@@christopherpark6549 2400 RPM is a bit of a stretch for a 149, they valve float at just under 3000 rpm and sound like swarm of big angry bees while doing it. Rule one, always know how to stop an engine before starting it, specially if it's a mechanical governed GM.
Generally for continuous power Detroit avoided taking the 149 series engine above 125HP/cyl as they became very unreliable once you pushed past what the engine was originally designed for. The maximum output you've mentioned here is very rare used, only for emergency / standby generators or maybe a fire pump - 147Hp/cyl is really over and above the mechanical limits of this engine design. Nothing sounds sweeter than 149 series engine being put through its paces, albeit NA, T, TI or TIB !!
@@raygale4198.... where did you come up with the "2400 rpm" for a 149?..... and who is "@Christopher Park" that you were replying to?..... I can't find his name on here to read what it was that he said, that you replied to him with what you said.
@@Romans--bo7br Well besides being a long dead thread, it sounds like the other person made some statement about a 149 running at 2400rpm???? I used to work for a GM dealer in Australia, when the fuel rack jams on a dyno run they get very angry. Have you never encountered a thread where for what ever reason a persons comments have been deleted by Utube????
@@raygale4198.... My apology... I had no idea that you replied to me, and I just now happened to revisit this video and found your reply. I guess I haven't run into that very much (in regards to your question), but I also do not spend too much time reading comments under every video, either..... as "entertaining" as some of them are. lol I do know that one can delete their own comments or replies if they wish to do so for whatever the reason, as well as YT can, and does for whatever reason. Where in AU. (which state) do you live & work... or, are you retired now? I've been there several times, and always loved it there..... at least before the phony Covid bs, and AU's over the top "lock downs", and the brutalness of the police in enforcing it, etc, etc. PS: We ran the V12 (71) in the sled puller (1974 KW) at 4K - 4,200 r's (2500hp+/-).... never once, blew it up in over 11,000 "hooks" before retiring it, though it did spin a main bearing in 2006.
As a delivery driver I delivered packages to Data Centers, credit card data storage places, and they had these for their backup generators !! Walked right past them making deliveries.....
Its a turbo 2 stroke, they are common in sleds today and produce outrage power without having to rev real high unlike a 4 stroke. Im not sure what type of turbo and tuned exhaust you are running on this 20v149 2 stroke, i have worked with some 16v149 and they do burn some oil.
Bruce Miller..... "they are common in sleds today".... Which "sleds" are you referring to? They are Not "common" in anything anymore... unfortunately. Not sure where you get your information from in regards to "produce outrage power without having to rev real high unlike a 4 stroke." but that is NOT true at all. The industrial 4 cycle diesels do NOT run at any higher rpm to produce the same hp levels as the Series 149 engines did (and those that are still "with us"). The real advantage of the 2 cycle diesels (especially those from GM Diesel Power/ Detroit Diesel) was that they could produce the same amount of power (and even, more) with approximately 33 percent LESS ci of displacement..... which, especially in truck and interstate coach applications turned out to be their "Achilles heel" because their much shorter "useful" (less than 3 inches when taking the opening of the exhaust valves and intake port uncovering into consideration) stroke length also caused them (Series 71 and 92 both had a "total" stroke of only 5 inches) to Not be able to "hold" that torque (due to much reduced piston speed) as compared to the longer stroked 4 cycle engines like Cat, Cummins and Mack in trucks and buses, although Before the use of Turbochargers on those 4 cycle engines, the naturally aspirated Detroits would easily out-pull the big inch 4 cycles on the grades, with the same gross weights.
Are used to work on them generator set and let me tell you they would power a house or a whole city block no problem and want more any issue with them was as you check the fuel and fill it up with the oil
I heard about this, and knew it was made from two 6's and an 8, but just now find this video of one running. Interesting, as it starts out like an 8 (or 2, 4; the "square phase" sound) on the lower RPM's but then suddenly turns into a 6 (or 3, 12; the "triangular phase" sound) when revved up. The lower square notes are always more prominent, but the higher notes come closer to the triangle sound, so that's what becomes prominent. It seems an 8V is the smallest 149 series they make, so are the 6V149's used for this specially made for it?
@@ETBX1 the V6 blocks are used to make both the V12 and V20. Two V8 blocks would make the V16. I suspect the V6 was never built because it would have overlapped too much with other engine series.
@@doug112244 GM did make a few 6V149, but you are correct there was no real advantage as it over lapped other cheaper models in power range, the only possible gain was if the rest of the fleet ran 149 series engines it reduced parts inventory. Even 8V149 were quite rare, a couple ended up in fishing boats here in Australia.
..... because the overall cost of purchase, running and maintaining... is Far less for the Series 149, even the 20 cyl, which also takes up far less room for the package, as setup.. in this video. For equivalent power (hp) output from EMD, you're looking at the 16 cyl. 645E3B at 3,000 hp. Lots more fuel, Oil, Coolant, etc, etc.... and "IF" you ever had to re-manufacture it..... I would hope that you have "DEEP Pockets", in comparison to re-manning, even a 20 - 149Ti Detroit.. not to mention all that beautiful Series 149 "music" regardless of how many cylinders, that you can enjoy when they're running.
those turbos make the blowers free-spin. I wonder if there is enough turbo pressure thru the blowers to ADD power to the system or does the engine still turn the blowers at full turbo boost? Thanks for posting.
The turbo Detroits (at least the 53- and 71-series, I assume they’re all the same) have a blower bypass system as well as lower compression ratios to keep from damaging the blowers or engines.
@@The_sinner_Jim_Whitney..... the lower cr on the turbocharged engines (17.0:1 on the Series 71), has absolutely Nothing to do with "not damaging the blower(s)"..... as far as the by-pass blowers on the "smaller" Detroits, also has Nothing to do with not "damaging the blower(s)". Before the Silver Series engines were put into production, they did not have by-pass valving integrated in the blower(s).... they just did not produce as much power as with the "By-Pass" and "Hi-Bypass" (marine) blowers.
@@Romans--bo7br Yeah, the lower compression wasn’t for the blower’s sake, I should’ve worded that differently. I’ve always been told that the blower bypass was to keep from damaging the blower(s) in turbo Detroits, is it not?
The title is incorrect, as the engine was _already running_ when the footage starts. We did not not see the ether shot, or hear it cranking over, nor hear it *roar to life* . I still love you tho.
How does the hex-turbo work? You can't split a bank of 10 cylinders equally between 3 turbos so it'll have to be staggered. It looks like, going from the alternator end, that the first 3 cylinders get turbo 1, the middle 4 cylinders get turbo 2 and the end 3 cylinders get turbo 3 - is that right? Or is there a crossfeed between the two banks?
24 V 149 = number of cylinders= 24 V - configuration of cylinders 149= cubic inch displacement per cylinder. I have never seen or heard of a DETROIT DIESEL ENGINE with 20 cylinders.
melvin newsome.... The Only "24V" (re: "on the books")from Detroit Diesel was the 24V71 which of course was a "modular" engine constructed of Two 12V71's "Siamesed" together. They never did produce a 24V149, the seies 149 was available in 8, 12, 16 and 20 Vee configurations only. I was hoping that they would have produced an I-6 version configured for Semi - truck installations, that would have been a powerhouse to compete at that time with the Cat 3408, and the Cummins KTA series engines of the era, and displacemeant wise, would have been a direct match-up with the Cat 3406 which came out in the late 1970's with the Cat at 893.4 ci and a Series 149 IL 6 right at an even 894ci. Most likely though, a Series 149 "IL -6" would have been in the 4,300 to 5,000lb weight class which would have been too heavy to be able to legally scale a decent payload on the steering axle - and also would have produced too much torque for the drivelines of the era.... and would even have been questionable for today's drivelines... especially with todays morons that call themselves "truck drivers".... they're a disgrace to the profession compared to the older generation of truckers which are pretty well all retired now or have passed away. FYI... there was also a "few" 32V71's that were custom built for Detroit Diesel by Stewart & Stevenson Corp. which is (to this day) the worlds largest Detroit Diesel dealer with many specialized "in-house" capabilities... especially in producing highly specialized engine and component configurations as well as the parts necessay for those configurations to "work". They also (back "in the day") custom built Vertical mount Detroits (12V71's) and 8V278A and 8V567 series EMD division engines for marine use with "tight" engine bays. Stewart/Stevenson also built 12V71 engines that would run on either diesel duel or natural gas.... and yes, they had "in-house" built, special cylinder heads with Spark Plugs (with custom built ignition systems, of course) for use when switched over to natural gas.... but "you" (meaning - Anyone) will Never find Any of these engines in Any "catalogue" or listed anywhere, these engines and engine set ups were all custom designed and built for highly specialized applications, only. The 20V you see here was Not a "factory" engine... they were all custom designed & built by Stewart/Stevenson for Detroit Diesel as far as the modular engine block configuration resulting in 20 cylinders is concerned.
@@Romans--bo7br They were heavy engines. I drove a Gama Goat with a 353 when I was in the Army back in the 80's and I remember that 353 weighed about 900lbs. Anyway that was some interesting information about Stewart & Stevenson. Do they still design and build these 2 stroke systems today?
@@timt2202 Detroit Diesel quit making 2 stroke diesel engines several years ago so the answer to your question is no. Don't know about S&S though. If you are talking about 2 stroke diesel engines bigger than the 149 series then you would look into EMD division.
Other than cost, why didn't Detroit Diesel equip these engines with a turbocharger setup similar to an EMD, with an overrunning clutch, and forgo the roots blowers?
EMD's have a roots blower setup as do all Detroits because they get their fresh air supply through holes in the piston sleeves and have only exhaust valves. On the bottom of the power stroke the piston goes below the ports in the liners and the roots blows in a fresh charge in because the exhaust valves are open at the same time. Then the piston starts back up, exhaust valves are closed, closing off the ports and starts compressing up to where the injector does it's thing. The engines have to have a roots setup to push the air into the cylinders. Not like a 4-cycle than can suck it in.
Because the used a bypass-valve on the roots blower. When the pressure generated by the bosting/loaded turbo exceeded the blower's pressure, the higher pressure simply vents around the roots blower. No overrunning clutch to explode with rapid rev changes - remember, the 71/92/149 designs were usable in automotive, marine, power generation (electrical, hydraulic, compressed air), and water pumping applications. They didn't want to redesign the support systems around the block when the application changed.
George Boyd..... Back in 1965, I was in my third year (of 4) of studying Diesel Engine Design & Theory, specializing in 2 cycle (and was personally focused on the GM Diesels (Officially known & marketed as Detroit Diesel from late 1965, forward), and was also Very privileged to study under Mr. P. Nicholas who had just retired earlier that year from R&D at GM Diesel Power (from 1937 - 1964) and who was personally involved in the original designing of the very first prototype 2 cycle GM Diesel... which was a 4-71, and I have an 8X10" photo of it that he gave me after I returned from VN. It was taken just moments after they fired up the 4-71 for the first time, and he, another R&D engineer and "Boss" Kettering are standing by it in the test cell. In my 3rd year, we were required to "clean-sheet" a new engine design of our own. Unknown to myself at that time, Mr. Nicholas hand delivered my new design to his successor at Detroit Diesel (as it was just formally changed to, from GM Diesel Power) during the summer of 1965, and it was subsequently brought to the attention of Division "heads" who liked it and was brought to the attention of Corporate "heads" during a fall meeting (1965) of division "heads". During that presentation of my newly designed "Detroit Diesel" (were inline 6 and V8 versions), it caught the attention of the head of R&D from the EMDivision, who (apparently) vehemently wanted to know, who stole their newest "intake" design, that had just been put into production earlier that same year on EMD's newest Series 645 prime-movers. Long story short.... I stood to make a lot of money from the design, plus a standing offer to come to work in R&D at DD....... the "offer" stood, the money disappeared, as EMD was quick to show DD that they, infact... were recently awarded a "grandfather" patent on the overrunning & thermatically controlled, clutch driven (at start-up to "mid-range" rpm - depending on gen/alt loading and egt's) single, axial flow turbocharger and system in general. I was totally unaware (in those years) of what the EMDivision was doing, or in fact.. that it even existed. The first few years after it's release by EMD, even after some "real time/real world" testing on some 567BC's, there were some serious issue's with the new "intake" system.... especially with the 16 & 20 cylinder prime movers.... and the railroads were getting tired really fast of spending $22,000+ (in 1960's USD !!) to rebuild a turbocharger (Plus, any possible internal engine damaged to do debris possibly finding its way internally). Many RR's would derate back to Rootes Blown engines, or some derate the power with the turbocharger setup. When EMD had put the Turbocharger into production, Ceramics had yet to become a viable material for industrial applications.... but when it did, it was the cure for the exploding turbochargers on the EMD prime movers, and for the most part, have been pretty well trouble-free for decades, now. All that to say..... it was I who was "there" and presented the possibility of how to really pack some power into those small ci GM Diesels.... unfortunately I was a little too late with that design. However, I did get the opportunity to actually meet some of the GMDiesel R&D people through Mr. Nicholas.... and discuss the advantages of increasing the "useful" stroke length of their engines (series 71), and the resulting increase in piston speed, thereby increasing internal inertia and "holding/lugging" ability of the torque range.... and also discussed the possibility and feasability of an in-line 6-149. While at DD, I was also Very Privileged to be taken to the "back room"...... where the "experimental" engines were, out of sight from "corporate". It was VERY "enlightening" for me, to say the least, and a true "once in a lifetime" experience. Producing power and torque was Never an issue for the 2 cycle "Detroits"...... it was their slow Piston Speed, that hindered them in the grades due to the inability to "hold on" to the torque developed.
Wow I wish I was of age in the early years of heavy industry in America iv only got to enjoy the final years as a locomotive engineer and sad to say it’s dying off as well with no factories the government and EPA laws and technological advances on the railroads combined with strict micro managing its killed the job EMD a long leader and pioneer building the first diesel locomotive is now gone thanks to Obama and the EPA regulation causing them to not be able to compete with General Electric on the emission tiers in which caused EMD to close and be brought by caterpillar it’s just a disgraceful thing our government has done to Our country as a whole
Why did we never get any these in europe, the only two-stroke diesel near where i live that i can think of is a EMD 12-645E in a shunter locomotive and probably some large marine engine the harbor nearby which i guess is cool and all, that EMD sounds very nice I guess its a good thing these stay in North America though because there they can at least avoid those pesky government fucks that want to replace them with some shitty DEF fluid drinking crap that will land on a scrapyard in less 7 years
@@bubblelvr1 well, detroit stopped making two-strokes in like 1994, perhaps with the exception of those used in military vehicles as well as the 20V149 which was discontinued in 1999 or 2000. But yes i agree with you.
@@bubblelvr1..... That is a Myth!! Even though EMD was sold to Progress Rail (subsidiary of CAT.) in 2010 by Greenbriar, they are still Very Much in business. The Series 710 prime-mover (2 cycle) is Still very much in production... though not for sale in their US market locomotives... but better than 90% of their export locomotives are still being ordered with the 710G with a few minor upgrades. EMD's 1010 prime-mover is a remake of EMD's 265H (initial output of 6,300 hp) engine from back in 1998... that was "explosive" to put it mildly. So EMD is Still.... EMD, and in very good shape.
@@isakjohansson7134..... You're correct. Over 90% of EMD's export locomotives are still being ordered with the 710G engine... with a few minor upgrades.
Was that 1,802 kw or RPM showing on the display at first I was thinking KW, but 1800 rpm is the speed needed for a 4 pole generator to produce 60hz AC output. Curious as to what the rated electrical output is though. I was thinking 1,802 kw (1.8 mw) definitely sounded possible....
Well, "149" in 20V149 is the number of cubic inches displacement per cylinder, so 20X149 is 2980 cu inches. Wich is roughly 48 liters. About 8 times the displacement of a good car V8 today. Just that will consume a whole lot of fuel right there. But for its power and what it's meant to do, it's probably pretty good on fuel. Besides, as it is a 2 stroke engine instead of a more common 4 strokes, it means it's burning more fuel than the same size 4 stroke engine but making a whole lot more power. It does burn oil as well as it is inherent to every two stroke engine from the smallest 50cc one cylinder bike to the biggest 209 liter 20 cylinder locomotive powerplant.
Doesn't sound anything like Roberts engine in the Big Bud... which is a series 92 engine. The only thing similar between them is that their both 2 cycle Detroits, and arrive at their total number of cylinders though a modular configuration. Other than that, they have nothing in common... from a design aspect. The Series 149 engines do Not "share" ANY parts interchangeability with Any of the other Detroit Diesel 2 cycle engine families, with the one exception of the injectors, with the 110.
Really... Didn't know a POS EcoTec could make 2000 lb-ft or more. Has to be the actual moment it grenades... Anything will make torque beyond its limits... ONCE.
They are 2 stroke diesel engines so they have twice as many firing strokes as a 4 stroke so it makes then sound like they are running a real high rpm, but they are running a fairly low RPM
What you are in the presence of here is the KING of the Detroit Diesels! What a beautiful, rare, and awesome running example!
I love that I own this one and two more. It's super reliable and fast start up for its use case. Thanks depco for upgrading the electronics!
And thank you for buying it so it can remain in service. Hopefully it's well cared for.
Still running strong 2024
@@jononyoutube19421.... are the other two that you have, 20 cyl., also ?
@@jononyoutube19421What do you use them for?
@@jononyoutube19421how much fuel does it consume and how much did you pay for it?
When you want to set up a hospital in the arctic but you also want it to sound like NASCAR all the time:
Hank Hill.... NASCAR.. Never sounded this good!! lol ; )
@@Romans--bo7br I think it sounds more like a gigantic mining dump truck
This? I’m thinking a *locomotive* of some kind….
I'm curious as to what Nascar races you been watching that sound like a train locomotive
Like NASCAR on steroids, more like...
I spent several years on USN FFG PERRY CLASS SHIPS with 16v149TI generator sets. Great reliable power sourse.
Finally a 20V149TIB DDEC III. Long lived the 149 series. 2936 HP @ 1800 RPM
@@christopherpark6549 2400 RPM is a bit of a stretch for a 149, they valve float at just under 3000 rpm and sound like swarm of big angry bees while doing it.
Rule one, always know how to stop an engine before starting it, specially if it's a mechanical governed GM.
Generally for continuous power Detroit avoided taking the 149 series engine above 125HP/cyl as they became very unreliable once you pushed past what the engine was originally designed for.
The maximum output you've mentioned here is very rare used, only for emergency / standby generators or maybe a fire pump - 147Hp/cyl is really over and above the mechanical limits of this engine design.
Nothing sounds sweeter than 149 series engine being put through its paces, albeit NA, T, TI or TIB !!
@@raygale4198.... where did you come up with the "2400 rpm" for a 149?..... and who is "@Christopher Park" that you were replying to?..... I can't find his name on here to read what it was that he said, that you replied to him with what you said.
@@Romans--bo7br Well besides being a long dead thread, it sounds like the other person made some statement about a 149 running at 2400rpm????
I used to work for a GM dealer in Australia, when the fuel rack jams on a dyno run they get very angry.
Have you never encountered a thread where for what ever reason a persons comments have been deleted by Utube????
@@raygale4198.... My apology... I had no idea that you replied to me, and I just now happened to revisit this video and found your reply. I guess I haven't run into that very much (in regards to your question), but I also do not spend too much time reading comments under every video, either..... as "entertaining" as some of them are. lol
I do know that one can delete their own comments or replies if they wish to do so for whatever the reason, as well as YT can, and does for whatever reason. Where in AU. (which state) do you live & work... or, are you retired now?
I've been there several times, and always loved it there..... at least before the phony Covid bs, and AU's over the top "lock downs", and the brutalness of the police in enforcing it, etc, etc.
PS: We ran the V12 (71) in the sled puller (1974 KW) at 4K - 4,200 r's (2500hp+/-).... never once, blew it up in over 11,000 "hooks" before retiring it, though it did spin a main bearing in 2006.
The smile of the old man, says it all
As a delivery driver I delivered packages to Data Centers, credit card data storage places, and they had these for their backup generators !! Walked right past them making deliveries.....
My god that was absolutely awesome. First time I've ever heard one run.
That cooling fan is gigantic.
That's such a beautiful song.
Do I need to specify that this is a 2,980 Cubic Inch engine or 48.833 Liters? It's massive!
1:30 let her sing that good ol' Detroit song
It's amazing that this monster can spin at 1800 RPM. What else utilizes this engine? Locomotive, ship, earthmover?
I don't believe any trains or construction vehicles ever used this engine, it was mainly marine and stationary if I recall
Terex 33-15B & C Mining Haul Trucks
@@aawdes the terex used a 16v
Danish locos nose in Australia
Now not nose
Holy fu@%$* two stroke music. Thank You!!!
The smile on that old timers face @1:37 😄
WOAH, that radiator is a monster!!!
Last DDEC 2 stroke I dealt with was a new 1992 6V92 in a new Western States pumper.
Good god, one cylinder has more displacement than my entire engine
Wilford Brimley’s makin’ it purr
It’s a diesel powered anti - diabeetus machine.
this is quieter than my dad's snores
How did they get 20 cylinders in three banks?
Amazing super powerfull sound i love it...😍
The smile on the man’s face at 1:37 says it all!
20v 149 has the perfect harmonic, they will sing you to sleep
Beautiful display. A rare screaming Jimmy for sure.
Its a turbo 2 stroke, they are common in sleds today and produce outrage power without having to rev real high unlike a 4 stroke. Im not sure what type of turbo and tuned exhaust you are running on this 20v149 2 stroke, i have worked with some 16v149 and they do burn some oil.
Bruce Miller..... "they are common in sleds today".... Which "sleds" are you referring to? They are Not "common" in anything anymore... unfortunately. Not sure where you get your information from in regards to "produce outrage power without having to rev real high unlike a 4 stroke." but that is NOT true at all. The industrial 4 cycle diesels do NOT run at any higher rpm to produce the same hp levels as the Series 149 engines did (and those that are still "with us").
The real advantage of the 2 cycle diesels (especially those from GM Diesel Power/ Detroit Diesel) was that they could produce the same amount of power (and even, more) with approximately 33 percent LESS ci of displacement..... which, especially in truck and interstate coach applications turned out to be their "Achilles heel" because their much shorter "useful" (less than 3 inches when taking the opening of the exhaust valves and intake port uncovering into consideration) stroke length also caused them (Series 71 and 92 both had a "total" stroke of only 5 inches) to Not be able to "hold" that torque (due to much reduced piston speed) as compared to the longer stroked 4 cycle engines like Cat, Cummins and Mack in trucks and buses, although Before the use of Turbochargers on those 4 cycle engines, the naturally aspirated Detroits would easily out-pull the big inch 4 cycles on the grades, with the same gross weights.
@@Romans--bo7br he's definitely confused. These are nothing like a snowmobile engine. Plus I doubt he's ever worked on a 16V149 lol
@@kaulincurtis9665.... He's was not only confused, but from his whole comment.... I think he was "on something".... completely "out to lunch".
what sort of sled has an engine this big?
Are used to work on them generator set and let me tell you they would power a house or a whole city block no problem and want more any issue with them was as you check the fuel and fill it up with the oil
Very nice video,with out the complete exhaust system connected if the engine is off and the rain or snow comes it can be a big problem..
I heard about this, and knew it was made from two 6's and an 8, but just now find this video of one running. Interesting, as it starts out like an 8 (or 2, 4; the "square phase" sound) on the lower RPM's but then suddenly turns into a 6 (or 3, 12; the "triangular phase" sound) when revved up. The lower square notes are always more prominent, but the higher notes come closer to the triangle sound, so that's what becomes prominent.
It seems an 8V is the smallest 149 series they make, so are the 6V149's used for this specially made for it?
I thing they are the blocks for the V12.
You mean it's just one 12 and one 8? (Don't know why I think I always heard it was two 6's, then).
@@ETBX1 the V6 blocks are used to make both the V12 and V20. Two V8 blocks would make the V16. I suspect the V6 was never built because it would have overlapped too much with other engine series.
Thats a lot of engine
@@doug112244 GM did make a few 6V149, but you are correct there was no real advantage as it over lapped other cheaper models in power range, the only possible gain was if the rest of the fleet ran 149 series engines it reduced parts inventory. Even 8V149 were quite rare, a couple ended up in fishing boats here in Australia.
Didn't know Wilford Brimley was a tech!
That thing has to be in megawatt territory
And where is the START UP?
ruclips.net/video/Zn9K2giMTpo/видео.html they got the names round the wrong way on upload
Always wondered why people chose the 16 and 20 cyl Detroits in static installations over emd's of comparable output with half the cylinders
..... because the overall cost of purchase, running and maintaining... is Far less for the Series 149, even the 20 cyl, which also takes up far less room for the package, as setup.. in this video. For equivalent power (hp) output from EMD, you're looking at the 16 cyl. 645E3B at 3,000 hp.
Lots more fuel, Oil, Coolant, etc, etc.... and "IF" you ever had to re-manufacture it..... I would hope that you have "DEEP Pockets", in comparison to re-manning, even a 20 - 149Ti Detroit.. not to mention all that beautiful Series 149 "music" regardless of how many cylinders, that you can enjoy when they're running.
those turbos make the blowers free-spin. I wonder if there is enough turbo pressure thru the blowers to ADD power to the system or does the engine still turn the blowers at full turbo boost? Thanks for posting.
The blowers are all ways turning, at full load the blower by-pass valves are open. Complicated but easy reliable setup.
That engine is rated a tick under 3k H.P.
The turbo Detroits (at least the 53- and 71-series, I assume they’re all the same) have a blower bypass system as well as lower compression ratios to keep from damaging the blowers or engines.
@@The_sinner_Jim_Whitney..... the lower cr on the turbocharged engines (17.0:1 on the Series 71), has absolutely Nothing to do with "not damaging the blower(s)"..... as far as the by-pass blowers on the "smaller" Detroits, also has Nothing to do with not "damaging the blower(s)". Before the Silver Series engines were put into production, they did not have by-pass valving integrated in the blower(s).... they just did not produce as much power as with the "By-Pass" and "Hi-Bypass" (marine) blowers.
@@Romans--bo7br Yeah, the lower compression wasn’t for the blower’s sake, I should’ve worded that differently. I’ve always been told that the blower bypass was to keep from damaging the blower(s) in turbo Detroits, is it not?
I would love to see this put into a semi truck. A ole vintage classic classy one
Lol not even sure how you would fit it and the transmission in there 😂
@@highoffgunpowder its safe to say that you would have to "build" a semi around this engine.
and then take it fora run up Mt Ouseley in Wollongong
Does it eventually get an enclosure around it when work is completed or does it stand as it is?
That ol boys been doin that a while, dangerous job I’ve seen some bad stuff.
you know a motors Serious when its got more gallons of oil in filters than most medium duty trucks have in their oil pan
Emergency hospital generally sets.
What a magnificent machine
Golly! That looks like it belongs in the Big Bud 16v-747!😂
The 20-149Ti is FAR too big (and heavy!) for J. Williams' Big Bud.
I need this to power my whole neighborhood
Not worked on 20 but plenty of 16 s
At least the old hand knows about hearing protection and Detroit's.
Just to put this madness in perspective, 149 is the Cubic-Inch Displacement of a *single* cylinder from that bad mamma-jamma.
Detroit Diesel Power The sound of victory. USA1. GM1
I could use this for my central heating and cooling for my house
A bit small compared to the EMDs I used to deal with.
The title is incorrect, as the engine was _already running_ when the footage starts. We did not not see the ether shot, or hear it cranking over, nor hear it *roar to life* . I still love you tho.
Wow. 2980 cubic inches of DD two-cycle power!
This (The Diesel) is what makes the world go 'round, Greta Thunberg!
How dare you! Lol
Haha gotta destroy the planet to own the libs
The mufflers blew off the moment it started!
Now space debris for the ISS to dodge around1
How does the hex-turbo work? You can't split a bank of 10 cylinders equally between 3 turbos so it'll have to be staggered. It looks like, going from the alternator end, that the first 3 cylinders get turbo 1, the middle 4 cylinders get turbo 2 and the end 3 cylinders get turbo 3 - is that right? Or is there a crossfeed between the two banks?
That would be my guess as that's how the engine blocks are laid out on it. It also looks like the center turbo is bigger than the other two.
It's 2 v6 and 1 v8 each bank has it's own turbo .
Yeah! Let's drop that engine into a super dozer!
That engine has seen better days.
if it was drinking fuel from a 55 gal drum.im sure you could visibly watch the fuel level dropping.
wonder how many gallons of fuel that thing burns a minute at fuel load?
I thought a silver 8v92 sounded nice, but this just about tops that!!!
I'm waking the dead here, but what is used for a starter on these engines? I've never worked around them.
compressed air
If that doesn't make your pee pee stand up nothing will lol
Now THAT'S a Detroit folks
Now.... How do you put one in a 55 Chevy?
.... you mean "ON" a 55 Chevy, not "in " it. lol
@@Romans--bo7br no I mean in.. because on would just crush the car
Whats it producing for power 4160
Is there video of the actual startup?
ruclips.net/video/Zn9K2giMTpo/видео.html
Wow, I knew Detroit made a 16V149, but didn’t know they made a 20V149!
Forget Motown as the music from Detroit - this is the real music, screaming Jimmy Twostroke.
The beast lives
24 V 149 = number of cylinders= 24 V - configuration of cylinders 149= cubic inch displacement per cylinder.
I have never seen or heard of a DETROIT DIESEL ENGINE with 20 cylinders.
Two 6 cylinders and one 8
melvin newsome.... The Only "24V" (re: "on the books")from Detroit Diesel was the 24V71 which of course was a "modular" engine constructed of Two 12V71's "Siamesed" together. They never did produce a 24V149, the seies 149 was available in 8, 12, 16 and 20 Vee configurations only. I was hoping that they would have produced an I-6 version configured for Semi - truck installations, that would have been a powerhouse to compete at that time with the Cat 3408, and the Cummins KTA series engines of the era, and displacemeant wise, would have been a direct match-up with the Cat 3406 which came out in the late 1970's with the Cat at 893.4 ci and a Series 149 IL 6 right at an even 894ci.
Most likely though, a Series 149 "IL -6" would have been in the 4,300 to 5,000lb weight class which would have been too heavy to be able to legally scale a decent payload on the steering axle - and also would have produced too much torque for the drivelines of the era.... and would even have been questionable for today's drivelines... especially with todays morons that call themselves "truck drivers".... they're a disgrace to the profession compared to the older generation of truckers which are pretty well all retired now or have passed away.
FYI... there was also a "few" 32V71's that were custom built for Detroit Diesel by Stewart & Stevenson Corp. which is (to this day) the worlds largest Detroit Diesel dealer with many specialized "in-house" capabilities... especially in producing highly specialized engine and component configurations as well as the parts necessay for those configurations to "work".
They also (back "in the day") custom built Vertical mount Detroits (12V71's) and 8V278A and 8V567 series EMD division engines for marine use with "tight" engine bays. Stewart/Stevenson also built 12V71 engines that would run on either diesel duel or natural gas.... and yes, they had "in-house" built, special cylinder heads with Spark Plugs (with custom built ignition systems, of course) for use when switched over to natural gas.... but "you" (meaning - Anyone) will Never find Any of these engines in Any "catalogue" or listed anywhere, these engines and engine set ups were all custom designed and built for highly specialized applications, only.
The 20V you see here was Not a "factory" engine... they were all custom designed & built by Stewart/Stevenson for Detroit Diesel as far as the modular engine block configuration resulting in 20 cylinders is concerned.
@@Romans--bo7br Do u know of any talk/plans of DD making a bigger series than the 149? or if S&S Corp bored over any of the 149 series?
@@Romans--bo7br They were heavy engines. I drove a Gama Goat with a 353 when I was in the Army back in the 80's and I remember that 353 weighed about 900lbs. Anyway that was some interesting information about Stewart & Stevenson. Do they still design and build these 2 stroke systems today?
@@timt2202 Detroit Diesel quit making 2 stroke diesel engines several years ago so the answer to your question is no. Don't know about S&S though. If you are talking about 2 stroke diesel engines bigger than the 149 series then you would look into EMD division.
Other than cost, why didn't Detroit Diesel equip these engines with a turbocharger setup similar to an EMD, with an overrunning clutch, and forgo the roots blowers?
EMD's have a roots blower setup as do all Detroits because they get their fresh air supply through holes in the piston sleeves and have only exhaust valves. On the bottom of the power stroke the piston goes below the ports in the liners and the roots blows in a fresh charge in because the exhaust valves are open at the same time. Then the piston starts back up, exhaust valves are closed, closing off the ports and starts compressing up to where the injector does it's thing. The engines have to have a roots setup to push the air into the cylinders. Not like a 4-cycle than can suck it in.
the geared turbo setup works well with large low RPM locomotive engines but not so well with higher rpm smaller displacement engines
Because the used a bypass-valve on the roots blower. When the pressure generated by the bosting/loaded turbo exceeded the blower's pressure, the higher pressure simply vents around the roots blower. No overrunning clutch to explode with rapid rev changes - remember, the 71/92/149 designs were usable in automotive, marine, power generation (electrical, hydraulic, compressed air), and water pumping applications. They didn't want to redesign the support systems around the block when the application changed.
George Boyd..... Back in 1965, I was in my third year (of 4) of studying Diesel Engine Design & Theory, specializing in 2 cycle (and was personally focused on the GM Diesels (Officially known & marketed as Detroit Diesel from late 1965, forward), and was also Very privileged to study under Mr. P. Nicholas who had just retired earlier that year from R&D at GM Diesel Power (from 1937 - 1964) and who was personally involved in the original designing of the very first prototype 2 cycle GM Diesel... which was a 4-71, and I have an 8X10" photo of it that he gave me after I returned from VN.
It was taken just moments after they fired up the 4-71 for the first time, and he, another R&D engineer and "Boss" Kettering are standing by it in the test cell. In my 3rd year, we were required to "clean-sheet" a new engine design of our own. Unknown to myself at that time, Mr. Nicholas hand delivered my new design to his successor at Detroit Diesel (as it was just formally changed to, from GM Diesel Power) during the summer of 1965, and it was subsequently brought to the attention of Division "heads" who liked it and was brought to the attention of Corporate "heads" during a fall meeting (1965) of division "heads". During that presentation of my newly designed "Detroit Diesel" (were inline 6 and V8 versions), it caught the attention of the head of R&D from the EMDivision, who (apparently) vehemently wanted to know, who stole their newest "intake" design, that had just been put into production earlier that same year on EMD's newest Series 645 prime-movers.
Long story short.... I stood to make a lot of money from the design, plus a standing offer to come to work in R&D at DD....... the "offer" stood, the money disappeared, as EMD was quick to show DD that they, infact... were recently awarded a "grandfather" patent on the overrunning & thermatically controlled, clutch driven (at start-up to "mid-range" rpm - depending on gen/alt loading and egt's) single, axial flow turbocharger and system in general. I was totally unaware (in those years) of what the EMDivision was doing, or in fact.. that it even existed.
The first few years after it's release by EMD, even after some "real time/real world" testing on some 567BC's, there were some serious issue's with the new "intake" system.... especially with the 16 & 20 cylinder prime movers.... and the railroads were getting tired really fast of spending $22,000+ (in 1960's USD !!) to rebuild a turbocharger (Plus, any possible internal engine damaged to do debris possibly finding its way internally).
Many RR's would derate back to Rootes Blown engines, or some derate the power with the turbocharger setup. When EMD had put the Turbocharger into production, Ceramics had yet to become a viable material for industrial applications.... but when it did, it was the cure for the exploding turbochargers on the EMD prime movers, and for the most part, have been pretty well trouble-free for decades, now.
All that to say..... it was I who was "there" and presented the possibility of how to really pack some power into those small ci GM Diesels.... unfortunately I was a little too late with that design. However, I did get the opportunity to actually meet some of the GMDiesel R&D people through Mr. Nicholas.... and discuss the advantages of increasing the "useful" stroke length of their engines (series 71), and the resulting increase in piston speed, thereby increasing internal inertia and "holding/lugging" ability of the torque range.... and also discussed the possibility and feasability of an in-line 6-149. While at DD, I was also Very Privileged to be taken to the "back room"...... where the "experimental" engines were, out of sight from "corporate". It was VERY "enlightening" for me, to say the least, and a true "once in a lifetime" experience.
Producing power and torque was Never an issue for the 2 cycle "Detroits"...... it was their slow Piston Speed, that hindered them in the grades due to the inability to "hold on" to the torque developed.
Wow I wish I was of age in the early years of heavy industry in America iv only got to enjoy the final years as a locomotive engineer and sad to say it’s dying off as well with no factories the government and EPA laws and technological advances on the railroads combined with strict micro managing its killed the job EMD a long leader and pioneer building the first diesel locomotive is now gone thanks to Obama and the EPA regulation causing them to not be able to compete with General Electric on the emission tiers in which caused EMD to close and be brought by caterpillar it’s just a disgraceful thing our government has done to
Our country as a whole
I always wondered what happened to all the kids from special ed class in school? But I see they all alive and well and commenting here 👍
and richer then you are!
that sound though..
Nothing like the sound of a two stroke diesel, whatever the size!
Can this thing power a Boeing Airbus?
strange setup, looks like 3 different size turbo's on each side
TurboGSR96 it’s two V6s and one V8 bolted together (V8 in the middle). So yeah, the middle turbos are larger.
Why did we never get any these in europe, the only two-stroke diesel near where i live that i can think of is a EMD 12-645E in a shunter locomotive and probably some large marine engine the harbor nearby which i guess is cool and all, that EMD sounds very nice
I guess its a good thing these stay in North America though because there they can at least avoid those pesky government fucks that want to replace them with some shitty DEF fluid drinking crap that will land on a scrapyard in less 7 years
Yep and thanks to Obama and now Biden it’s over for EMD now caterpillar they’ve went bankrupt and Detroit no longer makes two strokes fckd up EPA laws
@@bubblelvr1 well, detroit stopped making two-strokes in like 1994, perhaps with the exception of those used in military vehicles as well as the 20V149 which was discontinued in 1999 or 2000. But yes i agree with you.
Though i think the EMD 710-series is still being sold, though not in USA
@@bubblelvr1..... That is a Myth!! Even though EMD was sold to Progress Rail (subsidiary of CAT.) in 2010 by Greenbriar, they are still Very Much in business. The Series 710 prime-mover (2 cycle) is Still very much in production... though not for sale in their US market locomotives... but better than 90% of their export locomotives are still being ordered with the 710G with a few minor upgrades. EMD's 1010 prime-mover is a remake of EMD's 265H (initial output of 6,300 hp) engine from back in 1998... that was "explosive" to put it mildly. So EMD is Still.... EMD, and in very good shape.
@@isakjohansson7134..... You're correct. Over 90% of EMD's export locomotives are still being ordered with the 710G engine... with a few minor upgrades.
Was that 1,802 kw or RPM showing on the display at first I was thinking KW, but 1800 rpm is the speed needed for a 4 pole generator to produce 60hz AC output. Curious as to what the rated electrical output is though. I was thinking 1,802 kw (1.8 mw) definitely sounded possible....
1800 RPM.
Did you even watch the video, it saying right next to the number what the value represents.
149x20x16.4= 48.8 liters? Am i correct?
Cristian Herrera M..... You are correct... actually 48 Liters, even... or 2,980ci for the 20 cyl.
I need one
How many cc was the 20v149 google is useless
2980 cubic inches
That seems excessive to power one fan.
Initall start ? That looks like it has about 250k hours on it
6 turbos and 3 blowers my God this things probably horrible on fuel
Airion Baumgartner it's a two stroke so actually not that bad
Well, "149" in 20V149 is the number of cubic inches displacement per cylinder, so 20X149 is 2980 cu inches. Wich is roughly 48 liters. About 8 times the displacement of a good car V8 today. Just that will consume a whole lot of fuel right there. But for its power and what it's meant to do, it's probably pretty good on fuel. Besides, as it is a 2 stroke engine instead of a more common 4 strokes, it means it's burning more fuel than the same size 4 stroke engine but making a whole lot more power. It does burn oil as well as it is inherent to every two stroke engine from the smallest 50cc one cylinder bike to the biggest 209 liter 20 cylinder locomotive powerplant.
Don't these two stroke diesels have an oil sump like any four stroke? They don't burn oil like a chainsaw engine
@@kaulincurtis9665 They have a regular oil sump. You don't mix fuel with oil like in a gasoline 2 stroke
@@rbagel55 thought so
sounds like the BIG BUG 747 16V
Doesn't sound anything like Roberts engine in the Big Bud... which is a series 92 engine. The only thing similar between them is that their both 2 cycle Detroits, and arrive at their total number of cylinders though a modular configuration. Other than that, they have nothing in common... from a design aspect. The Series 149 engines do Not "share" ANY parts interchangeability with Any of the other Detroit Diesel 2 cycle engine families, with the one exception of the injectors, with the 110.
Put that in my pickup. ;-)
1800 LOLOL. Sounds like it's going about 8500
Sounds epic
Six freakin turbos lol...my God
Turbo 🤗
The gentle engine ever...
I LOVE IT
So good
Almost as much torque as a 2005 malibu
Really... Didn't know a POS EcoTec could make 2000 lb-ft or more. Has to be the actual moment it grenades... Anything will make torque beyond its limits... ONCE.
Great vid. but why push a great engine so hard😯
It wasn't being pushed in the slightest. They just sound pissed off all the time.
Them turbos though. ☺
TheSolidsnake41 that thing was barely even working.
What engine is it bud? Any idea?
They are 2 stroke diesel engines so they have twice as many firing strokes as a 4 stroke so it makes then sound like they are running a real high rpm, but they are running a fairly low RPM
At least one of you old guys has a little common sense wearing hearing protection....
Time to swap one into a miata
that's a little large, isn't it?? it would fit better in a Smart car.............
Love it!
Come on... REV THAT MF UP
two sixes and an eight!
Pitty it ain't a real startup just a running engine.
There IS another video of it, on start up.
no mufflers LOL
Beauty