VWDiesel.net The IDI, TDI, and mTDI source.
Engine Specific Info and Questions => IDI Engine => Topic started by: Karel87 on September 24, 2013, 01:41:25 am
-
Hi there, this is my first post over here!
I have an Audi 80 B3 with 1.9 1Y engine for a couple of years. It is a nice and simple car for cheap commuting and trailer pulling. Since it felt really sluggish compared to my gasser Toyota, I installed k14 turbocharger from AAZ engine and turned IP up a bit. It was a great improvement, but I want some more. :)
Currently I´m running stock 1Y pump, which seems to be same as eco-pump (8mm plunger, 2,55mm lift camdisk, no LDA). I´ve bought an AAZ IP which turned out to be a bit leaking. So now I´m resealing it. I have some different bits and pieces lying in the garage. Since I´m already opening that pump why not mix and match these pieces for better performance.
My goal is 120-ish hp without affecting fuel economy. Current fuel consumption is about ~6,5L/100km (~40 US mpg)
I have:
1,6D N/A pump
1Y pump
older type AAZ pump with timing solenoid
1,6 TD pump casing with LDA
Toyota Carina E TD pump
Toyota IP has 10mm plunger. On my power level, would it have any benefit over stock 9mm? I mean like less smoke and EGT?
1,6 TD pump top seems to have better LDA, so i'm using that instead of AAZ one.
I'd like to get rid of that AAZ timing solenoid and replace it with 1,6D timing assembly. 1,6 pumps doesn´t have load dependant start of delivery. Should I use LDSD or not? Does it has any positive effect on power and efficiency or is it just for noise/NOx reduction?
I've researched for a while but this is still my first "frankenpump" so I look forward to any advice or suggestions. :)
greets, Karel
-
I would send your box of parts to dieselme ken and have Him assemble something for you.
-
No need to even send him parts. Goran can source all the needed parts, and deliver a 100% ready to run pump that will exceed your expectations.
Steve
-
Naah, I don't see any point spending that sum of money on a car with a market value less than a 1000 euros. ;D Fixing and modifying cars is more of hobby to me. Something which helps to get work and school out of my head. Paying someone else to do it takes all the fun part out of it. I have friend working in a diesel shop who is willing to calibrate this pump for me. Now i'm just thinking about which parts should i prefer when assembling my pump.
-
Increasing HP WILL affect fuel economy. If you play, you pay.
Install the AAZ camplate and 10mm plunger in the 1.6TD pump. Use the 1.6 sprocket.
-
Increasing HP WILL affect fuel economy. If you play, you pay.
Install the AAZ camplate and 10mm plunger in the 1.6TD pump. Use the 1.6 sprocket.
all my cars(diesel) have better mileage when modded then it stock form.
driving normally that is
-
driving normally that is
If you play, you pay.
-
driving normally that is
If you play, you pay.
Only when you play with that right foot ;)
-
After some reading and calculating i assembled my pump. I did use 10mm Toyota pump head with AAZ camdisk in a gtd housing. I sorted out softest advance spring and shortened advance piston 2,5mm to give some more dynamic advance. Newer style cold start lever with idle raising mechanism did not fit with older type timing piston, so i had to machine a spacer for compensating it.
I was eager to try it out so i did installed pump without calibrating. After bleeding it started straight up. It sure has some more kick compared to stock pump. :)
On downside, as expected, engine really sounds a lot louder. Did try 0,92mm and 1,05 timing without noticable difference in sound. Compared to stock 8mm plunger, combustion process sounds really a lot more violent. Has anybody experimented different timing with better results? Sadly, my cold start lever with added spacer is interfering with pump bracket. Weather is getting cold here, so i had to swap it back to stock pump. Still have to figure out some better solution for it :P
-
How about taking the static timing down even further? For having increased the dynamic advance, even .92 sounds a little on the higher end of things. From what I recall, Giles recommends around .85 for his pumps, though I have no idea just how much dynamic advance he puts in.
-
I agree maybe try back it off more. Large plunger will also inject more fuel sooner
-
Truth, but usually with a larger plunger you need more static advance.
-
Truth, but usually with a larger plunger you need more static advance.
thats interesting
-
wouldnt that make noise be too loud?
-
Truth, but usually with a larger plunger you need more static advance.
Really? ??? That's rather counter intuitive; how does that work?
-
You want to inject as much fuel as you need as soon as you can get it in there. The faster it is in there and burning the better all around.
-
Not necessarily... what do you think causes clatter?
Diesels work on combustion, not detonation... it is why VW went to pilot injection, or 2-stage injection... eh?
-
Split shot just burns cleaner.
-
Again... what causes clatter...
-
(http://www.cdxetextbook.com/images/systems_06_1.jpg)
....Traditionally, light and medium duty diesel engines for motor vehicles have used “indirect injection” (IDI). With IDI, fuel is injected into a red-hot pre-combustion chamber (“pre-cup”) or a swirl chamber for less noisy combustion. IDI engines use a “throttling” pintle-type nozzle to introduce a very fine “pilot-injection” of fuel for less abrupt ignition. Once ignition starts in the pre-cup, the rate of fuel delivery is increased, and a rich expanding/swirling flame is then “blown” through an orifice into the main chamber to drive the piston downward. Delivery of fuel then tapers off until combustion can no longer be sustained in the excess of air (as much as a 40:1 ratio at idle), making the IDI diesel a relatively quiet and economical diesel engine—but still not acceptable to many American motorists, or for the EPA.
Killing the Clatter… Prior Efforts
Various mechanical designs have been tried to reduce diesel ignition clatter:
Most passenger diesel engines traditionally have used the Ricardo® style “pre-cup” IDI design or similar with a “throttling” pintle-type nozzle to help reduce ignition noise.
Peugeot diesels using distributor-type pumps incorporated a “quietidle” device as an early attempt at rate-phasing to suppress noise: At low “throttle” settings, a small portion of fuel delivered from the pump was routed to an accumulator of sorts, reducing the initial amount of fuel injected per crankshaft degree to help reduce clatter.
Some Mercedes-Benz engines used a so-call CHIP (for “center hole in pintle”) nozzle for similar reasons. Combustion started with pilot-injection of a very fine pre-spray from a tiny hole drilled up the center of the nozzle pintle. As the nozzle pintle lifted further, maininjection took place. Often the center-hole became caked with carbon, resulting in all-too-familiar ignition clatter—and vehicle owner heartburn.
Volkswagen’s 1.9 Turbo-Direct Injection (TDI) engine clatter was softened by use of a two-spring nozzle holder assembly. With fuel pressure applied, the first spring compressed and the needle lifted enough for a pilot-injection of fuel and ignition; once the second spring compressed, main-injection completed the event.
http://www.cdxetextbook.com/asearticles/quietdieselevol.html
-
Yupppppppp.
-
aaz came with 2 stage nozzles as well.
-
I see what that article is saying, but how does that relate to larger plunger size? It seems to me that the article concerned a DI vs IDI comparison, not a plunger size comparison. I know that DI's need more advance, but if we just stuck with one motor type and compared only the pump plunger size, it would seem to me that having a larger plunger would enable the same amount of fuel to be injected more quickly (all other things being equal), which would translate to needing less static advance rather than more since the injection lag would be decreased.
-
... it would seem to me that having a larger plunger would enable the same amount of fuel to be injected more quickly (all other things being equal), which would translate to needing less static advance rather than more since the injection lag would be decreased.
I agree.
-
if the same amount of fuel was injected it would need less advance but usually plungers are changed to increase fuel delivery...more fuel will need more time to burn,so more advance.
ok,i officially confused myself ;D
-
Very true. One does not install larger plunger and larger nozzles to inject the same amount of fuel..
You can inject more, faster, and more efficiently than before. BUT, you need to do it sooner because there is jsut that much more fuel.
-
AIUI:
It's not as simple as just more fuel earlier, we can do that without a bigger plunger.
When things get tricky is when we install a bigger pump and for that, we get overfueling and/or unburnt fuel.
For the first issue, we want more air, so we stuff more in with a supercharger.
For the second issue, we advance the timing... but if we get clatter, injection shaping needs to be implemented with two stage injectors and/or camplate change.
The above can only get us so far, after which, fancy injection control is easier with computer thingys.
As for "cleaner" there seems to be a tradeoff between soot and NOx emissions, so VW raised injection pressures to reduce soot and added a CAT to reduce the resulting NOx.
-
Well, there was an interesting version with a fancy plunger:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZbeBj9Mu9_k/UlxZNop47iI/AAAAAAAABXk/aJg98X7YcLU/s800/BoschDispPump-p58.png)
Anybody seen one...?