Printable View
In my experience, 400-450 is a common number with many diesel engines in "passenger vehicles/4WD's"Quote:
Originally Posted by BradC
About 4 yrs ago I bought a new Isuzu MUX which was showing around 450 deg when towing the 3.0T van.
I could get it up by not using the auto gears and making it slog rather than rev, but still a struggle to get it much over 600 deg.
Incidentally, that had a turbocharger failure at 20,000 klms and a subsequent recall on them I believe.
Why would you hear of any problems, are you in the industry ?, I'm guessing you're not a mech judging by your response in the tapping noise threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Discodicky
( "Quote ").
To me, it sounds like it's half engine speed which will make it at the top end. Noisy lifter, lazy tensioner, etc.
I'd check oil pressure if possible, but add some engine oil flush, (Penrite or Wynns are excellent), flush oil, change oil & filter, also cutting filter to examine for debris but I doubt you'll find any
("end quote" )
My reference to the 700nm tune was from a company that were known to cause warping of ex manifolds due to high egt, known and heard of by myself and others I've spoken to that actually work on these.
Aside from the fact that Brad was referring to the number in NM that his gearbox could handle, not egt's , the 400-450 you refer to is meaningless without knowing loads, revs, throttle position, ambient temps, stock map or not, fixed vane or VGT ( big difference at cruise speeds) along with position of EGT sensor, which for those that asked are post turbo on the 3.0 l, along with other parameters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Discodicky
I'll give you my opinion by pm next time Gavin [tonguewink]
No, as one of the gurus here, you should continue to enlighten us all please. We can filter out those who are not so experienced (albeit usually well meaning).Quote:
Originally Posted by discorevy
Cheers mate.
Simplest way to know if you have the stock 520Nm or have a remap giving you 600Nm is to just time 0-100kph in S mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinwibrow
If you have the standard tune you will take 11s. If you have 600Nm, then it will be just over 9s. 700Nm will be around 8s. The difference is more than enough to be able to measure.
Good thing testing this is you can’t be accused of being a hoon either.
I personally would not remap to 700Nm, this is already a vulnerable engine and pushing it to its limit can not help.
BUT - one theory is it is the flexing that happens under load at high revs that causes the 3.0 to snap the crank. So a remap that gives more bottom end torque at low revs can theoretically help if it means you can avoid using high revs. Sitting on revs at or above 3000rpm is when the crankshaft will flex more and so should be avoided when under full load.
There is always a counter argument, dropping down a gear and kicking up the revs also takes load off the engine and means you can back the throttle off which is also good for reliability.
Good to remember the crank is essentially the same strength as the crank that went into the 2.7 with only 440Nm. Runs the same bearings and has the same web thickness. Some would argue it is weaker than the 2.7 crankshaft due to the increased stroke length which puts more load on the crank webs. Going to 600Nm was already a big increase.
Good thing about your driving style Gavin is I know you have a lot of mechanical sympathy.
Interesting in the latest LRTime video he stressed never never ever ever tune these engines especially the 3.0 which is only a poofteenth larger capacity and already significantly more powerful.
Because it’s on YouTube by “some guy” it’s fact? While he’s entertaining and not a fool, he has produced nothing factual or empirical to substantiate his feelings and beliefs, which is all they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by PerthDisco
….and how are the discussions on AULRO any different? [emoji41]Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoJeffster
The other point to consider Gavin - Ford US re-designed the crankshaft just to handle 600Nm in the Powerstroke version.
They did not consider the original crankshaft designed by Ford Europe as being durable enough to handle the demands being put on it and achieve the engine life they were seeking with the F-150.
In the Power vs Reliability game there is always a trade off.
In Marine Diesels ( CAT, MTU, Cummins) the same engine is offered in different tunes for different markets - Tugs, Ferries, Pleasure Boats. Each assumes a different level of annual use and a different mix of time spent at partial and 100% MCR. Warranties are offered differently on this basis.
The TBO interval for each varies from maybe 18,000 hours down to 2,000 hours so that makes perfect sense to me.
There’s no magic pudding you can take power from out of a given engine. More power = shorter component life.
They’re not! More people full of **** [emoji6][emoji4]Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoDB