One for the screamer buffs

I've got a brochure here from the US that covers all the models from them mid-late 50s and it only shows the 6-110 where as the other models (53 and 71) show various different configurations from 1 Cyl to 24 Cyl

Thanks, Werkhorse,
Sort of confirms what I thought, the 6-110 was what looks like an industrial/railcar engine purpose made.
Been posted on here that some dozers and off highway came out with them as standard equipment (I would consider that an industrial application. )So, I'm guessing that any road going trucks would either have had to have been either special order or as an aftermarket fit?? Maybe a 'stand alone' design? Whereas, as you pointed out, the more common 53-71 and even the 92 series could be considered as 'modular design' ??
Dave_64

Always some good reading in the MTU report. Here is a Hot rod style Pete.

www.mtu-report.com/History/Detroit-Diese...as-mean-as-it-sounds

Paul

Yeah, Paul,
Certainly something a bit different

Going back to those spec sheets that Swishy put up with GM (Detroit Diesel) different series engines, one particular engine came up as the 12v53. Not being familiar with it, (plenty of 12V71 stuff, of course) had a bit of a look and a bit of contradictory evidence says that they (12V53) were made for the US military for marine, power supply and similar yet another post says they never put them into full production. Anyone else??
Also, a couple of interesting posts on the 2 stroke 51 (yes, 51 series) engines, valveless, which seemed to be predominately built for marine use. Apparently (going by the blurbs) an extremely efficient and reliable engine, but suffered the same fate as a lot of the Detroit built stuff, (as well as quite a few other engine makers) of not being able to meet smoke and noise emission levels. Thought it interesting that the 51 series Detroits being valveless, were severely hampered when users tried to quieten them down by adding extra baffling in the exhausts and similar experiments.
Maybe Swishy was right, give 'em full bootfull at full noise and let 'em have their heads!
Dave_64

Valveless two-strokes are funny things. If petrol ones are anything to go by, you make even an incremental change to the air cleaner, or exhaust and you upset things massively. They'll suddenly either flood, or melt holes in pistons, but maybe only at a particular revs. BTDT!

Jarrod.

51 series seen @ Clunes




The Detroit Diesel Series 51 was a two-stroke diesel engine built by General Motors, Detroit Diesel Division from 1951 to 1959. Unlike other GM/Detroit Diesel engines, the 51 series designation did not refer to the cylinder displacement, but rather to the year it was introduced. Two versions were produced, an inline two-cylinder (2-51, 108 cu in (1.8 L)) and an inline four-cylinder model (4-51, 216 cu in (3.5 L)). It was a simplified version of the Series 53 that did not have exhaust valves. This was accomplished by using loop scavenging ports for both intake and exhaust along with a mechanical blower (supercharger). This engine used a dry sleeve with 9 intake ports and three exhaust ports in that sleeve. These sleeves were located in such a way that the exhaust ports lined up with exhaust ports in the block that were physically higher than the intake ports in the block. This resulted in pressurized cool air being forced through the intake ports just after the exhaust started exiting (note that the exhaust ports in the sleeves were higher at the top than the intake ports while the bottom of all ports in the sleeve are at the same height. The net compression ratio is 18:1. Unlike a two cycle gasoline engine, the crankcase was not used to draw in the fuel/air mixture. Instead, the supercharger forced air in the intake ports and diesel was injected by a camshaft actuated injector which was pressurized by a gear pump. Since the Diesel fuel is injected just before top dead center virtually no unburnt fuel is expelled in the exhaust unlike a two-cycle gasoline engine. The elimination of exhaust valves reduced the complexity and weight of the engine. The power output and rpm of this engine was controlled by governing the intake air and controlling the opening of the injectors with shutdown accomplished by completely closing off the air intake. The much lower weight of this engine compared to engines with valves made it quite suitable for applications where other motors of the same horsepower were not feasible. Its uses include: Marine propulsion, generators, pumps, air compressors, road graders and other industrial uses. It was never factory installed for automotive purposes but conversion kits and engines were made available for automotive use. This engine design did not see wide use due to not being able to reduce the exhaust noise to an acceptable level due to any exhaust restriction causing a reduction of power and efficiency. It was a very fuel efficient engine with a very high power output to fuel consumption ratio.


The screemers have been molested for many years
Probly a v6-53 has been married up 2 B cum a V12-53
Have heard of a 92 series B n converted to a 96 series
cya

"The screemers have been molested for many years
Probly a v6-53 has been married up 2 B cum a V12-53"

Swishy,
that may make sense also. If you look up the MTU site when Roger Penske held the reins, he was asked by the US military to supply X amount of 6/53'3 for the gulf war. He did so, having built the required amount in TWO WEEKS. If the US Navy was looking for larger displacement engines, they could have, as you say, bolted a couple of 6V53's end to end, being a modular engine wouldn't have hardly raised a sweat. Just what the application of a 12V53 might be, maybe large gen sets, naval craft, who knows? Maybe that's exactly what happened? Imminent war, material required at extremely short notice, old stock 71 and 92 series been discontinued, you are still actively producing 6V53's for the military anyway, cobble a couple together? After cessation of hostilities, maybe no great call for engines of that configuration?
Converting 92 series to a 96 series, what would be involved? Would there be enough 'meat' in a liner to bore it out safely, without weakening the walls? Or, would you also enlarge the sleeve bores in the block and make up oversize liners?
I know this is all common practice when enlarging petrol engines.
Dave_64

FWIW
here B Nissan V: of the 2 stroke diesel




Romor haz it
there were less than 200 of the 12v-53 series made
it had 2 of V6 blocks together n 4 of 3 -53 cylinder heads

me stihl lookn fir pic of the beast


Jist go n back in history sum
www.hcvc.com.au/forum/CandQ/834-screamer-quiz

cya

Swishy,
many thanks for putting that link up to the 'screamer quiz', answered just about all my dumbass questions in one hit!
Only thing I couldn't get was that some of the links to other questions/answers no longer work, or they come up as 'no longer available'. But not to worry, enough to sort out and keep us out of mischief for a while! (OR, dredge up more dumbass queries!) Like, how did they enlarge that 92 series to 96? Link wouldn't work.
Thanks again, Dave_64