2011 Diesel UREA Exhaust and High Water.

[ClearBranchValley]

During a conversation about FG's and high water, the subject of the 2011 NEW "urea" based diesel systems on FG's and many other new model trucks, etc., along with the sensors and computers that run them came to the surface - and how will that work (or will not work) in High Water situations...?

Will the computer recognize a problem and shut the vehicle down or go into limb mode in mid-stream or is deep water not an issue...?

It was suggested that the Australian's who build these FG's for a living would need to find a work around.......

..........so, has anyone thought of how the aftermarket will or will not figure out how to remove the horizontal OEM system and add a legal on-road/off-road "vertical" after market system along with all of the computer gear that goes with it?

I have to drive through high water on a regular basis and remember reading something about the sensors being low to the ground on the 2011 FG's with a wading depth much more shallow than previously - would whoever posted that original wading height do so again for the new and older versions of the FG's as a comparison.

Thank You.

Peace of JesusChrist,
Http://www.JesusOnline.com/
*Tom.

 

[Amesz00]

well, i dont know how the new fuso will do it, but we've had one of the older ones through 1.3m (4'4"), you can really feel the resistance of the water!

i also know that the NPS isuzus (which are not available in the states) have major problems with thier DPF failing and going into 'limp home' mode. seems to be mainly a problem with deep water and hot dusty climates, exactly what is found most of in north aus. alot of the commercial tour operators are basicly dumping isuzu for this alone and going mitsubishi. isuzu says thier wading depth is 1', and if it fails and they find water inside (or evidence the wading depth has been exceeded), then it wont be covered by any warrenty...
the entire exhaust system has wires and sensors hanging out everywhere, so to change it to make it simpler (ie straight pipe ) would take some fairly serious computer wizardry...

 

[charlieaarons]

It is doable. It requires a tuner box with an electronic patch. These companies supply this product for the usual US offerings:
http://www.dpfdeletekits.com/
http://www.puredpfdelete.com/
This is without urea, but it proves it is possible at a reasonable price.

Charlie

 

[Amesz00]

very interesting

defenderbeam, is your truck a 4.9 liter? ie the model that has just now come out in australia? because over here, these trucks have much the same exhaust setup as the older 3.9s, like mine, which is around 2 1/4" press bent. extremely restrictive even on a 3.9, let alone a 4.9....i have gone 3" mandrel from the brake back, and am still trying to find a 3" exhaust brake (proving very elusive), to do it to the turbo.
but like you, even just taking the tail pipe including muffler out i fount it had much more response.
another thing to possibly think about is the intake. this also is quite restrictive to flow. it is a bit of work, but it seems to breathe quite a bit easier with a 4" intake piping and 4" donaldson or similar air cleaner.

if these DPF delete kits do prove viable, i think there would likely be a few people in australia very interested!

 

[whatcharterboat]

defenderbeam, is your truck a 4.9 liter? ie the model that has just now come out in australia? because over here, these trucks have much the same exhaust setup as the older 3.9s, like mine, which is around 2 1/4" press bent. extremely restrictive even on a 3.9, let alone a 4.9....i have gone 3" mandrel from the brake back, and am still trying to find a 3" exhaust brake (proving very elusive), to do it to the turbo.

Yeah. Exactly right Andrew. Fuso went to all the trouble of building this fantastic new double overhead cam, common rail engine and still use exactly the same exhaust as the previous model. Have a really close look at a new NPS system. Man, they are a work of art.

On your 649, the best setup is to go 3" right from the turbo housing to the end and fab your own 3" brake. Easy to make and they do work well. Really well. There are 3" brakes available in the US but by the time you get them here it is something like $1800 Aud. Foerget it.

The other option is 4" out of the turbo then back to 2 1/2" through the original brake. This seems to work just as well as the 3" brake but I haven't got the dyno figures to prove this.

On the 84's which have a different turbo waste manifold than the 649, I think there would be good power gains from having a separate main pipe and wastegate dump pipe. But hey, no way Fuso are going to like you doing any of this to a truck under waranty.

Matter of fact, I just did a stubby exhaust on a SWB FG84 this morning. MAN TGM style which dump straight down next to the transfer case. I'll see if I can post a pic after lunch.

 

[whatcharterboat]

I currently chopped my exahaust a couple feet behind the brake.

You rebel !!!

 

[whatcharterboat]

Matter of fact, I just did a stubby exhaust on a SWB FG84 this morning. MAN TGM style which dump straight down next to the transfer case. I'll see if I can post a pic after lunch.

Mmmm. Works burger.

NPS system. Man, they are a work of art.

3" right from the turbo housing to the end and fab your own 3" brake.

[

 

[Amesz00]

thanks john, pretty interesting...

"NPS system. Man, they are a work of art. "

yeah, i still find it funny how they managed to go 3" on all the non-restrictive parts (ie the pipe), but keep 2 1/2" on the naturally restrictive parts (ie the EVB, CAT setup, etc)... and they are a 5.2...

on that first pic, is that a resonator i spy? get that muffler outa there!!! :sombrero:

just in the process of hooking up a boost guage to mine, took it for a run and seems to be gated at 10psi, but makes 11 probably because of the exhaust. next step is a controller and see what she does at 15-16. hopefully a bit more whistle...
i noticed that one difference with the 4.9s is that they seem to have gone with a mandrel bent pipe, although it is still far too small for a motor of that size.

4" from the turbo back to 2.5? that woud seem to defeat the purpose to me.
as for fabbing your own 3" brake, this sounds like a good idea. can i ask how you did it/what you made it from? i would assume it would hook up the the factory vacuum actuator?
on the turbos on the 649, it appears to have a dump pipe that is cast as part of the turbine housing, and around 2.25". i would like to get rid of that if possible.

i also notice that the turbos on the fg84s whistle alot, but appears visually similar to the 649 (except for the dump pipe). Does anyone know how they differ internally? i imagine the fg84 runs much higher A/R...

 

[whatcharterboat]

4" from the turbo back to 2.5? that woud seem to defeat the purpose to me.

Nope. The hotter expanded air comes out of the turbo quicker at 4" , cools and contracts a little and then speeds up just through the 2.5"brake. Then they run from the brake to the end in 3". The dyno figures of this type of system are really good on the 84's. This is what Taipan on the Gold Coast do now. Similar power gains as a chip especially in hot weather and altitude (with thinner air).

The NPS does a similar thing but not to the same extent. Coming out of the turbo in 3" then dropping to 2.5" for the brake, and so on.

 

[whatcharterboat]

as for fabbing your own 3" brake, this sounds like a good idea. can i ask how you did it/what you made it from? i would assume it would hook up the the factory vacuum actuator?

Sorry Andrew , wasn't ignoring you but we didn't do this one in the pic. The owner of this truck made it himself but they are so simple a kid could make one in metal work at school. And yes, use the original vacuum actuator.

yeah, i still find it funny how they managed to go 3" on all the non-restrictive parts (ie the pipe), but keep 2 1/2" on the naturally restrictive parts (ie the EVB, CAT setup, etc)... and they are a 5.2...

What's even crazier is they use the whole exact system (engine, injection and exhaust) except with a different DPD and computer only in the FSS550 which is rated at 10ton GVM and it makes 205hp!!!!

on that first pic, is that a resonator i spy? get that muffler outa there!!!

Oh, to be young again. Lol.

 

[Amesz00]

yeah i think i will have to have a go at this next year (the 3" EVB).

on the systems taipan do, how close to the turbo do they bring the 4"? ie do they do away with the stock dump pipe or keep it and go 4 after that? i can see that dump pipe being a big restriction, as the TD42T (nissan patrol) guys have the same problem with thier exhaust and apparently a 3" dump pipe makes a massive difference, even if youv already got a 3" zorst.

 

[whatcharterboat]

i can see that dump pipe being a big restriction

On the new 84,tThe cast section is retained and they go 4" from there to the brake. My thought was to replace the cast section with a split pipe. 2.5 " to the brake. And just come straight out of the wastegate port with a second pipe run along side the main line. When I spoke to the experts they all said the gas speed on them wouldn't warrant it but I still don't agree. No need to change the brake either and the wastegated gas should escape easily.

Andrew this all comes from playing with my old Nissan GTiR. Made a huge difference but then the gas speeds were considerably higher. After all on a diesel truck all you are really looking at is pulling up hills, fuel consumption, hwy cruising etc. Not trying to build a 10sec street car.

 

[Amesz00]

On the new 84,tThe cast section is retained and they go 4" from there to the brake. My thought was to replace the cast section with a split pipe. 2.5 " to the brake. And just come straight out of the wastegate port with a second pipe run along side the main line. When I spoke to the experts they all said the gas speed on them wouldn't warrant it but I still don't agree. No need to change the brake either and the wastegated gas should escape easily.

Andrew this all comes from playing with my old Nissan GTiR. Made a huge difference but then the gas speeds were considerably higher. After all on a diesel truck all you are really looking at is pulling up hills, fuel consumption, hwy cruising etc. Not trying to build a 10sec street car.

ah you mean something like this...

Screamer pipe!! Siiiik!
yeah ive heard of this setup before, but never really thought it much help on a diesel. Of course the EVB would be a little less effective, but its already lethal on the 84's...
I guess it would make performance sense, but then what compared to running a complete 3 or 3.5" system? sure its more work to make an EVB, and either way an aftermarket dump pipe would have to be made, but theres also a fair bit of work in running a second pipe down past the brake...
Also wouldnt that make a fair bit of turbulence inside the actual dump? because the swing valve is normally resessed about 0.5" back from the mounting flange for the exhaust. so there would be crossover between the main exhaust and the wastegate exhaust...

And yes, while i realise that in a 6 tonne truck you are not trying to build a 10 second vehicle, i think everyone agrees that in stock form these vehicles are VERY conservatively tuned, and that there is plenty of potential for more.
In fact, based on what i read about the cummins guys (4BTA- 3.9lt), pulling 25-30 psi boost from almost stock engines and power figures of around 220-250hp and 550-600nm, i think that from these 4.9s it would not be unreasonable (if you were a bit keen, of course ) to get 250-odd-hp and 750-800-odd-nm while still keeping it reliable and long-lasting.
Obviously to get these types of serious power figures it would take considerable mods to the rest of the vehicle system (better radiator, bigger intercooler, fuel pump mods, etc...)

then, as you say, we're not runnning dakar trucks (not yet anyways...), and most people just want a bit more go, better consumption, etc.

 

[whatcharterboat]

yeah ive heard of this setup before, but never really thought it much help on a diesel. Of course the EVB would be a little less effective, but its already lethal on the 84's...
I guess it would make performance sense, but then what compared to running a complete 3 or 3.5" system? sure its more work to make an EVB, and either way an aftermarket dump pipe would have to be made, but theres also a fair bit of work in running a second pipe down past the brake...
Also wouldnt that make a fair bit of turbulence inside the actual dump? because the swing valve is normally resessed about 0.5" back from the mounting flange for the exhaust. so there would be crossover between the main exhaust and the wastegate exhaust...

Ahh my young Padawan.......................

None of the above. I'll see if I can scan some old pics in later but the EVB only runs when the wastegate is closed anyway and your foot is off the go pedal so it won't effect the EVB at all. Some guys with performance cars run the 'wategate' pipe seperately for about 600mm and return it back into the main pipe but the whole idea is to reduce turbulance at the back of the turbo. You have to run a plate into the turbo housing to completely separate the gases or it doesn't work. With the standard housings when the wastegate opens you get a certain amount of turbulance in the small manifold at the back of the turbo. Wait for the pics.

 

[Amesz00]

"the EVB only runs when the wastegate is closed anyway and your foot is off the go pedal so it won't effect the EVB at all."

ah of course- wastegate only opens on full boost.

" You have to run a plate into the turbo housing to completely separate the gases or it doesn't work. "

yeah thats the bit i was getting at. didnt realise you put a plate inside.

"Some guys with performance cars run the 'wategate' pipe seperately for about 600mm and return it back into the main pipe "

yeah i though the idea was it was kinda like 'tuned length' extractors for the turbo...in a way.