ANYONE have good results from the Steed Speed Manifolds yet?
- Thread starter 08BIGRIG
- Start date
jdgleason
Active member
How much would that pressure vary? I don't see a way that pressure would vary enough to make much of a difference to the sensor.
Fast-6.0
New member
Attached our some of our datalogs from Mike's Silver truck. The first is with 6L manifolds. The 2nd is with Steedspeed manifolds. The EBP bung is located in the same place on both sets of uppipes (a straight section of 2" pipe).
I tried to get the data to the same point on both graphs.
You can see that the backpressure and boost are lower at this point with the steedspeeds. You can also see that the turbo vane position is 95% on both tests.
This data is consistent as the rpm increases. This data backs up what we saw on the dyno and what Mike and Jerry our stating they feel. Slower spool.
I tried to get the data to the same point on both graphs.
You can see that the backpressure and boost are lower at this point with the steedspeeds. You can also see that the turbo vane position is 95% on both tests.
This data is consistent as the rpm increases. This data backs up what we saw on the dyno and what Mike and Jerry our stating they feel. Slower spool.
Attachments
Fast-6.0
New member
Fast-6.0
New member
steedspeed
New member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 0
If sensor is on straight section it shouldn't be an issue. BTW, I just talked to Trevor in Idaho and he has my manifolds and your pipes. He says his truck hauls ass now. Why would his leave rubber for as long as he wants to lay it yet another truck loses power? Something isn't adding up here.
Powerstroked162
On Da Juice
You are right..... Some people are changing ten things at once and others are simply swapping just the manifolds. Why do you imply the testing being done is fraudulent?? None of the other users reporting back to you have the physical data to prove the available info wrong. So I guess I don't get why it's even being discussed.
Fast-6.0
New member
Agreed.
mike@haller's
New member
Does he have any before and after data? How much was done during the swap? Just manifolds or were more parts changed? Definately odd the different results people are having.
steedspeed
New member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 0
Trevor changed only the manifolds and up pipes. Perhaps you would like to call him and ask him yourself? I'm not saying the data is fraudulent. I'm saying it doesn't make sense that similar trucks would have such different results
.
He says just the manifolds and Elite up pipes. I'm not sure why a guy would tell me he is making way more power after the install if he isn't. Wouldn't he be calling to complain about lack of power?
Could it simply be that the manifolds are dropping velocity when the combo is under the chargers contributing to a longer spoolup? If the testing shows that the vgt was peaked like that and there was less boost, then it looks like the manifold/up-pipe volume was too large causing a lack of velocity. Once the chargers spool it makes more power because of the added flow. With the VGT closed off, the turbo is the higheset point of restriction, when the vgt is open, the pipes and manifolds can be the culprit until you exceed the capacity of the turbine and/or the exhaust housing.
Wayne
Active member
I think I speak for all of us "consumers" interested in the results when I say data logs & dyno runs of manifolds and up pipes being the only variable are the only legitimate information worthy of convincing anyone here. Butt dynos and reports of "it's really fast now" aren't gonna convince me either as I know of a lot of wanna-be heroes and self proclaimed experts who claim a product is the next best thing. Because the product looks "cool", and they spent a lot of hard earned coin, they like to convince themselves and others that it made a ton of power when they did this mod.
Aside from cosmetics, the only positive reviews I've heard on these manifolds are from guys with no data to back up their claims who may, or may not have done other modifications at the same time. Please people, for the sake of not beating a dead horse, keep your feedback to yourself unless you have legitimate verified info. It only makes you look foolish when your butt dyno directly contrasts the validated info.
It looks like plenty of legitimate shops are working on collecting legitimate info on these, so I say wait for concrete info. Good post BTW Matt. It's been brought up before, but I think what you said has a lot to do with the poor results.
Aside from cosmetics, the only positive reviews I've heard on these manifolds are from guys with no data to back up their claims who may, or may not have done other modifications at the same time. Please people, for the sake of not beating a dead horse, keep your feedback to yourself unless you have legitimate verified info. It only makes you look foolish when your butt dyno directly contrasts the validated info.
It looks like plenty of legitimate shops are working on collecting legitimate info on these, so I say wait for concrete info. Good post BTW Matt. It's been brought up before, but I think what you said has a lot to do with the poor results.
Last edited:
BBottoms
New member
I'm an engineer, albeit not an automotive one, but :whs: sounds like a good explanation to me.
Last edited:
mike@haller's
New member
I don't doubt you and I fully understand you defending your product. I'm just curious what he might have done different (if anything) to help figure out the different variables. I would like to see these manifolds do well also.
This is exactly what I was thinking as well. Maybe a tune that closes the vanes up early and holds them closed longer, is what these manifolds will need to shine.
steedspeed
New member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 0
Quite possible. The flow is very good but perhaps the Fords don't create enough volume of gas to allow for anything but a very small volume manifold/up pipe combo. I'm certainly leaning this way. I have made 5 sets of manifolds on which I reduced the passages as small possible and made the outlet 2 inch instead of 2.5. I'll be shipping a set to Elite this week. Tadd tells me he is good to go to try them right away on his truck.
It ain't getting more closed than 95%. On tightly smoke controlled trucks, this can be a double edged sword because if the truck isn't making boost, it won't get the fuel either.... but that isn't the main issue. It could simply be that the volume is wrong under the turbo and until the turbo lights the manifolds won't shine. Once the turbos do light, i'd imagine there would be a pretty good "under the curve" power difference until the chargers become the restriction again.
Last edited:
jdgleason
Active member
You would think. Unfortunately that's not what we saw with Dillehay's truck, and it seems to be what Jerry is echoing now as well.
I'm anxious to see graphs of Jerry's truck before and after on the dyno to see if there were gains, or if the power is down as bad as he said.
Good to hear. Let's keep moving forward on these and get these to work for everyone. I really think that the 2" setup is going to be the ticket. I sure hope this is it.
Truck gets dyno time tommarow afternoon. This is the earliest that we can work all of our schedules out together.
Even at 2 inches the flow restriction is still going to be the turbo and or wastegate if so equipped and the gains should come from directing the pulses properly and keeping them from slamming into each other between cylinders like they do in a typical log/stock manifold and causing exhaust port reversion.
