max HP out of a 465 multi fuel?

[mudguppy]

No modern diesels that I know of use air to water intercoolers...

the new Fords do.

 

[mudguppy]

... Just wondering if a A-to-W is more efficent in lower boost applications? ...

ATW intercoolers are more effecient than ATA 'coolers across the entire range.

... Modern diesel like the Powerjokes and Cummins have less than ideally designed heads with medicore air flow. That being the main reason the powerjokes and cummins use so much smaller overall turbo's than the Durama motors which have a pretty strong flow design. ...

seriously? even though it's evident where your loyalty lies, such a broad statement removes most of the credibility of anything else you just posted due to the enormous generalities and, for the most part, inaccuracies.

if you did some research you'd find that all 3 'brands' share similar turbo capacity sizes (flows, being the most relevant) relative to engine displacement when compared to the others in respective design generations.

... I my opinion I would build a balanced multi fuel with a low pressure twin turbo setup I would say runnin an HX35 gated to 8-10 psi feeding each of the 3 cylinders will make an incredibly well rounded engine.

it's been tried and proven to be a lesser performer than properly sized sequentials [on Cummins, not a MF].

 

[big block 88]

LOL actaully i own 2 5.9 and 2 6.6. I am a fan of both aswell as a 7.3. My loyalty lies in Detroit simple as that. Youc can't for one second tell me the 5.9 12 valve or even the 24 valve heads will flow as well as the 32 valve d-max...

Performance oriented CR cummins will run anwhere from 62mm-70mm which is on the smallish side of what the 6.6 duramax can take in. So you could contribute that to the displacement advantage of the d-max, some yes absolutely. But most is attributed to the heads ability flow more air. The CP3's on the CR cummins and the duramax are very similar in specs and fuel flow ability. Of course with duramax unit pushing more fuel for the extra 2 cylinders.

In respect to the engines size difference the Cummins heads are lacking it's the biggest hold back to there power potential, (not that they have any issues breaking the 4 digit numbers), The 6.7 Cummins took care of there displacement disadvantage, and has proven itself well but is still lacking in the ability to flow the air through the heads.

It is what it is, like it or not I know mechanical injected Cummins would be a MUCH better choice for an engine swap in a duece than a duece than a d-max or even powerstroke would be. It is a well rounded motor witht the ability to make great power down low.

As for the twin parallel setup you may very well be correct, in that case I guess you could use the stock duece turbo as the low pressure and mount a larger high pressure turbo on top of it. My only concern with that is I guess a BOV would be a good idea to stop your pressure from spiking to high and pushing a head gasket.

 

[mudguppy]

... Youc can't for one second tell me the 5.9 ... 24 valve heads will flow as well as the 32 valve d-max...

why not? they're all 4 valve heads...

what are the comparative flow numbers? what about the flows for the 6.0 and 6.4 heads?

i've honestly never seen the flow numbers compared, but you made the statement so i am just challenging for more data.

 

[big block 88]

Roger that, I will supply the numbers that I have when I get on my laptop. From memory all I can tell you is the 6.6 heads outflow them all the 6.0 ford had some of the lowest flow numbers which could attribute to HG issues (though the egr is the main issue) the 6.4 heads flow decent but the engines sequintail turbo's make some serious drive pressure which can limit performance out of the factory sequentails, and really shorten the life of the turbo's and HG's. The overal design really is a huge improvememnt over the 6.0. The 5.9 cummins (24 Valve) flows less than the duramax but more than the 6.4.

I have no number on the 6.7 Cummins or Powerstroke, but by the numbers the Cummins 6.7 has been making the last couple years they seemed to have improved there head design. I'll see what I can get for you.

 

[mudguppy]

i found:

• D-max: 180 stock, up to 270 ported
• Ferd 6.4: 170 stock, up to 230 ported
• Ferd 6.0: 163 stock, up to 200 ported
• CTD 24v: 160 stock, up to 200 ported
• CTD 12v: 160 stock, up to 250 ported

so, i'd say the D-max has a good advantage over stock Cummins heads (since the Cummins are filling a larger bore) but the flow over the fords is not a huge margin given the respective bores. and with bore sizes of:

• D-max: 4.06"
• Ferd 6.0: 3.74"
• Ferd 6.4: 3.86"

the comparative flow ratios to bore are nearly identical, as are the overall flow to displacement ratios.

so i don't see a significant advantage yet.

 

[patracy]

The other hindrance the cummins bears is the "troth" that makes up the intake "manifold". There are two large bumps that impede flow. Porting and polishing helps with them, but the only means to really get a good P&P on them is to mill off the section of the "troth" and run a custom manifold. The head casting actually prevents you from getting to the intake runners without doing so.

 

[hornetfan]

Metal is a lot stronger in compression than tension. Power compresses the rod (where it is strong). The piston reversal at TDC puts the rod in tension. The force increases at an exponential rate as RPM goes up. This is why a lot of rods fail. Tension can also cause the big end to go out of round at extreme RPM. It takes only .001"deformation to turn a rod bearing into an oil wiper.

Increased power puts lot of thermal stress on the pistons. (deleted) These have a high surface area piston crown (w/o steel or thermal coatings). Their high compression ratio is not what you want when running high boost.

I have my LD (turbo added) turned up and set to run 12psi at 2500rpm (13 at 2600). It has been reliable. EGT will run high under heavy towing loads especially at the lower end or the operation range(~1500rpm). I consider 1000*F too high for continuous duty (post turbo probe) and prefer to stay at or under 950*F. It the duration is short (less than a minute) I think 1000*F is OK.

Somebody should talk to Brooks or similar about the pistons. They could certainly be reduced in weight w/o problems by a piston outfit that knows what they're doing. Should be that expensive either. I'd talk to a good piston guy first before putting them on a mill but once you figure out exactly how much to trim you could get a bunch of stress off the rods. Premium wrist pins are easy too. And ARP bolts together with polish the rods to eliminate stress risers. Perhaps fire ring the block -- couple of hundred $$ but then you're done with head gasket issues.

A careful rebuild and a few premium parts and I believe a person can safely get the 300-350 hp that Continental eventually would have made. More than that and you're gonna start breaking the 3053A and maybe the Spicer transfer case too. And with power in the 200hp range I personally would replace the brakes with a double circuit system (at least) and I'd have to look at Differential Specialties disc brake kits. They seem reasonably priced for what they are.

.22 Hornet fan

 

[JasonS]

I found this to be an interesting post by Bob S:

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/showth...w-FMTV-spotted&p=212593&viewfull=1#post212593

The Hercules engine (multifuel) never had to pass emissions either. FMTV was the first program that Congress had mandated had to meet emmissions standards for the year it was produced. The Israelis had to use and ambient temp of 140F plus 115F increase across the engine for heat rejection- giving a total engine out temp of 255F maximum. When White attempted to modify the multifuel to meet emissions, the engine failed miserably. I know this is going to anger a lot of people, but the multifuel engines, since inception, was a cluster@#$%. It was a poorly designed engine that had a BSFC of about 0.4lb/hp/hr fuel consumption, where even the noisy DDC 2 strokes were below that. It is also why the Herc could not cool itself-the radiator was designed to cool a much larger engine, due to the engine heat rejection. This is not to say that the Herc runs hot-it means that the Herc cannot stabilize it's temp at full loading without the oversized cooling system. And even this was not enough in the MidEast to do the job for the Israelis. I can explain in greater detail, but be aware-cooling is a VERY involved subject.

The result is that TAACOM decided a full diesel was required to increase milage, increase durability, and to increase the parts availability (since the Herc was not road legal for the US, TAACOM was the only buyer in the US and costs were astronomical).

 

[TehTDK]

I was under the impression that the LDS engines was Supercharged, as in an actual supercharger. While the LDT models were Turbocharged. But according to some of the comments I read here it seems like that both the LDS and the LDT's were turbocharged, or?.

But wouldn't a path to "higher" power or more torque be to find a modern or more recent "equivalent" engine for the M35 or other model of truck and either drop it in, shoehorn in it etc. Would mean retaining the MultiFuel capacity of the engine, but at the same time hopefully get more power and torque with a modern or newer engine. Obviously wouldn't be a cheap solution or an easy solution. But alas its an option all the same, or would one struggle to actually find a modern day MF engine that could reasonably be fitted inside the engine compartment of the M35 or other MV truck...?

 

[Flyingvan911]

Correct. The LDS and LDT both have turbochargers except for a few. The turbos were added to cut down on the smoke. You will find either engine with either a C or D turbo. My LDS has a C. A few LDS's have wastegate turbos but they are rare.

 

[hornetfan]

I was under the impression that the LDS engines was Supercharged, as in an actual supercharger. While the LDT models were Turbocharged. But according to some of the comments I read here it seems like that both the LDS and the LDT's were turbocharged, or?.

But wouldn't a path to "higher" power or more torque be to find a modern or more recent "equivalent" engine for the M35 or other model of truck and either drop it in, shoehorn in it etc. Would mean retaining the MultiFuel capacity of the engine, but at the same time hopefully get more power and torque with a modern or newer engine. Obviously wouldn't be a cheap solution or an easy solution. But alas its an option all the same, or would one struggle to actually find a modern day MF engine that could reasonably be fitted inside the engine compartment of the M35 or other MV truck...?

LDS is turbo -- No superchargers that I've ever heard of. A Whipple or Paxton supercharger would be a serious upgrade IMO for these engines. Boost right from the bottom where engines stresses are still low. Turbos produce max boost at higher rpm where centrifugal stresses are ganging up with combustion stresses to tear up the engine. i think a Whipple would make a HUGE difference in comfort level on hills of a laden deuce and make a bobber scoot!

A new supercharger with attendant intake manifold would be expensive but may be the most cost effective way to get hp up into 250 range without lots of blown engines.

Many of the specific engine features which maximize the Continental LD/LDT/LDS 465's ability to burn light density fuels contribute to inefficiency and high stresses (like high compression ratio although 22:1 ain't as high as some seem to think). You start mucking about too much and you end up crippling the multi-fuel ability. It's a magic dance of trade-offs and because Uncle $ugar was the only customer (no economy of scale) costs were high. Longevity suffers from the tradeoffs too so far as I can see but I think those problems can be overcome by careful research and proper engine building. If you wnat peak performance out of a 465 engine you better get ready to build it from scratch and be careful about it -- same as always. But I've built some smoking 283s with a shoestring budget and time.

 

[hornetfan]

Correct. The LDS and LDT both have turbochargers except for a few. The turbos were added to cut down on the smoke. You will find either engine with either a C or D turbo. My LDS has a C. A few LDS's have wastegate turbos but they are rare.

I won't belabor the point but I'm not convinced that cutting smoke was even the primary reason Continental added the turbo. Better fuel efficiency and more hp had to be way high on the list. It was the '60s, remember? EVERYBODY wanted more HP and the builder's were delivering. The small block Chevy (born same week as me) went from 265 cu in to 283. Buick brought out the first all aluminum V8 gas engine. Big block Chev was born. Ford brought out their big one, too. Mopar brought out big hemi (wow - serious hp w/o hardly trying!)

just my tuppence worth but I think the "only for smoke" argument is mostly smoke -- don't mean to step on toes guys, it's just how I see it.

 

[TehTDK]

hornetfan, I just thought that perhaps a more modern and contemporate MF engine could serve as a viable upgrade for a Mxxx truck, provided you could make it fit inside the engine compartment. I mean at least some of the vehicles used by the US army etc are still multifuel, and no I am even going to bother mentioning the ambrams since that would be too much of a headache to even consider .

But I mean the German Leopard I+II's and the British Challanger I+II's are MF TDI's so one would think or at least expect that innovation in regards to MF has at least gotten a few or more steps better since the days where the Deuce and its cousins were produced/released.

 

[Squirt-Truck]

But back to the topic. What is the anticipated max realistic HP that we might see from a MF? Anyone ever run a turned up multi on a dyno?
We have to keep in mind the duty cycle for the engine. In a 13,000# truck an 80 to 100% duty cycle is going to be required. The multi has a 100% duty cycle at full output.
What is the realistic duty cycle of a 5.9? A duramax?, A 7.3 or similar? (I think Bjorn posted some interesting comparisons some time ago covering this.)
It is no good to have 500hp available if it can only be used for a short time.

FWIW, the multi in the D4800 trim makes rated power for prime power generation and that is 100% duty cycle, and the only difference is the oil filters and the injection pump.

 

[hornetfan]

hornetfan, I just thought that perhaps a more modern and contemporate MF engine could serve as a viable upgrade for a Mxxx truck, provided you could make it fit inside the engine compartment. I mean at least some of the vehicles used by the US army etc are still multifuel, and no I am even going to bother mentioning the ambrams since that would be too much of a headache to even consider .

But I mean the German Leopard I+II's and the British Challanger I+II's are MF TDI's so one would think or at least expect that innovation in regards to MF has at least gotten a few or more steps better since the days where the Deuce and its cousins were produced/released.

I would argue that turbines (Brayton cycle??) are not comparable 'engines' and you sure don't want to feed them fuel!

A true multi-fuel replacement might be built using a Cummins "B" or "C" as the basis but would require new pistons and cylinder heads and engine development is way beyond the scope of this thread! Beware the Mods ! lol

Seriously though, sticking strictly with the thread title max HP from the 465 seems to be around 200-250 hp and still stay within the heavy throttle expected from these trucks when used for military purposes or on normal roads. Off-road something else again. The LDS-465-2 is an honest 210hp engine and seems to have no trouble hanging in with the short Mean Time Between Overhaul requirements of the DoD.

Civilians that use a deuce or a bobber as a daily driver might want to be more cautious about turning up the heat. An engine exchange for a Cummins 6BT or something might be a better choice for a heavily used vehicle.

 

[hornetfan]

But back to the topic. What is the anticipated max realistic HP that we might see from a MF? Anyone ever run a turned up multi on a dyno?
We have to keep in mind the duty cycle for the engine. In a 13,000# truck an 80 to 100% duty cycle is going to be required. The multi has a 100% duty cycle at full output.
What is the realistic duty cycle of a 5.9? A duramax?, A 7.3 or similar? (I think Bjorn posted some interesting comparisons some time ago covering this.)
It is no good to have 500hp available if it can only be used for a short time.

FWIW, the multi in the D4800 trim makes rated power for prime power generation and that is 100% duty cycle, and the only difference is the oil filters and the injection pump.

Surface vehicles NEVER see anything close to continuous duty!! The very thought is hilarious. "Continuous duty" by Cummins definition is commercial marine duty where the engine will see rated power operation continuously for multiple days of 24 hr operation. Think offshore fish boat or 24-7 ferry duty.

Surface vehicles are inherently "high output intermittent duty".

BTW, the Cummins 6BTA is available in a continuous duty rating of 215hp or medium duty rating (virtually same engine) of 270hp as a point of comparison (CPL 2956 I think). And it weighs 800 lbs less than a 465 MF.

Off of my soapbox for now.

 

[emr]

Hey why not, Since all I know is the history of the motor, as it is easy to say the antique motor to us is a poor design that doesn't work, well the motor has proven the test of time for sure, have there been issues ? mostly driver error, It is what it is and it did its job as designed, And still doing it officially in some places and sure running good for us, and like anything else it had upgrades, as for getting the max horse power ? This has to be the silliest post of all time You need a civy truck , motor and drive train, wrong hobby bro this was an intermediate medium duty motor with maintenance in its design,

 

[cranetruck]

Imperfection can be beautiful.

 

[JasonS]

Imperfection can be beautiful.

All are imperfect.