How long do you think the engine would last??

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZmOz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by eljefino:
Is this going to be standby or continuous use? Running gasoline, propane, or natural gas? What climate? Can you get a deal on fuel (no road tax, etc?)

Do you expect 60hz current? Will you be doing an alternator/inverter setup or some sort of gearbox so the generator innards naturally turn 1800 or 3600 rpm? (adjust for lands of 50hz.)

Just curious.

---

This is going to be to run various electrical eqipment in a field. It will be turning a 60hz 50kw generator that spins at 1800 RPMs. I was planning on gasoline, but now I'm thinking about propane. If I built a stroked 4.7 liter engine, I could raise the compression ratio to arund 12:1...because propane is around 110 octane.

---

You'll need to do something. I've noticed that a gas engine generator modified for use with propane has about 20% less output...

 

[userfriendly]

No, your not going to build a 12:1 engine and run it at 2,000 RPM because propane has 110 octane.

 

[Santo Fontana]

I looked into the cheao stroker method for the 4.0 and decided it wasnt worth it. They seem to have quench problems and probs with detonation. You really need new pistons too.

For reliability I would go with a stock motor.

 

[Steve S]

you want imo use a chevrolet 4.3 v6 because the parts are cheap available and the 4.3 engines last 20,000 + hours on propane and regular maintainence in forkifts. since they are industrialized they would most likely have parts for adapting. Alot of the latest engines are comming with more compression for l.p. or natural gas dut to the lower btus of the gases. It may be better to buy one already made??? diesel.

[ December 24, 2003, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Steve S ]

 

[SteveD2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Santo Fontana:
I looked into the cheao stroker method for the 4.0 and decided it wasnt worth it. They seem to have quench problems and probs with detonation. You really need new pistons too.

For reliability I would go with a stock motor.

---

This wouldn't be a "cheap" stroker motor, but one done correctly. If done correctly it is every bit as reliable as the original 4.0. Problems with detonation would be because you can't use low octane gas anymore, but as I said propane is 110 octane.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve S:
you want imo use a chevrolet 4.3 v6 because the parts are cheap available and the 4.3 engines last 20,000 + hours on propane and regular maintainence in forkifts. since they are industrialized they would most likely have parts for adapting. Alot of the latest engines are comming with more compression for l.p. or natural gas dut to the lower btus of the gases. It may be better to buy one already made??? diesel.

---

Well if they can make a 4.3 last for 20,000 hours a 4.0 should last even longer if "industrialized" correctly.

The reason I am building the engine and NOT going with diesel is the expense...as well as the fact I already know alot about the 4.0, and know nothing about diesels.

 

[cryptokid]

quote:

---

Anyway, if efficiency matters he should be using a diesel engine.

---

a diesel engine will not make a generator any more efficent than a gas engine. heck for that matter, a hydroelectric turbine spinning that same generator wont make it any more efficent.
i believe you mistook what the man was talking about when he said a generator is not 100% efficent. he meant the electric part of the genset assembly.

now, strapping a diesel on instead of a gasser (or hydro) will lower the TCO, but it still wont make a generator put out more power than it could with a gas engine. it will put out the same rated Kw, just at a lower TCO because of the reduced fuel consumption and longer engine life that in generic terms, a diesel provides.

 

[MRC01]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cryptokid:

quote:

---

Anyway, if efficiency matters he should be using a diesel engine.

---

a diesel engine will not make a generator any more efficent than a gas engine. heck for that matter, a hydroelectric turbine spinning that same generator wont make it any more efficent.
i believe you mistook what the man was talking about when he said a generator is not 100% efficent. he meant the electric part of the genset assembly.

now, strapping a diesel on instead of a gasser (or hydro) will lower the TCO, but it still wont make a generator put out more power than it could with a gas engine. it will put out the same rated Kw, just at a lower TCO because of the reduced fuel consumption and longer engine life that in generic terms, a diesel provides.

---

Methinks you're reading WAY more into my statement that was intended. I'm talking about the efficiency of the engine driving the generator -- not the generator itself.

In other words, if he powers his generator with a diesel engine instead of a gasoline engine, he will burn less fuel to achieve the same electrical output. That means cheaper electricity.