[steve05ram360]

Update...

Testing has to change. The TAG will not fit in the intake tube with the turning vanes in them. I have 2 intake tubes so I will test the following

1) intake tube, no vanes
2) intake tube, vanes
3) intake tube, TAG

Note... those 2 intake tubes are different beyond the turning vanes... just noticed that.

 

[Alcharger]

adding pic of the center section of the 5.9 intake tube... the dimples keep flow turbulent and attached to the center section... the key there is the flow remains attached to the center section and the outflow benefits from it.

Some gas burners have a bulb on the intake tube. Our 5.9 has a silencer that acts like the bulb. Both even out the air pulsing to provide an even flow of air to the turbo/engine. Those holes/dimples are to break up the pulses. Internal and Ignition Combustions engines are pulsing air machines.

The turning vanes in the last elbow, smooth out the air and load the turbo wheel evenly.

 

[Alcharger]

Update...

Testing has to change. The TAG will not fit in the intake tube with the turning vanes in them. I have 2 intake tubes so I will test the following

1) intake tube, no vanes
2) intake tube, vanes
3) intake tube, TAG

Note... those 2 intake tubes are different beyond the turning vanes... just noticed that.

The TAG you have appears to be smaller in diameter and could be restrictive.

 

[steve05ram360]

the whole design of the TAG is going to be more restrictive in general vs no insert. It would come down to the restriction of the TAG vs the restriction of the OEM insert, the rest is the same. I have had a hard time wrapping my head around some of the user statements... the one being that under heavy load there is less boost to move the same load up a grade. I am concluding that the testers had intake tubes that did not have the oem vane insert and the peak torque had been flattened out some while the peak HP went up the RPMs some. I've seen this already with the air box mods over the years (hence the boost controlled valve version V4.1) and can see how with the TAG (or the OEM insert) the boost level would drop.

What I have learned... the oem tube, no insert sucks with the air box mod disabled. Enabled there is a decent amount of boost gained while going thru the gears, just looking at torque, ~3-4 psi if not more. The tests/data logging will be done with it disabled as to present a worst case scenario for all 3 tests. I will say this, so far the tune differences, previous higher rail pressure vs the tune I ran for a year... the tune I ran for a year (in there now) that I tweeked to slow the turbo spool up some, appears to have less calc-load in certain areas while going thru the gears.

The updated tune sucks, it drives closer to stock IMO. What I did was take the WG duty cycle down to 85% fron 94% and adjusted the frequency from 400 hZ down to 350 hZ.... zzzzzzz unpft... whoops, sorry... dozed off there thinking about how boring this tune is now with the tweeks.

I am also re-considering the tests... originally thinking of the tuning drive but,, I drove that today and there is construction going on and speeds have to be reduced. On the way back past the same construction I can get away with holding 60. But... when I look at the data log from today on this tune vs the previous testing on the air box the slope of the boost has changed enough to compare against... I think. The loop around the neighborhood gets me up to 50 in 6th gear so I'm thinking it might be a better comparison to look at the gear rowing data 1st, then decide if its worth it to do the hiway runs.

thoughts?

 

[steve05ram360]

Minimally, anyone looking for more low end torque (and potential bump in mpg's) should have the stock air box + the intake tube that has the turning vanes in it.

 

[steve05ram360]

The center section is shorter...

 

[Alcharger]

the whole design of the TAG is going to be more restrictive in general vs no insert. It would come down to the restriction of the TAG vs the restriction of the OEM insert, the rest is the same. I have had a hard time wrapping my head around some of the user statements... the one being that under heavy load there is less boost to move the same load up a grade. I am concluding that the testers had intake tubes that did not have the oem vane insert and the peak torque had been flattened out some while the peak HP went up the RPMs some. I've seen this already with the air box mods over the years (hence the boost controlled valve version V4.1) and can see how with the TAG (or the OEM insert) the boost level would drop.

What I have learned... the oem tube, no insert sucks with the air box mod disabled. Enabled there is a decent amount of boost gained while going thru the gears, just looking at torque, ~3-4 psi if not more. The tests/data logging will be done with it disabled as to present a worst case scenario for all 3 tests. I will say this, so far the tune differences, previous higher rail pressure vs the tune I ran for a year... the tune I ran for a year (in there now) that I tweeked to slow the turbo spool up some, appears to have less calc-load in certain areas while going thru the gears.

The updated tune sucks, it drives closer to stock IMO. What I did was take the WG duty cycle down to 85% fron 94% and adjusted the frequency from 400 hZ down to 350 hZ.... zzzzzzz unpft... whoops, sorry... dozed off there thinking about how boring this tune is now with the tweeks.

I am also re-considering the tests... originally thinking of the tuning drive but,, I drove that today and there is construction going on and speeds have to be reduced. On the way back past the same construction I can get away with holding 60. But... when I look at the data log from today on this tune vs the previous testing on the air box the slope of the boost has changed enough to compare against... I think. The loop around the neighborhood gets me up to 50 in 6th gear so I'm thinking it might be a better comparison to look at the gear rowing data 1st, then decide if its worth it to do the hiway runs.

thoughts?

Maybe your TAG tests will explain the "less boost".

I liked my short test in 4th, 48re, on the same grade, same MPH on CC. This test removes human interference accept for traffic. It was easy to pick the same point on the data log and compare the data on a spread sheet graph. This info has been confirmed on road tests so I think it's a valid way to test. This short test area has a steep grade, flat and gentle down hill slope. At your suggestion, I'm comparing % engine load.

 

[steve05ram360]

Maybe your TAG tests will explain the "less boost".

I liked my short test in 4th, 48re, on the same grade, same MPH on CC. This test removes human interference accept for traffic. It was easy to pick the same point on the data log and compare the data on a spread sheet graph. This info has been confirmed on road tests so I think it's a valid way to test. This short test area has a steep grade, flat and gentle down hill slope. At your suggestion, I'm comparing % engine load.

Yup agreed, calc load is a good indicator of what a change did. the key there is to hit as many data points along the same lines during the test. I will stay with the plan.

What I can say though is with the modded tune that is in there (tweeks to turbo control), peak boost is not being clampled by the tune... I say this because when I enabled the air box mod, peak boosts jumped. Also, comparing the 2 different setups mentioned earlier, the data (shape) is repeatable on the return drive which takes me up the steep grade. Should make it easy (as expected) to overlay the 3 test runs.

 

[Alcharger]

Did the jump in boost correspond to jump in engine load? My boost vs engine load is very close.

What would cause the spike in boost when it has more air flow?

I adjusted my variable flow CAI. The trim damper had closed about 15 to 20%. The CAI damper stats to open at 5 psi boost and 100% open at 7 psi.

Like you have reported on your set up, I can feel a small bump in power when it forst opens. Being variable % open the transition should be smoother than say a 0 or 100% setup.

 

[steve05ram360]

Did the jump in boost correspond to jump in engine load? My boost vs engine load is very close.

What would cause the spike in boost when it has more air flow?

I adjusted my variable flow CAI. The trim damper had closed about 15 to 20%. The CAI damper stats to open at 5 psi boost and 100% open at 7 psi.

Like you have reported on your set up, I can feel a small bump in power when it forst opens. Being variable % open the transition should be smoother than say a 0 or 100% setup.

Yes, CL went up with boost. I only saw it though when on the on-ramp rowing thru the gears. Valve disabled aka off = max boost of 28.7 psi whereas when opened it was 30.2 psi. Difference being throttle position with more going to the open valve. Rail pressure is higher, fuel demand higher etc are tied to the valve open. This makes sense when looking back at the basic air box mod using the trailer vent. Open always had higher boost numbers but more throttle input. I will email you a couple of screen shots from the 2 files (both are from when I did the 3.5" valve enabled vs disabled with a marker set at the same rpm and speed on the ramp. give me a few...

 

[steve05ram360]

@Alcharger email sent... (aka EMS)

 

[VADERPOWER]

Steve, does the shorter tube section have the factory innards?

 

[steve05ram360]

@VADERPOWER yes it does but not the turning vanes...

Data collection done. All done within approx 2 hours, had one do-over because of traffic. At peak boost on the grade with a steady state of 55 mph via CC, the command fuel numbers were... Boost deltas were insignificant, under all conditions less then ~0.5 psi
1) OEM tube with Vanes = 60.9 mm3
2) OEM tube with TAG = 61.1 mm3
3) OEM tube with no TAG = 62.2 mm3

The delta across all 3 are in the noise region of the data (effectively they are the same). Looking at the accelleration data on the on ramp in 5th gear at ~1800 rpms it gets more interesting... Peak MM3 fuel rates are

1) OEM tube with TAG = 99.4 mm3, throttle = 42.8%
2) OEM tube with vanes = 102.7 mm3, throttle 46.3%
3) OEM tube with no TAG = 100.4 mm3, throttle 46.8%

Now for driving impressions... ranked by my preference with a grin factor... the TAG drags down performance from my perspective. Even after testing and enabling the air box mod it is still eh. I will run it for a week (I think) and get adjusted to it before swapping back to the OEM tube with Vanes. That is the best setup from my perspective.

1) OEM tube with vanes
2) OEM tube with no vanes
3) OEM tube with TAG

Here are the data logs... feel free to have a look and do what you will with them. They are HPT files, I can export to CSV if needed. At this time I do not have the bandwidth to graph any of the data, but can get to it at a later time.

TAG test data.zip

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[VADERPOWER]

So do you think the OEM tube with vanes is better than the AFE torque tube? Or is there give and take, I. E. The AFE has more power but less mpgs, or vise versa.

 

[steve05ram360]

So do you think the OEM tube with vanes is better than the AFE torque tube? Or is there give and take, I. E. The AFE has more power but less mpgs, or vise versa.

The AFE torque tube is going to move power up the rpm range. Part throttle bottom end torque will drop some, cant say how much on a stock turbo. With mine being a 64mm it becomes apparent that the stock tube with the turning vanes is the best setup. With the torque tube the rise time of boost is stretched out more, same with the oem tube w/o vanes or tag. I can see it in the data during the on-ramp portion of the data.

If you want the best of both worlds... OEM tube with vanes + stock air box + 3.5" airbox mod + velocity stack. It is easy enough to enable/disable the air box mod which when disabled will give you the best mpg's overall. I plan to add a vacuum switch inline with it to disable it on the fly. With my setup & the old tune, it was a noticeable change in performance. With the detuned setup I have in there now for the testing, it is not so obvious when the valve opens. I detuned the wastegate so it is sluggish to respond so I could get the most out of the test runs today.

 

[Alcharger]

@VADERPOWER yes it does but not the turning vanes...

Data collection done. All done within approx 2 hours, had one do-over because of traffic. At peak boost on the grade with a steady state of 55 mph via CC, the command fuel numbers were... Boost deltas were insignificant, under all conditions less then ~0.5 psi
1) OEM tube with Vanes = 60.9 mm3
2) OEM tube with TAG = 61.1 mm3
3) OEM tube with no TAG = 62.2 mm3

The delta across all 3 are in the noise region of the data (effectively they are the same). Looking at the accelleration data on the on ramp in 5th gear at ~1800 rpms it gets more interesting... Peak MM3 fuel rates are

1) OEM tube with TAG = 99.4 mm3, throttle = 42.8%
2) OEM tube with vanes = 102.7 mm3, throttle 46.3%
3) OEM tube with no TAG = 100.4 mm3, throttle 46.8%

Now for driving impressions... ranked by my preference with a grin factor... the TAG drags down performance from my perspective. Even after testing and enabling the air box mod it is still eh. I will run it for a week (I think) and get adjusted to it before swapping back to the OEM tube with Vanes. That is the best setup from my perspective.

1) OEM tube with vanes
2) OEM tube with no vanes
3) OEM tube with TAG

Here are the data logs... feel free to have a look and do what you will with them. They are HPT files, I can export to CSV if needed. At this time I do not have the bandwidth to graph any of the data, but can get to it at a later time.
G

[
[/QUOTE]
All good info.

I have a hunch the OEM tube/turning vanes help power and/or FE in the 0 to 5 psi range. My testing show nice gains in this area from a Torque Tube, gutted OEM tube/elbow to a stock OEM tube/elbow in this range. I' guessing, Dodge had picked the tip in from idle for the tube/vane sizing. They were trying to reduce emissions.

Could you pick a spot on your logs say at 0, 3 and 6 psi? Maybe you will see a bit more power/FE gain.

Using the calculator in the link below:
0 PSI, 155 CFM engine flow
5 PSI, 929 CFM
10 PSI, 1703 CFM

All calculated at 1740 RPM.

Engine Air Amount Calculator

10 psi boost is about 11xs more the air flow than a 0 psi! Fixed turning vanes are limited to a narrow air flow range range unlike our big brother 6.7 with a VGT....I want a VGT for the above reasons. AND no wonder these guys can get better power and FE than our more dependable but old tech 5.9s.

My Variable Flow CAI attaches the air a bit better in the 0 to 6 PSI range by restricting flow from 0 to 5 PSI and opening the damper at boost/air flow increased until it's 100% at 6 to 7 PSI. It acts like a the Variable Runner intake manifolds on newer gas burners.

 

[steve05ram360]

Yeah the oem tube with vanes definitely has more part throttle bottom end torque. If you close your dampr valve you should get better mpgs with it the vane tube installed.

 

[steve05ram360]

Zero % calc load at idle... Have not seen that in a long time.

 

[steve05ram360]

Update... ( may have mentioned this earlier in this thread, if not it was elsewhere not long ago) been trying to put my finger on performance with the TAG setup and the best way I can describe it is going back to the OEM intake elbow. Years back when I 1st got my truck and installed the ATS Arcflo the 1st thing I noticed was the AT did not want to down shift while passing others on 2 lane roads. The Arcflo stayed in place for a year or two and then I decided to go back to the stock intake elbow for a refresher on how it ran. The commute was something like 75 miles & 2500' elevation gain one way. Out came the ATS and in went the stocker with the goal being it would stay in there for a weeks worth of commuting. Performance sucked, sucked so bad after something like 2 days the ATS went back in.

That SOTP feel of going back to the stock elbow is the best way to describe how the current TAG setup performs. Reminder that the wastegate settings are set to make it more sluggish in response in an effort to highlight the differences between one setup and the next. So it is possible that restoring the tune to its former glory (8~10 23 mpg tanks, ability to lug it up the hill coming towards home and accelerating while doing it etc... the TAG may perform better. BUT... the other 2 setups performed better than the TAG setup from a driver experience point of view.

Have approx 100 miles on this setup and adding approx 70 more today, planning to fill up by 200~225 miles for mpg check. Then plan to go back to the stock intake with vanes.

For those looking for the best mpg's and bottom end torque, again the recommendation is the stock intake tube that has the turning vanes in it plus the stock air box. For bonus performance at the expense of the mpg's (to a point, no idea how much of a drop it is but its not enough for me to disable it 100% of the time), the air box mod V4.1 wins for additional power under higher loads.

 

[steve05ram360]

...aaaannnd change in plan. Current tank looks to be close to a 22.5+ mpg tank based on miles driven vs gauge needle position. 170 miles and just coming off the F mark. May have to investigate further. Would be looking at turbo tune changes i did vs intake tube setup.

I think if i bump the turbo duty cycle the performance wourld perk back up , question is... Is it impacting mpgs?