Post by fatguppy on Oct 13, 2014 20:21:44 GMT -5
It seems that the subject of increasing power from the Mazda S2 engine turbocharging and supercharging have grabbed the attention of viewers, like me, and held our attention with bated breath. “What kind of gains can be made? Will it hold up under the stress? Where are the pictures? What's the parts list? Now that's how Mazda should have made it!” Some of you who have made these modifications display talent and good craftsmanship in your designs and implementation. Nice work. The thought of increasing power from our little engines holds appeal to most of us who drive these trucks. I would love to have more power and have thought about doing a turbo conversion myself. The stock power output is woefully low and with the speed of today's freeways and highways, it's interesting to drive amongst those who have no idea that our diesel trucks top out about 65 (at least that's what I keep it limited to).
On paper, it seems like an easy thing to crank up the power. I mean really, Cummins diesel drivers are just dialing the boost up a few psi, adding a little extra fuel, and “Presto!” the engine wakes up and cranks out 1000 hp/1500 ft/lbs of torque! What's not to like! Our engines are just mini versions and should be the same right? Well.....it may not be that easy.
I set out to do a little more research on the Perkins 200 series family of diesel engines (4.135, 4.154, and 4.182) and came up with a few interesting things. I originally wanted to know if I boosted my little 4.135 (S2) so that if it consumed the same amount of air (CFM) as the 4.154 (HA) and 4.182 (XA), would it crank out the same amount of power?
But before I launch into that, I need to clarify a couple things tho. First: the majority of us S2 drivers like to tinker, play, modify, and tweak our engines. It's the American way, right! Take a good OEM engine and squeeze a few more ponies from it. We like to see if we can out-think, out-engineer, and out-smart the guys who spent just a few (hundred) hours designing and testing these modern marvels to begin with. Don't deny it! I do the same thing! I like doing it too. This is one of the reason the aftermarket parts industry is huge and generates billions of dollars each year. Second: I am no way, shape, or form knocking anyone who has or is thinking about doing any modifications to their engine. We have seen some talent when it comes to the creation of some cool projects. My hat is off to each one of you for your creative talents. My mantra has always been "It's your engine, you can do what you want."
I tend to value longevity in my engines vs. maximum power, so I tend to not go off the deep end with modifications. I also have been wrenching on these engines for a good 20 years, and have a pretty good working knowledge of the scarcity of parts! If you break some of these parts; that engine is gone. Parts are getting too hard to find to just willy-nilly try something that might end in disaster. For example, I'm finishing a rebuild on a 4.135 that I bought years ago. This engine suffered heavy damage, including a broken crank, 4 cracked pistons, bent valves, and the like. Looks like someone tried to rebuild it, did a piss poor job, and it suffered because of it. Have you ever tried to find pistons for these engines? Yeah, N/A. I have a couple, new and rare piston/cylinder rebuild kits left over in my hoard, but those are going fast. Once gone; they're gone. Most of the wrecking yards don't carry these old trucks, let alone the engine. Most are just squished for scrap now.
So lets look at a few things. Quite a bit of my info came from the Perkins 200 series manual, you can double check my work, and I have simplified things a lot, so don't get worked up over my lack of using modifiers to my calculations, i.e. volumetric efficiency. Lets just assume for our purposes that it's 100%. OK!
The Perkins 200 series family of engines includes the 4.135 (S2-automotive designation; GB-Perkins designation), the 4.154 (XA; GA), and the 4.182 (HA; GC). These engines were offered in various vehicles across the years and globe, with the 4.154 also being used in commercial applications, i.e. tractors, boats, construction equipment. For simplicity, I took the outputs of each engine and broke them down into output based on CFM. It's a rough and simple way of looking at things. Each engine is listed in the manual as using the same injection pump, lift plate, injector, and is not turbocharged (there is a question in my mind on whether the 4.182 actually is non-turbo, because of the large difference in power per given CFM. All the info points to a non-turbo though).
Lets start with the 4.154. The rated HP output of the industrial versions of the 4.135 (66 @ 4200 RPM) and 4.154 (67 @ 3600 RPM) are basically the same per given CFM. Meaning, the 4.154 develops its power with lower RPM's, but has the same CFM consumption. The TQ output is about 15% higher though. This makes sense because the 4.154 has a longer stroke, but same bore as the 4.135. (On a side note, not sure why people get so worked up and wrapped around the axle about HP. TQ is what diesel's crank out! HP is for race cars, not for diesel engines with internal components weighing more than the total modern engine. I digress, sorry). It looks like if at the very least, I can bring the power band down a few hundred RPMs into a more street-able range and not have to rev the guts out.
The industrial version of the 4.182 (85 @ 3600) cranks out about 20 HP more than the 4.135 (66 @ 4200) with only 50 CFM consumption more than the 4.135. The TQ output is roughly figured out to be about 33 ft/lbs more at the same CFM, with total TQ output 46 ft/lbs more, but still at a lower RPM then the other two engines (the 4.182 has a larger bore and larger stroke than the 4.135 and 4.154). Now we're talking! Crank up the boost and away we go! The rated power RPMs for the 4.154 and 4.182 are the same at 3600 RPMs, but the peak TQ RPMs are different; 2000 (4.154) vs. 1800 (4.182)
On paper, it looks like the injection pump can handle the increased power demands, so if I could force feed the 4.135 more air I could have a monster 2.2l diesel engine chewing up the street! Sweet! Whoa..... wait a minute...... now that we know we can, the question becomes "should we do this?" Can the 4.135's internal components handle the increased power? It turns out that the Perkins engineers answered that question for us. They beefed up the 4.154 and 4.182's internal components to handle the power. The 4.154 crankshaft has larger main and rod journals and larger gudgeon (wrist) pins. The 4.182 components are even larger than the 4.154! The 4.182 also has larger exhaust valves (2mm larger), piston cooling oil jets, and an internal oil cooler. I suspect that the 4.154 and 4.182 have a larger injection pump distributor too (the part numbers are different than the 4.135). I have a 4.154 and 4.182 oil pump, both are bigger than the 4.135 (and no they wont fit the 4.135).
So, I am still left with the questions, “can the 4.135 survive a power increase?” “How far can I take it before parts start breaking?” Like I said before, I like longevity in my engines. I have one engine that has lived through 350k miles; only having one head change (suffered from a cracked head when my brother ran it out of water and seized the engine on the freeway. Put a new head on it, still run it today). Am I willing to give that up to gain a few quick ponies? If I want power, there are plenty of cheap, nicely designed turbocharged engines that would fit nicely in a new Mazda or Ranger. No one is making these engines or parts for these Perkins engines anymore. There are limited parts available for the 4.154 and the 4.182, but the interchange with the 4.135 is limited to a few parts. Once the supply is gone, they're gone. I suspect that although people might despise them or look down on their lowliness now, their rarity has some merit on price down the road. Not sure I want to dump a bunch of time and money into a one-way engine, only to have it fail shortly there after. I like my engine too much for that. So, after reviewing the facts and weighing the pros/cons have decided to just enjoy my little 2.2l diesel, just the way it is; slow, noisy, heavy, dead simple and ultra-reliable. To each their own, but just thought a little information might be handy.
Just some thoughts! Have fun!
On paper, it seems like an easy thing to crank up the power. I mean really, Cummins diesel drivers are just dialing the boost up a few psi, adding a little extra fuel, and “Presto!” the engine wakes up and cranks out 1000 hp/1500 ft/lbs of torque! What's not to like! Our engines are just mini versions and should be the same right? Well.....it may not be that easy.
I set out to do a little more research on the Perkins 200 series family of diesel engines (4.135, 4.154, and 4.182) and came up with a few interesting things. I originally wanted to know if I boosted my little 4.135 (S2) so that if it consumed the same amount of air (CFM) as the 4.154 (HA) and 4.182 (XA), would it crank out the same amount of power?
But before I launch into that, I need to clarify a couple things tho. First: the majority of us S2 drivers like to tinker, play, modify, and tweak our engines. It's the American way, right! Take a good OEM engine and squeeze a few more ponies from it. We like to see if we can out-think, out-engineer, and out-smart the guys who spent just a few (hundred) hours designing and testing these modern marvels to begin with. Don't deny it! I do the same thing! I like doing it too. This is one of the reason the aftermarket parts industry is huge and generates billions of dollars each year. Second: I am no way, shape, or form knocking anyone who has or is thinking about doing any modifications to their engine. We have seen some talent when it comes to the creation of some cool projects. My hat is off to each one of you for your creative talents. My mantra has always been "It's your engine, you can do what you want."
I tend to value longevity in my engines vs. maximum power, so I tend to not go off the deep end with modifications. I also have been wrenching on these engines for a good 20 years, and have a pretty good working knowledge of the scarcity of parts! If you break some of these parts; that engine is gone. Parts are getting too hard to find to just willy-nilly try something that might end in disaster. For example, I'm finishing a rebuild on a 4.135 that I bought years ago. This engine suffered heavy damage, including a broken crank, 4 cracked pistons, bent valves, and the like. Looks like someone tried to rebuild it, did a piss poor job, and it suffered because of it. Have you ever tried to find pistons for these engines? Yeah, N/A. I have a couple, new and rare piston/cylinder rebuild kits left over in my hoard, but those are going fast. Once gone; they're gone. Most of the wrecking yards don't carry these old trucks, let alone the engine. Most are just squished for scrap now.
So lets look at a few things. Quite a bit of my info came from the Perkins 200 series manual, you can double check my work, and I have simplified things a lot, so don't get worked up over my lack of using modifiers to my calculations, i.e. volumetric efficiency. Lets just assume for our purposes that it's 100%. OK!
The Perkins 200 series family of engines includes the 4.135 (S2-automotive designation; GB-Perkins designation), the 4.154 (XA; GA), and the 4.182 (HA; GC). These engines were offered in various vehicles across the years and globe, with the 4.154 also being used in commercial applications, i.e. tractors, boats, construction equipment. For simplicity, I took the outputs of each engine and broke them down into output based on CFM. It's a rough and simple way of looking at things. Each engine is listed in the manual as using the same injection pump, lift plate, injector, and is not turbocharged (there is a question in my mind on whether the 4.182 actually is non-turbo, because of the large difference in power per given CFM. All the info points to a non-turbo though).
Lets start with the 4.154. The rated HP output of the industrial versions of the 4.135 (66 @ 4200 RPM) and 4.154 (67 @ 3600 RPM) are basically the same per given CFM. Meaning, the 4.154 develops its power with lower RPM's, but has the same CFM consumption. The TQ output is about 15% higher though. This makes sense because the 4.154 has a longer stroke, but same bore as the 4.135. (On a side note, not sure why people get so worked up and wrapped around the axle about HP. TQ is what diesel's crank out! HP is for race cars, not for diesel engines with internal components weighing more than the total modern engine. I digress, sorry). It looks like if at the very least, I can bring the power band down a few hundred RPMs into a more street-able range and not have to rev the guts out.
The industrial version of the 4.182 (85 @ 3600) cranks out about 20 HP more than the 4.135 (66 @ 4200) with only 50 CFM consumption more than the 4.135. The TQ output is roughly figured out to be about 33 ft/lbs more at the same CFM, with total TQ output 46 ft/lbs more, but still at a lower RPM then the other two engines (the 4.182 has a larger bore and larger stroke than the 4.135 and 4.154). Now we're talking! Crank up the boost and away we go! The rated power RPMs for the 4.154 and 4.182 are the same at 3600 RPMs, but the peak TQ RPMs are different; 2000 (4.154) vs. 1800 (4.182)
On paper, it looks like the injection pump can handle the increased power demands, so if I could force feed the 4.135 more air I could have a monster 2.2l diesel engine chewing up the street! Sweet! Whoa..... wait a minute...... now that we know we can, the question becomes "should we do this?" Can the 4.135's internal components handle the increased power? It turns out that the Perkins engineers answered that question for us. They beefed up the 4.154 and 4.182's internal components to handle the power. The 4.154 crankshaft has larger main and rod journals and larger gudgeon (wrist) pins. The 4.182 components are even larger than the 4.154! The 4.182 also has larger exhaust valves (2mm larger), piston cooling oil jets, and an internal oil cooler. I suspect that the 4.154 and 4.182 have a larger injection pump distributor too (the part numbers are different than the 4.135). I have a 4.154 and 4.182 oil pump, both are bigger than the 4.135 (and no they wont fit the 4.135).
So, I am still left with the questions, “can the 4.135 survive a power increase?” “How far can I take it before parts start breaking?” Like I said before, I like longevity in my engines. I have one engine that has lived through 350k miles; only having one head change (suffered from a cracked head when my brother ran it out of water and seized the engine on the freeway. Put a new head on it, still run it today). Am I willing to give that up to gain a few quick ponies? If I want power, there are plenty of cheap, nicely designed turbocharged engines that would fit nicely in a new Mazda or Ranger. No one is making these engines or parts for these Perkins engines anymore. There are limited parts available for the 4.154 and the 4.182, but the interchange with the 4.135 is limited to a few parts. Once the supply is gone, they're gone. I suspect that although people might despise them or look down on their lowliness now, their rarity has some merit on price down the road. Not sure I want to dump a bunch of time and money into a one-way engine, only to have it fail shortly there after. I like my engine too much for that. So, after reviewing the facts and weighing the pros/cons have decided to just enjoy my little 2.2l diesel, just the way it is; slow, noisy, heavy, dead simple and ultra-reliable. To each their own, but just thought a little information might be handy.
Just some thoughts! Have fun!
