FLP longtubes vs Kooks / ARH - anyone know the improvement?
10-07-2013, 10:53 AM
#1
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLP longtubes vs Kooks / ARH - anyone know the improvement? I have a set of FLP longtubes with catted y-pipe. This was the best longtube system on the market back in early 2000 for the LS1/LT1 engines.
When I purchased this set used, the person said they were upgrading to Kooks as they would have gotten a few more ponies over what the FLP provided.
My FLP's air-borne coating is coming off, and found a set of ARH's for comparable price. I could also just have the longtubes recoated for fair price.
Anyone know, or remember if the kooks/ARH style SS longtubes provided more power through the range than the old FLP's?
When I purchased this set used, the person said they were upgrading to Kooks as they would have gotten a few more ponies over what the FLP provided.
My FLP's air-borne coating is coming off, and found a set of ARH's for comparable price. I could also just have the longtubes recoated for fair price.
Anyone know, or remember if the kooks/ARH style SS longtubes provided more power through the range than the old FLP's?
10-07-2013, 02:01 PM
#2
I would wager that most LT design are not going to vary by a statistically significant amount, with the exception of the old SLP headers. Hooker/Jet-Hot/Pacesetter are almost the same pipe arrangement (My Jet-Hots came with a Hooker Headers sticker in the box 
). I am stretching my memory but I think PPC/FLP/Kooks/ARH all use a fairly similar pipe arrangement. Power across the board should be close, quality is the differentiating factor at this point by and large.
). I am stretching my memory but I think PPC/FLP/Kooks/ARH all use a fairly similar pipe arrangement. Power across the board should be close, quality is the differentiating factor at this point by and large. 
