403 justify 'bigger' tubes?
12-23-2005, 05:44 PM
#1
Launching!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
403 justify 'bigger' tubes? Looking for a new set of headers and wondered if 1 7/8 is justifiable? It was suggested by a reputable header manufacturer that 1 3/4 will be fine. What does 'fine' mean? Could anyone speculate the power loss or gain by using one over the other?
Car is street abuse only, very little track time. Cam will be 229/242 .631/.631 heads will breath and exhale through 2.08/1.6 valves. I will definately be running cats unless I could be sold on a Y-pipe combo that will not rasp...
Thanks for the help...
Car is street abuse only, very little track time. Cam will be 229/242 .631/.631 heads will breath and exhale through 2.08/1.6 valves. I will definately be running cats unless I could be sold on a Y-pipe combo that will not rasp...
Thanks for the help...
12-23-2005, 06:22 PM
#4
If I was doing this I'd sell the 1 3/4" headers and get the 1 7/8" set, maybe even stepped. Is it justifiable? I don't know. I'm guessing your losing something like 8-15 hp from the smaller headers. The thing is that from now on the more you add to your engine like a bigger cam, better flowing heads, intake, tb, etc. the more of a hinderance the smaller headers are going to be. 1 3/4" would be "fine" for now but the 1 7/8" would be better.
12-23-2005, 07:35 PM
#5
Launching!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by blue01ta
If I was doing this I'd sell the 1 3/4" headers and get the 1 7/8" set, maybe even stepped. Is it justifiable? I don't know. I'm guessing your losing something like 8-15 hp from the smaller headers. The thing is that from now on the more you add to your engine like a bigger cam, better flowing heads, intake, tb, etc. the more of a hinderance the smaller headers are going to be. 1 3/4" would be "fine" for now but the 1 7/8" would be better.
01-03-2006, 03:49 AM
#6
TECH Addict
Originally Posted by LPE SS
Looking for a new set of headers and wondered if 1 7/8 is justifiable? It was suggested by a reputable header manufacturer that 1 3/4 will be fine. What does 'fine' mean? Could anyone speculate the power loss or gain by using one over the other?
Car is street abuse only, very little track time. Cam will be 229/242 .631/.631 heads will breath and exhale through 2.08/1.6 valves. I will definately be running cats unless I could be sold on a Y-pipe combo that will not rasp...
Thanks for the help...
Car is street abuse only, very little track time. Cam will be 229/242 .631/.631 heads will breath and exhale through 2.08/1.6 valves. I will definately be running cats unless I could be sold on a Y-pipe combo that will not rasp...
Thanks for the help...
Originally Posted by Loren Barnes - President S&S Headers Inc.
The first consideration is the proper tube diameter. Many people think "Bigger is Better", but this is not the case. The smallest diameter that will flow enough air to handle the engine's c.c. at your desired Red Line R.P.M. should be used. This small diameter will generate the velocity (air speed) needed to "Scavenge" at low R.P.M.s. If too small a diameter is used the engine will pull hard at low R.P.M.s but at some point in the higher R.P.M.s the tube will not be able to flow as much air as the engine is pumping out, and the engine will "sign off" early, not reaching its potential peak R.P.M. This situation would require going one size larger in tube diameter.
The second consideration is the proper tube length. The length directly controls the power band in the R.P.M. range. Longer tube lengths pull the torque down to a lower R.P.M. range. Shorter tubes move the power band up into a higher R.P.M. range. Engines that Red Line at 10,000 R.P.M. would need short tube lengths about 26" long. Engines that are torquers and Red Line at 5,500 R.P.M.s would need a tube length of 36". This is what is meant by the term "Tuned Length". The tube length is tuned to make the engine operate at a desired R.P.M. range.
The third consideration is the collector outlet diameter and extension length. This is where major differences occur between four cylinder engines and V-8 engines. The optimum situation is the four cylinder because of it's firing cycle. Every 180 degree of crankshaft rotation there is one exhaust pulse entering the collector. This is ideal timing because, as one pulse exits the collector, the next exhaust valve is opening and the vacuum created in the system pulls the exhaust from the cylinder. In this ideal 180 degree cycling the collector outlet diameter only needs to be 20% larger than the primary tube diameter. (Example: 1 3/4" primary tubes need a 2" collector outlet diameter.) The rule of thumb here is two tube sizes. This keeps the velocity fast to increase scavenging, especially at lower R.P.M.s. Going to a larger outlet diameter will hurt the midrange and low R.P.M. torque.
The amount of straight in the collector extension can move the engines torque up or down in the R.P.M. range. Longer extension length will pull the torque down into the midrange.
Engines that "Red Line" at 10,000 R.P.M. would only need 2" of straight between the collector and the megaphone. This is just enough length to straighten out the air flow before it enters the megaphone. This creates an orifice action that enhances exhaust velocity.
In the case of V-8 firing order, the five pulses fire alternately back and forth from left to right collector, giving the ideal 180 degree firing cycle. Then it fires two in succession into the left collector, then two in succession into the right collector. If the proper collector outlet diameter is being used (two sizes larger than primaries) the two pulses in succession load up the collector with more air than it can flow. This results in a very strong midrange torque, but causes the engine to "sign off" early, not reaching its potential peek R.P.M. The improper firing order on a V-8 engine results in the need to use large diameter collectors so the engine will perform well at high R.P.M.s. Unfortunately the large diameter collectors cause a tremendous drop in air velocity, resulting in less scavenging through the entire R.P.M. range.
The second consideration is the proper tube length. The length directly controls the power band in the R.P.M. range. Longer tube lengths pull the torque down to a lower R.P.M. range. Shorter tubes move the power band up into a higher R.P.M. range. Engines that Red Line at 10,000 R.P.M. would need short tube lengths about 26" long. Engines that are torquers and Red Line at 5,500 R.P.M.s would need a tube length of 36". This is what is meant by the term "Tuned Length". The tube length is tuned to make the engine operate at a desired R.P.M. range.
The third consideration is the collector outlet diameter and extension length. This is where major differences occur between four cylinder engines and V-8 engines. The optimum situation is the four cylinder because of it's firing cycle. Every 180 degree of crankshaft rotation there is one exhaust pulse entering the collector. This is ideal timing because, as one pulse exits the collector, the next exhaust valve is opening and the vacuum created in the system pulls the exhaust from the cylinder. In this ideal 180 degree cycling the collector outlet diameter only needs to be 20% larger than the primary tube diameter. (Example: 1 3/4" primary tubes need a 2" collector outlet diameter.) The rule of thumb here is two tube sizes. This keeps the velocity fast to increase scavenging, especially at lower R.P.M.s. Going to a larger outlet diameter will hurt the midrange and low R.P.M. torque.
The amount of straight in the collector extension can move the engines torque up or down in the R.P.M. range. Longer extension length will pull the torque down into the midrange.
Engines that "Red Line" at 10,000 R.P.M. would only need 2" of straight between the collector and the megaphone. This is just enough length to straighten out the air flow before it enters the megaphone. This creates an orifice action that enhances exhaust velocity.
In the case of V-8 firing order, the five pulses fire alternately back and forth from left to right collector, giving the ideal 180 degree firing cycle. Then it fires two in succession into the left collector, then two in succession into the right collector. If the proper collector outlet diameter is being used (two sizes larger than primaries) the two pulses in succession load up the collector with more air than it can flow. This results in a very strong midrange torque, but causes the engine to "sign off" early, not reaching its potential peek R.P.M. The improper firing order on a V-8 engine results in the need to use large diameter collectors so the engine will perform well at high R.P.M.s. Unfortunately the large diameter collectors cause a tremendous drop in air velocity, resulting in less scavenging through the entire R.P.M. range.
From all the research I have done I would say the advice of 1 3/4 is fine, is about bang on. As it will work and work well, if you are pushing the rpm limit and producing a lot of bhp then there will be more exhaust gases, so the next size up may be of benefit, however if the 1 3/4 flows sufficently you would see little or no gain by going bigger, and in fact may even hurt low end performance slightly.
Using 2.2cfm per 1hp.
A 500bhp engine would require a flow rate of 1100cfm. As each primary only handles the exhaust gas from one cylinder we need to divde the required flow rate by 8.
1100 / 8 = 137.5cfm per primary.
David Vizard states that 1 square inch of tubing will flow 115cfm. So on this basis a 1 3/4 primary should be fine with 500bhp.
Originally Posted by David Vizard
Headers — Primary Pipe Diameters
Big pipes flow more, so is bigger better? Answer: absolutely not. Primary pipes that are too big defeat our quest for the all-important velocity-enhanced scavenging effect. Without knowledge to the contrary, the biggest fear is that the selected tube diameters could be too small, thereby constricting flow and dropping power. Sure, if they are way under what is needed, lack of flow will cause power to suffer. In practice though it is better, especially for a street-driven machine, to have pipes a little too small rather than a little too big. If the pipes are too large a fair chunk of torque can be lost without actually gaining much in the way of top-end power.
At this point determining primary tube diameters is starting to look like a tight wire act only avoidable by trial and error on the dyno. Fortunately, a little insight into what it is we are attempting to achieve brings about some big-time simplification. Our goal is to size the primary pipes to produce optimum output over the rpm range of most interest. The rate exhaust is dispensed with, and consequently, the primary pipe velocity, is strongly influenced by the port's flow capability at the peak valve lift used. From this premise it has been possible to develop a simple correlation between exhaust port-flow bench tests and dyno tests involving pipe diameter changes. This has brought about the curves shown in the graph Fig. 4 which allow primary sizing close enough to almost eliminate the need for trial-and-error dyno testing.
Primaries For Nitrous Use Since nitrous injection is so popular, it's worth throwing in the changes needed to optimize with the nitrous on. For a typical race V-8 the area of the primary pipe needs to increase about 6-7 percent for every 50hp worth of nitrous injected. For street applications, where mileage and performance when the nitrous is not in use is the most important, pipe size should not be changed to suit the nitrous.
Big pipes flow more, so is bigger better? Answer: absolutely not. Primary pipes that are too big defeat our quest for the all-important velocity-enhanced scavenging effect. Without knowledge to the contrary, the biggest fear is that the selected tube diameters could be too small, thereby constricting flow and dropping power. Sure, if they are way under what is needed, lack of flow will cause power to suffer. In practice though it is better, especially for a street-driven machine, to have pipes a little too small rather than a little too big. If the pipes are too large a fair chunk of torque can be lost without actually gaining much in the way of top-end power.
At this point determining primary tube diameters is starting to look like a tight wire act only avoidable by trial and error on the dyno. Fortunately, a little insight into what it is we are attempting to achieve brings about some big-time simplification. Our goal is to size the primary pipes to produce optimum output over the rpm range of most interest. The rate exhaust is dispensed with, and consequently, the primary pipe velocity, is strongly influenced by the port's flow capability at the peak valve lift used. From this premise it has been possible to develop a simple correlation between exhaust port-flow bench tests and dyno tests involving pipe diameter changes. This has brought about the curves shown in the graph Fig. 4 which allow primary sizing close enough to almost eliminate the need for trial-and-error dyno testing.
Primaries For Nitrous Use Since nitrous injection is so popular, it's worth throwing in the changes needed to optimize with the nitrous on. For a typical race V-8 the area of the primary pipe needs to increase about 6-7 percent for every 50hp worth of nitrous injected. For street applications, where mileage and performance when the nitrous is not in use is the most important, pipe size should not be changed to suit the nitrous.
01-03-2006, 07:45 AM
#7
Launching!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
What sort of expected BHP is your engine going to produce, and is it still 346ci or is it bigger capacity.
My primary concern was losing torque in more realistic driving RPM's around town. There will be few times that I actually run it down the 1320. I am finding that there is a fine line in creating a combo to give me the best of both worlds. Its coming down to where do I want the power? First half or second half of the graph? I realize that there are compensators for this, a lower gear for instance, but am trying to avoid it if all possible.
I won't deny that I have a 'magic number' for RWHP which should be attainable according to many of the stroked LS2 configurations I've seen recently. However, I don't want to sacrifice true 'streetability' for the sake of a number.
Trending Topics
01-03-2006, 04:41 PM
#8
TECH Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you spilt the difference and use a 1-3/4" to 1-7/8" stepped header?
BTW 300bhp, that Vizard quote re 2.2 HP/CFM was in reference to tailpipe size downstream of an expansion box or muffler. The highly pulsating flow in a primary is a very different case. The "fig. 4" chart referred to in your quote equates pipe ID to 28" Hg. exhaust flow bench data at full valve lift, e.g.: 200 CFM = 1.65" ID (~1-7/8" OD) for "street" applications.
BTW 300bhp, that Vizard quote re 2.2 HP/CFM was in reference to tailpipe size downstream of an expansion box or muffler. The highly pulsating flow in a primary is a very different case. The "fig. 4" chart referred to in your quote equates pipe ID to 28" Hg. exhaust flow bench data at full valve lift, e.g.: 200 CFM = 1.65" ID (~1-7/8" OD) for "street" applications.
01-03-2006, 04:56 PM
#9
Seems like most of the dyno's I've seen on 402's have lost power going to the bigger header all the way up until the very top of the powerband, and then gained slight peak power. I wouldn't do it myself, but if your car will only be driven in it's powerband at say >5,000rpm(track car) then it might be worthwhile. You will probably lose torque everywhere below that.
