I have a P & H excavator with a worn out 4-53 in it. I would like to upgrade to a 4-53T. What internal things are different on the turbo engine?? Can I use the same block/head or should I start looking for a 4-53T core to rebuild and just repower with the T engine?
I'd look for a complete turbo engine if that's what you want. If you upgrade your existing engine you will need lower compression ratio pistons and that may create an engine balance issue. I mostly deal with 71 series engines and don't have a lot of 53 series information. Detroits have so many options it's entirely possible you can find one that can be crossbred into your application. Honestly... a good 4BT Cummins could be an (Much Quieter) option. I had an old Koehring 166 with a 4-53 and replaced it with a Case 9020, night and day difference in noise.
What HP rating is the 4BT?? Will the pump and everything perform the same at 1800 or 2000rpm vs the 2800 of the 4-53? On the -71 series; Do the turbo engines have oil squirters cooling the bottom of the pistons?? I don't think the non turbo engines have them - not sure though, never had one apart.
My question, do we really need to upgrade to a turbo version? I mean, typically, a manufacturer designs a given machine with a power plant sufficient for the needs of the machine. Typically if one changes that and increases the power of the power plant you create problems farther down the line with other components. I don't know, but do we really have a need to do this? Just asking.
Upgrading to a properly rated turbo engine will probably give the OP a bit more fuel efficiency.
On the 71 series engine the pistons are cast iron with no special piston cooler jets for the 2 piece pistons, the old trunk type (one piece) pistons used a nozzle in the top of the rod to cool the piston. As far as the 4BT Cummins, Look it up and see what's available for speeds and horse power. I know my old Dodge 12V engine has a 3000 rpm redline. and at 3,000 rpm its much quieter than a 4-53.
Most 4-53 power plants are governed at 2400 rpm in a excavator type machine. Not sure what the 4-53T optimum running speed is.
My thoughts as well , I would lean more to overhauling the 4-53. New pistons ,liners , bearings along with new injectors & tune up . Might be surprised buy the results . One thing I like about a non turbo engine is they just last forever seems like . Don't build anywhere near the heat a turbo engine will . That would be one more issue adding the turbo & fuel is keeping it cool on a hot summer day . Upgrade from 4-53 .......... 4-71
Too slow. The same thing with the turbo, how's the extra torque going to matter? The turbo engine's not going to be any more efficient either, if it's running with the same low load.
I'm not a mechanical or design engineer therefore there's no way I can verify whether this is a good or bad idea. I'm only saying that, in design/manufacture of machines, it's typically a foot bone is connected to the ankle bone thing. A particular force is needed, in this case digging. Starting from the bucket and going all the way back to the power plant, everything is designed to agree with each other much like the foot bone to the ankle bone. If the power plant is increased significantly, more stress is put on the ankle bone than was originally intended. Two instances, Allis Chalmers. For many years they used Detroit power, this was just about the time Cat tractors were making serious inroads in the tractor bizz. AC figured they needed more power to compete and started using Buda engines. They started experiencing problems in the drive train, twisted shafts throughout the drive train from increased power. AC didn't catch up and correct this problem quick enough and Cat machines took favor with contractors. AC never really recovered. Second, a crane company I worked for many years ago, we had a Grove TMS100 powered by a straight six I-H gas engine. The engine croaked. It was re-powered with a 6 cyl B series turbo Cummins. Result, the increased power, ripped out a number of clutches and twisted a few drive shafts until we upgraded all that stuff as well. Again, is the machine so weak that you really need to increase the power of the power plant? Just asking. In this particular application, it may be of no consequence to increase power, but then, you could just as well create a monster. I have no idea which would happen in reality.
The 4BT will run all day long at 2500 rpm, 2800 too if you need. It can be de-fueled to match the power of the jimmy. Willie is right, more power will probably cause problems in the long run.
In the time it will take to make all the little changes to adapt to a different engine one could pull the 4-53 and rebuild it from a bare block back to like new condition. It might be different if you had a good used 4BT just sitting in the shed that had the correct flywheel housing and adapter to drive pumps. Keep clean air going in that 4-53 and use the right oil and it will probably outlast most of us on this forum! And if you don't like the music coming from a good running Detroit there is always a pair of these: https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=C0rxsYnAXV-jyIsjJhATBxp_YA6qNr-4IqqP8gYsC4vy_rJACCAYQAigIYMm-o4vApLARoAHT9bn_A8gBB6oEJk_QR6PRQ8Q_mN09L65V36Pbv1JiwcNrKOAxPjTNmmAn1aQc45PswAUFoAYmgAeVikaQBwGoB6a-G9gHAeASirfgrMXGh599&sig=AOD64_2AAi6nQna8HB3R-G4n8dthynQoEA&ctype=5&clui=25&q=&ved=0ahUKEwj80eu0lp3MAhWG5SYKHeJuAeUQuxcIyQE&adurl=http://clickserve.dartsearch.net/link/click%3Flid%3D92700007813423039%26ds_s_kwgid%3D58700000632008774%26ds_e_adid%3D71611525882%26ds_e_product_group_id%3D73107766882%26ds_e_product_id%3DS-20449%26ds_e_product_merchant_id%3D1042203%26ds_e_product_country%3DUS%26ds_e_product_language%3Den%26ds_e_product_channel%3Donline%26ds_e_product_store_id%3D%26ds_e_ad_type%3Dpla%26ds_s_inventory_feed_id%3D97700000000001541%26ds_url_v%3D2%26ds_dest_url%3Dhttp://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-20449/Hearing-Protection/3M-Peltor-Optime-105-Earmuffs%3Fpricode%3DWY633%26gadtype%3Dpla%26id%3DS-20449
One point, in cases where you're only running pumps, no mechanical drive train, you can put anything you want in there as long as you're close on speed, and you can change that if you change pumps. If the hydraulics are set up correctly you can only pull what the system is designed to take as input power, no more. Excess horsepower may be wasted, or utilized to run multiple functions off separate pumps, or a single variable pump. This is one of the advantages of hydraulic over mechanical, you can tune the system to save itself. If the pumps are running off a gearbox you need to make sure it can handle the torque though.
I wanted a turbo due to 95% of my work is in excess of 5500' elevation. I thought the turbo would give the actual designed (140) HP, just at 5000' feet.
I've just recently swore off switching engines and transmissions. Ironically the easiest engine swap I've ever done was on a trenching machine. Switched out a 4-71 for a 4bt and I couldn't believe how everything matches up. I think I had to move the front motor mounts and extend the fan shroud. The swap went easily but it ate u'joints, driveshafts, and gearboxes. I think he's since turned the fuel down and now doesn't have any issues. The two hardest swaps were a 6-53 to a 6-53. I swear I had to almost strip that to bare block and redo everything to get everything to match up. The hardest was a small cam 855 to a big cam 855. I had no idea a big cam out of a truck had almost nothing in common with a small cam out of a loader. Now I'm working on a crane that originally had a 230hp 648 ft lb engine for a 350hp 1200ft lb engine. The transmission was way to small so now I'm trying to fit a bigger transmission in and it's just a nightmare. Anymore I'm more and more convinced that if the engine it came with works it's the best engine for it. I've swapped out several different engines and I'm not real convinced it's ever really been worth it. Sorry for the book but if it were me I'd rebuild that engine and live with it. And for me that's saying a lot because other then the sound I don't have anything good to say about the old 2-strokes. Lol
You do realize that's critical information that would have been good to know from the first post.
I agree with willie, knowing the full story upfront helps get a better reply. Anyhow like Knepptune says what might seem like a simple swap can get complicated, especially with Detroits. They were designed to be adaptable to many different applications so the chance that any two random 4-53's would be set up the same is rare. But if you are willing to do some work you should be able to take your original non-turbo engine and the replacement turbo engine and make one good engine. I may mean stripping both down close to bare blocks and reassembling to fit the application. The closer they are to the same configuration to begin with the better. Flywheel housing the same size, starter on the same side, blower and governor on the same sides. Not too familiar with the 53's but do know the 71's were built as right hand and left hand rotation versions, that would be critical to know!
53 series were available in all the same configurations as the 71 series.
To approach the original question another way, what exactly is wrong with the existing engine? This is a rebuildable liner type engine so my thinking would be get some turbo cylinder packs, bearings, and possibly a cam shaft. Probably unnecessary to change the cam for your application if it's in good shape. I suppose the heads are possibly different but it seems unlikely. I am sure the original turbo build uses different injectors but you don't need to change power settings so no change there.
Another thing to consider is the way a turbo works. It is just along for a free ride until you start putting a real load on the engine. The turbo kicks in when the injectors start getting close to full fuel loads so the engine is starting to create enough exhaust gas volume to spin the turbine fast enough to increase boost. Unless you run the crane at full throttle with a max load weight on the hook, I do not see the turbo making much of a difference.
Way back in the 80's we were importing mini excavators (a novel concept here back then) and the engines were all NA. We looked into putting turbos on and I remember the engine company rep saying it was not uncommon to add what they called an "Altitude compensator" turbo that would basically maintain enough boost to equal sea level or a bit more. Did not require any changes at all to the engine or fuel system. I'm assuming maybe a wastegate but I'm not sure, to prevent overboosting. Something like that added to the original engine would work well I should think, especially with the blower there to modulate the air a bit.
Just thinking off the top of my head so I maybe all wet, it's starting to rain here so that may factor in some! But if the stock injectors are not replaced with higher output ones would the turbo be able to "over boost" the engine? Just thinking putting in more air will only make up for the lack of oxygen at the higher altitudes. Now if one was to pull out say N-45's and stick a set of N-65's in there all bets would be off!
The original Caterpillar turbo's were altitude compensators.
Looking at old excavators, length seems to be tight, width not so much. How about a 6v-53 where the 4-53 was ?
I'll be busy until the end of the week. Maybe Friday I can get some pics and measurements. No major issues with this motor - just lots of hours and LOTS of leaks. I know when I start using it, I will ask a lot of it by digging in HEAVY rock areas. I can get away with it this summer, but I think a winter project will be to rebuild/repower and add a thumb.
Don't think of those as leaks on a Detroit they are just there to let you know it still has oil in it! It's a feature NOT a problem!
Detroit advertised that feature as "Automatic corrosion inhibiting" as I recall.... The factory Silver 92's I think finally did away with it until the first overhaul, lol.
I know, just thought I could be optimistic and build one w/o "corrosion inhibitors":Banghead
The best way to insure you're not using "corrosion inhibitors" on a two stroke Detroit is to not use 15W/40 motor oil. By doing so you'll still get the "normal leakage", but at least you won't be destroying your engine.
When I think of P&H excavators I'm thrown back to the days of Hein Warner, Drott, Warner and Swasey, Insley, Koehring and Bay City units. I don't think I've seen a P&H excavator since the 1980s and it was old at that time. I might be wrong but the pumps were all gear or vane units and operating multiple functions just dogged down the motor something fierce. Flat pad tracks and a skinny boom and stick that tended to crack with any side load were big reasons they didn't live past the Japanese invasion. I think I'd look real hard at the machine as a whole and decide if the expense of a motor was worth it in the first place let alone the upgrade to a turbo unit or repower. I wouldn't recommend spending any more money than necessary and hope there was enough paying work or cost savings to pay for that and another major component that might fail.
The camshaft will be the same, but odds are the NA engine is running advanced timing and to run a turbo the flywheel housing will need to come off an d the cam timing reset to standard timing in addition to the turbo cylinder packs (16 to 1 compression vs 18 to 1 compression ratio for the NA engine). The piston change may involve engine balancing issues too. I'm not sure without having a 53 series inline manual.
I'm still doing research on it, but my guess is it is an early '70's machine. It does have flat pad tracks but the boom and stick seem normal size. I live in a small town of 400 or so. I expect the machine will see 250 hrs a year tops. Up until now my 1966 Case 530 Back-hoe has been doing the brunt of the hole and trench digging. The little 530 will get a welcomed break, with the addition of the P&H. My 1961 Cat 955 and early '80's Case W-20, will still do a good bit of the large hole digging and loading. You might notice a trend that everything I own is "antique". I run a truck over the road in order to support my yellow iron habit. I am not interested in traveling 100 miles to bid a job that I have to live at for 2-3 weeks or until completion. I spend enough time away from home in the truck to not want to do it when I'm "off". In a town my size I couldn't justify a $100K machine for the amount of work here. In the summer I slow down in the truck and pick up a bit of dirt work here and there. I usually spend twice as much time working on the equipment as I do running it! When I die - somebody will get some really nice old iron. :-( My next project is to get an early '50's D2 up and running!! I'll put 100 hrs on it this summer, then I have no jobs for it. It's small and doesn't take up much space, so I'll keep it and use it again sometime down the road. I have yet to sell a piece of equipment, although I am getting ready to trade a '50's Gallion smooth drum roller (w/a stuck eng) for an Austin Western parts grader.
Brandt, I really appreciate what you write about "antique" equipment and working in a small town. Keep the 4-53! Maybe you can do a home-made turbo addition to your NA 4-53, like the old aftermarket turbo kits in the 70's and 80's. As khansen says, the NA engine only has fuel enough for the stock sea-level HP. A small turbo from an engine that uses the same amount of air flow would prob get you to the 'rated' power of the 4-53, or a little more.