max HP out of a 465 multi fuel?

[hornetfan]

You're still avoiding the point of you're asking for a power increase of 200%....

I think Nasty's points about parts are very valid. Aren't stock new rod bolts available?? And head studs wouldn't be "custom" -- just order the correct length and thread from ARP. Same with fasteners for the mains. There's no magic and minimal cost to deburring/polishing your own rods and shotpeening is not costly - even with shipping! Balancing the rotating assembly is NOT that costly.

Nasty's correct IMO -- rebuild the MF engine properly and adding a few low cost steps with new studs and rod bolts and you can probably substantially enhance durability.

The original 265 cu in Chevy small block was a 165 hp engine. Stock but well prepped 2-bolt mains 265 cu in mouse motors will certainly easily make 350hp with all stock piston and bottom end parts - the only enhancements being proper engine machining and assembly. That's a 47% increase in hp from an engine of the same vintage as the 465 MF. Maybe asking for 300 hp is asking too much. But asking for 275 hp over the 210 hp 465MF is only asking for a gain of 30% and the bottom ends are the same across the board with the 465 family, correct? That I suggest ought to be within the realm of possibility!

Other suggestions for a bulletproof build add more cost still but a modest HP increase while retaining MF capability doesn't require extremes -- please let me rephrase that, because nobody seems to know these answers - only opinions have been offered including mine.

My personal focus in this thread has been what can be done to enhance power from the 465 MF while keeping cost reasonable? Putting a modern turbo on and adding an IC will not increase cost much and the IC certainly will not increase stresses. In fact if I understand the hypercycle correctly you do not want to eliminate the coolant from the head and the IC would actually help the hypercycle by keeping the intake air charge cool to allow the hypercycle to function in the piston and chamber. New valve springs - are they needed? Are there many reported failures of bent valves caused by spring float? Not so far in this thread so don't spend the money. Head gasket problems? Replace head studs with ARP off-the-shelf studs and same with mains - minimal cost. New rod bolts (I confess it never occurred to me that anybody was reusing their old bolts!) - so buy new bolts - zero cost compared to proper engine rebuilding practice. Deburr and shotpeen rods and carefully size 'em. Minimal cost. Balance the rotating assembly - some cost increase but big endurance gains.

At the end of the day you have a more durable engine that will allow a reasonable fuel increase at limited increased rpm to allow larger tires or gear change for a moderate increase in speed without losing MF capability or having to do an engine swap. Same old hotrod stuff as the '40s and '50s - improve what you have on hand as much as you can, add better airflow and more fuel and enjoy the results.

For somebody with access to a bunch of NOS parts you can get a bit fancier and hand match bearings to journals, pistons to holes, and other similar "tricks" to get minimal bearing clearances, minimal piston slap, and so on. Wanna get fancy? Lighten the pistons by machining the skirts. Smokey Yunick built a reputation on this stuff as did many other men such as Carroll Shelby and Cliff Collins ('40s) and Gale Banks and countless others. No magic here - just careful, thoughtful work.

ALL of these things have to be done before spending a dime if you want true maximum power regardless of whether the engine is gas or diesel or hypercycle.

 

[patracy]

I guess the facts just get in the way. Best luck.

 

[hornetfan]

I guess the facts just get in the way. Best luck.

Which facts would those be, if I may ask? Did I write anything which you believe to be false information??

 

[Nasty610]

I fully plan to purchase a second LDS engine for my rebuild. Do I think that I'm going to make a 500 HP 4000 RPM screamer? Certainly not but I do plan to push the engine as far as it can safely go. If that is only 250 HP, great, if it ends up being 400 HP, amazing to the say the least. Really if I end up with the stock 180 HP LDS that runs better than it ever did for the Army I will still be happy. To make statements such as "it wasn't designed for it so enjoy what it is" are very narrow sighted. I would be willing to wager that most of the same people making that statement have, or at one point had, a toy in their garage that has been rebuilt well beyond the original design parameters. I'm not trying to start an argument, just point out that you can safely take any engine well beyond it's design parameters without causing deterimental damage.

A fully balance rotating assembly by itself will increase the durability of this engine exponentially. If you used NOS and selected the lightest components such as the hollow wrist pins and lighter pistons you could build a much lighter engine that once properly balanced would turn upwards of 3000 RPMs safely. I know a lot of you would rather take the easy way out and use off the shelf kits, w/o machining anything, or just replace the engine. This to me is completely unacceptable.

I will be looking into aftermarket pistons. Not because I feel the OE ones are not up to par but because I feel I can build a much better motor with a lower CR. I know some people will complain that they would loose the MF function but the 6BT has been run on everything but Gasoline and it doesn't have a 22:1 CR. Since I only plan to run diesel/WMO blend during the summer I feel the lower CR with increased boost will net much better performance with a lot less strain on the internal engine components.

I agree with hornetfan about the valve springs, I used the search function and couldn't find one case of a damage valve or piston from valve float. Maybe the MF is a non-interference motor. Does anyone know if that is the case? Either way with the incease in boost I will be searching for a suitable substitute just for piece of mind.

For the main and head bolts you could take it one step further than what hornetfan suggested. You could purchase bolts in a larger diameter from ARP. This would allow for much higher clamping force on the head. If you search there are several forums with directions to building a MLS, multi-layer steel, HG. Using a MLS HG with upgraded head bolts would allow for much higher boost. Higher boost will result in high HP production.

I was taught "Do things right the first time if you want the best result." Odd how that one statement holds very true with the MF. Personally when I rebuild my engine it will be done correctly not with an off the shelf kit designed and built by the lowest bidder. I know most people on this forum will ignore what I've said because it cost too much to get the same power from another engine. There is honestly a lot of great information on this board pertaining to crew cabs, how to bob, suspesion and brakes. It's sad that everything that all the great information is only about the chassic and anytime something for the motor comes up you are told to repower with a 6bt or similar. I'm sure if I asked what everyone thinks about putting a Roadranger 11 speed transmission behind the MF I would be asked why and given countless reasons it's not a horrible idea. But the guy that repowers with a 6bt and uses a NV4500 rated for 16000 lbs is appluaded for his forward thinking.

 

[Nasty610]

I think the facts he's referring to are that no one has ever done a proper rebuild. Proper being defined as selecting pistons/wrist pins closest in weight, having the entire rotating assembly balanced , replacing all the stressed bolts(head/rod/main), using a quiality gasket kit and properly sized bearings. If anyone has done this please post up and let me know your results because I am very interested.

 

[patracy]

Which facts would those be, if I may ask?

Oh I dunno....

I disagree. A HX40 shares the same shaft size as the HX35. They're prone to failure due to that. (Increased wheel diameter vs. smaller shaft diameter) With how much these trucks like to bark, I'd worry about the longevity.

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.

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.

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).

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)

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.

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.

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-trac...iver-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.

I removed the subjective comments I made. But plenty of facts there.

 

[hornetfan]

Yah, Nasty -- I didn't want to muddy the waters further with such a drastic suggestion as actually increasing bolt size You'd have to do something as drastic as rethread the holes. What you are talking about doing is all really basic simple engine shop work. There ain't no magic here nor huge expense either. Other than drastically enhanced durability and the possibility of increased power up to the mid-200 level at least these changes should cause nobody any pause whatsoever. The changes and proper rebuild will probably result in a much longer lived engine -- the 465MF in the hands of the Army certainly is NOT a longevity engine. See MTBF figures from earlier in the thread - and I would be willing to bet most of those failures were caused by poor engine assembly and poorly matched parts -- NOT poor inherent engine strength as some have implied and outright stated.

 

[Nasty610]

It's amazing that an actaul engine rebuild is considered drastic. If I suggested doing something like tossing surplus parts in my 1000cc sport bike or '72 small block Chevy without atleast matching piston weights everyone would jump all over me. I guess since the Army did piss poor maintenance that means post-Army owners are required to do the same thing.

I am sorry if I have insulted anyone with that last statement or violated any board rules. But every single time a worth while upgrade is suggested it is short down with countless reasons why you should just be happy to own a M35AXX. What's worse is this thread is in the HOT RODDING section. Since when does HOT RODDING mean modify anything but DO NOT TOUCH THE ENGINE. I will stop posting in this thread since it is honestly going no where. This statement is based on the fact the thread was start 12-29-2009 at 23:48 and no useful solutions have been offered by anyone but "NOOBs".

 

[Heath_h49008]

I'm in serious need of a neutral dyno and 3 engines to end this retarded subject. Every six months we get half a dozen guys with the same spiel who think a bigger turbo, or an air-to-air will turn the LDT/LDS into a 300hp+ million mile engine. (Or some other variation on the theme)

It reminds me of the old days in the automotive world when the kids who watched "Fast and Furious" insisted a K&N airfilter and an exhaust tip the size of a coffee can would give them a 1000hp 8 second 1/4 mile Honda civic.

 

[hornetfan]

Oh I dunno....


I removed the subjective comments I made. But plenty of facts there.

<deep sigh>
I don't know how to get you r internal quotes back to comment on so I'll do it the hard way.

"I disagree. A HX40 shares the same shaft size as the HX35. They're prone to failure due to that. (Increased wheel dia...."
I have written nothing suggesting an HX40 or any other specific turbo. What's the best turbo to use? I don't know but I know there are LOTS of inexpensive options.

"The other hindrance the cummins bears is the "troth...."" So what? We are not talking about modifying a Cummins engine! This thread is about "getting max hp from the 465MF engine," correct? I would think that you of all people would keep the thread on topic.

"That doesn't address the weak bottom end at all." Nonsense. Much of what I have written as well as several others have repeated addressed bottom end strength issues -- over and over again. This is not a fact. It is repetition of non-facts.

"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 do not think, personally, that removing a bunch of material from the face of the piston is a good idea. I do not think lowering CR is a good idea either. I have addressed every single other fact you allege here. Are you saying that I have written anything in my suggested modifications to deal with rods, gaskets, bolts, etc is incorrect, misleading or outright wrong? You are replying specifically to me, not a general post. So get with it -- show ME where I have misstated facts or written something which is incorrect, false or misleading. You are attacking me personally and are attempting to attribute to me things I haven't written.

I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your post; the other quotes mostly don't deal with the 465MF or they are about issues which have been addressed repeatedly. You are attacking me with false information and I do not like it, clear?

WHY?? AFRAID OF A LITTLE FACTUAL INFORMATION?

 

[patracy]

It's amazing that an actaul engine rebuild is considered drastic. If I suggested doing something like tossing surplus parts in my 1000cc sport bike or '72 small block Chevy without atleast matching piston weights everyone would jump all over me. I guess since the Army did piss poor maintenance that means post-Army owners are required to do the same thing.

I am sorry if I have insulted anyone with that last statement or violated any board rules. But every single time a worth while upgrade is suggested it is short down with countless reasons why you should just be happy to own a M35AXX. What's worse is this thread is in the HOT RODDING section. Since when does HOT RODDING mean modify anything but DO NOT TOUCH THE ENGINE. I will stop posting in this thread since it is honestly going no where. This statement is based on the fact the thread was start 12-29-2009 at 23:48 and no useful solutions have been offered by anyone but "NOOBs".

I never said a rebuild was drastic. I said that 300hp without the other precautions I mentioned would be.

I would say that just rebuilding the engine with a balance and blueprinting would certainly help with the longevity of the engine. But you're not going to drastically improve the bottom end enough to handle another 100hp with that alone.

Also note, the original engine used in the tractor was limited to 2400rpm.

If you'll allow me to make a broad statement. The military took a tractor diesel engine, reconfigured it for multifuel capacity and "hot rodded" it sacrificing longevity for performance.

I've been playing with the multifuels for a little while now. (I've had 8 mutifuel trucks) When in reality, I've had 9 engines, and one of those engines had an inframe overhaul. I love the ability to run WMO in them. I wish they had a little more power. But the cost involved isn't worth it to me. When I bought my first Deuce (which I still own), it had a cracked cyl liner. I patched that back together and installed new liners/pistons/rods. I drove it for about a year with that setup, until I cracked a head or something else failed on the top end. I had thought about rebuilding a LDT to blueprint spec. But instead I simply bought another engine for $300. I'd love to do all the things I outlined earlier (my subjective commentary). I honestly believe that a multifuel with 300hp that is reliable is obtainable. But ONLY with everything I outlined. The only main costs of a project like that would be in machine work and intake/exhaust manifold fabrication. ARP could certainly help with the fasteners. But I'm afraid of not going that extra mile would result in just one of the common failure points to happen again. (You'd either blow a HG or throw a rod)

 

[patracy]

<deep sigh>
I don't know how to get you r internal quotes back to comment on so I'll do it the hard way.

"I disagree. A HX40 shares the same shaft size as the HX35. They're prone to failure due to that. (Increased wheel dia...."
I have written nothing suggesting an HX40 or any other specific turbo. What's the best turbo to use? I don't know but I know there are LOTS of inexpensive options.

"The other hindrance the cummins bears is the "troth...."" So what? We are not talking about modifying a Cummins engine! This thread is about "getting max hp from the 465MF engine," correct? I would think that you of all people would keep the thread on topic.

"That doesn't address the weak bottom end at all." Nonsense. Much of what I have written as well as several others have repeated addressed bottom end strength issues -- over and over again. This is not a fact. It is repetition of non-facts.

"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 do not think, personally, that removing a bunch of material from the face of the piston is a good idea. I do not think lowering CR is a good idea either. I have addressed every single other fact you allege here. Are you saying that I have written anything in my suggested modifications to deal with rods, gaskets, bolts, etc is incorrect, misleading or outright wrong? You are replying specifically to me, not a general post. So get with it -- show ME where I have misstated facts or written something which is incorrect, false or misleading. You are attacking me personally and are attempting to attribute to me things I haven't written.

I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your post; the other quotes mostly don't deal with the 465MF or they are about issues which have been addressed repeatedly. You are attacking me with false information and I do not like it, clear?

WHY?? AFRAID OF A LITTLE FACTUAL INFORMATION?

Didn't read back through this thread did you? Everything I quoted came from this very thread.

Now for lowering the CR. Lowering the CR would help if you were to increase boost, which is what they mentioned about a better turbo. This is very common practice in diesel performance.

Where in the heck did I attack you? You stated that I wasn't posting facts. I quoted my own posts from this thread with facts.

I'm just going to bow out at this point. I have nothing to prove here, nor do I need to win. Just tried offering advice/experience. If someone wants to crank up their multifuel without addressing the common weaknesses, that's their own prerogative.

 

[Heath_h49008]

Nobody is saying it CAN'T be done.

What I am saying at least is nobody has wasted the money/effort required to do it. Considering these pages are frequented by guys of the skills and financial backing to buy and rebuild tanks as a lark, that means something. It just isn't cost effective to polish these turds beyond A CERTAIN POINT. Modern engines are too common and too cheap to build to those desired levels of power output.

Seriously, if you have the funds and time, I would love to hear how it goes and watch the build.

Patracy has just given you guys the short list of priorities based upon his experience with failures in these engines.

 

[hornetfan]

Didn't read back through this thread did you? Everything I quoted came from this very thread.

Now for lowering the CR. Lowering the CR would help if you were to increase boost, which is what they mentioned about a better turbo. This is very common practice in diesel performance.

Where in the heck did I attack you? You stated that I wasn't posting facts. I quoted my own posts from this thread with facts.

I'm just going to bow out at this point. I have nothing to prove here, nor do I need to win. Just tried offering advice/experience. If someone wants to crank up their multifuel without addressing the common weaknesses, that's their own prerogative.

Not so fast, sir.

You STATED that I had not addressed the weak bottom end AT ALL. That statement BY YOU is BS. Take it back.

You repeatedly used references to the Cummins engines WHEN THIS THREAD IS ABOUT MAX HP FROM A 465MF.

You have repeatedly made snide comments impying that I know NOTHING about engines, diesel, nor multi-fuels. And that I have failed to do MY research. And you defend YOUR EXPERTISE by saying you've owned NINE engines! LOL -- no ROFLMAO

There you have it, sir. Examples of your direct attacks on me and my expertise. You shouldn't even be moderating this thread AT ALL. You repeatedly have allowed the thread to get WAY off topic and you yourself have contributed to that problem with your repeated mentions of the Cummins. The occasional reference to other engines as points of comparison make perfectly good sense and contribute to the thread. But the thread is about the 465 mf and getting max hp from it. Not constantly bellyaching that "it can't be done" or constant references to the Cummins without tying that into the main purpose of the thread.

I reported your post. If I get heat for it, so be it.

Now take back the falsehoods you asserted about ME.

 

[patracy]

Not so fast, sir.

You STATED that I had not addressed the weak bottom end AT ALL. That statement BY YOU is BS. Take it back.

You repeatedly used references to the Cummins engines WHEN THIS THREAD IS ABOUT MAX HP FROM A 465MF.

You have repeatedly made snide comments impying that I know NOTHING about engines, diesel, nor multi-fuels. And that I have failed to do MY research. And you defend YOUR EXPERTISE by saying you've owned NINE engines! LOL -- no ROFLMAO

There you have it, sir. Examples of your direct attacks on me and my expertise. You shouldn't even be moderating this thread AT ALL. You repeatedly have allowed the thread to get WAY off topic and you yourself have contributed to that problem with your repeated mentions of the Cummins. The occasional reference to other engines as points of comparison make perfectly good sense and contribute to the thread. But the thread is about the 465 mf and getting max hp from it. Not constantly bellyaching that "it can't be done" or constant references to the Cummins without tying that into the main purpose of the thread.

I reported your post. If I get heat for it, so be it.

Now take back the falsehoods you asserted about ME.

I never stated that YOU didn't address YOUR weak bottom end.

I pulled those quotes out of this thread as they were facts I added to this same thread. Again quotes from me that I made in this thread. (Please go back and read/verify yourself)

The fact I stated that I owned several of these engines I guess is not fact/experience. Oookay. (BTW, I've had way more diesel engines than just those)

I'm still struggling where I attacked you directly? Now I certainly am. But that's only because you've resorted to challenging me, reporting my quote post (which I don't understand), and cursing me via PM.

If you'll read back through this thread, there's been several off conversation slants that the Cummins has been brought up. That's the nature of forums. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm really looking for these falsehoods you're claiming I asserted, but I don't see any. All the commentary I've made has been fact/subjective. Not any comments where I've said "hornetfan said X" or "hornetfan didn't do X right". Sir I believe you've severely taken this thread way out of context. I suggest you take a step back and re-read the thread in chronological order.

 

[hornetfan]

I never stated that YOU didn't address YOUR weak bottom end.

I pulled those quotes out of this thread as they were facts I added to this same thread. Again quotes from me that I made in this thread. (Please go back and read/verify yourself)

The fact I stated that I owned several of these engines I guess is not fact/experience. Oookay. (BTW, I've had way more diesel engines than just those)

I'm still struggling where I attacked you directly? Now I certainly am. But that's only because you've resorted to challenging me, reporting my quote post (which I don't understand), and cursing me via PM.

If you'll read back through this thread, there's been several off conversation slants that the Cummins has been brought up. That's the nature of forums. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm really looking for these falsehoods you're claiming I asserted, but I don't see any. All the commentary I've made has been fact/subjective. Not any comments where I've said "hornetfan said X" or "hornetfan didn't do X right". Sir I believe you've severely taken this thread way out of context. I suggest you take a step back and re-read the thread in chronological order.

First off, I did NOT CURSE YOU in a PM or otherwise.

Second you responded to MY post directly and made the same misstatements in the mistaken notion that repeating something YOU said somehow makes it a "FACT" -- that ain't the case. As I stated, issues relating to the "weak bottom end" have been addressed repeatedly by several members. To state otherwise is a FALSEHOOD.

Replacing the engine with a Cummins does NOT address the thread subject namely "max hp from a 465mf". And I'm not going to repeat myself further.

Smart Aleck comments about "my weak bottom end" do not constitute a personal jibe? In whose book? Certainly it is just over the line especially in this context, at least in my book.

Let's get back to discussing "MAX HP FROM THE 465MF", how 'bout it? And leave Cummins out of modifying the 465?

 

[JasonS]

If The military took a tractor diesel engine, reconfigured it for multifuel capacity and "hot rodded" it sacrificing longevity for performance.

If you look back in the old Motors repair books, it is pretty clear that the MF was based on the TD-6427 Continental diesel truck engine which was in turn based on their gas enghine; NOT a tractor engine. The MF got the larger rod bearing size from the next larger R series, and a main bearing size not common to any of their other engines. Obviously, the block was also strengthened to accomadate the higher combustion pressures and the combustion chamber modified to the MAN M design.

"Hot rodded" seems like a stretch. The TD-6427 had 116 horsepower at 2400 rpm naturally aspirated. The larger LD465 has ~126 horsepower at 2600 rpm.

 

[HanksDeuce]

Hornetfan: Dude, just get used to it. There are more than a handful of people that love to come into the "Deuce Modification and Hot-Rodding" forum only to say something on the deuce shouldn't be modified. No names, just an observation.

Get out there and prove them wrong! I try to do it everyday I work on my deuce. If it doesn't work and you fail miserably, well, chock it up as a lesson learned and move on. Just do all of your custom motor testing on a closed highway so you don't injure the public and cause harm to the MV hobby.

 

[patracy]

Hornetfan and I have exchanged a few PMs and worked things out. It was only a misunderstanding that has been resolved.

 

[JasonS]

I don't think that the military requirements were very stringent. White motors had their own engine competing as a multifuel replacement for the Reo gas engine. The White was also a modified gas engine based on the Reo V8 using a pre-combustion chamber. Here is what the White literature had to say about lifetime: "The life expetancy of such lightweight diesels cannot be as good as heavy commercial engines but, nevertheless, the durability and reliability will amply meet military requirements".