Diesels in Series vehicles?

[p76rangie]

"2495cc turbodiesel, overhead valve, 200TDi and 300TDi: Second time lucky for Land Rover. The lessons learned from the 2.5TD were incorporated into the new TDi engines available in the Defender and Discovery from 1990. The cylinder block still looked familiar (although strengthened internally with an aluminium ladder frame bolted to the bearing caps) but the cylinder head was all-new and a direct injection fuel system was used. These engines have gained an impressive reputation for power and durability. Defender engines produced 107bhp, Discovery engines (with different manifolding and a couple of other small changes) 111bhp. The 300TDi has a single serpentine drive belt for alternator, power steering etc, better soundproofing and a few small internal differences compare to the 200TDi. Power outputs of the two engines are identical. Though no longer offered in Europe (due to emissions regulations) the 300TDi remains available in some export markets."

And my 4.4 pulls very well from idle, a lot better than any diesel I have been out with.

[MPi-KMS-72]

Originally Posted by onslow

Where did you get this info as there are a few errors the 200 and 300 TDi produce exactly the same power and torque,also the 3.5 V8 figures are way out also

it is from here:
Diesels in Series vehicles?

Her 3.5 figures are from the Stage 1 3.5 iirc. the 3.5/215 is of course capable of much more- The automatic Cutlass with 10.75:1 compression gave 195 HP @ 4800 and 235 lb/ft @ 3200. The Olds Jetfire's 10.25:1 compression gave 215 HP @ 4800 and 300 lb/ft @ 3200.

Just to ad to the #s the GM diesels:
HP/FT LBS
OLDS 4.3 V6 4300 DIESEL 85@3600 165@1600
OLDS 4.3 V6 4300 DIESEL 101@3600 180@1675

POWER Kw@RPM TORQUE Nm@RPM

OLDS 5.7 V8 5700 DIESEL 94@3000 305@1600
CHEVY 6.2 V8 6217 DIESEL 116@3500 386@2000
CHEVY 6.5 V8 6500 DIESEL 120@3400 394@1700
CHEVY 6.5 V8 6500 DIESEL TURBO 140@3400 515@1700

SPECS IN FT LBS/HP:
Diesel GM Specs
- ----------------------
DISP STOCK TORQUE COMP (CC) CYL FUEL HP FT-LB RATIO
5.7L 57xx V8 ID ..... ...... ......
6.2L -94 62xx V8 ID 150 250@2500 ......
6.5L 94- 65xx V8 ID 170 290@2000 ......
6.5LT 94- 65xx V8 TID 190 385@1700 ......

Cummins Engine Specs
- ---------------------------
DISP TORQUE DRY WT LENGTH HEIGHT
MODEL (CC) CYL FUEL BHP FT-LB (LBS) (IN) (IN)
4BT3.9 39xx 4 TID 105@2500 260@1500 705 30.1 35.6
4BTA3.9-120 39xx 4 TIDA 120@2500 302@1500 725 30.1 35.6


Nissan Diesel Specs
- --------------------------
DISP (CC) CYL FUEL BHP FT-LB RATIO
SD33T 3245 6 TD 101@3100 175@2200 21:1

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton

LR 300 tdi:
113bhp @ 4000rpm
195lb ft @ 1800rpm
So at 1800rpm it in stock trim it makes almost as much torque as the 4.0 V8 makes at 3000rpm. The V8 is not likely to be making as much or more torque at 1800rpms.
I’d say that makes the diesel very good in the low rpms.
LR 4.0L V8 (US spec):
182bhp @ 4750rpm
23lb ft2@ 3000rpm.

First off I already admitted that the 300Tdi torque figures were wrong. It is 146 Lb Ft.

You seem to confuse where an engine develops peak torque and what torque it has at a certain revs. Most engine manufacturers attempt to have a flat torque curve. For example, the 300/200 Tdis have around the same torque at 4,000 RPMs as what they do at 1,800 RPM. Even though the 4.0Ltr V8 develops its peak torque at 3,000 RPM, it still has over 200 Ft Lb at 4,750 RPM. So the V8 has more grunt down low than the Tdi's and can deliver it quicker.

Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton

Typically a mildly modified Tdi engine (intercooler & tune) will see around 35% increase in HP/torque.
Making:
153bhp PEAK But more importantly 263lb ft and it’ll still make it down as low as 1800rpm.
So in the low rpms a 2.5 Tdi engine can not only make more torque than a 4.0 EFI Rover V8 but due to the fact that HP = torque (lb ft) x rpm / 5252 it will also be making substantially more HP at that rpm as well.

Another thing to remember is how much power it can make over it’s rpm range. Tdi’s don’t rev much past 4000rpm (PEAK HP) but as they make PEAK torque at only 1800rpm it means their power band is in fact the vast majority of it’s entire rpm range..

Again you use the wrong figures for the Tdi's. People can modify V8s as well.

Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton

With a V8 it may make some power down low, but we already know that PEAK torque isn’t until 3000rpm. At the end of the day the Rover V8 in 4.0 litre trim will make LESS power for more of the time.

You were certainly dreaming when you came up with that one.

[jimfoo]

Dyno of my 2.25 petrol. Note the peak torque is before 1500 rpm. A lot of
things can affect where peak hp and torque are. When my Diesel is done, I
am going to dyno it also and post the results. I don't think my graph was
corrected for sea level. That way people can compare a 2.25 with 2bbl
Weber and header to the VW Diesel I installed.
I believe the post was about peoples experiences with different Diesels in
Series, not why Diesels suck compared to gas engines or vice-versa. No
need to start whining and crying about why "my motor is better than yours".

[p76rangie]

The discussion is also about the driveability of motors. In this sense, the torque, HP, at various Rev ranges is very relevant.
Here is my Dyno graph. It is real and was done in second gear on a 4WD Dyno. The power is measured at the wheels and therefore there is usually a 30% to 40% power drop from ratings at the flywheel. The left edge of the graph is about 1,600 RPM. For those that can do the conversions, as the graph is in KW's and Nm's, at the wheels my car was putting out 260 ft lb of torque at 1600 Rpm. The torque then drops off from there.

[AlohaRover]

Originally Posted by MPi-KMS-72

SPECS IN FT LBS/HP:
Diesel GM Specs
- ----------------------
DISP STOCK TORQUE COMP (CC) CYL FUEL HP FT-LB RATIO

6.2L -94 62xx V8 ID 150 250@2500 ......

I believe those #s are at sea level and for the late 80's 6.2. The early ones where around 230ftlb. At sea level I was just over 300ftlb. More importantly, at sea level I was getting 25mpg. Here in CO 22mpg.

I did not get a nice looking graph like Jim did with his engine, but at 6000' elevation I am getting 200hp and 275ft-lb peak horse power and torque.

The torque peak was at 2200rpms. It was over 150ftlbs at 1000rpms, and broke 200 around 1500rpms

This is just through building and using different off the shelf parts. No Turbo yet. At sea level folks have made 375ftlbs with a banks kit, intercooler, and even more fuel I am thinking about going this route, but also using the early style heads and IP. I believe I can hit 30mpg and keep the power levels where they are now.

[AlohaRover]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

at the wheels my car was putting out 260 ft lb of torque at 1600 Rpm.

Don't you mean at the flywheel?

otherwise you are claiming over 800ftlbs at the flywheel.

[p76rangie]

No it was at the wheels, so that would be the equivalent of around 400 Fl Lb plus at flywheel. But you have to think about the figures a little more.

[AlohaRover]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

No it was at the wheels, so that would be the equivalent of around 400 Fl Lb plus at flywheel. But you have to think about the figures a little more.

Ahh didn't see the second gear.

What engine are we talking about?

[p76rangie]

No, it has nothing to do with what gear it is in, you will always lose around 40% of your power through the drive train.
It is an old 1970's 4.4 rover V8

[300bhp/ton]

Once again you've proved yourself to be a total TIT!!!!

Originally Posted by p76rangie

First off I already admitted that the 300Tdi torque figures were wrong. It is 146 Lb Ft.

The TORQUE for the 200TDI is wrong not the other way round. The 300Tdi is more or less correct.

I even have the original sales brochure with the correct figures in not too mention plenty of other material.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

You seem to confuse where an engine develops peak torque and what torque it has at a certain revs.

WTF????

How the hell can you tell what torque it makes at certain revs without see in a graph, this is just a take on my comment above. Sadly you seem to be too dumb to realise it.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Most engine manufacturers attempt to have a flat torque curve.

Total bullshit, it depends on the engine and use (most dramtically fail to have a flat torque curve) and it is also impossible.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

For example, the 300/200 Tdis have around the same torque at 4,000 RPMs as what they do at 1,800 RPM.

You are such an idiot I've already posted to forumula for deriving HP (use Google gi check it out for yourself.

So 195lb ft @ 1800rpm and you're saying a TDI also makes the same torque at 4000rpm.

But wait because

HP = 195lbft x 4000rpm / 5252 would equal 149bhp

Which evidently isn't correct or tally up with the known PEAK HP of a 300Tdi.


Go back to school, go learn your Maths!

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Even though the 4.0Ltr V8 develops its peak torque at 3,000 RPM, it still has over 200 Ft Lb at 4,750 RPM. So the V8 has more grunt down low than the Tdi's and can deliver it quicker.

Incase you hadn't noticed 4750rpm is HIGHER than 3000rpm

So how the hell does that prove it has more torque in the lower rpms???

Get out of that one numnuts!

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Again you use the wrong figures for the Tdi's. People can modify V8s as well.

Yes you can, but to get more HP means moving the torque higher in the rpms (again look at the HP equation). It's very rare to massivly increase the torque number and it certainly won't be as low in the rpms.

That is unless you use a power adder (FI/Nitrous). Or a bigger displacement.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

You were certainly dreaming when you came up with that one.

Yep I was dreaming of maybe having a conversation with an intelligent life form, sadly it ended being you instead.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Here is my Dyno graph. It is real and was done in second gear on a 4WD Dyno.

When dynoing at the wheels you MUST ALWAYS ensure you are using a gear ratio of 1:1

Typically this is 4th on manuals and 3rd in autos.

2nd gear is NOT 1:1 so the figures produced by the dyno will be totally POINTLESS.

This is again because of

HP = torque x rpm / 5252

It’s quite simple really, but as gearing offers up in affect toque multiplication (hence low gears on a push bike are easier to pedal than high gears)

And also that the roller rpm of the dyno will evidently be out compared to that of the engine means your dyno graph is 100% BOLLOX.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

The power is measured at the wheels and therefore there is usually a 30% to 40% power drop from ratings at the flywheel.

WTF – where on this planet did you get 30-40% drivetrain loss?????

You’re out of your tiny mind.

For a regular 2wd manual car the norm is accepted to be nearer 15% or 12% + 10bhp. These are still not accurate as drivetrain loss contains a variable decreasing percentage loss as well as a constant.

Regardless, a 4wd auto is not going to be losing more than 25% power via drivetrain loss, about this time last year Land Rover Owner International (or one of the other mags) did dyno testing of a TD5 Land Rover in stock trim and modified. The numbers produced where consistent with this kind of loss.

40% loss my ARSE!

Originally Posted by p76rangie

at the wheels my car was putting out 260 ft lb of torque at 1600 Rpm. The torque then drops off from there.

So you’re saying your PEAK torque is only 1600rpm

Right OK

Listen to yourself, even a Chevy 350ci LT1 doesn’t make PEAK torque until 2500rpm. Making PEAK torque as low as you are claiming would be for turbocharged/PD supercharged diesel engines only.

The reason your dyno graph is showing such numbers is probably down to the error introduced because of dynoing in the wrong gear.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

No it was at the wheels, so that would be the equivalent of around 400 Fl Lb plus at flywheel. But you have to think about the figures a little more.

So you reckon a 4.4 litre Rover which is notorious for being inefficient is making 400lb ft @ 1600rpm



You must be on crack if you believe that.

Go to this forum http://www.v-8.org.uk/forum/index.php and post that claims and see what they say.

Go on do it or else I will for you.

BTW – a Chevy 346ci LS1 (that’s 5.7 litres) only makes 330lb ft @ about 1600rpm.

Hell even a supercharged Ford 4.6 DOHC V8 doesn’t make over 400lb ft @ 1600rpm

Yet you seem to have managed it with an engine that hails from the late 1950’s in design and using a smaller displacement

Originally Posted by p76rangie

No, it has nothing to do with what gear it is in, you will always lose around 40% of your power through the drive train.

:nono:

Would you like some links on accepted dyno practice and use??? I think you really will be amazed at how wrong you are.

[p76rangie]

300Bhp, I was working off the figure of 146 and not 195 for the Tdi. The 200 and 300 Tdi do have 146 torque at 4,000 rpm. You can check it yourself.

For any specifications on the motor you are always given figures at two rev points for which you can calculate HP and Torque. I said that the manufacturers attempt to have a flat torque curve, not that they are perfectly flat. However, they dont vary by a huge amount across the rev range.

The torque range of the V8 on the two figures available show that it does not varying by a large degree across the rev range. So prove me wrong that it does not have more torque than a Tdi at any given rev range.

I forgot that you were an expert on everything. Put you disco on the Dyno and see what it produces at the wheels.

The gear ratio to the wheels is never 1:1. To have my car in third and Dyno it would mean having it doing a speed of 130 Kph on the Dyno. You can forget that. So what you are saying is that you should change what gear you are depending on what size tyres you have, what diff ratios you are running and what transfer case you have in. The loss of power on the Dyno that I said was between 30 and 40% takes into account the gear ratios etc.

If you can read, the Dyno graph is in KPH and not RPMs. I have inserted what revs my motor was doing at what speed.

Iam not saying my peak torque is at 1,600 revs, what I am saying is that the peak torque at the wheels is well below 1,600 revs. If you look at the graph the torque just goes down across the width of the graph. As I stated when I posted the graph, the figures on the graph are CORRECT. Don't try and knock them just because you don't understand them.

Your problem is that a little knowledge is a bad thing. You read all this stuff and don't understand it, which leads to garbage coming out.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

300Bhp, I was working off the figure of 146 and not 195 for the Tdi. The 200 and 300 Tdi do have 146 torque at 4,000 rpm. You can check it yourself.

For any specifications on the motor you are always given figures at two rev points for which you can calculate HP and Torque. I said that the manufacturers attempt to have a flat torque curve, not that they are perfectly flat. However, they dont vary by a huge amount across the rev range.

The torque range of the V8 on the two figures available show that it does not varying by a large degree across the rev range. So prove me wrong that it does not have more torque than a Tdi at any given rev range.

I forgot that you were an expert on everything. Put you disco on the Dyno and see what it produces at the wheels.

The gear ratio to the wheels is never 1:1. To have my car in third and Dyno it would mean having it doing a speed of 130 Kph on the Dyno. You can forget that. So what you are saying is that you should change what gear you are depending on what size tyres you have, what diff ratios you are running and what transfer case you have in. The loss of power on the Dyno that I said was between 30 and 40% takes into account the gear ratios etc.

If you can read, the Dyno graph is in KPH and not RPMs. I have inserted what revs my motor was doing at what speed.

Iam not saying my peak torque is at 1,600 revs, what I am saying is that the peak torque at the wheels is well below 1,600 revs. If you look at the graph the torque just goes down across the width of the graph. As I stated when I posted the graph, the figures on the graph are CORRECT. Don't try and knock them just because you don't understand them.

Your problem is that a little knowledge is a bad thing. You read all this stuff and don't understand it, which leads to garbage coming out.

So you still reckon your 4.4 Rover makes over 400lb ft @ 1600rpm

[p76rangie]

I know it does and I have posted the graph to prove it. Instead of making smart comments and calling people names, maybe you should think about why it is correct, rather just refusing to accept it.