What would you prefer in a header?

[8valves]

What would you prefer in a header design to be sold to public...

Option one would allow you to use a current swingvalve design and retain most people's exhaust setup, etc. Lines may need slight lengthening to accomodate re-positioning. This would be an unequal length setup, but not a log. Pricing around $500.

Option two would not allow for the stock style swingvalve and would be design to utilize an external wastegate and a standard 4 bolt discharge (or v band) turbine housing. You would have to make your own downpipe and lines WOULD have to be modified to work. This would be a true equal length setup. Pricing around $750, possibly more.

BOTH will fit in an L body. Both will be made of stainless steel schedule 10, TIG welded and back purged, and designed to fit an TO4E cover no problem, and more than likely an S cover with no firewall modifications IN AN L body.

Let me know.

AM

[glhs875]

If you want to sell more, do up the lower cost one. I would want a balls to the wall one. My thinking is, if your going to put on a header, put on a great one. I would like for the turbo mounting flange to either be in the same area as the TU log header, or have it placed (preferred) to where the turbo will mount over the trans., (rotated 90deg from normal) but still on the back side of the head, (would be easier to make a straight shot to the turbo, and super easy turbo removal).

[GLHSKEN]

And of course... it would have to be made to fit an "L" body. If it fits an "L" it will fit anything

[Frank]

My biggest beef with equal length headers is off course the collector. All 4 primaries need to enter the flange from the same direction.

My rule of thumb, you can vary the length of headers by up to 10% and still be equal length.

[glhs875]

My biggest beef with equal length headers is off course the collector. All 4 primaries need to enter the flange from the same direction.

My rule of thumb, you can vary the length of headers by up to 10% and still be equal length.

I agree! Would be much easier to accomplish that with an over the trans. header. And have more gentle bends to boot. And an over the trans. header could possilbly allow the intake to run a little cooler. And in my opinion, it must have some type of anti-reversion dam or dams built in, and of course fit a L body!

[Frank]

With anti reversion dams, the only thing needed is primary tubes flared about 1/4" flared in diameter where you weld them to the acutal exhaust/head flange. You want everything else even. Also, you want all primaries to merge ASAP, then take the collector and run a nice long smooth pipe to the turbo. This will allow the lowest backpressure but the highest velocity.


Frank

[BadAssPerformance]

I'm having flashbacks...

[puppet]

How far away from the head can the turbo be before you lose the "thermo effect" to help spool it ... does anybody know if closer is even that much of a difference?

I've imagined something along the lines of the old MP equal length carb header mod'ed for a the collector/flange with the turbo tucked up into the body a bit. You'd need a pump to bring the oil back though.

[GLHS592]

I'm having flashbacks...

Whatever happened to that header you developed? It looked like it would be pretty trick. I'm thinking it wouldn't fit an L-body.

[Frank]

It can be pretty long actually. I have seen some 2' away. Heck look how well those crappy remote turbos work... considering they can crack from water splash or how small they have to be to work just to get 7psi. All in all, 2' is no problem


Frank

[8valves]

I'm not sold on the immediate merge theory. I study some of the fastest small displacement motors out there in FI applications and none of them use a design as such. That's not to say that it's the wrong way, just not a very used method right now. Champ cars don't even do that, they wait until they clear the block to merge.

I could do an over the trans setup, and have thought about it, but I wonder if some people wouldn't want to take the effort to make the downpipe required for it... and same goes for people using an internal wastegate... there's no way you could use a standard chrysler style swingvalve with that mounting.

The first, simplistic header, would preoduce great gains, be very easy to install, let people use their existing internally gated 50 trims, etc with relative ease.

The second, more complex, is a tossup right now between a near the firewall mount for the flange that would wrap the turbo back under the manifolds, with a 4-1 collector of about 4 inches in length. The other option is the sidewinder style that could be produced, that would require people to shield their brake system and wiring and transmission linkage from heat however they deem neccessary. Also, having room for the runners to clear the intake and booster and still leave room for a downpipe wouldn't be the easiest fit. I know I can do it, but it'd be pointless to build it and then say yup, you can have one too for $XXXX and then nobody buys it.

See why I'm in a dillema? The smart business decision is to produce #1 and sell a good number of them and take a small sacrifice in power for a gain in convenience. #2 would cater to people like myself and Brian, and I'm sure some others out there that want the best of the best, regardless of what it takes to make it work... but probably wouldn't put out more than 2 or 3.

I'm not doing this to make money. I'm doing it because nobody else is. If you are SREIOUSLY interested in one I'll make it, you just need to let me know. I say I'm not trying to make money, but realize that tubing costs, flanges, welding consumables, and 220 to run the TIG all the time is costly. I would guess that for a sidewinder style you'd be looking around $900-$1000 by the time I'm done. I was guessing 99% of TD people wouldn't even think of spending that much... am I wrong?

AM

[Frank]

The immediate merge in this application is apples to oranges. I understand why they do it and I agree completely. They also have the room to do it. The reason here, is we could never get the length to do it, and in addition, having nice flow between the merge and the turbo is great and is something most dont do because well they arent turbo charged.


Frank

[GLHNSLHT2]

It'd be nice to have the ability to use a split scroll housing and use an external or internal gate. Why can you get a nice SS header for a 2.3 turbo ford for under $500 but every TD header is 500 (log) or more?

[GLHS592]

I would guess that for a sidewinder style you'd be looking around $900-$1000 by the time I'm done. I was guessing 99% of TD people wouldn't even think of spending that much... am I wrong?

I can see your dillemma. $1000 is alot of money for an item that might make a small percentage more power than an item costing $500. When I was single, I didn't think twice about purchasing some big money items for my car. You can look at my Shelby Charger's modification list and tell that. I could afford it and that was what I wanted to spend my money on.

Getting married and building a nicer house changes things. I can still afford to purchase stuff for my car, but I don't have as much disposable income to sling around. I also have to think about my wife. It would be awful selfish of me to spend money on my hobby and neglect what she wants. So, basically, I'd love to have the $1000 header, but the $500 header is more realistic for my budget especially when you consider my "need" for a wideband datalogger setup. :)

You can also think of it this way: You have the average super cheap-O turbo Dodge guy. As most know, TU already offerers a budget minded header for a similar $550 price. Considering all of that, I don't think you'll sell a bunch of headers either way. So, I think I may have convinced myself to change my vote in favor of the $1000 version. :D

[BadAssPerformance]

Whatever happened to that header you developed? It looked like it would be pretty trick. I'm thinking it wouldn't fit an L-body.

It has been on my Z for a few years. I have not touched the car since Topeka but when the head comes off I will see how it fits onto an L body for sure. If it does, I plan to make jigs/templates... or sell it to someone who wants to retail them and give me a cut.

[BadAssPerformance]

I was guessing 99% of TD people wouldn't even think of spending that much... am I wrong?

AM

That is what i was having flashbacks about...

[BadAssPerformance]

It'd be nice to have the ability to use a split scroll housing and use an external or internal gate. Why can you get a nice SS header for a 2.3 turbo ford for under $500 but every TD header is 500 (log) or more?

That is beacuse most of the enthusiasts into these cars are on a budget. Most of the Ford guys on a budget drive 5.0L's and in comparisson, the Ford guys who want to play and dont mind payjing pay drive 2.3L's so they spend the money, etc... The 2.3L has also been around longer and they have more packaging room to deal with so it is easier to make a header...

[turbovanman²]

See why I'm in a dillema? The smart business decision is to produce #1 and sell a good number of them and take a small sacrifice in power for a gain in convenience. #2 would cater to people like myself and Brian, and I'm sure some others out there that want the best of the best, regardless of what it takes to make it work... but probably wouldn't put out more than 2 or 3.

I'm not doing this to make money. I'm doing it because nobody else is. If you are SREIOUSLY interested in one I'll make it, you just need to let me know. I say I'm not trying to make money, but realize that tubing costs, flanges, welding consumables, and 220 to run the TIG all the time is costly. I would guess that for a sidewinder style you'd be looking around $900-$1000 by the time I'm done. I was guessing 99% of TD people wouldn't even think of spending that much... am I wrong?

AM

Honestly, either way, you probably won't sell many, why? As stated, 99% of TM'ers are cheap. I wonder how many headers Chris sold? Even when Typert was selling his $250 log header, he had a hard time. Only the real serious guys will buy them and there far and few between. I would make them on demand so your not having 5 of them collect dust etc.

If I were going to spend that kind of money, I would go balls out and buy the best one, so the equal length one would be it.



It'd be nice to have the ability to use a split scroll housing and use an external or internal gate. Why can you get a nice SS header for a 2.3 turbo ford for under $500 but every TD header is 500 (log) or more?

I bet theres more Ford 2.3's out there and I bet there not as cheap as us, :(

[Chris W]

You should have an option for "both" in the poll. Since you will be building one of the $1000. headers for Brian and yourself anyways you will have the opportunity to jig it up for future production.

I would recommend that you focus on the less expensive version since there will be more demand for them and do the higher priced version as special orders.

Chris-TU

[GLHNSLHT2]

The 2.3 turbo guys are alot like us. Least the one's I know. J-yard hounds that are cheap. http://www.ssautochrome.com/level.itml/icOid/1352
That's just one I found doing a quick google search. I know they have others as well for under $500 that are similar in design. I guess I don't understand why a tubular manifold for a TD has to be 750+. Where's the extra money going. The $500 range would at least be tolerable for some, maybe even myself but it better be a great design.

Also found this one for $350. http://www.stinger-performance.com/

[8valves]

The 2.3 turbo guys are alot like us. Least the one's I know. J-yard hounds that are cheap. http://www.ssautochrome.com/level.itml/icOid/1352
That's just one I found doing a quick google search. I know they have others as well for under $500 that are similar in design. I guess I don't understand why a tubular manifold for a TD has to be 750+. Where's the extra money going. The $500 range would at least be tolerable for some, maybe even myself but it better be a great design.

Also found this one for $350. http://www.stinger-performance.com/


No offense, but if I made a header like that I would sell it for $250! That's just tube steel, which is why it is so braced, the merge is generic and not fluid, and there is TONS of room to play in there.

To re-make that header out of SS schedule 10 or 40 would make that header cost over $750.

The tueb stuff can be MIG welded with no issues... that's not the case with this. I'd rather charge more, sell less, and put out a better product with fewer come-back's than cheap one together and cross my fingers.

http://www.full-race.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=21&osCsid=29d89a0d62f0b8048edc4ceaf9163c42

This is the type of quality that I pursue... and this is the type of quality that someone would get through one of my built headers. Notice the lack of bracing, the quality of the merges, then perfect welds, the amazing designs to package such large turbos into such tight spaces...

There's a reason you don't see $350 turbo manifolds powering 8 second Supra's and 9 second Honda's...

AM

[cordes]

Honestly, I would really like to use my exitsting DP, and SV, but I would want to know how hard it would be to fab up every thing else before I decided between the two.

I can say that if you want to make a dime, you need to go with the $500 version. I personally would be willing to pay about 1K for one though.

I will say that I don't care about making new lines etc. That is easy, but fabing up a new exhaust is a little different.

[8valves]

I may make a compromise, one in which Frank would be happy with in his idealogy of design. I would explain it all here, but for fear of someone just taking it as their own I may just run with it and see how it works.

It's very interesting to see the amount of people that are willing to lay out the cash for a nice piece. It's good to see, but yet I wonder how many would right now drop the cash all in one sum. A put you rmoney where your mouth is kind of thing. I guess we'll have to wait to see how thing span out in the poll, and go from there. Thanks for everyone's input.

AM

[turbovanman²]

Yeah, that would be my problem, coming up with all that cash at once. Thats why I liked my TIII project, bought parts I found over the course of a year and a half so it didn't hurt that bad, :nod:

[Garret]

TBI header = good enough :). I wouldn't even bother making more than just one for you car TD guys are far to cheap to get one made up. you'll sell 5 tops and that's being realistic, I offered up Intake manifolds that would go in the stock location and use 100% of stock stuff for 150 dollars, I had like 30 people PM me but not one gave up the cash. So I'd be REALLY REALLY impressed if lots of people shelled out for headers.

[8valves]

TBI header = good enough :). I wouldn't even bother making more than just one for you car TD guys are far to cheap to get one made up. you'll sell 5 tops and that's being realistic, I offered up Intake manifolds that would go in the stock location and use 100% of stock stuff for 150 dollars, I had like 30 people PM me but not one gave up the cash. So I'd be REALLY REALLY impressed if lots of people shelled out for headers.

I agree on the money part, which is also a big reason that I'm not trying to make money off of this... I have a full time job as well as full time school... this is on the weekend/side kind of thing.

Unfonrtunately, there are plenty of other markets that I could work my way into and make a good deal of cash on- but I don't know if I feel like doing that right now when time is so valued to me.

I think I've figured out exactly what needs to be done based upon everyones input. I guess now it's just a build it and see who wants to make some power.

In regards to the TBI header- decent, but not good enough in my opinion.

AM

[Garret]

if you can weld, I would suggest making the "drifter" braces for 240SXs because those are a huge money making. They have gay braces to brace the strut towers to the firewall I will find some links for you if you want. like 20 dollars in material and 2 hours work and people pay almost 200 dollars for this stuff

[BadAssPerformance]

I may make a compromise, one in which Frank would be happy with in his idealogy of design. I would explain it all here, but for fear of someone just taking it as their own I may just run with it and see how it works.

I had the same exact fear with my header when I was snooping around to see if anyone wanted to make any. I resisted at first then figuring that nobody would buy a header without seeing the design I decided "why not" and publically announced that if a vendor liked the design to contact me about supplying it or buying the design.

And for those that havn't seen the pics of mine that have been on the internet for a few years:

http://www.badassperformance.com/mstore/bap_parts/header/header_01.jpg
http://www.badassperformance.com/mstore/bap_parts/header/header_02.jpg
http://www.badassperformance.com/mstore/bap_parts/header/header_03.jpg
http://www.badassperformance.com/mstore/bap_parts/header/header_04.jpg
http://www.badassperformance.com/mstore/bap_parts/header/header_05.jpg
http://www.badassperformance.com/mstore/bap_parts/header/header_06.jpg

[glhs875]

I'm wondering how much HP is there actually to be UNCOVERED in a turbo header anyway over a good flowing ported stock mani, or a decent log header. Knowing that exhaust mods don't actually make HP, only uncover what is lost in a restrictive setup. Unless there is some serious scavenging going on, like in a 2 cycle or a well desigined NA setup. Most NA headers merely bump up the low or midrange torque, but then can have less backpressure in the upper R's which uncovers HP if the primaries aren't too small. A turbo setup always has a cork on the end of a header (turbine housing). I'm still learning on this subject, but it seems to me that a well built header on a turbo setup would mainly offer better spoolup, and only could uncover some HP from the better flow in the way of less pumping losses on the exhaust stroke and from less reversion during overlap, if desigined in that way. My thinking is on a turbo setup is, that the primaries need to be large enough to flow the expected HP of each individual cylinder. In other words, if expecting to make 500WHP, then the primaries need to be large enough to flow around 150HP each on a 4cyl with very little restricion. (500WHP X 15% drivetrain loss = 575CHP divided by # of cylinders). Then if the header actually uncovered HP over what was being used, the combo should be able to make the same or more HP as before, but at a much lower boost level. But then with larger primaries, that tends to shift the torque to a higher RPM and may spoolup slower. Stepped primaries help to stop reversion (important on a turbo setup especially with higher overlap cams) and can help with power in the upper R's. Long primaries boost bottom end, while short primaries helps with top end power. Tri-Y (4 into 2 into 1) collectors tend to help in the lower R's. A large 4 into 1 collector can help in the upper R's, while a smaller longer collector tends to help more in the mid-range. Which design to choose?! The designs can also be mixed and matched somewhat for slightly different effects. It's pretty darn complicated, especially when you put a cork on the end of a header (turbine housing), when if a collector is used before the turbine housing (almost always), the setup becomes basically a 2 cycle expansion chamber setup which has natural reversion tendencies which can rob alot of power during overlap from fresh charge dilution. Unless some scavenging effect has taken place, and then it would have to be timed right. Unlikely in a turbo setup. The smaller the turbine housing (more restrictive) or/and as boost pressure is raised, the quicker in the RPM's that will come into effect. Now, with all things considered, what's the best design for max streetable power?!!!

[8valves]

From what I've seen a collector immediately at the turbine entry is the design the biggest power players out there utilize.

JT- that's a very niec piece, and it's a design I've wanted to do for some time, but the space constraints in an L body prohobit it. The distance that the turbine flange away from the head, if the runners point directly straight out of the head (not take a turn down like yours) can only be 3.5 inches to fit an E cover.

Now, if you drop the runners down you get a similar to your design, as well as similar to the TBI header. It's a nice way to do it if you have firewall clearance like on the big body cars, but it might not be able to clear on an L still. I'm looking into it though. My engine will be in my new car soon so we'll see just how much room I have to play with soon after that.

Either way, that's my favorite design I've seen yet for a TD header, congrats on that JT.

Also- about the keeping it descrite- that's only until it's fully built. Once it's all built I'll be mor ethan happy to show people, but until then it's just drawings.

AM

[BadAssPerformance]

Thanks. Its been a long time coming. Sketched it up over 10 years ago, started making it 7 or so years ago, bolted in onto the car in '02 and it has been "testing" since...

Yeah, seeing if it will fit into an L body is next on the list. Then jigs/fixtures.

[Frank]

I may have to draw mine up sometime in the next few days. ;)


Frank

[turbovanman²]

I'm wondering how much HP is there actually to be UNCOVERED in a turbo header anyway over a good flowing ported stock mani, or a decent log header.


Warren Stramer figured that out. Making his header shaved off 2/10's was it and he was already running 10's. Thats some serious power to do that at that speed.

[Warren Stramer]

I'm wondering how much HP is there actually to be UNCOVERED in a turbo header anyway over a good flowing ported stock mani, or a decent log header.

From my testing about 40 HP, or 4-5MPH in the 1/4. between a ported stocker-10.80s to header-10.6 and 10.70s. From a average of 127 to a best of 132 mph.

Even with bigger tires traction became more of an issue.

A equal length tubular header fits behind the engine with room to spare (yes even a L body)

1.5 inch primaries X 16 inch length works well and gives a broad torque increase with maybe a little too much emphesis on the bottom end.

Engine will want more acceleration enrichment and midrange PW increase.

Cyl to cyl. burn will become more equalized.

BSFC will decrease

WOT fuel demands remained about the same to slightly less

If I had lots of time and energy I would build my 4 into 1 design to test against my current 4-2-1 just for a comparro, but shees thats alot of work!

[BadAssPerformance]

Warren's header is beautiful! :thumb: PICS!

[Garret]

JT there is one small problem with your header... it's not on my car :)

[WVRampage]

Why doesnt some one make up TBI headers up,like we send you a manifold and some cash and you send the header out to us.

[glhs875]

From my testing about 40 HP, or 4-5MPH in the 1/4. between a ported stocker-10.80s to header-10.6 and 10.70s. From a average of 127 to a best of 132 mph

That's a good and worthwhile gain! My question is, after a certain HP point will even a header with say 1.5" primaries become a factor in holding back some HP. And then one with a larger primary pipe will then be needed to possilbly max out HP? That's kinda the way it works on NA engines. I'm having a hard time seeing how a certain header design might always be good for a certain setup. If the combo remains basically the same, sure. But, if say one were to go to a much larger turbo that can make alot more HP than what the same header was designed for, will a newly designed header be needed for max output? I kinda think it would. I mean, a well ported stocker seems to do just fine up to point before any real loss can be noticed. And if a header was designed with overkill to leave room for HP growth before it became a restriction, how bad if any would that hurt drivabilty at a lower HP than what the header could actually support? I have alot of questions. But I feel alot of them can't be answered at this time without multiple headers & turbos to compare against.

[Warren Stramer]

That's a good and worthwhile gain! My question is, after a certain HP point will even a header with say 1.5" primaries become a factor in holding back some HP.

IMO the cyl. head exhaust port valve diam.,port cross section, port flow efficiency and rpm range dictate header primary diameter irregardless of the size of the turbine being driven. Match the primary tubes to the flow potential of the cyl. head. THEN choose a turbo that can make the most of that available energy.
Keep gas velocity as high as possible without choking the flow potential of the exhaust port. Using the gas stream to scavenge paired cyl. to the extent possible.

In the end only an engine dyno or better yet the dragstrip will tell what is the best. So it is very hard to do any comparing unless done on the same engine or car at the same track under the same condition.

[8valves]

That's a good and worthwhile gain! My question is, after a certain HP point will even a header with say 1.5" primaries become a factor in holding back some HP. And then one with a larger primary pipe will then be needed to possilbly max out HP? That's kinda the way it works on NA engines. I'm having a hard time seeing how a certain header design might always be good for a certain setup. If the combo remains basically the same, sure. But, if say one were to go to a much larger turbo that can make alot more HP than what the same header was designed for, will a newly designed header be needed for max output? I kinda think it would. I mean, a well ported stocker seems to do just fine up to point before any real loss can be noticed. And if a header was designed with overkill to leave room for HP growth before it became a restriction, how bad if any would that hurt drivabilty at a lower HP than what the header could actually support? I have alot of questions. But I feel alot of them can't be answered at this time without multiple headers & turbos to compare against.


1.5 ID runners have proven themselves plenty capable up to 800 whp DSM's. 1.65 ID's are utilized from there up, all the way to Ryan Woon's 1300 whp Supra.

I've lately become more of an advocate of simlicity performs. While it's usually not my initial notion, I've tested a couple of things lately, namely intake manifolds that are nowhere near proper in design and had them serve their purpose decently well. Would a perfect design show better results, more than likely... but the question is how much better.

I like Warren's header, I mean, who wouldn't, but like he said it emphasizes on mid range power- something TD's don't need any more of in my opinion. To soften up the midrange torque hit would do wonders for traction... espescially if you just shift it to the upper rpm range instead.

I still believe, and intend to find out, that a simple 4-1 shorty header will produce tremendous gains with minimal cost for the consumer, and ease of installation/adaptation to the current platform's setup. Meanwhile, you may see something more extreme come out of the shop over the winter for my personal car that if it works as hoped, could be marketed to an elite few who want to drop a nice coin on one.

AM

[Garret]

That's the exact policy I work on myself when making parts Aaron. I'd be really interested to see how you are going to make yours work. For me I think the TBI header is going to do everything I need an exhaust manifold to do. Although I would be interested to make one out of say just mild steel to see how it performs compared to the TBI header, and if it is a big enough gain THEN make on out of SS. Because making a mild steel header that only has to last a couple of weeks would be super cheap

[8valves]

That's the exact policy I work on myself when making parts Aaron. I'd be really interested to see how you are going to make yours work. For me I think the TBI header is going to do everything I need an exhaust manifold to do. Although I would be interested to make one out of say just mild steel to see how it performs compared to the TBI header, and if it is a big enough gain THEN make on out of SS. Because making a mild steel header that only has to last a couple of weeks would be super cheap


I can agree with that, although the TBI still leaves some room to be desired in my mind... namely positioning of the turbo, runner sizing, and the collector area.

Like you said, and like I already know... probably few people will really buy them, but the ones that do will be very happy I think.

AM

[Garret]

oh yeah without a doubt the people that need them will LOVE them. I think the TBI header with "slight" reworking should be okay, I'll post up a picture of what I was thinking

[Warren Stramer]

I like Warren's header, I mean, who wouldn't, but like he said it emphasizes on mid range power- something TD's don't need any more of in my opinion. To soften up the midrange torque hit would do wonders for traction... espescially if you just shift it to the upper rpm range instead.

True BUT, High velocity headers enable you deal with the exccesive torque that a low velocity/large tube header can't. I can simply bolt on a larger turbo and shift my torque and HP up and STILL be able to spool it.

[BadAssPerformance]

True BUT, High velocity headers enable you deal with the exccesive torque that a low velocity/large tube header can't. I can simply bolt on a larger turbo and shift my torque and HP up and STILL be able to spool it.

yep, gotta love a good flowing header... and it wont stop spooling high rpm either :thumb:

[glhs875]

I still believe, and intend to find out, that a simple 4-1 shorty header will produce tremendous gains with minimal cost for the consumer, and ease of installation/adaptation to the current platform's setup. Meanwhile, you may see something more extreme come out of the shop over the winter for my personal car that if it works as hoped, could be marketed to an elite few who want to drop a nice coin on one.

AM[/QUOTE]

I can believe that, and alot of the time simplicity is the best route to take. A 4 into 1 shorty header could help boost top end more than low end power. I have more low end than I could possibly use right now if I power brake any at all I believe even with slicks. I mean, if I can spool a stage 5 turbine well with almost no runner length (TU log header), I don't think long runners are needed or wanted for myself anyway. So top end power is mainly where I would want a gain. I may just end up building my own as an over the trans mount. I think I would really like that location best. But I will wait a awhile and see what comes about. I have other things to address first with my combo anyway.

[glhs875]

True BUT, High velocity headers enable you deal with the exccesive torque that a low velocity/large tube header can't. I can simply bolt on a larger turbo and shift my torque and HP up and STILL be able to spool it.

That would be VERY interesting, with only the turbo or turbine being the only change.

[8valves]

True BUT, High velocity headers enable you deal with the exccesive torque that a low velocity/large tube header can't. I can simply bolt on a larger turbo and shift my torque and HP up and STILL be able to spool it.

Absolutely, I can't agree more. I think a larger turbo would do you wonders honestly... your car might be one that I could see utilizing the size of a 35R wheel...

AM

[glhs875]

Absolutely, I can't agree more. I think a larger turbo would do you wonders honestly... your car might be one that I could see utilizing the size of a 35R wheel...

AM

I think a 35R turbine, or even a turbine the size of the SC6152 (which is close to the same) is the size to shoot for to make work well on a killer street/strip combo!! If spoolup can be made to work as well as a stage 2 or 3 .63 turbine (I know that it could), the powerband and HP potential (500+WHP) would be simply awesome on an 8V!!! Now, what type of header design will be the best overall? A longer runner with 1.5" primaries or a stepped longer runner 1.5" to 1 5/8s"? Or either combo with shorter runners? That's alot of work & money to not be totally happy with the results, because of not being 100% sure on what to build!! I wish I had access some top drag teams, Champ, and F1 data on this subject. I'm not going to buy or even build a better header than what I have until I have a better grasp of what is going on. The more I think about it, I guess if I had to make a compromise, I would lean more towards better spoolup potential over absolute max HP potential, because that area under the curve (mid range torque) is VERY important to getting low ET's. It takes a ton of added HP to overcome the torque these engines can produce if torque is lowered too much! I don't want something I have to light off with NO2 to spoolup like what is needed!!! :amen:

[8valves]

I think a 35R turbine, or even a turbine the size of the SC6152 (which is close to the same) is the size to shoot for to make work well on a killer street/strip combo!! If spoolup can be made to work as well as a stage 2 or 3 .63 turbine (I know that it could), the powerband and HP potential (500+WHP) would be simply awesome on an 8V!!! Now, what type of header design will be the best overall? A longer runner with 1.5" primaries or a stepped longer runner 1.5" to 1 5/8s"? Or either combo with shorter runners? That's alot of work & money to not be totally happy with the results, because of not being 100% sure on what to build!! I wish I had access some top drag teams, Champ, and F1 data on this subject. I'm not going to buy or even build a better header than what I have until I have a better grasp of what is going on. The more I think about it, I guess if I had to make a compromise, I would lean more towards better spoolup potential over absolute max HP potential, because that area under the curve (mid range torque) is VERY important to getting low ET's. It takes a ton of added HP to overcome the torque these engines can produce if torque is lowered too much! I don't want something I have to light off with NO2 to spoolup like what is needed!!! :amen:

An S61 hot side is no comparison to a 35R. The 35 wheel is so much more efficient than the old T series stg. 3 or 5 wheel. I still feel that on a good setup full boost could be realized by 4500 or so, which is fine by me as long as you spin 7500 on the top side.

I'm just going to stop now because this could go way off topic real quickly. Sorry!

AM

[show-off]

AM,
This spring I might be down for some "wild" header options if you want some help testing stuff. I get dyno time and nitrous too!

[glhs875]

An S61 hot side is no comparison to a 35R. The 35 wheel is so much more efficient than the old T series stg. 3 or 5 wheel. I still feel that on a good setup full boost could be realized by 4500 or so, which is fine by me as long as you spin 7500 on the top side.

I'm just going to stop now because this could go way off topic real quickly. Sorry!

AM

It's off topic, but what is a T350 wheel? That's what the SC6152 has. I know the wheel is larger than a 35R (74.1mm vs. 68.0mm for the 35R) according to Precision's and Garret's web sites.

[Frank]

They come out to be the same turbo overall minus the center section.

[glhs875]

They come out to be the same turbo overall minus the center section.

Thanks Frank! That's kinda what I was thinking. The SC6152 is basically a GT35 with no "R" meaning ball bearing center section.

[Frank]

Granted I havent seen a turbine map for the T350, but all the data I saw a year ago indicated they were about the same in performance.


Frank

[8valves]

Granted I havent seen a turbine map for the T350, but all the data I saw a year ago indicated they were about the same in performance.


Frank

Do you really honestly think so? Just for one minute, and not in an offensive manner at all, put the numbers out of your head (I know it's hard!) and just think how much more capable the 30R is (overall power capable) than the S2 exhaust side.... and yet the T350 is WAY, WAY bigger.

Now think like that in regards to the 35R wheel. The old S5 wheel does a good job of letting air through it, hell, you can SEE through the blades, but it chops up the air pretty bad doing it. The 35R wheel is a sleek sexy piece that you can barely even hear the turbine side on with an open downpipe... check that out sometime.

I run no cat or muffler, and it doesn't sound like a dumptruck like most open downpipe cars... you can't even hear the turbine blade chipping up the air. That alone is something that made me take them more seriously than the overall size comparisons.

Just my thought process... I've seen the 35R wheel propel a car into the 9's at 150 mph on a .63 AR housing with NO nitrous! I can't ever say I've seen that on the old school T3 wheels of any sort.

AM

[Frank]

Yes the T350 StageV is old school and is inefficient technology compared to the GT wheels, but it by no means a T3 setup. So lets step thru it from the other side of the coin.

The T350 is significantly larger then the T31 that we use on our T3/T04E setups. The PT T350 on the SC6152 turbo is also a custom casting to fit its StageV wheel. Overall it is a huge turbine in comparison to a T31. Yes it isnt as efficent as a GT35R turbine, but it is bigger. I deem it relatively the same for turbine sizing.

I will admit the GT35R turbine probably does make a bit more power by reducing backpressure, however I am sure spoolup is very similar.


Frank

[glhs875]

Just my thought process... I've seen the 35R wheel propel a car into the 9's at 150 mph on a .63 AR housing with NO nitrous! I can't ever say I've seen that on the old school T3 wheels of any sort.

AM

Again, off topic, sorry, but there are (2) T350 wheels listed @ Precision. One is 2.795"- 70.9mm in diameter, and the one that the SC6152 has is 2.92"- 74.1mm in diameter. It is the same size as some of the ones designated as T4 wheels. I would say that in the right car and combo that it could make a car go that fast. It has the same compressor wheel specs as a GT35 and is rated for well over 600HP. But anyway the GT should be a little better in some respects. At least it's supposed to be. Back to header talk!

[8valves]

Yes the T350 StageV is old school and is inefficient technology compared to the GT wheels, but it by no means a T3 setup. So lets step thru it from the other side of the coin.

The T350 is significantly larger then the T31 that we use on our T3/T04E setups. The PT T350 on the SC6152 turbo is also a custom casting to fit its StageV wheel. Overall it is a huge turbine in comparison to a T31. Yes it isnt as efficent as a GT35R turbine, but it is bigger. I deem it relatively the same for turbine sizing.

I will admit the GT35R turbine probably does make a bit more power by reducing backpressure, however I am sure spoolup is very similar.


Frank

Fair enough! I just wanted to try to give you another way to look at it. I was pleased with a 60-1/.82 T3 stg V turbo we used on a Honda, but then stepped to a 1.06 AR T3, Q trim T4 exhaust wheel, 72 mm compressor Innovative setup, and the car beat the the old 60-1 to full boost by 600 rpms!

Just some things to throw around in your head, that's all!

AM

[Ondonti]

Fair enough! I just wanted to try to give you another way to look at it. I was pleased with a 60-1/.82 T3 stg V turbo we used on a Honda, but then stepped to a 1.06 AR T3, Q trim T4 exhaust wheel, 72 mm compressor Innovative setup, and the car beat the the old 60-1 to full boost by 600 rpms!

Just some things to throw around in your head, that's all!

AM Makes me not feel so bad about the P trim wheel I chose.
I know there are srt-4 guys running P trims and t6x's along with lots of other 16v fwd's.
I get the feeling that few 8v's are up to the task though.
All the t4 wheels I have seen look much better then the t350 wheels.....but Im assuming the gt series are quite an improvement.


BTW I know you all hate stephanes design but I would say he already proved the shorty 4-1 issue more then 2 years ago.

[8valves]

BTW I know you all hate stephanes design but I would say he already proved the shorty 4-1 issue more then 2 years ago.

This isn't the case at all. His header works, plain and simple. I'm not the biggest fan of a few of the design aspects, but you can't argue with the gains that it made. I'm speaking of the 4-2-1 FWD sells... what are you talking about with the 4-1?

My thought behind the 4-1 comes largely from the Ecotec race cars, which pretty much dominate FWD drag racing even when being severely handicapped. Jason Hunt's championship car used a shorty 4-1 all year.

AM

[Ondonti]

This isn't the case at all. His header works, plain and simple. I'm not the biggest fan of a few of the design aspects, but you can't argue with the gains that it made. I'm speaking of the 4-2-1 FWD sells... what are you talking about with the 4-1?

My thought behind the 4-1 comes largely from the Ecotec race cars, which pretty much dominate FWD drag racing even when being severely handicapped. Jason Hunt's championship car used a shorty 4-1 all year.

AM

Bah yeah I just looked for a picture and thats correct.
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2148/headerandintakehl1.jpg

My feelings on ecotec winning has much to do with more money to spend bending the rules, more money into the chassis, and custom work on turbos to again bend the rules when it comes to turbo restrictions. Than ability to run all out every run because replacement of parts is not an issue financially. Just make it to the end of the track first.

Fitting transmissions that arent installed by the factory, etc. wow thats fair!

[BadAssPerformance]

This isn't the case at all. His header works, plain and simple. I'm not the biggest fan of a few of the design aspects, but you can't argue with the gains that it made. I'm speaking of the 4-2-1 FWD sells... what are you talking about with the 4-1?

The SMP Charger had a 4-1 when it ran 9's on an 8-valve. Major firewall rework enabled packaging.

[Frank]

I share the same setiments as Aaron Miller. Also the 4-1 header pictured above is nothing like the nice 4-1 header he used on the SMP car. Most headers, including the 4-1 pictured above, over the stock to ported stock are going to give you a good and benificial gain.


Frank

[8valves]

Bah yeah I just looked for a picture and thats correct.
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2148/headerandintakehl1.jpg

My feelings on ecotec winning has much to do with more money to spend bending the rules, more money into the chassis, and custom work on turbos to again bend the rules when it comes to turbo restrictions. Than ability to run all out every run because replacement of parts is not an issue financially. Just make it to the end of the track first.

Fitting transmissions that arent installed by the factory, etc. wow thats fair!


I'm not going to get into this to heavily, but many of the Ecotec cars have very little GM factory support. I HATE GM with a passion, and I have to admit to that. They are a good solid starting point and big name sponsors such as Garrett got behind them quickly. You can do just as much damage with an SRT motor, or a K series motor, just seems like less big names are pushing them. Hell, DCR's SRT pops nearly every run it makes... doesn't do much for us as far as reputation.

Anywho- JT, I remember the 4-1 you're talking about now, and yes, extensive firewall work would be needed for that. If I go with a 4-1 for public the 2 and 3 runners can only be abotu 3.75 inches in length before they hit the turbine entry. Not optimal, but it'll perform.

AM

[4cefedomni]

8 valves i got a project that i'm gathering parts for i don't want to say too much but i have a 97 stratus dohc head and a gt37 turbo with the v-band style "flange" and i need a custom header made for it. the header has to have an external wastegate cause my turbo doesn't have one, and its gotta fit in an L-body.

[8valves]

8 valves i got a project that i'm gathering parts for i don't want to say too much but i have a 97 stratus dohc head and a gt37 turbo with the v-band style "flange" and i need a custom header made for it. the header has to have an external wastegate cause my turbo doesn't have one, and its gotta fit in an L-body.

Email me at GTSturbo@comcast.net for further inquiry please. Thanks!

AM

[20w/ashelby]

Hey aaron, are you done with school? I haven't seen you around here in a while. Or do you just have evening/nights?

[8valves]

Hey aaron, are you done with school? I haven't seen you around here in a while. Or do you just have evening/nights?

Evenings, and I live off Main street now too, so I'm not around campus much.

Get ahold of me if you wanna chill one night. We have the house of boosted mopars here... two SC's, one SRT, and a soon-to-be TIII Omni. :D

AM

[Speedeuphoria]

http://www.turbododge.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1061176#post1061176

Cindy has this one for sale

[Mario]

She's had that for sale for a while. She just now added the extra parts. Would've been nice if she posted one with an external gate and v-band. Yum.

[Garret]

WOW, I wonder if a person would be able to run that header before dying due to massive anal trauma

[8valves]

http://www.turbododge.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1061176#post1061176

Cindy has this one for sale

Eh... see my post on that site...

"So when the header assembly is actually flush with the head, how does the compressor cover and swingvalve/downpipe assembly do for clearance? Looks to me as though it will rotate right up into the firewall... with no room for consideration to those who don't have totally rigid engine mounts.

How about intake manifold clearance, how much room to spare is there?

AM"

Lets not even get into how it's just a stock swingvalve cut and pieced together leaving one of the most flow critical pieces still in it's stock restrictive form, the area in the swingvalve around the wastegate discharge.

I'm sure it makes a lot more power than a stock manifold, but I'm also sure that I could provide people with a header that will make nearly the same power output at a fraction of that cost, and let you use your current downpipe/swingvalve assembly. How does that sound?

I'm not trying to discredit Stephane's work on that header whatsoever, so please don't anyone take it that way, but there are some areas on that header that don't condone to good design whatsoever. This doesn't change the fact that it will make some good power, but there is lots of room for improvement for that price.

AM

[turbovanman²]

WOW, I wonder if a person would be able to run that header before dying due to massive anal trauma

You lost me? :confused:

[8valves]

You lost me? :confused:

I think he's talking about the price... I hope!

AM

[turbovanman²]

Maybe, lol!

[Garret]

yes I am making a comment on the price and how you would be taking it up the pooper dry with no lube for that price

[8valves]

According to a bunch of people in this poll, they don't think it's too expensive...

AM

[cordes]

According to a bunch of people in this poll, they don't think it's too expensive...

AM

The price of that piece does not bother me, it is what you get for the price that I don't like.

I agree with your assessment of it. I thought it was odd that it looks so close to the firewall, and it is not even sitting flush with the head. I think that it would be a real pain to get it to work if I had to put my money on it.

[8valves]

The price of that piece does not bother me, it is what you get for the price that I don't like.

I agree with your assessment of it. I thought it was odd that it looks so close to the firewall, and it is not even sitting flush with the head. I think that it would be a real pain to get it to work if I had to put my money on it.

Actually I corrected myself, it is indeed flush with the head, it was my viewing mistake. Regardless, it is a tight fit, but you're going to have that trying to squeeze that much stuff into that small of a space.

I'm less of a fan of the merges and general design features than anything else, such as the collector area in front of the turbo, or lack therof. BUT, I'm sure it's still an improvement over the ported stocker.

AM

[cordes]

I don't know, I guess I would have taken some better pics if it were me.

[johnl]

I don't know, I guess I would have taken some better pics if it were me.

The header is not bolted to the head - no studs to make it possible to drop it in to take pictures and check fit. Pics of it on an engine stand with the IM in place would be nice.

In the one pic you can see rod linkage on the transaxle so maybe there is clearance for rods.

Don't like the transitions into the turbine inlet - 180*ish bend.

The thing is, it's near impossible to build an equal length that will fit in an L body.

I still like the TU header.

[8valves]

The thing is, it's near impossible to build an equal length that will fit in an L body.

I disagree, it just takes some time and some talent ;)

[Reeves]

Nice reply!

[mcsvt]

Aaron, any updates on your plans?

[8valves]

There is a giant tube full of SS304 Schedule 10 behind me and a couple of flanges that need to be put together!

I don't know. I've come up with at least a dozen different designs ranging from mild to wild. In the end I think the only thing I've established is that you can't make everyone happy with just one style and the best bet is to build them case by case. Basically if you want a 100% theoretically (in my opinion) correct header it's going to be a bear to fit in an L body and still be able to get the starter off without removing a bunch of stuff. I can make something that is less than desireable in design and fit just fine, but that's not my style really. It all depends on the individual needs of each car really, just like a calibration.

Right now I need to focus on finishing up with school, so I think any chance of building them for public will be few and far between unless my time-table magically changes.

I'll let people know when I come up with something exactly how I want it.

[cordes]

There is a giant tube full of SS304 Schedule 10 behind me and a couple of flanges that need to be put together!

I don't know. I've come up with at least a dozen different designs ranging from mild to wild. In the end I think the only thing I've established is that you can't make everyone happy with just one style and the best bet is to build them case by case. Basically if you want a 100% theoretically (in my opinion) correct header it's going to be a bear to fit in an L body and still be able to get the starter off without removing a bunch of stuff. I can make something that is less than desireable in design and fit just fine, but that's not my style really. It all depends on the individual needs of each car really, just like a calibration.

Right now I need to focus on finishing up with school, so I think any chance of building them for public will be few and far between unless my time-table magically changes.

I'll let people know when I come up with something exactly how I want it.

It's too bad that they won't be available for sale any time soon. I might be able to break the piggy bank for a good header when they finally come along. Please keep me updated as to your progress. I look forward to it.

[mcsvt]

That's what I was thinking... Aaron keep me in mind if you need somebody to fund one of the builds.