40whp from a tube header!? Argument thread

[8valves]

This is the "discussion" from the "Tube Header Group Buy" thread which many have requested to be cleaned up. It starts off with this post (Aaron's) estimating a possible 40whp gain from such a product. - JT

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dang JT, nicely posted. I think that covered what we discussed quite well!

Mr. Baker, it certainly is a worthwhile investment for anybody serious about wanting to make some big power. Even with the little 'ole papa smurf Daytona of mine it made up to a 15 WHP/WTQ gain above 4500 rpm. That is over a stock manny, not a ported one, but it's also through a 2.25" SV, with a stock head, stock intake, stock turbo (+ .63 housing).

On a well modified car I would see no reason a good header couldn't make a gain of over 40 WHP over top of a ported manifold.

[moparzrule]

+1 to the flange size, looks thin.

Also, your claims of 40 WHP over a ported stocker are completely bogus. We've seen a 12 WHP gain over a completely stock manifold at 250 WHP levels with aaron's header. And thats not even peak gain either, just ''up top''. You have NO idea what a correctly ported stocker would turn out numbers wise, or for that matter compare this to the TU header. Is this going to gain more than a TU header? Seriously doubt it, and for $200 more than the TU header you get a much larger PITA of installation. With the TU header you definately for sure have no firewall clearance issues, the oil/coolant lines don't need custom fabbed because that work is already done for you, you don't need to drill and weld an oil return line in your oil pan, you don't need to custom fabricate a downpipe, and the intercooler lines are going to a lot easier too.
You have nothing to back up your claim of 40 WHP gain over a ported stocker (which is ridiculous anyway, are you comparing this to the forward motion unit or something? That I might believe.), or for that matter the gain over the TU header. So why don't we support the vendor thats put tons of money into R&D, has everything setup already for you to run it, and is only $425 for a CAST manifold thats going to last forever as opposed to more money for a tubular steel which lasts a few years and takes a whole ton more work to setup.

[1984rampage]

+1 to the flange size, looks thin.

Also, your claims of 40 WHP over a ported stocker are completely bogus. We've seen a 12 WHP gain over a completely stock manifold at 250 WHP levels with aaron's header. And thats not even peak gain either, just ''up top''. You have NO idea what a correctly ported stocker would turn out numbers wise, or for that matter compare this to the TU header. Is this going to gain more than a TU header? Seriously doubt it, and for $200 more than the TU header you get a much larger PITA of installation. With the TU header you definately for sure have no firewall clearance issues, the oil/coolant lines don't need custom fabbed because that work is already done for you, you don't need to drill and weld an oil return line in your oil pan, you don't need to custom fabricate a downpipe, and the intercooler lines are going to a lot easier too.
You have nothing to back up your claim of 40 WHP gain over a ported stocker (which is ridiculous anyway, are you comparing this to the forward motion unit or something? That I might believe.), or for that matter the gain over the TU header. So why don't we support the vendor thats put tons of money into R&D, has everything setup already for you to run it, and is only $425 for a CAST manifold thats going to last forever as opposed to more money for a tubular steel which lasts a few years and takes a whole ton more work to setup.

WOWWWW Like thats gonna help these headers sell.:rolleyes:

[moparzrule]

I didnt notice the 1/2" flange part till after...so that shouldnt be a prob. he already said he ran it for a couple years with no problems so a thicker flange is going to be even more potent.



OK didn't see that either, just the pics didn't match up with the list then.



and also aarons obviously done the R & D with his tubed header. if 12 WHP gains can be had at higher rpm with stock 88 TII parts, then 40 whp gains are definately doable with a premo setup.


Wrong. The 12 WHP gain was over a completely stock manifold, and as you said it also was not PEAK gain either. Peak HP was the same with an unported stock manifold, but above the peak was 12 WHP gain, again over a stocker not a ported unit. I offered for the testing to be done with one of my ported stockers. But to say 40 WHP gain over a ported stocker is completely bogus off the cuff with nothing to back it up.



IMHO the original TU SS header was ONLY made for the ease of installing bigger turbos, providing the market with a true bolt on setup so no hassle is required. and someone had seen there was a way to profit.
R & D wasnt spent until the cast unit! the cast unit was created to find an easier alternative to making the SS versions, and considering they were really the ONLY option, until NOW...



And the SS TU header is no longer available anymore, replaced by the better cast header at a 25% cheaper price!
Several things are better about the cast unit over the SS. The largest key to the TU header is the step up in the log runner size everytime another port is added. This keeps velocity maxxed and flow maxxed as well, a truly excellent design. I personally cannot believe how cheap it is for what you get.






Im running a TU header now and looking at this, im sure it would help spool my turbo faster, and even make more top end power, over the TU header.

this header is for those who want to go beyond "bolt on" status

Whats the point if there's no gain? How could you know anything like that? Because it *looks* better and prettier it's going to make more power?
So because the TU header is a bolt on that means it won't make as much power? What kind of argument is that?
If you are running TU's cast manifold I seriously doubt you will have any faster spoolup, in fact I would put money on a bet that you would lose spoolup or at the most stay the same. If you are running TU's SS header, well then it's a toss up.

[BadAssPerformance]

The head flange started out as 1/4" and due to some warpage during welding I surface ground it completely flat. on one end it is only 1/8"! :eek: but amazingly enough it worked fine and never really warped enough that it could not be bolted flat. Eventually after many 30psi (intake so what 60 in the header?) runs it did start leaking a little on the ends but nothing you could hear. As stated the copies will be 1/2" flanges.

Moparzrule, you're right we have no idea what a "correctly" ported stocker HP gain is over an unported stocker, do you?

Also, 8valves' estimate (not claim as it has not been proved) of a potential 40whp gain is based on having all of the suporting mods, meaning a race motor.

Trivial information on teh test car teh prototype was on.... On my Z I estimated ~400whp from weight and mph and the car only picked up ~2mph from 24psi to 30psi boost... My restriction was the ported 2pc intake, the car pulled hard to 7000rpm I should have let it go to 8k :eek:

[moparzrule]

Moparzrule, you're right we have no idea what a "correctly" ported stocker HP gain is over an unported stocker, do you?

Also, 8valves' estimate (not claim as it has not been proved) of a potential 40whp gain is based on having all of the suporting mods, meaning a race motor.



I kinda figured you would say that, but then again I'm not the one going around toting numbers.

I just find it interesting that a 12 WHP gain on a 250 WHP setup compared to an unported stock manifold can help you come to the conclusion that a 40 WHP gain can be had on a 400 WHP setup over a ported stocker when no tests have been done whatsoever to tell the gains of a stock vs ported manifold at any HP level.
As for the stock VS ported I can tell you my own personal experience with the old butt dyno with my 290 WHP daytona I used to have. When I put my ported stocker on I gained 300 RPM faster spoolup, and gains in power at every RPM point especially the top end I was able to shift 300 RPM later as well, so I basically gained 600 RPM power band just with a ported stocker on a 290 WHP setup. And I certainly would have like to get back to the dyno to crack 300 WHP with that setup because I think it would have for sure. But before that could happen an old guy saw fit to pull out in front of me and I T-boned him which totaled my car for me. This was with a super 70 with .63 stage 1 turbo w/stock 2.5'' swingvalve, ported stock valve G head, 3'' exhaust etc.

[Reaper1]

Matt, you are being VERY defensive for NO obvious reason. There was NO "claimed" gain, just an estimate. I personally think that over a STOCK unit on a good set-up, that yes, 40whp is VERY possible. I also think that this part WILL provide faster spool than a log, it's simple physics and fluid dynamics. Now, as far as PEAK power goes, it will probably yeild around the same as the cast TU piece, possibly more, BUT there WILL be more power under the curve. I understand you want/need to back TU. I like Chris and I like his products. I think he is VERY fair and his products are VERY good. However, for a full race set-up, sometimes there ARE better solutions.

As for my interest in this header...yes, I am interested. I can't say that I'll be able to lay out the scratch for it(I forgot about a lot of the custom work needed to be done to make this thing work well). If I could though, heck yeah I'd get that thing...but it'd HAVE to be coated...

[moparzrule]

Matt, you are being VERY defensive for NO obvious reason. There was NO "claimed" gain, just an estimate. I personally think that over a STOCK unit on a good set-up, that yes, 40whp is VERY possible. I also think that this part WILL provide faster spool than a log, it's simple physics and fluid dynamics. Now, as far as PEAK power goes, it will probably yeild around the same as the cast TU piece, possibly more, BUT there WILL be more power under the curve. I understand you want/need to back TU. I like Chris and I like his products. I think he is VERY fair and his products are VERY good. However, for a full race set-up, sometimes there ARE better solutions.



I don't like seeing people getting ripped off when there's bolt on products that will make the same power for less money and much less work.

OK, no one said 40 WHP over a STOCK unit, they said 40 WHP over a ported unit. Thats a very different story. But who's going to even try to run 400 WHP on a completely stock manifold anyway?
What physics and fluid dynamics proves that a tubular equal length manifold will spool a turbo faster? Sorry, but a stepped cast iron log manifold has the ability to increase velocity much more than a tubular header, especially a tubular header with such long primaries. Unless this header is ceramic coated, you lose a ton of heat energy through the thin wall steel pipes. Energy is needed to spool the turbo. Enery lost=slower spoolup. Thick cast iron is the best at keeping heat energy at a maximum, and a log style in general has super short runners which means the exhaust is the hottest possible entering the turbine, and the step tube design of TU's header is just the icing on the cake to keep velocity maxxed.
So how much more on top of the $700 for the header is it going to take to get ceramic coated? Even ceramic coated steel pipes are not going to compare to the insulation compacity of thick cast steel anyway.

I don't need to defend TU whatsoever, and I don't get any brownie points or kickbacks. Even if I didn't have any affiliation with TU I would still be defending TU's header because it simply can't be beat. Not all of TU's products do I back 100%, it's just that the header is one that can be backed 150%.

[minigts]

JT I think it looks great and since you were not stating there was an exact gain of 40hp (actually NOWHERE did you state that) with just bolting it on to whatever motor, I wouldn't hold you to it.

I tried to read through 8valves post and obviously this one; did you change the size of the headers are are they the same? Aaron mentioned that possibly smaller runners "may" be more effective, but after reading 20 pages I kind of lost focus. :)

Aaron's post was an interesting read from end to end. It was like listening to a conversation where all of these guys who know a LOT about cars are talking shop and speaking WAAAAAY over my head and there was this ONE guy who kept butting in, but no one was really listening to him because he was just plain annoying. :)

I'd be interested, btw. :thumb:

[turbovanman²]

The only thing I have to say it to Juggy, I doubt it will help with spool due to the loss of velocity, Aaron's proved that. You will probably loose spool but make up for it on the top end, :nod:

Either way, If I was going balls out, I would get this in a heart beat, Warren Stramer proved they do work on his balls out engine, :D :amen:

[moparzrule]

First off, I never said that they were claiming the 40 WHP gain over a ported stocker...I just want to know how they estimated that number because there's NOTHING to go by.

Second, I've been doing tons of research about tubular VS cast log's, and the consensus is a good log header WILL spool a turbo faster and make about the same peak as a tube header, but the tube will make slightly more above peak.
Also, there's a point where tubular headers will make more power than log headers no matter what, but that only happens once you exceed the flow requirements of the log which I don't see many if anybody doing that since the TU header flows so well.

[turbovanman²]

Second, I've been doing tons of research about tubular VS cast log's, and the consensus is a good log header WILL spool a turbo faster and make about the same peak as a tube header, but the tube will make slightly more above peak.
Also, there's a point where tubular headers will make more power than log headers no matter what, but that only happens once you exceed the flow requirements of the log which I don't see many if anybody doing that since the TU header flows so well.

That is not true, the Honda forums have proved that with dyno, video and doing it back to back. The proper tube header destroyed the log header.

[Directconnection]

WOWWWW Like thats gonna help these headers sell.:rolleyes:

Nope! But it could help a certain someone's ported stockers sell better! hehe From my testing on ported stockers... I believe you are wasting your money on them due to the #2 cylinder NEVER able to keep up with he other runners. What good is it to have the #3 and #4 flow awesome, yet the #2 flow like azz? (view my test result's link in JT's post) And no need to analyze pulses, tuning, etc.... the manifold's #1 job (and where most of it's rewards are reaped) is to simply have air travel through it from point A to B. I do have ideas to make them equal.... but would rather focus my time on a nice header like Aaron's for example.

[Directconnection]

and also aarons obviously done the R & D with his tubed header. if 12 WHP gains can be had at higher rpm with stock 88 TII parts, then 40 whp gains are definately doable with a premo setup.



40whp gain may be a bold statement.... but I will NOT disagree since he saw 12whp on stock parts and the .63a/r may have hindered the gains found since it may make things flow a bit better than a bottle necked .48a/r. Comments?

400+whp ..... 40whp might hold true. Time will tell if Reeves does indeed buy one of Aaron's manifolds. Best comparison right there... 250wp car to 450whp car.

As for the TU manifold.... I will bet it does flow pretty darn good (either of them) as my ABM manny (thanks again Ken) has the #4 runner turning and flowing against the grain of the other's vs a straight shot the stock manifold does. Something a flowbench cannot tell you. Does the flow of the other runners shoot kinda past the turbo outlet and hit against the #4 trying to get out, or does the pressure differential (at the turbo outlet) mean they never fight each other?

[moparzrule]

Nope! But it could help a certain someone's ported stockers sell better! hehe From my testing on ported stockers... I believe you are wasting your money on them due to the #2 cylinder NEVER able to keep up with he other runners. What good is it to have the #3 and #4 flow awesome, yet the #2 flow like azz? (view my test result's link in JT's post) And no need to analyze pulses, tuning, etc.... the manifold's #1 job (and where most of it's rewards are reaped) is to simply have air travel through it from point A to B. I do have ideas to make them equal.... but would rather focus my time on a nice header like Aaron's for example.

And the fact that the person that has dyno'd the highest HP ever on an 8 valve is running a ......ported stocker...??? And also the fact that the tubular header was the one that lost the most CFM in your testing does what?

It tells us that flow bench testing exhaust manifolds does squat, I gave my manifold to you because I knew with the numbers I could help sell my manifolds because people like seeing numbers. What do they mean to me? Again, squat. I know my manifold's produce very good real world results, as does the TU header.
If the number 2 runner having the most backpressure in the real world was a truly bad thing than people running a ported stocker at 300+ WHP levels would be popping number 2 pistons left and right from the backpressure on that one and only cylinder and the heat created by it.

[turbovanman²]

And the fact that the person that has dyno'd the highest HP ever on an 8 valve is running a ......ported stocker...??? And also the fact that the tubular header was the one that lost the most CFM in your testing does what?.

Who???

SMP used a header and as far as I know, he has the highest runs with an 8 valve.

[BadAssPerformance]

JT I think it looks great and since you were not stating there was an exact gain of 40hp (actually NOWHERE did you state that) with just bolting it on to whatever motor, I wouldn't hold you to it.

I tried to read through 8valves post and obviously this one; did you change the size of the headers are are they the same? Aaron mentioned that possibly smaller runners "may" be more effective, but after reading 20 pages I kind of lost focus. :)

Aaron's post was an interesting read from end to end. It was like listening to a conversation where all of these guys who know a LOT about cars are talking shop and speaking WAAAAAY over my head and there was this ONE guy who kept butting in, but no one was really listening to him because he was just plain annoying. :)

I'd be interested, btw. :thumb:

Thanks for the compliment! As for the differences... my original prototype is 1-5/8" thin wall and Aaron's is 1-7/8" thick wall and the bend radiuses are different and collector angle different... and add to that the copies of the original will be 1-5/8" (I think) thick wall and the bends... well, its going to be different than both but the tube should be slightly smaller than Aaron's for better velocity and the bends may be tight but it is hard to package it all and get equal length runners.

[moparzrule]

Who???

SMP used a header and as far as I know, he has the highest runs with an 8 valve.

I said highest Dyno, Shadow's 480 WHP dyno. And SMP's charger weighed like under 2000 pounds, I doubt it even had 500 WHP too.
According the HP calculators online it would only take 450 WHP to get to a 9.6 ET with a 2000 pound car.

[moparzrule]

Thanks for the compliment! As for the differences... my original prototype is 1-5/8" thin wall and Aaron's is 1-7/8" thick wall and the bend radiuses are different and collector angle different... and add to that the copies of the original will be 1-5/8" (I think) thick wall and the bends... well, its going to be different than both but the tube should be slightly smaller than Aaron's for better velocity and the bends may be tight but it is hard to package it all and get equal length runners.

Aaron's is 1 3/4'' thick wall, so about the same ID as 1 5/8 thin anyway.

[turbovanman²]

I said highest Dyno, Shadow's 480 WHP dyno. And SMP's charger weighed like under 2000 pounds, I doubt it even had 500 WHP too.
According the HP calculators online it would only take 450 WHP to get to a 9.6 ET with a 2000 pound car.

His was dynoed. Warren Stramer could have more than Shadow but not sure if he's dynoed it.

[moparzrule]

His was dynoed. Warren Stramer could have more than Shadow but not sure if he's dynoed it.

And what was the results??? I can't find them. And what exhaust manifold/header was he running?

[turbovanman²]

And what was the results??? I can't find them. And what exhaust manifold/header was he running?

I thought he dynoed and posted results over at TD.

He was running a FWD tube header or his ex employee made it and FWD sold them. Umbass was running the same one.

[BadAssPerformance]

I don't like seeing people getting ripped off when there's bolt on products that will make the same power for less money and much less work.

Dude. Seriously, you have pooped all over this thread and I have tried my best not to argue with you about this BS, cuz as we all know, you love to effing argue. I hate to argue and have ignored your poop, but when I read the words "ripped off" I felt obligated to set the record straight.

Reading your statement above... How the hell do you know what kind of power this header is capable of and how can you claim that any other manifold that nobody knows the power capabilities of "will make the same power"!? And not knowing any of this for sure, you state that this header is a "rip off"?

A 'ported stocker' and a 'tube header' are not even in the same league as far as potential power gain and also not even intended for the same customer base as one is a 'bolt on' and one requires a bit of 'custom install fabrication' .

The way I see it as far as ease/difficulty to install and use:

Level 0: Stock manifold
Level 1: Ported stocker - direct bolt in
Level 2: TU Log header - almost direct bolt in, requires custom d-pipe and oil/coolant lines available from TU
Level 3: BadAss tube header - some custom install required, see post #1 of this thread for details
Level 4: 8valves' race header - very custom install required

as far as power potential... ever see anyone take a tube header off a car and put a log manifold on and make more power? Understand how exhaust pulses and velocity work? I dont care who made what power with a ported stocker, they will make more power with an equal length runner tube header as long as they dont have restrictions somewhere else!

This header is NOT for everyone and NOT an easy install and NOT the most optimized option as it is a 'shorty' focused on packaging instead of all out performance like 8valves' or Warren Stramer's materpieces :hail:

Heck, if there wasnt so much interest for this thing we wouldnt even try to make a batch of them... trying to do something that people in the community want and then getting this crap? what for? :confused2:

[Reeves]

Dude. Seriously, you have pooped all over this thread and I have tried my best not to argue with you about this BS, cuz as we all know, you love to effing argue. I hate to argue and have ignored your poop, but when I read the words "ripped off" I felt obligated to set the record straight.

Reading your statement above... How the hell do you know what kind of power this header is capable of and how can you claim that any other manifold that nobody knows the power capabilities of "will make the same power"!? And not knowing any of this for sure, you state that this header is a "rip off"?

A 'ported stocker' and a 'tube header' are not even in the same league as far as potential power gain and also not even intended for the same customer base as one is a 'bolt on' and one requires a bit of 'custom install fabrication' .

The way I see it as far as ease/difficulty to install and use:

Level 0: Stock manifold
Level 1: Ported stocker - direct bolt in
Level 2: TU Log header - almost direct bolt in, requires custom d-pipe and oil/coolant lines available from TU
Level 3: BadAss tube header - some custom install required, see post #1 of this thread for details
Level 4: 8valves' race header - very custom install required

as far as power potential... ever see anyone take a tube header off a car and put a log manifold on and make more power? Understand how exhaust pulses and velocity work? I dont care who made what power with a ported stocker, they will make more power with an equal length runner tube header as long as they dont have restrictions somewhere else!

This header is NOT for everyone and NOT an easy install and NOT the most optimized option as it is a 'shorty' focused on packaging instead of all out performance like 8valves' or Warren Stramer's materpieces :hail:

Heck, if there wasnt so much interest for this thing we wouldnt even try to make a batch of them... trying to do something that people in the community want and then getting this crap? what for? :confused2:

+1 What he said!

[Directconnection]

If the number 2 runner having the most backpressure in the real world was a truly bad thing than people running a ported stocker at 300+ WHP levels would be popping number 2 pistons left and right from the backpressure on that one and only cylinder and the heat created by it.

Not true.... it would run the coolest due to less scavenging and poor gas exchange processes.

Just because someone runs a ported stocker and makes the largest whp from an 8v doesn't mean it's gospel. Just means that he's the one that's made the most hp, that's all. Remember we are running poor efficiency 8v heads. Enough boost makes big power in anything. (not taking away from his #s which are great)

For the record: Stephane, Donovan, Reeves and TurboJerry have all made more hp than or example:thumb: (yes, all 4 were 8v)

edit: I thought Shadow was at 420whp? 10.99? Either way.... not a great analogy, that because someone makes big power and runs this part, that it's the most efficient setup.

[8valves]

+1 to the flange size, looks thin.

Also, your claims of 40 WHP over a ported stocker are completely bogus. We've seen a 12 WHP gain over a completely stock manifold at 250 WHP levels with aaron's header. And thats not even peak gain either, just ''up top''. You have NO idea what a correctly ported stocker would turn out numbers wise, or for that matter compare this to the TU header. Is this going to gain more than a TU header? Seriously doubt it, and for $200 more than the TU header you get a much larger PITA of installation. With the TU header you definately for sure have no firewall clearance issues, the oil/coolant lines don't need custom fabbed because that work is already done for you, you don't need to drill and weld an oil return line in your oil pan, you don't need to custom fabricate a downpipe, and the intercooler lines are going to a lot easier too.
You have nothing to back up your claim of 40 WHP gain over a ported stocker (which is ridiculous anyway, are you comparing this to the forward motion unit or something? That I might believe.), or for that matter the gain over the TU header. So why don't we support the vendor thats put tons of money into R&D, has everything setup already for you to run it, and is only $425 for a CAST manifold thats going to last forever as opposed to more money for a tubular steel which lasts a few years and takes a whole ton more work to setup.

Yes, I do. Warren Stramer's car picked up an AVERAGE of 4 mph trap speeds and .22 ET over his PORTED STOCK MANIFOLD when he switched to his tri-y long tube header with no other changes.

That's on a car that had already ran a 10.81 at 127, in a heavy G body. That is a realistic 40 + WHP gain.

Done.

[turbovanman²]

Either way.... not a great analogy, that because someone makes big power and runs this part, that it's the most efficient setup.

Exactly, :D

[8valves]

I don't like seeing people getting ripped off when there's bolt on products that will make the same power for less money and much less work.

OK, no one said 40 WHP over a STOCK unit, they said 40 WHP over a ported unit. Thats a very different story. But who's going to even try to run 400 WHP on a completely stock manifold anyway?
What physics and fluid dynamics proves that a tubular equal length manifold will spool a turbo faster? Sorry, but a stepped cast iron log manifold has the ability to increase velocity much more than a tubular header, especially a tubular header with such long primaries. Unless this header is ceramic coated, you lose a ton of heat energy through the thin wall steel pipes. Energy is needed to spool the turbo. Enery lost=slower spoolup. Thick cast iron is the best at keeping heat energy at a maximum, and a log style in general has super short runners which means the exhaust is the hottest possible entering the turbine, and the step tube design of TU's header is just the icing on the cake to keep velocity maxxed.
So how much more on top of the $700 for the header is it going to take to get ceramic coated? Even ceramic coated steel pipes are not going to compare to the insulation compacity of thick cast steel anyway.

I don't need to defend TU whatsoever, and I don't get any brownie points or kickbacks. Even if I didn't have any affiliation with TU I would still be defending TU's header because it simply can't be beat. Not all of TU's products do I back 100%, it's just that the header is one that can be backed 150%.

See above FACTUAL response based on Warren's well documented results.


First off, I never said that they were claiming the 40 WHP gain over a ported stocker...I just want to know how they estimated that number because there's NOTHING to go by.

Second, I've been doing tons of research about tubular VS cast log's, and the consensus is a good log header WILL spool a turbo faster and make about the same peak as a tube header, but the tube will make slightly more above peak.
Also, there's a point where tubular headers will make more power than log headers no matter what, but that only happens once you exceed the flow requirements of the log which I don't see many if anybody doing that since the TU header flows so well.

Sounds like you need to keep doing more research, but that's just me. :)


That is not true, the Honda forums have proved that with dyno, video and doing it back to back. The proper tube header destroyed the log header.

Gasp, and the research has uncovered a great test! :D


40whp gain may be a bold statement.... but I will NOT disagree since he saw 12whp on stock parts and the .63a/r may have hindered the gains found since it may make things flow a bit better than a bottle necked .48a/r. Comments?



Ding Ding! 10 points to Steve for paying extra good attention!


And the fact that the person that has dyno'd the highest HP ever on an 8 valve is running a ......ported stocker...??? And also the fact that the tubular header was the one that lost the most CFM in your testing does what?


Okay, okay. I'll bite. Who here has ran an 8V car at boost levels remotely comparable to Shadow's car?? Matt, you like to step up with your car a lot, let's try mine.

Documented 13 WHP gain per pound of boost. 407 @ 24. Raise 13 psi = 576. WOW! More boost makes more power! Crazy!


Aaron's is 1 3/4'' thick wall, so about the same ID as 1 5/8 thin anyway.

The shorty EQ header I made is .065" wall (16G) SS 1 3/4". 1 5/8" OD goes inside my tubing.

The long tube divided non-EQ header from a year or so back was 1.610" ID.

[8valves]

Let me come back after relaxing a bit and mention that my example of a theoretical situation of my prior cars performance based solely on a simple math equation was more of a point to be made, not me saying "coulda woulda shoulda."

Just wanted to clarify.

[Aries_Turbo]

bottom line matt, if you want to be an argumentative dickhead over numbers that no one can prove other than Aaron cause he was the only one that did any real testing, do it elsewhere. whose car ran deep 11's with this header? JT's. whose ran low 12's with a decently ported shitty-from-the-start ported stocker? yours.

shut up and quit making up stories that JT is going to try to rip people off or you are taking a 3 day vacation. JT is trying to offer a superior efficiency product to the masses for a reasonable price. a tubular equal length header is better than a log. while TU makes a nice log, it will become a bottleneck before this will.

and if you start arguing with me over this post, you will get a vacation even faster. i wont let you ruin this thread with your arguing.

brian

[black86glhs]

Your momma and my momma were hanging up clothes. My momma punched your momma right in the nose. What color was the blood?
:lol::lol:






:banplease::grouphug:

[2.216VTurbo]

bottom line matt, if you want to be an argumentative dickhead over numbers that no one can prove other than Aaron cause he was the only one that did any real testing, do it elsewhere. whose car ran deep 11's with this header? JT's. whose ran low 12's with a decently ported shitty-from-the-start ported stocker? yours.

shut up and quit making up stories that JT is going to try to rip people off or you are taking a 3 day vacation. JT is trying to offer a superior efficiency product to the masses for a reasonable price. a tubular equal length header is better than a log. while TU makes a nice log, it will become a bottleneck before this will.

and if you start arguing with me over this post, you will get a vacation even faster. i wont let you ruin this thread with your arguing.

brian


You know Bucar, I'm not sure I've ever agreed with you more. Moparztule, There are some blowhard BS'rs on this forum, Aaron isn't one of them though.

[turbovanpilot]

I'm not all that knowledgeable in this area, but to me atleast it seems It should be much better than the tu design and the ported stocker. How much better I don't know. My reasons is longer equal length runners. How can a stocker or a log flow better than that? I would be interested in the numbers between a good ported stocker, the tu cast and stainless, stocker, and this one or one like it. I'm going with the tu stainless unit myself, because I don't have to change everything, and its proven. The tbi units seemed good at first, then the sv took away the gains and you had to change a bunch of stuff. If this was in stainless it would be much better, and to me by design it should outflow any log or stocker out there. My opinion and correct me where i'm wrong, if I am.

[GLHNSLHT2]

From my testing on ported stockers... I believe you are wasting your money on them due to the #2 cylinder NEVER able to keep up with he other runners.

Don't tell Shadow he's wasting his money on a ported stocker.

[GLHNSLHT2]

I don't like seeing people getting ripped off when there's bolt on products that will make the same power for less money and much less work.

OK, no one said 40 WHP over a STOCK unit, they said 40 WHP over a ported unit. Thats a very different story. But who's going to even try to run 400 WHP on a completely stock manifold anyway?
What physics and fluid dynamics proves that a tubular equal length manifold will spool a turbo faster? Sorry, but a stepped cast iron log manifold has the ability to increase velocity much more than a tubular header, especially a tubular header with such long primaries. Unless this header is ceramic coated, you lose a ton of heat energy through the thin wall steel pipes. Energy is needed to spool the turbo. Enery lost=slower spoolup. Thick cast iron is the best at keeping heat energy at a maximum, and a log style in general has super short runners which means the exhaust is the hottest possible entering the turbine, and the step tube design of TU's header is just the icing on the cake to keep velocity maxxed.
So how much more on top of the $700 for the header is it going to take to get ceramic coated? Even ceramic coated steel pipes are not going to compare to the insulation compacity of thick cast steel anyway.

I don't need to defend TU whatsoever, and I don't get any brownie points or kickbacks. Even if I didn't have any affiliation with TU I would still be defending TU's header because it simply can't be beat. Not all of TU's products do I back 100%, it's just that the header is one that can be backed 150%.

too bad it has ZERO short turn radius to get all that exhaust gas into the turbo.

[Directconnection]

Don't tell Shadow he's wasting his money on a ported stocker.

There was a thread someplace where he was talking about the benefits if he were to replace his ported stocker with a better unit.... along with another few key areas.

I tested several stockers.... and based on my flowbench results (I know, nothing beats the real world results) I was not impressed. Moreso by the FM ported stocker I wasted $140 on.

If one could port the stocker like *I* would like to see done, then it would be extremely kick-azz.

[turbovanman²]

I would be interested in the numbers between a good ported stocker, the tu cast and stainless, stocker, and this one or one like it

Its been done, Direct Connection did it, search his name and flowtest.

The equal length has been proven to beat ALL our available manifolds, its just not for the average joe, which is fine.


Don't tell Shadow he's wasting his money on a ported stocker.

No one is or has, but as we all know, he would pick up some power if he put on a header, you can bet on it, :nod:

[moparzrule]

Yes, I do. Warren Stramer's car picked up an AVERAGE of 4 mph trap speeds and .22 ET over his PORTED STOCK MANIFOLD when he switched to his tri-y long tube header with no other changes.

That's on a car that had already ran a 10.81 at 127, in a heavy G body. That is a realistic 40 + WHP gain.

Done.

Whats this ''tri-y'' header? Not the same as this design? And who knows how good the ported stocker was. Was it an FM unit?
According to the trap speed yes it's 40 WHP, but according to ET it's 28 WHP. There was no other changes? Turbo?


bottom line matt, if you want to be an argumentative dickhead over numbers that no one can prove other than Aaron cause he was the only one that did any real testing, do it elsewhere. whose car ran deep 11's with this header? JT's. whose ran low 12's with a decently ported shitty-from-the-start ported stocker? yours.


Whaaat??? Right....my car ran it on stock valves, no weight reduction(unless you count no more A/C and no spare tire/jack), pump gas, and tiny azz slicks, and probably smaller turbo as well. I have 1/4 the money that JT has in his car, and with better slicks and race gas I could have been running mid 11's easy. The exhaust manifold wasn't even close to the bottle neck in my car.

[moparzrule]

You guys should slide on over to the SRT forums where most of the guys are switching back to log headers after their tube headers crack and they found out that they spool turbo's slower. The guy from AGP turbo specifically states in the one thread I read that under 650 HP it's a complete waste to run a tube header. So who's 8v is running more than 650?

[moparzrule]

If one could port the stocker like *I* would like to see done, then it would be extremely kick-azz.

I can port them better than I sent you, but it requires too much material loss to be ''safe'' from the manifold cracking because some areas will get too thin.
Unless of course you are talking about welding.

[moparzrule]

Not true.... it would run the coolest due to less scavenging and poor gas exchange processes.


How does less scavenging make it cooler? It's getting backed up, backpressure = more heat.



Just because someone runs a ported stocker and makes the largest whp from an 8v doesn't mean it's gospel. Just means that he's the one that's made the most hp, that's all. Remember we are running poor efficiency 8v heads. Enough boost makes big power in anything. (not taking away from his #s which are great)


Didn't say it was gospel, but you guys are crapping all over the stock manifold and if it was as bad as you guys are making it out to be it shouldn't be able to make over 300 WHP.



For the record: Stephane, Donovan, Reeves and TurboJerry have all made more hp than or example:thumb: (yes, all 4 were 8v)

edit: I thought Shadow was at 420whp? 10.99? Either way.... not a great analogy, that because someone makes big power and runs this part, that it's the most efficient setup.

We already talked about stephane, I believe his car was like 1900 pounds which would have only taken 450 WHP to go mid 9's. Even if his car was 2200 pounds, which I doubt, it would have taken 500 WHP to go mid 9's.

Donovan's relentless made more like 450 WHP as well. 10.41 @ 132 mph, his could would have to be more than 2600 pounds to be more HP than shadow, seriously doubt that it weighed over 2500 given the weight reduction.

Reeves, once again an L body so not sure of the weight but 2500 pound raceweight would make him the same as shadow's 480 WHP. Is he even 2500? Doubt it.

No idea on turbojerry, but given your other 3 examples that haven't made over 500 I doubt he did either.

Yes I've busted on Shadow for only running a 10.99 with a 480 WHP dyno sheet. It's very lop sided, but his dyno sheets are posted on the forum.
Shadow himself claims a good ported stocker is not the bottleneck until 450 WHP levels. I semi disagree with that. I believe the stocker can be ditched around 350 WHP because other aftermarket headers will make more power. Is the ported stocker capable of more? Of course it is we've seen it do 480. But IMO enough gain will be made with the TU header to be worth the expense over 350 WHP levels.

[Pat]

You guys should slide on over to the SRT forums where most of the guys are switching back to log headers after their tube headers crack and they found out that they spool turbo's slower. The guy from AGP turbo specifically states in the one thread I read that under 650 HP it's a complete waste to run a tube header. So who's 8v is running more than 650?

I read through srtformums every now and again....I'm not sure I'd give anything I read over there much credit, either from forum users or vendors.

[glhs875]

[QUOTE=moparzrule;444288]How does less scavenging make it cooler? It's getting backed up, backpressure = more heat.





Left over exhaust gas from backpressure or reversion in the cylinder can act like a natural (EGR valve). That will LOWER combustion temps. That's exactly what the purpose of spent exhaust gas reintroduced into the cylinder by the EGR valve is supposed to accomplish is to lower the combustion temps. And more left over exhaust gas in the cylinder leaves less room for a fresh intake charge, and can limit power potential. Exhaust gas won't ignite and burn again. And another place high backpressue limits power potential is during the exhaust cycle, when the piston is having to work against say 40psi or more of exhaust backpressure in a high boost situation with a poorly designed setup. Put 40psi of air pressure in the cylinder through the sparkplug hole and then try and turn the engine over. It will take ALOT of effort. Now design a header that will spool the turbo the same from increased flow rather than from increased backpressure like most are doing, and your on to something very big!

High backpressure can limit how many RPM's the engine will make power to. It can, and alot of the time acts like a governer of high RPM power production. I would say a person is headed in the right direction with the header and exhaust flow in general, when an increase in wastegate size/flow is needed to control the boost level/boost creep. And in turn the now needed extra wastegate flow can help with power production as well.

[Frank]

You guys should slide on over to the SRT forums where most of the guys are switching back to log headers after their tube headers crack and they found out that they spool turbo's slower. The guy from AGP turbo specifically states in the one thread I read that under 650 HP it's a complete waste to run a tube header. So who's 8v is running more than 650?

That is because they bought it for the bling. A nice equal length header is what you use to squeeze a higher BSFC and VE out of your setup without going to a bigger turbo. When you are maxing 400whp out of a GT3076R or a Super50 TE04E, you are hot and you want more. However you don't want lag... so now you increase efficiency. That is where the big guns come in. Now you are making 50whp more... not a whole lot, but it will revise your timing curves to something better too.

Just some food for thought.

[moparzrule]

Left over exhaust gas from backpressure or reversion in the cylinder can act like a natural (EGR valve). That will LOWER combustion temps. That's exactly what the purpose of spent exhaust gas reintroduced into the cylinder by the EGR valve is supposed to accomplish is to lower the combustion temps. And more left over exhaust gas in the cylinder leaves less room for a fresh intake charge, and can limit power potential. Exhaust gas won't ignite and burn again. And another place high backpressue limits power potential is during the exhaust cycle, when the piston is having to work against say 40psi of exhaust backpressure in a high boost situation with a poorly designed setup. Put 40psi of air pressure in the cylinder through the sparkplug hole and then try and turn the engine over. It will take ALOT of effort. Now design a header that will spool the turbo the same from increased flow rather than from increased backpressure like most are doing, and your on to something very big!

High backpressure can limit how many RPM's the engine will make power to. It can, and alot of the time acts like a governer of high RPM power production.


I agree about the backpressure limiting RPM's....

Guys, let me explain myself better and why I'm even in this thread. I am NOT saying that this tube header is for the same purpose as a ported stocker. As I already stated, IMO over ~350 WHP the ported stocker should be replaced with something more efficient. Everything talked about the ported stocker in this thread was indeed a waste of time, my only point about the ported stocker is it's not as bad as people are making it out to be. My real intent was that people are thinking just because this tube header LOOKS better and is not a bolt on that means it should make more power. I've been searching on SRT forums and AGP says under 650 HP it's a waste of time and money on a tube header. Is that for 16 valves? Yes, but it takes the same amount of air/fuel to make 650 HP no matter what application.
So while I like to see new things come to this community, trying to improve on an already great product is a waste of time. Just because the TU header is a bolt on does not mean it will make less power, and just because the tube header looks pretty doesn't mean it's going to make more power. As I already said the guys on SRT forum are going back to log headers because their tube headers are cracking plus log headers spool the turbo FASTER and at less than 650 HP they don't make any less power. Our fabrication time is much better spent on trying to make a good intake manifold for these cars. The intakes are far more of a restriction than the exhaust side with these cars. Aaron has been doing great modifying stockers, we need something completely new!

[moparzrule]

It's a fact on EGR lowering combustion temps. And yes it does make things less efficient.

I edited that before you replied because less efficient wasn't the wording I wanted to use.
I also edited it because it's just another argument not needed and would crap the thread up even more than the ported stocker argument.

[glhs875]

I edited that before you replied because less efficient wasn't the wording I wanted to use.
I also edited it because it's just another argument not needed and would crap the thread up even more than the ported stocker argument.


No problem! I deleted my post.

[Reeves]

reeves, once again an l body so not sure of the weight but 2500 pound raceweight would make him the same as shadow's 480 whp. Is he even 2500? Doubt it.

2550


i read through srtformums every now and again....i'm not sure i'd give anything i read over there much credit, either from forum users or vendors.

+1 !!!

[8valves]

Whats this ''tri-y'' header? Not the same as this design? And who knows how good the ported stocker was. Was it an FM unit?
According to the trap speed yes it's 40 WHP, but according to ET it's 28 WHP. There was no other changes? Turbo?


Not the same. Long tube, 4-2-1. Search around and you'll stumble on the pictures. Fantastic piece, same turbo, same everythign else. The ET doesn't reflect the power gain the same as the MPH because the car had so much more midrange power that his 60's dropped back .15.

So once again, I stadn by my statement that a good header will make 40+ WHP over a ported stock unit.


You guys should slide on over to the SRT forums where most of the guys are switching back to log headers after their tube headers crack and they found out that they spool turbo's slower. The guy from AGP turbo specifically states in the one thread I read that under 650 HP it's a complete waste to run a tube header. So who's 8v is running more than 650?

Neat that AGP has made their name by selling cast log's to the SRT world, isn't it?

For the amount of SRT4's that have more money in them and still run mid 12's, I give that entire community just about zero regard in terms of well done R&D. Save for a few here and there, most do complete builds and still fail to outrun a Mopar S3 car with a little juice.

And if we want to go off of other communities successes or failures with certain parts, go look what some of the first mods Evo guys do. Tubular header on a stock turbo. Tubular 02 housing. How about turbo honda guys? Not many out there on logs anymore. Does that mean that logs suck? Nope. They've got their purpose.

TU's serves a great purpose to the community. This product, should it continue through, just offers another avenue for people.

I'm not mad at you Matt. I could care less. But you sounded like my GF when she is SO 100% certain about something, yet is entirely wrong. You went on for two pages in here about how 40 WHP is a ludicrous claim and I've presented you and everyone else with a real world example of just that.

I enjoy these cars very thoroughly. The last thing I want to be is known as the Darrell Cox of the TD world trying to push products that aren't needed. I got some heat from people on 4 bolt main caps, but now I get more and more interest in them as more people are realizing it isn't a gimmick. Maybe the same will happen with this stuff.

[turbovanman²]

You guys should slide on over to the SRT forums where most of the guys are switching back to log headers after their tube headers crack and they found out that they spool turbo's slower. The guy from AGP turbo specifically states in the one thread I read that under 650 HP it's a complete waste to run a tube header. So who's 8v is running more than 650?

Sorry, most of those guys have more money than brains, its pretty sad sometimes.

Crappy/cheap made products can crack, warp etc.

Again, the Honda video proves that it isn't 650 whp.


I can port them better than I sent you, but it requires too much material loss to be ''safe'' from the manifold cracking because some areas will get too thin.
Unless of course you are talking about welding.

I agree, the same with the TIII, if you weld it up, you can fix alot of its issues, but by the time you've welded it, ported it, you could have bought a better manifold for the same money.




Left over exhaust gas from backpressure or reversion in the cylinder can act like a natural (EGR valve). That will LOWER combustion temps. That's exactly what the purpose of spent exhaust gas reintroduced into the cylinder by the EGR valve is supposed to accomplish is to lower the combustion temps. And more left over exhaust gas in the cylinder leaves less room for a fresh intake charge, and can limit power potential. Exhaust gas won't ignite and burn again. And another place high backpressue limits power potential is during the exhaust cycle, when the piston is having to work against say 40psi or more of exhaust backpressure in a high boost situation with a poorly designed setup. Put 40psi of air pressure in the cylinder through the sparkplug hole and then try and turn the engine over. It will take ALOT of effort. Now design a header that will spool the turbo the same from increased flow rather than from increased backpressure like most are doing, and your on to something very big!

High backpressure can limit how many RPM's the engine will make power to. It can, and alot of the time acts like a governer of high RPM power production. I would say a person is headed in the right direction with the header and exhaust flow in general, when an increase in wastegate size/flow is needed to control the boost level/boost creep. And in turn the now needed extra wastegate flow can help with power production as well.

Excellent post.


I agree about the backpressure limiting RPM's....

Guys, let me explain myself better and why I'm even in this thread. I am NOT saying that this tube header is for the same purpose as a ported stocker. As I already stated, IMO over ~350 WHP the ported stocker should be replaced with something more efficient. Everything talked about the ported stocker in this thread was indeed a waste of time, my only point about the ported stocker is it's not as bad as people are making it out to be. My real intent was that people are thinking just because this tube header LOOKS better and is not a bolt on that means it should make more power. I've been searching on SRT forums and AGP says under 650 HP it's a waste of time and money on a tube header. Is that for 16 valves? Yes, but it takes the same amount of air/fuel to make 650 HP no matter what application.
So while I like to see new things come to this community, trying to improve on an already great product is a waste of time. Just because the TU header is a bolt on does not mean it will make less power, and just because the tube header looks pretty doesn't mean it's going to make more power. As I already said the guys on SRT forum are going back to log headers because their tube headers are cracking plus log headers spool the turbo FASTER and at less than 650 HP they don't make any less power. Our fabrication time is much better spent on trying to make a good intake manifold for these cars. The intakes are far more of a restriction than the exhaust side with these cars. Aaron has been doing great modifying stockers, we need something completely new!

No one has ever said the stocker is garbage, considering it was built for packaging purpose's and durability, for 99% of the people, its an awesome piece but WHY handicap yourself when going for the most efficient and powerful setup????????? Ditto for the other headers, for most, perfectly fine, :clap:


Not the same. Long tube, 4-2-1. Search around and you'll stumble on the pictures. Fantastic piece, same turbo, same everythign else. The ET doesn't reflect the power gain the same as the MPH because the car had so much more midrange power that his 60's dropped back .15.

So once again, I stadn by my statement that a good header will make 40+ WHP over a ported stock unit.



Neat that AGP has made their name by selling cast log's to the SRT world, isn't it?

For the amount of SRT4's that have more money in them and still run mid 12's, I give that entire community just about zero regard in terms of well done R&D. Save for a few here and there, most do complete builds and still fail to outrun a Mopar S3 car with a little juice.

And if we want to go off of other communities successes or failures with certain parts, go look what some of the first mods Evo guys do. Tubular header on a stock turbo. Tubular 02 housing. How about turbo honda guys? Not many out there on logs anymore. Does that mean that logs suck? Nope. They've got their purpose.

TU's serves a great purpose to the community. This product, should it continue through, just offers another avenue for people.

I'm not mad at you Matt. I could care less. But you sounded like my GF when she is SO 100% certain about something, yet is entirely wrong. You went on for two pages in here about how 40 WHP is a ludicrous claim and I've presented you and everyone else with a real world example of just that.

I enjoy these cars very thoroughly. The last thing I want to be is known as the Darrell Cox of the TD world trying to push products that aren't needed. I got some heat from people on 4 bolt main caps, but now I get more and more interest in them as more people are realizing it isn't a gimmick. Maybe the same will happen with this stuff.

Yep, see above about the SRT forums.

We all know math isn't accurate, and Warren could have made more? does it matter exactly how much more he made, nope, the point is, on a simple header swap he went faster on a pretty squeezed setup proving the manifold was a cork.

Anything Aaron sells is believable, he tests stuff on his own time and isn't here to rip anyone off, same as JT.

I honestly don't see the reason we are having this debate, :confused:

[1984rampage]

I honestly don't see the reason we are having this debate, :confused:

Because Matt is trying to advertise for TU and sell their header as well as his ported manifolds...

[BadAssPerformance]

Whaaat??? Right....my car ran it on stock valves, no weight reduction(unless you count no more A/C and no spare tire/jack), pump gas, and tiny azz slicks, and probably smaller turbo as well. I have 1/4 the money that JT has in his car, and with better slicks and race gas I could have been running mid 11's easy. The exhaust manifold wasn't even close to the bottle neck in my car.

You're right, I shove a ton of money into my Z, I cant argue that :o BUT I dont put any money into my Shadow... bone stock Shelby Lancer long block, NOTHING ported, full interior, no A/C and spare just like yours. 12's on less than 20psi boost....

So why does anyone need a ported stocker to run 12's even? :confused2:

Well, I'll tell you why, as Frank said above, it is all about efficiency, meaning it is easier to make the same power or allowing the ability to make more power.

About the SRT4 headers... I have a OBX 2.4L header on the Z that I got for $250 (true story, thats what material costs!?) shipped to my door. It has already warped the head flange so bad I had to mill it flat again. I'm just hoping the chinese children that welded it did a good enough job I dont need to re-weld it too!

I see a lot of good info from 8valves and others above trying to explain the benefits and capabilities of an equal length runner manifold and I would hope someone like you that understands porting, etc. would understand the benefits of such a header, but if you cannot, thats ok, just stop saying/implying that it is a "rip off" cuz it is not.

[GLHSKEN]

2550



+1 !!!

Let's not forget the fact Reeves is trapping 134mph...... IN A BRICK..... Spinning 25"X13" SLICKS THROUGH 3RD....

Do not EVER call the TU cast log header a bolt in.... It is a nice piece. I have one. A ----- to install... grind grind grind...

Steve, you are welcome for the ABM header....

[turbovanman²]

Let's not forget the fact Reeves is trapping 134mph...... IN A BRICK..... Spinning 25"X13" SLICKS THROUGH 3RD....

Do not EVER call the TU cast log header a bolt in.... It is a nice piece. I have one. A ----- to install... grind grind grind...

Steve, you are welcome for the ABM header....

Reeve's car isn't a brick, lol! :eyebrows:

Also, that MPH is impressive. My old CBR900RR, put out aprox 110 whp, weighed 400 lbs without me and trapped at that mph. The Omni is hauling AZZ, :hail:

[GLHSKEN]

More than likely has about the same CD as your van...

[turbovanman²]

More than likely has about the same CD as your van...

Most likely, :(

We'll call his a baby brick, ;)

[moparzrule]

Because Matt is trying to advertise for TU and sell their header as well as his ported manifolds...

Not true whatsoever, not my intent at all. This argument is about cast VS log headers. I am backing TU because I believe that the log header is a much better avenue for these cars/engines. TU strives to offer the best product available, and the TU header indeed meant for all out race applications as well as daily drivers. IMO, these cylinder heads are far more of a restriction than a properly designed log header ever could be. If there was need for a tube header TU would be making one.

[moparzrule]

Neat that AGP has made their name by selling cast log's to the SRT world, isn't it?



Well they've stated numbers of maxxing out an GT35 with their log, and moving on to a T67 they are trying to see what their cast manifold maxxes out at.

[1984rampage]

Not true whatsoever.

Just my opinion from reading this thread... Not meant to offend anyone :o

[moparzrule]

You're right, I shove a ton of money into my Z, I cant argue that :o BUT I dont put any money into my Shadow... bone stock Shelby Lancer long block, NOTHING ported, full interior, no A/C and spare just like yours. 12's on less than 20psi boost....


Barely squeaking into 12's, and low 12's are 2 different things. I shut down at the 1000' mark because I blew an IC line and still ran a 12.9@92 MPH

I had 22'' MT slicks and 93 octane pump gas. Were you running pump gas in your SL? If I just had larger slicks and race gas to change some timing in the cal I could be doing 11's on the same boost level. Deep into the 11's with more boost. So, it would have cost me the price of a decent set of 24.5 slicks and a tank of race gas to be running mid 11's. Your SL can't even come close to making the same claims.

[GLHSKEN]

Do you even know when to knock it off???

There are merits to both DEPENDING on your ultimate goal...

[GLHSKEN]

Don't Matt... You do realize that you are "affiliated" with a vendor... Technically, you ARE breaking the rules by even posting in this thread...

[moparzrule]

Let's not forget the fact Reeves is trapping 134mph...... IN A BRICK..... Spinning 25"X13" SLICKS THROUGH 3RD....

Do not EVER call the TU cast log header a bolt in.... It is a nice piece. I have one. A ----- to install... grind grind grind...

Steve, you are welcome for the ABM header....

Yes I agree, Reeves is probably the only one that would dyno higher than Shadow has, but he hasn't dyno'd to my knowledge. So my statement still stands...the highest WHP dyno still goes to Shadow at 480 with a ported stock manifold. Just curious though, what exhuast manifold is Reeves running?

As for the TU header/bolt in, grinding for some clearance for the bolts and as I recall cutting down the one or 2 exhaust studs for clearance is quite negligable compared to all the modifications running this tube header requires.
Hell, it requires as much as a TBI header which I've owned 2 of them but never ran either one because of the PITA the install would have been.

[black86glhs]

Well if you put a turbo, 1/4 the size of the one on the car now, on each exhaust port it will be STUPID FAST!!!!:thumb:


JT....start another thread advertising the header please. This has turned into an SRT or TD type of thread. This is really stupid guys.:(

And this from a smart AZZ like me, it must be childish.:yuck:

[GLHSKEN]

As for the TU header/bolt in, grinding for some clearance for the bolts and as I recall cutting down the one or 2 exhaust studs for clearance is quite negligable compared to all the modifications running this tube header requires.
Hell, it requires as much as a TBI header which I've owned 2 of them but never ran either one because of the PITA the install would have been.

Try again.... Reeves HAS installed one... PITA....

Apples and oranges... HP calc has Reeves at 478 whp... He's running a 2.5L care to compare torque???

[moparzrule]

Do you even know when to knock it off???

There are merits to both DEPENDING on your ultimate goal...

This is why I keep posting. What merits? Whats your proof of log VS tube header?


Don't Matt... You do realize that you are "affiliated" with a vendor... Technically, you ARE breaking the rules by even posting in this thread...

How so? A vendor has a section on the forum, the group buy forum is not a vendor specific forum.
Here's the sub quote from the group buy forum-

This area is for non vendors to post about group buy ideas, arragements, and annoucements.
Looks like arrangements is spelled wrong, might want to fix that.

I'm really tired of taking all this crap because I'm ''affiliated'' with a vendor. I don't need people telling me I'm backing TU because I work for them. Even if I didn't work for TU I would be defending them because they make good products. And if you search back through my posts you will find that I supported them and their products LONG before I started working for them.

[moparzrule]

Try again.... Reeves HAS installed one... PITA....

Apples and oranges... HP calc has Reeves at 478 whp... He's running a 2.5L care to compare torque???


Installed what? TBI header?

[GLHSKEN]

Installed what? TBI header?

A cast TU manifold.... Don't be an azzz....

I am not TRYING to provide proof... I am going to be running a TU CAST HEADER for freaking sake...

You are affiliated and attempting to ---- on a simple group buy.

You screwed yourself..

The area is for "non-vendors" to post about things.

Nice dig on the spelling of arrangements... Diversion tactic when you are WRONG...


And I've been a strong customer of TU for years... What's your point. Do not post in this thread again.... I am not the only one po'd

If Reeves wants you to know what header he is running, HE will post it.

HMMM.... If I recall I HAVE one of your stock ported mani's for one of my cars as well. Nice work... The last thing I am is biased....

[turbovanman²]

Not true whatsoever, not my intent at all. This argument is about cast VS log headers. I am backing TU because I believe that the log header is a much better avenue for these cars/engines. TU strives to offer the best product available, and the TU header indeed meant for all out race applications as well as daily drivers. IMO, these cylinder heads are far more of a restriction than a properly designed log header ever could be. If there was need for a tube header TU would be making one.

You could spouting dyno numbers yet again, I repeat, an equal length header decimates any other form. Why do you keep arguing??? :confused:

I bet Chris isn't making one due to cost, R@D, people actually buying them, cash outlay, warranty and sheer amount of mods to install one. He makes a wicked 3 inch SV and he has a hard time selling those, even with dyno proof.



Yes I agree, Reeves is probably the only one that would dyno higher than Shadow has, but he hasn't dyno'd to my knowledge. So my statement still stands...the highest WHP dyno still goes to Shadow at 480 with a ported stock manifold. Just curious though, what exhuast manifold is Reeves running?

As for the TU header/bolt in, grinding for some clearance for the bolts and as I recall cutting down the one or 2 exhaust studs for clearance is quite negligable compared to all the modifications running this tube header requires.
Hell, it requires as much as a TBI header which I've owned 2 of them but never ran either one because of the PITA the install would have been.

Dyno queens, big deal-no offence to Rob. You keep going on about dyno numbers, who really cares??? The number that counts is the one that flash's up when you cross the finish line. Numbers are for bullshitting, times are what's real.

[Pat]

Barely squeaking into 12's, and low 12's are 2 different things. I shut down at the 1000' mark because I blew an IC line and still ran a 12.9@92 MPH.

C'mon Matt...running one 12.37 and hurting the motor is different from running 12's for years on the same motor like JT has in his Shadow.



I had 22'' MT slicks and 93 octane pump gas. Were you running pump gas in your SL? If I just had larger slicks and race gas to change some timing in the cal I could be doing 11's on the same boost level. Deep into the 11's with more boost. So, it would have cost me the price of a decent set of 24.5 slicks and a tank of race gas to be running mid 11's. Your SL can't even come close to making the same claims.

You can't make those claims either...you went 12.37 once. That's a damn long way from mid 11's. Everyone can make a statement and say if this and if that, their car would have gone xxx. Hell, I could too! The difference is actually doing it.

Back to topic, the log header or a ported manifold seem like a great option to me for a high powered street car/mid powered racer. If you're building a race car where you're looking to make as much as you can, there's no beating a tube header.

[black86glhs]

C'mon Matt...running one 12.37 and hurting the motor is different from running 12's for years on the same motor like JT has in his Shadow.



You can't make those claims either...you went 12.37 once. That's a damn long way from mid 11's. Everyone can make a statement and say if this and if that, their car would have gone xxx. Hell, I could too! The difference is actually doing it.

Back to topic, the log header or a ported manifold seem like a great option to me for a high powered street car/mid powered racer. If you're building a race car where you're looking to make as much as you can, there's no beating a tube header.Exactly why I ported the mani on mine, I'm not at those levels. If I ever find a Lancer and have the $$$ to buy it, that would be the one that gets the snot built out of it. Tubular manifold would definitely be on there.

[GLHNSLHT2]

Yes I agree, Reeves is probably the only one that would dyno higher than Shadow has, but he hasn't dyno'd to my knowledge. So my statement still stands...the highest WHP dyno still goes to Shadow at 480 with a ported stock manifold. Just curious though, what exhuast manifold is Reeves running?

As for the TU header/bolt in, grinding for some clearance for the bolts and as I recall cutting down the one or 2 exhaust studs for clearance is quite negligable compared to all the modifications running this tube header requires.
Hell, it requires as much as a TBI header which I've owned 2 of them but never ran either one because of the PITA the install would have been.

I wouldn't call the TU cast peice a bolt in either. You have to grind the inlet to the turbo so A) it matches the opening of the header and B) so you have some sort of SHORT turn radius. The air comes rushing down from the cylinders and blows right by the inlet to the turbo where it smacks into a wall. That means it's time to re-coat your turbo if you've already done that from a previous install. Long way from a bolt in. My tube header was more of a bolt in.

[8valves]

I really want to reply, but I'm not sure it's going to go any good, so I'll just refrain.

[turbovanpilot]

moparzrule made some points, but i have yet to see proof. He may be right, over porting hurts performance, some say to big of a throotle body hurts performance, some claim the old style turbo one out performs the 1 and 2 piece intakes, and he is saying long tubes hurt performance unless your making crazy horsepower. I know that you want the exhaust to enter the turbo as hot as possible, thats why we coat turbine housings, swing valves, and manifolds. I also know mild steel headers won't last long and don't retain heat as well as cast or stainless. The header pictured needs alot of extra stuff to make it work, yet I like the design. In my opinion equal length tubes should be the way to go, the tbi header flowed great if it wasn't for the swingvalve. If someone can prove long tubes aren't better than I would agree with moparzrule. I will say the stocker 1 cylinder feeds 1/2 the turbo and the othe three feed the other half, kind of unbalanced, even the tube headers one feeds straight in the turbo while the other three hit a wall, and bounce off to a 90 to enter the turbo. I would like to see 2 cylinders feed each side of the turbo equally, and go straight into the turbo.

as for tu making such a header, say the price was 1000, or more who would buy them? most our cars are worth 2000-3000. kind of like the lsd units we might do the ford wave spring or a phantom grip, but who has 1200 for a quasi, not many of us. I'm running a tu used stainless header myself.

[Captain Chaos]

The last thing I want to be is known as the Darrell Cox of the TD world trying to push products that aren't needed.

:hail::amen:

[turbovanman²]

moparzrule made some points, but i have yet to see proof. He may be right, over porting hurts performance, some say to big of a throotle body hurts performance, some claim the old style turbo one out performs the 1 and 2 piece intakes, and he is saying long tubes hurt performance unless your making crazy horsepower. I know that you want the exhaust to enter the turbo as hot as possible, thats why we coat turbine housings, swing valves, and manifolds. I also know mild steel headers won't last long and don't retain heat as well as cast or stainless. The header pictured needs alot of extra stuff to make it work, yet I like the design. In my opinion equal length tubes should be the way to go, the tbi header flowed great if it wasn't for the swingvalve. If someone can prove long tubes aren't better than I would agree with moparzrule. I will say the stocker 1 cylinder feeds 1/2 the turbo and the othe three feed the other half, kind of unbalanced, even the tube headers one feeds straight in the turbo while the other three hit a wall, and bounce off to a 90 to enter the turbo. I would like to see 2 cylinders feed each side of the turbo equally, and go straight into the turbo.

as for tu making such a header, say the price was 1000, or more who would buy them? most our cars are worth 2000-3000. kind of like the lsd units we might do the ford wave spring or a phantom grip, but who has 1200 for a quasi, not many of us. I'm running a tu used stainless header myself.

Usually on a turbo engine, overporting won't hurt due to air being forced in.

It HAS been proven a equal length header is superior.

PG units and the Ford spring don't work and will cost you more money, so being cheap isn't always a good idea, :eyebrows:

[Austrian Dodge]

personally i think that tubular manifolds are the way to go, and aaron PROVED that the manifold and the stock 2.25" SV are crap!!
we can be pretty sure that the header will perform better with a 3" SV! we can also assume that it'll be better than a ported stock manifold, but there was no back to back - which i understand seems pointless thinking on the time and work needed to be done ;)
same with the cast TU piece, great product...and as far as i know the first step design log for this cars, so not really comparable to other log style manifolds.

regardless of what everybody posted here, we can BS all day long, and still can only assume this and that might be better (it might ;) ), but as long nobody has back to back data we wont know for sure.
over here we say you're fighting about the kings beard which isn't there. just pointless!

thanks and kudo's to JT and Aaron for spending time bringing new products to this community, it's just sad to see a "gauging interest" post running out of control like this. keep up the good work guys!! :thumb:

i need to add something though:
loosing heat due to long runners = loosing spool-up? i call this bullshit and can back that up with real world experience!
friend of mine is running a stroked 2.0 cosworth engine (nearly 2.4l now), tubular manifold with long runners (not coated or heat wraped whatsoever) and he's spooling a GT35 turbo d*mn quick.
full boost just a little over 3k!! :eek:

want a TM example? take alans car, his manifold relocates the turbo over the trans, hence REALLY long runners. can't recall the exact full boost RPM but i've been in the passengers seat and it reached full boost quiiiiick!

have a nice day!

[88C/S]

Kudos to Aaron and JT for bringing their new products to the community. I remember seeing a picture of JT's header and asking if he would be making any more in the future. Were I building a TD like I built a TA Javelin back in the day, I'd be getting a 4 tube header, it seems to be working for Formula 1 cars - even though I'm not going for that much power or rpms. That is not to take away anything from ported log headers, I'm running one now, nor from TU's stepped header, talked to Chris about it when he brought one to Cali for us to check out.
This shouldn't be a pissing contest. There is room for any product that will meet our needs, from mild to wild. That's my two cents.

[Juggy]

As for the TU header/bolt in, grinding for some clearance for the bolts and as I recall cutting down the one or 2 exhaust studs for clearance is quite negligable compared to all the modifications running this tube header requires.
Hell, it requires as much as a TBI header which I've owned 2 of them but never ran either one because of the PITA the install would have been.


Try again.... Reeves HAS installed one... PITA....

Apples and oranges... HP calc has Reeves at 478 whp... He's running a 2.5L care to compare torque???

I pity the fools, who ordered it thermal coated and have to grind away the coating just to fit the "bolt on" header. only for the coating to start to flake off.

another thing never metioned since all this talk about the "bolt on" header from TU. NO ONE has mentioned the fact that it comes with T3 flange opening, so all you running TD flanges, have to PORT the turbine exhaust housing to gasket match it to the header. if you did not PORT the exhaust housing, you now have a nice hard wall for all that air to hit!!!! then your nice flowing TU cast header has just been degrated to a stockish flowing manny.

grind header to bolt to head, grind exhaust housing to work with TU header. I thought this thing was bolt on and go??? (the original SS header was a real bolt on....which im currently running).

IMHO grinding and porting will scare people away as it usually should be done by someone who knows what they are doing! anyone can put the JT header on and do the little fab work to make this thing fly.

different strokes for different folks, to each thier own!!

All my turbo lines are SS and lengthier then stock already, if I wanted to use this header JT is offering id be lucky and only have to make a few adjustments with things.

If I hadnt of sold my spare TU SS header I would have gladly sent it away for test mule in a dyno confirmation against other manifolds (stock, stock ported, TU cast, JT's, aarons, matts...whoever). But I just cant see anyone willing to donate that much time and money to the community, just to give "real proven #s" like everyone seems to want, b4 they ante up cash to put something on their car.

I had plans to switch from the SS to cast TU unit after this season is over, but with stuff like this coming out, im def going to keep my options open.

and if matt what u were saying that going from a CAST header to JT's, is going to make me suffer spoolup, and it would be a toss up to upgrade from the SS model...then personally id opt for the REAL header, as im looking to make high RPM HP, and if i suffer from a little low end power so be it. I can already spool my GT3076R to 20+psi no later then 4K RPM with the SS model, a small spool up loss, I think would benefit myself with some more traction possibly! besides I can always downshift to get back into the powerband.

[GLHSKEN]

Open to all.... Prior warnings out the window.... Just be reasonable.

[black86glhs]

Matt in 3....2....1....


LOL.

[89ShelbyGuy]

Thanks guys...i THOUGHT i made up my mind about getting the TU cast header...now i am having second thoughts about these from the pita comments to install them...i have to match aarons nice intake i got with a nice header....wtf...but i am sure not going to spend 600 bucks on jt's...even though i would like to, the way money is.....i just dont have any.

So if i get this header from TU, i gotta port the turbo to match it?? And whats with this grinding some of it to make it fit....its claimed to be a bolt in....like everyone has said....what is it hitting then?

[moparzrule]

You should port match the turbine housing to the flange. Not absolutely necessary but highly recommended NO MATTER WHAT manifold/header you are running.

With some of the castings of the TU header you have to take a grinder to make some clearance for the exhaust studs here-

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m216/87wagon/Coated20Hybrid20Header1.jpg

With proper tools all of these mod's can be done in under an hour. JT's header, MUCH more mod's to make that fit. With TU's header you have no need to drop your oil pan and weld in an oil drain back tube, no need to change your downpipe, no need to change coolant lines, etc. Those three I just listed will take well over an hour each with the tube header. And if you already have your engine installed and just the head off to put on JT's header, dropping the oil pan is a HUGE pita.

For those that have already installed a TU cast header, if the TU header needs more modifications than I explained please do chime in. I'd like to be fully informed.

[badandy]

Thanks guys...i THOUGHT i made up my mind about getting the TU cast header...now i am having second thoughts about these from the pita comments to install them...i have to match aarons nice intake i got with a nice header....wtf...but i am sure not going to spend 600 bucks on jt's...even though i would like to, the way money is.....i just dont have any.

So if i get this header from TU, i gotta port the turbo to match it?? And whats with this grinding some of it to make it fit....its claimed to be a bolt in....like everyone has said....what is it hitting then?

I think I can help you out with this question. This is based off MY EXPERIECES before anyone gets their panties in a bunch ;) It IS NOT the bolt in that it is claimed to be. Admittedly these are just annoyances and in my opinion to not overshadow what an excellent piece it is!

1. yes, porting of the turbine exhaust housing is definately neccessary!...and it's not just a little bit so the correct tools to do the job are very important. I was lucky...I tackled this in Reeves garage with him porting while I was attending to the issues below...

2. grinding down all the lower exhaust manifold studs so that the header gasket surface would bottom out on the head surface for a good seal....if you don't do this the studs are too long and contact the casting.

3. grinding of the surface where the exhaust manifold stud nut meets the manifold also needed touch up work...many of those surfaces were slightly ramped and the nut would not tighten flush against the header.

4. to get the nuts started on the ground down studs it is neccessary to lift the header up off the gasket surface due to interferrence with the header runners.

5. I seem to remember some slight interferrence with the intake manifold that was an easy fix with a dremel/grinder.

...and there are other things that are to be expected with a high performance part. I'm not complaining...but unless you have a garage and more than average tools...it is a bit more than a "bolt on"

Here again, just being honest. IMO there is nothing currently available that is any better for the record.

[moparzrule]

Thanks for the writeup Andy.

[BadAssPerformance]

...With proper tools all of these mod's can be done in under an hour. JT's header, MUCH more mod's to make that fit. With TU's header you have no need to drop your oil pan and weld in an oil drain back tube, no need to change your downpipe, no need to change coolant lines, etc. Those three I just listed will take well over an hour each with the tube header. And if you already have your engine installed and just the head off to put on JT's header, dropping the oil pan is a HUGE pita.


I believe I covered all of the extensive mods for JT's header in the 'group buy thread' :thumb: the only one who seems to think it was supposed to be a 'bolt on' is you? :confused2: It is not, never said it was. And for those that are not comfortable taking off their oil pan, maybe a tube header is not for you :thumb:

One Q about the TU header? You can use the stock coolant and oil lines? they bend/stretch that far?

[GLHNSLHT2]

don't you have to weld up the oil drain back system with the TU header as well?

[turbovanman²]

I believe I covered all of the extensive mods for JT's header in the 'group buy thread' :thumb: the only one who seems to think it was supposed to be a 'bolt on' is you? :confused2: It is not, never said it was. And for those that are not comfortable taking off their oil pan, maybe a tube header is not for you :thumb:

One Q about the TU header? You can use the stock coolant and oil lines? they bend/stretch that far?

It looks like you get the necessary stuff in the pic.

Exactly, you won't or maybe shouldn't be a newbie if your installing this header or for a matter of fact, any type of performance upgrade.

[moparzrule]

I believe I covered all of the extensive mods for JT's header in the 'group buy thread' :thumb: the only one who seems to think it was supposed to be a 'bolt on' is you? :confused2: It is not, never said it was. And for those that are not comfortable taking off their oil pan, maybe a tube header is not for you :thumb:


The part I'm explaining is the MAJOR difference in the amount of mods it takes to install each of them.



One Q about the TU header? You can use the stock coolant and oil lines? they bend/stretch that far?
The 1 extension thats needed is included with the header in the kit which would be the coolant feed. The coolant return and oil feed are both closer to the mounting point, and SS braided line is plenty flexable.


don't you have to weld up the oil drain back system with the TU header as well?

Not at all, uses the stock drain tube in the block and the kit with the header includes the modded drain back that bolts on the turbo.

[moparzrule]

Did both of you guys completely ignore the pic I posted that was directly from TU's site? Clearly included is the oil drain back and coolant feed extension in the kit.

[BadAssPerformance]

The part I'm explaining is the MAJOR difference in the amount of mods it takes to install each of them.

And again, I agree teh tube header is more difficult and not a bolt in! Can you say it in a larger font so our blind members can read it? ;)

I saw the oil return pipe in the pic and did not know what the other pipe was until you said. So the oil feed and coolant to head line just bend out of the way towards teh driver side? hmm... might be able to use the stock feed lines with the tube header too :thumb:

[turbovanman²]

I saw the oil return pipe in the pic and did not know what the other pipe was until you said. So the oil feed and coolant to head line just bend out of the way towards teh driver side? hmm... might be able to use the stock feed lines with the tube header too :thumb:

You won't be using the stock lines with the TU header. The braided lines have more give.

[moparzrule]

hmm... might be able to use the stock feed lines with the tube header too :thumb:


No, the only thing the TU header does to move the turbo is shift it to the drivers side some. The tube header moves the turbo away from the oil feed and coolant return side, those lines are much harder fabricate. The only one you may be able to use is the coolant feed, which why are you going to buy a $70 kit for half of it? Plus I'm still not sure if it will be long enough because the tube header moves the turbo away from the engine as well, so it's risky.

[moparzrule]

You won't be using the stock lines with the TU header. The braided lines have more give.

Well first off I think we were all assuming the SS braided lines, for ''stock'' length applications. Who's cheaping out using completely stock lines on a 400+ WHP application, which are the application's in question here.

Second, yes you can use the stock coolant lines for the TU header rather easily. The oil line, well if you are running a hybrid header without a new SS oil feed line you need a good smack in the face. As for the coolant lines, the feed tube in the back all you need is a good quality 3/8'' hose thats a few inches longer than the stock line, done. Coolant return, well where the short rubber section is that runs along the head, take that off, cut down the metal line some, flare the metal line again, and re-install the hose. Done.

[turbovanman²]

Sorry, should have clarified, I meant if your buying a TU header, most likely your already running a braided setup or are buying one, too many reasons to run them, regardless if getting a TU header.

[moparzrule]

Sorry, should have clarified, I meant if your buying a TU header, most likely your already running a braided setup or are buying one, too many reasons to run them, regardless if getting a TU header.

Oh, my bad I see what you were saying now. Yes OK we are now all assuming the SS braided line kit! Which is a ''direct'' bolt on with the TU header.

[Chris W]

Since this has been brought up in a few threads already I just wanted to re-clarify the reasoning behind why some port matching is required on our cast iron headers when using the Chrysler style turbine housings.

If you are in the market for a new performance turbo for your Turbo-Mopar vehicle your choices are now limited due to the lack of Chrysler style performance turbine housings. Since we planned for this product to be around for a while we anticipated that there would be more and more customers using the Ford style housings as the Chrysler versions dry up. From our perspective, had we cast the turbine port of the header to match the Chrysler turbine housing all future Ford turbine housing applications would be voicing complaints. It seems we just can't win. :banghead:

Back in the day when I was building V-8 cars we would purchase a set of brand new Hooker Headers that always needed port matching. It was also necessary to go over all the welds to insure there were no cracks or leaks present. Stripping off all the cheap paint and recoating/chroming was just part of the project. No matter what, there was always something we would find that would need going over. The flaws were unintentional in Hooker Header products, but taking the time to make things perfect was part of the hobby and is what made our cars run better then the other guys.

It's very simple for some to critique our cast iron header, yet, no one has actually come forward with any real solution as to how they would have designed it themselves faced with the same turbine housing dilemma. It's obvious that most just don't realize what it takes to go from a drawing board idea to a real sellable product at a real sellable price. Due to the VERY limited market we have it's imperative that you first take into account any possible changes that will affect future sales. For example, had we known the Chrysler style turbine housing would be discontinued when we designed the 3" swingvalve 7 years ago we would have incorporated the Ford bolt pattern back then instead of waiting until now. Prior to initiating work on our header design we researched all the supporting products needed so we would be sure to have a viable product for the present and the future. It took us over a year of R & D before we even announced that it was actually going to happen. I am sure JT did the same thing by waiting until now to bring his product to market.

While major companies turn their backs on this small community TU is the only T-M focused vendor that continues to step forward and make significant investments in casting new performance products. As far as we know, no other T-M focused vendor or individual has come forward to do the same. We take great strides to provide the highest quality product at the lowest, most affordable price. No one knows this better then Matt. He knows how much R & D we have invested in our unique step design header and he is chiming back because numbers are being quoted and things are being said (not by JT or Aaron) without a true back-to-back comparison. JT and I spoke today and we both agree that our products are designed for different applications. I am glad to see more options available to this market. I even offered up our flange supplier and some of our left over flanges to JT in order to help bring down his costs.

That being said, I hope this thread turns around to a more positive note. Good Luck on the new product JT and let us know if we can help out in any other way.

Chris-TU

[Chris W]

I think I can help you out with this question. This is based off MY EXPERIECES before anyone gets their panties in a bunch ;) It IS NOT the bolt in that it is claimed to be. Admittedly these are just annoyances and in my opinion to not overshadow what an excellent piece it is!


Andy, In reviewing the description of our header on our site it says nothing about it being a "bolt in" product.

To enhance performance flow numbers a very short radius was necessary around the studs. We tried to extend the runners a little to clear the exhaust studs but the flow numbers dropped. I thought about why our customers were purchasing this header (ie. PERFORMANCE, NOT ease of installation) and decided to keep the tight radius around the exhaust nuts. Casting and machining variation prevented us from preclearencing for these close tolerances. Frankly, if you have the capability to install a header then grinding here and there to clearance a few obstructions should not be too challenging for you. TU is ALWAYS available for tech support for installation of our products. We are here to answer the phone over 95% of the time.

Chris-TU

[black86glhs]

Thanks for chiming in Chris and helping to settle some of the debates.:thumb:

[90Dodgevnt]

I had TU's old header (and the new one, just un-installed).
I did have to use a dremel and take down some of the welds like the pictures you circled. Nothing horrible and about 15 min total. Other then that, had to use different nuts as the old ones wouldn't fit.

As for the new one, hey, it looks nice. Still in the orig. package. I know I'll need to do the grinding and weld up the oil line, but hell, not all applications are the same. I mean, isn't actually working on cars just that? So it needs a few tweaks...it's no biggie, really. I think some are just getting the wrong impression about the part. I am glad he makes parts for this community...among other things.

The new header that is the center of all the hub bub. It looks nice. Price is a bit steep, but then again, what isn't expensive that doesn't cost an assload for a car nowadays, especially a HP/limted run part?

Hats off for making something new and being different.

Anywho....as you were:banana-mario:

[BadAssPerformance]

....That being said, I hope this thread turns around to a more positive note. Good Luck on the new product JT and let us know if we can help out in any other way.

Chris-TU

Thanks for the call, good discussion and offer for support Chris! :thumb:

[rosie]

:grouphug:Awwwwwww

[8valves]

No, the only thing the TU header does to move the turbo is shift it to the drivers side some. The tube header moves the turbo away from the oil feed and coolant return side, those lines are much harder fabricate. The only one you may be able to use is the coolant feed, which why are you going to buy a $70 kit for half of it? Plus I'm still not sure if it will be long enough because the tube header moves the turbo away from the engine as well, so it's risky.

For the record, I am using stock lines for every turbo line with the tube header on the Daytona.

The front oil/coolant I just cut the rubber flex pieces out and slip some -4 earls braided (black LW hose, more flexible and clampable) over and worm hear clamped them, since they both have formed bead lips. No leaks, took 10 minutes.

Oil return is a stock oil return flange bent a little, with some braided SS line clamped over it and the STOCK oil drain location, and tube.

Coolant feed is stock, just with the line slip inside the rubber farther.

Stock G body lower IC pipe, just cut in a straight section and lengthened with a piece of 2" pipe.

Oh, and a tube header has proven itself to make a 40WHP gain back to back over a ported stocker on Warren's G body. Just re-iterating the topic. :D

[turbovanman²]

Since this has been brought up in a few threads already I just wanted to re-clarify the reasoning behind why some port matching is required on our cast iron headers when using the Chrysler style turbine housings.

If you are in the market for a new performance turbo for your Turbo-Mopar vehicle your choices are now limited due to the lack of Chrysler style performance turbine housings. Since we planned for this product to be around for a while we anticipated that there would be more and more customers using the Ford style housings as the Chrysler versions dry up. From our perspective, had we cast the turbine port of the header to match the Chrysler turbine housing all future Ford turbine housing applications would be voicing complaints. It seems we just can't win. :banghead:

Back in the day when I was building V-8 cars we would purchase a set of brand new Hooker Headers that always needed port matching. It was also necessary to go over all the welds to insure there were no cracks or leaks present. Stripping off all the cheap paint and recoating/chroming was just part of the project. No matter what, there was always something we would find that would need going over. The flaws were unintentional in Hooker Header products, but taking the time to make things perfect was part of the hobby and is what made our cars run better then the other guys.

It's very simple for some to critique our cast iron header, yet, no one has actually come forward with any real solution as to how they would have designed it themselves faced with the same turbine housing dilemma. It's obvious that most just don't realize what it takes to go from a drawing board idea to a real sellable product at a real sellable price. Due to the VERY limited market we have it's imperative that you first take into account any possible changes that will affect future sales. For example, had we known the Chrysler style turbine housing would be discontinued when we designed the 3" swingvalve 7 years ago we would have incorporated the Ford bolt pattern back then instead of waiting until now. Prior to initiating work on our header design we researched all the supporting products needed so we would be sure to have a viable product for the present and the future. It took us over a year of R & D before we even announced that it was actually going to happen. I am sure JT did the same thing by waiting until now to bring his product to market.

While major companies turn their backs on this small community TU is the only T-M focused vendor that continues to step forward and make significant investments in casting new performance products. As far as we know, no other T-M focused vendor or individual has come forward to do the same. We take great strides to provide the highest quality product at the lowest, most affordable price. No one knows this better then Matt. He knows how much R & D we have invested in our unique step design header and he is chiming back because numbers are being quoted and things are being said (not by JT or Aaron) without a true back-to-back comparison. JT and I spoke today and we both agree that our products are designed for different applications. I am glad to see more options available to this market. I even offered up our flange supplier and some of our left over flanges to JT in order to help bring down his costs.

That being said, I hope this thread turns around to a more positive note. Good Luck on the new product JT and let us know if we can help out in any other way.

Chris-TU


I have to agree, I install performance parts on customers cars and unless its a computer or injector, MODS are always needed, with headers being the worst, :(

Sucks about the housings being discontinued but glad you caught it in time so you didn't have a ton of headers that only fit Dodge flanges.

Amen on the :grouphug:

[Ondonti]

Eh, Moparzrule, you need to stop acting like the stocker made the same HP as the tubular.

The stocker had a VERY obvious boost spike which happened at peak hp.
Therefore at equal boost it really did make 14whp less at all useful rpms.

Ignoring the boost spike pretty much ruins most of the technical observations in this thread and the previous.

The tubular header will have less backpressure. Thats something a log cant very well accomplish no matter how good it is. Less backpressure is the key to making huge hp at low boost levels.

[moparzrule]

What? LOL, the stocker made HIGHER peak HP, but I don't count that because of the boost spike. Thats why I'm saying the same peak. The boost spike accounted for the 5 WHP that the stock manifold made MORE than the tube header for that 200 RPM at peak. If you open your eyes and look closely at the graph and take the slight hump out for the boost spike they both made the same HP at peak. Besides, how do you even know there wasn't a spike with the header too? He didn't go WOT from 2500 RPM on like the first test with the stock manifold did. Going WOT at a higher RPM such as 4700 RPM in this case would lead to a MUCH better scenario for boost spike.

[Ondonti]

What? LOL, the stocker made HIGHER peak HP, but I don't count that because of the boost spike. Thats why I'm saying the same peak. The boost spike accounted for the 5 WHP that the stock manifold made MORE than the tube header for that 200 RPM at peak. If you open your eyes and look closely at the graph and take the slight hump out for the boost spike they both made the same HP at peak. Besides, how do you even know there wasn't a spike with the header too? He didn't go WOT from 2500 RPM on like the first test with the stock manifold did. Going WOT at a higher RPM such as 4700 RPM in this case would lead to a MUCH better scenario for boost spike.

Higher peak?
Did you look at the chart before typing that?

Also, that boost spike lasts for about 800+ rpms
its pretty easy to tell from the fact that they make the same torque until the stocker fails to control boost.

The actual chart doesn't support anything you said.

See how smooth the torque line is on that 2nd pull? And the fact that they build the same?

Greater backpressure causes this spike.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/Back2BackHeaderSwap.jpg

[Reeves]

Whats this ''tri-y'' header?

Google is your friend. Been around since internal combustion. If you don't know that, then you are probably still messing with stock manifolds :p


Just curious though, what exhuast manifold is Reeves running?

Years ago, I found it a wise move to go with a true T3 inlet. I purchased a header that was available, all of which either didn't fit, or had major flaws. I then went to Typert's house with my head, intake, turbo, etc and he had one on the bench that worked. So, it's a SS log made out of weld l's and the like.


Try again.... Reeves HAS installed one... PITA....

In my turbo mopar history I have installed quite a few FM ported stockers, 1 moparzrule ported stocker, 2 ABM log headers, 1 TU cast header, 1 typert header, quite a few log headers that didn't work off the bat, a couple of log headers that failed miserably after install, etc. The one in question was the TU cast header that I installed on BADANDY's car. Andy's post says it best. It is a quality piece. But, it does need work. Make sure you got time on your hands, quality tools, and patience. If you got those things, your golden. Beer helps too.


A cast TU manifold.... Don't be an azzz....

I am not TRYING to provide proof... I am going to be running a TU CAST HEADER for freaking sake...

You are affiliated and attempting to ---- on a simple group buy.

You screwed yourself..

The area is for "non-vendors" to post about things.

Nice dig on the spelling of arrangements... Diversion tactic when you are WRONG...


And I've been a strong customer of TU for years... What's your point. Do not post in this thread again.... I am not the only one po'd

If Reeves wants you to know what header he is running, HE will post it.

HMMM.... If I recall I HAVE one of your stock ported mani's for one of my cars as well. Nice work... The last thing I am is biased....

I stole the moparzrule ported stocker from Ken to install on another car...and had to order one to replace it. I stole Ken's first TU cast header for BADANDY's car...and had to order another to replace it. I'm sure I'll be involved installing the replacements :thumb:


Thanks guys...i THOUGHT i made up my mind about getting the TU cast header...now i am having second thoughts about these from the pita comments to install them...i have to match aarons nice intake i got with a nice header....wtf...but i am sure not going to spend 600 bucks on jt's...even though i would like to, the way money is.....i just dont have any.

So if i get this header from TU, i gotta port the turbo to match it?? And whats with this grinding some of it to make it fit....its claimed to be a bolt in....like everyone has said....what is it hitting then?

It's not a bolt on. Hardly anything in my eyes is. You buy a CAI....you may bolt it on...I have to tweak something about it.

I don't know which of Aaron's intakes you have, but if it's the one I'm thinking about, you are going to be doing some plumbing (minor of course) and some test fitting. If you are capable of doing this, you are capable of installing a header...weather it be TU's or JT's or Aaron's, etc. Just be ready to test fit, grind, test fit, check clearance, etc! :thumb:


If you are in the market for a new performance turbo for your Turbo-Mopar vehicle your choices are now limited due to the lack of Chrysler style performance turbine housings. Since we planned for this product to be around for a while we anticipated that there would be more and more customers using the Ford style housings as the Chrysler versions dry up.

DOH! Who knew?


Back in the day when I was building V-8 cars we would purchase a set of brand new Hooker Headers that always needed port matching. It was also necessary to go over all the welds to insure there were no cracks or leaks present. Stripping off all the cheap paint and recoating/chroming was just part of the project.

That's cause you were buying Hooker headers! :lol:
On a side note though, I know exactly what you are talking about. Sometimes it's better to buy the inferior product and make it your own. I have to date only installed one set of headers that needed ZERO modifications. And that was a USED set of Kooks headers for my Dad's Hemi Charger. Very superior product!

[The Pope]

intresting thread. It may be that most people aren't getting enough into the engine to warrant getting more out. The exhaust is real thin as hot as it is and you can make it flow better with ceramic. These 16v guys getting big gains are also moving 900 HP at the crank with some. If anything if you have a header and a great head the intake will really look good when you add it and vice versa. Many just run long intake runners and run up the boost higher still. The TD world hit a wall once they had "enough" flow to make the 400 WHP mark, a header may be really needed above that for HP numbers.

I ran some bolted to the head flow tests. My head ran 98 CFM stock, then 141 ported and big valve for a base. Then I added the stock exhaust manifold, and the big valve dropped to 108. With my ported stocker it went up to 112 CFM. JRB tube header ran 110 CFM. The real big gain? My TU cast header stomped them hard with 137 CFM! The JRB lost mostly in low lift to my ported manifold and it was a tube header. The JRB had too small of a tube is all, I would love to copy it with a 1 5/8" tube.

Granted the bench I use doesn't have big numbers like many, but just do the math and look at the % of gain per port. At that point that TU header looks really good.:clap:

I am not a big TU fan either BTW. But in truth there exhaust stuff really works, really well. "if" I hated TU (which I don't) I would still buy the cast header, 3" SV and exhaust system :nod: How much flow do you guys think you need?

[Ondonti]

Flow through a single port in a Log manifold doesn't really express how it actually functions on a runner motor.

Flow tests are great on the intake side, and not very useful on the exhaust side. Try things like velocity testing, or testing all 4 ports at the same time

You also cant compare a log manifold flow test to a tubular manifold because a Log manifold runner doesnt have to share the flowpath during a test with the other runners and a tubular has dedicated paths that flow the same regardless of how many other cylinders there are.

The moment you fire up the engine, or flow through all ports, you pretty much blow up any data collected regarding individual runners.

[Shadow]

Don't know how I missed this thread the last few days, it just seemed to pop right out of thin air. All I can say is WOW! I have a lot of respect for ppl who take the time to develope new stuff and make it available to ppl "if they so choose to buy it". It is, after all.....their choise. In defense of the Charger, it is NOT a dyno queen! 10.99 @ 133.6mph might not sound that fast for 480whp, but this IS a summer DD. Looks like I'm going to have to bolt on a header and see if I pick up 40whp to settle this debate!:eyebrows:

[black86glhs]

Don't know how I missed this thread the last few days, it just seemed to pop right out of thin air. All I can say is WOW! I have a lot of respect for ppl who take the time to develope new stuff and make it available to ppl "if they so choose to buy it". It is, after all.....their choise. In defense of the Charger, it is NOT a dyno queen! 10.99 @ 133.6mph might not sound that fast for 480whp, but this IS a summer DD. Looks like I'm going to have to bolt on a header and see if I pick up 40whp to settle this debate!:eyebrows:We will hold you to that!!!!:p:p

[Warren Stramer]

[QUOTE=moparzrule;444280]Whats this ''tri-y'' header? Not the same as this design? And who knows how good the ported stocker was. Was it an FM unit?
According to the trap speed yes it's 40 WHP, but according to ET it's 28 WHP. There was no other changes? Turbo?

This is the tri-y, in question. The ported stocker was done by me, I THINK it was done right.
and yes the header increase MPH (actually nearly five mph, but I said 4 cause no one would believe it) I did go from 127best@10.81, to 132@10.6o's.. How much HP that equates to, I don't know.
Et would have been better but the added torque induced traction problems. Going by memory, I had to add pulse width to the lower off idle fuel map to get the spool right but it spools better than the ported stocker once I got that ironed out.
I then removed fuel at the upper rpm high boost ranges as I recall. All and All it was a very worthwhile fab job.

[The Pope]

In defense of the Charger, it is NOT a dyno queen! 10.99 @ 133.6mph might not sound that fast for 480whp, but this IS a summer DD. Looks like I'm going to have to bolt on a header and see if I pick up 40whp to settle this debate!:eyebrows:

Will the Holset fit with a TBI header type location in an L body?

How did you become a dyno queen by simply actually dynoing the car?

[GLHNSLHT2]

Not at all, uses the stock drain tube in the block and the kit with the header includes the modded drain back that bolts on the turbo.

Pretty sure the tube and flange come as two parts and Chris stated it's because they're not all the same spot somewhere in his posts.


No, the only thing the TU header does to move the turbo is shift it to the drivers side some.

SOME???? The thing sticks out 3" past the head which moves like like 4-5" total.

[Shadow]

How did you become a dyno queen by simply actually dynoing the car?

Funny thing is Dyno #'s don't mean squat to me! lol The only reason I originally dyno'd the Charger was out of curiosity, to see if it would be close to what I estimated the HP to be. Once I did dyno, it's a nice tool to have just to verify the ol' but dyno! Track #'s are the only thing that really matters to me....that and breaking as little as possible! ;) The Charger is capable of 10.6's right now, I just haven't driven it to it's Full potential....yet. So I'm missing 3 tenths, The only ppl out there that would have a clue as to what it takes to make up that diffence are the ones driving 10 sec 5-spd FWD's! Putting one of these cars in the 11's is a cake walk, 10's is a little bit different. Only reason I still have a ported stocker on there is the same reason I'm still running a stock cam......because I can (actually, it's because the car is street driven and I wanted to see how far the stock pieces would go). I believe Warrens header is good for 40+WHP, so I agree with Aarons guestimate. I already Know I could top 500WHP just by turning up the boost (and having enough fuel!) but I'm thinking it's time to change things up. Testing a header might not be a bad idea. :D

[Chris W]

Pretty sure the tube and flange come as two parts and Chris stated it's because they're not all the same spot somewhere in his posts.

Yes, due to turbine housing and header casting/machining variations positioning will differ from setup to setup. We figured it would be best to leave the oil drainback flange and tubing separate allowing the customer to make the final alignment for a perfect fit.




SOME???? The thing sticks out 3" past the head which moves like like 4-5" total.

Just over 3" to be exact. Where are you getting 4"-5" from? If you are using a hybrid turbo as the header was designed for the compressor will stick out further then a OEM component. The turbine flange positioning is only moved over about 3".

Chris-TU

[puppet]

This is the tri-y, in question. Dis is ta 3rd _eyboard you sPorted out ... (shaQes Gist)

[turbovanman²]

This is the tri-y, in question.

Dude, that is the sexiest piece of piping I have ever seen, that is just insane, :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail:

I still am in awe everytime you post it up. :D



Dis is ta 3rd _eyboard you sPorted out ... (shaQes Gist)

HUH!!!!!!!!!!!



I agree, you can't really use a flowbench for testing an exhaust manifold, they blow, not suck, :nod: ;)

[Reaper1]

[QUOTE=moparzrule;444280]Whats this ''tri-y'' header? Not the same as this design? And who knows how good the ported stocker was. Was it an FM unit?
According to the trap speed yes it's 40 WHP, but according to ET it's 28 WHP. There was no other changes? Turbo?

This is the tri-y, in question. The ported stocker was done by me, I THINK it was done right.
and yes the header increase MPH (actually nearly five mph, but I said 4 cause no one would believe it) I did go from 127best@10.81, to 132@10.6o's.. How much HP that equates to, I don't know.
Et would have been better but the added torque induced traction problems. Going by memory, I had to add pulse width to the lower off idle fuel map to get the spool right but it spools better than the ported stocker once I got that ironed out.
I then removed fuel at the upper rpm high boost ranges as I recall. All and All it was a very worthwhile fab job.

Everytime I see that header I need to get some tissue! LOL That thing is friggin SEXY!!

On a different note, I want to point out something that has been recently brought to my attention in my Aero2 class. Now, I'm not an *expert* by any means, and the actual theory and mechanics that go in to the boundary layer in a turbulent flow is not something we cover, however, suffice it to say that the bounday layer of the flow acts as a thermal barrier of sorts. Meaning, the bulk of the flow in the center of the pipe actually KEEPS its thermal energy. The heat and energy being lost at the surface of the pipe is MOSTLY due to friction in the boundary layer and conduction over time. Yes, coating DOES help keep the heat in and helps with efficiency, I'm not denying that fact. BUT, one of the things I remember from talking with Ed Peters many years agi was that the TRUE purpose of the thermal coating was to help with underhood heat soak! By keeping heat IN the exhaust we are keeping heat OUT of the engine bay, therefor keeping the engine bay and all the components in there a bit happier. :thumb:

[Ondonti]

Dude, that is the sexiest piece of piping I have ever seen, that is just insane, :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail:




HUH!!!!!!!!!!!



I agree, you can't really use a flowbench for testing an exhaust manifold, they blow, not suck, :nod: ;)

They also blow HOT exhaust that comes from a cylinder that still has a few hundred psi of pressure in it.
So many things that make flow numbers not very useful.

I think an interesting test would be to put a vacuum on the turbo flange and measure velocity at each runner.

[8valves]

They also blow HOT exhaust that comes from a cylinder that still has a few hundred psi of pressure in it.
So many things that make flow numbers not very useful.

I think an interesting test would be to put a vacuum on the turbo flange and measure velocity at each runner.


Agreed. Although, I would think that a legit 10.80 car picking up 4-5 mph and .28 ET with worse short times in a heavy G body would've settled the "debate" long ago. But apparently not!

[moparzrule]

This is the tri-y, in question.


All and All it was a very worthwhile fab job.


Hmm well to compare that extravagant of a header to this much shorter runner equal length header I'm not so sure is the best comparison.

[moparzrule]

Agreed. Although, I would think that a legit 10.80 car picking up 4-5 mph and .28 ET with worse short times in a heavy G body would've settled the "debate" long ago. But apparently not!

Maybe because they aren't the same design? I kept wondering why there was hesitation to tell me exactly what header he was running, so I had to ask it point blank outright and then you had no choice what to say.
All this argument before about headers not all being equal, then you base your HP estimates off a header thats....not equal. drrrr

[1984rampage]

Shadow please do the test with a proper header so we can see whos actually right loll

[moparzrule]

Shadow please do the test with a proper header so we can see whos actually right loll

No, that will only be a comparison the Warren's car for comparison to his tri-y header. That would be ported exhuast manifold VS tube header, thats the minor discussion. I've already stated that IMO over 350 WHP the stock manifold ported or not is a restriction...if it's a 40 WHP restriction (compared to this equal length short tube header) I'd be surprised. Like I said thats the minor discussion.
The main discussion here is log VS tube header, but the log has to be in the same league here not a ported stocker. The real test needs to be TU header VS equal length tube header.

If I had a TU header I would gladly offer it to Shadow for the testing if he was willing. But then again, if the testing showed that the TU header made more or the same power all you guys for the tube header would just be whining that the dyno wasn't done the same day so the climatic changes made the difference. Or some other pathetic excuse. If the equal length header would have flowtested big gains in Steve's testing you would be absolutely for 100% sure gloating those numbers all over this thread. Instead, it showed a loss so you just discredit it very quickly. Although I agree the flow testing showed nothing, but like I said if it did show gains you would be using that test all over this thread and don't even deny it. It's a never win situation, so I'm done with this thread.

[Aries_Turbo]

so I'm done with this thread.

bout time ;)

Brian

[moparzrule]

I'm sorry that I stirred the ''I did all this extra work to my car and spent more money on this pretty header so it has to make more HP'' pot.

[SCalder]

Wow, I missed a weekend on Turbo-Mopar and now have 7 pages of arguments to catch up on!

I went from a ported stock T3 manifold and 50 trim turbo (with stage 3 exhaust wheel) to an equal length header and SC61 turbo (with stage 5 exhaust wheel) and picked up a little over 100 hp at similar boost levels (I say similar because it is impossible to run identical boost curves with different turbos on different days). How much of the gain was due to the header alone is anyone's guess; but I doubt a simple turbo upgrade was worth 100 hp.

Yes, I know you can't compare 8v to 16v. But is a 40 hp gain possible from a header? With the correct supporting pieces, yes it is.

And on a different note. Blow some compressed air through #2 on a stock (or ported stock) manifold. Half of it wants to exit through #1. Similar dynamic on #3. So much for any potential scavenging with a big cam.

Steve

[Chris W]

I agree, you can't really use a flowbench for testing an exhaust manifold, they blow, not suck, :nod: ;)

The flow bench we used during our design phase was both a draw through and blow through. We blew through individual ports allowing us to fine tune each one then drew through the turbine flange to obtain an overall flow number. Granted, the best way to optimize everything is to build one and test it on an engine, fine tune it, build another one then repeat as necessary. Then we could bring the $950. header to market. In our perspective we did everything we could to make our header flow the best with the tools we had at our disposal. Most importantly we dropped our hybrid header price by $125. from the previous weld L version which flowed 84 lbs per minute less.

Chris-TU

[30 PSI SHADOW]

This is the tri-y, in question. The ported stocker was done by me, I THINK it was done right.
and yes the header increase MPH (actually nearly five mph, but I said 4 cause no one would believe it) I did go from 127best@10.81, to 132@10.6o's.. How much HP that equates to, I don't know.


Funny, how ive been watching this thread, and an interesting thing popped into my head. A few years back,SDAC 5 to be exact, i started to build my shadow after riding in the "omni from hell" and talking with dave Z. To this day i needed proof where that car was picking up so much on top.Now i know where...
My setup is very similar to the omni,with the exception of that work of art header that Mckracon(spelling?) built for dave. I know this isnt proof, but that car runs consistantly low 12s at 118MPH. thats damn fast MPH for a measly 18psi of boost on that "stupid 60" computer..I have a better turbo and computer(relentless) and 25-27psi best i coould ever muster was 116MPH. Exhaust VELOCITY is king...

Bill Baker
90 Shadow VNT comp
12.25@116MPH

T3 rampage soon, very soon...

[89ShelbyGuy]

The flow bench we used during our design phase was both a draw through and blow through. We blew through individual ports allowing us to fine tune each one then drew through the turbine flange to obtain an overall flow number. Granted, the best way to optimize everything is to build one and test it on an engine, fine tune it, build another one then repeat as necessary. Then we could bring the $950. header to market. In our perspective we did everything we could to make our header flow the best with the tools we had at our disposal. Most importantly we dropped our hybrid header price by $125. from the previous weld L version which flowed 84 lbs per minute less.

Chris-TU

Hey chris..can you drop the price on the cast 125 bucks too? :eyebrows::D

J/K.....not really....but yea...

When are they going on sale again...?? Cause my group buy failed....it was a single buy...HA!

[turbovanman²]

They also blow HOT exhaust that comes from a cylinder that still has a few hundred psi of pressure in it.
So many things that make flow numbers not very useful.

I think an interesting test would be to put a vacuum on the turbo flange and measure velocity at each runner.

I agree, didn't someone use a vacuum cleaner to test mufflers, Gus/Gary maybe??????





And on a different note. Blow some compressed air through #2 on a stock (or ported stock) manifold. Half of it wants to exit through #1. Similar dynamic on #3. So much for any potential scavenging with a big cam.

Steve

I saw that in Aarons header thread and tried that with a TIII manifold, terrible, #2 again was bad unless you are talking TIII, lol!



The flow bench we used during our design phase was both a draw through and blow through. We blew through individual ports allowing us to fine tune each one then drew through the turbine flange to obtain an overall flow number. Granted, the best way to optimize everything is to build one and test it on an engine, fine tune it, build another one then repeat as necessary. Then we could bring the $950. header to market. In our perspective we did everything we could to make our header flow the best with the tools we had at our disposal. Most importantly we dropped our hybrid header price by $125. from the previous weld L version which flowed 84 lbs per minute less.

Chris-TU

Good info, :thumb:

[badandy]

Andy, In reviewing the description of our header on our site it says nothing about it being a "bolt in" product.

To enhance performance flow numbers a very short radius was necessary around the studs. We tried to extend the runners a little to clear the exhaust studs but the flow numbers dropped. I thought about why our customers were purchasing this header (ie. PERFORMANCE, NOT ease of installation) and decided to keep the tight radius around the exhaust nuts. Casting and machining variation prevented us from preclearencing for these close tolerances. Frankly, if you have the capability to install a header then grinding here and there to clearance a few obstructions should not be too challenging for you. TU is ALWAYS available for tech support for installation of our products. We are here to answer the phone over 95% of the time.

Chris-TU

Chris,

I never implied that you or your sight said it was a true bolt on...my intent was to bring attention that this thread was misleading concerning the TU header as if you go back and read it was implied that it indeed was a true bolt on no mod setup...not intentionally mind you.

I know the reasons into the design of the header and am VERY grateful...and I did obvioulsy have enough skill to take care of any massaging to utilize your product. The whole point was to be sure anyone reading would be able to do the same.


If you are in the market for a new performance turbo for your Turbo-Mopar vehicle your choices are now limited due to the lack of Chrysler style performance turbine housings. Since we planned for this product to be around for a while we anticipated that there would be more and more customers using the Ford style housings as the Chrysler versions dry up. From our perspective, had we cast the turbine port of the header to match the Chrysler turbine housing all future Ford turbine housing applications would be voicing complaints. It seems we just can't win.

I guess my only misunderstanding with that was (at the time) the only way I knew of the neccessary porting was by talking to you on the phone and by word of mouth on the board. I still fail to understand why the port was for a Ford housing but the bolt apttern was Chrysler only? One would think that if it was cast for a Ford housing than it would be drilled/tapped for a Ford bolt pattern as well. I realize this costs more money but certainly you can see how this would confuse new customers unaware of the situation.

[t3rse]

I agree, didn't someone use a vacuum cleaner to test mufflers, Gus/Gary maybe??????


Gus used a leaf blower and Bernoulli tube

[turbovanman²]

Gus used a leaf blower and Bernoulli tube

Yeah, thats its, :clap:

[Chris W]

Chris,

I never implied that you or your sight said it was a true bolt on...my intent was to bring attention that this thread was misleading concerning the TU header as if you go back and read it was implied that it indeed was a true bolt on no mod setup...not intentionally mind you.

I know the reasons into the design of the header and am VERY grateful...and I did obvioulsy have enough skill to take care of any massaging to utilize your product. The whole point was to be sure anyone reading would be able to do the same.

I guess my only misunderstanding with that was (at the time) the only way I knew of the neccessary porting was by talking to you on the phone and by word of mouth on the board. I still fail to understand why the port was for a Ford housing but the bolt apttern was Chrysler only? One would think that if it was cast for a Ford housing than it would be drilled/tapped for a Ford bolt pattern as well. I realize this costs more money but certainly you can see how this would confuse new customers unaware of the situation.

As mentioned before by Reeves, I don't think there is an aftermarket header that is a true "bolt-on". All ports will never be a perfect match out of the box. If you are really in to the sport then you will probably be maximizing flow by port matching everything. It's what separates the guy/gal who just enjoys a little wrenching once in a while to the true enthusiast.

Our intent was to switch to the Ford Style housing once all the Chrysler versions had been discontinued so there was no need to drill for both. It took over a year for that to happen. In the near future we will offer the option, but, since both bolt patterns are very close to one another we prefer not to do both on the same manifold.

Chris-TU

[BadAssPerformance]

This is the tri-y, in question. The ported stocker was done by me, I THINK it was done right.
and yes the header increase MPH (actually nearly five mph, but I said 4 cause no one would believe it) I did go from 127best@10.81, to 132@10.6o's.. How much HP that equates to, I don't know.
Et would have been better but the added torque induced traction problems. Going by memory, I had to add pulse width to the lower off idle fuel map to get the spool right but it spools better than the ported stocker once I got that ironed out.
I then removed fuel at the upper rpm high boost ranges as I recall. All and All it was a very worthwhile fab job.

Warren, you make performance artwork! :hail:

[BadAssPerformance]

I'm sorry that I stirred the ''I did all this extra work to my car and spent more money on this pretty header so it has to make more HP'' pot.

So an equal length runner shorty tube header cannot make more power than a ported stocker or a log? :confused2:

[jckrieger]

So an equal length runner shorty tube header cannot make more power than a ported stocker or a log? :confused2:

Have you guys ever looked at the old Chrysler 2.XL turbo race motors? From the pictures I've seen, they all had short/long tube headers. Clearly there is some benefit if we're seeing it in the real world now and Chrysler saw it back in the 80's with factory backed race engine development.

[moparzrule]

So an equal length runner shorty tube header cannot make more power than a ported stocker or a log? :confused2:

Wow, do you selectively read? I have no idea how you got that about the ported stocker when I have repeatedly said that over 350 WHP I think the ported stocker has reached it's useful max and it would be worth it at that point to switch to something aftermarket. Below 350, the gain (or lack thereof) is not worth the expense. BUT yet again I have to explain here, this argument is about TU's header VS the shorty tube header. And as we all know here, we are talking about applications that your header is geared toward, over 400 WHP applications that are mostly race only. Forget the ported stocker argument at this point, which I've been saying for like the last 2 pages.

The ''honda'' testing with the log VS tube header is no proof of anything either. TU's header is a WAY better design than the log they were using, probably flows twice as much too.

[BadAssPerformance]

Wow, do you selectively read? I have no idea how you got that about the ported stocker when I have repeatedly said that over 350 WHP I think the ported stocker has reached it's useful max and it would be worth it at that point to switch to something aftermarket. Below 350, the gain (or lack thereof) is not worth the expense. BUT yet again I have to explain here, this argument is about TU's header VS the shorty tube header. And as we all know here, we are talking about applications that your header is geared toward, over 400 WHP applications that are mostly race only. Forget the ported stocker argument at this point, which I've been saying for like the last 2 pages.

The ''honda'' testing with the log VS tube header is no proof of anything either. TU's header is a WAY better design than the log they were using, probably flows twice as much too.

Wow can you make a smartass comment and not take one back?! :rolleyes:

What selectively read? What did you mean by it then? :confused2: Your comment implys that a tube header looks nice but wont make more power. How is this comment supposed to be taken? Give this a shot for once, think before you type.

I dont care about Honda proof? F that. There are books, SAE papers, etc about the benefits of individual runner headers and the efficiency and performance gains they will deliver! Do you not understand how an equal length runner header works? Do things you dont understand scare you? :confused2:

Do you understand efficiency? For example if an intake flows better it can make the same power easier than a lesser flowing stock intake? Wouldn't a better performaing header (of any type) be able to make the same power level easier than a stock one too? Just because you can make 300hp with one part doesnt mean that its not a good idea to put a better part on that can make 300hp more efficiently.

I'm guessing you do not understand this because your post above basically says that a ported stocker is good to 350hp and a race tube header is needed above 400hp... and somehow your logic makes it sound like the TU header shouldnt be used to make 350hp more efficiently than you can with a ported stocker? :confused2:

There was no "tube header vs TU header" argument untill you immediately made the group buy thread into one which is now this thread. The tube header group buy is not targeted towards the same consumer as a ported stocker or the TU header and never was until you made it that way!

There was interest in the community for such a product and when we decided (10 years after I made the prototype) to actually make some, all this BS happens. For what? No wonder people dont step up and bring new technology to this community more often, for not wanting to have to argue about it for pages.

From the start all you do is crap on the tube header with no proof of anything right or wrong. WTF is your point Matt? Do you not want us to make these? Are they evil? :eek: ;)

[GLHNSLHT2]

The tube header is beautiful. I just wish it mounte the turbo in a different spot for less mods.

[BadAssPerformance]

Thanks, but unfortunately due to the intake being in the way that makes it a bit difficult :(

[turbovanman²]

Thanks, but unfortunately due to the intake being in the way that makes it a bit difficult :(

Why do you need an intake? :evil: :eyebrows:

[BadAssPerformance]

Why do you need an intake? :evil: :eyebrows:

Exactly! What if we made an exhaust header that channeled the exhaust ports back to the next intake port so with the firing order 1-3-4-2 the #1 exhaust port goes to the #3 intake port!? Its the perpetual flow manifold! :D

[moparzrule]

What selectively read? What did you mean by it then? :confused2: Your comment implys that a tube header looks nice but wont make more power.


There's no way you could know that this tube header is capable of more power than the TU header because no one knows how much more power the TU header makes over a ported stocker.



Do you understand efficiency? For example if an intake flows better it can make the same power easier than a lesser flowing stock intake? Wouldn't a better performaing header (of any type) be able to make the same power level easier than a stock one too? Just because you can make 300hp with one part doesnt mean that its not a good idea to put a better part on that can make 300hp more efficiently.


Uggh, thats my point. The ported stock manifold is plenty efficient until 350 WHP levels, spending money on any aftermarket header below 350 is a waste. That is strictly my opinion.



I'm guessing you do not understand this because your post above basically says that a ported stocker is good to 350hp and a race tube header is needed above 400hp... and somehow your logic makes it sound like the TU header shouldnt be used to make 350hp more efficiently than you can with a ported stocker? :confused2:


Whoa whoa whoa hold on there cowboy, you are definitely putting words in my mouth there. This is the part where I said you have selective reading. I never said your tube header was needed over 400 WHP. I said the group you are targetting is people with over 400.




There was no "tube header vs TU header" argument untill you immediately made the group buy thread into one which is now this thread. The tube header group buy is not targeted towards the same consumer as a ported stocker or the TU header and never was until you made it that way!


I'm aware. My whole point of posting was to open people's eye's a little, that the people you are targeting are better off with a TU header! No need to spend more money and many more hours of fabrication work. Any tube header is a waste for these cars because the 8 valve head does not flow enough to warrant needing a tube header. The TU header flows plenty for any 8 valve head, RACE ONLY or not, there will be no restriction at any HP level any 8 valve head can put out. No restriction means it won't make any less power than a tube header.

[BadAssPerformance]

There's no way you could know that this tube header is capable of more power than the TU header because no one knows how much more power the TU header makes over a ported stocker.

Exactly, there is no way you know it is not! You're the one comparing and claiming everything in this thread!?


Uggh, thats my point. The ported stock manifold is plenty efficient until 350 WHP levels, spending money on any aftermarket header below 350 is a waste. That is strictly my opinion.[QUOTE]

Again another claim, you have no proof of how efficient a ported stocker is vs. anything.

[QUOTE]Whoa whoa whoa hold on there cowboy, you are definitely putting words in my mouth there. This is the part where I said you have selective reading. I never said your tube header was needed over 400 WHP. I said the group you are targetting is people with over 400.

Why did you post it is used over 400hp in you last post then? And you put word in my mouth. I am targeting anyone who wants a tube header and wants do do all the extra fab work to make it work, I never said any hp figure, you did. So you still dont understand efficiency?


I'm aware. My whole point of posting was to open people's eye's a little, that the people you are targeting are better off with a TU header! No need to spend more money and many more hours of fabrication work. Any tube header is a waste for these cars because the 8 valve head does not flow enough to warrant needing a tube header. The TU header flows plenty for any 8 valve head, RACE ONLY or not, there will be no restriction at any HP level any 8 valve head can put out. No restriction means it won't make any less power than a tube header.

Open eyes to what? You have no idea the capabilities of this product, heck, I dont even think you undersatnd how the TU header works... and you continue to mention flow which you agreed was a bad measurement for a headers performance.

How can you say that the green apple makes more HP than the red apple when NOBODY KNOWS!?

[t3rse]

Do things you dont understand scare you? :confused2:


:lol::clap:


Why do you need an intake? :evil: :eyebrows:

You've got it wrong...have to have the intake, but the header is just an accessory...with no runners at all you get the best exhaust scavaging possible and you remove that nasty restriction known as a turbo and you save weight to boot!




How can you say that the green apple makes more HP than the red apple when NOBODY KNOWS!?

Listen here mofo...I know. The yellow apple makes more hp than the green or red. The reason is in the pigments. See the yellow pigment attracts the spectrum of light that helps jump start fusion in these marvels of modern technology we call four cylinder engines.






This is a really stupid debate. Everyone knows that once you run a low 12 everything you believe comes true. If you go any faster, you automatically become wrong and you no longer know what you are talking about.

[BadAssPerformance]

^^^ LOL the magic yellow apple! Thats the secret why all the ricers use bright yellow everywhere!!! Yellow = Performance! :D

[turbovanman²]

Whoa whoa whoa hold on there cowboy, you are definitely putting words in my mouth there. This is the part where I said you have selective reading. I never said your tube header was needed over 400 WHP. I said the group you are targetting is people with over 400.

He's targeting anyone who wants one, either stock, mild or wild.



I'm aware. My whole point of posting was to open people's eye's a little, that the people you are targeting are better off with a TU header! No need to spend more money and many more hours of fabrication work. Any tube header is a waste for these cars because the 8 valve head does not flow enough to warrant needing a tube header. The TU header flows plenty for any 8 valve head, RACE ONLY or not, there will be no restriction at any HP level any 8 valve head can put out. No restriction means it won't make any less power than a tube header.

Aaron proved they make power, even with a crappy 2 1/4 sv.

I just don't understand the debate, people have choice, no one is forcing ANYONE to buy this, TU's header or a ported stocker. If Joe Blow wants a TU header, he buys one, if he wants JT's, he plunks his money down. If he says, f*ck it and leaves his stocker on, awesome, thats the power of choice. :nod:

[BadAssPerformance]

I just don't understand the debate, people have choice, no one is forcing ANYONE to buy this, TU's header or a ported stocker. If Joe Blow wants a TU header, he buys one, if he wants JT's, he plunks his money down. If he says, f*ck it and leaves his stocker on, awesome, thats the power of choice. :nod:

Exactly Simon, no one is being forced to buy anything but for some reason he seems to be on a crusade against it, like it is evil? That is the only reason why I am questioning Matt to try to figure out WTF his crusade is for?

Right now, it is like if he started selling ported manifold and someone started saying his porting was crap without proof. :confused2:

...try to do something for the common good and get burned at the stake :(

[Directconnection]

No wonder people dont step up and bring new technology to this community more often, for not wanting to have to argue about it for pages.


#1) because people will rip off YOUR idea(s)

I know of a special someone with many innovative ideas on the plate, but doesn't want someone to copy his ideas and sell them as their own. So, they will never see the light of day. Same thing if *I* ever make something again....

[8valves]

Maybe because they aren't the same design? I kept wondering why there was hesitation to tell me exactly what header he was running, so I had to ask it point blank outright and then you had no choice what to say.
All this argument before about headers not all being equal, then you base your HP estimates off a header thats....not equal. drrrr

What hesitation? I gave you facts. Hard data proving that a tubular header can make a 40WHP gain over top of a ported stock manifold. That was my statement. It's true. I gave everyone proof of such.

It's not my fault that you happened to miss out on seeing Warren's work over the past year and half that it has been completed, and posted all over any TD board.

I would take my thinwall 1 3/4" "shorty" EQ header and put it up against Warren's stepped tri-y any day for a peak power competition that people seem to keep leabing towards. It wouldn't stand a chance if powerband were taken into consideration.



Any tube header is a waste for these cars because the 8 valve head does not flow enough to warrant needing a tube header. The TU header flows plenty for any 8 valve head, RACE ONLY or not, there will be no restriction at any HP level any 8 valve head can put out. No restriction means it won't make any less power than a tube header.

Why are we still talking about a flowbench test to measure how power capable a header is? :confused2:

STOP THE PRESS! Please, ANYONE on here that knows of ANYONE racing a turbo car in ANY class or engine configuration........ inform them to ditch their headers and put on a 6" ID piece of pipe for primaries and a 10" collector, with T junctions for merges because that will flow more per cylinder and will make the same power as their expensive and fancy dancy tubular headers!

:D :eyebrows:

[Directconnection]

Exactly Simon, no one is being forced to buy anything but for some reason he seems to be on a crusade against it, like it is evil? That is the only reason why I am questioning Matt to try to figure out WTF his crusade is for?

Right now, it is like if he started selling ported manifold and someone started saying his porting was crap without proof. :confused2:

...try to do something for the common good and get burned at the stake :(

You know what Matt? I am betting JT doesn't really give too much of a rat's arse if he actually makes a run of these. Say he makes 10.... for the selling price, he'll make what? $100 each profit if lucky? Best case scenario.... he makes $1,000 for the many hours of work putting into this (R+D), finding supplies, keeping touch with a grumpy welder, haggling with a CNC job shop for flanges and welding fixtures on time and cost, tracking down $ from people that only put deposits on, arguing and putting up with your BS, etc...

Chris' TU cast header is a GREAT part (would love to flowtest one) and at 1st, I thought your attacking JT was on behalf of you touting your ported exhaust manifold supremacy, but now I realize it's on behalf of the TU header instead? I feel you're only hurting TU's rep as his manifold has spoken well on it's own behalf and is a quality part.

FWIW: I would love to port one and see what happens.... *I* personally would prefer the TU cast unit properly ported, myself.

[Pat]

This thread is like a car crash. I don't want to look, but I can't seem to help myself....

[Chris W]

Matt's ported manifolds, our TU hybrid header and JT's tubular header all have a place in this market. I don't feel JT's stepping on our toes, or even Matt's toes for that matter, by making it available. I understand where Matt is coming from and he does mean well, but, I feel he needs to back off. Maybe someone will do a true back to back test one day on all these manifolds so we will have a better idea of how things compare. For now I think JT has more important things to do then defend a product that he hasn't even taken orders for yet.

On the brighter side, Pat, I love that analogy:thumb:

Chris-TU

PS- I think most of you know Matt's opinions are Matt's opinions. He and I had a discussion in the past about his posts which is why he chose to remove the TU avatar from his name. We still appreciate the great work he does for us though. CW

[GLHNSLHT2]

My tube header flows a hair less than a ported stocker but my turbo spools 500rpms faster?

[Ondonti]

Aaron already touched on it.
The 4 2 1 or Tri-y header is comparable for peak hp but its specially built to seperate exhaust pulses in order to spool the turbo sooner.

So yes, you can compare the peak HP numbers.

Continued talk about Flowbench numbers on an exhaust manifold should not impress anyone. Flowbenches just dont work on the exhaust side. They can be useful for exhaust ports but they are worthless for log manifolds.
Or we can ignore the facts and pretend that testing each runner on a log manifold is useful and say "look how evenly each one flows" and pretending that this tells us how it will behave when 4 runners are fighting each other over flowpaths.
Or step up to reality.

Does anyone have back to back ported vs stock dyno charts at 200hp and at 250, 350, and 400+hp?
or are we just assuming that since someone made such and such hp with a ported stocker, that its not possible to gain hp with a better manifold?

There is no way that a high exhaust backpressure log manifold can compete with a tubular manifold, even on an 8 valve. Exhaust reversion denies this claim.

[Ondonti]

Those who are hoping to flowbench manifolds need to stop pretending this will tell us anything about HP.
You need to test all 4 runners at the same time. It doesnt matter how evenly or how much they flow when you are testing individual runners.

Whoever started flowbenching exhaust manifolds set a standard for "quality" that is mistaken and has set a lot of people into standards that are just wrong!
Just like Cam's are sold based on Advertised duration and lift even though that doesnt really tell us anything about the cams profile! People have been ignorantly taught that this is the way to chose cams. Because of that, many cams are designed to meet these worthless standards instead of true performance.

I think the standards for manifolds in this community are based on this worthless test instead of true performance.

[2.216VTurbo]

^^^ LOL the magic yellow apple! Thats the secret why all the ricers use bright yellow everywhere!!! Yellow = Performance! :D

So far mostly what I have taken home from this thread is that yellow cars make more power:amen:

[Ondonti]

My bet is that a ported stocker wouldn't gain much of anything on Aaron's setup BTW.

He probably wouldn't have time but I would love to see that test!

[BadAssPerformance]

So far mostly what I have taken home from this thread is that yellow cars make more power:amen:

LOL! :thumb:

[ScottD]

This thread is like a car crash. I don't want to look, but I can't seem to help myself....

I think it is more like watching my neighbor and his wife argue. There are calm, rational, well reasoned arguments followed by a torrent of rapid-fire nonsensical emotional outbursts.

[30 PSI SHADOW]

This thread is like a car crash. I don't want to look, but I can't seem to help myself....

LMFAO!! Pat, your always an ice breaker..

PS: While everyone is agueing on the side of the road, I will be flyin by with the new header...

[turbovanman²]

This thread is like a car crash. I don't want to look, but I can't seem to help myself....

Hahahhaa, too true, :lol:

[Austrian Dodge]

So far mostly what I have taken home from this thread is that yellow cars make more power:amen:

dude, thats beige :p
you gotta admin, you have the RED apple :thumb:

[Shadow]

Been thinking about this a bit, and seeing that the Charger got dragged into the middle of this I feel compelled to say a few things. While I Fully appreciate the enthusiasm ppl have shown I would like to reiterate some points I have made along the way and continue to make regardless of how much power the Charger has made. First off, I would like to point out (again) that comparing my build to SMP is Not a fair comparison. Stephane made his power on 28psi boost, obviously a Way more efficient system. Warrens build is also much more efficient, he makes (prob) the same power as me with a significantly smaller turbo. I don't know that much about Reeves build so I can't really comment on it. My point here is that there is a lot more to power making than just the #'s. I always knew that this build would be based on high PR and running big boost #'s because I knew my intention was to see how far I could go on the stock pieces. This does not mean I haven't been Fully aware (the entire time) that there was a lot more efficiency to be had! After all, my original mock-up of the twin turbo (the one I Almost built back in 96-97) used an equil length 1 1/2" ID tube header! (amoungst other custom pieces that have now proven out to eliminate all of the restrictions in an 8v build right down to the head) I just don't want ppl to get the Wrong impression of my build, I'm the first to admitt....it's Not as efficient as it could be, but that's a direct result of it's build purpose in the first place. Didn't I say all along that it was never an ultamite build, and that IMHO was a very simple build that was lacking in a lot of parts that I knew would make me more power on less boost? I guess all I'm trying to say is when it comes to efficiency, it's a no brainer....the header will be more efficient, and for a lot more reasons than stated here! But it does come down to what you want out of your build. Eg. I May be at the limit of what my ported stocker can do right now! Does that mean I have to go to a header to go further? Obviously not, I could push 600whp through my ported stocker, but it would all depend on what comes after! IF I'm done right now, it's only because my mani preasure would be too high and I'm no longer getting good flow through it. This being said, and knowing that the Holset has a closed design wheel, I could clip the wheel. I could also run a larger A/R and/or larger turbine wheel. (a very popular way to make bigger #'s) But all of these options would cost me something.....street drivability from loss of power under the curve! If, on the other hand, I chose to go with a well designed header. I would make more power by moving the exhaust more efficiently Through the turbine wheel. So, I would make more peak power, loose nothing under the curve, prob gain better street response and not have to change up a turbo that I'm very happy with! :amen: I may be at a point where I have No choise but to get more efficient (that or turn the Charger into a pure race car! Fat chance! lol) Having said that I truly believe that a proper built header will be more efficient on practically any build. So to me, the Q isn't which is more efficient, it's what is practical for you? :nod:

[Reaper1]

Any tube header is a waste for these cars because the 8 valve head does not flow enough to warrant needing a tube header. The TU header flows plenty for any 8 valve head, RACE ONLY or not, there will be no restriction at any HP level any 8 valve head can put out. No restriction means it won't make any less power than a tube header.

Really!? The 8V head can't make use of a tubular header?! Wow, somebody should have told those guys that built the Bonneville LeBaron that then! Not only was that a tubular header on that engine, but the turbo was way over by the tranny! I suppose they wasted a lot of money and time on that when they should have just used a giant log!

Also, peak power is not the only area we are concerned about. As you've diligently aregued we are also wanting to widen the power band and get more area under the curve. Well, even thoughbI have a lot of respect for the stepped log design(Indy cars used it for a LONG time), a propperly designed tubular unit WILL spool the turbo faster....period. It will also afford LESS backpressure to the engine, and even though the log may be stepped it STILL can't balance each cylinder the way a tubular unit can.

Logs have their place. TU's unit is definatly top tier when it comes to that type of component being available for our cars and is a very good value for the performance it provides. However, for the people looking for that last "Nth" of power, THIS is where they should look(AFTER almost everything else, if they are already using the TU unit!!!). Also, as with EVERY other part you intall on your engine, it HAS to work with ALL of the other components on it to maximize its usefulness. That might mean a different cam, different timing, different fueling, ect. Sure, you can put it on and see a difference, but the REAL difference will be realized when you match the rest of the system.

So, what does that mean? Well, somebody like Shadow could run the TU manifold and tune the entire set-up to work well with it. If all he does is bolt on the EQ header and nothing else, he *might* actually see a loss!! However, if he were to match the rest of the set-up to utilize the new part, NOW he will see the true gains. That hypothetical situation is just that, as *I* beleive that just bolting on the EQ header would in fact net a gain over the TU part in THAT application.

For me, and what I have planned I'm weighing the bennefits and problems of using the tube header vs TU's unit. My car will be 90% street car most of the time, and as we all know, tube headers matched with turbos on the street don't tend to last as long, in general. Not saying that it will fail in a year or whatever, but eventually it WILL have issues. I will also be doing road course racing and auto-x, which will both take their tole on that part, BUT, I know I could also use the bennefit of the faster spool it can provide as I plan on using a fairly large turbo for those applications becuase my power goal is so high. So, for me it is a toss up at the moment.....

[mcsvt]

...

Chris' TU cast header is a GREAT part (would love to flowtest one) and at 1st, I thought your attacking JT was on behalf of you touting your ported exhaust manifold supremacy, but now I realize it's on behalf of the TU header instead? I feel you're only hurting TU's rep as his manifold has spoken well on it's own behalf and is a quality part.

FWIW: I would love to port one and see what happens.... *I* personally would prefer the TU cast unit properly ported, myself.

Steve I know of one that wouldn't mind being ported :eyebrows: ...

[Ondonti]

I dont see how a "tubular header" made out of the same material as a log header will be any less reliable when properly supported. See Warren's setup. Its not about to fail anytime soon, and its not even scheduled pipe.

A cast piece should be more reliable then anything welded, but when properly supported, a welded manifold has no reason to fail. Relying on the welds alone to hold things up for years is a bit foolish on a fancy design. Still, there is a good chance a well built manifold wont fail even without hangers if someone like Aaron is doing the welding.

Its not me doing the welds, its someone who builds Heffner cars.

[8valves]

I dont see how a "tubular header" made out of the same material as a log header will be any less reliable when properly supported. See Warren's setup. Its not about to fail anytime soon, and its not even scheduled pipe.

A cast piece should be more reliable then anything welded, but when properly supported, a welded manifold has no reason to fail. Relying on the welds alone to hold things up for years is a bit foolish on a fancy design. Still, there is a good chance a well built manifold wont fail even without hangers if someone like Aaron is doing the welding.

Its not me doing the welds, its someone who builds Heffner cars.

While that's certainly nice to hear the confidence, I have plenty to learn and grow with as far as welding is concerned. When (if) I've been at it for 20 years maybe I'd agree more so. Ha!

And plus, if you asked Undergroud Racing our fab department is a bunch of part time oil-change boys who grabbed a welder and tried their best! I tend to think I'm a bit better then that. :p

The header on the Daytona is not supported. I just wanted to see how long it'll stick together. Over 2K miles so far with relentless beating, no problems yet! (knock on wood!)

[Ondonti]

I know your's is not supported. A gt42 on there might hurt it but that lil turbo...........

[Reaper1]

If I can figure a way to support a GT3037R on that header, then I may give the header even more of a nod. I agree that with support the issues I am thinking of should be kept to a minimum. However, I don't know what all can be done to add support to that set-up.

Comments?

[Directconnection]

Steve I know of one that wouldn't mind being ported :eyebrows: ...

I'm not too far from you, either.

Let me know if you're interested.... :thumb:

[8valves]

I know your's is not supported. A gt42 on there might hurt it but that lil turbo...........

True true. But boy would it be fun with a GT42!

We ran a 42, then a 45 on the Talon on a thickwall topmount header with no support for two years. Not many miles, but a lot of high rpm track use, dyno use, etc. It held up great.


If I can figure a way to support a GT3037R on that header, then I may give the header even more of a nod. I agree that with support the issues I am thinking of should be kept to a minimum. However, I don't know what all can be done to add support to that set-up.

Comments?

Piece of cake. :eyebrows:

[Shadow]

If I can figure a way to support a GT3037R on that header, then I may give the header even more of a nod. I agree that with support the issues I am thinking of should be kept to a minimum. However, I don't know what all can be done to add support to that set-up.

Comments?

Adding a pivot type support (so the stainless can move) shouldn't be too difficult of a task.

[Reaper1]

Then this might be more of the way I need to go to get what I'm looking for. I want to try and have my cake and eat it too...which isn't the easiest thing sometimes...

[turbovanman²]

Then this might be more of the way I need to go to get what I'm looking for. I want to try and have my cake and eat it too...which isn't the easiest thing sometimes...

But it sure is good, :love: :clap:

[Anonymous_User]

Not really wanting to get involved in this discussion, but I wanted to highlight a point made that I wholeheartedly agree with:


tune the entire set-up to work well with it. If all he does is bolt on the EQ header and nothing else, he *might* actually see a loss!! However, if he were to match the rest of the set-up to utilize the new part, NOW he will see the true gains.

[Ondonti]

I dont see making less power even if the tune is messed up. Anything you do to lower the backpressure lowers the amount of timing needed for best HP.

If you run lean on the new header because it flows better, with too much timing, its dangerous but power isnt going to disapear. I don't really understand why this is even an issue. I don't think people here want to buy a nice header and then refuse to tune the setup.

[Aries_Turbo]

I don't think people here want to buy a nice header and then refuse to tune the setup.

maybe not so much anymore but it used to be that way. tons of parts on a stock ecu and wondering why it blows up.

Brian

[BadAssPerformance]

maybe not so much anymore but it used to be that way. tons of parts on a stock ecu and wondering why it blows up.

Brian

and many cars running 11s and 12s on stock ECU's not blowing up... just need fuel to go with that boost ;)

[Aries_Turbo]

oh i know they worked ok with cobblejobs but with control over the ecu its alot better and alot more reliable. :)

Brian

[RoadWarrior222]

BTW has anyone thought of flow biasing their exhaust ports to improve flow into stock cast manifolds? Did this on my escort n/a head and now at idle, each exhaust pulse is a real strong PUH-PUH-PUH you can really feel at the tailpipe.

[turbovanman²]

BTW has anyone thought of flow biasing their exhaust ports to improve flow into stock cast manifolds? Did this on my escort n/a head and now at idle, each exhaust pulse is a real strong PUH-PUH-PUH you can really feel at the tailpipe.

Pics?

[Ondonti]

and many cars running 11s and 12s on stock ECU's not blowing up... just need fuel to go with that boost ;)

or replacing pistons between rounds?

[puppet]

... I am targeting anyone who wants a tube header and wants do do ...

LOL ...whaaa? :yuck:

[RoadWarrior222]

Pics?

Hokay, this don't look like much, and I had light and time problems when I took the pics and couldn't figure how to get the camera in macro mode...

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7254/export01ib4.jpg
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5142/export02vu2.jpg
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2778/export03bs2.jpg

What's going on there is that it's a bit of a crappy casting with thin wall ports, there's only about 1/8" or less of metal in there, thickens a little toward the edge. Ports are cavernous for an N/A really. The black line is the gasket shape and it's left unmatched to the gasket/manifold because the ports are too huge already, there's not enough metal to do it, and for N/A it leaves a nice anti-reversion flange effect in place. However... I'm trying to encourage the flow to get round the almost right angle into the manifold... so two edges of the port on the right angle are rounded off, and immediately before the lip there are turbulation ridges carved with a dremel, that act as a "trip strip" to kind of put "top spin" on a rolling sausage of gas to slice it round the corner. It will also attach to the curved edge somewhat. (Think of chipping golf balls or curving soccer balls, same sort of thing with vortices)

These are biased right and down, right and down, left and down, left and down, across the ports according to which way the manifold turns/flows coming out of that port.

The shadetree flowbench, otherwise known as the hose in the laundry sink, showed flow getting turned a 45 degree angle as it came off the walls on these sides, I got wet a few times when cleaning it up 'coz of that lol.

This is of course a crude fix, not the optimum way to shape ports, aimed at persuading the gases to turn a bit into the header to help it's awful shape. (And if you're completely reprofiling ports, you probably made a decent header...)

If/when I get a header, the ridges will mostly be covered by a port plate insert I'll have in the port floor to have a nice graceful swooping SSR straight out of the valve into the header.

[puppet]

Cost ... can't this piping be mandrel bent JT? Would cut hand work in half, at least.

[BadAssPerformance]

It would, but to cover the cost to tool that up would require a big order... So far in the other thread there are less than a half dozen?

[Reeves]

I've also wondered that. Make the header the old skool way and just tack weld, then send each runner to a mandrel bending shop to mock.

I used to have a contact for a shop that would do that years ago. I think it's on my old computer at home. I was going to have my intercooler pipes remade in 1 piece mandrel bent sections at one time.....glad I didn't cause I've changed them since then...lol.

Thinking back....I seem to remember where JRB exhaust used to do that?

[Ondonti]

Then you have to use thinwall tubing and bracing becomes more important.

[Pat]

Then you have to use thinwall tubing and bracing becomes more important.

Is the weight of the turbo the only issue when using thin wall tubing for a header?

[RoadWarrior222]

I'd figure you'd also want to be really careful about chafing, corrosion protection and not letting it get too hot... it won't conduct heat away very well at all, so has potential to melt and blow.

[8valves]

Is the weight of the turbo the only issue when using thin wall tubing for a header?

In my opinion no. There are lots of NA headers out there that are poorly manufactured that crack as well. Quality of tubing, quality of the weld, and quality of the fab process itself (what gets welded when, where, style, back purge, etc).

I think that added stress of the heat and weight in a turbo header just exaggerate the inherent issues.

That in no way is stating they can't work out just fine either! Just that there is a vast difference between the $89 per set blackjack headers and a set of one off Kooks or SPD's!

[turbovanman²]

The Rotary guys next door build their own headers and don't use any bracing, and they are running monster turbo's.

[Warren Stramer]

Its the natural harmonic vibrations inherent to 180 degree flat cranks that literaly "wag" the header to pieces.
I know engine dyno operators who wont put a four cyl on their dyno cause it shakes the bolts and fixtures apart! It takes a special damper coupler to keep from breaking the cranks on the dyno. Or a very well tuned harmonic damper on the crank, which we do not yet have.

[minigts]

I think the design should include a little whirly whistle in #1 exhaust port for added turbo effect. :)

[turbovanman²]

Its the natural harmonic vibrations inherent to 180 degree flat cranks that literaly "wag" the header to pieces.
I know engine dyno operators who wont put a four cyl on their dyno cause it shakes the bolts and fixtures apart! It takes a special damper coupler to keep from breaking the cranks on the dyno. Or a very well tuned harmonic damper on the crank, which we do not yet have.

That's why I like to get them balanced. The factory did a so so job, but not good enough.

I agree, I'd like to see a nice damper made for our engines, :thumb:

[Ondonti]

do td's have stock dampners?

[turbovanman²]

do td's have stock dampners?

Nope, hence balance shafts, :confused:

[moparzrule]

There's no place to even put a damper anyway

[turbovanman²]

There's no place to even put a damper anyway

Sure, where the stock crank pulley goes.

[RoadWarrior222]

Find something with close to the same stroke and piston weight maybe? Find the damper for it and finangle it to fit?

[puppet]

Don't believe there's anything you can bolt on to fix this issue. It's not balance related, it's torsional resonance.

[puppet]

It would, but to cover the cost to tool that up would require a big order... So far in the other thread there are less than a half dozen?I'd check it out anyway. Could be not as much as you'd think. CNC mandrel bending should be comparatively cheap without the cost of set-up related to manual bending operations. You've got (2)? sets of bends there? (4) if you were to offset the turbo flange. Would make your venture much easier and a bit more profitable while being able to lower the cost some. Win win.

Don't think gauge would be an issue ... the SS weld ell's are bent. What's the difference?

[RoadWarrior222]

Shadetree method = i) pack it with sand, ii) bend it between rollers nailed to a 2x10 iii) hammer golf balls through it.

[RoadWarrior222]

However, if you want to get funky, it's the CSA you want constant, doesn't necessarily have to be round. So start with oversized tubing that will flatten at the bend and give you the same CSA as an ideal circular tube, then flatten the rest of it... to get really funky, twist the oval section in a corkscrew from the ports through the bend, to the collector in the opposite direction to which the turbo spins.

Came up with the idea of ovalling the tubing, when pondering the "cheap eBay headers are too big" problem for other motors.

[86Shelby]

Why do you need an intake? :evil: :eyebrows:

Exactly! What if we made an exhaust header that channeled the exhaust ports back to the next intake port so with the firing order 1-3-4-2 the #1 exhaust port goes to the #3 intake port!? Its the perpetual flow manifold! :D

Sorry guys, but us Nebraskan's have the patent on the idea thanks to the GMModernMuscle board. I'm sure the patent can be bought dirt cheap. ;)

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/11/dei.jpg

[turbovanman²]

Sorry guys, but us Nebraskan's have the patent on the idea thanks to the GMModernMuscle board. I'm sure the patent can be bought dirt cheap. ;)

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/11/dei.jpg

Yeah, I remember that, lol! :eyebrows:



Find something with close to the same stroke and piston weight maybe? Find the damper for it and finangle it to fit?

You can't, it has to be designed for the application, each engine vibrates or has different frequency's.


Don't believe there's anything you can bolt on to fix this issue. It's not balance related, it's torsional resonance.

I disagree. My 6.2 GM Diesel rattled, shook and made a whole bunch of noise, I took off the crappy rubber stocker and put on a Fluidamper, changed the whole dynamics. Its 100 times smoother, runs quieter and sounds different. My exhausted used to buzz, not anymore, :nod:

[GLHNSLHT2]

That's because 1) it's a CHEVY and 2) it's a V8 which are inherently unbalanced. A 4 cylinder is inherently blanced, 2 up 2 down.

[turbovanman²]

That's because 1) it's a CHEVY and 2) it's a V8 which are inherently unbalanced. A 4 cylinder is inherently blanced, 2 up 2 down.

If they are soo smooth, why do they need balance shafts?????? Answer, because they are not, they still vibrate and bigger 4 cylinders get buzzy, IE ours.


The V8 has example was merely showing how a good damper can affect/control the vibrations.

[Directconnection]

That's why I like to get them balanced. The factory did a so so job, but not good enough.



There's nothing wrong with the factory balance job whatsoever. I have balanced a few so far. As a matter of fact.... last week I finished the rotating assembly of that circle track 2.2 I was asking about eagle rod info for. I cut the counterweights down, trimmed them, knife edged and bullet nosed them. Prior to this, the crank was only 3 grams out at the front, and 5 at the rear.
edit: when finished, it was balanced to within 1/2 of a gram front and rear.

[turbovanman²]

There's nothing wrong with the factory balance job whatsoever. I have balanced a few so far. As a matter of fact.... last week I finished the rotating assembly of that circle track 2.2 I was asking about eagle rod info for. I cut the counterweights down, trimmed them, knife edged and bullet nosed them. Prior to this, the crank was only 3 grams out at the front, and 5 at the rear.
edit: when finished, it was balanced to within 1/2 of a gram front and rear.

I again disagree, the factory job is piss poor at best. A 2.5 with poly mounts and no BS's buzz's annoyingly, after they are balanced, its seriously reduced to almost unnoticeable levels. I've said this before and I'll say it again, all my stock 2.5's that had no bs's and poly mounts shook the steering wheel at idle, after balancing, fixed. Other customer vehicles the bs's were removed, the car/van now buzzed the mirrors, the exhaust droned more and more overall vibration. One van I put a poly front mount in and it shook the wheel so bad and buzzed the interior I had to put a stock motor mount back in.

Your saying 3 and 5 grams is ok?????????? multiply that by 6, 7000 rpm, :o

[moparzrule]

Sure, where the stock crank pulley goes.

And where does the stuff that gets driven by the crank pulley go?


About the balance/vibration issue....I've found that a lot of it has to do with the calibration. If I had a rough idling engine, changed a few tables in the cal and it idled super smooth. The 2.5 in my shadow (without BS's) was perfectly fine after the cal was tuned, and yes I had poly front mount and bobble strut.
Also, my 2.2 (unbalanced) turned over 7000 RPM on a normal basis with no issues, me and a thousand+ other people's 2.2's that aren't balanced. I don't think we need a harmonic balancer whatsoever, if you are that anal than getting the rotating assembly balanced is good enough but not even necessary. The prepped rods from TU come balanced, and the wiseco pistons I have should be pretty much all the same as well.
It *may* be slightly more necessary on 2.5's without balance shafts. The super long stroke makes it almost impossible to have a large enough counterweight. That causes vibration even balanced.

[BadAssPerformance]

I'd check it out anyway. Could be not as much as you'd think. CNC mandrel bending should be comparatively cheap without the cost of set-up related to manual bending operations. You've got (2)? sets of bends there? (4) if you were to offset the turbo flange. Would make your venture much easier and a bit more profitable while being able to lower the cost some. Win win.

Don't think gauge would be an issue ... the SS weld ell's are bent. What's the difference?

the difference is making one bend vs. making a series of many bends on top of eachother... not all mandrel bening machines can do that tight of a package. Might be worth looking into tho.

["Top Fuel" Bender]

the difference is making one bend vs. making a series of many bends on top of eachother... not all mandrel bening machines can do that tight of a package. Might be worth looking into tho.

there's a company in florida that will duplicate header tubes
Guy I used to work with welded something up for his 4cyl. watercooled porsche then had them cut the tubes off the flanges and bend duplicate turbes, turned out pretty good

[BadAssPerformance]

What company?

[puppet]

the difference is making one bend vs. making a series of many bends on top of eachother... not all mandrel bening machines can do that tight of a package. Might be worth looking into tho.Might be misunderstanding you but the supplier would fab each runner "wild" (*) so you can cut and weld to the flanges. You do like Reeves and Top Fuel said ... supply each runner as a template.

(*) exact bend geometry produced within the runner but each end long by 1/2" or so for you to get an exact fit between runners and to each flange. A little rotation on each runner might be required prior to final cut to fit like you designed. Once each cut angle is established, a holding fixture for each runner .. and a chop saw is all you'd need then. ... and welding of course.

[puppet]

If they are soo smooth, why do they need balance shafts?????? Answer, because they are not, they still vibrate and bigger 4 cylinders get buzzy, IE ours.


The V8 has example was merely showing how a good damper can affect/control the vibrations.Warren eluded to it ... the vib is inherent in the crankshafts of inlines. Forget the balance ... what the balance shafts do is counter rotate to cancel torsional resonance. A specifically designed crankshaft would need to be produced that would fatten toward the flywheel end as well as reconfiguring the counter weights along it's length. That would limit the torsional twist and thus the resonance but you'd be adding weight with a heavier crankshaft.

You probably know this but a shaft bends (twists) along it's length as it rotates. The faster it spins the more it twists. The greater the load put on it the twist becomes greater. Take our cams for instance. Valve timing changes slightly at higher rpm ... not all of the valves but a progression from the sprocket to the other end. The valve events become retarded the father away from the sprocket you go.

The crank acts the same. It twists along the pins. Each crank has a unique twist habit .. so a unique resonance is produced. Turn your crank 10/10 and you've changed the pattern. Problem with all of this damper talk is the change happens at the flywheel end .. not at the sprocket end and it's rpm, load related. Definitely unique to each application. Can't imagine a bolt on that would fix this.

[BadAssPerformance]

Might be misunderstanding you but the supplier would fab each runner "wild" (*) so you can cut and weld to the flanges. You do like Reeves and Top Fuel said ... supply each runner as a template.

(*) exact bend geometry produced within the runner but each end long by 1/2" or so for you to get an exact fit between runners and to each flange. A little rotation on each runner might be required prior to final cut to fit like you designed. Once each cut angle is established, a holding fixture for each runner .. and a chop saw is all you'd need then. ... and welding of course.


I understand how they are made and how to use them, just not sure if it can be done cheap enough in low volume

[puppet]

I understand how they are made and how to use them, just not sure if it can be done cheap enough in low volume

:thumb: Hope you can get hooked up.

[Reeves]

Shadetree method = i) pack it with sand, ii) bend it between rollers nailed to a 2x10 iii) hammer golf balls through it.

Yeap, done method 1. Packed it tight with sand, heated red hot, then bent. Works pretty good, but it very time consuming and messy. Never thought about hammering balls. I was doing exhaust pipe though.


:thumb: Hope you can get hooked up.

Have you *seen* JT?
:lol:

[turbovanman²]

And where does the stuff that gets driven by the crank pulley go?

Bolts on the end, where the stocker goes, of course, :o


About the balance/vibration issue....I've found that a lot of it has to do with the calibration. If I had a rough idling engine, changed a few tables in the cal and it idled super smooth. The 2.5 in my shadow (without BS's) was perfectly fine after the cal was tuned, and yes I had poly front mount and bobble strut.
Also, my 2.2 (unbalanced) turned over 7000 RPM on a normal basis with no issues, me and a thousand+ other people's 2.2's that aren't balanced. I don't think we need a harmonic balancer whatsoever, if you are that anal than getting the rotating assembly balanced is good enough but not even necessary. The prepped rods from TU come balanced, and the wiseco pistons I have should be pretty much all the same as well.
It *may* be slightly more necessary on 2.5's without balance shafts. The super long stroke makes it almost impossible to have a large enough counterweight. That causes vibration even balanced.

Cals do have an impact but not that much.

2.2's don't buzz as much, we already know that.

And there you go, the rods for TU are already balanced, and most aftermarket piston's are, that's half the job.

Anyways, enough thread jacking, :thumb:

[Ondonti]

There was a thread a few months ago on supra Forums where Ryan Woon's 8 second 6 speed (inline 6) supra lost the dampener he was using at the big end of the track. It was pretty much a v8 model designed to fit the inline 6 and started a big rukus between vendors that might have claimed theres was "meant for an inline 6"

When it came off it cut a coolant hose and caused the car to spin at 160ish mph.

Apparently the companies that build them for v8's dont even test the products, their test is "if hp goes up, then the dampener is working"

The chrysler version of the 3.0 has a harmonic dampener but the mitsu versions have this weird $300+ pulley that has a rubber ring between its inner and outer sections.
Some people sell lightweight aluminum pullies but I dont like that idea. The big HP guys have from that running the stock pulley and stock heavy flywheel prevents crankflex problems around 800+hp. The moment they put that aluminum pulley on and a light flywheel, the crankshaft starts wanting to fail and it pounds out the center main bearings.

I wonder why the 3.0 done by chrysler has a big dampener. Was chrysler more worried about vibrations or engine life? Some guys have no problems in lower hp cars ditching the dampener. I have always been afraid to remove it even on my daily driver.

[Directconnection]

Brent, all stock dampers I have worked on are 2 piece with a rubber isolator of sorts like you recognized.

[Ondonti]

Brent, all stock dampers I have worked on are 2 piece with a rubber isolator of sorts like you recognized.Well the mitsubishi version doesnt really have a big heavy metal ring on the outside like mine, just the belt part of the pulley. Maybe its pretty beefy in weight, never actually seen one.

I wonder if you guys could adapt something like that.

While you guys think these devices should be specially made for each engine, the reality is that even the expensive liquid filled dampeners are NOT tested in any way but the dyno for hp gains. So I wouldnt bother trying to get something special for your motor. The Supra guys cant even get one...and the v8 pullies are all frauds :P

[Directconnection]

I again disagree, the factory job is piss poor at best. A 2.5 with poly mounts and no BS's buzz's annoyingly, after they are balanced, its seriously reduced to almost unnoticeable levels. I've said this before and I'll say it again, all my stock 2.5's that had no bs's and poly mounts shook the steering wheel at idle, after balancing, fixed. Other customer vehicles the bs's were removed, the car/van now buzzed the mirrors, the exhaust droned more and more overall vibration. One van I put a poly front mount in and it shook the wheel so bad and buzzed the interior I had to put a stock motor mount back in.

Your saying 3 and 5 grams is ok?????????? multiply that by 6, 7000 rpm, :o

Simon, we've been over this 100 times! :confused: 3-5 grams is nothing. But, where I work, we balance everything 1 gram or less. The rotating end of the rod, we balance to within +/- one tenth of a gram. Now, the reciprocating end, the same. pistons and pins, the same. Rings and bearings total within 1/2 a gram. That is considered SUPER anal retentive. If you add this up, that could be 3 grams total right there (rotating weights are factored TWICE on a V engine) Now, LOT of other engine builders do this when the make their bobweights: New pistons are all within 3 grams. Don't balance... just take an average. Rod big ends within 3 grams... take an average... small end within 2-3 again... take an average. There's 6-8 grams difference off the bobweights right there! Then, factor that the crank they balance accordingly will be within a few grams there and is good enough. 10 grams possibility stackup tolerance.

We had a pro stock circle track Ford engine come into our shop. (top driver in our state) Close to 600hp and this driver OVER revs his engines and is freaking hard on them. They needed a new combo put together to go down south in Nov. for some NC "Snowball" race as they call it (forget the track) A new custom Callies, or Crower crank for a Phord would take many, many weeks on order, so the boss took a short cut and bought a USED NASCAR Bryant crank. Problem was, the counterweights were so narrow (available areas for drilling, that is), it made for balancing to be a bee-otch. (follow me... story will make sense eventually). The NASCAR engine builder used alot of mallory to get the balance they needed, so it made for my job a bit harder (trying to avoid welded mallory areas as the drill would not be able to scratch it) I got it all squared away with a few days to go for delivery. It was a Tuesday, and they wanted to have the engine dynoed and in their car for Thursday so they could make it in time to NC from Maine for Saturday's race. We go to install the crank in the block on thursday morning and the counterweights HIT this style of Ford block. Oh sheet! So, I had to remove 1/4" off the counterweights via the crankgrinder, and the rebalance it. Problem was.... the CWs were small, and most of it's areas were full of welded mallory. So, I had to drill through already TOUGH forged steel (waaaaaay harder than any 4340 Callies or Crower which is waaaaay harder than any Eagle or Scat) Not to mention, now it's heat treated and work hardened from the NASCAR engine builder's welding from his mallory. I Worked from 8am thursday stright through until 4am friday. Got 3 hours sleep, came back in and finished the job. We had to put frikkin 20+ [pieces of mallory in the end, and the crank was still 100+ grams out in the front. No more areas to add mallory since we had to cut down the counterweights earlier in the week. We ended up adding weight to the inside of the fluiddamper and making it an externally balance part. But, in the end... the crank was still out of balance by 35grams in the front and this is on an 8,000+ rpm engine. No failures or odd vibrations after 2 seasons.

The "snowball" event..... they just made it to NC for practice with no real tuning and placed a top 5 finish.

Just goes to show how much you can get away with. So, 3-5 grams on a freaking 2.2 or 2.5 you will never see. 20 grams you will never be able to distinguish, either. Obviously, something was either WAAAAAY wrong with your 2.5, or your butt meter is all out of whacked. Judging by your seat of the pants posts when you were still in the 13's and 14's... I'd say it was your butt-o-meter;)

[turbovanman²]

There was a thread a few months ago on supra Forums where Ryan Woon's 8 second 6 speed (inline 6) supra lost the dampener he was using at the big end of the track. It was pretty much a v8 model designed to fit the inline 6 and started a big rukus between vendors that might have claimed theres was "meant for an inline 6"

When it came off it cut a coolant hose and caused the car to spin at 160ish mph.

Apparently the companies that build them for v8's dont even test the products, their test is "if hp goes up, then the dampener is working"

The chrysler version of the 3.0 has a harmonic dampener but the mitsu versions have this weird $300+ pulley that has a rubber ring between its inner and outer sections.
Some people sell lightweight aluminum pullies but I dont like that idea. The big HP guys have from that running the stock pulley and stock heavy flywheel prevents crankflex problems around 800+hp. The moment they put that aluminum pulley on and a light flywheel, the crankshaft starts wanting to fail and it pounds out the center main bearings.

I wonder why the 3.0 done by chrysler has a big dampener. Was chrysler more worried about vibrations or engine life? Some guys have no problems in lower hp cars ditching the dampener. I have always been afraid to remove it even on my daily driver.


Good points.

I bet Chrysler did it for warranty costs, helps the timing belt, waterpump and bearings live.

Maybe I'll keep my eyes open for something I can bolt on, try it for shiits and giggles, maybe a VW unit, :D

[Directconnection]

I can't seem to find the post where the subject changed to the 2.2/2.5 needing a damper. Why is there suddenly a need?

[moparzrule]

I can't seem to find the post where the subject changed to the 2.2/2.5 needing a damper. Why is there suddenly a need?

Warren's post #199 on page 10 I think

[Ondonti]

cause a few of your said people dont want 4 cylinders on their dyno.

I dont quite understand how that makes sense. Its not like a car on top of the dyno is going to rattle the dyno apart.

Now, what does that have to do with this thread? Somebody making up reasons to not dyno headers? lol.

[puppet]

Have you *seen* JT?
:lol:Never had the honor.

[BadAssPerformance]

Reeves is starting rumors cuz he wants me all to himself, LOL ;)

[RoadWarrior222]

cause a few of your said people dont want 4 cylinders on their dyno.

I dont quite understand how that makes sense. Its not like a car on top of the dyno is going to rattle the dyno apart.

Now, what does that have to do with this thread? Somebody making up reasons to not dyno headers? lol.

He said engine dyno, not chassis dyno ;)

[Warren Stramer]

The discussion was about the need to brace a turbo header. I was pointing out that yes they should be braced (depending on the header design of course) because of the natural vibrations of a flat crank. My referance was to ENGINE dynos.

[88C/S]

So the upshot of this discussion is...:confused2:

[Directconnection]

cause a few of your said people dont want 4 cylinders on their dyno.

I dont quite understand how that makes sense. Its not like a car on top of the dyno is going to rattle the dyno apart.

Now, what does that have to do with this thread? Somebody making up reasons to not dyno headers? lol.

If it's not going to rattle the welds off your k-frame and inner fender framerails, then I cannot see how it will affect a dyno? How about a 600+ci V-8 rattling away....

Now... we see alot of toyota 22re 4-cylinders for the mini stock circle track classes. We had one customer trim down one of his cranks so there was almost no CW left..... engine only lasted a few races before loosing bearings and I think cracking the block. The 2.2 circle track engine we rebuilt had a trimmed down stock cast 2.2 crank. About 3/8" taken off the CWs. When we rebuilt it, I had to duplicate their old crank (old crank was .030/.030 and can't get .040/.040 SRT bearings for the new Eagles going in) with the exception of doing it much better.... no deep holes drilled in it to China, and I knife edged/bullet nosed the CWs. The original lightened 2.2 crank had been run for 4 seasons with no problems at all at 7,500rpms. I see no real need then for a damper, but I could be wrong....

Lastly.... I also don't think the real purpose of a damper is to increase hp.....

[Ondonti]

The discussion was about the need to brace a turbo header. I was pointing out that yes they should be braced (depending on the header design of course) because of the natural vibrations of a flat crank. My referance was to ENGINE dynos.

Ive seen some crazy engine dyno videos..from inline motors. 1900hp on one :P

[The Pope]

I've ballenced 5 different 2.2s and 2.5s on a computer ballencer over the whole RPM range and found them stock less than a gram off. At high RPM under a load when the crank begins to flex the weight moves enough to create a vibration. So a high HP cast crank engine will like a dampener more than a steel crank. A v6 or v8 engine will have a different ballence than a 4 cylinder clearly. The better the crank and engine ballence the smaller your dampener needs to be untill you don't have one at all. Examples would be cast crank Chevy and Dodge dampeners vs Dodge steel crank damapeners. Then you look at the internally ballenced 318-3 with a heat treated crank and 4.88 gears buzzing the engine 4,500 on the highway. NO dampener at all on a 318-3 V8, and to own one is to believe it. Unreal smooth. High HP V8s really like the fluid dampeners and they do make power. A custom fluid dampener / lower underdrive pulley for 2.2 / 2.5 would be sweet. But no one is going to make such a thing for us though.

[Reaper1]

There was a thread a few months ago on supra Forums where Ryan Woon's 8 second 6 speed (inline 6) supra lost the dampener he was using at the big end of the track. It was pretty much a v8 model designed to fit the inline 6 and started a big rukus between vendors that might have claimed theres was "meant for an inline 6"

When it came off it cut a coolant hose and caused the car to spin at 160ish mph.

Apparently the companies that build them for v8's dont even test the products, their test is "if hp goes up, then the dampener is working"

The chrysler version of the 3.0 has a harmonic dampener but the mitsu versions have this weird $300+ pulley that has a rubber ring between its inner and outer sections.
Some people sell lightweight aluminum pullies but I dont like that idea. The big HP guys have from that running the stock pulley and stock heavy flywheel prevents crankflex problems around 800+hp. The moment they put that aluminum pulley on and a light flywheel, the crankshaft starts wanting to fail and it pounds out the center main bearings.

I wonder why the 3.0 done by chrysler has a big dampener. Was chrysler more worried about vibrations or engine life? Some guys have no problems in lower hp cars ditching the dampener. I have always been afraid to remove it even on my daily driver.

Firstly, this isn't the thread-jack, just givinb info and I'll be done with it...

Brent, back around 2000/2001 I was in the premliminary steps to get a custom aluminum damper made for the Chrysler version of the 3.0. I had gotten it down to where I was sending them a stock unit to look at so they could take measuremensts and such for tooling, but at the time I just couldn't get enough people interested in the part, so I stopped the process.

What that company told me was that the ONLY advantage to the custom unit would be that it wouldn't come apart like the stocker and be more effective at higher rpm. Other than that, it would HAVE to weigh just as much or MORE than the stocker! BTW, at that time people kept having issues of the stocker coming apart where the outer ring would actually come OFF the rubber isolator...some were missing completely!

The 3.0 can utilize UDP becuase it DOES have a damper that is a seperate unit from the pullies. Same for the 2.2/2.5 that don't even HAVE dampers. It's the designs that use th pullies AS the dampers that have issues(Hondas I know specifically).

The balance shafts in the 2.2/2.5 were installed to take car of secondary harmonics of the engine(they spin a TWICE the speed of the crank). This get rid of some of the buzzy-ness, but it also helps with the sensation that the engine is moving the front of the car up and down as it's running. I've actually noticed this with my Shelby Z if I'm leaning on the front of the car with the hood up doing something to the engine, I can FEEL the whole front of the car moving. It isn't a lot, but it is there. Keep in mind I have ALL poly mounts and a solid bobble, so it is almost a worst case scenario and most people would NEVER notice it. Point being is that tey are there for NVH, and NOTHING more! They can't be as they are not directly ON the crank, hence why we can take them out with no ill effects to the engine itself(given that you plug the oil hole! LOL)...

OK...back to header discussion! :thumb:

[Directconnection]

I've ballenced 5 different 2.2s and 2.5s on a computer ballencer over the whole RPM range and found them stock less than a gram off. The better the crank and engine ballence the smaller your dampener needs to be untill you don't have one at all.

Either you are full of it again, or the balance machine you used was way off.

A damper has NOTHING to do with how close an engine is balanced...

[The Pope]

Either you are full of it again, or the balance machine you used was way off.

A damper has NOTHING to do with how close an engine is balanced...

Of course it went over your head again and you only absorb a couple sentences at a time. If you could absorb a paragraph at one time you'd notice I said the way the engine is built effects the ballencer size. A range from soft cast flexing externally ballenced engines to forged internally ballenced engines is implied in the description. You'll also notice after reading it I also based the need off of these different parts in relation to power. Unless you think the engine is under the same stress on a ballencer as it is under power :confused2: I will add one opinion of mine that isn't physically correct so you can believe I'm full of it, I don't consider externally ballenced engines truely ballenced.:thumb:

[Directconnection]

I will add one opinion of mine that isn't physically correct so you can believe I'm full of it, I don't consider externally ballenced engines truely ballenced.:thumb:

Huh? (you contradicted yourself.... again)

So you are an engine builder now? What the fawk do you think the weight on an externally balanced flywheel is for?

We often make neutral balance flywheels/flexplates, etc... external and vise versa.

Please explain why Pontiacs are neutral in the front, yet external in the rear.

SBC: one piece rear main cranks (late model) are neutral front, external rear. This is the crank use din the ZZ4 PASS/ACT crate race engine series. A 2-piece rear main SBC crank is neutral in the front and in the rear. Another crate series engine we build, as well. One better than the other? NO!

Say you are building BB Chevy (which we so often do) External F+R. Replace the crank with a new Eagle (etc) you can get it external, or internal. If internal, the external weight found on the flywheel is simply built into the counterweights, that's all. 1oz on a 6" radius is alot LESS than 1oz on a 3" CW radius.

[Warren Stramer]

Ha, this is hilarious, should rename this the WTF happened to the header thread. I'm sorry I was just trying to illustrate with my first post the reasons for wanting to support a tube header on a turbo mope engine because someone asked.
I'll try to make this as clear as possible

180 degree flat opposed cranks are VIBRATORS period, don't matter if it is a horozontal,inline, or v8. (although horizontal is better)

Inline sixes do not fire in a flat plane.

I was talking to a local Mopar enthusiast who was building a Daytona for his son, he called me for some info as it was the first four he had built. He just happens to own a engine dyno (business is called RevSearch) We were making plans to adapt his Stutska dyno to mount our engines cause I wanted to develope my engine on his dyno.

The RevSearch owner and I frequent the same Automotive engineering message board, he brought up the question there because he had heard of Fours breaking cranks on engine dynos and he wanted to know how to avoid that. the replies were eye oppening.

His question started a whole long thread about stories from veteran dyno operators who basicly said Flat fours NEED some sort of different rubber coupler between the crank rear and absorbtion brake on the dyno. Also many of these guys told stories about solid mounting four cyls to their dyno frames a shaking/vibrating brakets and bolts off their equipment and breaking cranks . Some dont like to dyno four cyls. That doesnt mean they wont do it or its never done obviously.

Back in the early nineties Some Big name NHRA Pro Sock engine builders were experimenting with 180 flat cranks in their 500in. v8 P/S motors, they showed promise in some areas but the idea was abandoned due mainly to VIBRATION from the 180 firing events.

Farrari v8s use 180 degree cranks,that is why they sound like two four cyls tied together, I've driven my friends F40, it was kind of buzzy.

Our engines are vibrators, when building tube headers be advised to support them properly.

[BadAssPerformance]

Good info Warren :clap:

[Reeves]

Either you are full of it again, or the balance machine you used was way off.


+1 I've never seen one come even close to only 1 gram off.... Granted I've done tons of 2.5's and only a couple handfuls of 2.2's at the machine shop.



Ha, this is hilarious, should rename this the WTF happened to the header thread. I'm sorry I was just trying to illustrate

Don't be sorry.... We got some total whine @$$eS on here. It should be renamed "I know all, so shut the f up!" thread.

[Ondonti]

so how do we get the tube headers going for the 8 valve guys? bug people to front money?

[BadAssPerformance]

The tube header is in process... we are working on the first copy now :D