "Work Truck"
2008 Tundra 225k miles 5.7L
1982 240D.....sold
1984 300D...Totaled OUCH!
1985 300D Turbo 222k miles "Dos" sold to 79Mercy
1986 300SDL 98K miles "The Beater"....sold
1987 190E 2.3 16v Euro spec 115K miles....sold

Nope. Valve size is the limit of that engine. To get more airflow you need more duration and lift with a new cam.

No, a turbo cam would make performance worse since it has no valve overlap.

Thank you FI for the reply. If I understand your answer, you are saying that there are no modifications to the 240D that get any more performance. Correct? Hook a tow strap to something faster??
I'm not looking to hot rod or race the car. I just was hoping to get a little more pep out of it for a realistic weekend driver/traveler and not to put myself in harms way while driving. I drive slow in the TDI for high MPG's but still have the option to accelerate if needed. Having no option but to be slow is a different feeling!!
I love this car and appreciate it for what it is. I was just hoping

__________________

2006 Jetta TDI DSG 320k miles
1997 Ford F150 325k miles 4.2L V6 "Work Truck"
2008 Tundra 225k miles 5.7L
1982 240D.....sold
1984 300D...Totaled OUCH!
1985 300D Turbo 222k miles "Dos" sold to 79Mercy
1986 300SDL 98K miles "The Beater"....sold
1987 190E 2.3 16v Euro spec 115K miles....sold

It really depends on how much you can do, and are willing to learn. Add egt and fuel pressure gauge first before any power increases.

basically ip adjustments including increasing fuel pressure will get better seat of the pants feel and enough power to keep from being run over. Not a great increase by any means but enough to notice. It really changes the feel of the car.

Next step is a better manifold, you will have to make this yourself. Cam, pre chamber mods, larger elements in the ip.

Still want more then add a turbo, then intercooler, water/meth injection. The more power the less long life for the engine if you are not careful.The 616 does not have oil cooling on the pistons, nor sodium filled valves, so a bit more care about heat should be exercised.

Of course you could put a 617 turbo in place of the 616, but you will give up some handling do to more weight on the front end. It will become a highway only cruiser, way too much understeer.

__________________
1977 240D turbo

47dodge,
Thank you for the reply. i guess i'll just drive it slow for a little while longer. motor swap is not in the budget. BUT a 300hp 4BT cummins would be a sweet sleeper motor if it would fit!! I've been reading how the 4cyl version of the 6cyl Cummins in the Ram trucks is a nice swap into lots of things. Simple, durable, & powerful!!
But since i'm not wanting to be stoned by the angry masses for even mentioning it, mine will stay just as it was configured at the factory!!! lol!!

__________________

2006 Jetta TDI DSG 320k miles
1997 Ford F150 325k miles 4.2L V6 "Work Truck"
2008 Tundra 225k miles 5.7L
1982 240D.....sold
1984 300D...Totaled OUCH!
1985 300D Turbo 222k miles "Dos" sold to 79Mercy
1986 300SDL 98K miles "The Beater"....sold
1987 190E 2.3 16v Euro spec 115K miles....sold

Yes. Airflow is the power limitation on that engine and it won't hold up to the stress of a turbo or supercharger.

If you just want "emergency power" available, remove the rack limiter in the injection pump and rig up a throttle position activated nitrous system.

Those will do nothing on a 240D.

pre chamber mods and larger elements are really for heat control. it has been proven by others that it will reduce egt's , and Mercedes even enlarged the holes slightly. Larger elements allows fuel to be injected in a shorter time. Not trying for more fuel. Just fuel quicker ie less degrees of crankshaft rotation. This will reduce black smoke, and egt's. Power will be improved by vertue of better fuel utilization, not by adding more fuel.

I maxed out my rack limiter, gave a good improvement, removed to see if I would gain more, however that made no differance. There is a post from a fellow that removed it and made a mess of things, so I would say to someone who is new to making pump adjustments do not remove the rack limiter.

__________________
1977 240D turbo

No it hasn't, it was proven to reduce combustion efficiency and increase emissions.

On the turbo models only.

Which means nothing at 240D injection quantities. Larger elements are used with turbo models because they inject so long it can't burn all the fuel efficiently.

No such thing will occur. The opposite actually. Spraying a larger volume through a needle valve results in higher lift and reduced atomization.

The only possible way to do that is to screw something else up in the process. Rack limiter removal itself produces no risk other than higher EGTs.

Yes the person who removed the rack limiter did damage something else, and this is the risk. Besides at least for me I had no gains doing so.

I think everything else above we are just likely to disagree with each other, and not convince the other. We both have made our points, so as long as you are fine with that, I am also.

__________________
1977 240D turbo

Its not you that needs convincing, your mind is set in concrete to flawed information. Anyone that comes along reading with an open mind, you know, willing to learn.... is who I'm speaking to.

If you want to blow $1500 on bigger injection pump elements for your 240D, have at it! The educated readers will have that $1500 to spend on worthwhile ventures that produce tangible results, such as an engine swap or low pressure turbo.

From MB service manual 1991, Pg. 05.4-117/3;

" The front 3 burn holes have been bored from 2.6mm to 3mm dia. to improve the precormance of the engine 615.940.

Series introduction starting end chassis No. 123.701

In future, the Esslingen-Mettingen spare parts division will only supply the type with the 3 enlarged holes.


To rectify complaints about poor performance, it is possiable to retrofit the modified percombustion chamber in models with lower end chassis Nos."

Sorry OM616, its been well proven you're a "blind jumper" with modifications.

I have said this before, OM616 advise has always worked for me, with measureable improvements, not just seat of the pants feel.

__________________
1977 240D turbo