Advertisement
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Home Who's Online Today's Posts HP Calculator CompD Gift Shop Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Competition Diesel.Com - Bringing The BEST Together > The Starting Line > Alternative Diesel Motor Sports
Register Members List Timeslips EFI Live Library Invite Your Friends FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-17-2016, 02:44 PM   #561
HeTheAethyr!
 
HeTheAethyr!'s Avatar

Name: HeTheAethyr!
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Livermore Ca
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 317
at 2500bar I would think you consume injectors frequently?? I a lot of these engines are using Bosch components?? (to a degree)
__________________
Heros Never Live, Legends Never Die.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2016, 04:13 PM   #562
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeTheAethyr! View Post
I could see how Cummins wouldn't want an advertised/production engine exhibiting a smoke show in public.

That fuel pump has been used for years and carries the same foot print as a P7100. These pumps are known to chatter lifters from hydraulic harmonics and destroying internal camshaft. Also being the engine is governed at 2200~ in its platform, you float the pumps lifters at higher RPMS. You'd need a lot of air down low.... But would flow the fuel you need!
Well they fitted a HX60 turbo to this engine that has no low en performance and the AT gearbox is not well programmed as it dos not keep the engine up to speed where you get some decent boost so in all it smokes a bit. Also I think the Cummins thing was done in 2014 for the 2015 rally so having no support on things and unable to make changes they are stuck with this engine as it is.

This Cummins engine got the XPI fuel system on it and yes the first series had problems with the hi pressure pump on the Scania side of thing as they also use the XPI system. The pumps that are used to day we are able to run them @ 3000 RPM with no problem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2016, 04:29 PM   #563
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeTheAethyr! View Post
at 2500bar I would think you consume injectors frequently?? I a lot of these engines are using Bosch components?? (to a degree)
All injector parts we use are OE or related to EO parts and run @ these hi pressure so no problems and worries there. We use Delphi and BOSCH as these are most common on the engine we work on.

We do know other workshop that did try to modify injectors and run these @ hi pressure and they getting bigger holes in the nozzle after a short time and due to this mostly producing smoke and hi EGT and melting the turbine housing and all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2016, 06:38 AM   #564
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
Evaluation time Le Dakar Rally.

The rally team is back on home soil and I get the story from the team first hand on how things went.
Engine en ECU system seem to be very fail save on hi ambient temp and altitude up to 4700 meter above sea level where you get a bout 60Kpa ambient pressure.
Even a cold start on 4300 meter altitude did not be any challenge as the older build Paccar Euro 5 engines or Tier4 engines stared up like a prostock diesel with loads of white smoke puffing and barking for the next 5 minutes.

Full power in the sand dunes with close to 50 degrees C, no problems there as well running no more than 760 degrees C EGT so perfect there as well.
Fuel consumption is up to 60 litters less compared to the same semi rally truck set-up with the Euro 5 engine on a 800Km rally stage so this could be the explanation on why the Euro 6 engine can endure more extremes as I need less cooling on things as less fuel consumption/same power output usually means less heat load on exhaust and cooling system.

Need a bit more low end power. This will be a challenge as Iím serious out of hi pressure fuelpump capacity so need to look into options on what there from OE not eating away the cam lopes for the fuelpumps as changing a cam during a rally is close to mission impossible.
On the turbo part the team even want to look into VGT or VNT turbo so maybe start using the bigger core BorgWarner S430V as an option with TI compressor wheel but these turbo are expensive and hi EGT must be avoided same as running them in overspeed and so on so it dos make things more complicated to run them under the most extreme conditions and as far non of the factory teams use them so I think we have to put some effort in building some hybrid turbo configurations see what woks best on a conventional turbo set-up.

Over the last week I have been working hard for the US and Canadian marked as to Kpa and degrees centigrade they like PSI and Fahrenheit a lot better so now this option is there.
Also try to make the fuel calculation a lot easer by stepping away from the virtual engine fuel set-up where you able to dial in things like engine displacement and cylinders and so on but as so many side step from a OE ECU system they like injection to crank angle for PD engines a lot better so this option is there for engines like CAT C12 up to C18 an a load of other engines using pump injection units.
For commonrail I want to implement volume per stroke but the problem could be that you need a accurate flowmap of the injector as we now use a very good correction method to compensate for fuel pressure differences and your unable to run this thing off the chard as well dialling in some stupid numbers on fuel wanted so I wonder whatís best getting e-mail why are we not getting more fuel of why is my rail pressure dropping hard making no power and only black smoke.

After a load of e-mail I get. As for ECU or ECM system. Itís only as good as the tune inside the ECU. And engine management system dos not make more power on it self. Itís all a bout the engine set-up that makes this possible if your not hitting the limits given by the ECU or ECM system that is. Most fall short on hi RPM not able to make a mapping just increasing the max RPM limit and so on.
Benefits of using an aftermarket ECU system could be having more control on this and in our case you will have full aces on things so making endless changes and even writing your own code is possible.
Downside on things is with this almost unlimited options you need to know what your doing as for most things we do not set borders so in general more freedom also means more responsibilities and know how on things but yes Iím trying to simplify things and good suggestions are always welcome....
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2016, 06:51 AM   #565
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
Some progress but also a load of problems as we get some engine parts with the wrong spec material wearing out to ease but we manage to keep things moving and maybe we can run the new 16.4L engine next month.

New exhaust manifold are nearly ready and they fit like a clove and the company that builds them fur us they know how to build them with a minimum of welds and some room to expand and retract when things get up and down on temperature.

We also taken the time for finding out about the late Euro 4 and Euro 5 Scania DC16 camshafts and injector. These cams and injector got more pump travel BUT some think they have gold in there hands thinking to make more power out of these but after making a bit of homework on these you end up with bronze while inverting gold on you engine upgrade this is why.

Having more pump volume means more trapped fuel volume under the injector plunger and as we can read in some other post on this forum diesel fuel can be compressed more than we think so as a result the injector accuracy on metering suffers under this a lot more than the older type of injector with less plunger travel and less trapped fuel volume the way we build them.

Camshaft difference. Euro 4/5 cams are build for NOX reduction so not a great cam on start of injection as the Euro 3 cam will have more lift going advanced in pump timing giving more fuel efficiency and there for more power output. The way we run these cams and timing we lose or win 100Hp per crank degree going advance or retard on things.
As for effective fuel delivered by the injector you will need to go 20 degrees after TDC before you will get the same fuel out of the nozzle on a Euro 4/5 cam in comparison to Euro 3 cams. After this with will slowly get better but how far do you want to go injecting fuel that retarded on timing? I hope this helps a bit for those in Finland wanting to know things on later models Scania DC16 engines?

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2016, 12:55 PM   #566
TDIfreak

Name: TDIfreak
Title: Rookie
Status: Not Here
Join Date: May 2015
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 16
I think you have mixed the Euro3 vs. 4/5 camshaft.
Otherwise we agree here in Finland .
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2016, 01:35 PM   #567
Leiffi
 
Leiffi's Avatar

Name: Leiffi
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jan 2013
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIfreak View Post
I think you have mixed the Euro3 vs. 4/5 camshaft.
Otherwise we agree here in Finland .
I dont agree with those manifolds either.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2016, 03:41 PM   #568
TDIfreak

Name: TDIfreak
Title: Rookie
Status: Not Here
Join Date: May 2015
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 16
#1 cylinder is right (passenger) side front? Then there might be a problem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2016, 03:59 PM   #569
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
@ TDIfreak. Here is the data from the DC1601 Euro 3 and DC1608 Euro 4.
The lines are a bit bumpy due to not having the same timing points on the crank and did not bother to smooth them out but the picture clearly tells that the DC1601 cam gives more fuel in advance timing and the Euro 4/5 gives more fuel but way to retarded to get it working in a affective way other than boosting EGT.

Click the image to open in full size.

Leiffi. We know you disagree on everything but we tested 4 types of exhaust manifolds and the single runner type gives the best spool-up more boost same EMP and better ARF and there is clearly less pollution on the intake system left by smoke entering the intake manifold. A V8 is a odd fire engine when 2 turbochargers are used.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2016, 04:22 PM   #570
TDIfreak

Name: TDIfreak
Title: Rookie
Status: Not Here
Join Date: May 2015
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIfreak View Post
#1 cylinder is right (passenger) side front? Then there might be a problem.
I think I got the engine backwards so never mind.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2016, 07:02 PM   #571
Leiffi
 
Leiffi's Avatar

Name: Leiffi
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jan 2013
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by tall boy View Post
@ TDIfreak. Here is the data from the DC1601 Euro 3 and DC1608 Euro 4.
The lines are a bit bumpy due to not having the same timing points on the crank and did not bother to smooth them out but the picture clearly tells that the DC1601 cam gives more fuel in advance timing and the Euro 4/5 gives more fuel but way to retarded to get it working in a affective way other than boosting EGT.

Click the image to open in full size.

Leiffi. We know you disagree on everything but we tested 4 types of exhaust manifolds and the single runner type gives the best spool-up more boost same EMP and better ARF and there is clearly less pollution on the intake system left by smoke entering the intake manifold. A V8 is a odd fire engine when 2 turbochargers are used.
There's just too much volume in those types of manifolds.

Euro 3 engines were retarded for emissions, 4 and 5 are like Euro 1 or 2 timing. They are also measured by hand to be more advanced than Euro 3.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 06:32 AM   #572
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leiffi View Post
There's just too much volume in those types of manifolds.

Euro 3 engines were retarded for emissions, 4 and 5 are like Euro 1 or 2 timing. They are also measured by hand to be more advanced than Euro 3.
Leiffi. For the most making more power is a software things on most trucks but on the hardware side Euro 4/5 cams are not ideal sorry but these numbers tell the story.

I think this will be the next story on things to come but they need to find out how to get things done in the S8 engine controller avoiding getting in to problems replacing the VGT turbo on the XPI engines and if we can make close to 900Hp on a 13L 6 line commonrail with about 2,3Bar of boost and EGT on 730 degrees C is only a small jump to calculating what a 16.4L V8 can handle with ease as the Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption is a lot better.

http://www.scania.com/global/engines...-solution.aspx
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 08:48 AM   #573
Leiffi
 
Leiffi's Avatar

Name: Leiffi
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jan 2013
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by tall boy View Post
Leiffi. For the most making more power is a software things on most trucks but on the hardware side Euro 4/5 cams are not ideal sorry but these numbers tell the story.

I think this will be the next story on things to come but they need to find out how to get things done in the S8 engine controller avoiding getting in to problems replacing the VGT turbo on the XPI engines and if we can make close to 900Hp on a 13L 6 line commonrail with about 2,3Bar of boost and EGT on 730 degrees C is only a small jump to calculating what a 16.4L V8 can handle with ease as the Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption is a lot better.

http://www.scania.com/global/engines...-solution.aspx
Maybe finnish Scanias use different cams but euro3 cam is not good for power. Timing is limited to about max 15į btdc, euro4 cam gets over 20į.

VGT problem is already solved.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 11:54 AM   #574
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leiffi View Post
Maybe finnish Scanias use different cams but euro3 cam is not good for power. Timing is limited to about max 15į btdc, euro4 cam gets over 20į.
Leiffi. I had the suspicion that you came out of the land of fairytales but now you confirm it. You have absolute no idea on type of camshaft and parts numbers. Maybe finnish Scanias use different cams. You must be joking. A load of BS Leiffi as finnish Scanias also have to apply to the Euro standards as well and if not Scania use something like fuel optimised in the engine specifications but still the same cam fitted.

Again great story Leiffi. Timing is limited to about max 15į btdc, euro4 cam gets over 20į. You juts confirmed that the Euro 3 cam has more advance lift and the Euro 4/5 cam need more advance timing due to les cam lift in a advanced state and more trapped fuel volume in the pump chamber that needs to be compressed BLA BLA BLA. Back in 2010 when we start working on the DC1601 engine we did some injector testing. Coil on time to BIP or valve closed on pump chamber and used a piezo element to detect begin of injector opening. As to our surprise the PD is not that accurate and even if the BIP is used by the ECU as a timing reference there is still a large delay on begin of injection as you need to compress the fuel and lift the needle in the nozzle chamber as well that will take some fuel volume giving a relative slow nozzle flow increase and itís vital to have a fast cam lift increase on hi RPM and load and the DC1601 cam provides this lift. Other things is on the D1608 and onward the piston dome and nozzle spray angle is different so the 800Kw marine nozzle may not be ideal but you could look @ nozzle from the DI16 077M engine but this already uses the 130mm bore size.
What we did in 2012 is rebuild most of the PD injector and made it 30% more accurate by reducing needle lift volume with a different type of nozzle and made modifications to the solenoid valve gap in all making >30% more power with the same ECU settings but it produces smoke operation under 1200RPM so not ideal for commercial use and thatís also why we never went racing with PD engines and jumped to XPI engines.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 04:37 PM   #575
Leiffi
 
Leiffi's Avatar

Name: Leiffi
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jan 2013
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by tall boy View Post
Leiffi. I had the suspicion that you came out of the land of fairytales but now you confirm it. You have absolute no idea on type of camshaft and parts numbers. Maybe finnish Scanias use different cams. You must be joking. A load of BS Leiffi as finnish Scanias also have to apply to the Euro standards as well and if not Scania use something like fuel optimised in the engine specifications but still the same cam fitted.

Again great story Leiffi. Timing is limited to about max 15į btdc, euro4 cam gets over 20į. You juts confirmed that the Euro 3 cam has more advance lift and the Euro 4/5 cam need more advance timing due to les cam lift in a advanced state and more trapped fuel volume in the pump chamber that needs to be compressed BLA BLA BLA. Back in 2010 when we start working on the DC1601 engine we did some injector testing. Coil on time to BIP or valve closed on pump chamber and used a piezo element to detect begin of injector opening. As to our surprise the PD is not that accurate and even if the BIP is used by the ECU as a timing reference there is still a large delay on begin of injection as you need to compress the fuel and lift the needle in the nozzle chamber as well that will take some fuel volume giving a relative slow nozzle flow increase and itís vital to have a fast cam lift increase on hi RPM and load and the DC1601 cam provides this lift. Other things is on the D1608 and onward the piston dome and nozzle spray angle is different so the 800Kw marine nozzle may not be ideal but you could look @ nozzle from the DI16 077M engine but this already uses the 130mm bore size.
What we did in 2012 is rebuild most of the PD injector and made it 30% more accurate by reducing needle lift volume with a different type of nozzle and made modifications to the solenoid valve gap in all making >30% more power with the same ECU settings but it produces smoke operation under 1200RPM so not ideal for commercial use and thatís also why we never went racing with PD engines and jumped to XPI engines.
You didnt understand but that ok, not the first time. Good luck wirh your projects, you need it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2016, 05:52 AM   #576
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leiffi View Post
You didnt understand but that ok, not the first time. Good luck wirh your projects, you need it.
Well it must be a thing happening in Finland as Herlevi telling the same story about the Euro4 and cams two weeks ago thinking to make more power asking me a bout getting more fuel and what advance timing to run but as we moved to a different camshaft profile end of 2012 I could not help him.

We are working on new DC16 PDE Cams that will support a 16.8mm plunger travel and for this you need to modify the Euro 3 injectors or the Euro 4/5 injectors but this all needs to be tested and with all the new things going in build up face this will take some time before we get to do this. Also the question is are we going to release them for commercial use?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2016, 11:45 AM   #577
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
S300SX-E on a Sport Semi Truck Puller. 55mm inlet restriction.

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 10:50 AM   #578
jlbayes
 
jlbayes's Avatar

Name: jlbayes
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: michigan
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 2,399
any new progress you care to share? love this thread.
__________________
Jacob, 97 rclb
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2016, 03:01 PM   #579
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
Well bit of system overload no time to post stuff.

Coming up http://www.europeansuperpull.nl/ with two trucks including the New Scania Torpedo.

[IMG]Click the image to open in full size.[/IMG]
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2016, 04:21 AM   #580
tall boy

Name: tall boy
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2012
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 608
Bit disappointed with Mega Super Pull Ahoy Rotterdam.

So many teams work so hard to get there Semi Puller ready in time for this event having 9 trucks on the starting grid but all effort was wasted as the system that has to get rid of the smoke could not handle the semi trucks and broke down unable to repair things in time so the truck session was cancelled.

Here is what happened.


we where sort of lucky able to make a test pull the day before so the organisation got some base setting for the sled and in return we have data from the new turbochargers and exhaust manifold and al do this engine is still standard as we are working had to get all parts made for the Scania 16,4L V8 generation 2 engine.
All looks as we expected. Max boost and torque from the start.
The track was only 65 meters and the start setting is like having the sled pulling from the 15 to 20 meter line so breakout is extreme heavy and this will break gearboxes and clutches as two other trucks find out on the test pull and fist pull yesterday.
From last year we remember to place all weight on the front of the truck so it looks like an easy pull but itís not.

  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 AM.

 


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2006 - 2018, CompetitionDiesel.com
all information found on this site is property of www.competitiondiesel.com