Hello, out there, does anybody on this forum have a set of the old Beans 7.3L billet plenums they'd like to sell. I'm interested in a set. My email is rdrckt78@gmail.com please send pictures. Hopefully someone may still have a set available. Thank you

S. Valdes

 

Or, you could just get a set from Riffraff Diesel. I have them as others here do, and they are a great product.
EDIT. I have the inserts, But RR has the billet plenums also. Tugly runs them and says they are top notch.

 

I have a set somewhere. I pulled them off and replaced them with the ones from Riffraff. I'll try to dig them out tonight and email photos to you.

 

I have them from Riffraff and recommend them.
EDIT: Thought this was about inserts, not the plenum themselves... Carry on..

 

Thanks Duck Fan: be looking forward to seen your pictures. I not particular to the Riff Raft intakes..Really want the AMJ or old style Beans..

 

Not wanting to pass a learning opportunity up: You don't like RRD billet plenums for aesthetic reasons, or for technical reasons?

 

I don't know if anybody has done an airflow check on either of the two Plenums, Riff Raff or the old style Beans. But imo the Bean old style (AMJ) show more volume space than the Riff Raff. When you are packing air into a small area, the turbo starts to compress the existing air volume into the plenum, by having a larger capacity plenum the volume of air is increased. More air means higher HP provided you have other mods like injectors that can saturate that extra air with fuel. I'm not knocking the Riff Raff, but to me its all about air volume, and flow. I believe that the design on the old Beans, have better flow dynamics and volume capacity. To answer your Question Tugly, I think it's more of a technical issue than aesthetic.

 

Ah... something to chew on. I was wondering the same thing when I went from the stock "pyramid" shape to the new flat shape. I can see where one would want even flow to all cylinders, but the turbo pressurizes the air to the point where I'm not so sure the shape of the plenum has as much impact as it would with natural aspiration. I'm not being contrary here... I'm just in "I wonder" mode.

 

In my uneducated opinion, I think a plenum of higher cross section would have improved air flow. If you could have equal length individual runners to each cylinder, wouldn't that be the "perfect" condition? As far as fuel saturation in a larger area? There is no fuel present in the intake plenum...fuel gets introduced in the cylinder.

I'm sure others may know more the critical velocity of air flow through a pipe or tube. How that applies to this? I can't even offer a guess.

 

I have 2 issues with the billet plenums.
They are aesthetically technical.

1. Cost vs. Benefit.
2. Material waste to cut them. If they were machined in 2 ops... plenum and inlet, then welded or pressed together... i would only have 1 issue with them.

In the past i threw out there that since they are aluminum... oxidizing could be an issue years down the road.. but it was only in jest...
No one should take that comment into consideration when contemplating this kinda Bu$kZooka trigger pull. The compressor housing and spider are both cast aluminum... with much worse oxidizing properties, so a stock turbo and intake spider would cause an issue at least a decade before the billet would ever think about corrosion.

 

I agree that pressurized air charge (boost) on an engine that only turns 3200 rpms I don't feel the shape of the plenum is going to amount to a hill of beans. No pun intended on "Beans" Ok maybe Now if the 7.3 was turning 5500/6000 rpms it would make a difference. Come on now lets take a look at the design of the intake runners in the heads they are not set up to flow by any sense of performance. So if someone is going to worry about the plenums I would also be addressing some porting of the intake runners. If you look at the fuild dynamics of the air flow of a 7.3 turbo diesel that turns 3200/3500rpms it really won't make any difference. At them rpms and a said boost of 30psi I am going to guess you would be lucky to see 1/2% increase at best out of a cleaner flow pattern of the air. But you still have crappy intake runners and the intake spider that are really a poor design when it comes down to flow.

Now if we where talking about a big block gasser that was twin turbocharged, injected and N2O that turned 6500/7000 rpms then I think it would be a issue.

So MerlinV if that is what you want and think it makes that much of a difference I wish you luck in finding a set of them.

 

I'm sure he collects the scrap and recycles it. Its very common. I see barrels of aluminum and brass shavings at the scrap yard all the time.

 

Think deeper than just the extra chips.
Think of the extra time it takes to mill out all that material vs. starting with a piece of flat stock closer to finish dimensions and machine the inlet seperately from tube stock closer to finished dimensions and the result would be lower end user cost. All the extra machining adds wear to very, very expensive tooling, which the consumption of adds to end user cost, as those manufacturing costs are passed down. So instead of maybe getting 10 parts per endmill... you get 20 because you have removed half as much material...and in half the time. To run the inlets on a mill additionally increases wear on tooling due to the nature of the cutting motions necessary to maintain finish. Corners and the first .120" from the face on the side cutters go first... then your machine starts belching fire from friction instead of slicing the metal.

 

Doc, I think this thread is getting out of control... I just want to buy a set.

 

I see no benefit to them being "billet"....what would really do this part justice is some sort of diecasting. But the cost for the molds for the diecast would be enormous....for a niche item like this.