No the same length isn't as important, everything I have read as well as tuners says as stright as possible and as larger of plenum as possible, a near perfect plenum are is the same Liter as the motor from what I read for forced induction...
-
Welcome to The Truck Stop! We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.
Your truck knowledge is missing!
- Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
- We have tons of knowledge here for your diesel truck!
- Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
- NO ADS! The site is fully functional and ad free!
Problems registering? Click here to contact us!
Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!
Intake project
- Thread starter Twisted Steel Performance
- Start date
Will L.
Well-Known Member
It makes sense of more plenum volume the better. So shouldn’t your runners be short as possible and have a huge plenum- Like just enough space to sneak in the center bolts.
Or weld tubes through a huge plenum just to use long mounting bolts? I probably need to draw what I mean for this one.
Husker6.5
135' diagonal 16:9HD, 25KW sound!
No, it's perfectly clear, @Will L. . It's like that cockamamie tunnel through @n8in8or 's oil pan to run the half shaft to the passenger side hub. Or plastic welding a tube through the windshield washer reservoir to run a cold air intake. Just a tube welded through the plenum so you can install intake bolts. For that matter, you could also fabricate a "bump" in the front/floor of the plenum to clear the IP.
FellowTraveler
Well-Known Member
No throttle plate changes the rules too!
Husker6.5
135' diagonal 16:9HD, 25KW sound!
If it wasn't for that damned IP, you could just bolt an 871 Roots blower to the heads, overdrive it 30% and be making boost at idle and be able to fuel the living crap out of it, too!
FellowTraveler
Well-Known Member
Our cousins down under love blown 6.5td's and make a point that is more DD friendly than any turbo.....
6.5 with dual exhaust and a blower would be the way to go IMO w/torque from idle to happiness...........
Because of the IP perhaps two smaller blowers mounted over the heads would be a neat package.
Last edited:
Husker6.5
135' diagonal 16:9HD, 25KW sound!
You hear that, @Twisted Steel Performance ? The gauntlet is down. Design a pair of head-mounted 3.25L plenums so that a pair of 471 Roots blowers can be mounted, one for each cylinder bank. A pair of long tube headers and the beast will breathe and make power like crazy!
Husker6.5
135' diagonal 16:9HD, 25KW sound!
Shaker-style hood may be required for clearance.
Will L.
Well-Known Member
I’ve delt with 3 of the supercharged 6.5s. 2 in hummers and one pickup. Did better than stock turbo, but not having coolers limit them in hot climates. Same power results as hx35.
FellowTraveler
Well-Known Member
Then a BIG A_S CAC added to the menu will feed that hunger. I almost forgot twin screw is more efficient in operation and charge air temps too.
Last edited:
Husker6.5
135' diagonal 16:9HD, 25KW sound!
Or you can do like Studebaker did on its R-2 and R-3 Bonneville record setting motors (some records set still stand 57 years later) and use a Paxton centrifugal compressor. MANY advantages over a Roots or twin screw design. 1) Mounts in front of the engine on an accessory bracket like an alternator or A/C pump. 2) It uses a separate, closed loop, pressurized and filtered oil supply that it does NOT share with the motor - in case of bearing failure it does not put shrapnel through the engine oil system. 3) Easier to plumb in than valley mounted superchargers, very easy to plumb through a CAC! You could fairly easily set a pair up as twins feeding opposite cylinder banks, much like Bill Heath did with the twin turbo 6.5 Bonneville runner.
MrMarty51
Well-Known Member
An old timer friend over here had one a them Studebakers, It had the twin Paxton setup and was plenty fast. LOL
I believe He said the engine was a 289, its been a long time ago so My memories from the days of being a drunk may be inaccurate. LOL
I believe He said the engine was a 289, its been a long time ago so My memories from the days of being a drunk may be inaccurate. LOL
Husker6.5
135' diagonal 16:9HD, 25KW sound!
Studebaker-Packard used them (the McCulloch/Paxton centrifugal supercharger) on the Studebaker Golden Hawks and Packard Hawks back in 1958, and following the demise of the Packard marque, Studebaker continued using them from 1957 in their Golden Hawks and in 1963 introduced it in the Lark and of course the Avanti. The 289ci Studebaker V-8 (R2) put out 289HP in either car. The 1964 Avanti-exclusive 304ci R-3 supercharged engine made 335HP. A few dealer-installed R3's made it into Larks. The R4 was a very rare Avanti-only dual 4bbl carb N/A 304 that made 280HP. The "base" R1 289 made 250HP it differed from the normal Studebaker 289 by going to a 3/4 race cam, 4bbl Carter carb and dual exhaust as well as 9.5:1 compression.
MrMarty51
Well-Known Member
I believe Sonny said his Studebaker was a Golden Hawk.
Husker6.5
135' diagonal 16:9HD, 25KW sound!
If it was a Golden Hawk with twin chargers on it, one was added to it aftermarket. Oh, the R-Series motors all had dual-point distributors on them, too. Dad was a Studebaker collector/fanatic. We had a 64 R-2 Avanti, we also had 63 R-2 "Super Lark" 2 door coupe. Had a sliding canvass sunroof Borg-Warner automatic transmission (P-N-D-2-L-R was the shift quadrant on the tree, you had to be damn careful that when you dropped it into Low you didn't accidentally go past into R at a light and wind up nailing the front of the vehicle behind you when the light turned green! The theory to that pattern was it made it easy to go from L to R and back to rock a vehicle out of snow, sand, mud, etc. The Lark also had a 4.10 Twin Trac limited slip rear and was a helluva lot faster than it looked (weighed in at less than 3200 lbs) or people thought. We proved that one afternoon when a 70 GTO pulled up next to us at a stoplight and did the 'wanna race?' engine revs next to us, so dad blipped the accelerator a couple of times and dropped it into L. The light changed and we launched, stayed ahead of the GTO and beat it to the next light! Yes, he was definitely trying to beat us, he smoked his rears when he launched, we just hooked up and went!
Husker6.5
135' diagonal 16:9HD, 25KW sound!
So, now that this thread is totally derailed. . . Any thought on tomorrow's LSU-Oklahoma and Ohio State-Clemson Football Championship playoff games folks? 
94DieselSub
Member
Happy Holidays to all,
I haven't posted in a while, some tubo-brothers on a forum kinda rubbed me the wrong way about a Eb@y find I shared.
Anywho, a fab'ed intake will certainly make more up-top hp but I fear you'll be sacrificing lowend tq in the tradeoff!
Strangely the 80's L98 TPI intake sys design might be a really good match to a 6.5's powerband?
I haven't posted in a while, some tubo-brothers on a forum kinda rubbed me the wrong way about a Eb@y find I shared.
Anywho, a fab'ed intake will certainly make more up-top hp but I fear you'll be sacrificing lowend tq in the tradeoff!
Strangely the 80's L98 TPI intake sys design might be a really good match to a 6.5's powerband?
FellowTraveler
Well-Known Member
If my old memory serves me right "no throttle plate makes it a different game because distance between throttle plate and intake valve becomes an unknown value."
In all cases where there is a throttle plate torque can be tuned up or down the rpm range by moving the throttle plate closer or further away from the intake valve be it spacers or runner changes.
Will L.
Well-Known Member
@94DieselSub
I had the same thought as you, but after some reading to learn what lengths do and wanting to learn best lengths for my use...
The Long runners on gas engines helped high rpm power by allowing better mixing of gas into the air but hurt low end torque because it took longer from throttle response to allow fuel getting into the chamber.
But using the long runner manifolds on the same engine that used direct or lower manifold injection torque stayed the same and had gains on top end.
that’s why the long curved runners now in all the modern injected engines. Making the intakes of “Plastic” allows long runners in a compact area.
On boosted diesel engines the more “stored” pressurized air, the better the beginning fill rate of the cylinders. However longer travel time from the turbo adds to lag, which is where Chris’s concern of high flowing numbers helps by lessening the time it takes to get the air from turbo to piston.
I had the same thought as you, but after some reading to learn what lengths do and wanting to learn best lengths for my use...
The Long runners on gas engines helped high rpm power by allowing better mixing of gas into the air but hurt low end torque because it took longer from throttle response to allow fuel getting into the chamber.
But using the long runner manifolds on the same engine that used direct or lower manifold injection torque stayed the same and had gains on top end.
that’s why the long curved runners now in all the modern injected engines. Making the intakes of “Plastic” allows long runners in a compact area.
On boosted diesel engines the more “stored” pressurized air, the better the beginning fill rate of the cylinders. However longer travel time from the turbo adds to lag, which is where Chris’s concern of high flowing numbers helps by lessening the time it takes to get the air from turbo to piston.
FellowTraveler
Well-Known Member
Now your in the realm of larger compressor flow and slightly larger turbine to drive it which has led the industry to develop turbo/supercharger combos dual turbos etc.....