Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
* w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
bob
* w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
bob
Re: Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
bob urz turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> bob
I was reading about that in Diesel Power a few months back. It is one of the
(many) space saving designs they used.
Still not quite sure why they made it a 4.5L V8 instead of a 4.5L I4, V6 or
I6. That would have saved more money and design issues.
Someday, maybe I'll pop one of those in my Avalanche if the 5.3L gasser
gives up the ghost.
--
w w w .perfectreign . com || w w w .filesite.org
powered by the lizard: w w w .opensuse.org
bob urz turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> bob
I was reading about that in Diesel Power a few months back. It is one of the
(many) space saving designs they used.
Still not quite sure why they made it a 4.5L V8 instead of a 4.5L I4, V6 or
I6. That would have saved more money and design issues.
Someday, maybe I'll pop one of those in my Avalanche if the 5.3L gasser
gives up the ghost.
--
w w w .perfectreign . com || w w w .filesite.org
powered by the lizard: w w w .opensuse.org
Re: Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
On May 9, 5:59 pm, bob urz <soun...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> bob
Seems like semantics to me. Call something by another name! Even the
picture shows what sure appear to be manifolds. From the writeup,
indeed it sounds like the exhaust manifold design is simpler, and
depending on how you partition parts and functions, the exhaust
manifold may be part of another part or assembly. But to say the
engine has no manifolds seems like a lot of hyperbole to me.
On May 9, 5:59 pm, bob urz <soun...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> bob
Seems like semantics to me. Call something by another name! Even the
picture shows what sure appear to be manifolds. From the writeup,
indeed it sounds like the exhaust manifold design is simpler, and
depending on how you partition parts and functions, the exhaust
manifold may be part of another part or assembly. But to say the
engine has no manifolds seems like a lot of hyperbole to me.
Re: Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily . net > wrote in message
news:8be954c2-4195-4378-8001-0d2dc7a627d7@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 9, 5:59 pm, bob urz <soun...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>>
>> bob
>
> Seems like semantics to me. Call something by another name! Even the
> picture shows what sure appear to be manifolds. From the writeup,
> indeed it sounds like the exhaust manifold design is simpler, and
> depending on how you partition parts and functions, the exhaust
> manifold may be part of another part or assembly. But to say the
> engine has no manifolds seems like a lot of hyperbole to me.
Interesting, but I would hope this design, if ever produced, is thoroughly
application
tested before being put into service. Better than even chances that some
ugly
faults may raise their snaky heads on something like this...not, however,
new to GM
engines.
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily . net > wrote in message
news:8be954c2-4195-4378-8001-0d2dc7a627d7@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 9, 5:59 pm, bob urz <soun...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>>
>> bob
>
> Seems like semantics to me. Call something by another name! Even the
> picture shows what sure appear to be manifolds. From the writeup,
> indeed it sounds like the exhaust manifold design is simpler, and
> depending on how you partition parts and functions, the exhaust
> manifold may be part of another part or assembly. But to say the
> engine has no manifolds seems like a lot of hyperbole to me.
Interesting, but I would hope this design, if ever produced, is thoroughly
application
tested before being put into service. Better than even chances that some
ugly
faults may raise their snaky heads on something like this...not, however,
new to GM
engines.
Re: Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:41:46 -0500, "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>Interesting, but I would hope this design, if ever produced, is thoroughly
>application
>tested before being put into service. Better than even chances that some
>ugly
>faults may raise their snaky heads on something like this...not, however,
>new to GM
>engines.
I'm sure they were planning on skipping that part. Thank goodness you
came along to call them on it.
Steve B.
On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:41:46 -0500, "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>Interesting, but I would hope this design, if ever produced, is thoroughly
>application
>tested before being put into service. Better than even chances that some
>ugly
>faults may raise their snaky heads on something like this...not, however,
>new to GM
>engines.
I'm sure they were planning on skipping that part. Thank goodness you
came along to call them on it.
Steve B.
Re: Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
"Steve B." <none@none . com > wrote in message
news:k36c24log15605c9f61k1pqto6jt55olda@4ax . com ...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:41:46 -0500, "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Interesting, but I would hope this design, if ever produced, is thoroughly
>>application
>>tested before being put into service. Better than even chances that some
>>ugly
>>faults may raise their snaky heads on something like this...not, however,
>>new to GM
>>engines.
>
> I'm sure they were planning on skipping that part. Thank goodness you
> came along to call them on it.
>
> Steve B.
Dont like my astute analysis of the situation, Steve> ;>)
"Steve B." <none@none . com > wrote in message
news:k36c24log15605c9f61k1pqto6jt55olda@4ax . com ...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:41:46 -0500, "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Interesting, but I would hope this design, if ever produced, is thoroughly
>>application
>>tested before being put into service. Better than even chances that some
>>ugly
>>faults may raise their snaky heads on something like this...not, however,
>>new to GM
>>engines.
>
> I'm sure they were planning on skipping that part. Thank goodness you
> came along to call them on it.
>
> Steve B.
Dont like my astute analysis of the situation, Steve> ;>)
Re: Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
On May 9, 6:59 pm, bob urz <soun...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> bob
It has both intake and exhaust manifolds- the intake manifold is part
of the valve cover, the exhaust manifold sits in the valley and
connects directly to the turbo.
Dave
On May 9, 6:59 pm, bob urz <soun...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> bob
It has both intake and exhaust manifolds- the intake manifold is part
of the valve cover, the exhaust manifold sits in the valley and
connects directly to the turbo.
Dave
Re: Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
On May 12, 12:03 pm, spamTHIS...@yahoo . com wrote:
> On May 9, 6:59 pm, bob urz <soun...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> > bob
>
> It has both intake and exhaust manifolds- the intake manifold is part
> of the valve cover, the exhaust manifold sits in the valley and
> connects directly to the turbo.
>
> Dave
This thread reminds me of the car ads when Olds sold their diesel.
The ads claimed the engine was simpler, since there was no
carburetor. Never mind that the fuel injection system was much more
complex than carburetors of that era.
On May 12, 12:03 pm, spamTHIS...@yahoo . com wrote:
> On May 9, 6:59 pm, bob urz <soun...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> > bob
>
> It has both intake and exhaust manifolds- the intake manifold is part
> of the valve cover, the exhaust manifold sits in the valley and
> connects directly to the turbo.
>
> Dave
This thread reminds me of the car ads when Olds sold their diesel.
The ads claimed the engine was simpler, since there was no
carburetor. Never mind that the fuel injection system was much more
complex than carburetors of that era.
Re: Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily . net > wrote in message
news:cc977578-
>
> This thread reminds me of the car ads when Olds sold their diesel.
> The ads claimed the engine was simpler, since there was no
> carburetor. Never mind that the fuel injection system was much more
> complex than carburetors of that era.
We Americans have come to expect and savour small lies.
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily . net > wrote in message
news:cc977578-
>
> This thread reminds me of the car ads when Olds sold their diesel.
> The ads claimed the engine was simpler, since there was no
> carburetor. Never mind that the fuel injection system was much more
> complex than carburetors of that era.
We Americans have come to expect and savour small lies.
Re: Diesel ...NO Manifolds?
bob urz wrote:
> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> bob
I've been wondering how long it would take before a manufacturer built
an automotive diesel v8 this way. Its been the norm in locomotive
engines for decades- both the EMD 2-strokes and the GE FDL 4-stroke
locomotive diesels have the exhaust in the "valley". On the GE, the
intakes are "logs" along the outside where car v-type engines would have
exhaust manifolds, and on the EMD 2-strokes the intake is through the
cylinder case. Caterpillar marine diesels are laid out the same way-
exhaust and turbos in the "V", intake trunks along the outside of the "V".
bob urz wrote:
> * w w w .sae.org/automag/technewsletter/080108Tech/01.htm
>
> bob
I've been wondering how long it would take before a manufacturer built
an automotive diesel v8 this way. Its been the norm in locomotive
engines for decades- both the EMD 2-strokes and the GE FDL 4-stroke
locomotive diesels have the exhaust in the "valley". On the GE, the
intakes are "logs" along the outside where car v-type engines would have
exhaust manifolds, and on the EMD 2-strokes the intake is through the
cylinder case. Caterpillar marine diesels are laid out the same way-
exhaust and turbos in the "V", intake trunks along the outside of the "V".
