Built by Rootes Group, Wikipedia says it's good for roughly 105 horsepower and 270 lb.-ft. of torque.
Mind you, this was built during the '50s and '60s.
Built by Rootes Group, Wikipedia says it's good for roughly 105 horsepower and 270 lb.-ft. of torque.
Mind you, this was built during the '50s and '60s.
Heh! Must be a twin stick, he got lost and had to stop and reset!
That is what a truck should sound like!
I worked on a Coast Guard ship as an engineer in the late 90's- how about a 12 cylinder inline vertically opposed (you read that right) turbocharged and supercharged, inter, and aftercooled, two stroke diesel in a CODOG arrangement with an FT4A turbine. X2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairbanks_Morse_38_8-1/8_diesel_engine
Edit: I don't remember it sounding great. Just loud.
Edit II: It sounded way berkeleying better than that abomination.
The truck in the OP is likely powered by a Detroit Diesel. All 2 stroke diesels are supercharged as they have to be to run. They have intake ports in the cylinders with exhaust valves in the heads.
They can be turbocharged on top of that.
Screaming Detroits used to be a common sound years ago in semis and other heavy trucks.
BigIron said:The truck in the OP is likely powered by a Detroit Diesel. All 2 stroke diesels are supercharged as they have to be to run. They have intake ports in the cylinders with exhaust valves in the heads.
They can be turbocharged on top of that.
Yup. Literally why they call 8-71 or 6-71 or whatever other number type roots superchargers by that number.
8-71 was an 8 cylinder, inline (the dash,) 71 cubic inches per cylinder. A 6V50 would be a V6, 50 cubes per cyl.
If I remember correctly, a T at the end indicates a turbo.
Lot of military flightline firetrucks and cargo handling equipment still use them, maybe civilian stuff as well.
This might be a dumb question, but what are the pros/cons to a 2 vs 4 stroke diesel?
In the motorcycle world it seems that 4 strokes get better fuel economy, but hp/cc is better on 2 stroke engines. Is it the same for diesels?
In reply to WillG80 :
Basic engine theory is the same the world over. More efficient which can turn into a smaller/lighter engine, but also higher heat and wear potential.
When I use to turn wrenches for a living for a quarry outfit, we had a old Euclid water truck that not only was a 2 stroke diesel but used a air powered starter. It was so loud we could not start it and run it till after 8am due to neighbors complaining to the township about it. It sounded awesome at a distance when it was running wide open but up close it was deafening.
A friend of mine has an International Fleetstar with a 2-stroke Detroit Diesel. I rode in it once and we went up through a gorge towing a 53 foot trailer with a Linn tractor on it. The exhaust note would peel the ears off your head. It was awesome.
BigIron said:All 2 stroke diesels are supercharged as they have to be to run. They have intake ports in the cylinders with exhaust valves in the heads.
No.
2 strokes don't bog down when experiencing a sudden load, such as a generator when a heavy electrical demand suddenly happens. Having a power stroke each stroke is much more powerful than every other stroke. Jimmy (GM, later Detroit) Diesel trucks and busses also kept their speed while going up hills. Other trucks had to downshift more often.
In reply to Mr. Peabody :
I work with 2 stroke diesel in my job (locomotive engines). If they lose intake pressurization, they won't run. Is there another type of two-stroke diesel that doesn't require pressurized intake air? I haven't heard of it. The locomotive engines are supercharged, with an over-running clutch and switch to turbocharged at higher loads/ RPMs. Idle at 200 RPM, full throttle about 925 RPM or so, 645 cubic inches per cylinder x 12 or 16 cylinders.
Mr_Asa said:BigIron said:The truck in the OP is likely powered by a Detroit Diesel. All 2 stroke diesels are supercharged as they have to be to run. They have intake ports in the cylinders with exhaust valves in the heads.
They can be turbocharged on top of that.
Yup. Literally why they call 8-71 or 6-71 or whatever other number type roots superchargers by that number.
8-71 was an 8 cylinder, inline (the dash,) 71 cubic inches per cylinder. A 6V50 would be a V6, 50 cubes per cyl.
If I remember correctly, a T at the end indicates a turbo.
Lot of military flightline firetrucks and cargo handling equipment still use them, maybe civilian stuff as well.
Yep. I will add that the 6-71 inline 6 cyl., 71 ci per cyl. (~426ci) is one of the more common Driptroit's - (common nickname) and although a 8-71 was probably made, the 8V-71 was more common. V for, as said, "v" configuration. The 92 series came out, and the 6V-92 became a popular replacement for the 8V-71. Or since the 71 and 92 series were same external dimensions, a 8V-92 for more ci in same size.
And the smaller series was the "53", ilo 50. Smaller external dimensions, and 53 ci per cyl, just like ya said. The 53 series would usually turn a few more RPM, as well.And right again on T for factory turbo'd.
Detroit did everything from 4 cylinders up to 16 cylinders with the Xv71 and 92 designations.
I drove a crapload of MCI coaches in my day with 6v92 and 8v92 engines.
Here is a 16v71 that they blew up. Worth the 25 minute watch.
WillG80 said:This might be a dumb question, but what are the pros/cons to a 2 vs 4 stroke diesel?
In the motorcycle world it seems that 4 strokes get better fuel economy, but hp/cc is better on 2 stroke engines. Is it the same for diesels?
Primary benefit is power density. With a power stroke every time the piston does one up/down instead of every other time, you can typically get more oomph from the same size.
Downside is waste, emissions, and (in most situations) MPG.
volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to Mr. Peabody :
I work with 2 stroke diesel in my job (locomotive engines). If they lose intake pressurization, they won't run. Is there another type of two-stroke diesel that doesn't require pressurized intake air? I haven't heard of it. The locomotive engines are supercharged, with an over-running clutch and switch to turbocharged at higher loads/ RPMs. Idle at 200 RPM, full throttle about 925 RPM or so, 645 cubic inches per cylinder x 12 or 16 cylinders.
Sounds like you work on EMD's. They are essentially really big Detroit's which makes sense as they were both part of GM. A lot of similarities.
Since you work on them you know this, but not all have the clutched turbo. The ones that don't have blowers just like a Detroit. Because they won't run without forced induction.
Former Locomotive engineer.
Here is a more tame (and shorter) video of a 16v92 running.
And one of my favorites... a custom 24v71 with TWELVE 8-71 blowers making 3400 hp and god knows how much torque.
Plus, I just want to hug this guy. He seems neat.
BigIron said:volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to Mr. Peabody :
I work with 2 stroke diesel in my job (locomotive engines). If they lose intake pressurization, they won't run. Is there another type of two-stroke diesel that doesn't require pressurized intake air? I haven't heard of it. The locomotive engines are supercharged, with an over-running clutch and switch to turbocharged at higher loads/ RPMs. Idle at 200 RPM, full throttle about 925 RPM or so, 645 cubic inches per cylinder x 12 or 16 cylinders.
Sounds like you work on EMD's. They are essentially really big Detroit's which makes sense as they were both part of GM. A lot of similarities.
Since you work on them you know this, but not all have the clutched turbo. The ones that don't have blowers just like a Detroit. Because they won't run without forced induction.
Former Locomotive engineer.
Correct, EMD's. I knew some were just supercharged, while others had the super/turbo combo. Yep, originally GM...now owned by Caterpillar.
My question was, Peabody inferred above that not all 2 stroke diesels required some sort of forced induction to run...I had not heard of this, and was asking for clarification.
Although I don't believe it was originally designed by GM, they built by far the most of them and if weren't for the prodigious filth exiting the exhausts, they'd still be powering the world. Any deep look at them will conclude that whoever thought of it was a Berking genius. Simple, easy to package (2 stroke is physically smaller), and most importantly scalable. Need to run a pump? Here's a 2 cylinder. Truck or bus? Here's the same thing with 6 or 8 cylinders. V or inline. Off-highway truck or large bulldozer? Here's a V12 or V16. Locomotive or power plant? How about all those same configurations but just scaled up?
As for the 6-71's, years ago, my late friend had twin 671T's in his 42' Egg Harbor Sport Fisherman. Boy, that thing could move, and sounded pretty nice when on plane. I believe you can reline the cylinders, when needed. Might be wrong though, been a while.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
The Fritz Huber designed two stroke diesel. It was used most commonly in Lanz tractors and would run on just about anything.
This one is being rebuilt right now. If you look at the piston it has the bore stamped in it in mm. That's a $1000 piston
In reply to Mr. Peabody :
Sounds like that was technically not a diesel engine, but a "hot bulb" engine. Similar, but if we're getting pedantic, not equivalent.
A 401 CJ said:Although I don't believe it was originally designed by GM, they built by far the most of them and if weren't for the prodigious filth exiting the exhausts, they'd still be powering the world. Any deep look at them will conclude that whoever thought of it was a Berking genius. Simple, easy to package (2 stroke is physically smaller), and most importantly scalable. Need to run a pump? Here's a 2 cylinder. Truck or bus? Here's the same thing with 6 or 8 cylinders. V or inline. Off-highway truck or large bulldozer? Here's a V12 or V16. Locomotive or power plant? How about all those same configurations but just scaled up?
One of the things I always thought was cool about them, is them being built to be "lego's" The heads of a 8V71 is simply a pair of 4-71 heads, and so on.
You'll need to log in to post.
