Let's talk turbos

You don’t really need the 78mm compressor.

 

Oxbow, thanks for your assessment. It is inline with what little I know about both. From a longevity standpoint I wonder which would live longest? More moving parts in the Blaylock concerns me. The 149688 that I had on a singled out Acert was a little laggy at the bottom but breathed very well upstairs. Sorta like a 6051 only better. I never tried it on my 3zj with tugboat sticks. it is not turned up at the screws much. To me, the concept of helping the 149688 off the bottom would be great because at higher rpm and boost numbers it seemed like it was in its element. The 177148 with the eastgate opening in the 26 range would be pinned for hours on end in the Kansas and Nebraska winds .. it spoils quick because it is on the small end for 3406 b,c,e. Supports 500-550hp, iirc. Would be great for local work and stop and go, like a dump or delivery or grain wagon etc.... just afraid it won't hold up in a high duty cycle application like a cow wagon.

 

I think you may be right, especially about the benefit for local work. I will add that I suspect the 177148 provides more boost per amount of fuel used, probably right up until the waste gate opens.

I think @wore out may have run a 177148 for a bit on his B model, which I believe should be classified as a D model given the some of the changes he may have made. Lol

Maybe he will contribute his thoughts. I certainly don't think the 177148 is near enough of a compressor for his application. I don't think his can be classified as a four and a quarter.

Full disclaimer, he has helped me out more than I can repay.

 

Maybe I’m missing something, but you would rather run a non gated housing that is possibly too small and over boost your engine than use a wastegated turbo?

How many trucks out there did the same kind of work you are talking about with factory chargers for ages with wastegates holding up the entire time.

Comparing an Acert to a mechanical is apples to oranges just do to the nature of the mechanical injection.

For informations sake a 177148 has a 75mm compressor with a 92mm turbine wheel and a gated 1.32. The 0000 is a 78mm with a 96mm turbine and non gated 1.32.

For Borg Warner cat replacements they never used that combo, the 177148 was a 550hp replacement for the 0r7923 and the 175963 was a 600hp replacement for the C16 charger, 175963 came with a gated 1.65.

If you want dinosaur tech and a properly sized charger a 199114 would work as well as any since you seem to be scared of wastegates.

 

How many? Practically none in my neighborhood. Cody, I respect your knowledge but how come an UNDERSIZED charger is all anyone but you ever needs? All I can tell you for sure- and this goes all the way back to the 80's- that until compounds and vgt's ,a really good performing turbo on the bottom end was lacking at top end and vice versa. The wastegate idea is not new. Most any engine with one will perform slightly better with it wired shut- for a little while- until it grenades. So figure the wastegate is designed to keep such from over speed/ie, use beyond its reliable range . Is that wastegate psi number not approaching the redline for safe, reliable and steady operation? In most environments, when a machine operates just below it's threshold of overwork constantly it will suffer...Bottom end power is great but 0-60 or 300ft power means nothing in my world. It is what will stay together operating hours on end at 90k gaining elevation in a stiff cross or headwind. Operating that turbo at its peak and squirting drive pressure out the gate in the name of responsiveness is more than likely leaving upper range efficiency on the table. One minute u say you are not surprised by Oxbow's findings the next you are saying he doesn't need a 78mm compressor? So should he just shut up and learn to like the 177148 for all applications? The info he provided was real world experience and that means more to me than all the discussion of different housings and turbines and drive pressures and blah, blah, blah. Over the years, some of Sled's recipes on mechanicals didn't actually fall in line with general consensus. But they came from real world experience on working, roadworthy trucks and I never found any of it not to be true, unlike some other gurus of the time and there speculation.

 

PS. U are right about the Acert thing for sure. I apologize for throwing something as irrelevant as that out there. That made no sense the way I stated it. That Acert was really no longer an Acert other than block and crank. It was more of a long stroke 6nz. Had 6nz head, programming, manifolds and industrial low comp cyl packs in it, etc, etc.

 

Yes, call me a caveman with the wimpy 93 3zj that the treehuggers hate. Got a 14 W9 with identical specs and drivetrain with a modified Isx that is still running the great new vgt technology. The 14 has a slight edge in fuel economy on flatbed or van but when really put to work uses more fuel than the old truck. Isx550 vs 3406c 425.
3406c is MUCH, MUCH CHEAPER TO OPERATE and therefore, the dinosaur technology has a better efficiency rate as my wallet is concerned.

 

This thread an old thedieselgarage.com reunion?

 

Ha!