Who can tune this thing right?!

[AussieISX]

(06-14-2017 )barf Wrote:  I'm guessing that you run Australia's outback and your engine stays at a fixed rpm when running?

Only from what I've read on this site; an engine that constantly stays at the same rpm like one powering a ship or a generator do not require a VGT. If you're doing a lot of shifting, starting, stopping, changing speed then your engine will run more efficiently with one.

I'm sure Rawze's blood pressure went up reading that one.

I'm not too worried about people's blood pressure. I've actually done the mechanical work and tuning to my truck and compared. No I don't run at constant speed an rpm all day , I do a huge variety of work from short haulage with light weight to long and very heavy stuff. I also do this work traveling with other trucks set up with vgt's , and I can tell you the difference when both engines are properly tuned is nothing I would be dragging other drivers over the coals over . I see a lot repeating what they have read without having actual facts. Too my knowledge no one here saying it is a step backwards has actually done it to say it's s fact . I have .

[Running rough]

Just comparing the fueling of a stock isxe5 cm2250 which is has a wastegate to a stock comparable rating isx15 cm2250 which has a small Vgt, the fueling is a lot different, the wastegate in the e5 requires a LOT harder fueling to make same advertised power and torque, however let's not forget this would likely not translate to higher fuel mileage for our version here in North America under high load conditions, I do belive for the high heat high load situations the wastegate would undoubtedly have a longer lifespan, ps, that small turbo on our 2250, 2350 would be an emberestment for the austrailin road train market, what works for application is not so good for the next, it's like apples and oranges almost, me myself I like the tuning ability of the Vgt and that you can make it supper responsive down low, however I realize there are more moving parts in it and commen sense tells a guy that there is no way that it could outlast a traditional wastegate, it's simple, less moving parts= more reliabilty, for the most part anyways

[Brock]

I prefer the vg turbo solely for the 3rd stage of the jake.

[Rawze]

(06-14-2017 )AussieISX Wrote:  I still never understand why people are dragged over the coals around here for fitting a fixed geometry turbo and removing the vgt . The only engine that actually needs a vgt to run better is one with egr/dpf. Cummins still bring the Latest Cm2250 into this country without a VGT for a reason. It's purely a matter of opinion which turbo is better and for anything working hard the Vgt is junk . I wonder if the people that saying the vgt is the only way to go have ever actually run their truck without out one to do real comparisons.

This same damn argument over and over and over on this forum ...


Because I have seen lots of trucks set up both ways,.. and so has gearhead. First of all the bulk of applications here in the states, the VG gives a clear advantage.

Next is the fact that most of these dumbarsse delete shops pulling them off, sell those after-market crap sh$it worg-werner (or big boss) wanna be junky arsse $300 turbo's re-labeled as something else with big false promises of high flow manifolds and all the rest of the false advertised garbage to go with it. They also never use a turbo that is specifically designed to efficiently operate that engine in a non-vg way the say an HX series Holset is designed to do.

Next, is the fact that to get any kind of decent take off with a fixed turbo you have to over-fuel the truck on the bottom end to the point of hasing or smoking to get the turbo going. If you program the engine to follow proper fuel-air ratio so that it will even somewhat pass a snap acceleration smoke test (done in new jersey and California, more states to follow) on those fixed turbos then the engine becomes a slave to the turbo and a dog. A VG solves all those problems and makes for better engine and fuel efficiency at lower RPM and lower torque ranges. A fixed turbo that has been re-adjusted and set to do those same things will over-boost and have to constantly waste-gate at higher rpm ranges.


Next, no matter what you do,... something that is NON-adjustable where the engine does not have to become a slave to will always loose against something that is adjustable. It is simply a basic matter of adjustability vs non-adjustably.

Next is lifespan, I have heard it argued 1,000 times over. It is a tactic that all the bad delete shops use to sell you more parts and a tactic used by after-market turbo companies to push their sh$it too. You guys down under have the problem of availability more than anything that makes it quite a bit more expensive and hard to replace VG turbo's there, and that is not the case at all in the North american contenent.

As far as actual lifespan goes, the difference in average lifespan is actually about 25%. The average of people, even with de-mandated trucks, when programmed correctly their VG turbocharger lasts easily 600,000 miles or more (I have seen many make it to 800k miles) and a non-vg typical lifespan is actually about 800k. sure, some get lucky and make it 1.2 mil with a fixed turbo but do people with VG's making it past a mil sometimes too.

Next, is the engine brake of the cummins suffers greatly with a non-vg turbo. The engine brake on a cummins engine heavily relies on that turbo to make back-pressure and it totally sucks to go over veil pass, cabbage, donnor, Grape-vine, 4th july, or all the rest of the really big mountains that would torture the brakes on a truck without that heavy jake that cummins has to offer via the VG. Even those stupid exhaust blocking plate crap to try to simulate this now missing feature that these delete shops sell and offer cannot even come close to this.

====

It is a matter of opinion, I know quite well that a truck can be made to go down the road with a fixed-type of turbo properly as long as it is not one of those crap sh#it junk that all these delete shops push onto their victims, but at the end of 100,000 miles, or 500,000 miles or 1 million miles,,.. which one is going to make you more money after all expenses, fuel and everything else? -- Here in the states, a VG is the norm and can be replaced in a day, and outshines anything fixed when having to adapt to changing condions, terrain, loads, temperature extremes, and everything else. - to me it is the difference between a writing pen and chalk on a cave wall. - No comparison in what I do with my truck, and the same for most other people who have to drive through major city after major city, stop and go and traffic out the arsse, mountainous terrain, extreme high desert heat and the next week, a minus 30 degrees blizzard snowstorm. Hell, just going from pheonix, az to flagstaff in roughly 400 miles, it can be 90 degrees to blizzard conditions and a 7,000 foot altitude change all 1 one short trip. Try going the other way a few times loaded 80,000 lbs with little or no engine brake,.. Your hubs are going to be glowing red by the time you get to the bottom if you want to make any decent delivery time. That control of variance just cannot be simulated or replaced by anything non-adjustable. - It is like like someone arguing towards a fixed rpm engine and variable drive train itself vs something with a fuel pedal. -- I say WHY NOT BOTH!@.

Holset makes VG turbochargers with enough air-flow to handle 1,000 HP and more. it is not a question of power or torque vs what is available. of course, the smaller you go in size, the more fuel efficient you get, and even the HE451VE with its small neck can handle 620-HP at tis upper end on the 2250/2350's just like it is from the factory. Wy not take advantage of its quick response, fuel savings and everythign else it has to offer, including that strong jake. - A no-brainer if you ask me.


I will never be a proponent of something fixed in its operation vs completely adjustable It just makes more sense to stay with something not only programmable to meet all those conditions, but overall makes me more money in fuel savings alone 4 or 5 times over in savings vs replacement costs, justify its replacement 25% sooner any day of the week.

My own truck is out on the roads to make and squeeze every single last red cent of money every single mile of every single day while my truck is moving. Anything less and it is just simply Bulls%it to me hands down!. I have more than a million miles on my equipment and have only ever purchased ONE turbocharger replacement for it in that time span. Even the failure of the first one was actually my own damn fault for shutting the truck off with it 900 degrees and it carbonized the bearing. A fixed turbo would have suffered the same fate. The reman I have on it has more than 600,000 miles on it at the moment and still going strong.

Last but not least,.. EVEN the guys who I have spoken to that took the time to undo that fixed turbo on their equipment who did have them tuned well, who were looking for fuel efficiency etc. and not hell bent on big power and self perpetuated ego stroking that eventually went back and spent the money to put back that VG Holset, still say the truck drives better with the VG, has better low-end response, no more hazing or smoking and wasted fuel at take-off, and simply has better overall drive-ability especially in city and mountainous environments.

BTW: I am not against some models of fixed turbos completely, just most of them. The Holset HX series has its place and use. - If I were to live where the VG was hard to get or get parts for, or the cost of operating them were very high compared to something very close, but almost always slightly less efficient,.. I would use the latter. I would also use a fixed turbo if my application were torturing a VG due to high heat and high constant torque demand for hours on end day after day like a lot of the road trains in the outback have to suffer. - There are advantages to using them in some applications,.. but I highly stress SOME APPLICATIONS where the disadvantages of that non-adjustable turbo can be outweighed.

So YES, I am quick to tell someone to take off that total POS re-labeled borg werner crap sh%it turbo that some ignorant delete shop slapped onto your engine to the tune of several thousand dollars in unnecessary expense. they talk their victims into that crap because THEY ARE SIMPLY TOO GODDAMN STUPID TO MAKE THAT VG WORK PROPERLY AFTER ALL TEIR ENGINE ECM BUTCHERING!@ instead of properly re-programming that perfectly suited VG to work well and shine in its application like it should. -- Remember I am a proponent in MORE FUEL SAVINGS ABOVE ALL -- THAT IS YOUR NUMBER ONE EXPENSE OUT HERE! and SLOWING DOWN and all the things that actually make you more money instead of stroking ones ego and torturing ones engine all day trying to justify making it work harder with all that after-market crap that does nothing whatsoever to help your bottom dollar.

People too quickly forget that on this forum,,. I am NOT going to give people the answer they are looking for, or placate bad decisions of their past, but instead I will say to them the things that I WOULD DO instead. - And that hot-sauce is to wake them up and help them consider options towards better alternatives to what they have done or are doing.

If someone asks me "how do I get this right again",.. I will always tell them to first UNDO as many wrongs as they can and go from there. I GUARANTEE WITHOUT ANY DOUBT OR QUESTION! -- That if I were to rip off the VG holset turbo from my truck that is busting 8-9 MPG loaded to 80,000 lbs,.. THERE WOULD BE NO WAY IN HELLS CREATION that I could get it to be the same fuel mileage. It would just not be possible to dial it in so precisely. The engine would become a complete slave to the turbo if i were to dial it in to meet the same exact fuel-air ratios across so many rpm variations and become a complete dog at low rpm unless I wanted to waste a bunch of fuel and make it smoke like hell at take-off.;.. -- NOPE!@!! NOT GONNA HAPPEN! -- I WILL ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE TO TAKE THAT POS NON-VG TURBO AND SHOVE IT UP THE ASSE OF THAT DUMBARSSE THAT SOLD IT TO YOU!!!-- THAT IS WHAT I WOULD SAY! because it is that same extreme high fuel mileage that is the only thing that makes my bottom of the barrel low-rent freight hauliong asse make any kind of decent profit out here.

"Almost as good, or just as good" just is not going to get me there. I would rather have something that can be set and adjusted to 100% right.


Call me blind, ignorant, or a dumbasse for thinking that way,... but YES, that will always be my response. No one has to agree to it.

[AussieISX]

I'm not interested in arguing about it . I've done it . What I've said is not theoretical. With a hx60w most of what you've written is simply not true . They don't spool slow without over fuelling to achieve it , they actually spool just as quick if not quicker than the vgt and you don't close the shi#t out of it creating a heap of back pressure to do it . As far as running down the road, if you were to log it , they behave nearly identical to a vgt . Again I have done it , each to there own . The Borg warner crap fitted without a waste gate is a mistake but a hx60w as used by cummins is a very viable option for those that want something other than a vgt.

[Signature620]

Cummins just unveiled our version of the X15 - A Euro 6 compliant engine. It is our current ISXe5 (common rail, he600wg, scr) plus a DOC, DPF & a maintenance-free breather filter. They still don't opt for the VGT and the only other difference is that EGR is not used. The recommended changeout/garaunteed life of these HE600WGs is 9,000hrs/600,000km and they are $3,300AUD drive in-drive out to change which takes 2hrs max. Whereas on an 871, you're looking at approx $7,500 just in parts and 4hrs labour for a VGT and actuator that Cummins will only garauntee for 450,000km.

[Rawze]

(06-15-2017 )AussieISX Wrote:  I'm not interested in arguing about it . I've done it . What I've said is not theoretical. With a hx60w most of what you've written is simply not true . They don't spool slow without over fuelling to achieve it , they actually spool just as quick if not quicker than the vgt and you don't close the shi#t out of it creating a heap of back pressure to do it . As far as running down the road, if you were to log it , they behave nearly identical to a vgt . Again I have done it , each to there own . The Borg warner crap fitted without a waste gate is a mistake but a hx60w as used by cummins is a very viable option for those that want something other than a vgt.

I still say -- Ain't no damn way in hell it is more efficient than my VG. -- or for that matter -- 100% as effective. When you get hyper fuel mileage, even the slightest things of all make it drop by a LOT. it is nowhere near the same as going form 6.2 to 6.1 mpg,.. When something effects fuel mileage that is very high on these trucks, that same something can drop it off by as much as .5 mpg and cost someone like me another 2,000 gallons of fuel in a year.

I never said that the HX60 does not get somewhat close,.. but I still say it is not quite as good. not only that, but it has a bigger air-flow than my turbo and the bigger the turbo the less efficient they become to fuel savings on mid-tier engines like mine (and the bulk of other trucks in America).

Someone is more than welcome to mail/send me an HX60W if they want to know exactly how it stacks up, instructions on how they want it set, manifold if needed, and a program that you they have perfected for the mid-tier CM871 with it. I will put it all on/in my truck for a month or 2 and see how much my fuel mileage changes. If my fuel mileage changes by even one tenth, I will see it clear as day on the fuel mileage tracking software I have that tracks fuel mileage based on state to state and fuel stop to fuel stop with more than a million miles of known values in it and not some stupid average.

My wife and son drive the truck, so it would be a fair test. That tracking software is so sensitive to changing fuel mileages that when I put on new tires last time, the whole graph dropped across the board for the first 80,000 miles until the new tires got broken in.





It had better not haze or make any kind of black smoke under snap acceleration test either,.. not even a little bit, because the truck goes to California almost every single week, and NJ once in a while and has been emissions tested a few times in the past randomly. -- IT MUST PASS A SNAP-ACCELERATION AND EMISSIONS TEST like my Vg already does. Otherwise, they are going to be paying the fine for me too!.

[Wiseman]

Rawze , AussieISX , gentleman ,
It's big pleasure to read this debate ! Not only civilized but informative and educational !
Hats off to You !
Thank You !

[hhow55]

Maybe this will help.