wrote:
Not sure why we're crossposting to re.crafts.metalworking so I trimmed
it. Feel free to post there again if you think we should though.

Sorry, I really didn't look to see it was being cross-posted. My bad.
THANKS!


Tim:
Interesting. I know the old 6-71 "jimmy" was a 426 CID and was rated
at 238 hp in a standard (not marine) configuration. So I'm amazed that
the little 3-53 can obtain 100hp.

I was in charge of a 35' Bruno-Stillman for a number of years so I'm
fairly familiar with a Detroit 4-53. It was a 212 cu in, 4 cylinder,
2 stroke, 140hp, with a blower. It could cruise on semi-plane at about
11-12 knots. As a club Committee Boat, it had to be idiot proof and it
was definitely that. We had no serious problems with it from the time
it was new in '77 until we lost it in Katrina in '05.



I take it that when you say "blower" you are taking about a
turbocharger?

I can see that 4-53 being more believable with a turbochargercranking
140 hp , but I don't see how a "naturally aspirated" 3-53 can achieve
100 hp.

No need to prove anything to me, but I'm just a bit skeptical.
Rick

Phantman wrote:
Detroit 4-53. It was a 212 cu in, 4 cylinder,
2 stroke, 140hp, with a blower.

Tim:
I take it that when you say "blower" you are taking about a
turbocharger?

Not sure why the operator's manual and literature call it a "blower"
rather than a turgocharger. Looks like a turbocharger to me.

Rick

Well the two-cycle detroits have a "blower" (supercharger) mounted on
the side of the block being necessary for engine operation it looks
like something off the top of a dragster engine. But Detroits
terminology I'm really not familiar with. wether they are calling a
turbo a "blower" or not, or calling the supercharger a "blower". It
can be sort of confusing, or to me it is.



wrote:
Phantman wrote:
Detroit 4-53. It was a 212 cu in, 4 cylinder,
2 stroke, 140hp, with a blower.

Tim:
I take it that when you say "blower" you are taking about a
turbocharger?

Not sure why the operator's manual and literature call it a "blower"
rather than a turgocharger. Looks like a turbocharger to me.

Rick

Tim wrote:
Well the two-cycle detroits have a "blower" (supercharger) mounted on
the side of the block

Correct

wether they are calling a
turbo a "blower" or not, or calling the supercharger a "blower". It
can be sort of confusing, or to me it is.

The primary difference between a turbo and a supercharger is the way
the blower is driven. A turbo by exhaust gases, and a supercharger by
gears, belts, or chains.
IIRC, the Detroit blower isn't driven by the exhaust, so I guess
technically, it wouldn't be a turbocharger. Supercharger maybe, but
for some reason Detroit just uses the term "blower" all through its
literature.

Rick

On Aug 20, 6:45 pm, wrote:
Tim wrote:
Well the two-cycle detroits have a "blower" (supercharger) mounted on
the side of the block

Correct

wether they are calling a
turbo a "blower" or not, or calling the supercharger a "blower". It
can be sort of confusing, or to me it is.

The primary difference between a turbo and a supercharger is the way
the blower is driven. A turbo by exhaust gases, and a supercharger by
gears, belts, or chains.
IIRC, the Detroit blower isn't driven by the exhaust, so I guess
technically, it wouldn't be a turbocharger. Supercharger maybe, but
for some reason Detroit just uses the term "blower" all through its
literature.

Rick

Yes ick,I actually do know the difference between a Supercharger and a
turbo charger, I was jsut wondering about the GM terminology
concerning "blower"

I'll accept that.

On Aug 20, 6:45 pm, wrote:
Tim wrote:
Well the two-cycle detroits have a "blower" (supercharger) mounted on
the side of the block

Correct

wether they are calling a
turbo a "blower" or not, or calling the supercharger a "blower". It
can be sort of confusing, or to me it is.

The primary difference between a turbo and a supercharger is the way
the blower is driven. A turbo by exhaust gases, and a supercharger by
gears, belts, or chains.
IIRC, the Detroit blower isn't driven by the exhaust, so I guess
technically, it wouldn't be a turbocharger. Supercharger maybe, but
for some reason Detroit just uses the term "blower" all through its
literature.

Rick

Yes, in their case it would be a "blower", seeing it pressurizes the
cylinders to clean the exhaust and exchange the air in the cylinders..

On Aug 20, 6:45 pm, wrote:
Tim wrote:
Well the two-cycle detroits have a "blower" (supercharger) mounted on
the side of the block

Correct

wether they are calling a
turbo a "blower" or not, or calling the supercharger a "blower". It
can be sort of confusing, or to me it is.

The primary difference between a turbo and a supercharger is the way
the blower is driven. A turbo by exhaust gases, and a supercharger by
gears, belts, or chains.
IIRC, the Detroit blower isn't driven by the exhaust, so I guess
technically, it wouldn't be a turbocharger. Supercharger maybe, but
for some reason Detroit just uses the term "blower" all through its
literature.

Rick

My uncle used to have an old Gallion road grader with a 4-71, and
interesting to note, it had a tube made into the casting that in cold
weather to aid starting, you would put these "ether" pellets in the
tube and they would drop down onto the blowers vanes, and when
cranking the vanes would crush the pellets and sent the particles
spraying into the cylinders.I thought that was kind of crude, but but
it worked, but hey! the whole line of engines were kind of crude too!

On Aug 20, 10:41 am, Bob wrote:

Yep, they used to be pretty common main engines in small workboats and
utility craft, now mostly used for deck engines and gen sets. The
marine engine configuration produces just over 100 hp naturally
aspirated.

Bob-

Bob, by searching around the typical listings on a naturally aspirated
3-53 is about 75 hp. Which I feel is more realistic. I could be
wrong, though.

http://www.usedboats.com/index.php?s...istoryback =1

"Tim" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Aug 20, 10:41 am, Bob wrote:

Yep, they used to be pretty common main engines in small workboats and
utility craft, now mostly used for deck engines and gen sets. The
marine engine configuration produces just over 100 hp naturally
aspirated.

Bob-

Bob, by searching around the typical listings on a naturally aspirated
3-53 is about 75 hp. Which I feel is more realistic. I could be
wrong, though.

http://www.usedboats.com/index.php?s...istoryback =1


http://www.adieselengine.com/new_page_1.htm
shows 101 hp for the 3-53 and 175 for the 3-53T And since it shows a T I
would assume turbocharged. As the 6-71 with a blower was a 6V-71. the same
blower that was used for years on dragsters and driven via a Gilmer belt.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:00:33 -0700, Tim wrote:

Interesting. I know the old 6-71 "jimmy" was a 426 CID and was rated
at 238 hp in a standard (not marine) configuration. So I'm amazed that
the little 3-53 can obtain 100hp.

The naturally aspirated (non-turbocharged) 6-71 can produce up to 320
hp depending on the injectors used. I have the Johnson & Towers 280
hp version on my trawler.