For the past year or so, there has been some &quot;controversy&quot;<br>about whether or not &quot;stacking&quot; fueling boxes on the Dodge<br>Cummins 24 valve engines really works or not. Some feel<br>it does and others claim it is a &quot;waste of money.&quot;<br><br>Well tonight, my son(banshee) and I headed out to Coastal Plains Dragway in Jacksonville, N.C. to test that very thing along with checking to see whether his &quot;BD Anti-Defueling<br>Device&quot; would really lower his E.T.s or not. <br><br>His 2001 Dodge CTD is modified as follows:<br><br>TST PM 3 (Competition) &quot;Piggybacked&quot; with DD TTPM<br>Super Mental Injectors<br>Piers Cam<br>Piers HX-40/16<br>Scotty II Air System<br>ATS TripleLok Stage IV<br>ATS Controller<br>BD Anti-Defueling Device<br><br>My sons &quot;best run&quot; of the night was: 13.2 @ 102 MPH.<br>This was with everything connected up. We then <br>&quot;disconnected&quot; the DD TTPM, but left the TST PM 3<br>(Competition) connected. On that run, my son LOST<br>4/10ths of a second on his E.T. and three (3) MPH<br>on his quarter mile speed just by disconnecting that<br>DD TTPM fueling box!!!! I was amazed at the results<br>to say the least! Other members present that <br>witnessed this were: &quot;Papa Smurf&quot; (Crud), his wife<br>Leigh, and Pete Peterson. I never thought that it<br>would make that much difference, but apparently<br>it does, at least on my son's truck and the way he<br>has his truck set-up. More testing is needed and<br>I intend to do that with my 2002 Dodge CTD which<br>will be set-up similar to my son's.<br><br>So,......for those of you wondering about &quot;stacking&quot;<br>fueling boxes, I say &quot;go for it!&quot; <br><br>--------<br>John_P

 

Did the BD box help?

 

I do not understand how stacking fueling boxes will work. Can someone explain the theory to me? It seems to me that stacking could actually result in degrading performance due to the possibility of some changes cancelling one another. I just don't see that stacking multiplies the positive effects. If it can do so in theory then please explain what I am missing.

 

Stake:<br><br>Yes, it cut 2/10ths of a second off of his E.T.!!!! Johnner<br>is going to post a more &quot;complete&quot; report tomorrow for<br>you!<br><br>--------<br>John_P

 

[quote author=Mexstan link=board=7;threadid=16938;start=0#158703 date=1057896052]<br>I do not understand how stacking fueling boxes will work. Can someone explain the theory to me? It seems to me that stacking could actually result in degrading performance due to the possibility of some changes cancelling one another. I just don't see that stacking multiplies the positive effects. If it can do so in theory then please explain what I am missing.<br>[/quote]<br><br>What I've heard of some people doing is stacking a timing AND a fueling box. Like the Comp which adds more timing than fuel, with something like a TST which adds more fuel than timing (or something like that). With a setup like that, you get the more aggressive timing of one, with the more aggressive fueling of the other. Makes sense to me.

 

Thanks for posting the report for me!!<br><br>At the time of the Stack vs. Un-Stack it was about 90 degrees with high humidity, so my truck ran back to back 13.40's at ~100.7 MPH. I went back to the pits, let it cool for about 10 mins, and unstacked the boxes (unplugged my DD TTPM) and went for another run. My 60' times were a little slower, but even when I compared to my first run of the day (13.45 @ 100.6, 1.911 60') that had an almost identical 60' time (1.938) I was exactly 4 tenths slower and right at 2.5 mph slower. The final numbers were 13.845 @ 98.03 MPH. I'd say the stack DEFINITELY works!<br><br>Mexstan,<br><br>Big Blue pretty much hit the nail on the head. The TST boxes add a LOT of fuel, but only a little bit of timing to the motor. When really hotrodding these diesels, you need more timing as your engine gets further bombed. Larger injectors and larger fueling injections require a more advanced timing to properly see the results. Also, the EZ style boxes add a little more fuel, especially off the bottom, to give even more punch. A direct example would be the 12 valve trucks with the P7100 pumps. A stock truck is set about 13 degress BTDC, while going to 16 degress yields better performance on a mildy modded truck. The hotter trucks are running in the low 20 degree range, and pulling/race trucks run into the 30s. Basically, the more your motor is modded... the more timing will help you.<br><br>John

 

And now the more important question, what did it do to the EGTs? How much difference was there?<br><br>Chris

 

Chris, <br><br>my EGTs are actually lower with the boxes stacked! The extra timing causes the combustion event to start occuring earlier, so when the exhuast valve opens the combustion process is further along. Because of this, the gases are somewhat cooler when exiting the motor and going through the manifold. Oh, and my mileage is slightly better with them stacked, too ;D<br><br>As a side note, my PM3 was reprogrammed about a month ago, so it has the latest firmware that some said doesn't work anymore.<br><br>John<br><br>

 

[quote author=John_P link=board=7;threadid=16938;start=0#158695 date=1057895485]<br>For the past year or so, there has been some &quot;controversy&quot;<br>about whether or not &quot;stacking&quot; fueling boxes on the Dodge<br>Cummins 24 valve engines really works or not. Some feel<br>it does and others claim it is a &quot;waste of money.&quot;<br>John_P [/quote]<br><br>Maybe I just missed it but I don't recall any controversy on this matter? Every since I can remember people with the BlueBox (or FMS) or the TST boxes stacked VA's or EZ's with them..........I do believe Rod @ Wildcat said he had some issues with that combination (TST + EZ) working tho, just can't remember if it was on here or TDR tho?<br><br>Thank for testing it and posting it tho for the new people. It is DEFINATLY not a waste of money.

 

I was one that had results that where less not more.<br>It was on my ETH truck with DD 3's TST Powermax Comp and an EZ or the Bullydog box...too much timing, 2-4 pounds less boost at WOT and egt was lower but my accelerations times where slower. Also, the engine did not sound good...a higher pitched knock.<br><br>There was someone else at the DTR Claremont show that concurred that they had the same results.<br><br>Dunno why but I think that the Powermax Comp had a bit more timing and the DD 3's may have a slightly advanced pop off pressure allowing me to have just the right amount of timing without stacking. Adding the EZ or Bullydog took it out of the optimum for my use.<br><br>

 

[quote author=KatDiesel link=board=7;threadid=16938;start=0#158797 date=1057931376]<br>them..........I do believe Rod @ Wildcat said he had some issues with that combination (TST + EZ) working tho, just can't remember if it was on here or TDR tho?<br>[/quote]<br><br>I think I posted (and got beat up ;D) in both places. We've now verified (by dyno) that the stack works with a Diablo, VA, and a DD TPM, all three of which have less aggressive timing than either an Edge or Bully Dog box.<br><br>Rod

 

from a theoretical sense, its a complete dice throw to stack fueling boxes, unless of course they are designed to be stacked. All they do is listen to the fueling instructions asserted on the bus, and then assert one of their own. So there is no guarentee which box will talk first and which one will follow. I would expect, depending on the algorithms, the boxes might actually trade off as to which one delivers the final instruction, and you're bound to have completely unpredictable results under certain engine conditions. I imagine the communication might go something like this:<br><br>The ECM delivers a fueling instruction. Box one will read the ECM instruction and assert another one in its place. box 2 also listens on the same bus, reads an instruction and asserts another instruction it its place. is box 2 re-mapping the ECM instruction or is it re-mapping the box 1 instruction? we don't know. can we guarentee that the &quot;most aggressive&quot; instruction (fueling or timing) from either box is always delivered to the VP44? not at all. the last (in time) instruction is what the VP44 follows, so its a &quot;whoever wins&quot; situation. <br><br>proof of the pudding is in the eating though. my point is that when stacking boxes you have no idea what timing and fueling algorithm is really being delivered, and if the seat of your pants favors the results, then the only thing you risk is an undetermined race condition between the two boxes and a potential illegal instruction throwing a code ;D or damage to the engine depending on how the safeguards are built in.<br><br>Careful experimentation such as what Rod is doing is the only way to build experience and knowledge in this area. There's just no other way you're going to predict engine behavior, and even at that you will always be blind to a lot more than are are with a single box. At least with one box there is considerable experience and knowledge regarding performance and reliabiilty. with two boxes, all that experience goes out the window.

 

Scotty, I was the one at claremont whos stack didnt work as well. Maybe it is the dd3s that dont do well with stacking. I wish I would have put Johnners ttpm on mine and dynoed both ways. Did not even think about that. My egts were lower stacked with the ez but I surely lost power. Tim

 

I have a TST comp stacked with an EZ, and DDIII's on my ETH, they work great together. The TST comp and the DDIII's were on first, then I added the EZ, a definate and most noticable improvement, FWIW.<br><br>Rob

 

Just out of curiosity, Rob, how old is your PowerMax? We had great luck with the EZ/PM3 stack before November of last year, and then TST changed their program a bit, and our stacks with the EZ quit working. If your PM3 is a fairly new box, you'll be the first stack with a new box thats worked in the past few months.<br><br>Rod