Why the Two-Stroke Diesel Was AHEAD of its Time
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лип 2023
- Today's world of heavy duty diesel engines is almost entirely dominated by large inline-six four-stroke engines, but that wasn't always the case.
As a matter of fact, there was once a point in time not too long ago where Detroit Diesel two-stroke engines dominated the market.
Follow all our accounts below!
linktr.ee/dustrunnersauto
Gear I use to shoot my videos:
(Buying through these links supports the channel)
Sony A7IV: amzn.to/3CaDvQY
Sony 24mm F1.4 GM: amzn.to/3C6sZKv
Rode Mic: amzn.to/2J0lrik
Tascam DR05: amzn.to/2LvYFjR
Neewer lights: amzn.to/2Xem68x
-Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS - Авто та транспорт
I’m a simple man, I see 2 stroke Detroit, I click
❤ we have that in common 😄
So do I.
Same, engines sound amazing.
I'm a simpler man, I see old engine, I click
This
I can't believe that you didn't include a sound clip of a 2 stroke diesel! They sound so freaking good!
Stood next to an English Electric Class 55 locomotive at Grantham Railway Station, here in Britain.
The noise of the twin 18 cylinder Napier Deltic engines inside the bodyshell
Crank the volume to 11
Just for you, just starting one of the engines
None of that silly camshaft, exhaust valve or cylinder head rubbish, lol
ua-cam.com/video/OQeQdhfyukA/v-deo.html
Exactly
He wants to hear himself talk.
UA-cam is full of those magnificent sounds........
Wow, thanks for saving my time, that’s the only reason I clicked on this
I was taught in diesel mechanic school by a navy vet instructor that a pair of 6-71s could be made to run opposite direction and built as mirrored twins for clockwise/counterclockwise propellers. It keeps the boat running straight in the water. The inlines could be assembled in a variety of ways. A great marine engine in WWII.
Not only could the engine spin either way, they could have the blower on either side and the head could be swapped left for right and the water pump and water outlet manifold could could be put on the head either direction. That cave the application designer the full flexibility on placement of the intake, exhaust and cooling piping along with the reversible rotation.
The engine had a camshaft and counter-rotating balance shaft. (The cam had balance weights in it too, but the balance shaft was a plain shaft with weights on both ends.) Between the crank and cam there was an idler gear that would engage the crank and either the balance or cam shaft. The mount bracket for the idler had centered mount holes but put the idler gear offset from centerline. Flip the bracket over, and now the gear engages the other shaft (swapping cam for balance or the reverse.) Now the rotation between the cam and the crank was reversed. The water pump, oil pump, fuel pump and blower all ran off the cam drive and they rotated the same direction regardless of cam rotation. The only thing that had to change was the starter to spin the engine the other direction.
The blower, water pump and water outlet manifold were easy. They simply bolted on the other side of the engine after swapping covers.
To reverse the head, the cam and balance shaft had to be swapped and the lifters and push rods went on the other side of the engine.
I worked on a ship in the 1970s. It had twin Detroit diesels, I think one screw was "pitched" opposite to the other one. No need to run one engine in reverse.
@@davidleskov5078 If one screw was pitched opposite the other, the ship would spin in circles if both propeller shafts turned the same direction.
Either the engines counter rotated, or there was a left and right hand gear box. Both are common; the opposite gear boxes would either have a different number of stages, or one stage would be spur gear on one side and planetary on the other.
For example, the cat 3208 is only made in one direction of rotation, and twin screw boats would use opposite hand gearboxes.
@@matthewbeasley7765 well, yes, there were gearboxes...we had reverse lol. I just meant I don't recall one engine running in reverse. You raise an interesting topic tho, if one engine was set up that way nobody mentioned it. A big advantage over 4 strokes! I do remember complaints about the non-turbo engines. The Turbo boats were almost twice as fast but burnt similar GPM.
I believe the reduction was what reversed rotation @@davidleskov5078
I drove semis with DD 8V92's, 6V92s and a 12V71,
They were powerful, reliable, and loud! That Buzzing Dozen was a blast todrive.
sounds fun
It had it's moments @@leontechtalks
look up Buzzing Dozen sound and enjoy
12v71 sounds like a 850 rotax etec turbo in a tractor pull truck!
And you are deaf as a post! I have driven for one day a V6 GMC and suffered for several days
One thing not mentioned was the fast acceleration of the 2 stroke over the 4 stroke diesel. The 8V-71 was fun to drive racing through the gears.
The duty cycle of each cylinder is doubled so :P
Use them in the pt boats in ww2,leak oil from the air box,avg diesel
Detroit Diesel built this country. Consider this: Detroit Diesel 71 series was designed in 1938, and essentially ran basically unchanged in design until Detroit went to four stroke with the 60 series in 1987. Almost 50 years unchanged, while CAT, Cummins, etc were constantly changing their engine designs and platforms. The CAT 3406 for example only ran from 1973 to 1987. So despite being designed in the 1930s, the Detroit Diesel remained a viable option for all sorts of applications until emissions finally killed it. Talk about timeless!
the Cummins N block started production in 1944 and is still being produced today!
3406 b-c-e after 1987.
And yet people love to hate detroit diesel. It's like the ouroboros.
Engineers back then knew their stuff.
@@bartlevenson7851guy who runs this channel might be smart bout something's is a complete idiot about others
I’ve seen one set for 10 years.
Started in less then a minute, after adding fresh fuel, new batteries, and good coolant. It’s the perfect prepper engine for generators.
Detroit Diesel: Converting Fuel To Music since 1938.
One of the biggest advantages of the two stroke diesel engine is in powering electric generators. The fact that “every stroke is a power stroke” as the marketing literature used to say, means two stroke engines react extremely fast to load changes. This is especially important when operating generators. Many stationary and marine generators are still driven by EMD, Detroit Diesel and Fairbanks Morse two stroke engine designs for exactly that reason.
Every second stroke dude
I have noticed in cold start videos and shifting videos where the truck has a detroit (damn it, I'm kinda a hick), they seem to respond almost like a gas engine rather than the big heavy mechanical injection diesel they are.
same with the snowmobiles
As a stationary engine running at constant rpm they emissions are not as bad either. Though not good either!
@@ldnwholesale8552 Sorry, but no. The emissions from two stroke diesels both NOx and PM10 far exceeds that of 4 stroke engines. Two stroke diesels are excellent generator prime movers, but poor from the emissions standpoint. Many have been modified to utilize dual fuel operation on 90% natural gas and 10% diesel which improves the particulate emissions, but does nothing for NOx. Detroit Diesel stopped manufacturing two stroke engines in the 90’s because of emissions.
Awhile ago I had read that this a company that make emission compliant parts (injectors, cams, pistons)for those older Detroit 2-stroke series diesels. Suppose to bring those engines up to Tier 2 emissions 2005 and earlier. Surprisingly parts are still widely available for those old Detroit's! They made over 4 million of those engines and about 1.5 million are still in use today world wide. It's been said that there wasn't a better engine that could turn fuel into noise and smoke! Love those old Detroit's!
If it isn’t Tier 0 I don’t want it.
That's the detroit curse! They are ungodly loud, smoke more than a coal locomotive, and leak oil faster than you can dump it in....and they can't be killed.
Detroit added the DDEC with EUI injectors to the 92 series. I believe it helped with power, fuel efficiency, and emissions but unfortunately the EPA killed 2 strokes.
Almosyt all crew bost use 12 71s or something from that series
And don't forget their external lubrication system. Lol
The Detroit Diesel design was also licensed to Minsei/Nissan Diesel starting in 1955, hence the trademark UD (or Uniflow Diesel).
i was a 91B in the army, wheeled vehicle mechanic, and in our older fueler trucks (HEMTT) they had the massive 8v92TA engine. dead nuts realiable and could could tow a freaking 6 stor building
1200 ft lbs will do that. But Californy said no can do.
Meanwhile today I am breathing air I can see in Michigan.
I guess Canada is burning the forests again.
So the tribes won't have a reason for rifles to hunt.
Also by the treaty that was signed the the Canadian government..
Guess afraid of the mass shooting of deer there too.
Seems like the California way got shipped above the Northern US Border.
I can hear the noise still ringing in my ears. Lol
I was a fueler and drove lots of them! One time we had to deliver an M978 (the 4 speed model) about 200 miles away and we were in a massive hurry. The older models didn't have a governor because they simply went about 50 or 55 at redline. I put the foot down and no shit had the RPMs in the ketchup for several hours and it didn't care at all
Didn't realize the HEMTT used the Detroit, thought they were always CAT powered, either 3406 or C15 depending on year. I knew the M1070 HETs used the 8v92 and the updated version used the monster CAT C18.
No ... Won't yank shit. Massive hp less torque than a a 10 liter inline 6
love the video but the smallest 71 series detroit is acualy the 1-71 or the one lug jimmy as they called it in the navy. they were and in some cases still are used on ships as emegancy pumps and generators due to thier abilty to run at full load for extended periods of time due to thier extremly good thermal efficnty. DD also made a 2-71 with a 180 degree firing order. also to give you an idea of how the detroit disel 2 strokes stand up to other disels. the 4-53 detroit is a 3.5L 4cyl 2 stroke that outpreformed the 12v cummins acorss all the years it was manufactured. it was lighter smaller and made more power, and had cylider sleves so it was rebuildable.
How did the 175hp and 402 torque of the 4-53T outperform all the 12v cummins across the board? That doesn't even outperform a 99 4BT (170hp 420 torque) let alone "the 12v cummins" 5.9 lol
@@agentwade mostly likely had a superior power band over all. The original cummins was "peaky"
@@ks_1111 Also which weighs more? I also know Detroit Diesel was also making these A12v92.
But the guy that was tuning the on the final line said they had to pull 1200hp in the '70s.
I also don't know if Tank Command detuned them.
Buut I think M-60s ( 78 tons loaded?) got replaced mostly to simplify any portable fuel station truck and towed fuel storage tank as a compatable fuel for choppers, trucks and tanks.
Back in the dark ages of solid color field uniforms.
DivArty had gasoline, Aviation gasoline, diesel & JP-4 to tote around.
To fill up the M151s, M109s, M110s, O1-Bird Dogs, Bell UH-1s, M-35s (it would burn any thing) & M37.
I don't think A12v92 would have any trouble burning JP-4 or 5 and a little non detergent 30 weight.
It also is water cooled.
But according to the chart that would be a A16v92? I don't think 4800 lbs would be a problem for M-60 tank.
Also 1200 HP
All I know is they would keep up with a loaded Deuce and a Half.
The official Army page says it was a AVDS-1790-2C 12 (5100lbs) 12 cylinder.
Maybe Detroit on Outer Drive was also making them? Then sending them to Mound Road?
@@agentwade Probably compared to a first gen 12v which was only 160/400... Kinda impressive a 3.5l made slightly more hp and torque than a 5.9l.
Yes very rare
I actually work on marine two strokes as a marine engineer it is pretty amazing being able to reverse the engine typically on older engines this is done by an extra lobe on the cam shaft then with shifting of the roller reversing the firing order of the engine. Some newer designed 2-strokes dont have camshafts at all its all done via computers and hydraulics.
Those monster 2 strokes in ships are crazy. I have heard basically all the modern ones use hydraulic valve actuation instead of camshafts to make reversing the engine easier and to allow more optimized performance, they can get away with it because those engines spin so slow cruising at like 50rpm and a redline of less than 90rpm.
Powersports 2-strokes are simpler still, many older ones had no valves of any kind except the throttle. My dad knew a guy whose Yamaha 500MX had the points timing set too advanced, and it kicked-back violently enough that it started itself backwards. Of course, at idle, it seemed perfectly normal. So the guy clicks it into gear, leans forward, revs it up, dumps the clutch, and the bike launches backwards into the forest while he does a couple confused somersaults in the dirt. Some old 2-stroke cars simply ran the starter backward to start the engine backward, obviating the need for reverse gear.
As usual, with any good thing, it comes to an end when government gets involved.
@@scottchapman9931 Wow, you wrote EXACTLY the same comment for another video. The government of Ecuador wasn't powerful enough to intervene when Texaco took all the Oil and left behind a tragic mess for the people living anywhere near where Texaco had been. I'm sure that THEY wouldn't mind a powerful government intervening on behalf of their health and livelihood but hey, you go ahead and keep lobbying UA-camrs to give up a government of, by and FOR the People.
@@mrvwbug4423 Most of my experience is limited to engine of about 10,000hp which is relatively small in the shipping world of two-stroke such engines are about 42cm bores. And yes they all have hydraulic exhaust valves as a pushrod wouldn’t have enough force to open such a valve yet it is still controlled by a lobe on the camshaft just instead of a pushrod it’s using hydraulic fluid and a air spring to return it closed. I’m referring to engines that have no such camshafts at all they are truly a feat of engineering!
You briefly mentioned GM purchasing Electro Motive Diesel at the beginning of the video. As a division of GM, Electro Motive (EMD) almost single handedly dieselized road freight and passenger trains in the 1940s and 1950s, also with a two stroke design, the 567. It went on to evolve into the extremely popular 645 in the 1960s. A further evolution into the 710 came out in 1985, and was in production for US railroad applications until 2014. The two stroke EMD 710 is still being produced for marine, export, and emissions credit locomotives to this day.
With the newest tier of emissions, many railroads have forgone new locomotives. Other than the emissions, locomotives have more or less plateaued power wise over about the last 25 years. As a result, many 710 two stroke powered locomotives are being rebuilt because they are grandfathered on emissions.
The EMD and Detroit two strokes were literally being designed simultaneously by the same lead engineer. That’s why you see so many similarities between the two engines (though I feel like EMD one-upped Detroit with a few features, like the combination turbo-supercharger and the over speed protection system).
Also as a correction, I have it on good authority from an EMD instructor, who taught us a course on engines and who has been with EMD since way back when they were owned by GM, that EMD actually still makes a tier 4 compliant 710. Problem is they had to use an SCR to do it which requires DEF fluid so it hasn’t been a big seller with the railroads when you have the 1010J and GEVO-12T4 that don’t require DEF .
@@speed150mph yes, EMD got the 710 engine certified to Tier-IV by using an exhaust treatment system. They are sold for marine and stationary use under the E23B name. There is also one test locomotive with a DEF 710 engine, Norfolk Southern 4800, a GP59 that was rebuilt into what EMD and NS call a GP34ECO.
I've also heard that EMD eventually managed to get the 710 to squeak by the Tier-IV threshold with DPF and EGR alone, but doing so resulted in significantly worse fuel economy, bad enough that they did not think the railroads would have any interest in it.
@@bobsmith2637 i
@@bobsmith2637.... Many of the "export" units from EMD, are still being ordered with the 710G. The Europeans decided to "attack" the lower emissions debacle with much better fuel quality & technology, rather than load the engines up with all manner of "add on" components and costs (and increased "headaches" / reliability issues!!), and that applies to all their diesels, including Semis, etc, according to a European Trade report I read a couple of years ago.
Cut my technician teeth on DD 2 strokes starting in the late 80's. Absolutely amazing that the original engine was designed on a drafting table especially considering the complexity and versatility. Funny to watch other manufacturers "borrow " the technology and then say that they are the first. Look at Cummins for example: First 2 piece piston, NO. First Comon Rail, NO. First Electronic controls, NO. Best warranty, NO. Most Reliable, NO. 16 Cylinder configurable, NO. I think you get the picture, I could go on for days.
Started working on trucks and heavy equipment in 82 while still in high school. Grew up in the hills of the Appalachian's in northern NJ so we had a lot of dairy farms, quarries and gravel banks, we were also a mining town (zinc ore). Our shop was small but we did everything in house, with the exception of fuel injection pumps. In chassis overhaul was the norm and we did all engines, with Mack being the most common because of all the quarries. (Mack was dominant in that field next to Autocar). Did a lot of Detroit's with the worst being that junk 6V92 (my opinion). I don't think I've seen more broken cranks ever. The most interesting job we ever did was for Dunn and Dunn well drilling Co. They blew up their 12V71 drilling rig with 300 ft of drill rod in the ground, while drilling on the side of a hill. They had it blocked up were you could almost walk under it. We rebuilt it outside on site. Detroit's did sound good when running.
I have two turbo charged 671's in my boat. love them, never have problems like the newer ECM controlled engines, and they sound awesome
Even in Australia these engines are infamous. So many old scrapers, trucks, graders, and logging skidders from the last century came with one, but rarely were those machines the fancy type: these were the toughest of the tough amd that's why people still rave about them.
Also if you want an idea of their power: the 225 timber jack skidder came with a 353 detroit. This motor is only 159 cubic inches or 2.6 litres in displacement, and the motor was apparently released in the late fifties. This motor had about 100 horsepower, and in a skidder, that already weighed around 8 tonnes could then haul another 6 or so tonnes off the back. If a 158 cubic inch diesel from the fifties moving 15 tonnes of weight all day every day doesn't impress you, then nothing will.
Is it the engine or the transmission’s gears that’s moving the tonnage?
@@davidvines6498both?
@@h8troodoh not sure.
The engine cannot move tonnage by itself. Neither can the transmission, but with the right gears, a rather weak engine can move mountains
200 ft-lbs @ 1,800 rpm off of three cylinders. Small rev range, but these type of engines will pull a house sideways down the street.
"The Detroit 3-53 is a two-cycle engine, which features a bore by a stroke of 3.875 by 4.5 inches, or 98 mm by 114 mm. The total displacement of the engine, as suggested by its name, is 3×53, equaling 159 cubic inches, or 2.61 liters. Comprising of three cylinders, the compressions ratio of this engine is 21 to 1. The engine offers a power output of 101 horsepower at 2,800 rpm, while it is known to provide a continuous gross power of 70 horsepower at 2,400 rpm. It produces a maximum torque of 205 ft-lbs at 1,800 rpm."
It was the gears for the 353.. was very efficient at converting diesel fuel into noise..
I liked Detroit Diesels In boats because you can nearly always get them to run well enough to get you back to port. Biggest in one of mine was a pair of 12V71TIs. 720 hp each.
General Motors did not design that engine it was designed by a company gray marine and General Motors bought them out
@@georgekester9846 I didn’t say DD developed those diesels. I never had a Graymarine in a boat, so I said DDs can nearly always get a boat back to port. That’s my experience anyway. And Graymarine is one word, BTW.
The USCG used two 6V53s in their 44' MLBs, a single 4-71 (IIRC) in their 36' MLB and two 6-71s in their 52' MLBs. One of the kewl things about the inline 71 series was that the same block/etc. could be used for left & right drive engines by swapping around the config of some of the components (the blower, etc.). They were indeed pretty easy to maintain and IME were robust.
@@laurenbish3116 Actually, the first dozen or so 44s had Cummins 300Ms and Capitol reduction gears. Then it was discovered that they wouldn’t continue to run upside down, so they were replaced with 6V53s. The new power plants were much lighter, so the boats now wouldn’t self-right. That’s why so much lead was added to them. My brother had one of the ones with the Cummins at Winchester Bay, OR, back in the 1970s. Personally, I think the 4-92s would have been a great choice had they been available when they were being built.
@@georgekester9846.... I don't know what "comic book" you got your information from, but NONE of what you stated with regards to Graymarine being bought out by GM Diesel, was or, is... true. In Fact... GrayMarine was bought out by Continental Motors in June of 1944, and continued in business until 1967, when Continental, shut them down and "closed the doors".
GM Diesel R&D... absolutely DID, clean sheet the series 71 engine between 1936 & 1937, when they built and ran their very first prototype engine... a 4-71, of which I have a framed Black & White, 8x10" photo of, taken just after it was fired up for the very first time.... given & signed to me, by P. Nicholas.. one of the three lead designers of the series 71, and who was also my mentor (after he retired from GM Diesel R&D in the summer of 1963) during three of my four years, studying Diesel Engine Design & Theory, specializing in 2 cycle Diesel.
I also worked under contract with DD, in an advisory position... regarding experimental engine design & scavenging systems for several years during the early 1970's.
GrayMarine (named after brothers, Paul & David Gray) "marinized" numerous "automotive" engines, not just GM Diesels.... the also utilized engines from Pontiac, Hercules, Continental, Studebaker, etc, etc.
A new two stroke diesel is actually being developed by Achates Power to meet cleaner emission standards. They are utilizing an opposed piston set up and lots of new technology for 3, 4, 6 cylinders layout for passenger and commercial applications. It's super neat tech and does let two stroke diesels back onto the road.
Fairbanks Morse developed two stroke opposed piston diesels in the 1930’s for marine and stationary power applications. They also saw some service as locomotive prime movers in the 1940’s. They are still made today and are offered as a dual fuel, Natural gas & Diesel engine. It can run on 10% diesel fuel and 90% natural gas.
@@billmoran3812 Commer trucks in England used an opposed piston diesel engine in the 1960’s. The engine was the Commer TS3.
The Germans had an opposed piston diesel powered bomber back in WW2. Junkers Jumo I think.
@@mikekokomomike I believe that's part of the inspiration for Achates' engine.
Opposed piston two stroke and 4 stroke diesels powered the Zeppelins of the 1930's.
The genius (in the in-line Graymarine then GMs) was that with one pile of parts and two starters you could assemble an engine in eight different configurations- blower left or right, exhaust left or right, and CW or CCW rotation.
For the inline 71 series yes - not the 53 series IIRC. Not sure about others - I only had experience with the two series.
We saw a lot of 92 series Detroit Diesels. 8v92 were in a lot of GMC Astros
Trailways Bus ?
@@davidpowell3347 Buses had the 6v92T often.
So was the 318.
We had 2 of them. Super and turbocharged. They would cover you with oil and grease if you just thought about them.
I was a firefighter for 38 years starting in the early 1980's. When I first started with the fire department all of our newest fire apparatus were power by the 8V92 TA paired with an Alison automatic transmission. These rigs where absolute rockets. I worked in the maintenance shop for a short time before I was hired full time as a firefighter. We had to replace the drive line on all of these rigs because they used too light of tube for the driveline and they were breaking them because of the torque. Sadly the Detroits gave way to Cummins 4 stroke engines.
There was also a 1-71 and 2-71 ever since the 30’s also. In 1951 they made a 51 series that was a valveless engine too but they were unreliable and made obsolete when the 53 series was introduced.
TugboatMatt.... the Series 51 was Far from being "unreliable"... in fact, were even more reliable than the Series 71 and the 53, incredibly reliable as they were. Also, the Series 51 was Not discontinued when "the 53 series was introduced". The Series 53 came on line in March, 1957... same year as the introduction of the "V" Series 71 platform. The Series 51 continued in production through late November of 1959.
@TugboatMatt.... Sorry, but that is NOT true. You Are correct about the initial year of production... however, the rest of your statement is false. The Series 51 was primarily designed for marine use in smaller fishing boats and marine log skidders at pulp & paper mills. The 2 cylinder versions were primarily found on smaller, commercial Gensets and Irrigation pumps.
They were EXTREMELY Reliable, and very, Very efficient in reduced fuel use. The 51 was manufactured through Nov. 1959 and were available in 2 and 4 cylinder inline configurations. They were also designed as a Loop Scavenged platform with "timed" Intake.. AND, Exhaust Ports... unlike the five other series of Detroit Diesels (Marketed as GM Diesel/GM Diesel Power until mid-1965) which were of the Uniflow design with In-head exhaust valves, with either 2 or 4 valve options per cyl until the mid/late 1960's.
Detroit 2 strokes are still super popular in DOD applications, and airport fire fighting as well. Our airport has two teledyne trucks with 8V92T that have been in service for 30 years
I have a 671 in a crown school bus with a 10 speed Eaton transmission. Running through the gears it's so much fun. I love to drive that bus more than I do my Corvette.
I have an 8v71 in my MC-5 with a spicer 4sp. It's a bit counter intuitive to have to run a diesel to the rev limiter.. but man it sounds great!
You stick to what you know. You know more than most of us. You tell the story in a unpretentious no bullshit kind of manner. There's no stupid background music playing way to loud: That's a thumbs up from this guy.
I'm not an American but, I know and love Detroit Diesel with their 2-stroker diesel.
See, DD release the 6-71 with 238hp output (hence most people back then called it "Detroit 238" or just "The 238") with 6.98 litres of displacement, meanwhile, Cummins put out 220hp from 12.7 litres of displacement, the NH series. The then managed to get 275hp by centrifugal-supercharging it.
After that, Detroit came up with 8V-71 with 318hp (Detroit 318 or just called it "The 318") with 9 litres of displacement. Then Cummins give out 300hp from a 14-litre NT series with turbocharging.
Noted that the Detroits were Naturally Aspirated (they have big roots-blower in order to make them move, so it is naturally aspirated) and the fuel consumption is nearly the same.
Because they really near the edge of 71 series power output, they came by enlarging the bore from 108mm to 123mm called the 92-series, so the 8V-71 is now equal to 6V-92 and the fuel consumption is "a bit" less than an 8V-71.
The 53-series really are competing with petrol engines and small diesels for light-duty trucks (I don't know small diesels for light truck in America that time, so I kind of not really know about history of 53-series or their competitors).
After emissions gettinf stricter in the late 80s, Detroit makes 4-stroke diesels, the 60-series for a 6-cyl and 50-series for 5-cyl in 90s. But, the series 92 get a new Electronic injection, from DDEC (Detroit Diesel Electronic Control) I up to IV and most of them going in millitard and buses, trucks are slowingly turned to 60-series. Mind you, the series 53 and series 71 is passed away in the late 70s/early 80s.
If I put the list of diesel engine for trucks and buses :
1. Cummins (prove of efficiency, good sounding, reliable, and affordable)
2. Detroit Diesel (new boy with promise of POWEEEEEEEERRR, simplicity, easy-to-use, astonishingly beautiful as well as most distinctive sound, and make you thinking "is this thing leaking oil or not?")
3. Caterpillar (the badass reliable piece of diesel which some of their road-going diesels came out from tractor/heavy machinery equipment, e.g. bulldozers, thus make it pricier and their clattering sound which is beautiful)
4. Mack (underrated reliable engine but they just made for their marque)
5. International Harvester (they do build diesels)
Then, International are out, followed by Caterpillar in 2010s and there is new boy in the corner, PACCAR.
I've got a detroit "318" 8v71n in my bus. By far the coolest engine I own. I love firing it up with with the rear controls to show people. I always grab the throttle lever and rev it up to the governor. So far only one friend didn't run for the hills when that thing hits 2400rpm. It sounds like it's absolutely screaming especially from less than 2 feet.
interesting, since the 71 in the name is the litres per cylinder. 7.1 litres displacement per cylinder in the 71 series. 9.2 in the 92 series.
@@jaquigreenlees no, it isn't in litres, it is in cubic inches since USA use Imperial systems...
If it converted into litres or Metric ways, it is I think around 1.164 litres per cylinder
@@jaquigreenlees 😂 my bus engine would be over 56 liters! Now that's a real dog 318hp 56,800 cc v8... hilarious
@@jaquigreenlees The “71” and “92” designations refer to 71 cubic inches and 92 cubic inches, not liters. The “51” designation refers to 1951, the year the 51 engines came on the market. The 51 engines were replaced by the 53 series which had 53 cubic inches of displacement per cylinder.
The 53 series was utilized in OTR as well. My father owned probably 6 trucks with 8v-71s. Although they were leaky they provided a great service and was cheaper to overhaul than the NTC at that time.
My family had 71 Series in semi trucks, and 53 in C70 straight trucks. Ease and cheapness of parts was the main reason for the choice. The other was because many relatives worked for GM.
Great information! I was in the fire service and we were told Detroit diesels were popular in fire apparatus applications because they performed well off a cold start. Other diesels at the time were sluggish until they warmed up. I remember our department took delivery of a pumper in the early ‘90’s with a 6-71N and it leaked oil on the floor that first day! Lots of turbo lag but once it kicked in it would sing.
Old trucker here,...Have driven the Detroit engine for a time in my life ... A phrase we would commonly say is: "If it doesn't leak, it's not a Detroit".
@@grandinosourSome things never change, love my Detroit. If puddle on the ground gets smaller, it's time to add some oil.
6-71. The engine that launched a thousand drip pans.
I absolutely love Detroit 2 strokes. Pure artwork! Great video and info! Ty.
P&H (P&H cranes) made two stroke diesel engines. They were very similar to Detroit's.
They had aluminum blocks. I have a six cylinder version with two scavengers and the biggest turbo I have ever seen. Very cool engines.
On another note there is a guy on UA-cam that converted a Detroit to common rail. Quite an achievement.
Look into Achates Power. They have a 2-stroke design that looks very good. It can meet todays emissions but I think with the push for electric vehicles they haven't been able to create any demand.
I used to work for them, hence my comment about 2 stroke diesels actually being able to meet emissions regs
Ive got a 4 stroke 6.5 Detroit, they had a bad wrap but nowadays theres alot of aftermarket support to make these engines stout! Gone over 13k miles in the past 8 months with the ol girl coming up on 300k miles and alot done to it thanks to QuadstarTuning
I bought a navy boat built in 1942 with the original 3-71 detroit and rebuilt it myself 3 years ago. I have never worked on a diesel before, but the parts were easily found and were relatively cheap considering they were bigger than any of the gasoline engines i worked on before. the engine came apart so easily and i was able to replace the cylinders pistons rod and crank shaft bearings etc in place in the boat. I sent the head out to a machine shop. I have never had such an easy time than with this engine, and it started up first time i tried and has been running so reliably it is amazing.
I was in the scrap industry in the 70-90. We ran 3-71s and 6-71s on a variety of equipment . Bullet proof. Powerful.
That was quite interesting on how tge two-stroke diesel engine works. I remember when I was in high school. Were made a small one cylinder steam engine. It worked similar to the two-stroke diesel. Steam went thru one port. It's port Were at the top.
1-71 was the smallest 71 series. There was one next to the GTMO Boat Shed back in the late 80's. Just used to pull barrel boats out of the water. Was a cute little engine.
Excellent presentation from both the historical and technical side!
This was very informative. Thank you so much. Though, like one other commenter said I'm a little sad and in disbelief you did not include an audio clip or video clip of a running Detroit. Their sound is very unique
Detroit Diesel name didn't happen until 1965. 1938-1965 they were called General Motors Diesel.
I think you "copied" (trying to be civil about it).... that knowledge from me.
@@Romans--bo7br Common knowledge
@@Tchristman100... thanks for your reply. No, it's Not "common knowledge" among the vast majority, based on the thousands of various comments I've read on "u-tube", over the years, since my retirement and even before, somewhat.
Most of the comments regarding the venerable 2 cycles are based on shear Myths that have persistently existed over the decades, masquerading as truth... especially regarding torque outputs, among many other numerous comments... while being entertaining and sometimes even evoking a good, hearty laugh at the ignorance of the subject at hand, at the same time.
Anyway, that's a whole other subject matter. Thanks again and take care.
Great Video. You have stated the fact that these engines were and still are a good engine.having built quite a few along with Cummins and Cat. They can hold their own in the world of diesel engines. Love the sound of those V-12 Detroits. Nothing comes close
Dust Runners Automotive Journal, you make great videos. Thank you !!!!
Someone probably covered it but the reason buses mostly used DD engines was you moved one gear and you had an engine running in reverse that could them easily "push" the bus. You could also pancake the in-line engines. Lay it horizontal. Flat left or Right. Not a problem. Marvelous engine for its flexibility. The 3 cylinder cam also worked in the V6. 3 cylinder head worked on the 6V. 4 cylinder head worked on the 8V and the 16V. The 6 cylinder head worked on the 12V. Blowers were flexible too. 2 6-71 blowers on the 12V. 2 8V-71 blowers on the 16V. This was true for the 53 and 71 series. I don't remember a V block for the 110 series. Really loved by the military for the flexibility. Cut down on parts inventory.
The down side was they did not like to run hurt. Also they were lower on torque so you shifted more in a truck. In the early 70's Mack did a comparison with a Cat, DD, and N855 Cummins compared to their Maxidine in a drive from LA to NYC. Fuzzy memory but something like 5800 shifts for the Mack. 10,000 for the Cat. 12000 for the Cummins and 18000 shifts for the DD. Many people told me as a young truck driver if you had a DD to slam your hand in the door first thing in the morning and stay mad at the engine all day. Because of the high pitched whine of the engine, you could drive it all day and sleep with the noise all night.
I guess that if you could keep them cool you could really get a lot of power out of them. In a marine application, I understand that you could get upwards of 400 hp out of an in-line 6-71 (different injectors) from an engine that was referred to as a 238 (standard 6-71 or 6V-71 with N65 injectors??) in the trucking world. Big issue was keep'em cool and wound up!
All this love for 2 stroke Detroits. Talk to anyone who drove trucks with them, and drove Cat, Cummins, Mack, Or 60 Series. None want to return to "The Best Engine Ever DesignedTo Turn Fuel Into Noise". They were remarkable in many ways, not on the road.
I have heard the opposite. I am not a trucker myself, but the drivers I loaded loved them. They said they needed to turn a little faster than the 4 strokes to perform their best. We had one customer still running a Freightliner Cabover. A lot of custom work. It was the best-looking truck I have ever loaded. I am pretty sure he said it had an 8V92TA with bigger injectors and turbo. He said he could pass any modern truck on the road but not the gas station. 😂
The 71 series was in all thinkable configuarations 1-71 2-71 3-71 4-71 (have heard about 5-71) 6-71 and so on and the best thing with those engines is that they use the same pistons,sleevs valves injectors and more so the parts where easy to find,those engines was so simple build so if you had an piston ring brakedown and if you need to rebuild the engine the time after you had the engine on the stand and start to take it down and build it up should not take more than 12-14 hours if you work effictive and have an little crane to help with lifting
A bit of a over simplification on the parts required, not to mention say fitting of the liners, rebuilding heads/blowers, governors.
I was an engine man aboard U.S. Navy riverboats on the Mekong river in 1968-1969 (Rivron 13). There were many boats (hundreds?) in all the divisions, equating to a pair of 6-71s in each. The boats were all almost all made from WW2 landing craft, LCM-6s. The engines were designed to push a 64 ton boat. After conversion to riverboats, where 20 more tons of armor and weapons were added, the 6-71s were severely over worked and much abused. In my time serving I never saw or even heard of an engine failure, unless explosives were involved. Only thing I saw kill them were B-40 RPGs. Change the oil, keep water out of the fuel system, and they Never failed. I get a lump in my throat just thinking about those wonderful motors. Of course I'm almost deaf as a post on account of those screaming SOBs running in a 10x10x6 metal room....
I drove a single axle GMC road tractor two stick 10 speed with 6-71 Detroit Diesel. Foot to the floor Rpms screaming never letting off shifting as fast I could man that was a ripper. Hasn't been any thing else I drove could compare. I'm a Diesel Technician 23 years in the trade.⚒️
Love the sound of a 2 stroke Detroit…. Have 3 of them in rts buses
Most ships nowadays have the engine running an electric generator and use motors to spin the propellers. Lot easier to reverse, and much more compact than needing a massive driveshaft.
Trains have been doing it that way for forever! So yeah, pretty smart for ships to adopt that. Seems to be a pretty efficient way to go about it... and you don't have to worry about burning out a clutch.
Maybe warships and some azipod systems on cruise ships and big ferries. Cargo ships are literally the simplest drive system imaginable, gigantic 2 stroke diesel, the prop shaft is bolted directly to the flywheel, no gear box just direct drive, they reverse by stopping the engine and re-starting it in reverse (2 stroke diesels can run backwards).
@@mrvwbug4423fascinating..I never knew that🎉
Would just like to add. My Dynahoe-190 with its SMALL 353 it was standard at a digging depth of 19 feet. I ran a 190 in 1979 digging sideswewer stubs. It dug through Hard pan like no sweat. Thats why I bought a used one. The power my 190 digs is just out of this world, tree stups no problem. The Dynahoe backhoe was the most powerful Backhoe of its time. I am always amazed at what it can dig with that 353. Its my baby, the things I have done with this 19000 pond beast is just unrealistic. And remember Bucyrus built the backhoe fram into the whole machine, not an add on Backhoe. 😊
We used the Detroit diesel 60 series in the Coast Guards RBM hooked up to a reduction gear and jet driven... probably the coolest boat I've ever worked on!
I wonder how many US military vehicles have a diesel particulate filters and DEF injections systems on them?(Sarcasm) The 2 stroke diesel could be run in reverse unintentionally as well, along with the capacity to run on high concentrations of oil they could runaway. The 3 cylinder head was directly communicated to the 6V71, the 4 cylinder head was directly communicated to the 8V71 and so on for ease of inventory. I believe you left out the 92 series Detroit as well, but those only came only as V engines. Great vidya. Nothing sounded like a V8 Detroit supported by a 13 speed when the driver hit every gear. The tonality never seemed to change until the driver hit the high side of the gearbox. Cheers.
lmao i coiuld tell you from experience absolutely zero
When I was an apprentice diesel tech a driver came in with a 2 stroke Detroit...he fired it up and it ran in reverse , before I even knew what was going on an old timer tech in the shop goes running over like super man ( swear to God I have never seen him move so fast even when we had a fire in the shop ) rips the breather off and shoves a board over the inlet of the turbo ... Then gives the driver shit... Saved the engine though .
6v71 turbocharged was better than the 8v71, i drove a truck with the 6v71 turbocharged and that engine would just light up and go! I love the screamin jimmy!
I've heard that as well with 6V92TA ran stronger than 8V92.
Just so you know there are so many variations of injectors, tunes, and turbos as well as people who think they can tune a Detroit that it is impossible to blame the series for the performance or lack there of.
The 6v92TA was a transit bus engine and the 8v92 was used in trucks. They literally had thousands of HP and torque variations of both. Some with throttle delays and some without plus you could replace the yeild link with a solid one for marin only applications, that changed there throttle response by ten fold.
Very informative! Thanks very much!
Two stroke Detroits were everywhere in the oilfield and earth moving equipment. The absence of electrical components was a plus for zoned applications.
A company called Achates Power are reintroducing a 2 stroke opposed piston engine to the military and vehicles. Also recall that 2 stoke diesels were quite the rage in Britain for a time with Tilling Stevens opposed piston engine and Foden also had a 2 stroke. I'm sure there are others I don't know of.
Achates Power is a opposable piston two stroke that is a remake of a design that has been around since 1882. They also are in testing it in one of Walmart's 579 Petes for the California Air Resource Board. It already meets the 2027 Regulations which is far ahead of the modern 4 stroke engine being made today. They are also working on a hydrogen version.
I would switch my 8v92 for one when available just for the fuel savings... but nothing beats the sound of a two stroke diesel!
One of the most famous British designs of 2 stroke diesels is the Napier Deltic engine built for marine use. This unique engine had 18 cylinders (a 9 cyl unit was also built) with opposed pistons arranged in triangular formation, with a capacity of 5370 cu in. The three banks of 6 cylinders (36 pistons) had three crankshafts (one at each apex of the triangle), and one crankshaft contra rotated to the other two to overcome a piston phasing problem. It was a very compact and lightweight unit of high power output. One of these engines was used in the famous New York Fire Dept "Super Pumper" fire tender from the 1960's and was rated at over 2200 bhp. Luckily, this unit has been preserved.
Seems like alot of people here have rose tinted shades.
I work on these for a living and no they're not great engines.
They are an engine that worked for it's time.
Practical out of date by the 50's.
They do work good in boats and thats what its main goal was.
They weren't that good in trucks.
You cannot get the power to fuel consumption out of them like a four stroke.
It's a flathead V8 compared to a SBC.
The fuel consumption was horrible on these and the noise is extremely loud(screaming jimmy).
These engines are dinosaurs compared to what we have had in the last 40 years.
More so its people holding onto nostalgia over accepting the fact it got outdone years ago.
Well said
Yeah but we gotta hand onto somethin
Uncle used to irrigate with a slew of 3-71 & 4-71 Detroits. They ran for days on end in the same spot, pulling water up 600’ or more.
I remember how the oil soaked dirt around them would bead up water when pivots passed over. Also changed oil with them running. Just crack the drain valve, add a jug of oil while same-ish amount drained out.
When I Graduated from High School, Back in 84. I Worked @ A Large Family Owned Welding & Fabrication Shop 2nd Generation. One of There Long Time Customers Came in During The Off Season To Get Work Done on His Logging Truck. It Had A V-12 Detroit Diesel Under The Hood, """ THAT """ !!! Was An Impressive Slight !!! He Said For The Last 30 Years He's Had The Fastest Logging Truck On the Mountain. It Was Twin Turbo & Supercharged.
The Supercharger Would Get Him Moving, Then @ About 1300 to 1500 The Turbos Would Kick in To Red-Line. He Could Pull More Logs To The Mill Per Load, And Run Back Up The Mountain Faster Than Any Truck. He Said On Average He Delivered Two More Loads A Day Than Any Other Driver
GMC 2 strokes could run backwards. I used to haul logs with them. If you were lifting off on a tough spot and almost stalled it, they could kick back and run backwards. Very unsettling the first time it happened to you. Smoke coming out the breathers, sounds like it was going to blow up.
Fun fact, 2nd generation Cummins that were in dodge pickups could also run backwards. My son did it while backing my boat into the water. I knew what it was but he was quite upset. Got out, made me drive and never drove it again.....haha, poor kid.
Never knew a 4 stroke could do that, bet that was an attention getter on the boat ramp🤣🤣
I frequently work on the 4 cyl Detroit supercharged 2 stroke diesels. Run them all the time. They last forever. we joke and call them three strokes, as that moment at BDC is called scavenging, (if it has a name, its a stroke lol).
Awesome video! well done. I really hope someone makes a new opposed piston 2 stroke diesel.
At least this company tried: www.youtube.com/@AchatesPowerInc/videos
here you go mart.cummins.com/imagelibrary/data/assetfiles/0058689.pdf
When I was an EN in the Navy I worked on 271 generator sets, 671 landing craft engines LCM, and 610 for Box L's. All of them worked great. By using the transmissions you move a LCM side ways to tie up to another boat or the pier. The Box L's looked like minature tug boats (65ft long) and were use to trans port sailors to where they needed to go. The hardest thing you can do on a boat is install the oil pump on a slant 671 in a 36 Ft OMB. Not fun. One problem we had was the copper fuel line that ran down to the the fuel pump on the front of the blower. The vibration could cause the copper to crack. That sprayed fuel into the Roots blower. Nothing important happened to the engine, but you couldn't shut the engine down util you wraped a rag around the line so you could get back across the Clyde to the tender. EN 1
I love the 3-71 in our 1946 Allis Chalmers HD7 crawler. The sound is amazing and it starts no matter how long its sat in the woods waiting for service. Wish they could come back.
The 2 stroke Detroit Diesel engine design goes back even further to Germany in around 1880’s . The exact origins are cloudy at best. The concept/design past through a couple of companies and made it to the USA around 1900 and Winton wound up with it and in all this Electro Motive diesel also purchased the rights to the design in this time period. So it’s kinda amazing that somebody in Germany came up with it but it wasn’t Rudolph Diesel or Mr Benz. But with GM perfecting the unit injector the engine really took off.
A lot of the Uboats during WW1 used a 2 stroke diesel engine...
☹🇬🇧
MrMopar413.... Better stick to your MoPar's. lol The Series 71 GM Diesels were Entirely R&D'ed "In-House" during late 1936, through the fall of 1937, the first prototype was fired up in late fall (Nov.) of 1937... which was a 4-71.
Two stroked are being tested as an opposed piston setup. EloctroMotiveDivision still used two strokes for locomotives, ships, and power production.
Drove trucks with 6N71 (238) and 8V71 (318) engines for years. The Roots style compressor was used to pressureize the the crankcase for the intake air. This could cause a problem if idled for long periods of time, like to keep the engine and driver warm in winter overnight parking. (starting an engine in cold weather was an art form) (this was what I was told, never happened to me) The fuel system would load up and the idle speed would start to rise. If not caught it would bypass the injection system governor and the RPM would rise to dangerous levels so high that it would suck oil out of the engine and run on that even with the fuel cut off. The engine could rev itself apart. So Detroits had two shut off cable pulls the normal one cut off fuel (or compression release I forget which I just drove them) and the emergency shut off closed the air intake.
Two strokes have a problem (well sort of) they rev easy (two strokes develop 2/3 the power of a four stroke twice as often) but they lack torque. So to keep one moving, as in up hill, you had to keep the RPMs up which required lots of fast down shifts. Just little hills would require a shift or two when a four stroke might not. Get behind the torque curve, or miss a shift, and it would take a long time to get your speed back up.
Detroit engines would never rust, they were always coated in oil. If one stopped using oil it was getting ready to fail. And there was often a puddle, or brown spot, under where they were parked.
The run backwards feature was useful in marine use. Some boats worked better if the shafts of two engines turned in opposite directions. So rather than have a gear that changed the shaft rotation, with a Detroit you could get an engine reverse kit from Detriot and have one engine run backwards.
They were not exactly fuel efficient, but with 19 to 21 cents per gallon not a big deal. I talked to a driver who had a 12V71 Freightliner, Powerliner. He said he got about 2.8 miles per gallon.
One story of a Detroit truck: back in the 70's there were a group of trucks going down the interstate and they discovered the state weigh station was open and one of the group was overweight. They got in line to get weighed with the heavy truck rear the back. The Detroit truckdriver choked the engine off "accidentally" while on the scale and covertly pulled the engine shut off cable. (they were on the floor) The starter will work but the engine will not start (it will spin a little faster than normal). As the driver "tried" to get his truck to restart the line got longer so the DOT started waving trucks around the scales. After a while one of the "good ol boys" DOT men walked up to the truck and asked the driver if his over weight buddy had been waived around? The driver said yes. So the DOT guy said Ok then you can go now. The driver pushed down the shut off nob started the truck and went on his way. (the DOT guy knew by the engine sound what he was doing) A different world back then I guess.
I have a 1976 Ford F250 4X4 Crewcab, 4 speed with a 5831 Spicer auxiliarly 3 speed with Overdrive, NP205 & a Kingpin Dana 60 powered by a 4-53T that runs great and I hope to keep it running as long as I can.
Always thought, but didn't know for sure, that the name Detroit, came from GMC having sales to both Ford and Mopar, wanted to have the " GMC " logo removed from their lineup . The GMC Diesels were exactly the same as the Detroits, except for the rocker covers, that had a large GMC emblem stamped in the sheet metal covers . In any event there were probably thousands of GMC and Chevy trucks with GMC stamped rocker covers .
Cockshutt tractors had GM engines with maple leaf GM logo. A blower with no turbo, and about 100hp in the 1960’s. Many still running well to this day.
@@colinwallace5286 ,,, sounds like 53 Series, and maybe only 2 cylinders . I'm 99 percent sure, Detroit rocker covers would bolt on .
technically it could come back but only in something like an opp engine would still have an egr and dpf system
But could it put out competitive power with modern 4 stroke diesels and still pass emissions? Cummins X15s can put out up to 600hp/2050tq bone stock along with DD16s, D16s, and that's just North American spec engines. Euro spec D16s can put out 750hp/2550tq and Scania V8s up to 770hp/2650tq all in stock form. If I recall 12v71s top out at like 1400tq and 8v92s at 1200tq
⚓️1961 when I joined the Navy they introduced me to the 671 Jimmy , and I retired with the knowledge of two-stroke engines(EMD, Fairbanks Moore’s etc. etc.)
I worked at a Detroit Allison repair shop years ago, I was mainly the transmission guy we got a lot of fire trucks most had 8v71 2 strokes and Allison 5 speed automatics, perfect for getting to a fire fast, they sounded so good and made lots of power at a higher rpm than most diesels, what killed the 2 strokes was fuel usage they were thirsty
If the opposed piston engine gets traction the two stroke diesels may make a comeback.
The unfortunate thing is, most of the world is hell bent on battery electric motors.
Here in Blighty, we lose the ICE in 2030.
Seeing the Achates (?), I would love to see a Deltic version (9 cylinder, triangle)
Detroits can be run backwards also (although not easily). It was the best engineered engine of it's time, and could be reconfigured in several different ways (like swapping the front and back of the engine). V-1710 Allison engines could also run backwards with a minor change, one of the few gasoline engines that could do so from that era. Both of them were GM products.
They were both 2 strokes but the v-1710 was a poppet valved u-loop scavenged 2 stroke. i got a detroit silver 8v92 out backs
@@jlo13800... The Allison V-1710 engine (V12) was NOT, a " poppet valved u-loop scavenged 2 stroke." It was (and Still is, in use) a 4 cycle Gasoline engine. The GMD/Detroit Diesels were Uniflow scavenged with In-head exhaust valves.... they were, and Are Not.. "loop" scavenged. The Only "Loop Scavenged" GM Diesel ever designed as such, was the (now) very rare, 2 & 4 cylinder.. Series 51.
The 1710 could and has been converted into 2 stroke on tractor pulls.while nowhere near as powerful as the 10 port Napier Nomad 2 stroke it was still pretty impressive. The Rolls Royce Crecy 2 stroke was an oil injected sleeve valve otherworldly thing.
@@jlo13800... thanks for your response. What pulling teams had 1710 Allisons, converted to "2 strokes", and under which sanctioning body??
I was deeply involved in the Pro-Semi class of the "sleds" for years, and seen a lot of Allison's, at all the different tracks we pulled at.. but Never a "2 stroke" conversion of one.
the hardest tool steel m50 nil roller bearings for ever brapp
As someone that ran 16 v 71’s this nostalgia on Detroits is nauseating.
I have been around for a bit and OMG they were cool. Everytime I hear one in a truck I will try hard to run out to see it go by. Really cool sound.
The best sounding diesel engines ever!! The model number of the engine was simple. The first number is the amount of cylinders and second was the cubic inch size of the cylinder. So a 6-71 would be a 6 cylinder with 71 cubic inches per cylinder, and so forth. Also, the "V" in between the numbers signified if it was a V configuration. Did I mention how awesome they sounded? 😅
I'm in favor of getting rid of the EPA. Anybody else? Well I firmly believe in cleaner exhaust systems. There comes a point of no return. It's called the point of diminishing returns. You can only get so clean until the engine won't run. We need much more sanity in the regulatory process.
Evidently we haven't reached that point. Thus far engines have been getting cleaner AND more powerful. Note that GM, RAM, and Ford's diesels have gained more power from the same engines. Example: Ford's 6.7 had 400 hp and 800 lbs torque in 2011. The same engine has Up to 500 hp and 1200 lbs torque in 2023. During that time emissions standards have also gotten stricter. Each time the EPA raised standards, manufacturers said it was impossible to meet those standards. But each time they've managed to do it. Eventually they will reach their limits, but without pressure from the EPA, they won't even try. As a mechanic, I've witnessed diesels go from being so dirty they'd stink up the shop before I could back it outside to the point that i have to remember to open the door and turn on the exhaust fan just because I know I should. The exhaust pipes of modern diesels aren't even black inside anymore. Yes, the EPA needs to be kept in check. But by no means should it be abolished. I like clean air and water.
@@dmandman9 I like clean air and water as well as a conservative and a conservationist. It isn't necessary do try to clean every last possible hydrocarbon carbon monoxide or oxide of nitrogen molecule out of the exhaust of gasoline or diesel engines. Bringing it down 97% of what it was in 1960 when there was no pollution control whatsoever is more than sufficient as the atmosphere will clean the rest of it itself. A little bit more realistic regulation would make more sense. As for carbon dioxide that is not a pollutant. Carbon monoxide is a deadly dangerous pollutant. As it will kill its victim by robbing it of oxygen. Carbon dioxide in any amount is absolutely essential for life to exist on this Earth. In fact that the carbon dioxide drops too low all life will cease to exist. There is no evidence of a problem if it gets too high. It is not a heat-trapping gas. Water vapor traps far more heat than CO2 is capable of. Again we need a more realistic approach to emissions.
GREAT stuff man!
When I was in the Army, a lot of our heavy equipment and trucks ran on Detroit Diesel engines. They were super charged/turbo engines, and boy did they scream!
Another limitation of the 2-stroke blower scavenged engine is the low-end torque is not as great as the 4-stroke engine. The way you drive a Detroit Diesel was before you got into the cab, slam the door on you hand so that you were good and mad and slam the thing through the gears like you hated it. The 2-stroke would gain revs quicker than a 4-stroke, so keep the "Jimmy" screaming at all times.
They sound so furious when ya do that too. 2 strokes having double the combustion events per rotation make them sound like they're doing double the RPM of a 4 stroke. haha
Great noise.
Most modern ships no longer use that style of direct propulsion that require reversing the engine.
Most ships use a variable pitch propellers to change direction.
This too is getting replaced by pod drives and other different types of directional thrust drives on smaller coastal/port ships.
Depends on the ship. The giant container ships, supertankers and largest bulk carriers still use drive drive because it's the most efficient and they want the best possible fuel efficiency to maximize profit. Passenger ships of course went to azipods 30 years ago. And warships are usually some form of COGAG mixed diesel/turbine propulsion system with electric drive on newer designs if they aren't nuclear. And only the US has mastered nuclear powered surface ships, the reactors on the Kirovs are underpowered and can only move the ship at a slow cruise, they have to spin up the gas turbines to supplement the reactors to achieve combat speed.
@@mrvwbug4423 The Soviets try not to have a nuclear disaster, challenge [impossible]. The Kirov had a significant event involving its reactor.
this isn't true.
I used to work on these in the early 70's, they were built like a brick ___t house.
There was the 3 valve head called the "N" series which was a little more efficient.
They used these in busses and marine applications
A great video brings back memories.
Thanks
They were used in just about Everything..... and there was NEVER a "3 valve head". The "N" designation has Nothing to do with how many exhaust valves were in the head, per cylinder (2 or 4).
…excellent and most informative THANK YOU KINDLY !
Noisy, smokey, and no low end torque. They only ran decent when you had the rpms "screaming" up high where the powerband was.
I never cared much for their sound either.
Gimme a 4 stroke diesel engine with plenty of grunt down low any day.
That said, they had their place, and time.
Fair.
Though I disagree on the sound. They do sound great if you ask me, but the noise level would grow very tiresome hearing it all day for sure. Fun for short little jaunts just to hear the noise, but if I had to listen to it for hours on end every day...
Yeah, give me the modern 4 stroke... Quiet is nice for extended periods driving.
Abolish EPA.
Yessssssssss
I've seen a couple of 1-71, pretty much just museum pieces. 2-71 were used in railroad refrigeration cars, and Coast Guard 82 footers had a pair of 2-71s for generator sets.
Great explanation. Missed one thing on the Detroit, had a guy tell me their engineers started with an oil leak, and built an engine around it. Holds true to this day.
Then you've got blokes like Bruce Wilson blowing them up on purpose to get "likes" 😢
Disband the EPA already… and CARB while we are at it.
Back in the early 80s i worked for an electronics firm manufacturing genset controllers owned by DD in Sth Aust . Next door was the DD service centre i was always amazed at the massive size of the rail engines with their superchargers and turbos combined. Hearing them on the dynos was deafning.
@tonyboy5805...... Nice "Story", but if you're referring to RR. locomotive engines (prime-movers), the Detroit Diesel division Never serviced the EMD engines... the Only exception being, Stewart/Stevenson which was authorized by EMD to work on EMD's Marine and Industrial versions of the Locomotive prime-movers. Also, the EMD engines were NEVER, Roots blown in conjunction with Turbochargers, they were either Roots equipped, or.. with a single Axial Flow, Clutch over-driven Turbocharger, on the Series 567C & D2 & D3, and Series 645 engines. The Series (& still current) 710 engines are Turbocharged, only.
Great video, well articulated.
In the GM Diesel ad shown in one of the scenes of this video was a U.S. Navy LST. That was because they were powered by GM-EMD 567 series.
I worked in marine transportation. We operated hundreds of engines. Probably the biggest advantage of the Detroit Diesel was the ability to interchange parts. All 71 series engines used the same pistons and cylinders, a 4 cylinder head would bolt directly on a 8 cylinder, etc. Life was much simpler then.
Worked on 4-53 Detroit's that came in Army Rough Terrain Forklifts.
The simulation was rotating backwards, the supercharger was drawing the AFM from the combustion chamber.
These are great engines, I have 2 8V71 in a boat.
I have a 471 in an 85 champion 710a. It's been an easy start and strong running motor the whole time, knock on wood. I love a DT for sure. Had worked on them in yachts too and have a great opinion of them. I also am building a 52 chevy cabover and plan to put one in that build.
So... someone I know made a modern 2 stroke diesel and it actually worked decently. By changing the gears on a cummins engine, he was able to re-gear the valves to be 1:1 with the crank instead of the 1:2 commonly associated with a 4 stroke engine. By doing this, he was able to make a 4bt cummins into a 2 stroke. He was able to cob a 4-71 blower from a local hotrod shop onto the intake, the turbo fed the blower, which was hilariously goofy. The noise the engine made was so weird, and valve float actually became a thing. The valve springs weren't meant to be cycling that fast, so it would float them at the high RPM of 2,000. He brought it to an engine dyno and it made really good horsepower, 240 if I remember right, and like 750 ft pds of torque. And this was a local guy taking an old worn out 4bt and having fun. Nothing more.
I had a 6n71 in a dump truck, drive it like you hated it and it was a wonderfully reliable engine. Unique sound that prompted the message, "turned fuel into noise".
I ran an 83 KENWORTH w900 gravel truck with trailer. It had a 6V72 Detroit with blower and turbo. Loved that truck. 😎