# Forge charge pipe



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

So I picked up the pipe for a steal, and couldn't pass it up. It was appealing to me because this model doesn't have the port for the DV. My first impression, "WOW is it light". I've been dealing with my stocker a lot recently with the TB job we just did. The weight makes me think (and I could be wrong) it was made in china. It's pretty obvious that this thing is made from thinner stock than the OE pipe. I'm putting it in tomorrow, along with fixing the bracket on the forge WG. Because of the thin material, I might wrap it with heat wrap.


----------



## Morio (Feb 16, 1999)

Nice!! I have one as well.... and so far no complaints!:thumbup:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Don't waste your time wrapping it! The heat inside the pipe will be much higher than the bay temperature, so you won't be achieve anything (unless your goal is to marginally reduce engine bay temp).


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Don't waste your time wrapping it! The heat inside the pipe will be much higher than the bay temperature, so you won't be achieve anything (unless your goal is to marginally reduce engine bay temp).


I might wrap it anyway. For 2 reasons. 1.) It's super thin, and any heat I can knock down in the bay is welcomed. 2.) I'm not used to all the shiney stuff


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Ceramic paint maybe? I don't think it'll do much for the bay temp, but it'll give you the look that you're after... not a fan of the shiny stuff myself


----------



## jamestown478 (Mar 10, 2009)

what is the benefit to running this over the stock pipe?


----------



## WhanAB (Jul 29, 2012)

dipstick looks to orange and plastic LOL


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

jamestown478 said:


> what is the benefit to running this over the stock pipe?


 Less restricted flow. Also, one less port (DV port off of charge pipe).


----------



## jamestown478 (Mar 10, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> Less restricted flow. Also, one less port (DV port off of charge pipe).


 if the dv port is removed then where do you route it to?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

jamestown478 said:


> if the dv port is removed then where do you route it to?


 Most likely a "T" off the charge pipe post intercooler(s) as in "cold side DV relocation". :beer:


----------



## jamestown478 (Mar 10, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Most likely a "T" off the charge pipe post intercooler(s) as in "cold side DV relocation". :beer:


 ok yea I just looked that up on forges website. It seems like a good deal. With the removal of the noise resonator is there a lot more noise coming from the engine bay or is the increase a small one?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

jamestown478 said:


> ok yea I just looked that up on forges website. It seems like a good deal. With the removal of the noise resonator is there a lot more noise coming from the engine bay or is the increase a small one?


 There is no real difference in noise! The engineers must've been on some good German stuff when they came up with this one.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> There is no real difference in noise! The engineers must've been on some good German stuff when they came up with this one.


 Yeah, I can't give you any accurate feedback until I fix my WG. My main reasoning behind this charge pipe was the lack of DV port.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

warranty225cpe said:


> Yeah, I can't give you any accurate feedback until I fix my WG. My main reasoning behind this charge pipe was the lack of DV port.


 Well, if it makes anyone feel better, the resonator is the first pressure drop in the system (there's a lot more but everything counts). In my car, with a semi loud exhaust, there was no perceivable change in noise without it.


----------



## jamestown478 (Mar 10, 2009)

after viewing forges website I think this winter I am going to get this pipe and do the dv relocation. Seems like a win win kinda deal.


----------



## 1fast2liter (Apr 4, 2005)

i he did a dv relocation shouldnt the charge be coming uo to the bottom of the dv if i remember he split the throttle body coupler and but in like a 1inch wide pipe with a nipple on it to re route the the charge wouldnt it come up to the bottom of the dv through it then into the tip???????


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

1fast2liter said:


> i he did a dv relocation shouldnt the charge be coming uo to the bottom of the dv if i remember he split the throttle body coupler and but in like a 1inch wide pipe with a nipple on it to re route the the charge wouldnt it come up to the bottom of the dv through it then into the tip???????


 What ?????


----------



## 1fast2liter (Apr 4, 2005)

Sorry was real tired.. is the dv routed wrong? Shouldnt it come into the bottom from the throttle body and dump into the tip?

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

1fast2liter said:


> Sorry was real tired.. is the dv routed wrong? Shouldnt it come into the bottom from the throttle body and dump into the tip?
> 
> Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2


 Yes, you are correct! The proper orientation on the valve that Eric is using (Forge diaphragm that is the best valve they ever made but unfortunately discontinued :screwy, is to have the pressure come under the diaphragm plate and exit to the side. The way he has it mounted (pull type), the valve can only operate from vacuum and boost pressure has no effect on operation. This is not recommended because if you get a leak or loose your vacuum signal completely, the valve won't release based on pressure alone (it does so as a pop-off valve when oriented properly).


----------

