TS Performance Ramifier
02-23-2004, 05:20 PM
#77
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to start a thread to collect member feedback on thrown codes, engine noises and other eccentric behavior associated with the TST module.
TDR is awash with problems associated with the PowerMaxCR. I had one on order that I cancelled because there seems to be too many performance glitches. I was hoping that many members on this board would report successful installations and no problems.
Any real world feedback from consumers would be helpful. User feedback (pro and con) is much appreciated. Marketing copy and technology are important as well, but it would be great to have distinctive threads dealing with those issues. I understand that technical analysis applied to user problems is helpful and adds value.
TDR is awash with problems associated with the PowerMaxCR. I had one on order that I cancelled because there seems to be too many performance glitches. I was hoping that many members on this board would report successful installations and no problems.
Any real world feedback from consumers would be helpful. User feedback (pro and con) is much appreciated. Marketing copy and technology are important as well, but it would be great to have distinctive threads dealing with those issues. I understand that technical analysis applied to user problems is helpful and adds value.
02-23-2004, 06:15 PM
#78
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen the CR woes as well and still suspect birthing pains. once those smooth out there isn't anything that can touch the low end performance, from what Rod has reported.
But TS has something very interesting here, and it will take some additional exposure in the field to tell if there are any problems or hicups. Seems quiet at this point. One thing I have observed is that the boxes that connect to MAP and the pressure port only seem to be free from throwing codes. complexity of the solution I guess.
But TS has something very interesting here, and it will take some additional exposure in the field to tell if there are any problems or hicups. Seems quiet at this point. One thing I have observed is that the boxes that connect to MAP and the pressure port only seem to be free from throwing codes. complexity of the solution I guess.
02-23-2004, 09:00 PM
#79
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hippie
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by doug
Like Dr. Perrformance claims involving fuel pressure, I see this as a deliberate attempt to mis-lead and to create the false impression that safety and durability is not compromized. "factory limit" is a mis-nomer and left undefined. Especially in the context of a market where fuel pressure safety is open to debate, the terms "within factory limits" is bogus, intentionally misleading, and casts a shadow over the communication integrity of the company. They don't (at least I havent seen such) tell us how high the pressure is actually raised when other companies do. They don't even admit that the "factory" limit is a destructive pop-off event that requires dealer service to repair -- again when other companies do
Like Dr. Perrformance claims involving fuel pressure, I see this as a deliberate attempt to mis-lead and to create the false impression that safety and durability is not compromized. "factory limit" is a mis-nomer and left undefined. Especially in the context of a market where fuel pressure safety is open to debate, the terms "within factory limits" is bogus, intentionally misleading, and casts a shadow over the communication integrity of the company. They don't (at least I havent seen such) tell us how high the pressure is actually raised when other companies do. They don't even admit that the "factory" limit is a destructive pop-off event that requires dealer service to repair -- again when other companies do
While I think that running the fuel rail pressure to the extremes of the factory limit (that being 27,000 psi) is certainly going to cause a problem at some point, can you show any data that running increased fuel rail pressure has caused any long term, detrimental effects on the fuel system as a whole? If it were such a bad thing, then the Duramaxes would be having tons of problems (aside from the ones they already have), and companies like Edge, Banks, Bully Dog, and Quadzilla wouldn't be selling any boxes that affected fuel rail pressure.
** EDIT **
Here is what I was referring to when I mentioned my skepticism of the fuel pressure boxes. This could be an isolated incident, but I can't say for sure.
02-23-2004, 11:23 PM
#80
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ventura Co. CA.
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the right box for my "NO POWER" SO. Just one question. Whats it do to MPG?
PS. Anyone but "Doug" please answer. I dont have a week to read the reply.
PS. Anyone but "Doug" please answer. I dont have a week to read the reply.
....... 
02-24-2004, 01:16 AM
#82
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, IN
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RACER47
Sounds like the right box for my "NO POWER" SO. Just one question. Whats it do to MPG?
PS. Anyone but "Doug" please answer. I dont have a week to read the reply.
Sounds like the right box for my "NO POWER" SO. Just one question. Whats it do to MPG?
PS. Anyone but "Doug" please answer. I dont have a week to read the reply.
Bret
02-24-2004, 08:33 AM
#83
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RACER47
Sounds like the right box for my "NO POWER" SO. Just one question. Whats it do to MPG?
PS. Anyone but "Doug" please answer. I dont have a week to read the reply.
Sounds like the right box for my "NO POWER" SO. Just one question. Whats it do to MPG?
PS. Anyone but "Doug" please answer. I dont have a week to read the reply.
02-24-2004, 08:50 AM
#84
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The jurry is still out on the question of fuel pressure, which is why I asked if anyone knew about the 04.5s and what pressures they run -- if higher, then we have more evidence that there is in fact some practical margin there. Talk to Mark@TST for more infor re: rail failures. I personally don't have or know of any failure data.
The Banks approach is to raise fuel pressure to 24,500 only (15% margin left), except on the hightest setting where it pushes to 27,000 (7% margin left). That data can be used to make a intellegent decision as to what level of risk you are willing to take -- much like any other bomb where you take on additional responsiblity.
knowing that a box runs the rail closer to the destructive pop-off without knowing how close or under what circumstances just makes the decision harder. Even harder when you consider what might happen to the acutal pop-off pressure point over time, as mechanical parts wear and age.
there is an argument in favor of better mpg with higher pressures due to better atomization. the EZ guys can probably tell us.
The Banks approach is to raise fuel pressure to 24,500 only (15% margin left), except on the hightest setting where it pushes to 27,000 (7% margin left). That data can be used to make a intellegent decision as to what level of risk you are willing to take -- much like any other bomb where you take on additional responsiblity.
knowing that a box runs the rail closer to the destructive pop-off without knowing how close or under what circumstances just makes the decision harder. Even harder when you consider what might happen to the acutal pop-off pressure point over time, as mechanical parts wear and age.
there is an argument in favor of better mpg with higher pressures due to better atomization. the EZ guys can probably tell us.
02-24-2004, 10:17 AM
#86
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hippie
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by doug
The jurry is still out on the question of fuel pressure, which is why I asked if anyone knew about the 04.5s and what pressures they run -- if higher, then we have more evidence that there is in fact some practical margin there. Talk to Mark@TST for more infor re: rail failures. I personally don't have or know of any failure data.
The Banks approach is to raise fuel pressure to 24,500 only (15% margin left), except on the hightest setting where it pushes to 27,000 (7% margin left). That data can be used to make a intellegent decision as to what level of risk you are willing to take -- much like any other bomb where you take on additional responsiblity.
knowing that a box runs the rail closer to the destructive pop-off without knowing how close or under what circumstances just makes the decision harder. Even harder when you consider what might happen to the acutal pop-off pressure point over time, as mechanical parts wear and age.
there is an argument in favor of better mpg with higher pressures due to better atomization. the EZ guys can probably tell us.
The jurry is still out on the question of fuel pressure, which is why I asked if anyone knew about the 04.5s and what pressures they run -- if higher, then we have more evidence that there is in fact some practical margin there. Talk to Mark@TST for more infor re: rail failures. I personally don't have or know of any failure data.
The Banks approach is to raise fuel pressure to 24,500 only (15% margin left), except on the hightest setting where it pushes to 27,000 (7% margin left). That data can be used to make a intellegent decision as to what level of risk you are willing to take -- much like any other bomb where you take on additional responsiblity.
knowing that a box runs the rail closer to the destructive pop-off without knowing how close or under what circumstances just makes the decision harder. Even harder when you consider what might happen to the acutal pop-off pressure point over time, as mechanical parts wear and age.
there is an argument in favor of better mpg with higher pressures due to better atomization. the EZ guys can probably tell us.
What I'm seeing here, though, is that you're harping on how high the Ramifier raises the fuel rail pressure. Edge doesn't state how high they raise the fuel rail pressure, nor does TS Performance. In my studies, Banks is the only company that has posted what pressure they run. Why then, are you trying to hold one company to a standard and not all of them? If you want TS Performance to tell you exactly how high they are running fuel rail pressures, then you should demand the same of Edge, Bully Dog, Quadzilla, et al.
I understand you're wanting to know how they are controlling the pulse width and/or timing without having connections to the crank sensor, cam sensor, and injectors, but you tone is almost that of a holy warrior. Unfortunately, in the world of aftermarket products if a company wants to share they can. If not, they don't have to.
Once again, I will state that I'm not affiliated with anyone in this thread, I just don't someone to get a bad wrap for not giving out information that the proprietor deems unnecessary or trade secret.
02-24-2004, 12:56 PM
#87
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the ones that have the Ts Ramifier , are you seeing any codes or check engine light problems?
also I have 2004 ho with 48re so do think the auto tran. will be a problem with the new find power?
also I have 2004 ho with 48re so do think the auto tran. will be a problem with the new find power?
02-24-2004, 01:12 PM
#88
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moved.......now Sumter, SC
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Anyone have a dyno chart for the Edge EZ. I'm curious to see the differences in the power curve versus the RAMifier. Anyone have one or can point me to a web site that has one posted?
Thanks,
AK
Thanks,
AK
