10.8's ALL night long! 72mm tapped out?!
10-09-2011, 03:18 PM
#21
youre not staying planted, youre nosing over just off launch, the rear is unloading really quick, loosing alot right there, as for the front id just buy some cheap *** shocks from a parts store, is the rear still in stock form? might wanna try relocating the shocks.then get ya some coil overs
10-09-2011, 08:13 PM
#22
the truck jumps out of the hole and goes flat. you need to keep the rear end of the truck carrying the front end of the truck all the way through 1st gear. After that it will start to settle. You want the lightest spring under the front of the truck to just hold it at ride height if that makes sense. Strangely enough, we've had the best luck with cheap stock replacement shocks on the front of skeet's truck but know there's something to be gained by going to an adjustable coilover up front. Youre in the right direction by removing all the weight you can from the firewall forward.
personally, it wouldnt matter to me if that thing ran 12's or 13's.... it looks GOOD
personally, it wouldnt matter to me if that thing ran 12's or 13's.... it looks GOOD
10-09-2011, 09:08 PM
#23
Congrads man! What 72mm is that? How does spool feel vs the PT?
I'm with the others on the wheels up front, and the transfer. The wore out shocks are a good idea. You should be able to grab the bumper and top out the suspention when it's right. Could also try a click or two softer in back just to see. Those heavy wheels are hurting your transfer. I'd hunt down some colorado, or stock alum wheels to try. Bet it would go 10.5 no problem.
I'm with the others on the wheels up front, and the transfer. The wore out shocks are a good idea. You should be able to grab the bumper and top out the suspention when it's right. Could also try a click or two softer in back just to see. Those heavy wheels are hurting your transfer. I'd hunt down some colorado, or stock alum wheels to try. Bet it would go 10.5 no problem.
10-09-2011, 10:31 PM
#25
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Currently In suspense.
Posts: 1,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=foose04;4789178]Not sure on current back pressure, I wonder the same thing though. Why do you think E85 would add to back pressure? Extra fuel volume?
Not jus fuel volume but,the heat from the shear exhaust gases.With a internal combustion engine E85 typically has more heat energy in the exhaust compared to petrol.Due to a slower burn rate in the cylinder more heat transfers to the exhaust inturn making it a less efficient fuel.
Having a relatively large volume of exhaust that has to move past the other side of your engine makes for some serious turbulance.The overall volocity suffers when too much cfm has to flow through a given log manifold kit.This problem would soon begin to hinder high rpm power along with sustaining a even peak boost.Having to add the springs to your wg. for more peak boost could be the result of higher backpressure.I think you are on the boarder of deminishing return.I dont think there is any thing wrong with the design except you jus need a bigger log manifold.It would be best to discuss this with Kyle KBracing "I think that is who built your kit yes/no?"Im sure he would know where the limit of that particular log manifold is.
Not jus fuel volume but,the heat from the shear exhaust gases.With a internal combustion engine E85 typically has more heat energy in the exhaust compared to petrol.Due to a slower burn rate in the cylinder more heat transfers to the exhaust inturn making it a less efficient fuel.
Having a relatively large volume of exhaust that has to move past the other side of your engine makes for some serious turbulance.The overall volocity suffers when too much cfm has to flow through a given log manifold kit.This problem would soon begin to hinder high rpm power along with sustaining a even peak boost.Having to add the springs to your wg. for more peak boost could be the result of higher backpressure.I think you are on the boarder of deminishing return.I dont think there is any thing wrong with the design except you jus need a bigger log manifold.It would be best to discuss this with Kyle KBracing "I think that is who built your kit yes/no?"Im sure he would know where the limit of that particular log manifold is.
Last edited by SincalT/A; 10-09-2011 at 10:44 PM.
10-09-2011, 10:45 PM
#26
I think KB's log setup is alot more efficient then people think. I look at the HP my power hungry 4x4 shows at the track pt88/370CI and I don't see other PT88/370 setups showing the power. I actually think the forward sweeping log setup could be worth power vs a tubular header. Now I do agree a T design isn't good. I've also plated around with E85 and MPH comes up even with a restricted Tc76/68 on 6.0L
10-09-2011, 11:05 PM
#27
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Currently In suspense.
Posts: 1,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think KB's log setup is alot more efficient then people think. I look at the HP my power hungry 4x4 shows at the track pt88/370CI and I don't see other PT88/370 setups showing the power. I actually think the forward sweeping log setup could be worth power vs a tubular header. Now I do agree a T design isn't good. I've also plated around with E85 and MPH comes up even with a restricted Tc76/68 on 6.0L
10-09-2011, 11:27 PM
#30
Yeah,I could see that being a possibility but,your log is bigger then his Im sure of it.Foose's kit was designed around a master power t70 so I would think the log is either 2.5"or 3" T-4 flange.I agree that properly designed log will develope great volocity to a point.