There is a good reason this engine require straight oil (aka sae 40 or whatever)sae oil are particular beast .sae require also a 150 degre test (viscosity if i recall)might luck at 40 might even luck at 100 but 150 thats when you meet the real deal.as you ll see strait sae tested (was it j303 or j300 ,anyhow the one that ask the 150 degree test)is rare .oh by the way the reason this engine require straight oil is the fact the tolerance is very loose .today you might get by with say 0w10 but put that in a 8v92 and you will be wiping the asphalt from miami to new york.[censored] even 15 w 40 was rarely a good idea unless it was brand new .best bet is straight oil.
Detroit 2-strokes requiring mono-grade
- Thread starter AP9
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
?
HTHS viscosity is measured at 150C.
HTHS viscosity is measured at 150C.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_oil (single grade)sorry if link arent authorised .trucking oil are about to add that 150 degree oil test(since trucking oil are dememded to run hotter in the near futur(new wave of anti-put the namehere)
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_oil (single grade)sorry if link arent authorised .trucking oil are about to add that 150 degree oil test(since trucking oil are dememded to run hotter in the near futur(new wave of anti-put the namehere)
There were only two references in that link about 150C tests and the 2nd one is:
Quote:
ILSAC
The International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) also has standards for motor oil. Introduced in 2004, GF-4 applies to SAE 0W-20, 5W-20, 0W-30, 5w30, and 10w30 viscosity grade oils. In general, ILSAC works with API in creating the newest gasoline oil specification, with ILSAC adding an extra requirement of fuel economy testing to their specification. For GF-4, a Sequence VIB Fuel Economy Test (ASTM D6837) is required that is not required in API service category SM.
A key new test for GF-4, which is also required for API SM, is the Sequence IIIG, which involves running a 3.8 L (232 in3), GM 3.8 L V-6 at 125 hp (93 kW), 3,600 rpm, and 150 °C (300 °F) oil temperature for 100 hours. These are much more severe conditions than any API-specified oil was designed for: cars which typically push their oil temperature consistently above 100 °C (212 °F) are most turbocharged engines, along with most engines of European or Japanese origin, particularly small capacity, high power output.
The IIIG test is about 50% more difficult than the previous IIIF test, used in GF-3 and API SL oils. Engine oils bearing the API starburst symbol since 2005 are ILSAC GF-4 compliant.
To help consumers recognize that an oil meets the ILSAC requirements, API developed a "starburst" certification mark.
A new set of specifications, GF-5,[16] took effect in October 2010. The industry has one year to convert their oils to GF-5 and in September 2011, ILSAC will no longer offer licensing for GF-4.
Which indicates that this was implemented quite some time ago
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_oil (single grade)sorry if link arent authorised .trucking oil are about to add that 150 degree oil test(since trucking oil are dememded to run hotter in the near futur(new wave of anti-put the namehere)
There were only two references in that link about 150C tests and the 2nd one is:
Quote:
ILSAC
The International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) also has standards for motor oil. Introduced in 2004, GF-4 applies to SAE 0W-20, 5W-20, 0W-30, 5w30, and 10w30 viscosity grade oils. In general, ILSAC works with API in creating the newest gasoline oil specification, with ILSAC adding an extra requirement of fuel economy testing to their specification. For GF-4, a Sequence VIB Fuel Economy Test (ASTM D6837) is required that is not required in API service category SM.
A key new test for GF-4, which is also required for API SM, is the Sequence IIIG, which involves running a 3.8 L (232 in3), GM 3.8 L V-6 at 125 hp (93 kW), 3,600 rpm, and 150 °C (300 °F) oil temperature for 100 hours. These are much more severe conditions than any API-specified oil was designed for: cars which typically push their oil temperature consistently above 100 °C (212 °F) are most turbocharged engines, along with most engines of European or Japanese origin, particularly small capacity, high power output.
The IIIG test is about 50% more difficult than the previous IIIF test, used in GF-3 and API SL oils. Engine oils bearing the API starburst symbol since 2005 are ILSAC GF-4 compliant.
To help consumers recognize that an oil meets the ILSAC requirements, API developed a "starburst" certification mark.
A new set of specifications, GF-5,[16] took effect in October 2010. The industry has one year to convert their oils to GF-5 and in September 2011, ILSAC will no longer offer licensing for GF-4.
Which indicates that this was implemented quite some time ago
Yep old (like me grin)but still awsome.probably a new version of it will be born soon with the demand for oil temp to be risen(unless official only allow straight oil to be sv or gf-6 etc etc )would probably save a huge pile of money
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Yep old (like me grin)but still awsome.probably a new version of it will be born soon with the demand for oil temp to be risen(unless official only allow straight oil to be sv or gf-5 etc etc )would probably save a huge pile of money
OK but that test that you are referencing was part of GF-4 and SM, not any diesel spec.
Yep old (like me grin)but still awsome.probably a new version of it will be born soon with the demand for oil temp to be risen(unless official only allow straight oil to be sv or gf-5 etc etc )would probably save a huge pile of money
OK but that test that you are referencing was part of GF-4 and SM, not any diesel spec.
True it can be splitted!if i was a business i wouldnt!every oil want to be seen the bestbut you are right it isnt diesel as far as i know
And the ideal oil for a 2-stroke diesel is significantly different than a normal HDEO. As I mentioned, there still are specific oils available for this, and they aren't normal dual rated HDEOs, either.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
AITG - Yes you make a good point. I said this above;
"In another Fleet of KWs we had around 30 with 71s then 92 TTAs. Poor fuel economy eventually killed their use in this type of operation."
The vehicles mentioned in here were replaced by Macks' with Maxidynes. They were taken up on a Contract Maintenance deal - their fuel economy was excellent and they were reliable over the 4 year Contract operating 24hrs 5 days per week and totalling around 700k kms. They were hauling coal (38 tonnes) mainly downhill loaded so it was an easy life. Their superior torque changed driving habits too
I was never a Mack fan although I did a good survey (in 1986-7 with Mack Trucks) of several Mack users in NYC mainly in the Waste business. The Fleet Owners loved them with a passion
Blower drives could be a problem on DDs too - but you'll know that of course
The 2 stroke Detroits were lighter than their competitors and accelerated more quickly than 4 stroke diesels. The trade-offs were that the power curve dropped off really rapidly and they used more fuel than Cat, Cummins and Mack. If the rpms dropped below 1700 the power evaporated.
The first 6V-92s were naturally aspirated. When the first fuel crisis hit, Detroit added a turbo (-92T) and then a jacket water aftercooler under the blower (-92TA). This, along with some creative governor manipulation gave the engine some low end punch. That new found torque was more than the block could handle. The 6V-92 was doomed. The 8V held up better but the inherent fuel use of the 2 stroke doomed it.
Operators who loved Macks were a loyal bunch. The R model was built like a tank. We used to joke that you could rebuild an ENDT675 with a crescent wrench, a pocket knife, a can opener and a spoon. The engines weren't high horsepower but the torque was unlike anything else on the road. A highway tractor could perform quite nicely with a 5 speed transmission. Even dumps and concrete mixers ran 6 or 7 speed transmissions. The 8V-71 needed a 13 speed to keep it wound up at all time.
I could do a blower drive shaft in about ten minutes...if I could get to the back of the engine. We had a couple of conventional IH tractors that had a neat round 'service port' in the firewall. I have no idea how that happened.
Hi,
AITG - Yes you make a good point. I said this above;
"In another Fleet of KWs we had around 30 with 71s then 92 TTAs. Poor fuel economy eventually killed their use in this type of operation."
The vehicles mentioned in here were replaced by Macks' with Maxidynes. They were taken up on a Contract Maintenance deal - their fuel economy was excellent and they were reliable over the 4 year Contract operating 24hrs 5 days per week and totalling around 700k kms. They were hauling coal (38 tonnes) mainly downhill loaded so it was an easy life. Their superior torque changed driving habits too
I was never a Mack fan although I did a good survey (in 1986-7 with Mack Trucks) of several Mack users in NYC mainly in the Waste business. The Fleet Owners loved them with a passion
Blower drives could be a problem on DDs too - but you'll know that of course
The 2 stroke Detroits were lighter than their competitors and accelerated more quickly than 4 stroke diesels. The trade-offs were that the power curve dropped off really rapidly and they used more fuel than Cat, Cummins and Mack. If the rpms dropped below 1700 the power evaporated.
The first 6V-92s were naturally aspirated. When the first fuel crisis hit, Detroit added a turbo (-92T) and then a jacket water aftercooler under the blower (-92TA). This, along with some creative governor manipulation gave the engine some low end punch. That new found torque was more than the block could handle. The 6V-92 was doomed. The 8V held up better but the inherent fuel use of the 2 stroke doomed it.
Operators who loved Macks were a loyal bunch. The R model was built like a tank. We used to joke that you could rebuild an ENDT675 with a crescent wrench, a pocket knife, a can opener and a spoon. The engines weren't high horsepower but the torque was unlike anything else on the road. A highway tractor could perform quite nicely with a 5 speed transmission. Even dumps and concrete mixers ran 6 or 7 speed transmissions. The 8V-71 needed a 13 speed to keep it wound up at all time.
I could do a blower drive shaft in about ten minutes...if I could get to the back of the engine. We had a couple of conventional IH tractors that had a neat round 'service port' in the firewall. I have no idea how that happened.
Last edited:
Torque in a 8v92t silver?men i never drove those then,the one i drove were nicknamed the whisler!ya in made an infernal noise like a huge whisle!it started to be fun at 1850 ,below that ?lets just say you had high chance of having mechanical problem
- Status
