Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002) Are we just adding "sand to our oil"????

[hammersley]

Ok - this ongoing post regarding I Burned up My Engine - has me wondering: https://www.turbodieselregister.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=855059#post855059



Ok - here's my concern, and I'll bet a lot of others here. 1st I don't have an ETH - I have an ETC - but that aside - I want to add some HP. I already have a VA Box (1st gen) that's been on for 150,000 miles. My sig indicates what I've recently added. I want to add some new EDM Injectors - say the 1. 5's and either leave my VA alone OR buy an Edge Comp. I don't want to drag race - and don't tow anything over 5000 lbs on any regular basis- So here's my dilema - I realize that by not doing anything, the engine will last the longest. I want this rig to last a very long time, BUT I also want some additional performance. However, by my subject - at what leval do we start killing our motors? How safe would the mod's I make be - and I'm not talking at running level 5x5 - but a moderate range????? And I know I need to do transmission upgrades - that's next... .....

 

[PRout]

Basically, if you keep EGT's 1200 or lower, and keep over 10 psi to your VP44 while towing, you should have a motor that lasts a long time.



How you do it is up to you.



I prefer to have good power, and just keep an eye on the gauges while pulling. Its easy to stay under 1200, even with my setup (including stock turbo).



Anyone that runs their EGTs at 1350 while pulling, is taking a chance IMO.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I figure added performance, for the most part, only stresses the motor in pretty direct proportion to how, and how often it is applied



I have a Comp on my truck. it has been shown to produce the power output displayed below in my sig - but that power is only applied a fairly rare percentage of the time - very few actual miles in the overall total. Sure, my clutch now slips - clear evidence that added power DOES place added stresses at various points in the drivetrain - the price to be paid.



But as to how MUCH the added power will reduce total lifespan of the Cummins - probably LESS than a STOCK farm or construction vehicle that is worked hard on a DAILY basis. I doubt it is really possible to predict with certainty what ANY performance upgrades will do to longevity of these engines - at least at moderate levels - too many variables involved - mostly involving the use of that right foot...

 

[RustyJC]

I just offer this for everyone's consideration and discussion. The gauges were the first mod I did to my truck after delivery. Towing our 13,500 lb 5th wheel, stock pre-turbo EGT's would hit and stabilize at 1300 degF on steep grades.



Now, how many HO's are out there towing and hauling for non-TDR members who have never heard of EGT or a pyrometer? Are these trucks failing left and right? I have to believe they are hitting at least 1300 degF as well when working hard - maybe more if they don't keep the air filter clean.



Right now, my maximum EGT's with the mods shown below are running 1225 degF when towing. Therefore, I could make the case that, despite the increased BHP and torque, from an EGT standpoint, why shouldn't my truck last as long or longer than a stock ETH truck running 1300 degF EGT?



Rusty

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"from an EGT standpoint, why shouldn't my truck last as long or longer than a stock ETH truck running 1300 degF EGT?"



IF EGT was the ONLY issue in added stresses with power boosters and increased load, that would possibly be true - but there are a lot of OTHER issues involved when average power levels are involved - mostly in direct proportion to the percentage of TIME those levels are applied...

 

[RustyJC]

Gary,



Yep, I understand. BMEP, peak firing pressures and a lot of other parameters enter into the engine life question. I'm just making the point that, contrary to popular belief, many times the EGT's of our moderately BOMBed trucks (especially HO's) are lower than stock. In such cases (like mine), how likely is a catastrophic meltdown?



Rusty

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Yup - I agree... .



Like I said in another somewhat related thread, sometimes we "scare ourselves" over rather trivial stuff...

 

[JPLB22]

Here is what I told my Fiancee' for logic, ( I'm considering the EDM group buy ) seeing as we already have discussions on large spending.



I told her that the engine has a finate amount of fuel it will burn in it's lifetime. So any power mod's I do that cause me to burn more fuel per mile for the rest of the life of the truck, will shorten the amount of miles it can go. Which of course makes the opposite true, better mileage and efficiancy will cause longer life. And since I'm considering just the Mach 1's and a seperate boost fooler ( no fueling with box, just boost fooler ) my mileage has a good chance of going UP . Hence my new injectors would be good for both of us in the long run... . right .



My logic might be flawed, but, it sounded good. I need not hear about the money I've " wasted " on the truck for the next 7 mo.



Jeff

 

[thejeepdude]

Originally posted by JPLB22

I told her that the engine has a finate amount of fuel it will burn in it's lifetime. So any power mod's I do that cause me to burn more fuel per mile for the rest of the life of the truck, will shorten the amount of miles it can go. Which of course makes the opposite true, better mileage and efficiancy will cause longer life. And since I'm considering just the Mach 1's and a seperate boost fooler ( no fueling with box, just boost fooler ) my mileage has a good chance of going UP . Hence my new injectors would be good for both of us in the long run... . right .

Hey, that logic makes sense to me. Added to the safety factor from having just enough 'umph' to more effictively merge into moving traffic, it's a no-brainer! I'm looking at Mach 2's, but I'm still hoping for a mileage increase on the highway, but mostly just enough power to get my 10K over the mountains without having to push it as hard. I'm hoping the Mach 2's with a comp box NOT tapped on the vp44 (same as EZ but i can turn it off for towing) should be a good balance between power and reliability.

 

[BillGotthelf]

I believe the Mach 1's flow the same as the stock injectors. They will atomize the fuel better than stock though. With moderate power increases people have noticed fuel mileage increases also. You will see better mileage just by adding a set of 275 injectors after the first week or so and the lead foot syndrome goes away.

 

[y-knot]

I think that the moment you deviate from stock, and add any type of power enhancer is the point where you start reducing engine life. There are other that will undoubtedly disagree, but I think it true. You are asking the engine to work alittle harder, take alittle more heat, pull a bigger load, what ever the case might be, you are still reducing life. Now I really do not care it I have reduced my engine's life expectancy, I understood that way before anything was changed. I can live with the results, for me the trade off was well worth it.

 

[Diesel Freak]

something I posted a while back on NWB

Effective Full Power Hours: a term used to describe how old a nuclear reactor core is. It is used to track a core from initial criticality to end of life (EOL)



An ISB 275 is waranteed for 10000 hours. This 10000 hours would most likely be spent in an industrial application where the engine runs at rated speed and load for the entire 10000 hours. If this engine were in a Dodge truck with an average speed of 35 MPH, it would travel... 350000 miles.



Where am I going with this? People have been asking what BOMBing does to the life expectancy of these engines. Before you read any farther keep in mind that the engines will be running at full load and horsepower for their entire lifetime in this discussion.



If the engine is maintained perfectly it should last at least 10000 hours of operation at rated load and speed. 10000 hours at 275 HP gives us 2750000 effective full power hours for an ISB275.



Say for instance we BOMB an ISB to 350 rear wheel horsepower in a truck with a manual transmission. What we actually have is a 402 horsepower engine under the hood. If the engine is designed to last 2750000 EFPH, the life expectancy of the BOMBed engine is now 6840 hours if it were run at rated load and speed for its entire life.



Running a BOMBed CTD powered Dodge at full power for it's entire life is absurd. The truck would fall apart in the process. Since we can not measure the EFPH of the engine effectively once it has been bombed, the only way to measure life expectancy would be to measure the ammount of fuel the engine uses over its entire life.



An engine can only burn so much fuel before overhaul. If we raise the power level of the engine but not use the power... (or extra fuel) the engine if maintained perfectly should last over 10000 hours. Once we start using the added power (fuel) we start to reduce the lifespan of the engine.

 

[RustyJC]

To put it in Smokey Yunick's "good ole boy" vernacular - He was asked about hopping up an engine and what it would do to life expectancy. His response was, "An engine design only has so many horsepower-hours built into it. You can take out a little horsepower for a long time, or a lot of horsepower for a short time. Ya pays yore money and ya takes yore choice!"



Rusty

 

[JSandusky]

While I agree with the fact that adding a "little" more power probably doesn't significantly lower the life of our engines, I think a "lot" more power will.



We know these engines are built to put out close to 300HP continous power levels for long period of time (the life of the engine), as they are used in many industrial and marine applications and do just that.



But folks as strong as they are, there is a limit. There's a breaking limit. The crank will only take so much power before it breaks. The pistons will only take so much heat before they melt. etc, etc... .



So assuming you haven't found the breaking limit yet, what about engine wear and the life of the engine? The easiest way to sum it up I think is: If I have a 400HP truck and I drive it like a stock 235HP truck, it probably doesn't shorten the engine life any. However how many of us that have modified our trucks make sure we don't exceed the factory power levels or even the 300HP level? There wouldn't be any point in spending the $1,000's on all those mods if we didn't use the extra power.



If you exceed the factory engineered levels, you are probably causing more engine wear from the extra stress on components. How much will it shorten the engine life? Who knows for sure, but it will to some degree...

 

[DPelletier]

The bad news is you're all correct, the more power, the less engine life.

The good news is that our Cummins' are unique in thier longevity (in light duty trucks) and according to my calculations and based on my average yearly mileage, I won't live long enough to wear it out.



Dave

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Do you guys REALLY think Dodge doesn't want your engine to wear out?



The truth of the matter is IF YOU DONT modify it, in stock form it ain't gonna last that long! What's the number one enemy of a diesel engine



Excessive heat.



Dodge has managed to turn the 5. 9 engine into a freaking furnace! Why?



So it will perform well in a variety of task. The goal being to market the thing to the MOST people. Any truck with a trailer hitch and an exhaust housing 14cm2 or smaller is just asking for it.



And that is just how Dodge wants it.

 

[DPelletier]

EGT's have gotten higher, power levels have increased and turbo housings have gotten smaller. I have no doubt that the new engines won't be as long lived as some of the earlier versions. That having been said, I still expect the engine in my truck to outlast me. I plan on keeping my engine output stock, but any modifications I do will be to reduce EGT's. 4" exhaust, AFE and maybe even a DD turbo, if I think its necessary. In the meantime I will install and watch the pyro. My GCVW is around 16,000 lbs. I think the '04. 5's will have even higher EGT's due to the post-injection event and the heat required for the CAT.



Dave

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

WELL, actually, Cummins has gone on record as claiming an added 100,000 miles to the life expectancy of these engines - earlier ones were rated at 300,000 miles typical use, later ones at 400,000 miles...

 

[Froadin]

What about figuring in RPM to these figures? That amount of time at max power, at what rpm though? If you figure in that we can now make the same amount of power at a lower rpm, that could be adding to the potential lifespan of our motors.

Now, for all you 12v guys running the higher rpms, that is probably cutting down on lifespan more then the power, IMO.

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by Froadin

What about figuring in RPM to these figures? That amount of time at max power, at what rpm though? If you figure in that we can now make the same amount of power at a lower rpm, that could be adding to the potential lifespan of our motors.

If the RPM (and, therefore, piston speed) is lower and the same BHP is being produced, then BMEP must be higher. The lower piston speed would reduce ring/liner wear. The higher BMEP would increase ring/liner wear. Net-net, it may be close to a "wash".



Rusty