ISX

I'm not sure how much the valves actually expand. You are supposed to set them when the engine coolant is under 100F. I set them yesterday when coolant was at 108F and checked the lash first to see and it was a very tight 0.005" on those intakes which I set to 0.006 the day before, so they must expand a pretty good amount. Now that I thought about it, I will try and check the lash right when I get home to see what it is while hot. Right now the valves are at 15 intake and 15 exhaust. So far I haven't noticed too much of a difference. It seems like I am giving it more fuel yet it is building less boost, guess it makes sense since it is making up the the air amount with more fuel, making it burn more inefficiently but providing the same power. I rarely saw it over 5psi today whereas I rarely saw it under 5psi with the intakes at 0.006. I am going to set the exhausts at 30 so all valves will be at max tolerance.

What bugs? You should see mine after after driving through all these cicadas

That looks just like nebraska/kansas. They shoulda just made them all one state lol. You know it's HD when it needs a sawhorse under the front

It's hard to swallow when you're on a tight budget but apparently dodge was on the same boat when making the truck I know it's not what you wanted to hear but it is what it is. Cheaper than building up an auto..

That's what I mean, it won't hold anything noticeable over stock power..

There is a difference between having more HP and using more HP.. You can put all the mods you want on it and as long as you don't step on it, you're fine. If you do want to step on it, it will only hold the stock power, after that it will slip. If you do it, you will see, I barely got away with any mods at all, slipped like crazy, clutch was perfect upon taking it out, just stock.

Alright I don't have the patience for this MPG testing I want to get some more seat of pants feel so each day I am going to set the valves to the max or min in all difference configurations like CSM listed. Right now the truck is at 6/15 and well I don't want to say what I think it is like until I change the valves to a different configuration so I have something to compare to. I'm driving 70 miles a day again so I have a good run each day to get the feel for each configuration. I'll keep updating this. To start I am going to set the intake at max lash (15) and leave the exhausts alone (which at 15 as well).

169 RPM increase with those tires and 47RE in O.D.

Hey no problem. Nice to see someone introducing themselves :thumb1:Glad to meet you. If you ever need any help, post a new thread and we will get to it ASAP. Seems you might be pretty keen on these already after owning a whole line of them haha. Either way, nice to see you here.

The VP44 is half the size of my IP, you can do it by yourself in an hour

http://blog.caranddriver.com/breaking-down-the-new-2016-fuel-economy-standards/ That site says: Under the new rules, combined fleet fuel economy will have to increase to 29.7 mpg for the 2012 model year, ramping up to 34.1 mpg by 2016. The passenger-car slice of that number goes from 33.3 (2012) to 37.8 mpg (2016) while light trucks increase from 25.4 to 28.8 mpg. The current standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.5 mpg for light trucks. My only question here is, what are they calling a light truck? A ford ranger/dodge dakota/chevy colorado? Even those trucks would be lucky to hit the current 23.5MPG standard. I also wonder what they are going by, highway mileage? I'm pretty sure that's highway mileage and I think thats BS because a lot of these trucks have a much higher highway mpg than the city, so on the highway thats fine (especially using the variable piston use thing like chevy has, which I have heard makes them pretty good on fuel use), but for any city drivers, it does nothing for them. I really don't get it, I'd like to see a more defined writeup of this standard, see the exact things that has to be met. I'll keep digging.

Runs all the way to the back, here is with it taken off.

Gassers must have a tighter tolerance and since they don't get as dirty as a diesel, they don't have as much worry about particulates getting in between the bearings. Explain why cold engines need thin oil then. Is it because straight 40 weight oil will be too thick at subzero temps to get into the bearings and do any supporting, so you sacrifice a little viscosity so that oil can get in there, albeit not the right viscosity to properly support the components but it is better than having thicker oil that can hardly get in there? Is 15 weight oil the same viscosity at 0F as 40 weight at 200F?

This isn't an oil comparison debate.. I'll get that squared away right now . I want to explore the different aspects of engine oil and how they effect the engine. I don't understand a lot of things about this, hardly grasp the weight thing. They say heavier weight oil protects the engine more, yet then they say thinner oil gets in places the heavier weight can't because of the smaller molecules. So I plan on ending all doubt in this thread. Here's some stuff from my diesel book. To start off, oil has 4 main functions in the engine: [*]Lubrication: To minimize friction and act as a medium to support the hydrodynamic suspension of the crankshaft and camshaft. [*]Sealant: Enables the rings to seal compression and combustion gases from the crankcase. [*]Coolant: Heat generated by combustion and friction must be dissipated to atmosphere with heat exchangers (oil cooler). [*]Cleaning agent: Condensed by-products of combustion hases end up in the engine crankcase and can combine to form harmful liquids (acids) and particulates (sludge). Hydrodynamic suspension is what they call floating of engine components due to the film of oil between them. As in, the crankshaft does not sit on the bearing, it sits on a film of oil that is constantly being renewed thanks to the oil pump. The thickness of this film depends on the oil pressure and oil leakage rate back into the oil pan. Now it's getting interesting. The viscosity rating of an oil usually describes its resistance to flow. High viscosity oils have molecules with greater cohesion ability. However, properly defined, viscosity denotes resistance to shear. When two moving components are separated by engine oil, the lamina (portion of oil film closest to each metal surface) on each moving component should have the least fluid velocity while the fluid in the center has the greatest fluid velocity. Shear occurs when the lamina fluid velocity is such that it is no longer capable of adhering to the surface of the moving components. When we use the term friction bearings to describe crankshaft main bearings, the friction being referred to is the fluid friction of the lube hydrodynamics in supporting the crankshaft. Two oils with identical viscosity grades can possess different lubricity. The lubricity of an oil properly describes its flow characteristics. Lubricity is also affected by temperature: Hotter oils flow more readily, colder oils less readily. In comparing two engine oils, the one that has the lowest frictional resistance to flow can be said to possess the greater lubricity. In thick film fluid lubrication, flow friction is determined by the fluid's viscosity, that is, its resistance to shear. In thin film or boundary lubrication, flow friction is determined by the lubricity of the fluid. Still have no idea why a subzero engine would use 0W and a hot engine uses heavier weight. It said the one with the lowest frictional resistance to flow has more lubricity, so why not run 0W all the time? When I read this I saw a lot of conflicting info..

I'm going to get some books on this today so I can stop guessing. You are right I just want to get some real solid data going.

Yeah I think you could come up with something to lift the front up and hold it there. I do it by myself, with the front end loader

I took this yesterday for you, about 200ft west of my house facing south. I live 10 miles north of smithton, missouri, a mile east of beaman.

Pulling the bed is just as easy as dropping the tank, if not easier. Tom's method sounds really good, rather than taking the whole bed off, but it's a piece of cake. Take the 8 bolts out, take the filler neck off, unplug tail lights, good to go.

I would fight it. Why have insurance if you can't use it.. Seems to be a lot easier to chew them out than give them a few of your paychecks.

I found some more out as to why things are what they are. Valves heat up during operation, due to this, they expand. The lash is there so when they expand, they have room for play. Exhaust valves run a lot hotter than the intake valves since all the exhaust gases are rushing past it, meaning it heats up more. That accounts for why the exhaust valve has a bigger gap for lash. If you did not account for this, the valves would expand and push against the rocker at all times, keeping the valve open. So that explains the 6/15 minimum specs. Nothing to do with piston clearance. I'm also wondering about engine speed. There was an F1 page I found that talked about how their valves actuated sooner as RPM went up because they needed more time to scavenge. I do not run past 2000RPM hardly ever so I think running the valves tight is letting the air in, then the piston is pushing part of it back out. Just like CSM said, you want the intake to close right when it senses backpressure from the piston traveling back up. I think my lash tests over the next couple weeks may prove this.

The inter prefix in the device name originates from historic compressor designs. In the past, aircraft engines were built with charge air coolers that were installed between multiple stages of supercharging, thus the designation of inter. Modern automobile designs are technically designated aftercoolers because of their placement at the end of supercharging chain. Interesting how we chose to stick with the one insinuating multiple chargers Works for me! Air to Air aftercooler sounds just as neat.

I got to thinking about this some more and I think maybe a smaller exhaust has a bit of resistance when you get into higher HP. The gases start piling up on each other and it ends up having to force it's way out of the exhaust. As you get bigger, there is still the bottleneck in the exhaust housing but maybe the bigger free flowing exhaust also has an effect of pulling the air out of the engine, aiding it. This might not be as true when you're at WOT but when you're trying to get mpg's then the exhaust is very large and as the air flow changes per each exhaust valve opening/pulsation, I wonder if each pulse helps the next one out, sucking air out of the engine. This would be through momentum of the previous air pulsation. Kinda like when you shut a door, the momentum of the air carries itself to the other end of the room and is felt by whomever is over there. I need to get some books on this stuff

That's the thing. The valves don't just open when you hit *Exhaust stroke* or *Intake Stroke*, so you are right on the compression thing. I measured this as well back on the old thread. Compression seems to have a lot to do with efficiency, but look at these numbers, the intake valve is only open 10* into the compression stroke whereas the exhaust is opening 50* before the end of the power stroke, so when I tighten the exhaust it cuts into it even more. Problem is, is any of that last 50* usable power? Does the first 10* of compression matter? Maybe it needs that 10* to keep jamming in more air, scavenging I guess. I'll do all I can to try and make each result stand out. Here's that chart I was talking about where I measured valve duration. These are all in crankshaft degrees.

I thought about doing that as well. It would hopefully make each valves effect stand out. If I made the intake 15 and left the exhaust 15, would it choke the whole engine and the tight exhaust valves would have no benefit? It's interesting and I will try each combination out to see what happens. --- Update to the previous post... When you said it, it seemed like you meant I was an idiot for tightening it when the chance of it hitting was that great It really is incredible. I am wondering if the only reason the valves don't sit at 0 lash is because there needs to be some oil between the rocker and valve to keep it nice for a million miles. Incredibly interesting But why the difference in lash settings? I don't see why they couldn't both be 10 or something now. I know the valves are different diameters so maybe that has something to do with it, something with harmonics of the flow or something --- Update to the previous post... Another thing, I measured how far the valve opened but I was using calipers which you are not as accurate with those as a dial indicator. I need a longer indicator thing as the one I use is only 1/4" travel. Nevertheless, I was getting around 0.4" of travel out of both valves. I will get a longer indicator so I can accurately tell how much each 0.001" lash effects the actual travel.

I was never talking about valve float, though it is another aspect of all this. In any instance that only occurs above 3200 on my truck "supposedly". Tightening the valves is really for the low end, as boost is built incredibly quick. Usually these things seem like they won't build boost at all under 1500RPM, there just isn't enough flow allowed to go through the engine with stock valve lash to get the turbo to do anything. You can dump all the fuel you want to it but it really doesn't help matters. I decided to go for a week making videos as I drive to and from work showing every aspect that I can that shows the difference in valve lash. Right now I got it on the minimum 6/15 so it will be there all week long. Next week I will set it on the maximum 15/30 and do the same thing. I will also try and keep a MPG report of it, being as consistent as possible. The drive will always be the same so that won't be a problem and I will keep the speeds the same. I will hook up the trailer and take it up some hills at low RPM speeds in 5th, where it really makes a huge difference.