I have air/exhaust and the VA C3.2 and it is too hot to use the high setting for more than a drag...

If I am above 7-8,000 feet, you have to really keep an eye on the mid setting'd egt's too. I normally turn it off on the highway unless I need the power.

 

BTW...Doug, I lost the link to you box page. Which boxs supposedly to do timing and pressure? I am wondering if the Quad or Ramifier would be a better stack with the VA CP3.2 than the EZ or VA CP3.1. PLus...I like the incab adjustability.

 

Here Ya' go...

Box Matrix

 

The C3.2 fuels very strong at the low end. for this reason in my opinion it does not need any help in that region because (a) it is already strong enough to approch slipping the 6-speed clutch, and (b) it already hits the turbocharger as hard or harder than any other box other than the TST, (c) it already smokes just a bit, so unless you want black smoke you don't want any more low end fueling

in cab adjustability is great. especially if you are stacking two boxes. when your driving conditions change, its an advantage to be able to adjust the performance fueling, especially when you are already very strong on the low end and you don't want things to be jumpy.

This is my opinion of course, but what I think the C3.2 needs is a pressure box that comes on without fanfare but finishes strong. Thus, the EZ and Quadzilla would be good choices. The only reason, in my opinion, the Ramifier is not optimum for this purpose is because it also fuels very strong down low. So if you're out to find a good pressure stack for the VA, there are better choices than the Ramifier for two reasons (a) fueling is too strong down low and (b) no in-cab adjustability.

now then, where the Ramifier shines is that it is customizable. if you want to dial in a precise fueling curve, the Ramifier can be made to look like just about any other pressure box out there. The low-end fueling can be tamed. So if you already have a Ramifier, or if you want that customizability, that is an advantage.

I have stacked the Quad and the 3.2 and found then to perform very very well. with both boxes on their low settings you get enough duration down low to get going, and then the pressure box kicks in when the 3.2 starts to taper off.

But keep in mind that I don't like a jumpy throttle. I prefer a box that does not screem its presence at light Throttle Positions, but I want it to come on strong when I get on it. and I don't want black smoke.

now then, if you really want to maximize low-end fueling, The Ramifier or even the volumizer are candidates. both of these boxes re-map the boost signal so that the ECM fuels harder than stock, and therefore are strong down low. I would expect lots and lots and lots of black smoke with either of these stacked with the 3.2 -- you can make black smoke with the 3.2 stacked with that mild 3.1 pressure box!

on the VA pressure box. believe it or not, in my opinion this one fuels too strong down low to stack with the 3.2. VA has got RPM information in there and for as mild as it is (and it does finish weak at the top end, only 30 HP) the C3.1 is pretty strong down low. So you get lots of black smoke. now, that low end strength is calmed down on the level 1 setting (the torque curve is very flat, almost textbook flat), and that does feel great but too much smoke and hits the turbo too hard for me. Also, iin my opinion, the 3.2 needs more fueling from pressure at the top end than the 3.1 gives.

I think either the Quadzilla or the EZ would make a good stack right off the shelf. volumizer and Ramifier probably not (because of their low boost fueling). Ramifier would be great with a custom program 'cuz you could dial it in however you want. Bullydog perhaps would be good off the shelf (it doesn't have the Volumizer/Ramifier low-boost fueling). Not sure about the Banks box -- it may be too strong down low as well because it has RPM information in there. can't validate that however.

you asked about timing and pressure. that of course would be a natural stack with the VA C3.2. unfortunately the available pressure/timing boxes to date are pretty mild in terms of timing advance. thats my experience with the Volumizer and I suspect the case with the Banks box (based on HP numbers). We'll see about Quadzilla -- they apparently have a pressure/timing race box that they are bringing back to life with better control over timing. that might be interesting, especially on a low setting stacked with the duration box.

you can see that I'm still pretty conservative about pressure and I'm still pulling the puzzle pieces together on what pressure generates what HP in a pressure box. It may be that you can make 100 HP at 26,500 psi or so with pressure, and it may also be that my previous statements about leaving 10% margin in the rail were too bold. If you look at Edge, Banks, and VA, all are 24,500 psi and 65 HP or below. I think there may be more than just static pressure at stake here, otherwise Edge would not have backed down from their earlier aggressive pressure box to stay below 70 HP.

 

I just installed an AFE Magnum Force intake with a PG-7 along with AK RAM's custom intake tube on my truck. (Thanks again for the advice in the PM AK.) As soon as I took a look at how the filter minder mounted to this new gizmo, I thought back to this thread and started laughing my donkey off.

In the factory airbox, the minder mounts several inches away from the airbox outlet, not really near any airflow. In this configuration, all it can really measure is pressure drop due to restriction.

This ain't the case in the Magnum Force kit though. In this case, the minder mounts in a hose that T's into the tube that all the air is passing through. Yes, it IS measuring the pressure drop due to restriction, but, it's got something else to measure in addition now....

In the 1700s there was this clever Swiss dude named Daniel Bernoulli. Bernoulli is one of the fathers of fluid mechanics and has his own thereom named after him. Along with the pressure drop due to pure restriction, we also have an additional pressure drop here due to the Bernoulli Effect, or what many of you will know as a VENTURI effect.

After I put on the AFE parts and the custom intake tube, I definitly have a quicker spooling turbo. I also have a filter minder that pulls down to 30%. Mine is one of the older units with the weak spring. With the factory airbox, I would pull it down to 60% with a new filter. After cutting a 4" inch hole in the bottom of the factory airbox, it wouldn't budge. It's at 30% now, but I'm SURE that the venturi effect is part of that.

After I get back from the holiday weekend, I may try to modify the tube slightly to eliminate the venturi vacuum being applied to the minder and post my results.

Anyway, my point here is that once I saw the geometry of the AFE product, I figured that was probably why AK RAM saw the filter minder results he did, even though the PG-7 likely IS flowing much better than the stock filter. (In fact, the better it flows, the worse the venturi effect will be with this geometry.)

Have a great 4th!

100 Proof

 

100 Proof that was a great post!

I think it makes perfect sense.

As I have said before and will say again I like your way of thinking.

 

yup, He's right. I did some calculations, comparing the pressure difference in the factory airbox versus a 4" pipe. Sparing all the ugly unit conversions and the algebra, the bottom line is that the filter minder will "see" a little over 3 inches of water ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION when inserted in the 4" pipe, than if it is inserted into the factory air box. thats at 600 CFM.

The factory filter ITSELF presents 4.66 inches of water restriction. and, at 600 CFM, the AFE with torque tube presents about 3" of water restriction as well -- so just by the placement of the filter minder in that pipe, AFE makes it look like they are too restrictive.

FYI, the air travels over 8 times as fast in the pipe as it does coming off the surface of the factory panel filter in the factory box.

 

So all of the last 100 posts were a waste of time and AFE does not what it is doing?

Didn't somebody say that outright?

 

no, thats not what we're saying. the geometry of the AFE intake system forces a placement of the filter minder that causes it to read more restriction than is actually present at the filter. thats all. so we've found an explanation for why folks are seeing filter minders pulled down and getting surprised.

bottom line is that the AFE is doing a better job than we think, because the filter minder is lying to us.

 

I slipped in an extra not...I ment it does work and we were reinventing the wheel so to speak! One less think to worry about.

 

perhaps there is one less think to worry about now, if you already have an AFE that is dern number of thinks. hate it when that happens!


I look at it this way: some of us just take what doesn't appear to make sense and we "noodle over it" (thats a 100 proof'ism for "analyze") until we understand. thats what I do anyway, esp for the fueling boxes.

 

for those interested in the details, here is the math. the conclusion is that if you compare a new stock filter/box and a new AFE intake system, the filter minder on the AFE will register restriction equal to or worse than it does with the stock airbox. When in reality, the AFE system is actually operating at about HALF the flow restriction.

so here is a simple test -- if you show "no improvment" or "slight worsening" in pulling the filter minder down after installing the AFE, then I conclude the AFE is working just fine, and doing just what it was intended to do -- present about half the restriction of the stock system.

 

???Wonder why they would make it that way? Just an oversite I guess but sure worth changing.

 

Does anyone else use a vacuum gauge in the cab to monitor filter conditions ? You know they change quite a bit in the snow and to a lesser degree in very wet weather ! The "filter-minder" peak record method can set a course of thought on a goose chase with some snow or insect debri , as it will release when the engine is shut down. Just thik if our coolant temp gauge displayed in this manner.(please,no jokes about the oil pressure)

 

Hrmm, I been thinking about this and it still doesn't explain why he see's the minder pull down more-so with enough oil to keep the intake clean than with less oil.

I can't imagine that more oil would allow for more air flow and more venturi vacuum.