Bus Conversions dot Com Bulletin Board
October 20, 2014, 08:47:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you had an Online Subscription: You will not have to go out in the rain, sleet, hail, or snow to retrieve it.
   Home   Help Forum Rules Search Calendar Login Register BCM Home Page Contact BCM  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Horsepower Increases  (Read 758 times)
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6851





Ignore
« on: October 02, 2010, 08:31:54 AM »

With large vehicles, whether it be our buses or over the road trucks, need large increases in horsepower and torque to make any kind of difference.  For instance, my bus had 300hp and 800lb/ft torque (brown tag N65 injectors).  After turbocharging and air to air intercooling with 9G75 injectors, the engine is putting out 375hp and 1125lb/ft torque (on an engine dyno).  About an 29% increase in torque.  The difference is, when pulling my car going from L.A. to Las Vegas, without the turbo, there were several hills that I would have to down shift slowing down into the lower 40's mph.  Now with the turbo, the only hills I have to down shift on is the Cajon Pass and Baker hill.  Pulling the southbound I-15 hill out of Nevada in California, my speed has increased from 32-45mph.  Doesn't sound like much, but you do get up the hill much faster.  It just makes driving more enjoyable. Plus at altitude, no more smoke.

In trucks, the same thing.  At 80,000lbs, the normal torque that most trucks have now is about 1550lb/ft.  Increasing to 2050lb/ft (which is an expensive option [bigger radiator, bigger transmission with cooler, bigger rear ends and U-joints) increases the hill climbing probably not as much as you'd think.  A 1550lb/ft torque truck will pull the south bound Grapevine at around 35mph (much better then the 28mph I used to do with my 8V-92TA).  Increase to the 2050lb/ft engine, and you'll do the same hill at around 50mph.

So you's makes you's choices.  More power you have, more expensive it is to run (fuel, maintenance on a big engine is always more in proportion).  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
Geoff
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 531





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2010, 08:55:27 AM »

I have been very happy with my 350HP 6V92TA, federal cams and 9G90 injectors and I get 7-7.5 mpg.  The problem with boosting the 8V71 to a turbo is the fuel milage sucks, that is why Detroit phased out the 8V71TA and went to the 6V92TA.
Logged

Geoff
'82 RTS AZ
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6851





Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2010, 09:35:58 PM »

The 8V-71T and TA were dropped since the 6V-92TA is almost the same cubic inch displacement (568 for the 8V-71 and 552 for the 6V-92).  Either engine can get the same power and fuel economy if set up correctly.  As a matter of fact, the 8V-71TA is still being made for military vehicles.

I wonder what kind of performance, fuel economy, and tail pipe emissions a 2 stroker would get if they too had common rail electronic fuel injection, catalytic converter, particulate trap, and SCR (Urea injection).  Course that won't ever happen since a 2 stroke naturally burns oil and oil burning will contaminate the catalytic converter and particulate trap very quickly.  That's why Detroit stopped making the 6V-92TA for transit buses-the particulate traps plugged up rather quickly.  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!