Im curious to see if anyone in the aftermarket makes a replacement pipe for this.

I plan on making one for this truck simply because I cannot stand the fact that they crushed the pipe to clearance the alternator.

I am also not sure if this pipe is the same on all 6.0L's or just those with dual alternators.

Either way, I will be making at least one and more if there is interest and Ill probably add it to my product line and hopefully will be available in a powdercoated finish.

Price obviously wont be set until I make a prototype, that is unless someone else out there makes one already, then of course there isnt much need unless I can make it cheaper.

 

Count me in for one if it clears the dual alternators and fits the stock intercooler.

 

That sucks or should I say don't suck right. I hope mine isn't like that. I will have to look tommorrow but I don't remember seeing it like that.

 

Banks makes one (only if you buy their intercooler).

However, with that said, that slight dent is a very negligable flow restriction to pressurized air. If it were on the atmospheric side of the turbocharger, it would be a different story, but when under boost it simply isn't an obstruction. Realistically there would be no performance gain from replacing that one pipe.

 

Im not going to disagree with you on that, given that I havent made one nor tested it, however your statement isnt entirely correct, given you didnt take turbulance into account.

Even on the pressureized side, infact more commonly on the pressureized side of intake systems, air turbulance can greatly effect things such as...
1. solid (consistant) boost pressure
2. turbo lag
3. overall boost pressure

Think of it in terms of your garden hose.... water flows through a X amount of gallons per hour. Now if you step on it slightly or put a slight kink in it, what happens......?

I have far more experience with other turbocharged vehicles such as GMC Syclone, GMC Typhoons, Buick Grand Nationals, Pontiac Turbo Trans Ams and Toyota Supra TT's, but diesel trucks are no different.

Infact there was a 3-way comparison test on a Twin Turbo Supra not too long ago where they tested not only on the dyno, but on the flow bench. They compared the stock intake vs. HKS Aftermarket vs. (some other brand) Aftermarket, I cant remember who's it was, but it was supposedly far cheaper than the HKS.

They tested all 3 on the flow bench, the HKS flowed the best, the stocker did the worst.

They put the intakes on the car, then ran each intake on the dyno twice, and waited the same amount of time between each run as to have similar engine and air temps. They found that the cheaper aftermarket intake yielded a significant amount of HP and TRQ over the more expensive HKS intake, all due to turbulance.

Now Im not saying this little pipe is going to have significant HP or TRQ improvements over the bent stocker, but if I go through with this, what I am willing to do is make a second one and ship it to someone who has access to a dyno and is willing to make 4 pulls on their truck, 1 pull with the stock pipe (baseline), 2 consecutive pulls with my pipe, then 1 pull with the stock pipe to take any engine or air temps into account.

Im certainly not out to make a useful product, hence the point of this thread. I just wanted to get some feedback on the idea and heck, when all's said and done it might actually yield some power increase but cost too much to make, who knows, theres only one way to find out

Its not gonna happen tomorrow, but when it does happen you guys will be the first to know

 

Well, your statements are not totally correct either. Whether or not your flow is turbulent or laminar is dependent upon the value of the Reynolds number. The Reynolds number is a function of velocity, density, viscosity, and "characteristic length." To have laminar flow the Re number needs to be below 2000. From 2000-4000 your flow is in transition, and from 4000+ the flow is turbulent. The velocity in a pipe is based on your Q=AV or mass flow rate and your characteristic length is the pipe diameter (if the pipe is round) or for non-round pipes you need to use the Hydraulic Diameter. The hydraulic diameter is 4A/P where A is the cross sectional are and P is the “wetted perimeter.”

For a simple round tube with a diameter of 3 inches and assuming STP (standard temperature and pressure), laminar (non turbulent flow) your air velocity would have to be less than 1.25 ft/s or 0.85 miles per hour. I don’t think that is happening in our 6.0L engines.

The “squashed tube” will only affect your mass flow rate if the cross sectional area has changed. If it is a smaller area, and the velocity stays the same, your “Q” will decrease. So if the squashed pipe has the same cross sectional area as a round pipe, your flow is not restricted.

An interesting side note is that if you assume equal cross sectional areas for a round pipe with a 3 inch diameter and one that is oblong, your characteristic length according to the hydraulic diameter, is about 4 (based on an ellipse). So you will go into transitional flow at lower velocities in an oblong pipe than you would in a round pipe. But that does not take away from the fact that you are going into transition at velocities that are less than one mile per hour.

 

yep, and it all still comes down to one thing, which is nothing. Because with out a prototype, flow bench or a dyno, its all just talk without actual proof or specific numbers.

Im making at least 1 reguardless and I already have someone willing to dyno it for me, at which time will determind whether or not its even practical to make, but thank you for your interest.

 

there is no way the squashed pipe can have the same cross-sectional area as perfect circle (correction: with the inside/outside diameter held constant). I like the look of the single alt boost tubes alot better.

 

From Bankspower website. Look at the intercooler.

"Banks boost tubes are large and streamlined with no kinks or smashed areas; mandrel-bending keeps the air flowing through with a minimum of pressure loss. Banks High-Ram intake with its impressive size and less restrictive shape does a far better job than the pipsqueak stock intake of flowing cool, dense air into the engine."

In case you didn't know, Gale Banks is a diesel super genius.

 

I was addressing turbulent vs. laminar flow not pressure loss. The bigger the ID of the tube, the faster the flow will turn turbulent as the fluid velocity increases. Turbulent flow is not necessarily a bad thing. Creating turbulent flow is why golf ***** have dimples.

Go back to the Q=AV. If you increase the area and the velocity stays constant, your mass flow rate increases.