home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > Mechanical > maintenance & nonperformance

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-20-2022, 05:15 PM   #51
HiSPL
Fanking Champion 1993
 
HiSPL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: College Station, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moetheshmoe View Post
Here's some spooling..........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6F6WyXBrtk
I could tell in that video that his MPG was really good because of the supercharger.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240240 View Post
Beets taste like buttfeet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240 240 View Post
water-cooled VW owners can't even tell you the flavor of Cheetos they ate last night.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lando
Tinnitus and hearing loss? Sounds like your ears could tolerate some Bose 901s!
96 960 (rotted)
88 244
06 XC90 V8
03 V70(crashed)
92 745 Turbo
HiSPL is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 05:18 PM   #52
Kjets On a Plane
Board Member
 
Kjets On a Plane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Californicated Oregone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyturbos View Post
Perhaps, a super long, steep grade of road will require a supercharger or turbocharger to build boost.
That's literally why turbos exist (in similar form for rubber tire road-legal ICE vehicles) for the most part; point-point competing containerized & tractor-trailer regulation length trucked shipping & interstate highway system.

Before that, trucks were N/A gasoline slow things that did short little rigid box truck like things that did deliveries between rail or sea hubs in the flat within 1 (maybe the odd over-night) workdays driving distance or so & the interstate highway system wasn't really fully built yet until the mid/late 60s being totally finalized with more standard loading docks/mechanized loading/unloading/packing.

How're you going to get said truck to climb a grade or weave in and out of automobile traffic that's more nimble over the divide in a reasonable amount of time (time is money & stops are few and far between for shift changes, truck stop food, refueling/services) that's more than 3% railroad grade, again?
Try getting your 8:1 compression carbed engine anything to stay running or pull the cargo in Wyoming sharing with the automobile traffic in a reasonable amount of time/efficiency/reliability/safety...

Fast-forward 50-60 years & trickle down R&D for trillions of dollars of cargo, and now you too can have that kind of turbocharging (& way more advanced!/forced induction, broadly) / fine control in your gasoline eco-boost mass produced car/light truck that passes emissions, safety & warranty/lemon laws...
__________________
How PSI a stock can support?
Always Be Crushing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMc View Post
If you send me $20$14.99, I'll send you a how-to explaining how to make $20$14.99 from people on the internet.

Last edited by Kjets On a Plane; 06-20-2022 at 05:40 PM..
Kjets On a Plane is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 05:22 PM   #53
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyturbos View Post
You are so full of assumptions and seemingly clueless about forced induction there is no point in taking the conversation any further. In your mind it is the Supercharger that made a difference. I suggest you spend your time digesting a few white papers on supercharging a reciprocating gasoline engine before you spend any further time on your folly. I'm going to sum this entire exercise up in one sentence. Power is a function of the amount of fuel burned in a set amount of time. The more efficient the pump/engine, the more power per unit of fuel. You can't wave a magic wand and get a vehicle to defy physics. In your mind you can. In reality, you can't.

Here is a very simple look at the 2 different ways of getting to the same goal, more power. If power is all you want and you want it right now, a mechanically driven supercharger is what you want. If efficiency is what you are after, the turbo wins hands down. Both will make low end power. What you completely missed is neither is required for city or highway driving. Perhaps, a super long, steep grade of road will require a supercharger or turbocharger to build boost.

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/eng...superchargers/
Hey it's been nice talking with you. It's not everyday that you meet someone like you who knows a lot more than Mercedes's engineers. Too bad they didn't hire you. They wold have gone to turbos instead of superchargers. And saved a lot of money by not having to pay Eaton to design them. Man, I hate it when the engineers are SOOO stupid!
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 05:28 PM   #54
2manyturbos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monroe, OR USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moetheshmoe View Post
Hey it's been nice talking with you. It's not everyday that you meet someone like you who knows a lot more than Mercedes's engineers. Too bad they didn't hire you. They wold have gone to turbos instead of superchargers. And saved a lot of money by not having to pay Eaton to design them. Man, I hate it when the engineers are SOOO stupid!
You're never going to learn anything without going out and building what you suggest and miserably failing to meet your imaginary goals. Mercedes engineers aren't any smarter than Ford, BMW, Porsche etc engineers. Nor, do they have a magic wand that enables them to defy physics. So, instead of shooting off your mouth, try doing some research on the topic you brought up.
2manyturbos is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 05:30 PM   #55
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjets On a Plane View Post
Ya no way some bathtub combustion chamber engine with same stroke since 1961 B18 & duct taped/band-aided to pull a heavier car than a 444/544 chassis & pass emissions to the bitter end of redblock in 1995 is going to compete with anything designed oh…let’s be generous with a 2000 benzo…30-35 years later with way more hours & computer simulation that didn’t even exist in 1961 vs. the redblock tractor with LH/ezk is going to return those numbers, turbo, supercharged or n/a shoving the .39c/d & super aero noisy underneath 940.

The Saabs were way more aerodynamic, lighter, FWD with less drivetrain drag & often had closer ratio manual trans options with that timing chain DOHC engine revised/designed with fuel injection from inception w/engines, turbos, knock control, & FI designed usually 5-10++ years ahead of the Volvo redblock! No comparison!

They barely even make manual trans cars anymore for safety/driver skill, CAFE Econ & tier 4-5 fed+ CARB emissions reasons! And they don’t even really sell alternate models for 49-state emissions as regulations are so tight at the Fed level & so much R&D went to complying with CA & Japan which has stricter emissions/economy requirements than really anywhere else & ~200million people between the worlds strictest emissions markets!

As to the clutched blower, there’s no magic to it! & when it’s running, it’s dragging on the engine waaaaay worse than a modern ball bearing variable nozzle light weight strong impellers or sequential or compound set of turbos.

And what it takes to get the combustion event to light off at perfect time & pass emissions in a modern engine, ecoboost or your benz thing doesn’t remotely resemble anything that’s happening in your bathtub combustion chamber redblock designed in 1961.
As well as modern 0w- emissions lubes, FI resolution & # of sensors…

Also, keep in mind, ~1995 when the last redblock was sold in the USA, they weren’t even factoring in less energy dense with E10 ethanol CA oxygenated emissions gas or how to optimize for it, much less sense its existence/proportions or temps in your fuel feed line in near live fine from fuel pump pickup to injector nozzle tip to spark plug tip to exhaust temp & content gas analysis or ion or knock sense & tailor the timing & fuel mix to very very small fine adjustments in live time…

&, of course a modern electronic control trans has to work with all of that in live time with however much programming time & life data that take to work together with that that millions of dollars go into for huge industrial production runs, not us TB hacks recombining used junk & making compromises/not passing modern emissions/adjusting our driving behavior constantly/optimally as well as expectations…
Saab was ahead of it's time in many ways(except when they started out with 2 strokes and combined the engine and tranny, probably around 1961?). And after GM bought them they basically became a Chevy Malibu. Doesn't matter because I would never own one. Why? you ask. Because even in their heyday, when they we're Saabs, they popped headgaskets quicker than Orville Redenbacher popped corn. No thanks.

"Give it up man!" Give up what? I've known for a long time that Volvo has been the redheaded stepchild of the automotive industry. How could they not be with Japanese transmissions, instrument clusters, and steering racks; German electronics and shocks; American brakes and diffs; etc, etc, etc. Or, the mutt of the automotive industry. And I've also known that they we're the 'Kings' of band aid fixes. Look at the front suspensions of 740/940 - the worst ever designed, with bump steer, wheel shimmy, torn bushings, etc, etc, etc. Finally got it somewhat right in 1995, when they quit rwd 4 cyl's. Seems odd looking back that they we're willing to use everyone else's parts but really hardheaded when their designs were terrible and they refused to copy others, until they we're forced to and did the 1995 update.

One thing you're sidestepping when you mention emissions - Volvo's cars sold in the US did pass, even with a bathtub combustion chamber. And as far as the supercharger sucking power at idle - do you think the Mercedes engineers ever thought about that?

I will agree with you on this, Volvo was not the same company when they went front wheel drive. I see it every time I go to the local Pick N Pull for discontinued parts. The ratio of FWD to RWD cars is about 10 to 1.

So why are they still fun to restore and update? 2 reasons - cheap and good basic design(that could use a lot of updating).

Last edited by moetheshmoe; 06-20-2022 at 05:36 PM..
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 05:45 PM   #56
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyturbos View Post
You're never going to learn anything without going out and building what you suggest and miserably failing to meet your imaginary goals. Mercedes engineers aren't any smarter than Ford, BMW, Porsche etc engineers. Nor, do they have a magic wand that enables them to defy physics. So, instead of shooting off your mouth, try doing some research on the topic you brought up.
My research has been completed. And I've discovered that you think your lab theories of physics hold water over Mercedes's actual testing of prototypes.
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 05:50 PM   #57
Kjets On a Plane
Board Member
 
Kjets On a Plane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Californicated Oregone
Default

The -'98 P80 models are still fairly accessible, but FWD/sidewinder motor shoved up into the engine bay on the assembly line on a motor cradle is inevitable for assembly time, safety, drag etc even if it means labor times can be ridiculous compared to a RWD tractor with the engine/transmission spread out for us jimbo-elroy shade-tree mechanics & hacks not assembling them brand new with a billion dollar factory facility & laboratory in our back pockets.

I got good service life out of saab HGs? Maybe 20+ year old cars & plastic tanker radiators in CA that burst or have marginal cooling IDK?
The engine has no/little coolant recirc passages on the SAAB internally & requires that the recirc function go thru the heater circuit & (3 position if I remember well) T-stat & heater bypass with some plastic parts or parts that can gum up on the 16V 80s saabs (bottom end is same as the SOHC 8V for the most part, but they revised it). They're a small company. Tooling up to make passenger cars at a price people can afford/compete with others & be USA market legal isn't easy. It's a more advanced & more complicated car made by a smaller company, what do you expect?

Someone that doesn't know what they're doing puts the wrong T-stat in it offered in the aftermarket in that size or there's a clog in the external recirculation circuit for T-stat bypass or plastique tanker radiator bursts or is sludged up or eurotrash car fan control electronics have an 'oops'? Don't expect HGs to last long...among other things. How many cars are setup like that, how many people/lay-mechanics (instead of a 50+ year veteran/experienced factory/university trained top-of their class SAAB specialist?) know how the engine's designed in an uncommon/unusual car without a lot of dealer support or technical support etc in the USA or read all the TSBs or maintain their obscure/fairly complicated more cutting edge tech car to brand new specs when its 20 years old/fully depreciated & a disposable beater?

The SAABs got heavier & had to pass ever more stringent/stay ahead of safety/emissions, too & the gearbox size never increased on the 99/C900 from '68 to the bitter end. That said, the better half drove a SAAB for a while & I quite liked them; no torque steer/equal length axle shafts, safety frontal nose, slant engine right on top of the gearbox/not as nose heavy as a subaru or audi with the motor shoved in front of the gearbox, not as bad torque steer/handling as a sidewinder/sideways motor/transaxle setup, good fuel econ, good cabin space, not as big/ungainly as the Volvo, easy to see out of, great traction/handling predictability on slick stuff without needing AWD and all the complexity that brings with the double A-arms up front & defacto dead axle in the back. It's sorta the Swedish low production volume, better raw materials/rust proofing/snow capable safer Honda Civic/accord/prelude hatchback all in 1 model with variations, or something?

They got better spec'd/matched turbos, were a more nimble aero slippery smaller lighter sportier car, narrower bore stronger/more modern more complex bottom end motor pent roof combustion chamber heads, had motronic/MUCH more advanced higher resolution FI & ignition systems & boost/timing reduction for knock control running a turbo motor on varying quality pump gas 5-15 years ahead of Volvo always as said. Remember, the '99 was available with D-jet basically from inception in '68-'69 as conceived, only the 142E had D-jet in '71.
The C900s had LH2.4 4-5 years earlier than Volvo or borderline motronic, ion sensing ignition, offered a pent roof combustion chamber narrower bore timing chain (no belt) modern motor, & APC knock-sensing electronic boost control...all 5-15 years prior to Volvo en mass/common models people could just order up! (ya ya R-sport 16V heads & Group-A non-road legal models...)

The 2-stroke was quite logical; fewer parts (lower cost for a small company/that size of vehicle), OK power, 3 banger instead of 4 (better economy than a 4, doesn't vibrate as intensely (especially with a balance shaft sounds like a sort of bastard half a 6 in slo-mo (not so much with a 2-stroke)), less bearing surface area for same strength for a car of that size), no air emissions regulations to deal with until '68/the clean slate design SAAB 99 came out, not much traffic or idling so the 2 stroke gas motor in those years could cruise or get you around?

As a guy who's had a 3-banger honda insight (electric assist rotor is the defacto balance shaft to smooth it out ), 3 cyl tractor(s), 3-banger triumph bike, 3-banger BMW K75 with the sideways low center of gravity pancake 3...real comfortable on the bike as a compromise for torque/vibration/noise/economy/center of gravity compared to a 4, V-twin (or more balanced L-twin), or Horizontally opposed 2 (can't corner as nicely as the pancake 3). Same is true of the SAAB for its time/car of that size/weight to solve the problem for the powerplant...

The SAAB 2-stroke 3-banger car (albeit more expensive new sticker price) is a downright masterpiece next to a Trabant, Citroen 2CV, Nash metropolitan, Crosley etc of the other smaller economy car (but not a motorcycle classed micro-car) competitors of the time for a car company as small as SAAB (or their car division vs. military contractor Jets or SCANIA trucks), particularly the oil-injection last of the sport model in '66-'67 with some 'smokeless racing/longevity & octactane boosting 2-stroke oil' & enough compression ratio, before air emissions hammer came down in the USA (& elsewhere/crowded cities) in '68 and that was that!...

Regardless, an A340/AW4 very slight bump up in strength/tech over an 03-71LE like used in the N/A previas (can recombine & use the redblock bellhousing) or mechanical AW71L used in canadian market last of the 940Turbos in North America (other markets got the ZF that could tow locked up in 3rd or AW71L or AW72L in turbo redblock cars more years starting in '84 760Ts) with a 4.10 rear axle (didn't have to pass USA emissions) or clutched new supercharger adapted to it isn't going to make your 'designed' (appropriated?) in ~1958 half a chevy OHV V8 revised/band-aided ever-more-so after '85 B230s engine from ~1961 in the brick car achieve anything amazing or pass modern (for early '00s) emissions, CAFE economy or last a 10 year extended warranty/federally implied lemon laws turn key no fuss in your backyard like the MBZ did in the early 00s, or a brand new ecoboost does now (i'm not a brand loyalist, just an example) with millions & millions of dollars of R&D, rigorous testing & guys with triple PHDs in white lab coats & thousands of years of combined knowledge & hands on experience/data behind the paywall in one or partnered conglomerate multi-national corporation(s) do(es)...

Last edited by Kjets On a Plane; 06-20-2022 at 06:45 PM..
Kjets On a Plane is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 06:14 PM   #58
2manyturbos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monroe, OR USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moetheshmoe View Post
My research has been completed. And I've discovered that you think your lab theories of physics hold water over Mercedes's actual testing of prototypes.
It's not theories. It's actual published scientific data. The same materials/facts that Mercedes engineers studied in school when they were working towards their degrees. Your complete lack of understanding of any of these subjects leads you to come to conclusions that defy actual physical rules of the universe. Engineers make decisions on things like supercharger vs. turbocharger depending on decision matrices of the desired goals vs. drawbacks to each option. Mercedes did not choose a supercharger because it is more efficient, period. There are trade offs. Thus, the decision matrices. They likely decided that their car could give up a bit of fuel mileage in the interest of driveability. A supercharger is more seamless in how it operates vs. turbocharging.

Those same Mercedes engineers, you know, the engineers you keep referring to, chose to twin turbocharger the AMG GTR. Why do you suppose they did that? Couldn't find a supercharger sitting around when they were designing the car from scratch?
2manyturbos is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 07:56 PM   #59
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyturbos View Post
It's not theories. It's actual published scientific data. The same materials/facts that Mercedes engineers studied in school when they were working towards their degrees. Your complete lack of understanding of any of these subjects leads you to come to conclusions that defy actual physical rules of the universe. Engineers make decisions on things like supercharger vs. turbocharger depending on decision matrices of the desired goals vs. drawbacks to each option. Mercedes did not choose a supercharger because it is more efficient, period. There are trade offs. Thus, the decision matrices. They likely decided that their car could give up a bit of fuel mileage in the interest of driveability. A supercharger is more seamless in how it operates vs. turbocharging.

Those same Mercedes engineers, you know, the engineers you keep referring to, chose to twin turbocharger the AMG GTR. Why do you suppose they did that? Couldn't find a supercharger sitting around when they were designing the car from scratch?
"Why do you suppose they did that?"
Your complete lack of understanding of modern drive trains begs for an answer. So hear it is. They couldn't do that with 4 speed transmissions. At that time you had to make a choice - performance or gas mileage. And driveability had to be decent with either choice. Today, with 6, 8, 10 and even 12 speed transmissions they can achieve both. Early gears for performance and later gears for mileage. To put it simply, in olden days if a car was geared for gas mileage it's turbo wasn't spinning in it's power range which pretty much made it useless. I never said the supercharger was more efficient. I said it's power and torque came on much sooner(which is one of your proven laws of physics). And torque is what determines gear ratios, which determines gas mileage. Your example of the AMG GTR is a TERRIBLE choice. You're trying to compare a modern high performance sports car(which could care less about gas mileage) with a 25 year old daily driver. And by the way, you may want to ask the Jaguar engineers why they chose a supercharger instead of a turbo on their V8's. Couldn't they find a turbo sitting around? When are you going to get off this apples and oranges trip you're on?

Last edited by moetheshmoe; 06-20-2022 at 08:08 PM..
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 08:04 PM   #60
HiSPL
Fanking Champion 1993
 
HiSPL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: College Station, TX
Default

Don't forget that Mercedes markets to a different tax bracket than ford, nissan, and toyota. Having that Kompressor badge on the back of the car let's them look down their noses at "simple turbos" and that appeals to the average Merc buyer. Plus they typically wouldn't care about MPG except for having to meet cafe standards.


I am serious though. Go get a junkyard blower and stick it on a redblock and show us how it do.


If you really want to hammer the point home go get a single Mitsubishi TD03 at maybe 5psi and put that on a redblock too. Let's see which one makes more down low and gets better mpg. You don't really need an intercooler for this either. As long as you drive it like a grampa.
HiSPL is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 08:22 PM   #61
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiSPL View Post
Don't forget that Mercedes markets to a different tax bracket than ford, nissan, and toyota. Having that Kompressor badge on the back of the car let's them look down their noses at "simple turbos" and that appeals to the average Merc buyer. Plus they typically wouldn't care about MPG except for having to meet cafe standards.


I am serious though. Go get a junkyard blower and stick it on a redblock and show us how it do.


If you really want to hammer the point home go get a single Mitsubishi TD03 at maybe 5psi and put that on a redblock too. Let's see which one makes more down low and gets better mpg. You don't really need an intercooler for this either. As long as you drive it like a grampa.
I gotta challenge that. If they didn't care about mileage why didn't they keep the gearing low like Volvo, and end up breaking 1/4 mile speed records? Like they say "The proof is in the pudding". I'll guess I'll boil up some pudding. Interesting note: The Eaton supercharge that Mercedes used is like no other supercharger out there. It was designed for them to be quieter than most others, to maintain their luxury image.
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 08:24 PM   #62
2manyturbos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monroe, OR USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moetheshmoe View Post
"Why do you suppose they did that?"
Your complete lack of understanding of modern drive trains begs for an answer. So hear it is. They couldn't do that with 4 speed transmissions. At that time you had to make a choice - performance or gas mileage. And driveability had to be decent with either choice. Today, with 6, 8, 10 and even 12 speed transmissions they can achieve both. Early gears for performance and later gears for mileage. To put it simply, in olden days if a car was geared for gas mileage it's turbo wasn't spinning in it's power range which pretty much made it useless. I never said the supercharger was more efficient. I said it's power and torque came on much sooner(which is one of your proven laws of physics). And torque is what determines gear ratios, which determines gas mileage. Your example of the AMG GTR is a TERRIBLE choice. You're trying to compare a modern high performance sports car(which could care less about gas mileage) with a 25 year old daily driver. And by the way, you may want to ask the Jaguar engineers why they chose a supercharger instead of a turbo on their V8's. Couldn't they find a turbo sitting around? When are you going to get off this apples and oranges trip you're on?
Hey genius, why don’t you share with us what your background is? Just as with all your assumptions about this project, you are making assumptions about the people in this thread. So far, you have been dead wrong with almost every assumption/statement you have made. You are consistent, I’ll give you that much.
2manyturbos is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 08:47 PM   #63
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyturbos View Post
Hey genius, why don’t you share with us what your background is? Just as with all your assumptions about this project, you are making assumptions about the people in this thread. So far, you have been dead wrong with almost every assumption/statement you have made. You are consistent, I’ll give you that much.
I guess you follow the old Roman adage of "Ignore the message and kill the messenger". I've made no attempt to make this personal until YOU claimed that I knew nothing about this subject and didn't understand what I was talking about. In a way that didn't surprise me. It happens on these public forums. What did surprise me is it came from a Moderator. I guess the definition of Moderator has changed. If you can get off your high horse for a minute and look at my postings, what I said falls under 2 categories - what the German engineers did - and why did they do it? If what you're claiming is due to my lack of knowledge then WHY did these engineers do EXACTLY what they did and agree with me? I'm the middle man. Take up your beef with the engineers.
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 08:54 PM   #64
2manyturbos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monroe, OR USA
Default

Sometimes the truth hurts. You really don’t understand what you’re talking about. Whether I’m moderator or not, it doesn’t change that fact. What Mercedes did isn’t the point. What you’re suggesting doing with a Volvo, a redblock engine, a supercharger and an AW30–40 transmission is the point. It’s not going to match what Mercedes did no matter how much you want to imagine that it is going to. I have an AW30–40 transmission sitting in storage that you can have if you would put it to use and actually attempt what you’re talking about. Like I said, there’s only one way to learn. That’s by trial and failure or success.
2manyturbos is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 09:17 PM   #65
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyturbos View Post
Sometimes the truth hurts. You really don’t understand what you’re talking about. Whether I’m moderator or not, it doesn’t change that fact. What Mercedes did isn’t the point. What you’re suggesting doing with a Volvo, a redblock engine, a supercharger and an AW30–40 transmission is the point. It’s not going to match what Mercedes did no matter how much you want to imagine that it is going to. I have an AW30–40 transmission sitting in storage that you can have if you would put it to use and actually attempt what you’re talking about. Like I said, there’s only one way to learn. That’s by trial and failure or success.
It doesn't hurt at all, especially since it's not the truth. I didn't know that the purpose of this forum was to dissuade people from asking about starting a new project by telling them that they have no idea what they're talking about and insulting them with sarcastic terms like 'genius'. Especially when others have already completed various parts of that project. There's numerous youtube videos showing the redblock supercharged. The only thing missing is merging the two. It seems like the term 'genius' has been self appointed.
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 09:18 PM   #66
HiSPL
Fanking Champion 1993
 
HiSPL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: College Station, TX
Default

I'm curious as to why you keep comparing a 40 year old design (OHC redblock) to the relatively new-ish mercedes 4 cylinder.

Compare a 2000's era Volvo P2 to the Merc. Volvo had 300hp turbo 2.5 liter engines that returned up to 30mpg on the highway with 5 and 6 speed transmissions.

Honda and Toyota had cars that got 40 mpg with 2 liter NA motors.

Hell, chevy and ford had V8's that got equal or better MPG than a mid-80's volvo did.

You've set up a heck of a strawman argument here for no good reason that I can tell. Is your real name HK40 by chance?
HiSPL is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 09:22 PM   #67
HiSPL
Fanking Champion 1993
 
HiSPL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: College Station, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moetheshmoe View Post
I gotta challenge that. If they didn't care about mileage why didn't they keep the gearing low like Volvo, and end up breaking 1/4 mile speed records? Like they say "The proof is in the pudding". I'll guess I'll boil up some pudding. Interesting note: The Eaton supercharge that Mercedes used is like no other supercharger out there. It was designed for them to be quieter than most others, to maintain their luxury image.
They didn't make fast cars because it's not their target demo. Their target demo was old folks who wanted something "peppy" and luxurious. Well they got it. It would jump with every movement of their big toe simply because it was supercharged. Speed was never the goal.
HiSPL is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 09:52 PM   #68
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiSPL View Post
I'm curious as to why you keep comparing a 40 year old design (OHC redblock) to the relatively new-ish mercedes 4 cylinder.

Compare a 2000's era Volvo P2 to the Merc. Volvo had 300hp turbo 2.5 liter engines that returned up to 30mpg on the highway with 5 and 6 speed transmissions.

Honda and Toyota had cars that got 40 mpg with 2 liter NA motors.

Hell, chevy and ford had V8's that got equal or better MPG than a mid-80's volvo did.

You've set up a heck of a strawman argument here for no good reason that I can tell. Is your real name HK40 by chance?
The last redblock was produced in 1995 and the last 740/940/960 chassis was produced in 1998. The first 4 cyl Mercedes to be supercharged was also in 1998. So they're not that far apart, especially since the displacement is almost the same. You got that right about gas. Turboed 4 cyl Volvos had the worse gas mileage of any turboed car ever built. Hell, it's worse than my 1963 VW bug. Like a lot of people I admire the old tractor/boat Redblocks. You can't deny that overall it's been the longest lasting engine in auto history. And it was in a car(the 940) that had great looks, I thought. Once Volvo went to aluminum blocks they couldn't make that claim no matter how much or how little power they put out. So my whole reasoning is 'Why not make a good thing better?' And there's still enough around to get parts and even whole cars fairly cheaply. And what makes the idea intriguing to me is the fact that there we're other makes during that period that we're similar in size, specs etc that had better performance, better mileage, etc. Now part of my project would be supercharging. Which has been done to 940's(go to youtube)and other makes at the time. That's very do-able. The tranny swap hasn't been done but researching the Aisin/Toyota archives it sounds like it could be done. And to me the most important thing is - they were put in the same chassis. Look at the gear shift and center console of a 740 and a 960 and you won't see much difference..
What's been surprising is you and a few other have said 'Go ahead and give it a shot'. Other have claimed it won't work and insulted my lack of knowledge for even asking. It's really amazing how those who have no experience doing something claim it can't be done. How do they know? They don't. They're just flapping their jaws. And jaw flappers get awfully old after a while.
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 09:55 PM   #69
2manyturbos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monroe, OR USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moetheshmoe View Post
It doesn't hurt at all, especially since it's not the truth. I didn't know that the purpose of this forum was to dissuade people from asking about starting a new project by telling them that they have no idea what they're talking about and insulting them with sarcastic terms like 'genius'. Especially when others have already completed various parts of that project. There's numerous youtube videos showing the redblock supercharged. The only thing missing is merging the two. It seems like the term 'genius' has been self appointed.
You made the comment that I have no idea about modern drive trains. That’s so far from the truth. As I said, your assumptions are digging your own grave. The truth is, everything you say is just conjecture from something you read somewhere. There’s absolutely zero substance to anything you have said. I encourage you to build this project. That’s the only way you’re going to learn anything. I’ve been fixing, building, designing and manufacturing for many years. My background is automotive mechanic, automotive restoration facility owner, degreed mechanical design engineer, racing enthusiast, automobile racer etc. Drive trains of any sort, other than electric are right up my alley.

Nobody said a redblock can’t be supercharged. Nobody said an AW30-40 couldn’t be mated behind a redblock with enough machine time to create the adapters. What they are trying to tell you is you’re not going to obtain the kind of fuel mileage you think you are with this ridiculous combination. You never did answer the simple question, how much power do you think it takes to move a 940 70 mph on flat pavement? If you could even answer that question you might understand the ridiculousness of what you’re proposing. I’ll leave it at that because you didn’t even understand what I said above about power being a simple function of fuel burned in a set time. There’s no magic wand.
2manyturbos is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 10:02 PM   #70
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyturbos View Post
You made the comment that I have no idea about modern drive trains. That’s so far from the truth. As I said, your assumptions are digging your own grave. The truth is, everything you say is just conjecture from something you read somewhere. There’s absolutely zero substance to anything you have said. I encourage you to build this project. That’s the only way you’re going to learn anything. I’ve been fixing, building, designing and manufacturing for many years. My background is automotive mechanic, automotive restoration facility owner, degreed mechanical design engineer, racing enthusiast, automobile racer etc. Drive trains of any sort, other than electric are right up my alley.

Nobody said a redblock can’t be supercharged. Nobody said an AW30-40 couldn’t be mated behind a redblock with enough machine time to create the adapters. What they are trying to tell you is you’re not going to obtain the kind of fuel mileage you think you are with this ridiculous combination. You never did answer the simple question, how much power do you think it takes to move a 940 70 mph on flat pavement? If you could even answer that question you might understand the ridiculousness of what you’re proposing. I’ll leave it at that because you didn’t even understand what I said above about power being a simple function of fuel burned in a set time. There’s no magic wand.
The title of 'genius' has just been re-annoited. I could care less who you are or what you've done. Since you've never supercharged a redblock and never put a 960 tranny in a 940 you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO experience doing a project like this. I have put a 960 axle in my 940 Turbo wagon and dropped 70 mph flat surface cruising speed to 2500 rpms. And improved my gas mileage from 23 mpg to 26 mpg. With a lock up torque converter it would be no problem to drop 200 more rpm and gain 2 more mpg, which would match the Mercedes c230 exactly. The lesson here is The real world can tell you a lot more than data or books.
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 10:17 PM   #71
2manyturbos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monroe, OR USA
Default

Lol. You are correct. I have enough knowledge, experience, and common sense not to bother with any of those. I have built several custom set ups for myself and other customers over the years. Not just swapped an axle that will bolt right in using the same fasteners. In other words, I’m not impressed that you were able to put a 960 axle in a 940. My son at 12 years could do that and actually did that kind of work for me. Try swapping an entire drivetrain from one make of vehicle into another and making it work. I’ve done that on multiple occasions. Now you’re switching gears because you’ve painted yourself into a corner. Your point of the supercharger was it was going to increase your fuel mileage due to higher torque. That’s flat out wrong. That’s basically saying you’re getting free energy from somewhere. You still can’t even answer the simple question about the amount of power it takes to move the vehicle.
2manyturbos is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 10:55 PM   #72
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyturbos View Post
Lol. You are correct. I have enough knowledge, experience, and common sense not to bother with any of those. I have built several custom set ups for myself and other customers over the years. Not just swapped an axle that will bolt right in using the same fasteners. In other words, I’m not impressed that you were able to put a 960 axle in a 940. My son at 12 years could do that and actually did that kind of work for me. Try swapping an entire drivetrain from one make of vehicle into another and making it work. I’ve done that on multiple occasions. Now you’re switching gears because you’ve painted yourself into a corner. Your point of the supercharger was it was going to increase your fuel mileage due to higher torque. That’s flat out wrong. That’s basically saying you’re getting free energy from somewhere. You still can’t even answer the simple question about the amount of power it takes to move the vehicle.
You sure know how to dodge your own bullets. You obviously missed the whole purpose of my last post. I'm not bragging that I did something a 12 yr old could do(although some others do). Your claim, with zero actual experience, that what Mercedes accomplished, I could not is rubbish. I could care less how much power it takes to cruise at 70 on a flat surface. There's no way of measuring that on the road and I doubt you have a dyno at home to do it. And people who are knowledgeable know it's actually a measurement of torque, which is then calculated into hp. What you missed completely is - just by changing my rear end gearing I'm only 2 mpg away from what Mercedes did. And by adding a lockup torque converter that's easily obtainable. How is that not obtainable. I don't mean to get personal but do you have memory problems? I ask because you seem to be distorting everything I've said. You're leaving out parts of what I said in my very first posts. It's not the added torque of a supercharger that will directly increase the mpg but it will allow a higher rear end ratio, which will. And the added torque will prevent the engine from bogging down at low rpms which demands more throttle to keep moving. If you're going to distort my posts talk to your 12 yr old about it. You can probably convince him.
moetheshmoe is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 11:00 PM   #73
HiSPL
Fanking Champion 1993
 
HiSPL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: College Station, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moetheshmoe View Post
The last redblock was produced in 1995 and the last 740/940/960 chassis was produced in 1998. The first 4 cyl Mercedes to be supercharged was also in 1998. So they're not that far apart, especially since the displacement is almost the same.
The ohc version of the redblock was designed in The late 60’s. Yes, even the 1995 940 used 1960’s era technology under the hood. The only real difference was the fuel injection and ignitions got better over the years. It’s an old school, wheezy headed, over square tractor motor.

The merc engine you are comparing it to probably flows twice the cfm through the head. And it’s nearly a square bore/stroke. Thats a totally different beast even before you put any power-adder to it.


There’s just way too much ground to make up. The redblock will never equal a modern 2 liter class engine.


Thats not to say the redblock is bad. Nope, its number one redeeming quality is the sheer amount of abuse it will take from idiots boosting it to the moon. Thats why we love it so much.
HiSPL is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 11:08 PM   #74
2manyturbos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monroe, OR USA
Default

There you go again. Torque is a measurement of resistance. Torque does nothing as far as moving the car down the road. I know that will fly right over your head. Power is a measurement of work over time. I.E. moving the car down the road. Pick your system of units, watts, horse power. You can’t even describe what you are attempting in proper terms. Yet, you maintain such a misplaced arrogant attitude. I’m done with your thread. Build it instead of wasting everyone’s time talking about it.
2manyturbos is offline  
Old 06-20-2022, 11:11 PM   #75
moetheshmoe
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Salinas, Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiSPL View Post
The ohc version of the redblock was designed in The late 60’s. Yes, even the 1995 940 used 1960’s era technology under the hood. The only real difference was the fuel injection and ignitions got better over the years. It’s an old school, wheezy headed, over square tractor motor.

The merc engine you are comparing it to probably flows twice the cfm through the head. And it’s nearly a square bore/stroke. Thats a totally different beast even before you put any power-adder to it.


There’s just way too much ground to make up. The redblock will never equal a modern 2 liter class engine.


Thats not to say the redblock is bad. Nope, its number one redeeming quality is the sheer amount of abuse it will take from idiots boosting it to the moon. Thats why we love it so much.
I don't want it to match a modern 2 liter. I want it to match a 1998 2 liter. All you have to do is look at the specs of a 1997 C230 before it was boosted. And except for about 10 more hp it and the redblock are almost twins. With just gearing mods and no engine mods I'm only 2 mpg away from what the Mercedes got. With more torque(meaning more light throttle) and a lock up torque converter I think it's very possible to surpass the Merc.
moetheshmoe is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.