![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||
| Forums | Register | Groups | Awards | Arcade | Pets | T-Bucks / T-Store | Invite Your Friends | Blogs | Mark Forums Read |
| MV List Archives of the MV Mailing List |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Civilians | It was my thinking that they didn't have a turbo simply because it wouldn't fit the engine compartment and on the later 900 series they had to use a smaller (physical size) engine to get the turbo in. The early 900 used the 250 the later ones used NTC-400(?). you wrote "and to simplify operations. (no extend warm-up and no cool-down required) and still have the restricted power requirement that the military wanted." My M816 has labels that say it has to have warm-up and cool-down time or did you mean just less time than a duce? I don't understand "restricted power requirement that the military wanted" what does that mean? Power vs Speed? Thanks, Wayne [color=blue] >From: Squirt_Truck <squirt_truck@yahoo.com> >To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org> >Subject: Re: [MV] 5T turbo usage >Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 05:47:03 -0800 (PST) > >Jim, >The 800 series trucks use a commercial engine that has >been "sorta militarized", the 900s that I have worked >with use a turbo LDS-465-2 engine. >The LDS-465 family (as opposed to the LDT-465 >family)share only the basic block components. The >rods, pistons, heads, injectors, entire lubrication >system and cooling system is different. It is a part >of the fact that the LDS engines produce a >significantly greater output. > >The move to a naturally aspirated engine was most >likely an effort to control cost with commercial >components and to simplify operations. (no extend >warm-up and no cool-down required) and still have the >restricted power requirement that the military wanted. > >Any other thoughts on the non-turbo approach will be >appreciated. > >Squirt-Truck >--- Jim Breneman <jimbre_7@yahoo.com> wrote: >[color=green] > > I am curious why the later 5 ton trucks such as the > > M813, M923 use naturally aspirated engines instead > > of > > turbo engines? And why the older M54 uses the LDS > > engine? My understanding is the LDS-465 (liquid > > cooled, desiel fired, supercharged) engine is > > basically the same as the LDT-465 except for fuel > > pressure and boost. If anyone can help solve the > > mystery for me I'd appriciate it.[/color][/color] ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list=== To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org> |
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Re: [MV] 5T turbo usage & M35 turbo upgrade | Jim Breneman | MV List | 0 | 02-21-2005 02:50 |
| Re: [MV] 5T turbo usage | Squirt_Truck | MV List | 0 | 02-21-2005 02:50 |
| Re: [MV] 5T turbo usage | MV List | 0 | 02-21-2005 02:50 | |
| Re: [MV] 5T turbo usage | Bruce C. Beattie | MV List | 0 | 02-21-2005 02:50 |
| [MV] 5T turbo usage | Jim Breneman | MV List | 0 | 02-21-2005 02:50 |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |