Like Tree0Likes

What would happen if I went diesel 300hp

Reply
Old 03-29-2008, 02:21 PM
  #31
VIP Member
VIP Member
 
RICHARD CUNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
My Boats: Fountain 32
Posts: 655
Default All Gered Up

HI JOE
thanks for the reply that was a great looking boat sure miss it. I have a 24 foot 87 baja i am installing a 620 hp world with ITS XR Bravo for this season.
Rich
RICHARD CUNY is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2008, 04:23 PM
  #32
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West edge of the Pacific
My Boats: Beat up ole Sleekcraft
Posts: 610
Single vs 2 stage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Njawb View Post
As does Navistar/International on the PowerStroke 6.4 liter V8 that they have been fighting over with Ford.

I'm not looking so much for information on who is using them, but rather on whether they (or the similar BorgWarner e-Booster) can effectively deal with the varying load problem that concerns Joe. Seems to me that they are probably a more refined means to the same end that Joe's dual turbo application was aiming for.

There is more information available from BorgWarner: 1, 2, 3.
Haven't seen any large scale applications of the E-Booster however the 2 stage turbo set up is on a lot of engines for the past few years. I'm gonna go to my experiences with the Cat C-15. The Cat C-15 is the descendant of the Cat 3406. Both the 3406 and the C-15 are known in the trucking world as the best for stump pulling torque and dependability. I'm gonna come right out and say it. Performance wise putting the 2 stage turbo on the C-15 was a total bubu. The only improvement made by adding it was in the emissions. Other than that torque suffered, dependability suffered, mileage suffered and cost overall went up. The only reason for using it is the cleaner emissions. My back up gig when I'm not working on marine diesels is trucking. I pulled for one of the major trucking companies at the time when Cat changed turbo configurations. I drove tractors that were the same model, weight, gears, options, HP settings and governed speed (65 mph). The only difference was the the single turbo vs the two stage turbo engine. Given same load weights the single turbo could out pull the two stage turbo any day of the week. Given the same load weight, same governed top speed and same time limits. The engine that has more pull (torque for you 4-wheelers), will go farther faster. Not all roads are flat. It's the upgrades where the torque counts. The less speed you lose climbing the faster your average speed will be. The faster you can go within the overall time limit the farther you can go in a day. Depending on weight I could lay down an extra 100 miles more a day. That meant an extra $30-$40 gross per day. Throw 35k in the box and pull the Grapevine and the the single will be 1 or 2 gears higher and 25 mph faster than the 2 stage. Another thing is when you hit the wall in a gear during a pull the single is easier to drive. The pyrometer starts coming up as the torque falls off the single loses rpms in a linear fashion making it easier to down shift. The 2 stage the RPMs just start to fall off and the pyrometer skyrockets. Before you lose enough RPMs for a smooth down shift the EGT temp is so high that the computer goes into power down mode and then your really screwed.To get up a hill you need to down shift sooner by coasting for a few split seconds to scrub off some speed so you can drop a gear. That means your gonna have to go down more gears and lose more speed pulling a hill. More time pulling the hills means less miles in a day and more fuel burned. Also less money in the driver's pocket. A single would gross me a $150+ a week than a 2 stage. Also on average the single would get .5 to .75 more miles to the gallon. Once in a great while I would collect a fuel bonus with the single. Not once with the 2 stage. The change from single to 2 stage cost me about $6000 to $7000 per year out of my gross. All in the name of lower emissions. But the big laugh is the 2 stage is "cleaner burning" but you have to burn more fuel to achieve the same amount of work. Makes wonder about the actual carbon footprint difference between the two.

Last edited by 29Firefox; 03-30-2008 at 04:28 PM.
29Firefox is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2008, 04:44 PM
  #33
Registered
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 68
Default

Thanks for the surprising report. I am curious when you say that the "HP settings" were the same between the single and two-stage trucks. Do you mean that they had the same peak horsepower rating? If so, then a lot more of your experience makes sense to me in light of the comparison graphs of the 12l diesels in one of the BorgWarner whitepapers. In the BorgWarner comparison, they held peak torque the same between the single and two-stage engines, not peak horsepower. In fact, peak horsepower for the two-stage was about 10% higher (and at lower RPM), since the torque curve of the two-stage engine stayed well above the single turbo engine in the upper RPM range. The two-stage also had a better low RPM torque curve -- i.e., the two-stage reached the same peak torque value, but the curve was flatter to either side of the peak. However, if you held peak horsepower constant, I can see how peak torque and torque throughout much (perhaps all) of the RPM range would be less than the single turbo engine with the same peak horsepower.

Last edited by Njawb; 03-30-2008 at 05:46 PM.
Njawb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2008, 05:33 PM
  #34
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West edge of the Pacific
My Boats: Beat up ole Sleekcraft
Posts: 610
Real vs Dyno

Quote:
Originally Posted by Njawb View Post
Thanks for the surprising report. I am curious when you say that the "HP settings" were the same between the single and two-stage trucks. Do you mean that they had the same peak horsepower rating? If so, then a lot more of your experience makes sense to me in light of the comparison graphs of the 15l diesels in one of the BorgWarner whitepapers. In the BorgWarner comparison, they held peak torque the same between the single and two-stage engines, not peak horsepower. In fact, peak horsepower for the two-stage was about 10% higher (and at lower RPM), since the torque curve of the two-stage engine stayed well above the single turbo engine in the upper RPM range. The two-stage also had a better low RPM torque curve -- i.e., the two-stage reached the same peak torque value, but the curve was flatter to either side of the peak. However, if you held peak horsepower constant, I can see how peak torque and torque throughout much (perhaps all) of the RPM range would be less than the single turbo engine with the same peak horsepower.
When I say same same HP setting it's the spec HP rating stamped on plate on the side of the engine and verified by the shop when they hook up the lap top. There is the modern day idea that the data collected from some dyno mules is what is gonna apply to the real world. It's like Joe's peeps back in the day had some test boats that they would put thousands of hours on collecting data. To bring stuff to market faster the manufacturers are cutting back on real world testing and depending on dyno data instead. Leads to half baked products coming out. More time in the shop. Drivers losing money because of down time. Techs having headaches keeping up with all the ECM software patches.
29Firefox is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2008, 06:17 PM
  #35
Registered
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Freehold, NJ
My Boats: 32 SeaCraft
Posts: 1,381
Default

Hey - just got from a 5 day weekend in Nassau and have a serious question to ask.

Why to do you think there were no go-fast boats there? I seen one on a lift but other than that zero. I met by chance 3 other Jersey-ites with their diesel sportfisherman at the Atlantis and some outboard CC guys like myself there who make the trip from Fla (we did not bring our boat this time, flew in).

Years ago I had no problem making the run from Fla to go gamble for a weekend.

Do you think it was bad timing, weather, people don't do trips like that without a group or people just don't run their gas powered go-fast boats 163 miles one way?

I really would be interested in what people think?
HabanaJoe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2008, 06:39 PM
  #36
Registered
 
TopSpin80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Richmond/Galveston, Texas
My Boats: Building diesel power wanting a hull
Posts: 1,306
Default

The 163 miles is the problem in my opinion. There is also the fuel prices. And what do you do if your gas boat breaks down there? have it airfreighted back home to be fixed?

Ernie
TopSpin80 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2008, 08:15 PM
  #37
Registered
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Freehold, NJ
My Boats: 32 SeaCraft
Posts: 1,381
Default

You know I'm going to argue this, it's my nature!!!!

I understand what your saying, but here in NJ, I run a little 32' CC with 225 Merc's on it straight out to the shelf - on a good day I'm 75 miles out, when I fish the 500 fathom line I can be 95-102 miles out - one way. There is no land, no help period. I've been stuck at the 65 mile mark for hours flagging down boats to borrow 2 gallons of outboard oil when I had a leak.

Little did I know when they rigged the boat new they spliced the oil lines inside the boat, the splice pulled and I lost all the oil in one tank. Took the 2 gallons spare I carry but could not fix the leak totally and was still loosing lots of oil.

I guess the difference was I knew boats run out and back all weekend so I was bound to find someone?

If I read into your remark about "airfreighting" the boat back (I know it's a joke) your making a case that the boat(s) are so unreliable that they can't run 325 miles without breaking down? Is that what your trying to say?

As far as gas prices go, if you can afford $150,000 plus for a late model used boat or $300,000 plus for a new boat and your worried about a $1 a gallon increase - you should not have that boat!!!!! If you burn 400 gals round trip it's only $400 more than the same trip was last year - again if that's a problem you need a cheaper boat so you can afford to use it!!!!

I subscribe to that myself so I'm not throwing stones about the $'s. I can afford to buy a larger boat, but running it and traveling like we do would put me broke with a big boat and the exopenses that go with it.
HabanaJoe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 02:07 AM
  #38
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West edge of the Pacific
My Boats: Beat up ole Sleekcraft
Posts: 610
Its a matter of scale

Imagine filling up with 10,000 gallons of #2
29Firefox is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 08:39 AM
  #39
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: South FL
My Boats: Big Ole 42' Cruiser w Arnies.
Posts: 292
Default

I think the issue is quality of fuel is poor in bahamas - you need to re-time engines to not melt them on bad gas. Big hassle and no-one wants to risk $100 k in motors
Swamplizard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 01:23 PM
  #40
Registered
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Freehold, NJ
My Boats: 32 SeaCraft
Posts: 1,381
Default

Fuel quality - That's a good point
HabanaJoe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
hoff 1
General Q & A
4
06-28-2006 10:50 PM
ferraristyle
General Q & A
1
05-09-2006 05:56 PM
ThoroughHustler
Apache
1
04-14-2006 07:45 PM
boatn70
General Q & A
4
03-27-2004 12:52 PM
bajalome
General Q & A
15
03-17-2004 09:41 PM



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 AM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.