3rd Gen Steed Speed Manifold Testing

Joesixpack said:
Your right I don't care. But I know what I see as I've done the exact same thing on my dyno using load%.

The final tattle, you want to sell me that anything resembling a stock charger AND on the stock manifold is peaking torque at 2500!

I don't care how the bottom of that graph got botched but that charger on a stock manifold peaks way below that and that again is telling me it didn't get the load it needed to produce the correct power curve.

BTW I have a t6 competition steed mounted right now and they are a work of art. Nothing against steed.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that you still think you are correct. You win..

I performed the closest thing you could to a lug back test (you called it a pull down test) and that's an improper way of testing maximum engine output? Go tell Cummins that.

Inertia test... hah. Good call.
 
Brayden said:
It amazes me that you still think you are correct. You win..

I performed the closest thing you could to a lug back test (you called it a pull down test) and that's an improper way of testing maximum engine output? Go tell Cummins that.

Inertia test... hah. Good call.
Click to expand...


I used the inertia example to point out that its difficult to produce the correct power curve without enough load. :bang

Cool story though. Don't doubt the manifold is a quality piece, producing that result no way.

But hey your wonder charger on a stock manifold peaks torque at a pathetic 2500.... Really? I'd bet a bag of marbles it will pull lower than that.
 
Joesixpack said:
I used the inertia example to point out that its difficult to produce the correct power curve without enough load. :bang

Cool story though. Don't doubt the manifold is a quality piece, producing that result no way.

But hey your wonder charger on a stock manifold peaks torque at a pathetic 2500.... Really? I'd bet a bag of marbles it will pull lower than that.
Click to expand...

Man I could use some marbles, I lost mine.
 
Joesixpack said:
"without any tuning changes, the truck was capable of pulling a more aggressive load profile on the dyno"


Change the dyno load, change the curve. Dyno trickery to sell ****. (Not the manifold is ****....just the data)

Sorry to burst the bubble.
Click to expand...

Good point!

Could you please direct me to the thread showing a truck running stock 3rd gen manifold on any set up/turbo/fuel that had better numbers than these.

Rating at 2000 RPM
HP 482.82
TQ 1267.77

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
steedspeed said:
Good point!

Could you please direct me to the thread showing a truck running stock 3rd gen manifold on any set up/turbo/fuel that had better numbers than these.

Rating at 2000 RPM
HP 482.82
TQ 1267.77

Thanks!
Click to expand...


No problem, from the same folks.

attachment.php


Stock third gen manifold from the thread description.


attachment.php



I'll say it again, I'm not bagging on your manifold. Had no idea it was Fleece either initially for that matter and I've heard lots of good things from that corner.

I have one of your t6 competition manifolds that I'm going to be doing some testing on right now.
My wife wouldn't let me sleep with it under my pillow. (They look that good!)

I buy the data on the top graph above 2200 rpm on the 6.7 and the data on the 5.9 above 2500. Below that with the change in loading and its effect on spool (either too much load or not enough) is pooching the data.


Buy hey if they can sleep advertising a " increase of 143.24 RWHP and 378.55 RWTQ" of "usable power" on manifold alone....fine by me not my business or have any thing to gain or loose either way.

Folks will decide on their own from what they see and hear, or can understand themselves absolutely indifferent to my opinion.....its the internet after all...:hehe:
 
Joesixpack said:
No problem, from the same folks.

attachment.php


Stock third gen manifold from the thread description.


attachment.php



I'll say it again, I'm not bagging on your manifold. Had no idea it was Fleece either initially for that matter and I've heard lots of good things from that corner.

I have one of your t6 competition manifolds that I'm going to be doing some testing on right now.
My wife wouldn't let me sleep with it under my pillow. (They look that good!)

I buy the data on the top graph above 2200 rpm on the 6.7 and the data on the 5.9 above 2500. Below that with the change in loading and its effect on spool (either too much load or not enough) is pooching the data.


Buy hey if they can sleep advertising a " increase of 143.24 RWHP and 378.55 RWTQ" of "usable power" on manifold alone....fine by me not my business or have any thing to gain or loose either way.

Folks will decide on their own from what they see and hear, or can understand themselves absolutely indifferent to my opinion.....its the internet after all...:hehe:
Click to expand...

I meant on a 5.9 same as this test truck. The 6.7 is a bigger motor and has a different manifold.

Surely it is true though that the truck made the power shown at the rpms shown.

Yes, the engine was made to work against a heavy load but it couldn't move the load supplied if it didn't have the power available to do so.

Unless the truck was forced to spool before the run began by braking against the motor drag race style then surely the result is a true result? It doesn't look like the truck was spooled before the run began does it?


BTW, I'm sure you will love the T6 manifold. It's worked very well for lots of pulling trucks.
 
I pulled the second graph from another post, and it said testing was done with the stock 3rd gen manifold. Yet pulled a great curve with it. I understand its a larger engine and the curve reflects it, but its a good comparison to show there is something wrong with the stock manifold pull on the 5.9.


Your right the power curve that is shown with the manifold is solid. It is what it is, not challenging that in any way. Well except that I think 672 HP way high on that inducer.....:lolly:

The curve with the stock manifold on the 5.9 below 2500 though is what see as suspect.
 
Brayden said:
Anyone who prefers an inertia run on a turbodiesel needs their head examined. You don't street race, drag race or sled pull with your wheels off the ground free reving to the moon, why test that way?
Click to expand...

I'd agree, Unless the mass of the vehicle is less then that of the roller. Rarely ever the case with trucks. But some how, inertia dynojet numbers match very closely to that of 1/4 run, ASSUMING THE OPERATOR HAS A CLUE (big assumption here)..... How do you figure that works out?
 
JasonCzerak said:
Just as expected over the stock one? LOL. Ya don't say! :)

I'd like to see a comparison between HTT's SS and a PDI or something along them lines.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there will be other comparisons made later. This was the very first test on one of only two manifolds in existence. The second prototype I sent to a guy who does a lot of miles so I hope to get some good feedback from him on fuel economy.

I think a good indicator would also be a check on the elapsed time for a dyno pull. The faster the pull is over the faster the truck can accelerate in the real world.


I'm inclined to believe the dyno results here because I have examined and flow tested a stock manifold and the design is hideous beyond belief!
The front 3 cylinders are ok and the one at the other end is not too bad but the two right by the turbo flange are a disaster. Even with all the other passages closed off the thing can barely get the exhaust out through the turbo flange. The exhaust actually bangs back and forth between those two cylinders in a U shaped chamber. It's like you are only using 4 cylinders out of the 6 to drive the turbo. The force the piston needs just to come up and expel the gas through that passage must be huge.
 
Yet at 2500 rpms and up (where improved flow should shine) is pretty negligible.

attachment.php


Any how, cool! 143 hp and 378 ftlbs of usable power and torque! Woo hoo! Now it just needs a cam! :lolly:
 
JasonCzerak said:
Just as expected over the stock one? LOL. Ya don't say! :)

I'd like to see a comparison between HTT's SS and a PDI or something along them lines.
Click to expand...

Yea i expected the manifold to do well and flow well and it did, since ive been able to see the design from its infancy and see the internals i knew it would flow well.

Very excited to get a couple headed my way and the T4 version
 
Joesixpack said:
Yet at 2500 rpms and up (where improved flow should shine) is pretty negligible.

attachment.php


Any how, cool! 143 hp and 378 ftlbs of usable power and torque! Woo hoo! Now it just needs a cam! :lolly:
Click to expand...

I was wondering about the peak too. Any ideas? Turbo becoming a limiting factor?
 
Str8_Addiction said:
Awesome results! im also assuming that drive pressure is not much of an issue anymore either?
Click to expand...

I would guess that drive pressure is still going to be an issue based on the turbine size/housing limits of the HE351ve turbo, not necessarily the exhaust manifold.
 
Joesixpack said:
No problem, from the same folks.

attachment.php


Stock third gen manifold from the thread description.


attachment.php



I'll say it again, I'm not bagging on your manifold. Had no idea it was Fleece either initially for that matter and I've heard lots of good things from that corner.

I have one of your t6 competition manifolds that I'm going to be doing some testing on right now.
My wife wouldn't let me sleep with it under my pillow. (They look that good!)

I buy the data on the top graph above 2200 rpm on the 6.7 and the data on the 5.9 above 2500. Below that with the change in loading and its effect on spool (either too much load or not enough) is pooching the data.


Buy hey if they can sleep advertising a " increase of 143.24 RWHP and 378.55 RWTQ" of "usable power" on manifold alone....fine by me not my business or have any thing to gain or loose either way.

Folks will decide on their own from what they see and hear, or can understand themselves absolutely indifferent to my opinion.....its the internet after all...:hehe:
Click to expand...


Joe, The top graph is a 6.7..... they are known for making way more power and tourqe down low... the 5.9's being a smaller displacement make their power up top... It's pretty simple.. your just trying to compare apples to oranges.. if ya wanna ***** go buy all the parts and test yourself :stab:
 
paul06d-max said:
Joe, The top graph is a 6.7..... they are known for making way more power and tourqe down low... the 5.9's being a smaller displacement make their power up top... It's pretty simple.. your just trying to compare apples to oranges.. if ya wanna ***** go buy all the parts and test yourself :stab:
Click to expand...

LOL I'm pretty sure he does....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top