Dyno test soon to follow, EQ Length tubular header

[8valves]

This was all sparked off when I got bored while the Daytona was apart for a new clutch and thought that I could try and have some fun. I made a shorty merge collector out of some scrap pieces and realized I could put it to good use.

My friend Derek and I spent two late nights at the shop, yanked the motor, mocked some junk up and said let's do it!

A big thanks to JT, this header is in generaly similar to the one he made and ran on his G body when it was an 8V car. Obviously they are actually two unique pieces, but the location and general design layout were based on his header.

The car will be re-assembled whenever UPS decides to un-lose my clutch disc and a dyno test will be conducted to see the gains of teh header alone. I have data from our dyno of pre-header, so it should be rather interesting. Anyone want to throw out some guesses for fun? I have mine already.

Enjoy.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/DSCF0012-3.jpg

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/DSCF0013-2.jpg

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/DSCF0014-1.jpg

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/DSCF0016-2.jpg

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/DSCF0017-3.jpg

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/DSCF0019-3.jpg

[Mopar318]

Looks nice, but not as nice as the viper headers. he he. No pulser on this one huh?

[8valves]

Looks nice, but not as nice as the viper headers. he he. No pulser on this one huh?

Viper headers tend to look pretty neat, since they're so complex. Lots of tubes equal cool looking in my book.

Pulser? As in like a divided tangential setup with paired cylinders? If that's what you mean then no, this is just for the daily beater Daytona. It has an old school MP Plus turbo... just a polished compressor cover and a .63 AR exhaust housing.

My co-worker told me it's a shame to put a stock turbo back on that manifold. I think it will be neat to see the gains on a relatively stock car.

[Mopar318]

Viper headers tend to look pretty neat, since they're so complex. Lots of tubes equal cool looking in my book.

Pulser? As in like a divided tangential setup with paired cylinders? If that's what you mean then no, this is just for the daily beater Daytona. It has an old school MP Plus turbo... just a polished compressor cover and a .63 AR exhaust housing.

My co-worker told me it's a shame to put a stock turbo back on that manifold. I think it will be neat to see the gains on a relatively stock car.

No on the viper headers you posted it looked like you were using the pulser setting on the welder.

[BadAssPerformance]

Looks great Aaron! :thumb:

Really curious to see how it does... is this a direct a-b swap or were there other mods?

[8valves]

No on the viper headers you posted it looked like you were using the pulser setting on the welder.

Nope. I don't use a pulse function. Actually my welder doesn't even have a pulse setting. The other Synchrowave we have does though, I guess mine was a lighter optioned one.

I've changed my welding style since then. While the nice colored exterior was pretty, and it's held up plenty fine so far, this darker looking weld is fantastically penetrated with a perfect gold bead inside.

Not to mention the Viper headers are done on a slip-fit collector so each tube can be welded seperately very easily. I did this one almost complete, which wasn't fun.

I can do whichever style I please, but between this being where nobody can see it, needing to be very strong, and that both welds will look identical once the car has been ran for an hour or so it doesn't bother me in the least bit. I know this is a stronger welding style, but it may not be neccessary for this application. If it were on an aircraft though, exterior prettiness comes second to quality penetration.

Here's a non-pulse aluminum weld from earlier today.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/DSCF0001-1.jpg

[8valves]

Looks great Aaron! :thumb:

Really curious to see how it does... is this a direct a-b swap or were there other mods?

Straight A-B. Only changes will be ambient temp, so I'll have to take that into account. I'll have to do it in the middle of the day so the temps are closer to last time I ran it.

[BadAssPerformance]

Cool deal. :thumb:

[Directconnection]

My co-worker told me it's a shame to put a stock turbo back on that manifold. I think it will be neat to see the gains on a relatively stock car.

Kudos to you for doing a TRUE A/B comparison when the easy urge to do otherwise is there :thumb:

[GLHS592]

Will you be making any for public consumption unlike that lazy JT? :)

[j4278h]

I guess I will be the first to ask.

How much for a duplicate?

[BadAssPerformance]

Will you be making any for public consumption unlike that lazy JT? :)


I guess I will be the first to ask.

How much for a duplicate?

Lazy JT will be buying a welder and might need to make a batch to fund them... Aaron and I may be in cahoots too... stay tuned :D

[8valves]

If I did more they wouldn't be 1 3/4" tube like that one is. That's the smallest we use so it's all I had for scrap, but I'm not complaining. I'm working on talking to the boss about a side project deal, perhaps I can get something woked out.

This thing was pretty time consuming though. I'm not going to jig off of it, as I would like to have laid the turbine flange at more of an extreme angle after it is all said and done.

[turbovanman²]

Aaron, :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

Dude, that header is a work of art, wow.

Anyhow, what did it make before, turbo and how much boost, then I can guess, ;)

[cordes]

This will be the first true A/B dyno comparison I have seen since coming into the world of TMs. I don't think that firsts are something new to you; Aaron, you are the man.

ETA: 20HP at the same boost with no other changes.

[Anonymous_User]

Do you feel your cal was optimized before? Will you be able to tweak the cal for the new header?

[black86glhs]

Aaron, don't worry man, the welds looked great from what I was able to see on my screen. You sound like quite a few of us on here....perfectionist. LOL. I tend to be. I can't wait to see the gains. My guess is it will hit full spool 500-700 RPM sooner.

[8valves]

I don't know how to use multi-quotes so I'll try to answer them all here.

88 Shelby Z
stock longblock with unknown miles
medium sized Spearco FMIC with stock sized intercooler tubing (mostly rubber, ha!)
crushed FPR with a 5th injector
MP STGII PCM
stock 2.25" SV, DP, then up to 3" from K frame back.
MP Plus turbo (stock with a .63 AR exhaust)
Open filter on turbo inlet
Some sort of underdrive pulley

That's all that's done to it. 249 WHP, 290 WTQ at 18 or so psi. Car usually runs 20 on the street.

THAT IS A 3RD gear dyno pull!! The car had toast tires on it when I did it and wasn't too keen on that much MPH. I will re-do the test in third to veryify, then a few in fourth for fun. I did a baseline with the stock intercooler in 4th gear and it made 236 WHP. It ran a best of 14.006 @ 103 on the stock IC, then a 13.81 @ 105.5 with the FMIC. 2.36 60' on some cheap 'ol Kumho's, as driven to the track, no changes.


Simon, I don't know if I would go that far, but thanks for the compliments.

Cordes, hopefully you're in the right ballpark. I think the stock SV is going to be a big problem, and I will have another remedy for that as soon as this test is done. I'll probably make a little externally gated 02 housing with a seperate DP in the next week or so and see how that changes. I'm expecting a lot from that.

Anonymous- who knows! It's a straight up MP cal , STGII. I am 100% maxed out on fuel with the 5th and a very crushed FPR. If it goes as planned I'll need to turn the boost down so I don't run out. Car runs a solid 12.3-12.5 AFR at WOT at anywhere from 18-20 psi.

There will be no cal tweaking. 1) Because I don't have the ability to do so, 2) I'd rather see what it bolts up and does. Just in case I or JT were to make some people would have an idea of what kind of gains to expect.

Bryan- I'm not worried about my welding abilities! If someone wants a pretty bead they can have it all day long. I made this thing in my spare time with scraps of pipe. I'm not going to complain. Everyone has their own methods to welding, right or wrong. All I know is I've never had a header crack yet, even when trapping at 183 MPH on pump fuel, or laying down over 1400 WHP out of a 36X CI street motor.

I agree about the spool! This thing was laggy really, for as little power as it makes. My old S50 setup on my '86 only spooled 500 rpms later. This guy doesn't hit well until 3500 or so rpms! Crazy for how small it is.

[cordes]

That is a really late spool for sure. I am very surprised by that.

To do multiple quotes hit the little plus sign next to the quote button for each person you want to quote then hit reply.

[johnl]

Beautiful, just beautiful. Good job. And, as said, back to back, THAT is great.

[turbovanman²]

That's all that's done to it. 249 WHP, 290 WTQ at 18 or so psi. Car usually runs 20 on the street.


I'll guess at 264 whp and 310 ft/lbs. Spool 500 rpm earlier, :thumb:

[shadow88]

First off, Aaron, you do some fine work! I've said it before, you should be very pround of your abilities.

I'm going to be the only one who thinks it'll spool a touch later, by about 300 rpms. I'm betting a gain of 30whp and 35wtq all else being equal. I'd like to see your swingvalve.

[rx2mazda]

Very nice work indeed! i need Santa to bring me a welder for Christmas

[Anonymous_User]

I think this change will really wake up if you tweak the cal to make use of it.

But, and basing this guess on the fact that no modification has been done to the current exhaust manifold, I'll jump in at 269 hp.

[8valves]

Yes, the stock exhaust manifold is entirely untouched that I pulled off of the car.

I suppose we'll see. I'm still thinking it's going to spool quicker. Then again, 1 3/4" primaries is a LOT bigger than the stock runners, however the merge is ten million times better too. Tough call I suppose. At least I'll learn some things from it.

[Tony Hanna]

Wow! That's some fine looking work Aaron.

[moparzrule]

15-20 WHP gain in the top end, still under 300 ft pounds. Seriously doubt that header will help spool the turbo with 1 3/4'' primaries. Now if you had a ported high flowing head, maybe...but the primaries are simply too large for a stock head.
Oh, it does look really sweet though! But definitely IMO made for over 300 WHP applications.

[2.216VTurbo]

'Some scrap pieces I had laying around' Sheesh Aaron, your scrap pile header looks better than 95% of the headers out there. Nice work:thumb:

So back to back with the 2.25 swingvalve staying on there eh? I'll guess you will get half your HP gain now and the other half of your totall gain *after* you change the swingvalve.;) I really like the idea of a strait back to back test, it almost never happens because other things get changed at the same time.

[BadAssPerformance]

....So back to back with the 2.25 swingvalve staying on there eh?........

Good point on the stock SV still there... Is that the case Aaron?

[Tony Hanna]

I'd love to see a DIY kit for a header that style. Something that comes with the bends and flanges but requires assembly and welding.
I like building stuff.:)

[8valves]

The 2.25 SV is going back on temporarily. I hate to do it, but I really want to know how the car will act with just the bolt on header. After that a new 02 housing will go on with an external gate off of the turbine housing and a seperate DP.

As Alan said, I'm guessing that will show just as large of results as the header will.

As far as 1 3/4" being too large for a stockish car, yup, you're probably right. But who has any proof that it will be detrimental? I've seen lots of good data on long tube headers with the secondary sizing, but not too much on a rather short piece with large primaries on a turbo car.

I figure our pressure ratio is probably so whacked out anyways anything that will get the exhaust gas farther away from the valve will help! Who knows though, that's what's so neat about testing!

[Shadow]

Nice, I'm glad to see some ppl stepping up and doing some BTB testing to finally set the record straight on some things....thing looks GREAT to boot!
With absolutly NOTHING else changed, what boost change are you anticipating? Will you dyno with the boost however it may end up, or are you going to reset the BC to get the boost back to where it was with the stock mani? I would anticipate the larger volume of exhaust to make the turbine a greater restriction and therefore give you more boost with no other change. Unless, of course, the lack of flow through the mtr at that HP level does not allow the header to work the way it should. If my first statement holds true, then I would also expect slightly faster spool, prob in the 2-300rpm range. If there is no change in boost, then I would expect it to spool about the same. IF it spools slower, then you know that that header is OVERKILL for the application your using it for. Any-which-way, I think it will tell alot, especially for initial mods! I think the volume of exhaust WILL make the turbine/wastegate a restriction and the turbo will have an increase in boost preasure. Once you level the boost to the same as you had before, I'll say 5-10hp gain and 5-10 wtq at a slightly higher rpm.

[Shadow]

The 2.25 SV is going back on temporarily. I hate to do it, but I really want to know how the car will act with just the bolt on header.

Agreed. If you change the SV then you really find out nothing, upgrade in the SV alone could be all the difference. I would expect up to 3X my original guestimate with a proper 3" mandrel dump, free flow exhaust and external WG. :thumb:

[Mopar318]

I'd love to see a DIY kit for a header that style. Something that comes with the bends and flanges but requires assembly and welding.
I like building stuff.:)

Um, just buy some bends, and flanges, and thats the kit.

[8valves]

I'll put the car back at the same boost level it was before. However, if it works the way I think it will, then the car may not have enough fuel to sustain that boost level.

If the car makes more power at X less boost then we'll have a decent answer. I think a shift in RPM range as you predicted shadow will be something to see.

A neat aspect to this particular car is that with just the .63 housing the car has a higher HP/TQ peak than most of teh typical TD's, as well as a lower torque to HP difference. Wouldn't most 2.2's at nearly 20 psi making mid 200 WHP be over 300 tq? This car picked up ZERO torque gain from the FMIC. Just a max gain of 13 WHP, and a average gain of 10 whp from 3500-6000. Interesting stuff.

If it acts like it's too much for the car then I can always sell it to someone who can utilize it fully and make a smaller runner one. I'm sure there are more than a few people that would be able to put it to good use.

I just wish I didn't HAVE to use a stock SV. If I didn't plan on that, then a really nice header could be made with no restriciton on how the exhaust housing could be oriented.

[turbovanman²]

I just wish I didn't HAVE to use a stock SV. If I didn't plan on that, then a really nice header could be made with no restriciton on how the exhaust housing could be oriented.

I think we are all glad you are, just so we can see what happens. I always wanted to try back to back stuff but like everyone else, ended up changing a ton of stuff.

That header would look badass at the back of a TIII, :nod:

Wonder what one would cost? ;)

[Shadow]

The header will outflow everything else hands down, and by not changing anything else we're going to get a REAL good look at how restrictive the stock pieces really are. Regardless of which way the results go, I'm sure you have a perspective buyer out there just waiting for that puppy to become available! :nod:

[8valves]

Well, didn't someone claim that Stephane made a shorty equal length that was eventually on that Van out west that ran real strong... something like a 50HP gain on a stock TII setup? That's back in the day stuff, don't know if anyone remembers it. There is a very small picture of it floating around somewhere.

Or a TBI header for that matter. Guys pick up good power off of those, but has anyone ever really tested what they gain? And if it gains anything with a stock head and intake ahead of it? Or a stock turbo behind it? I know there are lots of assumptions, but I don't know if there are any hard facts.

[turbovanman²]

Well, didn't someone claim that Stephane made a shorty equal length that was eventually on that Van out west that ran real strong... something like a 50HP gain on a stock TII setup? That's back in the day stuff, don't know if anyone remembers it. There is a very small picture of it floating around somewhere.

Or a TBI header for that matter. Guys pick up good power off of those, but has anyone ever really tested what they gain? And if it gains anything with a stock head and intake ahead of it? Or a stock turbo behind it? I know there are lots of assumptions, but I don't know if there are any hard facts.

Yes, Corby aka Umbass put it on his van, I think I have the pic saved somewhere.

No one has ever done a true back to back on any header made as far as I know. All I ever recall seeing is flow numbers using a flowbench, thats it, :(

I know I had a stage III turbine on my old 8 valve head and the log header helped spool it better than the stocker.

[Shadow]

Well, didn't someone claim that Stephane made a shorty equal length that was eventually on that Van out west that ran real strong... something like a 50HP gain on a stock TII setup? That's back in the day stuff, don't know if anyone remembers it. There is a very small picture of it floating around somewhere.

IMS I think it was 19hp on a stock T2 and close to 50 on a fully built mtr. + that header, by design, was garanteed to spool the turbo faster!

[GLHNSLHT2]

The gain might suprise you. One thing you guys are overlooking a bit is the reversion into the other cylinders from the factory log style manifold. Having the exhaust seperate all the way to the turbo should help other cylinders pick up power.

I've got the old JRB header. The tubes are only 1.25" which are a bit on the small side, 1.5" would be perfect I think but a tight fit for the design. In fact The Pope's exhaust manifold flows 1-5 cfm better than it. But OMG, My true S60 spools up at 1700rpms. 500rpms sooner than it used to. I did change heads and the intake too but I still believe seperating the cylinders made a big difference.

[turbovanman²]

The gain might suprise you. One thing you guys are overlooking a bit is the reversion into the other cylinders from the factory log style manifold. Having the exhaust seperate all the way to the turbo should help other cylinders pick up power.

I've got the old JRB header. The tubes are only 1.25" which are a bit on the small side, 1.5" would be perfect I think but a tight fit for the design. In fact The Pope's exhaust manifold flows 1-5 cfm better than it. But OMG, My true S60 spools up at 1700rpms. 500rpms sooner than it used to. I did change heads and the intake too but I still believe seperating the cylinders made a big difference.


Good points, pics of the JRB and The Pope's manni's!! :D

[Shadow]

I'm going to be the only one who thinks it'll spool a touch later, by about 300 rpms.

And you may very well be right, but there are a # of things to concider. Velocity, volume, and turbine restriction. The "given" is that the exhaust will have a drop in velocity due to the larger diam runners and thus slow down spool time on the turbo. I believe, however, that this will only hold true IF the turbine is still free flowing with the increase in volume. IF the turbo spools slower, than the stock head/cam flows so poorly than it can't provide the volume to fill the header and the header becomes overkill. IF the turbo spools faster, we know it can't be from an increase in velocity (through the header), so it must be of volume. The ONLY way you can have a drop in manifold/header velocity and have a turbo spool faster is IF the turbine is too restrictive to flow the extra volume. In which case the exhaust gas has no other choise but to increase it's velocity to exit the turbine.

[turbovanman²]

And you may very well be right, but there are a # of things to concider. Velocity, volume, and turbine restriction. The "given" is that the exhaust will have a drop in velocity due to the larger diam runners and thus slow down spool time on the turbo. I believe, however, that this will only hold true IF the turbine is still free flowing with the increase in volume. IF the turbo spools slower, than the stock head/cam flows so poorly than it can't provide the volume to fill the header and the header becomes overkill. IF the turbo spools faster, we know it can't be from an increase in velocity (through the header), so it must be of volume. The ONLY way you can have a drop in manifold/header velocity and have a turbo spool faster is IF the turbine is too restrictive to flow the extra volume. In which case the exhaust gas has no other choise but to increase it's velocity to exit the turbine.

What he said, :confused: lol!

[8valves]

However, what happens to the velocity when 3 cylinders are forced to share the same area of flowpath? A stock mani is so short that I'm curious what's going on at WOT as pressure starts to build in the header. What happens to that flow anymore?

Jay, that's one of my hopes as well. I didn't form the tube to the port accurately to leave a reversion wall there. Who knows if it will help, but I'm thinking that this will help get exhaust gas away from the ex. valve so much better that all it can do is help.

A fun test is to use an air gun and blast air through the ports. Do it on a stock manifold into port 1 and you get air coming back out of 2 and 3, a bit on number 1 as well. There is none of this with this design. The column of air is directed dead center into the turbine flange regardless of which port you try. By super non-scientific testing such as that, it would seem as though the exhaust gas is concentrated far better on the goal, turning the turbine as quickly as possible.

[Shadow]

By super non-scientific testing such as that, it would seem as though the exhaust gas is concentrated far better on the goal, turning the turbine as quickly as possible.

I hear what your saying, but keep in mind, this isn't a pinwheel that your shooting air at, you'll still need enough volume to fill the runner for the directional exhaust to have the desired effect on the turbine. Having said that, I obviously believe that the volume present will be sufficient to "make the turbine" a greater restriction and provide slightly faster turbo spool-up! :thumb:

[8valves]

I hear what your saying, but keep in mind, this isn't a pinwheel that your shooting air at, you'll still need enough volume to fill the runner for the directional exhaust to have the desired effect on the turbine. Having said that, I obviously believe that the volume present will be sufficient to "make the turbine" a greater restriction and provide slightly faster turbo spool-up! :thumb:

I think so too, I just need to get a clutch disc here ASAP. If the one that is presumably lost by UPS doesn't show on Monday I'm going to be SOL.

This could end up being great for the whole community too, as when the header is tested then the new 02 housing can be done and show what gains are to be had there. When that's done then a modified intake manifold will be an easy 30 minute swap since the bolts are super easy to get at now.

How great would it be if there was an easy to do, bolt up 300 WHP setup for people to do that wouldn't require touching the stock longblock in a TII car? The money that would be spent on a well done head and valvetrain and associated gaskets and bolts/studs etc would easily cover a header, turbine housing, and intake manifold.

[Shadow]

However, what happens to the velocity when 3 cylinders are forced to share the same area of flowpath? A stock mani is so short that I'm curious what's going on at WOT as pressure starts to build in the header. What happens to that flow anymore?

It become a preasure cell, and volume overcomes directional velocity. Not the most efficient by far, but still significant. This is why I made the statement some years ago about the stock ported mani being able to support 500WHP. Not because I didn't think a header could do sinificantly better, simply because it had the appropriate volume and cross-sectional area to do the job.

[Directconnection]

And you may very well be right, but there are a # of things to concider. Velocity, volume, and turbine restriction. The "given" is that the exhaust will have a drop in velocity due to the larger diam runners and thus slow down spool time on the turbo.

This is something I have always believed, too. Bigger should not always be better.... there will be a compromise and a trade-off at a certain volume, just like any other runner shape and form. What drives the turbo is the hot expanding gases. If the exhaust manifold diameter is too large, what do you think happens to those exhaust gases as they are trying to escape? Residual unburned fuel is why the exhaust is expanding STILL... and this drives the turbo, ok? Now... you have "x" exhaust port cross sectional area (or volume) containing this pressure, and when it's exiting, into a larger "y" volume, these exhaust gases expand into the larger runner, losing some of it's energy. Then there's also the simple when is there too much velocity, or not enough factor. I am certain that going too large will not be a good thing. But, how large is too large?

[turbovanman²]

I think so too, I just need to get a clutch disc here ASAP. If the one that is presumably lost by UPS doesn't show on Monday I'm going to be SOL.

This could end up being great for the whole community too, as when the header is tested then the new 02 housing can be done and show what gains are to be had there. When that's done then a modified intake manifold will be an easy 30 minute swap since the bolts are super easy to get at now.

How great would it be if there was an easy to do, bolt up 300 WHP setup for people to do that wouldn't require touching the stock longblock in a TII car? The money that would be spent on a well done head and valvetrain and associated gaskets and bolts/studs etc would easily cover a header, turbine housing, and intake manifold.


Stop posting Aaron, your going to get us all worked up into a frenzy, :lol:

Do I here "8valves" new bolt on packages? ;)

[Shadow]

This could end up being great for the whole community too, as when the header is tested then the new 02 housing can be done and show what gains are to be had there. When that's done then a modified intake manifold will be an easy 30 minute swap since the bolts are super easy to get at now.

How great would it be if there was an easy to do, bolt up 300 WHP setup for people to do that wouldn't require touching the stock longblock in a TII car? The money that would be spent on a well done head and valvetrain and associated gaskets and bolts/studs etc would easily cover a header, turbine housing, and intake manifold.

Music to my ears my friend. Keep in mind, I'm just as interested to see what's going to happen as you. MAYBE this will be the start of the NO-BS 8v build-up. :nod:

[Directconnection]

I've got the old JRB header. The tubes are only 1.25" which are a bit on the small side, 1.5" would be perfect I think but a tight fit for the design. In fact The Pope's exhaust manifold flows 1-5 cfm better than it.

What is the JRB header? Not talking about the ABM are you? Because I highly doubt ANY highly ported stock exhaust manifold will outflow the unported ABM.

#3 port on the stocker is horrible. 20+cfm difference with it bolted to the head at .500" lift. Unless you have that magical right angle porting tool, it will never come closer than 20cfm to the other runners. I know... I tested quite a few of other people's/vendor's ported stockers on my flowbench. More than 20 cfm w/out the head bolted to it.

[Directconnection]

MAYBE this will be the start of the NO-BS 8v build-up. :nod:

Word.... Yo.

[8valves]

This is something I have always believed, too. Bigger should not always be better.... there will be a compromise and a trade-off at a certain volume, just like any other runner shape and form. What drives the turbo is the hot expanding gases. If the exhaust manifold diameter is too large, what do you think happens to those exhaust gases as they are trying to escape? Residual unburned fuel is why the exhaust is expanding STILL... and this drives the turbo, ok? Now... you have "x" exhaust port cross sectional area (or volume) containing this pressure, and when it's exiting, into a larger "y" volume, these exhaust gases expand into the larger runner, losing some of it's energy. Then there's also the simple when is there too much velocity, or not enough factor. I am certain that going too large will not be a good thing. But, how large is too large?

Absolutely. I've learned a lot with secondary diameter setups on turbo cars in the last few months. I built a header for my brother's Talon that had a great flowpath, awesome wastegate prioritization, and long sweeping bends. Worked fine except that it made the car terribly lazy with too large of a secondary before it hit the turbine housing.

It made a ton of power, but it all came on at once. The low boost/low rpm area just sounded dead and flat according to those that were there to watch it.

I've seen this on one other car now too that we're making some design changes with that are drastic and should prove this theory quite well.

Now, I'm curious as to how much the effect will be there when the diamter we're speaking of is only a couple of inches out of the cylinder head? Im sure it still affects it, but I wonder if the 1 3/4" on this header will be more of a burden than a help? Tough to say without building another one with smaller primaries and comparing.

Even if it spools the same, was it because the ID was too large allowing the gasses to cool too rapidly, or was it because the thinwall material didn't retain the heat like the stock cast peice does? Interesting dilemma.

[8valves]

What is the JRB header? Not talking about the ABM are you? Because I highly doubt ANY highly ported stock exhaust manifold will outflow the unported ABM.

#3 port on the stocker is horrible. 20+cfm difference with it bolted to the head at .500" lift. Unless you have that magical right angle porting tool, it will never come closer than 20cfm to the other runners. I know... I tested quite a few of other people's/vendor's ported stockers on my flowbench. More than 20 cfm w/out the head bolted to it.

The JRB is a tube header the mimicks a stock exhaust manifold. Same positioning, but keeps the primaries seperate until the turbine flange.

See here: http://www.pnw-sdac.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=3074&g2_page=1

[turbovanman²]

The JRB is a tube header the mimicks a stock exhaust manifold. Same positioning, but keeps the primaries seperate until the turbine flange.

See here: http://www.pnw-sdac.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=3074&g2_page=1

Like yours but, with the flange moved over.

How do you think yours will fit with power steering or have you removed it?

[t3rse]

Like yours but, with the flange moved over.

no, the JRB is not equal length....

[turbovanman²]

no, the JRB is not equal length....

Well durr, if you move the flange over on the JRB, its becomes equal length. :o

[turbovanman²]

I tried blowing air thru a TIII manifold and wow, I thought it would be ok but not.

Blowing thru 1, it comes out of 3 quite alot and a bit out of 4.

Blowing thru 2, it comes out of 3 badly and 4 a bit.

Blowing thru 3, 4 is bad, 1 and 2 a bit.

Blowing thru 4, 1 and 3 are bad with a bit out of 2.

This is with NO turbo, lol.

[GLHNSLHT2]

What is the JRB header? Not talking about the ABM are you? Because I highly doubt ANY highly ported stock exhaust manifold will outflow the unported ABM.

#3 port on the stocker is horrible. 20+cfm difference with it bolted to the head at .500" lift. Unless you have that magical right angle porting tool, it will never come closer than 20cfm to the other runners. I know... I tested quite a few of other people's/vendor's ported stockers on my flowbench. More than 20 cfm w/out the head bolted to it.

What Aarron said + :)
JRB is Jessie R. Buhr. Made it years ago, goal was to provide a tube header and keep the turbo in the stock location. The execution could of been slightly better but the construction is top notch. I had it coated with the 2000 degree+ stuff hoping it'll live for 15-20 years. I'm really happy with it.

Any pics of the Alabama Man?? header?

We tested it and The Pope's Ported manny off port #2.

[turbovanman²]

Any pics of the Alabama Man?? header?

We tested it and The Pope's Ported manny off port #2.

This is the Typert copy of the ABM unit and for some reason, the only pic I Have, :confused:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/turbovanman/Parts%20for%20sale/Canoncamerapics038.jpg

[black86glhs]

Well, lacking the words to describe it, I still think it will spool up faster. But I do cut back my guess to 400-500 rpm sooner. While the primaries may be a tad large, I think the tubes and collector will help keep the velocity up and allow the engine to exhale a little faster, even without head work being done.

[black86glhs]

This is the Typert copy of the ABM unit and for some reason, the only pic I Have, :confused:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/turbovanman/Parts%20for%20sale/Canoncamerapics038.jpgNice valves.:confused:

[8valves]

I need a vendor to give me a hella deal on a 4 puck ceramic disc so that all this testing can get done for everyone to see. :) That is if the disc doesn't show on Monday.

I like the JRB one, I'd imagine it's about as good of a header as you can get keeping a stock location and turbine housing orientation. Then again, TU's stepped cast manifold isn't anything to scoff at. Since it's a commonly produced piece with very thickwall construction it's certainly the most durable out there.

1.25" is pretty dang small tube though! It's really that small? Crazy. Maybe that's part of the reason it spools so strong now?

My official guess is that I'll see a peak of 19 WHP gain and 6 FT/LB, with an decrease in full spool RPM by 300 rpms.

Once the externally gated swingvalve setup is there though... that I'm thinking is going to uncork a great deal of potential.

[moparzrule]

My official guess is that I'll see a peak of 19 WHP gain and 6 FT/LB, with an decrease in full spool RPM by 300 rpms.



Thats about what I guessed earlier....I said 15-20 WHP gain with no increase in torque. I didn't mention spoolup, but I'd say 300 RPM loss is a really good guess.

[Directconnection]

What Aarron said + :)
JRB is Jessie R. Buhr. Made it years ago, goal was to provide a tube header and keep the turbo in the stock location. The execution could of been slightly better but the construction is top notch. I had it coated with the 2000 degree+ stuff hoping it'll live for 15-20 years. I'm really happy with it.

Any pics of the Alabama Man?? header?

We tested it and The Pope's Ported manny off port #2.

My memory kinda sucks lately... I do seem to recall hearing about this manifold years ago. From the pics I just saw, it does look like a real nice piece, but obviously...far from being equal length.

For the manifold testing, I posted up the results here about 2 years ago. VERY exhaustive testing. I'll spill the beans: I tested a stocker, a ported FM stocker, stock ABM, MPG Mike ported stocker, Moparulz ported stocker, JT's header, Typert header, and the ABM fully ported (maybe even another that I forgot) Tested EVERY runner individually while bolted to a stock g-head @ .500" all on the same cylinder head port to keep all flow losses/gains on a level playing field.

EVERY stock manifold, whether it be ported to hell and back, or bone stock all showed HUGE losses on the #2 runner (sorry, I posted #3 earlier...) Not so bad on the stock ABM and not bad at all on JT's. I will say, the "production" porting of the stock ABM is NASTY. They used stones and it is very rough. Made my work even more difficult.

No pictures of the ABM even though it's downstairs someplace..... the trick to making it really flow is actually quite simple:)

[puppet]

Looks nice Aaron ... I'm curious about the cross sectional size too. Seem to remember us all debating on IC piping size a while back and when/if it gets too big.
Your results should be very interesting none the less.

[Shadow]

What thickness of pipe did you use? Looks like about 1/16" in the pics.

[8valves]

Thats about what I guessed earlier....I said 15-20 WHP gain with no increase in torque. I didn't mention spoolup, but I'd say 300 RPM loss is a really good guess.

I'm the other way, 300 rpm gain, as in decrease the overall spool time.


What thickness of pipe did you use? Looks like about 1/16" in the pics.

Standard 16G 304SS. Fully backpurged construction. 308 filler wire, 309 wire used on the SS to mild flange portions.

A thought on the whole too large and will allow rapid cooling of the exhaust, why don't we neck down our exhaust from a 3" DP to a 2.5" rear section to keep the velocity up as it exits?

See Cordes, I figured out the multi quote thanks to your instructions!

[GLHNSLHT2]

My memory kinda sucks lately... I do seem to recall hearing about this manifold years ago. From the pics I just saw, it does look like a real nice piece, but obviously...far from being equal length.

Nope, not equal length at all, and not a real big concern of mine. I wanted it because it kept the turbo in the stock location. Which means everything bolts up like stock. Jessie was going to produce them but said he'd have to charge $900 just to make any cash on them. It's all T304 and was made by someone he knew that made headers for top fuel cars if my memory serves me correctly, I'd have to go back to my notes so he might not of gotten the best deal.



For the manifold testing, I posted up the results here about 2 years ago. VERY exhaustive testing. I'll spill the beans: I tested a stocker, a ported FM stocker, stock ABM, MPG Mike ported stocker, Moparulz ported stocker, JT's header, Typert header, and the ABM fully ported (maybe even another that I forgot) Tested EVERY runner individually while bolted to a stock g-head @ .500" all on the same cylinder head port to keep all flow losses/gains on a level playing field.

EVERY stock manifold, whether it be ported to hell and back, or bone stock all showed HUGE losses on the #2 runner (sorry, I posted #3 earlier...) Not so bad on the stock ABM and not bad at all on JT's. I will say, the "production" porting of the stock ABM is NASTY. They used stones and it is very rough. Made my work even more difficult.

No pictures of the ABM even though it's downstairs someplace..... the trick to making it really flow is actually quite simple:)


Yea I could see #2 on the stock setup being the worst. I think that's why we tested it there as well. So is Simon correct in saying the Type RT is similar to the ABM?

[8valves]

The ABM as I remember it was just a log manifold made of weld els like the TypeRT with a stock location turbo flange, or close to it. Just built a bit better IIRC.

[GLHNSLHT2]

A thought on the whole too large and will allow rapid cooling of the exhaust, why don't we neck down our exhaust from a 3" DP to a 2.5" rear section to keep the velocity up as it exits?

Because it's all about pressure differential. You want very low pressure on the back side of the turbine and high pressure on the front side obviously. You should see a couple Rally car exhaust's I've seen, The pipe out of the turbine looks like the pipe on a 2 stroke dirt bike. Flares out into a big 5-6" cross sectional pipe then about a foot and a half later slowly goes back down to 3" then under the car goes into dual 2.25" (need the ground clearance) pipes and out the back.


See Cordes, I figured out the multi quote thanks to your instructions!

Cut and paste the quote txt at the end of each msg to where you want it?

[turbovanman²]

Cut and paste the quote txt at the end of each msg to where you want it?

Nope, his the + sign in the quotes box on the right of the "quote" box. His that in each post you want to quote, quite handy, :nod:

[GLHNSLHT2]

ok, so after they turn red and you get to the end of the thread then what do you do?

[8valves]

Because it's all about pressure differential. You want very low pressure on the back side of the turbine and high pressure on the front side obviously. You should see a couple Rally car exhaust's I've seen, The pipe out of the turbine looks like the pipe on a 2 stroke dirt bike. Flares out into a big 5-6" cross sectional pipe then about a foot and a half later slowly goes back down to 3" then under the car goes into dual 2.25" (need the ground clearance) pipes and out the back.


Cut and paste the quote txt at the end of each msg to where you want it?

I understand your point, that's where I was going with, that there may be something there to necking the exhaust down later, just like tapered header collectors on NA cars, or cone sectionals.

But I don't want high pressure in front of the turbine wheel. The closer I can get the motor to a 1-1 pressure ratio intake to header the more power it will make, and the better the car will run.

[turbovanman²]

ok, so after they turn red and you get to the end of the thread then what do you do?

Hit post reply and all those quotes end up in your new post, easy as pie, :nod:

If you change your mind, just rehit the + quote key and it turns back to blue.

[Anonymous_User]

It's been a long time since I enjoyed a technical thread as much as I am enjoying this one.

Some of the header designs are works of art. Since many are falling back on the JRB not being an equal length design, what benefits would one see being equal length vs. long and short primaries?

I know in my n/a car primary length plays a role in tuning the cylinder for a certain RPM range. Although equal is ideal, close enough really works. IIRC, it was quite a large tolerance, also, something like +/- 10" !!!! Of course, we're talking about long tube headers on an n/a car. I would imagine the preferred tolerances would be much closer on a short tube turbo header.

[Anonymous_User]

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/turbovanman/Parts%20for%20sale/Canoncamerapics038.jpg

Dammit!! Everytime I see that carnage pic, I have nightmares for a week!

[turbovanman²]

It's been a long time since I enjoyed a technical thread as much as I am enjoying this one.

Some of the header designs are works of art. Since many are falling back on the JRB not being an equal length design, what benefits would one see being equal length vs. long and short primaries?

My guess on equal would be faster spool and less backpressure, the engine will run smoother and each cylinder will have the same power output due to less exhaust gas reversion diluting the charge. See my post when I did Aaron's test, wow. If that holds true during running, there is some serious reversion going on.

[turbovanman²]

Dammit!! Everytime I see that carnage pic, I have nightmares for a week!

I have more, hehehhehe, :evil:

[Directconnection]

Yea I could see #2 on the stock setup being the worst. I think that's why we tested it there as well. So is Simon correct in saying the Type RT is similar to the ABM?

I cannot remember exactly! I do seem to recall it wasn't as good... just cannot remember by how much. I think the typert in the picture Simon posted is the exact one I tested as he volunteered one of his own.

I'll try a search here and se eif I can post the link to my results posting of 2 years ago.

[Directconnection]

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15476&highlight=exhaust+manifold+flow+testing

[8valves]

I know there is a large debate as to whether and equal length matters on turbo cars. Time and time again it has been proven by someone I look to for the most precise technical database I know of. He's a fantastic guy that is heavily involved in some of the baddest efforts out there, indepent, big sponsors, or even OE stuff.

He's proven to me through test data that an equal length makes more power, plain and simple in a turbo app. I take his word for it.

That being said, an non-equal design that has a nice collector can still make a lot of power, no doubt. Sometimes space limitations make it near or actually impossible. But if you've got the room I say go for it.

[8valves]

I know there is a large debate as to whether and equal length matters on turbo cars. Time and time again it has been proven by someone I look to for the most precise technical database I know of. He's a fantastic guy that is heavily involved in some of the baddest efforts out there, indepent, big sponsors, or even OE stuff.

He's proven to me through test data that an equal length makes more power, plain and simple in a turbo app. I take his word for it.

That being said, an non-equal design that has a nice collector can still make a lot of power, no doubt. Sometimes space limitations make it near or actually impossible. But if you've got the room I say go for it.

[Anonymous_User]

OK, I'd like to link this discussion with THIS (http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32391) thread. That thread links to a 9.00 second 4-cyl turbo Mustang where apparently money is no object. $4000 block, ARCA head, etc. etc. Looking closely at the engine pics, you will notice the log style exhaust manifold.

Would it not tend to reason that an individual spending that kind of green on a race car would want the best possible header design?

[turbovanman²]

OK, I'd like to link this discussion with THIS (http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32391) thread. That thread links to a 9.00 second 4-cyl turbo Mustang where apparently money is no object. $4000 block, ARCA head, etc. etc. Looking closely at the engine pics, you will notice the log style exhaust manifold.

Would it not tend to reason that an individual spending that kind of green on a race car would want the best possible header design?

There is a Honda dyno shoot out somewhere on this forum where they test a non-equal length then equal lengh header, literally back to back and the equal length made more power and faster spool if memory serves.

[Austrian Dodge]

while equal length headers allow you to make more power, there's sometimes either not enough space or people just think "why going with a more expensive and more complicated setup, when i can do it simplier"

it's in their heads..."years ago there were carburators and they made big power, so why going EFI"
it has been done this way, so it's good and why the heck bother with something more efficient.

maybe this is one answer to anonymus_users question

now i have to say that i'm really into seeing aaron's results, i think that it'll proove that the stock design of the manifold is horrid.
i also think the head is the next cork, followed by the swingvalve...

[moparzrule]

now i have to say that i'm really into seeing aaron's results, i think that it'll proove that the stock design of the manifold is horrid.
...


You'll have a tough time proving that, because the most WHP on a dyno to date on an 8 valve has been with a ported stocker.
Just because this header may make more power over a STOCK manifold, who knows how much more it would make over a good ported stocker.

[BadAssPerformance]

...EVERY stock manifold, whether it be ported to hell and back, or bone stock all showed HUGE losses on the #2 runner (sorry, I posted #3 earlier...) Not so bad on the stock ABM and not bad at all on JT's. I will say, the "production" porting of the stock ABM is NASTY. They used stones and it is very rough. Made my work even more difficult.

No pictures of the ABM even though it's downstairs someplace..... the trick to making it really flow is actually quite simple:)

I remember that test and you did a great service to the community to do all that work Steve :clap:

I will say that the one think it teaches us is that 'flow' is not the only thing you need to look at with an exhaust manifold... IIR, JT's header actually flowed less than some of the 'log' headers and it will because the equal length runners have a smaller cross section for a longer length than a log header... this can be proven by math even...

but in the big equation that flow vs. velocity and equal ulses hitting the turbine wheel... well, hopefully Aaron's B2B test will show us :thumb:

BTW, as of last night I have my header back and plan to check clearace for power steering soon :)

[GLHNSLHT2]

I like the JRB one, I'd imagine it's about as good of a header as you can get keeping a stock location and turbine housing orientation. Then again, TU's stepped cast manifold isn't anything to scoff at. Since it's a commonly produced piece with very thickwall construction it's certainly the most durable out there.

1.25" is pretty dang small tube though! It's really that small? Crazy. Maybe that's part of the reason it spools so strong now?


That's what the dial calipers said. It could be part of the reason.

With that being said I don't think flow #'s are the end all be all at this point. Like JT said a log header with a huge cross sectional area flows more. But that doesn't nessacarily mean that more exhaust will get to the turbo. With all the pressure waves/exhaust paths bouncing around all over the place it's not very efficient to the turbo. A tube header get's all the exhaust pointing right at the turbo to feed it in an efficient manner.

I don't think the small tube is hurting it too bad though, the car pulls all the way to 7200rpms without a problem. All though if I had time and money to throw away I'd love to have a version with 1.5" tubes just to see what the difference is. Unfortunately I don't and if I want more power I'll just throw on a Masi head and go :)


I understand your point, that's where I was going with, that there may be something there to necking the exhaust down later, just like tapered header collectors on NA cars, or cone sectionals.

But I don't want high pressure in front of the turbine wheel. The closer I can get the motor to a 1-1 pressure ratio intake to header the more power it will make, and the better the car will run.

I understand the 1:1 ratio. I meant more like on the front side of the turbine blade vs the back side.

[Shadow]

I'm the other way, 300 rpm gain, as in decrease the overall spool time.

A thought on the whole too large and will allow rapid cooling of the exhaust, why don't we neck down our exhaust from a 3" DP to a 2.5" rear section to keep the velocity up as it exits?

I really don't think the spool time will change that much without changing the S/V. I'm really expecting no change or maybe 100 rpm or so either way. I am expecting the car to make MORE boost with nothing else changed, and if it does, then I wouldn't expect spool time to be effected much. I understand where your going with the exhaust necking down, but promiss me you won't change ANYTHING till you test the header with EVERYTHING EXACTLY as it was!:D

[Anonymous_User]

Well, I am very anxious to see the results, but I will stand by my opinion that the max gains will be had in tweaking the cal to support the header.

Go back to n/a carbed stuff - swapping from one header to another can decrease performance until the carb is adjusted for the change. Then an increase in performance can be found.

Its all about the total package.

[Shadow]

Well, I am very anxious to see the results, but I will stand by my opinion that the max gains will be had in tweaking the cal to support the header.

Go back to n/a carbed stuff - swapping from one header to another can decrease performance until the carb is adjusted for the change. Then an increase in performance can be found.

Its all about the total package.

If this header was going on an all out built mtr or a 400+ pkg like mine I would agree with you 100%. I don't think the change will be that dramatic on a stock mtr to have to retune the fuel curve, but who knows?

[Anonymous_User]

Well, let's just get the dyno results already and solve this mystery once and for all!!!

I will not sleep a single night until the results are posted!!!
































btw, I work 3rd shift 7 nights a week. :)

[8valves]

As much as it's great that Shadow's car makes as much power as it does, wouldn't you (Robert) be dissapointed if it didn't at 42 or so psi? How many other 8V guys have actually dyno'd their setups cranked that well? I'm confident the number is next to zero.

Warren Stramer proved that his header was a giant improvement over his ported stock manifold. 4 MPH gain on a car that had already been into the 10's. That's an amazing achievment, and a testament to the power gain.

I'm thinking that it's going to let the car breath in the 4K plus range a good bit better. Between this and the 02 housing (after the header alone is tetsted) I'll be curious if a stock style PCM won't be giving enough fuel in the upper rpm range.

I remember the first time Paul V and I went out testing my then new setup on the '86 with the big plenum two piece, 30R, etc... we thought the car had a problem since it was cutting so hard when it got past 7 psi. He made a last ditch effort change to the VE table in the 4K up range of drastic proportions. So much so that he laughed and said jokingly "maybe this will work!" The car rocketed to 20 psi and cracked the external dump open and scared the sh*t out of both of us. That's a good memory!

Sadly this car isn't meant for lots of upgrades. I just got it off a friend for $500 as a beater car to relieve the gas prices of driving the truck! Now look what happened.

[Insported]

Yeah aaron you def need to hurry up and finish this test and get it running :thumb:

[8valves]

Yeah aaron you def need to hurry up and finish this test and get it running :thumb:

And you need to buy bigger injectors for your pansy "fake" 2J!

Better go introduce yourself with some pics. Guys around here will like that you have the budget mindset MKIV. :lol:

[badandy]

My guess is going to be later spool up and 7-15 horse gain (if no other changes are made to the exhaust system).

I've ran two headers now on a stock head and both times it increased spool time but gained top end power...which is what headers do with every other vehicle I've ever witnessed...therefore, it is my guestimate that a good flowing header is always going to cause later spoolup but will give back more power on top end.

[turbovanman²]

And you need to buy bigger injectors for your pansy "fake" 2J!

Better go introduce yourself with some pics. Guys around here will like that you have the budget mindset MKIV. :lol:

Budget MKIV, isn't that an Oxymoron, hahhaha, :lol:

[moparzrule]

As much as it's great that Shadow's car makes as much power as it does, wouldn't you (Robert) be dissapointed if it didn't at 42 or so psi? How many other 8V guys have actually dyno'd their setups cranked that well? I'm confident the number is next to zero.

Warren Stramer proved that his header was a giant improvement over his ported stock manifold. 4 MPH gain on a car that had already been into the 10's. That's an amazing achievment, and a testament to the power gain.
.


It was at 37 PSI IIRC, not 42. He said he might try over 40 PSI in the future. Keep in mind though he's only running a +1mm head, not a super ported huge valve high flowing head. IMO there's still more room with the ported stocker to be had, the head is still the cork! Not to mention thats also on the stock cam.

IMO not all ported stockers are created equal, I've proven that with steve's testing. His testing has already made me improve my manifold even more, even though I clearly beat all the other ported stockers by a large margin and also beat the TypeRT and ABM header on all ports except the number 2. And now I feel my new porting technique is even better, especially on the number 2 port.

[Shadow]

It was at 37 PSI IIRC, not 42. He said he might try over 40 PSI in the future. Keep in mind though he's only running a +1mm head, not a super ported huge valve high flowing head. IMO there's still more room with the ported stocker to be had, the head is still the cork! Not to mention thats also on the stock cam.

IMO not all ported stockers are created equal, I've proven that with steve's testing. His testing has already made me improve my manifold even more, even though I clearly beat all the other ported stockers by a large margin and also beat the TypeRT and ABM header on all ports except the number 2. And now I feel my new porting technique is even better, especially on the number 2 port.

480WHP @ 37psi = correctamundo! I've always believed that a cam, header, Crazy ported head ect will make me more power on less boost, I think that's obvious. My problem is I don't believe my mtr will handle too much more than 500whp. So, IF I swap in a cam, I would have to drop the boost so I wouldn't go too much over 500! Same with header ect. What I REALLY need now is a built bottom end and then I gaurantee we'd see some serious S%@T happening! :eyebrows: Don't get me wrong though, IF the mtr breaks in the near future, I'm not going to loose any sleep cause it really owes me NOTHING! Having said that, I'd rather it live and then I will build a REAL 2.2 8v in a completly different car!:thumb:

[Shadow]

IMO not all ported stockers are created equal

Agreed!:nod:

[turbovanman²]

IMO not all ported stockers are created equal, I've proven that with steve's testing. His testing has already made me improve my manifold even more, even though I clearly beat all the other ported stockers by a large margin and also beat the TypeRT and ABM header on all ports except the number 2. And now I feel my new porting technique is even better, especially on the number 2 port.

True and doing the air test Aaron mentioned, I think I have an idea to help the TIII manifold flow a 100 times better with much less reversion, until someone makes an equal length header, :thumb:

[moparzrule]

480WHP @ 37psi = correctamundo! I've always believed that a cam, header, Crazy ported head ect will make me more power on less boost, I think that's obvious. My problem is I don't believe my mtr will handle too much more than 500whp. So, IF I swap in a cam, I would have to drop the boost so I wouldn't go too much over 500! Same with header ect. What I REALLY need now is a built bottom end and then I gaurantee we'd see some serious S%@T happening! :eyebrows: Don't get me wrong though, IF the mtr breaks in the near future, I'm not going to loose any sleep cause it really owes me NOTHING! Having said that, I'd rather it live and then I will build a REAL 2.2 8v in a completly different car!:thumb:

What does your short block consist of? I know it's a non-CB. I had an 87 T2 block in my daytona pushing 325 WHP with a cast T1 crank, T2 rods w/arp, and stock mahle pistons. Basically a super light rotating assembly, so there's less stress on the block/mains.
I'd definitely say you got your time/money out of that engine whatever you put in it LOL.
Also wanted to ask what turbo you had, and what swingvalve/wastegate setup. I saw it was a 57 trim, but didn't get the turbine specs or the swingvalve.

[moparzrule]

True and doing the air test Aaron mentioned, I think I have an idea to help the TIII manifold flow a 100 times better with much less reversion, until someone makes an equal length header, :thumb:

The T3 manifold isn't as bad as the 8 valve stock for stock. There's more you can do with the 8 valve to improve it than the 16, though there are some things you can improve for the 16 valve manifold for sure.

[Shadow]

What does your short block consist of? I know it's a non-CB. I had an 87 T2 block in my daytona pushing 325 WHP with a cast T1 crank, T2 rods w/arp, and stock mahle pistons. Basically a super light rotating assembly, so there's less stress on the block/mains.
I'd definitely say you got your time/money out of that engine whatever you put in it LOL.
Also wanted to ask what turbo you had, and what swingvalve/wastegate setup. I saw it was a 57 trim, but didn't get the turbine specs or the swingvalve.

It's an 87/88 T2 shortblock, so forged crank, but I would have run a cast if I would have built an engine myself (this was a mtr I already had) Forged pistons and I'm not even 100% if there are ARP rod bolts or not, but I'm thinking yes. I stopped using the 57 trim last year, I've got a Holset HE351 complete with it's own WG and WG actuator that no one seemed to think would work! :confused: The old 57 trim was a stage 3 .63 A/R.

[moparzrule]

Oh OK so the 480 WHP was with the holset? Never dyno'd with the 57 trim?

BTW, just curious because I've been thinking of going holset he351 or an HY35 myself if my car doesn't sell, what RPM do you get full boost?

[Shadow]

Oh OK so the 480 WHP was with the holset? Never dyno'd with the 57 trim?

BTW, just curious because I've been thinking of going holset he351 or an HY35 myself if my car doesn't sell, what RPM do you get full boost?

Dyno'd just under 450 with the 57 trim. Full spool on the Holset is 4100-4200rpm. I was hoping for 4000 when I switched (57 trim was 3800) cause I didn't want to loose to much under the curve. Funny thing is, @ 20 psi the Holset destroys the 57 trim by at least 5 mph in the 1/4 even spooling 3-400rpm later!

[Insported]

Budget MKIV, isn't that an Oxymoron, hahhaha, :lol:

Your right it is a bit of a Oxymoron lol although im not your normal "supra" guy. :p Aarons daytona made me want one!

[8valves]

Your right it is a bit of a Oxymoron lol although im not your normal "supra" guy. :p Aarons daytona made me want one!

You better get some more fuel system, otherwise you might not start getting away from me at 90 mph anymore!!

Keep your fingers crossed that tomorrow the clutch magically shows. I would be pretty pleased. Then we can slap it back together and get the downpipe to line up, get some lines made up (going to be easy) and have at it. I'll probably drive it for a day or so before we start cranking on it, just to make sure nothing is trying to come back loose.


Anyone ever re-used the intake/exhaust gasket? I never have, but I've never put on or replaced just an intake or exhaust before, ha. Can I just bolt it back up, or should I back off the intake and put a new gasket in there. That's probably the smarter decision, espescially since it would only take 10 more minutes.

But what will you do when the "other" car is up and running? :evil:

[Insported]

You better get some more fuel system, otherwise you might not start getting away from me at 90 mph anymore!!

Keep your fingers crossed that tomorrow the clutch magically shows. I would be pretty pleased. Then we can slap it back together and get the downpipe to line up, get some lines made up (going to be easy) and have at it. I'll probably drive it for a day or so before we start cranking on it, just to make sure nothing is trying to come back loose.


Anyone ever re-used the intake/exhaust gasket? I never have, but I've never put on or replaced just an intake or exhaust before, ha. Can I just bolt it back up, or should I back off the intake and put a new gasket in there. That's probably the smarter decision, espescially since it would only take 10 more minutes.

But what will you do when the "other" car is up and running? :evil:

Blah ill get some fuel soon enough lol then ill crank the boost until it starts leaning out again ;)

I hope that damn clutch does come in! Its been to long since ive seen the daytona run! You take it easy for a day or two!!! :lol: Screw the "other car" it doesnt count!

[8valves]

This just in. UPS tracking shows the clutch departed Jacksonville, FL today at 2:40. That's only 6 hours from here. Hopefully it gets here in time to get the car sorted and dyno'd before we get hectic with the shop open house on Friday!

I'm excited to hear how it sounds. It's going to be very different than a normal TD, I know that.

[turbovanman²]

Anyone ever re-used the intake/exhaust gasket? I never have, but I've never put on or replaced just an intake or exhaust before, ha. Can I just bolt it back up, or should I back off the intake and put a new gasket in there. That's probably the smarter decision, espescially since it would only take 10 more minutes.

But what will you do when the "other" car is up and running? :evil:

They are graphite and get crushed when you tighten it all up, I would honestly just use a new one.

Are you going to take video of it on the dyno? :nod:

[8valves]

They are graphite and get crushed when you tighten it all up, I would honestly just use a new one.

Are you going to take video of it on the dyno? :nod:

Perhaps. Maybe if Derek has a camera, I don't!

[1984rampage]

Aaron, u dont happen to have a glht do ya? There was one at the hooters meet last saturday but the owner was in hooters lol...

[Shadow]

I've reused those gaskets on stock applications with no issue. Only when the graphite coating has not come off with the intake/exhaust mani. Like you said, 10 min while your there. :bounce2:

[8valves]

Aaron, u dont happen to have a glht do ya? There was one at the hooters meet last saturday but the owner was in hooters lol...

Nope. There are two around town. I tried to help one kid with his, but he seemed to think that I didn't know what I was doing, so I decided he was probably right.

[moparzrule]

Intake/exhaust Fel-pro gasket is $3.99 from autozone and they almost always have them in stock. Why risk it?

[8valves]

Intake/exhaust Fel-pro gasket is $3.99 from autozone and they almost always have them in stock. Why risk it?

Already have a new one.

[moparzrule]

Even more of a good reason to change it!

[Vigo]

talk about a thread to watch.. the SUSPENSE!!!

[1984rampage]

Nope. There are two around town. I tried to help one kid with his, but he seemed to think that I didn't know what I was doing, so I decided he was probably right.

Ya this one was all black and had the tail lights blacked out. I was just curious cause I rarely see any TD's besides lebarons running around lol

[Juggy]

nice job aaron!! lets see how she preforms!
your welds are fantastic btw...

id be interested in a more stock like location header like this :eyebrows:

[Directconnection]

True and doing the air test Aaron mentioned, I think I have an idea to help the TIII manifold flow a 100 times better with much less reversion, until someone makes an equal length header, :thumb:

Yeah, 14,700 psi of boost!

[Warren Stramer]

Aaron, Nice craftsmanship on the header! My guess is net power loss and later spool if NOTHING else is changed, as you already know the tubing is WAY to large. Might show a tiny bit more HP at a higher peak. Hope I'm wrong, looking forward to the dyno results..........Warren

[BadAssPerformance]

Hmmm... I'd guess a bit more power, why not Warren?

[Shadow]

Any word on the clutch?

[Warren Stramer]

Hmmm... I'd guess a bit more power, why not Warren?

1.75 dia. tubing has 2.085 sq.in. cross sec. area (ID), stock exhaust port has less than 1.00 sq.in. CSA (apex of floor), stock throat CSA is aprox. 1.08 sq.in. CSA.
The port will go into sonic choke at the valve throat at 6500rpm, calculated gas velocity would be 360ft./ sec. with 1.005 port CSA.
Transitioning from a 1sq.in. CSA port to a 2.085 CSA header primary will KILL gas velocity/energy. exhaust gas speed will go from 360fps to less than 150fps and take the exhaust energy down with it.
If you computer model a basicly stock 8v turbo mopar using 115-120% VE in the program, it recomends a primary header tube dia. of 1.400 max by 13.5-16.5in. length.
I dont make this stuff up, I'm nowhere near smart enough for that, I'm really looking forward to the dyno results, could prove the theory wrong.

[cordes]

1.75 dia. tubing has 2.085 sq.in. cross sec. area (ID), stock exhaust port has less than 1.00 sq.in. CSA (apex of floor), stock throat CSA is aprox. 1.08 sq.in. CSA.
The port will go into sonic choke at the valve throat at 6500rpm, calculated gas velocity would be 360ft./ sec. with 1.005 port CSA.
Transitioning from a 1sq.in. CSA port to a 2.085 CSA header primary will KILL gas velocity/energy. exhaust gas speed will go from 360fps to less than 150fps and take the exhaust energy down with it.
If you computer model a basicly stock 8v turbo mopar using 115-120% VE in the program, it recomends a primary header tube dia. of 1.400 max by 13.5-16.5in. length.
I dont make this stuff up, I'm nowhere near smart enough for that, I'm really looking forward to the dyno results, could prove the theory wrong.

If you wouldn't have said anything we would have never known. :thumb:

[black86glhs]

BAH...science and theory....who needs them.:rolleyes:

[Anonymous_User]

1.75 dia. tubing has 2.085 sq.in. cross sec. area (ID), stock exhaust port has less than 1.00 sq.in. CSA (apex of floor), stock throat CSA is aprox. 1.08 sq.in. CSA.
The port will go into sonic choke at the valve throat at 6500rpm, calculated gas velocity would be 360ft./ sec. with 1.005 port CSA.
Transitioning from a 1sq.in. CSA port to a 2.085 CSA header primary will KILL gas velocity/energy. exhaust gas speed will go from 360fps to less than 150fps and take the exhaust energy down with it.
If you computer model a basicly stock 8v turbo mopar using 115-120% VE in the program, it recomends a primary header tube dia. of 1.400 max by 13.5-16.5in. length.
I dont make this stuff up, I'm nowhere near smart enough for that, I'm really looking forward to the dyno results, could prove the theory wrong.

Yeah. What he said.

Seriously, though, that's some good info on the theoretically ideal primary - 1.4" x 15"

[8valves]

I won't disagree with that after seeing the difference that the secondary size on a turbo setup can make, Warren.

I must admit to partial defeat so far. My build based off part measurements, part pictures, and part hopes turned into one seriously deformed firewall for a stock turbo. :(

Everything is in the car, just need to button it all up.

The good side? I learned a ton already on what could/will fit and where. Most importantly that smaller tube would simply be far easier to fit. Second that my efforts to keep the header tight and compact ended up hurting more than helping. Had it sat 1/2" lower there wouldn't have been a problem in the world. Sitting where it was caused the coolant fitting to not be happy with it's location. Being tired, upset, and wanting it to be over with caused me to make more firewall revisions than necessary by a long shot. At least it's a beater car.

Hopefully it makes a good bit more power, otherwise I'll be really dissapointed! That's what you get for trying to build something without the motor/trans bolted in the car fully!

I can make some revisions now though, so I'll think on it and see what to do with it. I have some ideas, but not all of them make me happy. :)

I'll get back with you guys when I figure some more out. Thanks.

[BadAssPerformance]

1.75 dia. tubing has 2.085 sq.in. cross sec. area (ID), stock exhaust port has less than 1.00 sq.in. CSA (apex of floor), stock throat CSA is aprox. 1.08 sq.in. CSA.
The port will go into sonic choke at the valve throat at 6500rpm, calculated gas velocity would be 360ft./ sec. with 1.005 port CSA.
Transitioning from a 1sq.in. CSA port to a 2.085 CSA header primary will KILL gas velocity/energy. exhaust gas speed will go from 360fps to less than 150fps and take the exhaust energy down with it.
If you computer model a basicly stock 8v turbo mopar using 115-120% VE in the program, it recomends a primary header tube dia. of 1.400 max by 13.5-16.5in. length.
I dont make this stuff up, I'm nowhere near smart enough for that, I'm really looking forward to the dyno results, could prove the theory wrong.

Very good point Warren!

Hmmm... maybe we should add a poll? Aaron, when is d(yno)-day?

[Shadow]

I won't disagree with that after seeing the difference that the secondary size on a turbo setup can make, Warren.

I must admit to partial defeat so far. My build based off part measurements, part pictures, and part hopes turned into one seriously deformed firewall for a stock turbo. :(

Everything is in the car, just need to button it all up.

The good side? I learned a ton already on what could/will fit and where. Most importantly that smaller tube would simply be far easier to fit. Second that my efforts to keep the header tight and compact ended up hurting more than helping. Had it sat 1/2" lower there wouldn't have been a problem in the world. Sitting where it was caused the coolant fitting to not be happy with it's location. Being tired, upset, and wanting it to be over with caused me to make more firewall revisions than necessary by a long shot. At least it's a beater car.

Hopefully it makes a good bit more power, otherwise I'll be really dissapointed! That's what you get for trying to build something without the motor/trans bolted in the car fully!

I can make some revisions now though, so I'll think on it and see what to do with it. I have some ideas, but not all of them make me happy. :)

I'll get back with you guys when I figure some more out. Thanks.

Easy now, you have no reason to be hard on yourself. This is after all an experiment and as far as I can tell, a first at that. You built a great little header that I garantee would make more power on a car like mine. What it will do on your car None of us REALLY know and that's the exciting part! I hope your NOT dissapointed HOWEVER the #'s turn out. I don't think the "how good it does" or "how bad it does" even weighs into it from my perspective. Just the "what exactly does it do"? This is going to tell alot no matter how it turns out and keeping it REAL is going to be the most important part! I think that the problem with a lot of back to back testing you see is that ppl get deflated by bad results and so they "change things to make the results look better". That's where you scratch your head and look at the results and you know it doesn't look right, but you don't know what they did so you really can't confirm anything! That's the part that really gained my interest in this test, I trust that you won't fudge things to change the outcome and therefore give us a real look at what's going on! Anyone who would expect that header to make optimum power on a stock mtr with stock SV ect would be a very missinformed individual. The same could be said about anyone who would think that the outcome has any reflection on you.....it doesn't! The only thing that reflects on you is the quality of the piece you made and the integrity and fortitude you showed by conducting a non-bias test to give the community a "better look" into what's going on at this power level. Ah, this is prob more of a PM than a post, but I'm going to put it out there anyways. Looking forward to the outcome, whatever it may be! :thumb:

[Warren Stramer]

Easy now, you have no reason to be hard on yourself. This is after all an experiment and as far as I can tell, a first at that. You built a great little header that I garantee would make more power on a car like mine. What it will do on your car None of us REALLY know and that's the exciting part! I hope your NOT dissapointed HOWEVER the #'s turn out. I don't think the "how good it does" or "how bad it does" even weighs into it from my perspective. Just the "what exactly does it do"? This is going to tell alot no matter how it turns out and keeping it REAL is going to be the most important part! I think that the problem with a lot of back to back testing you see is that ppl get deflated by bad results and so they "change things to make the results look better". That's where you scratch your head and look at the results and you know it doesn't look right, but you don't know what they did so you really can't confirm anything! That's the part that really gained my interest in this test, I trust that you won't fudge things to change the outcome and therefore give us a real look at what's going on! Anyone who would expect that header to make optimum power on a stock mtr with stock SV ect would be a very missinformed individual. The same could be said about anyone who would think that the outcome has any reflection on you.....it doesn't! The only thing that reflects on you is the quality of the piece you made and the integrity and fortitude you showed by conducting a non-bias test to give the community a "better look" into what's going on at this power level. Ah, this is prob more of a PM than a post, but I'm going to put it out there anyways. Looking forward to the outcome, whatever it may be! :thumb:

Yes, I totaly agree. Dyno that piece, were dying to see what happens. That nice header would likely work great on a highly modded engine with large turbo and big valves/ports.
Aaron, I hope you didnt take my previous post to be critical. not my intentions at all.

[moparzrule]

I still think he'll see top end HP gains, just like I said no torque increase (maybe even loss) and also I'm guessing 300 RPM slower spoolup.

[omni_840]

Wow thats a beautiful header:nod:

I can't believe how often I'm on here and I missed this thread (In my defense my son's 1st birthday was over the weekend)

As everyone else has already said, I can't wait for the results :)

[cordes]

Aaron, this being the first true A/B dyno test we have seen will make the process a success regardless of what happens. :thumb:

[Juggy]

Aaron, this being the first true A/B dyno test we have seen will make the process a success regardless of what happens. :thumb:

if this statement is true, in all the years of TD I would have to say this is pretty sad! glad to see Aaron is going to be the pioneer :amen:

[8valves]

Easy now, you have no reason to be hard on yourself. This is after all an experiment and as far as I can tell, a first at that. You built a great little header that I garantee would make more power on a car like mine. What it will do on your car None of us REALLY know and that's the exciting part! I hope your NOT dissapointed HOWEVER the #'s turn out. I don't think the "how good it does" or "how bad it does" even weighs into it from my perspective. Just the "what exactly does it do"? This is going to tell alot no matter how it turns out and keeping it REAL is going to be the most important part! I think that the problem with a lot of back to back testing you see is that ppl get deflated by bad results and so they "change things to make the results look better". That's where you scratch your head and look at the results and you know it doesn't look right, but you don't know what they did so you really can't confirm anything! That's the part that really gained my interest in this test, I trust that you won't fudge things to change the outcome and therefore give us a real look at what's going on! Anyone who would expect that header to make optimum power on a stock mtr with stock SV ect would be a very missinformed individual. The same could be said about anyone who would think that the outcome has any reflection on you.....it doesn't! The only thing that reflects on you is the quality of the piece you made and the integrity and fortitude you showed by conducting a non-bias test to give the community a "better look" into what's going on at this power level. Ah, this is prob more of a PM than a post, but I'm going to put it out there anyways. Looking forward to the outcome, whatever it may be! :thumb:

No doubt. I suppose I was half laughing half dissapointed considering what I've made fit in much tigher packaging situations. I just took my time more and did things a bit more calculated.

There will be no excuses for what happens. I'm more interested than I care how much more power it makes. Like people have said, I'm sure I coudl take it off and sell it to one of you guys with a big power car!


Yes, I totaly agree. Dyno that piece, were dying to see what happens. That nice header would likely work great on a highly modded engine with large turbo and big valves/ports.
Aaron, I hope you didnt take my previous post to be critical. not my intentions at all.

No problem Warren, I wasn't taking it like that. I'm intrigued by the math just as much as I'd like to prove it wrong. We'll see though! I'm curious about the VE input in relation to boost. Would the motor not be far higher than a 120% VE since the power output NA compared to turbo with the same displacement. As in, a stock 2.2 with maybe 75% VE making 100 HP. Or this motor making around 300 CHP now... so what is the change in VE? Or is there? I've never been too sure what to think about that.

B16 Honda motors were above 100% VE stock as I remember a friend of mines with a Hondata on it show .2 psi in the top end (constant, not a value fluctuation), so does boost equate to a better VE?

[turbovanman²]

Easy now, you have no reason to be hard on yourself. This is after all an experiment and as far as I can tell, a first at that. You built a great little header that I garantee would make more power on a car like mine. What it will do on your car None of us REALLY know and that's the exciting part! I hope your NOT dissapointed HOWEVER the #'s turn out. I don't think the "how good it does" or "how bad it does" even weighs into it from my perspective. Just the "what exactly does it do"? This is going to tell alot no matter how it turns out and keeping it REAL is going to be the most important part! I think that the problem with a lot of back to back testing you see is that ppl get deflated by bad results and so they "change things to make the results look better". That's where you scratch your head and look at the results and you know it doesn't look right, but you don't know what they did so you really can't confirm anything! That's the part that really gained my interest in this test, I trust that you won't fudge things to change the outcome and therefore give us a real look at what's going on! Anyone who would expect that header to make optimum power on a stock mtr with stock SV ect would be a very missinformed individual. The same could be said about anyone who would think that the outcome has any reflection on you.....it doesn't! The only thing that reflects on you is the quality of the piece you made and the integrity and fortitude you showed by conducting a non-bias test to give the community a "better look" into what's going on at this power level. Ah, this is prob more of a PM than a post, but I'm going to put it out there anyways. Looking forward to the outcome, whatever it may be! :thumb:


Well said, :thumb:

Where's Warren, off with his head, :faint::fencing::lol:

[Shadow]

Yes, I totaly agree. Dyno that piece, were dying to see what happens. That nice header would likely work great on a highly modded engine with large turbo and big valves/ports.
Aaron, I hope you didnt take my previous post to be critical. not my intentions at all.

My good friend, I in turn, hope that you didn't take my post as a critique on what you said either! It was simply a reasponse to Aarons post and how deflated he was sounding and a simple reminder that no matter what opinion anyone has, we're all interested in how the results will turn out. I know you only threw your best guess into the pot like everyone else. Funny what weight a little theory and REAL WORLD experience carries EH! :D

[turbovanman²]

I somehow feel this test is going to be, wait for it, "legendary" :lol:

[glhs727]

I think this is a great thread. Even if the results aren't what you are looking for, the data you get will be important. The workmanship is great and although it might not be ideal for what you have now doesn't mean it wouldn't work well under other circumstances.
later,
Cindy

[8valves]

I made a post but it didn't show up...???

EDIT: Strange that this one did though.

I hate to dissapoint folks, but the suspense can end temporarily I suppose. Some unforseen work issues will likely mean that I won't be able to work on the car until the weekend. Hopefully I can get it wrapped up then and perhaps dyno it later in the week.

Sorry about this. Even though there is nothing I can do I still feel bad and would have liked to have been driving the car this evening to get an initial impression. Oh well.

To be continued...

[omni_840]

Oh well things come up :) I'm sure we'll all be patiently waiting

[moparzrule]

Atleast it's only postponed for a week, when I first started reading I was thinking it was gonna be a month or more or something. Thats not bad.

[cordes]

I made a post but it didn't show up...???

EDIT: Strange that this one did though.

I hate to dissapoint folks, but the suspense can end temporarily I suppose. Some unforseen work issues will likely mean that I won't be able to work on the car until the weekend. Hopefully I can get it wrapped up then and perhaps dyno it later in the week.

Sorry about this. Even though there is nothing I can do I still feel bad and would have liked to have been driving the car this evening to get an initial impression. Oh well.

To be continued...


I've waited this long so it won't bother me if I have to wait until spring. Given the previous trend I don't think we will have to worry about someone A/B testing before you do even if Godzilla steals the car and you have to fight him to the death to repossess it.

[Reaper1]

A neat aspect to this particular car is that with just the .63 housing the car has a higher HP/TQ peak than most of teh typical TD's, as well as a lower torque to HP difference. Wouldn't most 2.2's at nearly 20 psi making mid 200 WHP be over 300 tq? This car picked up ZERO torque gain from the FMIC. Just a max gain of 13 WHP, and a average gain of 10 whp from 3500-6000. Interesting stuff.




I can DIRECTLY answer how much power a stock LB TII engine will make at around 20#'s of boost: 210-225hp and 290lb/ft on a stock turbo with a mid-sized FMIC. It also has backing mods like FWD S5 cal, injectors, AFPR, 255 pump, UD pulley, alky injection, 3" exhaust(starting about 8" from stock 2.25 SV WITH cat and muffler). My pulls were done in 4th gear, however I did have one done in 3rd once..it only moved the curves to the left a little, the numbers were the same.

Going to go read the rest of the thread now! :thumb:

[Reaper1]

OK, I got through the rest of the thread. I hope tings go well for you this weekend. I'm pretty curious to see what happens, like most.

Warren, what simulation program are you running?

[Ondonti]

Thanks not a valid reason for saying he chose the right manifold.
Ad hominem.
Argument for the man. Has nothing to do with his manifold being good.

What do the 100+ 9 second hondas run? What do the 8 second hondas run?
What do the 7 second hondas run?
They all make boatloads more power then the Ford BTW, they just dont have RWD.

If you hate hondas, what do Rally cars run, old f1 cars, pretty much any well thought out turbo race car that has factory backing?


OK, I'd like to link this discussion with THIS (http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32391) thread. That thread links to a 9.00 second 4-cyl turbo Mustang where apparently money is no object. $4000 block, ARCA head, etc. etc. Looking closely at the engine pics, you will notice the log style exhaust manifold.

Would it not tend to reason that an individual spending that kind of green on a race car would want the best possible header design?

[Warren Stramer]

OK, I got through the rest of the thread. I hope tings go well for you this weekend. I'm pretty curious to see what happens, like most.

Warren, what simulation program are you running?

PipeMax 3.6xp2

[t3rse]

Thanks not a valid reason for saying he chose the right manifold.
Ad hominem.
Argument for the man. Has nothing to do with his manifold being good.

What do the 100+ 9 second hondas run? What do the 8 second hondas run?
What do the 7 second hondas run?
They all make boatloads more power then the Ford BTW, they just dont have RWD.

If you hate hondas, what do Rally cars run, old f1 cars, pretty much any well thought out turbo race car that has factory backing?

I think you missed the point. Of course it isn't the "best" design, but the car runs 8s. Could it drop a few tenths with an equal length header? Maybe. But then again look at the volume of that log...if you saw that car in the pits you'd say "your intake and exhaust manifolds are crap and your car can't be fast" and it would still run 8s. When spool is no longer a factor...(nitrous) On paper the car is a turd. In real life it hauls.

I can, for certain, say something that will make a notable dent in his timeslip...get a wheelie bar.

[glhs875]

Very good point Warren!

Hmmm... maybe we should add a poll? Aaron, when is d(yno)-day?


I'm with Warren in the poll. I use similar formulas to design the ports on the ported heads that I do. BTW, the old MP header only made a claim of like +5HP on a stockish turbo if I remember correctly.

[turbovanman²]

I'm with Warren in the poll. I use similar formulas to design the ports on the ported heads that I do. BTW, the old MP header only made a claim of like +5HP on a stockish turbo if I remember correctly.

At what boost though?

[glhs875]

At what boost though?


I don't know. I assume low to moderate (around 12 to 14psi), as MP really wasn't in to high boost. I'm just saying, at the boost pressure whatever it was, and with the turbo they were using, the low gain in HP vs. cost and trouble (turbos falling off) to manufacture is why the header really never made it into production. The very low gain in HP wasn't worth the effort in their venture.

Now I'm not saying that a well designed header won't increase HP!!

[Ondonti]

I think you missed the point. Of course it isn't the "best" design, but the car runs 8s. Could it drop a few tenths with an equal length header? Maybe. But then again look at the volume of that log...if you saw that car in the pits you'd say "your intake and exhaust manifolds are crap and your car can't be fast" and it would still run 8s. When spool is no longer a factor...(nitrous) On paper the car is a turd. In real life it hauls.

I can, for certain, say something that will make a notable dent in his timeslip...get a wheelie bar.


No, I think you missed the point.

Hondas are making boatloads more power then him on smaller motors (1.8-2.4 vs 2.9L) and smaller turbos (74mm vs 72mm, thats a huge difference). He just happens to be auto trans RWD. Heck, there are 1.8L's with 71mm turbos that make more power and are more streetable.

In the motor department, his motor is sort of a joke for that "serious" of racing.

Just because you have something thats fast doesnt mean you know what you are doing. :amen:

Here is how bad it is.
He is slower then some of the manually shifted hondas (that have dipped into the 8's).
They use a smaller turbo and make boatloads more power then him, they run faster.

Its obviously got nothing to do with the fact that they are in heads up racing and obsess over making the most of their car.

If they were racing against nobody then sure, give them a log manifold.

Country green pulls hondas out of his butt that make more power. A big part of it is choosing the right parts.
You have no idea how much the honda guys obsess over intake manifolds.
One year its top mount, one year its bottom mount, then its sidewinders, then its revisions of them all.
I dont race anyone competitively so I am fine with log manifolds but...I wouldnt scoff at something better! If something can allow me to make more power with less boost, I am not going to turn my head at it.

Let a few honda tuners have a crack at Hubers car and I guarantee they could extract another 1-200hp with very little spent besides labor.
I know Aaron could do the same thing.
Aaron works for a shop that has competitors. Jon Huber has no competitors. He buys other peoples parts, puts them in a car, then races in order to get attention to sell parts. 8.8 or 9.2, it doesn't really matter when nobody is racing him.

Its pretty obvious his car exists to sell parts and services. Never a combination that I like, especially when he isnt necessarily doing things "the best" but people assume it must be "the best" because he is the fastest.

I know people with faster cars then him often are going around asking others for advice on the next "level" of the cars performance. They know that they dont have things "perfect" and they can admit it! They dont telephone people with cars faster then them and say "gee, you got it all figured out, let me copy you even though our cars are not the same"

This thread is an example of an expert still letting an open discussion take place.
To go and say "well this dudes car is fast so your argument is wrong" just doesnt fly. Especially when the HP numbers are just not up to par with similarly invested cars.
You could put Wallaces or Brians motors in there and pretty much have the same thing, with 3 boatloads less expenditure.

[badandy]

No, I think you missed the point.

Hondas are making boatloads more power then him on smaller motors (1.8-2.4 vs 2.9L) and smaller turbos (74mm vs 72mm, thats a huge difference). He just happens to be auto trans RWD. Heck, there are 1.8L's with 71mm turbos that make more power and are more streetable.

Aren't we talking 16v vs. 8v here when it comes to your analogy on "boatloads more power". I'm not the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree but more valves = better flow which will always make more power on a smaller turbo than an 8v. I fail to see where this disproves the example of Huber's Mustang.


In the motor department, his motor is sort of a joke for that "serious" of racing.

Not trying to pick an arguement...but that's an interesting comment on a board such as this one...where we are almost all FWD...the majority is 8v and running on mostly massaged or borrowed stock parts from some other car. In the grand scheme of things all of our motors are "a joke" for as serious as we are about the hobby...but isn't that what it's about?...doing more with less than the other guy...which is obviously what Huber's car is about? I gotta say you are awfully hard on the guys accomplishments for which you have not equalled. I'm sure the guy knows how to go faster if he so chooses...he just happens to like that car and it's platform...there are so many levels of speed and racing above his it's pathetic...IF you want to look at it the way you are that is.


Just because you have something thats fast doesnt mean you know what you are doing. :amen:

ahem...or saying:o


Here is how bad it is.
He is slower then some of the manually shifted hondas (that have dipped into the 8's).
They use a smaller turbo and make boatloads more power then him, they run faster.

I'm still not seeing your analogy here...maybe another beer will help:p...GULP!...nope, still don't get it.


Its obviously got nothing to do with the fact that they are in heads up racing and obsess over making the most of their car.

If they were racing against nobody then sure, give them a log manifold.

Country green pulls hondas out of his butt that make more power. A big part of it is choosing the right parts.
You have no idea how much the honda guys obsess over intake manifolds.
One year its top mount, one year its bottom mount, then its sidewinders, then its revisions of them all.
I dont race anyone competitively so I am fine with log manifolds but...I wouldnt scoff at something better! If something can allow me to make more power with less boost, I am not going to turn my head at it.

:amen:


Let a few honda tuners have a crack at Hubers car and I guarantee they could extract another 1-200hp with very little spent besides labor.
I know Aaron could do the same thing.

Azz kisser (kidding)

:confused2: Okay, are we talking hardware (hard parts) or software (engine management)? I realize that a competent tuner is definatley a key ingredient to making power as is the choice of the right parts...and lastly the driver mod helps...but tuning a 8v 2.9 Ford engine is going to be apples to oranges to tuning a 16v Honda...any engine tuner will tell you that they have a specialty and each engine design warrants lots of experience with that design to uncork the amount of power you are suggesting is being left on the table. If we are still talking headers than are you suggesting that a Honda header builder could fabricate a header for Huber's car to uncork that amount of power? If you are talking engine management I doubt VERY seriously any Honda tuner is going to get 100 to 200 more horsepower out of that setup...and even if I'm wrong that further increases the arguement for log manifolds if he's really leaving as much on the table as you suggest.


Its pretty obvious his car exists to sell parts and services. Never a combination that I like, especially when he isnt necessarily doing things "the best" but people assume it must be "the best" because he is the fastest.

Kinda like how the 3.0 guys that absolutely love you?:love:...aside from the selling parts thing of course. It's the nature of the beast and how it's always been. Look back over the years on TD and TM and you will see the same trend

P.S.. You should sell 3.0 parts...you'd make a killing!


I know people with faster cars then him often are going around asking others for advice on the next "level" of the cars performance. They know that they dont have things "perfect" and they can admit it! They dont telephone people with cars faster then them and say "gee, you got it all figured out, let me copy you even though our cars are not the same"

So are you suggesting that's what he does? If so...I've seen you take a stab at some well known competent people before...but dang dude!


This thread is an example of an expert still letting an open discussion take place.

I can't argue the expert part...but I believe Aaron knows better than anyone that what "should be" and "what is actual" is not always solid and often squashed with testing...if he knew for sure than why the test?


To go and say "well this dudes car is fast so your argument is wrong" just doesnt fly. Especially when the HP numbers are just not up to par with similarly invested cars.

Here again...you may indeed be right but your comparisons are of a completely different breed due to engine design and ESPECIALLY cyliner head design...apples and oranges.


You could put Wallaces or Brians motors in there and pretty much have the same thing, with 3 boatloads less expenditure.

Or a huge shot of nitrous or a multitude of other changes. Unless I completely missed something very important that is very relevant to your post...I cannot see your point? The "what about Huber's car" is a very good point and is one that you have not discredited as of yet.

The proof will be in the pudding:nod:

[black86glhs]

You really gotta love it. Someone tries something and somebody else is there to kick'em. :thumb:

[Anonymous_User]

Thanks not a valid reason for saying he chose the right manifold.
Ad hominem.
Argument for the man. Has nothing to do with his manifold being good.

What do the 100+ 9 second hondas run? What do the 8 second hondas run?
What do the 7 second hondas run?
They all make boatloads more power then the Ford BTW, they just dont have RWD.

If you hate hondas, what do Rally cars run, old f1 cars, pretty much any well thought out turbo race car that has factory backing?


I thought I responded to this comment, but I guess I forgot to hit the submit button.

I think you missed my point. In my original post I questioned why Huber uses the manifold that he does. I was not asking if he considers that the best manifold. I was wondering why he does NOT have a better manifold. Not saying Huber runs it so it is the best, but yet asking why one would spend big $$$ and not look for something better.

[Ondonti]

the difference between a fully build 2 valve and 4 valve head is not very much, the real difference is goign to be that the 4 valve will be more realiable because it will use much smaller valve lifts/durations to make the power, and also have a wider powerband.

2 valve race heads are nearly as efficient as 4 valvers.

Yes, i think courtney or many other honda guys could pull 100-200hp out of that mustang no problem.

That manifold he has creates massive backpressure. Thats the enemy to hp!
The point of Aarons design is to try to get closer to a 1:1 boost/exhaust manifold pressure ratio. Thats where the power lies waiting to be untapped.

[badandy]

the difference between a fully build 2 valve and 4 valve head is not very much, the real difference is goign to be that the 4 valve will be more realiable because it will use much smaller valve lifts/durations to make the power, and also have a wider powerband..

I disagree. I believe the 4 valve will make MUCH more power provided both are race ported. I also believe the 2 valve will be more reliable due to less moving parts...but I only apply this belief to forced inducted race applications where camshaft lift and duration is not as extreme as it would be with N/A....N/A would be a different story....anyway this has nothingg to do with the topic other than your comparison of Huber's car to a Honda.


2 valve race heads are nearly as efficient as 4 valvers.

Both being the same meaning both raced prepped? I have no immediate proof but again....I respectfully disagree.


Yes, i think courtney or many other honda guys could pull 100-200hp out of that mustang no problem.

I think you secretly are a Honda guy;)


That manifold he has creates massive backpressure. Thats the enemy to hp! The point of Aarons design is to try to get closer to a 1:1 boost/exhaust manifold pressure ratio. Thats where the power lies waiting to be untapped.

Yes Sir...I understand and agree...but when using Huber's car as an example I still have yet to see a good explaination...and it's not that I'm trying to bicker...it's that I thought it was a great point...I'm just saying there is proof it works no matter how terrible in design. I don;t believe there is 100-200hp in a tubular equal length header swap on that car...Honda tuner or not.

I agree with the issue of log header restriction and the superiority of tubular equal length header design...although like I said earlier in the thread I believe the spool will be later with a bump in power in the higher RPM's....if I'm wrong it wouldn't be the first time.

[turbovanman²]

I disagree. I believe the 4 valve will make MUCH more power provided both are race ported. I also believe the 2 valve will be more reliable due to less moving parts...but I only apply this belief to forced inducted race applications where camshaft lift and duration is not as extreme as it would be with N/A....N/A would be a different story....anyway this has nothingg to do with the topic other than your comparison of Huber's car to a Honda.



I would say that depends on the application. I bet a 2 valve Top Fuel motor will make more power than a 16 valve one.

For us, 16 valves for sure.




Both being the same meaning both raced prepped? I have no immediate proof but again....I respectfully disagree.



Again, depends on what engine and its application.




.if I'm wrong it wouldn't be the first time.

Or the last, ;) :lol:

[8valves]

I will agree with Ondonti if he was stating that a well done Chrysler two valve head will compete with stock 4 valvers. When we start playing with the 4 valve casting though, watch out!

JT is a PERFECT example of this. Far superior engine design with the 2.4 swap, better head, etc. As he stated, he ran just as quick and fast on his well done 8V setup compared to the stock top end 2.4 at the same amount of boost.

And I'm no expert. I appreciate the compliments, but as badandy said I just know that theory and reality don't always line up. Or in most cases, don't line up because of another (and often unseen) factor.

Such as with the MP header discussed. I remember that from Gary D's site. I wonder if it was on a stock turbine housing? As I pointed out, this car makes what I would consider pretty good power for relatively low modifications, and sane boost levels. I would like to attribute that to the .63 housing since not many people run that style combo. Maybe that freed up the peak number by sacrificing some torque and midrange?

[GLHNSLHT2]

ok lets go back in time a bit? There was a prototype 426 DOHC Hemi for NASCAR. Was it 2v or 4v? I just remember it made a lot more power than the 2v unit was making. Of course it never was raced due to rule changes. But might shed a little light on 4 vs 2 valve heads on the same motor. Now with that being said, Audi had 5v heads but went back to a 4v so they could centrally locate the plug. So more valves doesn't nessacarily mean a better setup.

[ShadowBrad]

ok lets go back in time a bit? There was a prototype 426 DOHC Hemi for NASCAR. Was it 2v or 4v? I just remember it made a lot more power than the 2v unit was making. Of course it never was raced due to rule changes. But might shed a little light on 4 vs 2 valve heads on the same motor. Now with that being said, Audi had 5v heads but went back to a 4v so they could centrally locate the plug. So more valves doesn't nessacarily mean a better setup.

The DOHC Hemi was a 4v engine. The DOHC Hemi was never fired under its own power. It never ran. They set up a test engine with just the heads and crank(no rods or pistons), and spun the engine with an electric motor to test the durability of the valve train. The heads had the lifters directly on top of the valves and the cam directly drove the lifters. Such as the GM 3.4L DOHC. They had a problem with the Hemi in that the tappet carriers kept breaking. Before the fixed the problem NASCAR had outlawed the regular Hemi along with Ford's 427 SOHC engine.

http://www.geocities.com/slayer623/carrier.JPG

-brad

[turbovanman²]

ok lets go back in time a bit? There was a prototype 426 DOHC Hemi for NASCAR. Was it 2v or 4v? I just remember it made a lot more power than the 2v unit was making. Of course it never was raced due to rule changes. But might shed a little light on 4 vs 2 valve heads on the same motor. Now with that being said, Audi had 5v heads but went back to a 4v so they could centrally locate the plug. So more valves doesn't nessacarily mean a better setup.

Yamaha bike engines had 5 valves per cylinder for years but finally went back to 4 valves due to packaging in the new, smaller engines.


Ford's 427 SOHC engine.



-brad

Mmmmmmmm, the 427 cammer engine, :love:

[BadAssPerformance]

JT is a PERFECT example of this. Far superior engine design with the 2.4 swap, better head, etc. As he stated, he ran just as quick and fast on his well done 8V setup compared to the stock top end 2.4 at the same amount of boost.


Yep... big valve ported 8V G head on a 2.2L and a bone stock '98 (n/a) 16V head on a 2.4L, same turbo on both, both had headers, same 120mph at 24psi boost for both. Only other difference is a larger IC and intake on the 2.4L.

[badandy]

I will agree with Ondonti if he was stating that a well done Chrysler two valve head will compete with stock 4 valvers. When we start playing with the 4 valve casting though, watch out!

Oh, I 100% agree if he was indeed saying a Race port 2v vs. a stock cast 4v. I went back and re-read his post to see if I misunderstood or if it was vauge and *I think* that might be what he was trying to say now that I read it again...if so my bad...I thought he meant race port 2v vs. race port 4v.

I should have known better...I know they guy is sharper than that.

[badandy]

I would say that depends on the application. I bet a 2 valve Top Fuel motor will make more power than a 16 valve one.

For us, 16 valves for sure.

The topic is the tubular header in question for a chrysler 2.2/2.5 8v/16v and the side discussion is Huber's Mustang so I'm sticking to that.


Again, depends on what engine and its application.

Void reitteration




Or the last, ;) :lol:

Funny guy! So how's the snale oil sales working for ya?:p

[8valves]

Working on the car now. Getting close to firing. Anyone know the thread size/style of the intermediate shaft bracket bolts? The two in the back of the block? It looks as if I misplaced them. :(

[GLHNSLHT2]

M10? ugh msg too short. there

[puppet]

In my original post I questioned why Huber uses the manifold that he does. I was not asking if he considers that the best manifold. I was wondering why he does NOT have a better manifold. Not saying Huber runs it so it is the best, but yet asking why one would spend big $$$ and not look for something better.I think it boils down to the simple combination of parts. Any given turbo has a perfect match of header design or one that's close enough to get the job done. Obviously, Huber realizes this and feels his header is adequate given the combination of parts he's using. His is a great example of a well thought out build.

[BadAssPerformance]

M10? ugh msg too short. there

M10 sounds right, they are kinda short, maybe only 20mm long?

[cordes]

M10 sounds right, they are kinda short, maybe only 20mm long?

I believe that is the right size. They could be that short, but the holes are tapped pretty deep. I had to go to an equal length setup on the 600 and used what I had lying around so the ones I used were longer.

[turbovanman²]

The topic is the tubular header in question for a chrysler 2.2/2.5 8v/16v and the side discussion is Huber's Mustang so I'm sticking to that.

The topic got switched around a bit so answering yours and Ondonti's posts, ;) :eyebrows:




Funny guy! So how's the snale oil sales working for ya?:p

Good thanks, wanna buy some? :nod:


Working on the car now. Getting close to firing. Anyone know the thread size/style of the intermediate shaft bracket bolts? The two in the back of the block? It looks as if I misplaced them. :(

M10x1.50 and aprox 30-35mm total length.

[8valves]

You guys sure it isn't M12? I went to the parts store and it fit into the M12 x 1.5 perfect. Trouble is that nobody carries M12x1.5 I made something work though :)

Initial test drive is done. I didn't have time to make a downpipe, so it's open 02 housing right now.

My thoughts so far? Car has a higher pitch sound to it, better throttle response (could be bad judgment, it's been a few weeks since I've driven it) and overall easier to work on. I had an oil feed leak that I fixed while the car was still running... never done that on an 8V before!

So far it does seem as though it's going to be a bit laggier. I think the 300 rpm might be a decent guess, but it's tough to say. The few times I've tried to get into it on the way home the new clutch started slipping quickly. Perhaps it needs to seat into the flywheel a bit more. Usually I don't have a problem like this with the copper ceramic, but oh well, we'll see.

So, anywho. Hopefully I can dyno it either tomorrow, or it'll be next weekend.

Take care, off to see if it starts leaking!

[BadAssPerformance]

Cool you got it running! :thumb:

Wont really know what lag it has until the rest of the exhaust is bolted up... but to quote Mr. Shelby "If you got lag, then you're not driving it right!"

[8valves]

I have a great shirt from SlowBoy racing back when they were cool, it has a picture of a turbo setup on the back and says... "Turbo lag is just a form of foreplay" or something along those lines.

I agree with it. If the car looses some more in the bottom end but picks it all up on top then I won't be dissapointed at all.

[turbovanman²]

Thats awesome, :thumb:

I measured a bolt and its 10x1.50, even screwed it into the block to be sure.

[cordes]

Glad to hear you got it running. Hopefully that clutch starts biting.

[8valves]

It seems like it's getting better, not sure though. Maybe the PP i put in there is old and weak, I don' tnkow. I've ran this same clutch setup in the '86 back when it was making way more power than this thing is.

Trying to get the downpipe to work right now. The couple of times I've had it zinging up top a bit the car feels much more lively above 4500. If I get this done soon enough I may try it on the dyno, although it might be a wash with the clutch. We'll see!

[cordes]

It seems like it's getting better, not sure though. Maybe the PP i put in there is old and weak, I don' tnkow. I've ran this same clutch setup in the '86 back when it was making way more power than this thing is.

Trying to get the downpipe to work right now. The couple of times I've had it zinging up top a bit the car feels much more lively above 4500. If I get this done soon enough I may try it on the dyno, although it might be a wash with the clutch. We'll see!

I'm still on the edge of my seat, front row I might add.

[1984rampage]

Haha same here!... Ive been loggin on every couple hours to check lol

[black86glhs]

Yeah me too!!!!!! I wanna see how far off I am on my predictions!!!:thumb:

[1984rampage]

Im hopin its a good gain soo aaron can start his 300 whp stock longblock build packages lol

[ShadowBrad]

Mmmmmmmm, the 427 cammer engine, :love:

Indeed...:thumb:


I have a great shirt from SlowBoy racing back when they were cool, it has a picture of a turbo setup on the back and says... "Turbo lag is just a form of foreplay" or something along those lines.

I agree with it. If the car looses some more in the bottom end but picks it all up on top then I won't be dissapointed at all.

Ahhh...Good old SlowBoy Racing...
Their shop is about 20 minutes from where I live. I worked there for a short while breaking down and cleaning engine cores. The majority of were 4G63's. The shop manager laughed at me when I came for my interview wearing my "Dodge Motorsports" t-shirt. Then I explained to him about the 2.2L/16v-Hybrid I built and he decided I knew what I was talking about. He just couldn't understand why I would put such a power plant into an '88 Shadow...
Import guys anyhow...:confused2:

And as with everyone else here...Very eager to know the final results. Very sweet looking header.

-brad

[8valves]

Okay guys, here you go.

For reference sake, here was the car "stock" (as I bought it, 5th injector, stgII pcm, .63 housing, 2.5 DP 3" exhaust, cone filter on turbo) compared to after I did a medium sized Spearco FMIC install. It uses mostly stock IC piping then extended where need be. Boost is at 18-19 psi on pump 93.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/StockICvsFMIC.jpg

Now, the clutch still won't hold. I tried whatever I could to get it to do so, but it's not happening. This is at the same 18-19 psi, same 2.25" swingvalve.

The fact that it looses all momentum trying to build any boost or power, finally grabs and STILL manages to make more power and torque is phenominal. On top of that, check out the difference in the AFR's. Yeow! It really is trying to move more air!

Run 6 is before, run 10 is after header.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/HeaderVSManifold.jpg

This shows when I got the start of the run spot on, showing that spoolup has been affected zero. My explanation is that the design is so far superior that it negates the larger tubing size. Makes me wonder what a smaller tube setup would have done.

Run 6 before, Run 9 after

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/HeaderVSManifoldSAMESPOOL.jpg

Here is the graph with power only so it's a little easier to see without all the lines and whatnot.

Run 6 before, run 10 after.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/Header_VS_Manifold_POWERONLY.jpg


My conclusions? Yes, the tube is "too large". Who cares. It makes 9-13 WHP and WTQ more from 4800 on up with no momentum to get it there, AND it's terribly lean. Leaner than good for power production.

Transient boost response is amazing in comparison. Once the car is up on boost above 5 psi it is almost twitchy with boost response. This is a big change from before.

The sound of the car is a smoothed out, 16V esque sound. Still deep, but a mellow tone compared to the normal burble and super deep (for a 4cyl) 8V sound.

My estimation is that with the clutch holding and the proper fueling that gains of around 20 WHP will be realized, with a ton more area under the curve up top. I'm beyond curious to see what getting rid of the stock 2.25" swingvalve would open up!

Too bad I either need a different pressure plate or something, and more injector to do any more testing. I can't get the boost down from where it is now, so no ripping on it being that lean. A vendor should hook me up on some of this stuff to help the community...;););)

Discuss amongst yourselves...

[cordes]

Very interesting results Aaron. It looks like this is a very sound design; especially since the clutch is acting up. I can't wait to see what it does with proper fuel, and a good clutch. It will be very interesting to see what happens if you go with an A/B test of a new SV after that too!

[omni_840]

Thanks for the update, atleast you gained some hp/tq. :)

[Shadow]

What did the boost go to with nothing on the BC changed? Did you have to turn it down, or was it the same with no change?

[black86glhs]

It is nice to see that most of the "experts" were wrong. Just goes to show you that theory vs application don't match as often as some think. With 1 5/8" tubes and 2.5" swing valve, might spool faster.

[Shadow]

It is nice to see that most of the "experts" were wrong. Just goes to show you that theory vs application don't match as often as some think. With 1 5/8" tubes and 2.5" swing valve, might spool faster.

While I agree with the latter half of what your saying, I think the first half is derogatory. I don't know which "experts" your refering to, all I see is a bunch of ppl who gave their best guess at what might happen. Making comments like that is what stops ppl from posting the next time. Then you end up with some pretty uneducated guess work!

[Chris W]

Too bad I either need a different pressure plate or something, and more injector to do any more testing. I can't get the boost down from where it is now, so no ripping on it being that lean. A vendor should hook me up on some of this stuff to help the community...;););)

Give us a call or shoot us an email. Our Clutch vendor drop ships for us so there will be no delay in shipping during the Christmas break. Maybe we can work out a trade for a set of those 4-bolt main caps and 2 sets of header flanges. Look forward to seeing your final results with a better clutch.

Let me know ;-)

Chris-TU

[turbovanman²]

Thats awesome, I was close with HP gain, :eyebrows:

[crazymadbastard]

I say beat the crap outta the clutch to get it to deglaze- worse case scenario is a fried clutch. :D
Good work, so the header helped quite a bit. I bet once you go higher boost it will really shine.

[black86glhs]

While I agree with the latter half of what your saying, I think the first half is derogatory. I don't know which "experts" your refering to, all I see is a bunch of ppl who gave their best guess at what might happen. Making comments like that is what stops ppl from posting the next time. Then you end up with some pretty uneducated guess work!I was joking Robert.:D I had no idea what would happen. I think it was nice that it didn't kill the low end like most said it would.

[black86glhs]

While I agree with the latter half of what your saying, I think the first half is derogatory. I don't know which "experts" your refering to, all I see is a bunch of ppl who gave their best guess at what might happen. Making comments like that is what stops ppl from posting the next time. Then you end up with some pretty uneducated guess work!I was joking Robert, lighten up please.:D I had no idea what would happen. I think it was nice that it didn't kill the low end like some said it would.
You can't be serious. One post is going to keep them from doing it? That would be an excuse so someone wouldn't have to do the work. I'm not responsible for someone elses self esteem issues, sorry not taking ownership of that. Now if I was someone who always puts everyone elses work down, you would have a point, but I don't. Sorry if anyone took it that way.:( I did forget the E-cons to show my humor.:o

[Anonymous_User]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for the results.

Yes, it would be nice to see this, as is, with a good clutch, but we get what we get!

Oh, and the A/F change. . . someone mentioned that the true gains would come with tweaking the cal to support the change. :D :D


Is it due to your business or work or something that you are able to get dyno time?

[glhs875]

Very good test! I'm glad it showed a gain! WELL DONE!! :thumb:

As with head porting, it looks like a person can throw away alot of theory out the window with the exhaust on a turbo application as well!

[4cefedomni]

So i guess the big question is, when are you gonna start making these babies:eyebrows: i got a build that could use somethin like that.

[BadAssPerformance]

Great results Aaron, fix the clutch and see what it will do. And for comparison... I might know where a smaller tube header is ;)

http://www.badassperformance.com/mstore/bap_parts/header/header_03.jpg

[Shadow]

I was joking Robert, lighten up please.:D I had no idea what would happen. I think it was nice that it didn't kill the low end like some said it would.
You can't be serious. One post is going to keep them from doing it? That would be an excuse so someone wouldn't have to do the work. I'm not responsible for someone elses self esteem issues, sorry not taking ownership of that. Now if I was someone who always puts everyone elses work down, you would have a point, but I don't. Sorry if anyone took it that way.:( I did forget the E-cons to show my humor.:o

Wasn't trying to be hard on you, it was just an observation. That's the crappy thing about typing....no tone in it. I guess I've seen my share of knowlegable individuals "dissapear" from the net due to comments like that and I'm running out of ppl to talk to! :p I wish ppl didn't take ANYTHING personal, it would make for a much healthier environment for disscusing things. In case you haven't noticed, I don't get wound up about anything on the net, I just say what I think needs saying, but like I said, with no tone behind it, ppl read into it whatever they want. Sorry if you thought I was being too harsh, I wasn't trying to single you out, just responding to the comment. ;) BTW not sure what you mean by "didn't kill the low end" at 4000rpm it looks like it's down 70WHP! You guy's all realize that according to these dyno comparo's the car would slow down in the 1/4....right? :confused2:

[Reeves]

This could end up being great for the whole community too, as when the header is tested then the new 02 housing can be done and show what gains are to be had there. When that's done then a modified intake manifold will be an easy 30 minute swap since the bolts are super easy to get at now.


Except for that pesky gasket! Would be nice to have a MLS gasket back there....or 2! ;)



I like the JRB one, I'd imagine it's about as good of a header as you can get keeping a stock location and turbine housing orientation. Then again, TU's stepped cast manifold isn't anything to scoff at. Since it's a commonly produced piece with very thickwall construction it's certainly the most durable out there.


True dat...nice piece...but you need to REALLY hog out your turbine housing to match the mouth of it... And install metric studs instead of standard fine thread bolts.


It's been a long time since I enjoyed a technical thread as much as I am enjoying this one.

Some of the header designs are works of art. Since many are falling back on the JRB not being an equal length design, what benefits would one see being equal length vs. long and short primaries?

I know in my n/a car primary length plays a role in tuning the cylinder for a certain RPM range. Although equal is ideal, close enough really works. IIRC, it was quite a large tolerance, also, something like +/- 10" !!!! Of course, we're talking about long tube headers on an n/a car. I would imagine the preferred tolerances would be much closer on a short tube turbo header.

This could be an on-going thread about equal vs. non-equal vs. +/- 10" equal etc. Hemi guys are all over that one already (n/a).


Sitting where it was caused the coolant fitting to not be happy with it's location. Being tired, upset, and wanting it to be over with caused me to make more firewall revisions than necessary by a long shot. At least it's a beater car.

I guess you couldn't clock the center cartridge to get away from that? Probably due to the stock WG setup?


Leaner than good for power production.

Too bad I either need a different pressure plate or something, and more injector to do any more testing. I can't get the boost down from where it is now, so no ripping on it being that lean. A vendor should hook me up on some of this stuff to help the community...;););)

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Agreed that you are beyond the point of "Lean is Mean!"
Call me if you want my NOS fuel cheater solenoid setup with jets to play with. That will take care of your fueling.

Very good work my friend!!!

[puppet]

BTW not sure what you mean by "didn't kill the low end" at 4000rpm it looks like it's down 70WHP! You guy's all realize that according to these dyno comparo's the car would slow down in the 1/4....right? :confused2:
Beat me to it ... smaller tubes in this design would absolutely rock in that turbo efficiency range. Nice work Aaron.

[Reeves]

Beat me to it ...

clutch?

[BadAssPerformance]

BTW not sure what you mean by "didn't kill the low end" at 4000rpm it looks like it's down 70WHP! You guy's all realize that according to these dyno comparo's the car would slow down in the 1/4....right? :confused2:


Beat me to it ...

Did you read where he said the clutch was slipping? and then it grabbed?


.........Now, the clutch still won't hold. I tried whatever I could to get it to do so, but it's not happening. This is at the same 18-19 psi, same 2.25" swingvalve.

The fact that it looses all momentum trying to build any boost or power, finally grabs and STILL manages to make more power and torque is phenominal. On top of that, check out the difference in the AFR's. Yeow! It really is trying to move more air!
.............

Too bad I either need a different pressure plate or something, and more injector to do any more testing. I can't get the boost down from where it is now, so no ripping on it being that lean. A vendor should hook me up on some of this stuff to help the community...;););)

[puppet]

Did you read where he said the clutch was slipping? and then it grabbed?
I did. Guess I'm not ready to attribute that "clutch problem" to a MP+ turbo though ... no matter the header involved.

... lower end was close to what I expected for the combo. Not entirely used to seeing a clutch act up under 4000rpm and not above on a dyno pull. (shrug ... starts grabbing when the real power comes on? .. dunno.)

[Reeves]

I did. Guess I'm not ready to attribute that "clutch problem" to a MP+ turbo though ... no matter the header involved.

... lower end was close to what I expected for the combo. Not entirely used to seeing a clutch act up under 4000rpm and not above on a dyno pull. (shrug ... starts grabbing when the real power comes on? .. dunno.)

Clutch problem is not due to header. No one said that. It had clutch problems BEFORE this started and Aaron installed a new disc hoping that would fix it.

Wheel speed catches up sooner or later even with a slipping clutch....then the clutch had just enough @ss to hold it there.

[black86glhs]

Wasn't trying to be hard on you, it was just an observation. That's the crappy thing about typing....no tone in it. I guess I've seen my share of knowlegable individuals "dissapear" from the net due to comments like that and I'm running out of ppl to talk to! :p I wish ppl didn't take ANYTHING personal, it would make for a much healthier environment for disscusing things. In case you haven't noticed, I don't get wound up about anything on the net, I just say what I think needs saying, but like I said, with no tone behind it, ppl read into it whatever they want. Sorry if you thought I was being too harsh, I wasn't trying to single you out, just responding to the comment. ;) BTW not sure what you mean by "didn't kill the low end" at 4000rpm it looks like it's down 70WHP! You guy's all realize that according to these dyno comparo's the car would slow down in the 1/4....right? :confused2:
I can't argue with you about people getting feelings hurt. It was my fault for not emoting better(sounds like a love song), but we aren't going there...lol.
About the low end power, I think when the fuel and clutch are better, it will pick back up some(hope so). I do agree it is down on torque or whp, but Aaron said it still feels great. Be interesting to see some track times, definitely.:thumb:

[puppet]

Clutch problem is not due to header. No one said that. It had clutch problems BEFORE this started and Aaron installed a new disc hoping that would fix it.

Wheel speed catches up sooner or later even with a slipping clutch....then the clutch had just enough @ss to hold it there.I didn't say it was due to the header either ... what I said/meant was that MP+ turbo wouldn't put down enough power to cause the clutch to slip under 4000rpm no matter what exhaust manifold was used. Did not know he had this clutch issue before the swap either. Missed that I guess.

Seems like the clutch issue needs to be resolved before we have a complete picture.

[Reeves]

I didn't say it was due to the header either ... what I said/meant was that MP+ turbo wouldn't put down enough power to cause the clutch to slip under 4000rpm no matter what exhaust manifold was used. Did not know he had this clutch issue before the swap either. Missed that I guess.

Seems like the clutch issue needs to be resolved before we have a complete picture.

Agreed.

And also the fueling.

[Ondonti]

Its not actually a 1 to 1 test yet so not much extrapolation can be done except that it obviously is going to make more power when the tunes are equal and the clutch holds.

The "preview" test already backs that up.

IMO if this was an 800whp car, the gains would obviously be much bigger.

I think from that air fuel ratio there is ~20+whp waiting at those low HP numbers with the right tune and same boost.

I think a 2 valve can get within 10% of a 4 valve when both are modded.
Thats at equal displacement.
Huber has 50% more displacement, custom heads (vs hondas who often run very stockish heads), and makes gobs less power. To say his manifolds have nothing to do with it, thats laughable.

Heck, stephane made 585 on an 8 valve 2.2L with less development in the motor. he made more hp/liter then the mustang on a setup that he ditched years ago lol :hail:. But he did attempt decent manifolds. I think that supports my point.

[Shadow]

Did you read where he said the clutch was slipping? and then it grabbed?

Ya, I read that. Q is how much was slip and how much was the large diam tubes robbing the BE power till there's enough energy for a sharp spike? Guess time will tell. Results look good as a prelim, but like others have stated, will be a better comparo when everything is working right! Great work so far Aaron, should be a lot more to add to it as things unfold! :thumb:

[Reeves]

Aaron....can you post rpm vs. speed? Then we can see clutch slip!

[Anonymous_User]

Since you seem to have dyno access and are willing to do true back to back testing, I'd be more than happy to pitch in to the collection plate for a good clutch! I think the investment would pay of in good information!

Anyone else?

[Chris W]

I like the JRB one, I'd imagine it's about as good of a header as you can get keeping a stock location and turbine housing orientation. Then again, TU's stepped cast manifold isn't anything to scoff at. Since it's a commonly produced piece with very thickwall construction it's certainly the most durable out there..


True dat...nice piece...but you need to REALLY hog out your turbine housing to match the mouth of it... And install metric studs instead of standard fine thread bolts.


See this link for answers to the header comments above. That should clear things up.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=416735#post416735

Didn't want to hijack this thread.

Happy Holidays All!

Chris-TU

[glhs875]

Ya, I read that. Q is how much was slip and how much was the large diam tubes robbing the BE power till there's enough energy for a sharp spike? Guess time will tell. Results look good as a prelim, but like others have stated, will be a better comparo when everything is working right! Great work so far Aaron, should be a lot more to add to it as things unfold! :thumb:



And it's possible that a no slipping clutch may cause a little slower spoolup. With it slipping, the clutch acts a little like a torque converter.

[moparzrule]

Oh, and the A/F change. . . someone mentioned that the true gains would come with tweaking the cal to support the change. :D :D



When the engine is leaner like that (in the 13's) it will make more power. Drop that fueling back to where it was with the stock manifold and you would see gains of 5 WHP max. Far from worth it for this header, at this HP level. I've had the opinion all along, anything under 350-400 WHP a good ported stocker is all you need. He was comparing this to a completely stock manifold IIRC, IMO at the 250 WHP level he's at there would have been MORE gains with a ported stocker over this header.

I would still like to see another dyno with no slip in the clutch just to make sure of the torque gain/losses.

[Austrian Dodge]

i think that with a ported stocker he'd have more power in die lower rpm range, before the turbo has full boost...because the difference in the runner diameter going from the head to the turbine inlet is too big (exhaust gases loose a lot of energy)
BUT once it's boosting i think it'll be very different!

i also think that this header is overkill for a stock or near stock engine. our (stock) 8v heads simply don't flow enough to feed that header.
it's like putting a 0.82 a/r housing and 3" SV on a mitsu turbo.
compare that header on a well ported big valve head versus a ported stocker -> night and day...i'm sure you'd see a lot of power gain.
that header on aarons old glhs...man i'd love too see that!!!

[moparzrule]

Hey Aaron, would you be willing to dyno test one of my ported stockers with this setup?

[badandy]

Its not actually a 1 to 1 test yet so not much extrapolation can be done except that it obviously is going to make more power when the tunes are equal and the clutch holds.

I bet it makes less power when the fueling is right...but with a clutch that grabs I'm sure it will show a gain. I agree with matt on this one;)


The "preview" test already backs that up.
Not so much. The preview test shows that the header leaned out the a/f some. Once back in the safe range there will be gains but I would be willing to bet they will be less than recorded this time...but there will still be some gains...at peak(ish) RPM as I guessed before.


IMO if this was an 800whp car, the gains would obviously be much bigger.
Of course! :nod:


I think from that air fuel ratio there is ~20+whp waiting at those low HP numbers with the right tune and same boost.
I bet 5 to 10 tops. I would guess 20 + if the car had a stage II .63 and a 3" swingvalve (or at least a 2.5")


I think a 2 valve can get within 10% of a 4 valve when both are modded. Thats at equal displacement.

I disagree 100%...heck, even our cars stock vs. stock a head change was worth 50hp which was what?...a 29% increase?


Huber has 50% more displacement, custom heads (vs Honda's who often run very stockish heads), and makes gobs less power. To say his manifolds have nothing to do with it, thats laughable.

Nobody said that the manifolds have nothing to do with it. Okay, you theorize that a 8v setup such as Huber's is within 10% of what it could be if it were 16v...yet, Honda's with "stockish" 16v heads blows him away in power production...so therefore you are contributing the difference in power production from his car to a Honda to the log exhaust manifold (sans the 10% for the cylinder head valve difference)....and I call B.S. With our cars I showed you a 29% difference and I theorize that when modded that number will increase in margin...not decrease.


Heck, stephane made 585 on an 8 valve 2.2L with less development in the motor. he made more hp/liter then the mustang on a setup that he ditched years ago lol :hail:. But he did attempt decent manifolds. I think that supports my point.

...and he made even more on the 16v setup....and betcha it was more than 10%....I think that supports my cylinder head point.

On to manifolds for a minute...

A properly designed header can gain some impressive numbers on a N/A platform...if there isn't a cork downstream. If the rest of the exhaust system is restrictive and stock log manifold is not the main restriction than they will gain nothing.

On this test car and on many examples of forced inducted engines... I don't believe upgrading to an equal length header is going to have a large jump in power due to you still will have the exhaust housing and turbine being the cork...which will be more restrictive than the log manifold...just look at them and you can see that even a stock manifold can flow more than a stage II .63 houising...which is why guys are running 10's on ported stock manifolds but they have upgraded the exhaust housing long ago. I think equal length tubes are going to be somewhat of a mute point too as eventually the exhaust pulses are going to stack as they enter the exhaust turbine housing...and eventually that stacking will make it's way back to the head port and the valve...causing reversion...maybe at a later point mind you than a log header.

So...if my theory is true than this is why I bet you will not gain 100-200hp on Huber's Mustang with a change to a tubular header...and Honda tuning:lol:

[badandy]

Hey Aaron, would you be willing to dyno test one of my ported stockers with this setup?

I bet I know what you are getting at ;)

[Pat]

If the clutch is slipping down low, it's hard to judge the lower rpm numbers. My guess is that torque will be down a bit, but above the torque peak when the clutch grabbed, it's definitely doing much better than the stock manifold. Not only did it put down better hp numbers, it leaned out. I the fueling is the same and it leaned that much, it's moving more air through the cylinders. Plus, over 13.5:1 it's leaving power on the table. Richen it up some and I'm sure the increases will be more.

Leaning it out makes more power only to a point. Going too lean, which is where Aaron is now, power numbers drop.

[8valves]

I suppose most of you aren't used to deciphering dyno graphs.

I don't have my flash drive with me today, but the car picks up maybe 5 mph between 3.5K to 4.8K, then the rpm is dragged back down to 4.5K and continues on with the pull. That's not normal.

It's more than coincidence that the car falls on it's face at exactly 3500 rpms, and then makes it's loop at 4800 back down to 4500, then pulls through fine.

See that loop of the torque and AFR graph of pull 9? That's clutch slip.

To clarify, the stock clutch destoyed itself in this car, so I put in this one. It's obviously not working out as planned. It SLIPS where the car PREVISOULY MADE PEAK POWER AND TORQUE, and grabs after that point has passed. That means it's on the brink of holding or not.

I guarantee that this would work better on a more modified car like everyone says, but that's not the point.

I can see maybe a 5 HP difference from the AFR's. What I see making a way bigger difference is if the car can continue on the path that it did before from 3500 to 4500. If it is allowed to continue to make power through that range it will surely show more gains.

It's a given that the car will be slower as is.

Please re-read my post carefully about the results. As I stated, this shows promise for what will happen once the fueling is there and the clutch is. It made 9-12 or so WHP and TQ gains from 4800 to just shy of 6K. That's a real big deal for a car that usually doesn't breath that well up there, AND is 1.5 points leaner.

As James said, 13.9:1 is far past the "lean is mean" concept. 13:0? Sure, but not this far. James and I proved that true when we put a 4.3V zener on the car and went to the track down here. All night the car was 2-3 mph slower and eventually rattled the porcelain loose on the plugs. Put the bleed back on at the limit of the cutout (back to a 12.5-13.0 AFR) and the car went it's best ever and 3 mph faster than the last time at the track.

Just wanted to clarify some things for people.

Matt, no, I'm not going through the effort of putting a stock manifold on the car unless I'm selling this one off of it. I don't forsee that happening too soon so I doubt it. Thanks for the offer though.

EDIT: Pat, I was still tying and looking at the speed vs RPM graph when you typed that, sorry! Otherwise I wouldn't have restated what you did in regards to the AFR's. Thanks!

[8valves]

James, gimme a call tonight about the "injector" setup. I'll surely take it off of your hands.

[turbovanman²]

I disagree 100%...heck, even our cars stock vs. stock a head change was worth 50hp which was what?...a 29% increase?


I agree 100% with this, and I'll say it again, Larry put down 500 whp on a stock TIII with a large turbo, you will never, ever see that on a stock 8 valve.

Aaron, thank you once again, :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

[Sloride]

I don't have my flash drive with me today, but the car picks up maybe 5 mph between 3.5K to 4.8K, then the rpm is dragged back down to 4.5K and continues on with the pull. That's not normal.

It's more than coincidence that the car falls on it's face at exactly 3500 rpms, and then makes it's loop at 4800 back down to 4500, then pulls through fine.

See that loop of the torque and AFR graph of pull 9? That's clutch slip.

To clarify, the stock clutch destoyed itself in this car, so I put in this one. It's obviously not working out as planned. It SLIPS where the car PREVISOULY MADE PEAK POWER AND TORQUE, and grabs after that point has passed. That means it's on the brink of holding or not.

I guarantee that this would work better on a more modified car like everyone says, but that's not the point.

I can see maybe a 5 HP difference from the AFR's. What I see making a way bigger difference is if the car can continue on the path that it did before from 3500 to 4500. If it is allowed to continue to make power through that range it will surely show more gains.

It's a given that the car will be slower as is.

Please re-read my post carefully about the results. As I stated, this shows promise for what will happen once the fueling is there and the clutch is. It made 9-12 or so WHP and TQ gains from 4800 to just shy of 6K. That's a real big deal for a car that usually doesn't breath that well up there, AND is 1.5 points leaner.


Just wanted to clarify some things for people.



From what i can tell, the car should be in the 300ish tq range at 3500.
(visualize a nice tq hump from 3500 to 4800 due to non portedness)
which also goes hand in hand with the idea of a clutch upgrade at the 300 tq mark.

the clutch grabs at 4800 280 tq and is making 10 ish more hp./tq all the way to 6k
I guess its not possible to lower the boost to prevent the clutch slip and get a clear reading?

[Shadow]

What did the boost go to with nothing on the BC changed? Did you have to turn it down, or was it the same with no change?

??????

[glhs875]

I have a question, it may be a stupid one, but was the exhaust hooked up to the swing valve for both tests?

[Reeves]

James, gimme a call tonight about the "injector" setup. I'll surely take it off of your hands.

Will do! But you really need a clutch too!


What did the boost go to with nothing on the BC changed? Did you have to turn it down, or was it the same with no change?

??????

I doubt it changed much, if at all. I believe Aaron runs a grainger. It acts like a regulator.

[Juggy]

Aaron, put that other G head and turbo of yours on there to give us some real #s on what it would do to with a nice top end :D


maybe you should change that clutch first tho!

if you start doin mass dyno back 2 back exhaust manny testing I have a TU SS log here id be willing to donate!

[Anonymous_User]

Whew. I've been reading header theory all morning. There is a LOT of debate out there!!

Most interesting thread - er post (only the first post is really interesting) - I found:

http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=925312

[cordes]

Thanks for the link. Perhaps we should start a new thread so we can keep this one to the matter at hand?

[8valves]

Sorry guys, I've been dealing with some personal issues that I deemed more important than this.

There was no change in boost. Then again, I can't get this MBC to change boost. I tried to lower it on the dyno to see what could happen but it didn't work out. Still not sure on that one.

Suspect right now is the auto-adjust on the clutch. I was talking with James when I first got the car back together and thought it was functioning properly, but I'm questioning it now. I'll dig some more. Anyone have a diagram of what parts are in it and where they are supposed to be?

[turbovanman²]

Whew. I've been reading header theory all morning. There is a LOT of debate out there!!

Most interesting thread - er post (only the first post is really interesting) - I found:

http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=925312

That was posted up on TD back in the day, I saved the video, :nod:

[8valves]

The more I think back to the initial clutch failure (aka, disc disintegration on the PP side only, not flywheel) when it happened I made a hard 2-3 shift and felt a snap by my left foot. The cable had come off the guide above the pedal and the clutch had been smoked.

There is constant tension on the cable as-is. I can move the clutch arm on the tranny all the way down (off the PP) and hear the adjuster clicking like it's stripped it's teeth. Two of our shop guys are fox body guys and say it sounds identical to when they strip the plastic teeth off of it.

I haven't been able to get under and take a peek yet to see if I can see the teeth or not.

Funny thing is that since playing with the cable a bit and every once and a while pulling the pedal up with my foot, once in a blue moon the clutch will grab like it should, and engage very low on the pedal.

JT, yeah, I ran the DD plate on a stock adjuster and never seemed to have a problem. Then again, it almost acted the same as this clutch is with a once-in-a-while changed engagement point. Makes me wonder...

From this I can attest that the mid range has NOT lost anything, according to the SOTP dyno! It ripped the other day. I know, I know. I shouldn't be with it being that lean. It's terrible what temptation can do to you.

Hopefully after my vaca (leave for MI Tuesday) I will have some time to tinker with it and get it working properly. The fuel situation can be addressed then, and some real results can be had.

[black86glhs]

Definitely looking forward to it Aaron.

[Reeves]

The more I think back to the initial clutch failure (aka, disc disintegration on the PP side only, not flywheel) when it happened I made a hard 2-3 shift and felt a snap by my left foot. The cable had come off the guide above the pedal and the clutch had been smoked.

There is constant tension on the cable as-is. I can move the clutch arm on the tranny all the way down (off the PP) and hear the adjuster clicking like it's stripped it's teeth. Two of our shop guys are fox body guys and say it sounds identical to when they strip the plastic teeth off of it.

I haven't been able to get under and take a peek yet to see if I can see the teeth or not.

Funny thing is that since playing with the cable a bit and every once and a while pulling the pedal up with my foot, once in a blue moon the clutch will grab like it should, and engage very low on the pedal.

JT, yeah, I ran the DD plate on a stock adjuster and never seemed to have a problem. Then again, it almost acted the same as this clutch is with a once-in-a-while changed engagement point. Makes me wonder...

From this I can attest that the mid range has NOT lost anything, according to the SOTP dyno! It ripped the other day. I know, I know. I shouldn't be with it being that lean. It's terrible what temptation can do to you.

Hopefully after my vaca (leave for MI Tuesday) I will have some time to tinker with it and get it working properly. The fuel situation can be addressed then, and some real results can be had.

I have broken one or two clutch cables. Some (maybe all) Daytona's had heavier clutch cables than the L-bodies. That's what I have now and it's worked for a long time.

I have broken 1 clutch adjuster. I ordered all brand new parts from Mopar and fixed it. Haven't had a problem since.

Aaron, if you have time, be sure to stop by on your way up North I-75 !!!
Beer and place to stay is on me!

[8valves]

I have broken one or two clutch cables. Some (maybe all) Daytona's had heavier clutch cables than the L-bodies. That's what I have now and it's worked for a long time.

I have broken 1 clutch adjuster. I ordered all brand new parts from Mopar and fixed it. Haven't had a problem since.

Aaron, if you have time, be sure to stop by on your way up North I-75 !!!
Beer and place to stay is on me!

Did you strip the teeth off the adjuster like what I think may have happened with this thing? I know the PO gave this car a pretty rough life. Good chance it's been worked pretty hard. You know I don't take it easy on that clutch pedal when I shift either! ;)

Do you have an airstrip in your backyard!? I'll tell the pilot to drop on in for a second! :D

If I were driving, absolutely. I definitely need to start planning ahead for SDAC though!

[cordes]

Do you have an airstrip in your backyard!? I'll tell the pilot to drop on in for a second! :D



For some reason that made me laugh really hard. :thumb:

[black86glhs]

Being Reeves is in Kentucky, he might have a back 40??!!:thumb:

[Aries_Turbo]

I pulled the clutch adjuster discussion out of this thread and made a new one just for that stuff. tried to leave the relevant posts in here. :)

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32931

Brian

[Shadow]

From this I can attest that the mid range has NOT lost anything, according to the SOTP dyno! It ripped the other day. I know, I know. I shouldn't be with it being that lean. It's terrible what temptation can do to you.

Hopefully after my vaca (leave for MI Tuesday) I will have some time to tinker with it and get it working properly. The fuel situation can be addressed then, and some real results can be had.

If this holds true and the car gains power without equil or greater loss on the other end. It would surely show that even with a preasure drop from larger pipe, having directional velocity of any kind as apposed to a log/preasure cell is a vast improvement! :thumb:

[8valves]

If this holds true and the car gains power without equil or greater loss on the other end. It would surely show that even with a preasure drop from larger pipe, having directional velocity of any kind as apposed to a log/preasure cell is a vast improvement! :thumb:

It certainly would. I think I'm missing one piece to the clutch adjuster setup that got dislodged during the originial failure.

I'm in MI now, but will be headed to the yards as soon as I get back to FL to check for the piece and how it's supposed to be in there. After that some injectors should be in and we'll be good to rock and roll!

After that? I would LOVE to do the external setup off the turbine housing, just not sure if I'm going to be able to get around to it or not.

[turbovanman²]

After that? I would LOVE to do the external setup off the turbine housing, just not sure if I'm going to be able to get around to it or not.

Oh, that would be awesome, :hail:

[8valves]

Oh, that would be awesome, :hail:

You're telling me! I'm just becoming more afraid that before I know it this thing is going to be adopting parts and funding that is set aside for the other car. I don't want that happening. This thing was bought to be a daily beater to save some money on gas and have a car to make cool noises with to keep me entertained. Ha! :p

I should've known better. :o


EDIT: PS, anyone know if this made it over to the other board? I would prefer it not, since I did this test explicitly for the benefit of the members here who I feel try to keep an open mind and put a strong foot forward to the progression of this platform.

Just curious, can be taken to PM if someone would like to. Thanks guys!

[badandy]

EDIT: PS, anyone know if this made it over to the other board? I would prefer it not, since I did this test explicitly for the benefit of the members here who I feel try to keep an open mind and put a strong foot forward to the progression of this platform.

Just curious, can be taken to PM if someone would like to. Thanks guys!You could move it to the Tech Advisor Lounge...just a suggestion...as most that are following this thread and posting are members there.

[GLHNSLHT2]

EDIT: PS, anyone know if this made it over to the other board? I would prefer it not, since I did this test explicitly for the benefit of the members here who I feel try to keep an open mind and put a strong foot forward to the progression of this platform.


That's a pretty petty thought and contributes to the seperation of the two or three boards and Turbo Mopar/Dodge's in general. There's not going to be any progression if everyone keeps everything to themselves. I haven't seen it over "there", I don't think it would, but who cares really if it did. :rolleyes:

[turbovanman²]

That's a pretty petty thought and contributes to the seperation of the two or three boards and Turbo Mopar/Dodge's in general. There's not going to be any progression if everyone keeps everything to themselves. I haven't seen it over "there", I don't think it would, but who cares really if it did. :rolleyes:

They are already seperated and will never be friends again. Why share something with TD.com when they have no issues about blocking us and our info from the're site?