prechambers mods?
prechambers mods?
(02-08-2015, 09:55 AM)barrote MTU wich engine is yours? and what size hole did u used?I have an OM 617-952 in a 1984 300TD and the OM648 in a 2005 E320 CDI. This was for the 617.
i have a set of prechambers for 605 drilled at 3mm the 8 around holes and 2mm at the center one. since i dont have all the tools, it takes me some more time than expected. so still on the box.
i´ll post my results.
regards
(02-08-2015, 11:08 AM)led-panzer Here is my theory.Were you able to fit the 5/64's drill bit into your bottom hole? I could not and that's what I drilled it with. Otherwise you are saying you are going to enlarge them less than what I did, save the bottom hole. I also enlarged all three front holes to the same size. My total is .8411- slightly less than your plan, due to your larger bottom hole. I could fit a 1/8 into the two "front" holes- which makes them .125.
Stock Holes:
Middle hole = .132
Either side of middle hole = .120
Back holes = .092
Bottom hole = .078
The area of all stock holes = .05432
25% Enlargement:
Middle hole = .165
Ether side of middle hole = .150
Back holes = .115
Bottom hole = .097
The area of 25% enlarged holes = .08483
The area of the 8mm burn tube = .07787
By exceeding the area of the burn tube, you've eliminated the holes as a restriction, because they flow more than the burn tube.
Of course you've achieved the same thing. And it seems it works to great effect. My theory of increasing the hole size but keeping the hole sizes still proportional to each other is to hopefully preserve whatever flow pattern or swirl that mercedes was trying to achieve.
(02-08-2015, 09:55 AM)barrote MTU wich engine is yours? and what size hole did u used?I have an OM 617-952 in a 1984 300TD and the OM648 in a 2005 E320 CDI. This was for the 617.
i have a set of prechambers for 605 drilled at 3mm the 8 around holes and 2mm at the center one. since i dont have all the tools, it takes me some more time than expected. so still on the box.
i´ll post my results.
regards
(02-08-2015, 11:08 AM)led-panzer Here is my theory.Were you able to fit the 5/64's drill bit into your bottom hole? I could not and that's what I drilled it with. Otherwise you are saying you are going to enlarge them less than what I did, save the bottom hole. I also enlarged all three front holes to the same size. My total is .8411- slightly less than your plan, due to your larger bottom hole. I could fit a 1/8 into the two "front" holes- which makes them .125.
Stock Holes:
Middle hole = .132
Either side of middle hole = .120
Back holes = .092
Bottom hole = .078
The area of all stock holes = .05432
25% Enlargement:
Middle hole = .165
Ether side of middle hole = .150
Back holes = .115
Bottom hole = .097
The area of 25% enlarged holes = .08483
The area of the 8mm burn tube = .07787
By exceeding the area of the burn tube, you've eliminated the holes as a restriction, because they flow more than the burn tube.
Of course you've achieved the same thing. And it seems it works to great effect. My theory of increasing the hole size but keeping the hole sizes still proportional to each other is to hopefully preserve whatever flow pattern or swirl that mercedes was trying to achieve.