Banks Box

[Jdimig]

This might be of intrest to those who are getting sick of waiting on the Edge Product.



http://www.bankspower.com/newproducts-1-04-2.cfm



Regards!



J

 

[Tomeygun]

yeah, but it does not have DURATION modifaction,



only timing and pressure, seems like they just added in cab adjust and slapped a price on it!



(bully dog has been there for months!)

 

[DLeno]

my thoughts too. its just a me-too timing/pressure box with a Banks name and a claim to technology that no other box has (probably refering to the slip detection). whoopieeee. for guys that want a "125 HP" box that won't hurt the drivetrain. I think it (slip detection) was the only market niche that wasn't already taken by others who beat them to market. probably a good box and no doubt will fill somebody's need. just not mine

 

[ThomasLawrence]

Hmmm... $800 for a timing/pressure box, gauges extra... no auto defueling at high EGT's like Edge or TST will do. Torque is about half that what the TST can squeeze out...



Yeah, I'll wait for Mark to get his connectors straightened out

 

[ThomasLawrence]

I should have read a little closer... looks like the box will defuel automatically. I still think the TST box is a better deal at $50 more, but the Banks isn't an unreasonable route to take for someone who wants moderate power increases and some built-in safety measures (the TST will let you destroy your auto if you're not careful... so be it)



Now... where's Edge in all of this?

 

[silver03]

no way the TST box is putting 500 ft-lbs down at only 150 hp. that would mean it puts out the 500 lbs at 1700 RPM and drops off at least 30 ft-lbs per 100 RPM from there on. no way. all this with only changing fuel pressure 10%. i don't have my stock dyno graph with me, but i think it was only 250 ft-lbs at 1700 RPM stock. 3 times the stock power, someone show me a dyno graph.

you could run on two cylinders in valet mode.



hp = RPM/5656 * torque.



150/500 = 0. 3



0. 3 * 5656 = 1700 rpm

 

[Tomeygun]

Originally posted by silver03

no way the TST box is putting 500 ft-lbs down at only 150 hp. that would mean it puts out the 500 lbs at 1700 RPM and drops off at least 30 ft-lbs per 100 RPM from there on. no way. all this with only changing fuel pressure 10%. i don't have my stock dyno graph with me, but i think it was only 250 ft-lbs at 1700 RPM stock. 3 times the stock power, someone show me a dyno graph.

you could run on two cylinders in valet mode.



hp = RPM/5656 * torque.



150/500 = 0. 3



0. 3 * 5656 = 1700 rpm

I really don't think that the hp/torq math works on "added" hp and torq: maybe like this - (total output of engine)



hp = RPM/5656 * torque.



(280+150)/(480+500) = 0. 4388



0. 4388 * 5656 = 2482 rpm



Little closer, huh? and the tst box does NO pressure increase...

 

[PeterT]

Tomeygun,

There is much more to the Six-Gun than adjustability. I have recently written a white paper covering some of the features of the Six-Gun and some of the things that we learned about the competitive products that are out there. A brief investigation will show that there is substantial value in the Six-Gun. The white paper has not been posted on our website yet, but I would be happy to e-mail a copy to anyone who is interested. Just contact me at -- email address removed --.



Dleno,

Maybe you could explain what you me by a “me-too” box. There is no secret that there are only three ways to electronically enhance fuel delivery, so it seems that no matter how you choose to do it, others are going to have similar methods. I think that in a product arena such as the one being discussed, the true distinction between products comes from the execution of the design. We have put great effort into designing a box that does more than just increase fuel delivery. After all, if you damage the transmission while trying to make more power, what good does it do you?

 

[DLeno]

Peter, I mean "me too" in the context of making a contribution to fuel delivery when that space is clearly still emerging. I spoke in that context because there are some who are watching the state of the art develop with a great interest in fuel delivery when one of the three known methods is not even available in the field yet. The timing of introducing a box this late and without a contribution to fuel delivery was curious to me because, while others have been struggling to perfect duration and to aim at the engine reliability crowd by avoiding the use of increased rail pressure , you guys introduce a box aimed at the transmission reliability crowd with a pressure box that stresses the HPCR.



hats of for aiming at a market niche that others seem not to have touched. If it can truly be shown to save the transmission or a clutch in a robust and reliable way that meaningfully adds a real and not imagined comfort factor to the use of a box, thats great. the philosohical struggle that some will have is that, while possessing technology that protects the transmission, the box itself clearly and arrogantly avoids the issue of stressing the common rail itself and the warranty issues that carries. My personal reaction was amazement when I began to realize that your box assumes that the owner will want to protect the transmission but will understand what it means to become "my own warranty station" with regards to bombing in general and with regards to the the engine's high pressure common rail in particular. Of course, you know by now what side of the "rail pressure" question I'm on, and for those who don't know or care about the various method of generating additional power, you may be succesful in selling to a market audience that cares more about the transmission than the high pressure fuel system.



I dont' mean here to open the pressure debate again, only to explain the context in which I percieved your box to be "me too" box. Its "me too" only in its method of fuel delivery and this designation only comes to mind because of the current, immature state of the art in fuel delivery, my own interest in the reliability of duration instead of pressure, and the fact that (1) I'm clearly aware of the drivetrain weaknesses and (2) would prefer not to use a performance box to help push the drivetrain limits to within zero margin by detecting the onset of mechanical failure.

 

[PeterT]

Dleno,

I have not read previous posts regarding fuel pressure levels, so I don’t know what people here are considering to be too much, but I can tell you that the common rail pressure was one of our primary concerns during development. We found that exceeding 27,000 PSI was heading into dangerous territory. The Six-Gun keeps fuel pressure around 24,500 on all levels except Level 6 with the Speed-Loader option. That setting is considered to be an all out competition calibration, and as such we come up just shy of 27,000 PSI on that level only.

 

[DLeno]

Yes I'm sure you've put some thought into it. 28,000 I thought was the mechnical pressure pop-off limit, a destructive blow-off that requires dealer service. 27,000 is awfully close to that. But I could be wrong, as I haven't paid much attention to it. I'm one of those in the camp that believes pressure should not be tampered with if long term reliability is a desire. Basically the pressure camp is comfortable raising rail pressure above stock peak levels of 23,000 and understand that rail failures are probably 'own warrenty station" territory.



So I haven't heard any real numbers either.