Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
I need to say a bit more here. After realizing that the title of this thread is “Flaming Banks”, I find myself becoming agitated at the fact that we get flamed based on misinformation and improper testing. I want to address Ramboy’s post in greater detail.
First, let me describe a typical test sequence that we use. As I mentioned before, we have a fully computerized chassis dyno which is capable of sustained loads of 1500 HP and 3200 lb/ft of torque. In addition, we have an engine dyno capable of 2500 HP and 2500 lb/ft sustained, also fully electronic, but is a water brake style rather electric brake. Our first step is to put massive amounts of data acquisition equipment on the vehicle, allowing us to monitor everything from vacuum in the air filter housing to boost pressures, from ambient air temperature to turbine inlet temperature, and everything in between. Our dataloggers are capable of sample rates of over 100 samples per second, but for a typical test we sample at a rate of about 20 samples per second per channel (usually in excess of 20 channels).
Then we run a baseline test on the vehicle. This is done to establish the stock characteristics of the vehicle and is used as the basis for all comparisons to follow. I am compelled to point out that a baseline was not established on Phil Gorham’s truck (Ramboy). We begin by running full power and torque curves on the dyno, selecting an RPM range that extends above the horsepower peak and the upshift point, and extends below the torque peak and the backshift point. Conditions are as controlled as can be; cooling air is delivered to the tires of the vehicle, 60 MPH of wind is directed through the grill, the engine is brought up to a sustained operating temperature (known as heat-soak), the transmission is held in direct drive and the torque converter is locked, effectively giving a direct drive (1:1 input to output ratio) through the transmission. Once the dyno testing is completed, the vehicle is taken on the road for acceleration testing, both in solo form, and with a weight trailer, bringing the combined vehicle weight up to the Gross Combined Weight Rating of the vehicle. Road testing includes 0-60 MPH and 40-60 MPH accelerations, a fuel economy loop, and hill climb testing. Without a specified set of test conditions in a stock configuration, it is not possible to properly evaluate the gains.
All of these test criteria are then repeated with whatever equipment is being tested. It should be noted that in development we typically make only one change at a time, and then test to evaluate it’s benefit. When multiple changes are made, you may not be able to determine what change was responsible for a given result.
One other side note about out test methods; in order for testing to be comparative, it is necessary to eliminate as many variables as possible. Some are eliminated within the format mentioned above, but some simply cannot be controlled, such as weather conditions. When these conditions vary, we use SAE standardized correction factors, which allow us to make comparisons even when weather conditions change from test to test.
Now let me comment on the problems that I see with the problems that I see in Ramboy’s tests. First, there is no baseline test. That means that you really have nothing to compare your “after” numbers to. How can we know for certain that the calibration on the dyno that you are using is not off by 50 HP? Having a baseline eliminates those types of questions.
Your test is not a test of a Banks PowerPack. You have multiple products on the vehicle, all of which will affect the performance in some way. And I disagree with your opinion that the TLC temperature limiting function was not a factor. The TLC function is designed to protect your engine by reducing fueling when the temperature reaches a certain point. But it can only reduce fueling that is delivered via the OttoMind. With the injectors that you had installed, it is possible that the fuel delivery of the OttoMind was quite diminished, perhaps even completely removed. You suggested that the next time you test, you intend to do so with this feature disabled, but I can tell you now that will not be possible without special programming to the OttoMind. The OttoMind has a failsafe design, which does not allow it to deliver fuel if an EGT signal is not present.
You have made your assumptions based on the factory advertised flywheel numbers, minus a 15% drivetrain loss. Upon what do you base that assumption? Not only do we find that drivetrain losses will vary dramatically from vehicle to vehicle, but factory advertised numbers are not always what they seem to be. If you truly wanted to know the drivetrain loss, you would not only need to dyno the truck on a chassis dyno, you would need to remove the engine from the vehicle, along with all of its driven accessories, and run it on an engine dyno. But what really matters? Real world numbers are rear wheel numbers, again showing the importance of baseline testing. You need something to compare to. For the record, the 1999 automatic truck (rated at 215 HP) that is used in our printed literature had a stock rear-wheel horsepower peak of 179. 3 HP at 2700 RPM, and a rear-wheel torque peak of 372. 9 lb/ft at 1800 RPM.
In our advertising we typically use the words “up to” because those ads represent multiple levels of systems that are available for a given application. If you are at all familiar with our product line, you will know that we offer 4 levels for your 99 Dodge Cummins; Git-Kit, Stinger, Stinger-Plus and PowerPack. Only the PowerPack delivers the highest gains. I went back and looked at past ads in TDR and those that use the numbers 127 HP and 311 lb/ft of torque make it very clear that those numbers relate to the PowerPack for a 12-valve. Those ads are also very clear that for specific information for your vehicle, you should call our toll free number a request a Test Report. This is not a “misrepresentation” at all, much less a “serious” one as you have stated.
It should also be pointed out that we typically print conservative numbers. It is not uncommon for us to receive reports back from customers that are attaining better than advertised results from their vehicles.
Mr. Gorham, please refrain from “flaming” us when your information is incomplete and your testing is inaccurate. If you have a complaint, you are more than welcome to call us and we can discuss the details, but it is highly unfair of you to flame us without the facts being clear. If you would like to talk to me directly about this, e-mail me your phone number and I will be happy to call you to discuss your test methods, or you can contact our Technical Service Department toll-free at (888) 839-2700.
First, let me describe a typical test sequence that we use. As I mentioned before, we have a fully computerized chassis dyno which is capable of sustained loads of 1500 HP and 3200 lb/ft of torque. In addition, we have an engine dyno capable of 2500 HP and 2500 lb/ft sustained, also fully electronic, but is a water brake style rather electric brake. Our first step is to put massive amounts of data acquisition equipment on the vehicle, allowing us to monitor everything from vacuum in the air filter housing to boost pressures, from ambient air temperature to turbine inlet temperature, and everything in between. Our dataloggers are capable of sample rates of over 100 samples per second, but for a typical test we sample at a rate of about 20 samples per second per channel (usually in excess of 20 channels).
Then we run a baseline test on the vehicle. This is done to establish the stock characteristics of the vehicle and is used as the basis for all comparisons to follow. I am compelled to point out that a baseline was not established on Phil Gorham’s truck (Ramboy). We begin by running full power and torque curves on the dyno, selecting an RPM range that extends above the horsepower peak and the upshift point, and extends below the torque peak and the backshift point. Conditions are as controlled as can be; cooling air is delivered to the tires of the vehicle, 60 MPH of wind is directed through the grill, the engine is brought up to a sustained operating temperature (known as heat-soak), the transmission is held in direct drive and the torque converter is locked, effectively giving a direct drive (1:1 input to output ratio) through the transmission. Once the dyno testing is completed, the vehicle is taken on the road for acceleration testing, both in solo form, and with a weight trailer, bringing the combined vehicle weight up to the Gross Combined Weight Rating of the vehicle. Road testing includes 0-60 MPH and 40-60 MPH accelerations, a fuel economy loop, and hill climb testing. Without a specified set of test conditions in a stock configuration, it is not possible to properly evaluate the gains.
All of these test criteria are then repeated with whatever equipment is being tested. It should be noted that in development we typically make only one change at a time, and then test to evaluate it’s benefit. When multiple changes are made, you may not be able to determine what change was responsible for a given result.
One other side note about out test methods; in order for testing to be comparative, it is necessary to eliminate as many variables as possible. Some are eliminated within the format mentioned above, but some simply cannot be controlled, such as weather conditions. When these conditions vary, we use SAE standardized correction factors, which allow us to make comparisons even when weather conditions change from test to test.
Now let me comment on the problems that I see with the problems that I see in Ramboy’s tests. First, there is no baseline test. That means that you really have nothing to compare your “after” numbers to. How can we know for certain that the calibration on the dyno that you are using is not off by 50 HP? Having a baseline eliminates those types of questions.
Your test is not a test of a Banks PowerPack. You have multiple products on the vehicle, all of which will affect the performance in some way. And I disagree with your opinion that the TLC temperature limiting function was not a factor. The TLC function is designed to protect your engine by reducing fueling when the temperature reaches a certain point. But it can only reduce fueling that is delivered via the OttoMind. With the injectors that you had installed, it is possible that the fuel delivery of the OttoMind was quite diminished, perhaps even completely removed. You suggested that the next time you test, you intend to do so with this feature disabled, but I can tell you now that will not be possible without special programming to the OttoMind. The OttoMind has a failsafe design, which does not allow it to deliver fuel if an EGT signal is not present.
You have made your assumptions based on the factory advertised flywheel numbers, minus a 15% drivetrain loss. Upon what do you base that assumption? Not only do we find that drivetrain losses will vary dramatically from vehicle to vehicle, but factory advertised numbers are not always what they seem to be. If you truly wanted to know the drivetrain loss, you would not only need to dyno the truck on a chassis dyno, you would need to remove the engine from the vehicle, along with all of its driven accessories, and run it on an engine dyno. But what really matters? Real world numbers are rear wheel numbers, again showing the importance of baseline testing. You need something to compare to. For the record, the 1999 automatic truck (rated at 215 HP) that is used in our printed literature had a stock rear-wheel horsepower peak of 179. 3 HP at 2700 RPM, and a rear-wheel torque peak of 372. 9 lb/ft at 1800 RPM.
In our advertising we typically use the words “up to” because those ads represent multiple levels of systems that are available for a given application. If you are at all familiar with our product line, you will know that we offer 4 levels for your 99 Dodge Cummins; Git-Kit, Stinger, Stinger-Plus and PowerPack. Only the PowerPack delivers the highest gains. I went back and looked at past ads in TDR and those that use the numbers 127 HP and 311 lb/ft of torque make it very clear that those numbers relate to the PowerPack for a 12-valve. Those ads are also very clear that for specific information for your vehicle, you should call our toll free number a request a Test Report. This is not a “misrepresentation” at all, much less a “serious” one as you have stated.
It should also be pointed out that we typically print conservative numbers. It is not uncommon for us to receive reports back from customers that are attaining better than advertised results from their vehicles.
Mr. Gorham, please refrain from “flaming” us when your information is incomplete and your testing is inaccurate. If you have a complaint, you are more than welcome to call us and we can discuss the details, but it is highly unfair of you to flame us without the facts being clear. If you would like to talk to me directly about this, e-mail me your phone number and I will be happy to call you to discuss your test methods, or you can contact our Technical Service Department toll-free at (888) 839-2700.
