Detroit Diesel Monster Engine

[Darrell]

Video of a Detroit Diesel V24 engine, with 12 8-71 blowers, nitrous, etc., 3,000+ hp, running on a test stand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48vyc5b ... el&list=UL

[esa5444]

I've seen bigger! I got to see a frac truck once. 3000 horsepower. And unlike this engine, it can sustain that as long as there is fuel in the tanks. You get an appreciation for how impressive hydraulic fracturing is when you think they couple 15-20 of those together, put them into high gear, and push the throttle all the way.

[HTRN]

and yet, an engine a fraction the size and weight can make 2/3rds the HP.

Frankly, considering it's a Diesel, I'd be more interested in the torque curve.

[Yogimus]

and yet, an engine a fraction the size and weight can make 2/3rds the HP.

Frankly, considering it's a Diesel, I'd be more interested in the torque curve.

Frankly, american engine design is a few generations behind the curve.

[HTRN]

Not really. 4 valve motors have some definite shortcomings - little scavanging for one.

The LS engine configuration is frankly SCARY good for it's relatively modest engine displacement(I think the most you can stretch a LSx block is 500cid). The Cathedral port heads that are now being offerred from 3rd party manufacturers have flow ratings that 20 years ago wouldn't have been seen outside of "exotic" head designs like the Dart Big Chiefs or the Olds DRCE engines.

[Jeffro]

And it wasn't even turboed. I have no love for two stroke Detroits, but that is a work of art. Can't wait to see the Pete when he gets done! It's gonna have to be way longer than the average extended hood 359 fer sure!

[Aglifter]

Yeah, the "Euro Engines are so much better" stuff is a bit of a misdirection. Among other things, while they make more HP/L, due to their laws about displacement, their fuel economy in performance engines is absurd.

(My old M3 had 333 HP - nice engine - but, in a 4000# pig, it got ~16 on the highway, if a babied it - more like 15. Which is about the same as a 350HP, 6,000 pick-up, running on regular, w. more torque.)

(Simple engineering - no replacement for displacement, and area under the power curve is what really matters.)

Now, some Euro cars use 4WD - which does help w. delivery - and some US cars - like the Viper, are very, very detuned - mainly for liability reasons, I think. (A Viper already is a car which demands considerable attention - but if you so much as "look" at the engine, it can get ridiculous - and its absurdly reliable around a track.)

[evan price]

The Sherman tanks used a power-pack called a 6046 which was two Detroit 6-71's siamesed together to make a V-12.

Detroit made 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 CID cylinders in the old two-stroke lines. They used superchargers for scavenging. I miss the old 2-strokers- they could scream.

Detroit made up to 20 cylinders. The 20V149 could make close to 3000 horsepower from the factory, and make it all day long for months on end as a marine propulsion motor. Properly built and tuned they could make about one horsepower per cubic inch. Torque was a mountain-moving 400 lb-ft per cylinder. 3000 hp and 8000 lb-ft of torque from the 20V149. That's immense.

Still, it's just a baby when you consider the REAL monster Diesels that propel large ships.

Here's a 22,500 horsepower motor that was used to power the entire factory works at Burmeister and Wain (Now MAN Diesel) in Denmark on display. Built in 1932, it is still run for exhibition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZr2umGKQXg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizDIl0qluM

That's not even the biggest Diesel. Emma Maersk and her sisters use a Wartsilla-Sulzer 14-cylinder motor that makes over 109,000 horsepower and 5,600,000 ft-lb of torque. Bore is nearly a meter and stroke 2.5 meters. That's BIG.

I encourage anyone who loves big machines and is impressed by massive engineering to Google the Emma Maersk and Sulzer-Wartsilla for pictures.

I've always loved immense machines. Stamping presses, ship engines, blast furnaces, rockets, etc.

[Jeffro]

I miss the old 2-strokers- they could scream.

To each his own. I do not miss them. I do not miss the constant oil leaks. I do not miss seeing antifreeze running from the slobber tubes. I do not miss having absolutely no usable low end torque - particularly compared to Detroit Diesel's counterparts from Cummins and Caterpillar at the time. I don't miss them missing a beat when starting, and then running backwards. I do not miss that they seemingly couldn't go 100k without some sort of major work involving a tear down. I do not miss that they really did run pretty good right out of the box, but after some catastrophe, they ran like crap afterwords. I have no idea how many places we took those motors to because "this guy really knows Detroits and can make 'em run right," only to find they weren't any better than the others.

The old timers told me the best way to approach driving a truck equipped with a two stroker (and I've found this technique works on the more modern four strokers as well) was to open the door, put your hand on the door jamb, then slam the door on your hand. This would put you in the proper frame of mind to drive it properly, because you'd have to drive it like you wanted it to explode. If you wanted to go anywhere, you'd have to keep it on the boil.

OTOH, I do miss how one sounded on straight pipes. They really sound like they're going somewhere, even if they really aren't and are getting their doors blown on that slight rise by the CATs.

To be fair, the two strokers really have an admirable service record in stationary applications. When they get to run at two grand all day long, they seem to hang together better, and live forever. So, things like generators, tub grinders and such are a good place for Detroit power.

[evan price]

I miss the old 2-strokers- they could scream.

To each his own. I do not miss them. I do not miss the constant oil leaks.

If it ain't leaking, it's out of oil.

Drive a 2-stroke Diesel the way you drive a 2-stroke motocross bike. Keep it screaming. The power is up top.