Variable turbos, which is the best? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

derherr65 · #1 10-12-2006, 10:58 AM

What's the best variable turbo for a 617?
Holset he300 - Variable, water cooled, 100-300HP, wastegated.
Garret GT2359V - variable, 200HP, from MB 320CDI.
Garrett gt1749V - variable, 150HP, volkswagen.
dodge? TBO352 - variable, 175HP, 1987 dodge
Garrett GT2062V - variable, 160HP, volvo
Other???
Jeep liberty? Is this a variable? For $100?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MakeTrack=true

aklim · #2 10-12-2006, 05:08 PM

Just curious, why do you want a variable vane turbo? The Ford Powerstroke has had trouble with theirs and it might be a Garret. That might be why the 6.0L Powerstroke which was introduced in mid 03 is being replaced by a MY 08 in mid year of 07. The 6.4 has sequential turbos instead of a variable vane unit.

Rudolphrocks · #3 10-12-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Just curious, why do you want a variable vane turbo? The Ford Powerstroke has had trouble with theirs and it might be a Garret. That might be why the 6.0L Powerstroke which was introduced in mid 03 is being replaced by a MY 08 in mid year of 07. The 6.4 has sequential turbos instead of a variable vane unit.

i think (not often) that this is due more to the new ultra low sulfur laws than a prblem

derherr65 · #4 10-12-2006, 05:52 PM

Variable vane turbos will provide boost without excessibe heat over a much wider range than normal turbos. In other words if you have a turbo vehicle that doesn't "get up and go" until 2500rpm the same size variable turbo will "get up and go" at 1500rpm while still giving the same boost and no more heat at 3500rpm.

Porsche, Mercedes, Volvo, several semi companies and most foreign makers(all those diesel models europe gets that we don't) seem to have no trouble with them. I suspect it's another Ford problem, not Garrett.

Personally I believe the new 6.4 engine is for more power to combat the new pollution crap and also due to lost faith in the 6.0 by many formerly loyal Ford owners.

Sequential turbos require very complicated plumbing, quite a bit of space, and enough valves that computer control is almost mandatory. My vehicle is not computerized. I'd like to keep it that way. Not to mention I don't have a lot of spare space under the hood.

aklim · #5 10-12-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolphrocks

i think (not often) that this is due more to the new ultra low sulfur laws than a prblem

According to wiki: Although the engines have been plagued by problems, Ford still sells 250,000 or more each year at a $5,300 premium over the gasoline engine options in its Super Duty trucks. The problems include leaky fuel injectors, oil leaks, and broken turbochargers. There have been 77 technical service bullitens related to the engine since its introduction.

I don't see what ULSD has to do with it since Ford had problems before ULSD came about.

GREASY_BEAST · #6 10-12-2006, 06:01 PM

what do you predict the overall cost of this mod to be? It would be AWESOME to make torque at 1500rpm in the 617... Think: taller gears + low-end power = higher speed at lower rpms = fuel efficiency?? In the right combination? could this maybe contribute to greatly increased engine life?

#7 10-12-2006, 06:24 PM

For a 617, a GT22V is minimum.

derherr65 · #8 10-12-2006, 06:39 PM

Well... that's a little hard to figure. It depends on the parts, your skill, and so on. A variable turbo is $400-2000. An intercooler 100-700. Then you have some pipe, connections, fittings, $150-$1000. You'd have to have an EGT guage and probably a boost guage $150. So if you're skilled(welding and machining) and using used parts, and lucky, $800. If new parts, and bolt on fittings only, $4000.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

For a 617, a GT22V is minimum.

Why is that? I would have thought a turbo that could support 150HP(GT17V) would be enough.

#9 10-12-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derherr65

Why is that? I would have thought a turbo that could support 150HP(GT17V) would be enough.

You can't just go by the HP statement. A TDI is FAR more efficient than a 617.

Since there is no wategate ALL the exhaust has to flow through the turbine. A GT17 is perfect for the 1.9L TDI, but too small for a 3.0L OM617.

derherr65 · #10 10-12-2006, 07:15 PM

Ok, good to know, and thanks.
The stock is a T3-45? T3-50?

derherr65 · #11 10-12-2006, 11:30 PM

Stock is a T3-45. After hours of compressor map comparison, I think a Garrett GT2052, 52mm, 50trim, .51a/r is almost an exact match. A GT2056, GT2252, or GT2259 would all out flow the stock T3-45, or even a T3-50. So a variable based on the GT22 looks to be ideal for a little more power. I can't find a map for a GT23, but it probably would also work.

derherr65 · #12 10-13-2006, 12:06 AM

We're getting screwed. Europeans have diesels running GT22Vs coming out their A$s.

GT2256V, unless otherwise noted.
2000+ bmw 330d - 184HP 2.9L D
2003+ bmw X5 2.9L D(gt2260V)
2001+ chrysler Grand Cherokee 2.7L D
2002+ FORD Ranger 2.8L D
2002+ Range Rover Td6 2.9L D
2000+ mercedes E270 CDI 2.7L D
2001+ mercedes C270 2.7L D
2000+ mercedes M270 2.7L D
2002+ AUDI A6 TDI - 150HP 2.5L D
1998+ nissan trade 3.0L(gt2252V)

greasybenz · #13 10-13-2006, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

According to wiki: Although the engines have been plagued by problems, Ford still sells 250,000 or more each year at a $5,300 premium over the gasoline engine options in its Super Duty trucks. The problems include leaky fuel injectors, oil leaks, and broken turbochargers. There have been 77 technical service bullitens related to the engine since its introduction.

I don't see what ULSD has to do with it since Ford had problems before ULSD came about.

this is only with the early 6.0L engines. Ive read numerous forums about the early 6.0's having to go into the dealer every week problem after problem to the point that ford didnt want to fix the engine anymore and bought back the truck.

The later 6.0L (like my moms) has most of the problems fixed and we havent had any trouble pulling our sea ray boat on B100!

derherr65 · #14 10-13-2006, 12:47 AM

For those of you that are curious: As compared to a T3-45
GT2052 06% more air flow, 01% more pressure, 2% less efficient.
GT2056 29% more air flow, 03% more pressure, 4% more efficient.
GT2252 38% more air flow, 05% more pressure, 4% more efficient.
GT2259 38% more air flow, 10% more pressure, 2% more efficient.