FFD Rail System

[Zeb]

This bet/test could be made pretty simple.

Usually ICP is power so:

300/200’s, a single 15* pump, a Hydra (for # of tunes) and a tuner willing to write 10 tunes that are exactly the same except for the amount of commanded PW. Start the tunes at 2.5 ms and go up in .5 ms steps.

Strap it on dyno and make pulls on each tune until it won’t hold commanded ICP.
Record which tune, power, etc.

Install the rails and redyno until it won’t hold commanded ICP again.

See what/if there are any power gains.

It might hold ICP better, but this would tell if it actually holds ICP better AND makes more power, or just holds ICP better.

I think it is entirely possible that it would hold ICP better and not make any more power.

 

[Swaan]

In this particular case ICP means nothing. You have restrictions in the rails so naturally ICP is going to make you believe everything is so much better.

What matters is the HP difference. Plain and simple.

If you have a truck in desperate need more oil and falls flat on the top end this would be great!! Now put the rails in and do another pull. After all this is what these rail inserts are for , right???

If HP goes way up or stays the same or worse , then there is your
answer.

 

[Zeb]

In this particular case ICP means nothing. You have restrictions in the rails so naturally ICP is going to make you believe everything is so much better.

What matters is the HP difference. Plain and simple.

If you have a truck in desperate need more oil and falls flat on the top end this would be great!! Now put the rails in and do another pull. After all this is what these rail inserts are for , right???

If HP goes way up or stays the same or worse , then there is your
answer.

Exactly my thinking.

That's why I said USUALLY ICP is power.

ICP might be higher, because of the restriction, but I bet power won’t be, because of the restriction.

 

[Chvyrkr]

This bet/test could be made pretty simple.

Usually ICP is power so:

300/200’s, a single 15* pump, a Hydra (for # of tunes) and a tuner willing to write 10 tunes that are exactly the same except for the amount of commanded PW. Start the tunes at 2.5 ms and go up in .5 ms steps.

Strap it on dyno and make pulls on each tune until it won’t hold commanded ICP.
Record which tune, power, etc.

Install the rails and redyno until it won’t hold commanded ICP again.

See what/if there are any power gains.

It might hold ICP better, but this would tell if it actually holds ICP better AND makes more power, or just holds ICP better.

I think it is entirely possible that it would hold ICP better and not make any more power.

Start at 2.5 and go up a .5 per tune, for 10 tunes...?

I reckon if 7ms of PW don’t strain HPO, nothing will... Be about twice as much time as it takes to empty a 300/200 though, and probably 3-3.5ms more than you can use at 3500 RPM.

 

[Zeb]

Start at 2.5 and go up a .5 per tune, for 10 tunes...?

I reckon if 7ms of PW don’t strain HPO, nothing will... Be about twice as much time as it takes to empty a 300/200 though, and probably 3-3.5ms more than you can use at 3500 RPM.

That was supposed to say start at 2.5 ms and go up .2 ms per tune.
End up at 4.3 ms.

 

[superpsd]

First of all you couldn't get 7ms out of the IDM at the engine speed needed to make power. It has limitations by design. Its been talked about before. There is a chart around that shows the maximum PW per rpm. The window of course gets smaller and PW decreases as engine speed increases. The IDM will allow 6.9ms at 1950 rpms and by 3000 rpms you are limited to 4ms and by 4000 rpms 3ms. Second commanding more PW than necessary to empty the barrel is pointless as while the solenoid is energized the upper poppet is sealed. Unless the poppet seat is badly worn and bleeding down ICP which happens with higher mileage injectors and hot oil.

 

[Strictly Diesel]

Since we were brought up, I will reply. Our testing was inconclusive. Unfortunately our test truck probably wasn't the right candidate. We don't have a dyno so our thought was to test on the track and look at ETs and Trap Speeds. Unfortunately, the truck we had available to test with is just not modified enough (stock injector OBS holding 2700psi at less than 50% DC in a 100hp tune). I didn't realize until we were comparing data that he didn't have a hotter tune in the truck. He has raced it so much I just ASSumed he was running a race file.

I am considering redoing the testing with my 2000 when it is up and running, but that will depend on what I see for pressure drop with my combo (already have a T500 since that's what the truck came with) and I'm only running 180/0% for now. If it looks like my truck could use some help in the hottest tune, we will look at redoing the test at the track.

I don't claim to be an engineer or expert in physics, so I'm not getting into the argument. I've known Ryan at FFD for a long time and I do not believe that he is a "snake oil salesman". I believe that he saw results that convinced him to proceed with the product release. The object of my testing, based on the arguments I've seen against this product, is simply to determine if I believe that my customers will see the same results. We all know that there are a ton of variables in these engines and associated systems, and it is all together possible that while the "physics" say it can't do something, maybe the reality of a running 7.3L PSD environment makes some part of it work. Certainly wouldn't be the first time that something behaved in a way that the "rules" said it couldn't.

Once my truck is running and driving and I get a full set of tunes into it, I will see if it looks like a candidate for this testing. If it looks like it will be, I will be happy to share the results.

 

[lincolnlocker]

Since we were brought up, I will reply. Our testing was inconclusive. Unfortunately our test truck probably wasn't the right candidate. We don't have a dyno so our thought was to test on the track and look at ETs and Trap Speeds. Unfortunately, the truck we had available to test with is just not modified enough (stock injector OBS holding 2700psi at less than 50% DC in a 100hp tune). I didn't realize until we were comparing data that he didn't have a hotter tune in the truck. He has raced it so much I just ASSumed he was running a race file.



I am considering redoing the testing with my 2000 when it is up and running, but that will depend on what I see for pressure drop with my combo (already have a T500 since that's what the truck came with) and I'm only running 180/0% for now. If it looks like my truck could use some help in the hottest tune, we will look at redoing the test at the track.



I don't claim to be an engineer or expert in physics, so I'm not getting into the argument. I've known Ryan at FFD for a long time and I do not believe that he is a "snake oil salesman". I believe that he saw results that convinced him to proceed with the product release. The object of my testing, based on the arguments I've seen against this product, is simply to determine if I believe that my customers will see the same results. We all know that there are a ton of variables in these engines and associated systems, and it is all together possible that while the "physics" say it can't do something, maybe the reality of a running 7.3L PSD environment makes some part of it work. Certainly wouldn't be the first time that something behaved in a way that the "rules" said it couldn't.



Once my truck is running and driving and I get a full set of tunes into it, I will see if it looks like a candidate for this testing. If it looks like it will be, I will be happy to share the results.

Amen!!!!

Sent from my SM-G977U using Tapatalk

 

[m j]

I have a better test.
everyone that believes they work go buy them. everyone who thinks its a dud dont buy them.