+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Fully Porting Kegger

  1. #1

    Default Fully Porting Kegger

    Hello everyone, I am new to the board(long time lurker). I do not actually have a Dakota, but rather an 01 Ram that I am building an engine for at the moment. I wanted to tap into some of the old wisdom on this forum to answer some questions.

    I know that the topic of modifying the kegger manifold has been beaten to death, but in my combing through the archives of various forums, it seems many of the references to flow bench testing modified keggers are no longer available. There is still the allpar intake shootout with a stock and mildly modified kegger, but I am primarily concerned with a fully ported unit, not just shortening the runners and gasket matching. For instance, I found someone saying that Ryan Hogan has "proven" that porting a kegger doesn't do anything to increase it's flow numbers, but there was no link and a search revealed nothing. Does anyone have this reference?

    I have really only found 1 data point so far, which is a before and after dyno test done late last year by Thomas Beyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPhjWDkFncQ He fully ported his kegger and made 285/336 at the tire with a 224 duration cam, 10.3:1 compression, and ported stock heads. He made 270/317 with that same combo but a slightly modded kegger, so he picked up around 15hp/19tq all along the curve with his port job. He had some home-made volume reducing plates, but no oil splash shield or flow diverter.


    Seeing as I am building an engine for a heavy 4x4 truck that does regular tow duty, moving to an air gap or M1 (unobtainium these days) seems a poor choice. I would very much prefer to stick with the longest intake runner possible, and try to maximize what is there. I plan to install Marty Fletcher's volume reducing plates, flow diverter, and oil valley pan splash shield, as well as fully port my keg. Additionally, it seems to me that one of the primary flaws with the kegger is the intake air temperatures. Since the coolant shares a wall with the intake runners, it is very prone to heat soak and thus has higher IAT's than other styles of intakes. Has anyone come up with creative solutions for lowering IAT's with a kegger?

    Thanks!

  2. #2

    Default

    You just can't change the stock intake design, it's great at low end/mid range power. I would just gasket port match, install the volume reducing plates, flow diverter, oil valley pan splash shield and call it good. There just is no great increase in power to be gained in the stock intake design, it's been proven over and over again. If you need more low end/mid range, headers, exhaust, compression, mid cam and 408. Need more than a mid 408 can provide, 6.4 Hemi.

  3. #3

    Default

    Since the M1 is not available, the Hughes air gap is not avalable. Might as well work with what you have.
    Make sure you cut open the double barrel where the throttle body mounts , make it more like a rounded off rectangle . Dykem metal dye , straight edge and scribe you shape then cut it out.the volume reducer plates worked for me . I don’t have the air diverter from UT awesome, but I do have the lifter valley slash shield . Dropped IAT a little . Thought is coolant heater up th front , oil heats up the complete bottom of intake. Good luck.

  4. #4
    9t9-5.2's Avatar
    Home School Valedictorian

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    1,307

    Default

    It would be interesting to see what the results would be from Extrude Honing a kegger, and what the cost would be.

    https://www.extrudehoneafm.com/industries/automotive/

    "Excuse me if I have some place in my mind, where I go time to time"

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9t9-5.2 View Post
    It would be interesting to see what the results would be from Extrude Honing a kegger, and what the cost would be.

    https://www.extrudehoneafm.com/industries/automotive/
    Purely speculation, but I remember a HotRod (or CarCraft) test back in the day where they Extrude honed a 350 TPI plenum/base. For the young ones out there, the 350 (also 305) TPIs were the first gen fuel injected Corvette/Camaro/Firebird engines (TBIs don't count). They had very, very long runners, made great low/mid range torque, but was all done at 4500 rpm. The magazine extrudehoned the runners and then dynoed it, it really didn't change much. Conclusion was, even making the runners bigger, they just couldn't over come the extremely long runner length. I think the beer keg intake is going to be the same, you can open the ports up, but you can't change the length. Watch the Engine Master episode were they test 5.9 Manifolds, they test a fully ported beer keg, with volume plates, divider, center milled out, the whole works from UTAsomeperformance, it made 4 hp with stock TB and 11HP with a huge TB. I don't the cost would be worth the return, you would be better to keep looking for Hughes/Edelbrock manifold setup.


    http://www.dakotart.com/forum/showth...ntake-Shootout
    Last edited by musky mike; 01-21-2022 at 04:01 PM.

  6. #6

    98Dak408's Avatar
    Supporting Vendor

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Area, Michigan
    Posts
    2,974

    Default

    Long runner lengths also require a higher velocity in order to move the air the distance. Opening them up will reduce the velocity and may be detrimental to flow. Also, you cannot get a cutter far enough into the port of a kegger to fully port it, and would always be a bottleneck, no matter how much you open up either end.

    I would certainly go with the Airgap when it becomes available. You can still try modifying the kegger, but I wouldn't put a lot of money into it, for such a little gain.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 98Dak408 View Post
    Long runner lengths also require a higher velocity in order to move the air the distance. Opening them up will reduce the velocity and may be detrimental to flow. Also, you cannot get a cutter far enough into the port of a kegger to fully port it, and would always be a bottleneck, no matter how much you open up either end.

    I would certainly go with the Airgap when it becomes available. You can still try modifying the kegger, but I wouldn't put a lot of money into it, for such a little gain.
    Like what Richard said...there is a way to search Craigslist worldwide. Once you find that, save it, then ever few days search for the Hughes/Edelbrock setup that Hugges sells. You could get lucky and find one used. A lot of Ram and Dakotas are rusting out and people are parting them out or if they are really nice they are going with Hemi swaps and selling their old 5.9 parts.

  8. #8

    Default

    The results aren’t bad for 100 $ . Takes about 15 hrs to do th whole thing. Including welding plates in and opening top. Might want to get a junkyard manifold and do it in your spare time. But what are the options for keeping a/c and stock hood .there’s no guarantee they will ever reproduce the hughes unit. Just like the M1 never came back. .question to Richard , why not convert a carved intake? Weld in the injector bungs and mounting bosses for the a/c?

  9. #9

    98Dak408's Avatar
    Supporting Vendor

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Area, Michigan
    Posts
    2,974

    Default

    But what are the options for keeping a/c and stock hood .there’s no guarantee they will ever reproduce the hughes unit. Just like the M1 never came back. .question to Richard , why not convert a carved intake? Weld in the injector bungs and mounting bosses for the a/c?
    I suppose you could cut up the kegger in order to fully port it and weld it all back together. But then the rpm would have to increase in order to maintain the velocity to push/pull the flow all the way through. A lot of work, and still have a tortuous flow path.

    As far as modifying carbureted intake manifolds for fuel injection, that can be done. I did it with my tunnel ram intake. However, it is a fair amount of work, and you may also have to machine the gasket flange due to warpage from the welding process. You would need a fixture to position the injector bungs and A/C mounts etc. The cost can quickly raise to the point that few people will buy it. And, you’d want to stick with aluminum intakes. It is difficult to weld cast iron.

    The Hughes Airgap will be back as soon as this Covid BS subsides. It is cast specifically for Hughes Engines. The Hughes Airgap is probably cheaper than a properly modified Airgap intake, unless you were doing it yourself, for yourself. If these intakes did dry up, I would probably invest in modifying the carbureted intakes that are available. However, with my luck, I would put a bunch of work into doing it, and then supplies of other intakes might become available again.
    Last edited by 98Dak408; 01-22-2022 at 11:03 PM.

  10. #10

    98Dak408's Avatar
    Supporting Vendor

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Area, Michigan
    Posts
    2,974

    Default

    I am a Hughes dealer. I have been putting peoples name on a list, and I will let them know when the Hughes Airgap becomes available again. (Hughes has been stocking up on HiPoTek fuel rails, so they are confident their intake will be back on the shelves at some point.)

  11. #11

    Default

    I understand . Thank you for the time you put in to clarify. I appreciate your insight and knowledge base..

  12. #12

    Default

    Flyin Ryan did back-to-back dyno pulls on a ported/modded kegger intake. First graph is Flyin Ryan's tune, conservative tune in red, aggressive tune in black. Second graph is the Mopar performance PCM (no tune added), red is stock kegger and black is ported.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •