cbo wrote:Seems to me that the extra displacement of the T-34 engine was put to good use - about 20% more torque at much lower RPM than in the Maybach and at the same time using about 30% less fuel, maybe even less.
I don't think that is the case...Diesel engines get there max torque at lower RPM's and do not run High RPM at all....Gasoline Engines can run much higher RPM's!
That is just the nature of the engine!
Running a T34 Diesel Engine 5000RPM's will probably destroy it...
What is not the case? Clearly the T-34 engine uses less fuel and has more torque at lower RPMs than the HL 230 ?
Lower RPM translates into less wear and tear and easier driving and needs fewer gears in the transmission, at least in this case (HL 230 vs V2). The HL 230 would need high RPM to perform, a lot of gearchanging etc. Likely a contributor to the less than satisfactory engine life of the HL 210/230 in the Panther, particularily in 1943 - they limited max RPM for a reason
Displacement as such does not matter much, what counts is the size of the engine and here the HL 230 comes out at 1.56 m3 while the V2 (actually the very similar W2 used in the KV/IS, producing 550 HP) comes out at 1.3 m3. So despite the much larger displacement, the V2 comes out on top in terms of exterior volume, even if it was longer than the HL230. This has to be considered in the context of the HL 230 being an extremely compact engine where several shortcuts had been made to make it as short as possible, shortcuts which were another contributor to the less than satisfactory engine life of the HL 230.
I dont know if you have Spielbergers book on the Panther, but the documentation in the appendixes are an interesting read, particularily the German engineers praise for the characteristics of the Soviet V2/W2 diesels and the US Ford GAA V8 petrol engine - the so-called "Büffel-karakteristik", the low-rev "grunt" of these engines which the HL 230 simply did not have.
Like everyone else, the Germans went for a diesel once they were allowed to build tanks again after the war - it was simply the better choice!
As for the problems with rough running of a 1940ies V2 diesel, in my limited experience it was really not much worse than a HL 230 of the same era. The HL 230 sounds very good, but it is loud beyond belief and occasional misfires (common, apparently, since they added a device on the exhaust to hide the flames) boom through the countryside followed by high blow-torch like flames out of the exhaust. The T34s I've heard are loud as well and carries with them a perpetual smokescreen, but engine noise are drowned by the cleaking, creaking and squaling of the tracks. I think noise and occasional loud, erratic behaviour was just the way of high performance engines of the day
PS: Heres the specs of the MB 838 of the Leopard 1 of early 1960ies vintage:
830HP @ 2200 RPM
286kgm @ 1540 RPM