Banks exaust systems
David Lloyd
replacing the exhaust system with a set of Banks headers and a dual
exhaust system. The folks selling the system claim that I can expect a
20% increase in power, a significant increase in mileage and longer
engine life.
Has anyone any experience with this type of conversion? Are those claims
realistic.
This system is not cheap. Is it worth the money?
Thanks.
Dave
Donald J. Dickson
<dll...@cableregina.com> wrote:
Hi Dave
You just jumped into DEEP doo-doo. Banks conversions have been discussed
(argued, commended, screamed at, disparaged, etc. etc. etc.)at regular
intervals. The general concensus is that the Ford 460 does respond
reasonably well but if you make use of the extra power,there won't be any
mileage improvement. It's unlikely you can economically justify the
installation but the satisfaction of better performance may be all that
you need. The % increases claimed are somewhat suspect.
Don Dickson
--
Don Dickson
Remove first "x" from xcx666 to reply by email.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<36F50182...@cableregina.com>,
<dll...@cableregina.com> writes:
> . . . . Banks headers and a dual exhaust system. The folks selling
>the system claim that I can expect a 20% increase in power, a
>significant increase in mileage and longer engine life.
They lied. You will get SOME (not much) more power at high engine
revs, probably NO increase in economy, and if anything the engine will
croak sooner because you are more likely to flog the old girl to get
that little extra hig end power. If your present system is rotted
out, a decent set of duals will make a small but perceptible
difference in power without gutting your budget.
Will KD3XR
DJOsborn
>You will get SOME (not much) more power at high engine
>revs . . . .
For reasons that are not understood by some of us, wi...@epix.net contimues
to seem to think that exhaust system improvements (including headers) ONLY WORK
AT THE TOP END of the RPM range. This is SIMPLY NOT TRUE!
Different exhaust system designs produce improvements at various points in
the RPM range. Some designs are indeed optimized for high horsepower at high
RPM, but others are optimized for increased torque at low- and mid- RPM ranges.
The Banks design is of the latter type.
The Banks system appears to be of very high quality design, materials, and
workmanship. However, no one except the owner of the vehicle can say if it is
worth the premium price.
73,
David, N8DO; FMCA 147762
The correct address is djosborn at aol dot com
Jerry
power increase but I've never heard of anyone getting enough milage increase
to pay for the package unless you drove forever and a day.
David Lloyd wrote in message <36F50182...@cableregina.com>...
>I have a 94 Shasta class C mh with a Ford 460 in it. I am considering
>exhaust system. The folks selling the system claim that I can expect a
>20% increase in power, a significant increase in mileage and longer
>engine life.
steve
Well said, David. They are indeed exhaust header and systems that
will work at all ranges. Headers are tuned for the job that they do.
The size of header tubes and lenghts of the tubes before it gets to
the collector has a lots to do with what the header will do for you.
Also the collector length has a effect on the header to do it job.
As I have work on engine and chassie dyno's, you can see what types
of headers and exhaust system work better at making horsepower and
torque. You can see the effects of just changing springs in the
dist for the weights advan for timing. It all can make a difference.
But not all are for that reason. If a proper tune header and
exhaust system are installed, you can and will see a mileage increase.
A exhaust header that is tuned for a drag car would not be the same
as for a street car, but you could get one that will work well on a
street/strip car. I could go on and on, but I won't for a few reason.
I know that Will on the hill will be wanting DATA.
But it like this, I know what will work and can work, so that all
the DATA that I need..
Steve
27 years as a Master Auto and Truck Tech.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Unknown
<dll...@cableregina.com> wrote:
>I have a 94 Shasta class C mh with a Ford 460 in it. I am considering
>replacing the exhaust system with a set of Banks headers and a dual
>exhaust system. The folks selling the system claim that I can expect a
>20% increase in power, a significant increase in mileage and longer
>engine life.
>Has anyone any experience with this type of conversion? Are those claims
>realistic.
>This system is not cheap. Is it worth the money?
A feller told me the stock headers on my 94 Ford are quite similar to
those sold by the Banks outfit. It's what's behind those headers that
needs improvement. So I had larger exhaust piping and a More-Flo
muffler installed at moderate cost.
The results? Noticeable, though not dramatic improvement in power at
all RPM ranges; little or no improvement in fuel economy.
for what it's worth.
Gary - KJ6Q
.
>
>They lied. You will get SOME (not much) more power at high engine
>revs, probably NO increase in economy, and if anything the engine will
>croak sooner because you are more likely to flog the old girl to get
>that little extra hig end power. If your present system is rotted
>out, a decent set of duals will make a small but perceptible
>difference in power without gutting your budget.
>
>Will KD3XR
UMmmm - well, I hate to disagree - but the Banks Stinger exhaust system
was the very first mod to my '91 Dodge/Cummins - and absolutely produced
the most noticeable improvement in turbo boost and observable
performance - closely followed by the addition of the Banks intercooler.
Can't say about the old girl's liklihood to turn up her toes
prematurely - she's only got a bit under 100,000 miles on her, so she's
still a teenager... I'll get back to you when she hits middle age... in
another 10 years or so...
Gary - KJ6Q
>
>
>
Elliott Roberts
"ne...@new.com" wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 08:26:10 -0600, David Lloyd
> <dll...@cableregina.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a 94 Shasta class C mh with a Ford 460 in it. I am considering
> >replacing the exhaust system with a set of Banks headers and a dual
> >exhaust system. The folks selling the system claim that I can expect a
> >20% increase in power, a significant increase in mileage and longer
> >engine life.
> >Has anyone any experience with this type of conversion? Are those claims
> >realistic.
> >This system is not cheap. Is it worth the money?
>
> I have a 91 Coachman Class C with a 460 in it.
I installed the kit from the converter back, I did get an
increase in passing power but no difference in mpg. I am
happy with it. A before and after crossing of I-80 in
Wyoming told me I was glad I spent the money.
Elliott Roberts
Murfreesboro TN
Brian Thomason
reduce back pressure and increase performance and economy?
wi...@epix.net wrote in message ...
>
>In Article<36F50182...@cableregina.com>,
><dll...@cableregina.com> writes:
>
>> . . . . Banks headers and a dual exhaust system. The folks selling
>>the system claim that I can expect a 20% increase in power, a
>>significant increase in mileage and longer engine life.
>
LHWMAW
Powerpack and TransCommand module (about $2,000) installed, contact George
Johnson at GEO...@AOL.COM.
George says it's money well spent.
Cheers,
Larry Woodard
PS Tell George I sent you... Grin
duke cola
Sorry, your 27 years as a master auto tech is no match for the local
naysayers brain. Face it, he knows everything and you are wrong,
despite any "data" or evidence you might provide, no matter what. :-)
I fought this battle with the idiot over 3 years ago when he told me
that I was imagining the 2mpg increase I got from installing a Jardine
header/exhaust. Also, the power increase I got was imagined too. At
first, he wouldn't fess up at all that these systems could make
improvements. Then after about a year of being bombarded with
testimonials, he finally conceded that Fords could get improvements.
He's sticking with his mindset though in Chevy's, etc. IMHO, I just
think he likes to cause controvery. Generally, I've been ignoring his
for some time now but just thought I'd jump in for old time sakes.
R/Bob
steve wrote:
>
> In article <19990321154559...@ng08.aol.com>,
> djos...@aol.commnet.net (DJOsborn) wrote:
> > Wi...@epix.net writes:
> >
> > >You will get SOME (not much) more power at high engine
duke cola
improvement in mpg's. You generally have a choice, go faster or better
mpg or even a comprimise of both.
Bob
Elliott Roberts wrote:
>
> "ne...@new.com" wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 08:26:10 -0600, David Lloyd
> > <dll...@cableregina.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I have a 94 Shasta class C mh with a Ford 460 in it. I am considering
> > >replacing the exhaust system with a set of Banks headers and a dual
> > >exhaust system. The folks selling the system claim that I can expect a
> > >20% increase in power, a significant increase in mileage and longer
> > >engine life.
Elliott Roberts
duke cola wrote:
> Elliot, If you didn't use the extra power to go faster, you would see an
> improvement in mpg's. You generally have a choice, go faster or better
> mpg or even a comprimise of both.
>
You are probably right. I don't feel like I am pushing my unit
any harder, except in heavy traffic( I like to keep my distance)
Regardless, the $550 I spent made life on the road easier
better mpg or not.
duke cola
When I put the header/exhaust on my MH, I got 2 mpg more but that was
traveling at the same old speed I had been going. When I realized I
could go up the hills at 50 instead of 40, the mpgs went down. I had a
choice of where to use the benefit. My current MH has a diesel with
adequate sized exhaust. I didn't need to improve on it. In fact, one
of those "big bad RV shops" actually convinced me not to make any
changes, even though I was ready to dish out the bucks.
R/Bob
wi...@epix.net
In Article<7d46fk$3v0$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
<davi...@spamlessgte.net> writes to take mild exception to my
comments that:
>>They lied. You will get SOME (not much) more power at high engine
>>revs, probably NO increase in economy, and if anything the engine
>>will croak sooner because you are more likely to flog the old girl
>>to get that little extra hig end power. . . .
Sez he:
> UMmmm - well, I hate to disagree - but the Banks Stinger exhaust
>system was the very first mod to my '91 Dodge/Cummins - and
>absolutely produced the most noticeable improvement in turbo boost
>and observable performance - closely followed by the addition of the
>Banks intercooler. Can't say about the old girl's liklihood to turn
>up her toes prematurely - she's only got a bit under 100,000 miles on
>her, so she's still a teenager... I'll get back to you when she hits
>middle age... in another 10 years or so...
For clarification, first note that there's a huge difference between
modifications you have done on a diesel that was just dying to get out
of the Dodge detuning mode and the average Joe dreaming about getting
the miraculous improvements implied by Banks ads for their old gas
hog. Your obvious level of automotive expertise makes it possible for
you to make beneficial changes impossible for the ignorant average guy
lusting after more power. And finally, if you read carefully what I
wrote about the longevity issue, I wrote: " . . if anything the engine
will croak sooner." ~~~~~~~~~~~
If you recall, there was a claim (totally unjustified IMO) that the
Banks system would EXTEND the life of the engine. I maintain that if
the truth were known, those who hot-rod their engines almost
inevitably wear 'em out or trash 'em sooner.
Will KD3XR
wi...@epix.net
Several people and a couple of idjits have made statements like
this:
> Different exhaust system designs produce improvements at various
>points in the RPM range. Some designs are indeed optimized for high
>horsepower at high RPM, but others are optimized for increased torque
>at low- and mid- RPM ranges. The Banks design is of the latter type.
People who believe this sort of thing are victims of techno-babble by
header pushers. The concept of tuned exhaust systems (a simpler way
of saying "optimized") is simply irrelevant for the typical RV. The
impact of the size, length, and acoustic characteristics of the
downstream plumbing on exhaust dynamics is so great compared to the
"optimized" design of the collector/manifold/header that these kind of
claims are simply untrue. The only way a system can be said to be
optimized or tuned for a specific engine speed is when all elements
from the cam configuration and cylinder head porting through the end
of the tailpipe are in a harmonious relationship for that narrow speed
range. . . and typically the rig does NOT run well "off the pipes".
Wake up and smell the roses, folks. Rip Van Winkle has awakened, and
the '60's and '70's are in the past. The lethargic engineers in
Detroit and elsewhere have learned fully as well as Banks Engineering
staff what it takes to balance efficiency, noise control, and
practical plumbing limitations. Unless you have a older rig with
restrictive plumbing and warped manifolds, do not waste your money.
A decent low-restriction dual exhaust system will do as much for your
460 Ford as the finest set of shiny smoke pipes.
Exhaust "tuning" is of limited effectiveness even in all-out racing
applications for the simple reason that any 'scavenging' effect only
works well in a very narrow rpm band. In the real world, the function
of the exhaust system is merely to route exhaust gas away from the
engine with minimal noise and restriction.
Believe otherwise if you like, but tales of amazing increases in power
from a set of headers are almost always incredible. Look up that
word.
Will KD3XR
Jerry
banks says they will give some extra power IF you correct the timing and
fuel management systems but at low rpm and under a continous load ( towing
or MH) I'll bet they dont add a tea cup of fuel savings in 20,000 miles.
wi...@epix.net
> Steve,
> Sorry, your 27 years as a master auto tech is no match for the local
> naysayers brain. Face it, he knows everything and you are wrong,
> despite any "data" or evidence you might provide, no matter what.
:-)
> I fought this battle with the idiot over 3 years ago when he told me
> that I was imagining the 2mpg increase I got from installing a
Jardine
> header/exhaust. Also, the power increase I got was imagined too. At
> first, he wouldn't fess up at all that these systems could make
> improvements. Then after about a year of being bombarded with
> testimonials, he finally conceded that Fords could get improvements.
> He's sticking with his mindset though in Chevy's, etc. IMHO, I just
> think he likes to cause controvery. Generally, I've been ignoring
his
> for some time now but just thought I'd jump in for old time sakes.
Another example of personal bashing rather than help for the newbie.
For the benefit of those who were NOT around 3-4 years ago when this
subject was beat into the ground, the issue has always been one of
credibility. Many aftermarket parts are available to enhance
performance, and a few - correctly applied to the right rig - are
truly useful to the knowledgeable rv'er. But many of the suppliers
(Banks is only one of them) greatly exaggerate the benefits, sometimes
virtually to the point of outright fraud. Testimonials about huge
improvements in power and economy should be scrutinized with care.
Unsubstantiated claims from people like Bob Coke, who obviously have a
chip on their shoulder the size of Long Island, do NOT constitute
proof that a certain gadget will help YOUR rig to the extent claimed.
Knowledgeable individuals who know their machinery and understand the
tradeoffs can certainly realize SOME benefits by hot-rodding. I have
no problem admitting that - I have done it myself for many years. But
in the process I have learned that there is NO FREE LUNCH. Anything
you do to get more engine power produces more stress on the whole rig,
reduces reliability, and increases fuel consumption. People who
advertise MORE POWER AND MORE ECONOMY are almost always giving you a
half-truth. And as often as not they are trading in pure hype.
If you are the sort of person who really believes you will see an 18%
improvement in fuel mileage by bolting a set of Banks headers on your
RV, you are EXACTLY the sort of sucker that keeps the money flowing in
the 'performance' business.
Will KD3XR
Stephen Bourgholtzer
whatever always seems to directly follow their review? Tends to make me
wonder a bit about impartiality of the data. Personally, I'm happy with
my 'tuned' exhaust with stock headers. It's self-made where the
corrosive by-products of the exhaust have over the years removed most
restrictions in the flow. At least most people comment it sounds pretty
non-restrictive. :^)
Steve
Donald J. Dickson
> Several people and a couple of idjits have made statements like
> this:
>
> > Different exhaust system designs produce improvements at various
> >points in the RPM range. Some designs are indeed optimized for high
> >horsepower at high RPM, but others are optimized for increased torque
> >at low- and mid- RPM ranges. The Banks design is of the latter type.
>
> People who believe this sort of thing are victims of techno-babble by
> header pushers. The concept of tuned exhaust systems (a simpler way
> of saying "optimized") is simply irrelevant for the typical RV. The
> impact of the size, length, and acoustic characteristics of the
> downstream plumbing on exhaust dynamics is so great compared to the
> "optimized" design of the collector/manifold/header that these kind of
> claims are simply untrue.
Further to Will's comments, why pay for the Bank's name when you can buy
low restriction mufflers from companies like Walker. Their Dynamax line
sounds like a stock muffler but when combined with their hydro-formed
exhaust pipes(no wrinkles at the curves) you get all the benefit with half
the cost. In my case the engine temp had an instaneous drop of about 15F
with the new pipes and muffler installed instead of the stock GM parts.
Now I tow at the same temp as the truck used to run when empty. BTW
Jardine mufflers are made (or at least they were a couple of years ago) by
Walker to Jardine's specs. I can't give all the credit to the exhaust
system because I also had an engine tuneup, but this year when driving to
and from Florida there was not one hill where the truck dropped out of 3rd
gear. Last year there were several instances where it would drop to 2nd
near the top of a long grade but in all cases the temp ran consistently
lower..
Gary - KJ6Q
>the truth were known, those who hot-rod their engines almost
>inevitably wear 'em out or trash 'em sooner.
>
>Will KD3XR
>
I'll have to plead guilty to that - I increased power in order to USE
it, and have! BUT, I am also pretty sure that if driven sanely after
the mods, economy AND longevity could be improved - it's just that
most are like me, so likely WON'T see the "improvements" claimed - if
they actually existed...
Gary - KJ6Q
Alan_Hepburn
wrote:
>
> wi...@epix.net wrote in message ...
> I maintain that if
> >the truth were known, those who hot-rod their engines almost
> >inevitably wear 'em out or trash 'em sooner.
>
> it, and have! BUT, I am also pretty sure that if driven sanely after
> the mods, economy AND longevity could be improved - it's just that
> most are like me, so likely WON'T see the "improvements" claimed - if
> they actually existed...
>
improve the performance of a 1990 F350 Crew Cab but also drastically
increase the towing capacity at the same time: sell it and buy a
new F450! Took delivery last Friday and now I can stay within the
customary 75% guideline with my 10,000 lb fifth wheel! With a
26,000 lb GCWR I'll really have to work at it to approach the limit!
And you can bet I'll be using the performance increase that Navistar
built in to the new Powerstrokes - 500 lb-ft of torque will get me
up just about any hill I want to pull my trailer up.
Alan Hepburn
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
AJKing554
Banks' engineers, let me say that Will is correct. Banks' claims of improved
durability are pure bunk. Getting more output from an engine generally
degrades durability. The Banks systems do work pretty well at improving
performance for the following reasons:
1. The Dodge diesel is detuned because no automatic transmission, unless made
by Allison, can take the torque of the B5.9.
2. Both the Ford and Chevy big block motorhome engines suffer with poor, high
backpressure exhaust systems. Why? Because we the consumer scream bloody
murder every time something goes up in price. It ain't hard to get lower
backpressure and increased horsepower with tuned headers and four inch diameter
pipes that cost upwards of $2,000. Don't assume the Chevy and Ford engineers
are stupid. We aren't, however, we do have constraints.
The engine durability problem at higher power levels is not a big deal with the
gasoline engines as we run them on dynamometers with open headers. The base
engine structure can take it.
Transmissions are different. The GM 4L80E is strong and is able to "learn"
changes in engine output. The Ford E4OD doesn't have such a good reputation
and Banks recommends installing a shift kit along with the exhaust system.
Alan
ajki...@aol.com
Henry Horrocks
If the engine is more efficient why wouldn't it use less fuel as long as all
other variables remain the same?
AJKing554 <ajki...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990401190518...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> As an addendum to my previous post, I should have also said that exhaust
system
> backpressure has virtually no effect whatsoever on fuel economy. Anyone
who
> says they are getting higher economy after a new exhaust system is
suffering
> from the Hawthorne effect.
>
> Alan
> ajki...@aol.com
Gary - KJ6Q
REAL solid - and THEN let's hear ya lecture us as to how backpressure
don't affect economy.... 'Course, the engine won't RUN, so I guess
"economy" *might* be REAL good...
You DID claim to be a "GM engineer" didn'ya?
GM must be REAL proud, "Hawthorne" and all...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
===================
ONLY in America, could a man who clearly
stated his "Loathing of the military" be elected
President and Commander-in-Chief by the adoring
voters of his party - and THEN with no discernable pangs
of conscience, send THEIR sons and daughters to fight
and die in the EXACT same sort of conflict HE so cowardly
avoided and demonstrated against... It's no wonder so many
in our military despise HIM so much in return!
====================
AJKing554 wrote in message
<19990401190518...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
AJKing554
AJKing554
throttle. Part thottle backpressure gets little benefit from such systems and
even then has a relatively small effect on economy. And at full throttle you
are getting more power from the engine and using more fuel. In the mountaims I
would expect a Banks equipped motorhome to get worse mileage.
JDavis1277
of slightly less restictive exhaust.
When you don't know potatoes about the subject, just be sarcastic, then you
win?
Butch
wi...@epix.net
In Article<19990402083531...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
<jdavi...@aol.com> writes <nastiness snipped>:
> When did we start talking about closed exhaust instead of slightly
> less restictive exhaust.
There is, of course, a huge difference between shutting off exhaust
flow and having less-than-optimimum breathing. It's pretty clear that
exhaust must be free to escape from the engine to approach design
efficiency, and it is well established that significant restriction is
harmful from a performance POV.
However, the law of diminishing returns applies strongly. There is a
point (different for each engine and it's operating speeds, etc)
beyond which further reduction in 'back pressure' produces no
measurable improvement in efficiency. Weekend racers soon learn that
running with open pipes may (when the engine is not tuned for that
condition) not only fail to produce any good results, but can actually
cause POORER performance and even engine damage.
Those readers with an extensive, in-depth knowledge of the dynamics of
internal combustin engine exhaust design may well be able to extract
additional desirable performance from the rv without setting the thing
on fire or creating a noise nuisance. But common folks intent on
saving money by buying fancy smoke pipes should look into Florida
swamp land as an alternative investment.
Will KD3XR
JDavis1277
Concur, absolutely.
My less than well written, less than kind post was in response to a silly post
from Gary.
He reminds me of the guy, when I was a teenager, who installed a split exhaust
maniford and dual exhausts with Smittys and thought he had a lot more power
because the car made a lot more noise. I think we called it ear horsepower.
Now, if he had installed a Wayne head on that Chevy he may have made a few
extra hp. :=)
Butch
John Davies
JDavis1277 wrote in message
<19990402102014...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>He reminds me of the guy, when I was a teenager, who installed a split
exhaust
>maniford and dual exhausts with Smittys and thought he had a lot more power
>because the car made a lot more noise. I think we called it ear
horsepower.
>Now, if he had installed a Wayne head on that Chevy he may have made a few
>extra hp. :=)
>
>Butch
And that's a lot like a brain dead teenager putting ultra low profile tires
on his stock Civic wheels to make it go faster. Of course he neglects to
correct the speedometer.
John Davies
wi...@epix.net
In Article<19990402102014...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
<jdavi...@aol.com> writes:
> My less than well written, less than kind post was in response to a
>silly post from Gary.
Sometimes writers (including yrs trly) will respond to an error or
exaggeration more sharply than necessary. The truth is hard to
portray accurately, but in the case of exhaust systems 'perceptions'
make a lot more sales than credible data could ever produce. Which is
why the "sound of power" makes it big in marketing!
I liked the expression used below:
> He reminds me of the guy, when I was a teenager, who installed a
>split exhaust maniford and dual exhausts with Smittys and thought he
>had a lot more power because the car made a lot more noise. I think
>we called it ear horsepower.
Testimonials from individuals who are proud of their great wisdom in
selecting aftermarket gadgets very often reflect more of that pride
than they would ever admit otherwise. "Ear horsepower" kinda sums it
up nicely!
But it is also a fact that SOME small improvement can sometimes be
demonstrated when restrictive factory exhaust systems are replaced
with free-flowing plumbing. The question is, can the numbers be as
huge as claimed by ad writers or enthusiastic and prideful buyers?
Will KD3XR
Stephen Bourgholtzer
many even in this category who put on such tires for that reason. Maybe
a few could be fooled into thinking that a nice byproduct of the mod is
they can accelerate or go faster, but if you are referring perchance to
a close relative - maybe he'll get fewer speeding tickets now!
:^)
Steve
Mike Niemela
who were into serious drivtrain and chasis modifications for drag racing
refered to the "lots of noise but no go" cars as "Sonic Dragsters".
The old flathead Fords and Chevy sixes would respond well to a lot of
the modifications but I never saw noise make any horsepower. 8¿)
Best
Mike N
Gary - KJ6Q
Mike Niemela wrote in message
<8131-370...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
the modifications but I never saw noise make any horsepower. 8ż)
Best
Mike N
UMMmm - how many QUIET dragsters or Indy race cars have you seen
lately? HMMmmm, I wonder why they don't put mufflers on those
things....
Gary - KJ6Q
J Brenner wrote in message
I never saw noise make any horsepower. 8¿)
>:(
>:(Best
>:(Mike N
>:(
>:(
>:(UMMmm - how many QUIET dragsters or Indy race cars have you seen
>:(lately? HMMmmm, I wonder why they don't put mufflers on those
>:(things....
>
>Then just put one of those engines in your rig. Wonder how many miles
you'll
>get on it before you destroy the drive train or the engine dies? That
was
>a silly thing to say.
As much as I appreciate Mikes usual comments, those who would claim:
"I never saw noise make any horsepower"
Haven't spent much time around high performance equipment! AND, the
issue IS, is there any way that the exhaust system of a given engine
can be designed to improve its performance over what is normally
provided by the factory. It should be pretty implicit that modified
exhaust systems USUALLY are designed around larger and more
streamlined tubing, and lower back pressure muffling systems -
therefor, they can usually also be expected to deliver more decibles
of sound output than their stock equivelent. Race car owners are every
bit as informed and involved in obtaining maximum output from THEIR
engines as the rest of us are likely to be, and it should be obvious
to most that they essentially run tuned headers and not much else as
their informed and chosen method of highest possible power production.
They're LOUD, but they are also efficient and fast!
THerefor, for an otherwise well informed individual to claim about ANY
practical engine:
"I never saw noise make any horsepower"
Is a rather frivilous and poorly thought out statement - just as YOURS
is abusive and ignorant of common mechanical design practices in
relation to internal combustion exhaust systems. The principle of
unrestricted exhaust gas flow, or tuned systems to enhance engine
efficiency at a specific RPM is quite common, and both applicable and
potentially beneficial to ALL engines, NOT merely race engines!
>Jerry Brenner
>Lumber Cartel Unit #261 (TINLC)
ROMEO RAABE
this subject. I put on headers and dual exhaust on a 75 Ford 351W in a
E350 class C years ago and got NO increase in power or economy from it.
Now, with an 87 Ford 6.9 diesel I tried again to put on larger pipes
with a low restriction muffler and the pipe exits in front of the right
rear wheel (shorter plumbing) and it made no noticeable difference. At
least on this one I have the excuse that I needed a new muffler and had
a local shop come close to duplicating what Banks would have sold me for
a fraction of the cost.
The point is - buyer beware. lots of people have spent big bucks on
exhaust and were disappointed.
Romeo Raabe
J Brenner
:(
:(
:(
:(Mike Niemela wrote in message
:(<8131-370...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
:(The "Ear Horsepower" thing takes me back a number of years. Those of
:(us
:(who were into serious drivtrain and chasis modifications for drag
:(racing
:(refered to the "lots of noise but no go" cars as "Sonic Dragsters".
:(
:(The old flathead Fords and Chevy sixes would respond well to a lot of
:(the modifications but I never saw noise make any horsepower. 8ż)
:(
:(Best
:(Mike N
:(
:(
:(UMMmm - how many QUIET dragsters or Indy race cars have you seen
:(lately? HMMmmm, I wonder why they don't put mufflers on those
:(things....
Then just put one of those engines in your rig. Wonder how many miles you'll
get on it before you destroy the drive train or the engine dies? That was
a silly thing to say.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<37068fb8...@news.earthlink.net>,
<bsn...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Just one Banks system data. My Ford 460 with 15,000 miles in a 34
> foot motor home. Nothing done to the engine other than installing a
> K&N filter, not the Banks setup. Installed the Banks system by the
> book. No other changes.
>
> Actual dynamometer readings at the rear wheels:
>
> Before: 165hp
> After: 215hp
>
> No change in mileage.
>
> You figure it out if the system made an improvement.
OK, I think I have figured it out: you think it has more power because
of an apparent huge increase on the dyno. Do I have it right?
Being somewhat familiar with dynamometers and how they are used, I am
aware that the operator has a lot to do with the numbers that appear.
It is entirely possible for said operator to use his considerable
influence to create the impression that what his firm just sold you is
really great stuff. Are you certain that the data you got is
completely objective and accurate?
If you ARE sure, then you'll be able to tell us in what gear the
tranny was, what the operating temperatures were, and of course at
what engine speed these power figures were calculated.
Open exhaust systems and clean filters are indeed "better" than
restrictive ones - but though we are regularly subjected to misleading
bafflegab to the contrary, they have little or no effect at low-to-
medium engine speeds. The reason is simply that the volume of exhaust
gas is moderate at lower speeds. To get the kind of improvement this
party reports, it is necessary to run the engine approximately 30%
faster.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the owner was not flim-flammed
by the dyno operator, what effect would 30% higher output have on
long-term engine reliability? Does 30% more power come without a
corresponding increase in fuel consumption, and if so, by what
miracle?
You figure it out.
Will KD3XR
DJOsborn
>Open exhaust systems and clean filters are indeed "better" than
>restrictive ones - but though we are regularly subjected to misleading
>bafflegab to the contrary, they have little or no effect at low-to-
>medium engine speeds. The reason is simply that the volume of exhaust
>gas is moderate at lower speeds.
I don't know why, but wi...@epix.net continues to write these inaccurate
statements. Numerous, readily-available, literature sources clearly indicate
that different header configurations are optimized at different RPM ranges.
Some are optimized for top-end horsepower, while others are optimized for low
and mid-range torque, with less top-end horsepower than others provide. These
are the facts, plain and simple. No matter what wi...@epix.net believes, the
facts remain the same. He has in the past proven his ability to state
incorrect "facts" here, and it appears that nothing has changed.
Recommendation: Study ALL available information, even if you have to
search long and hard for it, taking your time to learn the facts. Don't
believe any statement made here unless you can independently very its accuracy.
73,
David, N8DO; FMCA 147762
The correct address is djosborn at aol dot com
wi...@epix.net
Chronic heckler <djos...@aol.commnet.net> writes <personal attacks
snipped>:
> Numerous, readily-available, literature sources clearly indicate
> that different header configurations are optimized at different RPM
> ranges.
I have yet to see ONE credible, unbiased source making this point in a
fashion that is directly applicable to the entire exhaust system on a
typical recreational vehicle and demonstrates significant enhancement
at low-to-medium engine rpms.
For those who just arrived from Mars, "headers" is an expression used
to describe exhaust collectors made from bent & welded pipe rather
than cast as is the normal "exhaust manifold". With rare exceptions,
the design of these parts (as I stated) has VERY little impact on
engine performance at low to medium engine speeds - Osborn,
unsubstantiated testimonials and & ad hype to the contrary
notwithstanding. However large or small, performance effects
attributed to "headers" on a bench in some lab are functionally
irrelevant once practical catalytic converters, mufflers and tailpipes
are added to the system on real vehicles.
(FYI, most recent model GM 454's come from the factory with "headers",
reportedly as a means of minimizing warpage problems long associated
with iron manifolds on big-block gas engines.)
There is an enormous quantity of misleading information in the
marketplace on this topic. Virtually all "performance" magazines
(whose advertising income depends heavily on the support of - guess
what - after-market 'performance' enhancers) periodically publish
reports about their tests of advertisers' goods. If you are surprised
when said articles seldom say discouraging things, then you probably
were surprised when Bill Clinton finally admitted he was lying!
No reasonable person will claim that ALL aftermarket add-ons &
modifications are worthless or harmful. Banks Engineering makes some
good products that WILL (on some vehicles) somewhat enhance
performance. What is at issue is HOW MUCH change one might expect.
If money is no object, buy what you like and don't even ask if it is
"worth it". But if you are thinking of spending $2000 with some
expectation of realizing enough savings to get your money back, don't
spend $2000 on shiny smoke pipes. The best you can realistically count
on is a little more top-end power.
Will KD3XR
DJOsborn
>Chronic heckler <djos...@aol.commnet.net> writes <personal attacks
>snipped>:
Go back and read my post, and you'll see that there were NO personal
attacks to snip!! However, most people would likely consider wi...@epix.net
calling me a "chronic heckler" as a "personal attack." Why is his calling
others names not considered to be a "personal attack," and yet when others
simply state well-known facts it IS cansidered to be an attack? Really
strange!!
He continues to write:
>I have yet to see ONE credible, unbiased source making this point in a
>fashion that is directly applicable to the entire exhaust system on a
>typical recreational vehicle and demonstrates significant enhancement
>at low-to-medium engine rpms.
For the record: I believe him. If he refuses to look at the sources that
are out there, he will NEVER see them! After all, I can be in a room full of
deadly snakes, and never see them. The fact that I refuse to see them doesn't,
however, in any way change the fact that they are there!!!
If any of you want to believe what wi...@epix.net says, that's fine with
me. However, the best advice is still to look REALLY hard to find ALL
available data and then learn from it. To me, that is a far better course of
action than to blindly believe someone who doesn't want to see information that
just might educate him and cause him to revise some opinions based on very old
information and experience.
Believe it or not, technology does march on, and many statements that were
true 30 or 40 years ago are no longer accurate. I don't know about anyone else
here, but I'm anxious to listen, read, and LEARN!!
Mike Niemela
They dont put mufflers on them in order to eliminate back pressure and
allow the engine to breath. The noise still dosent produce the power,
it is simply a symptom of one method of handeling the exhaust.
Many of us used to run large mufflers on our muscle cars as it was kind
of fun to have a "sleeper".
My wife's 78 T-Bird was a classic example, looked like Mrs Putts going
for groceries but was an amazing road car. Back in the days of higher
speed limits and open roads. 8¿)
Best
Mike N
wi...@epix.net
In Article<19990403124648...@ng111.aol.com>,
<djos...@aol.commnet.net> writes, presumably to respond to my comment
that:
>>I have yet to see ONE credible, unbiased source making this point
[Osborn claims some headers improve power substantially
at low to medium rpm]
>>in a fashion that is directly applicable to the entire exhaust
>>system on a typical recreational vehicle and demonstrates
>>significant enhancement at low-to-medium engine rpms.
His complete response follows:
::sigh::
OK, having spent several years of my life studying and trying to
understand federal regulations and legal documents, I have developed
a certain ability to translate obfuscatory bafflegab into ordinary
English. If I understand this correctly, it is Mr. Osborn's way of
saying:
"I don't know of any credible sources to back up my claims."
How'd I do?
Will KD3XR
wi...@epix.net
In Article<10293-37...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
<Tenc...@webtv.net> writes:
> They dont put mufflers on them [race cars] in order to eliminate
> back pressure and allow the engine to breathe. . .
Permit me to point out that is is possible to dramatically reduce the
noise level from exhaust WITHOUT increasing back pressure enough to
affect performance. As you know from your sleeper T'Bird. I would
suggest that more important reason racers don't try very hard to
muffle exhaust roar is the weight and bulk associated with good low-
restriction mufflers.
Many so-called "glasspak" mufflers do not create any more 'back
pressure' than an equivalent length of pipe. Of course many other
designs (particularly reverse-flow, baffled mufflers) do introduce
sizable pressure drop at high flow rates.
Will KD3XR
DJOsborn
>OK, having spent several years of my life studying and trying to
>understand federal regulations and legal documents, I have developed
>a certain ability to translate obfuscatory bafflegab into ordinary
>English. If I understand this correctly, it is Mr. Osborn's way of
>saying:
>
> "I don't know of any credible sources to back up my claims."
>
>How'd I do?
You did the same thing you normally do: You can't support what you write
with any credible source, so you call my writing "obfuscatory bafflegab." The
"gab" of mine that has served to "baffle" you in the past has not baffled
anyone else. I suspect it doesn't this time, either. The rest of the readers
here have not demonstrated any problem comprehending what I write. I continue
to wonder why you do.
As to providing "sources," I have provided them here in the past, and you
have (on more than one occasion) refused to take the time to read them.
Because you have refused in the past, I see no reason to offer any sources at
this point. (If anyone else is interested in what I've written in the past, go
to http://www.dejanews.com, and search for my callsign, N8DO.)
The real question is why you continue to do your usual name-calling,
instead of providing credible sources to support what you say. I suspect it is
for the same reason as in the past: You can't.
The facts are not changed in any way by what you call me or my writing.
That has been demonstrated to be true in the past, and it is true now.
Bottom line: **I'm** not the one who looks bad when you attempt to
denigrate me or my writing by name-calling activities that are much more
typical of small children than of adults!
JDavis1277
>
> "I don't know of any credible sources to back up my claims."
Will,
You did very well.
If I'm not mistaken, David is the same guy who recently was a strong proponent
of the infamous Toronado fuel saving device. The Toronado was, essentially, a
propeller mounted between the carburetor and the intake manifold.
I believe the hype predicted massive hp and economy improvements because the
intake fuel air mix driven propeller would help atomize the fuel and the swirl
or toronado effect would force additional air into the combustion chamber.
Wow, just like a turbocharger!! Barnum said it best!
Another recent post claimed a 30.3% dyno proven hp increase from a 460 CID Ford
by the simple addition of an aftermarket air cleaner element and exhaust
system. Oh, BTW, with no additional fuel consumption.
I'm no physicist, but I find it extraordinarilly difficult tobelieve that
claim. For the record, I don't believe the poster is lying, just that he is
mistaken or that he has been decieved.
I guess that once folks have signed up for the gadgetry and forked over the
bucks they simply have to believe in the products. The alternative is to admit
to themselves that they have been had. That's hard for most of us to do.
Thanks, Butch
Gary - KJ6Q
Gary - KJ6Q
>They dont put mufflers on them in order to eliminate back pressure
and
>allow the engine to breath.
(SIGH!) THAT seems to be pretty obvious, just as it is that
"eliminating back pressure" usually causes a corresponding INCREASE in
noise level - it's a NATURAL reaction!
The noise still dosent produce the power,
>it is simply a symptom of one method of handeling the exhaust.
Which was EXACTLY my earlier point! opening up the exhaust system to
reduce back pressure and potentially INCREASE power output normally
causes the natural reaction - increased NOISE level! It would be
*stupid* to say it's the NOISE creating the power increase - JUST as
it is to say that opening up the exaust system to increase power WON"T
normally increase noise!
>Best
>Mike N
Gary - KJ6Q
wi...@epix.net wrote in message ...
>Permit me to point out that is is possible to dramatically reduce the
>noise level from exhaust WITHOUT increasing back pressure enough to
>affect performance.
>Will KD3XR
I have absolutely NO doubt that a low, even perhaps ZERO - back
pressure exhaust system COULD be designed and installed - IF a person
didn't care about size and weight( not to mention COST)! But then,
that's exactly the same scenarion the manufacturers face when
designing a power package on a given platform that will be seeing
actual service under everything from a flatbed to a motorhome. Given
that wide a variety of end uses, it's pretty understandable that
compromises are made that can effect the best possible efficiency of
the individual parts...
Gary - KJ6Q
DJOsborn
>If I'm not mistaken, David is the same guy who recently was a strong
>proponent
>of the infamous Toronado fuel saving device.
Sorry Butch; your memory is faulty, 'cause I'm not the guy.
I AM the guy who advocates studying all of the literature one can get
one's hands on before making any important (and expensive) decision. Only when
fully informed can one decide what's right for one's own application. People
on this newsgroup who exaggerate how useless any given item is are of no more
value than those who exaggerate how beneficial it may be.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<7e5p31$484$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>, <davi...@gte.net>
writes:
> I have absolutely NO doubt that a low, even perhaps ZERO - back
> pressure exhaust system COULD be designed and installed - IF a
person
> didn't care about size and weight( not to mention COST)! But then,
> that's exactly the same scenarion the manufacturers face when
> designing a power package on a given platform that will be seeing
> actual service under everything from a flatbed to a motorhome. Given
> that wide a variety of end uses, it's pretty understandable that
> compromises are made that can effect the best possible efficiency of
> the individual parts...
Good points.
For your amusement... some time ago I reported an incident involving
a log skidder problem brought to my attention by a company forester:
loggers were being hammered by OSHA inspectors for excessive noise
exposure arising from unmuffled exhaust. It seems OEM mufflers were
both flimsy and subject to getting busted by branches. I sketched a
crude homebrew muffler based on the following sketch, using well
casing for the jacket and 2 1/2" water pipe for the inner tube:
]====================================[
-----------v----v---v-------v----v----v----v------------
-------------^----^----^---^---^---^-----^--------------
]====================================[
The inner pipe is perforated randomly and of course the ends sealed.
Making no guarantees whatever, I suggested that if this heavy
contraption were properly supported and aimed away from the operator
it just MIGHT be a durable and practical way of staying in compliance
with mandated noise levels.
Months later the forester returned to my office with a report from a
Penn State study which documented an alleged 10db noise reduction at
the skidder operator's position. Included was a photo-copy of my
back-of-napkin sketch from which several models were built and tested!
I frankly do not believe the 10db figure can be obtained unless the
proportions are about right (meaning great enough length and
appropriate spacing and size of perforations) but I can assure you
that the loggers unanimously reported no perceptible loss of power!
Will KD3XR
wi...@epix.net
In Article<19990403135839...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
<jdavi...@aol.com> writes:
> Will wrote: snip
>> If I understand this correctly, it is Mr. Osborn's way of saying:
>>
>> "I don't know of any credible sources to back up my claims."
>>snip
>
> Will,
>
> You did very well.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, David is the same guy who recently was a strong
>proponent of the infamous Toronado fuel saving device. The Toronado
>was, essentially, a propeller mounted between the carburetor and the
>intake manifold.
Thanx for the kind words but in his defense I don't think Osborn is
guilty of that particular foolishness. Of course, I delete a lot of
his posts without reading for obvious reasons!
> I guess that once folks have signed up for the gadgetry and forked
>over the bucks they simply have to believe in the products. The
>alternative is to admit to themselves that they have been had.
>That's hard for most of us to do.
I'm convinced this is the motive behind many a "testimonial", and it
IS hard to accept the idea that one has been a sucker. If it's any
help, it's MUCH easier to do when you get older - especially when
one's stupid decisions are mostly in the past and you can claim you
are now much wiser!!! I never bought the pinwheel idiocy, but I have
(confession time here, folks!) bought such stuff as water injectors,
headers, multi-electrode spark plugs, a few cans of STP, Motor Honey,
and even "liquified molybdenum".
Will KD3XR
Donald J. Dickson
<davi...@gte.net> wrote:
> wi...@epix.net wrote in message ...
>
> >Permit me to point out that is is possible to dramatically reduce the
> >noise level from exhaust WITHOUT increasing back pressure enough to
> >affect performance.
>
>
>
> I have absolutely NO doubt that a low, even perhaps ZERO - back
> pressure exhaust system COULD be designed and installed - IF a person
> didn't care about size and weight( not to mention COST)!
Gary
The Walker muffler that I installed is essentially a 7 foot long glass
pack which is accomplished by sending the exhaust in an "S" path so that
it flows the length of the muffler 3 times without any baffles just a 180
degree curved deflector at each end. It sounds like a stock muffler but
there was an immediate 10-15F drop in engine operating temp as soon as the
unit and exhaust pipes were installed. It doesn't weigh any more than a
stock muffler and the cost is a fraction of what Banks charges.
--
Don Dickson
Remove first "x" from xcx666 to reply by email.
DJOsborn
>Thanx for the kind words but in his defense I don't think Osborn is
>guilty of that particular foolishness. Of course, I delete a lot of
>his posts without reading for obvious reasons!
Actually, Osborn is not guilty of ANY foolishness on this newsgroup. The
only thing I desire is for accurate information to flow freely on this
newsgroup. (This includes, of course, letting newbies ask "dumb" questions
without risking being called one or more of a variety of names.) I correct
inaccurate information when I see it, as I think all should do. This newsgroup
is only as good as the quality of the information presented.
As for wi...@epix.net deleting my posts before reading: I would be quite
pleased if he did that in ALL cases. That way I could correct what he says,
without the rest of the newsgroup being subjected to his futile arguing and
name-calling attempts to denigrate me, since he can't refute the facts I
present.
AJKing554
Any way, Mr. Osborn has made references to tuned headers making improvements in
low to medium rpm speed ranges. This is partly true. Long 4 into 2 into 1
exhaust headers can have an effect IF combined with VERY long intake runners,
usually too long for use in a vehicle. If anyone remembers the old Chrysler
"Ram Induction" system used on their 300 series cars in the late fifties and
early sixties, this is what I am talking about.
The problem is that at low speeds there just isn't enough air flowing for any
kind of exhaust to have much effect. Engines are just big air pumps and
exhaust systems can't suck more air through. That is why intake manifolds are
where the industry spends its time and money. With port fuel injection it is
possible to tune relatively short runner lengths to increase torque in the mid
speed range, usually around 3200 rpm. Think of the air in a given runner as a
spring and each time the intake valve opens air "springs" into the cylinder
until it closes. The air rushing in slams into the closed valve head and
bounce back up the runner until more air overcomes its momentum and the cycle
begins all over again. In vibration terms, this is a spring-mass system and
can be tuned (with runner length and diameter, valve size, etc.) to resonate at
a given rpm. At this resonance point the maximum amount of air enters the
cylinder, producing the most torque. We call it cheap supercharging.
Aftermarket folks can't offer this technology as an add-on (among other things
they would have to recertify emissions) and it is very expensive to develop.
The tooling bill alone for one of our plastic tuned manifolds is over one
million dollars.
Actually, while writing that last part I realized the ultimate argument against
the exhaust system playing a role in part throttle or low speed operation is
the claim that they do not violate the vehicles emission certification. They
don't violate it because NOTHING has changed. The test is run at low speeds
and mostly at part throttle. If their systems did what they say they do, they
would have to recertify them, something they could never afford to do.
Sorry about the long post. Correct technical detail doesn't lend itself to
short posts.
Alan
ajki...@aol.com
AJKing554
"pass-by" noise. The vehicle is driven past an array of microphones at 25 mph,
then at a point determined by the statute, the vehicle is accelerated at
maximum, ie. WOT until past the array of phones. The maximum db level allowed
is 82. Banks engineers admitted to me that their system will not pass this
standard.
Alan
ajki...@aol.com
Gary - KJ6Q
--
wi...@epix.net wrote in message ...
>For your amusement... some time ago I reported an incident involving
>a log skidder problem brought to my attention by a company forester:
<SNIP>
>Will KD3XR
>
As a side note - and lest the nitpickers get in an uproar - I fully
recognize that the mere PRESENCE of noise in NO way *assures* maximum
available power - it's entirely possible that an unmuffled engine MAY
deliver less output power than one with a properly designed, and MUCH
quieter exhaust system...
Gary - KJ6Q
Rusty Blevins
increase in both empty and pulling mileage when I installed the Phase III
system 20,000 miles ago. There was an immediate and very noticeable
improvement in seat of the pants HP. I am a hard and fast driver when
empty, and pull about 18,000 when towing. These improvements have remained
consistent so far. The sound level is just slightly louder, but much less
than a normal header dual installation. Over the years I have installed
several other top name brand header systems . All were hard to install,
needed additional parts, or required custom bending or welding to make
them fit. Banks required none of the above, a perfect fit and off the lift
in 2 hours. After 20,000 miles the system is still tight, with no rattles.
Expensive ? YES. Is it worth it? YES TO ME. THIS DOG NEEDS ALL THE HELP
IT CAN GET.
Rusty
JDavis1277
When you're right you're right.
I apologize for confusing you with Velonut.
Thanks for correcting me.
Butch
Mike Niemela
Your skidder muffler design makes sense and I can see how it would work
well. The comment was made by Gary that free flowing quiet exchaust
systems are necessarily bulky, heavy and expensive. Such is not the
case. My prefered method of quieting an engine is to use a short
"turbo" type muffler just behind the engine. This is followed by a
crossover pipe connecting the two banks together and then a "smitty" to
bring the remaining tone down. This system yields a low tone with no
sharp bark and is as quiet as the majority of the cars on the road.
Pipe sizes used depend on engine displacement and RPM ranges to be used.
One critical factor to remember when building exhaust systems is that
each 90 degree bend in the pipe has as much restriction as 10 feet of
straight pipe of like size. Smooth bends and no sharp edges (butt weld
the mufflers in) are also important.
It seems Gary and I now agree on the fact that noise does not produce
power and I was pleased to see your input.
Best
Mike N
wi...@epix.net
Sir, are you aware that some blithering idiot is using your email
address?
It would probably be good for you to shut down your computer when
there is no adult supervision around!
Will KD3XR
PS: I've wanted to do that for months now!
wi...@epix.net
In Article<37069FBA...@ix.netcom.com>, <gble...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
I'm sure you believe your story, but I don't.
I don't challenge the part about Banks making good pipes, but just so
you know, I don't believe the 2mpg claim. At all. And if you are
really towing 18,000 lbs behind an F250 I'd like to know where you run
so I won't meet you on the road.
Will KD3XR
wi...@epix.net
In Article<charles1F...@netcom.com>, <char...@netcom.com>
writes:
> An RV would gain much more than 20hp with addition of tuned exhaust.
Who makes such a thing?
Answer: nobody.
Reason: Even in theory it is useless as teats on a boar hawg because
it could not possibly work well over a RANGE of engine speeds.
Where do these wierdos come from?
I dunno.
Will KD3XR
Gary - KJ6Q
Mike Niemela wrote in message
<8337-370...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Will
Your skidder muffler design makes sense and I can see how it would
work
well. The comment was made by Gary that free flowing quiet exchaust
systems are necessarily bulky, heavy and expensive
<SNIP>
Best
Mike N
SO, Mike, are you now claiming that the system you describe above will
deliver the absolute MAXIMUM available power your engine can POSSIBLY
deliver with ANY exhaust system - OR, that it's a "compromise" of
power vs noise YOU are willing to live with?
I'll guess that it's a compromise system that compromises maximum
power in favor of noise - which is fine, if that was your goal - but
be CAREFUL before making any claims that no further power is possible
with yet more refinement to your system... AND, I would STILL suggest
that remaining potential power increases WILL quite likely result in
higher DB output as well!
Gary - KJ6Q
ben williams
<wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:NEWTNews.92318...@epix.net...
Mike Niemela
No where in any of my posts have I made any claims about maximum
anything. What is wrong with you fella? Do you have such a limited
life you have to try to make a name for yourself by taking other peoples
writings out of context? I for one have no intention of further
fullfilling whatever perverse fantisies or pleasures you get from your
witless game. When you continue to stoop to the levels you do you are
showing a side of your charicter which is less then pleasent. Am I mad
at you? Not in the least. Do I respect your opinions? Not in the
least after this exchange. My Dad had a saying that it is wise to
consider the source when evaluating any information. As far as I am
concerned you are without merit.
Mike N
R.J.(Bob) Evans
<7R4M2.61$Bp....@c01read04.service.talkway.com>...
> As experienced newsgroup readers recognize, wi...@epix.net typically
>starts the name-calling when he doesn't have a solid technical basis
>for his statements. Just as he hasn't been afraid to make wrong
>statements here before, he isn't afraid to make them now. However,
>they are still WRONG. There are various magazine articles readily
>available (some of which have been mentioned here in the past) that
>SHOW TEST DATA which demonstrate that different header designs are
What I can't understand is why Banks & their ilk waste their time on small
fry like replacing exhaust systems when the real money would come from
putting their system on VW Rabbit engines and then transplanting them into
F350 chassis. Now that would be a real system - 350 HP and 75 MPG.
Gary - KJ6Q
Mike Niemela gets his drawers all bunched up and spews:
>Gary
>No where in any of my posts have I made any claims about >maximum
>anything. What is wrong with you fella? Do you have such a >limited
>life you have to try to make a name for yourself by taking other
>peoples
>writings out of context?
Out of context? I just asked a reasonable question regarding your
clear statement!
> I for one have no intention of further
>fullfilling whatever perverse fantisies or pleasures you get from
>your
>witless game
Mike N
Well, Mike, I'm sorry you feel that way, and are so sensitive to
having your posts discussed in any detail - BUT, if that's the way you
feel, I'll do MY part to spare you further distress or liklihood of
experiencing any more unwanted replies from me...
<FLUSH,,,>
So long Mike, and you really SHOULD
consider getting your prescription strengthened...
charles copeland
AJKing554 <ajki...@aol.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>That is why intake manifolds are
>where the industry spends its time and money. With port fuel injection it is
>possible to tune relatively short runner lengths to increase torque in the mid
>speed range, usually around 3200 rpm. Think of the air in a given runner as a
>spring and each time the intake valve opens air "springs" into the cylinder
>until it closes. The air rushing in slams into the closed valve head and
>bounce back up the runner until more air overcomes its momentum and the cycle
>begins all over again. In vibration terms, this is a spring-mass system and
>can be tuned (with runner length and diameter, valve size, etc.) to resonate at
>a given rpm. At this resonance point the maximum amount of air enters the
>cylinder, producing the most torque. We call it cheap supercharging.
The same principle applies to exhaust. Difference is exhaust is tuned
such that maximum suction is present at exhaust port when valve is opened.
>Aftermarket folks can't offer this technology as an add-on (among other things
>they would have to recertify emissions) and it is very expensive to develop.
It is common on "hotrods" such as Mustang, Corvettes, Cameros ...
>The tooling bill alone for one of our plastic tuned manifolds is over one
>million dollars.
Most custom exhaust systems are made of mandrel bent tubing. No tooling
since there is no mold like cast manifolds.
>Actually, while writing that last part I realized the ultimate argument against
>the exhaust system playing a role in part throttle or low speed operation is
>the claim that they do not violate the vehicles emission certification. They
>don't violate it because NOTHING has changed. The test is run at low speeds
>and mostly at part throttle. If their systems did what they say they do, they
>would have to recertify them, something they could never afford to do.
MAC makes custom exhaust systems that are CARB certified. Not to
mention Borla among others.
>Sorry about the long post. Correct technical detail doesn't lend itself to
>short posts.
The fact you understand the dynamics and importance of tuned intake
runners means you should see the analogy to a tuned exhaust runner.
Tuned exhaust runners are just as important as tuned intake runners.
Both contribute equally to generate torque and horsepower.
Among hotrodders its common knowledge that full length tuned
exhaust headers can add 20hp over exhaust systems that are
not tuned. That is 20hp more than supposed high performance
exhaust your would find on sports cars. Imagine how inefficient
RV exhaust systems are in comparision to stock sport cars exhausts.
DJOsborn
>Sir, are you aware that some blithering idiot is using your email
>address?
>
>It would probably be good for you to shut down your computer when
>there is no adult supervision around!
>
>Will KD3XR
As I have stated many times in the past, you may call me any name that you
choose. It dosen't make ME look bad.
If you could disprove the facts that I state, I'm quite certain that you
would. I have proven you wrong on technical issues several times here, and
most readers are aware of that. They are also aware that, despite all of your
name-calling, you have NEVER proven me wrong.
It is your credibility that is damaged by your behavior, not mine.
However, if you want to continue -- that's fine. Just remember that most of us
here recognize that you don't supply the data to support your arguments against
my statements because the data simply do not exist!
DJOsborn
No problem.
JSprawls
>
>What I can't understand is why Banks & their ilk waste their time on small
>fry like replacing exhaust systems when the real money would come from
>putting their system on VW Rabbit engines and then transplanting them into
>F350 chassis. Now that would be a real system - 350 HP and 75 MPG.
>
>
>
LOL -- And if they added the little propeller gizmos under the carburettor, the
sucker might even fly.
I'm sure that some peoplle -- especially older rigs -- get some improvement
from aftermarket exhausts and the like. I'm also pretty confident that, given
the sophistication of today's engineering, some rigs actually could lose power
or mileage.
Lord knows I bought enough mechanical snake oil in my high school days to make
me a thorough skeptic.
As they say: "You pays yer money and you takes yer chances" and "Your mileage
may vary."
JR
PS -- always wanted to get the little propeller thingies from J.C. Whitney, but
somehow never got around to it.
Hugh Darling
know the one with the bullet nose. Put an aftermarket propellor on the
nose cone, went from18 to 22 mpg to 45 to 48 mpg, could do 0 to 60 in
3.5 seconds, top speed was in excess of 150 mph, then I pulled the
muffler and put a straight pipe on it, man it really flew then. Had to
take the propellor off though, birds kept getting sucked into it and
the wipers couldn't clear the gore off the windshield.
Hugh LMAO <);>)
JSprawls wrote in message
<19990404144554...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
Mark F. Burgo ( Systems Administrator )
>
> Wi...@epix.net writes:
>
> >Chronic heckler <djos...@aol.commnet.net> writes <personal attacks
> >snipped>:
>
> Go back and read my post, and you'll see that there were NO personal
> attacks to snip!! However, most people would likely consider wi...@epix.net
> calling me a "chronic heckler" as a "personal attack." Why is his calling
> others names not considered to be a "personal attack," and yet when others
> simply state well-known facts it IS cansidered to be an attack? Really
> strange!!
> He continues to write:
>
> >I have yet to see ONE credible, unbiased source making this point in a
> >fashion that is directly applicable to the entire exhaust system on a
> >typical recreational vehicle and demonstrates significant enhancement
> >at low-to-medium engine rpms.
>
> For the record: I believe him. If he refuses to look at the sources that
> are out there, he will NEVER see them! After all, I can be in a room full of
> deadly snakes, and never see them. The fact that I refuse to see them doesn't,
> however, in any way change the fact that they are there!!!
> If any of you want to believe what wi...@epix.net says, that's fine with
> me. However, the best advice is still to look REALLY hard to find ALL
> available data and then learn from it. To me, that is a far better course of
> action than to blindly believe someone who doesn't want to see information that
> just might educate him and cause him to revise some opinions based on very old
> information and experience.
> Believe it or not, technology does march on, and many statements that were
> true 30 or 40 years ago are no longer accurate. I don't know about anyone else
> here, but I'm anxious to listen, read, and LEARN!!
>
> 73,
> David, N8DO; FMCA 147762
> The correct address is djosborn at aol dot com
I have been reading and learning all my life and have only found that
eventualy when all states enact clean air laws all the folks that have
purchased Banks or any other header based system for new engines will
all be crying in their beer when they cant pass the emmissions test and
have to for over large sums of money. Keep it stock and pay at the
pump.
Lets face it we purchase these big vehicels to enjoy the outdoors with
our friends and family. You need to be willing to pay to enjoy anything
in any hobby, this is a hobby right.
There is no magic fix that will give big increases in performance and
milage. If you want performance you rebuile to close tolerances and pay
the piper in rebuilding fees very often. Race engines are rebuilt after
every race in the pro cars and in amature usually ever month because
something has broken. If your going to push a motor your going to have
to rebuild it to keep it running.
Milage, you will get what you get and be happy with it. As long as two
or three companies are producing this item you will get what you get and
no more. Face it if you could produce an engine that got 100 miles to
the gallon and started mass production what do you think the oil
companies would do to you.......
My $0.02, if you don't like it then put it back in the pot.
Mark
wi...@epix.net
In Article<3708C2B7...@surfshop.net>, <mfb...@surfshop.net>
writes a long and (to me) somewhat incoherent post. Here are a couple
of points that seem to demand comment:
> . . .eventualy when all states enact clean air laws all the folks
>that have purchased Banks or any other header based system for new
>engines will all be crying in their beer when they cant pass the
>emmissions test . . .
Pardon me, but even though fancy smoke pipes are not "worth the money"
to most rv'ers, they do not all have a negative impact on emissions.
Depending on how installed, whether OEM catalytic converts are
retained, etc, there my be as little impact on emissions as there is
on economy & power - which often ain't much!
> There is no magic fix that will give big increases in performance
>and milage. If you want performance you rebuile to close tolerances
>and pay the piper in rebuilding fees very often. Race engines are
>rebuilt after every race . . .
True enough there are no "magic fixes" but there is a great deal more
to race engines than close tolerances and frequent rebuilds. The
resemblance between a NASCAR motor and yours is almost non-existant.
> . . . Face it if you could produce an engine that got 100
>miles to the gallon and started mass production what do you think the
>oil companies would do to you.......
This, folks, is a fantasy. It is not the oil companies keeping us
from 100mpg engines! It is reality. I will write without fear of
contradiction that there is not enough energy in a gallon of gasoline
(or diesel fuel) to push any practical RV over the highway at today's
speeds for 100 miles. Granted our IC engines are inefficient, but oil
companies are NOT hiring hit men to assassinate inventors of the Fish
carburetor or any of it's successors. Much progress in efficiency has
been made, and only an idiot would say more progress is impossible -
but in the absence of as-yet-unrealized major technical breakthoughs,
tales of secret 100 mpg carburetors have no credence except in the
fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists.
Will KD3XR
Mark F. Burgo ( Systems Administrator )
As far as the emissions systems are concerned some of these systems do
not enable the connection of the O2 sensor. This inturn puts you in
voilation of the EPA standards, at lease those proposed in PA. It has
pretty much been stated that if modifications including headers and such
are installed on any vehical they will not pass. This includes the
stock manifolds. The electronic in most vehicals produced today are so
intertwined that if you remove one sensor you are in violation of the
proposed standards and will need to purchase the complete system again
to regain drivable status within the state.
This is the explanation that I was given by an Inspector when asked
about installing headers on a truck that I recently purchased. Then he
handed me a copy of the proposed standard and said don't take my word on
it read it yourself.
On race engines it was an analogy as others are discussing the noise to
HP ratio and bringing racing products into the discussion. Yes they are
quite different but very similar they burn fuel that is injected into a
combution chamber and the burnt fuel is expelled just like in my engine.
100 Mpg engine. Again an anology, do you think that the fuel producers
would be happy if it was available on May 1, 1999. I don't but I don't
think they would hire hit men either they would just buy you out and
give you a the free gas you wanted to be quite about it ;-)
You have to be able to laugh if you are going to read and participate in
the NG, else we all will be crazy.
The point is don't waste lots of money that you work very hard for to
make things better when the difference will be marginal at best. I know
that I don't have money to just throw away in the long run, maybe you
do....
Mark
wi...@epix.net
In Article<3708DFA2...@surfshop.net>, <mfb...@surfshop.net>
writes:
> Will,
> As far as the emissions systems are concerned some of these
>systems do not enable the connection of the O2 sensor.
The operative word is "some", and I agree. It is fortunate
that you included what I actually wrote, which was:
>>Pardon me, but even though fancy smoke pipes are not "worth
>>the money" to most rv'ers, they do not *all* have a negative
>>impact on emissions. Depending on how installed, whether OEM
>>catalytic converts are retained, etc, there my be as little
>>impact on emissions as there is on economy & power - which
>>often ain't much!
You will notice I avoided blanket statements.
>This in turn puts you in voilation of the EPA standards, at lease
>those proposed in PA.
What is proposed by a bunch of PA busybodies and what is in
effect for all readers in all States is different - which is
one of many good reasons not to create the impression that
your POV has universal application.
> It has pretty much been stated that if modifications including
>headers and such are installed on any vehical they will not pass.
>This includes the stock manifolds. The electronic in most vehicals
>produced today are so intertwined that if you remove one sensor you
>are in violation of the proposed standards and will need to purchase
>the complete system again to regain drivable status within the state.
It is, of course, POSSIBLE that some idiot is proposing that
kind of incredibly stupid regulation. But if it DOES come
into existence it will be sharply (and properly) challenged,
as similar idiot rules have been.
Examples of past brain-dead rules include "only OEM mufflers",
"no welding on exhaust systems" and "replacement ball joints
gotta be riveted". I queried a retired Ford service manager
on the latter, and he explained that he "complied" with the
rule by buying rivets with a spiral groove on one end. These
were assembled into a thick hexagonal 'washer' with matching
internal spiral grooves and tightened with a tool called a
"wrench", after which the exposed end of this rivet was beat
upon with a riveting tool, AKA a hammer. Get it?
There are plenty of good reasons to doubt the value of shiny exhaust
plumbing without beating on them for bogus reasons. If the exhaust
coming out the pipe is "clean", you will find that regulations
designed to dictate the mechanisms used to assure that condition are
not likely to live long nor be enforced. Your source is blowing
smoke, IMO:
> This is the explanation that I was given by an Inspector when asked
> about installing headers on a truck that I recently purchased. Then
>he handed me a copy of the proposed standard and said don't take my
>word on it read it yourself.
And what did it actually say in black & white? And when, if ever, is
it to take effect? Some wacko is perpetually "proposing" new ways to
run our lives - thank Heaven most of their ideas die in committee.
> . . . Again an anology, do you think that the fuel producers
> would be happy if (100mpg engine) it was available on May 1, 1999.
> I don't but I don't think they would hire hit men either they would
>just buy you out and give you a the free gas you wanted to be quite
>about it ;-)
Dream on, my friend. If you actually developed and PROVED a reliable
"100mpg engine" that met reasonable performance standards, you'd soon
be rich enough to buy Mobil.
Will KD3XR
Dan O'Reilly
system (not a Banks system, no headers, but high-flow muffler &
resonator, and a large air-intake, plus a TransCommand on my 1995 460
Class A), and I've definately seen improvements.
I've been able to tel the motorhome in nearly-identical situations
while climbing the Rockies, and my figures show an increase of 6.5mpg
to 8.3mpg - while towing a heavier load (about 2500#); in addition, I
picked up from 8-10mph on a 6% grade (passing semis instead of falling
in behind them, for a change). On straight-and-level roads (no winds,
etc) my mileage is up comparably, about 2mpg.
So, while I didn't spend anything like the cost of a Banks (about $3k
installed vs the $960 I paid), I am getting definate performance
boots. I'm sure there will be people on this list who want to
pooh-pooh this, and they're welcome to. But I suggest they have no
emperical evidence to back up their claims, while I do.
But it's up to whomever wants to to do whatever to their engine. I'll
take my improvements anytime.
By the way: the TransCommand is a VERY worthwhile investment. It's
made a big difference in how/when my tranny shifts.
On 1 Apr 1999 23:56:27 GMT, ajki...@aol.com (AJKing554) wrote:
>As a GM powertrain engineer (21 years), who has had this very argument with
>Banks' engineers, let me say that Will is correct. Banks' claims of improved
>durability are pure bunk. Getting more output from an engine generally
>degrades durability. The Banks systems do work pretty well at improving
>performance for the following reasons:
>
>1. The Dodge diesel is detuned because no automatic transmission, unless made
>by Allison, can take the torque of the B5.9.
>
>2. Both the Ford and Chevy big block motorhome engines suffer with poor, high
>backpressure exhaust systems. Why? Because we the consumer scream bloody
>murder every time something goes up in price. It ain't hard to get lower
>backpressure and increased horsepower with tuned headers and four inch diameter
>pipes that cost upwards of $2,000. Don't assume the Chevy and Ford engineers
>are stupid. We aren't, however, we do have constraints.
>
>The engine durability problem at higher power levels is not a big deal with the
>gasoline engines as we run them on dynamometers with open headers. The base
>engine structure can take it.
>
>Transmissions are different. The GM 4L80E is strong and is able to "learn"
>changes in engine output. The Ford E4OD doesn't have such a good reputation
>and Banks recommends installing a shift kit along with the exhaust system.
>
>Alan
>ajki...@aol.com
DJOsborn
While I am a strong believer in the potential for various exhaust system
modifications to increase performance, my personal experience is that fuel
economy improvements are considerably more difficult to implement. Your
mileage increase from 6.3 to 8.5 is on the order of 28%, which I think you will
agree that is phenomenal. Therefore, I have no choice but to be skeptical, and
believe that either there is some error in the calculations, or that numerous
other modifications were made, or perhaps both.
Please give us considerably more details.
Donald J. Dickson
> In Article<3708DFA2...@surfshop.net>, <mfb...@surfshop.net>
> writes:
>
> > Will,
BIG SNIP
> > . . . Again an anology, do you think that the fuel producers
> > would be happy if (100mpg engine) it was available on May 1, 1999.
> > I don't but I don't think they would hire hit men either they would
> >just buy you out and give you a the free gas you wanted to be quite
> >about it ;-)
>
> Dream on, my friend. If you actually developed and PROVED a reliable
> "100mpg engine" that met reasonable performance standards, you'd soon
> be rich enough to buy Mobil.
>
I don't know of any 100 mile hills with a down grade all the way. Maybe it
would be one of those new dual power units like Honda(?) has developed. It
has a small 3 cylinder gas engine combined with an electric motor to give
both range and power.
Now if you replaced the gas engine with a set of pedals or a tread mill.....
Good for your mileage and your health, just like Fred Flintstone. Was his
design bought off by the oil companies? ;-)
--
Don Dickson
Remove first "x" from xcx666 to reply by email.
AJKing554
compiance because the stock catalyst and oxygen sensors are retained and
functioning. Banks actually claims that their system works well on GM EFI
motors (1990 - 1997, pre Vortec) that are speed density fuel systems. that the
oxygen sensor "compensates" to maintain good drivability. This is laughable
and I told him so. The reason they comply with emissions is that they don't
change anything at low speeds/throttle angles, making any measurable mileage
increase not possible. Under high power conditions, where the systems actually
work, you will use significantly more fuel and get lower mileage.
Alan
ajki...@aol.com
wi...@epix.net
<xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca> writes and makes reference to:
> . . . one of those new dual power units like Honda(?) has developed.
>It has a small 3 cylinder gas engine combined with an electric motor
>to give both range and power.
I have no current knowledge of a Honda project on this order, but
recall an article in MOTHER EARTH NEWS many years back featuring an
Opel fitted out with a similar scheme and claimed to be getting 75
mpg.
While expensive, the scheme has merit for lightweight, low-drag-
coefficient cars. Hey, it's only a variation on the very efficient
diesel/electric locomotive propulsion scheme!
High initial cost and weight are not important in railway use, but not
so for cars! Another big barrier to large-scale use of the scheme is
(deja vu all over again!) efficiency losses. Having a small IC engine
running at an optimum efficient speed to run a generator wastes a lot
less fuel per horsepower hour than a comparable engine compromised for
wide speed/torque ranges; and the scheme also allows converting the
kinetic energy of braking into stored power.
BUT, energy is wasted in the mechanical-to-electrical conversion (and
vice versa in the electric drive motor), and in storing energy in
batteries. Some folks are optimistic that some variation of these
schemes will eventually result in dramatic reductions in fuel
consumption. But don't expect a motorhome with a Briggs & Stratton
engine anytime soon!
Will KD3XR
Mark F. Burgo ( Systems Administrator )
Dan O'Reilly
>Dan,
> While I am a strong believer in the potential for various exhaust system
>modifications to increase performance, my personal experience is that fuel
>economy improvements are considerably more difficult to implement. Your
>mileage increase from 6.3 to 8.5 is on the order of 28%, which I think you will
>agree that is phenomenal. Therefore, I have no choice but to be skeptical, and
>believe that either there is some error in the calculations, or that numerous
>other modifications were made, or perhaps both.
> Please give us considerably more details.
Details like what?
Dan O'Reilly
level ground improved despite a stiff (probably 20mph) headwind.
The only things I can figure (and I've been trying to figure this out
myself, these are BIG improvements) are
a) The stock muffler/tailpipe was WAY restrictive (which wouldn't
really surprise me).
b) Since I had more power, I could keep my foot off the throttle a lot
more than I used to (for example, to hold the engine at optimum power
going uphill, I didn't have to floor the sucker).
But I'll still stand by my numbers. I've recorded
miles/gallons/mpg/funky conditions (e.g., snow,etc) since I bought the
MH, so I feel safe in standing by them.
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 09:49:13 -0400, "Mark F. Burgo ( Systems
Administrator )" <mfb...@surfshop.net> wrote:
>Tail Wind!!!!!!!
>
>DJOsborn wrote:
>>
>> Dan,
>> While I am a strong believer in the potential for various exhaust system
>> modifications to increase performance, my personal experience is that fuel
>> economy improvements are considerably more difficult to implement. Your
>> mileage increase from 6.3 to 8.5 is on the order of 28%, which I think you will
>> agree that is phenomenal. Therefore, I have no choice but to be skeptical, and
>> believe that either there is some error in the calculations, or that numerous
>> other modifications were made, or perhaps both.
>> Please give us considerably more details.
Gary - KJ6Q
Dan O'Reilly wrote in message <370a3775...@news.uswest.net>...
>Nope, no tail wind. No wind at all. In fact, my numbers on flat &
>level ground improved despite a stiff (probably 20mph) headwind.
DAN - you gotta realize that no matter WHAT method or "proof" you
offer here of your success, there will ALWAYS be a few who will
(vocally) choose to ridicule and/or disbelieve you and your
"scientific abilities"... All you can do is present facts and
observations as you see them, and then let others choose for
themselves what they will believe. Having had serious beneficial
experience with back problems, and successful treatment by
Chiropractors, after "regular" medical doctors failed with aspirin and
shock treatments, I quickly discovered that you could literally march
a column of successfully treaded sufferers 6-deep past a medical
doctor 24 hours a DAY. and the would STILL insist chiropractors
couldn't really help you, and it's "all in your head"!
The folks here critical of most performance exhaust mods are cut from
the same cloth, and force of numbers won't convince THEM, either...
THey're not really bad people, just "different"...
8^)
Gary - KJ6Q
=====================
SO - the Serbs kick out the Albanians, and WE
"help" by bombing the #%$@ out of the REST of
the country - INCLUDING whats LEFT of the Albanian's
homes, towns and infrastructure, fully expecting at some point BOTH
parties will kiss and make up, and THANK us for all our "help"?
WHAT am I missing here...?
Toby
Although I may tend to believe Dan and his data you were doing really
well in this exchange until you quoted the GM chairman. I don't believe
GM has the market share they would like & I believe that with attitudes
like that they'll never get there! If GM made airplanes I would
definetely have a bumper sticker that says Who The Hell Cares What GM
Stock Price Is at 30,000 ft. GM ought to make widgets if all they want
to do is make money. Save the real products to companies that really
care about their customers, products and craft. And the money (share
price/dividends/value will follow). If thats what the chairman really
said, then them GM workers have a hell of a challenge in front of them &
I'm behind those GM families 110% to help make the needed change to make
GM what it can be.
Not trolling - just what I believe.
Best Regards
Toby, Not a GM truck Owner
bro...@escape.ca wrote:
>
> Not good enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you had the complete audit done by Price
> Waterhouse? If not, you are merely stating your opinions. ;>)
> Seriously, I have done some experimenting with exhaust and engines modifications and
> have had virtually the same results. For fear of repercussions and to keep peace in
> this happy family, I did not proffer my findings.
> There are those that feel the vehicles are designed to be the best compromise of what
> we all should have.
> I am of the opinion that vehicles are the result of many influences, the most salient
> being the accounting
> department.
> As the chairman of General Motors was once quoted as saying, "We are not in the
> business of making cars. We are in the business of making money!"
> Of course vehicles are compromised. To suggest anything short of this begs the
> question that is it not hard to breath with your head that far up your a--?
> Sorry to resort to vernacular but in this case, it is the most succinct.
> Myron
>
> Dan O'Reilly wrote:
>
> > Nope, no tail wind. No wind at all. In fact, my numbers on flat &
> > level ground improved despite a stiff (probably 20mph) headwind.
> >
Elliott Roberts
bsn...@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 08:26:10 -0600, David Lloyd
> <dll...@cableregina.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a 94 Shasta class C mh with a Ford 460 in it. I am considering
> >replacing the exhaust system with a set of Banks headers and a dual
> >exhaust system. The folks selling the system claim that I can expect a
> >20% increase in power, a significant increase in mileage and longer
> >engine life.
> >Has anyone any experience with this type of conversion? Are those claims
> >realistic.
> >This system is not cheap. Is it worth the money?
> >Thanks.
> >Dave
I have a 91 Coachman class C with a 460 in it
I installed the Banks kit from the converter back which came
with the K&N filter. This came to about 550$ and two days
of time and effort.
Did I get better mileage? No it did not change
Is it louder ? Just a bit, but it sounds a lot better than it did. I was
driving
one day with the windows down beside one of those tall concrete retaining
walls, as I was accelerating to get a little room in traffic I heard a loud
hissing noise that sounded like a air compressor with with a busted hose.
When I realized it was my unit I thought maybe my exhaust system is a
little restricted! Sounds a whole lot better now !!
Did it give me more power ? I have no Dyno numbers, but I definitely
have more power when I need it.
Am I shortening the life of my unit ? Maybe, but its my money.
Will it still pass emissions ? They do not test vehicles over 8501 lbs
here so thats not a problem.
Was it worth it ? It was for me.
No theory , just my experience
Elliott Roberts
Mufrreesboro TN
AJKing554
As I said earlier, exhaust tuning to "scavenge" exhaust out of the cylinder
only works at very high engine output on very high specific output engines. It
does not and cannot work at part throttle and low rpm speed conditions.
I don't doubt that a number of companies make CARB cerified systems. It ain't
hard to recertify a modified production system when the modifications make no
change under the test conditions.
All of your other comments relate to top end power. I agree that a Banks-like
system will typically improve peak power by 20 or 30 horsepower, but it will
NOT improve (or change) part throttle-low speed economy. Full throttle economy
will actually get worse.
Alan
ajki...@ao.com
bro...@escape.ca
david_...@my-dejanews.com
da...@process.com (Dan O'Reilly) wrote:
> Details like what?
Dan,
I'm looking for details such as: the route(s) used in the before/after
testing, the weather conditions before/after; the place(s) where the fuel
fill- ups were made; the load(s) before/after; the number of mileage trials
before and the number of milege trials after, and other similar information.
The reason I'm asking is simply because (as I mentioned before) your mileage
increase can really only be described as phenomenal (unless the previous
setup had been damaged or deteriorated to the point that it no longer met the
original factory specs). I'm skeptical because even those modifications
which are virtually guaranteed to increase mileage (such as the addition of
overdrive to a vehicle that doesn't have one, or changing from a carburetor
to an electronic fuel-injection system) can realistically only be expected to
give single-digit percentage increases in fuel economy. Therefore, a 28%
increase with only simple exhaust-system modifications appears to be suspect.
I'm looking for the details because a mileage comparison, even when under
virtually identical conditions, can sometimes show a rather wide variation
between fill-ups. This is because of the variables involved in getting the
tank (s) "full," as well as other subtle differences in the "identical"
conditions. That's why averaging results over several trials filters out the
"noise" in the data and gives a much more accurate indication of what's
really happening.
73,
David, N8DO; FMCA 147762
djosborn at aol dot com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
david_...@my-dejanews.com
headers and overall exhaust system design. Many of those statements have
appeared to agree with normal logical thinking, while some others have defied
that thinking. Some have disagreed with test data that I've seen. Some have
appeared to come from a neutral perspective, and others have seemed to be
"protesting too much" when one realizes he's a GM powertrain engineer
discussing the Banks' (competitor's) system. As an engineer, I recognize
that exhaust-system design falls into the "internal aero" category, which can
require sophisticated computer modeling to simulate. I also recognize that
we are not dealing with a single, continuous, flow of gases, but are
combining a series of pulses from (typically) four or eight individual
sources into a single flow. We are also dealing with a rather large
temperature change as the gases flow from the cylinder to the end of the
exhaust pipe. For these reasons, I'm sure that it is quite difficult to
reduce exhaust-system design into a few simple statements on a newsgroup.
Alan, would you be so kind as to share the actual test results with us, or
give us the location of the data so that we might review them ourselves. I'm
certain I'm not the only engineer here, and that others would like to see the
details. 73, David, N8DO; FMCA 147762 djosborn at aol dot com
wi...@epix.net
This is two-part message in mocking format:
Part 1:
In Article<7ee64u$880$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>, <davi...@gte.net>
writes:
> The folks here critical of most performance exhaust mods are cut
>from the same cloth, and force of numbers won't convince THEM,
>either... THey're not really bad people, just "different"...
> 8^)
Several contributors swear their aftermarket smoke pipes give them
astonishing improvements in power, economy, sound, and improved love
life. Since these claims are in print, they *must* be true since the
people making the claims USUALLY (not always) become outraged when
their numbers are questioned. I mean, everybody knows that if you are
sufficiently vociferous about your claim, it *must* be true. People
who are impressed by these unsubstantiated claims should get their
order in to Banks right away before the Sultan of Wannabe buys out all
their stock.
===================================================
Part 2
Sez Gary:
> The folks here critical of most performance exhaust mods are cut
>from the same cloth, and force of numbers won't convince THEM,
>either... THey're not really bad people, just "different"...
> 8^)
Let's get personal and specific. Will (that's me) sez free-flowing
exhaust systems can and do provide some small improvement on some
rigs, almost entirely at high engine speeds. Will (that is still me)
also sez that Banks ads grossly exaggerate the benefits. He further
sez some of the dingbats who have been hoodwinked into believing 28%
better mileage are as clueless as NATO leaders who thinking sustained
aerial attacks on Yugoslavia are a useful way of eliminating age-old
hostilities between quarreling tribes. Will (and others) does NOT
believe exaggerated numbers because they are simply not credible.
They are not credible from an engineering POV, and they are not
credible when compared with my extenisive personal hands-on
experience. People who WANT to spend their money that way are
encouraged to do so, and to brag to high heaven about how much smarter
they are than us common folks - but they do NOT get to do so without
being reminded that many of us are not foolish enough to swallow their
hype.
Will KD3XR
ben williams
milage. In the late '70s, Motor Trend did an article on catalytic converters
and their associated back pressure. It cited the results of pressure guages
before and after the converter and before and after different mufflers.
GM came out best, followed by Ford, then a distant Chrysler products at
third. The Mopar products were so bad that MT replaced them to see if they
had defective ones.
When I bought my '79 Lebaron T/C wagon it started out at 14mpg on the hwy.
Several trips to the dealer (tune-ups, carb. adjusts, tranny shift points)
ended at 12mpg/hwy and could not do 60mph. A friend who owned a garage (Al's
Garage w.98th St., Cleveland- for those checking facts) dug out the MT
article and suggested a cheater pipe to see if the converter was the
problem. So we tried it. The power difference was unexpected and the hwy mpg
went to 22.
( For those of us who drove 318cid in the '60s, this is about right.)
The point being, reduced restriction CAN have a drastic effect on mileage.
ben
<david_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7efj4g$ulq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
VeloNut
play a significant role in the results obtained?
Correct me if I am wrong, but do most of the manufacturers'test involve new
vehicles? It seems to my laymans eyes that once a vehicle gets broken in and
driven by the same individual for several years, the normal rules may no longer
apply.
I am trying to put this together in a rather neutral way, but if a person who
drives the same vehicle for years under rather unchanging conditions suddenly
experiences some significant change in performance (very often measured by the
weight of his wallet) that seems to defy all logic, could this be due to an
old, well used power plant reacting differently than a new one one would to a
similar test?
It appears to me that a number of similar anecdotal experiences, while not
backed up by sophisticated test gadgetry, would provide a valid clue that
something indeed might work on an older vehicle but have little impact on a
newer one.
I think a lot of progress is due to accidental, logic defying discoveries (like
getting conked on the head by an apple).
Dale Lally W0OWF
Canton NY
vel...@aol.com
wi...@epix.net
In Article<reKO2.937$5I1.3...@ralph.vnet.net>, <wms...@netquick.net>
writes:
> One of the possible immediate results of 'aftermarket' exhaust IS
>better gas milage. In the late '70s . . . .
Man, do I get sick of historical antidotes (or is that histerical
anecdotes?) wrongly applied to today's equipment!
In the '70's we had a LOT of lame-brained designs coming out of
Detroit in frantic attempts to live with 'pollution' requirements.
No knowledgeable person will dispute the idea that a lot of cars of
that vintage ran poorly, drank gas, and were generally a pain to own.
That was then, this is now - nearly 30 years later. Auto engineers are
not quite as stupid as some of you Einsteins think. Yes, they are
constrained by market/price/production pressures - but unless you know
what to do you have a very poor chance of getting better performance.
And mark my words, you have NO chance of getting 28% better mileage by
changing the smoke pipes. None. Zero.
Will KD3XR
wi...@epix.net
In Article<19990407104938...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
<vel...@aol.com> writes:
> . . . would the age and/or mileage of the vehicle in question
> play a significant role in the results obtained?
In a word, no.
Wine gets better with age (to a point), and very little else does.
Modifications that do nothing significant to new equipment will do
nothing significant for the same equipment when it is 30 years old.
Will KD3XR
wi...@epix.net
> I think a lot of progress is due to accidental, logic defying
>discoveries (like getting conked on the head by an apple).
This statement goes a long way toward explaining the logic (sic)
of someone who thinks they get 30% more mileage by pouring glop in
the oil pan. It must have been a very large apple. 8-)
It is certainly true that many good inventions have their origin in
accidental occurrences - but if they are truly valid discoveries they
do NOT defy logic.
Of course, fairy tales need not be logical!
Will KD3XR