Bus Conversions dot Com Bulletin Board
November 23, 2014, 09:09:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you had an Online Subscription: You can zoom in to make the text larger and easier to read.
   Home   Help Forum Rules Search Calendar Login Register BCM Home Page Contact BCM  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: repower revisit  (Read 4730 times)
Don Fairchild
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 759




Ignore
« on: October 29, 2010, 04:02:14 PM »

Ok letís see how many people I can totally tic off. LOL

First I would like to see every one rebuild and turbo there two-stroke engines and make them run the best they can. The problem here is not the engine in most cases but the people that work on them and the same can be said for engines in general. (Gas and Diesel) the two stroke is the most efficient engine in the world bar none. The post from ARL is about repowering and to that question the field is wide open. I think the 5.9 is too small of an engine. Yes it can make a lot of horse power but at what cost. I run a Chevy with a 6.6 drama that puts out 382 hp and 1132 ft lbs tq to the ground. At one of the rpm trade shows I let Andy Granatelliís crew put my truck on a chassis dyno. When they saw what it would do, both their crew and the banks crew called me a liar when I said I had not made any internal improvements to the engine.  To this day the engine has still not been torn down and I have over 208,000 miles on it. I have had to fix a couple of parts that have broken (two torque converters and a set of axles). I use my truck a 2003 4x4 crew cab for work, and I also pull it behind my bus. I pull trailers in excess of 18,000 lbs on a regular basis and get 14mpg doing so. I can run the grape vine at any speed I feel safe with. The last time I went down to the LA area to pick up engines I had the flat bed trailer and I picked up a 4-71T, 6-71T 4 8V71Tís and an 8V92TA I bought. This thing will do what I want it to but I would not put this engine in a 40í bus.
I hear a lot of talk about the Cummins and the 50ís but what about the 3176 cat. Donít you guys like cats.
 Codyís question.  I have spent a lot of time in the labs with the test engineers over the last several years doing what they told us could not be done and have seen a lot of engines the manufactures are trying to put out here to work. While I canít talk about everything I see (hey I donít even understand everything I know) I will tell you my info is that what you see today is not what you will see tomorrow. Of The engines that are in the test cells now half will not make the grade and will be changed for a different product. This is the last year for the 14L 60ís. Next it will be a DD15 or Mercedes whatever. As we see engines come and go and it strikes me that the two-strokes are still being made, albeit in limited quantities.

We have just be given tier II rating for the harbor craft rules and will be back in testing for the tier IV or blue sky numbers sometime next year if we can find the money. We should be listed on their web site sometime in the next week.


Don
Logged
robertglines1
steam nut
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4037





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2010, 04:23:52 PM »

been awhile Don..I know 2 stroke's are your business..and you can make them run! Problem is I don't know how! I still have the 89 with the 8V92 and running 70 plus it still gets 5 mpg..great running engine lots of hp and torque.  care to share some simple tips?   Bob
Logged

Bob@Judy  98 XLE prevost with 3 slides --Home done---last one! SW INdiana
uncle ned
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2010, 04:53:31 PM »



Don   As i remember  It was a econoline van pushing your truck.  of course my memory is like me getting old and week. Also remember that the truck had a hard time with a setra bus also.

Great trip with some nice friends.

uncle ned
Logged

4104's forever
6v92 v730
Huggy Bear
cody
Guest

« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2010, 04:59:59 PM »

The reason I asked for Dons thoughts is because he is living and working on 2 strokes in california and making the 2 strokes meet their emissions rules, that is a feat of magic in anyones book, I also know that nobody admires the ability of the 2 stoke more than Don does, however, my question is about the long term viability of the 2 strokes in todays 'green' climate.  Will they be outlawed or will they just be allowed to retire quietly, what is happening with the port authorities that was all over the news a few months ago.  What is the gut feeling about this.  On a side note does replaced truck parts include paint? lol
Logged
Lonnie time to go
Lonnie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 301

Saginaw, Michgan




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2010, 05:17:46 PM »

Don
  Afraid to ask but what about a    dt-466   any year.
I wonder because some have added horsepower and torque with good results (not in a bus).
Sorry I don't know what year of dt-466,  mechanical etc....

Lonnie
Logged

1976 4905
jackhartjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1326


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2010, 05:25:14 PM »

Cody, what is happening with the ports is this...the ports want to be totally union...call them teamsters...and have so far succeeded in doing so.  They got a very liberal so called judge to rule last month that the port has the right to demand only company drivers ride around in their domain...which elimnates owner-operators!  The American Trucking Association is suing them on the grounds that that interfears in interstate commerce.  (I think I got that right.)
Logged

Jack Hart, CDS
1956 GMC PD-4501 #945 (The Mighty SCENICRUISER!)
8V71 Detroit
4 speed Spicer Trannsmission
Hickory, NC, (Where a call to God is a local call!)
cody
Guest

« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2010, 05:30:29 PM »

Wasn't what I was asking jack, my question was about 2 strokes and the port authority, I seem to remember a few months ago there being an idea about only 4 strokes allowed or trucks of a certain age were not allowed, i can't remember but it was several months ago that I had heard it.  I'd rather not get involved in a union/non-union issue here.
Logged
jackhartjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1326


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2010, 05:53:31 PM »

But Cody, it is all about the union here.  They first wanted to ban any truck built before 1989...then came up with the thing about employee only drivers.  An owner-operator can't join a union...therefore you eliminate them being able to work in the ports.
I was not being political here...the ports have made it political!
Logged

Jack Hart, CDS
1956 GMC PD-4501 #945 (The Mighty SCENICRUISER!)
8V71 Detroit
4 speed Spicer Trannsmission
Hickory, NC, (Where a call to God is a local call!)
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12908




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2010, 06:29:38 PM »

I have no idea about the east coast but in CA all trucks 1993 and older are banned along with most from 1994 to 2003 models owner operators are allowed they just pay a 100 fee to register the trucks for hauling from the dock almost has to be a new truck and now they want all white color trucks.
I am in Houston now doesn't look like the CA bs has reached here yet I see some older owner owned trucks hauling off the docks but Texas is a whole different country LOL
Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
cody
Guest

« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2010, 07:49:05 PM »

Thats what I was asking about clifford, I had heard bits and pieces of the age of the trucks but had not heard of any resolution or compromise on it. I'm not so sure it's as much a union issue as it may be an organized crime issue, somebody is profiting big time, always follow the money.  I'm assuming that the teamsters are still mostly controled by organized crime so I'm assuming that has a lot to do with whatever is happening.
Logged
Lin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4584

1965 MC-5a




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2010, 09:08:48 PM »

What about truck and engine manufacturers?  Do they stand to make money?
Logged

You don't have to believe everything you think.
jackhartjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1326


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2010, 03:12:27 AM »

Lin, I did not hear one peek out of them as this was coming down!
Logged

Jack Hart, CDS
1956 GMC PD-4501 #945 (The Mighty SCENICRUISER!)
8V71 Detroit
4 speed Spicer Trannsmission
Hickory, NC, (Where a call to God is a local call!)
robertglines1
steam nut
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4037





Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2010, 05:25:45 AM »

what do I need to do to the 8V92 other than Detroit specs to get better fuel economy? I will/ slow down to 65 mph.. Engine is fairly low mileage judged by recent bearing ck.only 1 ten thousands under new. and selves still have cross hatching on them..good running engine.  Bob  PS rite now plan on keeping it also for kids to use(89 prevost).or buy from Dad Grin
Logged

Bob@Judy  98 XLE prevost with 3 slides --Home done---last one! SW INdiana
rv_safetyman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2199


Jim Shepherd


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2010, 07:42:33 AM »

Lonnie asked about the IHC DT466.  It is a member of a family of IHC engines DT360/DT466/DT530.  It is a very durable engine used in a ton of class 7 trucks.  You can see more about them here:

http://www.astleford.com/pdf/dt466dt530brochure.pdf

DD markets the DT530 as their Series 40 engine.

I converted a class 7 IHC truck into a toter home.  It had a DT466 and it was a slug.  I was always rowing the gears (5+2).  When I first got the truck someone had turned it up.  It ran pretty good but smoked badly.  When the smog cops enacted our mandatory dyno test in CO, I had to have the pump set back to stock.  Would hardly get out of its own way.  In my typical engineer fashion, I built the truck pretty stout, so it weighted probably 28K.  Details of the project are here:

http://beltguy.com/toterhome.htm

I also drove a Penske truck when I was doing some training.  It had a GVW of 25.9K (under CDL requirements).  It had an electronic version of the engine and a seven speed transmission.  It had a bit better performance, but still not great.

I looked at doing an engine swap, and about the only thing that made sense was the DT530.  However it was not available in the salvage yards at the time

The DT466 has been discussed on the boards before.  The general consensus is that it is not a good bus engine.  It has too little torque for big buses and is too heavy for small buses. 

Jim
Logged

Jim Shepherd
Evergreen, CO
í85 Eagle 10/Series 60/Eaton AutoShift 10 speed transmission
Somewhere between a tin tent and a finished product
Bus Project details: http://beltguy.com/Bus_Project/busproject.htm
Blog:  http://rvsafetyman.blogspot.com/
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12908




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2010, 08:05:31 AM »

Lonnie , one good point about the 466DT is that parts are cheap a overhaul kit is around 800 bucks and they are a true wet liner engine makes it easy to work on.Compairing the 466 to the Cummins ISB seems to be a better engine with a longer warranty for 2010 as follows with standard setting for both

466  300 hp   850 lbs of torque @ 1200rpm  set at 2400 rpm max


ISB  350 hp  650 lbs of torque at 1500 rpm   set 3000 rpm max



Larger than the ISB weight is around 300 lbs more, but the 9 and 10 L weigh the same  

The Flx folks use that engine a lot in their buses but like Jim I would go for the 530  no difference in the size and weight of the 3 engines and another good point is they come after cooled or intercooled models you gain 15 hp with intercooled model may not be worth all the piping and price of a intercooler for 15 hp fwiw they are called MaxxForce engines nowdays



good luck


« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 08:16:25 AM by luvrbus » Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
bobofthenorth
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2097



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2010, 08:31:34 AM »

We had several 466s in our fleet, mostly mechanical.  Set under 200 HP they were dead reliable workhorses that never cost us anything.  We had a couple set well above 300 HP that we used in field application units (high flotation truck conversions).  The best thing about them was, as Clifford & Jim noted, that they are relatively cheap to rebuild.  With that much fueling they will burn valves and collapse pistons regularly. 
Logged

R.J.(Bob) Evans
1981 Prevost 8-92, 10 spd
My website
Our weblog
Simply growing older is not the same as living.
Busted Knuckle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6447


6 Setras, 2 MCIs, and 1 Dina. Just buses ;D


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2010, 12:25:51 PM »

Don   As i remember  It was a econoline van pushing your truck.  of course my memory is like me getting old and week. Also remember that the truck had a hard time with a setra bus also.
Great trip with some nice friends.
uncle ned

Ned that was a DINA!
And also if you remember it was Don's truck that pulled "Mater" & the MCI out when things got outta control and the MCI pushed "Mater" off the drive sideways! (and didn't even notice both of them was there at once, let alone either one by itself!)
Of course it was just making a payback from "Mater" pulling Don's bus out of the mud! Wink
Grin  BK  Grin
Logged

Busted Knuckle aka Bryce Gaston
KY Lakeside Travel's Busted Knuckle Garage
Huntingdon, TN 12 minutes N of I-40 @ exit 108
www.kylakesidetravel.net

Grin Keep SMILING it makes people wonder what yer up to! Grin (at least thats what momma always told me! Grin)
Lonnie time to go
Lonnie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 301

Saginaw, Michgan




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2010, 12:31:57 PM »

thank you guys

  I have friends who have added horsepower with good results.  I have been looking at DT466 for the high torque ratings
250 hp @ 800  is factory specs.  I  would think adding 200 hp to standard specs  be ok.

450 hp @ lots of torque should last at least 200.000 miles.  Now you also have the added benefit of cheap parts and cheap rebuilds.
The ability to get parts at more places.

For the big one, Almost every place can work on your engine if you breakdown on the road.

There are enough great minds on the board to find a way to make this work.

It should be said I am not looking for a hotrod but a way to get traveling with less worry.



Lonnie







Logged

1976 4905
RoyJ
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 180





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2010, 01:39:06 PM »

250 hp @ 800  is factory specs.  I  would think adding 200 hp to standard specs  be ok.

450 hp @ lots of torque should last at least 200.000 miles.  

That might be pushing it a little too far. I got all sorts of heat from people, when I suggested adding only 50hp to an ISB...

Also, we have to keep in mind power is not simply power. There're very safe ways to making 450hp, and some not so safe ways. I'm no expert on the DT466, but the general rule to tuning diesels are as follow:

- LOTS of air; meaning sufficient size turbo. You want to stay high on the a/f ratio. Remember, a diesel engine can never go too lean.

- If going with large turbo due to above reason, do not fuel hard at low rpm, before turbo spools up. Doing so would make it run rich again, defeating the whole purpose.

- More air means low EGT, the number one reason of burned up diesels is high EGT. More airflow in the exhaust stream also means more heat rejected, and therefore, less demand in the cooling system.

- You want lots of air, but COOL air. Meaning unrestrictive intake, large intercooler with plenty of airflow. Also means sufficient size piping. As airflow increases, so does air flow velocity if piping is too small, which means more pressure drop, and therefore higher boost requirement from turbo, and more heat.

- If a modern engine (ISB/L/M/X) is used, get rid of all EPA treatments. Diesel emissions are still at its infancy; the systems are inefficient. They restrict exhaust flow, creat high combustion temps, and incomplete combustion cycle. In an old bus, anything would be cleaner than the origional 2 stroke, so no bad feelings.


I firmly believe that if these rules are followed, both the ISB and DT466 can live a good life at 400hp, as long as commercial duty cycle is not asked for.
Logged
pete36330
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63

my mc9 ,,gonna finish it one day ,,




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2010, 07:10:07 PM »


I'm running a DT 466 in a 97 international skoolie..I went to the international dealer ,,they were not in the least interested in doing anything to it ,,to make more power ,,as a matter of fact they were down right rude about it,,,any alternatives for getting more power?? anyone know how to reprogram the computer?  thanks
Logged
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 6899





Ignore
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2010, 08:46:01 PM »

The electronic DTA466 uses the same injection system as the 3126 and C7 Caterpillar.  So maybe an Caterpillar dealer could turn it up for you.  While the DT466 mechanical is a down right reliable engine (for that matter any Diesel engine with an inline mechanical injection pump).  But when it was turned into an electronic engine, the block was changed so that the front engine cover houses both the coolant and oil with only a small partition with a small gasket separating them-hence a lot of engines do mixing of fluids-which is not good.

Engines I would consider for bus engine swapping- For buses under 33,000lbs- Caterpillar 3126 and C9, Cummins ISB and ISC, Mercedes-Benz 900 series, International DT466 or DT530 DT560.
For the bigger buses over 33,000lbs- Caterpillar C12, C15, C16; Cummins ISL, ISM, ISX; Detroit Series 60, DD13; Mercedes-Benz 4000 Series.  My personal pick would be either the Cat C12 or Cummins ISM since both are a medium sized heavy duty engine. 

Still the cheapest is to turbocharge your 8V-71.  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
Lonnie time to go
Lonnie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 301

Saginaw, Michgan




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2010, 12:52:28 PM »

 Shocked
Logged

1976 4905
Don Fairchild
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 759




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2010, 08:41:52 AM »

Cody,

The harbor craft and the port rules are diffrent rules. The port ruling was brought about by the unions and the new truck manufactures. It is designed to take the older trucks off the road and replace them with trucks 2007 and newer, Their is also a provesion that provides money to hire the illegal's.

As to the two-stroke engiines they will be around for a long time to come. With the harbor craft rules if you use the CCTS parts to make your two-storke comply with the rules then you get life of the boat, but if you repower then every time their is an engine that meets the next higher tier level then you have to go to it.
Logged
Lonnie time to go
Lonnie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 301

Saginaw, Michgan




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2010, 02:49:17 PM »

Good news but how many people can work on them.

Don
  what engine would you prefer   8v71 or the 8v92

is the only major difference wet or dry liner and the higher hp of the 8v92.

why I ask is if I learn to work on the 8v71 will the also be good for the 8v92

 The  light weight gmc 4905 That is why I thought about the dt466

I guess I would like to know what the advantage is with 2 strokes
If you think about it making power every other stroke its less efficient then a 4 stroke
Lister  6 to 1  makes power while saving fuel.

Sorry just trying to understand this stuff

Lonnie

« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 03:05:32 PM by timetogo40 » Logged

1976 4905
bobofthenorth
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2097



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2010, 03:56:26 PM »

I guess I would like to know what the advantage is with 2 strokes
If you think about it making power every other stroke its less efficient then a 4 stroke

Dunno Lonnie - I always saw it the other way.  2 stroke cylinder fires once per revolution while a 4 stroke cylinder fires every other revolution.  That makes the 2 stroke seem more efficient to me.  I know when I rode dirt bikes the 2 strokes made more power for the same displacement.
Logged

R.J.(Bob) Evans
1981 Prevost 8-92, 10 spd
My website
Our weblog
Simply growing older is not the same as living.
Lonnie time to go
Lonnie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 301

Saginaw, Michgan




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2010, 07:49:56 PM »

Bob
 I get that you guys know your stuff.  My mind just won't let me wrap my head around it.  When a engine fires once for every four revolutions I take it as the tire spins four times with each time the engine fires.  Of course the 2 stroke has to fire twice in that time.
This make the four stroke better but I could be wrong

  At least I can give you guys a good laugh at my thinking.

(my name go's here lol)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 08:04:45 PM by timetogo40 » Logged

1976 4905
RoyJ
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 180





Ignore
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2010, 08:13:32 PM »

I guess I would like to know what the advantage is with 2 strokes
If you think about it making power every other stroke its less efficient then a 4 stroke

Dunno Lonnie - I always saw it the other way.  2 stroke cylinder fires once per revolution while a 4 stroke cylinder fires every other revolution.  That makes the 2 stroke seem more efficient to me.  I know when I rode dirt bikes the 2 strokes made more power for the same displacement.


All depends on the definition of "efficiency"; as there can be many when it comes to IC engines.


Hp per displacement (at fixed boost pressure)? 2 stroke for sure.

Volumetric efficiency? 4 stroke

Thermal efficiency? break even, similar combustion conditions

Parastic loss? 2 stroke loose: more power spend cooling itself, due to greater heat rejection, AND lower delta-T

Fuel efficiency? 4 stroke
Logged
blank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1929




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2010, 03:20:54 AM »

  Efficiency generally refers to HP to engine weight, HP to physical piston displacement, or fuel efficiency (HP per volume of fuel consumed), for example: hp per per hour/fuel burned per hour (in gallons or pounds). 

  Generally, a small gasoline 2 stroke/2 cycle engine, as used in chain saws, etc., make much greater power per displacement than a 4 stroke, but do so at the cost of higher fuel consumption. Their biggest advantage is weight. To match the power you can get out of a small bore chainsaw, you would need a very large 4 stroke, the weight would be the big issue. This is why you dont see 2 strokes in airplanes except for models and ultralights. For example, my big Stihl chainsaw makes nearly 9 HP, but the whole saw, chain and all, only weighs about 10 pounds. A 9 HP 4 stroke could easily weigh 3 or 4 times as much! I dont know anyone who would like hauling around a 40 pound chainsaw.

  In large industrial diesels, there is not as much disparity. A 6-71 Detroit makes roughly the same kind of power as a comparably sized 4 stroke, and has roughly the same kind of fuel economy. In other words, there is not as great of difference in power efficiency by weight or displacement, nor as much difference in fuel efficiency. However, as technolgy marches forward, it does sound like the computer controlled 4 stroke diesel engines are raising fuel efficiency much higher than just a decade or so ago. Whether that is the computer or the combustion chamber/injection timing is hard to say, possibly modding an older engine couldn make gains.

  There is another cost that is often neglected from engine conversations however, and that is the cost of ownership. The more complex the engine, or the less well developed or lower quality, the more troublesome and expensive it can be to operate it. Breakdowns, especially in something like a Bus, can create wallet emptying tow bills just to get to a place where it can be repaired. The old 2 cycle Detroits may not have been the most fuel efficient, and they certainly have a reputation for loving to consume a lot of oil, but they also have a reputation for getting you back home. A lot of the newer stuff isnt going to be fixed along the side of the road because of some simple problem. When they quit, your most likely calling a wrecker.
Logged
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 6899





Ignore
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2010, 06:11:40 AM »

Let's compare two 6 cylinder Diesels.  One is our favorite 6-71 turbocharged and air to air intercooled-putting out what I would consider the highest power rating you'd want to run safely in a bus with 80 injectors-300hp and 900lb/ft torque.  This engine with turbo weighs in at about 2200lbs.
Compare that to a Mercedes-Benz 4000 series 6 cylinder that also weighs in around 2,200lbs, but can put out 450hp and 1650lb/ft torque.  Much higher power density and fuel efficiency.  You'd probably get about 2 mpg better then the 6-71.
Another comparison-12V-71TA also with 80 injectors.  600hp and 1800lb/ft torque, weighs around 3,500lbs.  The new Detroit DD16 with 600hp and 2050lb/ft torque weighs in around 2950lbs.  In a truck, the 12V-71TA would get about 4.5-5.0 mpg.  The new DD16 is getting 7-8mpg-that's over 50% better fuel mileage!.
Our 2 stroke dinosaurs are exactly that-nearly extinct.  If you want better performance from your 8V-71 turbocharge it.  But the best is just to swap out your 2 stroke engine for a modern 4 stroke engine.  There isn't a 2 stroke engine around (whether it be mechanical or electronic) that can come close to the performance, quietness, fuel efficiency, or clean exhaust of the new breed of 2010 certified clean Diesels.  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

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

Posts: 12908




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2010, 06:49:37 AM »

70 plus years for the 2 stroke most versatile engine ever built the modern 4 strokes still use the technology from the 92 series,first electronic engine, first with top piston cooling, first with a air charger the list go on and on.
I was reading where Cummins is going to the V design.
New engines today are like computers obsolete in few years just look at the 4 strokes out of production in such a short time the way things are going diesel engines will be gone and you guys will be driving electric buses lol.
Don't be fooled into thinking parts will be available for a long period time after the production of a certain 4 stroke engine is gone,I see parts a problem on some that just are out of production for 10 years or less.Fwiw I can call and have parts for a 50 year old 2 stroke overnight if Williams doesn't have it in stock but DD is getting pricey since the Germans have it now




good luck
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 06:55:10 AM by luvrbus » Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
belfert
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5451




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2010, 07:03:19 AM »

We can thank the EPA and CARB for the short life cycles of today's diesel engines.  When you have to meet new pollution standards every three to four years it requires a lot of innovation and redesign to meet those standards.  Pretty soon diesels won't be able to exhaust anything but pure oxygen and nitrogen the way things are going.
Logged

Brian Elfert - 1995 Dina Viaggio 1000 Series 60/B500 - 75% done but usable - Minneapolis, MN
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 6899





Ignore
« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2010, 01:13:01 PM »

Actually the new DD15 and DD16 have the longest estimate of longevity at 1.2 million miles.  Not only are they duplicating the great fuel mileage the Series 60's got before 1998, they are running so clean that for over the road applications, the recommended oil change interval is 50,000 miles!  Even for regional use and short haul, a 35,000 mile oil change is recommended.  Compare that to my 3406B Caterpillar that I change at 12,000 mile intervals.
Plus using a Davco 482 (specific model for the DD engines) fuel/water separator, the engine fuel filter change is boosted to every 100,000 miles.  The initial valve adjust is at 100,000 miles then every 500,000 miles there after.
Yes we can thank CARB, AQMD, EPA for these new clean engine rules, but we also have the best running Diesels ever!  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

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

Posts: 5451




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2010, 04:34:58 PM »

Actually the new DD15 and DD16 have the longest estimate of longevity at 1.2 million miles.  Not only are they duplicating the great fuel mileage the Series 60's got before 1998, they are running so clean that for over the road applications, the recommended oil change

My post was not about the lifecyles of the actual engine.  I was referring to the lifecycle of the engine design.  Ford has gone from the 7.3 to the 6.0 to the 6.4 to the 6.7 mostly due to the emissions issues.  We don't really know if the 6.4 could have met 2010 emissions with changes.  Ford decided to cut Navistar out of the loop on the 6.7.

Ever tighter emissions standards mean engine designs don't stick around as long as in the past.  The Series 60 had a pretty good life, but it is was replaced by the DD15 when emissions standards tightened.  It may be that the emissions change was simply a good time for a new engine rollout for Detroit.
Logged

Brian Elfert - 1995 Dina Viaggio 1000 Series 60/B500 - 75% done but usable - Minneapolis, MN
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   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!