ABDTR #5 Alberta Chapter #5 Discussion

12 Valve Conversion Help & Tips???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 03:38 PM
  #31  
dodgediesel's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,190
Likes: 0
From: Red Deer, Alberta
Originally Posted by Lil Dog
This "theory" has been dyno proven. Going to a 5" setup has no benefit and is actually a detriment to flow in the pipe. Its not so much the pulses, but you want lamilar flow, that being all the fluid is flowing in one direction in a straight line (the main reason we use mandrel bent pipes). The large pipe causes turbulence, especially at low flow ie. low rpm and then artifically causes "backpressure" or loss in the system. If you can get lamilar flow in the piping with little pressure loss, you actually get a scavenging effect and the flow increases in efficiency.

Most guys in the 600 club have compounds where the primary is a 5" outlet anyway.

Jamie, when you have the engine in your hands, call me.
I will Jason.
Reply
Old Oct 25, 2008 | 01:58 PM
  #32  
Mike Holmen's Avatar
The Guru
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,589
Likes: 0
From: Airdrie Canada
Nice catch on the diesel, you have way more spare parts than me. You gonna add some extra springs to the front. You'll have to bring it to one of our mets, so the rest of us can drool on it.
Reply
Old Oct 25, 2008 | 02:15 PM
  #33  
1-5-3-6-2-4's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,142
Likes: 0
From: Okotoks AB
Originally Posted by Lil Dog
This "theory" has been dyno proven. Going to a 5" setup has no benefit and is actually a detriment to flow in the pipe. Its not so much the pulses, but you want lamilar flow, that being all the fluid is flowing in one direction in a straight line (the main reason we use mandrel bent pipes). The large pipe causes turbulence, especially at low flow ie. low rpm and then artifically causes "backpressure" or loss in the system. If you can get lamilar flow in the piping with little pressure loss, you actually get a scavenging effect and the flow increases in efficiency.
so how exactly are these being dyno proven? what kind of scientific method is being used> I understand fully the technical aspect of what you're saying, but i don't believe it. that pipe diameter increase of 1 or 2 inches produces a measureable loss of low end performance.
Reply
Old Oct 25, 2008 | 02:22 PM
  #34  
dodgediesel's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,190
Likes: 0
From: Red Deer, Alberta
Originally Posted by Mike Holmen
Nice catch on the diesel, you have way more spare parts than me. You gonna add some extra springs to the front. You'll have to bring it to one of our mets, so the rest of us can drool on it.
The ol' girl is beat up good but still has many miles to go..
You won't drool over it, It's a heap but a fun heap of.....
Reply
Old Oct 25, 2008 | 02:33 PM
  #35  
Mike Holmen's Avatar
The Guru
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,589
Likes: 0
From: Airdrie Canada
Those are the best kinda of toys. Don't worry I'll wipe off the finger prints. It you get a 5.9L under the hood and actually use it to bash in the bush with, I be interested.
Reply
Old Oct 25, 2008 | 06:58 PM
  #36  
dieselcowgirl's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Grande Prairie, AB Canada
I have five inch exhaust on my 5.9 and i dont have an issue. my pretty plain truck turned almost 500hp on the dyno with no much put into her, and loosing power to the 37 inch rubber and 6 inch lift. so you may all have your theories, but my truck had it on when i bought it, it has unique sound that no one else has in town, and when i leave you all in my black smoke thats all that matters to me!! because in the end its gonna be a girl in a sweet cummins diesel thats going to kick all your butts anyways!!!! lol later!
Reply
Old Oct 26, 2008 | 08:41 PM
  #37  
winkdemon's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 0
cheap motor that works nails

cheap way to build a cheap motor that puts out 300hp .... get a 360 magnum and put a carb with a carb intake on it ,,, under 600 u can have a mint motor ... if u want cheap motor for a mud truck
Reply
Old Oct 26, 2008 | 10:09 PM
  #38  
Mike Holmen's Avatar
The Guru
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,589
Likes: 0
From: Airdrie Canada
I ran a set of PDR 40/3B with no exhaust. That set-up spooled pretty fast without the exhaust. Once I added the exhaust, it slowed down some. I think I scared my neighbor hood with it though anything. I just finished putting on the twins and had no exhaust ready. You have to try stuff. I have even tried running my 300C srt without the exhaust on it. Now thats one noisy car.
Reply
Old Oct 27, 2008 | 01:41 PM
  #39  
Lil Dog's Avatar
Chapter President
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,102
Likes: 2
From: Red Deer, Alberta Canada
Originally Posted by 1-5-3-6-2-4
so how exactly are these being dyno proven? what kind of scientific method is being used> I understand fully the technical aspect of what you're saying, but i don't believe it. that pipe diameter increase of 1 or 2 inches produces a measureable loss of low end performance.
I remember a few years ago there was a writeup in the TDR WRT to the 5" vs 4" for spool up and overall performance. The test had two similarly performing trucks with stock turbo chargers. The main difference was found in the low end spool time not being as great for the 5" system. Expecially at the time where a 5" kit was probably 25% greater cost or more. Just exhausting the turbo to atmosphere is not as efficient, even though the turbo is a pressure drop type device. Having the momentum of the fluid is just as important as having low pressure.

Mike, you are the turbine expert... Am I not interpreting the results correctly?
Reply
Old Oct 27, 2008 | 09:47 PM
  #40  
Mike Holmen's Avatar
The Guru
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,589
Likes: 0
From: Airdrie Canada
I thought that it ran better with the open exhaust, of course I just put on twins on. I didn't not dyno the truck at that time. I'm with Luke, backpressure is not you're friend. Honestly it would be hard pressed to see any difference between 4in vs 5in. I just think that 5in stacks look cooler. Which pump you running Jamie and what year is the motor? You running a VE pump on that thing? We just gonna have to dyno tune that sweet ride up at our next dyno outting. I just want time off so I can have time to pull wrenchs, my hemi is starting to look good to me. I want to start driving the old ride again. I miss the shaking and the rattle beast.
Reply
Old Oct 27, 2008 | 11:34 PM
  #41  
dodgediesel's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,190
Likes: 0
From: Red Deer, Alberta
Originally Posted by Mike Holmen
I thought that it ran better with the open exhaust, of course I just put on twins on. I didn't not dyno the truck at that time. I'm with Luke, backpressure is not you're friend. Honestly it would be hard pressed to see any difference between 4in vs 5in. I just think that 5in stacks look cooler. Which pump you running Jamie and what year is the motor? You running a VE pump on that thing? We just gonna have to dyno tune that sweet ride up at our next dyno outting. I just want time off so I can have time to pull wrenchs, my hemi is starting to look good to me. I want to start driving the old ride again. I miss the shaking and the rattle beast.
Mike, it's a 89 12 valve VE non-intercooled. I'm pretty sure I can find a intercooler set-up somewhere or maybe some water injection???
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 12:46 AM
  #42  
Mike Holmen's Avatar
The Guru
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,589
Likes: 0
From: Airdrie Canada
At least its new stuff. The first thing to try is a p pump. I have a liquid to air IC available, if you want. I trade it for your 2001 motor and 5spd tranny. Made you laugh, its your's if you want it. I bought one and got two, an ebay buy.
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 09:15 AM
  #43  
morkable's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 1
From: Fort McMurray, Alberta
Originally Posted by dieselcowgirl
I have five inch exhaust on my 5.9 and i dont have an issue. my pretty plain truck turned almost 500hp on the dyno with no much put into her, and loosing power to the 37 inch rubber and 6 inch lift. so you may all have your theories, but my truck had it on when i bought it, it has unique sound that no one else has in town, and when i leave you all in my black smoke thats all that matters to me!! because in the end its gonna be a girl in a sweet cummins diesel thats going to kick all your butts anyways!!!! lol later!

Its not that you wont make power with a 5", its just that it isnt going to give you extra power over a 4". And in some instances it has been shown to actually hurt power,, not by bunches, but by some.

Kevin
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 10:43 AM
  #44  
Diesel Dave2's Avatar
Pickin on the wrong admin...
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,568
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by morkable
Its not that you wont make power with a 5", its just that it isnt going to give you extra power over a 4". And in some instances it has been shown to actually hurt power,, not by bunches, but by some.

Kevin
I was at Freightliner this week getting some more stuff for my stacks...I asked the same question if torque is reduced by a too big of a pipe...They told me that they found on there trucks,to large resulted in a slight reduction of torque...Ahhhh yes which came first the chicken or the egg...Shall we agree to disagree..
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 03:34 PM
  #45  
morkable's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 1
From: Fort McMurray, Alberta
agreed,,, or disagreed,,, LOL
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 PM.