Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Powerstroked162, post: 321817, member: 120"] Im not familiar with this new design of manifold you are speaking of? I will say this though, the reason the back cylinders don't get the CFM the front cylinders do is simply because of flow obstruction in the manifold due to the way it is designed to be mounted. The split runner design has never really been an issue once its been ported and modified for a performance application and I wouldn't think adding a branch tube(if it would even fit, which Im pretty sure it wouldn't) would help any simply because of what has been seen in gains made by removing the very branch tube design you speak of, found on the intake manifolds of the '03 6.0 platform. As far as fab work goes, the CumminGs engine is an intake manifold shops wet dream because its a simple inline 6 head to work with. Any v8 engine with a standard induction port located head design and valley mounted turbo's is a difficult one to master unless you were looking to do a remote mount charger(s) then there would be tons of room for something like the Elite ZZ race manifold, or similar. For what most here are trying to accomplish, the Elite ported stock manifold is plenty. Now, if we could find the room to increase the actual intake runner volume, then I believe we would be on to something... [/QUOTE]

Verification

Random media

012

95_powerstoke

576

2013-02-12_14-57-48_87

Capone

Ford ranger danger

Fuel_Cell

RS9000XL's

1997 ZF5 DRW

photo_12_1

E99_Y

Latest posts

Truck slipping into 4th
- Latest: Sterling6.7
- Yesterday at 7:18 PM
6.7 Tech
Do not recommend Choate Engineering
- Latest: DEEZUZ
- Wednesday at 10:22 PM
Newly Enlisted
A few turbo questions and a rant
- Latest: ghohouston
- Wednesday at 9:41 PM
7.3 Aftermarket
O
2011-2016 Radiator upgrade
- Latest: OtisCreekConstruction
- Wednesday at 6:17 PM
6.7 Tech
Performance shops
- Latest: DEEZUZ
- Tuesday at 8:42 AM
7.3 Performance

Members online

No members online now.

Total: 552 (members: 0, guests: 552)

Top