Vw Tdi

[Hans S]

I was looking to uprading a vw TDI and found out they are getting 200+ hp out of the little four bangars 1.8,1.9. The torque almost doubles the hp. One guy is getting 327hp and almost 700 ft/lbs of torque out of a 1,9 . They weigh in at about 300lbs. Does that come into the average weight of what people are putting back there. My Jetta might not get its engine back.

[CBarber]

Wow, are you kidding. Don't know enough about it to even consider it, but I have got to say, I love my Jetta TDI. 40 ish miles to the bio-diesel gallon just makes me feel smug all over (Silly Hybrid drivers).

 

Like my rotary, but I would really like a viable diesel as well.

 

Do you have any links so I may get lost in the internet gaining info I will likely never use or need ?????

 

All the best,

 

Chris

[Hans S]

http://forums.tdiclub.com/

[Hans S]

For those that like pretty line graphs.

 

http://www.idc-solutions.net/VWTDIHPandTorque.html

[chasingmars]

Some points:

 

The TDi engine is quite heavy, I'm not sure where you read 300 pounds, are you sure you don't mean 300 kg (but that would be too much they are heavy, but not that heavy)

If it's the 8 valve PD engine in current north american cars, pumping up to 200 hp is a very agressive increase in power (100% over stock)

If it's the european 16V engine, then that's still 50% over stock.

 

The TDi engines from VW really aren't good candidates in my opinon for aviation use, it mostly comes down to weight. Pumping up power to levels that street hot-rodders have is asking for trouble I think in terms of reliability. *Some* increase make be justifiable, given adequate engineering, but 100%?!

 

I drive a Jetta TDi, rock solid engine, I like it a lot. but its a cast iron block, not even CGI, and not built with light weight in mind.

 

Potential diesels that *might* manage a weight in line with aircraft use as an automotive conversion - Volvo's D5 (185 hp), Subaru's upcoming flat-4 diesel (which there's a derth of information on, so who knows), and maybe, if you can really get creative about managing weight, Mercedes new V6 diesel, but that's probably just too heavy. Remember that automotive quotes engine weights are usually dry and don't represent "installed" weights, and, even with a slower turning diesel, you'll need a PRSU, as peek power is up at 3800-4000 rpm (or a propfan with a thrust bearing assembly - since car engine cranks aren't designed for thrust loads).

[mak790]

If you like diesel engines check this.

 

http://www.longezediesel.com/index.html

 

 

Radial diesel

 

http://www.zoche.de/

 

Canard with a radial engine:confused: I know it's sounds crazy but looks like someone did it already.

[Cozy Girrrl]

I could be wrong but that looks suspiciously like one of the V-8 powered Ez's, not the two valve cover bumps on the top of the cowl.

...Chrissi

[Marc Zeitlin]

http://www.zoche.de/

I need a laugh every once in a while - thanks for bringing up zoche. They were ready for production, and would be shipping next year, back when I went to OSH in 1995. Scam.

 

Canard with a radial engine:confused: I know it's sounds crazy but looks like someone did it already.

That's Gary and Char Spencer's LE, and Chrissi is correct - it's got a direct drive V-8 in it.

[mak790]

I need a laugh every once in a while - thanks for bringing up zoche. They were ready for production, and would be shipping next year, back when I went to OSH in 1995. Scam.

Wow it's almost 13 years:D but finally it's working or maybe they did this movie 13 years ago?

http://www.zoche.de/Zoche_video.html

 

That's Gary and Char Spencer's LE, and Chrissi is correct - it's got a direct drive V-8 in it

.

 

Thanks for info I wrote it's look like course I wasn't sure.

 

What about Wilksch Diesel Engines. Did you here anything about this?

 

http://www.wilksch.com/

[Bearair]

Think the WAM100 is done and now for sale (LSA engine). It's an alternative to the O-200 and Rotax engines in the 100HP category. Seems like the WAM120 was shown at OshKosh this year.

 

I'm looking at a project next weekend and am seriously considering diesel power for it. Been watching to see which companies actually deliver anything. Right now I'm thinking that a Deltahawk 200 is the way I'd be going. Direct replacement for an O-360 and very nice fuel consumption numbers. They are supposed to be done with certification on the 180HP model shortly, and the 200HP right after as they are basically the same engine. The 160HP model is already certified for replacement of O-320's in some certified models, with more being added. They are trying to price the their engines to compete with the equivelant gas models. I seriously think that diesel will be the way to go within 5 years. 100LL is on the way out.

 

Deltahawk is nice in that they don't use a reduction drive. There are no cylinderhead gaskets to blow. They've gone through the process of FAA certification which means that durability will be good. They are quieter than their gas engine counterparts. TBO is the same as the engines they are meant to replace, but rebuild cost is WAY less. Cost of fuel savings over TBO is $25K or so. That's a lot of panel upgrades. Oh, and single power lever control. No icing, no mixture, no prop control. Just set the power level, and fly the plane.

[Hans S]

The TDI id 135kg dry. appr 300lbs

 

If you looked at the graph, the dyno runs showed 200hp at 2600. Wouldn't need a PRSU. Just a bearing. Max RPM goes to 4000. But you don't need to push the engine as it still gives 200hp at have its RBM range.

 

The US versions are getting 150hp with simple chip mods and exhausts. Some people have gotten them over 300hp, with a lot more effort. 200hp is fairly easily doable.

 

Heavy, yes, but you can drop down the fuel qty for the same range. LOOONG lasting, even with higher boosting. The bottom end can handle a butt load of power, it's the connecting rods that need to be beefed on these engines after 275hp.

 

They can run on diesel, jet fuel, kerosine, biodiesel. Biodiesel can be made for 50 to 80 cents a gallon.

 

Cheaper by far than any of the other engines I've seen as I can rebuild and maintain them myself, huge network of people modifying them for more reliable power.

 

What does a 360 weigh in at?

[Marc Zeitlin]

...Right now I'm thinking that a Deltahawk 200 is the way I'd be going. Direct replacement for an O-360 and very nice fuel consumption numbers.

Deltahawk is certainly an attractive option, if they ever really start selling them. They're another one that was at OSH back in 1996, claiming that they'd be shipping in a year.

 

They are supposed to be done with certification on the 180HP model shortly, and the 200HP right after as they are basically the same engine. The 160HP model is already certified for replacement of O-320's in some certified models, with more being added....

That's not correct. They have not certified ANY engines as of yet - they're website claims that they're HOPING to certify them in the near future. See:

 

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/aboutdeltahawk.shtml

 

and

 

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/status00.shtml

 

They're hoping for TC by the end of 2008 (which, given their history, could mean any time between 2009 and 2015).

They've gone through the process of FAA certification which means that durability will be good.

They haven't, as stated above, and if certification implied durability, Lycomings and Continentals wouldn't fail :-).

 

Look, I'm rooting for these guys (and for Theilert to start selling in the experimental market). They've obviously got deep pockets, are making slow but steady progress, and have what will probably be a very good product.

 

But they have NOT achieved what you claimed (yet), and it'll be sometime before they do. They've had engines in beta test for 4 years now, and still are not shipping in volume to the experimental market, much less the certificated market.

[Bearair]

If that's the case, then a couple articles that I read recently were mis-speaking. They said FAA certification for the o-320 replacement in Cessnas was "pending" (a few months ago) and would be finished by OSH. Must not have happened. Since I'm figuring on 5-6 years before I'm ready for an engine, then SOMEONE should have one ready to ship!

[Cozy1200]

Canard with a radial engine:confused: I know it's sounds crazy but looks like someone did it already.

Oh course it's already been done. Nat experimented with it before going a more traditional route.

 

....Sorry, I never get tired of this photograph.

[mak790]

Oh course it's already been done. Nat experimented with it before going a more traditional route.

 

....Sorry, I never get tired of this photograph.

lol:D Thanks for this. But it's fake (photoshop I guess). No shadow on the ground someone did poor job.

 

Mak

[Cozy1200]

lol:D Thanks for this. But it's fake (photoshop I guess). No shadow on the ground someone did poor job.

 

Mak

 

GUILTY!!! I'm the one that did the poor job. I photoshoped it as a joke about 6 months or a year ago. Good catch.

 

Here's a slight improvement.

[chasingmars]

The TDI id 135kg dry. appr 300lbs

Perhaps you could quote a source for that? Restating a disagreed with point in metric doesn't add much to the validity.

 

If you looked at the graph, the dyno runs showed 200hp at 2600. Wouldn't need a PRSU. Just a bearing. Max RPM goes to 4000. But you don't need to push the engine as it still gives 200hp at have its RBM range.

I looked at the graph, I just disagree with the wisdom of using extreme hot-rodded performance numbers as a baseline for what you should strive for in aircraft use. There is a real enthusiast community with the TDi's and they can get astounding performance out of them for sure, way beyond design, but with what reliability? Remember that a hot rod does 30% duty cycle with occassional runs to 100% that last only minutes, an aircraft engine has to reliably put out 90% power for significant periods of climb, and 65-85% power continuously in cruise. This is not what even stock auto engines are designed for, and way off the design point for hot-rods. You should be looking at how much you want to DE-rate your automotive conversion not how much you can possibly boost it, and certainly not by 100%-200% over factory torque, that's not likely to survive. When you can take that dyno test and show that it will do that for *hours* at a time, then I'll be more convinced. Consequence of a broken engine is much higher at 10000 feet. Again, driving that much torque through an engine originally designed for 90-100 hp @4000rpm is asking for trouble. Yes, you can put beefier components in throughout, magflux everything, etc, but that adds to weight and cost. This is one reason I like the Mercedes V-6 diesel, because they have pushed them at high loads for extended periods over several stock units without failure in some publicity demos.

 

They can run on diesel, jet fuel, kerosine, biodiesel. Biodiesel can be made for 50 to 80 cents a gallon.

If BD was cheaper than dino-diesel, on a source-to-consumer basis, it would be outselling it, by pure market forces. it's not. It's good, by comparison, one of the most competitive biofuels, but it's still, for the moment, pricier than fossil fuel derived diesel. I buy it anyhow, it's not that big a cost difference.

 

Ah (edit) I think you mean making it yourself from used fry grease or such for that price... yes, you can. Do you want to run your plane on that? Maybe, if you've really got your process down, but if you don't, the residual glycerin in the fuel will varnish in your injectors and cause your engine to fail. There are other pitfalls there too. Great garage project for running the beater car than you work on yourself if something should happen, less ideal for when you're loading the family into a single engine airplane.

[mplafleur]

but if you don't, the residual glycerin in the fuel will varnish in your injectors and cause your engine to fail.

This is something I constantly hear, but have never heard of any vehicle failing because of this.

 

There are other pitfalls there too. Great garage project for running the beater car than you work on yourself if something should happen, less ideal for when you're loading the family into a single engine airplane.

I have no qualms about using biodiesel from my own making, but for the fact that I don't think it's right for the mission. How cold is it at altitude and what's the cloud point of biodiesel? That's what stops me.

 

Plus the fact I'd like to put in the new Renesis instead.

[Hans S]

Perhaps you could quote a source for that? Restating a disagreed with point in metric doesn't add much to the validity.

 

weight - http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/vanagon/TDI/tdi_specs_en.pdf

 

Yes, I was talking about making the biodiesel.

[Bearair]

weight - http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/vanagon/TDI/tdi_specs_en.pdf

 

Yes, I was talking about making the biodiesel.

That 135KG is quoted for a dry engine. That doesn't include all the accessories, intercooler, radiator, oil cooler, coolant, etc.

[Hans S]

I looked at the graph, I just disagree with the wisdom of using extreme hot-rodded performance numbers as a baseline for what you should strive for in aircraft use. There is a real enthusiast community with the TDi's and they can get astounding performance out of them for sure, way beyond design, but with what reliability? Remember that a hot rod does 30% duty cycle with occassional runs to 100% that last only minutes, an aircraft engine has to reliably put out 90% power for significant periods of climb, and 65-85% power continuously in cruise. This is not what even stock auto engines are designed for, and way off the design point for hot-rods. You should be looking at how much you want to DE-rate your automotive conversion not how much you can possibly boost it, and certainly not by 100%-200% over factory torque, that's not likely to survive. When you can take that dyno test and show that it will do that for *hours* at a time, then I'll be more convinced. Consequence of a broken engine is much higher at 10000 feet. Again, driving that much torque through an engine originally designed for 90-100 hp @4000rpm is asking for trouble. Yes, you can put beefier components in throughout, magflux everything, etc, but that adds to weight and cost. This is one reason I like the Mercedes V-6 diesel, because they have pushed them at high loads for extended periods over several stock units without failure in some publicity demos.

 

----------lyc 360--------------------tdi

100%-----180hp----------------220hp (mod)

75%------135hp----------------165hp

40%------72hp-----------------88hp

 

165hp is just over stock, no problem, 220hp is easily possible.

 

And, the tdi is set for turbo and boost. Sea level and altitude, same power. Yes it might need a bigger turbo or sequential.

[chasingmars]

weight - http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/vanagon/TDI/tdi_specs_en.pdf

 

Interesting, thanks. Indeed, it says 135kg dry, and it appears to be the same block as used in the automotive TDi's, which means it's probably pretty close despite being for an 80hp (@3300rpm) industrial version of that engine from 1997.

 

I stand corrected on the weight issue, but I still think trying to pump a 100hp@4000 rpm to 200hp@prop rpm to be a very bad idea.

 

----------lyc 360--------------------tdi

100%-----180hp----------------220hp (mod)

75%------135hp----------------165hp

[...]165hp is just over stock, no problem, 220hp is easily possible.

 

This is playing very fast and loose with the numbers, saying 165hp as a 75% power figure is just over stock is seriously flawed. The block is certainly solid, but you have to consider the duty cycle. for the north american 1.9L PD, stock is 100hp. 75% of that is 75hp, about, and 165hp is hardly just over stock. Even if you baseline against the 2.0L european engine, which is 134hp in north american (Passat) form, and 140 hp in euro Golf V form and up to 170 hp in Euro Passat form (may be different engines), that's boosting the thing up when you're substantially increasing the duty cycle if you're looking at making 165ho your "75%". Maybe it will take it, but it's a substantial development project that I'd have little confidence in until it reachs whatever you make TBO and tear down a few. *derating* an automotive unit is probably more sensible in light of the duty cycles they were designed for.

 

Moreover, it's torque that will govern bmep and therefore engine stress. Saying 200hp at 2700rpm (Lycomoing redline rpm, I believe) is the same as saying nearly 300hp at 4000rpm. There's just no way around that math. Brake mean effective pressure is the key index of engine stress (not the only factor in life, rpm does matter there too) and trying for 165hp at 2300rpm (what the Lyc turns I think, roughly, in cruise) makes for nearly 2.9 times the brake mean effective pressure in the cylinders. I suspect you therefore do need the PRSU to make enough power with this engine unless you're willing to sacrifice efficiency and static/low speed thrust to turn a smaller prop faster (which with a diesel *might* be a practical approach, and the flatter power curve lets you recover some of the loss of static performance)

 

Still, by all means, prove me wrong, soon, cause I'm planning to try and figure a way to put a diesel in my plane I just had ruled out this engine when I reseached it.

[Hans S]

And to really get the weight conscious folks up in arms, diesel weighs roughly a pound more a gallon.

[Hans S]

So, I was thinking of the issues that people are talking about with modifying a VW to get reliable 200hp out of it. So, to test it, tell me if this makes sense.

 

1. Build the engine to 200hp.

2. Using a generator draw out 200hp.

3. Feed the output through a transfer switch to run the house and feed excess to sell back to the electric company. Like what you can do with solar panels on your house.

4. Run for 100hrs or more continously for 100-200hrs at max power.

5. Tear engine apart and see if it is still in spec (assuming it didn't grenade).

 

Assuming 100% efficiency, no heat loss

1hp = 746 watts

200hp = 148200 watts

148200 watts / 220 volts = 673 amps.

 

My wiring can't handle all the amps going back to the service so I know I'll have to create a resistor bank to bleed over 470 amps out. Or, talk my neighbors into letting me bounce through their meters too. All these measurements are assuming no heat loss, 100% efficiency.

 

A test that pays for itself, or at least partly pays. If I run it on homebrewed biodiesel, I might actually make money:D Maybe enough to finance my plane:p

148kwh x $.04 per kwh = $5.92

$5.92 x 7,22.4hrs/month = $4276.61

6gph x 722.4hrs/month x $.50 gal. (biodiesel) = $2167.20

$4276.20 - $2167.20 = $2109.00 profit per month if I can sell all of it.

$2109 / 3 services = $703 per home per month

$703 - $250 aver. electric bill for my house in the summer in Florida in which they charge 5-6 cents per kwh = $453 in the pocket.

 

 

 

I'm an electrician so I don't need the "blah blah electricity is dangerous" speach.

 

And, I know these numbers are loose.

[Hans S]

And before someone takes all that seriously and tries to give me death by calculator, the numbers are WAYYY loose and the $25,000 in materials and $250,000 in legal battles isn't reflected. Not to mention the possible $6,000 motor being turned into a pretty piece of scrap if/when it goes boom.