2002_z28_m6

iTrader: (10)

I put 1 7/8 headers on my car and the car gained everywhere. hell on the factory tune the car trapped 113mph with only lid/Ported TB hooker catback and headers.
With a tune who knows. 1 7/8 headers work great on anything in my opinion.
We will see how well they work with my new H/C/I setup.

ChocoTaco369

It doesn't matter how popular Pacesetters are. That is irrelevant. People are drawing a conclusion from this thread that states even on a stock motor, 1 7/8" headers are better than 1 3/4" headers. This is NOT true. All this thread shows is that on the top end, TSP headers are better than Pacesetters, and I could have told you that the day the TSP headers were released on the market.

I just don't want to see bone stock guys buying 1 7/8" headers for the car and planning to stay stock internal when the same company offers 1 3/4" because they saw this thread as some kind of proof that it's always better to get 1 7/8" headers. That's just not true in all cases.

This thread shows the following:

- TSP headers are superior to Pacesetter headers.

- Nothing conclusive about 1 3/4" vs. 1 7/8" headers using the same design.

AINT SKEERED

iTrader: (2)

I agree Choco. However, the tsp headers dont seem to hurt so its not a bad idea to use them with future mods.

I would buy a set when I decide to replace my Edelbrocks. Mine make great avg power but I dont like the leaks from the collectors.

blown03mustang

no i definitely understand what ur saying, but they never stated anywhere that pacesetters were the best out, nor did they say that the TSP headers were either, just the difference between the two. i really dont see the point in arguing with this? they did a dyno comparison between the two and stated facts. they didnt say they would out-do any 1 3/4 LT out. honestly man just give it a rest

matts22

iTrader: (2)

FWIW I agree with ChocoTaco on this. I mean, the thread title is "stock motor 1 3/4 vs. 1 7/8 engine dyno results" If that is not misleading, I don't know what is.

TSP, it's obvious that your 1 7/8 header is better than the 1 3/4 Pacesetters. I think that is awesome. But don't encourage people to buy 1 7/8 over 1 3/4 unless you are ONLY debating between these two brands.

If I was looking at a single brand of headers, I would still go with 1 3/4 because that has been proven successful. If you want to test the same company's 1 3/4 vs 1 7/8 then I would consider switching if I saw 5+ rwhp gains with no loss in torque. But that is not the comparison that you are doing in this thread.

quik406

Typical texas Speed "junk science"! I never know if they are trying to lie, or just so over there heads, that what comes out reeks of BS.

thread title is "stock motor 1 3/4 vs. 1 7/8 engine dyno results TRUE
Then they come on here and say that was not the point of the test???

I AGREE, and so would any logical person, that doesn't think the sun rises and sets in Texas speeds a!@

matts22

iTrader: (2)

Ok I can't understand any of what you just said.

RevGTO

iTrader: (12)

A "stock" motor with a FAST intake is not a stock motor. Obviously the breathing characteristics on the intake side are already increased which would compliment the better exhaust breathing. What about the throttle body? Or the MAF?

A stock motor is a stock motor ... this one ain't.

INMY01TA

iTrader: (1)

Good info. I'm willing to bet throw a bigger cam in there (like most of us have) and the gains will get even more significant.

mike#9

iTrader: (3)

Good research. Good test.....congrats and thanks guys!!!

Do you want to donate a set of 1 7/8's to me??? I am very deserving!!!

LOL

Paul 1953

For all those people...There are a lot of other threads on this subject here. I read them before buying my LTs this summer. Since (thank God) I am no longer a broke 20 yr old, cost was not an issue and I went with what I concluded was best for my bolt-on DD setup.

Coated 1 3/4 SS kooks, with their newly designed merge collector. I coughed up the extra $ to coat the stainless steel because I wanted the max performance of heated gases INSIDE the tubes, not radiating out under the hood.

This is a good thread, but there is a lot that's already been said in similar threads.

Hard Core Z28

Props to TSP to share the info they got.

5w20

iTrader: (21)

It doesn't look like a stock engine. The intake, tb, wp, and pulley dont look stock. Would've been better if it was actually stock.

sixvi6-camaro

iTrader: (9)

The point is its stock internal no cam, no heads and most importantly stock cubes. The huge argument is always that 1 7/8" headers are a negative hp mod over 1 3/4" headers on all stock cube LS engines. imo the engine represents the vast majority of peoples cars having only a few bolt ons and no internal mods. funny how read any thread on LT headers and most people claim there is a couple hp to no hp difference from a low buck headers like Pacesetters vs a high end one like Kooks if they are both 1 3/4" headers... but put up a low buck 1 3/4" brand against a higher quality 1 7/8" and all the sudden all the results are purely because of the quality difference between the low buck vs high dollar setup?

Again the huge argument is always that 1 7/8" headers are a negative hp mod over 1 3/4" headers on all stock cube LS engines. Funny how all the sudden now all the 1 3/4" people are finding everything to change that argument. This is a stock cube engine that made more hp on 1 7/8" than a 1 3/4" setup on the exact same engine on the same dyno. Even if you took away 3-4 hp because of the "quality factor" the 1 7/8" headers still made more hp.

Even if there is some loss of torque below 2500 rpm, which is vastly exaggerated, its still not going to hurt to run 1 7/8" headers. Hell I have a stock cube bolt on stock internal car with 1 7/8" headers and have no problem with low rpm torque at all (who is doing performance driving at 2500 rpm anyhow?) and I trap 110-111 through a 3600 stall on bias ply ET streets so it doesn't seem much of a loss to me.

HMERacing

You ask for information, you get it.
You bitch and moan non stop, take your own cash and waste it on a dyno result that is not going to influence you because you are not even looking for these parts. Jason told you the customers he was supplying the info for and he gave reason for what he tested.
accept the results that are supplied as there are no others.
Bunch of ungrateful asses

primer84z

iTrader: (7)

F8L_LS1

iTrader: (5)

i have to agree with choco taco. i would like to see results from headers of the same brand. i think that would settle the life long debate of which primary is better.
also, this is by no means a stock engine.
9/10 guys on the street wont buy a fast manifold (would be more practical if they used a ls6 manifold... THEN swithced to the fast for the H/C testing), also they are using c16 mixed with 91 for their testing (they said c16 in the big thread made in the gen 3 internal section), pulley, electric water pump, etc etc.


but, i do like the results of seeing how a newer design improves output. i think this was good testing for that particular question of the pacecetter vs. tsp.

Jason 98 TA

iTrader: (4)

Good eye guys! It was a typo, the torque was only .1 difference. I'll get you guys the dyno sheets monday morning. I really appreciate the positive things I'm getting in PM's.

I'm not trying to tell you guys you have to buy our 1 7/8 headers, I'm saying 1 7/8 of any brand has a potential to be a benifit over a 1 3/4 header....

Jason 98 TA

iTrader: (4)

Your correct there was about a half gallon of c16 left in the gas with the 91 oncate. If you believe the fuel or installing a waterpump changes these results..... Well I don't know what to say to that....

This was designed to be a real quick test to confirm what we've been seeing on the engine dyno.

I'm cutting back the amount of data we're posting drastically. I just don't really have time to be in ten different posts defending our testing & theories. We'll still post some results for the public, but honestly I'm tired of sitting at home wondering who's hammering on me over my testing.

F8L_LS1

iTrader: (5)

Sorry if my post seemed like i was bashing your testing. I was just saying most people don't have full bolt ons and don't run with c16.
Im happy with your results because it shows how inferior pacecetters are.