New diesel engine from Subaru...

[[email protected]]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553

2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
an airplane....

Haven't found the weight yet.

-Matt

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

schreef:
> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>
> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
> an airplane....
>
> Haven't found the weight yet.

Not the first I hear about it. As I understand it is a modification of
their petrol boxers so the weight should be comparable. Their petrol
boxers can work well in planes, I entertain great hopes in this diesel!
Especially as there's an able Subaru plane converter nearby.

[Philippe Vessaire]

wrote:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>
> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
> an airplane....

> Haven't found the weight yet.
178kg 392lbs
290lbs for one XP360....

But I'm sure many kg may be remove for airplane conversion. You kneed
to add a reduction unit.
Subaru claims this engine is smoother than L4....

By
--
Volem rien foutre al païs!
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:02:48 +0100, Philippe Vessaire
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>>
>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
>> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
>> an airplane....
>
>> Haven't found the weight yet.
>178kg 392lbs
>290lbs for one XP360....
>
> But I'm sure many kg may be remove for airplane conversion. You kneed
>to add a reduction unit.
> Subaru claims this engine is smoother than L4....
>
>By
How big a prop do you want to spin? with 258 torque available at 1800,
assuming a fairly flat power curve you have 135 HP at 2800 RPM. Not
bad for what would likely turn out to be a 300 lb engine stripped for
flight.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"jan olieslagers" > wrote in message
...
> schreef:
>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>>
>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
>> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
>> an airplane....
>>
>> Haven't found the weight yet.
>
> Not the first I hear about it. As I understand it is a modification of
> their petrol boxers so the weight should be comparable.

I thought GM had killed the "gas engine converted to a diesel" market.

The typical 10,000 mile (or so) TBO didn't go over well with the public.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Peter Dohm]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
...
> "jan olieslagers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> schreef:
>>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>>>
>>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
>>> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
>>> an airplane....
>>>
>>> Haven't found the weight yet.
>>
>> Not the first I hear about it. As I understand it is a modification of
>> their petrol boxers so the weight should be comparable.
>
> I thought GM had killed the "gas engine converted to a diesel" market.
>
> The typical 10,000 mile (or so) TBO didn't go over well with the public.
>
I've heard many times about how bad they were, but I still don't know the
actual cause or just what tended to break or wear out. The only specific
that I can personally recall was that the air intake placement made it
possible to injest water on some models. I believe that also heard that
the rings and cylinders had a shorter than normal life, anound 120K miles,
but only heard that from one user. So any further enlightenment is welcome.

Peter

[Philippe Vessaire]

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


>>http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553

>>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258
>>> pound-feet of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a
>>> car. But for an airplane....

>>> Haven't found the weight yet.
>>178kg 392lbs


> How big a prop do you want to spin? with 258 torque available at 1800,
> assuming a fairly flat power curve you have 135 HP at 2800 RPM. Not
> bad for what would likely turn out to be a 300 lb engine stripped for
> flight.
Realy, I don't know but I don't think you have 135Hp@2800rpm.
150hp@3600rpm in the car...

For TBO: think Thielert....

--
Volem rien foutre al païs!
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
<...>
>>> Not the first I hear about it. As I understand it is a modification of
>>> their petrol boxers so the weight should be comparable.
>>
>> I thought GM had killed the "gas engine converted to a diesel" market.
>>
>> The typical 10,000 mile (or so) TBO didn't go over well with the public.
>>
> I've heard many times about how bad they were, but I still don't know the
> actual cause or just what tended to break or wear out. The only specific
> that I can personally recall was that the air intake placement made it
> possible to injest water on some models. I believe that also heard that
> the rings and cylinders had a shorter than normal life, anound 120K miles,
> but only heard that from one user. So any further enlightenment is
> welcome.
>

IIRC:

The big problem was bearings due to the increased particulates (and typical
sloppy owner maintainance).

A gas engine can go a LONG time between oil changes (10K at least) and still
make it well beyond 150K (Trust me on this one...), the Chevy diesel didn't
last if you didn't change the oil every 3000 - 5000 miles. "Real" diesels
are designed to deal with particulates combined with the higher loads.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bill Daniels]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
> ...
>> "jan olieslagers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> schreef:
>>>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>>>>
>>>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
>>>> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
>>>> an airplane....
>>>>
>>>> Haven't found the weight yet.
>>>
>>> Not the first I hear about it. As I understand it is a modification of
>>> their petrol boxers so the weight should be comparable.
>>
>> I thought GM had killed the "gas engine converted to a diesel" market.
>>
>> The typical 10,000 mile (or so) TBO didn't go over well with the public.
>>
> I've heard many times about how bad they were, but I still don't know the
> actual cause or just what tended to break or wear out. The only specific
> that I can personally recall was that the air intake placement made it
> possible to injest water on some models. I believe that also heard that
> the rings and cylinders had a shorter than normal life, anound 120K miles,
> but only heard that from one user. So any further enlightenment is
> welcome.
>
> Peter
>
I had a '78 Oldsmobile 98 350 diesel. It was dead reliable for 145,000
miles giving me a consistent 35MPG before I gave it to a charity in exchange
for a tax break. You couldn't sell them. The only problems I ran into was
fuel gelling in very cold weather when I left it in an airport parking lot
for a week or more. I learned that if cold weather was expected it was
better to leave it home in the garage and take a shuttle to the airport.

The biggest problem was the dealers who hadn't a clue of how to maintain
them. Not one knew that it needed special diesel oil. "We just use 10-30
like everything else", I was told. I used ashless fleet diesel oils that
over the road trucks use and changed it every 2500 miles. I had to buy the
stuff by the case from a petroleum distributor since no service shop stocked
it.

The typical owner just didn't care about maintenance details and dealer
service departments were hopeless. My take is that they whole debacle was
service related which is still GM's fault since they didn't train their
dealers.

Bill D

[root]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
> ...
>> "jan olieslagers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> schreef:
>>>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>>>>
>>>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
>>>> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
>>>> an airplane....
>>>>
>>>> Haven't found the weight yet.
>>> Not the first I hear about it. As I understand it is a modification of
>>> their petrol boxers so the weight should be comparable.
>> I thought GM had killed the "gas engine converted to a diesel" market.
>>
>> The typical 10,000 mile (or so) TBO didn't go over well with the public.
>>
> I've heard many times about how bad they were, but I still don't know the
> actual cause or just what tended to break or wear out. The only specific
> that I can personally recall was that the air intake placement made it
> possible to injest water on some models. I believe that also heard that
> the rings and cylinders had a shorter than normal life, anound 120K miles,
> but only heard that from one user. So any further enlightenment is welcome.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
Most of the early 350 based models had crankshaft failure problems. GM
revised the cranks on at least two occasions with little success. After
an intensive investigation it was determined that the engine block main
bearing webs were flexing and cracking. This allowed the crank to bend
excessively, resulting in crank breakage. Once the cylinder blocks were
modified there were few other mechanical/structural problems. By this
time the engines had already acquired their reputation for unreliability.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 5:19 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:
> "jan olieslagers" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > schreef:
> >>http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>
> >> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
> >> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
> >> an airplane....
>
> >> Haven't found the weight yet.
>
> > Not the first I hear about it. As I understand it is a modification of
> > their petrol boxers so the weight should be comparable.
>
> I thought GM had killed the "gas engine converted to a diesel" market.
>
> The typical 10,000 mile (or so) TBO didn't go over well with the public.
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Because half-assed engineering in the 70s has sooo much to do with
this engine. You know those Coleco vision games really sucked too.
And bean bags were such a lame technology, I can't imagine anyone
buying a chair ever again... And Disco? WTF was that? I'll never use a
radio again... ever..

-Matt

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:19:56 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote:

>"jan olieslagers" > wrote in message
...
>> schreef:
>>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>>>
>>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
>>> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
>>> an airplane....
>>>
>>> Haven't found the weight yet.
>>
>> Not the first I hear about it. As I understand it is a modification of
>> their petrol boxers so the weight should be comparable.
>
>I thought GM had killed the "gas engine converted to a diesel" market.
>
>The typical 10,000 mile (or so) TBO didn't go over well with the public.

VW proved it could be done well, as did Peugot years ago IIRC.

GM is proved GM engineers have trouble getting it right the first
time, and management doesn't allow second mistakes???


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:29:44 +0100, Philippe Vessaire
> wrote:

> clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>
>
>>>http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>
>>>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258
>>>> pound-feet of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a
>>>> car. But for an airplane....
>
>>>> Haven't found the weight yet.
>>>178kg 392lbs
>
>
>> How big a prop do you want to spin? with 258 torque available at 1800,
>> assuming a fairly flat power curve you have 135 HP at 2800 RPM. Not
>> bad for what would likely turn out to be a 300 lb engine stripped for
>> flight.
>Realy, I don't know but I don't think you have 135Hp@2800rpm.
>150hp@3600rpm in the car...
>
>For TBO: think Thielert....
258 ft lbs X 2800 rpm = 722400 / 5252= 137.54.
The torque will hold well past 2800 RPM on a turbo Direct Injection
Diesel. Real fat torque curve. I'd be very surprised if there was
less than 145 at 3600 (Math says 176 if the torque holds, I figured
85% of max torque at 3600, for 150 HP)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Steve Hix]

In article <1310142.npAD8lHYCv@GastonCoute>,
Philippe Vessaire > wrote:

> clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>
>
> >>http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>
> >>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258
> >>> pound-feet of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a
> >>> car. But for an airplane....
>
> >>> Haven't found the weight yet.
> >>178kg 392lbs
>
>
> > How big a prop do you want to spin? with 258 torque available at 1800,
> > assuming a fairly flat power curve you have 135 HP at 2800 RPM. Not
> > bad for what would likely turn out to be a 300 lb engine stripped for
> > flight.
> Realy, I don't know but I don't think you have 135Hp@2800rpm.
> 150hp@3600rpm in the car...
>
> For TBO: think Thielert....

What are Thielert's TBO like?

[Philippe Vessaire]

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:



>>> How big a prop do you want to spin? with 258 torque available at
>>> 1800, assuming a fairly flat power curve you have 135 HP at 2800
>>> RPM. Not bad for what would likely turn out to be a 300 lb engine
>>> stripped for flight.
>>Realy, I don't know but I don't think you have 135Hp@2800rpm.
>>150hp@3600rpm in the car...
>>
>>For TBO: think Thielert....
> 258 ft lbs X 2800 rpm = 722400 / 5252= 137.54.
> The torque will hold well past 2800 RPM on a turbo Direct Injection
> Diesel. Real fat torque curve. I'd be very surprised if there was
> less than 145 at 3600 (Math says 176 if the torque holds, I figured
> 85% of max torque at 3600, for 150 HP)

for typical automotive diesel, the torque curve is flat only in the
range of 1500-2500 rpm.
More rpm >> less torque...

You may reprogram the ECU and give a flat curve for higher rpms, it's
the way Thielert use to have a 135hp , 1700cm³ engine from a 95hp
automotive engine. Nerver over torque this type of engine but it may
over rev and keep long life.

By
--
Volem rien foutre al païs!
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:26:54 +0100, Philippe Vessaire
> wrote:


>for typical automotive diesel, the torque curve is flat only in the
>range of 1500-2500 rpm.
>More rpm >> less torque...

This is a TURBO diesel, whick keeps the efficiency up for a wider
band. (and it's not hard to change the turbo if you need a different
"map"
>
>You may reprogram the ECU and give a flat curve for higher rpms, it's
>the way Thielert use to have a 135hp , 1700cm³ engine from a 95hp
>automotive engine. Nerver over torque this type of engine but it may
>over rev and keep long life.
>
>By


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Peter Dohm]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
> ...
>> "jan olieslagers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> schreef:
>>>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
>>>>
>>>> 2L TDIO, All aluminum block/head, boosted, intercooled, 258 pound-feet
>>>> of torque @ 1,800 rpm. Probably a terrible engine for a car. But for
>>>> an airplane....
>>>>
>>>> Haven't found the weight yet.
>>>
>>> Not the first I hear about it. As I understand it is a modification of
>>> their petrol boxers so the weight should be comparable.
>>
>> I thought GM had killed the "gas engine converted to a diesel" market.
>>
>> The typical 10,000 mile (or so) TBO didn't go over well with the public.
>>
> I've heard many times about how bad they were, but I still don't know the
> actual cause or just what tended to break or wear out. The only specific
> that I can personally recall was that the air intake placement made it
> possible to injest water on some models. I believe that also heard that
> the rings and cylinders had a shorter than normal life, anound 120K miles,
> but only heard that from one user. So any further enlightenment is
> welcome.
>
> Peter
>
Thanks to those who responded. That was great information about the need
for proper "care and feeding" for any of us who switch to diesels.

Peter