Banks Power Pak
ta...@webtv.net
I'm wondering if anyone out there has had any experience with the Banks
Power Pak system on a 1997 GM Vortec 454. I'm sure it would add a lot
of punch to an older 454 or a Ford 460, but, I'm wondering if the
two-thousand or so dollars it would take to add it to a newer 454 like a
'97 Vortec would be justified.
I'm not wanting to get better gas mileage as much as I would like to get
more punch going up hills, etc.
Comments?
Tom Allen
ta...@webtv.ne
wi...@epix.net
In Article<67c6jt$5sv$1...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>,
<ta...@webtv.net> writes:
Tom, this topic has been beat around a lot here, and you are
bound to get conflicting opinions. I don't personally know
anyone who has installed Banks stuff on the 454 Vortec, but
I think you are on the right track when you question it's worth.
I feel strongly you would be wasting money better spent
elsewhere. Even the older 454's benefited very little from
headers (per John Geraghty who wrote RX FOR RV PERFORMANCE &
MILEAGE) and now that Detroit has got the message about
free-flowing exhaust systems any possible COST justification
is flat gone.
IMO Banks advertises their stuff deceptively - even those who
have bought their stuff and like it for their 460 Fords (for
example) do not claim mileage improvement, despite Banks
preposterous claim of "up to 79+hp and 19% better fuel mileage."
You are bound to get some glowing testimonials, but see whether
any of them are accompanied by an actual written guarantee of
cost savings!! And if they DO make such a claim, try to find
where they are gonna be to make it good!
Will KD3XR
Roger L. Adams
ta...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if anyone out there has had any experience with the Banks
> Power Pak system on a 1997 GM Vortec 454. I'm sure it would add a lot
> of punch to an older 454 or a Ford 460, but, I'm wondering if the
> two-thousand or so dollars it would take to add it to a newer 454 like a
> '97 Vortec would be justified.
>
> I'm not wanting to get better gas mileage as much as I would like to get
> more punch going up hills, etc.
>
> Comments?
>
> ta...@webtv.ne
It is good that you aren't after better mileage because you more than
likely won't get it. Regardless of what some on this newsgroup say
about the the factory exhaust systems being "open" a Banks would
probably give you a very noticeable increase in power. Is it justified?
That is question you alone can answer. The Jardine system I had
installed on my 460 for $1500.00 is justified in my mind. I have a very
noticeable increase in power while mileage didn't change. My money, I'm
happy and I wasn't trying to make anyone else happy. vbg.
Roger
duke
Roger,
I tend to disagree with you about better mpg. Don't blindly count it
out. You say you got more power. Actually, what you did was choose to
use the gains from the Jardine (good choice BTW) to go faster. Had you
traveled at your old previous speed, you WOULD see better mpg! You have
a choice, power or better milage or a moderate combination of both. On
my old carb'd Ford 460 Itasca, I conservatively used the extra power for
when I needed it and at the same time enjoyed a 2mpg gain. Those trips
where I was in a hurry to go up those hills and get where I was going,
the mpg gain virtually dissapeared.
Regards,
Bob
--
MZ
wi...@epix.net
In Article<349B30...@whidbey.net>, <co...@whidbey.net>
writes:
> You have a choice, power or better milage or a moderate
> combination of both.
The first part of the statement is undoubtedly correct, no
matter how small the gain might be (ranging from zero on modern
equipment that already has free-flowing exhaust piping to
measurable if not fantastic gains on older rigs).
I find it interesting that users seldom report any gain at all
in fuel economy. Still, Banks' ads imply that you can expect
BOTH big power increases ("up to 79+ hp") AND dramatic fuel
consumption improvement ("up to 19%"). Of course, the sneaky
little "up to" phrase actually means you can't actually charge
them with fraud if you get nothing at all.
And nothing is what I think you can expect if you bolt these
shiny smoke pipes on a 454 Vortec, which is already set up from
the factory as an easy breather.
Will KD3XR
duke
I do believe BANKS ads are deceiving as well as their stuff overpriced,
paying for the name mostly. Also, the RAM air intake is a joke. One
would have to get their rv over 100mpg to see any noticable gain in mpg
or power.
That's why I chose Jardine. Got more power and/or better mpg.
--
MZ
JHNINC
I must disagree with this group. I had the Banks installed on my 1995 454
Chasis and did gain all of the benefits alluded to by Banks. And I kept very
accurate records before and after so I know of what I speak. I would doubt,
however, that it would be worth the price for the Vortec.
Jeff
wi...@epix.net
In Article<19971224000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
<jhn...@aol.com> writes:
Jeff, a couple of comments:
First, this group is not at all unanimous about Banks smoke
pipes - or anything much else, for that matter.
Second, I must tell you flatly that I personally do not believe
your story. I suppose there is a good chance you DO believe
what you wrote, but you have given us reason to suspect that you
may well have the highest Gullibility Quotient of any recent
contributor... since I DID notice that you also report wonderful
results on your water system from (no, I'm not making this up) a
magnet.
If you are merely trolling for responses, rave on. Sky King
is running low on things to complain about! But if you expect
your reports to be viewed with respectful awe, just send them by
private mail to the National Enquirer.
Will KD3XR
Sky King
wi...@epix.net wrote:
SNIP
> I don't personally know
> anyone who has installed Banks stuff on the 454 Vortec, but
> I think you are on the right track when you question it's worth.
> I feel strongly you would be wasting money better spent
> elsewhere.
Wait now. You never used "Banks Stuff". You don't know anybody that
used "Banks Stuff", yet you "feel strongly" about it. How can that be
Will. Have can you continue to come up with opinions about things you
directly or indirectly know nothing about?
> IMO Banks advertises their stuff deceptively - even those who
> have bought their stuff and like it for their 460 Fords (for
> example) do not claim mileage improvement, despite Banks
> preposterous claim of "up to 79+hp and 19% better fuel mileage."
IMO humble opinion, you continue to run off about things you
personally know nothing about.
> Will KD3XR
--
*****************************************************
"Everyone is born left-handed. You turn right-handed
when you commit your first sin"
*****************************************************
Sky King
wi...@epix.net wrote:
> In Article<19971224000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> <jhn...@aol.com> writes:
>> I must disagree with this group. I had the Banks installed on
>>my 1995 454 Chasis and did gain all of the benefits alluded to
>>by Banks. And I kept very accurate records before and after so
>>I know of what I speak. I would doubt, however, that it would
>>be worth the price for the Vortec.
> Jeff, a couple of comments:
> Second, I must tell you flatly that I personally do not believe
> your story. I suppose there is a good chance you DO believe
> what you wrote, but you have given us reason to suspect that you
> may well have the highest Gullibility Quotient of any recent
> contributor... since I DID notice that you also report wonderful
> results on your water system from (no, I'm not making this up) a
> magnet.
He's back!! "Liar", "Gullibility Quotient".....and on and on and on...
> If you are merely trolling for responses, rave on. Sky King
> is running low on things to complain about!
You jest Will! You give me many things to "complain about".
But if you expect
> your reports to be viewed with respectful awe, just send them by
> private mail to the National Enquirer.
Now, isn't that cute?????
RVin5
Must be a slow Chritmas in the "Kingdom" of Sky.
I think I am going to learn to write with my other hand.
Lon VanOstran
Williamston, Mi
Gary - KJ6Q
AND good 'ol Spam King *again* runs off at the mouth - contributing
absolutely NOTHING of value to the group... But of course, "contributing"
is not his reason for being here HATE is why he is here - and its getting
real disgusting to be exposed to...
If it would *really* make you feel any better, why don't you just post a
daily message that screams "I *HATE* Will" - it will get the job done just
as well as your completely transparent method shown in your post below...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
The road to a man's future is paved
with the fruits of todays labor...
Sky King <s...@telerama.com> wrote in article <67vc16$r...@frogger.lm.com>...
JHNINC
I have learned that it is pointless to get in a pissing contest with Wil since
he will call you a liar even when you try to give an honest answer. Here's the
truth:
After I installed the Banks Powerpack in my 454 Chevy (1995 Allegro Bus) my
hill climbing speeds increased by over 25%. That's all I really wanted since
I'm here in CA and there are many hills and mountains to cross. As an added
benefit, my gas mileage increased by about 20%. So the $ 2,000+ that I
invested was worth it to me.
Jeff
wi...@epix.net
In Article<19971229144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
<jhn...@aol.com> writes:
> I have learned that it is pointless to get in a pissing
>contest with Wil since he will call you a liar even when you
>try to give an honest answer.
As any regular reader can tell, I usually ignore the lunatic
fringe in this newsgroup, since hecklers contribute nothing but
noise.
Jeff, however, did contribute information: he offered his
opinion that his Banks system gave him everything they
advertise. I would like to give him another chance to understand
that I have NOT called him a liar. I have said I personally do
not believe that he is getting the improvement that he thinks
he's getting - but that is a LONG way from calling him a liar.
I challenge Jeff - and anyone else who favors changing to
aftermarket exhaust systems - to prove that they REALLY are
qualified to say they KNOW what improvement they got. It has
been demonstrated many times that fuel mileage can improve 20%
just by slowing down!
If buyers are happy, that's fine, but I object to being asked to
believe "data" that is mere hearsay, guesswork, and a product of
"I've spent a lot of money to make this rig run better and by
Gawd it does".
The cold hard facts, well established over a long period of time
by competent professionals like John Geraghty, are that free-
flowing exhaust systems DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE - but only on
vehicles shipped with restrictive systems and only under some
circumstances. The 460 Ford has the reputation of profiting
more from smoke pipe mods than other engines, but is now
discontinued. GM began putting 3" pipes on rv chassis back in
the 80's, and virtually ALL modern rv's have more than enough
exhaust volume capacity.
Legends die hard - some NEVER die.
A hot-rodder in my youth, I put duals and Smitty's (early name
for low-restriction glasspack mufflers) on virtually everything
I drove. I even made a custom dual exhaust manifold for a
6-cylinder Plymouth flathead (oh what a dog!). And the stuff
helped....
But ya know what? When I got so I could tell the difference
between a nice sound and real performance, I discovered that all
this exhaust system stuff DID NOT MATTER until you were running
the engine nearly fast enough to float the valves! Even the old
flathead Ford V8's did NOT run any better at normal engine
speeds - you had to wind 'em up tight to get the advantage of
the duals.
Put it another way: the design of exhaust plumbing is IRRELEVANT
to performance until there is enough volume of exhaust gas to
begin to develop measurable back-pressure. When back-pressure
begins to require actual horsepower to push the gases out and
prevents efficient evacuation of the cylinders, only THEN is it
adversely affecting performance. This may come as a big surprise
to a few folks, but Detroit engineers know this too! No modern
vehicle is made with stock exhaust plumbing that is inefficient
at moderate engine speeds. Period.
If you fully understand the tradeoffs, you may WANT to have a
competent mechanic modify your entire power system. For money,
you can hire someone to dramatically alter the performance of
your rig. You can get better power OR better economy. But not
both. You can get enormous horsepower improvement - at the
expense of large capital dollars, much higher operating costs,
and very short engine life. Check any drag strip or tractor
pull for evidence.
SOME folks are smart enough to realize that big pipes can ONLY
give them a little more power at high engine speeds - and only
on the older coaches. They can afford the price and don't care
if they get no better economy.
But the few of you dear readers who think shiny smoke pipes are
all that Banks says they are and they are saving you some real
money might do well to wipe the stars outa yer eyes and ask
yourself a few questions. And you know what those questions
are! If you don't, you have no business bolting on after-market
parts.
Will KD3XR
charles copeland
A large exhaust is not neccessarily an efficient exhaust.
If you went from 3" to 4" you would actually lose power.
>Legends die hard - some NEVER die.
>
>A hot-rodder in my youth, I put duals and Smitty's (early name
>for low-restriction glasspack mufflers) on virtually everything
>I drove. I even made a custom dual exhaust manifold for a
>6-cylinder Plymouth flathead (oh what a dog!). And the stuff
>helped....
Glasspacks are not efficient by any means. Today there are a number
of modern efficient mufflers; Flowmaster, Dynomax, Borla.
>But ya know what? When I got so I could tell the difference
>between a nice sound and real performance,
Glasspacks won't gain you much of anything other than noise.
>I discovered that all
>this exhaust system stuff DID NOT MATTER until you were running
>the engine nearly fast enough to float the valves!
Entirely depends on HOW you have the exhaust tuned.
The diameter of the header, length of tuned runners,
size of collector, configuration of runners, placement of
cross-over pipe, selection of cats and muffler ... all
determine the performance characteristics of exhaust system.
This stuff is very important and REAL impact on HP.
>Put it another way: the design of exhaust plumbing is IRRELEVANT
>to performance until there is enough volume of exhaust gas to
>begin to develop measurable back-pressure.
That begins when the engine is cranked.
>When back-pressure
>begins to require actual horsepower to push the gases out and
>prevents efficient evacuation of the cylinders, only THEN is it
>adversely affecting performance.
There is a principle known as scavenging that effects cylinders
volumetric efficiency across the RPM band.
Typically maximum torque is reached around 3000rpm on V8.
This torque peak is largely a function of exhaust tuning.
>This may come as a big surprise
>to a few folks, but Detroit engineers know this too! No modern
>vehicle is made with stock exhaust plumbing that is inefficient
>at moderate engine speeds. Period.
This is the biggest peice of crap you've ever posted Will!!!
Very few cars have highly efficient exhaust systems because of cost.
Virtually every cars torque curve can be improved by aftermarket
exhaust with double digit % improvement, except a corvette and the like.
>SOME folks are smart enough to realize that big pipes can ONLY
>give them a little more power at high engine speeds - and only
>on the older coaches. They can afford the price and don't care
>if they get no better economy.
Big pipes are not they ticket to efficient exhaust.
Tuned pipes/systems are the key.
>But the few of you dear readers who think shiny smoke pipes are
>all that Banks says they are and they are saving you some real
>money might do well to wipe the stars outa yer eyes and ask
>yourself a few questions. And you know what those questions
>are! If you don't, you have no business bolting on after-market
>parts.
Then you Will, certainly have no business bolting on
after-market parts.
How are those inefficient glass packs doing on your RV?
Will Rosenberry
wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
>In Article<19971229144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
snip
>
>But ya know what? When I got so I could tell the difference
>between a nice sound and real performance, I discovered that all
>this exhaust system stuff DID NOT MATTER until you were running
>the engine nearly fast enough to float the valves! Even the old
>flathead Ford V8's did NOT run any better at normal engine
>speeds - you had to wind 'em up tight to get the advantage of
>the duals.
>
>Put it another way: the design of exhaust plumbing is IRRELEVANT
>to performance until there is enough volume of exhaust gas to
>begin to develop measurable back-pressure. When back-pressure
>begins to require actual horsepower to push the gases out and
>prevents efficient evacuation of the cylinders, only THEN is it
>adversely affecting performance. This may come as a big surprise
>to a few folks, but Detroit engineers know this too! No modern
>vehicle is made with stock exhaust plumbing that is inefficient
>at moderate engine speeds. Period.
>
Will, The headers will also increase "low end power". The part about
the gases creating "vacuum" to draw out more exhaust gas is true.
Pick up any speed shop catalog that has a graph (done on a dyno by a
pro) showing RPM on the "X" axis and HP and torque on the "Y" axis..
there will be a line for stock manifolds and a line for headers
You will see this graph (done on a dyno by a pro which is what you are
asking for) that the difference between the two lines on the "Y" axis
is the same at idle and the header line increases over stock from
there. Sure the biggest change will be at a high RPM but there will
be a positive difference from just off idle. I read that your a man
that needs proof so the next time I see a location that shows this
graph I will forward the location to you.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<charles1E...@netcom.com>, <char...@netcom.com>
writes another in a continuing series of nastygrams, most of
which I am deleting as having no interest to me or most readers,
leaving very little to discuss:
Sez he:
> A large exhaust is not neccessarily an efficient exhaust.
> If you went from 3" to 4" you would actually lose power.
This can be true in some cases but is not true in the practical
world, since we do not run our rv engines at a constant speed
where the "tuning" effect might be measurable. Racing engines
can indeed benefit from the phenomena, though the advantage is
slight.
> Glasspacks are not efficient by any means. Today there are a
>number of modern efficient mufflers; Flowmaster, Dynomax,
>Borla.
Are there facts to support a claim of meaningful differences in
efficiency between various low-restriction mufflers? What are
these facts, and who has verified them? There are indeed some
type of "glasspack" mufflers that have internal baffles (cones)
that could very well be as restrictive as a labyrinth type of
muffler. But in the absence of hard data the claims are
meaningless.
> Glasspacks won't gain you much of anything other than noise.
I agree they provide little or no measurable performance gain
over a well-designed labyrinth (reverse-flow) muffler, but much
depends on the design of either. It is meaningless to generalize
since there are many designs. But it is useful to note that we
agree that "not much is gained" by changing mufflers!
Will wrote:
>>I discovered that all this exhaust system stuff DID NOT MATTER
>>until you were running the engine nearly fast enough to float
>>the valves!
Chas quips:
> Entirely depends on HOW you have the exhaust tuned.
> The diameter of the header, length of tuned runners,
> size of collector, configuration of runners, placement of
> cross-over pipe, selection of cats and muffler ... all
> determine the performance characteristics of exhaust system.
>
> This stuff is very important and REAL impact on HP.
This "tuning" concept is valid for racing but virtually
meaningless in the context of rv's. It is impossible to "tune"
an exhaust system in any meaningful way for a wide range of
speeds. Not only does this tuning work only at specified design
speeds, but requires VERY fine coordination with induction
plumbing, valve timing, and cam design, and THEN makes a fairly
small difference. You wanna do all that stuff to get 5% at
5,000 RPM? Go for it.
> There is a principle known as scavenging that effects
>cylinders volumetric efficiency across the RPM band.
As a practical manner, scavenging occurs ONLY when the engine
speed is "on the pipes" in a tuned system - NOT, as you assert,
across a wide rpm range.
> Typically maximum torque is reached around 3000rpm on V8.
> This torque peak is largely a function of exhaust tuning.
What is the basis for this conclusion? I assert that exhaust
"tuning" is not a significant factor at moderate engine speeds.
If you can prove otherwise I will happily admit I am wrong.
Will wrote:
>> Detroit engineers know this too! No modern vehicle is made
>>with stock exhaust plumbing that is inefficient at moderate
>>engine speeds. Period.
Chas, with his usual diplomacy, writes:
> This is the biggest peice of crap you've ever posted Will!!!
>
> Very few cars have highly efficient exhaust systems because of
>cost. Virtually every cars torque curve can be improved by
>aftermarket exhaust with double digit % improvement, except a
>corvette and the like.
He who argues with a fool, says an old proverb, is doubly a
fool. I stand by my statement and suggest that Mr. Copeland
furnish the evidence to substantiate his (vague) claim. I am
satisfied that ALL major vehicle manufacturers have long since
realized the value of efficient plumbing, and that aftermarket
pipe suppliers are misleading the gullible to believe otherwise.
"Double digit % improvement" of ANY performance parameter is
simply NOT gonna happen by bolting on different smoke pipes.
You want horsepower - pay the man for a complete rework all the
way through.
Will KD3XR
gary
In addition to all the other areas of debate in these "exhaust wars", is
the too frequently overlooked fact that *often*, the increased power at a
higher engine RPM is *EXACTLY* what will benefit a tow vehicle or motorhome
in the steep grades, where you shift down a gear or two and let the engine
wind up a bit so it is operating in its best power band. If an exhaust
system can be "tuned", or otherwise designed to center its best performance
at THAT RPM, it can provide a definite and measurable performance boost.
And, it is quite likely that a free flowing exhaust system that does that,
will also prove beneficial at OTHER RPMs as well. (as compared with stock
exhausts) After all, it take very little power (relatively speaking) to
maintain cruising speed down a flat freeway! I am by NO means a authority
on OEM exhaust systems - especially those in newer motorhomes - but past
experience usually demonstrated that manufacturers primary goal in exhaust
system design was merely to get the gasses from the engine to somewhere in
the vicinity of the rear of the vehicle - if that somehow happened in an
efficient manner, it was more the producy of accidet than design...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
is your friend - and Bill Gates is your enemy...
Will Rosenberry <wrose...@ctdi.nospam.com> wrote in article
<34a80a46...@news.chesco.com>...
> wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
> >
> >In Article<19971229144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> snip
> >
> >But ya know what? When I got so I could tell the difference
> >between a nice sound and real performance, I discovered that all
> >this exhaust system stuff DID NOT MATTER until you were running
> >the engine nearly fast enough to float the valves! Even the old
> >flathead Ford V8's did NOT run any better at normal engine
> >speeds - you had to wind 'em up tight to get the advantage of
> >the duals.
> >
> >Put it another way: the design of exhaust plumbing is IRRELEVANT
> >to performance until there is enough volume of exhaust gas to
> >begin to develop measurable back-pressure. When back-pressure
> >begins to require actual horsepower to push the gases out and
> >prevents efficient evacuation of the cylinders, only THEN is it
> >adversely affecting performance. This may come as a big surprise
> >to a few folks, but Detroit engineers know this too! No modern
> >vehicle is made with stock exhaust plumbing that is inefficient
> >at moderate engine speeds. Period.
> >
wi...@epix.net
In Article<01bd14ab$27bcf520$LocalHost@default>,
<ga...@cwnet.com> writes:
> In addition to all the other areas of debate in these "exhaust
>wars", is the too frequently overlooked fact that *often*, the
>increased power at a higher engine RPM is *EXACTLY* what will
>benefit a tow vehicle or motorhome in the steep grades, where
>you shift down a gear or two and let the engine wind up a bit
>so it is operating in its best power band.
Not overlooked, exactly, Gary - the point is valid as far as it
goes. I have tried (without a great deal of success, it seems)
to acknowledge that SOME vehicles will show a perceptible gain
under those conditions- especially the 460 Ford and some older
rigs. If that is all the buyer wants and expects, let it be so.
The question is, how much improvement is real, and how much is
hype? When a buyer with no possible instrumentation other than
the seat of his pants brags about the change in numbers. I think
we have every right to ask how he knows!
>If an exhaust system can be "tuned", or otherwise designed to
>center its best performance at THAT RPM, it can provide a
>definite and measurable performance boost.
Also acknowledged - with the caveat that this "tuning" is so
much advertising hyperbole unless it involves the ENTIRE system,
including (as I noted earlier) the induction system *and* the
cam. It is my POV that exhaust pipes by themselves do VERY
little to accomplish "tuning" - and when they do it affects a
very narrow RPM band. And when fine tuned to romp & stomp at
4,000 RPM, you can expect it will just barely run at idle and
have no real torque at low speeds.
The German Auto Union group pioneered impressive work in tuning
exhaust systems for racing, but a review of John Garaghty's "Rx
for RV Performance & Mileage" (see the chapter on exhaust
systems) makes it clear why this technology is of little value
on a motorhome.
> And, it is quite likely that a free flowing exhaust system
>that does that, will also prove beneficial at OTHER RPMs as
>well. (as compared with stock exhausts)
That's arguable, since flow restriction only becomes important
when large quantities of gasses are flowing. If you never
turned over 1000 rpm, the old 1 1/2" pipes would not materially
degrade performance.
> but past experience usually demonstrated that manufacturers
>primary goal in exhaust system design was merely to get the
>gasses from the engine to somewhere in the vicinity of the rear
>of the vehicle - if that somehow happened in an efficient
>manner, it was more the producy of accidet than design...
In the old days that might have been true. This is not the old
days. Detroit is knocking itself out to improve efficiency these
days, and if you think they aren't aware of how an extra few
horsepower sells trucks.... well, they are. In fact, the cheap
bean counters at GM have not only put 3" pipes on class C's with
350's since the late 80's, but in recent times they have tried
to squeak out a few more ponies with HEADERS on the 454. (Not to
mention that they never really solved the warped manifold
problems until then.)
Let there be no mistake: I am NOT against performance add-ons -
I just hate to see folks peeing away their money in the mistaken
belief that the ads are accurate. They are not. I have yet to
see a *credible* report that any Banks user is getting 19%
better fuel mileage -- or for that matter, ANY verifiable
improvement in mileage. We have several people reporting that
they FEEL like they are getting more power, and in the
circumstance you (and I) describe, that's possible with some
rigs. With others, shiny smoke pipes simply will NOT pay off.
IMO
Will KD3XR
Dan Gall
Will & Charles
Both of you have made valid points in the ongoing discussion over
aftermarket add-ons.
While many of the 'improvements' made to engines (et al) came from the
racing spectrum, the commercialzation of these 'improvements' was
through the trucking industry.
Truckers have every reason to eke out every possible bit of HP and
MPG they can from their rigs, as every penny saved will (usually) be
another in their pocket. Truckers were among the first to adopt 'wings'
(airspoilers) once they were reasonalbly priced, and now most trucks
sport them.
The point I am trying to make is that if it was that 'good'
(aftermarket exhaust systems) then truckers would have adopted them en
masse. Even 10 more HP when hauling 55,000 pounds up a 6 percent grade
would be an improvement, and since trucks cost over $100,000 a $2,000
cost would be worth it (especially given the mile driven per year)
There must be something about the products that prevent truckers
from adopting them. Is it the low speed/off speed torque loss? Or the
loss of engine brakes (I don't know!) when they are used? If the HP and
MPG gains are 'real' then truckers would certainly be retrofitting the
systems to their vehicles.
Okay, perhaps they don't apply (as much?) to diesels, but then
there are truckers running large gas engines also. Perhaps their
'makers' put better stock exhausts on, but the people who make trucks
also make motorhome chassis, why would they not put the 'better' system
on there also?
Racing programs are the leading edge of technology (in automotive
terms at least) but the trucking industry is the mass market where
products live and die.
Sorry Will, but I don't have access to facts to back up my ideas, I
am simply stating how I see it.
Dan
Steve Cutchen
wi...@epix.net wrote, in part...
>Put it another way: the design of exhaust plumbing is IRRELEVANT
>to performance until there is enough volume of exhaust gas to
>begin to develop measurable back-pressure. When back-pressure
>begins to require actual horsepower to push the gases out and
>prevents efficient evacuation of the cylinders, only THEN is it
>adversely affecting performance. This may come as a big surprise
>to a few folks, but Detroit engineers know this too! No modern
>vehicle is made with stock exhaust plumbing that is inefficient
>at moderate engine speeds. Period.
True, for the tradeoffs made by Dearborn engineers. ( ...so I like a
different generic... A Dearborn engineer is the LINCOLN of automotive
engineers!)
And I also agree that there is a significant placebo effect. If one spends
good money for performance, and especially if the modifications make more
noise, the seat of the pants will lie.
However, significant data from an individual like Jeff, jhn...@aol.com, who
wrote in part:
>After I installed the Banks Powerpack in my 454 Chevy (1995 Allegro Bus) my
>hill climbing speeds increased by over 25%. That's all I really wanted since
>I'm here in CA and there are many hills and mountains to cross. As an added
>benefit, my gas mileage increased by about 20%. So the $ 2,000+ that I
>invested was worth it to me.
are good data and worth considering. Jeffs assertions are pretty significant.
And, it is worth mentioning that Dearborn engineering tradeoffs may be
different from case to case. I know you alluded to this, but I wanted to
add a few bits... An exhaust system may be optimized for sound rather than
performance, thus may have "HP through modifications" available. And the
intake system may be a significant restriction... With proper intake mods,
exhaust mods may indeed make a difference. Low restriction exhaust
manifolds (headers) may also make a significant difference since OEM
exhaust manifolds can be pretty restrictive.
I do agree that these HP increases only acrue at relatively high RPMs. But
pulling a steep grade often requires operation in the high RPM range.
--------
Steve Cutchen O- Nothing screams poor craftsmanship
scut...@phoenix.net like wrinkly duct tape...
charles copeland
In article <NEWTNews.88343...@epix.net>, <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
>>In Article<charles1E...@netcom.com>, <char...@netcom.com>
>> If you went from 3" to 4" you would actually lose power.
>
>This can be true in some cases but is not true in the practical
>world,
You put to large exhaust on any engine, and you lose low end torque
in a big way. Tuning an exhaust is important to all engines.
> Racing engines can indeed benefit from the phenomena, though
> the advantage is slight.
Replacing early 80's exhaust with a modern tuned system,
modern cats, modern mufflers can easily net 25% increase
in HP. That is not slight.
>> Glasspacks are not efficient by any means. Today there are a
>>number of modern efficient mufflers; Flowmaster, Dynomax,
>>Borla.
>
>Are there facts to support a claim of meaningful differences in
>efficiency between various low-restriction mufflers? What are
>these facts, and who has verified them?
There have been scores of studies done in a number of hotrod
magazines in the last 10 years. Go to the library.
Better yet, go to the track and talk to hotrodders and
get their first hand experience. You'll get hard information
on "measured" HP gains with exhaust mods. Timeslips do not lie.
>There are indeed some
>type of "glasspack" mufflers that have internal baffles (cones)
>that could very well be as restrictive as a labyrinth type of
>muffler. But in the absence of hard data the claims are
>meaningless.
The Flowmaster muffler has no baffling material at all!
It uses acoustic cancellation to muffle. The Dynomax has
practically no restrictions.
>> Glasspacks won't gain you much of anything other than noise.
>
>I agree they provide little or no measurable performance gain
>over a well-designed labyrinth (reverse-flow) muffler, but much
>depends on the design of either. It is meaningless to generalize
>since there are many designs. But it is useful to note that we
>agree that "not much is gained" by changing mufflers!
When combined with tuned exhaust, a modern performance muffler can mean
roughly 7% HP increase in a vehicle ... even more or less depending
on what the stock unit does for you.
The key to making an efficient engine are combining a number
of small gains to come up with a large gain. Mufflers are not
to be overlooked as "insignificant".
>>>I discovered that all this exhaust system stuff DID NOT MATTER
>>>until you were running the engine nearly fast enough to float
>>>the valves!
>
>> Entirely depends on HOW you have the exhaust tuned.
>> The diameter of the header, length of tuned runners,
>> size of collector, configuration of runners, placement of
>> cross-over pipe, selection of cats and muffler ... all
>> determine the performance characteristics of exhaust system.
>>
>> This stuff is very important and REAL impact on HP.
>
>This "tuning" concept is valid for racing but virtually
>meaningless in the context of rv's.
Making such a blanket statement exposes your ignorance
in such matters.
>It is impossible to "tune"
>an exhaust system in any meaningful way for a wide range of
>speeds.
Speed has little to do with it ... engine RPM does.
>Not only does this tuning work only at specified design
>speeds, but requires VERY fine coordination with induction
>plumbing, valve timing, and cam design, and THEN makes a fairly
>small difference. You wanna do all that stuff to get 5% at
>5,000 RPM? Go for it.
You don't know squat about engines Will. Todays chevy Camaro
350 makes over 300 HP because of "little" improvements.
That same engine 15 years ago would make less than 200 HP.
>> There is a principle known as scavenging that effects
>>cylinders volumetric efficiency across the RPM band.
>
>As a practical manner, scavenging occurs ONLY when the engine
>speed is "on the pipes" in a tuned system - NOT, as you assert,
>across a wide rpm range.
I never asserted "across a wide rpm range". The only RPM range of
critical interest is cruise RPM. A tuned system calibrated
for a particular RPM range (low for RV's, hi for hotrods) can
make significant impact on torque/HP for that application.
There are also alternatives that cater to both hi and lo
rpm tuning ... tri-y headers.
>> Typically maximum torque is reached around 3000rpm on V8.
>> This torque peak is largely a function of exhaust tuning.
>
>What is the basis for this conclusion? I assert that exhaust
>"tuning" is not a significant factor at moderate engine speeds.
>If you can prove otherwise I will happily admit I am wrong.
Will, you will just have to read up on this to convince yourself.
I doubt there is a human on the planet who can convince Will other than Will.
>>> Detroit engineers know this too! No modern vehicle is made
>>>with stock exhaust plumbing that is inefficient at moderate
>>>engine speeds. Period.
>
>> This is the biggest peice of crap you've ever posted Will!!!
>>
>> Very few cars have highly efficient exhaust systems because of
>>cost. Virtually every cars torque curve can be improved by
>>aftermarket exhaust with double digit % improvement, except a
>>corvette and the like.
>
>He who argues with a fool, says an old proverb, is doubly a
>fool. I stand by my statement and suggest that Mr. Copeland
>furnish the evidence to substantiate his (vague) claim.
The library is your key to knowledge.
>I am satisfied that ALL major vehicle manufacturers have long since
>realized the value of efficient plumbing, and that aftermarket
>pipe suppliers are misleading the gullible to believe otherwise.
You've got a lot to learn about vehicle drive trains.
>"Double digit % improvement" of ANY performance parameter is
>simply NOT gonna happen by bolting on different smoke pipes.
>You want horsepower - pay the man for a complete rework all the
>way through.
You conveniantly deleted my example. Vehicles in the early
80's were extremely consipated due to bad catalytic converter
technology and kinked exhaust. Changing out exhaust from heads to
tailpipe with a modern tuned system and modern honeycomb cats
WILL (excuse the pun) easily gain one double digit % improvement in HP.
There is no point in arguing with a brick wall, and I'm not
going to hold your hand and spoon feed you information.
You are just going to have to go to your local library and
verify this common knowledge for yourself.
gary
WELL, when all the scientific BS is sorted out, I hafta' admit - I just
*like* the sound of a big-block V8 and a "rumbly" set of well engineered
dual exhausts... Never outgrew that part of my misspent youth I guess 8^)
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
"Statists" would have you believe the government
is your friend - and Bill Gates is your enemy...
wi...@epix.net wrote in article <NEWTNews.88345...@epix.net>...
>
> In Article<01bd14ab$27bcf520$LocalHost@default>,
> <ga...@cwnet.com> writes:
Will writes...
Will Rosenberry
"gary" <ga...@cwnet.com> wrote:
>WELL, when all the scientific BS is sorted out, I hafta' admit - I just
>*like* the sound of a big-block V8 and a "rumbly" set of well engineered
>dual exhausts... Never outgrew that part of my misspent youth I guess 8^)
Theirs still "No replacement for displacement!"
Will Rosenberry
wi...@epix.net
In Article<34a80a46...@news.chesco.com>,
<wrose...@ctdi.nospam.com> writes:
> Will, The headers will also increase "low end power". The
>part about the gases creating "vacuum" to draw out more exhaust
>gas is true. Pick up any speed shop catalog that has a graph
>(done on a dyno by a pro) showing RPM on the "X" axis and HP
>and torque on the "Y" axis.
My friend, you are being fooled. Read Geraghty's book on that
subject (Rx for Rv PErformance & Mileage), and you will discover
that the speed shop catalogs are blowing smoke. They will also
sell you cams that change everything - but most of them fail to
mention that when you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you may not
like the outcome - such as hard starting, loss of efficiency,
loss of low-speed torque, etc etc. And if some bozo is
advertising a cam or a header or a carburetor that gives you
EVERYTHING, you may be sure you are being scammed.
Folks, we are being asked to believe that automotive engineers,
who are being hammered for more power and reliability AND better
mileage (by the buyers and the gummit) are too stupid to buy
their exhaust systems from Banks. I am fully aware that many
rv's are shipped with components that are not optimized for rv
use. But I marvel at how many people sincerely believe that you
can get more power at all engine speeds, better economy and a
better love life by bolting on exhaust plumbing that could be
duplicated by the factory for NO incremental cost. And for
practical purposes, IS functionally duplicated on virtually all
modern vehicles!
Show me credible independently-verified PROOF that ANY new rv
can show 79+ hp AND 19% improvement in fuel mileage by merely
substituting aftermarket exhaust system. If you can.
Will KD3XR
Terry Titus
wi...@epix.net wrote in message ...
>
>In Article<19971229144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
><jhn...@aol.com> writes:
>
>I challenge Jeff - and anyone else who favors changing to
>aftermarket exhaust systems - to prove that they REALLY are
>qualified to say they KNOW what improvement they got. It has
>been demonstrated many times that fuel mileage can improve 20%
>just by slowing down!
I have a 1984 24' Jamboree with the Ford 460 Pwr Plant. In the year that I
have had it I have found some interesting thing about it, When running 60-65
down the highway I get 6-7 mpg. If I drop the speed to around 55-57 I get
8-9 mpg. Since most of my driving would be considered Mountain driving(have
to cross over mountains to go anywhere) I am quite happy with mileage I am
getting. Slowing down does help!!!
Mark Kovalsky
Will Rosenberry <wrose...@ctdi.nospam.com> wrote in article
> Theirs still "No replacement for displacement!"
> Will Rosenberry
...but a turbocharger comes close!
--
Mark
'30 Ford Model 'A'
'94 Ford Club Wagon w/7.3L Hypermax Turbo Diesel
'94 Sportsmen's 37; Travel Trailer
'97 Ford Taurus SHO
The views expressed above are mine, and mine alone.
Ol' Jim, hisself
wi...@epix.net wrote:
> Folks, we are being asked to believe that automotive engineers,
> who are being hammered for more power and reliability AND better
> mileage (by the buyers and the gummit) are too stupid to buy
> their exhaust systems from Banks.
Actually, most automotive exhaust systems are designed by Walker. They
have an OEM division which provides exhaust systems to the Big 3
automakers.
And, under the new rules, if GM buys it from you, then YOU design it -
to GMs performance specs.
Ol' Jim, hisself
Erich Coiner
Will Rosenberry wrote:
> Theirs still "No replacement for displacement!"
> Will Rosenberry
I agree, but it is no longer true. Ford just replaced the 7.5L V8 with
a 6.8L V10. By all accounts the new engine produces more horsepower and
gets better gas mileage. But the replacement is less displacement :(
Also, if you noticed the rpm for peak torque on the V10 is up near 3,000
rpm and it was down around 2400 on the 7.5L. I think this means people
need to get motor homes with numerically higher rear end ratios to take
advantage of the higher revving motor.
Erich remove NOSPAM to reply
George Lowry
>Folks, we are being asked to believe that automotive engineers,
>who are being hammered for more power and reliability AND better
>mileage (by the buyers and the gummit) are too stupid to buy
>their exhaust systems from Banks. I am fully aware that many
>rv's are shipped with components that are not optimized for rv
>use. But I marvel at how many people sincerely believe that you
>can get more power at all engine speeds, better economy and a
>better love life by bolting on exhaust plumbing that could be
>duplicated by the factory for NO incremental cost. And for
>practical purposes, IS functionally duplicated on virtually all
>modern vehicles!
>
Hey Will,
I've been looking for the one that imprves the love life. Which
modern vehicle did you say it comes on???
George
Will Rosenberry
Erich Coiner <Erich_Coi...@hp-sandiego-om2.om.hp.com> wrote:
Just think how much power the 7.5 would have with the "tuning" that
the 6.8 does!
The 6.8 is still possible the better choice for the 2 extra cylinders,
something about excelarating smaller pistons. I just hope the offset
pin crankshaft in the V10 holds up better then Buick's offset V6 one
did in the early 80's(they have it fixed now)
Will Rosenberry
Will Rosenberry
wi...@epix.net
Mr Copeland <char...@netcom.com> writes in part
(epithets deleted despite their entertainment value!):
>Tuning an exhaust is important to all engines.
By definition, "tuning" an exhaust involves matching the
acoustic properties of the plumbing with a specific engine
speed. This is not an important factor in variable speed
engines in rv service. Use of the term to explain the design
of any particular set of smoke pipes for a recreational vehicle
is what we call "bafflegab".
(Also applies to mufflers. Heh heh.)
The kids that hang around speed shops don't understand that
what works on the racing circuit is NOT the same stuff that
sells to teen-age "performance" buffs - and neither category
has much application in rv's used for travel.
> Replacing early 80's exhaust with a modern tuned system,
> modern cats, modern mufflers can easily net 25% increase
> in HP. That is not slight.
That is also the wildest form of exaggeration. Regardless of
how old the rig is (more on that below) a 25% increase in
horsepower flatly *requires* more than exhaust work. It also
involves a significant increase in engine speed to develop that
power, with accompanying wear and stress.
Concerning muffler comparisons, I wrote:
>> . . . in the absence of hard data the claims are
>>meaningless.
To which Chas replies:
> The [brand x] muffler has no baffling material at all!
> It uses acoustic cancellation to muffle. The [brand y] has
> practically no restrictions.
I repeat: in the absence of hard data, the claims are
meaningless. The muffler on my coach has "practically no
restriction" and no baffles. Is it better or worse than
brand x and brand y? Talk is cheap. What pressure drop
is measured, at what flow rate, by whom? And if we DID
have that data instead of advertising puffery, what would
it mean in PERFORMANCE to Joe Arvee and his Windybagle?
Suckers who believe claims like "low restriction" and "up
to 20% better" probably deserve what they get. The rest of
us need to realize that there are liars, damned liars, and
smoke pipe sales geeks.
I wrote:
>>It is impossible to "tune" an exhaust system in any
>>meaningful way for a wide range of speeds.
Chas sez:
> Speed has little to do with it ... engine RPM does.
RPM is the way we measure engine speed, which I think most
readers understood to be my meaning.
He also wrote:
> I never asserted "across a wide rpm range". The only RPM range
>of critical interest is cruise RPM. A tuned system calibrated
> for a particular RPM range (low for RV's, hi for hotrods) can
> make significant impact on torque/HP for that application.
> There are also alternatives that cater to both hi and lo
> rpm tuning ... tri-y headers.
This is not correct. In the first place, as Gary and others have
pointed out, any real gains in POWER (not torque) pay off only
at the high end of the rpm range, when passing, pulling hills in
lower gears, etc. You would not "tune" a system for your
cruising speed except to optimize efficiency - in which case you
would LOSE in other areas. Anything that makes a "significant"
impact on performance in one area ALWAYS and EVERY TIME has side
effects. One of the most obvious - evident even to the speed
shop crowd of gum chewing teenagers - is that more power means
more fuel is consumed. And gee-whiz names for headers ("tri-y"
for example) do NOT accomplish the repeal of laws of common
sense. I refer you to the same text I have mentioned several
times (Rx for RV performance & Mileage by John GAraghty) for a
detailed explanation of WHY this stuff is mostly hype when it
comes to the rv traveler.
Chas complains:
> You conveniantly deleted my example. Vehicles in the early
> 80's were extremely consipated due to bad catalytic converter
> technology and kinked exhaust. Changing out exhaust from heads
>to tailpipe with a modern tuned system and modern honeycomb
>cats WILL (excuse the pun) easily gain one double digit %
>improvement in HP.
Let's make up our minds, here - are we talking history or
current events? I have often conceded that older rigs can
see performance improvements, and I suppose some were so badly
built originally that 10% is possible. But we are not talking
about '81 cars - we are talking about late-'90's RV's.
It is my carefully considered opinion that you, Charles, are
blowing enough smoke to require TWO complete Banks Power Paks -
one for each end if you get my drift.
Will KD3XR
Ol' Jim, hisself
charles copeland wrote:
>
> >> Replacing early 80's exhaust with a modern tuned system,
> >> modern cats, modern mufflers can easily net 25% increase
> >> in HP. That is not slight.
> >
> >how old the rig is (more on that below) a 25% increase in
> >horsepower flatly *requires* more than exhaust work.
>
> 80's were absolutely constipated due to pollution controls,
> and inadequate technology to fullfill government limits.
> 25% HP can easily be gained on these vehicles by updating exhaust.
>
This is BS!! Those constipated '80s V-8s also had a 2-bbl carb with
dime-size venturii, ultra-low compression ratios, and EGR. With all of
that against it, there is NO WAY you could gain 25% hp by changing your
exhaust system - alone. Not only that, but if you changed the exhaust
without re-jetting the carb (another change), you would run so lean that
you would burn valves and probably pistons.
Ol' Jim, hisself (Mechanical Engineer, ex-automotive engineer, ex-bike
racer, ex-hot rodder, current full-time grandpop)
charles copeland
In article <NEWTNews.88352...@epix.net>, <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>Mr Copeland <char...@netcom.com> writes in part
>(epithets deleted despite their entertainment value!):
>
>
>acoustic properties of the plumbing with a specific engine
>speed. This is not an important factor in variable speed
>engines in rv service. Use of the term to explain the design
>of any particular set of smoke pipes for a recreational vehicle
>is what we call "bafflegab".
You call if bafflegab because you don't understand engine physics.
>(Also applies to mufflers. Heh heh.)
Keep on running that efficient glass pack.
>The kids that hang around speed shops don't understand that
>what works on the racing circuit is NOT the same stuff that
>sells to teen-age "performance" buffs - and neither category
>has much application in rv's used for travel.
Hotrodders understand engine theory. They spend endless
time and money to figure out how to make a given engine
generate as much HP as possible. Given their designs
purposely move the torque curve up the rpm band, but
their understanding of engines allow them to understand
the physics involved in low rpm applications.
>> Replacing early 80's exhaust with a modern tuned system,
>> modern cats, modern mufflers can easily net 25% increase
>> in HP. That is not slight.
>
>That is also the wildest form of exaggeration. Regardless of
>how old the rig is (more on that below) a 25% increase in
>horsepower flatly *requires* more than exhaust work.
You are absolutely clueless on this Will. Cars in the early
80's were absolutely constipated due to pollution controls,
and inadequate technology to fullfill government limits.
25% HP can easily be gained on these vehicles by updating exhaust.
>It also
>involves a significant increase in engine speed to develop that
>power, with accompanying wear and stress.
You are assuming the engine is running at full efficiency.
Will, stick a straw in your mouth and clothes pin on your nose.
Now see how fast you can run for a sustained period of time.
Now try it again without the straw and clothes pin.
Big difference Huh?
>I repeat: in the absence of hard data, the claims are
>meaningless.
Research it for yourself.
>> You conveniantly deleted my example. Vehicles in the early
>> 80's were extremely consipated due to bad catalytic converter
>> technology and kinked exhaust. Changing out exhaust from heads
>>to tailpipe with a modern tuned system and modern honeycomb
>>cats WILL (excuse the pun) easily gain one double digit %
>>improvement in HP.
>
>Let's make up our minds, here - are we talking history or
>current events? I have often conceded that older rigs can
>see performance improvements, and I suppose some were so badly
>built originally that 10% is possible. But we are not talking
>about '81 cars - we are talking about late-'90's RV's.
You are back tracking Will. I've presented this example
twice and you have finally given in on this one.
>It is my carefully considered opinion that you, Charles, are
>blowing enough smoke to require TWO complete Banks Power Paks -
>one for each end if you get my drift.
Ahh, the old corrosive Will surfaces. At least you haven't
sunk to swearing on this one ... yet.
gary
Steve Cutchen <scut...@phoenix.net> wrote
<A lot of good stuff - but its his *sig line* that takes the prize!>
8^)
>
> --------
> Steve Cutchen O- Nothing screams poor craftsmanship
> scut...@phoenix.net like wrinkly duct tape...
>
Gary - KJ6Q
Dick Hughes
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:51:36 -0500, "Ol' Jim, hisself"
<his...@digital.net> wrote:
>charles copeland wrote:
>>
>
>> >> Replacing early 80's exhaust with a modern tuned system,
>> >> modern cats, modern mufflers can easily net 25% increase
>> >> in HP. That is not slight.
>> >
>> >That is also the wildest form of exaggeration. Regardless of
>> >how old the rig is (more on that below) a 25% increase in
>> >horsepower flatly *requires* more than exhaust work.
>>
>> You are absolutely clueless on this Will. Cars in the early
>> 80's were absolutely constipated due to pollution controls,
>> and inadequate technology to fullfill government limits.
>> 25% HP can easily be gained on these vehicles by updating exhaust.
>>
>
>
>This is BS!! Those constipated '80s V-8s also had a 2-bbl carb with
>dime-size venturii, ultra-low compression ratios, and EGR. With all of
>that against it, there is NO WAY you could gain 25% hp by changing your
>exhaust system - alone. Not only that, but if you changed the exhaust
>without re-jetting the carb (another change), you would run so lean that
>you would burn valves and probably pistons.
>
>Ol' Jim, hisself (Mechanical Engineer, ex-automotive engineer, ex-bike
>racer, ex-hot rodder, current full-time grandpop)
Whoa there Ol' Jim. Gotta step in here. I owned several V-8's in the
80's, and NONE of them had a 2-bbl carb. There is a 1987 Winnebago
sitting in the back yard right now with a very large Rochester 4-bbl.
We are talking about motorhomes here right?
Dick Hughes
Will Rosenberry
>> 25% HP can easily be gained on these vehicles by updating exhaust.
>>
>
>
>This is BS!! Those constipated '80s V-8s also had a 2-bbl carb with
>dime-size venturii, ultra-low compression ratios, and EGR. With all of
>that against it, there is NO WAY you could gain 25% hp by changing your
>exhaust system - alone. Not only that, but if you changed the exhaust
>without re-jetting the carb (another change), you would run so lean that
>you would burn valves and probably pistons.
>
>Ol' Jim, hisself (Mechanical Engineer, ex-automotive engineer, ex-bike
>racer, ex-hot rodder, current full-time grandpop)
I agree with Jim, That is one of the great things about a closed loop
computer system and fuel injection. They will re jet themselves!
(Just be sure to reinstall the O2 sensor in your new exhaust system.
Remember you also need to get air into the engine. My Fathers 1995
F350 460 motor home has an air intake system that has two holes
smaller then a finger. even at idle you can here the air "rushing"
into the motor. I think that changing that would make a bigger change
then the exhaust. Change both and 25%+ increase in POWER could
possible be seen.
Will Rosenberry (not the will)
Roger L. Adams
wi...@epix.net wrote:
I refer you to the same text I have mentioned several
> times (Rx for RV performance & Mileage by John GAraghty) for a
> detailed explanation of WHY this stuff is mostly hype when it
> comes to the rv traveler.
>
>
Will,
Honest question. Why is Garaghty's opinion any more or less correct
than Gale Banks, Doug Thorley, Jerry Jardine, etc.?
Roger
wi...@epix.net
In Article<34AA6D...@uiuc.edu>, <rog...@uiuc.edu> writes:
> Will,
> Honest question. Why is Garaghty's opinion any more or less
>correct than Gale Banks, Doug Thorley, Jerry Jardine, etc.?
>
> Roger
Honest answer: Geraghty (I mispelled his name in a recent post)
is not selling headers. He does dyno testing and field testing
of *recreational vehicles*, has done so for many years, and
publishes the results. I don't agree with him on every issue
but I don't have to wonder whether he is biased.
Banks, Thorley and Jardine all profit from the manufacture and
sales of headers. That doesn't mean they are dishonest, but it
certainly means they present their products in the most
favorable light.
B, T & J also have one other thing in common: they all have
their roots on racing and the hotrod market. Think about it.
Will KD3XR
Roger L. Adams
wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
>
> Banks, Thorley and Jardine all profit from the manufacture and
> sales of headers. That doesn't mean they are dishonest, but it
> certainly means they present their products in the most
> favorable light.
>
Will,
That alone doesn't make their viewpoints invalid.
Surgeons profit from doing surgery. Now ain't that a scary thought?
Roger
Erich Coiner
opinion before you go under the knife.
Erich
wi...@epix.net
In Article<34AA77...@uiuc.edu>, <rog...@uiuc.edu> writes:
I wrote:
>> Banks, Thorley and Jardine all profit from the manufacture
>>and sales of headers. That doesn't mean they are dishonest,
>>but it certainly means they present their products in the most
>> favorable light.
Sez Roger:
> Will,
> That alone doesn't make their viewpoints invalid.
> Surgeons profit from doing surgery. Now ain't that a scary
> thought?
Roger, I don't claim their views are invalid - they are very
good at what they do, which is selling headers. It is good that
you recognize that both they and surgeons both profit from their
work. That's why I am a big fan of getting a second unbiased
opinion. 8-)
Which gets back to your question of why I value Geraghty's views
- he is not biased for or against headers. He will tell on what
vehicles headers offer an advantage, what the tradeoffs are, and
which vehicles will NOT profit from headers. How much of that
do ya get from the guy who wants you to buy headers?
Will KD3XR
Wes Woods
gary wrote:
> WELL, when all the scientific BS is sorted out, I hafta' admit - I
> just
> *like* the sound of a big-block V8 and a "rumbly" set of well
> engineered
> dual exhausts... Never outgrew that part of my misspent youth I guess
> 8^)
> --
Ditto here. BTW isn't it similar logic that has me pulling an RV?
Feelings do play a part. I think even Will would agree to this, just
don't can yourself into believing in numbers to justify it.
Wes
Walla Walla
Wes Woods
Will has been patiently, well maybe I should say doggedly, ;-) trying to
use logic without numbers, to convince the unwashed, er unconvinced ;-),
that just changing the exhaust will not give you double digit gains in
power while at the same time increasing your gas mileage. While I must
say it has been entertaining, it does seem to be going nowhere.
Allow me to add to the mix.
In my younger days I had a '70 Nova that was my hobby-car. Well heck,
not that much younger, I only sold it a couple of years ago. It came
equipped with a 350 cubic inch engine, and single exhaust. When I
started playing with upgrading it the dyno said (drum roll please) about
207 horse power to the rear wheels.
My modifications included the following:
Dual point ignition with a high-output coil
Electric fuel pump
Modified 750 cfm, Holley dbl pumper carb
Single plane manifold, port matched to the manifold gasket
High compression heads, with .202 intake valves, 1.6 exhaust, port
matched to the gasket and ported to the valves, 10 to 1 compression
ratio.
Five angle valve job
Roller rockers
.501 lift cam with about 62 degree lobe centerline
Headers and dual 2.5 inch exhaust with turbo mufflers
And the dyno said: 267 horse power to the rear wheels. These numbers
were verified at the drag strip with time slips in the low 13 high 12
sec range. The horse power can be computed based on the known weight of
the car (3300 lbs) vrs. elapsed time with a complicated formula
(including frontal area and drag etc.) or found on a convenient chart
that someone else developed. I chose the latter and it was very close
as I recall.
Now a net 60 hp gain is a shade over 25 percent, but I can assure you
the bulk of that gain was in engine modification not the exhaust.
Now what about rpm range. All the components and exhaust were tuned for
what I projected would be my max rpms at the end of the 1/4 mile thus
getting the max performance out of the engine in this configuration.
Thus the target rpm was 6500 with shifting at 7200. There was virtually
no performance below 3000 rpm and my mileage (on the road :-)) was about
13 mpg.
Where my peak horsepower before the mods was at about 4500 - 5000 rpm
was shifted to 6000 - 6500 by the mods.
Based on this experience I would support Will's argument re the
trade-offs of exhaust parts *if they affect the peak torque/rpm range*.
In other words if tuned properly this relationship will not change
maintaining your pulling power at the proper rpms. This *could* also
improve your gas mileage *if* it makes the engine more efficient. BUT,
it will not give you a 25 percent gain, nohow, noway.
As Will has pointed out unless you have an engine that is seriously
compromised by the exhaust system you might approach these numbers.
However, in a fuel conscious world where corporations are held to task
on the average fuel consumption of their fleet I can't believe that they
would produce any vehicle that has that poor of an exhaust.
I tow with a 454 P/U that has what sounds like the beginnings of a
warped exhaust manifold. I am considering putting headers on as a
replacement, but only because I believe this is the only effective cure
for the warpage. The exhaust will remain stock (it's already dual with
dual cats) in the hope that the headers will NOT significantly change
the peak torque rpm. Need all the low end grunt I can get.
Maybe more than you wanted to know but it was fun. ;-)
Wes
Walla Walla
charles copeland
In article <34A9A5...@digital.net>,
Ol' Jim, hisself <his...@digital.net> wrote:
>charles copeland wrote:
>>
>
>> >> Replacing early 80's exhaust with a modern tuned system,
>> >> modern cats, modern mufflers can easily net 25% increase
>> >> in HP. That is not slight.
>> >
>> >That is also the wildest form of exaggeration. Regardless of
>> >how old the rig is (more on that below) a 25% increase in
>> >horsepower flatly *requires* more than exhaust work.
>>
>> You are absolutely clueless on this Will. Cars in the early
>> 80's were absolutely constipated due to pollution controls,
>> and inadequate technology to fullfill government limits.
>>
>
>This is BS!! Those constipated '80s V-8s also had a 2-bbl carb with
>dime-size venturii, ultra-low compression ratios, and EGR. With all of
>that against it, there is NO WAY you could gain 25% hp by changing your
>exhaust system - alone. Not only that, but if you changed the exhaust
>without re-jetting the carb (another change), you would run so lean that
>you would burn valves and probably pistons.
Rejetting the carb is an irrelevant small cost. You would also have
to move the crossover pipe closer to the engine to move the torque
curve back down the RPM band to its rightful place.
2-bbl on all V8's? ... what bunk.
Engines in the early 80's did have low compression (~8.5:1), but that
would also make them prime canidates for adding turbos or SC'ers.
Extra gains can be had by have the heads deck shaved to boost the
compression ratio. Then things get complicated with pollution numbers.
Making a 400ci (175hp) 1980's engine make 40hp extra HP is relatively
easy, and the exhaust is the worst bottleneck on such vehicles.
Pete Dumbleton
Thanks, Wes, for one more real-life confirmation of what I have
been reading in the various books, here, and on rec.autos.tech.
BTW, Geraghty wrote a book some years ago re: RVs and
power/economy mods, addressing specific engines and what worked
(or didn't work) for each and the expected range of improvement.
Most seemed to overcome something that the manf didn't do a good
job on. I have to wonder how tightly the manfs have targeted
meeting the specific tests established by the various powers and
how those tests compare to operation in the users' world...
Pete Dumbleton sf...@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Jim & Dee Williamson
Seems like everyone has an opinion on this subject. I want to play
too... so here is mine:
At first look... increasing engine HP sure sounds like a great idea. I'm
Full Timing and pulling a 34' 5th wheel. I have hit a number of hills
where I had to downshift to keep my engine from "luggin" down. If I had
more HP I could often maintain a higher speed and not need to down shift
my transmission at all. But, with increased HP and ~not~ downshifting
wouldn't I be treating that transmission to excessive torque? Certainly
more than if I didn't have increased engine power.
Case in point: The Dodge Cummins diesel engine used in the 2500 series
pickup trucks with manual transmission produces 215 HP. The same engine
in the same truck with an automatic transmission is delibertly set to
produce only 180 HP. I called Cummins (when I was considering truck
buying options) and ask them why they did that. Cummings told me that
they deliver the engine HP that is specified by Dodge. Dodge specifies a
lower power output for engines using automatic transmissions. I don't
know what it would take to get its HP back up to 215; but, I'd bet it
would not be to much of an effort. I'd also bet that the Dodge people
would not recommend it because the tranny would be over taxed.
IMO, I think that anyone who is planning on substantial increases in
engine HP better take a close look at the whole power train. And, in some
cases the suspension too. Or, to put it another way, increasing engine HP
could be, exactly, what you DO NOT want to do.
Happy New Years to all... Jim
DsrtTravlr
I have an idea. If we are talking about a Banks Power Pak, why not just have
the people who own them,or who have owned them, talk about their experiences.
I have never owned an Airstream. Now, would you like to hear my experiences,
opinions, and thoughts on them?
I thought so.
Steve, the DsrtTravlr
wi...@epix.net
In Article<34AAB50D...@whitman.edu>, <woo...@whitman.edu>
writes concerning Garys quip that:
>>I hafta' admit - I just *like* the sound of a big-block V8 and
>>a "rumbly" set of well engineered dual exhausts... Never
>>outgrew that part of my misspent youth I guess
>> 8^)
And Wes sez:
> Ditto here. BTW isn't it similar logic that has me pulling an
>RV? Feelings do play a part. I think even Will would agree to
>this, just don't can yourself into believing in numbers to
>justify it.
HA! Fact is, Will rolls the window down a little just to
hear the 350 CHevy growling through it's 3" plumbing - with
a glasspack sans baffles. Even my wife thinks it's more nice
than naughty!
8-)
Will KD3XR
Ol' Jim, hisself
charles copeland wrote:
>
> In article <34A9A5...@digital.net>,
> Ol' Jim, hisself <his...@digital.net> wrote:
>
You ARE RIGHT, Charles!!! YOU WIN!!!!
Please forgive my audacity in questioning your Soloman-like
pronouncements! I am deeply ashamed of having questioned you. I will
retire into my warren and never bother you again.
Please, O great one, tell me how to get 25% more hp from my anemic '79
Corvette! What kind of exhaust should I install to get an instant
additional 90 hp??
Ol' disgusted, hisself
Sky King
wi...@epix.net wrote:
> In Article<19971229144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> <jhn...@aol.com> writes:
>> I have learned that it is pointless to get in a pissing
>>contest with Wil since he will call you a liar even when you
>>try to give an honest answer.
> As any regular reader can tell, I usually ignore the lunatic
> fringe in this newsgroup, since hecklers contribute nothing but
> noise.
lunatic fringe
hecklers
> I would like to give him another chance...
Oh, thank you Will
> I challenge Jeff - and anyone else who favors changing to
> aftermarket exhaust systems - to prove that they REALLY are
> qualified to say they KNOW what improvement they got.
I challenge you to prove that they are not!!
> If buyers are happy, that's fine, but I object to being asked to
> believe "data" that is mere hearsay, guesswork,
"hearsay, guesswork"....How do you know that????
> A hot-rodder in my youth, I put duals and Smitty's (early name
> for low-restriction glasspack mufflers) on virtually everything
> I drove.
How do you put duals on a Stanley Steamer?
> But the few of you dear readers who think shiny smoke pipes are
> all that Banks says they are and they are saving you some real
> money might do well to wipe the stars outa yer eyes and ask
> yourself a few questions. And you know what those questions
> are! If you don't, you have no business bolting on after-market
> parts.
Ah, another kind word for your fellow R/V'rs.
> Will KD3XR
--
*****************************************************
"Everyone is born left-handed. You turn right-handed
when you commit your first sin"
*****************************************************
Donald J. Dickson
"Ol' Jim, hisself" (his...@digital.net) writes:
Big Snip
>
> Please, O great one, tell me how to get 25% more hp from my anemic '79
> Corvette! What kind of exhaust should I install to get an instant
> additional 90 hp??
There was a news story the other night about how a number of
police/sherriff's depts have outfitted themselves with free equipment that the
military deems obsolete (armoured vehicles, helicopters etc.)
Maybe they would have an obsolete after burner off a fighter jet.I think
that qualifies as a modified exhaust system.
I bet that would get you around slow traffic and up those long hills right
smart. The part I'm not quite sure how to handle is where you would mount
the 1000 gallon fuel tank.
;-)
Don Dickson
--
When you're sending someone Styrofoam, what do you pack it in?
Matt Elliott
Sky King <s...@telerama.com> wrote in article <68hm8e$1...@frogger.lm.com>...
> wi...@epix.net wrote:
> > A hot-rodder in my youth, I put duals and Smitty's (early name
> > for low-restriction glasspack mufflers) on virtually everything
> > I drove.
>
> How do you put duals on a Stanley Steamer?
I am sorry for quoting one who has made it to some of your twit filters,
but doggone it, that's a good one! :)
ROFLMAO!
--
Have A Great Day!
Matt Elliott
m_el...@guaranty.com
http://www.guaranty.com/matt/4matt.html
1-800-818-9344
Steve Cutchen
cx...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald J. Dickson) wrote:
>There was a news story the other night about how a number of
>police/sherriff's depts have outfitted themselves with free equipment that the
>military deems obsolete (armoured vehicles, helicopters etc.)
>
>Maybe they would have an obsolete after burner off a fighter jet.I think
>that qualifies as a modified exhaust system.
>
>I bet that would get you around slow traffic and up those long hills right
>smart. The part I'm not quite sure how to handle is where you would mount
>the 1000 gallon fuel tank.
>
>;-)
>
>Don Dickson
Wasn't there a Darwin Award Winner that strapped a Jet Assisted Takeoff
Device to the top of his Chevy and flew himself into the side of a cliff?
Sky King
wi...@epix.net wrote:
> Are there facts to support a claim of meaningful differences in
> efficiency between various low-restriction mufflers? What are
> these facts, and who has verified them?
> What is the basis for this conclusion? I assert that exhaust
> "tuning" is not a significant factor at moderate engine speeds.
> If you can prove otherwise I will happily admit I am wrong.
> He who argues with a fool, says an old proverb, is doubly a
> fool. I stand by my statement and suggest that Mr. Copeland
> furnish the evidence to substantiate his (vague) claim.
> Will KD3XR
Will: Are you reading impaired???? Will you EVER post the
"FACTS/BASIS/EVIDENCE" to support the statements you make, or will you
continue to publish the sWill that spews forth from your computer?
Steve Cutchen
Sky King <s...@telerama.com> wrote:
>Yada, Yada, Yada...
wi...@epix.net wrote:
>Badda Boom, Badda Bing...
Or, well, it might as well have been. Geez.
And others yelled in as well... <sigh>
I'm a relatively new follower of r.o.r-t, which I follow primarily for my
Dad. (He's on-line, but not Usenet-literate.) I'm surprised at the amount
of what is really adolescent noise on this group. You'd think we were in
rec.autos.misc and arguing "My Mustang's better than your Camaro!" "No
way, Beavis, by Camaro's better... Mustang's Suck!"
It seems everyone *says* "This is my opinion, and you can have yours, too."
But nobody *acts* like it. Kind of like when someone says "No offense,
but..." and then proceeds to offend.
Is this really this common in this group, or have I just unfortunately
stumbled onto a particularly obnoxious thread? I got some very nice
responses to a request I made a few weeks ago on toad recommendations. So
I have some hope that this thread has exploded into non-representative
blather.
But my hopes are dashed when I see other threads titled "Feeding Will's
Ego" and some similar such nonsense about Sky King which I don't see right
now. (I haven't read them, for obvious reasons; so if perchance these are
thoughful and relavent postings, I'm sorry to jump to conclusions.
But I kinda doubt it...
Come on, guys. Give it a rest!
- The guy that posts last does not win.
- The guy that yells the loudest is not better nor more correct.
There is nothing wrong with posting opinion. Nor is there a problem with
posting personal observations such as "I can accelerate faster up an
entrance ramp now." Don't you expect that most readers tend to weight that
kind of comment with the scientific credibility it deserves? It is a valid
personal observation, but not an SAE intrumented test. OK. Fine. So
what?
Take a deep breath, guys. Splash a little cold water. <SIGH>
T, Patrick Culp
Steve Cutchen wrote:
> It seems everyone *says* "This is my opinion, and you can have yours, too."
> But nobody *acts* like it. Kind of like when someone says "No offense,
> but..." and then proceeds to offend.
>
> Is this really this common in this group, or have I just unfortunately
> stumbled onto a particularly obnoxious thread?
> Steve Cutchen O- Nothing screams poor craftsmanship
> scut...@phoenix.net like wrinkly duct tape...
-- Steve, Nope this is a * VERY * common
occurrence in here. It has been going on this way
for at least a year probably more but I wouldn't
know (before my time here). Your comment about
"No offense" offenses hits the nail on the head
and is the MAIN problem with some people in this
NG. It is one thing to have an opinion and
another thing entirely to call someone *STUPID*
for having a differing one. This tactic alone has
run off more than one contributor.
******* T. Patrick Culp *******
paul
Steve Cutchen wrote:
>
> Sky King <s...@telerama.com> wrote:
>
> >Yada, Yada, Yada...
>
> wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
> >Badda Boom, Badda Bing...
>
> Or, well, it might as well have been. Geez.
>
> And others yelled in as well... <sigh>
>
all
sorts of RV's and been to many different campgrounds. One of the best
parts of camping has been the people we have met. I have always said
that
I never met a camper who was not friendly, cordial and heplful. Until
now.
Paul
wi...@epix.net
In Article<34AE54...@erols.com>, <budm...@erols.com> writes
concerning Sky King:
> My wife, kids and I have been camping for twenty years. We
>have had all sorts of RV's and been to many different
>campgrounds. One of the best parts of camping has been the
>people we have met. I have always said that I never met a
>camper who was not friendly, cordial and heplful. Until
> now.
Paul, don't despair. There is no reason to believe Sky King
is a camper. His hobby is evident from his posts!
I share your perception that virtually all campers and rv'ers
we've met have been friendly. The few obnoxious individuals
one meets here do not represent campers.
Will KD3XR
charles copeland
In article <NEWTNews.88384...@epix.net>, <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>In Article<34AE54...@erols.com>, <budm...@erols.com> writes
>concerning Sky King:
>
>> My wife, kids and I have been camping for twenty years. We
>>have had all sorts of RV's and been to many different
>>campgrounds. One of the best parts of camping has been the
>>people we have met. I have always said that I never met a
>>camper who was not friendly, cordial and heplful. Until
>> now.
>
>Paul, don't despair. There is no reason to believe Sky King
>is a camper. His hobby is evident from his posts!
His hobby is to keep you in line Will.
>I share your perception that virtually all campers and rv'ers
>we've met have been friendly. The few obnoxious individuals
>one meets here do not represent campers.
>Will KD3XR
Will, you are the most obnoxious person I've ever encounter
on internet. You have alot of gall to accuse others.
Stan Birch
3 Jan 1998 , char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) wrote:
>Will, you are the most obnoxious person I've ever encounter
>on internet.
Maybe you should read a few of the Copeland posts!
--
Stan Birch
Sharon, Ontario, Canada
Dan Gall
Paul
It has yet to be determined if Sky King IS a camper, or has any
interest in RV's (other than bashing other people)
Dan
paul wrote:
> Steve Cutchen wrote:
> >
> > Sky King <s...@telerama.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Yada, Yada, Yada...
> >
> > wi...@epix.net wrote:
> >
> > >Badda Boom, Badda Bing...
> >
> > Or, well, it might as well have been. Geez.
> >
> > And others yelled in as well... <sigh>
> >
Dan Gall
Charles
Will might be stubborn, yes. Obnoxious? I wouldn't say so.
Will is opiniated and clearly states that in his messages. But he does
state facts and what he views as 'good'. I don't always agree with him or his
views, but I do respect where he is coming from.
While I tend to agree with Will on the Banks question, I can also accept
that others (you perhaps) have a better opinion of aftermartket exhasust
options. You are welcome to attempt to persuade me with anecdotal stories and I
won't demand facts and figures to back you up.
Will, being the type of person he is, wants some 'other' proof than hearsay or
'seat of the pants' feelings - and that's his right.
And as to Will calling someone else obnoxious - that person has done
nothing but call down Will at each and every opportunity, while adding nothing
to general knowledge about RVs. I was amazed how Will could 'take it' so long.
I, for one, am sick and tired of people 'telling me' who I should and
shouldn't believe just because they think so. Will at least gives me his
opinion and then proceeds to tell me why he has that opinion. Others don't even
bother with that, they just say that Will (or someone else) is wrong, opiniated
and doesn't know what he is talking about without giving me the reasons behind
that opinion.
Lighten up
Dan
charles copeland wrote:
> In article <NEWTNews.88384...@epix.net>, <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
> >
> >In Article<34AE54...@erols.com>, <budm...@erols.com> writes
> >concerning Sky King:
> >
> >> My wife, kids and I have been camping for twenty years. We
> >>have had all sorts of RV's and been to many different
> >>campgrounds. One of the best parts of camping has been the
> >>people we have met. I have always said that I never met a
> >>camper who was not friendly, cordial and heplful. Until
> >> now.
> >
> >Paul, don't despair. There is no reason to believe Sky King
> >is a camper. His hobby is evident from his posts!
>
> His hobby is to keep you in line Will.
>
> >I share your perception that virtually all campers and rv'ers
> >we've met have been friendly. The few obnoxious individuals
> >one meets here do not represent campers.
> >Will KD3XR
>
> Will, you are the most obnoxious person I've ever encounter
DsrtTravlr
Paul wrote:
> I have always said
>that
>I never met a camper who was not friendly, cordial and heplful. Until
>now.
>
>Paul
I have to disagree with you, Paul. I, too have been camping for more than 30
(holy dog**** ! ) years.
I have not met many, but I have met some downright unfriendly, uncordial, and
unhelpful people.
But I know that they are just that way, no matter what they are doing -
camping, RVing, or talking on the Net, or walking down Elm Street, USA.
Sour, angry people. Have to argue with everything and everybody.
I am sorry that your 20 year streak had to end with someone in this newsgroup.
Your article has spoken volumes.
You sound like one of the nicest people in the world. It is just too bad that
with the reality of this being a balanced universe that there has to be someone
just as far the other way.
Steve, the DsrtTravlr
Nels M. Hansen
Hate to be a "me toer", but RIGHT ON, Dan. I am about to set my filter on
Sky and Charles, and don't want to - they might have some good info (if
they ever post any). I'm tickled pink to see *information* that disagrees
with someone else - if it's truly info, not just a flame. Makes me think
and learn (takes longer for us old dogs).
Best to all!
--
Nels Hansen
in beautiful Central Oregon
Dan Gall <da...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68ma9i$f...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Dan
charles copeland wrote:
> >>people we have met. I have always said that I never met a
> >>camper who was not friendly, cordial and heplful. Until
> >> now.
> >
JHNINC
Well while all of you "scientists" and "engineers" have been lecturing us poor
old ordinary motorhome owners, I have driven several hundred miles up and down
some rather large mountains at speeds 22 to 25% faster than I used to before I
installed the Banks system. Even though I don't know squat compared to all you
"experts" let me say yet again that what I paid for I got - regardless of what
of why!
Jeff
gary - KJ6Q
OMIGOD! *NOW* you dunnit, and started the whole damn thing all OVER again!
8^)
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
LIFE is a terminal condition...
*NOBODY* gets out alive!
norton wrote in message <34c016fc....@news.accessone.com>...
>jhn...@aol.com (JHNINC) wrote:
>
>>Well while all of you "scientists" and "engineers" have been lecturing us
poor
>>old ordinary motorhome owners, I have driven several hundred miles up and
down
>>some rather large mountains at speeds 22 to 25% faster than I used to
before I
>>installed the Banks system.
>
>Did it improve your miles per gallon? How much? It might pay for
>itself at the rate I burn fuel: 8 mpg.
>