I've measured engine compartment temperatures but the most complete and well documented data was measured by Tenn. The most recent discussion of Tenn's data and other inputs and analyses concerning the effects of engine compartment temperature can be found here... https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/8...ml#post7310916

 

I'm not a PE. I was initially interested in pursuing the Ph D to teach but when I saw all the administrative BS that was required I decided my personality wasn't up to the task so I finished up what I'd started and got a job at the Naval Research Lab and then after 10 years moved on to other things.

I must've been a budding EE at birth, crystal sets in cub scouts, won the 6th grade science fair with an "analog computer" which was nothing more than a battery, 2 logarithmic potentiometers, and a milliamp meter to which I'd attached a calibrated logarithmic scale. The crowd was amazed as one dial was set to 5 and the other to 2 and the meter read 10. It was more confusing than amazing when both dials were set to 2! Then ham radio in Jr high and high school, etc.. so what choice did I have?

Good luck with pursuing your engineering degree/degrees.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist that one


But in all honesty, the "concerns" have been hashed out a long long time ago. Concerns are fine and valid, but until those concerns become a reality, it's really nothing more than speculation at this point. If the 6637 filter were brand new and only a few people had ever tried it, then sure there would be less acceptance and more speculation. But it's been around for years on the PSD, and even longer on the Cummins (they call it the BAF, same setup, but with a filter that has a 5" opening). So it's been used by many many people, and to this point, no one has had major issues with it's use. It's been a very reliable and a trustworthy setup. Many folks feel more comfortable with it then they do the stock Ford setup. For those who have had issues with the stock airbox, they know exactly what I'm talking about.

Usually after a certain amount of time, road testing, and proven results, then a mod is typically accepted by most. Of course, there will always be those who don't accept it, and that's fine. So for anyone taking the time to read this entire thread and get to this point, just remember that many people who have posted their recommendations for the 6637 filter have already used it, and had good results with it. Take it for what it's worth. That's about all I can add to this thread. Everything else has already been said.

 

Here's the thing. If heat on the I/C piping was such a great concern, why *only* put it on the HOT side? Wouldn't you want the cool side insulated from all the under-hood heat too?

Here is Tenn's data that I put in Excel & graphed:

 

I could imagine, Budro's 38R & AFE II is screeching loud on the dyno with the AFE-II.

And here (the short version)....

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/824601-what-is-a-van-turbo-3.html

Plus the other 450 threads before that.....
Happy Easter all.....

 

Joe,

Not to beat a dead horse..... But wasn't the manifold temps estimated in these tests?

 

That's the reason I built a box around mine. The drone got on my nerves after a couple of weeks.

I think the signature is what gives you away.

 

It was measured and read with AE from what I recall. There's another temp sensor in the spider right where it splits to feed the heads.

EDIT: It's the one right next to the hose connection for the MAP sensor...

 

I hear you Joe,

IIRC, when I was going through this with Gene a few weeks ago on this thread:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/8...n-turbo-3.html

the Manifold temps he used in the formulas were estimated if I recall correctly. When I ran my AE software & predator programer I did not come up with anything similar. My AIT temps were no greater than 7-12 degrees above OAT when towing a 31' and approx 10K fully loaded. My Manifold temps were much lower than the values used.

But I am running the DI Intercooler. Even so, my AIT temps were never that high unless at a stop light in 100 degree weather.


Sorry guys, I am beating the dead horse!

 

Yeah, they seemed high to me, too. I tied a remote temp probe under my hood and I don't think it was that hot either. I might do that again just for fun. I don't remember the conditions Mike was testing under, either. I'm about to order that ScanGauge, so I'll have some real time data to watch as well.

 

I am not surprised that you couldn't resist, after all you were the first one to call me a 6637 basher and caused me to put that in my signature.

 

goodnight all.......I'm going back to my drink and watch the rest of Ben-Hur........Happy Easter.

 

Here is a great link for everyone on this subject.... I think it will set a few things straight.

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/8...tion-test.html

 

First let me state what I know for sure... 1) Banks included a heat shield for the driver's side CAC tube with their early 99 power pack kit because my early 99 Stinger kit manual included the early 99 power pack information however I'm not sure exactly what Banks did in their later 99.5 power pack kit, 2) Ford added insulation to the driver's side CAC tube for the 99.5 and later trucks, and 3) neither Banks (early 99) or Ford (99.5) provided any insulation for the passenger's side CAC tube.

The following is my "equation free" engineering judgment as to why Banks and Ford did what they did and it's based on the fact that heat ENERGY transfer occurs between a hotter "source" and a cooler "sink" and please feel free to ask questions because I'll be using some terms without defining them just to keep this as short as possible.

On the Ford insulation the purpose of the "foil" is to "reflect" so-called "heat photons" and the foil provides insulation against the "radiative" heat transfer mechanism. Underneath the foil is a spray-on foam which provides insulation against "convective/conductive" heat transfer mechanisms.

The Banks heat shield is also reflective with an inner insulation and it's clamped to the lower portion of the driver's side CAC tube where the CAC tube runs above and close to the exhaust manifold. So why did Banks localize his heat shield to just the immediate region between the CAC tube and the exhaust manifold whereas the Ford insulation covers the entire driver's side CAC tube?

The reason is that Banks sold the customer an upgraded intercooler as part of his power pack kit and Banks was addressing the "high performance" situation of operating at sustained boosts of 22 psi and higher where the "steady state" air temperature in the driver's side CAC tube is 350 F.

Banks didn't want additional heat ENERGY being transferred to the region of the 350 F CAC tube where it ran near to and above the 1,200 F exhaust manifold but he also wanted the rest of the 350 F CAC tube to be able to transfer whatever heat ENERGY it could to the cooler engine compartment air which is always less than 350 F even when the radiator fan is triggered into its full lock-up mode at an engine compartment air temperature of 205F.

Ford on the other hand was addressing the "low performance" situation involved in passing the EPA city driving loop test which involves stops at lights and slow speed driving. In this case the boost is low to nonexistent and the air temperature in the driver's side CAC tube is say 80 F which is only slightly above the say 70 F temperature of the air going into the stock air box.

Now the driver's side 80 F CAC tube can pick up heat ENERGY from the nearby 1,200 F exhaust manifold as well as from other components in the engine compartment that are hotter than 80 F. Heat rises so having the driver's side CAC tube right above the hot exhaust manifold while stopped was probably the biggest concern Ford had but since it was beneficial to go ahead and insulate the entire driver's side CAC tube and it was probably easier and cheaper as well that's what Ford did.

So why didn't either Banks or Ford insulate the passenger's side CAC tube? Well for the Banks "high performance" situation of operating at sustained boosts of 22 psi and higher the "heat capacity" of the intercooler is eventually "saturated" and the entire intercooler body reaches a "steady state" operating temperature of 165 F or higher and this is the air temperature in the passenger's side CAC tube as well.

The passenger's side CAC tube doesn't run very close to the exhaust manifold and the limited portion that can pick up heat ENERGY from the exhaust manifold probably doesn't pick up very much and most of the passenger's side 165 F CAC tube can typically loose heat ENERGY to the surrounding engine compartment air and that's why the passenger's side CAC tube shouldn't be insulated for optimizing operation at sustained boosts of 22 psi and higher.

The MAT that's measured in the spider is the air temperature in the passenger's side CAC tube but the MAT measurements being reported on this thread and on other threads aren't the same thing as the "steady state" operating temperature that I referred to above. I'll do a separate post on this topic but until I do consider putting a cup of water in a microwave oven and "nuking" it for say 15 or 20 seconds and then measuring its temperature. When you do this short term heating of the water you won't see the same temperature reading as you'd get if you heated the water for say the 2 or 3 minutes that's required to saturate the "heat capacity" of the water and bring it to a boil.

You also need to operate an engine for 2 or 3 minutes at sustained boosts of 22 psi and higher before the "heat capacity" of the intercooler saturates and you get the maximum "steady state" MAT reading. During Tenn's measurements he was towing his boat and he had his ATV in the bed of his truck so that he could put a higher load on his engine but he was in traffic on the interstate and had to lag back to leave a gap then do a relatively short acceleration run at high boost and then let off the throttle.

If you look at Tenn's data table you'll see his measurements such as a MAT of 129 F when his measured IAT was 145 F and you'll see my computer model corrections (in blue) of his 129 F MAT measurement to a corrected "steady state" MAT of 166 F to 169 F which is the "steady state" MAT reading Tenn would've measured if he could've maintained his high boost run for 2 or 3 minutes such as when towing up a long grade. But I'll have more to say about this later.

For the Ford "low performance" situation there wasn't the same issue of the passenger's side CAC tube being right above the hot exhaust manifold while stopped so there wasn't as much reason to insulate the passenger's side CAC tube there. In fact since the intercooler is sandwiched between the A/C condenser and the radiator when driving slow and stopping a lot the passenger's side CAC tube can actually wind up slightly hotter than the driver's side CAC tube and it might even lose a little heat ENERGY to the surrounding engine compartment air as long as it's not insulated.

Based on the above points I'd say a "partial foil delete" mod which leaves the insulation in the region where Banks placed his heat shield is better than a "complete foil delete" mod and better than no "foil delete" mod. You might not pass the EPA city driving loop test with a "partial foil delete" mod but you'll have better performance when operating at sustained high boost levels for 2 or 3 minutes or more.

Now if you really want to put some extra insulation to good use you should insulate both exhaust manifolds, both up-pipes, and the turbine housing as well because this increases your boost pressure for a given fuel flow! The turbo is basically a "heat engine" which means that most of the turbine shaft's drive HP is obtained from the heat ENERGY in the hot expanding exhaust gas.

If this wasn't true then a "supercharger" with its direct mechanical connection to the crankshaft would be much more efficient than a "turbocharger" is due to its "mushy" indirect connection to the crankshaft via the pistons pushing a gas flow past the turbine in a manner that's similar to an "air powered" impact wrench. But in actuality a "turbocharger" is much more efficient than a "supercharger" is because the turbo extracts heat ENERGY from the exhaust gas which would otherwise be rejected to the atmosphere and wasted.

So the insulation I suggested above retains the maximum amount of exhaust gas heat ENERGY for powering the turbo and in a future post I'll show how the turbo's pressure ratio is a function of the "absolute" temperature ratio of the turbo's inlet and outlet temperatures.

The insulation will also dramatically reduce engine compartment temperatures and if I hadn't already been shopping for a different truck by the time I figured out the dual benefits of the insulation I suggested above I would've installed it myself!

 

Excellent explanation and information Eugene. Beyond having to look up the abreviations (but I will learn those with time), I think I actually understood your post!

Thanks!