Builds White Lightning's Diesel Conversion - A 1994 T100 OM606 swap (3 Viewers)

[Jav]

Bryan-

that's awesome! Do you remember how the EGT looked on those long full throttle hill pulls? That's a big concern with my build since my turck is quite a bit heavier and I do tow an 8000# trailer on occasion.

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

Bryan-

that's awesome! Do you remember how the EGT looked on those long full throttle hill pulls? That's a big concern with my build since my turck is quite a bit heavier and I do tow an 8000# trailer on occasion.

When I was running 20-22 psi, and ~80% throttle on those hills (what it took to hold 70mph, which is ~2500rpm for me) it was pretty steady at 1200°F. Full fueling (not sure the actual fueling, but 75cc is the estimate from the controller) it would climb to around 1350°F I think. Admittedly a better turbo is really in the works for better pulling. That said I rarely am towing anything heavy, and the truck makes it up those climbs at 50% throttle with egts around 1000°F with no load so it isn't too high on the priority list.

Do you have a build thread somewhere?

 

[Jav]

Thanks Bryan.. that's exactly what I needed. I've targeted 1250 As my maximum safe allowable EGT...1350 would be a concern for me. I do have mine setup with the VNT turbo, an extra large intercooler and I am prewired for methanol injection although that system will only be installed if I find EGT's above 1250 .


On your MPG concerns... I've been pretty immersed in the DSL1 tuning process since my truck is now running. My understanding of how the tables interact lead me to believe your boost concerns aren't impacting your mileage (at least not directly). As best as I can tell, and this has been pretty well confirmed by Baldur- the control sequence is- gas pedal controls Ethrottle> Ethrottle controls "fuel request table"> fuel request table controls boost target table. The only place "boost" can directly impact fueling (and MPG) is with the fuel limit table which cuts fuel if expected boost is not present.

I will be doing very similar work to you as I am really interested in maximizing economy at highway speeds but I think the best approach to that will be to do some logging at highway speeds and try to play with the main fuel request table to maintain a given speed with the least amount of fuel. I have an exhaust pressure probe on my setup and with the VNT, I believe I can influence the load/fueling to a degree by minimizing exhaust back pressure (which will likely reduce boost- hence the indirect fueling relationship...) but it remains to be seen to what degree that will work.

Great work on your part though... this has been a VERY informative and helpful thread.

John

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

Thanks Bryan.. that's exactly what I needed. I've targeted 1250 As my maximum safe allowable EGT...1350 would be a concern for me. I do have mine setup with the VNT turbo, an extra large intercooler and I am prewired for methanol injection although that system will only be installed if I find EGT's above 1250 .


On your MPG concerns... I've been pretty immersed in the DSL1 tuning process since my truck is now running. My understanding of how the tables interact lead me to believe your boost concerns aren't impacting your mileage (at least not directly). As best as I can tell, and this has been pretty well confirmed by Baldur- the control sequence is- gas pedal controls Ethrottle> Ethrottle controls "fuel request table"> fuel request table controls boost target table. The only place "boost" can directly impact fueling (and MPG) is with the fuel limit table which cuts fuel if expected boost is not present.

I will be doing very similar work to you as I am really interested in maximizing economy at highway speeds but I think the best approach to that will be to do some logging at highway speeds and try to play with the main fuel request table to maintain a given speed with the least amount of fuel. I have an exhaust pressure probe on my setup and with the VNT, I believe I can influence the load/fueling to a degree by minimizing exhaust back pressure (which will likely reduce boost- hence the indirect fueling relationship...) but it remains to be seen to what degree that will work.

Great work on your part though... this has been a VERY informative and helpful thread.

John

you got it on the dsl1 control strategy, lastly being that the boost target table feeds into the base wastegate duty cycle table. I have the PID control for the boost corrections zero'd out as it was only leading to more instability and aren't really needed if you do a good job tuning the base wastegate duty cycle table.

Regarding the boost concerns, I'm concerned with efficiency due to back pressure on the engine, not the boost controlling fueling. not allowing the wastegate to crack with this engine at 2500 rpm on the stock kkk turbo is less efficient than with it cracked slightly.

To your point about adjusting fueling on the highway...since this isn't a gas engine...removing the fuel at a given rpm/tps will just require more tps to get back to the same amount of fuel to hold the engine speed constant, basically more or less fuel is torque. since you have a VGT, for economy you could tweak your turbo "nozzles" to find the best boost/exhaust manifold backpressure that allows the engine to hold a certain speed with the minimum amount of fuel. Basically I'd just find a flat stretch of highway, put it in cruise control, and tweak your turbo control while monitoring the fuel request. Whatever yields your lowest fuel request is probably your best bet.

I keep meaning to put together a DSL1 tuning thread over on superturbodiesel.com. My DSL1 settings are so far from the defaults to make the (manual) car driveable. The PID control on the rack position still sucks and causes a few lurches at high rpm and low throttle inputs, but it's so rare I haven't given it priority to track it down. How much have you had to change to make your truck driveable?

 

[Jav]

yeah - I may have misunderstood your concerns... I got the impression you thought the boost was controlling fueling and not the other way around. I completely agree with you... I think the exhaust back pressure at steady state throttle "may" impact the fueling to some degree. Not sure how much but that's going to be my focus to improve highway MPG... Im not quite there yet.

And yes - I have had to tweak many of the parameters... even to just get the truck to start and idle well. I'm really pleased with the DSL1 and the software Baldur developed. I'm trying to teach myself and trying not to bother Baldur too much but this package has way more capability than I currently understand or can utilize. Little by little I'm figuring it out. I'd be really happy to bounce things back and forth as I'm sure your having to do much of the same? My situation is a little more complex because my truck is newer and I'm trying to keep the trucks other computers happy... otherwise many of the trucks other systems (and bells and whistles) won't work.

I had to change- pedal voltage mapping- rack request table- pre and post glow tables- main fuel request table and the boost control tables. Logging is INDESPENSIBLE, and AWESOME! I've gotten pretty good at creating my own charts based on what I need to see to address a problem. I haven't gotten into the PID parameters yet but at some point, I'll need to. I have a slight instability just before the controller reverts to the IDLE control tables that seems PID related since all the control parameters are steady but PID values appear to be fighting each other and creating a strange fuel request oscilation. I'm not understand the whole picture yet but in only occurs while not moving (if I rev the engine in the garage)… it seems fine on the road so I haven't dug too far.

I haven't done too much tuning for drivability yet because I've had a pretty bad cold (likely from over-working on the truck in the cold). I did work on several CUD files for another gentleman who is using the DSL1 on his F150 conversion and the last file I did for him, is the one I'm using on mine. The First drive was way better than I was expecting. Very good power, Excellent boost (2.7bar absolute) with less lag than the KKK turbo. The ride was cut short because my exhaust map sensor hose popped off (I forgot to tighten 1 clamp) and my ford crank position sensor broke ( I suspect my clearance was too tight to the trigger wheel).

I was thinking about a DSL tuning thread also but I'm not sure just how much I can contribute as yet. I've gotten past most problems myself but not without some head scratching and fumbling around to see what things do. If you don't mind- I'd love to bounce things around between us but I don't want to hi jack your thread... this has been my goto place for inspiration and direction.

BTW- Great call on the motor mounts! My truck is smooth as silk with the OEM Mercedes oil filled mounts!

 

[kaputnik]

Hi Bryan, would you share the adapter CAD files? I'm converting my HJ60 to OM606 and would like to check my measurements of the om606 pattern against something already working.

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

Hi Bryan, would you share the adapter CAD files? I'm converting my HJ60 to OM606 and would like to check my measurements of the om606 pattern against something already working.

Can't guarantee anything, but if you PM me with an email i can send you a solidworks .prt file. I can't for the life of me find the pdf prints I made. Note that if using an om648 oil pan, like I did, it might be best to just mark and drill those holes as I don't have any measurements of those holes relative to the om606 dowel holes/bolt pattern

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

Haven't done an update in a little while. The truck has gotten a decent amount of attention over the past month.

The previous arrangement had the intake back by the cab which created a lot of filter noise in the cabin. I also had no good way of getting cooler air directed towards the filter. I wanted to swap the battery location with the intake.

The fender location where the intake initially was is sloped, and it took my awhile to figure out a battery mount design that would work. Finally got around to making something. It's not pretty, but I think it ties into enough locations so that the battery will stay put.

As it now sits. I haven't finished the intake box,

Ghetto fab exhaust weight. Still dealing with an exhaust pipe resonance. Been mounting weights like this over the exhaust with little success, although they do seem to have an effect.

Also added a 90 bend so that I could make use of a 1/4 wave resonator in hopes of canceling out the higher pitched whine i'm getting around 2300rpm.

The 310 monark nozzles I got off ebay didn't seem to fire right (only 1 of the 6 did the machine gun firing action on the tester). I ran them a few hundred miles and noticed no difference. Built myself a tester so I could rebuild these myself. Went with some firad 314 nozzles this time from IDparts.com. These seemed like they fired correctly on the tester. Will have to see if the engine runs any better now.

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

For anyone interested, ran the truck across the scales this morning. Initial measurements were with 3/4 tank, these were with 1/3. I imagine there is a 70lb difference in fuel, most of which would be added to the rear axle weight. Nonetheless this gives a decent estimate on how much extra weight was added to the front axle with the swap.

Front Axle: 2310 --> 2480 (+170)
Rear Axle: 1710 --> 1740 (+30)

 

[Prairie Swamp]

Thanks for posting that up. I don't think the after front/rear ratio would be out of line on any pickup truck. Nice job overall. I hope to get an OM617 into my mini-truck or FJ62 some day.

 

[anothernord]

Just read through some of your updates. Nice work on everything and congratulations on getting her roadworthy.

I ended up installing a similar VNT from the OM642 with great results as far as low end torque. I used the electronic actuator and controlled it with PWM from the DSL1. Now I'm upgrading to the OM648 turbo since it's a little better suited to the 606.

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

Just read through some of your updates. Nice work on everything and congratulations on getting her roadworthy.

I ended up installing a similar VNT from the OM642 with great results as far as low end torque. I used the electronic actuator and controlled it with PWM from the DSL1. Now I'm upgrading to the OM648 turbo since it's a little better suited to the 606.

Right back at ya. Your thread was a great read, and I'm glad to see you were able to get another turbo on there, the stock OM606 seems to have a ton of drawbacks to performance.

How are you planning to control the om648 turbo btw? I think I recalled that the module on it spoke an unknown CAN message? When you say better suited, is that with respect to fitment or the compressor map?

 

[anothernord]

Right back at ya. Your thread was a great read, and I'm glad to see you were able to get another turbo on there, the stock OM606 seems to have a ton of drawbacks to performance.

How are you planning to control the om648 turbo btw? I think I recalled that the module on it spoke an unknown CAN message? When you say better suited, is that with respect to fitment or the compressor map?

The 648 turbo has the same electronic actuator as the OM642 turbo so it's super easy to get working. Some of those Hella actuators are CAN-based, but not this one. The compressor map is the main reason why it's a good fit. Physically, it's not ideal since you can't clock the turbine housing with respect to the CHRA on the 648 turbo. So it sits at about at 15 deg angle with respect to horizontal, which is ok but not idea for an off-roading rig where you'll see off-camber driving and oil won't drain out of the turbo as well. The compressor outlet also needs a pipe tig welded to it to adapt to regular intercooler piping. I'm working on getting the turbo fit as we speak so there will be more hiccups I'm sure.

 

[AirheadNut]

I'm not sure how similar the OM648 turbo is to some of the smaller Garrett VNT's, but it is possible to clock the hot side on some models. It requires making a template based on the number of vanes in the turbine housing and drilling a new hole to locate the CHRA to the turbine housing. I was able to get my GT1749VA to within 5º of vertical on a custom manifold. It may also require a new actuator bracket.

Here is the small hole for the locating pin. In this case there are 11 vanes, so the turbo can be clocked in approximately 32.73º increments. The actuator ring is simply moved the required number of spaces and a new hole drilled.

This is the template I made. The outer ring is the diameter of the CHRA, and the inner ring is where the hole center sits. the circle is divided equally based on the number of vanes.

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

Been awhile since I've updated. Added a viair air compressor (350c) and a 1.5gallon air tank to the truck along with some solenoids to control the air bags from the cab.

There are 3 solenoids, 1 for adding air from the tank to the air bags, 1 to release it, and another to mix the air between the air bags (normally closed to keep the truck from rolling to one side on a turn). The compressor kicks on and fills the tank based on a pressure switch on the tank.

Switches are mounted by the shifters, 1 to power the system on and allow the air compressor to kick on, 1 to raise/lower the truck, and another to fire the solenoid to mix/connect the 2 air bags for equal filling. Being able to control the bags independently is nice as it allows you to tilt the truck if you're unloading a bike and the truck is parked at an angle.

If anyone is interested I have a plumbing/electrical schematic.

Also T'd in to the air tank to hook up an air hose for tires. The 1.5 gallon tank wont fill a tire without kicking the compressor on, but it's better than nothing. The viair 350c is also rated for 100% duty cycle.

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

The om606 uses a heater valve that allows flow to bypass the heater AND route back around to the water pump inlet when you aren't running the heat. The old toyota system/what I initially used simply blocks the flow out of this part of the engine. I was a little concerned that blocking flow might mess with the intended coolant flow around the rear cylinders. I added a bypass manifold with a hydraulic solenoid valve to allow some flow out of this part of the block

Ended up brazing a T on to a -6 sae fitting and welding a barb to the outlet of the manifold to help it package better

Valve is back in the middle by the firewall

 

[Tredav39]

Hello sir. Love your build! I’m also getting stuff ready to do a 606 in my Toyota. I was wondering if you would happen to have the cad program for the adapter plate and the flywheel spacer? And if you would be willing to share it if you have it.

 

[AlanMcR]

MB sells a normally open coolant valve for doing just that. It is used on mid-90's G wagens. I can get you the part number if you want.

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

MB sells a normally open coolant valve for doing just that. It is used on mid-90's G wagens. I can get you the part number if you want.

that'd be great if you could. The valve setup i have is meant for hydraulic systems where pressure differentials are high, so I don't think it will work too well with the small pressure differentials the cooling system works with.

 

[Bryan Plunkett]

I recently came to the realization (through reading someone else's thread) that I was living on borrowed time for my Mercedes Flexplate. I was really dumb and didn't take note that the bolts that held the torque converter to the flexplate also helped hold the 2 piece flexplate together. Without the bolts there are only 3 rivets holding it together. It only needs to take the torque of starting the engine, and mine did fine for ~15k miles but someone on another forum ran in to issues with the rivets wallowing out. I decided to pull the transmission and take care of this before it left me stranded. The 6 bolts (and nuts) are installed in this picture. hopefully this helps someone remember not to end up like me.

At the same time I decided to take a step to make the engine feel more like a truck engine. For a diesel, the om606 with it's short stroke and high revving design, doesn't have a lot of rotational inertia, and therefor bogs down to some degree when starting from a standstill in a heavy vehicle (or a vehicle pulling a trailer). For vehicles using an automatic transmission this probably isn't an issue with the right torque converter, but for a manual transmission it takes more slipping the clutch than what I think is acceptable. The 3.4 toyota flywheel weighs in at 23lbs. LCE engineering offers a 38lb flywheel. Now unfortunately due to space constraints, it isn't 65% more inertia, it's actually 40% more inertial for 65% more weight. nonetheless it's the best option on the market and they were nice enough to drill the Mercedes pattern in it for me which saved me a ton of time not having to slot it out again.

The LCEngeering flywheel does look very high quality. I did note that it doesn't have what I can only imagine are drain holes for clutch dust or water (if it ever got in there) like the OE style does. I also didn't find a single place where balancing holes/features are located on it. I called them to double check and they assured me it was "balanced on a lathe"...not sure how you balance on something that removed material the entire way around. Nonetheless i haven't noticed any vibrations, so it could just be that the quality of the steel they use is very homogeneous and doesn't really need any balance adjustments.

For anyone whose setup is similar to mine I highly recommend using a heavier flywheel from the get-go. The truck seems to idle a lot smoother (less hunting) and it's certainly noticeable when letting the clutch out that the engine doesn't bog as fast. On the road i'd say it doesn't rev up AS fast as it used to...but the caveat is that I still think it rev's too quickly for a truck, so this is a step in the right direction. If I could of fit a heavier/larger diameter flywheel I certainly would have.