Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
It wont work to make my 6354s less smokey though will it? Not much use to me then
Extra Power for your deisel
- Thread starter jadeflyer
- Start date
Garryt
Well-Known Member
Manufacturers design and make "standard" engines to be used anywhere in the world.
They are designed to work reliably in adverse conditions and with poor fuels, so there is a fair bit of tolerance built in to the engine to allow a good percentage power boot, when used in non adverse conditions and with good fuel.
Plus you'll notice, that as time goes by, engines are modified by the manufacturer to give more power, with the same fundamental design and components!
An example of this is the BMW 330D.
They are designed to work reliably in adverse conditions and with poor fuels, so there is a fair bit of tolerance built in to the engine to allow a good percentage power boot, when used in non adverse conditions and with good fuel.
Plus you'll notice, that as time goes by, engines are modified by the manufacturer to give more power, with the same fundamental design and components!
An example of this is the BMW 330D.
Will_M
Well-Known Member
As has been said by others, they share less common parts than some assume. Eg, the D4-300 uses different injectors, turbo, supercharger, intercooler, cyl head, block and not least different maps to the others... The 260 also has some unique gear, and so on down the line.
Plug & play power for less fuel burn. I'd be very doubtful about that in this instance.
Not least an in warranty product could be laughed out of court if a failure occurred with aftermarket non approved equipment fitted weather directly related to said failure or otherwise.
Plug & play power for less fuel burn. I'd be very doubtful about that in this instance.
Not least an in warranty product could be laughed out of court if a failure occurred with aftermarket non approved equipment fitted weather directly related to said failure or otherwise.
jfm
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I can't beleive people are taken in by these claims for more horsepower with lower consumption. The basic laws of physics require that you burn 'X' amount of fuel with 'X' amount of air to get 'X' amount of horsepower for a given motor type.
To get more horsepower from a D4/6 means you have to burn more fuel 'Fact', so any claims for lower consumption are Bulls**t. The only way to save 20% fuel is pull the throttle back!
[/ QUOTE ]
Hear hear! Good to see some basic engineering sense!
I can't beleive people are taken in by these claims for more horsepower with lower consumption. The basic laws of physics require that you burn 'X' amount of fuel with 'X' amount of air to get 'X' amount of horsepower for a given motor type.
To get more horsepower from a D4/6 means you have to burn more fuel 'Fact', so any claims for lower consumption are Bulls**t. The only way to save 20% fuel is pull the throttle back!
[/ QUOTE ]
Hear hear! Good to see some basic engineering sense!
jfm
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with the fact you can't get better fuel consumption at the same time as more hp.
[/ QUOTE ]
Jeeze...
I don't agree with the fact you can't get better fuel consumption at the same time as more hp.
[/ QUOTE ]
Jeeze...
omega2
Well-Known Member
Did you see what "proper job" did to the monster diesel truck on scrapheap challenge? open the pump up give us more fuel hence more power, he then spent 24 hours putting it back together. Leave them alone, if it works do not fix it!! And Mr fanner is not the only one with smokers, we got two 180 Ford Sabre's 1973 vintage, Still going strong.
DAKA
Well-Known Member
Re: Extra Power for your diesel
I agree with the bulk of this thread and overall an excellent summary has been given.
I would like to add two points which are closely related.
Yes car manufactures tune their engines to give a favourable performance and fuel economy, they are specifically tuning their engines to meet euro 5 for emissions at a pre set driving cycle.
this is a compromise and will not suit everyones driving style.
If someone wants to regularly drive at 90 mph down the M1 then they will benefit from a re map, the fuel burn/torque curve can be adjusted for a maximum efficiency @ 90 mph.
The car could loose a little grunt @ 50-70 but gain @ 80-100
It is unlikely that a marine engine will benefit as they are not tuned to Euro 5 at a set driving cycle.
A marine engine manufacturer will have already tuned their engine and mapped it to burn less fuel at 15% under max revs, ie/ the cruise speed.
If anyone has a boat who only uses 70% power @ cruise speed then they could have the map adjusted but you would need to invite they guys on your boat who would then rev the @@@@ out of the engines as they use your boat and engines as a guinea pig.
You can gain something for nothing by mapping.
Torque curves and fuel burn rates can be manipulated.
That is why they call it mapping.
You get to choose which part of the curve you wish to use, like looking at a road map and depending how you feel like driving you choose if you want to go on the A1 or the M1, but you can not choose both !
In my boats case I looked at the manufacturers graphs for my engines and realised the best cruise revs are 3350, I was already close and I then fine tunned my props to put me in this range @ 25 knots which is comfortable speed.
Graphs here as examples of what you need to study for your boat
http://www.cmdmarine.com/Products/Recreational%20Inboard/4.2/BC%209118.pdf
I agree with the bulk of this thread and overall an excellent summary has been given.
I would like to add two points which are closely related.
Yes car manufactures tune their engines to give a favourable performance and fuel economy, they are specifically tuning their engines to meet euro 5 for emissions at a pre set driving cycle.
this is a compromise and will not suit everyones driving style.
If someone wants to regularly drive at 90 mph down the M1 then they will benefit from a re map, the fuel burn/torque curve can be adjusted for a maximum efficiency @ 90 mph.
The car could loose a little grunt @ 50-70 but gain @ 80-100
It is unlikely that a marine engine will benefit as they are not tuned to Euro 5 at a set driving cycle.
A marine engine manufacturer will have already tuned their engine and mapped it to burn less fuel at 15% under max revs, ie/ the cruise speed.
If anyone has a boat who only uses 70% power @ cruise speed then they could have the map adjusted but you would need to invite they guys on your boat who would then rev the @@@@ out of the engines as they use your boat and engines as a guinea pig.
You can gain something for nothing by mapping.
Torque curves and fuel burn rates can be manipulated.
That is why they call it mapping.
You get to choose which part of the curve you wish to use, like looking at a road map and depending how you feel like driving you choose if you want to go on the A1 or the M1, but you can not choose both !
In my boats case I looked at the manufacturers graphs for my engines and realised the best cruise revs are 3350, I was already close and I then fine tunned my props to put me in this range @ 25 knots which is comfortable speed.
Graphs here as examples of what you need to study for your boat
http://www.cmdmarine.com/Products/Recreational%20Inboard/4.2/BC%209118.pdf
Garryt
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
When will people realise you never get something for nothing as far as performance in engines is concerned.
Don't they think that the millions invested by Volvo, BMW, and others in research have already got the engines running at their optimum as regards fuel economy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Although I do agree with your statement to some degree, I have had so called "tuning units" installed on quite a few cars now and had cars remapped and I can certainly vouch for the fact that I've always had an improved fuel economy with no change in driving style.
The most significant was a BMW 330D of 2002 vintage. At the time it was rated at 184BHP. I fitted a "tuning unit" and raised the BHP to 210. My fuel consumption improved from an average of 37 to an average of 42MPG. It would be difficult to account for that sort of change purely with a driving style change, which I certainly did not employ with knowledge.
When will people realise you never get something for nothing as far as performance in engines is concerned.
Don't they think that the millions invested by Volvo, BMW, and others in research have already got the engines running at their optimum as regards fuel economy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Although I do agree with your statement to some degree, I have had so called "tuning units" installed on quite a few cars now and had cars remapped and I can certainly vouch for the fact that I've always had an improved fuel economy with no change in driving style.
The most significant was a BMW 330D of 2002 vintage. At the time it was rated at 184BHP. I fitted a "tuning unit" and raised the BHP to 210. My fuel consumption improved from an average of 37 to an average of 42MPG. It would be difficult to account for that sort of change purely with a driving style change, which I certainly did not employ with knowledge.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Agree that the 20% claim is nonsense but we've discussed this subject before. As you know I've had 3 turbo diesel engined cars remapped by DMS and all of them achieved better fuel consumption as well as greater power and torque. DMS claim about 8% improvement in fuel consumption. They won't put it in writing because fuel consumption is so dependent on how you drive but I can vouch for the 8% figure as being realistic. But one of the reasons that a remap may lead to better fuel consumption is the increased torque. Most auto boxes are torque sensitive and with the remap giving higher torque, it means that some of the time the autobox is in a higher gear than it would have been before the torque increase. This actually is quite noticeable in that often you can feel the autobox staying in the same gear and allowing the torque to pull the car along rather than changing down
Obviously this factor is not relevant for marine engines running mainly at constant power/speed and I cannot see that a remap or chip promising increased power can give decreased fuel consumption
Obviously this factor is not relevant for marine engines running mainly at constant power/speed and I cannot see that a remap or chip promising increased power can give decreased fuel consumption
MapisM
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic laws of physics require that you burn 'X' amount of fuel with 'X' amount of air to get 'X' amount of horsepower for a given motor type...
[/ QUOTE ]Hear hear! Good to see some basic engineering sense!
[/ QUOTE ]Of course I see why you agree with the above statement, generally speaking.
But I happened to see just a few days ago the VP bulletins of both your new (775 hp) engines, together with the 715 hp version.
And I was a bit surprised to read that the rated specific consumption is about 5% lower for the 715, which in turn is also approved for inland waterways, whilst the 800 isn't (*).
Weird, innit? I thought there were just tuning differences between the two blocks, but maybe not.
(*) I guess you're not too worried about not being allowed to cruise IWW, anyway... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[ QUOTE ]
The basic laws of physics require that you burn 'X' amount of fuel with 'X' amount of air to get 'X' amount of horsepower for a given motor type...
[/ QUOTE ]Hear hear! Good to see some basic engineering sense!
[/ QUOTE ]Of course I see why you agree with the above statement, generally speaking.
But I happened to see just a few days ago the VP bulletins of both your new (775 hp) engines, together with the 715 hp version.
And I was a bit surprised to read that the rated specific consumption is about 5% lower for the 715, which in turn is also approved for inland waterways, whilst the 800 isn't (*).
Weird, innit? I thought there were just tuning differences between the two blocks, but maybe not.
(*) I guess you're not too worried about not being allowed to cruise IWW, anyway... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
jfm
Well-Known Member
I dont think the volvo 5% is that strange. The 775hp has a sp fuel consumption 5% worse than the 715, both measured at 2300rpm. The 775 is obviously developing more torque, and more power, at this same rpm. To get that Volvo are squirting more fuel into the 775 than the 715.
It woudl appear that the incremental few hp from the 775 are being obtained somewhat inefficiently. I mean, the extra fuel that's getting squirted in is past the engine's sweet spot, and isn't being burnt as efficiently as the fuel that the 715 gets. I don't think that's a strange conclusion, and just shows the D12 is probably at its limit (or past it) at 715 (approx) bhp.
This data doesn't at all support a theory that chipping/remapping gets you more bhp AND more mpg!
Incidentally my old 715s were very clean, almost no soot on transom, but not quite zero soot. The 775s seem cleaner still - absolutely zero soot anywhere, even close to the exhausts, after a 180nm trip. Which doesn't match what you'd expect, intuitively, from those sp bhp figures. Perhaps my old ones needed a tune up!
I'm devastated about the IWW restriction Mapis
It woudl appear that the incremental few hp from the 775 are being obtained somewhat inefficiently. I mean, the extra fuel that's getting squirted in is past the engine's sweet spot, and isn't being burnt as efficiently as the fuel that the 715 gets. I don't think that's a strange conclusion, and just shows the D12 is probably at its limit (or past it) at 715 (approx) bhp.
This data doesn't at all support a theory that chipping/remapping gets you more bhp AND more mpg!
Incidentally my old 715s were very clean, almost no soot on transom, but not quite zero soot. The 775s seem cleaner still - absolutely zero soot anywhere, even close to the exhausts, after a 180nm trip. Which doesn't match what you'd expect, intuitively, from those sp bhp figures. Perhaps my old ones needed a tune up!
I'm devastated about the IWW restriction Mapis
RogerRat
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I can't beleive people are taken in by these claims for more horsepower with lower consumption. The basic laws of physics require that you burn 'X' amount of fuel with 'X' amount of air to get 'X' amount of horsepower for a given motor type.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm runningthe risk of, 'Lakesailoring' someone here but the basic law of physics we are talking about is, "Work in equals Work Out." You can split this anyway you like but more fuel says not a saving and I'm still convinced that the energy loss will be eaten up in heat which means problems, especially for us outdrive types.
Over powering legs with too much power means your can be asking for cooling trouble. There's a really quick bright red Hunton around the solent called, 'Cheetah', his engines are reworked, remapped and the legs have extra cooling, the owner is a specialist like 'Col' /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif, you need his type of knowledge if you want to drive D6s' that hard imho.
Volvo might be a bunch of plonkers in some peoples opinion but I'm guessing that the Swedish egg-heads no better than us! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I can't beleive people are taken in by these claims for more horsepower with lower consumption. The basic laws of physics require that you burn 'X' amount of fuel with 'X' amount of air to get 'X' amount of horsepower for a given motor type.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm runningthe risk of, 'Lakesailoring' someone here but the basic law of physics we are talking about is, "Work in equals Work Out." You can split this anyway you like but more fuel says not a saving and I'm still convinced that the energy loss will be eaten up in heat which means problems, especially for us outdrive types.
Over powering legs with too much power means your can be asking for cooling trouble. There's a really quick bright red Hunton around the solent called, 'Cheetah', his engines are reworked, remapped and the legs have extra cooling, the owner is a specialist like 'Col' /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif, you need his type of knowledge if you want to drive D6s' that hard imho.
Volvo might be a bunch of plonkers in some peoples opinion but I'm guessing that the Swedish egg-heads no better than us! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
[2068]
...
>"Work in equals Work Out."
Engine manufacturers do manage to squeeze a bit more energy from a given amount of fuel from each generation of engine, but they spend lots of time and money doing it.
e.g. finer atomisation of the fuel with hi-tech injectors, higher fuel rail pressures, tweaking the cylinder head /valve design for optimum gas flow and combustion: the aim being to efficiently convert as much of the fuel as possible into kinetic energy, minimising the amount of noise / heat / fuel going straight out unburnt.
A KAD32 enveloped in a cloud of smoke on the pontoon isn't quite there /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Engine manufacturers do manage to squeeze a bit more energy from a given amount of fuel from each generation of engine, but they spend lots of time and money doing it.
e.g. finer atomisation of the fuel with hi-tech injectors, higher fuel rail pressures, tweaking the cylinder head /valve design for optimum gas flow and combustion: the aim being to efficiently convert as much of the fuel as possible into kinetic energy, minimising the amount of noise / heat / fuel going straight out unburnt.
A KAD32 enveloped in a cloud of smoke on the pontoon isn't quite there /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
MapisM
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
This data doesn't at all support a theory that chipping/remapping gets you more bhp AND more mpg!
[/ QUOTE ]Oh yeah, that wasn't what I meant with my example. In the case of D12 715/800, it's in fact the opposite, surely because that block performs more effciently when optimized for 700 or so hps, rather than almost 800.
Btw, the 650 version is slightly less efficient than the 715, which seems to confirm your "sweet spot" theory.
But I was rather commenting spannerman theory about X fuel plus Y air producing Z power for a given motor type, which you agreed with. Actually, I also agree in principle, but only as long as we add "all other things being equal".
If by tweaking the mapping we can achieve the same Z power at a different rpm, I very much doubt that X and Y would remain exactly equal.
In fact, if we take the above D12 example starting from the 650 version, VP itself shows us that it is possible to get 65 more hps AND better efficiency (which one way or another is bound to translate in better mpg at the end of the day).
Mind, actually I think there are other differences in the 650, which has also a higher duty rating, but you see what I mean.
In any case, we're talking about hardly measurable optimizations here, just a few % points.
20% or so claims are just ridiculous.
This data doesn't at all support a theory that chipping/remapping gets you more bhp AND more mpg!
[/ QUOTE ]Oh yeah, that wasn't what I meant with my example. In the case of D12 715/800, it's in fact the opposite, surely because that block performs more effciently when optimized for 700 or so hps, rather than almost 800.
Btw, the 650 version is slightly less efficient than the 715, which seems to confirm your "sweet spot" theory.
But I was rather commenting spannerman theory about X fuel plus Y air producing Z power for a given motor type, which you agreed with. Actually, I also agree in principle, but only as long as we add "all other things being equal".
If by tweaking the mapping we can achieve the same Z power at a different rpm, I very much doubt that X and Y would remain exactly equal.
In fact, if we take the above D12 example starting from the 650 version, VP itself shows us that it is possible to get 65 more hps AND better efficiency (which one way or another is bound to translate in better mpg at the end of the day).
Mind, actually I think there are other differences in the 650, which has also a higher duty rating, but you see what I mean.
In any case, we're talking about hardly measurable optimizations here, just a few % points.
20% or so claims are just ridiculous.
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Re: Extra Power for your diesel
Just a couple of points.
I have not bothered to look at Volvo D12 hardware breakdown, however the label on the engine is only part of the story. The D12 800 will certainly be completely re-optimised i.e injector, ECU calibration turbo match, a complete rework. We have to look at the part load performance which could easily be better on the higer rated engine.
A few years ago I was responsible for testing Scania D12 engine when it first came out. On the dyno full load performance was surprisingly poor.
The guys at Holset who supplied the turbomachinery ageed with my findings as the turbo supplied by them was close to stall at rated speed and less than ideal. So we started looking at part load performance/fuel consumption map, which was excellent.
So yes it is perfectly reasonable when comparing two engine ratings that the higher rated engine may be less greedy on PART LOAD load than the lower rated engine when you are down the Propeller Law Curve. At WOT different story Hp equals Heat which is created by burning fuel, simple physics.
On the subject of automtive engines it is perfectly feaseable for aftermarket 'defeat devices' to improve diesel engine fuel economy, by say simply reducing say the amont of EGR which will make a measureable difference.
One of the key advantages of common rail is muliple injection events. For example one strategy is for a post injection event. I.E giving a little squirt too late to actally benifit combustion, fuel just burns in the exhaust, this added heat keeps ths Cat at regeneration temperature and working properly. Turn this feature off as well as EGR and hey presto better fuel economy. The result is a huge rise in exhaust emissions.
And before anybody talks on soot on transoms, this is only a tiny part of the story the big target for legislators is Nox which is a colourless gas, almost impossible to detect outside the lab. Particulates (soot) is of less an issue, unless it is sub PM 10, then it is also impossible to see (good) however when soot gets down to sub PM10 it passes through your lung walls (very bad)
I am a dedicated fan of common rail diesel engines of any flavour and had better keep my thoughts on smoky old marine engines of yesteryear to myself.
Just a couple of points.
I have not bothered to look at Volvo D12 hardware breakdown, however the label on the engine is only part of the story. The D12 800 will certainly be completely re-optimised i.e injector, ECU calibration turbo match, a complete rework. We have to look at the part load performance which could easily be better on the higer rated engine.
A few years ago I was responsible for testing Scania D12 engine when it first came out. On the dyno full load performance was surprisingly poor.
The guys at Holset who supplied the turbomachinery ageed with my findings as the turbo supplied by them was close to stall at rated speed and less than ideal. So we started looking at part load performance/fuel consumption map, which was excellent.
So yes it is perfectly reasonable when comparing two engine ratings that the higher rated engine may be less greedy on PART LOAD load than the lower rated engine when you are down the Propeller Law Curve. At WOT different story Hp equals Heat which is created by burning fuel, simple physics.
On the subject of automtive engines it is perfectly feaseable for aftermarket 'defeat devices' to improve diesel engine fuel economy, by say simply reducing say the amont of EGR which will make a measureable difference.
One of the key advantages of common rail is muliple injection events. For example one strategy is for a post injection event. I.E giving a little squirt too late to actally benifit combustion, fuel just burns in the exhaust, this added heat keeps ths Cat at regeneration temperature and working properly. Turn this feature off as well as EGR and hey presto better fuel economy. The result is a huge rise in exhaust emissions.
And before anybody talks on soot on transoms, this is only a tiny part of the story the big target for legislators is Nox which is a colourless gas, almost impossible to detect outside the lab. Particulates (soot) is of less an issue, unless it is sub PM 10, then it is also impossible to see (good) however when soot gets down to sub PM10 it passes through your lung walls (very bad)
I am a dedicated fan of common rail diesel engines of any flavour and had better keep my thoughts on smoky old marine engines of yesteryear to myself.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Re: Extra Power for your diesel
[ QUOTE ]
We have to look at the part load performance which could easily be better on the higer rated engine.
[/ QUOTE ]Good point, I agree that at partial load the story can be different.
And it can also be different between one hull/transmission/prop and another.
But such comparisons could only be made through accurate field tests.
The numbers I was using are those available in VP bulletins, that's all I have.
Actually, they also show the prop load curves, but understanding a 5% or so difference based on them is absolutely impossible. And it's just theoretical anyway, particularly for planing boats where the load factor is not constant through the rpm range.
[ QUOTE ]
We have to look at the part load performance which could easily be better on the higer rated engine.
[/ QUOTE ]Good point, I agree that at partial load the story can be different.
And it can also be different between one hull/transmission/prop and another.
But such comparisons could only be made through accurate field tests.
The numbers I was using are those available in VP bulletins, that's all I have.
Actually, they also show the prop load curves, but understanding a 5% or so difference based on them is absolutely impossible. And it's just theoretical anyway, particularly for planing boats where the load factor is not constant through the rpm range.
RogerRat
Well-Known Member
Re: Extra Power for your diesel
[ QUOTE ]
On the subject of automtive engines it is perfectly feaseable for aftermarket 'defeat devices' to improve diesel engine fuel economy, by say simply reducing say the amont of EGR which will make a measureable difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks Lateboater, although you lost me in the middle as I'm not a diesel engineer, most of it made sense and sounds like there's just a touch of 'hands on' experience behind your comments. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif little clues like 'responsible for testing D12 etc. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Sorry, what's 'EGR' ?
Why is there nothing in your profile to mention such vast experience?
And.. Are you saying that after market 'defeat devices' are worth pursuing if one wants to improve certain areas like economy or WOT performance?
/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
[ QUOTE ]
On the subject of automtive engines it is perfectly feaseable for aftermarket 'defeat devices' to improve diesel engine fuel economy, by say simply reducing say the amont of EGR which will make a measureable difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks Lateboater, although you lost me in the middle as I'm not a diesel engineer, most of it made sense and sounds like there's just a touch of 'hands on' experience behind your comments. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif little clues like 'responsible for testing D12 etc. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Sorry, what's 'EGR' ?
Why is there nothing in your profile to mention such vast experience?
And.. Are you saying that after market 'defeat devices' are worth pursuing if one wants to improve certain areas like economy or WOT performance?
/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Re: Extra Power for your diesel
EGR stands for exhaust gas recirculation, but the tricks LB mentioned were related to catalyzed engines.
Can't do much for WOT performance of your T40 I'm afraid... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
EGR stands for exhaust gas recirculation, but the tricks LB mentioned were related to catalyzed engines.
Can't do much for WOT performance of your T40 I'm afraid... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif