One reason for number 2 to detonate first is the fuel is hottest in that cylinder because it is the last one fed off the rail that fuel gets heated fastest, perhaps I should add a return style rail off an earlier magnum to keep the fuel cooler and further reduce detonation that way, that would tollerate a little more compression that way also. I think I have mentioned before the front cylinders look the worst on tear downs normally.

Is cylinder number 2 more prone to detonate than number 1 ?
Are #1 and #2 at front more prone to show damage than the other six cylinders?

I am trying to make sure i have understood your previous posts about what your engine tear down experience has been.

I have also wondered if i should get junkyard 1992 Magnum 5.2 return line style fuel parts so that fuel line pressure could be custom adjusted.

When i changed out the 1995 tank submerged pump assembly
it looked like it would not be that hard to add spacers behing the valve spring inside the pressure regulator to increase fuel line pressure.

I wish i knew enough about the solenoid actuated pintle and its sealing seat inside Siemens single hole fuel injectors to be able to custom adjust pound per hour flow rate.

They don't seem to look as bad inside as you would expect with all the rattling that they do but yes they seem to be worst front to back.

I have often looked at the factory PR ufo thingys and wondered if there wasn't some way to bump up pressure a little. Let me know if you come up with something.

I had a 94 1500 2X shortbed with a 5.9 that I could knock down almost 21mpg with. This was with the MP PCM [had to run premium for it], 1st design F&B throttle body, 1.7 ratio Crower rockers [way cheaper than a cam, more performance for the money too], 340 timing gears, MP [Mike Leach] headers, MP cat back, V10 cat[ cheaper than v8 & had bigger inlet and outlets], K&N FIPK, Trans Go shift kit, modded TPS, additional fuel pressure, Ford Motorsports 24lb 4 hole injectors[ better spray pattern and less expensive than many others. got this tip from mp hotline of all places], un-altered intake manifold, 3.55 gears, p275-60r16 tires[ like indy truck], 180* t-stat. We also had a 99 Durango 2X that was lucky to do 13 on the flats. Fuel sucking pig. Wish I had done some work on that but that was my wife's car and I had to watch how much I changed it. Only had the MP cat back and the FIPK.

The Mike Leach designed headers sold by MP were Tri-Y design weren't they?

What would be your guess as to the length from exhaust flange to first Y?

Could you stretch four $ bills out down to the first Y,
or only three?

I have always suspected that 1994-1995 Rams with EGR OBD-I
Got better highway MPG
Than 1996-2001 OBD-II Rams without EGR.

The raw, uncorrected EPA fuel consumption numbers in the publicly available database seemed to confirm this, but the year to year tested vehicles were not always identical.

I would like to run a convoy style SAE/TMC Type IV fuel consumption test on the highway of nearly identical 2 wd club cab Rams, one a 1995 and the other a 1996.

Then I would like to modify the 1995 by cutting its EGR pipe at the stock exhaust manifold connection, extending the EGR pipe rearward using CuNiFer alloy brake line back to near the exhaust system exit to get cooler exhaust gas.

Then do another highway test with the two trucks.

A few years ago Toyota wrote that their 4.6 V8 in the Tundra got improved fuel economy with cooled EGR. As best i understand it cooled EGR boosts part throttle Torque at the same NOx reduction efficiency, and allows you to then use a numerically lower gear ratio, but still climb modest hills without downshifting.

Hot from the presses:

Begin quote

Credit, in part, its engine – a direct descendant of the celebrated Pentastar V-6, named three times to the prestigious list of Ward's 10 Best.
The redesigned 3.6-liter V-6 in the gas-powered Pacifica features
two-step variable-valve lift (VVL),
cooled exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR) and
innovative engine-weight reductions that boost the engine's efficiency and performance – all while preserving the smoothness that remains a hallmark of the Pentastar bran
End quote

From

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2016/...assed-fuel.html

Cooled EGR? My 1975 Toyota Land Cruiser had it. It looked like two Briggs and Stratton cylinder heads bolted together.

R.

You want cooled EGR pull it from after the cat as far back as possible, there will be less carbon pulling it after the cat also. As for me I won't be putting EGR on anything I own, one more system to fail and I am not convinced it helps MPG, everything I have ever removed it from (for test purposes of course) got better MPG without it. My experimenting seems to show that speeding up the burn always helps and EGR slows it down.

Don't get me wrong.
I do not "like" EGR when compared to running lean instead.

I estimate that my 1995 Magnum 5.9 V8 is flowing about 10% EGR and 90% air at 70 mph cruise on the highway.

I guess this is adding about 1 MPG.

If instead of EGR,
if it were running
14.7 times 1.1 equals 16.2 air/fuel ratio
I think the MPG would go up by 2 instead.

EGR blackens the lube oil.
EGR increases spark misfires.
EGR creates deposits that eventually have to cleaned out.

One of the engine tech books has a graph from the 1970s that shows that any inert gas works to reduce NOx,
such as Argon, Nitrogen, CO2.... And most interesting
.. Plain old water steam reduces NOx very well.

I have thought about building a steam generator using heat from the exhaust and plumbing the water vapor produced into my stock EGR pipe.

I have previously sucked the air conditioner evap drain water into my engine using a second PCV valve.
This was sucking all the time.
A steam generator hooked to the stock Magnum EGR would only turn on when the PCM senses engine load above 60% and an exhaust backpressure above 1.5 psi.

Graph

Effects of EGR on fast burn and moderate burn combustion chambers

I am guessing that the fuel consumption of the fast burn chamber drops from 415 to 390 grams of fuel per kilowatt hour, perhaps a 5% drop

This 1979 research by Nissan engineers led by Y. Nakajima.

A slow burn combustion chamber
would probably show worse fuel economy with any EGR at all,
which would explain why taking EGR off older open chamber, wide quench engines almost always improves fuel economy.

This 1400 rpm engine is at a low load, BMEP of 324 kPA, or 47 psi, maybe one third of full load.

I think at WOT 330 ft-lbs max torque at 3200 rpm a Magnum 5.9 V8 has a BMEP of about 138 psi

If I remember correctly, the MP headers were tri y. Its been a long time since I've seen any so I could be mistaken. I do remember that the v10 cat didn't need any bells for the inlet to size it up to the headers like the v8 unit did plus the outlet was already 3" too. When I was working at the dealer I saw the two cats side by side and went, hey! those things are copies of each other on the layout and bends just different size on the pipes.

Let me ask the obvious question. Why bother to vaporize, when sprayed into the inlet tract in small enough droplets, water will reduce the overall temperature? This could allow for more compression ratio, among other things.
Or is cooling the intake charge doing something else?

What publication are you copying in your attachments?

R.

There would be a fuel economy penalty with the tiny water droplets because the fuel in the intake charge would have to supply the surprisingly large "heat of enthalpy" of liquid H2O.
I experienced this with my AC evap drain experiment.

On the other hand, the evaporating water droplets would
cool and densify the charge,
increase volumetric efficiency filling of the cylinder,
lower Octane requirements,
and clean out fluffy porous carbon deposits by filling pores with liquid water that would then flash to steam bubbles after ignition.
A higher compression ratio could be used until the water ran out.

Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals
By John B Heywood
McGraw Hill 1979
Isbn 0-07-028637-X

http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustio...Isbn+007028637x

Dave, is this the 5.2 cam that you intend to use?

http://dodgeram.org/tech/gas/specs/valve-5_2.htm

The 318 Magnum cam seems to be approximately

Intake
115 degrees centerline ATDC
192 degrees duration at 0.050 lift

Exhaust
108 degrees centerline BTDC
207 degrees duration at 0.050 lift

If you intall it with the "advertised" lift event degrees as in the web link above
The EA 3.2 program says its is approximately at the
3.5 degrees retard
Setting

I have playing around with the EA 3.2 engine simulation computer program on a
11.95 static compression ratio (dynanic CR = 9.6)
Estimated cranking compression 260 psi ( ! )
0.026 tight quench
Magnum 5.9V8
running AKI 93 gasoline
at 2,950 feet above sea level like in Kalispell,
with the only hardware changes so far a
170 degree thermostat and
52 inch long primaries 4 into 1 headers of 1.375 inch internal diameter.

So far there is a 11% improvement in fuel economy at 12.8 air/fuel ratio full throttle at nearly every rpm point from 1600 to 5200.

Predicted non pinging ignition timing
is within four degrees of stock at wide open throttle,
so maybe this TSB
And setting the new option to -4
would allow the OEM pcm software to work without a custom flash

http://dodgeram.info/tsb/1998/18-24-98.htm

Notice it allows an adjustable 2 or 4 degrees of retard

I should be under 11 to 1 on this magnum. That cam info is about useless with out knowing the lift the duration was checked at or the .050 numbers, heck I don't even see lift specs there. I think they changed the specs when they ditched the EGR.

The 318 Magnum cam seems to be approximately

Intake
115 degrees centerline ATDC
192 degrees duration at 0.050 lift

Exhaust
108 degrees centerline BTDC
207 degrees duration at 0.050 lift

If you intall it with the "advertised" lift event degrees as in the web link above
The EA 3.2 program says its is approximately at the
3.5 degrees retard
Setting

Lift
0.432
0.432