• 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!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

    Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

New Crossover

6.5L

6.5L

Old Iron Runner
Messages
1,177
Reaction score
433
Location
Northwest Wyoming
I was contemplating a new crossover pipe, mandrel bent, but I don't want to make it bigger than stock, yet all the performance ones are 2.5inch. I think that is a half inch bigger than stock. Has anybody bought these and does anybody who has, think they make a difference? Also, a new upper intake is in the works as soon as some people email me back. Can't find mandrel bent anything in this town.
 
You have looked at the restrictive passenger side manifold... The crossover is the LEAST of your concerns unless it has collapsed internally.

A set of headers that flow better on the turbo side would improve things more than a bigger crossover.

The performance crossovers haven't done anything for me. I only got them to replace failed factory parts.
 
The factory crossover has not failed or collapsed. Was just hoping it might improve flow a bit. I can imagine a new passenger manifold would work, but it would be to much fabbing and costly. Ideally, I would like to run a set of headers, where the right bank has 4 tubes that feed into one side of a T3 mount, and just before that another set of two larger than normal tubes connects from the donut to the other side of the T3 mount to channel gasses from the drives side. It is kind of hard to imagine but I see it in my head haha
 
Yeah, the pass. manifold is a nightmare of engineering and bean counters clashing head to head and as usual, the bean counters won. If you look closely at it, you come to the realization that you have the exhaust gases from SIX cylinders (four driver's side plus #'s 6 & 8) trying to flow through the cross sectional area of TWO exhaust runners (and we wonder why the bottom end spooling response is shit on these motors) before joining with the exhaust flow from #'s 2 & 4 and up into the turbo. I've designed a vastly improved passenger side header-type exhaust manifold that keeps the driver's side exhaust flow separate from the passenger side until the two blend just below and are directed into the turbo. All the stock geometries are maintained, so that the crossover and turbo down pipes will bolt right up. The driver side cast iron manifold really isn't that bad of a design, but it too is also redone as a stainless steel header. The things one does with too much time on their hands and no money, to keep from going 'round the bend: Use that Physics Minor to do flow calculations to design and build the better mouse trap exhaust manifold for the passenger side out of 15 ga stainless tubing and 1/2" stock for the flanges. I have an acquaintance who owns a welding and fabrication shop who will do the TIG welding for me (I only own a MIG/wirefeed welder) as well as the CNC work for the head and turbo mount flanges, but it won't come cheap for this one-off (yes, we've discussed making jigs for replicating multiple copies, as well as patenting the design, that is also part of the cost) and since I went nearly 4 1/2 years without working since the accident, and now am only working 15-20 hours a week at near minimum wage, the new exhaust header is just a pipe dream (pun intended) for the foreseeable future. Should be able to pick up 10-15 "free" horsepower and about 30 lb/ft of torque over stock everything else unmodified, just like the center mount turbo models do. Add fueling and tuning and there should be really noticeable differences over comparable tunes using stock manifolds.
 
Husker6.5 said:
Yeah, the pass. manifold is a nightmare of engineering and bean counters clashing head to head and as usual, the bean counters won. If you look closely at it, you come to the realization that you have the exhaust gases from SIX cylinders (four driver's side plus #'s 6 & 8) trying to flow through the cross sectional area of TWO exhaust runners (and we wonder why the bottom end spooling response is shit on these motors) before joining with the exhaust flow from #'s 2 & 4 and up into the turbo. I've designed a vastly improved passenger side header-type exhaust manifold that keeps the driver's side exhaust flow separate from the passenger side until the two blend just below and are directed into the turbo. All the stock geometries are maintained, so that the crossover and turbo down pipes will bolt right up. The driver side cast iron manifold really isn't that bad of a design, but it too is also redone as a stainless steel header. The things one does with too much time on their hands and no money, to keep from going 'round the bend: Use that Physics Minor to do flow calculations to design and build the better mouse trap exhaust manifold for the passenger side out of 15 ga stainless tubing and 1/2" stock for the flanges. I have an acquaintance who owns a welding and fabrication shop who will do the TIG welding for me (I only own a MIG/wirefeed welder) as well as the CNC work for the head and turbo mount flanges, but it won't come cheap for this one-off (yes, we've discussed making jigs for replicating multiple copies, as well as patenting the design, that is also part of the cost) and since I went nearly 4 1/2 years without working since the accident, and now am only working 15-20 hours a week at near minimum wage, the new exhaust header is just a pipe dream (pun intended) for the foreseeable future. Should be able to pick up 10-15 "free" horsepower and about 30 lb/ft of torque over stock everything else unmodified, just like the center mount turbo models do. Add fueling and tuning and there should be really noticeable differences over comparable tunes using stock manifolds.
Click to expand...

pics please
 
I got a Heartthrob cross over when I put my DE exhaust on. It was 2-1/4" instead of 2.5 and mandrel bent. I think I measured the manifold outlets at 2-1/8" at the time. There's no reason to over do the C/O pipe when the manifolds are the choke point. And it's stainless and I wanted to wrap it without it rusting out.
 
The other downside is having to use a rachet strap to get the aftermarket crossover to align and bolt up. Or maybe it is a 6.2 on a 6.5 setup thing...
 
6.5L said:
I agree with that. I set of sweet custom exhaust manifolds, hell yeah I would pay
Click to expand...

The factory stuff warps. Passenger side is a ~$500 part. So there is a market for a better product in just replacement parts alone.
 
ak diesel driver said:
pics please
Click to expand...

If you read my post carefully, they do not exist, yet, except as some drawings with dimensions and images in my head. If you also read carefully, you will see the word patent mentioned, too. So until the first working prototype pair are on and running, tested and confirmed to be and do what I think they will, jigs confirmed, and patent applied for (so others can't rip off my intellectual property and profit financially thereby from my efforts) no pics or drawings will be posted.
 
And after 6.5L's experiment with the BD Spool Valve, I'm now going back to my mental drawing board and thinking about adding an integral spool valve to my design, controlled off of boost pressure (or possibly tied into the waste gate actuator vacuum circuit if the ECM/chip is reprogrammed to control it, if running with a waste gate-less turbo like an ATT) to promote even faster spooling and getting on boost at around 1000 rpm.
 
Do you think there would be more drive pressure thus more boost (with att) with a smaller crossover? Moving same amount of air through a smaller pipe means more pressure, but less flow..... Right? :dr:
 
Husker6.5 said:
If you read my post carefully, they do not exist, yet, except as some drawings with dimensions and images in my head. If you also read carefully, you will see the word patent mentioned, too. So until the first working prototype pair are on and running, tested and confirmed to be and do what I think they will, jigs confirmed, and patent applied for (so others can't rip off my intellectual property and profit financially thereby from my efforts) no pics or drawings will be posted.
Click to expand...
Dont fool yourself into thinking a patent on something like that would be worth anything. Not to be rude, but if you can't afford to build it now or for the last 4 1/2 years will you have the resources to sue anyone for infringment on a pattent.
Also, just by posting the design ideas here in a public forum you cannot recieve the patent anyway. Once its public its a done deal. I have gone though the patent process and unless you are going to sell millions of an item the patent is not worth it IMO. If you have a product you want to sell you need to just market it heavily, flood the market and make your money before China rips it off.
I have several products that I invented and produce now. A patent wont stop anyone from copying them.
Husker6.5 said:
And after 6.5L's experiment with the BD Spool Valve, I'm now going back to my mental drawing board and thinking about adding an integral spool valve to my design, controlled off of boost pressure (or possibly tied into the waste gate actuator vacuum circuit if the ECM/chip is reprogrammed to control it, if running with a waste gate-less turbo like an ATT) to promote even faster spooling and getting on boost at around 1000 rpm.
Click to expand...

Not an original idea, first thing I (and believe Great White and Ferm) thought of also after I/we saw the spool valve, but sure you could incorperate it into a new design. I would love to see someone develop it though. Seems like it would be very doable.
 
What we need to see is separate turbo manifolds for each side so we can use twin turbos.
 
dixiepc said:
What we need to see is separate turbo manifolds for each side so we can use twin turbos.
Click to expand...


AGREED 110% Then we could have a true dual exhaust also!!!!
I have thought about this especialy after I saw pics of it. IIRC it was Heath's

BTW I put the 2.5 mandrel bent on mine with the 3" drop. It did make quite a bit of difference but, I took 2 stock p.o.s. off at the same time. I am pretty sure the downpipe did more than the crossover.
 
I ran across the old Banks sidewinder kit now retailing for what the vehicles it fits on are worth...
Anyway the manifold in the kit does not appear to have the issues the 6.5 manifolds do. This and the crossover would be interesting to dyno. Some business people have been able to get separate parts out of Banks kits like intercooler tubes...

So what would the manifold and crossover pipe cost out of this kit? (A full kit price would be interesting.)

25031.1.jpg

"To this day, Banks Sidewinder out-performs GM's 6.5L factory-turbo or any other turbo." I know we can take their lunch money... :owned: Only "+60 hp and +115 lb-ft" over a NA engine... Like we are getting that over a TURBO ENGINE!

Yes, we would like your manifold and crossover to out perform (seriously send you home to mommy crying) your sidewinder turbo kit.

This will introduce some folks to "old school" stacking. Instead of programmers we will stack a huge A Team Turbo on a BD spool valve with a Banks manifold. :eek:
 
Go with Compounds, not Twins. Quick spooling off idle with a small turbo with high flow at high RPM with the big atmospheric turbo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top