Starting research ld 465 1c turbo upgrade

[V8srfun]

The problem with those calculators is they do not always account for total engine flow but base their figures off of general engine efficiency statistics. In the case of the ld series engine it is not as efficient as many of the other engines that the calculator is used for.

Being that I am not planning on using what ever turbo I choose for max effort but rather just be a little more efficient than the 50 year old technology that the gov used. My main focus is getting a turbo that is not so big on the hot side that it is laggy and I loose all of the efficiency that I gained with a modern turbo. I would rather a turbo that is a little small on the hot side than to large. A turbo that is marginally to small on the hot side will only cause a lack of power at the top of the rpm range but will actually be more responsive down low. For example if you have driven a modern 4 cylinder turbo car or suv that has not been modified you would have experienced what a undersized turbo feels like. They are incredibly responsive on tip in but fall flat up top as they just can’t move enough air to make any more power. With a 4 cylinder that can turn 6500 rpm you won’t care if the last 1500/1800 rpm doesn’t make any more power because you have so much to work with. But with a ld that has a useable rpm range of 1700 rpm or so I can’t afford to put a turbo on that is laggy and does not respond quickly. Especially with a diesel that needs air to burn the fuel and keep egt’s in check you want boost right away not 200 rpm later.

this is my theory at the moment as more research is done my thoughts may change but for now it makes sense.

 

[V8srfun]

Effects of injection timing, before and after top dead center on the propulsion and power in a diesel engine

It is well known that injection strategies including the injection timing and pressure play the most important role in determining engine performance,…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[V8srfun]

So here is what I am thinking (still undecided on the turbo) but after reading as much on diesel injection as I have recently. I plan on pop testing my injectors and setting them to the minimum spec. This will marginally decrease power but will spread the injection event over a longer period of time reducing shock on the pistons and rods. Then I plan on setting the timing back to turbo spec and may even retard it a couple extra degrees. These two things will produce a combustion event that is far less stressful on the engine it will be more like pushing the piston instead of punching it. Plus there are a couple other benefits of retarding the timing like a small possibility of a increase in fuel economy (if not over done) and better turbo response. These small adjustments should allow me to be able to run a higher boost pressure with out stressing the engine.

 

[1Sinner]

Following for experimental purposes. Would be nice to have a modern wastegated turbo with readily available rebuild kits.

 

[Dieselfitter]

Has anyone gone forward from this idea and installed a turbo with good result ?

 

[V8srfun]

This is still in my plans but life got busy and this is not a major priority at the moment. I definitely believe that a modern more efficient turbo will help with egt’s and controlling overboost like many people experienced when they turned the fuel up maybe a little more than they should have.

 

[Dieselfitter]

Im Very curious about adding a turbo to a non turbo truck. Mainly for clearer exhaust , my truck smokes heavy 950* egt is the highest temp it’ll read. Fdc is bypassed and the trucks power is not turned up , im pretty happy with power with a bobbed truck. The amount of smoke keeps me from turning more fuel to it , the on road potion of use with this truck is very small , so adding turbo to bobbed truck prob wont happen . Only because i never say never ! The “never” statement has bitten me more than once.
the 6x6 project for hauling water that i have now will need as much power as i can safely add and this thread with a newer turbo install has caught my eye.
a 5 ton multi engine would be great but more of a project then i can handle , id have to hire that out.

 

[V8srfun]

Im Very curious about adding a turbo to a non turbo truck. Mainly for clearer exhaust , my truck smokes heavy 950* egt is the highest temp it’ll read. Fdc is bypassed and the trucks power is not turned up , im pretty happy with power with a bobbed truck. The amount of smoke keeps me from turning more fuel to it , the on road potion of use with this truck is very small , so adding turbo to bobbed truck prob wont happen . Only because i never say never ! The “never” statement has bitten me more than once.
the 6x6 project for hauling water that i have now will need as much power as i can safely add and this thread with a newer turbo install has caught my eye.
a 5 ton multi engine would be great but more of a project then i can handle , id have to hire that out.

Mine is also a non turbo but the only notable difference is the fuel injection timing that can be easily changed. As far as the 5t multi the general consensus is that the difference is the rocker arms are a larger ratio giving you more valve lift. So you don’t need to change the whole engine if you can get a set of rockers.

 

[Dieselfitter]

Thats interesting !

 

[williamh]

Mine is also a non turbo but the only notable difference is the fuel injection timing that can be easily changed. As far as the 5t multi the general consensus is that the difference is the rocker arms are a larger ratio giving you more valve lift. So you don’t need to change the whole engine if you can get a set of rockers.

It also has a larger intake and air filter. Turbo won’t do squat if you can’t get air into it.

 

[fleetmech]

While it is a very sturdy unit, the HX35 is barely adequate for a mildly modded 5.9, and while the 5.9 is a much better flowing and energy dense engine, it is also a lot smaller in displacement.

With what I consider to be mediocre flow characteristics and low power density in the LD, I think running high boost pressure is going to give you disappointing results for a number of reasons. Firstly, the static compression ratio is quite high, and high static compression plus high boost is brutal on all internals, especially head gaskets which are already a known weak point. A TD block running modern gaskets might take it better, but thats unknown. Secondly, cramming boost pressure into manifolds and heads without the volumetric efficiency to utilize it is just wasting effort. You may also find that that IAT and EGT actually go up, since without an inter/after cooler, the intake charge is going to be hotter from the extra pressurization.

I definitely like the idea of a turbo easy to source parts for. Personally, I would look for a turbo sized to the engine, perhaps one from a Cummins ISC, Cat 3116/C7, or International DT466. Set the wastegate low to start and work up from there, you might find that a drive (exhaust manifold) pressure gauge is a helpful tool.

Since your plan is efficiency and not max power, I suspect you'll find a huge difference in going from NA to a smooth 7-10 psi, with very diminishing returns after that point.

 

[V8srfun]

While it is a very sturdy unit, the HX35 is barely adequate for a mildly modded 5.9, and while the 5.9 is a much better flowing and energy dense engine, it is also a lot smaller in displacement.

With what I consider to be mediocre flow characteristics and low power density in the LD, I think running high boost pressure is going to give you disappointing results for a number of reasons. Firstly, the static compression ratio is quite high, and high static compression plus high boost is brutal on all internals, especially head gaskets which are already a known weak point. A TD block running modern gaskets might take it better, but thats unknown. Secondly, cramming boost pressure into manifolds and heads without the volumetric efficiency to utilize it is just wasting effort. You may also find that that IAT and EGT actually go up, since without an inter/after cooler, the intake charge is going to be hotter from the extra pressurization.

I definitely like the idea of a turbo easy to source parts for. Personally, I would look for a turbo sized to the engine, perhaps one from a Cummins ISC, Cat 3116/C7, or International DT466. Set the wastegate low to start and work up from there, you might find that a drive (exhaust manifold) pressure gauge is a helpful tool.

Since your plan is efficiency and not max power, I suspect you'll find a huge difference in going from NA to a smooth 7-10 psi, with very diminishing returns after that point.

This is why I am interested in a turbo that is more efficient and wastegated. When you turn the fuel on a stock turbo one of the problems is not being able to control the boost. A more efficient compressor will produce a cooler charge at the same pressure and you will be able to prevent overboost with the wastegate. The one problem I have seen is that most of the turbos that already have a internal wastegate are pre set at 20+ psi and that is more than desired. And the turbos that have a lower pressure wastegate are far to small for the engine.

 

[Gypsyman]

If the turbos that you are looking at use an elbow to connect to the wastegate hose you can replace the stock elbow with an adjustable boost elbow (or just make your own). Depending on the bleed port size you can completely cripple the boost level if you so choose.

Some internally gated turbos can also be altered in much the same way to keep boost levels down.

 

[SCSG-G4]

So here is what I am thinking (still undecided on the turbo) but after reading as much on diesel injection as I have recently. I plan on pop testing my injectors and setting them to the minimum spec. This will marginally decrease power but will spread the injection event over a longer period of time reducing shock on the pistons and rods. Then I plan on setting the timing back to turbo spec and may even retard it a couple extra degrees. These two things will produce a combustion event that is far less stressful on the engine it will be more like pushing the piston instead of punching it. Plus there are a couple other benefits of retarding the timing like a small possibility of a increase in fuel economy (if not over done) and better turbo response. These small adjustments should allow me to be able to run a higher boost pressure with out stressing the engine.

The multifuel M.A.N. cycle engines are already pushing the pistons, not punching them. Diesel is already more of a push than a punch and the M.A.N. cycle principle (patented) makes the push longer. Investigate that before you re-invent the wheel.

 

[V8srfun]

If the turbos that you are looking at use an elbow to connect to the wastegate hose you can replace the stock elbow with an adjustable boost elbow (or just make your own). Depending on the bleed port size you can completely cripple the boost level if you so choose.

Some internally gated turbos can also be altered in much the same way to keep boost levels down.

The multifuel M.A.N. cycle engines are already pushing the pistons, not punching them. Diesel is already more of a push than a punch and the M.A.N. cycle principle (patented) makes the push longer. Investigate that before you re-invent the wheel.

Not reinventing anything just trying to reduce shock and stress on the internal components. The difference between a well tuned machine and one that just runs is how long they will last.

 

[rustystud]

The multifuel M.A.N. cycle engines are already pushing the pistons, not punching them. Diesel is already more of a push than a punch and the M.A.N. cycle principle (patented) makes the push longer. Investigate that before you re-invent the wheel.

That is a very true statement about the MultiFuel engine, and a good reason to leave the Turbo alone. When I was talking with that tractor pull guy a few years ago who made 5,000 HP out of a MultiFuel engine (actually he started with a MultiFuel and ended up with his own engine) he said he never got good results out of a Turbo until he redesigned the heads and pistons. Basically removing the whole MultiFuel capability.
Also he lowered the initial compression ratio to 19 to 1 . Then he added twin Turbos, then later a super charger.

 

[fleetmech]

That is a very true statement about the MultiFuel engine, and a good reason to leave the Turbo alone. When I was talking with that tractor pull guy a few years ago who made 5,000 HP out of a MultiFuel engine (actually he started with a MultiFuel and ended up with his own engine) he said he never got good results out of a Turbo until he redesigned the heads and pistons. Basically removing the whole MultiFuel capability.
Also he lowered the initial compression ratio to 19 to 1 . Then he added twin Turbos, then later a super charger.

Exactly. if the manifold/ head castings/ valves can only flow so much air, theres an early point of diminishing returns on increasing manifold pressure. Likewise, increasing the volume and heat going in increases the volume and heat going out which, on a multi, will probably manifest itself in high drive pressures and high egts.

I can absolutely see adding a turbo, or swapping out to an easy to source modern one, but I still maintain that theres more to be had in those first few psi than in going past that point.

 

[V8srfun]

Exactly. if the manifold/ head castings/ valves can only flow so much air, theres an early point of diminishing returns on increasing manifold pressure. Likewise, increasing the volume and heat going in increases the volume and heat going out which, on a multi, will probably manifest itself in high drive pressures and high egts.

I can absolutely see adding a turbo, or swapping out to an easy to source modern one, but I still maintain that theres more to be had in those first few psi than in going past that point.

This is more about finding a readily available more efficient turbo that possibly cost less than a surplus unit. If it makes more power that is great but efficiency and service life is the goal.

 

[rustystud]

This is more about finding a readily available more efficient turbo that possibly cost less than a surplus unit. If it makes more power that is great but efficiency and service life is the goal.

Well the last time I had a "Whistler Turbo's" vanes welded up, I talked about that very thing. The shop Forman mentioned using a Ford turbo from a 6.9 engine. He said it had very similar numbers comparable to the MultiFuels turbo.

 

[fleetmech]

maybe a 7.3 powerstroke turbo? the engine size is about right and IIRC 'strokes didnt get any turbo electronics until the 6.0. Not sure about mounts and clocking though.