Can you split this to make both usable? Then wrap the turbo outlit pipe with heat tape to keep the heat off the lower part? Think that might help keep the heat out of the cooler charge?

 

Thats what I keep saying... There is NO ISSUE with heat exchange there. The VOLUME of air passing thru that pipe when the turbine outlet temps are high (above 20-25psi) is HUGE! Its not there long enough to do a damn thing.

I really doubt you could split them and have both sides useable. You would have to sacrifice one or the other.

 

For some reason I haven't been getting email notifications on this thread. I just looked at it to reference it to someone and saw all the new activity!

Yes the "boost fooler" needs to protect the MAP sensor from seeing more that 22 psi above ambient air pressure so both have to read pressure from the same location. The point about improved throttle response is that the PCM adds fuel as it sees the MAP reading increase and letting the MAP sensor read the hot side causes a faster/higher initial reading. But in the steady state like when climbing a long hill the MAP reading will max out at 22 psi above ambient air pressure whether its reading either the hot or the cold side, so moving it to the hot side only gives a difference during the initial throttle application.

 

Along with the thermal insulation, the flow characteristics should be better too. The interior of the spider is not the most precisely machined and smoothest surface I've ever seen. A precision manufactured and machined surface on the inside should produce better flow characteristics through there (especially from the spider to the intake plenum). Whether those improvements are worth $400 is up in the air, especially without any empirical data to review...

Just my .02

 

On their power pack kits for the early 99's Banks did exactly that by installing the heat shield shown below to insulate the driver's side CAC pipe so that it didn't pick up additional heat due to its close proximity to the exhaust manifold. There's a lot more clearance on the passenger side so Banks didn't think a heat shield was helpful there.

Well on the 99.5 and later trucks Ford was nice enough to install a heat shield that was even better than the original Banks version, but everyone on every forum I've read seems to be very proud of their "foil delete" mod which removes this functional heat shield so their CAC tube will look pretty! I guess they're from the old school that if it doesn't go fast anyway you might as well chrome it to make it look pretty!



Now of course Ford didn't go to the expense of adding that heat shield on their 99.5 trucks so that a customer could then add a chip and get a little more HP due to the slightly cooler MAT. It turns out that in mid 1998 Ford, International, and a lot of other OEMs signed a consent decree with the EPA as a settlement for not properly testing and meeting the new 1998 NOx emissions spec.

The EPA then added a new NOx test using a 20 mile stop and go loop that involved lengthy stops to simulate city driving. When a truck is stopped for a few minutes is when that CAC tube which is just above the drivers side exhaust manifold picks up the most heat from it. Hotter air going into the IC equates to hotter air coming out of the IC which means increased MAT which causes increased NOx emissions!

While I'm on a roll here I'll just finish the rest of this story. I've read that the real reason Ford added an IC to the early 99 truck, which began production in early 1998, was to meet the new 1998 NOx emissions spec which is all about achieving cooler combustion temps. The dual shot injectors helped because the heat ENERGY released from the fuel is spread over a longer time interval. Of course adding the IC also helped to reduce combustion temps.

In mid 1998 Ford learned that they would have to pass a "city driving loop" which required cooler combustion temps during stop and go driving. So lets look at the changes that were made from the early 99 which didn't meet this NOx spec to the 99.5 which did meet the spec.

Ford improved the flow characteristics of the 99.5 IC, added the heat shield to the driver's side CAC tube, and they changed the turbo and especially the compressor wheel. The 99.5 compressor wheel has full height blades with a larger pitch angle so that more air is forced to flow through the IC at lower boost including at idle.

Even though this 99.5 compressor wheel which gave higher air flow at lower boost helped reduce city driving NOx emissions it didn't work well at all for towing a heavy load up a mountain grade because of turbo surge, and if anyone's interested they can read the condensed version of that story here...

Post # 14 The short story version of Turbo Surge... https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/8...-dp-tuner.html

I've heard the claims that the IC was added to the 1998 (early 99) truck to compete in the HP wars, and the claims that the 99.5 high flow compressor wheel and the driver's side CAC tube heat shield were added because of customer complaints that the turbo was too loud, but I don't believe a word of that. The bean counters that run large companies carefully watch every penny and every design change has to be thoroughly justified.

My early 99 was definitely noisy but with a stock air box and filter you couldn't hear any turbo whine over the "thrashing machine" sounds coming from the rest of the engine! Now flash forward to 2003 when the NOx specs got even tighter. What did Ford do then? They used a turbo with a VGT so that they could adjust the turbine blade angle to pull even more air through an improved IC at low compressor wheel rpm to reduce MAT some more relative to the 99.5 design.

Well as everyone knows that 6.0L turbo whines like a banshee and even with my diminished hearing I can hear a 6.0L from a block away! I think this debunks the theory that Ford designs its turbos to muffle their turbine whine! Now to all those who complain about my excessive use of equations please note that this rant didn't use a single one, however I do have plenty of equations to back up the above!

 

According to this logic I should stop trying to cool my morning cup of coffee by blowing a "HUGE VOLUME of air" across the top of it, and the "HUGE VOLUME of air" flowing through my radiator must not be picking up any heat ENERGY from it so I'd be better off just sealing off that opening to get a lower aerodynamic drag coefficient???

I haven't continued my analysis because no one has responded to this request...

I won't venture a "guess" as to just how much heat ENERGY is transferred but even without doing a calculation I can say with certainty that the answer isn't "0" as you've claimed...

The way convective heat transfer works is that a "HUGE VOLUME of air" flowing across a hot object transfers heat ENERGY from the hot object to the air stream. Higher volume flows transfer more heat ENERGY not less! If there was no volume flow then the only mechanisms for transferring heat ENERGY are radiation and conduction. Since air is a good insulator conduction doesn't play much of a role and I don't think radiation contributes much either, so that just leaves convection!

 

Ugh... Go buy one... I am sure you will see HUGH improvments. While your there order one of the tornados for your throttle body.

I like you, and you are way to smart... but this product is snake oil if they claim any HP/TQ gains with it.

 

Well I'm glad to see you're apparently not too upset with my above comments. Sometimes a seemingly "clever" rebuttal pops into my head and I just can't resist using it. However I'll readily admit that just because blowing on my cup of coffee removes enough heat ENERGY from it to rapidly cool it to drinking temperature doesn't say a whole lot about how much or how little heat ENERGY is transferred from the hot spider to the air flowing through it.

I'll also agree that this new CFM Intake will probably not make the list of the top 10 important mods for increasing performance, but as with most problems I'm not satisfied until I can write some equations and calculate some numbers to several decimal places, which BTW I finally did on your stall speed thread!

Based on the principle that every little bit of reduction in MAT has the "potential" to give a little bit more HP it's not quite fair to classify this new CFM Intake as "snake oil" just yet. I've glanced through some threads on the V10 forum about a "throttle body spacer" and everyone was dismissing that as pure "snake oil" and then someone posted an argument that sounded fairly plausible to me as to why it did some good but I can't remember what it was. I guess I'll have to go see if I can find that thread again and analyze it.

 

I know in the 5.o Mustange you can get a thottle body spacer that you put between the intake and thottle body because of heat transfer. Those TB have engine coolant running to them also and they make a blocking plate for that also. They also make an upper to lower intake spacer for the GT40 and a few other intakes to keep the heat transfer from the lower intake, witch is bolted to the heads and gets lots of heat, to the upper intake. Those worked as they clamed an extra 8-10HP. Little mods that are 8-10HP a peice add up to 20-30-40 extra HP. And we all know HP comes with a cost.

 

giving this a bump . did anyone buy one and install it ???

 

I sold one to a customer about 6 weeks ago. He claims that he noticed a slight difference and of course loves the way it looks. But then again, anyone that spends a chunk of money on something might feel the same way

 

I probably got the same amount of benefit from porting the inside of my spider. Just, I don't have the external looks of the CFM+. I thought of polishing the outside, but decided not to.

 

I've been thinking about doing the same thing. When I pulled it off to put the van turbo on, I couldn't believe how rough that thing was!