seriously, does anyone what the design was intended to accomplish?

Low RPM torque.

Hauling cattle.

You don't need a kegger to haul cattle in Russia.

They made very good low RPM TQ. My 99 dakota 5 speed I could lug around town between 1000 and 1500 RPM all day long and get decent MPG, of course it would not pull over 4500 worth doodly squat. I always wanted to play around with isolating the coolant passage and some ceramic coating on the belly pan to keep if from baking the air goin in the runners but never got around to it.

Hogan makes a fabricated one of these as well. Kinda crazy.

I wonder if anyone cut one apart and cut away the dividing wall separating each pair of runners - which Chrysler did to raise the RPM of the long ram in 1960.

Poly I have seen that done many times, I think hughes offers a CNC job to do it but they may just be pushing the air gap now as it does the same thing but much better at keeping the air cool. The kegger even in 0*F weather around here will heat up the incoming air over 100* once heat soaked.

It's also pretty good at using oil and pinging when the seals on the bottom plate don't seal anymore...

Thanks guys, it just seems like a dumb idea to me. The bottom plate gets super hot- heats the incoming air to crazy temps- sucks oil- low performance and no rpm. I bet some engineer made a lot of money designing it.

I made spacers to isolate the bottom plate from cam oil and it helped just a little like 10*, I think the hot water passage shareing a big aluminum wall with the intake air helps heat it a lot also, between the two its just an oven in there. Thats not even to mention the giant plenum means the air spends longer inside getting heated up before goinig in a runner.

I think either Freiburger or Ehrenberg did an article on modifying those intakes years ago. I had the one for my Dakota R/T and was going go try it, but somebody threw it away before I could. Truck had an M-1 on it anyway.

My truck spends a lot of time in 1500 to 2000 rpm range and it doesn't feel too torkey to me.

What is a "Kegger" intake manifold? which family motor does it fit?

5.2l/5.9l magnum intake.

I guess I assumed everyone knew. 5.9 magnum

Thanks
I learned something new today

They are not the best at throttle response because of the huge plenum, a much smaller plenum would probably make them "feel" more TQ but not actually show up on a dyno. Also if the thing gives it an extra 10-20 pounds of TQ VS say a carb intake it will be hard to notice in the seat of the pants. Also if your truck is an auto it just wastes the TQ down low because the converter stall is too high. Even if it does that you still have very hot air so the air that is rammed into the cylinder is hot and not very dense so some of the effect is lost there. I have installed the Hughes airgap intake and it noticably loses TQ in the very low ranges and shifts it up higher, I would take the kegger any day in a real work truck and I bet if you could truly get rid of all that heat then it will really shine.

I know this is old but it's time for an update.Check out Marty Fletchers work with the Magnum engines here http://utawesomeperformance.com/tech-info.html Some good products and dyno results to boot. I will be doing VRP mod with a catch can to my 5.2 Dakota. There is a 5.2/5.9 Magnum group on Facebook also...much info...Marty is there also.

We are all ears. Mr onetwo, Do you plan to do any dyno testing? Wondering if this volume reduction thing is a real improvement or just the latest gimmick. I know there are dyno numbers on the site, but I don't buy the hype until outside testing confirms the seller's claims.