BANKS high ram vs. stock?

[Bova]

The dyno was closed this weekend, It worked out good for me because my injection pump is going south on me. We'll try again next weekend.

 

[Winspeed]

I will test for a PSI drop tomorrow on my stock air intake. I currently have a port to use on my air horn and my current boost guage is plummed into my manifold, So I will hook up the second boost guage to the air horn tomorrow and see what we have. I will also switch the two guages incase of an accuracy difference between the guages. We will get to the bottom of this one, pronto. If you are loosing HP as did 777 MECH- There has been no boost gain as claimed.



As usual, once proven not to work, it suddenly never was supposed to improve power. Just boost levels. LOL. In this situation where turbo drive pressures would remain the same, the more boost you give the cylinder the more efficient the motor will run I. E. burn more fuel. And it will make more power, and in no way would lower power.

 

[RDietze]

even if there is a SLIGHT increase in power/efficiency/boost the cost-to-benefit will still be way out of wack! 300 bux for the high ram and 600 for the dual intake!



money better spent elsewhere



the results of the dyno/boost tests will be quite interesting

 

[cerberusiam]

That means that while the engine/turbo is working to produce a certain amount of boost, more of the air density that is generated actually gets to the cylinders. That means that more fuel can be added to make more power.

Reread the article, especially the above quote. You should expect to see a HP decrease if no other changes are made. By reducing the boost drop to the manifold a denser air charge is fed to the cyclinders. More air and same fuel on the combustion stroke equals less heat in the cylinder thereby reducing HP.



To make the comparison accurate you guys dynoing need to record EGT's with both setups and bring the HP ratings with the dual/high ram up to the stock setup. If the product lives up to its claim you should see an EGT drop with higher fueling.



Is a $300 to $600 cost efficient? Depends on what your application is. Translate lower EGT's/higher HP to a rig making a living towing where cylinder efficiency and engine life makes an impact and its a bit different than the daily driver. Is paying $300 for a better intake manifold any different that $300 for an ATS exhaust manifold?



Everybody can have their opinion but lets take it easy on the claims of misleading advertisements until there are some hard facts to support it. Enough posts have been locked down.

 

[Cooker]

Originally posted by cerberusiam



More air and same fuel on the combustion stroke equals less heat in the cylinder thereby reducing HP.



Is paying $300 for a better intake manifold any different that $300 for an ATS exhaust manifold?

If the truck is overfueled it will benefit from extra air. More air is the only way to burn more fuel and if you can burn more fuel of the fuel being dumped into the cylinder you will have more HP. I think there are a large number of TDR members who qualify for overfueled Besides why would I want to put something on my truck to reduce HP, because it will lower EGT's? If that were the case I would have went with a smaller plate and smaller injectors Different strokes for different folks I guess.



Also, I don't think most guys buy an ATS for the performance it may have. It is purchased more for the reliability characteristics of a 3 piece manifold. I know I don't expect to get any performance out of the ATS when I drop my $400 on it.



JMHO,

Ryan

 

[NVR FNSH]

I stand by my previous statements - I'm not going to rely on a single Dyno jet run claiming a loss of 11hp. Too much variation from run to run is possible with that test set-up and the relevant data - egt, boost - is not properly recorded/documented.



Brian

 

[777 MECHANIC]

If there were 10 runs proving it costs boost and power you would still argue. Just another non believer that doesent want to see the facts.



MikeD

 

[Dkevdog]

Originally posted by 777 MECHANIC

If there were 10 runs proving it costs boost and power you would still argue. Just another non believer that doesent want to see the facts.



MikeD

Show us 10 trucks with three runs each. Then you have some data. I don't dispute your findings Mike, but I don't find them conclusive either.



Kev

 

[777 MECHANIC]

Sorry about that. I sure wasnt going to spend $60 for 3 runs and get 3 readings that were the same just to prove this.

You guys can believe what you want. My mind was made up the day I dynoed it. The High Ram came off and was sold immediatly.



MikeD

 

[NVR FNSH]

Originally posted by 777 MECHANIC

If there were 10 runs proving it costs boost and power you would still argue. Just another non believer that doesent want to see the facts.



MikeD

I guess 6 years of earning an engineering degree and 8 years doing product development and testing don't account for much when it comes to test set-up and data analysis.



When I was doing my co-op at Garrett we couldn't figure out why the test results on some new turbine housings were so far off the predicted numbers. I think we re-ran the tests 3 times before we finally sectioned the housings and figured out that the cores had shifted during casting and the housings were bad. Maybe we should have just taken the data from the first run and scraped the entire design.....



Exactly what am I a non-believer in? That reducing pressure drop is a bad thing that costs power? I don't think so - reducing dP is a good thing but an engine is a system that requires ALL the variables be tuned to extract the most benefit. I don't any Banks products nor do I have any financial interest in Banks. I just don't like to see people make blanket statements based on a single (poorly determined) data point.



BTW - I worked on the re-design of the 777 ozone converter back in '97-'98.



Brian

 

[Turboman]

For what it is worth, I saw a 2-3psi increase in boost and dropped 100* F EGT. Cost effective? maybe not. I set out to keep EGTs in check. Running DD2s and an edge comp on 5x5 I can keep it below 1600*. It worked for me.

 

[Winspeed]

PSI Test pre and post manifold!!!

Well I finally found the time to test the difference in pressures. And just as I thought, It was not much if any. I tested every way I could think of. Climbing a hill at 35lbs of boost, The difference was less than a pound. Full throttle, 3200 rpm 57psi less than a pound, Full throttle Nitrous on less than one Pound if any. I even switched gauges to make sure one gauge did not read higher than the other, and the pressure gap got even closer. My conclusion is!!!!! The stock intake on my truck performed just like Banks said theirs did. Maybe they got the data reversed. And the stock air horn has better boost retention characteristics. LOL. So far with the Dyno test(MECH777) and the test I spent a couple of hours on today, my BS meter is on level 8 (10 being complete BS). I wonder if Banks had a hand in the making of the split fire spark plug, or that Turblanado air intake thing that gives more power and economy by causing Turulance. LOL. Or those magical fuel magnets that align the molecules in a fluid. Or that new produralubalong oil additive. That stuff is amazing, you can drain your oil out after an application and drive cross country (Disclaimer:I dont recomend this!) LOL. I think I will pass on the purchase of this one. It was a fun test though. If anyone has one of these Banks high rams, I would be interested to test one and record the findings. So fess up, Who bought one? Stop by the shop and lets test it out.

 

[hammersley]

OOh do some of us have our shorts tied in a knot... ...