How To: Build your own 4.0L turbo Cummins (Beware...170+ pics)

[Glacialbass]

We're still waiting for you to make it to the dyno and show some numbers, along with boost levels and AFR across the RPM range. Make it happen already!

 

[XJCasper]

What I want is:

1) Package Price
2) Installation price
3) How long would the install take.
4) Would you want to travel for the install, travel expenses paid? Facilities could be arranged in one form or another.

Could be a good time to take a family road trip.

 

[Boostwerks.com]

We're still waiting for you to make it to the dyno and show some numbers, along with boost levels and AFR across the RPM range. Make it happen already!

The company I work for (day job) recently announced that they are killing the company after the year. Needless to say, life has it's own priorities sometimes. I'll make it happen, but right now I can't say when.

What I want is:

1) Package Price
2) Installation price
3) How long would the install take.
4) Would you want to travel for the install, travel expenses paid? Facilities could be arranged in one form or another.

Could be a good time to take a family road trip.

We may be able to work something out. The package price would depend on the components that you'd like or need. Would it be possible to have the rig brought down here instead? I have room and fabrication would be a lot easier. I greatly appreciate the offer!

 

[XJCasper]

Sounds like a family road trip. We have been talking about moving to areas such as Utah or Colorado. Are there any Casinos in your area?

 

[mattrains]

Hey Bryson,

I sent you an email about your big brake kit. Didn't know if you were selling that or not?

Matt

 

[Boostwerks.com]

Hey Bryson,

I sent you an email about your big brake kit. Didn't know if you were selling that or not?

Matt

Replied. Thanks for letting me know as I missed it somehow. :banghead:

 

[romandian]

bryson, i was looking at the pictures again and your turbine seems huge, much bigger than the t3 i have on the bench right now. i believe you mentioned the turbo was a t3/t4-57 with a p-trim turbine. now p and o trims usually relate to to to4e turbines. are you sure you have a hybrid?

im asking because it looks like the turbo would not fit, if you had a smaller turbine and the same compressor.

 

[Boostwerks.com]

bryson, i was looking at the pictures again and your turbine seems huge, much bigger than the t3 i have on the bench right now. i believe you mentioned the turbo was a t3/t4-57 with a p-trim turbine. now p and o trims usually relate to to to4e turbines. are you sure you have a hybrid?

im asking because it looks like the turbo would not fit, if you had a smaller turbine and the same compressor.

You are correct. I have a Borg warner 57 trim T3/T4 with the P trim turbine. All the "T3/T4" is designating is the housing sizes. If you we're to go off of wheels alone, it would be a true straight T4.

A more common T3 wheel would be a stage 2 or a stage 3 wheel. The P trim however, is a perfect compliment to a large motor like the 4.0L allowing good exhaust flow while maintaining quick spool up.

Since the turbine housing is a T3, most T3/T4s will still fit. However the offset dimension from flange to shaft center will vary slightly between manufactures. There should still be enough clearance though for most to fit.

 

[Boostwerks.com]

It's been a while, but I'm happy to say that the rig has been running great! Still no dyno time planned yet unfortunetly, but I was able to finish the build on my axles. My plan is to install them before heading to the dyno. 4.56's should show slightly different numbers than the 3.55's

 

[gradon]

Pretty cool man:thumbup:

 

[whitek8gixxer]

I fricking love tool, turbos and jeeps so this thread rocks

 

[Boostwerks.com]

I fricking love tool, turbos and jeeps so this thread rocks

Thats what we're all about! :guitar::guitar::guitar:

Come join our cult!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boostw...6683036?v=info

 

[GrimmJeeper]

Thats what we're all about! :guitar::guitar::guitar:

Come join our cult!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boostw...6683036?v=info

"Like"ed

 

[chefpugh]

wow thats awesome i was thinking about supercharging mine but that looks a lot cooler

 

[Boostwerks.com]

wow thats awesome i was thinking about supercharging mine but that looks a lot cooler

Supercharging is 1960's technology. Turbo's are much more advanced/efficient/powerful...not to mention fun. :cheers:

Hell. Try finding a supercharger that will allow a 1.6L 4 cylinder make over 1600whp. :worship:

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

Supercharging is 1960's technology. Turbo's are much more advanced/efficient/powerful...not to mention fun. :cheers:

Hell. Try finding a supercharger that will allow a 1.6L 4 cylinder make over 1600whp. :worship:

Actually, SCs were first pateneted for internal combustion engines in 1885... By Gottlied Daimler, in 1902 Renault patented the centifugal SC. 1908 was the first appearence of a SC race car.

In 1918 the Turbocharger was practical and fitted to a V-12 Liberty aircraft engine.

Aircraft have always had the performance goodies first. The need for HP over weight is, somewhat, important...

When I started in the Air Force, I worked on the EC-121 series aircraft. They used the Wright 18 cylinder R3350 Turbo-compound engine that had 3 "turbochargers" a two stage internal supercharger and direct injection. They made 30500Hp. The Turbo is in quotes as they are actually Power Recovery Turbines that coupled directly to the crankshaft (via a viscous coupling) and deliverd 150BHp each to the engine at max BMHP. 450Hp conservatively (some versions developed 500Hp) directly to the crank... It actually made more usable Hp than the P&W R4360 28 cylinder engine.

So, both have been around for a while and from an efficiency stand point turbines make much more sense. An SC takes up to 20% of the developed Hp to turn the thing whereas the TC uses the "free" energy we just throw away. Another thing to consider is that an engine with a TC is more likely to pass emissions than not. The time spent in the turbine allows unburnt fuel to finish combusting. My 79 Ford Turbo Ghia Mustang passed emissions just fine after I removed the Air Injection Pump and blocked off the exhaust manifold. My Wife's Uncle was a State Trooper and they were running them at the time in that configuration. He is the one that told me to pull of the pump and adjust the waste gate for better boost.

My first Boosted Vehicle was my room mates 1971 Datsun 240Z. We fitted the TC from a Lycoming Aircraft Engine to it along with water/methenol injection to control detonation. This in 1972...

TC are, in my opinion, the way to go. Boosterwerks have done their research and have a well thought out approach. Personally I would prefer a draw through rather than a blow through (Vacuum production) but it works just fine as is. Vacuum producers can be had at any Speed Shop...

 

[praetorian]

Did I read right, "30500Hp?"

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

You know, that would be amazing.... Should read 3,500hp... Which is still better than 1hp/cuin. And here is the aircraft.

 

[Boostwerks.com]

Thanks for your input! but you took what I said far too literally lol

The "60s" comment was mean't to say that the roots blower technology hasn't changed much at all in the past 50 years. There have been some small changes sure, but the blowers are still far less efficient than todays new turbo's.

I also read the 30,500Hp and almost crapped myself lol. Either way those are definetly sweet power plants!

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

If it's not broken, don't fix it. Forced induction is fully developed. The only thing to an end user to decide with a TC is blow or draw thru. Draw thru systems typically use a waste gate to limit boost bypassing the turbine a "blow off" valve is not required as the boost shuts down with the throttle. A blow thru requires a blow off as you need to dump the boost pressure once the throttle shuts.

The Connis engines were really something to see. As McClellan AFB was the Headquarters for the 552nd AEWC Wing, we had a training squadron there also. It was always very amusing to watch a fresh Flight Engineer attempt to start the engines per the proceedure. It nearly always resulted in a stack fire as they would add in too much mixture. Aircraft engines of this sort are cold started by first manually turning the engine (read grab the prop and heave ho) for two revolutions (6 blades). Then you can turn on the Magnetos (2 per engine) and crank under starter power. Another 6 blades and you can open the mixture quadrant and add fuel. Should start within another 4 blades. The deal is that you add mixture slowly until it catches... Art, not science. Hot starting, you can skip the manual turn and go for the electric start. When the engines are shut down, you kill them by shutting off the mixture. This is where some new FEs get into trouble. They kill the Magnetos without having the mixure shut conpletely down and that allows fuel to get into the exhaust stacks.

Yes I ran these thing, can you tell? Had a taxi license as well. The reason you had to do a manual turn when cold is that the bottom cylinders tended to collect oil and if one of them was ready to hydrolock better to find it without using the high torque of the starter. Hot restarts, the engine did not have time to collect oil...

A single row radial has a single throw crankshaft. It carries the Master Rod and the rest of the con rods connect to that. Radials also always have on odd number of cylinders. 5, 7, or 9 are the most common. So, this 18 cylinder engine is a two row 9 cylinder setup. The R4350 was a 28 cylinder 4 row of 7 radial. Thats 4,350 Cubic Inches of displacement running exhaust stacks that are but a few (less than 5) feet long. Talk about a noise...