High-Flow Cat Benefit? - Page 3 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 12-03-2014, 05:09 PM   #71
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
Well my car has no cats. And guarantee you it would not have made 700+ with them on there.
Same with our 1,400hp fox guarantee you it won't push that through a cat either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Pretty sure I mentioned in my opening statement that:
"Unless you're making big power...."

But I see you missed that.

You "Guarantee you couldn't make 700 hp" but have no data to support?
Isn't that like a lot like a guess?

Let go back to you guys are all right and I'm all wrong.
See how easy that was?
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-03-2014, 05:12 PM   #72
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Your professional time is quite useless as well
.
1. You keep bringing up comparisons of Boosted applications vs Na. The logic is different, the principles are different, the outcomes will. be. different. This again, is apples to oranges.

2. You enjoy using blanket statements and offer no real description. Small cube motors dont benefit from exhaust mods the same as big cube motors? The difference in power gained from a 7.0 and a 2.0 might be quite different, but the Delta is the arguable point here, and therefore makes your statement arguable and/or erroneous. Obviously on an otherwise optimal set up a 7.0 will gain more power, but the percentage change in horsepower should be the means of comparison. Otherwise thats just a dumb thing to say.

3. You are not the only one with a level of expertise here. I have tried to be cordial, but you keep trying to walk off with your last words being that "what i've said is fact, and thats all there is to it."

4. You're selling your perspective, this is a discussion turned argument because you cannot acknowledge another point of view that differs from what you again keep referring to as "fact." Yes, in that case, on that car, at that time those were the results. That is not to say it is undeniably concluded for every car ever ... Again, this is circumstantial evidence, not straight "Facts."

6. your one valid point was something along the lines of "A cat functioning properly in a system will not hurt performance," or something of that nature. This is true, but that again would be circumstantial on a per-car basis, and is a different argument entirely as to what a "properly functioning cat" is.

5. But i digress. We can just continue to "agree to disagree."
BTW, I did notice that you glossed over the Kenne Bell dyno data collected specifically to answer this very question....but that's none of my business.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 05:15 PM   #73
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabman View Post
Pretty sure I mentioned in my opening statement that:
"Unless you're making big power...."

But I see you missed that.

You "Guarantee you couldn't make 700 hp" but have no data to support?
Isn't that like a lot like a guess?

Let go back to you guys are all right and I'm all wrong.
See how easy that was?
Well let's see. You ever shot a 250 shot through a set of cats? Go ahead and try, and get back to me on that one. If you want to buy the cats, and we can try. Then I will be more than happy to show you the "data"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-03-2014, 05:21 PM   #74
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabman View Post
A pissing match? Awsesome.....let me end it this way:
You're right.
You're right about everything and I'm a total no nothing fvck.
Feel better?

Good.
Yes, i'm glad we were able to reach a consensus like civilized adults.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Your professional time is quite useless as well
.
1. You keep bringing up comparisons of Boosted applications vs Na. The logic is different, the principles are different, the outcomes will. be. different. This again, is apples to oranges.

2. You enjoy using blanket statements and offer no real description. Small cube motors dont benefit from exhaust mods the same as big cube motors? The difference in power gained from a 7.0 and a 2.0 might be quite different, but the Delta is the arguable point here, and therefore makes your statement arguable and/or erroneous. Obviously on an otherwise optimal set up a 7.0 will gain more power, but the percentage change in horsepower should be the means of comparison. Otherwise thats just a dumb thing to say.

3. You are not the only one with a level of expertise here. I have tried to be cordial, but you keep trying to walk off with your last words being that "what i've said is fact, and thats all there is to it."

4. You're selling your perspective, this is a discussion turned argument because you cannot acknowledge another point of view that differs from what you again keep referring to as "fact." Yes, in that case, on that car, at that time those were the results. That is not to say it is undeniably concluded for every car ever ... Again, this is circumstantial evidence, not straight "Facts."

6. your one valid point was something along the lines of "A cat functioning properly in a system will not hurt performance," or something of that nature. This is true, but that again would be circumstantial on a per-car basis, and is a different argument entirely as to what a "properly functioning cat" is.

5. But i digress. We can just continue to "agree to disagree."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabman View Post
BTW, I did notice that you glossed over the Kenne Bell dyno data collected specifically to answer this very question....but that's none of my business.
You'll see i actually addressed it twice, but that's probably none of your business either.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 05:35 PM   #75
Registered Member
Regular
 
2 Stangz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Region: Nevada
Posts: 2,093
Shots fired
__________________
2010 GT Premium - Automatic - Torch Red
2 Stangz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 05:58 PM   #76
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Yes, i'm glad we were able to reach a consensus like civilized adults.






You'll see i actually addressed it twice, but that's probably none of your business either.
Must be somewhere else, it's not in that last statement.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 05:59 PM   #77
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Yes, i'm glad we were able to reach a consensus like civilized adults.






You'll see i actually addressed it twice, but that's probably none of your business either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Your professional time is quite useless as well
.
1. You keep bringing up comparisons of Boosted applications vs Na. The logic is different, the principles are different, the outcomes will. be. different. This again, is apples to oranges.

2. You enjoy using blanket statements and offer no real description. Small cube motors dont benefit from exhaust mods the same as big cube motors? The difference in power gained from a 7.0 and a 2.0 might be quite different, but the Delta is the arguable point here, and therefore makes your statement arguable and/or erroneous. Obviously on an otherwise optimal set up a 7.0 will gain more power, but the percentage change in horsepower should be the means of comparison. Otherwise thats just a dumb thing to say.

3. You are not the only one with a level of expertise here. I have tried to be cordial, but you keep trying to walk off with your last words being that "what i've said is fact, and thats all there is to it."

4. You're selling your perspective, this is a discussion turned argument because you cannot acknowledge another point of view that differs from what you again keep referring to as "fact." Yes, in that case, on that car, at that time those were the results. That is not to say it is undeniably concluded for every car ever ... Again, this is circumstantial evidence, not straight "Facts."

6. your one valid point was something along the lines of "A cat functioning properly in a system will not hurt performance," or something of that nature. This is true, but that again would be circumstantial on a per-car basis, and is a different argument entirely as to what a "properly functioning cat" is.

5. But i digress. We can just continue to "agree to disagree."


Must be somewhere else, it's not in that last statement.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:00 PM   #78
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
Well let's see. You ever shot a 250 shot through a set of cats? Go ahead and try, and get back to me on that one. If you want to buy the cats, and we can try. Then I will be more than happy to show you the "data"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
And the point of dropping a 250 shot through a cat is...what?

Are we talking a lead shot or a nitrous shot?
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:01 PM   #79
Registered Member
Regular
 
AJcruz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: OKC
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 503
The only part of your argument I have a problem with Fabman is that you say it doesn't make a difference whether boosted or NA removing the cats won't make a difference in performance and I think that is what Voltwings is getting at too. In the Kenne Bell example and your own example you are using boosted cars. You have not provided any evidence on a NA stang as I did. Different setups will provided different results and to say removing the cats provides no gain on all cars is not right.
AJcruz1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:01 PM   #80
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabman View Post
And the point of dropping a 250 shot through a cat is...what?

Are we talking a lead shot or a nitrous shot?
My point. Your not going to be spraying that much through cats. Just not going to work.

And let's not be a smart ***.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:03 PM   #81
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJcruz1 View Post
The only part of your argument I have a problem with Fabman is that you say it doesn't make a difference whether boosted or NA removing the cats won't make a difference in performance and I think that is what Voltwings is getting at too. In the Kenne Bell example and your own example you are using boosted cars. You have not provided any evidence on a NA stang as I did. Different setups will provided different results and to say removing the cats provides no gain on all cars is not right.
I outlined the dynamics of scavenging or lack there of in the typical exhaust systems so I did did address that. Thought that was clear, but I guess not.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:04 PM   #82
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJcruz1 View Post
The only part of your argument I have a problem with Fabman is that you say it doesn't make a difference whether boosted or NA removing the cats won't make a difference in performance and I think that is what Voltwings is getting at too. In the Kenne Bell example and your own example you are using boosted cars. You have not provided any evidence on a NA stang as I did. Different setups will provided different results and to say removing the cats provides no gain on all cars is not right.

That is exactly my point good sir.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:07 PM   #83
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,245
it honestly is only the mustang crowd that argues back and forth over dumb ****. All my vette buddies never see them doing this crap, no need for it honestly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:09 PM   #84
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
My point. Your not going to be spraying that much through cats. Just not going to work.

And let's not be a smart ***.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Not being a smart ***, I legitimately wasn't sure if you were talking about dropping a lead shot (as an example of free flow) or a 250 shot of nitrous. Could make a case for that either way don't you think?

I believe the original topic was "high flow cats vs. stock cats" regarding a basically stock V6. Do we still think there is some huge advantage swapping to after market cats...because that's what the original question was.

Now 1400 hp cars and nitrous are all variables that were never in the original question to which I addressed.

File that under my "Unless you are making Big power" statement.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:10 PM   #85
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
That is exactly my point good sir.
Show me where I said "In all cars".

Back to "Unless you are making big power".
You seem to keep missing that....
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:14 PM   #86
Registered Member
Regular
 
JoeyM91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Shawnee
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,840
You don't agree and won't agree. You can drop it now. This doesn't contribute in any fashion.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
2011 V6 Race Red - Airaid CAI , BBK 73mm Throttle Body, 3.73 FRPP Gears, BBK Longtube Headers , BBK Off Road X-Pipe , Borla ATAKs , SR Performance Strut Tower Brace, MPT 91R Tune, Powerstop Rotors and pads, JLT Oil Seperator, Koni STR.T Struts & Shocks, Eibach Pro Line Springs, BMR Adjustable Panhard Bar, J&M Caster Camber Plates, Mickey Thompson Street Comps on 19" Laguna Seca Hyper Black Wheels, Several other aesthetic mods
JoeyM91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:17 PM   #87
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyM91 View Post
You don't agree and won't agree. You can drop it now. This doesn't contribute in any fashion.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Doesn't help when I'm being misquoted and valid data ignored and then being personally insulted. I expected an intelligent adult conversation.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:45 PM   #88
Registered Member
Regular
 
AJcruz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: OKC
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabman View Post
I outlined the dynamics of scavenging or lack there of in the typical exhaust systems so I did did address that. Thought that was clear, but I guess not.

Seems like you are the one being rude and insulting people. Outlining the dynamics is not proof good sir. I have shown actual dyno graphs where they did a test and showed a gain on an N/A car. You showed a gain on boosted mustangs and then "outlined the dynamics of scavenging" but no real proof of an N/A mustang. The proof is there that removing the cats provides gains on N/A mustangs. You just refuse to see anyone else's point of view. I agree that it doesn't provide any gain to boosted stangs (from your runs and they Kenne Bell article that is evident). Back to the original post I don't think Hi-flow know about Hi-flow cats but I know they increase the volume almost just as much and in some cases more than castles setups but it all depends on the setup.
AJcruz1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 06:53 PM   #89
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJcruz1 View Post
Seems like you are the one being rude and insulting people. Outlining the dynamics is not proof good sir. I have shown actual dyno graphs where they did a test and showed a gain on an N/A car. You showed a gain on boosted mustangs and then "outlined the dynamics of scavenging" but no real proof of an N/A mustang. The proof is there that removing the cats provides gains on N/A mustangs. You just refuse to see anyone else's point of view. I agree that it doesn't provide any gain to boosted stangs (from your runs and they Kenne Bell article that is evident). Back to the original post I don't think Hi-flow know about Hi-flow cats but I know they increase the volume almost just as much and in some cases more than castles setups but it all depends on the setup.
Please, quote for me exactly where I was "rude"?
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 07:00 PM   #90
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJcruz1 View Post
Seems like you are the one being rude and insulting people. Outlining the dynamics is not proof good sir. I have shown actual dyno graphs where they did a test and showed a gain on an N/A car. You showed a gain on boosted mustangs and then "outlined the dynamics of scavenging" but no real proof of an N/A mustang. The proof is there that removing the cats provides gains on N/A mustangs. You just refuse to see anyone else's point of view. I agree that it doesn't provide any gain to boosted stangs (from your runs and they Kenne Bell article that is evident). Back to the original post I don't think Hi-flow know about Hi-flow cats but I know they increase the volume almost just as much and in some cases more than castles setups but it all depends on the setup.
My appologies, when I briefly outlined the benefits of actual "scavenging" vs a "non scavenging" system, I assumed the implications were self evident.
I apologize for overestimating my ability to get that point across.

Obviously the actual listening and consideration of information has stopped long ago so the hell with it. As I said earlier, y'all have a great day. I'm out.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 07:18 PM   #91
Registered Member
Regular
 
AJcruz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: OKC
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabman View Post
Kenne bell dyno tests don't count as facts?

Did you read the information they provided?



I just offered some real world input on a topic where a question was asked and I happen to have a level of expertise.

My professional time is very expensive and I obviously wasted a bunch of it here.



Like I said, I am not selling anything and have no reason to support any particular perspective so, when in doubt, follow the money.



Have a great day.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Your professional time is quite useless as well


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabman View Post
A pissing match? Awsesome.....let me end it this way:

You're right.

You're right about everything and I'm a total no nothing fvck.

Feel better?



Good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabman View Post
Pretty sure I mentioned in my opening statement that:

"Unless you're making big power...."



But I see you missed that.



You "Guarantee you couldn't make 700 hp" but have no data to support?

Isn't that like a lot like a guess?



Let go back to you guys are all right and I'm all wrong.

See how easy that was?

Some of your and Voltwings comments are rude and unnecessary if we are to have an civilized and informative debate here. Also seems like you are not willing to see anyone else's point of view. Like I said I agree with you but I also have shown that I'm right.
AJcruz1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 07:47 PM   #92
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJcruz1 View Post
Some of your and Voltwings comments are rude and unnecessary if we are to have an civilized and informative debate here. Also seems like you are not willing to see anyone else's point of view. Like I said I agree with you but I also have shown that I'm right.
I see voltwings rude comments....but help me out please, what exactly did I say that was rude?
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 08:10 PM   #93
Registered Member
Regular
 
AJcruz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: OKC
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 503
Nevermind, I'm out. Good luck OP!
AJcruz1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 08:16 PM   #94
Registered Member
Regular
 
Laquisha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Antonio
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,279
OMG this thread is awesome! The debate you guys are having, your using proper grammar and intelligence! Makes me happy too see this kind of stuff! ha yall are so smarties.


Naturally Aspirated Is Lyfe
Laquisha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 11:47 PM   #95
Registered Member
Regular
 
Sakib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laquisha View Post
OMG this thread is awesome! The debate you guys are having, your using proper grammar and intelligence! Makes me happy too see this kind of stuff! ha yall are so smarties.


Naturally Aspirated Is Lyfe
The second post of the day by Laquisha that made me literally laugh out loud. Kona has competition for the funniest member of ME. Btw +1 although it got a little nasty I'm impressed at the interesting discussion and learned some stuff. Good thread.

Curious about Fabman's claim that bolt on equal length "tuned" headers aren't truly tuned and are simply lower restriction headers. Can someone else either affirm or refute this? My expectation when paying hundreds of dollars for either the BBK or MAC shorties is that they did the math and fluid dynamics to tune it to exhaust pulses. Or else what are we paying them for, welding some tubes together?

Sent from my HTCONE using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Sakib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2014, 12:47 AM   #96
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakib View Post
The second post of the day by Laquisha that made me literally laugh out loud. Kona has competition for the funniest member of ME. Btw +1 although it got a little nasty I'm impressed at the interesting discussion and learned some stuff. Good thread.

Curious about Fabman's claim that bolt on equal length "tuned" headers aren't truly tuned and are simply lower restriction headers. Can someone else either affirm or refute this? My expectation when paying hundreds of dollars for either the BBK or MAC shorties is that they did the math and fluid dynamics to tune it to exhaust pulses. Or else what are we paying them for, welding some tubes together?

Sent from my HTCONE using Mustang Evolution mobile app
What I said was:
90% of headers out there are not equal length, even when they say they are. But don't take my word for it...check it out for yourself.
If you look closely you will see a LOT of headers with wildly different tube lengths.
Now that's not saying they are all bad....there is some great hardware out there. Pick a set that has the right primary and collector size for your application and you'll be a happy camper. If they are not within 1/4" in length the scavenging effect is lost and what you have is a big tubular low restriction manifold. Still beneficial, but not to the extent of a true equal length header that works like it's supposed to.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2014, 12:54 AM   #97
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Have a look at these BBK headers for example....do these look equal length to you?



Thats just the first one I looked at....I'm sure if you start checking around you will see a lot more like these. They are known in the industry as "Convenience headers" because they are easy to manufacture and they tend to fit better when you don't care how long the tubes are.

This is why a really good set of headers cost a lot more. Lots of math and careful engineering goes in to them.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	headers.JPG
Views:	57
Size:	44.6 KB
ID:	170914  
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2014, 01:04 AM   #98
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Here is a quality set of Kooks for the same car.
See how they go through great trouble to get the lengths correct?
These are also harder to manufacture and install than a convenience header.
Also twice the price.

Which set do you think will perform better?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	kooks.JPG
Views:	60
Size:	43.0 KB
ID:	170915  
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2014, 01:12 AM   #99
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Here is a good video where they talk about ARH headers.
Notice how they stress "Equal length".
The ARH headers also have "Merge collectors" for maximum velocity at the collector-where it matters most, and were the choice for my personal build.
These are also the exact cats that I tested and found "0" HP gain by removing them.

__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2014, 01:24 AM   #100
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Here are your MAC shorties for the same S197 as the others.
Does this look like a "tuned header" to you?
How 'bout that last tube? Yeowch!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	mac.JPG
Views:	56
Size:	58.7 KB
ID:	170916  
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2014, 01:05 AM   #101
Registered Member
Regular
 
Driven5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Seattle
Region: Washington
Posts: 36
From what I've seen, there is little to gain from going catless vs a good cat. Anything much less than a 10% change cannot typically be felt by the vast majority of people anyways, but rather is mostly a perceived difference resulting from other factors, like the change in sound. It's kind of like the way a quicker throttle response is an easy way to make a car feel more powerful, even if it has absolutely no effect on the ultimate performance. In my humble opinion, which admittedly is unlikely to be a popular one around here, the nominal performance gains from going catless on mild street cars are little more than an excuse for being too cheap/lazy/inconsiderate to do it the 'right' way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakib View Post
My expectation when paying hundreds of dollars for either the BBK or MAC shorties is that they did the math and fluid dynamics to tune it to exhaust pulses. Or else what are we paying them for, welding some tubes together?
"Tuned" is really just a marketing term. Not to say they didn't do their best to pick a specific length and/or make them as close as possible to equal length, but it does absolutely nothing to identify to what degree they did so. Sure they probably did at least some basic math, and maybe even went so far as to run a few iterations through some type of CFD program. However those tools still only get you part way there. Even top-tier professional racing teams, with annual budgets in the tens (to hundreds) of millions, can only get close with their combination of experience, math, and CFD. After that, they still have to spend countless hours of dyno time to perfect the header design and precisely tune it to their goals. And while they may have also dyno tested a couple of iterations based on their calculations, I guarantee you that no reasonably priced commercial product is seeing that kind of development. That being said, they should still be utilizing decades of accumulated knowledge and expertise, which is also definitely a significant value added part of what you're paying for. The physical constraints, especially for a shorty design, mean that there will still be some inherently less-than-ideal compromises made though.

In general, if they chose their markets wisely, the amortized portions of the costs (engineering development, and even CARB certifications) should theoretically represent a very small portion of the per piece cost. In my experience these types of costs are typically even absorbed by the company separately from the production costs. Thus the purchase price is simply a combination of the raw material, direct labor cost, the associated overhead, and any processing/coatings applied to the parts...Plus a little profit on top of that.

Long story short: Yes, technically you're pretty much just paying them to weld some tubes together.
__________________
-Justin

You can follow my Ford based 'Locost' build at:
GarageOdyssey.blogspot.com
GarageOdyssey.tumblr.com
@GarageOdyssey (instagram and twitter)
Driven5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2014, 01:11 AM   #102
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driven5 View Post
From what I've seen, there is little to gain from going catless vs a good cat. Anything much less than a 10% improvement cannot typically be felt by the vast majority of people, but rather is mostly a perceived difference resulting from things like the change in sound. It's kind of like the way a quicker throttle response is an easy way to make a car feel more powerful, even if it has absolutely no effect on the ultimate performance. In my humble opinion, which admittedly is unlikely to be a popular one, the nominal performance gains from going catless on mild street cars are little more than an excuse for being too cheap/lazy/inconsiderate to do it the 'right' way.



"Tuned" is really just a marketing term. Not to say they didn't do their best to pick a specific length and/or make them as close as possible to equal length, but it does absolutely nothing to identify to what degree they did so. Sure they probably did at least some basic math, and maybe even went so far as to run a few iterations through a CFD program. However those tools still only get you part way there. Even top-tier professional racing teams, with budgets in the tens (to hundreds) of millions for their annual budgets, can only get close with their combination of experience, math, and CFD. After that, they still have to spend countless hours of dyno time to perfect the header design and precisely tune it to their goals. I guarantee you that no reasonably priced commercial product is seeing that kind of development. That being said, they should still be utilizing decades of accumulated knowledge and expertise, which is also definitely a value added proposition. The physical constraints, especially for a shorty design, mean that there will still be some inherently less-than-ideal compromises made though.

In general, if they chose their markets wisely, the amortized portions of the costs (engineering development, and even CARB certifications) should be a relatively small part of the total cost. In my experience they are typically even absorbed at separately from the actual per piece part cost. The majority of cost is simply a combination of the raw material, direct labor cost, the associated overhead, and any processing/coatings applied to the parts...Plus a little profit

So long story short: Yes, you're pretty much just paying them to weld some tubes together.
Thank you.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2014, 01:28 AM   #103
Registered Member
Regular
 
2 Stangz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Region: Nevada
Posts: 2,093
Very good reads from you two.
__________________
2010 GT Premium - Automatic - Torch Red
2 Stangz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2014, 01:30 AM   #104
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Stangz View Post
Very good reads from you two.
Thank you
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2014, 10:34 AM   #105
Registered Member
Regular
 
Sakib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driven5 View Post
From what I've seen, there is little to gain from going catless vs a good cat. Anything much less than a 10% change cannot typically be felt by the vast majority of people anyways, but rather is mostly a perceived difference resulting from other factors, like the change in sound. It's kind of like the way a quicker throttle response is an easy way to make a car feel more powerful, even if it has absolutely no effect on the ultimate performance. In my humble opinion, which admittedly is unlikely to be a popular one around here, the nominal performance gains from going catless on mild street cars are little more than an excuse for being too cheap/lazy/inconsiderate to do it the 'right' way.



"Tuned" is really just a marketing term. Not to say they didn't do their best to pick a specific length and/or make them as close as possible to equal length, but it does absolutely nothing to identify to what degree they did so. Sure they probably did at least some basic math, and maybe even went so far as to run a few iterations through some type of CFD program. However those tools still only get you part way there. Even top-tier professional racing teams, with annual budgets in the tens (to hundreds) of millions, can only get close with their combination of experience, math, and CFD. After that, they still have to spend countless hours of dyno time to perfect the header design and precisely tune it to their goals. And while they may have also dyno tested a couple of iterations based on their calculations, I guarantee you that no reasonably priced commercial product is seeing that kind of development. That being said, they should still be utilizing decades of accumulated knowledge and expertise, which is also definitely a significant value added part of what you're paying for. The physical constraints, especially for a shorty design, mean that there will still be some inherently less-than-ideal compromises made though.

In general, if they chose their markets wisely, the amortized portions of the costs (engineering development, and even CARB certifications) should theoretically represent a very small portion of the per piece cost. In my experience these types of costs are typically even absorbed by the company separately from the production costs. Thus the purchase price is simply a combination of the raw material, direct labor cost, the associated overhead, and any processing/coatings applied to the parts...Plus a little profit on top of that.

Long story short: Yes, technically you're pretty much just paying them to weld some tubes together.
Thanks for the well written response on the tuned headers question. I should make a separate thread for this. Next thing I want to know is how I can evaluate, before purchasing, what "semi-tuned" headers are better than others, from a technical engineering standpoint.

Sent from my HTCONE using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Sakib is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High flow cat /exhaust question 6Lstrokin 2011-2014 Mustang GT 6 07-18-2014 09:31 AM
difference in high flow cat brands? mattyp511 Pre-2005 V6 Mustang 8 10-06-2013 09:39 AM
High Flow Cat question. Skulls98GT 1996-2004 Mustang GT 2 01-16-2013 03:42 PM
Red Cross Benefit Car Show KrazyPony Pictures and Videos 4 10-08-2007 04:32 PM
What else could I benefit from? Moose9648? Pre-2005 V6 Mustang 16 10-10-2004 01:02 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



07:37 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.