Oh heck Larry lighten up, Rome wasn't built in a day. Surely I didn't mean all in the same day.
2 times in one morning :admin2:
Compressor Efficiency Problem
- Thread starter Killerbee
- Start date
2 times in one morning :admin2:
Compressor efficiency
Hello Killerbee:
Here are 3 photos of my intake tube after working on it.
I hope this all works as it is my first time trying to send/attach photos on here.
The "horizontal" size is now 2.940". That's after taking out the sharp 90 degree bend/protusion.
The "vertical" size is now 2.775". That would be area from top to bottom of the tube inline with the PCV and resonator ports. Hope this explanation makes some sense.
Sorry for the delay in getting these photos, but I hope they help.
Thank you to all for the great information and may all of you have a wonderfull Christmas.
Garry
Hello Killerbee:
Here are 3 photos of my intake tube after working on it.
I hope this all works as it is my first time trying to send/attach photos on here.
The "horizontal" size is now 2.940". That's after taking out the sharp 90 degree bend/protusion.
The "vertical" size is now 2.775". That would be area from top to bottom of the tube inline with the PCV and resonator ports. Hope this explanation makes some sense.
Sorry for the delay in getting these photos, but I hope they help.
Thank you to all for the great information and may all of you have a wonderfull Christmas.
Garry
Attachments
Compressor efficiency
Hello Larry:
Yes, this tube is very similar to the one Killerbee posted. I done mine after all the info he provided. Basically it was fill in areas on the outside of the tube and start opening up the inside. I opened the "vertical" inside to that 2.775" in the area that had a top and bottom indent which made that area also quite tight. It wasn't nearly as tight as the sharp 90 degree area, but I thought that once a person was grinding, I may as well open that up to.
No I haven't tested the modified tube. I probably won't get to see how it works until sometime in May? That's when RV season starts. Now it's winter and the truck sits in the garage. I am curious to see how it will work pulling my 5th wheel.
Thanks to everyone and I'll keep following this thread. When I get to see how this works I'll definitely post the info.
Garry
Hello Larry:
Yes, this tube is very similar to the one Killerbee posted. I done mine after all the info he provided. Basically it was fill in areas on the outside of the tube and start opening up the inside. I opened the "vertical" inside to that 2.775" in the area that had a top and bottom indent which made that area also quite tight. It wasn't nearly as tight as the sharp 90 degree area, but I thought that once a person was grinding, I may as well open that up to.
No I haven't tested the modified tube. I probably won't get to see how it works until sometime in May? That's when RV season starts. Now it's winter and the truck sits in the garage. I am curious to see how it will work pulling my 5th wheel.
Thanks to everyone and I'll keep following this thread. When I get to see how this works I'll definitely post the info.
Garry
Thanks for the measurements RG. According to your measurements, using a 2.8" avaerage,the computer says restriction go from 3.5 psi to 1.5 psi. If used with big air, restriction goes from 6-8 psi to under 3 psi. By contrast, a 3.3" id piece should take the 6-8 psi loss to .5-.75 psi, with a 15-20% increase in air flow. Yet to be tested.
You 2 guys are after 2 different benefits of this change. Admittedly, I pursued it for the same reasons RG is interested in. I am just tired of "overheating" threads, and the idiotic audience they attract. This is so much more enjoyable.
Along with the benefits above, the induction system should lose 60,000-200,000 BTU/hr of heat production. These are estimates based on the compressor map improvements, and the amount of boost used. 60,000 BTU for stock flow, etc.
Always aware that LLY issues were related to performance degradations, this should be the best one-two punch for both of the LLY's perceived weaknesses.
I have learned a lot about prototyping and molding/casting materials in the process.
You 2 guys are after 2 different benefits of this change. Admittedly, I pursued it for the same reasons RG is interested in. I am just tired of "overheating" threads, and the idiotic audience they attract. This is so much more enjoyable.
Along with the benefits above, the induction system should lose 60,000-200,000 BTU/hr of heat production. These are estimates based on the compressor map improvements, and the amount of boost used. 60,000 BTU for stock flow, etc.
Always aware that LLY issues were related to performance degradations, this should be the best one-two punch for both of the LLY's perceived weaknesses.
I have learned a lot about prototyping and molding/casting materials in the process.
Last edited:
I completed my 2nd inlet with more material removed and the 2 inlet holes plugged as flush as possible. The pcv inlet is perfectly filled and contoured on the inside, no interuption in airflow at all. The resonator was a little more difficult to contour, but I think I have it as perfect as possible. SOTP says big improvement over stock
anybody wanting to do this, can take a piece of card stock, roll it up, then insert into the large flow opening. This will create a countoured border. The resonator port can now be filled with your material of choice, something that will pour preferably.
But what will stick to the inlet material
, I'd be afraid of it letting loose and getting sucked in :baby:
Has anyone done a dyno run? or back to back track tested a truck with these mods yet? Has there been EGT, air temp or other hard facts to prove that there are benefits? Im all for it but it seems like a fair amount of work for maybe nothing????????
I haven't done a dyno run yet, I can say that this coupled with several other intake mods has provided a drop IAT's and increased some more air, about 9lbs IIRC........I did notice that this inlet gets pretty hot to the touch, mine is wrapped with reflective hvac tape right now, but am wrapping it with insulated tape today to see if that helps. Right now with the cooler weather we're having my IAT's pretty much run about 4 - 5* higher than the ambient temp outside, If i'm on the highway for any length of time the IAT's and outside temps are the same.
So, yes I would say that for the small amout of work, it is worth it.
I have the aluminum version now, its at the welding shop being modified, i'll have pics this afternoon
How much of an improvement over the 1 I have? Is it getting less & less resrictive & mine is obsolete? This is for Larry or Michael. Mine was modified by Michael a long time ago
Thanks
Thanks
I have LBZ inlet ready for modification to be put on my truck. It's way bigger than the LLY inlet.
DP, Does it fit in the LLY space? Same diameter flange, etc.?
I have one coming for a new experiment of sorts.
Larry, looking forward to seeing what you have done.
I have one coming for a new experiment of sorts.
Larry, looking forward to seeing what you have done.
Here's a few pics of the new turbo inlet, I had the area surrounding the ninety welded "built-up" and then started removing material from the inside, if nothing else, the flow will be much smoother than the old one. So far horizontally the opening is 3 3/16" and verticle is 3", with enough room to remove more material. This is the inlet that ships with the Twin Turbo setup. The inlet is I believe aluminum, I wonder how it will affect IAT's as compared with the stock unit?
Attachments
