What's new
By:
Filters

Diesel experts step in

WaterH said:
Any opinion on a Blue top in this application?
Click to expand...
Careful, there are 2 types of blue top.

Blue tops are the marine version of both the red and yellow tops. They have additional terminals compared to the red / yellow top. A red top with extra terminals that is called a blue top and a yellow top with extra terminals that is ALSO called a blue top. Be careful.

Blue top with dark gray case = Marine red top
Blue top with light gray case = Marine yellow top

Whatever you get, get a yellow top or its blue top equivalent (light gray case).

In your case I don't see the additional cost of the blue top being necessary, at all.
 
Fwiw of the 3 gensets I nuked it has never been an engine issue. It is always the generator itself shitting the bed. Coatings on the winding fail and it lets the smoke out.
 
WaterH said:
You don’t understand. I intend to fix it. The question was more related to the fact that I don’t use 5KW now. If I hook a 10 kw up, it’s really prone to stacking. Installing a ball valve would take seconds and I could make the motor work harder at the reduced load.
Click to expand...

It won’t wet stack under load. Just don’t run it long periods with no load. If you are concerned about not having enough load, just go get a space heater and plug into it.
 
Funny how this thread started out “it’s completely stupid and shouldn’t even be considered” and went to “it’s been done before and could be done fairly easy”.

I guess the only question now is stacking really an issue? Seems like the consensus is no. I have to say I’ve never had an issue in any diesel I own. I’m surprised to count seven diesel motors in my collection. I think I might wait til I have a problem with one.
 
WaterH said:
Funny how this thread started out “it’s completely stupid and shouldn’t even be considered” and went to “it’s been done before and could be done fairly easy”.

I guess the only question now is stacking really an issue? Seems like the consensus is no. I have to say I’ve never had an issue in any diesel I own. I’m surprised to count seven diesel motors in my collection. I think I might wait til I have a problem with one.
Click to expand...
Still stupid. I’m guessing You would then have to make a front huge flywheel to balance out your 4 cylinder engine now running on 3 cylinders :lmao:. You are trying to solve a nonexistent problem, creating new ones at the same time:lmao:
 
ThePanzerFuhrer said:
Still stupid. I’m guessing You would then have to make a front huge flywheel to balance out your 4 cylinder engine now running on 3 cylinders :lmao:. You are trying to solve a nonexistent problem, creating new ones at the same time:lmao:
Click to expand...

Would like to make a bet that this technology will be on diesel trucks in less than five years? In my research, they already have it on some trucks for warm up reasons. You can bet the fuel mileage aspect will be next.

I will say that I think shutting down 4 cylinders on my wife’s Vette is stupid to save a minuscule amount of fuel.
 
WaterH said:
Would like to make a bet that this technology will be on diesel trucks in less than five years? In my research, they already have it on some trucks for warm up reasons. You can bet the fuel mileage aspect will be next.
Click to expand...
That would be pretty retarded, considering diesels (unlike gas engines) don't need a stochiometric mix to run - just feed it less fuel, and it will use less fuel. Lean out a gas engine & you can do damage; diesels just slow down accordingly.

EDIT: sorry if you were using that "could be" assumption to help justify your crackpot ball valve idea :flipoff2:
 
WaterH said:
Would like to make a bet that this technology will be on diesel trucks in less than five years? In my research, they already have it on some trucks for warm up reasons. You can bet the fuel mileage aspect will be next.

I will say that I think shutting down 4 cylinders on my wife’s Vette is stupid to save a minuscule amount of fuel.
Click to expand...
You could shut one cylinder down completely, or send each cylinder 7/8 as much fuel and leave it balanced. It’s a diesel, it’ll only burn as much fuel as you send it.
 
WaterH said:
Funny how this thread started out “it’s completely stupid and shouldn’t even be considered” and went to “it’s been done before and could be done fairly easy”.

I guess the only question now is stacking really an issue? Seems like the consensus is no. I have to say I’ve never had an issue in any diesel I own. I’m surprised to count seven diesel motors in my collection. I think I might wait til I have a problem with one.
Click to expand...
Nobody has changed their mind about anything here. You’ve just changed the argument you’re trying to make. Every post you make contradicts something you’ve already said. You started out saying you were trying to prevent stacking, now you say it’ll be on pickups in the name of fuel economy. That’s the only change that’s happened. I’m still not sure if you’re a genius troll fucking with all of us or just completely fucking retarded. Could go either way, but I’m leaning towards not a genius troll fucking with us.

Anyway, Panzer settled this on the first page.
ThePanzerFuhrer said:
2 this has to be one of the dumbest things I have heard all week
Click to expand...
 
WaterH said:
When the valve is open it would be fine, but the valve and plumbing would require 3000 lbs. when closed. It would be so much easier to shut the flow off to the pump. I wonder if I could shut all but a trickle to the pump. Then it would get some lubricant, but not enough to really run the injector. The bottom of the pump gets lots of lube where it rides on the cam, but the inside of the pump probubly needs the fuel. I ran it like that for 30 minutes, so it’s possible I already screwed that pump.
Click to expand...
3000 lbs is nothing in the world of fuel injection, that's not even high for hydraulic pressure.

The next thing is being able to add the valve in the space allowed with out fucking up the line length/timing of that cylinder.
 
It’ll work
Deutz use to build a 4cyl for Miller Welders that fueled 3, and used the 4th as an air compressor.
 
Stingray said:
Articles linked all tied to valve train controls also, You proposed a ball valve to stop fuel when the genset runs at low loads, some of the questioning was based around causing the fuel pump failure by pumping against a closed valve.

That's what I took from it.
Click to expand...

It has already been explained. Im not cutting the fuel after the pump. I’m cutting it before, so it wouldn’t be pumping against a closed valve. CarterKraft speculated it could be done after the pump if the fuel can be diverted to the return line.

Gbkeith said:
Nobody has changed their mind about anything here. You’ve just changed the argument you’re trying to make. Every post you make contradicts something you’ve already said. You started out saying you were trying to prevent stacking, now you say it’ll be on pickups in the name of fuel economy. That’s the only change that’s happened. I’m still not sure if you’re a genius troll fucking with all of us or just completely fucking retarded. Could go either way, but I’m leaning towards not a genius troll fucking with us.

Anyway, Panzer settled this on the first page.
Click to expand...

I’m was not making an argument. I presented an idea. I have to admit I didn’t know that idea was already a reality. Im glad I’m not one of the people that said it couldn’t be done. The articles I linked said it keeps the motor operating in a better (hotter) range under low loads. (What I said) The article also mentions fuel economy. I’m sorry that there were more benefits to my idea than what I had originally speculated.

I don’t claim to be a genius and I’m not a troll, although I have to admit I love needling you guys when your wrong.

BTW, Panzer said on his first post it would destroy the cylinder wall. (I assume because of the wash down theory) That was wrong. He is no longer suggesting that is the case.

CarterKraft said:
3000 lbs is nothing in the world of fuel injection, that's not even high for hydraulic pressure.

The next thing is being able to add the valve in the space allowed with out fucking up the line length/timing of that cylinder.
Click to expand...

Would the line length matter on this system? On a diesel with a single injection pump I could see it, but a separate pump for each injector wouldn’t seem to matter. In any case, I don’t think I’m going to do it until stacking becomes a problem for me.
 
WaterH said:
It has already been explained. Im not cutting the fuel after the pump. I’m cutting it before, so it wouldn’t be pumping against a closed valve. CarterKraft speculated it could be done after the pump if the fuel can be diverted to the return line.



I’m was not making an argument. I presented an idea. I have to admit I didn’t know that idea was already a reality. Im glad I’m not one of the people that said it couldn’t be done. The articles I linked said it keeps the motor operating in a better (hotter) range under low loads. (What I said) The article also mentions fuel economy. I’m sorry that there were more benefits to my idea than what I had originally speculated.

I don’t claim to be a genius and I’m not a troll, although I have to admit I love needling you guys when your wrong.

BTW, Panzer said on his first post it would destroy the cylinder wall. (I assume because of the wash down theory) That was wrong. He is no longer suggesting that is the case.



Would the line length matter on this system? On a diesel with a single injection pump I could see it, but a separate pump for each injector wouldn’t seem to matter. In any case, I don’t think I’m going to do it until stacking becomes a problem for me.
Click to expand...
I was referring to not replacing the injector. Thats what stuck injectors do wash the cylinder wall down.
 
As to the injector line length that is allowed for in the timing. 3 lines the same length one line longer = one cylinder not firing at the correct time during the piston stroke.
 
if you shut the fuel off going to the one pump its going to lock up soon. the fuel is also the lube, and it'll still be moving, just with no lube.
 
WaterH said:
It has already been explained. Im not cutting the fuel after the pump. I’m cutting it before, so it wouldn’t be pumping against a closed valve. CarterKraft speculated it could be done after the pump if the fuel can be diverted to the return line.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the intake and exhaust valve. In your link they are deactivated, they are also deactivated in your wife’s Corvette. You haven’t talked through that one what is your plan for that?
 
WaterH said:
It has already been explained. Im not cutting the fuel after the pump. I’m cutting it before, so it wouldn’t be pumping against a closed valve. CarterKraft speculated it could be done after the pump if the fuel can be diverted to the return line.



I’m was not making an argument. I presented an idea. I have to admit I didn’t know that idea was already a reality. Im glad I’m not one of the people that said it couldn’t be done. The articles I linked said it keeps the motor operating in a better (hotter) range under low loads. (What I said) The article also mentions fuel economy. I’m sorry that there were more benefits to my idea than what I had originally speculated.

I don’t claim to be a genius and I’m not a troll, although I have to admit I love needling you guys when your wrong.

BTW, Panzer said on his first post it would destroy the cylinder wall. (I assume because of the wash down theory) That was wrong. He is no longer suggesting that is the case.



Would the line length matter on this system? On a diesel with a single injection pump I could see it, but a separate pump for each injector wouldn’t seem to matter. In any case, I don’t think I’m going to do it until stacking becomes a problem for me.
Click to expand...
Yes it definitely matters, this is no different than any mechanical injection pump, the individual pumps are mounted in the block instead of the pump housing.

1000013284.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh