"supercharge" a diesel?
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
From: CA
Originally Posted by Tony G
AHHH, finally a like minded response. :-) 
I think I read what the new whipple blower being modded onto the v10 uses 1 HP at cruising speed. Wow. Put some open flowing hedders on a diesel and supercharge it... and gear it really high with stout gears and it might get 30 + mpg??? Maybe not too. I think a turbo lengthens the usefull rpm range over a NA diesel. I wonder if a super would have the same effect.
Tony
I think I read what the new whipple blower being modded onto the v10 uses 1 HP at cruising speed. Wow. Put some open flowing hedders on a diesel and supercharge it... and gear it really high with stout gears and it might get 30 + mpg??? Maybe not too. I think a turbo lengthens the usefull rpm range over a NA diesel. I wonder if a super would have the same effect. Tony
Hey I hate to be a party pooper, but do you think you're the first person that thought of this? Like I said, there is REASON why nearly all diesel engines are turboed. It doesn't matter what you THINK, it matters what WORKS. And the reason that nobody supercharges diesels is because they don't WORK. ANY mechanic worth his paycheck will tell you exactly what I told you. Think what you want to think, but when there's almost 100 years of diesel engine mechanics who don't think superchargers are a good idea, why do you?
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 355
Likes: 4
From: Central Pennsylvania
Well, it's one thing to be told and it's another thing to have first hand experience... 
Up until just recently russian tanks have been powered by supercharged diesels rather than turbo's. Besides, telling us (me) is one thing... showing me where people have done it and have showing the data and the experiment parameters is another. I'm not here to say that it works, I'm here to say that I like to ponder the possibilities. Also, apparently it does work for the deltahawke engine as mentioned before.
Tony
Up until just recently russian tanks have been powered by supercharged diesels rather than turbo's. Besides, telling us (me) is one thing... showing me where people have done it and have showing the data and the experiment parameters is another. I'm not here to say that it works, I'm here to say that I like to ponder the possibilities. Also, apparently it does work for the deltahawke engine as mentioned before. Tony
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
From: CA
Originally Posted by Tony G
Well, it's one thing to be told and it's another thing to have first hand experience... Up until just recently russian tanks have been powered by supercharged diesels rather than turbo's. Besides, telling us (me) is one thing... showing me where people have done it and have showing the data and the experiment parameters is another. I'm not here to say that it works, I'm here to say that I like to ponder the possibilities. Also, apparently it does work for the deltahawke engine as mentioned before.
Tony
Up until just recently russian tanks have been powered by supercharged diesels rather than turbo's. Besides, telling us (me) is one thing... showing me where people have done it and have showing the data and the experiment parameters is another. I'm not here to say that it works, I'm here to say that I like to ponder the possibilities. Also, apparently it does work for the deltahawke engine as mentioned before. Tony
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
From: Gravel Switch, KY
Fordtruckin':
I don't wanna get into a ****in' match and that is not my intention, just trying to learn. Is there any data that you can provide that backs up your ascertain that superchargers will not work on diesels? Can you cite any documentation of test trials or experiments done by anyone that proves it isn't practical? I can't prove it can be done, but I've not found any evidence to the contrary either. I can't say no one over the past 100 years has supercharged a diesel although there are none that I am currently aware of (with the exception of the aircraft engine mentioned previously), but that still does not mean it isn't possible.
DannyP
I don't wanna get into a ****in' match and that is not my intention, just trying to learn. Is there any data that you can provide that backs up your ascertain that superchargers will not work on diesels? Can you cite any documentation of test trials or experiments done by anyone that proves it isn't practical? I can't prove it can be done, but I've not found any evidence to the contrary either. I can't say no one over the past 100 years has supercharged a diesel although there are none that I am currently aware of (with the exception of the aircraft engine mentioned previously), but that still does not mean it isn't possible.
DannyP
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 355
Likes: 4
From: Central Pennsylvania
Here is the link showing the Russian supercharged diesel. http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/v_diesels.html
It's interesting to note that they have replaced it with what they call a turbo-supercharged diesel, which I think is just a turbocharged model. The turbocharged model appears more fuel efficient and more powerful, at least in total Horsepower numbers. Here is also a link to a locomotive 4 stroke supercharged diesel. Most supercharged diesels seem to be 2 strokes, but here is another 4 stroke. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...comotive&hl=en Notice the rpm range is 350 to 1100.
I'm sure there are other supercharged diesels, but they seem focused on the very large heavy duty use in locomotives, ships, tanks and other such applications. To say that "they don't work" is incorrect, but maybe ford f150 means that according to his testings, study and evaluations, they don't or won't work as efficiently in a diesel pickup?.. not sure. I've heard that a supercharger is more expensive setup than a turbocharger and that's why vehicle manufacturers use them. But that's just what I heard and have not seen any data on expense of parts,,,etc.
Tony
It's interesting to note that they have replaced it with what they call a turbo-supercharged diesel, which I think is just a turbocharged model. The turbocharged model appears more fuel efficient and more powerful, at least in total Horsepower numbers. Here is also a link to a locomotive 4 stroke supercharged diesel. Most supercharged diesels seem to be 2 strokes, but here is another 4 stroke. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...comotive&hl=en Notice the rpm range is 350 to 1100.
I'm sure there are other supercharged diesels, but they seem focused on the very large heavy duty use in locomotives, ships, tanks and other such applications. To say that "they don't work" is incorrect, but maybe ford f150 means that according to his testings, study and evaluations, they don't or won't work as efficiently in a diesel pickup?.. not sure. I've heard that a supercharger is more expensive setup than a turbocharger and that's why vehicle manufacturers use them. But that's just what I heard and have not seen any data on expense of parts,,,etc.
Tony
Last edited by Tony G; Jul 9, 2004 at 12:12 PM.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
From: Rio Rancho USA
Originally Posted by fordtruckin
Guys a turbo is going to be more efficient. Blowers take engine power to run, and turbos are free power, and you'll make more of it. There's a reason why every big diesel engine other than the old detroit diesels and EMDs use a turbo, from Cats all the way up to the 100,000 shp monsters that power the biggest ships.
The small amount of power used to turn the supercharger is nothing compared to the power potential.
In all my days of watching dyno pulls, one thing is certain, a properly setup supercharger will have more low end torque verses a turbo, because turbos dont boost down low while a supercharger can be made to boost right off idle. Like I said, properly set up. Both are great for making power, one just be made to do it at a lower RPM.
Since Im putting in my 2 cents, twin turbos are cool, but you can get all the boost you need out of just one, and take less tuning and work too
Posting Guru
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
From: Rio Rancho USA
[QUOTE=Pikachu]71 series obsolete? Maybe, but the most reliable engines I have ever encountered. All mechanical, leaky, smoky, noisy, thirsty, but reliable. I had a pair of 8v71N's in my last boat. The silly things had close to 9000 hours on them and I kept hoping they would die to give me an excuse to major them, but they just wouldn't....
QUOTE]
Im a big Detriot fan, I think they are great engines. I really like the sound they make, especially out of dual pipes. The leaking issue is not too pretty, but its part of the design, and if they are not leaking, they dont have oil LOL. Im sure you know all of this, Im not arguing with you. Just had to comment
If you want to see what one is capable of power-wise, check this out
http://www.bandagbullet.com
QUOTE]
Im a big Detriot fan, I think they are great engines. I really like the sound they make, especially out of dual pipes. The leaking issue is not too pretty, but its part of the design, and if they are not leaking, they dont have oil LOL. Im sure you know all of this, Im not arguing with you. Just had to comment
If you want to see what one is capable of power-wise, check this out
http://www.bandagbullet.com
Freshman User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
I dont know if it serves as much of a testimony, but here on our farm we haul grain with an 86' GMC General with a siver-92 (8v92 roughly 12.26 liters if i did my math right), and a 99 volvo with the 12.7 detroit both pulling 40' hopper bottoms and any time we've been out on a flat stretch the old detroit will pull away from the one more than ten years his junior pretty easily.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
New User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Just my 2penceworth,
Perhaps the turbo diesel is just more cost-effective. All the quote's out there saying no one use's supercharged diesels have all quoted manufacturer where cost is an issue.
An another note on the tank, the early turbo were very unrealiable if I remember rightly, not the kind of thing you want in a tank really. While the superchargers where simple and reliable.
Just an idea.
And in my eye's the super would be much much nicer to drive, no neck snap at 3k rpm, just nice even acceleration.
Stu
Perhaps the turbo diesel is just more cost-effective. All the quote's out there saying no one use's supercharged diesels have all quoted manufacturer where cost is an issue.
An another note on the tank, the early turbo were very unrealiable if I remember rightly, not the kind of thing you want in a tank really. While the superchargers where simple and reliable.
Just an idea.
And in my eye's the super would be much much nicer to drive, no neck snap at 3k rpm, just nice even acceleration.
Stu
Last edited by Xrious; Dec 17, 2004 at 08:34 AM.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 355
Likes: 4
From: Central Pennsylvania
Originally Posted by Xrious
ohh, and the aircraft engine, well that deffinately prove's the old cost arguement 
How much is it just for the v4 engine?? lol
Stu
How much is it just for the v4 engine?? lolStu
But if you check out http://www.deltahawkengines.com/econom00.htm it compares the cost to a Lycoming aircraft motor which is similar size which the deltahawk company is targeting for replacement. Initial cost is only $1300 more and savings after a 2000 hour rebuild is about $32,000. I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't use the deltahawk engine price to defend any supposition that a turbo chargers are used on diesels rather than supercharges because of cost factor. The deltahawk has such exotic things as titanium connecting rods and commercial grade starter or other things that the FAA requires that drive the cost up over what a land operated diesel would be. Remember also that the deltahawk is both turbo and supercharged and the question involves just putting a supercharger on a diesel rather than a turbo.
Tony
Elder User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
From: P-Town, CA
Belts!!!! WAHAHAHAHAHHA
Originally Posted by Blurry94
The only setback I see with a SC'ed diesel is that the supercharger itself would have to be pulley'd down a ton to make "decent" boost becuase of the lack of RPM's...and then you would definately have major belt slip issues.
No need for belts man, those things were gear driven. I have heard that there is such a thing as a 14-71 blower on sale, so what in the world would you put that on today????
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 3
From: Joliet, Illinois
A 4 stroke diesel is like a 4 stroke car engine, it can suck air all by it self.
The Detroit 2 stroke diesel (every time the piston went down, it was a power stroke without an intake stroke) it needed a positive displacement supercharger as it had intake ports not valves, and without the valves, no separate intake or exhaust stroke, when the piston went down, the supercharger pushed the exhaust out the open valves with the intake charge coming through the ports that were lower in the cylinder.
Superchargers suck a whole lot of energy from the crank, and toss a bunch of it out the exhaust unused.
A turbo recaptures a lot of that unused energy for a total net loss that is much smaller than a supercharger.
Twin turbo's can reduce the turbo lag because the rotating parts of the smaller turbo's have less mass and spool up faster, not to mention if it is sized right, more top end power.
The Detroit 2 stroke diesel (every time the piston went down, it was a power stroke without an intake stroke) it needed a positive displacement supercharger as it had intake ports not valves, and without the valves, no separate intake or exhaust stroke, when the piston went down, the supercharger pushed the exhaust out the open valves with the intake charge coming through the ports that were lower in the cylinder.
Superchargers suck a whole lot of energy from the crank, and toss a bunch of it out the exhaust unused.
A turbo recaptures a lot of that unused energy for a total net loss that is much smaller than a supercharger.
Twin turbo's can reduce the turbo lag because the rotating parts of the smaller turbo's have less mass and spool up faster, not to mention if it is sized right, more top end power.
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,548
Likes: 71
From: Calhoun GA
Originally Posted by '961506
No need for belts man, those things were gear driven. I have heard that there is such a thing as a 14-71 blower on sale, so what in the world would you put that on today????