TS Performance Ramifier
#91
Originally posted by team24
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?
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?
#92
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its great to see the discussion continue. please keep up the exhange and dont' let this temporary side conversation divert attention from the box itself. no worries -- this whole deal with me and my concerns is certain to die away here very shortly.
LinearX: I don’t have personal first-hand knowledge of fuel rail failures. Mark@TST does. I was trying not to take ownership of data that isn’t mine. I am aware of the seals thread. The thought of adding more kinetic energy to a system (the HPCR) already capable of unleshing tremendous amounts of it gives me great pause. I’m not yet convinced that the long term consequences of elevated fuel pressure been thought out carefully, and a refusal to speak to the issue only strengthens that conclusion.
I’m not harping on how high the TS pressure goes, because I don’t know how high it goes. I am concerned because the pressure increase was expressed to be “within factory limits”, as if to inspire safety or to give some meaningful description -- when clearly the only other choice (not to be within factory limits) means a blown rail and a dead engine.
I have equal concern for all pressure boxes but I wasn’t around for (or wasn’t aware of) their introduction on a public forum so I haven’t engaged with them. (I have engaged with Banks). I engaged with Dennis because frankly the box interests me and think it might qualify as a “safe power” box – if we knew more about how they have approached the pressure issue. I hold all companies to the same standard. If a claim is made to safety or to be “within factory limits” then those words better be meaningfully defined in my opinion.
I think my whole emphais on method of timing and duration was taken too far. I only wanted to know by what means (connection point or system) those parameters were influenced -- not the algorithm itself. I was never interested in anything proprietary.
I am only trying to separate fact from fiction and reality from hype in an effort to obtain truth and to dispel confusion. I aspire towards precise language without technobabble and will immediately ask for the meaning if something doesn’t make sense -- especially if there is an appearance of a safety claim. Marketing language is like attractive wrapping paper: It is designed to grab attention, and the glitter-to-reality difference observed when you peal back the first layer has a lasting effect.
LinearX: I don’t have personal first-hand knowledge of fuel rail failures. Mark@TST does. I was trying not to take ownership of data that isn’t mine. I am aware of the seals thread. The thought of adding more kinetic energy to a system (the HPCR) already capable of unleshing tremendous amounts of it gives me great pause. I’m not yet convinced that the long term consequences of elevated fuel pressure been thought out carefully, and a refusal to speak to the issue only strengthens that conclusion.
I’m not harping on how high the TS pressure goes, because I don’t know how high it goes. I am concerned because the pressure increase was expressed to be “within factory limits”, as if to inspire safety or to give some meaningful description -- when clearly the only other choice (not to be within factory limits) means a blown rail and a dead engine.
I have equal concern for all pressure boxes but I wasn’t around for (or wasn’t aware of) their introduction on a public forum so I haven’t engaged with them. (I have engaged with Banks). I engaged with Dennis because frankly the box interests me and think it might qualify as a “safe power” box – if we knew more about how they have approached the pressure issue. I hold all companies to the same standard. If a claim is made to safety or to be “within factory limits” then those words better be meaningfully defined in my opinion.
I think my whole emphais on method of timing and duration was taken too far. I only wanted to know by what means (connection point or system) those parameters were influenced -- not the algorithm itself. I was never interested in anything proprietary.
I am only trying to separate fact from fiction and reality from hype in an effort to obtain truth and to dispel confusion. I aspire towards precise language without technobabble and will immediately ask for the meaning if something doesn’t make sense -- especially if there is an appearance of a safety claim. Marketing language is like attractive wrapping paper: It is designed to grab attention, and the glitter-to-reality difference observed when you peal back the first layer has a lasting effect.
#93
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hippie
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by doug
I’m not harping on how high the TS pressure goes, because I don’t know how high it goes. I am concerned because the pressure increase was expressed to be “within factory limits”, as if to inspire safety or to give some meaningful description -- when clearly the only other choice (not to be within factory limits) means a blown rail and a dead engine.
I have equal concern for all pressure boxes but I wasn’t around for (or wasn’t aware of) their introduction on a public forum so I haven’t engaged with them. (I have engaged with Banks). I engaged with Dennis because frankly the box interests me and think it might qualify as a “safe power” box – if we knew more about how they have approached the pressure issue. I hold all companies to the same standard. If a claim is made to safety or to be “within factory limits” then those words better be meaningfully defined in my opinion.
I think my whole emphais on method of timing and duration was taken too far. I only wanted to know by what means (connection point or system) those parameters were influenced -- not the algorithm itself. I was never interested in anything proprietary.
I am only trying to separate fact from fiction and reality from hype in an effort to obtain truth and to dispel confusion. I aspire towards precise language without technobabble and will immediately ask for the meaning if something doesn’t make sense -- especially if there is an appearance of a safety claim. Marketing language is like attractive wrapping paper: It is designed to grab attention, and the glitter-to-reality difference observed when you peal back the first layer has a lasting effect.
I’m not harping on how high the TS pressure goes, because I don’t know how high it goes. I am concerned because the pressure increase was expressed to be “within factory limits”, as if to inspire safety or to give some meaningful description -- when clearly the only other choice (not to be within factory limits) means a blown rail and a dead engine.
I have equal concern for all pressure boxes but I wasn’t around for (or wasn’t aware of) their introduction on a public forum so I haven’t engaged with them. (I have engaged with Banks). I engaged with Dennis because frankly the box interests me and think it might qualify as a “safe power” box – if we knew more about how they have approached the pressure issue. I hold all companies to the same standard. If a claim is made to safety or to be “within factory limits” then those words better be meaningfully defined in my opinion.
I think my whole emphais on method of timing and duration was taken too far. I only wanted to know by what means (connection point or system) those parameters were influenced -- not the algorithm itself. I was never interested in anything proprietary.
I am only trying to separate fact from fiction and reality from hype in an effort to obtain truth and to dispel confusion. I aspire towards precise language without technobabble and will immediately ask for the meaning if something doesn’t make sense -- especially if there is an appearance of a safety claim. Marketing language is like attractive wrapping paper: It is designed to grab attention, and the glitter-to-reality difference observed when you peal back the first layer has a lasting effect.
Personally, I think you're on the right track with the way you interpreted how they may be affecting timing and duration, but it seems that we will only find that out if/when TS Performance decides to tell us. I would lke to know how this works as well, but I am at the mercy of the company making the product.
Ah, well...enough of this. Back to productive conversation about the Ramifier itself.
Has anyone that has one run it on a dyno to see if your numbers are compariable to those of TS?
#94
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, IN
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by FreynPres
Well.... I was able to make it out to the highway today. I left it in 6th gear and went WOT. The EGT's slowly raised to 1200 degrees until about 90 mph, then raised to 1290, and never went past that. Boost held steady at 35 psi, but when the EGT's hit 1290 the boost was at 37 psi. I'd say this module takes things right to the edge, but not past.
I can't wait to see what it will do with bigger injectors and a better turbo!
Bret
Well.... I was able to make it out to the highway today. I left it in 6th gear and went WOT. The EGT's slowly raised to 1200 degrees until about 90 mph, then raised to 1290, and never went past that. Boost held steady at 35 psi, but when the EGT's hit 1290 the boost was at 37 psi. I'd say this module takes things right to the edge, but not past.
I can't wait to see what it will do with bigger injectors and a better turbo!
Bret
Bret
#96
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moved.......now Sumter, SC
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Racer47.....How is the low end power? Not talking get up and go from the stoplight, but rather power from about 1600RPMs to 2000RPMs in high gear? OK...tell us about the get up and go from the stoplight too.
#97
Originally posted by RACER47
Just hooked up the new RAMIFIER..........
Now thats a truck!! Makes me feel a bit better about spending 40 grand on this thing.
Just hooked up the new RAMIFIER..........
Now thats a truck!! Makes me feel a bit better about spending 40 grand on this thing.
#99
we just stacked the TST box with a TS Performance box that dennis at TS made a custom tune for. it makes the TST box much more smoother and smokes a lot more. that combination is ridiculous. i think he closed down I-75 with the smoke.
#100
Originally posted by joeservo
we just stacked the TST box with a TS Performance box that dennis at TS made a custom tune for. it makes the TST box much more smoother and smokes a lot more. that combination is ridiculous. i think he closed down I-75 with the smoke.
we just stacked the TST box with a TS Performance box that dennis at TS made a custom tune for. it makes the TST box much more smoother and smokes a lot more. that combination is ridiculous. i think he closed down I-75 with the smoke.
#102
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ventura Co. CA.
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok…. I just got back from a trip to big bear (mountains in ca.) and you are not gonna believe what im about to tell you. First off, this truck is fun to drive now. Twice as responsive, and doesn’t quit pulling till you let of the peddle! But that’s not the best part. Believe it or not, running empty, flat ground, and keeping the RPM at about 2100, I got 25MPG !!! I still can’t believe it. (And yes I did have my spedo. re-calibrated for the 315s) Before this the best I ever got was 18-19 MPG. By the way….. I’m not looking to make this thing a dragster. If I wanna go fast I have a 1200lb. 700 horsepower sprint car for that
#103
Is that calculated by had or are you looking at the overhead computer. The computer will be wrong because you are using extra fuel it doesn't accont for. If thats by hand that is really good milage.
Horace
Horace
#104
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting on the TS/TST stacking. which one was hooked up to the MAP sensor? did you play with all combinations of the TST settings? what do you mean by "much more smoother"?
All the smoke suggests to me that the TST is not designed to work with higher fuel pressure than stock. There is enough fuel to give in duration only and that adding pressure just dumps more fuel than is useful.
All the smoke suggests to me that the TST is not designed to work with higher fuel pressure than stock. There is enough fuel to give in duration only and that adding pressure just dumps more fuel than is useful.
#105
amazing....
Originally posted by RACER47
Ok…. I just got back from a trip to big bear (mountains in ca.) and you are not gonna believe what im about to tell you. First off, this truck is fun to drive now. Twice as responsive, and doesn’t quit pulling till you let of the peddle! But that’s not the best part. Believe it or not, running empty, flat ground, and keeping the RPM at about 2100, I got 25MPG !!! I still can’t believe it. (And yes I did have my spedo. re-calibrated for the 315s) Before this the best I ever got was 18-19 MPG. By the way….. I’m not looking to make this thing a dragster. If I wanna go fast I have a 1200lb. 700 horsepower sprint car for that
Ok…. I just got back from a trip to big bear (mountains in ca.) and you are not gonna believe what im about to tell you. First off, this truck is fun to drive now. Twice as responsive, and doesn’t quit pulling till you let of the peddle! But that’s not the best part. Believe it or not, running empty, flat ground, and keeping the RPM at about 2100, I got 25MPG !!! I still can’t believe it. (And yes I did have my spedo. re-calibrated for the 315s) Before this the best I ever got was 18-19 MPG. By the way….. I’m not looking to make this thing a dragster. If I wanna go fast I have a 1200lb. 700 horsepower sprint car for that