1st Gen. Ram - All Topics Discussion for all Dodge Rams prior to 1994. This includes engine, drivetrain and non-drivetrain discussions. Anything prior to 1994 should go in here.

Best Intercooler

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 19, 2009 | 09:23 PM
  #16  
TJE's Avatar
TJE
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 768
Likes: 8
From: OK
Originally Posted by apwatson50
Well I went from a leaking stock to a stock PS IC, and while towing I gained an extra 5psi of usable power. With stock I could only use 15psi of boost sustained while staying at 1200deg, but with the PS I can use 20psi of sustained boost while staying at 1200deg.
I'm already at about 31 on the boost gauge....the egt's will hit 1300 if I have the fifth wheel behind me.

Thanks, Tony
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 03:44 AM
  #17  
Jungle's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 339
Likes: 3
From: Albany N.Y. area
Thanks for the pic!!! That looks like almost the same width as the OEM unit. Are the inlet/outlet tubes the same size?
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 08:34 AM
  #18  
apwatson50's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 0
From: Golden, Colorado
Originally Posted by TJE
I'm already at about 31 on the boost gauge....the egt's will hit 1300 if I have the fifth wheel behind me.

Thanks, Tony
I can make 28psi manifold pressure, the only thing is I can't use it all and stay at 1200deg pulling a 6% grade for a couple miles. You won't either, sure you could use that much power to accelerate to speed and the exhaust temps will only get to 1300deg, but if you stay in it for any longer and they'll get a bunch hotter than that! Come on up here to elevation and pull your 5th wheel over a pass and try to use all of your fuel making 31psi. NOT going to happen.

Originally Posted by Jungle
Thanks for the pic!!! That looks like almost the same width as the OEM unit. Are the inlet/outlet tubes the same size?
PS IC has 3.25" OD inlet/outlet.
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 11:09 AM
  #19  
Jungle's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 339
Likes: 3
From: Albany N.Y. area
Thanks again!!!!
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 11:26 AM
  #20  
TJE's Avatar
TJE
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 768
Likes: 8
From: OK
Originally Posted by apwatson50
I can make 28psi manifold pressure, the only thing is I can't use it all and stay at 1200deg pulling a 6% grade for a couple miles. You won't either, sure you could use that much power to accelerate to speed and the exhaust temps will only get to 1300deg, but if you stay in it for any longer and they'll get a bunch hotter than that! Come on up here to elevation and pull your 5th wheel over a pass and try to use all of your fuel making 31psi. NOT going to happen.



PS IC has 3.25" OD inlet/outlet.
Yes you're right....I couldn't understand why everyone wanted a PS intercooler. I also think my egt's wouldn't be so high if I had a 16cm exhousing instead of the 12cm.

Thanks, Tony
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 01:00 PM
  #21  
foxtrot's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 251
Likes: 1
From: sheet hole called California
Originally Posted by TJE
Yes you're right....I couldn't understand why everyone wanted a PS intercooler.
What other ones are available ?? seems nobody makes parts for these trucks any more, other than stock.
And Dodge ICs were never very good. Just better than nothing.
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 03:53 PM
  #22  
BC847's Avatar
1st Generation Admin
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,601
Likes: 118
From: Buies Creek, NC
Originally Posted by foxtrot
And Dodge ICs were never very good. Just better than nothing.
Actually, the addition of the intercooler in 1991.5 had nothing to do with engine performance (HP/torque wise). The IC was added as an emissions control deal. I can't remember the exact thing but it seems the reduction in combustion temperatures lessens the production of oxides of nitrogen (don't quote me on the chemical/compound).
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 03:58 PM
  #23  
jimbo486's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 114
From: Orange County, California
i'll quote you cuz you're right. higher combustion temperatures lead to higher nitrous oxide (NOx) and low combustion temperatures lead to higher hydrocarbons (HC's) aka unburnt fuel. you'll never be able to get rid of either one. you'll only have an equilibrium.
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 04:10 PM
  #24  
foxtrot's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 251
Likes: 1
From: sheet hole called California
Originally Posted by BC847
Actually, the addition of the intercooler in 1991.5 had nothing to do with engine performance (HP/torque wise). The IC was added as an emissions control deal. I can't remember the exact thing but it seems the reduction in combustion temperatures lessens the productions of oxides of nitrogen (don't quote me on the chemical/compound).
So thats why they used el cheepo, they never cared about power in the first place.
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 04:20 PM
  #25  
peobryant's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Goshen, Ky
Originally Posted by foxtrot
So thats why they used el cheepo, they never cared about power in the first place.
All the changes were due to emissions. VE to P7100 to VP to the Common Rail, to the 6.7 Cummins.

The stock 1st Gen Intercooler can support 500+rwhp, as Bill Gilbert has proved. That's more than enough for any daily driver. (VE)
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 04:28 PM
  #26  
jimbo486's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 114
From: Orange County, California
Originally Posted by foxtrot
So thats why they used el cheepo, they never cared about power in the first place.
if you think about it, it was a power upgrade. the only reason they made the same power as the non i/c motors was using smaller injectors. with the addition of the i/c, obviously the intake air temperature was reduced. and when you cool the intake air, it becomes more dense. the air then has more oxygen molecules for the fuel (when atomized) to bond to/mix with and ignite for a more efficient combustion process. more fuel burned the less unburnt fuel there was (no smoke in stock form). as was stated in my last post, low combustion temperatures or more unburnt fuel leads to higher hydrocarbons (HC's) and less unburnt fuel leads to higher combustion temperatures, thus leading to higher nitrous oxide (NOx). hence always having an equilibrium.
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 04:43 PM
  #27  
wannadiesel's Avatar
Adminstrator-ess
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 22,594
Likes: 19
From: New Holland, PA
Originally Posted by apwatson50



PS IC has 3.25" OD inlet/outlet.
I believe it's 3" even.
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 04:50 PM
  #28  
apwatson50's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 0
From: Golden, Colorado
Originally Posted by wannadiesel
I believe it's 3" even.
On the inside yes, I had to use stepped silicone boots, as the aluminum is thick, which gives 3.25" OD. I'll double check, got another one for the new truck.
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 06:04 PM
  #29  
foxtrot's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 251
Likes: 1
From: sheet hole called California
Originally Posted by peobryant
All the changes were due to emissions. VE to P7100 to VP to the Common Rail, to the 6.7 Cummins.

The stock 1st Gen Intercooler can support 500+rwhp, as Bill Gilbert has proved. That's more than enough for any daily driver. (VE)
yes 500 is plenty problem i had is the zig zag stuff between the rows or colums started unraveling like a button thread.
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2009 | 10:05 PM
  #30  
jimbo486's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 114
From: Orange County, California
here's BC847's intercooler if anyone is curious...

Name:  ICfitup.jpg
Views: 139
Size:  86.0 KB

from cumminsforum.com he writes "Joe Hellman of Hellman Performance can make anything you want and guarantee it to 100psig."
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.