• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

max HP out of a 465 multi fuel?

patracy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
14,592
4,633
113
Location
Buchanan, GA
That doesn't address the weak bottom end at all. Also, milling the bowl would have to be done carefully to avoid loosing the swirl effect the multifuel has.
 
I would imagine if you machined enough from the pistons to lower the CR to 19-20:1 you would remove a fairly significant amount of material. This would lighten the load on the bottom end quiet a bit. Would having the rods shot peened be worth it or are they really so bad that the only realistic route is replacement? Again I don't have a diesel back ground so I'm really looking for information.
 

patracy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
14,592
4,633
113
Location
Buchanan, GA
Removing a fairly substantial amount from the bowl would severely affect the hypercycle design. Even the pistons in these engines are large and extremely heavy.

Typical stress failures in this engine are from rods, rod bolts, head gaskets, pistons, and piston liners. Also, for what it's worth, I've never seen an engine block contain a failure in these engines (exiting only through the oil pan).

I believe I commented earlier in this thread about how one would have to go about this build. But here's the things that would have to be done.

1. Girdled block (bottom end)
2. Custom head studs
3. fire ring'ed head and block
4. Custom rods and rod bolts
5. Thicker head gasket
6. Full P&P heads
7. Valve springs and retainers
8. Attempt to mill the pistons some, or have custom pistons created
9. modern turbo
10. intercooler
11. custom intake to delete the coolant that passes through it
12. worked LDS pump
13. Balanced bottom end
14. LDS two hole injectors
15. reground cam
16. A better exhaust manifold (header)

I think one could retain the multifuel capability of the engine with today's building techniques. But you'd have far more into this engine than a simple 12 valve 5.9 cummins with a few meager upgrades.
 

TehTDK

Active member
589
41
28
Location
Denmark
I think one could retain the multifuel capability of the engine with today's building techniques. But you'd have far more into this engine than a simple 12 valve 5.9 cummins with a few meager upgrades.
But in that case you lose the MultiFuel capability ;). But personally for what it is worth I would personally be happen if I could get one of them running at 55-56 consistantly without breaking down. The truck would most likely have to limited at that speed anyway for being a truck here. All trucks here has to be limited to 55-56 MPH due to legislation and to "stop" worse accidents.

So any more power in my case would just transfer to more power off the line and better power up the hills etc, but wont give me a better topspeed :/
 

patracy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
14,592
4,633
113
Location
Buchanan, GA
Correct, but a 12v Cummins can run WMO and WVO just as the multi will. The Multi can run gasoline though. (With oil and you're shortening it's life)
 

TehTDK

Active member
589
41
28
Location
Denmark
Correct, but a 12v Cummins will run WMO and WVO just as the multi will. The Multi can run gasoline though. (With oil and you're shortening it's life)
I consider myself corrected. I do however prefer that I can run anything that will burn in the Deuce in a pinch. Or can the Cummins do that as well, as long as it is not gasoline (ie I am thinking Jet fuel, Jet-A1, kerosene etc, or does the same apply to that, as to gasoline?)

And what is the power output for that particular cummins engine?
 

patracy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
14,592
4,633
113
Location
Buchanan, GA
I have ran many of gallons of Jet-A in my cummins, many many many gallons...

A stock cummins with a VE or P pump can have anywhere from 150hp to 235hp stock. Which is very detuned. Simply increasing the pumps fueling will get it over 250hp safely.
 
I just don't understand why this motor only produces a little more than .25 hp/ci but can't be tuned to .5 hp/ci without severely affecting its useful life. We're only talking about 232.5 hp at .5/ci. The CR is high and I can see that being a limit but it doesn't make sense that you would have to do a complete race build just to make useable hp. Does anyone know where I can find the compressor maps for the available stock turbos? I honestly think the biggest limit for this motor is the intake.
 

Heath_h49008

New member
1,557
101
0
Location
Kalamazoo/Mich
The intake isn't the issue. You CAN get 250hp out of a multifuel... just before you lose a rod or melt a piston.

Look at the pulling tractors that have used these engines for some hints as to what breaks.
 
"The intake isn't the issue. You CAN get 250hp out of a multifuel... just before you lose a rod or melt a piston."

That seems a little silly since Continental spec'd one of the MF at 210hp. I would be inclined to think that since the C and D turbos are 50 years old they are garbage. The fact that someone checked intake temps and they were 225*F me there are some inefficiencies in the intake. A decent IC would be a huge help. Do you happen to know where I can get compressor maps for these turbos?

"Look at the pulling tractors that have used these engines for some hints as to what breaks."

Don't pulling tractors generally run closer to 100 PSI and 4000+ RPMs? It just doesn't seem like a fair comparison kind of like toss the top fuel drag engine in your car and drive to the grocery store. I don't plan to ever run my MF that hard either. I still just don't understand the low output of this motor. Just based on size it should be producing 250-300 with head room to go a little further. Has anyone actually gone through a MF during a rebuild or do they just purchase a "kit" and swap parts?
 

doghead

4 Star General /Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
26,247
1,168
113
Location
NY
The intake is designed to regulate the intake temp(coolant). Perhaps it assists with the multi fuel combustion too.
 

patracy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
14,592
4,633
113
Location
Buchanan, GA
I just don't understand why this motor only produces a little more than .25 hp/ci but can't be tuned to .5 hp/ci without severely affecting its useful life. We're only talking about 232.5 hp at .5/ci. The CR is high and I can see that being a limit but it doesn't make sense that you would have to do a complete race build just to make useable hp. Does anyone know where I can find the compressor maps for the available stock turbos? I honestly think the biggest limit for this motor is the intake.
Because the engine no longer is a pure diesel engine as it was first designed.

Everything you're thinking with engines doesn't completely apply here due to mass. These engines weren't meant to rev like the military set them up to.

The turbo was an afterthought. Wasn't meant for performance at all. Just to help with exhaust smoke.
 
So if we changed it back to a pure diesel motor we should be able to get more power? I understand the rotating assembly is heavy but it's probably comparable to other diesels in the same displacement class. Most diesels in this class only rev to 2500 or so and they make trmendous amounts of power. Honestly I'm not trying to rev to 4k or make 500+ hp but revving 2800 with 300ish hp would be perfect for this truck.

I've read quite a few times that the turbo was for emissions. Did the N/A MF also have a 22:1 CR?
 

patracy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
14,592
4,633
113
Location
Buchanan, GA
No, it was rated at even less power as a diesel tractor engine. And no, it's CR ratio was less.

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/000/7/1/713-oliver-2050.html

They only made about 9500 of them BTW. And for two years.

The NA Multi has the same CR as well.

Some facts to think about:

These engines blow head gaskets commonly stock.
These engines routinely throw rods stock.
These engines vibrate terribly.

So, if you just want 300hp out of it, all the time. You're going to need to do the following at least.

Balance the bottom end. Better rod bolts. Better rods. Better head gaskets (Be it fire ring'ed heads/blocks, or a custom gasket). Girdled bottom end. Better valve springs.

You're basically asking for a engine that was designed for 110hp stock to increase it's power 200%.
 

trukhead

New member
725
5
0
Location
dane/wi
Since it is multifuel, just add nitromethane to the diesel fuel in percentages commensurate to power level you want. The diesel fuel is just to ignite the nitromethane. I think you could get as much horse power out of that engine as you want. I don't think it will last very long though.:mrgreen:
 
No, it was rated at even less power as a diesel tractor engine. And no, it's CR ratio was less.

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/000/7/1/713-oliver-2050.html

They only made about 9500 of them BTW. And for two years.

The NA Multi has the same CR as well.

Some facts to think about:

These engines blow head gaskets commonly stock.
These engines routinely throw rods stock.
These engines vibrate terribly.

So, if you just want 300hp out of it, all the time. You're going to need to do the following at least.

Balance the bottom end. Better rod bolts. Better rods. Better head gaskets (Be it fire ring'ed heads/blocks, or a custom gasket). Girdled bottom end. Better valve springs.

You're basically asking for a engine that was designed for 110hp stock to increase it's power 200%.
I was under the impression, after reading through threads all night, that the HG blows because the OE head bolts do not secure the head very well. There is supposedly a video on youtube showing the head floating during normal use. So upgraded head bolts would deffinently be on the list.

There are several threads that attributr thrown rods to weak rod bolts. This actually makes a lot of sense since it was common practice in the depot to reuse the bolts during rebuilds.

The severe vibrations are due to the rotating assembly never being balanced. This will end as the most costly part of a "full" rebuild since the crank, pistons, rods, flywheel and balancer need to good firm to be machined.

If someone were to take the time to rebuild a MF properly I can't see why it wouldn't run smoother, with better power and mileage. The problem is these engines and rebuld "kits" are so cheap. I understand the thought process of "if the Army used it it must be good enough for me" but we all agree the Army did a less than desireable job maintaining these trucks. So the parts they used to me wohld be a last resort npt my first choice.
 
Top