DESIGN AN OUTBACK, REMOTE AREA, EXPEDITION VEHICLE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougal

A stock 4BD1T can go to around 180hp just by turning screws. So yeah, completely factory.
Swap the turbo, install an intercooler, turn the screws further and you're around 800Nm/200kw. Still no internal changes.

Randy (Carcrafter) in the US had a modified injection pump and compound turbos on his 4BD1TT. It was a conservative 500kw. He was running 7x as much fuel as stock, but burnt clean. He put the 100psi gauge off the end and that killed the auto gearbox.
Sadly that vehicle was lost in parts in a divorce. The engine was sold off in a jeep with single turbo dyno'd at 350rwhp.

The one in that video is a seriously bad tune. It's just dumping fuel and has nothing down low.

---

That engine on the dyno has a single (cheap) used K03 turbo swap, a change to the camshaft (not needed) and modified injectors and injection pump plungers.
Yeah it needs a tune - and probably a turbo that delivers more air down low, but for $1000 in parts you get the point, there are a number of Brazilian trucks out there with twins with no internal changes that make over 500hp at the wheels.

Over 200kw/800Nm (@ engine) is achievable by just by turning the same screws you do on the 4BD1T, and it won't destroy the gearbox behind it when you do it :)


Anyway, its way offtopic. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigF350

That engine on the dyno has a single (cheap) used K03 turbo swap, a change to the camshaft (not needed) and modified injectors and injection pump plungers.
Yeah it needs a tune - and probably a turbo that delivers more air down low, but for $1000 in parts you get the point, there are trucks out there with twins with no internal changes that make over 500hp at the wheels.

Over 200kw/800Nm (@ engine) is achievable by just by turning the same screws you do on the 4BD1T, and it won't destroy the gearbox behind it when you do it :)


Anyway, offtopic. Sorry.

---

To clean up the smoke on that engine in the video will require about the same boost as a 4BD1T at the same power. They are both 2 valve per cylinder diesels, displacement close, slightly more cubes on the MWM, slightly better efficiency on the Isuzu. Airflow requirements and suitable turbochargers will be pretty much the same.
A K27 isn't a good match for either of them. I notice on other videos from the same guy he's talking about twin turbos but 460hp.

What is the limits of the stock pump? The 4BD1T can do 180cc/1000 shots with only external adjustments. No new cam, pump or injectors.

I wouldn't be worried about the gearbox with 800Nm from that engine. I'd be concerned about the bottom end holding together. Does it share the bottom end design with the 300tdi that the 2.8 version uses?

I'm looking at this video from the same Rasch Motoren guy and some of his numbers are wrong: [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGz3Ltn8LAE[/ame]

He's showing 332hp and ~860Nm at 3,000rpm (so far so good, 240kw) but then he's showing 17.13 litres/hr (2 minutes 10).
240kw on the most efficient diesel you'll ever find is about 53kg/hr (62 litres/hr).

It appears to be a perfectly good engine. But for Australia if you wanted a 4.2 diesel you'd be far better off getting a Toyota 1HD-FT. At least the parts guys speak English and there's a very clever Engineer in Perth cranking impressive but clean and safe power from them.
But they still use significantly more fuel than 4's.

The MWM 6.07 is a 3V OHC motor, earlier MWM motors (like the one you have a video of) were 2V. It's fitted with (what I understand to be) the same Bosch VE pump fitted to early Cummins 6BT motors. I can't comment on bottom end strength apart from knowing that those seeking high hp out of the motors haven't changed rods - nor have they even fitted ARP's, which to be honest surprises me.

There are about 50 reasons why I would choose it over a 1HD-FT (as good as that Toyota motor is).


Anyway, this is all academic, if anyone is going to wind an old mechanical injection diesel up to 500hp and drive across a lonely desert, they have rocks in their head. My 6.7l diesel puts out very close to 500hp and 1400Nm to the rear wheels reliably and frankly its too much power for anything other than overtaking a road train on a clear sealed road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitec

The trouble with big 4 pot diesels is that they tend to shake whatever they are in to pieces, and their torque is very course.. 6 pots are smoother, and more gearbox friendly.. If they're direct injection they're also pretty good on fuel. A big lazy 6 hardly breaking a sweat is a better option than a 4 working its nuts off IMO... 8500kms now covered in the Cummins powered 101, and never more than 12lt/100km. :)

---

The shaking is dealt with by engine mount choice. There's a great thread on 4btswaps (4BT's would be the roughest 4 cyl diesel ever) where a pan of water was sat on the vehicle to show the ripples from vibrations at idle.
Then he started changing and drilling holes in engine mounts. The change is impressive.

The coarse torque is down to flywheel inertia. The 4BD1 (and T) have reputations for killing landrover gearboxes because the Isuzu runs a very light flywheel for their engine size. I have plans for an inertia ring which will about halve the torsional speed variation and allow me to use full torque at 1200rpm in 4th gear.

I'm not aware of any Isuzu gearbox having a problem. Your ZF would also be tough enough to not care. The gearbox problems appear limited to those landrover boxes originally intended for smaller capacity petrol V8's.

(4BT's would be the roughest 4 cyl diesel ever) where a pan of water was sat on the vehicle to show the ripples from vibrations at idle.

Crap They make ripples 4hes make waves:D:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitec

The trouble with big 4 pot diesels is that they tend to shake whatever they are in to pieces, and their torque is very course.. 6 pots are smoother, and more gearbox friendly.. If they're direct injection they're also pretty good on fuel. A big lazy 6 hardly breaking a sweat is a better option than a 4 working its nuts off IMO... 8500kms now covered in the Cummins powered 101, and never more than 12lt/100km. :)

---

At work I drive a big lazy 6 cylinder ..... 15 litres, 550 hp, 1850 ft/lbs torque :twisted: It's a Caterpillar C15, drags everything from road trains to fridge vans, average consumption (calculated monthly) is 2.07 klms/litre. Done just over 1,500,000 klms, and still pulls like a schoolboy :p

RE "Give your thoughts on the specification for a true outback vehicle."

1 Cheap to run.
2 Rarely breaks down but replacements are available everywhere in the outback.
3 Can be eaten if things get desperate.


cheers Ian

you can even fit a camper

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...14/09/1568.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by istevo

RE "Give your thoughts on the specification for a true outback vehicle."

1 Cheap to run.
2 Rarely breaks down but replacements are available everywhere in the outback.
3 Can be eaten if things get desperate.


cheers Ian

---

I suppose you're right, unless your name is Clinger...



Sent from my GT-I9305T using AULRO mobile app

I know a really good joke about camels,dunno if I'd be allowed to post it even though there's no swearing involved. Pat