GM's Duramax Diesel engine

[JATO_RaT]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

Richard, perhaps I am misunderstanding this. I thought your point seemed to indicate that the Duramax just barely beat the specs of the Ford and Cummins engines so as to attract customers by enticing people with specificationitus, especially those who feel it necessary to have the more is better mentality. My end point here is that I am offering the author of this post some confidence regarding his original post and really don't care about brand or diesel wars. Pointing out that the Isuzu built Duramax diesel for GM has all the makings of success and that even with its aluminum heads, will still in all likely hood be a big contender. The Allison transmission people have a reputation as big as Cummins and if they are having problems as you mentioned, it will be resolved.

P.S. I have a Ford 7.3 naturally aspirated International diesel. By todays diesels it is the most underpowered and I do feel it to be anemic, especially when going up to the mountains, but I don't care, when the wheels fall off, I'll go find another used truck to buy. The prices they want for new diesel trucks to me is so absurd be it Ford, Chrysler or GM.

 

[cowboydoc]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

Oh yes that's definitely my point Rat. They all do that. Like bgott pointed out they don't put out their max's because then they have nowhere to go. When Ford came out with the new powerstroke they beat cummins. Then next year Ford went ahead of cummins and back and forth. Was one better than other? Did it mean anything that one had 5 or 15 more hp than the other? No. All I meant was don't get too caught up in the hp #'s. Ford is at 285, I think dodge is right around there now and chevy is at 300 right now. Next year you will see dodge or ford will have the high hp. It's just not a meaningful argument to compare hp between any of them as it is so easy to make one like the other. It's just a marketing game with them. I hope the duramax is hit. Competition is good and it makes the others that much better. Because of Chevy with the 5 speed allison now ford is going to be making a 5 speed auto. Good stuff all the way around and we win by getting better trucks to drive.

With regard to your aspirated truck you would not believe the difference a turbo will make on that truck. Before the powerstroke we put a turbo on all of ours. It was like night and day. You can get one for about $1500 and about $2500 installed. If you've got lower miles on your truck and figure on keeping it awhile I'd definitely do it. You will be pretty happy with it.

 

[JATO_RaT]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

Richard, I would consider it only because my trips up to our place in Tahoe make that diesel smoke. At over 7000 feet altitude, it sucks, or should I say it doesn't suck enough. Banks sent me info and I wrestled with it and perhaps will seriously consider it, but right now though I'm wrestling and having fun doing it by the way with picking a tractor. JD's new series due out later certainly didn't make it any easier. I wish I had some photos and specs on the 4170 if in fact thats what will replace the 4700. Rat...

 

[cowboydoc]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

Rat,
Also look at ATS and Hypermax. We always put in the ATS systems. They were very straight forward. I did so many of them that I could do one in about two or three hours. The last one I did I'm pretty sure we paid $1200 for and that included the pyrometer. If you're mechanically inclined at all they are straight forward. ATS also has a great service dept. and will help you over the phone with any q's on install.

 

[RobertN]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

So, learning to drive fire engines and such, everything has turbo's(cat 3208's), as well as does my new turbo Cummins Dodge.

Years ago, everything was supercharged. What advantage does one hold over the other? A supercharger makes power from an idle to redline/governer, a turbo does not.

What is it about turbo's? Are they cheaper? Superchargers were reliable for a lot of years...

No one has been able to explain why turbo's are "the thing".

RobertN in Shingle Springs Calif

 

[gordon]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

Older Detroits were two stroke and the supercharger was perfect for them. To scavenge the air at all speeds.

Gordon

 

[bgott]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

It takes power to turn a blower. Turbos are using waste gas so it's free boost, not much parasitic loss.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

<font color=blue> It takes power to turn a blower. Turbos are using waste gas so it's free boost, not >>>much<<< parasitic loss.</font color=blue>

The working word here is not very >>>much<<< parasitic loss. Turbo's are not free of parasitic drag, it is just that they lower the amount of parasitic drag to a "reasonable" level.

Check this site for an excellent short description on turbocharging:

http://gcoast.com/turbo/technical.html

A short quote from the site:
"Without getting bogged down in a lot of detail let's say that conservatively a turbo will only impose about 10-15% of the parasitic loss of an equivalent supercharger."

Turbocharging is more than just slappin a turbo from that burned up tractor onto your Buick, but when you get it right you really do some good.

The Volkswagen TDI (turbo direct injection diesel) springs to mind as a particularly good example of that with 1.9 liters and 90 DIESEL horsepower (which means gobs of torque) and the ability to crack about 50 miles per gallon in a slippery car like a new beetle.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

oops, blew that link, try this:

http://gcoast.com/turbo/technical.html

 

[cp1969]

Re: GM\'s Duramax Diesel engine

The two-stroke Detroits HAD to have a supercharger; they wouldn't run without one.

Some models (262, 350, IIRC) had turbochargers in addition to the supercharger.