Ramifier Versus EZ

[JARichard]

Is it true that there is a 2 to 3 mpg gain with either box? The EZ or the Ramifier. I dont drag race or seriously off-road my truck. I do put a lot of miles on my truck and the 315's leave it lacking. But what good is a box that doesnt deliver power where i need it "Daily Driving". Unless someone can add something else my vote leans towards Ramifier. I just wish the price was better!!! ( OH!! I forgot about the YOU GOTTA PAY TO PLAY RULE)

 

[fencebuilders]

Originally posted by JARichard

Is it true that there is a 2 to 3 mpg gain with either box? The EZ or the Ramifier. I dont drag race or seriously off-road my truck. I do put a lot of miles on my truck and the 315's leave it lacking. But what good is a box that doesnt deliver power where i need it "Daily Driving". Unless someone can add something else my vote leans towards Ramifier. I just wish the price was better!!! ( OH!! I forgot about the YOU GOTTA PAY TO PLAY RULE)

I wish! I am getting 16 mpg counry driving,hills and stop signs. I too have 315's. Of course if i was running the stock 265's i would expect a 1/2 to 1 mpg increase. Dont forget to account for your larger tires/less rotations. Factor odometer mileage by 1. 09. Good luck.

 

[JARichard]

I am making 16 hand calculated with corrected speedo. I was looking to get my 1 to 2 mpg I lost with 315's back by adding the box. Do you think it will happen?

 

[DLeno]

I'd be interested in some careful experimental results, as I expect (from a theoretical standpoint) little mpg increase with a pressure box. the only advantage is that you can run the engine at lower rpm to obtain the same power. There are very small timing improvements initiated by the ECM as a result of the pressure increase. and with the ramifier, there may be a very small timing advantage at less-than-full boost levels. But that advantage (in mpg) is probably too small to measure in my opinion.



Its interesting to me that guys are reporting 1-2 mpg increases with pressure boxes. If those numbers are truly credible and have controlled experimentation and real science behind them, then ok. otherwise I remain skeptical.



You'll have to use a timing box to get a significant mpg improvement. we know that 30-40 HP is available via timing alone without adding fuel.

 

[JFulford]

Dleno: Fueling box summary

Dleno,

I've just read your article on fueling boxes; great read! I'm

going to use it to make my decision(currently either the VA or the Ramifier).

I know this really hasn't much to do with the writeup, but do you

have an opinion on which of these boxes would give the best

MPG (even, perhaps, sacrificing a little HP)?

Thanks and once again, great article!

jeff

 

[DLeno]

Frankly we just don't know enough. I've speculated that there may be an advantage to duration as far as the completeness of the burn -- but that favors the 305 over the 600 because the 600 has more retarted timing. So you don't want to extend duration very far beyond an already retarded intake fuel charge.



So my guess is that if the above (retarded timing) does not come into play (too much fuel too late) that there may be a small advantage to the duration box. But that is really only a guess, and needs to be tested against reality.



If we had a way of comparing the EGTs for both boxes that might give us a clue.



on edit: I'm refering to the new VA duration box, not the VA pressure box here.

 

[JFulford]

VA box

Dleno,

Your talking about the VA C3 box? That was one of my choices.

I guess that the TST might be another option.

I'm guessing that a lower EGT across the board *might*

contribute to better fuel mileage(from your reply)?

Sorry if I'm slow about this; I've been playing with

smallblock chevs for about 30 years and these diesels really

throw me off!

Just did 500 miles in MO with 16500 on the truck: got 16. 5-17

running at 73 or so, with a pre-EGT of 500. Boost runs around 10-11. (Currently have just a Quadzilla open air box with a "green"

filter).

Thanks again for your help.

jeff

 

[DLeno]

There are two VA boxes: the "Smart box C3" (pressure only) and the "smart box C3 Level 2" (duration only)



If you compare two pressure boxes (Ramifier and VA pressure box ) you will see that the VA is milder, aimed squarely at minimizing pressure increases and maximizing towing performance with minimal pressure increase. The Ramifier is an"aggressive" pressure box and will raise fuel pressure significantly higher than the VA. It will also outperform the VA (make more power) and brings in the power sooner in the RPM range -- one comment I heard was that throttle response with the Ramifier was "jumpy"





The C3 Level 2 (duration box) will make more power than the Ramifier (the VA pushes 370 HP), and to bring in the power a bit more gradually. I have not done any testing but expect that at that power level, the VA duration box will require exhaust and intake, minimally. perhaps even a turbo upgrade. It actaully might be an interesting candidate for the Piers "B-lite" (sorry for introducing that term a long time ago. it just stuck... )

 

[DLeno]

One of my more subjective comments is as follows: I personally wonder how much timing the Volumizer really does. They are either worlds away from the entire rest of the industry, having delivered a timing box about a year ago that does not set codes (this is extraordinary), or they are not REALLY doing as much timing as we think. or not at all. we just don't know. We do know that TST has been struggling with timing for a couple of years, and no other mfg with the exception of PDQ claims timing increases. they (PDQ) don't even make more HP than other pressure boxes out there. An aggressive timing and pressure box should make 100 HP over peak stock. They only make 70.



I think there is an opportunity to manipulate the fueling curve with pressure, and to map this curve with at least boost (ramifier) if not rpm as well (VA). I agree -- if you can't shut it off, an aggressive fueling curve isn't useful to me.



right now the TST box wins the fuel economy contest, but not because of its low-rpm torque. having seen only anectotal evidence and no serious analysis to the contrary, I'm not yet convinced that extra fueling makes that big of a difference. It will make some, but in my opinion and without evidence to the contrary I suggest that fuel economy gains without timing are probably less than 1 mpg and limited to to the realm of subjectivity and belief.



the real fuel economy gains I think come with timing, the affects of which I personally believe much greater than what you gain by adding fuel at lower rpms.



From a mileage perspective, accepting without proof that "low rpm fueling" yields some, if small, gains, take another look at the VA boxes. both come in strong down low, mapped by rpm, not boost. the duration box appears to pull very hard down at 1700



So at the moment, TST gets the nod in my book because they are the only ones that timing and duration coupled with in-cab adjustability. tune it up to whatever performance level you want. it will outperform any other box out there at any power level and get better fuel economy. Just stay away from the higher power levels unless you know you can handle the air requirements



That aside, the VA duration box is starting to show some promise. Working in the digital domain, it avoids some of the complexity of TSTs approach (lots of engine connections and, much like Banks, a complex install). Timing is conspicuously absent, unfortunately, and we can only assume that they are out to solve that problem and just chose to come to market early with duration only and that timing will come.



I running behind, unfortunately: I have new data for the VA pressure box on the 305 and haven't updated the matrix yet. they use rpm to map the fueling curve -- this one is no slouch, posting about 170 ft lbs of torque gain at 1650 rpm, and a consistent, ~30% harder average pull from 1600 to 2600. Its a towing box, not a dyno day box, benefiting highway cruise instead of peak HP.

 

[DavidTD]

I know I am a bit late on this one, but I did the testing on the Ramifier. It does make the power TS claims and it is at peak levels. The Ramifier makes more power than the EZ in peak and across the board.



During our testing on multiple trucks, it was discovered that the gain was higher on the SO than the HO.



Hope this helps,

 

[DLeno]

there is no question that the Ramifier has found a free lunch and can fuel more agressively at boost levels lower than the stock maximum boost (about 25 psi). But at boost levels above the stock maximum, the EZ and Ramifier are on equal footing -- meaning that who ever has the highest peak HP also has the highest fuel pressure. So when you say "across the board" -- if you mean that Ramifier has been measured at a higher peak HP levels than the EZ, then it must be the case that the Ramifier also raises fuel pressure higher then the EZ does.

 

[JEly]

If someone is looking for a used Ramifier I have one for sale-----PM me for a good deal

 

[Hawkeye 04]

JEly, I pm'd you a day or two ago... ... Waiting... . LOL

 

[JEly]

Hawkeye 04-----as of tonight (4/23) I havent received a PM from anybody------I even doubled checked if thats possible



JIM

 

[JJudy]

I am currently running an HO with DD3 injectors, stock turbo, pusher pump, 48re, 5" exhuast, AFE intake and have been testing the Edge ez on level 4 and the Ramifier back to back. The Ramifier makes more smoke and power all across the RPM range especially down low. The boost also comes up faster to about 42psi at times, I see 40psi with the Edge. EGT's also rise faster with the Ramifier. I know the Ramifier is putting out more pressure not only by the seat of my pants, but also the fact I can hear my injectors making more noise when its hooked up. The box is great if your looking for quicker acceleration. Thanks to Chris Wilkerson at www.extremedieselproducts.com for recommending this box and giving me a great price.



Jason Judy