New Common Rail MP8

[Mackpro]

I got some pics sent to me  of a cut-away of a MP8 common rail engine. I will add them when there is an offical Mack anouncment as I dont want to get the guy in trouble that sent them to me.  Looks like its all under the valve cover and its cramped under there. Also pic of the optional turbo thats it some how hooked to the flywheel ( improves MPG)  . Also the "Cleartech"  DPF/SCR unit all made into  one unit to save space. Some really crazy/cool stuff comming out of Mack these days.

[wheeler73]

I have seen pics of the dpf/scr unit but not of the common rail setup. Can't wait to see the pics!!

[james j neiweem]

Alright How about a primer on injection systems.

[Dirtymilkman]

9 hours ago, james j neiweem said:

Alright How about a primer on injection systems.

My mp10 has a primer. 200 pumps to get to the injectors. 

 

The later model case tractors with the iveco engine have been using that turbo hooked to the timing gears for years. It's just on a overrunning clutch and they claimed it adds 3% efficiency. 

[Svin]

Renault uses the Volvo engine also. http://iepieleaks.nl/new-generation-renault-t-trucks/

[fjh]

12 hours ago, james j neiweem said:

Alright How about a primer on injection systems.

 James  AMEN to that !  (ELECTRIC) Pump like  Them lucky cummins  guys!   Maybe  we will get in tune with the 21 century at sum point!

[james j neiweem]

I guess I didn't mean primer. I meant how about a little education on common rail systems.

[bts-4120]

17 hours ago, Dirtymilkman said:

My mp10 has a primer. 200 pumps to get to the injectors. 

 

The later model case tractors with the iveco engine have been using that turbo hooked to the timing gears for years. It's just on a overrunning clutch and they claimed it adds 3% efficiency. 

I think the new Detroit has the same type turbo also

[j hancock]

Will common rail still be using injector cups? 

What is the consensus on reliability in comparison to the current hardware and emissions?

[theakerstwo]

I would think common rail would be better for the injector cups because the fuel pressure is already there and the injector is only releasing pressure instead of building pressure.

The DD15 Detroit engine had the turbo that uses the over ride clutch connected to the rear gears.That engine came out after I left the dealer.A friend of mine that still works there said they had almost stop using that turbo.I don't kno what filtering system the fuel system has on those engines or the DD engine but the Mercedes engine that was in freightliners for a while had the filter that required 200 pumps on the primer before it would start.No one likes it but the reasoning behind it the filter cost like 3 dollars and it goes in upside down dry.you cant pick up a dirty can and pour it full of fuel before you put it back on.It makes you pump fuel from the tank to prime it thinking it will be cleaner.The tolerance in the fuel pump gears and injector parts are more important than ever before.

[bbigrig]

Common rail has it own issues. You may be avoiding the injector cup issues but with the higher pressures fuel system parts such as injectors and high pressure pumps wear faster. There is a little more work to diagnosis on common rail then unit injectors. I've worked on Cummins common rail (Bosch). It's ok. It will suck if they mount the rail and lines under the valve cover. It will make it more work to diagnose just to gain appearance. But from what I've seen of the Volvo D series it looks like it's the way they have decided to go. Let's face it, want to know what the MP will look like, look at the D-series. Seems with the throttle plate on the intake and flywheel driven turbo, we are taking on stuff that didn't do so hot on the DD15 series of engines. Looks like job security for Mechanics at the dealer level. 

 

[bbigrig]

On 26 mars 2016 at 7:16 AM, j hancock said:

Will common rail still be using injector cups? 

What is the consensus on reliability in comparison to the current hardware and emissions?

Common rail has cups in the head for the injectors but the exposure for failure is different 

Unit injectors like the MP have a fuel feed and return ported into the cast of the head.  (cup failure usually allowed combustion gas into fuel system)

Common rail is fed high pressure fuel directly to the injector by a tube (similar to E7-Etech) and the return is ported into the head. The lower portion of the injector is sealed by a copper washer in the cup. Way fewer failures with this cup set up. 

I'm hoping the emissions systems and hardware will improve soon....but I'm not holding my breath. New one piece system, new issues. Hopefully not. 

[theakerstwo]

With this injector there should less torque and surging on the seal at the bottom of the injector.

[bbigrig]

22 hours ago, theakerstwo said:

With this injector there should less torque and surging on the seal at the bottom of the injector.

Excellent point. 

I forgot to add when explaining the difference between the 2 fuel systems, that on common rail there is no rocker arm for an injector plunger. The common rail injector is fed a high pressure of fuel from the fuel rail that is regulated by the high pressure pump and fired into the cylinder by electronic signal from the ECM.

[kscarbel2]

On March 29, 2016 at 0:01 AM, bbigrig said:

Common rail has it own issues. You may be avoiding the injector cup issues but with the higher pressures fuel system parts such as injectors and high pressure pumps wear faster. There is a little more work to diagnosis on common rail then unit injectors. I've worked on Cummins common rail (Bosch). It's ok. It will suck if they mount the rail and lines under the valve cover. It will make it more work to diagnose just to gain appearance. But from what I've seen of the Volvo D series it looks like it's the way they have decided to go. Let's face it, want to know what the MP will look like, look at the D-series. Seems with the throttle plate on the intake and flywheel driven turbo, we are taking on stuff that didn't do so hot on the DD15 series of engines. Looks like job security for Mechanics at the dealer level. 

 

I just want to point out that Cummins' large (10+ liter) engines use the superb "XPI" common rail system independently developed and produced by the Cummins-Scania fuel systems joint venture. It has no relation to Bosch.

While I much preferred American Bosch to Robert Bosch in the days of mechanical pumps, the Bosch-sourced common rail fuel systems on the 5.9, 6.7, ISC and ISL have performed well.

 

[bbigrig]

Weather it's the larger high pressure pumps or the smaller versions, the common rail design itself has its own bugs when compared to unit injectors. (volvo's unit injectors are not a good comparison, the 60 series faired much better)

The 2017  Volvo/Mack set up yet to be released has the rail mounted under the valve cover.  To me that's a  huge step backwards for repair costs and preventative maintenance. Time will tell. 

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by bbigrig

[1965]

25 minutes ago, bbigrig said:

Weather it's the larger high pressure pumps or the smaller versions, the common rail design itself has its own bugs when compared to unit injectors. (vovlo's unit injectors are not a good comparison, the 60 series faired much better)

The Volvo/Mack set up being mostly mounted under the valve cover is to me a huge step backwards for repair costs and preventative maintenance. Time will tell. 

I agree 

Doesn't make since that Mack can't fix the unit injector design; has worked fine for a long time! Not saying they shouldn't go to common rail; just they need to fix the problem; lot of trucks & owners that needs this done; lots of 08 thru 16 or 17 models that's not really going to be worth a squat ($$$$$)

 

it also makes no since in putting anything fuel related in an oil enviroment unless you have too 

[theakerstwo]

EPA has brought this on us.They are stomping the fuel out of the injector tips harder and faster and more of it trying to hold dowm emissions.This is going to desroy something under the injector.When you had a line going into a nozzle from a injection pump you did not have a injector cup problem.

[kscarbel2]

4 hours ago, bbigrig said:

Weather it's the larger high pressure pumps or the smaller versions, the common rail design itself has its own bugs when compared to unit injectors. (volvo's unit injectors are not a good comparison, the 60 series faired much better)

The 2017  Volvo/Mack set up yet to be released has the rail mounted under the valve cover.  To me that's a  huge step backwards for repair costs and preventative maintenance. Time will tell. 

 

Speaking with 10 years of experience with XPI and Bosch common rail fuel injection in the global market, including unforgiving emerging global markets with high sulfur content,  I can tell you that far from having any issues (bugs), common rail has set a new benchmark for reliability in fuel injection. 

Unit pumps (EUP) was a mistaken direction, but from trial and error, innovation is born.

Since the utterly reliable American Bosch mechanical pumps, I hadn't been satisfied with the newer technologies.......until common rail. Simply put, it is the best yet.

Volvo's EUP is supplied by Delphi. My opinion of Delphi is indescribably low.

[theakerstwo]

I am same way with common rail.I did not work on them before I retired but did school on the ISB common rail I would still be working on them but came down with a health problem that said I need to show down.The midrange freightliners used that engine.It is so much quitter and better fuel mileage and any thing is better that the previous pump.

[bbigrig]

15 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

Speaking with 10 years of experience with XPI and Bosch common rail fuel injection in the global market, including unforgiving emerging global markets with high sulfur content,  I can tell you that far from having any issues (bugs), common rail has set a new benchmark for reliability in fuel injection. 

Unit pumps (EUP) was a mistaken direction, but from trial and error, innovation is born.

Since the utterly reliable American Bosch mechanical pumps, I hadn't been satisfied with the newer technologies.......until common rail. Simply put, it is the best yet.

Volvo's EUP is supplied by Delphi. My opinion of Delphi is indescribably low.

The bugs I speak of are in the roll out of the common rail system on an engine that Mack and Volvo are just starting to incorporate into the coming product. 

I'm sure in your 10 years of experience, every new product you have worked on has had slight bumps in their rollout. 

It's not always the fuel system manufacturer themselves that have the issue but how the are incorporated into the engine or end truck/bus product. 

In a fleet I play with of almost 2000 units which 75% are now common rail fuel systems, the fuel system failure rate is just as high as older unit injector engines. 

The maker of the common rail system is immaterial to me in the discussion.  I don't believe I ever stated which series of engine/ fuel system was better or worse. Only that the diag on common rail can take longer depending on the issue it is presenting.  The expense in parts for repair seems higher as well. 

When I speak of common rail I am aware of the pro's of the fuel system. But to me the basic designs between whose tag is on the pumps are similar. 

Saying all unit injector set ups were terrible is not exactly true either. Comparing the more reliable 60 series fuel system to Mack/Volvo's (to no end) issues only show that some were better then others.  

EUP's......geeeeezzzz. Let's not go there.      I see the Paccar MX engines are finally showing most of the similar issues the E-junks did. 

Since when has Volvo used EUP's? Did you mean unit injectors?

 

 

[Mackpro]

In the pics of the Mack common rail I have , My favorite part I have seen is that the enging harness under the valve cover is replaceable without having to replace the entire engine harness as you do on the older MP engines. Bad news is it looks like everything is contained under the valve cover.  Im gonna need way smaller hands to adjust the valves on these motors!

[kscarbel2]

18 hours ago, bbigrig said:

The bugs I speak of are in the roll out of the common rail system on an engine that Mack and Volvo are just starting to incorporate into the coming product. 

I'm sure in your 10 years of experience, every new product you have worked on has had slight bumps in their rollout. 

It's not always the fuel system manufacturer themselves that have the issue but how the are incorporated into the engine or end truck/bus product. 

In a fleet I play with of almost 2000 units which 75% are now common rail fuel systems, the fuel system failure rate is just as high as older unit injector engines. 

The maker of the common rail system is immaterial to me in the discussion.  I don't believe I ever stated which series of engine/ fuel system was better or worse. Only that the diag on common rail can take longer depending on the issue it is presenting.  The expense in parts for repair seems higher as well. 

When I speak of common rail I am aware of the pro's of the fuel system. But to me the basic designs between whose tag is on the pumps are similar. 

Saying all unit injector set ups were terrible is not exactly true either. Comparing the more reliable 60 series fuel system to Mack/Volvo's (to no end) issues only show that some were better then others.  

EUP's......geeeeezzzz. Let's not go there.      I see the Paccar MX engines are finally showing most of the similar issues the E-junks did. 

Since when has Volvo used EUP's? Did you mean unit injectors?

 

 

Volvo (finally) incorporated common rail into its engines for Euro-6 (near EPA2010), which it launched in 2014. Now, we're told it will launch common rail on its North American EPA2010 engines in 2017.

In the world's largest heavy truck market, the Chinese adopted Bosch common rail way back in 2010, and it's been a walk in the park for them.........zero problems, even though they had 500ppm or more sulfur content in the early years.

Why the US stubbornly continues its go-it-alone emissions standards while the rest of the world follows the Euro standards, remains a mystery. It's a costly pain-in-the-neck for all the engine makers to have to design two sets of engines. The world should have "one" set of emissions standards.

[kscarbel2]

The new-for-2015 Delphi "F2E" common rail fuel system for Euro-6 (and EPA2010) spec engines is utilized on the 10.8-liter Volvo/Renault/Mack D11K/DTi11/MP7, 12.8-liter Volvo/Renault/Mack D13L/DTi13/MP8 and 16.1-liter Volvo D16K (16.1L).

As you can see from the attached link, Delphi's F2E was designed to facilitate installing (retrofitting)) common rail onto an engine originally designed for unit pump injection (EUP). This is why it's inconveniently mounted within the Volvo's cylinder head. Volvo still needs a new properly designed common rail engine architecture. Essentially, F2E is a patch.

I personally have a very low opinion of Delphi and its products in both auto and truck applications. Spun off from General Motors in 1999 and bankrupt in 2005, it closed/sold most of its US plants. The name Delphi is synonymous with the words cheap and troublesome.

In the heavy truck segment, Bosch and Cummins-Scania XPI are superior.

This is Volvo's current problematic unit injector, the Delphi E3:

http://www.delphi.com/docs/default-source/old-delphi-files/e08c4a95-c689-4b00-a293-e8e3e1d81838-pdf

This is the upcoming Volvo common rail system, the Delphi F2E unit pump to common rail retrofit:

http://www.delphi.com/docs/default-source/old-delphi-files/cbefef53-e98a-4b4d-be04-57ea6536ede0-pdf

 

[fjh]

Well if they don't do away with the plunger  on the injector then This will not solve the current and on going cup prob;em in my opinion From what I have seen on these engines the injector is not   held down properly to start with.from what i have heard this people have been fighting this issue for years they keep doing the same thing over and over! Its Quite fitting if you think about it Dollar store injectors suit Volvo ! Wouldn't really expect them to do anything else!

 

Again just an opinion