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.

[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"! 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

[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.

[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,

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,

[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.

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.

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.